Keeping Faith: Shivaji Sondhi

The following is the fourth installment of “Keeping Faith,” a six-part series of conversations between politics professor Robert George and University professors of various faiths.

Shivaji Sondhi is a physics professor and practicing Hindu. His work focuses on condensed matter theory.

Robert George: Many non-Hindus believe that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. There are, however, Hindus who reject that understanding of divinity in Hinduism.

Shivaji Sondhi: Judaism, Christianity and Islam follow a certain template — a strictly monotheistic template, if you will, with established doctrines about God. In Hinduism one finds various traditions rather than established doctrines. There are a variety of beliefs and practices, some quite sophisticated, others less so. In broad strokes, we can distinguish what is sometimes called “high” Hinduism from folk Hinduism. There is a nested structure of beliefs that “high” Hindus can explain to you. Within that nested structure, the mainstream view would identify one single underlying reality — monism, we sometimes call it.

RG: There are two questions, then: first, the ultimate nature of reality, and, second, the question of how one should live. I assume that there is an important relationship between the two.

SS: Right. Hindus believe that there is an underlying reality which is different in significant ways from the world as human beings experience it, and it implies that there are non-instinctive aims that one should pursue in life.

RG: The sophisticated and the less-sophisticated would share that belief?

SS: We would share that belief. And we share the idea that to aim for and achieve a proper spiritual goal, it is necessary to step outside oneself to gain awareness of the deeper reality. So perhaps by focusing on a deity one can begin to make spiritual progress. One’s devotional relationship with a particular deity — one’s "ishta devata" — allows one to step outside oneself and go beyond the ordinary world of experience.

Now, when I say that, a Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheist may say, “Well, if there is a particular 'god,' then there are other distinct 'gods,' and so you have polytheism." But it is important not to apply the monotheistic template to a tradition as different from it as Hinduism. From a vantage point internal to the Hindu tradition, the different gods — better called deities — can be understood as forms that enable different people with different backgrounds and levels of understanding to go outside themselves and relate in a way that is congenial to them to divinity itself — the ultimate reality that is beyond ordinary human experience. This is why Hindus such as Gandhi could speak as freely of God as of “gods.”

A Hindu might be a devotee of Ram or a devotee of Krishna. In either case, as one’s spiritual life deepens and a greater degree of transcendence is achieved, one will attain a deeper and more universal view. One might then recognize, for example, that being a devotee of Ram is not that different from being a devotee of Krishna, and that some people achieve the same spiritual insight and depth by focusing on, say, Jesus. This generates a characteristically Hindu view of how the world religions work together. All the religions provide points of devotional focus that serve the process of taking one outside oneself to a level of transcendence where one gains deeper insight into ultimatereality. Obviously, there is a family resemblance here to the Mahayana Buddhist tradition.

RG: Would it be fair to say, then, that what might appear to Jews, Christians and Muslims as polytheism in Hinduism is a way of entry that Hinduism provides to its adherents into a process of spiritual attainment that is not strictly speaking — or, at least, not necessarily — polytheistic?

SS: The Hindu gods function, perhaps, in some of the ways the saints function in Catholicism and some other Christian traditions. A person may have a special devotion to a particular saint, but that devotion is less an end in itself than it is a means to a deeper understanding of God, considered as the ultimate reality. As a Hindu becomes spiritually deeper and more sophisticated, his conception of divinity becomes less anthropomorphic. In Hinduism, we distinguish Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman. Saguna means the ultimate reality with attributes, and Nirguna means the ultimate reality without attributes. As one becomes more capable of contemplating ultimate reality without attributes, one becomes correspondingly more capable of dismissing from one’s life the loves, the hates, the competitiveness, the passions, the self-absorption that impede self-transcendence and full spiritual development.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

RG: So is self-transcendence — getting beyond one’s passions, and so forth — the goal?

SS: Yes. We must overcome these impediments in the search for a deeper understanding of reality. This is where the metaphysical beliefs come in. That deeper reality is about a certain essential unity of all of creation and about the achievement of a transcendence in light of which life itself can be seen as ephemeral.Now, the process may begin with a devotional practice. Its focus might be a god, [or] deity. It might be a meditational practice. It might be a yogic practice. These are all ways one might begin to gain control over oneself, over one’s passions, ways one begins to go beyond the world of the senses and ordinary experience.

RG: So here there is a parallel with Buddhism, with its focus on transcending those things that tie us to the material and emotive.

SS: Absolutely.

RG: Am I correct that in Hinduism there are various figures who attract followers for their particular way of being Hindu, but there is not any kind of central authority?

SS: Yes.

RG: But there is an agreed-upon scripture?

SS: I would say there's a set of canonical texts, though there are regional variations. There are the Vedas. Abstractly, everybody would agree that the Vedas, which are the source of all Hindu tradition, are canonical. The truth is, however, thatnobody actually reads them, except for Sanskrit scholars and a few others. So they do not function as the Bible functions for Jews and Christians or the Qu’ran for Muslims. But we can begin with the Vedas. Then you have the set of Upanishads, which are philosophical meditations traditionally held to expand upon the knowledge in the Vedas. But the Vedas themselves are fairly abstract hymns, whereas the Upanishads, in a sense, define the metaphysical corridor of Hinduism.

After that come another set of texts. There are the two great epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, which are, of course, stories. The Bhagavad Gita is, strictly speaking, viewed to be embedded within the Mahabharata, but essentially it is an independent text primarily about philosophical questions. It is beautifully set in this setting where this warrior is about to go fight his cousins and slay thousands or even hundreds of thousands of them. And he wants to know if this is right. Should he do it or not do it? It sets it up very nicely, but then proceeds to exactly this issue of the control of passion and the need to transcend the world of ordinary experience and reach a more ultimate reality.

RG: Is there a Hindu clergy? Is there something equivalent to, say, a priest in Catholicism or a minister in Protestantism or a rabbi in Judaism? Of course, the clergy in those different faiths play very different roles.

SS: We have two different categories. There are temple priests, who are masters of ritual. So when you go to a temple, for example, there's some particular Sanskrit slokas that have to be read; or when you have the ceremony at home, perhaps for the birth of your child, there are rituals that the priests perform. But they don't have the social function of clergy in the Christian and Jewish traditions. Then we have sadhus, or sanyasis, as we would call them — people who, as it were, left civilian life to become mendicants.

RG: Are they like monks in Christianity or Buddhism?

SS: There is some similarity, yes, but also differences. In Christianity, at least today, perhaps it was once different, monks typically live in monasteries. Most of our sadhus are wandering types, although there are some who live in the equivalent of monastic communities. But then we have other people who are somewhere in between. There was this fellow who introduced the practice of Transcendental Meditation.

RG: You are thinking of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? He was, for awhile, the guru for The Beatles.

SS: Right. There are various people like him. They begin as either yogis or sadhus, but then they develop followings. And then communities develop around them. This is common in Hindu tradition. Right now there's a man called Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who has a huge following across India.

RG: Are they spiritual masters who offer teaching that will enable people to achievethe level of spiritual accomplishment that Hinduism sets out as the goal?

SS: At the high end, that's what they're supposed to do. What they also do is interact with laity and offer counsel, often in the way that priests and ministers and rabbis do in the Christian and Jewish traditions. Some of these individuals build institutions. For example, there is the Ramakrishna Mission, which is a relatively modern institution. It was founded by a man named Swami Vivekananda. It runs missions in cities. They have branches in many American cities. And they have swamis who take vows like the monks of chastity and poverty.

RG: What is the role of a swami?

SS: He is a member of a monastic order. He has given up ordinary pleasures of life. He accepts celibacy and poverty, and lives strictly on alms. He has established a serious meditational practice.

RG: Can you describe the Hindu ethical code?

SS: Well, there are, once again, differences, but I will describe what I believe is the mainstream view. Mahatma Gandhi looked to the Bhagavad Gita for ethical inspiration. In this, he was followed by a large number of Indians. The notion that the Hindus traditionally have been taught is what is called Dharma, which is often translated as religion. But it really means a sense of one’s duty. And duty is defined in relation to a certain cosmic order. So there's this element that you're born to a certain role. But that role has many parts. It could be, in my case, my role as a teacher, my role as a husband and my role as a father. But of course in traditional settings, it also has this other, less palatable to modern ears meaning, of one’s being born into a certain caste, and certain types of obligations come with that.

But then there are discussions of right and wrong, much as in any ethical tradition. Is it okay to kill? Is it okay to steal? And so, often in these discussions in Hinduism, you would come at it from this question of, "Does it advance the ultimate goal of spiritual transcendence and understanding?" Then you find yourself reaching very similar conclusions. For example, wantonly killing people is not a great way to go. Still, sometimes war, for example, is justified, at least according to many Hindus. So the question is when war is just or justified, and when it is not. Of course, one finds the same issue in other religious traditions.

RG: Gandhi embraced pacifism. Was that a view of his own, or did he derive it from a certain strand of Hinduism?

SS: There are traditions of nonviolence within Hinduism. There is the belief that all life, including animal life, is sacred. There are the Jain monks who go around covering their mouth so that they don't, by mistake, breathe in a tiny insect and kill it. Vegetarianism is a large presence in Hindu tradition.

RG: Is vegetarianism mandatory in Hinduism?

SS: There are certainly Hindus who are not vegetarians, but large numbers are.

RG: So Gandhi didn't invent the nonviolence doctrine. He was drawing on traditions within Hinduism.

SS: Absolutely.

RG: Reincarnation, is that something that is integrally connected to the moral dimensions of Hinduism?

SS: It reflects the principle that actions have consequences.

RG: Like heaven and hell in the Jewish and Christian traditions?

SS: That's right.

RG: Is it fair to say that the fully enlightened person breaks free of the cycle of death and rebirth?

SS: Yes.

RG: I gather that ethical conduct matters here. It's not just one’s inner spiritual strength considered as something apart from one’s actions, is it?

SS: I think that's right. So, as I said, the Dharmic notion is important. We cannot disentangle spiritual achievement from the notion of following one’s dharma in life.

RG: Shivaji, here in the United States, across the spectrum of faiths, there seems to be a correlation between people’s degree or intensity of religious practice and their views on controversial moral questions. Does that also describe the situation in India within Hinduism? Would more secular people from Hindu backgrounds tend to be more socially liberal? Do more observant Hindus tend to be more socially conservative?

SS: That is probably true. Of course, one question is about the inequities of the caste system. Are the more religiously observant more in favor of it? Not necessarily. Gandhi was against the inequities. At the same time, Gandhi was an extremely devout Hindu and quite conservative when it came to sexual morality and other issues.

RG: People in the West tend to look at Gandhi through the lens of our own political disputes. He was, as you note, an opponent of the caste system. So in that sense, he was a rebel standing against the status quo. Liberals think they see one of themselves in him. But he condemned abortion and even opposed contraception. He wrote a book against population control, which he saw as leading to sexual immorality and corruption.

SS: When we consider Gandhi's views on sex, for example, we see the importance placed on achieving self-control in Hindu spirituality. The same is true when weconsider his fasts and self-purification. There's also the stuff he did later in life, again, involving testing his capacity to control his sexual impulses, which sounds very odd from a modern secular Western perspective.

RG: I’m sure it is important here for us to understand what he was doing, not only its historical context, but in its Hindu context.

SS: Yes. Like so many interesting figures, he's both deeply conservative and deeply revolutionary.

RG: Another belief of Gandhi's that I've been very interested in is his very high view of the other world religions.

SS: Yes.

RG: He seemed to be very approving, not only of Hinduism, but of Christianity and Judaism, and of Islam, too.

SS: Yes. In this he was not unique among Hindus of this period. Many reformers — Swami Vivekananda, for example — shared this spirit. When I, as a Hindu, look at Catholicism, for example, I find Catholic monks intensely interesting. I've read a lot of Thomas Merton. I found him really fascinating because he spoke to what I think of as a religious core. Perhaps we Hindus are naturally a syncretistic people.

The next installment of “Keeping Faith” will run on Thursday, Dec. 8.