We would like to thank Dr. Hawley for conducting this course and giving his students an opportunity for direct exposure to some of the various aspects of Hinduism. Knowing the benefits and challenges of field work in the study of religion, it was both generous and insightful of Dr. Hawley to create this opportunity for his students. We would also like to congratulate Michele for her concerted effort to understand Arsha Vidya Gurukulam. She not only worked very hard, but kept her mind open and inquiring and was always ready to reshuffle her conclusions when the data required it. She did a wonderful job on her research and we congratulate her on her work.
We appreciate the selection of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam as a site for the study of Hinduism where the term ‘Hinduism’ is understood as a word that classifies the religion connected to the Vedas. The research questions Michele framed to understand Hinduism through Arsha Vidya were “What is being taught and how, who participates in what activities, when, where, and why?” The proper understanding of the answers to these questions involves a lot of hard work, commitment and seriousness because Hinduism is a vast and deep religion. Hinduism is difficult to understand and it is not difficult to understand. If we look at it from the standpoint of various forms of worship, rituals, customs, tradition, and cultural values, it is difficult to comprehend because these are varied and multifaceted. Nevertheless, in spite of the wide variation in religious forms from region to region in India, they are all respected and accepted. This is because they all are connected through the common thread of Vedic wisdom. If the Vedic wisdom is understood then the understanding of the Hinduism is easy. Arsha Vidya Gurukulam is committed to teaching this Vedic wisdom which is contained at the end of the Vedas in what is known as the Upanishads. For this reason, we feel that the selection of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam gurukulam was appropriate for a course on “Hinduism Here”.
We found that the methodology used in this study met the existing criteria for an ethnographic study. In Michele’s lengthy questionnaire most of the questions were relevant to her research questions. For the particular case of Arsha Vidya, the majority of questions relevant to what we represent were in the second half of the questionnaire. One recommendation would be to place these questions in the first half of the questionnaire. Michele also interviewed some teachers, several staff members, and visitors, and attended some of the sessions herself to gain first hand knowledge. The one concern we had was that the answer to her question “What is being taught and how?” can best be answered by those who know this topic well. If the respondents themselves are attending the sessions to learn, they may not be in a position to answer accurately. Teachers would be the appropriate respondents for this question, and we feel that they were not adequately tapped as resources. That said, however, we were pleased to see that the individuals Michele quoted demonstrated a good understanding of the subject matter.
It was interesting to note that 60% of the respondents do not characterize the gurukulam as a place of pilgrimage, but rather, a place of learning. This is consistent with our vision. The gurukulam is meant to be a place for understanding the Vedic wisdom. We do, however, regularly get busloads of visitors who include the gurukulam with its Lord Daksinamurti shrine on their pilgrimage trip to various temples.
Michele included in her report the observation that Arsha Vidya does not have the strict rules that one may find in ashrams. This absence of rules is a deliberate, consciously chosen position. Since our commitment is to self-discovery, we do not believe in telling people what to do or not to do, but rather, in facilitating their own discovery and personal assimilation of dharma, what is proper. We do teach values, but the emphasis is on the value of values. The effort is to show the benefit of following values, and conversely, what one loses if one does not follow proper values. In other words, how to live in consonance with dharma. For self-knowledge (atma-vidya), a life of dharma, of proper values, is an indispensable prerequisite. In teaching a value such as ahimsa (not hurting), we teach why not hurting another being physically, verbally or mentally is not only important in living one’s life, but is essential if one is interested in understanding the Vedic vision of non-duality. We show that without these values the words of Vedanta remain only words; they don’t transform the person so that the words are an expression of the truth of oneself. Because the gurukulam is dedicated to self-growth leading to wisdom, we just teach and allow students to make their own decisions without imposing rules upon them.
We would like to comment on Michele’s observation that most of the students in the yoga and meditation classes were non-Indian, while in the Vedanta classes most were Indians. Yoga and meditation have become almost mainstream in Western culture, so it is not surprising to find many non-Indians attending these programs. These practices have wide applicability without challenging or even requiring a particular belief system. Vedanta, however, though it is a spiritual pursuit that transcends any belief system, is rooted in the Hindu tradition, and as such, can be perceived as associated with a particular concept of God and religion. We find this creates resistance in many non-Indian students and have some thoughts about the reasons for this, though this is not the place to elaborate upon them. Secondly, in Vedanta the means and the end of the spiritual pursuit is knowledge. The idea of knowledge, rather than experience, as a spiritual pursuit is completely new to most people and requires a radical paradigm shift that is not easy to make. Since yoga and meditation are experience-oriented, these would better fit the prevailing concept of a spiritual pursuit.
Not surprisingly, Michele’s report finds that no distinction is made on the basis of caste, race, ethnicity or gender at Arsha Vidya. It is not surprising because the purpose of the teaching here is to lead one to discover that caste, ethnicity, gender, etc., are all superimpositions that have nothing to do with the reality of the person. In reality, one is limitless Brahman. In fact, as Michele appropriately cites, a Hindu is taught that he is not a Hindu, but limitless consciousness.
Consistent with this vision, Michele correctly reports that except for the role of the priest, women participate equally in all the activities at the gurukulam. As in all religious traditions, there are stipulations for those who officiate at religious ceremonies. In the Hindu tradition, one of these is that the priest must be a Brahmin male and cogent reasons are given for this. However, the status of a sannyasin (a renunciant) is higher than that of a priest, and women are allowed to be sannayasins, as Michele’s report illustrates in her interview with a white American female sannyasin. And these female sannyasins can assume the role of a guru to a male Brahmin priest.
The precedent for lack of gender discrimination is embedded in the iconography of Hinduism. Most deities, including the deity at Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, Lord Daksinamurti, are ardhanarishvara, half male and half female, since the Lord is looked upon as both male and female. In the Vedas, though there are certainly fewer women than men, they are not absent. In the Upanisads there are dialogues on Brahmavidya with women (Maitreyi and Gargi) and there are female rishis (Visvavara and Romasa) composing Vedic hymns (rks).
As Michele’s study revealed, caste is irrelevant at Arsha Vidya, but since it is such a contentious and much-discussed topic, we would like to register our comments on it. Today, caste in India is a very complicated issue, but Hindus basically look at it in two ways. In the first, caste is connected to duty and is determined by one’s family of origin. Originally, it was a division of labor in a society structured on the Hindu goal of life—to free oneself from the bondage of birth and death. When this is the goal, the whole focus is different. Importance is not given to what one does, but how one does it based on one’s understanding. All actions are offered to the Lord and the results of those actions are received as prasadam (blessings) from the Lord. It looks simple, but in order to really do this, one requires a great deal of understanding and maturity. Success is measured not in terms of what one accomplishes, but in how one responds to accomplishments and failures. This leads to the second way in which Hindus look at the concept of caste. As articulated in the Bhagavad Gita, this is from the standpoint of gunas (qualities) with the most noble characterizing a person as a “Brahmin”. This has nothing to do with the station into which one is born, but is purely a measure of one’s growth. When a person reaches a certain level in his understanding and assimilation of dharma, he is revered regardless of his caste. Kabir in the north and the Nainmars in the south, for example, were not Brahmins, but were highly respected by Brahmins. Today, the caste system has no purpose to serve in India, and we find that it is losing its grip in Indian society. Much has been done to narrow the differences between the castes, but much more still needs to be done. The gurukulam’s position is and always been that all human beings are equal. In fact, equal is not the word—they are the expressions of the same Self (Atman). How can one part of the same being be better than the other? It is like saying my hands are better than my feet because they perform different functions. I need all of them to be whole.
In Michele’s findings of the reasons people study Vedanta, we find the most common and compelling reason overlooked. Though the reasons Michele has put forward are all valid and well-developed, in our experience we find that most people are attracted to Vedanta simply because they are looking for answers to some basic questions about themselves, the world, and God, if there is one. Because Vedanta addresses these questions and is a body of knowledge, rather than a belief system, people find it satisfying.
We consider that Michele is not to be faulted for this oversight. Rather, we think this raises some questions about the efficacy of ethnographic research methods in exploring depth traditions with paradigms radically different from those of the researcher.
Michele noted that the gurukulam teaching staff emphasizes study (understanding) over ritual or worship (practice). At the risk of stating the obvious, we would like to clarify here that it is not the gurukulam staff, but the Vedas that emphasize knowledge of oneself (Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 2.4.1). The same Vedas that prescribe rituals and worship also teach that they give results which are time-bound and do not give freedom from samsara. For that, one has to know the self (Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.3). This does not mean that rituals and worship are irrelevant, for they are helpful for purification of the mind, a must for knowing the self. However, prayers and rituals are personal.
In response to the question of whether any religion is better than another, we were happy to see that most of the respondents answered that no religion is better than any other. This is consistent with what we teach. In our view, no form of worship (including Hindu) is better than any other form of worship. The Lord is one and the same for all beings and any prayer, if it is heartfelt, is effective. The forms of worship can differ but the understanding of oneself as a limitless conscious being transcends religious differences. Once the mind is ready, it is the knowledge of the self that liberates a human being from samsara. Since, in the vision of Vedanta, there is only one self, this is applicable to all human beings, and hence, the universality that Michele noted.
In the same vein, Michele also reported that about 39% of the respondents considered conversion and religious intolerance reprehensible. This is an accurate reflection of our position, and is, as Michele noted, important to us. We consider conversion a form of violence if the intention is to destroy another person’s religion. This indicates a lack of respect for the intended convert’s religion as well as the culture and traditions in which it is contained. We all know how much of the disharmony in the world is due to the lack of respect of one religion for another. In a world in which all religions respected one another, so many people would be freed from so much pain. Ironically, the very purpose of every religion is to free people from pain.
Overall, we think Michele did a wonderful job on her project. We were impressed with her efforts to understand this vast and complex tradition. We were also impressed by the respondents, who appear to have a good grasp of the teachings at Arsha Vidya. For this we thank our teachers at the gurukulam. And again, we thank Professor John Hawley for selecting Arsha Vidya Gurukulam as one of the sites to study “Hinduism Here” in the United States.
Finally, we thank all the respondents for helping Michele complete her project.