Drawn toward Indian philosophy

Irishman Shaunaka Rishi Das finds solace in Gaudiya Vaishnavism

January 29, 2015 05:30 pm | Updated 05:30 pm IST

Shaunaka Rishi Das. Photo: R. Ravindran

Shaunaka Rishi Das. Photo: R. Ravindran

Shaunaka Rishi Das was just 12 when a friend of his, who had just discovered atheism, argued that there was no God. “I was a Catholic, and had never read the Bible. So I went to a library to find some material to back up my friend’s claims. But instead, I found books on Biblical stories, and liked them for their morals, and for the idea of service they spoke of,” says Das. And so he began to believe in God.

What is interesting is that Das is an Irishman, who has embraced Gaudiya Vaishnavism. And ironically, it was this atheistic argument with that friend that led him to religion. Some years later, he chanced upon Hindu literature, and was drawn towards Lord Krishna.

“My heart belongs to Krishna,” he says. He would worship at the Krishna temple in Dublin, and later moved to an ISCKON ashram. Years of engagement with Gaudiya Vaishnavism meant that when the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, a recognised, independent centre of Oxford University, was established in 1997, Das was included in the board of governors, and has been its director since then.

Why did he not accept his friend’s atheistic arguments? “Because I wanted to serve people.” An atheist can serve people too, I point out. “Yes. But I felt that being religious would help me do it better.” He says a rationalist who insists on proof for everything simply cannot assert that God does not exist. If proof is needed for everything, then can a rationalist offer proof that God does not exist? So a rationalist saying God does not exist without offering evidence to buttress his arguments is paradoxical.

Why did Das choose to become a Hindu? “Hinduism never tells you to do anything. It talks about the experience of God. It has less theology and more philosophy and rational arguments. It is a religion that offers choices.”

He says questions about God were raised by ancient Hindus. In the Rg Veda, there is a discussion about who knows God. The conclusion arrived at is that no one knows. So does he say that agnosticism had a place in Hindu thought? “I wouldn’t even call it agnosticism. Most agnostics are vocational agnostics. They say they don’t know, but make no effort to find out. Hindus considered such questions in depth. So at least they made an attempt to ask and answer such questions.”

He feels Hinduism doesn’t hamper one’s freedom and individuality, and that one mustn’t define individuality in the Western way, where the concept of ‘self’ is defined by law, by nationalism. Hinduism deals with individuality differently. Since you have choices, you become responsible for your actions. It is not as if there is a certain set of rights legally enforceable, which gives you a sense of entitlement. It is not a system where a person wants everyone to serve his needs. It is a system where giving and taking are interwoven. In Western societies, the concept of individuality is carried to an extreme, with people constantly asking about everything, ‘What’s there in it for me?’ He believes this kind of self-centredness leads to greed.

As for freedom, he believes that none of us is actually free in the material world. We are all bound by desires, by the various roles we are constrained to play in life. Regarding equality, he says that inequality in the material world is unavoidable. “Can you do anything about someone being taller/shorter, stouter/thinner or more intelligent than you? Equality in material terms is a myth.” But people do ask such questions. If we see someone who is brilliant, we want to ask, ‘Why not me?’ “Hinduism keeps such questions away through its concept of karma,” he says.

What does he think of attempts by Hindus to convert people to their faith? “I think it is because they feel threatened, because of the proselytising attempts of other religions. But there is no need for them to feel threatened. Despite Christianity being around for centuries in the sub continent, the Christian missionaries have not been that successful. There may be lots of churches dotting the landscape. But the results have not matched missionary efforts.”

Is it all right for a scientist to be a believer? Recently, there was a lot of criticism of the chief of the Indian Space Research Organisation for his visit to Tirupati. So should he either have renounced all religious beliefs? Or should he have been a closet Hindu? “Such criticisms are unjustified. And I don’t see why anyone should be apologetic about being a theist.” But will people not see this as opposed to secularism? “Secularism is inbuilt in Hinduism. The secularism that is being bandied about now is undemocratic. Who is anyone to say whether a person should or should not be a believer, or that he should keep his beliefs under wraps? When we criticise people simply because they are believers, then that kind of secularism itself becomes sectarian. In fact, I think that to exclude religious studies from school curricula in the name of secularism is wrong. It bears no relation to the culture of this country to exclude philosophy from education. The West looks to India when it comes to philosophy. Indians, sadly, have neglected their heritage.”

In a pluralistic society, how can one talk about religion in public, especially if one is in a responsible public position? “Why not? Do you think if a person does not speak of his beliefs, he doesn’t have any? Or is uninfluenced by them? At least, if he speaks of his beliefs, we will know exactly where he stands. Some years after the war on Iraq began, Tony Blair said in an interview that he had been guided by his faith in Christianity, when he went to war in Iraq. There were people who warned him not to talk of his religious beliefs openly. But isn’t that being dishonest?”

So, if Blair had declared his faith at the time of deciding to go to war, what difference would it have made? “It wouldn’t have made any difference to his decision, perhaps. But at least people would have known the truth; aren’t they entitled to know it? If democracy is all about transparency, where is the transparency if one doesn’t speak the truth? So a gag on publicly admitting one’s faith only promotes hypocrisy.”

Sage words

Das lectured on ‘Hinduism and Modernity’ at the C.P. Ramaswami Iyer Foundation. Dr. M.A. Venkatakrishnan, who presided, pointed out, that there are many schools of thought in Indian philosophy, each unyielding in its position. A pertinent point indeed.

A believer in Saiva Siddhanta believes in the supremacy of Siva, and will not compromise on this belief. A Visishtadvaitin believes in the supremacy of Vishnu. Different schools of philosophy cannot be subsumed under one umbrella called ‘Hinduism.’ To try to do so is simplistic. However, the lecture did make some interesting points about the concepts of rta, karma etc.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.