Title: Vedacharya from
the West (Interview)
Author:
Publication: The Times
of India
Date: March 30, 2000
David Frawley,
a grand-disciple of Ramana Maharishi, is widely acknowledged as a Vedacharya.
Also known as Vamadeva Shastri, he was conferred the title of `Pandit'
for his pioneering research work in Vedic studies, yoga, ayurveda and jyotish
in his institute in New Mexico, USA. Author of several books on Hinduism,
his writings seek to contrast the generally flippant and dry academic presentations
of western Indologists. During a recent lecture-tour of India, David Frawley
spoke to Gaurav Raina:
Q: What do you find
unique about India and Hinduism?
A: India is a greatly
favoured land in terms of cosmic beneficence according to the Vaastu aspect
of its geographical location. The Himalayas, or Meru Parvat, oversee the
whole of India in the likeness of the prime sahasrara chakra in the human
body. The tapas of so many yogis and mystics and the timely appearance
of avataras and saints over thousands of years have greatly accentuated
this spiritual potency. The Hindu religion is like a gigantic banyan tree
with its refreshing, ever ramifying growth, change and variegation, which
is a contrast to Western religion as a monolithic pillar.
In the Indian ethos the
pursuit of consciousness has traditionally been given priority over the
need to understand the visible material world. There are various yogic
systems for realising this higher consciousness. There is also evidence
of a yogic methodology in India's every sphere of learned activity such
as in music, dance, poetry, architecture, astronomy and medicine.
Q: Hinduism comprises
of a multiplicity of sects and philosophies. Do you think such diversity
is a cause for confusion ?
A: The Indian tradition
is pluralistic and has always offered freedom of worshipping the divine
in the name and form of one's choice and according to one's individual
samskaras. It is pluralistic both at the level of religious practices as
well as philosophical teachings. For this reason we find more religions
inside Hinduism than among all of the world's religions put together.
Pluralism means freedom.
It means that we should accept religious differences as a fact of life,
like other natural variations. We need freedom to arrive at the truth.
The pursuit of dharma, the urge for self-realisation and desire for liberation
are common to all paths. Rather than as a cause for confusion, I see Indian
pluralism as constructively facilitating an individual's spiritual quest.
Q: Can one be rational
and scientific and yet be religious and spiritual?
A: Unlike in the West,
Indian sages never perceived science and religion as incompatible. Religion
was viewed mainly as a way of knowledge -- vidya or veda, as a way of seeing,
a philosophy. Knowledge is of two types. Apara vidya or lower knowledge
is necessary for our practical functioning in life and deals with the outer
world of name, form and causation. The second, para or higher knowledge
is concerned with consciousness and the Absolute Reality.
Indian sages regarded
higher knowledge as more important, but did not regard lower or outer knowledge
as wrong or disharmonious. The science versus religion dichotomy that became
dominant in Europe in the nineteenth century, never really existed in classical
India. The Indian model therefore seeks to resolve rather than perpetuate
the Western conflict between an immoral science versus an irrational religion.
Even the different systems of philosophy in India were more like scientific
theories meant to be debated rationally or explored and experienced through
meditation. Religion can thus be seen as a higher form of science. Anyone
who systematically practices prescribed ritual methods, meditation procedures
and mantras, can experience higher states of consciousness and thereby
validate his or her religious belief.
Q: Why are the ancient
scriptures today seen by many as mythical and fantastic?
A: The Vedas are composed
in an ancient language of mantra, myth and symbol and utilise a rich poetic
and imagistic expression. The modern mind being conditioned by contemporary
thought and language lacks the necessary empathy and insight into the ancient
texts. What we tend to regard as mythological in the puranas and itihasas
was never meant to portray the actual state of things in time and space.
These texts include not just the visible world in their scope but also
the invisible worlds belonging to subtle and astral dimensions of existence.
If there are some apparent
chronological inaccuracies in the scriptures, it is because sacred history
takes into account the relationship between the temporal and the eternal
and is less concerned with the actual dates of various events. This is
in sharp contrast to the linear view of time held by contemporary historians
who are ignorant of the relationship of time with the eternal. We should
not approach the scriptures from the primarily academic standpoint of a
historian, archaeologist or linguist; we should exercise an intuitive and
meditative insight.
Q: You are a former
Catholic. What is your view of the recent incidents of violence against
the Indian Christian community?
A: I do not consider
the missionary form of Christianity an enlightened religion. Conversion
activity is an assault on intellectual freedom and destroys native cultures
as we have seen in Asia, Africa and the Americas. It is more like a sales
gimmick which targets the poor and uneducated. Then there is also the history
of the missionaries having sub-served European colonisers by providing
a justification for their brutalities. The Catholic Church chose to be
silent on the excesses of the Nazis and its tacit understanding with Mussolini,
and more recently with Chile's Pinochet, are no secret.
Violence against Christians
has been exaggerated a great deal by the Western media. Such backlashes
have occurred throughout history all over the world. Missionary zeal tends
to offend the religious sensibilities of people by denouncing their native
religions as false and pagan.
Q: To what extent
are India and Indian culture misrepresented in the Western media?
A: Firstly India is
greatly under represented in the Western media. Whatever little news we
have emphasises poverty, social problems, human rights abuses and alarmist
reports of military and nuclear policies. The entertainment and advertising
aspect of the media is on the other extreme and treats everything Indian
as ``exotic and erotic''.
Indians have failed to
learn the lessons of effective media articulation. Hindu organisations
have been labelled fundamentalist and often end up with a far worse image
than they deserve. The Indian government too has failed to promote Indian
culture and to lobby its case with the Western governments. In fact India's
gurus have done much a better job than its politicians and diplomats, in
projecting the country's image abroad.
I am concerned at the
absence of a dharmic intelligentsia in this country. It is imperative that
Indians free themselves from colonial, Marxist and missionary distortions
of their culture. They need to stop playing apologist for the genuine cultural
and spiritual aspirations of their people. They should reverse their blind
and obsequious adulation of the West. The great spiritual traditions of
India will be lost if its intellectual kshatriyas fail to wake up to the
call of the information war and lay siege to the false apostles of religious
freedom.