By Mat McDermott, Hindu American Foundation
To say that we live in ideological and highly polarized times is perhaps an obvious understatement. Political tribalism has become the norm, with those outside the clan too often being wholly awful, and those within the in-group being incorruptibly good. This description is sadly and accurately applicable regardless of the belief quadrant one occupies.
If I had an easy solution to such simplistic thinking and behavior, creating a milieu in which nuanced debate was the norm, rooted in the belief that reasonable people can arrive at different conclusions about the best course of action in a given situation, believe me I would share it happily. Alas I do not.
I do, however, have my own collection of Hindu spiritual traditions to look to as a demonstration of how it is genuinely possible to have different practical perspectives on how to live a good life, while recognizing commonalities that nevertheless exist and being respectful of one another, no matter which faith you practice.
If you look at the Hindu Dharma Traditions — that collection of literally hundreds of spiritual traditions endemic to the Indosphere and now spread globally — you will find that simultaneously there are connecting similarities grouping them together in theory and there are profound contradictory differences in lived practices. We have traditions that extol modest dress and are strict teetotalers. We also have ascetic traditions where public nakedness and intoxication are spiritual practice. And we have a whole array of ones in between these poles of behavior and expectation. All stand under the banner of Hinduism. Though different in appearance, all are striving for the same spiritual experience though and usually these traditions don’t fight with one another, nor try to convert one another, nor say that another is irredeemably incorrect, still less evil. They all co-exist today with a sense of acceptance of one another, a sense of ‘that’s what they do and this is what we do and that’s perfectly alright’, as we all make our way through the world. The key part of this is that all the dharma traditions — Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh — are non-proselytizing traditions. Even though there is robust debate and discussion about the merits and nuances of each tradition’s take on spirituality and the nature of consensual reality, there is no drive, no mandate, in any of these to force or even encourage all the other people to follow one spiritual path or claim that their God is the only true God. Indeed quite the opposite in the 21st century: Each individual is encouraged to follow a spiritual path that is most attractive and suited to their temperament and lifestyle. No one is told to blindly believe anything. Questioning and debate is welcomed. Rather the principle is to experience a spiritual teaching yourself. This is not to say that conflicts have not occurred historically or do not occur in contemporary times between dharmic communities, only that the roots of them aren’t the sort of theological dictates and differences that have plagued much of humanity.
Such a dharmic perspective, though originating in a different cultural milieu, has rough parallels with a classically liberal outlook in Western thought — one that is actually conservative, regardless of contemporary political labels.
It is about recognizing the importance of individual choice, while at the same time recognizing that individuals also belong to communities. It is about recognizing all beings come from the same source, even as we all call this source different names, and deserve respect. It is about accepting and tolerating differences of perspective from our own, provided that such acceptance and tolerance is reciprocated. It is about incremental improvement and steady practice. It recognizes that ethical principles must be applied contextually. It prioritizes personal experience over dogma, even as it respects tradition and values the wisdom of spiritual teachers. It changes when presented with new information and insights, even as its basic truths are perennial in application.
The challenge, then, comes when we are faced with ideologies and ways of being that fundamentally don’t accept the importance of individual freedom; that don’t believe there are multiple valid ways of being in relationship with something greater than ourselves and insist you believe as they do; that the only way forward is revolution, zealous dogma and radical change, preserving nothing of tradition; that ethical principles must be applied in a blanket way to everyone regardless of individual context; that the correct way to live was established centuries ago and ought to be followed today.
What to do? Preserving a spirit of tolerance and acceptance in the face of intolerance often itself requires a degree of intolerance and discrimination. It’s a classic conundrum. However it is not as much of one when viewed through a dharmic ethical framework.
The spiritual freedom and flexibility inherent in the dharmic traditions is not a free-for-all. There are traditions, guardrails, and boundaries that are followed. There are limits. And there is contextual application. For example, though ahimsa is a central tenet of the dharmic traditions, for most people, this injunction against harm is not an absolute. Using a modicum of force to prevent a greater harm or in self-defense or for the sake of the greater good, is not a violation of ahimsa. This is well accepted. Such nuance in understanding and discernment of thought is a crucial skill.
As such, to protect freedom of belief and religious acceptance, we must stand together firmly against those in our society — again, regardless of what quadrant of the political spectrum they stand in; illiberalism comes at us from both the Left and the Right — who would insist that there is only one way to express oneself, there is only way to create social change, there is only one way to be in relationship with the source of the manifest existence. We must be firm in pushing back against those who would force their illiberal outlooks upon all of us, and condemn anyone who thinks otherwise as an unbeliever, on one hand, or a fascist, on the other, or any other label that is intended to put someone outside the tribe and therefore both strip them of moral worth and intellectual consideration.
