Cāturdharmya: Hermeneutics of integrative differentiation

Abstract

In his regular column in the Sunday Times of India (February 5, 2000) editor Dilip Padgaonkar wrote about his visit to Jakarta to interview the then President of Indonesia Abdur Rahman Wahid. After observing that the public display of Hindu symbols is much more prominent in Jakarta than in Delhi, the capital of India, he referred to the expression 'chatur dharma ek karma' that he noticed engraved on some of the public buildings. Since I had not encountered this expression (or anything else resembling it) in the traditional or modern Indian thought I was naturally intrigued. My efforts to seek additional information about this curious phrase from members belonging to the various academic news groups were fruitless. Finally, I received an explanation (though not quite satisfactory) from Dr Muchlis Hamdi on the H-Asia news group. In the context of Indonesia the expression apparently refers to a military doctrine advocating four actions with one result. '[I]n [the] old regime,' Dr Hamdi explained, '[the] military comprises navy, air force, army, and police. Yet, in [the] present regime, police is separated from [the] military.' At about the same time I happened to broach this subject with Professor Arvind Sharma of the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University,Montreal whereupon he mentioned that he had coined the term 'caturdharmya' with a view to determine and bring into discussion the meaning and significance of dharma and its connection with the number four (which routinely figures in such other doctrinal expressions as caturvarnya, caturasrama, caturdhama etc.) in order to refute criticism of the traditional understanding of the four purusarthas leveled by Professor Daya Krishna in Indian Philosophy-A Counter Perspective. In his review of this work Sharma proposes that the numerical value of four in such instances has been used as an arithmetical shorthand for 'many' or 'numerous' or 'plural.' A numeric figure may have been used, he speculates, to compensate for the fact that often a pattern can only be established at the cost of specificity. Thus, the proliferation of jatis extends the doctrine of four varn'as beyond virtual recognition of numerical code for plural or numerous. When seen in this light the doctrine of the four purusarthas seems to make two statements: (1) that people pursue diverse and manifold goals [or religions] in life; and (2) that for certain purposes these goals may be conveniently grouped into four (Sharma 1999). Sharma then goes on to provide a contemporary illustration. In the comparative study of religion the following four religions are typically referred to as religions of Indian origin: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. For the sake of brevity they may be collectively subsumed under the rubric of 'the Indic Religious Tradition.' If one were to use a Sanskrit and Indic idiom to describe this state of affairs, then all of them could be referred to as caturdharmya (hereafter caturdharmya), an expression obviously encompassing the four religions, but also pointing to much more: the Religious Tradition of India as a whole, which is characterized by the four dharmas. It would appear that here Sharma is making a conscious effort to replace the old wooden division of the Indic religious world into the four ways of life each in turn marked by phases which modern scholars often identify by attaching such prefixes as 'proto-,' 'neo-,' or 'revival of-' with a more critical and nuanced understanding of how these traditions are made and sustained in their organic unity. Sharma's novel attempt to bring Indic religions under the canopy of caturdharmya is comparable to a similar development that took place long ago with reference to the concept of sanjiao (Three-in-One Teachings) in China. It is indeed surprising that the composite Indic religious tradition or its history did not produce a pan-Indic, global term of self-reference similar to sanjiao. By contrast, acknowledging the wisdom of the traditional Chinese proverbs, accounts of Chinese religion are usually found organized by the logic of the three teachings of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism. An early reference to this organic trinity is attributed to Li Shiqian, a prominent scholar of the sixth century, who wrote that 'Buddhism is the sun, Daoism the moon, and Confucianism the five planets' (Teiser 1996: 3). Li suggests that although they remain separate, the three teachings also coexist as equally indispensable phenomena. Another popular proverb opens by listing the symbols that distinguish the three religions from each other, but closes with the assertion that they are fundamentally the same: 'The three teachings' the gold and cinnabar of Daoism, the relics of Buddhist figures, as well as the Confucian virtues of humanity and righteousness are basically one tradition (Teiser 1996: 3). The concept of caturdharmya, I similarly argue, can stand for the Indic way of life and religiosity, which comprises of a single organic complex of four expressions, each in turn representing a blend of several elements so that as an ensemble it creates a symphony (Dharma) in which the adherents (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs) participate, whereas the resonance of any one given religion may be compared to a melody (dharma). In my opinion, in coining the felicitous term caturdharmya, Sharma has created a seminal interpretive tool that can ably encapsulate Indic spirituality and religiosity in general besides possibly furnishing a powerful methodological weapon of comparison between Indic religions and philosophies and their Western counterparts. The lens of caturdharmya may also facilitate explanation of religious change and transformation in India. Sharma has argued elsewhere that Indic religions may be distinguished on the basis of the difference in the degrees of acceptance of Vedic authority. Thus, Buddhism and Jainism differ from Hinduism in accepting Vedic authority in the realm of Dharma but not moks'a. At least until 1000, Buddhists did not regard themselves as outside the pale of Hindu society, so far as Dharma was concerned. In support he cites G. C. Pande's remark that the prevailing web of social ritual was substantially unaffected by the distinction of orthodoxy and heterodoxy except in the names of the gods propitiated or the veneration of a given practitioner. In the words of Udayana, the Vedic ritual order form conception to the last rites was performed by all the sects even though they described it as merely empirical (Sharma 1999: 197). In what follows below I argue that Sharma's concept of caturdharmya can, and should be, extended from the field of comparative religion to hermeneutics. Few thinkers remain satisfied with their initial ideas and insights without taking them through different stages of development or without some deepening, change or extension. The consequences, the potential for development, and the manner of unfolding of the initial insight are not clearly foreseen at the beginning. The tendency is to continually renew the initial insight in the light of further development. Often, the initiative may come from others. The present enterprise may be construed as one such attempt at extending the significance of caturdharmya to a hermeneutics of integration as well as differentiation. Such a possibility is already hinted at by Wilhelm Halbfass who observes that Dharma in the sense of ritual pertained to the re-actualization and earthly analogue of the original cosmogonic acts of upholding and holding apart: Whatever the functions of the ritual in Indian historymay have been-its fundamental, though forgotten connection with cosmogony, and its commitment to 'upholding' the space of the world, and to keeping the entities in it apart from each other and in their appropriate identities, is beyond question (Halbfass 1990: 317). The diverse religious, cultural, and social communities (centered on particular ritual practices and customs) that emerged and have flourished in India for millennia can be subsumed, I submit, under a single protean family tree of [Sanatana] Dharma predicated upon the twin strategy of samanvaya (comparable to the category of syncretism) and udaharan'a (comparable to the category of eclecticism (see below). Doxography is a particular form and style of literature which summarizes and classifies the main Indic philosophical schools or systems in a neutral or nonpejorative way and spirit, has had a long tradition in the field of philosophy in India. Bhartr'hari may be regarded as the father of doxography in the Indic tradition. There are, he argued, various views or ways of seeing with reference to one and the same 'tangible' object.1 After affirming that his own guru had studied other systems in addition to his own discipline of Vyakaran'a, Bhartr'hari adds that one's insight gains comprehensiveness from the study of different views (prajna vivekam labhate bhinnair agamadarsanaih (Vakyapadiyam 2: 487'489). This perspective sets that stage for such future doxogrpahic works as: S'addarsanasamuccaya of Haribhadra (700'770), Tattvasamgraha of Santaraks'ita (705'762), and Madhava Vidyaran'ya's Sarvadarsanasamgraha (ca. 1400)(Halbfass 1990: 264'268). A similar perspective sets the stage for what follows below'doxographic exposition of the practical significance of the integrative and differentiating potential of caturdharmya (Dharma) for the followers of the four individual dharmas that evolved in India and their respective communities. Hopefully, the present attempt will generate in turn greater interest among scholars to produce similar doxographic works under the general category of Dharmasamgraha.