Solidarity, Not Sameness
Hindu solidarity is not an original idea. It has become very popular in India itself. Whatever our background, we can and we must maintain our sectarian roots and heritage, cultivate our differences and become strong within them, as the Christians did. There exists a common bond between all Hindus. What is that bond? Number one, it is the belief in karma and dharma. The Śaivites and the Vaishṇavites, the Śāktas and the Smārtas all believe in karma and dharma. Number two is reincarnation. Number three is the all-pervasiveness of God and the sanctity of the Vedas. If we accept these three basic beliefs—along with tolerance for all the religions of the world coupled with the belief that all people, whatever their spiritual path, will one day attain to knowledge of God—then we can say, “Yes, we are Hindus.”
Though the branches of Hinduism are many and different, the roots are common to us all. We share so much, and we can never forget this. Sharing a common heritage, we can then, with confidence, follow our own path. If that path is liberal Hindu, fine. If that path is Śaivite Hindu, Vaishṇava Hindu or Śākta Hindu, fine. Let each follow his own path. Let each perfect himself and purify himself within the context of his individual way. We must know and get the strength from the heritage of our roots. That is a real strength; that is a genuine Hindu solidarity. It is not strength for us all to call out for others to be exactly as we are. A tree has one trunk, one root system, but for survival its branches must reach in many directions. The different directions are not a weakness in the tree. In fact, its very life depends on this diversity. The very life of Hinduism has always depended on a similar diversity. That is why I say it is not uniformity or sameness that we seek together. It is solidarity, the strength which comes from appreciating and cultivating our differences, not denying them or trying to restrain or even destroy them altogether.
It is a strange fact that there are temples today that enshrine three Supreme Gods within them—Śiva, Vishṇu and Śakti. This never used to happen, because people were secure and firm in their beliefs. Imagine, three Supreme Gods in one temple. Who can understand such a thing? This is a new phenomenon. It is not Āgamic. It is not traditional. It is like having three prima donnas on one stage, and the only result will be confusion, strife and unhappiness. What are the children going to think about this? As they are growing up, they will say, “When you make up your mind, Mom and Dad, who is Supreme God, let us know. In the meantime, we are going to live, have fun and be Americans. Hey, when you decide, let us know.”
First we need to know, deep inside ourselves, who is the Supreme God. Is He Śiva? Is He Vishṇu, Kṛishṇa, or is She Durgā? Having made that determination, we can gather like-minded people together to design and build a temple to our Supreme God. There is no power in a temple to more than one Supreme God, no power at all. Better not to build such a place, which will just be a social hall. That is not religion. That is opportunistic compromise. That is politics trying to run religion. Rather, build a temple to Śiva and worship there with your whole heart. Build a temple to Vishṇu and worship there with your whole heart. Build a temple to Śakti and worship there with your whole heart. But don’t compromise, don’t confuse yourselves and your children by trying to please everyone in every temple. Let there be good, strong temples to Śiva and good strong temples to Kṛishṇa and to Vishṇu and to Śakti. Each devotee can then worship God or Goddess properly, with full commitment and devotion.
NANDINATHA SŪTRA 353: CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING A SECOND MONK
My Śaiva monastics follow the tradition of not holding serious or lengthy private conversations in person or by telephone without another monk present. Gracious, impersonal small talk in public is, of course, allowed. Aum.