Hallo, This is Dr. Bin Song at Washington College for the course of “Comparative Religion: Eastern.”

In the first unit of the course, I talked about my interest in religious studies has been driven by two questions I asked to myself triggered by my initial religious experience: what is the meaning of the experience, and how to maintain it? In varying world religious traditions, the first question is answered by the so-called discipline of “theology,” the central concern of which is about exploring whether there is some “ultimate reality” which conditions all other realities while itself being able to provide a panoramic, holistic view towards all realities. Depending upon approaches taken by religions, the “ultimate reality” has its varying names and specifications: Yahweh, God, Allah, Brahman, Sunyata, Tian, Dao, etc.

So, what is religious experience all about? The answer given by a religion is normally that it is about an individual’s personal experience of a sort of ultimate reality. And then, how to maintain it? Through varying religious practices, such as the participation of liturgy, the performance of ritual, chanting, dancing, meditation, prayer, etc. Personally, I believe the Confucian tradition, or should we call, the Ru tradition, provides good answers to both of these two questions, and thus, my personal lifestyle is anchored in such a tradition and in this sense, you can also say my faith is in Ruism. However, this personal orientation is definitely based upon my study of a variety of traditions. In particular, in order to figure out which sort of “theology” is the best fit, we do not only need to learn historical writings within a given tradition; we also need to broadly study varying subjects and disciplines so that we can make sure the consistency and interconnection between one’s theology and a gazillion other aspects of human life and civilization. During the process, one’s theological view could surely be revised and adapted, and in my candid view, it is among the most rewarding pursuits via anchored, yet broad religious studies that one can continually line up one’s theology together with evolving human experience step by step. At least, this way of religious studies can help individuals to find the “wholeness” of one’s life, and thus, re-obtain a certain kind of deep “integrity” for one’s life.

While studying varying theologies in the world, a basic contrast we can find regarding how religions conceptualize their ultimate reality is theism vs non-theism. Here, I carefully choose the term “non-theism” rather than “atheism” because atheism, such as pure naturalism informed by natural science to affirm nothing holy about the world or Marxism which sees all religions as the opium of human spirit utilized by a ruling class to oppress the others, is an antithesis to the traditional Judeo-Christian theism, and hence, not typically considered as a religious worldview. However, “non-theism” denies that ultimate reality can be conceived as an omnipotent personal God or a supreme deity out of the consideration that a personal God cannot be so “ultimate” as to be able to condition all other realities to provide that needed panoramic worldview. Instead, non-theism believes that the genuinely ultimate reality shall be an all-pervading consciousness without a super agency to issue the consciousness, an all-encompassing energy-field, or simply an ever-generating life-force which is itself original, holy, all powerful, but just cannot be conceptualized as a personal God. In other words, if “atheism” is an antithesis of theism, “non-theism” just presents a different theology from theism, and using a further analysis which we will indicate in Hinduism, “non-theism” can even be compatible with theism since God or gods can still be worshiped within an overall non-theistic theological framework.

In the two foundational scriptures of Hinduism, the Vedas and the Upanishads (the Upanishads is actually part of the Vedas, but it was written significantly later and presented a distinctive style of Hindu spirituality, so scholars normally mention these two scriptures separately), the contrast between theism and non-theism is prominent, with theism being practically prioritized while non-theism being theologically prioritized. Let me explain why this is so in the following.

“Theism” is prioritized practically in the Vedas because 1) the social order of ancient Indian civilization needs a cosmic justification, and thus, as exemplified by the mythology of Purusha (the Man, in the assigned reading pp. 54, section 10.90), the sacrifice of varying parts of the body of this primordial holy giant leads to the creation of the caste system, which is a major organizational principle of ancient Indian society. And 2) the being and order of natural phenomena observed by human beings need to be explained, and hence, the sequence of creation based upon the activities of “a single body shaped like a man” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishads, pp.55, ) gives rise to reasons why varying kinds of creatures are generated and how humans can have a secured relationship with them via the performance of varying rituals. In other words, since the central concern of the Vedic Hinduism is to maintain social order while increasing social welfare, the theology of theism is prioritized so that an elaborated ritual system can be designed and implemented to maintain a rapport with varying gods and goddesses.

However, In the Vedas, particularly in the Upanishads, we discover an even stronger theme of “non-theism” which often acts as an unexpected intruder to the already elaborated theistic worldview, and thus, furnishes an indescribable philosophical and theological depth to Hindu spirituality. For instance, in the Creation Hymn of the Rig Veda, the earliest Veda that we can read, the existence of “gods” is depicted as “came afterwards,” whereas the earliest being in the world is just a life force or pure desire which “breathed, windless, by its own impulse” (Hymn 10.129, pp. 55). Also, in chapter one of the Brihada’ranyaka Upanishads, the creation made by the single body shaped like a man is finally depicted as “brahman’s super-creation,” which gives rise to all the immortal “gods.” (pp.56) Obviously, what is genuinely ultimate in these Vedic verses is thought of as being beyond what any theistic concept can capture. In other parts of the Upanishads, we can also discern some philosophical reason why non-theism is thought of as being more ultimate than theism. If the ultimate reality is a personal God, then, this supreme person will have to perceive the world and varying worldly creatures as an object while Himself being a perceiver. In this case, the entire realm of being will have to be divided as a perceiver versus the perceived, which, in the view of those Upanishadic authors, is unfortunate and inadequate since in the experience of deep meditation, everything in the universe merges into One, and thus, what is ultimate per se must not be dualistic. Ultimately, this Upanishadic non-dualism (assigned reading, pp. 57) gives rise to a typical trope used prevalently by the medieval tradition of Vedanta Hinduism, viz., ultimate reality as an all-encompassing, infinite, yet joyful consciousness without any division.

This deep spiritual vision of non-duality is based upon sophisticated philosophizing and ascetic religious practice, but once achieved, it is in a great tension with the theistic version of Hindu spirituality which emphasizes social order based upon distinctions more than individual liberation based upon non-distinction. More importantly, not everybody’s spiritual capacity is up to this sort of elite religious lifestyle of Upanishadic renunciates, and typically, ordinary humans’ religious practice needs something, such as gods or goddesses, to hold on to so as to devote and facilitate their everyday spiritual life. Therefore, eventually, the way that ancient Hinduism solves this tension is to put non-theism as theologically prior, but theism as practically prior. In more concrete terms, this means that individuals will be expected to fulfill their duties and roles within a given stratified human society, and choose the god or goddess whom they feel right and good to worship; however, individuals also need to realize that the sake of performing duties is not just for maintaining social order, and the devotion to one’s personal gods is not just for their individual practical needs either. Ultimately, beyond these duties, roles, and devoted gods, there is something even more ultimate, more universalistic and more grounding which can bring everything in the world into a unified whole. In this way, the journey of Hindu spirituality expects individuals to achieve their spiritual liberation simultaneously and seamlessly in the process of living out their everyday social life here and now.

We will find such a synthesis in the text of Bhagavad Gita, and which will be the topic of our next unit.