Where does this idea (Hinduism has no ethics) come from?

[Vinayaka]

We've all encountered odd misunderstandings about out faith like you have to be born in India to be a Hindu. But here's another ... 'Hindus have no ethics.'

I've heard this a few times, too many to be comfortable actually. Just who started it, and for what purpose?

Firstly, it's an absolute crock. The BG, the Tirukkural, village wisdom, the yamas and niyamas, all have plenty of ethics. Anyone who knows us personally knows that we are an ethical faith. We admire integrity, devotion, honesty, fair business, charity, hospitality, faithfulness in marriage, kindness to our fellow man, and more.

(Yes, there are a few unscrupulous characters, but they are not the norm.)

So who started this myth, and for what purpose?

I heard that in the 60s when westerners first went to ashrams of the east, the swamis and teachers there were shocked at some of the ethical behaviour that came along with the 'hippies looking to the east', for lack of a better way to put it.

Did Christians or anti-Hindu indologists purposely spread this information to make us look bad?

Was it the universalist advaita teachers who brought advaita to the west, and assumed the people there already would have ethics, so just ignored it in favor of philosophy?

Thoughts ... and then how can we counter this idea?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Was it the universalist advaita teachers who brought advaita to the west, and assumed the people there already would have ethics, so just ignored it in favor of philosophy?

If I may speak as one who has asked about Hindu ethics in several forums (I can't remember whether this was one) I think that is part of the problem.

When I read Radhakrishnan 's history of Hindu philosophy, I kept coming to sections headed ethics, and they were just about what each writer thought the best way to achieve mokṣa. But even looking at dvaita, a book I read on Madhva gave a text that listed 20 things that facilitate mokṣa, of which only three referred to interpersonal relations: devotion towards superiors, affection towards equals, and sympathy towards inferior but good people. Somehow that seemed a bit brief! By comparison, Chinese philosophy is almost nothing but ethics, and Europeans have devoted whole books to it.

As for the Gita, the advice that all will be well if you do your duty without attachment seems to be the least happy part of a fine work. Maybe Arjuna would not be harmed by fighting if he did it without hate, but that would be scant consolation to those he shot!

Part of the answer is to direct people like me to the yamas and niyamas. Another approach is to point out that Hindus have a strong tradition of what is right and wrong, and so have never felt the need to sit down and rationalise it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thank you, David. So if I'm ever at a lecture, I'll be sure to ask, 'Why didn't you mention ethics?"

It's jumping the queue ... to go directly to philosophy, especially when that same philosophy was achieved initially only by practicing ethics. Of course, after that, it was regurgitated by many, and put new spins on. But the original stuff (like the Vedas, or sage's spontaneous upadeshas) wasn't regurgitated at all, but original thought.

So teachers ignore it because it's boring? That's a real disservice, in my opinion.

(I've actually never read the Gita.)

 

[GoodbyeDave]

(I've actually never read the Gita.)

Do yourself a favour and read it. I have Easwaran's translation, and he says

It asks and answers the questions that you or I might ask — questions not about philosophy or mysticism, but about how to live effectively in a world of challenge and change. It … has been my personal guidebook, just as it was Mahatma Ghandhi's.

 

[Vinayaka]

Do yourself a favour and read it. I have Easwaran's translation, and he says

Sorry. That's like a Christian saying, "Do yourself a favour and read the bible."

I'm not a Vaishvavite, and besides that, I'm not recommending any books for you, am I?

Now, I have no doubt that the Gita is an excellent scripture, as is the Bible I suppose. But once you've narrowed it down the way I have, there's no point getting confused. I'm confused enough already.

Not only that, but this is the Hindu DIR.

 

[Kalidas]

I think it started with confusion from people converting. You don't see it because you were raised non religious and then became Hindu but I see it and so will do my best to explain.

In Dogmatic religions(the religions that are most populace in the west) there are strict outlined guidelines with little to no wiggle room. They are listed (ten commandments anyone?) and are openly expressed. There is no guess work as to what is "good" or "bad" there are the "Do's" and the "Do nots" and you know them by heart.

So when you came and meet someone of Dharma they appear moralless, "where are your rules?" One might say, not realising there are "rules" they just aren't so cut and dry and openly expressed as dogma is. Dharma means many things to many people, it evolves and requires a good amount of thinking from the devotee, and not just some blind faith in "The Rule Book".

Lets imagine them as "roads" the road to morality.

Dogma road has street signs everywhere signs that say "Go 20 MPH or FACE PUNISHMENT", police ready to ticket you at every corner, the signs are explicit and succinct and punishment is carried by others and severe.

Dharma also has signs but not traffic signs but warning signs. Signs that say "There is a bump ahead drive accordingly!" There are no police just the consequences of your actions. You are free to ignore the signs no police will punish you but when you hit that bump and destroy your car, thats your consequence. All punishment is self inflicted, and are consequences of your actions.

To the man driving down Dogma road he's sees a bunch of lawless freaks that are allowed to "drive how ever they want to" not actually seeing that we are the masters of our destiny, but someone before us let us know that we can mess up and we should be careful when forging our path.

 

[Vinayaka]

Nice analogy, Kalidas. Thank you. I wonder how long it takes the GPS to realise it's on Dharma Street instead of Dogma Street.

 

[Chakra]

I think it started with confusion from people converting. You don't see it because you were raised non religious and then became Hindu but I see it and so will do my best to explain.

In Dogmatic religions(the religions that are most populace in the west) there are strict outlined guidelines with little to no wiggle room. They are listed (ten commandments anyone?) and are openly expressed. There is no guess work as to what is "good" or "bad" there are the "Do's" and the "Do nots" and you know them by heart.

So when you came and meet someone of Dharma they appear moralless, "where are your rules?" One might say, not realising there are "rules" they just aren't so cut and dry and openly expressed as dogma is. Dharma means many things to many people, it evolves and requires a good amount of thinking from the devotee, and not just some blind faith in "The Rule Book".

Lets imagine them as "roads" the road to morality.

Dogma road has street signs everywhere signs that say "Go 20 MPH or FACE PUNISHMENT", police ready to ticket you at every corner, the signs are explicit and succinct and punishment is carried by others and severe.

Dharma also has signs but not traffic signs but warning signs. Signs that say "There is a bump ahead drive accordingly!" There are no police just the consequences of your actions. You are free to ignore the signs no police will punish you but when you hit that bump and destroy your car, thats your consequence. All punishment is self inflicted, and are consequences of your actions.

To the man driving down Dogma road he's sees a bunch of lawless freaks that are allowed to "drive how ever they want to" not actually seeing that we are the masters of our destiny, but someone before us let us know that we can mess up and we should be careful when forging our path.

Nice answer. Sums up what is Dharma and what is Dogmatic religion.
Regards

 

[Chakra]

Also, sorry to ask this here on your thread Vinayaka, but does anyone know how I can answer one of my questions with a moderator or someone like that?
Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

Also, sorry to ask this here on your thread Vinayaka, but does anyone know how I can answer one of my questions with a moderator or someone like that?
Regards

How do you mean? Is there a question or subject you want to discuss with a mod privately? You can open a thread in the Site Feedback section http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/site-feedback/ The conversation will be visible only to you and the staff. Or you can PM me or another mod.

 

[Kalidas]

Nice analogy, Kalidas. Thank you. I wonder how long it takes the GPS to realise it's on Dharma Street instead of Dogma Street.

You need to install the update

 

[Vinayaka]

You need to install the update

Personally, I got onto Dharma Street a few years back, and there never was a Dogma Street in my neighbourhood. But maybe it's time I stopped using my kid's GPS, and bought my own.

My daughter, the one with the new baby, gifted Boss a cell phone 2 days ago, cause Boss is 'on call' to help out. When daughter calls for help, Boss jumps. I refuse to use it. If you want to talk to me, come see me in person. But I need my own carnow. Maybe a new 'Boss' too. If she's gonna spend so much time holding a baby, instead of taking care of me, I think I'll go shopping for a new 'appliance'.

 

[Kalidas]

Personally, I got onto Dharma Street a few years back, and there never was a Dogma Street in my neighbourhood. But maybe it's time I stopped using my kid's GPS, and bought my own.

My daughter, the one with the new baby, gifted Boss a cell phone 2 days ago, cause Boss is 'on call' to help out. When daughter calls for help, Boss jumps. I refuse to use it. If you want to talk to me, come see me in person. But I need my own carnow. Maybe a new 'Boss' too. If she's gonna spend so much time holding a baby, instead of taking care of me, I think I'll go shopping for a new 'appliance'.

Oh goodness, your sound like my grandpa lol.

 

[Vinayaka]

Oh goodness, your sound like my grandpa lol.

I'm old enough. Good thing we had to learn basic computer stuff when I taught, or I wouldn't be here doing this. But Boss knows I'll never trade her in.

 

[Poeticus]

Thoughts ... and then how can we counter this idea?

Some groups, and particularly some individuals of those groups, are just unable to retract, rephrase, reevaluate, reassess, and relearn. This kind of goes back to my recent thread on sincerity, integrity, and honesty - especially integrity. They have their minds made up, and a large part of their beliefs (either religious in nature, or secular) are held as infallible and cannot be forsaken. In large part, I believe that it is fruitful to not be surprised to their conduct nor beliefs but rather help clarify things to those that are willing to retract, rephrase, reevaluate, reassess, and/or relearn, for example. This, I find, to be a realistic approach.

 

[Vinayaka]

Sounds good, P. Even here, although it's DIR, people read, and are probably somewhat convinced that we do have ethics.

 

[Haryaksha]

Great answer by Kalidas.
I think the majority of people who think that Hinduism has no ethics are coming from an Abrahamic background or at least perceiving Hinduism with an Abrahamic-like lens. Ethics in Hinduism take the form of guidelines and suggestions rather than commandments. Our ethics, like Dharma itself, are not 'black and white' things. There is no intrinsic evil, no absolutes - but that doesn't mean that there are no ethics whatsoever. Hindu ethics are fluid, rather than set in stone. It is up to each individual, with the guidance of the guru and/or Gods, to apply the ethics laid out in our shastras and traditions into our everyday lives. But people see the lack of overt commandments and punishments in Hinduism (You must do *this*, or you will go to hell) and then they automatically assume that there are no ethics at all.

So who started this myth, and for what purpose?

I think it stems both from anti-Hindus as well as naive 'Neo-Hindus'. Zealous Abrahamics and academics purport the myth of no ethics in their portrayal of Hinduism as hedonistic, overly-sexualized, caste-ridden, etc.

At the same time, naive Hindus or just people who are 'into' Hinduism or 'Eastern spirituality' such as the hippies that you mention, perceive Hinduism as having no ethics. In that sense, they see what they want to see, largely in a reaction against the dogmatic and commandment-ridden Abrahamic religions. They go from one extreme to the other. Just the fact that there is no eternal hell in Hinduism leads a lot of people to perceive it as a 'free-for-all'.

On top of all this, there are the modern Neo-Advaita and radical universalist teachers who preach 'enlightenment now'. All you have to do is sit down and meditate and see that Brahman is everything. No need to focus on applying the ethics of Dharma and ingraining them into your consciousness, which itself gradually leads to enlightenment. Ethics require discipline, and people confuse discipline with dogmatism.

Thoughts ... and then how can we counter this idea?

Apart from obviously propagating our ethics in our everyday lives and social interactions when discussing Hinduism, a lot of the countering will have to come through academic and scholarly portrayals of Hinduism, which is still the main way that a lot of people rely on for information about Hinduism. Now, I'm not saying that academic textbooks and primers overtly state "There are no ethics in Hinduism", but it would be great if they actually mention something like the Yamas and Niyamas as much as they talk about caste. This is just one aspect of the major issue of the way that Hinduism is portrayed in academia.

 

[atanu]

Great answer by Kalidas.
I think the majority of people who think that Hinduism has no ethics are coming from an Abrahamic background or at least perceiving Hinduism with an Abrahamic-like lens. ......

I agree. Further, I also think that those who harp upon 'ethics' at the cost of compassion for the wrong doer are more from Abrahamic side. For example, in Buddhism too, compassion (instead of harsh criticism) is reserved for a criminal.

A very basic reason for this, IMO, is that there is no concept of 'Evil' in Hinduism. Instead there is a concept of 'Ignorance'. So, when a person acts in a way that is not normally approved in society or by shastra, it is not considered fundamentally an 'unethical' doing but it is considered an 'ignorant act'.

However, I must also note that there are scriptures that suggest do-s and don'ts.
But a secondary reason that these Do-s and Dont's are not harped upon may be that the ethics that applies to India for orthodox Hindus cannot apply in USA. Every act of the capitatistic, sexually oriented USA is actually unethical in the eyes of orthodox hindus. USA is actually a country of Virochana-s (an Asura described in Chandogya Upanishad who knows body to be the Atma-self and nothing beyond) in the eyes of Vivekananda.

Can the ethics of an Iyer or an Iyengar brahmin apply to people of USA?

It is also ironic that criticisms of Vivekananda et. al. citing him as the epitome of Neo philosophy also originate from Abrahamic grounds.

 

[atanu]

.... But here's another ... 'Hindus have no ethics.'

Actually I have not heard it so directly even onve. Can we please have some referene, if possible?

 

[Jainarayan]

Actually I have not heard it so directly even onve. Can we please have some referene, if possible?

I've been reading through the thread and I too am at a loss to understand the reference. I'm surrounded by non-Hindus in professional and personal life, have been most of my adult life, and I have yet to hear any comments one way or another about Hinduism or its ethics. It just doesn't come up. Are we talking about literature, books, other printed or broadcast material? What I do hear from people is that Indian doctors are among the best doctors, and the strong work ethic of Indians. I don't know if that's a subconscious reference because of the belief that all Indians are Hindu, or there is some kind of respect.