Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
198Sinc e Mimamsa wished t o rest it s c ase wholly upon t est imony wit h regard t o
its injunc tional view of revelation, and did not wish its authority to rest upon an
omnisc ient God... it rejected both the existence of, and arguments for, God. Oddly,
Ramanuja, the most fervent philosophic al theologian, also rejec ted the arguments,
bec ause he wanted salvation to depend solely upon God and not at all upon
reasoning (we c an c ompare Karl Barth on this point). Ramanuja’s subtle crit ique of
t radit ional Indian versions of t he t eleologic al argument (c omparing t he c osmos t o a
t hing made of part s and t o an organism, needing a soul t o keep it alive) ant ic ipat e
s o me o f Da v id Hu me ’s... Among his points: there might have been many c reators,
not one; they might rec ur at differing emerging world periods; the stronger the
argument the more anthropomorphic its c onc lusion; and the c osmos does not
resemble an organism. Among other arguments used on behalf of God’s existenc e
was a version of the ontologic al... and the thought that the moral effec ts of karma
need an intelligent director to organize them...
Through muc h of Indian history Hinduis m had an important rival in Buddhism,
and to a lesser extent in Jainism, and Indian philosophy c ontinuously nourished
arguments between the main traditions. Generally, Indian theism made use of
Samkhya categories in framing its cosmology, and an area of contention came to
c enter on c ausation. The Buddhist sc hools had a non-identity theory, detac hing
events from one another somewhat in the manner of Hume. The Samkhya favored
an identity or transformation theory in whic h substanc es c hange themselves (as
milk into c urds). Bec ause Buddhism attac ked the very notion of substanc e,
breaking the world into short-lived events, t he Samkhya t hinkers were c rit ic al of
the notion of an underlying Divine Being or brahman. T his proved a major
difference between Mahayana metaphysics and that of Sankara, despite the
influenc e of Buddhis m on him. The ‘absolute’ in Buddhism is emptiness, not a
Being. The Buddhists also c ritic ized the Hindu relianc e on testimony, and indeed
t heir t heory of t he Sanskrit language as primordia l wit h a nat ural fit t o realit y. T he
Buddhists were c onventionalists. Among Jain c ritiques of Hindu thinking was the
view that religious experience derives from prior belief and not vice versa.
The modern period saw the unific ation of the subc ontinent under British rule,
and with it the foundation of English-speaking colleges and universities. The new
English-speaking elit e were c hallenged by Christ ian and Brit ish c rit ic isms of Hindu
religion and society, as being idolatrous and backward. They acquired a new pan-
Indian nat ionalism in t he fac e of Brit ish imperialis m. But it was in a new key,
because they tended to draw on both traditions. We c an pic k out four movements
in the modern period. One was the Brahmo Samaj founded by Ram Mohan Roy
(1772–1833). It was strongly modernist in presenting the Upanisads as being
unit arian, and in dismissing a great deal of ac t ual Hinduism. Another was the Arja
Samaj, created by Dayananda Sarasvati (1824–83) who reverted to the Veda as
the true sourc e of faith, but like Ram Mohan Roy dismissed, indeed strongly
attacked, image worship. As a movement it has had good success overseas, among
Hindus in Fiji, South Africa, and elsewhere. But these movements were too critical
of t he main, warm t radit ion of Hindu worship. It was left t o Swami Vivekananda
(1863–1902) — drawing on the inspiration of his c harismatic teac her Ramakrishna
(1834–86), a person of wide sympat hies, int ense spirit ualit y, but ignoranc e of t he
English speaking world — t o formulat e a posit ion whic h was powerful in rolling bac k
int ellec t ual and Christ ian c rit ic isms of t he Hindu world, and in mobilizing Indian