Tolerance and Responses to Religious Pluralism

Although records of its early history are not available, it seems clear that the Hindu religion developed in the same fertile soil that nourished Jainism and Buddhism. All three religions share the presuppositions that karma (the mental trace or seed left behind by each thought or action that predisposes one to a similar thought or action in the future, volition, action), saṃsāra (the world of phenomena, which is incessantly in motion or flux and of which rebirth is an aspect), and jīva (the empirical self, the individual soul) are anādi (beginningless) and that by following a particular spiritual path (mārga) release can be realized. Each religion posed a different understanding of the divine or absolute to be experienced at the end of the spiritual path. In the Brahmanical tradition, reality was conceived of as “pure being,” by which it was meant that reality was a pure unchanging substance, a concept expressed in the ātman doctrine of the Upaniṣads. Buddhists took the opposite position, the anātman doctrine of the Buddha, and perceived reality as momentary (ksaṇika), unique (svalakṣaṇa), unitary (dharmamātra), and in constant flux. Jainism seems to have taken the middle path between these two opposing views by describing reality as giving equal reality to its substance and modes – to “being” and "becoming." T.R.V. Murti suggests that the Jaina view "may be said to constitute the third stream of Indian Philosophy – lying mid-way between the two extremes" (Murti, 1960, 11-12). It was non-Brahmanical because it accepted a changing ātman; and it was non-Buddhistic because it accepted a permanent entity (ātman) as well as change. T.R.V. Murti suggests that the Jaina tradition, in its middle position, found favor with neither of the other traditions and as a result has had comparatively little influence on the development of Indian philosophy. But the Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions to a large extent shaped each other through mutual opposition and debate. 

Hinduism, as understood through the Brahmanical tradition, claims for itself revelation of the inner self – the unchanging pure being (ātman) – as identical with ultimate reality, the absolute, the divine. The Upaniṣads, which are mostly assigned to periods predating Mahāvīra and Buddha, contain discussions on jīva, karma, and saṃsārabut focus on knowledge of the inner spirit and the means of its realization. The result of this inward search is the Hindu belief in one divine reality that can phenomenalize in many different forms. The Hindu typically sees the different sects within Hinduism and the other religions as different manifestations of the one, external, divine reality. Because all manifestations lead back to the same source, there should be no conflict among traditions. Cooperation, community, and mutual respect should prevail among all believers. Let us examine the way in which this philosophic perspective has functioned in the encounter of Hinduism with other religions.

The Classical Period 

According to the Hindu view, all aspects of the world come from a common ancestry:

"There is of necessity some sort of equivalence between sounds, forms, numbers, colors, ideas, as there is also between the abstractions of the subtle and transcendent worlds on one side and the forms of the perceptible universe on the other…The whole of Nature (prakṛti) is but the symbol of a higher reality" (Danielou, 1962, 3-4).

From the viewpoint of the perceiver, it is rather like looking at a piece of sculpture from different angles. The whole form can be grasped only when the sculpture has been looked at from different perspectives: the front, back, and sides. Although each of these views is different from one another and although some aspects of what is seen and described from the different angles may seem incompatible, even from these contradictory reports, a reliable overall description of the sculpture can be reached that could not be obtained from only one angle. In the Hindu view, the various religions are understood as different and sometimes conflicting perspectives on the one divine reality. In fact divinity is sometimes described as "that in which opposites coexist" (Danielou, 1962, 5). According to this logic, Hinduism should be tolerant and open to other religions, because the more aspects of the divine we can perceive, the more complete our understanding will be. Even within Hinduism, broad tolerance is required to include all denominations (e.g. Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism) and all points of view (darśanas), from the experimental or logical perspective of the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika to the supramental psychology of Sāṃkhya and Yoga and the dialectical and metaphysical outlook of Vedānta. Within these Hindu viewpoints, the conceptions vary – according to the presuppositions of the various schools – from atheistic to pantheistic, deistic, monistic, and mystical. Each of these is true within its own perspective; that is, each viewpoint is a logical conclusion based on the presuppositions of its own perspective. The fact that the truths expressed by each viewpoint may conflict is to be expected, because each viewpoint is only a partial perspective of the divine. The aim of scholars within each view is to expand their understanding to the utmost limit in a particular direction. The builders of the variousdarśanas within Hinduism are described as seers (ṛṣis) of divine reality. All ṛṣis see the whole of reality, but due to the necessity of human finitude, they have to choose one form (out of the many possible forms) through which to convey their revelatory vision to others. For classical Hinduism, other religions could be understood as additional visions of the same divine reality; new ṛṣis such as Moses, Jesus, Muḥammad, and Buddha could be seen as describing new and varying perspectives of the one divine. 

Religious seekers start with whatever path matches their sensibilities and is within their reach. Since all paths are different views of the divine, it would not seem to matter which path is selected. Theoretically, all paths eventually reach the same goal. A. Danielou writes, "Persecution or proselytization of other religious groups, however strange their beliefs may seem to him, can never be a defensible attitude from the point of view of the Hindus" (1962, 9). However, classical Hinduism does seem to exert a qualifying clause. Although each of the religions moves one toward the goal of release from karmasaṃsāra and union with the divine, only with the aid of the revelation of the Vedas can one go the entire way to complete release. P.T. Raju offers a reasonable explanation as to how this vedic criterion came to be the norm for Hinduism:

"Vedic religion, after the development of its own inwardness, spread by inwardizing and incorporating all other religions with which it came into contact. All of them took pride in tracing their origins to the Vedas and the Upaniṣads. Some of them, Śaivism, Saktism and Vaiṣṇavism, had their own scriptures called the Ᾱgamas, to which they give even now as high a place as to the Vedas. Yet they later began writing commentaries on the original Upaniṣads and wrote their own Upaniṣads and added them to the list. Thus both in the past and present, no religion can be alien to the Indian, provided it emphasizes the truth of inwardness. The Vedic or the Upaniṣadic tradition in philosophy is the tradition of the truth of inwardness" (Raju, 1952, 528-550).

The growth and spread of Jainism and Buddhism produced a Hindu intensification of "inwardness," as P.T. Raju puts it, of the ātman tradition in opposition to the anātman tradition of Buddhism. The inward emphasis of vedic religion did not result in a lack of attention to outward forms. Within the vedic tradition, social duties were required, and the way to tread the path of inward realization was carefully marked out through the order of castes and the āśramas or stages of life. The duties accorded to each caste and allotted to each stage of life were meant to discipline the individual and lead by stages to the goal of inner spiritual realization. Thus within Hinduism, both a structure to maintain and regulate society and the opportunity for inner spiritual realization were provided. To a large extent, the Hindu social and ceremonial ordering of society was adopted by Indian Buddhism. 

Not only did the challenge of Buddhism produce an intensification of the Hindu ātman emphasis, but also, in line with Brahmanical philosophy, all that was considered new and good in Buddhism was quietly absorbed. Gauḍapada (7th cent. CE), the teacher of Śaṅkara, wrote his Māṇḍūkyopaniṣatkārikā and in them incorporated the best methods of Buddhist philosophy while retaining the vedic content. Śaṅkara systematized the developments of Gauḍapada and others into the Advaita Vedānta school. Śaṅkara also traveled the length and breadth of India debating with Buddhists (Basham, 1959, 265) "and apparently leaving behind monastic orders [again borrowing from Buddhist practice] in the north at Badrinath, in the south at Sringeri, in the east at Puri, and in the west at Dwaraka" (Miller, 1976-1977, 4). However, Hindu practice differed significantly from the Buddhist (and Christian) in that each branch monastery maintained autonomy. Buddhist monastic practice, modified for increased autonomy and flexibility, has played an increasingly central role in Hinduism through the medieval period to the present day. As D. Miller argues, it may make more sense to think of medieval and modern Hinduism in terms of a sampradāya or monastic teaching tradition with a guru as its core rather than to conceive of it as sectarian groups classified according to particular deities (Miller, 1976-1977, 527-533). 

The absorptive tendency was also evident in the development of the new form of bkakti or devotional Hinduism. Buddha was absorbed and made one of the avatāras or incarnations of Viṣṇu. The account of this event in the Viṣṇupurāṇa reads as follows:

"When the mighty Vishnu heard their request [the request of the gods to be protected from the Daityas (Asuras) or evil ones], he emitted from his body an illusory form, which he gave to the gods, and thus spake: 'This deceptive vision [Buddha] shall wholly beguile the Daityas, so that, being led astray from the path of the Vedas, they may be put to death; for all gods, demons, or others, who shall be opposed to the authority of the Vedas shall perish by my might, whilst exercised for the preservation of the world. Go then, and fear not; let this delusive vision precede you; it shall this day be of great service to you, oh gods!'" (ViP. 3.17.35-45; trans. Wilson, 1972, 269-270).

The Viṣṇupurāṇa goes on to recount how Viṣṇu, in the form of Buddha, succeeds in seducing all the daityas from their study of the Vedas and their proper social duties by promising them a secret path to liberation and teaching the equal truth of contradictory tenets. When the gods see that the daityas have given up the Vedas, the only true religious armor, a battle begins. The gods gain an easy victory, and the daityas are destroyed. The followers of the Vedas are purified and renewed, and the heresy of Buddhism – having served its divine purpose – perishes within India. Buddha is absorbed into Hindu tradition, but the representation and interpretation of Buddhist believers are certainly not positive. The negative interpretation of these believers may be linked to the persecution of Buddhists. A.L. Basham gives historical examples of this persecution – in the 6th century, for example, the Hun king Mihirakula destroyed Buddhist monasteries and killed monks (Basham, 1959, 265). Until recently, however, Hindu response to other religions has been marked in general by peaceful absorption rather than the harsh opposition characterized in the puranic account above. 

The puranic account of Buddha as avatāra again highlights the key position of the Vedas in Hinduism. Hindus consider the Vedas to be eternal, impersonal (not composed by any person or god), and the most perfect revelation of divine truth. From the Vedas comes all knowledge of dharma (law, especially moral law or duty; righteousness, the inner principle of religion), and without the Vedas, release or liberation (mokṣa) is not possible (Gonda, 1965, 7-8). This raises the question of how Hindus view the scriptures of other religions. In the case of Jainas and Buddhists, this question is not hard to answer. Since both Jainas and Buddhists reject the concept of scriptural revelation and treat the teachings of Mahāvirā and Buddha as examples to be tested out and proven for oneself, it is quite natural for Hindus simply to reject such teachings in relation to the revealed Vedas. 

During the classical period, there is an interesting case of pluralism within Hinduism itself in relation to the Vedas. How are different texts such as the epics and Purāṇas to be related to the Vedas? The Hindu tradition solved the problem by giving such texts the status of secondary revelation – of re-revealing the truth of the Vedas in a form more suited to the increased karma of the age. The epics and Purāṇas add nothing new, but, as in the Bhagavadgītā , they represent the original vedic revelation in simpler forms such as stories and historic events. The overriding principle seems to be that of continuity based on the Vedas, a continuity that runs through changing times and conditions (Gonda, 1965, 10). The way this principle operates in Hinduism is that scholars write commentaries that elucidate teachings inherent in earlier texts so as to establish an unbroken series that reaches backward in time and necessarily ends (or begins) at the Vedas. 

Another perspective on the response to pluralism can be found in the classical Hindu treatment of evil. In her study of evil in Hindu thought, W.D. O’Flaherty notes that early vedic religion largely ignores (rather than denies) the more tragic aspects of life (O’Flaherty, n.d., 375). Dating from a later period, the Upaniṣads pay more attention to the evil and suffering in life. Next, the epics and Purāṇas attempt to integrate the evil in life with the positive goals of the vedic view of life. W.D. O’Flaherty sees this changing approach to evil as having developed in interaction with Buddhism. The vedic approach, with its doctrine of svadharma, assumes that all roles, good and evil, are necessary for the variety that constitutes society as a whole. Although the individual has no choice of roles, society is arranged in such a way that the contribution of each person is important to the total mosaic, and some of these individual roles, as parts of the whole, necessarily involve suffering and evil. W.D. O’Flaherty suggests that Buddhism, the Upaniṣads, and bhakti challenge the above approach by emphasizing individual moral responsibility and an individual spiritual goal (release from karmasaṃsāra) rather than the svadharma of the earlier view. W.D. O'Flaherty writes:

"Under the influence of Buddhism, the Upaniṣads and the bhakti cults, the individual is given a choice of action, freedom from the structures of caste; instead of creating his life from objetstrouvés, he may choose his medium and free himself from karma" (O’Flaherty, n.d., 377).

Of course the choice is not entirely free. In Buddhism the choice is conditioned by past karma, and in bhaktitheory, god is often seen as choosing the worshipper; yet in both of these systems, individuals can consciously change their lives in terms of action. 

The one aspect of Hindu doctrine that W.D. O’Flaherty leaves out of the above analysis is the notion of "stages of life." Part of the distinction made between the vedic and the free-choice approach may be removed to some extent by seeing svadharma as a required duty during the first two stages of life. When the duties of the student and householder stages have been met (and here there seems little room for individual free choice), then in the last two stages, one has individual freedom to pursue spiritual development toward release. It does not yet seem clear whether the idea of the individual freedom of the last two stages comes from Buddhism, is original to Hinduism, or is a shared development. W.D. O’Flaherty is correct in her observation that in the svadharma context, evil is defined as the threat of impurity, defilement, mixing of castes, and so on. She is also right in pointing out that the svadharma notion of wholeness never allows evil (impurity) to become an autonomous principle or to be dispensed with, for it is always regarded as functioning in the service of purity. This classical perspective does seem to contrast with bhakti viewpoints that developed in response to Buddhism and the Buddhist challenge to the caste system. As W.D. O’Flaherty writes:

"The svadharma view of orthodox Hinduism is an ethical system based on the pluralism inherent in the social system of caste (the whole goal is the preservation of social and moral balance); the bhakti philosophies deny the validity of the caste system in favour of a more universalistic and apparently more individualistic ethical system, whose goal is salvation" (O’Flaherty, n.d., 378).

Taken as a whole, Hinduism does not see these different philosophic perspectives as exclusive but rather as different viewpoints on reality. Thus it is possible for Hinduism to imply that evil in human life is necessary and desirable and yet to assume at the same time a universally valid good toward which all humankind should strive. As W.D. O’Flaherty states:

"'Evil' must be accepted, but 'good' must be sought; these views together provide a working solution to the problem of evil, a framework in which mankind as a whole, and each individual, may function in the face of an ultimately insoluble problem" (O’Flaherty, n.d., 379).

True to its fundamental philosophic and religious insight of diversity as the manifestation of unity, Hinduism demonstrates its ability to cope with the problem of evil in relation to good – perhaps the most difficult paradox in life. Analysis of the problem of evil leads the seeker back to the basic and unifying source. As one text says of this quest and source:

"There are many religions – that of the Vedas, Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Pāśupatas, Vaiṣṇavas – and one person chooses this path, another person another path; because of the variety of preferences, favouring a straight path or a winding, you are the goal for men, as the ocean is the goal for all rivers" (O’Flaherty, n.d., 378).

However, the idea that all paths lead to the same goal was present more in theory than practice in classical Hinduism. Debates between rival philosophical schools were very serious affairs, for matters of right or wrong knowledge regarding how to reach liberation were seen to be at stake. In the minds of these philosophers, each school with its different path to liberation was exclusive of the others. You were either right or wrong in your knowledge and interpretation of the Vedas. Debates occurred not only through commentaries but also in public, and, according to tradition, the loser was required to accept the victor’s point of view – to "convert" to the opponent’s path to realization of the divine. 

Hinduism's Encounter with Islam 

Arabs visited India long before the birth of Muḥammad, and small coastal Muslim communities seem to have existed from the 8th century CE. A.L. Basham states that the Māppiḷa (Moplah) community of Malabar descends from people who settled or were converted there before the Muslim invasion of India. But there is no clear evidence of any influence of Islam on Hinduism until after the Muslim conquest (Basham, 1959, 344). It was the second wave of Islamic expansion that brought the first Muslim invaders into India to do battle with Hindu forces. In 711-712 CE, Muslims captured and established rule over Deval, a port near modern Karachi, and Aror, north of Hyderabad (Rizvi, 1975, 245). However, it was not until the 9th and 10th centuries that the full Muslim invasion was launched, and powerful Islamic dynasties obtained control of a large part of India. Sufis, the missionaries ofIslam, soon arrived to take up residence at court, and the encounter with Hinduism began in earnest. On the Islamic side, the immediate effect was an infusion of new life from Hindu mystical religion into the Sufi tradition, which had been experiencing a period of stagnation. There does not seem to have been any comparable immediate effect on the Hindu side. Even though Hindus were given high places in the Islamic bureaucracy, and Hindu scholars were summoned to dialogue with Muslims, Hindus apparently kept their religion apart from Islamic influence. The society seems to have been dominated by a pattern of cultural and religious segregation. 

Like Buddhism and Jainism before it, Islam attacked Hinduism by breaking down caste. Muslims proclaimed, "Before Allah all men were equal; in the sphere of religion there was no privilege of birth" (Carpenter, 1977, 451). This anticaste emphasis did reinforce and provide a point of contact with the Hindu bhakti movements. From the 13th to the 18th century, a long succession of bhakti saints and prophets strove for the purification of Hindu religion. Many of them were converts from Islam to Hinduism (Carpenter, 1977, 452). Another point of mutual reinforcement between bhakti Hindu movements and the Islam of India was the production of vernacular religious literature. One such bhakti poet-prophet was a low-caste Hindu called Nāmdev (c. 1300). The fundamental tenets in Nāmdev’s teaching were the worshipper’s dependence on god and the necessity of personal repentance. An early experience of sin and forgiveness gave Nāmdev great confidence in the universal presence, forgiveness, and love of god. Nāmdev found much in his religious approach that paralleled Islam, including rejection of the futile devotional service to religious idols. Referring to an idol, he asks, "Why bathe it when God was in the multitudinous species of the water; why weave a garland of flowers which the bee had smelled, when God was already in the bee?" (Carpenter, 1977, 455). 

The rejection of caste, the use of the common language, and Nāmdev’s stress on sin, repentance, and the rejection of idolatry lay the groundwork for attempts at drawing together Hinduism and Islam. Two notable attempts demand mention: that made by Kabīr from a basically Hindu perspective and that made by Akbar from a basically Muslim perspective. Like Nāmdev, Kabīr (c. 1500) was another poet and singer of bhakti. Born the son of a Muslim weaver, Kabīr was raised in a Muslim house and was constantly surrounded by Islam (Sen, 1974, 88). The most authoritative record of his teaching is entitled Bijak, which was apparently dictated by Kabīr to a disciple named Bhagvān Dās (Carpenter, 1977, 457). Like Nāmdev, Kabīr shunned outward symbols of religious life including caste, idols, and pilgrimage austerities, and he taught in a common language, Hindi. Kabīr was influenced by teachers of both Hindu and Islamic communities, and he had very close contact with the Sufis (Sen, 1974, 91). He was a tireless critic of empty formalism in either religion. In Kabīr’s view, "The same God is sought after in all religions which differ only in naming Him" (Sen, 1974, 100). This makes all religious quarrels – those between Hindus and Muslims and those among all other religions – futile. Kabīr’s religious prescription is that every person must give up ego and vanity and consider the other as one’s own self. 

Another aspect of Kabīr’s appeal was that he did not believe in ascetic denial, but, rather, that by living a natural life, in a pure manner, one can carry on one’s sādhanā (spiritual discipline leading to release or enlightenment). God and the universe, he says, are within one’s own self (Sen, 1974, 100). And the way to know that god who is within is to repeat god’s name until one "becometh as he" (Carpenter, 1977, 463). Like Islam, Kabīr’s vision sees everywhere the action of a divine revealer using the logos or word as an educative and devotional instrument. J.E. Carpenter writes that Kabīr says, “Listen to the Word, the Truth, which is your essence” (1977, 467). Kabīr’s emphasis upon the word provides a natural bridge between Islam and Hinduism. Both traditions treat the scriptural word as divine, eternal, and powerful. But in terms of language, in terms of his use of a vernacular, Kabīr’s Hinduism is more like Sufism than the orthodox grammarian tradition that used classical Sanskrit. As Kabīr puts it, "Sanskrit is the water of the well, while the spoken languages (bhāṣa) are water of the running stream" (Sen, 1974, 98). Anchoring himself in the Sanskrit tradition, influenced strongly by Islamic Sufism, Kabīr gave a fresh expression to Hinduism in the Hindi tongue of northern India. 

In contrast to Kabīr, Akbar seems to have had little in the way of a lasting encounter with Hinduism. Kabīr was predominantly Hindu; Akbar was basically a Muslim. Akbar’s wives practiced their Hindu rituals unimpeded, and distinguished Hindu scholars instructed the emperor, but apparently neither had a significant impact on Akbar. Hindu scholars, joining in the general adulation of the emperor, found prophecies of his kingship in theManusmṛti and proclaimed him an avatāra (Carpenter, 1974, 504). Akbar attempted to transcend the conflicts and inadequacies of both Islam and Hinduism by creating his own religion, the Din-i-Ilahī or "divine monotheism." Akbar’s religion gained few converts and did not last beyond his death. However, Tulsīdās, a poet of Akbar’s reign, had a very strong effect on the Hinduism of northern India. As a boy, Tulsīdās learned Persian and thus received some influence from Islam. His major contribution to modern Hinduism was to revivify it, in the face of the Islamic challenge, by rewriting Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa in Hindi as the Rāmcaritmānas (Lake of Rama’s Deeds). For all practical purposes, this became and remains the scripture of the majority of Hindus in northern India. 

P.T. Raju (1952, 540) claims that the Muslim invasion’s main legacy to Hinduism was enervation. When Muslims destroyed Buddhist universities and libraries, much orthodox Hindu literature also perished. However, vernacular books held by Hindu scholars tended to be more diffused and better hidden, and thus the simple vernacular bhakti religion became dominant.

Hinduism and the Sikhs 

Nānak (b. 1469), the founder of Sikhism, wrote in Hindi and criticized the caste system and idol worship (Sen, 1974, 102-103). He expounded a system of worship that was a synthesis of Sufism, Vaiṣṇava bhakti, and ideas associated with the Nāth yogīs (McLeod, 1968). The strongest interaction between Sikhism and Hinduism occurred during the period 1708-1849, when the Sikh religion experienced a period of decline. The absorptive power of Hinduism asserted itself in response to the inner weakness of Sikhism. During this period, there was a tendency among Sikhs to abandon their customs and symbols and adopt orthodox Hindu practices. Some Sikhs even proclaimed themselves to be a special variety of Hindu (Barrier, 1970, 19-20). However, during the 19th century, there was a Sikh resurgence, two aspects of which have been the sending out of missionaries and the conversion of Hindus. Within the Punjab itself, Sikh and Punjabi Hindus share a common history of persecution, social patterns, and religious tradition. N.G. Barrier adds that "Arya Samajists with whom educated Sikhs initially identified and co-operated insisted that Sikhs were Hindu" (Barrier, 1970, 39). But a decade after the introduction in 1877 of the Arya Samaj in the Punjab, Sikh cooperation turned to hostility. Quickly the Arya Samaj became identified as the primary enemy of Sikhism. Battles over Sikh–Hindu relations, which have political overtones in the Punjab, continued into the 20th century (Barrier, 1970, 37ff.). 

Nānak, more clearly than Kabīr, did attempt to fuse and transcend both Hindu and Muslim elements in his teachings. But the background of his wisdom seems primarily Hindu. God is at once the formless absolute (nirguṇa ) and the manifested reality ( saguṇa ; Carpenter, 1977, 485). Following Kabīr, he emphasizes the confession of sin and repentance. Humane and vigorous activity is demanded of all. Certainly Hinduism had much influence upon Sikhism. Perhaps the major impact of Sikhism on Hinduism was that it helped to break down the Hindu system of barriers of race and caste.

Hinduism and Christianity 

There is much speculation about the early encounters of Hinduism with Christianity. According to the 4th-century Christian historian Eusebius, Saint Thomas was allotted a mission territory reaching across northwest India as far as the Indus, although no definite trace of Christianity can be found in that region. Catholic tradition, however, continues to connect Thomas with India, and Gregory, the bishop of Tours from 573 to 593 CE, mentions that Thomas’ relics had rested in an elaborate church and monastery in India. Marco Polo (c. 1290) locates this church in Mylapore (now a suburb of Chennai). Little is known of the connections of this church with Saint Thomas, but excavations across the Adyar River from the church turned up a piece of granite adorned with a cross and inscription. A similar cross and inscription have been found in a church at Travancore in Kerala. The Persian language of the inscription suggests the existence in the 7th or 8th century of a Persian, perhaps Nestorian, Christian community in India. During that time, however, there seems to have been little, if any, Christian impact upon Hinduism (Carpenter, 1977, 521ff.). 

It was with the arrival of British and Portuguese traders in India in the 17th century that the way was paved for Christian missionaries from Europe (de Bary, 1969). As early as 1573, Akbar had summoned Jesuit Christians from Goa to appear before him and take part in theological debate, but it was not until the Mughal Empire collapsed and the British took control to protect their trading interests that the Christian missionaries arrived in force. British rulers wanted to govern the Hindus according to Hindu law and religion, and so they established the Asiatic Society of Bengal for the study of Indian philosophy and literature. Christian missionaries also began taking an interest in Hindu thought – mainly to be able to criticize it and gain converts (Raju, 1952, 540). The cumulative effort of these and other activities produced the Hindu Renaissance, which aimed at reforming and rationalizing Indian religion in various ways.

Rammohun Roy (1772-1833) set out to recover from obscurity the ideas of vedic Hinduism, which had become neglected in favor of shallow idol worship. Rammohun Roy was deeply interested in the religious teachings of the Christian missionaries. He read the New Testament and extracted those ethical teachings that he felt were universally consistent with the laws of nature. With the intention of improving the hearts and minds of his fellow Hindus, he translated these extracts into Sanskrit as the Precepts of Jesus. Because he had rejected the divinity of Christ, Rammohun Roy caused an uproar among the Calcutta Christian missionaries. After more than three years of debate with the Christians, Rammohun Roy began to write in "vindication of the Hindu religion against the attacks of Christian missionaries" (de Bary, 1969, 23-26). In public letters, he effectively argued that Hinduism is not inferior to Christianity (as the missionaries were suggesting) but that the mysteries of each religion equally transcend human understanding so that one cannot be preferred to the other (de Bary, 1969, 28). 

Rammohun Roy’s program of incorporating the ethical teachings of Jesus into Hinduism resulted in a campaign against the Hindu practice of satī (widow burning) – a practice that finds no basis in the dharmaśāstra or Hindu law code. In opposing the practice, Rammohun Roy argued against the attitude, prevalent in the Hinduism of his day, that women were "subject to passions," "unworthy of trust," and "lacking in intelligence." He pointed to the ability of women, if given the opportunity, to succeed in education, spiritual discipline, virtue, and so on (de Bary, 1969, 29-32). Rammohun Roy’s views on women exemplify the way in which he "carefully distinguished between English errors, and defended Hinduism against the criticism of missionaries as he challenged the orthodox to abandon its excrescences" (de Bary, 1969, 50). In order to defend Hinduism against Christian charges that it was a pagan and idolatrous religion, Rammohun Roy and his colleagues set out to reform it. The Brahmo Samaj was formed for this purpose. Its goal was to "purify Hinduism and immunize it against the Christian ideas and practices" (de Bary, 1969, 51). This strategy, initiated by Rammohun Roy, was passed to Keshub Chandra Sen and then to Dayananda Saraswati. 

Keshub Chandra Sen (1838-1884) was willing to go much further than Rammohun Roy in appropriating Christianity. Indeed, in the last years of his life, he did something reminiscent of Akbar – he experimented in synthesizing elements from the major world religions. W.T. de Bary (1969, 64) writes, "Although he borrowed devotional and yogic practices from Hinduism, he drew even more heavily on Christian teachings and practices." Keshub Chandra Sen went to such extremes that he was virtually excommunicated from Hinduism, and his conversion to Christianity seemed imminent for years. Whereas Rammohun Roy had accepted only the ethical teachings of Jesus, Keshub Chandra Sen embraced Christ as the fulfillment of Hinduism’s devotional strivings. He propounded that Christ, the apostles, and the gospel were Asiatic in nature and concluded that "in Christ, Europe and Asia, the East and the West, may learn to find harmony and unity" (de Bary, 1969, 64-69). Furthermore, Keshub Chandra Sen thought that Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam could coalesce. He thought that the resulting new religion would both sustain India and lead to a worldwide spiritual community. The Hindu religious genius, in continuity with the Old and New Testament revelations, would, he felt, be able to reconcile all conflicting religions:

"How the Hindu absorbs the Christian; how the Christian assimilates the Hindu! Cultivate this communion, my brethren, and continually absorb all that is good and noble in each other. Do not hate, do not exclude others, as the sectarians do, but include and absorb all humanity and all truth" (de Bary, 1969, 75).

While Keshub Chandra Sen was preaching the one extreme of a Christian/Hindu/Islamic universal religion in Bengal, an opposing viewpoint was being taught by a stern ascetic Hindu in northern India. Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883) was also an ardent reformer, but he wanted to root out all non-vedic influences upon Hinduism: "Standing foursquare on the authority of the Vedas, he fearlessly denounced the evils of post-Vedic Hinduism" (de Bary, 1969, 76). Early in life, Dayananda Saraswati learned Sanskrit, and at age fourteen, revolted by the idol worship around him, he ran away from home and became a saṃnyāsī. He was taught complete reverence for the Vedas and disdain for all later texts. He devoted his life to lecturing on the exclusive authority of the Vedas. 

Dayananda Saraswati’s approach was to debate with those he disagreed with. Hindus were attacked for their practices that, Dayananda Saraswati argued, could not be supported from the Vedas: for instance, idol worship,untouchability, arranged marriages, the subjugation of women, and the restriction of the study of the Vedas to Brahmans. Caste, he said, should be decided functionally in accordance with one’s merits. His followers are called the Arya Samaj, a group that became especially strong in the Punjab and now, with the emigrations from India to many countries, has spread around the world. 

Dayananda Saraswati’s approach to other religions and other groups within Hinduism was aggressive and militant. This marked a considerable change from the traditional Hindu attitudes of passive tolerance for all other beliefs. Dayananda Saraswati’s approach to Christianity was to engage a minister in debate and to demonstrate the logical inconsistencies of Christian belief (De Bary, 1969, 79-81). Dayananda Saraswati devoted careful attention to Islam, reading the Qurʾān in translation and formulating his objections to each passage. The conclusion of his study was that "God was presented in the Qur’ān as a being whose qualities were unworthy of human worship" (Thursby, 1975, 13). Islam, he argued, lacks a valid basis, whereas the Veda was the firm foundation for true religion. 

One branch of Dayananda Saraswati’s followers, under the leadership of Pandit Lekh Ram, devoted their energies to open conflict with Islam. Their goal was to obtain Hindu converts. A system of specially educated paid preachers (updeśaks) was established for the purpose of proselytism (Thursby, 1975, 14). Dayananda Saraswati’s militant response to other religions, especially Islam, has helped to fan the hostility between Muslims and Hindus and has also been a contributing factor in the development of Hindu nationalism (de Bary, 1969, 77). Apparent adoption of some Christian practices is evident in the move of the Arya Samaj away from the traditional Hindu tolerance of other religions to the Shuddhi Movement, a conversion movement of the 1920s (Thursby, 1975, 34-73). This led to the outbreak of Hindu–Muslim communal riots, which continue to recur in northern India. 

If Dayananda Saraswati attempted to relate to Christianity by taking over its fundamentalist and missionary thrust, S. Radhakrishnan made the opposite move of seeking out the universalist aspects of Christianity that would be contiguous with the vedantic teachings of Hinduism. 

S. Radhakrishnan represents the response of orthodox Hinduism to the challenge of Christianity and the modern West. He argues that Hinduism and the Vedas are still the ultimate truth of religion, but a truth that can be universally accepted by all. He has been described as a "liaison officer" between India and the West (Raju, 1952, 54-56). Certainly his appointment to the Spalding Chair of Eastern Religions and Ethics at Oxford and his lectures there in 1936-1938 have made a considerable contribution to the West’s understanding of Hinduism (Radhakrishnan, 1939). Perhaps because of his time at Oxford, S. Radhakrishnan is very aware of the challenges of modern religious pluralism. As he states, "Neither a contented fatalism nor religious expectancy nor reversions to the past can give meaning to a world which is in search of its soul" (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 18). The foundations of the past no longer seem secure; everything is changing. This should not depress us. Great periods of human history have been marked by doubts and the infusion of foreign influences, including influences from other religions. Consequently, suggests S. Radhakrishnan, perhaps the difficulties of the modern West, which was influenced by Christianity, can be helped by the infusion of some wisdom from the East. In particular it is the Indian rational approach and emphasis on individual experience – rather than belief in an objectified deity – that is especially suited to the needs of modern-day religion (Radhakrishnana, 1939, 20-21). He states, "Religion is not so much a revelation to be attained by us in faith as an effort to unveil the deepest layers of man’s being and get into enduring contact with them" (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 21). 

With this vedantic conception of religion as a basis, S. Radhakrishnan presents an approach that he feels can be acceptable to Christians, Buddhists, and all other traditions. In many of his lectures given after 1938, he sought to demonstrate this approach, particularly with regard to Christianity. 

In S. Radhakrishnan’s view, the different religions must develop the spirit of mutual comprehension that characterized Hinduism even in its earliest age. In the Ṛgveda, there is evidence of conflict among many groups, Aryan, Dravidian, and aboriginal, but there is also a resolution that absorbed aspects of each. This resolution and acceptance of other cults are explained as follows: "The real is one, the learned call it by various names, Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan" (ṚV. 1.164.46). The Upaniṣads give further development of the same view. Brahman is one; the different deities are merely manifestations of the various aspects of brahman (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 308). S. Radhakrishnan ascribes the same attributes of the one and the many to Buddha. Buddha is one who has the vision of the whole, whereas members of the various religions are each attached to their own partial views. Within Hinduism this attitude is given explicit statement in the Bhagavadgītā: the divine accepts those coming toward divinity in the paths of the different religions, and in his supreme vision, Arjuna sees the different deities within the boundless form of the divine (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 310). Hinduism, says S. Radhakrishnan, has practiced what it has preached. Christians, Jews, Parsis, and Muslims have all lived in Hindu India for hundreds of years in an atmosphere of tolerance and religious freedom. Occasional outbursts of Hindu militancy and intolerance are, as interpreted by S. Radhakrishnan, imitations of Islam and Christianity provoked by those very religions (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 312). Because of its tolerant attitude, Hinduism itself has become a mosaic of almost all the types and states of religious aspiration and endeavor:

"It has adapted itself with infinite grace to every human need and it has not shrunk from the acceptance of every aspect of God conceived by man, and yet it has preserved its unity by interpreting the different historical forms as modes, emanations, or aspects of the Supreme" (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 313).

S. Radhakrishnan’s claim is that no other religion, with the exception of Buddhism, which he aggregates with Hinduism, has this genius for religious diversity and unity, making it the prototypal answer for the modern challenge of religious pluralism. The attitude of the cultivated Hindu to other forms of religion is one of sympathy and respect. 

The reason that Hinduism can be so tolerant of other religions is that it assumes religion is a matter of personal realization. "Creeds and dogmas, words and symbols have only instrumental value…The name by which we call God and the rite by which we approach Him do not matter much" (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 316-317). According to S. Radhakrishnan, this Hindu approach receives confirmation from the experience of mystics of all traditions. He also appeals to Christian scripture for support. He quotes the statement of Jesus, "He that doeth the will of God, the same is my brother and my sister and my mother." The roots of Christian exclusiveness he ties to the inherited Semitic creed of the "jealous God," which Christians have translated into "Christ as the only begotten son of God" (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 324). For the Hindu, Christ can be accepted as an avatāra or incarnation but not as the only incarnation. Christ, Kṛṣṇa, Buddha, and others must all be seen as equally valid incarnations of god. In S. Radhakrishnan’s view, the validity of each religion is found in its instrumental value. It is valid to the degree that it allows its followers to achieve realization. 

In line with classical Hinduism, S. Radhakrishnan views the different religions as various historical formulations of the one formless truth. Every historical tradition is to be valued in its own right because of its ability to engage a particular racial/cultural group with the divine. Christianity is suited well to the European, for whom another tradition such as Hinduism or Buddhism is not at all appropriate. "Religion is like the string of a violin: if removed from its resonant body, it will give the wrong tone, if any" (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 328). The solution to the problem of religious pluralism is not to collapse or disregard individual religious traditions but rather to affirm and respect the faith of others. Traditions are societies’ memories of their own paths and the instrumental means for release. Removing individuals from traditional roots leaves them abstracted and lost. The Bhagavadgītā, says S. Radhakrishnan, has a clear understanding of this dynamic and warns against taking away the psychological comfort of people by unsettling their faith (BhG. 3.26). 

S. Radhakrishnan observed the problem that just as faith in one’s nation seems to kill faith in humankind, so also "faith in one religion seems to kill faith in others." The common tendency is to attempt to impose one’s own faith on others. But this only robs religion of the richness of the diversity of the various paths to god. Hinduism recognizes this truth. The route taken by the Hindu sage, for example, may be too straight and steep for the majority of Hindus; therefore there is a need for a variety of paths to the same goal. Religious liberty is required to allow individuals to choose freely the path suited to their nature and cultural background. Hinduism also recognizes the close relationship between each religion and its own culture. Religions and cultures can grow. They reform and develop themselves by interpretation and adjustment to one another. "The Hindu attitude," says S. Radhakrishnan, "is one of positive fellowship, not negative tolerance" (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 335). The spiritual attitude is one of constant striving toward higher perfection and truth. The Hindu contribution to the modern challenge of religious pluralism is to encourage the inquiring spirit and devotion to truth that is larger than any individual tradition. Thus, "[r]eligious life becomes a cooperative enterprise binding together different traditions and perspectives to the end of obtaining clearer vision of the perfect reality" (Radhakrishnan, 1939, 338). 

In looking back over the result of the Hindu encounter with Christianity, it seems evident that Rammohun Roy’s hope has been fulfilled. Through its various reactions to Christianity in the past two centuries, Hinduism has revived and reformed itself. And now its philosophy, as expressed by S. Radhakrishnan, is presenting itself to the other traditions as guru – as a guide to the future. 

In recent years, Hindu scholars have followed S. Radhakrishnan’s lead and become actively involved in interfaith dialogue with Christian churches. A. Rambachan, a Hindu scholar, participates in World Council of Churches’ consultations on interfaith relations. He rephrases the Hindu view in even more inclusive words than those of S. Radhakrishnan while at the same time more explicitly acknowledging the real differences that exist. A. Rambachan says:

"I am aware of the fact that my own tradition, in its worthwhile enthusiasm to affirm and give importance to the unifying elements in the world’s religions, is often guilty of overlooking and underplaying the significance of differences" (Rambachan, 1999, 38).

A. Rambachan restates the Hindu position, in relation to other religions, as follows. From a Hindu standpoint, god is seen as our god. But, while we recognize that our god can be called by various names (in the different religions), for our own devotional purposes, we choose one divine name and form as the center of our lives. This is partly due to the limitations of language (no single word or name can fully define god) and to our finite limitations as humans. Due to these limitations, each of us has the right to select the name and form, the iṣṭadevatā or god of one’s own choice, "along with the recognition that others have chosen differently and that the divine may be celebrated and honored under many names and forms" (Rambachan, 1999, 39). 

This does not mean that religious differences are merely semantic or that all paths are equally capable of leading to the divine. A. Rambachan notes that although Hinduism recognizes one divine or absolute as the source and destiny of all beings, Hinduism does not naively assume that all religions are equally true to that divine. He cites Mohandas Gandhi as a good example of Hinduism in this regard: "Gandhi creatively balanced an openness to the insights of the world’s religions with sharp questioning of the content of particular traditions" (Rambachan, 1999, 40). Religion without morality was not valid for Gandhi, and the virtues of truth and compassion were equally essential. In Gandhi’s view, no single religion could fully contain god, and all religions reflected the limitations of the human condition. The principal limitation of Hinduism, for Gandhi, was its tolerance of untouchability. A 19th-century Hindu who manifested openness to other religions was Ramakrishna. But, like Gandhi, Ramakrishna was critical of all religions including Hinduism. For Ramakrishna, "a religious way led to God only if there was sincere and earnest longing for God as the ultimate value, the renunciation of materialism and compassion for all. Some paths to God were preferable to others" (Rambachan, 1999, 40). 

It is worth noting that for both Ghandi and Ramakrishna, the criteria for assessing the validity of religions included a stress on morality and compassion. Hinduism thus not only allows that there are many paths to god, but also provides normative tests for the different degrees of spiritual realization that the various religions, including Hinduism, achieve. So, concludes A. Rambachan, "while the Hindu tradition clearly recognizes God to be our God, it does not legitimize everything that transpires in the name of religion" (Rambachan, 1999, 40). 

Hinduism and Secular India 

Aside from the inspiring philosophizing of S. Radhakrishnan and A. Rambachan, another perspective in the Hindu response to religious pluralism can be understood by studying the constitution of India. As R. Baird notes, the constitution not only contains provisions relating to religion in modern pluralistic India but is itself a religious document (Baird, 1976, 47). In contrast to the Manusmṛti, the constitution ignores the doctrines of karma andsaṃsāra and restricts itself to concerns relating to this life. In contrast to the class system assumed by Manu, the constitutional religious model adopts the principle of the equality of all (Baird, 1976, 48). The constitution also defines religious liberty in such a way that it will not infringe upon the principle of equality. Religious freedom is subject to dictates created in response to concerns for public order, morality, and health. It cannot stand in the way of social reform (Baird, 1976, 50). In order to distinguish between areas of religious freedom and religious restriction, the distinction between the sacred and secular is introduced (see secularism). It is the duty of the secular realm to ensure equality. In the religious realm, the freedom of each tradition to follow its own beliefs is guaranteed. The task of distinguishing between these two realms is given to the supreme court of India. The supreme court rejects the definition of "religion" accepted by the United States supreme court; Buddhism and Jainism are not religions according to the United States supreme court’s definition (Baird, 1976, 52). The practice adopted by the Indian supreme court requires first a definition of the tenets of the religion in question and then a judgment as to whether the matter at issue is secular or religious. If the matter is judged religious, then the tenets of the tradition, as defined by the court, are the criteria against which the judgment is made. Although this legal approach does allow for religious pluralism, justice depends on the ability of the court to understand and apply the tenets of all religious traditions. It also tends to reify each religious tradition into a set of established tenets – something that conflicts with S. Radhakrishnan’s understanding of the need for change and adaptability in modern religion. 

It is worth noting that Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, who drafted the Constitution of India, has in his own life posed a serious challenge to modern Hinduism. Because he was born an untouchable, he worked under the assumption that much of the injustice in India was the fault of the Hindu tradition. In Ambedkar’s view, Hinduism is beyond reform (Coward, 2003). He dismissed Gandhi’s attempts to deal with the problem of untouchability as mysticism and mere name changing. To get himself and the untouchables (Dalits) a new identity and religious freedom, he felt it necessary to leave Hinduism and adopt the casteless religion of Buddhism. As a result, some three million followers are said to have left Hinduism in the span of ten years (1951-1961; Gokhale, 1976, 21-22). The fact that three million Hindus can suddenly become Buddhists seems, on the one hand, to be a living demonstration of the long-claimed tolerance of Hinduism and of the religious freedom guaranteed in Ambedkar’s constitution. On the other hand, this poses a modern challenge to Hinduism to adapt and develop in the way S. Radhakrishnan envisaged. The practice of untouchability has changed radically. The influence of caste on marriage and employment is also showing signs of change, but such a deeply ingrained notion cannot be legislated out of Hindu consciousness quickly. 

There is a fundamental conflict between the presuppositions of the constitution and those of Hinduism. The constitution proposes that all persons be treated as equals – suggesting some kind of tabula rasa view of human nature. Hinduism, in contrast, understands the nature of each person to be different and to be the natural result of the individual’s own action in this and previous lives. It is the cumulative traces (karma) of such past actions that compose the nature of the individual before the realization of mokṣa or release. This understanding of karma saṃsāra underlies the notion and practice of caste and is a fundamental aspect of Hindu psychology. There seems no obvious way to resolve this head-on clash between the tenets of Hinduism and the theory of human nature assumed in the constitution. Since the constitution is now the law of India, the home of Hinduism, this challenge from within cannot be avoided and may well be the testing ground for the Hinduism of the future (Coward, 1993). 

The constitution’s concern for religious freedom and its distinction between the sacred and the secular are being currently challenged by the upsurge of Hindu nationalism in politics (Embree, 1992; McKean, 1996) and events such as the 1994 destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya by Hindus along with the targeting of Christians for their conversion practices. In his Hindutva, originally written in 1922, V.D. Savarkar defined the principles of Hindu nationalism. For V.D. Savarkar Hindus are those inhabitants of India who consider it both their holy land and the land of their ancestors. In his view, only Hindus are the true children of India. They are entitled by birthright to rule India, simply because they constitute the overwhelming majority in India, their own fatherland and holy land. As president of the Hindu Mahasabha from 1937 to 1944, V.D. Savarkar traveled and spoke throughout India applying the principles of hindutva to various political issues. This activity roused support for Hindu nationalism, especially from upper-caste Hindu political leaders, and led to the denunciation of Muslims as antinational. In the last decade of the 20th century, this anti-Muslim approach by Hindu nationalists spread to include Christians, especially in their missionary conversion activities. Anti-Christian sentiments became especially vocal during 1999 in the lead-up to the visit to India in November of Pope John Paul II. The hindutva principle that India is the holy land of Hindus and thus should be ruled by Hindu nationalists suggests that the hostility that has so far been directed toward Muslims and Christians may well spread to other religions in India. hindutva principles underpin popular present-day support for movements such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bharatiya Janata Party (McKean, 1996, 71ff.). Mohandas Gandhi’s Hinduism (and that of scholars like S. Radhakrishnan) with its support for open religious pluralism in India is under considerable siege as the 21st century begins. The same can be said for the secular principles of religious freedom and equality for all, which Nehru wrote into the constitution of India. Thus, the much-vaunted pluralism of Hinduism may be seriously undermined if V.D. Savarkar’s ideology of hindutva grows in strength and influence. 

C.K. Mahmood (1994) has provided a helpful anthropological analysis of the roots of the Hindu nationalist movement. C.K. Mahmood offers convincing evidence that the Hindu nationalist movement has a longstanding core that has always dominated Indian society. Hindutva, therefore, should not be seen as a modern political movement without historical or cultural roots. Premodern India, when seen in terms of its community boundaries between the pure (ārya or higher-caste Sanskrit speakers) and the impure ( mleccha , noncaste or low-caste, tribal, and heterodox groups) or between Brahmans (followers of Vedas) and Śramaṇas (followers of nonvedic religions, e.g. Jainas and Buddhists), was not a land of open, tolerant religious pluralism. The us/them ethic and religious boundaries have functioned at the community level at least since the advent of Jainism and Buddhism (c. 600 CE) to consolidate a core Hindu identity that, in C.K. Mahmood’s view, has always dominated Indian society (Mahmood, 1994, 75). The strategy of the Hindu core, says C.K. Mahmood, when faced with the Jaina/Buddhist challenges (e.g. rejection of Veda and caste divisions), was a refusal even to recognize differences and subsequently absorb or incorporate all competitors. So, when faced with more recent Sikh demands that Sikhism be recognized as a different religion, many Hindus continued to view Sikhism as simply a part of the Hindu tradition, with all of the caste and purity restrictions still applying. A hill tribe that follows animistic traditions is viewed by the caste communities on the plains of Bihar as Hindu – in spite of the fact that there is nothing Hindu about their practice or belief and that they clearly fall into the impure (mleccha) group. Hindus, says C.K. Mahmood, think they are being tolerant in their benevolent inclusion of others: the Buddha as an avatāra of Viṣṇu, the Sikhs as a caste of Hindus, the tribals as one’s fellow travelers, and so on. From this inclusive perspective, which is adopted by hindutva, what is wrong with talking about the Hindu nation? But from outside – from a Muslim, Buddhist, or Sikh perspective – such an assertion of Hindu nationalism seems to equate any real religious separateness with virtual treason (Mahmood, 1994, 75). This mistaken notion of Hindu tolerance, as A. Embree puts it, is based on the idea that various cultural/religious identities can be encapsulated within Hindu society only if everyone agrees to the premises (those of Hinduism) on which such encapsulation is based (Embree, 1992). However, a pluralism whose terms privilege one religious community above others does not work – as events in India today demonstrate. Such an approach is criticized by the contemporary Hindu philosopher A. Rambachan (discussed above), who insists on an honest recognition of real differences as essential to both pluralism and the deeper teachings of Hinduism. Nor do the foundational ideas of the Indian constitution support the narrow Hindu nationalism that V.D. Savarkar’s hindutva ideology has produced. 

Constitution 

Throughout its long history, Hinduism’s attitude toward other religions has remained constant. There is one divine reality that manifests itself in many forms. The various religions are simply different revelations of the one divine reality. In this recognition of other religions as being different revelations of the one and as providing different paths by which devotees may attain release from karmasaṃsāra, Hinduism sees itself as being a very open and tolerant religion. But because it asserts that the Vedas are the most perfect revelation of divine truth, Hinduism also sees itself as providing the criteria against which the revelations of all other religions must be tested. Thus Hindu tolerance of other religions is directly proportionate to their congruence with the Vedas. There is no doubt that for the Hindu there is only one divine, as revealed by the Hindu scriptures, and that any other revelation (e.g. the Torah, New Testament, or Qurʾān) is seen as a secondary manifestation to be verified against the Hindu revelation. Once one steps back from Hindu metaphysics, Hinduism no longer appears so open and tolerant in its view of other religions. The Hindu approach to other religions is to absolutize the relativism implied in the viewpoint that the various religions are simply different manifestations of the one divine. The Hindu refusal to recognize claims to exclusive truth (e.g. Christianity or Buddhism) that differ from the revelation of the Veda indicates the limited nature of Hindu tolerance. In this, of course, Hindus are no different from those of other religions who believe they have the true revelation and seek to impose their truth upon others. S. Radhakrishnan has been a most effective modern representative of this kind of "Hindu tolerance." S. Radhakrishnan’s tolerance has always exclusively affirmed his own position and has protected him from the challenge of other positions (Minor, 1987, 137-138). Nevertheless, the Hindu view that there is one divine, which may be reached by many paths, has proven throughout the centuries to be a powerful influence upon Hinduism’s interaction with the other religions. Contemporary Hindu thinkers such as A. Rambachan seek to give more recognition to real differences that exist between traditions, while retaining the Hindu stress on an underlying unity of all. But the ideas ofhindutva, and the Hindu nationalist movements it has produced, are severely testing the traditional Hindu claim of tolerance toward others.