Permissiveness In Hinduism

Religion has been a powerful force throughout history, especially with its ability to transcend political and cultural boundaries. The question of what enables a religion to permeate these boundaries is one of great importance. It is important to discern what causes Hinduism to remain a religion of those from India, while allowing Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism, to gain traction across many nationalities. Because both of the religions stem from such different areas, it is important to first find similar elements that may attribute to their appeal, or lack thereof. At first, these two religions seem to bear few commonalities, as one is a polytheistic religion while the other monotheistic. However, one of the most important similarities
between these religions is in their concept of grace. This paper will assess the definition of grace, the theories on what leads to the spread of religions and the conflicting ideas of grace in these religions. Both Hindu and Catholic traditions present the idea of grace as a way of understanding the relationship between God−gods in the Hindu tradition−and humankind. That being said, the idea of grace in Catholicism leads to an emphasis on equality allowing the religion to spread more freely than Hinduism. To fully understand where the distinction in the concepts of grace lies, one must first understand what the overarching concept of grace is. Grace, in a religious context, takes on both of its archaic definitions to mean both “approval or favour” and “mercy or pardon” (“Grace”). The ideas of approval and pardon have deep implications on the spread of religions. This concept can be referred to as the appeal. Grace appeals to individuals as it provides solace and peace in a world that has an insatiable thirst for approval. It is also important as it provides leeway for redemption after one fails to maintain the desired level of morality as the religion dictates. It can be argued that grace is the essence in which the spread of religion can be facilitated. Grace provides an appeal to those who find religious tradition to be a constraint. This definition has implications on both traditions as they differ on whom grace is bestowed on and how−or if−grace can be fully achieved. There are many theories regarding to what facilitates the spread of religion but the most appealing attributes of a religious belief are its permissiveness and level of social inclusion. Robert Montgomery theorizes that “the quality of intersocietal and intergroup relationships, rather than simply internal cultural characteristics, is crucial to determining the course followed by various societies in responding to religions introduced from the outside” (Robert Montgomery 51). What he means it that a religion’s ability to not only transcend cultural boundaries, but to act as a unifying factor, is essential to its success within a region. The historical spread of religion proves that “when groups are dominated by or alienated from majority societies, outside religions may be especially attractive as ‘oppositional ideologies’” (52). A religions ability to include those in the lower reaches of society serves to facilitate a greater spread as more people tend to be of lower classes. Social inclusion can be associated with the idea of grace as it promotes the idea of unwarranted approval and pardon to those who have failed to gain merit within their societies. Therefore, grace allows a religious belief to transcend cultural boundaries and social boundaries by promoting acceptance, at least by a divine god. Permissiveness is also a force that influences the spread of religion.
The permissiveness of a religion is its ability to allow members of the religion to maintain a certain sense of individuality and do as they please to a certain degree. As a religion grows to accommodate more unorthodox behaviour and regard them as acceptable, more and more people can begin to join the tradition and thus facilitating the spread. This assertion can be evidenced in the growing number of people who associate themselves with a form of Christianity, but also a more permissive and secular form of the religion. There has been a revival of some sorts, but one has to keep in mind that “‘revival’ [is defined] as an increase in weekly rates of church attendance, then the claim of a 1950s religious revival would probably be correct. However, when [one] casts [his] net widely and look[s] broadly at kinds of behaviour that go beyond mere church attendance, the picture that emerges is one of diminishing religious force” (Alan Petigny 416). Regardless of whether or not the religion has been diminished in terms of preservation of traditional practices, there has been an increase in the number of people practicing it; therefore, one can conclude that the religion has seen success in its spread. The increase in permissiveness can be directly link to an idea of grace that is free and unmerited; actions do not contribute towards whether or not one is to receive
grace. Hinduism and Catholicism accept grace as a free and divine gift. In the Hindu tradition, grace is “a divine favor freely bestowed on man without regard for his merits or demerits” (Mark Hanshaw 19). This definition can be compared to that of Catholicism “for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith−and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God−not by works, so that no one can boast” (New International Version, Eph. 2.8-9). Regardless of the differences within these two religions on whether orthodoxy or orthopraxy should be the dominant principle, they agree on the fact that the divine is essential to achieving grace. It is only “by grace, […] it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (Rom. 11.6). Grace, therefore, cannot be bought, sold or earned; it can only be given as a gift. Both traditions agree upon the fact that “no individual is capable of earning this dispensation from God. It comes in the nature of a gift” (Hanshaw 19). In this matter, there is no conflict; divine giving of the gift of acceptance is a characteristic of grace in both Christian and Hindu theology. This characterization of grace is an important factor in understanding how it translates to the spread of religious traditions. One is more likely to accept a tradition that understands the limitations of man and offers pardon freely. Grace according to both traditions is a characteristic of the divine. For Hindus grace presents itself as an “indwelling of God in the human heart” (Hanshaw 19). Furthermore, The Bhavagad Gita characterizes such grace that is divine “by [Krishna’s] grace realization can be restored” (Gita 18.78). Not only is grace freely given, but it is a divine element that can only be imparted by a god. Catholics also hold this to be true. The idea of grace in the bible frequently appears in relation to God as “God’s grace” (Acts 5.11, Tit. 2.11, Jm 4.6). Its appearance as a genitive signifies the divinity of this concept. This is a key element to consider when one looks at the social inclusivity of a religion. Grace is an aspect of the doctrine that is championed by the head of the religion and therefore cannot be perverted. This is especially important as both these traditions emphasize having a devotion to a personal god. Therefore, grace as an essence of the divine allows those who maintain a personal relationship with God to benefit from it. Grace also acts as a way to absolve one from sin. Redemption is then possible after sin through the grace of the divine. This quality is an attractive one as it allows humans to either restore their karma−the Hindu concept of action based reincarnation−or the escape damnation, enforcing the religion’s permissiveness. In essence, a god who “through grace […] helps individuals overcome sin and the resulting retribution” is much more appealing than one who leaves the task of achieving purity to incapable humans, then punishes them for failing (Hanshaw 18). On the other hand, Christians and Hindus have distinct differences when discussing their idea of grace. These differences are mainly found in the imparting of grace. While Catholics stress the fact that human effort, “neither knowledge, nor morality, nor religion”, can help us achieve grace ( . Conversely, “for Rāmānuja,[respected eleventh century Hindu theologian], while grace is free and unmerited, efforts of the individual still play a relevant role in relation to the bestowal of grace ”, giving “moral and religious duties” the ability to further illicit grace (Hanshaw 20). The conflict of ideas is encompassed in those two passages. Where Catholic tradition rejects the idea that morality can aid one in their quest for grace, Hindu tradition accepts the idea that actions have a bearing on one’s grace. This assertion has serious implications on the inclusivity of Hinduism as it gives preference to those who act in It is important to consider “the thought of an immanent grace [because] the resurrection of Jesus puts [asserts this] grace, given the fact that the Messiah has already come and actually accomplished our redemption” (Urbaink 467). The most important contention is the idea of whom receives grace. What makes the Catholic version of grace so popular is its ability to allow for an inclusive society and in that way, it promotes lay life. Unlike Hinduism, grace in Christian traditions emphasizes all. (Allowance for a wordly life) Why is lay life important?
Being a Catholic “does not mean being religious in a certain way ... rather, it means being a human being.” (Urbaink 464)
As Christ was wholly the world’s, so the Christian should be wholly Christ’s and simultaneously stand in the world; worldly existence and Christian existence are to be fully integrated (Urbaink 465) Conclusion