• Swami Dayananda's purpose behind refutation and critique (khaṇḍana-maṇḍana) •
------------------------------------
Swami Dayananda's personality, character, and thoughts have not yet been properly understood. Because he strongly refuted false beliefs like mūrtipūjā (idol worship), many people think of him as narrow-minded, intolerant, and as someone who hated other sects. But the truth is: whatever he saw as asatya (false), adharma (unrighteous), or unjust — he never hesitated to strongly oppose it.
However, his harsh words were always aimed only at those practices or ideas that were harmful to humanity, that destroyed unity, or led people toward downfall. It is unfortunate that the factual (truth-filled) and straightforward language used by Dayananda for khaṇḍana (refutation) and maṇḍana (critical examination) is often misunderstood, and people wrongly label him as rude or overly critical. So, it's necessary to explain — in his own words — why he chose to refute such beliefs.
In the preface (bhūmikā) of his famous book Satyārth Prakāśa, and in the sub-preface (anubhūmikā) at the beginning of each chapter in its second half, Dayananda clearly stated that his main aim was to reveal the satyārtha — the true meaning. That is:
“Whatever is true in all doctrines, because it is not in contradiction with others, I accept. And whatever is false in them, I have refuted.”
In reality, Dayananda believed that dharma (true religion) is only one — the one which is based on the true nature of things and therefore cannot ignored. So, true dharma can never be refuted. Dayananda only opposed the blind beliefs and false concepts — those which went against logic, reasoning, and science — that were responsible for hatred and division among followers of different sects.
Therefore, calling Dayananda intolerant towards other religions is completely unfair. He made it clear that he never judged any religion or sect hastily and out of any prejudice. He would carefully study both the strengths and weaknesses of a belief system before forming any opinion. His purpose in exposing the flaws in various sects was to help people recognize truth from falsehood — so that they gain the ability to accept what is right and reject what is wrong. He has expressed this same idea in other places as well.
In understanding the approach of Dayananda behind the khaṇḍana-maṇḍana (refutation and critical analysis), it is worth recalling the views of Dr. Raghuvansh. He wrote:
“Swami Dayananda accepted that there is only one true dharma — and in his view, only that dharma is valid which can help sustain the creative process of noble human values. Later harmonizers and internationalists tried to present Dayananda as a rigid critic and destructive reformer. But the reality is that no one was as broad-minded and humanitarian as he was.”
Some Christians and Muslims also had complaints against Dayananda, simply because they failed to understand the spirit behind his critiques. They didn’t realize that his strongest opposition was toward the paṇḍits, pūjārīs, mahants, and maṭhādhīshas who were doing religious business in the name of God. When Dayananda criticized Islam and Christianity, it wasn’t because they originated in foreign lands or came from Semitic ideas. His main target was the asatya (falsehoods), andhaviśvāsa (superstitions), and fixed prejudices found within these religions.
Dayananda also understood another important thing: that many preachers of Islam and Christianity used the outdated customs, blind beliefs, and foolish rituals of Hinduism as a tool to convince backward or uneducated people to convert. He used to say — how can those who live in glass houses throw stones at others?
Keeping this fact in mind, he offered thoughtful critiques of Christianity and Islam — almost as if warning them that their own religions were not much different from Hinduism in terms of flaws. Wise and open-minded individuals — whether Christian or Muslim — always admired Dayananda’s perspective. Leaders like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (pioneer of Muslim reform in India), Munshi Murad Ali (editor of Rajputana Gazette, Ajmer), and Christian thinkers like Dr. Scott from Bareilly — all felt proud to call themselves Dayananda’s friends, admirers, or even devotees.
Of course, it’s a different matter that over time, certain political and social conditions developed in India that made it difficult for the Arya Samaj founded by Dayananda to maintain very friendly relations with Christians and Muslims. But that issue is not relevant to our discussion here.
[Source: Hindi biography "Navajāgaraṇa ke purodhā" Dayanand Saraswati" (The pioneer of the renaissance), pp. 564-5, 1st edition 1983, Translated & Presented by: Bhavesh Merja].
•••
No comments:
Post a Comment