An investigation into Hinduism as a Complex, Adaptive System
Sanatan Dharma or Hinduism has long suffered
from a very basic problem – the difficulty of defining it. One can describe a
particular sect, or philosophy, but it is not easy to explain the whole. Thus,
it is not uncommon for people to ultimately fall back on saying that it is a
“way of life”. Unfortunately, such a definition is neither a meaningful
description nor of analytical value. If anything, it causes a great deal of
confusion by suggesting that Hindu religion is identical to Indic culture – the
two are obviously linked but not exactly the same. The purpose of this article
is to investigate the systemic logic of Sanatan
Dharma as a whole and
the process by with it evolves. It is not concerned here with the philosophical
content or daily practice of any of the constituent sects, traditions and
philosophies.
Most world religions, particularly those of Abrahamic origin, are based
on a clearly defined set of beliefs – a single god, a holy book, a prophet and
so on. These are articles of faith or axioms from which each of these religions
is derived. This why the terms religion, belief and faith can be used
interchangeably in these cases. In contrast, it is perfectly acceptable in
Hinduism to be a polytheist, monotheist, monist, pantheist, agnostic, atheist,
animist or any combination thereof. Thus Hinduism is a religion but not a
faith, although constituent sects or philosophies can be termed faiths or
beliefs. Instead, it should be thought of as an organic, evolving ecosystem of
interrelated and interdependent elements that are constantly interacting with
each other (and with the outside world).
There are many systems that fit the above description – financial markets,
economies, cities, the English language, ecological systems and so on. These
are all examples of “complex adaptive systems”. Note the contrast between the
organic and evolving dynamics of such systems and the static laws of Newtonian
mechanics. In turn, this has important implications for how we understand
Hinduism and manage it.
Not the Sum of its Parts: One of the most obvious differences between complex adaptive systems and
Newtonian mechanical systems is that the former is not the sum of its parts. A
mechanical system like a car is the sum total of all its parts as put together
to an “intelligent design”. In contrast, a city is more than the sum of all the
buildings and a biological ecosystem is not just the sum of all the plants and
animals. This is why complex adaptive systems cannot be described neatly from
any one perspective. Thus, English language cannot be defined through even the
most detailed description of its grammar. Similarly, the most detailed
description of the Taj Mahal would not define the city of Agra. Yet, speakers
of English -and the citizens of Agra have little difficultly identifying and
using the language and city respectively. The same is true of Hindus – their
seeming difficulty in defining Sanatan
Dharma poses no
problem in recognizing and practicing their religion.
Moreover, the evolving and mutating nature of complex, adaptive systems
implies that even the most detailed description is not just insufficient but
fundamentally wrong over time. For instance, given the constant absorption of
words and usages into English, an exclusive reliance on Wren and Martin’s
grammar to understand the language would miss the point. This is also true of
Hinduism where even the most detailed reading of Dharma Shastras and Smritis
would not give you the correct picture of the lived experience of the religion
over time.
History Dependent but not Reversible: One of the common characteristics of complex adaptive systems is that
they are path dependent i.e. they carry the imprint of their historical evolution.
Thus, most cities, biological ecosystems and living languages will show the
layer-by-layer accumulation of their history. Readers will no doubt recognize
how this applies to Hinduism. Notice how this is distinct from Newtonian
mechanics. Two identical footballs, in identical conditions, will behave in
exactly the same way if exactly the same force is applied to them. There is no
historical memory in the system, and it does not matter what was done with the
two balls before we subjected them to this experiment.
Complex adaptive systems, however, have an additional property –
irreversibility. This means that the system will not reverse to its origin even
if all historical events were reversed. Thus, reversing history will not take
English back to Old Saxon but to some other language. Reversing the events of
human evolutionary history will not take us back to our ape-like ancestors but
to a new species. Similarly, reversing urban history will not take a city back
to the original village settlement. More likely one will get a deserted city
like Detroit or a museum city like Venice. Again notice the difference with
Newtonian mechanics where a perfect reversal of factors will take the system
back exactly to its origin.
No Equilibrium State: Yet another
characteristic of complex adaptive systems is that they do not have an
equilibrium or steady state in the long run. Again, note the contrast with
Newton’s laws. Thus, the English language will keep adding words and usages
with no tendency to stop. Similarly, successful cities will keep changing
and/or expanding. However, a corollary is that if the system begins to
contract, it can keep contracting with no tendency to self-equilibrate. Thus, a
city like Detroit kept declining even though theory would suggest that falling
real estate prices would attract back people. Financial markets too behave in
this way – they will keep rising past what people think is a “fair value” and
then fall back well below – hardly spending any time at the so-called
equilibrium.
This behavior has important implications for how to manage complex
adaptive systems. First, it means that managers should not attempt to hold the
system at some preconceived steady state. Rather they need to accommodate the
fact that the system is characterized by “increasing returns to scale” which
can push the system into spiraling expansions or contractions. This does not
mean that one should not attempt to manage such ecosystems – far from it,
financial markets, cities and even ecological systems can benefit from active
management. However, the management should allow for constant movement. A city
mayor or a financial market regulator who insists on holding the system to a
static equilibrium will either fail or effectively suffocate the system.
Although Hinduism does not have a centralized leadership, the above
characteristics have many implications for how Hindus think about their
religion and manage its future. For instance, they suggest that Hindu leaders
refrain from being too prescriptive of where Hinduism should go in the long
run. Much better that they focus on continuously updating and reforming the
system on an ongoing basis while taking care to maintain internal diversity.
The lack of uniformity may seem like a disadvantage in the short-run but is a
big advantage when dealing with an unpredictable long-term future. This is
analogous to a species maintaining genetic diversity as a bulwark against epidemics
and other shocks.
Another possible implication of this intellectual framework may be that
one needs to be less enthusiastic about “anti-conversion laws”. These have been
proposed by some activists as a way to “protect” Hinduism in some Indian states
but these laws are based on an idea of static equilibrium. Our analysis,
however, suggests that such laws will have little benefit if the Hindu community
is shrinking for whatever reason. In other words, a defensive tactic cannot
work if the community is in a downward spiral in a particular area. It would be
far better to focus on expansionary strategies to re-inflate the system. These
could include intellectual and cultural innovation, social and missionary work,
building alliances with other like-minded religious traditions and so on. Some
of these efforts can be derived from the past, but it is perfectly alright to
use completely new strategies.
The Importance of Flexibility: One of the learnings from the study of complex, adaptive systems is that
flexibility will always triumph over brute strength in the long run. Indeed,
inflexible systems can sometime disintegrate very suddenly even if they look outwardly
strong. Take, for instance, the evolutionary history of life on earth. The
dinosaurs were big and strong, and dominated the planet for millions of years.
Yet, they suddenly disappeared as they could not adapt to changed circumstances
– except for a few species who adapted to become birds! Similarly, the Soviet
empire, for all its nuclear warheads, simply collapsed overnight because it
could not adapt. China adapted and thrived. A similar story can be told of
cities. Once great cities like Birmingham, Detroit and Kolkata were unable to
adapt to deindustrialization. In contrast, by repeatedly reinventing itself,
London has not only survived deindustrialization and the loss of Empire, but
had been able to retain its place as the world’s financial capital.
This has very important lessons for Hinduism. Indeed, the religion has
survived for so long because it was able to continuously evolve though internal
reform, innovation and absorption. Sometimes it was the slow accumulation of
small changes, sometimes it was a rapid shift led by a reformer like Adi
Shankaracharya or Vivekananda. There were also many instances where Sanatan Dharma absorbed a foreign idea and made it
its own – Hindu temples and idol worship is possibly inspired by Greek
influence (Vedic Hindus only used fire alters).
Interestingly, Hinduism’s flexible, adaptive architecture may not have
appeared entirely by chance but may have been deliberately set up by the
ancient Rishis. Thus, Hindu scriptures are divided into Shruti and Smriti. The former
are said to have been “heard” from the gods and consequently are canonical.
Strictly speaking, only the first three Vedas – Rig, Sama, Yajur – are
considered Shruti (although many would also include the Atharva Veda). All
other sacred texts, including the much revered Bhagwata Gita, are considered
Smriti. The Smriti are “remembered’ and therefore considered of human origin –
the works of great thinkers, compilations of traditions, and so on. Some of
them may be highly regarded but they are not canonical.
This architecture has had important implications for Hinduism. The
Shruti texts may be canonical and provide general principles but they are
wonderfully open-ended (just consider the Nasadiya Sukta or Creation Hymn in
the Rig Veda to understand what I mean), whereas the Smriti texts are more
specific but not canonical. This means that one can keep adding new texts and
ideas forever, including texts that contradict previous Smriti texts. The much
criticized Manu Smriti, by definition, can simply be replaced or revised if
Hindus so wish.
To conclude, analyzing Hinduism as a complex adaptive system provides many
important insights into the functional architecture of Sanatan Dharma. It shows that the key
strength of Hinduism has been its ability to evolve, adapt and innovate. This
ability needs to be actively enhanced and strategically deployed in order to
keep Hinduism healthy. For instance, it may be time to revive the tradition of
writing new Smriti texts, a practice that went into decline in medieval times.
Some orthodox Hindus may consider this presumptuous but, as already discussed,
it would be in keeping with the inherent logic of Sanatan Dharma.
This paper merely illustrates some of the possibilities presented by the
systemic approach to understanding Hinduism. It is not meant as a comprehensive
treatise but an attempt to initiate a new way of thinking about Sanatan Dharma. The author hopes that
others will build on it.
(A version of this article will be published in “Probodhani”, a
collection of essays on Hinduism edited by Saradindu Mukherji, published as
part of the World Hindu Congress, New Delhi, 21-23 November 2014)
No comments:
Post a Comment