Richard H. Davis, prolific author and professor of religion at Bard College wrote the contribution to the Neusner-Chilton volume that addresses the Golden Rule in Hinduism.
He is careful in titling his paper to signal that a single sentence that appears in a much larger and complex literary work must be viewed in the context in which it is found.
Davis identifies a passage from the Mahabharata as an example of a Golden Rule statement found in the Hindu tradition i.e.:
“One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire.” (Anusasanaq-parvan 113.8)
But he immediately notes that more important than determining that one can find an example of a Golden Rule ethic in a tradition is:
“…assessing what role such statements might play within their dominant ethical formulations and commitments…much more significant within classical Indian ethical discourse (is) the principle of ahimsa, nonharming or nonviolence.”
An element of complexity, which we found also noted in the paper on Islam, is added in the case of Hindu tradition by the powerful element of hierarchical social order i.e. the caste system.
In Islam, we found it said that the Golden Rule ethic should be applied in a manner appropriate to the relationships and stations of the parties.
In Hinduism, the caste system presents an even more restrictive behavioral setting. Davis writes:
“In such a social setting, the primary goal of ethical thinking does not involve egalitarian reciprocity as an ideal…reciprocity cannot be a reliable guide when one person’s responsibilities toward another are determined or inflected by an unequal relationship.”
Even within the same caste, the social roles of individuals are largely governed by gender and family position. Women are subordinate to men, for example, with a woman (first) under the control of her father, then her husband, and then after her husband’s death, her sons.
Within the sort of hierarchical framework Davis describes he says:
“the Golden Rule does not make much sense”.
Having thus identified that “as the general case” in Hinduism, Davis asks “then where does the teaching of the Golden Rule (in Hinduism) fit in?”
He cites further the teaching introduced above from the Mahabharata in which the priest Brhaspati introduces the concept of “similarity to self” i.e.:
“But a person who adopts towards all creatures the attitude that they are similar to oneself (atmopama), who puts down his weapon and conquers his anger, does obtain happiness when he passes onto the next life.” (Mbh 13.114.5-6.)
[Note the reciprocal benefit in “the next life”.]
The text continues a few verses later to expand on the “similarity” theme:
“That which is contrary to oneself, one should not do to another. This is the rule of dharma in its brief form. Other actions derive from selfish desire (kama). In making gifts and in denying them to others, in pleasure and in pain, in what is agreeable and what is not agreeable, a person should evaluate one’s actions through comparison with one’s self. As one may behave towards another, so the other behaves towards the first. In the world of the soul (jiva) let the other person be the likeness (upama) of yourself. Thus dharma is conveyed completely.” (Mbh 13.114.8-10)
While this is the statement that is pointed to as the prime Hindu example of the ethic of reciprocity and it is the one that Davis cites from the World Scriptures anthology that he uses as his source, he makes it clear that he does not consider this a normative Hindu view.
While self-restraint is a normative value shared by Hindu moralists, the “distinctive position (here) is to suggest ‘similarity to self’ as the basis for this self-restraint.” He continues:
“In a context of a social ethics generally grounded on an assumption of hierarchy among living creatures, however, this teaching is bound to appear radical.”
Evaluating the Hindu ethic is further complicated by the issue and influence of transmigration or reincarnation. In a belief system such as that of classical karma, where:
“The moral quality of one’s actions in one lifetime follow one to the next (lifetime), and determine what that next one will be…”
the influence of both past and future lives intrudes upon the moral and ethical decisions of the current life.
In the strict view of karma, much in a present life is understood as reflecting actions in prior lives. That tends to dilute responsibility for current actions and to diminish the role of free will. Likewise, it presents a risk that current actions that might otherwise seem inappropriate might be rationalized as being justified in succeeding lives.
(As we’ll see, this is also an issue raised by belief in ‘afterlife’ reward and punishment systems.)
Davis’ analysis and commentary on Brhaspati’s teaching from which the “Hindu” version of the Golden Rule is found is lucid and interesting but ultimately “a radical one, and not universal in its application”.
“Brhaspati grounds his teaching of ethical reciprocity in the concept of a transmigrating soul or spirit, whose destiny is determined by the moral quality of the person’s conduct. Among the various forms of virtuous conduct, Brhaspati singles out nonviolence or ahimsa as the most efficacious. One should regard others as ‘similar to oneself’, and avoid doing harm to them on the basis of that similarity.”
While Bhraspati is recognized “as an authoritative instructor” his audience considers his teaching “limited in its scope of application”.
For most persons:
“…other moral teachings are more pertinent: the avoidance of desire-based conduct, the minimization of injury toward others, and the recognition of dharma in all interpersonal encounters.”
Self-restraint and the nonviolence/nonharming concept of ahimsa are clearly central to Hindu religious thought. The Golden Rule statement that can be found in the textual canon, however, is not a normative ethic. Davis appears to bring it to the project with some reluctance and clearly advises readers to resist the temptation to read more into it than the broader context supports.
©Charles R. Lightner