It was a moment of crisis for Yeminite Jews. They were being persecuted by extremists of the Zaidi branch of Shiite Islam and forced to convert -- with the explicit threat of death if they refused. Moses Maimonides, a widely respected rabbi in what is now Egypt, responded in the way he thought best: discrediting the prophetic tradition of the Muslim sect oppressing the Yemenite Jewish community -- and Christianity, for the sake of definitiveness, as well.
In what became known as the "Epistle to Yemen" after widespread circulation throughout the Middle East, Maimonides claimed that Islam and Christianity were but distortions of the "true and divine religion, revealed to us through Moses, chief of the former as well as of the later prophets." His strategy was clear: bolster the Jews of Yemen by discrediting the faith of those oppressing them. He then forcefully questioned whether Jesus and Muhammad had knowledge of the sacred -- even going so far as to hurl epithets about them.
While his actions were considered praiseworthy by some of his coreligionists at the time, this picture of "support" by Moses Maimonides seems quite bleak, if not galling today. The 12th century is not widely known for its inter-religious interchange, but Maimonides, like many other Middle Eastern rabbis, was fluent in Arabic and even as a rabbi held a significant knowledge of Islam. Maimonides even served the royal court of Saladin's empire as a physician and often demonstrated nuanced views of Islam, which he even defended at one point against accusations of idolatry from rabbis less versed in its teachings.
But in light of the terrible state of affairs for Yemen's Jews, Maimonides' instinct was to question the legitimacy of the prophetic histories of Islam and Christianity -- to attack the very foundations of the other Abrahamic traditions.
Maimonides' tactics are hardly confined to Judaism or the 12th century -- or any religious tradition or era, for that matter. Just open the newspaper and read what contemporary religious leaders are saying about other in regions of conflict.
Yet, these are perhaps quintessential examples of what Hindu author and philanthropist, Rajiv Malhotra, has termed "history centrism." Due to the significant emphasis on prophetic history, religious groups can become what he terms "historical societies" -- preserving, codifying and interpreting the religious histories of their founders. In conflict, they come to question each other's histories, and therefore the legitimacy of each other's faiths.
WATCH Rajiv Malhotra discuss his idea of history centrism:
While I will reserve judgment on this claim, Malhotra suggests that the Abrahamic traditions may be especially prone to conflict based on conflicting interpretations of their prophetic histories, in contrast, he suggests, to Dharmic traditions, which are less reliant on (if not avoidant of) the fixed history of a given person. To take but one of Malhotra's examples, compare reincarnation to the idea of a prophet who lives and dies but once.
Maimonides' infuriating criticism of Muhammad and Jesus in the Epistle to Yemen merely exemplifies the tendency Malhotra identifies at its most extreme. Many milder examples reinforce the idea that Abrahamic traditions are heavily reliant on history as a basis for religion. Inter-religious relations can at times more closely resemble a debate about history than a discussion of the sacred and opportunities for future collaboration.
So what of the Abrahamic emphasis on prophetic history? Is it possible to accept the teachings of a prophet (or set of prophets) without focusing on prophetic history? Can one be religious -- or religiously knowledgeable -- without the study of history? In short, could the future of religion be better off without knowledge of the past?
When Malhotra first asked me these and other, similar questions in the course of an interview series, I found myself flummoxed. I simply could not identify strands of my Jewish heritage that could be extricated entirely from the history in which they are rooted. Even in prayer, I think of the generations before me who joined in the same songs, chants, movements, aspirations and moments of inspiration that I do. Religion is inextricably bound for me in history; one cannot exist without the other.
All the more so, then, is Malhotra's question a worthy one: What baggage does our history entail, and how can we live religiously with less of it? I find myself at once rooted in Jewish history and aware that not all history provides the basis for progress. While I may never seek to extricate religion from history, I must at least be aware of the history that I bring to bear on religious practice and belief.
For other interviews of Rajiv Malhotra with Joshua Stanton, see the YouTube Chanel of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue.
Follow Joshua Stanton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dialogueeditor
State of Formation - Is “History Centrism” a Problem? In Dialogue ...
YouTube - Rajiv Malhotra and Joshua Stanton: 7- History Centrism ...
Even people who are arguing 'against' 'Religion' seem to take for granted that this thing called 'Religion' is precisely *about* the dynamic the author describes here: the notion that religion necessarily involves claiming 'My book is the one true and only prophecy and they can't all be right,' ...even if most religions are based on no such thing.
Abrahamics often have great difficulty trying to relate to the myths, legends, histories, and wisdom-tales of other peoples, precisely cause they're trying to figure out how that could possibly be like a' Bible,' or assuming even to the point of absurdity, that that's assumed.
Obviously, Abrahamics are always arguing among themselves about such things, and interpretations, no matter how small the differences may seem to anyone from outside.
(Jealous Gods of jealous books, all trying to be the same 'One true Thing... can be dangerous. ' When people fight about which, there goes the neighborhood, without fail. Words treated so can lead to a lot of confusion and grief if treated as talismans of such 'authority.' )
Hindus are inclined to accept anything that calls itself religion, particularly if it is also mystical. They would like to believe that all mystical states are valid and that all religions are true. This exposes them to manipulation by groups who use a religious or mystical appearance to promote their own agendas that may be anti-Hindu in nature. It is also contrary to their tradition.
The Hindu Yoga tradition is well aware of the fact there are many different states of altered consciousness or mysticism. Not all of these are true, much less wholesome. There are various types of mysticism from what is little more than black magic to the highest Self-realization, and even experiences of Self-realization can be partial or mixed with lesser states. The Yoga tradition relates that even Asuras, beings of great pride and ambition, take to Yoga practices to gain greater powers to further their aim of world domination.
They will bow down at the grave of a Sufi saint without inquiring about what made the particular person holy. In a number of instances it was his slaughter of the infidels that was responsible for his sanctity, including the ancestors of these self-same Hindus. Hindus fail to examine what Sufis have done to Hindus historically and blind themselves to frequent Sufi alliances with Islamic militance and aggression. All a Sufi has to do is to appear a little tolerant and Hindus are quick to turn him into a saint, regardless of what he actually does throughout his life.
By David Frawley in "Awaken Bharta"
Muhammad bin Qâsim takes the fort of Alor, loots it, and slays King Dâhir...
Bai (Main), sister of Dahir, assembled all her women, and said, "Jaisiya is separated from us, and Muhammad Kasim is come...There is nowhere any hope of escape; let [p. 75] us collect wood, cotton, and oil, for I think that we should burn ourselves and go to meet our husbands. If any wish to save herself she may." So they went into a house, set it on fire, and burnt themselves. Muhammad took the fort He [killed] six thousand fighting men...dependants and servants were taken prisoners, with their wives and children.
Chach-na'ma or Tari'kh-I Hind wa Sind, translated into Persian by Muhammad 'Ali bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr Kufi c. early 13th CE from an early Arabic manuscript.
In The History of India as Told by its own Historians. The Posthumous Papers of the Late Sir H. M. Elliot. John Dowson, ed. (1867). 2nd ed., Calcutta: Susil Gupta, 1956, 7:32-115.
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_chachnama_frameset.htm
In a seminal Hindu myth, the goddess as Sati (She who is; That which is) self-immolates as a consequence of her father's refusal to invite her husband Shiva to the grand ritual he is preparing as Ritualist in chief (The father's name is Daksha; we have the word "Dexter" for that, as in dexterous, skillful).
That which is in plain sight, Sati, is also the unfathomable mystery termed as Shiva... the two cannot be separated. No matter how skillful one's thoughts and theories, one cannot capture Sati and banish Shiva. Upon hearing of his wife Sati's self-immolation, Shiva as a whirlwind upset the intricate ritual devices used by Daksha... all his formulas having come to naught because the essential ingredient in a ritual action, or action in general was missing... a humility in the face of the other, of the world, Nature. Daksha had over-reached, thought Sati as his daughter, when she was also prior to him.
The poem continues and Sati's ashes fall onto the Earth in 108 different locations. These all become sites of pilgrimage , to pay homage to Sati, and to recall the myth and its many meanings. Great portions of the landscape in India have thus been sacralized, and still the most popular sort of travel undertaken is a pilgrimage to the countless places sacralized in the poems, the poets trying to have the people not forget the essential.
Kabbalah, particularly that of Isaac Luria, was at one time the dominant basis of Jewish belief. Israel’s Kabbalah serves as a switching station between eastern mysticism, the Biblical tradition and philosophy. One of the major distinctions is the this world affirming nature Jewish theosophy. The concept of reincarnation in Judaism, for example is linked to Tikkun Olam, to “repair the world”. The purpose is not to free the individual soul but to make Godliness manifest in this world. The unknowable God actualizes itself in creation, God becomes “being” with the creation of beings. The human godly soul at the same time yearns to return to its source in the infinite. It is a “circle” of mutual dependence.
Judaism also has a meditative tradition. The structure of the microcosm shares the structure of the macrocosm. God is within us.
Kabbalah has been reasserting itself in the 21st Century. The term, “Abrahamic Religions” did not originate with the Jews. Torah, an oral tradition, is universal and is not a “religion” or “faith”.
Methods of using word parts (bija) to force consciousness beyond simplistic, semantic understanding is clearly a part of the kabbalah, as it is a part of Zen, Cha'an, Dyana, Sufi... I do not believe in an abrarham. But that is irrelevant. I do believe in Kaballah.
I do not believe in an eastern or western mysticism. There is the personal relationship with the Divine. Ego transendence. There are many paths to the same goal. I do believe civilization began somewhere between India and China. So these societies have a lot of experiential wisdom to teach us.
I can not agree that the world needs to be "repaired" as IMO the world is already "godly." Rather, we need to world inorder to have meaningful egos - for our egos to act and transcend - the circle is within. hariaum
On reading your replies the question that comes to mind is:
What trends now do you see in Indian society that can demonstrate a shift towards a more enlightened society? As a BRIC country (Brazil Russia India and China) India seems firmly held by the awful neo-liberal model of development for the few at the expense of the environment (which is ultimately suicidal) and the many, which is deeply distressing.
In my view an enlightened society at this point in human history is one which adresses the oppression of women and the poor in general and the senseless abuse and commodification of the environment...in short, as the Pachamama people say, we want a
spiritually fulfilling, socially just and envrionmentally sustainable world...
How can India help?
You may ask why Vedanta takes such a position. The answer is that we live in duality where good and bad, beautiful and ugly, just and unjust come in pairs. If you want only the good, only the beautiful, only the just then you have to strive for liberation from this dualistic world. You can not change the basic nature of this dualistic world.
Is the message of dharma pessimistic? Western observers certainly have thought so. I would say that the message is realistic and not pessimistic..
Hey let's start with the US...what do you propose we do here to solve similar issues. Income inequality never been greater, climate change upon us but denied by the right and Christians too, millions uninsured, wing nuts that want to take away healthcare & social security from the old, a country that hogs the world's resources at the expense of the third world, that spends way too much on defense, native American tribes who live lives bereft of any dignity or sense of history (btw have you been to any of the native American reservations in America? thoughts? I have and they really do want to live a "spiritually fulfilling, socially just & environmentally sustainable world" too), a polarised government, etc. etc. Why not focus your attentions at home? Unless, wait, you're a missionary! That must be it. Are you?
A famous French writer once said of his country and the rest of the first world: "We are rich because they are poor". I really want America to pitch in and do its bit to solve the problems of the world. And charity always begins at home....
It is important to understand the differences amogst the faith when we have world coming close physically due to open door technology; but we have a slope to cover to understand the minds and faiths.
Sha'arei Chachmah:
R. Ari Parash
Did this book ever exist? And what of its author? Does it really matter?
Dharmas on the other hand stress personal moral perfection. There is even a concept of JivanMukta (Liberated while living) who is morally perfect even when living. Thus there is no need to depend on a particular event in history since it is possible to have the God experience while living.
But when materialism rules, then full identity is body (which will live forever in heaven/hell, and which Christian clerics decided will be a 33 yrs old when whisked to heaven on judgement day), and then the historical perspective is all. This is termed as falling into "Maya", falling into a belief of some half-truth.
*Due to Einstein's efforts, we now know that 'time' is indeed phenomenon.
With belief in body as self and identity as solely historical, one then imagines 'a grand other' apart from one's body who must've created the material world. Except that its not a material world as mind is a deeper principle than matter/phenomena which arises and falls within the purview of mind, and this mind is not far away at all, not at all some "Other".
One's deepest identity is found by diving into mind, rather than dissecting matter. Quantum mechanics is the result of diving into matter, and which has led us back to the subject/mind.
Thus, the modern deep question is becoming.... rather than 'who is God?", it is becoming instead "what is consciousness to itself?", and this can be seen as the interest in the interiorization methods of the Dharmas, which are not the same as prayer to the MYTHOLOGICAL creator of the world.