In an earlier blog, I introduced the concept of mutual respect and why it is superior to the patronizing notion of "tolerance" that is typically celebrated at interfaith events. My recent book, "Being Different" (Harpercollins, 2011), is entirely about appreciating how traditions differ from one another rather than seeing them as the same. In parallel with these works, I have been in conversations and debates with numerous thinkers of traditions other than my own.
One such dialogue has been with Father Francis Clooney, a noted Jesuit theologian and a leading professor of Religion at Harvard. Clooney not only took a good deal of time in 2010 to read through my entire manuscript and write me his useful comments, he and I have also responded to each others public talks over the years and argued online. There have been agreements and disagreements, but always with mutual respect. I wish to reflect on how this experience relates to my overall approach to interfaith dialogues.
Chapter one of my book is titled "The Audacity of Difference," and it cites numerous examples to show that most religious leaders feel more comfortable publicly taking the position that various traditions are the same as each other (even though in private teachings to their followers they emphasize their own side's distinct advantages). I coined the term "difference anxiety" to refer to the anxiety that one is different from the other -- be it in gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion or whatever else. The opposite of difference anxiety is difference with mutual respect, the posture I advocate for dialogue.
This is not merely a shift in public rhetoric, but requires cultivating comfort with the infinitude of differences built into the fabric of the cosmos. The rest of my book explains several philosophical foundations of the differences between the dharmic traditions (an umbrella term for Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
There are multiple audiences I wish to debate using this book, including those Hindu gurus who preach that all religions are the same, and many westerners who adopt an assortment of eastern spiritual practices in combination with their own Judeo-Christian identities and who blur differences or wish them away. I also respond to complaints that the acknowledgment of differences will lead to mutual tensions rather than mutual respect.
In response to my recent talk at University of Massachusetts (Dartmouth), Francis Clooney made some interesting observations mostly (but not entirely) in agreement with my approach to difference. (See the video below.)
What particularly struck me from his talk and our subsequent conversation was his observation that most of his readings of prior Hindus have shown them to be either dismissive of Christian theology's positions, trivializing of its important differences, or reducing the differences to modern politics, rather than uncovering the deep structures from which the differences emanate. He also accepts my book's emphasis that many Sanskrit terms cannot be simply translated into western equivalents.
We also disagreed on several points. For instance, Clooney views inculturation as a positive posture of Christian friendship toward Indian native culture by adopting Indian symbols and words, whereas I find it to be often used as a mean to lure unsuspecting Indians into Christianity by making the differences seem irrelevant.
The significance of such an approach to dialogues is not dependent upon whether both sides agree or disagree on a given issue. In fact, I do not consider it viable to reconcile the important philosophical differences without compromise to one side or the other. Rather, the significance here is that we are comfortable accepting these differences as a starting point, which is more honest than the typical proclamations at such encounters where differences are taboo to bring up.
This approach to difference opens the door for any given faith to reverse the gaze upon the other in dialogue. Given the west's immense power over others in recent centuries, the framing of world religions' discourse, including the terminology, categories and hermeneutics, has been done using western religious criteria combined with subsequent western Enlightenment theories. In my book, I refer to this as "Western Universalism" and feel that this artificial view of non-western faiths has been assumed as the "standard" space in which all traditions must see themselves, leading to difference anxieties, and hence to the pressure to pretend sameness.
My hope is to hold more such dialogues with experts from as many other traditions as I can, and be able to freely share both areas of agreement and disagreement without pressure or guilt.
Hindu cosmology has naturally led me to this comfort with difference: The entire cosmos and every minutest entity in it is nothing apart from the One, i.e. there is radical immanence of divinity such that nothing is left out as "profane." Hence, unity is guaranteed by the very nature of reality, eliminating the anxiety over difference at the very foundations. In fact, the word "lila" represents the profound notion that all these differences are forms of the One, and that all existence is nothing apart from divine play, the dance of Shiva.
Follow Rajiv Malhotra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RajivMessage
BD clearly characterizes the irreconciliable traits within Hinduism that cannot be compromised, period. Its greatest contribution may be to give the reader the tools necessary to formulate their own necessary stance AGAINST conversion in whatever conversations may occur.
Like it or not, Christians dominate academic and public discourse, including the terms and conditions of engagement, where Hindus have been at disadvantage. BD interjects into the discourse clearly delineated concepts that cannot be compromised. Neither is RM's engagement with Clooney problematic. Nowhere did he accede ground, and the discussion may be more about educating the audience. It's a first step in asserting presence in the academic discussion.
As you say, 'Dharma needs to be rescued and every one needs to be a Yoddha in this Kurukshetra'.
Many of those who commented do not see the risk of taking up the issue with the other side and making our own people 'awaken' out of their 'nidhra upasana'.
For example, please read the following news:
http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/nepal/16810
The threat of conversion looms and its not going to be shooed off just by enacting laws or wishing that they would stop for any inter-faith dialogues.
Rather, it needs profound, grass root level identification within the Non-christo-islamic community to understand their greatness & danger of 'sameness disease' - in order to be well equipped to live in this modern world.
Afghanistan, Iraq and China shut their doors off to conversion & history knows what repercussion that they all suffered at the hands of the christo-islamic community in the name of wars & sanctions.
India for that needs more people like you who could bravely come up and put forth their views to the public to see. Discussions with Jesuits is indeed required in order to point out that what you are writing is indeed true.
"[Indian] Discomfort with Competition, and Inexperience with Institutions:
Refusing to compete does not get rid of competition. The dominant world religions clearly see it as a competitive marketplace on a global scale. Every competitive arena - marketing, politics, sports, military, etc. - requires both offensive and defensive capability.
Most Indians are very reluctant to embrace the critical and dispassionate study and critique of religions in a comparative manner... Therefore, they have failed to develop the skills and resources to be effective in this regard. The lofty world negation arguments are the standard excuse.
Furthermore, to compete today, one cannot refuse to institutionalize, or fail to study the institutions that exist, both those belonging to other traditions and secular ones. Leader (sic) of the Indic Traditions have failed to study how ... other successful minority groups have organized and mobilized...
In general, there is a rural mindset, when the opponents are well oiled urbanized institutions. While many of the statements by Indians are true - concerning the superiority of inner experience, etc. - they are irrelevant to the given context and circumstances."
[END QUOTE]
Some of the so-called Hindus commenting here are of the typical "know-nothing, do-nothing" variety - head up in the clouds, head buried in the ground or head stuck up their behind. Y'all have a lot to learn before critiquing...
We must differentiate here between religion and organised religion. Both are completely different entities. Further in this very context, Mr Malhotra is indulging here in his singular capacity vis-a-vis Prof Clooney who is designated as Professor representing a well organised stream. This makes this discussion on this interfaith concept ab initio a little unsavoury.
Islam and Christianity have both a state backing whereas Hinduism has no takers today even in its land of origin. Until and unless a mutual faith is created by stopping the primary agenda of conversion, luring and violence, all this will remain a futile waste of time. Mr Malhotra reminds me of Ms Arundhati Roy and Deepak Chopra who seem to have vested mercantile interests. Dialogue should be between authorised representatives, not between a pauper and a king. God bless
Hinduism, rightly for a dharmic religion, has no marketing force compared to the christo-islamic governments and priests intent on open dialogue merely to force out alternatives in the ideological thought space.
hariaum
WHAT IS COSMOLOGY?
A Borderland between Science and Philosophy.
Both Scientists and Philosophers could be ignorant with t he exception of a few Noble Souls. Both of these groups do not wish to enter in to the other side of the fence. How to break the barrier? If we need to strive for completeness : i.e., total comprehension with divine understanding of (1). Science in Philosophy and (2). Philosophy of Science, one needs direction, Now aim must be clear
Scientific aspects in relation to the Universe
Many other aspects incidental for the growth of Science and knowledge
The gaps that may crop up – future generations to digest, analyse and progress for the welfare of Humanity.Search Further- Vidyardhicosmology[dot]blogspot[dot]com
Searching Minds-Guiding spirit-the origins -Cosmology Vedas Interlinks help East West Interaction-Welcome interaction-see Cosmic Function of the Universe and Cosmology Definition-Vidyardhi Nanduri
BOOKS BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI [1993-2011]-
http://vidyardhicosmology.blogspot.com/
A good starting point for me.
I have 11 siblings, 9 brothers and no two are the same. Those that get along best agreed to accept that we were different, and that we should respect each other though we have differences, and don't try to effect change. My dad insisted that we get along. It has helped me in life. I respect difference, and welcome alternative thinking (if respectful): to me it is an additional view of the world. It helps the next time I encounter that view, and similar views.
Diana Eck, Good Neighbours, December 24, 2006.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/12/24/good_neighbors/
I do not know if she has followed up on this suggestion of hers to talk about these deepest differences. In this context, the book by Rajiv Malhotra is important. I hope that Dr Eck, and others in Hindu studies and comparative religion studies, take up the issue to its logical conclusion.
Namaste
Ashok Chowgule
Goa, India
In my view Hindus should (also) have the audacity to claim superiority when it comes to philosophy and religion. After all, every open minded person (unless brainwashed) can easily come to this conclusion. How can eternal truth be dependent on a historical event on this planet? Can such a question be asked? Can we have a genuine discussion like in earlier times regarding philosophy and religion? If so, many ‘normal’ people in the west who feel choked by 'belief systems' would benefit.
Maria Wirth
Your comment clearly shows you've neither read the book in depth, nor even gotten the point of this article. Even in the soundbyte you quote & then use as "proof" to say "Malhotra is conniving with Hinduism declared enemy"; how did you miss the point that it is "Difference Anxiety" (and NOT Difference per se) that is called out as the problem?
The whole premise is in the book title, "Being Different- an Indian Challenge To Western Universalism". It is a celebration and strong assertion, of fundamental differences between the Dharmic worldview and the Abrahamic worldview. It TAKES ON the Abrahamic inspired attempts to see "Sameness" and then their centuries long attempts to coerce the world into their version of mandated Sameness.
Let me paraphrase the "difference" issue -as raised in the book-in a very basic sense. Author Malhotra is explaining the problem underlying the "Sameness" attitude by showing two aspects that promote this "Sameness": (1) "Difference Anxiety from Above" (superiority complex of the Abrahamic adherents) and (2) "Difference Anxiety from Below" (inferiority complex of non Abrahamics based on being overawed by Western/Abrahamic material power/success of the last few centuries). BOTH anxieties lead to advocacy of "sameness" which is the problem the book attempts to explain & tackle.
And you seem in agreement that this is a problem, based on your characterization of the "Neo-Vedantic trap". I happen to agree with your criticism of Neo-Vedantic "sameness trap", but the book is certainly not advocating that trap.
Regarding Inter-Faith dialogues, one certainly can't call Ostrich like burying one's head in the sand as even a good survival strategy in this field. The interfaith dialogues won't go away if one haughtily "sits them out". The Missionaries intent on cultural destruction are the most virulent (and unacceptable) form of this dialogue, and they need to be exposed (see same author's "Breaking India"). But there is also a vast majority of Abrahamic adherents who may be just ignorant (even willfully perhaps) who need to be told/challenged in public forums with this thesis of "Difference With Respect", where they are compelled to show their civilized side and appreciate the destructiveness of this "sameness".
This is what the discussion of Malhotra with Clooney is a beginning sample of. It reveals a sorry state of ignorance (not willful, hopefully) for someone to call it "conniving".
I request you to please get a little more familiar with the author's powerful thesis before dismissing it out of hand, as you seem to be doing.
Thanks & Regards.
Malhotra needs the recognition and support of his Hindu peers, not the recognition of a Jesuit professor from Harvard whom he collaborates with in order to get book sales in the West. Malhotra will never get Indian Hindu support until he has the courage to take up the issue of conversion head on with his Jesuit friends.
The Kanchi Acharya told Cardinal Tauran a few years ago that there will be no more discussions so long as Christian missionaries are making converts in Indian villages. Since that meeting the Church has strictly avoided the Kanchi Acharya and not invited him to any further dialogue meetings.
Church dialogue agents now go after the soft touch, godmen like Sri Sri or Jaggi, or self-styled Hindu spokesmen like Rajiv Malhotra whom they can manipulate or otherwise show to the public as accommodating the Vatican's point of view at their much publicised "peace" conferences.
Conversion and Church interference in state politics are the two issues that concern Hindus in India. If a Hindu public intellectual like Malkhotra is not willing to tackle these issues head on, then he is not a representative of Hindu interests in India.
People bad mouth Hindus out of ignorance, including Hindus (Brahmins and Dalits alike). Let us not give up hope on the creation of the Supreme.
Your predictions may well be correct as to the bias in peer reviewed studies. And your concern for the direction this is heading is likely correct. For that, we must teach and discuss how a belief can be true, untrue, and known to be such - we must use Buddhi, Shruti, and Smriti to study the lies as well as the truths. Or we just live the best we can, after all, we are Hindus.
hariaum
Truth is everything in Hinduism. Not truth according to some, only absolute truth is acceptable. Remember what Maitreyi said? Yenaham nahamritasyam tenaham kim kuryam? That which does not make me immortal, what use I have of it?
You seem to be woefully ill informed on the so called "irrelevance" of Clooney and other establishment Theologian-Academics. To start with, there is the Harvard cachet. Also throw in the clout of the "Religious Studies" establishment (AAR/RISA etc ..) who after all are the "experts" that mainstream media depends on (yes, even Indian media fawns on them as "experts" on all & sundry subjects, Hinduism definitely included).
You say "I will not spend one bit of time reading their so-called scholarly work.", but you & the rest of us (especially our youth) constantly have to contend with their characterizations which filter over to us via media, popular culture, etc.
Under such circumstances, those impacted (such as Hindus & other Dharmics) have to engage with them based on solid homework to be able to stand our ground. In an ideal we would have our own independent institutions to take the power/responsibility for self-characterization of our Dharmic philosophies. But the fact of the matter is, we don't. 800+ years of foreign domination took care of that. Until we do, we have to engage what's out there, on our terms as much as possible.
Your last sentence is the key to this discussion. What is involved in "as much as possible'? Is it offering them an olive branch and hope that it melts their hearts? If it has to be so, it must be made very plainly obvious to both us and them that we are doing that. You have read Rajiv's book, did you find he has done it?
But these Indologists are a minor problem. We have a far bigger worry from our own uneducated monks, constantly speaking nonsense. They will undermine whatever you try. My solution is different, and I have engaged myself to it. We will publish a new scholarly journal, to publish in it, the author must quote Scriptures and traditional authorities. It will be called Vedanta journal, published by the Vedantic Center or Nebraska. Only genuinely scholarly work will be accepted, and all articles will be reviewed. I invite you all to think about contributing to it. Many of you will be comfortable in writing book reviews.
"The significance of such an approach to dialogues is not dependent upon whether both sides agree or disagree on a given issue. In fact, I do not consider it viable to reconcile the important philosophical differences without compromise to one side or the other."
I think there might be issues where disagreement can be fatal to a dialogue. Let me give one example here: Most brands of Christianity claim that it is the only religion that leads to salvation. They usually quote from the Gospels in support of this exclusive position. Other religious systems according to these Christian brands can not lead people to salvation. Hence there is need for industrial scale proselytization and destruction of other systems. Only Jesus can save.
Can any dialogue be possible with proselytizing religions which have this type of attitude? The usual Hindu-Christian dialogue glosses over this issue since this issue will kill off any dialogue. So while I have no objection to reverse the gaze and do a Purva-Paksha, I think such a stance would make any inter-faith dialogue impossible.