I want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. --Gandhi
In most liberal circles, discrimination on account of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and race is rightly denounced. Human diversity is not only widely accepted in these domains but also celebrated. Of course, the journey is by no means complete, and it has been long and tough for those who pioneered it. In my own work, I'm inspired by feminists who courageously challenged masculine paradigms on gender, African-Americans who heralded their unique culture and identity rather than becoming subsumed as subordinates or an exotic addition to a "universal" culture, and leaders of the gay rights movement who undermined the prevailing hegemony on sexual orientation.
In each of the examples above, alternate perspectives challenged head-on the dominant discourse, categories and frameworks that were well entrenched as normative and "universal."
But in interfaith discussions, we still shy away from making similar bold challenges to the established worldview. Rather, what is frequently espoused is the mere "tolerance" of other religions. In an earlier blog I explained the important distinction between tolerance and mutual respect, and the need to advance from the former to the latter. Mutual respect requires appreciation of what makes other faiths distinct from one's own; anything less is empty rhetoric. Such an approach compels thinkers to uncover differences, take honest risks and reject the politically correct but eventually unproductive stance that "all religions are the same." Indeed, my own experiences with the Jewish community, as recounted in an earlier blog, have shown that many cultural misunderstandings can be resolved through the forthright articulation of religious differences.
Many of my writings explore this huge resistance in the public square to uncovering and embracing religious differences. I use the term "difference anxiety" to describe the psychological distress that stems from viewing differences as problematic rather than natural. There are deep-rooted reasons for this anxiety, a topic I explore in detail in my forthcoming book, The Audacity of Difference. Suffice it is to say here that any productive interfaith dialogue must first acknowledge and accept the distinctiveness of the spiritual, cultural and historical matrix of each civilization,and challenge the Western penchant for claiming universalism for itself.
China and the Islamic world offer counter-examples to the claim that globalization must mean Westernization. Weming Tu of Harvard makes the point that Chinese civilization has its own paradigm for modernity based on Confucianism, and that this is not contingent on China's Westernization. Islam, too, has its own alternative worldview including a distinct theology, sociology and political framework.
A resistance to articulating and understanding differences, religious and otherwise, also comes from many Indians who are remarkably Eurocentric in their views. One hears many modern Indians ask: Aren't we all really "the same"? What's wrong with a "universal" point of view? Isn't it wonderful that millions of Westerners practice yoga, and Indian cuisine has gone global? Additionally, fashionable academic constructs such as "post-modern," "post-racial," "post-religious" and "post-national" seem to announce the arrival of a flat, secularized world that is not differentiated by peoples' histories, identities and religious points of view.
My own enthusiasm to this confluence of cultures is balanced by the fact that this fusion does not always preserve diversity and is often inequitable. What remain intact are many structures that support power and that privilege the mythological, historical and religious beliefs of the West.
I use the term "digestion" to describe the widespread dismantling, rearrangement and assimilation of a less powerful civilization into a dominant one. Like the food consumed by a host: what is useful gets assimilated into the host while what does not fit the host's structure gets eliminated as waste. The West superimposes its concepts, aesthetics, language, paradigms, historical template and philosophy, positioning these as universal. The corresponding elements of the digested civilization get domesticated into the West, ceasing to exist in their own right. The result is that the consumed tradition, similar to the food, ceases to exist whereas the host gets strengthened. In harvesting the fruits of other civilizations, the West has often destroyed their roots, thereby killing their ability to produce more bountiful harvests. Native Americans and European pagans are among numerous examples of such previous digestions into the modern West.
This process is often rationalized as the inevitable "march of civilization," with the West positioned as the center of the world and the engine driving it forward. The non-Western civilizations are considered relevant only as sources "discovered" by the West (as in "our past") or as theaters in which the West operates ("our civilizing mission") or as threats to Western interests ("our frontiers").
Every civilization deserves a seat at the table as an equal and as the subject rather than only as the object of inquiry. Every religion and its assumptions, must like all other areas of human knowledge be subject to critique on a level playing field. None, however powerful and well-funded, ought to be exempt from scrutiny or be privileged to set the terms. In the realm of interfaith gatherings, we need forums where non-Christians may challenge the "universal" concepts being applied to all world religions, in the same manner as women, African-Americans and homosexuals have already achieved in their respective domains. I predict that in five years there will be such mainstream inter-religious discourse in which it will no longer be considered too controversial to challenge one another audaciously in the quest for honest understanding.
The Audacity of Difference uncovers several profound metaphysical distinctions between dharmic and Western assumptions. This is not about superiority or inferiority but about positioning religious differences as humanity's multifaceted experience and a shared resource.
Thank you for the post.
Sanatana Dharma needs to be revived in India, without the imposition of Hindu identity on non-Hindus, but with a celebration of it.
My blog: The Mind-Body Politic tries to approach politics from the point of a view of spiritual, rationalist individualism, that actively seeks inter-religious common ground.
I suggest Vachoa forget Hindu, Christian etc.. and concentrate on learning true history- especially, the time of Alexander the Great and Ashoka (325-225BC)- if he does, he will find:
(1) Only One-religion, VEDA, to all People on this Earth (although the Pharisee Zoarastra of Afghan sold a twisted version of VEDA to the Persian ruler.. that version was NOT too far radical, like the Islam or Christians of today...). However, I admit Christians with 'Father' & 'Holy-ghost' are much closer to Hindu than the confused Islam...
(2) In 325BC Alexander destroyed Zoarastra's twisted version of VEDA (after defeating Persian ruler) and took the true VEDA and other Sanskrit writing with him (later his followers built Library of Alexandria and spread the Knowledge or VEDA afresh into Europe...).
(3) Roman-emporer Ceaser (a follower of Swasthika) in 60BC and his followers have used the Edicts of Ashoka (225BC) as Mandates to rule Europe...
See my earlier posts- Jesus used 'Father' to make sense to the ignorant of his time not to confuse them with "Almighty-Brahman"; and the Jew-Christian came up with 'Holy-ghost' not to confuse the ignorant with "Iswara" (Iswara is the Shakthi of "Brahman", in whom we all live, and that Shakthi is displayed thru "Brahma, Vishnu & Shiwa"- words define knowledge of pure-science... our-scientists have yet to discover....)
I disagree with your fundamental assumption that Hinduism should become the dominant discourse to debate religious differences.
To become a shared discourse, the discourse needs to have shared inclusively of principles.Hinduism has no such principles at all. The principles of Hinduism have always been to seek Slavery and Imperialism. Until Hindus can openly debate on the doctrines of Hinduism that have justified Slavery and disown it,one shouldn't be asking for mutual respect for Hinduism. This is deception
Let me ask you something related to what you are presenting:
According to the constitution Hindu India the Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and Untouchables are prohibited from defining themselves other than Hindus. Is this the Hindu sharia? This forced domination of Hinduism and its discourse on others is inherently Hindu in nature and is fundamentally totalitarian in objective for which you seek consent and respect of others.
How this forced domination of Hinduism has any parallel comparison to the idea of feminism in Western civilization?
So, who would you have in mind for judging us, Vachoa? You yourself? Why do you think that we, ordinary Hindus will accept your counsel? Do you even know that the venom you are spewing is based on wholesale untruth? Have you tried to research how in our long history as a society, we have viewed the jati groups in the society? It does not appear to be so to me. I hope you try to find out for yourself, else, please do the honorable thing, and keep your peace.
Perhaps you wish to appoint some other religious group to judge us. Please do not bother, they are already judging us, and we Hindus know their conclusions already. We just have no confidence in them. We will deal with the problem of social discrimination in our Hindu way. We are doing it already, and if you think it is going a bit slow for your taste, tough luck. If you are not a Hindu, we do not need either your help or your interference. Thank you.
The following is your allegation,
'According to the constitution Hindu India the Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and Untouchables are prohibited from defining themselves other than Hindus'.
The following is the Govt. of India's Constitution of India link - show me the line that states this as you have stated.
http://india.gov.in/govt/constitutions_of_india.php
Your arguments are becoming a big joke and fan fare are following your comedy writings - go on - keep entertaining us...
Here is the relevant passage cut and pasted from wikipedia.
"The Constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly, which was elected by the elected members of the provincial assemblies.[9] Jawaharlal Nehru, C. Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Sandipkumar Patel, Dr Ambedkar, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Nalini Ranjan Ghosh, and Balwant Singh Mehta were some important figures in the Assembly. There were more than 30 members of scheduled classes. Frank Anthony represented the Anglo-Indian community, and the Parsis were represented by H. P. Modi. The Chairman of the Minorities Committee was Harendra Coomar Mookerjee, a distinguished Christian who represented all Christians other than Anglo-Indians. Ari Bahadur Gururng represented the Gorkha Community. Prominent jurists like Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, B. R. Ambedkar, Benegal Narsing Rau and K. M. Munshi, Ganesh Mavlankar were also members of the Assembly. Sarojini Naidu, Hansa Mehta, Durgabai Deshmukh and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur were important women members. The first president of the Constituent Assembly was Dr Sachidanand Sinha. Later, Rajendra Prasad was elected president of the Constituent Assembly.[9] The members of the Constituent Assembly met for the first time in 1946 on 9 December.[9]"
Christians do not use the word blessing in the same sense we Indian Hindus do. We use blessing in the sense of aashiirvaad. Christians not only bless each other, they also bless God.
Blessing in Biblical use is in the context of a relationship. In a simplistic way of stating it, Christians bless God by praising, and God blesses Christians by giving gifts. Because, that is the nature of their relationship.
Shri has many meanings, and I must admit, I meant to write Shri Bhagavaan in most places in my previous post. The standard meaning Shrimaan/Shrimati means that person is in receipt of aashirvaad of Shri or Laxmi. Shri also means beauty. In the old days, people did not generally use Shri as beauty. When they needed to say someone is handsome, they would call him/her Soumya/Soumyaa. In Vedic literature, Shri used to refer to Saraswati, but later, it was associated with Laxmi. Bhagavaan means the Lord of the six bhagas. Hope this helps.
In Indian civilization is based on the concept of dharma, which has no exact equivalent in the west. Western traditions and worldviews, scientific-secular and Biblical alike, are burdened by internal contradictions that limit their grasp of the deeper aspects of dharma. The problems stem from the fixations of western religions on an exclusive history of revelation, the imperative to digest all other religions and cultures into that absolute history, and the tendency to eliminate that which does not fit this linear history. This history-centrism is related to a limited conception of human consciousness and its potential, an absence of yoga in the core spiritual practices, a fear of chaos, and an inherent dualism. Such limitations have also carried forward into the western enlightenment. The book explains that a profound attitude underlies these problems, for which the term difference anxiety is being coined. Popular claims of universalism and sameness, no matter how well intended, undermine the distinctiveness, integrity and value of dharma. The antidote is to revive the ancient practice of purva-paksha, or direct and honest engagement between religious and cultural differences. This book initiates such an engagement.
so, shakti, Kundalini, (holy ghost, etc) etc show us that humans can "beyond" adolescent fertility puberty and its "ego identity" (Freud's "final stage") into post-egoic identities and correlate "bodies" that ecstatically "shake" themselves into further maturity.
Holy Ghost (if placed in a context of Physiology of Spiritual Experience and Human Development) then has a chance to be compared with Shakti and Kriya experiences as evidence of universal "maturational phenomena" (like the maturational movement of fetuses and infants) ... Because Dharma is "more like science" than Abrahamic, its "discoveries" have had a chance to go deeper into "the nature" of human beings and experiences than the latter (which all always tethered to some ancient historical event/text, such as Crucifixion)...Thus, "appropriation" and Uturn are not only acts of non-respect for Dharma and Indian culture, but also limit the fathoming of deeper "discoveries" about univeral human nature/development (of "stages beyond" the Western maps of Freud or medical physiology) that are described in great detail in Dharma texts, such as Kundalini and the "spiritual-subtle physical anatomy" of chakras, nadis, prana circuits, koshas, etc., most of which are described in other cultural traditions worldwide, but in significantly less detail. Tumo heat, fire Baptism, Bushman thxiasi num, quaking and shaking of Quakers and Shakers, etc, might all be developmental phenomena of bodily maturation or "deeper" embodiment of a foundational emotionality (of ecstasy) that is as universal as the emergence of "fertility" during adolescent puberty...
renu S, Malhotra
anubhatia1960 comment refering to VivekanandÂa 'valued plurality of approach in human affairs and spoke against uniformity that ends any kind of diversity' has some truth- but, it does not mean we form political parties in the name of 'god' and keep fighting with each other, like animals or 'drug-gangs'.. What, I think, he meant is- there are many routes to 'god'- since god's power is everywhere- choose the route you wish and do your righteous duty (dharma...).
VivekanandÂa or the way of loving under Sanatana dharma did not advocate different-religions or one-religion- instead, the primary message is the way of living doing righteous-duty: so, the Q is- what is righteous-duty? In one word- it is living with 'truth'- let us see how many of us- out of 7 billions- live truth as the guiding light?
I submit, we find a higher % of truthful among the poor- who keep doing their righteous-duty like some animals- cow, deer etc.. What about the rest- greedy or killers like an tiger etc..? You guess !.
Anu
rajiv