Being Different, Blogs

‘History Centrism’: A Challenge to Abrahamic Faiths

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?

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.

Read More
Being Different, Blogs

New Model Using History Centrism

Analysis of History-Centrism: Landing Page

This is a landing page for ongoing research work that attempts to model History-Centric Thought Systems (HCTS), the nature of its membership and how it is likely to interact with thought systems that are not history-centric, as well as its impact on cultural diversity.

This is not a finished work of research. We are just getting warmed up! Comments, criticism, corrections welcome. Suggestions on how to take this analysis forward meaningfully (without getting too sidetracked into abstract modeling) would be appreciated.

History-Centrism is one of many key terms introduced by Rajiv Malhotra in his powerful new book ‘Being Different’ to counter claims of Western universalism by ‘reversing the gaze’ and analyzing their thought system based on a Dharmic (Indian) framework. Judeo-Christianity is an instance of a membership that subscribes to a HCTS in contrast with Indic schools of philosophy that focus on the inner sciences and are non-dual in nature.

1. Necessary/Sufficient Conditions for History-Centric membership
Stipulates the requirements for becoming a member of a HCTS or get disqualified using the concept of a historical prior. It follows from this formulation that HC implies duality (i.e. with mathematical certainty).

2. Impact of HC belief and duality on stability of HC membership
We analyze the stability of membership of a HCTS and show the stable equilibrium will probably never be reached if a unique non-reproducible prior belief drives the HCTS, i.e., it creates a “proselytize or perish” response to a chronic and self-induced existential question, even in the absence of any local competition.

3. Game-Theoretic analysis of History-centric conflicts & comparison with non-dual groups
Part-A: We differentiate between active and passive duality and attempt a game-theoretic analysis of the nature of resultant conflict between:
– two rival HCTS
– HCTS and non-HCTS
– two non-dual thought systems
and classify them accordingly. The results can provide insight on the response that can be adopted by a non-HCTS to survive in such contests that often tend to be characterized by asymmetric or one-sided payoffs.
Part-B: we study the decision choices available to the participants in such contexts and examine three cases.

4. History-Centrism and Monoculture: How HCTS has motivated the creation of a global master narrative of Western universalism that is the dominant contemporary monoculture. We look at examples of how the reductionism and digestion that characterize a monoculture can suffocate diversity and diminish the authenticity of experience.

Note: The material below has been added after this new model based on History-Centrism was first featured on Rajiv Malhotra’s ‘Being Different’ book website.

5. Contradiction Networks: On how a HCTS model that is subjected to sustained scientific examination over a period of time is characterized by a maze (‘network’) of contradictions. The management of the HCTS spends more time trying to manage these chains/circuits of contradictions rather than eliminate it’s logical source.

6. Duality masquerading as Advaita : As the HCTS model attempts to manage, rather than eliminate its inherent contradictions, it is forced to appropriate useful metaphysical as well as practical self-improvement methods from Dharmic Thought Systems to re-brand itself and project a new image.

7. A programmable model of the History-Centric soul: Unlike the Dharmic Atman, the HC soul is finite, time-limited, bounded, deterministic, and programmable, and also extremely unforgiving by design. The binary end-state / output of this model is only controllable by a third-party owner and depends purely on the keying in of a collectively valid and static input password / coupon rooted in history-centrism. The fear psychosis induced by such a design is arguably the biggest reason why many followers of HC faiths (e.g. Abrahamic religions) tend to relinquish membership after a while, and also why aggressive conversions continue to occur.

8. History Centrism in Western Mathematics: Mainstream western math and science is characterized by a relative over-reliance of historical reputation driven theorems and laws that were themselves based on axiomatic mathematical truth claims rooted in theology. In contrast, Dharmic systems focus on the empirical approach that allows one to re-experience the first discovery via first principles. Rather than rely solely on metaphysical truth, DTS recognizes a pluralism of analytical approaches to the same physical problem, and that a model representation may never be perfect and it is practically useful to not obsess about the unrepresentable that is not relevant to a given context. In the modern world of computing, internet, and artificial intelligence, the DTS based approach is proving its practical efficacy over abstract deductive methods that provide little real-world insight.

9. Yoga: Freedom from History. An attempt to understand the ideas behind Chapter 2 of the book”Being Different”. Being history-centric is to be held hostage to some ancient historical prior that can never be authenticated. A double whammy effect of being history-centric is that any scope for salvation is possible only in the infinitely distant future beyond this life and cosmos. Consequently, such a person is unable to live in the present since the keys to happiness are tied to the past and the future, but never the current moment.

Read More
Being Different, Blogs

Dharmic Gaze

Hinduism vs. Christianity – Forgiveness for Sins

Christianity is often touted as a better religion because it offers forgiveness for sins and hence redemption. However, Dharmic traditions do not propose forgiveness for sins.  Does that mean Christianity is a better religion?  Are  followers of Dharmic tradition in a fix because they receive no forgiveness, no redemption?

When contemplating on this loaded question, Hindus should realize that concept of sin in Christianity is non-existent in Hinduism.  Without the burden of sin, there is no need to seek forgiveness, there is no need for redemption.  The idea of sin is a heavy burden thrust upon its followers by Christianity. To moderate its effect, Christians then speak of forgiveness.

Unfortunately, this concept brings other burdens on the already suffering.  Imagine that a lady you know was raped.  Can you ask her to forgive the rapist?  Does she have to forgive?  Does she have a choice not to forgive?

Contemplate on what the bible says regarding forgiveness.

Matthew 6:14-15

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Colossians 3:13

Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

 

Most Christian apologists defend the above biblical position by saying that forgiveness is a way to cope with bitterness.  It is not.  Forgiveness is saying that the person who inflicted the pain and suffering is freed of the blame.  There is simply nothing worse than imposing on the victim to forgive the offender: forgive or else you will not be forgiven.

Hinduism does not consider human beings to be stuck in the inescapable condition of sin. On the contrary, Hinduism considers the essence of human beings to be non-different from the Supreme Being. There is no sin but only ignorance in Hinduism.  Due to ignorance human beings are caught up in the stranglehold of Maya. Once freed from the veil of ignorance, human beings understand that Atman and Paramatman are one and the same.

 

Bhagavad Gita 4:36

Even if you were the greatest sinner, you will still cross the sea of past sin aboard the ship of (transcendental) knowledge.You need redemption only when you are stuck in the inescapable condition of being a sinner.

Read More
News

Cover Story in Swarajya Magazine

RAJIV MALHOTRA, author and Hindu
intellectual, is the man who developed
the “Breaking India” theory in his
eponymous 2011 book. Malhotra has
written prolifically in opposition to the
academic study of Indian history and
society, especially Hinduism, as it is
conducted by scholars and university
faculty of the West, which, he maintains,
undermines the interests of India “by
encouraging the paradigms that oppose
its unity and integrity”. In an interview
with R Jagannathan, he speaks about
the dangers that Indian and Hindu
nationhood face today. Excerpts:

Read More
All Articles, Articles by Rajiv, Being Different

Dharma Bypasses ‘History-Centrism’

Most of the religious conflicts and wars involving the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) stem from disputes over what exactly God said and how he said it and what exactly it means. To ensure that order prevails, canons of “authentic” texts are formed and creeds, or condensed forms of crucial affirmations and beliefs, are debated, written down, and carefully observed as litmus tests for participation in the faith.

In Christianity, this obsession with the history of God’s intervention is best illustrated by the Nicene Creed, which makes various historical claims about the life of Jesus. It is recited in every Christian church as the basic affirmation or mission statement of Christians to which they must pledge allegiance repeatedly. For those who doubt this centrality of history in Christianity, it is instructive to read this Creed, which was first composed in the year 325 CE when Christianity was becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire. It is official doctrine in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, most Protestant churches, as well as the Anglican Communion.

The underlying message in the Creed is that salvation can be achieved only through obedience to God’s will as understood through prophets and historical events. Salvation is necessary in order that man be saved from eternal damnation for having committed Original Sin in the Garden of Eden. The solution to the Christian problem of sin is for God to enter human history at a certain point in time. Hence, the historical record of that intervention must be carefully maintained, and its truth must be taken forward and aggressively asserted. It is a truth which is born of history and applies to history, both past and future: its goal is to make sure that humans collectively obey a specific “law.” This history, if it is to be valid, must be considered universal, however particular and fallible its agents (individual and collective) may be. I have coined the term “history-centrism” to refer to this fixation on specific and often incompatible claims to divine truth revealed in history.

There is a profound difference between the history-centrism of the Abrahamic faiths and the goal of dharma (comprising Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) which is that the individual aspirant elevate his or her consciousness in the here-and-now and in his or her very body. Dharma is not burdened by history, nor by the problem of “sin” as it recognizes no such historical act of disobedience. This was one of the topics of a wonderful conversation I had with Joshua Stanton, Co-Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue.

From the dharma perspective, one does not require a historical consciousness, at least not a rigorously developed one. Instead, the aspirant is free to start afresh and tap into his potential for discovering the ultimate reality without bondage to the past. All the dharmic traditions share this a-historical and direct approach to knowing the ultimate truth. Furthermore, this potential to know the ultimate reality by direct, disciplined practice exists in all humans even those who do not believe it does.

The prevailing Abrahamic view, by contrast, is that humans are not able to achieve unity with the divine and that, besides, the spiritual goal is salvation, not “unity with God.” Salvation can be achieved only through obedience to God’s will as understood through historical events and prophets.

Such an absolute status of history weakens the authority of individual spiritual explorations (hence, mystics are regarded notoriously with suspicion in these traditions) and becomes the basis for competing claims to truth which cannot be reconciled. Moreover, the Abrahamic view is that those without access to these historical revelations must remain, by definition, in the dark, lacking the most elementary means to make contact with God. I regard this historical fixation as the major difference between a dharma path (Hinduism and Buddhism in particular) and the Abrahamic one (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

For the individual who follows a dharma path, it is not necessary to accept a particular account of history in order to attain a higher, embodied states of consciousness. Nor is any such historical account or belief sufficient to produce the desired state. Thus, dharma traditions have flourished for long periods without undue concern about history, relying instead on the numerous lineages of spiritual masters who teach from a state of enlightenment. Meditative practices remove the layers of conditioning that obfuscate the light of one’s true self and thereby help one to realize the highest truthwithout depending on history. Even if all historical records were lost, historical memory erased, and every holy site desecrated, the truth could be recovered by spiritual practices.

Published: March 2, 2012

Read More
Being Different, Blogs

Difference with Mutual Respect

For over a decade, I have used interfaith exchanges as opportunities to introduce the concept of mutual respect and why it is superior to the patronizing notion of “tolerance” that is typically celebrated at such events. 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 to read through my entire manuscript and write to me many useful comments, he and I have responded to each other’s public talks over the years and argued online. There have been agreements and disagreements, but with mutual respect. I wish to reflect on how this experience relates to my overall approach to interfaith dialogue.

Chapter 1 of my book 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

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, or trivializing of the important Hindu/Christian 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 by evangelists as a positive posture of Christian friendship towards 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.

Rajiv Malhotra is an Indian–American researcher and public intellectual on current affairs, world religions, cross-cultural encounters and science. A scientist by training, he was previously a senior corporate executive, strategic consultant and entrepreneur in information technology and media. He is the author of Breaking India (Amaryllis, 2011), was the chief protagonist in Invading the Sacred (Rupa & Co.), and is an active writer and speaker. He is chairman of the Board of Governors of the India Studies program at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.

Read More
Being Different, Blogs

Tolerance Isn’t Good Enough

In religious circles, tolerance, at best, is what the pious extend toward people they regard as heathens, idol worshippers or infidels. It is time we did away with tolerance and replaced it with “mutual respect.”

It is fashionable in interfaith discussions to advocate “tolerance” for other faiths. But we would find it patronizing, even downright insulting, to be “tolerated” at someone’s dinner table. No spouse would appreciate being told that his or her presence at home was being “tolerated.” No self-respecting worker accepts mere tolerance from colleagues. We tolerate those we consider inferior. In religious circles, tolerance, at best, is what the pious extend toward people they regard as heathens, idol worshippers or infidels. It is time we did away with tolerance and replaced it with “mutual respect.”

Religious tolerance was advocated in Europe after centuries of wars between opposing denominations of Christianity, each claiming to be “the one true church” and persecuting followers of “false religions.” Tolerance was a political “deal” arranged between enemies to quell the violence (a kind of cease-fire) without yielding any ground. Since it was not based on genuine respect for difference, it inevitably broke down.

My campaign against mere tolerance started in the late 1990s when I was invited to speak at a major interfaith initiative at Claremont Graduate University. Leaders of major faiths had gathered to propose a proclamation of “religious tolerance.” I argued that the word “tolerance” should be replaced with “mutual respect” in the resolution. The following day, Professor Karen Jo Torjesen, the organizer and head of religious studies at Claremont, told me I had caused a “sensation.” Not everyone present could easily accept such a radical idea, she said, but added that she herself was in agreement. Clearly, I had hit a raw nerve.

I then decided to experiment with “mutual respect” as a replacement for the oft-touted “tolerance” in my forthcoming talks and lectures. I found that while most practitioners of dharma religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) readily espouse mutual respect, there is considerable resistance from the Abrahamic faiths.

Soon afterwards, at the United Nation’s Millennium Religion Summit in 2000, the Hindu delegation led by Swami Dayananda Saraswati insisted that in the official draft the term “tolerance” be replaced with “mutual respect.” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict), who led the Vatican delegation, strongly objected to this. After all, if religions deemed “heathen” were to be officially respected, there would be no justification for converting their adherents to Christianity.

The matter reached a critical stage and some serious fighting erupted. The Hindu side held firm that the time had come for the non-Abrahamic religions to be formally respected as equals at the table and not just tolerated by the Abrahamic religions. At the very last minute, the Vatican blinked and the final resolution did call for “mutual respect.” However, within a month, the Vatican issued a new policy stating that while “followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.” Many liberal Christians condemned this policy, yet it remains the Vatican’s official position.

My experiments in proposing mutual respect have also involved liberal Muslims. Soon after Sept. 11, 2001, in a radio interview in Dallas, I explained why mutual respect among religions is better than tolerance. One caller, identified as a local Pakistani community leader, congratulated me and expressed complete agreement. For her benefit, I elaborated that in Hinduism we frequently worship images of the divine, may view the divine as feminine, and that we believe in reincarnation. I felt glad that she had agreed to respect all this, and I clarified that “mutual respect” merely means that I am respected for my faith, with no requirement for others to adopt or practice it. I wanted to make sure she knew what she had agreed to respect and wasn’t merely being politically correct. The woman hung up.

In 2007, I was invited to an event in Delhi where a visiting delegation from Emory University was promoting their newly formed Inter-Religious Council as a vehicle to achieve religious harmony. In attendance was Emory’s Dean of the Chapel and Religious Life, who happens to be an ordained Lutheran minister. I asked her if her work on the Inter-Religious Council was consistent and compatible with her preaching as a Lutheran minister, and she confidently replied that it was. I then asked: “Is it Lutheran doctrine merely to ‘tolerate’ other religions or also to respect them, and by respect I mean acknowledging them as legitimate religions and equally valid paths to God”? She replied that this was “an important question,” one that she had been “thinking about,” but that there are “no easy answers.”

It is disingenuous for any faith leader to preach one thing to her flock while representing something contradictory to naive outsiders. The idea of “mutual respect” poses a real challenge to Christianity, which insists that salvation is only possible by grace transmitted exclusively through Jesus. Indeed, Lutheran teaching stresses this exclusivity! These formal teachings of the church would make it impossible for the Dean to respect Hinduism, as opposed to tolerating it.

Unwilling to settle for ambiguity, I continued with my questions: “As a Lutheran minister, how do you perceive Hindu murtis (sacred images)? Are there not official injunctions in your teachings against such images?” “Do you consider Krishna and Shiva to be valid manifestations of God or are they among the ‘false gods’?” “How do you see the Hindu Goddess in light of the church’s claim that God is masculine?” The Dean deftly evaded every one of these questions.

Only a minority of Christians agree with the idea of mutual respect while fully understanding what it entails. One such person is Janet Haag, editor of Sacred Journey, a Princeton-based multi-faith journal. In 2008, when I asked her my favorite question — “What is your policy on pluralism?” — she gave the predictable response: “We tolerate other religions.” This prompted me to explain mutual respect in Hinduism wherein each individual has the freedom to select his own personal deity (ishta-devata, not to be confused with polytheism) and pursue a highly individualized spiritual path (sva-dharma). Rather than becoming defensive or evasive, she explored this theme in her editorial in the next issue:

“In the course of our conversation about effective interfaith dialog, [Rajiv Malhotra] pointed out that we fall short in our efforts to promote true peace and understanding in this world when we settle for tolerance instead of making the paradigm shift to mutual respect. His remarks made me think a little more deeply about the distinctiveness between the words ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect,’ and the values they represent.”

Haag explained that the Latin origin of “tolerance” refers to enduring and does not convey mutual affirmation or support: “[The term] also implicitly suggests an imbalance of power in the relationship, with one of the parties in the position of giving or withholding permission for the other to be.” The Latin word for respect, by contrast, “presupposes we are equally worthy of honor. There is no room for arrogance and exclusivity in mutual respect.”

Read More
Being Different, Book review

Reviewer: Dr.Shashi Tiwari, New Delhi

Review of the Book ‘Being Different’ For “Sanskrit Vimarsh”, journal of RSk S, New Delhi
Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism– Rajiv Malhotra, Harper Collins Publishers India, ISBN: 9789350291900,Hardback,Pages: 488, Price: Rs.599

‘Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism’ by Rajiv Malhotra is a path breaking book filled with profound original insights on various subjects related to Indian religious, spiritual, cultural and historical traditions. It is a research-oriental reference volume for the intellectuals, philosophers, researchers, and general readers who are curious to know Indian thought and Identity. The book reverses the gaze to look at the West, repositioning dharmic civilization from being the observed to being the observer. Rajiv Malhotra, the author of famous book ‘Breaking India’ is an Indian-American researcher and thinker, writing and speaking on current affairs as they relate to civilizations, cross-cultural encounters, religion and science. He has done anextensive study of Indian culture and history, Western civilization and religion, and comparative philosophy and faith. He has been churning a wide range of issues and ideas related to his thesis from different sources for the past two decades, and to show this, his book’s cover has an attractive picture of the churning of the ocean by Devas and Asuras. ‘Being Different’ is the result of deep research on Indian and Western philosophical systems and histories, with especialfocus on how India essentially differs from the West, in cultural, spiritual matrix and in world outlook.

In his introduction Rajiv Malhotra mentions hisintention of thecurrent research. To quote here in his own words ‘I am simply using the dharmic perspective to reverse the analytical gaze which normally goes from West to East and unconsciously privileges the former’. On the reason of the study he says, ‘ this reversal evaluates Western problems in a unique way, sheds light on some of its blind spots, and shows how dharmic cultures can help alleviate and resolve some of the problems facing the world today’.

Rajiv Malhotra instigate a debate through this literary work on the following propositions: (1) Western claims of universalism are based on its own myth of history, as opposed to the multicivilizational worldview needed today. (2) Historical revelations are the foundations of western religions, as opposed to dharma‘s emphasis on individual self-realization in the body here and now. (3) The synthetic unity of western thought and history is in contrast with the integral unity that underpins dharma’s worldview.(4) The West’s anxiety over difference and need for order is unlike the dharmic embrace of the creative role of chaos. (5) Common translations of many Sanskrit words are seriously misleading because these words are non-translatable for sound and meaning.

In the Introduction the author explains that this book is about how India differs from the West. He challenges certain cherished notions, such as the assumptions that Western paradigms are universal and that the dharmic traditions teach ‘the same thing’ as Jewish and Christian ones. For while the Vedas say, ‘truth is one, paths are many’, the differences among those paths are not inconsequential. He argues that that the dharmic traditions, while not perfect, offer perspectives and techniques for a genuinely pluralistic social order and a full integration of many different faiths, including atheism and science. They also offer models for environmental sustainability and education for the whole being that are invaluable to our emerging world.

The author states that the term Dharma is not easy to define because it has several dimensions, and its oft-used translations as ‘religion’, ‘path’, ‘law’, ‘ethics’ all fall short in substantial ways. In the book ‘Dharma’ is used to indicate a family of spiritual traditions originating in India which today are manifested as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. On page 5 he explains that ‘the dharma family has developed an extensive range of inner sciences and experiential technologies called ‘adhyatma-vidya’ to access divinity and higher states of consciousness. Adhyatma-vidya is a body of wisdom and techniques culled from centuries of first-person empirical inquiry into the nature of consciousness and under taken by advanced practitioners. India’s spiritual traditions spring from dharma which has no exact equivalent in Western frameworks.

The first chapter entitled ‘the audacity of difference’ begins with the statement that ‘the cultural and spiritual matrix of dharma civilizations is distinct from that of the west. This distinctiveness is under siege, not only from unsustainable and inequitable development but also from some thing more insidious: the widespread dismantling, rearrangement and digestion of dharmic culture into Western frameworks, disingenuously characterized as ‘universal’ (p.12).
Posting his comments online on ‘Being Different’ Prof. Don Wiebe, of Trinity College in the University of Toronto has said that “Malhotra espouses an ‘audacity of difference’ in any such enterprise that defends both the distinctiveness and the spiritual value of Indian thought and that effectively reveals the cultural chauvinism of much western thought in its encounters with other cultures”.

The chapter 2 deals with‘Yoga: freedom from history’ and talks about two ways of knowing the divine. All civilizations ask existential questions such as: Who are we? Why are we here? What happens when we die? Can we transcend death and if so, how? What is the ultimate reality or truth, and how can we reach it? The approaches to these questions and the answers offered by the two civilizations differ profoundly. In the Judeo-Christian traditions, revelation comes ‘from above’, and its content is strictly God-given (p. 55). But according to the dharmic traditions, man is not born into original sin, though he is burdened by his past conditioning, which makes him unaware of his true nature. Fortunately, he has the innate capacity to transcend this condition and achieve sat-chit-ananda in this life. Since the ultimate truth is attained experientially,and passed from practitioner to practitioner, it follows that knowledge of the divine is varied and that more than one lineage may be true. Author quotes Sri Aurobindo to explain several ideas; and talks about Itihasa, Purana, Ramayana and Mahabharata to present the Indian outlook on history, myth and knowledge etc. and thus gives authenticity to his propositions.

On ‘Integral unity versus synthetic unity’ an authentic discussion at length is done in the chapter 3 of the book. The various dharmicschools, despite some profound differences in theory and practice, all attempt to account for some form of unity. The resources for its realization are built into the various spiritual disciplines. Unity is inherent in existence, according to all dharma systems. This sense of an underlying unity is strong and allows for a great deal of inventiveness and play in understanding its manifestations. As a result, there tends to be a great diversity of paths and philosophical understandings without fear of chaos. Western worldviews, where religious or secular, begin with the opposite premise: the cosmos is inherently an agglomeration of parts or separate essences. The debates on this subject are not about how and why multiplicity emerges out of underlying unity, but about how unity can emerge out of multiplicity. Such a unity is not innate; it must be sought and justified again and again, and resulting synthesis is always unstable. The starting points and conclusions of Western religion and science are in even contradiction, which essentially makes Western civilization an uneasy and tentative synthesis of incompatible building blocks (p.7-8).

In the fourth Chapter author shows that ‘people from dharmic cultures tend to be more accepting of difference, unpredictability and uncertainty than westerners. The dharmic view is that socalled ‘chaos’ is natural and normal; it needs, of course, to be balanced by order, but there is no compelling need to control or eliminate it entirely nor to force cohesion from outside. The West, conversely, sees chaos as a profound threat that needs to be eradicated either by destruction or by complete assimilation(P.168). Rajiv Malhotra proclaims further (p.177) with pride and confidence that ‘Western scholars find it difficult to acknowledge fully the merits of Indian Systems of thought, even when the influence of these systems on West is irrefutable’.Chaos arises when one experiences phenomena which do not lie within one’s psychological and cultural comfort zones. In this reference the author narrates immense Indian creativity, adaptability, and ability to absorb what’s new.The example of Kumbha-mela is given to demonstrate selforganized diversity (p.179).The two opposite sides are needed for churning of the milky ocean in order to obtain nectar for eternal life(p.184).Thus classical Indian traditions are referred in the book to emphasis its conclusions and to find out the root causes of certain current problems.

The author eludes on several distortions in the western-mind created by their use of poor and faulty English equivalents of Sanskrit words, in the fifth chapter. Sanskrit is important for its profound creative potential. It unites the great and little traditions (p.240). The meanings of Sanskrit words are embedded in its cultural context and also in the history of how that word evolved over time. Malhotra is firm in his view that ‘the unique experiences of different cultures are not always interchangeable, and the words used to refer to those experiences must remain intact. Many cultural artifacts have no equivalent in other cultures, and to force such artifacts into the moulds that the West finds acceptable or  familiar – to appropriate them – is to distort them.This too is a form of colonization and cultural conquest’ (p.221).

This chapter contains some excellent information on Sanskrit language, and its structure. It is also explain in brief why Sanskrit words are not easily translatable. Generally Sanskrit texts and words need context for their proper interpretation. Meaning changes many times. If a meaning is not taken correctly, it is not possible to understand the concept hidden in that word. Highlighting the richness of Sanskrit, the author emphasizes that the ‘non-translatability of key Sanskrit words attests to the non-digestibility of many Indian traditions. Holding on to the Sanskrit terms and thereby preserving the complete range of their meanings becomes a way of resisting colonization and safeguarding dharmic knowledge’(p.249).

Many examples of popular Sanskrit translations into English, that are false or misleading, are mentioned in this context. The Sanskrit words Brahman, Atman, Shiva, Vedas, Dharma, Jati, Aum, Duhkha, Avatara, Sakti, Kundalini, Guru, Devata, Yajna, Karma, Moksa etc. are referred to and elaborated. Their common mis-translations are explained and criticized in detail. Great emphasis is given on the use of original Sanskrit terms for the preservation of their uniquesenseand understanding.

The Western claim of universalism is mainly refuted in the sixth and last chapter entitled ‘Contesting Western Universalism’. According to such claims, the West is both the driver of history and its goal, providing the template into which all other civilizations and cultures must fit. This chauvinism is virtually invisible from within the Western perspective itself (p. 308). Such a universalism fails to address human needs; the most it can achieve is a kind of synthetic unity of civilizations under the rubric of the West.This concluding chapter is thought-provoking, innovative, and powerful in its arguments and projects Malhotra as a bold thinker and writer in the field of culture, history, and ideology.The volume concludes with a negation of Western claims of universalism, while recommending a multi-cultural worldview.

The last essay is in the form of conclusion which talks about purva-paksa and the way forward. One needs to engage in purva paksha or ‘reversing the gaze’, to shed light on how this leads to the misapprehension and denigration of India and dharmic traditions. Purva-paksa, the traditional technique of analysis encourages to become truly knowledgeable about alternative perspectives, and to approach the other side with respect. Using this ancient practice the author mentions the importance of ‘difference’, and thus criticizing the Western view of its own universalism as the only legitimate view. Rajiv Malhotra insists on preserving difference with mutual respect – not with mere ‘tolerance’. The book addresses the challenge on differences, and talks about unexamined beliefs that both sides hold about themselves and each other. As Dr. Kapila Vatsyayan, renowned scholar of our times has rightly said about the book, ‘Through seven chapters Rajiv Malhotra pursues a central argument to highlight the imperative need to respect difference’.The learned author gives detailed endnotes and illustrative bibliography and two Appendices. His homage to Gandhi is admirable.

Finally, it can be said that ‘Being Different- an Indian Challenge to Western Universalism’ is a book that every Indian should read to understand his or her true identity in the world. Also the non-Indians should read to know what truly India and Indians are like. It gives an opportunity to westerners to see themselves through the lens of another worldview.It dismantles many myths of false claim of a single universalism that is in the west’s possession. It proves that India is distinct in its civilization and therefore, is able to manage intense differences on the planes of culture, philosophy, language, religion and thought. The book makes us proud of our great seers, thinkers and ancestors. It is a memorable book for critiquing Western systems of thought and highlighting Indian ideals of humanity. ‘Being different’ will certainly turn to be a milestone in the long intellectual corridor of the intercultural debates of our times.

BY – Dr.Shashi Tiwari, New Delhi

{ Former HoD , Sanskrit Deptt., Maitreyi college, University of Delhi, New Delhi-110021}

Read More
Being Different, Book review

Bhakti Vikas Swami, Vaishnav scholar and ISKCON sannyasi, author of twelve books

All Things Must Pass — so sung George Harrison on a megahit album of the same name. George was consciously echoing Krsna’s words in the Bhagavad-gita, which ring through centuries of proud civilizations that have risen, deemed themselves invincible, and inevitably passed.

What so fascinated George — and thousands of his generation — about Eastern culture and thought has remained an abiding and ever-growing passion in the West. Today literally millions of Westerners, dissatisfied with what they perceive as the parochialism and unnecessary aggressiveness of their own culture, have chosen to adopt diverse manifestations of oriental dharmic traditions, perceiving them as more peaceful, wise, and truly spiritual. The concepts of reincarnation and karma, and the practice of yoga and vegetarianism — all largely or exclusively imported from the East — are now commonplace in the occident.

And internationally, the West’s economic, political, and intellectual hegemony — which arose several centuries ago and until recently seemed invincible — is finally showing signs of passing.

Yet although the distinction between East and West is becoming increasingly blurred (sorry, Kipling), distinctly Western presuppositions and underlying modes of perception and conditioning remain as subtle but powerful influences upon both Western practitioners of dharmic traditions and Eastern people steeped in the myth of inherent Western superiority.

Being Different appears at this cultural crossroads. Without rejecting Western contributions to culture and thought, it pinpoints the dominating, yet often unnoticed or veneered, bias toward Western paradigms. It furthermore challenges those perspectives by interjecting perspectives from the dharma traditions (maintaining that they are at least equally valid) with which to view all aspects of being.

Everything must pass, Krsna teaches, but that which is real will remain (Bhagavad-gita 2.16). In a world clearly in need of a rethink, Being Different challenges the West to stop stereotyping older civilizations as inferior and to examine itself through the lens of a culture that has remained while countless others have fallen. Being Different is so different to any previous work, and so compellingly argued, that it promises to initiate transformational discourse in all areas of intellectual activity.

Read More