The Medha Journal

I had a very intense experience last week reading through Rajiv Malhotra (RM)'s book 'Being Different'. The book, ’Being Different’, is probably the most important book on sociology written by an Indian intellectual in this century. It systematically fleshes out the differences between the Dharmic traditions and the Abrahamic faiths and the consequences of the difference. The author uses the classical method of Purva Paksha to reverse the gaze and look at the Western traditions from the point of view of the dharmic tradition. The method of Purva Paksha in classical India asks one to acquire a deep understanding of the other (tradition) and present other’s arguments faithfully before criticizing those arguments. I will present here a brief summary of the book before presenting my view.

The author compares the history-centric nature of the Abrahamic faiths with the embodied knowledge (Yogic knowledge) of the dharmic traditions. His question to the officials of the US state of New Jersey (page 60)- What would happen to your religious lives if all history becomes inaccessible or falsified? - is in my opinion destined to become a classic. RM told his distinguished audience that dharma would survive even without historical records because spiritual advancement through Yoga techniques and practices is independent of the life history of Patanjali, the author of the Yoga Sutras. . RM suggests that institutionalized Judeo-Christian religions are in bondage to history (page 62). The book is filled with penetrating observations detailing differences between the Abrahamic faiths and the dharmic traditions. For example, he makes the superb point that unlike western philosophy which deploys reason without demanding any inner transformation of consciousness through Yoga or meditation, Indian philosophical systems are inextricably interwoven with adhyatmika practice (page 78).

RM makes the important point that the West has achieved a synthetic unity of sorts by marrying intellectual metaphysics with revealed religion and third person empirical science with religion. This synthetic unity of the west, the forced unification of disparate parts, is also the result of history-centrism. The various ideas of space, time, universe, ethics, freedom,pluralism, idol worship, scriptures, ego, arts including music etc have all been affected by the history-centrism of the Abrahamic faiths. The synthetic unity of the west is perenially threatened by the science/religion split. Even the modern secularized West is heir to a long tradition of Christian patterns of thought and sensibility. RM shows that the dharmic traditions are steeped in the metaphysics of the non-separation of the universe from the Ultimate Reality,i.e., the dharmic traditions have an integral unity. The ideas of dharmic traditions about space, time, universe, ethics, freedom etc are all governed by its integral unity and differ markedly from the Western ideas. There is also no split between science and religion in dharmic traditions unlike the split seen in the West. These differences between the Abrahamic faiths and dharmic traditions show up in the colonial conquests of the West. The absorption of Yoga and meditation by the West ignores profound differences and incompatibilities between the dharmic and Judeo-Christian traditions and is an example of a synthetic unity which has not been thought through.

RM shows further differences between the two traditions in their attitudes towards order and chaos. He also shows that certain Sanskrit words are simply nontranslatable in any modern western language because of fundfamental incompatibilities between the two traditions. Finally, RM discusses the failure of the Hindu dharmic leaders to do a Purva Paksha of the Western traditions in order to better serve dharma and prevent its absorption or digestion into the matrix of the Western civilization. Finally RM challenges Western universalistic claims based on the huge differences between dharmic and Abrahamic traditions.

TO BE CONTINUED

The book brilliantly uses Purba Paksha to demonstrate the difference between dharmic traditions and Abrahamic faiths. The purpose of Purva Paksha is to know very accurately the other opposing tradition in order to be able to properly and fairly criticize it. However, in my opinion RM misses the point of using Purva Paksha when he writes:

They claim that all religions are same while they ought to be saying that religions are equal but different. (page 35);
However, though neither faith is superior to the other,….. (page 270);

It was jarring to read that RM finds dharmic traditions and Abrahamic faiths of equal value after one has read a series of statements like this in the book:

1. The critical distinction between dharmic traditions and the Western reliance on history is that the meditative practices of the former remove the layers of conditioning one’s true self and the highest truth, while the West lacks both the technique and the conceptual base to do so. (page 57)
2. European superstitions literally killed the freedom to pursue adhyatma-vidya on a systematic basis. (page 84)
3. ..mysticism in Judeo-Christian religions has often been practised in defiance of authority, its clandestine place outside of approved Church doctrine renders it sporadic and wanting in rigorous methodologies, replication, documentation and lineages. (page 93)
4. Original sin tainted Christians’ notion of individuality as preconditioned by the bondage of sin. (page 267)
5. In the dharma traditions, the material ego is viewed as the ultimate source of finitude and suffering, whereas in the Western mindset the ego always remains intact and at times even undergoes a dangerous messianic inflation.(page 300)
6. The dharmic traditions are at a disadvantage in the political and psychological contest for souls and territory, because they do not proselytize. The Christian and Islamic fixation on historical revealation, schemata of salvation and damnation, and formal institutions as the exclusive bearers of divine truth has often fuelled imperialistic designs for expansion and control. (page 300)

How can RM find the two traditions equal after he has shown that the western tradition is history-centric and not based on experiential techniques like meditation, that the western tradition has killed freedom to pursue adhyaatma vidya, that the western ego undergoes a dangerous messianic inflation, that western tradition has fuelled imperialistic designs for expansion and control?
RM has criticized Vivekananda for not having a solid understanding of Western religion and philosophy (page 345). In my opinion, however, Vivekananda had sufficient understanding of Western religion and philosophy as is clear from the following quotes:

The Bhakti of India is not like the western Bhakti. The central idea of ours is that there is no thought of fear. It is always, love God. There is no worship through fear, but always through love, from beginning to end.

- Vivekananda (Complete Works V, p300-301)

You must remember that humanity travels not from error to truth, but from truth to truth; it may be, if you like it better, from lower truth to higher truth, but never from error to truth. Suppose you start from here and travel towards the sun in a straight line. From here the sun looks only small in size. Suppose you go forwards a million miles, the sun will be much bigger. At every stage the sun will become bigger and bigger. Suppose twenty thousand photographs had been taken of the same sun, from different standpoints; these twenty thousand photographs will certainly differ from one another. But can you deny that each is a photograph of the same sun? So all forms of religion, high or low, are just different stages towards that eternal state of light, which is God Himself. Some embody a lower view, some a higher, and that is all the difference.

- Vivekananda (Complete Works IV, p147)

Vivekananda never made the huge mistake made by RM and equalled the dharmic traditions with the Abrahamic faiths. He considered the Abrahamic faiths to be of lower value than Vedanta.

TO BE CONTINUED

Finally, I would like to comment on some other issues:
(a) RM writes,
"When dealing with the mind, he (Descartes) examined its properties entirely apart from both body and soul. ‘I think, therefore I am’ (cogito ergo sum) became his famous motto and methodology. The realm of philosophical speculation and scientific inquiry was split from the world of spirit and living matter and took a life on its own. "(page 159)

I think RM missed a huge opportunity here. Descartes's "I think, therefore I am" is the silliest famous statement made by any one in world history. Descartes does not realize that without there being an I it is not possible to think. Even the structure of the sentence, "I think" privileges the I before think. The correct position is "I am, therefore I think" because unless there is an "I" there can not be any thinking. Descartes's defective position of privileging 'think" before "I" leads to the reductionist western science. The Vedantic position leads to the inquiry of the self or I.

(b) RM quotes Organ:

Hinduism seeks the ultimate integration …. ‘Why should I treat my neighbor as myself?’, man asks. Hinduism’s answer is a most conclusive one:’Because your neighbor is yourself – your Real Self.’(page 133)

This is actually classical Vivekananda. RM should have directly quoted Vivekananda here instead of Organ.

(c)RM write:
The Hindus deconstruction terminates in the personal supreme being such as Brahman or Bhagavan ….(page 265)

Brahman is never considered as a personal supreme being.

(d) There are several typographic errors in the text.The most serious one is in the bottom of page 100 where the boxes have interchanged. The “Non-negotiable Grand Narrative of History” box should be on the right and the other box on the left.
Other errors that I caught are:
(1) The term Atman is mispelled. (page 124);
(2) The word apiece should be a piece. (page 124);
(3) The word absolute is mispellled. (page 156);

Rajiv Malhotra often worries about the digestion of Hinduism by Christianity. Here is an example of digestion worry by a Catholic priest:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/vatica...65.html?ref=hinduism

I am sure RM would like to answer you himself, dear Pradip.
Let me, however look at the points a) to d) in your latest post and see whether I have anything to say about them.
a) RM's sparing a dissection of Descartes' statement is not important for the central message in the book.
Rene Descartes' statement was made in Latin where the pronoun I is hidden in the verbs. Also, instead of using ergo meaning therefore, if he had used because as a conjunction, sum(am) would have preceded cogito(think).
b) Yes, Vivekananda could have been quoted. But since Organ said the same thing, he can be quoted too.
c) I agree.
d) Nice of you to have taken the trouble to locate the typos. This will enable their correction in subsequent prints. People who read the book in such great detail are the best friends of the cause the book represents.
I found the transposition of the boxes in page 100 too.
I also found that RM refers to the Visishtadvaitic Acharya as Srinivasa Ramanuja in page 106. The Acharya did not have Srinivasa as his first name. The index has both Ramanujan AK and Ramanujan Srinivasa listed but no Ramanuja. And the page numbers allotted to Ramanujan, Srinivasa are 106 and 121. The first refers to the Visishtadvaitic Acharya, alright. Page 121 is not speaking about him, but most likely about AK Ramanujan.
Srinivasa Ramanujan was of course another great Indian who lived in recent times, a mathematician.

I said your latest post, dear Pradip. I meant the one before, not the one in which you are talking about a Vatican exorcist!