Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies

Volume 26 Article 3

2013 The rT aditional Roots of Difference Anantanand Rambachan St. Olaf College

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs

Recommended Citation Rambachan, Anantanand () "The rT aditional Roots of Difference," Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies: Vol. 26, Article 3. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7825/2164-6279.1542

The Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies is a publication of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies. The digital version is made available by Digital Commons @ Butler University. For questions about the Journal or the Society, please contact [email protected]. For more information about Digital Commons @ Butler University, please contact [email protected]. Rambachan: The Traditional Roots of Difference

The Traditional Roots of Difference

Anantanand Rambachan St. Olaf College

IN Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western uncovering and interrogating these Univeralism, Rajiv Malhotra, drawing from and assumptions is ongoing and necessary and building on earlier lines of argument offered by, Malhotra’s work is a contribution in this effort. among others, Sri Aurobindo and Richard The colonizer’s reading of the meaning of the Lannoy, attempts to identify crucial differences colonized religious and cultural heritage is in the worldviews of what he refers to as the pervasive and has become, in many respects, Judeo-Christian religions and Indian thought. normative. Peeling away the layers of These contrasts are presented with the aim of interpretation is arduous and painstaking. contesting the so-called universalism of the Malhotra has certainly chipped away at some of Judeo-Christian world-view and highlighting these layers and even peeled back a few, the value and even superiority of the Indian drawing attention, for example, to differences perspective. He identifies his method with the in the significance of history, time, and in ancient practice of pūrvapakṣa that involves responses to diversity. He rightly cautions us grasping the opponent’s view, refuting it and that the globalized world is not a “flat world” demonstrating the truth of one’s position. but one in which “the deeper structures that I welcome this effort by Malhotra, support the power and privilege of certain continuing the work of thinkers on the Indian groups are stronger than ever” (p.14). Malhotra side like Aurobindo and Gandhi, and engaging must be commended for pursuing these issues the significance of these issues in our in Being Different and for affirming the contemporary world context. Western importance of religious differences. colonialism, with its assumptions about Any grand work, like that of Malhotra, universality and superiority, had deep and aiming to undertake a comparison of the lasting impacts on both colonizer and colonized. history and culture of two or more civilizations The latter became the object of inquiry, with risks generalizations. Malhotra is not unaware methodologies that adopted uncritically the of this problem and confesses a wish to avoid colonizer’s assumptions. The work of sweeping and misleading generalizations

Dr. Anantanand Rambachan is Professor of Religion at Saint Olaf College, Minnesota, USA, where he has been teaching since 1985. His major books include Accomplishing the Accomplished (University of Hawaii Press, 1991), Gitamrtam: The Essential Teachings of the Bhagavadgita (Motilal Banarsidass 1993), The Limits of Scripture (University of Hawaii Press 1994), The Hindu Vision (Motilal Banarsidass 1999), The Advaita Worldview: God, World and Humanity (SUNY 2006), and A Hindu Theology of Liberation ( SUNY: forthcoming 2014).

Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 26 (2013):2-9 Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 1 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 26 [], Art. 3 The Traditional Roots and Difference 3

(p.105). This laudable intention, however, does that devotes itself so appropriately and not exonerate the writer from problematic extensively to the nature and sources of generalizations, especially when the central knowledge, as well as to the grounds for concern of the discussion is the affirmation and comparing truth claims, I found it surprising celebration of difference and uniqueness. There that there was no discussion of the centrality are many, especially from the Jewish tradition, and significance of pramāṇa to the Vedānta who would question the construction of the traditions or any effort to situate his discussion category of “Judeo-Christian,” and Christians in relation to classical epistemologies. This who would dispute his representation of subject is important if Malhotra is seeking to Christian doctrine and theology. My focus in locate his work centrally in Indian classical this review is on Malhotra’s discussion of Hindu traditions. If, on the other hand, he wishes the traditions. reader to see his work as a novel and fresh Although the concern in Being Different is to interpretation of the tradition, it is necessary speak for the so-called dharma traditions, that to clarify his differences with earlier is those originating in the Indian sub-continent, formulations and to make the case for the his focus is significantly on the Sanskrit texts advantages of his construction. As noted earlier, and heritage.1 Within this focus, the voices of the specific sources, traditional and otherwise, the Hindu traditions are heard most often, and, that inform his position deserve better among these voices, the drumbeat (ḍiṇḍima) of identification in the main body of this work. Advaita Vedānta prevails. Malhotra speaks of Those who are familiar with my work know all dharma traditions as affirming a belief in the of my efforts to counter interpretations of “innate oneness” of reality (p.102), but this Advaita that, for various reasons, overlook the generalization overlooks the dualism of centrality of the Veda as a pramāṇa in the classical Yoga, the pluralism of Jainism, and the methodology of classical Advaita and instead philosophical complexities of the Buddhist propose experience (anubhava) as the tradition. Malhotra’s clarification of conclusive source of our liberating knowledge consequential differences between the of brahman.2 Valid knowledge (pramā) according traditions of India and Judaism and Christianity to the Advaita Vedānta tradition is knowledge can be pursued without the homogenization that conforms to the nature of the object which into which his discussion too often slips, but one seeks to know (vastutantram). Valid this will require a greater readiness to engage knowledge can be generated only by the the rich theological diversity of the traditions application of a valid and appropriate means of of India and to identify the specific roots of his knowledge, referred to as a pramāṇa. For arguments. Śaṅkara, the Veda and more specifically the My concern with Malhotra’s treatment of Upaniṣad, is the single and unique source of the Hindu traditions goes deeper and, since his liberating knowledge about the nature of arguments, as I read these, are derived brahman. It satisfies the criteria of being a principally from the Advaita tradition, I will source of valid knowledge (pramāṇa) by the fact confine my major comments to his of its unique subject matter (anadhigata), its representation of this sampradāya. In a work non-opposition to other valid sources of

http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol26/iss1/3 2 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1542 Rambachan: The Traditional Roots of Difference 4 Anantanand Rambachan

knowledge (abhādita) and the usefulness of its sambandha). The unavailability of the ātmā for revelations (phalavath artha bodhaka). It is also any kind of objectification is particularly clear that Śaṅkara and his disciples regard the important in this context. To observe the ātmā Veda as a revelation from brahman, conveyed to as an object would require another illumining the ṛṣis as word-constituted mantras. 3 This awareness and awareness cannot be bifurcated wisdom, in the Advaita understanding, is then into subject and object. As Yājñavalkya puts it conveyed from teacher to qualified student in a in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (3.4.1), “You cannot sampradāya or line of transmission. see that which is the witness of vision; you Overlooking the methodology and cannot hear that which is the hearer of significance of the Veda as a pramāṇa, Malhotra hearing; you cannot think that which is thinker adopts a science model to characterize the of thought; you cannot know that which is the process and gain of wisdom in the dharma knower of knowledge.”4 The scientific analogy traditions. “The dharma family (Hinduism, is deepened with Malhotra’s claim that the Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism),” writes Indian traditions make no claims of finality of Malhotra, “have developed an extensive range knowledge (p.42). The Advaita tradition is of inner sciences and experimental certainly cognizant of the limits of language technologies called ‘adhyātmavidya’ to access and all symbol systems in conveying knowledge divinity and higher states of consciousness. of brahman, but it claims also to offer a Adhyātmavidya is a body of wisdom and liberating teaching that is not tentative or techniques culled from centuries of first- uncertain. It will be helpful to have further person empirical inquiry into the nature of clarification from Malhotra on this issue. The consciousness undertaken by advanced epistemological model that one advocates must practitioners (p.6).” Disregarding the classical be appropriately related to the subject of one’s arguments for the Veda pramāṇa, Malhotra inquiry. speaks of the autonomous discovery of this From the perspective of the classical teaching by anyone (p.56) and of the aspirant’s Advaita tradition, as systematized and freedom to start afresh (p.56). He writes of the expounded by Śaṅkara, the employment of a acquisition of knowledge through direct science analogy to describe the method of experience and empirical testing (p.61). acquiring knowledge of the ātmā is problematic. Without engaging or responding to the It implies that the revelations of the Vedas are Upaniṣad teaching that the atmā, as non- available through methods similar to those objectifiable, ultimate subject, cannot be employed in the empirical sciences. This would known through sense perception (indriya undermine the claim of the Veda to be a pratyakṣa) or through any process of internal pramāṇa with a unique subject matter. It would cognition (sākṣi pratyakṣa), Malhotra speaks of mean that brahman is no longer outside the the inner sciences developed through scope of perception and inference (external observation and experimentation. Any and internal) and the Veda pramāṇa becomes methodology of knowing proposed, however, redundant. This comment is not meant to must be related logically to the nature of the suggest that the effort by Malhotra, or any object that one seeks to know (pramāṇa prameya other contemporary interpreter, to offer

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 3 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 26 [], Art. 3 The Traditional Roots and Difference 5

alternative epistemology on the model of offers an alternative to the more traditional scientific inquiry, is illegitimate. My concern is understanding of Vedānta epistemology based that such a model must not be presented or on the centrality of the Upaniṣad pramāṇa. He assumed as the traditional one, and that the doe not offer, therefore, any detailed treatment case for it in relation to the classical Veda- of the Veda as a pramāṇa in his writings. The pramāṇa model needs to be explicitly argued term is never employed directly by him, except and critically defended. The employment of the on the one occasion of his commentary on the terminology of science to describe a mode of Yoga-sūtras of Patañjali. Aurobindo, the Indian religious knowing does not immediately confer thinker most profusely quoted by Malhotra, upon it uncritical legitimacy, and the limits of was deeply influenced by Vivekananda. He read scientific models deserve critical scrutiny. Vivekananda extensively and reflects also the What is interesting about the use of the centrality of personal experience in his scientific metaphor to speak of the process of epistemology. gaining knowledge in the Indian traditions is Science as a method of attaining knowledge that it developed under a specific constellation and as the key to human progress was enjoying of historical factors and in response largely to considerable prestige among the Bengali the western impact on India. Malhotra’s intelligentsia in the nineteenth century. 6 discussion, whether he recognizes it or not, has Vivekananda spoke of the scriptures as a continuities with this historical process. In the collection of truths discovered through the Limits of Scripture, I trace the circumstances in experimentation of the various ṛṣis at different the Brahmo Samaj, in the late nineteenth times. Each one of us, according to century, when there was discomfort and Vivekananda, must validate these teachings in embarrassment over the traditional authority our own experiences, by following the methods of the Veda in debates with Christian prescribed. Malhotra phrases this argument in missionaries. This led to its formal rejection similar terms, claiming that, “direct experience and replacement with intuition.5 The idea of and empirical testing are important for the personal experience as an immediate source of acquisition of knowledge. Truth is to be religious knowledge rose to prominence and discovered and rediscovered for oneself, an became a leading idea of the period and a endeavor that requires active inner and outer dominant motif of contemporary Hinduism. engagement (p.61).” Personal experience was championed as Malhotra’s attempt to re-cast the Hindu sacrosanct and unquestionable. Unitarian tradition on the model of science, indebted as it Christian thinkers like William Channing and is to earlier historical efforts, presents us with Theodore Parker influenced also its many similar problems. It does not engage formulation. Swami Vivekananda inherited the sufficiently the radical differences between the skepticism and mistrust of scriptural authority objects of scientific inquiry and the ātmā that, championed by Brahmo Samaj leaders and as the ground of all cognitive processes and the contributed to re-casting Hindu epistemology ultimate subject, is not available for knowledge on the model of his understanding of scientific though any process of objectification, internal inquiry. In doing so, Vivekananda himself or external. While championing the supremacy

http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol26/iss1/3 4 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1542 Rambachan: The Traditional Roots of Difference 6 Anantanand Rambachan

of personal experience, it overlooks the consciousness that transcend language (p.227).” complexity of experience in religion and Certainly, the Hindu traditions have science. It assumes a self-validity and self- emphasized the significance of right sound in interpretativeness that does not grapple with the articulation and power of mantras. To the complexity of the relationship between overlook this is to miss something vital in the experience and interpretation. It assumes also a nature of a mantra. At the same time, Hindu singular experience of samādhi across the theological traditions emphasize that the Indian traditions, that requires ignoring the mantras fulfill their purpose also in doctrinal diversity of the dharma traditions communicating a teaching about the nature of and, in particular, the dualism of Yoga where reality. This follows from the right the nature of samādhi is best expounded. In comprehension of the meaning of the mantras. reality, there is no single defining experience To ignore this is also to miss something central championed uniformly by all Indian traditions. to the nature of mantras, especially those that It is problematic, to say the least, for any constitute the Upaniṣads. The significance of interpreter to bypass the different word- meaning explains the development of descriptions of culminating experiences and to sophisticated norms and tools of exegesis claim that these are alternative ways of referred to as ṣaḍliṅga that were developed by speaking about the same experience. If Pūrva Mīmāṁsa exegetes and adopted by later Malhotra’s epistemological arguments are Vedānta commentators. A sampradāya is a different and if these questions are inapplicable, lineage of transmission, but also one of exegesis then a substantial clarification from him will be and pedagogy. Comprehension was important helpful to this conversation. I offer this because the attainment of liberation itself was perspective, not to superimpose simplisltically at stake. It is unfortunate that this dimension of an earlier critique on Malhotra, but because of the significance of Veda mantras, that explains the historical continuities and overlapping so much of the intellectual vitality and energy arguments that I discern in Being Different. A of the classical tradition, receives minimal critique is not discredited because it was treatment in Malhotra’s discussion. My point, advanced earlier. If the arguments made are to make it absolutely clear, is not that sounds essentially the same, then questions remain and vibrations are not unimportant. I contend, valid. however, that these cannot be emphasized to One of the consequences of Malhotra’s the exclusion of meaning. The significance of disregarding the classical understanding of the the mantras is multi-dimensional and one Veda as śabda pramāṇa, and his use of a science hoped for some recognition of this fact in model centering on the validity of personal Malhotra’s work. experience, is an underplaying of the cognitive I believe also that Malhotra’s one-sided significance of the mantras of the Vedas and a emphasis on the vibrational character of clear emphasis on what he presents as their Sanskrit leads to his argument for the vibratory power. “Their deepest truth,” writes fundamental non-translatability of the Malhotra, “ is vibratory in nature, and these language. I share his concern about the dangers vibrations can take us to levels of of forcing the artifacts of one culture into the

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 5 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 26 [], Art. 3 The Traditional Roots and Difference 7

mould of another (p. 221), and his caution Malhotra, referred to an ethics of interreligious about the challenges, and even impossibility, in relationships, or a theology of religious some cases, of easy translation. The issue of diversity. What does it mean, for example, in translation, however, though always the words of Malhotra, “that we consider the challenging, presents different possibilities other to be equally legitimate (p.16)?” Do we when the concern is with the communication mean legitimate for him or her or are we of meaning. Meticulous care and linguistic speaking of legitimacy in a more universal competence are necessary if unique categories sense? Does legitimacy imply that all religious are not to be lost, but this is different from the claims have equal validity? Perhaps “mutual radical claim of non-translatability advanced respect” is both ethical and theological, but the by Malhotra in Being Different. An alternative theology underlying “mutual respect” needs position is advanced by Swami Dayananda more critical unpacking. In describing an Saraswati, a distinguished contemporary encounter (p. 21-22) in New Delhi with a teacher of Advaita, who argues that the Veda delegation from Emory University, Malhotra pramāṇa, and especially the teaching of the clarified that respect means acknowledging Upaniṣads, cannot be linked inseparably to a other religions “to be legitimate and equally specific language and has no inextricable link valid paths to God.” If we have in this with Sanskrit. It can be available and statement the gist of Malhotra’s theology of transmitted in other languages. 7 This requires religious diversity, is there not something a skillful teacher, schooled deeply in the amiss with his labors in this work to establish methodology of the tradition and rooted in its religious difference and to argue for the vision of reality, but liberating wisdom is not rational superiority of the traditions of India? language-specific.8 To make an argument for Or am I missing something? The theology of the absolute non-translatability of Sanskrit is to religious diversity implicit in Being Different imply also that the wisdom of the Hindu certainly needs more clarification and its tradition is not accessible to someone without similarities and differences from earlier models knowledge of the language. highlighted and argued. My final specific comment concerns My reflection on Malhotra’s representation Malhotra’s critique of “tolerance” as a mode of of the Hindu traditions is not meant to relationship between religions. In his delegitimize the lens through which he reads. I problematizing of tolerance, Malhotra stands do want, however, to particularize and with earlier commentators like Elizabeth contextualize historically this reading as one Spelman and Diana Eck who made similar that developed substantially in response to observations.9 There is much to concur with in Christian missionary criticism in the this critique, especially the assumptions of nineteenth century and in response to the power and privilege inherent in the idea of encounter with western science. Earlier Hindu tolerating another. Malhotra proposes interpreters were concerned, like Malhotra replacing tolerance with “mutual respect.” I today, to show that the tradition had a found it difficult, however, to determine methodology distinct from Christianity that whether “mutual respect,” as described by was Bible-centered, authoritarian and closed to

http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol26/iss1/3 6 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1542 Rambachan: The Traditional Roots of Difference 8 Anantanand Rambachan

the findings of empirical inquiry. They wanted Notes

to demonstrate that Hindu traditions employed 1 Although the expression “dharma-traditions” scientific-like methodologies and that their is used in circles of discussion, the meaning and findings were consistent with the claims of value of the formulation deserves critical science. This led to a decisive rejection and discussion. It is not clear what is meant beyond reinterpretation of the traditional authority of identifying a tradition originating from the the Veda and its nature as a revealed teaching. Indian sub-continent. There may be value in its The pramāṇa method of approach that I discuss use, but this is yet to be clarified. here is also a specific lens, but it is an 2 See Anantanand Rambachan, Accomplishing the indigenous one with deep roots in the history Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid of the tradition. We cannot rush to characterize Knowledge in Śaṅkara (Honolulu: University of it as “scientific” without careful clarification of Hawaii Press, 1991). Also, Anantanand the methodology and field of inquiry for Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture: science. It is a rational approach, deeply Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas concerned not to contradict or be contradicted (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994). by the findings of other valid sources and is 3 Śaṅkara’s understanding of the origin of the willing to open itself to the interrogation of Veda is discussed in his commentary on the these sources. It is very important that in any second sūtra of the Brahmasūtra. effort to distinguish ourselves from the other 4 The issue of how knowledge of the knower is and to affirm our difference, we do not negate gained is a vital one for the Vedānta tradition. our identity. For my discussion of this dilemma and I applaud Malhotra’s passion to resist resolution see, Anantanand Rambachan, The homogenization of the Hindu tradition and to Advaita Worldview: God, World and Humanity affirm difference from other traditions. How (Albany: State University of New York Press, and where we identify and describe these 2006). See Chapter 4. differences must be the focus of fruitful and 5 See Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of respectful intra-Hindu and interreligious Scripture, Chapter 1. conversation. Intellectually honest and 6 See David Kopf, The Brahmo Samaj and the vigorous intra-religious conversation is as Shaping of the Modern Indian Mind (Princeton: important as interreligious ones and, in many Princeton University Press, 1979), Chapter 2. cases, even more challenging. There is a long 7 Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Dialogues with history of vigorous theological debate among Swami Dayananda, (Rishikesh: Sri the traditions of India exemplifying care in the Gangadhareswar Trust, 1988). public articulation of the opponent’s viewpoint 8 For the purpose of disclosure, let me state that and without the distraction of treating dissent I regard myself as a disciple of Swami as disloyalty to a community, nation-state or Dayananda Saraswati. I studied Advaita tradition. May this heritage inspire our own Vedānta intensively with him for three years in dialogical engagement. India and my understanding and discussion of

Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 7 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 26 [], Art. 3 The Traditional Roots and Difference 9

the tradition is deeply informed by his pramāṇa-based approach to teaching. 9 See Elizabeth Spelman, Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), 182. Also Diana Eck, Encountering God (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993), 192-193. http://dx.doi.org/2027/mdp.39076002049885

http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol26/iss1/3 8 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1542