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