Anantanand Rambachan
I think that this observation about Hindus is still largely true and that the reasons for it
are many and complex. There is still an ocean of distrust to be navigated. Bitter
memories of colonialism, aggressive Christian missionary enterprise, stereotyping of
other religions and the absence of empathic interest in the other linger long, perhaps
too long. Even when the Christian motive in dialogue is no longer proselytization,
Christians must understand that, given the long history of missionary activity, this
change will not be readily discerned.Trust will have to be nurtured through personal
relationships and friendship. Other problems have to do with the fact that Hinduism is
a decentralized tradition. Its leadership is largely individual in character and it has not
developed institutional structures as in Christianity. Its authoritative voices are many
and it is often slow to identify, analyze and respond to contemporary challenges. Given
the absence of central organizations and decision making processes, it is quite difficult
to see how a comparable document like the Guidelines On Dialogue
produced by the World Council of Churches may emerge from within the Hindu
tradition. (Hindu participants/individuals/Christian participants affiliated with various
organizations).4
It is quite possible to envisage a future in which the walls of suspicion and mistrust
between Hindus and Christians are torn down. Contemporary challenges and changes
may also push the Hindu tradition, even unwillingly, to develop central institutions and
structures to govern and regulate its affairs. Such changes, if they did come about, may
not lead, however, to Hindus seeking deeper contacts with people of other religious
traditions. Some of the problems which underlie this reluctance are deep seated and
must be addressed by us in an searching, self-critical and humble spirit. Our
willingness to do so in the presence of our Christian brothers and sisters attests to our
earnestness and trust.
B. Is Dialogue A Christian Problem?
The argument that interreligious dialogue ought to be a Christian responsibility because
religious pluralism is an exclusively Christian problem must be questioned.
Appearances are sometimes deceptive and we must be careful that we do not rush to
condemn others for attitudes and positions which may also be found within our own
traditions. Let me illustrate this with some examples from Hinduism. Before doing this,
however, let me state my belief that Hinduism has deep and relevant insights for
helping us to understand the phenomena of religious pluralism and for building bridges
of understanding and engagement among people of different religious persuasions and
these should be offered at the table of interreligious dialogue. I do not think, however,
that it has satisfactorily resolved all of the problems of religious pluralism.
Swami Vivekananda in his opening and closing addresses at the Parliament of
Religions in Chicago spoke eloquent, powerful and memorable words about the
importance of interreligious understanding and respect. He closed his maiden speech
with the following words:
There is a lot to applaud in Vivekananda's attitude to other religions. He readily
admitted a common source and inspiration for the world's religions and claimed that
truth is not confined to any single tradition. There are serious problems, however, in
this theology of religious pluralism and these become evident when we try to
understand his doctrine of a common goal for all religions. The world of religions is,
according to Vivekananda, "only a travelling, a coming up of different men and women,
through various conditions and circumstances, to the same goal."6 Movement in religion is not a growth from
error to truth, but from a lower to a higher truth and the highest truth is non-duality
(advaita) or the knowledge of the undifferentiated reality underlying and uniting
all reality. Religions are at various stages of evolution towards this ultimate goal of
non-duality. In the spectrum of theological responses to religious pluralism,
Vivekananda would be an inclusivist. The language of the inclusivist is not demeaning
and antagonistic towards other beliefs. There is, however, a hierarchical scheme in
which all others are included and in which one's own viewpoint stands at the apex. All
truths are partial and find their culmination in advaita. Vivekananda's position is not
different in essence from many contemporary Christian interpretations of religious
pluralism, including the Vatican, and share the same basic limitations. A similar
position was articulated more recently by Swami Bhaktivedanta, founder of the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness. While he also acknowledged truth
in other religions, he understood them to be all incomplete. The sure way to liberation
is the path of bhakti (devotion) to Krishna. Christ is merely a form of Krishna.
The Hindu tradition has also generated its own brand of exclusivism characterized by
the unsympathetic denunciation of other traditions. The Arya Samaj founder, Swami
Dayananda Saraswati (1824-83), took his stand on the Vedas which he understood
to be the infallible repository of all knowledge, secular and sacred. On the basis of his
interpretations of the Vedas, he launched a vigorous attack on Jainism, Buddhism,
Islam and Christianity. His methods were very similar to what Christian missionaries,
at that time, were doing with the Bible as a basis. He was selective in his reading of
the texts of other traditions and his method was apologetic and polemic. While he
demythologized the Vedas, he did not treat other texts in this manner.7 The following is Dayananda's comment on
the Last Supper:
C. Is There Anything to Discuss?
While mystical experience has been a vital part of the Hindu spiritual quest, it was not
always championed at the expense of the life of the intellect and reason. The
prominence which is given in contemporary descriptions of Hinduism to mystical
experience is connected to a decline in the significance of scriptural, especially Vedic
exegesis, and the reinterpretation of the authority of the Vedas. This has led, in my
view to a weakening of scholarship in Hinduism and in a lack of interest in vigorous
dialogue with other traditions. It is not possible, here, to describe, in detail, and to trace
the historical roots of this process of reinterpretation and I have already attempted this
elsewhere.9 There are a few
salient developments which I want to highlight.
What I perceive as a watershed in the attitude of contemporary Hindu interpreters to
the authority of scripture occurred within the Brahmo Samaj during the leadership of
Debendranath Tagore. In response to Christian missionary criticism, the Brahmo Samaj
formally repudiated the authority of the Vedas and replaced it with authority of nature
and intuition. The basis of Brahmoism became, "the pure heart filled with the light of
intuitive knowledge." Tagore's successor, Keshub Chandra Sen, rejoiced in this
decision and championed "inspiration" as the most direct and significant form of
revelation. He denounced doctrine and dogma, which he associated with the life of the
intellect and logical thought. Towards the end of his life, Sen, like Debendranath
Tagore before him, gave increasing prominence to the authority of divine command
(ádesa) and claimed to have received a special revelation and dispensation
from God.
At the time of Keshub's death in 1884, the center of religious attention in Calcutta had
already shifted to Ramakrishna (1836-1886). Primarily through Vivekananda and the
Ramakrishna Mission founded in 1897, Ramakrishna, like the Brahmo Samaj, has
exerted significant influence on the character of contemporary Hindu attitudes to
scriptural authority. While his background was different from that of the Brahmo Samaj
leaders, he concurred with them in his disdain of scripture and in his championing of
personal experience. Vivekananda followed his mentor in attributing low value to
scripture and in upholding the supremacy of personal experience. Vivekananda
described scriptural analysis as intellectual opium eating and included scriptures
among the non-essentials of religion. Among other non-essentials, he listed doctrines,
dogma, rituals, temples, images and forms.
The centrality of scripture in classical Hinduism did not mean the abandonment of a
very important role for reason. Reason is important for deciding between different
interpretations of passages and for reconciling conflicting ones. Reason also plays an
important role in assessing and responding to rival views. With the emphasis in
contemporary Hinduism on the gain of knowledge through the transcendence of
reason and not on its mediation, reason, argument, and intellectual activity, all
important qualities of interreligious dialogue, assume more of an obstructive
character.
The championing in contemporary Hinduism of personal mystical experience has
contributed to the divorce of scholarship from spirituality. Examples of scholarship
without religious commitment and religious commitment lacking the self-critical insights
of scholarship abound. Their creative combination in modern Hinduism is rare. This
disconnection between scholarship and spirituality in Hinduism limits the quality of
Hindu dialogue with Christianity. The dialogue of discourse is most enriching when it
occurs among participants whose lives reflect the integration of both.
The divorce to which I am referring and its implications for Hindu-Christian dialogue
may be illustrated by highlighting the classical approach of saintly theologians like
ankara or Rámánuja. Both of these luminaries who have had a lasting impact on the
Hindu tradition gave central significance to the proper interpretation and understanding
of sacred texts. They clearly did not treat doctrinal matters as being irrelevant or non-essential. They
took doctrinal differences seriously, sought to understand rival views
and to offer appropriate responses. One need only look at the commentaries of
ankara or Rámáánuja on texts like the Brahmaásútra or
Bhagavadgitá
to see how carefully and meticulously alternative views were outlined and responded
to in order to appreciate how important they regarded doctrine and how much they
cultivated the life of reason and the intellect. I am not suggesting that intellectual
discourse is the only form of dialogue possible between Hinduism and Christianity, but
I think that it is one of its necessary and vital forms and is implied in many other kinds
of dialogue. When it is engaged in by those who combine the life of the intellect with
life in the spirit, the potential for mutual enrichment is unlimited.
I do not wish to deny the vital role of the experiential dimension in the religious life.
This has been a significant dimension of the Hindu understanding of the authentic
spiritual life and it ought to be highlighted in our dialogue. In contemporary Hindu
discourse, however, it is used to denigrate and belittle the life of the intellect and
reason in ways, which I strongly believe, are inimical to the tradition and detrimental to
constructive dialogue with others. There is a vibrant tradition of intellectual discourse
and doctrinal discussion which we can draw upon to invigorate our dialogue with the
Christian tradition.
D. Are There No Differences?
Let us take, for example, the famous Rg Veda text, "One is the Truth, the sages speak
of it differently." This text is often employed to explain away doctrinal differences as
merely semantic ones. But does the text say that the different ways in which we speak
about the Ultimate are insignificant? Does the text say that all ways of speaking about
the Ultimate are equally valid and true? Does the text say that the way one speaks
about the Ultimate makes no difference? Surely, the way in which we think and speak
about the Ultimate matters a great deal. The ways in which we think and speak about
the Ultimate not only reveal our understanding of its nature, but this is also the basis
for what we think that the religious life is all about. How we think about the Ultimate
determines how we live our lives. If we think that the Ultimate is vengeful, we are likely
to justify anger and vengeance. If we think that love and compassion are the most
important attributes of the Ultimate, we are more likely to live out these values in our
relationship with others.
The point of the Rg Veda text is not to gloss over doctrinal differences, although this
is what is usually emphasized in its use in Hindu-Christian dialogue. It offers, as is
obvious from its context, a far richer insight for Hindu-Christian dialogue. The text, as
I see it, is really a comment on the limitations and finitude of all human language in
relation to defining the Absolute. In trying to describe the indescribable One, human
language will be multiple since the Absolute exceeds all descriptions. Doctrine and
discourse are not redundant and differences are not unimportant. We must however,
in humility, hesitate to absolutize any discourse about the divine and not confuse the
language symbols which we use with the reality to which they point. Such wisdom is
surely precious for our mutual dialogue.
Before I leave the issue of underplaying differences, there is one further observation
which I would like to make. It is in the nature of a hypothesis, but I want to lay it before
you for your reflection and consideration. Communities where differences are real, but
where they are minimized or downplayed, are more likely to suffer violent and
traumatic upheavals when, in times of tension and conflict, such differences become
prominent. Communities, on the other hand, which engage each other in a deep search
for mutual understanding and which honestly acknowledge differences and cultivate
respect are less likely to explode in times of conflict. Such communities will not be
suddenly confronted with the reality of difference and are less likely to cite difference
as a basis for hostility towards the other. I often wonder about this matter when we
witness neighbours, in many recent conflicts, suddenly turning upon each other with
ferocity and violence, shattering the veneer of civility and harmony.
E. Is There Is Anything to Learn?
The reasons, I am sure are many and complex. Some of them may be quite pragmatic.
There may be very few opportunities outside of Indian seminaries and theological
schools for the study of Christian theology in India, and few employment opportunities
for Hindu scholars who have expertise in Christianity. It may also not be "politically
correct" for a Hindu to undertake a serious study of Christianity which is still associated
in many Hindu minds with colonialization and foreign incursion. We must, however,
also confront the possibility that the lack of Hindu interest in Christianity reflects the
unfortunate belief that Hindus may not have much, if anything, to learn from
Christianity. Let me cite the view of a recent participant in a Hindu-Christian dialogue
meeting.
The lack of Hindu scholarly interest in Christianity may also be the consequence of
popular cultural representations of the Christian tradition. In this matter, the Christian
tradition must assume some responsibility. "For the modern educated man in India,"
writes R. Boyd, "religion is philosophy or it is nothing."14 In the popular imagination, Christianity is
associated with Biblical fundamentalism, the sinfulness of humanity, faith in Jesus as
the way to salvation and salvation as the attainment of heaven. The rich intellectual
tradition of philosophy and theology exemplified in the works of such figures as Thomas
Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Anselm, Athanasius, William of Okham and contemporary
thinkers like Paul Tillich, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne is largely unknown
even among Christians. Here is where one would find the major questions which
interest Hindu scholars discussed. These include subjects as the nature of reality,
God, the problem of evil, and liberation and language. There is also a deep heritage
of mystical theology in Christianity which ought to be of interest to Hindu scholars, but
which is not prominent in Christian religious discourse. A work like The Cloud
of Unknowing, the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa,
Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzan) and more recent figures like Meister Eckhart and
Thomas Merton would provide wonderful resources for Hindu-Christian dialogue.
Let us read a passage from The Cloud of Unknowing.
Because with this question you have brought me into the darkness and the cloud
of unknowing that I want you to be in yourself. For, through grace, a man can
have perfect knowledge of everything else and can think adequately about other
matters - even about the works of God himself - but nobody can think about
God's essential being. So I must be willing to leave all the things I can conceive
with my mind on one side and choose for my love the one thing that I cannot
think about. Why? Because he can be loved most satisfactorily but he cannot be
thought about. He can be grasped and held by love but never by
thought.15
That which the mind cannot think of, but that by which the mind
thinks,
F. Is There A Future for Hindu-Christian Dialogue?
Both Hinduism and Christianity teach that the fundamental human problem is ignorance
or alienation from the Absolute or God who is the ground and source of all life. Our
condition is one of bondage to those things which blind us to the reality of God. Today,
unquestioning surrender to the assumptions of a materialistic world view is one of the
prominent expressions of our common bondage. Both of our traditions provide a strong
and credible critique of the greed as an illusory path to human fulfillment. It is found in
Hinduism in the prompt response of Naciketas to Yama's offer of wealth and pleasures
as an alternative to the quest for the divine. Naciketas turned down Yama's offer and
reminded him that "the human being will not be satisfied with wealth (na vittena
tarpaniyo manusyo). Our challenge today if to offer a credible response to the most
popular religion of the day, consumerism and its self-centered value system. If our
mutual dialogue can reinvigorate us for this task and help us restore the sacred and
its significance at the center of our lives and the lives of those who belong to our
traditions, we will truly become fellow pilgrims, reaching out with nourishment and
helping one another along the road of our common journey.
Let me conclude by sharing with you one of the most powerful and moving statements
I have encountered about the purpose of interreligious dialogue. The words are those
of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and the imagery comes from Judaism. I think,
however, that we can all find meaning and inspiration in his vision of dialogue.
There is an attitude among people of other religious traditions that the onus for
initiating interreligious dialogue must rest with the Christians because religious
pluralism and diversity is a problem only for Christianity. The suggestion, in other
words, is that other traditions do not have theological or practical problems with
religious pluralism and have no need to be in the forefront of dialogue initiatives. There
is no doubt that the Christian tradition has come to feel the theological challenges of
religious pluralism more keenly than other religions and has been wrestling to find new
ways to define itself in relation to these traditions. This has to do, of course with the
exclusive nature of the traditional Christian claim that Jesus Christ is the unique and
universal saviour of the world and there is salvation through no other. Exclusive claims
about God and revelation must be re-examined when we encounter people outside of
our tradition in whose life and work the love and grace of God is manifest.
Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long
possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched
it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations
to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be
far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I fervently hope
that the bell that tolled this morning in honour of this convention may be the
death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen,
and of all uncharitable feelings between people wending their way to the same
goal.5
In his final address, Vivekananda reminded his enthusiastic audience that holiness,
purity and charity were not the exclusive possessions of any religion.
Can a cultured man ever do such a thing? Only an ignorant savage would
do it. No enlightened man would ever call the food of his disciples his flesh nor
their drink his blood.....They eat and drink imagining all the time that their bread
was the flesh of Christ and their drink his blood. Is this not an awful thing? How
could those, who could not keep aloof from the idea that their food and drink
were the flesh and blood of their saviour, abstain from the flesh and blood of
others.8
Examples like these could be multiplied. It is not uncommon, for example, to find
unhistorical descriptions of Hinduism as the 'mother of all religions,' and claims that the
truths of all religions have their origin in the Indian soil. My intention is to make the
point that the challenges of religious pluralism are not limited to Christianity and that
our responsibilities are mutual. There are wonderful resources in Hinduism for
interpreting and explaining religious pluralism, but Hindus cannot be arrogant in their
attitude to others on this matter.
At a recent meeting in Chicago, convened by the Washington based Catholic
Conference of Bishops, to explore the possibilities of Hindu-Christian dialogue in the
United States, one of the Hindu participants offered an explanation for the lack of Hindu
initiative in dialogue. In his view, the basis of the Hindu tradition is mystical experience
(anubhava) and not doctrine. The implication, as I understood it, is that
interreligious dialogue is more appropriate to religious traditions which give greater
value to doctrinal claims and these are absent in Hinduism. The corollary is that
Christianity is a doctrine-based tradition and that dialogue is more appropriate and
useful to such a tradition. This characterization of both Hinduism and Christianity is
common, but unfairly stereotypes both traditions. Doctrinal claims have been important
in Hinduism and the mystical experience of God has been a significant feature of the
Christian life.
The downplaying of the significance of scriptural authority, the derision of scholarship,
the ridicule of doctrine and the belittling of reason, which we encounter in so many
modern interpreters of Hinduism, have other important implications for Hindu-Christian
dialogue. Perhaps most important is the tendency to overlook the significance of
doctrinal differences. Because conclusive insight is understood to be gained through
an experience that transcends reason, one finds it easy to dismiss the preoccupations
of the rational mind. Such scant regard for differences of doctrine is often frustrating for
many Christians who engage with Hindus in dialogue.
In a thoughtful reflection on the future of Hindu-Christian dialogue, Klaus Klostermaier
speaks about the necessity for "honest work of true intellectuals."10 At the same time, Klostermaier laments
the decline of intellectual vigour in both traditions.
Intellectuals are not the favorite children of Mother Church in our time and
age. Not only does one often have the impression that church leadership is not
intellectual itself, it often comes through as anti-intellectual. There is a tendency
to equate church membership with blind obedience to authority, faith with
repetition of traditional formulae, theology with language regulation. There are
true scholars within the church - but more than not they feel repressed,
unwanted, under suspicion. In contemporary organized Hinduism too the trend
appears to be toward the political rather than toward the intellectual, toward
agitation more than toward reflection.11
If Klostermaier's observations are correct and if we understand them as a challenge to
both of our traditions, we must, from the Hindu side, ask ourselves an important
question. If a sincere desire to engage and understand the other is a pre-requisite for
meaningful dialogue, why is it that Hindu scholars and intellectuals have not
exemplified any serious interest in the study of the Judeo-Christian tradition? It is quite
true that the Christian interest in the study of other religious traditions was fueled by the
missionary enterprise and there are still many Christian theological schools and
seminaries where other religions are taught in the context of missiology. Today,
however, the missionary motive is not the only one behind the study of other religions
and this needs to be acknowledged by Hindus. There are many scholars with Christian
commitment who have dedicated themselves to the study of Hinduism and who have
written about Hinduism in ways that any devoted Hindu can identify with. Many of them
are prominently involved in the dialogue with Hinduism and their deep grasp of the
tradition is a great asset. Klostermaier, whose views I just cited, is one such example.
It is not easy, however, to identify many Hindu scholars who undertake similar work on
the Christian tradition. This fact, I hope you will agree, is a significant one and
constitutes an impediment to Hindu-Christian dialogue.
There can be only one Mother and mother may have many children. All these
religions (children) can be categorised into three: Religions of Faith (ritual and
worship); Religions of Love (Service and Self-sacrifice); Religions of Reason
(discrimination and self-realization). Faith, Love and Reason are but the
components of mankind irrespective of their effectiveness and intensity. The one
religion (Mother) that has all of them in full is the whole and wholesome religion,
unique and universal religion, accommodative and assimilating religion, complete
and comprehensive religion, ancient and all-embracing religion. It is called
Hinduism or Sanathana Dharma.12
In addition to the fact that it over-generalizes about the world's religions, this
characterization of Hinduism can be read as an argument against dialogue. Since all
religions are contained within the Hindu tradition, there is nothing to learn outside.
"But now you are going to ask me," writes the author to his reader, 'How am
I supposed to think about God himself? What is he?' and I can only answer, 'I
have no idea!'
Which Hindu texts do this passage remind you of? It echoes for me the marvelous
insight of Kena Upanisad (I.6):
yan manasá na manute yenáhur mano matam
I feel very strongly that one of our enduring contributions to Hindu-Christian dialogue
would be to create opportunities for interested Hindu scholars to study the great works
of Christian theology at institutions of Christian learning. Those of us who work at
universities and theological schools should explore such possibilities. A body of Hindu
scholars with expertise in both traditions would be a tremendous asset to the
development of Hindu-Christian dialogue.
tedeva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upásate
know that alone to be the Infinite and not this that people worship here.
From all that I have spoken, I hope that my belief in the future of Hindu-Christian
dialogue is evident. (Aesop Fable). We ought not to see ourselves today as being
threatened by each other. There is a far greater threat that may consume us both and
which mandates our dialogue and common response. This is the threat which David
Loy refers to in the opening paragraph of a recent article.
Religion is notoriously difficult to define. If, however, we adopt a functionalist
view and understand religion as what grounds us by teaching us what the world
is, and what our role in the world is, then it becomes obvious that traditional
religions are fulfilling this role less and less, because that function is being
supplanted - or overwhelmed - by other belief-systems and value-systems.
Today, the most powerful alternative explanation of the world is science, and
the most attractive value-system has become consumerism.16
The market, in Loy's view, is not just an economic system but a religion which offers a
competing explanation for human unhappiness and an alternative path to become
happy. That path is the way of consumerism and greed. We live in a world in which the
countries of the North are twenty times richer than those of the South and in which the
richest twenty percent of the world's population have incomes about 150 times those
of the poorest twenty percent. We live in a world in which 250 thousand children die of
malnutrition and infection every week and in which the United States spent ,in 1994,
147 billion dollars for advertising meant to create the desire for and to sell consumer
goods.17 Yet, as studies, have
shown, consumerism is not making us any happier. Any dialogue in which we engage
must be cognizant of the social and economic realities which frame our everyday lives.
If we engage in dialogue without attentiveness to the challenges of these realities, our
conversations may be doomed to irrelevance.The relationship between religion and
social reality must be one of our central concerns.
It is neither to flatter nor to refute one another, but to help one another; to
share insight and learning, to cooperate in academic ventures on the highest
scholarly levels, and what is even more important to search the wilderness for
well-springs of devotion, for treasures of stillness, for the power of love and care
for man. What is urgently needed are ways of helping one another in the terrible
predicament of here and now by the courage to believe that the word of the Lord
endures for ever as well as here and now; to cooperate in trying to bring about
a resurrection of sensitivity, a revival of conscience; to keep alive the divine
sparks in our souls, to nurture openness to the spirit of the Psalms, reverence
for the words of the prophets, and faithfulness to the Living God.18
The author, Anantanand Rambachan, is a Hindu scholar from Trinidad and Tobago and
Professor of Religion at St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota, USA.
Endnotes
