|
Approaching the end of the second millennium, it is quite evident that we are by no means living in a 'post-religious era' and that contrary to the
expectation of some, the so-called nuclear age does not seem to have lost its zeal for the question of religion in any significant sense. The technological civilisation in which we live is steadily witnessing the
fact that the urban population around the globe is turning more and more to be a composite of the adherents of multifarious religious traditions, to the extent that the issue of religious pluralism can no more be
perceived as a topic for ivory-tower speculation. However, in this process we have also become keenly aware that despite the rapid shrinking of the geographical distance that previously kept us apart, the sense of
cultural distance still remains poignant, especially so when it comes to the question of religion. The situation, thus, demands that we take the issue of religious pluralism as one of the most significant challenges
of our time. Granted that there is no clear comprehension as to what is really at stake, and how this challenge needs to be formulated in the theoretical discourse, and in what way it is to be dealt with in
practical terms, the scenario that has become familiar is one in which we powerlessly observe how religious diversity lends itself to dissension by getting intermingled, sometimes grossly, sometimes subtly, with
other factors that cause disastrous conflicts.
Despite the growth of what is called 'secularism' that induces raging scepticism on many fronts toward all that which is considered as emerging from a
'religious' outlook on life, is it not indeed remarkable that the single most dominant criterion that is still used in the public discourse for distinguishing the largest human aggregates is articulated in terms of
their respective identification with one or other of the principal world religions? This indicates, surely, that the world's religions continue to be seen as the primary sources from which these large human
aggregates derive guidance in their this-worldly (or for that matter other-worldly) pursuits. However divergent their respective historical and regional contexts may actually have been and whichever were the factors
that have determined the stories of their respective unfolding, these religious traditions have persisted to be the bearers of visions and missions, of norms and standards that have influenced the lives of their
adherents. It is within these networks of ideas that we find, among other themes, the recommendations and prohibitions applicable to speech, thought and action that have been transmitted from one generation to
another right up to the present time when - irrespective of traditions we are increasingly aspiring to share a common technology. This complex and sensitive situation precisely urges us to reconsider the theme of
religious pluralism as deserving of special attention at the dawn of the third millennium.
However, the intention behind these utterances is, by no means, to invite prophetic statements about the future of world-religions but simply to
acknowledge, and to emphasise, that world-religions are here to stay and that this is of great consequence. Note that today, along with the hope for the emergence of a truly global community, it is also obvious that
this hope is not for a harmonious vision that could be encompassed within a sort of a 'One World' ideology where all actual and possible heterogeneity must get dissolved. On the contrary, the present perception is
that the distinctness of the different cultural traditions of which diverse world religions occupy a central place is by no means losing relevance. In fact, the most portentous lesson that we may be said to have
learned living in the contemporary technological civilisation has much to do with our keen awareness of the 'multicultural' global situation. It is a scenario which cannot be described in terms of any form of
extremism, however elegantly expressed. We can no longer hold high the banner, glorifying the sense of an abstract, homogenised unity or go to the other extreme and support any radical form of pernicious cultural
relativism that seeks to highlight the idea of incommensurability among cultures, insisting that these are closed conceptual worlds where the possibility of meaningful exchanges and communication is virtually ruled
out. These views are all purely theoretical constructs, having little bearing on practice. In this connection, notice that among other high points, today's world has also quietly observed that ideologies which
attempted to altogether uproot the religious dimension of human consciousness have not turned out to be successful a fact which brings us once again to the theme of religious pluralism.
The fact of pluralism needs to be kept in focus since it has been clearly evidenced that the religious consciousness of humankind has given rise to
distinct, multifarious expressions which play crucial role in the process of self- understanding of large human aggregates. This is why those who are engaged even in a purely theoretical search concerning the
multifaceted issue of religious pluralism and that of the possibility of inter-religious communication need to take note that, whatever strategies have been tried out so far to eliminate or to downplay pluralism in
the framework of religious thinking, have not worked. However, simply to pay lip-service to the cause of pluralism is not enough, if that stand is no more than a plea to maintain that religious diversity is just a
provisional state of affairs, to be transcended in course of time. Moreover, it seems to me that to assert pluralism in the context of the presence of world-religions and yet to play these against each other, as
though these are incommensurable, among which no communication, no overlap is possible, also needs to be openly recognised as an obsolete stand. Perhaps the lack of a collective effort in this direction is the
reason why the presence of diverse world-religions is generally perceived to be more as a problem than as a resource for humanity.
To put it briefly, the central question which remains before us is: how must a multicultural global society deal with the question of religious
pluralism? Theoretically the task that needs to be fulfilled is how to help ensure a creative discourse which is not a repetition of stereotypes and clichιs that have so far jeopardised inter-religious
communication. The practical concern that lies before us is to innovate ways and means so that we may answer the burning question viz. how diversity in the context of religious pluralism can be brought to fruition
for the benefit of all?
When we face more concretely the social bearing of the presence of the world- religions, they seem to be the fundamentally important sources from which
people draw both a sense of selfhood as well as a sense of 'otherness' a sense of 'us' and 'they' so charged that these become powerful determinants of collective behaviour. In this way the world-religions come to
play a major role both in the formation, and in the continuance, of group-identities. Consequently, as it is evident, these not only unite but also divide. In the light of all these perceptions and since it is a
matter of common concern today, the question that may aptly be raised here is whether our religions have not already proved to be a mixed blessing in human affairs? Even Swami Vivekananda who was so deeply convinced
that ".. of all the forces that have worked and are still working to mould the destinies of the human race, none, certainly, is more potent than those, the manifestation of which we call religion.." was
himself also fully aware of the fact that, as he put it " No other human motive has deluged the world with blood so much as religion; at the same time.. no other human influence has taken such care, not only of
humanity, but also of the lowest of animals, as religion has done. Nothing makes us so cruel as religion, nothing makes us so tender as religion". (1)
Note that this state of affairs pretty much continues to be the same not only among the adherents of diverse world-religions but also in the
confrontations between the different sects or denominations of the same. Even as we speak, we know that this is going on, which shows all the more how badly the question of pluralism has been handled even in the
context of a single world- religion.
This brings me to the theme of Religion and Tolerance. By now, it is evident that a repetition of any prudent rhetoric that is not born of an authentic
understanding is not enough to improve matters. Tolerance is not engendered simply through a re-iteration of that word or by making it an issue in any political agenda. A complex understanding of the phenomenon of
religious pluralism requires at least some basic knowledge about the 'otherness' of other traditions which is generally lacking. Care needs to be taken so that this knowledge is not conveyed in a manner which is in
opposition to the self- understanding of that specific tradition. I will shortly give an example where this sort of misunderstanding, based essentially on a lack of information, prevails. For the vast majority of
humanity, however, apart from the tradition that is a part of one's own cultural heritage, education about other religious traditions is up till now very limited indeed. What is available in plenty is hearsay which
largely offers the material for constructions of 'otherness' about other traditions, which are generally negative projections that from the very outset turn us against each other. As I have said elsewhere,
'imaginary differences provide the soil where clichιs are born.' (2) More awareness about real differences will surely prove to be less harmful.
Now to come back to the question of how certain constructions of the 'otherness' of traditions create only misunderstanding, we find that there are
many glaring examples. Let me refer here to my own research-work briefly. While attempting to situate the various Indian views of time in an intercultural context, I was struck when I came across, in a wide range of
literature dedicated to the theme of encounter of world-religions, how widespread it is to describe the Indian conceptual experience of time as 'cyclic' as opposed to the Judeo-Christian understanding of 'linear'
time. Such misuse of time- metaphors for designating the major traditional conceptions regarding time which is a fundamental theme of many-layered significance seriously obstructs inter-religious and
cross-cultural exchanges. It is all the more so because, as we find in the literature, the metaphor of 'cyclicity' eventually gets interpreted as symbolising the absence of such ideas as that of progress, of history
and of salvation. The details of this discussion is available in print. (3) I only wish to stress once more that under such circumstances, it is a farce to speak of a genuine encounter of world-religions.
I have come to believe that if diversity in the long run is to cease to be the grounds for conflict, an intellectual space must be created for an
engaged 'cross-cultural conversation' regarding these sensitive issues.
A philosophical exploration about why differences at all arise, whether there are diverse spiritual temperaments, why despite the strictest effort on
the part of several organised religious traditions, the mainstream tradition split up into various denominations, and finally whether attempts to suppress pluralism are futile, are some of the questions that need to
be discussed in a multi-religious forum.
Given as I said earlier - that on all counts, religious pluralism seems to be a phenomenon which is here to stay and can by no means be arbitrated
simply as a transitory state of affairs that will be eventually eradicated, some effort through educational channels needs to be made for imparting an overview of the basic strands of thinking that are embedded in
these traditions. Why not learn from the jargon that 'Information is Power' and apply it in a positive sense with regard to this important matter? Whichever factors that were earlier at work in generating specific
sorts of vested interests for promoting or thwarting a deeper acquaintance with traditions other than one's own, why not make us sensitive to the issue of inter-religious communication as one that must now be taken
up as a common project? What is at stake is no more a simple scholarly search for similarities and differences among the various traditions, not merely seizing upon an effective tool for studying what is called
'comparative religion' but how to lay bare the distinct experiential phenomena, the profound insights that seem to be closely associated at the heart of religious experience. After all it is around these that
centuries of collective thinking have come to weave the textures that are the marks of distinct cultures. If one takes seriously the idea that this plurality will never come to be merged in an unitary expression of
religious consciousness of all humankind in a manner that is acceptable to all, the question that we are required to squarely face is how must we perceive religious 'differences'. This question must not be
suppressed as dangerous or underplayed in the face of a triumphant secularism as unimportant or as being politically too sensitive. Given the fact that an ever-increasing sharing of a common technology is allowing
us to discuss matters of planetary concerns, it is time to recognise that every principal religious tradition has within its own particular network of beliefs, norms and attitudes, at least implicitly, a bearing on
the 'otherness' of other traditions. It is precisely these that function as the basis upon which the actions and beliefs of 'others' [i.e. those who are the adherents of other traditions] are approached as
understandable or not, and then judged as acceptable or not, to put it mildly.
Interestingly, the academic task of understanding the phenomenon of plurality of religions, as existing documents indicate, have assumed various forms.
To some, the situation where large human aggregates seem to owe their identity and allegiance to specific belief systems, when globally viewed is one that essentially demands a sociological or an anthropological
reading. There are others, however, in whose assessment the issue of religious pluralism today is one that requires to be treated entirely as a political question. Given the fact that some such ventures have been
attempted in evaluating the role of religion in the constitution of identities of various groups, unfortunately rare are those which deal with this crucial question of 'differences' as a theme for study of
philosophy of religions. An in-depth analysis for discerning what difference does 'religious difference' actually make needs to be made adequately in a multi-religious forum.
A close scrutiny of the public countenance of the wide range of dissensions and conflicts in this so-called age of secularism, often discloses the many
disguises that the question of religious pluralism can assume and how these are channelised openly or covertly even in various modes of social, political and economic exchanges and interactions. Had this issue of
plurality of religions been a negligible matter, would we encounter as often as we actually do the uncomfortable sight where the so-called 'religious differences' between the contending parties lead to open violence
and sometimes prompt armed State intervention?
It is now time for us to enquire together whether there are - as it seems to be fundamental theological view-points that influence the formation of
attitudes of members of one religious affiliation toward the 'otherness' of other world- religions. If we can agree on that, then it is high time that these viewpoints [which may or may not be fully pronounced] are
duly recognised and examined in a multi-religious forum. To be able to articulate the core ideas of distinctive traditions in a manner so that in the process the conceptual formation of their respective identities
become clear to the insiders as well as the outsiders is itself a great challenge. It is indeed a task that lies before the representatives of specific world-religions today. We must be aware of the historical
forces that are at play in order to comprehend such specific legacies and the constitution of the 'otherness' of other traditions as all these have a bearing eventually on our daily transactions.
What I am seeking to emphasise is that the attitudes toward the 'otherness' of others, whose religious affiliations are different from 'ours', are
matters that need to be dealt with first and foremost as a philosophical-religious question. This is especially so as there is a tendency to disregard the need for comprehending the formulations pertaining to the
'otherness' of other traditions as ingrained within a given tradition. This is also a part of our heritage that needs to be looked at differently in our contemporary context. It is evident that treating the question
of religious pluralism, along with the constitution of 'us' and 'they' as having merely historical, political or economic dimensions does not resolve the problem.
Instead of manifesting a widespread reluctance to face squarely these basic questions of our time, if the representatives of different world-religions
would be willing to take up this theme as a common project, such an undertaking I am inclined to believe - might eventually have greater impact beyond being theoretically a daring adventure. Among others, it might
be of help to discern some of the overlaps that one comes across in the diverse attempts at self-understanding and of understanding the 'otherness' of other traditions that are to be found in the discourses of
specific traditions. A direct effort in this direction is likely to disclose the philosophical relevance and religious significance of these various positions and thereby prevent the superficial readings that
continue to be derived from uninformed, perhaps often misunderstood and sometimes even wilfully misconstrued premises. That there is an ardent need for such exchanges is amply demonstrated in public discussions
about conflict-ridden areas, where the contending parties often have a clear 'religious difference'.
We frequently observe that the reference to religion in such contexts assumes a simplistic formulation, as if it is nothing more than a legitimate and
a convenient mode of description of group-identities of the contending parties. What is at stake here is understanding that the complexity of the question of religious affiliation does not end with that. This 'sense
of difference' demands an in-depth analysis and its implications must be allowed to surface. It is time to emphasise that the very process of conceptualisation, even purely within a theoretical framework, pertaining
to these sensitive issues has not yet been properly undertaken as a philosophical-religious enterprise.
Given that unexamined assumptions are rampant, it would be an important lesson for all concerned to find out why interpreting the 'otherness' of
another tradition is not as facile a task as it looks like in the absence of an authentic conversational situation. It is also illuminating to be aware of the fact that neither is it a simple matter to vocalise the
contents of one's own religious identity distinguishing it from that of the others, taking well into consideration the implications that these have for 'others'. Moreover, since the participants in such a
multi-religious forum cannot institute themselves solely as 'interpreters' of their own or of another's tradition, it requires that one is prepared to see one's own tradition being 'interpreted' not only by the
insiders of that tradition but also by the outsiders.
Religious Pluralism and the New World Order:
To situate this discussion in the contemporary context is to be aware of the fact that a strong sense of a need for transformation of previous
attitudes is prevalent. Rhetorical devices such as the oft-used phrases of 'global village', 'interdependent world', 'new world order', etc. reflect the prominent tendencies of our current situation. However,
despite this general temper, what is amazing to observe is that violence among members of different denominations of the same religion and among different world-religions is continuing. A call for transformation
must generate fresh interest in the question of plurality of religions as long as a cursory glance at the contemporary global scene would reveal to us a political situation in which religious pluralism is seen to
play a blatantly negative role. This is to be so, even if in certain quarters today religion is viewed as a private matter that shuns public gaze. Is it not time to investigate why "We have enough religion to
hate one another but not enough to love one another"? in the succinct words of the great 18th century English satirist, Jonathan Swift.
As I emphasise the importance of deriving a religious not a political reading of the phenomenon of the plurality of religions, it must be
remembered that the effort is not to search for any abstract trans-cultural frame for such an analysis. The answers are to be sought within the existing, living world religions.
Let me, therefore, turn to India at this point as the question of plurality of religions is, and has always been, of special significance in the Indian
sub-continent. The variety of religious symbolism and for that matter, polemical literature in India about representations and conceptions of the Ultimate is of such enormity that if Indian culture can be said to
bear a distinct character of its own, the presence of a religious pluralism on Indian soil since antiquity is certainly one of its identifying traits and by which it can be distinguished from other major cultures.
This is why, unlike in many countries today (many of which are mono-religious), where the question of diversity in religious contexts is mainly sought to be dealt with in socio-political terms, we find documented in
the ancient Indian literature attempts to treat the question in philosophical-religious terms.
These documents may be found useful and there may very well be room for important exchanges among the adherents in this regard that can enrich all of
us. Moreover, it seems to me that a fresh look at the lives and sayings of great religious personalities, no matter on which cultural soil, can definitely add an important dimension to the ongoing discussions on
this topic. All the more so, as the voices of those religious personalities, who are perceived to be truly free from other pulls, other agendas, and who can lay bare before us what religious consciousness must not
be confused with, have always been rare in human history.
As one example of such religious personalities who, while being revered intensely by members of a given community, also took the question of plurality
of religions seriously, mention may be made of Ramakrishna. His saying Yata mata tata patha [As many persuasions/views, so many paths] is directed towards instilling a constructive and respectful attitude to not exclusively one but to all religions, through an overt recognition of the legitimacy of different paths. While others doubted and debated, as we still do, about the eventual fate of plurality of religions, he gave an answer. To say this is not to single him out as the unique source but to be open to receive the resources that may be derived for this purpose from any religious tradition.
What we need is a way of looking at diversity that does not call for organising plurality of traditions in any hierarchical order, where one out of the
many persuasions has to be privileged or to be declared as a fulfilment of the others, nor must it require that the validation of one implies a rejection of others. Rhetoric born of simple political prudence or a
'live and let live' formula are not enough; the insight has to be derived from religious conviction.
"Remember this too", Ramakrishna said to Vijayakrishna Goswami, a very respected person of the Brahmo Samaj, "If you believe that God is
formless, then stick to that belief with firm conviction. But don't be dogmatic: Never say emphatically about God that He can be only this and not that. You may say: l believe that God is formless, but He can be
many things more. He alone knows what He can be. I do not know. I do not understand". (4)
To appreciate these words is to recognise the fact that imposition of certain fixed, rigid dogmas, views or practices only make way for fanaticism and
bigotry. Acknowledging the validity of a variety of religious experience, however, is not always viewed in a positive sense. There is, indeed, plenty of room for stimulating debates and discussions. For an
altogether different assessment of 'tolerance' with regard to one's preference for a specific religion, consider, for example, the following view:
"According to Chesterton, tolerance is the virtue of people who do not believe in anything. Chesterton meant that as a critique of tolerance. But
it captures nicely the upside of unbelief: where religion is trivialised, one is unlikely to find persecution. When it is believed that on your religion hangs the fate of your immortal soul, the Inquisition follows
easily; when it is believed that religion is a breezy consumer preference, religious tolerance flourishes easily. After all we don't persecute people for their tastes in cars. Why for their taste in gods?" (5)
To conclude, while we speak of living in a 'global village', not to be able to break through the particularity of one's own tradition and recognise the
'other' religious traditions, also as expressions of the pervading religious consciousness of humanity, must be acknowledged as a gross failure on the part of all those who value the religious venture. It is a sort
of bankruptcy of religious thinking which, in its rigid conceptual formulations, must cause the decline of the legitimacy of plurality in religion.
No doubt, to be able to glimpse that experience, to which the greatest religious personalities had access and of which we ought to be the
beneficiaries, is a great challenge. What will be of immense value, to repeat once more, is to create the opportunity where people at large can obtain basic information about the messages and aspirations that are
embedded in the great world-religions, in a way that these are not taken for granted merely as the source of great divisions that justify senseless killings and hatred. Although this has often been the case, it must
be at last - seen as anachronistic in today's world. Effort needs to be made to build up trust. Instead of perpetuating old suspicions, courage must be engendered to yearn for an understanding of that ultimate
source of power and meaning that world religions sought to convey. Religions will not be seen as adversaries of pluralism only when we all perceive that .. "In the depth of every living religion there is a
point at which the religion itself loses its importance, and that to which it points breaks through its particularity"
References
- cf. Collected Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta, 1995
- cf. my paper entitled Cross-cultural Conversation: Its Scope and Aspiration in Cross-cultural Conversation, edited by A. N. Balslev, AAR Cultural
Criticism Series, Scholars Press, 1996.
- cf. my paper in Religion end Time, Editors A. N. Balslev and J. N. Mohanty, E. J. Brill, The Netherlands, 1995
- from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, trans. Swami Nikhilananda, Madras,1957
- Essay "Will it be Coffee, tea or He?" by Charles Krauthammer, published in "Time magazine" on June 15, 1998.
top
|
