Last month I posted “Pondering Pachyderm Perambulation,” relating to the book Circling the Elephant (2020) by John J. Thatamanil. But there was more I wanted to say about that book and the important subjects it explores—so, here goes.
What Do We Learn from the Blind Men?
There is
value in pondering the old story of the six blind men and the elephant. But
there are also problems that arise from a serious consideration of that fable/allegory.
(Author Thatamanil considers five of those problems on pages 5 to 11 of his
book.)
To me, a
basic problem is this: If all you knew about an elephant was from what you
learned from six blind men, would you have anything like an adequate idea of
what an elephant is? Not at all.
True, you
would know something about six aspects of the animal called an elephant, but
that would be far from understanding a real pachyderm.
More
importantly, one has to know something about an actual elephant for the fable
to be instructive.
So, what
does this say to those who take the old story as helpful for understanding the
various religious traditions of the world? Does each tradition have something
true to teach us about God (by whatever name God is called)? Perhaps.
But can we
reach an adequate understanding of what God is really like by just putting all
the religious teachings together? Not at all. One has to know something about
God for the old fable to be helpful for interreligious discussion.
What about the Value of Religious Diversity?
Author Thatamanil seeks to develop a theology
of religious diversity, asserting that such diversity is beneficial rather than
problematical.
The fact of religious plurality certainly must
be recognized, and as
I wrote back in 2010, all of us should relate to different religious faiths
with an attitude characterized by adjectives such as open, respectful,
and dialogical.
There are, undoubtedly, benefits by learning
from those of other religious traditions. But a full-blown pluralism that
accepts all as more or less equally “true” or “good” is highly questionable.
Is religious diversity good when some forms
are injurious to people, such as in supporting over/under relationships,
racism, neglect of the social/physical world, etc., etc.? Aren’t, in fact, some
religious views clearly better than others?
“Liberal” scholars such as Thatamanil and those
who basically agree with him are loath to say so.
And, certainly, the differences within
the various religious traditions must be fully recognized as well as the
differences among those traditions.
Still, to say that all expressions of religion
are basically the same and all are basically good, or bad, is seriously
mistaken.
What
about Social Ethics?
Knowing an elephant is partially like a tree,
or a wall, or a rope, etc. says nothing about the beneficial or detrimental effects
elephants have on humans.
Interreligious (or even intrareligious) discussions
can end up without shedding much light on how the various religious views
impact the way humans live and interact in society.
How do religious beliefs, of any tradition,
impact living/loving in the “real world” (by which I mean the world in which
people live their day-by-day lives)?
Back in 1975, Christian ethicist John C. Bennett
(1902~95) published a seminal book titled The Radical Imperative: From
Theology to Social Ethics. The emphasis was on moving from an emphasis on
religious doctrines to focusing on the social responsibility of (Christian)
believers.
Maybe now is the time to move from a theology
of religious diversity to considering how religious faiths help or hinder the
flourishing of human beings in society today.
In that regard, Thatamanil does recognize a
fundamental problem in traditional Hinduism, the inherent caste system which
lingers to this day, including the ongoing “discrimination and horrific
violence against Dalits” (p. 105).
The caste system embraced by Hinduism is
injurious to (Asian) Indians (even those in the U.S.; see
here and here)
to this day.
To speak metaphorically, the blind men sharing
their limited views of an elephant can’t, for example, understand or deal with
the harm caused by a stampeding elephant.
.jpg)
I think, Leroy, you make a perfectly good argument here. One of my concerns about interfaith dialogue is that they rarely challenge each other. But why you focus on Hinduism‘s support of the caste system, given the terrible history of war, violence, oppression, slavery, economic exploitation, and imperialism in the west, blessed by Christianity, seems to me . . . well . . . hm…
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anton, for your comments. Perhaps one of the differences between interfaith dialogue and intrafaith dialogue is that the latter is more likely to challenge each other, as you have done here--and such challenges make dialogue not only possible but meaningful.
DeleteCertainly there is a terrible history of war etc. in the West, that has largely been identified with Christianity. But that terrible history has for centuries been challenged by Christian thinkers and activists. Even more importantly, that terrible history was not a part of Christianity for the first three hundred years of its existence, so it can be easily argued that such a history is a perversion of the Christian message rather than an expression of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, upon whom Christianity is based.
By contrast, it seems to me that the caste system is an inherent part of Hinduism that was practiced with little opposition until the (secular) Constitution of India went into effect in January 1950. B.R. Ambedkar is known as the father of that Constitution, and he long was an opponent of Hinduism. In 1935, he said that he was born a Hindu but wouldn't die as one. He viewed Hinduism as an “oppressive religion” and started to consider conversion to any other religion. Finally, not long before his death in 1956 he converted to Buddhism.
Even Gandhi, who is highly praised by Thatamanil in his book, seems to have held questionable beliefs about the caste system, especially with regards to the Dalits. Even he (T.) admits, “A grave sense of betrayal characterizes Dalit engagements with and remembrance of Gandhi. In faithfulness to Dalit communities, it is important to remember rather than repress the harms Gandhi wrought in his attempts to defend elements of Hindu orthodoxy, most especially the validity of caste” (pp. 194-5).
My stepson’s song: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MxX6vXChXiE
ReplyDeleteAnton, I enjoyed listening to your stepson's song--and was amused at how one of his "blind men" discovered something at the rear of the elephant the blind men of the old story didn't.
DeleteI wonder why his song is about five blind men rather than six as in the original story. Given what I mentioned above, perhaps he should have sung about "sev'n" blind men. At least with five he was one closer to the original than Rachel Held Evans, who in her book "Inspired" mentioned "four blind men" and the elephant at the end of her Epilogue.
P.S.: My Hindu friends don’t support the caste system. One, a devotee of Durga, even called it a “curse” in a lecture to my Eastern Thought course.
ReplyDeleteAnton, I am not surprised that your Hindu friends do not support the caste system. My question, though, is this: do they oppose the caste system because of being Hindu or in spite of being Hindu? My guess is that it is the latter.
DeleteAlso, referring to your first comments, my guess is that many of your Christian friends (in addition to me) don't support the "terrible history of war . . ." you mentioned. And, again, most of us oppose that history because of being a Christian rather than in spite of being a Christian.
It was no surprise to me that the first comments received this morning were from local Thinking Friend Vern Barnet, who was the founder of The Kansas City Interfaith Council. Vern wrote,
ReplyDelete"The urgency of religious pluralism arises from the three great crises of our time, environmental, personal, and social. Thus it seems quite clear, on the basis of present knowledge of the 'elephant,' that some religious traditions are better than others in providing us paths forward. Primal religions are better at helping us with the spiritual orientation needed to address our impending ecological disaster. Asian faiths at revealing the nature of personhood beyond destructive and selfish 'identity,' and monotheistic faiths have within them the superior understandings of how to structure society for the common good. It can be quite annoying for 'interfaith' to be thought of as saying 'all religions are basically the same.' I think the 'elephant' metaphor is a good defense against that. While recognizing evils within the expression of some faiths is important, it is critical to access the diverse genius and wisdom of the various faiths if meaningful survival is to be possible."
[Earlier today I posted a response to Vern's comments, but that response contained inaccuracies that I have now deleted. I apologize to Vern for misquoting him in the original response.]
DeleteVern, thanks for your thought-provoking comments. I certainly agree that there are many things that we who have a worldview formed by Christianity can learn from other religious tradition. Whether those other traditions are "better," though, is a matter of opinion.
Certainly, the primal religions have a good and helpful appreciation for the world of nature, superior to much that has been predominant in the West (except for indigenous peoples) for a long time. (I experienced this directly by living in Japan for 38 years and observing the Shinto emphasis on the beauty and the sacredness of the natural world.) But I don't know that such views are any better than, say, what was so clearly evident in St. Francis of Assisi--or than that expressed in recent years by Catholic friar Richard Rohr. On June 15, 2017, I posted on Facebook the following words of his:
"The whole universe and all events are sacred, serving as doorways to the divine for those who know how to see. In other words, everything that happens is potentially sacred if we allow it to be. Our job as humans is to make admiration of reality and adoration of God fully conscious and intentional. Then everything is a prayer and an act of adoration."
Of course, Fr. Rohr has studied and learned from other religious traditions, including the Asian religions' teaching about non-duality. But, as Rohr points out, there are Western religious thinkers who promote that same view.
With regards to pluralism, I have long been an opponent of John Hick's advocacy of pluralism--and I was happy to see that Thatamanil is also. He (T.) succinctly states, "Hick is a pluralist because of his commitment to a parity position" (p. 77). And he goes on in the third chapter and in the seventh to forward what he calls "a relational pluralism," which I don't fully understand. But it is interesting that it is at the end of that third chapter, on pluralism, that T. declares after mentioning the problem of caste, "I am an exclusivist when it comes to certain features of Hindu traditions" (p. 105).
Leroy, it seems to me you’re trying to counter an uncritical-embrace-of-all perspective with an equally uncritical-affirmation-of-one-above-all others’ position. Vern is quite right, it seems to me, to see the strengths and weaknesses in our various sacred traditions of the world and not affirm the superiority of one over all others.
ReplyDeleteToday’s Hindu scholars tend to point out that the endorsement of the caste system is largely a historical and extra cultural influence and found only in Hinduism’s secondary literature, something like the Christian church fathers’ writings, which we don’t consider part of the canon.
Let me point out two things quite problematic in our (Christian) sacred writings that are especially unpleasant and require external corrections. The first is, as USA southerners pointed out in the 19th century, that the Christian Bible not only does not condemn slavery but accepts it, maybe even endorses it.
The other is that one would be hard pressed to find a more angry, blood-thirsty writing than the book of Revelation.
Thanks for commenting again, Anton. But I plead "not guilty" to your charge of an "uncritical-affirmation-of-one-above-all others’ position." I am primarily trying to affirm a what's-best-for-humanity-and-the-world position.
DeleteConcerning the caste system, if it is not an inherent aspect of Hinduism--and certainly I am not a Hindu scholar--then Thatamanil, who is a Hindu scholar (among other things) did not seem to know that. And Gandhi, perhaps the best-known Hindu believer in the Western world, did not seem to know that. And the noted legal scholar B.R. Ambedkar, who like Gandhi was born a Hindu, did not seem to know that.
Concerning the two problematic issues you mention for the sacred writings of Christians, certainly I know that in the 19th century many Christians in the southern part of the U.S. believed that the Bible accepted/endorsed slavery--including perhaps the majority of those who formed the Southern Baptist Convention (to which you and I both belonged for many years) in 1845. But I have rejected that interpretation of the Bible since the 1950s. Just because many believed, mostly for their own economic reasons, that the Bible accepts/endorses slavery certainly doesn't mean that that is a proper understanding of the Bible or a central teaching of Jesus Christ.
And then there is the book of Revelation. In two of my pastorates while in seminary and graduate school, I did an in-depth study of Revelation with my church members during the Sunday evening services. (Remember how all SB churches used to meet every Sunday evening in addition to Sunday morning?) I never saw it, or taught it, as an "angry, blood-thirsty writing." Then, those in the Anabaptist tradition have often, correctly, I think, seen Revelation as depicting the "war of the Lamb," which is completely different from being angry and/or blood-thirsty. One recent description I found about this is by Pastor Brian Zahnd (in St. Joe, Mo.), who also was reared as a Southern Baptist. Here is the link to what he wrote in 2016 about "The War of the Lamb"
https://brianzahnd.com/2016/05/war-of-the-lamb/
Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky also send the following important comments:
ReplyDelete"A provocative blog, Leroy. Basically I agree with you, but I would add that all religions need to adopt a self-critical attitude. Christianity has a lot of history, e.g., the crusades, the burning of heretics, etc. to live down.
"Thomas Merton’s approach seems like a healthy one: Learn all you can from other religious traditions, even though you think other believers would be better off in your tradition."
Here are a couple of excerpts from longer emails received from two Thinking Friends:
ReplyDelete"Different religions have different theological views about God, angels, the afterlife, etc. There is no way to prove or disprove these various claims, but social ethics affects us every day and it is important for the different religions to find a common voice of respect for other beliefs and for the dignity and sacredness of every human life." (Eric Dollard in Chicago)
"Just to say that I really appreciated this last posting. It was thought provoking and altogether excellent in highlighting the problems of a relativistic view on religious diversity." (Greg Hadley in Niigata, Japan)
'Someone' inspired me to start reading "The Gospel in Dostoyevsky" (see February 18, 2021 blog), and "The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor" rightly starts off the book. The Grand Inquisitor tells Jesus, "We have corrected your work. . ." At another point the Inquisitor says, "And if for the sake of the bread of heaven thousands and tens of thousands follow you, what will become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly?"
ReplyDeleteIf we are to compare the earthly bread of mass Christianity to the earthly bread of other great religions, how much can we really claim? For instance, the SBC is in the news again, having just avoided another schism at its recent convention. I suspect this blog hosts more recovering Baptists than current SBC members. The SBC is very American, dealing with problems involving race, gender, greed and militarism. What truly is the value of any "corrected" religion?
If we claim that the Christianity of the bread of heaven is our standard, what exactly have we said? How well are any of us living up to it? How do we know that such saints are not scattered throughout all religions? We cannot honestly compare our best to their worst. As Paul tells us in Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Jesus himself was more interested in having us work for justice than having us worry about how others follow the rules. "But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and to leave the other undone." (Luke 11:42) Perhaps what we are all missing about the elephant is that it has a large heart and a huge brain. No religion has a monopoly on that.
Thanks, Craig, for your erudite comments.
DeleteOne website I found relating to what you wrote says that "the Grand Inquisitor took the meaning of God and began to control the population through it. By giving the people physical certainty, he takes faith and uses it to 'fix' Jesus’ faults. 'We have corrected Thy work and have founded it upon miracle, mystery, and authority.'" (The latter are the words of the GI.)
I am afraid that too many in the SBC and in historic Christianity at large have sought to "fix" Jesus rather than follow him and his teachings.
The above-mentioned article (link below), concludes by saying that if the Grand Inquisitor was wrong and Jesus was right, "then let us do as Jesus did by spreading global freedom and unconditional love to all." I'm not sure the blind men would ever be able to understand the "large heart" and "huge brain" of the elephant -- or the unconditional love taught by Jesus.
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Analyzing-the-Themes-of-Faith-and-Belief-in-Dostoevskys-The-Grand-Inquisitor
Thanks for your response, and the interesting article link. Now we are moving on from awe before Dostoyevsky's poem, to trying to unpack it.
DeleteJesus often echoes Elijah in the gospels, and Elijah's encounter with God in 1 Kings 19 rather echoes with Dostoyevsky's Jesus. God was not in the wind, earthquake, or fire; but in the still small voice. Jesus is that still small voice confronting the Grand Inquisitor. The Grand Inquisitor, however, does not respond to his visit at all like Elijah did to his. Oddly, it looks similar, for God commands Elijah to go and anoint new kings and a new prophet. The Grand Inquisitor could have done similarly, there was nothing wrong with trying to help the people. What he did instead was to dupe the people, and enslave them. The Grand Inquisitor had lost his way. He was called to be a prophet, but, rather like Donald Trump, he decided to become an anti-christ instead. The thousands are to be prophets, that the tens of thousands of millions might be saved.
One footnote on the blind men, I joined them in my last post, and left a very important "not" out of my KJV of Luke 11:42. It should end "and NOT to leave the other undone."