So, What about the Blind Men and the Elephant?

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.

Pondering Pachyderm Perambulation

You will soon learn as you read this blog post about an old story, a new book, and the ongoing issue why I have used such an enticing (and puzzling?) title.

An Old Story

John Godfrey Saxe was an American poet. Saxe (1816~87) is now known mainly for his re-telling of the ancient Indian parable "The Blind Men and the Elephant” (1872), which introduced the story to a Western audience. 

Many of you know that old story, but it is worth reading again in its entirety, so please click here and take a couple of minutes to read what poet Saxe called “a Hindoo fable.”

Early versions of the old tale go back to at least  500 BCE, and its origins were probably far earlier than that. References to it are found in ancient Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain texts.

That old story has often been used in what the poet Saxe called “theologic wars,” but interestingly, the old fable has been used in teaching about the Peace Corps, in discussions of systems engineering (see here), and in a 2020 Psychology Today magazine article, to give but a few examples.

A New Book

John J. Thatamanil is Associate Professor of Theology and World Religions at Union Theological Seminary. His new (2020) book is titled Circling the Elephant: A Comparative Theology of Religious Diversity.

Thatamanil, born in India and a U.S. resident since the age of eight, is an impressive scholar and his book will be appreciated most by scholars in the academic field that used to be called “comparative religion.” Most others will likely find reading/understanding the book quite demanding.

The book begins with “Introduction: Revisiting an Old Tale” (pp. 1~19). In the first thirteen pages, Thatamanil briefly summarizes the old story and discusses some of the criticisms leveled against it.

He informs his readers, “This book is a Christian exercise in pachyderm perambulation” (p. 11). In more common words, it is about circling the elephant, the author’s metaphor for how he “seeks to make theological sense of the reality and meaning of religious diversity” (p. 12).

The first chapter begins with a discussion of the question “Should Religious Diversity Be a ‘Problem’ for Christians?” (pp. 21~29)—and for the next 230 pages Thatamanil argues that the answer to that question should be No.

The Ongoing Issue

So, how do people of one religious faith relate to people of other faiths? Traditionally, the usual stance of Western Christians was the “we are right, they are wrong” position.

But through the years, interreligious contact increasingly morphed the views of many Christians toward inclusivist, as opposed to exclusivist, views—and then more and more toward pluralistic views.

Thatamanil critically examines those three positions in chapter two. He wants to move beyond all three of those widely held viewpoints—or at least to what he calls “relational pluralism,” as elucidated in chapter three.

And then the concept of religion itself is discussed in the fourth and fifth chapters. This prompts us to raise questions such as, In comparing Christianity to other religions, what form of Christianity is chosen? And what form of, say, Islam?

Do we compare the Christianity of the Quakers and Mennonites with the Islamic jihadists?

Or do we compare the Christian militants through the centuries with the Buddhism represented by people such as Thích Nhất Hạnh–or the Muslim family that lovingly cared for my Christian friend Delores (see here)?

In spite of all that Thatamanil wrote in his scholarly book, and the ongoing intellectual issues that he dealt with so admirably, perhaps the most serious religious issue today is not how the various religions “see” the “elephant” differently but how people increasingly don’t see the “elephant” at all.

And even those who do argue most about the various facets of the “elephant” increasingly belong to the same religious tradition—and those embracing significant agreement increasingly belong to different religious traditions.

_____

** I received the book introduced above under the auspices of the Speakeasy book review plan that is headed by Mike Morrell. In addition to this article, I have posted a much fuller summary of the book on my supplementary blogsite (see here).