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.