You are on page 1of 24

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) in Rajiv Malhotras Being Different

Shrinivas Tilak

An important objective of Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism (2011) by Rajiv Malhotra is to refute Western Universalisms claims that it is the driver of history and that as such, it will lead the entire world to its ultimate, desirable destination. Toward that end Western Universalism purportedly offers a worldview to which all other civilizations and cultures must conform or else be eliminated or sidelined. The starting point of this argument is to be found in chapter three of Being Different, Integral Unity and Synthetic Unity, with further elaboration in Appendix A (The Integral Unity of Dharma) offering a useful overview of the synthetic and integrative forms of unity that characterize the Western and dharmic worldviews respectively. Every collective entity is grounded in and entertains some form of unity, which is perceived differently in different cases. Both the Western and dharmic civilizations have cherished unity as an ideal, but with a differing emphasis. Here, Malhotra posits a crucial distinction between what he considers a synthetic unity that gave rise to a static intellectualistic worldview in the West and an integrative unity that gave rise to a dynamically oriented worldview based on Dharma. While the former is characterized by a top-down essentialism embracing everything a priori, the latter is a bottom-up approach acknowledging the dependent co-origination of alternative views of the human and the divine, the body and the mind, and the self and society. Subsequent chapters frame and develop this crucial distinction conceptualized and presented as a prvaInternational Journal of Hindu Studies 16, 3: 287310
2013 Springer DOI 10.1007/s11407-012-9130-2

288 / Shrinivas Tilak paka, which is an ancient Indic technique of engaging the other dialectically in a formal debate or dialogue or in an informal exchange of ideas or notes. This calls for a thorough study of the others viewpoint (Western worldview and Universalism) in order to prepare oneself for the subsequent debate and to establish ones own argument and conclusion (uttarapaka and siddhnta) (Dharmadi or Indic worldview). Since the major part of the book is devoted to prvapaka, I will first give a brief review of this, followed by an extended argument in support of the uttarapaka (introduced in Chapter six, Contesting Western Universalism, and summarized in Conclusion: Purva Paksha and the Way Forward) concentrating on (1) the fourfold internal diversity under the umbrella term of Dharma (Dharmacatukam; see below) and (2) the integrative potential of Dharma as a viable alternative to Western Universalism. Prvapaka: Western Worldview is Synthetic, Christian, and Expansionist The methodological stance of the prvapaka in Being Different may be broadly described as a context-sensitive approach to anthropologize the Western worldview in a manner akin to what Roy Wagner has called reverse anthropology (1981: 31). By reversing the gaze on contemporary Western and Indological constructions of the dharmic worldview and ways of life, Malhotra seeks to expose how exotic, ethnic, and provincial such constructions have really been notwithstanding the Wests allegedly universalistic claims (2011: 67, 176, 334). His other objective is to draw attention to the Christian-centric focus of the Wests archive of knowledge and its historical involvement in the systematic suppression of the dharmic worldview and ways of life to be found in the works of Indologists. By problematizing the way in which Dharma has been represented by Western scholarship, he exposes the asymmetrical nature of the relationship that obtains between the powerful discipline of Indology and its disempowered subjects, the Indians (334). The Nicene Creed, the official doctrine of Catholicism and of most Protestant Churches, is the first to come under Malhotras scrutinizing gaze (9092). Among the historical-theological claims issuing from it (particularly Article 10) is the assertion that Outside the Church there is

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 289 no salvation, meaning that all salvation issues from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. The worldwide mission of the Church emanates from this declaration whereby those who do not currently belong to the Church become the proper object of the missionary activity through inculturation (20, 30). Salvation is only possible through obedience to Gods will as understood through his prophets and through the unique historical event of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. One must be saved from the eternal damnation that results from having committed Original Sin in the Garden of Eden. Salvation from Sin was possible only after God entered human history at a certain point in time. Hence, the historical record of that intervention must be carefully maintained, and its truth must be taken forward and aggressively asserted. It is a truth which is born of history and applies to both past and future (57 59). This history must be considered universal however particular and fallible its agents (individually and collectively) may be. Malhotra has coined the term history-centrism to refer to this fixation on specific and often incompatible claims to divine truth revealed in and through history (6). From about the sixteenth century, European colonial expansion to Africa, Asia, and Latin America began in earnest and was rationalized as an expression of a divinely mandated Manifest Destiny of the Israelites (191) that subsequently became apparent (manifest) and inexorable (destiny) in Britain and then in the rest of Europe. When Christopher Columbus set sail for the New World, among the books he took with him were Travels of Sir John Mandeville and Imago Mundi by Pierre dAilly, both of which provided the well-ordered ideological vision deemed necessary for the empire building. They affirmed what adventurers like Columbus needed to believe in: namely that Europeans were the true and real people, the center of the universe. All others, all non-Christian and non-European people were wedded to the works of the Devil and, as such, existed to be dominated, educated, conquered, and possessed. When Columbus set sail, he was setting sail for what was known as the Indies, a generic term for all that was not Christian Europe, whether east or west (Sardar 2004: 14244; Malhotra 2011: 16465). The leitmotif of Western Universalism subsequently crystallized in the British patriotic anthem Rule, Britannia!, the sentiments of which were an enduring expression of the colonialist conception of expanding Britain and its empire that

290 / Shrinivas Tilak emerged in the eighteenth century. Applied Prvapaka: Reversing the Gaze on the Western Worldview The reservoir of particular domains of knowledge, philosophies, and definitions of human nature constitutes what Michel Foucault referred to as the Wests cultural archive. It is a veritable storehouse of histories, artefacts, ideas, texts and/or images that are classified, preserved and represented (Foucault 1970). This archive reveals rules of practice which Western scholarship subscribes to, albeit not necessarily on a conscious level because it operates within rules and conventions that are thoroughly internalized and therefore taken for granted. It is by drawing upon this archive or storehouse that Western scholars retrieve and digest knowledge of and from the non-Western other (Smith 1999: 44). The development of particular research topics and research groups tends to occur within the boundaries of what is known as research culture embedded in the prevailing values of academic life. Much research on India is undertaken in closely formed and protected cliques that share common interest in methodologies of mutual interest (see Tilak 2006). In Being Different the Western worldviews are deconstructed by effectively holding up a mirror to the West revealing a magnified image of its synthetic and artificially fashioned unity, and putting under scrutiny (1) the Western view of human nature, morality and virtue, (2) its conceptions of space, time and history, and (3) its cultural/political system of classification, representation, exclusion and eventual domination of the non-Western/non-Christian peoples. In the hands of Western statesmen or bureaucrats, religion served as an instrument and means to legitimize rule. The British colonial authority in India had effectively used religion as a tool to draw a cognitive map for surveying, classifying, and interpreting the diverse strands of Dharma. By inverting these colonial moves, Malhotra sheds light on the taken-for-granted concepts of Western imaginaire, which comes across as something not necessarily better or of a higher order of thinking than the dharmic tradition. Rather, such an investigation reveals a panoply of isolated elements that have been held together precariously by a thin strand of synthetic unity, as evidenced in the concept of mind-body dualism.

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 291 Uttarapaka: Indic Worldview is Dharmic, Integrative, and Inclusive Dharmacatukam: House of Dharma with Its Four Wings (Dharmas) Etymologically, dharma may be traced to the root dh (dhra~e) to hold with the suffix man (U~di Stra 1.40), and is cognate with IndoEuropean *dher (to hold), Avestan daen and dar (to hold) and New Persian dn (religion) (Verma 1992: 300). Dharma as a substantive denotes to sustain, uphold, support, or to wear. With the accretion of meaning over the centuries, Dharma has come to represent an underlying power and principle behind the order and rhythm of the cosmos that sustains the seasons, the planets and their movements, day and night, and the behavior of plants, animals, humans and the divine beings in a selforganized cosmos. Thanks to Dharma, the life cycles of the plant and animal worlds become self-organized, humans acquire the capacity to self-govern, and efficient social structures become self-governing as in the case of jti. The potential for integrative differentiation is already discernible in the gvedic reference to deities who (1) support and uphold (dh, dhrayan) (1.22.18) as well as (2) hold apart (vi + dh) the world and its inhabitants and creatures who protect the mortals and other beings (6.70.1). Metaphysically, this power of Dharma which is both integrating and differentiating underlies the vision of the microcosm as mirroring the macrocosm, and yet, paradoxically, at the same time also containing the macrocosm.1 Integrative Unity Anchored in Samavya Integration involves incorporation into a larger unit: bringing together into a larger whole. In the integrating core model, one begins with a whole (or the integrating core) comprised of a set of beliefs about the world and life, moving from there to new knowledge, skills and attitudes from various subject areas. From the Indic perspective, this kind of unity is different from synthetic unity (conjunction = sayoga) and is called samavya , that is, a unity based on the permanent or eternal relation between two entities, one of which inheres in the other. The Vaieika classical texts describe samavya as a connection (sabandha) that is sui generis (that is, inherent) connecting relata in a relationship of container and contained or of dependence and support (dhrydhrabhva)

292 / Shrinivas Tilak (Halbfass 1992: 147). The whole is in its parts and a quality or an action is in a substance. To put it differently, the universal resides in the individual and particularity in some enduring substance. Thus, we may say that the cloth as a whole is in the threads, the color red as a quality is in the rose, and motion as an action belongs to the moving ball. In the expression blue lotus, blue is an attribute (viea~a; dhrya) inhering in the lotus, which is the substantive (vieya; dhra). rdhara, a later Vaieika thinker, in his Nyyakandal observes that as inherence, samavya may be a relation, but more importantly, it is a dependent mode of existence or occurrence of wholes in their parts and of attributes in their substrates (Halbfass 1992: 148). In rdhara we may have a positive Hindu view of the Bauddha notion of prattyasamutpda (see below). Within the specifically dharmic integrated worldview two or more entities, whether near to each other (vyai, pi~a) or remote (samai, brahm~a), are in relation based on the maxim of yath pi~e tath brahm~e. Since everything in the world has a material and practical (dhidaivika) as well as a metaphysical, spiritual (dhytmika) aspect, one naturally gravitates toward contemplative and inner reflection as explained in the Yogastra (3.2529). Syntactic, Semiotic, and Semantic Dimensions of Integration The nature of integral unity (so crucial to Malhotras thesis) may be explained with reference to some of the key features of linguistics. Syntax refers to the study of the principles and processes by which sentences are constructed in particular languages; semiotics is the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis) as they are employed in languages for the purpose of signification and communication; and semantics is concerned with the study of how meaning is generated and communicated through the signs and the things to which they refer. In Sanskrit, all three linguistic processes are creatively deployed to promote a cogent and integrative worldview (di). The language and grammatical forms used in the expression and teaching of Dharma, for instance, presuppose a non-linear kind of causality and inner cohesiveness. The emphasis, on the whole, is on interdependence and relationship, which is discernible in the choice of terms and the processes of inflection (syntactic), semiosis, and compounding. Syntactically, the first clause in the Bauddha formulation of dependent

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 293 co-origination (paicca samuppda; Sanskrit prattya samutpda) appears in the locative absolute indicating that B happens in relation to the happening of A. The happening of A provides a locus or context in which B can happen. Here, more is involved than just a contiguity of events. The use of the locative form (in the original formulation) suggests ontological as well as epistemological connection. The verbal form of pacceti (composed of pati + ti), meaning to come back or go back to is also used in this formulation. Joanna Macy has suggested that linguistically such a perception of return in causal flow is hinted at in the use of paicca. The English word relation (re-latus) similarly meant originally, that which is carried back (Macy 1991: 5354). This is comparable to the concept of feedback in the systems theory where the effects of any action are fed back into the organism, and by virtue of this feedback systems become integrative, interdeterminative and intercontextual.2 Semiotically, the sacred syllable or mantra aum is the sign (vcakah) and symbol of God (vara) according to the Yogastra (1.2729). The sign of aum includes five constituent parts: the three sounds a + u + m plus the crescent sign and the dot (bindu) placed on it. The sound a is first on the phonetic register and the first phoneme in the Sanskrit language. It is also the first letter (akara) in the Devangar alphabet in which Sanskrit is written. The second sound u is the middle and the sound m, the last sound in the labial group of five sounds on the phonetic register. The M~ukya Upaniad homologizes these three constitutive sounds (phonemes) with the three temporal frames (past, present and future) and the three states of consciousness (awakened, dream and deep sleep). The crescent component in the sign of aum serves to remind the person engaged in the chanting of aum to keep their lips close together after uttering aum in order to prolong the resonating vibrations. Finally, the dot (bindu) on the top represents the fourth, transcending state of consciousness (turya). The message of the M~ukya Upaniad is that sounds and meanings associated with them are not arbitrarily related or arbitrary conventions. The sounds we hear and use as language operate on a concrete, surface level of manifestation of vibrations operating at a deeper level. These deep vibrations, from which a given physical object, mental thought and sound emerge, are interrelated and are the result of interactions between different parts of the same primordial vibration. Hence, at the deepest or

294 / Shrinivas Tilak innermost level, there is a single vibration of aum underlying everything there is, and all differences among words, objects and thoughts are at the higher or outer, relative level (verse 1). The one, selfsame reality manifests as the diversity that we experience. The various stages of manifestation of vibration into concrete outer forms correspond to the psychology of the inner being at various levels from the state of unity, from the subtle to more obvious and gross manifestations. Thus, Indic linguistics, psychology, and cosmology can explain the same innermost reality expressed as diverse on the outside using this sound logic. This process of discovery by which a seer like M~ukya realized the mystic significance of the syllable of aum is available in principle to anyone who practices it, to achieve direct experience of ultimate reality.3 Semantically, the Dvandva (coordinative) type of Sanskrit compound (samsa) consists of two or more independent noun stems connected with and (that is, copulative or coordinative) and where the constituent words retain their respective identities. For instance, in the compound word Hariharau, Hari (Vi~u) and Hara (iva) retain their individual identities. The relation between the constituent members of the compound is simply additive and synthetic. As against this, the Bahuvrhi (exocentric) type of compound denotes (or has reference to) an entity or meaning that may be in addition to (or totally different from) the individual meanings offered by the unit members of that compound. The word bahuvrhi itself is an exocentric compound meaning one who is rich. The idea of a rich person is conveyed by the existence of an inner coherence between the unit members in a compound: bahu = literally much, and vrhi = rice. Hence the relation between bahu and vrhi is not merely additive (as in the Dvandva compound) but integrative and organic in the sense that by being together in a relation, each has ceded a part of its identity and has contributed to the emergence of a new, richer identity. Bahuvrhi thus is not merely much rice, but a person who has much rice, that is, is deemed to be rich. The Jaina doctrine of Anekntavda (multifaceted reality), as put forth in the Tattvrthastra of Umsvti, is the most consistent form of realism in the dharmic world (see below). It warns of possible semantic misreading arising from misuse of language, which, in turn, may threaten the integrity of an entity. Synonyms, for instance, can become a potential source of confusion if one meaning or usage of a given word is attributed to another

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 295 (abdanaya). Alternatively, a synonym may be parsed using differing etymologies or connotations even though they all refer to the same object. For example, Purandara and akra, two synonyms of Indra, connote the same objectIndra, yet they have their respective etymologies and meanings that are different from Indras. This is known as Samabhirhanaya. Whatever activity a person is engaged in at a given time through the instrumentality of the mind, speech, or body must be accordingly designated. This is Evambhtanaya. For instance, a person is called teacher only while she is teaching (McEvilley 2002: 33536). Dharmacatukam and Integration The concept of Dharmacatukam expresses the Indic way of life and sociality representing a unified cultural complex of four individual and differing expressions (dharma), each in turn constituting a blend of several elements so that as an ensemble a symphony of Dharma is produced in which the adherents (Hindus, Bauddhas, Jainas and Sikhs) participate, whereas the resonance of any one given pathway may be compared to a melody (dharma).4 Each of the four views is true insofar as it draws attention to an actual and indispensible aspect of Dharma. No one approach supersedes another, and contrary to the view of Georg W.F. Hegel (Malhotra 2011: 314, 32425), none can be higher or lower than another. Each is an acceptable approach to Dharma, which is not unitary but composite: a quaternity of differences (catuktmakam vastu). Following Rodney Needham, Dharmacatukam may be profitably viewed as an example of a polythetic group (a term borrowed from the natural sciences) where organisms sharing the greatest number of common features are held together, but where no single feature is either essential to group membership or is sufficient to make an organism a member of the group (based on Cort 2001: 18788). Hindu Di on Integration: Bhedbheda In the Hindu world brahman refers to the eternal principle as realized in the world as a whole, while tman refers to the innermost essence of ones own self. The parallelism between the two is posited by representing the self of the world as related to the physical universe in the same manner in which the individual self is related to its body. The principle underlying the world as a whole and that which forms the human essence

296 / Shrinivas Tilak are ultimately the same according to the well-known assertive statement (mahvkya), tat tvam asi, found in the Chndogya Upaniad (6.716; Hiriyanna 1967: 21). Bhartprapaca modified its assertive force somewhat by maintaining that while the self and the physical universe (though they may be finite and imperfect) are real, they are not altogether different from brahman. They are both identical with and different from brahman , the three together constituting a unity in diversity (Hiriyanna 1967: 23). A cow shares its character (cowness) with other cows, but it also has certain characteristics which are specific to it (its particular color and size) that distinguish it from others. This relation between the general and the particular is one of identity in difference (bhedbheda). The Brahmastra (2:3.43) refers to the individual self as a part (aa) of brahman which, however, in no way diminishes the perfection of brahman just as the existence of waves in the ocean in no way diminishes the amount of water therein. The entire world, in all of its many forms, shares the same essence, that being brahman. This view (something like an early Indic theory of the conservation of entities) suggests that nothing ever arrives in the universe completely new, but only as a transformation of some earlier material cause. Nothing can be created ex nihilo. The Skhya doctrine of pre-existent effect (satkryavda) and the Mms notion of tdtmya (the relation of identity and difference between the substance and its quality) are comparable to this formulation (Hiriyanna 1967: 109, 131). Since the phenomenal world is deemed to be a real transformation (pari~ma) of brahman, one is invited to engage in everyday action (devotional, ritual and social) in combination with the associated lore in order to obtain liberation in the due course of time (jnakarmasamuccaya) (1967: 153). The flexibility traditionally revealed in the notion of bhedbheda and mediated through the works of Rmnuja and Jva Gosvm has allowed Hindu Dharma to survive as a living tradition to this day through very difficult and trying historical situations and contexts (see Malhotra 2011: 35559). Bauddha Di on Integration: Prattya Samutpda Many and varied schools have proliferated under the umbrella term of Dharma, but the tenet of mutual interdependence appears central to them all. Bauddhas do not believe in brahman or any other personal supreme being such as vara, Vi~u, or iva. They avoid dyadic contrasts by

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 297 emphasizing the mutual interdependency of all entities. For a Bauddha the sense of unity lies in the inherent interconnectivity of everything. The notion of something existing by itself is a false one. This is called the absence of essences (nyat), meaning that nothing exists ultimately as a separable entity, not even an idea, feeling, emotion and certainly not a physical object. Each thing has only a transitory, fleeting apparent existence; nothing endures in time, rather everything is constantly changing into something else. Each momentary existence is dependent on every other momentary existence, in an interconnected web of existence. The central unifying principle is the interconnectedness of everything: past, present, future, physical or otherwise. The idea of impermanence brings with it infinite diversity because there are no enduring things at all. The unity of interconnectedness and impermanence of the diversity of everything go hand in hand as part of the coherent view of reality. The Sa yutta Nikya (2.28.65) puts it pithily: This being, that becomes; from the arising of this, that arises; this not being, that becomes not; from the ceasing of this, that ceases (Macy 1991: 53; also Malhotra 2011: 368). Whosoever sees the prattyasamutpda sees the Buddha and whosoever sees the Buddha sees Dharma (Murti 1960: 7). Strange as it may appear, nyat can serve as the basis for integrating diverse views without restricting oneself to any particular mode of integration. As T.R.V. Murti observed, In Hegel, the synthesis is a blocked series; it cannot be replaced without replacing his conception of the Absolute too. In the Mdhyamika, one mode of synthesis may be replaced by another without necessitating any change in the absolute (1960: 336). Jaina Di on Integration: Anekntavda Epistemologically, Anekntavda draws our attention to the fact that a given viewpoint (naya), while legitimate in itself, need not claim to be complete or to exclude other viewpoints (or worldviews), even those that seem to contradict it. The idea is popularly conveyed in the parable of six blind men touching an elephant and comparing their perceptions; although each is right in what he reports, each makes the mistake of regarding his own partial perspective as the whole truth. The Tattvrthastra typically divides a naya into two components: substantial and modal. What is affirmed from a substantial viewpoint appears unreal from the modal

298 / Shrinivas Tilak viewpoint, and vice versa. Thus, from the modal perspective things necessarily originate and perish, while from a substantial perspective there is neither origination nor destruction. The latter relegates modality to a secondary status while prioritizing the substance; whereas the modal standpoint does the opposite. Even though, in theory, viewpoints (naya) may be infinite for practical purposes, they have been organized into seven categories: (1) Naigamanaya, or the teleological point of view: a person lighting a fire, when asked, will not say, I am lighting a fire, but I am cooking; (2) Sagrahanaya, or the class point of view: this emphasizes the universal (smnya) over the particular (viea). Some of the thought in the Upaniads may be criticized from this perspective; (3) Vyavahranaya, or the standpoint of the particular: this is the opposite of category 2 above and records opposition to exclusivism such as that of the Crvkas who refused to go beyond the sense data to inductive generality; (4) justranaya, or the standpoint of moment; this view takes an idea or a thing for what it appears to be at a given moment regardless of how it may have appeared in the past or may appear in the future. An example is the momentariness doctrine (Ka~ikavda) of the Bauddhas (Tattvrthastra 1.34; McEvilley 2002: 33536). (Nayas 5, 6, and 7 were discussed above under the heading the semantic dimension of integration). Sikh Di on Integration: Rga, Tla, and Ghar The musical mode (based on rga, tla and ghar) is a key principle of organization in the di Granth as it is in the dyad of gveda/Smaveda. The Granth is arranged according to the rga, the nature or meter of the poem, authorship and the clef, and under each rga the verses are arranged according to the musical clef (ghar) in which each is to be sung. Rga is derived from the Sanskrit root raj, meaning emotional coloration. As a melodic pattern, rga is time, space and gu~a specific and is composed to suit and evoke a particular mood with reference to the particular time of day or night and season. Furthermore, each rga has a particular spiritual significance derived on the basis of usage and custom. In any musical performance great care is taken to produce the exact set of vibrations (nda) to evoke the mood ascribed to a particular rga. The verses of the Granth, accordingly, are set to a judicious selection of rgas as a means for molding the spiritual, mystical, and temporal life of the devotees. The

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 299 beauty of the Granth lies in the harmonious and wonderfully expressive combination of rgas, meters, tropes, imagery, and signs. The poetic imagery in the Granth seeks to discourage sectarianism and promote the inclusive ideal (Singh 2000: 147), which is reflected in Guru Nnaks selection of nineteen rgas that include ten morning, four midday, three evening and two seasonal rgas. Of these, he blended Basant and Hinol rgas to create a mood of sobriety and to have a balancing effect on the audience. Nnaks successors introduced additional rgas with suitable modifications to emphasize and reflect the intensity of the nirgu~a aspirations of the Sikh Dharma. Rmakal was used to reach out to those who belonged to the Ntha sampradya; Sri was used to reach out to those who were devotees of Vi~u; popular folk tunes were employed to reach the rural people (Singh 2000: 149). Thus, Arjan and other Sikh gurus developed the worldview of Sikh Dharma though their receptiveness to ideas and practices from the common pool and reservoir of Dharma. Agents of Integration: Praj, Pr~a, and Prapaca The concepts of praj, pr~a, and prapaca (among others) serve as common denominators in the diverse Indic cognitive, metaphysical, and spiritual systems that comprise and constitute the four dharmic traditions. In general, the traditions also share the following presuppositions: (1) they all lead to the transcendent principle expressed variously as brahman, nirv~a and kevala, (2) they facilitate the attainment of an extraordinary and direct experience (such as the highest yogic samdhi) leading to (3) the realization of the transcendent principle at the personal level (sometimes even at the embodied level; jvanamukti), and (4) they facilitate a harmonious relation between the phenomenal and material modes of life (sa sra) and the goal of spiritual liberation (paramrtha) variously. Integrating the One and the Many; Knower and Known through Praj According to the a Upaniad (verses 45), if the One is pre-eminently real, the Many (the others) are not unreal. The world is not a figment of imagination. Unity is the eternal truth of things, diversity a play of the unity. To perceive and acknowledge this sense of unity is knowledge

300 / Shrinivas Tilak (vidy), while to perceive and confound the sense of diversity is ignorance (avidy). Diversity, however, is not false or illusory except when it is divorced or separated from the sense of its true and eternal unity. Ultimate reality (brahman) is one not numerically but essentially and includes plurality and division among its parts just as multiple waves are parts of the same ocean. To use another image (employed by akara in his commentary on verse 1 of the M~ukya Upaniad), parts are subsumed in the One just as the four quarters of a coin are subsumed in a single Krpa~a (comparable to a dollar). Jna is not knowledge by separation in which subject and object remain distinct; rather, it is knowledge by participation, by unity of subject and object. It is knowledge that also involves becoming, and such knowledge at its highest level is known as praj. In the Vkyapadya, Bharthari observes that insight (praj) becomes more mature and discriminate from the study of different views presented in the traditional lore (praj viveka labhate bhinnairgamadaranai, 2.489ab). He therefore encourages us to examine, prima facie, the different perspectives and discuss them in terms of how they oppose or complement one another. A provisional decision may then be made as to what would be acceptable from the knowledge gained by applying praj. Alternatively, the scholar may prefer one view over the other or develop his/her own view by integrating the opposed views without totally rejecting one or the other (Bhate and Kar 1992: 29; also Houben 1997: 31719). In contrast to the Western notion of a hermeneutic circle that begins with the perceived reality and moves from there to a generalized ultimate unity, that is, from the particular to the abstract, the Indic version of the hermeneutic circle involves the concentric expansion from a central point to the periphery of the circle and a return to the center. Beginning from within the abstract center, one moves to the particular (located on the periphery) and to empirical reality. The dharmic tradition draws our attention to the fact that every circle is necessarily connected to a central point or center. In fact, the deepest human aspiration (paramrtha) is to reach it (based on Klostermeier 2008: 8182). True knowledge, insight, or wisdom is reached only when the circle and the center are realigned. Philosophical systems, theologies, diverse branches of scholarship, even arts and literature belonging to the four dharmic traditions aspire to just such a realignment of prapaca and paramrtha.

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 301 Integrating the Body and Mind through Pr~a Usually translated as vital breath or basic life force, the term pr~a is derived from the Sanskrit root an, meaning to breathe. In this sense it is analogous to qi in the Chinese tradition or the concept of lan vital in Henri Bergsons thought. In all ancient cultures and languages the words for breath and spirit are intimately connected through the act of breathing in and out. Pr~a serves such a function in integrating the three worlds (loka), three humors (doa), five cardinal elements (bhta), and five sheaths (koa) that overlay common processes of life. From the perspective of Western categories of separation and distinction, such modes of interacting with the body and the world are magical or contradictory; however, for Indians they remain mutually implicated levels of reality and applicability (Malhotra 2011: 160). Using typically Vedic processes of analogy, homology and resemblance, pr~a is ingeniously connected with both external and internal life and with cosmic processes. In the gveda this integrative potential associated with pr~a is recognized. Life does not merely consist of breathing air in and out because, says the famed Nsadyaskta, in the beginning there was life and breathing activity even without wind (avtam; gveda 10.129.2). The theory that pr~a is the material substrate of the universe also appears in the Atharvaveda where the wind is regarded as the breath of Skabha (that is, its substrate = dhra) which supports the entire universe (gveda 10:7.35). As a ruling cosmic principle, pr~a is the lord of all; all is in its power and on pr~a all is based. Pr~a contains what has been and what is to be, and everything is based on it; such is the theme of a hymn to pr~a (Atharvaveda 11.4). As one of the five cardinal elements, pr~a figures in the mediation between monistic and pluralistic trends (including the doctrine of the One and the experience of the Many), on the basis that everything in the universe is made up of one or more of these five basic substances(see McEvilley 2002: 300301). Integrating the Material and Spiritual Life through Prapaca Etymologically, prapaca (pra + paca) refers to the spreading out of the material and phenomenal world whose individual constituents have acquired form and can be named (nmarpa). A necessary relation exists between names and forms; they are inseparable since we reify forms by naming them. Prapaca may therefore be understood as the differentiation

302 / Shrinivas Tilak (through transformation) of the non-dual world into the discrete-objectsof-the-phenomenal world, which occurs due to the minds propensity for thought construction. The goal of the spiritual quest is to realign this manifest and diverse external world with the world of unity within. Such an interpretation is implied in the M~ukya Upaniad (verses 7 and 12; discussed above). The vetvatara Upaniad (6.6) uses the concept of prapaca ontologically to denote the objectified universe, understood as a phenomenal world of manifoldness emanating from a creator God (Deva). By extension, prapaca is also known as sasra, a circle or wheel of the ever-repeating rounds of death, birth, and re-death that can only be stopped through spiritual liberation (mukti). On the cognitive level the circle represents vyavahra: practical and worldrelated experience and understanding, while its center, the stable point (bindu; see above) symbolizes ultimate truth that exerts a teleological pull towards itself. Whereas all knowledge within the circle is relative, the eternal core at the heart of the sasric wheel underscores the ultimate truth where being and knowledge merge (in the state of turya). The world of diversity is therefore no longer relevant because it is now quieted and pacified (upaama; M~ukya Upaniad verse 7). Siddhnta (Concluding Remarks) Difference: The Leitmotiv of Being Different In Chapter two of Being Different, Yoga: Freedom from History, Malhotra sets up the key difference between the two civilizational worldviews in terms of Western history-centrism and the dharmic science of spirituality (dhytmavidy ) based on the practice of Yoga. The Western worldview, with its dichotomous modality of separation and distinction, is different from the dharmic interrelated and pluralistic model of continuous creation and expansion. Only in the dharmic worldview can a being be (1) distinct yet related and (2) related but not fused or marked. If a being is marked, it is as part of an ongoing process that eventually disposes of the mark or sign (liga) in order to achieve a higher unity. Thus otherness, as a category of exclusion or discrimination, has no permanent place in Dharma. The diversity that the Western tradition reluctantly or provisionally assigns to the other (before absorbing or digesting it) is accepted in the Dharma view as a given rather than an obstacle to be overcome.5

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 303 Difference Between History and Hermeneutics While Abrahamic religions are premised on a relation of dependency grounded in history and historiography as a conduit to salvation, the goal and practice of Yoga is an inward journey that is not contingent upon the flow of time and history. Static and foreclosed categories of Western essentialism fail to recognize the dynamic character of the dharmic worldview. Finding atonement fixed in a historical event, the Christian is uncertain whether his/her salvation is a reality already accomplished or an invitation to assist and participate in the soteriological process. Having no such historical dependency or contingency, the dharmic Indian has no difficulty in making liberation a quest and process that can be self-guided by anyone, anytime and anywhere. This difference is so deep that it affects the respective worldviews in terms of their perception of the nature of the self and its relationship with the cosmos and God. Hermeneutically, the difference posited in Being Different may be further explained as follows: while history deals with what has actually happened, hermeneutics is concerned with all that could possibly happen. Modern philology determines the meaning of a text in terms of what it meant at the time that it was composed, which is a characteristic feature of historical method. While acknowledging historical input, the hermeneutical method would also take into consideration the meaning of the text on the basis of how it has been understood within the tradition, taking into account the various ways in which such understanding could take place. In illustration of this point, consider the statement tat tvam asi vetaketo from the Chndogya Upaniad (6.10). Patrick Olivelles observation (1998) that the statement originally meant And thats how you are vetaketu is, according to Stephen Phillips (2008), an instance of the historical approach. As a translator, Olivelle is possibly content to leave the issue there. Within the dharmic tradition, however, the text has been understood to mean that thou art, vetaketu, although the exact nuance of this statement varies according the philosophical school involved. Thus, within the school of Advaita Vednta, the statement reveals differing shades of meaning depending on how the relation of brahman to the self is posited: (a) at the abstract or transcendent (nirgu~a) level (that is, brahman in relation to self as tman) or (b) at the immanent (sagu~a) level (that is, brahman in relation to self as jva) (Hiriyanna 1967: 16364; see also Sharma 2008; Malhotra 2011: 133). Not surpris-

304 / Shrinivas Tilak ingly, Chapter three of the Brahmastra devotes one entire section comprising forty-one stras to this very important issue. Difference Between Exploitation of Nature and Enchantment with It Since every culture has borrowed from others engaging in what Malhotra calls the process of digestion, some readers of Being Different might wonder (perhaps justifiably) why he should then make a big deal over the digestion of the dharmic worldview into the Western one. One must understand Malhotras distinction between digestion and appropriationwith-respect among cultures. In the latter process, the host/source tradition is not decimated during (or as a result of) the exchange or transfer of knowledge or goods; it is honored and encouraged to thrive rather than left to atrophy (Malhotra 2011: 3637). When there is an asymmetry of relation between the parties involved in the exchange, however, the implications of the exchange are shaped by the power equation. The overall message of Being Different is clear: those contemplating research or a journey into the Indic sociocultural world ought to forego the option of strip mining, which can leave the host tradition depleted and damaged beyond repair. Fruits of another civilization may be harvested, provided specific steps are taken to preserve and nurture its roots. Accordingly, borrowings from Indic civilization must be on par with borrowings from the Greek classics mutatis mutandis: duly acknowledging Indic sources, including original texts and thinkers in the course curricula, and retaining non-translatable Sanskrit words and terms in their original forms. According to Malhotra, asserting and defending the dharmic worldview is the cultural equivalent of the protection of biodiversity; an ideal that certainly has universal appeal today. It is in this area that the dharmic worldview can challenge the conventional Euro-American understanding of human-environmental relations, which is colored by modernity disenchanted with tradition. Max Weber (1958: 13940) attributed the disenchantment of the modern world to its progressive rationalization and intellectualization while technology and empiricism replaced the mysterious and incalculable forces that once governed the world. This is where the dharmic worldview differs most sharply from its Western counterpart anchored in Luthers Thesis 95 (as interpreted by Markus Dressler and Arvind-Pal S. Mandair): love of God does not necessarily imply loving Gods creatures (2011: 8). It is this outlook that subsequently led to the

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 305 exploitation of nature, mass production, and the marketing of natural resources. The dharmic worldview, on the other hand, encourages striving for the welfare of all beings (sarvabhtahitam), not just humans. That being said, there have lately been signs that the modern world is becoming re-enchanted, such as the rise in popularity of forms of Eastern spirituality, Yoga and meditation. This is where the Dharma traditions can step in with their unshakable conviction that relations between humans and other beings (inanimate objects, plants, and animals) are characterized by their intergenetivity, just as the modern science of ecology focuses on the relationship between species stressing their interdependence. What modern science dismisses as animism encompasses inanimate objects as well as animate beings, in much the same way as modern ecology is broader than biology incorporating relationships between the organic and inorganic (Worster 1994: 365). Inclusion of the understanding of humanenvironmental relations based on the dharmic worldview may also broaden the scope of sustainable management of natural resources by recognizing the obligation of humans to take into account non-human participants in the welfare of the world. Difference Between Order and Chaos The Westerners difficulty in understanding the integrative scope and application of the Indic culture lies in the fact that whereas in the West, the state and the political process are implicated in the business of holding a nation together, in India myth, metaphysics and art are pressed into service to cultivate a sense of belonging and to cope with diversity. Socially speaking, Indic groups are encompassed by different integrators that include jti, bhakti (devotion), and rti (custom) that, in turn, are united by a common celebration of wholeness. As opposed to its current, colonially dictated meaning of caste, for instance, jti traditionally denoted the logic of classes, of genera and species (Ramanujan 1989: 53) and by extension a federation of cultural communities as in jana jtis. Even today, when used as an adjective, the word jtiya carries the sense of national as in the Bangladesh Jatiya Party, which is a political party in Bangladesh, a splinter-group of the original Jatiya Party that was founded by the former president of Bangladesh, Hossain Mohammad Ershad. Science, philosophy, art, education, politics, economics, and literature

306 / Shrinivas Tilak are not separate disciplines but the manifold ways through which the dharmic worldview manages and copes with diversity. Reading this list, a Westerner is likely to conclude that so-called dharmic integrative unity must, in fact, be disorganized chaos.6 The fact is, Indic tradition does not recognize chaos as a permanent category opposing order because everything is part of the cosmic pattern of balance and harmony (ta). It is only those who are not familiar with the operation of such patterns on a cosmic scale that would be tempted to dismiss the entire Indic world and worldview as wallowing in chaos or muddle. Since the essence of Western thinking is non-contradiction, it rejects any new idea that is not consistent with those currently held, or alters the idea until its inconsistency is removed. Western thinking accepted Copernicus only after rejecting Ptolemy, and Newtonian physics only after Newton modified the view of Copernicus. Albert Einstein, who displaced them all, is today on the verge of being sidelined (based on Organ 1970: 94). It is therefore futile for Indologists today to ransack Indic materials for the evidence of a typically Western synthesis as developed by system-builders such as Immanuel Kant or G.W.F. Hegel, who sought and insisted on logical harmony. Reversing the Gaze on the West: Broadening the Scope and Application By reading the Orientalist discourses on India and Dharma against the grain as it were, Malhotra generates a counter-reading that gives voice to Indic subjects who have been silenced or transformed by nineteenthcentury and contemporary Indological filters. Being Different, in the process, has opened up a new approach that allows and encourages a dharmic perspective as an additional tool in the scholars toolbox. Using this tool, one can (1) strategically map Western culture and history using the properly dharmic categories to provincialize Western Universalism, (2) remove the filters and blinkers of Indology that impede Dharmadi, and (3) present the dharmic worldview as a viable alternative to Western Universalism. A note of caution: this task is daunting in light of the paradox that Dipesh Chakrabarty (2008: 16) was forced to acknowledge; namely that Western concepts and theories in the social sciences and humanities (though inadequate) are as yet indispensable to the task at hand. Provincializing the West is not a project of outright rejection of Western thought, civilization, or modernity. Rather, it is a project to secure

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 307 Dharmas rightful place in a future multifocal world that is currently dominated by the West. Provincializing Western Universalism would therefore require taking a stance that is critical in the sense that drawing from the archive of Dharma must remain as vigilantly selfreflective as it would be critical of the Western archive and its exegetical and epistemic hegemony. Notes 1. See Aurobondo for his interpretation of nine pairs of opposites and their resolution within the integral unity in the a Upaniad (Aurobindo 1973: 7379). See also Malhotra (2011: 109). 2. See Appendix B, A Systems Model of Dharma and Abrahamic Traditions, in Being Different where the self-correcting and adaptive features of dharmic meta-architecture are discussed. 3. akaras introductory remarks on verse 1 of the M~ukya Upaniad. See also the section Integral Unity as Vibration (22223) in Being Different. 4. Tilak 2008: 95120 for relevant details. 5. See the table in Being Different (Malhotra 2011: 46-47). 6. Chapter four, Order and Chaos, in Being Different for an in-depth discussion. References Cited Atharvaveda. 1943. Atharvavedasa hit (ed. S.D. Satavalekar). Pardi: Swadhyaya Mandal. Aurobindo, Sri. 1973. Isha Upanishad. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Bhate, Saroja and Yashodhara Kar. 1992. Word Index to the Vkyapadya of Bharthari (together with the Complete Text of the Vkyapadya). Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers. Brahmastra. 1970 [1936]. Brahma-sutras: With Text, Word-for-word Translation, English Rendering, Comments and Index (ed. Swami Vireswarananda). Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2008 [2000]. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University

308 / Shrinivas Tilak Press. Chndogya Upaniad. 1974 [1910]. Chndogya Upaniad [with the commentary of Madhva] (trans. B.D. Basu). New York: AMS Press. Cort, John E. 2001. Jains in the World: Religious Values and Ideology in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dressler, Markus and Arvind-Pal S. Mandair, eds. 2011. Secularism and Religion-Making. New York: Oxford University Press. Foucault, Michel. 1970 [1966]. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock Publications. Halbfass, Wilhelm. 1992. On Being and What There Is: Classical Vaieika and the History of Indian Ontology. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hiriyanna, M. 1967 [1949]. The Essentials of Indian Philosophy. London: George & Unwin. Houben Jan E.M. 1997. Bhartharis Perspectivism (1): The Vtti and Bhartharis Perspectivism in the First k~a of the Vkyapadya. In Eli Franco and Karin Preisendanz, eds., Beyond Orientalism: The Work of Wilhelm Halbfass and Its Impact on Indian and Cross-Cultural Studies, 31758. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Klostermeier, Klaus. 2008. The Hermeneutic Circle and the Hermeneutic Centre. In Rita Sherma and Arvind Sharma, eds., Hermeneutics and Hindu Thought: Toward a Fusion of Horizons, 8194. Leiden: Springer. Macy, Joanna. 1991. Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems. Albany: State University of New York Press. Malhotra, Rajiv. 2011. Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. New Delhi: Harper Collins. M~ukya Upaniad. 1968 [1936]. The M~ukyopaniad with Gauapda Krik and akaras Commentary (trans. Swmi Nikhilananda). Mysore: Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama. McEvilley, Thomas. 2002. The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. New York: Allworth Press. Murti, T.R.V. 1960 [1955]. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System. London: George Allen & Unwin. Olivelle, Patrick. 1998. The Early Upanisads: Annotated Text and Translation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) / 309 Organ, Troy Wilson. 1970. The Hindu Quest for the Perfection of Man. Athens: Ohio University Press. Phillips, Stephen S. 2008. Engagement with Sanskrit Philosophic Texts. In Rita Sherma and Arvind Sharma, eds., Hermeneutics and Hindu Thought: Toward a Fusion of Horizons, 16978. Leiden: Springer. Ramanujan, A.K. 1989. Is There an Indian Way of Thinking: An Informal Essay. Contributions to Indian Sociology 23, 1: 4158. gveda Sahit. 193646. gveda Sa hit [with the Commentary of Sya~a in 4 Pts] (eds. N.S. Sontakke, V.K. Rjvade, M.M. Vsudevastri, and T.S. Varadarjaarm). Poona: Vaidika Samsodhaka Mandal. Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. 2004. American Dream: Global Nightmare. Cambridge: Icon Books. Sharma, Arvind. 2008. Concluding Remarks. In Rita Sherma and Arvind Sharma, eds., Hermeneutics and Hindu Thought: Toward a Fusion of Horizons, 23349. Leiden: Springer. Singh, Pashaura. 2000. The Guru Granth Sahib: Canon, Meaning and Authority. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples . Dunedin: University of Otago Press. vetvatara Upaniad. 1974 [1916]. The Svetasvatara Upanisad (trans. Siddhesvar Varma Shastri). New York: AMS Press. Tattvrthastra. 1994. Tattvrthastra Umsvti/Umsvmi: That Which Is (trans. Nathamal Tatia). New York: HarperCollins. Tilak, Shrinivas. 2006. Hinduism for Hindus: Taking Back Hindu Studies. In John Stratton Hawley and Vasudha Narayanan, eds., The Life of Hinduism, 27187. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tilak, Shrinivas. 2008. Cturdharmya: Hermeneutics of Integrative Differentiation. In Rita Sherma and Arvind Sharma, eds., Hermeneutics and Hindu Thought: Toward a Fusion of Horizons, 95120. Leiden: Springer. Verma, Nargis. 1992. The Etymologies in the Satapatha Brahmana. Delhi: Nag Publishers. Wagner, Roy. 1981. The Invention of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weber, Max. 1958 [1946]. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (trans. and eds. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills). New York: Oxford University Press.

310 / Shrinivas Tilak Worster, Donald. 1994 [1977]. Natures Economy: The Roots of Ecology. San Franscisco: Sierra Books Yogastra. 1978. Ptajalayogastr~i (ed. G. Y. Natu, et al.). Poona: Anandashrama.

SHRINIVAS TILAK is an independent scholar based in Montreal, Canada. shrinivas.tilak@gmail.com

You might also like