Forwarded Message from Professor Balaji Hebbar

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Professor Balaji teaches several courses on Hindu philosophy at University of

Maryland and at Georgetown University. Professor Balaji correctly argues why

the approach to the study of religion needs to be objective and with an open

mind. I am forwarding this email to the list because we the members from the

list can benefit from his insights. Let me take this opportunity and thank

him for sharing his thoughts.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar

rchandran

 

TWO APPROACHES IN THE STUDY OF RELIGION

 

When two "seminary-types" want to talk about religion, e.g. a Hindu

svAmin and a Christian minister on the issue of Divine Creation of

the Universe, they have nothing in common. The first will talk

about

his yuga-manvantara-kalpa routine while the latter will talk about

God creating everything in 7 days. It is a stand-off between the

former's Vedas versus the latter's Bible. To each his shAstra.

Nobody

is going anywhere.

 

By contrast, when two academics in religion meet, e.g. one teaching

the Hindu tradition and the other the Christian tradition, they

know

that both "their traditions" in no way are the truth as understood

by modern science. The Hinduism-academic knows that there are

many creation stories in the Vedas, Epics and PurANas which are

not

necessarily in agreement with each other. Instead of higlighting one

creation story to the exclusion of the rest OR doing the equally

daunting task of the so called "reconciliation" (samanvaya) of the

various stories with the "chosen one" as the seminarian scholar

would do, the academic is more interested in which of the creation

stories is the oldest, what groupings can they be arranged in,

what

influences (foreign or domestic, if any at all) have gone into the

making of these stories etc. The academic would look at it purely

from a historical and cultural standpoint than from a totally

top-down theological viewpoint. The Christian academic would do the

same with the Biblical story of Creation. He too would point out

how

the creation myths of the Babylonian or Egyptian civilizations were

influential in the creation story of the Bible. But the Christian

seminarian by contrast would typically "bible thump" one into

believing that "God created the world" quite uncritically. Whereas

the

two academics can talk reasonably with each other as neither has

any particular "axe to grind". Whereas the two seminarians are a

lost cause as they would be busy sending each other to "Hell" or

"andhan tamas" and calling names of each other. To what end?

Besides the undoing of the dignity of two human beings in heated

futile argument, truth too would stand jeopardized.

 

regards

Balaji Hebbar