No Word for Religion in Hindu Civilization?

[Guest guest]

HinduThought, "Ashok Chowgule" <ashokvc@c...>

wrote:

I think this is a very good message on the subject, and I thought of

sharing this with you.

 

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule

 

 

-

"jakobderoover"

Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:27 PM

Re: Word for Religion in Hindu Civilization?

 

 

Response to Raja (nr. 2031) and Shatrajit (nr. 2034):

 

Dear Raja and Shatrajit,

 

The fact that there is no word for "religion" in the Indian

languages should be taken as an indicator of a more significant

problem in our current understanding of the Indian traditions. But

this does not mean that "all the scholarship that has taken place

over the last few centuries is misguided and not worthy of our

consideration." It might be misguided, but it is very much worthy of

our consideration. In fact, the western descriptions of the Indian

traditions (as "Hinduism,Jainism,Buddhism") are *the phenomena

we have to account for* before we can take up the task of developing

alternative theory on the Indian traditions. Let me explain.

 

1. When Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun

rather than vice versa, one of the great scientific strengths of his

hypothesis lay in the fact that it could also explain why it seems

to us as though the sun is revolving around the earth. Similarly,

when a stick appears bent when part of it is under water, any

scientific hypothesis that tells us that the stick is not really

bent, should also explain to us why it appears so. A scientific

explanation of the Western culture, the Indian culture, and the

differences between them should live up to the same kind of test.

That is, if it claims that the Indian traditions are not religion,

it should also tell us why generations of brilliant westerners and

western-educated scholars from other cultures have been convinced

that the Indian traditions *are* religion. So, the scholarship of

the last few centuries is extremely important, as it gives us the

phenomena that have to be saved by our own hypothesis.

 

2. What would such a hypothesis look like? It will have to give an

explanation of the Western culture that shows why this culture was

compelled to see religion in all other cultures. This is done by

S.N. Balagangadhara in his `The Heathen in His Blindness .' (E.J.

Brill, 1994). In this book, he sets a benchmark that has to be

reached by any scientific theory of religion. A study of the

encounter between the early Christians and the Roman pagans and that

between the modern Europeans and the Indian pagans, brings him to

the formulation of the following problem: (a) Christianity

recognizes itself as a religion; (b) The terms under which

Christianity recognizes itself as a religion are also the terms

under which Islam and Judaism recognize themselves as religion

(using whatever word they use); © Christianity singled out both

the Roman and the Indian traditions as rival religions; (d) Judaism

and Islam also singled out these same traditions as their religious

rivals; (e) Both the Roman and the Indian traditions did not

recognize themselves in the descriptions Christianity, Islam, and

Judaism gave of them: they did not conceive of themselves as rivals

to these three.

 

Now, he continues, these are *the historical constraints* on the

development of a scientific theory about the phenomenon of religion.

Our theory should explain why Christianity, Islam, and Judaism

identify themselves, each other, and the Roman and Indian traditions

as religion *and* it should at the same time explain why the Roman

and Indian traditions do not in the least recognize themselves in

this description. Balagangadhara succeeds at developing such a

theory of religion.

 

3. Neither an etymological story about the word "religion" nor a

definition of this word can solve the cognitive problems that have

to be taken up by a scientific theory of religion. Etymologies and

definitions cannot be tested in terms of their cognitive value,

because they have no empirical consequences. A scientific hypothesis

on religion, on the contrary, can go through such tests: for

instance, the empirical consequences of such a hypothesis should be

able to account for the historical constraints explained in the

above.

 

This makes it very clear that science is not about defining words.

Take the example of the black swans. To decide whether or not a

particular kind of bird belongs to the biological species of swan,

we cannot use a definition like "swans are graceful white birds."

The evolutionary theory of contemporary biology gives us the

theoretical criteria to determine whether or not a particular kind

of bird is a swan, regardless of its color.

 

In much the same way, a scientific study of religion is not as easy

as the game ###### Dumpty likes to play. If it were a business of

defining words, there would be no problem to prove that Indian

culture does not know of religion. We could simply define "religion"

as "that which does not exist in Indian culture." Problem solved, or

isn't it? Well, it takes Balagangadhara 516 pages of scientific

argument to show that Indian culture cannot possibly have religion.

So there must be something more to it.

 

For all I care, people can turn themselves into ###### Dumpties and

define "religion" as "a hot cup of tea on a nice evening" and then

assert that there must be religion in India. But this definition

game is about as far away from scientific research as Pluto is from

Belgium.

 

4. The importance of the conclusion that *the Indian traditions

cannot be religion* should not be underestimated. For instance, we

would all like to gain a better understanding of the conflicts and

tensions that are currently disrupting Indian society. To come to

such an understanding, the fact that Islam and Christianity on the

one hand and the many Hindu, Jaina, and Buddhist traditions on the

other hand are two completely different kinds of phenomena will be

of supreme import. This indicates, for instance, that today's

conflict between Hindus and Muslims has nothing to do with religious

strife.

 

True, all of this raises the problem of providing an alternative

understanding of the Indian traditions. In the same book, S.N.

Balagangadhara lays out the conceptual groundwork for this

alternative theory formation. Currently, several members of our

research group at the Research Centre Vergelijkende

Cultuurwetenschap of Ghent University are beginning to build new

hypotheses on the nature of the Indian cultural traditions. Today we

can only offer some hints of what a scientific understanding of the

Indian culture, the Western culture, and the cultural differences

between them will look like. Even these few hints, however, point

out a direction in which to look for electrifying new knowledge in

the human sciences. We social scientists no longer have to be ######

Dumpties playing games of definition. Today a world is opening up

where we will be able to develop falsifiable, cognitively

productive, and well-structured hypotheses about the fascinating

beings we humans are.

 

Sincere regards,

Jakob De Roover

--- End forwarded message ---