A Critical Review of Rajiv Malhotra's Being

Different An Indian Challenge to Western

Universalism
Monday, April 16, 2012
A critical review of Rajiv Malhotras Being Different An Indian Challenge to
Western Universalism

A critical review of Rajiv Malhotras

Being Different An Indian Challenge to Western

Universalism
By Kalavai Venkat
Dharma traditions resemble Silicon Valley innovation and freedom (whereas) JudeoChristian religions come across like controlled, state-supplied, monopolistic products.
Like the Soviets who believed in allowing only one airline, one brand of car, one
toothpaste, () most Christians believe in allowing only one approach to religion.
These are among the closing words of Being Different. Whereas most westerners and
colonized Hindus implicitly assume that the west is the best and view other cultures
from a Christian western viewpoint, Malhotra takes his readers through an intellectually
engaging journey where he reverses the gaze on the Christian west and evaluates it
using the dhrmic paradigm. Western civilization is an artificial fusion of Judeo-Christian
dogmas and the Greco-Roman thought and as a result is synthetic and tension-ridden.
Even the tensions that characterize the racial relationships in the west are traceable to
the historical colonial conquests that were fueled by Christianity. Westerners imagine
their culture to be universal but in reality it is aggressive and expansionist, and usurps
traits from other cultures in the same manner as a tiger consumes and destroys its prey.
One such example is the surreptitious incorporation of quotes from the Vedas into the
Tamil Bible. The west violently rejects what it cannot assimilate from other cultures.
Liberal and conservative westerners are products of the same mindset, and their
perceptions of Hindu society are identical.
Sounds like a harsh indictment of the west? It is. But it is also the outcome of a
systematic analysis of the Christian western culture using the Hindu rational method of
prva paksa. Malhotra argues that one must look deeper beyond the superficial
similarities between religions and cultures and shows that there are fault-lines that
divide the Christian western and the dhrmic worldviews.

In Judeo-Christian traditions, revelation is initiated by God, from above, with the

individual being a passive and submissive recipient. This process is highly historycentric, relies upon authority that is frozen in time, and allows for no direct experience.
Dogma insists that one is born into Original Sin and human existence is sinful unless
one seeks salvation from a historical prophetic tradition. But this salvation does not
transform man into something sublime. God always remains an external agency and all
that salvation means is that one escapes eternal condemnation to hell. These historycentric beliefs of Judeo-Christian systems also fail scientific scrutiny.
Dhrmic traditions provide a refreshing contrast. The individual is free from the guilt
complexes that characterize a Christian. History has no metaphysical significance in
dharma. Hindu narratives, as ri Aurobindo states, are ever present in nature because
one can experience those out of ones own efforts. The Hindu initiate is an active
participant in his quest for adhytma vidya (knowledge of the self). Unlike JudeoChristian systems which are fossilized, dhrmic systems dynamically evolve. As a
result, the teachings of a guru are as valid as the words in a sacred text. Even more
importantly, the guru does not merely transmit historical sayings dogmatically but
evokes the initiates own experiential wisdom. This is precisely why one finds welcome
diversity in dhrmic traditions. Most importantly, mks a (self-realization) is something
one can actively experience here and now and is not a chimera called heaven a
baptized Christian must be content with chasing post-mortem.
Malhotra aptly points out that none of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, or Paul allowed for
individual freedom. Instead they rejected individuality as something stained by Original
Sin and even salvation in Christianity is a collective exercise. This denial of individuality
in the religious realm extends to all walks of western life, and contrary to what
westerners imagine they are not individualistic but highly institutionalized creatures. On
the other hand, dharma frees one from conditioning, celebrates individualism, and leads
one to the blissful state called satchitnanda. Unless the west rejects the foundational
premises of Christianity as embodied in the Nicene Creed, it is not possible for
westerners to pursue internal quest.
Being Different discusses the absence of simplistic and artificial duality in dharma vis-vis Christian dualism brilliantly. Dharma traditions avoid artificial divides and Malhotra
presents narratives from fields as diverse as music, neuroscience, and literature to drive
home this crucial difference. For example, in dhrmic traditions, good and evil are
always inter-connected as evident from the Hindu literary narrative of samudra
manthana (churning of the ocean) where there is inter-dependency between poison and
nectar. This is quite the opposite of the Christian dichotomy between good and evil. As a
result, not only does Christianity seek imminent finality in the End Times but war
against evil (which of course results in genocides) too comes easily to Christians. The
western mind, as a result of this dualistic foundation, is bewildered by chaos and seeks
artificial order everywhere. Dharma offers a positive alternative by balancing order and
chaos. For example, Indian Classical music is non-linear and non-normative, and as a
result possesses not only the musical note but also a melodic ecosystem complex
called swara which has no equivalent in Western Classical music. Malhotras

observation brings to mind Yehudi Menuhins rueful remark in his famous book
Unfinished Journey that the tempered scale in Western Classical music where each
note is adjusted up or down from its true center has corrupted western ears whereas the
perfect fifth set by the tanpura in Indian Classical music is a criterion for all other
intervals and has rendered the Indian ears sensitive to microtonal variations called
ghamaka that westerners cannot comprehend. In an echo of Malhotras remark about
Indian individualism vis--vis the lack of individualism in the west, Menuhin too remarks
that whereas the Indian musicians expressions celebrate his individual quest to unite
with the infinite the western musician accepts loss of freedom for the sake of
collectivism.
The unrealistic western obsession with order not only destroyed the perfect fifth but as
Malhotra points out citing latest studies from neuroscience it also prevents a westerner
from seeing oneself as part of the whole. For example, when shown a photograph, a
westerner observes only the foreground whereas an easterner observes the
background as well in a holistic manner. This ability to see the environment as interconnected and a willingness to accept natural chaos enables a Hindu to self-organize
better than westerners and to be less reliant on institutions and systems. For example,
during the Hindu festival of kumbha mea 60 million pilgrims come together and selforganize without any agency coordinating the effort. One might also add that during
disasters such as the terrorist attack on the Mumbai train system, Indians got back to
normalcy within a few hours on their own whereas after the 9/11 attacks America was
brought to a standstill and only a systemic and institutional galvanizing could return it to
normalcy. Malhotra cautions that the willingness to realistically balance chaos and order
does not mean a lack of accomplishment as evident from the fact that Indians built the
most advanced urban complex of the ancient period, the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization.
On the other hand, Christian dualism and a lack of ability to balance order and chaos is
a limitation of the human mind.
Another important point that Malhotra discusses is that dharma is both context-specific
and non-contextual. Baudhyana, Manu, and other writers always integrated local
customs into their texts but every prescription depended on the context. This is
precisely why numerous texts were written over time. Only a few aspects such as the
framework of dharma remained non-contextual. This allowed dhrmic religions to
become embracing, organic, and ever-progressing. Since dharmastras accord
greater importance to local traditions than to codified law, there was no imposition of
practices from above, and as a result Hindu society experiences natural harmony. This
also allowed local traditions to permeate into and influence society as evident from the
examples of Pri Jaganntha and Madurai Mnks i where tribal and urban Hindu
traditions have fused. On the contrary, Christianity assumes that Semitic codified
practices from a bygone era are universal and enforces them on all people at all times.
In some cases, a few sentences in Being Different could be edited to be consistent with
the analyses and conclusions of the book. For example, Malhotra argues that in interfaith dialog religious tolerance must be replaced with mutual respect and adds that
respect implies that we consider the other (religion) to be equally legitimate. On the

surface, this appears to be at odds with the Hindu tradition of prva paks a which
Malhotra otherwise commendably employs. In prva paks a, one can never start with the
premise that the other doctrine is respect-worthy or legitimate. One has to evaluate it
without bias, as is the case with scientific evaluation, and using nyya, pramn a,
anumna, etc, either accept or reject the doctrine. So, respect and legitimacy is
something a religious doctrine earns as an outcome and not as a precondition. But what
Malhotra actually means here (which he has elaborated in his discussion group and
talks) is according mutual respect to the interlocutor and accepting the legitimate right of
the interlocutor to hold on to a religious belief in private life. It does not mean that all
religions are worthy of respect or that they are true. If anything, Being Different
systematically deconstructs Christianity and makes a case for how the core Christian
doctrines actually prevent self-realization and hence must be abandoned. The cited
sentence could be reworded for better clarity and to be consistent with the narrative of
the section where it appears.
Elsewhere, Malhotra writes that Constantine seized the dhrmic message of Jesus and
turn(ed) it into a political weapon. The context is the discussion where he contrasts
archetypes in dharma and Christianity. Constantine, a subscriber to the Arian heresy,
indeed used Christianity for political ends though one could disagree that the message
of Jesus was dhrmic. Critical examination of the Bible by Strauss, Ehrman, SomersElst, etc., has demonstrated that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet and a paraphrenic,
and that his words were irrational, vindictive, and violent; as Somers-Elst show, more
acutely so by the time he authors the Revelation. No doubt, in subsequent centuries, a
few passages resembling Hindu and Buddhist teachings were incorporated into the
Bible, but as Thundy demonstrates, these were borrowed from the east and were not
integral to the message of Jesus. Importantly, such passages lack a dhrmic context,
and never influenced the Christian mindset which was purely conditioned by an
expectation of the Apocalypse. However, it must be pointed out that Malhotra uses this
sentence to challenge the exclusivist claims of Christianity as evident from his
discussions with Mark Tully. Once a liberal Christian accepts that Jesus was dhrmic,
he has to concede that Jesus was not unique since there have been numerous dhrmic
teachers and paths. In the framework deployed by Being Different, this stance not only
helps separate the co called liberal Christians from fundamentalists but also negates the
foundational claims of Christian exclusivity.
Being Different implies that kundalin-like manifestations have occurred sporadically
among Christians even though the church suppresses such manifestations and
condemns the person to mental asylum. What Malhotra means, as evident from the
narrative in that section, is that while an untrained person could accidentally have some
rudimentary form of kundalin-like experience, such experiences not only bewilder that
person but are also opposed and suppressed by society. He does not mean that such
manifestations are integral to Christianity. Laya-krama (process of dissolution), where
vsanas (tendencies) are permanently annihilated so that one attains a state which is
nirvikra (changeless) and vaideha-kaivalya (body-less), is a central methodology to
kundalin yga. In all of the reported Christian mystical experiences there is absolutely
none where such states are described. The so-called Christian mystics are nothing

more than hesychasts, and hesychasm itself is a technique that was borrowed from
Buddhism and Hinduism and incorporated in Alexandrian churches. This is also evident
from the crude manner in which it is incorporated into the Bible where anti-Semitic
words are put into the mouth of Jesus to condemn the synagogue-going Jews and their
modes of prayer (Matthew 6:5-6) and to contrast it with hesychasm. Hesychasm never
matured into anything kundalin-like as the church cracked down on hesychasts. So,
hesychasm is not a kundalin-like variant within Christianity; it is a concept borrowed
from the east and synthetically imported into early Alexandrian churches, until it was
purged by the mainstream. This is very similar to how yga is appropriated as Christian
yga but condemned by the Vatican. Given the reality of Christian misappropriation of
Hindu practices, an example being how yga is crudely repackaged as pilates, one
feels Malhotra could rephrase this sentence to be consistent with the message of the
section where it appears.
None of these minor disagreements diminish the importance of Being Different. Any
scholarly writing engages the reader and is bound to spark an occasional disagreement.
The book is of utmost importance as it reverses the gaze towards the west and
evaluates it using the dhrmic paradigm. It is daring, witty, well-researched, and wellargued. It is certain to inspire others to stand upon Malhotras shoulders and extend the
gaze.
Posted by Kalavai Venkat at 7:22 PM 0 comments
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/04/himalayan-glaciers-resist-globaltrend.html