History-Centrism The critical difference between Indic and Abrahamic religions crystallized in my mind a few years ago, when I was giving an informal talk on Hinduism to a room full of attorneys in New Jersey, none of whom knew much about Hinduism.

I started by asking this intellectually sharp audience a set of questions which went roughly as follows: What would happen to your religious lives if, hypothetically, all history were voided or made inaccessible to you or somehow falsified beyond hope? In other words, imagine that due to some strange reasons, the details of which are irrelevant, you have to live your lives without having any knowledge passed down from God through any historical events whatsoever. What would you do? Would it be possible for you to lead religious lives, and if so, by what authority would you do so? In other words, can you discover the spiritual truth for yourselves without dependence on historical sources, or would you be lost if such historical sources were simply unavailable or unreliable?

To my surprise, these very highly educated Jews and Christians were stumped. Many felt that it would be impossible to be religious under such circumstances because man lacks the ability to know God's will directly without the historical prophets. Others felt that only Jesus' very specific personal sacrifice (a historical event) had made it possible for man to get redeemed, as man had no inherent capability to achieve salvation on his own. Some found the very discussion troubling and became disturbed by my thought experiment with a loss of history.

I then explained to my audience that as a Hindu, my spiritual advancement through yoga was independent of the history of Patanjali who wrote the Yoga-Sutras and of any knowledge about his life history. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the Vedic mantras was independent of the personal history of the Vedic rishis, and the Vedas were considered a-purusheya (authorless); the practices of Tantra were not contingent upon belief in the history of anyone; the effect of bhajans (devotional songs) was not based on any belief in the history of the bhakti saints or the histories of any deities. Finally, I explained that deities were not historical persons but were ahistorical forces and intelligences just like the gravitation force; also, that many Hindus had personified these forces through the poetic language of their praises, as they acknowledged their inter-dependency in Nature.

Therefore, if all the history of my religion were falsified, it would not make any difference to the effectiveness of my spiritual practice. Every human being comes endowed with what I call the rishi/yogi potential. There have been innumerable realized saints over time and across world cultures that rediscovered the highest knowledge. History was only 'nice to have', but not a 'must have'.

The audience was rather shaken up but also highly impressed by such a stance. Could I have uncovered a serious blind spot, or at least subliminal assumption, among Biblical societies about the necessary role of history in religion?

My audience's reactions reminded me of the withdrawal symptoms of addicts who are deprived of their substance dependence. I wondered: Had my thought experiment deprived them of their history dependence and triggered a sort of withdrawal syndrome? Why was their religiosity so contingent upon and hence dependent upon specific historical episodes? Are institutionalized Abrahamic religions in bondage to history? Over several days, my thesis of History-Centrism emerged.

This thesis got a further boost when I participated in a major world conference on science and religion in Bangalore. The Templeton Foundation had flown in scientific luminaries committed to various Abrahamic religions, including Nobel Laureates, to discuss how scientific their respective religions were. But these speakers largely used neo-Vedantin thought (without ever acknowledging any Indic influences whatsoever) as belonging to their own religion, no matter how much they had to stretch their canons to make their case. One was left thinking that all religions were scientific, and that they were virtually identical.

But I knew very well that the very same religions also have major conflicts in the real world. It occurred to me that these scholars had suppressed in their talks the History-Centric dimension of their religions, and it was this dimension, which made each religion distinct and also caused conflicts with others. My question became: Why do Abrahamic religions evade discussing their History-Centrism in scientific discussions, while this is at the very heart of their evangelical campaigns to claim uniqueness?

Overnight, I revised my talk that was scheduled for the following day. I highlighted that History-Centrism could not be slipped under the rug because (i) it was in violation of the scientific method, and (ii) it was the principle cause of world conflicts.

For taking this stance, I was attacked on the stage by a prominent Indian Christian scholar, who was working for Templeton. The conference was suddenly shaken out of the pretence that 'all religions are all the same'. Privately, many Indian attendees congratulated me for opening this door. I felt convinced that I was on to something big in the field of comparative religions. My talk is published in the conference proceedings.

Defining History-Centrism:

Most religions and (even non-religious philosophical systems) agree on some sort of upper limit of knowledge of humans in their ordinary state of mind. However, they disagree on man's potential to transcend this limit.

Hindus and Buddhists regard maya as being responsible for this limit to infinite knowledge, but believe that adept yogis and others can achieve states of self-realization or enlightenment in which ultimate truth is directly experienced.

Abrahamic religions believe that there is an infinite gap of knowledge between God and man, a sort of maya equivalent. But the vast majority of denominations believe that man can have access to the ultimate truth only when God sends a prophet with a message, and that man can never replace the role of the historical prophets. Without history, therefore, man is inherently lost in darkness.

The Indic approach leads to the experimentation and cultivation of human initiated self-realization processes, of which yoga/meditation are prominent examples. The Abrahamic approach leads to intensive studies of historical prophets' messages, because this knowledge can never be known by any other means.

The spiritual traditions based on self-realization hold that humans are born with infinite potential and their essence is divinity (sat-chit-ananda). Hence, if all historical records and knowledge were to vanish or become corrupted or inaccessible to humans for whatever reason, new self-realized living masters would be able to teach us the highest truths based on their own fresh enlightenment. Even though these masters are very rare, they have existed throughout history in many cultures. The result is that (i) knowledge of history is not necessary to be a religious person, and (ii) no culture has a monopoly on religious truth, although different cultures may have used or misused this knowledge in different ways.

The Abrahamic religions (according to the interpretations of most institutions) deny the existence of any such infinite human potential that, in effect, could make every human a potential prophet. They say, only God sends a few prophets with the message containing such critical spiritual knowledge. To abandon the history through which this prophetic knowledge has been passed down, or to lose the exact account of these historically transmitted canons would be catastrophic.

The latter approach to religion is defined as History-Centrism.

Every major religion has both strains -- History-Centrism from God initiated prophets, and also ahistorical human initiated self-realization. But in a given religion, one or the other tends to dominate and this characterizes religion and its society in profound ways.

For the Abrahamic religions, the history of religion is crucial; for Hinduism, the making of religious history via self-realization, etc., is what is important. This point is elaborated later[6].

http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305972

-- Pico J. (genera@hotmail.com), November 18, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Pico J. (genera@hotmail.com), November 18, 2004.

Nice but ultimatleu futile. mahy Liberal Christaisn do declare the hisory of the Bible invalid... an hink the spiritual aspect of the faith and the social practices are relevant even minus the existance of God himself...

That said, Hinduism and Christainity/Judaism are base don differen things, so the result ( if this was a real event) is no surprise. see, Christainity and Judaism are boht based on History... the validity of he historical claims are paramount just liej he validity of the historic events are central to Americans when recalling the constitution.

However the principles delivered int h Bibkle itsself can be studied independant of the history and even the heology, and I doubt hightly eucated attprneys woidl miss that point.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 18, 2004.

"....the details of which are irrelevant"..so you have a person living in isolation on top of a mountain with no knowledge of religious history. Would that person's self reflection lead him to believe in God? Sure. The concept of pondering the enormity of nature and the exactness of detail,alone would lead one to believe that there was ONE commanding the universe. So what?

Philosophy is an interesting exercise of the brain synapses. And the "details" aren't irrelevant at all. Jesus Christ promised that He would be with HIS church until the end of the world. Therefore, there can be no scenario whereby living human beings would NOT know of HIM, no matter what the "details" were.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 19, 2004.

God has made all humans with an inner longing to know God. When men seek him, He reveals himself. When they seek God with all their heart, God reveals them more clearly. Yet there are dangers. Man by himself is imperfect and the natural inclination is for evil. You don't have to train a child to be fool or mischievous, he has a natural inclination for it, but you do have to train him to be wise and well mannered. You need not cultivate wild plants or weeds, they occur everywhere naturally, but you need very careful to cultivate useful plants, watering, fertilizing, cultivating, etc. Here comes the Christian belief of original sin. We are naturally inclined only for evil. Hence, man apart from God's grace is doomed, both the fool and the wise. It is with God, to reveal the truth to whom and how much.

God communicates primarily in 2 ways, indirect revelation through nature and direct revelation through prophets.

People sought truth right from the dawn of creation. Some sought through observing, questioning, and experimenting in a rational way like the ancient Greeks (not very different from the scientists of our times). Some like in India and other Oriental countries, sought truth through meditating upon the mysteries of nature. God always revealed some aspect of his truth and sometimes much more, based on their zeal and perseverance to know the truth.

One of the greatest dangers of seeking of God through wisdom is pride. You start making a humble start to know the truth, but on the way you there comes a time when you are too much elated and you are misled that you know much more than anybody. Many people since ancient times have stopped short of the truth on the way because of such strong temptations to self-glory, spiritual power, and human pride. They become so much blinded by these distractions that the zeal and hunger for God vanishes and is replaced with the feeling of having become like God. To illustrate with an example, I am supposed to reach home by a long pathway filled with trouble and distractions, but distractions and attractions are so strong that at some point in time, one of them win my heart and I leave my path and loose sight of my original destination. There are many things, both in the spiritual realm as well in the material that compete for God's place in one's heart.

The Vedas, the original foundational scriptures of Hinduism are centered towards one supreme God and various sacrifices to please him. It is afterwards, various concepts of many gods and idols came along. Ultimately, spiritual disciplines evolved and were developed, which took one away from the one supreme God, to idols, and now ultimately to self and self-experience (which is the present state).

One simple test for spirituality is to imagine God asking you to demonstrate your love by loosing what you have at present, all the money, glory, power, fame, works, standing before men, your family, friends, and all rejecting you and considering you a fool. If you cannot stand it, you are a deceived person who has love only for yourself.

Also, one should differentiate between Experiencing God (the Truth) and God-Experience (could be deception). Most people look for just God-Experience (various spiritual experiences), which is sometimes akin to the effect of drugs like LSD, or like hypnosis, trance, out- body-experiences, ESP, spiritual powers, control over others, etc. Certain spiritual exercises make one's mind to unknown spiritual realms, and there are sometimes dark spiritual beings, which may tried to read your suppressed desires and ambitions, manipulate you towards a wrong path, if possible with some transient spiritual powers or wisdom or some dynamic power of speech. Ultimately, they are all centered towards self. Your spiritual progress is monitored purely by the different spiritual experiences you have, which is also a deception. You will even have some strange people coming and telling that you are like god, that they could see a halo around you, that your wisdom is great or they felt peace when they saw you, etc, etc., thus you are totally bond within yourself in spiritual pride. These are all the work of dark forces hostile god.

Since this is the folly of trying knowing God through human wisdom, God decided on a foolproof plan. He decided to become like one of us in everything (except sin) and communicate the truth that we are all so desperately need (I won't say seeking). Jesus is not a prophet, but the fulfillment of all prophesies in all religions from all times. To experience Jesus is the sublimest of all experiences and a true experience of God. No yogic exercise of body, breathing or mind is needed to manipulate Him or manipulate yourself to experience. God is a person, he can listen, and he listens. Can you call Him from your heart? If a human mother can barely restrain her child's call, can one who made your loving mother keep Himself away too long. Will He not answer you immediately?

In Christ, God has made himself accessible to all, to the fool, to the wise, to the poor, to the rich, to the Hindu, to the Christian, to the unbeliever, to the sick, to the healthy, but mostly to the most unworthy sinners and spiritually poor.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), November 21, 2004.