Second Annual Conference of the Indian Association for Study of Religions

Theme: Creative Encounters of Religions

Hosted by

Department of Philosophy & Religion, Visva-Bharati

February 4 – 5, 2006

Indian Association for Study of Religions is a relatively young organization having been formed on in August 2003, during the conference of IAHR, held in New Delhi. Subsequently it has been recognized by IAHR. Since it is an annual Conference, there will be customary sessions in several aspects of history and interpretation of religions. Still it is the accepted principle of the IASR to have an announced theme of each year’s conference depending on the environment in which it is being held. Accordingly we have decided on the theme as “Creative Encounters of Religions”.

In India a lot of misunderstanding is created at different levels in a country where different faiths have lived for centuries. This fact compels us to think and workout ways of encountering religion creatively which would help in having a clear understanding of religious experiences and realities to avoid conflicts and to avoid political exploitation of people’s sentiments. Teaching religion as academic study may help students to be able to detach themselves from the lower order of values and live a life with felt presence of Supreme Being in all human beings. A truly rational approach to religion would lead religious consciousness, excluding all extraneous elements and study it in its most essential forms and manifestations without missing the concrete, vital reality of the lived religion.

We, the academic scholars often feel responsible for not paying much attention to the academic study of religion especially in India. Consequently, there is a felt need to develop ways of creatively encountering religions from within and from outside. One may see all the other religions from outside and find them false, at any rate, far from perfect. I see my own religion fro m inside and find it true. This relation between my seeing my religion from inside and my finding it true is itself fairly complex because the perspective divide is, as we can see, replicated at the meta-level of determining the nature of that relation. In other words, the beliefs (and all that follows from acceding to those beliefs) that constitute religion are such that there is almost no communication, no bridge between the perspective of those for whom those beliefs have the status of existentially as well as theoretically necessary, absolute truths and the perspective of those to whom those beliefs are, if true at all, only contingently and provisionally true. The fact that this perspective divide runs all the way down and operates at all levels of religious understanding and religious behavior makes it of central relevance to the study of religion. A close look at this divide shows that any meaningful course of study of religion must endeavor to bridge this divide if it is not to be self-defeating in its ultimate aims.

The Muslim might speak of the truth of Islam and a Hindu might see other as anonymous Hindu while a Buddhist might see others as anonymous Buddhist. Each could hold that though one particular religion is the absolute or true religion, there are significant truths in other religions as well; cross cultural criticism is in order. This then can provide an authentic basis for inter-religious dialogue, for the differences are appreciated and worthy of rational discussion and debate. We need respect for other points of view, appreciation of the treasures of other cultures, confidence in one another’s unselfish motives. It is hard time we realize that believers with different opinions and convictions are necessary to each other to work out larger synthesis which alone can give the spiritual basis to a world brought together into intimate oneness by man’s mechanical ingenuity.

Indian intellectuals might very reasonably choose not to enter into a serious dialogue. “Traditional Hindus have not sought to understand other cultures; the situation of the encounter and dialogue between India and Europe is an uneven, asymmetrical one.” (W. Halbfass, India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding, New York, 1988. p. 21) The relations between religions must take the form of a common search for truth. By mutual criticisms and enlargements which result from a fuller appreciation of other systems of thought and culture. There is a common ethical and religious ideal influencing the whole civilized world, and each person tries to find it in its own religion and does find it there. The most interesting goal should be a state where Muslims and Christians, Buddhists and Hindus shall stand together bound by common devotion, not to something behind but to something ahead, not to a racial past or geographical unit, but to a great dream of a world society of which the historical faiths are but branches while preserving their cultural and religious diversities.

It is often been suggested that the academic study of religion in India needs to be different from that of the west. But what does it mean? Does it mean an inquiry into the beliefs and practices of the people? Or it implies the deeply and sometimes problematically composite character of our society in which inter-religious issues can have far reaching implications demands a more sensitive handling of the subject? It could also take notions ‘the sacred', 'the transcendental' etc. and try to show how these constitutive notions determine the range of legitimate interpretations of what means to be religious. It would also look at questions of 'tolerance' and 'pluralism', of the public and the personal as possibly conflicting expressions of the religious impulse/imperative, and so on. It can also include delineations of religion on the axis of the mystical and the ritualistic - in a very broad sense - and discuss their social as well as existential implications.

In case of study of religions it is customary to concentrate on history and sociology of religions, conflicts, and play of power, doctrinal study of religions and on philosophical interpretation of religious texts. However in course of sociological critique, usually, method adopted is all formulated by western thinkers like Weber or Durkheim. On the other hand anthropological methods of studying religions have the notorious consequence of reducing Sociology to Anthropological Inquiry. In the case of Durkheim and Weberian Method, we have the consequence of treating , apparently unacceptable position, human beings at par with physical objects on the other hand in case of Anthropological method we have the consequence of evaporating living, changing human beings all the way. The principal difference between two tenets seems to lie in opting for a value-sensitive methodology as opposed value-neutral ones.

However methodological category found in Weber seems to be quite effective when we take up the rise of America as great economic power – particularly when we take such category as “worldly Protestantism” as opposed to other worldly ascetism. However these categories seem to be completely inappropriate when we consider Ashoka or SriChaitanya. It might be said that another of Weberian category viz., “prophet” might come in handy to characterize this phase of history. But alas! That’s not quite true. If it works for Ashoka, for the great prosperity of Ashokan Empire, it just does not work for the latter. If we interpret, a la modern Indian sociologist like Madan or Beteille, things get more complicated. Even if we succeed in ascribing political motivation to Ashok as using religion as a tool for administering his great empire, we can not say this in case of SriChaitnya. SriChaitanya of course indulged in textual study, but his disciples hardly cared for that. At the same time we feel that it would be unwise to disregard the tremendous contribution made during the time of Ashoka or after him in architecture. Same is the case with SriChaitanya if we consider the great influence he had on the Bengali and Oriya literature. But at the same time it should be observed that he was the initiator of a new social order. One tremendous example is Jaidev. Surely he can be considered as a prophet, at least people thought so. Sure again he had tremendous charisma. But it is also true that he is remembered for his literary work. So clear cut Weberian concept does not work.

When we come to the recent we see another host of personalities giving rise to a different world view – or more. To take the example from eastern India alone, we had Rammohun, Vidyasagar, and then Rabindranath, to name a few. They had a different problem. On the one hand the traditional world view was crumbling under the impact of new field of knowledge and its application. On the other hand subscribing to the western world view comes with appendage – not one of us – hence giving rise to identity crisis. So these intelligentsia took upon themselves the job of reinterpretation of religion so as to remain Indian with pride. In effect they were actually formulating a new world view, and doing that on the basis of religion!

In India, the other way of studying religion is through Comparative Religion. When a student studies Comparative Religion, if she is skeptically inclined, she ends up knowing certain common aspects of various religions but missing the real significance of religion altogether. In short she ends up knowing certain religions without understanding any of them. Or, she will end up with a great willingness to apply the tools of comparative study to all the religions except her own. In other words, she will end up an eager sociologist with regard to other religions and a stubborn theologian with respect to her own religion. We need to investigate seriously if the study of Comparative Religion is of much help. Most of the academic study of religion is a kind of compiling list of different faiths and religions rather than understanding. We need to discuss critically and examine our own individual performances as a group of actors of religion play.

We live a double life. We profess ourselves to be religious while in practice we find brute lawless violence. Our divided existence issues utterly different conflicting morality. As back as in 1940 Radhakrishnan observed “We have today to fight against not nature’s death but man-made death.” … Religion has to fight against wars, military and economic, even though it may mean loss of dividends to a few individuals…. Hate is spreading like a vast black cloud. Terror has become the technique of states. Freedom won by centuries of effort is lightly surrendered. Fear is over the world, and our hearts are failing us. We protest a little too much our desire for peace, while preparing for war. It is like professing vegetarianism while running a butcher’s shop.” (S. Radhkrishnan, Eastern Religions and Western Thought, OUP, 1940, pp 110-113). Situation has not changed much. Morality is the worst casualty. If it should remain relevant, religion must be reinterpreted.

One of the aims of education is to train the student in the art of civilized living and behavior and to help the individual to acquire cultured personality. Education is different from mere training or conditioning. The terms ‘ethical’ ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual’ are closely interconnected in Indian religions but their interrelation is by no means easy to grasp. A reborn living faith in spiritual values is deepest need for our lives. Only religion, which demands as its first principle change in the individual, can replace the dark image in the soul by spiritual values and can create a new world view.

Surely music art or architecture inspired by religion is creative activity. But every creative enterprise presupposes a world view which is produced by such personalities without being a prophet and often without any greed for power. We propose this as the theme of the conference as we do believe that this kind of study would be quite fruitful and rewarding without falling back to older Programme of investigations.

The conference will have the following sub-themes:

i) Insider and Outsider perspectives in study of religions

ii) Sociology of Religion and problem of Insiders perspective

iii) Religion as Value system and Religion as Belief System

iv) Fusion of Belief systems and History of New Ideas in Religions

v) Idea of Comparative Religion

vi) Indian vis-à-vis Western Pedagogic Context

vii) Nineteenth Century India and Advent of New Religious Movements

viii) Study of ‘Comparative Religion’ and contemporary problems of Fundamentalism and” Terrorism”.

We have reasons to believe that a number of interesting personalities, including Historians, Littérateurs, Philosophers and Sociologist/Social Anthropologists will participate in this year’s conference and we are expecting a fruitful session.