ELECTION 99
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS '98
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Interview/ Dr Eric Lott

'This is a crisis time in the history of India'

PART I: 'Christian tradition has much to learn from Hindu tradition'

There are many other fields in Hindu philosophy, like the Saivaite philosophy, the Vedanta, etc. What attracted you to Vaishnavite philosophy?

It is the body image that attracted me. In Sanskrit, they say deha dehi bhava, sarira sariri bhava. Way back in 1957 itself, the philosophy gripped me. So, I decided to focus on this particular vision of the universe. It is still with me. I still feel there is something very special, very inspiring about this bhava or darshan. Ramanuja himself says that his approach is nothing new as the Vedas teach it, the Upanishads teach it. In fact, he was able to quote large sections of the tradition which spoke of the universe as the body of God. That whose body is this whole universe... that whose body is the akasa, that whose body is this bhoomi... That is the context in which tatvamasy comes in. Tatvamasy is an advaitik statement, a mahavkya which Sankara highlighted in the context of speaking about the universe as a body.

Do you believe in Advaita?

I am critical of Advaita.

Why?

As Ramanuja was also critical, not because Ramanuja was, this talk about all the acharyas agreeing and being tolerant is nonsense. They were fiercely critical of each other. Why should there be any criticism at all? Why not accept that there are various dimensions to truth? Why do you feel that there is only one truth? Why don't you accept the fact that there are various ways in which understanding can be developed? Sankara contended and later Advaitic tradition also contended that everything at the ultimate level is absolute oneness,ekatva. And that there is no differentiation between you and me, between one body and another body.

Therefore, if you perceive any difference that is of the nature of illusion, and if you interpret maya in the paramartika sense, it is asatya, not the truth . If you say that, then you are undermining the whole creative process, you are undermining the reality of the universe that it is God's creation. So, it is because of his faith in God, the creative power of God and the belief in the reality of God that Ramanuja said, the universe has got its own reality, which is not a vyavaharic reality but a reality that is no less than the reality of God.

God is satyasya satya, but this is also satya. Satyasya satya is absolute truth. Therefore, Ramanuja was harshly critical of Sankara and the Advaitic tradition. Of course, he doesn't name Sankara.

You came here as a Christian missionary. You are a Christian by faith. Did learning a Hindu philosophy in any way change your attitude to your religion and faith?

Yes, it did. It certainly did. As I said, there is a confirming factor, an enlarging, modifying, and enhancing factor in that process; a critical element too. As I reflected further and further on the way of looking at the universe, it introduced a kind of critical element in me. But I think all religious people need to be self-critical.

Whichever religion you are born into, you have to learn to be critical of it. Because of our faith in God, we also need to be critical of the ways in which we have spoken about God, other human beings, other communities and the universe. Over the years, it has also affected my attitude to other religious communities.

In what way has it affected your attitude?

I am critical but only as I am critical of my own tradition and my own community. I think we are now moving into a very sensitive area, but we have to be critical. This is a crisis time in the history of India.

Do you feel the crisis is restricted to India alone? Are we not seeing it all over the world?

Yes, you are right. It is a global crisis. What is happening in India is a reflection of what is happening globally. In part, it is a reaction against the modern movement. In part, it is a reaction against globalisation. People now experience a threat, a threat about losing their identity because of a new global identity.

Can't we call it insecurity?

Yes, it is insecurity too. You look at what is happening in the former Yugoslavia, you look at what has been happening in Northern Ireland and in Sri Lanka. In all these areas, they have their local complexities and particular historical factors but people fear about a global giant that threatens to take over the whole world. It is not only in the economic sense but culturally too. Globalisation has its dangerous cultural 'uniforming' that people fear. They fear about losing their particular identity.

Do you see one culture engulfing all the other cultures in the world?

I don't know. I am not a prophet. I only hope that there might be a backtracking in globalisation. You see, globally also, there is recognition that other identities, other cultures and other communities have their rights. There has never been such a greater sense of the value of particular identities and cultures at one intellectual level. But it is very much at the intellectual level only and I am afraid at the level of global economy and global market, these factors are secondary. That is a great danger.

With the breakthrough in communication technology and the way in which India is taking a prominent role in the development of new technologies, it is possible that all manners of diverse and variant cultural values can become a part of the new human consciousness. If those who are concerned about their particular identity can project their tradition and values globally through the new communication process in the right way, in a convincing way, then it is possible that it will make an impact.

When you first began teaching Vaishnavite philosophy, how did the Christian community react?

Some Christians felt it was a waste of time; some felt it was dangerous and some felt we must only teach the Christian tradition. There were others who were very receptive and responsive and felt that we must be proud of the different aspects of the Indian tradition.

But in the later years, in the last 15 years or so, there has been a resistance to any teaching that is regarded as from the elite traditions of Hinduism, the Brahminic. I haven't used the word Brahminic so far because the word 'Brahminic' is anathema to many who have been impressed by the Dalit movement.

Therefore, a number of people within the Christian theological leadership have come to believe that somehow we must eliminate the Brahminic element and only think in terms of their own indigenous culture. Understandable. I think they need to focus exclusively upon what you may call the primal cultural traditions of their own communities. But there should not be a permanent polarisation.

And the reality is that there has been a long, long process of change and modification and interaction between the primal and the Sanskritic, and the Vedic and the Dravidian. The Vedic tradition has changed enormously and the Hindus also have accepted it. So, it is nonsense to say that if it is Brahminic, it is alien to the primal because the primal has become incorporated within the Brahminic in many regards.

You found an emerging point in the Vedic and folk deities. How did you reach that point?

I am not sure how I reached there, intellectually and conceptually. When I began, the assumption was that the Vedic tradition continued untouched and unpolluted throughout, sanatana dharma... unchanged dharma. But the historical reality is quite different. There have been all manners of changes and how I came to arrive at that point, I am not sure. It was after a long process of reading.

You just now mentioned the way the Christians reacted to you teaching Vaishnavite philosophy. How did the Hindus react?

I must confess that the Vaishnava community was very welcoming. My first research paper was published by the Ramanuja Research Society. I think the publication of the paper convinced many people that I had a sound understanding of the philosophy. And my interpretation was the one which helped them see things, perhaps, in a slightly more modern light.

I remember on one occasion, I went to a seminar of All India Vaishnava scholars in Bangalore and after the main meeting, twelve of the scholars asked me to sit down with them in a quiet room. They wanted to discuss ways in which their youths could be attracted to the truths of the tradition, or at least could be attracted to take the tradition seriously because youngsters were dismissing traditions and rituals. So, I suggested ways. My role there was an enabling one, I think.

'Hindu philosophy certainly increased my attitude to nature' The Eric Lott interview continues

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview