Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism is a 2011 book by Rajiv Malhotra, an Indian-American author, philanthropist and public speaker, published by HarperCollins. The book attempts to study Western cultures from the vantage point of Indian philosophy, specifically through what he refers to as “traditional dharmic approach.”
The primary objective of this book is to challenge the postulations of Western societies on the Indic civilization.
About the book Malhotra intends to give a critique of western culture, by comparing it with Indian culture, as seen from a 'Dharmic point of view.' To accomplish this goal, he postulates a set of characteristics of western culture, and a set of characteristics of Indian culture and religion, characterised as "Dharmic." Malhotra explains that in Being Different,
Malhotra summarizes his rationale for treating Dharmic traditions as a family, contrasting the family of Dharmic traditions with Abrahamic religions. He constructs their differences from this 'Dharmic perspective,' thereby 'reversing the gaze.' Malhotra clarifies that he is not replacing a West-centric view with a Dharma-centric view by proposing the reversal of gaze. Malhotra explains that he seeks a dialogue, where the world civilizations are not merely seen from the viewpoint of the West, but the west is also seen from a non-western, c.q. 'dharmic' point of view.
Malhotra calls for mutual respect as a higher standard for pluralism than tolerance. Mutual respect does not call for acceptance of beliefs held by others, only to have genuine respect for difference, because, beliefs are not facts. Malhotra explains why this gaze from the other side benefits the West, explaining that he
Overview Malhotra identifies "six distinct and fundamental points of divergence between the dharmic traditions and the West."beingdifferentbook.com, Synopsis Malhotra argues that understanding these six points of divergence is crucial to recognizing the fallacy of facile sameness arguments and to understanding senselessness of inculturation efforts. These points of divergence are: Approaches to difference History-centrism versus inner sciences Integral versus synthetic unity The nature of chaos and uncertainty Translatability vs. Sanskrit Western universalism challenged
Divergence 1: Approaches to difference According to Malhotra, there is a pervasive anxiety in the west over personal and cultural differences. Therefore, the west tries to assimilate and convert "all that does not fit its fundamental paradigms." According to Malhotra, this anxiety is grounded in schisms which are inherent in the western worldview. In contrast, "Dharmic traditions [...] are historically more comfortable with differences."
Divergence 2: History Centrism versus inner sciences According to Malhotra, Dharmic traditions rely on adhyatma-vidya, while the Abrahamic religions rely on God's interventions in human history. For followers of history-centric (Abrahamic) religions, truth-claims based on history are more significant than the scriptural message itself. History-centric dogma such as original sin and resurrection become critical beliefs and no compromise can be made on their acceptance. This explains the centrality of Nicene creed to all major Christian denominations. Followers of history-centric religions believe that the God revealed His message through a special prophet and that the message is secured in scriptures. This special access to God is available only to these intermediaries or prophets and not to any other human beings.
Dharma traditions do not hold history central to their faith. Gautama Buddha emphasized that his enlightenment was merely a discovery of a reality that is always there. He was not bringing any new covenants from any God. The history of the Buddha is not necessary for Buddhist principles to work. In fact, Buddha stated that he was neither the first nor the last person to have achieved the state of enlightenment. He also asserted that he was not God nor sent by any God as a prophet, and whatever he discovered was available to every human to discover for himself. This makes Buddhism not History-Centric.
Malhotra explains how history-centrism or lack of it has implications for religious absolutist exclusivity vs. flexible pluralism:
Divergence 3: Integral versus synthetic unity Both Western and Dharmic civilizations have cherished unity as an ideal, but with a different emphasis. Here, Malhotra posits a crucial distinction between what he considers a "synthetic unity" that gave rise to a static intellectualistic Worldview in the West positioning itself as the Universal and an "integrative unity" that gave rise to a dynamically oriented Worldview based on Dharma. While the former is characterized by a "top-down" essentialism embracing everything a priori, the latter is a "bottom-up" approach acknowledging the dependent co-origination of alternative views of the human and the divine, the body and the mind, and the self and society.
Divergence 4: The nature of chaos and uncertainty Dharma philosophical systems are highly systematized in their approach to understanding ultimate reality and in carefully addressing what one can know through various means of knowledge. However, this rigor does not restrict their freedom in being comfortable with social organization. Indians exhibit remarkable openness to self-organization and decentralization. Malhotra explains the basis for this openness:
Dharma actually recognises the need for both Order and Chaos to co-exist in the universe. In the story Prajapati attempts to create the Universe keeping Order and Chaos in dynamic balance. His initial attempts fail because they're too Jami/homogenous or too Prthak/different. Finally he gets the combination just-right by using the principle of Bandhuta/Bandhu i.e. binding together dissimilar things by what is common across all things in the entire creation.
Divergence 5: Translatability vs. Sanskrit Malhotra identifies various non-translatables in Sanskrit that have been mapped into Abrahamic religious concepts. These mis-translations then are used to draw sameness arguments or to denounce Hinduism. Malhotra explains that
Malhotra gives example of a list of Sanskrit non-translatables and goes on to provide key differences in their original meaning and the most common translated word in English. For example,
Sr. No. Sanskrit non-translatable Most common English translation 1 Brahman and Ishwara God 2 Shiva Destroyer 3 Atman Soul or Spirit 4 Veda Bible or Gospel 5 Dharma Religion or Law 6 Jāti and Varna Caste 7 Aum Amen, Allah etc. 8 Dukkha Suffering 9 Avatar Jesus 10 Shakti or Kundalini Holy Spirit 11 Rishi, Guru or Yogi Prophet or Christian Saint 12 Devatas Pagan Gods 13 Murtis Idols 14 Yajna Christian Sacrifice 15 Karma Western Notion of Suffering 16 Karma Redemption 17 Karma-Yoga Christian Works 18 Jivanmukti or Moksha Salvation
Divergence 6: Western universalism challenged Malhotra claims that refuting Western Universalism is one of the most important objectives of his book, the conscious effort from American and European individuals to make the rest of the world fit into the template provided by these civilizations. He claims that all people and culture are forced into the various schemes put forward to bring this about and asserts that modern laws, regulation, conventions and common practices are formed, whether consciously or not with Western Universalism in mind.
Malhotra then goes on to provide a case study of Germany for Western digestion and synthesis. He claims that late 18th and early 19th century saw a special interest in ancient India in European academia now called as Romantic movement and Indic origin of European culture started to compete with the earlier held Semitic origin. To satisfy German cultural and religious egotistic interests various German Romantic thinkers like K. W. F. Schlegel and G. W. F. Hegel slowly digested Indic ideas, like monism, and presented a caricature of India as the 'frozen other'. Malhotra says Hegel presented, "The Weltgeist or World Spirit is, in effect the protagonist of this history, and the West is extraordinary because it is destined to lead this journey while all other civilizations must follow or perish." He claims this narrative gave the West its privileges and those who doesn't fit into this scheme are not a part of history, even though the Spirit may use (parts of) them. Malhotra alleges "He (Hegel) laboriously criticizes Sanskrit and Indian civilization, arguing with European Indologists with the aim of assimilating some ideas (such as absolute idealism) into his own philosophy) while postulating India as the inferior other in order to construct his theory of the West. Asia's place in history is as an infant, whereas the West is mature and everyone's eventual destination." This argument led to justification of colonialism as a teleological imperative by which the superior Europeans must appropriate others. For example, Hegel argues it is better for Africans to remain enslaved until they pass through a process of maturation that culminates in their total conversion to Christianity. Hegel regarded colonization as India's inevitable fate and was declared 'static' and incapable of progress by itself, and it was up to the West to colonize and 'operate' on her for her own benefit. Hegel's perception of India as stagnant and lacking history was perpetuated by Karl Marx, who described India as caught in the 'Asiatic Mode of Production'. Hegel writes, 'The Germanic Spirit (germanische Geist) is the Spirit of the New World (neuen Welt), whose end is the realization of the absolute truth... The destiny of the Germanic people is that of serving as the bearer of the Christian principle'. Thus Hegel establishes that while the West is pure, some westerners (Germans) are purer than others. As Halbfass explains, 'European thought has to provide the context and categories for the exploration of all traditions of thought', which Malhotra argues sees the digestion of Indian civilization into Western categories as both natural and desirable. Malhotra also writes that, after Hegel's death his sweeping Eurocentric accounts of history was extrapolated which culminates at the Aryan identity. Malhtora states,
Reception Several reviews of Being Different have been published in academic periodicals, that include reviews by Campbell, Wiebe, Rai, and Rukmani. A special issue of the International Journal of Hindu Studies was dedicated to discussing Being Different, and included articles by Nicholas F. Gier, Shrinivas Tilak, Gerald James Larson, Rita M. Gross, Robert A. Yelle, and Cleo McNelly Kearns, as well as a nearly 40-page response by Malhotra.
In February 2012, Patheos Book Club hosted a discussion of Being Different on their website.
International Journal of Hindu Studies Cleo McNelly Kearns
According to Kearns, Malhotra puts forward a valuable challenge to Christian theology. She also notes that Malhotra himself adds to the "binary thinking" which he rejects.
Rita M. Gross According to Rita Gross, Malhotra has located "one of the most urgent tasks for human survival", namely the ability to accommodate diversity without judging one culture over another as superior or inferior.
Shrinivas Tilak Tilak is appreciative of the "counterreading" that Malhotra offers. According to Tilak, Malhotra "gives voice to Indic subjects who have been silenced or transformed by nineteenth century and contemporary Indological filters. Tilak uses the term Dharmacatuskam, "House of Dharma with Its Four Wings (Dharmas)", to denote the sense of integration that underlies the Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism traditions. Tilak points out that Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism offer various approaches to dharma, which are "not unitary but composite".
Gerald James Larson