Characteristics of History-Centric religions

Characteristics of History-Centric religions:

1. God himself intervenes in History, and it is not merely the mundane history of humans such as Newton, philosophers, yogis, kings/queens, and other humans.
2. God's historical intervention is unique and non-reproducible -- and hence there cannot ever be a substitute to knowing the history. (On the other hand, if Newton never existed or if we dismissed his historical details, we could today derive the gravitation laws empirically from scratch.
3. God's historical intervention resulted in new Laws and Covenants, and the events were not merely a discovery of pre-existing reality.
4. The past must be overriden, eradicated, subjugated or reconstructed to fit the new truth created by such historical events. Hence, the socio-cultural change brought about by the unique historical event is discontinuous. It does not simply add new knowledge to old, but must erase the old for it to be legitimate. It is God vs. God, as he alters and contradicts his own past laws and messages.
5. Because this history is about God, History-Centric religions tend to have draconian laws on blasphemy and unbelief.

Following this characterization, one can see how Dharmic traditions are not History-Centric. 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.

To summarize, history-centric religions are those religions whose core beliefs DEPEND on historical accounts. Abrahamic religions are history-centric religions. Without the support of historical accounts, there is nothing to prop up reveled scriptures.




Sources: 
(1) Rajiv Malhotra's article on Sulekha.com  here
(2)Rajiv Malhotra's article on Patheos.com here

Origin of History-Centrism of Abrahamic Religions:

Let us break-down and clearly understand step-by-step how history-centrism arises in Abrahamic religions. 

1. There is an infinite gap of knowledge between man and God.  
2. This gap cannot be bridged by man.  
3. This gap can only be bridged when God initiates communication with man.
4. God intervenes at times in history and brings some ultimate truth to man via a specially chosen prophet.  Prophet is the medium or bridge that facilitates God's communication with man.
5. God's interventions are special miracles that are crucial for the communication of God's message.  
6. These extremely important interventions of communication occur very rarely and are to be shared with the people that they are intended for.
7. Therefore, they must be documented in canons and doctrines, and studied meticulously in order to know the ultimate truth.
8. Man has no recourse to ultimate truth except through scriptures passed on to them by God via prophets at specific moments in history.

As a result, God's interventions in human history are all-important, and become the cornerstone of each Abrahamic religion. Without God's prophet bringing the ultimate truth to man, it would be impossible for man to transcend his limits.  Hence, Abrahamic religions are largely about history, more specifically, about God's interventions in history.


References:  Rajiv Malhotra's article on Sulekha.com  here.

Classifying Spiritual Traditions

Rajiv Malhotra proposes that the best way to classify spiritual traditions is on the basis of the methods that these traditions offer for accessing spiritual truths that the ordinary rational mind cannot attain on its own.

Let us step back and begin with what knowledge is attainable by the rational mind and whether human mind is capable of attaining truth beyond the capability of rational mind by other means.

Three fundamental questions arise from this quest:

1. Is there truth beyond what the rational mind can ever reach ?
2. If so, is it accessible to humans under certain circumstances ?
3. If it is possible, then by what means is it accessible ?

If one believes that there is no such truth, or, even if it is, it is simply unattainable by humans, then the question #3 does not even arise.There is no question of methods used to access spiritual truths.

Once we respond to the affirmative for #1 and #2, then the issue of classifying spiritual traditions arises.  It is in the interest of classifying spiritual traditions that we raise the question #3: What methods are used to access spiritual truths in a given spiritual tradition ?

Rajiv Malhotra points out that there are only two methods:

• Revealed knowledge: Religious traditions that rely on revealed knowledge.  This is the path followed by Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).  Spiritual aspiration here is about knowing the will of God for individuals and societies on earth.  Revealed knowledge is dependent on third-party revelations(prophets).
• Embodied knowledge: Techniques for realizing the spiritual truths through the body, including mind and senses. Indic or Dharmic traditions (Sanatana Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) follow this approach.

It is Rajiv Malhotra's contention that religious traditions that rely on prophetic revelations to give access to communication with God are (a) history-centric and (b) exclusionary.

We will take a look at these two aspects of Abrahamic religions next.

Correcting the Master Narrative of Indian Heritage

Richard Bulliet, Historian at Columbia University, had this to say about the changing nature of master narratives of history:

• History is structured according to master narratives.   

• Master narratives are those things about history that have been repeated so often and so confidently with so little variation that they are taken to be true.   

• Master narratives are the triumph of the historian.   

• The more successful these narratives are, the less inclined people are to questioning them.   

• Successful narratives linger longer but they are most definitely not the only narrative.

Western bias to the master narrative: How the master narrative is written for a culture or tradition Is heavily influenced by who writes it.  It is hardly a surprise then that the West, which has been in a position of power for centuries, writes a master narrative of history that almost exclusively shows its own past as a collage of stupendous achievements while showing others in poor light or no light. 

India had no voice in the master narrative: Indians did not contribute to the master narrative of World history or even to their own history.  The West did.  The West continues to control it.  In the master narrative of world history, West has painted Western philosophy and Abrahamic religions as the epitome of human achievement while painting Indian civilization, culture, traditions, philosophy and Dharmic knowledge as a hapless and hopeless mediocrity of thought and achievement.  Indian voices which attempted to correct this injustice were discredited, unheard, and when forceful were branded unauthoritative or jingoistic and marginalized.  Westerners continue to control the master narrative of Indian history. 

Need other voices heard in the master narrative: One-sided master narratives are against diversity and fail to offer richness of thought.  They show extreme inequity in undermining entire cultures and their contributions.  Such extreme inequity arises not only because of the desire of the Western narrators to present Western grandeur but also because of the prejudicial blinders imposed on the narrators by the predominant foundation of Western thought.  

In the midst of this state of affairs, Rajiv Malhotra stepped in to take on the stupendous task of correcting the master narrative and placing Indian thought and achievements with their right place in history.  Rajiv Malhotra has dedicated his life and resources to this cause since 1995 and has not flinched ever since then.

Rajiv Malhotra's recently published book "Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism" is a challenge that reverses the gaze and takes a fresh  perspective of Dharmic knowledge and Western thought.  Rajiv Malhotra does not achieve this by presenting an Indian alternative to Western master narratives for History.  Instead,  he carefully develops a systematic framework to study Western and Dharmic knowledge systems while maintaining the audacity to speak of differences.  Rajiv Malhotra walks the reader through the development of the framework that helps the reader compare and contrast contributions of Dharmic and Abrahamic traditions.   What is revealed in its pages is the exclusivist foundation of Abrahamic religions, and  limitations to thought and experience resulting from prejudicial blinders imposed by those religions.

Rajiv Malhotra aptly describes the exclusivism of Abrahamic religions as History-Centrism.  We need to understand the exclusivist foundation well to know why the master narrative of World history authored by the West is so unfavorable to India.