Julius Lipner

The World as God's ‘body’: In Pursuit of Dialogue with Rāmānuja

In this essay I propose to offer some observations in due course on how Christian thought and practice in general (though some reference will be made to the Indian context) might profit from a central theme in the theology of Rāmānuja, a Tamil Vaisnava Brahmin whose traditional date straddles the eleventh and twelfth centuries of the Christian era. The central theme I have in mind is expressed in Rāmānujas view that the ‘world’ is the ‘body’ of Brahman or God. We shall go on to explain what this means, but let me state first that my overall aim is to further inter-religious understanding, especially between Christian and Hindu points of view. In professing a concern for inter-religious dialogue I know that I reflect a longstanding interest of Professor H. D. Lewis. I shall seek to show that the Christian religion can profit both from the content and the method of Rāmānujas body-of-God theology. To this end this essay is divided into two sections. Section I is the longer: it contains an analysis of what Rāmānuja did (and did not) mean by his body-of-God theme – doubtless unfamiliar ground for most of the readers of this essay – and serves as a propaedeutic for what follows in section 2. In section 2 I shall attempt to ‘extrapolate’ Rāmānujas thinking into a Christian context, with dialogue in mind. Section 2 cannot be appreciated for the promise I hope it holds out without the (sometimes involved) detail of the first section.

Truth-claims and inter-religious dialogue

The debate continues concerning the nature of religious truth-claims and their role in dialogue: a seemingly vexatious topic not only in discussions between religious persons and those who question the value of accredited religion, but also within the camp of differently aligned believers themselves. Indeed the present interest in inter-religious understanding has tended to make this problem even more acute. In Part I of this paper I wish to discuss the issue of truth-claims in religion within the context of two apparently conflicting views: the one represented in the writings of Professor John Hick, and the other that advanced by D. Z. Phillips. In the second part I propose to indicate how this issue bears on the further question of inter-faith dialogue.

At the Bend in the Road: A Story about Religious Pluralism

In his essay “Seeing-as and Religious Experience”, John Hick quotes Wittgenstein as follows. “I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking — but, if possible, to stimulate someone to thoughts of his own.”1 Hick uses this statement as a basis for extrapolating Wittgenstein’s idea of “seeing-as” in a context not considered by Wittgenstein. I too should like to use one aspect of Hick’s multifaceted writings, no doubt with his approval, to stimulate thought of my own. This is the aspect concerned with religious pluralism. This paper is intended as a critical tribute to a thinker whose writings on this and other topics have become of seminal importance in contemporary philosophy of religion. In true Hickoid tradition, let me resort to narrative.

Gods and Demons, Priests and Scholars: Critical Explorations in the History of Religions, by Bruce Lincoln, University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 2012, xii + 228 pp. ISBN 978-0-226-48186-9, US

end of the same chapter, Clarke argues that while the sight of pregnant nuns on alms rounds endangered lay support, expelling them was likely to cause ‘further and possibly more trenchant criticism’ (p. 146). Thus the decision to legislate for motherhood within the privacy of the monastery arguably ‘allowed the canonical jurists better control of their community’s corporate image’ (p. 146). Again this argument fails to account for other possible motivations, for example that – given the nun had not breached the rules of celibacy, or was at least regretful of having done so – the nun did not deserve to be expelled and would be greatly harmed, both materially and in terms of religious progress, by being cast out. Thus there is a clear moral issue as well as a reputational one. While I accept Clarke’s argument that we must try not to stray into romanticism in our understanding of early Buddhist monasticism, this book’s focus upon practical and institutional concerns may go too far in the other direction for some readers. A related issue is the framing of the book overall, which takes as its starting point the belief that renunciation is solitary and involves the cutting of social and familial ties. In order to refute this position, Clarke makes his argument with force and flair, but occasionally risks painting too stark an opposition between his vision and the readers’, and between the view of the vinaya narratives and that of other Buddhist sources. Those readers who already have a more nuanced understanding of Buddhist monasticism, whether gleaned from interactions with living Buddhist communities or access to narrative or other non-classical textual sources, will still find much of value in this volume, but they may find the rhetoric occasionally overstated. A spirited rhetoric and forceful tone are probably inevitable in a work – such as this one – that offers such a strong and admirable corrective to an established scholarly position. Clarke’s book is a very significant contribution to our understanding of early Buddhist renunciation and monastic life, and will have a wide-reaching effect on the field. By opening up a number of intriguing narratives and carefully unpicking their relationship to the rules and regulations with which scholars have tended to be more familiar, this refreshing and engaging study will help to steer Buddhist Studies in a new direction.

97.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-226-48187-6, US

There’s a saying in Bengali that when rooting for worms you can come upon a snake.2 My aim in this essay is a modest one: to analyse aspects of the great 8th century (C.E.) monist or Advaitin3, Śaṃkara’s, understanding of figurative, specifically metaphorical predication, with reference to a pericope of the Bhagavadgītā. It may be, however, that the worms of insight I am able to uncover will give a glimpse of something larger. As we shall see, Śaṃkara formulated his views on metaphor in a religious context; it will prove useful, therefore, to consider how these views relate to this theological stance with reference to a passage from scripture.