Holistic Learning and Vibrant Spirituality
An interaction between theology and secular learning is necessary for a vibrant and holistic spirituality. Spurious spiritualities are thriving. When they are brought to the critical scrutiny of academic research, the wholesome elements in them will have greater credibility and strength. At the same time, the superstitious elements will be exposed. A search for authentic spirituality is quite evident in the modern context.
The other day there appeared in a local English daily a full page portrait of Matha Amritananda and a long report on how people from different walks of life, politicians, IT company chiefs and others thronging to receive blessings, ‘hugs’ from her. Secular thinkers and theologians alike should explore this phenomenon and its spirituality. The search should be for a life-affirming, holistic spirituality. It is articulated in the Biblical tradition. But it is part of other religious traditions as well. The web of life has to be sustained by spirituality of life.
Pluralistic Framework in Indian Theology
A.P. Nirmal had drawn our attention to the fact the dominant theological paradigm in Asia does not seem to take pluralism seriously. It may look strange in a continent which gives paramount importance to pluralism. He argued that pluralism is not just an affirmation that things are plural. It is as well an affirmation that things are so rightly; it is an approval that they should continue to be so. Pluralism is not only a fact of life, but also a value to be cherished. This comes as a critique of all expressions of Mono — monism, monoculture, monarchy, etc. Political authoritarianism and monarchical form of governments are justified by the preference for mono. One God, one Church or one Pope – all these are rooted in the mono culture. Globalisation has created mono cultures that exclude all diversity and forges a monolithic system of thought and social structure. Public theology in India should have a pluralistic framework and language.
Subaltern Perspective
Public theology in Asia/India should come with resounding affirmation of its subaltern perspective. The epistemological break in theological paradigm by our commitment to praxis is a sheer achievement. In fact, this perspective should help us build bridges with other disciplines and also develop a critical and ecumenical theology.
Conclusion
I may be permitted to close with a personal confession arising out of my involvement with a marginal group, the disabled. In the modern world, the other who is different from your race, caste or economic grouping is considered either as a threat or an inconvenience. Present civilisation is built with emphasis on privatisation. The capitalist value of privatising one’s own space and property and zealously guarding it is at the root of modern development. But the challenge of disability comes in the shape of an intrusion of the other into your private space. In our religious consciousness too we zealously guard our own God and religion in our private space. We do not want other gods and religions to intrude into our space. But the demand of the other comes as a critique of this privatising tendency.
The other is often thought to be an object to be conquered or dominated. Underlying all our relationships, be it man/woman; employer/employee; rich/poor is a desire for subjugating the other, especially the weaker partner. Even in a process of benevolent relationship, the stronger wants to fashion the other into his/her own image.
We live with children who are profoundly retarded and autistic. They often live in their own world; seldom are they out of it. It is frustrating if we try to “train” them to conform themselves to our world of discourse. They refuse to come out and become part of our world. The only way we can communicate to them is by entering into their world and become one with it. For this we should know the right code. This process requires a mind-set totally different from that of the fundamentalist approach which refuses to take the other seriously. The disabled come with a demand that the other be taken as they are. In fact, Levinas, talks about the ofher as an extension of your own self. This profound view may be taken as integral to a healthy relationship with the disabled, and it is totally different from the fundamentalist’s urge for exclusion. To accept the other as he or she is and then build a holistic relationship is essential for evolving a just and participatory community, the foundation of public theology.*
[By: K.C Abraham]