Reviews for Religion and Violence in South Asia

The average rating for Religion and Violence in South Asia based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-07-11 00:00:00 Roberta Ayscue What fascinates about the great religions is not their consistency but their flexibility across space and time. The ability to appeal to vastly different populations, even in the same location during the same era, is what gives them the ability to prosper, even survive. So there are inevitable tensions: between orthodoxy and mysticism, between universality and in-group cohesion, and what this volume addresses using South Asia as an example, between the desire for peace and the thirst for violence. South Asia is particularly rich in spiritual traditions--not just the well-known Hinduism, Buddhism (a formulation that I have always thought would make the Buddha shudder) and Islam, but also Sikhism and Jainism. (Christianity and Zoroastrianism are curiously absent). Most of the essays are illuminating. Laurie I. Patton captures the tension between "ahimsa", non-injury, and violence in many early Hindu texts--the most famous being Krishna's instructions to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, which is embedded in the epic chronicle of war, the Mahabharata. Paul Dundas shows how Jainism repudiated its repudiation of violence. Rupert Gethin addresses how the practice of Buddhism, with all its renunciation of illusion, came to be the religion of kings. Balbinder Singh addresses Sikhism, with all its ethical precepts but also a firm military tradition, as Indira Gandhi learned to her woe. Robert Gleave addresses violence Islamic law. I must confess here that even as an avid student of religion I have always found explanations of Islamic law to be tough going, and so it is the case here. But Gleave also includes a point that really should be highlighted in any discussion of any kind of Islam. The Western perception of Sharia is that it is some sort of immutable and cruel canon, handed down in medieval times or even earlier. Gleave points out that it is quite the opposite, and least the human interpretation of it: In Islam "God did not simply reveal a set of unambiguous laws (indicating that)... he wishes humanity to investigate the sources (i.e. , the Quran) to discover the Shari'a; that is, human beings have been given an ability to rationalize, as far as possible, the information found in the texts in order to present God's law to the best of their ability." Thus, there is a process for debate as to whether particular interpretations are correct. We may shudder at what is declared Shari'a at any given place and time but that does not mean that it is widely accepted. Among the rest of the essays, there are discussions of more recent disputes: the political use of Buddhism against Hindus in Sri Lanka (the recent Muslim bombings are too recent to have been included), the Islamization of the Pakistani government and its dolorous effect on Afghanistan, and the efforts of Narendra Modi, now the Prime Minister of India, to exploit Hindu-Muslim clashes to promote Hindu nationalist parties. Much of this is discussed elsewhere, but the political ends to which religions are put can never be highlighted enough, and the degree to which Modi manipulated information for electoral purposes is chilling, especially since he just won re-election. There are also a couple of theoretical discussions from which are off-putting to the generalist. But Peter Gottschalk's essay on how the British affected the development of Hinduism was revelatory. In essence, Gottschalk's argument is that the British found a variety of traditions--as one young woman from Bengal once put it to me, every village has its own gods to worship. But the British were looking for material to which they could apply their scientific system of classification, in part so they could label that which was non-Christian. This is not part of Gottschalk's argument, but one comes away with the impression that the British were looking for a label so that they would have a scientific basis for their colonial overlordship, something that contrasted with and was inferior to their Anglican superiority. So they created one. It's not really an unprecedented event--after all, I recall reading that the term "pagan" was co-opted to mean non-Christian and the Emperor Julian had no idea that he would be known to history as the Apostate. But it does make one think about the tenuous nature of the categories that dominant groups impose for their own benefit.

Review # 2 was written on 2008-09-14 00:00:00 Weylin Renison Update: Even better the second time. I read it with a Calvinist's (I am personally somewhat undetermined) eyes this time, and see why Willard makes some people uncomfortable. I say it's worth getting over it, because this book is SO good. Life changing. Revelatory. I will never look at life, eternity, Jesus, Christianity the same, ever again. I won't be throwing out the baby with this one. ....................... Not since my first experiences with C.S.Lewis have I been so impacted by a writer, Christian, theologian, philosopher. I really can't recommend this book enough. It has changed me. It has changed my mind. It has clarified and reordered things I thought I knew. It has made more sense of life than I ever expected, both on a philosophical level and, more importantly, on a real life heart and soul level. It has made me love Jesus more, want to know him more, enlivened me to his purposes, given me guidance about how to go on from the reading and actually live it. It has given me a new kind of hope. The first thing I did after finishing my Kindle copy was buy a paper copy. This is a book I expect to reference my whole life, starting with a second read right now. It isn't easy reading. Expect some grueling uphill climbs, some disorientation, some re-reading of paragraphs. I'm a fast reader and this one took me a couple of months to get through. Marinate in it. It's well worth it.