Entitled to understand: A critical look at comparative theology

Tilburg University

Entitled to understand

Nugteren, A.

Published in:

Interreligious hermeneutics in pluralistic Europe

Publication date: 2011

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Nugteren, A. (2011). Entitled to understand: A critical look at comparative theology. In D. Cheetham, U. Winkler, O. Leirvik, & J. Gruber (Eds.), Interreligious hermeneutics in pluralistic Europe: Between texts and people (pp. 149-160). (Currents of Encounter; No. 40). Editions Rodopi.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

EntitledȱtoȱUnderstandȱ

AȱCriticalȱLookȱatȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ

ȱ

Thisȱ essayȱ grewȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ invitationȱ toȱ respondȱ toȱ Francisȱ Clooney’sȱpresentationȱofȱhisȱversionȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology,ȱ andȱrephrases,ȱinȱaȱmodestȱway,ȱwhatȱAlasdairȱMacIntyreȱpoinȬ tedȱ toȱ whenȱ heȱ askedȱ ifȱ understandingȱ religionȱ isȱ compatibleȱ withȱ believingȱ inȱ itȱ (MacIntyreȱ 1964,ȱ quotedȱ inȱ Wiebeȱ 2005:ȱ 260ff.),ȱ aȱ questionȱ thatȱ Donaldȱ Wiebeȱ tookȱ toȱ mean:ȱ Doesȱ unȬ derstandingȱ religionȱ requireȱ religiousȱ understandingȱ (Wiebeȱ 2005:ȱ260)?ȱIȱwillȱnotȱtouchȱonȱanyȱofȱtheȱproblemsȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱ questionȱifȱtheologyȱisȱmoreȱorȱlessȱvalidȱthanȱreligiousȱstudies.ȱ Whatȱ Clooney’sȱ workȱ triggersȱ inȱ meȱ is,ȱ apartȱ fromȱ aȱ deepȱ adȬ mirationȱforȱtheȱdepthȱandȱbreadthȱofȱhisȱknowledgeȱofȱatȱleastȱ twoȱreligiousȱtraditions,ȱtheȱchallengeȱtoȱreflectȱonȱwhoȱisȱbestȱ equippedȱtoȱcompareȱandȱwhoȱisȱentitledȱtoȱunderstand.ȱAtȱthisȱ pointȱIȱmustȱintroduceȱmyselfȱasȱaȱrelativeȱoutsider:ȱIȱamȱnotȱaȱ theologianȱ butȱ anȱ Indologistȱ andȱ aȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ specialist.ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ Iȱ wasȱ requestedȱ toȱ respondȱ toȱ Clooney’sȱ presentaȬ tionȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱmayȱbeȱthatȱweȱdoȱhaveȱoneȱthingȱ inȱcommon:ȱtheȱstudyȱofȱIndianȱreligions.ȱ

Francisȱ Clooney’sȱ workȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ exeȬ cutedȱ patiently,ȱ painstakingly,ȱ andȱ withȱ integrity.1_{ȱ Itȱ createsȱ aȱ} selfȬconsciouslyȱ composedȱ locusȱ ofȱ encounterȱ inȱ whichȱ aȱ speȬ cificȱtypeȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱoccurs.ȱIdeally,ȱinȱhisȱview,ȱ theȱ comparativeȱ theologianȱ leavesȱ behindȱ theȱ relativeȱ innoȬ cenceȱ ofȱ knowingȱ onlyȱ oneȱ traditionȱ deeply,ȱ i.e.ȱ his/herȱ own,ȱ withȱ merelyȱ fragmentaryȱ andȱ oftenȱ dismissiveȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ otherȱ traditions.ȱ Toȱ him,ȱ theȱ idealȱ comparativistȱ isȱ uniquelyȱ 1_{ȱ Iȱ consultedȱ variousȱ ofȱ hisȱ booksȱ publishedȱ sinceȱ theȱ 1990s,ȱ}

positionedȱ forȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ intellectualȱ andȱ spiritualȱ learningȱ thatȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ possibleȱ forȱ oneȱ whoȱ knowsȱ onlyȱ oneȱ ofȱ them.ȱ ClooneyȱhimselfȱfocusesȱonȱtextualȱmaterialsȱfromȱspecificȱcorȬ nersȱ ofȱ Christianity,ȱ particularlyȱ itsȱ mysticȱ traditionsȱ emphaȬ sisingȱ devotionalȱ surrender,ȱ andȱ specificȱ devotionalȱ theologyȱ withinȱ Hinduism,ȱ especiallyȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ southȱ Indianȱ SrivaisȬ navaȱ schools.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ extremelyȱ carefulȱ approach,ȱ withȱ meticuȬ lousȱattentionȱtoȱscripturalȱdetail,ȱoftenȱengagingȱvariousȱcomȬ mentariesȱonȱaȱsingleȱphrase,ȱheȱgivesȱampleȱroomȱforȱtheȱ“forȬ eign”ȱtextȱtoȱspeakȱinȱallȱitsȱlayeredness,ȱbothȱinȱitsȱownȱwordsȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ commentarialȱ traditions.ȱ Afterȱ havingȱ thoroughlyȱ studiedȱsuchȱaȱtext,ȱheȱreliesȱonȱhisȱinstinctsȱ(oftenȱtriggeredȱbyȱ associativeȱ thinking)ȱ toȱ bringȱ inȱ aȱ fittingȱ secondȱ textȱ fromȱ hisȱ ownȱtraditionȱwithȱwhichȱheȱstartsȱtheȱcomparison.ȱInȱthisȱwayȱ heȱproducesȱtransgressiveȱlearning,ȱbothȱacademicallyȱandȱspirȬ itually.ȱ Whatȱ Clooneyȱ suggestsȱ isȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ occursȱ onlyȱ

afterȱaȱparticularȱcomparativeȱencounterȱhasȱtakenȱplace,ȱinȱtheȱ shapeȱofȱaȱcomparisonȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱexecutedȱfairlyȱandȱmeticȬ ulously.ȱ Theȱ resultȱ isȱ aȱ delicatelyȱ balancedȱ interiorȱ dialogueȱ fromȱtheȱpenȱofȱaȱsingleȱauthor.ȱAȱdefinitiveȱanalysisȱandȱinterȬ pretationȱisȱnotȱoffered,ȱletȱaloneȱaȱgrandȱstatementȱessentialisȬ ingȱtheȱtwoȱtraditions.ȱ

Heȱ thusȱ proposesȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ isȱ producedȱ fromȱ theȱ uniqueȱ positionȱ thatȱ accompaniesȱcomparativeȱ study:ȱ itȱ bringsȱ aȱrefinedȱunderstandingȱofȱbothȱtextsȱand,ȱasȱsuch,ȱaȱnewȱlightȱ toȱ bothȱ traditions.ȱ Thisȱ moreȱ intenseȱ wayȱ ofȱ learningȱ andȱ unȬ derstanding,ȱinȱhisȱview,ȱgoesȱbeyondȱmanyȱwellȬintendedȱbutȱ oftenȱ necessarilyȱ lopsidedȱ encountersȱ andȱ comparisons.ȱ Theȱ enterpriseȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology,ȱinȱthisȱNorthȱAmericanȱverȬ sion,ȱ thusȱ emergesȱ asȱ theȱ dialecticalȱ andȱ dialogicalȱ activityȱ ofȱ closelyȱ readingȱ andȱ rereadingȱ texts,ȱ i.e.ȱ particularȱ textsȱ fromȱ Hinduȱ theologiansȱ likeȱ Vedantadeshika,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ textsȱ fromȱ Catholicȱ mysticsȱ likeȱ Francisȱ deȱ Sales,ȱ Satakopan’sȱ TiruȬ

vaymoliȱpairedȱ withȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvaux’sȱ sermonsȱ onȱ theȱ SongȱofȱSongs,ȱorȱPatañjali’sȱYogasutrasȱwithȱexcerptsȱfromȱtheȱ

stance,ȱ aȱsouthȱ Indianȱ theologianȬcumȬmysticȱ whoȱ livedȱ andȱ workedȱ severalȱ centuriesȱ agoȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ mysticallyȱ inclinedȱ fatherȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ whoȱ likewiseȱ evokesȱ theȱ readerȱ toȱ loseȱ oneselfȱinȱlovingȱsurrenderȱtoȱGod.ȱ

Itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ thisȱ moreȱ intenseȱ wayȱ ofȱ reading,ȱ learning,ȱ andȱ understandingȱ demandsȱ highȱ erudition,ȱ notȱ leastȱ ofȱ allȱ aȱ proficiencyȱ inȱ languages,ȱ andȱ aȱ bothȱ scholarlyȱ andȱ spiritualȱ sensitivityȱ toȱ theȱ evocativeȱ powerȱ ofȱ textsȱ producedȱ longȱ ago.ȱ Clooneyȱfocusesȱemphaticallyȱonȱtextualȱmaterialsȱandȱleavesȱtoȱ othersȱ theȱ equallyȱ importantȱ fieldworkȱ thatȱ isȱ requiredȱ toȱ unȬ derstandȱtheȱmeaningȱthatȱactualȱlivingȱpeopleȱgiveȱtoȱreligiousȱ issuesȱandȱtheȱwayȱtheyȱshapeȱtheirȱdevotionȱinȱdailyȱlife.ȱComȬ parativeȱ theologyȱ thusȱ createsȱ aȱ thirdȱ spaceȱ andȱ becomesȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱ contentȱ withȱ comparingȱ theȱ twoȱ separateȱ spacesȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ underȱ scrutinyȱ butȱ insteadȱ isȱ willingȱ toȱ be,ȱ evenȱanticipatesȱbeing,ȱtransformedȱinȱtheȱprocess.ȱThisȱmakesȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ mayȱ beȱ deeplyȱ changedȱ byȱ itsȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ detailsȱ ofȱ multipleȱ religious,ȱ theological,ȱ andȱspiritualȱtraditions.ȱȱ

ReadingȱthroughȱvariousȱintroductionsȱtoȱClooney’sȱworkȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ Iȱ admireȱ theȱ careful,ȱ eloquent,ȱ andȱ selfȬconsciousȱwayȱinȱwhichȱheȱtreadsȱtheȱground.ȱHeȱappearsȱ toȱanticipateȱmostȱofȱtheȱcriticismsȱthatȱmightȱcomeȱhisȱwayȱbyȱ proceedingȱ withȱ aȱ cautiousȱ yetȱ stubbornȱ conviction.ȱ Despiteȱ thisȱ cautiousȱ attitude,ȱ heȱ obviouslyȱ believesȱ inȱ hisȱ course,ȱ aȱ courseȱ determinedȱ byȱ theȱ comparativeȱ dynamicȱ ofȱ readingȱ acrossȱtheȱbordersȱofȱtwoȱspiritualȱtraditionsȱandȱthusȱcreatingȱaȱ thirdȱ spaceȱ inȱ whichȱ atȱ theȱ veryȱ leastȱ hisȱ ownȱ Christianȱ theoȬ logyȱisȱexpectedȱtoȱbeȱdeeplyȱtransformedȱbyȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱ theȱencounter.ȱ

Verstehen/UnderstandingȱasȱFaithȬBased?ȱ

urallyȱenclosedȱbyȱtheseȱreferences?ȱIȱmustȱadmitȱIȱdoȱnot.ȱEvenȱ moreȱ so,ȱ Iȱ feelȱ excludedȱ fromȱ theȱ entireȱ exerciseȱ preciselyȱ onȱ thisȱground.ȱ

Thisȱeasilyȱandȱnaturallyȱsupposedȱfaithȱasȱaȱcriterion,ȱasȱaȱ precondition,ȱ strikesȱ meȱ asȱ questionable.ȱ Isȱ meticulousȱ scholȬ arshipȱ notȱ enough,ȱ alongȱ withȱ empathy,ȱ integrity,ȱ sensitivity,ȱ apartȱ fromȱ languageȱ skillsȱ andȱ philologicalȱ endurance?ȱ Whyȱ wouldȱaȱscholarȱofȱreligionȱneedȱtoȱbelongȱtoȱaȱfaith?ȱWouldȱitȱ notȱ thenȱ rightfullyȱ beȱ calledȱ theologyȱ otherwise?ȱ Or,ȱ toȱ returnȱ toȱtheȱthirdȱspaceȱIȱmentionedȱabove,ȱtheȱplatformȱonȱwhichȱtheȱ supposedȱintellectual,ȱ theological,ȱandȱ spiritualȱtransformationȱ canȱ takeȱ place:ȱ Isȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ belongȱ toȱ eitherȱ tradiȬ tion—orȱ anyȱ religiousȱ tradition,ȱ forȱ thatȱ matter—deniedȱ enȬ trance?ȱ

ForȱtheȱwellȬtrainedȱcomparativist,ȱcautiouslyȱmovingȱforȬ ward,ȱ examiningȱ detailsȱ ratherȱ thanȱ entireȱ religiousȱ systems,ȱ whatȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ advantageȱ ofȱ belongingȱ toȱ aȱ particularȱ tradition,ȱ preferablyȱ toȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ beingȱ compared?ȱ Areȱ scholarsȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱbelongȱtoȱaȱtraditionȱ–ȱsinceȱthereȱareȱmanyȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ specialistsȱ todayȱ whoȱ writeȱ highlyȱ sensitiveȱ andȱ insightfulȱ worksȱ onȱ particularȱ detailsȱ ofȱ oneȱ orȱ moreȱ reliȬ giousȱ traditionsȱ locatedȱ elsewhereȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ –ȱ notȱ equallyȱ equippedȱ toȱ produceȱ whatȱ Clooney’sȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ aimingȱ for?ȱ Wouldȱ oneȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ theologian,ȱ aȱ “belonger”ȱ (Davieȱ1994)ȱ_{andȱaȱbelieverȱasȱwellȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱcompareȱfruitȬ} fully,ȱ creatively,ȱ andȱ beȱ willingȱ toȱ beȱ transformedȱ inȱ theȱ proȬ cess,ȱtranscendingȱbothȱtraditionsȱbyȱenteringȱaȱnewȱspace,ȱtheȱ thirdȱspaceȱofȱdeeper,ȱmaybeȱevenȱshared,ȱmeaningsȱandȱmesȬ sages?ȱȱ

wouldȱ beȱ opennessȱ toȱ theȱ fullȱ forceȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ “foreign”ȱ text,ȱ allowingȱ aȱ changeȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ thatȱ mayȱ evenȱ proveȱ toȱ beȱ radical.ȱ Theȱ fourthȱ requirementȱ wouldȱ beȱ thatȱ suchȱ anȱ enȬ counterȱ wouldȱ notȱ remainȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ privateȱ sphereȱ ofȱ theȱ solitaryȱ readerȱ orȱ evenȱ theȱ selectedȱ companyȱ ofȱ experts,ȱ butȱ wouldȱbenefitȱaȱmuchȱwiderȱaudienceȱ(Clooneyȱ2008:ȱ2).ȱ

Whatȱisȱatȱstakeȱhere,ȱinȱmyȱview,ȱisȱtheȱquestionȱhowȱleȬ gitimateȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ toȱ beȱ transformedȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ andȱ stillȱ remainȱ loyalȱ toȱ “one’sȱ ownȱ tradition.”ȱ Consideringȱ Clooney’sȱ backgroundȱ asȱ aȱ Jesuitȱ priest,ȱ Iȱ couldȱ wellȱ imagineȱ thatȱ theȱ possibleȱ–ȱorȱevenȱprobableȱ–ȱtransformationȱinȱthatȱthirdȱspaceȱ requiresȱ anȱ anticipatoryȱ defence,ȱ justification,ȱ orȱ legitimation.ȱ Consideringȱ Clooney’sȱ credentialsȱ asȱ aȱ Harvardȱ scholar,ȱ theȱ shiftȱ fromȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ mereȱ observerȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ spirituallyȱ persuadedȱ practitionerȱ mayȱ alsoȱ needȱ someȱ apologetics.ȱ FurȬ thermore,ȱ consideringȱ Clooney’sȱ associationȱ withȱ Srivaisnavaȱ scholarsȱ inȱ southernȱ India,ȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ nationalisticȱ fervour,ȱ hisȱ closeȱ engagementȱ withȱ “their”ȱ Vedantadeshikaȱ mayȱ wellȱ raiseȱantiȬcolonialȱandȱantiȬChristianȱsuspicions.2_ȱȱ

EntitledȱtoȱUnderstand?3_ȱ

TheȱonlyȱwayȱIȱcanȱattemptȱtoȱaccessȱthisȱendeavourȱofȱcomparȬ ativeȱ theologyȱ criticallyȱ isȱ throughȱ theȱ allegedȱ spiritualȱ transȬ figurationȱtoȱwhichȱClooneyȱhimselfȱpoints.ȱNaturally,ȱforȱacaȬ demia,ȱbyȱofferingȱaȱ(new)ȱtranslationȱwithȱfairȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱ variousȱ commentaries,ȱ Clooney’sȱ disclosureȱ ofȱ aȱ relativelyȱ unȬ knownȱ Hinduȱ textȱ wouldȱ beȱ sufficientȱ justificationȱ forȱ hisȱ efȬ forts.ȱHisȱphilologicalȱeffortsȱareȱjustifiedȱdoublyȱbyȱbringingȱinȱ aȱ comparableȱ textȱ fromȱ “hisȱ own”ȱ tradition.ȱ Butȱ Clooneyȱ stillȱ obviouslyȱwantsȱmore.ȱThisȱentireȱenterpriseȱofȱenteringȱaȱthirdȱ spaceȱbeyondȱbothȱtextsȱmayȱbeȱproductive,ȱcreative,ȱandȱstimȬ ulatingȱinȱtheȱhandsȱofȱaȱpersonȱlikeȱhim,ȱwithȱtheȱsafeguardȱofȱ bothȱ anȱ impressiveȱ scholarlyȱ recordȱ andȱ aȱ delicateȱ evenȱ eloȬ

2_{ȱAsȱonȱvariousȱwebsites,ȱaddedȱasȱreaders’ȱreviewsȱonȱpublishȬ}

ers’ȱandȱbooksellers’ȱpages.ȱ

3_{ȱThisȱphraseȱisȱaȱvariationȱonȱtheȱtitleȱofȱanȱexpertȱseminarȱ“EnȬ}

quentȱ anticipationȱ ofȱ whateverȱ critiqueȱ mayȱ comeȱ hisȱ way.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ hands,ȱ however,ȱ suchȱ anȱ enterpriseȱ mayȱ slideȱ intoȱ theȱ sameȱ oldȱ pitfallsȱ toȱ whichȱ pastȱ comparativeȱ endeavoursȱ wereȱ prone.ȱȱ

Whatȱcouldȱbeȱtheȱpitfallȱifȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱbecomes,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ aȱ comparativeȱ (studyȱ of)ȱ spirituality?ȱ Theȱ revelaȬ toryȱ andȱ evocativeȱ characterȱ ofȱ Verstehenȱ soȱ farȱ transcendsȱ theȱ jobȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ academicȱ studentȱ ofȱ religion.4_{ȱ Clooneyȱ} admitsȱ toȱ aȱ significantȱ changeȱ inȱ hisȱ ownȱ Christianȱ theologyȱ throughȱ anȱ endeavour,ȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ thatȱisȱ explicitlyȱ faithȬgrounded.ȱ Applyingȱ Graceȱ Davie’sȱ usefulȱ distinctionȱ beȬ tweenȱ belongingȱ andȱ believingȱ toȱ theȱ persistenceȱ ofȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ beliefȱ (orȱ spiritualityȱ inȱ itsȱ presentȱ connotation)ȱ inȱ manyȱ situȬ ationsȱ inȱ whichȱ ratherȱ dramaticallyȱ decliningȱ “belonging”ȱ canȱ beȱfound,ȱasȱisȱtheȱcaseȱinȱwesternȱEuropeȱtoday,ȱwouldȱaȱcomȬ parativeȱ spiritualityȱ beȱ bothȱ moreȱ accessibleȱ andȱ foolȬproofȱ thanȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ inȱ handsȱ otherȱ thanȱ Clooney’s?ȱ Heȱ speaksȱofȱtransgressiveȱlearning:ȱDoesȱthisȱpointȱtoȱwhatȱIȱindiȬ catedȱ asȱ thatȱ newlyȱ createdȱ thirdȱ spaceȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logy?ȱ Inȱ thatȱ case,ȱ wouldȱ comparativeȱ spiritualityȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ speakȱofȱtransgressiveȱlearningȱtoo,ȱalbeitȱnotȱinȱtheȱsenseȱofȱaȱ

newlyȱ createdȱthirdȱ spaceȱ butȱ inȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ newlyȱ accessedȱ thirdȱ space,ȱaȱspaceȱthatȱisȱsupposedȱtoȱexistȱbeyondȱallȱdistinctions,ȱ paradoxes,ȱ andȱ otherness,ȱ aȱ spaceȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ createdȱbutȱisȱalways,ȱperenniallyȱthere,ȱreadyȱtoȱbeȱaccessedȱbyȱ theȱ advancingȱ spiritualȱ adept.ȱ Comparativeȱ spirituality,ȱ then,ȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ transgressiveȱ learningȱ requiringȱ aȱ faith:ȱ notȱ belongingȱ necessarily,ȱ butȱ believing.ȱ Asȱ such,ȱ itȱ wouldȱnotȱmatterȱmuchȱwhetherȱtheȱexerciseȱisȱcalledȱcomparȬ ativeȱtheologyȱorȱcomparativeȱspirituality.ȱ

ȱ Anyoneȱ whoȱ speaksȱ ofȱ somethingȱ surpassingȱ distinctȱ categories,ȱ discreteȱ theologicalȱ systems,ȱ enclosedȱ “we”ȱ comȬ munitiesȱofȱpeerȱbelievers,ȱandȱespeciallyȱtheȱsafeȱboundariesȱofȱ theȱecclesiasticalȱorȱscholarlyȱstatusȱquoȱwillȱbeȱtheȱrecipientȱofȱ 4_{ȱPleaseȱnoteȱthatȱIȱamȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱisȱintroducingȱtheȱcontestedȱ}

disdain,ȱscepticism,ȱandȱcritiqueȱfromȱvariousȱcornersȱasȱwellȱasȱ cheers,ȱadmiration,ȱandȱevenȱadorationȱfromȱotherȱcorners.ȱTheȱ readingȱofȱancientȱtextsȱinȱaȱnovelȱwayȱisȱboundȱtoȱdrawȱcomȬ ments,ȱraiseȱsuspicions,ȱandȱbeȱexperiencedȱasȱintrusiveȱbyȱbothȱ sides,ȱ particularlyȱ whenȱ itȱ isȱ calledȱ deepȱ learning,ȱ andȱ aȱ firstȬ personȱparticipatoryȱperspectiveȱandȱ“postȬobjective”ȱempathyȱ areȱrequired.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱwhenȱconsideredȱfromȱtheȱangleȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue,ȱ itȱ mayȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ anȱ intelligentȱ reȬ sponseȱ toȱ today’sȱ pluralisticȱ lifeȬworldȱ inȱ whichȱ religionsȱ noȱ longerȱ standȱ alone.ȱ Althoughȱ Clooneyȱ clearlyȱ leavesȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ actualȱ encounterȱ inȱ dailyȱ lifeȱ toȱ others,ȱ byȱ readingȱ beyondȱ boundariesȱ heȱ drawsȱ hisȱ readersȱ alongȱ withȱ himȱ intoȱ aȱ transȬ formativeȱ process,ȱ makingȱ aȱ particularȱ contributionȱ toȱ interreȬ ligiousȱunderstanding.ȱVerstehen,ȱthen,ȱinȱtheȱlastȱanalysis,ȱisȱreȬ ligiousȱinȱnatureȱ(Waardenburgȱ1978:ȱ228).ȱ

Clooney’sȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ oftenȱ farȱ removedȱ fromȱ theȱ moreȱ immediateȱ arenaȱ ofȱ actualȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ inȱ practice,ȱdistinguishesȱitselfȱbyȱtwoȱfeatures:ȱitsȱempiricalȱmethȬ odȱ andȱ itsȱ resistanceȱ toȱ generalisationsȱ aboutȱ particularȱ reliȬ gionsȱ (Nicholsonȱ 2009:ȱ 620).ȱ Still,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reliȬ gionsȱ itȱ hasȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ aȱ commonȱ genealogyȱ inȱ theȱ comparȬ ativeȱ methodȱ ofȱ theȱ lateȱ nineteenthȱ century.ȱ Itȱ advertisesȱ itselfȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬhegemonicȱ formȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ theologicalȱ disȬ course,ȱ patientlyȱ deferringȱ issuesȱ ofȱ truth,ȱ butȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ hegemonism,ȱ althoughȱ mutedȱ byȱ adoptingȱ anȱ emȬ piricalȱ methodȱ andȱ refrainingȱ fromȱ excessiveȱ generalisation,ȱ isȱ stillȱ apparentȱ (Nicholsonȱ 2009:ȱ 620).ȱ Avoidingȱ aȱ totalisingȱ perȬ spectiveȱ byȱ emphasisingȱ theȱ localȱ andȱ particular,ȱ itȱ challengesȱ theȱ discretenessȱ andȱ othernessȱ ofȱ theȱ variousȱ theologicallyȱ deȬ finedȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ inȱ theȱ world,ȱ inȱ Clooney’sȱ case,ȱ theȱ conceptualȱ constructionsȱ likeȱ “Hinduism”ȱ andȱ “Christianity.”ȱ Religiousȱboundariesȱmayȱthusȱbeȱdeconstructed,ȱnotȱasȱnonȬexȬ istentȱbutȱratherȱasȱfluidȱandȱporous.ȱȱ

ingȱtoȱtheȱmanifoldȱandȱvariegatedȱneeds.ȱAndȱasȱlongȱasȱneedsȱ areȱdiverse,ȱthereȱwillȱbeȱmanyȱstallsȱandȱshopsȱinȱtheȱmarket.ȱ TheȱHegelianȱsynthesisȱ(aȱthirdȱspaceȱinȱitself!)ȱthatȱmanyȱseekȱ todayȱ isȱ readilyȱ providedȱ byȱ “mindstyle”ȱ magazines,ȱ spiritualȱ books,ȱ inspirationalȱ courses,ȱ andȱ feelȬgoodȱ programmes.ȱ GloȬ balisation,ȱ commodification,ȱ andȱ commercialisation,ȱ however,ȱ createȱ theȱ illusionȱ ofȱ anȱ endlessȱ varietyȱ onȱ offer,ȱ where,ȱ onȱ closerȱscrutiny,ȱtheȱgoodsȱareȱremarkablyȱalike,ȱasȱareȱtheȱreliȬ giousȱ goodsȱ thatȱ areȱ beingȱ offered.ȱ Erasingȱ national,ȱ cultural,ȱ andȱ linguisticȱ boundaries,ȱ inȱ additionȱ toȱ manyȱ obviousȱ adȬ vantages,ȱ alsoȱ hasȱ theȱ byȬeffectȱ thatȱ thingsȱ soonȱ beginȱ toȱ lookȱ ratherȱ plain,ȱ flat,ȱ andȱ interchangeable.ȱ Erasingȱ religiousȱ bounȬ dariesȱ byȱ aȱ vagueȱ kindȱ ofȱ spiritualityȱ orȱ wellȬintentionedȱ uniȬ versalismȱ mayȱ haveȱ producedȱ aȱ widerȱ senseȱ ofȱ selfȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ century,ȱ butȱ itȱ remainsȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ ifȱ thereȱ isȱ muchȱ “deepȱ learningȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ boundaries”ȱ asȱ Clooneyȱ advocates.5_ȱ Deepȱ learningȱ requiresȱ aȱ tremendousȱ effortȱ andȱ heavyȱ sacriȬ fices,ȱcommitmentȱtoȱanȱidealȱthatȱmayȱbeȱdrivenȱbyȱaȱspiritual,ȱ mystical,ȱ philosophical,ȱ ecological,ȱ orȱ evenȱ economicȱ inspiraȬ tionȱ ofȱ interȬbeing,ȱ butȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ startȱ atȱ home,ȱ andȱ inȱ thatȱ senseȱIȱreadilyȱadmitȱthatȱClooneyȱhasȱaȱpointȱbyȱstartingȱfromȱ hisȱownȱrichȱCatholicȱtraditionȱandȱhisȱJesuitȱheritage.ȱ

Comparativeȱ theologyȱ inȱ Clooney’sȱ handsȱ breaksȱ throughȱ conventionalȱ boundariesȱ byȱ aȱ wellȱ thoughtȱ outȱ juxtaposingȱ ofȱ particularȱ texts,ȱ butȱ evenȱ hisȱ extremelyȱ cautiousȱ approachȱ cannotȱrelieveȱmeȱofȱaȱsenseȱofȱdoubtȱandȱsuspicion.ȱInȱcolonialȱ times,ȱadventurousȱandȱgreedyȱmenȱsailedȱoffȱtoȱdistantȱplaces,ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ Orient,ȱ inȱ theȱ searchȱ forȱ spicesȱ withȱ whichȱ theyȱ couldȱpreserveȱandȱseasonȱtheirȱblandȱfoodȱatȱhome.ȱNow,ȱcanȱ theȱ sameȱ mistakeȱ beȱ avoidedȱ here,ȱ i.e.ȱ thatȱ ofȱ interferingȱ thoughtlesslyȱ withȱ farȬawayȱ peopleȱ andȱ theirȱ socioȬeconomicȱ infrastructuresȱinȱthisȱageȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱaddingȱnonȬChristianȱ spicesȱtoȱaȱChristianȱdishȱthatȱmayȱhaveȱbecomeȱtooȱbland?ȱInȱ otherȱ words,ȱ aligningȱ themselvesȱ withȱ theȱ forcesȱ ofȱ globalȬ isation,ȱ theȱ “we”ȱ thatȱ Clooneyȱ soȱ selfȬevidentlyȱ usesȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ blindȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ powerȱ balanceȱ here.ȱ Manyȱ 5_{ȱSeeȱtheȱtitleȱofȱhisȱnewȱbookȱComparativeȱTheology:ȱDeepȱLearningȱ}

areȱnowȱwellȱawareȱofȱtheȱblindȱspotsȱinȱtheȱcolonialȱenterprise,ȱ suchȱ asȱ blatantȱ culturalȱ assumptionsȱ andȱ dramaticallyȱ unevenȱ powerȱrelations.ȱYetȱmanyȱareȱstillȱguiltyȱofȱbeingȱmindlessȱconȬ sumersȱonȱtoday’sȱmarkets.ȱ

Inȱ today’sȱ globalȱ marketplaceȱ thereȱ isȱ anȱ unprecedentedȱ varietyȱ ofȱ spicesȱ onȱ offer,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ anȱ unprecedentedȱ varietyȱ ofȱreligiousȱwritingsȱfromȱallȱtimesȱandȱtraditions.ȱEvenȱifȱIȱstillȱ feelȱ slightlyȱ uncomfortableȱ withȱ Clooney’sȱ project,ȱ Iȱ acknowlȬ edgeȱ itsȱ evocativeȱ powerȱ especiallyȱ inȱ learningȱ toȱ readȱ closelyȱ twoȱtextsȱfromȱwidelyȱdivergentȱtraditions,ȱtextsȱwhichȱofferȱaȱ strikingȱ familyȱ resemblanceȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ selectedȱ passagesȱ exȬ tractedȱforȱeasyȱquotationsȱbutȱevenȱafterȱdisciplinedȱandȱcareȬ fulȱconsiderationȱofȱtheirȱoverallȱmessageȱandȱmeaning.ȱIfȱanyȬ thing,ȱ Clooneyȱ teachesȱ usȱ toȱ sitȱ downȱ andȱ patientlyȱ immerseȱ ourselvesȱ inȱ twoȱ ancientȱ texts,ȱ readȱ themȱ fromȱ coverȱ toȱ cover,ȱ andȱletȱthemȱspeak,ȱsinglyȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱinteraction.ȱRefrainingȱ fromȱ generalisingȱ statementsȱ onȱ theȱ twoȱ religiousȱ systemsȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ twoȱ textsȱ areȱ embedded,ȱ inȱ hisȱ finalȱ chapterȱ heȱ limitsȱhisȱtheologyȱtoȱanȱintimateȱconversationȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱ textsȱthatȱhaveȱjointlyȱcomeȱtoȱlifeȱbeforeȱhim.ȱAtȱtheȱveryȱleastȱ thisȱisȱaȱdisciplinedȱexerciseȱinȱcloseȱreading.ȱ

ReligiosityȱasȱanȱAddedȱValue?ȱ

served.”ȱWiebe,ȱwhoȱisȱknownȱasȱaȱfierceȱopponentȱtoȱthis,ȱreȬ sponds:ȱ “Ifȱ Smithȱ isȱ right,ȱ faithȱ cannotȱ beȱ knownȱ objectivelyȱ andȱitsȱexpressionsȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱproperlyȱunderstoodȱfromȱwithȬ inȱ theȱ faithȱ experience,”ȱ thusȱ concludingȱ that,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Smith,ȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱreligionȱisȱimpossibleȱwithoutȱreliȬ giousȱunderstanding:ȱ“aȱstudyȱofȱreligionȱbasedȱuponȱthatȱdisȬ tinction,ȱtherefore,ȱbecomesȱaȱkindȱofȱreligiousȱexercise”ȱ(Wiebeȱ 2005:ȱ264Ȭ68,ȱesp.ȱ266).ȱ

Hereȱweȱseeȱthatȱevenȱwithinȱtheȱcriticalȱorȱacademicȱstudyȱ ofȱ religion,ȱ whichȱ was,ȱ fromȱ theȱ veryȱ beginning,ȱ intentȱ onȱ avoidingȱ suchȱ aȱ metaphysicalȱ condition,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ greatȱ writȬ ers,ȱW.C.ȱSmith,ȱtookȱwhatȱis,ȱinȱeffect,ȱaȱtheologicalȱstance.ȱTheȱ academicȱ studyȱ ofȱ religionȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ theȱ religiousȱ idealȱinȱlifeȱbutȱis,ȱrather,ȱanȱattemptȱtoȱreflectȱuponȱthatȱideal.ȱ ConsideringȱClooney’sȱideal,ȱandȱthatȱofȱmanyȱothersȱengagedȱ inȱsomeȱkindȱofȱfairȱinterreligiousȱencounter,ȱIȱcannotȱhelpȱbutȱ seeȱanȱintellectuallyȱandȱtheologicallyȱjustifiedȱpartiality,ȱnotȱsoȱ muchȱ towardsȱ one’sȱ ownȱ religionȱ orȱ evenȱ towardsȱ aȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ otherȱ thanȱ one’sȱ ownȱ –ȱ bothȱ doȱ occur,ȱ andȱ bothȱ areȱ biases,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ hegemonicȱ type,ȱ theȱ otherȱ ofȱ theȱ romanticȱ typeȱ –ȱ butȱ ratherȱ towardsȱ theȱ religiousȱ lifeȱ itself.ȱ Iȱ wonderȱ ifȱ suchȱaȱstanceȱdisqualifiesȱtheȱnonȬreligiousȱunderstandingȱofȱreȬ ligion.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱlearnedȱfromȱassociatingȱwithȱtheologiansȱforȱ moreȱthanȱthirtyȱyears,ȱitȱmayȱwellȱbeȱthatȱourȱuseȱasȱreligiousȱ studiesȱ specialistsȱ isȱ stillȱ consideredȱ thatȱ ofȱ anȱ ancilla,ȱ aȱ handȬ maidenȱ toȱ theology.ȱ Theȱ finerȱ craftȱ –ȱ thatȱ ofȱ anȱ embodiedȱ exȬ perienceȱ andȱ aȱ spiritualȱ transformation,ȱ allowedȱ onlyȱ afterȱ theȱ meticulousȱ readingȱ ofȱ texts,ȱ theȱ empiricalȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ aȱ particularȱ objectȱ ofȱ study,ȱ andȱ theȱ conceptualȱ orderingȱ haveȱ beenȱexecutedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱmétierȱofȱtheȱacademicȱstudyȱofȱ religionȱ–ȱstillȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱleftȱonlyȱtoȱinsiders,ȱtoȱtheologians,ȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ “belong.”ȱ Theȱ crowningȱ exercise,ȱ thatȱ ofȱ anȱ inȬ teriorȱ dialogueȱ andȱ aȱ transformationȱ thatȱ isȱ bothȱ personallyȱ spiritualȱ andȱ theological,ȱ wouldȱ ultimatelyȱ justifyȱ theȱ intellecȬ tualȱ effortsȱ byȱ itsȱ utilityȱ andȱ itsȱ capacityȱ toȱ inspireȱ theȱ particiȬ pantsȱ intoȱ becomingȱ betterȱ peopleȱ withȱ aȱ higherȱ senseȱ ofȱ beȬ longing.ȱȱ

spectiveȱofȱevolutionaryȱbiology,ȱtheȱpersistenceȱofȱreligionȱmayȱ beȱdueȱpartlyȱtoȱitsȱadvantageȱforȱtheȱsurvivalȱofȱtheȱspeciesȱbyȱ individualȱ people’sȱ surrenderȱ toȱ aȱ greaterȱ senseȱ ofȱ self,ȱ beȱ itȱ aȱ nuclearȱfamily,ȱaȱtribe,ȱorȱsociety,ȱhumanity,ȱandȱlifeȱinȱgeneral.ȱ Beliefȱ andȱ belongingȱ areȱ inȱ ourȱ genes,ȱ soȱ toȱ speak.ȱ Butȱ narȬ rowingȱ thisȱ downȱ toȱ theȱ actualȱ lifeȬworld,ȱ theȱ globalȱ mapȱ inȱ whichȱ ESITISȱ conferences,ȱ forȱ allȱ kindsȱ ofȱ reasons,ȱ manageȱ toȱ drawȱmainlyȱWesternȱtheologians,ȱIȱfeelȱpressedȱtoȱvoiceȱsomeȱ ofȱ myȱ caveats,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ fromȱ theȱ ongoingȱ discussionȱ onȱ theȱ acaȬ

demicȱdistinctionȱ betweenȱ religiousȱ understandingȱ andȱ underȬ standingȱreligionȱbutȱalsoȱaboutȱtheȱsameȱoldȱpitfallsȱtoȱwhichȱ theȱ comparativeȱ enterpriseȱ isȱ prone,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ theology.ȱOneȱshouldȱbewareȱofȱgoingȱinȱcirclesȱandȱbewareȱofȱ anȱ agendaȱ notȱ unlikeȱ theȱ seafaringȱ ofȱ ourȱ colonialȱ forebearsȱ whoȱbroughtȱcargoesȱofȱspicesȱhome.ȱ

Thereȱ isȱ noȱ denyingȱ thatȱ ourȱ kitchenȱ hasȱ gainedȱ muchȱ fromȱthoseȱforaysȱintoȱforeignȱlands.ȱButȱwasȱitȱfairȱtrade?ȱLikeȬ wise,ȱisȱitȱfairȱtradeȱwhenȱWesternȱtheologiansȱexecuteȱaȱfaithȬ basedȱ exerciseȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ howeverȱ spirituallyȱ uplifting?ȱ

Literatureȱ

Clooney,ȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ SJ.ȱ (2010).ȱ Comparativeȱ Theology:ȱ Deepȱ Learningȱ acrossȱ Religiousȱ Borders.ȱMalden/Oxford/Chicester:ȱ WileyȬBlackȬ well.ȱ

(2008).ȱBeyondȱCompare:ȱSt.ȱFrancisȱdeȱSalesȱandȱSriȱVedantaȱDesikaȱ onȱ Lovingȱ Surrenderȱ toȱ God.ȱWashington,ȱ DC:ȱ Georgetownȱ UniȬ versityȱPress.ȱ

(2007).ȱ “Comparativeȱ Theology.”ȱ In:ȱ Oxfordȱ Handbookȱ toȱ SystemȬ aticȱTheology.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ653Ȭ69.ȱȱ (2002).ȱ “Godȱ forȱ Us:ȱ Multipleȱ Religiousȱ Belongingȱ asȱ Spiritualȱ Practiceȱ andȱ Divineȱ Response.”ȱ In:ȱ Catherineȱ Cornilleȱ (ed.).ȱ Manyȱ Mansions?ȱ MultipleȱReligiousȱ Belongingȱ andȱ ChristianȱIdentiȬ ty.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱPp.ȱ44Ȭ60.ȱ

(1996).ȱSeeingȱThroughȱTexts:ȱDoingȱTheologyȱamongȱtheȱSrivaisnavasȱ ofȱSouthȱIndia.ȱAlbany,ȱNY:ȱSUNYȱPress.ȱ

(1993).ȱTheologyȱafterȱVedanta:ȱAnȱExerciseȱinȱComparativeȱTheology.ȱ Albany,ȱNY:ȱSUNYȱPress.ȱ

Davie,ȱ G.ȱ (1994).ȱ Religionȱ inȱ Britainȱ sinceȱ 1945:ȱ Believingȱ Withoutȱ BeȬ longing.ȱOxford/Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Kepnes,ȱS.D.ȱ(1986).ȱ“BridgingȱtheȱGapȱBetweenȱExplanationȱandȱUnȬ derstandingȱApproachesȱinȱtheȱStudyȱofȱReligion.”ȱJournalȱforȱtheȱ ScientificȱStudyȱofȱReligionȱ25:ȱ504Ȭ12.ȱ Nicholson,ȱH.ȱ(2009).ȱ“TheȱReunificationȱofȱTheologyȱandȱComparisonȱ inȱtheȱNewȱComparativeȱTheology.”ȱJournalȱofȱtheȱAmericanȱAcaȬ demyȱofȱReligionȱ77:ȱ609Ȭ46.ȱ

Waardenburg,ȱ J.J.ȱ (1978).ȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Religion,ȱ Includingȱ anȱEssayȱonȱtheȱWorkȱofȱGerardusȱvanȱderȱLeeuw.ȱTheȱHague/CamȬ bridge:ȱMouton/UniversityȱofȱCambridgeȱPress.ȱ

(1973).ȱClassicalȱApproachesȱtoȱtheȱStudyȱofȱReligion:ȱAims,ȱMethodsȱ andȱ Theoriesȱ ofȱ Research.ȱ Introductionȱ andȱ Anthology.ȱTheȱ Hague:ȱ Mouton.ȱ