Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and “The Mystic
East” by Richard King (IJFM 18:4 Winter 2001), pp. 283 + x
—reviewed by H. L. Richard
“This work can be located within the history of ideas and is an examination of a constellation of categories surrounding the cultural symbolic of the ‘mystic east’ in modern Western consciousness.”
With that striking definition of his task Richard King opens his stimulating study of east and west in the modern world.
Mysticism and the development of interest in and definitions of the mystical is outlined in the first chapter. The western and Christian bias of the story becomes the main theme; does western scholarship by necessity impose false paradigms on all that it studies? The second chapter similarly looks at the concept of “religion”. Anticipating that, King writes that “The search for the ‘essence’ of religion or the various religions, or of ‘mysticism’, is misguided since it is operating under the aegis of the essentialist fallacy that the phenomena included in the category of religions (for instance) must have something universally in common to be meaningfully classified as religious” (p. 11).
This western problem is perhaps the lesser evil than the labeling of “eastern religions” as mystical, especially in contexts where “rational” and “mystical” are juxtaposed. This along with the western separation of public and private realms and the relegation of “religion” to private life paved the way for relegating mysticism to the realm of irrelevant personal experience. But King is unwilling to allow this, and his second chapter is a spirited defense of religious studies as an important academic discipline in the modern university.
The literary bias of Western, Christian-influenced studies of religion is help- fully discussed in the third chapter. The fourth chapter takes this a step further in an analysis of the anti-Orientalist critique of Orientalist treatments of Indian religions. This involves a helpful critique of some of the inadequacies in the ground-breaking work of Edward Said. But these points only confirm his major emphasis that Orientalism created the East as an “Other” which it sought to control and manipulate, no matter how subtly or even subconsciously. The reductionism involved in generalized observations about the Orient are grossly simplistic and distort the reality of vast diversities and disagreements involved in Eastern life and thought.
“The Modern Myth of Hinduism”, “Mystic Hinduism”, and “The Discovery of Buddhism” are the chapters at the heart of this book. A fascinating theme running throughout the book is how local Asians adopted the convoluted theories of Western scholars about their lands and faiths, and then used these false ideas for purposes very other than those the scholars had intended. Nowhere is this more clear nor more fascinating than in the discussion of Hinduism as a religion. King gives a striking and important definition of his own in this area:
today what most Religious Education courses mean by ‘Hinduism’ is a colonially filtered and retrospective Vedanticization of Indian religion (p. 69).
King is careful to show that the (mainly Brahmin) informants of the early Orientalists contributed greatly to this distortion.
“Mystic Hinduism” can be considered an analysis of the advaitic kidnapping of Indian religion, and why and how Orientalists contributed to this process. The discovery of “Buddhism” is similarly discussed, granting that this concept seems more valid than “Hinduism”:
The term “Buddhism” seems to have arisen at around the same time as its sibling “Hinduism”, and it is by no means a straightforward task to find a meaningful version of the term (or indeed for the terms “religion” or “mysticism”) in Asian languages. This is not, as has often been stated, merely a problem of translation but one of social identity. It is not clear that the Tibetans, the Sinhalese or the Chinese conceived of themselves as “Buddhists” before they were so labelled by Westerners. (pp. 143-144)
Comparative religion and comparative mysticism are helpfully discussed in the penultimate chapter which focuses on privatization of experience and knowledge. The danger of Western presuppositions still dominating academia even in the post-colonial and postmodern era is amply demonstrated. Whether we are in a post-orientalist era is the question of the closing chapter. King’s central appeal is that the anthropology of knowledge, the situational context of all ideas, must be acknowledged at all times. The danger of relativizing all knowledge is granted, but this danger must be faced rather than allowing culture-bound formulations to be passed off as universals. Subaltern studies are helpfully analysed and critiqued in this closing chapter, and illustrate most of the problems and tensions discussed throughout this engaging book.
Popular evangelical writings about Hinduism continue to be shockingly Orientalist in outlook. “Hinduism” is parodied as a monistic religion, and “Christianity” is suggested as a religion that will solve all of India’s ills. The shattering of this simplistic paradigm is a necessary first step towards a truly fruitful encounter with the peoples following Hindu traditions. King’s book is a helpful survey of why the Orientalist paradigm must be abandoned, and it is recommended for wide reading among Christian academics.
- L. Richard is an independent researcher focused on the Hindu-Christian encounter. He has published numerous books and articles including studies of key figures like Narayan Vaman Tilak (Following Jesus in the Hindu Context, Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1998), Kalagara Subba Rao (Exploring the Depths of the Mystery of Christ, Bangalore: Centre for Contemporary Christianity, 2005), and R. C. Das (R. C. Das: Evangelical Prophet for Contextual Christianity, Delhi: ISPCK, 1995).
