hinduism with others. 295
law, and other such relationships, there are important reasons for keeping the inter-
logue going even amid the demands of this kind of pluralism. One of the authors
of this essay has committed herself to just such a Hindu-Christian interlogue, last-
ing a lifetime for all members concerned. In that context, experience shows that ela-
tion, shame, anger, disagreement, and synthetic thinking abound.^8 This is only one
of many everyday examples that teach us how there can be a productive frame to
the discourse other than, and transcending, the frame of “Hindu/non-Hindu.” By
exploring and accepting such frames, we widen the scope for modes of speech that
might otherwise remain unintelligible or seem injurious.
PRINCIPLES
In purely intellectual terms, the demanding plural and liberal discourse between
Hindu and non-Hindu must acknowledge two things: (1) a nonrelativistic frame or
common reality, and (2) the possibility of a profoundly irreducible difference of
opinion. We find principles in Indian tradition that might allow for both in such an
interlogue and might indicate what can be done in the case of irreconcilable differ-
ences between participants. Here are the principles as we see them.^9
First, Indic tradition teaches that multiple interpretations can be held simultane-
ously. This is the metavalue of multiplicity. As early as the fifth centuryb.c.e.the
thinker and lexicographer Yaska argued that there were multiple schools of Vedic in-
terpretation. Many of these schools debated at length about the sacrifice that was then
at the heart of Hindu life. One can imagine that the debaters in Yaska’s time felt as pas-
sionately about modes of sacrifice as we do about contemporary interpretations of
Hindu gods. Yaska noted theniruktan, yajnikan,anditihasikan(etymological, ritual,
and historical/legendary) schools of interpretation. Each of these coexisted with the
others; each of them seemed reductive to the others; and Yaska himself, while ac-
knowledging and valuing these facts, nonetheless waded in and engaged in the debates.
So, too, we today do well to acknowledge our own disagreements with interpretations
of Hindu gods and with practices that seem offensive, disrespectful, or dishonest. Yet
at the same time we should affirm that even in debate we join together in learning from
texts and ceremonies that surround ideas and practices we all hold in reverence. In
other words, we must stay committed to reading pluralistically together. That is what
Yaska himself teaches us. Shaunaka’sBrihaddevata1.16 states,vaividhyam evam suk-
tanam iha vidyad yathatatham,“One should know the variety of hymns as they arise
and as appropriate.” Thus even the Vedic tradition argues the case for seeing pluralis-
tic knowledge—in this case the plurality of hymns—as essential knowledge.