Inclusivism Jayanta Bhatta

In “An Exposition and Defense of Jayanta Bhatta’s Inclusivism”, David Slakter introduces and defends the inclusivist approach to religious diversity of Jayanta Bhatta. Slakter also provides an argument that Jayanta’s form of inclusivism identifies many reasons as to why someone would consider pluralism all the while providing a way to remain within a living religious tradition. This essay will summarize and provide counter arguments to the ideas found in Jayanta Bhatta’s inclusivism as presented by David Slakter. According to Slakter, “’Inclusivism’ is taken here to mean that the view that one’s own particular religious tradition is correct and any approximation to the truth or salvific efficacy found in another tradition is because it bears
Jayanta argues that if there existed multiple gods, they would not all have the same intentions, and the plans of many gods would be upset; thus, rendering them ungodly. Furthermore, he states that a world with multiple deities would run itself to ruin in a very short period of time. Drawing from this statement, Jayanta asserts that the only solution is a ‘one pure-minded person whose intentions are always realized” (Slakter 50). Following from this belief, Jayanta states that the Vedas came directly from a single deity instead of “the mystical perception of the Rishis” (Slakter 49). In defense of this ideal, Jayanta postulates that any contradiction in scripture is resolved by analyzing the context of what is written. He further states that this defense can be used in other religious traditions “with regard to the highest human goal, there is no contradiction among scriptures, since all teach the very same reward: deliverance” (Slakter
In his defense for contradictions in scripture, he states that context of the individual writings will eliminate any conflicting ideals, and that this defense can be used in defense of propositions found in other religions. However, if this were true, then strictly monotheistic religions-like Islam-would be in complete agreement with polytheistic religions such as Hinduism. Yet, there are many beliefs found in both religions that do not agree. Likewise, in his defense for extra-Vedic scriptures he expresses a belief that a religion filled with false teachings would be unable to last for a long period of time. Nevertheless, in taking a more exclusivist view, this reasoning is incorrect. In religions such as Judaism, there are specific commands about the not following the deities of other nations. The Israelites were punished whenever they strayed from YHWH. Using the reasoning of Jayanta, a belief in something that contradicts the teachings of his god would be unable to sustain itself. Therefore other religions, like Judaism, which at times directly disagree with the beliefs of Jayanta, would have fallen apart shortly after their creation. However, in defense of Jayanta’s argument, the claim that everyone is serving the same deity under a different name could be made. Nevertheless, it does not follow logically for a single deity to inspire multiple,