Loading summary

Transcript62 lines

[00:00]
Commercial Announcer
Pros Trust the Home Depot for heavy duty storage solutions for any job site or garage Right now. Get up to 15% off select storage and organization, Impact and water resistant totes and shelving built to hold up to £2,500. Storage systems have space for all your tools and protect them in the garage, on the job site and everywhere in between. Save time and maximize efficiency with adjustable shelving customized to your business's needs. Shop and save on pro grade storage at the Home Depot. How Pros Get More Done
[00:31]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today. Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-contacts. Oh my gosh, they're so fast.
[00:46]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
And breathe.
[00:47]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
Oh sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh sorry. Namaste.
[00:55]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Visit 1-800-contacts.com today to save on your first order.
[00:59]
Commercial Announcer
1-800-contacts@blyze.com it's not just about window treatments. It's about you. Your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. Shop up to 40% off with minimum purchase and a free professional measure right now@blinds.com plus pay at your own pace starting at 0% APR with affirm terms apply. Welcome to the New Books Network.
[01:36]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Hello and welcome back. I'm your host, Dr. Raj Balpur. And more importantly, I have the pleasure of welcoming back to the podcast Dr. Dominik Kloss, who is a postdoc of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and a collaborator on the Montrans Project, will be diving into his brand new open access publication South Asia Before Religion Reflections on an Anachronistic Concept. Dominic, welcome back to the podcast.
[02:00]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Thank you Raj. It's very nice to be here again and to see you again and to talk to you again. Happy to be on here.
[02:06]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Likewise. So you got to tell us about the backstory. How did this book come into being?
[02:12]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
The backstory, yes, I'm happy to tell you a little bit about that, but it's not that spectacular actually. So I'd say part one is I've been doing research on what is generally called or considered South Asian religions or also historic South Asian religions for a while so this is my profession. I'm a scholar of South Asian religions. Right. So the topic itself has always interested me. And in the past I thought religion is something that I can just use. It's a concept that I can use in my research and to talk about things. And surely it's necessary to find some kind of definition that makes that possible, but it's not necessary to come up with the perfect definition right now. And so I might just as well not do it. So this, for the longest time, was my modus operandi when it comes to my own research and South Asian cultural history. But then, as part of the new project that I'm employed in at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the Cluster of excellence, Eurasian Transformations, there was a. Last year there was a research colloquium on a key concept to be analyzed when that cluster, and that is religion. So one of the key concepts that's of interest in that project is religion itself. And so colloquium. And a small workshop was organized by Professors Valtop, and it was really Birgit Kellner, who inspired me to think more deeply about religion by providing literature that was very fascinating for me. And so in that workshop, we talked about the concept of religion in various cultures, Asian and European, also from a historical perspective. And somehow I continued working on it, and I continued and I continued, and it became an actual little project. And so the result is this short book or booklet that we're talking about today. These are my reflections on this concept. So that's a backstory.
[04:47]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Fantastic. So we will certainly dive into your reflections momentarily. Let's maybe try and position this for a bit of a broader audience. In the field of religious studies, we know too much, and so it's sort of hard to refamiliarize ourselves with this. But is the problem with the category of religion a religious studies problem, or is it a South Asia problem or both? Yeah, you stand with those simple questions for us and we'll move on.
[05:20]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, unfortunately, it's a problem for both of those fields for religious studies as well as for South Asia or South Asian studies. So religious studies has to face the challenge of what their research subject is. Like, what is it actually that's researched in religious studies. So of course they have to think about what religion is. If you think about South Asia, it seems to be easier not to do that because generally, methodological reflection, well, maybe not as pronounced as in other fields in classical South Asian studies, ontology and also religion is just one of many things that are being explored in this field.
[06:14]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So
[06:16]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
I guess it hasn't gotten that much attention, but it actually does pose a problem for everybody who wants to say something about, well, the history of South Asia or the cultural history of South Asia. So, yeah, it's everybody, both fields and really everybody has to somehow face this problem. And actually also non academics and non scholars as well will one way or the other in their lives face this question of what does it mean to say that something is religion and how does that work in my case, and then how does it work in the case of people from other cultures? So it is really a fascinating subject that can concern or affect non scholars as well, even though it's a theoretical or methodological issue chiefly.
[07:14]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Yeah, I mean, I think the problem or the issue operates at multiple tiers. And of course it's a problem for specialists, it's a problem for South Asians. But is it not something to be considered by any global citizen who is engaging other global citizens who may or may not be imposing categories upon their neighbors? And that might be some of, that may be some of the problem? I have assumptions about your life and your way of being based on my life and my way of being. And there is perhaps in the human condition, there's nothing more perennial and evasive as religion or religious, what we think of as religious enterprise. And yet what does that mean? And of course, religious studies is walking a tight road insofar as broaching something that we can call religion that pertains to religion without doing theology or sort of confessional stances. And so then what's left, you know, is anything left? Is what's left actually a subsection of other disciplines. So this, so this is something to put on the radar of our audience, that this is, this is a category to be thought through and problematized and engaged consciously, even in an armchair setting. So thank you for entertaining my ridiculous question of so what's the problem with religious studies? Now back to your book South Asia. What are you arguing? What's this anachronism? What's going on here?
[08:51]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, so the, the basic problem is the religion as we have it today. And this is not even one concept, it's actually several that vary from culture to culture from place to place. So, but any, any, any, any concept of religion that we find nowadays is basically a product of modernity. So it is not something that has, has been around forever
[09:25]
Dr. Raj Balpur
that applies to
[09:26]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
the concept, it doesn't apply to the things it covers, of course, and that there have been religious things since time immemorial or things that we could call religious or religion. But the concept itself is a modern development and it only makes sense in a certain discourse, and that is the modern discourse. And in other discourses it does not make that much sense. So how to explain this best without retelling the whole book? Religion is a category that has many associations and connotations. Not all of them are good, because for one, it is often used as a category where you put all things that are irrational. So this is one of the most. And this is one of the basic meanings that religion can have nowadays for some people is something that's irrational or something that like, transcends like empirical reality in some way, and something that you have to believe, but which otherwise might not be real at all. So in one sense, religion is something that you cannot trust in, basically in a certain worldview, in a scientifically oriented modern worldview. And saying that something is religion actually just only fulfills one function, and that is to signal that something is actually irrational and you can only believe in it. You cannot prove it or anything like that. And this is just one of many connotations that this concept has. So when you use it to talk about pre modern and historical cultures, not only salvation ones, then what you're doing is risking a lot by conveying connotations and some sort of feeling that does not make sense or would not have made sense back in the day when people were actually doing all those religious things that we observe. So we have to be very careful to use religion. It's just not as universal a category as we would like it to be. It has a history. It's come into being. And there was a time when it did not exist. And I for one also think that there also someday will be a time when religion will no longer be a topic at all. It is certainly a possible. A potential future. I see. So this is not. It's just not a given. It's a thing that exists in a certain time and place.
[12:17]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Would you say that the tension that you aptly describe, the tension that we're all somewhat familiar with, between perhaps to crudely generalize scientific rationalism, materialism and beliefs of the beyond, whether blind or otherwise, we. Would you say the tension between those two, as you describe them, is uniquely a product of the trajectory of work, the trajectory of European thought against the backdrop of the church, and then the schisms between science and religion? To what extent do we see this as this is? I don't have any answer in mind. I would love to hear you reflect on that.
[13:03]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, I don't think that this tension between belief on the one hand and reason on the other, or the reasonable ratio is really a unique thing or a unique product of modernity in that sense. But what is quite unique is the idea that belief itself has. Is part of something that has such a high value, and that is religion. And the idea that belief also distinguishes people from one another. So I might believe in one thing that I cannot prove, and you might believe in another, and this may mirror our religious allegiances, for example. So this is really something that came as a result, that came with modernity, even though what it exists and other times before. Of course, belief as such existed for a long time. But this idea that belief is one of the central features of some subset of culture that's called religion and one of the defining features, this is really modern and I think very Christian and also European development. Yes.
[14:24]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So then, are we better off without the term or are we call to always contextualize the term?
[14:30]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
I think in many cases we are actually better off without the term. There is not. There are cases where it may be useful to use it, where it may lead you somewhere, but in many cases it's quite a superficial thing. And religion is actually one of those big concepts that we use to order reality around us. Just like, for example, nature or culture or science, maybe, but these terms are so big that one really doesn't actually always know where the boundaries are. And what matters the most is you cannot. There is no good way to predict what any other person on this planet, and we're in a globally connected and entangled world, right? We do not know if we use the word religion, what somebody else might actually understand under this term. Right? This is distinct from concepts such as ka, for example, if I talk about a ka, then you probably know what I'm talking about. This is much easier to use. But a thing such as religion, you just won't know if what the person on the other side of the world will understand under that term. So it may be perfectly clear to yourself, but you don't know what you're actually communicating. Because this term is so big and so broad that using it without a definition and without extensive contextualization really almost has no meaning at all. And so you'll. In my view, I think it's best to think about it. You know, if you don't have time to explain yourself, maybe it's not that good good to introduce such vague notions into what you want to say, because it just won't, probably won't communication make easier.
[16:29]
Commercial Announcer
I'm Glenn Washington, host of Snap Judgment,
[16:32]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
the award winning storytelling podcast from kqed. Every week, Snap deals a new card.
[16:38]
Commercial Announcer
Like the girl whose sister was a monkey, or the man who lived in
[16:43]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
the woods for 30 years, or even the woman who snuck her lover out of prison in a dog crate. Pick a card, any card.
[16:52]
Commercial Announcer
Tap to listen. Now to Snap Judgment from KQED on Spotify.
[16:58]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Would you say then that as scholars and thinkers and readers, that we are better suited focusing on the subsets of what one might consider religion? Whether that is, whether one is viewed, whether one is studying morality or an afterlife or orogenesis, or are we better off focusing on, you know, the constituents of what we think of as religion?
[17:23]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
So I think generally, yeah, because this is much more likely to lead you to things that are comparable. So if I say if I want to know more about certain concepts of the afterlife, then this is something that happens after death, right? And this is just a general thing what happens after death. And if this is something I'm looking for, and I'm telling you, you know, that's what I'm interested in, and then you could say, well, I'm interested in that too. And so the likelihood, there is a strong likelihood that we might actually end up talking about something that's similar and that will make sense for both of us. So these sub components or the components of religion are easier to do research on and to talk about. I would say it makes more sense. It usually makes for better conversation and for better research. Whereas religion, as mentioned, it's too broad. If you go to religious studies conference, the broadness of topics that are being discussed there and presented there is just so huge, you won't actually know what to find. But something like concepts of the afterlife or morale or say, I don't know, karmic retribution, things like that, or rebirth, these things are much easier to talk about.
[18:50]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So then we're just thinking aloud here. There might be various phenomena or understandings of what one might think of the supernormal. We're not necessarily making any claims of their veracity, but we're making claims of their individuals who discuss the supernova. And what you would say is that referring to all of that as religion and thinking of it as comparable, for example, using the category of food, every culture has food. They'll understand it differently, they'll use it differently, they'll ritualize it differently. There'll be different constituents of macronutrients. But we have something called food that we can tangibly say, this is my food. This is your food. And we may think of it very differently, but there's something there. What you're saying is that's not how religion works. Religion is more of a construct than a reality.
[19:36]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, precisely. It's much vaguer. And for example, the notion that you just mentioned, or in the superhuman or in higher powers. So this is one of the things or one of the characteristics that are usually taken to be essential for any religion to qualify as a religion. So saying something like religion is about higher powers, higher beings, that doesn't sound outrageous to most people. So this is part of what is commonly understood as religion, but actually it's a religion where this element is not included, is thinkable.
[20:21]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So
[20:24]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
this makes me wonder, are superhuman things? Are higher powers really what religion is about? If you can just remove this allegedly essential aspect or component, then how was it essential? Still, a religion and religion without superhuman elements or supernaturalistic elements is certainly thinkable. So the question is, what uses religion in this? We can talk about superhuman and supernatural things. This makes a lot of sense. But then saying that religion, that's like one of the core subjects of religion, core components of religion really doesn't lead us anywhere, I think.
[21:14]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Yeah. And I think for those listening, many of you may be aware, many of you may not be aware or have ever considered that. What do we do with the fact that there is no direct word for religion? That's image. Right? I mean, just because there. Something is not named doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. But also, you know, what do we do? Do we, you know, I mean, equally evasive and vast is the term dharma. Some may elect that, but there. There are going to be naturally subsets of religion that do not map onto dharma and vice versa. And so one of the things I find compelling, irrespective of whatever folks believe, whether folks buy the argument of dispensing with the category at large, either way, I think we're wise, when we're studying any tradition, to think along the lines of that tradition. I don't mean that we have to accept a claim to that tradition, but we should understand the categories on their own terms. And crucial to that is dispensing with, or at least arcing categories that we may come in assuming to exist or assuming to be operant, such as religion, such as ethics, such as what have you. And in sort of thinking along the terms of a tradition, I think it's very fruitful. And then if you wish to come back out and theorize that in other terms, I mean, that's certainly doable. But I think part of what's compelling is how are, how are traditions speaking about the phenomenon that we're studying? And if they're not speaking about it in a way that's commensurate with how we're describing it, then are we imposing, Is it insight or is it impositional? Like, how are we, how do we square the discourse of the data with the discourse of the theory? Right.
[23:03]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
That is a very good point. And I really liked your, your, your, your statement that to park your own notions for a while when looking at the things under study, that's, I think, really a good way to approach it. Because getting rid of your own concepts or notions permanently is not even that easy. So if you stop using the category of religion, it will still be around you and people will continue to assume it's a real thing. So it's not that easy to just say, well, let's get rid of it. History has shown it doesn't really work that easy. Maybe one day we'll get obsolete, but now it's not. What we can do is park it and then look at it from a bit of a distance and look at what do we even understand when we talk about religion? And what kind of, what kind of thing is this? And if I approach some other culture or people from another culture or from the past, which also is another culture, usually, then it's good to be aware of your own concept that you might be imposing onto what you're looking at. Because it's not necessarily the case that the people you're talking about. Use the same concept or even aware of it, or can make any, well, use it to define or use it to define what they are. So it might be an imposition to just say, well, what you're doing is a religion, obviously, but perhaps the people you're talking about actually, and actually you're talking to would characterize what they're doing as something completely different. And they wouldn't see much sense in calling it religion. Maybe they would call it tradition, or this is just a way of life, or that's just the code of conduct. Or maybe, yeah, maybe they would agree, yes, it's religious in your sense, but it's actually not that huge of a thing. And all of these things are answers that you might actually get when you're in South Asia of today. Religion is indeed a known concept, but even there, notions are very different from other parts of the world. And also the value attached to religion might be. So the first step I would Say, is to park your own concept of religion and then take a few steps and look at it and just to think, what am I even using here? What am I even saying? If I call something a religion or if I characterize something as religious, what do I actually want to express by using these words and labels? Is there any point to that? Is there, Do I want to say that these things are irrational or do I want to say that they have to do something, that they have something to do with the supernatural or something like that? And if yes, then why don't I use these words? So this is, I think the first step that we have to take is to park our own concept and think about it for a bit.
[26:32]
Dr. Raj Balpur
And just to, just to. How do I say, just to clarify, is the argument of the book geared towards studying pre modern South Asia? Or as you said in passing just now, is it also an invitation to dispense with the term even with people on the globe right now?
[26:51]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, no, it is. It is decidedly a methodological and theoretical argument that I'm making in this book. So what I want to say is you cannot use religion just like that to describe the culture of pre modern South Asia. So that's the basic argument when it comes to religion as it is used today. I'm not saying anything about that in the book itself. This is not the point of the book. I mean, if you ask me, is religion a meaningful category that I can recommend for somebody personally? If you didn't know the concept of religion, would I recommend you to adopt it? No, I would not. I would tell you, yeah, well, this is some weird concept that's somehow taken root in our cultures, but it's not really useful for you to make sense of your life or of anything around you. You can read about it a bit, but I wouldn't, I really wouldn't recommend adopting it at all. So that will be my personal stance. It's not the point I'm making in the book, though.
[28:04]
Dr. Raj Balpur
This is a. Is a.
[28:05]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
It's a theoretical and methodological thing, really.
[28:08]
Dr. Raj Balpur
My goodness, Dominic, what do I do with my three degrees in religion? Not to worry, you're resolved. This was a problem before this podcast, so we're good.
[28:20]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, well, you know, it's. It's the same. I mean, I've been writing about religion as well, so it's. It's not like I'm saying that anything that is done under the. The heading of religion is meaningless. So this is not the point I'm making. I think that many people might Be scared that that's the point I'm making is not at all point. But of course it may seem that way because suggesting to park your own concept of religion and to look at it, to deconstruct and think about it and reflect on it might sound like, you know, this is the wrong thing to do. You should just throw it all in the bin. It's not really worth it. So. But that's not at all the point that I'm making. It's a very different thing.
[29:02]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Well, it's good to clarify that. Right. And also maybe to underscore. Who would you say is the primary audience of this book? Who are you writing to?
[29:12]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, so I did have an audience in mind and that is in particular people, first of all, who want to understand South Asian history in general. And this may be students, scholars, writers, all kinds of people may fall under that. I'm not sure if it will be of so much interest to the general reader. Maybe, maybe for some readers who have a general interest in religion. So this may very well be the case, or maybe they'll enjoy having a look at it and then being and somewhere else where they find more interesting stuff. But really the primary audience I had in mind were people who already have some kind of interest in, well, South Asian religions or historic South Asian religions, or for whom there is a convergence of interests of religion in South Asia. So this is the primary audience I had in mind.
[30:13]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Yeah, probably folks who are listening to a podcast called the Indian Religions. Precisely. I find it kind of hilarious that I inherited a channel. It was Hindu studies and I drew my master's actually late undergrad. Really confronting the term Hinduism, where it came from, what it means, the idea that it's both an imposition and an imposition upon a moving target. I couldn't unsee the fact. And so of course there's great utility in reprographic Hinduism. And of course there are millions of people identify as Hindu. But at the end of the day, I mean, even more problematic than religion in general perhaps is the term Hinduism. You know, what does that mean? And yet it has a great deal of utility for individuals who self identify as Hindu. Yet those individuals self identify with an understanding that 10 Hindus have 10 different sets of booms. Right. And so, so, and, and yet, so I think that, I think that we as scholars have to always keep that in mind. And Indian religions is sort of this catch all craze of looking at, you know, phenomenon of South Asia, when pertaining to South Asia that I explore are various facts and, and on, on some level the terms are required to get us in the door before we problematize them. So for example, I'm preparing to teach a summer course, an Intro Hinduism summer course at Bifmaster University. It starts a week or so and, and it has to be called Inter Hinduism so people know what we're studying. And yet that first lecture is going to be there's no such thing as Hinduism or here are some ways to think about Hinduism or Here are Hinduism. And so yeah, here we are above and beyond the content of the book. Would you comment a little bit about the scope of the book, the length of the book? I think you have some views on that that might be worth sharing.
[32:14]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
The GLP1 pill you've been waiting for is now on ROE. Yep, it's finally here with the same clinically proven ingredient now in a pill and now on RO. It's the first FDA approved GLP1 pill for women weight loss at the lowest price available. That's one daily GLP1 pill. For big results now on Roe, go to roe.co listen to see if you qualify RX only go to ro co safety for serious side effects and boxed warning associated with GLP1s.
[32:44]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, so like so many other things about this book, the length is a bit special. Or actually today I googled the word. I looked up the word extra in the Urban Dictionary to make sure I understand what it means in English. Extra kind of fits it in some ways. You know, the book is extra in various respects, the topic as well as the format. And so concerning the format, it is a thing, you know, it's, it's a mid length publication in many senses. It's longer than an article or a peer reviewed article. Those are usually of the length of say 10,000 words, maybe a bit more with exceptions, but this is usually the ballpark number. Where we're moving is the typical length of articles. Whereas when it comes to books in humanities, they are usually much longer. I mean there are short books in humanities, but very often there is a notion that a book, like a proper book in the humanities and Indology and South Asian studies should have the length of a dissertation maybe. So this is somehow the basis for, for the notion of book in South Asian studies and other humanities fields and disciplines. And so books are usually say 200 words at least can be much longer. So what we see here is a huge gap between what you can publish and what you can't publish that easily because there are numerous journals that publish articles of comparatively short length and there are Several publishers who are willing to publish books of a certain length and a certain substance. But there are not that many venues where you can publish anything that happens to be in between those length limits. And if you happen to write something like that, you run into a problem like I did, one of the options you can go for is to publish it as an overlong article and to just basically sell an elephant as a cat or something like that. So it's not really an article anymore, but that's what many people go for. Or you slice it into pieces and you make it, you turn it into several publications to make it publishable. And well, with this book or booklet, I somehow lost the nerve. I didn't want to do any of these things. And I just thought, you know, this format used to be super common in the past. There was no problem at all in terms of the quality that is ascribed to it. And there is no point in terms of content for, for a scholarly publication to be restricted by such a thing as word limits. Some arguments may take two pages to make, some may take 400, and some may take 100. So it should depend on the argument that you want to make or on the stuff that you want to present. That's what I think should determine the length of your writing and not other superficial limitations.
[36:31]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So for those listening who haven't yet clicked on the open access link, it's approximately 85 pages or so before the endography, as I recall. So, so how did you end up publishing with them? What did you do?
[36:42]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
So what did I do? So, I mean, when it comes to book production and stuff like that, I like to do this myself anyhow. And actually I was forced to do this myself anyhow, also from my previous two books. So all the typesetting and all this I ended up doing myself because the industry of academic publishing is weird. You don't get any money for publishing your books, but instead you have to invest time and energy in preparing your books so that the publishers can publish them. And so I thought, well, I can just do this myself. And this time I will do something, something else entirely. I will also try not to be too perfectionist about it. And so I put it together myself, and we're living in 2026, so there are online platforms and help you pull your own stuff very easily. And the one that I chose is called Knowledge Commons Works. So this is a platform where you can upload all kinds of scholarly content, studies, data, books, whatever you want and whatever you publish there is actually published in all senses of the Word. So it's not just some random thing that I put in the. Put on the Internet and then tomorrow it might be gone. It will only be gone if the entire Internet is gone, which hopefully won't happen. But otherwise it's there to stay. So it's on that platform. It's actually permanently published and it's also citable and it has a legal license on it as well. So all of these things are there. So this is a nice opportunity to just publish whatever you want basically yourself by using this platform. And when it comes to such things as marketing or dissemination, if you happen, if you're in a position to be able to do this yourself, and actually many people are, I mean, you usually have to do some of the marketing too for your own books. You have to make them, to publicize them yourself, then. Well, it's just the same work. So I thought I can also distribute this myself to the colleagues who know me and to those who don't know me and talk to you about it and all the. So this is also something that I just. Well, I'm doing pretty much the same thing that I used to do when I used a regular legacy publisher, except that I don't have to pay the publisher, which is a very nice aspect of it.
[39:39]
Dr. Raj Balpur
If only there was a platform, maybe a podcast platform for new books. We can cover such things. Yeah, yeah. So times are changing and it's nice to see various innovations, folks can decide for themselves what is best for their path. But it's just serendipitously, the podcast last week featured a new publishing series at the Heidelberg Asian Settings Open Access platform. And they were speaking about not as authors, but as editors, ways to innovate, to sort of roll with the times, along with the expense of rigor of the course. But you know, whether or not people want a double blind peer review or no peer review, or this or this or this or, you know, so would you say a word perhaps in your case or this platform, about peer review?
[40:39]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, so in my own, in this case it's not. So this is the one drawback is that this thing, the. This booklet of mine is not peer reviewed. So I'm not the only one who read it before uploading it there. But it's not peer reviewed in the traditional sense. So this is some sort of seal of quality that is missing. Even though peer review isn't always really able to ensure highest quality. The process is necessary, I think, and it's a good one, but it's certainly not a perfect one.
[41:13]
Dr. Raj Balpur
It's a mixed bag.
[41:14]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Exactly. Yeah. So I'm not making a point against peer review. So this is not at all the extent of my, my riot here and my rebellion. It's not against peer review, it's just that this is not available via this platform. Whereas publishers such as Heidelberg Asian Stuff is publishing, husband, which you just mentioned, they do peer review, which is a very good thing. And I am also working with them as an editor. I'm a big fan. But in this specific case, I thought, you know, I can just. This, this will go without peer review. The, the world shall. The world can judge me
[42:06]
Dr. Raj Balpur
there. So many thoughts come to mind about my own publishing, you know, projects that are parked at my desk because of all the teaching and podcasting and travels and this and that. But, you know, a couple Routledge books and a couple of contributions, half a dozen contributions to relatively high profile traditional presses and then for an upcoming Mahabharata project, you know, I'm, I'm debating whether or not to go the traditional route with publishing. Of course, I think certain seals of approval are required for those, you know, seeking various positions at the academy. But having said that, having done traditional, a couple of breadwinch books, for example, published contribute to a student book, having demonstrated that level of rigor is there. It's interesting because what Dr. Huiskin was saying last week was that really for scholars who are coming out of the gate, who are grad students or just recently defend it, they would be more inclined to need the peer review to signal whether or not peer review is valuable. Everyone hopes that it is. Either way, it's valuable to signal a certain level of scholarship. And yet what she was saying is that there might be more senior scholars who would prefer not to go through the process, mostly because of time. And so it's interesting, times are changing and I suppose initiatives such as this and the manner in which you publish this book are indicative of our changing times. Is there anything else you'd like to touch on regarding the argument of the book, the project as a whole, publishing? Any other personal view? Who's anything at all?
[43:55]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Well, one thing just to tie on, on our last point and the, the need for peer reviewed publications. I would not recommend doing this to just anybody. So this is not a good thing to do. You shouldn't just upload any, you know, all your texts in the Internet and say, well, I have, I have gazillions of publications that really isn't. This really won't get you the seal of approval you want from, well, your colleagues in academia. Maybe but also your audience. So they may be more inclined to read just anything you write, but without judging so much. But really it is better to not to ignore the traditional system. The traditional system has a value and peer review has a value. It is there to give you that seal of approval. But on the other hand, as you just mentioned, there might be people who in a particular case don't see any added value in having everything they write about peer reviewed. And peer review isn't, you know, it's not the best thing in the world or the only thing that guarantees quality. Perhaps you can also write something worthwhile without it being peer reviewed. It's certainly possible. So this is just to say this is just a, well, not a worrying. But that's my, that's my, that's a, that's a piece of realism that I want to, want to share. Like don't, don't just do only things like that. It's, that's not the way to go about it for anybody. I wouldn't recommend it just for everybody. But indeed the times are changing and it is, it's become easy to publish stuff yourself and also to publicize your own stuff yourself. And we can also use that and embrace that and you know, share some things online in this way. I mean back in the day, a hundred years ago, there was no peer review at all and it was all personal networks. So not much has changed in that regard actually. So this, we, we should all use all the opportunities and one of the opportunities that this provided me in this case was, was to publish this mid length weird thing which I would have had trouble to do elsewhere. So for such extra special projects it may be an option otherwise generally, I hope that the argument that I'm making in the book will convince people just by. Because it's a good argument I hope will convince people in my surrounding and will convince other scholars and people who are interested in South Asia. And that's really what I hope for and I also hope for to that they will be ready to undertake some methodological reflection. My own experience is that, and I'm really saying this is my own experience being being prompted to do methodological reflection can be somewhat uncomfortable because you don't know where it will lead you. Perhaps at the end of the day you will have to throw everything overboard. So there is a certain resistance in many people. And as I'm saying, I'm talking from my own experience. Do I really want to think, do I really have to think about this? And I would say you don't have to, but it might be worth it. I don't think that this book will destroy your scholarship or your interest in South Asian religions. So this is the one thing that I hope, the one thing that I hope that this book will overcome is this barrier or this resistance against something that seems destructive. I hope I'm not doing something destructive with this book. I think I'm not. I'm actually offering something constructive. I do offer a solution on how to use religion. So the question for me is how do we use religion? Not you're all saying wrong things whenever you say the word religion. That's not it. I think there is an intelligent way forward and the one, one, one the book I present and the argument I made is one path on this, I hope intelligent way forward. So these are the last things that come to mind. Yeah. Concerning the book.
[48:36]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Well, thank you very much for being on the podcast today.
[48:39]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Thank you, Raj. It was a pleasure as always.
[48:42]
Dr. Raj Balpur
For those listening, we've been speaking with Dr. Dominic Haas on South Asia Before Religion Reflections on an Anachronistic Concept. The link to the open access book is in your podcast. Till next time, keep well, keep listening, keep reading or keep contemplating this thing. Horrible. Is it a thing or not? Bye for now.
[49:04]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
Thank you for listening to this episode of the New Books Network. We are an academic podcast network with
[49:09]
Dr. Raj Balpur
the mission of public education.
[49:11]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
If you liked this episode, please share it with a friend and rate us on your preferred podcast platform.
[49:17]
Dr. Raj Balpur
You can browse all of our episodes
[49:18]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
on our website, newbooksnetwork.com Connect with us on Instagram and BlueSky with the handle ewbooksnetwork and subscribe to our weekly Substack newsletter at newbooksnetwork.substack.com to get episode recommendations straight to your inbox.

Summary6 min read

Podcast Summary:

New Books Network – Dominik A. Haas, "South Asia Before Religion: Reflections on an Anachronistic Concept"
Host: Dr. Raj Balpur
Guest: Dr. Dominik (Dominik A. Haas)
Date: July 23, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode features a deep conversation with Dr. Dominik Haas about his new open access publication South Asia Before Religion: Reflections on an Anachronistic Concept. The discussion centers on the methodological and theoretical challenges of using the category of “religion” when approaching premodern South Asia, as well as broader implications for religious studies and global academic discourse. The conversation also touches on the academic publishing landscape and the potential of open access, non-traditional publishing formats.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins and Backstory of the Book

Dr. Haas describes how his longstanding research in South Asian religions led to a deeper questioning of the category of "religion", especially prompted by a workshop at the Austrian Academy of Sciences (MM:SS 02:11).
He explains that the book is a product of ongoing reflection and methodological inquiry, rather than a grand design or high drama:

“It's not that spectacular actually... I continued working on it, and... it became an actual little project. And so the result is this short book or booklet that we're talking about today.” (03:20)

2. The Problem with 'Religion' as a Category

The difficulty is not unique to religious studies or South Asian studies, but pervades both, as well as general global discourse (05:20–07:13).
'Religion' is a modern, not universal, concept—products of modernity and European/Christian intellectual history.
Using it as an analytical category risks importing modern connotations (irrationality, belief vs. reason) to contexts where they don’t fit:

"Religion is a category that has many associations and connotations. ... it is often used as a category where you put all things that are irrational." (09:25)
The concept itself did not exist in premodern South Asia; applying it retrospectively risks distortion (08:50–12:17).

3. Religion vs. Its Components

Haas suggests focusing on the specific cultural, philosophical, or ritual phenomena (“subsets”) such as concepts of the afterlife, morality, or cosmic order, rather than the catch-all term "religion" (17:23).

“These sub components or the components of religion are easier to do research on and to talk about. … Whereas religion, as mentioned, it's too broad.” (17:23)
He contrasts “religion” with tangible, more precisely bounded concepts (like food), arguing religion is a “construct” rather than an objective reality (19:36).

4. The Challenge of Comparative Categories

No direct equivalent to “religion” exists in classical South Asian languages and traditions (21:13), and local concepts like dharma do not map neatly onto it.
The imposition of modern categories can lead to misunderstanding; Haas and Balpur agree scholars must “park” (set aside) their own notions when studying different cultures and historical contexts (23:03).

“The first step I would say is to park your own concept of religion and then take a few steps and look at it and just to think, what am I even using here?” (25:44)

5. Is 'Religion' Ever Useful?

Haas argues scholars should generally avoid using the term, unless they have time and space for extensive contextualization and definition (14:30).

“Using it without a definition and without extensive contextualization really almost has no meaning at all.” (15:43)
Sometimes the term is a “superficial thing” and rarely necessary for academic clarity (14:30). In personal terms, Haas would not recommend someone unfamiliar with the concept to adopt it.

6. Audience and Scope

The book is aimed primarily at students, scholars, and writers interested in the intersection of South Asian history and the study of religion, but is accessible to motivated lay readers (29:12).
Its argument is focused on methodological issues in the academic study of premodern South Asia, but has broader implications for present-day global understanding (26:50).

7. On Publishing and Format

Haas reflects on the challenges of publishing a work which is “mid-length”—longer than an article, shorter than a typical monograph (32:44). He argues for flexibility in academic formats:

"Some arguments may take two pages to make, some may take 400, and some may take 100." (35:30)
He chose to self-publish via Knowledge Commons Works, favoring open access and immediate availability (36:41). The booklet is about 85 pages.
The work was not peer reviewed, which Haas acknowledges is a drawback but argues is reasonable for certain projects by established scholars (40:38).

“This booklet of mine is not peer reviewed. ... It's the one drawback.” (40:38)

8. Reflections on Methodology and Change

Haas advocates for critical, reflective approaches to categories like “religion,” but cautions he is not being destructively critical. He encourages readers and scholars to see his work as a constructive invitation for methodological reflection (43:55):

“I hope I'm not doing something destructive with this book. ... I do offer a solution on how to use religion.” (47:13)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Modernity and Religion:
“Any concept of religion that we find nowadays is basically a product of modernity... it only makes sense in a certain discourse, and that is the modern discourse. And in other discourses it does not make that much sense.” (08:50)
On Contextualizing/Discarding the Term:
“If you don't have time to explain yourself, maybe it's not that good to introduce such vague notions... because it just won't, probably won't communication make easier.” (15:43)
On Intercultural Impositions:
“It might be an imposition to just say, well, what you're doing is a religion, obviously... perhaps the people you're talking about actually... would characterize what they're doing as something completely different.” (24:24)
On Publishing Change:
“It should depend on the argument that you want to make... That's what I think should determine the length of your writing and not other superficial limitations.” (35:30)
On Methodological Anxiety:
“My own experience is that, and I'm really saying this is my own experience, being prompted to do methodological reflection can be somewhat uncomfortable because you don't know where it will lead you.” (47:13)

Timestamps for Key Segments

[02:11] — Book’s origin and disciplinary context
[05:20] — Is the 'religion problem' a South Asia problem, a religious studies problem, or both?
[08:50] — Defining and historicizing 'religion' as a modern concept
[12:17] — The belief/reason tension and its European roots
[14:30] — Is it better to do without the term "religion"?
[17:23] — Advantages of focusing on religion’s subsets instead of the whole
[21:13] — No equivalent term for ‘religion’ in South Asian languages
[23:03] — Advice: “park” your own categories; dangers of imposition
[26:50] — Scope and intent of the book (premodern South Asia focus)
[29:12] — Target audience discussion
[32:44] — On the mid-length format and academic publishing oddities
[36:41] — Knowledge Commons Works and open access publishing detail
[40:38] — Peer review and scholarly publishing reflections
[43:55] — Final thoughts: constructive critique, not destructive

Concluding Reflections

Dr. Haas’s call is for nuanced, critical engagement with theoretical categories and for scholars—especially those in religion and South Asia studies—to be self-reflective and flexible in terminology and methodology (47:13).
The episode offers a valuable overview of how core analytical categories may be both necessary and hazardous, and how the future of academic publishing might accommodate more innovative, accessible, and open scholarship.

Link to open access book: Included in the show notes.

Loading summary

Transcript62 lines

[00:00]
Commercial Announcer
Pros Trust the Home Depot for heavy duty storage solutions for any job site or garage Right now. Get up to 15% off select storage and organization, Impact and water resistant totes and shelving built to hold up to £2,500. Storage systems have space for all your tools and protect them in the garage, on the job site and everywhere in between. Save time and maximize efficiency with adjustable shelving customized to your business's needs. Shop and save on pro grade storage at the Home Depot. How Pros Get More Done
[00:31]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today. Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-contacts. Oh my gosh, they're so fast.
[00:46]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
And breathe.
[00:47]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
Oh sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh sorry. Namaste.
[00:55]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Visit 1-800-contacts.com today to save on your first order.
[00:59]
Commercial Announcer
1-800-contacts@blyze.com it's not just about window treatments. It's about you. Your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. Shop up to 40% off with minimum purchase and a free professional measure right now@blinds.com plus pay at your own pace starting at 0% APR with affirm terms apply. Welcome to the New Books Network.
[01:36]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Hello and welcome back. I'm your host, Dr. Raj Balpur. And more importantly, I have the pleasure of welcoming back to the podcast Dr. Dominik Kloss, who is a postdoc of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and a collaborator on the Montrans Project, will be diving into his brand new open access publication South Asia Before Religion Reflections on an Anachronistic Concept. Dominic, welcome back to the podcast.
[02:00]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Thank you Raj. It's very nice to be here again and to see you again and to talk to you again. Happy to be on here.
[02:06]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Likewise. So you got to tell us about the backstory. How did this book come into being?
[02:12]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
The backstory, yes, I'm happy to tell you a little bit about that, but it's not that spectacular actually. So I'd say part one is I've been doing research on what is generally called or considered South Asian religions or also historic South Asian religions for a while so this is my profession. I'm a scholar of South Asian religions. Right. So the topic itself has always interested me. And in the past I thought religion is something that I can just use. It's a concept that I can use in my research and to talk about things. And surely it's necessary to find some kind of definition that makes that possible, but it's not necessary to come up with the perfect definition right now. And so I might just as well not do it. So this, for the longest time, was my modus operandi when it comes to my own research and South Asian cultural history. But then, as part of the new project that I'm employed in at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the Cluster of excellence, Eurasian Transformations, there was a. Last year there was a research colloquium on a key concept to be analyzed when that cluster, and that is religion. So one of the key concepts that's of interest in that project is religion itself. And so colloquium. And a small workshop was organized by Professors Valtop, and it was really Birgit Kellner, who inspired me to think more deeply about religion by providing literature that was very fascinating for me. And so in that workshop, we talked about the concept of religion in various cultures, Asian and European, also from a historical perspective. And somehow I continued working on it, and I continued and I continued, and it became an actual little project. And so the result is this short book or booklet that we're talking about today. These are my reflections on this concept. So that's a backstory.
[04:47]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Fantastic. So we will certainly dive into your reflections momentarily. Let's maybe try and position this for a bit of a broader audience. In the field of religious studies, we know too much, and so it's sort of hard to refamiliarize ourselves with this. But is the problem with the category of religion a religious studies problem, or is it a South Asia problem or both? Yeah, you stand with those simple questions for us and we'll move on.
[05:20]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, unfortunately, it's a problem for both of those fields for religious studies as well as for South Asia or South Asian studies. So religious studies has to face the challenge of what their research subject is. Like, what is it actually that's researched in religious studies. So of course they have to think about what religion is. If you think about South Asia, it seems to be easier not to do that because generally, methodological reflection, well, maybe not as pronounced as in other fields in classical South Asian studies, ontology and also religion is just one of many things that are being explored in this field.
[06:14]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So
[06:16]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
I guess it hasn't gotten that much attention, but it actually does pose a problem for everybody who wants to say something about, well, the history of South Asia or the cultural history of South Asia. So, yeah, it's everybody, both fields and really everybody has to somehow face this problem. And actually also non academics and non scholars as well will one way or the other in their lives face this question of what does it mean to say that something is religion and how does that work in my case, and then how does it work in the case of people from other cultures? So it is really a fascinating subject that can concern or affect non scholars as well, even though it's a theoretical or methodological issue chiefly.
[07:14]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Yeah, I mean, I think the problem or the issue operates at multiple tiers. And of course it's a problem for specialists, it's a problem for South Asians. But is it not something to be considered by any global citizen who is engaging other global citizens who may or may not be imposing categories upon their neighbors? And that might be some of, that may be some of the problem? I have assumptions about your life and your way of being based on my life and my way of being. And there is perhaps in the human condition, there's nothing more perennial and evasive as religion or religious, what we think of as religious enterprise. And yet what does that mean? And of course, religious studies is walking a tight road insofar as broaching something that we can call religion that pertains to religion without doing theology or sort of confessional stances. And so then what's left, you know, is anything left? Is what's left actually a subsection of other disciplines. So this, so this is something to put on the radar of our audience, that this is, this is a category to be thought through and problematized and engaged consciously, even in an armchair setting. So thank you for entertaining my ridiculous question of so what's the problem with religious studies? Now back to your book South Asia. What are you arguing? What's this anachronism? What's going on here?
[08:51]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, so the, the basic problem is the religion as we have it today. And this is not even one concept, it's actually several that vary from culture to culture from place to place. So, but any, any, any, any concept of religion that we find nowadays is basically a product of modernity. So it is not something that has, has been around forever
[09:25]
Dr. Raj Balpur
that applies to
[09:26]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
the concept, it doesn't apply to the things it covers, of course, and that there have been religious things since time immemorial or things that we could call religious or religion. But the concept itself is a modern development and it only makes sense in a certain discourse, and that is the modern discourse. And in other discourses it does not make that much sense. So how to explain this best without retelling the whole book? Religion is a category that has many associations and connotations. Not all of them are good, because for one, it is often used as a category where you put all things that are irrational. So this is one of the most. And this is one of the basic meanings that religion can have nowadays for some people is something that's irrational or something that like, transcends like empirical reality in some way, and something that you have to believe, but which otherwise might not be real at all. So in one sense, religion is something that you cannot trust in, basically in a certain worldview, in a scientifically oriented modern worldview. And saying that something is religion actually just only fulfills one function, and that is to signal that something is actually irrational and you can only believe in it. You cannot prove it or anything like that. And this is just one of many connotations that this concept has. So when you use it to talk about pre modern and historical cultures, not only salvation ones, then what you're doing is risking a lot by conveying connotations and some sort of feeling that does not make sense or would not have made sense back in the day when people were actually doing all those religious things that we observe. So we have to be very careful to use religion. It's just not as universal a category as we would like it to be. It has a history. It's come into being. And there was a time when it did not exist. And I for one also think that there also someday will be a time when religion will no longer be a topic at all. It is certainly a possible. A potential future. I see. So this is not. It's just not a given. It's a thing that exists in a certain time and place.
[12:17]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Would you say that the tension that you aptly describe, the tension that we're all somewhat familiar with, between perhaps to crudely generalize scientific rationalism, materialism and beliefs of the beyond, whether blind or otherwise, we. Would you say the tension between those two, as you describe them, is uniquely a product of the trajectory of work, the trajectory of European thought against the backdrop of the church, and then the schisms between science and religion? To what extent do we see this as this is? I don't have any answer in mind. I would love to hear you reflect on that.
[13:03]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, I don't think that this tension between belief on the one hand and reason on the other, or the reasonable ratio is really a unique thing or a unique product of modernity in that sense. But what is quite unique is the idea that belief itself has. Is part of something that has such a high value, and that is religion. And the idea that belief also distinguishes people from one another. So I might believe in one thing that I cannot prove, and you might believe in another, and this may mirror our religious allegiances, for example. So this is really something that came as a result, that came with modernity, even though what it exists and other times before. Of course, belief as such existed for a long time. But this idea that belief is one of the central features of some subset of culture that's called religion and one of the defining features, this is really modern and I think very Christian and also European development. Yes.
[14:24]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So then, are we better off without the term or are we call to always contextualize the term?
[14:30]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
I think in many cases we are actually better off without the term. There is not. There are cases where it may be useful to use it, where it may lead you somewhere, but in many cases it's quite a superficial thing. And religion is actually one of those big concepts that we use to order reality around us. Just like, for example, nature or culture or science, maybe, but these terms are so big that one really doesn't actually always know where the boundaries are. And what matters the most is you cannot. There is no good way to predict what any other person on this planet, and we're in a globally connected and entangled world, right? We do not know if we use the word religion, what somebody else might actually understand under this term. Right? This is distinct from concepts such as ka, for example, if I talk about a ka, then you probably know what I'm talking about. This is much easier to use. But a thing such as religion, you just won't know if what the person on the other side of the world will understand under that term. So it may be perfectly clear to yourself, but you don't know what you're actually communicating. Because this term is so big and so broad that using it without a definition and without extensive contextualization really almost has no meaning at all. And so you'll. In my view, I think it's best to think about it. You know, if you don't have time to explain yourself, maybe it's not that good good to introduce such vague notions into what you want to say, because it just won't, probably won't communication make easier.
[16:29]
Commercial Announcer
I'm Glenn Washington, host of Snap Judgment,
[16:32]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
the award winning storytelling podcast from kqed. Every week, Snap deals a new card.
[16:38]
Commercial Announcer
Like the girl whose sister was a monkey, or the man who lived in
[16:43]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
the woods for 30 years, or even the woman who snuck her lover out of prison in a dog crate. Pick a card, any card.
[16:52]
Commercial Announcer
Tap to listen. Now to Snap Judgment from KQED on Spotify.
[16:58]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Would you say then that as scholars and thinkers and readers, that we are better suited focusing on the subsets of what one might consider religion? Whether that is, whether one is viewed, whether one is studying morality or an afterlife or orogenesis, or are we better off focusing on, you know, the constituents of what we think of as religion?
[17:23]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
So I think generally, yeah, because this is much more likely to lead you to things that are comparable. So if I say if I want to know more about certain concepts of the afterlife, then this is something that happens after death, right? And this is just a general thing what happens after death. And if this is something I'm looking for, and I'm telling you, you know, that's what I'm interested in, and then you could say, well, I'm interested in that too. And so the likelihood, there is a strong likelihood that we might actually end up talking about something that's similar and that will make sense for both of us. So these sub components or the components of religion are easier to do research on and to talk about. I would say it makes more sense. It usually makes for better conversation and for better research. Whereas religion, as mentioned, it's too broad. If you go to religious studies conference, the broadness of topics that are being discussed there and presented there is just so huge, you won't actually know what to find. But something like concepts of the afterlife or morale or say, I don't know, karmic retribution, things like that, or rebirth, these things are much easier to talk about.
[18:50]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So then we're just thinking aloud here. There might be various phenomena or understandings of what one might think of the supernormal. We're not necessarily making any claims of their veracity, but we're making claims of their individuals who discuss the supernova. And what you would say is that referring to all of that as religion and thinking of it as comparable, for example, using the category of food, every culture has food. They'll understand it differently, they'll use it differently, they'll ritualize it differently. There'll be different constituents of macronutrients. But we have something called food that we can tangibly say, this is my food. This is your food. And we may think of it very differently, but there's something there. What you're saying is that's not how religion works. Religion is more of a construct than a reality.
[19:36]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, precisely. It's much vaguer. And for example, the notion that you just mentioned, or in the superhuman or in higher powers. So this is one of the things or one of the characteristics that are usually taken to be essential for any religion to qualify as a religion. So saying something like religion is about higher powers, higher beings, that doesn't sound outrageous to most people. So this is part of what is commonly understood as religion, but actually it's a religion where this element is not included, is thinkable.
[20:21]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So
[20:24]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
this makes me wonder, are superhuman things? Are higher powers really what religion is about? If you can just remove this allegedly essential aspect or component, then how was it essential? Still, a religion and religion without superhuman elements or supernaturalistic elements is certainly thinkable. So the question is, what uses religion in this? We can talk about superhuman and supernatural things. This makes a lot of sense. But then saying that religion, that's like one of the core subjects of religion, core components of religion really doesn't lead us anywhere, I think.
[21:14]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Yeah. And I think for those listening, many of you may be aware, many of you may not be aware or have ever considered that. What do we do with the fact that there is no direct word for religion? That's image. Right? I mean, just because there. Something is not named doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. But also, you know, what do we do? Do we, you know, I mean, equally evasive and vast is the term dharma. Some may elect that, but there. There are going to be naturally subsets of religion that do not map onto dharma and vice versa. And so one of the things I find compelling, irrespective of whatever folks believe, whether folks buy the argument of dispensing with the category at large, either way, I think we're wise, when we're studying any tradition, to think along the lines of that tradition. I don't mean that we have to accept a claim to that tradition, but we should understand the categories on their own terms. And crucial to that is dispensing with, or at least arcing categories that we may come in assuming to exist or assuming to be operant, such as religion, such as ethics, such as what have you. And in sort of thinking along the terms of a tradition, I think it's very fruitful. And then if you wish to come back out and theorize that in other terms, I mean, that's certainly doable. But I think part of what's compelling is how are, how are traditions speaking about the phenomenon that we're studying? And if they're not speaking about it in a way that's commensurate with how we're describing it, then are we imposing, Is it insight or is it impositional? Like, how are we, how do we square the discourse of the data with the discourse of the theory? Right.
[23:03]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
That is a very good point. And I really liked your, your, your, your statement that to park your own notions for a while when looking at the things under study, that's, I think, really a good way to approach it. Because getting rid of your own concepts or notions permanently is not even that easy. So if you stop using the category of religion, it will still be around you and people will continue to assume it's a real thing. So it's not that easy to just say, well, let's get rid of it. History has shown it doesn't really work that easy. Maybe one day we'll get obsolete, but now it's not. What we can do is park it and then look at it from a bit of a distance and look at what do we even understand when we talk about religion? And what kind of, what kind of thing is this? And if I approach some other culture or people from another culture or from the past, which also is another culture, usually, then it's good to be aware of your own concept that you might be imposing onto what you're looking at. Because it's not necessarily the case that the people you're talking about. Use the same concept or even aware of it, or can make any, well, use it to define or use it to define what they are. So it might be an imposition to just say, well, what you're doing is a religion, obviously, but perhaps the people you're talking about actually, and actually you're talking to would characterize what they're doing as something completely different. And they wouldn't see much sense in calling it religion. Maybe they would call it tradition, or this is just a way of life, or that's just the code of conduct. Or maybe, yeah, maybe they would agree, yes, it's religious in your sense, but it's actually not that huge of a thing. And all of these things are answers that you might actually get when you're in South Asia of today. Religion is indeed a known concept, but even there, notions are very different from other parts of the world. And also the value attached to religion might be. So the first step I would Say, is to park your own concept of religion and then take a few steps and look at it and just to think, what am I even using here? What am I even saying? If I call something a religion or if I characterize something as religious, what do I actually want to express by using these words and labels? Is there any point to that? Is there, Do I want to say that these things are irrational or do I want to say that they have to do something, that they have something to do with the supernatural or something like that? And if yes, then why don't I use these words? So this is, I think the first step that we have to take is to park our own concept and think about it for a bit.
[26:32]
Dr. Raj Balpur
And just to, just to. How do I say, just to clarify, is the argument of the book geared towards studying pre modern South Asia? Or as you said in passing just now, is it also an invitation to dispense with the term even with people on the globe right now?
[26:51]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, no, it is. It is decidedly a methodological and theoretical argument that I'm making in this book. So what I want to say is you cannot use religion just like that to describe the culture of pre modern South Asia. So that's the basic argument when it comes to religion as it is used today. I'm not saying anything about that in the book itself. This is not the point of the book. I mean, if you ask me, is religion a meaningful category that I can recommend for somebody personally? If you didn't know the concept of religion, would I recommend you to adopt it? No, I would not. I would tell you, yeah, well, this is some weird concept that's somehow taken root in our cultures, but it's not really useful for you to make sense of your life or of anything around you. You can read about it a bit, but I wouldn't, I really wouldn't recommend adopting it at all. So that will be my personal stance. It's not the point I'm making in the book, though.
[28:04]
Dr. Raj Balpur
This is a. Is a.
[28:05]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
It's a theoretical and methodological thing, really.
[28:08]
Dr. Raj Balpur
My goodness, Dominic, what do I do with my three degrees in religion? Not to worry, you're resolved. This was a problem before this podcast, so we're good.
[28:20]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, well, you know, it's. It's the same. I mean, I've been writing about religion as well, so it's. It's not like I'm saying that anything that is done under the. The heading of religion is meaningless. So this is not the point I'm making. I think that many people might Be scared that that's the point I'm making is not at all point. But of course it may seem that way because suggesting to park your own concept of religion and to look at it, to deconstruct and think about it and reflect on it might sound like, you know, this is the wrong thing to do. You should just throw it all in the bin. It's not really worth it. So. But that's not at all the point that I'm making. It's a very different thing.
[29:02]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Well, it's good to clarify that. Right. And also maybe to underscore. Who would you say is the primary audience of this book? Who are you writing to?
[29:12]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, so I did have an audience in mind and that is in particular people, first of all, who want to understand South Asian history in general. And this may be students, scholars, writers, all kinds of people may fall under that. I'm not sure if it will be of so much interest to the general reader. Maybe, maybe for some readers who have a general interest in religion. So this may very well be the case, or maybe they'll enjoy having a look at it and then being and somewhere else where they find more interesting stuff. But really the primary audience I had in mind were people who already have some kind of interest in, well, South Asian religions or historic South Asian religions, or for whom there is a convergence of interests of religion in South Asia. So this is the primary audience I had in mind.
[30:13]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Yeah, probably folks who are listening to a podcast called the Indian Religions. Precisely. I find it kind of hilarious that I inherited a channel. It was Hindu studies and I drew my master's actually late undergrad. Really confronting the term Hinduism, where it came from, what it means, the idea that it's both an imposition and an imposition upon a moving target. I couldn't unsee the fact. And so of course there's great utility in reprographic Hinduism. And of course there are millions of people identify as Hindu. But at the end of the day, I mean, even more problematic than religion in general perhaps is the term Hinduism. You know, what does that mean? And yet it has a great deal of utility for individuals who self identify as Hindu. Yet those individuals self identify with an understanding that 10 Hindus have 10 different sets of booms. Right. And so, so, and, and yet, so I think that, I think that we as scholars have to always keep that in mind. And Indian religions is sort of this catch all craze of looking at, you know, phenomenon of South Asia, when pertaining to South Asia that I explore are various facts and, and on, on some level the terms are required to get us in the door before we problematize them. So for example, I'm preparing to teach a summer course, an Intro Hinduism summer course at Bifmaster University. It starts a week or so and, and it has to be called Inter Hinduism so people know what we're studying. And yet that first lecture is going to be there's no such thing as Hinduism or here are some ways to think about Hinduism or Here are Hinduism. And so yeah, here we are above and beyond the content of the book. Would you comment a little bit about the scope of the book, the length of the book? I think you have some views on that that might be worth sharing.
[32:14]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
The GLP1 pill you've been waiting for is now on ROE. Yep, it's finally here with the same clinically proven ingredient now in a pill and now on RO. It's the first FDA approved GLP1 pill for women weight loss at the lowest price available. That's one daily GLP1 pill. For big results now on Roe, go to roe.co listen to see if you qualify RX only go to ro co safety for serious side effects and boxed warning associated with GLP1s.
[32:44]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, so like so many other things about this book, the length is a bit special. Or actually today I googled the word. I looked up the word extra in the Urban Dictionary to make sure I understand what it means in English. Extra kind of fits it in some ways. You know, the book is extra in various respects, the topic as well as the format. And so concerning the format, it is a thing, you know, it's, it's a mid length publication in many senses. It's longer than an article or a peer reviewed article. Those are usually of the length of say 10,000 words, maybe a bit more with exceptions, but this is usually the ballpark number. Where we're moving is the typical length of articles. Whereas when it comes to books in humanities, they are usually much longer. I mean there are short books in humanities, but very often there is a notion that a book, like a proper book in the humanities and Indology and South Asian studies should have the length of a dissertation maybe. So this is somehow the basis for, for the notion of book in South Asian studies and other humanities fields and disciplines. And so books are usually say 200 words at least can be much longer. So what we see here is a huge gap between what you can publish and what you can't publish that easily because there are numerous journals that publish articles of comparatively short length and there are Several publishers who are willing to publish books of a certain length and a certain substance. But there are not that many venues where you can publish anything that happens to be in between those length limits. And if you happen to write something like that, you run into a problem like I did, one of the options you can go for is to publish it as an overlong article and to just basically sell an elephant as a cat or something like that. So it's not really an article anymore, but that's what many people go for. Or you slice it into pieces and you make it, you turn it into several publications to make it publishable. And well, with this book or booklet, I somehow lost the nerve. I didn't want to do any of these things. And I just thought, you know, this format used to be super common in the past. There was no problem at all in terms of the quality that is ascribed to it. And there is no point in terms of content for, for a scholarly publication to be restricted by such a thing as word limits. Some arguments may take two pages to make, some may take 400, and some may take 100. So it should depend on the argument that you want to make or on the stuff that you want to present. That's what I think should determine the length of your writing and not other superficial limitations.
[36:31]
Dr. Raj Balpur
So for those listening who haven't yet clicked on the open access link, it's approximately 85 pages or so before the endography, as I recall. So, so how did you end up publishing with them? What did you do?
[36:42]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
So what did I do? So, I mean, when it comes to book production and stuff like that, I like to do this myself anyhow. And actually I was forced to do this myself anyhow, also from my previous two books. So all the typesetting and all this I ended up doing myself because the industry of academic publishing is weird. You don't get any money for publishing your books, but instead you have to invest time and energy in preparing your books so that the publishers can publish them. And so I thought, well, I can just do this myself. And this time I will do something, something else entirely. I will also try not to be too perfectionist about it. And so I put it together myself, and we're living in 2026, so there are online platforms and help you pull your own stuff very easily. And the one that I chose is called Knowledge Commons Works. So this is a platform where you can upload all kinds of scholarly content, studies, data, books, whatever you want and whatever you publish there is actually published in all senses of the Word. So it's not just some random thing that I put in the. Put on the Internet and then tomorrow it might be gone. It will only be gone if the entire Internet is gone, which hopefully won't happen. But otherwise it's there to stay. So it's on that platform. It's actually permanently published and it's also citable and it has a legal license on it as well. So all of these things are there. So this is a nice opportunity to just publish whatever you want basically yourself by using this platform. And when it comes to such things as marketing or dissemination, if you happen, if you're in a position to be able to do this yourself, and actually many people are, I mean, you usually have to do some of the marketing too for your own books. You have to make them, to publicize them yourself, then. Well, it's just the same work. So I thought I can also distribute this myself to the colleagues who know me and to those who don't know me and talk to you about it and all the. So this is also something that I just. Well, I'm doing pretty much the same thing that I used to do when I used a regular legacy publisher, except that I don't have to pay the publisher, which is a very nice aspect of it.
[39:39]
Dr. Raj Balpur
If only there was a platform, maybe a podcast platform for new books. We can cover such things. Yeah, yeah. So times are changing and it's nice to see various innovations, folks can decide for themselves what is best for their path. But it's just serendipitously, the podcast last week featured a new publishing series at the Heidelberg Asian Settings Open Access platform. And they were speaking about not as authors, but as editors, ways to innovate, to sort of roll with the times, along with the expense of rigor of the course. But you know, whether or not people want a double blind peer review or no peer review, or this or this or this or, you know, so would you say a word perhaps in your case or this platform, about peer review?
[40:39]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Yeah, so in my own, in this case it's not. So this is the one drawback is that this thing, the. This booklet of mine is not peer reviewed. So I'm not the only one who read it before uploading it there. But it's not peer reviewed in the traditional sense. So this is some sort of seal of quality that is missing. Even though peer review isn't always really able to ensure highest quality. The process is necessary, I think, and it's a good one, but it's certainly not a perfect one.
[41:13]
Dr. Raj Balpur
It's a mixed bag.
[41:14]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Exactly. Yeah. So I'm not making a point against peer review. So this is not at all the extent of my, my riot here and my rebellion. It's not against peer review, it's just that this is not available via this platform. Whereas publishers such as Heidelberg Asian Stuff is publishing, husband, which you just mentioned, they do peer review, which is a very good thing. And I am also working with them as an editor. I'm a big fan. But in this specific case, I thought, you know, I can just. This, this will go without peer review. The, the world shall. The world can judge me
[42:06]
Dr. Raj Balpur
there. So many thoughts come to mind about my own publishing, you know, projects that are parked at my desk because of all the teaching and podcasting and travels and this and that. But, you know, a couple Routledge books and a couple of contributions, half a dozen contributions to relatively high profile traditional presses and then for an upcoming Mahabharata project, you know, I'm, I'm debating whether or not to go the traditional route with publishing. Of course, I think certain seals of approval are required for those, you know, seeking various positions at the academy. But having said that, having done traditional, a couple of breadwinch books, for example, published contribute to a student book, having demonstrated that level of rigor is there. It's interesting because what Dr. Huiskin was saying last week was that really for scholars who are coming out of the gate, who are grad students or just recently defend it, they would be more inclined to need the peer review to signal whether or not peer review is valuable. Everyone hopes that it is. Either way, it's valuable to signal a certain level of scholarship. And yet what she was saying is that there might be more senior scholars who would prefer not to go through the process, mostly because of time. And so it's interesting, times are changing and I suppose initiatives such as this and the manner in which you publish this book are indicative of our changing times. Is there anything else you'd like to touch on regarding the argument of the book, the project as a whole, publishing? Any other personal view? Who's anything at all?
[43:55]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Well, one thing just to tie on, on our last point and the, the need for peer reviewed publications. I would not recommend doing this to just anybody. So this is not a good thing to do. You shouldn't just upload any, you know, all your texts in the Internet and say, well, I have, I have gazillions of publications that really isn't. This really won't get you the seal of approval you want from, well, your colleagues in academia. Maybe but also your audience. So they may be more inclined to read just anything you write, but without judging so much. But really it is better to not to ignore the traditional system. The traditional system has a value and peer review has a value. It is there to give you that seal of approval. But on the other hand, as you just mentioned, there might be people who in a particular case don't see any added value in having everything they write about peer reviewed. And peer review isn't, you know, it's not the best thing in the world or the only thing that guarantees quality. Perhaps you can also write something worthwhile without it being peer reviewed. It's certainly possible. So this is just to say this is just a, well, not a worrying. But that's my, that's my, that's a, that's a piece of realism that I want to, want to share. Like don't, don't just do only things like that. It's, that's not the way to go about it for anybody. I wouldn't recommend it just for everybody. But indeed the times are changing and it is, it's become easy to publish stuff yourself and also to publicize your own stuff yourself. And we can also use that and embrace that and you know, share some things online in this way. I mean back in the day, a hundred years ago, there was no peer review at all and it was all personal networks. So not much has changed in that regard actually. So this, we, we should all use all the opportunities and one of the opportunities that this provided me in this case was, was to publish this mid length weird thing which I would have had trouble to do elsewhere. So for such extra special projects it may be an option otherwise generally, I hope that the argument that I'm making in the book will convince people just by. Because it's a good argument I hope will convince people in my surrounding and will convince other scholars and people who are interested in South Asia. And that's really what I hope for and I also hope for to that they will be ready to undertake some methodological reflection. My own experience is that, and I'm really saying this is my own experience being being prompted to do methodological reflection can be somewhat uncomfortable because you don't know where it will lead you. Perhaps at the end of the day you will have to throw everything overboard. So there is a certain resistance in many people. And as I'm saying, I'm talking from my own experience. Do I really want to think, do I really have to think about this? And I would say you don't have to, but it might be worth it. I don't think that this book will destroy your scholarship or your interest in South Asian religions. So this is the one thing that I hope, the one thing that I hope that this book will overcome is this barrier or this resistance against something that seems destructive. I hope I'm not doing something destructive with this book. I think I'm not. I'm actually offering something constructive. I do offer a solution on how to use religion. So the question for me is how do we use religion? Not you're all saying wrong things whenever you say the word religion. That's not it. I think there is an intelligent way forward and the one, one, one the book I present and the argument I made is one path on this, I hope intelligent way forward. So these are the last things that come to mind. Yeah. Concerning the book.
[48:36]
Dr. Raj Balpur
Well, thank you very much for being on the podcast today.
[48:39]
Dr. Dominic Kloss
Thank you, Raj. It was a pleasure as always.
[48:42]
Dr. Raj Balpur
For those listening, we've been speaking with Dr. Dominic Haas on South Asia Before Religion Reflections on an Anachronistic Concept. The link to the open access book is in your podcast. Till next time, keep well, keep listening, keep reading or keep contemplating this thing. Horrible. Is it a thing or not? Bye for now.
[49:04]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
Thank you for listening to this episode of the New Books Network. We are an academic podcast network with
[49:09]
Dr. Raj Balpur
the mission of public education.
[49:11]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
If you liked this episode, please share it with a friend and rate us on your preferred podcast platform.
[49:17]
Dr. Raj Balpur
You can browse all of our episodes
[49:18]
Podcast Host/Interviewer
on our website, newbooksnetwork.com Connect with us on Instagram and BlueSky with the handle ewbooksnetwork and subscribe to our weekly Substack newsletter at newbooksnetwork.substack.com to get episode recommendations straight to your inbox.

Dominik A. Haas, "South Asia Before Religion: Reflections on an Anachronistic Concept" (Knowledge Commons Works, 2026)

Dominik A. Haas, "South Asia Before Religion: Reflections on an Anachronistic Concept" (Knowledge Commons Works, 2026)

Podcast Summary:

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins and Backstory of the Book

2. The Problem with 'Religion' as a Category

3. Religion vs. Its Components

4. The Challenge of Comparative Categories

5. Is 'Religion' Ever Useful?

6. Audience and Scope

7. On Publishing and Format

8. Reflections on Methodology and Change

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Timestamps for Key Segments

Concluding Reflections

Podcast Summary:

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins and Backstory of the Book

2. The Problem with 'Religion' as a Category

3. Religion vs. Its Components

4. The Challenge of Comparative Categories

5. Is 'Religion' Ever Useful?

6. Audience and Scope

7. On Publishing and Format

8. Reflections on Methodology and Change

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Timestamps for Key Segments

Concluding Reflections