Showing posts with label Microsoft Encarta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Microsoft Encarta. Show all posts

Are anthropological studies as carried out in the West a violation of Human Rights?

This post summarizes a thread on the Rajiv Malhotra yahoo discussion forum which asks some really valid and disturbing questions of the nature of anthropological studies on India carried out in the West, particularly in prestigious American universities.

Invading the Sacred is the first book by Rajiv Malhotra that deals with many distortions that are perpetuated by Indology studies carried out by Western scholars.

Here are two links to summaries of a couple of chapters/chapter sections available on this forum.

This link summarizes a victory that was achieved for Hinduism by challenging the distorted representation of the Hindu faith that was published in Microsoft Encarta. Microsoft eventually changed the section on Hinduism that they carried, as a result of this challenge. Read more about it here.

This link from the same book exposes the kind of scholarship Western scholars like Wendy Doniger indulge in to denigrate Hinduism on the one hand and project themselves as champions of the faith in public discourse. Read what she has to make of the spiritual practice of tantra here.

Back to the current thread.

Bhaskar wrote in with this:

I have heard Rajiv mention this a number of times but the following video really opened me up to the nonsense that gets studied under the subject of anthropological studies. In this video, the person talks about the Kamma caste in Andhra Pradesh. It is interesting to see how the discussion moves from Kamma pride to Kamma-Reddy rivalry to Hindutva to Narendra Modi to Dalit oppression. 


There is no subtlety in discussion of this topic - when does self-esteem change to pride to majoritarianism? Why does self-esteem be seen as a case for oppression of another? I am not informed suitably in academics as I am a routine professional but the nature of discussion and the quality of intellect is deeply disturbing even to an uninformed me. This is also an interference in the India affairs of the sort that is unfortunately not seen that way. This made me wonder whether the nature of anthropology studies by its very construct is actually a human rights violation since it thrives on increasing divides and create fissures where there may be none. How can one make a legal case against this very discipline of study? Are such studies only on India and its caste system? When such type of "informed" people write books which in turn influence text books which in turn get into the minds of people through media or education, the damage to our society in this way can never be repulsed.... 

Ananth replies:

Please see Message 6344 [of the discussion group] as to how Benbabaali obtained her material.

I wondered how a young woman in France had heard of a caste called the Kammas in far-off South India.  Her PhD thesis advisor is a colleague of Christophe Jaffrelot.  Jaffrelot has connections with Marxist professors and journalists.  So that must be how she landed up in Andhra Pradesh.  As soon as she had a thesis to publish, the Hindu had an article on her. (These Marxist intellectuals behave in the same hegemonic way as a dominant caste!)

IBenbabaali said that Kammas have small families in order to preserve their inherited wealth.  For that statement to qualify as an intellectual argument, she must consider alternatives such as:
  1. Kammas have small families because family planning is important in a heavily populated country
  2. Kammas have small families because all over the world, upwardly mobile people have small families.
She needs to say why she rejects Items 1 and 2, in favor of the statement that Kammas have small families in order to preserve inherited wealth.  But I doubt that at the age of 28-30 she would have the introspective self-honesty to ask herself such questions.  Even if she were to, her professors wouldn't let her publish anything.

To the above message Rajiv responded. He said:

Jaffrelot was discussed in his egroup earlier because he became adviser to Ashoka University in Gurgaon, in chrge of setting up their comparative religion program. Many of the trustees in this univ are proud Hindus and passionate about helping us. But they are utterly ignorant of such details and too proud of accepting my help.

Shashi chimed in:

The Kammas are about 5 % in combined Andhra. It is not by intelligent design. I belong to the kamma community and we have maintained healthy averages before family planning era. The average number of kids a couple used have were between 5-12. Now kamma couples have between 1 - 3 kids.
The second reason why kammas are less in number is that a sisterly caste called velamas branched out of the kamma root caste reason being There was a civil war in Andhra called Palnadu Yudham in 12th century. Now these two are 2 separate castes.

I wonder why she missed out this Significant Era of Andhra and Kammas and key personalities of that era. From 3rd Century she skips directly to Vijayanagar Empire.

The Purpose of the Study is to just throw mud at the "Kammas of Andhra". It is laced with a Marxist narrative. She Frequently uses the term 'Capitalist Caste' in the video.

Aurva brings in a very valid point highlighting why Westerners are able to exploit the faultlines in our system itself. He says:

Unfortunately, an average Kamma would feel pride that they are a topic of discussion in US ivy-league academia.

this is what I've seen among some Vaishnavites regarding Sheldon Pollock. the Hindu mind has been so thoroughly desensitized to the trauma of external intervention that we no longer even recognize it.

more importantly, we are taught a history that negates this intervention and teaches us to hate our own religion and Dharma. this merely hastens the departure of the Hindu mind from its senses.

The above observation from Aurva is clearly articulated in message 6344 and 6331 on the discussion forum where this issue was discussed previously too.

To follow this thread further please join up on the yahoo discussion forum. This thread can be found here on the group forum.

Prejudice in Hinduism studies: The case of Microsoft Encarta - chapter 16 part 2


Pdf of the book is available for free download here.

More ‘Blood’ and Animal ‘sacrifice’

The presentation of ‘Gods’ is not the only place in the article that Encarta is interested in gory descriptions—of ‘blood’, ‘skulls’, ‘ordure’ and the like.  Yoga, arguably the most popular contribution of Hinduism to the West is mentioned in two places—both insignificant, as we see later on. Other than the quote above, let us see where else Encarta mentions themes related to ‘blood’ or ‘animal sacrifice’ in the article on Hinduism.

Hinduism:
Holi, the spring carnival, when members of all castes mingle and let down their hair, sprinkling one another with cascades of red powder and liquid, symbolic of the blood that was probably used in past centuries.

Let us start with factual inaccuracies—Holi is celebrated with all the colors of spring—green, yellow, red, pink, not just ‘red’ as the article states. It celebrates the coming of spring with a riot of colors. Factual details aside, for Encarta the suggestion of ‘cascades of red powder and liquid’ works well to further the theme of blood and gore prevalent in the article. This goes on in the description of ‘Worship and Rituals’.

Hinduism:
In many temples, particularly those sacred to goddesses (such as the Kalighat temple to Kali, in Kolkata), goats are sacrificed on special occasions. The sacrifice is often carried out by a special
low-caste priest outside the bounds of the temple itself.

Similarly, the majority of Hindus living today have probably never seen an animal sacrifice in their life. Why is this rare practice chosen when we don’t find mention of commonplace practices like ‘satsang’ (literally, company of truth, or good) meetings where people congregate to communally chant or read from scriptures in orders of magnitude more prevalent? The comment on ‘low-caste’ that rounds out that quote above is obligatory to keep the ‘otherness’ of Hinduism on centre stage—a technique we find employed elsewhere in the article. (For more on how the subject of sacrifice is treated in the case of Islam, please read page 181, chapter 16)

Would an anthropologist probing the Bible many millennia from now condemn Christians as cannibals when reading of Christ’s disciples being asked to partake of Christ’s ‘blood and flesh’? If approached from the point of view of the Encarta article on Hinduism, devoid of either sensitivity or an understanding of symbolism, this would probably be the case. Surprisingly, the author chooses this approach to Hinduism, which is a living contemporary tradition rather than simply an anthropological reconstruction of relics and past rituals.

Where is the real ‘Philosophy’ and ‘Yoga’?

Now that we have read the description in Encarta of Aghoris, ‘to whom nothing is horrible’—yogis who ‘eat ordure or flesh in order to demonstrate their complete indifference to pleasure or pain’, we look around for the yogis we have seen or known. Unfortunately, with the concern of the Encarta article on Hinduism in looking for scatology, it completely misses the highly refined theology and practices like Raja Yoga or Hatha Yoga or Patanjali or yogic meditation. In fact, the word ‘yoga’ has exactly two occurrences in the article (other than the one description of ‘Aghoris’ as yogis above):

Hinduism:
Many elements of Hinduism that were not present in Vedic civilization (such as worship of the phallus and of goddesses, bathing in temple tanks, and the postures of yoga) may have been
derived from the Indus civilization, however. See Indus Valley Civilization.

The philosophies of Shankara and Ramanuja were developed in the context of the six great classical philosophies (darshanas) of India: the Karma Mimamsa (‘action investigation’); the Vedanta (‘end of the Vedas’), in which tradition the work of Shankara and Ramanuja should be placed; the Sankhya system, which describes the opposition between an inert male spiritual principle (purusha) and an active female principle of matter or nature (prakriti), subdivided into the three qualities (gunas) of goodness (sattva), passion (rajas), and darkness (tamas); the Yoga system; and the highly metaphysical systems of Vaisheshika (a kind of atomic realism) and Nyaya (logic, but of an extremely theistic nature).

The first reference serves to separate Yoga from Hinduism. In the second reference, it is buried in a list of themes, each of which is probably more significant to describe than long-winded descriptions of Kali. Note that this list of classical philosophies is the only significant
description o f these philosophies in the entire article on Hinduism – that too not in the explicit section for Philosophy, but embedded in the ‘Rise of Devotional Movements’ section of History’.

To be fair to Encarta, there does exist a separate article on Yoga that the article on Hinduism does not directly reference. That article states:

Yoga:
As a system of practice, Yoga has from the beginning been one of the most influential features of Hinduism.

Surely, as one of the most influential features of Hinduism, Yoga merits more than a single word (with no link or reference) mention in the article on Hinduism.

Contemporary growth of the religion

There are other differences in detail that consistently add an unsympathetic flavor to the reading on Hinduism. We will end with some examples relating to the contemporary spread of these religions.

Islam:
The Muslim community comprises about 1 billion followers on all five continents, and Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world.
[…]
Today about 1 billion Muslims are spread over 40 predominantly Muslim countries and 5 continents, and their numbers are growing at a rate unmatched by that of any other religion in the world.

Both in the introduction and conclusion, the article on Islam repeats positively how Islam is growing, almost from the point of view of an evangelist. Let use see how Encarta covers the spread of Hinduism.

Hinduism:
In more recent times, numerous self-proclaimed Indian religious teachers have migrated to Europe and the United States, where they have inspired large followings. Some, such as the Hare Krishna sect founded by Bhaktivedanta, claim to base themselves on classical Hindu practices. [Emphasis added]

As is consistent with the tone of the article, notice the deprecating use of ‘self-proclaimed’ and ‘claim to’, words rarely used in similar ways in the other articles. The author also fails to mention the fast- growing ‘Yoga’ movement (which Time magazine reported as having over 15
million practitioners in the US) and the large influence of Hindu thought on the ‘New Age’ movement. The article completely misses movements like ‘Transcendental Meditation’ of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the Self-realization fellowship of Parmahansa Yogananda, or the influence on Americans of the beat generation or the 1960s culture (Swami Satchitananda was called the ‘Woodstock guru’), people like George Harrison, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Mia Farrow, or Madonna. To do that would bring Hinduism in, leave it less ‘other’.

The article on Hinduism ends with a bang—something that can aptly demonstrate that deep-seated prejudice and even, perhaps, a political agenda. After failing to have links for ‘yoga’ or ‘Indian philosophy’ in the Encarta article, at the very end Encarta discovers the power of links.

Hinduism:
For information on religious violence in India, See India. Is this an appropriate ending for the article on Hinduism? We first surmised that this might be due to some current events (even then it would not be an appropriate ending for an academic article on Hinduism, other than motivated by considerable prejudice). But we find the same ending, for the same article, as far back as Encarta 1999! As a crosscheck, let us look at the other articles on religion.

Christianity:
For additional information, see articles on individual Christian denominations and biographies of those persons whose names are not followed by dates.

Islam:
No link suggested at the end

Given the thread of negativity that permeates the Encarta article on Hinduism, it comes as no surprise when, in the end, it suggests the topic of ‘religious violence’ as additional reading.        

Analysis of Cause

We have established a significant difference in the treatment of Hinduism versus other religions, notably Christianity and Islam. In this section, we look at probable causes for the difference in treatment.

Selection of Authors

Encarta provides the following names and biographical information for the authors of the three Encarta articles in question:

• Christianity. Prof. Jaroslav Pelikan, B.D., Ph.D. Sterling Professor Emeritus of History, Yale University. Author of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine,
Historical Theology, and other books.

• Islam. Ahmad S Dallal, B.E., M.A., Ph.D. Associate Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Yale University. Author of An Islamic Response to Greek Astronomy: Kitab Ta’dil Hay’at al-
Aflak of Sadr al-Shari’a.

• Hinduism. Doniger, Wendy, M.A., Ph.D., D.Phil. Mircea Eliade Professor of History of Religions and Indian Studies, University of Chicago. Author of The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, Siva: the Erotic Ascetic, and Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities.

Emic or Etic?

The first observation we make is that scholars who profess those faiths have written the articles on Christianity and Islam; this is not the case with Hinduism. While the topic of emic (insider) and etic (outsider) study is often debated within academia, we would expect Encarta to choose uniformly either the emic or etic view of the major religions. In the Encarta article on Christianity, Prof. Jaroslav Pelikan strongly defends the emic viewpoint:

Like any system of belief and values—be it Platonism, Marxism, Freudianism, or democracy—Christianity is in many ways comprehensible only ‘from the inside’, to those who share the beliefs and strive to live by the values; and a description that would ignore
these ‘inside’ aspects of it would not be historically faithful. To a degree that those on the inside often fail to recognize, however, such a system of beliefs and values can also be described in a way that makes sense as well to an interested observer who does not, or even cannot, share their outlook.

The same logic, apparently, does not apply to Eastern religions. In general, though not always, we would expect the ‘emic’ view to be more sympathetic than the ‘etic’ view, particularly when the ‘emic’ author is a practising member of their faith.

Areas of interest of the authors

While the orientation of study of Prof. Pelikan and Dallal is towards the philosophical, scientific and theological aspects of the religions they write about, Prof. Doniger’s orientation is more anthropological—studying rituals and myths rather than philosophy and theology. Even within that field, Prof. Doniger’s dominant area of interest, going by the books she has authored, is in the exotic and erotic aspects of these rituals and myths. Thus the study of Prof. Pelikan and Dallal is a living, practising view of the religion, including theological, metaphysical and scientific issues that would positively engage contemporary audiences; Prof. Doniger’s appears to be an archeological dig, turning over quaint specimens that strike her fancy for examination. While this is certainly a valid field for study, it is clear that it leads to very different viewpoints
and results in the articles.

Acceptability of the authors in the represented community

The third aspect of authorship is the broad acceptability of the author in the religious community they purport to represent. In general, it is more likely for emic authors to be acceptable, though not universally so. Research on the web shows that while Profs. Pelikan and Dallal are not regarded as controversial, Prof. Doniger has come in for considerable criticism for her lopsided portrayal, and unsubtle understanding of Hinduism. While Hindus, in general, are known for their tolerance of criticism (which is probably why the Encarta article has survived, without protest, for several years), we wonder why Encarta, as a mainstream encyclopedia, would deliberately choose to continue with authors that are highly controversial within the communities they write about.

Deliberate Prejudice or Error?

While there is some evidence of prejudice on the part of Encarta’s author on Hinduism, it is not clear whether prejudice also exists in Encarta as well. Certainly, as the ultimate editorial authority, Encarta cannot evade responsibility for the situation, at the very least in the
selection of authors and editorial oversight over prejudiced treatment in a sensitive topic like religion. However, Encarta may well have, knowingly or unknowingly participated in an environment of bias.

An Eastern graduate student of Hinduism at a US university suggests a broader prejudice:
“. . . in American academia it is politically incorrect to treat Hinduism in a positive light and it is taboo to deal negatively with Islam”.

Certainly, the comparison of the articles in Encarta would validate this thesis. However, more study of this topic is clearly required.

Effects

We have not studied the effects of such negative portrayals of Hinduism on Hindu children growing up in America. We can speculate that derogatory mainstream portrayals of Hinduism, quite different from what they have seen or experienced first hand, would at the very least be confusing, and ultimately damaging to the self-esteem of such children. In the author’s personal experience, many Hindus are reluctant to identify themselves as such publicly, even when they are practicing Hindus—we conjecture that this may result from unconsciously accepting the negative portrayals of their religion. Such articles in ‘Encarta’ also get used by various religious fundamentalists and hate groups to label Hinduism a ‘cult’ —the Encarta article serves as a good ‘objective’ reference to make their point. Inaccurate, negative mainstream portrayals of a religion can ultimately only prove harmful to the community. Clearly much more work is needed to study the exact effects and consequences of such portrayals.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In this article, we compare the treatment of different religions in Encarta. We find that there are significant differences in the treatment of Hinduism vs. the treatment of Islam or Christianity in both, the selection of content and the attitude displayed in the writing—resulting in a distinctly negative portrayal of Hinduism vs. the other religions. We conjecture that the reason for this difference is related largely to the differences in choice in the selection of authors—whether they are emic or etic, and their area of interest or specialization in the religion they study. We also find that Prof. Doniger, the author of the Encarta article on Hinduism is controversial within the Hindu community.

While we believe that Prof. Doniger is certainly free to pursue her specific areas of interest and scholarship in Hinduism, we do not believe that her article represents the mainstream of Hindu thought in both the selection of content and its interpretation, which would be appropriate for a widely read source such as Encarta.

Given that Prof. Doniger’s specific interests and attitudes strongly influence the article, it would be insufficient to simply remove a few of the most glaring examples of negativism, while leaving the rest of the article unchanged. We recommend instead that an article written by someone ‘emic’ to the community, who can represent Hinduism in a positive, mainstream viewpoint, promptly replace the article on Hinduism in Encarta.

Epilogue

As a result of the reasoned arguments above, and community activism spurred on by the publication of this article, Microsoft Corporation decided to change the article on Hinduism in Encarta. This change is reflected in its 2004 edition. The larger problem of prejudice in Hinduism studies in academia remains unchanged.

Read chapter 16 part 2 from page 180 to 189

Pdf of the book is available for free download here.


Go to Chapter 17

Prejudice in Hinduism studies: The case of Microsoft Encarta - chapter 16 part 1

Go to Chapter 15

Pdf of the book is available for free download here.

The scholarship of certain sections of the academic community studying Hinduism has been controversial in the Indian community. In this article we try to examine whether there is truth to this controversy, and whether such academics influence the mainstream portrayal of ‘Hinduism’ in standard sources. We use the Microsoft® Corporation’s Encarta® Encyclopedia as the reference for this study.

Introduction

In this article we discuss the differences, in both approach and result, of Encarta’s articles on Hinduism in comparison with the articles on some of the other major world religions in Encarta. Encarta Encyclopedia is published by the Microsoft Corporation, which claims that it is the
“Best-selling encyclopedia brand”. Encarta is widely used as a reference source in American schools. In particular, because of its widespread use among children, we would expect Encarta’s coverage of religions to be even-handed, sensitive and unprejudiced.

In particular, we contrast Encarta’s treatment of Hinduism, with the two other major religions—Islam and Christianity. On occasion, we also refer to the treatment of other religions like Judaism and Buddhism. The purpose of this article is not to make value judgments or a comparative study of the religions themselves. In studying such vast and complex phenomena as the major religions, one can always find conflicting or questionable issues, just as one can find highly elevating truths. What aspects of the religion get highlighted is a matter of editorial choice. Our interest is not in comparing the religions per se, but in understanding the differences in editorial choice—both in the selection of content as well as style in the scholarly treatment of these
religions in Encarta.

The Contents Page

Our study begins with the main contents page for each of the religions. In some cases, the contents page contains, in quotes, a single highlighted statement about the religion. In the 2002 version of Encarta, these quotes are present for Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, and not for Christianity and Islam.

• Judaism: “The God of creation entered into a special relationship with the Jewish people at Sinai”.
• Buddhism: “Karma consists of a person’s acts and their ethical consequence”.
• Hinduism: “Rama and Krishna are said to be avatars of Vishnu though they were originally human heroes”.

We note that the one statement chosen to describe Hinduism repudiates Hindu belief, while the statements for the other two religions reflect a balanced, positive, or neutral stance. Notice also the use of ‘said to be’ in Hinduism while the statement on Judaism is presented in the editorial voice as a presentation of fact. To understand this representation, let us draw up a hypothetical quote on Christianity to parallel the quote on Hinduism.

• Christianity: Jesus Christ is said to be the ‘Son of God’ though he was just a human.

Irrespective of belief in the truth or falsity of this statement, or the parallel one in the case of Hinduism, when such a statement is the highlight of the commentary on a religion, it reflects a certain attitude about how the subject is approached.

Fundamental Principles

In the article on Hinduism, we find that the ‘Fundamental Principles’ are divided into four sections—‘Texts’, ‘Philosophy’, ‘Gods’ and ‘Worship and Ritual’. We find the sequencing of ideas within this section fairly haphazard—generally moving to specifics without laying out the general—giving the impression of a somewhat incoherent system.

Hinduism:
The canon of Hinduism is basically defined by what people do rather than what they think. Consequently, far more uniformity of behavior than of belief is found among Hindus, although very few practices or beliefs are shared by all. A few usages are observed by almost all Hindus: reverence for Brahmans and cows; abstention from meat (especially beef); and marriage within the caste (jati), in the hope of producing male heirs. By writing the above, the author takes the richness and diversity of Hindu thought and tries to approach it from the point of view of an orthodox church defining a single ‘canon’. Failing to find the ‘canon’ or articulate the underlying worldview of a system that allows many paths to flourish within it, the author quickly gives in to start listing mainly social practices. Let us see how the same issue is treated in Christianity.

Christianity:
Any phenomenon as complex and as vital as Christianity is easier to describe historically than to define logically, but such a description does yield some insights into its continuing elements and essential characteristics.

In the description of Christianity, Encarta approaches it from a point of view of humility—the problem being of the expository limitations of the author. No such humility is visible in the description of Hinduism, where the author quickly reduces any notion of complexity to an anthropological viewpoint.

Dealing with ‘Contradictions’

Let us see how the articles deal with supposed contradictions.

Hinduism:
Although Hindus believe and do many apparently contradictory things—contradictory not merely from one Hindu to the next, but also within the daily religious life of a single Hindu—each individual perceives an orderly pattern that gives form and meaning to his or her own life.

The article on Hinduism is very clear that there are contradictions, and highlights this aspect. The articles on Christianity and Islam are either unable to find any contradictions, or don’t find them the most significant aspect of the religion to cover. (For more on how contradictions are covered in Christianity and Islam, please read page 172, chapter 16)

The key to understanding both the diversity as well as the unity of Hinduism is neither in the search for a ‘canon’ (a strongly Christian worldview), nor in the anthropology of particular practices. It is in recognizing that the philosophical foundations of Hinduism have celebrated diversity of path and individuality (which itself is a distinctive feature), while at the same time encouraging theological debates to further understanding.

In the articles on Christianity and Islam the problem, if any, is usually depicted as that of the author’s inability to adequately describe complexity rather than one of internal contradictions within the religions. The author of the section on Hinduism apparently faces very little difficulty—she carries on with an anthropological description of practices ‘from above’—sure that any contradiction that is found is inherently in the religion itself, and not in any lack of understanding or expository ability.

Peaceful ‘Jihad’ and Violent ‘Ahimsa’

A further study about the difference in approach and attitude in the articles on religion can be found in the description of subtle concepts. We take two—jihad and ahimsa, in particular, both of which may be somewhat familiar to the lay reader.

Islam:
Many polemical descriptions of Islam have focused critically on the Islamic concept of jihad. Jihad, considered the sixth pillar of Islam by some Muslims, has been understood to mean holy war in these descriptions. However, the word in Arabic means ‘to struggle’ or ‘to exhaust one’s effort,’ in order to please God. Within the faith of Islam, this effort can be individual or collective, and it can apply to leading a virtuous life; helping other Muslims through charity, education, or other means; preaching Islam; and fighting to defend Muslims. Western media of the 20th century continue to focus on the militant interpretations of the concept of jihad, whereas most Muslims do not.

Hinduism:
The most important tenet of sanatana dharma for all Hindus is ahimsa, the absence of a desire to injure, which is used to justify vegetarianism (although it does not preclude physical violence
toward animals or humans, or blood sacrifices in temples). [Emphasis added]

In both cases, the authors treat subtle subjects in the respective religions. In the article on Islam, the author presents a sympathetic view of Jihad, and attempts to favorably influence Western perceptions. In the article on Hinduism the author adds decidedly unfavorable editorial asides seeking to ‘correct’ possibly favorable perceptions by introducing ‘contradictions’. The tone of the article again is of a higher entity looking down on lowly customs and illogical ‘native’ interpretations as in, ‘ahimsa . . . is used to justify’. This is an illustration of the very different viewpoint (dare we say ‘agenda’) from which the article on Hinduism is written. While the articles on Islam and Christianity attempt to uplift the reader to a refined understanding of those religions, the article on Hinduism attempts to denigrate instead. (For more on how Christianity and Islam would be explained if one went by the logic applied to Hinduism, please read page 174, chapter 16)

This is, surprisingly, not the only example of the technique of negative editorial asides in the article on Hinduism. Thus we see:

Hinduism:
Svadharma comprises the beliefs that each person is born to perform a specific job, marry a specific person, eat certain food, and beget children to do likewise and that it is better to fulfill one’s own dharma than that of anyone else (even if one’s own is low or reprehensible, such as that of the Harijan caste, the Untouchables, whose mere presence was once considered polluting to other castes). . .

A positive portrayal of ‘Svadharma’ (literally ‘Self-Dharma’) would introduce it as a high statement to an individual to discover and understand their purpose and calling with the cosmos in order to actualize it. Yet in the hands of the Encarta author it becomes an excuse for an aside on the historical practice of untouchability that is derided in contemporary mainstream Hinduism.

Philosophy or Anthropology?

The article on Hinduism appears quite disjointed in its understanding of philosophy, anthropology, cosmology, and mythology. The ‘Fundamental Principles’ leads with anthropology. As we see below the section on ‘Philosophy’ is mostly ‘mythology’ depicting ‘cosmology’—the very limited coverage of the well-developed schools of Hindu philosophy is relegated to a list in the section ‘Rise of Devotional Movements’, as a topic of History. Without setting out the philosophical principles, the underlying beliefs and practices of Hinduism, the coverage of ‘Gods’ and ‘Rituals’ appears particularly bizarre. Let us see how the section on ‘Philosophy’ begins.

Hinduism:
Incorporated in this rich literature is a complex cosmology. Hindus believe that the universe is a great, enclosed sphere, a cosmic egg, within which are numerous concentric heavens, hells, oceans, and continents, with India at the center. They believe that time is both degenerative—going from the golden age, or Krita Yuga, through two intermediate periods of decreasing goodness, to the present age, or Kali Yuga—and cyclic: At the end of each Kali Yuga, the universe is destroyed by fire and flood, and a new golden age begins.

Firstly, this is not philosophy, but as the author points out, cosmology. Secondly, as a description of Hindu cosmology, it is fairly inadequate and reductive. It fails to point that there are multiple
creation myths in Hindu texts. Also, as far as Hindu cosmology goes, people like the notable astronomer and author, Prof. Carl Sagan, have pointed that the calculations of the age of the universe based on this cosmology works out to be fairly close to our current scientific estimates—and “(Hinduism) is the only ancient religious tradition on the Earth which talks about the right time-scale”. Mentioning any of this, would, of course be quite contrary to the tone of the article. Rather than presenting the creation myth as a story and presenting the hidden elements of scientific truth, the article gives a reductive description, preceded by the phrase ‘Hindus believe’. (For more on how the Biblical creation myth is handled, please read page 176, chapter 16)

Let us see how one would present a section on Christian ‘Philosophy’ with the same approach as in the case of Hinduism.

Christianity:
Christians believe that all humans descend from one man and woman, called Adam and Eve and calculated the age of the world to be about 10,000 years. They believe also that the female Eve
was created from male Adam’s rib by God to be his wife (which is used to justify Christian attitudes towards women such as a historical denial of equal rights). Christians believe many contradictory things—for example, that an all-loving, forgiving God puts human beings in everlasting Hell, if they sin without repenting in this life. [Emphasis added]

This would be a similarly reductive account presenting ‘Christians’ as irrational, and failing to grasp the multiple levels of subtleties involved in understanding a religion. As we see in the description of Hinduism, this is precisely the approach of the Encarta article.

Despite a very rich philosophical tradition, the anthropological view dominates the article on Hinduism. Both the articles on Christianity and Islam, lead instead with the philosophical ideas. Apparently the broadness of Hindu philosophical ideas like, Vasudhaiva
Kutumbakam (the world is one family), and the ideas of religious pluralism (“many paths lead to God”) that continue to guide most Hindus, find no place in the Encarta article.

‘Gods’

Nowhere is the anthropological view more apparent than in the treatment of ‘Gods’. Firstly, an inadequate attempt is made to put the idea of ‘gods’ in proper perspective for a Western reader. The word ‘deva’ in Sanskrit, is less akin to the ‘God’ of Christianity, but more so to ‘angel’ (a power higher than man but lesser than ‘God’). Secondly, the concepts that ‘God’ is ‘unknowable’ and that different deities are thus representations of different aspects (nama-rupa) of ‘God’, is glossed over. The Encarta article also completely misses the concept of the Hindu trinity—that any Hindu child could recite—a key idea in the presentation of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as creator, preserver and dissolver, and their female counterparts as three aspects of the One God. That the male and the female energies coexist in Indian thought and the idea of God as both male and female (at the same time being beyond gender) is also missed. Having skipped all the structure, the topic of ‘Gods’ is presented as a confusing ‘curio-shop’ of unrelated deities and sects, complete with sensational descriptions of blood and gore.

Hinduism:
Shiva embodies the apparently contradictory aspects of a god of ascetics and a god of the phallus. He is the deity of renouncers, particularly of the many Shaiva sects that imitate him: Kapalikas, who carry skulls to reenact the myth in which Shiva beheaded his father, the incestuous Brahma, and was condemned to carry the skull until he found release in Benares; Pashupatas, worshippers of Shiva Pashupati, ‘Lord of Beasts’; and Aghoris, ‘to whom nothing is horrible’, yogis who eat ordure or flesh in order to demonstrate their complete indifference to pleasure or pain. Shiva is also the deity whose phallus (linga) is the central shrine of all Shaiva temples and the personal shrine of all Shaiva householders; his priapism is said to have resulted in his castration and the subsequent worship of his severed member.

While ‘phallus’ is just one interpretation of ‘linga’ there are many others as well, notably ‘symbol’ for the divine ([as in] Lingyate anena iti lingam). Apparently the author, whose interests appear to have a limited focus, continues to find contradictions from that single point of view—missing both other common interpretations as well as the underlying symbolisms. A disproportionate interest in the dimension of esoteric ‘sects’, ‘phallus’, ‘skulls’, ‘flesh’ and ‘ordure’ dominates the article and we find that practices and aspects far more prevalent and relevant to contemporary times—like Yoga or Chakras, meditation or mantras, breath and Pranayama are practically absent in the article. (For more on depiction of Durga/Kali in the Encarta article, please read page 178 and 179, chapter 16)

As the section on ‘Indian Philosophy’ in Encarta states:

‘Most of the poems of the Veda are religious and tend to be about the activities of various gods. Yet some Vedic hymns and poems address philosophic themes . . . such as the henotheism that is key to much Hindu theology. Henotheism is the idea that one God takes many different forms, and that although individuals may worship several different gods and goddesses, they really revere but one Supreme Being.’ [Emphasis added]

Has the Encarta article on Hinduism lost all keys? While there is a passing mention of this concept in Encarta, it is, characteristically, watered down from the clearer statement above.

Hinduism:
In this way Hindus have been able to reconcile their Vedantic monism (see Vedanta) with their Vedic polytheism: All the individual Hindu gods (who are said to be saguna,‘with attributes’) are
subsumed under the godhead (nirguna,‘without attributes’), from which they all emanate. [Emphasis added]

Finally, let us see how the article describes Rama and Krishna, considered as incarnations of God (as Vishnu).
           
Hinduism:
Most popular by far are Rama (hero of the Ramayana) and Krishna (hero of the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata-Purana), both of whom are said to be avatars of Vishnu, although they were
originally human heroes. [Emphasis added]

The article appears to speak with the certainty of divine knowledge!

Let us see how a similar issue, the divinity of Jesus is treated in the article on Christianity:

Christianity:
The ultimate mystery of the universe, called by many different names in various religions, was called ‘Father’ in the sayings of Jesus, and Christians therefore call Jesus himself ‘Son of God.’ At the very least, there was in his language and life an intimacy with God and an immediacy of access to God, as well as the promise that, through all that Christ was and did, his followers might share in the life of the Father in heaven and might themselves become children of God.

We note both the subtlety of thought and the sensitivity of expression in description, versus the heavy-handed certainty by which the article on Hinduism speaks, of happenings and events further back in time than the historical Jesus. Is this certainty born out of knowledge of fact, or simply a disregard for the corresponding religious sentiment?

Read chapter 16 part 1 from page 169 to 180

Pdf of the book is available for free download here.