Digestion versus Inclusivism

This is one more in our series of blogs on digestion - what it is, and what it isn't. Here, we have a question from a western scholar who has rejected proselytization, and wants to know:
- the difference and similarity between 'inclusivism' and digestion. 
- and haven't some schools of thought in dharma always digested some other schools to yield what is today called Hinduism?

The responses and discussions are quite important. For example, it's pretty stunning that attempts to discredit Vivekananda, and brand Hinduism as some colonial construct, have continued since the 1890s - when Vivekananda enlightened the west, after which the holes in history-centric Christianity were permanently exposed. For a more complete answer to such attempts we will have to await Rajiv's new book 'Indra's Net: Defending India's philosophical unity'.

November 2013

Karl asks:
QUESTION 1:
"...categories/typologies used in interfaith forums to classify forms of dialogues and attitudes toward the "other"...:  exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism.
...
Do you see any similarities or differences between "inclusivism" and "digestion"? In what ways?"

Rajiv comment: 
"This is a good question.

I do not consider the standard academic classification of inter-religious postures into the three (exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism) to be adequate. I am aware that this classification is normative in the classroom. First of all, these are not mutually exclusive of one another because often a given person's attitude is a muddled combination of more than one of them. He might be exclusive on certain points and inclusive in others, for instance.

But more importantly and to the point of your question, Digestion is an outcome that can result from many starting postures including these three postures. An exclusivist posture like Protestant Nicene Creed based denomination explicitly rejects Hinduism and yet appropriates yoga into Christian Yoga. They do so by distorting those aspects of yoga that would not be digestible. So exclusivism can also lead to partial digestion. Similarly, Inclusivism and Pluralism are each prone to culminate as Digestion of Hinduism. My point is that the 3-way classification does not go deep enough as these three are surface positions where the encounter starts but does not end.

SPECIFICALLY, INCLUSIVISM IS NOT AN END STATE BUT AN INTERIM STATE. IT IS AN UNSTABLE STATE OF TRANSITION. The Christian spouse of a Hindu finds inclusivism convenient, and family/friends on both sides can get a period of peace because it can seem that there is no problem. But in fact they have just set aside the hard issues of differences rather than deal with them. So later on, I find in most such cases, problems surface. They would be better off extensively discussing differences up front, and reaching some sort of "deal" consciously rather than pretending there is no issues because they have slogans to chant from both sides."

QUESTION 2:
"Would you agree that what you define as "Hinduism" has also been, and will maybe always be, a locus of digestion of its own? Would you agree that "digestion", as you define it, has taken place within the work of various and great Indian thinkers without them caring much about giving proper acknowledgement to their sources, even sometimes completely modifying the nature of the material they incorporated? (For example, one could try to prove this point by showing how some Buddhist notions were absorbed and reformulated in Vedantic terms, without acknowledgement, even under the cover as one might say. ...) Or would you think that this is impossible?

If it did happen, what do you make of this phenomenon in regard to your own quest of identifying "digestion" in other traditions?"

Rajiv comment: "Yes, there is continual intra-dharma digestion-like process going on, BUT with one critical difference: The source does not get destroyed as in the case of digestion by Abrahamic religions due to their exclusivity claims, and their mandate to take over "100% market share of souls" in the world. The doxographers in India (I refer to them extensively in my forthcoming book (Indra's Net)) were cross-appropriating from one another and kept the debates and purva paksha vibrant all the time. This is how innovation took place. This is why Hinduism has always been dynamic, continuous and yet connected with its sources (whether explicitly acknowledged or not).

Borrowing without harming the source is a good thing. It is how humanity advances by learning from each other. But in Digestion per se, there is no trace of the source left - as Pagans getting digested into Christianity.

There is another important distinction between cross-borrowing among dharma traditions and Abrahamic digestion of others: As BD shows

there are important common tenets across most dharma systems and hence when they borrow the foundation is robust enough for this to happen with mutual respect.  

In history centric religions, the digestion must remove every trace of whatever disagrees with this absolutist and exclusivist historical grand narrative. Hence the latter is invariably destructive..."

Karl's followup:
"....I share your disappointment with the terminology (or typology) used in interfaith forums. ...

As for your views on digestion, if I understand your point, the problem lies in the power struggles generated by the Abrahamic faiths who always tried to impose their views and now try to absorb whatever is attractive in other systems. ... Coming from [], disillusionment with the Church and with other Christian missionaries is deep rooted.

...I am doing my [] research on Indian doxography. .."


Rajiv comment: The best evidence that Indian doxography did not lead to digestion (in the sense of digestion by the west) is that the systems incorporated or borrowed from by a given doxogrpher have continued to survive independently and separately as themselves, in most cases. For example, many Vedantins assimilated ideas from Samkhya but Samkhya flourishes as its own system. Similarly, Gaudapada got Madhyamika Buddhism ideas but nobody has destroyed Buddhism in the process. In other words, cross-learning was not destructive as it was in the case of history centric religions. I am trying to put your attention back on to history centrism."


Kundan adds:

".... your paper [] .... it is quite clear that it is inclusivism that bothers you...inclusivism has bothered the likes of Hacker and Halbfass and numerous other authors who are invested in a social constructivist approach of showing that Hinduism is colonial construct.

The reason why it bothers people who are opposed to inclusivism is the philosophy of Vedanta, which basically brings into its fold anything and everything which is in the universe and beyond—including the so called negative or demoniac forces.

Interpreted from the fundamentalist point of view, the nondual Vedantic philosophy makes the dualistic worldview of Nicene Creed Christianity a subset. This subordinated status is not acceptable to the Nicene Creed because of which the proponents of Vedanta have been under constant line of fire, including an attempt on the life of Swami Vivekananda (please see “On Himself” by him) who is considered to be the chief protagonist of the Vedantic thought in the west. After the fundamentalist Christians were not successful in killing him, they bandied to deconstruct and delegitimize him in western academia, mostly by spreading canards. In every era new ways were devised to do so—the latest is the philosophy of social constructivism under which people like Halbfass, Richard Kind, Brian Pennington, Andrew Nicholson, etc fall. Paul Hacker is actually the father of them all in the modern times. However this scholarship can be traced to the likes of James Mill.

...You have actually taken the battle of de-legitimizing the inclusivism of Vedanta even further—you have taken it to the pre-colonial times. ...you have taken the works of Sadananda and Jitatmananda, fifteenth and sixteenth century Vedantins, to show how inclusivism is based on a fraud (you give the name doxography). So basically, you and your ilk will go to everywhere in Indian thought where an attempt is made to bring existence, universe, cosmos, under the canopy of Oneness, because this threatens the exclusivism and the exclusivity of the Nicene Creed.

Now coming to your questions, if there is a difference between inclusivism and digestion. Rajiv ji has answered how the inclusivism of Nicene Creed becomes problematic when it engages with dharma traditions. Let me answer the question from the Vedantic perspective:

From the Vedantic perspective inclusivism is not digestion. Why? When Vedanta came to the West, it did not promote a singular and homogenous idea. When it spoke about Oneness, it spoke about diversity as well. It created a perfect harmony between Oneness and diversity. It spoke about its own truth but it did not invalidate the truths of Christianity. It did not inculturate to take over Christianity and push Jesus from the pantheon of the divine beings. .. It did not wean away Christians from Christianity but made an effort to make them better Christians—yes, in that wake, it did not dwell on the differences because of which we have “Being Different” now. Vedanta, explicitly and implicitly, did not harm Christianity. It did not go on a conversion drive.."

Let me take the following question (#2)

First and foremost, the thesis of this question itself is flawed. This is again based on the “construction of Hinduism” theme. If my understanding is correct, this will be refuted in Rajiv ji’s upcoming book. In the meantime, if at all you want to change your views, I am sending you a paper titled “Swami Vivekananda in Western Academia.” You can see for yourself the truth which makes you formulate your question in the above manner."

Manish adds a game-theory based thought

"..

// For example, many Vedantins assimilated ideas from Samkhya but Samkhya flourishes as its own system. Similarly, Gaudapada got Madhyamika Buddhism ideas but nobody has destroyed Buddhism in the process.// --- This is a quote from RM (below mailchain)

-- this sounds good and noble...but it has come at a great cost...since so many competing schools of thought are allowed to co-exist, there is no central theme, or a unified civilisational weltanschaaung (''UCW"), in our civilisation that binds people together...even how our people assess threats from enemies is not a uniform process, so our enemies have always found it easy to divide, make inroads and defeat us...

Rajiv comment: The example in the following sentences is a counter productive diversion away from the point that has already been expressed well above .




Manish provides a couple of options:

.... Option A: Take a misplaced pride in notions of nobility even if it means you are never able to forge your own UCW, and therefore are left vulnerable -- even predisposed --- to being decimated by other not-so-noble civilisations who have forged a UCW of their own.

Option B: Be pragmatic, dump all notions of nobility and recognise the stark reality that the civilisation that invariably wins is the one with a UCW (not necessarily the more noble one), which will conquer you and then force its unified civilisational weltanschaaung down your throat.

Game theory suggests that you are better off with (B). In other words, if you don't develop your own UCW, you will end up being subservient to an alien UCW. In either case, you have to have a UCW. So, why not one which is your own UCW?

Rajiv comment: The flaw with the above is seeing the philosophical exchanges among dharmic worldviews as a matter of "nobility" (whatever that might mean). The discussants in India saw their enterprise as a quest for truth, not a political quest.

Seeing in dharma terms, the deficiency being pointed out concerns kshatriyata in the kurukshatra of discourse. My new book (Indra's Net) has a long chapter in the end that gives my solution to this dilemma: how to remain true to our quest and at the same time not be weak and vulnerable to infiltrations/digestions. The problem I address is that we must remain open and yet pre-empt these attacks. Stay tuned..." 

Karl responds to Kudan:
"...I am not bothered by "inclusivism", not even by "exclusivism" or "pluralism". I am more prone to think like Mr. Malhotra on the issue, meaning that I believe that the categories are somehow superficial, at most that they are mental attitudes appearing in some circumstances and not in others..."
 
....you wrongly label my intentions and my work by putting it into some boxes pre-existing in your own worldview. Unfortunately, it does not capture the reality and appears to be a good example of "adhyâropa" (अध्यारोप)...

I have nothing to do with Christianity or any Abrahamic faiths .. as a matter of practice (sâdhana - साधन) I am guided by the Karma Kagyü Lineage of Tibetan Buddhism.
...my view (darshana - दर्शन) can hardly be defined by a single word, or concept, or any substantiation like an "ism". It is certainly not a "religion", not even a cultural phenomenon or some kind of a national identity. At best, it is nothing standing by and of its own.

I am in fact struggling to understand the worldview of those who find it relevant to reify their (relative) identity with such concepts as "ism" or"religion". Especially when these people claim to understand the such deep views as the one found in Vedânta for example. It appears to me as a really "relative" understanding indeed.

To continue, as a scholar, I reject the use of the word "religion", sometimes even of "philosophy". What we call "religion" today is in fact the end of "religion" as it have been understood and lived by most traditions in the past (see Wilfrid Cantwell Smith)." 

[to be continued ...]
 

 

RMF Summary: Week of January 9 - 15, 2013

January 9
My encounter with Brian Pennington at the recent AAR
Rajiv Malhotra: I am posting below my report from the recent American Academy of religion annual conference where my book BEING DIFFERENT was the subject of a special panel discussion. The account below deals with just one of the three panelists, Brian Pennington, the man who wrote the book, "Was Hinduism Invented?" The panelist I respect most is the one who offered the most serious counter position to BD based on evidence and arguments. That was Rambachan. Of course, I disagree with his argument that Swami Vivekananda violates Hindu tradition. But there was no smear, ad hominem or personal issues raised in his talk. ...The organizers of the panel did a great job promoting BD, as this kind of open discussion ultimately leads to better flow of arguments in both directions. The tragedy is that a scholar like Pennington failed to take BD's thesis seriously and, instead, focused on personal attacks against me. Please read the following account and judge for yourself.

Pennington spent his talk making an all-out personal attack against me. I was unqualified to be given this honor by academics, he stated. Calling me a Neo-Hindu and someone suspected in the academy of having links to Hindutva politics, he spewed several personal allegations ...  I was later informed that one man had used his laptop to tape it, and had later transcribed the audio...

Pennington started by caricaturing me. He branded “Rajiv Malhotra as the internet personality who spared eminent scholars no insult, or as the fire breathing self-proclaimed public intellectual who haunts academic meetings poised to dominate Q&A with angry challenges complete with data and dismissive rejections of their interpretations…”  He positioned Being Different as “his latest attempt to intervene in the academic of religions”, and went on to admit with great aplomb:

“I would confess to accepting this invitation to participate in this forum out of some curiosity … [in order to encounter] the globe-trotting nemesis of academics … [because nobody has challenged academic works] as vigorously and directly as Malhotra often has. This is after all a self-trained scholar who single handedly accomplished what no credentialed scholar of Hinduism has yet been able to accomplish - making RISA world famous. So we thank him for that.”

....

"Malhotra has previously likened the system of academic credentials to a caste system… [and] explicitly labeled the practices as a peer review cartel. … Malhotra … has further accused the academy of intellectual corruption and cronyism and demanded a free market in the depictions of Indic religious traditions in which activist groups scrutinize scholars work on both India and the West …employing their own knowledge of India and her intellectual traditions.”

.....

Next Pennington showed his own agenda, stating that the “ready identification of these two things – India the nation state and India the ancient civilization  ...Umm … To me the association is troubling,” because he was suspicious of “the political uses of such a work.” He went further as said:

“What I do see is a project that is imbued with the identification of India with the Sanskritic and Hindu tradition, an identification that really disallows the association of any individual or community that does not identify itself in these terms.” He was disturbed by what he saw as an attempt to “construct an authentic Hindu”.

In other words, at the heart of this anger is his problem with associating Indian civilization and India as a nation. This deep trouble was the focus of his influential book, Was Hinduism Invented? In that book the main culprit is Swami Vivekananda because he more than anyone else had “invented Hinduism”.

Pennington was upset that Islam is hardly mentioned in Being Different, even though the book makes clear up front that it deals specifically with a comparison between dharmic and Western civilizations, respectively, and explains why Islam needs its own separate comparisons with each of these two. As the typical White Man facing the burden to save Indians, Pennington was worried that,

“there is no doubt his work could be useful as a device to delegitimize the political subjectivity of the Christians and Muslims [along with other] marginalized and ignored communities in India.”

His final remark was to chide the organization that had invited me to the panel: “I remain somewhat puzzled about why the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies would honor this work with a serious discussion, when Christianity features as a fairly invisible presence in this work.” And he concluded with a patronizing gesture “I would hope that we could have a frank and respectful and collegial discussion about all those things.”

I wish he had addressed the main themes in the book. Not whatever else he wanted to superimpose on me and the book"

Sandeep responds:
"Someday in the future, as Indian universities improve in quality, lets hope India produces an army of well-funded (non-marxist) academics who understand Hinduism better, who have access to the latest facilities and are able to publish their books without any impediments.
... This debate will then shift to the "Indian academy of religion"

Rajiv's response: 
I have promoted this idea for 20 years. Easier said than done. Infinity Foundation held 3 major world conferences on religious studies in Delhi with opinion leaders across the political and ideological spectrum. Lots of passion, resolutions, etc. No action in the end...

For now I want to focus on producing new discourse that challenges old hegemonic discourse, and on debating my work with serious scholars, so as to take it further amongst readers who have the required level of commitment and background to follow the issues. " 

Narasimhan writes:
"From a perusal of Pennington's writings I find that he treats Islam with kid gloves and is almost as apologist. This quite contrasts with his fierce attempt to deconstruct Rajiv Malhotra. One should take it as a measure of the success of Being Different. " 
.
Surya briefly reviews Brian Pennington's book:
" ... BD demolishes the foundation on which his career was erected.

As readers patiently, and painfully, labor through his book "Was Hinduism Invented?", they will find that it is deeply wanting in coherence of thought and focus leading to the purported end of proving that Hinduism was but a fiction of 19th century Hindu activists.  

After promising to expose this fiction, Brian's book meanders through a sundry of unflattering Western accounts, articles or letters in (a couple of) domestic magazines in 19th century India, trying to sift for peculiar social practices and religious customs of Hindus. How do they all tie to his final purported end?  They do not.  That is the purposeless, laborious meandering through irreverent historical accounts while hopelessly conflating ideals with practices.  Is there a clincher?  Nope,  just the hope that the tired reader succumbs to his hypothesis that Hinduism is a fiction of 19th century Hindu activists.  Personally, I could not shake the feeling that Brian Pennington used the excuse of proving his hypothesis to unleash a vindictive narrative against Hinduism.  

It is truly reprehensible that Brian Pennington lobbies the "Indian nationalist" bomb to quash BD.  Can he show what the basis is for such a claim?  I did not quite count but felt that the word Christianity showed up more frequently than the word Hinduism in Brian Pennington's book that is supposedly about Hinduism. There is greater evidence to say that his motive is to establish supremacy of Christianity at all costs.

Now, here comes the book BD by Rajiv Malhotra that recognizes the folly of conflating ideals with practices.  It takes the world-views of Dharmic traditions and contrasts them with Abrahamic religions by walking the readers through a 4-dimensional space of (1) history-centrism, (2) integral unity vs. synthetic unity, (3) attitude towards complexity vs. rigid order, (4) non-translatable concepts (described in original Sanskrit works).

BD shows how Dharma traditions show their cohesiveness and commonness, an identity, that is established not by homogenizing them, but by separation of the group from Abrahamic religions.

... In so doing, BD shows why there is no need to homogenize dharma traditions in order to have a familial identity.  That is a true blow to the works of Western Universalists like Brian Pennington.  In fact, BD explains why Western Universalists can only see such cohesiveness as lacking in cohesion or coherence.  For the Western Universalist, if Hinduism is not a homogeneous jello then it has to be incoherent jumble.  The problem for Western Universalists is not just that they have not the right level of zoom.  They failed to get the right scenic view of the world of religions and traditions by stepping outside Western Universalism.  

So how should we on the forum read Brian Pennington's outbursts at the conference against BD and Rajiv Malhotra?  Considering that there was not a single argument against the contents of BD, it is an expression of sheer exasperation."

Carpentier comments:
"Pennington reflects the defensive-aggressive strategy in use by much of the globalized western-trained academic community. It claims to be objective, unbiased and universal and denies that quality to any other school of thought. An illustration of that way of thinking is the present "multi-cultural" (which in fact means a-cultural) mainly leftist notion of any national society in which no element should be given priority over others. For instance a European society (say France) should not be defined by its leading historical characteristics because that would be "discriminatory". ...For similar reasons the present government of Russia is under intense attack and condemnation in most of the West for being "Russian" and not a "multi-cultural" open society with a "global secular" free market identity. In fact it should be only a market because as Maggie Thatcher memorably said when she was in power: there is no such thing as society (and she was not a leftist but liberals and neo-mrxits agree on this)."

The thread below elicited many responses. 
January 9
How to be Dharmic?
Sudhir asks questions: 
I wanted to put this question up for discussion. I am encountering a strange antagonism from my relatives with regards to the idea of Dharma and how it is perceived within and outside the rashtra as defined by Bharat. This question arose from Bharat- India argument on the mainstream media.

The problem is such:

I am trying to life a dharmic lifestyle after being re-educated after reading BD and after following various bloggers who have a gift of writing well on thoughts which are Indic in origin. ... My wife and a few relatives find this too much and ridiculous. Perhaps it is. Perhaps its not. Trying to live the right way our forefathers expected a dharmic person would is my personal effort at trying to do my bit for dharma.

Do you experience this 'klesha' within your family and extended circle [?]

Another question is how to bring up children in the west who would look up to people like Swami Vivekananda as role models and idols?   .."


Rajiv's comment: 
This question ... is coming sincerely from the heart. It deserves serious responses from members...Issue is a common one: What to do if one's family/friends circle is
not aligned towards one's dharma and this creates tensions?

Sandeep responds
Dh"Practicing Dharma does not mean you must mimic ancestral rituals blindly.  It was this problem that Sri Aurobindo cited when he said people get stuck in "old forms". 

Some person several hundred years ago started "dainik sandhya" because he had some intuition that it might help him go inwards.  That doesn't mean you might also benefit from it.  You have to find what suits your personality.  The goal of Dharma is to go within and find your Atman.  You may be better off joining some contemporary Yoga school ...
...
Not every child is bound to become "Dharmic".  Some people are not cut out for it.  If you force the child into something they don't like, they may rebel against you later and turn atheists for the rest of their lives.  Take the case of Vikram Gandhi, who was immersed in religious practices of the Arya Samaj while growing up in New Jersey, but lost interest in it after growing up.  Now he has made a movie Kumare on fake Gurus.  (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIXNjDcOLWU&feature=player_embedded)

Therefore, one has to gauge the personality of the child to find what is the best path.  The child is more likely to be attracted to poetry, literature and dance rather than dry philosophy and discursive ethics. 
...

The best way to mould a child is to become a different person yourself.  If they sense a positive change in you, they will naturally come to you for guidance.  " 

Shambu suggests:
".. Practice kula-aachaar (as much as one may, no matter where you live) - at least daily snaanam, dyaanam, and vyaayaamam are must; details (if one desires) may be learned and taken up - they may be very involved yama-niyama-aasana-praaNaayaama- etc.
    Eat mita (limited) and hita (beneficial) food suited to your work - most of us don't fight wars and therefore saatvic food is all that we need - mita hita aahaaram. You become what you eat.
    Serve the needy without expecting any return (not even puNya) - starting from those near and dear - don't make a project of saving the penguins on the Antarctica and ignoring your own family. Do some neighborhood sevaa once a week at least - such as feeding the homeless right off your backyard...
    Donate (thinking that "this is not mine - na mama) to the deserved - daanam to those with paatrataa. Don't give to the devil (cf. figure out who is devil and who is not).
    Do weekly, paakshik, or maasik 24-hour upavaasam, such as on Fridays, Ekaadashi, etc. - don't eat or drink anything, but work as usual and reflect on all there is - jeeva-jagat -Ishwara connections. Being near That One Truth is upa vaasam. upavaasam is a great cleanser of the body and the mind as well. amaavaasyam ("Sun and moon living together"), eclipse times, sandhyaa times etc. are highly beneficial for being in upavaasam.
    Visit temples and be a part of some poojaa monthly, quarterly, or at least annually. Go on a teertha yaatraa annually - visit holy places and gather holy company. They all add to your dharmik living. Don't dismiss it as mere rituals - you won't know what you miss unless you do these for a few years and find out yourself. You will find great people and noble friends if you seek - satsangatve nissangatvam...
    Don't get into any fad or rigidity to the point of imposing your way on others - including work, play, sandhyaa, or poojaa. Balance life. Be vulnerable. "I am this or that, I am doing all this" etc. must not be in your head.
    Live first, then (only) teach - svaadhyaayam first followed by pravachanam - svaadhyaaya pravachanaabyaam na pramaditavyam. Our traditions place the guru who is aachaarya way up.
   ..."


Nagaraja says:
"...Guidelines recommended Sri Shambhu Shastryji are fairly pragmatic and can be put to practice even in our modern-day circumstances. However, I don't agree with Sri Sandeep who rejects Sandhya vandanam as useless today but upholds yoga
practice. I don't think such dichotomous generalizations would help. In my opinion, what you should practice should be decided by yourself and Sri Shambhu's post provides guidelines that help in making such choices. My suggestions centre around how to ease-in Dharmic practices (whatever you choose) into your daily life without much friction from family and relatives..." 

Siddharth shares:
"...As far as drawing children to dharmic way of life is concerned, if i were a child i would catch and appreciate anything that appeases me in my regular course of life, i will then try to look deeper and deeper and end up having developed a certain perspective. For example , while studying public administration i came across Maslow's hierarchy theory, studied it, what drew me towards the indian philosophy is when i came across the idea of 'PANCHKOSHA' in one of the discussions in this group. I loved it so much that i ended up studying several other aspects of indian philosophy and i am in a state of constant learning. One cant make a child do something, you will have to draw him in such a way that the child appreciates it on its own and develops an urge to delve into it." 

[several other interesting responses around Vahanas of Hindu Deities, Panchatantra stories (which are great!), etc. read the original thread. It may be worth your while].

January 10
Promoting RM's Books and Ideas On Swami Vivekananda's Anniversary

I am promoting RM's Books and Ideas On Swami Vivekananda's 150th Birthday Anniversary by distributing 10,000 copies of a pocket calender. I believe it is an effective way to generate awareness of RM's work. I hope to repeat this several times this year.

For thos interested in doing the same in your area...I am attaching a pdf and Correldraw files of the final version of the Pocket Calender.

The Correldraw file can be used by the printers. Please check with RM before you print or change it.

It is inexpensive to print. It cost me Rs 7500 for 10,000 copies. 

I can send samples to anyone interested in India. For those interested in printing more copies, Please contact.... [see egroup for contact information].

January  11
Subra posts:
The Samudra Manthana story in Hinduism appears to be a key metaphor to describe order & chaos in BD where the Amrit (nectar) that comes out of the churning the ocean represents 'order', and the accompanying poison, the 'chaos and disorder'. In multiple online forums, Shiva's drinking of the poison is equated to Christ's crucifixion to proactively save humanity from original sin. Some Hindus have equated Shiva's act as one of collective salvation from sin, feeding the myth of sameness. Reading Chapter 4 of BD again (I quote from the Amazon-Kindle copy), indicates that this interpretation is incorrect.

1. Firstly, BD notes:
"....The story of the Samudra-manthana is not intended to be taken literally.
Indeed, the ultimate uncertainty of knowing how the universe came about is given
eloquent expression in the famous 'Hymn of Creation' ..."

whereas History-Centric Christianity requires Crucifixion, resurrection & its implications of collective salvation to be literally and absolutely true, with no room for alternative explanations.

2. BD also rules out equivalence to a story in the 'book of revelation' where 'satanic disorder' has to be absolutely vanquished:
"...In one such story, Lord Shiva himself consumes the fierce, dark and bitter poison first churned up from the ocean. He does so in order to overcome it, leaving the nectar to others. But significantly, Shiva makes this choice both out of knowledge (of the poison's deadly effect) and love (for those who might suffer harm) – not out of any dark, destructive passion. Furthermore, he is able to transmute the poison not by ejecting it but by incorporating it in himself. . .. needless to say, this is but a hypothetical scenario; the good versus evil dualism of Judaism and Christianity is absolute."

3. The section below appears to give the interpretation of 'why Shiva drank the poison':
"... Disorder serves as a source of creativity by preventing order from becoming fossilized. The Lord is not only the creator of the universe (as Brahma) and the maintainer of its order (as Vishnu) but also the one who ultimately dissolves it
(as Shiva). The dissolution makes room for the next cycle of creation. At the spiritual level, Shiva, the Lord of Yoga, aptly assumes the appearance of chaos to facilitate the dissolution of bondage to the falsehoods in our minds – making
way for new creation..."


Rajiv's comment: 
I thank the person for the post blow. He points out a serious
example of digestion at work right under our nose, i.e. the attempt to digest Shiva into Christ. And many foolish Hindus are buying into such nonsense, imagining that this is helpful to us. What this digestion does is to incorporate Shiva as a subset within Christ, such that Jesus' history centrism remains
intact and all that we know about Shiva becomes part of Christ. Please oppose this ploy staunchly. This is why I wrote BD to make our people vigilant.

Surya responds:
"Following differences should be raised:
(1) Original sin affects only descendants of Adam. It has no bearing on the life as lived on Earth - only saving people from Hell in the after life. Shiva saved all life forms, in this life, on Earth.
...
(4) Original sin transferring to others is a violation of the doctrine of Karma. Original sin absolved by sacrificing Jesus is also a violation of the doctrine of Karma. One cannot bear the consequences of another's karma.
(5) Shiva is not Human. He prevailed by holding poison in his throat and not swallowing it. Jesus was sacrificed and he paid for original sin of other's with his own life. We are told that Jesus has not saved all humans even with his own death." 

Lok comments:

"You mentioned "The dissolution makes room for the next cycle of creation"
What is the next circle of creation?
Evolution is the progressive manifestation of the different powers and aspects of the Divine.
.... The progression is striking and unmistakable.

The above comment is written by Sri Aurobindo ..."


Chittaranjan responds:
"In Aurobindo, there is both a deep philosophy having its source in Sanathana Dharma as well as an element of the Nietzschean Overman that is not based on, nor is supported by, the Hindu tradition. In Hinduism, evolutionary progression
pertains to an individual that walks the path of dharma; it does not pertain to the collective whole....." 

January 11
A theater review
Arun posts:
Something to look at, and check:

It's not often that you go to the theater these days and find yourself excitedly questioning and rethinking your reactions. Self-examining art, after all, has become such a cozy genre in itself that it rarely startles.

But "Ganesh Versus the Third Reich," the remarkable production that opened this year's Under the Radar festival of experimental theater, never lets you settle into passive acceptance of anything it does. It's a vital, senses-sharpening
tonic for theatergoers who feel they've seen it all.

Even the title of the show — created by the 25-year-old Back to Back Theater of Geelong, Australia — inspires shivers of discomfort. Ganesh, the elephant-headed Indian deity, takes on Hitler's Germany? That sounds like a Hollywood head trip
that might once have been marketed to stoner college students, an audacious fantasy that traffics in wild jokes and political incorrectness...."


Vamsi responds:
"... To give you a bit of back ground, there was a huge outrage of the Hindu community in Melbourne,Victoria, Australia when this play was screened for the first time in 2011. After some pressure from political parties and Victorian Multicultural council, they invited some Hindu leaders to see the play and then give their opinion. Accordingly i was invited to see it and I was flabbergasted to see the level of ignorance and in sensitiveness about Hindu principles, Hindu deities and Hindu scriptures. Myself and other Hindu groups, submitted our strong reservation against the play, You could read more about it in this link of Forum For Hindu Awakening,  
1) 2)

                                        

After seeing the play, there were some strong objections that we raised against the play. The play directors went back on many promises with us, they deceivingly got a so called Hindu Guru (of western origin) in Melbourne,Victoria, Australia to endorse this play publicly and used his statement as a PR exercise against the protests of around 13 Hindu organizations, due to which the already split Hindu community in Victoria was further split and opinions divided. below are some of the objections, which we raised against the play."

January 11

Re: Swami Vivekananda becomes Masculine Nationalist
Sandeep shares a link:
Prema Nandakumar responds to Sanjay Srivastava in a Hindu op-ed:

He gave us back our dignity

Does one write deliberately as a woman or man when taking up pen and paper? I do not know. But right now, I am writing as an Indian woman. The Indian woman who has held up the torch of cultured living for millennia through self-sacrifice, incredible feats of physical and mental endurance and abiding compassion. I know that the pen is a sacred object; if used unthinkingly as Sanjay Srivastava has done (The Hindu, Op-Ed, “Taking the aggression out of masculinity,” January 3, 2013), it might do more harm than good to the position of women in India.

Two portraits have been constant companions in my longish life as a housewife and writer. They have both infused in me the needed strength to face life despite scores of disappointments, frustrations and tragedies. One is the figure of Bharat Mata, rider on the lion, as though telling me: are you a weakling? You are as strong as this land, endowed with hurrying streams and gleaming orchards. Never give up! I learnt the connection between nature and the Indian woman when I read Sita say in Kavisamrat Viswanatha Satyanarayana’s Sri Ramayana Kalpavrikshamu that she has no fear of rivers and forests. Is she not the child of Mother Earth?  ..."


January 12 (continuing thread from March 2012)
Holi Digestion

Digestion of Holi is happening at a rapid pace and it is now gone global. Please see this: http://TheColorRun.com/

The main "fun" aspect of Holi -throwing colors- got disconnected, secularized and now it has been digested.

In an earlier discussion on this topic of "Holi Digestion" (message 2343), it was about Americans participating in our celebration. In that context Rajivji had stated:

Rajiv comment: ... The issue at hand is not about digestion, but about potential distortion. Digestion would be if (as in the case of yoga) mainstream Americans were appropriating Holi into some kind of festival claimed to be their own - as they did with Halloween. But the examples cited do not apply to American digestion of Holi, rather they concerned Indians in USA morphing their own symbols and festivals - i.e. difference anxiety from below.

..."

 
January 13 
article by Tavleen Singh on the biases of Delhi's literati & chatter

Kaajal shares link. I also recommend her latest book Durbar published last month by...

January 13 (continuing discussion from December 25)
Christmas origins -- digested others
What better time to scrutinise Christianity's insatiable and insidious digestion of pre-Christian festivals to come up with Christmas (please see the...

Raj shares a link and comments: " I came across this comprehensive site which convincingly argues that many pre-existing pagan archetypes were digested to construct the Christ Myth: www.POCM.info  The key archetypal ideas were quite common, like powers and miracles attributed to various pre-christian deities, including virgin birth. So, it is entirely possible to digest these ideas to come up with the Christ myth. "... (unless the author Paul Hourihan is known to be genuinely Dharma-friednly)...." A genuinely dharma-friendly person, who understands dharmic concepts properly and knows the true history of Abrahamic religions, will not entertain haphazard, self-serving comparisons. If one understands the difference between Atman and Abrahamic ideas about soul, no further honest comparison is possible. A dharma-friendly person would explain how Atman & Soul are profoundly different. But this author uses the terms interchangeably. The author's website is full of familiar "sameness" talking-points and subtle western triumphalism that takes the form of a new kind of White (Wo)Man's Burden - of spreading Eastern Wisdom which was earlier controlled by Brahmin men. Westerners have used the same argument about yoga, ayurveda, Buddhism etc. Note what Anna Hourihan says:.." Krishna wrote the site and notes their response: "...Your web site says the ideas of Vedanta have been heard before, specially in Christianity. The idea that Vedanta reflects what is already in Christianity is laughable. Vedanta and Sanatana Dharma pre-date Christianity by thousands of years; why are you hinting the way you do? There is no need to say all religions are the same - in fact, they are not. This does not mean disrepsect to Christianity or other religions. There is a need to realize that Hinduism is different than other religions, and is a profound thought process which is much more complete and holistic than Christianity. There is  no history centricism in Hinduism which is a great feature, and an elegant way of explaining the concept of God to lay human beings. If you want to equate anything with Hinduism, please reflect exactly what Christianity is borrowing from Hinduism. I would love to see some honesty of purpose in these writings. Reply from Anna Hourihan: I appreciate you pointing out some information on our website that may not be correct. I'm not aware that anywhere on our website it says that Vedanta borrows from Christianity. In fact, as you state, the reverse is much more likely especially if Jesus was in India for the 12 years that are unaccounted for in his life. Would you please point out where on our website you saw this information?.... The point about all religions being the same, refers only to the underlying truths that are there in all the religions. How they are expressed are different according to the time, country and culture. Again if you can point out where you saw this I would very much appreciate it. ..."  Surya responds: "Well said. We should push people who use sameness argument to clarify what they mean by it: identicalness or similarity in certain aspects.  DO NOT let them equivocate. ... If two religions A and B are the same and A came first, then B is merely a restatement of A and hence unnecessary.  B is merely a duplicate. If anyone claims sameness, ask them why they would not go with the original and drop the duplicates. Even Hindus who bring up sameness should be asked this.  If they truly believe Christianity and Islam are the same as Hinduism, why do they not go tell folks of those religions to drop duplicates and go with the original Hinduism? ... You cannot have mutual respect just by focusing on what is common.  Mutual respect requires acknowledging differences openly and acknowledging that, while no more than one religion can be true, no one religion  can be shown to be true."

January 14 (continuing discussion)

Oh No! We ended up with Synthetic Unity! see link shared by Nitin.

Maria writes:
"Neale Donald Walsch wrote:
"How has it comes to pass that we have created an entire world that is so violent on so many levels?

... Walsch does not mention that this idea of onenessâ is there (only) in India's ancient religious tradition. It would be the right time for Hindus and especially their leaders to stress on this fact in a big way in India and abroad and bring it into mainstream. The Dalai Lama said at the Kumbh Mela in Haridwar, Already as a youth I was impressed by the richness of Indian thought. India has great potential to help the world. Will Hindus dare to say that dogmatic religions are the problem worldwide and Dharmic religions offer the solution?

Hindus also hesitate to mention that this belief (conviction) in unity has beneficial aspects on their society. They dont see that India is doing amazingly well in relation to other countries. I met recently several western tourists who are stunned by the incredible accommodation of others by Indians in crowded places or on the road everywhere. If Indians ever discover road rage, half of them would be dead in no time, an American said. And in case our liberal friends on this forum will react now that India is in no position to lead the way and start listing all the atrocities happening in India, please figure in the population density and imagine how US would be faring if they had 3700 million instead of 315,,,
...

In India it is at present not easy to get anything positive about Hinduism published. When I once wrote an article on the basics (fundamentals) of religions and naturally Hinduism looked best, Life Positive considered it too sensitive a subject.
...
Incredible India! Here you have living gods and you want to import dead ones only because Indian tradition is taboo for a certain influential section of society."

Manish writes:
"
...this is what Malcolm Muggeridge wrote about what the British did to India --

“As I dimly realised, a people can be laid waste culturally as well as physically; not their lands but their inner life, as it were, sewn with salt. This is what happened to India. An alien culture, itself exhausted, become trivial and shallow, was imposed upon them; when we went, we left behind railways, schools and universities, statues of Queen Victoria and other of our worthies, industries, an administration, a legal system; all that and much more, but set in a spiritual wasteland. We had drained the country of its true life and creativity, making of it a place of echoes and mimicry.”

Very very few of the 1200 million Indians have any idea what serious damage colonialism has done to them; on the contrary, we often come across Indians who still believe that British Raj was the best thing to have happened to India.

Cry, my beloved country!" 
Lok responds:
"There are elements in Hinduism which are eternal and imperishable and so cannot be digested. Sanatan Dharma cannot be digested. Those parts that can be digested are perishable and not eternal. Those parts are the forms not
the substance of Hinduism. The decline of India was caused by to much emphasis on the forms than on the substance.  Those things should be discarded like waste matter to liberate the substance."

Rajiv comment: 
...There are two errors in the post.

He assumes that true discourse cannot be digested into false discourse. If that were the case, discourse on integral unity would not be possible to digest into synthetic unity. The whole problem we face is that discourse on integral unity is being digested into synthetic unity, discourse on truth is being digested into falsity.

We have said this MANY times before: Digestion is always selective. it appropriates what fits and rejects what does not, and hence it distorts the integral unity (or truth) by breaking it into parts....

The deer is never taken whole and made into a part of the tiger. Such a statement as the above post lacks understanding of the terms like digestion that he uses.

Secondly, truth and discourse about truth are two different things. People's understanding of it gets destroyed, not the truth itself. When Krishna says that we must fight adharma that threatens dharma, it is not that dharma as a set of tenets could be destroyed. he means that society would no longer be dharmic. Similarly, we are discussing discourse here and not the truth itself. When we say a certain tenet gets digested, we imply that the consensus of peoples' beliefs and what they follow no longer respects that tenet.

The attitude that says "maybe all humans have discarded the truth but it is still the truth" allows one to can escape having to deal with the situation."

RMF Summary: Week of December 4 - 10, 2012

December 4 (continuing discussion from November 24)
Life of Pi - lessons for Hindus
Equal-equal Hindus might feel encouraged by the attention paid to that idea in Ang Lee's visually magnificent movie, "The Life Of Pi". A sampling of Christian...

Harsh argues:
"I agree with Mr. Ganesh. Why did PI convert to Christianity? it had nothing to do with the story or plot. Even my "secular" friends felt that PI converting to Christianity made no sense whatsoever. Infact if they could have explained the dharma philosophy nicely in the circumstances shown but it is seen from a Christian POV."

Carpentier responds:
"Actually he does not convert. As a child he wanted to be baptised but it was only a desire and then he went through other religious experiences like Ramakrishna Paramahansa. In the end he is shown having married the Bharata Natyam dancer he had loved as a teenager and having given his children Hindu names. His worldview is distinctly Indic, not "semitic" throughout the movie though it is inclusive, as all truly sadhakas are, in all times and places..." 

December 6 (continuing discussion from December 4)\
Hinduism: The ultimate anti-fragile
The above is an interesting and innovative use of BD's thesis. Clearly, the...

Vibhaa responds:
"Blog author posits that in Stage 2 (1857-1947), Hindu society joined hands with Muslim society. This position is arguable as Muslim leadership in India seems to have collaborated with the Christian West against the nativist Dharma. Syed Ahmed Khan, MA Jinnah are some major examples that apparently applied people of the book solidarity against "Non-Believers""

December 6 (continuing discussion from November 22)
Angana Chatterji hosted at Harvard by Michael Witzel
In Breaking India, Rajiv & Aravindan write about some US academics who produce literature with questionable funding that could aid in the disintegration of...

Bhattacharya notes:
"Only one week from the day this thread regarding Angana Chatterji began, a relevant development has taken place. According to recent news reports [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/gujarat-assembly-elections/US-\
lawmakers-urge-Hillary-Clinton-to-continue-denying-visa-to-Narendra-Modi/article\
show/17473016.cms], in a letter addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dated 29 November 2012, twenty-five U.S. lawmakers, including Congressmen Joe Pitts, Dan Burton, Trent Franks, and James Moran (all discussed in message #3835 in this thread) as well as others, have recommended that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi be denied a visa. In their letter, the lawmakers specifically mention Modi's alleged involvement in the 2002 Gujarat
riots. It is notable that 11 of the 13 U.S. Congressmen named as signatories to the letter in the news article referenced above are members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission [http://tlhrc.house.gov/members.asp], the very same
Congressional committee before which Angana Chatterji testified in March of 2012 [http://tlhrc.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1227 , click on Chatterji's name
and Transcript/Webcast in left margin for documents/testimony], as discussed in message #3835 in this thread. Another signatory to the November 2012 letter,
Congressman Frank Wolf, is co-Chairman of this committee. (A complete list of the twenty-five signatories and the full text of the letter were not found on the web)...." 

December 6 (New Thread)
AAR session on Being Different

Rohit posts:

"Comments of Sri Koenraad Elst on the AAR session on Being Different: The debate about Rajiv Malhotra's book Being Different was very instructive. At the end, Malhotra ably put his critics in their place, but first they had their say. I was appalled by the bad manners of Brian Pennington against the invited responder, Rajiv Malhotra: he wondered aloud, after a long diatribe which I guess was his privilege, why the AAR and organizer Francis Clooney s.j. had cared to pay any attention to Malhotra at all, let alone invite him. It was typical for these academics: they fight by exclusion, they shamelessly  exploit the fact that they are in and Rajiv is out, eventhough his book will prove more influential (and far more factual) than anything they will ever produce, or than the wrongly famous Orientalism by Edward Said..."

Rajeev responds:

"Rajiv comment: I very much appreciated Koenraad's participation from the audience. He pointed out that those like Pennigton who accused me of "essentializing" Hinduism were themselves essentializing the notion of "minorities". The panel failed to offer any response.

I agree that Edelman (like Rambachan) completely lacked creativity, originality or any imagination to look beyond the box of "standard works" on Hinduism by one "side" or another.

Regarding history-centrism: someone from the audience asked Edelman how the historicity of Krishna according to Vaishnavs resembled and how it differed from that of Jesus. He ought to have taken this opportunity to give some thoughtful remarks. But he look dumbfounded and muttered something like "I have not thought about this." Amazing that the man who was the Vaishnav expert on the panel had never bothered to think of this rather obvious question.

In my response to Edelman, I pointed out that his credentials as Vaishnav scholar (which he went on emphasizing) were based on his years of study at the feet of his guru Dr. Satya Narayan Das, who is arguably today's foremost prominent exponent of Sri Jiva Goswami's Achinta-bheda-abheda. (I happen to know this fact about Edelman's learning of Vaishnavism from Dr. Das.) Then I pointed out much to his embarrassment that: Dr. Das is a dear friend and supporter of my work; that he had read the entire manuscript of BD a year it got published and made numerous comments and suggested changes, that i had used his interpretation of Vedanta in Appendix A and not relied entirely upon Shankara; and that he had written a most wonderful endorsement of this book. This completely slid the rug from under the feet of this scholar.

I have finished reading Rambachan's PhD dissertation written in 1984 where his ideas come out clearly against Swami Vivekananda and others he thinks of as the culprit starting what he calls "Neo-Hinduism". I have also finished reading very thoroughly the complete writings of Hacker (a Christian missionary) on this matter along with related works by others. So I will first write a full purva paksha of this school of anti-Vivekananda...

Of course Penington's crass and very unscholarly conduct is most reprehensible and deserves to be address as such. There was no scholarly content in his paper that was relevant to BD - mostly generic attacks on the type of scholarship he presumes Hindus to produce. I doubt he read BD more than skimming through it and looking for things quickly to get his bearings.

Below is Dr. Das' endorsement of BD:

Reviewer: Dr. Satya Narayan Das, Founder of Jiva Institute of Vedic Studies, Vrindavan

Many Indian spiritual leaders, lacking a profound knowledge of their own culture, and feeling inferior to the West, try to respond to the Western challenge by showing how Indian and western religions are the same. They chant "sarva-dharma-sama-bhava" (all religions are equal) out of context, causing much confusion. In the midst of this morass arises the ”lotus of Rajiv” (the word rajiv means a lotus in Sanskrit) in the form of his book, Being Different. Rajiv Malhotra's work is a kind of yajna that reverses the gaze upon the West through the lens of Indian knowledge systems. This process is traditionally called purva paksha, and in Rajiv’s work it is given a new mission and a new importance.... 

... The dharmic traditions have been a target for digestion into the belly of Western culture. Being Different challenges the legitimacy of such attempts with profound logic and examples. Its analysis of Abrahamic religions shows how they are history-centric. This fixation drives them into claims of exclusiveness and gives them anxiety over cultural differences which they seek to resolve through appropriation, assimilation, conversion - all forms of digestion that obliterate whatever seems challenging.... 

... Being Different breaks new ground in that direction. The result is a highly original and sincere attempt to compare the basic paradigms of Indian and Western thought. This book will open the eyes of any fair-minded reader regardless of worldview. " 

Shashi adds:

"In his book Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, Elst strenuously points out that there is a dearth for good material on Hinduism that takes a position. In that context Elst was dealing with the issues in political arena. Better yet, this precisely what Rajiv has been doing in the academic arena (and other non-political forums), which as Rajiv has pointed out in past, will have the greatest impact.

In http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2012/12/impressions-from-aar-conference.html, Elst says “It was typical for these academics: they fight by exclusion, they shamelessly  exploit the fact that they are in and Rajiv is out …”.

This is an old trick: they only indulge in monologs. If they had ever entered into a constructive Indian style purva and uttar paksha based debate with Indian pundits, among other things – AIT would never be born and we would not have to clean their mess..."

December 7 (New Thread)

Appropriating Music -- Takadimi.net?
I ran into this website in course of my research on rhythms -- http://www.takadimi

.net I suspect that this is a u-turn/appropriation classic -- Read the FAQ...

December 7 (New Thread)
A martyr in making in south india
Ram posts: 
Christian catholic church is slowly initiating attempts to digest the tamilnadu , kerala functions of pongal (makar sankaranti) by attaching it with the supposed martyrdom of Devasahayam pillai. An article on the whole myth of Devayasahayam pillai being killed for his religion

Shanti notes:
"Thank God we Hindus follow the Lunar calendar! Otherwise the Church would have long ago found a 'Christian reason' for each of our other festivals too.  The Church is known to have done this across Europe to all pagan festivals:

... In fact there is a widely held theory that the celebration of Christmas on 25th December is not the actual birthdate of Jesus but selected by the Church to coincide with the pagan winter festival."

December 7 (New Thread)
Ravi posts:
Prof. Ashok Aklujkar (Dept of Asian Studies, Univ of British Columbia

‘Languages give people a sense of identity’ Ashok N Aklujkar is Professor Emeritus, Department of Asian Studies, at the University of British Columbia. He received his PhD degree in Sanskrit and Indian Studies from Harvard University and was the founder of the Canadian Association of Sanskrit and Related Studies. He has published groundbreaking research on the Sanskrit Linguistic Tradition and Poetics. Why is Sanskrit a dying language in India? Incorrect educational policies are primarily to be blamed because they are aimed at taking Sanskrit out of the mainstream. We should create more space for languages in general — regional as well as languages of historical importance such as Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit. Even Hindi is slowly being rooted out. This is because we emphasise on English way too much. Why do you think Sanskrit, in particular, should be focussed upon? For over 1,000-1,200 years, all Indian languages have drawn their sustenance from Sanskrit. Our vocabulary is based on Sanskrit. It cemented India when it was politically divided. Each individual needs a sense of identity, which is built through philosophy, religious teachings, ethics, and all of this is rooted in Sanskrit. This is why we need to promote it. What problems do you foresee if we do not focus on languages? If we do not pay enough attention to languages and humanities in general, our social problems are going to increase. Each language has a view of the world embedded in it and suggests different ways of solving social and scientific problems. So if we give English precedence, we are impoverishing the world of other points of view... What, according to you, is the future of the humanities stream? The policymakers as well as the public at large need to be educated. The people of India are restless because they are realising that their dharmic roots are being taken away and are being destroyed in the name of globalisation and westernisation. This will lead to a loss of truly creative people. ..." Rajiv responds: "I am glad to see the media give Ashok his due. In 2002 (exactly a decade ago) Infinity Foundation gave a grant to Harvard University for the purpose of appointing Ashok Aklujkar as full-time visiting professor. He taught courses there and did research. In the prior year, Infinity Foundation's visiting professor for Hinduism Studies at Harvard University had been Arvind Sharma. Both these are mentioned at our web site..."

 

This thread provides many links and information that brings us up to date with the latest debate. We plan to summarize this in a separate post.

December 7 (New Thread)
Critics Respond to Hindu Intellectual's Attempt at Being Different


Note: This error-filled article discussed in the next thread has been exposed for its lack of research by Sandeep Balakrishna here.
December 8 (New Thread)
The Case for Indian Islam by Neil Padukone
films2020 posts:
" ... Pragati is the publication of Takshashila Institution, a think-tank based in New..."
Arun responds:
"The Tamizh Alvars predate the arrival of Islam"

Manish notes:
"First thing first, I have been following Pragati for at least 3 years; it aspires to be nationalist but never rises beyond Nehruvian miasma. The quote below bears this out. This is the bane of all ''strategic'' thinking in India.

// The intermingling of Islam and Hinduism in the 12th century produced a profound evolution in Hinduism that remains salient today. //

-- there was no intermingling; Hinduism was mercilessly mauled. To term the rape of Hindustan as ''intermingling'' is the usual Nehruvian teachnique of lying while hiding behind pious platitudes, so as to avoind facing up to ugly realities. "

 December 8 (New Thread)
A plea for some help
Vish posts:
I wonder if some forum member, with accesses, could help me find a contact for Prof. (Mrs.) Bhaswati Sinha, who was (maybe still?) with the Department of Religious Studies in Punjabi University, Patiala.

I am coming here after doing my due, and in not getting anywhere.

Prof. Sinha, after a sustained labor of two decades published a very important treatise on Udayana-Acharya's work on the "Hindu Rational Enquiry into the Existence of God". It is a remarkable thesis in that Udayan talks of "Adrsta" (a kind of genetic notion still prevalent in a Hindu's way of life, but which everyone wants to summarily dismiss as non-scientific attaching tags such as 'chance', 'fate', 'bad luck' etc). Udayana-acharya  uses some powerful arguments to develop the notion of God as the cause for such an effect.

Prof. Sinha's elaborate work lays a powerful foundation to notions of "Poorva-Paksha" arguing against many of the notions advanced by Mimamsakas, Buddhists, Chaarvakas and the like (many thanks to BD for providing a resurrection of this long forgotten concept of the Dharmic way of  acquiring knowledge). She also provides a  terrific reference and examples on the powerful logic that was prevalent in India during those ancient ages.

Prof. Sinha did her MA from Calcutta University, and obtained her Ph.D. from Madras under Dr. TMP Mahadevan. In 1976 she was recommended by Mahadevan to join the Punjabi University to forge a research team there, and we believe that in some shape or form she still lends her services to them."

The thread below will be covered in depth in Part-2 of our series on this topic. Part-1 can be found in the June 2012 archive.
December 8 (New Thread)
Why the book American Veda is not called American Hinduism
Dear Friends Phil Goldberg is the author of the recently published American Veda. He explains why the word Hindu is not there. Book reviews can be read from...

December 9

Course on Indian Culture via MOOC
Alekshendra posts:
"Dear Dr. Malhotra,

This is my attempt to try to reach you. I have seen almost all of your lectures available on YouTube and the point made by you about the digestion of Indian Culture/History/Identity by the west.

In this regard, I would like to bring to your attention a new trending way of providing education online.
We have something called MOOCs (massively open online course) ( these links can give a better Idea:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixE1YAlHnVU
2. http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_education.html )

I was a part of one such MOOC offered by Prof. Keith Devlin of Stanford University and the strength of the class was whooping 61 thousand.

I was wondering over the possibility of creation of an Online Course offered on Coursera which focuses on Indian Culture, its content, it's distinctiveness from the west
( https://www.coursera.org/category/humanities) then the knowledge and message can be spread on a much larger scale. "

Rajiv responds:
"I would be delighted. But some others must do all the logistics, funding, tech work, marketing, etc. I can supply the content itself. Many similar ideas have come and gone, because when the workload gets tough our folks' enthusiasm fizzles out. The core team has to be FULL TIME as I am. This means they need funding. It cannot be pursued as a hobby as and when one feels like. There has to be professional accountability just like in one's job"


We end this summary with a very thought-provoking post by Rajiv Malhotra. This post has some profound messages worth reading more than once. We cannot say later that we weren't warned.
December 10

Hindu Dharma is more than just a matter of naming  
"1) Many of our people seem confused and think that being Hindu is merely a matter of calling oneself by that name. This approach might be called "definition by naming". So long as someone uses the right name, its ok. I find this shallow and troubling. I know many who call themselves Hindus, but who are in one or more of the following categories of counterproductive persons:

    Using Hindu community to boost their own political status or raise self importance to get some appointment, etc. Obsessed with occupying some position of importance for which they are utterly unqualified, thereby denying someone better qualified the chance to serve us better.
    Happy to get digested; promoting digestion out of naivete/stupidity; seeing this as a sign of glory: "We have arrived on the world stage".
    Confused with ideas of sameness, as substitute for having to study hard to understand what dharma is.

2) So if naming cannot be the criteria for defining who is Hindu, another option many use is history centrism. Hinduism defined as a specific history in a specific geography. I reject this as well. It limits Hinduism's claim of universalism by defining it this history centric way. For one thing, it excludes many segments and movements which have separate histories (e.g. Swaminarayanan) and/or do not consider any unique history to be the basis at all (e.g. Kashmir Shaivism, Tantra, Yoga). This approach has been used for political expediency - turning Hinduism into a Semitic religion of sorts. It becomes a claim that downgrades us...

3) Definition by distinct principles and practices. This the approach BD follows. Here, I found it important to combine both positive and negative principles. Examples of positive principles are karma-reincarnation and non-translatables that are specific and shared by the diversity of dharma approaches. Negative principles are what we reject. These negative principles are is critical to formulate carefully so as to have non-digestible differences. Examples of negative principles: I reject the claim that God's manifestation on earth has been limited via one son and no other way...

4) So the combination of positive-negative principles define us.

    The positive ones root and ground us, in a manner that all (or almost all) dharma groups can accept; hence we get a unified platform.
    The negative ones prevent us from getting digested into some other religion that is lurking around sending its "good cops" to entice and us and fool us. ..

5) The cunning tiger would like to separate the quills of the porcupine from the meat, reject the former and digest the latter. If the porcupine is foolish and accept the tiger's offer and drops his quills, he will surely get eaten and digested. The smart porcupine must NEVER SEPARATE THE QUILLS FROM THE REST OF HIS BODY. The positive-negative principles come as one package, never to get separated.

6) Swami Vivekananda's greatness is because he followed the above method #3. I have been reading through his collected works now for a second time lately, because I realized that the AAR panelists' attack on BD was based on those scholars' lifelong attacks  of Swami Vivekananda. The central problem these scholars face is any claim of unity of Hinduism. They know how to deal with #1 and #2 approaches. #1 is simply trivial and easy to appease such fools by simply using the Hindu name. #2 has been attacked as Hindutva and hence they have lots of weaponry and soldiers trained to start firing. But #3 is very tough for them. This is why they have worked since 1950 to undermine Swami Vivekananda as a champion of unity using #3 approach. Digestion is one of their most aggressive and successful methods because Hindus get fooled into thinking the tiger is paying them a compliment.

7) I have a list of top tier scholars who have made their careers attacking Swami Vivekananda and now I am writing a response to their attacks on BD. Their attacks on BD use the same approach as their attacks on Swami Vivekananda. Basically, anything philosophical (not political) that unifies dharma, is seen as dangerous. Why? Because such a foundation for unity is very robust as a foundation for nation-building. To destroy India they must destroy every viable method of its unity. Modern economic growth is insufficient to hold a massive diverse country together when it faces crises and catastrophes. Only a shared set of dharmic principles can hold it together. Hence, this academic cabal has targeted Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Gandhi, B.G. Tilak, Radhakrishnan, etc. - calling them "Neo-Hindus" to imply that they lack authenticity...

8) I welcome sincere and COMPETENT help in this latest project of mine.I am working on it non stop 7 days/wk amidst some personal challenges..."

RMF Summary: Week of November 28 - December 4, 2012

November 29 (continuing discussion from November 20)
The Fully Digested Deracinated Chairman of the Press Council of India
Manish shared:
"Justice Katju (retired judge of the Supreme Court of India), distributes his pearls of wisdom from the vantage point he occupies as Chairman of the PCI. One sample, from his blogpost, titled ''What is India''.
[quote]
India is broadly a country of immigrants, like North America.  Over 92% people living in India are not the original inhabitants of India.  Their ancestors came from outside, mainly from the North West.
[unquote]

A few more.....
[quote]
The original inhabitants of India, as it is believed now, were the pre-Dravidians tribals, who are called adivasis  or Scheduled Tribes in India e.g. the Bhils, the Santhals, the Gonds, the Todas, etc., that is, the speakers of the Austric, pre Dravidian languages e.g. Munda, Gondvi, etc.  They are hardly seven or eight percent of the Indian population today.  They were pushed into the forests by the immigrants and treated very badly.  Except for them all of us are descendents of immigrants who came mainly from the North West of India
... a common culture emerged in India which can broadly be called the Sanskrit-Urdu culture. ..."


Rajesh responded:
"...Justice Katju sounds less than informed on the issue of Indian "pre-history". Genetics research tell a different story, and so do our traditions.

99% of all Indians are actually indigenous if one considers the last 40,000 years. Or seeing it differently, it may be true that ancestors of all Indians came from outside, if one goes by the Out-of-Africa Theory.

But the Aryan Invasion Theory mess is something successive Indian Governments have nurtured, so it is to be expected that even among high functionaries of GoI, there would be many who agree with such thinking..."

Bhattacharyya adds:
"...Rajeshji: Regarding your comment below, while I agree that the study of Sanskrit should be encouraged, one must be cautious when interpreting remarks like the one Katju made. In this regard, Sheldon Pollock, a well-known U.S. scholar
[http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mesaas/faculty/directory/pollock.html], has made very similar statements ..." 

Rajiv Malhotra commented:
"...The post by S. Bhattacharya below is very important to understand. (BTW Pollock I think got the Padam Bhushan, higher than Padam Shri).

My recent encounter with Anantanand Rambachan ... caused me to investigate his background. It is amazing how most Hindus are unaware of his role in claiming that mantras are strictly "intellectual" devoid as energies, vibrations, etc. They are mere sentences like ordinary English. He is also against adhyatma-vidya/inner sciences and critical of yoga/meditation as something that contradicts Shankara. Also understand his pioneering role in undermining Swami Vivekananda and the whole movement he calls Hindu nationalism. This started with his 1984 PhD dissertation thesis written under a well known Catholic theologian in England. Ever since he has been nurtured by the Catholic Church as a "useful Hindu". There is so much eye opening stuff that I cant say more until I have written a longer article just on this.

One has to connect dots between Rambachan and others like Brian Pennington (who became famous for his book titled, "Was Hinduism Invented?" and Pollock who became famous for writing "The death of Sanskrit". Pollock is a left-wing sanskritist who claims that the old Brahamanical sanskrit is long dead; and he is reviving the "real" Sanskrit that belongs to subalterns like dalits, women, etc. whose voices have been oppressed. He got funded big time by Narayan Murthy's private foundation with a grant to select and translate Indian classical works. .." 

Uday shares some information:
"..

I am very thankful for having seen the video - this has been very insightful to get a sense of the mind of an academic scholar.!

coincidentally, I got another video that elaborates why sound had a special quality in Indian traditions as eloquently articulated by Rajivji and as easily dismissed by Sheldon. 

Clearly, this man is a Samskritam scholar, has even visited Sringeri and fairly well informed about Indian traditions - despite this, I was amused by the way in which he uses the Saraswati example in a derisive manner, expresses surprise on why the ancient Indian philosophers were also great poets, etc..."

Krishnan adds:

"...This what BD is all about. Katju may be say of 68 years of age, which means that he would have started education 63 years ago which would be when the British influence had not waned; It was at its peak. This would indicate that he would hve not known anything other than what has been taught by Missionaries or those Indian teachers who had been newly indoctrinated with the venom of POOR INDIANS. What else can you expect from other than what he is expressing? BD wants each one of us to get this poison out of the system and understand that we have to shift the chaff from the wheat. Berating or writing anjti katju slogans will get us know where. At least for us who have been introduced to our new selves let us make a change and think/talk/feel and behave differently..."

This next thread will be covered in depth in a separate thread, given the depth of the discussion and its implications.

November 29 (continuing discussion from November 12)
Very successful Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, Ahmedabad
I just returned from India after attending the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha's 5th Bi-annual Conference in Ahmedabad. I was fortunate to be invited to deliver a...
.... Rajiv comment: I too have been talking with westerners since a few decades. But thats not good enough to make a comprehensive assessment.

1) I have also provoked them beyond the surface goody-goody demeanor by questioning some of their cherished assumptions, thus forcing a choice between mutually contradictory beliefs. (Example: reincarnation cannot be reconciled with Nicene Creed, so which one do they reject? ..

December 1

Indian Rationalist charged by authorities, flees death threats for claiming leaky pipe caused "Crying Jesus" Statue Curved_sabre shares:

"

"Indian Rationalist charged by authorities, flees death threats for claiming leaky pipe caused "Crying Jesus" Statue.The Govt. of India caved into pressure from the Bible-thumpers.."

Rajiv Malhotra responds:
"So much for Indian claims of secularism, science, rationality. Send this to the media, justices and scholars who love to portray Hinduism as superstitious and support "anti-superstition" laws. Under such laws, the very notion of blasphemy must be challenged as something based on superstition and encouraging superstition." 

December 2

An illustrative dialog on HuffPost While browsing through HuffPost I found the following interesting exchange in the comments of section of this article:...

December 3 [New Post]

"Rajiv Malhotra on his Indian Challenge to Western Universalism"
Sunthar posts an interview of Rajiv Malhotra: 

The most prominent Hindu public intellectual to challenge prejudiced Western representations of Indian civilization, Rajiv Malhotra is President of Infinity Foundation (IF), which has been funding and running projects to rehabilitate and valorize the unique achievements of the Dharma traditions. Desi Talk interviewed him after the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies panel in Chicago around his recent book, Being Different: The Indian Challenge to Western Universalism.

Q.What was your professional background before establishing IF?

A. I was educated in physics, then computer science, worked as a techie, then as a corporate executive in strategic planning. Later I became a management consultant to the tech industry and finally started my own ventures before taking early retirement at age 44.

Q. How has IF been serving the cause of Indian civilization?

It pioneered in identifying areas neglected by gurus, Hindu civic leaders, as well as by the academy, areas where Indian civilization was being under-represented and misrepresented in prevailing discourse. Sometimes it is out of ignorance, but often there are well funded institutional mechanisms that perpetuate such discourse. IF identified these areas, spoke forcefully against them, and got people interested among all three constituencies. I am disappointed by the level of progress in instituting corrective measures that would make a lasting impact... "

December 4 [New post]

Hinduism: The ultimate anti-fragile

Rajiv Malhotra posts:

"http://docsubra.blogspot.com/2012/12/hinduism-ultimate-anti-fragile.html\?spref=tw

The above is an interesting and innovative use of BD's thesis. Clearly, the author has invested serious time and persistence to understand BD in depth.

[My response would be: thanks, Rajiv ji. I just connected the dots.]

Meanwhile, the 'Life of Pi' continues to generate a vigorous debate
December 4 (continuing discussion from November 24)

Life of Pi - lessons for Hindus Equal-equal Hindus might feel encouraged by the attention paid to that idea in Ang Lee's visually magnificent movie, "The Life Of Pi". A sampling of Christian...

Manish watched the movie and reviews it:
"I saw the film yesterday. Apart from the visually rich moments, which incidentally had nothing to do with the theme of the film, it left me unimpressed, and even offended at the attempt to exoticise India and Hinduism. We are real people, practising the oldest continuing faith of the world, with a highly advanced philosophical foundation; we are not merely subjects to be exoticised in Hollywood films for the consumption of largely western/Christian audiences. To me, it looked like a disguised attempt at digestion.

And, there was the gratuitous contrast between the French quarter (clean) and the non-French areas (filthy) of the town.

I also agree with Raj Vedam that the martinet father was hugely miscast. Incidentally, we saw the same phenomenon of using a miscast ugly father in Aamir Khan's ''Taare Zameen Par''.

Sadly, ''The Life of Pi'' seeks to exoticise Hinduism, and in the process, even resorts to perpetuating fallacies. The most egregious of these is the old cliche about ''33 million'' deities in the Hindu pantheon. Even while spreading misinformation, they got it wrong --- the widespread misconception is ''330 million / 33 crore'', not ''33 million''.."

Surya K quotes from the Upanishads to highlight a factual error in the movie:
"Then Vidaghdha, son of Shakala, asked him, "How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"
Yajnavalkya, ascertaining the number through a group of mantras known as the Nivid (hymn on the Visvadevas), replied, "As many as are mentioned in the Nivid of the gods: three hundred and three, and three thousand and three."
"Very good," said the son of Shakala, "and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"
"Thirty-three."
"Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"
"Six."
"Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"
"Three."
"..."
"Two." ... "One and a half." ... "One."
"Very well, which are those three hundred and three, and three thousand and three, Yajnavalkya? ... "

Hemachandra comments on the book:
"... The boy cannot make sense of
Christian religion ("peculiar psychology", "Son appears only once in far away West Asia", "sense of disbelief", "bothered by it", etc) and is baffled by it. But, it suddenly cops out saying "I could not get Him [Christ] out of my head"
"the more He bothered me, the less I could forget Him"
and concludes "the more I learned about Him, the less I wanted to leave Him" The author forcibly makes the kid a Christian believer without a single good argument for him to follow Christ."

Ganesh adds:
"...Life of Pi was a definite attempt to clandestinely sell christianity to Indians. Just pointing out a few dialogues I noted.

1) Irrfan Khan says he is a Catholic Hindu.

2) Says "thank you Vishnu for showing me Christ through you".

3) There is a scene where pi as a kid says "I want to get baptized" and his Hindu mother (enacted by Tabu) gives an approving smile...
....
5) One scene shows the cast away pi beating up a fish, feeling bad but again saying "thank you Vishnu for coming in the form of a fish and providing food".

6) One can't get away from the fact that there was a definitive attempt to show that only christianity has is THE most righteous religion which has all the say about love and knows the true meaning of love..." 
  
Carpentier senses an overreaction:
"I think some people are making too much of the film as if it were a scholarly treatise on Hindu philosophy. It is not, it is a multi-cultural work of fiction that brings to life for an international audience the esoteric wisdom contained in the Indian scriptures and in others as well. The fact that all great Hindus from Antiquity to our days felt a natural kinship with and understanding for the real spirituality of other traditions (leaving aside dogmas and cultural habits and mores) is what the life of Pi emphasizes because it transcends monotheistic creeds..and gives a metaphysical symbolic reading of reality which in effect invalidates orthodox "semitic" theology. The fact that the Churches are uncomfortable with the film for obvious reasons should not make Hindus behave similarly because they should realise that the film symbolises the quest for mokshas (liberation from the ego) and its not an attempt at converting people to one or another religion."

Moderator responds:
"..Moderator's Note: ..., "Thanks Vishnu for leading me to Christ", said in word and deed, is not even that ambiguous....
.... This may not be commenter's intent, but it sounds like advice to Hindus to take the 'high road' and not criticize, while the Tiger goes about it's business of digestion. Even Pi, the movie's hero, understood the tiger better than that :) ...
 

Ganesh responds to Come Carpentier and argues that the movie is more about fate:
".."the film symbolises the quest for mokshas (liberation from the ego) and its not an attempt at converting people to one or another religion".

Neither does the film symbolise the quest for moksha nor does it attempt to hide the ulterior motive of wanting to influence audience (especially in India and China) towards christianity by using carefully crafted, emotionally tugging visuals with dialogues like I had stated in my earlier mail to the group.

That many movie critics have even gone on to give the review based on superflous understanding of the movie is quite astounding. I'm sure most Indian movie critics would've just done a copy paste job of reviews from abroad. Really funny that people want to say Life of Pi gives out the message that one needs to believe in God, while I seemed to be one of the few who understood clearly that the movie in effect was driving the point that one needs to believe in fate. The scene at the very end of the movie, when the Japanese insurers come to meet the cast away pi admitted in a hospital requesting him to narrate his unbelievable story in a logical way that they could understand, highlights that point. Irrespective of the two versions that pi narrates, what was unambiguous was, it was because of fate that he became a cast away, it was fate which ordained the ship to sink on that particular night leaving him stranded on a life boat with those animals,.."