Rajivji's messages - Part II: “How have you benefited from Rajivji’s work?”

Rajiv Malhotra's [RM] messages were summarized in a previous blog a few weeks ago. These messages were aimed at a deeper level in that it enumerated the prerequisites (according to RM) that are required to become an Intellectual Kshatriya (IK). One might ask what is the need for an IK? This too was answered to some degree in that blog. To restate the answer in brief - RM's work exposes the deep prejudices prevalent against Dharmic traditions and India within academic and political circles at a global scale. One of the consequences of such prejudices is that Hinduism does not have a seat at the table when the Indic/Hindu traditions are discussed and deliberated upon at power circles which give directions to geopolitics. The end result is the propagation of a distorted view of these age old traditions seriously undermining India's integral unity and thereby India’s role in the world. To counter such unfair prejudices and give the Dharmic traditions their rightful place requires providing correct interpretations of the traditions by virtue of originating from the traditions themselves. This therefore is naturally a battle of the minds. Intellectual Kshatriyas are required.

A cursory glance at India's pre-colonial history will reveal the advances India made, and indeed has contributed, in the field of mind sciences, medicine, mathematics, etc. And yet, India's current image in the world-stage is 'caste, cow and curry - the latest additions being Bollywood and India as a repository of trinkets, which can be bought to adorn one's living space'. How many of the readers have this image of India, while completely oblivious to India's contributions to the world? RM's crusade has been to bring this issue to the fore. Not only that, an even more serious issue is the appropriation of the Indian ideas (on medicine and mind sciences in particular) and peddled as being of non-Indian origin. 

RM has essentially worked to expose these prejudices. Please read the previous blog to get a glimpse of RM's journey in the past 25 years. For those not aware of RM’s works, he has written three books “Breaking India”, “Being Different”, “Indra’s Net” and the main protagonist of a fourth called “Invading the Sacred”. His latest book "The Battle for Sanskrit" is due to come out in Jan.'16. Recently, Aditi Banerjee, a noted professional journalist, described RM's work succinctly - "Rajiv Malhotra has been a ground-breaking thinker and writer on matters related to Hinduism and Indian civilization for decades now. He has single-handedly and courageously challenged a coterie of Western Indologists and associated forces bent on denigrating Indic traditions and [who are] denying the national and civilizational unity of India and Hinduism". Apart from his books, his excellent scholarship on the forces trying to destabilize India has earned him plenary (invited) talks at conferences both in India and, indeed, mostly abroad. He has also debated with top researchers and religious men (Dr. Christian A. Eberhart: Professor of Religious Studies @ University of Houston), Prof. Francis X. Clooney (Harvard Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts), media personnel (Mark Tully: Ex-Bureau Chief of BBC, New Delhi), and shared the dais with policy makers (Arun Shourie), as well as traditional gurus (yoga guru: Baba Ramdev). A simple keyword search with his name results in numerous hits on Youtube (including the ones listed above). His works have prompted articles to be published in journals such as the International Journal of Hindu Studies. It is abundantly clear that his scholarship is excellent which has forced people to think about the arguments he presents.

I have watched most of RM's lectures on Youtube and have read parts of two of his books. While his lectures are lucid and points easily understood, I must caution the uninitiated that his books are not amusement readings! Recently, one of the Discussion group members (Sriram) initiated an interesting discussion topic – “How have you benefited from Rajivji’s works?” To anyone who has been exposed to RM’s works, or perhaps even not exposed to his works, Sriram has asked a very pertinent question. For me, the answer has been an extended awareness of “how the geo-political situation of the world is aligned”. For instance, I can now understand the nuances when a professor of Engineering (as opposed to a Professor in social-sciences/history/Indology) who also happens to be non-Asian, engages me in a discussion about Brahmins and the caste system. I recently read an article about the numbers-game that Evangelicals are involved in. I can now understand their obsession with the target number of conversions they have to achieve in a certain time frame. Rajiv's works have given me a new lens to see the world with. And the more I see the world with this new found lens, the more robust RM’s thesis seems to be. 

But what about the others? What have they gleaned from RM’s scholarship? This short article summarizes the responses from other group members.

To begin with, the audience, at least the ones who have responded to Sriram’s question, come from a diverse background – engineers, current and prospective students, working professionals – the full range, and as diverse a country as Australia to India to South Africa to the USA. The responses had a sense of excitement and they all seem to agree that RM’s work was a revelation and that his work has been an inspiration. Some said they have devoted themselves to becoming an IK, others said they understand what purva-paksha means and its importance, some have started local reading groups to discuss Rajiv's works, and yet others said they now understand the complexities of the problems faced by India. 

Reading through their responses, it appears that there are some profound insights developed in whoever has come across RM's works. These insights can be categorized into the following three sets of keywords: Hinduism and its differences with the Abrahamic religions, the attack on India/Hinduism and its traditions, and the ability to engage in Hinduism related debates. Let us briefly unpack these categories.

  

Hinduism and its differences with the Abrahamic religions:

First and foremost, there is a clearer understanding of what Hinduism is amongst those who have been exposed to RM's works. There is now an understanding that Hinduism is a Dharmic tradition with integral unity with other Dharmic traditions such as Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism. Integral unity means that the fundamental basis of all these traditions is the same. The unifying factors being that all of these traditions agree upon the idea of dharma, the need for individual karma (actions) in the present time for an individual’s liberation (as opposed to the idea that an individual's salvation is dependent upon the birth and actions of one figure who appeared in the distant historical past) and the idea of reincarnation. For example, Buddha taught about a Dharmic way of life which is very similar to the ‘yama’ practices found in the yoga philosophy of Hinduism (compare Panchsheela in Buddhism to the five yamas in Patanjali's yoga sutra). More importantly, none of these traditions are based on history-centrism. The implication of non-history-centricism is that even if Buddha/Prince Gautam did not come into being, the principles of Dharma that he eventually taught (i.e. after his enlightenment), would still remain intact. ”Buddha did not teach Buddhism”, said my yoga teacher! I understood what he meant.

In contrast, the negation of the history of Jesus with a birth from a virgin mother would result in the entire religion of Christianity to fall down. Same with the Islamic faith, albeit with the history of Prophet Mohammad in their case. Holding on to the story of Jesus’ birth steadfastly is central to the Christian faith i.e. Christianity is history-centric. Same with the Islamic faith, albeit with the story of Prophet Mohammad in their case.  There are other core differences as well, for e.g. the nature of time in the Dharmic traditions is completely different to the idea of time in the Abrahamic religions.

Attack on India/Hinduism and its traditions:

Perhaps one of the biggest revelations from RM's work is that there is a constant attack on India via Hinduism. Much has been written by RM and indeed others, which need not be repeated here. Pertinent examples will suffice to bring out the relevant points. Here is one. In his recent visit to India, US President Barack Obama, in a tone of complaint, remarked that India's success depends upon India safeguarding the interests of it's religious minorities. Now consider this. Immediately after the India visit, the US President went on a State visit to Saudi Arabia, accompanied with his wife. The strife between Shia and Sunni denominations of Islam in Saudi Arabia (and indeed the Islamic states in general) is well known. And yet, not a word was, or has been, spoken by Mr Obama on the rights of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia. Besides, the reader will recall the massive outcry in Saudi Arabia on Mrs Obama's headscarf, or lack thereof, during this same visit. Indeed, Mr Obama had no comments to make on this incident as well. To put things in perspective, regarding the state of religious minorities in India – Jews, certainly a religious minority in India in terms of absolute numbers, settled in India in distant past going back several centuries. As it turns out, India is one country where the Jews have not been persecuted - not once in their long history of being in India. Note that Britain, Spain or France doesn't have bragging rights on their treatment of Jews in their respective countries in the relatively more recent past.

It would not be remiss here to recount RM's debate experiences with representatives (some of them being at very high positions in their respective faith organizations) of the Abrahamic religions at various platforms over the years. He has espoused the notion of replacing the use of 'religious tolerance', which is a marginalizing idea, with the all-encompassing idea of 'mutual respect'. Needless to say, his attempts have been futile so far. It is noteworthy that representatives of Dharmic traditions have found the idea of 'mutual respect' to be easily acceptable. And yet, President Obama found it appropriate to make a comment on India on its religious affairs! Such is the prevalent geopolitical scenario.

The point here is that the intellectually alert must ponder, and if possible, seek the answers to such questions as - what made Mr Obama comment on India about its religious minorities but not a word on Saudi Arabia? Why are the Abrahamic religions persistent on using the word ‘religious tolerance’?

The attack on Hinduism is on another front – subtle, and yet an equally dangerous process of digestion. Here the useful things/ideas of a given culture is slowly appropriated and disembodied from the original culture by the digesters. The modus operandi is that while one hand is pointing fingers at all that is bad in a given culture, the other hand is gladly appropriating the traditional knowledge systems from the very culture that the former hand is criticizing. William Jones' motif at Oxford is a glaring example (see here). It’s a generic phenomenon which has been repeated in history several times and Hinduism/India is not the only one to suffer. Accelerated attempts at appropriation-digestion of Yoga is one such example that India would do well to take steps to counter. RM gives the example of Christian Yoga where 'Sun salutation (surya-namaskar)' has been changed to 'Son salutation' i.e. Salutation to the Son of God = Jesus, with no mention of the Indian philosophy behind the word ‘surya-namaskar’. The irony of this episode is that one of the five yamas mentioned earlier is called astaya, which means non-stealing! The original true philosophy of yoga has been well and truly stripped off.  

Ability to engage in Hinduism related debates:

Readers, armed with a better understanding, can now engage in intellectual debates on Dharmic tradition vs Abrahamic religions. They have also acquired a new vocabulary, a significant part of which RM calls, the “Sanskrit non-translatables”. Atman, Shradhdha, Dharma are some examples of non-translatables. For instance, ‘Atman’ is not the same as ‘Soul’ and therefore Atman cannot, and should not be translated as 'Soul'. As currently defined, 'Soul' is something that a human being possesses. By extension to non-human forms of life, the claim is that the animals/trees don’t have 'Souls'. Thus, 'Soul' is akin to an object that only a human being can possess, which leaves the body when the physical body perishes (a New Age lingo often heard). Atman, on the other hand, is immanent in everything, both living and inanimate objects and therefore, is present everywhere and at all times. Thus it cannot ‘leave’ from one object to another or from one place to another or from one time to another. Thus 'Atman' and 'Soul' describe two very different philosophies. 'Atman' is non-translatable.

In the final analysis, a veil has been lifted from the reader's eyes and they can now clearly see what is at stake. The readers draw inspiration from RM and his works, have a new found confidence, and they are eager to devote their time to learning - not only from RM's monumental work, but also from other sources. RM’s works coaxes us to do so. 

Is ISKCON being digested into Judeo-Christianity?

This thread deals with the concept of digestion explained in the book Being Different. The importance of this work is evident by the fact that we keep returning to its fundamental concepts to explain events that are happening around us. It would be beneficial to first read this prior post that summarizes all previous threads on digestion.

The discussion below was set in motion by Rajiv posting this link regarding the attempt at digestion taking place within an ISKCON formation in the USA.

Rajiv stated:

This trend is how uturns and digestions work. The person wants to have it both ways. He also wants to cater to "mainstream white americans" who are Judeo-Christians.

What is outside their comfort zone must be removed. Done in the name of "going mainstream". Many confused Hindus support this.

Krishna responded:

I went to the source and read about Howard Renick, a PhD from Harvard has used Hindus and his academic background wisely to make a claim that he is the expert in Vaishnavitism. I make this observation based on a research publication he wrote and is available in one of the links.

Second, this evangelism part is very disturbing. It is clear case of totally assimilating into Western ethos. Food, clothing, music and the methods of preaching the religion is going to change a lot. Obviously, within few years it will become the fastest growing / evangelizing Hindu religion of the West.

Since they are also building a massive temple in the suburbs of Kolkota, we have other issues coming up. Ownership of ISKCON and the role of Hindus in the organizational set up now and in the future. Indians made enormous contribution and sacrifice towards the success of the project. 

Maria had this to say about ISKCON:

ISKCON in the West and by Westerners is already pervaded by western ethos. I would say it has been since its very beginning. Now they are only taking it a step further.

ISKCON in the west is divided into two parts, one, the smallest, consider themselves Hindu. They would have more to do with a hindu outlook of the world, in which respect towards all the paramparas and towards all deities is there. But I am sorry to say that this is the tiny minority. The vast majority have only replaced the western word and meaning of "God" by "Krishna" as a monotheistic monolitic Unique Supreme, distorting the sacred scriptures to the extent of saying that Bhagavan Vishnu is an avatar of Shri Krishna, for example.
 A real hindu as far as my understanding reaches, would revere all deities as different aspects of the Ultimate Divine, even having their own istha devatha, and would never try to impose their view on others. With westerners hare krishnas, it is exactly the opposite of what they do, regarding all Devatas as "minor gods" and following their own exclusivist view on Krishna. 

Tushar elaborated on the ideologies of ISKCON as he saw it. he says:

I have read ISKCON books and they are all translations and purports by Srila Prabhupada who is very much an Indian Guru.

All these translations and purports are preserved and unedited. So, I feel there is no distortion of scriptures because his purports are very clear and unambiguous.

Besides, in all Vaishnav schools,  (Four sampradayas, viz, Rudra, Gaudiya, Sri, Nimbarka), it is believed that Vishnu is an expansion of Krishna and not otherwise. Hence, I feel that ISKCON believing that Vishnu is an avatar of Krishna is justified, since ISKCON is also one of the Vaishnava schools.

Besides, there are several evidences in Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam to support the above statement.

Also, ISKCON believing that all other Gods are smaller Gods(Devtas) is also supported in Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam and several other scriptures. Infact, worship of Devtas instead of worship of Krishna is discouraged in Bhagavad Gita, if not prohibited.

I tend to agree that there might be changes in the way the Hare Krishnas live to adapt to the environment in  which they are located. However, I am not sure of any U-turn happening.

At this point Rajiv Malhotra said that the disagreement that many people felt with ISKCON was due to the Vaishnava texts that they followed. He also said that his next book would deal with some of these difference under the head of "Level 2 access to Ishta-devata". Rajiv also added that the three main traditions viz Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shakta with their numerous sub-systems did not agree with each other on many things. He however said, it was his endeavour to delve deeper than the common understanding to arrive at the foundational unity which would help establish their mutual respect.

Chittaranjan elaborates on what he sees as the ISKCON ideology

A real hindu as far as my understanding reaches, would revere all deities as different aspects of the Ultimate Divine, even having their own istha devatha, and would never try to impose their view on others.  With westerners hare krishnas, it is exactly the opposite of what they do, regarding all Devatas as "minor gods" and following their own exclusivist view on Krishna. 

The concept of Vishnu being Supreme and the other gods being subservient to Vishnu comes from the philosophy of Madhvacharya's Dvaita Vedanta. This kind of hierarchy of the gods is known in Dvaita Vedanta as Deva Taratamya. The Gaudiya tradition (to which ISKCON belongs) borrows the concept of Deva Taratamya from Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta but replaces Vishnu as the Supreme with Krishna (and indeed regards Krishna in a peculiar way as higher than even Vishnu). 

I agree with you though when you say that ISKCON in the West is pervaded by the Western ethos; but the concept of Krishna being Supreme and other gods being lower in the hierarchy actually comes from the Indian Gaudiya sampradaya itself.

Sant had sent the original link that Rajiv had posted, to a concerned official at ISKCON and what follows is a reply from the ISKCON official [Reproduced as is here]

Dear Sant,

Namaste. Hare Krishna.

Thank you for sending me the article, "Hare Krishna Gets Evangelical”, from the Washington Post. I would like to make a few comments. 

First, the opinions expressed in this article do not represent the official position of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, or ISKCON. You will notice that only a few persons were quoted in the article, some of whom are not even ISKCON members. 

In particular, the statements minimizing Indian culture and its importance to the Hare Krishna society do not reflect the policies of ISKCON. 

I am the Minister of Communications and Chairman of ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission, and I don’t agree with much of this article. The majority of ISKCON members and leaders would disagree strongly with many of the opinions presented therein.

But, ISKCON is a large international organization and there are differences of viewpoint within our society. Just as America has diversity and India has diversity, so does ISKCON. 

And, as is often the case, the media is attracted to minority opinions and controversial statements, and not always interested in understanding or presenting a balanced perspective. 

Anyone who has visited an ISKCON temple anywhere in the world knows our temples are filled with people—native and Indian born—wearing traditional Vaishnava Hindu dress, singing Sanskrit and Bengali bhajans, and serving Deities of Radha-Krishna, Sita-Rama, and Sri Caitanya at one of the highest standards of traditional worship found in the world. 

It is interesting too, that even the photographs in the article show men and women of ISKCON dressed in dhotis and saris and wearing traditional Vaishnava tilak on their foreheads. Something that few people outside ISKCON and outside India still do—at least on a regular basis.

I write today from Russia. This very morning I attended an ISKCON temple with nearly one hundred Russian-born Hare Krishna devotees. All chant the maha-mantra daily, all study Bhagavad-gita, all are strict vegetarians, all aspire to visit India to worship in Vrindavan, Tirupati, and other holy places—and most were dressed in traditional Indian/Vedic dress. 

ISKCON’s connection and roots in Indian culture are solid. Yet, as a global Vaishnava society that is attracting millions of people to practice bhakti-yoga and give their lives to Lord Krishna, it is natural that some ISKCON members will not adhere to traditional Indian style of dress or culture. That type of diversity is natural in the free expression of what is today a global religious society. 

That said, let us remember that knowledgeable people give great credit to ISKCON as one of the pre-eminent organizations transmitting the core principles, traditions and culture of sanatan-dharma all over the world.

Thank you.

Anuttama Dasa

International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)

Chairman, Governing Body Commission, and

Minister of International Communications

Rajiv, in response to the above mail had this to say:

My own experience with the few ISKCON leaders I know agrees with this post. 

One of our best supporters has been Jagannath Priya ji in Mumbai who is ISKCON leader. Others of ISKCON in Mumbai have also helped me and are firmly embedded in Hinduism along with its full Indian cultural context. They have hosted me, gone around out of their way helping me in numerous concrete ways and continue to do so. They are also solid Indian patriots.

At the same time, the key factors differentiating ISKCON from most other major movements today is that each ISKCON group is separately incorporated and they do not report to one central headquarters. I am told there is a central committee but its unclear how much authority it can assert. Those organizations with a living guru can hold together and this was the case while Prabhupada was alive. But after he left some of the multiple ISKCON groups started wandering away in their own directions. 

One of the worst digesters of ISKCON into Judeo-Christianity is the head of the Center for Hindu Studies at Oxford. Since I have examined his positions in particular I can support my claim. There was also a major paper written by some other western leader in ISKCON who wrote about how its tenets can and should be digested into Judaism.

So it seems the western and Indian leaders and groups within ISKCON are going in different directions. I would not paint all of ISKCON with one brush and make it look homogeneous.

I would like to invite JP ji for his perspective because as an insider of ISKCON and also a solid Hindu, his perspective is important. 

Sai went on to explore the Centre for Hindu Studies at Oxford after Rajiv mentioned about them in his response above. Sai came up with this observation:

This the faculty and admin page for OCHS, I dont see even one 'Indian born but UK resident' (or) 'UK born Indian' in this page. Perfect atmosphere to take U-Turns. How can some institute of such repute not employ a native of Indian origin in the admin group for Hindu studies? Very organized inculturation. 

This is what S. Rishi Das, Director, OCHS has to say about his ISKCON involvement.

Joining a Hindu movement in the Ireland of his time did not feel like a courageous act for Rishi Das. Of his first encounters with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) he said:

They were speaking Christianity but not calling it that. I knew I had met the people I was to practice with. My desire was to be a Christian. I had to struggle with the fact that I found it being practised to the highest standard by non-Christians.^[39]

Christianity practiced by non-Christians??? Can he not draw lines between Nicene creed and Gaudiya Vaishnavism??? 

Sai's mail triggered reflection by Dushyant again on how ISKCON viewed itself. In his response below he elaborates on how the need to preach/evangelize, enshrined in the views of ISKCON made it a prime target for digestion/inculturation:

In the history of ISKCON, the need to preach to everyone (West included) has existed since the time of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda (Guru of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder of ISKCON). Under British rule, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura had also sent few of his follower Sadhus to the Europe but did not receive much of a success to further their mission.

This zeal of preaching to the west was, unfortunately, never met by a same amount of rigorous efforts to understand the Western Point of view (Purva-Paksha). Because of their virtually non-existing Purva-Paksha (but firmly established in Gaudiya Vaishnavism) ISKCON, eventually, adopted to the evangelical methods of preaching to the Western People (and also to the Indians). 

The evangelical preaching methods brought with them the Western categories and ISKCON had to mold/dilute (or digest) it's various cultural and societal Indian ethnic stands according to the Western cultures where they were operating. On the other hand, in order to prove more Indian, ISKCON insisted on the lifestyle of Indian culture such as Sarees, Dhoti-Kurtas, Tilak, exclusively Indian cuisines to offer bhoga to Krishna etc. The lifestyle did provided ISKCON an Indian appearance but without a solid Purva-Paksha (in comparative religious studies) and hence the preaching requirements in the West slowly digested Gaudiya Vaishnava categories.

As it is also mentioned in this thread (and I personally know about it) that, although, ISKCON do have a Governing Body Commision, it does not dictate the view of an individual follower; moreover each Temple is an independent center. Followers who come from Abrahamic backgrounds, bring with them their own cultural categories of defining things and usually, simply, replace their Abrahamic philosophies with the Gaudiya Vaishnava one. 

For example, in the US their views on sex and marriage are the same as the hardcore Christian ones. Again as example, their views on euthanasia, abortion, social development etc. are same as the Church's stand on the issues. Although, formulated with in the Western categories itself, their opposition of scientific point of views (especially on Evolution and Origins of the Universe) is so zealous and passionate that it reminds me of persistent Christians who would knock on my door twice a week to deliver the "good news" (who are also passionately against any opposing views than their own).

As a historical trait within the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy and sampradayas of presenting other devi-devatas as subordinate and representatives of Krishna; ISKCON have extended this privilege to Jesus and Muhammad too (who are accepted as the messengers of "God" or "Krishna" and, as ISKCON says, who taught according to time, place and circumstances; which is itself an Indic idea). One can confirm this by talking to any ISKCON devotee about their stand on Jesus and Muhammad. 

On an extreme note, in order to preach in the West, you may find few of the devotees describing the early Christians as early Western Devotees of supreme God Krishna (because Jesus is suppose to be a messenger of God/Krishna). It is also accepted that Jesus and Muhammad are the "Jagad-Gurus," although they do insist that the "Jagad-Gurus" are needed to be understood through a "Mahanta-Guru" (a living spiritual masters) to remove the distortions in order to follow Jesus' or Muhammad's "original teachings." (for reference please see translation by the "Rays of The Harmonist" team from Śrīla Prabhupādera Upadeśāmṛta)

In conclusion, I agree, that, ISKCON is not a monotonous culture and is quite diverse. As also mentioned by Rajivji that the Indian devotees in India (and many NRIs) are firmly Hindus and patriots. On the other hand, many Western and NRI ISKCON devotees shy and shun away from the word Hindu (even in their preaching) and do describe themselves as not-Hindus but "Hare Krsnas".

Dushyant further goes on to analyze why many westerners eventually leave the ISKCON movement. His analysis is represented here. He starts with a line from Sai Kiran's mail in the thread:

"...I found it (Christianity) being practised to the highest standard by non-Christians." 

That's how ISKCON presents itself in order to preach, that, it is a some sort of fulfillment of Christianity and Islam. ISKCON maintains that a person can be simultaneously Christian/Muslim and can also be a Hare Krsna through chanting Hare Krishna mantra (notice that they don't say that the person can be a Hindu but Hare Krsna). 

Although they don't realize that in Islam and Christianity you cannot maintain dual membership and because of that rigidity a person has a greater pull towards Abrahamic religions. A big number of ISKCON devotees eventually leave it after years of practise. There are many examples in ISKCON where people left it and retained their native religions. These people, then, criticize ISKCON and also the Hindu practices and philosophies. 

Shaas, another forum member feels that while it is perfectly acceptable to accord preferential status for one's Ishta devata, ISKCON calling Gods other than Vishnu or Krishna as demi-gods is very un-Hindu like and makes the formation itself very evangelical.

Jagannath ji from ISKCON replied as Rajiv requested him to and he had many things to say on the issue:

We need to first understand the issue with its respective context. This has been one of the most profound contributions by Rajiv ji  in Dharma perspectives- Purvapaksha and Contextual understanding of Dharma.

Hence, before I present my views I wish to explain a brief history of how ISKCON was setup and that will give clarity in this issue. In 1965 at the age of 70, when Srila Prabhupada first went to the US he was discouraged by everyone from India and US, including his own Godbrothers. He had NO ONE to start his movement. He began by spending time doing kirtans under a tree in downtown Newyork, living by begging etc. Hippies, homeless, druggists etc only were the first audience. Prabhupada converted “these hippies” to follow highest standards of vaishnavism. Some became leaders, some Sannyasis too who later opened temples all over the world, and spread the teachings of Gita and Bhagwatam globally. Later many others joined. Many of these western leaders/followers of ISKCON were well versed with Gita, Bhagwatam, Chaitanya Charitamrita, and also very sincere individual practitioners, but did not understand nor had any “experience” of the overall Vedic culture, its diversity and its application. And many don’t understand even now. Many westerners (not all) of ISKCON, because they lack a personal exposure and experiences of Vedic lifestyle and culture, they tend to accept only as much as was told to them by their specific guru or teacher and reject everything else. Yet when they do/did it, they follow it in their earlier evangelical Christian and Muslim psyche – Im the best and everyone else is inferior. So when they learn about Krishna, that’s how they apply it. So that creates a sense of fanaticism in some too. Some assume that they have a mandate to lead and steer based on little knowledge in some scriptures. Some Indians too think that way.

Unfortunately nowadays Indians themselves do not understand. I must say, before Rajiv ji brought out perspectives many too dint understand how to “position” ourselves clearly on Dharmic views, and Im sure many in the forum would agree to this. In “all” my interactions so far with various very big “leaders” of various Hindu religious and social organisations, books like BD and IN are an eye opener. This shows how much awareness is needed in these subjects. Hence to expect everyone to be born or be aware of such mature perspectives is absurd. We need to collectively work to push these concepts. 

...I feel that to truly understand the word "diversity" one needs to travel within India, not just at tourist places or airports, but by interacting with local temples, local people etc where you can see a vibrant diversity in each aspect of Dharma. Mind boggling diversity amongst same streams of Shaivites, Smartas, Vaishnavites can be seen all across India. 

I tend to agree with Anuttam’s mail. ISKCON is a highly diverse organization, highly decentralized and very different style of governing. Some are inspired by ISKCON, they split later but maintain standards, some split and deviate…, some are well intentioned but less informed, all look the same externally. Yet ISKCON is also one of the very few organisations with very high standards in terms of Eating habits, Sadhana, Deity worship, Pilgrimages, Kirtans, etc. But it certainly isn’t perfect in the Absolute sense.  Having said this, I dont expect many in ISKCON, especially westerners to understand this view due to their limited exposure on this subject. That doesnt provide an excuse though.

From my honest view, it needs more improvement, and lots and lots of it, than what can be see from outside. But there are very few organisations who even come close to what ISKCON has achieved so far globally and the rigorous effort it continues to put to promote certain basic tenets of Sanatan Dharma, popularly known as Hinduism.

Hence, it is important to see that the various sampradayas of Hinduism strive to find the intrinsic foundational unity that binds them with mutual respect and do a thorough purva paksha on those trying to digest them. It is only when this is done that Hindus can avoid the far too easy traps that they fall into allowing non Dharmic faiths to inculturate and eventually digest them. Indra's Net, Rajiv's book dealing with the open architecture nature of Dharmic faiths, provides defense mechanisms for Dharmics to counter such attempts from history-centric Abrahamic faiths.

Can the Yogic experience be replicated using psychedelics?

Commentators debate this interesting question. The answer is a 'no' from every commentator, but each offers slightly different reasons. What do you think?
 
November 2013
Spiritual experience due to psychedelics
Vijaya comments:
"there was a discussion in this forum (why mantra cannot be performed by a machine) regarding the attempt to replace living pandits with devices like Ipod to chant sanskrit mantras. Similarly, isn't there a possibility to reduce the spiritual experience gained through meditation/Yoga to the experience due to psychedelics and eventually replace meditation/sadhana with psychedelics?
Sam Harris in his Huffpost blog seem to equate the experience due to the ingestion of psychedelics like LSD and spiritual experience gained through meditation, although he is cautious about the former.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-_b_891014.html)
"...it cannot be denied that psychedelics are a uniquely potent means of altering consciousness. If a person learns to meditate, pray, chant, do yoga, etc., there is no guarantee that anything will happen. Depending on his aptitude, interest, etc., boredom could be the only reward for his efforts. If, however, a person ingests 100 micrograms of LSD, what will happen next will depend on a variety of factors, but there is absolutely no question that something will happen. And boredom is simply not in the cards. ...It is, however, a difference that brings with it certain liabilities."
This approach presupposes the material nature of our consciousness as opposed to the dharmic position of many layers of reality. Also, it separates the metaphysics of objective outer cosmos and the subjective inner consciousness, which is antithetical to integral unity."

Maria responds:
"Very interesting post, specially your conclusion. Many of these western scientifics, whose scientific knowledge I don´t doubt, but have a very limited vision influenced by subtle abrahamic ideas like only one life. Their potential as researchers is very much limited, provided that they cannot help but associating mind to the brain, and the end of everything with the death. If they could go further, see the implications into the world of samskaras and vasanas brought from life to life, how would they explain it? There would be a revolution in their own minds. Like they cannot afford going further, they end up relating every spiritual experience as provided by the brain. As a material effect of a material cause, that´s all. Instead of seeing that the brain could be a material tool in the hands of an spiritual consciousness. I think that is why many western scientific become atheists..."

Prasad responds to the previous two posts:
"... the dharmic position of many layers of reality is nothing more than another "unfalsifiable presupposition" from a scientific point of view. I am not aware of any evidence through neuroscience which requires any neuroscientist to consider a Dharmic view of many layers of reality as a scientific theory or position. Thus, there is no reason also for scientists to presuppose anything of the sort of a divide between what is the cosmos and what is inner consciousness. The duality between mind and body(brain) is not a chief concern for neuroscience as far as I know, since there is no scientific evidence as such for any mind separate from a body.

...Guys like Sam Harris have spent a llllong time trying to study Dharmic positions like those in Buddhism and also Advaita Vedanta. It is not their influence by subtle abrahamic ideas that they stick they to their claims. Please try to understand the methodology of science before commenting on scientists and their "biased" worldviews. Science does not proceed by handwaving or by unfalsifiable theories. It proceeds by rigorous evidence. So in order for a neuroscientist to seriously consider the dualistic claim (i.e. there is a body separate from a mind), an experiment has to be first described which can show whether the claim is true or not. In other words, see what Harris says - 

..

- So I would opine that the scientific community (which now includes almost all of humanity) would not be doing science by assuming a duality between a body and mind and then working from such an assumption to discover truths about the mind.

Now let me come to how a response can still be made in the lines of Rajivji's ideas of "being different".

First of all, it is simply a narrow view to treat mind-altering drugs and meditation (which I will now call dhyAnA, identifying it as a step in Patanjali's ashtAnga yoga scheme) on the same lines, i.e., as a means to effect changes in the mental states (I am purposefully not calling these "states of consciousness" because of my Advaitic leaning that the mind is different from the Atman, which is the Original Consciousness). Sam Harris' claim is that both can effect changes in the mental states. According to my understanding, in Yoga/VedAntA and other indian darshaNAs, the purpose of dhyAnA is not just about altering your mind-states during the time of meditation. Instead, the main purpose of dhyAna is to effect the triumph of one's will over the constantly drifting/changing mind...

In the same way, a yogi who practises dhyAna according to the Indian traditional darshana's need not have all the kinds of experiences or mental states that Harris is talking about. However, over time, he/she will gain the strength of mental will to concentrate on any particular object. This one-pointedness of mind which one gains is called "chitta-ekAgrata" in some traditions. The supporting factors to doing proper dhyAna and achieving its intended results include living a life of ethical and moral values and having devotional mindset (roughly, yamA and niyamA - the first two steps of ashtAnga yogA), sitting for dhyAna in correct physical posture (Asana - 3rd stage), prANAyamA (the 4th stage, learning to breathe properly prior to dhyAnA), restricting one's diet to saatvic food and restricting one's mental diet to saatvic imagery/sounds/ etc (pratyAhArA). Only after all these stages can dhyAnA be done properly and will bear the appropriate fruit. This is what the Indian Yogic traditions say, as far as I know. This is why the so-called meditation does NOT work for everyone and anyone. It is like taking a medicine without observing the appropriate dietary restrictions for it to work, and then claiming that the medicine doesn't work!..."

 

Vijaya responds:

"...My point is that science has a reductive approach to consciousness as BD explains (Page 104),

"...the Western scientific tradition has been reductionist rather than integral. Reductionism attempts to explain wholes in terms of their parts. This works, to a large extent, in ways that are practical, and hence modern science has made major contribtions to our lives using this principle.

The unity assumed in most of the dharmic traditions is a unity of consciousness. Western scientists and philosophers often ask how consciousness can arise from the chemistry of the brain. In the Indian tradition, we find the reverse problem. Absolute consciousness is understood to be the source of everything. The challenge is to understand the ordinary world of multiplicity."
Even your definition of dhyana "to effect the triumph of one's will over the constantly drifting/changing mind",  is also another mental state with a different/dynamic biochemical composition, according to neuroscience. So why to do all the tough sadhanas? We can put our efforts in producing drugs that will give an 'enlightened state' and distribute them to all?
This is not philosophically possible from the viewpoint of vedanta. The 'turiya' state which is the self and the pure consciousness is not a state of mind but is the whole essence of other three states, waking (jågrat), dream (svapna) and deep sleep (susupti). So the self transcends the other three states. The knowledge of neuroscience(and even the world) which is in realm of the waking state is limited and it cant find ways to reach a state that transcends it.

Another important point neuroscientists like Sam Harris make is that such altered mental states of mind do not represents reality by any means. This is in line with the basic axiom of science, the objective existence of the universe.
A Sadhaka in dharma religions does not need to start with such an axiom. That's why realised sages from Ashtavakra to Ramana maharishi describe enlightenment with analogy of 'waking up from the dream'. So a sage indeed perceives a different reality. That's why I mentioned different layers of reality.
Finally, there is more to dharma than the reductionist scientific methods. Dharma traditions take a nuanced approach to one of the pramana (epistemic tool), Sabda, the verbal testimony. The words of a realised Yogi which becomes smriti, is accepted and followed if it agrees with Sruti. This is why we have guru sishya traditions which help seekers in their spiritual quest. "  

 

This discussion is not over. If you have addition insights on this topic to share, please join the discussion group and contribute.