Ganesh on TBFS: A poor model of scholarship

Below is a post by Ragini Sharma which was originally published here.

Dear Kalavai,

This is in response to your April 8, 2016 article on Hindureview.com  in which you “take your gloves off” (FB comment) to forcefully support S. Ganesh’s (SG) critical review of Rajiv Malhotra’s (RM) ground-breaking book, The Battle for Sanskrit (TBFS). But, before I get into the substantive matter, I’d like to observe that I am amazed at what comes across as your double-speak and double-standards, which I can see from your FB posts, you have a blind spot about.  Your article, as does SG’s, heaps numerous ad hominem attacks at RM while complaining that RM is disrespectful to traditional scholars. This negative approach to RM comes in the way of the reader appreciating SG’s and your intended contribution to the discourse about Pollock, which is the topic of TBFS. Regardless, you are a non-entity in this scholarly debate.

In reviewing the Facebook dialogues between you and Aditi Bannerjee and others, I noted that you speak of some deeply held resentments against RM over your past interactions. This leads one to wonder if you have an axe to grind with RM due to the perceived wrong you feel RM has done to you (you do not give details). This bias discredits you as a scholar in your review of RM’s work and allows one to cast aspersions about the motives behind your strong stand against RM. It can be argued that you used SG’s review as an opportunity to attack RM for ulterior motives. This impression is further deepened when you seek RM to apologize to SG, placing SG on a pedestal and relegating RM somewhere very low with respect to their scholarly work. I strongly object to and chide you for your disrespectful behaviour and strongly assert that each scholar has his own sphere of influence and adhikara and both are worthy of full respect in their respective areas. I find it absurd that, given your own biased and unfair approach to RM, you appeal to the readers to express their outrage towards RM for his writing style and approach! Like I said earlier to SG, one needs to walk the talk: if you want others to take the higher road, your own work needs to model that first.

Moving on to the substance of my response, in the section that follows I comment further at the message and content of SG’s review of TBFS and your defence of them.

Let me begin by first recounting that RM’s impetus for writing TBFS was the proposed establishment of the Shankara Chair in Hindu Studies at Columbia University under Sheldon Pollock’s guidance. The purpose of his book is twofold:

1. To explain/expose the complex theories of Sheldon Pollock, an atheist, Marxist philologist who is established as world’s most eminent Sanskrit scholar today. Pollock has a serious influence on the discourse on Sanksrit and Hindu dharma in the academe, media and social-political arena in India. RM critically analyses how Pollock is different from previous Indologists, such as Doniger, Max Muller and so on, in the way that he presents his theories and ideas about Sanskrit/Sanskriti and why his control over Sanskrit is a serious concern to Hindus.
2. To spur the development of a “home team” that can further engage “dharmic insiders” to strategically respond to Pollock’s double barrelled strategic attack: “While political philology is used to diagnose, liberation philology is used to liberate the Indian masses from the diseases being carried in their sanskriti for thousands of years” (RM, article 1, response to SG). The “home team” will need to respond by using “sacred philology” to reclaim Sanskrit as a sacred and living, not dead, language that nurtures Sanksriti. 

Having gone over both SG’s and your articles, it is clear that indeed until RM’s current book, no insiders, including the traditional scholars including SG, have written directly on Pollock in the detailed analytical way that RM has. His claim to be the first one to do so is undisputed, despite SG’s or your wailings about the large amount of work done by traditional scholars, including in regional languages in other related areas. Does that mean RM is dissing the work of others? No! He is pointing to the serious gap in purve-paksh in their work to date and asking them to take up that challenge. SG’s referral to the previous scholars who have written about threats to Hinduism is acknowledged by RM; that he does not give enough credit to these previous scholars is debatable but not sufficient to discredit RM’s current work. So again, the question is: Among the lengthy list of authors that SG provides, has even one of them written on Pollock despite his work being out there since 1980s? The answer is: None!

Instead of giving credit upfront to RM for his original important work in TBFS, SG begins his review with great condescension: he uses the first one and half pages to give a lecture from the Holy Gita about “Not acting in haste, but with viveka”. He sanctimoniously declares, “In the battle for Sanskrit, RM is like an enthusiastic commander of a committed army whose strengths and weaknesses he himself is sadly unable to reconcile”. He then goes on to claim that RM’s book has a lot of ‘useless words’ and he lacks “historical perspective” and knowledge of dharmic “underlying philosophy”. Such criticism is ludicrous given that RM four previous books provide deep insights into these topics. Did SG need to create this drama? Where is SG’s own viveka and vairagya and all the scholarly ethics he lectures others to follow? As Krishna Chivukula has noted, SG’s review “sadly reflects a dominant tamasik aspect of the current state of academic scholarship in India” (https://kkc1857.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/on-shatavadhani-ganeshs-tirade-against-rms-battle-for-sanskrit/).

SG’s begrudging acknowledgement of RM’s ground-breaking work comes in stages beginning with his comment that RM’s “intent is noble”. However, it is couched between platitudes and finger-wagging comments such as RM’s “understanding of the nature of sanatana dharma as a transcendental system is flawed” because it sets up the duality of “Marxism vs Theologist”. One fails to understand the relevance of SG’s reference to Gaudapada’s observation about transcendence and unity of non-duality? What has that to do with RM’s critical analysis of Pollock’s discussion of Ramayana and Sanskrit as tools of oppression of women, Muslims and other minorities based on his application of Marxist, atheist theories of human rights to Hinduism. Is SG suggesting that Pollock’s ideology fits into the transcendence frame of Advaita unity? This suggestion sound like another form of escapism to allow traditional scholars to avoid taking action. The rationale is as follows, as RM has explained: no one and nothing is ultimately evil or can harm sanatana dharma – all is One; no point getting embroiled with such ideas, its all illusionary maya anyways. No need to analyse Pollock’s work or do anything. Instead, SG suggests that its his kind of “non-qualified universal experiential wisdom” that will “counter the enemies” of dharma such as Pollock. Anyone know why that approach has not worked to date? Why do we have an atheist Marxist outsider as the leading world adhikari for Hindu Shastras? SG takes great pains to paint RM as ignorant of Sanskrit terms – I guess it makes him feel superior! Pathetic, indeed.

SG’s complaint against TBFS appears to be threefold: first, that it disrespects traditional scholars; second, that his knowledge of Sanskrit and shastras is deficient and third, that RM does not provide a pramana. I will respond to each one of these charges in detail below.

Regarding SG’s question as to why purve paksh of Pollock is critical at this historical moment, SG appears to not understand the main point of RM’s book. SG laments about RM’s “obsession with western academia, to the extent that the reader gets the impression that Hinduism will not survive unless western academia views it in a better light”. This is the question that RM’s TBFS is all about and the reason why RM’s has strongly criticised the failure of traditional scholars for their lack of interest on this subject of purva paksh. To respond, here are some questions RM raises. What weakness among insider scholars and Indian systems has led to an “outsider” claiming the seat of ‘head Pundit’ in Sanskrit studies in India and the world? What internationally acclaimed academic works are the great traditional scholars doing on purva paksh of western Indology? Why is there not a single school of Indology in India, or internationally respected journal or scholarship by insiders? Why are chairs of the cherished gurus of Hindu dharma being proposed to be set up in western universities under Pollock instead of in India? Why are millions of dollars going to Pollock, for example for the Murthy Classics library and not to traditional scholars or Indian scholars to translate Sanskrit texts? These alarm bells ring not because Pollock is an “outsider” being given authority to explain the meaning of the Hindu shastras but because this high pundit’s work undermines Sanskrit as a living language (read: Death of Sanskrit) and denies the sacredness of the Sanskrit dharmic texts (read: Ram). Yes, as GS says, its not about “playing a blame game”, its about what RM says: Insiders taking up the responsibility to take action to meet this challenge. Why does SG take the critique of traditional scholars personally? Perhaps, it has hit a nerve of guilt for what he could have done? That would be his cross to bear.

The fact is that the traditional scholars have failed to do purva-puksh is well established. The call from many leading Sanskrit scholars is that the now “besieged” traditional scholars (Elst) need to get out of the comfort zone of their silos to confront this reality (S. R. Bhatt). Fifteen eminent scholars, many of the heads of Dept. of Sanskrit Studies, whose reviews are present in the beginning of TBFS, acknowledge that traditional “are either blissfully unaware of these subversive projects or are living in isolation and are afraid of debating them” (Dayanand Bhargava). SG’s “poor me” response is that RM “lacks empathy for the numerous scholars who are deeply involved in their own research”. This is a feeble and uninspiring response to the serious challenge that dharma faces in loosing adhikara over the discourse on Sanskrit and Sanskriti to the likes of Pollock and Doniger.

And, one might add, on what basis can SG claim to be the self-appointed spokesman for all traditional scholars? What about the eminent traditional scholars who have acknowledged this weakness of the traditional scholars? Is SG also claiming to trump their views by regarding himself as the monopoly view of traditional scholars?

Further, SG’s dismissal of the urgency of the issues RM raises is exactly symptomatic of what RM analyses is the disease that ails insiders: escapism (TBFS, p. 370). SG presents these escapism themes in his review of TBFS: we have faced this battle for so long and have won, nothing can harm Hinduism. SG’s even admonishes RM to meditate and let things go – suggesting his is getting all tied up in knots for nothing and that how that will come in the way of his sadhana. SG admonishes “if we allow ourselves to be too troubled by such scholars and such debates, we will never be able to attain the peace of a contemplative mind.” Another route to escapism!

SG’s approach can be confusing to those insiders who wish to inject the Kshatriya aspect in to intellectual response to threats to Hindu dharma – SG appears to throw cold water on their enthusiasm to take action rather that go on with business as usual.

Compare that to the response of RM to the threat posed by the establishment of the Shankara’s chair to Columbia: he flew to Shringeri to explain to him the importance of maintaining the insiders’ authority on the legacy of Shankara and urge the Shankarachara there to reconsider this move and then burned the midnight oil for a year to put out TBFS. Yes, that fight appears to be one battle for Sanskrit won by RM’s tapasya!  If RM would have taken the approach suggested by SG, ‘not to be hasty’, etc, it may have been too late to stop the Shankara’s Chair at Columbia, and for that matter the many other chairs that are still planned in the US. It is actually significant that SG does not appreciate the importance and urgency of responding to the threats of Sanskrit outsiders’ attempt to claim authority to speak for the tradition. Compare that to the response of the Kumbh Mela Akhara’s who upon reading the Hindu translation (done by some smart, fast-action oriented RM volunteers) immediately issues a letter of support to RM for informing them of threat and planning to respond to them accordingly. RM refers to Satyajit Ray’s film Shatrang ke Khelari to explain the SG attitudes of escapism – get busy playing a game of “petty and pedantic arguments” while dharma’s treasures are lost, stolen or broken.

Much of SG’s criticism of RM’s work is centered on complaining that RM has not understood Hinduism well and nit-picking on his use of Sanskrit terms. To analyse this further, I refer to an article by SG on the dharmic tradition of discourse (http://indiafacts.org/the-hindu-view-on-freedom-of-expression-and-public-discourse):

A useful framework to have while embarking on a discussion is found in the anubandha catuṣṭaya, ‘the four bindings’ that Sadānanda Yogendra Sarasvati puts forth (Vedāntasāra 1.5) for the study of vedānta, which can be easily applied to discussions in general:

adhikāri – one who is qualified to study or speak about a subject

viṣaya – the subject matter; the scope of the discussion

saṃbandha – the connection of the adhikāri to the viṣaya

prayojana –the purpose of the discussion

Some of the biggest gaffes in today’s debates are because one or more of these four criteria aren’t taken into consideration by the debaters.

Indeed, SG’s complaint against RM regarding his knowledge of Sanskrit terms is a big gaffe on SG’s part: RM has clearly said that, regarding the book BFS, his purpose is to provide purva paksh of Pollock’s work, which due to its dense and complex language, is difficult for non-academics and non-English speakers to understand. His subject matter or scope is on Pollock and the sambandha is that he has spent 25 years studying and understanding western academe and their work on India, which makes him an adhikari in the subject area. The purpose of his book, as mentioned earlier, is to wake up Indians, including the traditional scholars, to the social, political and religious threat posed to Sanskrit/Sansksriti by the control of the dominant discourse on Hinduism by likes of Pollock et al. (TBFS p. 21). RM calls the book his “humble attempt as a starting point only. There are many shortcomings in my purva paksh and uttar paksh from my own limitations” and given the limitation of time (p. 49) and that it will be up to others, including the traditional scholars, to build on it.

SG, on the other hand, clearly, is not an adhikari in the area of purva paksh of western Indology. His adhikara is in the area of traditional knowledge – as an eminent Shatavadhani. So, where is the conflict or competition? Why the attempt to pull RM down from the important work he is doing to bring these matters to the attention of insiders? It is undisputed that no one prior to TBFS had done a similar analysis of Pollock’s work. The same malicious attempt was made on RM some years ago when the book, Invading the Sacred, came out which exposed Wendy Doniger’s work of denigrating Hindu deities, gurus and symbols. TBFS shows that while Doniger’s work was overtly denigrating Hindu civilization, Pollock’s work is more covert and insidious – more like the Shakespearean “snake underneath the flower”. For example, Pollock speaks about the beauty of the Sanskrit language, but at the same time prefers to study it as “dead” language, devoid of its sacred connections. In fact, Pollock describes the the sacredness itself as the “serpent underneath the flower” – a guise to entrap Hindus while aiming to suppress the human rights of women, Muslim and other minorities.

I am incredulous that SG is unable to get the point that RM makes about Pollock’s ‘serpent underneath the flower” approach of praising Sanskrit, while covertly twisting the meaning of its texts using Marxist and Euro-Christian lens of human rights. As RM exposes, these filters historically were used in Europe to separate the role of Church and state due to the Church’s hegemonic hold over the politics of the time and its inability to support science. Marxism was a virulent response to Christianity’s long history of oppression of women and minorities, all over the world in pre-modern times. Pollock projects these rationales, that were used against Christianity, onto the Ramayana in unique ways. RM provides an exceptional analysis of his work to show why Pollock is different in his approach: he appears to be someone who loves and respects Sanskrit, but with a hidden “poison pill” inside. So, while appearing to be ‘love Sanskrit’, Pollock’s work proposes the cultural genocide of Hindu Sanskriti it inspires. Despite a lengthy explanation of Pollock’s ideology in the TBFS, SG questions why RM has arbitrarily divided Sanskrit into ‘sacred’ and ‘beautiful’. SG denouces such distinctions, saying they are “rather shallow and even impertinent”. Well, it appears that SG did not read the relevant section (p. 210-17) in the TBFS. RM did not invent that distinction, Pollock did. SG did not appear to have read the section on Pollock’s theory of “aestheticization of power” and its application to the Ramayana.

SG asserts that RM’s work is a failure because he has not established the “pramanas (methods and means by which knowledge is obtained)” prior to doing purva paksh is one of the most perplexing parts of SG’s review.  It is at this point that he finally at the end of two pages, he gives credit to RM: “for attempting a puvapaksha. And this is why TBFS is a valuable work. SG then sets up a loose-loose situation for RM: SG insists that proper purva paksh requires opposing sides to agree to the pramanas that are to be used. However, he acknowledges that western scholars are not familiar with the dharmic approach which allows ‘differences to be reconciled and transcended’ as indicated by diversity of dharmic traditions. While one could reasonably expect that Pollock is fully aware of these dharmic traditions of debate, the question is this. How does RM engage Pollock in a dharmic style debate when the man refused to do engage with him at any level, despite being personally asked by RM to do so? Who can compel Pollock to agree to dharmic style of debate? Pollock’s theories are western based and he is not looking to work towards ‘transcendence or unity’ of the kind GS has in mind. While Pollock’s ideology can be seen as a darshana – RM refers to it at Charvak 2.0 – its not something RM would support. If GS is suggesting to bring Charvak 2.0 into the Hindu dharmic fold, it seems ludicrous. Perhaps its for this reason that GS then moves on in this discussion to give credit to RM: “That said, Malhotra’s analysis of European Orientalism…and ‘American Orientalism’ is reasonably accurate”. It is not much later, that SG acknowledges that “The assiduous efforts of Malhotra in writing TBFS bears fruit…- a meticulous analysis of the works of Sheldon Pollock.”

SG goes on to complain that RM has repeated himself in his discussion on Pollock’s political ideology and “could have saved many pages” if he had not done so. Here, SG has failed to understand how RM has laid out the book. In the introduction RM clearly states that the book is set up in way that each chapter stands on its own and he suggests readers read the first and concluding chapter first and then go to any other chapter that interest them to delve deeper. This has required him to repeat key ideas in each of the chapters.  SG also complains that it is not “practical” RM suggests a revival of Sanskrit to produce new knowledge in Sanskrit. Why not? If sufficient scholars begin to speak fluently in Sanskrit, as a spoken language, would it not be natural for them to create new smritis? They could be songs, plays or stories in Sanksrit language about traditional culture or modern culture.  Its one of Pollock’s assertion that Sanskrit is a “dead” language and is not capable of producing creative works (see chapter 9 of TBFS).

In the conclusion part, SG continues with his lecture on Sanskrit and Sanskriti terms and ideas. I have called it self-serving because it does not add to the discussion on Pollock that RM’s book is about but rather shows SG’s expertise in the area, which is well recognized by RM already. RM has without hesitation invited SG, and all others, to join together to respond with strength to the Pollockization of Indian history, language and culture, most powerfully through media and academia.

Regarding the many criticisms of RM’s use of key Sanskrit words or dharmic concepts, I suspect RM has not responded to them because many of them represent either missing the point that RM is making or are just plain minor to the battle at hand. For example, SG’s concerns about RM’s use of the term “Sanskrit non-translatable’ is an important topic that RM has devoted a whole chapter to in his book Being Different (p. 220-306). I guess SG did not read it because his comments do not add anything to this topic. As I wrote in my previous response to SG, there are other area where his criticism is mere nitpicking. For example, in the appendix, in the section on “Partially incorrect claims that you point out in RM’s work”, I draw your attention to point #7 on the four levels of speech. SG states that Malhotra’s explanation is incorrect. You state:

They are not four ‘levels’ of speech but rather the four ‘stages.’ From conception to utterance, an idea is said to pass through four stages – paraa (before thought), pashyanti (thought), madhyamaa (on the verge of utterance) and vaikhari (utterance). The ancient seers were able to go from paraa to vaikhari instantly (see Vicaraprapañca of Sediapu Krishna Bhat).

I would like to point out that perhaps SG is incorrect and RM is correct. I say this not because I am a Sanskrit scholar but because of what I have heard my Guru His Holiness Sri Ravi Shankar explain, and I quote as follows.

There are four levels of speech:

1. Vaikhari is the level of speech that we are all using now to communicate.
2. Madhyama is subtler than Vaikhari, where you don’t need language to communicate, but just intentions or feelings help to communicate. It is like you would communicate with people who don’t understand your language or with babies who throw tantrums to tell you that they are hungry or sleepy, or communicate through different signs. Madhyama is subtler than speech, even animals and trees use Madhyama to communicate.
3. Pashyanti is where you simply recognize the knowledge without words or language. It is like deep intuition. Sometimes, when you go deep into meditation, you may hear some chanting or words, or you might get some ideas. When ideas come without language, it is called Pashyanti. A seer would recognize a little bit of that, from somewhere deep. All scientific discoveries happen from the Pashyanti level.

Para, beyond Pashyanti, is the universal language or the source of all expressions. In deep Samadhi or total stillness, you are connected with Para. No verbal communication is needed. Actually, real communication happens from Para, it is just the vibration that communicates. All the other talking that we do, from the Vaikhari level, is only to keep the mind engaged. The mind cannot capture communication from the level of Para, only the soul understands it. Para is the language of the soul. The mind needs some entertainment; the entertainment of the mind is Vaikhari, the language that we speak.

My intension here is to show, as SG has said, there are different interpretations of Sanskrit texts. I do not see the need to make this issue a critique of RM’s book.

In conclusion, I would say that it is unfortunate that SG allowed his ego to come in the way of appreciating the inspiring, important and timely work that TBFS represents. Its unsavoury condescending language is against everything he professes to others. He has set a bad example and the impact of it is evident in Venkat’s support for this poor scholarship. The ball is firmly in the court of SG to clean up his act and take positive action towards what RM has beautifully referred to as our collective yajna to protect and serve our dharma. Om Shanti.

Response to Prof. Anant Rambachan's critique of Indra's Net

Readers of Rajiv Malhotra will know that Prof. Anant Rambachan has been named in Rajiv's latest book Indra's Net as being one of the leading proponents of the Neo-Hinduism thesis that has steadily gained ground in Western academia. Prof. Rambachan has recently been invited as a speaker representing Hindus at a forum for Hindu-Catholic dialogue. This set off a discussion within the forum. Forum members sent mails to the organizers of this dialogue asking them to clarify on what basis Prof. Rambachan is seen as representing all Hindus, especially when he espouses and propagates the deeply divisive and fragmenting theory of Neo-Hinduism. Those readers who do not understand the tern Neo-Hinduism are advised to read Indra's Net which is solely devoted to understanding this concept. A summary of the thesis can also be found here. For readers interested to know what Rajiv has to say about Prof. Rambachan in Indra's Net, the chapter on him from the book is uploaded here.

Prof. Rambachan decided finally to answer his critics and wrote an essay on Swarajya Mag to debunk Rajiv's "myths" about him as he calls them, that he claims Rajiv has concoted in the book Indra's Net. The essay can be found here. Following the publication of this essay, the forum has been alive with extremely meaningful and profound discussion points put forth by many learned forum members. This particular thread on the forum contains some extremely profound observations by various forum members.

Rajiv's response to Prof. Rambachan's essay is appearing in pieces on the forum as Rajiv is extremely busy and they are reproduced below in chronological order.

Response 1:

I am glad Rambachan has decided to respond to me. This is what we need. Not him and Vatican in interfaith propaganda, but INTERNAL resolution among Hindus as to our positions. 

So let me articulate specific issues/questions on which I request him to give clear, crisp responses as that would define his stance.

1. Is he willing to criticize his academic peers who support the neo-Hinduism thesis? Specifically, his PhD adviser Ursula King, Brian Pennington, Peter van der Veer, Pankaj Mishra. Richard King. If he wants to be 'nuanced' and cannot say it openly and directly for everyone to understand, that would be more gobbledygook and only continue suspicions: Which side is he on? Is he saying one thing to Hindus but another to the Western academy?
2. Is Hinduism as espoused by Swami Vivekananda any of the following: new and disconnected with Vedic origins, lacking unity across its various elements,  in conflict with Advaita Vedanta? If so, I have a problem. I would like to convince him to come out in a positive, concrete way and assert the following:
1. Vivekananda's Hinduism is a continuation of an old tradition, merely repackaged for modern times.
2. Its various elements comprise a unified system
3. It is consistent with Advaita (which we must note has undergone many interpretations/evolutions).
3. Did Vivekananda use Christian/Western influence for formulating any of the following: his notion of karma yoga, his notion of raja yoga as science, his notion of bhakti? If so, I have a problem. That is what Rambachan has maintained before. In his recent article, he hedges his position and does not come out clearly. I would like him to change to the following position, even though that would contradict his own prior works and create tension with his Western academic peers::
1. Karma yoga, raja yoga as science, bhakti - each of these is indigenous in our tradition, are not an adaptation of Christian/Western ideas.

The above is a core set of issues where we should start and then we can go further.

Each time he privately went and complained to persons X or Y about my critiques of neo-Hinduism, I wrote back saying that he must have a direct discussion with me. I have expressed this also to Rita Sherma when she called from DCF; I suggested that in some academic setting Rambachan and I can discuss where we stand on these matters. I have not heard back on this. Its much important to debate these issues than all the nonsense that the academy is obsessed with.

The issue of neo-Hinduism has caused serious confusion about who we are - in the mainstream media as well as academics. Many of our own folks are going about parroting such things. If neo-Hinduism is a valid thesis, it is not just Vivekananda that gets compromised, but all that followed after him, including: Sri Aurobindo, Ramakrishna Mission, Chinmaya Mission, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, Art of Living, etc. In fact, the entire modern yoga movement where yoga-vedanta are unified is undermined.

Given his claim that he speaks FOR Hinduism, how could he have never in the past have stuck his neck out and EXPLICITLY REJECT neo-Hinduism? I am glad if I am forcing his hand to come out one way or the other. This has created bheda within the ranks of the academy studying Hinduism their own way.

Why is unwilling to write positively on the UNITY OF HINDUISM ACROSS ALL THESE VARIED SYSTEMS? If I can get him to do this, it would make my effort worthwhile. The price he would have to pay would be with the western academic cabal. Thats a choice he has to make. If one top player breaks ranks with the academic establishment it could spiral out of control for them. Wouldn't that be a game changer for us?

The more we debate this, the more tricky it becomes for him to take both sides, using nuance.

Response 2:

Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised by the excellent quality of many of the comments under Rambachan's article. Shows these are well read persons who think for themselves and apply rigor.

Many comments have cited in some detail the anti-Hindu writings of Ursula King, under whom Rambachan studied in UK and got his advanced degrees and academic credentials. Many have caught him on some utterly false or at least misleading statements he makes in the article.

Right now my priority is to meet my deadlines for my next book, The next 2 chapters I am doing are very tough and challenging. After that will be smooth sailing. But to do these on time is excruciating. 

So you have to be patient for my response to Rambachan. Meanwhile, you should use this opportunity to get involved, learn the issues, etc.

In any case, he evades the key issues of neo-Hinduism and merely wants to cover himself - WITHOUT in any way wanting to upset his academic cabal.

He also ignores that I am not the first to raise these objections about him. My book's chapter on him cites a long debate between him and Arvind Sharma years back, in which Sharma made some of the same points as me and I am citing his extensively. I also cite T.S. Rukmani, Prof of Hindu Studies at Concordia U, who feels the same as me. Then there are some Western scholars who my book cites. I am in good company on my positions. What I do for the first time is to bring together the whole gang of neo-hinduism. Previously scholars have not put them together as a group with a consistent theory they all echo.

Strangely, he whines that I am doing ad hominem attacks against him in the book - yet he cannot cite a single such incident. I always make it a point to send my book drafts to as many as a dozen reviewers before it goes to the publisher, and the specific purpose is for scholars who are new to the issues to make sure the tone is respectful, the material is coherent, etc. So I challenge Rambachan to cite where exactly my book has any ad hominem against him.

Also, he is only one of a whole group of scholars in the neo Hinduism club that I take on. Why did that group ask him to shoulder the responsibility to evangelize on their behalf? While he is upset that I pointed out his affiliations with the Church and other western bodies, he does not say what was incorrect in my statement.

I am glad this happened as it will fan the flames and more Hindus will read to understand the issues that are at stake.

Response 3:

I authorize people to post scans or copies of chapter 6 of Indra's Net which is specifically on Rambachan. Also the end notes for that chapter. You may also post chapter 10 where I reconcile Vedanta and Yoga - the neo-Hinduism camp finds them in mutual tension.

Pls post this material here and elsewhere - right now I am bogged down and unable to do this but I request others to do so for me.

Please point out in various forums:

1) End note 11 of chapter 6 is where I refer to Swami Dayananda Saraswati, since Rambachan refers to him. What i write there is misrepresented in Rambachan's article. I do not say what he alleges. I say that swamiji teaches unity of various elements of Hinduism and champions this through the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha.

2) He accuses me of ad hominem attacks. I read through chapter 6 again and did not see anything like that whatsoever. Yesterday, I showed it to a scholar at Princeton Univ who is uninvolved in religious studies and works elsewhere in the humanities. She has no knowledge of Hinduism or this issue. She said it is very well written and by no means ad hominem. Is Rambachan whining and claiming 'victimhood' status to divert attention from the real issues of neo-Hinduism? This is a common Church technique.

3) Focus on Ursula King, please:Rambachan is a product of two strong influences. One side is the influence of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, from whom he learned Vedanta philosophy. He then took this knowledge to England where he spent many years under the tutelage of Prof. Ursula King, a rabid anti-Hindu scholar of considerable influence. (Indra’s Net has a chapter summarizing some of her writings. I also met her once at Oxford where she attended a lecture I delivered back in the 1990s.) He did his advanced work under her and she was his PhD advisor. Under her supervision, he got his academic credentials. He cannot try to hide all that influence under the rug, as he tries to do in his public posturing before Hindu groups. When he wants to establish his credentials amongst Hindus, he speaks only of Swamiji as his teacher. But in his academic writings, he is very much part and parcel of an entirely different world, where his membership started decades back under the mentorship of Ursula King. His is a tale of two worlds. He is remarkably silent on his history and involvement in this second world.

Thank you for so many excellent comments people have posted at his Swarajya article. See this as a chance to delve deeper into a major issue all Hindus must become informed of - neo-Hinduism is like a cancer eating us from within.

Response 4 from Rajiv is a set of research papers by people who have argued against Prof. Rambachan's position on Hinduism. Rajiv has made available to the forum members papers from T.S Rukmani, Arvind Sharma, Jonathan Bader, Comans, Kundan Singh. This is for serious readers to understand where Rajiv has drawn his references from which he has also cited in Indra's Net.

Response 5:

A common ploy by Christian critics of Hinduism has been to accuse it of being world negating. They cite advaita texts to claim that the pragmatic dimension is irrelevant to Hindus because life is an illusion, anyway. Hence, they argue, the Christian missionaries must provide human rights, food, shelter, education, scientific progress and so forth, because the Hindus are not interested or capable to look after their own suffering lot.

This view has caused considerable harm to Hindus. We need more teachers to argue back that this is a false premise. I have been doing this arguing back, but I shall show that Shri Rambachan is unhappy over it.

I see the vyavharika (worldly realm of life) as being important and connected to the parkarthika (transcendental realm). I never dismiss one or the other. (My forthcoming book criticizes the interpretations of Sanskrit texts by Sheldon Pollock, another powerful scholar who is undermining our tradition while appearing to be reviving it. He, too, disconnects parmarthika and vyavharika, and then he can attack them apart separately. I argue strongly that this separation is a distortion.)

I consider various Hindu paths as vyavharika approaches to start wherever a given individual happens to be, and then to lead him/her towards parmarthika. Even though moksha is the final goal, most of us in this life start at a lower level of consciousness. This is why Hinduism has vyavharika practices such as dance, music, yoga, Ayurveda, yajna, karma, and so forth. These are user-friendly starting points. They are very important.

In Indra’s Net I point out that it is a bad strategy for our teachers to limit themselves to teaching moksha, and sidelining the vyavharika aspects. After all, Hinduism is the art of living and all aspects must be understood and practiced. This is why it is important to also teach artha-shastra, dharma-shastra, niti-shastra, and so forth. We should not limit the teachings to moksha-shastra, by which I mean a certain interpretation of Upanishads that is in vogue today.

The point I make is that 99% of the Hindus today are not going to attain moksha in this life, and most of the Hindus don’t even want to, or care to know about it. What about them? What does Hinduism do for them? We cannot, as Christians accuse us often, ignore these non-moksha dimensions. We cannot accede this ground of daily living to the Christian missionaries to take over. Hinduism must be taught broadly and not moksha-centric.

In this context, I wrote the following passage in Indra’s Net:

“But most Hindus are not pursuing moksha per se in any lineage. Their relationship with Hinduism is much more mundane and concerns legitimate pursuits (purusharthas) that are more pragmatic than moksha. I find it problematic to represent Hinduism in international forums that aim to undermine its legitimacy on the grounds of disputes among lineages over technical issues of moksha; issues that do not affect the practice of Hinduism by its vast majority of followers today.” (Indra’s Net, page 55)

Shri Rambachan twists my notion of presenting Hinduism in a broad-based manner in modern discourse. He makes it sound as if I am anti-moksha. He is being manipulative when he writes the following:

“By sidelining the centrality of mokṣa, we run the risk of reducing the meaning of Hinduism to group identity and a political agenda. If contemporary Hindus are not interested in the meaning of mokṣa, as Malhotra claims, this is no matter for complacency. It reflects a failure on the part of Hindu teachers and interpreters to properly articulate its enduring meaning in our contemporary context.” (Swarajya, April 30, 2015)

But I have never tried to sideline moksha. He is not doing proper purva-paksha of my work, because he is not supposed to misrepresent my position. Nor is he right in saying that we either get moksha or we get “a political agenda”. This is so typical of the binary dichotomies he learned in the Western academy.

My point in Indra’s Net is that to evaluate Swami Vivekananda’s unity of Hinduism, one must appreciate that he is helping Hindus across a vast spectrum, and not only the 1% pursuing moksha. These vyavharika dimensions are where Swamiji’s teachings of yoga, karma, bhakti and other paths come nicely together. Whether a given practice by itself brings moksha cannot be the sole criteria for evaluating it.

Once Shri Rambachan accepts this point, he would have no choice but to criticize the neo-Hinduism doctrine forcefully. That doctrine essentializes the entire tradition as world negating, and hence they accuse Swami Vivekananda of fabricating/manufacturing Hinduism. This is why they call it neo-Hinduism, i.e. something newly made up during British times. Shri Rambachan is once again evasive of neo-Hinduism by framing the issue as a binary moksha versus politics choice.

Response 6:

Shri Rambachan seeks to confuse readers by over-emphasizing one aspect of his personal life – where he claims to have taken sannyasa and become qualified as an Acharya. But he wants to deflect attention away from his other side, which is what I have mentioned, and which is the one relevant here. That other side is his academic career and the way it has been intertwined with his links to Church groups and Western institutions engaged in religious matters. The mere fact that he evades these is itself troubling. What is he trying to hide? Upon examining this second side one realizes that his frequent and long drawn out references to his life as a Hindu in Trinidad and in Swamiji’s ashram serve as diversion tactics. It is important to bring out the other side as that is where his academic writings are located.

Had he done his PhD in a traditional Hindu institution, it would have been a different matter. But given that his PhD advisor for many years and the most influential mentor in setting up his academic career is a well-known Christian theologian, he cannot simply hide that under the rug as he tries to do. I am referring to Ursula King, in UK.

He says that he does not explicitly mention Prof. King’s work except in two places. But absence and silence does not mean lack of influence. How could a young man from a poor country, a former British colony, go to live in UK and work for many years for his Master’s Degree and then his doctorate under a powerful Christian voice against Hinduism, and not get any influence from her and her cohorts? And why does Shri Rambachan want to extensively discuss one aspect of his autobiography but not another?

Why am I considered to be making ad hominem attacks just because I point out such influences upon him? After all, it is a standard analytical approach in the academy to discuss the socio-political influences upon a thinker whose work is being discussed? Shri Rambachan extensively discuss Swami Vivekananda’s works in the context of the various influences acting upon him. He exaggerates the Christian and Western influences on him. But when I discuss the Christian and Western influences on Shri Rambachan’s own life and career, he calls it an ad hominem attack. What is he wanting to hide here?

I am convinced that he wants to hide the links with the neo-Hinduism camp. He avoids discussing the doctrine of neo-Hinduism and refers to it as something that “Mr. Malhotra claims”. Forget me, what does he think of it? As a Hindu voice, surely he cannot simply ignore it. But he does ignore it in his entire work and even now in his latest articles.

In fact, he ought to be discussing the neo-Hinduism doctrine if he wants to write about my book, because that is the sole target of my book. It says so clearly. Yet Shri Rambachan is completely silent on it.

Is he helping his neo-Hinduism cohorts by deflecting attention towards himself – that he is this humble Hindu who is being ‘victimized’ by the like of me? Is this a way to get readers’ attention away from neo-Hinduism and towards his personal life? Who is pulling his strings to encourage him to do this? If we take him at face value, he is a good Hindu wanting to promote its positive qualities. In that case, he ought to have written a scathing criticism against the loud champions of neo-Hinduism. Instead of doing this, he is in alliance with them. This became clear and explicit when in 2012 at the American Academy of Religion annual conference in Chicago, he teamed up with Brian Pennington to lambast my earlier book, Being Different.

Indra’s Net names the major voices of neo-Hinduism, quotes them extensively to explain what their doctrine is, and how it is linked to Shri Rambachan’s main work. Besides the originators of the doctrine such as his mentor, Ursula King, Indra’s Net cited extensive quotes from several academic voices that are powerful Hinduphobics today. These include: Brian Pennington, Brian Hatcher, Gerald Larson, Sheldon Pollock, Jack Hawley, Romilla Thapar and Meera Nanda, among others. At the very least I had hoped that Shri Rambachan would denounce all those scholars in no uncertain terms. But he has not done that. Suspicion is called for in such circumstances.

These so far have been Rajiv's responses. This post will be updated as further responses from Rajiv come in.

Summary of the Neo-Hindu thesis

February 2014

A senior forum commentator recently provided a summary of the thesis of the neo-Hindu cabal that is analyzed in the 'Purva Paksha' section of Rajiv Malhotra's new book 'Indra's Net'. The book is available at http://indrasnetbook.com, flipkart, Amazon (including Kindle e-format). This blog is published here so that all Indra'sNet audiences around the world can use this excellent summary as a reference resource while reading. Comments welcome.

Surya wrote:
This summary only provides the context but facilitates reading and understanding the book.  

Thesis of neo-Hindu camp:

(1) Hinduism as a modern construct: Hinduism is 'an orchid bred by European scholarship ... In nature, it does not exist.' (Page 50). Hinduism is no more than a collection of amorphous religions that co-exist in the same region and have some commonalities, but these commonalities are far outweighed by divisions and mutual antagonisms.(Page 67).  It is primarily not a religious concept but one of geographic origin.  (Page 94).  Before 19th century, there was no Hindu religious identity that transcended narrow sectarian boundaries.(Page 50).  Before 'Hinduism' came into use, the natives of India referred only to sampradayas (lineages of traditions), which were orthodox and narrowly defined. (Page 94). Instead of seeing Hinduism as a religious system, it would perhaps be more accurate to view it as a multidimensional socio-religious process which has undergone radical transformations over the last hundred years and continued to change. (Page 94). Hinduism then is a joint construct of Britain and India, Christians and Hindus, who devised 'something that the later 19th century would take for granted: a coherent, pan-Indian Hinduism.' (Page 134)

(2)  Neo-Hinduism as a modern variation of Hinduism under Christian and Western Secular Influences: In 1800s, Indian leaders suffered a deep inferiority complex about the weakness of India compared with Europe, and attributed this weakness to Hinduism's inability to adapt to modern times. (Page 68) 1800s was a time when Protestant and Catholic missionaries constantly denigrated and criticized the Hindu scriptures.  Their attacks were troubling to Hindu reformers of the Brahmo Samaj.  Under these conditions, Western Unitarians arrived in India as a welcome relief, for they interpreted Hindu theology as being open, rational, experiential, and science-friendly.  Sensing a good-fit, Brahmo Samaj sent its bright youth to Unitarian Seminaries in England for training.  Following this, Brahmo Samaj started to adapt the framework of Unitarian Christianity in order to identify alternative sources of authority within Hinduism that would support this kind universal and scientific ideology based on experience. This is the advent of neo-Hinduism (as distinct to and discontinuous from native traditions). (Page 53).  The neo-Hindu dogma of equality of all religions emerged originally in the 19th century from the ideology of European Enlightenment. The neo-Hindu concept of Dharma was clearly prompted by the philosophy of Saint Augustus and Philosopher John Stuart Mill but expressed completely in Indian terms. (Page 70).  

(3) Swami Vivekananda as a key architect of Neo-Hinduism and his political interests: Swami Vivekananda, who was familiar with and influenced by Brahmo Samaj and Unitarian Church, introduced Western scientific inquiry and direct experience in order to bring Hinduism on par with Western thought. (Page 53)  Vivekananda's call for unity and inner resolution of tensions were clearly ideas of nationalism and the driving force behind the neo-Hindu concept of unity. (Page 68)  

(4) Swami Vivekananda brings Western Thought into neo-Hinduism: Swami Vivekananda's innovation of 'Practical Vedanta' was meant to address the needs of his time using Vedanta Principles.  One such practical application was in the realm of social ethics. Such social ethics were not in alignment with traditional Vedanta. (Page 74).  Christian missionaries inspired the new definition of karma:  'Under the influence of Christian missionaries, the idea that karma = seva (understood as social duty and service to others) was articulated in the 19th century.' (Page 91).  

(5) Neo-Hinduism deviates from tradition:  Per traditional Advaita, moksha is brought about by merely a 'cognitive shift' and this cannot be caused by any action, be it devotion or work.  This means that actions such as meditation, bhakti, social service, and so on, are unable to cause moksha (Page 100).  Lack of intellectual depth in contemporary Hindu scholarship is due to the popularity of views on the primacy of yogic experience, and secondary status to Sruti. (Page 117).  Additionally, Vivekananda chose to reconcile and unify various schools of Vedanta (Page 117) bringing hierarchical relativism to Hinduism.

(6) Contemporary Hinduism = Neo-Hinduism as an incoherent amalgam: Unlike Abrahamic religions which are wary of epistemological relativism out of the fear of relativizing the World of God revealed in the Bible or the Koran, Brahminical Hinduism (and Hindu nationalism) thrives on a hierarchical relativism to evade all challenges to its idealistic metaphysics and mystical ways of knowing.  (Page 142). Therefore, the idea of a unified Hindu religion is counter both to religious practices and to the theological doctrines of India (Pages 50, 51). Unified Hinduism is counter to tradition and serves nationalistic interests and calling for unity for political expedience.  Hinduism then is an instance of Pizza Effect i.e., Indians adopting Western concepts but giving them Sanskrit names.  These are true neologisms, invented by Western Indologists and then copied and re-marketed by Indian scholars who displaced the old pandits with this newly minted coinage that is now in vogue in the Indian literature, media, and educational institutions. (Page 82)

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.

 

 

 

Who are our Devis and Devatas?

This is a developing thread that we promised to cover depending on the trajectory of the discussion. Well, the path of the debate has traversed important topics that touch BD, contemporary Hinduism, and other points relating to the integral unity within Hinduism, panentheism, and ultimately leading to this fundamental question:

Who really are our Devis and Devatas?

Are they symbolic of the multiple intelligences or powers of a single divine entity, or have totally separate existences, or is it something else?

This fascinating discussion was sparked by the post of a commentator who observed ISKCON devotees distributing copies of the Gita to visitors of the Shiva temple (outside its premises) in Atlanta, Georgia, USA during the Maha Shivaratri puja. 


ISKCON: Push Marketing?

Raj posted: Sunday March 10, 2013, Hindu Temple of Atlanta had special Mahasivaratri puja & events. The premises has separate temples for Shiva & Vishnu (Balaji). I was somewhat surprised to see ISKCON missionaries outside the Shiva temple stopping Shiva devotees, conversing and giving them free copies of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. That too, particularly on Mahasivaratri when there are more Shiva devotees visiting the temple. Given what is known about standard ISKCON teaching about Shiva, I had to wonder -from BD perspective-  if this is a form of Push Marketing & Charcoal Burning. Also, if there is some Difference Anxiety as well.

Partha responded:

"ISKCON devotees with their books make themselves available wherever Hindus or potential friends of Hindus gather. Here is an ISKCON article on Sivaratri observation. .... There are apparently some riders, but they seem to value the observation of the holy festival

Karthik adds:
"Earlier ISKON wouldnt even celebrate any other functions other than oned related to KRishna. I was told by an ISKON devote that One Krishna = 2 Ramas. Now Hanuman Jayanthi, Ram Navami etc is celebrated as well..."

Indrajit disagrees with Raj:
"Construing the free distribution of Gita outside a Shiva temple on the occasion of 'mahashivratri' as push marketing, is a misplaced conception. Yes,  Raj might be remotely right, had the epic were distributed free outside a church or mosque or place of worship of any other religion. Promoting Gita-awareness through such contribution outside a Hindu place of worship was more appropriate rather than 'push marketing..."

Ashok commented:
"...[unaware] that there was a tension in the minds of ISCON devotees about Krishna and other Gods until I read this post. Having spent all my formative years in India, I had not come across any such tensions in the minds of worshippers of the many Gods regarding claims of superiority.

I therefore googled ISCON and Shiva and was dismayed to read their agonising and convoluted logic to try to show Vishnu to be superior to Shiva. They seem to take Vishnu's saying in Gita that there is no difference between Me, Brahma and Shiva to mean that Vishnu is being patronising them. This is a novel concept for me!

For most 'Indians' both Gods are so, so far higher to them that they do not even think of a possible distinction. They would in fact be happy to accept a learned sage or a 'minor God' as described in the Gita as their guide and support.

  

As Rajiv has elaborated, there is an inherent need in those who grew up in the atmosphere of Abrahamic faiths to feel that they worship only the 'best', anything less somehow debases their faith. Hence the need to show Krishna as the Highest. Such a need is a alien concept for those who grew up in Dharmic traditions..."

Brahma cites a brief portion of Ashok's comment and expounds. We carry this with very little editing since this comment sets the agenda for the remainder of the discussion in this thread:

"It can be noted that aside from the obvious, that ISKCON's western members are from a western/Abrahamic background and hold those attitudes ("Our way is the superior path...") -- which of course is quite true... there is another layer here:

If you do your "purva paksha" on the the works of Sri-la-Sri Prabhupada, in his book on the Science of Self-Realization, page 117 he himself writes:

"There is a mis-conception that Krishna Consciousness represents the Hindu Religion." There is much more on that page. But the founder of ISKCON himself disavows Hinduism. Krishna consciousness is "universal and transcends sectarian designations." 

There is more on that page along those lines...

(Venkat provides a link to this)

This has been taken quite seriously since his day, by his devotees and plays out in these ridiculous "missionary" efforts to proselytize followers of any other Deities within Hinduism itself. Shiva in particular is sub-ordinated as the "supreme devotee." If you ask many ISKCON devotees "are you a Hindu." 85% of them will squirm and try to avoid using the "H" word.

It was largely a reaction to the on-going attempts toward "hegemony" of the Smarta/Advaita Vedanata of Sankara, with respect to Hinduism as a whole. It is an old polemic between Vaishnavism/Sankaran Vedanta. The Smarta Sampadaya/Advaita Vedanta is only one "family" within Santana Dharma. It is not the whole or the cream the end of the evolution of, etc Hindu tradition. It is just one Sampradaya among many.  Unfortunately Prabhupada could not seem to accept this on level terms. Since Smarta had opted to define Hinduism by their philosophy, he chose to denounce his roots in order not to be "digested" by latter day liberal "Smarta Sanatana Dharma"

The same issues that Rajiv is working to "solve" viz-a-viz Hinduism vs other religions, are at work inside Hinduism itself, where there is on-going "digestion" of original, very distinct, sampradayas and lineages by the modern, latter day liberal interpretations of Sanatana Dharma thru the lens of intellectual Mayavada Vedanta, and modern day Indian Hindu academics who are far removed from authentic understanding of, for example the true meaning of temple worship as described by the Agama scriptures... a movement that has been going on for decades aided and abetted once again, by our own swamis, Indian intellectuals and "Vedantists," who look down their noses at "sectarian" Hindus.

This has very sad side consequences... e.g. the Tamil "Dravidian" fanatic movement that seeks to divorce itself from all things Vedic or Sanskritic...and separate Saivism from Hinduism (a Dalit position that is extremely unhealthy for South Indian Saivism for which Tamil and Sanskrit are two legs of one being)

But [there] is another story where the very movement to "homogenize" Hinduism, by Hindus themselves, (mostly a social political effort working for, admittedly needed, solidarity in the face of Islam and Christianity)  has become an unwitting ally in the "breaking" process-- by stimulating reaction from those who resist being digested by the Smartas, taking it so far as to disown their heritage. Christians of course have capitalized big time on this "internal problem"  which, really should be seen as a minor discussion between siblings in the same family (Smarta/Vaishnava/Shaiva/Shakta). But they have used it as another tool in the divide and conquer strategy we know so well.

The scenario witnessed at the Atlanta temple is just one end result of this problem."

Rajiv responds to Brahma:

In this entire thread thus far, this post below has struck me as special for it goes deep into something about our tradition. I got interested because my forthcoming book deals with this extensively. In fact, this is the core issue being discussed.

Here is a bit of overview: Many western scholars starting with Hacker in the 1950s, followed by Indian scholars with Anantaand Rambachan as their leader, have claimed that there was no unified entity that may be designated as Hinduism. In particular they dismiss Vivekananda as a "Neo" Hindu who "manufactured" what is today called Hinduism...

The implication is that most of us modern Hindus are practicing something fake. The genuine thing according to them is not one religion or dharma or faith, but several separate ones that have irreconcilable mutual tensions and contradictions amongst them. Any attempt to unify them is inauthentic and politically motivated.

My findings are complex. The conclusion is not an easy one. I dont want to reduce my 300-page forthcoming book to a simplistic treatment. .... In the past 4 months, I have studied several dozen serious works from both sides of this debate, including several PhD dissertations, easily over 10,000 pages of scholarly writings. ....

.... there has definitely been a deep unity since ancient times that goes across the tensions, fights, etc. amongst them. I will leave it at that. "

Srinivas commented:
"Although Vivekananda's  experiences with west and standing up for Hinduism, is invaluable for Hindu history, it cannot be said that he represented all of Hinduism in his conversations with west. At least as far as I have read him, there is no common ground established by Vivekananda where Vaishnava and other Dharmic followers can identify themselves with his definition of Hinduism. This is the difference with BD.

BD doesnt force everybody to accept one Dharma stream as common but invites everybody to identify themselves with the main principles of: Independence from History, Integral unity, Decentralization and Non-translatability.

Vivekananda and many Shankara followers here suffer from difference anxiety. There is a hidden assumption that when one talks of Hinduism, it is implicit that it is Shankara's philosophy. ...The reason many people squirm at being called a Hindu is because of this implicit assumption in the context. The other part of implicit assumption of Hinduism is its nationalistic association to India. This of-course will not be palatable to non-Indian Dharmic followers.

The Hinduism of Vivekananda may not be palatable to many of us. But that doesn't mean there is no concept of Hinduism.

Any definition of Hinduism cannot deny the diversity and difference of Atman, central to Vaishnava philosophy.To be called Hindus, our common ground has to be the 4 main principles of BD (or equivalent ones like context sensitive theory by AK Ramanujan). Otherwise we are back to re-inventing the wheel.

Difference anxiety among us is evident here at the way ISKCON bashing happens from time to time. Why can't we accept ISKCON as one among us? ISKCON and its philosophy satisfy BD's criteria. Infact, Achintya-Bheda-Abheda, explained in BD is not very far from ISKCON / Chaitanya philosophy..."

Shaas responds:

"....instead of celebrating Shiva on Shiva`s night, ISKCON chooses to trying to convince everyone that they should worship some other Deva, etc.

ON the other hand, I feel that Hinduism is going really by the Church way, i.e. increasing incompatibility of different sects and ways to worship the Supreme - the Totality of Brahman.

First, Varnaashrama was rejected, then some "experts" want to streamline and correct the Vedic scriptures, and now different sects are starting to fight against each other.

.... [mutual respect] is missing in the approach of ISKCON as described in the incident of Shiva Ratri.

... In the Upanishads is written that - by all differences of Vishnu and Shiva, still, Vishnu is in the heart of Shiva and Shiva in the heart of Vishnu."

Srinivas responds:

"... the whole point is not whether Vaishnavas are correct or Shaivas are correct. That is an argument that'll last till Hinduism/Dharma exists. The question is whether Vaishnavas or Shaivas have an equal position in the table of Dharmic streams. Is it right to question their authenticity as a branch of Dharmic thought? 

....My concern was on the view that ISKCON is often treated as an outsider when their philosophy and practices are 100% Dharmic in nature and got through authentic Guru tradition. You may have differences with their worldview, but dont question their Dharmic authenticity. Other dharmic institutions have equally questionable practices if not more.  

.... Mutual respect within Dharmic streams is to be mastered before we are to successfully demand it from others."

Surya comments:
"Claiming that Shiva and Vishnu are the same is not necessary for Hindus and they do not suffer from cognitive dissonance when they do not conflate.  However, if an Advaitin says this, the intent is not digestion as you suggested but is a consequence of his metaphysical viewpoint.

Dharma traditions have their distinct differences, even incompatibilities in their metaphysics.  Being Different is very comfortable with those differences and readily acknowledges it.  The commonality within Dharma family and distinctness of the Dharma family from Abrahamic family is where Being Different focuses its efforts.  Distinctness between the families is seen along dimensions of history-centrism, integral unity, comfort with decentralization and self-organization, and distinct meaning of non-translatable Sanskrit words vs their nearest English or German equivalents.

Please see the following excerpt from Rajivji's paper in the International Journal of Hindu Studies.  

Integral Unity is Not Homogeneity 

Being Different's position is that multiple Dharma systems can each have integral unity and yet have different and even incompatible metaphysics. The fact that each has integrality and yet is distinct from the rest is akin to several different objects being yellow”that is, the common quality of yellowness gives a family resemblance without making all the yellow objects the same. 

...Criticism that Being Different somehow reduces all Indian belief systems into a single homogeneity is equivalent to an argument that by demonstrating the differences between Judaism and Christianity, one claims to have debunked their shared principle of prophetic revelation.  An integral unity, likewise, may be expressed through Madhyamika, Advaita, Visistadvaita, Tantra, Aurobindo and many other forms, each of which is distinct. Being Different goes to great lengths to explain that different Dharma systems disagree on many key points, yet each adheres to the common standard of integral unity proposed in the book. 

From his blog: Dharma and the new Pope

"history centrism" which leads the Abrahamic religions to claim that we can resolve the human condition only by following the lineage of prophets arising from the Middle East. All other teachings and practices are required to get reconciled with this special and peculiar history. By contrast, the dharmic traditions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism -- do not rely on history in the same absolutist and exclusive way. This dharmic flexibility has made a fundamental pluralism possible which cannot occur within the constraints of history centrism, at least as understood so far. ...

While I recognize that the centrality of revelation through history is a core value in the Abrahamic faiths, I would point out that not only does it cause problems for non-Abrahamic faiths, but among the Abrahamic traditions as well. Their respective rival claims cannot be reconciled as long as they cling to a literal account of the Middle Eastern past, an insistence that this past is absolutely determinative of religious truth.

Any issues with ISKON missionary efforts ?

However, they are still part of the Dharma family because they are not history centric, their metaphysics shows integral unity, they do not have an organized Church, and share Sanskrit words and their meanings with other Dharma traditions.

Conversion efforts are a symptom of intolerance, lack of mutual respect.  That is the only real issue.  where does that come from?  If this symptom is deep-rooted because some in ISKON are turning their tradition history centric, it may be signs of ISKON breaking away on a core dimension.

Interested in knowing what drives missionary efforts of ISKON.  Believing Krishna is the ultimate God is perfectly OK.  Issue is with telling others that is the only way."

Srinivas responds:

"Is conversion the real issue? What is the problem with conversion? Is ISKCON converting people in the same sense as Christianity? 

I would say, conversion is not the issue. Conversion via inducements and subterfuge is the issue. If anything ISKCON is inviting people to understand Krishna through direct dialogue and experience. Not via inducements. Isn't Advaita converting more people into its fold? Is this not via rational debate and/or yogic experience?

... Does an Advaitin or Shaivite not say that theirs is the only way? Why the double standards just for ISKCON?  Believing that theirs is the only way is not the problem. If you dont believe that yours is the only true way, what stops you from getting digested into the other side?...

Mutual respect does not come from abandoning your own faith or in diluting it to become acceptable to the other. As a Dharmic follower, I respect you not because you follow the same faith (Vaishnavite or Shaivite) as mine, but because:

1. You and I are both Sat-Chid-Ananda nature.
2. Antaryami in both of us is the same God.

Or I just cannot or have no reason to disrespect you because:

1. Sadhana is across many Janmas
2. Liberation is individual and internal, not collective or external.
3. Context sensitive nature of what is Dharma, right/wrong.

In other words, mutual respect is natural for any Dharmic follower because of his/her inherent world view. Not because I pull my punches in saying mine is the only true way."

Surya's followup:

"... There are only two kinds of conversions: (1) conversion on one's own volition; (2) direct conversion through the influence of an external agent (person or organization).

Conversion as in (2) is an issue.  By "direct" I mean that the activity is specifically intended to convert by an external agent.

In other words, a PULL model is reasonable and acceptable.  A PUSH model is not.

.... On what basis can one distinguish between what is subterfuge and what is not?  Given that the claims are supernatural in nature, in the end it seems that it is all about convincing.  Should you leave this to the better rhetorical argument to win?

The act of direct conversion is wrong.  Whether ISKON or some other organization does it is not the point. ..

....it would be perfectly fine to distribute Gita by setting them in a booth and letting people come and pick them.  That way, people who choose to pray only to Shiva are not offended.  Thrusting a Gita into that person's hand is a PUSH activity.  That is what is wrong.  Not whether it is a Gita or a Bible.

.... One is free to believe or change one's beliefs on their own in a PULL activity.  One can believe that their way is the only way.  ... I was specifically referring to A telling B that A's way is the only right way when B holds a distinct set of beliefs.  This is a PUSH activity.  This is a violation of mutual respect.  Whether A is holding a Bible or Gita or....

Everyone should be free to believe that their beliefs are true.  However, they should refrain from rubbing their beliefs on others who do not hold the same beliefs. ...

Do these happen in Dharma?  Of course, just as crimes occasionally happen in a good society.  However, Dharmic society cannot accept institutionalizing such PUSH activities by legitimizing them. If you do not profess your faith to me, is that abandoning your faith?  If you do not PUSH your faith on me does it dilute your faith?  It is even OK for you to tell me why you hold your beliefs.  In the spirit of mutual respect, I will honor your right to hold your beliefs and as a willing friend listen to you.  However, it is a violation of mutual respect when you tell me that my beliefs are wrong.

...If ISKON agrees with those [], why do they have an urge to convert?  Because, ISKON says that the Antaryami is Krishna.

Just to be clear, you are free to believe Krishna and Shiva are the same but cannot require others to believe that..."

The next three comments are directly related to the topic, but not the immediate discussion between Surya and Srinivas. Rajiv responds to another post:

"....There are two levels at which a person can engage Hinduism. One is purely as a practitioner. For that you need not and probably should not survey all the schools, issues, debates, choices. Its like I am satisfied as a Windows user and need not become an expert on comparative operating systems. I know how my car works and need not learn auto engineering or details on every car. As a chef its enough for me to do a great job with my cuisine. I recommend Hindus to get a good guru and stick to that guidance. The second level is as a scholar wanting to debate Hinduism in its entirely in public forums - be it for sake of educational curriculum in schools or media portrayal or public policy or whatever. For this second kind of engagement I better work as hard to gain competence as a student who qualifies in medicine, law, engineering, etc. Problem is what people with level one involvement become opinionated as level two experts"

Vishal comments on the Devatas of Hinduism:
" Most Hindus regard different Devatas as forms or manifestations of the same Divinity. However, there has always been a minority within Hinduism who are sectarian minded and have attempted to prove that one Devata is superior to the other.

ISCKON and several similar Sampradayas believe that Krishna is superior even to Vishnu. In the middle ages, some Acharyas argued that Vishnu is the Supreme Deity and Shiva is not the Supreme Deity (e.g. Shri Vaishnavas) and vice versa. These debates have been restricted to a small minority of sectarian scholars. For most Hindus however, all these Forms of Divinity are worthy of reverence and are complementary.

...The Hindu objection to depiction of Hinduism as 'Polytheistic' in California textbooks during the controversy in 2005-2006 was very valid.

I do not see anything offensive in Hare Krishnas distributing the Gita on a Shivaratri day. In fact, the Gita has been adapted by all major Hindu traditions. There is a Shaivite version called the Ishvara Gita (in the Kurma Purana), the Devi Gita, the Ganesha Gita and so on - and it becomes very apparent that there are hundreds of verses common between these Gitas on one hand and the Bhagavad Gita on the other. In our local temple, it is very common to see Bhaktas chant Shaivite hymns in front of Murtis of Krishna and vice versa when we celebrate festivals. This puzzles Christian visitors, but most Hindus do not bat an eyelid when that happens. Yours truly also sang a Sanskrit Arati on Lord Shiva at a Hanuman Puja two weekends back at someone's home. "

Gene asks:
"...What ever happened to Enlightenment, of call it Perennial Samadhi, or the Turiya State of Consciousness?

Which branch of Hinduism, or which cult has the best track record in producing Enlightened Sages or men and women who achieved Cosmic  Consciousness.  Or doesn't this matter in the scheme of things Hindu?  "


We now resume the chain of discussion around mutual respect, Vivekananda, and ISKCON. Krishna Murthy agrees with Srinivas:
"....KruNvanto vishwamaaryam [Let us aryanise the
entire Universe] is the Vedic goal. 'SangacChadhwam' [Conflue] the Vedas ordain. That is, Just as rivers conflue (blend with one another, and become One), the Vedic injunction ordains to all those who follow the Arsha dharma is ipso facto one.

But this is the Uttara Paksha. Rajivji is still striving to make his Purvapaksha well-grounded. ... shows how lethargic the Hindu Society has become. Because it has been emaciated by the Western pattern and content of education in India. Even many speak that Hinduism is a
shanti-priya Dharna, Humbug! Hinduism does not preach cowardice. Saha veeryam karavaavahai. That is what we swear.

I wish god-speed in the mission Rajivji has undertaken; so that he may start Uttarapaksha. Uttarapaksha does not merely mean as the conclusive deduction as in logic, it also means one which answers all doubts and problems.

Rajiv comment: I have given my preliminary uttara paksha in BD in terms of the different qualities that ground dharma - i.e. such prnciples as adhyatma-vidya,
reincarnation-karma, etc... are responses to the corresponding Western attributes.

In my next book, though the main thrust is to topple a prevailing myth, and to reaffirm Swami Vivekananda, I will end with my further elaboration of what is dharma for the FUTURE. Thats my uttara paksha (response)."

Srinath disagrees with Srinivas on Vivekananda:
"It seems a rather extreme point point of view to suggest that Vivekananda did not represent all Hindus. Yes, perhaps he was an Advaitin as was Sri Ramakrishna, his guru. However, Adi Sankara himself advocated the Shanmata tradition in which Vishnu is one of the representations of Brahman, as is Devi as Sri Ramakrishna believed (the others are Shiva, Ganesha, Kartikeya/Shanmuga, and Surya). Therefore, for anyone who identifies themselves as an Advaitin or Smarta, Vaishnavism is not an issue at all. Yes, there is the issue that the definition of Atman is not exactly the same for an Advaitin and someone who follows Ramanujacharya or Madhavacharya ... I simply do not understand phrases like "people squirm at being called a Hindu is because of this implicit assumption," or a suggestion that "Vivekananda and many Shankara followers here suffer from difference anxiety." Of course, someone who is an Advaitin cannot be expected to preach the views of Ramananujacharya or Madhavacharya, but there is absolutely no difference anxiety here, and to suggest such is unfair and counter to the central ideas of Hinduism and in "Being Different.""

Srinivas' response to Srinath:
"This is factually incorrect. There are many a great debates among the followers of these three acharyas and the multiplicity of Atman is one of the core issues.
... The terminology used by Vivekananda to describe Hinduism is same as Advaita. Obviously other sects cannot accept it. Vivekananda did a seminal job in introducing Advaita to west. The problem here is he preached it as Hinduism and not just as Advaita. An Advaitin has every right to argue and stand up for the correctness of Advaita. So does a Ramanuja or a Madhvacharya follower. The issue here is conflating what is Advaita with what is an inclusive term of Hinduism....

The BD terminology however stands clear of this issue and I believe should be a lot more acceptable to Vaishnavites than what Vivekananda described as Hinduism"

Wadhwa agrees with Srinivas:

".... To have a conversation as Hindus or as fellow Dharmic followers, there are some common criteria that we need to agree upon.' 

I would like to draw your attention to the Rig Ved Mantra 1-164-46  which can be our watch-word and common criteria.  Its well known  sukti says Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti, i.e., God is One, but wise persons call him by different names. The same central thought of our tradition with regard to one divine existence having different attributes has been repeated  at innumerable places in various Vedic texts.  

.... Unless we come out of the age old mindset, we cannot
comprehend the distinctiveness and nuances of true Vedic tradition "

Rajiv comment: How does one then differentiate Brahman from Allah or Judeo-Christian notions of God and his commandments? Are they not the One God referenced above who is being called by some other name? If the answer is yes, then what is your problem with sameness? What is your problem with converting to those religions because (after all) they are about the same One God?

....  Clearly, I have known this business about one God called by many names, and one truth the wise call many different ways. If it were this simple, I would not waste many years developing the BD thesis. Despite so many months of close engagement with BD, I am afraid Wadhwa ji does not ..."

Wadhwa follows up:

"With reference to Rajivji's comments, may I draw his attention to my above post wherein I have said "Unless we come out of the age old mindset, we cannot comprehend the distinctiveness and nuances of true Vedic tradition ". It was this old mindset characterised by superiority/inferiority of a particular god which led to infighting in the past  between bhaktas of Shiv and Vishnu, between Ram Bhaktas and Krishna Bhaktas,etc. ...

It would be naive on any body's part to extend and overstretch the central theme of the Rig Ved - Mantra 1:164:46,  to abrahamic notions while ignoring the totality of 'Ekam Sad'. Various Vedic 'devies' and 'devatas' mentioned in the above mantra  have a functional name relating to different powers of the same divine existence.  These Vedic devatas enumerated in the mantra, such as, Indra (the supreme power), Mitra (the friend of all), Varuna (the most desirable one), Agni (the all knowing), Divya (the shiningone), etc.  are all giver of happiness and benefits to the whole world. The literal meaning of Devata is also one who is giver of benefits to all. Where is the  symmetry here with the anthropomorphism of the Biblical literature which teaches 'salvation only through Christ'?  There is a fundamental difference between the Vedic concept and the qualified monotheism of abrahamic faiths where we cannot dispense with an intermediary between man and God.  As against this in Hinduism a bhakta or a yogi can establish a direct relationship with the Supreme reality.   Rajivji has beautifully enumerated differences between dharmic and Judeo-Christian cosmologies  in a tabular form on page 112-113 of his book 'Being Different'. 

Further, I would like to add that despite differences between Acharyas of dualistic - non-dualistic schools, they were by and large unanimous on certain points like  omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence nature  of Vedic God.  How about the abrahamic God? It is said that he  resides at a particular abode called heaven like on 4th or 7th sky and moves wherever he likes. 

...I feel that it is a most important challenge for all dharmic traditions to study the tenets of Vedic thought and  philosophy with the right and original approach or else we will be taken for a ride by any one..."

 

Brahma[] responds to Wadhwa. The response is detailed and in-depth and is carried almost intact.

But it is not as simple as that.

"....  "devatas' ... a functional name relating to different powers of the same divine existence....." Agreed.

"Unless we come out of the age old mindset, we cannot comprehend the distinctiveness and nuances of true Vedic tradition " - But this cannot be done via reductionism.

These kinds of reductionist exegeses of Vedic thought are an attempt at translation of the non-translatable. And though we might openly say we are not seeking parity, this line of thought unwittingly does play into the whole minds set that seeks parity with Abrahamic monotheism. 

In understanding Vedic thought be careful about scientific reductionism, or the simple need to cope with complexity via generalities-- whatever. This plays to the "digestion" process whether that is the samkalpa behind the discourse or not. Because in one breath you have played into the hands of all those who call us Hindus the "superstitious masses." When the old lady cuts the chicken to invoke the powers of Mariamman, the grammata devata of her villages: something very, very real is happening. Various entities are are work in different levels. At a pure Vaishnava or Shiva temple, similar scenarios are playing out at a much higher level. Almost the entire discourse of today's Hindus has this huge hiatus of knowledge of the Agamas/Tantras... which are based on the Vedas... that's another discussion...

But the nexus between Vedic and Agamic thought is a key. Let us use an analogy to illustrate.

You, a human being, are a singular entity. If I were a small multi-cell bacterium, inside the body of Wadhwa a "little atma" I might discern certain changes in the greater environment and possibly infer higher intelligences at work and call them "humans" I might say, from my
limited scope of apprehension, as a singular bacterium, that Mr. Wadhwa was a "functional name relating to a power of the same divine existence." [Consider that the physical body of Wadhwa is in fact made up of 90% bacteria -- only 1 in 10 cells in your body are "human"] if I were a wise bacterium" I might even be willing to acknowledge that I was a part of the larger "Purusha" called "Wadhwa" and even perhaps that Wadhwa *is* a power of some even larger Divine Existence. So too are we all.  But that does not eliminate the reality of being a jiva. So, this bacterium needs to also acknowledge the existence of Wadhwa, an individual homo sapien, as a singular intelligent entity, functioning at a much higher level of existence. Wadhwa is no mere name for a functionality of a generalized "Divine One."

So say the obvious: We need to be careful not to, in one intellectual swipe, put all the Devatas into "exile" by inferring that their existences as singular entities functioning in higher lokas, is some how a mere "anthropomorphic projection," of our limited minds, and that the Devatas are mere names of functions of "one divine being." This sounds all very wise and has been the line of swamis talking to the west for decades, but frankly we are getting tired of hearing this decade after decade. It is politically correct as it parades as the wisdom which
overcomes the conflicts of sectarianism. With no disrespect: but this is incredibly naive. Just look at the world of nature around us as described above, just your own body is complex beyond your possible
conception.

Hinduism is a panentheism, not a pantheism. There is a difference. The latter is reductionism and easily supported by simplistic "Vedanta." But Vedic thought encompasses the diversity and complexity of existence. Agama/tantra (all the details of temple worship and practice, puja etc.)
implements that view in practice

There are in fact intelligent "entities" that function in higher lokas. Of course exactly how you want to "parse" out those realities on the religious landscape of homo sapiens, has a great deal of variation at the "low level" of sampradayas here in the bhuloka/intellectual sphere. (Is Ganesha the son of Siva i.e. a Maha Devata or is Ganesha a name for the the Supreme One?) Sorting that out is a challenge and this has unfortunately played out as "infighting in the past between bhaktas of Shiv and Vishnu. "

But just because little sister says "Daddy is the Boss!" and little brother says "Mommy the boss!" Does not mean we have to create a theory that the two parents don't exist... that they are "names for functions of the One Parent." It could be a great theory for a strategy to deal with sibling rivalry, and hence very politically correct because we are
all for Peace in the Home. But it is not the truth.

Is there One Brahman - yes of course; Are there many
"Parents/Divinities" yes that's also true.

This model that "the cosmos/company has a President and He/She does everything. And these other functioners, like CEO, Vice-president, Manager of operations, IT manager, Inventory Comptroller, Human Resources administrator... etc. are all just "anthropological
projections" when in fact the President does it all -- is very tidy and resolves apparent dichotomies, but only diminishes the Vedic tradition.

Rajiv comment: I enjoyed the vigor in this challenge, yet not flippant. I would welcome a piece that is not a reaction to others ..., and gives us a thesis on who are the devatas." 

JCP responds:
"Brahma..[] ji has brilliantly removed many cobwebs of misunderstanding in this mail. So, not only are Sanskrit terms non-translatable, so are Vedic views too non-translatable. ... However, the quote "Almost the entire discourse of today's Hindus has this huge hiatus of knowledge of theAgamas/Tantras... which are based on theVedas... that's another discussion..." has tantalizingly been left for another discussion. We are all aware of the "huge hiatus' in the knowledge & practice of Hinduism & I could not resist the temptation to seek swami ji's views on this subject."

RoyalDecor comments:
"I agree with the clarity given by swamiji.Though there is no scientific evidence on the existence of devis and devatas,the present day hinduism stands on their existence and worship.It is a subject which can be understood when one interacts with a person who has seen devatas( thru 3rd eye).There are variety of devatas who exist in another plane and help the humans who pray to them in overcoming earthly problems. Each devata is a pocket of cosmic energy acting independently but drawing power from the same SOURCE.They are like generators having different power rating.Some times they act in union generating higher power.Broadly we can group them as
1) Pitru devatas.( ancestors )
2)Swamis and saints after their mortal death( Eg Raghavendra Swami, Shirdi Sainath,etc)
3)Devatas as described in puranas.
4)Avatars like Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Anjaneya etc
5)Devatas with multiple hands and heads stationed at the various chakras.
6)Elements like vayu (air),varuna(water) and agni and heavenly bodies.
other divine energies like Yakshas, Gandharvas,Kinneras and Kimpurushas are mentioned in our books..
When a human prays a particular devata he/she solves the problem of his/her devotee as per his/her capacity and the person has to approach another devata for a different ailment.It is like a patient visiting a cardiologist, nephrologist or an oncologist.Faith in the result is the only evidence on the performance of worship of devatas.
What happens when one doesnt believe in god or doesnt pray to a diety.Nothing. Life will be smooth but when bumps come he may not have energy to lift from his fall.All i can say is devatas do exist, doing a thankless job .Without a proper guide hindu scriptures may convey a distorted meaning, hence vedic knowledge was kept beyond the reach of a common man."