What the Buddhist translation project can teach Rohan Murty and the rest of us

By Rajiv Malhotra

The Buddhists have been diligently at work on a massive translation project that is expected to continue for a few generations. There is a lot to learn from this. Please visit this site for an idea of the well organized long-term Buddhist translation project: http://84000.co/about/vision

The translators are from across the world. So its not about ethnicity/race/citizenship. The point is that 56% of them are from dharma ashrams, and the remaining 44% are academics mostly initiated by Dalai Lama or some other major Buddhist guru. Hence almost all of them are insiders to that tradition.

The funding is from diverse sources of practicing Buddhists. There is no one money bag in control, nor one larger-than-life editor who decides and who is too big to criticize (such as Sheldon Pollock).

The standards, policies and ideological guidelines, are set by Buddhist insiders. Each translation gets reviewed to check for compliance with this.

The project is explicitly seen as having its central purpose to protect the spiritual legacy - i.e. no question of secularizing the texts or looking for "human rights violations" in them.

Note there is a similar very large project in China to build a library of ancient Mandarin works, another project in Korea for their legacy, in Japan, etc.

Why did Rohan Murty not survey similar projects before deciding how to proceed with his MCLI? Why has no journalist writing on the MCLI controversy mentioned these other role models we can learn from?

I thought it is standard practice that before embarking upon a massive undertaking that will last decades, it is a good idea to closely examine other similar projects.

I am so glad that Dr. Sampadananda Mishra, originator of the Vande Mataram Library initiative, is going to look at this Buddhist project for ideas.

Digestion versus Inclusivism

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

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

November 2013

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

Rajiv comment: 
"This is a good question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Kundan adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me take the following question (#2)

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

Manish adds a game-theory based thought

"..

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

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

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




Manish provides a couple of options:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[to be continued ...]
 

 

RMF Summary: Week of January 16 - 22, 2012

January 17

C. Alex Alexander's review of BEING DIFFERENT *Refreshingly original Perspective of Dharmic Faiths * *by C. Alex Alexander* I agree with the first two positive reviews of Rajiv Malhotra's recent book,...

January 17 Article: Applying BD ideas to compare India and China Maria[] is an example of someone raised Christian but who REJECTED that faith. This rejection is NOT to be confused with "appreciating dharma" while retaining one's Judeo-Christian identity, or keeping the identity issue ambiguous at least publicly. She lives in India, and has followed my work for many years. She recently sent me the attached article that she has published, in which she quotes my ideas on Indians' loss of self-hood to contrast this with China. I mention this India/China contrast in many talks across India, and especially the youth and the corporate leaders resonate with this issue. January 18 State of Formation web site features 4 blogs by.. http://www.stateofformation.org/ This is an important site for religion. Right on their home page they have 4 blogs by me. Part 1 went up a day ago and already... Yogesh asks if Zoroastrianism can be considered a dharmic faith. Rajiv: Frankly, I have not examined it enough to be sure. My hunch is that it served as the bridge from which dharma got exported to the Middle East during the Persian Empire, and there it gradually turned into the Abrahamic Monotheism. Every time you hear that Monotheism started with Judaism, you must challenge it with the established fact that Zoroastrianism had this notion developed earlier, and that Persians (Zoroastrians at that time) were very influential in the Middle East. You dont need to go beyond just this claim, i.e. avoid claiming Vedic influences on Zoroastrianism. This is enough to checkmate the chauvinism of Monotheism. Once the "chosen people of Monotheism" is debunked with the example of Zoroastrianism, you can then take the conversation further. January 19 The Bodhisattva's Brain: Buddhism naturalised Subramanya posts: "... professor Owen Flanagan, claims that if Karma & Punarjanma are discarded then Buddhism can become something that can be very acceptable to secularists, atheists etc... The Bodhisattva's Brain: Buddhism naturalised ... Owen Flanagan is James B Duke Professor of Philosophy at Duke University. Rajiv's comment: ... Stephen Bachelor is another prominent example of westerners who started out as very loyal Buddhists, many even taking wows and getting formally initiated and teaching it to other western disciples, etc. But over time they have diluted and eventually erased those aspects which make Buddhism NON DIGESTIBLE INTO WESTERN UNIVERSALISM. I was in Delhi several months ago when i heard that he was to give a talk at India Int'l Center, so I decided to attend it. The room full of Indian scholars, intellectuals, Buddhist monks, and they were going gaga over how the westerner had spent all his life praising their tradition, learning sanskrit, visiting sites in India every year for research, and so forth. The typical inferiority complex many Indians have. Here he again summarized his thesis that has appeared in his books to explain "secular Buddhism".For a quick snapshot of his latest views, please read the short article.. During the Q&A, I was the ONLY person in the audience who raised uncomfortable issues with his talk, while others were thanking him profusely. .... I said that the "overall project of many western Buddhism scholars has been to de-Indianize Buddhism, in order to make it generic, and then eventually re-contextualize it within Western thought." This really shook him up, as these folks are not accustomed to being challenged by Indians on scholarly grounds. After the event was over, he wanted to casually chat with me and find out who I was, .... After he left, the Indian cronies remaining in the room started asking me why I was not being grateful to "our esteemed guest". January 19 Digestion process in Archeology and Vedic Science srini Q1. The negation of Aryan Invasion Theory by Indian scholars was first criticized by Indian leftists and western scholars with even the worst ad hominem attacks on people like Dr NS Rajaram. Now leftist historians like Romila Thapar are coming around to saying something like there was no invasion but a steady trickling of Aryans into India. Do you see this as a form of digestion while continuing to hold on to Aryan race theory? Where do you see this going and in the light of BD, is there a case for how Indian archeologists and scholars should approach this problem of credibility in western scholarly circles without being trashed? Rajiv response: Aryan invasion was replaced by Aryan migration long ago. But it does not alter one bit the foreign Aryan vs. native Dravidian divide as explained in BI. Celebrating this shift is misleading but common among many indian scholars craving for some victory. Whether they came as invaders or peacefully makes no difference to the claim that sanskrit and its classical texts are of foreign origin and hence Hinduism is an alien imposition upon Dravidians, Dalits, etc. Archeology was one crucial discipline not colonized until a few years ago, when US institutions formally took over a prominent center in Baroda, from which they have gained primary access to all sites and artifacts. This was done right under the noses of hindutva leaders and funded by some prominent hindutva leaders. Dilip Chakrabarti of cambridge, a leading ally in this fight against colonizing indian archeology, wrote many letters to officials explaining the problem. I sent these letters to prominent leaders who promised results. but these leaders made noises only for their own visibility and to show off that they had become "intellectuals", and not a single thing got dont after all the meetings and burst of online noise. Dilip and I gave up in disgust. ... N S Rajaram's followup: "As the person in the eye of the storm of the Aryan-Dravidian debate (as well as the Vedic-Harappan debate) let me say that I received support from all quarters-- Hindutva and non-Hindutva, Hindus and non-Hindus (mostly scientists), this was both over the AIT and the Ayodhya dispute.     The one exception has been the Hindu religious leaders. Even over Ayodhya they failed to look at the evidence that I had compiled AT THEIR REQUEST for a presentation. That presentation never took place. But this didn't stop the Kanchi Acharya from giving a long interview in Rediff acknowledging THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE for a previous temple at the site!     It has been the same story when it comes to 'science'. The late Admar Mutt seer invited me for suggestions to start his 'Purna Prajna Research Institute'. ..  ... ...   This kind of lack of professionalism is the bane of Hindu outfits. Just compare the Hindu University of America with even a small Christian institution. Can any Hindu be proud of the HUA?    I have given several talks on Science and Vedanta to scientific audiences in several places in India and at places like MIT, University of Manchester, Cambridge, etc, and the response has been gratifying. (I am giving one at the Indian Institute of Science on February 3). But supposed 'Vedic and Vedanta' audiences (mostly self-styled) shun me. This is because of their ignorance of science and fear that their claims in the name of 'traditional scholarship' may be exposed.    They all invoke Schrodinger's name but don't really know what he said much less understand what he meant. He was talking metaphysics-- not that the equation could be derived from Vedanta. (Their Vedic science-- like vedic mathematics, neither Vedic nor mathematics.) By and large I have found traditional scholars disappointing-- they seem to think that quoting Sanskrit shlokas is proof.    I find it interesting that Hindu religious leaders and Indian leftist intellectuals seem to suffer from the same complex-- they crave acceptance by Western, especially Whites as 'liberal'. This sense of inferiority extends even towards pseudo-whites like Indian Christian leaders.  ..." This one below is a very important thread, and we carry Rajiv's responses almost completely since it explains the asymmetrical mechanics of digestion. January 19 Vatapi and Inculturation/Digestion While reading BD, it reminded me of an amusing puranic story of Agastya and Vatapi that I heard as a kid. The story goes something like this: "Vatapi was the younger brother of the Daitya Ilvala, the ruler of the city of Manimati. He was a shape-shifter. His brother was denied a boon by the sage Agastya, and hence the brothers became the enemies of Brahmanas. When any Brahmana guest arrived at the palace, Vatapi would transform into a ram. Ilvala would then cause the meat of this ram to be served to the unsuspecting guest. Once the Brahmana had eaten his fill, Ilvala would utter a magical incantation, and say, "O Vatapi, come out!". Vatapi would then emerge whole and alive from the belly of the guest, killing that Brahmana in that process. When the sage Agastya again visited the city of Manimati, the brothers tried to pull the same trick on him. However, the wily sage, rubbed his stomach and said, "Vatapi Jirnobhava" or "May Vatapi be digested!", before Ilvala could utter the magical incantations, and Vatapi was slain. Chastened, Ilvala gave many gifts and made peace with th sage." Now this story can be compared with the digestion process. The evangelical Churches or the western scholarship act like the Vatapi and Ilvala brothers. First they appear to respect the native culture. They let themselves get adopted to gain confidence or power over their prey. Western scholars learn the language, philosophy, tradition, etc in this first stage. Once the infiltration is complete, they burst open the native culture and traditions with a U Turn.... ... The need today, is for a savior in the form of Agastya... Senthil: Swamy Vivekananda's speech in Chicago first used the concept "All religions lead to same God".. Can we consider this as an attempt of getting digested?  Or is it that the christians twisted this to digest us? Rajiv comment: Your language above suggests as if Swami Vivekananda might deliberately have intended to get digested. Let us separate intentions from actual effect. One may have good intentions but one's actions might have the opposite effect. The mistake swamiji did is that HE FAILED TO ATTACK THE HISTORY CENTRISM OF CHRISTIANITY. That one item would prevent any digestion of Hinduism into Christianity. In fact, the reverse would have happened. With Jesus' significance devoid of any history centrism, one would also automatically undermine the rest of the Nicene Creed. Reduced to a set of teachings only, there is little left in Christianity that Hinduism does not already have. Try in a debate asking the Christian opponent that you will accept the ethical teachings if he drops the history centrism. His cover of sameness will fall apart. Please watch carefully the video my by discussion with Mark Tully. This is my message - how our representatives in public encounters must get re-educated. Swami V was a brilliant man but he did not spend enough time with westerners debating them and being in their midst to study them ....  after his death his organization has slipped into getting digested. But recently some senior monks have discussed with me with an open mind and are reading BD intensely. Julie: "The Bahu of Bengal": My take is that the RKM has made too much about Sri Ramakrishna's forays into other religions…Sri Ramakrishna's forays into other religions were highly unorthodox and last only a few days: for most of his life, Sri Ramaskrishna was content to be a priest of Maa Kali. I don't necessarily agree that Sri Ramakrishna was seeking a "reverse digestion." Rajiv comment: I agree with this comment.   Arun posts: Americans well understood that Swami Vivekananda was undermining Christianity.  (note: the publisher on www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info says that the spelling is as in the original) Quote: MANNERS AND CUSTOMS IN INDIA (Appeal-Avalanche, January 21, 1894) Swami Vive Kananda, the Hindoo monk, delivered a lecture at La Salette Academy [Memphis] yesterday afternoon. Owing to the pouring rain, a very small audience was present. The subject discussed was "Manners and Customs in India." Vive Kananda is advancing theories of religious thought which find ready lodgment in the minds of some of the most advanced thinkers of this as well as other cities of America. His theory is fatal to the orthodox belief, as taught by the Christian teachers. It has been the supreme effort of Christian America to enlighten the beclouded minds of heathen India, but it seems that the oriental splendor of Kananda's religion has eclipsed the beauty of the old-time Christianity, as taught by our parents, and will find a rich field in which to thrive in the minds of some of the better educated of America.. ..." Rajiv responds to Arun's post: "Arun makes a very important point below: There is an initial period in all UTurns and digestions in which it appears that both sides are equally impacted with a sort of merger of the two. So the orthodoxy complains from each side because of what are seen as compromises. This is what Christian orthodoxy at Swami Vivekananda's time complained about. But one must assess the encounter based on long term impact and not just short term. This applies also to many similar movements today that in the short run seem to be spreading dharma into the west - i.e. the sort of things celebrated in "American Veda" - but that in the long run are part of the digestive tract into Western Universalism. After Swami Vivekananda's era, the RK Mission / Vedanta Society in USA under Swami Parmananda changed into digestible form. This swami became immensely popular among liberal white Americans with his "sameness" message, even though he imagined that he was digesting Christianity into dharma. If X = dharma and Y = Christianity, what happened was: X + Y= Y enhanced. The X got digested into Y and enhanced Y in the process. Let me explain further. It is the history centrism of Christianity that prevents it from getting digested, and that in turn digests the other. Imagine a Hindu and a Christian who agree to accept each other's faiths and combine both - as happens in many marriages when they raise the kids with both religions. Here is the resulting set of ideals and practices in the combined version: From Christianity: Nicene Creed = history centrism of Original Sin + Jesus' virgin birth + Jesus' exclusivity as ONLY redeemer/saviour + Jesus' sacrifice to redeem all sins of those who accept him + ... From dharma (as commonly taught today, lacking any items that resist digestion): Pranayama, vegetarian diet, namasker, symbols, certain holidays, etc. Now imagine the person who fully performs both lists of items above. Who is he in terms of faith? He is a Christian enhanced with certain Hindu practices digested. Some are good for his health, others are nice symbolically making him seem very liberal and open minded in order to impress naive Hindus. Accepting Jesus as the one and only SAVIOUR (from Original Sin) is the game changer in favor of Christianity. You can get all the namaskars you want, all the bindis and dhotis being worn, all the sitting on the floor and eating with hands, all the celebrations of Hindu rituals and holidays. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE SOLIDLY ENTRENCHED CHRISTIAN. Such a hybrid is a Christian. Hinduism is made redundant because it becomes a subset of the Christian, i.e offers nothing else that is not already digested. This is why I request people to re-read chapter 2 until history centrism is very well understood. Whats the remedy for us? This question is what drove me for 20 years because I lived in the crisscrossed world of Hinduism and Western religious ideas. This is how my R & D led to the differences explained in BD. These differences are what resist getting digested. They cannot be tolerated by the Nicene Creed. So long as you hang firm to these differences you cannot be digested into Chritianity. This makes it important for gurus to teach these differences to western and Indian followers. .... So do not accept that person X "has become very Hindu friendly" on the basis that s/he does yoga, has an image of a deity, turned vegetarian, does namasker, dresses like traditional Indians, has a guru, and so forth. Ask the HARD QUESTIONS. Dont settle for attempts to evade these questions. But before you can do this kind of encounter (like the one I had with Mark Tully, and the one I was prepared to have with Clooney but he chose to not take me on), you need to do lots of homework. This includes the purushartha of studying the other (purva paksha) and the anubhava (experience) of dozens of encounters as your way to practice and learn from experience. Every guru ought to go through this tapas." [there are several other responses and discussions in this thread. read in the e-group] January 20 Economic Historian's special lecture of BEING DIFFERENT in Bangalore Dear all, Greetings!!! I am glad to invite you for the special talk by Sri. Shankar Jaganathan, Economic Historian, on "Rajiv Malhotra's book Being Different: ... January 20 Opportunity for sponsoring book gifts at World Sanskrit Conference, In January, 2012, the Indian Govt and various Sanskrit Universities are holding a World Sanskrit Conf, the largest of its kind. They have confirmed 1,000... January 20 Re: Itihasa versus history-centrism: Who is a Brahamana Does our scriptures suggest that Varna is a birth right? Far from it. There has been lot of discussions about caste and varna. Summarizing Kshatriya, Brahmana,... January 21 Short report: The India trip thus far Thus far there have been 5 extremely fruitful events on BD in this trip: 1. Univ. of Delhi: Yesterday, I was given the afternoon slot to address a large... January 22 FW: [RajivMalhotraDiscussion] Itihasa versus history-centrism There are a couple of "Vish(s)" out there in this group, so I am not sure which Vish was addressed. but I found my email to the group, tacked, so I will go...

RMF Summary: Week of November 28 - December 4, 2011

November 28

A Raja reading "Breaking India" in Tihar Jail This infamous leader of the Dravidianist party (DMK), has started transforming from "seasoned politician into philosopher," says this article. It states: "His...

November 28

India/China compete for Buddhism's Soft Power Rajiv Malhotra: I have personally lobbied Indian leaders over this for many years, and Infinity Foundation funded numerous programs that India's govt refused to sponsor (including under the BJP leader M.M. Joshi). For example, the 2005 Sanskrit World Conf in Bangkok which I co-chaired with the Thai Crown Princess. Now it seems India is re-claiming the status as the home of Buddhism because China started to make the claim. Karan Singh is calling this his top priority, but his approach is politically driven by domestic vote bank politics. It is reactive rather than visionary - like the typical politician's. November 28

Pak Defense site posts BEING DIFFERENT review They have re-posted the review that appeared in Biz India - see url below. So BD is on their radar. ...

November 28

Shrinivas Tilak's discussion on BEING DIFFERENT at Univ. of Mumbai e Please find as attachment a copy of Dr. Shrinivas Tilak's presentation at WAVES Mumbai meeting....

November 28

Religion News Service Press Release: New Book Challenges Western Uni Having trouble viewing this email? Click here ...

December 2

Announcement of major event: My book discussion with Francis Clooney The following press release was sent out by Bal Ram Singh. The event will be televised and streamed live on the internet. I do not yet know the url, but I will...

December 3

Review of BEING DIFFERENT in India's largest Hindi daily newspaper The review below by Prof. Girishwar Mishra (who chaired my talk at Univ. of Delhi) has appeared in India's leading Hindi daily, Dainik Bhaskar, December 3,...

Also see this thread.
 
December 4

Rajiv Malhotra's U-turn theory - How the West appropriates Indian cu I am posting this talk given by Rajiv in Univ of Delhi 5 years, for those keen to know more about his U-Turn theory. [Rajiv: Thanks for doing this. I have...

December 4

Article on BD in Dainik Jagran, another major Hindi daily Please see attached article in Hindi....

 

American Veda: A Digestion of Hinduism - Part 2

This post covers Part-2 of the discussions on Phil Goldberg's 'American Veda.'  Part-1 introduced his book, noted his initial defense of his book, his writings in various magazines and his video presentations to uncover the digestion of Hinduism into Western Universalism. 

The discussions here started in September 2012 and progressed through December 2012. Phil uses some fancy footwork as he attempts a self-justification of "why his book does not include the word Hindu". The followup discussion totally exposes Phil's attempted appropriation of Hinduism as well as his weak attempts to cover up.


Original Christianity Original Yoga
Recently, I chanced upon and corresponded with this organization based in New Mexico (US) called "Original Christianity Original Yoga" (OCOY; website:.

In this post Surya noted:
"...digest Dharma.  When they discuss essential cosmology, Dharmic ideas are digested and mapped onto Biblical traditions.  No mention of Dharmic sources.  In the end, this tells you why the Bible is retained.  In the end, Ishannism is no different than Phil Goldberg.  They differ in their means.  They are different variations of Good-cop.  No matter what flattering things they say about Dharma, in the end they are victimizing Dharma and protecting Christianity.  The unstated goal is to stop tendencies of thinking Christians from crossing over to Dharma by offering a version of Christianity that comes in several shades and closeness to Dharma.  At a more sinister level, it lowers the barriers and allows flow from Dharma to Jesus"

Science and Sanskrit tradition: A Western scholar's challenge
A Westerner who is studying Sanskrit in India has sent me a paper that challenges the way Indians want to integrate modern science and Sanskrit. After a few...  

The westerner here cites Golberg's work American Veda as one of his references.

Why the book American Veda is not called American Hinduism
Venkat posted:
"Phil Goldberg is the author of the recently published American Veda. He explains why the word Hindu is not there. Book reviews can be read
from this link: http://americanveda.com/

Below Sri Ashok Chowgule writes about his thoughts on the title of book and the next paragraph is Phil's explanation. Both conversations are extracted from the Abhinavagupta group  (you have to be a member to access the messages).  The topic is Debate on "White Hindu Converts"

Ashok Chowgule:
"one of the source of my contention that more and more Americans (Hindus and non-Hindus, academics and outside) are openly expressing their appreciation, empathy, etc., about Hinduism is his book "The American Veda". I had mentioned to him, when I read the book, that I was disappointed that the word Hindu was not seen on the cover page. If I recollect correctly, he said to me that his publisher said that the
word at that place may turn away people from the book!

(At the same time, a book which came after "The American Veda", namely Wendy Doniger's book "The Hindu: An Alternative History", a book which does not look at Hinduism with empathy, has the word Hindu on the cover page. Perhaps the publisher felt that more people will read it
for exactly that reason!)

I would like to bring to the notice a book by Thomas Wendell titled "Hinduism Invades America". It was published by The Beacon Press Inc, New York, in 1930, and reprinted by Kessinger Publishing in 2010. The title say 'Hinduism' and not 'Hindus'. And this is significant. The book talks about the many Hindu gurus, other than Swami Vivekanand, who had come to America to teach (to the people, not in universities) Hinduism. The period in which these gurus taught in America is interesting, since it was a period when generally Hinduism was projected in poor light, culminating in the work of Katherine Mayo's "Mother India". Also, due to colonisation, India was a poor country, etc.  (Incidentally, the word Hinduism did not appear to distract the people from buying the book at the time!)

Phil Goldberg's response:
Let me expand on your explanation about why my book was not called "American  Hinduism" or "Hinduism in America" or a similar title. It's actually a bit  more complicated than what I might have indicated earlier.

 It was mainly to avoid confusing the reading public about the book's  contents.

 In the minds of Americans, the words Hinduism and Hindu are religious terms.  Hinduism is the name of one of the five world's religions they've at least  heard about, Hindu is the name of people who practice Hinduism, or are born  into a family from that tradition. So, it was felt that people would think  "Hinduism in America" was about the Indian diaspora, because they associate  "Hindu" with "Indian." Also, the impact of Sanatana Dharma on America -  which is the real subject of the book - has been secular as well as  religious. It's impacted psychology, science, medicine, etc., and we felt
 that point might get lost if we used a term people think of as religious in  the title.

 Plus, as you know, it has mainly been Vedanta philosophy and the  methodologies of Yoga that were adopted in the West, not the normative  Hinduism of India. Temple Hinduism is a relatively new phenomenon in the  US, and its influence on the culture as a whole is in its early stages. We  felt that having Hinduism in the title would narrow the scope of the book in  people's minds, and they would think it's only about pujas, bhajans, and  holiday celebrations.

 Finally, as I say in the book's Introduction, "the most influential gurus  and Yoga masters who came to the West made a big point of saying they were  not preaching Hinduism. They were Hindus themselves, of course, but they  asserted that all could utilize their teachings without deserting their own  religions. Indeed, the ideas and practices they proffered did not have to  be viewed religiously at all.." I remember thinking, Swami Vivekananda did  not start the Hinduism Society, he started the Vedanta Society;  Paramahansa  Yogananda did not write Autobiography of a Hindu, and he called his  organization the Self-Realization Fellowship, not the Hinduism Fellowship;  and Maharish Mahesh Yogi did not call his TM practice Hindu Meditation. 

In other words, we felt we were being faithful to the decisions made by the  great teachers who brought the Vedic gifts to the US.

I hope that further clarifies the choice of titles. These decisions about  language are very delicate, and I understand perfectly that many Hindus  would prefer that we made a different decision. As I said in the book, I  hope that the historic misconceptions are overcome soon so "future books
 will use the term Hinduism freely, without fear of misleading the public."

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain this.
Phil"


Surya responds:
"Reminds me of something that friends from Bangalore told me happened in 1980s. A vendor close to their college was selling chapati and sabji for Rs. 2 each. Demand was lukewarm. The smart vendor recognized that students dressed, spoke, and craved for things with a Western motif. Vendor came out with a new product
called Frankie and priced it Rs. 15 each. Frankie was an instant success.  Turns out Frankie was the same chapati rolled with sabji with a toothpick holding the roll together..."

Rajiv Malhotra responds:
"...Read carefully the points I listed in my prior post on this thread. I did not say the goat remains a goat but gets a new name given by the tiger. The goat does not remain a goat. Instead we have a pile of tiger shit and a stronger tiger. The goat is not there.

Before I select any instance of digestion as worthy, one of my criteria is to see if the entity got changed in some significant way that makes a difference. When western buddhists remove reincarnation to secularize it, its not the same thing with new ownership. When mantra is removed and replaced by some other word its a different vibration. When kerala ayurveda massage removes the requirement to chant mantra, its a change/distortion of the product.

... Many of our Hindu groups took up my complaint which I spoke about since the 1990s about yoga's appropriation; but they made making loud noises only that the origin was not being acknowledged. But none of these seem to have understood what difference that makes to the new variety of yoga being perpetrated. This is a dumb down version of the problem. They sound like whining kids in need of a pacifier. Give them a lollypop and pat on the back and they will stop crying.

I am glad that the maharishi people have understood what has changed due to Herb Benson's appropriation of TM. They will support my work on that specific matter, and have offered to get some researchers involved. Lets see where that goes; but at least I did not get a trivialized appreciation or some sort of patronizing sympathy. I feel they really get it.

Frankly, I would rather have a school named Oakridge that teaches authentic dharma, than a school named something like
maha-sanskriti-vishva-kendra that teaches a diluted version."

Sanjay posts:
"One of the books that Rajiv references in "Being Different" provides another illustration of the insidious manner in which minds get colonized:  Jonathan Kirsch in "God against the Gods" relates how Jews began aping the Greeks after the conquests of Alexander.This is the passage (p 76):

Alexander brought Hellenism to the land of the Jews when he replaced the defeated Persian emperor as its overlord. Much to the horror of the Jewish rigorists, the Chosen People promptly showed themselves to be no less vulnerable to the charms and attractions of Hellenism than they had been to the "abominations" of their pagan seducers in distant biblical antiquity. By the second century B.C.E., the city of Jerusalem boasted its own gymnasium, where Jews studied the Greek language and practiced the athletic skills that were put on display in Olympic-style games. Not only did they insist on competing in the nude, aping the traditions of ancient Greece, but some of them resorted to a primitive form of plastic surgery to conceal the fact that they were circumcised-an act that was regarded by the rigorists as the ultimate betrayal of the God of Israel.
We cannot know how Judaism would have fared if the Jews of antiquity had been free to choose between their own traditions of monotheism and the attractions of Hellenism.Then, as now, the lure of assimilation was so powerful that no amount of scolding or sermonizing was effective in preventing defections from the oldest and strictest traditions of Judaism..."

tvikhanas notes:
"That's a funny argument Goldberg gives. When Yogananda identified himself as a Yogi he would done it as a further specialized identity on top of Hindu identity, not in exclusion of it. When Swami Vivekananda talked of Vedanta he
was using it as further qualification of the Hinduism he brought to America, not something different from it.

It is strange to turn this around, give it as an excuse to not use the word "Hindu". It's like we are comfortable with "quantum mechanics", "optics" etc but not with the term "Physics"."

Pratap adds:
"Like Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of needs" is welcome but not "panca kosa" theory."

Surya comments:
"Goldberg ... is one of those good cops who praises Hinduism but sees Hinduism as a deli from which you can pick and choose what you want.

In his blogs on Huffington Post, Goldberg clearly mentioned that Vedas and Yoga help Jews and Christians develop their spirituality and then go back to their religious fold.  He says Hindus accept all religions and do not mind others choosing what they like in Hindu thought.  THAT is the main reason for focusing on secularized Veda.  Not because Hinduism does not sell..."

tvikhanas notes:

"You are touching on an important point when you mention Goldberg's HuffPost essays. One can find many westerners today setting themselves up as "authentic" representatives of Hinduism and undermining Hindus whether intentionally or
unintentionally. Goldberg seems to be one such character.

It is one thing for non-Hindus to adopt Hinduism but it is entirely different to set themselves up as insiders, or leaders or representatives. We can see this happening big time to "Buddhism". May be it requires a different thread to discuss how to deal with this.

What's happening to Buddhism and Yoga actually serve as powerful reminders why we must resist various Dharmic schools being severed from the larger Hindu religion. It becomes very easy for non-Hindus to set themselves up as representatives of these severed schools and then to steer
them in self serving directions. What's happening to Buddhism & Yoga in America is quite instructive. Most of the
visible Buddhists on various websites are westerners and they claim to be authentic representatives (until 10-20 yrs later they do a u-turn back to catholicism/judaism). If we point out the nonsense they are spouting, they claim their view is the authentic/original/scientific/rational version and that our
views are colored by Hindu superstition/chauvinism/nationalism!.." 

 He further notes:

"There are many characters in the west calling themselves as "Vaishnavas", "Advaitins", "Tantrikas" or "Yogis". This serves two purposes:

1. It lets them avoid facing the unpleasant truth that they are voluntarily adopting what they themselves for the last ~300 yrs condemned as superstition and other worldly nonsense. 2. More importantly, they can spout nonsense and not be challenged by Hindus in general. They can always claim that's what their tradition teaches and there will naturally be far fewer from that particular tradition to challenge those claims

For instance, a lot of garbage is written by ISKCON [Western] dudes on HuffPost, and they claim to be authentic representatives of Gaudiya Vedanta. There are very few people from that particular tradition to respond and even if there are a few they will probably prefer to keep quite.

The point is these sub-categories are specialized identities within the larger Hindu framework, not something  independent of it. The relationship between these
schools is very nuanced and some one who has lived in the west will have not have appropriate experience/analogies to understand them. They will only make nonsense of it (like Buddhism being a revolt against Hinduism just as
Protestantism was against catholicism).

It is farcical for westerners to claim to have become vaishnavas or yogis or what ever after a few years of practice. At the very least they have to unlearn some of the fundamental thoughts that their culture has given them, like eternal damnation..."