Forum member's experience as a Hindu professor in a Christian college in TN

A newly inducted member to the discussion group had a very heart breaking story to relate regarding her experiences as a Hindu professor of English in a Christian college in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.

We reproduce here her exact words.

1. As a Prof of English in a Catholic College experienced innumerable verbal attacks, gestures of disapproval and arrogant remarks from colleagues: a. Human Rights class open attack on Brahmins - "Brahmins only used to molest Dalits."

2. When I had a chat on Whats app with my student - a journalist currently with Indian Express - I criticized her for using the term "saffron bulls" and I told her not to denigrate that noble term which symbolizes sacrifice. I referred to noble works of Swami Vivekananda. From an unknown activist I had wordy dual who condemned Swami Vivekananda as Castetist and he said he too had done nothing for the Dalits. I had to argue through the night. I showed him how DMK has done only ethnic cleansing of the Brahmins and not improved the situation of the Dalits. But he was not convinced. 

 
3. I had an opportunity to get a Dalit girl married in my own house (to avoid a critical situation about 8 months back.) I had priest in my house (a Catholic priest who was not happy about the turn of events for my gesture broke their myth of Brahmin brutality against the Dalits) But openly he abused the Hindu gods and our faith. (Whom are you going to see when you reach Heaven. Your religion confuses you with so many Gods).

4. I happened to wear the label Brahmin and though I achieved a great deal in college there was always a step motherly treatment. I was denied FIP . ( I had to pursue my Ph.D without any leave benefits. I had to exhaust all my personal leave.)

5. I have received threat calls in college. When I mentioned the term Taliban (an announcement in the The Hindu- about 25 years back) I had an anonymous call threatening me. (At that time the nuns had to awareness- I am still waiting to talk to that nun - for recently 60 odd Christians were killed in Pakistan during Easter by Taliban.)

6. Conversion into Christianity is rampant as Sri Rajivji has pointed out now it is the Pentecosts. My own Prof. of Tamil has been hounding a Brahmin Prof (both retired) with constant e mailing saying that she would not reach Heaven if does not become a Christian.

7. I read the Scriptures daily. so they have branded that I am R.S.S. and a Hindutva. Only a Christian and a Muslim has the right in India to be religious. If I defend Hinduism I have always been under attack.

I saved my maid a refugee from Sri Lanka from being converted.Her family went through horrible pressure from a local Christian group.

8. I hear that they woo the people with newer and newer techniques. Especially lower class in the villages. Vegetables are given on Sundays.

I can go on. I used to be so badly treated that in 2006 I had a psychological and neurological disorder. I did not wish to continue there. But when they sensed that my leaving the institution would lead to criticism (for I am a popular teacher a favourite among students) they begged me to come back.

I have medical records and service records to prove that one whole year I was going through depression. I could not go to any Human rights org. 

 
The funniest thing is they would easily advice me to forgive. The tactics is they would bring the Bible and say forgive.

I am an African American and American studies scholar. I know all about AF/Am litt. Now there is a huge attempt to create a non existent Dalit literature, The voice is Ms. Meena Kandasamy. She has declared that she has embraced "Dalit" ism I wonder what she means by it. The African Americans have been pouring out their misery ever since they set foot on American soil in the 17 the century. I do not understand how on earth they can achieve a manufactured literature in a short period. I read Kanch Illiya's poem attacking the Brahmins.

I feel a systematic, serious confrontation of all these charges with facts must be done soon enough.

Almost all the U.G.C. sponsored conferences have been pro - Dalit and Brahmin bashing only I have been attending many.

Thanks for your time. If I need to elaborate on any of the experiences I am willing to.

I tried introducing Yoga in the campus about five years back with the help of a Hindu called Yoga master Subramanian.

But last year "Mindful Meditation" was introduced by a Priest much to the disappointment of Christians themselves and they laughed at it calling Mindless meditation. The first thing the students were asked to buy was a pillow.

Last year 2015 I was forced to organize a National Conference on Human Rights Issues in Literature and Sociology. Please follow the activities of a person called Dr. Balakrishnan of Roots - a NGO - I am sure a Christian group is supporting him.

During the Key note address he attacked Hindu belief systems and mocked at the idea of going to temples. As I am heading the Dept. I could not openly accuse him. But I boycotted the publication of papers. He calls himself Academic Event manager. Conducts a lot of programmes for the youth. He is a vocal Anti Brahmin advocate and so he along with five members including the so called Brahmin principal called Dr. Murali were chucked out of the local college called The Madura College. You could verify info.

More specifically He is part of the Brahmin versus Dalit Narrative -- Breaking India force.

But Roots is doing academic programme focusing on Dalits and I am sure it a Breaking India racket. You could probe. This org. is in Madurai. It is a one man army with support from a Christian called Periera. (Not sure of the spelling.) They have a press called Shanlax. Almost all the papers are eulogizing the works by Bama a Dalit writer who is compared with African American Writers. I get angry by these comparative studies. But I am always at a loss.

I have guided Ph.D scholars in this area and still have about 9 students. I can never support the argument that Dalits suffered like the African American slaves. By the way I have been part of the U.S. State sponsored International Visitor's Program.. Met writers like James Alan Mc Pherson.

I live in an area called Vel Murugan Nagar. There is a priest called Dudley Thangiah in this area who is well known for conversion. Now it is all a stealthy deal. He does not rechristen them. They believers have Hindu names but attend church. What he does is one influential member in the family is converted and the rest are swept in.

I see a New Prayer Tower in Nehru Nagar an adjacent colony. I shall get more details. Madurai is full of prayer houses not formal churches where Dalit conversions are rampant.
The caste politics is another reason for conversion.

My Nadar friend tells me her entire family is broken to pieces because of conversion. They are owners of Flour mill called Mayil Brand. Excepting the eldest son's family all are converted. Conversion and breaking of Hindu families in Virudhunagar has been going on for 3 to 4 decades now.

Now Southern Tamil Nadu - Ramnad belt is fully Muslim area. Illaiangudi and surrounding areas mini Pakistan. Tanjore Kumbakonam Muslim concentration. Kanyakumari Thirunelvelli are all Christian belts. Now Madurai is infested with Evangelical movements.

There is British priest working near Nagamalai Pudhukptai doing conversion. Pentecosts openly declare that they can make a living doing Evangelical work. Money is pumped in from the West for sure.

There are open attacks on Ramayan in colleges like Lady Doak where priest come and give lectures on these Scriptures mocking them.

There is Church called First Assemble of God and there is more recent one on Vaigai river bed near Fatima college (Dindigul Road) an org. from Ceylon doing a lot of Conversions.

Please appoint someone to enter into these churches and record their sermons.

In Dhargas there is an open order that none should stop with a single child. Must have 5 or 4 children. But Shakshi Maharaj of U.P. was heavily criticized by the media NDTV is vocal in supporting Muslims and Christians. That one channel is enough to Break India.

All their programs are attacking Modi. Similarly The Hindu is another Anti Hindu paper which exaggerates anything against the Minorities and no violence against Majority community ever gets reported.

There must be a Ban on Conversion soon. And derecognize all those who got converted in the last ten years.

Divya J writes another blazing rebuttal on the views of Sheldon Pollock

Below is a post by Divya J, a member on the forum. She had tried posting a truncated version of the same under Rohan Murty's article in the Times of India. It was rejected. The full version is being reproduced here.

Sheldon Pollock proclaims that “the characters of the ‘Ramayana’ believe themselves to be denied all freedom of choice; … and consequently can exercise no control.” He laments the dire consequences our epics have had on our civilization and wants to set things right by liberating us Hindus from our fatalistic beliefs. If only we could see things through his lens we too would understand that we have free will and can exercise our agency. This attitude betrays a dismal lack of understanding about the very essence of our culture and traditions. As we would say back home, “after listening to the entire Ramayana, he doesn’t even know who Rama is!”

Before we get into how badly wrong Pollock is, it would be helpful to know a brief history of the idea of “free will”. Free will as a concept did not feature in the rich intellectual traditions of the pagan philosophers of Greece and Rome. Similarly, the idea of “free will” is completely alien to the Indian traditions which have always held a decidedly deterministic stance. Of course the western world uses the derogatory term “fatalistic” instead of “deterministic” when speaking of the Indians, but let's overlook that for now. One thing we do know is that the Indian philosophers excelled in their understanding of human psychology and spoke at length about a variety of mental states. They broadly categorized manas, buddhi, and chitta along with other more nuanced mental states and mental processes. Nowhere did they identify anything such as “free will”. Instead they came to the conclusion that we are not the agents of our actions and that the idea of agency is an illusion.

So why is Pollock so confident that free will exists? Whatever his secular pretensions may be, “free will” is actually a very Christian idea. It turned up in the literature around the 4th century after the birth of Christianity. Christian doctrine tells us that God created the world and that everything that happens in this world happens in accordance with His will. This claim, and every other claim made by Christianity, is presented as a truth claim. In other words, just as it is true that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, it is true that the Christian God created the world and governs it. Naturally this “truth” had its consequences and soon enough gave rise to what is commonly referred to as the “problem of evil”. If God is perfect and good and if everything happens according to his will, then how can we explain the fact that there is so much evil in this world? Enter, free will. The problem of evil was conveniently explained by the fact that God gave human beings the freedom to choose between good and evil. Because human beings are sinners they often choose to do evil. Therefore, even though God is perfect, there is evil in the world because of our God-given free choice. This explanation about the world is absolutely crucial to Christianity otherwise their doctrine of a perfect God falls apart. This Christian idea of free will has now become so deeply entrenched in the western psyche that it is taken for granted. “Freedom” and “choice” are words frequently used in the West as if it is the most natural thing in the world to be free and to be able to choose.

However, with developments in science, with the understanding that matter and energy are interchangeable, as a challenge to the notion of mind-body duality, and with developments in cognitive science and neuro-science, some western scientists and philosophers began to question the existence of free will. The debate has been raging ever since. In the overarching folk psychology of the West and among the religious believers, the concept of free will is very much alive. However, among the scientific community it is strongly disputed, if not outright rejected.

The question to consider is this: what exactly are we free from? We are subject to the laws of physics in the same way that rocks and water and mice and dolphins are. Yes we have a subjective experience of ourselves but this “self” of ours exists only because life exists. Otherwise, we are just what the universe happens to be doing in a place called the here and now that we localize for ourselves with the pronoun “I”. We split up the world into different parts and give different names to different things. We consider our “self” as being separate from the world and believe we go around doing things independently of the “world”. But as our sages have pointed out, this split of “doer-action-deed” is just our human perspective and is our way of making sense of the world. They try and show us that this is only a superficial understanding and that the separate feeling of “I” is only an appearance but is not actually real.

The same laws that govern the world govern our bodies as well as the thoughts and feelings that we believe to be inside of us. But there is no “inside”; there is no dividing line between us and the world. So in a way we are just like puppets, without any agency, but from another perspective, these laws of the universe constitute our very selves and determine how we act and react. We have the illusion of making choices and of being agents, but our wants, preferences, and needs are determined by the way the universe is. In reality there is no individual agency that is separate from the flow of the entire universe.

This idea that “I” am not the thinker of my thoughts and that “I” am not the doer of my deeds lies at the heart and soul of Indian civilization and forms its very foundation. It permeates our folk traditions as well as our intellectual traditions and our artistic traditions, and is woven into the fabric of all the metaphors all over the place. Our sages repeatedly tell us that the idea of subject-object-verb is an illusion and that the only way to lasting happiness is to understand this fact. Our traditions provide us with many ways and means to help us come to this realization. One of these ways is through the stories told in our itihasa and puranas. Our stories of Arjun and Rama, of monkeys and jackals, of sages and fools, convey these same ideas and have the same power to lead to enlightenment as does the chanting of Vedic mantras or the pursuit of logic.

However, this does not mean that once the sages had this realization they expected everyone in the world to stop in their tracks and give up on the world because we had no agency anyway, so why bother. They understood that such knowledge dawns at its own pace and that it is the human condition to live with some illusions about the nature of the self. So our traditions also teach us how to live in the world, in society and in communities and within families. The very same stories and rituals that help us in overcoming worldly illusions also teach us about living in the world since we are an integral part of the leela. What Sheldon Pollock fails to notice is that Rama was educated to live in the world, he was educated to govern, and he was trained for battle. He was taught the right manners and nurtured with the right attitudes towards the world and towards his family. And when the time came to go to war he did not just sit back and let the universe take its course. He consulted with his ministers, he strategized and planned, coaxed and pleaded, connived and cajoled and did everything it took, and in the end, after all this effort, he won the war.
Not only does Pollock suffer from a severe disconnect with the Indian traditions that he has been superficially immersed in for decades, he also betrays a lack of understanding of modern science. He seems not to have the capacity to distinguish a Christian idea from a scientific one. His beliefs about agency and free will belong somewhere in seventeenth century Europe. Oblivious of this, and armed with his “theories” he is trying to force-fit the presuppositions and prejudices of his own religion and culture on to our traditions, while claiming all the while how secular he is. There would be no problem if Pollock named his project “The Biblical Interpretation of the Ramayana”. But that is not what he is doing. The Indian intellectual traditions have a lot to offer to the world. If all Pollock can do is reproduce Biblical themes or Marxian theories it simply defeats the purpose.

Does Devdutt Pattnaik know the meaning of cult?

Here is Devdutt Pattnaik's original article.

And here's a great original rebuttal by Rajiv Malhotra forum member Jithu

Dear Devdutt,

               A writers job is to curb the use of unnecessary words, letters etc. You have used one letter too many. Whereas your article could have been titled "Delightful truths of cult leader', you have very incorrectly made the leader a plural. Because lets face it, its all about Rajiv Malhotra. Though you've touched upon Rampal in the intro, no Hindu with a slightly endowed intelligence would ever accept him as his Guru. Of course he could still be classified as a cult leader. 

               As you could have easily guessed by now, I am a fan of Rajiv's works. Actually have been for more than a dozen years. And at the same time I'm not a fan of your works because, how can I put it? Let me take a shot it. Oh I got it:  its pretty superficial simple, probably a lot like your readers. I know you are the golden boy of the urban educated Hindu who is anxious of the ignorance of his own culture but just doesn't want to know it enough that he may have to seriously spend some quality time in knowing it and doing something about it. Thats where you come in. You talk about 'myths', about  gays, draw some crazy figures on a slate and lo wallah, you are their savior: a little bit of history, a bit of modern psychology. By the way, were you not in some way advising or coaching Rahul Gandhi?  Its really difficult to say who rubbed their intelligence on whom.

              But this reply has not been instigated by Rajiv though I read your article through his forum. And my first reaction was where are the cult leader(s) and where is the cult? Its very obvious that the whole article is about RM, although you sprinkle about other 'rational' leaders' , just as a writing exercise. I wasn't sure which ran longer, your dislike or put more strongly, your hatred for Rajiv or your knowledge of cult leaders. Either way, it makes a poor display of your supposed 'knowledge' 'expertise'.
             Firstly, I'm not sure if you know about this, but for any crime thats been committed the detectives always look at who benefits by the crime. So suppose if RM committed the crime of writing books and debating people, one has to ask, what does he achieve by it? Money, fame? As you already know he used to run multinational companies, so money can't be the goal. He could have been much more famous by writing mundane books: look at you. But he didn't. So what is the end goal of his crime, I wonder!

             Secondly, about the cult. Sure he does ask help from people for his books, research etc. And he does have a lot of fans, readers, supporters etc. He also does rejects people's help when they don't fit his needs, including yours truly. Most of the times when people complain, he asks them to do what needs to be done by themselves, rather than getting himself involved because of his limited resources.Which brings me to the question: Do you really know the meaning of 'cult' ? Or does your definition goes only as far as when Bollywood calls one of its monstrosity as a 'cult' film? For a cult to exist, there should be a cult leader who promises something at the end, usually something pretty looney if I may add, like the Heavens Gate cult, Mormon cult etc. Some even call Christianity and Islam as a cult because they promise an afterlife in heaven. It might surprise you that Rajiv hasn't promised any of his readers or his fans any thing. He doesn't arrange gatherings or even satsanga. And he for sure hasn't announced that there is going to show the light at the end of the tunnel. Frankly he is more interested in his own swadharma and his sadhana. And speaking of 'Swadharma' he is a kshatriya by the way and hence if he takes up the case for 'intellectual kshatriya'  he is just doing his duty. Alas you are far from being a Brahmin. 

             Sure he wants people to carry on his legacy, continue his works. But if you apply your definition of 'cult' for that then you should also apply that for every guru, every sage in India. There should be a Vyasa cult, Ramana cult, Aurobindo cult, Sankaracharya cult etc.

             And thirdly regarding his 'demands' for invitations to speak. You probably haven't heard the phrase 'right of way'. Anyone who learns driving in the U.S would know it. You 'demand' your right of way if you are obstructed while driving on your permitted legal route by others. So if Rajiv demands to be invited to speak, he in fact is entitled to, especially in programmes that have no balancing act of their one sided agenda. Why don't you attend them and participate, debate the other side? Rajiv has done so many debates with people from the opposite side, I don't see you doing it. You sit on your lazy ass and have the arrogance to ridicule him if he takes up the initiative to counter their arguments! Oh wait, you are the other side, nodding to everything Doninger says, shamelessly selling out as soon as seeing some white skin.
             May be she instigated you to write the article. May be you are just afraid that your works wouldn't sell if more people got to know about RM's works or you are frightened how much of a 'sepoy' you are with no hint of original thought. May be you are just jealous. Or may be you are just a little 'cuckoo' in your head. In any case I would prescribe a little reading of RM's works or watch his videos. They might help you to learn something. Or may be sit somewhere silently and meditate. That also clears up the mind. But for Godsake don't put your readers through such banal and petty articles such as the one you published in Mid-day. We don't deserve such punishments.

Cheers,

Jithu

Added reading is another post on this forum which discussed the issues of plagiarism by Devdutt Pattnaik. Here is the link.

To join the discussion group please register on yahoo. The thread can be followed here. 

Valson Thampu has no business talking about godmen

The following is an article that appeared in the Deccan Herald, Bangalore on Nov 28^th 2014.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/444229/mistaking-crooks-saints.html

The author is Valson Thampu. Now a cursory google search for this person throws up a Wiki link, the first line of which says he is an educator and more importantly, a Christian theologian. Here’s the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valson_Thampu

Moreover, the author belongs to the Church of North India (CNI) whose basic creeds are the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed of 381 AD which therefore means that CNI makes a distinction between its adherents and non-Christians. This essentially means that they declare that they and only they follow the true religion and that all non-Christians pray to false gods.

If that indeed is a major vocation of his, he should have been truthful by stating in the byline for the article that he is a Christian theologian. But his byline reads only thus. “The writer is Principal, St Stephen’s College, Delhi”. This is intellectual dishonesty since the reader is not aware of the fact that his vocation as a theologian could also colour his views on a particular subject.

Further, this person was nominated to the National Integration Council as this report in The Hindu states.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/valson-thampu-nominated-to-nic/article92688.ece

Also see this post in Christianity Today. The author is in the company of people like John Dayal who has been named in “Breaking India”, written by Rajiv Malhotra.

http://www.christiantoday.co.in/article/outspoken.christian.journalist.noted.academician.appointed.members.of.national.integration.council/876.htm

This author has also petitioned the then PM on atrocities against Christians in Kandhamal, Orissa as is evidenced by these reports.

http://www.identitynetwork.net/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=50508&columnid=

http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2005/20050902-minorities-rights.htm

In writings elsewhere this author barely conceals his hatred for what he calls right wing extremism. He has been close to Swami Agnivesh too as you can see from the below link

http://www.swamiagnivesh.com/valson.htm

Here is another link that is not quite so flattering to the Rev. Dr. Valson Thampu

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/st-stephens-acting-principal-thampus-phd-fails-ugc-test/284719/

This report shows that the author had to quit as principal of St. Stephens in 2008. However he seems to have been reinstated later that year. Both the stories in below links.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/valson-thampu-quits-st-stephens/article1221048.ece

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080913/jsp/nation/story_9827149.jsp

At the outset, it is important to understand that I hold no brief for Sant/Baba Rampal who he has ostensibly attacked in his piece. I have no particular view on the subject and I refuse anymore to believe all the canards put out in the mainstream media for they’ve cried wolf so often now, that one refuses to take them seriously and I cannot accept trial by media. Also, it’s a curiously skewed situation when crimes committed by assorted padres and mullahs find hardly a mention in the ever shrill media. I believe the law of the land will therefore treat his case on its merits and he will be acquitted or convicted as the case may be. However, I do have a problem with the broad brush Mr. Thampu takes to generally trash all so called “godmen” which is a term that seems to be exclusively used for gurus from the Dharmic faiths. It is a fact that all padres and mullahs and rabbis in churches, mosques and synagogues are also godmen. But this pejorative is very selectively applied only to those coming from the Dharmic faiths.

With the above introduction, I present below some of the observations that I made on his article using the ideas that I picked up from reading “Being Different” by Rajiv Malhotra and also watching, listening and understanding how he uses purvapaksha and the Dharmic lens to refute positions taken by his opponents.

Para 3, line 3: “How come people in this sophisticated age armed with a critical, sceptical spirit, fail to distinguish between an ‘ashram’ and a fortification that looks anything but an ashram?”

The writer has put “ashram” in quotes. Why? Is it because there is a mental picture of the ashram? As a reader I would like to know what that mental picture is and what the author thinks an ashram should look like.

Para 4: “The canards on which the conmen of religion build their empires pertain to their ludicrous ideas about god and their pretensions to having special powers.”

I assume since in the previous paragraph he has underlined our “secular culture and scientific temperament” the above quote can be applied to all religions equally. I move ahead assuming this is so, for I believe the author will have no difficulties accepting that conmen exist in all religions.

Para 5: “For centuries we have been brainwashed to believe that gods are partial to their own religious communities, cults, locations and individuals. The Christian god cares only for Christians. Hindu gods are partial to Hindus. Lord Buddha, Prophet Mohammad, Lord Mahavira and Guru Nanak, likewise, are irrelevant to those outside their fold. Such people are excluded from help or relief.”

Can the author clarify where Hindu gods or Buddha or Mahavira or Guru Nanak say that only their followers or “chosen people” will be preferred? If he cannot cite sources, we must then think that he is making his sweeping generalization based on the Abrahamic gods who indeed say so very explicitly that they are partial only to their followers.

Para 6: “God is, besides, contracted to certain ‘special agents’ whom he favours with special powers. Like a politician to his coterie, god reveals his cards only to these minions. The rest of us are condemned to receiving his favours second-hand.”

This is the perfect understanding of the people of the book. But wholly flawed when talking of Dharmic traditions where first person empiricism is the norm. Nobody from the Dharmic traditions is condemned to “receiving his favours second-hand” and everyone has the potential to achieve oneness with the Brahman. So, one has to conclude that the author is applying Abrahamic principles to understand a Dharmic phenomenon when the worldviews itself don’t match.

Para 7: “There is no knowing, however, how god chooses these middlemen. On current evidence, god appears to have a preference for crooks and criminals.”

Even allowing for the first sentence to be true, it follows then that the Christian god (granted that he is the purported son of god, but that still does not absolve him from being a middleman) on whom rests the Christian faith is a crook and criminal. The same also holds for Mohammad who is the prophet of Allah in Islam and therefore the middleman for that faith. As for the Jews, their crook middleman is still in the making.

Now to deconstruct the first sentence, while it is true that one doesn’t know why God should chooses his middlemen in the Abrahamic faiths, (He apparently plays tic tac toe and wherever his finger points that person is chosen) the sentence is not even applicable to Dharmic faiths. In Dharmic faiths, the human being chooses to realize his God potential and a person from these faiths achieves the so called “middleman” status based on the extent to which s/he evolves in consciousness through individual yoga. Moreovers/he is not sole arbitrator between god and his followers. He is only the guide and helps his followers choose their path. Eventually, each one of his/her followers evolves according to his own experience. These faiths also subscribe to the view that all of creation is imbued with God potential.

Para 8: “It is as though he has an air of condescension towards the rest of us, the common folk, to whom mercies will be sent only by proxy.”

Repetition that an Abrahamic worldview is being applied to a supposedly Dharmic person (Baba Rampal’s arrest drama which I understand is what the author wants to target). Dharmic peoples simply do not receive god’s mercies “by proxy”. A Baba/Guru/Sant is only a means to follow on a certain path and its up to the follower/shishya to evolve individually through tapas and sadhana.

Para 9, line 2: “We are sure to be forgiven if we disobey or disrespect God, which we do all the time. But we are sure to be exterminated if we try the same with these middlemen.”

Following from the sentence in bold, one can safely assume then that “extermination” is what happened in Europe during the crusades and in the US with the genocide of the native Americans and also what happened in Australia with the indigenous peoples of the land. When applied to Islam of course, this is the narrative that has played itself out numerous times since the advent of Islam. Genocide and extermination are exclusive achievements of these two Abrahamic faiths. It would be good to know if the author can produce an account of similar proportions with respect to Dharmic faiths.

Now, for the first sentence. There is no concept of forgiveness within Dharmic faiths because sin is not associated with these faiths. Dharmic peoples are fully responsible for their actions and will therefore reap its consequences (good or bad) as explained by the concept of karma. So where is the concept of forgiveness then? Now, applying this sentence to the Christians, their disobedience is forgiven by God or God’s middleman in the church called the Father? Thus if the Father is the middleman of God then he is of course a crook since the author has previously stated that. And then we have to conclude that it is these very same crooks who are forgiving Christians in the name of God. I don’t know enough about Judaism and Islam to apply it to them. However since these faiths also rely on middlemen for access to God, the transaction must perforce go through these crooks (as per author’s representation).

Para 11, line 1: “Also, he used to wake up once a week per community (on Fridays for Muslims, Saturdays for Jews, Sundays for Christians) and limit his presence to designated places of worship (mosques, synagogues, churches, temples etc.) “

Asserting his secular credentials, he has targeted all faiths in terms of when God “wakes up” to affix his signature “to designated place of worship”. So far so good. He talks about Fridays for Muslims, Saturdays for Jews and Sundays for Christians. Where is the day for Hindus? No day for the Hindus (or for Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs for that matter). He leaves that out for he doesn’t find any references. That is fair enough. But when he continues he says “his presence to designated places of worship (mosques, synagogues, churches, temples etc.” Why have temples been added when he did not find a specific day for the Hindus, why did their place of worship find a mention? This can only be construed as ill-informed or most probably deliberate false extrapolation?

Para 13: “The Creator is present in, and available to, all parts of creation. Anyone who claims to be a privileged agent of God is a cheat and a de facto atheist. He flies in the face of the quintessential spiritual vision of vasudaiva kutumbakam.”

Now for the first sentence: he means God is immanent in all of creation. If so, I’d like to ask him if is he divine? Is a dog divine? Is a tree divine? Is a stone divine? If he answers yes to it, I would then like to ask if he will then be willing to worship himself, a dog or the stone? If he still says yes, I would ask if he would allow me to bring my Ganesh murthi into his church and pray to it. It is a stone and I think of it as divine and I have carved it in the form of Ganesha. Will he let me do it in his house, in his church? Abrahamic faiths do not essentially believe in an immanent god, else why would they object to worshipping a stone?

Let’s deconstruct the second sentence. Let’s assume that as a Hindu I have no qualms in saying that this Hindu “godman” who “claims to be a privileged agent of God is a cheat and a de facto atheist”. By the same token, then Jesus of the Christians, Mohammad of the Muslims and the yet to come Messiah of the Jews, are all cheats too since they claim to be privileged agents of God.

Now for the “vasudaiva kutmbakam” of the Hindus whose most abused usage has gained ground. First, until this point, the author has exhibited an ability to elaborate his point only from an Abrahamic worldview. Therefore, from where does this sudden recourse to a Hinduism tenet come in? it does come in so let’s now look at it. Does vasudaiva kutmbakam comprise everyone and everything indiscriminately? Then even an Osama Bin Laden or a Hitler as Rajiv ji says forms part of that kutumbakam. Or an approaching swarm of locusts should be allowed to create havoc just because they are also part of vasudaiva kutumbakam. The author assumes that a spiritual quest is devoid of fighting forces that are harmful to the concept of vasudaiva kutumbakam. And that is certainly not how Hinduism envisages this concept. Yes, vasudaiva kutumbakam is extended to all those who live by the principles of pluralism which also involves Rajiv Malhotra coined term “mutual respect” operating while conducting inter-faith encounters. The very fact that this author has so far written his viewpoint pontificating from his Christian exclusivist worldview, indeed he does not qualify to be part of my vasudaiva kutumbakam. He cannot be until he offers me the respect which I will offer him for his worldview.

Para 14: “The implied insinuation that God practices untouchability vis-à-vis almost the whole of humankind and dispatches his mercy and charity to them, therefore, only via some conmen deputies should provoke derisive laughter.”

This para is laughable for it tries to forcefully bring in the concept of untouchability and to my mind this is a blatant attempt to malign the Hindu faith with the prevalent divisive discourse of caste.

However, assuming for a moment that this is an unbiased observation, we shall look at the facts. Yes, there have been and there still are problems within the Hindu faith. But has it been a case of Hindus not doing the churning from within to correct these problems? The facts would not say so. We shall start with the Arya Samaj. In the page “About us” on their website, the Arya Samaj says this. “Arya Samaj was established by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in the year 1875 to get rid of social evils of Hindu society. Arya Samaj is a bona fide Hindu-Vedic organization. It is non-denominational authentic Hindu-Vedic religious organization dedicated to remove superstition, orthodoxy and social evils such as un-touchability etc., from society.”  So it is a fact that Hindus have a tradition of reforming from within and the Arya Samaj is just one example which is pan-Indian. Then there is Dr. B.R Ambedkar and there have been local reformers, for example in Kerala, Mahatma Ayyankali and Sree Narayana Guru who stayed within the faith and worked towards reform. Their contributions especially those of Mahatma Ayyankali have largely not been acknowledged and it is now that the Modi Government is educating Indians on icons such as him. There was also the temple entry proclamation by the Travancore king which was a landmark and forward looking decision to change the bad practices that had crept into the Hindu faith. The proclamation signed by Sree Chithira Thirunal reads thus. “Profoundly convinced of the truth and validity of our religion, believing that it is based on divine guidance and on all-comprehending toleration, knowing that in its practice it has throughout the centuries, adapted itself to the needs of changing times, solicitous that none of our Hindu subjects should, by reason of birth or caste or community, be denied the consolation and the solace of the Hindu faith, we have decided and hereby declare, ordain and command that, subject to such rules and conditions as may be laid down and imposed by us for preserving their proper atmosphere and maintaining their rituals and observances, there should henceforth be no restriction placed on any Hindu by birth or religion on entering or worshipping at temples controlled by us and our Government.”

The emphasis in the above quote is mine to underline the fact that this ground breaking reform was achieved from within the faith.

Apart from these examples, since independence, the Government of India, no matter whichever ideology, is committed to affirmative action to overcome the injustices of the past and towards that has so many programs intended for the upliftment of the oppressed. As a result, we have so many successful leaders today who are drawn from the Dalit fold. And no one better exemplifies this than the ascent to the premiership by Modi ji who himself is drawn from among the backward castes. We have also had a person from the oppressed castes as President in K R Narayanan. Apart from all of this, I am very sure that many of us in our daily lives, knowing the situations of the past do our utmost in our individual capacity to correct such imbalances. All these examples are showcased in order to reinforce that while Hindus understand that there are many problems within the faith, they can never be accused with a single broad brush of not having done anything about it as Mr. Thampu seems keen to underline.

The issue of the caste system and its continued presence and the tensions its creating within Christianity itself is brought out by these two articles.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Do-Christians-also-practise-caste-system-asks-SC/articleshow/2218560.cms

http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201301/caste-26818

Now, since the author is wholly unbiased, the above sentence I believe he would have no problem in extending to the Jews, Christians and Muslims of the world. They are also untouchables, for God’s word is propagated if anything more centrally and principally in these faiths through his “conmen” prophets. So, yes the laughter is indeed derisive for it has exposed the author as someone who threw a stone from a glass house only to have his own windows broken.

Para 15, line 1: “Enlightened souls feel embarrassed when special powers are attributed to them. Extravagant claims of special powers are made only by the wheeler dealers of religion.”

That’s why Jesus, Muhammad and the yet to be born messiah are also “wheeler dealers of religion” along with all the Dharmic ones he insinuates.

Para 16, line 1: “It is a nightmare that temples of light are today overshadowed by ashrams of darkness.”

Author seems to be using binaries associated with exclusivist ideologies which hardly holds true for Dharmic faiths in which “yes”, “no” and “maybe” also operate.

Para 16, line 3: “Why obscene wealth should punctuate the conmen of religion is an enigma that we dare not face.”

While this can and does need to be questioned for Dharmics, the same also applies to churches and mosques where conmen operate in the guise of padres and mullahs. Don’t they also possess obscene wealth?

Para 17: “In point of fact, it is the glare and glitter, the scale and size of their megabucks that blind us to the subhuman realities that shroud these corrupters of our species.”

Repeat the same point as before that author fails to realize that the same words could equally apply to the church and mosque who many feel are “corrupters of our species”.

For the scale of Christianity’s intervention in India it will just suffice to go through this blog which does a fantastic job of exposing the designs of such interventionists by accessing the available data n the Government FCRA website.

http://sighbaboo.blogspot.in/2014/04/state-specific-top-20-organizations.html

To conclude, one has to say that there are repercussions when one talks from a lofty pedestal on issues where one’s worldview is shaped by a certain exclusivist ideology. Every faith and every culture has its problems and the author while being a citizen of pluralistic India, if he wants to contribute positively to the change needed within the society must work shoulder to shoulder with its vast majority who do understand the need for change for the country. However, it seems as if this author is interested only in playing up the faultlines in the society and one seriously questions his motives for doing so. 

New Jersey evangelists target Divali for digestion

This post is about the unceasing insidious attempts to digest every Hindu festival (this time its Deepavali) into Christianity/Jesus.

Rajiv writes in the forum.

Pls read the attached [embedded] 2-page flier being distributed to Hindus on the streets for the past many days. 

Oak Tree Road is a high traffic shopping center for the Indian community. People are going about in the Divali festivities. There is a well orchestrated distribution of this Biblical digestion of Divali. Maybe the same is also happening in other states.

Sadly, some Hindus find this a good thing because it means "Divali is being appreciated" by the Church.

Evangelists target Divali digestion

Is ISKCON being digested into Judeo-Christianity?

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

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

Rajiv stated:

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

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

Krishna responded:

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

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

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

Maria had this to say about ISKCON:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chittaranjan elaborates on what he sees as the ISKCON ideology

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

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

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

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

Dear Sant,

Namaste. Hare Krishna.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Anuttama Dasa

International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)

Chairman, Governing Body Commission, and

Minister of International Communications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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