Rejecting "Hinduism = Rightwing"

(RM forum thread from October 2014 on a topic that is as relevant today as it was then. emphasis ours).


Posted by Rajiv Malhotra:Many Hindu leaders refer to themselves as Rightwing in order to differentiate from the Left. The Left/Right categories need to be understood as an instance of Western Universalism not applicable to us.

After the French Revolution, in the new parliament it was possible for peasants also to get elected as MPs. Earlier the MPs were only feudal/landlords. However, the peasants and landlords elected did not like to sit together. For one thing, French people did not have the habit of bathing and hence their bodies would stink. The rich (landlords) had perfumes to cover up the bad odor. Perfume was expensive and used only by the rich. It was a sign of being rich. So the rich with perfume sat on one side, while the poor without perfume sat on the other side of the aisle in the parliament room.

They did not know each other by name and the atmosphere was not always friendly. People started referring to an opponent as "the person on the Right (of the aisle)", and conversely, the man on the right would refer to "the person on the Left". The journalists started reporting to the debates as positions from the Left or Right respectively. This is how the poor seeking economic equality became known as the voices on the Left, while the elitists representing wealth were the Right.

A foolish JNU student once asked me, "Sir I am confused whether you are Leftwing or Rightwing. Please clarify who you are."

I replied: My tradition is to bather my body daily. Hence no stink and no need for perfume to cover that up. So I cannot be classified either as some using perfume to cover up the odor, or as someone stinking because of the lack of perfume.

Jokes aside, the Left/Right categories are superficial, silly. In the West, Left/Right refer to two separate packages of values. But this simplification does not allow mixing and matching across these packages.

Right commonly means a religious (i.e. Judeo-Christian) person who supports pro-rich economic policy, and elitist social programs. The Leftist is for the poor, against religion, bigger government, etc.

Question: Was Mohandas Gandhi a Leftist or Rightist? He was championing the poor, making him a Leftist. But he was articulate about supporting his dharma, making him a Rightwing. Many Hindu organizations do a lot for the poor, contradicting this neat pair of categories. There are many "secular" elitists, billionaires, etc. - again not easy to put into a box.

Hindu economic thought reflected in itihas, dharmashastra, arthashastra, etc. cannot be classified as elitist. It just does not fit this strange classification system. The lifestyle mandated for a brahmin is very simple, hardly resembling the typical Rightwing American.

Hindus should not classify themselves as Rightwing. Many so-called champions of "the Hindu Right" have become sucked into WU and operate in this colonial framework.

However, I do refer to some of my opponents as Leftists, because THEY brand themselves proudly in this manner. I am simply calling them by the name they give themselves.

A White Hindu who attended my workshop yesterday in Washington did not understand why I criticized this Left/Right categorizing. I proposed that we abandon this way to classify ourselves, and classify behavior as dharmic/adharmic. Those ideas are better defined for us.

She falsely assumed that I meant: Right = dharma, and Left = adharma. Hence she felt my classification system of dharma/adharma was insulting. She has no clue what dharma/adharma means and yet she blogs as "White Hindu". Need for more education.

I am not merely changing words from English to Sanskrit. I am demolishing the framework in which Left/Right are ways of classifying all persons, my intention being to rescue Hindus from self-branding themselves as Rightwing.

As a Hindu I espouse many qualities of the American Left and yet many other qualities of the American Right. I am not limited by either. I disagree with many things on both sides. This grid does not capture who I am.


Rajiv Malhotra adds another post in the thread:

See below example of how Amercians are dissatisfied with the Left/Right dichotomy and are trying to build a new "synthetic unity". Why do we want to import this artificial divide in the first place? And then a decade later we will be borrowing American "Future Left" to cure the disease we imported. Instead we should develop new smritis using our frameworks.

..............................................................................................................................................

A Virtual Caucus on the “Future Left"
Saturday, October 25, 2014,10:00 AM Pacific
Click here to register for the free call


We'll be explaining what we mean by the “Future Left”—and how you can recognize it in yourself and others, and why it represents the future of progressive politics. Elizabeth Debold will also be a panelist and together with Steve and Carter, we'll examine how progressive politics is changing and how you can play a role in that transformation.

Both Steve and Carter are close personal friends of mine and I have followed the development of their Institute for Cultural Evolution from its beginnings in 2012. Last April, their white paper, Depolarizing the American Mind, was released to the public on the same day as our Beyond Awakening dialogue, where Carter and Steve articulated their strategies for overcoming the "wicked" problem of political polarization in America by helping to evolve both the Left and the Right. Their thesis is that the political polarity of Left and Right is relatively permanent and existential, continuing to reappear in new forms as society changes and evolves. Their approach accordingly seeks to anticipate the future state of these existential political positions by describing the form that the “Future Left” and “Future Right” will likely take in the decades ahead.

According to Carter and Steve:

An evolutionary principle for working with positive-positive existential polarities, such as “liberal and conservative”, is that each pole needs the other for its own further and fuller development. If one pole dominates or vanquishes the other, pathology is the inevitable result. Applied to politics, this principle indicates that the most sound and politically effective liberal and progressive positions will be those that integrate legitimate conservative values, while still remaining true to their original progressive values. Conservative values can serve to improve liberal positions by challenging and moderating such positions in a way that makes them stronger. The same can be said about the role of liberal values in strengthening conservative positions.

By helping progressive politics move from a position of antithesis, which rejects many of the values of the rest of American society, to a more synthetic position that can better value what America has achieved, we hope to contribute to the emergence of progressive political positions that are able to overcome polarization and accomplish many of their laudable political goals. As described in "Depolarizing the American Mind", we are working to evolve the overall consciousness of the American electorate by increasing the quality and quantity of what people are able to value.

I invite you to join us on Saturday and help to define and develop a more evolved form of left wing politics. In this free conference call you will:
Better understand the deeper cultural and historical forces that explain how our nation has become increasingly polarized.
Take part in a “participatory caucus” where you can voice your opinion and vote for your priorities.
Develop a newfound hope and sense of potential in relation to the political, social, and environmental crises we currently face as a nation.
Discover how to view current issues through a developmental lens―which changes how we think about creating change.
Hear what pioneers of the “Future Left” have to say about the most important political issues of our time.
Develop a new understanding of what political leadership entails from an evolutionary perspective.
A Virtual Caucus on the “Future Left
Saturday, October 25, 2014,10:00 AM Pacific
..

Rajiv: BD explains the absence of the "middle" in western thought, hence tendency towards two mutually exclusive options.

Is there Moksha in Christianity?

Here is the link to the forum discussion. (you can join the Satsang. It is free). The short answer to the question is:
NO. Read 'Being Different' for a detailed and in-depth discussion. Here are some useful forum links discussing karma and reincarnation.

http://rajivmalhotra.com/library/articles/karma-reincarnation-compatible-christianity/

http://beingdifferentforum.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-does-karma-theory-of-hinduism-work.html

 

In this thread, a forum member shared his reasons for returning to Hinduism. We present some pertinent points below:
"I am a born Hindu, but I was converted to christianity in my teen age years. In my early 20's I read the Autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi in which he talked about his experience with christians and christianity. His christian friends tried to convert his, and his reply was that he must first study his own religion thoroughly before thinking of converting to another religion. After studying Hinduism and comparative religion, Gandhiji realized that his own religion is far superior to other religions.

 So, following in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi, I also did an in-dept study on comparative religion and came to the same conclusion. I IMMEDIATELY REVERTED TO MY ANCESTRAL RELIGION - SANATANA DHARMA.


[.....]


As Rajivji explained, there is no Moksha in christianity. Christianity goes as far as a realm called heaven, which in Hinduism is called Swarg. Beyond heaven/Swarg, there is an unmanifest State called Brahman. Moksha is merging into that State of Oneness with Brahman. ....This Oneness is open to ALL Truth seekers, and NOT exclusively to Jesus...

You said (as all christians do) that Jesus paid for the sins of others by his blood ..... (As Gandhiji said that Jesus proved nothing by dying)... MANY GREAT PEOPLE BRAVELY DIED for some good in the world.

[.....]

The Bhagavad-Gita says: "Better is your own Dharma, even with flaws, than the Dharma of another's."  If you were told by others that your mother was ugly, would you not still love your mother ?

 In Hinduism, this Age is called "Kal-yug" - it is the "Age of Delusion and Deception." So, Beware of False Religions.  Hinduism is NOT a deceptive religion. It NEVER tried to deceive others into believing....Sanatana Dharma does not have a conquering or converting agenda. In Hinduism : "Not Conversion, but Transformation is the Goal of True Religion: Become Better Human Beings: Love, Mutual Respect, Unity in Diversity, Etc., Etc."   These things are not taught in christianity and the other Abrahamic religions..."

Rajiv Malhotra's contribution to sanskriti is unique

Below is a post on the RM discussion forum by Vedic Desi

Curry smells, eating with hands, not using toilet paper, squat toilets, public defecation, pollution, caste system, accent, 33 million gods, driving in India, Paan spitting, vegetarianism, reincarnation, British gave you everything, and other clichés.

Astonishing! When people hear about India this is all they will get to know. As if somebody carefully trains them. Although there are many facts on India readily available thanks to the development in couple of years, the “Third World” image is carefully crafted and nurtured.

There is another set of people who are totally in love with India. They love yoga, and they want this "SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE" from India. In between the spectrum there are the people, who are still formulating an image about what is India. These form the think tanks, universities who know the reality on ground and know how to spin it, wherever and whenever needed.

At some point, if you feel you need to correct these stereotypes and get a true picture, you need to understand who you are in the first place to present yourself and the facts. Sadly most Indians neither have the depth of knowledge nor interest to explain about themselves. History is distorted. Media is biased. Cultural festivals have ended up being all about bollywood song and dance. 

It is Rajiv Malhotra who brought it all together. Nobody has integrated the current geopolitics and its effects on India as done by Rajiv. He authored Breaking India, which is a seminal book that explains the role of US and European churches, academics, think-tanks, foundations, government and human rights groups in fostering separation of the identities of Dravidian and Dalit communities from the rest of India. The research tracked the money trails that start out claiming to be for education, human rights, empowerment training, leadership training, but end up in programs designed to produce angry youths who feel disjointed with their Indian identity. More importantly everyone should think about what it takes to put this together. When the problem is explained in such clarity, 50% of it is solved.

Rajiv Malhotra ji is unique because the integrated understanding his works provide is unparalleled. Dr. Subhash Kak's work is creditable when it comes to Myths of Aryan Invasion and others for other specialties in Indology. But to understand the full spectrum of Indology, you have to come to Rajiv Malhotra.

On why the West works on specialization? 

Simple, America has a goal of global dominance. If the traditional scholars and their pawns understand the foreign policy of US, they would just be glad that someone like Rajiv exists and would put their force behind him to save our Sanskriti.

Not just study of religions regions and languages, do look up, US has an expert on almost everything imaginable on earth. Experts on Science, geopolitics, Religion, regions, languages, cultures, sports, Mathematics, Space, etc list goes on and on. Recently there was an alarm in The US on dwindling Russian experts and this was seen as responsible for hampering the policy decisions.

In US Universities, at the top level the research direction is determined by National Science Foundation and the topics are split into small sections for research by different universities. This may be seen as a mundane practice by the uninitiated, but it is effective to obtain mastery. Do our traditional scholars know this?

It is the US which is the only country in the world that can print currency continually to fund its needs. As a supplement of the global dominance agenda, there is the goal of some to have Pan Christian world. If you want to dominate the world, you need to understand it thoroughly, only then you can control it. So where are the traditionalist doing the Purva Paksha to understand the US?

Rajiv in his new book – The Battle for Sanskrit has laid open all his years of work and encourages the traditionalists to know the battlefield and join in to save Sanskriti.

In such a complicated situation, if someone like Rajiv is offering a way to fight back, why are traditionalists attacking him? This whole outcry about not crediting previous Indologists is just comical. It is Rajiv Malhotra’s humble attempt and request that others have to take it forward. What more do the critics want? The attacks on Rajiv are unwarranted. All Dharmic minds need to help stop these illogical attacks by traditionalists and start contributing to save our Sanskriti.

In my personal view, an even bigger aim of Swadeshi Indology, as Rajiv Malhotra suggests we work on (not Indology, which is a western view) is to help in spiritual advancement.

In a world, where Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatham are totally distorted, imagine what lies ahead for the future generations to tackle and develop faith and understanding of Dharma. Today it’s Sheldon Pollock, tomorrow someone else, but the battle has to be fought with a unified front. And the battlefield is best studied and explained by Rajiv Malhotra. Let’s stay on the path of Dharma, let’s unite to support and contribute to The Battle for Sanskrit.

Ganesh on TBFS: A poor model of scholarship

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

Dear Kalavai,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

viṣaya – the subject matter; the scope of the discussion

saṃbandha – the connection of the adhikāri to the viṣaya

prayojana –the purpose of the discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are four levels of speech:

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

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

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

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

Members of online satsang respond to Rohan Murty's TOI article

This is the article by Rohan Murty which had many members responding to it. We reproduce here some of the responses.

Mallika says:

This is a terrible initiative. Because according to Pollock (i)According to Pollock there is nothing spiritual about Sanskrit Literature, Sanskrit is political and an instrument of oppression. (ii) Again according to Pollock Ramayana was popularized in 11 - 15 centuries to oppress the Muslims. Even though Ramayana was popular a 1000 years earlier. Should this sinister version be popularized is the Q?

Navita pitches in:

Please do square this circle - Your Editor, Sheldon Pollock, believes :

- That Sanskrit shastras are regressive, dogmatic texts that are mentally and intellectually imprisoning and stifle individual creativity
- The shastras are a tool for political and social oppression, and should only be studied by scholars like himself for the purpose of uncovering such evils and liberating Indians
- The worship of Ram is a ‘cult’ popularised around the 12thC to rally the masses against the Moghul invaders who were projected as the demonic ‘other’
- The Mahabharata is the most dangerous political story in the world because it is a deep meditation on the fratricide in civil war
- Sanskrit is a ‘dead’ language and it was in fact the barbarous invaders who sought to revive it
- the German Holocaust was inspired by the Nazis reading of Sanskrit texts

In the context of such negative views about the Sanskrit shastras how do you expect there to be any confidence the Murthi Classical library will do justice to the vast treasure house of deep vedic knowledge and the accomplishments of ancient India? Please do acquaint yourself with close reading of Sheldon Pollock’s actual works (and not just the accolades of the mutually self-praising cabal of Western Indology).

Hemakanta adds his voice:

We appreciate your intentions of carrying forward our culture and heritage for the benefit of future generations. You belong to a family having the gene and blood of great Rishis and son of the mentor of a great and prestigious Corporate House of India.

However You have not done proper due diligence while appointing Mr. Scheldon Pollock as chief editor of such a prestigious project.

(Mahatma said: "I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any." )

With the result now you have been “blown out of your feet” contrary to the advise of Mahatma.

(I look forward to working constructively with anybody — be they ethnically Indian or otherwise — as long as they are honest scholars of the highest caliber interested in advancing the same visions articulated here.)

Mr. Scheldon Pollock’s nature, qualities , intentions and associations are well exposed now. There is no need to repeat them here, as you are well aware of them by now.(Particularly with his association of recent activities at JNU)

(At best, MCLI will produce some 2,500 volumes over the next 500 years, yet there are possibly millions awaiting translation. )

For a big Pot of Milk few drops of poison or salt will do to break the Milk in it.

“The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights”

Yes. Vedic culture is universal and embraces whole humanity.” sarve janaaH sukhino bhavantu “ is the basic principle of sanaatana dharma.

Bhagavaan in Bhagvadgita also said that no one has right to follow adharma or act against sanaatana dharma and survive. Hence Bhagavaan proposed to Arjuna to fight against adharma.

With the result the Great people/legends like Bheeshma, DroNa , KarNa had to perish and Aswatthaama had to loose his face and fame.

Mistakes do happen when we try do some good work.
“gnaatasaarOpi khalvEkaH sandigdhE kaaryavastooni”

Knowledgeable whosoever while doing great things doubts and mistakes do happen.

A wise man is one who realizes this and correct his actions and steps.

For the question of protecting Dharma , no false prestige please.

dharmO rakShati rakShitaH.

Sahanaavavatu sahanau bhunaktu sahaveeryam karavaavahai tEjasvinaavadheetamastu maavidviShaavahai.

Om shaantiH shaantiH shaantiH.

Ashok says:

I can feel your urgency when you say that 'there is far too much to be done and far too little time' and thus you want the Indian Sanskrit treasure translated into English as soon as possible.

These were however composed with great care and because of that they have withstood the test of time and have survived over the centuries. A lot of it has survived not only ad-verbatim, but also with the correct intonations, even in the absence of it being bound in script. This will give you an idea of the care and detail. Similar care is of course needed in its translation, which should not be done in haste.

The issue that I have with the overall editor that you have chosen is that his views about Sanskrit are not very complimentary and his views of the content of these works in Sanskrit, which he is tasked with translating, is even worse, such that no one who has grown up imbibing the meanings of these works will agree with his interpretations. For example he feels that Sanskrit's purpose is to be exclusive and thus aid the ruler in his oppression of the masses, to legitimise divisions and support invasions and war. His views in general about the knowledge systems and the knowledge generated from India too is quite derogatory.

It is unreasonable, in fact foolhardy, to expect that such views will not spill over in the translations. Such a translation is likely to not only remove the soul of these works, but worse leave the translations with a completely different twist to the original.

You have elsewhere lamented about the lack of Indian scholars who are capable of taking up such a task. This is not true Mr Murthy. I humbly suggest that you have not looked.

Please let this important task be done by those who are sympathetic to Sanskrit and to our Sanskriti.I can feel your urgency when you say that 'there is far too much to be done and far too little time' and thus you want the Indian Sanskrit treasure translated into English as soon as possible.

These were however composed with great care and because of that they have withstood the test of time and have survived over the centuries. A lot of it has survived not only ad-verbatim, but also with the correct intonations, even in the absence of it being bound in script. This will give you an idea of the care and detail. Similar care is of course needed in its translation, which should not be done in haste.

The issue that I have with the overall editor that you have chosen is that his views about Sanskrit are not very complimentary and his views of the content of these works in Sanskrit, which he is tasked with translating, is even worse, such that no one who has grown up imbibing the meanings of these works will agree with his interpretations. For example he feels that Sanskrit's purpose is to be exclusive and thus aid the ruler in his oppression of the masses, to legitimise divisions and support invasions and war. His views in general about the knowledge systems and the knowledge generated from India too is quite derogatory.

It is unreasonable, in fact foolhardy, to expect that such views will not spill over in the translations. Such a translation is likely to not only remove the soul of these works, but worse leave the translations with a completely different twist to the original.

You have elsewhere lamented about the lack of Indian scholars who are capable of taking up such a task. This is not true Mr Murthy. I humbly suggest that you have not looked.

Please let this important task be done by those who are sympathetic to Sanskrit and to our Sanskriti.

Satchidananda says:

The article makes nice points, but only thing is Rohan himself is guilty of not following the title. Rohan acknowledges that these Classics (not dead like Roman or Greek) are treasures for humanity. Rohan or Pollock did not preserve them over the millennia. A traditional ecosystem did. So why are Rohan and Pollock so averse to the traditional views. Why should the classics be viewed only under the distorted western lens. Pollock's legacy of removing paramarthika or calling ramayana as socially oppressive tool are neither works of scholarliness nor great revelations. If they have been to the mountaintop, they must realize so did all these great scholars from India who have traditionally preserved over millennia. WHY IGNORE THEM? How can one who is bent on distorting the views of an entire civilization claim that he alone is the most able person? Rohan is on record claiming that all Indians are unfit. What qualifies Rohan to even make such a claim? A person with so much bias and prejudice is made as the gatekeeper to the classics and Rohan cannot argue that these biases will not be part of translation. A person who has double face and talks something to popular media and writes profusely against the very literature and people described in it cannot be trusted. Rohan can do all this media blitz but money can only buy so much credibility. Peanut gallery knows more than you do. The tragedy is the author of the article is invoking Gandhiji, when his favorite ishta devata, Rama is being trashed by Pollock and the very author is doing prashasti of him. What an irony. No one denies that Pollock and his team has put hard work. But can the same defenders give a guarantee that his biases are not part of the translation. Why can't Pollock have an in camera debate on these issues with Rajiv Malhotra? Why can't Rohan include the traditional scholars, who are not yet converted by Pollockism to give balanced views on the classics? Why insist that all Indians are not fit to translate their own classics? If the treasures are belonging to humanity, doesn't it make all Indians a bigger inheritor of this heritage? Why insist that only Pollock has the only scholarship needed to translate? If he wants to claim Pollock is smarter than Rohan, he is free to, but to make such outrageous claim makes Rohan more stupider than the all paid media can portray. DOES ROHAN WANT TO BE THE PAPPU OF MURTHY FAMILY? He seems to be showcasing it more with the paid media articles for if he opens the mouth, only peanut gallery stuff comes out. Money can buy more advertisement like these articles but not wisdom. Sorry Rohan, if you follow dharma, wisdom will automatically accrue. You are not doing justice by letting twisted motivated translations silence the traditional views of millennia and legacy of the greatest civilization on this planet. SATYAMEVA JAYETE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

Hinduism and its differences with the Abrahamic religions:

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

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

Attack on India/Hinduism and its traditions:

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

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

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

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

Ability to engage in Hinduism related debates:

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

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

Two Letters by a Native American on her dharma

What happened to the Native Americans
(first letter: July 2014)
A person of Native American ancestry has written a couple of important and moving letters to Rajiv ji that were shared on the forum. Excerpts are posted here. It is worth reading the letters in its entirety on the forum via the links provided.

I'm reading through the archives from end to end, a little bit every day while I read the basic books like the Bhagavad Geetaa, Upanishads in my search for answers.

I would like to say that I have Native American ancestry. I think it's important to get EVERYONE (all Sanaatanis) on board about this, or the fate of the Native Americans will be yours. Today, we are thoroughly scattered, with but a very small population with reservations here and there, supposedly sovereign, but still subject to government definitions of what makes one a real Native American..., and how this is used to further divide up the surviving Native American communities and ultimately destroy all linguistic, religious, and cultural traces of Native Americans, save for the appearances of our bodies.

DON'T END UP LIKE US!

(second letter: February 2015)
I have finished reading all of your articles at rajivmalhotra.com  I have already read several books and papers, like “Invading the Sacred,” “Arise Arjuna!” “Forum of Intentional Liars,” “Radical Universalism,” “Kali’s Child Revisited,” “Mythology Wars,” “All religions are not the same.”


I am currently reading the "Mandala of Indic Traditions” web site and "The Ten Principal Unpanishads" .. and soon, I’m getting ready to read Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Ramayana for now. I want to read your books such as “Being Different,” etc...

I read your article about Sanskrit phobia. I want to learn Sanskrit ... I realize now that there is so much knowledge in Sanskrit works and Indic civilization that stand to be lost to the world at large if they are not translated to a non-Indian language, or worse, if the people don’t bother to learn Sanskrit in order to know exactly what is written instead some western scholar’s biased “interpretation/translation” of a given text.

It has also become clear to me, just HOW CRUCIAL it is that Indic civilization not go by the way side and become a footnote of history. Our survival depends on it... We need this, where we have a balance between living within nature and carrying on a form of harmonious civilization, and no poor people. I feel that the reason we have poverty within the Western world is because of money, control, the structure of the industries and educational systems, not to mention the “wood burning” mentality as opposed to the garland making mentality of the Indic civilizations. This makes people who are of strong enough constitution refuse to participate in the former civilization and live under a bridge instead...

Rajiv, I had come to the understanding two weeks that I’m a Sanaatani. I’m very early in the stage of developing an understanding of Sanaatana Dharma (SD), and it’s entirely possible that I may only be able to progress to a early stage of Dharmic development and stay there because of my upbringing during the Deaf Years (first seven and a half years of my life), in which I did not have functional use of language and social norms, nor did I know anything about religion. I’m referring to a time when the Vedas were just beginning to be revealed as inner science to the people...


Also, Rajiv, I had come to an understanding that it appears my goal in life is to protect the Dharmic way of life, or consequential view of life. The consequential view of life that I have as an Ancient (having lived without the three lenses of civilization - language, social or cultural norms, and religion) says that there are consequences to everything you do in this world, whether it be those that benefits those around you and yourself, or those that hurt, destroy, tear down people and ultimately yourself in the process). You can either tear yourself down, or you can work to build up the world around you, preserve it, help others, and be helped when needed.

...It will not be okay if Sanaatanis go the way of the Native Americans. Native American knowledge is largely lost to me because of the Anglicising of my Cherokee ancestors. This is my fight to prevent what happened to my ancestors from happening to Sanaatanis.


But first, something tells me that I have much, much reading to do and learning. At the least I have learned to look at myself as a white person and how that has affected me as a deaf minority person, other white people, and how that affects anyone else who is of color.

Avoiding 5 common mistakes when defending Hinduism

The primary background to this thread can be found in this storify exchange between Rajiv Malhotra and Tavleen Singh and in this thread which captures the whole plagiarism issue which was raised with Sanjeev Sanyal and which has since been resolved amicably..

Rajiv summarizes five mistakes that need to be avoided when defending Hinduism. He says:

Mistake 1: Dont criticize someone who is a "fellow Indian". 

This was cited by a supporter of Sanjeev Sanyal recently. However, Maoists are also fellow Indians, are they not? The kauravs/pandavs were fellow brothers, right? So how does defending dharma have anything to do with giving a free pass just because someone is a fellow Indian. Conversely, being a non-Indian does not make a person our enemy or a problem. Defending Hinduism is not about race. Hinduism is not racism.

Mistake 2: As long as the person is anti-evangelists and pro-Hinduism we must accept whatever he says..

According to this logic, Moron Smriti and other leadership issues facing Hindus should not be discussed. After all, all morons and incompetent leaders do lash out against evangelists, and they do take pro-Hindu stands. I find many Hindu  forums only capable of discussing "positive" topics and want to stay away from genuine problem-solving.

Such a policy tolerates incompetence. It is precisely why we face such a leadership crisis - lack of quality controls on leadership. By far the largest part of my Kshatriyata workshops is on the epidemic of internal leadership rot, and not on external problems caused by others. Hindus have stopped challenging the incompetence of other Hindus, and tend to go long with whosoever leads them, as long as the person says a few standard "positive" things that make us "feel good". We run the risk of becoming a tradition of the morons, by the morons, for the morons.

Mistake 3: Better to be ignorable, dont rock the boat; dont confront problems.

My entire writing career has focused precisely on issues where our own leaders are misinformed, or not informed at all. But there is resistance when one tries to educate Hindus about a serious problem they did not know. 

Example: Wendy Doniger was completely unknown to Hindu leaders when I started my criticisms of her cabal in the late 1990s. I heard all sorts of nonsense from Hindus who were disinterested in my work, or even asking me to stop it, like:

• They are unimportant, so lets not waste time; truth will triumph anyway; we know the truth in our hearts; all path will ultimately lead the person to the same final goal;
• Let us not stir things up, since we are doing so well in our personal careers; if we highlight such problems we will attract attention and spoil our image, maybe even get in trouble. (i.e. policy to remain ignorable.)

Same thing happened when I raised the Breaking India issues. In fact, the late B. Raman, who used to be head of counter-terrorism at RAW, had initially agreed to write the foreword to Breaking India. We knew each other and exchanged emails. He asked me to send him the draft when ready. But when he saw the draft he changed his mind. He also refused to attend the book launch. In fact, the publisher was informed at the last minute to remove his name from the program. Why? because BI was considered too sensational by him. Imagine such a top intelligence official being afraid to face the problems. I tried to convince him that he was free to be on the panel and disagree with my book. But he did not want to be linked to it at all. Almost as if Big Brother is watching us.

The slave APP downloaded in many Indians, triggers the desire to be non-confrontational, seeking the path of least resistance to deal with situations.

Mistake 4: Distributing whatever limited knowledge we have is all important; serious R&D to discover and develop newknowledge is unimportant.

This means my type of work can suffer, but let the plagiarists not be discouraged because they are "spreading positive ideas". We need them no matter what. Such a posture shows lack of appreciation for the critical need to encourage fresh thinking. 

This mentality encourages leaders to be rewarded based on "hustling" and "networking" and "showing off". In my workshops, I give numerous examples of this syndrome. Most such leaders are ill informed of the major issues we face. Their subject matter expertise is abysmal, often to the point of causing us harm when they speak. They can at best copy-paste the latest statements that some serious thinker has made, and use it in their next speech or blog as their own idea. Fools leading bigger fools does not comprise a kshatriya army.

Mistake 5: Support even those who might deeply undermine Hinduism by their intellectual positions, as long as on the surface they "say positive things about us", and make us "feel good".

People who facilitate digestion tend to say good things about what they are digesting. (You dont hate the food you want to eat.) Many of our leaders cannot recognize digestion and see it as a form of praise/support. The digesters have studied us well and learned to exploit these vulnerabilities.

Pollock represents a different sub-category. He is NOT wanting to digest. He is undermining Sanskrit in the deepest way that I have seen anyone do. Yet on the surface he is championing the revival of sanskrit studies, etc. My job is to first thoroughly understand his works, and then to simplify for my readers the arguments he makes, and my response to it. 

My biggest challenge here is to get people's attention span. All they care about is that he wears a dhoti with tilak on his forehead, quotes some sanskrit verses, says what a great language it is, and so forth. Applause! Awards! Funding!

Indians being starved for self respect, cannot hold back their love and enthusiasm when they hear this. Notice the huge success he has had in winning the hearts and pocketbooks of top tier Indian elites. Its their way to "feel proud" and remove the guilt they carry for betraying their dharma. He fills a unique void in their psychology.

Such Indians/Hindus see me as someone on the wrong side. They see me creating an embarrassment by criticizing their hero. Notice the reaction from Tavleen Singh, despite the fact that she and Ajit Gulabchand were extremely appreciative of Invading the Sacred. She wrote a great editorial on it after interviewing me. He was on stage when it was launched and gave a major speech.

My own policies:

• Stick to the issues and ignore the personalities involved. If the substance of someone's work is wrong, it must be criticized regardless of what kind of person they are.
• Look at the deeper layers and not the surface of a situation.
• Do serious problem-solving, and do not see the work as a "feel good" psychotropic drug.
• Be non-ignorable, audacious, willing to take the heat. (But only after doing a lot of homework to make sure I am on a solid foundation which I can defend.)
• Reject offers of help that are likely to let me down somewhere along the way.
• Most important, be rooted in sadhana, and let the prerna flow and be the driving force.

To be a part of this thread and participate in the discussion please join up on the yahoo discussion forum and follow the thread here.