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

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

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

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

Response 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response 3:

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

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

Please point out in various forums:

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

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

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

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

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

Response 5:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response 6:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digestion versus Inclusivism

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

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

November 2013

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

Rajiv comment: 
"This is a good question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Kundan adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me take the following question (#2)

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

Manish adds a game-theory based thought

"..

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

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

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




Manish provides a couple of options:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[to be continued ...]