An Intellectual Kshatriya responds to Outlook article attacking petitioners

The below analysis was added as a comment under this Outlook article, by Megh. We are reproducing it here with suitable edits for easy and wide readability.

The comment contains an analysis and some counter questions to 5 statements in the Outlook article. The commentator has raised these issues based on statements in this petition and two video interviews given by Sheldon Pollock to Tehelka here and here.

Extract 1 from the Outlook article.
'“We do not find him petitioning against his own US government’s authoritative policies within its borders and around the world. Thus, it is crystal clear that Pollock has shown disrespect for the unity and integrity of India. We submit that such an individual cannot be considered objective and neutral enough to be in charge of your historic translation project.” The political line there being obvious enough.'


One key point (Focus) from the Extract 1
The political line there being obvious enough.


Excerpt from Sheldon Pollock interview/Petition relevant to Focus
Transcript from Video 2 of Tehelka interview on Hindutva and the Life and Death of Sanskrit: (Timestamp: 01:34-01:46) Sheldon Pollock says "I wrote an article once called the "The Death of Sanskrit", and it was meant to be provocative; you know I am very impatient with the sort of BJP/RSS/Hindutva kind, the whole alphabet soup of forces that celebrate a certain kind of partial view of Sanskrit (sic)"

Key counter point (question) to Focus
Professor Sheldon Pollock stated "I am very impatient with the sort of BJP/RSS/Hindutva kind"...Would authors Ajay Sukumaran and Stuti Agarwal use the same words "The political line there being obvious enough" in assessing Sheldon Pollock?

Extract 2 from article
“The gripe about Pollock from the opposite camp is that he doesn’t have a ‘rigorous understanding’ of Sanskrit...Any accusation to the contrary is based either on ignorance or wilful distortion of facts...."

One key point (Focus) from the Extract 2
The gripe about Pollock from the opposite camp is that he doesn’t have a ‘rigorous understanding’ of Sanskrit...Any accusation to the contrary is based either on ignorance or wilful distortion of facts.

Extract from Petition:
"However, such a historical project would have to be guided and carried out by a team of scholars who not only have proven mastery in the relevant Indian languages, but are also deeply rooted and steeped in the intellectual traditions of India. They also need to be imbued with a sense of respect and empathy for the greatness of Indian civilization.

We would like to bring to your notice the views of the mentor and Chief Editor of this program, Professor Sheldon Pollock. While Pollock has been a well-known scholar of philology, it is also well-known that he has deep antipathy towards many of the ideals and values cherished and practiced in our civilization.
..There must be a written set of standards and policies for the entire project, pertaining to the translation methodologies, historical assumptions and philosophical interpretations that would be used consistently in all volumes.

For example:

How will certain Sanskrit words that are non-translatable be treated?
What will be the posture adopted towards the “Foreign Aryan Theory” and other such controversial theories including chronologies?
What will be assumed concerning the links between ancient texts and present-day social and political problems?
Will the theoretical methods developed in Europe in the context of the history of ancient Europe, be used to interpret Indian texts, or will there first be open discussions with Indians on the use of Indian systems of interpretations?"

Key counter point (question) to Focus
Where in the petition have the petitioners claimed that Secular Sheldon Pollock (SSP) does not have a 'rigorous understanding' of Sanskrit? In fact, does the petition not include "...Pollock has been a well-known scholar of philology". Through the petition statement "However, such a historical project would have to be guided and carried out by a team of scholars who not only have proven mastery in the relevant Indian languages, but are also deeply rooted and steeped in the intellectual traditions of India.", is it, as alleged, that their gripe is about SSP's "'rigorous understanding' of Sanskrit" or is it about his credentials (or lack of it) about being "deep rooted and steeped in the intellectual traditions of India"? Such credentials are what Shri Rajiv Malhotra terms as an eligibility criteria for "Insiders" of Sanskriti, in his 2016-Amazon-Bestseller book "The Battle for Sanskrit".


Extract 3 from article
"There’s even a Sanskrit new­s­­reader and an ISKCON man in the mix."

One key point (Focus) from the Extract 3
There’s even a Sanskrit news reader and an ISKCON man in the mix.

Excerpt from Sheldon Pollock interview/Petition relevant to Focus
Excerpt from Video 1 on Hindutva and the Life and Death of Sanskrit: (Timestamp 06:31-06:36) Sheldon Pollock says "The Mahabharata is the most dangerous political story, I think, in the world because it is this deep meditation on the fratricide civil war".

Key counter point (question) to Focus
> A Sanskrit newsreader perhaps benefits from Sanskrit for a living and perhaps uses it actively; is he/she not a relevant stakeholder in a conversation about the author (Sheldon Pollock) of a paper named "The Death of Sanskrit"?
> Is an ISCKON man, who is also an Indian and 'not-necessarily-BJP/RSS affiliated' but sensitive to human rights of Hindus, not a relevant stakeholder in discussions where the Bharatiya epic Mahabharata is discussed? This timeless epic includes what many consider as Sacred, Living and Liberating - the  Shrimad Bhagavad Gita. When such a work is reduced to, in Sheldon Pollock's words, "the most dangerous political story", is the ISKCON man not entitled to question it? Moreover, do a Sanskrit newsreader and an ISCKON man not have same freedom of speech guaranteed by the Indian Constitution as Pollock does?

Extract 4 from article
"“No scholar I know has greater regard for the achievements of classical Sanskrit learning than does Prof Pollock. Any accusation to the contrary is based either on ignorance or wilful distortion of facts.” Prithvi Datta Chandra Shobhi, a professor of history at the Karnataka State Open University, who was Pollock’s student between 1995-2005, says he found it interesting that only a few signatories of the petition were language professors, linguists or historians; many were mathematicians and scientists."

One key point (Focus) from the Extract 4
...only a few signatories of the petition were language professors, linguists or historians; many were mathematicians and scientists.

Excerpt from Sheldon Pollock interview/Petition relevant to Focus
Excerpt from Video 1 on Hindutva and the Life and Death of Sanskrit: (Timestamp 18:16-18:27) Sheldon Pollock says "I have to say I am a very secular person and my interest in India has always been a secular interest"

Key counter point (question) to Focus
If being a language professor, linguist or a historian is the "eligibility criteria" for a comment on Sheldon Pollock to be considered credible, by the same logic, given Sheldon Pollock's own admission to being secular, would Ajay Sukumaran and Stuti Agarwal be open to objectively evaluate Sheldon Pollock's "eligibility criteria" to comment on what is considered Sacred (not Secular) to millions of Indians?

Extract 5 from article
"The petition initially carried extracts from Pollock’s 2012 talk at Heidelberg University, which ran contrary to the complaints against him. This part was later dropped in a revised version of the petition when the fallacious argument was pointed out!"

One key point (Focus) from the Extract 5
This part was later dropped in a revised version of the petition when the fallacious argument was pointed out!

Excerpt relevant to the counter point
Harvard Law School scraps official crest in slavery row (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35726878)

Key counter point (question) to Focus
Harvard Law School just "dropped in a revised version", its long-standing (from 1930s) logo! What would the authors have to say about the relationship of that act to what Harvard Law School stands for?

Is ISKCON being digested into Judeo-Christianity?

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

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

Rajiv stated:

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

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

Krishna responded:

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

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

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

Maria had this to say about ISKCON:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chittaranjan elaborates on what he sees as the ISKCON ideology

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

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

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

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

Dear Sant,

Namaste. Hare Krishna.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Anuttama Dasa

International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)

Chairman, Governing Body Commission, and

Minister of International Communications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are our Devis and Devatas?

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

Who really are our Devis and Devatas?

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

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


ISKCON: Push Marketing?

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

Partha responded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Venkat provides a link to this)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rajiv responds to Brahma:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaas responds:

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

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

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

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

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

Srinivas responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integral Unity is Not Homogeneity 

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

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

From his blog: Dharma and the new Pope

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

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

Any issues with ISKON missionary efforts ?

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

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

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

Srinivas responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surya's followup:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wadhwa agrees with Srinivas:

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

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

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

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

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

Wadhwa follows up:

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

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

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

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

 

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

But it is not as simple as that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RMF Summary: Week of March 11 - 17, 2013

March 12
worship of Jesus child
Maria posts: .... Freising near Munich: Seelenkind (Soul child). When a new nun went to the monastery, she brought a Jesus child (doll) with her who was looked after by her during her whole life in her room with fancy dresses, toys, even changing napkins and fondling it. They discovered several Jesus children which used to belong to nuns from our convent school. We never knew about it.



March 12

My new blog on Tibet Uprising Day: China delayed it by 4 days after Rajiv shares his new blog on HuffPost:  Please post comments THERE AND NOT HERE. You can post a link here to your comment... .....BTW: My Wharton blog first went into 48 special editorial review, and I had to escalate the matter to higher ups, complaining that HuffPost should live up to its public image of intellectual freedom. Once I did that it went thru fast. On the Tibet blog, it took 4 emails to various levels of management, and well over 4 days... March 13 Kant's rigid and abstract categorial imperative versus Indian contex Subra shares a link: .... Rajiv ji tweeted yesterday:  The post uses ideas from BD to study how Kant's 'categorical imperative' rigidity is less useful in practical conflict resolution (e.g. in modern decision-support systems) compared to the contextual ethics developed in Dharmic thought systems, and is illustrated using Asimov's sci-fi robotic laws. March 14 US Catholic Church a $170 billion business Srinath shares: Hindus too have been watching the choice of a new Pope, perhaps with a faint anticipation of a more "liberal" Pope and a softening of the views of the Church... it's sheer folly to think that a business that spends $170 billion annually in the US alone will change its tactics or philosophy any time soon. March 15 Re: Manipal's Mohandas Pai wakes up to India's shabby treatment, say Ganesh shares:....visit to IISc, Bengaluru for the launch of Sri Rajiv Malhotra's book Being Different. His speech in IISc, clearly showed his understanding of the western universalism and how many of the Indian academicians, with their left leanings, were influencing top US universities in a manner that can only be called retarding progress. Hoping to hear more such top notch names of Indian industry come out in open and voice their support for the right cause, without fear of media and the ruling party. Renu adds: "....Let us resolve to not just be the World Guru but also a strong power that will stand for no nonsense and small acts of silly disrespect from the West or the East any more. That is our YUGA DHARMA now."   March 16 Shri Rajiv Malhotra's Talk at New Delhi on 23 March Jalan invites: ... 7th Chamanlalji Memorial Lecture which Shri Rajiv Malhotra will be delivering. Details as below:     Event:                     7th Chamanlalji Memorial Lecture     Main Speaker :     Shri Rajiv Malhotra     Chief Guest :          Dr.Subramanian Swamy     Time:                       Saturday March 23, 4.00 pm     Venue:                    Constitution Club, New Delhi   March 16 Shiva-worship-not-a-religious-act-income-tax-tribunal-says Kiran shares a link. Arun shares an alternative link: ....The Economic Times has it much better.   In brief, the IT department had gone after an institution claiming it was a religious, not a charitable institution; and the IT Tribunal said, no, it was a charitable institution... Venkat comments: "....Expense on worship of Hindu Gods & Temple maintenance cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose The core issue the definition of Hinduism and giving importance and preference to the western term "religion" The answer will be a vigorous propagation of indigenous Hindu friendly terms while showing why foreign descriptions are not suitable for our society. . Rajiv adds: "A major problem has been caused in India by the legal use of the term "religion" in giving special tax treatment and other concessions. The above article is the latest of a series of rulings that some aspect of Hinduism is not entitled to religious treatment. So to get equal rights in our own country, we must prove we are a "religion" as per Abrahamic criteria, because that's the definition enshrined in our laws. I wish someone would litigate in the Supreme Court that the legal provisions made for "religions" should equally apply to dharmas as well. Otherwise we are at a disadvantage when we show our distinctiveness, and to claim parity we must get ourselves digested into "religion". What a joke! What a circus full of clowns!!"  [We have noted Rajiv ji's comments on the sad state of affairs  in the wikipedia page. This website now has a collection link to Rajiv Malhotra's works. Click Rajiv ji's picture on the right to access]. March 17 My Wikipedia entry is obsolete, misleading Rajiv comments: ... In [the] .... Wiki post (on differences between dharma and religion) also, he has "digested" my works into a sundry of misc articles by several persons. There is virtually nothing I wrote and certainly not a deep appreciation of the differences between dharma/religion as expounded in BD [this directly relates to the book BD. We hope to collect this discussions and summarize in a separate post] March 17 Special issue on Being Different in the International Journal of Hindu Studies Several critical reviews were written. Here is Rajivji's rebuttal to those reviews. ... [depending on the trajectory of the discussions in this thread, we may cover this in depth later.] March 17 ISKCON: Push Marketing? Sunday March 10, 2013, Hindu Temple of Atlanta had special Mahasivaratri puja & events. The premises has separate temples for Shiva & Vishnu (Balaji). I was...