Dr. Koenraad Elst's Response to Scroll Editor Regarding Aryan Debate

(Dr. Elst posted this in the forum. emphasis and highlighting is ours)
 
Dear friends,

the Aryan debate keeps on attracting silly politicos:

https://scroll.in/article/732899/video-an-animated-map-shows-how-sanskrit-may-have-come-to-india

Herewith my reply:


"Dear Mrs./Mr. Editor,

 "While I don’t much mind an ignorant pen-pusher pontificating about the Aryan invasion debate, some concomitant modesty would at least be in order. Ridiculing any scepticism about the 19th-century Aryan invasion theory (AIT) merely shows that he is quite unaware of the state of the art.

"So he equates the rivalling Out-of-India Theory (OIT) with Flat Earth and Creationism. But it is very easy to find material evidence against both the latter, such as the fossil record. By contrast, your contributor is quite unable to muster any evidence against the OIT. Even Harvard professor and AIT champion Michael Witzel admits that no material evidence of Aryans moving into India has been found “yet”, i.e. after two centuries of being the official hypothesis sucking up all the sponsoring. So your correspondent thinks himself superior, successful where the greatest specialists have failed?

"A year ago I was participating in a Delhi conference on the Sindhu-Saraswati Civilization. While there, I received an e-mail from one of the world’s foremost specialists on the linguistic aspect of Indo-European origins, HH Hock, all the way from the US. Predictably, he upheld the now-dominant invasion scenario and added that no one takes the Out-of-India Theory seriously today (though it was the dominant assumption from 1786 till ca. 1820). Among linguists, this is approximately true: Nicolas Kazanas, Shrikant Talageri and myself have been in splendid isolation in those circles. But then, linguists who can competently argue in favour of the AIT are hardly more numerous. As I have verified at several specialist conferences, most concerned linguists don’t work on the problem of the origins, which has an aura of obsoleteness, and blindly follow the dominant theory because it happens to be what their textbooks contained. Which is what non-linguists like the cited team from Auckland also do.

"However, while I read this e-mail, I was surrounded by the creamy layer of Indian archaeology. Each professor read his paper presenting the findings at a particular Harappan site where he was digging, and each of them reported a complete cultural continuity, no trace of an invasion. Sitting next to me was the dean of Indian archaeology, the nonagenarian professor BB Lal. When he was young,  he made his name by “proving” that the archaeologically attested Painted Grey Ware indicated the Aryans on their way into India. That “proof” is still cited till today in favour of the AIT, at least in India. But in reality, Lal himself has renounced that hypothesis decades ago, realizing that his posited link with Aryan invaders was itself based on a tacit acceptance of the omnipresent AIT. Today he emphasizes that there is no trace at all of any Aryan invasion.

"You choose to poison the debate by insinuating a Hitler reference into it. Suit yourself, but again it proves your ignorance, for Hitler was a zealous follower of the AIT. If the OIT has been associated with Hindutva (wrongly, for VD Savarkar, who launched this political concept, was an AIT believer), its alleged political use is at any rate only a trifle compared to the AIT. The OIT has been upheld mostly in one country for a few decades by a few scholars without any political power. By contrast, the AIT has been used politically for some 160 years by major state actors such as the British empire and Nazi Germany, and in India by Jawaharlal Nehru, the Ambedkarites (though BR Ambedkar himself emphatically rejected it), the Dravidianists, the missionaries and of course the secularists. If you don’t like the mixing of scholarship with politics, you should first of all  lambast the AIT, not the OIT.

"May Allah (or Whoever serves as God to you secularists) give you the wisdom to keep your mouth shut on topics you don’t know enough about.

"Yours sincerely,


"Dr. Koenraad Elst"

‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ – A Preview of Rajiv Malhotra’s latest book

Following his seminal and voluminous works published in three books, Rajiv Malhotra (RM) is about to launch his fourth book, ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’. The following briefly describes the main points of this forthcoming book and the import of the cover page of this book. This is based on RM’s essential points on his new book discussed within his Discussion group recently. The texts under inverted commas are his original words. The underlined text and italicised text in parentheses are my additions to RM’s words, which have been inserted for the sake of clarity to the article. Moreover, some Sanskrit words are also italicised.

This forthcoming book is a continuation of RM’s thesis published and disseminated previously. It is therefore recommended by RM himself that readers wishing to read this book, and get the most out of it, should get acquainted with RM’s thesis. He specifically gives references to his recent lectures at the World Sanskrit Conference (Bangkok - June 2015), Goa (Feb 2015), and Delhi University (Jan 2015). The youtube links to these videos are provided below for ease of access. His previous three books are Breaking India [2011], Being Different [2011] and Indra’s Net [2014]. Of course, there are a host of other public lectures by RM, but the aforementioned lectures are focused on the nature of Sanskrit studies in the West.

At the outset, RM makes it clear that this current book is a Purva-Paksha on the West regarding their Sanskrit scholarship. Purva-paksha, for those who don’t already know, is an integral part of the ancient Indian practise of debate (called Shaastraartha) between different philosophical views where one school of thought diligently educate themselves on the ideologies of the other school and vice-versa. For instance, the Buddhist school would do a Purva-paksha on the Vedanta school and vice-versa. As such, this book is not political nor is it an angry response. Continuing along the lines of the ancient Indian tradition of Shaastraartha, subsequent to the Purva-paksha, one school would challenge the ‘leader’ of the other school. The story of Adi Shankracharya of the Advaita Vedanta school challenging Mandana Mishra is one for the ages. With this in view, RM has identified Sheldon Pollock as the leader of the Sanskrit studies in the West. This book is respectful towards Pollock and as RM states, “there is no ad hominem attack on anyone”. RM believes that “both sides stand to come out ahead in such debates by explaining their positions better”. He also hopes that “both will also benefit from the opposing stance and ought to reconsider their own in some cases”.

So which are the two sides, i.e. ‘both sides’ that RM refers to? The schools of thought that differ in ideas about Sanskrit have been called the ‘Insiders’ and ‘Outsiders’ by RM. These are the two sides. The ‘Insider’ camp holds a Traditional view of Sanskrit while the ‘Outsider’ view looks at Sanskrit from a purely Social studies point of view. Here I have used the word ‘Traditional’ and ‘Social science’ as proper nouns, i.e. labels for the point of view in question. Thus the distinction between ‘Insider’ and ‘Outsider’ is solely on the basis of their respective point of view. Indeed, RM is categorical in stating that the ‘Insider’/’Outsider’ division is “not based on race, ethnicity or nationality”. Thus, while in general the Western view looks at Sanskrit with a Social science lens, any Westerner holding the Traditional viewpoint on Sanskrit would be called an ‘Insider’. By the same token, Indians holding a Social science point of view would come under the ‘Outsider’ camp.

RM’s thesis is his concern about the Western view of India and the Sanskrit studies with the Western lens of Social science falls under this purview. This is amply depicted in the proposed cover of the book itself that shows an artwork of the motif that is still being displayed at the University of Oxford.

Motif depicting Sir William Jones at the Oxford University. Getting a picture of this motif was not straightforward. RM had to spend a year getting this picture! (Source: http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com)

The motif shows Sir William Jones on an elevated seat surrounded by people of Indian origin listening to what Jones is articulating. The message underneath reads “He formed a digest of Hindu and Mohammedan Laws”. The irony of the motif is not lost on those who know the history. RM explains the marble carving motif. ”It is Sir William Jones (in late 1700s) talking down at the pandits. Earlier he had learned at their feet, but back home he claimed to have 'discovered Sanskrit' and 'given the Hindus their laws'. Hence it is an image of arrogance.”

According to RM, the goal of the book is “to highlight how, why and by whom the Traditional [Insider] views are being replaced by the social sciences [Outsider] views”. This book also explains ‘the implications [of this replacement] to the future of the Tradition’. Those familiar with RM’s thesis will readily see the continuity of his work in this book. RM’s major concern is that the ‘Insiders’ are blind to this, and hopes that this book will help raise awareness about this hidden agenda amongst the ‘Insiders’. He hopes that after reading the book, the ‘Insider’ will find a gateway to perform a thorough Purva-paksha on the ‘Outsider’ camp vis-à-vis Sanskrit studies in the West. Keeping this in mind, the book looks at Sanskrit studies from an ‘Insider’ (Traditional) versus ‘Outsider’ (Social science) viewpoint. With the ‘Traditional’ vis-à-vis ‘Social science’ viewpoint the book is written within three sub-themes - Is Sanskrit: Dead or Alive? Oppressive or Liberating? Political or Sacred? These form the bylines of the title. While ‘Alive’, ‘Liberating’ and ‘Sacred’ are the ‘Insider’ views based on Tradition, the West/’Outsider’ view takes a Social science lens at Sanskrit and calls Sanskrit ‘Dead’, ‘Oppressive’ and ‘Political’. Within these sub-themes the book discusses Philosophy, Metaphysics and History as seen under the two ideologically different lenses. The book argues that there are parallels between the Social science view and the William Jones’ motif and raises concern that this Social science view is a deliberate attempt at hijacking the Traditional view of Sanskrit. As an aside, it should be clear that this book does not teach Sanskrit grammar or how to converse in Sanskrit!

This book on Sanskrit has been welcomed by all in RM’s Discussion group. The book cover-page has also been discussed within the Discussion group and several good points were raised – the motif, title and the artwork of the motif. Attempts will be made to incorporate these comments as the book launching date nears. Indeed, several group members have already placed bulk orders ranging from 10 to as many as 100 books, for distribution in their local communities.

'Outsider' community campaigns against Rajiv Malhotra prior to his book release

Finally, an important comment on the recent turn of events which has some bearing on this book. About a fortnight ago, a plagiarism charge was laid against RM on one of his previous books by Richard Fox (RF). RF works in a seminary in New Jersey and his work supporting conversions in India was exposed in RM's book 'Breaking India'. These plagiarism charges against RM have since been proven to be false by independent scholars, and a petition filed by Madhu Kishwar supporting Rajiv Malhotra's outcry against the 'Outsider' academia has more than 10000 signatures in support so far. A lot has been written in the last few days both for and against RM. This link  provides a compiled list of articles in support of RM, with articles against him nested within the support articles. Of special mention is Western Indologist Koenraad Elst's post, who takes a neutral stance. He states,"Do I agree with Malhotra? Firstly, we don’t entirely work on the same subjects. Secondly, where we do, there are still differences,...". However, he does go on to emphatically say that the powerful Western academia on Indology has a few questions to answer. Revealing the modus operandi of the 'powerful establishment', Outsiders in this case, Koenraad states, "...serious debate is indeed being avoided. The first step of an establishment against a vocal opponent is always to deny him legitimacy, [KE's original writing in bold] then to pretend that there is no real debate, only a querulant rebelling against established common sense. These mechanisms can be seen at work now against Rajiv Malhotra".

We wait in anticipation for the book to come out!

Why are Hindus Celebrating the Digestion of Hinduism? - Part 1

This post was triggered by promotion material for a Phil Goldberg talk that was found on twitter.

Phil Goldberg promotion in India
subra shared a link. 

"...flyer promoted on twitter by a RSS representative

..promotes Mr. Goldberg's 'American Veda', which has been clearly exposed as an attempt to digest Hinduism in this very forum, and \summarized here in two parts: 1, and 2.


Rajiv comment: The sad fact is that most Hindu leaders continue to see digestion as something good happening to Hinduism. This is the next frontier of encounter we must have. It wont be easy as the "good cops" have done a great job winning over large numbers of confused Hindu leaders - political, spiritual, community, etc. I am glad yo brought this up. I am only one voice and others are needed to teach about digestion.

Arora disagrees:

"Phil Goldberg is working in a really positive way and does not at all come across as alarming to an american or western audience. Also, he does not use words like "digestion", as his concern is simply to say what's true without delving into the more controversial areas.

Rajiv comment: Above post does not understand meaning of digestion at all.
(1) Obviously a digestor speaks positively - did you not watch the thread on jesus digestion of dance, yoga, Zee TV video etc? All very positive views on dharma. Did you ever read on good cops?
(2) one not have to use the word "digestion: to be a digestor, any more than a crook does not have to say "crook" to be one.
What ignorance our folks have??? And these are supposed to be shining the light on others. "

Maria adds:

"...Rajivji himself had explained in the beingdifferent forum..:

"WHERE do I stand and gaze at them? How am I different? This is how I got started, and then begins the quest to understand one's difference in a way that is not causing anxiety.

Once difference is clearly anchored (with mutual respect), then the resistance becomes a possibility."

Therefore the NEED of having an indian/hindu or dharmic identity to use as our framework, or even shield for the kurushetra. The lack of this identity is what, IMHO is favoring the different digestión processes. All of us need to ask these questions to ourselves, and get answers that will conform that identity, which has to be strong, firm and self-secure. We have to know who we are and what is our role in this world as hindus/dharmics. "

Rajiv responds:

"An immensely big paradigm is shift required for digestion to be seen as
something harmful.

This is why most of our well meaning leaders have difficulty
understanding what digestion means and why its a problem.

Only a fraction of the members here understand it deeply, as it obvious
from many posts we find. You can imagine how uninformed most other
persons are.

A big issue is that Hindu leaders imagine they are well informed because
they hang around other "like minded people" and they reinforce each
other into a sense of false reassurance. Actually, these are "like
minded ignorant folks". Very few of them read enough. Most knowledge is
hearsay, old pravachans re-re-re-repeated in every event they go to. The
chelas are blind followers and afraid to point out when the emperor has
no clothes on.

This situation is also why the leaders dont think they need to actually
read what I write, because they are programmed to think that they have
learned everything worthwhile knowing. They assume some thesis I must be
writing about which is not at all my message in a given book. Also,
those who read one thing I wrote a long time ago assume that everything
I ever write must be a mere restatement of that. As if I am one-track in
my knowledge and interests just as they are.

I never came across a larger number of such ill-informed leaders on the
subject matter that they are leading in. So the task ahead is immense.
But rather than blaming them, its more productive to see them as simply
ignorant.

Notice how many awards, recognitions, grants are being given to scholars
whose work has not been adequately studied by the groups giving these
awards. They base their evaluation on personality and superficial things
like: he talks well and positively about us, does not show any
negativity, means well,better than many others, etc. Leaders are
supposed to be extremely well informed and at a much higher standard.
Sadly, not only the leaders, even their "experts" who brief them are
lazy and un-read...

... They BETTER take the time and get educated thoroughly. This includes anyone who makes decisions on who and what to support with funds, patronage, etc. Most persons supporting such lecture tours and scholars by digesters have NOT read enough about the nature of the digestion problem. Contrast this with seminaries where a minimum Masters Degree is given to any leader employed by a Christian group. In other words, we the civilization of learning have forgotten leadership training - not about slogans and parroting the netas to get ahead."

RS adds:

"The inability of The RSS intelligentsia towards any kind of intellectually rigorous and sophisticated reasoning in countering and responding to leftist-missionary-Marxist propaganda has been nicely unravelled and exposed in [Koenraad Elst's] book "Decolonising The Hindu Mind". 

[picture link is Amazon.com]

I believe multiple copies of BD/Vibhinnata need to be distributed to every RSS shakha along the length and breadth of this country so the next generation of RSS leadership acquires the conviction of RM's position, arguments and stance on these matters." 

 

Aditya adds:

"... an extremely important point that all Hindus should be aware of. Digesters are not going to admit to digesting, not going to admit to appropriating another culture, not going to admit to do anything "bad." To them, there simply isn't a problem. In fact, digesters actually think that not "digesting" (they won't use this term obviously) is a bad thing since they believe they are promoting various principles found in Hinduism.

If Hindus also do not think there is a problem, they are implicitly aiding the digesters.

This attitude of not thinking there is a problem must stop. The sooner, the better. Hindus need to stop allowing themselves be duped by all the "nice" and "polite" forms this digestion takes form and to recognize it for what it is.

Once Hindus start acknowledging the problem, then this itself is a lot of progress (though not enough). The next logical step is then to begin counter-efforts against the digestion and the digesters."

[at this point, there are some comments from folks still utterly clueless about digestion. We'll leave those out since I'm blowing a couple of valves myself reading that]

Rajiv Malhotra who discovered and coined the word 'digestion' has the final word in this post.

"...My sense is that Indians are addicted to a dependency to "feel good" about themselves in order to counteract some deep complex/self doubt. Hence there is refusal to acknowledge a problem, because that disrupts the "feel good" zone - almost like some intoxicant.

Such people not only fail to engage in constructive problem solving, they also are vulnerable to being easily manipulated by someone who knows how to push their "feel good" buttons. This is why a crowd throngs to hear a white scholar who will tell them great things about themselves. There is some sort of psychological condition here."

This discussion continues into Part-2.

How does the karma theory of Hinduism work?

Take some time and follow through this enriching discussion on Karma, how it works, how it doesn't work, the role of free will, past actions, the future impact of action, or inaction ... 

Insightful exchanges throughout this post. Among the very best in the forum. Proud to share this. Bookmark it. You may need to come back to this  discussion at some point in your life :)

This discussion started off from a question on the origins of the term 'Chandala'. Dr. Koenraad Elst provides a deep historical and scriptural perspective. In the latter half of the discussion, Rajiv Malhotra explains Karma theory quite beautifully. This is followed by a refreshing sequence of Q&A.
 
November 2013
Need help with the meaning of a word: Chandala

Kiran asks:

"..  Recently somebody gave me a copy of Ravi Zacharias's DVD, Jesus among other gods, where in he quotes from Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 (8).  The english transaltion of the verse is below.

"When one acts piously, he attains a good birth. He is born as a brahmana or a kshatriya or a vaisya. When one acts sinfully, he attains a sinful birth. He is born as a dog, a pig, or an outcaste"

When I looked up the sanskrit verse, it says "Chandala" (womb of a chandala women). According to Wikipedia, Chandala means "Chandala is a Sanskrit word for someone who deals with disposal of corpses, and is a Hindu lower caste, formerly considered untouchables. Currently it is a term used specifically in Indo-Aryan speaking regions of India. Sandala has become a swear word in the colloquial usage of the Tamil language. Chandal is a general derogatory slur used to refer to a filthy, mean or low person^[1] in North India."

... Ravi says this verse promotes caste system, which is incorrect and seems like the verse was completely taken out of its context. (Upanishad talks about progression of atman in its journey to Mukti)
 

.... what is the real meaning of the word “Chandala”, is it possible this word had a different meaning during the post vedic period and over the period of time meaning of the word got changed based on its use."

Karthik forwards an interpretation from a priest:

"...This verse does not endorse any system of discrimination it merely states that whatever vasanas or habits one cultivates in life one reaps the fruits thereof in the next birth. The family that one is born into and the social circumstances of one’s birth are all due to Karma..."

Koenraad Elst comments: (glad to have Dr. Elst back after a long break!)

"... To say hazily that words just happen to undergo changes in meaning. Something more specific is needed, esp. on such a possibly very harmful quotation.

It is a fact that the very oldest mention of the reincarnation doctrine (of which the Rg-Veda is totally innocent) already implies the caste application of the karma interpretation of reincarnation. It is in this form the Uddalaka et al. first learn the doctrine from their king. It says that if you have shown a pleasant character, you will be born as a Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya. These caste titles necessitate a caste translation of the second part: if you have led a stinking life, you will be born from a stinking womb: dog, pig or Chandala.

Chandala was originally an ethnonym of one of the Dravidian-speaking tribes of Central India, where you still have the Kandhs, Gonds etc.; probably the Kandaloi mentioned by Ptolemy in his geography....

At any rate, the emotive meaning of "Chandala" must have been something like "savage", "cannibal". So, in the moralistic version of the karma doctrine (future reward or punishment for your present conduct), caste is included in the calculus of auspiciousness: just as poverty, a handicap, slavery etc. are miserable conditions which may serve as karmic punishment, so also the birth in a lowly community, regardless of whether it is classified as "untouchable" or "tribal".

If you want to present Hinduism to the world as egalitarian, you will indeed have to straighten out quotes like this one from the Chandogya Upanishad. But to a Christian, you should not answer by apologizing for or refuting his understanding of the Upanishad quote. You should simply point at the Biblical repeated sanction for slavery or at Yahweh's repeated commandments to kill the unbelievers (e.g. the pious worshippers of Baal incarnated as the Golden Calf, made from their generously donated Jewels) or the strangers threatening to pollute the people's purity (e.g. the cheating and massacre of the Shechemites by the sons of Jacob). You may set your own house in order, but meanwhile you have to keep Christian meddlers out by refocusing their attention on their own injustices."

  

This resulted in a very interesting discussion by Rajiv Malhotra on the nature of karma theory, which we carry 'as' is to avoid any misinterpretation

 "There is a persistent confusion on the difference between the following two ideas:

A) Bad karma leads to future birth in adverse conditions, whereas good karma leads to future birth in good circumstances. (Karma theory)

B) A person should be treated by society depending on the type of parents. (Caste system as known today)

A is true as per Hindu dharma, but B is untrue. These ideas must be separated and differentiated. Otherwise people falsely conclude that A implies B.

Some points to consider are:

PART ONE:

1) One's karma leads to corresponding phala (consequence). This is the principle of causation. Karma X causes the effect Y. We might write it as: X ==> Y.

2) For Y to happen within the natural laws, the right conditions (Z) are necessary in which Y will happen. Z is simply the means by which Y will happen. If I am to die in a plane crash, I will "happen" to book a seat in that particular flight. It is not that the pilot or anyone else involved in the flight "caused" my death. It was coming to me. The circumstances (Z) leading to my death (such as pilot error, engine failure, hijacking, etc) were mere mechanisms to bring it about, but the effect of being killed was coming to me because of my own past karma.

3) In the above example, can we say that: Z ==> Y? Did the pilot error or engine failure or hijacking cause my death? Karma theory says NO. These were merely the mechanisms by which natural law could operate and bring my death. The real cause of Y was X, not Z.

4) Once you understand the above, then it becomes easy to appreciate that one's parents do not cause one to have certain experiences or propensities. These are the result of past karmas and the parents are merely the mechanisms. Each of us chose his or her parents, society, time and place of birth by virtue of the portfolio of karmas that needed to be expressed or played out.

PART TWO:

5) Even though a person has a specific circumstance at birth it does NOT follow that his entire life's outcomes will be pre-determined by that. There IS meritocracy at work. The outcomes in one's life will be a combination of both past karmas and one's use of free will in the present. Thus a man born in adversity can advance by his own actions and free choices. Conversely one can fritter away one's good conditions by being foolish, unethical etc. So one's life's outcomes are a combination of both past karma and free will that is exercised in the present.

6) Therefore, one cannot use past karma as excuse, and fail to take responsibility, or just give up. Conversely, one cannot take the good life for granted because of birth circumstances.

Hence, karma theory is NOT fatalism.

PART THREE:

7) The above has focused solely on one's own self: what I choose to do and how it impacts me. But what about one's attitudes towards someone else? Should my attitude towards a person be biased by that person's conditions? If yes, that would mean I am biased because he is born poor and hence I feel it was coming to him. Or if I am biased favorably towards a rich man because I feel his good karma made him rich. These biases would be WRONG on my part and they would be acts of bad karma by me. My attitude towards another person should be unbiased either way, and should be based entirely on what is MY RIGHTEOUS ACTION, I.E. MY SVA-DHARMA. The fact that he is in adverse conditions ought to generate sympathy/karuna, and not harsh judgment.

8) In other words, caste bias by me is wrong!!!

9) Karma theory is my guiding principle in my OWN actions. That is how I judge MYSELF, not others. My attitude towards others should be 'tat tvam asi'. "



Upon member request, Rajiv elaborates on tat tvam asi.
"There are many levels of this "second-person" practice. It culminates in what is called nididhyasana. To learn this get a good guru to initiate you in Shankara's Upadesa Sahasri or some other similar text.

At preliminary levels you can practice by seeing the other person as Brahman-playing-role-abc.

So you need bifocal vision: one vision seeing Brahman and the other seeing the person abc.

Also experience oneself at both levels: one anchored as atman, the other as "Rajiv" or whatever the role happens to be.

So one sees the Self-playing-1 interacting with the Self-playing-2. Note the Self is same in both cases but the roles are not.

The realm of action is where there is multiplicity of roles. Hence its a fallacy to escape into sameness citing all is one like many people do. But this dual vision keeps both one and many views in perspective.

Second-person practice is 24/7 or as often as you can remind yourself. It is easier when things are pleasant and the other party is likeable. But when there is tension, it is easy to slip into one of two ways: Either into sameness (forgetting the role), or into dualism of 1 fighting 2 (forgetting the Self).

Second-person practices are what we can practice living actively, transacting with others. It is meditation off the mat so to speak." 


Sree seems clarifications on Rajiv's discussions:
"I would like to clarify the balance between past karma and free will that is implied in dharmic philosophy, and how that free will component contributes to future karma.

I believe Part 2 is important i.e the outcome of a janma cannot depend solely on the initial state of karma. Because if so, then the state of karma at the beginning of Janma1 already determines the state of karma at the beginning of Janma2, which determines J3 etc., for all time.

However, Part 1 intrigues me. X ==> Y; Z is the mechanism for Y and is not responsible for causing Y. If so, then what about the karma of Z ? Does the pilot gain or lose karma because his errors caused the death of a person? What if it was a mugger Z who killed person Y who was scheduled to die because of X - will Z accumulate bad karma? By this logic, no. But then, how does anyone ever accumulate bad karma? Or good? "

Rajiv comment: This final point above is very important to discuss. If pilot is an intermediary, does HE accrue karma on his account?

The pilot has a separate account for his karma. He is accountable for his actions. But his karmic transaction is with the cosmos and not with me. So there can be many scenarios, such as:

1) Pilot was not in error or his error was without bad intentions. He does not incur karma on his account.

2) Pilot was committing something wrong and knew it, or was careless due to being drunk or some kind of violation of the rules that he could have avoided but did not. So pilot commits karma with the cosmos.

The important point is that either way his action is a karmic transaction with the cosmos and not with me... "

Jal goes deeper into the discussion:
"....In his example of X, Y and Z, my take is that the phala of X is not Y but it is Z. That is to say that the karmic consequence of one's action manifests itself as a circumstance but not as a fact/state of one's being. So if someone did something horrible (action X) then they must face as its phala an air crash (circumstance Z) which MAY OR MAY NOT result in their death (fact/state of their being Y) which will ultimately depend on my free will.


As a less subtle example, if someone shoots a bullet at me, that's a phala (circumstance) from my past action that I cannot prevent but whether I decide to [try to] get out of its way or resignedly accept my fate and stand still is my free will. Extending further, all circumstances in my life are phalas of my past actions and my reactions to these circumstances are my new actions which will decide my future circumstances...."


Rajiv comment: He makes a good point, but its more complex. Phala is not always a specific/concrete outcome though it can be that in some cases.
Usually the probability distribution of possible outcomes has changed as the result of phala. There is still uncertainty of concrete outcome as there is free will. But the probability distribution has become adversely impacted.

The point I wanted to make is something else: The pilot is not the culprit in whatever adversity I face, be it death or anything else. The pilot is a conduit for the phala to reach me, much like the postman who delivers a notice that could be good or bad news, or a bank teller who hands cash to a client but the teller is not a party to the transaction between the bank and client.
The transaction is between me and the cosmos, various intermediaries are like the postman or bank teller."


Maria has the next set of questions:
"
1- If there are not bad intentions, no karma is incurred? Or karma is incurred but less strong? I thought that even without bad intention, some karma is always incurred, in different degrees, from the simple fact of breathing to that of causing a death to somebody unintentionally or intentionally. We keep creating some karma or the other while we think we are the doers so, in fact, till the moment of enlightenment in which we are completely surrendered to Brahman. Only when we realise we are not the doer, then we don´t create or accumulate any karma. It is not like this?

...in the case of this pilot, the crux is not if he was mere intermediary or not for a karma of somebody else being realised, but the fact that, almost for sure, he would not be enlightened. So that action of him, even unintentionally, even as only an intermediary, does create karma for him. Maybe mild, but it does.

2- In the typical example of a plane crash in which all the passengers die, it must be true that the karma of all of them was to die in that very moment....logic says that our moment of death is inevitable. But it seems is not death that finds them, but that they book that very flight to look for their death, of course, unconsciously. This case always seems to me strange...

3- What about natural disasters? It is the karma of all the population of that place to die together? It has to be... ???

4- In the case of adoptions, which parents were to be their parents? Both biological and then adoptive?"




Rajiv provides a detailed response. Again, we carry it without omitting anything, but highlight some key points.

1. Karma account is individual. But often the phala is given collectively when multiple persons deserve similar phala even though their karmas were independent. So if the set of persons ( S) happen to be in the same plane crash, it does not necessarily imply (though it could in some cases) that all the members of S committed a collective karma and hence got a collective phala.
2. Karma theory cannot be reduced to an algorithm. It is not deterministic or reductionist. It is probabilistic and has some uncertainty of outcomes. Free will operates within a system of causation that has built in uncertainty as well. This is why Indian thinkers had little issue with quantum mechanics whereas western thought went into a tailspin and the leading quantum physicists Heisenberg and Schrodinger both referred to Vedanta as the only system that could make sense of it. (This started the massive digestion of Vedanta into new formulations by Westerners so as to domesticate it within their own frameworks.)
3. My karmic analysis should be specific to my own actions and consequences, and I should not in the same analysis also bring in some third party's karma or consequences. If I try to understand his karma as part of analyzing my karma, it will confuse me. His karma deserve a separate analysis in which I dont figure. So each individual does karmic transactions with the cosmos and not with one other. Analogy: I sold shares of IBM to the stock exchange and someone else bought them from the exchange, but we did not transact with each other.
4. For example: Rajiv causes harm to person X. Implications: (a) In Rajiv's account: Rajiv has new entry/perturbation in his karmic account with the cosmos. (b) In X's account: He got phala from cosmos (NOT from Rajiv). Plus, depending on his reaction to rajiv, he could be creating new karma in his account with the cosmos. Important point is that both persons karmically transact only with the cosmos and never with each other. The rest of the details are inconsequential as far as this point is concerned. Focus ONLY on this one point: Who is the karmic transaction with?
5. Notice there are two levels of transactions going on. At the visible/empirical or worldly level, the two persons are doing things to each other. Someone who does not believe in karma theory will accept this level of transactions, and he will think that it is the entire transaction. (So if he got away with a corrupt deed, he will think he has escaped.) This is the level of transactions we see openly. Where we disagree with such a person is that we also believe in a second level that takes places invisibly to us. This is the shadow level of transaction. The shadow transaction is the karmic transaction with the cosmos. It is causation that is in addition to the first level that is visible. Each time you do visible-action it automatically adds a perturbation into your individual karmic account with the cosmos in the shadow system. Karma system is a shadow system of causation between each individual and the cosmos.
6. Once you get this point, then the idea of caste by birth becomes clear.  First, my parents did not cause my circumstances as my phala came from the cosmos, and parents were mere facilitators. Second, the phala is probabilistic and not deterministic, meaning that I have free will to change my life. Third, how I react/respond to my circumstances creates new karma which is entirely up to me.

The implications are:

• Dont blame others for your present circumstances.
• You are not stuck in your circumstances long term.
• You must act in a dharmic manner in each present moment, in order to create positive karma going forward.

We have not discussed here how to transcend karma by performing nishkama, wherein actions continue selflessly without accruing karma. Thats another level of discussion.

Furthermore, we have also not discussed a very important: Performing karma with dual-lens as Krishna asks Arjun to do. (A) The men on the other side are ultimately the same atman. (B) But in this role/manifestation they are men who must be killed, and Arjun-as-role-player must perform his svadharma and do this.

Its best to leave these two points for future threads. The main treatment above must be understood and not get sidetracked with these two more advanced levels of understanding."

Aditya has the next followup:
"does inaction on one's part create a karmic entry/perturbation? So, for example, if I walk past a beggar on the street and clearly have enough money in my pocket to give him but choose not to do so, then will this be a negative entry/perturbation with respect to the cosmos that I must deal with later on?"


Rajiv comment: "Great question. Physical action or inaction is not relevant. What was the intention in taking action or in not taking action?

This is where a living guru is important as only such a person can read your intentions and put them in context of the circumstances. My guru gave different advice to different persons on this very question, and it depended on multiple factors. If it is nishkama (non-doer mode) there is no karma accrued because "you" did not do it  it is prerna (divine inspiration). But if "you" have intentions or vested interest then it is karma if you elected to escape action out of self-interest  ego-driven desire to help. My most favorite question used to be: How do I know when the desire to help is prerna and when it is ego-driven? At times guru said Who are you wanting to get involved in what is none of your business; your ego seeks self-importance. At other times guru said This person needing help is Bhagvan and the situation came to you with prerna to act in a detached manner that is helpful.

So I dont think I can answer generally it depends on all the facts in a given situation. Nor am I qualified to be a guru who can evaluate all your circumstances. My advice is: You need a guru for at least a decade during your formative period of practice." 

Chir comments:
"Is there a book you would recommend that would give me more insights into karma and how it works or  how to understand/interpret it. Something that explains karma from not just Vedanta's interpretation but also from Samkhya and maybe Buddhism side (basically from various different schools)... I remember long time back you recommended a book on nondualism, Non-duality by David Roy. Do you think that would be a good start, since you also mention about karma with dual-lens?"

Rajiv comment: There are important areas of difference among various interpretations of karma in Indian philosophy. But I gave my own insights, not a canned/standard view from any particular text.

Buddhists do not go into detailed mechanics of karma and nor do Vedanta texts. Both these philosophies focus more on ultimate reality's relationship to provisional reality, and not so much on the details of how provisional reality functions. Samkhya gives a lot of detail on karma. But none of these philosophical explanations is very complete and much of what we know comes in the form of stories rather than a systematic end-to-end model per se. So you have to extrapolate a model/system by learning from anecdotes and examples.

...This eclectic method bothers many bookworms wanting a specific X or Y school's position. Other bookworms say "aha! I discovered that you must be in school X" just because I happened to use an example from there. Because they cannot think out of the box, they project this limitation upon others.
....
In the West there is an emerging field called "constructive theology" where Biblical scholars extrapolate, innovate and propose new solutions. They connect the dots in their own ways and this gets debated among them. Classical Christian texts do not address many issues people want to address today and this is done under constructive theology. In Hinduism we have smritis to do this job of innovation. In a sense my interpretations would fall under that. The laziness of our thinkers (who can do little beyond parroting) shows -- as in one example of a member writing persistently to me privately complaining that I must belong to some "sect X" because of what I write. They just cannot think out of the box."


 
Kundan adds:
"In addition to the beautiful explanation that Rajiv ji has given, you would want to check out "Problem of Rebirth" by Sri Aurobindo. Also there are two chapters in Sri Aurobindo's "Letters on Yoga: Volume 1 titled "Rebirth" and "Free Will, Karma" etc that you would want to check out."


Jal adds:
"I feel there is some confusion regarding the terms "probability distribution", etc., as used by Shri RM,. Terms "probabilistic", "non-deterministic", etc. - all allude to the concept of uncertainty. This uncertainty may stem from two possible sources and thus these terms may be understood to have two different shades of meaning:

Randomness: Dharma does not admit randomness, which is just another term for lawlessness, an antonym for Dharma. Hence this concept of randomness is Dharma-viruddh and hence must be shunned. I am almost sure randomness is NOT what Shri RM means when he uses the term "probabilistic".

Dynamic-ness: The other concept pertains to the ever-changing, fluid nature of Reality, which too leads to uncertainty. However, unlike randomness, this concept does not betray any lawlessness or anti-science character. It does agree with a law-based if-then determinism, in compliance with science... However the condition itself being fundamentally indeterminable (mainly because of consciousness and fundamental freedom of the self), the resultant fact too is indeterminable. Thus while admitting non-determinism, this concept is quite Dharma-sangat and should be adopted. (This is also a strong retort against fatalism that is unnecessarily imposed on the law of karma and hence important to understand.)"


Rajiv comment: Distinction between uncertainty in the cosmos and uncertainty in human ability and perception. Latter means inherent limit in the ordinary mind. All science, physics, knowledge is in the latter realm - i.e. wnat is know-able."

RMF Summary: Week of February 15 - 21, 2013

February 16
Sunday 11am on MSNBC television panel
I will be on the Melissa Harris Show at 11 am (Eastern Standard Time) on MSBNC. The themes are: American minorities, the context in Black History month....

February 18 (continuing discussion from previous week)

Re: Are all religions really the same according to Vedas?
Raghu responds to Surya (pls see last week's post):

I like your response. However, I think we also have to look at minds that are conditioned by the teaching and the social constructs that the teaching implies.

A Hindu mind seems to have two characteristics that are important in this context. One the ability to accept different ways, and the other to act from a sense of generosity. These are civilization-ally more advanced than mono cultures of thought and hierarchical political control. Over the years, it has turned into a passivity. This passivity was leveraged to great advantage by Gandhiji, but it has also led to a glorification of non violence. The non violence of Gandhiji was very powerful, it s not afraid of confrontation or of being violated.

When such a mind confronts the aggressive and predatory mind, it fails to value itself. Rajivji's analysis of difference anxiety is spot on. In my behavioural work self-hate of being Indian reveals itself often..."

Thatte responds:
".......why the tendency of  all religions are same  seems  to  pervade amongst a number of people - Hindus and non-Hindus..

In my analytical model for a religion, (and by the way, this is applicable to all religions) the outer layer is comprised of rites, rituals, festivals and practices. ...The next layer is comprised of values. Values dictate how one lives in a society. Since most  religions claim to promote harmony in the society  the values tend to be very similar.

For example, the key values of Hinduism are:

1.      Truth                           (Satyam)

2.      Purity                           (Satva Shuddhi)

3.      Self- Control                (Brahmacharya)

4.      Non-Violence              (Ahimsa)

5.      Charity                         (Danam)

6.      Forgiveness                 (Kshama)

7.      Detachment                (Vairagya)

Different religions may emphasize certain values more than others.  But, by and large these values are professed by all religions. This is where most people stop and take a position that all religions are  same...."

 
Surya responds:
"The tiger and deer metaphor comes to mind. It is the nature of tiger to be predatory. Deer is better off understanding this and behaving accordingly..."

February 18
Excellent critique of Romila Thapar
Venkat posts: ...Wagish Shukla ... details how Romila Thapar relies on translations of Sanskrit texts and distorts the meanings to suit her line of thinking.

February 19
Evangelical Christian group helps sue California school over yoga
Ravi shares a link: 
http://www.guardian

.co.uk/world/2013/jan/10/christian-parents-sue-california-school-yoga...

Karthik responds:
"A highly relevant passage from the article:

Ann Gleig, the editor of Religious Studies Review and assistant professor of religious studies at the University of Central Florida, said in an email that two groups have continually asserted that yoga is inherently religious evangelical Christians, and some Hindus who want to preserve the practice's religious influences.

"So both of these groups, which have very different agendas, ironically support each other in an historically flawed construction of yoga as an essential unchanging religious practice that is the 'property' of Hinduism," Gleig said.

{It is Gleig's analysis that is flawed by essentialization. She considers the Christian category of "religion" to be equivalent to, and interchangeable with, Hindu traditional utilization of  yoga as a "religious" practice. In Hindu spiritual traditions, yoga is one of many techniques by which the truth of man's ultimate unity with the Supreme can be verified, empirically, at a personal level. Christian religion does not allow for man to unite with the Supreme, and only permits communion with the Supreme through specific intermediaries and institutions. Hence, any technique which may verify an idea inherently blasphemous within Christianity (direct personal experience of unity between man and the Supreme) does, in fact, stand in direct opposition to Christianity. Yoga may not be anybody's "property" but it can never, ever be practiced by religious Christians without blaspheming the very foundations of their religion, i.e. the Nicene Creed.

Gleig's canard that a religious practice must be "unchanging" in order to remain the "property" of a particular religion, is another example of her flawed understanding. Hinduism is not history-centric, as Abrahamic religions are. The wealth of our knowledge system isn't static, it's always evolving; but for all that, it remains our own, and the credit isn't up for grabs.}

Andrea Jain, assistant professor of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis said that the forms of yoga commonly practiced in the US are the result of the mix of colonial India and euro-American physical culture.

"In fact, postural yoga has been shown to be a successor of fitness methods that were already common in parts of Europe and the United States before postural yoga was introduced," Jain said. "So we could think of postural yoga as a 20th century product, the aims of which include all sorts of modern conceptions of physical fitness, stress reduction, beauty and well-being, these things were not present in pre-colonial traditions of yoga at all."

{According to this Andrea Jain, "conceptions" of physical fitness, stress reduction, beauty and well-being were completely absent from pre-colonial India, and hence could not have played any role in inspiring people to practice yoga in pre-colonial Hinduism. Instead, because these "aims" existed only among people of colonial India, Europe and the United States... ITSELF a dubious and highly problematic claim... then any technique applied to fulfill such "aims", no matter what its origins, belongs only to those who experience it in pursuit of those "aims", and not to those who originated it.

....

These postural forms of yoga include Ashtanga yoga, which was introduced in the early 20th century.

"Unless we want to argue that contemporary American culture and its valorization of physical fitness, beauty and health, modern conceptions of those things are religious values, then we really can't identify yoga as religious," Jain said. "We certainly can't identify it as essentially Hindu."

{Andrea Jain casually transfers attributes from the subject of her argument (Americans steeped in a culture that valorizes fitness, etc.) to the object of her argument (Yoga itself). Is it her faint hope that no one will notice this rather sloppy and intellectually dishonest sleight-of-hand? 

If I use a fountain pen, not to write but to stab people to death... is it now no longer a writing instrument? Is Louis Waterman (the inventor) now a weapon-maker? Or is Louis Waterman to be deprived of all credit for inventing the fountain pen at all?...

As a child in India I would watch Mickey Mouse cartoons, and "identify" with the character Mickey Mouse in terms of other, pre-existing "mouse" representations in my own culture... such as the more familiar Mouse from the Panchatantra fable, who freed the pigeons from the hunter's net out of cleverness, loyalty and compassion. ... Does this mean that Mickey Mouse is no longer quintessentially American but Indian? Does MY experience (as the "subject" experiencing Mickey Mouse) count for more in defining what Mickey Mouse is, than Mickey's (the "object"s) intrinsic origins? }

 

Manas posts:

"Ann Gleig, one of the academics quoted in that piece is associated with a group called, "Modern Yoga Research" which includes Mark Singleton, one of the primary exponents of the not-Hindu-but-is-Euro-American-Christian "postural"-yoga thesis. Singleton's name has previously come up in this forum. Singleton is also associated with a notorious Hardvard academic's sidekick and this "modern yoga research" group has been endorsed by this sidekick in the e-list he runs. In a recent AAR conference, Singleton presented a paper titled, "Christian Influences in the Development of Modern Yoga". A search in this forum archives will provide more information on these dangerous nexuses and their agendas."

Rajiv comment: I agree fully. I wish more persons were informed as the person who posted this. We have too much uninformed opinion and forwarding the same stuff to look important - that is counter productive.

I have known of Singleton's work for many years which only recently started becoming public this way. Too many Hindus continue to support such works. The co-editor of his forthcoming book infiltrated Vivekanandra Kendra's yoga camp, took lots of notes and recordings which her web site proudly says will be used to expose yoga gurus. The very same folks who find my works "too controversial" to promote and claim they dont have funds to support it either, line up in awe when they welcome such visitors and scholars. The decadence within Hindu leadership is amazing. These are termites who have caused the decay. Because I point this out openly in order to warn others from joining such bandwagons, I am branded.

 

Koenraad Elst responds to Karthik:

Recap for comment 1: "....So both of these groups, which have very different agendas, ironically support each other in an historically flawed construction of yoga as an essential unchanging religious practice that is the 'property' of Hinduism," Gleig said.

  ... In Hindu spiritual traditions, yoga is one of many techniques by which the truth of man's ultimate unity with the Supreme can be verified, empirically, at a personal level."

Patanjala Yoga Sutra, known till Shankara as a branch of Sankhya or simply as Patanjala Darshana, defines yoga in an atheistic way. "Yoga is the stopping of the motions of the mind" is a purely technical definition. The next verse, "Then the seer rests in himself", defines the goal of yoga as "isolation" (kaivalya), i.e. of consciousness (purusha) from its objects (sensory perceptions, desires, memories, intellection, all belonging to the less or more rarefied reaches of nature/prakrti). In both phrases, there is no God in the picture, He has nothing at all to do with the goal of yoga.

Patanjali makes a practical concession to the believers among his readers by saying that "devotion to God" is one of the preparatory stages of yoga. He defines God/Ishvara exactly like radically atheist Jains define their liberated
souls, namely as a desireless purusha; so it remains highly uncertain that "God" as currently understood is meant. At any rate, he refuses to make this special purusha somehow the goal of his yoga. Yoga does not revolve around an external being called God, but is purely a matter of relating to yourself, viz. totally sinking into yourself and forgetting about the world and the "tentacles" of consciousness into it.

When modern Hindus speak about yoga (and they speak about it a lot but practise it very little), they have a distorted view of it, inflected by what has been
the dominant stream in Hinduism for centuries, viz. theistic bhakti (devotion). "Unity with God", whatever that may mean, is a concept from bhakti/sufism and also adopted by some writers on Christian mysticism. But it is completely absent in historical yoga as defined by Patanjali.

Yoga is very much part of Hindu civilization, but is not the property of contemporary God-centered Hindus.

I am currently finishing a booklet for the greater public on the external enemies of Hinduism. It will make me very popular among Hindus. But next, I want to write a similar booklet about the internal enemies of Hinduism, or is other words: what is wrong with the Hindus... it will certainly make me many enemies among Hindus. They don't like a Westerner criticizing them, though I have most of it from Hindus themselves. At any rate, if Hindus don't make a systematic diagnosis of the problem, someone else has to do it. And the current (sentimenal and confused) Hindu bhakti notion of "God" is certainly a big part of the problem.

Recap for comment 2: " ... Andrea Jain, assistant professor of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis said that the forms of yoga
commonly practiced in the US are the result of the mix of colonial India and euro-American physical culture.:
> "In fact, postural yoga has been shown to be a successor of fitness methods that were already common in parts of Europe and the United States before postural yoga was introduced," Jain said. "So we could think of > postural yoga as a 20th century product, the aims of which include all sorts of modern conceptions of physical fitness, stress reduction, beauty and well-being, these things were not present in pre-colonial traditions of yoga at all."

This supposed expert Andrea Jain is simply parrotting a very recent theory. She is plainly wrong, for yoga in the sense of meditation is very ancient, and was given a synthesis (of pre-existing views) by Patanjali. As for postural yoga, it dates back at least to the Nath yogis, who started in maybe 1100 AD, before Muslim rule in the Ganga plain, when the British were nowhere in the picture and America as a state didn't even exist yet.

Unlike Patanjala Yoga (meditation) the more recent postural Hatha Yoga is indeed directed to relaxation and fitness. Hatha Yoga classics promise you a lustrous body and concomitant success with the opposite sex -- not quite the goal of Patanjala Yoga, but very much the goal of Madonna and millions of other American yoga practitioners. But whatever may be the worth of that, Indians invented it themselves, long before British conceptions of fitness could (marginally) influence it."

tvikhanas also catches the falsehood on postural Yoga:
" This lie is now popping up in many places. Looks like this is the currently favored strategy to break up Asanas from the larger Hatha Yoga (and that in turn from Hinduism).

The overall story goes like this: Hatha Yoga Pradipa (HYP) is the founding text of Hatha Yoga and is 500 yrs old. HYP mentions only a dozen or so seated poses.
The rest and more advanced poses are recent invention. In fact, they were invented in 20th century under the influence of militarism & British physical culture. The pioneer of this was Krishnamacharya, the guru of BKS Iyengar, Pattabhi Jois and others. .... Ergo case established and we can reclaim what is really ours after putting it through due scientific process to clear it of all undesirable
cultural/religious/superstitious baggage.

We are going to hear a lot more about "Modern Yoga", "Postural Yoga". The story is of course garbage and it has any number of holes:

1.HYP is dated to 500 yrs based the usual fraudulent methods.

2. Sri Krishnamacharya himself credited a Yogi living in Himalayas for teaching him Yoga. (Incidentally, one of the sons of Sri Krishnamacharya, Desikachar seems to crave western approval & money. He and his son keep dishing out whatever nonsense western "yogis" want, like Yoga is not religious etc)

3. HYP itself acknowledges there more poses than the dozen or so it describes in detail. This is in line with Indian tradition where only the important points are given and rest left to the living tradition or pupil's effort. Quite
different from western patent driven approach where the goal is claim as much for oneself as possible.

4. Within Hatha Yoga asanas themselves are quite preparatory. The real deal is pranayama, bandhas etc. So it is stupid to expect HYP to devote all the space to a minor aspect.

5. Vedantins condemned the focus on body that Hatha Yogis fall into. Traditional sannyasins in orthodox mathas practice hatha yoga.

6. Ayurveda uses asanas in treatment for various disorders. Traditional dance poses are closely linked to some asanas.

So on and on.

This story seems have started with Mark Singleton's book Yoga Body. Singleton seems to be church funded. He is very well published in all the right places Oxford University Press etc (which probably are held directly or indirectly by the church as well). He teaches at St. John's College at New Mexico, a Christian institution. Take a look at his website (http://modernyogaresearch.org/people/dr-mark-singleton/), it's a real master piece of deception. A casual observer will think he is very sympathetic to
Yoga/India and not understand why we should be critical of his work..."   

Ram notes:
"....We won't accomplish much by circular debates within
this forum. We may educate (and frustrate) ourselves in the process and provide necessary ears and eyes for Rajivji, but members should be encouraged to individually bring open pressure on systemic forces bent on expropriating,
abusing, denigrating, or marginalizing the wisdom and achievements of India.

Since joining this forum and reading Rajivji's book "Being Different", I am encouraged to be more assertive in speaking up and defending what's mine!..." 

Srinath asks:
"What should Andrea Jain have said? A lot of Indians might offer up similar analyses in the hopes of diffusing criticism that Yoga is religious, which could serve to turn-off American Christians. Indians are usually very eager to enhance Western acceptance of India and Indian philosophies as we have been looked down upon by the West for so long, and perhaps water-down concepts to make them more acceptable..." 


February 19
Digesting the gurus
Rajiv posts: The ... Huffpost blog criticizes westerners who look for "eastern gurus". This type of rethinking is quite a phenomenon for a few decades now. They turn away from the source and replacing it with westerners as the new source. Note how the two authors are now the
gurus, with their own marketing programs. Note that all their spiritual leaders" are these uturned people - see list at the bottom of the blog where they are selling them. All this is justified using a quote from Ramana Maharshi. If the purpose is to be one's own guru, why are Ed and Deb selling their own products? It is just one kind of guru replacing another. Yet out folks go ga-ga when they see such people showing their "sympathy" for Hindu dharma. There is one thread someone on how exciting it is to see some harvard people studying kumbh mela. ...Amazing inferiority complex. Yet they love to organize events with fancy themes like "decolonizing Hindu Studies". Nothing really changes after participating in 20 years of hundreds of such events - because its fake and meant to impress.The tiger says that he loves the deer. The stupid deer takes it as a great compliment."

February 20 Dharmic perspective on Artificial consciousness Amol posts: What is the Dharmic perspective on 'whether machines can develop consciousness'. Have our philosophies answered these questions ? I am curious to know. Miguel Nicolelis is a leading neuroscientist working on brain machine interfaces and he says that "human consciousness (and if you believe in it, the soul) simply can't be replicated in silicon. That's because its most important features are the result of unpredictable, non-linear interactions amongst billions of cells..." February 20 My recent event at Princeton University This past Monday, I had a different kind of academic event for my book, "Being Different". This was a big success. Two Hindu student leaders, ... along with the dean of religious life, .... organized something with a different format than usual. .... it was not open to the general public ...One woman minister from the Presbyterian Church generated an interesting discussion with me. She appreciated many things but disagreed with my depiction of Christianity concerning its fear of "chaos" and obsession with "order". She cited some good counter examples. I responded by citing that Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle had become deeply embedded into Christianity ever since Augustine started what we know as "Christian theology". This law extols normative thinking and cannot deal with ambiguity, flux, uncertainty, etc. She agreed with the facts, but felt that this Greco-Roman takeover was not the "real Christianity". Then I mentioned my next point that western corporate institutions (the Roman Church being the first multinational) were mechanisms of power/control  and expansionism, and these were built on normative rules, policies, governance, etc. The whole notion of normative "commandments" from God and absolute "laws" imposed on peoples was the product of history centrism. This is very different than decentralized embodied knowing approaches in dharma, which the Christians persecuted in their own mystics. I did not expect her to get convinced, but I must say she was quite open and we had a healthy exchange. The purpose of such exchanges (as all debates) is to benefit and educate the audience who are watching. Hindu students need more events where their stance is resilient to being toppled easily. Too often we have leaders who either capitulate easily by hitting the "sameness" button in panic (once they feel cornered), or the opposite extreme when they resort to anger or chauvinistic proclamations. I don't think either extreme works. We need calm, informed positions that can be backed up with evidence. For young minds today the extreme/unintellectual approaches are a good way to turn off people. We need serious responses that make sense. This capability comes from long-term research and debating experience, something too many of our folks want to bypass by taking shortcuts... .....some years back one top caliber MA graduate of the same seminary worked for me as a research intern on a full-time basis. This man was simply brilliant, and also open minded. ....He helped my work a great deal, especially in anticipating and responding to issues raised by Christians. Because we had frequent brainstorm sessions to churn on serious Hindu/Christian differences, he also started to rethink what he had been taught in the seminary. By the end of his year long internship with me, he told me that he had changed his career plans. He would no longer pursue the career of a church minister or theologian. .....After hearing this, she said that she might also be heading in the same direction herself, as my previous intern. So I will be evaluating her as a candidate to help my work. ... I want the other party to be candid and able to argue against my positions, because that churning is precisely what strengthens my final work. Whether the other party changes or not is unimportant to me. If they can help improve my work, that's what I appreciate. February 20 Coexistence with India - A Dawn Blog Gopal shares: Part 1:  Coexistence with India-1 Part 2:  Coexistence with the world Part 3:  Coexistence with India-2 February 21 The history of India is a history of colonialism: The Telegraph Appearing today in the UK, The Telegraph .... another one of those periodic articles designed to subtly reinforce colonial history and shape the opinions of the upcoming generation. I posted the comment below, as a first line of defense and to promote Rajiv's work. "oh dear, yet another of these articles which tries to build on a fabricated idea of Indian history in a sweeping way. I wonder how qualified the author of this article really is.  Some brief thoughts: 1) The Aryan Invasion Theory has been discredited - it has no basis!  Importantly this was an imported idea, this supposed invasion finds no mention within classical Indian history or within its own texts, it was used primarily to justify British plunder and rule. The Sanskrit term "Arya" denotes a human characteristic: noble, righteous etc....The term was later hijacked by European Indologists ... read Rajiv Malhotra " Breaking India, Western Interventions in Dalit and Dravidian Faultlines" or Rajiv Malhotra "Being Different". Here is someone who is an intellectual, historian and has knowledge of Sanskrit. If Charles Allen considers himself a serious scholar/researcher then I look forward to reading what he has to say in response to whats put forward in these two books, particularly the first one, which trash much of what he has said above. Indian history, as its studied now, begins with conquests, first the Moghuls and then the Europeans. This has given rise to a sorry generation of Indians, who have only been familiar with a history of conquest. This then gives space for such misleading article titles, such as the one Charles has used. Just consider ancient Indian contributions to the world (there are too many to mention) the concept of Zero, the 1-10 number system (referred to as Arabic, but in fact having an Indian origin, the Arabs being the middle men in the transition of knowledge from East to West) Language, the antiquity and unparalleled sophistication of Sanskrit (Panini), Medicine (Ayurveda), Integrated Spiritual/Mind/Body Sciences (Yoga). Indian academia has even till now struggled to throw of the Macualite shackles. ....glossing over history or worse still, fabricating it, just will not do! What Indians suffered here was akin to a holocaust in its magnitude of impact upon millions of people, except over a much longer period of time. Empire was all about Money, Control and Power hiding behind a veil of a "a necessary civilizing mission that the white man had to burden. "