Analysis of Pollock's position on shastras by Divya J

This is an analysis of Pollock's position by Divya J, a member of the Rajiv Malhotra discussion forum

Dear All,

Here are some thought after reading Pollock's paper.  If I understand him correctly, he is basically trying to say that Indian culture is stagnant because it relies heavily on ancient shastras imbued with divine authority that can never be challenged. I am willing to grant that Indian culture is stagnant, if not in a continuous state of degeneration. However, I would theorize that this is because we have neglected our shastras and not because we have relied upon them. As far as theories go, there is more evidence for the latter than for Pollock’s theory. In fact, his entire essay is peppered with evidence that goes against the grain of his own theory, a fact that he even acknowledges but ultimately neglects. A good theory must accord with the empirical evidence and must resonate with the people or culture it describes. I doubt most Hindus recognize themselves or their culture in Pollock’s description. As such, his entire essay lacks explanatory force and can resonate only with people of Pollock’s own ilk.

In fact, Pollock himself appears to be an embodiment of all the elements he imputes upon Indian culture. For starters, he does not look around him for evidence but simply draws upon his pre-existing cultural biases and presents them in the form of a theory. Some of the specific biases of western culture that he imputes upon the Indians are the following: (i) that knowledge is textual; (ii) that values are normative; (iii) that authority (shastra) is some sort of truth that cannot be challenged; (iv) that theory precedes action; and (v) that there is a divine realm starkly different from the secular realm that humans must obey. These are, in fact, the defining prejudices of western civilization, but Pollock cannot see the forest for the trees. Instead he acts like he has discovered something about Indian culture which is in fact quite the opposite of what Pollock describes.

Let’s look at his claim that Indians treat knowledge as if it is textual, implying that knowledge is something that can be put into words or contained in books. As evidence for this he cites numerous passages that assert the authority of the shastras. But this is rendered moot right off the bat because the vedas themselves assert that true knowledge cannot be obtained by relying on the vedas (or any other text). The clear implication is that knowledge can only poorly be put into words, or not at all. Pollock cites a passage from the Gita where Krishna emphatically asserts the importance of shastra. However, he conveniently overlooks the fact that Krishna’s closing words to Arjun were to do as he, Arjun, thinks best, after proper reflection, and not that he must open up his textbooks before he decides what to do.

It is a common lament among most Hindus who live in the West that their parents did not teach them anything about “Hinduism”. This becomes a problem in western culture where you are expected to spout off exactly what your religious beliefs are. This is because in western culture such knowledge is contained in a book and can be described in words and formulated in terms of beliefs. This attitude is all pervasive in western culture, not just with respect to religion. In order to act correctly they believe they must know what the right thing to do is. Not so in Indian culture where action (karma) generates knowledge. Most Hindus cannot articulate the fundamentals of their culture; there are no common beliefs, and no common practices. Yet it is a culture that has thrived, spread, flourished and survived to this day. Obviously there’s some form of knowledge that has been passed along from generation to generation even though most of us cannot put it into words. Surely in his 30-year-long career Pollock must have discovered, just as the British did 200 years ago, that Indians, including the pundits, are mostly quite ignorant of their shastras? How, then, can he claim that Indians cannot act until they consult their shastras since all evidence points to the fact that they have not been consulting them?

At the Kumbh mela I asked a couple of ordinary sadhus what books they relied upon. They looked at me with incomprehension as if I was totally clueless. They said that their lifestyle was mostly about keeping their parampara alive, looking out for each other, networking with others on the same path, and following some basic practices. None of them (the three people I spoke to) relied upon any Shastra and I’m guessing they would have told me if others in their akhada did. However, as Pollock notes, there is even a Shastra for proper sadhu behavior. So who’s reading these Shastras? Clearly it is the likes of Pollock and not the sadhus. Therefore, he is totally and completely wrong to claim that Indians believe that “the practice of all human activity depends on rules accessible to us in a textualized form.” The more accurate statement would be to say that human activity can be described in a textualized form. From here you cannot jump to the conclusion that Hindus believe that knowledge comes only from texts or shastras. In fact, that theory precedes action is closer to the western attitude and not an Indian one.

Pollock's paper is riddled with holes and I meant to take down some other aspects of his accusations but this has become way too long already. He does not strike me as someone seriously looking to solve any problems. It’s a pity he has so much clout.

A purva-paksha of Sheldon Pollock's thesis on Shastras

First post is by Divya J, a member of Rajiv Malhotra's forum, with a followup by Navita V, Arun and other members.
 
Dear All,

Here are some thought after reading Pollock's paper.  If I understand him correctly, he is basically trying to say that Indian culture is stagnant because it relies heavily on ancient shastras imbued with divine authority that can never be challenged. I am willing to grant that Indian culture is stagnant, if not in a continuous state of degeneration. However, I would theorize that this is because we have neglected our shastras and not because we have relied upon them. As far as theories go, there is more evidence for the latter than for Pollock’s theory. In fact, his entire essay is peppered with evidence that goes against the grain of his own theory, a fact that he even acknowledges but ultimately neglects. A good theory must accord with the empirical evidence and must resonate with the people or culture it describes. I doubt most Hindus recognize themselves or their culture in Pollock’s description. As such, his entire essay lacks explanatory force and can resonate only with people of Pollock’s own ilk.

In fact, Pollock himself appears to be an embodiment of all the elements he imputes upon Indian culture. For starters, he does not look around him for evidence but simply draws upon his pre-existing cultural biases and presents them in the form of a theory. Some of the specific biases of western culture that he imputes upon the Indians are the following: (i) that knowledge is textual; (ii) that values are normative; (iii) that authority (shastra) is some sort of truth that cannot be challenged; (iv) that theory precedes action; and (v) that there is a divine realm starkly different from the secular realm that humans must obey. These are, in fact, the defining prejudices of western civilization, but Pollock cannot see the forest for the trees. Instead he acts like he has discovered something about Indian culture which is in fact quite the opposite of what Pollock describes.

Let’s look at his claim that Indians treat knowledge as if it is textual, implying that knowledge is something that can be put into words or contained in books. As evidence for this he cites numerous passages that assert the authority of the shastras. But this is rendered moot right off the bat because the vedas themselves assert that true knowledge cannot be obtained by relying on the vedas (or any other text). The clear implication is that knowledge can only poorly be put into words, or not at all. Pollock cites a passage from the Gita where Krishna emphatically asserts the importance of shastra. However, he conveniently overlooks the fact that Krishna’s closing words to Arjun were to do as he, Arjun, thinks best, after proper reflection, and not that he must open up his textbooks before he decides what to do.

It is a common lament among most Hindus who live in the West that their parents did not teach them anything about “Hinduism”. This becomes a problem in western culture where you are expected to spout off exactly what your religious beliefs are. This is because in western culture such knowledge is contained in a book and can be described in words and formulated in terms of beliefs. This attitude is all pervasive in western culture, not just with respect to religion. In order to act correctly they believe they must know what the right thing to do is. Not so in Indian culture where action (karma) generates knowledge. Most Hindus cannot articulate the fundamentals of their culture; there are no common beliefs, and no common practices. Yet it is a culture that has thrived, spread, flourished and survived to this day. Obviously there’s some form of knowledge that has been passed along from generation to generation even though most of us cannot put it into words. Surely in his 30-year-long career Pollock must have discovered, just as the British did 200 years ago, that Indians, including the pundits, are mostly quite ignorant of their shastras? How, then, can he claim that Indians cannot act until they consult their shastras since all evidence points to the fact that they have not been consulting them?

At the Kumbh mela I asked a couple of ordinary sadhus what books they relied upon. They looked at me with incomprehension as if I was totally clueless. They said that their lifestyle was mostly about keeping their parampara alive, looking out for each other, networking with others on the same path, and following some basic practices. None of them (the three people I spoke to) relied upon any Shastra and I’m guessing they would have told me if others in their akhada did. However, as Pollock notes, there is even a Shastra for proper sadhu behavior. So who’s reading these Shastras? Clearly it is the likes of Pollock and not the sadhus. Therefore, he is totally and completely wrong to claim that Indians believe that “the practice of all human activity depends on rules accessible to us in a textualized form.” The more accurate statement would be to say that human activity can be described in a textualized form. From here you cannot jump to the conclusion that Hindus believe that knowledge comes only from texts or shastras. In fact, that theory precedes action is closer to the western attitude and not an Indian one.

Pollock's paper is riddled with holes and I meant to take down some other aspects of his accusations but this has become way too long already. He does not strike me as someone seriously looking to solve any problems. It’s a pity he has so much clout.


A followup response from forum member Navita V.

Rajiv ji's analysis of Pollock's 1985 paper in TBFS is brilliant, thorough and very elegantly put. Divya J also did a very impressive analysis...

Here are some lay observations :

A. Pollock’s negative pre-disposition towards Sanskrit and Sanskriti

This is quite apparent in his 1985 paper that it beggars belief how some argue otherwise. Some examples :


1. The very first sentence is a clue to the lens being used :

‘Sastra is one of the fundamental features and problems of Indian civilization in general and of Indian intellectual history in particular ‘

At the very outset Pollock categorically problematizes an entire civilisation before the reader has even had a chance to consider his thesis.


2. ‘In light of the major role it appears to play in Indian civilization, it is surprising to discover that the idea and nature of sastra in its own right, as a discrete problem of intellectual history, seem never to have been the object of sustained scrutiny.’

Ironically Pollock himself is the first to construct that the Shastras are a ‘problem’ and then proceeds to be surprised that no one else has seen it that way! Since there have been plenty of competing ideologies over time, one could also reasonably expect that such dissenting views would have arisen organically out of the tradition itself had the Shastras really been a ‘problem’. That this did not happen suggests that the practitioners did not feel the ‘problem’ that he alludes to and that Pollock is first applying an entirely Western lens and then proceeding to craft a 'problem'.

3. ‘It was this attitude that prompted me to further study in the area of shastric regulation, conceived accordingly as an analysis of the components of cultural hegemony or at least authoritarianism.’

The words ‘hegemony’ and ‘authoritarianism’ in this context are Western concepts that ought not to be applied with such abandon as it is clear that in that era one was free to disagree and set up alternative schools of thought (evidenced by the many competing philosophical systems that co-existed harmoniously, at least non-violently).

4. ‘Besides the extraordinary taxonomical interests and procedures of the metrical texts, what struck me most forcefully was the nomological character of the handbooks….’

The use of the word ‘nomological’ appears to be a function of Pollock’s lens and understanding.

5. ‘The question of domination remains in my view important for several areas of pre-modern India, the realms of social and political practices, for instance.’


Another indication of the ‘lens’ being used and the hidden agenda


6. ‘What both Manusmriti and Amy Vanderbilt's Everyday Etiquette articulate for us is practical cultural knowledge, mastery of which makes one a competent member of the culture in question. Such cultural grammars exist in every society;’


So Manusmriti just did what all societies do and whilst Pollock then goes on to say the Classical Indian civilization was the most exquisite expression of this, he completely ignores the even more remarkable point that Western society only got round to codifying such practical cultural knowledge in the 1950’s (as per his quote) while Manusmriti did this millennia earlier ie. the Indians had reached that civilizational stage thousands of years earlier.

7. The second concerns the implications of this relationship for the conceptual possibilities of cultural change and development. While I believe the degree of actual influence of shastric models on cultural practices and beliefs in pre-modern India to be a far-reaching issue of the utmost importance.


There is a hint of setting up a framework for ‘indirect intervention politics’ ie. stirring up one side against the other whilst pulling unseen strings ….why else is the influence of shastric models on the culture such afar-reaching issue of utmost importance? One senses urgency here.

8. ‘Sastra, the Sanskrit word for these grammars, thus presents itself as one of the fundamental features and problems of Indian civilization in general and of Indian intellectual history in particular.’


Why a problem? The shastras only prescribed a way of doing things, perhaps an ideal way that would lead to the best functioning of society and highest transformation of the individual. One was still free to do things their own way given all the competing schools of thought and ideologies that existed at the time. There were no prescribed be-headings for not following, only that one would not get the full benefits of a particular action if not performed correctly. The fact that the public followed the shastric norms of their own volition could be interpreted as being due to their lived experience of the benefits.

9. ‘Sastra is a significant phenomenon both intrinsically--taken as a whole it is a monumental, in some cases unparalleled, intellectual accomplishment in its own right--and extrinsically, with respect to the impact it has exercised, or sought to exercise, on the production and reproduction of culture in traditional India.’


Key point here that Pollock remains silent on is that the Shastras were not physically imposed – It was not authoritarian ie. no capital punishment for failure to comply – it is entirely possible and more likely that people followed the shastras because they experienced the benefits

10. We are informed further by Patanjali that "Sastra is that from which there derives regulation [definite constraints on usage]"


Not sure if the ‘definite constraints’ comment is part of Patanjali’s quote or a Pollock translation. It could also mean that something becomes the norm not because it is strictly imposed but because it is recommended and then found to be the most efficient and pleasant way in practice.

11. ‘Whatever the number and specific composition of such topics of knowledge, it seems clear that the very notion of a finite set of "topics of knowledge" implies an attempt at an exhaustive classification of human cultural practices.’


Finite as per the available knowledge in that era, not finite till the end of time – would be a more generous interpretation, which of course would not suit Pollock’s agenda.


B. Pollock’s deliberate or inadvertent misunderstandings to suit his argument


1. ‘Theory is held always and necessarily to precede and govern practice; there is no dialectical interaction between them.’


This is questionable. While there may be no dialectical interaction between Shruti and practice, there can be a dialectical interaction between the understanding of Shruti and practice, the latter’s role being to refine the understanding and interpretation of the former.


2. ‘Two important implications of this fundamental postulate are that all knowledge is pre-existent, and that progress can only be achieved by a regressive re-appropriation of the past.’


The second point is not necessarily an implication of that postulate – but rather that progress is achieved by better and better discoveries / understandings / interpretations of this pre-existent knowledge. Ie. just because certain knowledge is not in our collective consciousness, this does not invalidate its existence. For example, the Earth did not start orbiting the sun only when the Western world discovered that it did so.


3. Similar to point 2

‘THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRIORITY OF THEORY
That the practice of any art or science, that all activity whatever succeeds to the degree it achieves conformity with shastric norms would imply that the improvement of any given practice lies, not in the future and the discovery of what has never been known before, but in the past and the more complete recovery of what was known in full in the past ‘


The fundamental flaw in this seems to be the lack of understanding that it is not about ‘what was known in full in the past’ (because presumably not everything existed in the collective human consciousness at that time), but what ‘was’ and ‘is’ ever extant, only waiting to be discovered….so although it has always existed, it is still ‘new discovery’ to the human consciousness.


C. Pollock lends support to the point that the Abrahamic religions need to be history-centric in order to maintain their power.

‘The eternality of the vedas, the sastra par excellence, is one presupposition or justification for this assessment of sastra. Its principal ideological effects are to naturalize and de-historicize cultural practices, two components in a larger discourse of power.’


So the eternality of the Vedas de-historicizes cultural practice and this is a component in a larger discourse of power. The most obvious interpretation of this is that ‘historicity’ enables power-play by giving control to a unique time-stamped and non-replicable event eg. the historicity of Jesus gave the Church its power for centuries. On the other hand, the de-historicized Vedas enable a more egalitarian playing field where many new ideas can originate over time within the same overarching eternal framework.

Arun adds:
Since Divya J gave a summary of Pollock's 1985 paper that is pretty much what I would give, let me just add a point.

If Sanskrit was not spoken by the general public, I don't really care how aesthetic the power it had; the mechanism of how some texts, held and kept secret by the brahmins, exerted any influence on the non-brahmin jaatis. The mechanism of this control needs to be explained.

IMO, a possibility which needs to be examined is that the Shastras are primarily like encyclopedias, used to compile all known stuff, and as a reference work; but not consulted for daily living, etc., any more than today we consult the Encyclopedia Britannica. They can't deaden knowledge production because like the encyclopedia, they are the storehouse of knowledge which is generally accepted and has long been available, they aren't the front line of knowledge production. That is, in modern terms again, they are not the research papers published by scientists, they are textbooks or encyclopedias.  

 

Transcript: Arun Shourie's Lecture on 'Indra's Net'

Credits

Sankhadip Das for coming up with the idea of transcribing Arun Shourie's main talk, writing the first draft, and sharing it with the forum. Others in the forum and then the HHG team have reviewed the material, which has gone through additional hours of editing. There remain tiny sections where the audio is unclear. We have highlighted certain key passages. The Youtube video is embedded at the end of this post. If a keen ear can spot key missing words, please add a comment and we will update the post.
[March 5: minor transcription updates]

Introduction

Arun Shourie delivered a thought-provoking and witty lecture on January 29, 2014 at the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF-India) meet in New Delhi, while releasing Rajiv Malhotra's new book 'Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity'. The written word is powerful and often remains embedded in our memory longer than the same information received by listening to a lecture. We hope this transcript will complement and amplify the experience of listening to Arun Shourie ji's video lecture on 'Indra's Net'.

[begin transcription]

Dear Friends, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra:

Just few days ago, I got a telephone call saying that “I would like to speak to Mr.Arun Shourie and I am Rajiv Malhotra speaking.” I said “How can I recognize you? You have to say I am The Rajiv Malhotra speaking.” [applause and laughter in the audience]

As in his earlier books, the three books, so also in this one, Rajiv has given us a pair of spectacles, a new pair of spectacles through which to understand, through which to see our own religions and our own tradition. He has done this with meticulous scholarship and with as much force, he has smashed the distorted lenses which were fabricated by so called scholars abroad and here and through which to our shame we had been seeing our religion and our tradition. So, it is a dual contribution he has made. And of course the book is full of facts, the book is full of documentation, but even more so it is suffused with very important argumentation. It is not citation mongering, just quotations from here and there or just alleging conspiracy theories. It is an argument that he gives us as to why it is that certain propositions which you and I may have taken innocently as just the findings of a scholar, why that proposition is being advanced.

For instance, why is it that the church is afraid of the notion of immanence. Most of us would not have thought about it, but he gives us a deep reason as to why this is like this.

Second is his plain speaking, because many scholars say things in convoluted ways. Very often they say it in such a soft way because they are still looking for careers or acclaim in the very circles that need to be exposed. Rajiv told me that his formulae, his attitude in this matter was, that what we do must be, to use this word ‘unignorable’. It is a wonderful word. But that does not mean abuse, that does not mean just a sort of torrent of strong words. It means that the kind of scholarship and documentation which he has provided.

And, third point about him before I get to the book, is why he is an example to us; that he is truly independent. He is not dependent on any institution, he is not dependent on acclaim from an audience. So, that true independence of an individual scholar is an example which we should always bear in mind because too often in India I found, as I had occasion to mention here, earlier on this very thing, and the last time you were kind enough to call me, [that] too many of us look for institutional purchase from which to do some work. But great work has been done, has been done by individual scholars working absolutely alone, unaided often unrecognized; on both sides. If you see [Kosambi]’s work on one side or if you see [P. V. Kane]'s work on the other side. So, we should take heart and follow the example of a person like him who labouring alone has been able to…

I know from scholars in the West that they are apprehensive if he walks into a room, in a conference on philosophy or religion or on Indic studies in the West. So, this book shows how tendentious his scholarship has been. 

Mr. Doval was just recounting some of these things but really he… if I may use the word, he shows that the scholars have really been sort of missionaries in mufti and how they have been insinuating certain notions in us, sowing the seed of that tree which will keep changing, but their tree also keeps changing in this way. And he documents the lengths to which they will go, if I may just read one passage. One of the chapters is devoted to a very famous scholar from whom,… who is very well cited in India by Indian scholars, Paul Hacker, and Rajiv tells us that when his collected writings were being published to mark his 65^th birthday. These were most... many of his writings were on India, Indian religion, Hinduism and so on. I’m quoting he says that “acting on Hacker’s wishes, the editor of his collected works excluded the author’s polemical Christian writings from the compilation”. I have found the same thing in the case of Max Muller. If we see the four volumes of his letters…It’s called Sparks from the Smithy's or something [like that], those writings are just not known in India, but they set out a clear agenda and their hope in Brahmo Samaj as how it will be the lever by which India would be converted and their great disappointment when the very person on whom they were relying, went to Shri Ramakrishna Ji, and Ramakrishnaji changed him and he became a follower of Ramakrishnaji.

So, Rajiv documents their tendentious scholarship and the lengths to which they will go. He documents so well the echo effect that they create.

Woh kuch likhenge, yahan quote hoga, kyunki ab Indians bhi wohi kehe rahe hai, ya Hindu scholars bhi wohi kehe rahe hain, to woh Hindu scholar ko quote kar kar apni cheez ko aur bhi reinforce kar lete hain.

And much of it turns on definitions. They will define a religion as something and thereby say, as Doval was, sort of reminding us, that Hinduism is not a religion as it has no central authority, no book, no prophet.

Hamhari khasiyat hi yehi hai ki yey nehi hai. Kumbh mela hai, kisne start kiya hai, kaun uske piche hota hai. Pata nahin kitne 3 crores sey 10 crores log aa jate hain [Sabarimala mein 3 million go] or these kavadiyars.

Nobody knows who has started the yatra, nobody knows who organizes it and yet it continues and nobody has been able to erase it. Now for somebody to define a religion as one that must have central authority, director, an authority sort of Supreme Court, which can pronounce something is right or not right, then you say that this is not a religion. But then you are surprised that it continues. Then you have to say, no but it does not continue, it is not there, it is something new, which is being created. This used to be the same thing till even the 1970s, that India was actually not a nation. The nation was also being defined in same way that which is one race or one language or one religion or a contiguous territory and then it turned out that none of those things helped many other countries at all. So, Rajiv does this.

They can not comprehend and if I may quote a Western scholar whom Rajiv talks so well and about whom also I am sure he would have many things to educate us with . But Diane Eck in her wonderful work on ‘Pilgrimages of India’, she uses a sentence which is incomprehensible to many of the scholars. She says that India has been defined not by the writs and edicts of its Kings but by the foot falls of its pilgrims. Basically India was never united. Itne kingdoms the [Hindi], but, have you ever heard of a pilgrims procession being stopped at any border within it and those who are inside the tradition? Gandhiji, Ramakrishna Paramahansa soch bhi nahi sakte they ki aisa question [koi] puchega. Gandhiji ko dekh lijiye, Vinobha ko dekh lijiye unko – those who are steeped in the tradition, Vivekananda, they could see the essential unity and it is just the outsider who sees only the difference and in this Rajiv so well documents their double standards. You see the animosities among Christians sects, these Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. But Christianity, remains a religion, Islam, remains a religion, magar hamare yahan (in our case), when there is difference of opinion on things which are essentially unknowable, say between different ‘Sampradayas’ or between a ritual then, aise dekha nahin, ek religion hi nahi (this is not religion).

Achha ek taraf hai ki ek religion nahi hai, there is nothing like Hinduism magar agar ek inscription apko mil geyi jismey ki aap infer kar sakte ho jo inscription mein nahin likha kyunki kisine kise local sect nay, kisi local jain temple ko appropriate kar diya toh aapne to dekha nehi.

Hinduism is so intolerant that it took away the temples of the Jains; a religion which did not exist till just now! [laughter in the audience]. I’ve documented this in the case of many of these Marxist historians. Similarly Rajiv so correctly points out, this whole notion that of boundaries, boundaries between religions: that. these in our case are permeable. I mention here an example from a survey in Japan, in 1985. Writers have written, there is a book on this. People were asked what is your religion. So, 95% of them said we are Shinto, 76% of them said we are Buddhists. It couldn't be: because it was no different for them. It was completely Judaic, Christian, Islamic notion that you can either belong to this or to that. We are Hindus, many of the people, persons like me, all my reading is Buddhist, many of my practices would be from teaching of the Buddha but nobody would say that I am less of a Hindu or more of a Buddhist or vice versa and actually this notion was fomented in India and the first time this happened is in the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Act. In that Act, ‘Who is a Sikh’ is defined. ‘Who is a Sikh’ – He who believes in the Granth Saheb, He who believes in the Ten Gurus. Most of us could be Sikhs from that point of view, therefore a new clause was added "..and who does not belong to any other religion". You and I may think it is just an administrative thing, but that seed is sown in 1925 and you see it in the agitations of Bhindranwale and others much later... as to what happens when these seeds come into being. And as Doval was just saying one of the essential things about that scholarship was that and…Rajiv does a wonderful job of documenting this that we can not do anything right. You see if we remain as we were, let us say we keep sacrificing animals, then we are fossilized. Hinduism is uncreative. If people come along and say no,no, sacrifice does not mean sacrifice of animals, it does not even mean sacrifice of your material assets alone, it means the sacrifice of your ego. That is Gandhiji’s Anashakti Yoga. Then…Neo Hinduism! This was never there. [laughter in the audience]. And as Rajiv points out that every Christian theology has actually been inventing a Neo Christianity, but nobody says that. So, if Vivekananda reformulates things so that it is relevant to the time, then he is just inventing. If they do something it is creative, it is renaissance, it is reformation.

Doval saheb, burah nehi manenge, hamare senior log, burah nehi manenge, mera ek bihari dost ney muje ek muhawara unka bataya. woh kehte hai ki – ‘woh kare to chamatkar aur hum kare to balatkar’. yeh joh cheezein hay ~ not fair. [huge laughter in the audience]
 

Not only that you see, there are contemporary accounts. We have one of the best people I know, knowledgeable on Islam and Islamic history or history of Islamic rule. Islamic historians, contemporary historians, court historians, writing accounts contemporary with the events are full of slaughter, of destruction of temples and so on. So, how is that to be explained? The word that has been used, I was quite surprised. They say that this proves that this was not being done. The accounts claiming that all this has been done by our great king, is because he was not doing this [laughter in the audience]. Why then did you write it? Because it was trying to table verbal virtue for him. But if that one inscription shows that after losing a wager, the Jains had to vacate a particular temple for the local Shaivites then it will be Hinduism will be intolerant and the ridiculous lengths to which people will go… Rajiv documents this in Swami Vivekananda’s case or in the case of other when they make ANUBHAV, direct personal experience as the criterion or as the mode, then that we are only trying to ape the West and ape Western Science. He asked was Patanjali aping Western Science or West? Was Ramakrishna Paramhansha aping the West or Western Science or Ramana Maharshi? So, in every one of these things I could go on with the details. It’s a book which is a must for every Indian. We must see our tradition through the spectacles that persons and specially Rajiv Malhotra has constructed for us. And it was a particular education for me because I had focused only on the Marxist historians and felt that they were regurgitating, sort of swallowing and vomiting what had been written by some Soviet historians. But I then now realize after reading Rajiv’s books that they were actually swallowing and vomiting what many of these so called Western scholars in America and in Austria, or Germany had written with a purposive agenda. The main lessons from this book, I’ll spell out three and I’ll sit down after that.

One is, there is reason we should look to the future with confidence even in the religious sphere because in the case of Christianity, Rajiv points out, attendance is falling by the hour not even by the date. In places like Belgium, it has almost completely disappeared, the attendance in churches. Islam is tearing the Muslim world apart and even more important, it is a very important and a point of great insight which Rajiv has made that out of the religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, Indic religions are the closest to the spirit and substance of science. Just as the goal of science is the understanding of outer reality, its method is experimentation and peer review, its means is the laboratory, so also Indic religions are the science of the inner world. Their means is personal, direct experience and their peer review is unending and that is how the religion keep evolving and its method is entirely the scientific method of empirical verification through direct personal experience and the means… just that the means for those persons are laboratories and observations through instruments,... here a very good phrase Rajiv uses that the means, ours, was the living laboratories of these sages. They looked inside their own mind and came up with great formulations and great insights. So, time is on our side and we should do and we should work on these matters and practice our religion with great confidence. If something requires reformulation, we should reformulate it and say yes, we have reformulated it. Because this is the new formulation, this is what is required for the time. If we need to endow old words with new meaning we should do that with confidence. We must have and I am sure you will have after reading Rajiv’s book, a little contempt for these tendentious scholars. 
 

mujhe yaad hai, yahan Chandni [?] auditorium mein ek music festival chal raha tha. Siddheswari Devi ji gaane ke liye baithi thi. Taanpura tune ho raha tha, tabla tune ho raha hain, light dim ho gaye hai. Somebody got up from the audience, Siddeshwari Devi ji, nahin, nahin, raag yeh wala gayiye. She sang what she had planned to sing. Khatam ho gaya, log taliya baja raha hain. aab dushre gane keliye tune ho rahe hain. light phir sey dim ho gaye. wohi shaks phir sey utha, Siddheswari ji who to bahut accha tha, magar aap yeh gaayiye, She again sang what she wanted to sing. 3^rd time he got up and Siddheswariji told arre yeh hai kaun. Toh hamhe bhi yehi attitude hona chahiye – ki Yeh Hai Kaun? [applause and laughter in the audience]

And the main thing to do is to succeed. Even in intellectual things nothing succeed like success. Not one of these scholars will fabricate and propagate the type of nonsense that he does about India, he will never do it about China [audience concurs]. Because China has become strong and the scholars know if they write things about China they will lose their livelihood because they will lose their access to their sources. So, the important thing is to succeed and then everything will follow and one reason, final reason for being confident is that because of the work of Ram Swarup, Sitaram Goel, Koenraad Elst, David Frawley, Rajiv Malhotra – because of the work of these persons, the corpus is now reaching a critical mass. So that we can think that within few years we will have two [series]

One, A library for India, and a library of India. We should aim for those but the prerequisite is that we should be like Rajiv Malhotra, we should know our tradition, we should know our religion. The reason on account of which this kind of fabrication has prevailed for so long is that we have not known our tradition, not known our religion and we have known these only through the eye, we have seen through the distorted lenses which were fabricated by these tendentious scholars, these missionaries in mufti.

So, Rajiv, certainly on my behalf, and I’m sure on the behalf of every one, and on behalf of all of your readers Thank You.


[prolonged applause. The main lecture ends here. Arun Shourie then has some interesting observations on how Indians misinterpret "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" (the whole world is one family). The HHG team has transcribed this portion for the sake of completeness and also because this segment has a very important message for the millions of gullible Indians wallowing in the myth of sameness].

It is not anti-christianity, anti-Islam or anything like that. It is, the book is, it's a wonderful thing both about cosmos and life, this metaphor of Indra's Jaal and also about Hinduism. Every part reflecting every jewel all other jewels. Therefore if anything is changed [or disturbed], it is reflected all over, etc.  But he also makes a very important point in the end. Which illustrates... Rajiv illustrates both his style and forcefulness of his argument. It [is an illustration of what he was] telling us in the end. In our anxiety to be liked. we keep repeating words without understanding their implications. Humne Sabse pehle kaha 'Vasudhiva Kutumbakam' [comment on India's tolerance] .... Sari duniya to humne ek mana. So I will read to you where actually says where this word comes from [reading from pages 295-296 of Indra's Net].

"In one story in the Hitopadesa, a cunning jackal, trying to create a place for himself in the home of a naive deer says ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ in his appeal to the deer. The deer ignores warnings from other animals, who caution that it is unwise to trust someone at face value without first ascertaining his history, nature and intent. Upon deceitfully acquiring the deer’s trust and moving in his home, the opportunistic jackal later tries to get the deer killed. Indeed, the moral of this story is that one should watch out for cunning subversives . Blindly trusting those who preach ‘universal brotherhood’ can lead to self-destruction. 
[a brief comment here before continuing] 
The Panchatantra encodes this same message in a different story. In this version, the man who utters ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ is described as a murkha (‘idiot’). He is determined to bring a dead lion back to life, and disregards a wise man’s warning about the dangerous consequences of such an act. The idiot and his accomplices feel moved to resurrect the lion after citing this sentiment of universal brotherhood among all living things, and hence end up being eaten by the lion they help. The wise man lives to tell the tale.  Clearly, the lesson taught in these stories is not one of blind adherence to a policy of unilateral disarmament." [appreciative applause]

...Bahasa is a creation of the Indonesian freedom movement in the 1930-40s. Mother country Italy ke bare me baat kar le [laughter in the audience]. Modern Italian is [Anderson] says modern Italian is a creation of the television age. But we are on the defensive ki saab, Instead of celebrating the fact, that yes, we have so many languages, we get defensive, and that's how this book is so invaluable. It takes us to the root of our defensiveness and that is ignorance about [our own systems]. Aur isi liye, bahut important hai ki Poison pill bhi fabricate karni chahiye, magar jo poison, jo dusron ki pills humne swallow kar li hai, aur repeat karte rehte hai Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, uska bhi meaning asli mein dekhna chahiye!

[end of transcription]

Original Youtube Video Sources

RMF Summary: Week of February 21 - 27, 2013

February 22
Wikipedia

Akshay posts:  "I edited some articles in Wikipedia.

sometime ago I had replaced Dharma with religion in many articles. But this is not enough, We have re-write, re-contextualize ( for this I'm waiting for U-Turn Theory, Noted & Bibliography will help ) most of the articles under Dharmic frameworks.
Today i added,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajiv_Malhotra ... started Gazing Western Civilization sub topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_civilization

started criticism. People who are interested ..."

February 22 (continuing discussion from Feb 20)
Re: My recent event at Princeton University
JC Pant posts: " ....

A similar transformation appears to have taken place in the case of good practicing Hindus as a result of India adopting a an avowedly 'secular' constitution (post the Constitutional amendment to this effect in 1976). The only way Hindus could continue to remain good practicing Hindus was by conducting themselves in the public domain in a manner as secular as possible without compromising on their Hindu practices in private & for a minority of them also to explore how the secular ethos could be turned into an opportunity to promote the positive aspects of Hindu way of life in society in general. This however, did provide this group an opportunity to promote social reforms in Hinduism to rid it of all the unhealthy practices which had crept in it over the last 1000 years or so, about which one Eddie in the group keeps whining.

 The opportunists among the Hindus were quick to jump on the secular bandwagon,..."

February 22 (continuing discussion from Feb 21)
Re: Coexistence with India - A Dawn Blog
Prashant adds: A more elaborate analysis along similar lines can be found in M J Akbar's book Tinderbook...

February 22
Christian Colonization and the Concomitant Decimation of the Native
Ravi posts: This article, from Smithsonian Magazine, tangentially hints at the Christian Colonization and the Concomitant Decimation of the Native Cultures of the Amazon.

The Lost Tribes of the Amazon
Often described as “uncontacted,” isolated groups living deep in the South American forest resist the ways of the modern world—at least for now..."

February 22 (continuing discussion from Feb 19)
Re: Evangelical Christian group helps sue California school over yoga
Raghu posts: "What you say about the way the Krishnamacharya-Desikachar heritage is going is true. I was one of the early teachers in KYM. I taught there for more than a decade. When Desikachar's young son Kausthubh took over, he went back on many of the teachings. He was openly irreverent to the heritage, and was keen on reversing his fathers investments in the institution.... a very far cry from the Yogacharya Krishnamacharya. He has gone far away from the discipline, and we suspect his real learning too. He was recently accused of...."

 

February 24
Re: : Recording of my MSNBC television panel discussion: On Bobby Ji Menon posts: I felt pained when I heard the conversion story of Jindal. I wondered how such an intelligent person with pious hindu parents could get attracted to such dogmatic political outfit such as christianity. Even without looking deeper into what his own Dharmic and rich / scientific / universal and unbroken heritage since the time of creation has to offer to him, he got attracted to the glamour of power and riches, which he would come to experience as temporary and therefore, superfluous & unreal...

Rajiv responds:
While you dont understand why converted people keep Hindu names, I dont understand why so-called Hindu activists have not learned such basic things despite the fact that:
1) The practice is very old and common.
2) Many of us have written and discussed this for so many years. 
 
JP posts:
"More such Bobby Jindal's are manufactured in the church on a daily basis with a strategy and plan. Please see the forwarded mail below. Not only do they keep Hindu names but they also....They are now also using the sport cricket as a means to convert people. The boldness of the mail was shocking.  Please go through it.

"Dear Upward families at Eastview Christian Church,

As most of you know by now, Eastview recently decided to invest some money and effort into a new ministry effort.  We built a brand new cricket field!  Cricket is the second most popular sport in the world, and we are trusting that the sport will become a great platform for us to engage in ministry with our culture in McLean County.  We now have a sub-culture of around 6,000 Asian Indians living in our community. Many of these individuals are extremely open to integrating into our culture.

The God we love and serve wants all people to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4)…including those that are not like us but that are living among us for a time...."
Pushpa adds:
"Most Hindus think that the abandoned Church buildings are a sign of decline of Christianity. That is obviously not the case. Christians have found other novel ways to push their agenda. Through sports as pointed here. Another one where some of our leaders, sadhus, mahatmas, etc are being lured is the "Environmental" movement. Craving for a spot on the international stage, these Swamis ... entertain Church funded environmental events. Disguised as innocuous sounding earth projects, usually the headed by Hindus or Hindu sounding puppets,...The Maha Kumbh is the latest example where Harvard University made headlines on a daily basis. This is by no means to say that Harvard project is Church funded. The point here is that a project that is headed by anti-Hindu woman like Diana Eck is not going to yield anything of value for the Hindu community. There is obviously another agenda. The shocking fact is that, in spite of being warned, people like Swami Chidananda gave a red carpet welcome to Diana Eck and company. Can one imagine such a thing happening in Mecca or Medina?

Rajiv comment: I am glad at least a few persons get it. Thanks. Most mahatmas I met are morons suffering from whiteness inferiority complex - very sad but we must deal with it honestly." 

Manish comments:
".....I am personally yet to meet a Hindu priest / Guru who can hold an informed conversation on anything outside the narrow confines of the religious ceremonies he conducts. Almost all of them are steeped in the sameness meme. Most are utterly other-worldly in their mental outlook, out of touch with the practical realities of the 21st century. 

But then it is the structure of our society that is largely to blame for this state of affairs --- a Hindu priest or a sadhu has to depend on the dakshina that a yajmaan pays him (in contrast to a xian priest who lords it over a church and is paid a fixed salary). 

This dakshina-dependence may have worked well in the hoary past when the priests enjoyed state patronage but by the 20th/21st centuries, in Nehruvian India, dakshina-dependence has become such a self-respect-shattering arrangement that Hindu priesthood would never attract bright young persons. .."

Saket shares:
"this morning I came across this peace in Open Magazine titled : Foreign Funding of NGOs:Should FDI in India's think tank sector worry us? ...

I immediately recalled the thought experiment that Shri Rajiv Malhotra did during the launch of the book Invading The Sacred in 2007 i had heard on YouTube. There he had mentioned how idea of India is determined by bodies who
fund studies in India. The above article is perhaps the first expose in India media of that link and its ramification for Indian policy making and safe guarding its long term interests. I only wonder how correct he was then !!..." 

 

RMF Summary: Week of February 9 - 15, 2013

February 9
Deepak Chopra gives another glaring example of his being in the Stag
Jalan posts: 
In a recent article on Linked-in (http://goo.gl/uqK2N) Deepak Chopra talks of consciousness/awareness as a principal part of leadership - clearly, the spiritual/psychological ideas have been picked up from Hinduism but he has been successful at completely de-contextualising them. (I even feel he is force-fitting the spiritual ideas into the sphere of business management, as is fashionable nowadays.) 

What is particularly remarkable is that he writes "The most ancient wisdom traditions say, Know that one thing by which all else is known." Ah he is shy to say "The Upanishads say..." since this great human inquiry comes from the Chhandogya Upanishad ("What is that by knowing which all else is known?") What "traditionS" is he talking of? It is singularly to be found in Hinduism. DC either suffers from deep inferiority complex and/or he is simply trying to be more acceptable to the western audiences who are his target market... "

Shiva responds:
"If these are his views, he has his ideas wrong.

Consciousness is not a tool to be used for leadership. if you are chasing consciousness to be a better leader, its the wrong idea. You will end up getting bliss trips, and not concentrate on Karma yoga.
...Management professionals end up using yoga, [spirituality] as some escape from pressures of worklife, its no different than a healthier version of cigarettes. One has to integrate work and life as single stream, where the work itself becomes joy.
One of my professors in indias top institutions, is a brahmakumari follower. He is always in a meditative state of bliss consciousness, but is more like drugged rather than aware. He is one of the worst professors around...

Rajiv comment: There are multiple points above, each requiring its own response. For instance,

1) raising consciousness can be useful to become a better manager or for that matter improve oneself in daily life in general. Yoga is not only for escape to moksha from the real world.

2) The point about brahmakumari escapism as some kind of intoxicant is valid, and this applies to a large number of modern Hindu movements in vogue. "

Saket adds:
"My Vedanta guru explains leadership in this way- there is leader, there is group to be led, leadership is how the leader relates to the group being led. One may easily find the principle of one brahman and its multiple manifestation but analogy is not complete. To understand the multiple manifestation maya one must understand the brahman. Hence I concur with Rajiv Ji's observation no. 1. 

... even Arjuna has a session of Jnana yoga before he pursued the path of karma yoga. Hence they exist in combination. One can not impose strict categories like heaven or hell.
On third point about  Management professionals end up using yoga, spirituality as some escape from pressures of work life and a prof in a meditative state of bliss consciousness; there is a precise injunction in
Isavasyo Upanishad mantra 9 on this state of mind. This is what the master says:
Those who worship avidya ignorance enter into blinding darkness; but those who revel in vidya knowledge
enter as it were into greater darkness than that..." 

Poonam adds:
"I know hoe deepak chopra packages the Hindu Vedic Knowledge wisdom in a western context totally refuses to mention its Hindu origins. But he does not forget to patent copyright his books, so that he can het the financial benefit from them. But he has a partner /or friend, Wayne Dyer. The Dyer Chopra families, it appears, are very close, frequently vacation together all over the world in India. I remember watching Wayne Dyer often on PBS during their fund raising marathons, where he would the patrons were given for te highest contribution level, a set of books, workbooks, DVDs, CDs. conduct seminars specially for PBS. what he called "the whole enchilada). I listened to a lot of his seminars, he often referred to his experiences during the time he spent with Neem Karoli Baba in India, often mantioned him as his Guru..."

February 11
"The Permanence Of Ideas
Ganesh posts: Came across this article in today's ...Times of India. A fair enough take on Sanathana Dharma with Maha Kumbh as the backdrop. Evidence of chapter titled "order and chaos" from Sri Rajiv Malhotra's Being Different clearly visible."
   
Rahul comments on the false equivalence of Brahma and Abraham in the above post:
"p251 of BD has a section about Sanskrit non-translatable's that explains Brahman as the all-expansive ultimate reality which creates all and lives
in all and transcends all. The J-C God is the creator of the universe and *distinct* and separate from it. Whereas Brahman is immanent, not merely the creator but IS that world. Brahman and its manifestation are inseparable."   

February 12 (continuing from last week)
One of the UTurn patterns: An example
One of several patterns of Uturns is when the scholar takes Hindu contributions to the West, and reclassifies them as "Asian" or something broader, in order to...  

Raj comments:
"This is truly very disappointing & unfortunate. Based on the description, I guess this is referring to []Beck? I knew he had received funding, so when I came across his books on Amazon I assumed they were outcomes of research funded by Infinity Foundation. The local American Kirtan groups who know about his research will be utterly shocked to learn this ....  If after almost his entire career of research, deep cultural & personal involvement with Indian classical music & artists, he can so easily abdicate his responsibility towards truth, fairness & integrity, it is a complete betrayal of trust..."

February 13 
Are all religions really the same according to Vedas?
Rohit asks : "ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti" is often quoted to mean that Hindus accept all religions as different ways to the same truth. Phil Goldberg [see American Veda posts in this blog archive to learn more about PG] has quoted this expression to suggest that Hindus subscribe to sameness and hence do not object to treating Hinduism as a deli by other religions.Following is the verse in Rig Veda where this quote comes from.  There is no way such a meaning can be ascribed to it....Rigveda 1.164.46...

Manas responds:
"...The savant Sita Ram Goel has addressed this matter as well. Quoted below from his book, Defense of Hindu Society:
**************************** The one Vedic verse which modern Hindus quote most frequently is the third quarter (caraNa) of Rigveda 1.164.46..."

Surya also provides some excellent feedback:
"Proposition: All religions are equal - This formulation is understood to mean equal in some particular sense and not in the sense that all religions are identical.

Response: Since it is self-evident that any two religions have some noticeable differences, "equal" cannot mean identical.  It can mean equal in some particular sense.  All religions are equal as religious entities in the same sense as all individuals are equal as legal entities.  ...Rather, what is meant is that no individual is entitled to a privileged position.  Nor does it mean that one person cannot be picked in preference over another based on differences.  Thus, what Hinduism is saying is that all religions are equal in the sense that they all make truth-claims and none of the can claim its truth-claims to be true and there proceed to null-doze all others to be false.  

"All religions are equal" acquires the same revolutionary force which the cry "All me are created equal" had on the lips of those who stormed the Bastille.

Proposition: All religions are One - If ultimately everything is Brahman, and all there is Brahman, then any differences between religions is superficial and perceived as real because of ignorance.  Therefore, all religions are one when one looks beyond their superficial differences.

Response:  The idea of oneness in "All religions are one" has been made one with the idea of oneness of Brahman.  The two have been collapsed into one claiming that the collapse is justified by non-duality ideas of Advaita.  Advaita does not say that manifestation of the Universe and differentiation of things manifest are homogeneous in ultimate reality.  The key element to remember when talking about ultimate reality is not the "oneness" but the "indescribability", not its unity but ineffability.  

If the ideas of oneness are not the same, then what do Hindus mean by oneness in saying "All religions are One"?  Hindu idea of oneness for religions is an idea of tolerance.  Hindu idea of tolerance is as much connected to Hindu theism as with Hindu non-duality.  

Proposition: All religions are the same - This formulation is understood to mean that all religions are means to the same end, furnishing men with different but partial insights into nature of reality of equal value.

Response: This position holds that all religions are merely paths and do not have any truth associated with their particulars.  Thus, differences in particulars of the religions is irrelevant to the ultimate truth.  They merely are different paths to the same goal or destination and hence ultimately false.

This is at best an extreme position even for Advaita which asserts the dependent reality of Saguna Brahman and the Universe which are not false but relative truths.   Besides, Hindus who are non-Advaitins certainly do not accept that their path is false.

Proposition: All religions are essentially the same - This formulation suggests that, upon careful enquiry, one finds that the essence of all religions is the same.  Their differences are only superficial.  

Response: A generality of all religions has been postulated called the essence with all religions as particulars of this general essence.  Problem with this is that an essence is posited but we are not told what the essence really consists of.  At a minimum, there needs to be an argument cannot but be based on a common, general essence.  This has not been done either.

Proposition: All religions have an abiding sense of the Universal - ..there is an abiding sense of the Universal, then this Universal has to exist independent of the religions it abides in.  Why?  Many religions have a known beginning and some have disappeared.  Therefore, what is abiding is not the particulars of religions but the Universal essence that is contained in all of them.

Response: This argument suffers from not establishing that there needs to be a common abiding sense of the Universal.  It also fails to offer any indication of what this shared sense of Universal is.

Question: Can the Hindu position be "All religions are true?".  If so, what is its intended meaning?

Response: Yes, it is the Hindu position.  It is best understood as the diametric opposite of "My religion alone is true and all else are false."  The intended meaning is "Each of the religions may be true or false.  When Hindus use words like same or valid or equal or equally true or One, they are not suggesting Homogeneity.  Because of the metaphysical nature of essential claims of a religion, there is no way of ascertaining its truth or falsity.  Thus, one cannot be designated as truth and the rest designated as false."

Reference: All Religions Are: Equal? One? True? Same?: A Critical Examination of Some Formulations of the Neo-Hindu Position

Arvind Sharma

Philosophy East and West
Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 59-72
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press .."

Wadhwa adds:
"....

Commenting on western scholars' Vedic interpretation and particularly of 'ekam sad' (RV 1-164-46), Sri Aurobindo (in a chapter on Dayananda  and the Veda) writes:

 

"An interpretation of  Veda must stand or fall by its central conception of the Vedic religion and the amount of support given to it by the intrinsic evidence of the Veda itself.  Here Dayananda's view is quite clear, its foundation inexpugnable.   The Vedic hymns are chanted to the one Deity under many names which are used and even designed to express his qualities and powers. The Vedic rishis ought surely to have known something about their own religion, more,  let us hope than Roth or Max Muller and this is what they knew."

 

Sri Aurobindo further states "We are aware how modern scholars twist away from the evidence.  This hymn they say was a late production, this loftier idea which it expresses with so clear a force rose up somehow in the later Aryan mind or was borrowed by those ignorant fire-worshippers, sun-worshippers, sky-worshippers from their cultured and philosophic Dravidian enemies.  But throughout the Veda we have confirmatory hymns and expressions: Agni or Indra or another is expressly hymned as one with all the other gods.  Agni contains all other divine powers within himself, the Maruts are described as all the gods, one deity is addressed by the names of others as well as his own, or most commonly, he is given as Lord and King of the universe, attributes only appropriate to the Supreme Deity......"
 
February 15
NRI Experiences -- The way Hindus deal with Death
Venkat shares:
".... At Jeevodaya we assist terminally ill cancer patients die with dignity making their last days on earth as pleasant and pain free as possible

Hindus generally have a pretty awful way to farewell the dear departed following age old traditions that need a big over haul:

Yesterday 28th March 2008, I had to attend the Funeral of a good friend of mine.

Anthony[]..., was a maths teacher at a Girls
High School, was a great Rugby player when young and coached my sons Rugby team.

When I fell ill in the year ..., Tony stepped in unasked as Anand¹s God Father, took him under his wings and steered him through his ... Exams....

Soon after Tony was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer and ... the Cancer had spread to his brain and was terminal. Tony passed away on Easter Friday....
.....Over all the mourners gave a fitting farewell to a nice man. The Club members gave a guard of honour and sang in chorus
Considering I have lived in Sydney since ...., I have spent half my life in Australia and the first half in India, something was bugging me. Why can we Hindus not treat dead people with more love and respect ?
Driving back home my thought went fleeting back to the funeral I had to attend in February this year while I was in Madras. He was a relative of mine, ... and had had a grand life and died in his sleep.
Family members were told that the cremation would be in the morning. ....the body was moved outside the house and placed on the ground on the drive way. We all stood around while the professional cremator ( what ever you call him ) blew the Chonk and the Bugle ( for want of a
better word). He did this several times sending shivers down our spines.
I looked up at the sky and the apartments around the house. One by one curtains were drawn and windows closed shut to cut out the scary noise as well as keep the bad luck out of their houses.
The entire process was appalling, with the corpse being de robed and bathed and clad in a white cloth in the drive way. A make shift cloth curtain was used and ladies were asked to look the other way. His jewelry were removed
unceremoniously. Garlands were placed on the body and close relatives walked around the body thrice and before we even realised the body was carried away by pall bearers to the cemetery for cremation.
I am sitting here comparing the two funerals and keep wondering why in the name of religion we treat our dead in such an appalling manner. No one said a kind word about the man and there were no prayers offered by family and friends.
This is a non Brahmin funeral I am talking about and the Brahmin funerals are worse. The minute a man or a woman dies, the body is placed outside the house and within a matter of minutes the corpse is wrapped in a cloth and
placed on a bamboo frame and marched off.
If this bit is bad you must think of the appalling conditions at the cemetery or the new Indian crematoriums. Abandoned buildings in ruins that are filthy, operated by scavengers who ask for mourners for money for every
thing. On one occasion we had to wait there with the body for a few hours as there was some mix up and one of the furnaces malfunctioned.
NRIs I should say have made funerals respectable....I prefer the Christian way of farewelling dead people and am glad Hindu NRIs have adopted a similar style...."

Moderator's question:
"Below reference from Venkat is an interesting example of
ignorant Indian's using a really broad brush to paint Indic Antyeshti (funeral) traditions as 'bad'. Whether genuine or just a conversion ploy, it will rattle those Hindus who are unaware of the profoundly organic/existential & well
thought Samskaaras inherent in all Indic traditions, which have inspired almost all Asian civilizations to incorporate these frameworks into their practices.
I wonder what would members' response be to this Australian deracinated Hindu who prefers the Christian ways of bereavement practises." 

 

[Also refer to prior RMF threads on Vegetarianism here].
February 13
Vegetarianism is India's curse, it must be ditched
Srinath initiates the debate: 
This was first suggested by someone in the sixties, but the green revolution made such discussions moot. Hunger in India is more due to poverty or problems with food distribution than the non-availability of food, and so such "solutions" are unnecessary. Besides, no sensible person worth their salt would make such a statement today, with a much better understanding of the environmental effects of animal husbandry, the amount of grain that is currently diverted to cows for beef production in the West (especially the US), and the fact that world population could top 15 billion by the middle of the century or at least by the end of it. Most nutritional guidelines are advocating lowering the consumption of red meat rather than increasing, and so this article again misses the mark. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it's probably worth investigating the UK Independent newspaper's motivations....."

Rajiv comment: Farm land is more efficiently utilized to feed vegetarians than non-vegetarians. This is well established. From a given amount of acreage one can feed 3 to 5 times as many vegetarians as non-vegetarians. There are also studies on how non-vegetarianism costs environmental problems. If the argument raised by the opponent is based on economics and social well being, then we must respond in kind and not cite a moral response only. 

Deen says:

"1. Grass/leaves eating animals have long intestine and carnivorous animals have short intestine. Human beings have long intestine.
2. Grass/leaves eating animals drink water by sucking and carnivorous animals use their tongue for taking water in. Human beings drink by sucking/swallowing..."

Arihant says:

" In my honest opinion, Hindus are mostly cowards and vegetarian weaklings as well as spiritually corrupt by not following their Aryan Vedic forefathers or Aryaputras like Shri Ram, Maharaj Kaushik turned Brahmarishi Vishwamitra, King Shibi, Maharishi Agastya and so on. All of these great personalities used to hunt and eat animal flesh and were manly Seers and/or King-Warriors who
would strike into the hearts of their enemies. Greatest Vedic sacrifice Ashwamedha Yajna or Horse sacrifice for expansion of empires and political power demands sacrifice of the ceremonial horse or Ashwa into 36 pieces...."

Wadhwa provides Vedic and other Hindu text references to rebut prior posts:

"....Vedas and Vegetarian diet:

Atharva Veda says:

1. Breehimattam yavamattamatho maashamatho tilam

Esha vamm bhaago nihito ratnadheyaaya dantau maa hinsishtam pitaram maataram cha (Atharva Veda 6.140.2)

Abstract meaning: O Teeth! You eat rice, barley, gram and sesame.  These cereals are specifically meant for you.  DO NOT KILL THOSE WHO ARE CAPABLE OF BEING FATHERS AND MOTHERS.

2.  Anago hatya vai bheema kritye.  Maa no gaamashvam purusham vadheeh.(Atharva Veda 10.1.29)

Abstract meaning: It is definitely a great sin to kill innocents.  Do not kill our cows, horses and people....

....The Vedas do not at all sanction animal sacrifices.  The synonym for the Yajna in the Vedic lexicon called Nighantu is Adhvara.  The Word has been explained by Yaskacharya, an ancient vedic etymologist, as:

Adhvara eti yajyanam dhvarati hinsa karma tatpratished Nirukta 1.7 

Adhvara means where there is no violence of any kind (or the act which is perfectly non-violent).  This word(Adhvara) has been used in all the four Vedas hundreds of times clearly proving that the Vedas do not sanction animal sacrifices.  

In the Sam Veda-176,  too it is clearly stated - We  act according to the injunctions contained in the vedic hymns.  We never kill animals.

Meat-eating is not sanctioned by the Vedas.  On the other hand it is strongly condemned and prohibited.  Rig Veda 10.87.16  says....
 

Who then started such obnoxious practice of animal sacrifice?  Bhismacharya replies to Yudhishtra in Mahabharata (Shanti Parva - 261.9) "Dhortey pravriti  yajney naitadveydeshu vidyatey" i.e., Taking Wine, fish and flesh of animals, intoxicating drinks of various kinds, etc. is not sanctioned by the Vedas at all.  It is the wicked people that have introduced such ignoble practices. ....

In the Vedas the cows are called Aghanya i..e, which are never to be killed.  Ashvamedha means the proper administration of the State to promote or consolidate power of the State as is evident from Shatpatha Brahmana. 

Source:  "Teachings of the Vedas": An introduction by Pt.Dharma Dev Vidya Martand, pub.by Shree Ghudmal Prahaladkumar Arya Dharmarth Nyas, Hindaun City, Raj.

Swami Vidyanand Saraswati, (formerly Principal and Fellow Punjab University) writes while quoting Atharva Veda 1.16.4 "Capital punishment has been ordered for one who kills or tortures our cows or men, deserves to be shot dead, because such a person is a murderer(viraha).  How can we then conceive the killing of animals in any yajna which has been termed as the noblest act or 'shreshthatam karma' .  It has been generally held by western scholars and their zealous followers here, that horse were sacrificed as the Ashvamedha.  But the word Ashvamedha, during the Vedic period, was used in the sense of administration or welfare of the state(Rashtram va Ashvamedha -  Shatpatha 13-1-6).  ...

To support his argument in favour of  non-vegetarian diet Mr.Arihant in his mail has quoted Swami Vivekanand while conveniently ignoring the views of Maharishi Dayanand (1824-1883) who started a signature campaign against cow slaughter and sent a memorandum to Queen Victoria.  Maharishi Dayanand writes in his book Satyarth Prakash  "Neither we should kill, nor allow others to kill animals like cow, who in one generation does good to four lakhs seventy five thousand and six hundred people....

I can only say that anyone who looks at our vast ancient literature with an illogical, subjective and selective approach without taking into consideration its dominating spirit as well as the interpolated part shall neither be able to explode the myths nor find the gems of deeper Vedic truths..."

Viswa comments:

"....While I do not consider vegetarianism is a curse - rather it is a boon for a sustainable and an eco-friendly civilization (as we all know from recent years as to how much corn and soybean is being consumed in China to feed the pigs that are meant for human consumption - http://pigpenning.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/report-feeding-chinas-pigs/ ) -
my own time spent amongst the Ho-tribes in Chhotanagpur exposed me to a very astonishing and wonderful discovery.
Generally, the tribes do not eat beef or pork or even meat in general because of poverty. T heir poverty does not allow them to consume anything more than a chapatti or soaked rice... However, during times of celebrations / festivities - almost all of these festivities related to either agriculture or hunting - an entire tribe will consume a pig or cow or goat..." 

 

Thatte asks:
".... would like someone in this group shed some light on this issue of the Rishis and ancient Hindus eating meat, especially beef.Please note the verse 6.4.18 of  Brihadaranyaka  Upanisad.   Ramakrishna Math (Chennai) English translation of this shloka says,

" He who wishes, May a son be born to me, who will be a reputed scholar, attend assemblies, speak words that one likes to hear, be versed in all the Vedas and attain full longevity", should have rice cooked with meat .."

Chittaranjan responds to prior comment:
"...The translation of that Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mantra mentioned by you (6.4.18) is correct. But please note that this mantra relates to a ritual, i.e., the ritual of getting a son with certain characteristics, and is not to be
understood as a general prescription for people to follow in their day-to-day lives. In rituals, as in medicine, consuming meat that is prohibited otherwise may sometimes be allowed..." 

Sanjay responds to Arihant:
"...Arihant: Two greatest exponents of Yoga in 19th century universally recognized, first Swami Vevekanand and  secondly Evolutionary Yogi Sri Aurobindo both used to eat red- meat(goat meat or mutton), egg, chicken and fish. That did not stop  them from transcending all Gunas(modes of material nature) and  attain highest enlightenment in the history of evolution.

Not entirely true.  There was a time before his Self-realization when Sri Aurobindo gave up meat. He said : "With the vegetarian diet I was feeling light and pure. It is only a belief that one can't do without meat; it is a question of habit" (Evening Talks, vol 3, p 88)


Alberruni  the 11th century visitor to India offers a possible reason for why cow-eating was forbidden in ancient India.  This is the passage from the book

Alberuni: Some Hindus say that in the time before Bharata (i.e.Mahabharata war) it was allowed to eat the meat of cows, and that there then existed sacrifices part of which was the killing of cows. After that time, however, it had been forbidden on account of ...
.....As for the economical reason, we must keep in mind that the cow is the animal which serves man in travelling by carrying his loads, in agriculture in the works of ploughing and sowing, in the household by the milk and the product made thereof. Further, man makes use of its dung, and in winter-time even of its breath. Therefore it was forbidden to eat cow's meat; as also Alhajjaj forbade it, when people complained to him that Babylonia became more and more desert.
The text can be read online
(Edward Sachau. Alberuni's India. ....."

Vikram comments:
"...Tapan... maybe on to something although slightly reversed. It maybe that in places with plenty, people include it and in those places where its scarce, they turn vegetarian...
This would suggest ecological economics plays a very important part in the Hindu's Diet and therefore more sustainable than any other diet (even purely vegetarian ones). Its goes back to the point that the Hindu strives to reduce himsa and does not differentiate between plant/animals..."

Varun shares some useful links and statistics:
"....

Some good articles in favor of vegetarianism.

Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources - 

Meat-eaters soak up the world's water - 

Vegetarian Diet May be Necessary to Prevent Global Water and Food Shortage - 

13 Breathtaking Effects of Cutting Back on Meat - 

Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United States -

Some imp one-liners from these articles:

1. On average, it takes 1,790 litres of water to grow 1kg of wheat compared with 9,680 litres of water for 1kg of beef.

2. It takes more than 11 times as much fossil fuel to make one calorie from animal protein as it does to make one calorie from plant protein.

3. Excrement produced by chickens, pigs, and other farm animals: 16.6 billion tons per year -- more than a million pounds per second (that's 60 times as much as is produced by the world's human population -- farmed animals produce more waste in one day than the U.S. human population produces in 3 years). This excrement is a major cause of air and water pollution..."

Srinath comments:

"....Many Hindus are vegetarians today. Period! Whatever be the reason for that, vegetarianism is a noble practice and it is supported by well documented evidence of the inherent cruelty of animal husbandry, and the sheer inefficiency and environmental costs of using grain to feed animals that feed us. Just check out PETA's site if you don't believe me - now, if the fact that Westerners are advocating vegetarianism will not convince you, I don't know what will.

Thirdly, both Upanishadic truths and modern genetics tells us that we are all pretty much the same. Vegetarianism is fundamentally a recognition of this fact. We should be proud that Hindus came to this conclusion before the advance of genetics and PETA.

In summary, it is extremely unfortunate that Hindus cannot be proud of their vegetarian beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are supported by advances in science. How can then we accuse Westerners of not respecting us and our philosophy?..." 

Closing statements:
 
Rohit shares info on a vegetarian diet works for body builders

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/no-meat-muscle-4-rules-for-building-mass-on-vegetarian-diet.html

Read about Sitko, a vegan body builder ...

Menon (quoting from another egroup)

On Vegetarianism - Part-1 By Swami Sivananda

...
Sage Uddalaka instructs his son Svetaketu: "Food when consumed, becomes
threefold. The gross particles become the excrement, the middling ones flesh,
and the fine ones the mind. My child, when curd is churned, its fine particles
which rise upwards form butter. Thus, my child, when food is consumed, the fine
particles which rise upwards form the mind. Hence, verily, the mind is food".

Three Kinds of Diet

Diet is of three kinds, viz., Sattvic diet, Rajasic diet, and Tamasic diet. In
the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna says to Arjuna: "The food which is dear to each
is threefold. The food which increases vitality, energy, vigour, health, and joy
and which are delicious, bland, substantial, and agreeable are dear to the pure.
The passionate persons desire foods that are bitter, sour, saline, excessively
hot, pungent, dry, and burning, and which produce pain, grief, and disease. The
food which is stale, tasteless, putrid, rotten, and impure, is dear to the
Tamasic".

.... Fish, eggs, meat, salt, chillies, and asafoetida are Rajasic
food-stuffs; they excite passion and make the mind restless, unsteady, and
uncontrollable. Beef, wine, garlic, onions, and tobacco are Tamasic food-stuffs.
They exercise a very unwholesome influence on the human mind and fill it with
emotions of anger, darkness, and inertia.

Srinath:

....at least 4000 years of adherence to Sanatana Dharma have resulted in a significant proportion of Hindus who are vegetarian, and that today, this behavior is being accepted as healthier, nobler, and perhaps even necessary for mankind. To those who say that eating meat is their prerogative, I would simply say that many Hindus eat meat, and so this is not about converting those who will eat from doing so. We must all weigh the existing evidence and the call of our conscience.

....However, it is not only a moral issue, since it could develop into a serious resource/environmental issue. This could be especially troublesome in India where environmental laws are weak and enforcement is lax. ...However, these arguments are useful for the purposes of rebutting Western claptrap that animals are a protein resource that is being overlooked.

Lastly, I would like to suggest that in a culture in which vegetarianism is important, the importance of cows makes sense, since milk is an essential and necessary component of a Hindu vegetarian diet, and certain nutrients like vitamin B12 are not available in any significant amount in plants (besides the fact that milk is an important source of calcium, protein, and many other nutrients). But then why venerate cows and ban their slaughter? I would suggest that this is to ensure their humane treatment, since they are animals that are necessary for our food source and must be reared and tended. Seen in this light, cows are indeed Go-Maata as they provide needed and necessary nourishment, and if their veneration ensures their humane treatment, this is a good thing. To me at least, 4000 years of Hindu wisdom makes perfect sense and may even be finally getting acceptance today."

Krishnamurthy:          

I must also add that the word 'Ashwamedha' is wrognly interpreted as 'Horse Sacrifice'. The connotation of the word 'ashwa' is 'ashnute vyaapnoteeti ashwah'. [One who expands; or one who radiates]. The word 'medhaa ' is NOT sacrifice. The connotation is 'maatrashaH edhati anayaa iti medhaa" - [That by which one can determine exactly is Medhaa]. The famous 'Ashwamedhaa sukta' (Rik. 1-164), which is widely misinterpreted as 'Horse Sacrifice' neither mentions a horse nor describes a sacrifice. It is a sukta, wherein Dheerghatamaa Maharshi explains the science of Cosmos. Unfortunately most of the Commentators are not exposed to Science; and hence go astray. All these I have elaborated in my book 'The Science of Hinduism', pending publication.


5.  Shambhu  responds to Thattey's question

I have doubts on these translations.

BrihadaaraNyaka 6-4 deals with garbhaadaana and naamakaraNa.

Its five mantras 14-18 should be understood together - here RiSi Yaajnavalkya narrates the kinds of food to be taken by a couple desiring a son (mantras 14-16 and 18) or daughter (mantra 17) of Vedic learning.

In the context of the preceding four mantras, mantra 18's three words (maamsa, ukSaNa, and RSabha) can be connected to meat eating only with great fantasy. Moreover, the words ukSaNa and RSabha are in triteeyaa vibhakti (i.e., with/by ukSaNa, with/by RSabha). Lastly, the Rigvedic word for bull is ukSANa and not ukSaNa.

Therefore: maamsa here is the fleshy part or pulp of fruit. ukSaNa is sprinkling (of water), and RSabha is aumkaara. The word pra+ukSaNa (prokSaNa) is in use in many Indic languages even today, and its ritual usage is widespread in any purification ceremony (udakashaanti, puNyaaham, maarjana during the daily sandhyaavandanaa, etc.)...."