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

Please understand digestion!

This is another brief but important discussion on digestion initiated by Rajiv Malhotra in October 2013. Here is the link to the original thread on the forum. The forum has discussed this important issue several times, and you can find those forum discussions summarized via this search. What is remarkable about this particular post are the names named and specific instances of digestion with evidence provided. Question remains and must be asked: what do we as Indians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs do about this digestion and appropriation?

"This example is what digestion of advaita into Christianity does"
 Rajiv comments on this particular online article "Dharma in the Christian West" (working link thanks to Bhagwan) that on the surface appears to celebrate Hinduism in the west, but in reality, is yet another example of digestion.

"Most naive Hindus would go about celebrating that this Christian has shown great love for our tradition. It turns out that Father Keating (in the pic)

(link source: http://theinterfaithobserver.org)

is the prime digestor of maharishi Mahesh Yogi's TM and various other Hindu things into what he calls Christian Centering Prayer that has spread into a few hundred centers across. Plans are now to export it into India where it will become a rage among upper strata Anglicied Indians who will feel they are now sophisticated by adopting this American invention.

This is the sort of stuff in the book American Veda that has so many Indians jumping up and down in glee. Ditto with Lisa Miller's article and a hundred other examples.

Please understand digestion!!!"

Maria responds:
"... it is not surprising to meet parishioners in [Episcopal] congregation who attend yoga classes or belong to a Tibetan Buddhist sangha.". Then, neither real epicospalian, nor good yoga practiotioners, nor truely tibetans! Unfortunately, this is the tendency in the west, which is dragging or trying to drag the whole world with them.
.... what I clearly saw is the danger of this tendency....and the evidence of this digestion....so many wolves under the skin of lambs, as they say.... Most of the people are not aware of what they are doing by being so "fusion", but what it is behind this, I feel, is a "fishing of souls" (harvesting, like they say), but I would say fishing because they throw a fish hook, the hook of sameness, and fishes go running for it.

I found it dangerous because this way of presenting the things aims to/ and may attract to:

- hindus/dharmics with no very clear ideas and concepts in their minds: they can be brought to the "sameness" point. And from there to conversion, there is only one step.

- disappointed christians who have ran towards new-age movements looking for traces of sort-of spirituality

It is another threat different from the mainstream christians. But another threat, even more dangerous because of the "common points" that they squeeze to get from a barren land to present it as "see! we also have a profound philosophy!".

What to do? ... what about us, anonymous people, who don´t have any position of influence? "

Rajiv the follows up in a separate thread.
"It is important to be able to understand the celebration of digestion at work in writings such as this article from an influential interfaith journal, and other writings related to it. It praises Father Keating, but Keating has digested Transcendental Meditation into Christian Centering Prayer after he personally and his benedictine monks from Massachusetts learned TM from Maharishi in the 1970s. (I have a tape recording of Keating's speeches thanking Maharishi for teaching something not found in Christianity - thanks to a friend who was present at the time.) Now Keating's movement teaches it as core Christianity and the history of this is traced from a Christian text called "The cloud of unknowing" all the way back to Jesus.

The article then locates that "similar" things to Hindu non-dualism had already existed in certain medieval Christian mystics. But two key points are conveniently missed:

    First, these so-called Christian mystical teachings need a great deal of creativity for connecting the dots to make them non-dual without internal contradictions.

    Second, these obscure mystics were rejected by Christianity at their time and thereafter, and only recently got excavated after Hinduism's influence, and hoisted up as a way to dilute and digest Hinduism.

It then goes on to explain that "Jesus is the exemplar of non-dual consciousness", citing reinterpretations of the Bible to support the claim.

Please note that these are the stages of UTurns: From praise, to various degrees of digestion. This is why J. Krishnamurti has vanished from the scene as his ideas simply got digested. RK Mission in USA is largely consisting of old folks, because their meditation which had made them attractive to westerners some decades back is not digested into church sermons and programs thanks to people like Keating. Tantra is being digested into various forms of psychology and clinical therapy. Yoga become Christian Yoga. Vipassna becomes Mindfulness Meditation trademarked by jon-Kabat Zinn and turned into "Western medical breakthroughs". And so on - this is a very long list.

Here's what my own work has entailed:

The first frontier in the 1990s was to point out the blatant Hinduphobia that was/is in the academy/media. At first our very own Hindu leaders did not understand this or want to understand it, as it was disruptive and inconvenient to them. But under consistent pressure from the Hindu public, now there are many persons protesting against Hinduphobia, and its top advocates face opposition from Hindus unlike before.

The second frontier was sharpened in "Breaking India", namely, that India is being subverted systematically by a combination of forces that see its dharmic foundation as the problem to eliminate. Initially people told me this message was too sensational. I had to settle for a small, unknown publisher. But today it is a best-seller as people have made their own observations and realized that these things are indeed happening right now.

The third frontier was BEING DIFFERENT's message that there is something IRREDUCIBLY DIFFERENT we must recognize and not negotiate away, and that this is the foundation for any identity, education, interfaith work or public posturing.

Now we must tackle the fourth frontier: Here we have large numbers of our "leaders" going around promoting books, speakers, scholars, who praise Hinduism the way the tiger praises the deer he has invited to dinner. If you read the above article, its pro-digestion nuance should be clear though subtly presented. This article is meant to make people like us appreciate that the West has "adopted" the East - much like the pagan symbols, ideas, practices got adopted into Christianity. Full of praise for Hinduism's non-duality but also making clear that it is now becoming part and parcel of the Biblical history centrism."

Ashok asks:
"Am I the only one who gets anxious reading these messages?
Initially, I used to keenly await them and learned a lot. And I continue to do so. However, lately, I open these messages with some anxiety. The feeling of helplessness that one might feel while being swallowed up while paralysed but still conscious.
Is there nobody other than Rajivji fighting this? I'm sure the more learned in this group would know of what is being done to resist this digestion. If so, could we hear about some of that. For example, if there has been a response to this article, I would welcome seeing it..."

Rajiv comment:
"Thanks for your honest concerns. The fact is that most persons who feel they defend Hindu dharma are proud of being digested into the West. I dont want to name members here who invite and support authors and give funds to scholars who are in one of the following categories:
1) A digester
2) Praise other digesters, presenting it as "he loves Hinduism and took it to the West".
3) Understand the problem once I spend time to explain it to them. But WILL NOT FIGHT THE SYSTEM. I must end up doing the best I can to fight against mighty opponents.

Many of them in fact side with the other party in any dispute I might have..."

YB  adds: "RK Mission in USA is largely consisting of old folks, because their meditation which had made them attractive to westerners some decades back is not digested into church sermons and programs thanks to people like Keating." Should it read....."now digested......."

Rajiv comment: yes, thanks.
 

Did Devdutt Pattanaik Commit Plagiarism? : The Complete Discussion

Introduction

Thanks to Jitendra who found this (September 2012) youtube video of Mr. Pattanaik and forwarded it to the egroup after noting: "...The ideas he is talking about are striking similar to Rajiv Malhotra's ideas in 'Being Different' (BD)'s chapter #4 Order and Chaos...".




Jitendra subsequently wrote a blog that summarizes his findings and his communication with Mr. Pattanaik here. We summarize the discussion in the e-Group of Mr. Pattanaik's disappointing approach. His conflicting responses to Jitendra are pointed out by contributors here. In his 2009 video on a related topic, there's zero mention of  'Order & Chaos'.  Unconvincing claims of having/not-having read BD despite being sent a copy, but then later hiding under the umbrella of  'this is all well known prior work'.


Background
Read Chapter 4 of Rajiv Malhotra's book 'Being Different'.  BD's Table of Contents is listed here. You can search "Order and Chaos" by keyword in this site here. Here is a blogpost from early 2012 that discusses BD's chapter 4. Mr. Pattanaik previously featured in a February 2012 egroup discussion that is summarized here.  A YT video of the BD book discussion in 2011 around this topic is embedded below:




Rajiv's response:
"Mr. Pattanaik knows my work and was send BD as a gift by Ganesh[] in Mumbai. Mr. Pattanaik was invited for the book launch function to speak but did not accept.
I have since then become familiar with his work, and criticized it as facilitating digestion because he fails to emphasize differences that would cause him difference anxiety. I am glad [Jitendra] took the step he did in this thread. If you send out a tweet and include me, I shall retweet it for wider awareness. This needs to become more widely known."

Jitendra comments:
"I got following response [see his blog post] from Mr. Devdutt Pattanaik. It appears to me that he is avoiding to answer by saying "Sanatan does not have one source; western doctrines do". I replied back with question with Yes/No answer, lets see whether he is open to acknowledge "Order and Chaos" as Rajivji's work?.....

..... Received reply from Devdutt Pattanaik, He plainly rejected to give credit to Rajivji, citing he never read the book Being Different. It is shameful that he accepts that he was invited to BD launch, which implies he was aware of book BD and Rajiv Malhotra. After being shown that his speech has exactly same ideas that are present in Being Different book, he still refuse to acknowledge BD [Mr Pattanaik's response:

I have never read his book . So cannot credit him . Good he thinks like me and many other scholars who existed before both of us."

Discussion
 Karthik asks:
""Never read his book" eh?
Then how come in his earlier email Pattanaik criticizes Jitendra ji for not understanding "what Rajiv has been trying to explain so hard"? How does Pattanaik know what Rajiv ji has been trying to explain without ever having read his book? that Rajiv ji has been trying to explain without ever having read his book?.."

Priyadarshi asks:
" Isn't copyright violation/plagiarism itself very western (thus assimilated/digested) accusation? In Indian view it means 'popularizing' the idea. There is an anecdote that when Urdu poet Ghalib was passing by a brothel he heard his Nazm being sung by a Rakkassa (mistress). He went their and met her. She did not know Ghalib- or ever heard about him. But Ghalib was happy and later said that songs that reach such places will never perish..."

Rajiv responds:
"The comment posted [] is a common moronic position of many Indians. According to the same logic, getting digested is OK because resisting would be a "Western" idea of identity, ownership, etc. Any defense of identity is seen as a bad idea (a common postmodern moronic position that BD addresses explicitly in anticipation of this comment) thereby offering oneself as easy target.

Such ideas of dharma are nonsense.

You must know that a major dharmic principle explained in BD is CONTEXT. Dharma depends on what the context is.

If the context is that certain rules control the playing field, but these are not being applied equitably, then I must fight under those rules to get equal treatment. So dont mix up context...

It is moronic to say that:

- Kauravs and Pandavs need not fight because there is no "ownership" concept of kingdom, etc. in dharma. (Similarly, many morons used to argue against Indian freedom movement saying that according to dharma British were the same as us...)

- world is mithya so why bother...

- everything belongs to God so dont defend against any thief. Nothing is mine anyway.

- we are not supposed to see anyone as "other" because he is Brahman.

As illustrated below, urdu poetry and other intoxicants can be cited to make any point under the sun one wants to. That is never a way to argue logically. I can cite some poem to claim that [Priyadarshi] below does not own her house, car, degree, or anything else, and ought to hand these over to me. Right? That some poet somewhere in some context said something --is hardly proof that it is valid.

It is also incorrect and selective quoting to say that Indians always produced knowledge anonymously. This is untrue: Gaurapada, Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, Bhaskar, Patanjali, Panini, Bharthrahari, dharmakirti, chandrakirti, Haribhadra, etc. - and a few hundred other great thinkers - are well identified. This has enabled scholars to give concreteness to specific siddhantas linked to specific thinkers, and argue for/against them using the specific sources. Only a person unread in Indian thought can make the silly statement [] about indifference to authenticity of sources and disinterest in accuracy of presenting a given position. The tradition has emphasized rigor in citing one's sources (e.g. every Vedanta school cites brahmasutras and various commentaries on it very explicitly, NOT some mumbojumbo "generic" source.)

.... First [Priyadarshi] should donate everything [] owns to the general public before advocating the role model of sanyasa to others. Second,  [Priyadarshi] must convince Mr. Pattnaik to delete all copyright statements from all his own publications in the name of what [] considers to be "dharmic ethos"....

(BTW, Yesterday's IIT Mumbai event was fantastic like all my other events in Mumbai. The highlight was a debate with a woman from social sciences in the audience, preaching this kind of nonsense - all in the name of dalits, Kancha Ilaiah, etc. The students thoroughly enjoyed the thrashing she got in a long fight that she persisted in continuing, and things went from bad to worse for her. I hope they got this fully on the video, because it makes a great case of how we must inspire our youth by fighting such folks.) " 
 
Surya responds to Priyadarshi's position:
"Priyadarshi [] wrote:

'Rich has become richer, poorer has become poorer'- do we ever acknowledge Poet P B Shelley for turning this phrase (while writing a pamphlet on behalf of his Anarchist father-in-law William Godwin).

This is just a statement of Shelley, not a fundamental concept.  Contrast this to giving names of Newton, Kepler, Einstein, Boyle, Bose and Higgins etc.,

Point is not self glory but to ensure that the specific concepts introduced by these individuals do not morph over time as others influence these concepts.  Others can influence and modify them but they have to identify the original concept with the original author and the modified concept with the modified author.  This ensures that things do not get muddled.

The issue here is that digesti on works precisely by violating this - by removing the context and authorship and "secularizing" the idea and later morphing its original intent.

Proper identification of concepts is an issue of careful categorization and logic - Dharmic thought pays ample importance to them."

Jayant adds:

"....Its true that in India knowledge was free but any founder of knowledge has his name attached with it. Even if we look at Vedas we find each mantra has a rishis name attached to it who is the founder. Even other knowledge books like book on surgery as Sushruta samhita or ayurvedic book like charak samhita are named after their founders. So Rajivji  also has full authority to thesis he wrote. Whoever using his thesis should mentioned him whatsoever.  "

Ashok posts:

"...I suspect Mr Pattanaik would have felt privileged to acknowledge his source had it led to him quoting some well known 'western' thinker/philosopher, thus gaining by projecting that he is 'well read'. Shame on the [] Pattanaiks of this world for not acknowledging or propagating ideas of not needing to acknowlede their sources of information and ideas. It might surprise them about how much more effective it might be, in this particular regard, if they quote someone who their listener/reader might not have come across..."

Akshay remarks:

" Every now and then at least one intellectual Sepoy turns up to sermon (not preach ), ... So please post this [YT] link as response. Rajiv Malhotra talks about the Need for Hindu Identity"

Saket concurs with Rajiv's views on copyright:

"1. There is tradition among Indian authors to acknowledge orginal works and give due credt to the authors. For eg in Kautilya Arthashatrs Kautilys himself quotes many earlier Arthashatrs by Brahaspati, Manu, Kaunabdanta etc but adds his views not by demolishing them but but augmenting them. Same trend is seen in Panchatra where author recognizes older Niti Maters.

2. On names of Temple architects, my view is with newer findings it is now increasingly clear that Hindu history as we know today is a sham. We dont know why these names are not made available in public. I also came to know the Govt of India does not permit research in Hindu related topics in National Archives. Present notion that Hindus have writers/engineers have not left their signature is not acceptable. " 

Sayvari posts:

"I had another question regarding Devdutt's book on "Shiva To Shankara  - Decoding the Phallic symbaol" wherein the Bibliography contains amongst severeal
other authors references to O'Flaherty,Wendy Doniger trans, Hindu Myths...

Considering the tainted reputation of Wendy Doniger and now that of Devdutt should this book and others be considered a good read at all. Thanks.

Rajiv comment: Yes, he does mainly cut and paste and lacks deep embodied knowing. A charlatan with good PR and sponsorship from "mainstream" Hindus who
tend to be confused and "secularized"."

Rajiv next comments on the plethora of serious problems that come with plagiarism:

• Loss of authenticity because the source position gets erased and cannot serve as a foundation. We have pointed out how Pattnaik is digesting Hinduism into "generic spirituality" in many instances. He is especially reluctant to show differences that make the Abrahamic religions seem peculiar and deficient by comparison. This dilution/digestion is destructive. He seems like a good-cop.  We know where that leads.
• Leads to scattering rather than consolidation of a new, strong siddhanta like I am trying to build. Major thought systems - be they Marxism or Shankara's Advaita - have retained a core corpus or original works that are cited. Future thinkers may well disagree or try adaptations and extensions. But they always reference the original source to understand the overall system.
• Pattanaik clearly does not know the whole system. Citing isolated parts here and there is going to take us to a synthetic unity. He must understand that dharma's comfort with chaos is linked to integral unity and to adhyatma vidya. On the other hand,  the West's obsession with order is linked to synthetic unity and history-centrism. These are well explained in BD. So he cannot take one idea in isolation and claim to understand it. Its a whole system.
• Plagiarism is based on tamas. It encourages laziness as substitute for purushartha. Thats a bad example to set. We need to inspire more people to work hard in understanding our traditions, producing more original works.

Mulay shares more information:

"Plagiarism some how has embedded itself within the psyche of current generation Indians. I am sorry for this blanket statement however at a deeper level its true.

....Rajiv Malhotras work of course is an example of original research, we can very obviously see the resistance from sepoys and white supremacist. Similarly the work of Shrikant Talageri's RgVed Mitani research has been demonised by a well known American professor because they currently have the power to control the discourse and grand narrative.

Rajivjis work is the continued struggle to break ourselves free from this hegemony. Patanaiks plagiarism not only is lazy but I suspect a more sinister agenda here.

The people quoted in the references and the aforementioned professor who I wont name perhaps is trying to put Rajivjis seminal work as non innovation. They want to claim its not original this not worthy of the attention he deserves. Perhaps AAR was the moment where it clicked for those collective bone heads that- we cannot co opt Rajiv into our fold, we cant copy him either so why not prove him to be a heretic...

Pattanaik has to be challenged either person or in court because our Hindu Identity rests on us trying to defend what is rightfully ours. We cannot let someone like Pattanaik create these divergence.

Here is a video i found about mr pattanaik at TEDtalks 2009. As alluded to by [Jitendra], mr Pattanaik does not talk about order and chaos at all.

http://www.video.weforchrist.com/2012/03/23/devdutt-pattanaik-east-vs-west-the-myths-that-mystify/

[YT link]

He seems to be more impressed by Greek mythology than Indian Itihaas. All in all he surely looks like a sepoy to me.

I really hope there will be some harsh criticism for plagiarism..."

Rajiv Malhotra comments: 

Lets preempt more plagiarism by taking my ideas to the masses directly fast:

A major publisher in very interested in doing small books with me, each on a specific theme of mine. For instance, Order & Chaos could be the first title.

Each title will be 100 pages roughly. It will be light, easy. Lots of graphics/cartoons etc. This makes it east to follow. Some jokes added. A youthful flavor added in the "dialogues" between persons in some places.

Can someone refer me to graphic artists who do this? I worked with a graphic artist to develop the comics in Invading the Sacred which were very appreciated. But I lost track of him. I know how to direct this kind of effort and what I need is a solid graphic artist. 

Jayasimha posts:
For those wondering about the reference to Ms. O'Flaherty's (Wendy Doniger) book, here is an interview Mr. Pattanaik has done with her.

Rajiv responds:
"Amazing how Mr. Pattnaik promotes Doniger with such adoration, thereby paving the way for the advancement in India of her recent books on Hinduism.

Also, he is like a student learning from her about Indian "myths", how to interpret them, what Linga means, who is Ram, etc.

In my UTurn Theory, Stage-4 is distortion by Westerners. Stage-5 is when this distorted version gets re-exported back to India, where an eager group of Indian "good cops" are waiting to become franchise operators and do the distribution."


Balbir adds:
"I call this the 'theory of 'idea cycle' just like the' theory of
product cycle' in economics. ... 'idea cycle' hits the
head and could destroy the culture. There will always be individuals like that and we need to stay focused on bringing out the truth."

Rohit shares Devdutt Pattanaik's profile.

 
 

RMF Summary: Week of March 23 - 29, 2013

March 24 (continuing discussion)
Pope Francis calls for "respect" for all religions
Is it the first time that a pope said something like this? If true Rajivji's stand on mutual respect is accepted:Pope Francis calls for 'respect...

Tariyal comments: "... pope will never give equal respect to the Dharmic people. This is because of the fundamental dogma of Christianity that man is a born sinner and he or she can only be saved through Jesus Christ. Also the old testament forbids worshipping of false gods. To give equal respect to us will mean they would not be Christians any more. So an avowed Christian respecting our Dharmic traditions is an oxymoron. Cannot happen. Can only happen if the person will give up the core dogma, which means he or she is not a Christian anymore."

Alex responds: "Reg. [] Tariyal's following comments, I would like to, as a Christian respectfully offer the following comments:

"A true Christian especially a pope will never give equal respect to the Dharmic people."

While I do not know whether the new Pope is hypocritical or not when he spoke about respecting all faiths, but I do know that Dr. Tariyal is factually
incorrect when he says that a "true Christian will never give equal respect to the Dharmic people".

There are hundreds of millions of "true" Christians all over the world, who do take seriously the admonitions of Jesus of Nazareth to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" & "love thy neighbor as thyself". They are all required to give equal respect to followers of all faiths, Dharmic religions included.

.... Jesus was preaching to the Jews in the role of a Rabbi who was trying to reform the Jewish religion. He did not "establish" Christianity. His followers established that faith which got interpreted in many different ways and
generated many sects of Christianity, just as it happened in all religions including Sanatana Dharma.

.... Those statements of Dr. Tariyal, I submit are based on his own interpretation of Christianity. And, it is very unfortunate that Dr.Tariyal has been too quick to
generalize without perhaps having interacted with true followers of the tenets of Jesus who value more than anything, first, the golden rule of do unto others
as you would have them do unto you and second,to love thy neighbor as thyself.

Such Christians are in the millions and so are many millions in the Dharmic faiths who do not hold []Tariyal's views nor are they as vehement as he is in
asserting as to who is a Christian and who is not.

Belief in God is a deeply personal matter and respecting one's neighbor requires the humility not to be judgmental in proclaiming who is a true follower of one religion or another. That is best left to the believer and his or her
conscience.

Not withstanding Dr.Tariyal's assertion, I as a follower of the tenets of Jesus of Nazareth, do respect and love people of all faiths and I also respect and love those who profess no faith in God. ..."

Rajiv comment: ... So how do I recommend reconciling these views?

Though Tariyal ji means well, I find that most Hindus lack adequate understanding of Christianity, and hence they conflate too many things into simplistic categories. To be able to discuss with credibility in well-informed
forums, Hindus must learn the important differences among each of the following aspects of Christianity:

1) Jesus' own utterances.
2) Bible as a collection of utterances by many voices of which Jesus is just one. (This means Bible cannot be seen as shruti, but evaluated as smriti - like a purana perhaps.) Pls note that there are many persons who reject Bible as
literal word while worshiping Jesus.
3) Theologies formulated by numerous persons since Jesus onwards.
4) Belief systems of the Catholic Church.
5) Belief systems of the Eastern Orthodox Church. (Alex belongs here.)
6) Belief systems of the mainline Protestant Churches.
7) Belief systems of the non-mainline Protestants - pentacostals, mormons, etc.
8) Philosophies of numerous Christian rebels today, who in turn are also having many diverse views amongst themselves...

It is better to articulate an issue, and invite the other party to respond with a stand. Let each Christian thus be able to decide for himself where he stands.

In this spirit. I request Alex to inform us of his stand (which may have nothing to do with some institutional "Christianity" per se) on the Nicene Creed as it
relates to Hindu tenets. Specifically:
- does he accept it literally or metaphorically?
- what is the status of Hindu avataras, deities such as Shiva, Devi, etc?
- how does he see principles like karma-reincarnation?
- what is his position on conversions being done in India?"

Maria adds:
"Alex is right that there are millions of ‘respectful’ Christians who love Jesus and would never convert anyone. However, that is not the point.  Christianity and Islam (and each sect of them) claim that they are the only true faith. They indoctrinate their flock. Before each mentioning of “Catholic Church” in Germany, there was the prefix “alleinseligmachende”, which means “which can alone give salvation”. .....Most Christians at least in Europe, would not condone conversion; in fact, many do not even believe that conversion is still happening today.

The point is that the different Churches are on a conversion spree in India and probably in many other places, too. So if the Pope wants to give respect, he cannot possibly condone trying by hook and crook (that’s what happens) to convert Hindus. He would have to make an announcement to this effect if he was sincere..."



Alex responds to Rajiv:
"...my article on Proselytization in India which was subsequently published in Sulekha. Its link is provided below. .... recommend that they read the last page where I have sought the inclusion of a prohibition against Proselytization in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. The link below will answer the last item on your list, viz., my position on religious conversions in India.

... Reg. Nicene Creed, though my Church believes in the Nicene Creed (431 CE) I do not! The Church has every right to ex-communicate me if it chooses to do so for
that... But, there are far too many like me who do not subscribe to everything that the Church demands. I also do not believe as many others also do not, that the Bible is inerrant. Thank God, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not believe in the infallibility of their Patriarchs! For me, the Jefferson's Bible is quite sufficient for my understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

Reg. Hindu avatars, deities, Shiva, Devi etc…the way I understand avatars is that they are different manifestations of the transcendent God...

For me, Shiva is the Supreme God of Shaivites, also called Mahadeva. Devi (if you mean Shiva's consort Parvati) is the Supreme manifestation of Shakti which
showers unconditional love on all her children. Interestingly, in the Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the Holy Spirit is called Shekinah (feminine) as is the case in Judaism. Shekinah is also endowed with the power of showering unconditional love on all of `creation".

Reg. Karma, I do not see any contradiction between that concept in Sanatana Dharma and orthodox Christianity. For e.g., In Galatians (6:7) it is stated that "For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap". I also believe that one does not have to wait for the next birth to reap the outcomes of one's action.

Reg. Reincarnation, there is some evidence in the Bible, that the Jews also believed in reincarnation. For e.g. In Matthew 11:14, Jesus speculated that John the Baptist could be Elijah, the Old Testament prophet reincarnated! In John 9:2, some disciples of Jesus brought a blind man to be healed by Jesus and asked Jesus, "whose sin is this, this man's or his parent's?" I tend to believe in both more than I reject them outright. But, in my Eastern Orthodox Church, both Karma and Reincarnation are not accepted.

..While all religions preach that in one form or another, it is unfortunate that both the golden rule of treating others as you would like to be treated and being a true and loving neighbor are both breached more often than they are followed. ... I am an American of Christian faith and
a Hindu by culture. That self-identification is my privilege and not of the Church or any one else for that matter."

Rajiv comment: I am glad Alex accepted the invite to respond to questions. This egroup should be a forum for respectful discussions even when we disagree. Let
us maintain that tone and continue the thread. "

Maria asks Alex:

"... intrigued why you still identify as a Christian, even though you (like me) fall clearly into the ‘heretics’ category and if we had lived a few centuries earlier, our lives would have been in danger. I may oversimplify again (my forte, Rajivji), but in my view whatever is good and helpful in Christianity is there already since long in Hindu Dharma (and there is even much much more that is helpful) and what is bad and divisive in Christianity, both of us have rejected. But since there is no pick and choose option in Christianity, both of us are basically not Christians anymore.

... could you imagine considering yourself a Hindu by culture who has Jesus as his Ishta devata? Keeping all songs, prayers, rituals, but considering him as one among many different ‘ways’ that can lead to the truth? ...."

Alex answers:

".....there is no religion that has all its followers adhering to everything that religions demand or their "dogmas" dictate. Sanatana Dharma is no exception to this.

All faiths, including Christianity and its different denominations have their own "dogmas". ... rational human beings think for themselves as to what is sensible and what is not for them to maintain their relationship with their understanding of "God".

In fact, I know that even among Christians (as in other faiths) there are agnostics who still go to their places of worship for social reasons or as an "insurance" against their "wrong bets"! ...

Do all Sanatana Dharmis, be they Shaivites, Vaishnavites, Lingayats, or whatever, do they follow all of their respective "creedal" requirements? No, they do not. If one were to apply your logic, they should not consider themselves Sanatana Dharmis. (I make a distinction between Hinduism which is a culture of the Indian subcontinent and Sanatana Dharma which is the religion of the large majority of the people of the Indian subcontinent.)

I would also venture to say that the large majority of most of the World's Religions do not follow everything that their respective religions proclaim as their "dogmas". As to your assertion, that there is no "pick and choose" option in Christianity, I submit that you are in error, that is if you have observed the behavior of "practicing Christians". For example, this is the season of Lent. Do you really believe that all "practicing" Christians observe fasting and or avoid eating meat, fish etc?

Finally, why I remain a Christian you ask... I find that the more I read Advaita Vedanta, the more congruence I find between the seminal sayings of Jesus and what I find in Vedanta. I see my religious identity and other identities as "my" labels and I see no reason to change any of them: I am an Indian by birth, American by naturalization, Christian by faith and Hindu by culture. ... I am not ashamed of any of my identities, nor will I ever consider courteous for anyone else to define the "purity" of my faith or challenge the legitimacy of any of my identities since I have earned them all by legitimate and rational means. ..." 

tvikhanas asks Alex:

" 1. You admit that Bible is fallible but at the same time you feel compelled to see traces of karma and reincarnation in Bible (a position contradicting the
official position). Why do you feel the need to find these ideas in Bible?

2. You say you are culturally a Hindu. What does it translate to in practice? How do we prevent main stream predatory churches from using that as a shield for
inculturation?

3. Is it even possible to separate Hindu thought into "cultural" and "religious" buckets? These concepts like "secularism" evolved in an different milleu and cannot be applied so easily to India. As an organically evolving entity, every aspect of Indic "culture" is tied to "religion"; there is no clean demarcation.
Thus, the reason for putting bindi/tilak is not merely cultural or fashion.

4. Through the examples of narrow minded Hindus you claim that even the so called followers of Dharma are not really following it and that one can follow Dharma even though one doesn't belong to the traditional schools. This I think every true follower of Dharma will grant: there are no clubs to belong to be "dharmic". But the reverse is not true. If you belong to some clubs you will be
prevented from following (or at least it will be very hard) Dharma. ...Does that bother you?

5. As you pointed out there are narrow minded individuals among Hindus as well and as you say that's human nature. The question is are these lower impulses
empowered by the religion. In case of Hinduism there is no sanction for them. There is no main stream text or acharya that sanctions narrow minded sectarianism and vast majority freely visit all temples. The same is not true
for Christianity and Islam which explicitly exploit the lowest fears & drives in their quest for domination. And the fruits of these religions can be seen in their core followers. " 

Surya responds to Alex:

"...You most certainly do not have to justify your faith to anyone. You do not have to justify or feel compelled to explain and defend your faith in Jesus as your savior. It is entirely your choice and you choice will be respected on this board because you have respected the freedom and
choice of those who follow Dharma traditions. That is the only way for mutual respect.

You see the sad predicament though. When you take proselytization and digestion out, there is no need to fight, be on the offensive. Restraint in your comments as you fend off attacks shows that.

Dharma traditions face the same. Unfortunately, the digesting or proselytizing religions (or sects) do not relent. They see the failure of the other side to respond as an opportunity to go for a kill. To be clear, digestion also exists in the secular variant of Western Universalism which is focused on hegemony and civilizational intolerance. Proselytization and digestion are offensive,
intolerant, and disrespectful.

.....Unfortunately, many Christians of Indian descent are becoming increasingly this way too. Hopefully, forum members read your comments and see you in a different light." 

Rajiv responds:

"I agree with Surya below that we should close this thread and it has served a good purpose. My own conclusions are:
- Alex is not required to defend all Christians or the Church, when he has already written extensively against proselytizing. When a man distances himself from some institution, its silly asking him to defend that institution or blame him for the conduct of other members.
- Given the above, he is only explaining his own PERSONAL faith, and the rest is rendered irrelevant.
- We need to encourage more Christians to be like him, i.e. challenge from within that system of belief.
- Asking him to become like us means having one less Christian ally and just one more Hindu.
- Having said all this, I want to now clarify: Alex's "sameness" is from Christianity leading towards Hinduism. I WOULD NOT ENCOURAGE THE REVERSE DIRECTION, I.E. WHERE HINDUS ADVOCATE SAMENESS TOWARDS CHRISTIANITY. Yes, this is a double standard but I am prepared to defend it. While Christians are well
grounded in identity based on history-centrism, most Hindus are confused/morons. Therefore, advocating sameness is ill-advised now. Playing the game of diplomacy towards other faiths requires expertise that is well over the heads of most Hindus, incl most Hindu leaders. So its best avoided until we first achieve a
much higher standard of identity formation. That is the goal for BD to initiate." 

Arun comments:

"In the spirit of Being Different, we would recognize and appreciate the many strains of Christianity, and know that some of them do live with mutual respect with us; and some of them don't. (This is a matter of lived experience, and not a matter that can be decided by theory.)

Further, we do not grant the followers of the intolerant varieties of Christianity the power to decide "who is a true Christian"? They can make their judgment, we are not obliged to accept it.

Incidentally, we make the same mistake with Islam - we implicitly or explicitly agree with the fundamentalists that they own the definition of "who is a true Muslim? " .." 

Anantha asks:

"I've heard a lot of people say "I'm culturally Hindu but Christian by religion". However, it strikes me as extremely telling that I have never heard anyone say "I'm culturally Christian but Hindu by religion". ... is it indeed possible to be "Christian by culture and Hindu by religion"? If yes, then what does living such a life entail?" 

Surya responds to Anantha's question:

"Rajivji's concepts of integral and synthetic unity explain your questions.

For Dharma traditions culture is not separate from their traditions.  Much has been written on this forum on how music, dance, and other art forms are integral to Dharma traditions. Thus, one cannot separate "religion" from "culture" with Dharma traditions.  A Hindu is confused to hear such statements because, even unknowingly, such integral unity is deep rooted.   

Ravi Zachariah, a Christian apologist, said that when other religions were absorbed into Christianity only their culture was retained in Christianity.  He uses this to explain to new converts to drop their "religion" but keep the culture if they want.  Rajivji calls this synthetic unity which could be for any number of reasons including opportunistic maneuvering.  In India, this is going on in the name of inculturation.

Rajivji explains that inculturation of integral aspects of Dharma is really digestion.  Digestion has happened before.  Pagan religions disappeared but the "Christmas tree" has been digested and still survives.

Rajivji has explained as "Himsa" when something integral such as Bharatanatyam is being separated out and treated as secular art form.  A Hindu is flabbergasted to see Jesus mudras in Bharatanatyam not because Christianity will gain social acceptance but because what is integral to Dharma has  been split asunder."

 

Venkat notes:

"This seems to a case of moderate peaceful Christians vs fundamentalist conversion prone Christians, in this case also good cop vs bad cop.

In India at least, we seldom hear the voices of such moderate peaceful Christians talking against conversions, let alone against the fundamentalists and the harm they are doing to society..."

 

Rajiv comment: Agreed.

So can we encourage some good cops to break ranks and publicly turn hostile against the proselytizing bad cops? I have seen Alex do just that since the past 2 decades.

This INTERNAL dissent from within Christianity is helpful to us, and we must encourage this. We are not strong enough in the kurukshetra by ourselves to fight the might of well-entrenched powerful nexuses, and we do need allies. "

 

Wadhwa asks:

".... I would also like to know  stand of Mr.Alex on the following point: 

 

"Shall mere faith in Christ lead to canceling  or negating  ones sins or bad karmas"? 

 

Here I would like to add that in a 3 day debate between Swami Dayanand Saraswati and  Dr.T.J. Scott(a Christian missionary), in August 1879, at Barilly one of the subjects discussed was: 'Can sins be pardoned through Grace or repentence?'  The stand of Swamji was that mere faith in Christ cannot help any one in undoing the effect of ones sins or bad karmas. He said that inevitably, every one gets punishment or reward as per each  deed or karma."

 

Alex responds:

"As to your question reg. "mere faith in Christ alone lead to canceling one's sins/karma etc".

My answer is NO. And, I believe that I can find you support in the New Testament (see: James 2:20., "O vain man, faith without works is dead".) But, please read
the verses above to get the context of my assertion.

I will hasten to add that there are passages elsewhere in the Bible where faith alone will suffice!

In the scriptures of all the world's major faiths, one can find contradictions in texts and the beliefs of its followers. Sanatana Dharma is no exception to this.

May I ask you two questions to highlight this point: 1)why do millions of followers of Sanatana Dharma dip in the Ganges River during Kumbh Mela and believe that by doing so their sins will be forgiven and at least some of their bad karma can be wiped out?

2) Why does the most pluralistic of all faiths that I know and admire greatly (Sanatana Dharma)have sects like Lingayats who shun Krishna/Vishnu and Ayyangars
who shun the worship of Shiva? In my neighborhood, I was glad to see the construction of a Shiva-Vishnu temple, but soon after its construction,the south
Indians Shaivites split off and constructed a Murugan Temple (brother of Ganesh) within the stone throw of the Shiva-Vishnu temple!

All faiths have human failings being superimposed on their respective belief systems. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it is counter-productive to throw stones at the belief systems of others. Worse still is the penchant of some to judge others as to who is a true Christian, true Muslim or true follower of Sanatana Dharma. A fully evolved follower of any faith will know that it is the
height of ignorance to judge another person's purity of faith.

Unlike others who are ridden with "avidya" I would dare not brand or call them as being not "true followers" of Sanatana Dharma because my common code of ethics (not just my faith) has taught me not to judge another's faith or lack of it. If you have the time, please answer my question. Thanks." 

Tariyal responds:

"I agree with the comments of Alex. However, he is defining Christians in his own convenient way. As a follower of teaching of Christ he is correct that millions of people may follow what he follows as a person, and he has elected to call himself a Christian. However, the meaning of Christian as defined by the current Churches, be it Catholic or the various Protestant ones requires that the person believe in the central dogma of Christianity....

.. In summary I do not disagree with the basic sense of Comments by Alex, but I define a true Christian as a follower of the accepted Christian Dogma. And with that Caveat I stand by my comments."

 

Alex responds:

".... The Baptists, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah's witnesses, Church of Christ, & Seventh Day Adventists do not accept the Nicene Creed. A few of these sects do not believe in the Trinity as well. They also call themselves Christians.

Majority of Eastern Orthodox scholars accept inclusivism. While holding the view to the centrality of Christ for themselves,they acknowledge that salvation
can be found outside of Christianity. And, I must add that they do not proselytize.

Contrary to your assertion, there is no accepted dogma to subscribe to for anyone to call himself/herself as a true Christian. It is between the follower of that faith and his conscience to determine as to whether he or she is being
true to his/her ishta Devata.

I would never ever dare to judge you or assert that you are not behaving as a true follower of Sanatana Dharma because of your expressed eagerness to judge
others like me, since that can be construed as due to avidya, a common failing of the human condition brought about by one's inability to subordinate one's ego.

..... By the way, if you would google the World Council of Churches (WCC), and query "salvification outside the church" you will be surprised to find that there are many other Christian sects (besides mine) which concede that there are indeed other faith systems by which a human being can find salvation. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church is not yet a full member of the WCC. Hope Pope Francis will join that organization which also has come out against proselytization, but not to the extent that I would like WCC to do...." 

March 25
Saket asks: In Hindu traditions the practice is to cremate the body after death. However I have observed that when a human is less than one year old that is navjat , in Hindu traditions he is buried.  Can someone highlight why this minor exception is made in case of navjat?  

Devendra responds:

"Hindu traditions do have reasons behind their rituals. Death ceremony is also considered an important ritual. One reason behind burial of a child,as opposed to cremation,upon his death is that he has not yet developed attachment to his body,so there is no need to destroy it by cremation..."

Vishwa adds:

"Do note that the pre-Vedic Indus Valley civilization had many burial grounds. Burial was quite a common practice in that civilization." 

KK comments:

"For infants and Sanyasis and Saints, there is no unfulfilled/pending Karma that might attract the 'Jeeva' to hover around the dead body, hence no harm in burying. In the case of Sant-Mahaatmaas, even their 'dead' body helps the followers by inspiring duty/devotion.

For all others, merging with Pancha Bhootas/the last Yaaga is one thing as also the possibility that if they are unable to let go of their Naama-Roopa even after physical death burning on a pyre might ensure an easier onward journey.....nothing to 'go back to'
Pregnant women are also not cremated,... " 

Ashok adds: "......perhaps we ought to look at ourselves a bit to see why is it that Hindus convert. Could it be that we do treat some if our own less favourably and they do not feel supported?

As Rajiv ji has earlier pointed out, there are two levels of religion. One consists of those like me who just practice it (and are the vast majority, the followers) and those that deal with it at a higher level and are in a position to discuss issues with their counterparts in other religions. These would be our Akhara leaders, our saints, our Shankaracharyas and our intellectuals like Rajiv ji. As a 'follower' I would only interact with 'followers' of other religions. Anyway, coming back to the point, today I feel betrayed by those in power in my own religion. And I am neither the oppressed nor financially challenged. 

Perhaps we need to look at ourselves and discuss ways of supporting our oppressed brethren in addition to of course supporting our intellectuals with our voice thoughts,minds and pockets. "

[there are some personal and poignant discussions here that are left out].

 

 

March 27

Interesting paper questioning Western Universalism in Psychology
Alakshendra shares: I just came across this interesting paper which states that broad claims about human psychology and behaviour based on narrow samples from Western societies are regularly published and questions the practise. It makes a very interesting read. Specially the term WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) used for the folks of the west ...

Below is a part of the paper which you might like:
************************************
Research in moral psychology also indicates that non-Western adults and Western religious conservatives rely on a wider range of moral principles than amorality of justice ..... In sum,the high,secular Western populations that have been the primary target of study thus far appear unusual in a global context, based on their peculiar reliance on a single foundation for moral reasoning (based on justice and individual rights).
************************************

The paper also describes the commonalities and the nuances of American from the rest of the west"

Rajiv adds: "A great bit of research that illustrates how Western Universalism (in this case in the field of psychology and ethics) has been wrongfully imposed upon other cultures. It is amazing how many "eminent" Indian psychologists have adopted such WU ideas."

 

March 27

video of padre casper raj who is seen in every riot out of TN.
Chandra shares: video of padre casper raj who is seen in every riot out of TN. Embroiled in 2G scam too. Should Lankan players be made hostage to politics? ...