Ignorant Hindu leaders invite Rambachan to represent Hinduism

Have they read Indra's Net?
March 2015

The attached invite:


for a May debate between Hinduism and Catholicism features Anantanand Rambachan representing the Hindus.

But he is the same person featured in my book Indra's Net as espousing the thesis of Neo-Hinduism, according to which modern Hinduism is:

• An artificial construction done by Vivekananda
• Is incompatible with vedanta. 
• Was done by Vivekananda because of his inferiority complex from the West. 
• This modern Hinduism is based on appropriating critical elements from Christianity. 
• Hence it is more properly called Neo-Hinduism. 

He is positioned as a leader in the academy spreading this Neo-Hinduism thesis. He is also the official (honorary) Hindu appointed by the Vatican. Can he speak for both sides?

For the record: He is probably a good human being on a personal level, and this is not any ad hominem against him personally. But his life work (from his PhD onwards) has been on this thesis that creates internal conflicts within Hinduism, especially between Shankara and Vivekananda.

I have said that such internal debates have always been there, but there is not in our best interest to go to vatican and educate them and other anti-Hindu academics on how to defeat Hinduism. Rambachan has supplied the arguments being used to undermine the legitimacy of modern hinduism.

The Washington DC Hindu leaders doing this are known to me and support my work. They ought to have organized a debate in which Hinduism is represented by someone else. Encouraging a scholar who speaks from both sides is a bad idea.

Rambachan also has said many great things about Hinduism. He criticizes evangelism, for instance. But many Jesuits also criticize proselytizing. The Good Cop face does not offset the damage done by the Bad Cop side of the same person.

These Hindu leaders are unaware of the strategy of the College of Catholic Bishops in having such "interfaith" events. The poster talkes of promoting "common interests" - but do you know what these are? It is the digestion of Hinduism.

I just want to put this on the record for people to ponder. I come across such half baked Hindu leadership all over India, USA, etc. Am I wasting my life?


Rajiv ji followed up after his India trip with this additional comment:

For an honest debate, there cannot be a conflict of interest between the debaters. Rambachan has worked for the Vatican's interfaith organization as their official Hindu face. How can he be "our" representative? Its like allowing the opposing cricket team to appoint our captain. He has been extremely cozy with Francis Clooney for decades, and now these two men will pretend they are really debating "against" each other?

Why cant the Vatican debate with me, for instance? What did Sant ji learn by watching my recent debate in Houston with a prominent Christian theologian? Was Rambachan selected based on any such prior experience in public?

Secondly, the debate Rambachan must be invited ought to be on his Neo-Hinduism thesis. Instead, this setup proposed in DC will hide that side of his work, and let his Neo-Hinduism go on. That would be a way to detract away from my Indra's Net book.

My sense is that this move is Vatican's way to protect their "Hindu asset". They want to restore his credibility among Hindus.

RISA's Token Hindus

This thread encapsulates the continuous attempts made by a section of the Western Academia to interpret, appropriate in ways that are convenient to them, ideas and developments that happen in the Hindu fold. They typically employ a reductive Western lens to analyze and 'deconstruct' events happening in the Dharmic world. Furthermore, they also act as gatekeepers, by not letting in the voices of practicing Hindus, and more importantly, any dissenting Dharmic. For example, the so-called 'RISA list' is barred to any practicing Dharmic who disagrees with this fabricated consensus, as Rajiv Malhotra does. Hence a person practicing dharma and coming from it is deprived of a seat at their own table where ostensibly, the freedom of speech is championed. On the other hand, we observe that token Hindus who are 'useful' for furthering this cause of western universalism are indeed welcomed at the table, and is one of the key talking points of this post.

A RISA list mail from Fred Smith was shared by Indrani:

Several people have asked me off list to compile the sources reported and to summarize the very preliminary findings from my question last week regarding an apparent convergence between followers of Vivekananda, even Gandhi, and the RSS.  I regarded these three as strangely matched bedfellows and wondered how to interpret it, if indeed my observations are valid at all. What I discovered is that Vivekananda, and even Gandhi, have been gradually appropriated into the culture of the RSS, and that this has been building for many decades. Also, however, mediate forces have emerged to both facilitate and transform this image. I was not aware, for example, that the well-known monument to Vivekananda found at the southern tip of India, at Kanyakumari, was constructed by the RSS in the late 1960s. (I visited it many decades ago and was not at that time aware of the politics involved in its construction.) For this and the activities of the Vivekananda Kendra regarding yoga, see Gwilym Beckerlegge, “Eknath Ranade, Gurus, and Jivanvratis: The Vivekananda Kendra’s Promotion of the “Yoga Way of Life,”in Mark Singleton Ellen Goldberg, Gurus of Modern Yoga, pp. 317-350 (OUP 2013). In addition to the citation in my original posting of the piece by Pralay Kanungo, seee his “Fusing the Ideals of the Math with the Ideology of the Sangh? Vivekananda Kendra, Ecumenical Hinduism, and Hindu Nationalism,” in Public Hinduisms, ed.  John Zavos, et al. pp. 119-140 (Sage, 2012). This excellent volume is worth our attention.

I am also struck by the way new but mediate ideologies are influencing the body politic and sectarian affiliations. An example is the influence of Lingayat gurus in Karnataka who seem to draw from both sides, from their own space in the middle, as well as from local political arrangements. For this, see Aya Ikegame, “The governing guru: Hindu mathas in liberalizing India,” in Jacob copeman and Aya Ikegame, The Guru in South Asia: New Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 46-63 (Routledge 2012). Her work is well worth following. I suspect that local configurations and affiliations are present in many states in India that most of us are unaware of.

John Cort reminded us of the posters and hoardings of a muscular macho Vivekananda in Gujarat as recently as this year, used as props by the BJP. Consistent with this, Adam Bowled noted, is a report in the Hindustan Times “that the BJP government in Haryana has appointed Dinanath Batra to guide a committee of educationists in Haryana. The accompanying photo shows Dinanath Batra in an (his?) office with a statue of Vivekananda in the foreground.” http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rss-ideologue-dinanath-batra-to-guide-haryana-on-education/article1-1285430.aspx

Robert Zydenbos suggested we look at “an in-depth chapter on Vivekananda” in Hans-Joachim Klimkeit's _Der politische Hinduismus_ (Harrassowitz, 1981), which, Robert says, “is still the standard work in German on the subject.” Robert also suggests that Vivekananda’s appearance at the Chicago Parliament of Religions in 1893 has been overplayed by Hindu nationalists, at least from the European perspective. OK, go ahead, blame America :-)

I agree with Pankaj Jain and everyone else that it’s not a good idea for scholars to reduce Gandhi or Vivekananda to any political agenda. Jeff Long emphasizes this point: “We need to be careful to distinguish between these uses and the self-understandings of these figures in their respective contexts.” Nevertheless, such noble aspirations have not prevented these appropriations from becoming a regular feature of political practice in India. I agree that the search for a new indigenous hermeneutic and epistemology is a worthy endeavor, but the primary thrust of the efforts I have encountered are preoccupied with rejectionist discourse coupled with the use of highly selective evidence with which to build their theories, compounded with insufficient deep knowledge of both texts and the history of intellectual debate in India (for the latter, see the vigorous and readable work of Larry McCrea).

Several people on and off-list brought to my attention Jyotimaya Sharma’s recent book A Restatement of Religion: Swami Vivekananda and the Making of Hindu Nationalism (Yale University Press, 2013). but James Madaio does not believe that Sharma has adequately addressed how the right has “diachronically appropriated figures like Vivekananda into their rhetoric and 'mediascapes',” even as he demythologizes Vivekananda and neo-Vedantic inclusivism. Madaio notes, perceptively: “It does not seem a coincidence that the (often impassioned) issue of who Vivekananda was is anachronistically caught up in the right's (selective) appropriation of him and, in turn, the left's intellectual critique.”

Jon Keune mentioned the common ground between Gandhi and Hindutva. For this, see Arundhati Roy's introduction to the annotated edition of Ambedkar's annihilation of caste:

http://www.amazon.com/Annihilation-Caste-Annotated-B-R-Ambedkar/dp/1781688311/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415811796&sr=1-1&keywords=arundhati+roy+ambedkar

Also: http://www.outlookindia.com/article/We-Need-AmbedkarNow-Urgently/289691

Amod Lele refers us to his master's thesis on the rise of state-sponsored Hindutva with Singapore's Confucian experiments:https://bu.digication.com/amod_lele/International_development

and his article, "State Hindutva and Singapore Confucianism as responses to the decline of the welfare state,” in Asian Studies Review 28 (2004): 267-82.

Other sources that list members noted were:

Joe Alter’s Gandhi’s Body and his many works on yoga and Indian masculinity;

chapters 3 4 of Peter van der Veer’s Imperial Encounters, in which he discusses Vivekananda’s rejection of muscular Christianity even if muscular Hinduism developed later;

Arafaat Valiani’s work on Gandhi, masculinity, and performative politics in Gujarat, Militant Publics in India: Physical Culture and Violence in the Making of a Modern Polity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011);

Anup Kumar points out that in spite of the high profile of the hard edge of Hindu nationalism, most Hindus still identify with a softer, gentler Hinduism, and that “we are dealing with our own cognitive dissonance in face of the renewed focus on Gandhi by the BJP.” Similarly, Raymond Williams reminds us that in the early decades of Indian immigration to the U.S., Vivekananda was extolled as the Indian spiritual exemplar countering western materialism. How times have changed!!

Finally, and most recently, this from the NYTimes a few days ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opinion/a-fighter-for-religious-tolerance.html?mabReward=RI%3A5&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

Rajiv's reply to this was thus:

• Fred Smith is well known in Hinduism studies, and I have had many dealings with him and his students/cabal over 2 decades. I will give some background so readers have a context for what he says above. (This perspective I can offer is an example of "getting out of my comfort zone" numerous times.)
• His position above is what Indra's Net criticizes as the Neo-Hinduism theory of Hinduism - i.e. looking for evidence to depict modern Hinduism as a political fabrication by Vivekananda, Gandhi, etc. to unite Indians against Brits, which later fell into the hands of the Hindutva to use against Muslims minorities.
• If he were a good scholar, he would refer to my book and its counter arguments, and address my issues directly. But he cannot face that, so he simply ignores IN. He mentions various experts who I have already dealt with and criticized. So he gives a one sided view.
• Robert Zydenbos, Gwilym Beckerlegge, Mark Singleton, Ellen Goldberg, Amod Lele - these persons he cites are especially nasty anti-Hindu persons I have dealt with before.
• Pankaj Jain (named by him) was my follower/supporter for years; told me he got inspired by my work to leave IT and enter a career in Hinduism studies; got my help to enter Columhia U's MA program; got much mentoring my to understand the issues. But once he went for his PhD to Univ. of Iowa, where Fred Smith rules, he flipped sides completely - I was to be avoided in order to suck up to Smith cohorts. Upon entering the job market as a junior prof, he realized he was a nobody; so he started lobbying with the Hindu diaspora for support to boost his career. Many knew him from the earlier days, and stayed away, seeing him  as untrustworthy. But several went around campaigning for him seeing him as a goody-goody face to help us. Eventually most of these supporters also left him, and now he is sitting in a corner of the kurukshetra with nothing important to say. Neither here nor there - inconsequential.
• Pankaj and Jeff Long are cited by Smith to make it seem he has also mentioned the "Hindu side" and hence he is balanced. But neither is strong enough or creative enough, so they are "useful" to serve in this role.
• On Jeff Long, I refer you to three urls where we had prior discussions on him, right here:
• http://beingdifferentforum. blogspot.in/2013/08/did- jeffrey-long-out-rajiv- malhotras.html
• http://beingdifferentforum. blogspot.in/2014/04/the-role- of-prophets-in-judaism-and. html
• http://beingdifferentforum. blogspot.in/2013/09/bhagavad- gita-is-not-bible-of-india. html
• Another product of U of Iowa Fred Smith was Makarand Paranjape, a prof of English at JNU who likes to presents a pro-Hindu tilt. He has had to dance between working w me and appeasing his academic sponsor Fred Smith. He has agonized over this, at times telling me that his open association with me has cost his standing with them, and they stopped inviting him every summer to give lectures in USA like they used to. That's what this "intellectual freedom" amounts to. In any case, Makarand has been largely on the sidelines of important debates for the past decade, and writes relatively non-controversial stuff. This despite the fact that his mentor at JNU was Kapil Kapoor, a no-nonsense, fiery speaker solidly on our side.
• Fred Smith has crisscrossed both sides of Hinduism, presenting himself as insider or outsider depending on what best suits his interest in a given situation. He is now translating the last 5 vols of Mahabharata for the Univ of Chicago - this is planned to become the international standard on Mahabharata. (Its initial volumes defined the lens: [kshatriya] was translated as "feudal lord" and shudra as "slave". The editor James L. Fitzgerald said the text should be seen as "God's genocide". You get the picture. )

To join the discussion, please sign up on the yahoogroups site and follow the thread here.

Now on the subject of Swami Vivekananda who is the subject of much study as shown above, here's a paper by Rajiv Malhotra which was published in the official RK Mission book commemorating his 150th anniversary and released by the President of India.

There are multiple posts in the Rajiv Malhotra yahoogroups forum where practicing Hindus share relevant  and useful points of view on Swami Vivekananda's message from a dharmic perspective.

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

Summary of the Neo-Hindu thesis

February 2014

A senior forum commentator recently provided a summary of the thesis of the neo-Hindu cabal that is analyzed in the 'Purva Paksha' section of Rajiv Malhotra's new book 'Indra's Net'. The book is available at http://indrasnetbook.com, flipkart, Amazon (including Kindle e-format). This blog is published here so that all Indra'sNet audiences around the world can use this excellent summary as a reference resource while reading. Comments welcome.

Surya wrote:
This summary only provides the context but facilitates reading and understanding the book.  

Thesis of neo-Hindu camp:

(1) Hinduism as a modern construct: Hinduism is 'an orchid bred by European scholarship ... In nature, it does not exist.' (Page 50). Hinduism is no more than a collection of amorphous religions that co-exist in the same region and have some commonalities, but these commonalities are far outweighed by divisions and mutual antagonisms.(Page 67).  It is primarily not a religious concept but one of geographic origin.  (Page 94).  Before 19th century, there was no Hindu religious identity that transcended narrow sectarian boundaries.(Page 50).  Before 'Hinduism' came into use, the natives of India referred only to sampradayas (lineages of traditions), which were orthodox and narrowly defined. (Page 94). Instead of seeing Hinduism as a religious system, it would perhaps be more accurate to view it as a multidimensional socio-religious process which has undergone radical transformations over the last hundred years and continued to change. (Page 94). Hinduism then is a joint construct of Britain and India, Christians and Hindus, who devised 'something that the later 19th century would take for granted: a coherent, pan-Indian Hinduism.' (Page 134)

(2)  Neo-Hinduism as a modern variation of Hinduism under Christian and Western Secular Influences: In 1800s, Indian leaders suffered a deep inferiority complex about the weakness of India compared with Europe, and attributed this weakness to Hinduism's inability to adapt to modern times. (Page 68) 1800s was a time when Protestant and Catholic missionaries constantly denigrated and criticized the Hindu scriptures.  Their attacks were troubling to Hindu reformers of the Brahmo Samaj.  Under these conditions, Western Unitarians arrived in India as a welcome relief, for they interpreted Hindu theology as being open, rational, experiential, and science-friendly.  Sensing a good-fit, Brahmo Samaj sent its bright youth to Unitarian Seminaries in England for training.  Following this, Brahmo Samaj started to adapt the framework of Unitarian Christianity in order to identify alternative sources of authority within Hinduism that would support this kind universal and scientific ideology based on experience. This is the advent of neo-Hinduism (as distinct to and discontinuous from native traditions). (Page 53).  The neo-Hindu dogma of equality of all religions emerged originally in the 19th century from the ideology of European Enlightenment. The neo-Hindu concept of Dharma was clearly prompted by the philosophy of Saint Augustus and Philosopher John Stuart Mill but expressed completely in Indian terms. (Page 70).  

(3) Swami Vivekananda as a key architect of Neo-Hinduism and his political interests: Swami Vivekananda, who was familiar with and influenced by Brahmo Samaj and Unitarian Church, introduced Western scientific inquiry and direct experience in order to bring Hinduism on par with Western thought. (Page 53)  Vivekananda's call for unity and inner resolution of tensions were clearly ideas of nationalism and the driving force behind the neo-Hindu concept of unity. (Page 68)  

(4) Swami Vivekananda brings Western Thought into neo-Hinduism: Swami Vivekananda's innovation of 'Practical Vedanta' was meant to address the needs of his time using Vedanta Principles.  One such practical application was in the realm of social ethics. Such social ethics were not in alignment with traditional Vedanta. (Page 74).  Christian missionaries inspired the new definition of karma:  'Under the influence of Christian missionaries, the idea that karma = seva (understood as social duty and service to others) was articulated in the 19th century.' (Page 91).  

(5) Neo-Hinduism deviates from tradition:  Per traditional Advaita, moksha is brought about by merely a 'cognitive shift' and this cannot be caused by any action, be it devotion or work.  This means that actions such as meditation, bhakti, social service, and so on, are unable to cause moksha (Page 100).  Lack of intellectual depth in contemporary Hindu scholarship is due to the popularity of views on the primacy of yogic experience, and secondary status to Sruti. (Page 117).  Additionally, Vivekananda chose to reconcile and unify various schools of Vedanta (Page 117) bringing hierarchical relativism to Hinduism.

(6) Contemporary Hinduism = Neo-Hinduism as an incoherent amalgam: Unlike Abrahamic religions which are wary of epistemological relativism out of the fear of relativizing the World of God revealed in the Bible or the Koran, Brahminical Hinduism (and Hindu nationalism) thrives on a hierarchical relativism to evade all challenges to its idealistic metaphysics and mystical ways of knowing.  (Page 142). Therefore, the idea of a unified Hindu religion is counter both to religious practices and to the theological doctrines of India (Pages 50, 51). Unified Hinduism is counter to tradition and serves nationalistic interests and calling for unity for political expedience.  Hinduism then is an instance of Pizza Effect i.e., Indians adopting Western concepts but giving them Sanskrit names.  These are true neologisms, invented by Western Indologists and then copied and re-marketed by Indian scholars who displaced the old pandits with this newly minted coinage that is now in vogue in the Indian literature, media, and educational institutions. (Page 82)

Did Jeffrey Long 'Out' Rajiv Malhotra's new book before publication?

This post covers a controversy created by the actions of a Western scholar, who appears to have misused a pre-publication draft of the yet-to-be titled new book authored by Rajiv Malhotra, from whom he privately obtained the copy.

Jeffrey Long first showed up in this forum in Feb 2012 (#2270), where he was the subject of some positive feedback re Hinduism. Next, he appears in regards to the DHANAM conference, in November 2012 (#3373), where he was the steering committee member (despite which, there was room for just a single book discussion on BD).

July 2013
Please dont hijack my new book before it comes out
Rajiv Malhotra writes: Earlier this month, I shared with a small number of scholars the full draft of my new book that is a thorough refutation of the thesis of Neo-Hinduism started by Hacker and continued by others like Rambachan.  One of the very few scholars I trusted sharing my draft with is Jeffrey Long, who is a follower of RK Mission and whom I respect. It was done under strict confidentiality. He promised to write me his comments and suggestions, which I am still waiting for. Then I met Jeff at the recent Vedanta Congress, and we went to a private room to discuss his feedback to my draft....

Today, I see the following post written by him in the RISA List (where I am banned as are most scholars who do not "obey" the authority of Western hermeneutics.)

Clearly, Jeff is reflecting our conversation and my book thesis. Sadly, he chose the forum of his peer group to express this idea, while I had shared my book on the hope (and promise) to get useful feedback from him. I wonder why he could not wait for my book to come out first, and LET IT BE THE SOURCE OF THIS NEW DEBATE...

My disappointment is that he replaces all my work with other references, as though my hard work is to be ignored. Had I known this earlier, I would not have shared my draft with him. He was very keen to have my draft, as he said it would help him in his work, but I expected him to refer to it. (People often cite a work with the author's permission and say it is "forthcoming." So the means to do this attribution exists.)

Rajiv adds:
"...I wish to clarify that I do NOT accuse anyone here of plagiarism. However, if my ideas, which have been written and discussed in so much detail, "trigger" similar ideas in another scholar, it would be normal academic practice to cite me as a source. Even if one's ideas are independently derived, one cites others with similar ideas. Jeff certainly goes out of his way to cite academicians in this regard, but ignores me as if I do not exist. This is a double standard. Yet I see him as a friend and hope he will change this approach.

I am being treated like the "native informant" who has no voice, whose ideas "become valid" only when regurgitated by a "credentialed scholar". This asymmetric posture towards the native informants became the subject of so many of my writings over a decade ago. One sulekha article that summarized this was called "The asymmetric dialog of civilizations". There were many more I wrote on
this issue. That started a whole movement which has snowballed in many directions ever since.

The Europeans started this trend to appropriate the knowledge of pandits and publish it as their own. This is how "Sir" William Jones became established as the "discoverer" of Sanskrit in the eyes of the West - like Columbus being called the discoverer of America as though the natives who lived there for 10,000 years had not discovered it. In a massive wall carving in his honor at oxford, he is referred to as the man "who gave the Hindoos their laws".

To declare only those scholars with western credentials (and hence under their system of management) as being valid, is the worst form of colonization. By this criteria, none of our acharyas, gurus, and even the most advanced yogis would be legitimate. So Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Gandhi, Aurobindo, etc. - none of them and others like them qualify as voices of authority in their own right.

... You may disagree with many of Gandhi's positions (as I do myself). But what I found remarkable in his life was his courage to defy the colonial apparatus and set an example of resistance. We need scholars to be satyagrahis in this sense."

thepatrika adds: "....I am once again appalled  -- not surprised -- at the intellectual dishonesty among some of the Academicians in th US, even in fields which does not involve great amount of money. 

No wonder secrecy has become the hall mark of academic research in Science, Technology and Management, which the possibility of making a "killing" with patents, invention disclosures, or membership in national and int'l organizations, or corporate board memberships, even as they brag about academic freedom and "open" environment for enquiry in universities"

Surya wonders: "...I suspect that Jeffrey may already be engaged with other AAR members in dissecting the contents of the book. I would conjecture that Jeffrey will likely not offer any useful feedback to Rajivji but use the early access to direct his own research.

I hope Jeffrey has access to this forum and offers public response."

Shashi comments:
"...This is sad.

This emphasizes why the book "Invading the Sacred" commissioned by Rajivji is a must-read. Specially relevant is Yvette Rosser article. It exposes how RISA folks operate as a cartel. What is particularly sad in this case is betrayal at even person-to-person level trust.

Rajiv's response:
Thanks, Shashi ji.
I want people to know that Shashi drove from out of state just to attend my talk at the Vedanta Congress. He can verify that I spoke on this thesis in my forthcoming book. 

Ashish comments:
"...I am a dalit residing in India. And I am very very impressed by your work. Have read both of your books. Even though I am dalit I still love my country INDIA. India has given me opportunity to rise above the poverty in which I was born. I am a s/w engineer in a multinational firm in India..."

Madhu adds:
"... it is equally true that most westerners do look at us through a lens of superiority even if some manage to hide it, that is just the social conditioning they got via history, culture, church, society. There is nothing racial about this. There is still some time to go before these attitudes change. Until then there is no harm in being pragmatic about it."

Rajiv's response: 
"...   It has to do with the ego's mixed up loyalties and projects. I once reprimanded Sarah Caldwell who was simultaneously (1) a practicing Hindu in the academy and
very active in organizing Hinduism related events, and yet (2) more loyal to her academic peers than to dharma, and hence compromising 1 to benefit 2.

There are similar instances I encounter daily among Indian Hindus - conflict between their private domain of Hindu practice and their public domain of career or "reputation" or business interest, etc. "

Rahul thinks:
"... even as the new book is launched with an attempt to steal the limelight with an attitude that might go like "RM is treading a path that has already been examined critiqued  and debunked". They are likely going to launch a propaganda war with a head start having had time to read the transcript and formulate the approach to attack the new book (or RM)." 

Karigar provides additional context on Jeffrey Long:
"... I've had some personal interaction with him in the past. He's definitely a very nice guy, but -

I've no hesitating in completely agreeing with Rajiv's nuanced critique of his actions. Also, during last year's AAR (where a separate Panel featured Being Different) I recall some behind-the-scenes controversy at another panel where Jeff Long was involved. There his semi-public comments were an interesting study in virtually ignoring Rajiv, while off handedly (back handedly?) agreeing that the points made were serious enough to warrant a high level discussion/response.

I'd like to add just one point to what Rajiv has already said. It seems that he is a symptom of the Social Sciences scholar mentality, where one gets one's authority/credibility by subjective means, mostly by how "impressive" one sound/writes, etc. This just won't fly in the hard-sciences, technology or business, as one's capability can be very easily evaluated. 

For a religion scholar, to stay above the glass ceiling (& be called a scholar) it appears one has to ignore non-academia people's work as long as one can afford to get away with it. Jeff Long seems to be following this standard-operating-procedure. Of course it doesn't say much for his personal behavior & sense of judgement, when he does this to Rajiv.

Firstly, Rajiv has pretty much broken thru this 'glass ceiling' a long time ago; and secondly, he seems to be using private discussion material from Rajiv's work to preempt it's impact when it's published, even if he claims it was not intentional."

Jeffrey Long is welcome to respond at the 'Being Different Forum'.


Update: October 19
Jeffrey Long responded in the comments section below, as well as the forum (link here) defending his position, and Rajiv provided a counter response. After some followups, this thread was closed. I've summarized the final comments of Rajiv Malhotra below (emphasis mine):
"... I had made a remark on Jeff's writing many weeks ago, and he exercised his right to respond, and this started a brief back and forth discussion. I am glad he and I have agreed to cooperate as friends sharing our passions as Hindus. It is good when such episodes lead to solidarity and clarity going forward. So no point in further discussion as the [matter] is happily resolved. I look forward to Jeff's participation on this forum."
 

RMF Summary: Week of January 9 - 15, 2013

January 9
My encounter with Brian Pennington at the recent AAR
Rajiv Malhotra: I am posting below my report from the recent American Academy of religion annual conference where my book BEING DIFFERENT was the subject of a special panel discussion. The account below deals with just one of the three panelists, Brian Pennington, the man who wrote the book, "Was Hinduism Invented?" The panelist I respect most is the one who offered the most serious counter position to BD based on evidence and arguments. That was Rambachan. Of course, I disagree with his argument that Swami Vivekananda violates Hindu tradition. But there was no smear, ad hominem or personal issues raised in his talk. ...The organizers of the panel did a great job promoting BD, as this kind of open discussion ultimately leads to better flow of arguments in both directions. The tragedy is that a scholar like Pennington failed to take BD's thesis seriously and, instead, focused on personal attacks against me. Please read the following account and judge for yourself.

Pennington spent his talk making an all-out personal attack against me. I was unqualified to be given this honor by academics, he stated. Calling me a Neo-Hindu and someone suspected in the academy of having links to Hindutva politics, he spewed several personal allegations ...  I was later informed that one man had used his laptop to tape it, and had later transcribed the audio...

Pennington started by caricaturing me. He branded “Rajiv Malhotra as the internet personality who spared eminent scholars no insult, or as the fire breathing self-proclaimed public intellectual who haunts academic meetings poised to dominate Q&A with angry challenges complete with data and dismissive rejections of their interpretations…”  He positioned Being Different as “his latest attempt to intervene in the academic of religions”, and went on to admit with great aplomb:

“I would confess to accepting this invitation to participate in this forum out of some curiosity … [in order to encounter] the globe-trotting nemesis of academics … [because nobody has challenged academic works] as vigorously and directly as Malhotra often has. This is after all a self-trained scholar who single handedly accomplished what no credentialed scholar of Hinduism has yet been able to accomplish - making RISA world famous. So we thank him for that.”

....

"Malhotra has previously likened the system of academic credentials to a caste system… [and] explicitly labeled the practices as a peer review cartel. … Malhotra … has further accused the academy of intellectual corruption and cronyism and demanded a free market in the depictions of Indic religious traditions in which activist groups scrutinize scholars work on both India and the West …employing their own knowledge of India and her intellectual traditions.”

.....

Next Pennington showed his own agenda, stating that the “ready identification of these two things – India the nation state and India the ancient civilization  ...Umm … To me the association is troubling,” because he was suspicious of “the political uses of such a work.” He went further as said:

“What I do see is a project that is imbued with the identification of India with the Sanskritic and Hindu tradition, an identification that really disallows the association of any individual or community that does not identify itself in these terms.” He was disturbed by what he saw as an attempt to “construct an authentic Hindu”.

In other words, at the heart of this anger is his problem with associating Indian civilization and India as a nation. This deep trouble was the focus of his influential book, Was Hinduism Invented? In that book the main culprit is Swami Vivekananda because he more than anyone else had “invented Hinduism”.

Pennington was upset that Islam is hardly mentioned in Being Different, even though the book makes clear up front that it deals specifically with a comparison between dharmic and Western civilizations, respectively, and explains why Islam needs its own separate comparisons with each of these two. As the typical White Man facing the burden to save Indians, Pennington was worried that,

“there is no doubt his work could be useful as a device to delegitimize the political subjectivity of the Christians and Muslims [along with other] marginalized and ignored communities in India.”

His final remark was to chide the organization that had invited me to the panel: “I remain somewhat puzzled about why the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies would honor this work with a serious discussion, when Christianity features as a fairly invisible presence in this work.” And he concluded with a patronizing gesture “I would hope that we could have a frank and respectful and collegial discussion about all those things.”

I wish he had addressed the main themes in the book. Not whatever else he wanted to superimpose on me and the book"

Sandeep responds:
"Someday in the future, as Indian universities improve in quality, lets hope India produces an army of well-funded (non-marxist) academics who understand Hinduism better, who have access to the latest facilities and are able to publish their books without any impediments.
... This debate will then shift to the "Indian academy of religion"

Rajiv's response: 
I have promoted this idea for 20 years. Easier said than done. Infinity Foundation held 3 major world conferences on religious studies in Delhi with opinion leaders across the political and ideological spectrum. Lots of passion, resolutions, etc. No action in the end...

For now I want to focus on producing new discourse that challenges old hegemonic discourse, and on debating my work with serious scholars, so as to take it further amongst readers who have the required level of commitment and background to follow the issues. " 

Narasimhan writes:
"From a perusal of Pennington's writings I find that he treats Islam with kid gloves and is almost as apologist. This quite contrasts with his fierce attempt to deconstruct Rajiv Malhotra. One should take it as a measure of the success of Being Different. " 
.
Surya briefly reviews Brian Pennington's book:
" ... BD demolishes the foundation on which his career was erected.

As readers patiently, and painfully, labor through his book "Was Hinduism Invented?", they will find that it is deeply wanting in coherence of thought and focus leading to the purported end of proving that Hinduism was but a fiction of 19th century Hindu activists.  

After promising to expose this fiction, Brian's book meanders through a sundry of unflattering Western accounts, articles or letters in (a couple of) domestic magazines in 19th century India, trying to sift for peculiar social practices and religious customs of Hindus. How do they all tie to his final purported end?  They do not.  That is the purposeless, laborious meandering through irreverent historical accounts while hopelessly conflating ideals with practices.  Is there a clincher?  Nope,  just the hope that the tired reader succumbs to his hypothesis that Hinduism is a fiction of 19th century Hindu activists.  Personally, I could not shake the feeling that Brian Pennington used the excuse of proving his hypothesis to unleash a vindictive narrative against Hinduism.  

It is truly reprehensible that Brian Pennington lobbies the "Indian nationalist" bomb to quash BD.  Can he show what the basis is for such a claim?  I did not quite count but felt that the word Christianity showed up more frequently than the word Hinduism in Brian Pennington's book that is supposedly about Hinduism. There is greater evidence to say that his motive is to establish supremacy of Christianity at all costs.

Now, here comes the book BD by Rajiv Malhotra that recognizes the folly of conflating ideals with practices.  It takes the world-views of Dharmic traditions and contrasts them with Abrahamic religions by walking the readers through a 4-dimensional space of (1) history-centrism, (2) integral unity vs. synthetic unity, (3) attitude towards complexity vs. rigid order, (4) non-translatable concepts (described in original Sanskrit works).

BD shows how Dharma traditions show their cohesiveness and commonness, an identity, that is established not by homogenizing them, but by separation of the group from Abrahamic religions.

... In so doing, BD shows why there is no need to homogenize dharma traditions in order to have a familial identity.  That is a true blow to the works of Western Universalists like Brian Pennington.  In fact, BD explains why Western Universalists can only see such cohesiveness as lacking in cohesion or coherence.  For the Western Universalist, if Hinduism is not a homogeneous jello then it has to be incoherent jumble.  The problem for Western Universalists is not just that they have not the right level of zoom.  They failed to get the right scenic view of the world of religions and traditions by stepping outside Western Universalism.  

So how should we on the forum read Brian Pennington's outbursts at the conference against BD and Rajiv Malhotra?  Considering that there was not a single argument against the contents of BD, it is an expression of sheer exasperation."

Carpentier comments:
"Pennington reflects the defensive-aggressive strategy in use by much of the globalized western-trained academic community. It claims to be objective, unbiased and universal and denies that quality to any other school of thought. An illustration of that way of thinking is the present "multi-cultural" (which in fact means a-cultural) mainly leftist notion of any national society in which no element should be given priority over others. For instance a European society (say France) should not be defined by its leading historical characteristics because that would be "discriminatory". ...For similar reasons the present government of Russia is under intense attack and condemnation in most of the West for being "Russian" and not a "multi-cultural" open society with a "global secular" free market identity. In fact it should be only a market because as Maggie Thatcher memorably said when she was in power: there is no such thing as society (and she was not a leftist but liberals and neo-mrxits agree on this)."

The thread below elicited many responses. 
January 9
How to be Dharmic?
Sudhir asks questions: 
I wanted to put this question up for discussion. I am encountering a strange antagonism from my relatives with regards to the idea of Dharma and how it is perceived within and outside the rashtra as defined by Bharat. This question arose from Bharat- India argument on the mainstream media.

The problem is such:

I am trying to life a dharmic lifestyle after being re-educated after reading BD and after following various bloggers who have a gift of writing well on thoughts which are Indic in origin. ... My wife and a few relatives find this too much and ridiculous. Perhaps it is. Perhaps its not. Trying to live the right way our forefathers expected a dharmic person would is my personal effort at trying to do my bit for dharma.

Do you experience this 'klesha' within your family and extended circle [?]

Another question is how to bring up children in the west who would look up to people like Swami Vivekananda as role models and idols?   .."


Rajiv's comment: 
This question ... is coming sincerely from the heart. It deserves serious responses from members...Issue is a common one: What to do if one's family/friends circle is
not aligned towards one's dharma and this creates tensions?

Sandeep responds
Dh"Practicing Dharma does not mean you must mimic ancestral rituals blindly.  It was this problem that Sri Aurobindo cited when he said people get stuck in "old forms". 

Some person several hundred years ago started "dainik sandhya" because he had some intuition that it might help him go inwards.  That doesn't mean you might also benefit from it.  You have to find what suits your personality.  The goal of Dharma is to go within and find your Atman.  You may be better off joining some contemporary Yoga school ...
...
Not every child is bound to become "Dharmic".  Some people are not cut out for it.  If you force the child into something they don't like, they may rebel against you later and turn atheists for the rest of their lives.  Take the case of Vikram Gandhi, who was immersed in religious practices of the Arya Samaj while growing up in New Jersey, but lost interest in it after growing up.  Now he has made a movie Kumare on fake Gurus.  (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIXNjDcOLWU&feature=player_embedded)

Therefore, one has to gauge the personality of the child to find what is the best path.  The child is more likely to be attracted to poetry, literature and dance rather than dry philosophy and discursive ethics. 
...

The best way to mould a child is to become a different person yourself.  If they sense a positive change in you, they will naturally come to you for guidance.  " 

Shambu suggests:
".. Practice kula-aachaar (as much as one may, no matter where you live) - at least daily snaanam, dyaanam, and vyaayaamam are must; details (if one desires) may be learned and taken up - they may be very involved yama-niyama-aasana-praaNaayaama- etc.
    Eat mita (limited) and hita (beneficial) food suited to your work - most of us don't fight wars and therefore saatvic food is all that we need - mita hita aahaaram. You become what you eat.
    Serve the needy without expecting any return (not even puNya) - starting from those near and dear - don't make a project of saving the penguins on the Antarctica and ignoring your own family. Do some neighborhood sevaa once a week at least - such as feeding the homeless right off your backyard...
    Donate (thinking that "this is not mine - na mama) to the deserved - daanam to those with paatrataa. Don't give to the devil (cf. figure out who is devil and who is not).
    Do weekly, paakshik, or maasik 24-hour upavaasam, such as on Fridays, Ekaadashi, etc. - don't eat or drink anything, but work as usual and reflect on all there is - jeeva-jagat -Ishwara connections. Being near That One Truth is upa vaasam. upavaasam is a great cleanser of the body and the mind as well. amaavaasyam ("Sun and moon living together"), eclipse times, sandhyaa times etc. are highly beneficial for being in upavaasam.
    Visit temples and be a part of some poojaa monthly, quarterly, or at least annually. Go on a teertha yaatraa annually - visit holy places and gather holy company. They all add to your dharmik living. Don't dismiss it as mere rituals - you won't know what you miss unless you do these for a few years and find out yourself. You will find great people and noble friends if you seek - satsangatve nissangatvam...
    Don't get into any fad or rigidity to the point of imposing your way on others - including work, play, sandhyaa, or poojaa. Balance life. Be vulnerable. "I am this or that, I am doing all this" etc. must not be in your head.
    Live first, then (only) teach - svaadhyaayam first followed by pravachanam - svaadhyaaya pravachanaabyaam na pramaditavyam. Our traditions place the guru who is aachaarya way up.
   ..."


Nagaraja says:
"...Guidelines recommended Sri Shambhu Shastryji are fairly pragmatic and can be put to practice even in our modern-day circumstances. However, I don't agree with Sri Sandeep who rejects Sandhya vandanam as useless today but upholds yoga
practice. I don't think such dichotomous generalizations would help. In my opinion, what you should practice should be decided by yourself and Sri Shambhu's post provides guidelines that help in making such choices. My suggestions centre around how to ease-in Dharmic practices (whatever you choose) into your daily life without much friction from family and relatives..." 

Siddharth shares:
"...As far as drawing children to dharmic way of life is concerned, if i were a child i would catch and appreciate anything that appeases me in my regular course of life, i will then try to look deeper and deeper and end up having developed a certain perspective. For example , while studying public administration i came across Maslow's hierarchy theory, studied it, what drew me towards the indian philosophy is when i came across the idea of 'PANCHKOSHA' in one of the discussions in this group. I loved it so much that i ended up studying several other aspects of indian philosophy and i am in a state of constant learning. One cant make a child do something, you will have to draw him in such a way that the child appreciates it on its own and develops an urge to delve into it." 

[several other interesting responses around Vahanas of Hindu Deities, Panchatantra stories (which are great!), etc. read the original thread. It may be worth your while].

January 10
Promoting RM's Books and Ideas On Swami Vivekananda's Anniversary

I am promoting RM's Books and Ideas On Swami Vivekananda's 150th Birthday Anniversary by distributing 10,000 copies of a pocket calender. I believe it is an effective way to generate awareness of RM's work. I hope to repeat this several times this year.

For thos interested in doing the same in your area...I am attaching a pdf and Correldraw files of the final version of the Pocket Calender.

The Correldraw file can be used by the printers. Please check with RM before you print or change it.

It is inexpensive to print. It cost me Rs 7500 for 10,000 copies. 

I can send samples to anyone interested in India. For those interested in printing more copies, Please contact.... [see egroup for contact information].

January  11
Subra posts:
The Samudra Manthana story in Hinduism appears to be a key metaphor to describe order & chaos in BD where the Amrit (nectar) that comes out of the churning the ocean represents 'order', and the accompanying poison, the 'chaos and disorder'. In multiple online forums, Shiva's drinking of the poison is equated to Christ's crucifixion to proactively save humanity from original sin. Some Hindus have equated Shiva's act as one of collective salvation from sin, feeding the myth of sameness. Reading Chapter 4 of BD again (I quote from the Amazon-Kindle copy), indicates that this interpretation is incorrect.

1. Firstly, BD notes:
"....The story of the Samudra-manthana is not intended to be taken literally.
Indeed, the ultimate uncertainty of knowing how the universe came about is given
eloquent expression in the famous 'Hymn of Creation' ..."

whereas History-Centric Christianity requires Crucifixion, resurrection & its implications of collective salvation to be literally and absolutely true, with no room for alternative explanations.

2. BD also rules out equivalence to a story in the 'book of revelation' where 'satanic disorder' has to be absolutely vanquished:
"...In one such story, Lord Shiva himself consumes the fierce, dark and bitter poison first churned up from the ocean. He does so in order to overcome it, leaving the nectar to others. But significantly, Shiva makes this choice both out of knowledge (of the poison's deadly effect) and love (for those who might suffer harm) – not out of any dark, destructive passion. Furthermore, he is able to transmute the poison not by ejecting it but by incorporating it in himself. . .. needless to say, this is but a hypothetical scenario; the good versus evil dualism of Judaism and Christianity is absolute."

3. The section below appears to give the interpretation of 'why Shiva drank the poison':
"... Disorder serves as a source of creativity by preventing order from becoming fossilized. The Lord is not only the creator of the universe (as Brahma) and the maintainer of its order (as Vishnu) but also the one who ultimately dissolves it
(as Shiva). The dissolution makes room for the next cycle of creation. At the spiritual level, Shiva, the Lord of Yoga, aptly assumes the appearance of chaos to facilitate the dissolution of bondage to the falsehoods in our minds – making
way for new creation..."


Rajiv's comment: 
I thank the person for the post blow. He points out a serious
example of digestion at work right under our nose, i.e. the attempt to digest Shiva into Christ. And many foolish Hindus are buying into such nonsense, imagining that this is helpful to us. What this digestion does is to incorporate Shiva as a subset within Christ, such that Jesus' history centrism remains
intact and all that we know about Shiva becomes part of Christ. Please oppose this ploy staunchly. This is why I wrote BD to make our people vigilant.

Surya responds:
"Following differences should be raised:
(1) Original sin affects only descendants of Adam. It has no bearing on the life as lived on Earth - only saving people from Hell in the after life. Shiva saved all life forms, in this life, on Earth.
...
(4) Original sin transferring to others is a violation of the doctrine of Karma. Original sin absolved by sacrificing Jesus is also a violation of the doctrine of Karma. One cannot bear the consequences of another's karma.
(5) Shiva is not Human. He prevailed by holding poison in his throat and not swallowing it. Jesus was sacrificed and he paid for original sin of other's with his own life. We are told that Jesus has not saved all humans even with his own death." 

Lok comments:

"You mentioned "The dissolution makes room for the next cycle of creation"
What is the next circle of creation?
Evolution is the progressive manifestation of the different powers and aspects of the Divine.
.... The progression is striking and unmistakable.

The above comment is written by Sri Aurobindo ..."


Chittaranjan responds:
"In Aurobindo, there is both a deep philosophy having its source in Sanathana Dharma as well as an element of the Nietzschean Overman that is not based on, nor is supported by, the Hindu tradition. In Hinduism, evolutionary progression
pertains to an individual that walks the path of dharma; it does not pertain to the collective whole....." 

January 11
A theater review
Arun posts:
Something to look at, and check:

It's not often that you go to the theater these days and find yourself excitedly questioning and rethinking your reactions. Self-examining art, after all, has become such a cozy genre in itself that it rarely startles.

But "Ganesh Versus the Third Reich," the remarkable production that opened this year's Under the Radar festival of experimental theater, never lets you settle into passive acceptance of anything it does. It's a vital, senses-sharpening
tonic for theatergoers who feel they've seen it all.

Even the title of the show — created by the 25-year-old Back to Back Theater of Geelong, Australia — inspires shivers of discomfort. Ganesh, the elephant-headed Indian deity, takes on Hitler's Germany? That sounds like a Hollywood head trip
that might once have been marketed to stoner college students, an audacious fantasy that traffics in wild jokes and political incorrectness...."


Vamsi responds:
"... To give you a bit of back ground, there was a huge outrage of the Hindu community in Melbourne,Victoria, Australia when this play was screened for the first time in 2011. After some pressure from political parties and Victorian Multicultural council, they invited some Hindu leaders to see the play and then give their opinion. Accordingly i was invited to see it and I was flabbergasted to see the level of ignorance and in sensitiveness about Hindu principles, Hindu deities and Hindu scriptures. Myself and other Hindu groups, submitted our strong reservation against the play, You could read more about it in this link of Forum For Hindu Awakening,  
1) 2)

                                        

After seeing the play, there were some strong objections that we raised against the play. The play directors went back on many promises with us, they deceivingly got a so called Hindu Guru (of western origin) in Melbourne,Victoria, Australia to endorse this play publicly and used his statement as a PR exercise against the protests of around 13 Hindu organizations, due to which the already split Hindu community in Victoria was further split and opinions divided. below are some of the objections, which we raised against the play."

January 11

Re: Swami Vivekananda becomes Masculine Nationalist
Sandeep shares a link:
Prema Nandakumar responds to Sanjay Srivastava in a Hindu op-ed:

He gave us back our dignity

Does one write deliberately as a woman or man when taking up pen and paper? I do not know. But right now, I am writing as an Indian woman. The Indian woman who has held up the torch of cultured living for millennia through self-sacrifice, incredible feats of physical and mental endurance and abiding compassion. I know that the pen is a sacred object; if used unthinkingly as Sanjay Srivastava has done (The Hindu, Op-Ed, “Taking the aggression out of masculinity,” January 3, 2013), it might do more harm than good to the position of women in India.

Two portraits have been constant companions in my longish life as a housewife and writer. They have both infused in me the needed strength to face life despite scores of disappointments, frustrations and tragedies. One is the figure of Bharat Mata, rider on the lion, as though telling me: are you a weakling? You are as strong as this land, endowed with hurrying streams and gleaming orchards. Never give up! I learnt the connection between nature and the Indian woman when I read Sita say in Kavisamrat Viswanatha Satyanarayana’s Sri Ramayana Kalpavrikshamu that she has no fear of rivers and forests. Is she not the child of Mother Earth?  ..."


January 12 (continuing thread from March 2012)
Holi Digestion

Digestion of Holi is happening at a rapid pace and it is now gone global. Please see this: http://TheColorRun.com/

The main "fun" aspect of Holi -throwing colors- got disconnected, secularized and now it has been digested.

In an earlier discussion on this topic of "Holi Digestion" (message 2343), it was about Americans participating in our celebration. In that context Rajivji had stated:

Rajiv comment: ... The issue at hand is not about digestion, but about potential distortion. Digestion would be if (as in the case of yoga) mainstream Americans were appropriating Holi into some kind of festival claimed to be their own - as they did with Halloween. But the examples cited do not apply to American digestion of Holi, rather they concerned Indians in USA morphing their own symbols and festivals - i.e. difference anxiety from below.

..."

 
January 13 
article by Tavleen Singh on the biases of Delhi's literati & chatter

Kaajal shares link. I also recommend her latest book Durbar published last month by...

January 13 (continuing discussion from December 25)
Christmas origins -- digested others
What better time to scrutinise Christianity's insatiable and insidious digestion of pre-Christian festivals to come up with Christmas (please see the...

Raj shares a link and comments: " I came across this comprehensive site which convincingly argues that many pre-existing pagan archetypes were digested to construct the Christ Myth: www.POCM.info  The key archetypal ideas were quite common, like powers and miracles attributed to various pre-christian deities, including virgin birth. So, it is entirely possible to digest these ideas to come up with the Christ myth. "... (unless the author Paul Hourihan is known to be genuinely Dharma-friednly)...." A genuinely dharma-friendly person, who understands dharmic concepts properly and knows the true history of Abrahamic religions, will not entertain haphazard, self-serving comparisons. If one understands the difference between Atman and Abrahamic ideas about soul, no further honest comparison is possible. A dharma-friendly person would explain how Atman & Soul are profoundly different. But this author uses the terms interchangeably. The author's website is full of familiar "sameness" talking-points and subtle western triumphalism that takes the form of a new kind of White (Wo)Man's Burden - of spreading Eastern Wisdom which was earlier controlled by Brahmin men. Westerners have used the same argument about yoga, ayurveda, Buddhism etc. Note what Anna Hourihan says:.." Krishna wrote the site and notes their response: "...Your web site says the ideas of Vedanta have been heard before, specially in Christianity. The idea that Vedanta reflects what is already in Christianity is laughable. Vedanta and Sanatana Dharma pre-date Christianity by thousands of years; why are you hinting the way you do? There is no need to say all religions are the same - in fact, they are not. This does not mean disrepsect to Christianity or other religions. There is a need to realize that Hinduism is different than other religions, and is a profound thought process which is much more complete and holistic than Christianity. There is  no history centricism in Hinduism which is a great feature, and an elegant way of explaining the concept of God to lay human beings. If you want to equate anything with Hinduism, please reflect exactly what Christianity is borrowing from Hinduism. I would love to see some honesty of purpose in these writings. Reply from Anna Hourihan: I appreciate you pointing out some information on our website that may not be correct. I'm not aware that anywhere on our website it says that Vedanta borrows from Christianity. In fact, as you state, the reverse is much more likely especially if Jesus was in India for the 12 years that are unaccounted for in his life. Would you please point out where on our website you saw this information?.... The point about all religions being the same, refers only to the underlying truths that are there in all the religions. How they are expressed are different according to the time, country and culture. Again if you can point out where you saw this I would very much appreciate it. ..."  Surya responds: "Well said. We should push people who use sameness argument to clarify what they mean by it: identicalness or similarity in certain aspects.  DO NOT let them equivocate. ... If two religions A and B are the same and A came first, then B is merely a restatement of A and hence unnecessary.  B is merely a duplicate. If anyone claims sameness, ask them why they would not go with the original and drop the duplicates. Even Hindus who bring up sameness should be asked this.  If they truly believe Christianity and Islam are the same as Hinduism, why do they not go tell folks of those religions to drop duplicates and go with the original Hinduism? ... You cannot have mutual respect just by focusing on what is common.  Mutual respect requires acknowledging differences openly and acknowledging that, while no more than one religion can be true, no one religion  can be shown to be true."

January 14 (continuing discussion)

Oh No! We ended up with Synthetic Unity! see link shared by Nitin.

Maria writes:
"Neale Donald Walsch wrote:
"How has it comes to pass that we have created an entire world that is so violent on so many levels?

... Walsch does not mention that this idea of onenessâ is there (only) in India's ancient religious tradition. It would be the right time for Hindus and especially their leaders to stress on this fact in a big way in India and abroad and bring it into mainstream. The Dalai Lama said at the Kumbh Mela in Haridwar, Already as a youth I was impressed by the richness of Indian thought. India has great potential to help the world. Will Hindus dare to say that dogmatic religions are the problem worldwide and Dharmic religions offer the solution?

Hindus also hesitate to mention that this belief (conviction) in unity has beneficial aspects on their society. They dont see that India is doing amazingly well in relation to other countries. I met recently several western tourists who are stunned by the incredible accommodation of others by Indians in crowded places or on the road everywhere. If Indians ever discover road rage, half of them would be dead in no time, an American said. And in case our liberal friends on this forum will react now that India is in no position to lead the way and start listing all the atrocities happening in India, please figure in the population density and imagine how US would be faring if they had 3700 million instead of 315,,,
...

In India it is at present not easy to get anything positive about Hinduism published. When I once wrote an article on the basics (fundamentals) of religions and naturally Hinduism looked best, Life Positive considered it too sensitive a subject.
...
Incredible India! Here you have living gods and you want to import dead ones only because Indian tradition is taboo for a certain influential section of society."

Manish writes:
"
...this is what Malcolm Muggeridge wrote about what the British did to India --

“As I dimly realised, a people can be laid waste culturally as well as physically; not their lands but their inner life, as it were, sewn with salt. This is what happened to India. An alien culture, itself exhausted, become trivial and shallow, was imposed upon them; when we went, we left behind railways, schools and universities, statues of Queen Victoria and other of our worthies, industries, an administration, a legal system; all that and much more, but set in a spiritual wasteland. We had drained the country of its true life and creativity, making of it a place of echoes and mimicry.”

Very very few of the 1200 million Indians have any idea what serious damage colonialism has done to them; on the contrary, we often come across Indians who still believe that British Raj was the best thing to have happened to India.

Cry, my beloved country!" 
Lok responds:
"There are elements in Hinduism which are eternal and imperishable and so cannot be digested. Sanatan Dharma cannot be digested. Those parts that can be digested are perishable and not eternal. Those parts are the forms not
the substance of Hinduism. The decline of India was caused by to much emphasis on the forms than on the substance.  Those things should be discarded like waste matter to liberate the substance."

Rajiv comment: 
...There are two errors in the post.

He assumes that true discourse cannot be digested into false discourse. If that were the case, discourse on integral unity would not be possible to digest into synthetic unity. The whole problem we face is that discourse on integral unity is being digested into synthetic unity, discourse on truth is being digested into falsity.

We have said this MANY times before: Digestion is always selective. it appropriates what fits and rejects what does not, and hence it distorts the integral unity (or truth) by breaking it into parts....

The deer is never taken whole and made into a part of the tiger. Such a statement as the above post lacks understanding of the terms like digestion that he uses.

Secondly, truth and discourse about truth are two different things. People's understanding of it gets destroyed, not the truth itself. When Krishna says that we must fight adharma that threatens dharma, it is not that dharma as a set of tenets could be destroyed. he means that society would no longer be dharmic. Similarly, we are discussing discourse here and not the truth itself. When we say a certain tenet gets digested, we imply that the consensus of peoples' beliefs and what they follow no longer respects that tenet.

The attitude that says "maybe all humans have discarded the truth but it is still the truth" allows one to can escape having to deal with the situation."