Response to Prof. Anant Rambachan's critique of Indra's Net

Readers of Rajiv Malhotra will know that Prof. Anant Rambachan has been named in Rajiv's latest book Indra's Net as being one of the leading proponents of the Neo-Hinduism thesis that has steadily gained ground in Western academia. Prof. Rambachan has recently been invited as a speaker representing Hindus at a forum for Hindu-Catholic dialogue. This set off a discussion within the forum. Forum members sent mails to the organizers of this dialogue asking them to clarify on what basis Prof. Rambachan is seen as representing all Hindus, especially when he espouses and propagates the deeply divisive and fragmenting theory of Neo-Hinduism. Those readers who do not understand the tern Neo-Hinduism are advised to read Indra's Net which is solely devoted to understanding this concept. A summary of the thesis can also be found here. For readers interested to know what Rajiv has to say about Prof. Rambachan in Indra's Net, the chapter on him from the book is uploaded here.

Prof. Rambachan decided finally to answer his critics and wrote an essay on Swarajya Mag to debunk Rajiv's "myths" about him as he calls them, that he claims Rajiv has concoted in the book Indra's Net. The essay can be found here. Following the publication of this essay, the forum has been alive with extremely meaningful and profound discussion points put forth by many learned forum members. This particular thread on the forum contains some extremely profound observations by various forum members.

Rajiv's response to Prof. Rambachan's essay is appearing in pieces on the forum as Rajiv is extremely busy and they are reproduced below in chronological order.

Response 1:

I am glad Rambachan has decided to respond to me. This is what we need. Not him and Vatican in interfaith propaganda, but INTERNAL resolution among Hindus as to our positions. 

So let me articulate specific issues/questions on which I request him to give clear, crisp responses as that would define his stance.

1. Is he willing to criticize his academic peers who support the neo-Hinduism thesis? Specifically, his PhD adviser Ursula King, Brian Pennington, Peter van der Veer, Pankaj Mishra. Richard King. If he wants to be 'nuanced' and cannot say it openly and directly for everyone to understand, that would be more gobbledygook and only continue suspicions: Which side is he on? Is he saying one thing to Hindus but another to the Western academy?
2. Is Hinduism as espoused by Swami Vivekananda any of the following: new and disconnected with Vedic origins, lacking unity across its various elements,  in conflict with Advaita Vedanta? If so, I have a problem. I would like to convince him to come out in a positive, concrete way and assert the following:
1. Vivekananda's Hinduism is a continuation of an old tradition, merely repackaged for modern times.
2. Its various elements comprise a unified system
3. It is consistent with Advaita (which we must note has undergone many interpretations/evolutions).
3. Did Vivekananda use Christian/Western influence for formulating any of the following: his notion of karma yoga, his notion of raja yoga as science, his notion of bhakti? If so, I have a problem. That is what Rambachan has maintained before. In his recent article, he hedges his position and does not come out clearly. I would like him to change to the following position, even though that would contradict his own prior works and create tension with his Western academic peers::
1. Karma yoga, raja yoga as science, bhakti - each of these is indigenous in our tradition, are not an adaptation of Christian/Western ideas.

The above is a core set of issues where we should start and then we can go further.

Each time he privately went and complained to persons X or Y about my critiques of neo-Hinduism, I wrote back saying that he must have a direct discussion with me. I have expressed this also to Rita Sherma when she called from DCF; I suggested that in some academic setting Rambachan and I can discuss where we stand on these matters. I have not heard back on this. Its much important to debate these issues than all the nonsense that the academy is obsessed with.

The issue of neo-Hinduism has caused serious confusion about who we are - in the mainstream media as well as academics. Many of our own folks are going about parroting such things. If neo-Hinduism is a valid thesis, it is not just Vivekananda that gets compromised, but all that followed after him, including: Sri Aurobindo, Ramakrishna Mission, Chinmaya Mission, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, Art of Living, etc. In fact, the entire modern yoga movement where yoga-vedanta are unified is undermined.

Given his claim that he speaks FOR Hinduism, how could he have never in the past have stuck his neck out and EXPLICITLY REJECT neo-Hinduism? I am glad if I am forcing his hand to come out one way or the other. This has created bheda within the ranks of the academy studying Hinduism their own way.

Why is unwilling to write positively on the UNITY OF HINDUISM ACROSS ALL THESE VARIED SYSTEMS? If I can get him to do this, it would make my effort worthwhile. The price he would have to pay would be with the western academic cabal. Thats a choice he has to make. If one top player breaks ranks with the academic establishment it could spiral out of control for them. Wouldn't that be a game changer for us?

The more we debate this, the more tricky it becomes for him to take both sides, using nuance.

Response 2:

Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised by the excellent quality of many of the comments under Rambachan's article. Shows these are well read persons who think for themselves and apply rigor.

Many comments have cited in some detail the anti-Hindu writings of Ursula King, under whom Rambachan studied in UK and got his advanced degrees and academic credentials. Many have caught him on some utterly false or at least misleading statements he makes in the article.

Right now my priority is to meet my deadlines for my next book, The next 2 chapters I am doing are very tough and challenging. After that will be smooth sailing. But to do these on time is excruciating. 

So you have to be patient for my response to Rambachan. Meanwhile, you should use this opportunity to get involved, learn the issues, etc.

In any case, he evades the key issues of neo-Hinduism and merely wants to cover himself - WITHOUT in any way wanting to upset his academic cabal.

He also ignores that I am not the first to raise these objections about him. My book's chapter on him cites a long debate between him and Arvind Sharma years back, in which Sharma made some of the same points as me and I am citing his extensively. I also cite T.S. Rukmani, Prof of Hindu Studies at Concordia U, who feels the same as me. Then there are some Western scholars who my book cites. I am in good company on my positions. What I do for the first time is to bring together the whole gang of neo-hinduism. Previously scholars have not put them together as a group with a consistent theory they all echo.

Strangely, he whines that I am doing ad hominem attacks against him in the book - yet he cannot cite a single such incident. I always make it a point to send my book drafts to as many as a dozen reviewers before it goes to the publisher, and the specific purpose is for scholars who are new to the issues to make sure the tone is respectful, the material is coherent, etc. So I challenge Rambachan to cite where exactly my book has any ad hominem against him.

Also, he is only one of a whole group of scholars in the neo Hinduism club that I take on. Why did that group ask him to shoulder the responsibility to evangelize on their behalf? While he is upset that I pointed out his affiliations with the Church and other western bodies, he does not say what was incorrect in my statement.

I am glad this happened as it will fan the flames and more Hindus will read to understand the issues that are at stake.

Response 3:

I authorize people to post scans or copies of chapter 6 of Indra's Net which is specifically on Rambachan. Also the end notes for that chapter. You may also post chapter 10 where I reconcile Vedanta and Yoga - the neo-Hinduism camp finds them in mutual tension.

Pls post this material here and elsewhere - right now I am bogged down and unable to do this but I request others to do so for me.

Please point out in various forums:

1) End note 11 of chapter 6 is where I refer to Swami Dayananda Saraswati, since Rambachan refers to him. What i write there is misrepresented in Rambachan's article. I do not say what he alleges. I say that swamiji teaches unity of various elements of Hinduism and champions this through the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha.

2) He accuses me of ad hominem attacks. I read through chapter 6 again and did not see anything like that whatsoever. Yesterday, I showed it to a scholar at Princeton Univ who is uninvolved in religious studies and works elsewhere in the humanities. She has no knowledge of Hinduism or this issue. She said it is very well written and by no means ad hominem. Is Rambachan whining and claiming 'victimhood' status to divert attention from the real issues of neo-Hinduism? This is a common Church technique.

3) Focus on Ursula King, please:Rambachan is a product of two strong influences. One side is the influence of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, from whom he learned Vedanta philosophy. He then took this knowledge to England where he spent many years under the tutelage of Prof. Ursula King, a rabid anti-Hindu scholar of considerable influence. (Indra’s Net has a chapter summarizing some of her writings. I also met her once at Oxford where she attended a lecture I delivered back in the 1990s.) He did his advanced work under her and she was his PhD advisor. Under her supervision, he got his academic credentials. He cannot try to hide all that influence under the rug, as he tries to do in his public posturing before Hindu groups. When he wants to establish his credentials amongst Hindus, he speaks only of Swamiji as his teacher. But in his academic writings, he is very much part and parcel of an entirely different world, where his membership started decades back under the mentorship of Ursula King. His is a tale of two worlds. He is remarkably silent on his history and involvement in this second world.

Thank you for so many excellent comments people have posted at his Swarajya article. See this as a chance to delve deeper into a major issue all Hindus must become informed of - neo-Hinduism is like a cancer eating us from within.

Response 4 from Rajiv is a set of research papers by people who have argued against Prof. Rambachan's position on Hinduism. Rajiv has made available to the forum members papers from T.S Rukmani, Arvind Sharma, Jonathan Bader, Comans, Kundan Singh. This is for serious readers to understand where Rajiv has drawn his references from which he has also cited in Indra's Net.

Response 5:

A common ploy by Christian critics of Hinduism has been to accuse it of being world negating. They cite advaita texts to claim that the pragmatic dimension is irrelevant to Hindus because life is an illusion, anyway. Hence, they argue, the Christian missionaries must provide human rights, food, shelter, education, scientific progress and so forth, because the Hindus are not interested or capable to look after their own suffering lot.

This view has caused considerable harm to Hindus. We need more teachers to argue back that this is a false premise. I have been doing this arguing back, but I shall show that Shri Rambachan is unhappy over it.

I see the vyavharika (worldly realm of life) as being important and connected to the parkarthika (transcendental realm). I never dismiss one or the other. (My forthcoming book criticizes the interpretations of Sanskrit texts by Sheldon Pollock, another powerful scholar who is undermining our tradition while appearing to be reviving it. He, too, disconnects parmarthika and vyavharika, and then he can attack them apart separately. I argue strongly that this separation is a distortion.)

I consider various Hindu paths as vyavharika approaches to start wherever a given individual happens to be, and then to lead him/her towards parmarthika. Even though moksha is the final goal, most of us in this life start at a lower level of consciousness. This is why Hinduism has vyavharika practices such as dance, music, yoga, Ayurveda, yajna, karma, and so forth. These are user-friendly starting points. They are very important.

In Indra’s Net I point out that it is a bad strategy for our teachers to limit themselves to teaching moksha, and sidelining the vyavharika aspects. After all, Hinduism is the art of living and all aspects must be understood and practiced. This is why it is important to also teach artha-shastra, dharma-shastra, niti-shastra, and so forth. We should not limit the teachings to moksha-shastra, by which I mean a certain interpretation of Upanishads that is in vogue today.

The point I make is that 99% of the Hindus today are not going to attain moksha in this life, and most of the Hindus don’t even want to, or care to know about it. What about them? What does Hinduism do for them? We cannot, as Christians accuse us often, ignore these non-moksha dimensions. We cannot accede this ground of daily living to the Christian missionaries to take over. Hinduism must be taught broadly and not moksha-centric.

In this context, I wrote the following passage in Indra’s Net:

“But most Hindus are not pursuing moksha per se in any lineage. Their relationship with Hinduism is much more mundane and concerns legitimate pursuits (purusharthas) that are more pragmatic than moksha. I find it problematic to represent Hinduism in international forums that aim to undermine its legitimacy on the grounds of disputes among lineages over technical issues of moksha; issues that do not affect the practice of Hinduism by its vast majority of followers today.” (Indra’s Net, page 55)

Shri Rambachan twists my notion of presenting Hinduism in a broad-based manner in modern discourse. He makes it sound as if I am anti-moksha. He is being manipulative when he writes the following:

“By sidelining the centrality of mokṣa, we run the risk of reducing the meaning of Hinduism to group identity and a political agenda. If contemporary Hindus are not interested in the meaning of mokṣa, as Malhotra claims, this is no matter for complacency. It reflects a failure on the part of Hindu teachers and interpreters to properly articulate its enduring meaning in our contemporary context.” (Swarajya, April 30, 2015)

But I have never tried to sideline moksha. He is not doing proper purva-paksha of my work, because he is not supposed to misrepresent my position. Nor is he right in saying that we either get moksha or we get “a political agenda”. This is so typical of the binary dichotomies he learned in the Western academy.

My point in Indra’s Net is that to evaluate Swami Vivekananda’s unity of Hinduism, one must appreciate that he is helping Hindus across a vast spectrum, and not only the 1% pursuing moksha. These vyavharika dimensions are where Swamiji’s teachings of yoga, karma, bhakti and other paths come nicely together. Whether a given practice by itself brings moksha cannot be the sole criteria for evaluating it.

Once Shri Rambachan accepts this point, he would have no choice but to criticize the neo-Hinduism doctrine forcefully. That doctrine essentializes the entire tradition as world negating, and hence they accuse Swami Vivekananda of fabricating/manufacturing Hinduism. This is why they call it neo-Hinduism, i.e. something newly made up during British times. Shri Rambachan is once again evasive of neo-Hinduism by framing the issue as a binary moksha versus politics choice.

Response 6:

Shri Rambachan seeks to confuse readers by over-emphasizing one aspect of his personal life – where he claims to have taken sannyasa and become qualified as an Acharya. But he wants to deflect attention away from his other side, which is what I have mentioned, and which is the one relevant here. That other side is his academic career and the way it has been intertwined with his links to Church groups and Western institutions engaged in religious matters. The mere fact that he evades these is itself troubling. What is he trying to hide? Upon examining this second side one realizes that his frequent and long drawn out references to his life as a Hindu in Trinidad and in Swamiji’s ashram serve as diversion tactics. It is important to bring out the other side as that is where his academic writings are located.

Had he done his PhD in a traditional Hindu institution, it would have been a different matter. But given that his PhD advisor for many years and the most influential mentor in setting up his academic career is a well-known Christian theologian, he cannot simply hide that under the rug as he tries to do. I am referring to Ursula King, in UK.

He says that he does not explicitly mention Prof. King’s work except in two places. But absence and silence does not mean lack of influence. How could a young man from a poor country, a former British colony, go to live in UK and work for many years for his Master’s Degree and then his doctorate under a powerful Christian voice against Hinduism, and not get any influence from her and her cohorts? And why does Shri Rambachan want to extensively discuss one aspect of his autobiography but not another?

Why am I considered to be making ad hominem attacks just because I point out such influences upon him? After all, it is a standard analytical approach in the academy to discuss the socio-political influences upon a thinker whose work is being discussed? Shri Rambachan extensively discuss Swami Vivekananda’s works in the context of the various influences acting upon him. He exaggerates the Christian and Western influences on him. But when I discuss the Christian and Western influences on Shri Rambachan’s own life and career, he calls it an ad hominem attack. What is he wanting to hide here?

I am convinced that he wants to hide the links with the neo-Hinduism camp. He avoids discussing the doctrine of neo-Hinduism and refers to it as something that “Mr. Malhotra claims”. Forget me, what does he think of it? As a Hindu voice, surely he cannot simply ignore it. But he does ignore it in his entire work and even now in his latest articles.

In fact, he ought to be discussing the neo-Hinduism doctrine if he wants to write about my book, because that is the sole target of my book. It says so clearly. Yet Shri Rambachan is completely silent on it.

Is he helping his neo-Hinduism cohorts by deflecting attention towards himself – that he is this humble Hindu who is being ‘victimized’ by the like of me? Is this a way to get readers’ attention away from neo-Hinduism and towards his personal life? Who is pulling his strings to encourage him to do this? If we take him at face value, he is a good Hindu wanting to promote its positive qualities. In that case, he ought to have written a scathing criticism against the loud champions of neo-Hinduism. Instead of doing this, he is in alliance with them. This became clear and explicit when in 2012 at the American Academy of Religion annual conference in Chicago, he teamed up with Brian Pennington to lambast my earlier book, Being Different.

Indra’s Net names the major voices of neo-Hinduism, quotes them extensively to explain what their doctrine is, and how it is linked to Shri Rambachan’s main work. Besides the originators of the doctrine such as his mentor, Ursula King, Indra’s Net cited extensive quotes from several academic voices that are powerful Hinduphobics today. These include: Brian Pennington, Brian Hatcher, Gerald Larson, Sheldon Pollock, Jack Hawley, Romilla Thapar and Meera Nanda, among others. At the very least I had hoped that Shri Rambachan would denounce all those scholars in no uncertain terms. But he has not done that. Suspicion is called for in such circumstances.

These so far have been Rajiv's responses. This post will be updated as further responses from Rajiv come in.

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

Digestion versus Inclusivism

This is one more in our series of blogs on digestion - what it is, and what it isn't. Here, we have a question from a western scholar who has rejected proselytization, and wants to know:
- the difference and similarity between 'inclusivism' and digestion. 
- and haven't some schools of thought in dharma always digested some other schools to yield what is today called Hinduism?

The responses and discussions are quite important. For example, it's pretty stunning that attempts to discredit Vivekananda, and brand Hinduism as some colonial construct, have continued since the 1890s - when Vivekananda enlightened the west, after which the holes in history-centric Christianity were permanently exposed. For a more complete answer to such attempts we will have to await Rajiv's new book 'Indra's Net: Defending India's philosophical unity'.

November 2013

Karl asks:
QUESTION 1:
"...categories/typologies used in interfaith forums to classify forms of dialogues and attitudes toward the "other"...:  exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism.
...
Do you see any similarities or differences between "inclusivism" and "digestion"? In what ways?"

Rajiv comment: 
"This is a good question.

I do not consider the standard academic classification of inter-religious postures into the three (exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism) to be adequate. I am aware that this classification is normative in the classroom. First of all, these are not mutually exclusive of one another because often a given person's attitude is a muddled combination of more than one of them. He might be exclusive on certain points and inclusive in others, for instance.

But more importantly and to the point of your question, Digestion is an outcome that can result from many starting postures including these three postures. An exclusivist posture like Protestant Nicene Creed based denomination explicitly rejects Hinduism and yet appropriates yoga into Christian Yoga. They do so by distorting those aspects of yoga that would not be digestible. So exclusivism can also lead to partial digestion. Similarly, Inclusivism and Pluralism are each prone to culminate as Digestion of Hinduism. My point is that the 3-way classification does not go deep enough as these three are surface positions where the encounter starts but does not end.

SPECIFICALLY, INCLUSIVISM IS NOT AN END STATE BUT AN INTERIM STATE. IT IS AN UNSTABLE STATE OF TRANSITION. The Christian spouse of a Hindu finds inclusivism convenient, and family/friends on both sides can get a period of peace because it can seem that there is no problem. But in fact they have just set aside the hard issues of differences rather than deal with them. So later on, I find in most such cases, problems surface. They would be better off extensively discussing differences up front, and reaching some sort of "deal" consciously rather than pretending there is no issues because they have slogans to chant from both sides."

QUESTION 2:
"Would you agree that what you define as "Hinduism" has also been, and will maybe always be, a locus of digestion of its own? Would you agree that "digestion", as you define it, has taken place within the work of various and great Indian thinkers without them caring much about giving proper acknowledgement to their sources, even sometimes completely modifying the nature of the material they incorporated? (For example, one could try to prove this point by showing how some Buddhist notions were absorbed and reformulated in Vedantic terms, without acknowledgement, even under the cover as one might say. ...) Or would you think that this is impossible?

If it did happen, what do you make of this phenomenon in regard to your own quest of identifying "digestion" in other traditions?"

Rajiv comment: "Yes, there is continual intra-dharma digestion-like process going on, BUT with one critical difference: The source does not get destroyed as in the case of digestion by Abrahamic religions due to their exclusivity claims, and their mandate to take over "100% market share of souls" in the world. The doxographers in India (I refer to them extensively in my forthcoming book (Indra's Net)) were cross-appropriating from one another and kept the debates and purva paksha vibrant all the time. This is how innovation took place. This is why Hinduism has always been dynamic, continuous and yet connected with its sources (whether explicitly acknowledged or not).

Borrowing without harming the source is a good thing. It is how humanity advances by learning from each other. But in Digestion per se, there is no trace of the source left - as Pagans getting digested into Christianity.

There is another important distinction between cross-borrowing among dharma traditions and Abrahamic digestion of others: As BD shows

there are important common tenets across most dharma systems and hence when they borrow the foundation is robust enough for this to happen with mutual respect.  

In history centric religions, the digestion must remove every trace of whatever disagrees with this absolutist and exclusivist historical grand narrative. Hence the latter is invariably destructive..."

Karl's followup:
"....I share your disappointment with the terminology (or typology) used in interfaith forums. ...

As for your views on digestion, if I understand your point, the problem lies in the power struggles generated by the Abrahamic faiths who always tried to impose their views and now try to absorb whatever is attractive in other systems. ... Coming from [], disillusionment with the Church and with other Christian missionaries is deep rooted.

...I am doing my [] research on Indian doxography. .."


Rajiv comment: The best evidence that Indian doxography did not lead to digestion (in the sense of digestion by the west) is that the systems incorporated or borrowed from by a given doxogrpher have continued to survive independently and separately as themselves, in most cases. For example, many Vedantins assimilated ideas from Samkhya but Samkhya flourishes as its own system. Similarly, Gaudapada got Madhyamika Buddhism ideas but nobody has destroyed Buddhism in the process. In other words, cross-learning was not destructive as it was in the case of history centric religions. I am trying to put your attention back on to history centrism."


Kundan adds:

".... your paper [] .... it is quite clear that it is inclusivism that bothers you...inclusivism has bothered the likes of Hacker and Halbfass and numerous other authors who are invested in a social constructivist approach of showing that Hinduism is colonial construct.

The reason why it bothers people who are opposed to inclusivism is the philosophy of Vedanta, which basically brings into its fold anything and everything which is in the universe and beyond—including the so called negative or demoniac forces.

Interpreted from the fundamentalist point of view, the nondual Vedantic philosophy makes the dualistic worldview of Nicene Creed Christianity a subset. This subordinated status is not acceptable to the Nicene Creed because of which the proponents of Vedanta have been under constant line of fire, including an attempt on the life of Swami Vivekananda (please see “On Himself” by him) who is considered to be the chief protagonist of the Vedantic thought in the west. After the fundamentalist Christians were not successful in killing him, they bandied to deconstruct and delegitimize him in western academia, mostly by spreading canards. In every era new ways were devised to do so—the latest is the philosophy of social constructivism under which people like Halbfass, Richard Kind, Brian Pennington, Andrew Nicholson, etc fall. Paul Hacker is actually the father of them all in the modern times. However this scholarship can be traced to the likes of James Mill.

...You have actually taken the battle of de-legitimizing the inclusivism of Vedanta even further—you have taken it to the pre-colonial times. ...you have taken the works of Sadananda and Jitatmananda, fifteenth and sixteenth century Vedantins, to show how inclusivism is based on a fraud (you give the name doxography). So basically, you and your ilk will go to everywhere in Indian thought where an attempt is made to bring existence, universe, cosmos, under the canopy of Oneness, because this threatens the exclusivism and the exclusivity of the Nicene Creed.

Now coming to your questions, if there is a difference between inclusivism and digestion. Rajiv ji has answered how the inclusivism of Nicene Creed becomes problematic when it engages with dharma traditions. Let me answer the question from the Vedantic perspective:

From the Vedantic perspective inclusivism is not digestion. Why? When Vedanta came to the West, it did not promote a singular and homogenous idea. When it spoke about Oneness, it spoke about diversity as well. It created a perfect harmony between Oneness and diversity. It spoke about its own truth but it did not invalidate the truths of Christianity. It did not inculturate to take over Christianity and push Jesus from the pantheon of the divine beings. .. It did not wean away Christians from Christianity but made an effort to make them better Christians—yes, in that wake, it did not dwell on the differences because of which we have “Being Different” now. Vedanta, explicitly and implicitly, did not harm Christianity. It did not go on a conversion drive.."

Let me take the following question (#2)

First and foremost, the thesis of this question itself is flawed. This is again based on the “construction of Hinduism” theme. If my understanding is correct, this will be refuted in Rajiv ji’s upcoming book. In the meantime, if at all you want to change your views, I am sending you a paper titled “Swami Vivekananda in Western Academia.” You can see for yourself the truth which makes you formulate your question in the above manner."

Manish adds a game-theory based thought

"..

// For example, many Vedantins assimilated ideas from Samkhya but Samkhya flourishes as its own system. Similarly, Gaudapada got Madhyamika Buddhism ideas but nobody has destroyed Buddhism in the process.// --- This is a quote from RM (below mailchain)

-- this sounds good and noble...but it has come at a great cost...since so many competing schools of thought are allowed to co-exist, there is no central theme, or a unified civilisational weltanschaaung (''UCW"), in our civilisation that binds people together...even how our people assess threats from enemies is not a uniform process, so our enemies have always found it easy to divide, make inroads and defeat us...

Rajiv comment: The example in the following sentences is a counter productive diversion away from the point that has already been expressed well above .




Manish provides a couple of options:

.... Option A: Take a misplaced pride in notions of nobility even if it means you are never able to forge your own UCW, and therefore are left vulnerable -- even predisposed --- to being decimated by other not-so-noble civilisations who have forged a UCW of their own.

Option B: Be pragmatic, dump all notions of nobility and recognise the stark reality that the civilisation that invariably wins is the one with a UCW (not necessarily the more noble one), which will conquer you and then force its unified civilisational weltanschaaung down your throat.

Game theory suggests that you are better off with (B). In other words, if you don't develop your own UCW, you will end up being subservient to an alien UCW. In either case, you have to have a UCW. So, why not one which is your own UCW?

Rajiv comment: The flaw with the above is seeing the philosophical exchanges among dharmic worldviews as a matter of "nobility" (whatever that might mean). The discussants in India saw their enterprise as a quest for truth, not a political quest.

Seeing in dharma terms, the deficiency being pointed out concerns kshatriyata in the kurukshatra of discourse. My new book (Indra's Net) has a long chapter in the end that gives my solution to this dilemma: how to remain true to our quest and at the same time not be weak and vulnerable to infiltrations/digestions. The problem I address is that we must remain open and yet pre-empt these attacks. Stay tuned..." 

Karl responds to Kudan:
"...I am not bothered by "inclusivism", not even by "exclusivism" or "pluralism". I am more prone to think like Mr. Malhotra on the issue, meaning that I believe that the categories are somehow superficial, at most that they are mental attitudes appearing in some circumstances and not in others..."
 
....you wrongly label my intentions and my work by putting it into some boxes pre-existing in your own worldview. Unfortunately, it does not capture the reality and appears to be a good example of "adhyâropa" (अध्यारोप)...

I have nothing to do with Christianity or any Abrahamic faiths .. as a matter of practice (sâdhana - साधन) I am guided by the Karma Kagyü Lineage of Tibetan Buddhism.
...my view (darshana - दर्शन) can hardly be defined by a single word, or concept, or any substantiation like an "ism". It is certainly not a "religion", not even a cultural phenomenon or some kind of a national identity. At best, it is nothing standing by and of its own.

I am in fact struggling to understand the worldview of those who find it relevant to reify their (relative) identity with such concepts as "ism" or"religion". Especially when these people claim to understand the such deep views as the one found in Vedânta for example. It appears to me as a really "relative" understanding indeed.

To continue, as a scholar, I reject the use of the word "religion", sometimes even of "philosophy". What we call "religion" today is in fact the end of "religion" as it have been understood and lived by most traditions in the past (see Wilfrid Cantwell Smith)." 

[to be continued ...]
 

 

RMF Summary: Week of December 16 - 22, 2012

This first thread is quite an important one with lots of insightful discussions where contributors debate Rajiv ji, and in turn, respond to his followups. Please read the original thread in its entirety, given the nuances in this delicate debate. The thread starts of a video discussion of Hindu identity in the west (USA), where the students ask some frank questions that has resulted in some deep Q&A in this post.
 
December 16 (New Thread)
Important video: My debate/panel with Hindu American youth on identi

This is an important video to watch. I am glad the lady representing Brahma Kumaris preached the standard "sameness" ....

Thakare responds:
"...  1.) The concepts of Brahmakumari are the core of "vyashti sadhana". Sadhana done for personal spiritual upliftment.
2.) Mr. Malhotra's form of sadhana currently is "samashti sadhana". Sadhana done for society at large.
3.) One cannot do samashti sadhana if one is weak in vyashti sadhana. ...

Even Mr. Malhotra explains to the BK lady that what she is talking about is general vyashti sadhana (who am I, peace etc) but the need of the hour is to fight adharma through samashti sadhana. Hindus are ignorant about their own identity thus are confused about the term sadhana itself. Do NOT be egoistic but be firm."


Rajiv comment: 
"I have no problem with such organizations that pursue self-realization of the individual through strictly the inner journey, what I call adhyatma-vidya. In fact I have great respect for the true sannyasi.

But then why do many of them send representatives to speak at a panel on youth identity? Why do such gurus and their followers go to educate students and householders in a manner that is inappropriate for those stages of life. Why are they confused in their own minds about the difference between dharma for different varnas and different ashramas. They live (or claim to live) as sannyasins (stage of life) and brahmins (varna). But 99% of those they teach are not in this category. So its medicine meant for themselves as individuals which they are distributing to the general public.

I ask many of them embarrassing questions like: Why are you raising funds for your organization, working so hard to expand more centers and get more followers, etc. if your pursuit is for your own self realization?

My point is that there is massive hypocrisy. What is lived is not what is being taught in most cases. The teaching is like an iPod reciting mechanically the words that create some lofty impression. The harm caused is that this confuses the general public who revere such guru movements as their supreme authority. Notice how confused the students start out in the panel. Their parents and most lay Hindus are likewise. Where did this come from, and who is accountable for this?

The buck stops at the doorstep of the gurus. They need to be re-educated for modern times."


Narendra comments:
"One cannot be both a Dharma guru and a moksha guru. They are incompatible. One requires complete renunciation and the other renunciation of selfishness only. This is probably why Sanyasis were separated from Grahastas. Sanayasis are not meant to talk/advise about  life they have not experienced. As Prof Kundan in Florida discussion mentioned, we need to develop a dharmic ego/identity  (integration of ego/soul) before striving for Moksha or go straight to mountains and not interfere with dharma process. I have two gurus. A 'Mokha Guru' (self- realized?) who initiated me with a 'Moksha mantra" which  I chant only during my meditation. I have a dhrama guru or a mentor. I  chant 'Dharma mantra' such as 'love, courage,patience etc...' most of the free time to create a stable ego and motivate me in dharma. .."

NV responds:
"In my limited experience, I have found that jivanmuktas do not ask one to give up one's dharma in life. In fact they make one stronger to deal with life. It is wrong to think that moksha and dharma are at loggerheads. Nobody is going to attain any moksha by giving up his/her commitments and responsibilities in life. The sadhus do renounce married life among other things. But I have seen them delve into the problems of householders and guide them in their worldly destinies. As Rajivji pointed out very eloquently in one of his videos (the one with the Brahmakumari), most of us are not going to attain moksha in the near future and it is our duty to protect  Hindu dharma so that it exists to help us in our future lives!.."

Ashay has a detailed post that Rajiv notes as important and responds to:
"This debate is interesting because it gets at the core of what is called neo-Hinduism. I am also alluding here to the recent post where Rajiv mentioned that the attacks on BD by Rambachan and so on, parallel the attacks on Vivekananda. I approach this issue with mixed feelings for while I do support Rajiv's cause, I think Vivekananda as the architect of neo-Hinduism is atleast
partially responsible for the confusion caused by the 'guru movements'. Let me explain how.

1. I think the BK lady articulated what has now become the grand narrative of modern Hinduism. Its origin lies in the so-called Schopenhauerian ethic which has influenced many Vedantic scholars, including Vivekananda. In the 'Philosophy
of the Upanisads', Deussen, one of Schopenhauer's disciples, remarks along these lines: "The Bible teaches that we must love our neighbour. But why should we? Because, the Upanisads say, your neighbour is your own self."...

2. This has now become also the position of Vedanta. The Christian critique of Vedanta is that it is too selfish in that one strives for one's own self-realization and does not care about the world. Intellectuals such as Vivekananda used the Schopenhauerian ethic to address this problem. To be Brahman means to realize that everything including oneself is Brahman and thus to serve the world as Brahman. From the former realization proceeds the latter action. What the BK lady said and what thakare_parvata has elaborated is the same thing. This has unfortunately become the modern self-understanding of Hinduism....

3. Based on my reading of Vivekananda's speeches, I think that he not only endorsed but was probably one of the authors of this narrative. Furthermore, he (or his followers) have wrongly claimed this view to be that of Sankara which I
have attempted to differentiate below. I do realize that many people on this forum have the utmost reverence for Vivekananda and so I would like to clarify that my intention is neither to give offence nor to show disrespect. Neither is
my distinction between Vivekananda and Sankara's ideas based on the same reason as Rambachan's who takes issue with Vivekananda's privileging of mystical experience over scriptural authority...

4. I completely agree with and appreciate Rajiv's efforts to formulate a distinctive laukika Hindu identity instead of this warm and fuzzy spiritualism that dominates Hindu thought today. In this endeavour it would be useful to understand how Sankara's views differ from Vivekananda's. In the Adhyasa-bhashya, Sankara has distinguished between pramana-prameya-vyavahara which is the pre-reflective fight-or-flight kind of responses common to all living creatures including humans, and a reflective, identity-based sastriya-vyavahara which is specific to humans...

5. Of course, Sankara was categorical that jnana is superior to karma and moksa is realized only through jnana. Sastriya-vyavahara, based as it is on worldly identities, is also a form of avidya but that does not mean, as Arjuna found out
in the Gita, that everyone is eligible for jnana. Every living being automatically undertakes the path of karma but only a privileged few can tread the path of jnana. Sankara explains in the Gita-bhasya that the pravrtti-dharma assigned to varnas and asramas is relatively inferior and meant for worldly and
heavenly prosperity only, but when it is selflessly performed, it leads to sattva-shuddhi. This sattva-shuddhi makes one eligible for nivrtti dharma, i.e., the path of jnana leading to moksa. This serial ordering of pravrtti and nivrtti
is relevant even today, only the pravrtti-dharma that addressed varna and asrama identities in the traditional world needs reinterpretation and readjustment to address a Hindu identity for the modern world. I regard the BD as part of the sastric efforts to construct an identity relevant for our times.

6. On the other hand, Vivekananda, and many other modern Hindu intellectuals including the BK lady, see nivritti as the basis for an ethical pravrtti. This is following the Christian model where God's will is seen as the basis of worldly ethics. All that the modern Hindus did was to replace God's will with
nivrtti and claimed, following Deussen and such-like, that it is a more appropriate basis for morality and therefore superior to Western religions. But this has only Christianized us and made us more susceptible to digestion. In Sankara's model this order is reversed. Pravrtti has its basis in the sastras and not in nivrtti. In our case that means we must first have a sastric, i.e., a worldly understanding of a Hindu identity that is reflective and scholarly, and selflessly profess this meaning in everyday life. This way we attain sattva-shuddhi and then, and only then, do we become eligible to make the idealistic claim that Hindu identity is only another form of ignorance and move
beyond it to realize ourselves as the soul or whatever else.

7. Just as colonialism encouraged certain interpretations of varna/jati, so did it encourage an understanding of religion as selfless service to humanity based on a non-denominational, divine self-realization, and a corresponding disregard towards the intellectual interpretation of tradition. Vivekananda was as much a victim of this shift for he dismissed, as did Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, the argumentative aspect of Vedanta as 'intellectual gymnastics'. Such thinking has
caused great harm to the tradition and has produced the current crop of anti-intellectual gurus and matas. But there is nothing hypocritical about them performing the activities Rajiv mentions. When you take their model of religion into consideration, as explained above, it makes perfect sense. So my answer to Rajiv's question regaring the current confusion among Hindus, 'where did this come from, and who is accountable for this?' would be not the gurus but this
anti-intellectual paradigm that they follow....

Rajiv's response: 
First I agree with Ashay that SV co-founded modern Hinduism, which its critics call neo-Hinduism. This had many good and bad things in it. Sameness was one of its curses that we live with today. This was due to SV and others having difference anxiety from below. But it also did many good things - unifying various diverse schools, modernizing it in line with new science and other developments, which is not anything wrong and our tradition calls for this evolution. ...NOTE; BD unifies dharmas without also including Abrahamic religions in the same fold. This is where the pioneers failed last time around. In unifying Hinduism the arguments became too generic and could not differentiate other religions. If you get this point, you will appreciate why the BD project is so challenging to do and why BD can make a big difference if it is understood: HOW TO SHOW UNITY OF DHARMA IN A MANNER SUCH THAT IT SHOWS DIFFERENCE WITH ABRAHAMIC FAITHS. But there is a SECOND truth that I am concerned about. Rambachan is a member of a school of social constructivism that is basically undermining Hinduism in total. Not Rambachan himself is not rejecting Hinduism in total, but those who use the arguments and base established by this school end up claiming that:
Hinduism = Hindu Nationalism = Fascism = Exploitation of minorities, dalits, etc. I am in the middle of writing a short book arguing against this school that was started by western Indologists and now is very popular amongst many Indians.  These two truths correspond to two camps and we must fight both.  

Surya adds:
"By serial ordering, what you are saying is that good dharmic living leads to antah-karan-suddhi.  This in turn facilitates jnana.  You contrasted this to neo-Hindu idea of jnana leading to selfless service and see that as undermining tradition.  You called it Schopenhauerian ethic, suggesting that such ethical thought was alien to Indians.

Some questions to you:  In your view of tradition, are there no benefits to the laukika life of an Advaitin as he aspires for liberation?  Are there no benefits to his society?  Are laukika life and adhyatmika life unrelated to each other?  Do liberated Advaitins have anything more to their life than just be world-renouncing sanyasis?..."

Rajiv's response:

I agree with Surya and have issues with the person he responds to. The theory that "tat tvam asi" as basis for ethics in Hinduism was started by Schopenhauer and taught to Vivekananda by Duessen, was promulgated by Paul Hacker, the German missionary-Indologist, and spread by other western Indolgists. Then Rambachan started adding philosophical depth to it. This and many other attacks on Vivekananda that followed from the same school of anti-Vivekananda...

... welcome others who have something concrete to offer during the next 30 days to contact me offline. In particular I need those well versed in Vedanta literature by Shankara as well as his critics..."

 

Arun shares a link and comments: "I do not know how much clearer SV has to be, April 8, 1900, San Francisco " Rajiv's response: "There is a distinction he makes between Jesus and Christianity. He sees Jesus on par with enlightened masters that we are familiar with, and at the same time criticizes Christianity as an institution that does live up to the true Jesus. Many modern Christians also say similar things: "We believe in the true Jesus, not the Church." My question remains: How did Swami Vivekananda validate Jesus based on third-person accounts in the Bible? When pressed philosophically, those who teach whats being called "Christian Vedanta" (and now the "Vedanta" portion is being dropped and its being digested into a Neo-Christianity of sorts), like to say that they re-imagine Jesus in light of Vedanta, and not as taught by the Church. ... These new Christians go through various stages of digestion: .... So church as institution comes back, reborn with Vedanta digested. Many such movements are starting. In fact, the Vatican is looking the other way...   Somewhere along the way, Hinduism-Buddhism get rejected using various arguments, a combination of: A) theology (that without the historicity of Jesus such faiths can at best be preparations for Christianity); and B) social sciences (citing caste and other abuses as reason to reject)...." Jalan has a detailed response, which we only excerpt below. "    Any grand commentator on scriptures may appear to some as creating a "new version" of them (neo-vedanta, neo-Hinduism, etc.) Whose interpretation to believe, whose commentary to consider authentic?     An Apta, on the authority of their first hand experience/realisation, is the only competent interpreter. A scholastic/intellectual analyst of scriptures is not competent to overrule an Apta's interpretation/commentary on the scriptures. The question is if RK/SV qualified as Aptas. Better still, can we think of someone who qualifies as an Apta and who overrules SV/RK version or is it just "intellectuals" who are beating their chests? ....     [Ashay] writes: "...Deussen, one of Schopenhauer's disciples, remarks along these lines: "The Bible teaches that we must love our neighbour. But why should we? Because, the Upanisads say, your neighbour is your own self." He thus saw the Upanisads as complementing the Bible." This line of argument is wrongly being ascribed to SV...  ... "The Christian critique of Vedanta is that it is too selfish in that one strives for one's own self-realization and does not care about the world." I would be very sad to see someone actually buy such a shoddy and meritless critique. (And of all the peoples in the world this coming from the Christian, whose only motive power is seeking an eternal heavenly pleasure garden and avoiding eternal damnation and hell-fire! Irony cannot go farther.) "One's own self realisation at the cost of the world" is perfectly antithetic to SV's message. [Ashay] would do well to research better and come up with EVEN ONE SINGLE QUOTE where SV even alluded at such an idea. On the other hand, try these:         "May I be born again and again and suffer thousands of miseries, so that I may worship the only God that exists, the only God I believe in, the sum total of all souls - and above all my God the wicked, my God the miserable, my God the poor of all races, and of all species is the special object of my worship."         "If you seek your own salvation, you will go to hell. It is the salvation of others that you must seek and even if you have to go to hell in working for others, that is worth more than to gain heaven by seeking your own salvation."    .... I also disagree with Shri RM that SV proposed sameness in religions out of difference-anxiety from below - there is nothing in the known life - action or words - of SV that shows he suffered from such an inferiority-complex as to generate this anxiety. On the contrary, the sameness that SV professed was to aggressively debunk the very exclusivity and history-centric creed that the Abrahminic religions claim as truth. It was certainly not anxiety-driven. He spoke from a position of strength alone, hardly diluting Hinduism. After being really impressed with the BD revolution, I had many times wondered whether what SV said in 1893 in Chicago to the American audience, surrounded by the superiority and exclusivity claim of Christianity, was in fact amiss; that it in any way compromised the status or principles of Hinduism. I concluded otherwise....It also deflated the Christian agenda which was prepared only for words of hatred and not for a message of inclusiveness - they ran like headless chicken and in response to this unexpected attack of love, could only mumble and prattle senselessly. Their defeat was clear and conclusive. Is such an aggressive dharma-sangat sameness missing the point? I guess not. ...Just because foolish Hindus could translate anything in a defensive and escapist way, being victims of their own tamasik tendencies, we must not start to denounce the source. It is the self-same Hindus who would quote the Gita in a most twisted fashion to justify the inaction and cowardliness that it clearly tries to demolish. What we are asking for now is something unreasonable - that what someone says must carry the same message and be interpreted consistently across ALL space-and-time points, all contexts, all audiences and societies. This is unfair. Just like Shri RM, SV was also engaged in the samashti sadhna serving the cause and purpose of Hinduism - the former used the sameness route while Shri RM is using the BD route, each being appropriate in the respective spatio-temporal environs to which they belong/-ed. Both sameness of SV and BD of RM are attacking/controverting the same exclusivity claims of Abrahminic  - the contradiction is only apparent. At the same time, I do personally believe that in the inter-religious encounter - and equally/more importantly in the intra-Hinduism forums - our position today must be based on the Being Different principles and not the sameness principles. "  Rajiv responds to Jalan: "Abhishek Jalan disagrees that SV proposed sameness in religions out of difference-anxiety from below... My response: Please note the following quote from SV: "Truth came to Jesus of Nazareth, and we must all obey him. But the truth came to the Rishis of India - the Mantra-drashtas, the seers of thought - and will come to all Rishis in the future, not to talkers, not to book-swallowers, not to scholars, not to philologists, but to seers of thought." (Complete Works, volume 3, p. 283.) In his Collected Works.... In his Collected Works, vol. 7.... First I want to have someone verify these references as I am rushed for time and have not checked lately to make sure. [Dear reader: please contribute here if you can] But regardless, I can find similar references in SV's writings and much more directly pro-Jesus/Bible teachings by his followers. My issue with such remarks is as follows: How does SV know what "state" Jesus had? Most of the Bible is third-person accounts by various onlookers, making it smriti, which cannot be equated with first-person accounts of rishis... ... This message opened the door slightly, which others later flung wide open. Swami Prabhavananda who was sent by the RK Mission to lead Vedanta Society in USA in the early 1900s, was a big factor in making this new kind of Vedanta that was de-contextualized...... small sample of whats being propagated in the name of Vedanta by both Hindus and Judeo-Christians alike: http://americanvedantist.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Vol_10_No_2.pdf ...[more refs snipped for brevity] ... BD does NOT want to find common ground among dharma traditions in a broad/generic way (like we all believe in love for mankind) that includes Abrahamic faiths as part of the dharma family or vide versa. In other words, the differences must be non-digestible into Abrahamic frameworks or the digestion must undermine those frameworks. .." Jalan responds: " I almost entirely agree with Shri RM. I would still like to clarify as below: None of the quotes or the objections actually show difference anxiety from below, something which I think even Shri RM concedes. SV did believe in what he said and it was not driven by some flawed psychological/social condition. RK had meditated on JC for a long period ..... SV is not comparing Bible to the Vedas but yes he is indeed comparing JC with Rishis.... I do not think that admiring JC and a few sublime parts in the Bible makes you Christian - and it is hardly anti-dharma.  At the same time I do completely agree that: such nuances and subtleties may be lost on normal Hindus that do not invest too much time in understanding their own tradition or others' and coupled with the grand Church machinery that has aggressive designs and the weak status of Dharma, there is a clear danger of digestion if Hindus start to parrot it. Hence it should be avoided by everyone including the Hindu leaders. digestion as propounded by Shri RM is something phenomenal and needs to be urgently addressed. This is a great service to Dharma, similar to what earlier great Hindu leaders like SV have done. Shri RM's idea of unifying the Dharma schools/religions/traditions while at the same time maintaining their distinct identity against the Abrahminic religions and their dharma-viruddth principles is a pioneering effort and merits full appreciation and support, from the ordinary Hindu and the leadership. (Someone conversant with statistical analysis could see that this is conceptually similar to the ratio of within-group and between-group variances being the true statistic of difference.) .." Sandeep responds: "Later in life, Swami Vivekananda felt that Jesus may have been a fictional character but he continued to believe in him because Ramakrisha, when questioned about the veracity of Krishna-Gopi tales, had told him that the people who created such myths must have had some divine perception (bhava). His inference about the fictionality of Jesus was based on a dream he had in Dec 1896 while returning from Europe and Asia.  The text that follows is based on Nivedita's account... Vivekananda : "....On the whole, I think old Rabbi Hillel is responsible for the teachings of Jesus, and an obscure Jewish sect of Nazarenes — a sect of great antiquity — suddenly galvanized by S. Paul, furnished the mythic personality as a centre of worship. "The resurrection, of course, is simply spring-cremation. ..." Kaushal comments: " I am not a scholar in this field. But, after reading text in this blog and our experience(3-4 years back) at Pune Ram Krishna Mission Office, now I realize that how much true this digestion theory is. The Pune based Ram Krishna Mission is under control of Christian Missionary.  It seems that, Christian missionary has planted their own men in charge of the mission. The head of center wearing saffron dress was more aware of Jesus and Bible than Puran and Upnishad, The Library was full of Christian books.." Rohit adds: "This is the modern way of destroying a temple and building a church over it.  Apparently, missionaries have realized that buildings and institutions themselves are valuable assets. A similar incident happened at the Universities in Tirupati - a Christian vice-chancellor decided to secularize the universities by removing anything to do with Hinduism..."   Mokashi responds to a previous comment: " "I wonder whether the validity of Rama and Krishna could also fall prey to such a query" The divinity of Rama and Krishna follows from what are known as pramaana texts and not from meditation or experiences. This concept of pramaana is outside the scope of discussion, but is followed rigidly by more traditional scholars..." Rajiv's response:  The above view represents the Paul Hacker school... I disagree that the role of experience has caused sameness. BD emphasizes experience (adhyatma-vidya) over history-centrism. In fact the abrahamic religions do not allow knowing God bypassing the history centric canon and relying upon a higher state of consciousness. Such a state is not easy and cannot simply be proclaimed arbitrarily. There are processes, tests, pre-requisites. Thats what is missing in Judeo-Christianity, hence the craving to digest this from us." CR responds: " .. The concept of pramana comes from the principle that the nature of a thing is what the thing itself is, and not something that is dependent on the mind and intellect that sees it. A pramana is that which reveals the thing in its own intrinsic nature. In the case of Sruti, which speaks about the knowledge that is Self-established (svatah-sidhha), the Sruti reveals the Truth by reflection of the Self-established Truth that exists in one's Self when the obstructions to seeing it in the form of mental impurities are removed. > SV and RK popularized that Vedas are notes of "experiences" > of Rishis which is at odds with what they are viewed in > tradition before. This is wrong. Swami Vivekananda never spoke of the the truths mentioned in the Sruti as products of experience. On the contrary, he compared them to the law of gravity which exists whether people discover it or not. The Rishis, said SV, are like the discoverers of the law of gravity. How does this raise the status of experience over the eternal truths revealed by Sruti? ... In the Christian world, the practice of religion is seen as merely holding on to some articles of faith rather than in obtaining direct communion with the Divine through 'experiencing here and now'. I think this is what Rajiv-ji is emphasizing with these words below. ." Vish adds: "This is the best rendering of the 'Bhagawad Gita' for the 'Kurukshetra' of our times! The clarion call from the original Geeta and from Vyaasa himself, has always been crystal clear - "Rise up when Dharma is under siege". ...There is a huge lack of "Poorva Paksha" in those who box the Geeta into a tool to advance their own ideology, without first inviting all rich thoughts into the theatre and then only allowing the one with the merit to cream to the surface. .... We were always called to provide a "Raksha" for the Dharma by keeping it alive. Dharma was also shown symbolically as a Bull completely strong and rooted when on four legs, but pitiful and tot erring when reduced to a single weak one."   December 17 (Continuing Thread) Hindi Edition of Being Different As some of you may know,Hindi version of Shri Rajiv Malhotra's pioneering book,'Being Different' will be published in a few months. The English version was a best seller... [lots of great comments that suggest titles. here is the latest sample, sent by Srinath]: "Not an extensive title, but closer in translation to the English "Being Different - an Indian Challenge to Western Universalism" might be: Dhaarmik Bhinnataa - Pashchimee Aatyantikataa kaa Bhaarateeya PratikshepaN " December 17 (New Thread) The importance of Being Different Venkat shares a video:  Dear Friends Please watch this short video (thought provoking and humorous) .of a few generations of Indians in the US and how they lose their identity It... December 18 (continuing thread) Rajiv's new blog on FirstPost. Please read Rajiv's blog on FirstPost (an Indian blog). This is the 3rd blog on FirstPost. This one reiterates Rajiv's demands for rhetorical changes in... Arun posts: "> Claim 3: Only Christianity is the true religion. > Argument: Historical evidence shows that Jesus resurrected after crucifixion. This is proof for his divinity. Christianity is the only religion that can offer proof for its truth claims. Therefore, those claims are true. Therefore, Christianity is a true religion. Excellent layout of the argument. The American Founding Fathers, who were more deists than Christian, accepted the idea that: Claim 4: Religious truth-claims cannot be decided. Moreover toleration has the implication that one side has the upper hand and permits the other side to exist, and this is inconsistent with liberty. And therefore mutual respect was necessary. PS: Wiki: Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. " Maria adds:  "Surya, You are right that egalitarian thinking is wasted on Christian 'fundamentalists', who stick to the fundamentals, but less and less people are enamoured by these fundamentals, and that's where Hindus can have influence. The Time article quotes some 'fundamentalists', but also asks "Is Bell's Christianity” less judgmental, more fluid, open to questioning the most ancient of assumptions on an inexorable rise? And ends on a positive note with a quote of Bell: something new is in the air...." December 19 (continuing post) Myles Collier of Christian Post Dear Rajivji: What a wonderful response to the questions from Myles Collier of Christian Post! What you have started is similar to what Adi Shankaracharya did... Latest comment by Mohan: ".... These conversations really inspire us. I hope we find youngsters dare enough to do such. (In Samskrita Bharati Tamilnadu 11 of us in early 20s 'abandoned'  our homes, lucrative career just for Bharata Mata seva.But we require Quantity too (of course quality also)..."  December 20 (New Thread) Discussion at Vidya Bharati Foundation: Youtube audio Could some one provide me an alternate video/audio link on the talk made by Dr.Rajivji at Vidya Bharati foundation, May 2012 at Canada. I could find that the...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO9qCeA640E Rajiv's response: It works fine if you wear headsets. Most of the talks on Youtube we posted require wearing headsets. December 21 (New Thread) Christian missionary activity in AP Suketu posts: People it is my misfortune to inform you that unofficial Christian population of Andhra has reached over 30 percent. I am not exaggerating, this is from...    RD99 responds: "Conversions are mostly confined to andhra regions and not telengana.It is business strategy to form a NGO and get funds from europe, in the name of conversions,and lead a  comfortable life.  Late YSR  was instrumental in introducing funding for christian piligrims similar to HAJ subsidy.His son Jagan languishing in jail won recent by-elections, because SC converts voted 100% to him deserting traditional congress..."