Ram was not a Misogynist- Stop spreading lies, Patnaik.

Dr. Nellutla Naveena Chandra

Article by Devdutt Patnaik: https://scroll.in/article/801243/why-is-ram-misogynist-but-not-the-buddha

In this rebuttal Patnaik’s text is shown in underlined italics and my rebuttal in solid black.

Patnaik: It is interesting that in all writings of patriarchy and misogyny related to India, scholars quote the Ramayana and the Manu Smriti, yet historically these were composed after the Vinaya Pitaka.

Who are these scholars?

1. Someone with a Ph. D. from an ivy league university.
2. The same with a teaching job in one of these universities.
3. The same who belongs to “the country club” of American Orientalists.
4. The same one with the so-called bogus peer evaluation – publication - perpetuation of lies background.
5. Someone belonging to a coterie of individuals who have not published a new idea since Maxmuller interpreted Hindu history based on the Bible. We must remember that Maxmuller was no historian.
6. The same gang who write petitions against Prime Minister Modi?
7. The same clique who under the name of “scholarship” propagate theories without any evidence and ignore the evidence that contradicts their opinions.
8. The historian-mafia that has so far failed to prove their pet theory “Aryan Invasion Theory”.
9. The band of bandits who refuse to accept Aryabhata’s date of Kali Yuga (February 18, 3012 BCE) so easily accepted by John Playfair, Jean Sylvain Bailly, Laplace, Cassini, Voltaire among other giants of significant achievements. Who among the herd of orientalists compares with Laplace who stood his ground facing Napoleon when he said he did not need God to calculate the positions of planets but only his knowledge of celestial mechanics most of which he formulated.
10. The same rambunctious mob of tenure holders who waste tax payer’s money with neocolonialist penchant to denigrate Hindu achievements out of jealousy.
11. No thank you Devduttji we cannot accept the opinions of this historian-brotherhood who refuse to furnish evidence for AIT and other pet theories.

I will give you the reasons why I will not accept their opinions:

1. First and foremost, they may have learnt by rote Maxmuller’s unproven ideas on Hindus but they don’t have the adhikara to write anything about us.
2. They are driven by a thoroughly discredited Marxist Theory. Why is it discredited? It has utterly failed in USSR (leading to its dismemberment), in China (which has since become capitalist arch enemy of Marxism) and in Cuba.
3. They ignore the genocide in Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Churchill’s genocide of more than three million Indians in a famine created by him in 1943, the extermination of races by Spanish and Portuguese the world over.
4. They blame the phenomenon of Hitler on Sanskrit and Brahmins without evidence.
5. They ignore the undesirable Bible influence on the US society which rejects Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and cry foul on Hindu society in whatever little mistake they find there.
6. They collaborate with evangelicals who are bent on converting all Hindus and in breaking up of India.
7. They have no respect for Hindu sentiments on their Gods, Goddesses, Customs, Rituals and beliefs while respecting worse in Abrahamic religions.
8. They revere Monotheism a thoroughly violent theory that lead to wars in 2000 years of the miserable existence of Christianity and fourteen hundred years of Islam.
9. They are in league with theocratic regimes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and hate India that shining beacon of democracy, diversity and plurality.
10. They are pedantic and pompous, the prime example being Sheldon Pollock.
11. They think they are scholars of Sanskrit but have been exposed at their limited skills of translation from that eminent language and they propagate the greatest myth of all the demise of Sanskrit and celebrate, spread, disseminate, broadcast, publicize, proclaim, preach and circulate this lie day in and day out without a shred of evidence.
12. Did I give enough reasons why opinions of these pseudo scholars without adhikara cannot be accepted in cultured and civilized circles?

Now let us look at the issue of Ram’s misogyny.

Is the current POTUS one of the most notorious women haters? Are the statements attributed to him on famous women and the tweets he issues forth enough evidence?

Now where is the evidence that Ram was a misogynist? Did Ram say anything against women? Can anyone claiming Ram was a woman hater quote a single quotation coming out of his mouth that denigrates women? We must look at Valmiki Ramayana and not any other Ramayana. Anecdotal evidence is often accepted as truth in case of Hindu smritis and shritis and epics and kavyas. Or you form an opinion first and look for the evidence that supports that opinion and totally ignore the evidence that negates that opinion. Sheldon Pollock is an expert in this. He first formulated the theory that Sastras were regressive and no new knowledge was produced as the time went by. All six Darshanas have different ideas and are prime example of production of new knowledge. He ignores this evidence and only writes about ideas were repeated. Repetition of ideas is bound to happen considering the volume of work produced in Sanskrit. Vatsyayana gives a refreshing entirely new outlook on sex. Sheldon Pollock thinks that every Hindu carries a copy of Kamasutra to bedroom every day. He also misquotes to prove a point. In his paper on Sastras published in 1985, he misquotes V.S. Naipaul. Pollock wanted to prove that Hindu sastras were regressive. Naipaul in writing a NY Times review says this of mogul art, “limited by the civilization, by an idea of the world in which men were born only to obey rules.” The glitter of that art without any message to convey and so hollow was the hall mark of Mogul times. Enter Pollock attributing Naipaul’s observation on Muslims to all Hindu sastras. This was intellectual dishonesty raised to the power of infinity. Naipaul a 20th century commentator, Moghul art in the time range of around 1500 CE and sastras were much older at least 500 BCE - all put together only to prove Pollock’s contention that Sastras were regressive. Was Pollock deliberately trying to pass a lie in the prestigious Journal of American Oriental Society (Theory of Practice and Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History, Journal of the American Oriental Society 105.3 (1985),pp499-519.)? But how this paper passed “peer evaluation”? This shoddy work is not likely to happen in Physics or Mathematics, but it happens in historical research. It happens more often in Hindu history research.

First the lie is initiated in a journal (scholarly journal?). No body verifies it. Peer evaluation passes it. Then the lie is repeated by a Wendy, a Patnaik, a Mishra, a Vajpayee and it acquires the life of its own and attains the status of truth. That Ram was a woman hater belongs to this category. Ram and Sita live a normal life of love and dedication for more than 4 decades. One instance not borne out of hatred does not mean he was a woman hater. After the war, he wants a fire test to prove her “sheelam”. In his mind, he knew she was chaste. For the sake of onlookers, he asks a fire test. Applying twenty first century morality to Treta Yuga is odd. Joan of Arc was burnt alive by Anglo Saxon Protestants only in 1431. All of us know human bodies cannot survive fire. Valmiki says Agni, fire God Himself, carried Sita and brought her out of the pyre. Sita came out unharmed, not even a small mark was found on her body and at least Valmiki does not describe any injury. Since we are applying Feminist rules of today to that long-ago period, why we should shirk from applying our knowledge of fire we possess today to that event? To any sane mind, it looks like Sita was never put on fire but made to look like that – it was an illusion. Perhaps created by Ram himself, or Agni. Ram’s relations with Kausalya, Kaikaiyi and Sumitra were based on respect and love. His treatment of Mandodari was that of a perfect gentleman.

He was above all “eka patnee vratah”, that is he had only one wife, and he never committed adultery- how can he be a misogynist? Aren’t these two enough to say he was not a misogynist. Would a misogynist practice monogamy? Would misogynist be non- adulterous? A misogynist can never be a monogamist and chaste. A bigamist and a philanderer must be a misogynist. Rama was a monogamist and was a chaste person – therefore he was not a misogynist. Both the theory and its converse prove Ram was not a misogynist.

Rama was known to be a prime example of devotion to father. In the first instance, he defied his father was when he had only one wife and in the second instance he defied his father was he never committed adultery. For a person who was a role model for pitrubhakti throughout the ages to deviate from his father’s behaviour clearly says he was above all a dharmika person and that for him to respect woman was dharma. He was not a misogynist because he was the embodiment of dharma.

This lie was also initiated by Pollock group and repeated enough number of times to pass it as a truth. Patnaik starts his article with the assumption that Ram was a misogynist without a proof. But that is vintage Devdutt Patnaik. That is the status of research in history as conducted by Americans and Europeans and followed by sepoys like Patnaik.

There are four periods historically in Vedic lore. Krita Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapara Yuga and Kali Yuga. Each Yuga had its Dharma Shastra. Manu Smriti was dharmasastra for Krita Yuga. For Kali Yuga Parasara Smriti is dharmasastra. Parasara Smriti allows widow marriage and women having property. Denigrating Manu for the umpteenth time is not going to win any brownie points.

Patnaik: Buddha lived in pre-Mauryan times while the Ramayana, with its concern for kingship, was written in post-Mauryan times. Arguments of oral traditions and astrology-based dating that place Ram to pre-Buddhist times appeal only to nationalists, not historians.

First, what concern Ramayana had for kingship? Here Patnaik completely missed the point. The objective of Avatar of Rama was punishment of Rakshasas like Tataka, Subahu, Mareecha, Surphanaka, and finally Ravana, Kumbhakarna and Indrajit and install Vibheeshan Ravana’s brother, a dharmic Rakshasa on Lanka’s throne. The concern of Ramayana was killing of Ravana and not who will be heir for Ayodhya kingdom, that problem was resolved peacefully, a mark of Hinduism, not normal in Christian Europe and in Muslim world. Rama’s banishment to forest was designed to take him away closer to Lanka. Rama willingly abdicates the throne to keep his father’s promise to Kaikeyi, who wants her son Bharata to be the king because of his love of his father, a fact Marxists don’t mention but see it as weakness. By the time Bharata returns to Ayodhya, Rama had already left. Out of his love for the elder brother, and not wanting to be the king, Bharata chastises his mother and sets out to the forest to bring Rama back and put him on the throne. This mutual love and dedication between brothers is also not mentioned by Marxists, Christians and Muslims. Compare this with what Jahangir, Shah Jehan and Aurangzeb did to their brothers. The fratricidal, and hence barbarian, Moghuls are darlings of Pollock and the group, but not Rama and Bharata. Pollock says Rama was weak and Moghuls were strong. In the forest looking at Bharata from the top of the tree Lakshmana gets excited and says to Rama, “Here comes Bharata to kill all of us. Be prepared, O Rama.” To which the reply from the elder brother, “No, you are mistaken. He is coming here to ask me to go back to Ayodhya and perform coronation of me.” As it turned out Rama was right.

Bharata having requested and refused the return of Rama, then requests and gets Rama’s slippers to be put on the throne in his lieu. Bharata did not become the King. He was in-charge of kingdom. Neither in Europe nor in Arabia, will you find these laudable ethics and morals and hence Ramayana and the principles it stood are strange to them. In Ayodhya all citizens attended “The coronation of Slippers” known as “Paduka Pattabhishekham”, also not comprehended by Pollock. Thus, Ramayana was not concerned with kingship. Ignorance of Patnaik shows so pronouncedly he should stop writing on Ramayana.

A point must be made here. After the war, Ram refuses to occupy or annex Lanka to Ayodhya, saying the riches of lanka he does not like, he prefers home land because, “जननी जन्म भॊष्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसि”, mother and mother land are superior to Swargam. He was a great patriot of India, perhaps the first, and a great statesman like of which had not been seen in the long Dharmik History.

Patnaik draws a line between nationalists and historians- remember it is his line. On a Venn diagram these are two nonintersecting circles mutually exclusive as portrayed by Patnaik. I can quote any number of names who are nationalists but also historians. However, historians like Pollock are not nationalists as he wants to break up India by creating Aryan-Dravidian division, a Freudian slip by Patnaik. The age of events is determined by astronomical data such as eclipses and positions of celestial bodies as was known to rishis at the time. Let me remind you that in Chandogyopanishad, Nakshatra Vidya is mentioned as one of the occupations. The practitioners observe Nakshatras and orally record them and pass them on to next generation. It was not astrological data- again a Freudian slip or betrays the ignorance of the author. Long before Greeks knew, Hindus already mapped equinoxes and solstices. The famous death of Bhishma is linked to winter solstice in January when sun enters the northern hemisphere or earth moves south of sun. Now winter solstice occurs in December some 22 days before Makara Sankranti. The winter solstice moved because of precession of earth’s axis and is known as precession of equinoxes. That the day and night are equal on equinoxes and day is shortest on winter solstice and longest on summer solstice was known for a long time. In Telugu Mahabhagavatam these facts are mentioned by the great poet Potana. This book was written around 1500 CE. It is taken from Vyasa’s book written at least two thousand years before. Bhishma’s choice of dying on Uttarayana or winter solstice gives us a tool to determine the date of his death. Since we know the rate of precession, we can estimate the time taken by the earth to move so that winter solstice occurs 22 days earlier. The date is January 17, 3067, when Bhishma niryana occurred. See how close it is to Aryabhatta’s date. Why “historians” refuse to accept the astronomical method of calculating the age of events of the past? Is it the same reason that they refuse to accept the role played by Russians in defeating Hitler but give credit to England ignoring all historical data?

Patnaik: Manu Smriti and other dharmashastras were written in the Gupta era when Brahmins played a key role in legitimising kingship in much of peninsular India.

We need a proof and not the opinions of Maxmuller repeated over and over to say that dharmasastras were written in Gupta’s period. I give four exceptions – Apastamba’s Sulabha sutras were written circa 800 BCE (see Kim Plofker and David Mumford) who say Pythagoras Theorem should be renamed Boudhayana Theorem. Now David Mumford is a famous mathematician who won a Congress Medal and a Shields Medal for Mathematics. The second example is the work of Pingala who was preoccupied with the problem of how many three lettered ganas (words) could be formed using one hrasva and one deergha- a short letter and a long letter. His method was unique- first he found how many one letter words could be formed- obviously only 2. Then he found how many four letters could be formed, which is 4. Then he deduced and proved there were 8 three letter words that could be formed. This was power series of 2. Today this method goes by the name of Pascal’s triangle. Manjula Bhargava, another Fields Medal winner suggests Pascal Triangle should be renamed as Pingala’s Triangle. Then the famous Caraka Samhita and Susruta Samhita on medicine and surgery were written circa 500 BCE. Pingala’s work was about Sanskrit grammar which puts a date for Sanskrit- not 300 CE a favourite date of Pollock. Of course, Chanakya’s Arthasastra was written during Maurya Period. Vedas and Vedangas were written before Apastmbha Sutras that were based on them, therefore they are pre- 800 BCE.

Patnaik: The pre-Buddhist Vedic rituals speak of female sexuality in positive terms as they are concerned primarily with fertility and wealth-generation. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads do not bother much with gender relations and are more interested in metaphysics. Much of Buddhist literature was put down in writing long before Sanskrit texts (Ashokan edicts in Prakrit date back to 2300 years; the earliest Sanskrit royal inscriptions have been dated to only 1900 years ago). This makes Buddhist writings the watershed of Indian literature, after which womanhood came to be seen as polluting, obstacles to the path of wisdom.

One of the Ashoka’s edicts does mention the name of Rama, meaning Ramayana was written before 2300. This fact I mentioned in my rebuttal to Wendy Doniger’s inane article. Also, Sangam literature, the oldest Tamil literature parts of which are as old as 5000 years per some Tamil friends, mention is made of Raman and Sitai’s jewelry. So, Ramayana from two different sources can be traced to very old times, much to the chagrin of Pollock. I have asked a Buddhist friend to check the veracity of Patnaik’s statements on that religion.

Patnaik: We could, of course, argue that that most educated Buddhists were originally Brahmins and so transplanted Hindu patriarchy into Buddhism, that the Buddha had no such intention. We can insist that Vedas and only the Vedas, are the source of misogyny. This follows the pattern of “good” Buddhism and “bad” Hinduism structure we find in most colonial and post-colonial academic papers.

That Vedas are source of misogyny is the most bogus statement even by Patnaik’s standard. Two women Gargi and Mitreyi wrote passages of Rig Veda on the very tough subject of Atma and Brahmam and they wrote commentaries on Brahma Sutras. We hear of women like Kausalya, Sumitra and Kaikeyi wives of Dasharath, Satyavati (Shantanu’s wife) and Kunti (Panduraju’s wife) who never did sati after becoming widows, and of women who left their husbands as they did not agree with each other. Sita left Rama and Ganga left Shantanu, showing again Vedic period was egalitarian as far as gender relations go. Damayanti carries on a very intelligent and free conversation with her husband, Nala pointing out his mistakes. We see many discourses between spouses in many stories as late as Purana period. Draupadi carried on very engaging conversations with all her five husbands. Misogyny is a European and Arabian invention and never a part of Dharma chintana. Hindu heroines were intelligent, well educated, well informed, well respected, equal to their husbands, were fighters- contrary to that happened after Ghazni murdered, pillaged, raped, enslaved and committed unspeakable crimes against humanity- hero to Sheldon Pollock and the process was repeated under Timur, Ghori, Khilji, Moguls and last nut not least British. Hindus could not protect their women who were then confined to house for their safety- their freedom was lost to Muslims and Christians.

Prejudice in Hinduism studies: The case of Microsoft Encarta - chapter 16 part 1

Go to Chapter 15

Pdf of the book is available for free download here.

The scholarship of certain sections of the academic community studying Hinduism has been controversial in the Indian community. In this article we try to examine whether there is truth to this controversy, and whether such academics influence the mainstream portrayal of ‘Hinduism’ in standard sources. We use the Microsoft® Corporation’s Encarta® Encyclopedia as the reference for this study.

Introduction

In this article we discuss the differences, in both approach and result, of Encarta’s articles on Hinduism in comparison with the articles on some of the other major world religions in Encarta. Encarta Encyclopedia is published by the Microsoft Corporation, which claims that it is the

“Best-selling encyclopedia brand”. Encarta is widely used as a reference source in American schools. In particular, because of its widespread use among children, we would expect Encarta’s coverage of religions to be even-handed, sensitive and unprejudiced.

In particular, we contrast Encarta’s treatment of Hinduism, with the two other major religions—Islam and Christianity. On occasion, we also refer to the treatment of other religions like Judaism and Buddhism. The purpose of this article is not to make value judgments or a comparative study of the religions themselves. In studying such vast and complex phenomena as the major religions, one can always find conflicting or questionable issues, just as one can find highly elevating truths. What aspects of the religion get highlighted is a matter of editorial choice. Our interest is not in comparing the religions per se, but in understanding the differences in editorial choice—both in the selection of content as well as style in the scholarly treatment of these

religions in Encarta.

The Contents Page

Our study begins with the main contents page for each of the religions. In some cases, the contents page contains, in quotes, a single highlighted statement about the religion. In the 2002 version of Encarta, these quotes are present for Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, and not for Christianity and Islam.

• Judaism: “The God of creation entered into a special relationship with the Jewish people at Sinai”.

• Buddhism: “Karma consists of a person’s acts and their ethical consequence”.

• Hinduism: “Rama and Krishna are said to be avatars of Vishnu though they were originally human heroes”.

We note that the one statement chosen to describe Hinduism repudiates Hindu belief, while the statements for the other two religions reflect a balanced, positive, or neutral stance. Notice also the use of ‘said to be’ in Hinduism while the statement on Judaism is presented in the editorial voice as a presentation of fact. To understand this representation, let us draw up a hypothetical quote on Christianity to parallel the quote on Hinduism.

• Christianity: Jesus Christ is said to be the ‘Son of God’ though he was just a human.

Irrespective of belief in the truth or falsity of this statement, or the parallel one in the case of Hinduism, when such a statement is the highlight of the commentary on a religion, it reflects a certain attitude about how the subject is approached.

Fundamental Principles

In the article on Hinduism, we find that the ‘Fundamental Principles’ are divided into four sections—‘Texts’, ‘Philosophy’, ‘Gods’ and ‘Worship and Ritual’. We find the sequencing of ideas within this section fairly haphazard—generally moving to specifics without laying out the general—giving the impression of a somewhat incoherent system.

Hinduism:

The canon of Hinduism is basically defined by what people do rather than what they think. Consequently, far more uniformity of behavior than of belief is found among Hindus, although very few practices or beliefs are shared by all. A few usages are observed by almost all Hindus: reverence for Brahmans and cows; abstention from meat (especially beef); and marriage within the caste (jati), in the hope of producing male heirs. By writing the above, the author takes the richness and diversity of Hindu thought and tries to approach it from the point of view of an orthodox church defining a single ‘canon’. Failing to find the ‘canon’ or articulate the underlying worldview of a system that allows many paths to flourish within it, the author quickly gives in to start listing mainly social practices. Let us see how the same issue is treated in Christianity.

Christianity:

Any phenomenon as complex and as vital as Christianity is easier to describe historically than to define logically, but such a description does yield some insights into its continuing elements and essential characteristics.

In the description of Christianity, Encarta approaches it from a point of view of humility—the problem being of the expository limitations of the author. No such humility is visible in the description of Hinduism, where the author quickly reduces any notion of complexity to an anthropological viewpoint.

Dealing with ‘Contradictions’

Let us see how the articles deal with supposed contradictions.

Hinduism:

Although Hindus believe and do many apparently contradictory things—contradictory not merely from one Hindu to the next, but also within the daily religious life of a single Hindu—each individual perceives an orderly pattern that gives form and meaning to his or her own life.

The article on Hinduism is very clear that there are contradictions, and highlights this aspect. The articles on Christianity and Islam are either unable to find any contradictions, or don’t find them the most significant aspect of the religion to cover. (For more on how contradictions are covered in Christianity and Islam, please read page 172, chapter 16)

The key to understanding both the diversity as well as the unity of Hinduism is neither in the search for a ‘canon’ (a strongly Christian worldview), nor in the anthropology of particular practices. It is in recognizing that the philosophical foundations of Hinduism have celebrated diversity of path and individuality (which itself is a distinctive feature), while at the same time encouraging theological debates to further understanding.

In the articles on Christianity and Islam the problem, if any, is usually depicted as that of the author’s inability to adequately describe complexity rather than one of internal contradictions within the religions. The author of the section on Hinduism apparently faces very little difficulty—she carries on with an anthropological description of practices ‘from above’—sure that any contradiction that is found is inherently in the religion itself, and not in any lack of understanding or expository ability.

Peaceful ‘Jihad’ and Violent ‘Ahimsa’

A further study about the difference in approach and attitude in the articles on religion can be found in the description of subtle concepts. We take two—jihad and ahimsa, in particular, both of which may be somewhat familiar to the lay reader.

Islam:

Many polemical descriptions of Islam have focused critically on the Islamic concept of jihad. Jihad, considered the sixth pillar of Islam by some Muslims, has been understood to mean holy war in these descriptions. However, the word in Arabic means ‘to struggle’ or ‘to exhaust one’s effort,’ in order to please God. Within the faith of Islam, this effort can be individual or collective, and it can apply to leading a virtuous life; helping other Muslims through charity, education, or other means; preaching Islam; and fighting to defend Muslims. Western media of the 20th century continue to focus on the militant interpretations of the concept of jihad, whereas most Muslims do not.

Hinduism:

The most important tenet of sanatana dharma for all Hindus is ahimsa, the absence of a desire to injure, which is used to justify vegetarianism (although it does not preclude physical violence

toward animals or humans, or blood sacrifices in temples). [Emphasis added]

In both cases, the authors treat subtle subjects in the respective religions. In the article on Islam, the author presents a sympathetic view of Jihad, and attempts to favorably influence Western perceptions. In the article on Hinduism the author adds decidedly unfavorable editorial asides seeking to ‘correct’ possibly favorable perceptions by introducing ‘contradictions’. The tone of the article again is of a higher entity looking down on lowly customs and illogical ‘native’ interpretations as in, ‘ahimsa . . . is used to justify’. This is an illustration of the very different viewpoint (dare we say ‘agenda’) from which the article on Hinduism is written. While the articles on Islam and Christianity attempt to uplift the reader to a refined understanding of those religions, the article on Hinduism attempts to denigrate instead. (For more on how Christianity and Islam would be explained if one went by the logic applied to Hinduism, please read page 174, chapter 16)

This is, surprisingly, not the only example of the technique of negative editorial asides in the article on Hinduism. Thus we see:

Hinduism:

Svadharma comprises the beliefs that each person is born to perform a specific job, marry a specific person, eat certain food, and beget children to do likewise and that it is better to fulfill one’s own dharma than that of anyone else (even if one’s own is low or reprehensible, such as that of the Harijan caste, the Untouchables, whose mere presence was once considered polluting to other castes). . .

A positive portrayal of ‘Svadharma’ (literally ‘Self-Dharma’) would introduce it as a high statement to an individual to discover and understand their purpose and calling with the cosmos in order to actualize it. Yet in the hands of the Encarta author it becomes an excuse for an aside on the historical practice of untouchability that is derided in contemporary mainstream Hinduism.

Philosophy or Anthropology?

The article on Hinduism appears quite disjointed in its understanding of philosophy, anthropology, cosmology, and mythology. The ‘Fundamental Principles’ leads with anthropology. As we see below the section on ‘Philosophy’ is mostly ‘mythology’ depicting ‘cosmology’—the very limited coverage of the well-developed schools of Hindu philosophy is relegated to a list in the section ‘Rise of Devotional Movements’, as a topic of History. Without setting out the philosophical principles, the underlying beliefs and practices of Hinduism, the coverage of ‘Gods’ and ‘Rituals’ appears particularly bizarre. Let us see how the section on ‘Philosophy’ begins.

Hinduism:

Incorporated in this rich literature is a complex cosmology. Hindus believe that the universe is a great, enclosed sphere, a cosmic egg, within which are numerous concentric heavens, hells, oceans, and continents, with India at the center. They believe that time is both degenerative—going from the golden age, or Krita Yuga, through two intermediate periods of decreasing goodness, to the present age, or Kali Yuga—and cyclic: At the end of each Kali Yuga, the universe is destroyed by fire and flood, and a new golden age begins.

Firstly, this is not philosophy, but as the author points out, cosmology. Secondly, as a description of Hindu cosmology, it is fairly inadequate and reductive. It fails to point that there are multiple

creation myths in Hindu texts. Also, as far as Hindu cosmology goes, people like the notable astronomer and author, Prof. Carl Sagan, have pointed that the calculations of the age of the universe based on this cosmology works out to be fairly close to our current scientific estimates—and “(Hinduism) is the only ancient religious tradition on the Earth which talks about the right time-scale”. Mentioning any of this, would, of course be quite contrary to the tone of the article. Rather than presenting the creation myth as a story and presenting the hidden elements of scientific truth, the article gives a reductive description, preceded by the phrase ‘Hindus believe’. (For more on how the Biblical creation myth is handled, please read page 176, chapter 16)

Let us see how one would present a section on Christian ‘Philosophy’ with the same approach as in the case of Hinduism.

Christianity:

Christians believe that all humans descend from one man and woman, called Adam and Eve and calculated the age of the world to be about 10,000 years. They believe also that the female Eve

was created from male Adam’s rib by God to be his wife (which is used to justify Christian attitudes towards women such as a historical denial of equal rights). Christians believe many contradictory things—for example, that an all-loving, forgiving God puts human beings in everlasting Hell, if they sin without repenting in this life. [Emphasis added]

This would be a similarly reductive account presenting ‘Christians’ as irrational, and failing to grasp the multiple levels of subtleties involved in understanding a religion. As we see in the description of Hinduism, this is precisely the approach of the Encarta article.

Despite a very rich philosophical tradition, the anthropological view dominates the article on Hinduism. Both the articles on Christianity and Islam, lead instead with the philosophical ideas. Apparently the broadness of Hindu philosophical ideas like, Vasudhaiva

Kutumbakam (the world is one family), and the ideas of religious pluralism (“many paths lead to God”) that continue to guide most Hindus, find no place in the Encarta article.

‘Gods’

Nowhere is the anthropological view more apparent than in the treatment of ‘Gods’. Firstly, an inadequate attempt is made to put the idea of ‘gods’ in proper perspective for a Western reader. The word ‘deva’ in Sanskrit, is less akin to the ‘God’ of Christianity, but more so to ‘angel’ (a power higher than man but lesser than ‘God’). Secondly, the concepts that ‘God’ is ‘unknowable’ and that different deities are thus representations of different aspects (nama-rupa) of ‘God’, is glossed over. The Encarta article also completely misses the concept of the Hindu trinity—that any Hindu child could recite—a key idea in the presentation of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as creator, preserver and dissolver, and their female counterparts as three aspects of the One God. That the male and the female energies coexist in Indian thought and the idea of God as both male and female (at the same time being beyond gender) is also missed. Having skipped all the structure, the topic of ‘Gods’ is presented as a confusing ‘curio-shop’ of unrelated deities and sects, complete with sensational descriptions of blood and gore.

Hinduism:

Shiva embodies the apparently contradictory aspects of a god of ascetics and a god of the phallus. He is the deity of renouncers, particularly of the many Shaiva sects that imitate him: Kapalikas, who carry skulls to reenact the myth in which Shiva beheaded his father, the incestuous Brahma, and was condemned to carry the skull until he found release in Benares; Pashupatas, worshippers of Shiva Pashupati, ‘Lord of Beasts’; and Aghoris, ‘to whom nothing is horrible’, yogis who eat ordure or flesh in order to demonstrate their complete indifference to pleasure or pain. Shiva is also the deity whose phallus (linga) is the central shrine of all Shaiva temples and the personal shrine of all Shaiva householders; his priapism is said to have resulted in his castration and the subsequent worship of his severed member.

While ‘phallus’ is just one interpretation of ‘linga’ there are many others as well, notably ‘symbol’ for the divine ([as in] Lingyate anena iti lingam). Apparently the author, whose interests appear to have a limited focus, continues to find contradictions from that single point of view—missing both other common interpretations as well as the underlying symbolisms. A disproportionate interest in the dimension of esoteric ‘sects’, ‘phallus’, ‘skulls’, ‘flesh’ and ‘ordure’ dominates the article and we find that practices and aspects far more prevalent and relevant to contemporary times—like Yoga or Chakras, meditation or mantras, breath and Pranayama are practically absent in the article. (For more on depiction of Durga/Kali in the Encarta article, please read page 178 and 179, chapter 16)

As the section on ‘Indian Philosophy’ in Encarta states:

‘Most of the poems of the Veda are religious and tend to be about the activities of various gods. Yet some Vedic hymns and poems address philosophic themes . . . such as the henotheism that is key to much Hindu theology. Henotheism is the idea that one God takes many different forms, and that although individuals may worship several different gods and goddesses, they really revere but one Supreme Being.’ [Emphasis added]

Has the Encarta article on Hinduism lost all keys? While there is a passing mention of this concept in Encarta, it is, characteristically, watered down from the clearer statement above.

Hinduism:

In this way Hindus have been able to reconcile their Vedantic monism (see Vedanta) with their Vedic polytheism: All the individual Hindu gods (who are said to be saguna,‘with attributes’) are

subsumed under the godhead (nirguna,‘without attributes’), from which they all emanate. [Emphasis added]

Finally, let us see how the article describes Rama and Krishna, considered as incarnations of God (as Vishnu).

           

Hinduism:

Most popular by far are Rama (hero of the Ramayana) and Krishna (hero of the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata-Purana), both of whom are said to be avatars of Vishnu, although they were

originally human heroes. [Emphasis added]

The article appears to speak with the certainty of divine knowledge!

Let us see how a similar issue, the divinity of Jesus is treated in the article on Christianity:

Christianity:

The ultimate mystery of the universe, called by many different names in various religions, was called ‘Father’ in the sayings of Jesus, and Christians therefore call Jesus himself ‘Son of God.’ At the very least, there was in his language and life an intimacy with God and an immediacy of access to God, as well as the promise that, through all that Christ was and did, his followers might share in the life of the Father in heaven and might themselves become children of God.

We note both the subtlety of thought and the sensitivity of expression in description, versus the heavy-handed certainty by which the article on Hinduism speaks, of happenings and events further back in time than the historical Jesus. Is this certainty born out of knowledge of fact, or simply a disregard for the corresponding religious sentiment?

Read chapter 16 part 1 from page 169 to 180

Pdf of the book is available for free download here.

Go to Chapter 16 part 2