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.

Ignorant Hindu leaders invite Rambachan to represent Hinduism

Have they read Indra's Net?
March 2015

The attached invite:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Chicago Story: How CPWR was Exposed

A controversy was triggered in September 2013, when a group that called itself the 'Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions" (CPWR) decided to withdraw from the event that VHP-America was organizing in Chicago to honor Swami Vivekananda as part of his 150th birthday celebrations. This post summarizes the incident in three parts:

part 1) the discussion this triggered in the forum, the research done by Hindus in finding out who supported the boycott, who CPWR really was, the impact the debate in this forum had on the subsequent trajectory of events post-withdrawal. Particularly shocking is that CPWR turned out to be not what it appears on the surface. Some fact-checking indicated that this organization was incorporated in 1988 and had nothing to do with 1893 World parliament of religions that Vivekananda graced! Stunning how and disturbing why the Hindu representatives signed up for this without doing any background check!

part 2) the positive outcome (resounding win) for Hinduism with its figurehead Hindu representatives resigning, and finally,

part 3) A manifesto for Hindu representation in Interfaith bodies, going forward and being more proactive.

Part-1
The thread was initiated by a post by NS that posted a news article carried by HinduismToday.com, that is summarized below:
"... a respectable interfaith organization the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR) decided to withdraw from the event that VHPA was organizing in Chicago.

VHP (America) is holding event marking 150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekanda which will feature Baba Ramdev as the chief guest (see here). It is "co-hosted" by many Hindu organizations based in the USA. Air India is also listed as one of the co-host.
120-year old CPWR is the organization that invited Swami Vivekanda to Chicago in1893. In a statement issued today [see here, issued by Mary Nelson, CPWR's Executive Director] CPWR said:

"We honor Swami Vivekananda and that legacy he left creating interfaith cooperation to build a just, peaceful, and sustainable world. Our organization was not informed that an event we were asked to co-sponsor was also co-sponsored by organizations promoting controversial political positions. While we do honor and promote the ideals of Swami Vivekananda, we respectfully withdraw our name from any co-hosting or co-sponsorship of the 'World Without Borders' event and any connection to this event or its other co-sponsors."

....Coalition Against Genocide (CAG) [see here for a list of members--it is mostly comprised of Muslim, leftist and Christian groups] welcomed the move by the CPWR to disassociate itself VHPA's event...

(another post records CAG's cheerleading press release, summarized here)
"

Coalition Against Genocide (CAG - http://coalitionagainstgenocide.org/ ), a broad alliance dedicated to justice and accountability for the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 (sic), and for continued violations of human rights in Gujarat (sigh), today welcomed the resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR), ....

In a letter to CPWR Executive Director Dr. Mary Nelson, CAG spokesperson Dr. Raja Swamy congratulated the CPWR on advancing the cause of interfaith harmony...."
".....This incident exemplifies attempts by Hindutva organizations to legitimize their virulent politics by appropriating the legacies of important historical personalities such as Swami Vivekananda," said Dr. Raja Swamy, ...."

Prasad's response (the text is a bit garbled in the yahoo forum, but I have provided the gist) was to respectfully  request that two Hindu members associated with CPRW resign their posts in protest:
" Anju Bhargavji and Anant Rambachanji,
whatever be the outcome of your efforts to reinstate cpwr's sponsorship, I request you both resign as directors of this organization. When they cancelled the commitment they made without consulting you, your presence there does not matter, ..."

Arun also had the same opinion:
"... shows that how artbitrarily [CPWR] is run and their decision process is biased and undemocratic. It also shows that how intolerant the leadership of CPWR has become over the years to promote their own agenda and politics. I believe that all board members of CPWR, who were not consulted for this decision should resign..."

Vishal disagreed and favors an alternative approach:
"..Non-cooperation is less ineffective than fighting from within."

Rajiv's response: What "fighting from within?" I dont see them having done that. In fact, in one case I was explicitly told that the person WILL NOT FIGHT to risk sticking her neck out...

To fight from within the representative must first spell out the positions being represented, and the policy for fighting for each of these. Otherwise its not even clear as to WHAT they might fight for, assuming they decide to fight at all?

The only fighting going on is positioning personal careers, prestige, glamor, PR, etc...

Furthermore, there is also the issue of COMPETENCE beyond intentions. Even if the intentions could be turned around, there remains the question whether a given person is cut out for the job. Our community must learn to hold Hindu leaders accountable for performance just like political leaders are hired/fired in elections if they do not perform. Lets end this idolatry based on personalities."

Next, there is a very interesting (but tangential) post by AJ and a response by Rajiv about the forum responding by circulating emails.

A professor (VR) from Bangalore was upset by the actions of CPWR:
"The [CPWR] under the influence of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists and anti-Hindu leaders has already ditched the ideals of Swami Vivekananda and buried them."

Abhimanyu posts the findings from his investigative work on CPWR. This appears to be the first of a few crucial posts that began to open people's eyes to what this CPWR really is, and we carry this report almost fully. Also important to note, that he also looks at possible links to the 2014 General elections in India.

"1.  Who is the Coalition Against Genocide?  -  this is a notorious nexus of Indian Communists/ Islamists / Christian Missionaries - with a clear mission to demonize Hinduism and Hindus around the world.  People like Raja Swamy are prominent members of FOIL and its sister groups like the Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (the same group that attacked the IDRF and the Hindu Students Council). On this blog, I have written extensively about FOIL and its network, building on Mr. Malhotra's Breaking India as well as some other works out there.

2.  CAG, CSFH, FOIL, IAMC (Indian American Muslim Council) are partners in this...  They were also behind the 2005 campaign to block Narendra Modi's visa to the US.  Angana Chatterjee is one of the key players in this nexus also.

3.  Recently, Raja Swamy, Biju Mathew, Shabnam Hashmi, Ram Puniyani, Harsh Mander, etc. Have started a website against Narendra Modi, called Pheku.in.  This site purports to expose Modi's "lies" and discredit his model of development.  I have recently written about this on my blog as well.  It is interesting to note that this Pheku.in site is registered in Texas, which gives away its interconnections with foreign groups like FOIL that are attempting to "break India".  They also sympathize with and also hold terrorist Ishrat Jahan in high respect.

...

5.  Initially, when the CPWR issued a statement of withdrawal, there were two signatures - one of Mary Nelson, the Exec Director and the other one of Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees.  Now, if you go to their site, you only see Mary Nelson's signature!  Mr. Mujahid's signature has been "whitened out", but one can clearly see a small black dot of a spot missed by the web artist next to Nelson's signature!  Why did CPWR remove his signature?"

Rajiv comment: Good 'forensic' work. I wonder why our eminent "Hindu representatives" have been sleeping through all this and woke up only after we gave them a jolt?

Karthik adds:
"...the question of "Secularism" has entered the public discourse in a big way. Specifically, it is being suggested that a person who is otherwise suitable to run the country in terms of governance record, should be disqualified on the strength of an alleged lack of commitment to "secularism", which is a threat to the "Idea of India."

I have written a blog post about this here:   As you can see, the post makes reference to many of Rajiv ji's ideas.."
 




Vishal clarifies: "Let me clarify. Resigning from posts does not achieve much. I am not privy to private information on whether these two members will fight it out or not. However, if they resign, if opens the possibility of some rabid leftist (who is Hindu in name only) to replace them and then and work positively against our Dharma in the future..."

Rajiv comment: Let me clarify. Defending incompetence does not help much. It lowers the standard and makes incompetence the new normal. Someone could also say, "let the corrupt, incompetent government in India remain, because if they leave we could get someone worse". Let us stop operating in fear...

The point is that Hindus never appointed these individuals in the first place. Secondly, they have not produced any resistance from our side by way of offering criticism of the organization's positions. Only now they are running around doing PR and press releases because we have exposed this scandal. ...

...There is a prominent man [] who tried to pressure me to not critique Anju Bhargava in my book, but that failed. He even went to Swami Dayananda Saraswati along with Anju and they camped there for a few days asking swamiji to withdraw his invitation for me to speak at the ashram's annual day; but swamiji refused to do so. I am also aware that other organizations have pressure points. Such "networking" notwithstanding, we must be objective and not get influenced by linkages. Otherwise we are no better than the dominant nexuses that operate this way except that they have been winning. We must hold ourselves to an objective standard in evaluating leadership."  

 Rajiv further comments:
"People have asked me to suggest what "our" Hindu representatives on CPWR must go at this point. I feel they ought to write an open letter to CPWR that gets posted widely by them. It should make the following points. I am not suggesting exact language, merely the main points they should cover:

Letter to CPWR:

1. We as practicing Hindus, and as individuals representing the interests of Hinduism in CWPR, are very upset at the decision that was made to boycott Swami  Vivekananda's anniversary celebrations, and we would like that decision reversed immediately.
2. We are troubled that we were never consulted or involved in such a major decision being made, which makes our Hindu community doubt whether we speak for them in this forum at all. It would be unimaginable, hypothetically, for you to make a similar decision against Islam without even bothering to tell in advance and consult the Muslim representatives in your organization.... 
3. It is clear that the process leading to your decision was opaque rather than transparent. Individuals with personal agendas and political pressure acted secretly rather than through a process carried out in an above board manner....
4. We are sending each of the trustees and each member of all committees at CPWR a copy of an important book, titled, "Breaking India", which exposes the kinds of nefarious activities by many persons who acted in making this recent decision. In the interest of transparency and allowing all sides of an issue to be heard, we seek the right to articulate the point of view of many Hindus. After your review of this book, we would like CPWR to host a public debate on the charges and allegations being made in this book - concerning the nexus that is operating to undermine Hinduism. Let both sides speak and debate each other in an amicable manner. This is the true spirit of open intellectual discourse that CPWR claims to represent...

We hope to hear from you very soon on these requests which we feel are fair....In case you find our request unacceptable, then please consider this as our letter of resignation from your organization.

Signed...

.............................

My closing remarks: I would like us to pressure all Hindu representatives to put out such a letter. Let their loyalties become clear. We must get past goody-goody PR behavior. We have had enough nonsense from self serving leaders.


Sheshadri notes:
"...FOIL is dead against Infinity Foundation. I know for a fact how FOIL fanatics try -by hook or crook - to foil university programs sponsored by Infinity Foundation. They are more aware of the power of genius of Hindu Thought than most of our own people. When "Sarve janaH sushi no bhavantu" catches up there can be no room for "workers of the world unite" or "only my god is god" creeds. No wonder we will face in future more virulent as well as subtle forms of opposition. They will leave no stone unturned - literally" 


Abhimanyu uncovers more details:

"Ubaid Shaikh, co-founder of CAG, IAMC (Indian American Muslim Council, formerly known as Indian Muslim Council USA) and founder of Indian Muslim Advocacy Network (Imannet, whose site www.imannet.com, has been "under construction" for who knows how long) is friends with Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees.  Mujahid is the founder of Muslim Peace Coalition USA, another advocacy group that is very popular in advancing the image of Islam and Peace.  See the two links below:

In the above link, these guys, especially Ubaid, while condemning the attack on thw Wisconsin Gurudwara, nefariously weaves in connection to "hate-filled" Americans and "Hindu Extremists" (READ RSS, VHP, etc.), saying how these Hindus inspire hate amongst Americans!

Check out this second link -

In here, these two orgs squarely blame the Norway killings as being inspired by "Hindu Nationalist Ideology"!"

 

Rajiv shares a response from Anju only briefly summarized here, stating her position:

"I want you to know that both Anant and I have fought really hard and supported VHPA in this matter as you know from the joint statement we sent out. However we are outvoted. There are people who have their own agendas.  Since I found out I have spent most of the time on this. Negative attacks on me which incite people will not help the Hindu cause..."

Rajiv's response:

".... troubling items in your statement.

1) Earlier you had said that this decision by CWPR was made without your knowledge and you and Anant were taken by surprise. Only afterwards you reacted (once the community started pressuring you). Now you saying that you and Anant were outvoted (and hence knew of the decision being considered). Which version is true?
2) Secondly, if there was a vote in CPWR, when was it held ? Who voted for the resolution and who voted against it? Also, who drafted and proposed the resolution for vote? These names must be made public as per the norms of any public foundation. The community must know this, and its YOUR JOB to keep us informed.

3) Thirdly, I disagree with your view that the Hindus you claim to represent should have no right to criticize you regardless of your performance. You did not consult any of us prior to the resolution against Swami Vivekananda's anniversary event being put out as a press release. Now you expect us to support you even though you have not shown competence in representing us. ...Please note that the same pattern occurred in another organization where you represented Hindus for one year. I documented that fiasco in my book, BREAKING INDIA, and it bothered you. ....

4) You write that the "smart and strategic" thing would be for us to focus on those who do such negative things against us. But how can we put our focus on such persons unless and until YOU disclose their names in detail - I mean EVERY ONE OF THEM.

5) You seem only concerned about "negative attacks" on you. You did not say a word about how the conduct of CPWR that you serve has attacked Hinduism, which is larger than any one individual like you or me....

6) Finally, now that you and Anant have acknowledged that CPWR has hoodwinked the Hindus, should you not resign in protest - thereby sending the message that you are not pets sitting there to legitimize their actions in exchange for being given some "importance"? Please consider that such a bold action by you and Anant would boost your standing, because it would show that Hindus cannot be taken for granted as a bunch of morons led by morons. I hope you are now aware (as per Arvind Kumar's post) that Ms. Nelson who runs CPWR is falsely advertising that CPWR was somehow linked to the [1893] Chicago event named the World Parliament of Religions. She has cleverly used the name of the original organization and you did not know this earlier"

Part-2

In another thread, Arvind [mentioned in Rajiv's response above to Anju] posts some startling findings on CPWR that totally exposes their membership, agenda, and modus operandi. We only briefly summarize his post. Read it in its original form to grasp the full impact of what CPWR was up to.

" ...This group was formed only in 1988 (Document from Sec of State office is below).

The attempt to claim the legacy of Vivekananda by a group calling itself the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions is a FALSE PORTRAYAL of the truth. The page on their website purportedly containing the history of the organization contains a timeline that starts in 1893.

....

...had nothing to do with organizing the event in 1893 at which Vivekananda spoke! To learn about the real organizers of the event in 1893, click here and here (original news items from 1893). ..

Mary Nelson is a "progressive" ... For evidence that she belongs to a "progressive" group, click here.

Mary Nelson has also been associated with Rod Blagojevich ... ...If their values are like those of Rod Blagojevich's,

...

  INCORPORATED ONLY IN 1988!!!

CORPORATION FILE DETAIL REPORT

---

Entity Name	COUNCIL FOR A PARLIAMENT OF THE WORLD'S RELIGIONS	File Number	55101108
Status	ACTIVE
Entity Type	CORPORATION	Type of Corp	NOT-FOR-PROFIT
Incorporation Date (Domestic)	05/27/1988	State	ILLINOIS
Agent Name	MARY K NELSON	Agent Change Date	09/26/2012
Agent Street Address	70 EAST LAKE ST #205	President Name & Address
Agent City	CHICAGO	Secretary Name & Address
Agent Zip	60601	Duration Date	PERPETUAL
Annual Report Filing Date	04/15/2013	For Year	2013
Old Corp Name	09/22/1988 - COUNCIL FOR A PARLIAMENT OF WORLD RELIGIONS

Rajiv comment:

" I am glad Arvind brought this to our attention. Does it mean our "Hindu reps" did not do any due diligence all this while - just joined it and started serving its interests? It turns out the woman Ms. Nelson who signed the letter against this weekend's Vivekananda event is the same person who formed this organization 25 years ago. Falsely advertised to be formed in 1893 to promote the spirit of Vivekananda, it was actually formed recently just to capitalize on that event's prestige. Moreover, it is NOT operating in the spirit of Vivekananda. In fact just the opposite by insulting him. Nelson is a Christian, linked to World Council of Churches, various Muslim activists like Eboo Patel among other "religious activists"... It is dangerous to "network" in this field esp if one is lazy and not doing one's homework."

Ravi notes:

"It appears that Rajiv's email (especially point #6) has had its impact. Both Bhargava and Rambachan appear to have resigned from CPWR, per this news report.

Rajiv comment:"Indeed. But let us see this as a positive watershed event where Hindus came together to say "enough, we wont accept bias against us any more from any organization that is claiming to be neutral."

Let us consider this as a loss for CPWR. Not having Hindus represented voids their claim to pluralism. Hinduism is the most pluralistic faith of all major ones, and this absence of Hindus should be positioned as something that discredits them. We must engage such inter faith bodies from a position of strength rather than going as beggars to let us in on their terms and treat us as third class." 

Another post from Rajiv sharing more details.

"This thread seems to have had some impact. I am glad.

Some members here sent it to the Hindus who had got themselves appointed on the Council for a Parliament of World Religions, thereby putting pressure on them. Two of them have issued the following statement a short while back:

Joint statement from Anju Bhargava and Anant Rambachan regarding the Chicago event with CPWR

"We, Anju Bhargava and Anant Rambachan, found out on September 14th, through media reports, that the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR) had withdrawn its participation in a Chicago event "World Without Borders," celebrating the 150th Birth Anniversary of Swami Vivekananda. We were not consulted about this decision. Once we found out, we requested  an explanation for the Parliament's decision.  We have also formally requested the Parliament to reverse its decision to withdraw from co-hosting/co-sponsoring the Chicago event. We are working with Parliament to get this issue resolved harmoniously.".

Rajiv comment: Its a good start for them to take such a stand against CPWR, but this must have teeth in it. If such a boycott by CPWR had happened against an Islamic icon's anniversary celebration, the Muslim representatives would not have been caught off guard...As a group claiming to foster harmony this behavior by CPWR is unacceptable. Certainly, many of us disagree strongly with beliefs of some religious organizations but the CPWR would not reject those organizations' legitimacy just because we found them offensive.

We must keep up the pressure on every Hindu who makes a career out of "representing Hinduism"in various bodies; we must demand that he or she must speak up for us assertively even if that is not in their personal vested interest.

Part-3

Sant comments:

" ...he entire episode at CPWR is a wake-up call for the followers of our Hindu faith. ....

May I suggest that we form a group consisting of individuals from leading Hindu organizations in the US. , We (who will be 'we' here) will need to define the qualifications of the persons to serve in such a group along with all so many other details will need to be worked out. ....One of tasks for this organization would be make recommendations to various Inter-Faith organizations on the individual being considered for serving in a significant role, claiming to represent our community.

I was convinced from the outset that CPWR will not reverse their decision once made. In fact, the overwhelming no-votes shows the enormous challenges we face. This could not have been a one-time issues. Majority of their trusteeship's anti-Hindu feeling had to have been present (and visible) all along. ......" 

Rajiv's Notes after the CPWR victory: The Way Ahead

"In light of the recent victory in the CPWR saga, it is  a time to think how the Hindus should proceed going forward.

There will be many opportunities and offers that various individuals and organizations will have to join such movements. So let us formulate a list of principles that any Hindu representative should adopt openly and publicly as part of his or her participation. For instance, I would propose the following kinds of principles that could be turned into a sort of manifesto that our leaders are asked to accept. This is just off the top of my head thinking and we have to sort these out in more detail:

1) We as Hindu leaders oppose various common positions that are biased and lack authenticity, such as the following examples:

- Aryan Invasion/Migration Theories

- Allegations that Hinduism causes caste abuses, women's abuses, minority abuses, etc. Such allegations must bear the burden of proof and Hindus must be given a chance to fair representation in such due processes. Such claims must be put on par with the facts concerning other religions and Hinduism should not get treated more harshly than other in such evaluations.

- Digestion attempts, sameness positions, mapping of Sanskrit non-translatables, mapping of our categories and framework on to others in ways that compromise our distinctiveness and authenticity.

- Theories that Hinduism did not exist until British influence caused Vivekananda and others to manufacture it. Again, we must be given opportunities to debate such nonsensical positions.

- Inaccurate history of various ideas that actually originated in Indian civilization but are taught as originating elsewhere.

2) Major books, reports and speakers who represent the Hindu position on important matters must be given equal pace on forums as the representatives of other major faiths are. These individuals must not be selected in a way to avoid "controversy", as long as the subject matter being presented is of scholarly merit. Changing minds often requires controversy. In other words, Hinduism should no longer be represented by benign, goody-goody types who wont rock the boat for whatever reason. ...

3) Our representatives must fight instances where a Hindu thinker, guru, political leader, organization, etc. gets targeted without due process and without fair and reasonable proof. This is what happened in this latest saga at CPWR. I have personally faced this bias for 20 years because the Hinduphobic side cannot respond to what I write, and its easy to badmouth me just  to try and muzzle me..."

4) "Breaking India" type of forces must be called out, exposed and we must go on the offensive. Just like some forces xyz torpedoed the Vivekananda event, our reps must be able to do such things to others when we have fair and reasonable grounds. For instance, I see lots of "breaking India" individuals and groups enjoying the limelight with no organized resistance from our Hindu representatives.
... If we take this step we will have matured a lot."

Kaajal responds:

"... I'd like to volunteer to take the lead on coming up with our list of expectations for Hindu leaders..."

Rajiv comment: 

"This is a good idea..

My recommended step 1 is to develop a draft on the core Hinduism positions that any future representative must get educated on and must uphold. My initial input is in the post I did yesterday to start another thread on such a "manifesto". Such a draft needs to be debated and then we can lobby for people to adopt it at least as a starting point." 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shashi comments:
"...This is sad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Who are our Devis and Devatas?

This is a developing thread that we promised to cover depending on the trajectory of the discussion. Well, the path of the debate has traversed important topics that touch BD, contemporary Hinduism, and other points relating to the integral unity within Hinduism, panentheism, and ultimately leading to this fundamental question:

Who really are our Devis and Devatas?

Are they symbolic of the multiple intelligences or powers of a single divine entity, or have totally separate existences, or is it something else?

This fascinating discussion was sparked by the post of a commentator who observed ISKCON devotees distributing copies of the Gita to visitors of the Shiva temple (outside its premises) in Atlanta, Georgia, USA during the Maha Shivaratri puja. 


ISKCON: Push Marketing?

Raj posted: Sunday March 10, 2013, Hindu Temple of Atlanta had special Mahasivaratri puja & events. The premises has separate temples for Shiva & Vishnu (Balaji). I was somewhat surprised to see ISKCON missionaries outside the Shiva temple stopping Shiva devotees, conversing and giving them free copies of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. That too, particularly on Mahasivaratri when there are more Shiva devotees visiting the temple. Given what is known about standard ISKCON teaching about Shiva, I had to wonder -from BD perspective-  if this is a form of Push Marketing & Charcoal Burning. Also, if there is some Difference Anxiety as well.

Partha responded:

"ISKCON devotees with their books make themselves available wherever Hindus or potential friends of Hindus gather. Here is an ISKCON article on Sivaratri observation. .... There are apparently some riders, but they seem to value the observation of the holy festival

Karthik adds:
"Earlier ISKON wouldnt even celebrate any other functions other than oned related to KRishna. I was told by an ISKON devote that One Krishna = 2 Ramas. Now Hanuman Jayanthi, Ram Navami etc is celebrated as well..."

Indrajit disagrees with Raj:
"Construing the free distribution of Gita outside a Shiva temple on the occasion of 'mahashivratri' as push marketing, is a misplaced conception. Yes,  Raj might be remotely right, had the epic were distributed free outside a church or mosque or place of worship of any other religion. Promoting Gita-awareness through such contribution outside a Hindu place of worship was more appropriate rather than 'push marketing..."

Ashok commented:
"...[unaware] that there was a tension in the minds of ISCON devotees about Krishna and other Gods until I read this post. Having spent all my formative years in India, I had not come across any such tensions in the minds of worshippers of the many Gods regarding claims of superiority.

I therefore googled ISCON and Shiva and was dismayed to read their agonising and convoluted logic to try to show Vishnu to be superior to Shiva. They seem to take Vishnu's saying in Gita that there is no difference between Me, Brahma and Shiva to mean that Vishnu is being patronising them. This is a novel concept for me!

For most 'Indians' both Gods are so, so far higher to them that they do not even think of a possible distinction. They would in fact be happy to accept a learned sage or a 'minor God' as described in the Gita as their guide and support.

  

As Rajiv has elaborated, there is an inherent need in those who grew up in the atmosphere of Abrahamic faiths to feel that they worship only the 'best', anything less somehow debases their faith. Hence the need to show Krishna as the Highest. Such a need is a alien concept for those who grew up in Dharmic traditions..."

Brahma cites a brief portion of Ashok's comment and expounds. We carry this with very little editing since this comment sets the agenda for the remainder of the discussion in this thread:

"It can be noted that aside from the obvious, that ISKCON's western members are from a western/Abrahamic background and hold those attitudes ("Our way is the superior path...") -- which of course is quite true... there is another layer here:

If you do your "purva paksha" on the the works of Sri-la-Sri Prabhupada, in his book on the Science of Self-Realization, page 117 he himself writes:

"There is a mis-conception that Krishna Consciousness represents the Hindu Religion." There is much more on that page. But the founder of ISKCON himself disavows Hinduism. Krishna consciousness is "universal and transcends sectarian designations." 

There is more on that page along those lines...

(Venkat provides a link to this)

This has been taken quite seriously since his day, by his devotees and plays out in these ridiculous "missionary" efforts to proselytize followers of any other Deities within Hinduism itself. Shiva in particular is sub-ordinated as the "supreme devotee." If you ask many ISKCON devotees "are you a Hindu." 85% of them will squirm and try to avoid using the "H" word.

It was largely a reaction to the on-going attempts toward "hegemony" of the Smarta/Advaita Vedanata of Sankara, with respect to Hinduism as a whole. It is an old polemic between Vaishnavism/Sankaran Vedanta. The Smarta Sampadaya/Advaita Vedanta is only one "family" within Santana Dharma. It is not the whole or the cream the end of the evolution of, etc Hindu tradition. It is just one Sampradaya among many.  Unfortunately Prabhupada could not seem to accept this on level terms. Since Smarta had opted to define Hinduism by their philosophy, he chose to denounce his roots in order not to be "digested" by latter day liberal "Smarta Sanatana Dharma"

The same issues that Rajiv is working to "solve" viz-a-viz Hinduism vs other religions, are at work inside Hinduism itself, where there is on-going "digestion" of original, very distinct, sampradayas and lineages by the modern, latter day liberal interpretations of Sanatana Dharma thru the lens of intellectual Mayavada Vedanta, and modern day Indian Hindu academics who are far removed from authentic understanding of, for example the true meaning of temple worship as described by the Agama scriptures... a movement that has been going on for decades aided and abetted once again, by our own swamis, Indian intellectuals and "Vedantists," who look down their noses at "sectarian" Hindus.

This has very sad side consequences... e.g. the Tamil "Dravidian" fanatic movement that seeks to divorce itself from all things Vedic or Sanskritic...and separate Saivism from Hinduism (a Dalit position that is extremely unhealthy for South Indian Saivism for which Tamil and Sanskrit are two legs of one being)

But [there] is another story where the very movement to "homogenize" Hinduism, by Hindus themselves, (mostly a social political effort working for, admittedly needed, solidarity in the face of Islam and Christianity)  has become an unwitting ally in the "breaking" process-- by stimulating reaction from those who resist being digested by the Smartas, taking it so far as to disown their heritage. Christians of course have capitalized big time on this "internal problem"  which, really should be seen as a minor discussion between siblings in the same family (Smarta/Vaishnava/Shaiva/Shakta). But they have used it as another tool in the divide and conquer strategy we know so well.

The scenario witnessed at the Atlanta temple is just one end result of this problem."

Rajiv responds to Brahma:

In this entire thread thus far, this post below has struck me as special for it goes deep into something about our tradition. I got interested because my forthcoming book deals with this extensively. In fact, this is the core issue being discussed.

Here is a bit of overview: Many western scholars starting with Hacker in the 1950s, followed by Indian scholars with Anantaand Rambachan as their leader, have claimed that there was no unified entity that may be designated as Hinduism. In particular they dismiss Vivekananda as a "Neo" Hindu who "manufactured" what is today called Hinduism...

The implication is that most of us modern Hindus are practicing something fake. The genuine thing according to them is not one religion or dharma or faith, but several separate ones that have irreconcilable mutual tensions and contradictions amongst them. Any attempt to unify them is inauthentic and politically motivated.

My findings are complex. The conclusion is not an easy one. I dont want to reduce my 300-page forthcoming book to a simplistic treatment. .... In the past 4 months, I have studied several dozen serious works from both sides of this debate, including several PhD dissertations, easily over 10,000 pages of scholarly writings. ....

.... there has definitely been a deep unity since ancient times that goes across the tensions, fights, etc. amongst them. I will leave it at that. "

Srinivas commented:
"Although Vivekananda's  experiences with west and standing up for Hinduism, is invaluable for Hindu history, it cannot be said that he represented all of Hinduism in his conversations with west. At least as far as I have read him, there is no common ground established by Vivekananda where Vaishnava and other Dharmic followers can identify themselves with his definition of Hinduism. This is the difference with BD.

BD doesnt force everybody to accept one Dharma stream as common but invites everybody to identify themselves with the main principles of: Independence from History, Integral unity, Decentralization and Non-translatability.

Vivekananda and many Shankara followers here suffer from difference anxiety. There is a hidden assumption that when one talks of Hinduism, it is implicit that it is Shankara's philosophy. ...The reason many people squirm at being called a Hindu is because of this implicit assumption in the context. The other part of implicit assumption of Hinduism is its nationalistic association to India. This of-course will not be palatable to non-Indian Dharmic followers.

The Hinduism of Vivekananda may not be palatable to many of us. But that doesn't mean there is no concept of Hinduism.

Any definition of Hinduism cannot deny the diversity and difference of Atman, central to Vaishnava philosophy.To be called Hindus, our common ground has to be the 4 main principles of BD (or equivalent ones like context sensitive theory by AK Ramanujan). Otherwise we are back to re-inventing the wheel.

Difference anxiety among us is evident here at the way ISKCON bashing happens from time to time. Why can't we accept ISKCON as one among us? ISKCON and its philosophy satisfy BD's criteria. Infact, Achintya-Bheda-Abheda, explained in BD is not very far from ISKCON / Chaitanya philosophy..."

Shaas responds:

"....instead of celebrating Shiva on Shiva`s night, ISKCON chooses to trying to convince everyone that they should worship some other Deva, etc.

ON the other hand, I feel that Hinduism is going really by the Church way, i.e. increasing incompatibility of different sects and ways to worship the Supreme - the Totality of Brahman.

First, Varnaashrama was rejected, then some "experts" want to streamline and correct the Vedic scriptures, and now different sects are starting to fight against each other.

.... [mutual respect] is missing in the approach of ISKCON as described in the incident of Shiva Ratri.

... In the Upanishads is written that - by all differences of Vishnu and Shiva, still, Vishnu is in the heart of Shiva and Shiva in the heart of Vishnu."

Srinivas responds:

"... the whole point is not whether Vaishnavas are correct or Shaivas are correct. That is an argument that'll last till Hinduism/Dharma exists. The question is whether Vaishnavas or Shaivas have an equal position in the table of Dharmic streams. Is it right to question their authenticity as a branch of Dharmic thought? 

....My concern was on the view that ISKCON is often treated as an outsider when their philosophy and practices are 100% Dharmic in nature and got through authentic Guru tradition. You may have differences with their worldview, but dont question their Dharmic authenticity. Other dharmic institutions have equally questionable practices if not more.  

.... Mutual respect within Dharmic streams is to be mastered before we are to successfully demand it from others."

Surya comments:
"Claiming that Shiva and Vishnu are the same is not necessary for Hindus and they do not suffer from cognitive dissonance when they do not conflate.  However, if an Advaitin says this, the intent is not digestion as you suggested but is a consequence of his metaphysical viewpoint.

Dharma traditions have their distinct differences, even incompatibilities in their metaphysics.  Being Different is very comfortable with those differences and readily acknowledges it.  The commonality within Dharma family and distinctness of the Dharma family from Abrahamic family is where Being Different focuses its efforts.  Distinctness between the families is seen along dimensions of history-centrism, integral unity, comfort with decentralization and self-organization, and distinct meaning of non-translatable Sanskrit words vs their nearest English or German equivalents.

Please see the following excerpt from Rajivji's paper in the International Journal of Hindu Studies.  

Integral Unity is Not Homogeneity 

Being Different's position is that multiple Dharma systems can each have integral unity and yet have different and even incompatible metaphysics. The fact that each has integrality and yet is distinct from the rest is akin to several different objects being yellow”that is, the common quality of yellowness gives a family resemblance without making all the yellow objects the same. 

...Criticism that Being Different somehow reduces all Indian belief systems into a single homogeneity is equivalent to an argument that by demonstrating the differences between Judaism and Christianity, one claims to have debunked their shared principle of prophetic revelation.  An integral unity, likewise, may be expressed through Madhyamika, Advaita, Visistadvaita, Tantra, Aurobindo and many other forms, each of which is distinct. Being Different goes to great lengths to explain that different Dharma systems disagree on many key points, yet each adheres to the common standard of integral unity proposed in the book. 

From his blog: Dharma and the new Pope

"history centrism" which leads the Abrahamic religions to claim that we can resolve the human condition only by following the lineage of prophets arising from the Middle East. All other teachings and practices are required to get reconciled with this special and peculiar history. By contrast, the dharmic traditions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism -- do not rely on history in the same absolutist and exclusive way. This dharmic flexibility has made a fundamental pluralism possible which cannot occur within the constraints of history centrism, at least as understood so far. ...

While I recognize that the centrality of revelation through history is a core value in the Abrahamic faiths, I would point out that not only does it cause problems for non-Abrahamic faiths, but among the Abrahamic traditions as well. Their respective rival claims cannot be reconciled as long as they cling to a literal account of the Middle Eastern past, an insistence that this past is absolutely determinative of religious truth.

Any issues with ISKON missionary efforts ?

However, they are still part of the Dharma family because they are not history centric, their metaphysics shows integral unity, they do not have an organized Church, and share Sanskrit words and their meanings with other Dharma traditions.

Conversion efforts are a symptom of intolerance, lack of mutual respect.  That is the only real issue.  where does that come from?  If this symptom is deep-rooted because some in ISKON are turning their tradition history centric, it may be signs of ISKON breaking away on a core dimension.

Interested in knowing what drives missionary efforts of ISKON.  Believing Krishna is the ultimate God is perfectly OK.  Issue is with telling others that is the only way."

Srinivas responds:

"Is conversion the real issue? What is the problem with conversion? Is ISKCON converting people in the same sense as Christianity? 

I would say, conversion is not the issue. Conversion via inducements and subterfuge is the issue. If anything ISKCON is inviting people to understand Krishna through direct dialogue and experience. Not via inducements. Isn't Advaita converting more people into its fold? Is this not via rational debate and/or yogic experience?

... Does an Advaitin or Shaivite not say that theirs is the only way? Why the double standards just for ISKCON?  Believing that theirs is the only way is not the problem. If you dont believe that yours is the only true way, what stops you from getting digested into the other side?...

Mutual respect does not come from abandoning your own faith or in diluting it to become acceptable to the other. As a Dharmic follower, I respect you not because you follow the same faith (Vaishnavite or Shaivite) as mine, but because:

1. You and I are both Sat-Chid-Ananda nature.
2. Antaryami in both of us is the same God.

Or I just cannot or have no reason to disrespect you because:

1. Sadhana is across many Janmas
2. Liberation is individual and internal, not collective or external.
3. Context sensitive nature of what is Dharma, right/wrong.

In other words, mutual respect is natural for any Dharmic follower because of his/her inherent world view. Not because I pull my punches in saying mine is the only true way."

Surya's followup:

"... There are only two kinds of conversions: (1) conversion on one's own volition; (2) direct conversion through the influence of an external agent (person or organization).

Conversion as in (2) is an issue.  By "direct" I mean that the activity is specifically intended to convert by an external agent.

In other words, a PULL model is reasonable and acceptable.  A PUSH model is not.

.... On what basis can one distinguish between what is subterfuge and what is not?  Given that the claims are supernatural in nature, in the end it seems that it is all about convincing.  Should you leave this to the better rhetorical argument to win?

The act of direct conversion is wrong.  Whether ISKON or some other organization does it is not the point. ..

....it would be perfectly fine to distribute Gita by setting them in a booth and letting people come and pick them.  That way, people who choose to pray only to Shiva are not offended.  Thrusting a Gita into that person's hand is a PUSH activity.  That is what is wrong.  Not whether it is a Gita or a Bible.

.... One is free to believe or change one's beliefs on their own in a PULL activity.  One can believe that their way is the only way.  ... I was specifically referring to A telling B that A's way is the only right way when B holds a distinct set of beliefs.  This is a PUSH activity.  This is a violation of mutual respect.  Whether A is holding a Bible or Gita or....

Everyone should be free to believe that their beliefs are true.  However, they should refrain from rubbing their beliefs on others who do not hold the same beliefs. ...

Do these happen in Dharma?  Of course, just as crimes occasionally happen in a good society.  However, Dharmic society cannot accept institutionalizing such PUSH activities by legitimizing them. If you do not profess your faith to me, is that abandoning your faith?  If you do not PUSH your faith on me does it dilute your faith?  It is even OK for you to tell me why you hold your beliefs.  In the spirit of mutual respect, I will honor your right to hold your beliefs and as a willing friend listen to you.  However, it is a violation of mutual respect when you tell me that my beliefs are wrong.

...If ISKON agrees with those [], why do they have an urge to convert?  Because, ISKON says that the Antaryami is Krishna.

Just to be clear, you are free to believe Krishna and Shiva are the same but cannot require others to believe that..."

The next three comments are directly related to the topic, but not the immediate discussion between Surya and Srinivas. Rajiv responds to another post:

"....There are two levels at which a person can engage Hinduism. One is purely as a practitioner. For that you need not and probably should not survey all the schools, issues, debates, choices. Its like I am satisfied as a Windows user and need not become an expert on comparative operating systems. I know how my car works and need not learn auto engineering or details on every car. As a chef its enough for me to do a great job with my cuisine. I recommend Hindus to get a good guru and stick to that guidance. The second level is as a scholar wanting to debate Hinduism in its entirely in public forums - be it for sake of educational curriculum in schools or media portrayal or public policy or whatever. For this second kind of engagement I better work as hard to gain competence as a student who qualifies in medicine, law, engineering, etc. Problem is what people with level one involvement become opinionated as level two experts"

Vishal comments on the Devatas of Hinduism:
" Most Hindus regard different Devatas as forms or manifestations of the same Divinity. However, there has always been a minority within Hinduism who are sectarian minded and have attempted to prove that one Devata is superior to the other.

ISCKON and several similar Sampradayas believe that Krishna is superior even to Vishnu. In the middle ages, some Acharyas argued that Vishnu is the Supreme Deity and Shiva is not the Supreme Deity (e.g. Shri Vaishnavas) and vice versa. These debates have been restricted to a small minority of sectarian scholars. For most Hindus however, all these Forms of Divinity are worthy of reverence and are complementary.

...The Hindu objection to depiction of Hinduism as 'Polytheistic' in California textbooks during the controversy in 2005-2006 was very valid.

I do not see anything offensive in Hare Krishnas distributing the Gita on a Shivaratri day. In fact, the Gita has been adapted by all major Hindu traditions. There is a Shaivite version called the Ishvara Gita (in the Kurma Purana), the Devi Gita, the Ganesha Gita and so on - and it becomes very apparent that there are hundreds of verses common between these Gitas on one hand and the Bhagavad Gita on the other. In our local temple, it is very common to see Bhaktas chant Shaivite hymns in front of Murtis of Krishna and vice versa when we celebrate festivals. This puzzles Christian visitors, but most Hindus do not bat an eyelid when that happens. Yours truly also sang a Sanskrit Arati on Lord Shiva at a Hanuman Puja two weekends back at someone's home. "

Gene asks:
"...What ever happened to Enlightenment, of call it Perennial Samadhi, or the Turiya State of Consciousness?

Which branch of Hinduism, or which cult has the best track record in producing Enlightened Sages or men and women who achieved Cosmic  Consciousness.  Or doesn't this matter in the scheme of things Hindu?  "


We now resume the chain of discussion around mutual respect, Vivekananda, and ISKCON. Krishna Murthy agrees with Srinivas:
"....KruNvanto vishwamaaryam [Let us aryanise the
entire Universe] is the Vedic goal. 'SangacChadhwam' [Conflue] the Vedas ordain. That is, Just as rivers conflue (blend with one another, and become One), the Vedic injunction ordains to all those who follow the Arsha dharma is ipso facto one.

But this is the Uttara Paksha. Rajivji is still striving to make his Purvapaksha well-grounded. ... shows how lethargic the Hindu Society has become. Because it has been emaciated by the Western pattern and content of education in India. Even many speak that Hinduism is a
shanti-priya Dharna, Humbug! Hinduism does not preach cowardice. Saha veeryam karavaavahai. That is what we swear.

I wish god-speed in the mission Rajivji has undertaken; so that he may start Uttarapaksha. Uttarapaksha does not merely mean as the conclusive deduction as in logic, it also means one which answers all doubts and problems.

Rajiv comment: I have given my preliminary uttara paksha in BD in terms of the different qualities that ground dharma - i.e. such prnciples as adhyatma-vidya,
reincarnation-karma, etc... are responses to the corresponding Western attributes.

In my next book, though the main thrust is to topple a prevailing myth, and to reaffirm Swami Vivekananda, I will end with my further elaboration of what is dharma for the FUTURE. Thats my uttara paksha (response)."

Srinath disagrees with Srinivas on Vivekananda:
"It seems a rather extreme point point of view to suggest that Vivekananda did not represent all Hindus. Yes, perhaps he was an Advaitin as was Sri Ramakrishna, his guru. However, Adi Sankara himself advocated the Shanmata tradition in which Vishnu is one of the representations of Brahman, as is Devi as Sri Ramakrishna believed (the others are Shiva, Ganesha, Kartikeya/Shanmuga, and Surya). Therefore, for anyone who identifies themselves as an Advaitin or Smarta, Vaishnavism is not an issue at all. Yes, there is the issue that the definition of Atman is not exactly the same for an Advaitin and someone who follows Ramanujacharya or Madhavacharya ... I simply do not understand phrases like "people squirm at being called a Hindu is because of this implicit assumption," or a suggestion that "Vivekananda and many Shankara followers here suffer from difference anxiety." Of course, someone who is an Advaitin cannot be expected to preach the views of Ramananujacharya or Madhavacharya, but there is absolutely no difference anxiety here, and to suggest such is unfair and counter to the central ideas of Hinduism and in "Being Different.""

Srinivas' response to Srinath:
"This is factually incorrect. There are many a great debates among the followers of these three acharyas and the multiplicity of Atman is one of the core issues.
... The terminology used by Vivekananda to describe Hinduism is same as Advaita. Obviously other sects cannot accept it. Vivekananda did a seminal job in introducing Advaita to west. The problem here is he preached it as Hinduism and not just as Advaita. An Advaitin has every right to argue and stand up for the correctness of Advaita. So does a Ramanuja or a Madhvacharya follower. The issue here is conflating what is Advaita with what is an inclusive term of Hinduism....

The BD terminology however stands clear of this issue and I believe should be a lot more acceptable to Vaishnavites than what Vivekananda described as Hinduism"

Wadhwa agrees with Srinivas:

".... To have a conversation as Hindus or as fellow Dharmic followers, there are some common criteria that we need to agree upon.' 

I would like to draw your attention to the Rig Ved Mantra 1-164-46  which can be our watch-word and common criteria.  Its well known  sukti says Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti, i.e., God is One, but wise persons call him by different names. The same central thought of our tradition with regard to one divine existence having different attributes has been repeated  at innumerable places in various Vedic texts.  

.... Unless we come out of the age old mindset, we cannot
comprehend the distinctiveness and nuances of true Vedic tradition "

Rajiv comment: How does one then differentiate Brahman from Allah or Judeo-Christian notions of God and his commandments? Are they not the One God referenced above who is being called by some other name? If the answer is yes, then what is your problem with sameness? What is your problem with converting to those religions because (after all) they are about the same One God?

....  Clearly, I have known this business about one God called by many names, and one truth the wise call many different ways. If it were this simple, I would not waste many years developing the BD thesis. Despite so many months of close engagement with BD, I am afraid Wadhwa ji does not ..."

Wadhwa follows up:

"With reference to Rajivji's comments, may I draw his attention to my above post wherein I have said "Unless we come out of the age old mindset, we cannot comprehend the distinctiveness and nuances of true Vedic tradition ". It was this old mindset characterised by superiority/inferiority of a particular god which led to infighting in the past  between bhaktas of Shiv and Vishnu, between Ram Bhaktas and Krishna Bhaktas,etc. ...

It would be naive on any body's part to extend and overstretch the central theme of the Rig Ved - Mantra 1:164:46,  to abrahamic notions while ignoring the totality of 'Ekam Sad'. Various Vedic 'devies' and 'devatas' mentioned in the above mantra  have a functional name relating to different powers of the same divine existence.  These Vedic devatas enumerated in the mantra, such as, Indra (the supreme power), Mitra (the friend of all), Varuna (the most desirable one), Agni (the all knowing), Divya (the shiningone), etc.  are all giver of happiness and benefits to the whole world. The literal meaning of Devata is also one who is giver of benefits to all. Where is the  symmetry here with the anthropomorphism of the Biblical literature which teaches 'salvation only through Christ'?  There is a fundamental difference between the Vedic concept and the qualified monotheism of abrahamic faiths where we cannot dispense with an intermediary between man and God.  As against this in Hinduism a bhakta or a yogi can establish a direct relationship with the Supreme reality.   Rajivji has beautifully enumerated differences between dharmic and Judeo-Christian cosmologies  in a tabular form on page 112-113 of his book 'Being Different'. 

Further, I would like to add that despite differences between Acharyas of dualistic - non-dualistic schools, they were by and large unanimous on certain points like  omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence nature  of Vedic God.  How about the abrahamic God? It is said that he  resides at a particular abode called heaven like on 4th or 7th sky and moves wherever he likes. 

...I feel that it is a most important challenge for all dharmic traditions to study the tenets of Vedic thought and  philosophy with the right and original approach or else we will be taken for a ride by any one..."

 

Brahma[] responds to Wadhwa. The response is detailed and in-depth and is carried almost intact.

But it is not as simple as that.

"....  "devatas' ... a functional name relating to different powers of the same divine existence....." Agreed.

"Unless we come out of the age old mindset, we cannot comprehend the distinctiveness and nuances of true Vedic tradition " - But this cannot be done via reductionism.

These kinds of reductionist exegeses of Vedic thought are an attempt at translation of the non-translatable. And though we might openly say we are not seeking parity, this line of thought unwittingly does play into the whole minds set that seeks parity with Abrahamic monotheism. 

In understanding Vedic thought be careful about scientific reductionism, or the simple need to cope with complexity via generalities-- whatever. This plays to the "digestion" process whether that is the samkalpa behind the discourse or not. Because in one breath you have played into the hands of all those who call us Hindus the "superstitious masses." When the old lady cuts the chicken to invoke the powers of Mariamman, the grammata devata of her villages: something very, very real is happening. Various entities are are work in different levels. At a pure Vaishnava or Shiva temple, similar scenarios are playing out at a much higher level. Almost the entire discourse of today's Hindus has this huge hiatus of knowledge of the Agamas/Tantras... which are based on the Vedas... that's another discussion...

But the nexus between Vedic and Agamic thought is a key. Let us use an analogy to illustrate.

You, a human being, are a singular entity. If I were a small multi-cell bacterium, inside the body of Wadhwa a "little atma" I might discern certain changes in the greater environment and possibly infer higher intelligences at work and call them "humans" I might say, from my
limited scope of apprehension, as a singular bacterium, that Mr. Wadhwa was a "functional name relating to a power of the same divine existence." [Consider that the physical body of Wadhwa is in fact made up of 90% bacteria -- only 1 in 10 cells in your body are "human"] if I were a wise bacterium" I might even be willing to acknowledge that I was a part of the larger "Purusha" called "Wadhwa" and even perhaps that Wadhwa *is* a power of some even larger Divine Existence. So too are we all.  But that does not eliminate the reality of being a jiva. So, this bacterium needs to also acknowledge the existence of Wadhwa, an individual homo sapien, as a singular intelligent entity, functioning at a much higher level of existence. Wadhwa is no mere name for a functionality of a generalized "Divine One."

So say the obvious: We need to be careful not to, in one intellectual swipe, put all the Devatas into "exile" by inferring that their existences as singular entities functioning in higher lokas, is some how a mere "anthropomorphic projection," of our limited minds, and that the Devatas are mere names of functions of "one divine being." This sounds all very wise and has been the line of swamis talking to the west for decades, but frankly we are getting tired of hearing this decade after decade. It is politically correct as it parades as the wisdom which
overcomes the conflicts of sectarianism. With no disrespect: but this is incredibly naive. Just look at the world of nature around us as described above, just your own body is complex beyond your possible
conception.

Hinduism is a panentheism, not a pantheism. There is a difference. The latter is reductionism and easily supported by simplistic "Vedanta." But Vedic thought encompasses the diversity and complexity of existence. Agama/tantra (all the details of temple worship and practice, puja etc.)
implements that view in practice

There are in fact intelligent "entities" that function in higher lokas. Of course exactly how you want to "parse" out those realities on the religious landscape of homo sapiens, has a great deal of variation at the "low level" of sampradayas here in the bhuloka/intellectual sphere. (Is Ganesha the son of Siva i.e. a Maha Devata or is Ganesha a name for the the Supreme One?) Sorting that out is a challenge and this has unfortunately played out as "infighting in the past between bhaktas of Shiv and Vishnu. "

But just because little sister says "Daddy is the Boss!" and little brother says "Mommy the boss!" Does not mean we have to create a theory that the two parents don't exist... that they are "names for functions of the One Parent." It could be a great theory for a strategy to deal with sibling rivalry, and hence very politically correct because we are
all for Peace in the Home. But it is not the truth.

Is there One Brahman - yes of course; Are there many
"Parents/Divinities" yes that's also true.

This model that "the cosmos/company has a President and He/She does everything. And these other functioners, like CEO, Vice-president, Manager of operations, IT manager, Inventory Comptroller, Human Resources administrator... etc. are all just "anthropological
projections" when in fact the President does it all -- is very tidy and resolves apparent dichotomies, but only diminishes the Vedic tradition.

Rajiv comment: I enjoyed the vigor in this challenge, yet not flippant. I would welcome a piece that is not a reaction to others ..., and gives us a thesis on who are the devatas." 

JCP responds:
"Brahma..[] ji has brilliantly removed many cobwebs of misunderstanding in this mail. So, not only are Sanskrit terms non-translatable, so are Vedic views too non-translatable. ... However, the quote "Almost the entire discourse of today's Hindus has this huge hiatus of knowledge of theAgamas/Tantras... which are based on theVedas... that's another discussion..." has tantalizingly been left for another discussion. We are all aware of the "huge hiatus' in the knowledge & practice of Hinduism & I could not resist the temptation to seek swami ji's views on this subject."

RoyalDecor comments:
"I agree with the clarity given by swamiji.Though there is no scientific evidence on the existence of devis and devatas,the present day hinduism stands on their existence and worship.It is a subject which can be understood when one interacts with a person who has seen devatas( thru 3rd eye).There are variety of devatas who exist in another plane and help the humans who pray to them in overcoming earthly problems. Each devata is a pocket of cosmic energy acting independently but drawing power from the same SOURCE.They are like generators having different power rating.Some times they act in union generating higher power.Broadly we can group them as
1) Pitru devatas.( ancestors )
2)Swamis and saints after their mortal death( Eg Raghavendra Swami, Shirdi Sainath,etc)
3)Devatas as described in puranas.
4)Avatars like Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Anjaneya etc
5)Devatas with multiple hands and heads stationed at the various chakras.
6)Elements like vayu (air),varuna(water) and agni and heavenly bodies.
other divine energies like Yakshas, Gandharvas,Kinneras and Kimpurushas are mentioned in our books..
When a human prays a particular devata he/she solves the problem of his/her devotee as per his/her capacity and the person has to approach another devata for a different ailment.It is like a patient visiting a cardiologist, nephrologist or an oncologist.Faith in the result is the only evidence on the performance of worship of devatas.
What happens when one doesnt believe in god or doesnt pray to a diety.Nothing. Life will be smooth but when bumps come he may not have energy to lift from his fall.All i can say is devatas do exist, doing a thankless job .Without a proper guide hindu scriptures may convey a distorted meaning, hence vedic knowledge was kept beyond the reach of a common man."