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.

Summary of the Neo-Hindu thesis

February 2014

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

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

Thesis of neo-Hindu camp:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

A common misinterpretation of Unity Consciousness

[refer to previous week's post that started this Feb 2012 discussion, where a teacher of Hinduism and Buddhism made sincere and well-intentioned comments on the natural human tendency to seek sameness that failed to address some key points in BD. Rajiv Malhotra reiterates some critical points from BD on the relationship between multiplicity and oneness in Dharmic thought systems. This post covers the followup in depth. Although bulk of the discussion is around Chapter 3 (Synthetic Unity of West versus Integral Unity of Dharmic Civilization), arguments cover other key topics like 'non-translatables in Sanskrit, Chapter 4 - Order and Chaos, etc.]

A common misinterpretation of Unity Consciousness
Ellen's recent thread illustrates the common notion that non-duality is escapist from the mundane world on multiplicity. This became the handle with which Vedanta got thrashed as:

1) not progressive in the real world
2) causing dependency upon foreign Mother Teresa's to help the poor because Vedanta escapes responsibility
3) causing complicity with social irresponsibility.

Many colonial era writers made a big deal of this point and many Hindus ended up supplying them the fodder.

Today, Ken Wilber's reduction of dharma into what he calls "Advaita Hinduism" is used by him to claim that he has superseded the states of consciousness of Sri Aurobindo, and moved past the problems that dharma suffers from.

All this is a trap and many Vedantist teachers are unaware of the way their teachings get distorted.

Ramanuja and Sri Jiva Goswami (cited in BD) are very clear and explicit that  non-dualism does not mean that multiplicity is false. It means that multiplicity is dependent upon Oneness, and in the case of Sri Jiva all multiplicity is a form of the one, just as a smile is a form of the face and cannot be independent of it. The blueness of the blue lotus cannot exist separately from the lotus - a common example given in that tradition. This is the nature of the relationship between One and Many.

Another metaphor to understand the multiplicity is as lila, divine play.

Multiplicity is not false, be it seen as form of Brahman (Saguna Brahman) or as lila.  If the face is real then its smile and all its forms are real as well.

The above misinterpretation of multiplicity has led many dharma scholars to criticize my notion of difference. They think its a bad idea, because they feel it takes us away from oneness. Shouldn't we be seeing only oneness, they ask? I refer to this notion as pop Vedanta; it is also called Neo-Vedanta. Interestingly, Sri Aurobindo also lashed out against this kind of misinterpretation of Vedanta.

So I have on many occasions asked Swami Dayananda Saraswati, considered the most prominent authority on Vedanta philosophy today. I asked directly: If the world is unreal then whats the basis for dharma, karma, worrying about what evangelists do, curing diseases, helping those in need, etc? ... I must say that he gives very clear explanations to the effect that: we must deal with the differences in the world we live in, as part of dharma, karma, etc. The Gita's message is also this. Arjuna gave the escapist argument at first, to justify his inaction, and it takes Sri Krishna 18 chapters to explain why action in the world is necessary - without attachment to the results and without even the sense of being the doer.

Therefore, the dharma/Christian difference is as real for our lives as the dharma/adharma or deva/asura or tamas/sattva differences. Dharma is not moral relativism, though it is often attacked for being so.

Asserting differences is not a negation of Oneness. It is the insight into the richness of Oneness as including the differences as aspects within it.

Your posture towards difference should depends upon where you stand in terms of state of consciousness. If you are the rishi rooted in unity consciousness as your state (not some words you can parrot), then by all means you should act in the world in spontaneity - the One leads your actions amidst all the diversity. But if you are not there yet, you must make a conscious effort to understand right from wrong, what is what in the world - while at the same time reminding yourself that this relative level is a manifestation of one substratum.

One of the sutras in my Moron Smriti is about this moronic notion that "everything is same". According to such moronic minds, medicine can be substituted with poison because both as Brahman only;.... you need not obey any laws because these are man-made in the world of illusions, and so forth. In other words, the misunderstanding I refer to is very dangerous as it has produced a large population of morons who are simply dysfunctional.

Such a people are the product of colonialism as its easy to rule over morons.

Rampersad asks: ""Dharma is not moral relativism: Please explain the above when we say that Dharma is determined by desh, kaal aur paristithi. Or for example that killing a person is acceptable in line of duty but not otherwise. Duties and responsibilities as Dharma are not absolute but relative, some say.Please enlighten on this."

Rajiv's response:
Important question. Please read "contextual Ethics" section in chapter 4 of BD. It is only 12 pages and summarizes what was earlier a whole chapter of 100 pages. Basically, it goes as follows: Western normative ethics is deterministic, absolute like Ten Commandments. No ifs, ands, buts. "Thou shalt not kill" would never make it into Manu as he would ask things like: whether one can kill in war, kill a plant, kill bacteria that has diseased you, kill an animal if he is non-vegetarian, etc. Such ethics is called normative. The West is so afraid of "chaos" (as explained in chpt 4, that there is obsession to maintain control through "order" and this means that there was heavy policing of normative ethics throughout the Christian era. (Now in Islam.) The opposite of normative ethics was seen as moral relativism, which means "anything goes", or a chaotic place, an anarchy in which you do whatever you want to.
Thus, normative versus moral relativism are two opposite poles. But in the middle of these lies what is called contextual ethics and thats where dharma is. It is neither normative nor moral relativism....."


Surya comments:
"Sounds like Dharma then fall under the classification of moral universalism which allows for situation dependency but applies to all people in a given situation.  Moral universalism does fall in between moral nihilism/relativism and moral absolutism and also recognizes that morality is not always black and white (value pluralism).  Value pluralism is crucial in many common moral dilemmas and comfort with not excluding middle is a necessary mindset.

Catholic Church has struggled with its pro-life moral absolutist position taken since Thomas Aquinas and in recent times introduced what is called the "doctrine of double effect" which is situation specific morality. This doctrine is also used in wars where soldiers have to accept the fact that there could be unexpected civilian casualties.

Morality is rarely as clear cut as absolutism suggests. Morality is frequently situation specific and can have multiple valid but conflicting choices."

Koti posts a clarification (Rajiv: excellent post):
"...It was Gita that astutely harmonized conflicting schools of thought and ways of worship. It even made redundant post death rites which our acharyas were preoccupied with and which even to this date our orthodoxy swears on. [...]Obviously, they honoured Krishna but stayed with Arjuna of chapter 1.
FIVE BLUNDERS were done to Gita as a result to Vedanta itself, because Vedanta is part of Gita, although Gita is more than Vedanta....
1. Preached Gita solely as Moksha shastra, ignoring fully the jeevana dharma of it. Thus pushed it to last stages of life!
2. Force-fitted it to their dogma of Advaita, dvaita or anything in-between; Gita itself never used those terminologies. Basically narrowed it down through  interpolation and interpretation.
3. Misunderstood sva-dharma as one's religious sect/caste
4. Misunderstood VarNa. Even discovered a fifth varNa (outcaste). Thus killed the soul of millions without touching their body. In a way disproved Gita that soul can not be killed! Now we bend over backwards to tell that caste and dalits were products of colonial period.
5. Insisted on post death rites for liberation of ancestors on the same lines as Arjuna of Gita chapter 1."


Nagaraja strongly disagrees with certain aspects of Koti's clarification:
"With reference to the posting by ... Koti..., I strongly disapprove the posting for two reasons –

1.       Pitting one part of the vedic culture against another instead of treating it as an integrated whole (last rites v/s perceived essence of Gita,  perceived correct understanding of Gita v/s Acharyas’ schools of thought etc.) is a dangerous trend and should be discouraged.

Rajiv's comment: I agree with much of this post by Nagaraja. However, we cannot assume that there was no advancement in our tradition. In other words, to interpret one text as superseding another is not a sign of inferiority but a sign of the flow of knowledge over time. Smritis are intended to evolve with each time and context, and thats not seen as a contradiction. Also, to say that Arjuna in the early portion of Gita was confused compared to later in the text is not undermining the tradition. Our exemplars from Arjuna to Swami Vivekananda have challenged the authorities and learned in the process. Thats why so many texts are Q A and debate style. This does not denigrate the acharyas but shows free spirited argumentation.

2.       Making unsubstantiated, sweeping, derogatory remarks against the Acharyas (“Acharyas failed to understand Gita”, “They wasted their scholarship”, “what they did is circus” etc.) is another dangerous trend that can cause a nose dive of our serious efforts to understand the subject objectively...

 If the Acharyas did not do what they did, we would not be sitting and discussing Gita today.....

1.       What aspect of Dharma is upheld when and how depends on the social need at that time.  Even among the Avatars, Rama and Krishna did completely different set of things based on the needs of the society at that time....Please go through sections of Dharma Shasthras, Artha Shasthras and Kama Shasthras to understand why Gita is considered a Moksha Shasthra.
...
3.       ... The Jati/varna Dharma is indeed a part of svadharma.

5.       Contempt for rituals is a serious drawback of some of the people who want to stand up for Hinduism but don’t practice it themselves.  I suspect that the remark against last rites is one such case and is grossly incorrect.  Lord Rama himself carries out (even though at a distance) last rites for Dasharatha and encourages Vibhishana to do the last rites of Ravana with full honor. ...What is there to be blamed in this regard and how Acharyas are to be blamed if at all something is to be blamed?


The common misinterpretation of Advaita that is used to negate differences can be easily countered by resorting to correct interpretation of Advaita rather than by attacking the Acharyas arbitrarily.... "

Srinivas comments:
"As Ellen points out, science today wants to find out how matter became consciousness and Advaita is about how one consciousness became diverse matter. Science accepts the diversity in this world but is striving towards sameness concept via "everything is matter". Advaita / Achintya Bedha-Abheda says "everything is one consciousness" and is striving to explain the diversity. While both respect differences, fundamentally they do it because they believe in the sameness or reduction of all into either matter or one consciousness. ... Its like saying "I respect you because both of us are essentially the same"....While identity was restricted to a community, now it is taken to the level of universe/consciousness.
.....
In the context of this discussion it should be pointed out that there are other philosophical traditions in India that do not accept non dual consciousness i.e. reducing the universe to a single consciousness. Madhva's Tatvavada is one such and makes its case on 5 fundamental differences in the world. Briefly the 5 differences are explained with the basis that matter (jada) and consciousness (atma) are fundamentally different....

The 3 main points of Being Different can be explained without resorting to non-dual consciousness.

1. Embodied Knowing
If there is non dual consciousness, who is the Know-er and what is to be known? If everything is consciousness, how did ignorance arise and who is ignorant? God? Instead embodied, knowing is simply explained by the nature of atman (as BD does) as Sat, Chit and Ananda while still keeping many different atmans.

2. Integral Unity
BD justification for Integral unity is by denying dual consciousness. So if there is no "two", the question of Unity or Integration becomes a non starter. Instead the Indian concept to explain Integral unity is by way of different tatvas like Prana, Mahattatva, Chitta, Chetana, Ahankara, etc.

3. Comfort with Chaos
Again if there no "two" then there is no need to answer the question about chaos. A common Indian is comfortable with chaos not because she experiences non-dual consciousness but probably because she believes in Karma and Re-birth theory.

As a conclusion I would like to emphasize that non duality is not the only Indian tradition and is not fundamental to the main differences pointed out in BD. There are well developed vedic and theistic traditions which believe in the fundamental nature of differences in reality and consciousness."


Rajiv comment: I went through great length not to rely upon nondualism in explaining Integral Unity or Embodied Knowing or comfort with chaos. Had I wanted to equate Integral unity = Nondualism, I would not have had to work so hard to coin the new term and explain it. It would have been just another work on nondualism. I will explain this in a separate thread.

Desh adds:
"I disagree with Ellen and Srinivas that Science wants to find "How matter became consciousness".  For that never happens.

When we look at the classic issue in Quantum Mechanics and the entire question of Wave Collapse, we find that the question before BOTH Science and Spirituality is the SAME - 

How does the Infinite manifest as Finite?

If you look closely at the Copenhagen Interpretation, you will find Scientists grappling with exactly the question and issue that the Dualists and Non-Dualists grapple with.  There is no fight.  When one gives way, and goes by the way of the infinite - one experiences Non-dualism; if one "Is" there then dualism keeps on.

[...]

The question that Ellen is asking comes from a mind drenched in Newtonian Science.  It is in the Newtonian zone and looks at the new world of consciousness and asks the question...."

Rajiv Malhotra posts:
"BD's idea of dharma is not dependent upon advaita
In a popular version of advaita, all difference is illusory, hence reality is context free. This has led to the problems of other worldliness as alleged and explained earlier in this thread. Sri Aurobindo was one of many who criticized this harshly. So did Ramanuja, Sri Jiva and many others.

Integrality is oneness plus all built in diversity that is part and parcel of it and inseparable from it. The diversity is not unreal but has no separate existence. I keep repeating the separateness as the key issue throughout BD. This way I also bring in Madhyamika Buddhism as Integral: pratita-samutpada does not use unity consciousness as a positive entity, and rather it negates the existence of any "separate" entity from what I have described as Indra's Net. Implication: The argument against dharma as being world negating is rejected.

So Integrality = absence of separateness. Nondual consciousness is one way of having integrality. Pratita-samutpada is another way. Achinta-bheda-abheda is another. Sri Aurobindo's Integrality is another.

... My book's purpose is served so long as the common ground is different than the west.

Hence, the notion of synthetic is the big "aha" claim in the book. I go to great length to argue the synthetic nature of the West - both its history and its major philosophical/theological systems. The nature of dharma as Integral Unity is used as the foil against which to reverse the gaze on the West. Thats all its meant to serve. The book is not about dharma but about the West as seen by the dharmic gaze."
 
Raghu comments on the wrong usage of 'illusion' for 'Maya': 
"...Shankara talks of Vyaavahaarika prathyaksha as the first stage, leading to praathibhaasikam and then to paramaarthikam. The first stage is to have a clear understanding of the transactional world. Transaction is between two separate entities. When one has a deep understanding of this reality, one comes to its edge and can see the light of actuality. Vyaavahaarika is a real but ephemeral state of being, when one 'crosses over' one enters paaramaarthikam, a transcendent state when one is anchored in the unchanging state of Truth. When one looks back from here, one sees that holding on to the world of phenomenon as real and unchanging is delusional, therefore Maya.

The are many stories that illustrate this idea that one experiences the Vyaavahaarika as though it were substantive when it is not. Holding on to it and expecting that dukha can be ended by living in this space is delusional, thus one gets entangled in Maya."

Rajiv comment: 

I agree with this as the deeper view of advaita vedanta. My guru was an enlightened advaita master (not a regular teacher but enlightened), and said very clearly that we are not being asked to run away or escape the mundane world as some "illusion theorists" teach. We take birth as per prarabdha and must perform our dharma which is very much transactional in this world. Unfortunately, what we find today is pop-Vedanta in which they dismiss the world as illusion, causing all the confusion and problems I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Still, I dont want to push advaita as prerequisite for BD's thesis. Thats why I went through so much research, discussions, etc. with experts from: Sri Aurobindo, Kashmir Shaivism, Madhyamika Buddhism, Jainism, Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita, Sri Jiva's achinta-bheda-abheda, etc.
...
For, if I were to limit myself to Advaita Vedanta, then the western opponents get a perfect handle to attack: "You do not speak for dharma as such but only one tiny slice of it. There is no such thing as a unifying dharma, mere fragments that are randomly stuck together." In other words, the charge in the prevailing discourse has been that it is Hinduism and dharma that is a synthetic unity. This is a very big movement among scholars out there.

BD goal is to counter that and claim integral unity of dharma.

... Anyone who forgets that difference is the purpose of this exercise will find all sorts of flaws in BD, and I am well aware of the trade offs I made and why I made them."

Srinivas adds:
"Yes BD is not rooted in Advaita and can be explained using any of the Dharmic streams. Thats the beauty of it! Rajivji has stuck gold with the vocabulary. He has caught the essence of Dharmic streams by how they approach the problem and the mature subject space they apply themselves to.

For example I was disappointed not to see Madhva's Tatvavada in BD but there will be many such people and Dharmic streams which feel that way. However what is important is that the concepts in BD can easily be extended to other Dharmic streams and it takes very little effort to explain the 3 main differences according to each stream.

Rajiv's response to this para: "Since my knowledge of Madhva's work is inadequate I request that those who know better than me should post an explanation of Integrality, Embodied Knowing, Comfort with Chaos, and Non-Translatability as explained from that school..."

....
1. There is only one consciousness and all differences are in the "end" Maya/Mithya or whatever vocabulary you choose. This is the Advaita way.

2. There is only one or non-dual consciousness but it is also differentiated even in the "end". This is the Achintya Bheda-Abheda way.

3. There is multiplicity of consciousness coupled with the permanent 5 fold differences between God, Jeevatma and Matter. This is the Tatvavada of Madhvacharya.

There are other claims as well but we need to recognize that there are these differing claims with its own rich Vedic traditions. What we are concerned about is "what according to various schools of thought are the fundamental particles/tatva that make the universe?" This can be answered differently by Science, Advaita, Achintya Bheda-Abheda, Tatvavada, etc. We should also widen discussion to other claims and see how BD can be explained in the terms of those streams." 

Shaas responds to Srinivas: 
"... There is no place for "wrong" (mithya) in Advaita (Unity). Even the "differences" are just "one consciousness".

Maya does not mean mithya! Maya is Divine (DAIVI hyesha gunamayi, mama maya duratyaya, Gita VII ch.). Maybe it clouds the recognition of all is intrinsically one consciousness but it is all divine play.

When one perceives differences, differences must be dealt accordingly and aproprietly.

To all pseudo-unitarists: Unity consciousness is not achieved by being forgetful about differences. UC is seeing one's unbounded Self (Atma) in all differences." 

Srinivas follows up:
"All these truth claims, Advaita, Achintya Bheda-Abheda and Tatvavada address among many things, what the universe is made of. Is it matter, Is it Consciousness? If yes how many? The question I put forward was "what are the "fundamental particles" according each of these streams?"

Both Advaita and Achintya Bheda-Abheda accept unitary consciousness or non-dual consciousness. There is no separate consciousness dependent or independent of Brahman. Achintya Bheda Abheda deviates from Advaita in that it also accepts differentiation of the absolute Brahman while Advaita does not.

Tatvavada instead takes a totally different view in that it says the differences between God, Jeeva and Matter are real and eternal.

Now you can argue for how each of these theories account for diversity in this world. My post was not to explain how Advaita does or does not explain differences....The important thing is to accept the differences between these streams with mutual respect. We do not have to digest or force fit all streams of Vedanta as Advaita or have difference anxiety about the diversity of Vedic thought amongst different schools.BTW mutual respect amongst Dharmic streams will be an interesting topic!

The bottom line is BD's 4 main differences are still valid for all Dharmic streams. Only the way you explain them differs from one stream to another. BD is a good starting point and each of the Advaita, Achintya Bhed-Abheda and Tatvavada scholars need to take off from here and write detailed Purva-Paksha of West and Christianity according to their core beliefs."

Rajiv Malhotra adds another clarification to his concept of Integral Unity:

".... Integral Unity can be either without any internal content (as in some interpretations of advaita), or with all content/difference built into the unity consciousness itself (as in achinta-bheda-abheda).

Or it can be without using "ultimate reality = consciousness" as in the case of madhyamika Buddhism, where the idea of "everything is interdependent on everything else" implies such a unity and is expressed in the metaphor of Indra's Net.

Many dharma systems have different notions on the relationship between One and Many, but each satisfies my 4 differences including the one about Integral Unity. (I do need a good analysis of Madhava's system by some expert.)

My methodology went through multiple iterations: whats different wrt West that is at the same time shared internally among the dharma systems?.... After many trials and failures I reached these four differences that are robust on both fronts."

Wadhwa posts:

"WORLD IS NOT FALSE - A VEDIC VIEW
The theory of worldly existence as 'mithya', i.e, fictitious, deceitful and unreal is totally negated by the very definition of Dharma as given in the Vaisheshika Darshan of Kanada. It defines Dharma as "Yatho Abhyudhaya NihShreyasa Siddhi Sa Dharmah"i.e, Dharma is that which ensures material well being/progress and prosperity(Abhyudaya) as well as spiritual well being, (Nihshreyasa).
Maharishi Dayananda who was a realist, spirtualist and in a way highly pragmatic too opined that Vedic Philosophy denies that this world is an illusion. He did not endorse the view of Shankaracharya who said Jagat(world) is Mithya, i.e., false. Swamiji strongly protested against the sickly view of sorrow, pain and misery of the world. He said that world is not a purposeless phantasm and as per vedic conception there is no basis for unreality of the world. A complete God who is perfect and Purna cannot create an incomplete and illusionary world. The sorrows are of man's own creation as he violates the laws of nature resulting into pain and agony..." 

Rajiv's response:

"Shri Wadhwa is requested to address whether his interpretation of Vedas (which is the Arya Samaj interpretation) agrees or disagrees with each of the four differences mentioned in BD. We are dealing with differences from West in BD. Unfortunately, many Arya Samaj folks I meet are obsessively dedicated to proving differences with other interpretations of dharma. The in-fighting consumes them so much that they forget that today the enemy at the gate is not some rival sampradaya..." 

.....The focus of this thread should be to deepen our understanding of the four differences wrt to the West that comprise BD. Lets put forth arguments from various dharmic traditions. The idea was not to examine the intra-dharma relations good or bad, but the inter-faith differences. I repeat for the benefit of Arya Samaj, Madhavacharya scholars and others:

Q1: Does your worldview subscribe to Integral Unity or Synthetic Unity?
Q2: Does you worldview subscribe to history centrism?
Q3: Does your worldview consider so-called "chaos" as inherent in the cosmos or as an "evil" aberration that must be permanently exterminated?
Q4: Does your worldview accept Sanskrit translation of critical words into English or does it consider these words (such as those illustrated in chapter 5) as non-translatables?

Surya responds to Wadhwa:

" ....Shri Wadhwa writes: "Though Vedanta bears references to the Upanishads which are at its foundation, yet  all the above Vedantic schools out of  their own experiences  and endowment propounded different concepts. Notwithstanding their differences, they are all unanimous in their views with regard to  omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence of God."

This is in agreement with what BD says: "the Dharmic traditions see themselves as free from Western complexes: do not bear the burden of sin and guilt, and are not shackled by institutional authority, historical precedent or religious authority. ... Throughout the (Dharmic) tradition, the pursuit of truth is inseparable from spiritual practices (Sadhana), whose purpose is to alleviate suffering and bring illumination."

If you prefer a systems model identifying common ground, please see Appendix B.

Can Shri Wadhwa focus on this central comment of his email and address whether different Vedan  tic schools and their different concepts find a common ground on the core dimensions mentioned in BD?  Would very much like to see his exposition on the common ground. .."

Thayalan writes:

"Although Shankara did say that the world is false, he did not say that the world does not exist. ....its existence is a part and parcel of the Ultimate [Existence]. It is like our ignorant belief that we have many minds. Yet in reality there is one mind in which we all see the same sun. We we had separate minds we would have the problem of running interference when we try to see one object or another. Of course, if we really had our own minds then we could easily demonstrate where it begins and where it ends.

Rajiv comment: 

Illusion is our false perception that it exists BY ITSELF as a
"thing in itself". That comes from synthetic unity worldview. What exists is the rope, but the impression that it is a snake is illusory. The rope DOES exist."

Raghu adds:
"Satya comes from sat which is 'isness', eternal, truth all rolled into one. In the Chandogya Upanishads .... Maa is measurable, ya is disappearing so maaya is a perfect description of observable and measurable phenomenon that are impermanent. Maaya is reality as a person holds his/her superficial experience and understanding of the world, Satya is profound actuality accessible only to the enlightened meditive mind"

Thatte posts:
"I think the famous statement by Shankaracharya where he calls this physical world mithya has been misinterpreted . The Sanskrit word Mithya has a number of meanings and the correct meaning depends on the context. That seems to be the
case for many words in Sanksrit, including dharma as Rajiv puts it very well in BD. Mithya can be variously translated as unreal, untrue or impermanent depending on the context.

In Shakaracharya's statement, if mithya is translated into impermanent, then the issue of real or unreal gets resolved.

This physical world is indeed real but it is not permanent. Hence it is called mithya." 

Paranjpe concurs with Thatte:
"... There is a great need to disabuse the widespread misinterpretation of such Sanskrit terms, and much mischief has resulted from the interpretation of maya as mere illusion. The result is undue dismissal of an entire body of knowledge ...

Shankaracharya ... clearly and strongly refuted such a position adopted by the Vijnanavadi Buddhists. Also, he clearly said that the world is real to the extent that our knowledge of it, although ultimately provisional, is first, consensually supported, and second, necessary to the extent it is useful in successfully dealing with practical problems.

The words sat and vidya on the one hand and asat and avidya on the other are also misunderstood. Sat means that which ALWAYS is, and never is-not, i.e., permanent. Most things in the observable world are not permanent and eternal but
open to change. The knowledge of impermanent things is itself impermanent and this idea needs some clarification.

Vidya and avidya are technical terms. Avidya is NOT ignorance as is often translated. It means empirical knowledge, which is vyaavahaarika in the sense of
being based on the vyavahaara, i.e., transactions between the knower and the known through the sensory observations with the aid of reason. Such knowledge is CONTINGENT, as it is based on who is trying to know what, under what circumstances, and on the basis of what kind of pre-understanding. There are serious limits on ALL these factors (upaadhi), and the outcome of the search of
knowledge is always contingent on these factors...

Vidya, as the Upanisads point out, is knowledge at a different (higher) level. It is obtained in a state of consciousness where the distinction between knower and known has disappeared (nirvikalpa Samadhi). In such a state there is no TRANSACTION between the knower and the known; .....absolute, and irrefutable. And that is what Shankaracharya was aiming at.

....the Isa Upanisad says that those who do not possess Avidya are damned even more than those who lack Vidya. If we lack
empirical/rational/scientific knowledge, we may not even survive in the world, let alone be wise and happy." 

Ravindra notes:
"Shankara Vedanta posits three categories,
1) SAT : That exists is unborn uncreated and eternal. Its experience sublates (surates) all other experience.
2) MAYA: Maya means that is measurable thus endowed by Guna (Sato Rajo Tamo Gunaatmika iti Maaya asti). It is changing and gets born and perishes. It is experienced, but its experience can be sublated (subrated) and also sublates.
3) Asat. It does not exist and can not even be [experienced]." 

Nagaraja comments:
"Agree with most of what Sri Wadhwa has written. The only objection is that your objections to Advaita holds true only for the degenerated version of Advaita and not the original version. ...." 

Desh adds:
" In this debate of Advaita and Dvaita, a few thoughts:

1. Hindu Scriptures have never called existence as Kriti. We have called it Srishti instead. Srishti refers to manifestation as opposed to Creation. So, this debate falls at the very first step. Manifestation is real, but it is dependent on Observation and cannot exist on its own. Just like in Quantum Mechanics - the Wave Collapse occurs BECAUSE of Observation. On its own Electron is a wave.

2. The Rope-Snake argument hinges on the same Observation principle and not "Existence-Nonexistence" dichotomy.

3. It is a scientific truth that at the sub atomic level, there is no matter.  Somewhere along the way, the energy manifests as matter - which is what the search for "God's particle" (Higgs Boson - theoretical particle which provides mass such that the energy can manifest as matter) is for. The Vibration in this
"Intelligent energy" - which many scientists are now calling "Consciousness" is thought to be the manifesting cause of form and matter. Hindu scriptures like Yoga Vashishtha say this explicitly as well."

Wadhwa provides some perspective on the Arya Samaj position on BD:
".. I would like to clarify that Maharishi Dayananda, founder of Arya Samaj never intended to establish a new religion, sect or cult.  It is a socio-religious movement to unfold truth, remove ignorance and to expound Vedic knowledge ...my  personal reply is given against each question:

Q1: Does your worldview subscribe to Integral Unity or Synthetic Unity? -  Ans.Integral Unity

Q2: Does your worldview subscribe to history centrism?  - Ans.No

Q3: Does your worldview consider so-called "chaos" as inherent in the cosmos or as an "evil" aberration that must be permanently exterminated? -  Ans.Inherent in the cosmos

Q4: Does your worldview accept Sanskrit translation of critical words into English or does it consider these words (such as those illustrated in chapter 5) as non-translatables? -

Ans. Non-translatable.  Vedic Sanskrit language, is highly symbolic,figurative, multi-dimensional and has multi meanings. Literal translation of  Vedas by some Western Scholars especially has proved disastrous.  Swami Dayananda Saraswati(1824-1883) challenged Max Muller and other  scholars for their vulger interpretation of some of the Ved Mantras(Swamiji's rebuttal can be seen in his book Rigvedadi- Bhashya -Bhumika).  "

Jayakumar shares:

"... there is no [English] translation for "mithya".  (or even satyam, for that matter).

Brahma-satyam jagat-mithya.

Three key reality-expressing words in Sanskrit:
- Satyam - that which exists independent of anything else - implying that which has always existed (therefore anaadi - beginning-less), that which exists and that which will always exist. (aatmaa, Brahman).  Therefore this cannot be finite/limited.  It has to be attribute-less.

- AnRtam - False (e.g. a circular square, horns of an eagle)

- Mithya - That whose existence depends on something else. (i.e. every object, thought or concept that we know or do not know.  Even and illusion such as a mirage is mithya, so is my computer which is more "real").

In the examples below, face is sathyam, smile is mithya (relatively speaking), etc.

Likewise water is satyam, wave is mithya (relatively speaking).

Now let us see the words in the English language conveying the reality of existence:
- False
- Unreal
- Illusion
- Real
- etc.

AnRtam can possibly be translated as false.  That is reasonable.

But the English word "Real" is used for all objects.  This computer is real and the person sitting in front is also real.  And the real computer will perish and the real person also perishes.  So where does that leave us when we want to refer to the time-independent real, the reality that sustains time itself?

Hence, in English, we are forced to use this word "Real" both for mithya and sathyam.  However, this causes confusion and is not acceptable in Advaita Vedanta.  Not properly understanding satyam and mithya, many scholars had fallen into the trap of using the words "illusion", "false" or "unreal" for mithya (and maya).  Among various other reasons, this wrong translation also contributes to passivity (and confusion).

There is no established concept of Satyam or mithya in western thought.  Hence top-notch Vedanta teachers are constrained to use the words Satyam and mithya literally, as translations into English don't exist.

.....Bhagavad Gita.  Translations are from the Bhagavad Gita Home Study Course by Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam:

kiM karma kimakarmeti kavayo.apyatra mohitAH |
tatte karma pravakShyAmi yajj~nAtvA mokShyase.ashubhAt || (4-16)

Even the seers (scholars) are confused with reference to what is action (and) what is actionlessness. I shall tell you about action, knowing which you will be released from
what is inauspicious (samsaara).

karmaNyakarma yaH paShyedakarmaNi ca karma yaH |
sa buddhimAn manuShyeShu sa yuktaH kRRitsnakarmakRRit || (4-18)

The one who sees actionlessness in action and action in actionlessness is wise among human beings. That person is a yogi, who has done everything that is to be done." 

Nagaraja has the final word in this superb discussion:
"

Advaita and difference:  Lessons from Acharya's life

 Quite often, I find that certain public perception about Advaita is very different from its original spirit. And in the context of 'difference', there seems to be a perception of conflict between the notion of 'difference' and Advaita. But,if one were to dig deep and understand Advaita in an authentic way (studying authentic texts in a classical way under an Acharya's guidance and reinforcing the understanding through study of other texts such as Yoga Shasthra, Sankhya etc.), one would find that there is no conflict between the notion of 'difference' and the spirit of Advaita. I am attempting to bring this out in two independent postings - one on lessons from Acharya's life and the other on essence of Advaita philosophy itself and this posting is about the former.

 The public perception about Advaita of dismissing the world and worldly affairs as an illusion breeds its offspring's such as  -

1. Laxity in worldly duties (escapism)

2. A false ego bordering on megalo-mania that I am already great (Aham brahmasmi)

3. Everything is same; everything is Brahma(Sarvam Brahmamayam); no difference in other words;

This perception is perhaps a result of degeneration of the Jnana marga (the path of self-enquiry) into an intellectual drudgery and needs to be corrected.  In his short life-span of 32 years, the Acharya has made immense contributions in multiple fronts....

... These contributions imply that Adi Shankaracharya

1. Took THIS WORLD seriously.  He did not have anything to gain materially or spiritually as he was a Sanyasi and was already enlightened and yet  he did so much work.  ....He was the very opposite of escapism.
2.   He was focussed on Sadhana and results.  He knew that not everybody could follow the Jnana marga.  He therefore fostered many other ways of accessing divinity – Bhakthi, Rituals, Yoga methods and so on.  He never mixed up truths of spiritual states (such as sarvam brahmamayam) with mundane reality.  He was never oblivious of differences in worldly existence and worked with people according to their merit,....   
3.  In spite of being a true Jagadguru, he was a hall mark of humility.  He never behaved as if he is Brahma in his wakeful (Jagruth) state.  In his conversation with the divinity he says "I am your Dasa (servant)".  He says – hey lord I am all yours but you are not mine.  His stotras praise the glory of the divinity and beg for the grace of divinity but never claim an equal status with divinity.  The spirit of his relationship with the Almighty is best illustrated by the spirit of Anjaneya whose conversation with Rama reveals a multi-faceted relationship that he enjoyed with Rama....More about this state of unity or sameness of spiritual state in the next posting on Advaita sidhdhanta.
4. Another great man Sri Vidyaranya, 12^th Jagadguru of Sringeri Shankara Peeta, also responsible for consolidating the advaita Vedanta (which was spread in various commentaries of Adi shankara) is an excellent example of balance between spiritual world and material world.  Even though he lead an ascetic life himself, he worked fervently to build a Dharmic empire of Vijayanagara and till date the the material glory that the kingdom had attained is unparalleled.  To a possible surprise of many of us in the modern world, the Dvaita philosophy and Dvaita scholars also flourished well under the regime of Vijayanagara whose king-maker was a staunch Advaitist. So, by no means was he an ivory tower weaver of impractical theories. 

Thus a common public perception of Advaita is very distorted and does not carry the spirit of Acharya.  It is only the distorted version that can dilute the value of difference and cause an escape from assertion of difference.  The original spirit of Acharya does not negate or dilute the value of difference."