Summary of Criticism of “Being Different”*
By GP.Srinivasan
February 22, 2012
*Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism By Rajiv Malhotra.Harper Collins. ISBN 978-93-5029-190-0 474 Pages
Explaining how Hindus dealt with “Chaos” versus their “Order” is the theme of the cover of the book printed in black art paper with a photo of "Samudra Manthan‟. Chaos was a Greek concept.
A. The explanation for the picture has been given in chapter four entitled “ORDER and CHAOS”, Page 167; a chart given in page 201, “Non –Normative vis-a Vis normative was an excellent way to compare.
B. However praising Wendy Doniger in page 182 “as a leading authority on Hinduism” is atrocious. There are many authorities in India on Hinduism who question Wendy‟s knowledge on Hinduism.
C. Chaos, unpredictability is built in within Abrahamic religions as could be seen from their concepts of god, armeggadon, end of time, messages of prophets, covenants, the TWO WORLD wars etc.
D. The present orderliness of western society has nothing to do with the Judaic creeds and need not be confused with the chaos that prevailed for over the 1000 years of dark ages resulting in renaissance ideas. [Pictures of People dumping shit in the middle of London streets till about 1850s].
E. The oppression by Vatican led to a counter movement called reformation in Europe. The French revolution against Louis the 14 and the subsequent beheading by guillotines of the royals and the spread of ideas of liberty equality and fraternity .The present status of the west is due to separation of the Church from the State. The French revolution and thespread of Protestantism and the doctrine of discovery lead to rampant colonization of the new world and slavery of the African People.
F. On the other hand Vedic metrics were HIGHLY disciplined way of presenting religious concepts in the six angas of Vedas. The grammar as in Panini‟s sutras and Tamil Tholkappiam were highly measurable. The Hindu society was highly structured and organized. This was not chaotic as propounded by the author. It is the Old Testament, bible, etc are full of unintelligible "TOWER OF BABBLE‟.
G. The differentiation between basic Hindu scriptures and society has not been clearly demarcated. The scriptures have maintained high standards of perfection, even in literary level, which one cannot find trace elements in Abrahamic religions.
H. That the Indian society had become chaotic due to 1300 years of foreign invasions has not been brought out effectively. We cannot justify the resultants of history though we may try to trace the orgins of the present malady, by not orienting presentations to suit the western palate.
I. The explanation given in page 184 Para 2 does not quote the ACTUAL SOURCE of the story in verse but the author makes a jumbled whole out of series of "broken quotes‟. It would have been much better if this story was not disguised to please western tastes jumping to Rig Veda, along with unjustified praise of David Schulman, Wendy, and F.X. Clooney which I have reduced to “Parangikkai Syndrome” in my two parts essay under the title "guna-dosha Pariksha‟, which invited the wrath of Malhotra. In personal emails he attacked me as someone “seeking publicity”. However he accepted his “Solid mistakes”. See 'guna-dosha pariksha' posted at: http://bharatkalyan97.
J. The incompatibilities of three Abrahamic religions and their innumerable SQUABBLES EVEN among themselves have not got adequate attention. These categories have been dumped into one middle-east Abrahamic basket. .
K. The author takes a clear detour of inconvenient aspects of encounters between Hinduism and Christianity in India, and the infighting within Christianity especially Roman Catholic and Protestant variety. He has referred only once to the works F.X.Clooney in the BIBLIOGRAPHY.
L. The author praised Clooney “in divine mother blessed mother, Francis Clooney offers the first extended comparative study of Hindu goddesses and the Virgin Mary. (2005). Malhotra praised [page 427] that Clooney is almost unique in the field of Hindu studies as a Christian theologian with the linguistic and philosophical expertise necessary to produce sophisticated comparative analysis.”
M. Rajiv Malhotra endorsed Clooney: “BUILDING on his previous work in comparative theology, he [Clooney] sheds new light not only on individual traditions but also on the nature of gender and divine,” page 427.
N. He dumps all the three quarrelling Abrahamic religions into one Middle Eastern basket is a naive way of dealing with them. It is like the ostrich burying its neck in the desert sand, during a sand storm hoping the storm will go away.
O. “There is problem of plenty in Indic religions”; the author dumps all Indic religions into one dharma basket again a way of dealing with them not bothering to differentiate between Vedic-theism, Vedic-atheism versus Non-Vedic Middle east religions [though considered but theistic] from Vedic point of view they are viewed as Atheistic as they do not think Vedas as their authority.
P. Nivritti Marga wrongly compared with “startup companies of Silicon Valley” though Hinduism is full of enterprising Sadhus.
Q. Rajiv Malhotra made big blunders: PAGE 100 box four wrong PLACEMENTS.
R. Page 106 There was a clear case of Blunder of blunders . Prodigy Mathematicians Srinivasa Ramanujam was described as “SRINIVASA Ramanujam the equally important founder of the school of Vedanta, known as Visistadvaitha”.
S. The founder of Visistadvaitha was Srimad Ramanujacharya who lived 995 years before present and not Srinivasa Ramanujam who was a Math genius who lived 90 years ago and his 125th anniversary is being celebrated in 2012.
T. There are many slots in the consciousness of the author when it comes to accurate presentation of the authentic South Indian TRADITIONS.
U. He uses excessively Aurobindonian metaphysics, as seen from the contents in the bibliography which is rather a skewed presentation of Hinduism even though it is discussed in elite intellectual and metaphysical and occult circles. as it not a popular version of Hinduism.
V. The author though he is very careful when it comes to WESTERN SENSITIVITIES, and sees to that he differentiates between “panentheism” and “pantheism”, but does not care to differentiate between world‟s famous [the prodigy mathematician] Srinivasa Ramanujam and Sri Ramanujacharya [founder of the school of Vedanta]. What a tragedy!
W. The author starts with the premise that he is the first one to reverse the gaze which is obliterating the role of so many others who made westerners INTROSPECT [has been elaborated in detail in “guna dosha Pariksha” in three parts].
X. Those critics of Rajiv Malhotra who criticized his book on mere sight of Francis Clooney's name are hereby contested as they have no clue as to what Malhotra wrote?
Y. The confusing presentation in page 357 and 437: The author says Jiva Goswami was a successor of Ramanuja [page 357] WAS in FACT A Giga mistake. Jiva Goswami was the successor of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and not Ramanuja who lived centuries before.
Z. I discussed this with some Top Experts in Hinduism who opined “this is comparable to some of the greatest History distortions in Indian History, comparable to what the British did, in order to bring down the history of Hinduism by centuries, to keep it on par with a Mosaic History.
AA. Here it is Sri Vaishnavism brought down to later day Gaudiya sect, and they say definitely there is a Vatican hand in this distortion, as Sri Vaishnavism is posing a big challenge to Vatican Christianity theologically. By reducing its historical age they can link it up with the dubious claim that Hinduism and all its sects emerged from mythical Thomas! Definitely there is the hand of Vatican if not anyone else this blunder. One of the experts even cited a quotation: “Mistakes can be tolerated. Errors can be rectified. Blunders will lead to ridicule”. Added “This is not ordinary blunder but Himalayan Blunder. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra ought to act quickly to own up his blunder and issue a corrigendum according to Dr.T.N. Ramachandran D.Litt Expert in Saivism - A.Krishnamachari, Editor of Srivaishnavite Magazine Panchajanyam, and R.Subbarayalu [retired registrar of Tamil university].Together we have worked on many book projects.
BB. It should be noted the former two gave their blurbs for Breaking India. They now ask How Prof.Clooney who endorsed the book did allow the above two blunders ESCAPE. Did he not notice them? Then it shows he did it deliberately to destroy Hinduism by distorting history If he had noticed it and allowed it to pass, then he wanted to put the author in jeopardy, both ways Rajiv Malhotra has not benefited from Clooney‟s company.
CC. The analysis made is comparing Christianity to a large extent and even defends Islam. In page 343,344 and 345, the author takes a dig at swami VIVEKANANDA WHICH is not in tune with facts of history. He praised Gandhiji 346 and 347 which is to keep in tune with political correctness.
DD. This book also calls bible “smrtihi”, which is nothing but hijacking t Hindu concepts by Christianity. Page 251: Is it right to call sayings of the bible “smrtihis of Christianity” as the author wants us to believe, and hence “changeable”.
EE. Does it mean that Christianity had Shruthi, also?
FF. Where are the Upanishads, Gita, Brahma Sutras, Dharma Shastras, Ithihasas, and Puranas etc?
GG. When I asked for clarification of this quote with three SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
HH. 1) is he expressing his views
2) is he expressing the views of others?
3) Or is he representing some Hindu organization.
Mr. Malhotra did not ANSWER.
When I pressed for answers in another mail, he shot back a reply: two liners
“ARE you looking for money…blah blah”.
It was an insult and the author owes an apology.
II. Page 328: India‟s pseudo secularism comes under attack this time rightly. Usually pseudo secularism has been used by Hindutvadis has been hereby used by Rajiv Malhotra in a different context.
JJ. Page 336: “A Muslim jati can have SHARIA, as jati dharma, for internal matters”. This will be considered an unwanted interlude to the whole thesis, where the contentious issues related to Islam are avoided or denied. Does he advocate “triple talaq” over emails, phones, and FGM “female genital Mutilation” etc?
KK. The reversing the gaze was done by others like Sita Ram Goel, Ram Swarup Arun Shourie and others also in their own way, has not received even a nod from Malhotra.
LL. After reading the book for three times, the above two contentious points calling bible as smrtihi and justifying sharia need to be removed to make this book tolerable to Hindus.
MM. Some parts of the book need to revamped point 9 and 13.In short the author has to issue a corrigendum, even though he may be angry, with my comments.
NN. I have pointed out this to him and, in a reply email he has accepted his “solid mistakes”, and said in a typical arrogant dismissal tone “will be taken care by his publishers”.
OO. Finally “Whether Francis Clooney is endorsing the author, or the author is Endorsing Clooney?” and how all those eleven eminent professors who endorsed the book, allowed the mistakes to escape unnoticed?
PP. This book has got its merits too. This book will be boon to followers of modern gurus, and their followers if they want to compare notes between religions, will find “Being Different” reasonably helpful.
CRITICSM REITERATED
1. The cover of the book has a black jacket with an impressive picture of Samudra Manthan. The photo credit goes to Shri Rajiv Malhotra himself.
2. There is also no mention or source from where the photo was taken… or its original Indian source
3. The incompatibilities of three Abrahamic religions even among themselves…
4. The Author dumps the three Middle East religions into one Abrahamic basket… and the comparative analysis he makes is with Christianity only, and with Judaism in TV discussions, but not with Islam…
5. Again he gives one Dharma umbrella for all Indic religions…and does not make a distinction between Vedic religions and A-Vedic religions
6. There is the problem of plenty in Indic religions, ancient systems. There is skew in representations.
7. Critics and Criticized travel in the same boat no clue as to what …
8. ‟Enakkuth Thiruvaimozhi romba pidikkum‟, Kumudam, cover page., 1992.
9. Reading through the superscript ZERO PURVA PAKSHA OF THE CRITICS:
10. Advaitha most misunderstood misused idea…(see end notes)
11. Nivritti wrongly compared with entrepreneurship
12. Page 100 box 4 wrongly placed….
13. Author‟s confusing presentation on Pages 357 and 437 ….
14. „Missing slots in consciousness‟ Jainism and Buddhism Vis a Vis presentation of Hindu Sects… (See end notes)
15. Jiva Goswami not successor of Ramanuja (see end notes)
16. Himalayan Blunders and Historic distortion … (see End Notes)
Page | 9
17. Rajiv Malhotra and Francis Clooney…why Critics are wrong…(see end notes)
18. ‟Clooney would have got a fatwa‟, …(see end notes)
19. Francis Clooney‟s Christian Commentary on the three holiest mantras
20. Why this is like Grey‟s anatomy…of religions…(see end notes)
21. Fundamentals of Interfaith dialog… (see end notes)
22. With Vatican and Christians and Jews… (see end notes)
23. IFD -Why not with Islam? (see end notes)
With inputs from:
Pushkar Kulkarni, K.Jeganathan, R.Subbarayalu, Jeevan Hicks, R.Sadanjan Malli Reddy, T.N.Ramachandran, Sanjay Mathur, Rajiv Menon and K.Balu.
0 comments:
Post a Comment