In Response to Larissa
Tuesday, 14. July 2009 - 11:22 PM
Larissa, one of the more prolific commenters on my blog says this:
One thing I disagree with Sandeep is that just because a scholar is “sympathetic” towards Hindus, does not mean that they are high calibre people. I am willing to listen to someone even if he is anti-HIndu, provided that he has something worthwhile for me to learn. I read and form a judgment. I have come across countless of these Hippee type foreigners who profess to understand and teach Hinduism, I think they do a far greater disservice. I would rather learn from someone who is not nice to HIndus, given they have something meaningful to say. Everything in Hinduism is made by these hippee new age types into some kind of hocus-pocus new age sutff which is supposed to be at oddds with clear thinking, with the result that Hindusim get placed on par with all they new age nonsense going around…
Hinduism allows for different levels of understanding. I am not going to get angry with my father in law for making a big deal of a guru, whose spirituality is suspect for me. That is his understanding. However, I expect much more from people of higher intellect.
The fact that Sanskrit is a highly organized, systematic language shows that at some time our forefathers were capable of clear thinking…One hopes HIndus return to that level of discipline and scarifice which is required to produce anyting great.
Aside: I don’t normally respond to comments because I think I’ve covered most of my premises and the raison d’être of this blog in several different posts in the past. Also, I lack time given the volume of comments. 
And so this particular comment from Larissa got me to reexamine where I stand. This is not to clarify my position or anything because I don’t believe in taking any position other than truth (with due respects and apologies to Chanakya).
And I disagree with Larissa’s assessment about my selection of scholars and/or thinkers I admire. I have nowhere claimed that being sympathetic to Hindus is the only qualification a scholar should have to be featured here. I have in the past dissed several such scholars specifically mentioning that they actually harm Hinduism more than the avowedly anti-Hindu scholars. Additionally, if I do quote a pro-Hindu scholar with approval, I’ve given rather lengthy reasons in support. And I do keep a mind open enough–after all, I’m a fiercely proud Sanatani–to accommodate and weigh the worth of the voices that oppose Hinduism. Perhaps Larissa needs to read more of my older posts written at a time when I used to average 3-4 posts a day.
Here are my parameters to measure the worth of anybody writing on and/or about Sanatana Dharma:
- Has the person read the primary sources or at least, reliable transalations? I’ve read more than necessary books and papers that rely on secondary sources: I’m sorry but they all suck equally.
- Academic credentials do not impress me. I do give due respect to the scholarly methodology but methodology is not a substitute for content.
- Knowledge of Sanskrit is another area I give a lot of weight to. There’s really no way you can produce serious, quality scholarly material on ancient India/Hinduism without a solid grasp of Sanskrit (read my posts on Indology to know why I say this).
- I value insight more than information and naturally veer towards scholars who do this for me. A scholar like Frits Staal offers mere information–misleading information (see my post) at that.
- I assign the greatest value to scholarship that emerges from practising Hindus. A non-practising Hindu is really, no Hindu. This is what you mean when you say Hinduism is a way of life. And it is why Hinduism today faces its gravest threat ever in its 5000-year long history: there are too many non-practising Hindus today who feel angry when Hinduism is abused but don’t know how they can counter that abuse. It is also why the teachings of Adi Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, and Vivekananda remain timeless. And it is exactly why I put scholars like M. Hiriyanna, and Ananda Coomaraswamy on the top slot compared to others.
And I haven’t read any scholar opposed to Hinduism meet even one of these critiera. Perhaps such scholars do exist and I’ll grateful if anybody points them out to me. I’m not saying M. Hiriyanna et al are “perfect” scholars. To me, there’s a simple difference between the better and the bad scholars: in the former case, I find myself taking home 95% of the stuff they offer, and in the latter, I find myself discarding that 95%.
Tags: Blog, Blogging, General, Good & Bad Scholars, Scholarship, Society & Culture, This & That
15. July 2009 - 12:03 AM
First of all I really enjoy reading your posts. I was not being confrontational but simply pointing out that many of these hippee types give a bad name to HInduism and Hinduism gets associated with new age nonsense. This has been the case for me.
First of all, sorry for my typos. I write and realize the typos after submitting. There is no edit function here for those of us that submit too quickly without rereading…
I have had some professors who were foreign and were very sympathetic towards HInduism–but they necessarily were not people with good judgment regarding Hinduism. Given the fact that anyone can write and publish these days, it is absolutely confusing for most people, unless you are among those who has read a variety of sources and are capable of critical reading. I guess it is irrelevant what others think of HInduism, as long as HInduism has relevance for Hindus.
I am just saying that that our ancestors were very clear thinking people if they could create things like the Sanskrit language. And that HIndus should not do away with clear thinking and exerting the mind to the utmost and not be satisfied with anything that is not the product of extreme discipline and rigor.
My point is simply that those who are pro-Hindu also do a great deal of harm by misrepresenting the religion in their own way. Much more harm sometimes that those who are outright anti-Hindu.
15. July 2009 - 12:22 AM
Larissa,
Thanks for the kind words. And no, I didn’t take it in a confrontational spirit. Like I mentioned in the entry, I was “thinking aloud.”
15. July 2009 - 12:26 AM
Also, how are Hindus making Hinduism relevant to the young people today?
“Practising Hindu” encompasses a very broad category. How many young people are going to be moved by octogenerians speaking of the virtues of cow urine? Ideas and ideals also have to move with the times, because if they don’t, the times simply leave them behind.
15. July 2009 - 2:16 AM
Sandeep,
Could you please write a post on what you mean by “practicing Hindus”?
15. July 2009 - 4:02 AM
Sandeep,
Thanks for the excellent post and using the term practicing Hindu.
I think the best exposition of what a practicing Hindu is in Kanchi Mahaswami’s lectures titled “Hindu Dharma”.
The lectures/book is available online at the following link.
15. July 2009 - 9:07 AM
Being a spiritual leader with many followers behind you makes one insecure,they will do everything to hold on to it,its like any other seat of power once there its difficult to get down.
Many spiritual leaders including Shri Shri Ravi Shankar are such types.Only solace from such enterprising and modern guru’s is that,Hindus are better off as their follower than landing up in “Scientology” OR “Universal unitarian”. But I don’t see these modern gurus as our true sanatanist.
Vivekananda was patriot and Universal human at the same time, apart from spirituality he had concern for the society from political and cultural stand point.He was loin did not care to impress any followers.
I cannot disgust the fact that Ravi Shankar was humiliated by Zakir Husein for silly reason, if he cannot defend Hinduism, he should give up the position, “Islam” won against “Hinduism”,how silly.
Our tradition is not based on Dogmas written by a single sect or a person, it has transformed and assimilated so many aspects of life from several centuries, and this spirit should continue, our spiritual leaders should teach our society to face truth and uphold it.
Sandeep,
Why not write on Shri Shri Shri …. , people should know that Hindu spiritual leader requires lots of GUTS. I don’t have anything personal against him, but todays Spiritual Ambassador’s needs to Sanatani treatment.What do you say?
-Raghu
15. July 2009 - 11:34 AM
Nit picking here Sandeep. Sanatana Dharma that is Hinduisim, I believe, is timeless. The 5000 year story about Hinduisim( or 2500 year old as claimed by some) is another Christian propaganda bullshit.The Bible says that the world was created by God about 5000 years ago and the Christians will not accept anything else.
15. July 2009 - 3:12 PM
There are too many holes in larissa’s arguements. One is that Intellectual (reasoning)stimulation is the only way to get knowldge. It may be true for some like larissa but not for everybody. In the early days, people who ridiculed aryan invasion theory did so from sound understanding of the sanatana dharma. Their arguements are very unlike what we discuss today. Aurobindo is one example. Hinudism is too robust to put into one set of ideas or use one path to traverse it. You might be knowing vedic Darshanas(philosophical systems) which tell you different methods/ways of arriving a knowledge about the world. It is tough to say that the other person is wrong about his knowledge, but you can say that is not your style of thinking.
Another one. To say that sanskrit is human created knowledge . It’s very tough to argue with you on this unless you have extensive practical knowledge of the vedic mantra. I am not sure whether you have it or not. When Sandeep says you cannot know hinduism without being a hindu is perfectly true in this one. Panini and other classical sanskrit scholars are revivalists who are trying to preserve/compile whatever is reamining(they could access) to prevent further erosion. Their work is not original.
15. July 2009 - 8:12 PM
I personally have been disgusted by some of these so called “gurus”. I remember going to a so called Hindu temple abroad, and what did I find there? Life size images of the guru everywhere around the room while a tiny picture of Krishna in a corner.
I know one lady who is part of a cult that is has been brainwashing people with the result that families of the people joining the cult have been broken apart. I find feeble minded people are readily attracted to the fakes, as they are not capable of thinking for themselves.
I have nothing against spiritual leaders who are benign and benefit society by doing beneficial social works and by the example of their humble lives-but unless Hinduism can guard itself against false claims to spirituality, I think it is very dangerous and discredits the religion.
However genuine gurus do serve a purpose by the example of their lives–lay people will have a different understanding of religion–and will be ready to follow a teacher. Hence, good teachers are indispensable.
@
Druva
“There are too many holes in larissa’s arguements. One is that Intellectual (reasoning)stimulation is the only way to get knowldge.”
I believe that intellectual excellence and spirituality are not inseparable. Studying theoretical physics does not make you an atheist for example, or does not make you unethical. The early founders of our religion were probably the smartest people in society at the time and were concerned not only with excellence at the intellectual level, but also the welare of society at large. I think a renewal of Hinduism would occur when the brightest people again begin to take interest in the welfare of society at large apart from their narrow self-interests..
If you look at the history of Buddhism, it is the same way–its as if the smartest people of the time dedicated themselves to questions of ethics and the good life. The early Buddhists monks were very knowledgeable and were interested in everyting that constituted knowledge at the time–. The Buddhist monks of today are a far cry because they have not kept up with the knowledge around them but are mostly interested in transcendental meditation–Todays equivalent would be if the greatest physicists and scientists were to concern themselves with questions of ethics and what concerns the good life, and to work for the welfare of society.
A religion should attract the best and brightest–and when it lets go of exerting the mind to the utmost with the utmost discipline, I doubt it has a future. A religion flourishes when the best and brightest are willing to serve society by example…Or when genuine spiritual types work for the welfare of society.
15. July 2009 - 8:16 PM
=>
I think the best exposition of what a practicing Hindu is in Kanchi Mahaswami’s lectures titled “Hindu Dharma”.
=>
Ramakrishna U, thanks for the link and I’ll check it out. But I was hoping that you could summarize in a paragraph what the term “practicing Hindu” means to you – even if that summary is an initial attempt. Thanks.
15. July 2009 - 8:42 PM
Many spiritual leaders including Shri Shri Ravi Shankar are such types.Only solace from such enterprising and modern guru’s is that,Hindus are better off as their follower than landing up in “Scientology” OR “Universal unitarian”. But I don’t see these modern gurus as our true sanatanist.
I agree with this. Hopefully a great mind will arise in India in the next couple of decades who is able to lead by example of his life…
The problem is that ethics and science are not interrelated…One can be very smart as a scientist and a doctor but not concerned with the welfare of those who happen to not be blessed as you. I find academics also has become business like in that most people are concerned with tenures and maintaining their positions. Very few of these people inspire by the example of their lives…..And even if they do so, it is to a limited circle of people.
I think the modern day gurus are smart people around the world who lead by their intellect and who are concerned with the welfare of society….
The HIndu way is not to disparage intellectual excellence and clear thinking in favor of “mysticism”…
One thing, a religion cannot also become over intellectualized as it will lose the support of lay follwers. The need for good “teachers” is paramount.
How many times have you been to temple and have been disgusted by the priest who favors the businessman guy who offers “gold” over you who is offering flowers? I mean such ethics should be questioned by Hindus as well–Hindus tend to keep quiet about such things as they involve tradition, elders and people in authority–but they should question these kinds of things in a healthy way….
15. July 2009 - 8:54 PM
@larissa
Sure, I can understand your experience with those gurus in US. Even in India go to Ramakrishna mutt, you will see pictures of these heads dressing/standing/meditating exactly like swami vivekananda does. There is no need to imitate that great master, but people do it. You don’t have to be either attracted or repelled by it too much.
Coming back to my earlier point, I am merely trying to stress the individual differences when it comes to spirituality. For example take Jiddu Krishnamutri and Ammachi(Mata Amtritananda Mayi). You may like Jiddu’s discourse where intellect rules and is used to arrive at knowledge. Ammachi doesn’t have to use intellect, she has heart felt intuition as a tool. Both are spiritual people. Did you get my point?
15. July 2009 - 9:07 PM
Did you get my point?
Well I am not at all impressed with Krishnamurthy, moreover, he had affairs with other peoples wives…
I am more impressed with people like Bohm–great scientist who was very impressive and concerned with society as well…
What I am trying to say is that often HInduism gets associated with some “mystical” voodoo, but many of HInduism’s greatest peoples were also clear headed intellects of their times. That is why there are several schools of philosophy in HInduism….Nothing against transcental meditation…Just saying that Hinduism has never been at odds with rationality and clear thinking and discipline mentally…and that medidation is not at odds with intellectual discipline and rigor.
There are different paths to truths for HIndus and Hinduism has a space alloted to different ways of thinking depending on level of intellect…
A small amount of gurus and “holy men” are in no way representative of the breadth of HInduism.
However, because it is so broad, it also allows for a lot of fakes and quacks, who take advantage of Indian’s respect for saintly figures…
15. July 2009 - 10:21 PM
Hello Larissa,
I have a simple question that requires a simple yes/no answer:
Are you saying that there is not one Hindu currently alive who is, according to your criteria, a role model for other Hindus?
Let me re-iterate: A yes or no would suffice.
15. July 2009 - 10:41 PM
There are many. Most of these dedicated people I have known are private individuals and do not appear much in the spotlight.
I don’t know much about Ammachi…there is nothing wrong with such people if they inspire people in a positive benign way.
15. July 2009 - 10:59 PM
Are you saying that there is not one Hindu currently alive who is, according to your criteria, a role model for other Hindus?
There are. Role models in what sense? Some are role models as politicians(very few–), some as scientists and some others in their respective fields of work. Anyone who is dedicated and performs something for a larger good can be a role model.
We are in need of more people who appeal to the youth…That’s all I’m saying…
15. July 2009 - 11:06 PM
Larissa,
You would not know if you live in US. I live in India. There are selfless spiritual people around every place, even among common men. They are not the most beautiful/sexiest people in the world. That’s the reason why you don’t hear about them much.
I am familiar with David Bohm’s work little bit. He felt betrayed by Jiddu at some point. Being a communist in his orientation, it probably would be tough for him to seek traditional knowledge. I know he has some interactions with DalaiLama/Buddhism. I don’t see him tapping into much of eastern knowledge, at least I don’t see that in his work. I am also impressed with his work btw.
Jiddu is made for the west. What can I say? Don’t forget that Jiddu has rejected/dismantled his whole order(of followers) saying he cannot be a hypocrite.
15. July 2009 - 11:18 PM
“Everything in Hinduism is made by these hippee new age types into some kind of hocus-pocus new age sutff which is supposed to be at oddds with clear thinking, with the result that Hindusim get placed on par with all they new age nonsense going around…”
“I think the modern day gurus are smart people around the world who lead by their intellect and who are concerned with the welfare of society….”
>> Which one of the above should we take as your standpoint?
—-
“I am willing to listen to someone even if he is anti-HIndu”
Indeed, very benevolent of you. Thanks.
>> The very fact that you could not replace Hindu in the above sentence with Islam and that you could not publish this sentence elsewhere should tell you many facts about Sanatana Dharma.
—-
“One hopes HIndus return to that level of discipline and scarifice which is required to produce anyting great.”
>> Thanks once again for the wake-up call.
—-
“I agree with this. Hopefully a great mind will arise in India in the next couple of decades who is able to lead by example of his life…”
>> Pure “Day Star” channel kind of talk. So, until that mind arises, what shall we do? Wait under the palm tree or the mount?
—-
“A religion should attract the best and brightest–and when it lets go of exerting the mind to the utmost with the utmost discipline, I doubt it has a future.”
>> Is this about Sanatana Dharma or just a rant in general?
—-
“A religion flourishes when the best and brightest are willing to serve society by example…Or when genuine spiritual types work for the welfare of society.”
>> Did Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati fit this model of yours?
—-
My point is: There will be no messiah/prophet/avatar/mind/soul/teacher that will suddenly ‘arise’ and release you from anything or assign you a responsibility. It is the idea that is already in OUR mind and that is everything. WE are the gods. WE are everything.
????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????
swayam swIkrtam naH sugam kArayEt – if you please.
15. July 2009 - 11:22 PM
The last sentence in my previous comment written in Devanagari did not show up correctly.
15. July 2009 - 11:33 PM
“Being a communist in his orientation, it probably would be tough for him to seek traditional knowledge. ”
Bohm cannot be dismissed as a Communist. People should read a man’s writings and not pamphlets and quotations–before forming an opinion. I have read Krishnamurthy–impressed me in the sixth grade–not anymore…
There are no lack of people who perform public good in India. No one is denying that there are many decent private individuals in India. Now if there was an excess of them India would be a different country would it not?
My point was simply that it is fitting for Hindus to have skepticism towards charlatans. Nothing more. And there are tons of them out there.
I
15. July 2009 - 11:52 PM
Larissa,
May be you should read Bohm’s take on Jiddu’s contribution. I am not sure about the publication. Do you understand Jiddu’s discourse on the World of Observer and Observed ? This is what Bohm praised as his greatest contribution which later influenced his own(Bohm) ideas.
I am not a big fan of Jiddu myself. I am more rooted to the traditional knowledge, where as Jiddu is for the western readers.
Coming to Bohm, you got me completely wrong here. I am not talking about Bohm’s scientist credentials. As I said he is a great man. I am just talking about his ability to tap into traditional knowledge(spiritual) in whatever he does, which I felt is not that great. Otherwise his insights like limitations of language in the expression of knowledge/science and holographic model of the world are really great. He himself comes out as very honest person defenitely, I agree.
16. July 2009 - 12:44 AM
Did Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati fit this model of yours?
Never heard of him.
My point is: There will be no messiah/prophet/avatar/mind/soul/teacher that will suddenly ‘arise’ and release you from anything or assign you a responsibility. It is the idea that is already in OUR mind and that is everything. WE are the gods. WE are everything.
I am simply saying that India has the capacity to produce great people. I am not saying they are to lead like a messiah. Where is the political leader today who inspires a mass following? How long has it been since India has produced a figure like Tagore or Ramanujan? I was just saying that I hope India produces some “great” figures as it has done in the past in the near future.
Of course, almost of India’s problems are of a political nature–it has to do with improper governance…India is not quite like the Mid-East..and it is not difficult to change it for the better given decisive political leaders who can inspire mass appeal…Which is why it is unfortunate that things are the way they are…I think a lot of talent gets wasted in this system and is not allowed to flower. Anyway so much for speculations…
Of course organizations like the RSS do many good things…one just hopes they are able to adapt to the times in attracting bright young people…
16. July 2009 - 1:07 AM
I have not read your previous blogposts but read this one after finding a reference in varnam. I read your different criteria for judging scholarship and have strong reactions to atleast one of the crierion listed.
You are implying that: archeologists, anthropologists, scholars proficient in other ancient Indian non-hindu religions such as Jainism and Budhism who present material from non-sanskrit, pali or ardha magadhi sources, scholars of non-sanskrit classical literature such as tamil sangam literature have nothing to contribute to the understanding of India/South Asia’s ancient history.
wow!
16. July 2009 - 1:34 AM
Rama,
Did you even read my post fully? I marvel at your ability of finding something that’s not there in my post.
16. July 2009 - 3:09 AM
=>
How long has it been since India has produced a figure like Tagore or Ramanujan?
=>
How many people today have read Tagore’s thoughts and put them into practice? From what I’ve read, even Shanti Niketan has also declined since its heydays.
Besides, I’ll take a non-corrupt country without a Tagore-like figure any day over a hundred Tagores but a country where people are corrupt and dishonest – right from the top to the bottom. In today’s India, it is considered a marvel and a rarity if someone refuses rishwat/ghoos when it should be the norm.
16. July 2009 - 4:18 AM
my 2 cents ……
http://vivekamvairagyam.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/the-jungle-book-the-sanatana-dharma/
16. July 2009 - 6:12 AM
This is what I was referring to:
“There’s really no way you can produce serious, quality scholarly material on ancient India/Hinduism without a solid grasp of Sanskrit (read my posts on Indology to know why I say this).”
So, what about the contributions of: archeologists, anthropologists, scholars proficient in other ancient Indian non-hindu religions such as Jainism and Budhism who present material from non-sanskrit, pali or ardha magadhi sources, scholars of non-sanskrit classical literature such as tamil sangam literature.
16. July 2009 - 7:11 AM
Besides, I’ll take a non-corrupt country without a Tagore-like figure any day over a hundred Tagores but a country where people are corrupt and dishonest – right from the top to the bottom. In today’s India, it is considered a marvel and a rarity if someone refuses rishwat/ghoos when it should be the norm.
Well civilizaion in India was greatly scarred by many barbarian invasions…
I am saying that India once produced greatness that others found worth emulating. Is India capable of healing itself? The history of India is very tragic and painful to read if you are a HIndu.
Well you cannot change the past, and dwelling on it only makes you depressed. One can only look towards the future and learn from the past…
16. July 2009 - 4:03 PM
Kaffir,
Some answers to your question about summarizing:
(i) I am not competent enough to write on “practicing Hinduism” as I am a student of it myself.
(ii) I do not think it can be done by anyone but the living gurus whose single living words are more valid than entire library of books to propagate sanAtana-dharma. Hence my pointer to the book by such a person.
(iii) Further you know (being a very learned commentator, from your handle (“Kaffir”)) that a religion simplified in rules is the worst form of virus.
Regards,
16. July 2009 - 8:03 PM
Ramakrishna U, thanks for your response.
As for my handle “kaffir” – if I were you, I wouldn’t read too much into it. I took that handle in a moment of levity because of how Abrahamic religions (esp. Islam) view Hindus, and it’s not representative of my learning or my viewpoint regarding theism. It wouldn’t be wise to jump to any conclusions about my views simply based on my handle.