Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Rajiv Malhotra
This essay examines the often repeated claim by Hindus and non-Hindus
alike that Hinduism is the same as other religions. Some common factors
that cause many Hindus to slip into sameness are as follows: Hindus
arrogantly assume that other religions want to be the same as Hinduism,
and hence they feel that they are doing these other religions a favor.
Against this one may point out that the traditional Hindu teachings make
a clear distinction between valid and not valid religious claims, by
separating them as dharma and adharma, sat (truth) and asat (falsity),
devika and asuric, etc.
Myth of Hindu Sameness
Many Hindus misapply teachings about the Unmanifest when dealing with
the diversity of the manifest, and the unity of transcendence in dealing
with the diversity and conflict found in the worldly. Furthermore, they fail
to distinguish between shruti and smriti. The unity of all shruti is assumed
to mean that all smritis must be the same. In particular, Hindus fail to
understand the critical history-dependence of the Abrahamic religions and
the way their core myths and institutions are built around these frozen
smritis. Often what Hindus really mean is that all religions are equal in
the respect and rights they deserve, but they confuse this with sameness.
At the same time, there are strong arguments that religious differences
lead to tensions and violence. Many Hindus have internalized these
arguments, over simplifying the Hindu thought about there being one
truth and all paths leading to it.
To address these and other issues, this essay presents a new theoretical
framework for looking at religions and global religious violence. It classifies
religious movements as History-Centric and non History-Centric. The
former are contingent on canonical beliefs of their sacred history.
Non History-Centric religious movements, on the other hand, do have
beliefs about history, but their faith is not contingent on history.
The essay advances the thesis that non History-Centric faiths offer
the only viable spiritual alternative to the religious conflicts that are
inherent among History-Centric religions.
1
In analyzing the predominantly non History-Centric Hinduism through
this framework, the essay looks at the two main Hindu responses in its
interface with the predominantly History-Centric religions of Christianity
and Islam. These are: (1) how Hinduism is trying to become History-
Centric, and (2) how Hinduism is self-destructing under the Myth of
Sameness, by offering itself as a library of shareware for “generic”
spirituality.
2
I: Introduction
There are two current trends in Hinduism that were born of a perceived
‘threat’ to Hinduism. These are as follows:
1. There is a movement to focus Hinduism in terms of God’s interventions
in Indian history, most commonly associated with Avatar Ram’s history
and the related geography. Such a version of Hinduism is History-
Centric. (See my earlier writings.) The term is also explained later in this
essay.
2. The second trajectory is less formal and less institutionalized, but is far
more pervasive and subversive. This is to unbundle (or break up)
Hinduism into a set of separate generic ideas, practices, symbols, etc., that
any religion or non religious worldview may appropriate in a modular
fashion, assimilating what fits and rejecting (and demonizing) what does
not. I call this the Sameness Myth because it is the result of the false
premise that Hinduism is the same as any other religion, thereby making
its parts individually available for appropriation.
Both these trends feed and are fed by a ‘threatened Hinduism’, i.e., the
sense that Hinduism is facing pressures from within and without.
However, this essay does not examine such threats or pressures. (I have
other essays on geopolitics and Hinduism.)
History-Centrism (#1) provides any religion with an identity fortress, which
is both defensive and useful for an offensive. It also tends to
collapse internal differences and encourage homogeneity. I shall argue
against the merits of this kind of essentializing of Hinduism, and will
suggest alternative ways of bringing cohesion and identity that preserve
difference.
3
– Sameness is making Hinduism irrelevant and redundant. It is sliding
Hinduism towards extinction by dilution and assimilation, in the same
manner as Christianity’s inculturation strategy made many pagan religions
extinct. It positions Hinduism as a takeover target by History-
Centric predators, with a friendly takeover of some components and a
hostile takeover and/or outright cultural genocide of other components
– In the aftermath of such takeovers the predators become stronger and
the world less safe. Hence, sameness can at best be a short-term
alternative and antidote to History-Centrism but it leads to unstable states
of power that eventually feed more History-Centrism.
4
Vivekananda successfully popularized Hinduism in 19th century America.
But later, many of his important Western disciples and sympathizers
genericized Hinduism. Several of them eventually did U-Turns back into
Western identity and Western thought. Perennialism and the New Age
movement were by-products of such movements.[2]. Meanwhile, the
mainstream History-Centric Christianity did not dissolve itself or melt
itself into sameness, but, on the contrary, it strengthened its positioning
by appropriating from Hinduism.
5
Meanwhile, Western supremacy remains unaffected by the fringe activities
of its liberal scholars. Besides USA and European states, Russia, China,
Japan and Arab states remain highly nationalistic. Therefore, as Ziauddin
Sardar and others have pointed out, the criticism of nation-states and
related identities has indirectly served to empower the very imperialism,
which the intellectuals attack. Many trendy postmodernist theories are
being exported to colonize third world intellectuals who use them to
impress white liberals. Unfortunately, many Indian intellectuals have
facilitated ‘softening the prey’ on behalf of the predator empires – in effect
serving as sepoys [4].
The rest of this essay consists of the following three Sections: Section
II defines History-Centrism, and explains its centrality in institutionalized
Abrahamic religions and also explains why Hinduism has not depended
upon History-Centrism. Section III refutes the Myth of Hindu Sameness,
and explains the problems it causes. Section IV proposes a Constructive
Hinduism project as the way forward in the 21st century, with the objective
to build a positive Hinduism while avoiding the two competing pitfalls
of History-Centrism and the Sameness Myth. (I am dissatisfied with the
term ‘Constructive Hinduism’ for a variety of reasons and this is a tentative
term only. See details[5].
6
Centric religions, i.e., the clash between one religion’s jihad and another
religion’s jihad.
Therefore, if the projects of the kind outlined in Section IV fail, one of the
following two scenarios shall prevail: (i) Either Hinduism shall be forced to
become History-Centric and this will result in a three-way clash of History-
Centric religions: Islam vs. Christianity vs. Hinduism, which Hinduism
cannot ultimately win. (ii) Or Hinduism shall get digested into Christianity
via the Sameness Myth, in which case the two-way clash between History-
Centric Christianity and History- Centric Islam shall worsen.
II: History-Centrism
Anecdotal background:
7
own. Some found the very discussion troubling and became disturbed by
my thought experiment with a loss of history.
I then explained to my audience that as a Hindu, my spiritual
advancement through yoga was independent of the history of Patanjali
who wrote the Yoga-Sutras and of any knowledge about his life history.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the Vedic mantras was independent of
the personal history of the Vedic rishis, and the Vedas were considered a-
purusheya (authorless); the practices of Tantra were not contingent upon
belief in the history of anyone; the effect of bhajans (devotional songs) was
not based on any belief in the history of the bhakti saints or the histories
of any deities. Finally, I explained that deities were not historical persons
but were ahistorical forces and intelligences just like the gravitation force;
also, that many Hindus had personified these forces through the poetic
language of their praises, as they acknowledged their inter-dependency in
Nature.
Therefore, if all the history of my religion were falsified, it would not make
any difference to the effectiveness of my spiritual practice. Every human
being comes endowed with what I call the rishi/yogi potential. There have
been innumerable realized saints over time and across world cultures that
rediscovered the highest knowledge. History was only ‘nice to have’, but
not a ‘must have’.
The audience was rather shaken up but also highly impressed by such a
stance. Could I have uncovered a serious blind spot, or at least subliminal
assumption, among Biblical societies about the necessary role of history
in religion?
My audience’s reactions reminded me of the withdrawal symptoms of
addicts who are deprived of their substance dependence. I wondered: Had
my thought experiment deprived them of their history dependence and
triggered a sort of withdrawal syndrome? Why was their religiosity so
contingent upon and hence dependent upon specific historical episodes?
Are institutionalized Abrahamic religions in bondage to history? Over
several days, my thesis of History-Centrism emerged.
8
This thesis got a further boost when I participated in a major world
conference on science and religion in Bangalore. The Templeton
Foundation had flown in scientific luminaries committed to various
Abrahamic religions, including Nobel Laureates, to discuss how scientific
their respective religions were. But these speakers largely used neo-
Vedantin thought (without ever acknowledging any Indic influences
whatsoever) as belonging to their own religion, no matter how much they
had to stretch their canons to make their case. One was left thinking that
all religions were scientific, and that they were virtually identical.
But I knew very well that the very same religions also have major conflicts
in the real world. It occurred to me that these scholars had suppressed in
their talks theHistory-Centric dimension of their religions, and it was this
dimension, which made each religion distinct and also caused conflicts
with others. My question became: Why do Abrahamic religions evade
discussing their History-Centrism in scientific discussions, while this is at
the very heart of their evangelical campaigns to claim uniqueness?
Overnight, I revised my talk that was scheduled for the following day. I
highlighted that History-Centrism could not be slipped under the rug
because (i) it was in violation of the scientific method, and (ii) it was the
principle cause of world conflicts.
For taking this stance, I was attacked on the stage by a prominent Indian
Christian scholar, who was working for Templeton. The conference was
suddenly shaken out of the pretence that ‘all religions are all the same’.
Privately, many Indian attendees congratulated me for opening this door.
I felt convinced that I was on to something big in the field of comparative
religions. My talk is published in the conference proceedings.
Defining History-Centrism:
9
Abrahamic religions believe that there is an infinite gap of knowledge
between God and man, a sort of maya equivalent. But the vast majority of
denominations believe that man can have access to the ultimate
truth only when God sends a prophet with a message, and that man can
never replace the role of the historical prophets. Without history, therefore,
man is inherently lost in darkness.
10
For the Abrahamic religions, the history of religion is crucial; for
Hinduism, the making of religious history via self-realization, etc., is what
is important. This point is elaborated later[6].
Newton had a personal history but his specific life events were not
necessary for the gravitation laws to be in effect today. However, Jesus’
personal life events are responsible for God granting man the ability to get
saved from Eternal Damnation. Hence, there is a radical difference
between these two examples of historicity. The first example does not make
physics History-Centric, since gravitation would not get falsified if one
falsified Newton’s personal historical details or even proved that he never
existed as a historical person.
11
cause of it. Those who regard it as evidence of History-Centrism are mixing
causes and effects.
12
– God then felt sorry for us and sent his one and only son, Jesus, to suffer
crucifixion on our behalf, so that we may get Redemption from Eternal
Damnation. This is called being Saved, and requires that the individual
must believe without question or doubt the History-Centric narrative
about Jesus. It is not sufficient to live a good life, to do good deeds, to pray
to God, etc. Belief in Jesus’ historical sacrifice is necessary to get Saved.
– Evangelists are those who are committed to spread this History-
Centric narrative to others around the world. (Presently, 40% to over 50%
of all Americans classify themselves as Evangelicals, and this group has
been rapidly growing over the past 25 years.)
Generic ideals of loving others, doing seva or service to others, living moral
lives, and being socially responsible are non History-Centric elements
contained in Jesus’ teachings. But contrary to many educated Indians’
13
naivety, such ideals do not define Christianity, because such generic
spirituality is also found in every world religion, and there would be no
reason to convert people away from their native faiths into Christianity
simply for these reasons. The differences between religions are to be
appreciated by examining their theological premises and not by
superficially looking at the ethical mandates.
Furthermore, another required core belief is the status of the Kaaba, which
is located in Mecca: It is a unique artifact that was historically placed in
that specific spot by Allah. No replica of it is allowed. Muslims must point
only to the Kaaba to pray five times daily.
14
If, hypothetically, the Kaaba was not History-Centric and hence unique,
Muslims could build Kaabas in every mosque in the world and pray
pointing locally towards those, and not towards Saudi Arabia. But this
would devastate the Saudi royals’ political capital over all Muslims,
because the Saudis control the Kaaba.
Muslim and Christian leaders both claim many similarities between their
respective faiths: They worship one God, who is male, and both sides
accept that he is thesame God. They accept the long lineage of prophets of
the Middle East desert, starting with Abraham. Most of all, in terms of
moral values, both believe in universal love, brotherhood, prayer,
compassion, avoidance of sinful living, and so on…
15
– Islam refutes Christianity: Muslims definitely accept Jesus as a prophet
of great importance and respect him as such. But Muslims simply cannot
accept the Christian claims that Jesus (i) was the Son of God, (ii) had
a Virgin Birth, or (iii) was Resurrected. These Christian claims would make
Islam irrelevant and contradict Islam’s essential historical purpose. If
Jesus made the supreme sacrifice by which humans may get redeemed,
then why is there any need for Prophet Mohammed or the Koran? For Islam
to be valid, the problem concerning the human condition remained
unresolved despite Jesus’ coming to Earth. Therefore, the three Christian
claims about Jesus previously outlined must be false. The vast majority of
Muslim clergy teach that he was a great prophet, as were many dozens of
other Abrahamic prophets, but he was no Son of God, nor had a Virgin
Birth and, most of all, he was not Resurrected after being crucified. Yet,
these three claims of Christianity are necessary to the legitimacy of
Christianity and are non-negotiable. Bottom line: Christianity’s History-
Centrism cannot be accommodated within Islam’s History-Centrism.
– Christianity refutes Islam: Islam’s claim that the Koran is the exact
words of God, and hence is perfect and final, is simply unsustainable in
Christianity. For if this were valid, it would make Christianity obsolete and
superseded by Islam. Why would one need an older version of God’s word
if he has sent a new version specifically to replace the older one, as is
claimed by Islam? Christian theologians do not accept Koran as the perfect
record of the final word of God. Furthermore, Islam also demands (without
room for negotiations or ambiguity whatsoever) that the Kaaba (located in
Mecca) is absolutely unique, cannot be replicated, and is the only direction
in which prayer must be offered five times daily. Clearly, this would
undermine Christian institutions’ authority to collect donations, interpret
the canons, provide the ‘true history’, etc. Bottom line: History-
Centric claims that are necessary conditions to be a Muslim are simply
impossible for Christianity to accept.
There are many other inherent conflicts besides these, but the above two
suffice to make my case. Any History-Centric system must falsify all others
in order for it to be valid. Both Islam and Christianity, in their History-
Centric forms – which have been the dominant forms of both through most
of their respective histories – are inherently conflict-ridden.
16
Therefore, almost all the interfaith dialogs are mainly about public
relations and diplomacy. Each of these religions uses the term ‘tolerance’
to describe its policy towards other religions. Rather than accepting this
term as a sign of their greatness, one must probe the underlying problems.
To tolerate means that the other is illegitimate but we shall put up with
him. Would you go to someone’s house to dinner if his invitation says, “I
shall tolerate you to sit next to me?” We must demand respect, not
tolerance. But Muslim and Christian leaders often have great difficulty
about openly and formally giving respect to other religions, especially non
Abrahamic religions, since this would legitimize these other religions. And,
the History-Centrism of Christianity and Islam forbids them
from legitimizing any other religions. Respecting other religions would de-
legitimize the proselytizing campaigns that are the life-blood of many
institutions.
History-Centrism is the best framework I am aware of to understand the
origin of religious bondage and the sustenance of religious conflicts.
Is Hinduism History-Centric?
There are many non History-Centric Hindu paths, such as the following:
– Shruti and Vedic mantras are a-purusheya or authorless. The Vedas do
not claim to be sent by a Creator or to be about historical creation, but
describe reality as rta which means patterns. Neither rta nor
the mantras are in any way contingent upon history. In fact, very little is
known about the history of the rishis, as this is considered unimportant
except to Indologists who are disputing the political ramifications of the
origins of Hinduism.
– Upanishads are the source texts for much of Hindu philosophy, and
history has no relevance in them.
17
– Bhagavad Gita, the most widely read Hindu text, preaches dharma that
is not contingent on the historicity of the Mahabharata epic.
– Tantra consists of spiritual-physiological processes whose efficacy has
no relationship with any history of anyone whatsoever.
18
Saguna: The Supreme may be personified and the individual may have
a personal relationship with the Supreme. While many Hindu paths use
humanized forms, others avoid forms.
The Supreme may be conceptualized as feminine. Furthermore, this
feminine may be represented in a vast variety of different forms that
represent different aspects of the Goddess. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’
way to represent just as one finds in the arts. None of the
representations are considered to be the literal image.
The Supreme may be conceptualized as masculine. Furthermore, this
may be in a variety of Vishnu forms. Or it may be as Shiva with an
entirely different conception and epistemology.
19
any threat from that person. The dead person becomes the property of the
church, which controls the history and interpretations of the canonized
saint’s teachings, free from any of the risks associated with living saints.
As a result of the prominence given to living spiritual masters, non History-
Centric religions evolve towards lineages of adhyatmika (inner science)
practices. One may think of this kind of spirituality as embodied
knowing as contrasted with discursive knowledge, which is a set of
intellectual propositions, of which History-Centrismis one kind. Canons
tend to be less powerful in traditions built on embodied knowing because
of the emphasis given to living masters and their direct transmissions.
Centurion Archetype vs. Yogi Archetype: [9]
The two pivotal events that profoundly shaped the trajectories for Eastern
and Western civilizations were the spiritual encounters of emperors
Ashoka and Constantine, respectively. Indian Emperor
Ashoka surrendered his entire military (centurion archetype) and became
a Buddhist (yogi archetype). But the opposite took place in the case of
Roman Emperor Constantine (centurion archetype) who captured and
seized control over Jesus (yogi archetype) for his imperialist expansion.
In the former case, the yogi archetype prevailed over the centurion
archetype, whereas in the latter case the centurion archetype prevailed
over the yogi archetype. These two events characterize the dominant
strains in Indic and Abrahamic religions, respectively. While both
archetypes have existed worldwide, different ones have dominated in
different traditions.
20
higher chakras, and evolving from the psychic body to the supra-mental
body.
21
Finally, postmodernists must undertake a serious study of Indic thought
free from contemporary politics of the left and right, and from Eurocentric
mis-portrayals of the past. They need to appreciate the Indic traditions’
resources for deconstruction; that it seeks a positive state that is free from
conflict rather than the nihilism and cynicism that often results from
postmodern deconstructions.
Hinduism’s and Buddhism’s itihas (history) are viewed as smriti, and not
as shruti. This separation allows changes in smriti as per human society’s
needs. But unfortunately, most of the condemnations of Hinduism
cite smriti as though it were shruti. These critics mimic the colonial agenda
to demonize native traditions and native identity. They use educational
institutions and media to manufacture and/or distribute false
interpretations. Hindu submission and acceptance leads to Hindus
internalizing these falsities, and they often becoming pathological self-
haters.
23
of their act, God cursed the entirety of mankind forever, i.e., Adam and
Eve’s children, grand children, and so forth, ad infinitum, were forever
condemned by God. This is known as Eternal Damnation. However,
the karma of Adam and Eve cannot be transmitted to
their biological offspring, and Adam and Eve must pay for their karma
in their own rebirths. A given person carries his/her own
personal karma into his/her own next life, and one’s karma does not get
transmitted to one’s biological children. I do not suffer from the karma of
my parents and nor do my kids suffer from my karma. I brought my past
life’s karma into this world and will take this life’s karma into my next
birth. Rebirth is not in the form of one’s biological progeny. A white
Christian could have been an Iraqi Muslim in a prior life, General
Musharraf could have been a Hindu, Shiv Sena’s head could have been
a Muslim, a man could have been a woman and vice versa, and so forth.
Phala cannot precede the karma: Karma theory states that first
the karma has to occur and only then can its consequences occur. Effect
(phala) never precedes cause (karma). But Jesus is said to have suffered
(the phala) 2,000 years in advance of our birth today, and his suffering
was to redeem our karma of today. This implies that Jesus suffered in
advance of our karma, but phala in advance of the karma is impossible.
The claim seems to be that Jesus established a sort of ‘phala bank’ and
deposited infinite amount of phala in advance, and all those who accept
his offer may neutralize all their karmas by drawing against this
‘phala bank’ account. This is simply impossible in karma theory. [10]
These points do not necessarily falsify Christianity but point out the deep
incompatibilities between the two systems. This is merely an example of
24
the kind of engagement that would have to take place before any sameness
could be stipulated. During the centuries of darshana debates in India
among various schools, the above arguments would have been put forth
between Hindu and Christian theologians. It is not un-Indian to engage in
such discourse.
The tragedy is that by the time Christianity was taken seriously in India,
the support systems and resources needed to do an adequate purva-
paksha had vanished. Because of colonialism, Christians started
dominating the discourse. Hundreds of Christians institutions exist that
study Hinduism seriously, and thousands of Christians study it. Yet, we
have few if any Hindus and Hindu institutions that systematically study
Christianity. This is a necessity before an adequate purva-pakshacan be
done.
Time:
Every person is born into the infinite horror of Eternal Damnation, and
the finiteness of time does not give enough opportunity to resolve this
condition. Therefore, one must always be in a hurry and not waste time.
The consequence of not getting saved is Eternity in Hell, and one simply
cannot take any chances. This is why horrific images of Hell play a critical
role in pressuring people to convert.
25
Reincarnation doctrine was banned in Christianity so as to raise this
pressure, and this is especially effective as one becomes older. This is the
one and only life that a person will ever have and Time is running out!
The reward offered to those who become members of this History-
Centric belief is also infinite: Eternity in Heaven amidst God, along with
one’s family, friends and other ‘good’ people. The price of failure is
unimaginable, the reward is too good to miss out, and the effort is trivial
as one merely has to admit that the Historical Grand Narrative is true –
and one is in!
The Biblical notion of the soul gives it an individual essence, which easily
gets conflated with one’s Earthly identity in terms of gender, race, religion,
and even Americans as having the unique Manifest Destiny. Hence, there
are good souls and bad souls, with different places in the chain of being.
On the other hand, rebirth of the jiva-atman gives it experiences in living
as different genders, races, cultures, levels of prosperity and so forth. This
relativizes any Earthly identity formation as being only relevant for this
one birth and not as one’s atman’s essence. [12]
Christ will return to restore all saved dead persons back to life, in
their original bodies as of the time of their deaths. This helps the plastic
surgery industry and also drives the fixing up of dead bodies prior to their
26
burial: One must look forward to eternal life in this same body, and the
specifics of the body’s race, gender, height, weight, age, etc., are therefore
critical priorities.
This sense of having one’s physical body in heaven also encourages the
youth industry and causes people to be in denial of aging. This is becoming
a major factor in causing geriatric mental health problems, especially after
the individual is forced to admit that aging has set and that s/he cannot
fake youthfulness any longer.
Death and aging:
The ashrama system in Indian culture gives each life stage its own
legitimacy and dignity, and its own dharma to follow. One is not measured
by the norms of youth throughout one’s life. The aged are respected, and
regard their condition as being normal. Being old is not seen as an
abnormality that one must cure or fight or be in denial of.
This respectful aging has enabled older people in traditional Indian
societies to remain integrated in multigenerational families, until recent
mimicry of Western lifestyles led to dislocated aging – ironically, the result
of ‘progress’.
The Bible’s trauma of dealing with death and aging causes senility. The
obsessive youth culture is the result of this fear of aging. It has been said
that the West has a two-ashrama system: juvenile and senile. People invest
heavily to remain young for as long as they can, forcing themselves into
artificial extremes just to live up to the image. This is juvenile behavior,
and it is out of the dread of eventually turning old and senile, and having
a fearful death.
In the Bible, God gives man ownership of all animals and nature, for man’s
own pleasure.
To support the plunder of other peoples, this supremacy was extended by
Church theologians to argue in favor of the slavery of blacks and the
genocide of millions of Native Americans, on the basis that they were
27
heathens, i.e., not Christians. It was argued that the men who were given
ownership of the bounty of nature were Biblical men and not the heathens.
Later, when these non-whites were converted into Christianity, this
argument was replaced by a different approach to supremacy, namely,
that the people of color were ‘unfit to self-govern’. Therefore, it was
declared the duty of Anglo-Saxon Christians to rule over others in the best
interest of the others. Many criteria for ‘fitness to self-govern’ were
established, including ‘moral values’, ‘rationality’, and so forth. Data was
gathered to prove that non-whites lacked these qualities.
By the early 1800s America, this had evolved into the well-known doctrine
called Manifest Destiny, which was the basis for the conquest of new
territory (such as Texas) from Mexico, along with the territorial expansion
Westwards by conquering the Native Americans. This doctrine explicitly
gave white Americans the right to ‘civilize’ others by whatever means they
considered appropriate, and to take over their lands, property and
cultures.
In British India, the argument of ‘fitness to self-govern’ was very explicitly
used to remove various native rajas and install the East India Company’s
governance. A prominent example was the removal of the Queen of Jhansi
(who had led the war of independence against the British) on the basis
that she was an ‘immoral person’ and that this made her ‘unfit to rule’.
The phrase ‘regime change’ that is so common in the media today was
used in the 19th century by the British to force their rule upon Indians –
argued on the basis that they brought ‘freedom’ and better ‘human rights’
than the local Kshatriya rulers.
Scholars in Whiteness Studies have developed a notion called ‘white
privilege’, which refers to institutionalized and deeply rooted cultural
privileges that whites enjoy, even when a given white individual is free from
racial prejudices. Nowadays, the term has been replaced with ‘American
privileges’, and refers to the superior rights and entitlements that
Americans must enjoy in the world over and above other peoples.
The Bush Doctrine of spreading freedom and human rights has been called
today’s version of Manifest Destiny. It presupposes that America must
impose its own social and political principles on others, in the others’ best
interests.
28
Any perceived threat to the status quo of privileges and entitlements that
Westerners take for granted is sufficient provocation to trigger the revival
of Christian fundamentalism. Post-9/11 is seeing the rise of this
fundamentalism from its latent state.
One of the entitlements claimed by the West is in the field of knowledge
production and dissemination, and this may be called epistemic privilege.
This includes the right to select the topics for inquiry, the way issues are
framed, who is qualified and certified as a scholar, the theories that are
available to be applied, and so forth.
Individuals like me, who criticize the system, are deemed to be ‘attacking’
the scholars and the scholars are depicted as ‘victims’. This diverts
attention away from the real issues of substance that are being contested.
Naturally, many Indians have joined such a system of privilege and
protection, and have thereby earned the title, ‘sepoys’.
Institutional authority:
The Church’s institutional authority over all men lasted for centuries, and
similar theocracies existed in the case of Islam. (In fact, the serious study
Islam entails in large part a study of Islamic Law.) This does not have a
parallel in Hinduism, where the raja was supposed to protect the
diverse dharmas of every person and not impose his own
personal dharma upon others.
29
This is why Indian gays/lesbians do not need to have a parade in Delhi to
‘fight for rights’ (like the parades in major US cities), because no authority
took away these rights from them in the first place.
Even the much maligned Manusmriti was never enforced as the law of
the land, except under the British rule when it was enforced to prove that
the colonizers were ruling in accordance with ‘Hindu Law’, a canon they
constructed with the help of local pundits hired for the purpose.
If X is the same as Y, then Y must also be the same as X. [14] This gives
us a reliable method to empirically test the sameness hypothesis in the
real world.
30
Would the US government print currency in which ‘In God we trust’ is
replaced by ‘In Shiva we trust’ or ‘In Allah we trust’?
Only after one tests the hypothesis in the real world (which is different
than the academic cocoons and staged ‘interfaith dialogs’) could one begin
to understand the sameness hoax that Hindus have been sold.
The role of Hindu leaders:
In this milieu, Hindu gurus had few prospects within India and went to the
US to teach. There, a thirsty audience awaited them. But unfortunately,
they got trapped by their own instant marketing success.
The gurus and/or their Western followers mapped Indic categories to
Western categories, so as to gain quick legitimacy. This mimicry appealed
to the Western followers, who could have their cake and eat it too, i.e., they
could remain embedded in their Biblical identities and/or ‘secular
Western’ chauvinist equivalents and yet gain the benefits of Indic
traditions. In effect, Hindu gurus facilitated U-Turns.
Hindu leaders also betrayed their own darshana traditions in which they
are required to do purva-paksha of other worldviews. This means a
genuine, authentic and deep understanding of the prevalent worldviews
must be developed in such a profound manner that a scholar from that
other tradition would acknowledge it as being a true representation of their
position. [15]
31
globalized purva-pakshahas to be of Christianity, Enlightenment and Post-
Enlightenment, as these are the three major strands out of which Western
worldviews are built.
Being so isolated and inbred, these Hindu leaders failed to develop any
effective ‘home team’ to represent Hinduism in the important global
debates today. They have alienated themselves from large communities of
intellectual Indian youth and have lost the enormous cultural capital that
once existed amongst the white Americans practicing yoga/meditation,
who number 20 million.
32
Dangers of the Sameness Myth:
33
Ironically, one of the most common reasons given by Hindu youths to their
parents when they convert to another religion is, “You taught us that all
religions are the same, so how does it matter?” It would be okay if the
parents and Hindu leaders would simply accept this fine logic and not be
concerned. But they are concerned and do get angry. Yet, it has not
occurred to the leaders that their own sameness myths have caused the
very problems, which they are fighting.
Many Christian institutions and scholars do not practice sameness
internally, but deploy it externally with non-Christians as a rhetorical
ethics, i.e., as an ethics that is not meant to be implemented but is a public
relations projection. Hindus are encouraged towards sameness with the
strategic goal to (i) confuse them about identity, (ii) dilute their interest in
seriously studying their own traditions, and (ii) bring Christian ideas into
their lives in a Hindu-friendly manner, and gradually move them deeper
into Christian fundamentalism.
34
freedom to convert others into History-Centrism leads to loss of religious
freedom from History-Centrism. (Analogy: Freedom to promote slavery
would result in the loss of freedom of the slaves; hence this ‘freedom’ in
not genuine.)
35
Sanskrit non-translatables must be explained in considerable detail, and
the common translations should be problematized. These are the most
robust and sustainable long-term anchors to preserve the authenticity and
distinctiveness of Indic traditions.
Refute radical difference:
37
illustrate how the Myth of Radical Otherness has been a strategy of arson:
plunder and destroy the source.
The Hindu ashrama system of four life stages, each with its own norms for
dignity and its own dharma, provides many resources for socioeconomic
and mental health applications. This can be developed into theoretical
38
frameworks for managing aging with dignity, and managing the fear of
death and ‘running-out-of-time’ anxieties that haunt Westerners.
The world population is expected to reach 9 billion by mid century, and
the Western lifestyle has been sold successfully as the global standard of
expectation and legitimacy.
39
The Vatican’s refusal to provide accounting for the billions of dollars
raised by Mother Teresa’s organization worldwide and allegation about
misuse of funds is an example of this point.)
The value of New York City real estate that is occupied by various
cemeteries is estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars – enough
to feed/clothe all the homeless of America’s East Coast in perpetuity!
Should burials be contrasted with cremations as issues concerning
ecology, poverty alleviation and other human rights factors?
Such an analysis would enable NGOs and donors to learn from Hindu
approaches that may be applicable in other third world countries.
The jati structure (as distinct from caste) must be seen in light of growing
multiculturalism in Western societies, a trend which is inevitable with
globalization. Jatisprovided identity-with-mutual-respect, giving both a
sense of internal coherence and belonging and without the theological
imperative to conquer others or make them the ‘same’. (Wars have existed
in non-Monotheistic societies, but usually not driven by religious
mandates.)
Hinduism has been disassembled into parts that are taken in isolation and
reduced to prepackaged conclusions, which are then blindly applied in
various humanities disciplines and mass culture. At each stage of this
40
pipeline of misinformation, the conclusions from prior stages are simply
assumed without enough critical examination.
For example, as per Prof. Paranjape (English Department, JNU), it is now
the trend in English Departments everywhere to apply a few standard
frames in examining Indian texts, movies, art, history, society, etc. These
frames are as follows:
Caste oppression
Religious minorities’ oppression
Women’s oppression
Indian Nationalism as oppression
42
teachings. Yogi Amrit Desai, who trained the largest number of white yoga
teachers in the US over a period of 30 years, avoided dilution, but he was
dismissed by his institution’s trustees over alleged ‘sexual misconduct’,
and the new Western owners have drifted away from Hinduism.
[4] Many Western liberals/leftists do detest the classical Western heritage.
They have waged a long-term and concerted attack against the Western
literary canon. They often portray the West’s great historical thinkers as
‘dead white guys’, ridicule and attack their own Judeo-Christian past
(which is then, unfortunately, extended to all other religions, and ‘religion’
itself), etc. Many of the leftist intellectuals who have dominated American
academia clearly have an ideologically driven crypto-Marxist agenda. What
is ‘good’ in their eyes isn’t necessarily what is explicitly Western, but what
represents the ‘oppressed’, the ‘disenfranchised’, the ‘lower’ class, race,
religion, gender, ethnic group, language, etc., in any given perceived (on
their part) antithetical social-cultural coupling. Yet, their theories often
embed deep and invisible Biblical epistemologies, and, furthermore, they
have failed in impacting the West’s own mainstream power structure while
having colonized India’s empowered intellectuals because of the latter’s
vulnerability to mimic. The Manifest Destiny doctrine of 19th century
America expressed white supremacy in terms of ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’,
and ‘fitness to self-govern’. Ironically, today’s leftist activism has
inadvertently played into the hands of the reincarnated Manifest Destiny
in the form of the Bush Worldview.
[5]‘Constructive Christianity’ has been a project to protect the core idea
of a unique historical revelation. Hence, it is a system of Christian apology
of finding ways to incorporate new facts (using science and/or U-Turns
from other plundered traditions) while pretending that it is all from the
single original source (which can be made to say anything). Hinduism does
not need that kind of construction because it does not have that kind
of History-Centric problem to begin with. What it needs is expressions of
the Truth gained from the adhyatmika experience for contemporary times,
as well as new sociopolitical smritis for today. This is precisely what people
like Aurobindo and others were up to. ‘Constructions’ without adhyatmika
experience is what many Hindutva politicians have been doing.
[6] In Hinduism, the importance of (i) tradition (agama-pramana), (ii) lines
of succession (sampradaya-parampara), and (iii) the sacredness of places
(tirthas) due to sacred occurrences that happened there, are all important
43
in preserving the teachings of Dharma. However, the subtle but critical
point is that if all the above were lost one would still have the Truth
revealed inwardly via yoga and meditation. Abrahamic religions are
history-dependent, whereas Hinduism merely uses the examples of
concrete instances of Truth revealed in what we call history as guides and
tools for personal self-realization. Thus, Hinduism is not history-
dependent.
[7]Evangelical Christians, despite being the dominant American
theological and political force, do not speak for the esoteric strands that
are not History-Centric. Esoteric interpreters of the Bible map
Indic Adhyatma-vidya on to Platonic metaphysics and consider the events
of Sacred history and the Prophets as contingent manifestations of eternal
Principles such as Logos. The esoteric interpretation of the Bible does not
speak of the Original Sin as a sexual act between Adam and Eve. The
symbol of the Tree (of knowledge) evokes rather an orientation of the will
towards the world and duality, a subversion of the sprit by the soul. The
Revelation and eschatological events are events in the Soul that any being
on the spiritual path is potentially able to turn into an inner reality. The
Perennialists would say that history-centrism is the result of the
intellectual limitations of fundamentalist Evangelists. However, the
Christianity that is ‘on the ground’ that Hindus must deal with, both in
the form of proselytizers playing havoc in India and in the form of the
geopolitical projection of Manifest Destiny, is not what Ivy League
professors and their followers would like us to imagine.
[8]A Sufi academic scholar wrote to me the following in defense of her
tradition (paraphrased by me): “There were numerous debates in ancient
Islam about the status of the Koran. It is absolutely necessary to distinguish
between the ‘Mother of the Book’ and the physical Koran which cannot
seriously be considered eternal or of non-human origin. The Sufi tradition
distinguishes between the earthly Kaaba and the celestial one. Islamic
History-Centrism is the result of degeneration of its traditional intellectuality
and of the development of politicized schools of theology. The present
situation only reflects the views that prevailed for political reasons.” My
response to her was that Sufis represent around 1% or so of the worldwide
Muslim population and that Islam as experienced popularly is best
understood based on what is preached in the Mosque on Fridays and not
what a few elitist intellectuals would like to project it to be externally.
44
[9]Antonio deNicolas explains the difference as follows: “The Abrahamic
religions base themselves on the discontinuous, while Hinduism bases itself
on the continuous. Discontinuous based religions believe in a God that is
unique, comes from the outside, and dictates eternal laws. The continuous
religions make a God or gods as they practice internally the discipline of will
development for decision making as the paradigm of the gods (different
brain centers) demand according to the dharma in front of the individual.
The discontinuous religions base their practice on the left brain, theoretical,
conceptual descriptions of the path they want to follow and as convenient.
The continuous religions base their practice on memory, imagination, and
experience using the conceptual, theoretical left brain only as an instrument
of translation. The discontinuous religions are imperialistic because one
brain dominates all others, while the continuous religions base their practice
on the ability to modulate all the brains and find a harmony leading to
moksha.”
10i] Using the modern language of trusts, one may say that (i) Jesus
established the Trust by contributing his suffering; (ii) the Church (long
after Jesus’ death) claimed the role of Trustee in perpetuity; (iii) the
Beneficiaries are all those who join the History-Centric Grand Narrative;
and (iv) the Distributions from the Trust to the Beneficiaries are
Redemption from all their Sins. According to the Biblical Apocalypse, all
Beneficiaries thus Saved are scheduled to be flown to Heaven and live
there in Eternity. All those remaining will be massacred by Jesus
personally when he returns at the End of Time which is just around the
corner.
[11]It is claimed to have been ‘coming soon’ for 1900 years based on
the Book of Revelation in the Bible.
[12]The Christian (especially Thomist) idea is that people have a soul like
the property of a person. This soul is a metaphysical appendage of the
person similar to the physical appendage of a spleen or a lung. Thus, a
soul can be lost, sold or injured. This is a radically different notion from
that of atman.
[13]Hindu scripture – both shruti and smriti – is also packed with ethical
norms, laws, proscriptions and prescriptions. The Bhagavad Gita is full of
descriptions of right and wrong behavior; the Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali
outline the yamas and niyamas, etc., etc. While it is true that the
Manusmriti was not the ‘law of the land’ in Hindu India previous to the
45
British Raj, the overall genre of the dharma-shastras were, nonetheless,
always important guides for Indian/Hindu governance generally. The
difference between the Abrahamic versus the Indic view of religiously
acceptable behavior is that the former is a morality-based system in an
ethnically parochial and sectarian morality sense (thus kosher laws, for
example); i.e., a morality that is externally imposed. The latter is more of
an ethically based system (internally cultivated) and focuses on the
cultivation of inner virtues and excellences, somewhat akin to both
Platonic and Aristotelian ethics. This has to do with the absence of yoga in
Abrahamic religions, as least as a central feature of spiritual advancement
(i.e. lack of adhyatmika) and the over-emphasis placed upon affirmation of
faith in History.
[14]Plus for X and Y to be interchangeably equated means that they must
necessarily be the same in every respect.
[15] Serious purva-paksha analysis died with the birth of neo-Hinduism.
Hindu philosophy declined from serious and systematic critiquing of other
systems to then merely serving as a pseudo-intellectual tool.
[16] While these are important issues in their own right, they have caused
Hindus to get stuck in the minutia while forgetting the larger, more
important, picture.
https://rajivmalhotra.com/library/articles/myth-hindu-
sameness/
46