Apart from the foundation, Malhotra promotes aHindu nationalist[8][9] view ofIndic cultures. Malhotra has written prolifically in opposition to the western academic study of Indian culture and society, which he maintains denigrates the tradition and undermines the interests of India "by encouraging the paradigms that oppose its unity and integrity".[10][11]
Malhotra had been a speaker at an international conference held over the Center for Indic Studies,University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and was a board member of the Foundation for Indic Philosophy and Culture at theClaremont Colleges.[14] He also wrote extensively on internet discussion groups and e-magazines.[14]
In October 2018, Malhotra was appointed an honorary visiting professor at the Centre for Media Studies atJawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.[15] On 6 November 2018, he delivered his first lecture organized by the School of Sanskrit and Indic studies on the topic of Sanskrit non-translatables.[16]
Malhotra founded the institute in 1994;[9] followed by Educational Council of Indic Traditions (ECIT) in 2000.[14][17][note 1] The foundation works without any full-time workers; sans Malhotra himself.[14] The stated goals were to fight a perceived misrepresentation of ancient Indian religions and to document the contributions of India to world civilization.[14] No member of the advisory board was an academic and most belonged to the software industry.[14]
While the foundation's own materials describe its purposes in terms of education and philanthropy, scholars of Hinduism and South Asia see it largely as an organization committed to the "surveillance of the Academy (academia)", and a senior U.S. scholar of Hinduism, Columbia University's Jack Hawley, has published a refutation of the foundation's characteristic charges against the study of Hinduism in North America.[23]
In early 2000s Malhotra started writing articles criticisingWendy Doniger and related scholars, claiming that she appliedFreudian psycho-analysis to aspects of Indian culture.[web 1] His 2002 blog post titled "Wendy's Child Syndrome"[24] was considered as the starting point[25] of a "rift between some Western Hinduism scholars [...] and some conservative Hindus in India, the United States, and elsewhere".[web 1]Martha Nussbaum has called it a "war"[19] by "the Hindu right"[26] against American scholars.[25]
The blog post "has become a pivotal treatise in a recent rift between some Western Hinduism scholars—many of whom teach or have studied at Chicago—and some conservative Hindus in India, the United States, and elsewhere".[web 1] Malhotra concluded in his blog post: "Rights of individual scholars must be balanced against rights of cultures and communities they portray, especially minorities that often face intimidation. Scholars should criticize but not define another's religion."[web 1]
According to Braverman, "Though Malhotra's academic targets say he has some valid discussion points, they also argue that his rhetoric taps into the rightward trend and attempts to silence unorthodox, especiallyWestern, views."[web 1][note 2]
The essay, together with a series of related essays and interviews, has been republished inAcademic Hinduphobia, in the wake of the withdrawal of Doniger'sThe Hindus: An Alternative History from the Indian market, due to a lawsuit "alleging that it was biased and insulting to Hindus".[27] The withdrawal led to extensive media attention, and renewed sales in India. Malhotra said "the drama has diverted attention away from the substantive errors in her scholarship to be really about being an issue of censorship by radical Hindus", hence the republication of his critique of Wendy Doniger[27] and scholars related to her.[note 3]
In his 2003 blog post "Does South Asian Studies Undermine India?" atRediff India Abroad: India as it happens, Malhotra criticises what he views as uncritical funding of South Asian Studies by Indian-American donors:[28]
Many eminent Indian-American donors are being led down the garden path by Indian professors who, ironically, assemble a team of scholars to undermine Indian culture. Rather than an Indian perspective on itself and the world, these scholars promote a perspective on India using worldviews which are hostile to India's interests.[28]
Malhotra voices four criticisms of American academia.[10] Primarily, he claims "American academia is dominated by aEurocentric perspective that views western culture as being the fount of world civilisation and refuses to acknowledge the contributions of non-western societies such as India to European culture and technique".[10] Then, he goes on to say that the academic study of religion in the United States is based on the model of the "Abrahamic" traditions; this model is not applicable to Hinduism.[10] He says Western scholars focus on the "sensationalist, negative attributes of religion and present it in a demeaning way that shows a lack of respect for the sentiments of the practitioners of the religion".[10] His final claim is thatSouth Asian Studies programs in the United States create "a false identity and unity" between India and its Muslim neighbour states, and undermine India "by focusing on its internal cleavages and problems".[10]
Malhotra argues that American scholarship has undermined India "by encouraging the paradigms that oppose its unity and integrity", with scholars playing critical roles, often under the garb of 'human rights' in channeling foreign intellectual and material support to exacerbate India's internal fault lines.[29] He claims Indian-American donors were "hoodwinked" into thinking they were supporting India through their monetary contributions to such programmes. Malhotra compares the defence of Indian interests with corporate brand management, distrusting the loyalties of Indian scholars.[30]
Therefore, it is critical that we do not blindly assume that Indian scholars are always honest trustees of the Indian-American donors' sentiments. Many Indian scholars are weak in the pro-India leadership and assertiveness traits that come only from strongly identifying with an Indian Grand Narrative. They regard the power of Grand Narrative (other than their own) as a cause of human rights problems internally, failing to see it as an asset in global competition externally. Hence, there is the huge difference between the ideology of many Indian professors and the ideology espoused by most successful Indian-American corporate leaders.[28]
Malhotra argues that a positive stance on India has been under-represented in American academia, due to programmes being staffed by Westerners, their "Indian-American Sepoys"[31] and Indian Americans who want to be white – whom he disparages as "career opportunists" and "Uncle Toms", who "in their desire to become even marginal members of the Western Grand Narrative, sneer at Indian culture in the same manner as thecolonialists once did".[32] Malhotra has accused academia of abetting the "Talibanisation" of India, which would also lead to the radicalisation of other Asian countries.[33]
Malhotra posits that the Western appropriation ofIndic ideas and knowledge systems has a long history. He names this theory of his "The U-Turn Theory".[31] He then goes on to show how the appropriation occurs in several stages:[34][35]
In the first stage, a Westerner approaches anIndian guru or tradition with extreme deference, acquires the knowledge as a sincere disciple, lives in theashram and adopts the usage ofHindu iconography.
Once the transfer of knowledge is complete, the former disciple, and their followers progressively erase all traces of the original source, such as removal of theSanskrit terms andhistoric context of India. The knowledge gets repackaged as the idea of their own thought or they claim to be universal by removal of the Indian heritage, and may even proceed to denigrate the source Indian tradition. At this stage, the traditional Indian knowledge gets decontextualized andChristianized.
In the final stage, the ideas are exported back to India by the former disciple and/or his followers for consumption as Western science or as 'superior' thought. Malhotra cites numerous examples to support this theory, dating from the erasure ofUpanishadic andVijnanavada Buddhist influences onPlotinus[note 4] to the modern day reimportation of Christian Yoga into India.
Daniel Goleman, famously known as the originator ofEmotional intelligence, didn't mention the teachings ofNeem Karoli Baba in his academic work, who had a primary influence on Goleman during his time in India. Although Goleman usedDalai Lama for his introductions, he was peer pressured to disguise the "Indian background" during his PhD dissertation.[38][46]
Jon Kabat-Zinn appliedBuddhist meditation techniques in therapeutic and medical settings under the name ofMindfulness Meditation. However, Kabat-Zinn doesn't credit the original Buddhist sources, and instead called the techniques his "own" by mentioning that he had "developed" them himself.[47] Malhotra claims that this was the commercial franchising ofVipassanā.[38]
Malhotra believes that the practice of a distorted version of Yoga, Christian Yoga, is not only inimical but also detrimental to Christianity's fundamental principles and doctrines. He supports his argument by specifically citing thetheology of Christianity andBible, and compares it to thephilosophies of Yoga.[58]
According to Christianity, in prayer, the worshipper is supposed to be filled withBiblical passage, and theNicene Creed diverts attention away from the state of silence, however, the whole practice of meditation inauthentic Yoga system is to pursue thestate of emptiness with refined focus toself-direct awareness to attainliberation, contrary to be filled with dogma.[60][58]Yoga's self-centering silence is seen as resisting submission to an external God according to Christianity.[note 10]
Rta, inHindu philosophy, is the fundamental fabric of reality and the principle of the natural order which regulates and coordinates the operation of the universe and everything within it. Conceptually, it's closely allied withDharma, and the action of individuals in relation to those ordinances, referred to asKarma. However, this fundamentally contradicts theNicene Creed.[60]
Thepractice of Om as asacred utterance is designed to dissolveNamarupa from the mind, that is the whole idea and the principle behind the Mantra.[60] Its universality lies in its ability to transcend all particular historic contexts. The names 'Jesus', 'Allah', or 'Amen' are proper nouns laden with historic context and thus aren't a synonym for Mantras which have a specifictranscendental context.[60]Patanjali mentionsOm asVacakah or vibration ofIshvara, hence the experience it brings cannot be generated by an alternative sound such as the sound or names of other God.[60] Yoga and Hinduism are deeply coupled, and renaming theoriginal Sanskrit terms doesn't do any favor, since the actual physical practices, in the case ofasanas remains the same, states Malhotra.[59] Swami Param, head of the Classical Yoga Academy inManahawkin, New Jersey, states that "If people can not acknowledge the Hindu elements and roots of Yoga, they should not bother studying it." He further adds, "As Hindus, we have no problem studying other religions, but we give them the respect they deserve."[63]
Yoga's metaphysics centers around the quest to attainliberation from one's conditioning caused by the pastKarma. Karma includes the baggage fromprior lives, underscoring the importance ofreincarnation.[59] Malhotra points out that while it's "fashionable" for Westerners to say they believe in Karma and reincarnation, they have seldom worked out the contradictions withcore Biblical doctrines.[note 13][59][60] Yogic liberation is therefore not contingent upon any unique historic events or interventions.Every individual'sultimate essence isSat-Cit-Ananda, Originally Divine, and not Originally Sinful by birth. Malhotra indicates that this is a very fundamental contradiction of the doctrines ofOriginal sin andNicene Creed.[59][60]
Malhotra further claims that Dharmic traditions are misunderstood by the West, one being the scholars conflated the use ofDharmic images anddeities withpre-Christian Paganism, although Paganism is quite different fromDharmic bhakti.[60] This suspicion ofidolatry is one of the greatest obstacles which the Western practitioners of Yoga face, states Malhotra.[60] The negative and erroneous association of Yoga with an idolatry of the body gives rise to odd hybrids such as Christian Yoga or Jewish Yoga or, Muslim Yoga, who claim to provide a cleaned-up Yoga, which is free from dangers of idolatry.[60][64] He adds that internalized taboos, social prejudices, and all stereotypes ofDharmic culture andHinduism in particular, act as a filter in the interpretation ofDharmic traditions, such asYoga andmeditation to create varied responses to Yoga.[60]
Although few Christian Yoga or 'Secular' Yoga practitioners make baseless claims, states Malhotra, such as "Yoga doesn't belong to Hinduism" or "Yoga isn't Hindu",[60][65][66] he asserts that, such people neither understands thephilosophy of Yoga nor its relation toHinduism. It's a fact of the matter thatYoga is one of thesix major orthodox schools of Hinduism (Āstika), hence those preconceived claims are factually incorrect. Yoga, in Hinduism, is a way towardsliberation fromSaṃsāra andDuḥkha.[note 14]
Furthermore, Malhotra cites a survey research conducted by the Yoga practitioners in the West shows that those who attained a sense ofself-directed awareness, are less likely to identify as "Christians" or any dogma based religions,[58][67] and more likely identified to be withDharmic religions such as,Buddhists, or, contrary to that asSpiritual but not religious.[note 15]Douglas R. Groothuis, professor of philosophy atDenver Seminary, says that "Yoga was a Hindu practice structured to help people attain a higher spiritual state within, and that is incompatible with Christian teachings", further he adds, "I don't think Christian Yoga works, It's an oxymoron".[63]
Academic Hinduphobia: A Critique of Wendy Doniger's Erotic School of Indology
Several of Malhotra's essays from the early 2000s were re-published byVoice of India in 2016 inAcademic Hinduphobia: A Critique of Wendy Doniger's Erotic School of Indology.[27] The essays have been reportedly republished in the wake of the withdrawal of Doniger'sThe Hindus: An Alternative History from the Indian market, due to a lawsuit "alleging that it was biased and insulting to Hindus".[27] The withdrawal led to extensive media attention and renewed sales in India. Malhotra claims that "the drama has diverted attention away from the substantive errors in her scholarship to be really about being an issue of censorship by radical Hindus", hence the republication of his critique of Wendy Doniger[27] and scholars related to her.
Dravidian and Dalit identity separatism being fostered by the West in the name of human rights.[note 16]
This book goes into greater depth on the third: the role of US and European churches, academics, think-tanks, foundations, government and human rights groups in fostering separation of the identities of Dravidian and Dalit communities from the rest of India.[70]
Being Different is a critique of the western-centric view on India characterised by Abrahamic traditions. Malhotra intends to give an Indian view on India and the west, as characterised by the Indian Dharmic traditions. Malhotra argues that there are irreconcilable differences betweenDharmic traditions andAbrahamic religions.[71] The termdharma:
... is used to indicate a family of spiritual traditions originating in India which today are manifested as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. I explain that the variety of perspectives and practices of dharma display an underlying integral unity at the metaphysical level.[72]
Indra's Net is an appeal against the thesis ofneo-Hinduism and a defense ofVivekananda's view ofYoga andVedanta. The book argues for a unity, coherence, and continuity of the Yogic and Vedantic traditions ofHinduism andHindu philosophy. It makes proposals for defending Hinduism from what the author considers to be unjust attacks from scholars, misguidedpublic intellectuals, and hostile religious polemicists.
The book's central metaphor is "Indra's Net". As a scriptural image "Indra's Net" was first mentioned in theAtharva Veda (c. 1000BCE).[73][note 17] In Buddhist philosophy, Indra's Net served as a metaphor in theAvatamsaka Sutra[74][75] and was further developed byHuayen Buddhism to portray the interconnectedness of everything in the universe.[74][75][76] Malhotra employs the metaphor of Indra's Net to express
the profound cosmology and outlook that permeates Hinduism. Indra's Net symbolizes the universe as a web of connections and interdependences.... The net is said to be infinite, and to spread in all directions with no beginning or end. At each node of the net is a jewel, so arranged that every jewel reflects all the other jewels.... a microcosm of the whole net.... [and] individual jewels always remain in flux.[77]
The book uses Indra's Net as a metaphor for the understanding of the universe as a web of connections and interdependences, an understanding which Malhotra wants to revive as the foundation forVedic cosmology,[78] a perspective that he asserts has "always been implicit"[79] in the outlook of the ordinary Hindu.
A revised edition was published in 2016 after charges of plagiarism. The revised edition omits most references to the work ofAndrew J. Nicholson and instead refers to the original Sanskrit sources. Malhotra says that Nicholson failed to attribute his ideas to the original sources and explains that the unity of Hinduism is inherent in the tradition from the times of its Vedic origins.[80]
The Battle for Sanskrit is a critique of the AmericanIndologistSheldon Pollock. Malhotra pleads for traditional Indian scholars to write responses to Pollock's views, who takes a critical stance toward the role of Sanskrit in traditional views on Indian society. Malhotra is critical of Pollock's approach, and argues that western Indology scholars are deliberately intervening in Indian societies by offering analyses of Sanskrit texts which would be rejected by "traditional Indian experts".[81]
Sanskrit Non-Translatables: The Importance of Sanskritizing English (2020)
Sanskrit Non-Translatables, a book by Malhotra published in 2020 and coauthored bySatyanarayana Dasa,[82] deals with the idea of Sanskritizing the English language and enriching it with powerful Sanskrit words. It continues the discussion on the idea of non-translatability of Sanskrit, a concept first introduced in the book,Being Different.[83]
The book discusses 54 non-translatables across various genres that are being commonly mis-translated. It empowers English speakers with the knowledge and arguments to introduce these Sanskrit words into their daily speech with confidence. For English readers, the book is the starting point of the movement to introduce loanwords into their English vocabulary without translation.[84][85]
Scholars have widely recognized that Malhotra has been influential in articulating diaspora and conservative dissatisfaction with the Western world's scholarly study of Hinduism.John Hinnells, a British scholar ofcomparative religions, considers Malhotra to lead a faction of Hindu criticism of methodology for the examination ofHinduism.[86]
Other scholars welcome his attempt to challenge the western assumptions in the study of India and South Asia[87] but also question his approach, finding it to be neglecting the differences within the various Indian traditions.[88][89] In response, Malhotra points out that he does not state that all those traditions are essentially the same, that there is no effort to homogenise different Dharmic traditions, but that they share the assertion of integral unity.[90]
Prema A. Kurien considers Malhotra to be at "the forefront of American Hindu effort to challenge the Eurocentrism in academia".[91]
Martha Nussbaum criticises Malhotra for "disregard for the usual canons of argument and scholarship, a postmodern power play in the guise of defense of tradition".[92] Brian K. Pennington has called his work "ahistorical" and "a pastiche of widely accepted and overly simplified conclusions borrowed from the academy". Pennington has further charged that Malhotra systematically misrepresents the relationship between Hinduism and Christianity, arguing that in Malhotra's hands, "Christian and Indic traditions are reduced to mere cartoons of themselves."[93] According to Jonathan Edelmann, one of the major problems with Malhotra's work is that he does not have a school of thought that he represents or is trained in. This fact undermines his claims to be engaged inpurvapaksa debate. Purvapaksa debate requires location in a particular place of argument.[94]
In May 2015, a Hindu-American scholar atSt. Olaf College,Anantanand Rambachan, who studied three years withSwami Dayananda, published an extensive response to Malhotra's criticisms inIndra's Net. Rambachan claimed that Malhotra's "descriptions of my scholarship belong appropriately to the realm of fiction and are disconnected from reality". According to Rambachan, Malhotra's understanding and representation of classical Advaita is incorrect, attributing doctrines toShankara andSwami Dayananda which are rejected by them.[95][note 18] Malhotra's epistemological foundations have also been critically questioned by Anantanand Rambachan. He does not, according to Rambachan, situate his discussion in relation to classical epistemologies or clarify his differences with these.[96]
Malhotra claimed on social media in August 2020 that he spoke out against Wikipedia in the 1990s in a talk inAuroville that was posted in their magazine, when the portal sought Indian users for donations. Wikipedia, on the other hand, was founded in 2001. Malhotra's claims were criticized on social media.[99][100]
In November 2022,Google cancelled Malhotra's talk at its headquarters after receiving complaints about his views on homosexuality and Islam.[101] A day after cancelling his talk, Google introduced rules for inviting guest speakers to its offices.[102]
In response to Nicholson, Malhotra stated "I used your work with explicit references 30 times in Indra's Net, hence there was no ill-intention",[109] and cited a list of these references.[110] He announced that he would be eliminating all references to Nicholson and further explained:[109][note 23]
I am going to actually remove many of the references to your work simply because you have borrowed from Indian sources and called them your own original ideas [...] Right now, it is western Indologists like you who get to define 'critical editions' of our texts and become the primary source and adhikari. This must end and I have been fighting this for 25 years [...] we ought to examine where you got your materials from, and to what extent you failed to acknowledge Indian sources, both written and oral, with the same weight with which you expect me to do so.[109]
Malhotra published a rebuttal and stated that he had removed all references to Nicholson's works in chapter 8 ofIndra's Net, replacing them with references to the original Indian sources.[111]
Rajiv Malhotra and Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji (2020),Sanskrit Non-Translatables: The Importance of Sanskritizing English (publisher: Amaryllis, An imprint of Manjul Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.;ISBN978-93-90085-48-4).
Malhotra, Rajiv (2009). "American Exceptionalism and the Myth of the Frontiers". In Rajani Kannepalli Kanth (ed.).The Challenge of Eurocentrism: Global Perspectives, Policy, and Prospects. Palgrave Macmillan.ISBN978-0-230-61227-3.
Kurien: "The next Indic studies organisation established in the United States was the Educational Council of Indic Traditions (ECIT), which was founded in 2000 (along with an associated Indictraditions Internet discussion group) under the auspices of the Infinity Foundation, based in New Jersey. The Infinity Foundation was formed in 1995 by the wealthy Indian American entrepreneur Rajiv Malhotra, who, after a career in the software, computer, and telecom industries had taken an early retirement to pursue philanthropic and educational activities. As Indic studies gradually became the main focus of the Infinity Foundation, the ECIT was disbanded (the Indictraditions group was also closed down later, in the summer of 2003)."[18]
Nussbaum: "The chief antagonist behind these attacks is Rajiv Malhotra, a very wealthy man who lives in New Jersey and heads the Infinity Foundation, which has made grants in the area of Hinduism studies."[19]
Taylor: "... Rajiv Malhotra, a self-described Indian-American entrepreneur, philanthropist and community leader. Malhotra had graduated from St Stephen's College, Delhi, in 1971, and came to the US to pursue degrees in physics and computer science, where his subsequent career spanned the software, telecom and media industries (Ramaswamy, de Nicolas and Banerjee, 2007, p. 472, n.5). He left the business world in 1995 to establish the Infinity Foundation, a non-profit organisation that seeks to promote East-West dialogue and a proper understanding of the Indian civilizational experience in the world, particularly in the United States and India."[20]
^The possible influence of Indian thought on Plotinus was mentioned already by his student and biographerPorphyry (3rd c. CE): "he became eager to make acquaintance with the Persian philosophical discipline and that prevailing among the Indians."[36] Blurb for Paulos Mar Gregorios (2002),Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy, SUNY Press: "During the last two centuries a remarkable similarity between the philosophical system of Plotinus (205 270 A.D.) and those of various Hindu philosophers in various centuries, including some that lived prior to the Third Century A.D. has been discovered."[37] See also R. Baine Harris (ed).(1982),Neoplatonism and Indian Thought, SUNY Press
Stephen LaBerge, prominent professor of cognitive science atStanford University measured the effects ofYoga nidra and coined the termLucid dream, leading to establishments of multiple institutes. However, LaBerge does not ackowldege Indian and Tibetian advanced meditators as scientific peers, whom he worked with for his PhD dissertation. Malhotra states, LaBerge later called the discovery as his own as part his proprietary Lucrative Movement.[38][39]
Francisco Varela, co-founder ofMind and Life Institute, despite beinginitiated byDalai Lama into advancedIndo-Tibetian techniques over many decades, repackaged every idea into his "new" discovery, which Varela calledNeurophenomenology based onHusserl's philosophy, although the philosophy was a merely a theory. Varela's home page and articles are entirely about "Western science" and disguise all the Indian sources. His students miss the fact that, he learned this as a practitioner of Buddhist meditation for 25 years until his death in 2001.[38][40]
Evan Thompson, one of the Verela's ace student who now distanced himself openly from the Indian source traditions, although his PhD thesis was onMadhyamaka Buddhism. Thompson claims that, he learned everything by his own research usingEpistemology and findings of Verela as starting point. Furthermore, Thompson doesn't considers Indo-Tibetan sources as relevant to his research anymore, despite Verela's works being heavily based on Buddhist meditation practices. Malhotra points out how the dominant culture's appropriations are installed as locus for future generations, such as Thompson.[41][38]
^Theosophic ideas on involution have "much in common" with "theories of the descent of God in Gnosticism, Kabbalah, and other esoteric schools."[49] According to Meera Nanda, "Vivekananda uses the word involution exactly how it appears in Theosophy: the descent, or the involvement, of divine cosnciousness into matter."[50] With spirit, Vivekananda refers toprana orpurusha, derived ("with some original twists") from Samkhya andclassical yoga as presented byPatanjali in theYoga Sutras.[50] Wilber took the notion of involution fromSri Aurobindo, who may, or may not, have been influenced by Vivekananda's notion that "evolution presupposes a prior involution."[51] Malhotra downplays contemporary academic scholarship[52] which shows how western ideas such asUniversalism, viaUnitarian missionaries who collaborated with theBrahmo Samaj, themselves influencedVivekananda.[53][54][55][56][57]
^Malhotra cites Biblical historicity, theapostle Paul was troubled by the clash between body and spirit, and wrote: "For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:22-24). The effectiveness of the prayers and techniques thought by the Church depends on the particular circumstances of Jesus' history, however, this fundamentally contradicts the philosophies of Yoga.
^According to Christians, salvation depends on occurrences of three historical events: theincarnation,crucifixion, andresurrection of Jesus; and for Jews, it'sExodus. However, Dharmic traditions insists direct experience and empirical testing are important for the acquisition of knowledge, hence Yoga, and meditation are the tools for one to discover the truth in an endeavor that requires active inner and outer engagement. The focus is, therefore, on self-discipline, experimentation with techniques and adaptation of methods to different temperaments and life circumstances.[60]
^Malhotra further mentions the critical distinction between Dharmic and Western reliance on history in the meditative practices. Dharmic traditions, remove the layers of conditioning that obfuscates one's true Self and the highest truth, while the West lacks both techniques and conceptual base to do so. According to Dharmic religions, states Malhotra, even if all the historical records were lost, historic memory erased, and even holy sites are destroyed, the ultimate truth could be recovered by any ordinary humans through spiritual practices. Malhotra's views were supported by the scholar Richard Lannoy, who states that "Contrary to Judeo-Christian or Islamic traditions, history has no metaphysical significance for either Hinduism or Buddhism. The highest the idea isjivan-mukta, one who liberates fromTime. Man, according to Indian views, must, at all costs, find in this world a road that issues upon a trans-historical and a-temporal plane". He adds, Westerners who are keen to practice asanas, however, consider pranayama to be going too far in attempts to manipulate consciousness.[60] Many Christian mystics were prosecuted in the past because of precisely fear that supernatural influences tied to Satan may enter in the silent mind.[60]
^Malhotra further clarifies that, whenChristianity took over Europe, the idea is toevangelize people who worship thefalse gods, since the Church cannot establish theauthority as long as the people are worshiping 'false gods'. However, Malhotra further states that a pop-culture Christian accepts Mantras, although orthodox Christians do not. Malhotra asserts that Mantras for transcendence is not accepted in Christianity and he further claims that any Christian theologians would agree to that.[58][61]
^The practice of Mantra rejects the History-Centrism in the official doctrine of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, most Protestant churches, as well as the Anglican Communion, states Malhotra. Since the mantra is not sanctioned by the Bible or the Torah, it cannot be a prayer to One True God.[60]
^According to Karma,Adam and Eve's deeds would produce effects only on their individual future lives, and not to all their progeny and Infinitum. Karma is also not a sexually transmitted problem flowing from ancestors, states Malhotra.
^In Judeo-Christian traditions, states Malhotra, the reliance on one or more historic events is crucial to the knowledge of God, to spiritual life, and to salvation.[60] Revelation comes from a transcendent God who personally intervenes at a specific place, point in time, and set of circumstances to "save" mankind and offer the truth.[60] Dharmic faiths, in contrast, do not depend on literal historic events in the same manner. They posit that truth can not only be found only externally but also within, by each person. Dharmic traditions, however, deal with their past through history, but throughitihasa. Truth is not dependent or contingent upon history; rather, history is a manifestation of it, hence, the Dharmic relation with history is incomparable to that of the West. Because the study ofitihasa is intended to bring about a change within and ultimately transcend space and time itself through Yoga, Dharmic religions by and large do not feel the pressure to present themselves as "history-centric", states Malhotra.
^Malhotra mentions an example from the study that, Kristine, who grew up Catholic in Indiana, and tried Yoga for physical "stretches", but later practiced the spiritual aspects of it, now prefersAshtanga's eight limbs overChristianity's Ten Commandments[67][58]
^In the 20th century Dravidianist, Tamil nationalists, have developed an alternative narrative for the neo-Hindu narrative.[69] According to Bryant, both groups have used colonial Indology to construct opposing narratives which "suited their practical purposes".[69] Brahmins attacked Dravidianism, claiming Tamil to be an integral part of the Brahmin heritage.[69]
^TheAtharva Veda verse 8.8.6. says: "Vast indeed is the tactical net of great Indra, mighty of action and tempestuous of great speed. By that net, O Indra, pounce upon all the enemies so that none of the enemies may escape the arrest and punishment." And verse 8.8.8. says: "This great world is the power net of mighty Indra, greater than the great. By that Indra-net of boundless reach, I hold all those enemies with the dark cover of vision, mind and senses."Ram, Tulsi (2013).Atharva Veda: Authentic English Translation. Agniveer. pp. 910–911. Archived fromthe original on 30 March 2014. Retrieved26 March 2014.
^Rambachan: "Mr. Malhotra is, in reality, representing Swami Dayananda as teaching a version of what is known in the Advaita tradition as the doctrine ofjñāna-karma-samuccaya, or the necessity of combining ritual action and knowledge for liberation. Śaṅkara decisively rejects this and so does Swami Dayananda Saraswati."[95] See alsoadvaita-vedanta.org,[Advaita-l] jnana karma samuccaya.
^Young is the Elmer K. and Ethel R. Timby Associate Professor of the History of Religions at Princeton Theological Seminary. He has authored and edited books on Christianity and Christian conversion in India and elsewhere in Asia. Young's books include "Asia in the making of Christianity: Conversion, Agency, and Indigeneity, 1600s to the Present" (2013,OCLC855706908), "Constructing Indian Christianities: Culture, Conversion and Caste" (2014,OCLC900648811), "Perspectives on Christianity in Korea and Japan: the Gospel and culture in East Asia" (1995,OCLC33101519) and "Resistant Hinduism: Sanskrit sources on anti-Christian Apologetics in Early Nineteenth-Century India" (1981,OCLC8693222).
^Young studied Malhotra's work for an essay published in 2014. See: Young (2014),Studied Silences? Diasporic Nationalism, 'Kshatriya Intellectuals' and the Hindu American Critique of Dalit Christianity's Indianness. In:Constructing Indian Christianities: Culture, Conversion and Caste chapter 10
^Young gave an explanation for his allegations in an open letter to his colleagues at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he is currently employed.[104] Seea letter from Fox to his colleagues. Malhotra comments on his references to Nicholson at Swarajya magazine, "Nicholson's Untruths", while "Independent Readers and Reviewers" respond at"Rebuttal of false allegations against Hindu scholarship".
^Nicholson refers to page 163 ofIndra's Net, which copies p. 14 ofUnifying Hinduism:
MalhotraIndra's Net p. 163: "Vivekananda's challenge was also to show that this complementarity model was superior to models that emphasized conflict and contradiction. He showed great philosophical and interpretive ingenuity, even to those who might not agree with all his conclusions. [19]"[106]
NicholsonUnifying Hinduism (2010) p. 14: "Vijnanabhikshu's challenge is to show that the complementary model he espouses is superior to other models emphasizing conflict and contradiction. Even his distractors must admit that he often shows extraordianry philosophical and interpretive ingenuity, whether or not all his arguments to this end are ultimately persuasive."[107]
Malhotra's note 19 refers to "Nicholson 2010, pp. 65, 78", not to p. 14.[106] None of these pages mentions Vivekananda.[108]
^See Swarajya magazine, "'Oh, Doctor!' Wendy Doniger On The Couch (A Tantric-Psychoanalysis)": "Rajiv Malhotra interviews Stuart Sovatsky an American scholar and practitioner of Psychology and Hindu traditions on the Wendy Doniger syndrome."
^Mukharji, Projit Bihari (3 July 2017). "Embracing academic elitism".South Asian History and Culture.8 (3):354–359.doi:10.1080/19472498.2017.1350401.ISSN1947-2498.right-wing populists like Rajiv Malhotra..
^abStensvold, A. (2020).Blasphemies Compared: Transgressive Speech in a Globalised World. Routledge Studies in Religion. Taylor & Francis. p. 94.ISBN978-1-000-29188-9.Prominent among the critics was Rajiv Malhotra, an Indian computer scientist living in the Eastern United States. In 1994, when he was 44 years old, he took early retirement and founded his own Hindu nationalist foundation, the Infinity Foundation.
^Kuan, Tse-fu (2008).Mindfulness in Early Buddhism: New Approaches through Psychology and Textual Analysis of Pali, Chinese and Sanskrit Sources. Routledge.ISBN9780415437370.
^Schlieter, Jens (2017). "Buddhist insight meditation (Vipassanā) and Jon Kabat-Zinn's 'Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction': an example of dedifferentiation of religion and medicine?".Journal of Contemporary Religion.32 (3):447–463.doi:10.1080/13537903.2017.1362884.S2CID148876176.
Doniger, Wendy (2009),The Hindus: An Alternative History, New York: Penguin
Edelmann, Jonathan (2013), "Becoming Different: Why Education is Required for Responding to Globalism Dharmically",Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies,26:17–27,doi:10.7825/2164-6279.1544
Halbfass, Wilhelm (1995),Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedānta, SUNY Press
Heehs, Peter (2020), "Sri Aurobindo's Theory of Spiritual Evolution", in Mackenzie Brown, C. (ed.),Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism: Evolutionary Theories in Middle Eastern, South Asian, and East Asian Cultural Contexts, Springer Nature
Malhotra, Rajiv (2011a),Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, HarperCollins India,ISBN978-9-350-29190-0
Malhotra, Rajiv. (December 2012a), "Author's Response: The Question of Dharmic Coherence",International Journal of Hindu Studies,16 (3):369–408,doi:10.1007/s11407-012-9132-0
Mittal, Sushil (2006).Religions of South Asia: an introduction. Gene R. Thursby. Routledge.
Nanda, Meera (2010), "Madame Blavatsky's Children: Modern Hindu Encounters with Darwinism", in Lewis, James R.; Hammer, Olav (eds.),Handbook of Religion and the Authority of Science, Brill
Odin, Steve (1982),Process Metaphysics and Hua-Yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of Cumulative Penetration Vs. Interpenetration, SUNY Press,ISBN978-0-87395-568-3
Pennington, Brian K. (2013), "The Pitfalls of Trying to Be Different",Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies,26:10–16,doi:10.7825/2164-6279.1543
Prothero, Stephen (2006),A Nation of Religions: The Politics of Pluralism in Multireligious America, The University of North Carolina Press,ISBN978-0-8078-5770-0
Rambachan, Anatanand (1994),The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press
Rambachan, Anantanand (2013), "The Traditional Roots of Difference",Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies,26:2–9,doi:10.7825/2164-6279.1542
Rinehart, Robin (2004),Contemporary Hinduism: ritual, culture, and practice, ABC-CLIO
Yelle, Robert A. (December 2012), "Comparative Religion as Cultural Combat: Occidentalism and Relativism in Rajiv Malhotra'sBeing Different",International Journal of Hindu Studies,16 (3):335–348,doi:10.1007/s11407-012-9133-z,S2CID144950049
Anderson, Edward T.G. (2023). "Neo-Hindutva: Hindu Nationalism Goes Public".Hindu Nationalism in the Indian Diaspora. La Vergne: Hurst Publishers. pp. 308–313.ISBN978-1-80526-089-9.
Malhotra's criticisms
Kurien, Prema A. (2007),A place at the multicultural table: the development of an American Hinduism, Rutgers University Press,ISBN978-0-8135-4056-6
Media from Commons
Quotations from Wikiquote
