Rajiv Malhotra on Anantanand Rambachan and Neo Hinduism in Indras Net

https://www.scribd.com/doc/265492961/Expose-of-Anant-Rambachan
End notes on Chapter 6 of Indras Net
https://www.scribd.com/doc/265493155/EndNoteCh6IN

Rambachans reply to Indras Net criticism

http://swarajyamag.com/culture/untangling-the-false-knots-in-rajiv-malhotras-indras-net/

Rajiv Malhotras response to Rambachan reply in swarajya magazine

I am glad Rambachan has decided to respond to me. This is what we need. Not him and Vatican
in interfaith propaganda, but INTERNAL resolution among Hindus as to our positions.
So let me articulate specific issues/questions on which I request him to give clear, crisp
responses as that would define his stance.
1. Is he willing to criticize his academic peers who support the neo-Hinduism thesis?
Specifically, his PhD adviser Ursula King, Brian Pennington, Peter van der Veer, Pankaj
Mishra. Richard King. If he wants to be 'nuanced' and cannot say it openly and directly
for everyone to understand, that would be more gobbledygook and only continue
suspicions: Which side is he on? Is he saying one thing to Hindus but another to the
Western academy?
2. Is Hinduism as espoused by Swami Vivekananda any of the following: new and
disconnected with Vedic origins, lacking unity across its various elements, in conflict
with Advaita Vedanta? If so, I have a problem. I would like to convince him to come out
in a positive, concrete way and assert the following:
1. Vivekananda's Hinduism is a continuation of an old tradition, merely repackaged
for modern times.
2. Its various elements comprise a unified system
3. It is consistent with Advaita (which we must note has undergone many
interpretations/evolutions).
3. Did Vivekananda use Christian/Western influence for formulating any of the following:
his notion of karma yoga, his notion of raja yoga as science, his notion of bhakti? If so, I
have a problem. That is what Rambachan has maintained before. In his recent article, he
hedges his position and does not come out clearly. I would like him to change to the
following position, even though that would contradict his own prior works and create
tension with his Western academic peers::
1. Karma yoga, raja yoga as science, bhakti - each of these is indigenous in our
tradition, are not an adaptation of Christian/Western ideas.

The above is a core set of issues where we should start and then we can go further.

Each time he privately went and complained to persons X or Y about my critiques of neoHinduism, I wrote back saying that he must have a direct discussion with me. I have expressed
this also to Rita Sherma when she called from DCF; I suggested that in some academic setting
Rambachan and I can discuss where we stand on these matters. I have not heard back on this. Its
much important to debate these issues than all the nonsense that the academy is obsessed with.

The issue of neo-Hinduism has caused serious confusion about who we are - in the mainstream
media as well as academics. Many of our own folks are going about parroting such things. If
neo-Hinduism is a valid thesis, it is not just Vivekananda that gets compromised, but all
that followed after him, including: Sri Aurobindo, Ramakrishna Mission, Chinmaya
Mission, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, Art of Living, etc. In fact, the entire modern yoga
movement where yoga-vedanta are unified is undermined.

Given his claim that he speaks FOR Hinduism, how could he have never in the past have
stuck his neck out and EXPLICITLY REJECT neo-Hinduism? I am glad if I am forcing his
hand to come out one way or the other. This has created bheda within the ranks of the academy
studying Hinduism their own way.

Why is unwilling to write positively on the UNITY OF HINDUISM ACROSS ALL THESE
VARIED SYSTEMS? If I can get him to do this, it would make my effort worthwhile. The price
he would have to pay would be with the western academic cabal. Thats a choice he has to make.
If one top player breaks ranks with the academic establishment it could spiral out of control for
them. Wouldn't that be a game changer for us?

The more we debate this, the more tricky it becomes for him to take both sides, using nuance.

Now back to work for me to finish my Sanskrit book

Regards,

rajiv