The demeaning of Sanatana Dharma

Over a year ago, there was a push by authorities in India to censor a book by a US professor, that they deemed did not properly appreciate, and distorted, Hinduism.  There was even a group called the Hindu Intellectual Warriors . . . the name says it all.  And rather than being condemned for their antics, they were even given succour by Vedantic ‘scholars’ including some moderators on the yahoo advaitin list.

The presumption that censorship is justified is based on assumptions which are antithetical to what Advaita means.  Firstly it presupposes that my interpretation is right, not anyone else’s.  Secondly that you are not capable of making up your own mind on such matters, and therefore need to be told what you can read.  If differentiates between those who think they know truth and those who they think don’t know the truth.  It is simply a power play.

And anyone with any sense of history knows that it inevitably presages a descent down a slippery slope.  The article today in the New York Times amply demonstrates this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/sonia-faleiro-india-free-speech-kalburgi-pansare-dabholkar.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

Ironic that those who, because of their insecurity, set out to defend and promote Sanatana Dharma, end up through their antics demeaning it.

Ramana, Nisargadatta, Krishnamurti, never sought to impose their views on anyone.  If people came to them they were free to smell their flower, and either linger or tear it apart.  It mattered little to them.  That is the difference between two cent scholars and jnanis.

1 thought on “The demeaning of Sanatana Dharma

  1. Thank you Venkat for the timely warning.

    Kena says:

    यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः ।
    अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् ॥ — II-3

    yasyāmataṃ tasya mataṃ mataṃ yasya na veda saḥ .
    avijñātaṃ vijānatāṃ vijñātamavijānatām

    (Meaning: brahman is known to the person who holds that It is not known. It is not known to the person who has merely conceptualized it by mind. It is unknown to those who know and known to those who do not know).

    The motivation to the NYT article appears to me to be too political to deserve a comment here.

    regards,

Comments are closed.