Introduction:

I am a Hindu, a resident and tax-payer of New York City and a long-term Vedanta student at Arsha Vidya Gurukulam (AVG). In addition, I was among the first people that Ms. Moritis interacted with on her initial visit to the Gurukulam. Several of my relatives and friends filled out her survey as did I (about halfway). When Ms. Moritis's draft report came out, I was given a chance to raise some questions about it at a mini-conference at Columbia University. Since time was short, it was publically (and on the record) agreed between Professor Hawley, Ms. Moritis and I, that I would have a chance to send them detailed comments: a critical review if you will, that would be posted on the course-website and the pluralism website or wherever Ms. Moritis' article was published. For this, Columbia University, Prof. Hawley and Ms. Moritis are to be thanked. The silencing of independent voices of “native informants” and the exclusive hold by western-trained academics on what is allowed to be asked and answered about Hinduism and other Indic religions in the academic media is a colonial dragon worth slaying. This is a small beginning, but hopefully readers will agree that a fresh perspective offered without the fear or favor that may constrain the career academic can help strengthen academic standards and scholarship.

M. Moritis, the author of the “ethnographic” piece is an anthropologist and a student of Prof. J.S. Hawley in religious studies at Columbia. She has written a paper for a course on “Hinduism Here”, which explores the “lived Hinduism” in the greater New York area. As its rationale, the course says:

“It is often argued that in the last half century, Hindus living outside of India have exerted an influence on conceptualizations of Hinduism that is far more creative and influential than their sheer numbers would predict. This course enables students to investigate that phenomenon while simultaneously getting a sense of how disparate—yet interconnected—are the environments where such rethinking and “repracticing” take place in the greater New York area.” (Course rationale.)

Even if we accept the unsubstantiated assertion that “Hindus living outside of India have exerted an influence on conceptualizations of Hinduism that is far more creative and influential than their sheer numbers would predict” : one is still left wondering why the Columbia researchers chose to ignore the influence that majority-Christian preachers, western or etic academics, and the news-media have exterted on popular conceptualizations of Hinduism. Surely the “rethinkings” and re-conceptualizations of Hinduism by these privileged groups are also “far more creative and influential than their sheer numbers would predict. ” ¹

 

Nevertheless, conceding that a political rather than scholarly desicion has been made to look at Hindus rather than those powerful constituencies, and mindful of Columbia's reputation in most areas of scholarship, it is with some anticipation that one reads this article, eager to see what the above combinations have generated: what kind of “rethinking” and “repracticing” of Hinduism have taken place in the “lived Hinduism” in the greater-greater New York area?

 

Freshman Trivia

 

Before examining the paper for its success in living up to the anticipation, it would do well to keep in mind the following consensus in the fields of anthropology and religious studies. No respectable scholar of religion today would like to be caught dead violating any of these three requirements.

 

(a)Anthropologists believe that the description of other cultures and religions are framed within the framework of the anthropologist and that the categories one uses in this process are those of the anthropologist her/himself. Consequently, a certain reflexivity is called for. Even if one does not want to carry this ‘reflexivity’ too far, and end up transforming ethnography into the autobiography of the researcher, caution and transparency are called for.

 

(b)In the field of academic religious studies, there is the consensus that ‘Hinduism’ is difficult to study and characterize. They say: no single belief or practice is common to all ‘Hindus’. Hence, care must be exercised in researching into the “living” manifestations of ‘Hinduism’.

 

(c)Common to both fields is this additional consensus: one must be reasonably well-informed about the object of study. While disagreements are possible as to what constitutes being ‘reasonably well-informed’, no such disputes are possible if one formulates it negatively: one does not begin field work on a topic in utter ignorance.

 

These requirements advise care and caution. They ask for methodological reflection. They recommend circumspection. Virtues of any scholarship, one might say.

 

Aims and Aims of the Study (or What do you see O Arjuna?, asked Dronacharya)

1. “The purpose of this research paper is to revise and add to previous research on students of Vedanta in the United Sates.” (P.1; emphasis mine.) Perhaps this is intended to justify why she wants to focus on the “demographics of participation” in the various activities of the Gurukulam. It is not immediately evident how a study of the differentiations (age, gender, colour, caste, ethnicity, culture, nationality and social differentiations) could contribute to an informed understanding of “Hinduism” .One may well ask: Why is demographics the driving factor in the study? Would a study of Western philospophy or science or any serious worldview of the west be about demography or about the principles and ideas?

 

Later we get: “I had two primary questions that guided my inquiry during my field research at Arsha Vidya. Who comes to the gurukulam? And to what extent are there separate constituencies for different activities?” (P.16) While the questions are clearer, the relationship between them and the problematic of “lived Hinduism” becomes more nebulous: what does it matter who comes to the gurukulam and whether there are separate constituencies for different activities or not? What have these to do with ‘Hinduism’?

 

2.The above sociological goal seems to have led the author into doing something more: “My most ambitious achievement during my four ethnographic weekend visits was to initiate a broad survey in order to elicit information about people’s experience at Arsha Vidya” (P.3; emphasis added.) Now it seems, the author’s concern here is to get phenomenological descriptions of people’s experience at the gurukulam. But experience of what, though? Those people who came to the gurukulam experienced many different things: from the bitter cold through the spicy food to beautiful Vedic chants, friendships to the fragrance of incense sticks in the temple. From amongst all the things they experienced, which experience interested the author? And why? Even though these questions are not answered directly, one could hazard a guess: the experience of the Vedanta. In other words, the paper seeks to answer the question: how did the visitors to the gurukulam experience the Vedanta? Not a sound or particularly relevant question to ask, if you know what Vedanta is about.

 

3.But there is more: ““My basic questions of my ethnographic study were what is being taught and how, who participates in what activities, when, where, and why?” (P.11.; emphases in the original.) She now not only wants to do a study of what is being taught, but also a pedagogical one about how something is being taught. She wants to elicit not only phenomenological reports about experiences but also people’s explanations of the same.

 

4.But these explanations, one supposes, had to make sense to the author as well. Why, otherwise, would she say, “I also wanted to understand why participation at Arsha Vidya Gurukulam was so meaningful to visitors and staff.” (P. 11; my emphasis.) Clearly, the aims of the paper have grown beyond the goal stated in §1.

 

5.Perhaps one may ask the author and her advisor: What consequences to the quality of the study could such a diverse (& confused) collection of questions have? Do you feel that you were able to explore all these questions equally? Did you lean towards answering only some? If so why?

 

Fulfilling the Aims

 

The author tries to fulfil these ambitious aims by “developing” a questionnaire and having people answer them. “Many of my questions on my questionnaire were modified or copied from Ron Grime’s “Fieldwork in Religious Studies: Guidelines and Forms for the Waterloo Religions Project” (unpublished document)” (P.12.) Surely, here are issues that the author & her advisor need to think about:

1)what are the assumptions and underlying contstructs of Ron Grimes work?

2)What was the theoretical basis for the Waterloo Religions Project? Were these assumptions, constructs and theories primarily Eurocentric? If so to what extent?

3)To what extent do you believe that you were constrained in your attempt to understand Hinduism by the limitations of the questionnaire you adopted?

4)Did the possibility of distortion due to Eurocentric categories figure in your choice of questions?

5)Is the paper a report about how people understood and answered Grime’s questions or is it a report on how people ‘experienced the gurukulam’? Does the paper give us information about ‘lived Hinduism’ or about the how the ‘Hindus’ understand Grime’s questions? Surely, these two alternatives are not the same. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the author is even aware of this problem.

Given that the author wants to investigate both what is taught and how that is experienced, one would be forgiven for the assumption that the researcher is familiar with the subject matter. It is with a sinking feeling that one reads: “As a white Protestant American with a limited background in Hinduism, I had a lot to learn.” (P.4; emphasis added.) It turns into outright horror, when one discovers that the author knows nothing of Vedanta at all: “My first introduction to Advaita Vedanta, or the ‘Non-Dualist’ school, came from Rahul, a staff member at Arsha Avidya.(sic!)” (P.11; italics added.). Or again: “This explanation of “Hinduism” was my first introduction to non-dualist tradition of Vedanta.” (P11-12; my emphasis.)

There are two issues to consider here. On the one hand, there is the issue of the author learning ‘a lot’ through her field work. In this case, her paper would be about herself and her experiences and not about the gurukulam or about “lived Hinduism” in the greater New York area- perhaps a good topic for show and tell.

On the other hand, there is her confession that she knew nothing of Vedanta prior to her field work! In that case, what exactly does she ‘study’ when she studies “what is being taught and how” and “people’s experience” of the Vedanta?

In such a situation, perhaps some reflection is called for on the part of the author and her advisor: How & why did the author feel capable of field-studying some part of “living Hinduism”, while being completely ignorant about it? Many observers hold that in that in the field of Academic India studies standards of inquiry & quality control are lax: is this one such instance?

 

Caricaturing Cultures

 

When blissful ignorance of the subject matter and a lack of willingness to question academic “received knowledge” are pressed into the service of a very naïve idea of ethnological data-gathering, the outcome predictable: as has happened so often in the past, in so far as one attempts to portray other cultures and religions, such descriptions will be caricatures of the existing entities. Some examples.

 

(i)Consider the fragmentary report on a discussion about ‘idol worship’. Her interlocuter apparently felt a great need to justify that Hinduism was a religion that did not worship idols:

“Th(e) … story was carefully placed within a defense that Hinduism was not an idol worshiping religion The murti at Arshya Vida Gurukulam is Daksinamurti.” (P.11-12)

“He stressed that Hindus do not pray to idols or statues, but that it is a way to channel one’s thoughts. He likened it to a symbol. He explained that men salute national flags not because they are venerating a piece of cloth, but because there is a larger idea behind it. He used this as an analogy to explain ritual devotion to statues and icons.” (P.12)

It is not very clear whether the “informant” knows what ‘idols’ are, and what ‘idol worship’ connotes within the Protestant Christian tradition. In all likelihood, he does not. By praying to the image of God, this “informant” is saying, one is not really praying to them but to ‘God’. Hence, it is not idol worship. However, this is not a logical, rational issue but a arbitrary, theological one: this is precisely what ‘idol worship’ is all about, according to the Semitic religions! So, what point does the author want to make: that the Indic “informant” did not know what ‘idol worship’ meant in Semitic theology? Surely, the more interesting anthropological question is to find out why the person is constrained to “defend” that Hinduism is not an ‘idol-worshipping’ religion.

From the context, (see page 11 & 17) it appears to be an attempt to initiate dialog with a member of the dominant culture as an equal. It is not clear if the author entered into such a dialog or prefered to maintain her distance from the “native informant.” If a dialog- as equals- had ensued, perhaps the author-and the India studies establishment- may have found themselves facing some important & uncomfortable questions regarding “Hinduism Here” : Why was such a defense necessary? Are such notions about Hinduism & other Indic religions current in the media? In popular anecdotes about India? In Chrisitian missionary or evangelical activity? In regular/occasional preaching in Churches or Mosques? How does this affect public perceptions of Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism? Does this lead to denigration of Indic religions and a feeling of being oppressed or criminalized on the part of Indic peoples?²

 

(ii)On page 8 comes another caricature of Hinduism.

“The American context may have spurred educational efforts directed at a group. According to Kurien, “Both satsang and bala vihars are forms of religious practice that do not typically exist in India. In fact, group religious activity does not exist in “traditional” Hinduism” (1998:42). I asked Martha Doherty if this statement was true.”....”

Dr. Martha Doherty (a teacher at AVG) then proceeds to give a systematic answer with an excellent series of primary references ranging from the Veda &Upanishads to the Ramayana to prove that congregational worship and Satsanga have been integral to Hinduism from its origins. To Ms. Moritis credit she quotes Dr. Doherty at length, but it is clear that Martha is being treated as a native informant, because her reply, so learned and compelling, has no impact whatsoever on Ms. Moritis's caricature, nor does it force her to reexamine her stance. Later on page 12, in another context comes the following bland footnote attributed to Jackson: “Brahmo Samaj was founded in 1824 and the leadership advocated adoption of Western conceptions and practices such as congregational services...”

In Michelle's characterization, Martha makes her point very humbly:

“ She said that she did not wish to disservice Kurien by responding to something she did not intend ..”

But we may well ask of Michelle (& Hawley): What did Kurien intend? Have you examined the evidence she based this rather sweeping claim on? Did Prof. Hawley who participates in Kirtans and Bhajans in Vrindavan question or critique this assertion in class? Are you convinced that it has any validity? Have you since Martha's intervention been prompted to question some of the secondary “received” knowledge about Hindu Dharma current in Academia? Do you find that scholars citing each other-i.e. Use of Secondary sources is an encouraged and respected practice in India studies? What could be the potential consequences to the checks and balances that are supposed to undergird scholarship? Will you please explore and comment on the quality of academic peer review and the editorial checks and balances that must be overcome/subverted for a conclusion such as Kurien's to be published? What sort of political/religious biases and intentions may underlie such unsubstantiated assertions? If Satsang also incorporates a question and answer session, (p .8) how could this have been absent in “traditional Hinduism”? *Even if we assume that these two forms are typically absent in India (of today? A hundred years ago? In “traditional Hinduism”?), it is not clear what the author intends to say. Does that mean that people adapt to the new situations they find themselves in? Or that ‘even Hinduism’ adapts and develops accordingly as its environment changes? Or that, by virtue of this adaptation, it is either deformed or reformed? These are serious questions, not just for Ms.Moritis, but for the entire official India studies establishment.

 

(iii)Another attempt at caricature, not fully consumated; shows up on page 17. This is an old warhorse, namely “caste”, which in its ill defined and fantasized form gets trotted out time and again in the media (and academia) as delicious proof of Hinduism's essentially weird and oppressive nature. Here, Ms. Moritis does show some self-awareness of her biases (page 17)

«  As a social scientist, I find it hard not to affirm that constructions such as race, ethnicity and gender frame perceptions, identity, influence social formations and underlie differentials in power. On the questionnaire I asked “How important are the following things(at Arsha Vidya: my correction) ? I listed race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, region from India, caste, profession, marital status and age and I asked participants to check whether these were very significant,»

 

One is tempted to ask: Is this question (about power) one that helps understand a political organization or a cult or a religion? Or are you claiming they are the same?Is this a Eurocentric set of constructs? If so what is the a prioi justification for attempting to apply them here? Is it ethical not to reveal these biases upfront in the informed consent form when doing research on autonomous human beings?

Ms Moritis writes in a tone of shocked innocence:

« At least two people took offense that I would even suggest that these could be issues or a concern in their community. One man wrote, “These are very inappropriate questions”. I can only speculate at my offense. Did I dredge up colonial categories that he deemed to be left behind in India? Was he concerned his anonymity might be ruined?(To M.Moritis, this is unclear: how would this potentially happen? Would you violate his anonymity?) Or did he fear a sum tally of responses might reveal social tensions that underlay his perception of harmony between groups at Arsha Vidya? »

Since we are speculating, this last point raises an important ethical question: if the harmony of the place for this devotee (and I presume you mean for others too) is disturbed by your research, should you be doing it? Should you at least raise this possibility explicitly in your informed consent form ? How does your research serve the interests of those to whom a temple or a church is more than a research site to use and move on? It is interesting that you are aware that caste may be a colonial category: please flesh out the allusion and provide references, may I suggest Nicholas Dirks?

These exaggerated attempts at self-reflection (and localisation of the offence the author gave) only serve to emphasize the surreal. Perhaps, there is a simpler reason than any of these: such issues are, perhaps, indeed irrelevant to the people at the gurukulam. Maybe, the author gave offence by coming up with the same stereotypical questions these people are tired of answering. Indeed several people I talked to wondered why Moritis had not asked about the things that are important at AVG: honesty, sincerity, a thirst for knowledge, a committment to ethical living, a willingness to ask questions. However, if that is the case, what to do with this one single witness?

“A white middle aged female wrote, ‘As a westerner, I only observe these inter-Indian things. I have been accepted by all here. I have no complaints about this. Are there caste issues etc.? Absolutely” She was one of six respondents out of 43 respondents who indicated that caste is significant at Arsha Vidya. The majority said that it was not significant or important.”’ (P. 19) Go back and read Dirks again, surely?

However, despite the majority, Ms. Moritis is not able to abandon the attempted caricature : she asserts, quoting yet another non-peer reviewed, speculative source:

 

“An area that deserves further study is whether or not caste is a determinate factor that structures interpersonal relationships among Hindus in the United States (Jasper 2001:15).”

 

A Question may reasonably be asked : taken in conjunction with Jasper, are you simply putting more weight on the 'observations ' & speculations of whites/westerners? If so, why? Are they deemed more observant/truthful/ honest? Or is it simply that you WANT to establish that caste is important at AVG and this is all you have to work with?

 

More Caricatures: Marginalizing the Marginal

There is, of course, the White Americans who are also drawn to the gurukulam. How do they get portrayed ? Consider the following passage and the image it evokes:

 

“The white, middle-aged Vedantists (sic) had a common story. All of them were born Christian, but found themselves unsatisfied with Christian doctrines and creeds. They were independent, rebellious youth in the 1960s, who ceased attending church in their twenties and began searching for answers along the margins of the American religious mainstream. Some of them continue to practice Dow, Wicca, Transcendental Meditation, Sai Baba devotionalism, Tai-Chi and Sufi Dervish dancing.” (P.20-21)

 

These whites searched for answers ‘along the margins’ of the American mainstream. Tai-Chi is placed indifferently alongside Sufi Dervish dancing; Transcendental Meditation occupies the same place as the Wicca; 'Sai Baba devotionalism' is at the same level as the Vedanta of the gurukulam. These middle-aged whites were, of course, the ‘rebellious’ youth. What picture does this convey to an uninformed reader? The veracity of the claim is not at issue, but the portrayal is. Who else but the eccentric can follow idolatrous, non-congregational, caste-riven , dressed-up-for-America Hinduism ?

 

A Far-fetched Connection or Ugliness in a Footnote:

I have remarked on the author's marked tendency to use secondary and tangential sources rather than go to the source-books of Hinduism. Perhaps this is how things are done in official India studies departments and perhaps Dr.Hawley sees no reason to guide his students to do otherwise. However sometimes this tendency can produce truly bizzare juxtapositions that can open up important lines of inquiry for the honest scholar. A case in point occurs when Ms. Moritis attempts to analyze what she calls the “Value proposition “ of Vedanta. In a section that “analyzes” what Vedantins mean when they say Vedanta is universal, we do not find her quoting ancient Vedantic texts such as the Gita on the Human condition, or even refering to Pujya Swami Dayanandaji's traditional expositions, talks on “I am the Problem. I am the solution” or “The Fundamental Problem” or “Freedom from Sadness”. Nor to the teaching as expounded by other learned Acharyas at AVG. Instead we find (page 24):

What does it mean for Vedanta to be “universal”? Does it mean that the content is prevalent, general,      global, common, infinite, boundless, all-inclusive, all-encompassing and comprehensive? Universalism       comes down to the problem of the One and the Many. “Do we assert universality over the dead body of        difference? Does the One envelope or destroy the Many? Can we acknowledge the Many and still    strive for the One?” (Hacker 1999:34). How does Vedanta treat the One and the many?

 

“Envelope or Destroy!” as juxtaposed equivalents! Freud be praised. However, this last footnote turns out to be truly bizzare and revelatory as well as disturbingly sinister (page 24):

 

            Hacker was also concerned with the problem of the One and the Many and tried to differentiate     tolerance from inclusivism. He wrote an article titled “Inklusivismus” (Vienna: University of Vienna,    1983) based on the well-known dialogue between Uddalaka and Svetaketu, which culminates in the      refrain tat tvam asi – ‘That thou art’, a phrase cited by Advaita Vedantins to support a non-dual vision          of realty (Sic). This claim was interpreted by Hacker to mean “all other speculations concerning the             self      (atman), truth (satya) truth, etc., are ultimately included in the doctrine of sat”(Halbfass           quoted in Hatcher 1999:86). The thrust of Hacker’s position is that inclusivism implies            hierarchy that only subsumes other religions under an all inclusive umbrella. He argued the             Chandogya Upanishad’s         central message could be co-opted by modern Neo-Hinduism to defend and          promote Hinduism as the ultimate form of religious experience.

 

Here we see revealed some of the deep anxieties, fears, and insecurities that many Indians-of all religions including Muslims- suspect is at the basis of why western scholarship so often ends up demonizing or ridiculing Hinduism and other Indic traditions. Prof. Hawley claims these are faults of the racist and religiously intolerant past of the west: but here we see a contemporary western attempt to demonize one of the most universal and fundamental statements of the Veda; a mahavakya, a statement that addresses everyone : western or eastern, here and now, and to turn it into some sort of tool for cultural confrontation. Ridiculously, tat tvam asi is reduced to 'a form of religious experience' and is sought to be placed in the context of 'to arms! to arms! the neo-hindus are coming! ' Never mind that neither Moritis nor Hawley, or Hacker for that matter, would have the faintest idea how to define 'neo-Hinduism' (or 'Hinduism'), what is important to note here is the possibility that a very large and influential element of 'objective' western scholarship is driven by hegemonistic anxieties and conscious and unconscious political considerations that constantly cause them to direct research questions, 'analysis' and funding in certain directions only. It is for this reason that many observers believe that a proper and intelligent study of Indology should tell us more about the west than about India.

Note how Moritis follows up the Hacker footnote with the following interestingly worded 'confirmation': (page 25):

One of the questions I asked on my questionnaire was “Are some religions better than others?”. One response was, “Any religion that enhances ones (sic) growth and does not talk about unknowable places and (does not) present a childish view of God”. Out of 39 responses, there were 11 that answered yes, some religions are better than others. Three people qualified that religions that do not proselytize are better. Three people asserted: “Hinduism confirms all religions. I consider it the mother of all religions.”, “Hinduism is the best.” and “Vedanta is the ultimate truth.”

On the other hand, 66% of those who answered, or 26 people answered “no” to the question “Are some religions better than others?” One person elaborated, “everyone who practices any religion is exactly where they need to be in this janma.”

 

Envelope or destroy! 'Mother of all religions!' That is all the proof any old Freudian could want of Hacker's insight! Note also how the 66% majority becomes the exception- 'on the other hand'.

Some more Questions we do not ask:

Perhaps this is the reason why Moritis can observe a phenomenon such as :

«Five respondents to my questionnaire said that Vedanta is appealing because it is logical, reasonable, intellectual, objective and scientific. As I spoke informally with visitors at Arsha Vidya about Vedanta many of them said that it really made them think. One middle aged non-Indian woman I interviewed said Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s teachings were more meaningful than others she had encountered in India because original texts were taught in a systematic way. She found his teachings to be rich in their analytic power to examine the human condition in depth. She appreciated the manner in which he encouraged her to examine things with a spirit of inquiry from all perspectives. She felt encouraged to use her mind, and challenged to examine all of the previous filters that she had in place. »

..and still not be curious about anything more important than caste! Any reasonable person encountering a phenomenon such as the above may want to ask: how does this differ from the way mono-theistic religions promote curiosity and self-inquiry? What is it about the Fundamentals of Hinduism that encourages such sustained inquiry? How does this square with popular portrayals of Hinduism? And with portrayals of Hinduism in the academic literature? (And given her love for demographics) Why is it that more people in the west who may pride themselves on being “logical, reasonable, intellectual, objective and scientific” have not tried to become Hindus or study Vedanta? What self-imposed cultural or racially or religiously imposed prejudices keep them away? What is in the “original texts” of Hinduism that is so useful for self-inquiry and how does this differ from fantasized portrayals of these by the Hackers and Donigers of the academic world? Would the “authoritative” (their word) “translations” of these “creative”, and anxious academics (and majority-Christian preachers' paraphrases) repel/ titillate Americans and quash serious and direct inquiry about the original texts of Indic religions? What are the consequences for diversity and pluralism?

Pluralism of Inquiry ?

One page 2 we find..

 

I observed and participated in classes, artis, satsang, meditations and yoga; notes were taken and later written into full descriptions. I collected relevant brochures, books and maps and took pictures. I was delighted to make the acquaintance of the community’s official photographer, who gave me the URL for an online photo-album of the gurukulam. All members of the staff were helpful and interested in my project.

Also we know:

“My basic questions of my ethnographic study were what is being taught and how, who participates in what activities, when, where, and why?” (P.11.; emphases in the original.)

Thus on the Indic side, a major and important educational institution , Arsha Vidya ('Ivy league' one of Moritis's 'informants' calls it) threw its doors open to another such institution -Columbia University. Perhaps given the concerns raised in this paper, it would be important for the Indian-American community to organize its own scholarship to look into 'what is being taught and how, who participates in what activities, when, where, and why?” about India and Indic traditions in the Universities, where we, as Americans, send our children to. One wonders if we will meet with the same openness, help with funding, be granted the same facilities to survey students and faculty, and document and publish our findings in the Academic Media? Or will such openness to be inquired into remain the lot of only Indic institutions?

Notes:

1. For a well-argued and nuanced illustration of this phenomenon, see Sankrant Sanu “Is there Bias in Hinduism studies- The case of Microsoft Encarta” at www. Sulekha.com. Microsoft it should be noted, acknowledged the validity of the points made.

 

2. Also from page 11& 12: (my comments in parentheses): 'An Arsha Vidya staff Vijay, told me that this depiction of Siva does not fear death,(strange wording: the Lord does not fear death irrespective of which 'depiction'!!) and helps petitioners not to fear death. Looking a photograph of the murti, the Vijay emphasized that Hindus do not believe in pantheon of Gods, but one God who cannot be embodied in any one form. (Michelle, as I recall it you had this particular conversation about the southward-facing 'depiction' with me i.e. Krishnan, and another visitor in the main temple hall, not with a staff member; unless you had two such conversations)