Jump to content

Indra's Net (book)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity
AuthorRajiv Malhotra
LanguageEnglish
SubjectHinduism, philosophy
PublisherHarperCollins Publishers India
Publication date
2014 (1st), 2016 (revised)
Publication placeIndia
Media typePrint
Pages376 (2014), 400 (2016)
ISBN978-9351362449 (hardback)
978-9351771791(paperback)
OCLC871215576

Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity is a 2014 book by Rajiv Malhotra, an Indian-American author, philanthropist and public speaker, published by HarperCollins.

The book is an appeal against the thesis of neo-Hinduism and a defense of Vivekananda's view of Yoga and Vedanta. The book argues for a unity, coherence, and continuity of the Yogic and Vedantic traditions of Hinduism and Hindu philosophy. It makes proposals for defending Hinduism from what the author considers to be unjust attacks from scholars, misguided public intellectuals, and hostile religious polemicists.

A revised edition was published in 2016 after other scholars asserted plagiarism in the original edition.[1]

Background and release

[edit]

Malhotra had written several previous books defending various aspects of Hinduism. He states that Indra's Net was catalyzed by a 2012 panel at the meetings of the American Academy of Religion to discuss his book Being Different (2011). Two panelists based their objections against the book on the "single premise"[2] that no unified Hindu tradition existed. These panelists "regarded any notion of Hindu unity as a dangerous fabrication and saw me as guilty of propagating it."[2] Malhotra had known of several distinct cases of bias

where the great Hindu visionaries of the modern era were being charged with proto-fascism which struck me as bizarre. But I had not connected the dots or realized how insidious and widespread such a theory had become. Once I started to unravel the myth-making of neo-Hinduism and the ideological motivations behind it, I saw the dire need to contest its widespread acceptance among academic scholars and so-called experts on Hinduism. I decided that the battle must be taken to the academic fortress where the nexus is headquartered and from where it spreads its narratives.[3]

The book's central metaphor is "Indra's Net". As a scriptural image "Indra's Net" was first mentioned in the Atharva Veda (c. 1000 BCE).[4][note 1]: 910–911  In Buddhist philosophy, Indra's Net served as a metaphor in the Avatamsaka Sutra[5][6] and was further developed by Huayen Buddhism to portray the interconnectedness of everything in the universe.[5][6][7] 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.[8]

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 for Vedic cosmology,[9] a perspective that he asserts has "always been implicit"[10] in the outlook of the ordinary Hindu.

Indra's Net was released in India on 29 January 2014 at the Vivekananda International Foundation, where a talk was given by Arun Shourie.[11] Shourie stated that in the book, Malhotra "has given us a pair of spectacles, a new pair of spectacles through which to understand... our own religions and our own tradition".[12]

Reviews

[edit]

Reviews have appeared in Mental Health, Religion & Culture,[13] The Economic Times,[14] The Free Press Journal[15] and other venues.[16]

In Mental Health, Religion & Culture, Doug Oman wrote that "Indra’s Net is a stimulating, valuable, and partly contentious book that, despite some errors in details, supplies needed correctives for one cluster of serious imbalances in how contemporary Hinduism has been presented. Over time, concerns it highlights could and should inform health professional training materials for religious diversity".[13] He also suggested that "Proposing the distinctive core of Hinduism as a dynamic 'open architecture' is perhaps the book’s most stimulating and important scientific contribution,"[13] a model that "suggests many new lines for empirical inquiry"[13] and that "might be adapted to study 'spiritual but not religious' Westerners".[13]

In The Economic Times, Vithal Nadkarni noted the Atharva Vedic origins of the image of Indra's net. To the reviewer, Malhotra's contention that Hinduism has always spanned traditional, modern and post-modern categories "evokes the image of Shiva's Trinity, also known as that of Master of Time past, present and future, enshrined at... Elephanta".[14]

In The Free Press Journal, M. V. Kamath wrote that "Malhotra has done his job in explaining Hinduism [remarkably] well".[15]

Subramanian Swamy, former president of the Janata Party (1990–2013), stated with regard to Indra's Net that "this kind of writing is something that ultimately should become textbook reading for graduate students in India".[17]: 2:45-2:54  He added that "this imperialism in scholarship [as criticized in the book] is something that Rajiv Malhotra is fighting alone; we need much more support being given to him".[17]: 5:18-5:30 

Response

[edit]

Anantanand Rambachan

[edit]

Anantanand Rambachan, whose work was repeatedly criticized in Indra's Net, especially in Chapter 6 ("Rambachan's Argument to Fragment Hinduism"), published a response in the Indian right-wing cultural magazine Swarajya.[18] Rambachan stated that "too many of his [Malhotra's] descriptions of my scholarship belong appropriately to the realm of fiction and are disconnected from reality."[18] Rambachan organized his lengthy response "around thirteen of his [Malhotra's] 'myths' about my work. I can easily double this number,"[18] also stating that

I share the author’s value for Hindu unity, but [...] The author [Malhotra] wrongly equates serious theological engagement within a tradition with its fragmentation [...] and it is misleading to hold me responsible for what he perceives as Hindu disunity [...] A unity that is grounded in mature and respectful acknowledgment of diversity and difference, open to mutual learning, and rejoicing in all that we share, is a credible one that Hindus can fearlessly and confidently pursue.[18]

Allegations of plagiarism

[edit]

In July 2015, Richard Fox Young of Princeton Theological Seminary[note 2][note 3][web 1][note 4] and Andrew J.Nicholson who authored Unifying Hinduism, alleged Malhotra plagiarized Unifying Hinduism in Indra's Net.[web 3] Nicholson further said that Malhotra not only had plagiarised his book, but also " twists the words and arguments of respectable scholars to suit his own ends."[web 3][note 5] Permanent Black, publisher of Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism, stated that they would welcome HarperCollins "willingness to rectify future editions" of Indra's Net.[web 3]

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."[web 5] He announced that he will be eliminating all references to Nicholson and further explained:[web 5][note 6]

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.[web 5]

In the revised second edition,[1] Malhotra eliminated the thirty references to Nicholson's book:

When writing the first edition of Indra's Net, I included Andrew Nicholson's book (Nicholson, 2010) for my literature review and for citation purposes, because of its alluring title, Unifying Hinduism. I was intrigued that a Westerner would break ranks with those who held that Hinduism had lacked unity prior to British colonialism. Nicholson's promise of understanding unity seemed appealing to me, because I (incorrectly) assumed he meant integral unity. Hence, I referenced many of his ideas and arguments, naming him as a source about thirty times.... [But Nicholson's] idea of Hinduism's unity is that it was the result of a relatively recent historical process; hence the unity is not inherent in the cosmology.... I call this view a synthetic unity, a unity achieved by gluing things together that in fact were separate. My contention has always been that the unity of sanatana dharma (now commonly known as Hinduism) has always been built into the tradition from its Vedic origins.[1]: 161–162 

Revised edition

[edit]

A revised edition of Indra's Net was published by HarperCollins India in 2016. The revised edition omits most references to the work of Andrew Nicholson, and further explains Malhotra's ideas concerning the unity of Hinduism as inherent in the tradition from the times of its Vedic origins.[1]: 161–162  The revised chapter 8, with references, is available online.[21]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The Atharva 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 from the original on 30 March 2014. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
  2. ^ 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, OCLC 855706908), "Constructing Indian Christianities: Culture, Conversion and Caste" (2014, OCLC 900648811), "Perspectives on Christianity in Korea and Japan: the Gospel and culture in East Asia" (1995, OCLC 33101519) and "Resistant Hinduism: Sanskrit sources on anti-Christian Apologetics in Early Nineteenth-Century India" (1981, OCLC 8693222).
  3. ^ 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
  4. ^ Young gave an explanation for his allegations in an open letter to his colleagues at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he is currently employed.[web 2] See a letter from Fox to his colleagues

    Malhotra comments on his references to Nicholson at swarajyamag.com, Nicholson's Untruths, while "Independent Readers and Reviewers" respond at Rebuttal of false allegations against Hindu scholarship.
  5. ^ Nicholson refers to page 163 of Indra's Net, which copies p.14 of Unifying Hinduism:
    • Malhotra Indra'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]"[web 4]
    • Nicholson Unifying 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."[19]
    Malhotra's note 19 refers to "Nicholson 2010, pp.65, 78," not to p.14.[web 4] None of these pages mentions Vivekananda.[20]
  6. ^ So far, Malhotra has given seven responses: Indrasnetbook.com also contains a response byThom Loree, copy-editor of Indra’s Net:

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d Malhotra, Rajiv (2016). Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity (revised ed.). Noida, India: HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 978-9351771791. Archived from the original on 2016-04-14. Retrieved 2016-04-23. ISBN 9351771792 (400 pages) (revised chapter 8, with references, is available online)
  2. ^ a b Malhotra 2014, p. 45.
  3. ^ Malhotra 2014, p. 44.
  4. ^ Malhotra 2014, p. 4–5,310.
  5. ^ a b Malhotra 2014, p. 13.
  6. ^ a b Jones 2003, p. 16.
  7. ^ Odin 1982, p. 17.
  8. ^ Malhotra 2014, p. 4–5.
  9. ^ Malhotra 2014, p. 4.
  10. ^ Malhotra 2014, p. 18.
  11. ^ Shourie 2014.
  12. ^ Das, Sankhadip (3 March 2014). "Transcript: Arun Shourie's Lecture on 'Indra's Net'". beingdifferentforum.blogspot.in. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
  13. ^ a b c d e Oman, Doug (12 July 2016). "Indra's Net: defending Hinduism's philosophical unity". Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 19 (4): 408–412. doi:10.1080/13674676.2016.1189230. S2CID 147808634.
  14. ^ a b Nadkarni, Vithal C (27 January 2014). "Net of unity". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on February 27, 2014. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
  15. ^ a b Kamath, M. V. (4 May 2014). "Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity [book review]". The Free Press Journal. Retrieved 27 May 2014.
  16. ^ MISRA, BIJOY (2014). "Review of INDRA'S NET: DEFENDING HINDUISM'S PHILOSOPHICAL UNITY, Malhotra Rajiv". World Affairs. 18 (2): 152–155. ISSN 0971-8052. JSTOR 48505445.
  17. ^ a b Swamy, Subramanian (4 March 2014). "Dr Subramanian Swamy talks about Rajiv Malhotra latest book Indra's Net". YouTube. Archived from the original on 2021-12-21. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
  18. ^ a b c d Rambachan 2015.
  19. ^ Nicholson 2010, p. 14.
  20. ^ Nicholson 2010, p. 65,78.
  21. ^ "Indra's Net, revised edition, chapter 8". Archived from the original on 2016-04-14. Retrieved 2016-04-23.
Web-references
  1. ^ FP Staff (7 July 2015). "Historian Richard Fox Young accuses writer Rajeev Malhotra of plagiarism". Firstpost. Network 18. Retrieved 13 July 2015.
  2. ^ a letter from Fox to his colleagues
  3. ^ a b c Unifying Hinduism: Statements from the Author and from the Publisher
  4. ^ a b Tradition responds, pp.162-163, 328-329
  5. ^ a b c "Rajiv Malhotra, Rajiv Malhotra has a rejoinder to Andrew Nicholson". Archived from the original on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2016-02-17.

Sources

[edit]
  • Slater, T. E. (2010) [1903]. The Higher Hinduism in Relation to Christianity. Karig Press. pp. 4–6. ISBN 978-1445508153.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Indra%27s_Net_(book)&oldid=1252568869"