Indra’s Net (Rajiv Malhotra)
Provocative but Perimetric
[My 4-star review of “Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity” by Rajiv Malhotra.]
I was inititially attracted to this book because I recently began working on a Buddadharma text and need to bone up on Indra’s Net because of its central role in Hua Yen Buddhism. I wanted to get a nuanced Hindu perspective— with Brahman, and not emptiness, as the noumenal foundation of the Net—and this book provided it, to a limited extent. However, because this book is essentially about “defending Hinduism’s philosophical unity,” it did not deeply consider the Vedic view of Indra’s Net versus the Buddhist.
What this book does, however, is deeply consider how modern and post-modern intellectual forces in the West are conspiring to de-legitimize Hinduism as a genuine and coherent religion. And according to Malhotra, the reason they do this is “to protect Western hegemony.” These forces, he says, have an academic and political agenda which is best served by depicting Hinduism as a “random juxtaposition of incoherent and fragmented traditions.” By undermining any idea of coherency in Indian civilization, these forces in effect champion Western supremacy. As Malhotra puts it, “In the intellectual kurukshetra of globalization, civilizations compete to gain ‘mindshare.’”
Malhotra has little regard for the prevalent Western ethos or “mindset” that is behind the attack on a legitimate Hinduism. He views the West as representing “brute-force reduction of diversity into homogenity, where diverse living substances are transformed into uniformly lifeless ashes.” The West, as he sees it, is about normative order rather than profound, variegated culture.
According to Malhotra (who uses the term “neo” in a disparaging sense, as a synonym for “pseudo“), the thesis of the neo-Hinduism forces looking to subvert Hinduism can be summarized thus:
[My 4-star review of “Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity” by Rajiv Malhotra.]
I was inititially attracted to this book because I recently began working on a Buddadharma text and need to bone up on Indra’s Net because of its central role in Hua Yen Buddhism. I wanted to get a nuanced Hindu perspective— with Brahman, and not emptiness, as the noumenal foundation of the Net—and this book provided it, to a limited extent. However, because this book is essentially about “defending Hinduism’s philosophical unity,” it did not deeply consider the Vedic view of Indra’s Net versus the Buddhist.
What this book does, however, is deeply consider how modern and post-modern intellectual forces in the West are conspiring to de-legitimize Hinduism as a genuine and coherent religion. And according to Malhotra, the reason they do this is “to protect Western hegemony.” These forces, he says, have an academic and political agenda which is best served by depicting Hinduism as a “random juxtaposition of incoherent and fragmented traditions.” By undermining any idea of coherency in Indian civilization, these forces in effect champion Western supremacy. As Malhotra puts it, “In the intellectual kurukshetra of globalization, civilizations compete to gain ‘mindshare.’”
Malhotra has little regard for the prevalent Western ethos or “mindset” that is behind the attack on a legitimate Hinduism. He views the West as representing “brute-force reduction of diversity into homogenity, where diverse living substances are transformed into uniformly lifeless ashes.” The West, as he sees it, is about normative order rather than profound, variegated culture.
According to Malhotra (who uses the term “neo” in a disparaging sense, as a synonym for “pseudo“), the thesis of the neo-Hinduism forces looking to subvert Hinduism can be summarized thus:
- Swami Vivekanda manufactured a new religion, popularly called Hinduism, and other Indian nationalists such as Gandhi, Radhakrihnan, Rabindranath Tagore, and Sri Aurobindo subsequently crysallized it.
- The Bhagavad Gita was not a central text until Western Indologists made it important.
- Christian ideals of helping society and Western secular theories of social ethics inspired Indian nationalists appropriate them; karma yoga was used merely as a garb to make the plagiarized ideas look Hindu.
- Hinduism is inherently oppressive of minorities such as Muslims, Christians, Dalits, and women. It forces others into its own homogeneity for gaining political control. Hindutva is its latest incarnation and its goal has been to impose homogeneity.
- Hinduism is a dangerous conspiracy that is being spread worldwide by duping naïve Westerners into thinking that it is a genuine tradition of peace and equality, which it is not.
Malhotra provides an in-depth counter-thesis to the neo-Hindu thesis, and anyone interested in the debate between these two diametrically opposed theses will doubtless find this book a compelling read.
Who exactly are the founders and proselytizers of the neo-Hinduism thesis? Malhotra identifies them, providing about twenty names. Most of these people are academics with an agenda, and once you have their names, you can, if you’re so inclined, find and read what they’ve written on the subject.
Malhotra is a genuine scholar, and in the course of elaborating his thesis, he provides interesting material on the spiritual history of India. He’s clearly a big fan of Swami Vivekananda, and presents arguments to defend him against his detractors. He also has a lot to say about Shankara, which should be of interest to students of Advaita Vedanta.
While I found this text a provocative and educational read, I felt that it didn’t identify the “disease” that is causing the “symptom” of neo-Hinduism. Although the text properly identifies the agenda and limitations of the modern Western Weltanschauung; it fails to get to the root of the problem: Progressivism, left-wing neo-Marxist fascism, an ideology coincident with America being hijacked and effectively privatized by a private, central Banking Cartel in 1913. This private Banking Cartel named itself The Federal Reserve, but it is not Federal at all, and neither is its collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service. In the twentieth century, Progressivism took over the American educational system, and 94% of all university professors now identify themselves as Progressives, or left-wing liberals. In short, it is this cancerous Progressivism, being peddled around the world as “Integral Globalism” by the likes of Ken Wilber, which is overtly and covertly waging war on Hinduism and any ideology anathema to it hegemony.
In summary, this text is provocative and worth reading, but it is also perimetric because it doesn’t identify the “Heart of the Beast” seeking to de-legitimize Hinduism—Progressivism.
