NEO-VEDÂNTA AND COLLECTIVE PSYCHOLOGY
 

A Historical Survey of Neo-vedântism or Scientific Hinduism

This scientistic version of Hinduism is also called neo-Hinduism or neo-Vedânta. The Vedic Science Movement, advocating the scientific nature of Vedic doctrines, has a history. It is a rather recent phenomenon. Its beginning can be traced back to 1893, when Swami Vivekananda held his famous speech before the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago.

Indian metaphysical ideas were known in the West since long; they had inspired the views of great philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Hegel and Arthur Schopenhauer.

What made the difference in Vivekananda's 1893 address was his representing Hinduism and the Vedânta in particular not merely as religion and metaphysics, but also a body of scientific knowledge and techniques.

And not only that. In Vivekananda's speech, Vedânta is represented as a super-science, able to derive applied science from the Absolute itself (this is the crucial point, epistemologically), the Parama Atmân -which pervades, 'powers' and steers all beings and the universe-, thus offering an integrated, all-encompassing, self-consistent, immutable Science.

Later on, other outstanding nationalist intellectuals joined in, like Shri Aurobindo.

British-educated intellectuals and statesmen like Pandit Nehru have publicly recognised as 'scientific' the vedântic traditions - I could not say whether genuinely or for political reasons.
Now that the nationalist Bharatya Janata Party is swaying India, the 'vedic sciences' -among them, astrology- are being introduced as scientific subjects into school curricula and are being heavily funded by the government with taxpayers’ money and by non-governmental organisations as well, despite the staunch opposition of numerous scientists.

A ruling issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in April 2001 rejected the mandamus writ of one of these scientists, the noted molecular biologist Dr. P.M. Bharghawa and two other citizens, who demanded the Court to rule that the introduction of astrology in school curricula as a science subject violates Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, which prescribes the observation of the scientific principles also for education. This introduction had been 'willed' by Human Resources Minister Murali Manohar Joshi, a university professor of physics who also happens to be -on the political field- a longstanding member of the integralist Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), or National Self-Defence Union, which promotes Hindu exclusiveness under the banner of “one nation, one religion, and one culture-Hindutva [Hinduhood]”. Speaking at a conference in December 2001, he urged scientists to study Sanskrit and Indian philosophy, declaring that modern science was “inconclusive and therefore unreliable”. To support this questionable decision, the Chairman of the University Grants Commission, professor Hari Gautam, a BJP supporter, "claimed that Nobel Prize winning Indian scientist C.V. Raman had stated that astrology was a science-an assertion that was immediately condemned as a lie by Raman’s family members and associates. The decision to introduce and fund astrology courses provoked immediate outrage from scientists and others.

According to the Financial Times, more than 100 scientists and 300 political and social scientists have protested in writing to the Indian government. Their letters cite the comments of renowned astrophysicist, Jayanth Narikar, who declared that “[the] elevation of astrology to that of a subject taught in the universities would take India backwards towards medieval times” (Quoted from World Socialist Website).
 

Vedânta in the Epistemological Anarchy

Science studies, situated at the core of postmodernism, is a meta-science -in that it questions the truth-value of sciences, thus criticising the whole worldview that rests on them. In this view, even natural sciences are presented as socially constructed, i.e. as consisting in theories whose likeliness and plausibility ultimately derive from the support of the beliefs established in the context where they exist. The only accurate knowledge is the tautological, or better analytical one that is given by mathematics and logic; and logic, being analytical and not empirical, cannot constitute knowledge of reality. No theoretical system whatsoever can contain its own ultimate foundation and be self-sufficient. Therefore, no western or scientific knowledge may in principle claim to be superior to any local, traditional knowledge. In fact, all forms of knowledge are local or contextual. Modern science’s having adopted peculiar methods for attaining more accuracy -such as controlled experiments, double-blind  procedures, peer review- makes no difference, because what is recognised as evidence and rational by different groups of researchers will vary according to each group’s situation, sponsors, allegiance and so on. All knowledge is ‘locally’ constructed with the locally available and permitted construction materials. A given body of knowledge may become ‘universal’ and thus lay claim on objectivity only if and once it has been imposed by colonisation. And colonisation is powered by capital and greed.

Dr Meera Nanda, in her article “Postmodernism, Science and Religious Fundamentalism” says how Hindu apologists argue that a science alternative to the Western “must start from the Vedântic assumption of non-dualism of matter and spirit. While the Christian theists want scientists to consider the will of the creator God as a reasonable explanation of natural phenomena, Vedic scientists want scientists to consider the presence of the spark of divine consciousness in the entire universe as a reasonable explanation of phenomena that “Western” science cannot explain. From within a Vedânti paradigm, all the phenomena which modern science discards as “paranormal” are fully explicable as normal, and amenable to “scientific” demonstration, explanation and control. Indians need not reject the paranormal. Instead, they need to “decolonize their minds” so that they can understand nature through “Hindu categories.”

“This is the philosophical basis on which the Indian government recently introduced the study of astrology as an academic discipline at post-secondary level in state-funded colleges and universities. This is the philosophy that underlies the defence of countless miracles (idols “drinking” milk, for example) and supernatural powers of countless “god men” from levitation to the memories of previous births. This is the philosophy that is used to declare the very first, and the most ancient Veda, the Rig Veda to be a “book of physics” and Vedic fire rituals to be shorthand for cosmology.”

“Depending on purely speculative, idealistic interpretations of the developments in quantum physics, and invoking fringe new-age and paranormal sciences popular in the West (e.g., the neo-vitalistic theories of Rupert Sheldrake), Hindutva intellectuals claim that the idea of consciousness-free, inanimate matter is a Western fallacy, a fallout of the mindset of the Semitic races to divide the world in dualistic categories in which mind and matter, subject and object are separate. On Hindutva’s account, Vedântic conception of monism or non-dualism of nature and divine consciousness contains the post-modern, post-materialistic philosophy of nature.”

Left-wing scholars have extensively applied those theories to decolonisation, that is, they have used them to rescue, prop and validate the ‘local sciences’ of formerly colonised civilisations, as having equal dignity and possibly more morality than the western imperialists’ science.

But, in pursuance of some mysterious, likely preordained, enantiodromic principle, those leftist preaches have been borrowed by radical right-wing movements and are being deployed as powerful propaganda means to get rid of the abhorred Enlightenment and re-establish the ‘traditional’ hierarchy and values. This is notably happening in India now, according to scientific-minded dissidents.

Dr. Meera Nanda, in her article “Postmodernism, Science and Religious Fundamentalism”, observes, “Postmodernist arguments for faith-based science are being used both by the Christian creationists and Hindu apologists to attack the assumption of naturalism in modern science. The alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism, which means the re-introduction of revelation, miracles and rituals as legitimate sources of empirical knowledge.” Nowadays the widely accepted principles we have just summarised demand that even the fast growing fundamentalist doctrines of major world faiths be admitted “to the guild of science studies”: do they not correctly apply the constructivist principles whenever they dispose of those scientific theories that contradict their hallowed tenets? Do they not put them aside explaining them as a “social construct of godless, Western secular-humanist atheists who have been ruling world since Enlightenment?” Moreover, argues dr. Nanda, “if all sciences alike are social constructs, then why shouldn’t the “sacred sciences” propagated by religious fundamentalist movements be admitted as bona fide “local knowledges” or “standpoint epistemologies” of the community of believers?”

Nanda’s aim in uttering that sort of provocation is “to show how the promotion of an anti-secularist, anti-Enlightenment view of the world by well-meaning and largely left-wing scholars in world-renowned centers of learning has ended up affirming a view of the world which constitutes the common sense of the rather malign, authoritarian and largely right-wing fundamentalist movements. I wanted to show that having invested so deeply in anti-modernist and anti-rationalist philosophies, the academic left has no intellectual resources left with which to engage the religious right.”

“While it may look as if the academic critics are supporting the marginalized minority’s right to know, their even-handedness ends up, indirectly, supporting the dominant ideology and religious worldview of that culture.”

What seems to escape Nanda's analysis, in this respect, is that the very logical structure of the 'anything goes' tolerance principle prompts and fosters the fundamentalist intolerance principle.
“Nowhere is the influence of social constructivist and postcolonial critiques of science more evident than in India, where these ideas have become indistinguishable from the Hindu nationalist promotion of assorted “Vedic sciences.”

“Not surprisingly, the global prominence of Indian scholars in the assorted postmodernist debates brought them enormous prestige back home. Their critique of “mental colonialism” and their promotion of local knowledges found a strong echo in literally thousands of “alternative development” NGOs and social movements.

“The anti-Enlightenment seeds they sowed are now ready for harvest: the cultural authenticity of the non-Western “other” that our radical intellectuals were looking for, has become the official ideology of the Hindu nationalists that have ruled India for a decade. The postcolonial theorists looked to women, working classes, and other marginalized groups to provide more adequate alternatives to Western knowledge. The Hindu nationalists use the same postcolonial arguments against “mental colonization” to find a more adequate alternative epistemology in the most orthodox and mystical core of Hinduism, namely the Vedas and the Upanishads. These nearly three-millennium old Sanskrit texts are being introduced in schools and colleges as “just another name” for modern scientific knowledge including 20th century physics, biology, medicine and even engineering. Conversely, modern sciences are being peddled as “just another name” of the perennial wisdom of the Vedas and the Upanishads. Notwithstanding the deep hold of all kinds of dangerous superstitions in India, Hinduism is being portrayed as the most hospitable of all religions to the spirit of scientific inquiry. All in all, the idealistic view of nature and the mystical mode of knowing taught by the Brahminical texts of India are being whitewashed into a valid - nay, preferred - way of learning and doing science, not just for “Hindu India” but for the whole world. Two unequal and very unlike methods and view-points are being declared to be equal and alike to the point of being interchangeable.”

“The contemporary Vedic science movement, led by militant Hindu chauvinists, carries on this task of modernist apologetics. Under the BJP’s dispensation, this neo-Vedantist project is enjoying a revival. With full blessings of the state, new foundations and “research institutes” have sprung up defending every miracle and every superstition as “science.” Even dangerous frauds like “cow urine therapies” and faith healing are being sponsored by government funded groups. Hindu customs, from the four-fold Varna hierarchy and patriarchy, are still being justified as being in accord with “laws of nature” which were known to the Vedic sages and were now confirmed by modern physics. This scientific gloss has always been most appealing to the English-educated, upwardly mobile middle-class Indians, including those living in the West, who wanted modern reasons to be proud of their heritage."

Unknown Indian dissidents warned on the internet: “We can understand why the leading Hindutva ideas-men go around calling themselves "intellectual Kshatriyas": they are at home in a varna-defined world. But the Kshatriyas were only supposed to defend dharma as a way of  life. Why, then, are our Kshatriyas so bent upon defending dharma as science? Why is it not enough for them to have pulled off a coup against higher education in India by forcing such absurdities as "Vedic astrology" into the college curricula? Why must they also insist upon declaring astrology, and the entire Vedic tradition, "scientific"? Why this sudden love for "science" in the saffron camp?”

The reason is quite easy to understand. The show must go on.
 
 

The Structure of Misunderstanding

As I warned at the end of Chapter Two, it would be an error to argue from the discoveries of contemporary physics that the Vedic Sages made those same discoveries long before, obviously thanks their superhuman insight. We observed how the gist of the discoveries and theories of the contemporary scientific research is that we cannot attain an objective knowledge because the subject or knower cannot be conceived of as an entity separated from the process of knowing - and the object, or known, can neither; and that the traditional axioms of reality -space, time, matter, causation- and possibly formal logic itself are relative. That is not a purely negative conclusion, from the point of view of knowledge, because it does have a positive side in that it shows that the two realms of reality -mind and matter- are seemingly one, having the same properties (until contrary evidence be found); and this allows for a new start and a new method in the search for knowledge. Furthermore, postmodern critique of science has shown that what was held as a separate, qualitatively superior body of knowledge -science- by rapport to the ordinary, common sense knowledge, is not. Or rather, superior knowledge now appears to be even the knowledge that is aware of its own relativity.

The reading above is a philosopher’s or scientist’s reading. It is a sober, unappealing, maybe disappointing one. It demolishes axioms and enhances uncertainty instead of building them up. It is not for the ordinary people. Ordinary people follow taste rather than reason and can hardly live with doubt, the suspension of judgement and the uncertainty principle. They need the latter to be turned into their opposites, that is, faith. They like it better to be told that the most advanced amongst Western scientists on the one hand have avowed their impotency in the search for real, all-encompassing truth; and on the other hand are now confirming the divine revelation enshrined in the ancient scripts, that the ancient seers knew more about ultimate truth by the sheer power of their spirit or dhi (insight power) than materialistic scientists do, and that consequently all the contents of the divine books must be recognised as the absolute truth and, at the same time, the accomplished science and -why not- technology, of which western sciences and technologies are mere, though usable, branches.

Epistemological and scientific results entail -as we have seen- an invalidation of all logic knowledge’s propositional claims on  reality -thus they are inherently frustrating- but it is very easy to popularise them and making them appealing by misrepresenting them in such a manner, that they come to mean the very opposite of what they actually mean - that they entail a radical enlargement of the valid field of knowledge and of technology as well, whereby they expand into divination and, respectively, magic - the re-establishment of magical thought turning out to be the main goal of all the fuss. This advocated non-dualism results in a false non dualism, viz. in a form of realism, in that it maintains the ontologic dualism between mind (consciousness) and matter and only ‘sees’ or ‘feeds’ souls into natural things.

With regard to epistemology, this demagogic popularisation translates the conclusion above into its very opposite: instead of saying "Western epistemology has demonstrated that Western science, like Eastern traditional beliefs, is not 'scientific' (objectively demonstrated)", it proclaims "Western science has realised -it is now official- that what it formerly decried as Eastern myths is true science, nay is more scientific than Western science."

What happens in the frame of this process of misrepresentation and popularisation can be mapped out as follows:

1- “Western science’s discovering traditional truths (see Capra's The Tao of Physics) implies that tradition is truly scientific.” We have already disposed of this naive, analogy-based argument in Chapter Two. It aims at borrowing status and prestige from the pragmatically successful western sciences. In doing so -writes dr. Nanda- “Hindutva apologists share a thoroughly modernist epistemology: that is, they see the enterprise of modern science as resting on firm and universally shared foundations of logic and empirical observation. They see scientific knowledge as advancing an objective knowledge of the actual entities in nature. That is why they are keen on showing that the facts about nature contained ... ... in the Vedas converge with the facts revealed by the application of scientific method.

 “In their great ‘love’ for science, religious fundamentalists of all stripes are subverting the very ideals of a scientific method which abjures making untested connections between evidence and hypotheses purely by analogy... ... creationists and Hindu fundamentalists defend their respective “sciences” by arbitrarily extracting out of the existing body of scientific evidence, which supports Darwinism, quantum mechanics and other such well-established sciences, and cite it as evidence for their own “theory” about the world. Moreover, in their great stampede to get certified as “modern,” the fundamentalists are subverting the very ideas that make the modern epoch distinct: namely, the freedom to refuse God. Just because fundamentalists use modern sounding vocabulary, that does not make them scientific or modern in any meaningful way.”
 

2-“Western science’s (and technology's, medicine's, psychology's) recognising its own relativity, limits, shortcomings implies room for un-relative, absolute science (revelation, meditation).” The mindframe behind this argument is that of the human attachment to the faith in an anthropomorphic, all-controlling power in the universe: “Western science seemed to be all-conquering, its enlightening, positive power seemed unlimited and almost able to supplant God and divine knowledge by factually taking over their function in the control of reality; therefore if it finally has recognised its own weakness, God and divine knowledge are reinstated in their traditional function, the old rule is back.” Indeed divine or religious knowledge is stronger than Western science and its ‘weak thought’; only, this strength is not a methodological or epistemological one (epistemologically regarded, ‘divine’ knowledge is weaker than science); it is a psychological one: faith is stronger than science on the psyche, in that it is reassuringly dogmatic whilst true science is self-questioning. At the bottom of all this there is the emotionally laden idea that there must 'statutorily' be by all means a more or less personal godhead in control of the nature and whatever happens, with whom we can deal; if any agency pops up and begins doing the godhead’s job in that it factually takes over the control of nature and life, like science and technology conspicuously have done, then that agency is competing with the godhead, must be a godhead or an acting godhead at the very least; if the same agency eventually admits to its not being in control of nature or in possession of final knowledge, then it cannot be a godhead; hence the godhead must be the one in tenure before it or some other.
 

3-“Western method invalidated as unscientific the traditional methods; now its recognising its own insufficiency and relativity implies that the traditional, religious methods -that claim to be divine, perfect and immutable- are the right ones.” The revanchist psychological background of this argument is analogue to the one at point 2. It is naive and self-contradictory in that it, on the one hand, by accepting that the western critical method has demonstrated the inherent limits of the scientific positive methods for attaining knowledge, has accepted that same critical method as valid; whilst, on the other hand, it rejects or neglects the selfsame method by accepting and extolling the ‘divine, absolute sciences’ without applying it to them. If the critical methods and attitude that western thought has developed and applied to its theories and procedures were applied to any traditional body of ‘knowledge’, the latter would appear outright untenable, because they are ultimately based on revelation or insight, that elude the very principle of validity control - let alone the problem of their intrinsic consistency. Hereby we can recognise the specific gain of this argument: “That nasty western critical method, that was discrediting our endeared religious certainties and shaking our established power, has done us a great favour: it has discredited itself; so let us (make the people) embrace this philosophy of its self-discrediting and thus win our liberty from stern scientific check and constraint!”
“Hindu apologists -argues dr. Nanda- also make use of this “end” of Newtonian science to build a case for a specifically Hindu science that can accommodate such unorthodox sciences as astrology, yoga, reincarnation and many such phenomena which are declared to be beyond the realm of possibility in the kind of natural world we live in, but phenomena which have to be true, in the Vedic view of God.”

The fact is that western scientific (and juridical) thought quite early in its history realised that there is no real knowledge without an objective demonstration and consequently developed a series of methods of criticism and demonstration, and also a criticism of such methods, until it came to the conclusion that final, absolute and self-consistent demonstration cannot be attained save in analytical judgements and never in empirical ones. Eastern religious thought does not conceive of the need for a demonstration of its tenets, enunciates and ultimate fundaments, insofar as it deems the latter to be divine, revealed and therefore making demonstrations superfluous if not impossible. Yet, we need be cognisant that this solution of the problem of the ultimate fundaments of cognition results in a progressus in infinitum (endless questions chain). Indeed, if A states: "My science is final and guaranteed because it rests ultimately on divine revelation (or absolute truth)", then B can object "But by what method can you ascertain that what you call 'divine revelation' or 'absolute truth' is truly 'divine revelation' or 'absolute truth?' If A replies " I can ascertain that by the method 'X'", then B will ask: "And by what method can you ascertain that the method 'X' can ascertain that?" And there will be no end to the questioning, no conclusive answer - and it is so, for the final answer to that question cannot be uttered unless A admits to its not being a scientific or rational one. That answer is: “I know that those tenets are true because I feel they are and feeling so is beautiful and reassuring; and it is all the more beautiful and reassuring if I live in a social group where everybody feels the same.”

Please note that if A should alternatively reply: "I do not need ascertain that, for absolute truth is self-evident", B would object: "By what method can you demonstrate that it is self-evident?" Then A could reply in the guise of the old ontological argument of Saint Anselm: "I need not demonstrate it, for absolute science is absolute, perfect; and for no science is perfect and absolute unless it is also self evident to be perfect." Indeed, self-evident truths do exist, but they are mere analytical propositions or tautologies (that is, 'saying the same', or truisms), like the non-contradiction principle ( a = a ), and therefore they can make no positive statements, they say nothing about the existence of anything. They only say that, provided that 'a' (‘you’, ‘god’, ‘matter’) exists, then 'a' is 'a' and is not ‘non-a’. But they cannot say whether 'a' exists or not. Likewise, although it can be conceded that the idea of self-evidence is semantically implicit in the idea (or meaning) of  'absolute, perfect science', this does not prove that an absolute science actually exists, nor can it deduce what its tenets are, nor does it decide how one can recognise such a science, provided that it exists.

4-“Western science’s decamping from objectivity claims gives room to the objectivity claims of traditional sciences; so, as a consequence of points 1,2,3, traditional sciences can take over the function of explaining objective reality, man and world, and predicting their becoming.” By this argument, the traditionalists completely lose sight of the specific, positive gain of the scientific revolution leading in the dissolution of the materialistic-dualistic framework of reality (the one based on time, space, causality, mind-matter dualism etc.). They give us back an objective world of solid matter -thus retaining de facto the materialistic-dualistic view that they pretend to supplant-, but also one whose material objects are animated by consciousness and mystical forces, so we can influence it by means of traditional practices of magical type and predict its evolution by means of traditional astrology. This might rightfully be called ‘magical animism’ - the belief in an outer, solid-matter reality, ruled by sentient entities, gods. And we can believe that God is still acting in Nature. This awards scientific legitimation to another favourite of human psyche: wishful thinking.

5-“Western sciences and technologies, in that they are amenable to the divine, traditional sciences, can be -once duly reframed- adapted, maintained, used. They are insofar amenable as we can recognise in them the same truths that are expounded in the holy scripts, though in a different vocabulary, needing appropriate translation.” This entails the scriptural legitimation, for an Indian traditionalist government, to massive expenditures of taxpayers’ money on purchasing western technologies like missiles, satellites and nuclear bombs. Through such purchasing rich kickbacks are channelled into the pockets of many rulers - remember for an instance the Bofors scandal that broke out in India in 1991.

6- “Western science and technologies have a history, they change during the course of time; besides, they contradict themselves frequently, there are different opinions and conflicting theories at the same time; on the contrary, Vedântic sciences are timeless (anadhi), never changing, monolithic; this proves the superiority of the latter.” This contention is false, be it explicitly enunciated or implicitly conveyed by the manner of expounding Vedântic scripts and doctrines that many vedântic apologists adopt in their writs and teachings. Vedic thought and doctrines do have a history and an evolution. They are conspicuously stratified. They are also rich in overt contradictions or variety of opinions, if you prefer. One can find very different theories and viewpoints in them.
 
 

Cultivating Misunderstandings

The outer similarities of several Vedic and scientific views, combined with the amateur’s misunderstanding of the radical criticism of any western scientific method by post-Popperian philosophers like Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, constitute a potent means of suggestion in the hands of the propagandists, especially those serving vested interests that are behind nationalist Indian parties and movements. Such parties and movements, which are currently in power in India, are massively funding a politically oriented ‘scientific’ research in that country and abroad, that is tasked to validate the misunderstanding above and legitimise the introduction of pseudo-sciences into Indian school. Furthermore, they are reaping large success in the West too, owing to their catering for general psychological needs, their political appeal, and the charm of suggestive, yet partially distorted representations and interpretations like the ones advocated by Fritjof Capra.

Before we go any further, let me stress that I am not implying that all the results of that politically fostered and instrumentalised research are bogus science, though they may be so to a larger or lesser extent. I do not advocate the opinion that the contents of the traditional scripts are delusory. Quite differently, I am warning of an ongoing action, based on the weakness of human psyche and serving mundane goals, that is distorting the interpretation, the reading of scientific research and of traditional texts too, thus posing a threat for the correct understanding of both.

 To say it with the trenchant words of our unknown dissident:

“Be prepared for a flood of books, TV-shows and
even new computer programs extolling the virtues of Hindu sciences. After
all, big money is behind it: taxpayer's rupees and large grants from
private foundations (Hinduja Foundation, Infinity Foundation) are pouring
into "research centers" dedicated to showing the scientificity of Hindu
scriptures. Everything Vedic - from yagnas to the gods of all things, to
reincarnation, karma and parapsychology will make a claim for the status
of "science." And everything scientific - from the knowledge of quantum
physics, to the laws of molecular biology and ecology - will be declared
to be already there in the Vedas. Modern science will be treated as a
Western corruption of the non-dualist Vedic sciences, which can synthesize
science with god, facts with values, etc. Mother India will be called upon
to heal the wounds inflicted on the entire world by the "violence" of
soul-less modern science.

“But - and here the plot begins to thicken - this will not stop the BJP
government from acquiring the most violent and the most destructive
products of modern science and technology. We are heading toward a
schizophrenic national culture in which the technological products of
modern science will be eagerly embraced, but the secular culture which
science was supposed to help create will be strenuously denied. Instead of
a genuine secular culture, which denies the existence of gods in nature and the authority of god-men in culture, the intellectual Kshatriyas are
intent on declaring the dharmic worldview, with its nature-gods and
miracle-working gurus, to be the essence of a "higher" science and
"authentic" secularism. Symptoms of such schizophrenia are already
evident:

“1. The nuclear bomb tests in 1998 were justified and packaged in
dharmic terms. Hindu ideologues claimed that the bomb was foretold by
Lord Krishna in the Bhagwat Gita when he declared himself to be " the
radiance of a thousand suns, the splendor of the Mighty One. … I am become
Death." They celebrated the bomb by invoking gods and goddesses
symbolizing Shakti and vigyan. Even Ganesha idols turned up with atomic
halos around their heads and with guns in their hands!

2. In April 2001, the Indian Space Research Organization made
history by successfully putting a satellite into the geo-stationary orbit,
36,000 km. above the earth. This same "space power" that takes justified
pride in its ability to touch the stars, will soon start educating its
youth in how to read our fortunes and misfortunes in the stars and how to
propitiate these stars through appropriate karmakanda.

“This is how the secularist dream ends: with nuclear bombs in the silos,
and the Vedas in the schools; with satellites in space, and horoscopes in
our lives down here on earth.”

The hundreds of millions of Indian paupers shall find it easier to put up with their awful condition and accept the government’s spending so much on glorious vedic armaments rather than on improving the people’s standard of living, if they can feel that they partake of those expensive ‘vedic’ feats via their believing in ‘vedic sciences’ and practicing ‘vedic techniques’ that are taught in the colleges. In other words, governmental propaganda makes military expenditures acceptable to the starving masses by creating a bogus cultural-religious continuum, in which the masses may feel actively involved in this ‘Vedic Resurrance’, or government’s military programmes, instead of passive, exploited and ever more sidelined - while in reality the involved technologies and business have nothing in common with the Hindutva version of the Vedas.

History too is being ‘re-written’ by Hindutva: facts that would mar the proud, monolithic, fundamentalist self-portrait of tradition are being suppressed or adapted, especially in the history of the last centuries. Revision is immanent to historical research; nonetheless, misgivings arise whenever revision is instigated and funded for tendentious purposes by a political movement striving for power.

In this light, also the current revision of the Aryan Invasion Theory warrants a wary rather than enthusiastic consideration, for it comes to light and develops in a cultural environment that is overtly and massively tutored by biased nationalist movements and funding, not unlike the Aryan Invasion Theory that flourished during the colonialist age and was instrumentalised for legitimating the occupation of India by Britain as a new Aryan Invasion of India, that followed the first Aryan Invasion - the one that, according the above mentioned theory, around the XIII Century B.C., saw the Vedic tribes pour from Central Asia into the Hindo-Gangetic plain bringing their language, culture and religion, and subjugate the local Dravidic population.
 
 

Practical Issues for Vedic Scholars and Practitioners

In view of what is going on with the Hindutva and Hindutva-like movements, if you intend to make money from the teaching or practicing of vedântic disciplines, you will be well advised never to forget that you will always have the vested interests behind the Hindutva movement at your side. They will be a demoniac confederate to you, on the one hand raising the credit and prestige of what you will be teaching and practicing through their heavily funded research, mass-media, law-giving and indoctrination activities; but they will on the other hand be fabricating and implanting bogus scientific evidence and bogus godly doctrines that serve their rather mundane aims. You will constantly be tempted to take advantage of the officially dignified charlatanism and quackery. At the very least, you will be exposed to the flattery of academic and governmental recognition.

When you see that important governments, renowned universities, famous scientists, big foundations and best selling books publicly recognise, praise, adopt, foster and fund as 'scientific' the 'traditional sciences of ancient India' including astrology, touting them in the distorting fashions and under the forged credentials that have been criticised above, you may feel encouraged and authorised to believe that they are truly scientific, progressive, moral, etc. and consequently you can market them as such in good faith and with pride. After all, you would not be 'objectively' wrong in assuming that, because the ultimate source of social validation -and evaluation- of anything and anybody in this world and practical life, is conspicuously the attitude to make profit.

And to make big profit out of science divulgation -whether truthful or bogus- you need sell to an as wide and popular market as you can reach. You need popularise, simplify and spice your products, distort them in order to cater for the emotional needs and the intellectual means of the market, link them to living archetypal keys in man's psyche. Look at how tabloids and television distort or even concoct news in order to sell more and widen their audience. In other words, success in quantitative terms is hard to achieve within a culturally honest approach.

This is, after all, happening all the time all around us in our society. It is the work of propagandists in both democratic and dictatorial regimes. Political propaganda is quite like commercial marketing. There is no dualism, no dvaita between them - there is sameness, samâta. The electors have to be involved in the decisional process; their consensus is required for the legitimation of the power being exerted upon them and their money. And because the issues over which the opposite political parties contend and, after due debating, must make momentous decisions (such as defence strategy, economy, finance) are far too specialised for the masses to understand, and mostly based on classified or secret information, and the establishment must make decisions in its own interest rather than the people's, a toy version of those issues, mostly based on 'values' and eulogy instead of profit and realism, is fabricated and via mass-media administered to the masses for democratic discussion and vote. As Jacques Ellul would say, democracy consist in leading the people to will what those in power have decided to do for their own best interest. The only possible democracy consists in making the people believe that power is swayed by their will and in their interest, whereas it is power that sways their will in the pursuit of its own interest. Nationalist Hindu parties are just taking their  'truths', 'values' and eulogy -after due adaptation and distortion- both from Vedic traditions and western sciences. This operation is quite successful because both Vedic lore and western science have a powerful grip on the minds of the Indians, also owing to a diffuse superstition and the averagely low educational level.

The same is done with 'scientific truths'. Constructivism is not merely a postmodern theory and explanation; it is an old and proof-tested political technique.
 
 

The Path of Traditionalisation

Hindutva must find a solution to a specific problem: how to reconcile technological modernization with cultural conservatism? How to prevent the science that goes into making the technology from challenging the worldview sanctioned by religion and traditions?

Resuming the writ of our unknown dissident,
“The problem is truly serious for Hinduism, because modern science, if taken seriously, can challenge the most fundamental axioms of dharma, which are based upon such "laws of nature" as karma, rebirth and hierarchy of beings determined by karmic cause-and-effect. If it is given the cultural authority as a superior way of knowing, modern science has the potential to demystify the hallowed truths of Hinduism itself, to say nothing of the countless miracles and superstitions that are a part of everyday life of
average Indians. It is thus imperative for Hindutva that science remains
limited to technological gizmos, and does not spill over into the larger
culture.”

Because of this, “Hindutva is in the process of creating a myth of “Vedic science" which can co-opt and absorb modern science into Hindu traditions by simply declaring these traditions to be scientific. Hindutva ideologues argue that just as modern "Western science" is scientific from a Judeo-Christian perspective, Hindu traditions of astrology, yagnas, ayurveda, vastu shastra, Hindu ecology,
Hindu meteorology etc. are scientific from a Hindu perspective. Indeed
"Vedic science" is declared to be ahead of modern science, as it treats
all entities in an integrated whole - never mind that many of its
"entities" (atmân, the gunas, "hot" and "cold" substances) and "subtle
forces" (of mantras, meditation, planets, karma) can't even be defined
with any precision, let alone measured and tested empirically with
appropriate controls. But "mere" definitions, measurements and controlled
tests are declared Western. Hindu sciences use "their
own" methodology of meditation and direct realization.”

As dr. Nanda states in the above-quoted articles, by thus reasoning, they are “merely” translating the ancient texts into a modern vocabulary that can be easily understood by modern men and women, who are more used to thinking in scientific terms.

“So now we know -argues on the unknown author - why the saffron Kshatriyas are so keen on defending the Vedic lore as science. This is their way of taming what threatens
Hinduism the most, i.e. modern science. Hinduism has always protected
itself form the new and the alien by turning it into an inferior aspect of
itself, quietly metabolizing it until it is absorbed into the existing
belief structure. Turning modern science into just a part of Hindu wisdom
is merely a continuation of this classic Hindu tradition of self-defense
and self-perpetuation. Hindutva gets a good name for "openness" and
"tolerance," while the end-result is as conservative as the Taliban
could have hoped for. In the end, the old decides what parts of the new
will be fitted where, and what parts will be unceremoniously thrown
out. In the end, the old has always won in India.”

But this also done mutually by the diverse hindu philosophical schools: every one of them, or almost, represents itself as older, superior and inclusive in respect to any other, in order to neutralise and absorb it.

Conservative Hinduism, like all fundamentalisms, has the obsessive need to affirm that it knows in advance and can trace back to its ‘science’ all that is happening or may be going happen, that its tradition already knew it from the very beginning, being divine; so nothing may disprove it as false or expose it as inadequate or, even worse, ridiculous. When it is confronted from something new, coming from outside, it hastens to declare that it was described in its holy scripts or existed or was made in India many centuries before. If the seeming novelty is no novelty, but a part of the Indian tradition, it can be accepted and used by India, just like the atomic bomb, better known of as ‘brahmashtra’. In this way, the brahmanic leadership is protected from being supplanted by successful innovation from outside. All that is alien is preventively discredited as mleccha, barbaric and impure; yet, it can be received and utilised in India once it has been ‘recognised’ as non-alien, belonging in the tradition as a second-class knowledge or application within the Vedic science and hence subjugated to the cultural establishment. Probably, the very idea of ‘mleccha’ is a way for the self-protection of this establishment, as confirmed by the orthodox tabooing of journeys outside India; journeys would expose the traveller to the dangerous influence of thought systems, paradigms, not controlled by the brahmanic establishment. Quite similar taboos are found also in modern ideological dictatorships.

 One may ascribe to that the curious hindu nationalist tendency to declare that all species of living beings (including tomato, potato, mais, turkey) originate from India just like all languages originate from Vedic sanskrit - which is most certainly untrue for languages like the native American, Japanese, Chinese, Finnish, although some of them may use loanwords from sanskrit. For an instance, Chinese borrowed the Sanskrit word ‘dhyana’ corrupting it into ‘chan’, that was subsequently ‘imported’ by the Japanese, which transformed it into ‘zen’. But this does not make of the Japanese tongue a scion of the Sanskrit any more than its using the loanwords ‘arubaitu’ (from German ‘Arbeit’, work) in the meaning of ‘job’ and ‘abekku’ (from French ‘avec’, with) in the meaning of appointment, date, makes of it a German or a French language. As for Indoeuropean languages such as Greek, Latin, German, Slavic, Celtic, they are clearly, though distantly, ‘blood-related’ to Vedic Sanskrit, and they are younger than it; but there is no evidence that they derived from it. They probably have an ancestor in common with it, a Proto-Indoeuropean language. Thus, Vedic Sanskrit is probably their uncle, but certainly not their father. Ironically, even the historical Buddha, Siddharta Gautama, despite the clearly non-theistic purport of his teaching, underwent in India the process of hinduist regularisation and traditionalisation, in that he was enrolled in the corps of the avatars of Vishnu - he was turned into a god!

Dr Nanda, in her above-quoted article, introduces one more crucial issue with regard to ‘traditionalisation’. She observes that the success and popularity of western materialistic science and technology in India have endangered the established brahmanistic monopoly of culture. “Developments in natural science have finally made it possible for the suppressed native materialistic and rational traditions - from those of the ancient Charvakas, the original Buddha to the Deweyan, secular-humanist interpretation of Buddhism by Ambedkar - to finally come into their own against the mystical, elitist and superstitious worldview of Vedic Brahmanism. If the defenders of the faith are allowed to “traditionalize” this one innovation -- namely, the modern science of nature -- that will amount to yet another defeat of those who have stood for reason and social justice in India. Hinduism, it is true, has always perpetuated itself not by suppressing the innovations by force of arms, but by traditionalizing what is innovative. What the Hindu nationalists are doing to science, is what Hinduism has always done to all that is new, foreign and threatening, i.e., pretended that it has always been a part of the tradition. But this kind of self-perpetuation ends up perpetuating the worst elements of the tradition.”
 
 

The Postmodern Style of Religious Fundamentalism

Prof. Emanuele Severino, an outstanding contemporary Italian philosopher and epistemologist, points out that the history of the West, from its very beginning, is marked by the evolutionary stages of the fight between the two systems, by which man contrives to control and dominate -that is, explain, predict and steer- the world and the course of events.

Originally, man resorted chiefly to absolute systems like those provided by religions. Religions rigidly explain everything, from the origin of universe and man to their ultimate goal, and they solve the problem of deathliness by ‘assuring’ that there is an afterlife. They are holistic, encompassing all aspects of nature and catering for all existential demands. They teach eternal, immutable laws.

But at a certain stage of history practical science and techniques arise, which manipulate nature very successfully and increasingly frequently clash with the holistic, religious system. They prove more reliable in predicting the course of events and solving practical problems than the religious system. They disprove the tenets of the latter one by one as delusory.

The religious system is hard to die, it fights back: the heretical Galileo, who durst challenge the Holy Bible writing that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the contrary, is tortured by the Church until he abjures to his discovery. Chemistry and experimental medicine are persecuted because they violate the divine mystery enshrined in man.

But science and technology gradually prevail over religion and metaphysics because they can do things that the latter cannot do. They cannot solve existential, ultimate problems like deathliness, the goal of life etc. They cannot even attain absolute and final truths, for they are inherently and admittedly provisory. Nevertheless, they can manipulate world, nature, and man whilst religion and metaphysic cannot. Nay, they can even confute the endeared tenets of religion and metaphysics as contrary to logic and evidence, or dispose of them as insignificant - in the sense of the analytic philosophy that we discussed in Chapter Three - exposing that the only performance they are, or used to be, capable of, is providing a psychologically appeasing, but otherwise delusory, response to the existential and emotional needs of man. Because people are now living in a world where science and technology are highly considered and play a fundamental role in everybody’s life, the efficacy of that response will be increased if the basic assumptions of that response can be believed to be scientific themselves instead of fideistic if faith can represent itself as scientific. This is why religions do their best to credit themselves as ‘scientific’.

But even because its responses are delusory, faith is doomed to intolerance. Prof. Severino in his The Denizens of Time, Armando 1978, goes so far as to state that Christian faith is impossible. “Faith does not exist in that it cannot possibly exist”(p. 145). It cannot exist because revelation, the kerygma or announcement, has to be believed in without its being proved. The argument of faith is faith itself. It has no means to rule out its negation. Therefore, faith is inextricably associated with doubt. Faith, belief, is logically incompatible with knowledge: you either know or believe. What faith adds to revelation is no cognitive reinforcement, is a volitional one, the resolve to assert as certain was certain is not, to deny, suppress the doubt that it is inherently unable to confute. “Doubt is the believer’s transcendental unconscious” (p. 149). “Even he who claims, “I believe” has no faith, but does not know that” (p. 149). This pretending that certainty is achieved or can be achieved (without a true argument), is violence, is intolerance. This forcing doubt into the unconscious is too. And faith is doomed to this owing to its very otherwise unsustainable pretence (p. 151).

The above-mentioned performance of existential problem-solving is exactly what modern science and technology are inherently incapable of. They are a form of 'weak thought', a provisory, admittedly relative, ever evolving knowledge. Therefore, they cannot possibly meet a demand for absolute, final, all-embracing certainties. On the contrary, they stimulate it continually. But this demand keeps on coming from the people. It is not a weak demand; it is a strong one, maybe stronger than lust and greed. It is inescapable for mental balance. Even this keeps religiousness and metaphysics alive and powers religious fundamentalism, whose first target is consequently fighting back the naturalistic, scientific attitude. Fundamentalist movements want to preserve or restore the supernatural as an explanation and a means of control of nature. They must reject as the biggest menace to this need of theirs the naturalistic perspective, for naturalism dispenses -until contrary evidence, that is still to come- with the assumptions of God, spirits, etc. in explaining the world and the becoming.

To say it with Meera Nanda's poignant words, "All religious fundamentalists want a full-blooded version of their faith, which is there not just for spiritual solace (which would make faith not different from poetry), but which can make propositional claims about the world. They want to believe in a God that actually does some work in this world, both at the level of nature and at the level of social life of men and women.”

“... ...naturalism is the antonym of super-naturalism. Naturalism denies supernaturalism in all its forms, whether the supernatural is seen as a transcendent God over and above this world who can abrogate natural laws, as in Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions; or as a spiritual force or energy that resides in nature, but is able to exist separately from it as well, as in the case of Hinduism and Taoism.”

"All major religious fundamentalist movements decry ... ...  naturalism. The mostly Christian “intelligent design” movements decry naturalism of modern science as a “religion” of secular humanists that have, apparently, ruled the Western world since the Enlightenment. ... ... The assorted Hindu swamis, gurus and their political acolytes who champion “Vedic sciences” decry the idea of nature without Atmân, matter without spirit, as a product of Semitic “dualism” between a transcendent God and dead matter. They promise to heal the wounds caused by Semitic dualism by unifying spirit and matter, as taught in the Vedas. On matters of methodological naturalism, Hindu apologists take a very curious stand, which is quite fundamental to their claims of Vedas being “books of science.”

"Because in Hinduism the spiritual element is immanent in the world, i.e., resides in natural entities, living or non-living alike, many Vedic science proponents claim that they are not invoking anything supernatural: references to gods are actually references only to forces of nature. (This kind of defence of the inherent scientific of Hinduism was first made by Swami Vivekananda and has become an integral part of the neo-Hindu tradition.) But this is really hair-splitting, for the fact is that Vedic Hinduism is a spiritual monism: it sees objects of nature as secondary manifestations of Atmân. Thus to say that Vedas are “naturalistic” is simply not tenable, for in fact the Vedic teachings make no room for an autonomous, independent, un-designed, unsupervised and un-enchanted existence of matter which naturalism demands."

With these precise and concise remarks, dr. Meera Nanda lays bare the intimate contradictions of the oversimplifying ‘bad holism’, which is typical of all fundamentalisms, be they recognised and adopted by the ruling parties or not. It appears clearly that this social process of constructing a new, holistic paradigm of popularised ‘sciences’ for propaganda purposes carries on in complete disregard or lack of consideration of both logics and scientific method. But, were it to proceed otherwise, in a sober, consistent and scientifically correct manner, it would be unable to gather the suggestive momentum and the unwavering faith it needs in order to reach its appointed goals.