Do not misuse and weaponize Sri Aurobindo

 Collated by Tusar Nath Mohapatra

...I see as a small-minded fixation on what Aurobindo and Vivekananda called the "Hinduism of the kitchen."

This is such a false claim. Just because something does not fit into your narrow definition of what Hinduism should be does not automatically make it "Hinduism of the kitchen". Please do not misuse and weaponize Sri Aurobindo and Vivekananda against the very tradition that gave rise to them. Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda's guru, was a thorough going traditionalist. Did Vivekananda denounce him for practicing Hinduism of the kitchen? He did the exact opposite.

https://x.com/auroviryavaan/status/1984979638586675409?t=G9KRXTSefGF9E5nI2e6Xvw&s=19

You wud not be in a position to reject your tradition without your tradition bringing you into existence over centuries of struggle, suffering, slander & existential self-defense. Becoming a second class clone of a dominant race & culture is not the rebellion you fancy it to be.

https://x.com/auroviryavaan/status/1984965544399782313?t=eouHJUKiqHWapEJxLIDNJg&s=19

Vishal Ganesan and M. Nageswara Rao present different perspectives on Hinduism, largely influenced by their backgrounds and the contexts in which they operate.

Vishal Ganesan's Take on Hinduism

Vishal Ganesan is a U.S.-based lawyer, researcher, and thinker who focuses on the challenges and identity of the Hindu diaspora in a Western, particularly American, context. 

• Adaptation to the West: Ganesan argues that a sustainable Hindu identity in the diaspora needs to carve out a trajectory independent of India's political or traditional constraints, and must adapt to the conditions of Western modernity and American civic culture.
• Critique of "FOB" Mentality: He criticizes a "small-minded, myopic paranoia" among some first-generation (FOB - Fresh Off the Boat) immigrants who view their tradition as a "pristine, perfect system" under constant attack. He believes this mentality is a disservice to the expansive spiritual heritage of Hinduism.
• Community Building: Ganesan emphasizes the need for the Hindu American community to actively define and articulate its shared values and philosophical commitments to build a cohesive political and social presence, rather than assuming a unified community already exists.
• Challenging Western Narratives: His research examines how Hindus have historically been perceived in America through a distorted lens stemming from 18th and 19th-century missionary narratives, and he seeks to push back against these mischaracterizations.
• Secularization: He acknowledges that engagement with American society means imbibing some secularized Protestant norms, which is a necessary adaptation rather than a betrayal of tradition. 

M. Nageswara Rao's Take on Hinduism

M. Nageswara Rao, a former interim Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in India and an IPS officer, generally represents a more traditionalist and nationalistic viewpoint rooted in the Indian context.

• Emphasis on Traditional Practices: He often encourages Hindus in India to follow traditional practices and take inspiration directly from Hindu gods and scriptures in a conventional way.
• Rooted in Indian Context: His views are largely informed by the social and political landscape of India, focusing on the preservation of traditional Indian Hindu identity and often aligning with a strong Hindutva or Hindu nationalist perspective, which emphasizes the unique and ancient nature of the Indian civilization and its spiritual heritage.
• Less Focus on Diasporic Adaptation: Unlike Ganesan, Rao's public discourse, based on available information, does not primarily deal with the complexities of adapting Hinduism to an external Western environment or the specific challenges faced by the diaspora in integrating into a different civic culture. 

Key Differences

The fundamental difference lies in their operational context and approach:

• Context: Ganesan's perspective is focused on the diaspora experience in a Western, secular society, while Rao's is rooted in India and its specific political and social dynamics.
• Adaptation vs. Tradition: Ganesan advocates for a degree of adaptation and a re-articulation of Hindu identity to suit modern, Western conditions, including engaging with secular norms. Rao appears to emphasize adherence to traditional Indian Hindu values and practices without the same focus on external adaptation.
• Approach: Ganesan encourages critical examination of the "conceptual inheritance" of Hinduism in the West and a forward-looking dialogue for a sustainable future. Rao's position seems more centered on reinforcing established traditional and nationalistic narratives. 

- GoogleAI