How not to read History? Avoiding Sophistry, Deceitfulness, and Irrational Narratives

Introduction

A few days ago I wrote on how a contemporary Dharmic mind is enslaved with various narratives meant to degrade the tradition of Dharmic spiritualism (or Hinduism) and relegate the spiritual path as non-sensical, patriarchal, and regressive (i.e. against modernity).

I've three examples below that show the eagerness in contemporary conversations to push this narrative. Since free speech and vaad (Sanskrit: वाद, discussion) are two-way streets so it's well within my right to share my opinion based on sound reasoning and well-established examples. And my opinion doesn't rely on the play of words (Sanskrit: सामान्य छल, quibble)) or a mere attack on the opposition (Sanskrit: वितंडा, cavil/sophistry). Just a side note, these categorizations are based on the ancient Nyaya philosophy composed by Akṣapāda Gautama between the 6th century BCE and the 2nd century CE.

Example 1 - वितंडा / Sophistry

Buddhism and Sanatana Dharma have a long history of coexistence and assimilation of spiritual philosophies. At its core, the philosophical concepts of karma (Sanskrit: कर्म), dharma (Sanskrit: धर्म), reincarnation, and moksha (Sanskrit: मोक्ष) are shared by both spiritual paths. His Holiness, Dalai Lama, said, "Buddhism and Hinduism as like spiritual brothers, which provoked cheers throughout the hall. He said they share sila, shamatha, and prajna - ethics, concentration, and wisdom - and where they differ is in the view of atman or anatman". 

Some fringe "historians" are trying to draw a wedge between these two spiritual traditions by using misusing history. One such popular target is Adi Shankaracharya - who is criticized as the destroyer of Buddhism in India. You might also come across a book called 'State of Mind' by author Manu Rajnish but his argument can be safely discarded as part fiction as it borderlines on conspiracies without any historical references one can cross-check independently. 

Besides this, there is a story popular on social media, among the fringe elements of Buddhism to bash Hinduism, where a Tibetan monk, Sharmasvamin, allegedly states that Nalanda University was burnt down by the embers of a yajna by Jain tirthikas but like every other conspiracy theory it has been misconstrued and attributed to 'Hindu' priests. I've reproduced the original quote and the misinformation in a couple of photos below.

Real quote from Books on Fire (Pages 106-107) on Sharmasvamin

How Twitter user misleads and uses Hindus instead (ref: https://twitter.com/hannan021/status/1364060985695162374)

There are other examples of persecution of Buddhists by "Hindu" rules like Shashanka (IAST: Śaśāṃka) of the Gauda Dynasty and Pushyamitra Shunga (IAST: Puṣyamitra Śuṅga) of Shunga Dynasty are also quoted. But there is enough historical literature that's unbiased that suggests that "Brahamism" had nothing to do with this.

Reference on Sasanka: "But how far the acts of oppression, charged by Hiuen Tsang against Sasanka, can be regarded as historically true, it is difficult to say." (Page 67, Buddhist traditions about Saidhka, The History of Bengal, by R C Majumdar) 

Reference on Pushyamitra: In another book, R C Majumdar states that "It is true that Pushyamitra who led the revolution was himself a Brahmana, but we must remember that he was also the Commander-in-Chief of the Maurya army. His successful revolution can be much better accounted for by his hold over the army than his headship of a band of discontented Brahmanas." (The History and Culture of the Indian People, XI. CAUSES OF THE DOWNFALL OF THE MAURYA EMPIRE, by R C Majumdar).

An even-handed, sans narrative, and unbiased historical viewpoint will go a long way in presenting history as history, not your personal agenda.

Example 2 - सामान्य छल / Deceitfullness

Who wouldn't remember the 'Smash Brahmanical patriarchy' that Jack Dorsey so shamelessly held and justified later as a "gift"? There have been numerous attempts by intellectuals to message "that anti-Brahminism is not hate-speech but progressive and anti-caste." If that's the case then I would agree with it one hundred percent. Then every right-wing Hindu who accepts Veer Savarkar as the 'philosophical leader' of modern Hinduism should ensure that "Untouchability should be eradicated not only because it is incumbent on us but because it is impossible to justify this inhuman custom when we consider any aspect of dharma. Hence this custom should be eradicated as a command of dharma."

Yet, the popular narrative doesn't stop at what the intellectuals consider the borders of scholarship. It's taken a step further where it intermingles with anti-caste to anti-Hindutva to ultimately dismantle Hindusim in its entirety. Reference: YouTube link below. For the so-called experts who spoke on such platforms the expanse of Dharmic literature that includes Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Sankhya, Gita, and Vedanta is conveniently reduced to castism! And the inconvenient survey that doesn't go with the narrative is ignored. 

And for Western minds, this is an easy leap once the narrative is successfully peddled by Indians; as Jay Lakhani says, "vilifying Hinduism in the name of hereditary hierarchical caste-system is same as saying Christianity is (sic) idea of crusading". As Nicholas Dirks in his book, Castes of Mind, states "In short, colonialism made caste what it is today. It produced the conditions that made possible the opening lines of this book, by making caste the central symbol of Indian society". Unfortunately, such lazy logic has been used time and time again to demonize Hinduism and negate all other aspects of spiritual philosophy that delve into epistemology, ontology, devotion, and humanism. 

Example 3 - निग्रह स्थान / Half-baked Knowledge (or Irrational Narratives)

Vikas Divyakirti of Drishti IAS, a coaching institute for the UPSC examination, is a knowledgeable and reputed teacher. However, the recent statements that he made as part of his coaching classes raised a lot of eyebrows. He is an expert in helping students succeed in examinations for government administrative services but he is not an expert in itihās (Indic historical texts). So when he misquoted by selectively quoting only one line without providing context does indeed begs a question; whether it was due to half-baked knowledge or intentional bashing of Hinduism. 

Sanskrit scholars like Ami Ganatra and Nityanand Misra have created YouTube content to counter the hidden Hinduphobia displayed by Vikas Divyakirti. Half-baked knowledge is dangerous if used to push an agenda. If one can clearly state their opinion is based on limited knowledge then the listener can make a more educated judgment. But if such statements are made to sound like the ultimate scholarly truth then our society is going down a slippery slope that has been greased by social media platforms that convert such information as scholarly references. 

Conclusion

Ancient Indian philosophy, Nyāya (Sanskrit: न्याय, nyā-yá), in great detail list out the characteristics of discourse between opposing viewpoints. In ancient India scholars debated on the basis of such rules to ensure that communication (Sanskrit: वाद) leads to "Jalpa and Vitanda result only in a trial of strength between the opponents, who are both desirous of victory. Vada is the ascertainment of truth between the teacher and the disciple or between others, both unbiased." (श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता / Shrimad Bhagvat Gita, Chapter 10, Sloka 32). And that's the best way to review, interpret, or quote historical texts - a communication not a trial of strength.