08-27-2009, 08:33 PM
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplay...cle.aspx?id=768
Hinduism Misinterpreted: Encyclopædia Britannica insults Hinduism
Amit Raj Dhawan
23 Aug 2009
This article will highlight some of the misinterpretations of Hinduism in Encyclopædia Britannica, many of which are very offending to any Hindu reader and those who know and respect Hinduism. The author has based this article on the contents of [1]. Text quoted from Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition is in slanted red typeface. In the following lines an argument is presented, which shows and questions the biased intentions of a popular reference source like Encyclopædia Britannica. Information conveyed by an encyclopedia should be unbiased, impartial, based on facts, true to the greatest extent, and not anybodyâs personal opinion. In this light, the article on Hinduism in Encyclopædia Britannica has been examined. The absurd choice of contributors of an article on Hinduism by the authorities of Encyclopædia Britannica will also be analysed. It is felt that Britannicaâs article on Hinduism is written in a sense that ill-disposes a reader towards Hinduism, whereas this is not the case with Britannicaâs articles on other religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. After thought and analysis, I have been left with an impression which can be best summarized in the following question: Why is Encyclopædia Britannica hostile towards Hinduism?
A Masterâs level physics text written in English can be read, at least most part of it, by a person who has a Bachelorâs in English. But reading a text does not mean that it has been understood! To understand such a text on physics, at least one is required to have adequate knowledge of physics. Generally, a linguist is not a physicist. In this sense, what this person (who does not know physics) would infer from a physics text cannot be relied upon, and of course, before his or her findings are published, they have to be scrutinized.
Religion is based on belief, and reliable information on any particular religion can be conveyed by a person who believes in it, has good knowledge about it, and therefore realises it. Authorities of Encyclopædia Britannica forgot this fact when they published about Hinduism, but remembered it when publishing on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. On the one hand they have chosen people like Rev. Henry Chadwick to write on Christianity, Fazlur Rahman, an alim, to write on Islam, and Rabbi Lou Hackett Silberman to write on Judaism, and on the other hand they have chosen Wendy Doniger, who is criticised for her negative portrayals of Hinduism ([2],[3]), as a writer and editor of Hinduism.
From the stated writers or editors of Hinduism in Encyclopædia Britannica ([1]), none of them is a Hindu, or of Indian origin, or a holder of Hindu scholarship, e.g. an acharya. To write on Christianity, Encyclopædia Britannica chose a Reverend (a priest of the Christian church); for Islam, an alim (a Muslim learned in religious matters); to describe Judaism, a Rabbi (a religious leader and teacher in the Jewish religion). But for information on Hinduism they chose people who have been criticised by Hindus and academia. Why has Encyclopædia Britannica been partial in its choice on religious matters?
The lengthy article on Hinduism (approx. 51 000 words) in Encyclopædia Britannica ([1]), does not depict Hinduism in a positive manner, in general. It looks more of a critique of Hinduism, where several conceptsâfairly clear to an average Hinduâhave been predicted as
tensions and confusions. Britannica has misrepresented the concept and message of Hinduism, and Hindu values have been disparaged. The articles on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been written in a very good sense, and the evils of these religions have been subjugated by way of presentation of those themes. In almost every section of [1], unnecessary contradictions and tensions have been mentioned with exaggeration. Why? It seems that the ambition of Encyclopædia Britannica is to show Hinduism inferior to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but even then the question is: Why?
Britannica disrespects more than 800 million Hindus by publishing mendacious statements about their religion. Some of these statements are extremely false, concocted, rude, painful to a Hindu heart. About Lord Krishna, respected and revered by all Hindus, the article says ([1]):
Krishna was worshipped with his adulterous consort, Radha.
According to reputed dictionaries [4] and [5], the word adulterous is related to adultery, and adultery refers to sex between a married man or woman and someone who is not a wife or husband. Consort means an associate ([5]). Neither through Hindu history nor through any reliable Hindu belief can it be stated that Lord Krishna had an illicit sexual relationship with Radha. They are symbols of pure divine love. How could the writers of this text, Arthur Llewellyn Basham, J. A. B. van Buitenen, and Wendy Doniger publish such nonsense? How could authorities of Britannica allow this menace to Hindu belief?
Instead of mentioning the exemplary virtues of Lord Ram and Lord Krishna, their righteousness has been critically examined. Moreover, insane and illusionary fiction has been presented as a fact. In [1], it is stated:
The story of Rama, like that of Krishna, also has a shadowy side.
and
The benevolence and beneficial activity of these figures (Rama, Krishna, et al.) is, however, occasionally in doubt. Vishnu often acts deceitfully, selfishly, or helplessly;â¦
Hinduism Misinterpreted: Encyclopædia Britannica insults Hinduism
Amit Raj Dhawan
23 Aug 2009
This article will highlight some of the misinterpretations of Hinduism in Encyclopædia Britannica, many of which are very offending to any Hindu reader and those who know and respect Hinduism. The author has based this article on the contents of [1]. Text quoted from Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition is in slanted red typeface. In the following lines an argument is presented, which shows and questions the biased intentions of a popular reference source like Encyclopædia Britannica. Information conveyed by an encyclopedia should be unbiased, impartial, based on facts, true to the greatest extent, and not anybodyâs personal opinion. In this light, the article on Hinduism in Encyclopædia Britannica has been examined. The absurd choice of contributors of an article on Hinduism by the authorities of Encyclopædia Britannica will also be analysed. It is felt that Britannicaâs article on Hinduism is written in a sense that ill-disposes a reader towards Hinduism, whereas this is not the case with Britannicaâs articles on other religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. After thought and analysis, I have been left with an impression which can be best summarized in the following question: Why is Encyclopædia Britannica hostile towards Hinduism?
A Masterâs level physics text written in English can be read, at least most part of it, by a person who has a Bachelorâs in English. But reading a text does not mean that it has been understood! To understand such a text on physics, at least one is required to have adequate knowledge of physics. Generally, a linguist is not a physicist. In this sense, what this person (who does not know physics) would infer from a physics text cannot be relied upon, and of course, before his or her findings are published, they have to be scrutinized.
Religion is based on belief, and reliable information on any particular religion can be conveyed by a person who believes in it, has good knowledge about it, and therefore realises it. Authorities of Encyclopædia Britannica forgot this fact when they published about Hinduism, but remembered it when publishing on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. On the one hand they have chosen people like Rev. Henry Chadwick to write on Christianity, Fazlur Rahman, an alim, to write on Islam, and Rabbi Lou Hackett Silberman to write on Judaism, and on the other hand they have chosen Wendy Doniger, who is criticised for her negative portrayals of Hinduism ([2],[3]), as a writer and editor of Hinduism.
From the stated writers or editors of Hinduism in Encyclopædia Britannica ([1]), none of them is a Hindu, or of Indian origin, or a holder of Hindu scholarship, e.g. an acharya. To write on Christianity, Encyclopædia Britannica chose a Reverend (a priest of the Christian church); for Islam, an alim (a Muslim learned in religious matters); to describe Judaism, a Rabbi (a religious leader and teacher in the Jewish religion). But for information on Hinduism they chose people who have been criticised by Hindus and academia. Why has Encyclopædia Britannica been partial in its choice on religious matters?
The lengthy article on Hinduism (approx. 51 000 words) in Encyclopædia Britannica ([1]), does not depict Hinduism in a positive manner, in general. It looks more of a critique of Hinduism, where several conceptsâfairly clear to an average Hinduâhave been predicted as
tensions and confusions. Britannica has misrepresented the concept and message of Hinduism, and Hindu values have been disparaged. The articles on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been written in a very good sense, and the evils of these religions have been subjugated by way of presentation of those themes. In almost every section of [1], unnecessary contradictions and tensions have been mentioned with exaggeration. Why? It seems that the ambition of Encyclopædia Britannica is to show Hinduism inferior to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but even then the question is: Why?
Britannica disrespects more than 800 million Hindus by publishing mendacious statements about their religion. Some of these statements are extremely false, concocted, rude, painful to a Hindu heart. About Lord Krishna, respected and revered by all Hindus, the article says ([1]):
Krishna was worshipped with his adulterous consort, Radha.
According to reputed dictionaries [4] and [5], the word adulterous is related to adultery, and adultery refers to sex between a married man or woman and someone who is not a wife or husband. Consort means an associate ([5]). Neither through Hindu history nor through any reliable Hindu belief can it be stated that Lord Krishna had an illicit sexual relationship with Radha. They are symbols of pure divine love. How could the writers of this text, Arthur Llewellyn Basham, J. A. B. van Buitenen, and Wendy Doniger publish such nonsense? How could authorities of Britannica allow this menace to Hindu belief?
Instead of mentioning the exemplary virtues of Lord Ram and Lord Krishna, their righteousness has been critically examined. Moreover, insane and illusionary fiction has been presented as a fact. In [1], it is stated:
The story of Rama, like that of Krishna, also has a shadowy side.
and
The benevolence and beneficial activity of these figures (Rama, Krishna, et al.) is, however, occasionally in doubt. Vishnu often acts deceitfully, selfishly, or helplessly;â¦