Demolishing Devdutt Pattanaik Point by Point in Detail

[Music] namaste love that today I have a very important guest Nietzschean and Mishra who is in his day job a financial expert in Mumbai but his real passion is Sanskrit Sanskrit and writing books on this and I'm going to be interviewing him on a very special topic because there's a lot of misinformation and distortions about some of our Shastras and translations of Sanskrit by our own people and sometimes very important famous people who have who write bestsellers which means that it's even more dangerous he being the subject matter expert I am going to be asking him questions in order to inform you about the research that he's done welcome little pleasure to be to be interviewing you likewise so I want to first tell them a little bit about yourself sure alright so as the RATP mentioned so I am I work in the financial industry in the day time by training I am an engineer from the Gujarat University followed by an MBA from IIM Bangalore I vote for 10 years in the innocent banking industry but my passion is as Raju G mentioned Sanskrit Indian literature Shastras Indian music and culture so I edit books I translate I author books some of my books have been on Sanskrit some of my books have been on Hanuman Chalisa and one of my books has been on ohm next year I'm planning to write a book on the Mahabharata and the Upanishads so like to like to go deeper and deeper into our scriptures into a Shastras and this is again I'm following the lineage of my guru yoga guru Swami Rama Hari who's guru in the shri version of tradition attitude so taking the light of knowledge for words by readings by understanding and by explaining it to people we are going to talk about they've thought but Naik a very famous writer interpreting our Shastras particularly at the house and Puranas very controversial in the sense that he calls all this myth which I have problem with he calls himself a mythologists in the tradition of Wendy Doniger and various Westerners who are talking about all our stuff as myth and sexual and you know looking for human rights issues and caste issues so he's kind of in that line but he's at the same time able to convince people that he's giving honest and genuine interpretation because he's an Indian with the Hindu name well-connected in the Bombay scene lot of endorsement and so on so tell us a little bit about what you know of him and kind of an overview of why this is sort of an issue sure so David Patten ayaka's Rajiv dimension is a very successful and very famous author he calls himself a mycologist he says he's not a literature he's a might ologist and you see he's all over the place he has books he has TV shows he he's he's ubiquitous with his sketches he's he's I must admit he is talented he's done a very good job marketing himself he reports my job do you get his books but more than anybody else when it comes to interpreting our tradition and nowadays it's like parents taking pride in their children reading they have the Patna against saying okay our kids are reading they've got panic so it's going to first rate a symbol to read his books I must say he's a great illustrator he has that art and with that art along with some great marketing skills he has established himself as one of the leading authors in this space in fact he is probably the most famous author in the space of poor analogy or what he calls as my theology so you know in fact many friends of mine were impressed with him many a few family members of mine were very impressed with him especially his book Jaya The Illustrated retooling of the Mahabharata so I in fact never read him because I had looked up his book the Jaya and I found it to be a bit shallow so I never bothered too much about it as and when more and more people in my friends circle and family started to praising him I thought maybe I should take a deeper look at what he writes so I happened to read his book my Gita and I was surprised because I always thought of him as a storyteller and he has a snack of making stories interesting and and laying them out for the early person so I thought why would a storyteller right on the Gita which is a very philosophical text and which is which takes years and years to understand so I booked a picked of his book my Gita and the moment I started reading it I it's hard no this is something seriously wrong because he is getting each and every concept right from the minor details to the bigger picture completely wrong and he's presenting them as his authoritative interpretation he calls it my Gita so he says okay it's my Gita I'm free to interpret it and then he says if Shankara Chara can interpret it if I manage a chair I can interpret it why can I not interpret it haha that is so funny because Shankracharya Rahman Acharya or people who have interpreted or commented on the Gita have spent years learning the scriptures learning Sanskrit understanding the language and here we have somebody it's akin to somebody not knowing English reading Hindi translations or adaptations of Shakespeare's works and then calling himself an expert on Shakespeare and singing and also he's not part of the parampara in the sense of Adi Shankara those people he's not he doesn't have the adi car in the traditional sense either i would mean i don't know if he's initiated if he's practiced if he's done all the sadhana and the tapasya whatever is required to qualify for such a gigantic reinterpretation sure sure so neither neither that nor i find his knowledge of Sanskrit is completely lacking so how could a person I was very intrigued how could a person like this comment on the Gita and write it and presented his interpretation so when I started reading it I read a few more of his articles and then you know there's an I called the sheesh Watney eye in the Indian system which says that it's like saying if you taste the water at the seashore you can conclude that the seawater is a line by salty sampling yes it's like something so I'm sampling or you know stratified sampling in statistics right sheesh Watney I in the Indian system that if you read some part of works of an author maybe a book some articles a tweet you can overall get it we can get a big picture of what this author is about and if there are so many errors so many issues with a part of his work I'm sure they would extend to other works of this so that's how I got to you know read my gita and I was I was I felt compelled to let people know that you have a best-seller who is literally pulling wool over your eyes by just writing anything there are there major issues in the work not only his interpretation of philosophical aspects in the gita but also it comes across that he is not even mastered his own sphere which is the Puranas annotate houses so I find that he presents he markets things as nonfiction so my Gita is a nonfiction book similarly my Hannah mantra is a nonfiction book and he presents narratives from the Mahabharata or the Puranas which are completely off from what is described in the Mahabharata and we will see some examples rebuild so that will make me conclude that a person who's considered an authority on poor analogy or what he calls might elegy has he actually read the original versions of the Mahabharata or the Maha throne I don't think so he's probably read adaptations he's probably read translations maybe the odium ahadith or something here's an interesting chart you have done the different issues that you raised I think it's important to tell the audience before we go into the details of what are the five or six major kind of things that you find wrong with him and then we'll go into more detail sure so specifically and this is again based on a good reading an in-depth reading of Facebook the my gita my Hanuman Chalisa and some of his articles in the net some of his tweaks as well so what I find is there are serious issues in the works of David Puttnam first and foremost he calls himself an expert on Puranas and it he's considered you know by the labels and he's considered the ultimate authority in fact recently when there was this controversy on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's remark on homosexuality a Bollywood actress Sonam Kapoor tweeted saying to get to know more about Hinduism read they've the protec and Sonam Kapoor is not nobody she has got anything to add million photos of the Twitter on Twitter so a person was widely considered an authority on Hinduism or for us he narrates things which are so inaccurate from the Mahabharata or the Bhagavata Purana or you know other it hassles and Shastras which I find very surprising at least you know we say we say to know your stuff that said if I'm a doctor I should know medical feat if I'm a statistician I should at least know the ABCs of Statistics if I'm if I style myself as am I to logic so if I strive myself as an expert from Puranas I should have at least read the original Puranas and I should be at least knowledgeable about them which I find lacking so that is one of the major issues that you have a person who is considered an authority on subject matter and he's not that to me is a big issue then now he's he's not only a storyteller he's now writing on the Gita and Hanuman Chalisa I mean in some articles he writes about you know origins of Sanskrit on the Orion invasion theory and all sorts of stuff so what I find so it's dangerous because his field is so vast yes so much credibility it is funded by some big corporate people I would guess there was the future group he was the chief belief officer of the future group of a multinational conglomerate in Mumbai and I think now reliance supports him is what they say somebody somebody supports him some big people support him because obviously he has the ability to go ahead and convince people that he he's popularizing Hinduism yeah sort of say yeah so when he comes to things which are outside the story narration part when he comes to philosophy like the Gita there is wild imagination imagination running wild his imagination his imagination running white so for example you know he explains philosophical terms which have no in a way which have no connection whatsoever to how they are understood in us in our Shastras or in our tradition so he'll invent concepts he will invent new new concepts and and misattribute them to the gita or to hanuman chalisa or specific terms in sanskrit and then say ok this is my interpretation so that is to me is a very serious issue well you can you can say it is my imagination but you cannot say it's nonfiction you can't say it's nonfiction and philosophy and then you you then bring in your own imagination and you say this is what the Gita says that it would be ok if you said I'm just telling you fiction yeah and I'm using some of the same names and characters but I'm writing fiction so it's not knowledge it's not philosophy it's not Shastra don't take it as authoritative understanding of our Shastra that would be different but he yeah but he's saying that I am telling you what the real tradition is yeah which is why I find a mystery but he is at least honest in the sense he says his books are fiction yeah yeah so here we have homage to the party who clearly says whatever I publish is fiction it's a retelling but that's not the case with a report that is his book my Gita is nonfiction philosophy that's how Rupa presents it so another issue major issue with his work is somehow he has this obsession with force fitting themes of sex violence and LGBTQ aspects into our works into Shastras into even art so you know if he sees to go piece together he'll say they're lesbians right and that that to me is like an anti Brahmin all the way through all the way through and anti in our eyes and he a Neriah although his money comes he comment on our fundraising to us so he's happy to take the money yeah [Laughter] anti brahmanism a lot in fact on Twitter when I questioned him some of his claims in his book the Gita instead of addressing the issues that had raised he went on a spree saying Brahmins have always criticized non-brahmins and I have a attacking you personally rather than addressing the issues argumentum ad hominem yeah yeah so and it's surprisingly this this this would you not come as come as a general attack against people who are his critics so you would say brahmins left to criticize me so if Graham is criticize me it's it means I'm doing good work and not even caring whether people were criticizing or actually means Arnaud or not because all sort of people is an issue that if you ask me resolve regardless regardless of who raised it true you raise an issue so you did not say the issue is valid because I'm a Brahmin you did not use your bra meanness to make the issue valid show the issue is valid issue on its own merits sure so he owes you a response on the merits true and cannot attack you for any identity type of whether you do that when you don't have anything to say mean we've seen this in the case of several people that you and their question and have nothing to say they were just attack right the the community or write in his book my Gita what are some it errors but I see there are several categories of errors and in my drivi of the book I called it a marvel of scholarly ineptitude Wow which is which for a nonfiction book and for somebody who's considered a subject matter expert is a very scatting yes indictment seriously it is it is a marvel of scholarly ineptitude there are errors all over the book and the major kind of errors i I would like to see them in several categories and one of the categories is wrong narration from piranhas anything houses okay so let's see you you you if you think David Putney ik knows his stuff and if he narrates from an episode from the Bhagavata Purana you would consider that more or less he would stick to the original narrative in the back with Quran now here's an example where I pick a narrative from the Bhagavata Purana in rage it's a very it's a young Japanese episodes in the pocket where but nyuk is telling how things happen and we see that in seven lines he make as many as five blatant errors okay so tell us them sure yeah so on page 106 I'll just read what I know six of his book 106 of the book mi'jita okay so he says a similar story is found in the bhagwat Quran where Krishna while tending to his cows comes upon a few years amana's performing no and as an for food they ignore him so he goes to their bites and they are deep but nice feed him all the offerings they had prepared for the yagna the hegemon has a furious but then realize that they've ides of content while they feel angry and frustrated so having read the Bhagavata Purana episode myself i know that there are major errors here and you would not expect this in a nonfiction book so seven lines 500 that's see what they are so but nice says that a few years amana's were doing this now the hegemon is as you all know yeah german is somebody who sponsors i guys know so it is a hegemon and there's somebody who performs a witness over the huge amount of tourists it gives authority to the to the pundit to perform the egg on his behalf so are they real man's present know there are brahmins present who are performing evening for themselves there's no sponsor there in the real story in the Bhagavata Purana in the real story there is no judgment there is no sponsor and he talks about that there are there are this is the 23rd chapter of the tenth canto que otra he says krishna comes across judgments while tending to cows and awesome for food well as per the bhagavata krishna is relaxing on the banks of Yamuna and there are some friends of his who go and ask the brahmins performing the food so so krishna is sub is confused with friends yes so rather than the cowherd boys going and asking for food for krishna he says krishna goes to the hegemon as in a cell for food okay he says the judgments ignore krishna well as a christian never went there there's no chance of the ignoring right back in fact they were no eh - so there's this Brahmins and expression when they himself they weren't having known him but because they were cowherd boys so they say like hey they ignore their message then he says that Krishna goes to the vibes of the yojanas they are getting a Putney's and they feed him now his interest is what is interesting so krishna sends the cowherd boys to the edge near openings in the real story that's right that's right and then they come to him with food so it's rather than krishna going to them it's the novotny's who come to them took out the krishna with food and they offer him all sorts of food prepared so again just just total confusion between who is who is the agent who's the active agent whose heart and heart facts wrong very wrong and this is there's not any philosophy this is just simple narration about Quran if you would have read any any translation any English or Hindi translation of the pocket Quran this is straightforward to set of events and then finally now this is a more serious saying here but Naik says that the gauge one is a furious and they realize they feel angry and frustrated on the contrary the Brahmins in the Bhagavata Purana realized their mistake that they ignored the message of the cowherd boys which was sent by Krishna and they repent so rather than presenting rather than saying that yes what actually happened as per the pollak Quran was they repented that they did not give food to Krishna he is painting them as negative characters that they they are furious and they are angry and frustrated I don't know maybe he wants to paint this as a pig you know subjugation of females is a it creates some kind of a bait some tension going on between Krishna and other people so getting the facts wrong and then then creating some kind of a later on some connecting the dots to connect make a motive out of it or something so what leave a suggestion in the readers mind yeah - that yeah so this is one example where you know seven lines five errors and I was I was so surprised that how could a subject matter expert make so many errors in such a simple narration now this example maybe not that maybe I would still say it's not a big Distortion it's maybe a lot of errors but let's come to a narration from the Mahabharata you have wrong narration and that narration is attributed to something which which is very surprising so but now I can my gita on page 198 and the following pages he's talking about the birth of the Pandu princes and the core of princes so what he says is that they were in a competition so Kunti mod 3 and gandhari were no competition to produce more babies now maybe it fits in his with his you know subtle agent of printing the Indian society as somebody who which has always wanted male babies or or not I'm not sure but when he writes from the Mahabharat he says that and I quote him the competitive spirit kicks in Pandu knows that Kunti has a mantra which she can invoke to to get a child and Pandu immediately asks Kunti to Samantha herma and that's how they make it use it so there's no competitive spirit they are not aware of Gandhari getting pregnant they are not they're not in a competition to produce more babies but it's it's it's only Pandu learning of the mantra and asking her to someone her MA and get a child the next claim what I'd say is that Pandu was after three sons mind was four more sons but context a she can not use the mantra for more than three times so Pandu begs her to share the matter with mother Kunti has already used the month or four times because with karna the initiative way the demon with Arjun so there's no such restriction in the Mahabharata so it seems like he hasn't even read very basic back facts about the story knows it no this is not fact-checking there's no cross-checking I would say if I'm a if I'm an expert on a subject matter if I'm writing a book I would at least consult the original texts and verify what I'm writing is true yeah seems and his edit his publishers you check and his support his endorsement people should check I mean they're all putting the reputation sure aren't hard facts being totally wrong sure sure so he says that kunti's claims that she cannot use a month three times upon to begs couldn't quantity to share the monthly with Madhuri but nothing of the sort happens Kunti in fact says she understands her MA and therefore she is not going to have more children but how the MA three should have children so she voluntarily shares the mantra with Madhuri and it's not part of begging her to share it with Madhuri so in fact Kunti is exercising restraint so it's not it's not about Pandu being desperate Kunti not being able to have more sons upon to begging her to say that nothing of that sort happened so not only are is facts wrong but the implication is drawing is actually just the opposite it is so he's fabricating facts to create an impression which is a completely wrong impression it is Madhuri in fact who wants children and once a child which asks Pandu to request Khun P to share the mother it's not it's not begging but it's requesting because there's no competition here Madhuri says she is not unhappy on hearing of the birth of hundred births one hundred sons of Gandhari so there's nobody competing to get more sons it's actually very different from what Bert Naik is narrating in his book again so now again when when when he talks about the birth of the hundred sons of Ghana Hari what but mike says is that when Gandhari learns of Pandu's sons she's desperate to get more children so she says that if Pandu who got three sons with Kunti if country has three sons I have two had ninety seven more sons than Kunti so I should have one hundred sons in fact nothing of this sort happened Gandhari in fact asked for a boon to have hundred sons from yourself and Piast says okay you will have hundred sons so if this all happened before couldn't be got three sons so there's no competition at she's got everything wrong if this is all complete mixed up completely clear focus focus and then he says that Gandhari gets her Midwife to strike her belly with an iron rod I don't nobody gets anything like that that's what happened so Gandhari strikes a belly herself there's no iron rod this is nothing of that sort and then there's a ball of flesh which is divided into hundred it divides itself into hundred so there's no desire on part of ganda live 897 more sons and Kunti and 98 more sense and Modric so there are some you know these these this example shows that not only are the facts wrong but he assigns motives which are completely not there and this is very dangerous to me is a distortion it's because you know when somebody pretends kickboard detail her he knows all the little details he knows all of that stuff and he's referencing then the average Indian who saw misinformed and ignorant is very grateful that he's teaching us all this stuff and takes the whole thing at face value not only all these facts fabricated but they are organized to convey a message which is the wrong message you check which as we will see as we go political motives it is in fact trivializing civilizing everything for example if you say that oh they had they had so many sons because they were in a competition teacher to have more sons it's like trivializing the characters in the mob are right which in a nonfiction work it's it's an insult to the the the deep character development that exists in the day everybody in ghana he couldn't be mothers they have very strong characters in the market everybody each one of them has their own distinctive traits their own distinctive strengths and weaknesses and you if you just trivialize this as okay they were all in a race to have more sons the next one is a very very important example of error because this is where a very profound concept that goes all through our tradition is completely misrepresented distorted and turned into some kind of a social political idea yeah yeah but I'm so another category of errors which I found am I get over imagination running wild I don't know whether it's intentional or whether it's it's unintentional but in some cases there's just wild imagination applied to or maybe it's not so wide maybe it's it's by design imagination applied to distort philosophically concepts now let's see on page 100 and 90 of the makita buttnik talks about the three kinds of bodies and so he explains what is called the current sherry so what he reads what he says and I and I quote in the opener shots Chaitra is seen as a third layer of there it is the outermost layer known as a social layer or the karan sharir then comes a physical layer or the story sherry and finally the mental layer or the Sutra sherry the social body refers to property inherited at birth or earned through effort unhook this is pretty nonsensical completely completely karan sharir being translated as social body and making it outermost when in fact it is you know it is words so the innermost part of our being he switches and calls it outermost and then on top of that he says this is this is your social body which is the Quran Sharif and it is property inheritance both and it has to do with your property real estate you okay I mean this is complete baloney completely so as well as you would know in the yoga and Vedanta traditions there are three bodies mentioned there is a story which is outermost sherry which is a physical body with a sukshma sharir which is a subtle body and the karush read is the innermost body which is a causal body towards the body now but Nyak makes it the outermost body calls it a social body and relates it to property inherited at births now very d make this up I'm not sure but to explain something which is an established concept in yoga and Vedanta it's completely different I don't know I don't know what sense so you see while somebody may be entitled to interpretation to some extent this is a blatant falsification distortion completely distorted there are 128 Upanishads which mentioned Chaitra and I found this in searching the Sanskrit documents for which all opening shots mentioned through they have 140 you finishes on the Sanskrit documents website so I looked which all have the term J to the 28 of them and not a single one of them explains Chaitra as a social body or an outermost body so where is David Patna I get it's tough Rock why don't you read what is he smoking and Karan sharir you wouldn't find anybody calling that social body nobody nobody and nobody calling it outermost or relating it to property so that's one example let's come to another example now in the my gita on page 140 so it's a very important part of the gita where arjun asks krishna six questions on you know what is brahma what is a death what is karma what is Adi booth what is Aarti David and what is RT Edna so but Naik is explaining all these six terms so again he translates or explains it as something which does not make any sense so I read he he says in Chapter eight Krishna connects the impersonal mind of brahma brahman an impersonal matter or the food to the personal mind which is at the Atma and the personal body which is Adi divert via impersonal action which is karma and personal connection which is add he onion the first time I read it I was like is this like what random variables like in statistics with random variables and Wow this noise is this there's too many errors rumblings of in some intoxicated mind what is it and you know when when you when you actually read what the Gita says the Gita says it's imperishable supreme it says aksaram para mom Brahma but Naik says it is an impersonal mind now how come Akshay para me becomes the impersonal mind this is nothing got nothing to do with the mind so it's completely off the second term at Dartmouth so the Gita says it's the sub power or the own nature now Patna explains it as personal mind so Brahma is impersonal mind and atmospher Suleman nothing to do with what the Gita is saying right the third term which is Karma so the Gita says it is the release or offering or the oblation which causes the birth and the evolution of living beings but now cause it's impersonal action action may be yes but what is personal or impersonal about it I have no idea maybe he's just putting in the word because he wanted to talk about impersonal my in-person mind so they must be something called postal actress so here I feel that he's trying to cater to a certain Western model some westernized models and trying to show that he's his interpretation will be more accessible to those guys maybe because this is this sort of jargon sometimes is used by those people yeah then he talks about Adi booth the Gita says it's shirahama which means the perishable nature and patnik says it's impersonal matter maybe matter but what is impersonal about it I'm not sure then Adi David so Gita says it is the purusa or the cosmic being is Adi David but Naik says it's a personal body now the Gita says are they they are the earth is the purush which is us which is not Material right and pétanque is calling it personal body which is material so he's confusing between matter and spirit which in a you know book on the Gita is a grave mistake yes it is it is like saying you know confusing digital with continuous or you know right yeah finally when it comes to ideas new Krishna says AHA maybe I alone is a t add new but mike says it's a personal connection now Christian is saying I am at the Etna but nice thing it's a connection so is there no difference between people who are connected the connection it's almost like the ignoring the Gita's own description or a book on the Gita in a book on the Gita ignoring without arguing or giving a rationale why he wants to reject it and coming up with a completely new concocted vocabulary and you know way of thinking and framework like it sir he's taking some facts from data from the Gita and putting it in his in a completely different spin another example of wild imagination and this is a pervasive error in his book to my gita not only the my gita he has made this error over and over again in many books and many articles so to explain the term brahman which is a very very widely used term in very important in indian philosophy and so he's got it wrong he's got it completely wrong in as many as 28 places in my in one book in one book Wow so somehow he gets into these folk etymology modes I don't think he knows much of I don't think he knows any of Sanskrit so he kind of imagines what Sanskrit word means subjects words mean and so he says okay Brahmin would means Brahma means expansion and one means mind so he says that Brahman means expanding the mind which is completely wrong but the meaning the the word for mind in sense with his - and right month right and it comes from the root brain and the month suffix which means somebody something that grows is Brahman or something that makes you grow is Brahman now there's no mind there but nine think there's a mind there so he says okay a brahmana is somebody who expands his mind the mind is something I don't know how it expands well he'd make solid expanse or it expands but I don't know how what makes the mind expand I'm not sure so in as many as 28 places in the my Gita but Naik says Brahman is expanding the mind so it has to do with expansion of the mind so a student is expanding the mind so he has interpreted the the Mun part of Brahman has - right right and then he says okay fine I have an expanded mind so I have realized Brahman so this is this is a pervasive around the whole hook a book of 230 or 240 pages I'm broad-minded sir Ramon oh yeah I'm broad-minded my mind is broad already I don't know what he how do you explain then prominent because it's the same Road so I don't know but 28 places in a book of 230 pages the same and over and over again how do you explain it is it it's just sloppy work so I don't know where he picked up this etymology but he just goes on repeating again and again in books in articles and people take it as as the Brahma bucket as something that is true so you know the the sentence of somebody's an expanded mind right so this is pretty startling and his audience have no suspicion of this take everything at face value eating out of his hand glorifying such a great guy ya know and you're the first person who's really into this and I'm very grateful because he's he is telling us don't take it at face value do some doodlee it out and don't miss educate yourself or your children true very true and here's another one on page 21 of his book right so I I find this person is obsessed with finding themes related to sex violence and reading lesbian gay bisexual transgender themes even when nothing of this sort exists in in Hindu texts so for example you know you've heard the word astok you know what a stick me a stick is somebody who believes in God a stick is somebody who believes in the Vedas but as per but I know it's something more than that when explaining the word in a stick in Gnostic he says they reiterated the concept of et which means as things are accepting the reality of sex and violence desires and conflicts and relationships household and life those who affirmed a theme or the asticus those are denied a team of the Gnostic girls so what he's saying is those who accept the reality of sex and la and violence desires and conflicts are the that is what et means and they are the ostraca those who are those who accept these kind of right now firstly the acetic and nos the word a stick and the word Gnostic has nothing to do with it so if he went to a sex club and those who accept various things going on in the sex club he would say they are the Azteca that what he's basically saying that those who are accepting the this reality of sex and so if he goes to a place where the mode is sex and violence he would say that that is the reality that you have to accept to be an insider jurassica so that's how what he's insinuating is the nature of the the Shastras right guys now firstly the words astok and Gnostic as per Sanskrit grammar have nothing to do with the word eating right in the first place so his basic premise is wrong right astok and Gnostic the words come from the word asti asti which means yes you know the Persian word asked there's a couplet but a girl filled those but ruies I mean us the hummina hummina hummina write us the in persian means is and that comes that is related to us the incense which means is so Asti means is a stick is derived from Asti and it means somebody who believes in God is God exists or somebody who believes in Vedas is in a stick and somebody who does not is a gnostic so firstly he makes the this plane that Asti and us hasta canasta can relate to ET somehow and then he says eating is related to the reality of sex and violence somehow and then he puts these two together and says hasta cos are people who believe in the reality of sex and violence and desires and all that which which to me is is I don't know it's it's it's it's its source it's so funny that it's tragic but you know as he's positioning himself to be a reference and source of authority for other writers other thinkers who will say ok we couldn't live that patnik and that's legitimate that's what he's supposed to do what he's done here is pretty dangerous because from now on you if you're a sticker they you will be insinuated as somebody who believes in sex and violence and that is the definition of why you call a sticker so now the whole all the whole tradition of astok are and what they believe in Vedas and all that can be subject to all kinds of twisting so very dangerous if it's this person is selling I when I read the my gita it was the tenth imprint already so I don't know how many how many thousands or hundreds of thousands of these books have been sold and you want to buy that with the number of readers were reading them and they're believing that okay a stick is somebody who believes in the reality of sex and violence Dave that per take very logically analytically but using fabricated assumptions argues that a sticker is somebody who believes in sex and violence that's the definition it's a it's a big deal again another example let's say let's say you know you know the gopis of vraja so they are examples of their exalted examples of party in our tradition in the north but the Sutra one of the examples is that the party is as was the party of the gopis of the copic oz of Raja and in fact even in the Gita when Krishna says mama come sharanam vraja' commentators have explained that mam ekam saranam vraja means come to me as the GU because of Raj came to me right so nobody would have imagined that the vraja go pikas together nobody in the tradition would have even remotely imagined that there was something more than what Peter was Krishna and friendship among their souls now he's an example this was put up on Instagram and Twitter why they were perfect this is a painting which has Krishna and Radha under an umbrella and there are two ladies in a cave and any questions are they lesbians okay now so you see two ladies together that's the the two sakis together this is the Wendy Doniger influence on him who's a pal of his we'll come to that in a while yeah and and they're not even they they're just sitting and talking to each other and says are they lesbians so this was on Twitter this was on Instagram if there is nothing remotely of that sort in the painting creation of freshmen and rather high on coke occurs and you just say okay other lesbians I mean this is this is just stabilizing things or it's just reading things where there's nothing exists I know why is this obsession with finding these themes everywhere you know if you are a Krishna but I mean this is quite quite sad quite sad to put this kind of I mean I've spent 25 years complaining and criticizing people like Wendy Donecker and all these other people and here is Dave that patnik supposedly one of our own guys who's doing it 10 times worse and being accepted by our people just because he's he's made up into this famous fellow so you know then I don't know if that is just having two ladies in a frame makes them lesbians then I don't know I don't know where the line stops like you can have you can read that theme everywhere what you see what he is doing is he is providing the masala for this kind of people who are looking for all these things so they can start saying Gita for lesbians oh yeah that'd be some kind of thing coming out you know and you know Krishnamurti for lesbians this sort of a thing so but it's irresponsible well let's let's say I opposed to me I don't have anything against anybody's orientation but reading a team and for spitting a team yes where nothing exists yes that is just not coming so this is not he's not against lesbians or anything he's just saying that is not what the heath I think if the text is not saying that that is not what the painting is saying that's not what the painting is saying that it's basically falsifying at our tradition in order to be politically correct with a certain audience so what we may think of that audience and all that I personally have no problem but let's not force interpretation into our text another major problem is David but nyuk is that he often in his books in his articles he explains sons with words and concepts and you know gives etymologies so you would you would assume that somebody who explains since with words has done some homework has at least picked up a dictionary there's a glass of I'm a scholar yeah that kind of an image is creating and if I give an etymology if I say that the word you know that the word manuscript is derived from Manus which means hand and script which means to write you would assume that I'm talking specific stuff so I would have looked up something I would have done my homework before I talk about it I won't go and say okay friendship comes from the word friend and shape and means two friends who sit in a shape there's this friendship between them so know so a lot of times in fact more than more than majority of the times when he talks about some stressed words area team ologies he gets them completely wrong which betrays a profound ignorance of sunscreen and so if well nothing against it if you're if you're mycologist if you call is if my father is you're writing a bronze you really don't know Sanskrit I don't have anything against you but if you're talking about Sanskrit words but don't pretend to know if here he says he claims that he heard the bhagavad-gita four months in the original Sanskrit at the beginning of his book I got so he claims that and and when such a person who claims that I heard the bhagavad-gita four months in the original Sun straight doesn't know even basic sense within is something seriously wrong they said there's an image being put up that yes I know I can explain our technologies and when you cannot then with its it's it's very it's very annoying so let's take an example in a recent article published on the day leo what mike says that some screwy he's talking about culture sums would be very important what some squiggly so he's saying it derives from the towards some and aakriti and then he relates some to the some and vish am tall and indian music so somehow the word sums critique comes from not from summer plus accurate e but it comes from some plus kriti with a grammatical rule results in an additional s but this is completely wrong etymology and then he explains it in his different ways a common word made-up etymology and then a made-up explanation we will see some more examples yes so let's let's say we go to my geetha page seven he's explaining the term Pakwan page seven page 71 one this is pretty serious yeah so he says that Bhagwan bhaga means slice or a portion and palawan means somebody who's the master of all slices or all portions well anybody who knows basic Sanskrit or you in Hindi or even a language like Telugu would tell you that bug is not portion bagus portion now this is the difference between a short fall and a long wall and ha oh and those two letters of the stave Nagri or as forbidden any like any Indian language I know most Indian languages begin with oh I know so if he doesn't know the difference between bugger and boggle and then he is explaining that okay bug means a portion of slice of Hawaiian means somebody well that is that is shocking that is shocking and this is not just a single example well it also comes when he talks he confuses between letters consonants so when he is explaining Samadhi in my Gitana Samadhi is a word which is very commonly used in yoga and what it means is that something in which your mind is absorbed so this is Samadhi a - mini T Samadhi so it comes from the root ha which means and some outs prefix and ha the root and that's a word Samadhi now how Patna explains it very interesting so on page 232 of mijita he says the word Samadhi is based on towards summer which is which means the first beat of musical cycle in Hindustani music and Adi which means origin now see are the origin is the is the consonant though and Samadhi is the consonant the the two different letters so like and ah now the and her also he mixes up mixes up so a person was writing a book on the Gita does he meanoh the ABCs of Sanskrit basic language you have Mary some languages me oh it can't be mixed with our and the country mixed with the yeah so a person who's doesn't know the basic difference between two letters of Sanskrit or even oriya which is his mother tongue so based on this is completely wrong interpretation of what it means completely wrong this is Samadhi has nothing to do with beginning nothing to do with music so somehow he brings in this wild imagination he puts on this facade of having you know this etymology the explanations and gets completely wrong interpretations and distorted meanings - he's a facade master so this he's creating generating his own myth there's a myth of desert panic I would guess now let's make another another example where you know again Brahman he is explained it for basically incorrectly in his book now he he doesn't know the difference between the words Brahman and Brahman yes so these are two very different words now Brahman means Brahma is the word of Brahma Brahman is the Vedic texts Brahman but Brahman is something very different now he hasn't he doesn't know the difference between these two words and it mixes this whole explanation this a lot of Europeans also got wrong and he so he's pretty obsolete because nowadays Westerners a lot more sophisticated and know this kind of a thing well yeah he's completely wrong but this is this is confusing two different letters two different words two different completely different ideas completely different ideas yeah so these these are some examples of you know interestingly so he's he's right he's writing a book on vaquita he's explaining a verse on the Gita and he confuses the word in the original verse with some other wood so this is ultimate sloppy work I would say so he's explaining this word which is booty in the Gita which is you know the last verse in the or the last verses in the Gita yeah three Yogeshwara Krishna get the part that Rasheeda be rare beauty through Vani Timothy no this is the Sanjay saying where there's Krishna and where there is the urgent where there is a Shri Vijay booty and all these things are there so instead of booty butt Naik says it is boom confusing booty for boo booty means prosperity but axis it is boo boo is Dominion and then he relates that to Dominion and he relates that to Sri and who through is the word which means fixed and he confuses this with the masculine word Rover which use the devotee so through beneath their mother mama that's the verse in the Gita buttnik says it is through so it's boo and Sri booty go becomes food through Bobby comes through wall and everything goes for a toss so there's garbage in garbage out doesn't understand the word confuse it's for some other food and it builds a whole pack of cards around it that this has got to do with the two consorts of Vishnu with the devotees river with Dominion with something with something so an example another example of how you don't have the knowledge of the basic words and you're trying to explain it text in a language which you completely don't understand so the whole thing is made up so he's turned it into his own myth he's making a myth out of a tree it's his own fantasy war NTC world so he calls it my Gita it's actually my own fantasy wood it's not it's not just it's not just my gear it's my own my own sunscreen it's my own grammar it's my own Puranas it's my own my own reality my own reality he's living his only energy for sure here so let's discuss his Brahman hatred I seemed like everywhere seems to be seems to have some something against Brahmans or you know I don't know what but yeah so this when I started questioning him on Twitter I got some good response and when people started questioning him that would you like to respond to to somebody who's raising four seconds spoke so he went on a complete spree of tweeting against grommets and there was a lot of generalizations you could I don't know if you give me called premier phobia or premier hatred but an example of a street during that time was this was one of the recent ones when I think up in a walker wall criticized him on his blog he just wrote Brahmans love abusing non-brahmins who wrote on Gita it is a long long history as you know Brahman criticism indicates endorsement again this was back in January he tweeted something of the order of the sort that Brahmins could not cross the ocean and when they became lucrative they they gave up that rule so I don't know why because if you're being asked if you're being questioned on your book which is a best-selling book you are known also you're being coached in your book you would expect that the response would be specific but this was just generalizing this is this is Brahmins abusing non-brahmins none of you criticized him for his caste right you very secure yeah you don't care it doesn't matter you you criticize a particular point page number this that this is the wrong translation and so he ought to be smart enough and honest enough with enough integrity to answer in a specific way I mean if they had done some insult to him personally then you could say okay he's also lost his temper and he's responding this way but for him to start criticizing the whole community and cold category and whatnot because some one of them raised the particular issue shows that he's really got not not even in control oh yeah yeah and somehow the spills over to other things so in in a recent article on the Hindustan Times he is talking about his book my Hanuman Chalisa and he said another reason for writing this book was that I've wanted everyone to read about Hanuman Chalisa which has earlier been limited only to the Brahmins and this is very strange because not even in Sanskrit it sin of the which is a popular language which is a language spoken by crores of people common people in the third prediction center pradesh about the region yeah so how can that be restricted to brahmins and hanuman chalisa was never restricted to Brahmin so somehow he's saying I am the surveyor I am writing this book so that non-brahmins can read it when in fact they've been reading it for centuries so he doesn't have the basic knowledge of hanuman chalisa all the language of the language of which language the context the social context in which that language has been very popular it's a grass roots it is as a mod me as it gets sure this show around February so when I was criticizing him of Gita so he made a tweet where he miss coated and then he assigned a motive to Brahmin so he what he said was pardoned he said that for pots you go to Potter's but for language you don't go to expert Brahmin you go to the market common people and he's activating this Trapani first of all funny you never wrote anything of that sort the quotation occurs in the Maharaja of Patanjali where the context and the content both of completely different so firstly it's not bonhomie is potentially right that's completely wrong right and secondly what the actual court says is completely different so what potentially actually says is that if you need a pot you go to a Potter and say make me a pot right but if you need a word you don't go to a grammarian and say make me a word because you already know words right so this is what Patanjali says yeah there is no Brahmin he only talks about a grammarian there's no common people he just says that words are not made by grammarians rather words are used and explained by travel inside so somehow he miss attributes it to pani me and then brings in Brahmans to criticize them that you don't go to Brahmans you go to common so basically one more time one more example just fabricate the facts to fit your ideology but your point you're trying to make this you know not just Brahmins but sometimes he just attacks people and he has this these meltdowns on Madonna Twitter here's an interesting on the screen tell us what is this going on I mean he's just going on in aren't you trying to every critic with the same thing you are you you just like burning women what is this about anyone anyone who criticizes his view he'll accuse them with this view like burning women and keep tagging one by one by one by one so many of them these pages and pages of tweets and then you know this really gone out of his control this came from I had these from Shefali where there's Facebook's a wall so in one of the one of the messages he wrote to somebody who criticized him you love burning daughters random you love burning daughters and then she finally of course responds to that so why is he taking on fights like this for Sydney kind of reasons I have no idea I have no idea because maybe it's he's very insecure or being questioned maybe he's he just wants to say that or there are certain promoters sponsors you know that he's impressing ivanhoe litical ideology but but who would write on twitter you love burning daughters I would not write it to anybody on Twitter you not worrying daughters particular targeting some naming hashtag me order or tagging some people has it and then the next one is also another interesting thing on Brahmins yes so this world is a this was immediately after I started criticizing his work my Geetha and he says so he had he has to say that Brahmins and her eyes are the only people who criticize him Brahmins because they hate not Brahmins and Aniyah is because they hate him because he's in India so whatever and say so Brahmins initially declared you lose cast if you would cross the sea kala pani as soon as going abroad became a lucrative they gave this rule so he's instigating he's suggesting that an entire community is hungry for money and goes across and gives up rules how how Costas is that if it were any other caste if he was talking about you know say phthalates or he was talking about OBC is this would be a big issue another tweet he's saying that so he's he's presenting himself as the savior and saying that everybody would tax him are like Brahmins we have attacked people in the past whoever attacks Saints in the past in the street he says in sixteenth century should rimoni Balram the author of war ii-era Mayan wrote how Brahmins mocked him for commenting on Vedanta it continues today so he's equating himself with a saint in the past and he's painting all critics as Brahmins who have troubled or who have hounded non-brahmins so it's completely a cast a cast equation fit in to something which is which is totally intellectual now this one this one if you move to America four dollars give up Indian citizenship you're Indian if you criticize Brahmins you are westernized ha that makes no sense so you know he's always shifting the topic when people raise these issues with him sure now this is very interesting this is a cute couple they've got they've got and his pal Wendy Danica so we could also if we were Freudian psychoanalyst we could say these are two lesbians one of them did a sex change and became a male he's praised Wendy Tonica many times sheldon Pollak many times these are invasion theory many times he's kind of politically aligned and very friendly and they help him in fact in 2009 so they've thought they got person I wrote an article in which he waxed eloquent about Winitana girl he said that and I quote him anyone who's serious about studying Hinduism needs to study the works of Wendy Doniger had it not been for her I would not have had access to so many tales hidden in our scriptures now that's the glowing tribute to somebody you would say he probably considered her as a mentor in 2009 and so the tales hidden in our scriptures is the kind of fabric creation we talked about probably in December 2016 he took a stance which was critical of Donecker and Pollock and this was strange I never expected him to do that given given that he has you know considered her as a mentor in the past but he's he wrote in December 2016 that the likes of Pollock and doneger they need to be non confessional they need to indulge America severe complex they are pursuing activism in the guide of academia now this was very strange so maybe we have had some impact we it pointillist in fact said in several 2017 he wrote that but mike is now shifting to a stance critical of doneger precisely because of work dimitra's or your work so he knows that the game is shifted the popular opinion is going to be against him if he's supporting her so he has to modulate it's kind of distancing himself from Donegal and Pollock and also saying that I'm not even inspired by the likes of Conrad I'll store other Western historians materials one of the guys who's been critical of the observe Burton hike is a benefit given the brand that David Burton hike is people take him at face value people consider his books consider his books to be authoritative and it takes a long time for people to realize even intelligent smart people to realize that there are so many things wrong at so many levels with his work so a case in point is I've been a vagabond who comes from the same school as I do I am Bangalore he was a gold medalist there he is a prolific book reviewer he's reviewed more than 200 books on his blog he's also active on Twitter so he had a favorable opinion of the epic night for years in 2012 he reviewed the book the 7 secrets of Vishnu and he called it insightful and readable and is a detailed review on his blog in 2012 again he reviewed the book an identity card for Krishna and he called it a shot fun read for kids again a detailed review on his blog in 2013 he reviewed the book Sita and illustrated retelling of the Ramayana and he called it enriching but not as spectacularly successful odds as Jaya so you can see his a person who's a very well-read well-educated person who for years has had a very favorable opinion of Pattanaik and played paid the glowing tributes to his books called them spectacularly successful enriching and so on and in 2017 this year me in a blog post when he was reviewing the illustrated Mahabharata the only blemishes in the book are the innumerable errors that have crept into the book as a result of the editors sourcing the story of the Mahabharata from Dave that Patna adaptational Jaya these are just some a small percentage of the outright errors distortions and subtle misinterpretations that Dave that sticks contains that is a very stinging criticism off actually I think he's also shifted more aligned with us recently and distanced himself from Lathrop attack and I congratulate him because he's been able to change his views and I don't know if I don't want to speak for him but that's the guest that's the sense I get that the tide is turning more along the lines of what we are thinking and but you know that's only a few people who've taken on the observed pattern I can shift it but Nike is still exceedingly popular as far as the masses are concerned because they don't know these things sure so I mean overall not only said that he said he pointed out as many as eleven distortions by Pattanaik painstakingly comparing each one to the critical text of the Mahabharata and the Gita presentation so it's not just me who's was doing who's saying that Patna at gates it distorts things from from Mahabharata and Puranas it is people like a vinegar wall also who are doing that so in fact he didn't even stop at that he put a note on all his book reviews in November 2007 with said he said I believe David Patten Ickes writings are influenced heavily by Western frameworks and agent has on the one hand and introduced subtle and sometimes outright distortions in the interpretation of these sticks a small sample of the kinds of outright errors and distortions that would shame any scholar of Hinduism can be found on this blog post and then he says I therefore do not recommend any of them that but Nayak's books that I have reviewed on my blog so I congratulate I've enough for the courage to say I'm changing my stand because of new evidence and congratulate you for understanding that he's located in the Western framework and therefore there are all these errors that he's he's done taking liberties and mythologizing our tradition so good for you good for Okinawa go on and good for good for many people who follow him who read I think the more people know about what they've the photonic is writing what that the lack of his knowledge of Sanskrit or even that takes the distortions the numeral the numerous factual errors the more people know about them the more they'll realize that it is it is just a brand build up on nothing and I want to congratulate you thank because I've been in this shoes where I know it's it's very difficult to take on an icon it's a risky thing it's a dangerous thing they come and attack you but this is this is part of the tapasya this is part of the intellectual Kshatriya that you speak the truth you stick to your your tradition you defend your tradition you defend the Dharma and no matter how powerful popular the other guy is and you know you speak the truth video nation see so I want to congratulate you and I want to encourage you to and please look at his books this is the O mala this is the Hanuman Chalisa and other books that he's writing more of them and we'll have you back on the show when more and more things come out but meanwhile please spread this message about Devdutt Pattanaik there's nothing personal against him it's his work I don't know anything about his personal life he criticises brahmin ni whatever I don't know I'm not gonna criticize him in personal terms his work is flawed his work is distorting it's dangerous it's misinforming the consumer it is toxic it's like putting toxic waste into the public sphere and his sponsors need to know his sponsors need to know I think if reliance is behind it Reliance needs to be told a fruit pies publishing is in GroupWise publishing this book you know RK Mehra a dear friend of mine amazing gentleman one of the pioneers in Indian publishing I had access to him I would call him and say this and that and he actually made many decisions about what to publish what not to publish but Capisce Mehra his son nice guy I met him known him for 10 15 years he is more sort of a business what works in business he'll do when this makes money I guess so I mean I cannot make I cannot tell him what to do for his business but I would say that there's an ethics component in the long run backing things which are such fraudulent maybe maybe it's sensational and make you money in the short run but you know you got to look at the long-term consequences about your reputation on who you are backing so with that I want to thank you and bring this to a closure namaste [Music] you

Channel: Rajiv Malhotra Official

Views: 1,070,354

Rating: 4.4664936 out of 5

Keywords: Rajiv Malhotra, Infinity Foundation, India, Indian, Hindu, Hinduism, Religious, Religion, Isha Foundation, Sadhguru, Meditation, Buddhism, Education, Modern, Society, Politics, Globalization, Breaking India, Being Different, Academic, Hinduphobia, Indra’s Net, Indras Net, The Battle For Sanskrit, Sanskrit, Mind Sciences, Yoga, Yogi, Holy, War, Vedic, Poison Pill, Devdutt Pattanaik, My Gita, Wendy Doniger, Nityanand Misra

Id: vtkMFLuOa3M

Length: 66min 29sec (3989 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 26 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/MoodReyals]

Hindutva