1

There are currently 22 answers that cite some work or other of Rajiv Malhotra. One of the answers citing him is written by a moderator himself.

Is Rajiv Malhotra an authority on Hinduism?

On what basis are his opinions/works considered valid references on this site?

4
  • 1
    This seriously needs a fix. I don't think these are valid sources. Where is this site going? – Mr_Green Sep 24 '20 at 12:15
  • @Mr_Green, i don't think this is a serious issue. If a question can be answered by traditional scriptures (Sruti + Smriti + commentaries by jagad-guru acharyas), that is the first choice, and all important philosophical questions in life fall under this category. All future commentaries only serve to expound on previous philosophies to make it palatable to masses. e.g. one question was 'difference between dharma and religion' - well the world religion is in English, so you can't expect olden scriptures to talk about it, so u necessarily need newer 'scholars' works to cite. – mar Oct 1 '20 at 0:29
  • @Carmensandiego, another question is about Max Mueller or Wendy Doniger - of course you can't expect scriptures to answer these questions. We can either close them as 'scientific speculation', or create a new category ('new-age-philosophy'), or we can let users quote opposing scholars view in the answers. IMO, such questions are only for newbies of dharma, and as they mature, they'll start relying on ancient scriptures. Of course, we also have to use common sense to sniff out honest vs loaded questions and answers and mark them as opinion-based as needed. – mar Oct 1 '20 at 0:32
  • 1
    @ram - Agree that majority are seeking religious or spiritual answers, but then there are some who want to know whether work by a certain indologist can be considered unbiased. Agree that such questions are best answered by citing supporting or rival scholars' work. Challenge is when a newcomer asks whether xyz asura had 4 or 5 hands and an answer comes that the entire scripture is just literature and nothing more, and an indologist's or secularist work is cited as supporting proof. While I am pretty sure that the questioner is not looking for such answer but nothing can be done – Carmen sandiego Oct 1 '20 at 14:19
4

I don't see why Rajiv Malhotra cannot be cited by moderator or by any member if the question is on Max Mueller. Max Mueller is not an authoritative figure when it comes to Hinduism or scriptures. It is not like Rajiv Malhotra is being cited for giving an opinion on spiritual matters

Moreover HSE also includes history of Hinduism in its scope. If there is evidence of distortion by indologists such as Max Mueller, who were known for promoting Aryan Invasion Theory, then their work can be refuted by modern scholars - be it Rajiv Malhotra or anyone else

3
  • 1
    'then their work can be refuted by modern scholars - be it Rajiv Malhotra or anyone else' - likewise if another scholar says Max Mueller didn't distort anything, that answer is also welcome? – sv. Sep 30 '20 at 17:18
  • 1
    @sv - I don't see why not. I can only emphasize that what is a valid source depends on context of question. If questions pertains to Hinduism"s history in medieval era , how hinduism survived during foreign rule etc ( which we know are valid for the site because it comes under history) then scriptures will not cover it, and we have to rely on other sources which may or may not be secular or agenda driven. – Carmen sandiego Oct 1 '20 at 0:27
  • @Rickross, FYI - see comments/answers in this thread – mar Oct 1 '20 at 0:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .