[Reader-list] Encarta's Biased Portrayal of Hinduism

[Billu23]

>This article was posted some days ago on Sulekha.com. I wonder if you've 
>read it?



Are Hinduism studies prejudiced? A look at Microsoft Encarta
Sankrant Sanu ~ Sep 24, 2002
Author's note: The scholarship of certain sections of the academic 
community studying Hinduism has been controversial in the Indian community. 
In this article we try to examine whether there is truth to this 
controversy, and whether such academics influence the mainstream portrayal 
of “Hinduism” in standard sources. We use Microsoft® Corporation's Encarta® 
Encyclopedia as the reference in this study.
Introduction
In this article we discuss the differences, in both approach and result, of 
Encarta's articles on Hinduism in comparison with the articles on some of 
the other major world religions in Encarta. Encarta Encyclopedia is 
published by Microsoft Corporation, which claims that it is the 
“Best-selling encyclopedia brand.” Encarta is widely used as a reference 
source in American schools. In particular, because of its widespread use 
amongst children, we would expect Encarta's coverage of religions to be 
even-handed, sensitive and unprejudiced. In a world of religious conflict, 
it becomes particularly important that children are given balanced 
viewpoints of mainstream beliefs and practices of all religions.
In particular, we contrast Encarta's treatment of Hinduism, with the two 
other major religions -- Islam and Christianity. On occasion, we also refer 
to the treatment of other religions like Judaism and Buddhism. The purpose 
of this article is not to make value judgments or a comparative study of 
the religions themselves. In studying such a vast and complex phenomena as 
the major religions, one can always find conflicting or questionable 
issues, just as one can find highly elevating truths. What aspects of the 
religion get highlighted is a matter of editorial choice. Our interest is 
not in comparing the religions per se, but in understanding the differences 
in editorial choice -- both in the selection of content as well as style, 
in the scholarly treatment of these religions in Encarta.
Unless otherwise noted, all references below are to the main content 
article on each of the religions in Encarta. We have used Encarta 
Encyclopedia 2002 (US edition) for our reference, though a casual look at 
Encarta 2003 suggests that the articles on the major religions have 
remained the same as Encarta 2002. All actual quotes are in quotation marks 
preceded by the name of the article in Encarta.
The Contents Page
Our study begins with the main contents page for each of the religions. In 
some cases, the contents page contains, in quotes, a single highlighted 
statement about the religion. In the 2002 version of Encarta, these quotes 
are present for Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, and not for Christianity 
and Islam.
· Judaism: “The God of creation entered into a special relationship with 
the Jewish people at Sinai.”
· Buddhism: “Karma consists of a person's acts and their ethical consequence.”
· Hinduism: “Rama and Krishna are said to be avatars of Vishnu though they 
were originally human heroes.”
Note, that the one statement that was chosen about Hinduism is that which 
repudiates Hindu belief, while the statements for the other two religions 
reflect a balanced positive or neutral stance. Notice also the use of “said 
to be” in Hinduism while the statement on Judaism is presented in the 
editorial voice as a presentation of fact. To understand this 
representation, let us draw up a hypothetical quote on Christianity to 
parallel the quote on Hinduism.
· Christianity*: Jesus Christ is said to be the “Son of God” though he was 
just a human.
Irrespective of belief in the truth or falsity of this statement, or the 
parallel one in the case of Hinduism, when such a statement is the 
highlight of the commentary on a religion, it reflects a certain attitude 
about how the subject is approached. Let us see if this attitude continues 
to persist in the article on Hinduism in comparison to other religions.
Fundamental principles
In the article on Hinduism, we find the “Fundamental Principles” divided 
into four sections -- Texts, Philosophy, “Gods” and “Worship and Ritual.” 
We find the sequencing of ideas within this section fairly haphazard -- 
generally moving to specifics without laying out the general -- giving the 
impression of a somewhat incoherent system.
Hinduism:
“The canon of Hinduism is basically defined by what people do rather than 
what they think. Consequently, far more uniformity of behavior than of 
belief is found among Hindus, although very few practices or beliefs are 
shared by all. A few usages are observed by almost all Hindus: reverence 
for Brahmans and cows; abstention from meat (especially beef); and marriage 
within the caste (jati), in the hope of producing male heirs.”
In doing so, the author takes the richness and diversity of Hindu thought 
and tries to approach it from the point of view of an orthodox church 
defining a single “canon.” Failing to find the “canon” or articulate the 
underlying worldview of a system that allows many paths to flourish within 
it, the author gives up to quickly start listing mainly social practices. 
Let us see how the same issue is treated in Christianity.
Christianity:
“Any phenomenon as complex and as vital as Christianity is easier to 
describe historically than to define logically, but such a description does 
yield some insights into its continuing elements and essential 
characteristics.”
In the description of Christianity, Encarta approaches it from a point of 
view of humility -- the problem being of the expository limitations of the 
author. No such humility is visible in the description of Hinduism, where 
the author quickly reduces any notion of complexity to an anthropological 
viewpoint. Further on, we explore various examples of how the 
anthropological viewpoint dominates the article on Hinduism.
Dealing with “contradiction”
Let us see how the articles deal with supposed contradictions.
Hinduism:
“Although Hindus believe and do many apparently contradictory things -- 
contradictory not merely from one Hindu to the next, but also within the 
daily religious life of a single Hindu -- each individual perceives an 
orderly pattern that gives form and meaning to his or her own life.”
The article on Hinduism is very clear that there are contradictions, and 
highlights this aspect. The articles on Christianity and Islam are either 
unable to find any contradictions, or don't find them the most significant 
aspect of the religion to cover. In the few instances when they do, they 
use substantially different language to talk about these.
In Christianity, any contradictions of behavior are attributed to the 
limitations of individuals rather than limitations of the faith or of 
“Christians” as a generalized entity.
Christianity:
“To a degree that those on the inside often fail to recognize, however, 
such a system of beliefs and values can also be described in a way that 
makes sense as well to an interested observer who does not, or even cannot, 
share their outlook.”
The article on Islam does not mention any “contradiction” at all, but a 
continued “refinement.”
Islam:
“Recurring debates among Islamic scholars over the nature of God have 
continued to refine the Islamic concepts of God's otherness and Islamic 
monotheism.”
Even when the article on Islam admits differences in contemporary practice, 
it puts the difficulty of these on the analytical or expository abilities 
of the author (“difficult to identify”), rather than the religion.
Islam:
“Yet the radically different political, economic, and cultural conditions 
under which contemporary Muslims live make it difficult to identify what 
constitutes standard Islamic practice in the modern world.”
The key to understanding both the diversity as well as the unity of 
Hinduism is neither in the search for a “canon” (a strongly Christian 
worldview), nor in the anthropology of particular practices. It is in 
recognizing that the philosophical foundations of Hinduism have celebrated 
diversity of path and individuality (which itself is a distinctive 
feature), while at the same time encouraging theological debates to further 
understanding.
In the articles on Christianity and Islam the problem, if any, is usually 
depicted as that of the author's inability to describe rather than any 
contradictions. The author of Hinduism, apparently, faces very little 
difficulty -- she carries on with an anthropological description of 
practices “from above” -- sure that any contradiction that is found is 
surely in the religion itself, and not in any lack of understanding or 
expository ability.
Peaceful “Jihad” and violent “Ahimsa”
A further study about the difference in approach and attitude in the 
articles on religion can be found in the description of subtle concepts. We 
take two -- jihad and ahimsa, in particular, both of which may be somewhat 
familiar to the lay reader.
Islam:
“Many polemical descriptions of Islam have focused critically on the 
Islamic concept of jihad. Jihad, considered the sixth pillar of Islam by 
some Muslims, has been understood to mean holy war in these descriptions. 
However, the word in Arabic means "to struggle" or "to exhaust one's 
effort," in order to please God. Within the faith of Islam, this effort can 
be individual or collective, and it can apply to leading a virtuous life; 
helping other Muslims through charity, education, or other means; preaching 
Islam; and fighting to defend Muslims. Western media of the 20th century 
continue to focus on the militant interpretations of the concept of jihad, 
whereas most Muslims do not.”
Hinduism:
“The most important tenet of sanatana dharma for all Hindus is ahimsa, the 
absence of a desire to injure, which is used to justify vegetarianism 
(although it does not preclude physical violence toward animals or humans, 
or blood sacrifices in temples).” [Em. added]
In both cases, the authors treat subtle subjects in the respective 
religions. In the article on Islam, the author presents a sympathetic view 
of Jihad, and attempts to favorably influence Western perceptions. In the 
article on Hinduism the author adds decidedly unfavorable editorial asides 
seeking to “correct” possibly favorable perceptions by introducing 
“contradictions.” The tone of the article again is of a higher entity 
looking down on lowly customs and illogical “native” interpretations (as in 
(“ahimsa”
“is used to justify”). This is an illustration of the very 
different viewpoint (dare we say “agenda”) from which the article on 
Hinduism is written. While the articles on Islam and Christianity attempt 
to uplift the reader to a refined understanding of those religions, the 
article on Hinduism attempts to denigrate instead.
To understand what we mean by this let us see how Encarta would present 
Christianity and Islam, if it were to use the same logic and attitude as 
used in the article on Hinduism.
Christianity*:
The most important tenet of Christianity is love (although it does not 
preclude burning heretics and witches at the stake, the Crusades, Christian 
colonization and the Jewish Holocaust).
Islam*:
Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace (although it does not 
preclude suicide bombing or other terrorist acts).
To be really clear, we are not suggesting that such descriptions of 
Christianity or Islam should have been in Encarta -- they would be 
decidedly negative portrayals. Unfortunately, this tone of portrayal 
prevails in the article on Hinduism.
This is, surprisingly, not the only example of the technique of negative 
editorial aside in the article on Hinduism. We see also:
Hinduism:
“Svadharma comprises the beliefs that each person is born to perform a 
specific job, marry a specific person, eat certain food, and beget children 
to do likewise and that it is better to fulfill one's own dharma than that 
of anyone else (even if one's own is low or reprehensible, such as that of 
the Harijan caste, the Untouchables, whose mere presence was once 
considered polluting to other castes). 

A positive portrayal of “Svadharma” (literally “Self-Dharma”) would 
introduce it as a high statement to an individual to discover and 
understand their purpose and calling in the cosmos and actualize it, rather 
than letting it be defined by some “other”, like an orthodox religious 
hierarchy. Yet in the hands of the Encarta author it becomes an excuse for 
an aside on the historical practice of untouchability that is derided in 
contemporary mainstream Hinduism. In neither of the other two articles of 
the major religions, Christianity or Islam, do we find the use of the 
technique of the denigrating editorial aside. Indeed, the purpose of the 
other two articles appears to be to elevate rather than to denigrate -- and 
quite rightly so for a mainstream source dealing with religion.
Philosophy or Anthropology?
The article on Hinduism appears quite disjointed in its understanding of 
Philosophy, Anthropology, Cosmology and Mythology. “Fundamental Principles” 
leads with Anthropology. As we see below, the section on “Philosophy” is 
mostly “Mythology” depicting “Cosmology” -- the very limited coverage of 
the well-developed schools of Hindu philosophy is relegated to a list in 
the section “Rise of Devotional Movements,” in the topic on History. 
Without setting out the philosophical principles underlying beliefs and 
practices in Hinduism, the coverage of “Gods” and “Rituals” appears 
particularly bizarre. Let us see how the section on “Philosophy” starts.
Hinduism:
“Incorporated in this rich literature is a complex cosmology. Hindus 
believe that the universe is a great, enclosed sphere, a cosmic egg, within 
which are numerous concentric heavens, hells, oceans, and continents, with 
India at the center.”
“They believe that time is both degenerative -- going from the golden age, 
or Krita Yuga, through two intermediate periods of decreasing goodness, to 
the present age, or Kali Yuga -- and cyclic: At the end of each Kali Yuga, 
the universe is destroyed by fire and flood, and a new golden age begins.”
Firstly, this is not philosophy, but as the author points out, cosmology. 
Secondly, as a description of Hindu cosmology, it is fairly inadequate and 
reductive. It fails to point that there are multiple creation myths in 
Hindu texts. Also, as far as Hindu cosmology goes, people like notable 
astronomer and author, Prof. Carl Sagan, have pointed that the calculations 
of the age of the universe based on this cosmology works out to be fairly 
close to our current scientific estimates -- and “(Hinduism) is the only 
ancient religious tradition on the Earth which talks about the right 
time-scale.”[i] Mentioning any of this, would, of course be quite contrary 
to the tone of the article. Rather than presenting the creation myth as a 
story and presenting the hidden elements of scientific truth, the article 
gives a reductive description, preceded by the phrase “Hindus believe.”
To understand this better, let us compare it with the article in Encarta 
about the Biblical creation myth.
Adam and Eve:
“Adam and Eve, in the Bible, the first man and woman, progenitors of the 
human race. The biblical account of the creation of human beings occurs 
twice: in Genesis 1:26-27 and in Genesis 2:18-24. Marked differences in 
vocabulary, thought, and style between these accounts have led to the 
scholarly consensus that these creation stories reflect two distinct 
sources (see Bible: The Development of the Old Testament). In the first 
account, the Hebrew common noun Adam is used as a generic term for all 
human beings, regardless of gender; Eve is not mentioned at all. In the 
second account, Adam is created from the dust of the earth, whereas Eve is 
created from Adam's rib and given to him by God to be his wife.”
The first notable difference is that of the expository technique. The 
latter article presents different creation accounts in the reading of 
Biblical texts. Note how this shifts subtly if it were preceded by 
“Christians believe 
”. That there are differences in the two stories in 
the same book could then be extrapolated, as is done in the article on 
Hinduism to state, “Christians believe many contradictory things.” Instead 
the article about Adam and Eve treats it as a scholarly study of text 
(where different “accounts” are found), rather than conclusive statements 
about “Christian belief.” Let us see how one would present a section on 
Christian “Philosophy” with the same approach as in the case of Hinduism.
Christianity*:
Christians believe that all humans descend from one man and woman, called 
Adam and Eve and calculated the age of the world to be about 10,000 years. 
They believe also that the female Eve was created from male Adam's rib by 
God to be his wife (which is used to justify Christian attitudes towards 
women such as a historical denial of voting rights). Christians believe 
many contradictory things -- for example, that an all-loving, forgiving God 
puts human beings in everlasting Hell, if they sin without repenting in 
this life. [Em. added]
This would be a similarly reductive account presenting “Christians” as 
irrational, and failing to grasp the multiple levels of subtleties involved 
in understanding a religion. As we see in the description of Hinduism, this 
is precisely the approach of the Encarta article.
An account similar to the one in Encarta of Adam and Eve would be a neutral 
objective treatment of similar material in Hindu mythology, rather than a 
treatment that “boxes-in” the rich and diverse Hindu cosmology into “Hindu 
belief.” Adding the relationships to modern scientific understanding would 
make it a “sympathetic” treatment for current audiences. Instead, the 
Encarta article on Hinduism consistently chooses a subtle (and sometimes, 
not so subtle) negative portrayal.
Despite a very rich philosophical tradition, the anthropological view 
dominates the article on Hinduism. Both the articles on Christianity and 
Islam, lead instead with the philosophical ideas. Apparently the broadness 
of Hindu philosophical ideas “Vasudeva Kutumbha” (the world is a family), 
and the ideas of religious pluralism (“many paths lead to God”) that 
continue to guide most Hindus, find no place in the Encarta article.
“Gods”
Nowhere is the anthropological view more apparent than in the treatment of 
“gods”. Firstly, an inadequate attempt is made to put the idea of “gods” 
(not “Gods”) in proper perspective for a Western reader. The word “deva” in 
Sanskrit, is less akin to the “God” of Christianity, but more so to “angel” 
(a power higher than man but lesser than “God”). Secondly, the concepts 
that “God” is “unknowable” and that different deities are thus 
representations of different aspects (“roop”) of “God,” is glossed over. 
The Encarta article also completely misses the concept of the Hindu trinity 
-- that any Hindu child could recite -- a key idea in the presentation of 
Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as creator, preserver and destroyer, and their 
female counterparts as three aspects of the One God. That the male and the 
female energies co-exist in Indian thought and the idea of God as both male 
and female (at the same time being beyond gender) is also missed. Having 
skipped all the structure, the topic of “Gods” is presented as a confusing 
“curio-shop” of unrelated deities and sects, complete with sensational 
descriptions of blood and gore.
Hinduism:
Shiva embodies the apparently contradictory aspects of a god of ascetics 
and a god of the phallus. He is the deity of renouncers, particularly of 
the many Shaiva sects that imitate him: Kapalikas, who carry skulls to 
reenact the myth in which Shiva beheaded his father, the incestuous Brahma, 
and was condemned to carry the skull until he found release in Benares; 
Pashupatas, worshipers of Shiva Pashupati, “Lord of Beasts”; and Aghoris, 
“to whom nothing is horrible,” yogis who eat ordure or flesh in order to 
demonstrate their complete indifference to pleasure or pain. Shiva is also 
the deity whose phallus (linga) is the central shrine of all Shaiva temples 
and the personal shrine of all Shaiva householders; his priapism is said to 
have resulted in his castration and the subsequent worship of his severed 
member.
While “phallus” is one interpretation of “linga” there are others as well. 
Apparently the author, whose interests appear to have a limited focus, 
continues to find contradictions from that single point of view -- missing 
both other common interpretations as well as the underlying symbolisms. A 
disproportionate interest in the dimension of esoteric “sects”, “phallus”, 
“skulls”, “flesh” and “ordure” dominates the article and we find that 
practices and aspects far more prevalent and relevant to contemporary times 
-- like Yoga or Chakras, meditation or mantras, breath and Pranayama that 
are practically absent in the article.
The article continues with these descriptions, clearly showing the author's 
interest in particular ways of looking at Hinduism.
Hinduism:
As Durga, the Unapproachable, she kills the buffalo demon Mahisha in a 
great battle; as Kali, the Black, she dances in a mad frenzy on the corpses 
of those she has slain and eaten, adorned with the still-dripping skulls 
and severed hands of her victims. The Goddess is also worshiped by the 
Shaktas, devotees of Shakti, the female power. This sect arose in the 
medieval period along with the Tantrists, whose esoteric ceremonies 
involved a black mass in which such forbidden substances as meat, fish, and 
wine were eaten and forbidden sexual acts were performed ritually.
In the well-embellished description of Kali, the intensity of the language 
speaks for itself of the Encarta's author interest in this particular area. 
Clearly blood and gore, erotica and exotica are of much greater interest to 
this particular writer than Hindu philosophy, or any of the symbolism of 
these ancient descriptions. Again, the article shows more interest in the 
portrayal of esoteric sects and ceremonies than exploring mainstream and 
commonplace Hindu rituals -- like saying “namaste”, the sacred syllable 
“Om”, lighting diyas or wearing bindis (the “dot on the forehead”) -- 
practices that are vastly more familiar to a Westerner and a Hindu child 
alike, none of which find a place in the Encarta article.
The article instead describes various “Gods” and “Goddesses”, particularly 
emphasizing the sensational, as we saw in the description of Kali above, 
without presenting these within the unifying coherent theme that most 
Hindus view these manifestations -- of different forms of One Supreme 
Reality, which cannot be boxed into a single set of attributes or 
descriptions.
As the section on “Indian Philosophy” on Encarta states:
“Most of the poems of the Veda are religious and tend to be about the 
activities of various gods. Yet some Vedic hymns and poems address 
philosophic themes 
 such as the henotheism that is key to much Hindu 
theology. Henotheism is the idea that one God takes many different forms, 
and that although individuals may worship several different gods and 
goddesses, they really revere but one Supreme Being.” [Em. added]
Has the Encarta article on Hinduism lost all keys? While there is a passing 
mention of this concept in the Encarta, it is, characteristically, watered 
down from the clearer statement above.
Hinduism:
In this way Hindus have been able to reconcile their Vedantic monism (see 
Vedanta) with their Vedic polytheism: All the individual Hindu gods (who 
are said to be saguna,”with attributes”) are subsumed under the godhead 
(nirguna,”without attributes”), from which they all emanate. [Em. added]
A common Hindu saying is: “As you are, so God's image appears to you” -- 
since God is beyond images or attributes, we superimpose our own. Does 
Encarta's choice of subjects and descriptions in the article -- 
scatological and incoherent, reflect the author's own state?
Finally, let us see how the article describes Rama and Krishna, considered 
as incarnations of God (as Vishnu).
Hinduism:
“Most popular by far are Rama (hero of the Ramayana) and Krishna (hero of 
the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata-Purana), both of whom are said to be 
avatars of Vishnu, although they were originally human heroes.” [Em. added]
The article appears to speak with the certainty of divine knowledge! Let us 
see how a similar issue, the divinity of Jesus is treated in the article on 
Christianity;
Christianity:
“The ultimate mystery of the universe, called by many different names in 
various religions, was called “Father” in the sayings of Jesus, and 
Christians therefore call Jesus himself “Son of God.” At the very least, 
there was in his language and life an intimacy with God and an immediacy of 
access to God, as well as the promise that, through all that Christ was and 
did, his followers might share in the life of the Father in heaven and 
might themselves become children of God. “
We note both the subtlety of thought and the sensitivity of expression in 
description, versus the heavy-handed certainty by which the article on 
Hinduism speaks, of happenings and events further back in time than the 
historical Jesus. Is this certainty born out of knowledge of fact, or 
simply a disregard for the corresponding religious sentiment?
More “blood” and animal “sacrifice”
The presentation of “Gods” is not the only place in the article that 
Encarta is interested in gory descriptions -- of “blood”, “skulls”, 
“ordure” and the like. Starting from the concept of ahimsa (which refers to 
“blood sacrifices”) to the celebration of the Indian festival of Holi, this 
point of view permeates the article. In fact, the Encarta article on 
Hinduism has more references to “blood” and “animal sacrifices” than it 
does to Yoga. Yoga, arguably the most popular contribution of Hinduism to 
the West is mentioned in two places -- both insignificant, as we see later 
on. Other than the quote above, let us see where else Encarta mentions 
themes related to “blood” or “animal sacrifice” in the article on Hinduism.
Hinduism:
“Holi, the spring carnival, when members of all castes mingle and let down 
their hair, sprinkling one another with cascades of red powder and liquid, 
symbolic of the blood that was probably used in past centuries.
Let us start with factual accuracies -- Holi, as any Hindu knows, is 
celebrated with all the colors of spring -- green, yellow, red, pink, not 
just “red” as the article states. It celebrates the coming of spring with a 
riot of color. Factual details aside, for Encarta the suggestion of 
“cascades of red powder and liquid” works well to further the theme of 
blood and gore prevalent in the article. This goes on in the description of 
“Worship and Rituals.”

Hinduism:
“In many temples, particularly those sacred to goddesses (such as the 
Kalighat temple to Kali, in Kolkata), goats are sacrificed on special 
occasions. The sacrifice is often carried out by a special low-caste priest 
outside the bounds of the temple itself.

Similarly, the vast majority of Hindus living today have probably never 
seen an animal sacrifice in their life -- and “many temples” is certainly a 
gross inaccuracy. Why is this rare practice chosen when we don't find 
mention of commonplace practices like “satsang” (literally, company of 
truth, or good), meetings where people congregate to communally chant or 
read from scripture, that are orders of magnitude more prevalent? The 
comment on “low-caste” that rounds out the quote above is obligatory to 
keep the “otherness” of Hinduism on centre stage -- a technique we find 
employed elsewhere in the article.
It is also very worthwhile to compare this overall approach to highlighting 
“blood and gore” with the treatment of “animal sacrifice” in the Encarta 
article on Islam, a religion on which such sacrifices are obligatory that 
every Muslim is required to perform on Hajj (rather than a rare occurrence).

Islam:
“The final ritual is the slaughter of an animal (sheep, goat, cow, or 
camel). This is a symbolic reenactment of God's command to Ibrahim to 
sacrifice his son Ismail, which Ibrahim and Ismail duly accepted and were 
about to execute when God allowed Ibrahim to slaughter a ram in place of 
his son. (In the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, Abraham is called to 
sacrifice his son Isaac rather than Ishmael.) Most of the meat of the 
slaughtered animals is to be distributed to poor Muslims.”

Notice how the stress is on symbolism and how the last line is used to 
soften the theme. We shall spare the reader a rewrite of the Islamic 
depiction with details of the animal's severed head and pouring blood and 
omitting any hint of symbolism. Would an anthropologist probing the Bible 
many millennia from now condemn Christians as cannibals when reading of 
Christ's disciples being asked to partake of Christ's “blood and flesh”? If 
approached from the point of view of the Encarta article on Hinduism, 
devoid of either sensitivity or an understanding of symbolism, this would 
probably be the case. Surprisingly, the author chooses this approach to 
Hinduism, which is a living contemporary tradition rather than simply an 
anthropological study of relics and past rituals.
These are choices in both omission and commission that are worth noting. 
While including exotic details and ritual the author continually misses 
large and commonplace topics -- like the forms of Indian dance and music as 
a component of the religion, the celebration of “Ram Lila” -- public 
enactments of Ram's life common throughout the north, and major Hindu 
celebrations like Janamashtami (Krishna's birth), Raksha Bandhan or Onam.

Where is the real “Philosophy” and “Yoga”?
Now that we have read the description in Encarta of Aghoris, ““to whom 
nothing is horrible,” yogis who eat ordure or flesh in order to demonstrate 
their complete indifference to pleasure or pain,” we look around for the 
yogis we have seen or known. Unfortunately, with the concern of the Encarta 
article on Hinduism in looking for scatology, it completely misses the 
highly refined theology and practices like Raja Yoga or Hatha Yoga or 
Patanjali or yogic meditation. In fact, the word “Yoga” has exactly two 
occurrences in the article (other than the one description of “Aghoris” as 
yogis above):

Hinduism:
“Many elements of Hinduism that were not present in Vedic civilization 
(such as worship of the phallus and of goddesses, bathing in temple tanks, 
and the postures of yoga) may have been derived from the Indus 
civilization, however. See Indus Valley Civilization.”


“The philosophies of Shankara and Ramanuja were developed in the context of 
the six great classical philosophies (darshanas) of India: the Karma 
Mimamsa (“action investigation”); the Vedanta (“end of the Vedas”), in 
which tradition the work of Shankara and Ramanuja should be placed; the 
Sankhya system, which describes the opposition between an inert male 
spiritual principle (purusha) and an active female principle of matter or 
nature (prakriti), subdivided into the three qualities (gunas) of goodness 
(sattva), passion (rajas), and darkness (tamas); the Yoga system; and the 
highly metaphysical systems of Vaisheshika (a kind of atomic realism) and 
Nyaya (logic, but of an extremely theistic nature).”

The first reference serves to separate Yoga from Hinduism. In the second 
reference, it is buried in a list of themes, each of which is probably more 
significant to describe than long-winded descriptions of Kali. Note that 
this section which lists classical philosophies is the only significant 
description of these philosophies in the entire article on Hinduism -- that 
too not in the explicit section for Philosophy, but embedded in the “Rise 
of Devotional Movements” section of “History”

To be fair to Encarta, there does exist a separate article on Yoga that the 
article on Hinduism does not directly reference. That article states:

Yoga:
As a system of practice, Yoga has from the beginning been one of the most 
influential features of Hinduism.

Surely, as one of the most influential features of Hinduism, Yoga merits 
more than a single word (with no link or reference) mention in the article 
on Hinduism.

In the obsession with external aspects of myth and ritual, blood and gore, 
the article gives very little space to either the highly developed systems 
of Hindu theology and philosophy or its most commonplace practices in 
comparison to the other articles on religion, neither does it link directly 
to a separate article on Indian philosophy. In the next section we will see 
a surprising example of what it does choose to include as a link.

Contemporary growth of the religion
There are other differences in detail that consistently add an 
unsympathetic flavor to the reading on Hinduism. We will end with some 
examples relating to the contemporary spread of these religions.

Islam:
“The Muslim community comprises about 1 billion followers on all five 
continents, and Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world.”


“Today about 1 billion Muslims are spread over 40 predominantly Muslim 
countries and 5 continents, and their numbers are growing at a rate 
unmatched by that of any other religion in the world.”

Both in the introduction and conclusion, the article on Islam repeats 
positively how Islam is growing, almost from the point of view of an 
evangelist.

Let use see how Encarta covers the spread of Hinduism.

Hinduism:
“In more recent times, numerous self-proclaimed Indian religious teachers 
have migrated to Europe and the United States, where they have inspired 
large followings. Some, such as the Hare Krishna sect founded by 
Bhaktivedanta, claim to base themselves on classical Hindu practices.”

As is consistent with the tone of the article, notice the deprecating use 
of “self-proclaimed” and “claim to”, words rarely used in similar ways in 
the other articles. The author also fails to mention the fast growing 
“Yoga” movement (which Time magazine reported as having over 15 million 
practitioners in the US) and the large influence of Hindu thought on the 
“New Age” movement. The article completely misses movements like 
“Transcendental Meditation” of Maharishi Mahesh Yoga and the 
Self-realization fellowship of Parmahansa Yogananda, or the influence on 
Americans of the beat generation or the 60's culture (Swami Satchitananda 
was called the “Woodstock guru”) -- people like George Harrison, Allen 
Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Mia Farrow, Madonna. To do that would bring 
Hinduism in, leave it less “other.” But, unfortunately, the quote above 
follows the general theme of the article -- to obscure or denigrate 
anything positive, and find and highlight that, which is likely to be 
misunderstood, failing to provide it in the proper context.

Endnote
The article on Hinduism ends with a bang -- something that can aptly 
demonstrate the deep-seated prejudice and even, perhaps, a political 
agenda. After failing to have links for “yoga” or “Indian philosophy” in 
the Encarta article, at the very end Encarta discovers the power of links.

Hinduism:
For information on religious violence in India, See India.

This is the appropriate ending for the article on Hinduism? We first 
surmised that this might be due to some current events (even then it would 
not be an appropriate ending for an academic article on Hinduism, other 
than motivated by considerable prejudice). But we find the same ending, for 
the same article, as far back as Encarta 1999! As a crosscheck, let us look 
at the other articles on religion.

Christianity:
“For additional information, see articles on individual Christian 
denominations and biographies of those persons whose names are not followed 
by dates.”
Islam:
[No link suggested at the end]

Given the thread of negativity that permeates the Encarta article on 
Hinduism, it comes as no surprise when, in the end, it suggests the topic 
of “religious violence” as additional reading. If the articles of 
Christianity and Islam were written with the same intent, this is what the 
last links could look like.

Christianity*:
For additional information about burning witches at the stake, see Witch Hunt.
Islam*:
For terrorist violence, see International Terrorism.

Again, we do not suggest these endings be used, nor does Encarta do so. 
They are provided for the purpose of illustrating the underlying attitude 
in choosing such endings -- an attitude that pervades the article on Hinduism.

Analysis of cause
We have established a significant difference in the treatment of Hinduism 
versus other religions, notable Christianity and Islam. In this section, we 
look at probable cause for the difference in treatment.

Selection of Authors
Encarta provides the following names and biographical information for the 
authors of the three Encarta articles in question:
· Christianity. Prof. Jaroslav Pelikan, B.D., Ph.D. Sterling Professor 
Emeritus of History, Yale University. Author of The Christian Tradition: A 
History of the Development of Doctrine, Historical Theology, and other books.
· Islam. Associate Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Yale 
University. Dallal, Ahmad S., B.E., M.A., Ph.D. Author of An Islamic 
Response to Greek Astronomy: Kitab Ta'dil Hay'at al-Aflak of Sadr al-Shari'a.
· Hinduism. Doniger, Wendy, M.A., Ph.D., D.Phil. Mircea Eliade Professor of 
History of Religions and Indian Studies, University of Chicago. Author of 
The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, Siva: the Erotic Ascetic, and 
Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities.

Emic or Etic?
The first observation we make is that scholars who profess those faiths 
have written the articles on Christianity and Islam; this is not the case 
with Hinduism. While the topic of emic (insider) and etic (outsider) study 
is often debated within academia, we would expect Encarta to choose 
uniformly either the emic or etic view of the major religions. In the 
Encarta article on Christianity, Prof. Jarsolav Pelikan strongly defends 
the emic viewpoint:
“Like any system of belief and values -- be it Platonism, Marxism, 
Freudianism, or democracy -- Christianity is in many ways comprehensible 
only “from the inside,” to those who share the beliefs and strive to live 
by the values; and a description that would ignore these “inside” aspects 
of it would not be historically faithful. To a degree that those on the 
inside often fail to recognize, however, such a system of beliefs and 
values can also be described in a way that makes sense as well to an 
interested observer who does not, or even cannot, share their outlook.”

The same logic, apparently, does not apply to Eastern religions. In 
general, though not always, we would expect the “emic” view to be more 
sympathetic than the “etic” view, particularly when the “emic” author is a 
practicing member of their faith.

Areas of interest of the authors
While the orientation of study of Professors Pelikan and Dallal is towards 
the philosophical, scientific and theological aspects of the religions they 
write about, Prof. Doniger's orientation is more anthropological -- 
studying rituals and myths rather than philosophy and theology. Even within 
that field, Prof. Doniger's dominant area of interest, going by the books 
she has authored, is in the exotic and erotic aspects of these rituals and 
myths. Thus the study of Professors Pelikan and Dallal is a living 
practicing view of the religion, including theological, metaphysical and 
scientific issues that would positively engage contemporary audiences, 
Prof. Doniger's appears to be an archeological dig, turning over quaint 
specimens that strike her fancy for examination. While this is certainly a 
valid field for study, it is clear that it leads to very different 
viewpoints and results in the articles.

Acceptability of the authors in the represented community
The third aspect of authorship is the broad acceptability of the author in 
the religious community they purport to represent. In general, it is more 
likely for emic authors to be acceptable, though not universally so. A 
research on the web shows that while Profs. Pelikan and Dallal are not 
regarded as controversial, Prof. Doniger has come in for considerable 
criticism for her lopsided portrayal, and unsubtle understanding of 
Hinduism[ii]. While Hindus, in general, are known for their tolerance of 
criticism (which is probably why the Encarta article has survived, without 
protest, for several years), we wonder why Encarta, as a mainstream 
encyclopedia, would deliberately choose to continue with authors that are 
highly controversial within the communities they write about. Note that, 
particularly in Hinduism, this could be very true for supposedly “emic”, 
but in reality, non-practicing, authors as well.

Deliberate prejudice or error?
While there is some evidence of prejudice on the part of Encarta's author 
on Hinduism, it is not clear whether prejudice also exists in Encarta as 
well. Certainly, as the ultimate editorial authority, Encarta cannot evade 
responsibility for the situation, at the very least in the selection of 
authors and editorial oversight over prejudiced treatment in a sensitive 
topic like religion. However, Encarta may well have, knowingly or 
unknowingly participated in an environment of bias.

A western graduate student of Hinduism in a US university, suggests a 
broader prejudice: “
 in American academia it is politically incorrect to 
treat Hinduism in a positive light and it is taboo to deal negatively with 
Islam.”[iii]

Certainly, the comparison of the articles on Encarta would validate this 
thesis. However, more study of this topic is clearly required.

Effects
We have not studied the effects of such negative portrayal of Hinduism on 
Hindu children growing up in America. We can speculate that derogatory 
mainstream portrayals of Hinduism, quite different from what they have seen 
or experienced first hand, would at the very least be confusing, and 
ultimately damaging to the self-esteem of such children. In the author's 
personal experience, many Hindus are reluctant to identify themselves as 
such publicly, even when they are practicing Hindus -- we conjecture that 
this may result from unconsciously accepting the negative portrayals of 
their religion. We find that this subject has not been studied much -- 
however, the one study[iv] that we found supports this possibility. There 
are also accounts that scholars studying Hinduism that also “come out” to 
be practicing that faith face allegations of “bias” -- apparently this is 
not seen to be the case when Christians or Muslims study their own faiths 
in the academic community (which is the general rule).

Such articles in “Encarta” also get used by various religious 
fundamentalists and hate groups to label Hinduism a “cult” -- the Encarta 
article serves as a good “objective” reference to make their point. The 
interested reader can do a web search on “Hinduism cult Encarta” to find 
examples.

Inaccurate, negative mainstream portrayals of a religion can ultimately 
only prove harmful to the community. Clearly much more work is needed to 
study the exact effects and consequences of such portrayals.

Conclusion and Recommendations
In this article, we compare the treatment of different religions in 
Encarta. We find that there are significant differences in the treatment of 
Hinduism vs. the treatment of Islam or Christianity in both the selection 
of content and the attitude displayed in the writing -- resulting in a 
distinctly negative portrayal of Hinduism vs. the other religions. We 
conjecture that the reason for this difference is related largely to the 
difference choices in the selection of authors -- whether they are emic or 
etic and their area of interest or specialization in the religion they 
study. We also find that Prof. Doniger, the author of the Encarta article 
on Hinduism is controversial within the Hindu community.

The authors of the article on “Islam” and “Christianity” have a mature and 
balanced viewpoint and they represent their religions in a way that the 
vast majority of adherents will find appropriate and positive. We commend 
Encarta for their choice of authors in portraying these religions in a 
sympathetic way. Unfortunately, the same balance and sympathy is not 
visible in the article on Hinduism. While Prof. Doniger is certainly free 
to pursue her specific areas of interest and scholarship in Hinduism, we do 
not believe that her article represents the mainstream of Hindu thought in 
both the selection of content and its interpretation, which would be 
appropriate for a widely read source such as Encarta.

Given that Prof. Doniger's specific interests and attitudes strongly 
influence the article, it would be insufficient to simply remove a few of 
the most glaring examples of negativism, while leaving the rest of the 
article unchanged. We recommend instead that an article written by someone 
“emic” to the community, who can represent Hinduism in a positive, 
mainstream viewpoint, promptly replace the article on Hinduism in Encarta.

We also recommend that further research be done to study the instances, 
causes, effects and resolutions for the prejudice in the study of Hinduism 
in America.

Microsoft® and Encarta® are registered trademarks of Microsoft® Corporation.

Note:
Unless otherwise stated, all quotes are from Microsoft® Encarta® Reference 
Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation.
* These are hypothetical quotations for the purpose of illustration, not 
actual quotations from Encarta. These quotations are also not the views of 
the author who neither supports these quotations nor suggests that they be 
used to depict that religion in question.

[i] Prof. Carl Sagan, distinguished Cornell University astronomer, covered 
this in the television series “Cosmos” dealing with Astronomy and 
Scientific exploration. http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/29sagan.htm presents 
an interview from which this quote is taken.

[ii] See, for instance, Rajiv Malhotra's, “RISA Lila - 1: Wendy's Child 
Syndrome” and associated comments.

[iii] Yvette Claire Rosser, “Puzzling Dimensions and Theoretical Knots in 
my Graduate School Research.”

[iv] Yvette Claire Rosser, “Stereotypes in Schooling: Negative Pressures in 
the American Educational System.”