An audio link (http://www.acharyadeva.com/mp3/Academic_View_On_Hinduism_03-2006.mp3) to a lecture that traces how hinduism has come to be represented in contemporay academic circles.

it raises further issues about how understandings of hinduism and indian culture are grossly inaccurate

I couldn't hear this, but what does it say?

I couldn't hear this, but what does it say?

The speaker is giving an explanation based on an article he submitted (http://www.iskcon.com/icj/7_1/71hdg.html)

He's right about one thing, our early impression of Hinduism (and other foriegn religions) was formed largely on the work of biased missionary scholars.

He's right about one thing, our early impression of Hinduism (and other foriegn religions) was formed largely on the work of biased missionary scholars.

He also indicates how the bias has been institutionalized within historical dialogues

I think it's possible that all interpretations of ancient texts are inherently biased. Language is dependent on the culture of the time, not everything can be translated to preserve the original meaning.

I think it's possible that all interpretations of ancient texts are inherently biased. Language is dependent on the culture of the time, not everything can be translated to preserve the original meaning.

Your statement seems to be that all views are biased - in other words the only unbiased view is the view that all views ar biased - which raises the question what principles did you apply to come to this conclusion (BTW - I think that you have just made the blunder of making a negative absolutist statement, which are fallacious)