DANGERS OF CHRISTIAN-HINDU INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/opening-door-to-inculturation-dr-vijaya.html
'Opening the Door to Inculturation'
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva01 25 2012
A recent article by Dr. Gautam Sen in the Organiser draws attention to the fact that while Christian nations are busy making war on various parts of the world, in India they have found a convenient device to keep the Hindus occupied and distracted and this is the device of the "Hindu Christian Dialogue." The present writer believes that whatever words one may use : 'dialogue' 'debate' 'discussion' etc. they all smell alike in the present context of engagement with the Church. The beautiful rose smells as sweet by any other name ! Here, the stink of Hindu Christian dialogue smells the same, by whatever name you call it !
Whether intended as such or not, author Rajiv Malhotra's new career in Hindu Christian Dialogue opens the door to Inculturation since he began with the discussion/dialogue with Francis Xavier Clooney of Harvard at the University of Massachusetts (Dartmouth). Ostensibly the event was about Shri Malhotra's new book "Being Different." Its content and tone are quite different from his earlier book "Breaking India (2011)" along with co-author Aravindan Neelakandan. That book details the dangers that India faces : terrorism, maoism, Inculturation from the Church. Many readers of that book were alerted to these dangers. Other writers such as Radha Rajan and her colleagues, had already written about these dangers, and done yeoman service to the Hindu cause. Breaking India followed in that series of writings. The present writer was impressed by its professionalism and dedication to the Hindu cause and wrote one of the first favourable reviews of the book in Haindava Keralam which has a wide readership in South India, especially Kerala. The response to this review and other subsequent events focussed on Breaking India was a welcome one since the mainstream media had ignored the book. The present writer wrote to such people as Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN and received polite responses but they did not take up either my review or a comparable one from some other source.
However, the beginnings of a new career in Hindu Christian Dialogue, already presaged in the methodology of the new book Being Different (the incomplete and truncated "Purva Paksha") is fraught with the very danger that Breaking India warned readers about, namely Inculturation. This is the process by which the Catholic Church, since the time of Robert de Nobili in the 17th century, tried to insinuate and infiltrate itself into the local culture by adopting its manners and lifestyle (names, and methods as well of rituals of worship in the 20th Century) while all the time preaching the Christian gospel . Some of this worked but most of it did not, and this was owing to the valiant alertness of the aam admi Hindu, the traditional acharyas and pundits and gurus, and by the 19th century the militant writings of Dayanda Sarasvati and Swami Vivekananda and some less well known writers. This has been well documented and written about by Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goyal, the latter in his book "History of Hindu Christian Encounters (1996)." Also the historian R.C.Majumdar's historical works attest to this. Contrary to popular beliefs amongst Hindus themselves, these fighters, namely the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, DID NOT ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD. And the leaders such as Vivekananda gave voice to these heroic people. Thanks to all of them Hindu India continues to remain Hindu.
Today, one sees a repeat of the same situation where the Catholic Church is targeting the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, with new weapons, this time the fateful inter-religious dialogue, especially Hindu-Christian Dialogue, by co-opting Hindu authors and writers. But there are few leaders left to express this danger now and to fight against it. Those that do so are ignored by the liberal media and demonised by some Hindus themselves. Many Hindus take refuge in esoteric discussions about whether the words 'dialogue','debate' and 'discussion' can be interchanged. Rajiv Malhotra himself has recently made some fine distinctions between different types of dialogue and so on. The grim fact remains that he is in 'dialogue' with a contemporaty representative of the school of Inculuration, namely Francis Xavier Clooney, Jesuit priest and scholar and professor of Divinity at Harvard University(USA).
By whatever name one calls it, it is a malodorous thing !
The present writer has written about the reasons why Shri Malhotra cannot function as a modern day Vivekananda and why Fr. Clooney has craftily conferred that mantle on him, for his own nefarious purposes(See 'How not to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue' in Bharata Bharati, Jan.18,2012 and in kalyan97blogspot). Malhotra can at best speak about his own book to audiences both Hindu or otherwise, but cannot generalize his faulty interpretation of the ancient Hindu science of Purva Paksha as the way to go for contemporary Hindus . Nor should he distract Hindus by engaging in what has turned out to be a meaningless exercise with Clooney. Instead, he is well advised to return and read Swami Vivekananda's writings on the encounter with the West.
Vivekanda's writings should be the template for any encounter with the West. It is a trenchant critique of the West, especially Christianity. It is not an accomodation of the same, no matter how much Shri Malhotra believes he is being canny and savvy in his dealings with Clooney. Nothing has really changed. The historical situation of the past is being replicated at present.
Fortunately for Hindu India, the aam admi and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths continue as they always have done since time immemorial. These must be protected, rather than attacked, by one more weapon that the Church has devised, the Hindu Christian Dialogue.
There are basically only two paths that the contemporary Hindu can follow in this situation :
1. Reject outright the fraudulent Dialogue.
2. Expose and defeat those who engage in it.
(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History).
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
DO NOTHING, HAVE A DIALOG, AND TAKE IT LYING DOWN ? WHO IS SMARTER HERE?
Church calling shots in politics
Hindus under siege and fate of the Republic
By
Dr Gautam Sen
Members of downtrodden and defeated communities are condemned to end up fighting with each other while the victors are occupied deciding their fate. Vanquished communities are unable to take the initiative on their own behalf, which is the dismal fate of Hindus today. In fact their in-fighting highlights attempts by individuals within the retreating Hindu community to reach accommodation with the victors. Interfaith dialogue and associated clandestine engagement with the church and its surrogates represent treasonous adaptation, intended to obscure the reality of warfare and subjugation. But this egregious conduct is completely predictable in the aftermath of defeat and evidence of such behaviour universal.
In 1816, Nepal was defeated by a British army and the Nepalese ended up as mercenaries, mainly used against fellow Hindus in India. The hapless Sikhs were also reduced to the role of British mercenaries after suffering defeat at the hands of imperial forces, having descended into utter chaos after the death of the astute Maharaja Ranjit Singh. In recent decades, both these communities were unceremoniously discarded since they had apparently outlived their usefulness to Britain. But even now these victims of exploitation as mercenaries pine for a return of the humiliation of servitude and harbour keen hatreds against the communities they were misused by imperialist Britain to discipline.
The political and economic agenda of the conquered society is dictated by victors in the aftermath of defeat. The direct and indirect dimensions of control over the vanquished include holding sway over the prevalent intellectual climate and the country’s institutions. The nature of the interaction between the defeated and the conquerors is under their careful purview as well. Focus on questions that expose the crimes of the conqueror become illegitimate and innocuous issues like the similarity of their social and religious customs dominate public discourse and curtailing reflection on hard truths. Contemporary inculturation, sponsored with supreme deviousness by church conspirators, represents precisely such a disingenuous phenomenon. Indeed this form of insidious infiltration behind enemy lines is intended to disembowel the foe while caressing its navel in bed.
Almost without exception, collaborators are identified among the defeated to help superintend their own community on behalf of the victors. In the process, a spurious impression is created that the conquered enjoy honour, even autonomy. But these illusory privileges are rationed for the select few, who serve the interests of conquerors. The distinction is between the few house niggers, the collaborators, and field niggers, who toil pitilessly. This is the origin of the house nigger syndrome of India’s Rajas, the Zamindars, tasked to collect and deliver revenues and Indian administrators who served the Raj. In contemporary Europe and the US today, one always observes Indians eager to betray their own for paltry personal gratification.
This is why the on-going advocacy of engaging with Christian churches is quite unreal. In full flight before the Christian evangelist enemy that has entered deep inside their homeland and is waging outright warfare, some Hindus are nevertheless determinedly preoccupied with lethal distractions like inter-faith dialogue. And they are apparently also exercised about how to engage in civilised debate among themselves while their proverbial grandmother is being auctioned!
Christian nations, whom their national churches serve unfailingly as instruments of conquest and subjugation, have pretty much ended Hinduism in the critical Northeast of India, expunged by force of arms. And a war has been waged without pause since Independence, with well-armed Christian terrorists now threatening to expand into adjacent regions. Hindu worship is virtually impossible in these regions, which only nominally belong to the Indian Union. Christianised communities of the Northeast unambiguously proclaim their dislike of India because of its Hindu ethos.
The evangelical churches failed to install their preferred candidate as Prime Minister earlier, but executed India’s first veritable coup d’etat by neutering India’s Prime Minister and its Cabinet government through surrogates. India’s executive authority is now in the thrall of the mendacious National Advisory Council (NAC), with its scandalous composition of practised Hindu-baiters, able to dictate to the Prime Minister on any matter it chooses. The Communal Violence Bill is the product of diabolical machinations of evangelists to de-legitimise opposition to their conversion activities by denouncing it as Hindu aggression. The rationale being insinuated that its enactment will influence Hindu-Muslim antagonism is a deliberate ploy to divert attention from the essential purpose of allowing the church acquire carte blanche.
Evangelists in India today are intensifying their age-old war against polytheists to accelerate their primordial political goal of world domination. This is the reason why even repugnant Islamic Jihadis like of the former ISI chief, General Hameed Gul and Laskhar-e-Taiba leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed are preferable adversaries. They unapologetically declare to the whole world their intention to kill and enslave Hindus en masse, the connotation of their ambition to restore Muslim rule across the entire sub-continent.
In parts of southern India, churches are mushrooming on a startling scale before our very eyes and the dominant political parties of Tamil Nadu are in essence instruments of Christian domination, incited to annihilate all that is sacred to Hindus. And Hindus, ignorant and self-seeking as ever, do not know that, historically, the Church regarded the establishment of bishoprics, in the shape of a physical church, as the political and military boundary of territory under the control of the ruler sponsoring them. Assiduous attempts are being made by the church to repeat the success of Christianising Nagaland and Mizoram and turning tribal communities across India against the Indian Union. New church buildings are designed to overawe local inhabitants by crude display of a political footprint and economic allurement in order to attract converts.
In Nepal, the church was able to use the contrivance of a Christian Maoist leadership to overthrow a decadent monarchy and greedy court elite easily, by exploiting widespread socio-economic unrest in the country. Of course India allowed itself to be manoeuvred into playing the role of midwife because India’s rulers are at best oblivious to all things Hindu and unwilling to recognise that a non-Hindu India will be a foreign country. This is the embittered legacy left by Jawaharlal Nehru and his patron, Mahatma Gandhi, who managed to wound Hinduism more than any invading iconoclast.
Contemporary India is ruled by a Catholic dynasty, which is facilitating the final assault against Hinduism. They are the rulers of choice of Western imperialists, led by the US, who perceive a consummate opportunity to change the religious demography of India permanently in favour of Christianity. And these American churches are nothing but neo fascist plunderers. An alarmingly large number of Christians, disproportionate in relation to their overall numbers in India, have been implanted by the dynasty, alongside fresh converts, careful to obscure their newly-established Christian identity and political loyalties, to destroy all vestiges of Hindu India.
Of course India’s secular elites, who have joined the genocidal campaign against Hinduism, are streetwalkers and possess no Hindu identity whatsoever and are merely available for deployment as shock troops of the ruling dynasty. This is the most shocking fifth column anywhere in the world, with endless permutations of assumed fidelities, from illiterate communist sympathies to supposed liberal sentiments, but all united as foes of Hinduism on behalf of Western imperialism and its chosen Catholic family.
The irony is that pre-eminent Christian nations are currently embarked on renewed imperial crusades in the Middle East and have already laid waste Iraq and Libya. During the earlier repudiation of Algeria’s national elections, Western intelligence agencies, led by the French secret service, pacified the country by instigating the killing of anything up to 500,000 civilians and cynically blamed it on militant Islam. In the case of India, the church is one of the crucial vehicles being used to destabilise it because the country is too complex to seize politically in one fell swoop, compared to a country like Egypt, or invade militarily.
What is occurring is an escalating seizure of key institutions in India although control of elite schools and institutions of higher learning was facilitated by a deracine Nehru, allergic to any manifestation of Hinduism. The English language media and its owners have already been subverted because they belong to a handful of business families, with whom foreign intelligence agencies established ties without difficulty. Individual journalists are routinely purchased and mostly emanate from Anglicised educational establishments that socialise them to espouse disdain for their national culture and the faith of their ancestors.
Yet supposedly intelligent Hindu religious leaders and activists are hell-bent on inter-faith dialogue while total war is being waged to erase Hinduism and cognate religions. Do Hindus not understand that proselytising is completely irreconcilable with inter-faith dialogue? Unabated no Hindus will be left to conduct dialogue with unless the duplicitous church is generously offering to end religious conversion when only a few Hindus remain to display as curiosities? It is equally perplexing that the Catholic Church in particular is considered a worthy partner for dialogue despite its deep animus against Hindu and violation of all decencies when any self-serving opportunity can be found. The disgraceful use of state subsidies for pilgrimages to Jerusalem is but one example.
This is the same church that today stands exposed as the biggest paedophile organisation in world history, also responsible for criminal mistreatment of children of unwed mothers, even while its criminal clergy was busy assaulting tens of thousands of children sexually. The monstrous treatment of babies forcibly removed by the church authorities from mothers and their subsequent fate shocks even the most hard-hearted. Catholic orphanages were truly a taste of the hell with which priests terrorised their congregations. They were finally deserted even by their unquestioning defenders, with the traditionally devout Irish people turning against them to support their government’s decision to break diplomatic ties with the Vatican. And some Hindus still look for crumbs from this Vatican table of gross iniquity, by seeking dialogue with them, which would be akin to Jews honouring unreconstructed Nazis.
Rahul Gandhi is the candidate of the Vatican and other sectarian church denominations to become Prime Minister of India. They look to him as their protector while the final assault against the Hindu citadel advances. In a parallel development, the Chinese, lacking any traditional source of cultural and spiritual sustenance of their own, are succumbing at remarkable pace to Christian evangelical allurements by converting, much like South Korea earlier.
Hindus are the sole remaining repository of an alternative world-view, which eschews the default urge for political and military domination that European peoples and their churches, embodying exactly such an impulse, seek to destroy. Only those who would sup with evil incarnate can wish to engage in dialogue with the Vatican or other evangelical church fraternities, all vultures readying to feast on the Hindu carcass.
(The writer is president, World Association of Hindu Academics)
http://organiser.org//Encyc/2012/1/22/Church-calling-shots-in-politics.aspx NB=&lang=4&m1=&m2=&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=
Hindus under siege and fate of the Republic
By
Dr Gautam Sen
Members of downtrodden and defeated communities are condemned to end up fighting with each other while the victors are occupied deciding their fate. Vanquished communities are unable to take the initiative on their own behalf, which is the dismal fate of Hindus today. In fact their in-fighting highlights attempts by individuals within the retreating Hindu community to reach accommodation with the victors. Interfaith dialogue and associated clandestine engagement with the church and its surrogates represent treasonous adaptation, intended to obscure the reality of warfare and subjugation. But this egregious conduct is completely predictable in the aftermath of defeat and evidence of such behaviour universal.
In 1816, Nepal was defeated by a British army and the Nepalese ended up as mercenaries, mainly used against fellow Hindus in India. The hapless Sikhs were also reduced to the role of British mercenaries after suffering defeat at the hands of imperial forces, having descended into utter chaos after the death of the astute Maharaja Ranjit Singh. In recent decades, both these communities were unceremoniously discarded since they had apparently outlived their usefulness to Britain. But even now these victims of exploitation as mercenaries pine for a return of the humiliation of servitude and harbour keen hatreds against the communities they were misused by imperialist Britain to discipline.
The political and economic agenda of the conquered society is dictated by victors in the aftermath of defeat. The direct and indirect dimensions of control over the vanquished include holding sway over the prevalent intellectual climate and the country’s institutions. The nature of the interaction between the defeated and the conquerors is under their careful purview as well. Focus on questions that expose the crimes of the conqueror become illegitimate and innocuous issues like the similarity of their social and religious customs dominate public discourse and curtailing reflection on hard truths. Contemporary inculturation, sponsored with supreme deviousness by church conspirators, represents precisely such a disingenuous phenomenon. Indeed this form of insidious infiltration behind enemy lines is intended to disembowel the foe while caressing its navel in bed.
Almost without exception, collaborators are identified among the defeated to help superintend their own community on behalf of the victors. In the process, a spurious impression is created that the conquered enjoy honour, even autonomy. But these illusory privileges are rationed for the select few, who serve the interests of conquerors. The distinction is between the few house niggers, the collaborators, and field niggers, who toil pitilessly. This is the origin of the house nigger syndrome of India’s Rajas, the Zamindars, tasked to collect and deliver revenues and Indian administrators who served the Raj. In contemporary Europe and the US today, one always observes Indians eager to betray their own for paltry personal gratification.
This is why the on-going advocacy of engaging with Christian churches is quite unreal. In full flight before the Christian evangelist enemy that has entered deep inside their homeland and is waging outright warfare, some Hindus are nevertheless determinedly preoccupied with lethal distractions like inter-faith dialogue. And they are apparently also exercised about how to engage in civilised debate among themselves while their proverbial grandmother is being auctioned!
Christian nations, whom their national churches serve unfailingly as instruments of conquest and subjugation, have pretty much ended Hinduism in the critical Northeast of India, expunged by force of arms. And a war has been waged without pause since Independence, with well-armed Christian terrorists now threatening to expand into adjacent regions. Hindu worship is virtually impossible in these regions, which only nominally belong to the Indian Union. Christianised communities of the Northeast unambiguously proclaim their dislike of India because of its Hindu ethos.
The evangelical churches failed to install their preferred candidate as Prime Minister earlier, but executed India’s first veritable coup d’etat by neutering India’s Prime Minister and its Cabinet government through surrogates. India’s executive authority is now in the thrall of the mendacious National Advisory Council (NAC), with its scandalous composition of practised Hindu-baiters, able to dictate to the Prime Minister on any matter it chooses. The Communal Violence Bill is the product of diabolical machinations of evangelists to de-legitimise opposition to their conversion activities by denouncing it as Hindu aggression. The rationale being insinuated that its enactment will influence Hindu-Muslim antagonism is a deliberate ploy to divert attention from the essential purpose of allowing the church acquire carte blanche.
Evangelists in India today are intensifying their age-old war against polytheists to accelerate their primordial political goal of world domination. This is the reason why even repugnant Islamic Jihadis like of the former ISI chief, General Hameed Gul and Laskhar-e-Taiba leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed are preferable adversaries. They unapologetically declare to the whole world their intention to kill and enslave Hindus en masse, the connotation of their ambition to restore Muslim rule across the entire sub-continent.
In parts of southern India, churches are mushrooming on a startling scale before our very eyes and the dominant political parties of Tamil Nadu are in essence instruments of Christian domination, incited to annihilate all that is sacred to Hindus. And Hindus, ignorant and self-seeking as ever, do not know that, historically, the Church regarded the establishment of bishoprics, in the shape of a physical church, as the political and military boundary of territory under the control of the ruler sponsoring them. Assiduous attempts are being made by the church to repeat the success of Christianising Nagaland and Mizoram and turning tribal communities across India against the Indian Union. New church buildings are designed to overawe local inhabitants by crude display of a political footprint and economic allurement in order to attract converts.
In Nepal, the church was able to use the contrivance of a Christian Maoist leadership to overthrow a decadent monarchy and greedy court elite easily, by exploiting widespread socio-economic unrest in the country. Of course India allowed itself to be manoeuvred into playing the role of midwife because India’s rulers are at best oblivious to all things Hindu and unwilling to recognise that a non-Hindu India will be a foreign country. This is the embittered legacy left by Jawaharlal Nehru and his patron, Mahatma Gandhi, who managed to wound Hinduism more than any invading iconoclast.
Contemporary India is ruled by a Catholic dynasty, which is facilitating the final assault against Hinduism. They are the rulers of choice of Western imperialists, led by the US, who perceive a consummate opportunity to change the religious demography of India permanently in favour of Christianity. And these American churches are nothing but neo fascist plunderers. An alarmingly large number of Christians, disproportionate in relation to their overall numbers in India, have been implanted by the dynasty, alongside fresh converts, careful to obscure their newly-established Christian identity and political loyalties, to destroy all vestiges of Hindu India.
Of course India’s secular elites, who have joined the genocidal campaign against Hinduism, are streetwalkers and possess no Hindu identity whatsoever and are merely available for deployment as shock troops of the ruling dynasty. This is the most shocking fifth column anywhere in the world, with endless permutations of assumed fidelities, from illiterate communist sympathies to supposed liberal sentiments, but all united as foes of Hinduism on behalf of Western imperialism and its chosen Catholic family.
The irony is that pre-eminent Christian nations are currently embarked on renewed imperial crusades in the Middle East and have already laid waste Iraq and Libya. During the earlier repudiation of Algeria’s national elections, Western intelligence agencies, led by the French secret service, pacified the country by instigating the killing of anything up to 500,000 civilians and cynically blamed it on militant Islam. In the case of India, the church is one of the crucial vehicles being used to destabilise it because the country is too complex to seize politically in one fell swoop, compared to a country like Egypt, or invade militarily.
What is occurring is an escalating seizure of key institutions in India although control of elite schools and institutions of higher learning was facilitated by a deracine Nehru, allergic to any manifestation of Hinduism. The English language media and its owners have already been subverted because they belong to a handful of business families, with whom foreign intelligence agencies established ties without difficulty. Individual journalists are routinely purchased and mostly emanate from Anglicised educational establishments that socialise them to espouse disdain for their national culture and the faith of their ancestors.
Yet supposedly intelligent Hindu religious leaders and activists are hell-bent on inter-faith dialogue while total war is being waged to erase Hinduism and cognate religions. Do Hindus not understand that proselytising is completely irreconcilable with inter-faith dialogue? Unabated no Hindus will be left to conduct dialogue with unless the duplicitous church is generously offering to end religious conversion when only a few Hindus remain to display as curiosities? It is equally perplexing that the Catholic Church in particular is considered a worthy partner for dialogue despite its deep animus against Hindu and violation of all decencies when any self-serving opportunity can be found. The disgraceful use of state subsidies for pilgrimages to Jerusalem is but one example.
This is the same church that today stands exposed as the biggest paedophile organisation in world history, also responsible for criminal mistreatment of children of unwed mothers, even while its criminal clergy was busy assaulting tens of thousands of children sexually. The monstrous treatment of babies forcibly removed by the church authorities from mothers and their subsequent fate shocks even the most hard-hearted. Catholic orphanages were truly a taste of the hell with which priests terrorised their congregations. They were finally deserted even by their unquestioning defenders, with the traditionally devout Irish people turning against them to support their government’s decision to break diplomatic ties with the Vatican. And some Hindus still look for crumbs from this Vatican table of gross iniquity, by seeking dialogue with them, which would be akin to Jews honouring unreconstructed Nazis.
Rahul Gandhi is the candidate of the Vatican and other sectarian church denominations to become Prime Minister of India. They look to him as their protector while the final assault against the Hindu citadel advances. In a parallel development, the Chinese, lacking any traditional source of cultural and spiritual sustenance of their own, are succumbing at remarkable pace to Christian evangelical allurements by converting, much like South Korea earlier.
Hindus are the sole remaining repository of an alternative world-view, which eschews the default urge for political and military domination that European peoples and their churches, embodying exactly such an impulse, seek to destroy. Only those who would sup with evil incarnate can wish to engage in dialogue with the Vatican or other evangelical church fraternities, all vultures readying to feast on the Hindu carcass.
(The writer is president, World Association of Hindu Academics)
http://organiser.org//Encyc/2012/1/22/Church-calling-shots-in-politics.aspx NB=&lang=4&m1=&m2=&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=
Sunday, January 22, 2012
IS RAJIV TAKING HINDUS TO AN AMBUSH OF TIGERS BY WESTERN HUNTERS?
Inviting Clooney for dialogue is an invitation to ambush of tigers to wildebeest
by
Dr. Kalyanaraman
The issue is dialogue. I don't see why anyone should be upset when someone says 'inviting Clooney for dialogue is a mistake' if the issue is simply a dialogue but the current situation is far more complex than that.
Indian tradition has always allowed room for expression of differing views. Someone says he/she is a non-hindutva Hindu. Fine. He or she is entitled to such a view. I may not agree with such differentiation between hindutva and non-hindutva hindus.
There have always been differing views on the meaninglessness of dialogue with people of any faith which indulges in violence, deception and fraud claiming their right to conversion through such devious means. As Swami Dayananda said: conversion is violence. "Religious conversion by missionary activity remains an act of violence. It is an act of violence because it hurts deeply, not only the other members of the family of the converted, but the entire community that comes to know of it." http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm
Right to practice one's own religion in a secular democracy and the right to worship any God/Goddess as one pleases to conceptualize Him/Her, with attaining the social maturity to peacefully coexist in a multicultural and multi-ethnic democracy, with full understanding of what is meant by "separation of Church and the State" does not include the right to convert others and violate their right to maintain the integrity of their own society and traditions. The corrupt practice of invading other cultures to harvest souls for any aggressive proselytizing religion under the name of "freedom of religion" should be declared unconstitutional and an antiquated practice in a secular democracy.
Why invite someone for a dialogue, someone who would not concede that conversion is violence?
I don't see that the dialogues have promoted any change of heart among Christian evangelists nor resulted in changing their views on conversion, let alone giving up that process. Russian Orthodox Church for example like some Orthodox Syrian Churches, does not promote conversions. Will Vatican ever follow suit?
Clooney should not be allowed to use a dialogue for discharging his Dominus Jesus responsibilities as SJ.
Anyone is entitled to his right to try a Hindu-Christian dialogue but he/she should also introspect and see if he or she is supporting the cause of dharma by getting Hindus converted to Christianity to come back to Hindu dharma and stop future conversion. I think the focus should be on promoting an understanding of dharma among the youth who are likely to be led astray by the bells and whistles of modernity, ignoring the debt all of us owe to our pitr-s who have given us our identity.
The key issue to be decided upon by everyone for himself or herself is this. Is a dialogue helping or hindering the cause of dharma? Depending on the answer, one can feel free to express his or her views. There are no easy answers for promoting a clear understanding of a tradition which has just taken 11 volumes to produce a new Encyclopaedia of Hinduism, edited by Kapil Kapoor, Rupa & Co (2012).
In summary, inviting Clooney for dialogue is an invitation of an ambush of tigers to the annual Serengeti-Masai-Mara wild-beast migration since dialogue is used as one additional forum for promoting 'inculturation' agenda of Dominus Jesus, an initiative of Ratzinger, an initiative in which Clooney is an active functionary. Stereotyping Hindus into hindutva and non-hindutva categories is clearly a divisive wedge.
Different folks, different strokes.
Kalyanaraman
by
Dr. Kalyanaraman
The issue is dialogue. I don't see why anyone should be upset when someone says 'inviting Clooney for dialogue is a mistake' if the issue is simply a dialogue but the current situation is far more complex than that.
Indian tradition has always allowed room for expression of differing views. Someone says he/she is a non-hindutva Hindu. Fine. He or she is entitled to such a view. I may not agree with such differentiation between hindutva and non-hindutva hindus.
There have always been differing views on the meaninglessness of dialogue with people of any faith which indulges in violence, deception and fraud claiming their right to conversion through such devious means. As Swami Dayananda said: conversion is violence. "Religious conversion by missionary activity remains an act of violence. It is an act of violence because it hurts deeply, not only the other members of the family of the converted, but the entire community that comes to know of it." http://www.swamij.com/conversion-violence.htm
Right to practice one's own religion in a secular democracy and the right to worship any God/Goddess as one pleases to conceptualize Him/Her, with attaining the social maturity to peacefully coexist in a multicultural and multi-ethnic democracy, with full understanding of what is meant by "separation of Church and the State" does not include the right to convert others and violate their right to maintain the integrity of their own society and traditions. The corrupt practice of invading other cultures to harvest souls for any aggressive proselytizing religion under the name of "freedom of religion" should be declared unconstitutional and an antiquated practice in a secular democracy.
Why invite someone for a dialogue, someone who would not concede that conversion is violence?
I don't see that the dialogues have promoted any change of heart among Christian evangelists nor resulted in changing their views on conversion, let alone giving up that process. Russian Orthodox Church for example like some Orthodox Syrian Churches, does not promote conversions. Will Vatican ever follow suit?
Clooney should not be allowed to use a dialogue for discharging his Dominus Jesus responsibilities as SJ.
Anyone is entitled to his right to try a Hindu-Christian dialogue but he/she should also introspect and see if he or she is supporting the cause of dharma by getting Hindus converted to Christianity to come back to Hindu dharma and stop future conversion. I think the focus should be on promoting an understanding of dharma among the youth who are likely to be led astray by the bells and whistles of modernity, ignoring the debt all of us owe to our pitr-s who have given us our identity.
The key issue to be decided upon by everyone for himself or herself is this. Is a dialogue helping or hindering the cause of dharma? Depending on the answer, one can feel free to express his or her views. There are no easy answers for promoting a clear understanding of a tradition which has just taken 11 volumes to produce a new Encyclopaedia of Hinduism, edited by Kapil Kapoor, Rupa & Co (2012).
In summary, inviting Clooney for dialogue is an invitation of an ambush of tigers to the annual Serengeti-Masai-Mara wild-beast migration since dialogue is used as one additional forum for promoting 'inculturation' agenda of Dominus Jesus, an initiative of Ratzinger, an initiative in which Clooney is an active functionary. Stereotyping Hindus into hindutva and non-hindutva categories is clearly a divisive wedge.
Different folks, different strokes.
Kalyanaraman
CO-EXISTENCE OF CONTRADICTIONS IN THE SAME PERSON CAN MISLEAD FOLLOWERS: HINDUS DO NOT NEED SUCH CHEERLEADERS!!
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/rajiv-malhotra-from-critique-of-west-to.html
21.1.12
'Rajiv Malhotra : From Critique of the West to Hindu Christian Dialogue'
by
- Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
January 21, 2012
Since the publication of the book Breaking India (2011) author and writer Rajiv Malhotra has turned to interfaith dialogue, presaged in his book Being Different (2011) and now in various articles (Huffington Post) and blogs in State of Formation (the latter an outfit designed especially for interfaith dialogue). Breaking India, written with co author Aravindan Neelakandan, provides an account of the dangers facing India : terrorism, maoism, Inculturation from the Church etc. This last mentioned aspect is dealt with in some detail, especially in Tamil Nadu since Shri Neelakandan is well informed in that area. The reader must be reminded that Inculturation is the process by which the Catholic Church has sought, since the time of Robert di Nobili in the seventeenth century to the present times, with Jesuit scholar Francis Xavier Clooney as a means to insinuate itself into Hindu culture and eventually convert it. Hindu Christian Dialogue is the latest avatar of the project of Inculturation.
Since the publication of Breaking India Shri Malhotra has turned actively to Hindu Christian Dialogue, in tandem with Fr.Francis Xavier Clooney. The present writer has criticised this move in many articles and the most recent one is on the dialogue/discussion with Clooney held at University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth ('How not to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue', in Bharata Bharati and Kalyan97 blogspot). Other discerning voices are also beginning to criticise the author's venture into this arena. Since the time of Sita Ram Goyal there has been a strong and trenchant critique of Hindu Christian Dialogue (See his book History of Hindu-Christian Encounters, A.D. 304 to 1996 ).
Neverthless Shri Malhotra has not heeded these voices and proceeds to engage in that dubious enterprise called Hindu Christian Dialogue.
Malhotra's book Being Different is the work of an autodidact and as is usual in such situations the author tends to believe that his own work is a world shaking event. The autodidact begins to entertain an exaggerated notion of his importance in the scheme of things. Much of the content of the book which purports to explain the differences of Hinduism from other faiths is known not only to traditional acharyas and gurus (of whom Malhotra is openly contemptuous) but even to the average educated Hindu. The aam admi Hindu, ofcourse, practises his 'differences' on a daily basis and does not need a book written by a diasporic Hindu to assist him. The present writer has on previous occasions pointed out the crucial faulty methodology of the book (for instance the truncated version of the ancient Hindu method of Purva Paksha). As an account of Malhotra's own 'churnings' the book is obviously important to himself and it can also make a reading as an adventure of ideas. But to take it seriously as an alternative to the millenia old knowledge and practice of Hindu acharyas, is misleading and does not benefit the Hindu Samaj. To then go further and use its contents as the basis of Shri Malhotra's new found career in Hindu Christian Dialogue makes the whole project even more dubious. It can also become the beginnings of an attack on the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths of Hinduism, which plays directly into the hands of the Catholic Church.
That Shri Malhotra takes his new career of purveyor of Hindu Christian Dialogue seriously can be deduced from his 4 part blog in the State of Formation. Of the 4 parts two of them deal with specifics such as the etymological origin of the word Dharma, from the Sanskrit root dhri (to uphold) and the difference between the eschatological view of history in the monotheistic faiths, as opposed to the timeless view of Hindu Dharma and so on and so forth. All this is known to the average Hindu and are not new insights. It is Blogs 1 and 4 which are directly related to the political aspect of Hindu Christian Dialogue. The fact that Shri Malhotra has said that he is not interested in the 'political' angle (see his remarks at the Dartmouth video) does not automatically make it ' a-political .' He is, objectively speaking, right in the thick of a political enterprise.
In these two blogs the author tells us that in the age of globalisation and a multipolar world it is important to have interfaith dialogue. He admits that he has been dialoguing with leaders of different faiths (he does not indicate who they are) but makes specific references to the jesuit scholar and priest Francis Xavier Clooney, professor of Divinity at Harvard University (USA) who read through the manuscript of his book Being Different and offered suggestions.
Further, that Dr. Clooney has been the important interlocutor in Malhotra's venture of Hindu Christian Dialogue. This would explain to the reader why and how Shri Malhotra consistently speaks about the differences of religions and asks that the differences should be respected. He speaks about Purva Paksha as a 'gazing' at the adversary, but omits the process of the REFUTATION of the adversary, which is the purpose of Purva Paksha. Shri Shankara's Digvijay tour of India refuted and thus defeated the adversaries of Hinduism. Shri Malhotra, on the other hand, engages and pleads for respect from the Christian West.
It is understandable why Dr. Clooney would endorse that position since he is not looking for refutation or defeat. He is looking for further patronage. What is surprising is that Malhotra has been negligent both on grounds of his technical neglect of the process of Purva Paksha and the 'political' implications of his neglect of the same.
The reader is directed to the comprehensive, thorough investigation provided by Sita Ram Goyal in his book History of Hindu-Christian Encounters (1996). There, one has examples of the then modern Hindus of the past who actively refuted the missionaries of the day such as Raja Ram Mohun Roy. In our times Arun Shourie has been the prominent face of anti missionary activity.
Shri Malhotra may have his own reasons for entering into Hindu Christian Dialogue, but to present himself as a CHEERLEADER of the same, and that too ostensibly in the name of the Hindu Samaj, is a sign of hubris.
(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History).
21.1.12
'Rajiv Malhotra : From Critique of the West to Hindu Christian Dialogue'
by
- Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
January 21, 2012
Since the publication of the book Breaking India (2011) author and writer Rajiv Malhotra has turned to interfaith dialogue, presaged in his book Being Different (2011) and now in various articles (Huffington Post) and blogs in State of Formation (the latter an outfit designed especially for interfaith dialogue). Breaking India, written with co author Aravindan Neelakandan, provides an account of the dangers facing India : terrorism, maoism, Inculturation from the Church etc. This last mentioned aspect is dealt with in some detail, especially in Tamil Nadu since Shri Neelakandan is well informed in that area. The reader must be reminded that Inculturation is the process by which the Catholic Church has sought, since the time of Robert di Nobili in the seventeenth century to the present times, with Jesuit scholar Francis Xavier Clooney as a means to insinuate itself into Hindu culture and eventually convert it. Hindu Christian Dialogue is the latest avatar of the project of Inculturation.
Since the publication of Breaking India Shri Malhotra has turned actively to Hindu Christian Dialogue, in tandem with Fr.Francis Xavier Clooney. The present writer has criticised this move in many articles and the most recent one is on the dialogue/discussion with Clooney held at University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth ('How not to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue', in Bharata Bharati and Kalyan97 blogspot). Other discerning voices are also beginning to criticise the author's venture into this arena. Since the time of Sita Ram Goyal there has been a strong and trenchant critique of Hindu Christian Dialogue (See his book History of Hindu-Christian Encounters, A.D. 304 to 1996 ).
Neverthless Shri Malhotra has not heeded these voices and proceeds to engage in that dubious enterprise called Hindu Christian Dialogue.
Malhotra's book Being Different is the work of an autodidact and as is usual in such situations the author tends to believe that his own work is a world shaking event. The autodidact begins to entertain an exaggerated notion of his importance in the scheme of things. Much of the content of the book which purports to explain the differences of Hinduism from other faiths is known not only to traditional acharyas and gurus (of whom Malhotra is openly contemptuous) but even to the average educated Hindu. The aam admi Hindu, ofcourse, practises his 'differences' on a daily basis and does not need a book written by a diasporic Hindu to assist him. The present writer has on previous occasions pointed out the crucial faulty methodology of the book (for instance the truncated version of the ancient Hindu method of Purva Paksha). As an account of Malhotra's own 'churnings' the book is obviously important to himself and it can also make a reading as an adventure of ideas. But to take it seriously as an alternative to the millenia old knowledge and practice of Hindu acharyas, is misleading and does not benefit the Hindu Samaj. To then go further and use its contents as the basis of Shri Malhotra's new found career in Hindu Christian Dialogue makes the whole project even more dubious. It can also become the beginnings of an attack on the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths of Hinduism, which plays directly into the hands of the Catholic Church.
That Shri Malhotra takes his new career of purveyor of Hindu Christian Dialogue seriously can be deduced from his 4 part blog in the State of Formation. Of the 4 parts two of them deal with specifics such as the etymological origin of the word Dharma, from the Sanskrit root dhri (to uphold) and the difference between the eschatological view of history in the monotheistic faiths, as opposed to the timeless view of Hindu Dharma and so on and so forth. All this is known to the average Hindu and are not new insights. It is Blogs 1 and 4 which are directly related to the political aspect of Hindu Christian Dialogue. The fact that Shri Malhotra has said that he is not interested in the 'political' angle (see his remarks at the Dartmouth video) does not automatically make it ' a-political .' He is, objectively speaking, right in the thick of a political enterprise.
In these two blogs the author tells us that in the age of globalisation and a multipolar world it is important to have interfaith dialogue. He admits that he has been dialoguing with leaders of different faiths (he does not indicate who they are) but makes specific references to the jesuit scholar and priest Francis Xavier Clooney, professor of Divinity at Harvard University (USA) who read through the manuscript of his book Being Different and offered suggestions.
Further, that Dr. Clooney has been the important interlocutor in Malhotra's venture of Hindu Christian Dialogue. This would explain to the reader why and how Shri Malhotra consistently speaks about the differences of religions and asks that the differences should be respected. He speaks about Purva Paksha as a 'gazing' at the adversary, but omits the process of the REFUTATION of the adversary, which is the purpose of Purva Paksha. Shri Shankara's Digvijay tour of India refuted and thus defeated the adversaries of Hinduism. Shri Malhotra, on the other hand, engages and pleads for respect from the Christian West.
It is understandable why Dr. Clooney would endorse that position since he is not looking for refutation or defeat. He is looking for further patronage. What is surprising is that Malhotra has been negligent both on grounds of his technical neglect of the process of Purva Paksha and the 'political' implications of his neglect of the same.
The reader is directed to the comprehensive, thorough investigation provided by Sita Ram Goyal in his book History of Hindu-Christian Encounters (1996). There, one has examples of the then modern Hindus of the past who actively refuted the missionaries of the day such as Raja Ram Mohun Roy. In our times Arun Shourie has been the prominent face of anti missionary activity.
Shri Malhotra may have his own reasons for entering into Hindu Christian Dialogue, but to present himself as a CHEERLEADER of the same, and that too ostensibly in the name of the Hindu Samaj, is a sign of hubris.
(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History).
Saturday, January 21, 2012
ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF TRADITIONAL DAILY HINDU VEDIC PRAYERS
BAL-VIKAS PRAYERS
TRANSLATIONS
BY
SHYAMALA VINEKAR
The following are the traditional contemplations adapted for the Bal Vikas Children's Sunday Schools and Youth Groups in Hindu temples. Most adults (parents) are familiar with the Sanskrit versions. Only the English Translation is rendered for those who want to contemplate on these in English.
YOUR FACE REPRESENTING THE IMAGE OF "OMKARA" HAS THE CURVACEOUS TRUNK,
YOUR EXISTENCE IS CONCEPTUALIZED AS INFINITELY EXPANSIVE, REPRESENTED BY YOUR LARGE BODY
YOUR SPLENDOR IS IMMENSELY RADIANT LIKE THAT OF TEN MILLION SUNS SHINING IN THIS UNIVERSE
YOU ARE THE REMOVER OF OBSTACLES AT THE BEGINNING OF ALL ENDEAVORS
WE PRAY TO YOU MY DEVA TO REMOVE OBSTACLES IN ALL MY VENTURES AT ALL TIMES
OM PERVADES IN ALL THREE LOKAS, ON THIS EARTH, IN ALL THE UNIVERSES THAT EVER EXISTED, AND IN THE CELESTIAL SPHERE
THAT ILLUMINATING BRAHMAN WE ELECT (TO WORSHIP) BECAUSE IT ENLIGHTENS THE GREAT INTELLECT OF THE DEVAS
AND PRAY THAT IT GUIDE OUR INTELLECTS TOO.
THE GUIDANCE COMES FROM GURU WHO IS IN TUNE WITH THE BRAHMAN
SO GURU ALSO REPRESENTS ALL DEVAS LIKE VISHNU, & MAHESHWARA,
GURU THEREFORE IS ACTUALLY PERSONIFIED PARABRAHMAN (PARAMATMA)
TO SUCH GURU WE BOW WITH HIGHEST REVERENCE
YOU ARE MOTHER, YOU ARE FATHER, YOU ARE BROTHER, YOU ARE THE FRIEND
YOU ARE THE GIVER OF KNOWLEDGE, YOU ARE WEALTH (SPIRITUAL WEALTH)
YOU ARE EVERYTHING MY DEVA
THIS IS COMPLETE (ABSOLUTE), THAT IS ALSO COMPLETE (ABSOLUTE)
FROM THE COMPLETE (INFINITE BRAHMAN) EVOLVES COMPLETE
WHEN COMPLETE (INFINITE) IS REMOVED FROM COMPLETE THE REMAINDER IS ALSO COMPLETE
(THIS IS THE WAY THE INFINITE BRAHMAN, ITS EVOLUTION AND DISSOLUTION IS CONCEPTUALIZED)
USING THE METAPHOR OF YAGNYA, WHAT IS OFFERED TO BRAHMAN AS OBLATION IS ALSO BRAHMAN,
THE TRANSFORMATION OF SUCH OBLATION OR OFFERING TO BRAHMAN IS BY BRAHMAN. WHAT IS TRANSFORMED IS ALSO BRAHMAN. THE TRANSFORMING AGENCY (AGNI) IS BRAHMAN. THAT ACTION WHICH IS PERFORMED IN THE STATE OF ATTUNEMENT WITH BRAHMAN BECOMES VERILY THE ACTION OF THE BRAHMAN LEADING TO BRAHMAN ITSELF. ONE WHO SEES THIS UNIVERSE IN THIS LIGHT ATTAINS BRAHMAN. THAT IS THE STATE OF SAMADHI AND ALL ACTIONS PERFORMED IN THIS STATE BECOME THE ACTIONS OF BRAHMAN.
"I" EXIST AS VAISHWA-NARA, THE PRANIC TEMPLATE FOR UNIVERSAL HUMAN BODY (LIFE CYCLE), IN ALL LIVING BEINGS
IT IS I, THIS VAISHWA-NARA, COMPOSITE MANIFESTATION OF
PRANA (PRANA, APANA, ETC. = PRANA, APANA, UDAN, VYANA AND SAMANA), WHO DIGESTS FOUR KINDS OF FOOD
PS: For comprehending the concept of Deva, Agni, Prana, Loka, Brahman, Atma, Paramatma, etc. see multiple articles on this blog especially "Instant Ramayana," "Instant Mahabharata," "Demystifying Shri Hanumana (3 Parts)," "Demystifying Shri Ganesha,""Dhee: Essence of Hinduness" or "Dhee: Freedom of Thinking" (2 Parts) - place the title of the article in "google" search engine to find the articles. Also see articles on "Devas and Devatas" by Achintyachintaka on this blog.
Parents may simplify these translations for children to suit their age, developmental level, and their
TRANSLATIONS
BY
SHYAMALA VINEKAR
The following are the traditional contemplations adapted for the Bal Vikas Children's Sunday Schools and Youth Groups in Hindu temples. Most adults (parents) are familiar with the Sanskrit versions. Only the English Translation is rendered for those who want to contemplate on these in English.
YOUR FACE REPRESENTING THE IMAGE OF "OMKARA" HAS THE CURVACEOUS TRUNK,
YOUR EXISTENCE IS CONCEPTUALIZED AS INFINITELY EXPANSIVE, REPRESENTED BY YOUR LARGE BODY
YOUR SPLENDOR IS IMMENSELY RADIANT LIKE THAT OF TEN MILLION SUNS SHINING IN THIS UNIVERSE
YOU ARE THE REMOVER OF OBSTACLES AT THE BEGINNING OF ALL ENDEAVORS
WE PRAY TO YOU MY DEVA TO REMOVE OBSTACLES IN ALL MY VENTURES AT ALL TIMES
OM PERVADES IN ALL THREE LOKAS, ON THIS EARTH, IN ALL THE UNIVERSES THAT EVER EXISTED, AND IN THE CELESTIAL SPHERE
THAT ILLUMINATING BRAHMAN WE ELECT (TO WORSHIP) BECAUSE IT ENLIGHTENS THE GREAT INTELLECT OF THE DEVAS
AND PRAY THAT IT GUIDE OUR INTELLECTS TOO.
THE GUIDANCE COMES FROM GURU WHO IS IN TUNE WITH THE BRAHMAN
SO GURU ALSO REPRESENTS ALL DEVAS LIKE VISHNU, & MAHESHWARA,
GURU THEREFORE IS ACTUALLY PERSONIFIED PARABRAHMAN (PARAMATMA)
TO SUCH GURU WE BOW WITH HIGHEST REVERENCE
YOU ARE MOTHER, YOU ARE FATHER, YOU ARE BROTHER, YOU ARE THE FRIEND
YOU ARE THE GIVER OF KNOWLEDGE, YOU ARE WEALTH (SPIRITUAL WEALTH)
YOU ARE EVERYTHING MY DEVA
THIS IS COMPLETE (ABSOLUTE), THAT IS ALSO COMPLETE (ABSOLUTE)
FROM THE COMPLETE (INFINITE BRAHMAN) EVOLVES COMPLETE
WHEN COMPLETE (INFINITE) IS REMOVED FROM COMPLETE THE REMAINDER IS ALSO COMPLETE
(THIS IS THE WAY THE INFINITE BRAHMAN, ITS EVOLUTION AND DISSOLUTION IS CONCEPTUALIZED)
USING THE METAPHOR OF YAGNYA, WHAT IS OFFERED TO BRAHMAN AS OBLATION IS ALSO BRAHMAN,
THE TRANSFORMATION OF SUCH OBLATION OR OFFERING TO BRAHMAN IS BY BRAHMAN. WHAT IS TRANSFORMED IS ALSO BRAHMAN. THE TRANSFORMING AGENCY (AGNI) IS BRAHMAN. THAT ACTION WHICH IS PERFORMED IN THE STATE OF ATTUNEMENT WITH BRAHMAN BECOMES VERILY THE ACTION OF THE BRAHMAN LEADING TO BRAHMAN ITSELF. ONE WHO SEES THIS UNIVERSE IN THIS LIGHT ATTAINS BRAHMAN. THAT IS THE STATE OF SAMADHI AND ALL ACTIONS PERFORMED IN THIS STATE BECOME THE ACTIONS OF BRAHMAN.
"I" EXIST AS VAISHWA-NARA, THE PRANIC TEMPLATE FOR UNIVERSAL HUMAN BODY (LIFE CYCLE), IN ALL LIVING BEINGS
IT IS I, THIS VAISHWA-NARA, COMPOSITE MANIFESTATION OF
PRANA (PRANA, APANA, ETC. = PRANA, APANA, UDAN, VYANA AND SAMANA), WHO DIGESTS FOUR KINDS OF FOOD
PS: For comprehending the concept of Deva, Agni, Prana, Loka, Brahman, Atma, Paramatma, etc. see multiple articles on this blog especially "Instant Ramayana," "Instant Mahabharata," "Demystifying Shri Hanumana (3 Parts)," "Demystifying Shri Ganesha,""Dhee: Essence of Hinduness" or "Dhee: Freedom of Thinking" (2 Parts) - place the title of the article in "google" search engine to find the articles. Also see articles on "Devas and Devatas" by Achintyachintaka on this blog.
Parents may simplify these translations for children to suit their age, developmental level, and their
ability to comprehend abstract concepts.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
RAJIV MALHOTRA VOLUNTARILY WALKED INTO A LION'S DEN, REASON: A DELUSION OF GRANDEUR OF BECOMING MODERN SHANKARACHARYA TO DEFEAT MANDAN MISHRA?
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-not-to-engage-in-hindu-christian.html
17.1.12
'How Not to Engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue' - Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
'How Not to Engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue'
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Jan. 17, 2012
At a Discussion at the University of Massachusetts (Dartmouth) Rajiv Malhotra, the author of the book Breaking India (2011) addressing a small gathering, presented a spectacle of retreat and submission before a known 'adversary' Jesuit theologian and scholar Dr. Francis Xavier Clooney. Malhotra's co author Aravindan Neelakandan was not present and it is not known what his views are on his co author's start of a new career in Hindu Christian Dialogue. It was not so long ago that Breaking India had poignantly informed readers of the dangers facing India : terrorism, maoism, Inculturation from the Church and so on. And now we see the one of the authors of that book engaging with the self same Inculturation forces, under the rubric of Interfaith Dialogue, in this instance, Hindu Christian Dialogue. The present writer has explained in previous articles the reasons for this capitulation by Shri Malhotra. The reader is reminded that Inculturation is the process by which the Church ingratiates and insinuates itself into the local culture (in this case Hindu culture) not to integrate with it but to subvert it in various ways, so that the end result would be Conversion. The Vatican has openly endorsed this method and one avenue of Inculturation is the drawing in of Hindu intellectuals into the process of Interfaith Dialogue, specifically Hindu Christian Dialogue. Violence and conquest are no longer the chosen methods. Other avenues are there and Interfaith Dialogue is one of them, along with creeping Conversion.
At present Hindus should sit up and take notice of the fact that Shri Malhotra has further intentions of spreading his 'message.'
During his recent visit to India for talks on his new book Being Different, Malhotra met three different groups. The first meeting was with academics in Delhi amongst whom was a professor from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU, not known for its Hindu orientation) who informed Malhotra that he Malhotra is interested in 'knowledge systems'. Shri Malhotra repeated this line at Dartmouth. In the video of the Discussion there he tells us that he is interested in knowledge systems, that he is not interested in the 'politics' of interfaith dialogue. This coming from the author of Breaking India is indeed precious !
The second meeting was with business people, a new group who Malhotra claims, does not know much about their own identity as Hindus and needed to be educated on the topic. And the third group was composed of some Hindu acharyas who Malhotra felt did not know much about Western thought and who needed to be educated in order to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue. It is this last group that should concern the Hindu Samaj most. It is one thing for diasporic Hindus to keep themselves occupied with interfaith dialogue, quite another thing to help in the subversion of the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths by the Church. These have been the mainstay of our civilisation and we tinker with them at our own peril. The present writer has explained why this is so, in a previous article ' If a thing ain't broke don't fix it !' (in Bharata Bharati, kalyanblogspot & Haindava Keralam). The central argument of that article is that the traditional acharyas are well versed in their own tradition and that should continue. Spreading the virus of interfaith dialogue amongst them is doing a disservice to them and to the Hindu Samaj.
Here, we want to briefly examine the shape of things to come by looking at the process by which the well trained Jesuit scholar Dr. Franics Xavier Clooney was able to exploit Rajiv Malhotra's vulnerabilities, both the latter's new found agenda of interfaith dialogue (and now quite openly Hindu Christian Dialogue) and his position as an autodidact. The 'churning' that Malhotra did in understanding the differences between Hinduism and the monotheistic faiths (specifically Christianity) is important to himself undoubtedly. He is taken in by his own involvement with this process and as with most autodidacts (self taught) though not all, he imagines this to be a world shaking event. This subjective illusion can be the basis of a fine adventure of ideas, even perhaps an autobiographical account of his personal evolution. But as a 'scholarly' attempt to tackle a well trained adversary it was bound to end in a debacle.
Who is Francis Xavier Clooney ? He is a Jesuit priest and scholar who is a Professor at the School of Divinity at Harvard University (USA). He has a long standing interest in Hindu Christian Dialogue. He was introduced at Dartmouth as :
1. Professor of Divinity and Comparative Theology
2. He is on numerous editorial boards
3. He is the Director of the Centre for the Study of World Religions
4. He is the first President of the International Society for Hindu Christian Dialogue
5. He was the Co ordinator of Inter Religious Dialogue for the Society of Jesus
6. He is the editor of New Comparative Theology.
His academic credentials are impeccable. So is his dedication to the Vatican's program of Inculturation (See the article by George Thundiparambil 'Old Poisoned Wine in new Tetra Packs' in Vigilonline and as well the writings of Radha Rajan in Vigilonline and Sandhya Jain and Tamizhchelvan in Viajayavani). The present writer has pointed out on several occasions that Dr. Clooney is a soft spoken, well spoken, well trained scholar who does not appear before audiences with the words Inculturation and Conversion blazoned on his forehead. His modus operandi is intellectual discussion and the occasion at Dartmouth provided him with a ready venue. Both he he and Malhotra expect to continue these interfaith, Hindu Christian dialogues. This was clearly stated. These 'dialogues' will not benefit the Hindu Samaj. They will only offer opportunities for Fr. Clooney to open the door further into Inculturation while providing Malhotra with the ILLUSION that he is benefitting Hinduism by explaining the differences between Hinduism and the monotheistic faiths to a Western audience, even though he claims that he is addressing himself to Hindus.
After a 34 minute talk (approximately) by Malhotra on the themes of his book Being Different, Dr. Clooney took the podium and his talk lasted approximately 46 minutes. It has a 3 pronged approach and its subtlety and sophistication are all too evident, besides which Malhotra sounded amatuerish and unprepared.
In the first part Clooney paid the obligatory tributes to the author and amongst these there is one that stands out. He remarked that it is not the first time that Hindus have embarked on a critique of Christianity (and the West). He mentioned that Swami Dayananda Sarasvati in the 19th century and Swami Vivekananda in the 1900s did just that, but now Malhotra has provided a MORE SOPHISTICATED (and updated) critique. Fr. Clooney thus conferred the mantle of a new Vivekananda on Shri Malhotra's shoulders, which the latter did not decline to accept. This was evident in Malhotra's remarks after the Clooney talk.
The second part of Clooney's talk was devoted to a summary of the themes of the book which Malhotra had already presented to the audience, the over arching theme being that Hinduism was a different kind of Universalism ( different from the West) and that differences should be respected and can be the basis of dialogue.
It is in the third part that Dr. Clooney excelled in the subtle and sophisticated dialectic that Jesuit scholars are known for. In this segment he both acknowledged the merits of some of Malhotra's arguments and at the same time he pointed out their inadequacy as an account of the West and Christianity. At the end of the session Malhotra acknowledged that had taken close notes and these points would be the subject of further interfaith dialogues ! While Shri Malhotra dutifully brought out his copy book, Dr. Clooney's frequent gestures of rubbing his hands together, said it all. The present writer has already pointed out elsewhere that Shri Malhotra's method Purva Paksha was fatally flawed. He truncated the ancient Hindu method of argument (Tarka Shastra) by omitting an important section of it : Refutation of the opponent's arguments. He merely 'gazed' at the opponent but did not refute him. And the Hindu Christian 'dialogue' is set up just for that.
The ancient method consists of (1) statement of the opponent's arguments, (2) REFUTATION of the opponent's argumenst, (3)Statement of one's own arguments.
Dr. Clooney, even as he praised his host,managed to show that Shri Malhotra did not really understand the West, especially Christianity. At least half a dozen examples were cited and it would be useful here to point out two or three of them. One of them was Malhotra's incomplete understanding of the god of Christianity and his historicity. Another example was the 'complexity' of the synthetic unity of Christian thought, unlike Malhotra's implied description of it as being inferior to Hindu integral unity.
The third example is telling. Clooney pointed out that in using the periodisation of history as starting with Rome, followed by the birth of Christianity, followed by Renaissance & Reformation and then followed by Modern Science, the Enlightenment, and then Colonialism etc. Malhtora was using the West's own model of itself. Hence, here again Malhotra was deficient in truly describing the West and especially Christianity.
Fr. Clooney even managed to throw in a quick remark that questioned the specificity (according to him) of the Hindu interpretation of the Rishi tradition. The Rishi tradition according to him is much more open than Hindus would allow. Shri Malhotra held up Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi as his sources, but he did not and could not defend the vast smriti tradition or even the Upanishads as he did not seem to be very familiar with these. A traditional acharya would immediately have been able to respond to this. A traditional acharya does not need to have gone through the fraudulent exercise of interfaith dialogue to explain the Vedas and the Smritis ! He certainly would not have allowed himself to be entrapped in the periodisation of history, borrowed from the West !
Apart from all this being Clooney's misrepresentation of the Vedas, it is also a sign of the current attempt by the Church to refine its Inculturation by appropriating the Vedas ! The Hindus do not understand the Vedas but Christians such as Fr. Clooney can. This is the subtext of his observations.
All in all, the video shows a dismal lack of preparedness by Shri Malhotra on how to handle the Jesuit scholar. This is, ofcourse, where his lack of formal training shows up. What should alarm the Hindu Samaj is that the book Being Different is being considered (so the author informs us) for students at the Department of Psychology at the University of Delhi. One hopes that intrepid students and faculty can tackle the situation. Hindus do not need lectures on what atman or punarjanmam mean, nor do they need to seek for a place at the table of Western Universalism( which is Shri Malhotra's stated aim). Dr. Clooney has already done the rounds of institutions in Chennai, among college students in particular. Should he appear at classrooms in Delhi one can only hope that the door of interfaith dialogue is firmly shut. The book Being Different cannot be allowed to become the thin end of the wedge for Inculturation (although that may not be the author's aim).
The chipping away at the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas. gurus and maths has been the ancient dream of the Catholic Church. Hindus should resolutely show up these designs and above all reject Hindu Christian Dialogue. That exercise is intended to be a distraction. The real target of the Church are the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, because the Church has understood that these are the backbone of our civilisation .
(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadin university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History).
17.1.12
'How Not to Engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue' - Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
'How Not to Engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue'
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Jan. 17, 2012
At a Discussion at the University of Massachusetts (Dartmouth) Rajiv Malhotra, the author of the book Breaking India (2011) addressing a small gathering, presented a spectacle of retreat and submission before a known 'adversary' Jesuit theologian and scholar Dr. Francis Xavier Clooney. Malhotra's co author Aravindan Neelakandan was not present and it is not known what his views are on his co author's start of a new career in Hindu Christian Dialogue. It was not so long ago that Breaking India had poignantly informed readers of the dangers facing India : terrorism, maoism, Inculturation from the Church and so on. And now we see the one of the authors of that book engaging with the self same Inculturation forces, under the rubric of Interfaith Dialogue, in this instance, Hindu Christian Dialogue. The present writer has explained in previous articles the reasons for this capitulation by Shri Malhotra. The reader is reminded that Inculturation is the process by which the Church ingratiates and insinuates itself into the local culture (in this case Hindu culture) not to integrate with it but to subvert it in various ways, so that the end result would be Conversion. The Vatican has openly endorsed this method and one avenue of Inculturation is the drawing in of Hindu intellectuals into the process of Interfaith Dialogue, specifically Hindu Christian Dialogue. Violence and conquest are no longer the chosen methods. Other avenues are there and Interfaith Dialogue is one of them, along with creeping Conversion.
At present Hindus should sit up and take notice of the fact that Shri Malhotra has further intentions of spreading his 'message.'
During his recent visit to India for talks on his new book Being Different, Malhotra met three different groups. The first meeting was with academics in Delhi amongst whom was a professor from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU, not known for its Hindu orientation) who informed Malhotra that he Malhotra is interested in 'knowledge systems'. Shri Malhotra repeated this line at Dartmouth. In the video of the Discussion there he tells us that he is interested in knowledge systems, that he is not interested in the 'politics' of interfaith dialogue. This coming from the author of Breaking India is indeed precious !
The second meeting was with business people, a new group who Malhotra claims, does not know much about their own identity as Hindus and needed to be educated on the topic. And the third group was composed of some Hindu acharyas who Malhotra felt did not know much about Western thought and who needed to be educated in order to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue. It is this last group that should concern the Hindu Samaj most. It is one thing for diasporic Hindus to keep themselves occupied with interfaith dialogue, quite another thing to help in the subversion of the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths by the Church. These have been the mainstay of our civilisation and we tinker with them at our own peril. The present writer has explained why this is so, in a previous article ' If a thing ain't broke don't fix it !' (in Bharata Bharati, kalyanblogspot & Haindava Keralam). The central argument of that article is that the traditional acharyas are well versed in their own tradition and that should continue. Spreading the virus of interfaith dialogue amongst them is doing a disservice to them and to the Hindu Samaj.
Here, we want to briefly examine the shape of things to come by looking at the process by which the well trained Jesuit scholar Dr. Franics Xavier Clooney was able to exploit Rajiv Malhotra's vulnerabilities, both the latter's new found agenda of interfaith dialogue (and now quite openly Hindu Christian Dialogue) and his position as an autodidact. The 'churning' that Malhotra did in understanding the differences between Hinduism and the monotheistic faiths (specifically Christianity) is important to himself undoubtedly. He is taken in by his own involvement with this process and as with most autodidacts (self taught) though not all, he imagines this to be a world shaking event. This subjective illusion can be the basis of a fine adventure of ideas, even perhaps an autobiographical account of his personal evolution. But as a 'scholarly' attempt to tackle a well trained adversary it was bound to end in a debacle.
Who is Francis Xavier Clooney ? He is a Jesuit priest and scholar who is a Professor at the School of Divinity at Harvard University (USA). He has a long standing interest in Hindu Christian Dialogue. He was introduced at Dartmouth as :
1. Professor of Divinity and Comparative Theology
2. He is on numerous editorial boards
3. He is the Director of the Centre for the Study of World Religions
4. He is the first President of the International Society for Hindu Christian Dialogue
5. He was the Co ordinator of Inter Religious Dialogue for the Society of Jesus
6. He is the editor of New Comparative Theology.
His academic credentials are impeccable. So is his dedication to the Vatican's program of Inculturation (See the article by George Thundiparambil 'Old Poisoned Wine in new Tetra Packs' in Vigilonline and as well the writings of Radha Rajan in Vigilonline and Sandhya Jain and Tamizhchelvan in Viajayavani). The present writer has pointed out on several occasions that Dr. Clooney is a soft spoken, well spoken, well trained scholar who does not appear before audiences with the words Inculturation and Conversion blazoned on his forehead. His modus operandi is intellectual discussion and the occasion at Dartmouth provided him with a ready venue. Both he he and Malhotra expect to continue these interfaith, Hindu Christian dialogues. This was clearly stated. These 'dialogues' will not benefit the Hindu Samaj. They will only offer opportunities for Fr. Clooney to open the door further into Inculturation while providing Malhotra with the ILLUSION that he is benefitting Hinduism by explaining the differences between Hinduism and the monotheistic faiths to a Western audience, even though he claims that he is addressing himself to Hindus.
After a 34 minute talk (approximately) by Malhotra on the themes of his book Being Different, Dr. Clooney took the podium and his talk lasted approximately 46 minutes. It has a 3 pronged approach and its subtlety and sophistication are all too evident, besides which Malhotra sounded amatuerish and unprepared.
In the first part Clooney paid the obligatory tributes to the author and amongst these there is one that stands out. He remarked that it is not the first time that Hindus have embarked on a critique of Christianity (and the West). He mentioned that Swami Dayananda Sarasvati in the 19th century and Swami Vivekananda in the 1900s did just that, but now Malhotra has provided a MORE SOPHISTICATED (and updated) critique. Fr. Clooney thus conferred the mantle of a new Vivekananda on Shri Malhotra's shoulders, which the latter did not decline to accept. This was evident in Malhotra's remarks after the Clooney talk.
The second part of Clooney's talk was devoted to a summary of the themes of the book which Malhotra had already presented to the audience, the over arching theme being that Hinduism was a different kind of Universalism ( different from the West) and that differences should be respected and can be the basis of dialogue.
It is in the third part that Dr. Clooney excelled in the subtle and sophisticated dialectic that Jesuit scholars are known for. In this segment he both acknowledged the merits of some of Malhotra's arguments and at the same time he pointed out their inadequacy as an account of the West and Christianity. At the end of the session Malhotra acknowledged that had taken close notes and these points would be the subject of further interfaith dialogues ! While Shri Malhotra dutifully brought out his copy book, Dr. Clooney's frequent gestures of rubbing his hands together, said it all. The present writer has already pointed out elsewhere that Shri Malhotra's method Purva Paksha was fatally flawed. He truncated the ancient Hindu method of argument (Tarka Shastra) by omitting an important section of it : Refutation of the opponent's arguments. He merely 'gazed' at the opponent but did not refute him. And the Hindu Christian 'dialogue' is set up just for that.
The ancient method consists of (1) statement of the opponent's arguments, (2) REFUTATION of the opponent's argumenst, (3)Statement of one's own arguments.
Dr. Clooney, even as he praised his host,managed to show that Shri Malhotra did not really understand the West, especially Christianity. At least half a dozen examples were cited and it would be useful here to point out two or three of them. One of them was Malhotra's incomplete understanding of the god of Christianity and his historicity. Another example was the 'complexity' of the synthetic unity of Christian thought, unlike Malhotra's implied description of it as being inferior to Hindu integral unity.
The third example is telling. Clooney pointed out that in using the periodisation of history as starting with Rome, followed by the birth of Christianity, followed by Renaissance & Reformation and then followed by Modern Science, the Enlightenment, and then Colonialism etc. Malhtora was using the West's own model of itself. Hence, here again Malhotra was deficient in truly describing the West and especially Christianity.
Fr. Clooney even managed to throw in a quick remark that questioned the specificity (according to him) of the Hindu interpretation of the Rishi tradition. The Rishi tradition according to him is much more open than Hindus would allow. Shri Malhotra held up Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi as his sources, but he did not and could not defend the vast smriti tradition or even the Upanishads as he did not seem to be very familiar with these. A traditional acharya would immediately have been able to respond to this. A traditional acharya does not need to have gone through the fraudulent exercise of interfaith dialogue to explain the Vedas and the Smritis ! He certainly would not have allowed himself to be entrapped in the periodisation of history, borrowed from the West !
Apart from all this being Clooney's misrepresentation of the Vedas, it is also a sign of the current attempt by the Church to refine its Inculturation by appropriating the Vedas ! The Hindus do not understand the Vedas but Christians such as Fr. Clooney can. This is the subtext of his observations.
All in all, the video shows a dismal lack of preparedness by Shri Malhotra on how to handle the Jesuit scholar. This is, ofcourse, where his lack of formal training shows up. What should alarm the Hindu Samaj is that the book Being Different is being considered (so the author informs us) for students at the Department of Psychology at the University of Delhi. One hopes that intrepid students and faculty can tackle the situation. Hindus do not need lectures on what atman or punarjanmam mean, nor do they need to seek for a place at the table of Western Universalism( which is Shri Malhotra's stated aim). Dr. Clooney has already done the rounds of institutions in Chennai, among college students in particular. Should he appear at classrooms in Delhi one can only hope that the door of interfaith dialogue is firmly shut. The book Being Different cannot be allowed to become the thin end of the wedge for Inculturation (although that may not be the author's aim).
The chipping away at the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas. gurus and maths has been the ancient dream of the Catholic Church. Hindus should resolutely show up these designs and above all reject Hindu Christian Dialogue. That exercise is intended to be a distraction. The real target of the Church are the aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, because the Church has understood that these are the backbone of our civilisation .
(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadin university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History).
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
VITANDAVAADA ON RAJIV MALHOTRA vs Rev. CLOONEY, DEBATE OR DIALOGUE, VAADA, VIVAADA OR SAMVAADA? FOLLOW UP ON "IS RAJIV DANCING WITH THE DEVIL?"
Debate on inter-Faith dialog in the context of Rajiv Malhotra’s book, “Being Different” and his discussion with Rev. Clooney and others.
by
R. Venkatanarayanan
Rajiv’s book, “Being Different” no doubt broken a vast new ground. The terrain traversed by it is primarily the philosophical and metaphysical. An overwhelming number of those who have read it in full or in part are appreciative of the author’s research, original thinking and structured presentation. A few activists and scholars have, however, found little to appreciate. But it is Rajiv’s efforts to engage ‘outsiders’, particularly those who profess Christianity, in discussing in the public domain some of the issues raised in the book, that seems to have attracted some strident adverse reaction. This Note deals only with the latter aspect.
One or two well meaning Hindu intellectuals have questioned the very necessity and even desirability of any such discussion or inter-Faith dialog. Some have critiqued specifically the Rajiv-Rev. Clooney discussion on the book, ‘Being Different’.
The argument of the former, summarized, runs somewhat as follows: (i) Hindu intellectuals and religious leaders should focus on educating, enthusing and mobilizing Hindus and should not waste their time on inter-Faith dialogs; (ii) Inter-Faith dialogs are not desirable because the other parties—in the present context, Christian theologians and missionaries—are wily characters with the sole agenda of ingratiating themselves with a few Hindu religious leaders or scholars and using the links forged thus, to subvert the Hindu religious leadership and society, destroy Hindu Dharma and convert Hindus at large still more vigorously.
I do not see why bringing more awareness to Hindus at large about missionary machinations or the kernel features of strength of Hindu Dharma and debating the authentic essentials of Hindu Dharma with non-Hindus on a scholarly platform should be mutually exclusive. Both are important in defending Hindu Dharma and in invigorating the Hindu society. Refusing to recognize forces that are inimical to Hindu Dharma and Society is sheer foolishness. Ignoring to engage them is dangerous. Of course such engagement would have to be in different modes in different circumstances. For instance when a local Church-led mafia tries to construct a new church on a public land it must be opposed vigorously on the ground with local Hindu activists at the grass roots and by invoking law. This is engagement. On the other hand, it is also engagement to debate with a Christian theologian on his misconceptions or false interpretations about Hindu Dharma or on issues which do not appeal to Hindu rationality. Leaving missionaries to speak and write whatever they wish to without confronting them in a cordial and sufficiently informed debate is not going to strengthen Hindu Dharma or Society. The ‘desirability’ argument mentioned above is also highly flawed and baseless. The wilier your opponent is the more is the need for you to keep engaged with him to discover the chinks in his armor and the details of his strategy. It is absurd for a good Hindu to bury his head in the sand on the ground that the adversary is too sly or insidious. Is it not a historical fact that Hindu subjugation took place repeatedly in the past because the invading forces discovered the former’s weaknesses and exploited them? If your adversary has a hidden agenda the way to tackle it is not to run away from him but to discover that agenda and counter it. How can this be done without engagement and debate? In the intellectual domain what are the other options available to the Hindu?
Coming to the Rajiv-Clooney debate, Clooney has been described as a ‘Trojan horse’; one or two critics have also felt that Clooney has had the better of Rajiv in the debate. I watched the audio-video of the debate more than once and am among the numerous persons who felt that Rajiv did a very good job. I did not find any Trojan horse in Clooney. The Jesuit is no doubt wily and may have some agenda of his own in agreeing to the debate. So what? Someone had mentioned that the ‘body language’ of Rajiv indicated that he was trying to cozy up to Clooney. I consider it as plainly absurd conclusion. Anyone who knows Rajiv well enough will agree that he is not an innocent and ill-informed Hindu who can be co-opted or subverted, whether he or she agrees or not with all that Rajiv says or writes and whether he or she is happy or not with how Rajiv reacts to even cordial suggestion or criticism. Of course there could be varying opinions on how well the debate went and how Rajiv could have done better etc. Such legitimate criticism or reservation should not be condemned.
I heard an argument that inter-Faith dialog is a Vatican strategy to entice some Hindu religious leaders and efforts by Missionaries in this regard have a political agenda. I entirely agree. But I think it is unwise to refuse to enter into any debate with them on this ground. What is, however, necessary is calculated steps to thwart individual Hindu religious leaders or scholars getting enticed or misled into making unacceptable joint statements or singing the meaningless song of “all religions are the same” etc. Rajiv has forcefully brought up this point in his book and in his interaction with commentators on the book. In doing so he may have used words which may not be entirely appropriate, particularly in respect of highly respected Hindu religious leaders but this is a separate issue.
An academician seriously concerned about rejuvenating Hindu Dharma and Society has said that Rajiv has not used Purva Paksha in the right sense of the term. The argument here is that Purva Paksha-based debate must result in the “defeat” of the opponent and not in some sort of compromise. There is some confusion here. Purva Paksha is only a technique in serious debate. Debate is of different types according to our ancient seers, namely, vada, vivada, vitanda and jalpa. It is these types of debate that have different objectives and Purva Paksha is applicable to all of them.
Our ancient Seers and revered religious leaders may have worked in different ways to defend and strengthen our Dharma. But it is wisdom to recognize that times have changed considerably. In countering our Dharmic adversaries what worked in the past may not work equally effectively in the present. Our adversaries are constantly changing their techniques. Should Hindus not adapt to the changing times and to the changing modes of the adversaries? Terms such as conquest, defeat etc belong more in the lexicon of Christianity and Islam; our objective in inter-Faith debates must be to persuade the non-Hindu adversary and Hindu fence-sitter who may be open to be persuaded, and kindle interest and raise awareness of the ignorant Hindu.
In evaluating the Rajiv-Clooney debate let us not get pushed into blind alleys—what was the hidden motive of Clooney in mentioning the names of the great Vivekananda or Edward Said and such others; whether or not Rajiv is the first to adopt the Purva Paksha technique in inter-Faith debate; whether Clooney was puffing up Rajiv to co-opt him in a subtle manner as his (Clooney’s) future warrior against innocent Hindu intellectuals and so on. At best these are peripherals. Let us not fail to recognize that this is perhaps the first time a wily Jesuit has allowed himself to be seriously engaged in the public domain on truly philosophical and metaphysical strengths of Hindu Dharma. Ignoring the peripherals, let us therefore evaluate the need, mode and impact of an open debate. Once we accept that such debates have an important role in what we Dharmis wish to do for our Dharma we could utilize Rajiv’s effort as a learning experience and improve upon it. It is wisdom to see the value in the core and not the weakness in the peripherals.
Ultimately and in a profound Hindu sense Dharma rests on the shoulders of the Dharmi though without Dharma there will be no Dharmi. It is for the Dharmi to defend, protect, rejuvenate and strengthen Dharma in the exercise of this symbiotic relationship. In this regard, learning the core aspects of our Dharma, raising the awareness on these aspects among the indifferent or the ignorant in the Hindu society, producing scholarly works seeing things through the Hindu prism, engaging adversaries on appropriate planes and toiling at the grass roots among the under-privileged and poor Hindu families, are all important and necessary—equally. Making a wily Christian missionary move a few steps forward in admitting implicitly or explicitly error in his interpretation or claims is as important as firing up the enthusiasm of the already-converted. It is for Dharmis to choose the arena suitable to their capability and inclination in their effort to support and strengthen Dharma. It is not wise to decry one or the other arena or the Dharmi who chooses one or the other arena for his contribution. To do so is to be as unwise as to declare that for a human being the pair of hands is more important than the pair of legs or that eyes are not as necessary as the ears and so on.
Finally a word or two for those Dharmis who find the revered Hindu religious leaders at present and lay leadership deficient and unequal to meet the challenges facing Hindus—Please be careful in what and how you say things in this regard in the public domain; for those who criticize the critics—please avoid harshness. Let us be charitable and considerate internally to each other. Let us not internally hurt ourselves in our enthusiasm; we have a lot to do to prevent damage from external sources.
January 11, 2012 R.Venkatanarayanan
by
R. Venkatanarayanan
Rajiv’s book, “Being Different” no doubt broken a vast new ground. The terrain traversed by it is primarily the philosophical and metaphysical. An overwhelming number of those who have read it in full or in part are appreciative of the author’s research, original thinking and structured presentation. A few activists and scholars have, however, found little to appreciate. But it is Rajiv’s efforts to engage ‘outsiders’, particularly those who profess Christianity, in discussing in the public domain some of the issues raised in the book, that seems to have attracted some strident adverse reaction. This Note deals only with the latter aspect.
One or two well meaning Hindu intellectuals have questioned the very necessity and even desirability of any such discussion or inter-Faith dialog. Some have critiqued specifically the Rajiv-Rev. Clooney discussion on the book, ‘Being Different’.
The argument of the former, summarized, runs somewhat as follows: (i) Hindu intellectuals and religious leaders should focus on educating, enthusing and mobilizing Hindus and should not waste their time on inter-Faith dialogs; (ii) Inter-Faith dialogs are not desirable because the other parties—in the present context, Christian theologians and missionaries—are wily characters with the sole agenda of ingratiating themselves with a few Hindu religious leaders or scholars and using the links forged thus, to subvert the Hindu religious leadership and society, destroy Hindu Dharma and convert Hindus at large still more vigorously.
I do not see why bringing more awareness to Hindus at large about missionary machinations or the kernel features of strength of Hindu Dharma and debating the authentic essentials of Hindu Dharma with non-Hindus on a scholarly platform should be mutually exclusive. Both are important in defending Hindu Dharma and in invigorating the Hindu society. Refusing to recognize forces that are inimical to Hindu Dharma and Society is sheer foolishness. Ignoring to engage them is dangerous. Of course such engagement would have to be in different modes in different circumstances. For instance when a local Church-led mafia tries to construct a new church on a public land it must be opposed vigorously on the ground with local Hindu activists at the grass roots and by invoking law. This is engagement. On the other hand, it is also engagement to debate with a Christian theologian on his misconceptions or false interpretations about Hindu Dharma or on issues which do not appeal to Hindu rationality. Leaving missionaries to speak and write whatever they wish to without confronting them in a cordial and sufficiently informed debate is not going to strengthen Hindu Dharma or Society. The ‘desirability’ argument mentioned above is also highly flawed and baseless. The wilier your opponent is the more is the need for you to keep engaged with him to discover the chinks in his armor and the details of his strategy. It is absurd for a good Hindu to bury his head in the sand on the ground that the adversary is too sly or insidious. Is it not a historical fact that Hindu subjugation took place repeatedly in the past because the invading forces discovered the former’s weaknesses and exploited them? If your adversary has a hidden agenda the way to tackle it is not to run away from him but to discover that agenda and counter it. How can this be done without engagement and debate? In the intellectual domain what are the other options available to the Hindu?
Coming to the Rajiv-Clooney debate, Clooney has been described as a ‘Trojan horse’; one or two critics have also felt that Clooney has had the better of Rajiv in the debate. I watched the audio-video of the debate more than once and am among the numerous persons who felt that Rajiv did a very good job. I did not find any Trojan horse in Clooney. The Jesuit is no doubt wily and may have some agenda of his own in agreeing to the debate. So what? Someone had mentioned that the ‘body language’ of Rajiv indicated that he was trying to cozy up to Clooney. I consider it as plainly absurd conclusion. Anyone who knows Rajiv well enough will agree that he is not an innocent and ill-informed Hindu who can be co-opted or subverted, whether he or she agrees or not with all that Rajiv says or writes and whether he or she is happy or not with how Rajiv reacts to even cordial suggestion or criticism. Of course there could be varying opinions on how well the debate went and how Rajiv could have done better etc. Such legitimate criticism or reservation should not be condemned.
I heard an argument that inter-Faith dialog is a Vatican strategy to entice some Hindu religious leaders and efforts by Missionaries in this regard have a political agenda. I entirely agree. But I think it is unwise to refuse to enter into any debate with them on this ground. What is, however, necessary is calculated steps to thwart individual Hindu religious leaders or scholars getting enticed or misled into making unacceptable joint statements or singing the meaningless song of “all religions are the same” etc. Rajiv has forcefully brought up this point in his book and in his interaction with commentators on the book. In doing so he may have used words which may not be entirely appropriate, particularly in respect of highly respected Hindu religious leaders but this is a separate issue.
An academician seriously concerned about rejuvenating Hindu Dharma and Society has said that Rajiv has not used Purva Paksha in the right sense of the term. The argument here is that Purva Paksha-based debate must result in the “defeat” of the opponent and not in some sort of compromise. There is some confusion here. Purva Paksha is only a technique in serious debate. Debate is of different types according to our ancient seers, namely, vada, vivada, vitanda and jalpa. It is these types of debate that have different objectives and Purva Paksha is applicable to all of them.
Our ancient Seers and revered religious leaders may have worked in different ways to defend and strengthen our Dharma. But it is wisdom to recognize that times have changed considerably. In countering our Dharmic adversaries what worked in the past may not work equally effectively in the present. Our adversaries are constantly changing their techniques. Should Hindus not adapt to the changing times and to the changing modes of the adversaries? Terms such as conquest, defeat etc belong more in the lexicon of Christianity and Islam; our objective in inter-Faith debates must be to persuade the non-Hindu adversary and Hindu fence-sitter who may be open to be persuaded, and kindle interest and raise awareness of the ignorant Hindu.
In evaluating the Rajiv-Clooney debate let us not get pushed into blind alleys—what was the hidden motive of Clooney in mentioning the names of the great Vivekananda or Edward Said and such others; whether or not Rajiv is the first to adopt the Purva Paksha technique in inter-Faith debate; whether Clooney was puffing up Rajiv to co-opt him in a subtle manner as his (Clooney’s) future warrior against innocent Hindu intellectuals and so on. At best these are peripherals. Let us not fail to recognize that this is perhaps the first time a wily Jesuit has allowed himself to be seriously engaged in the public domain on truly philosophical and metaphysical strengths of Hindu Dharma. Ignoring the peripherals, let us therefore evaluate the need, mode and impact of an open debate. Once we accept that such debates have an important role in what we Dharmis wish to do for our Dharma we could utilize Rajiv’s effort as a learning experience and improve upon it. It is wisdom to see the value in the core and not the weakness in the peripherals.
Ultimately and in a profound Hindu sense Dharma rests on the shoulders of the Dharmi though without Dharma there will be no Dharmi. It is for the Dharmi to defend, protect, rejuvenate and strengthen Dharma in the exercise of this symbiotic relationship. In this regard, learning the core aspects of our Dharma, raising the awareness on these aspects among the indifferent or the ignorant in the Hindu society, producing scholarly works seeing things through the Hindu prism, engaging adversaries on appropriate planes and toiling at the grass roots among the under-privileged and poor Hindu families, are all important and necessary—equally. Making a wily Christian missionary move a few steps forward in admitting implicitly or explicitly error in his interpretation or claims is as important as firing up the enthusiasm of the already-converted. It is for Dharmis to choose the arena suitable to their capability and inclination in their effort to support and strengthen Dharma. It is not wise to decry one or the other arena or the Dharmi who chooses one or the other arena for his contribution. To do so is to be as unwise as to declare that for a human being the pair of hands is more important than the pair of legs or that eyes are not as necessary as the ears and so on.
Finally a word or two for those Dharmis who find the revered Hindu religious leaders at present and lay leadership deficient and unequal to meet the challenges facing Hindus—Please be careful in what and how you say things in this regard in the public domain; for those who criticize the critics—please avoid harshness. Let us be charitable and considerate internally to each other. Let us not internally hurt ourselves in our enthusiasm; we have a lot to do to prevent damage from external sources.
January 11, 2012 R.Venkatanarayanan
Saturday, January 7, 2012
BASIC SCIENCE OF YOGA 101: BENEFITS & ADVERSE EFFECTS
BASIC SCIENCE OF YOGA, 101
This is an outline of the
Power Point Slide Presentation
by
Shree S. Vinekar, M.D
(Pictorial and Graphic illustrations omitted)

LET YOUR INTUITION FLOW for ATTAINING
PEACE, NATURAL STATE OF WELLNESS, HEALTH, & LONGEVITY



BASIC CONCEPTS of yoga are MOSTLY PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGIC WITH NEURO-BIOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS
THIS PRESENTATION
WILL AVOID MYSTIC AND SPIRITUAL LINGO
YOGA
AN ANCIENT SCIENCE PROBABLY BASED ON INTUITIVE
COMPREHENSION OF PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGY &
NEURO-BIOLOGY
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF ANTIQUITY
ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF YOGIC POSTURES
SARASWATI-SINDHU (INDUS) CIVILIZATION (5000 BCE TO 3000 BCE)
There is also
LITERARY EVIDENCE
MENTION OF YOGA IN VEDAS AND UPANISHADS (5000 BCE TO 1500 BCE)
& BHAGVAD-GITA (CIRCA 3067 BCE) AND MANY OTHER TEXTS
MANY MILLENNIA BEFORE THE BIRTH OF GAUTAMA THE BUDDHA AND JESUS CHRIST.
(ALL ABOVE ARE CONSIDERED SPIRITUAL BY MANY BUT VEDA REALLY MEANS KNOWLEDGE)
THAT SHOULD NOT CONFUSE YOU
(Generic Term "Darshana")
DARSHANA: MEANING A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW
YOGA-DARSHANA
SANKHYA-DARSHANA (Literally Sankhya means Enumerable)
CATEGORICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE
(ALL SIX DARSHANAS) BUT ESPECIALLY
BOTH SANKHYA AND YOGA INFORM AND GUIDE
BOTH "VIEW OF LIFE" & "WAY OF LIFE"
NOT "RELIGION" IN THE WESTERN SENSE OF THE WORD
BUT they guide and lay the foundation to help comprehend "DHARMA" and live in congruence with "DHARMA"
DHARMA literally means
HOLDING PRINCIPLES
ORDER AND HARMONY
QUALITY
FOLLOWING DHARMA ENHANCES PERSONAL, FAMILY, SOCIAL, AND GLOBAL QUALITY OF LIFE
HIGHEST GOAL OF LIFE is DHARMA
OTHER THREE GOALS
ARTHA: LEARNING, WORKING, ATTAINING RESOURCES FOR SURVIVAL AND PROGRESS IN THE MATERIAL WORLD
KAAMA : DESIRES FOR PLEASURES OF LIFE, LOVE, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
MOKSHA : FREEDOM FROM ALL LEARNED PARADIGMS (SUSTAINED SUPERIOR COGNITION OR JNANA LEADS TO SUCH STATE)
YOGA IS A SUPRA-RELIGIOUS PSYCHO-TECHNOLOGY (MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH RELIGION)
PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES (ERRONEOUSLY CALLED EXERCISES)
BRAND NAME YOGAS
CONVENTIONAL CLASSIC FOUR: KARMA, BHAKTI, JNANA, AND RAJA YOGA (PATANJALA YOGA) (So named by Swami Vivekananda)
PATANJALA (by PATANJALI 400 BCE TO 400 CE)
HATHA YOGA formulated and compiled from older knowledge by
SWATMARAM SURI (1400-1500 CE)
HATHA IN AMERICAN TERMS "FAST-TRACK"
HATHA YOGA EXPOUNDED BY
GORAKH NATH (GORAKSHA SANHITA) GHERANDA (GHERANDA SANHITA) SWATMARAMA (HATHA YOGA PRADEEPIKA)
(after 1500 CE)
NAATH PANTHI MADHAVADAS MAHARAJ YOGI
GURU OF SWAMI KUVALAYAANANDA
(1882-1966) one of the pioneers of early 20th Century who undertook scientific investigation of Yoga.
HATHA YOGA INVESTS IN HEALTH
(IF YOU HAVE HEALTH & LONGEVITY YOU HAVE ALL OTHER GOALS TO ATTAIN, NAMELY DHARMA, KAAMA, ARTHA, also means WEALTH)
(MOKSHA IS BEYOND BASIC SCIENCE)
FROM PUBLIC HEALTH POINT OF VIEW IT IS LEAST EXPENSIVE AND MOST EFFECTIVE FOR PREVENTIVE HEALTH
EVEN IN THE MOST AFFLUENT COUNTRY "SAVINGS AT FRONT END" IS MORE DESIRABLE THAN SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
FOR SECONDARY AND TERTIARY TREATMENTS; YOGA IS PRACTICED BY 20 MILLION AMERICANS DAILY AND IT HAS RECENTLY BECOME A
5 BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY IN THE US
AAROGYA VARDHANA
(ATTAINING HIGHER & HIGHER LEVELS OF HEALTH OR BETTER AND BETTER HEALTH)
AAROGYA meaning
literally
DISEASE-LESS-NESS {WHAT IS HEALTH (?): PREVENTION OF DISEASE, AND BUILDING IMMUNITY FOR DISEASE PRODUCING AGENTS
AS WELL REDUCING RISK FACTORS. }
SHAREERAM ADYAM KHALU DHARMA SAADHANAM
meaning
BODY-MIND ARE TRULY (VERILY)
THE VERY FIRST MEANS FOR ATTAINING DHARMA
SAMAADHI CAN ALSO BE DEFINED AS BALANCING OF
DHARMA ARTHA KAAMA MOKSHA
ALL LIFE ACTIVITIES AND GOALS HAVE TO BE CONGRUENT, CONSISTENT & COMPATIBLE WITH
DHARMA
WORKING DEFINITION OF YOGA IN
HATHA YOGA
YOGAH SAMAADHIH
(sam + aa + dhaa = to put together as one whole)
BODY AND MIND BALANCED TO WORK AS INTERGRATED WHOLE
THROUGH FOLLOWING EIGHT STEPS
CLASSIFIED AS BAHIRANGA (EXTERNAL) & ANTARANGA (INTERNAL)
BAHIRANGA:
CULTIVATION OF PROPER PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTITUDE
YAMA: CULTIVATED INNER ATTITUDE TOWARDS SELF, SOCIETY & OTHER LIVING BEINGS
NIYAMA: HABITS FOR PHYSICAL & MENTAL HEALTH IN PERSONAL LIFE AND FOR PERSONAL GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
YAMAS: AHINSA, SATYAM, ASTEYAM, BRAHMACHARYAM, (ASANGRAHAH) APARIGRAHA
NIYAMAS: SHOUCHA, SANTOSHA, TAPAS, SWADHYAYA, ISHWARAPRANIDHANAM
YAMA, NIYAMA, ASANA, PRANAYAMA, "PRATYAAHARA"
DISCUSSES PRATI-AAHAARA AS THE FIRST MOST WIDELY RESEARCHED
YOGIC RELAXATION TECHNIQUE, NAMELY, "SHAVAASANA"





RECONDITIONING OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS
(SUBSTRATE) THROUGH FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES
ASANAS MUDRAS & BANDHAS
PRANAYAMA
STHIRA-SUKHAM-AASANAM PRAYATNA-SHAITHILYAM ANANTA-SAMAAPATTIBHYAM
TATO-DVANDVAANABHIGHAATAH (FREEDOM FROM ANGAMEJAYATWAM)
STABILITY, EASE, EFFORTLESSNESS OR LEAST EFFORT AND ABSORPTION IN INFINITE
LEADS TO RESOLUTION OF INNER TENSIONS AND CONFLICTS ALLEVIATING
THE UNAPPRECIABLE TREMULOUSNESS IN THE BODY




PATTERN OF THE POSTURE
MORE IMPORTANT
THAN EXACTING THE POSTURE (NOT KNOWING THIS AND NOT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE
OF PRAYATNASHAITHILYAM CAUSES INJURIES TO PRACTITIONERS AND SOME TEACHERS OF YOGA)
(SUCH INJURIES ARE PRIMARILY MUSCULOSKELETAL INJURIES)


MUDRAS & BANDHAS
DIRECT EFFECT ON AUTONOMIC REFLEXES (NOT AS INNOCENT AS THEY LOOK)
THESE ARE "EXERCISES FOR INTERNAL ORGANS"
CAN BE DANGEROUS IF PRACTICED BY NOVICES, UNHEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY
IF NOT UNDER MEDICAL GUIDANCE

A Very Rare Phenomenon (ILLUSTRATION)
FiG. 1. Electrocardiograph showing voluntary control of heart activity by the exercises.






PRANAYAMA NOT JUST DEEP BREATHING IT IS SPECIAL TYPE OF BREATHING
ANULOMA-VILOMA, UJJAYEE
KAPAALABHATI, BHASTRIKA & AGNISAARA, ETC. NEED TO BE PROPERLY TAUGHT


MOST IMPORTANT AND
MOST DANGEROUS PRANAYAMA BUT
MOST EFFECTIVE ARE THE FOLLOWING PRACTICED WITH DIFFERENT PERMUTATION AND COMBINATIONS
WITH DIFFERENT RATIOS OF TIME INTERVALS AND RHYTHMS :
KUMBHAKA
RECHAKA
POORAKA (NOT CONSIDERED HARMFUL IN THAT IT IS INHALATION SUPPLYING OXYGEN)

KRIYAAS : CONTROL OVER SMOOTH MUSCLES
JALA NETI, SOOTRA NETI, VAMANA DHOUTI, DANDA DHOUTI, VASTRA DHOUTI, KUNJARA KRIYA
(GAJA-KARANI KRIYA) (VATASAARA, VARISAARA, VAJROLI, ETC.)

(ANTARANGA OF YOGA and MINDFULNESS)

DHYAANA, DHAARANAA, SAMAADHI
DIRECT CONTROL OF
HIGHER CEREBRAL FUNCTIONS (CONSCIOUSNESS)
(details of SANYAMA TECHNIQUES NOT INCLUDED HERE)
NIRVIKALPA SAMADHI CAN BE OBJECTIVELY ILLUSTRATED AS CORRELATED
WITH A UNIQUE ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHIC RECORDING OF AN
ACCOMPLLISHED YOGI (Fig. 2 Illustration)




PRACTICE YOGA WITH UNDERSTANDING
THE BASIC SCIENCE OF YOGA 101
This is an outline of the
Power Point Slide Presentation
by
Shree S. Vinekar, M.D
(Pictorial and Graphic illustrations omitted)

LET YOUR INTUITION FLOW for ATTAINING
PEACE, NATURAL STATE OF WELLNESS, HEALTH, & LONGEVITY



BASIC CONCEPTS of yoga are MOSTLY PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGIC WITH NEURO-BIOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS
THIS PRESENTATION
WILL AVOID MYSTIC AND SPIRITUAL LINGO
YOGA
AN ANCIENT SCIENCE PROBABLY BASED ON INTUITIVE
COMPREHENSION OF PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGY &
NEURO-BIOLOGY
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF ANTIQUITY
ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF YOGIC POSTURES
SARASWATI-SINDHU (INDUS) CIVILIZATION (5000 BCE TO 3000 BCE)
There is also
LITERARY EVIDENCE
MENTION OF YOGA IN VEDAS AND UPANISHADS (5000 BCE TO 1500 BCE)
& BHAGVAD-GITA (CIRCA 3067 BCE) AND MANY OTHER TEXTS
MANY MILLENNIA BEFORE THE BIRTH OF GAUTAMA THE BUDDHA AND JESUS CHRIST.
(ALL ABOVE ARE CONSIDERED SPIRITUAL BY MANY BUT VEDA REALLY MEANS KNOWLEDGE)
THAT SHOULD NOT CONFUSE YOU
(Generic Term "Darshana")
DARSHANA: MEANING A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW
YOGA-DARSHANA
SANKHYA-DARSHANA (Literally Sankhya means Enumerable)
CATEGORICAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE
(ALL SIX DARSHANAS) BUT ESPECIALLY
BOTH SANKHYA AND YOGA INFORM AND GUIDE
BOTH "VIEW OF LIFE" & "WAY OF LIFE"
NOT "RELIGION" IN THE WESTERN SENSE OF THE WORD
BUT they guide and lay the foundation to help comprehend "DHARMA" and live in congruence with "DHARMA"
DHARMA literally means
HOLDING PRINCIPLES
ORDER AND HARMONY
QUALITY
FOLLOWING DHARMA ENHANCES PERSONAL, FAMILY, SOCIAL, AND GLOBAL QUALITY OF LIFE
HIGHEST GOAL OF LIFE is DHARMA
OTHER THREE GOALS
ARTHA: LEARNING, WORKING, ATTAINING RESOURCES FOR SURVIVAL AND PROGRESS IN THE MATERIAL WORLD
KAAMA : DESIRES FOR PLEASURES OF LIFE, LOVE, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
MOKSHA : FREEDOM FROM ALL LEARNED PARADIGMS (SUSTAINED SUPERIOR COGNITION OR JNANA LEADS TO SUCH STATE)
YOGA IS A SUPRA-RELIGIOUS PSYCHO-TECHNOLOGY (MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH RELIGION)
PSYCHO-PHYSIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES (ERRONEOUSLY CALLED EXERCISES)
BRAND NAME YOGAS
CONVENTIONAL CLASSIC FOUR: KARMA, BHAKTI, JNANA, AND RAJA YOGA (PATANJALA YOGA) (So named by Swami Vivekananda)
PATANJALA (by PATANJALI 400 BCE TO 400 CE)
HATHA YOGA formulated and compiled from older knowledge by
SWATMARAM SURI (1400-1500 CE)
HATHA IN AMERICAN TERMS "FAST-TRACK"
HATHA YOGA EXPOUNDED BY
GORAKH NATH (GORAKSHA SANHITA) GHERANDA (GHERANDA SANHITA) SWATMARAMA (HATHA YOGA PRADEEPIKA)
(after 1500 CE)
NAATH PANTHI MADHAVADAS MAHARAJ YOGI
GURU OF SWAMI KUVALAYAANANDA
(1882-1966) one of the pioneers of early 20th Century who undertook scientific investigation of Yoga.
HATHA YOGA INVESTS IN HEALTH
(IF YOU HAVE HEALTH & LONGEVITY YOU HAVE ALL OTHER GOALS TO ATTAIN, NAMELY DHARMA, KAAMA, ARTHA, also means WEALTH)
(MOKSHA IS BEYOND BASIC SCIENCE)
FROM PUBLIC HEALTH POINT OF VIEW IT IS LEAST EXPENSIVE AND MOST EFFECTIVE FOR PREVENTIVE HEALTH
EVEN IN THE MOST AFFLUENT COUNTRY "SAVINGS AT FRONT END" IS MORE DESIRABLE THAN SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
FOR SECONDARY AND TERTIARY TREATMENTS; YOGA IS PRACTICED BY 20 MILLION AMERICANS DAILY AND IT HAS RECENTLY BECOME A
5 BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY IN THE US
AAROGYA VARDHANA
(ATTAINING HIGHER & HIGHER LEVELS OF HEALTH OR BETTER AND BETTER HEALTH)
AAROGYA meaning
literally
DISEASE-LESS-NESS {WHAT IS HEALTH (?): PREVENTION OF DISEASE, AND BUILDING IMMUNITY FOR DISEASE PRODUCING AGENTS
AS WELL REDUCING RISK FACTORS. }
SHAREERAM ADYAM KHALU DHARMA SAADHANAM
meaning
BODY-MIND ARE TRULY (VERILY)
THE VERY FIRST MEANS FOR ATTAINING DHARMA
SAMAADHI CAN ALSO BE DEFINED AS BALANCING OF
DHARMA ARTHA KAAMA MOKSHA
ALL LIFE ACTIVITIES AND GOALS HAVE TO BE CONGRUENT, CONSISTENT & COMPATIBLE WITH
DHARMA
WORKING DEFINITION OF YOGA IN
HATHA YOGA
YOGAH SAMAADHIH
(sam + aa + dhaa = to put together as one whole)
BODY AND MIND BALANCED TO WORK AS INTERGRATED WHOLE
THROUGH FOLLOWING EIGHT STEPS
CLASSIFIED AS BAHIRANGA (EXTERNAL) & ANTARANGA (INTERNAL)
BAHIRANGA:
CULTIVATION OF PROPER PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTITUDE
YAMA: CULTIVATED INNER ATTITUDE TOWARDS SELF, SOCIETY & OTHER LIVING BEINGS
NIYAMA: HABITS FOR PHYSICAL & MENTAL HEALTH IN PERSONAL LIFE AND FOR PERSONAL GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
YAMAS: AHINSA, SATYAM, ASTEYAM, BRAHMACHARYAM, (ASANGRAHAH) APARIGRAHA
NIYAMAS: SHOUCHA, SANTOSHA, TAPAS, SWADHYAYA, ISHWARAPRANIDHANAM
YAMA, NIYAMA, ASANA, PRANAYAMA, "PRATYAAHARA"
DISCUSSES PRATI-AAHAARA AS THE FIRST MOST WIDELY RESEARCHED
YOGIC RELAXATION TECHNIQUE, NAMELY, "SHAVAASANA"





RECONDITIONING OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS
(SUBSTRATE) THROUGH FOLLOWING TECHNIQUES
ASANAS MUDRAS & BANDHAS
PRANAYAMA
STHIRA-SUKHAM-AASANAM PRAYATNA-SHAITHILYAM ANANTA-SAMAAPATTIBHYAM
TATO-DVANDVAANABHIGHAATAH (FREEDOM FROM ANGAMEJAYATWAM)
STABILITY, EASE, EFFORTLESSNESS OR LEAST EFFORT AND ABSORPTION IN INFINITE
LEADS TO RESOLUTION OF INNER TENSIONS AND CONFLICTS ALLEVIATING
THE UNAPPRECIABLE TREMULOUSNESS IN THE BODY




PATTERN OF THE POSTURE
MORE IMPORTANT
THAN EXACTING THE POSTURE (NOT KNOWING THIS AND NOT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE
OF PRAYATNASHAITHILYAM CAUSES INJURIES TO PRACTITIONERS AND SOME TEACHERS OF YOGA)
(SUCH INJURIES ARE PRIMARILY MUSCULOSKELETAL INJURIES)


MUDRAS & BANDHAS
DIRECT EFFECT ON AUTONOMIC REFLEXES (NOT AS INNOCENT AS THEY LOOK)
THESE ARE "EXERCISES FOR INTERNAL ORGANS"
CAN BE DANGEROUS IF PRACTICED BY NOVICES, UNHEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY
IF NOT UNDER MEDICAL GUIDANCE

A Very Rare Phenomenon (ILLUSTRATION)
FiG. 1. Electrocardiograph showing voluntary control of heart activity by the exercises.






PRANAYAMA NOT JUST DEEP BREATHING IT IS SPECIAL TYPE OF BREATHING
ANULOMA-VILOMA, UJJAYEE
KAPAALABHATI, BHASTRIKA & AGNISAARA, ETC. NEED TO BE PROPERLY TAUGHT


MOST IMPORTANT AND
MOST DANGEROUS PRANAYAMA BUT
MOST EFFECTIVE ARE THE FOLLOWING PRACTICED WITH DIFFERENT PERMUTATION AND COMBINATIONS
WITH DIFFERENT RATIOS OF TIME INTERVALS AND RHYTHMS :
KUMBHAKA
RECHAKA
POORAKA (NOT CONSIDERED HARMFUL IN THAT IT IS INHALATION SUPPLYING OXYGEN)

KRIYAAS : CONTROL OVER SMOOTH MUSCLES
JALA NETI, SOOTRA NETI, VAMANA DHOUTI, DANDA DHOUTI, VASTRA DHOUTI, KUNJARA KRIYA
(GAJA-KARANI KRIYA) (VATASAARA, VARISAARA, VAJROLI, ETC.)

(ANTARANGA OF YOGA and MINDFULNESS)

DHYAANA, DHAARANAA, SAMAADHI
DIRECT CONTROL OF
HIGHER CEREBRAL FUNCTIONS (CONSCIOUSNESS)
(details of SANYAMA TECHNIQUES NOT INCLUDED HERE)
NIRVIKALPA SAMADHI CAN BE OBJECTIVELY ILLUSTRATED AS CORRELATED
WITH A UNIQUE ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHIC RECORDING OF AN
ACCOMPLLISHED YOGI (Fig. 2 Illustration)




PRACTICE YOGA WITH UNDERSTANDING
THE BASIC SCIENCE OF YOGA 101
IS RAJIV DANCING WITH THE DEVIL ASKS RAJIVA
Bharatkalyan97
226,552
3.1.12
Rajiv Malhotra’s endorsement of Hindu-Christian dialogue – Vijaya Rajiva
Rajiv Malhotra’s endorsement of Hindu-Christian dialogue – Vijaya Rajiva
"The present writer believes that the way to go is to reinforce the aam admi Hindu, the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, rather than undermining them by subtle methods and often openly downgrading them in various ways." - Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
In an article in Huffington Post, author and writer Rajiv Malhotra repeats his interpretation of the ancient Hindu method of Purva Paksha as looking at various religions,especially Christianity and Western thought with respect, while maintaining differences ("Difference With Mutual Respect: A New Kind of Hindu-Christian Dialogue"). While religious leaders have traditionally maintained the posture that all religions are similar, Mr. Malhotra argues for the differences, while maintaining respect for each other's world view. As one continues to read the article the reader realises that Malhotra is not actually saying anything new. In fact, his concluding statement is that there is a Divine One and its various manifestations are "lila." This well written, charming essay is worth a first read, if only so that Hindus can understand where the author is going with his claims of a new kind of Hindu-Christian dialogue.
In previous articles the present writer has pointed out that Malhotra's use of the ancient Hindu method of argument, Purva Paksha, is a truncated one, which stops short of "defeating" the adversary's positions, and in fact aims at appeasing the adversary. Adi Shankara's Digvijay tours of India (where he used Purva Paksha) were aimed at defeating the enemy in argument, not in appeasing him/her. Malhotra's use of the word "dialogue" (a Platonic one) is also misleading. Socrates, in the Platonic Dialogues, aims at peeling off the layers of ignorance of his adversary's arguments and arriving at what he believes to be the truth (See "Rajiv Malhotra & Francis Clooney: The siren song of interfaith dialogue") . While Mr. Malhotra is entitled to his own interpretations, they become misleading for Hindus, when they are projected as the way to approach a clear and present danger, the predatory proselytising agenda of the Catholic Church.
Interfaith dialogue became the fashion in North American universities some years ago and some unsuspecting Hindus were caught in this net. Now, the new phrase is "Hindu-Christian Dialogue". In the Huffington Post article Mr. Malhotra readily admits that he has been corresponding with Jesuit priest and scholar Francis Xavier Clooney, who is also a Professor of Divinity at Harvard University (USA) and that since 2010 this Jesuit scholar has been reading and commenting on Malhotra's new book Being Different. This seemingly cosy relationship was replicated in the recent talk at Harvard university and which the present writer has critiqued in an article "Rajiv Malhotra & Francis Clooney: Just friends or best friends?". Malhotra being an autodidact needed to consult with Clooney, in addition to his committment to interfaith dialogue. The far more experienced and well-trained Clooney had no difficulty in flattering Malhotra into thinking that he was a superior and updated version of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati and Swami Vivekananda! This alone should have sent out alarm signals to Malhotra but that did not appear to be the case. A Hindu who cannot see the Greek who comes bearing gifts, is showing the height of naivete in thinking that a 'dialogue' with this person is beneficial for Hindus.
The present writer believes that the way to go is to reinforce the aam admi Hindu, the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, rather than undermining them by subtle methods and often openly downgrading them in various ways. They have been the backbone of our civilisation. We tinker with them at our own peril. Protecting them and preserving them is the task for contemporary Hindus. This can and should be accompanied by a determined effort to "defeat" the enemy, rather than accommodate him/her. Some writers have argued that Hindus are being exposed on a daily basis to Western ideas and so why not be prepared for this onslaught by further exposure? In the opinion of the present writer this is a mistaken strategy, because it invites a new kind of Macaulayism. Macaulay effected his strategy of enslaving Hindus to Western thought by fiat. Malhotra and Clooney have adopted a different strategy, that of Hindu Christian Dialogue, in which the Hindu is programmed into thinking that he or she is obligated to engage with the adversary, in the interests of some "higher" cause.
There has been some speculation as to why the author ofBreaking India has moved into a new phase. Whatever his motives, base or noble, what is required is a firm rejection of his new agenda by Hindus.
» Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History.
http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/rajiv-malhotras-endorsement-of-hindu-christian-dialogue-vijaya-rajiva/
Posted by S. Kalyanaraman at 5:04 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Reactions:
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post
Create a Link
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
LABELS
indian ocean community (21)
Indus Script (35)
Meluhha (14)
Soma (4)
ABOUT ME
S. Kalyanaraman
View my complete profile
FOLLOWERS
BLOG ARCHIVE
226,552
3.1.12
Rajiv Malhotra’s endorsement of Hindu-Christian dialogue – Vijaya Rajiva
Rajiv Malhotra’s endorsement of Hindu-Christian dialogue – Vijaya Rajiva
"The present writer believes that the way to go is to reinforce the aam admi Hindu, the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, rather than undermining them by subtle methods and often openly downgrading them in various ways." - Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
In an article in Huffington Post, author and writer Rajiv Malhotra repeats his interpretation of the ancient Hindu method of Purva Paksha as looking at various religions,especially Christianity and Western thought with respect, while maintaining differences ("Difference With Mutual Respect: A New Kind of Hindu-Christian Dialogue"). While religious leaders have traditionally maintained the posture that all religions are similar, Mr. Malhotra argues for the differences, while maintaining respect for each other's world view. As one continues to read the article the reader realises that Malhotra is not actually saying anything new. In fact, his concluding statement is that there is a Divine One and its various manifestations are "lila." This well written, charming essay is worth a first read, if only so that Hindus can understand where the author is going with his claims of a new kind of Hindu-Christian dialogue.
In previous articles the present writer has pointed out that Malhotra's use of the ancient Hindu method of argument, Purva Paksha, is a truncated one, which stops short of "defeating" the adversary's positions, and in fact aims at appeasing the adversary. Adi Shankara's Digvijay tours of India (where he used Purva Paksha) were aimed at defeating the enemy in argument, not in appeasing him/her. Malhotra's use of the word "dialogue" (a Platonic one) is also misleading. Socrates, in the Platonic Dialogues, aims at peeling off the layers of ignorance of his adversary's arguments and arriving at what he believes to be the truth (See "Rajiv Malhotra & Francis Clooney: The siren song of interfaith dialogue") . While Mr. Malhotra is entitled to his own interpretations, they become misleading for Hindus, when they are projected as the way to approach a clear and present danger, the predatory proselytising agenda of the Catholic Church.
Interfaith dialogue became the fashion in North American universities some years ago and some unsuspecting Hindus were caught in this net. Now, the new phrase is "Hindu-Christian Dialogue". In the Huffington Post article Mr. Malhotra readily admits that he has been corresponding with Jesuit priest and scholar Francis Xavier Clooney, who is also a Professor of Divinity at Harvard University (USA) and that since 2010 this Jesuit scholar has been reading and commenting on Malhotra's new book Being Different. This seemingly cosy relationship was replicated in the recent talk at Harvard university and which the present writer has critiqued in an article "Rajiv Malhotra & Francis Clooney: Just friends or best friends?". Malhotra being an autodidact needed to consult with Clooney, in addition to his committment to interfaith dialogue. The far more experienced and well-trained Clooney had no difficulty in flattering Malhotra into thinking that he was a superior and updated version of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati and Swami Vivekananda! This alone should have sent out alarm signals to Malhotra but that did not appear to be the case. A Hindu who cannot see the Greek who comes bearing gifts, is showing the height of naivete in thinking that a 'dialogue' with this person is beneficial for Hindus.
The present writer believes that the way to go is to reinforce the aam admi Hindu, the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, rather than undermining them by subtle methods and often openly downgrading them in various ways. They have been the backbone of our civilisation. We tinker with them at our own peril. Protecting them and preserving them is the task for contemporary Hindus. This can and should be accompanied by a determined effort to "defeat" the enemy, rather than accommodate him/her. Some writers have argued that Hindus are being exposed on a daily basis to Western ideas and so why not be prepared for this onslaught by further exposure? In the opinion of the present writer this is a mistaken strategy, because it invites a new kind of Macaulayism. Macaulay effected his strategy of enslaving Hindus to Western thought by fiat. Malhotra and Clooney have adopted a different strategy, that of Hindu Christian Dialogue, in which the Hindu is programmed into thinking that he or she is obligated to engage with the adversary, in the interests of some "higher" cause.
There has been some speculation as to why the author ofBreaking India has moved into a new phase. Whatever his motives, base or noble, what is required is a firm rejection of his new agenda by Hindus.
» Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. Her academic training is in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History.
http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/rajiv-malhotras-endorsement-of-hindu-christian-dialogue-vijaya-rajiva/
Posted by S. Kalyanaraman at 5:04 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Reactions:
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post
Create a Link
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
LABELS
indian ocean community (21)
Indus Script (35)
Meluhha (14)
Soma (4)
ABOUT ME
S. Kalyanaraman
View my complete profile
FOLLOWERS
BLOG ARCHIVE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)