SHRI GAUTAM SEN'S REACTION TO BETRAYAL OF THEIR OWN BY BENGALIS WHO SUPPORT ISLAMIC JIHAD BY ARRESTING TAPAN GHOSH FOR PROTESTING AGAINST THE FLESH TRADING PROSELYTIZERS - BIZARRE SECULARISM !!!
Tapan babu's arrest confirms what we have known, but are loath to admit. Hindus are a parochial, clueless and treasonous bunch. Even the disgraceful alleged patriots prefer to serenade Jihadis, as Advani and the BJP are doing right now in UP, than defend fellow Hindus. Of course he and that nasty piece of work, the Rajput collaborator, continuing the long tradition of serving Muslim rulers, have all but praised the perpetrators of the Great Calcutta killings and the mass murder and rape of Hindus in Noakhali; also a cause for rejoicing by the Hindu Marxists of Columbia, Harvard and Chicago - Bengalis, virtually everyone of them. I do not comment further on these political Muslims of Hindu extraction, led by the venal Amartya Sen and the Bengali middle class itself, which would rather commemorate Bakhtiar Khilji and Siraj-u-daullah than any Hindu personality or religious celebration. And the great Bengali religious celebrations like Durga puja are nothing but opportunities for brazen extortion, with drunken youths collecting donations for revelry and then re-joining the Trinamul and CPM as goondas to beat up on Hindus on orders from a low life like Mamata, illiterate and shameful beyond all measure.
I would like to ask all the great Acharyas, Gurus and their business managers to provide a listing of the number of visits to the US and Europe compared to their travels to benighted places like Bengal and Assam, where their supposed fellow Hindus are the victims of every type of depredation. But of course these hapless souls are unable to cough up Euros and $ to visitors like the pathetic Sri Sri, mouthing inane and frequently incorrect interpretations of Hindu scriptures. I now denounce them as inimical to the survival of Hindus and Hinduism, wallowing in parochial indifference and violating the basic tenets of our supreme scriptural texts.
I will never again enter a temple as long as I live and enjoin my corpse to be allowed to rot when I perish rather than allow a priest near it. Nor will I ever again acknowledge that I am a member of this wretched community of Bengalis, suffused with arrogant self-regard and mindless support for Islamic Jihad. This is precisely what the two Bose brothers also wished, in seeking a united Bengal!
Tapan babu spoke with great eloquence on the 14th Februray at Wellington Square and if he uttered any allegedly communal sentiments, they were only a tiny measure of the truth. It was a privilege for me to stand by his side on the momentous occasion. It is he who articulated the injunctions of Swami Vivekananda and Shri Aurobindo to resist wrong doing by all possible means.
And yet some people continue to commit treason daily, with the full support of India's highest religious authorities, by engaging in so-called inter-faith dialogue. These collaborators should count the list of awards made to the harridan, Jihadi, Teesta Setalvad, by Christian organisations. I do hope they are getting paid the equivalent of their thirty pieces of silver for these acts of betrayal while Hindus run from pillar to post.
Gautam Sen
Saturday, February 18, 2012
PARASITES & TERMITES SNEAK IN THROUGH ORIFICES TO ATTACK THE HOST SOCIETY TO DESTROY IT FROM INSIDE BITE BY BITE, NOT TO RESPECT HUMAN DIGNITY
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/02/disband-proselytizer-gangs.html
16.2.12
Disband proselytizer gangs.
by
Kalyanaraman
Right to 'human dignity' is as important as the right to freedom of speech. Disband proselytizer gangs.
Proselytizing is NOT an intersection of free speech and freedom of religion.
Proselytizing is an affront to human dignity.
There are proselytizing units prowling the globe. Prowling is to roam through stealthily, as in search of prey or plunder.
Both Christian mission and Islamic da'wah as proselytizing units are contests to gain converts at the other's expense. One has symbiotic relationship with colonialism and imperialism. The other has historical contexts and context of jihad, which date back to mediaeval barbarism and conquests destroying cultural edifices and markers.
(Elizabeth Scantlebury, “Islamic Da`wah and Christian Mission: Positive and Negative Models of Interaction between Muslims and Christians,” in Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1996, 253269.) http://www.rashiedomar.com/publication-downloads.html?download=36%3Athe-right-to-religious-conversion-between-apostasy-and-proselytization
Right to change one's religion is religious freedom. But this does NOT mean granting somebody a right to ask that one changes his or her religion. That somebody, that proselytizer also indulges in coercion by offering food or medical aid. This proselytization is unethical, shameful and disgusting.
Freedom to proselytize is a fraudulent definition of freedom.
Freedom to proselytize is, in effect, a license to indulge in violence, terrorism of the worst kind. Many proselytizers operate beyond their state boundaries and thus indulge in international terrorism by seeking for example, to establish the Dominus Jesus (Dominion of Jesus). This is pursuit of colonialism and imperialism by other means other than direct dominance and ruling over the people whose cultural traditions do NOT recognize any dominion of any one.
"In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the defendant’s speech was directed toward the Catholic community, implying that they were evil, and Mr. Cantwell was speaking on the public sidewalk in a predominantly Catholic area and provoked hostility from others.128 Yet the Supreme Court reversed his conviction for breach of the peace. This is because free speech is actually a vital aspect of the dignity for all that is trumpeted so forcefully in the Declaration of Independence. The Supreme Court has recognized that the protection of freedom of expression is based on “the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” (Cohen, 403 U.S. at 24; loc.cit., Kevin H. Theriot, Esq., Prince of Pauper? Religious proselytizing and the First Amendment, p.69.) http://www.speakupmovement.org/Church/Content/userfiles/prince_or_pauper.pdf
Proselytizers, as world citizens, have to accept the international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR) and the international covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Proselytizers should concede that the actions of their predecessor proselytizers have been conditioned by the zeal to enslave or colonize cultures and to prevent free people from exercising their free will and to create states which are subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus or the Islam Nation.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49:
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Cultural Rights (1966), together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), make up the International Bill of Human Rights.
In accordance with the Universal Declaration, the Covenants Òrecognize that “... the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.”
Article 15
Everyone has the right to take part in cultural life; enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. http://eycb.coe.int/compass/en/pdf/6_5.pdf
Excerpts from a News Report:
Proselytization vs. Religious Freedom
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Is proselytization, with its dubious history, an essential right within the broader realm of religious freedom?
“I think it is,” said Thomas F. Farr, a scholar from the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, at a Witherspoon Institute seminar on Islam and Religious Freedom at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Many countries, such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Hindu-majority India and predominantly Buddhist Sri Lanka, have witnessed bloodshed over proselytization and resultant conversions. Farr agreed that it is not just a “clean, clear, sweet-reason application of persuasion.”
“The history of proselytization is, to put it mildly, a checkered one,” said Farr, who worked with the United States Office of the International Religious Freedom in the 1990s.
“Proselytization over the centuries has been rapacious or deceptive or violent or otherwise an attack on human dignity rather than a furthering of human dignity.”
http://themediaproject.org/article/proselytization-necessary-element-religious-freedom?page=0,1
Farr does not discuss the modalities to undo the rapacious actions of the proselytizers nor does he discuss steps to prevent such predatory proselytizers.
Farr should accept that one way to stop predatory proselytization is to stop predatory practices of any kind, to recognize the past unethical actions, to vow NOT to repeat such unethical actions, to undo the damage done by impoverishing poor nations during colonial and imperialist forays of proselytizing eras by ensuring restitution of illicit looted wealth taken from such poor nations.
You want religious freedom? Sure, have it, practice it privately and do not make it a state or public or corporate enterprise with the evil designs of accomplishing Religious Dominions, after failing to establish such dominions through jihadist, colonial and imperialist enterprises, evidenced in the recent past centuries.
Notice that the Vatican wikileak cable refers to endorsement of USG for the subterfuge of interfaith dialogue. USG means United States Government. So much for secularism, separating the Vatican mission from the state.
In summary, right to 'human dignity' is as important as the right to freedom of speech. Disband proselytizer gangs. Allow the people of the globe just be with their inherent, inalienable right to human dignity, unhindered by dubious proselytizing falsely paraded as a religious freedom.
In the meantime, just return the colonial loot which rightly belongs to the poor people of the globe and respect their right to live in human dignity.
Kalyanaraman
Feb. 16, 2012
16.2.12
Disband proselytizer gangs.
by
Kalyanaraman
Right to 'human dignity' is as important as the right to freedom of speech. Disband proselytizer gangs.
Proselytizing is NOT an intersection of free speech and freedom of religion.
Proselytizing is an affront to human dignity.
There are proselytizing units prowling the globe. Prowling is to roam through stealthily, as in search of prey or plunder.
Both Christian mission and Islamic da'wah as proselytizing units are contests to gain converts at the other's expense. One has symbiotic relationship with colonialism and imperialism. The other has historical contexts and context of jihad, which date back to mediaeval barbarism and conquests destroying cultural edifices and markers.
(Elizabeth Scantlebury, “Islamic Da`wah and Christian Mission: Positive and Negative Models of Interaction between Muslims and Christians,” in Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1996, 253269.) http://www.rashiedomar.com/publication-downloads.html?download=36%3Athe-right-to-religious-conversion-between-apostasy-and-proselytization
Right to change one's religion is religious freedom. But this does NOT mean granting somebody a right to ask that one changes his or her religion. That somebody, that proselytizer also indulges in coercion by offering food or medical aid. This proselytization is unethical, shameful and disgusting.
Freedom to proselytize is a fraudulent definition of freedom.
Freedom to proselytize is, in effect, a license to indulge in violence, terrorism of the worst kind. Many proselytizers operate beyond their state boundaries and thus indulge in international terrorism by seeking for example, to establish the Dominus Jesus (Dominion of Jesus). This is pursuit of colonialism and imperialism by other means other than direct dominance and ruling over the people whose cultural traditions do NOT recognize any dominion of any one.
"In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the defendant’s speech was directed toward the Catholic community, implying that they were evil, and Mr. Cantwell was speaking on the public sidewalk in a predominantly Catholic area and provoked hostility from others.128 Yet the Supreme Court reversed his conviction for breach of the peace. This is because free speech is actually a vital aspect of the dignity for all that is trumpeted so forcefully in the Declaration of Independence. The Supreme Court has recognized that the protection of freedom of expression is based on “the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” (Cohen, 403 U.S. at 24; loc.cit., Kevin H. Theriot, Esq., Prince of Pauper? Religious proselytizing and the First Amendment, p.69.) http://www.speakupmovement.org/Church/Content/userfiles/prince_or_pauper.pdf
Proselytizers, as world citizens, have to accept the international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR) and the international covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Proselytizers should concede that the actions of their predecessor proselytizers have been conditioned by the zeal to enslave or colonize cultures and to prevent free people from exercising their free will and to create states which are subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus or the Islam Nation.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49:
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Cultural Rights (1966), together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), make up the International Bill of Human Rights.
In accordance with the Universal Declaration, the Covenants Òrecognize that “... the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.”
Article 15
Everyone has the right to take part in cultural life; enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. http://eycb.coe.int/compass/en/pdf/6_5.pdf
Excerpts from a News Report:
Proselytization vs. Religious Freedom
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Is proselytization, with its dubious history, an essential right within the broader realm of religious freedom?
“I think it is,” said Thomas F. Farr, a scholar from the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, at a Witherspoon Institute seminar on Islam and Religious Freedom at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Many countries, such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Hindu-majority India and predominantly Buddhist Sri Lanka, have witnessed bloodshed over proselytization and resultant conversions. Farr agreed that it is not just a “clean, clear, sweet-reason application of persuasion.”
“The history of proselytization is, to put it mildly, a checkered one,” said Farr, who worked with the United States Office of the International Religious Freedom in the 1990s.
“Proselytization over the centuries has been rapacious or deceptive or violent or otherwise an attack on human dignity rather than a furthering of human dignity.”
http://themediaproject.org/article/proselytization-necessary-element-religious-freedom?page=0,1
Farr does not discuss the modalities to undo the rapacious actions of the proselytizers nor does he discuss steps to prevent such predatory proselytizers.
Farr should accept that one way to stop predatory proselytization is to stop predatory practices of any kind, to recognize the past unethical actions, to vow NOT to repeat such unethical actions, to undo the damage done by impoverishing poor nations during colonial and imperialist forays of proselytizing eras by ensuring restitution of illicit looted wealth taken from such poor nations.
You want religious freedom? Sure, have it, practice it privately and do not make it a state or public or corporate enterprise with the evil designs of accomplishing Religious Dominions, after failing to establish such dominions through jihadist, colonial and imperialist enterprises, evidenced in the recent past centuries.
Notice that the Vatican wikileak cable refers to endorsement of USG for the subterfuge of interfaith dialogue. USG means United States Government. So much for secularism, separating the Vatican mission from the state.
In summary, right to 'human dignity' is as important as the right to freedom of speech. Disband proselytizer gangs. Allow the people of the globe just be with their inherent, inalienable right to human dignity, unhindered by dubious proselytizing falsely paraded as a religious freedom.
In the meantime, just return the colonial loot which rightly belongs to the poor people of the globe and respect their right to live in human dignity.
Kalyanaraman
Feb. 16, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
WHO IS HIGHJACKING WHOM? GULLIBLE HINDUS MUST OPEN THEIR EYES FOR SNEAKY SADHUS PEDDLING SANYASA TANTRA AND LETTING JESUS STAND ON THE HEAD OF VEDANTA
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/02/from-sanatana-dharma-to-jesus-dr-vijaya.html
'From Sanatana Dharma to Jesus'
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
February 16, 2012
We have seen the dangers of over reach in Dharma when the individual is neither prepared nor trained to engage in the task of explaining a complex religious system such as Hinduism . Recently, we have the case of a combination of an ill starred defence of the indefensible(the Nityananda scandal), the u turn to interfaith dialogue ( hoax perpetrated by the Catholic Church) and the setting up (intentionally or unintentionally) as an alternative to the traditional acharyas and gurus of known sampradayas (lineages). The present writer has critiqued this phenomenon in the case of author and writer Rajiv Malhotra. (1)
Unfortunately, this seems to have become endemic in the Hindu diaspora with the recent u turn taken by Dr. Frank Morales who has set himself up as an Acharya (Morales is a Spanish Italian American who has seemingly espoused Hinduism).
He did his undergraduate work in Christian theology at a Jesuit university and then trained at the University of Wisconsin's Indian Studies Program and became an outstanding student of the subject. However, he does not seem to have stayed any great length of time in India, nor has he received diksha (initiation) from any known Hindu acharya before he set himself up in turn as an Acharya and headed the Hindu temple in Nebraska (USA). He is also the Founder President of the International Sanatana Dharma Society. His rise to fame was based primarily on his extraordinary article 'Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism' (2005) which endeared him to some Hindus in the diaspora and he was acclaimed as a defender of Hinduism.The people who acclaimed him were well known, some even authentic exponents of Hinduism. And predictably Frank Morales has now become an exponent of Christian doctrine, using the clever ploy that he is talking about the perfect being of Jesus and that this fits in well with Sanatana Dharma. He frequently reads from the Gospels to his audiences.This has been the ancient dream of Jesuits and is seen more noticeably in the work of Raimundo Panikkar, the Spanish- Indian Jesuit scholar and priest, who claimed that the Vedas and Hindu scriptures in general, heralded the coming of the universal Christ, hidden in history uptill an auspicious moment.
Can Frank Morales have perfected the art of Inculturation ? He seems to have moved away from the rejection of his early positions on the uniqueness of Hinduism and its refusal to accept that all religions are the same. He seems to be bringing in Jesus by the backdoor. Defenders could argue that he is inculturating Christianity, instead of the other way around !
Frank Morales's performance in the 2 videos Jesus: The Dharma Master (2008)should leave no ambiguity in the minds of Hindus that he is now all set on presenting Jesus as the ideal being (who is also God) to the bemused Hindus of the diaspora. He begins by saying that Jesus was a perfect man because he set himself the goal of accepting the will of God and make himself ethically pure. It is not clear why Morales chose Jesus as an example. The jury is out on the historicity of Jesus. Did such an individual exist ? Or was he merely the concoction of Pauline Christianity, the Church and the bishops who met at the Nicene Council in 325 A.D. ? And even if he did exist, was he the pure being that he was supposed to be ? He is supposed to have damned to eternity all those who did not follow his teachings. Was he merely a political revolutionary who was feared both by the Romans and the jewish Sanhedrin ?
Questions abound for the non believer. Clearly Morales is a believer, if not in some rabid fundamentalist sense, in a subtle and sophisticated manner.
How did this come about ? Perhaps we should go back and read carefully his philosophical Radical Universalism which argues that all religions are NOT the same. Morales points out that Hinduism did not at any time say that all religions are the same. This line that all religions are the same is one adopted by those Hindu gurus travelling in the West in order to make entry into that society and gain some traction.In his brilliant essay Morales rejects this tendency and outlines why and how Hinduism did not , could not have maintained that all religions are the same. According to him Sanatana Dharma is unique and the sages and saints and traditional acharyas have maintained this unique identity.
In the case of Rajiv Malhotra there is a parallel situation here. From his book Breaking India (quite different in tone and content from the second book) to Being Different and now his public espousal of the cause of Hindu Christian Dialogue there has been a marked u turn. The reader is referred to the article ' Hindu Christian Dialogue and the Second Front against Dharma' (in Bharata Bharati, kalyan97blogspot and www.sookta-suman.blogspot.com). That article references the recent Huffington Post blog where Shri Malhotra openly embraces Hindu Christian dialogue. This has become part and parcel of his world view, the divine lila where all differences are really of no significance. Malhotra is entitled to his world view but he seems to be singularly unaware of Francis Xavier Clooney's subtle entrapment.
He cites Clooney's argument that he, Malhotra, is a contrast to other exponents of Hinduism who merely dismiss the differences with Christianity without understanding the DEEP STRUCTURES (italics added by the present writer) of the differences ! Need one comment on the implications of this statement from Clooney ? In other words, while Malhotra is talking away for the valid existence of difference, all part and parcel of divine lila, Clooney is saying (in effect) that the deep structure of diffence is what makes Christianity superior to Hinduism.
The Dartmouth video also shows the same subtlety and craftiness with which Dr. Clooney first flatters and then puts down the unsuspecting Malhotra and as well gains the upper hand in his overview of the difference between Christianity and Hinduism.
The present writer has analysed this in the article ' How not to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue.' (see list below) The moral here for the Hindu Samaj is to understand the trajectory of individuals such as Frank Morales and Rajiv Malhotra and approach their work with caution. Both are entitled to their world views but both should not set themselves up as the new acharyas of Hinduism. They have neither the training nor the adhikara for this supreme task.
1. All articles on the topic are listed (in Bharata Bharati) at the conclusion of the article 'Hindu Christian Dialogue and the Second Front against Dharma'.
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught for several years in the part time faculty of a Canadian university. She is now retired and lives in Canada with her husband who is also an academic. Since retirement her interests are in Indian history, culture and politics. She holds a B.A. Hons.& M.Litt in Literature (University of Madras, India), an M.A. in Philosophy (University of Madras, India), an M.A. in Political Science (McGill University, Canada) and a Ph.D in Humanities in Political Science, Philosophy, Political Economy&History (Concordia University, Canada).
'From Sanatana Dharma to Jesus'
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
February 16, 2012
We have seen the dangers of over reach in Dharma when the individual is neither prepared nor trained to engage in the task of explaining a complex religious system such as Hinduism . Recently, we have the case of a combination of an ill starred defence of the indefensible(the Nityananda scandal), the u turn to interfaith dialogue ( hoax perpetrated by the Catholic Church) and the setting up (intentionally or unintentionally) as an alternative to the traditional acharyas and gurus of known sampradayas (lineages). The present writer has critiqued this phenomenon in the case of author and writer Rajiv Malhotra. (1)
Unfortunately, this seems to have become endemic in the Hindu diaspora with the recent u turn taken by Dr. Frank Morales who has set himself up as an Acharya (Morales is a Spanish Italian American who has seemingly espoused Hinduism).
He did his undergraduate work in Christian theology at a Jesuit university and then trained at the University of Wisconsin's Indian Studies Program and became an outstanding student of the subject. However, he does not seem to have stayed any great length of time in India, nor has he received diksha (initiation) from any known Hindu acharya before he set himself up in turn as an Acharya and headed the Hindu temple in Nebraska (USA). He is also the Founder President of the International Sanatana Dharma Society. His rise to fame was based primarily on his extraordinary article 'Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism' (2005) which endeared him to some Hindus in the diaspora and he was acclaimed as a defender of Hinduism.The people who acclaimed him were well known, some even authentic exponents of Hinduism. And predictably Frank Morales has now become an exponent of Christian doctrine, using the clever ploy that he is talking about the perfect being of Jesus and that this fits in well with Sanatana Dharma. He frequently reads from the Gospels to his audiences.This has been the ancient dream of Jesuits and is seen more noticeably in the work of Raimundo Panikkar, the Spanish- Indian Jesuit scholar and priest, who claimed that the Vedas and Hindu scriptures in general, heralded the coming of the universal Christ, hidden in history uptill an auspicious moment.
Can Frank Morales have perfected the art of Inculturation ? He seems to have moved away from the rejection of his early positions on the uniqueness of Hinduism and its refusal to accept that all religions are the same. He seems to be bringing in Jesus by the backdoor. Defenders could argue that he is inculturating Christianity, instead of the other way around !
Frank Morales's performance in the 2 videos Jesus: The Dharma Master (2008)should leave no ambiguity in the minds of Hindus that he is now all set on presenting Jesus as the ideal being (who is also God) to the bemused Hindus of the diaspora. He begins by saying that Jesus was a perfect man because he set himself the goal of accepting the will of God and make himself ethically pure. It is not clear why Morales chose Jesus as an example. The jury is out on the historicity of Jesus. Did such an individual exist ? Or was he merely the concoction of Pauline Christianity, the Church and the bishops who met at the Nicene Council in 325 A.D. ? And even if he did exist, was he the pure being that he was supposed to be ? He is supposed to have damned to eternity all those who did not follow his teachings. Was he merely a political revolutionary who was feared both by the Romans and the jewish Sanhedrin ?
Questions abound for the non believer. Clearly Morales is a believer, if not in some rabid fundamentalist sense, in a subtle and sophisticated manner.
How did this come about ? Perhaps we should go back and read carefully his philosophical Radical Universalism which argues that all religions are NOT the same. Morales points out that Hinduism did not at any time say that all religions are the same. This line that all religions are the same is one adopted by those Hindu gurus travelling in the West in order to make entry into that society and gain some traction.In his brilliant essay Morales rejects this tendency and outlines why and how Hinduism did not , could not have maintained that all religions are the same. According to him Sanatana Dharma is unique and the sages and saints and traditional acharyas have maintained this unique identity.
In the case of Rajiv Malhotra there is a parallel situation here. From his book Breaking India (quite different in tone and content from the second book) to Being Different and now his public espousal of the cause of Hindu Christian Dialogue there has been a marked u turn. The reader is referred to the article ' Hindu Christian Dialogue and the Second Front against Dharma' (in Bharata Bharati, kalyan97blogspot and www.sookta-suman.blogspot.com). That article references the recent Huffington Post blog where Shri Malhotra openly embraces Hindu Christian dialogue. This has become part and parcel of his world view, the divine lila where all differences are really of no significance. Malhotra is entitled to his world view but he seems to be singularly unaware of Francis Xavier Clooney's subtle entrapment.
He cites Clooney's argument that he, Malhotra, is a contrast to other exponents of Hinduism who merely dismiss the differences with Christianity without understanding the DEEP STRUCTURES (italics added by the present writer) of the differences ! Need one comment on the implications of this statement from Clooney ? In other words, while Malhotra is talking away for the valid existence of difference, all part and parcel of divine lila, Clooney is saying (in effect) that the deep structure of diffence is what makes Christianity superior to Hinduism.
The Dartmouth video also shows the same subtlety and craftiness with which Dr. Clooney first flatters and then puts down the unsuspecting Malhotra and as well gains the upper hand in his overview of the difference between Christianity and Hinduism.
The present writer has analysed this in the article ' How not to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue.' (see list below) The moral here for the Hindu Samaj is to understand the trajectory of individuals such as Frank Morales and Rajiv Malhotra and approach their work with caution. Both are entitled to their world views but both should not set themselves up as the new acharyas of Hinduism. They have neither the training nor the adhikara for this supreme task.
1. All articles on the topic are listed (in Bharata Bharati) at the conclusion of the article 'Hindu Christian Dialogue and the Second Front against Dharma'.
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva is a Political Philosopher who taught for several years in the part time faculty of a Canadian university. She is now retired and lives in Canada with her husband who is also an academic. Since retirement her interests are in Indian history, culture and politics. She holds a B.A. Hons.& M.Litt in Literature (University of Madras, India), an M.A. in Philosophy (University of Madras, India), an M.A. in Political Science (McGill University, Canada) and a Ph.D in Humanities in Political Science, Philosophy, Political Economy&History (Concordia University, Canada).
Monday, February 13, 2012
HISTORY & METHODOLOGY OF VATICAN SPONSORED CROSS-CULTURAL ANAL SODOMY
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/definition-of-inculturation-misguided.html
12.1.12
Definition of Inculturation. Misguided helpers of FX Clooney
by
Mohan Gupta
Jan. 13, 2012
Definition of Inculturation
Inculturation, as propounded by the Vatican Council II Documents 1, is the plan of Christians being within the folds of culture, tradition and heritage of any people, posing as faithful devotees and declare the "hidden Christ" at right moment, so that they (dubbed as heathens, Infidels & unbelievers) would become "Christians". Till such time, they have to adapt and adopt their culture and related customs, practices and manners. They even build Temple-like Churches, use Hindu symbols and paraphernalia extensively and the Christian priests roam as Hindu Sanyasis and Sadhus.
By the Vatican Directive Prot. N. 802/69 dated April 25, 1969, "Twelve Points of Inculturation" were permitted in India. So far, the "Inculturation" activities carried out by the Christian missionaries among the Saivites have been the topics discussed in selected and published books also. The author has come across a Jesuit, who has been carrying out his activities among the Srivaishnavas for around 30 years. He is Professor FX. Clooney from Harvard University's Divinity department, following the steps of Roberto de Nobili.
It is well known as to how Roberto de Nobili, a Jesuit came from Italy claiming as a "Roman Brahmin", donned ochre robes, learned Indian languages, forged "Yasur Veda", was tried by the Ecclesiastical Court and finally died in Chennai itself without any news.
In 2000, after the Pope’s condemnation of practice of Yoga and other Eastern Meditation methods by the Catholic priests and others, some Christians have also started criticizing the Inculturation programmes.
However, the ongoing activities by the Inculturation and Inter-religious / Faith groups / programs clearly prove that they are pursued vigorously with the same old plans. Though, Fr. Bede Griffiths has not openly recorded in his writings, Jesuits like Ignatitius Hrudhayam, Francis X. Clooney, Anand Amaladas and others have revealed that they follow Roberto de Nobili as their role model. (A Robert De Nobili was set up in the precincts of the famous Loyola College, Chennai). Thus, the succeeding Jesuits in India have taken his method of "Inculturation" as a "role model" overtly and covertly. The mushrooming Catholic Ashrams and increasing ochre robe clad Christian priests and preachers amply prove their game-plan.
"Gullible Hindus & Even more Gullible Hindu Swamis" are found often helping Christians in their Inculturation directly and indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly. They simply think that these Christians want to know Hinduism and they are happy that the white skinned foreigners too want to follow their religious practices.
Divide and rule
An example of Academic Iron Curtain Dr. Bettina Baumer, a German is based in Varanasi. She is well versed in Sanskrit. She has studied Kashmir Saivism also. She has ingratiated herself with Hindu Scriptures. About 18 years ago (1991), she arranged a conference in Dehradun. Selected scholars about twenty in number participated in this closed conference which lasted six days. The theme of the conference was "Mysticism in Christianity and Saivism". The Director of the International Institute of Saiva Siddhantham Research located at Dharmapuram (Tamilnadu), presented a paper on Saivite Mysticism. It was well received. Years later eventually Dr.Betina Baumer, brought in a book form the papers presented. However the paper on Saivite Mysticism did not find a place in the Printed book. When confronted, by the Director of IISSRC, Dharmapuram, She told him that English was so rich, and high, that even Englishmen,were unable to follow it. However the reason given for omission of this paper was, that the paper on Saivite Mysticism, was not received in time. The fact is that the paper was handed over well on the very day, after it was presented and discussed. It was also the best paper, and appreciated by the participants. When confronted with this fact, she only said "I am really sorry." When elegant papers on Hinduism are presented, Christians in Hindu garb never fail to draw, an iron curtain over them.
Misguided Sri Vaishnavas helped Father FX Clooney. The Vatican sees India as the last bastion of the sacred, and hence seeks to infuse that spirit into Christianity in the West. Harvard Professor FX Clooney says, he wants to infuse the inspiration that he has derived from Nammalvar's "Thiruvaimozhi" into Christianity.
Western values are derived from adventurism, pop music, evangelizations, sports, commerce, politics, technology and humanism; a fact which our policy makers should take note of. Inculturation derived its inspiration from such frontier spirit.
Thomas Paine (1737- 1809) wrote:
"Everything in the Old Testament (OT) is perverted and distorted into meanings never intended by the writers. The practice which the writers of the books employ is not more false than it is absurd. They state some trifling case of the person they call Jesus Christ, and then cut out a sentence from some passage of the OT and call it a prophecy of that case. But when the words thus cut out are restored to the places they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to the New Testament."
Robert L. Johnson wrote in "The Bible’s Ungodly Origins".
"Many rank and file Christians sincerely believe the Bible is a direct communication from God to man. I know I used to believe it was when I was a Christian. And from recent conversations with many sincere Christians I know this is currently true for many believers. Once it is proven to our God-given reason that the Bible is strictly a man-made collection of mythology the mind loses yet another shackle of "revelation" and is soon on its way to full freedom and progress.
VOTED FOR BIBLE
"The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century. "
THOMAS PAINE
Thomas Paine (1737- 1809) in his work titled "The Age of Reason" noted that the very basis upon which Christianity was raised, is on "flawed methodologies." For example, the taking of alleged Old Testament prophecies and claiming that they referred to Christ who was born some 700 to 500 years after they had been uttered by the Hebrew prophets. H.G. Wells
H.G Wells in the world famous, "The Outline of History," Vol. I, pages 462-463, wrote: "It (the Council of Nicaea) marks the definite entry upon the stage of human affairs of the Christian Church and of Christianity as it is generally understood in the world to-day. It marks the exact definition of Christian teaching by the Nicene Creed."
Constantine ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new "holy scriptures". It seems with the financial element added to the picture, the Church fathers were able to overcome their differences and finally agree which "holy" books would stay and which would go and following its true tradition the Indian Bible has been written with over one hundred quotations from Hindu scriptures incorporated.
Late major Vedantam, who pioneered the investigation of Christian missionaries in India over thirty years ago, wrote:
"Theocentric and theocratic eclectics are as dangerous as nuclear, chemical and other warheads. The concept of "My God is your God, but your God is No God" does not foster understanding, co-operation and goodwill." The concept should be changed to "Your God is my God and my God is your God" and accepted by all religions.
According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University, USA.
"The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.
"Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence. (I wish to thank Brian Show for pointing out in his rebuttal to this article that the final version of the Christian Bible was not voted on at the Council of Nicaea, per se. The Church leaders didn"t finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed.)
However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine! And, the Holy Bible has been once again tampered with, in 2008 Edition - only this time with additions from Hindu Scriptures.
PLAGIARISM OF HINDU SCRIPTURES
Why would Christian Church copy Hindu Scriptures?
The answer is here. "Such, indeed, is the exuberance and flexibility of this language (Sanskrit) and its power of compounding words, and when it has been, so to speak, baptized, and thoroughly, penetrated with the spirit of Christianity, it will probably be found, next to Hebrew and Greek, the most expressive vehicle of Christian Truth." - M. Monier - Williams (1861:54)
When we hear that at least a hundred quotation from Vedas, Yogasutra and Upanishads have been incorporated into the "Indian Bible" published in 2008. We are worried. We are also shocked when we hear the cross behind the Jesus has been removed about which a leading archaeologist commented "this is tribanga pose of Sri Krishna and also resembles Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in ecstacy". The pain and trauma in face of Jesus has been erased and to be replaced with the picture of Joy found in Krishna, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu or Nataraja.. The transformation is not yet complete, and the words "he is dancing with joy has been interpolated in the adjacent page".
Hindu musical instruments used in religious Bhajans like Tambura is on the right side , Tabla is on the left side and a violin is on the upper left, dangles in the air, and there are twinkling stars all around in the space. A pair of cymbals (jalra) is found at the Right foot of Jesus. He has been adorned with a long Yajnopavitam, which extends up to the left ankle, instead of the traditional one that stops at the waist. We Hindus are legitimately worried at the blatant plagiarism.
KALAKSHETRA CONTROVERSY
Whenever we hear the name "Golden Temple", we tend to think of the beautiful Harmandir Sahib in Amritsar. There is another Golden Temple in South India - the great Nataraja temple at Chidambaram in Tamilnadu that is associated with the cosmic dance of Nataraja. These are sacred cultural and religious symbols of Bharat and of great importance and immense sacrifices have been made by both Sikhs and Hindus respectively to save and protect their holy symbols and sacred places.
Kalakshetra Foundation, Chennai, an Institution established for promoting Hindu Dance forms, is used for inculturation by its Jew-Christian Director. She has removed the Nataraja and Ganesh statues from its premises, which is certainly a matter of concern for Hindus (Hindu Voice, Sept. 2007).
UPROOTING OF DANCE TRADITIONS
The classic Bharat Natyam cannot be serrated from Hinduism by Vatican ideologues in India, as they have found it a useful tool of evangelizations.
"(Christian) inculturation is cultural plagiarism (and) cultural vandalism, with the idea of ultimate conquest says " Swami Devananda. He says "We must be beware of Christians with their flattery and money, taking over our sacred art forms such as Bharathanatyam, even as they did to those of ancient Greece and Rome, and calling them their own".
SWAMI DEVANANDA WARNS HINDUS
Drawing from his four decades of dealing with Christian Missionaries, he gave this ominous warning to Hindus "Christianity is a parasitical religion, which attaches itself to a host culture and feeds off of it, absorbing its spirit and lifeblood into itself until the host culture dies and become Christian." This was articulated by Art of Living fame Sri Sri Ravishankarji "How can you separate Bharata Natyam & Hinduism?" and again echoed by Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswathy, "Dance is Sacred. You cannot think of Dance without Nataraja", and now Hindus have the double duty to defend their fellow religious people and also their texts from poachers. (Hindu Voice, Sept. 2007).
INNER SIGNIFICANCE OF HINDU DANCE FORMS
"To understand the Hindu Concept of Cosmic Nataraja we have to understand the Hindu Concept of dance itself. When it comes to Natya the greatest inimitable exponent, Balasaraswathy had stated that Bharat Natyam is nothing but "Natya yoga". Bharat Natya originated with Tapas and Nataraja himself is the supreme teacher of Natya and codified by Bharatha Muni in his Natya Sastra. Bharat Natya is the Supreme cultural Symbol of Perfection in dance form.
DANGERS OF COPYING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
When the most revered cultural symbol of Sikhs was threatened as happened some months ago when the blue attire of their most revered Guru Govind Singh was copied by Dera Sacha Sauda founder Baba Ram Rahim, the entire Sikh community of Punjab and Haryana were outraged.
They came to streets, and the two states came to a stand still. It was a war like situation. This incident was an eye-opener, as to what the consequences will be if religious sacred religious symbols and traditions of one section of the population are misappropriated illegitimately.
NEED FOR LEGISLATIONS
In the absence of any law whatsoever in India to protect the original indigenous Cultures, heritage and knowledge- the entire gamut of Hinduism is under threat of unholy poachers. Its heritage and dominant concepts and Ideas, Icons, Scriptural lore and Philosophical heritage.
It is well known that Basmati, Neem, Turmeric, Yoga and Bharat Natyam have now become endangered, and now it is the very Vedas, Yoga Sutras, having been plagiarized and hence the crying need to enact strict legislations.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF HINDUS NEED TO BE PROTECTED
Food Items like Basmati, Neem and Turmeric have since been protected after stiff legal battles in international courts. Now it is the turn for the other rich symbols of Hindus, Buddhist, Sikh and Jaina literature in books, sacred objects, icons, temples, sacred forests, mountains, caves, rivers, religious spaces like bathing ghats, sacred trees , groves, passages, ashrams, mutts, properties, lands endowed to them, unique customs, leadership , sampradhayams, follower ship, rituals, practices, worship methods, mantras, tantras, yantras, associated with these traditions, padarthas, aushadas, pathways, places, religious, cultural icons, art, architecture, music, dance, folk art, instruments, dress, jewellery, festivals, methods, stories and organizations, sanctity, even food and gastronomic effects, need urgent documentation and immediate protection from our authorities. We need acts like intellectual property rights , and copy right provisions must be extended for Cultural objects and the Religious knowledge and Religious space of Hindus must be protected as holy sanctuaries; but before that Hindus have to be sensitized for the great work that lies before them.
(Editor's Note: If an American Airlines pilot hypothetically wears the uniform of Southwest Airlines pilot and the impostor
pilot takes the Southwest Airline plane off of its course it would most definitely be a criminal act and he will be prosecuted. The Vatican sponsored "inculturators" are doing nothing but highjacking the gullible non-christian populations by entering their societies as impostors and also plundering and looting their sacred articles, methods of worship, music, dance, etc. by misappropriating them into their own not out of admiration but with sociopathic deceptive intent to proselytize their gullible victims by fraudulent methods. The legal profession and judiciary need to have strict laws for call such "frauds" on the carpet with inclusion of such laws in the penal code prohibiting such practices. Such practices cannot be considered as condoned under the secular legal principle of "freedom of religion." )
12.1.12
Definition of Inculturation. Misguided helpers of FX Clooney
by
Mohan Gupta
Jan. 13, 2012
Definition of Inculturation
Inculturation, as propounded by the Vatican Council II Documents 1, is the plan of Christians being within the folds of culture, tradition and heritage of any people, posing as faithful devotees and declare the "hidden Christ" at right moment, so that they (dubbed as heathens, Infidels & unbelievers) would become "Christians". Till such time, they have to adapt and adopt their culture and related customs, practices and manners. They even build Temple-like Churches, use Hindu symbols and paraphernalia extensively and the Christian priests roam as Hindu Sanyasis and Sadhus.
By the Vatican Directive Prot. N. 802/69 dated April 25, 1969, "Twelve Points of Inculturation" were permitted in India. So far, the "Inculturation" activities carried out by the Christian missionaries among the Saivites have been the topics discussed in selected and published books also. The author has come across a Jesuit, who has been carrying out his activities among the Srivaishnavas for around 30 years. He is Professor FX. Clooney from Harvard University's Divinity department, following the steps of Roberto de Nobili.
It is well known as to how Roberto de Nobili, a Jesuit came from Italy claiming as a "Roman Brahmin", donned ochre robes, learned Indian languages, forged "Yasur Veda", was tried by the Ecclesiastical Court and finally died in Chennai itself without any news.
In 2000, after the Pope’s condemnation of practice of Yoga and other Eastern Meditation methods by the Catholic priests and others, some Christians have also started criticizing the Inculturation programmes.
However, the ongoing activities by the Inculturation and Inter-religious / Faith groups / programs clearly prove that they are pursued vigorously with the same old plans. Though, Fr. Bede Griffiths has not openly recorded in his writings, Jesuits like Ignatitius Hrudhayam, Francis X. Clooney, Anand Amaladas and others have revealed that they follow Roberto de Nobili as their role model. (A Robert De Nobili was set up in the precincts of the famous Loyola College, Chennai). Thus, the succeeding Jesuits in India have taken his method of "Inculturation" as a "role model" overtly and covertly. The mushrooming Catholic Ashrams and increasing ochre robe clad Christian priests and preachers amply prove their game-plan.
"Gullible Hindus & Even more Gullible Hindu Swamis" are found often helping Christians in their Inculturation directly and indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly. They simply think that these Christians want to know Hinduism and they are happy that the white skinned foreigners too want to follow their religious practices.
Divide and rule
An example of Academic Iron Curtain Dr. Bettina Baumer, a German is based in Varanasi. She is well versed in Sanskrit. She has studied Kashmir Saivism also. She has ingratiated herself with Hindu Scriptures. About 18 years ago (1991), she arranged a conference in Dehradun. Selected scholars about twenty in number participated in this closed conference which lasted six days. The theme of the conference was "Mysticism in Christianity and Saivism". The Director of the International Institute of Saiva Siddhantham Research located at Dharmapuram (Tamilnadu), presented a paper on Saivite Mysticism. It was well received. Years later eventually Dr.Betina Baumer, brought in a book form the papers presented. However the paper on Saivite Mysticism did not find a place in the Printed book. When confronted, by the Director of IISSRC, Dharmapuram, She told him that English was so rich, and high, that even Englishmen,were unable to follow it. However the reason given for omission of this paper was, that the paper on Saivite Mysticism, was not received in time. The fact is that the paper was handed over well on the very day, after it was presented and discussed. It was also the best paper, and appreciated by the participants. When confronted with this fact, she only said "I am really sorry." When elegant papers on Hinduism are presented, Christians in Hindu garb never fail to draw, an iron curtain over them.
Misguided Sri Vaishnavas helped Father FX Clooney. The Vatican sees India as the last bastion of the sacred, and hence seeks to infuse that spirit into Christianity in the West. Harvard Professor FX Clooney says, he wants to infuse the inspiration that he has derived from Nammalvar's "Thiruvaimozhi" into Christianity.
Western values are derived from adventurism, pop music, evangelizations, sports, commerce, politics, technology and humanism; a fact which our policy makers should take note of. Inculturation derived its inspiration from such frontier spirit.
Thomas Paine (1737- 1809) wrote:
"Everything in the Old Testament (OT) is perverted and distorted into meanings never intended by the writers. The practice which the writers of the books employ is not more false than it is absurd. They state some trifling case of the person they call Jesus Christ, and then cut out a sentence from some passage of the OT and call it a prophecy of that case. But when the words thus cut out are restored to the places they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to the New Testament."
Robert L. Johnson wrote in "The Bible’s Ungodly Origins".
"Many rank and file Christians sincerely believe the Bible is a direct communication from God to man. I know I used to believe it was when I was a Christian. And from recent conversations with many sincere Christians I know this is currently true for many believers. Once it is proven to our God-given reason that the Bible is strictly a man-made collection of mythology the mind loses yet another shackle of "revelation" and is soon on its way to full freedom and progress.
VOTED FOR BIBLE
"The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century. "
THOMAS PAINE
Thomas Paine (1737- 1809) in his work titled "The Age of Reason" noted that the very basis upon which Christianity was raised, is on "flawed methodologies." For example, the taking of alleged Old Testament prophecies and claiming that they referred to Christ who was born some 700 to 500 years after they had been uttered by the Hebrew prophets. H.G. Wells
H.G Wells in the world famous, "The Outline of History," Vol. I, pages 462-463, wrote: "It (the Council of Nicaea) marks the definite entry upon the stage of human affairs of the Christian Church and of Christianity as it is generally understood in the world to-day. It marks the exact definition of Christian teaching by the Nicene Creed."
Constantine ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new "holy scriptures". It seems with the financial element added to the picture, the Church fathers were able to overcome their differences and finally agree which "holy" books would stay and which would go and following its true tradition the Indian Bible has been written with over one hundred quotations from Hindu scriptures incorporated.
Late major Vedantam, who pioneered the investigation of Christian missionaries in India over thirty years ago, wrote:
"Theocentric and theocratic eclectics are as dangerous as nuclear, chemical and other warheads. The concept of "My God is your God, but your God is No God" does not foster understanding, co-operation and goodwill." The concept should be changed to "Your God is my God and my God is your God" and accepted by all religions.
According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University, USA.
"The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.
"Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence. (I wish to thank Brian Show for pointing out in his rebuttal to this article that the final version of the Christian Bible was not voted on at the Council of Nicaea, per se. The Church leaders didn"t finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed.)
However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine! And, the Holy Bible has been once again tampered with, in 2008 Edition - only this time with additions from Hindu Scriptures.
PLAGIARISM OF HINDU SCRIPTURES
Why would Christian Church copy Hindu Scriptures?
The answer is here. "Such, indeed, is the exuberance and flexibility of this language (Sanskrit) and its power of compounding words, and when it has been, so to speak, baptized, and thoroughly, penetrated with the spirit of Christianity, it will probably be found, next to Hebrew and Greek, the most expressive vehicle of Christian Truth." - M. Monier - Williams (1861:54)
When we hear that at least a hundred quotation from Vedas, Yogasutra and Upanishads have been incorporated into the "Indian Bible" published in 2008. We are worried. We are also shocked when we hear the cross behind the Jesus has been removed about which a leading archaeologist commented "this is tribanga pose of Sri Krishna and also resembles Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in ecstacy". The pain and trauma in face of Jesus has been erased and to be replaced with the picture of Joy found in Krishna, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu or Nataraja.. The transformation is not yet complete, and the words "he is dancing with joy has been interpolated in the adjacent page".
Hindu musical instruments used in religious Bhajans like Tambura is on the right side , Tabla is on the left side and a violin is on the upper left, dangles in the air, and there are twinkling stars all around in the space. A pair of cymbals (jalra) is found at the Right foot of Jesus. He has been adorned with a long Yajnopavitam, which extends up to the left ankle, instead of the traditional one that stops at the waist. We Hindus are legitimately worried at the blatant plagiarism.
KALAKSHETRA CONTROVERSY
Whenever we hear the name "Golden Temple", we tend to think of the beautiful Harmandir Sahib in Amritsar. There is another Golden Temple in South India - the great Nataraja temple at Chidambaram in Tamilnadu that is associated with the cosmic dance of Nataraja. These are sacred cultural and religious symbols of Bharat and of great importance and immense sacrifices have been made by both Sikhs and Hindus respectively to save and protect their holy symbols and sacred places.
Kalakshetra Foundation, Chennai, an Institution established for promoting Hindu Dance forms, is used for inculturation by its Jew-Christian Director. She has removed the Nataraja and Ganesh statues from its premises, which is certainly a matter of concern for Hindus (Hindu Voice, Sept. 2007).
UPROOTING OF DANCE TRADITIONS
The classic Bharat Natyam cannot be serrated from Hinduism by Vatican ideologues in India, as they have found it a useful tool of evangelizations.
"(Christian) inculturation is cultural plagiarism (and) cultural vandalism, with the idea of ultimate conquest says " Swami Devananda. He says "We must be beware of Christians with their flattery and money, taking over our sacred art forms such as Bharathanatyam, even as they did to those of ancient Greece and Rome, and calling them their own".
SWAMI DEVANANDA WARNS HINDUS
Drawing from his four decades of dealing with Christian Missionaries, he gave this ominous warning to Hindus "Christianity is a parasitical religion, which attaches itself to a host culture and feeds off of it, absorbing its spirit and lifeblood into itself until the host culture dies and become Christian." This was articulated by Art of Living fame Sri Sri Ravishankarji "How can you separate Bharata Natyam & Hinduism?" and again echoed by Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswathy, "Dance is Sacred. You cannot think of Dance without Nataraja", and now Hindus have the double duty to defend their fellow religious people and also their texts from poachers. (Hindu Voice, Sept. 2007).
INNER SIGNIFICANCE OF HINDU DANCE FORMS
"To understand the Hindu Concept of Cosmic Nataraja we have to understand the Hindu Concept of dance itself. When it comes to Natya the greatest inimitable exponent, Balasaraswathy had stated that Bharat Natyam is nothing but "Natya yoga". Bharat Natya originated with Tapas and Nataraja himself is the supreme teacher of Natya and codified by Bharatha Muni in his Natya Sastra. Bharat Natya is the Supreme cultural Symbol of Perfection in dance form.
DANGERS OF COPYING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
When the most revered cultural symbol of Sikhs was threatened as happened some months ago when the blue attire of their most revered Guru Govind Singh was copied by Dera Sacha Sauda founder Baba Ram Rahim, the entire Sikh community of Punjab and Haryana were outraged.
They came to streets, and the two states came to a stand still. It was a war like situation. This incident was an eye-opener, as to what the consequences will be if religious sacred religious symbols and traditions of one section of the population are misappropriated illegitimately.
NEED FOR LEGISLATIONS
In the absence of any law whatsoever in India to protect the original indigenous Cultures, heritage and knowledge- the entire gamut of Hinduism is under threat of unholy poachers. Its heritage and dominant concepts and Ideas, Icons, Scriptural lore and Philosophical heritage.
It is well known that Basmati, Neem, Turmeric, Yoga and Bharat Natyam have now become endangered, and now it is the very Vedas, Yoga Sutras, having been plagiarized and hence the crying need to enact strict legislations.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF HINDUS NEED TO BE PROTECTED
Food Items like Basmati, Neem and Turmeric have since been protected after stiff legal battles in international courts. Now it is the turn for the other rich symbols of Hindus, Buddhist, Sikh and Jaina literature in books, sacred objects, icons, temples, sacred forests, mountains, caves, rivers, religious spaces like bathing ghats, sacred trees , groves, passages, ashrams, mutts, properties, lands endowed to them, unique customs, leadership , sampradhayams, follower ship, rituals, practices, worship methods, mantras, tantras, yantras, associated with these traditions, padarthas, aushadas, pathways, places, religious, cultural icons, art, architecture, music, dance, folk art, instruments, dress, jewellery, festivals, methods, stories and organizations, sanctity, even food and gastronomic effects, need urgent documentation and immediate protection from our authorities. We need acts like intellectual property rights , and copy right provisions must be extended for Cultural objects and the Religious knowledge and Religious space of Hindus must be protected as holy sanctuaries; but before that Hindus have to be sensitized for the great work that lies before them.
(Editor's Note: If an American Airlines pilot hypothetically wears the uniform of Southwest Airlines pilot and the impostor
pilot takes the Southwest Airline plane off of its course it would most definitely be a criminal act and he will be prosecuted. The Vatican sponsored "inculturators" are doing nothing but highjacking the gullible non-christian populations by entering their societies as impostors and also plundering and looting their sacred articles, methods of worship, music, dance, etc. by misappropriating them into their own not out of admiration but with sociopathic deceptive intent to proselytize their gullible victims by fraudulent methods. The legal profession and judiciary need to have strict laws for call such "frauds" on the carpet with inclusion of such laws in the penal code prohibiting such practices. Such practices cannot be considered as condoned under the secular legal principle of "freedom of religion." )
LOSING VIRGINITY IN A DIALOGUE WITH CLOONEY IS A SIGN TO BE BEWARE OF MISGUIDED FASCINATION FOR INTERFAITH DIALOGUE
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/02/hindu-christian-dialogue-and-second.html
'Hindu Christian Dialogue and the Second Front against Dharma'
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
February 13, 2012
Friends, admirers and camp followers are well advised to be cautious with so called Tantric Hindu gurus of Nityananda fame, and desist from uncritical adulation. We have seen how over reaching oneself in Dharma is a clear and ever present danger, not merely to the individual but also the Hindu Samaj. Author and writer Rajiv Malhotra quite recently defended this person both in writing and videos. Had the man merely worn white (like Osho and his followers) he could have gotten away with his misdemeanours. The ochre robes of a Hindu sannyasin are only worn after a solemn ceremony known as viraja homa. The individual receives diksha from a saint or guru of unimpeachable spiritual attainment and ususally from a known sampradaya. One also recalls accounts of the solemn ceremony of the Paramahamsa handing the ochre robe to the young men who came by his cot, with Naren (the future Vivekananda) receiving it directly from his hands. The sannyasin is thereafter expected to lead an exemplary life.
The present writer has written about the second front against Dharma, where the individual (wittingly or unwittingly) sets himself up as an alternative to the traditional acharyas and gurus of Hinduism. Shri Malhotra's book "Being Different" (BD)could easily be presented as an interesting adventure of ideas which any one is entitled to, not only a Hindu author/writer. But to utilise the publicity gained from presentations of the book, to set up an alternative to the wisdom and learning of the traditional acharyas is a grave mistake. This process may be unintentional but it is a warning sign to the Hindu Samaj. The present writer has written about this problem (The Second Front and Dharma, in bharatkalyan97blogspot ;www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com)
Here, not only is the writer of BD deceiving himself but is misleading the Hindu Samaj (it would seem), especially the youth of India. There might be some marginal utility for the Hindu youth in the diaspora, although even here a better way to go would be to present the arguments about the book as debating points with a view to self clarification before proceeding to the dialogue/debate with non Hindu adversaries. The basic methodology of the book is flawed because the Purva Paksha is limited to the 'gaze' at the adversary's view point not to its defeat. The reader must be reminded that the ancient Hindu science of debate Tarka Shastra, included a three fold Purva Paksha:
1. The statement of the adversary's position
2. The Khandan, which is the refutation of the adversary's position
3. Siddhanth, which is the statement of one's own position
If the Refutation is missing then the entire exercise is flawed from the viewpoint of dealing with the adversary, in this case the Christian adversary, specifically in Malhotra's public statements, the Jesuit scholar and professor of Divinity, Francis Xavier Clooney of Harvard University. One can extrapolate from the flawed methodology of the book to Shri Malhotra's general inability to take up a strong stance in Hindu Christian dialogue, which to date has not been in the Hindu interest. Not only is the Christian side unconvinced, but the entire exercise becomes a camouflage for ongoing proselytisation, which is clearly visible in India. In fact, Malhotra's public statements (see his blog in Huffington Post 12/27/11 ' Difference with Mutual Respect: A New Kind of Hindu Christian Dialogue') show a clear trail. Malhotra is wooing the enemy. It is not surprising then that he embraces Hindu Christian dialogue as one of his new missions in life. There is also clear evidence that Malhotra is not trained for such encounters as the present writer has pointed out in the article 'How not to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue' (Bharata Bharati & kalyan 97blogspot). This article is based on the surprising video of a so called dialogue/discussion with Clooney at the University of Massachussetts, Dartmouth (USA). The article demonstrates that Malhotra is no match for the learned and savvy Jesuit.
A quote from Malhotra in the Huffington Post blog is also quite revealing :
" One such dialogue has been with Father Francis Clooney, a noted Jesuit theologian and a leading professor of Religion at Harvard. Clooney not only took a good deal of time in 2010 to read through my entire manuscript and write me his useful comments, he and I have also responded to each other's public talks over the years and argued online. . . . ."
One of the earliest critics of Hindu Christian Dialogue, Sita Ram Goyal has correctly diagnosed the situation :
"We have also something to say about "dialogue" which has become the most famous as well as the most frequent word in current Christian parlance. The Second Vatican Council is supposed to have made a radical departure from the earlier Christian stand vis-a-vis other religions. "The Catholic Church" says a proclamation, Nostra aetate, dated October 28, 1965, "rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions (Hinduism and Buddhism). She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which although differing in many ways from her own teachings, often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and life. . . . " (Editor's Note: this was the same position that was pronounced in 1893 at the Parliament of Religions in Chicago --clarifying that other religions had a ray of the truth but Christianity was the real light)(Thus Swami Vivekananda was reduced to only a ray)
This is quoted from Vatican Council II : The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents edited by Austin Flannery, O.P., St.Paul {publications, Bombay 1983, p.668. Quoted in the Preface to the First Edition of Sita Ram Goyal's book Hindu Christian Encounters, 1996.}
The reader can keep in mind that Dr. Clooney is still a Jesuit, no matter his polite and diplomatic manner. He does not come with the word 'Conversion' blazoned on his forehead. Neverthless, all his activities are directed to the spread of the Christian doctrine.
Nothing has changed since Sita Ram Goyal wrote the above paragraph, despite the Church's diplomatic overtures. Conversion activity goes on apace in India. The Kanchi Shankaracharya Swami Jayendra Sarasvati has unambiguously stated that there cannot be interfaith dialogue unless conversion activity stops. In fact, as writer Tamizhchelvan has pointed out on several occasions the nefarious activities have only increased after the start of interfaith dialogue. The interfaith dialoguers have not stopped the inroads by the Church into the Hindu Samaj :
1. Stop the evangelisation and conversions
2. Stop the mushrooming of Christian NGOs
3. Stop the construction of Prayers and Churches near our Temples
4. Stop the Church from acquiring huge lands and properties
5. Stop the menace of Inculturation
6. Stop the flow of foreign money
(Tamizhchelvan's articles may be read in Bharata Bharati)
Hence, while the Hindu elite may entertain themselves with pretty pictures and fancy arguments of writers, the Hindu Samaj is covertly (and sometimes overtly) being encroached upon. In a recent article against interfaith dialogue scholar and writer Dr. Gautam Sen has observed that Hindus are in a struggle for survival ('Hindus under siege, fate of the Republic', www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com ).
The aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and mathas have been the backbone of Hindu civilisation. Weakening them and finally destroying them has been the ancient dream of the Church. That it will not happen is owing to the devotion of the aam admi to their ancestral religion and the spiritual strength and leadership of the traditional acharyas, gurus and mathas (as pointed out by Sandhya Jain in her article 'Hindu Christian Dialogue : What's in it for Hindus ?' in Vijayvaani & Bharata Bharathi). It is obligatory for diasporic Hindus not to weaken them in the face of the onslaught by the asuric forces. Personal ambition and vanity cannot become the issue.
(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva taught Political Philosophy for several years and served for several years on the part time faculty of a Canadian university and is now retired. She lives in Canada with her husband who is also an academic. Her current interests after retirement are in Indian history, culture and politics. She has written on Dharmic issues for such publications as Haindava Keralam. Her academic training is in Literature (B.A. Hons.), (M.Litt), University of Madras, India, Philosophy (M.A.), University of Madras, India),also another M.A. in Political Science (McGill University, Montreal, Canada), Political Economy & History (Ph.D) in Humanities, Concordia University, Montreal,Canada). She was a Danforth Indian Fellow at the University of Wisconsin, U.S.A. and has also taught at a college in Canada.
'Hindu Christian Dialogue and the Second Front against Dharma'
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
February 13, 2012
Friends, admirers and camp followers are well advised to be cautious with so called Tantric Hindu gurus of Nityananda fame, and desist from uncritical adulation. We have seen how over reaching oneself in Dharma is a clear and ever present danger, not merely to the individual but also the Hindu Samaj. Author and writer Rajiv Malhotra quite recently defended this person both in writing and videos. Had the man merely worn white (like Osho and his followers) he could have gotten away with his misdemeanours. The ochre robes of a Hindu sannyasin are only worn after a solemn ceremony known as viraja homa. The individual receives diksha from a saint or guru of unimpeachable spiritual attainment and ususally from a known sampradaya. One also recalls accounts of the solemn ceremony of the Paramahamsa handing the ochre robe to the young men who came by his cot, with Naren (the future Vivekananda) receiving it directly from his hands. The sannyasin is thereafter expected to lead an exemplary life.
The present writer has written about the second front against Dharma, where the individual (wittingly or unwittingly) sets himself up as an alternative to the traditional acharyas and gurus of Hinduism. Shri Malhotra's book "Being Different" (BD)could easily be presented as an interesting adventure of ideas which any one is entitled to, not only a Hindu author/writer. But to utilise the publicity gained from presentations of the book, to set up an alternative to the wisdom and learning of the traditional acharyas is a grave mistake. This process may be unintentional but it is a warning sign to the Hindu Samaj. The present writer has written about this problem (The Second Front and Dharma, in bharatkalyan97blogspot ;www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com)
Here, not only is the writer of BD deceiving himself but is misleading the Hindu Samaj (it would seem), especially the youth of India. There might be some marginal utility for the Hindu youth in the diaspora, although even here a better way to go would be to present the arguments about the book as debating points with a view to self clarification before proceeding to the dialogue/debate with non Hindu adversaries. The basic methodology of the book is flawed because the Purva Paksha is limited to the 'gaze' at the adversary's view point not to its defeat. The reader must be reminded that the ancient Hindu science of debate Tarka Shastra, included a three fold Purva Paksha:
1. The statement of the adversary's position
2. The Khandan, which is the refutation of the adversary's position
3. Siddhanth, which is the statement of one's own position
If the Refutation is missing then the entire exercise is flawed from the viewpoint of dealing with the adversary, in this case the Christian adversary, specifically in Malhotra's public statements, the Jesuit scholar and professor of Divinity, Francis Xavier Clooney of Harvard University. One can extrapolate from the flawed methodology of the book to Shri Malhotra's general inability to take up a strong stance in Hindu Christian dialogue, which to date has not been in the Hindu interest. Not only is the Christian side unconvinced, but the entire exercise becomes a camouflage for ongoing proselytisation, which is clearly visible in India. In fact, Malhotra's public statements (see his blog in Huffington Post 12/27/11 ' Difference with Mutual Respect: A New Kind of Hindu Christian Dialogue') show a clear trail. Malhotra is wooing the enemy. It is not surprising then that he embraces Hindu Christian dialogue as one of his new missions in life. There is also clear evidence that Malhotra is not trained for such encounters as the present writer has pointed out in the article 'How not to engage in Hindu Christian Dialogue' (Bharata Bharati & kalyan 97blogspot). This article is based on the surprising video of a so called dialogue/discussion with Clooney at the University of Massachussetts, Dartmouth (USA). The article demonstrates that Malhotra is no match for the learned and savvy Jesuit.
A quote from Malhotra in the Huffington Post blog is also quite revealing :
" One such dialogue has been with Father Francis Clooney, a noted Jesuit theologian and a leading professor of Religion at Harvard. Clooney not only took a good deal of time in 2010 to read through my entire manuscript and write me his useful comments, he and I have also responded to each other's public talks over the years and argued online. . . . ."
One of the earliest critics of Hindu Christian Dialogue, Sita Ram Goyal has correctly diagnosed the situation :
"We have also something to say about "dialogue" which has become the most famous as well as the most frequent word in current Christian parlance. The Second Vatican Council is supposed to have made a radical departure from the earlier Christian stand vis-a-vis other religions. "The Catholic Church" says a proclamation, Nostra aetate, dated October 28, 1965, "rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions (Hinduism and Buddhism). She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which although differing in many ways from her own teachings, often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and life. . . . " (Editor's Note: this was the same position that was pronounced in 1893 at the Parliament of Religions in Chicago --clarifying that other religions had a ray of the truth but Christianity was the real light)(Thus Swami Vivekananda was reduced to only a ray)
This is quoted from Vatican Council II : The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents edited by Austin Flannery, O.P., St.Paul {publications, Bombay 1983, p.668. Quoted in the Preface to the First Edition of Sita Ram Goyal's book Hindu Christian Encounters, 1996.}
The reader can keep in mind that Dr. Clooney is still a Jesuit, no matter his polite and diplomatic manner. He does not come with the word 'Conversion' blazoned on his forehead. Neverthless, all his activities are directed to the spread of the Christian doctrine.
Nothing has changed since Sita Ram Goyal wrote the above paragraph, despite the Church's diplomatic overtures. Conversion activity goes on apace in India. The Kanchi Shankaracharya Swami Jayendra Sarasvati has unambiguously stated that there cannot be interfaith dialogue unless conversion activity stops. In fact, as writer Tamizhchelvan has pointed out on several occasions the nefarious activities have only increased after the start of interfaith dialogue. The interfaith dialoguers have not stopped the inroads by the Church into the Hindu Samaj :
1. Stop the evangelisation and conversions
2. Stop the mushrooming of Christian NGOs
3. Stop the construction of Prayers and Churches near our Temples
4. Stop the Church from acquiring huge lands and properties
5. Stop the menace of Inculturation
6. Stop the flow of foreign money
(Tamizhchelvan's articles may be read in Bharata Bharati)
Hence, while the Hindu elite may entertain themselves with pretty pictures and fancy arguments of writers, the Hindu Samaj is covertly (and sometimes overtly) being encroached upon. In a recent article against interfaith dialogue scholar and writer Dr. Gautam Sen has observed that Hindus are in a struggle for survival ('Hindus under siege, fate of the Republic', www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com ).
The aam admi Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and mathas have been the backbone of Hindu civilisation. Weakening them and finally destroying them has been the ancient dream of the Church. That it will not happen is owing to the devotion of the aam admi to their ancestral religion and the spiritual strength and leadership of the traditional acharyas, gurus and mathas (as pointed out by Sandhya Jain in her article 'Hindu Christian Dialogue : What's in it for Hindus ?' in Vijayvaani & Bharata Bharathi). It is obligatory for diasporic Hindus not to weaken them in the face of the onslaught by the asuric forces. Personal ambition and vanity cannot become the issue.
(Dr. Vijaya Rajiva taught Political Philosophy for several years and served for several years on the part time faculty of a Canadian university and is now retired. She lives in Canada with her husband who is also an academic. Her current interests after retirement are in Indian history, culture and politics. She has written on Dharmic issues for such publications as Haindava Keralam. Her academic training is in Literature (B.A. Hons.), (M.Litt), University of Madras, India, Philosophy (M.A.), University of Madras, India),also another M.A. in Political Science (McGill University, Montreal, Canada), Political Economy & History (Ph.D) in Humanities, Concordia University, Montreal,Canada). She was a Danforth Indian Fellow at the University of Wisconsin, U.S.A. and has also taught at a college in Canada.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
SANYASA-TANTRA SNAKE OIL SALESMEN LEADERS FOR DHARMA IN USA ?
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/02/second-front-and-dharma-dr-vijaya.html
9.2.12
'The Second Front and Dharma'
by
- Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Feb. 9, 2012
Osho had the good sense to wear white and so did his followers at the ashram in Pune. But recently we had the spectacle of an individual donning the ochre robes of a sannyasin and indulging in acts that brought shame to the Hindu Samaj. It was left to other people to do damage control and try to peddle this as some form of Tantric Hinduism ! The Hindu Samaj was not impressed. There is a moral here for all those who over reach themselves in the world of Dharma. For example, author and writer Rajiv Malhotra would like to usurp the role of a traditional acharya and explain the difference between Spirit and Shakti, as if it were a brand new insight. This adventure of ideas would be perfectly valid for a writer if it was presented as such by the writer, rather than as an attempt to supercede the traditional acharya by what seems to him to be a world shaking discovery. It is world shaking to someone who is both an autodidact overwhelmed by what he sees as his own achievements ( a weakness with most, though not all autodidacts) and a novice in the world of spiritual life.
In an article in Sookta Sumana Mr. Mahotra writes that several Hindu dharma gurus and organisations have in most cases succumbed to mapping Dharma on to Western universalism. He does not indicate which ones, but more importantly, he ignores the thousands of traditional acharyas who expound Dharma authentically to the Hindu Samaj and who have no interest in mapping anything on to Western universalism, let alone Dharma ! The author has no time for them since he is self absorbed in his own redefinition of Dharma and what its purpose should be. Further, it is clear that he has a small select group in mind who will "teach dharma internally, i.e. to the next generation. " Even more revealing is the "way they represent dharma externally in a variety of bodies- such as interfaith dialogue forums, academic religious studies forums, and policy making forums that include international as well as national"( 'Re-clarifying what Being Different is and is not', Tue., Sookta-Sumana.blogspot.com, Feb.7, 2012).
The cat is out of the bag. Shri Malhotra wishes to (1) bypass the traditional acharyas, (2) train some up for interfaith dialogue,(3) and appear at international forums. The traditional acharyas's role of expounding dharma to the Hindu Samaj is entirely circumvented in this new enterprise.
Why is this dangerous to the Hindu Samaj ?
The traditional acharyas, gurus,maths and the aam admi Hindu have been and will continue to be the backbone of the Hindu Samaj. Weakening them and eventually destroying them has been the age old dream of the proselytising religions. Their ongoing life has been described in various negative ways by deracinated Hindus and in the past by such eminences as Max Mueller and Macaulay whose precise aim was to destroy Hinduism. Any Hindu who attempts to repeat this enterprise, whatever the idiom and the arguments advanced, is playing into the hands of these nefarious elements.
What is Mr. Malhotra's motive in embarking on this ill starred enterprise ? Merely the vanity of an author ? Delusions of grandeur? A self absorption that prevents him from seeing what is evident to any thinking observer ? He happens to be the current CHEERLEADER of the misguided enterprise and therefore is now the target of criticism and rightly so.
From Adi Sankara to Swami Vivekananda and from thence to present day traditional acharyas who are engaged in sterling service to the Hindu Samaj there is a deep spirituality to their work. Should the Hindu Samaj be distracted and misled by the new entrepreneurs who have neither the learning nor the spirituality to provide any leadership to the Samaj , especially when there is no noticeable lacunae in that domain ? The Hindu Samaj should be careful before they are led into artificial battles, ill thought out strategies and downright imbecilities.
The inroads made into Hindu society by the asuric forces are being made since the start of something called interfaith dialogue. Writers such as Tamizhchelvan, Radha Rajan, Sandhya Jain and others have written in detail about this problem. Now, we have the second front of diasporic Hindus (wittingly or unwittingly) engaging in the sale of damaged goods. The Hindu elite can be entertained in a variety of ways and writers such as Malhotra should make this clear. Their adventure of ideas should be presented as such and not as a substitute for the work of authentic acharyas. Tampering with the indigenous tradition by creating bluster and din is a hostile act towards the Hindu Samaj (whether the author subjectively believes it to be otherwise).
A forceful writer George Thundiparambil has written a trenchant critique of Malhotra's involvement with interfaith dialogue and ends with the hope that the author would do prayaschitt. The present writer echoes that hope. Meanwhile, the equally serious issue of flooding the Indian market with damaged goods when the authentic ones are already there must be addressed. Any dispassionate observer of the scene will realise what is being attempted and it must be resisted.
(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://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/02/inter-faith-dialogue-unveiling-of.html
7.2.12
9.2.12
'The Second Front and Dharma'
by
- Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Feb. 9, 2012
Osho had the good sense to wear white and so did his followers at the ashram in Pune. But recently we had the spectacle of an individual donning the ochre robes of a sannyasin and indulging in acts that brought shame to the Hindu Samaj. It was left to other people to do damage control and try to peddle this as some form of Tantric Hinduism ! The Hindu Samaj was not impressed. There is a moral here for all those who over reach themselves in the world of Dharma. For example, author and writer Rajiv Malhotra would like to usurp the role of a traditional acharya and explain the difference between Spirit and Shakti, as if it were a brand new insight. This adventure of ideas would be perfectly valid for a writer if it was presented as such by the writer, rather than as an attempt to supercede the traditional acharya by what seems to him to be a world shaking discovery. It is world shaking to someone who is both an autodidact overwhelmed by what he sees as his own achievements ( a weakness with most, though not all autodidacts) and a novice in the world of spiritual life.
In an article in Sookta Sumana Mr. Mahotra writes that several Hindu dharma gurus and organisations have in most cases succumbed to mapping Dharma on to Western universalism. He does not indicate which ones, but more importantly, he ignores the thousands of traditional acharyas who expound Dharma authentically to the Hindu Samaj and who have no interest in mapping anything on to Western universalism, let alone Dharma ! The author has no time for them since he is self absorbed in his own redefinition of Dharma and what its purpose should be. Further, it is clear that he has a small select group in mind who will "teach dharma internally, i.e. to the next generation. " Even more revealing is the "way they represent dharma externally in a variety of bodies- such as interfaith dialogue forums, academic religious studies forums, and policy making forums that include international as well as national"( 'Re-clarifying what Being Different is and is not', Tue., Sookta-Sumana.blogspot.com, Feb.7, 2012).
The cat is out of the bag. Shri Malhotra wishes to (1) bypass the traditional acharyas, (2) train some up for interfaith dialogue,(3) and appear at international forums. The traditional acharyas's role of expounding dharma to the Hindu Samaj is entirely circumvented in this new enterprise.
Why is this dangerous to the Hindu Samaj ?
The traditional acharyas, gurus,maths and the aam admi Hindu have been and will continue to be the backbone of the Hindu Samaj. Weakening them and eventually destroying them has been the age old dream of the proselytising religions. Their ongoing life has been described in various negative ways by deracinated Hindus and in the past by such eminences as Max Mueller and Macaulay whose precise aim was to destroy Hinduism. Any Hindu who attempts to repeat this enterprise, whatever the idiom and the arguments advanced, is playing into the hands of these nefarious elements.
What is Mr. Malhotra's motive in embarking on this ill starred enterprise ? Merely the vanity of an author ? Delusions of grandeur? A self absorption that prevents him from seeing what is evident to any thinking observer ? He happens to be the current CHEERLEADER of the misguided enterprise and therefore is now the target of criticism and rightly so.
From Adi Sankara to Swami Vivekananda and from thence to present day traditional acharyas who are engaged in sterling service to the Hindu Samaj there is a deep spirituality to their work. Should the Hindu Samaj be distracted and misled by the new entrepreneurs who have neither the learning nor the spirituality to provide any leadership to the Samaj , especially when there is no noticeable lacunae in that domain ? The Hindu Samaj should be careful before they are led into artificial battles, ill thought out strategies and downright imbecilities.
The inroads made into Hindu society by the asuric forces are being made since the start of something called interfaith dialogue. Writers such as Tamizhchelvan, Radha Rajan, Sandhya Jain and others have written in detail about this problem. Now, we have the second front of diasporic Hindus (wittingly or unwittingly) engaging in the sale of damaged goods. The Hindu elite can be entertained in a variety of ways and writers such as Malhotra should make this clear. Their adventure of ideas should be presented as such and not as a substitute for the work of authentic acharyas. Tampering with the indigenous tradition by creating bluster and din is a hostile act towards the Hindu Samaj (whether the author subjectively believes it to be otherwise).
A forceful writer George Thundiparambil has written a trenchant critique of Malhotra's involvement with interfaith dialogue and ends with the hope that the author would do prayaschitt. The present writer echoes that hope. Meanwhile, the equally serious issue of flooding the Indian market with damaged goods when the authentic ones are already there must be addressed. Any dispassionate observer of the scene will realise what is being attempted and it must be resisted.
(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://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/02/inter-faith-dialogue-unveiling-of.html
7.2.12
Friday, February 10, 2012
THOUSANDS OF CLOSE-KNIT VARNA, KULA, JATIS, SAMPRADAYAS OF DEVOTEES OF THOUSANDS OF DEVATAS ARE THE REAL STRENGTH GIVEN BY PITRUS BUT STOP THE ENEMY
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/02/stopping-enemy-at-gates-dr-vijaya.html
8.2.12
'Stopping the enemy at the gates'
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Feb. 8, 2012
The recent debacle of fraudulent interfaith dialogue has led practitoners of the same to restate their goals, so it would seem. One hopes this is not a temporary phenomenon. Getting individuals from other faiths to ask questions about Hinduism is something done in many departments of religion at Western universities (some Hindus presumably are not aware of this) and has been done for several years since the establishment of these departments several decades ago). This has not changed their views about Hinduism. Similarly, the marketing of Hinduism to Indian youth in its present feverish form, remains an elitist project, which will provide cover to the enemy. The acid test of these efforts will come only when, like the platform of Economic Nationalism which some able economists have argued for in India, there is a solid building of Dharmic concepts and ideas working from the ground up. At present those who make a lot of noise are ill equipped for that. As for Leftists from universities they may simply be fishing in troubled waters and are not to be taken seriously. Will they vote for a pro Hindu government ? And those who come forward with new ways of presenting Dharma must surely be well trained at the very least, and not merely engaging in an adventure of ideas. Otherwise they may be selling damaged goods. It also calls for a respectful attitude to the aam admi Hindu who practises his/her religion and to the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, their protection and reinforcement (the present writer has talked about this in various articles). A mere marketing of superficial dialogue and discussion may seem like Walmart salesmanship and will be attempted only by those who are oriented towards such marketing activity. It will not stop the enemy at the gates, who will enter not only by the front door but also by the backdoor provided by merchants of new fangled methods. Hence, while fraudulent interfaith dialogues with Western theologians is temporarily on the backburner, there is no guarantee that it will not resurface again, when the opportunity presents itself. If interfaith dialogue comes, can Clooney be far behind ? Hopefully enthusiasts of this activity will continue to abandon that path as quickly as possible. The SECOND and RELATED danger is the confusion of genuine Hindu activism with a sell of superficial products. Both of these have to be interrogated, however inconvenient it may be to those who advocate this dual approach. On the one hand, fraudulent interfaith dialogue and the other the sale of damaged goods.
The destructive advent of Christianity in India began early through the activity of Syrian and Persian refugees in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries who destroyed Hindu temples. This has been pointed out by Ishwar Sharan in his interview with journalist Rajeev Srinivasan ( the interview can be read at Bharata Bharati ).It has continued since then in unremitting criticism and where possible the destruction of Hinduism's temples and icons. While in the past it has been accompanied by genuine ignorance of
Hinduism and the feverish colonial project of the economic exploitation of India, and the accompanying destruction of its educational system, today Western scholars are fully aware of Hinduism's intellectual and spiritual achievements. Hence, when they misrepresent or misappropriate Hinduism, it is done quite deliberately, a ploy, and with a view to overcome the Hindu adversary. Here, it is not enough, therefore, to stop with apologetics and appeasement. There has to be a systematic and concerted attack (metaphorically speaking) on the enemy. Internally, the buzz and excitement of sales activity in Dharmic issues also has to be monitored carefully. Some of it may turn out to be useful, but it has to be monitored so that it does not become the equivalent of FDI in retail.
The writer Tamizhchelvan has put the problem squarely before the Hindu Samaj. None of the high fliers have been able to stop the inroads made by the enemies of the Hindu Samaj. They have been unable to stop :
1. Stop evangelisation and conversions
2. Stop the mushrooming of Christian NGOs
3. Stop the construction of Prayer Halls and Churches near our temples
4. Stop athe Church from acquiring huge lands and properties
5. Stop the menace of Inculturation
6. Stop the flow of foreign money
And they will be unable to do so if they focus merely on the surface equivalent of FDI in the economic sphere. This should be a timely warning to the Hindu Samaj not to be carried away by superficial marketing methods. Fortunately, there are vigilant Hindus who are on the alert and who will sound the alarm bells when necessary. This will not be to the liking of certain individuals but it cannot be helped. Fortunately, for the Hindu Samaj, the bluster of fraudulent interfaith dialogue has been stopped, for the time being. The second front encouraged by the enemy is the marketing of possibly damaged goods. Bluster and din can be great camouflaging strategies.
One asks what it is that Hindu Samaj is defending. The answer has been put succintly and eloquently and most recently by journalist Sandhya Jain:
" India has hitherto withstood the missionary assault because of the devotion of the ordinary citizen, especially the denizens of villages and tribal hamlets, to their ancestral faith as represented by the grama devatas, kula devatas and sthana devatas who form a protective shiled around their devotees and save them from harm. Then, there are the great gods in the larger temples and peeths and pilgrimages which gird the whole country in a protective grid, along with the spiritual strength and leadership of the traditional acharyas, gurus, maths and so on."
( Sandhya Jain ' Inter-faith Dialogue : What's in it for Hindus ?' in Bharata Bharathi, January 12, 2018 & also in http:kalyan97blogspot)
This may throw the marketeers of new fangled salesmanship off because it lacks glamour and excitement. It lacks publicity. It goes on apace, and must be allowed to do so. It has been the backbone of Hindu civilisation and will continue to be so long after the merchants of fraudulent dialogue and discussion have vanished, along with their wares. Meanwhile, their activities may provide cover for the enemy.
(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).
8.2.12
'Stopping the enemy at the gates'
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Feb. 8, 2012
The recent debacle of fraudulent interfaith dialogue has led practitoners of the same to restate their goals, so it would seem. One hopes this is not a temporary phenomenon. Getting individuals from other faiths to ask questions about Hinduism is something done in many departments of religion at Western universities (some Hindus presumably are not aware of this) and has been done for several years since the establishment of these departments several decades ago). This has not changed their views about Hinduism. Similarly, the marketing of Hinduism to Indian youth in its present feverish form, remains an elitist project, which will provide cover to the enemy. The acid test of these efforts will come only when, like the platform of Economic Nationalism which some able economists have argued for in India, there is a solid building of Dharmic concepts and ideas working from the ground up. At present those who make a lot of noise are ill equipped for that. As for Leftists from universities they may simply be fishing in troubled waters and are not to be taken seriously. Will they vote for a pro Hindu government ? And those who come forward with new ways of presenting Dharma must surely be well trained at the very least, and not merely engaging in an adventure of ideas. Otherwise they may be selling damaged goods. It also calls for a respectful attitude to the aam admi Hindu who practises his/her religion and to the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, their protection and reinforcement (the present writer has talked about this in various articles). A mere marketing of superficial dialogue and discussion may seem like Walmart salesmanship and will be attempted only by those who are oriented towards such marketing activity. It will not stop the enemy at the gates, who will enter not only by the front door but also by the backdoor provided by merchants of new fangled methods. Hence, while fraudulent interfaith dialogues with Western theologians is temporarily on the backburner, there is no guarantee that it will not resurface again, when the opportunity presents itself. If interfaith dialogue comes, can Clooney be far behind ? Hopefully enthusiasts of this activity will continue to abandon that path as quickly as possible. The SECOND and RELATED danger is the confusion of genuine Hindu activism with a sell of superficial products. Both of these have to be interrogated, however inconvenient it may be to those who advocate this dual approach. On the one hand, fraudulent interfaith dialogue and the other the sale of damaged goods.
The destructive advent of Christianity in India began early through the activity of Syrian and Persian refugees in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries who destroyed Hindu temples. This has been pointed out by Ishwar Sharan in his interview with journalist Rajeev Srinivasan ( the interview can be read at Bharata Bharati ).It has continued since then in unremitting criticism and where possible the destruction of Hinduism's temples and icons. While in the past it has been accompanied by genuine ignorance of
Hinduism and the feverish colonial project of the economic exploitation of India, and the accompanying destruction of its educational system, today Western scholars are fully aware of Hinduism's intellectual and spiritual achievements. Hence, when they misrepresent or misappropriate Hinduism, it is done quite deliberately, a ploy, and with a view to overcome the Hindu adversary. Here, it is not enough, therefore, to stop with apologetics and appeasement. There has to be a systematic and concerted attack (metaphorically speaking) on the enemy. Internally, the buzz and excitement of sales activity in Dharmic issues also has to be monitored carefully. Some of it may turn out to be useful, but it has to be monitored so that it does not become the equivalent of FDI in retail.
The writer Tamizhchelvan has put the problem squarely before the Hindu Samaj. None of the high fliers have been able to stop the inroads made by the enemies of the Hindu Samaj. They have been unable to stop :
1. Stop evangelisation and conversions
2. Stop the mushrooming of Christian NGOs
3. Stop the construction of Prayer Halls and Churches near our temples
4. Stop athe Church from acquiring huge lands and properties
5. Stop the menace of Inculturation
6. Stop the flow of foreign money
And they will be unable to do so if they focus merely on the surface equivalent of FDI in the economic sphere. This should be a timely warning to the Hindu Samaj not to be carried away by superficial marketing methods. Fortunately, there are vigilant Hindus who are on the alert and who will sound the alarm bells when necessary. This will not be to the liking of certain individuals but it cannot be helped. Fortunately, for the Hindu Samaj, the bluster of fraudulent interfaith dialogue has been stopped, for the time being. The second front encouraged by the enemy is the marketing of possibly damaged goods. Bluster and din can be great camouflaging strategies.
One asks what it is that Hindu Samaj is defending. The answer has been put succintly and eloquently and most recently by journalist Sandhya Jain:
" India has hitherto withstood the missionary assault because of the devotion of the ordinary citizen, especially the denizens of villages and tribal hamlets, to their ancestral faith as represented by the grama devatas, kula devatas and sthana devatas who form a protective shiled around their devotees and save them from harm. Then, there are the great gods in the larger temples and peeths and pilgrimages which gird the whole country in a protective grid, along with the spiritual strength and leadership of the traditional acharyas, gurus, maths and so on."
( Sandhya Jain ' Inter-faith Dialogue : What's in it for Hindus ?' in Bharata Bharathi, January 12, 2018 & also in http:kalyan97blogspot)
This may throw the marketeers of new fangled salesmanship off because it lacks glamour and excitement. It lacks publicity. It goes on apace, and must be allowed to do so. It has been the backbone of Hindu civilisation and will continue to be so long after the merchants of fraudulent dialogue and discussion have vanished, along with their wares. Meanwhile, their activities may provide cover for the enemy.
(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, February 8, 2012
FRAUDULENT INSTITUTIONALIZED INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE IS NOT THE SAME AS NON-BUDGING IMPROMPTU CONVERSATION WITH PROSELYTIZING MISSIONARIES WHO VISIT YOU
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/02/stopping-enemy-at-gates-dr-vijaya.html
8.2.12
'Stopping the enemy at the gates'
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Feb. 8, 2012
The recent debacle of fraudulent interfaith dialogue has led practitoners of the same to restate their goals, so it would seem. One hopes this is not a temporary phenomenon. Getting individuals from other faiths to ask questions about Hinduism is something done in many departments of religion at Western universities (some Hindus presumably are not aware of this) and it has been done for several years since the establishment of these departments several decades ago). This has not changed their views about Hinduism. Similarly, the marketing of Hinduism to Indian youth in its present feverish form, remains an elitist project, which will provide cover to the enemy. The acid test of these efforts will come only when, like the platform of Economic Nationalism which some able economists have argued for in India, there is a solid building of Dharmic concepts and ideas working from the ground up. At present those who make a lot of noise are ill equipped for that. As for Leftists from universities they may simply be fishing in troubled waters and are not to be taken seriously. Will they vote for a pro Hindu government ? And those who come forward with new ways of presenting Dharma must surely be well trained at the very least, and not merely engaging in an adventure of ideas. Otherwise they may be selling damaged goods. It also calls for a respectful attitude to the aam admi Hindu who practises his/her religion and to the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, their protection and reinforcement (the present writer has talked about this in various articles). A mere marketing of superficial dialogue and discussion may seem like Walmart salesmanship and will be attempted only by those who are oriented towards such marketing activity. It will not stop the enemy at the gates, who will enter not only by the front door but also by the backdoor provided by merchants of new fangled methods. Hence, while fraudulent interfaith dialogues with Western theologians is temporarily on the backburner, there is no guarantee that it will not resurface again, when the opportunity presents itself. If interfaith dialogue comes, can Clooney be far behind ? Hopefully enthusiasts of this activity will continue to abandon that path as quickly as possible. The SECOND and RELATED danger is the confusion of genuine Hindu activism with a sell of superficial products. Both of these have to be interrogated, however inconvenient it may be to those who advocate this dual approach, on the one hand fraudulent interfaith dialogue and on the other the sale of damaged goods.
The destructive advent of Christianity in India began early through the activity of Syrian and Persian refugees in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries who destroyed Hindu temples. This has been pointed out by Ishwar Sharan in his interview with journalist Rajeev Srinivasan ( the interview can be read at Bharata Bharati ). It has continued since then in unremitting criticism and where possible the destruction of Hinduism's temples and icons. While in the past it has been accompanied by genuine ignorance of
Hinduism and the feverish colonial project of the economic exploitation of India, and the accompanying destruction of its educational system, today Western scholars are fully aware of Hinduism's intellectual and spiritual achievements. Hence, when they misrepresent or misappropriate Hinduism, it is done quite deliberately, a ploy, and with a view to overcome the Hindu adversary. Here, it is not enough therefore to stop with apologetics and appeasement. There has to be a systematic and concerted attack (metaphorically speaking) on the enemy. Internally, the buzz and excitement of sales activity in Dharmic issues also has to be monitored carefully. Some of it may turn out to be useful, but it has to be monitored so that it does not become the equivalent of FDI in retail.
The writer Tamizhchelvan has put the problem squarely before the Hindu Samaj. None of the high fliers have been able to stop the inroads made by the enemies of the Hindu Samaj. They have been unable to stop :
1. Stop evangelisation and conversions
2. Stop the mushrooming of Christian NGOs
3. Stop the construction of Prayer Halls and Churches near our temples
4. Stop the Church from acquiring huge lands and properties
5. Stop the menace of Inculturation
6. Stop the flow of foreign money
And they will be unable to do so if they focus merely on the surface equivalent of FDI in the economic sphere. This should be a timely warning to the Hindu Samaj not to be carried away by superficial marketing methods. Fortunately, there are vigilant Hindus who are on the alert and who will sound the alarm bells when necessary. This will not be to the liking of certain individuals but it cannot be helped. Fortunately, for the Hindu Samaj, the bluster of fraudulent interfaith dialogue has been stopped, for the time being. The second front encouraged by the enemy is the marketing of possibly damaged goods. Bluster and din can be great camouflaging strategies.
One asks what it is that Hindu Samaj is defending. The answer has been put succintly and eloquently and most recently by journalist Sandhya Jain:
"India has hitherto withstood the missionary assault because of the devotion of the ordinary citizen, especially the denizens of villages and tribal hamlets, to their ancestral faith as represented by the grama devatas, kula devatas and sthana devatas who form a protective shiled around their devotees and save them from harm. Then, there are the great gods in the larger temples and peeths and pilgrimages which gird the whole country in a protective grid, along with the spiritual strength and leadership of the traditional acharyas, gurus, maths and so on."
( Sandhya Jain ' Inter-faith Dialogue : What's in it for Hindus ?' in Bharata Bharathi, January 12, 2018 & also in http:kalyan97blogspot)
This may throw the marketeers of new fangled salesmanship off because it lacks glamour and excitement. It lacks publicity. It goes on apace, and must be allowed to do so. It has been the backbone of Hindu civilisation and will continue to be so long after the merchants of fraudulent "dialogue" and discussion have vanished, along with their wares. Meanwhile, their activities may provide cover for the enemy.
(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).
8.2.12
'Stopping the enemy at the gates'
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Feb. 8, 2012
The recent debacle of fraudulent interfaith dialogue has led practitoners of the same to restate their goals, so it would seem. One hopes this is not a temporary phenomenon. Getting individuals from other faiths to ask questions about Hinduism is something done in many departments of religion at Western universities (some Hindus presumably are not aware of this) and it has been done for several years since the establishment of these departments several decades ago). This has not changed their views about Hinduism. Similarly, the marketing of Hinduism to Indian youth in its present feverish form, remains an elitist project, which will provide cover to the enemy. The acid test of these efforts will come only when, like the platform of Economic Nationalism which some able economists have argued for in India, there is a solid building of Dharmic concepts and ideas working from the ground up. At present those who make a lot of noise are ill equipped for that. As for Leftists from universities they may simply be fishing in troubled waters and are not to be taken seriously. Will they vote for a pro Hindu government ? And those who come forward with new ways of presenting Dharma must surely be well trained at the very least, and not merely engaging in an adventure of ideas. Otherwise they may be selling damaged goods. It also calls for a respectful attitude to the aam admi Hindu who practises his/her religion and to the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, their protection and reinforcement (the present writer has talked about this in various articles). A mere marketing of superficial dialogue and discussion may seem like Walmart salesmanship and will be attempted only by those who are oriented towards such marketing activity. It will not stop the enemy at the gates, who will enter not only by the front door but also by the backdoor provided by merchants of new fangled methods. Hence, while fraudulent interfaith dialogues with Western theologians is temporarily on the backburner, there is no guarantee that it will not resurface again, when the opportunity presents itself. If interfaith dialogue comes, can Clooney be far behind ? Hopefully enthusiasts of this activity will continue to abandon that path as quickly as possible. The SECOND and RELATED danger is the confusion of genuine Hindu activism with a sell of superficial products. Both of these have to be interrogated, however inconvenient it may be to those who advocate this dual approach, on the one hand fraudulent interfaith dialogue and on the other the sale of damaged goods.
The destructive advent of Christianity in India began early through the activity of Syrian and Persian refugees in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries who destroyed Hindu temples. This has been pointed out by Ishwar Sharan in his interview with journalist Rajeev Srinivasan ( the interview can be read at Bharata Bharati ). It has continued since then in unremitting criticism and where possible the destruction of Hinduism's temples and icons. While in the past it has been accompanied by genuine ignorance of
Hinduism and the feverish colonial project of the economic exploitation of India, and the accompanying destruction of its educational system, today Western scholars are fully aware of Hinduism's intellectual and spiritual achievements. Hence, when they misrepresent or misappropriate Hinduism, it is done quite deliberately, a ploy, and with a view to overcome the Hindu adversary. Here, it is not enough therefore to stop with apologetics and appeasement. There has to be a systematic and concerted attack (metaphorically speaking) on the enemy. Internally, the buzz and excitement of sales activity in Dharmic issues also has to be monitored carefully. Some of it may turn out to be useful, but it has to be monitored so that it does not become the equivalent of FDI in retail.
The writer Tamizhchelvan has put the problem squarely before the Hindu Samaj. None of the high fliers have been able to stop the inroads made by the enemies of the Hindu Samaj. They have been unable to stop :
1. Stop evangelisation and conversions
2. Stop the mushrooming of Christian NGOs
3. Stop the construction of Prayer Halls and Churches near our temples
4. Stop the Church from acquiring huge lands and properties
5. Stop the menace of Inculturation
6. Stop the flow of foreign money
And they will be unable to do so if they focus merely on the surface equivalent of FDI in the economic sphere. This should be a timely warning to the Hindu Samaj not to be carried away by superficial marketing methods. Fortunately, there are vigilant Hindus who are on the alert and who will sound the alarm bells when necessary. This will not be to the liking of certain individuals but it cannot be helped. Fortunately, for the Hindu Samaj, the bluster of fraudulent interfaith dialogue has been stopped, for the time being. The second front encouraged by the enemy is the marketing of possibly damaged goods. Bluster and din can be great camouflaging strategies.
One asks what it is that Hindu Samaj is defending. The answer has been put succintly and eloquently and most recently by journalist Sandhya Jain:
"India has hitherto withstood the missionary assault because of the devotion of the ordinary citizen, especially the denizens of villages and tribal hamlets, to their ancestral faith as represented by the grama devatas, kula devatas and sthana devatas who form a protective shiled around their devotees and save them from harm. Then, there are the great gods in the larger temples and peeths and pilgrimages which gird the whole country in a protective grid, along with the spiritual strength and leadership of the traditional acharyas, gurus, maths and so on."
( Sandhya Jain ' Inter-faith Dialogue : What's in it for Hindus ?' in Bharata Bharathi, January 12, 2018 & also in http:kalyan97blogspot)
This may throw the marketeers of new fangled salesmanship off because it lacks glamour and excitement. It lacks publicity. It goes on apace, and must be allowed to do so. It has been the backbone of Hindu civilisation and will continue to be so long after the merchants of fraudulent "dialogue" and discussion have vanished, along with their wares. Meanwhile, their activities may provide cover for the enemy.
(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).
HARVARD BRAND VATICAN INTELLECTUAL GREASE TO PAINLESSLY PENETRATE THE VICTIM OF EVANGELICAL JIHAD
Inter-faith Dialogue: Unveiling of postmodern evangelisation - George Augustine
Inter-faith Dialogue: Unveiling of postmodern evangelization
by
George Augustine
7 February 2012
“Dialogue” according to Merriam-Webster, is “a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution”. Other definitions of “dialogue” are unacceptable as religious terminology is used and the event is promoted as “interfaith” dialogue and not just a chat between two friends. Hence the questions: what is the motive and purpose behind layman Rajiv Malhotra’s “Hindu-Christian dialogue” with Francis X. Clooney, a Reverend of the formidable Society of Jesus; and does it fulfil its purpose?
In this “interfaith” dialogue, it is unclear whether there is a dispute or a reconciliation. Had the title of this dialogue been “Malhotra-Clooney dialogue” rather than “Hindu-Christian dialogue”, there would not have been any doubt on anybody’s part, let alone an argument. Furthermore, Hindu-Christian dialogues, if any, should be first directed towards the resolution of their existing conflict. As such, this dialogue cannot be dismissed like a coffee house chat. This is necessitated because the track record of one of the parties represented here is horrendous in terms of aggression and predatory tendencies that are inherent in its dogma and basic principles. Do leopards change their spots? To satisfy the world at large, some questions have to be answered by both the partners:
1. What according to the two dialogue partners is the purpose and motive of this dialogue?
2. Are these two dialogue partners true representatives of their respective religious viewpoints?
3. Malhotra says this is a “new kind of dialog”, how is it different from the old?
Hindus who feel their religion is threatened by Christians are justified in demanding correct answers to these questions. So do others who doubt it is kosher for Christians to dabble in Hindu mysticism and on the sly go all out on a conversion binge.
So our next step is to find out how Malhotra or Clooney answer these questions as much as can be deduced from this dialogue and their statements available in the public domain. Before we move on to that, here is a brief introduction to the two dialogue partners. They are well known in their respective circles and are well versed with each other’s arguments. They know each other for over a decade.
Rajiv Malhotra has been a regular blogger and spokesman for years of at least a small section of the migrant Hindu community settled in the US, besides being a successful and respectable entrepreneur. Malhotra is also an author of books and his writings have been characterised so far by their persistence in pursuing his goal of achieving a status for American Hindus on par with his white Christian fellowmen, without succumbing to the arrogant ministrations of a savage religion[1]. He was noticed in India recently after he co-authored a book with Aravindan Neelakantan entitled “Breaking India”, a book detailing mostly American Christian cultural demolition work conducted in India.
Francis Clooney is a Jesuit priest and heads the Faculty of Divinity at Harvard University. Considering the role the US government plays all over the world as well as what Harvard means in the American intellectual lexicon, Clooney is, so to speak, the global headmaster who teaches the whole academic world what “divinity” is, or at least that is the pretext. After the most intelligent Christian laity with some goodness left in them said goodbye to their abominable religion, it remained for extra-clever servants of the Christian god like Francis X Clooney to stake a claim to global “divinity”. Clooney is termed “the Father” of “Comparative Theology”[2], a discipline which is his brainchild in its current shape after he came upon “Hindu theology”[3]. He has many Hindu followers and advisors, one of whom is Rajiv Malhotra[4].
Purva Paksha (Argument)
1 a) Malhotra’s motive for the dialogue
The conflict between the two parties according to Malhotra results from “difference anxiety”. “The opposite of difference anxiety is difference with mutual respect [sic], the posture I advocate for dialogue.” [5]
Malhotra’s main argument for the dialogue, which is also the thesis of his new book Being Different, is that Hindus are basically different from Christians or other Abrahamic religions in approach and belief and for this reason Hindus should be treated with respect in interfaith dialogues. However, the purpose of the dialogue is not to resolve the conflict between the two parties. According to him, the purpose is “not to change the opponent, but to change the audience.” “The impact if any on the other side is irrelevant.”[6]
According to Rajiv Malhotra, a key issue is the appropriation by the opposing side (read Clooney et al) of Hindu concepts, symbols, and assimilating these into their own “faith” or tradition on the pretext of being the same despite the differences.[7] He implies that people of both persuasions (Christian and Hindu) who have the difference anxiety preach the sameness of religions, which in the hands of the Christians becomes a tool to convert the Hindu. Malhotra calls it “digestion” of the Hindu religion by the Christians. He says “tolerance” is not the right condition for dialogue between “faiths”, which he says is an unequal posturing[8]. According to him, the right thing is “mutual respect”.
In the same blog[9], Malhotra reveals the background that laid the foundation for his campaign and participation in the dialogue: “My campaign against mere tolerance started in the late 1990s when I was invited to speak at a major interfaith initiative at Claremont Graduate University. Leaders of major faiths had gathered to propose a proclamation of “religious tolerance.” I argued that the word “tolerance” should be replaced with “mutual respect” in the resolution. The following day, Professor Karen Jo Torjesen, the organizer and head of religious studies at Claremont, told me I had caused a “sensation.” Not everyone present could easily accept such a radical idea, she said, but added that she herself was in agreement.
“Clearly, I had hit a raw nerve … I then decided to experiment with “mutual respect” as a replacement for the oft-touted “tolerance” in my forthcoming talks and lectures. I found that while most practitioners of dharma religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) readily espouse mutual respect, there is considerable resistance from the Abrahamic faiths …. Soon afterwards, at the United Nation's Millennium Religion Summit in 2000, the Hindu delegation led by Swami Dayananda Saraswati insisted that in the official draft the term “tolerance” be replaced with “mutual respect.” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict), who led the Vatican delegation, strongly objected to this. After all, if religions deemed “heathen” were to be officially respected, there would be no justification for converting their adherents to Christianity …. The matter reached a critical stage and some serious fighting erupted. The Hindu side held firm that the time had come for the non-Abrahamic religions to be formally respected as equals at the table [emphasis added] and not just tolerated by the Abrahamic religions. At the very last minute, the Vatican blinked and the final resolution did call for “mutual respect.” However, within a month, the Vatican issued a new policy stating that while “followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.” Many liberal Christians condemned this policy, yet it remains the Vatican's official position.”
1 b) Clooney’s motive for the dialogue
Clooney is not as forthright about the “motive” of the dialogue as Malhotra. The only clear statement from Clooney about how he came to the “dialogue” at Dartmouth was that he was asked[10] by Malhotra to be a respondent to the dialogue organised on the occasion of the latter’s book presentation at Dartmouth.
However, in an article titled My Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Malhotra and Clooney, Clooney admits at the beginning that he had blogged on an article of Malhotra’s titled Spirit is not the same as Shakti or Kundalini in June 2011 “simply to call attention of American readers to this thoughtful post by a Hindu author. The comments on my piece however indicated that here was an issue worthy offurther debate, and some seemed disappointed that I did not pursue the dialogue with Mr. Malhotra …. But recently, the time came for such a follow-up [all emphasis added].”[11]
At the end of the blog cited in this article, Clooney says: “I would like to think – ever the hopeful Christian – that he [Malhotra] has done us, Hindu and Christian alike, the good service of clearing the air, and moving beyond generalities on the points he discussed. The next step, perhaps a bit easier now, is a conversation on Spirit and Shakti that is not a monologue, and not entirely on the terms set by one tradition. For me - ever the professor - the best way forward would be the careful study of some of the relevant texts on the Spirit and Shakti [all emphasis added] …”[12]
Clooney concludes his speech at Dartmouth giving the impression that Malhotra’s book is the beginning of “conversations” at different levels in various ways, particularly in India, but doesn’t define what these “conversations” are supposed to fetch. He ends his speech urging on people in the West and in India to study each other and welcoming “learned Hindus” to converse with the West in a “sophisticated” way.
1 c) Third party opinion
According to one of Malhotra’s distinguished Hindu supporters, Dr. Navaratna Rajaram, this venture is useful for the following reasons: “I can claim to know both Rajiv Malhotra and Francis Clooney and I support the idea of engaging with Clooney and others like him in an informed and civilized manner. It is not proper to compare Clooney with Bishop Caldwell (not a Jesuit, but a British accomplice) or Robert de Nobili nearly 400 years ago …. What we need today is sophisticated engagement so that the Christian side realizes that we know what we are talking about and will not swallow their sugar-coated versions of propaganda [all emphasis added]. This means studying them and debating them, not hiding from them.”[13]
2 Are Malhotra and Clooney true representatives of the faiths they represent?
Being a Jesuit priest and a “professor of divinity” at once, Clooney is a true representative of his “faith”. Malhotra is careful not to make any claims about whom he represents under the rubric “Hindu”, but explicitly calls himself a Hindu and discards Hindutva in one breath[14]. However, he is neither a member of any known Hindu institution or organisation nor involved in any known Hindu movement.
3 “New kind of dialogue”
Malhotra describes his dialogue with Clooney as “Difference With Mutual Respect: A New Kind of Hindu-Christian Dialogue”[15]. Malhotra goes on to say: “The significance of such an approach to dialogues is not dependent upon whether both sides agree or disagree on a given issue. In fact, I do not consider it viable to reconcile the important philosophical differences without compromise to one side or the other. Rather, the significance here is that we are comfortable accepting these differences as a starting point, which is more honest than the typical proclamations at such encounters where differences are taboo to bring up [all emphasis added].”[16]
Malhotra doesn’t verbalise what the old kind of dialogue is or was, but leaves it to us to figure out.
Uttara Paksha (Counter argument):
1 a) Malhotra’s motive for the dialogue
A reader (nicknamed gangp) of Malhotra’s new book “Being Different”, which is the main topic in his interfaith dialogue with Clooney, states: “However, in my opinion RM misses the point of using Purva Paksha when he writes: ‘They claim that all religions are same while they ought to be saying that religions are equal but different. (Being Different, page 35); However, though neither faith is superior to the other ... (Being Different, page 270)’”[17]. So, according to Malhotra’s thesis, Hinduism is “different” from “Christianity” and vice versa, but they are both “equal” and “neither is superior to the other”.
Such a thesis doesn’t hold water in any known science or debate, because according to him, “A is not B and B is not A, but A = B”. This “Malhotra theorem” is a “new kind” of element in interfaith dialogue in present-day America and well appreciated by his opponent Clooney[18]. Though this equation might be valid under constitutional law in a democracy and even necessary in terms of election purposes and anti-discriminatory policies, it is unacceptable to people who value reason above everything else, whoever and wherever they are, because we are not talking about the law of equality here, but looking forward to reconcile two opposing religions and resolve the basic conflict between them.
Therefore, Malhotra’s declared motive of influencing the “audience” to “change” in an interfaith dialogue is not backed by substantial matter because he fails to explain what he intends to achieve by “changing” the “audience” or what he is trying to change, especially in the light of his preconceived equation of parity. For instance, if he considers both “faiths” as “equal” despite the differences, what is the need to change his audience? What exactly is he trying to change in his audience? Converting people from “tolerance” to “mutual respect”? Or does he merely want equal status and a respectable seat at the interfaith table with his Christian compatriots? If his motive was that, doesn’t it mean interfaith dialogue itself is an end and not a means to resolving a conflict?
Malhotra cannot tolerate “tolerance” at the interfaith table, but demands “mutual respect”. Malhotra’s entreaty to the other side for “mutual respect” at the interfaith dialogue implies a compulsion within him to air his opinion legitimately. Demanding “respect” at a table is not the prerogative of somebody who has gate-crashed the party. His dialogue partner Clooney doesn’t protest against his demand, which corroborates it. This is confirmed by a statement in one of Malhotra’s already cited blogs[19]: “My campaign against mere tolerance started in the late 1990s when I was invited to speak at a major interfaith initiative at Claremont Graduate University ….”
What is certain here is, Malhotra would not have demanded “respect” had not he been invited for any dialogue. If Malhotra was the initiator and host of the dialogue, he wouldn’t have protested against the “tolerance” part and demanded “respect”, because he would be setting the tone of the dialogue, unless the whole motive of the dialogue was something else. This is not correct according to Malhotra’s own admission: “The point of a debate is not to change the opponent, but to change the audience …. The impact if any on the other side is irrelevant.”[20]
It follows that Malhotra has no intention of having a genuine debate with his partner and defeat him, nor of resolving the conflict between Hindus and Christians through dialogue, but earning “respect” at the table to which he is invited would be adequate and satisfactory, especially upon agreement of the differences. It also follows that Malhotra’s professed purpose of the dialogue – of changing the audience – is only an illusion or an excuse for the dialogue, and staying away from the dialogue table is not an option for Malhotra, compelled by reasons unknown.
Furthermore, Malhotra’s incongruent equation also forces him to eat his own tail by the newly coined phrase “difference anxiety”, which he says results in the “sameness” syndrome. Hinduism is different from Christianity, Christianity is different from Hinduism, but both are equals. Only the Malhotra logic can see two incongruent thought systems such as Hinduism and Christianity culminating in equality in terms of objective experience. Malhotra uses the same logic to arrive at his “anxiety” theory that leads to “sameness”: A is different from B and B is different from A, but both A and B have anxiety over the difference and calls each other the “same”. It follows that what Malhotra accuses of his opponents are applicable to himself: it is Malhotra’s “difference anxiety” that makes him arrive at “Hinduism = Christianity”.
However, Christians, by Malhotra’s own admission, consider themselves superior and different[21] from Hinduism or any other creed without any input from Malhotra. If both sides consider themselves “different” from the start and not the “same” or “equal” ever, which they actually do, Malhotra’s “anxiety” thesis falls by the wayside. Christians try to convert Hindus not because of any anxiety, but because of their scriptural injunction to convert the non-Christian, which they call the “Great Mission”.
If the interfaith dialogue with Clooney was genuinely Malhotra’s initiative, what was the need to call for “respect” from the guest or to create a list of differences in order to demand that? If it was genuinely Malhotra’s initiative, wasn’t he merely using it as a purely promotional tool for his new book “Being Different”? If it was Malhotra’s initiative, the “audience” would mostly consist of his invitees who are there because of respect to him and could be “changed” without the aid of a dialogue partner, so what was his true motive?
1 b) Clooney’s motive
Clooney appears to be saying that his participation in the dialogue was Malhotra’s idea, though he had blogged earlier praising Malhotra as a Hindu champion of dialogue, thus setting up a “further debate”[22]. So, actually, Clooney was invited by Malhotra because he had suggested[23] it to Malhotra earlier. It also follows that without Clooney’s instigation, Malhotra would not have invited Clooney for the dialogue. As Clooney’s suggestion is hypnotic, it is likely that Malhotra is not at all conscious of Clooney’s role or designs in his own decision-making. This also explains (by yukti) Malhotra’s call for “respect” emanating from his subconscious, because there the host and prime mover of the dialogue is Vatican’s representative Clooney.
Clooney, for his part, is least concerned about Malhotra’s demand for “mutual respect” or the coinage of “difference anxiety”. For him, the interfaith dialogue he engineered has already been set in motion by instigating Rajiv Malhotra: “The next step, perhaps a bit easier now, is a conversation on Spirit and Shakti that is not a monologue, and not entirely on the terms set by one tradition. For me - ever the professor - the best way forward would be the careful study of some of the relevant texts on the Spirit and Shakti [all emphasis added]…”[24]
Now that the rope is safely attached to Malhotra’s nose, Clooney pulls by prompting, “the next step”. He heaves a sigh (“bit easier now”) because he has got an ideal accomplice in Rajiv Malhotra to go on with his official enterprise of interfaith dialogue, a professed instrument and tool of the Vatican to convert the remaining heathens on earth since years[25].
The insertion of “ever the professor” brings the spotlight on himself as a “scholar” who is apparently pursuing two religious symbols “Spirit”[26] and “Shakti” in an academic discourse. Malhotra falls for this subterfuge, because while Malhotra's professed motive for the dialogue is to “change” the “audience” no matter who they are, Clooney’s main objective is to go on tinkering with Hindu mysticism.
Clooney had been fishing for dialogue with Hindus for more than a decade and backed out of dialogues that weren’t in his favour. The first one on record is from the early 90s[27] initiated by Clooney himself. He backed out of that dialogue when the situation got out of his control, when learned Hindu scholars lined up on the other side[28].
What then is Clooney’s real motive in the dialogue with Hindus? The answer is simple and found in the public dominion: one of Clooney’s main tasks as a Jesuit priest is to “engage the other” in interfaith dialogue, so that the “other”[29] could be persuaded or fooled to accept “Christ”, the primary objective of Vatican. As a Jesuit, his main duty is to accomplish Vatican’s objectives, one of which is converting the heathen through whatever agency, and that agency in recent times is to “engage the other” in dialogue and win him over. Clooney had been burning the midnight oil for at least two decades to find the right sort of Hindu to emerge, so that the Hindu-Christian dialogue initiated by Vatican could be carried forward without it being a monologue[30]. Clooney uses the same term “monologue” while advancing Vatican’s strategy in 2005 as well as while referring to Rajiv Malhotra in December 2011. This reveals a deep design and motive on Clooney’s part to manipulate gullible Hindus like Malhotra.
It follows that Clooney has been using “interfaith” dialogue as a tool for evangelisation for decades as an official agent (SJ) of the Vatican, which initiated it as part of its evangelising mission to conquer people from other religions in 1964[31], a time when Malhotra was at school and nobody has ever heard of an “interfaith” dialogue.
1 c) Third party opinion
Dr. Rajaram claiming to “know” both parties merely points to a personal knowledge of Malhotra and Clooney as individuals and as such is not valid in the assessment of an interreligious dialogue, even if the term has an esoteric biblical meaning, which we discount here anyway.
Dr. Rajaram wants us to treat Clooney with kid gloves – “in an informed and civilized manner”. Is it because he is his friend? Obviously not, for Dr. Rajaram says, “what we need today is sophisticated engagement so that the Christian side realizes that we know what we are talking about and will not swallow their sugar-coated versions of propaganda”. It implies that Hindus in general are unsophisticated and sophisticated Christians do not understand (realise) what the former are talking about. It also follows that Christians understand only sophisticated language. This view is voiced by Clooney towards the end of his speech at Dartmouth.
Does Rajaram really mean this, or was it only a blind but loyal and rallying support for two old buddies? Or does he mean that only sophisticated Hindus like Malhotra can converse with sophisticated chaps like Clooney and bring them to their senses? Does he mean that the Christian side will never understand what we are talking about – the assumed content of which is an appeal to stop their “sugar-coated” propaganda – unless we are speaking in sophisticated language to Clooney and the likes. Why doesn’t it cross Rajaram’s mind to just demand Clooney & Co to stop all sorts of propaganda because their religious ware is all rotten matter? Not sophisticated enough for Rajaram, or Clooney? Or is it because Clooney exhorts “learned Hindus” to make “sophisticated” conversations with the West and Rajaram is only parroting it? Do Clooney and Rajaram allude to the kind of “sophistication” one requires to believe in virgin birth?
Dr. Rajaram also fails to fill in the big blanks in his statement supporting the Malhotra-Clooney dialogue. He doesn’t explain why it is “not proper” to compare Clooney with Bishop Caldwell and de Nobili. Just because he didn’t know them, but knew only Clooney? Or, because he is American and not English or French? Clooney is in the direct line (SJ parampara) of de Nobili and can be compared fairly thoroughly and appropriately with respect to their change in methods employed to outwit the gullible Hindu. The comparison would be a worthwhile study of the evolutionary pattern of the Catholic Church’s evangelisation techniques with regard to the Hindu in the last 500 years. Clooney defended de Nobili at Dartmouth and even Malhotra applauded, so why does Rajaram warn us against any comparison?
2 Are Malhotra and Clooney true representatives of the faiths they represent?
Whereas Malhotra is a Hindu layman with no backing of any Hindu religious institution or organisation, Clooney is a sworn-in member of the Catholic Church and the Society of Jesus and trained for years for the “Great Commission, the call to evangelise”. Neither does Malhotra boast of any degree from a traditional Vedic school nor does he cite a guru-sishya parampara (tradition) by which he can establish his credentials among his Hindu brethren. Clooney is backed by a global organisation with more than a billion members worldwide[32], whereas Malhotra is backed by a few hundred assorted migrant Hindu members (liberal estimation in the absence of any reliable numbers) and few personal friends in India.
3 “New kind of dialogue”
The new kind of dialogue is not to resolve conflicts or disagreements on a given issue. Malhotra says: “The significance of such an approach to dialogues is not dependent upon whether both sides agree or disagree on a given issue”. Actually, Malhotra concedes there is no point in the dialogue because it is not “viable to reconcile the important philosophical differences without compromise to one side or the other”. It follows that Malhotra excludes compromises, such as a stop to or condemnation of evangelisation programmes which could be proposed by the Christians.
Despite the ineffectiveness of this dialogue, both Clooney and himself “are comfortable accepting these differences”. So, Malhotra’s new kind of dialogue – a dialogue that rules out reconciliation – is to accept the differences, but to remain equal. Thereby Malhotra implies that the old kind of dialogue was for reconciling differences or disagreements, whereas his “new kind of dialogue” is for “comfort” at the table without resolving any existing conflicts or disagreements. If this kind of dialogue becomes a norm in the future, Malhotra would go down in history as the Hindu who opened the door to the enemy and legitimised his new kind of evangelising (spiritual war).
Siddhanta (Synthesis or Right Conclusion):
Based on the sections given above, the purpose of this particular dialogue is the invasion of the sacred territory of the Hindus by vested interests, namely the Catholic Church based at Vatican with branches all over the world. Francis X Clooney is the mastermind of this piece, scripting and executing every move to perfection. Clooney is spearheading the postmodern proselytisation of Vatican by making a distinct departure from current conventions. For this purpose he needed an accomplice from the opposite camp, which he ultimately found in Rajiv Malhotra. He is a long-term project of Clooney, which the latter launched over a decade ago.
Rajiv Malhotra started out as a respectable but gullible Hindu layman doing his bit – his piece of the action – for his community in America in their struggle against unequal treatment meted out against pagans by his Christian fellowmen. Malhotra’s call for “respect” is resonant of the black man’s struggle for equality in America. The jarring note in this struggle is his doctrine “equal but different” that echoes the US Supreme Court decision in 1869 that established the fallacious doctrine of “separate but equal,” which constitutionalised racial segregation. The Malhotra doctrine too is a fallacy at best and a stagnant principle, because there is a comfortable complacency or a placid resignation in Malhotra’s equation that might perfectly suit Clooney and Co, but that belies his own fiery rhetoric. The professed outcome of the Malhotra theorem is an illusion that entails disastrous consequences for Hindus in many places.
The dictum “difference anxiety” is also a fallacy, because if Christians and Muslims didn’t consider themselves superior and different from everybody else, they wouldn’t have tried to convert the Hindu or each other, and there would not have been any inculturation or conflict in the first place. If Vatican had thought Hindus were not spiritually deficient, they wouldn’t have invented a dialogue project as a strategy to convert dialogue partners. So, Malhotra’s “difference anxiety” is no radical discovery, but pure sophistry.
Rajiv Malhotra’s role in the dialogue looks murky due to his own confusion about his part. However, it is obvious that he was selected by Francis Clooney as a suitable candidate for his own purposes with or without his knowledge. The latter had cast a vast net far and wide for gullible Hindus for decades, and hooked Malhotra in the due course of a decade. However, it took him that much time to kick-start Vatican’s new form of evangelisation through the agency of Rajiv Malhotra.
It is crystal clear that Clooney is not concerned about Malhotra’s dictums and formulas, or what he is actually speaking at the dialogue, but is focused on indulging in his nefarious pastime – of contaminating Hindu concepts and principles with the primary objective of cannibalising them in order to instil new life into an evil religion that has been rotting for years[33].
Clooney’s speech at Dartmouth is filled with a gleeful call for dialogue between Hindus and Christians (called the West here) whenever he is not praising Malhotra after quoting from the latter’s book, especially those items that call for “mutual respect”. Clooney, who is backed by political power and influence at a global level, plays down political empowerment of the Hindu by dismissing Sitaram Goel and Ram Swarup as outdated and places “non-Hindutva Hindu” Rajiv Malhotra on a pedestal. A Hindu without Hindutva is akin to castrated pet animals that are much preferred in the West for their slavish behaviour.
It is also clear that Rajiv Malhotra found himself at the first interfaith dialogue without any real motive whatsoever other than as a campaigner for Hindu rights and soon began to call for respect after experiencing the opponent’s patronising attitude. It is also reasonable to declare that he wasn’t the host of the dialogue nor a gate-crasher since he originally began the dialogue by asking for “respect”. His presence at the dialogue with Clooney, even if the occasion was a promotional event of his own book, was engineered by the latter. Malhotra would never have participated in an interfaith dialogue had not Vatican, through its seat at the UN, conceived the interreligious dialogue as a tool for evangelisation and initiated it as a campaign through various international academic and political agencies many years ago.
Rajiv Malhotra comes through as a pathetic figure in a tragedy, being tossed around like a pawn by the special effects villainy of Clooney, only to be ridiculed at the end by many of his Hindu brethren and well-wishers including this writer, who appreciate his initiatives like the Hindu Good News and the research work undertaken by him.
To correct the wrong Rajiv Malhotra has done to his own true traditions by misrepresentation, tradition calls upon prayaschita (reparation) commensurate with the karma. Rallying behind the slogan ‘satyameva jayate’ (‘truth alone triumphs’), regaining own inner certitude and advising Clooney to defrock before they resume the next round of dialogue would be a good beginning on that path, and dharma and the whole world will be behind him.
References
[1] See Christhumatha Chedanam by Chattambi Swamigal –
http://hinduebooks.blogspot.com/2009/08/english-translation-of-kristumata.html
[2] Book review: "Francis Clooney has distilled in this book decades of his massive and painstaking scholarship on Christian and Hindu theologies … Comparative Theology teaches us how to read sacred texts ... so that we can see both similarities and differences between our religious tradition and others. Clooney invites us to join him in developing, each in our own fields of specialization, this emerging theological discipline, of which he richly deserves to be called 'the Father'. Comparative Theology is destined to be a classic in its field."
--Peter C. Phan, Georgetown University See:
http://www.wiley-vch.de/publish/dt/books/bySubjectRE00/bySubSubjectRE00/1-4051-7973-2/reviews/?sID=p2qlnooj68su7htl8qrrc2qjt3
[3] Theology is a pure Christian construction. In recent times efforts have been made both by Christians with a vested interest and Hindus enamoured by Christianity to create "Hindu theology" in a manner of Christian theology. It is at best a misnomer. The Hindu sites list the various sampradayas under “Hindu theology”. Theology as a science is the philosophy of those who cannot see the forest for the trees. Christian theology is the philosophy of the absurd since its starting point is a false premise. See also link in footnote 2.
[4] “But Francis Clooney's book, "Hindu God, Christian God," took my advice [emphasis added] and has a final chapter by Paramil. Good for Francis!” – R. Malhotra:
http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/religious-difference-with-mutual-respect_b_1165589.html
[6] RajivMalhotraDiscussion forum posted by Arun and commented by R Malhotra, dated January 4, 2012
[7] “We also disagreed on several points. For instance, Clooney views inculturation as a positive posture of Christian friendship toward Indian native culture by adopting Indian symbols and words, whereas I find it to be often used as a mean to lure unsuspecting Indians into Christianity by making the differences seem irrelevant.” - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/religious-difference-with-mutual-respect_b_1165589.html
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239.html
[9] Go to link in footnote 8
[10] http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-hindu-christian-dialogue-malhotra.html
[11] See link in footnote10
[12] See http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?entry_id=4324
[13] Posted on RajivMalhotraDiscussion forum, Jan 9, 2012
[14] “I have defined myself as a "non-Hindutva Hindu"” –
http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&catid=26:debate-with-vijay-prashad-trinity-college&Itemid=34
[15] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/religious-difference-with-mutual-respect_b_1165589.html
[16] See link in footnote 15
[17] http://www.medhajournal.com/forum/2-philosophy/1011-being-different.html
[18] “ … there was more light than heat in the room, and I think the entire conversation was illuminating and constructive.” - http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-hindu-christian-dialogue-malhotra.html
[19] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239.html
[20] See footnote 5
[21] “However, within a month, the Vatican issued a new policy stating that while "followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation [sic] in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.” - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239.html
[22] See link in footnote 10 as well as “His [Malhotra’s] mission … is to bring a strong Hindu voice into conversations on religion ...”
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?entry_id=4324 This blog incited Malhotra to swallow the bait. He posted the first comment: “I welcome Francis' call for an open discussion/debate on the similarities and dissimilarities between Holy Spirit and Shakti/Kundalini …. any time/place …”
[23] “Suggestion is the psychological process by which one person guides the thoughts, feelings, or behaviour of another.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestion
[24] http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-hindu-christian-dialogue-malhotra.html
[25] See the various links on the following page. http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/dialogue.htm All point to "interreligious dialogue" as a modern day tool of evangelisation by the Catholic Church. One may even say that the Vatican has a patent on “interreligious” dialogue.
[26] By “Spirit” Clooney means “Holy Ghost”, but by this deviation from conventional terminology, he is trying to at once objectify and sanitise an evil transcendental entity in order to compare it with a sacred principle of the Hindus.
[27] Prof. Bhu Dev Sharma, ex-president of WAVES, writes in an FHRS (Foundation for Hindu Religious Studies) post dated January 25, 2012: “On Clooney and having a 'dialogue' with him, I would like to share my experience. When I was President of 'WAVES, we invited Clooney at our 'Int'l Conference' held in 1992. He came. We put him as a member of the Governing Council of WAVES. He suggested for a Hindu-Christian dialogue. I worked on this project enthusiastically and finalized everything from the Hindu side. I attach and paste below the 'Announcement' prepared (it was to go out) by us on this long exercise. But at the last stage, Clooney backed out.”
[28] “You will find the names of three Hindu scholars: Professor Rajeshwari Pandharipande, Professor Vasudha Narayanan, Professor K.L. Seshagiri Rao, who had agreed to be part of the Hindu team for the dialogue proposed by him [Clooney].” – from FHRS post dated January 25, 2012 posted by Bhu Dev Sharma.
[29] “… missionaries encounter various religions in their respective contexts, so with this new emphasis on inter-religious dialogue the proclamation-dialogue debate emerges. That is, how do Christians reconcile the Great Commission, the call to evangelize, with the ecumenical priority of dialogue of Vatican II? Is dialogue really just to be veiled evangelization? Is dialogue a compromise of the evangelical task? Moreover, this question takes on renewed significance because of documents issued separately by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches, documents in which dialogue is viewed as part of the mission of the Church. .... In view of the Vatican Council’s positive valuation of the other, a question unique to our time emerges: What is to be an adequate method for engaging the other and for accounting for the variety of contexts in which this engagement occurs? How are we, in the words of Francis Clooney, going to insure that our dialogue does not become monologue [all emphasis added] (Clooney, 2005)?” See page 12 of “Methodological Presuppositions for Engaging the Other in the PostVatican II Context: Insights from Ignatius and Lonergan” By John D. Dadosky; see http://irdialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/JIRD-3-Dadosky.pdf
[30] Compare statements on “monologue” in Clooney’s blog (see link in footnote 10) and Clooney quoted in footnote 29, which reveal Clooney’s single-minded preoccupation with interreligious dialogues.
[31]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_pro_20051996_en.html
[32] http://www.zenit.org/article-28425?l=english
[33] See http://identitypublishers.org/insight/ins00.htm
The author is a freelancer
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2172
Inter-faith Dialogue: Unveiling of postmodern evangelization
by
George Augustine
7 February 2012
“Dialogue” according to Merriam-Webster, is “a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution”. Other definitions of “dialogue” are unacceptable as religious terminology is used and the event is promoted as “interfaith” dialogue and not just a chat between two friends. Hence the questions: what is the motive and purpose behind layman Rajiv Malhotra’s “Hindu-Christian dialogue” with Francis X. Clooney, a Reverend of the formidable Society of Jesus; and does it fulfil its purpose?
In this “interfaith” dialogue, it is unclear whether there is a dispute or a reconciliation. Had the title of this dialogue been “Malhotra-Clooney dialogue” rather than “Hindu-Christian dialogue”, there would not have been any doubt on anybody’s part, let alone an argument. Furthermore, Hindu-Christian dialogues, if any, should be first directed towards the resolution of their existing conflict. As such, this dialogue cannot be dismissed like a coffee house chat. This is necessitated because the track record of one of the parties represented here is horrendous in terms of aggression and predatory tendencies that are inherent in its dogma and basic principles. Do leopards change their spots? To satisfy the world at large, some questions have to be answered by both the partners:
1. What according to the two dialogue partners is the purpose and motive of this dialogue?
2. Are these two dialogue partners true representatives of their respective religious viewpoints?
3. Malhotra says this is a “new kind of dialog”, how is it different from the old?
Hindus who feel their religion is threatened by Christians are justified in demanding correct answers to these questions. So do others who doubt it is kosher for Christians to dabble in Hindu mysticism and on the sly go all out on a conversion binge.
So our next step is to find out how Malhotra or Clooney answer these questions as much as can be deduced from this dialogue and their statements available in the public domain. Before we move on to that, here is a brief introduction to the two dialogue partners. They are well known in their respective circles and are well versed with each other’s arguments. They know each other for over a decade.
Rajiv Malhotra has been a regular blogger and spokesman for years of at least a small section of the migrant Hindu community settled in the US, besides being a successful and respectable entrepreneur. Malhotra is also an author of books and his writings have been characterised so far by their persistence in pursuing his goal of achieving a status for American Hindus on par with his white Christian fellowmen, without succumbing to the arrogant ministrations of a savage religion[1]. He was noticed in India recently after he co-authored a book with Aravindan Neelakantan entitled “Breaking India”, a book detailing mostly American Christian cultural demolition work conducted in India.
Francis Clooney is a Jesuit priest and heads the Faculty of Divinity at Harvard University. Considering the role the US government plays all over the world as well as what Harvard means in the American intellectual lexicon, Clooney is, so to speak, the global headmaster who teaches the whole academic world what “divinity” is, or at least that is the pretext. After the most intelligent Christian laity with some goodness left in them said goodbye to their abominable religion, it remained for extra-clever servants of the Christian god like Francis X Clooney to stake a claim to global “divinity”. Clooney is termed “the Father” of “Comparative Theology”[2], a discipline which is his brainchild in its current shape after he came upon “Hindu theology”[3]. He has many Hindu followers and advisors, one of whom is Rajiv Malhotra[4].
Purva Paksha (Argument)
1 a) Malhotra’s motive for the dialogue
The conflict between the two parties according to Malhotra results from “difference anxiety”. “The opposite of difference anxiety is difference with mutual respect [sic], the posture I advocate for dialogue.” [5]
Malhotra’s main argument for the dialogue, which is also the thesis of his new book Being Different, is that Hindus are basically different from Christians or other Abrahamic religions in approach and belief and for this reason Hindus should be treated with respect in interfaith dialogues. However, the purpose of the dialogue is not to resolve the conflict between the two parties. According to him, the purpose is “not to change the opponent, but to change the audience.” “The impact if any on the other side is irrelevant.”[6]
According to Rajiv Malhotra, a key issue is the appropriation by the opposing side (read Clooney et al) of Hindu concepts, symbols, and assimilating these into their own “faith” or tradition on the pretext of being the same despite the differences.[7] He implies that people of both persuasions (Christian and Hindu) who have the difference anxiety preach the sameness of religions, which in the hands of the Christians becomes a tool to convert the Hindu. Malhotra calls it “digestion” of the Hindu religion by the Christians. He says “tolerance” is not the right condition for dialogue between “faiths”, which he says is an unequal posturing[8]. According to him, the right thing is “mutual respect”.
In the same blog[9], Malhotra reveals the background that laid the foundation for his campaign and participation in the dialogue: “My campaign against mere tolerance started in the late 1990s when I was invited to speak at a major interfaith initiative at Claremont Graduate University. Leaders of major faiths had gathered to propose a proclamation of “religious tolerance.” I argued that the word “tolerance” should be replaced with “mutual respect” in the resolution. The following day, Professor Karen Jo Torjesen, the organizer and head of religious studies at Claremont, told me I had caused a “sensation.” Not everyone present could easily accept such a radical idea, she said, but added that she herself was in agreement.
“Clearly, I had hit a raw nerve … I then decided to experiment with “mutual respect” as a replacement for the oft-touted “tolerance” in my forthcoming talks and lectures. I found that while most practitioners of dharma religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) readily espouse mutual respect, there is considerable resistance from the Abrahamic faiths …. Soon afterwards, at the United Nation's Millennium Religion Summit in 2000, the Hindu delegation led by Swami Dayananda Saraswati insisted that in the official draft the term “tolerance” be replaced with “mutual respect.” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict), who led the Vatican delegation, strongly objected to this. After all, if religions deemed “heathen” were to be officially respected, there would be no justification for converting their adherents to Christianity …. The matter reached a critical stage and some serious fighting erupted. The Hindu side held firm that the time had come for the non-Abrahamic religions to be formally respected as equals at the table [emphasis added] and not just tolerated by the Abrahamic religions. At the very last minute, the Vatican blinked and the final resolution did call for “mutual respect.” However, within a month, the Vatican issued a new policy stating that while “followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.” Many liberal Christians condemned this policy, yet it remains the Vatican's official position.”
1 b) Clooney’s motive for the dialogue
Clooney is not as forthright about the “motive” of the dialogue as Malhotra. The only clear statement from Clooney about how he came to the “dialogue” at Dartmouth was that he was asked[10] by Malhotra to be a respondent to the dialogue organised on the occasion of the latter’s book presentation at Dartmouth.
However, in an article titled My Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Malhotra and Clooney, Clooney admits at the beginning that he had blogged on an article of Malhotra’s titled Spirit is not the same as Shakti or Kundalini in June 2011 “simply to call attention of American readers to this thoughtful post by a Hindu author. The comments on my piece however indicated that here was an issue worthy offurther debate, and some seemed disappointed that I did not pursue the dialogue with Mr. Malhotra …. But recently, the time came for such a follow-up [all emphasis added].”[11]
At the end of the blog cited in this article, Clooney says: “I would like to think – ever the hopeful Christian – that he [Malhotra] has done us, Hindu and Christian alike, the good service of clearing the air, and moving beyond generalities on the points he discussed. The next step, perhaps a bit easier now, is a conversation on Spirit and Shakti that is not a monologue, and not entirely on the terms set by one tradition. For me - ever the professor - the best way forward would be the careful study of some of the relevant texts on the Spirit and Shakti [all emphasis added] …”[12]
Clooney concludes his speech at Dartmouth giving the impression that Malhotra’s book is the beginning of “conversations” at different levels in various ways, particularly in India, but doesn’t define what these “conversations” are supposed to fetch. He ends his speech urging on people in the West and in India to study each other and welcoming “learned Hindus” to converse with the West in a “sophisticated” way.
1 c) Third party opinion
According to one of Malhotra’s distinguished Hindu supporters, Dr. Navaratna Rajaram, this venture is useful for the following reasons: “I can claim to know both Rajiv Malhotra and Francis Clooney and I support the idea of engaging with Clooney and others like him in an informed and civilized manner. It is not proper to compare Clooney with Bishop Caldwell (not a Jesuit, but a British accomplice) or Robert de Nobili nearly 400 years ago …. What we need today is sophisticated engagement so that the Christian side realizes that we know what we are talking about and will not swallow their sugar-coated versions of propaganda [all emphasis added]. This means studying them and debating them, not hiding from them.”[13]
2 Are Malhotra and Clooney true representatives of the faiths they represent?
Being a Jesuit priest and a “professor of divinity” at once, Clooney is a true representative of his “faith”. Malhotra is careful not to make any claims about whom he represents under the rubric “Hindu”, but explicitly calls himself a Hindu and discards Hindutva in one breath[14]. However, he is neither a member of any known Hindu institution or organisation nor involved in any known Hindu movement.
3 “New kind of dialogue”
Malhotra describes his dialogue with Clooney as “Difference With Mutual Respect: A New Kind of Hindu-Christian Dialogue”[15]. Malhotra goes on to say: “The significance of such an approach to dialogues is not dependent upon whether both sides agree or disagree on a given issue. In fact, I do not consider it viable to reconcile the important philosophical differences without compromise to one side or the other. Rather, the significance here is that we are comfortable accepting these differences as a starting point, which is more honest than the typical proclamations at such encounters where differences are taboo to bring up [all emphasis added].”[16]
Malhotra doesn’t verbalise what the old kind of dialogue is or was, but leaves it to us to figure out.
Uttara Paksha (Counter argument):
1 a) Malhotra’s motive for the dialogue
A reader (nicknamed gangp) of Malhotra’s new book “Being Different”, which is the main topic in his interfaith dialogue with Clooney, states: “However, in my opinion RM misses the point of using Purva Paksha when he writes: ‘They claim that all religions are same while they ought to be saying that religions are equal but different. (Being Different, page 35); However, though neither faith is superior to the other ... (Being Different, page 270)’”[17]. So, according to Malhotra’s thesis, Hinduism is “different” from “Christianity” and vice versa, but they are both “equal” and “neither is superior to the other”.
Such a thesis doesn’t hold water in any known science or debate, because according to him, “A is not B and B is not A, but A = B”. This “Malhotra theorem” is a “new kind” of element in interfaith dialogue in present-day America and well appreciated by his opponent Clooney[18]. Though this equation might be valid under constitutional law in a democracy and even necessary in terms of election purposes and anti-discriminatory policies, it is unacceptable to people who value reason above everything else, whoever and wherever they are, because we are not talking about the law of equality here, but looking forward to reconcile two opposing religions and resolve the basic conflict between them.
Therefore, Malhotra’s declared motive of influencing the “audience” to “change” in an interfaith dialogue is not backed by substantial matter because he fails to explain what he intends to achieve by “changing” the “audience” or what he is trying to change, especially in the light of his preconceived equation of parity. For instance, if he considers both “faiths” as “equal” despite the differences, what is the need to change his audience? What exactly is he trying to change in his audience? Converting people from “tolerance” to “mutual respect”? Or does he merely want equal status and a respectable seat at the interfaith table with his Christian compatriots? If his motive was that, doesn’t it mean interfaith dialogue itself is an end and not a means to resolving a conflict?
Malhotra cannot tolerate “tolerance” at the interfaith table, but demands “mutual respect”. Malhotra’s entreaty to the other side for “mutual respect” at the interfaith dialogue implies a compulsion within him to air his opinion legitimately. Demanding “respect” at a table is not the prerogative of somebody who has gate-crashed the party. His dialogue partner Clooney doesn’t protest against his demand, which corroborates it. This is confirmed by a statement in one of Malhotra’s already cited blogs[19]: “My campaign against mere tolerance started in the late 1990s when I was invited to speak at a major interfaith initiative at Claremont Graduate University ….”
What is certain here is, Malhotra would not have demanded “respect” had not he been invited for any dialogue. If Malhotra was the initiator and host of the dialogue, he wouldn’t have protested against the “tolerance” part and demanded “respect”, because he would be setting the tone of the dialogue, unless the whole motive of the dialogue was something else. This is not correct according to Malhotra’s own admission: “The point of a debate is not to change the opponent, but to change the audience …. The impact if any on the other side is irrelevant.”[20]
It follows that Malhotra has no intention of having a genuine debate with his partner and defeat him, nor of resolving the conflict between Hindus and Christians through dialogue, but earning “respect” at the table to which he is invited would be adequate and satisfactory, especially upon agreement of the differences. It also follows that Malhotra’s professed purpose of the dialogue – of changing the audience – is only an illusion or an excuse for the dialogue, and staying away from the dialogue table is not an option for Malhotra, compelled by reasons unknown.
Furthermore, Malhotra’s incongruent equation also forces him to eat his own tail by the newly coined phrase “difference anxiety”, which he says results in the “sameness” syndrome. Hinduism is different from Christianity, Christianity is different from Hinduism, but both are equals. Only the Malhotra logic can see two incongruent thought systems such as Hinduism and Christianity culminating in equality in terms of objective experience. Malhotra uses the same logic to arrive at his “anxiety” theory that leads to “sameness”: A is different from B and B is different from A, but both A and B have anxiety over the difference and calls each other the “same”. It follows that what Malhotra accuses of his opponents are applicable to himself: it is Malhotra’s “difference anxiety” that makes him arrive at “Hinduism = Christianity”.
However, Christians, by Malhotra’s own admission, consider themselves superior and different[21] from Hinduism or any other creed without any input from Malhotra. If both sides consider themselves “different” from the start and not the “same” or “equal” ever, which they actually do, Malhotra’s “anxiety” thesis falls by the wayside. Christians try to convert Hindus not because of any anxiety, but because of their scriptural injunction to convert the non-Christian, which they call the “Great Mission”.
If the interfaith dialogue with Clooney was genuinely Malhotra’s initiative, what was the need to call for “respect” from the guest or to create a list of differences in order to demand that? If it was genuinely Malhotra’s initiative, wasn’t he merely using it as a purely promotional tool for his new book “Being Different”? If it was Malhotra’s initiative, the “audience” would mostly consist of his invitees who are there because of respect to him and could be “changed” without the aid of a dialogue partner, so what was his true motive?
1 b) Clooney’s motive
Clooney appears to be saying that his participation in the dialogue was Malhotra’s idea, though he had blogged earlier praising Malhotra as a Hindu champion of dialogue, thus setting up a “further debate”[22]. So, actually, Clooney was invited by Malhotra because he had suggested[23] it to Malhotra earlier. It also follows that without Clooney’s instigation, Malhotra would not have invited Clooney for the dialogue. As Clooney’s suggestion is hypnotic, it is likely that Malhotra is not at all conscious of Clooney’s role or designs in his own decision-making. This also explains (by yukti) Malhotra’s call for “respect” emanating from his subconscious, because there the host and prime mover of the dialogue is Vatican’s representative Clooney.
Clooney, for his part, is least concerned about Malhotra’s demand for “mutual respect” or the coinage of “difference anxiety”. For him, the interfaith dialogue he engineered has already been set in motion by instigating Rajiv Malhotra: “The next step, perhaps a bit easier now, is a conversation on Spirit and Shakti that is not a monologue, and not entirely on the terms set by one tradition. For me - ever the professor - the best way forward would be the careful study of some of the relevant texts on the Spirit and Shakti [all emphasis added]…”[24]
Now that the rope is safely attached to Malhotra’s nose, Clooney pulls by prompting, “the next step”. He heaves a sigh (“bit easier now”) because he has got an ideal accomplice in Rajiv Malhotra to go on with his official enterprise of interfaith dialogue, a professed instrument and tool of the Vatican to convert the remaining heathens on earth since years[25].
The insertion of “ever the professor” brings the spotlight on himself as a “scholar” who is apparently pursuing two religious symbols “Spirit”[26] and “Shakti” in an academic discourse. Malhotra falls for this subterfuge, because while Malhotra's professed motive for the dialogue is to “change” the “audience” no matter who they are, Clooney’s main objective is to go on tinkering with Hindu mysticism.
Clooney had been fishing for dialogue with Hindus for more than a decade and backed out of dialogues that weren’t in his favour. The first one on record is from the early 90s[27] initiated by Clooney himself. He backed out of that dialogue when the situation got out of his control, when learned Hindu scholars lined up on the other side[28].
What then is Clooney’s real motive in the dialogue with Hindus? The answer is simple and found in the public dominion: one of Clooney’s main tasks as a Jesuit priest is to “engage the other” in interfaith dialogue, so that the “other”[29] could be persuaded or fooled to accept “Christ”, the primary objective of Vatican. As a Jesuit, his main duty is to accomplish Vatican’s objectives, one of which is converting the heathen through whatever agency, and that agency in recent times is to “engage the other” in dialogue and win him over. Clooney had been burning the midnight oil for at least two decades to find the right sort of Hindu to emerge, so that the Hindu-Christian dialogue initiated by Vatican could be carried forward without it being a monologue[30]. Clooney uses the same term “monologue” while advancing Vatican’s strategy in 2005 as well as while referring to Rajiv Malhotra in December 2011. This reveals a deep design and motive on Clooney’s part to manipulate gullible Hindus like Malhotra.
It follows that Clooney has been using “interfaith” dialogue as a tool for evangelisation for decades as an official agent (SJ) of the Vatican, which initiated it as part of its evangelising mission to conquer people from other religions in 1964[31], a time when Malhotra was at school and nobody has ever heard of an “interfaith” dialogue.
1 c) Third party opinion
Dr. Rajaram claiming to “know” both parties merely points to a personal knowledge of Malhotra and Clooney as individuals and as such is not valid in the assessment of an interreligious dialogue, even if the term has an esoteric biblical meaning, which we discount here anyway.
Dr. Rajaram wants us to treat Clooney with kid gloves – “in an informed and civilized manner”. Is it because he is his friend? Obviously not, for Dr. Rajaram says, “what we need today is sophisticated engagement so that the Christian side realizes that we know what we are talking about and will not swallow their sugar-coated versions of propaganda”. It implies that Hindus in general are unsophisticated and sophisticated Christians do not understand (realise) what the former are talking about. It also follows that Christians understand only sophisticated language. This view is voiced by Clooney towards the end of his speech at Dartmouth.
Does Rajaram really mean this, or was it only a blind but loyal and rallying support for two old buddies? Or does he mean that only sophisticated Hindus like Malhotra can converse with sophisticated chaps like Clooney and bring them to their senses? Does he mean that the Christian side will never understand what we are talking about – the assumed content of which is an appeal to stop their “sugar-coated” propaganda – unless we are speaking in sophisticated language to Clooney and the likes. Why doesn’t it cross Rajaram’s mind to just demand Clooney & Co to stop all sorts of propaganda because their religious ware is all rotten matter? Not sophisticated enough for Rajaram, or Clooney? Or is it because Clooney exhorts “learned Hindus” to make “sophisticated” conversations with the West and Rajaram is only parroting it? Do Clooney and Rajaram allude to the kind of “sophistication” one requires to believe in virgin birth?
Dr. Rajaram also fails to fill in the big blanks in his statement supporting the Malhotra-Clooney dialogue. He doesn’t explain why it is “not proper” to compare Clooney with Bishop Caldwell and de Nobili. Just because he didn’t know them, but knew only Clooney? Or, because he is American and not English or French? Clooney is in the direct line (SJ parampara) of de Nobili and can be compared fairly thoroughly and appropriately with respect to their change in methods employed to outwit the gullible Hindu. The comparison would be a worthwhile study of the evolutionary pattern of the Catholic Church’s evangelisation techniques with regard to the Hindu in the last 500 years. Clooney defended de Nobili at Dartmouth and even Malhotra applauded, so why does Rajaram warn us against any comparison?
2 Are Malhotra and Clooney true representatives of the faiths they represent?
Whereas Malhotra is a Hindu layman with no backing of any Hindu religious institution or organisation, Clooney is a sworn-in member of the Catholic Church and the Society of Jesus and trained for years for the “Great Commission, the call to evangelise”. Neither does Malhotra boast of any degree from a traditional Vedic school nor does he cite a guru-sishya parampara (tradition) by which he can establish his credentials among his Hindu brethren. Clooney is backed by a global organisation with more than a billion members worldwide[32], whereas Malhotra is backed by a few hundred assorted migrant Hindu members (liberal estimation in the absence of any reliable numbers) and few personal friends in India.
3 “New kind of dialogue”
The new kind of dialogue is not to resolve conflicts or disagreements on a given issue. Malhotra says: “The significance of such an approach to dialogues is not dependent upon whether both sides agree or disagree on a given issue”. Actually, Malhotra concedes there is no point in the dialogue because it is not “viable to reconcile the important philosophical differences without compromise to one side or the other”. It follows that Malhotra excludes compromises, such as a stop to or condemnation of evangelisation programmes which could be proposed by the Christians.
Despite the ineffectiveness of this dialogue, both Clooney and himself “are comfortable accepting these differences”. So, Malhotra’s new kind of dialogue – a dialogue that rules out reconciliation – is to accept the differences, but to remain equal. Thereby Malhotra implies that the old kind of dialogue was for reconciling differences or disagreements, whereas his “new kind of dialogue” is for “comfort” at the table without resolving any existing conflicts or disagreements. If this kind of dialogue becomes a norm in the future, Malhotra would go down in history as the Hindu who opened the door to the enemy and legitimised his new kind of evangelising (spiritual war).
Siddhanta (Synthesis or Right Conclusion):
Based on the sections given above, the purpose of this particular dialogue is the invasion of the sacred territory of the Hindus by vested interests, namely the Catholic Church based at Vatican with branches all over the world. Francis X Clooney is the mastermind of this piece, scripting and executing every move to perfection. Clooney is spearheading the postmodern proselytisation of Vatican by making a distinct departure from current conventions. For this purpose he needed an accomplice from the opposite camp, which he ultimately found in Rajiv Malhotra. He is a long-term project of Clooney, which the latter launched over a decade ago.
Rajiv Malhotra started out as a respectable but gullible Hindu layman doing his bit – his piece of the action – for his community in America in their struggle against unequal treatment meted out against pagans by his Christian fellowmen. Malhotra’s call for “respect” is resonant of the black man’s struggle for equality in America. The jarring note in this struggle is his doctrine “equal but different” that echoes the US Supreme Court decision in 1869 that established the fallacious doctrine of “separate but equal,” which constitutionalised racial segregation. The Malhotra doctrine too is a fallacy at best and a stagnant principle, because there is a comfortable complacency or a placid resignation in Malhotra’s equation that might perfectly suit Clooney and Co, but that belies his own fiery rhetoric. The professed outcome of the Malhotra theorem is an illusion that entails disastrous consequences for Hindus in many places.
The dictum “difference anxiety” is also a fallacy, because if Christians and Muslims didn’t consider themselves superior and different from everybody else, they wouldn’t have tried to convert the Hindu or each other, and there would not have been any inculturation or conflict in the first place. If Vatican had thought Hindus were not spiritually deficient, they wouldn’t have invented a dialogue project as a strategy to convert dialogue partners. So, Malhotra’s “difference anxiety” is no radical discovery, but pure sophistry.
Rajiv Malhotra’s role in the dialogue looks murky due to his own confusion about his part. However, it is obvious that he was selected by Francis Clooney as a suitable candidate for his own purposes with or without his knowledge. The latter had cast a vast net far and wide for gullible Hindus for decades, and hooked Malhotra in the due course of a decade. However, it took him that much time to kick-start Vatican’s new form of evangelisation through the agency of Rajiv Malhotra.
It is crystal clear that Clooney is not concerned about Malhotra’s dictums and formulas, or what he is actually speaking at the dialogue, but is focused on indulging in his nefarious pastime – of contaminating Hindu concepts and principles with the primary objective of cannibalising them in order to instil new life into an evil religion that has been rotting for years[33].
Clooney’s speech at Dartmouth is filled with a gleeful call for dialogue between Hindus and Christians (called the West here) whenever he is not praising Malhotra after quoting from the latter’s book, especially those items that call for “mutual respect”. Clooney, who is backed by political power and influence at a global level, plays down political empowerment of the Hindu by dismissing Sitaram Goel and Ram Swarup as outdated and places “non-Hindutva Hindu” Rajiv Malhotra on a pedestal. A Hindu without Hindutva is akin to castrated pet animals that are much preferred in the West for their slavish behaviour.
It is also clear that Rajiv Malhotra found himself at the first interfaith dialogue without any real motive whatsoever other than as a campaigner for Hindu rights and soon began to call for respect after experiencing the opponent’s patronising attitude. It is also reasonable to declare that he wasn’t the host of the dialogue nor a gate-crasher since he originally began the dialogue by asking for “respect”. His presence at the dialogue with Clooney, even if the occasion was a promotional event of his own book, was engineered by the latter. Malhotra would never have participated in an interfaith dialogue had not Vatican, through its seat at the UN, conceived the interreligious dialogue as a tool for evangelisation and initiated it as a campaign through various international academic and political agencies many years ago.
Rajiv Malhotra comes through as a pathetic figure in a tragedy, being tossed around like a pawn by the special effects villainy of Clooney, only to be ridiculed at the end by many of his Hindu brethren and well-wishers including this writer, who appreciate his initiatives like the Hindu Good News and the research work undertaken by him.
To correct the wrong Rajiv Malhotra has done to his own true traditions by misrepresentation, tradition calls upon prayaschita (reparation) commensurate with the karma. Rallying behind the slogan ‘satyameva jayate’ (‘truth alone triumphs’), regaining own inner certitude and advising Clooney to defrock before they resume the next round of dialogue would be a good beginning on that path, and dharma and the whole world will be behind him.
References
[1] See Christhumatha Chedanam by Chattambi Swamigal –
http://hinduebooks.blogspot.com/2009/08/english-translation-of-kristumata.html
[2] Book review: "Francis Clooney has distilled in this book decades of his massive and painstaking scholarship on Christian and Hindu theologies … Comparative Theology teaches us how to read sacred texts ... so that we can see both similarities and differences between our religious tradition and others. Clooney invites us to join him in developing, each in our own fields of specialization, this emerging theological discipline, of which he richly deserves to be called 'the Father'. Comparative Theology is destined to be a classic in its field."
--Peter C. Phan, Georgetown University See:
http://www.wiley-vch.de/publish/dt/books/bySubjectRE00/bySubSubjectRE00/1-4051-7973-2/reviews/?sID=p2qlnooj68su7htl8qrrc2qjt3
[3] Theology is a pure Christian construction. In recent times efforts have been made both by Christians with a vested interest and Hindus enamoured by Christianity to create "Hindu theology" in a manner of Christian theology. It is at best a misnomer. The Hindu sites list the various sampradayas under “Hindu theology”. Theology as a science is the philosophy of those who cannot see the forest for the trees. Christian theology is the philosophy of the absurd since its starting point is a false premise. See also link in footnote 2.
[4] “But Francis Clooney's book, "Hindu God, Christian God," took my advice [emphasis added] and has a final chapter by Paramil. Good for Francis!” – R. Malhotra:
http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/religious-difference-with-mutual-respect_b_1165589.html
[6] RajivMalhotraDiscussion forum posted by Arun and commented by R Malhotra, dated January 4, 2012
[7] “We also disagreed on several points. For instance, Clooney views inculturation as a positive posture of Christian friendship toward Indian native culture by adopting Indian symbols and words, whereas I find it to be often used as a mean to lure unsuspecting Indians into Christianity by making the differences seem irrelevant.” - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/religious-difference-with-mutual-respect_b_1165589.html
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239.html
[9] Go to link in footnote 8
[10] http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-hindu-christian-dialogue-malhotra.html
[11] See link in footnote10
[12] See http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?entry_id=4324
[13] Posted on RajivMalhotraDiscussion forum, Jan 9, 2012
[14] “I have defined myself as a "non-Hindutva Hindu"” –
http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&catid=26:debate-with-vijay-prashad-trinity-college&Itemid=34
[15] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/religious-difference-with-mutual-respect_b_1165589.html
[16] See link in footnote 15
[17] http://www.medhajournal.com/forum/2-philosophy/1011-being-different.html
[18] “ … there was more light than heat in the room, and I think the entire conversation was illuminating and constructive.” - http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-hindu-christian-dialogue-malhotra.html
[19] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239.html
[20] See footnote 5
[21] “However, within a month, the Vatican issued a new policy stating that while "followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation [sic] in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.” - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239.html
[22] See link in footnote 10 as well as “His [Malhotra’s] mission … is to bring a strong Hindu voice into conversations on religion ...”
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?entry_id=4324 This blog incited Malhotra to swallow the bait. He posted the first comment: “I welcome Francis' call for an open discussion/debate on the similarities and dissimilarities between Holy Spirit and Shakti/Kundalini …. any time/place …”
[23] “Suggestion is the psychological process by which one person guides the thoughts, feelings, or behaviour of another.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestion
[24] http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-hindu-christian-dialogue-malhotra.html
[25] See the various links on the following page. http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/dialogue.htm All point to "interreligious dialogue" as a modern day tool of evangelisation by the Catholic Church. One may even say that the Vatican has a patent on “interreligious” dialogue.
[26] By “Spirit” Clooney means “Holy Ghost”, but by this deviation from conventional terminology, he is trying to at once objectify and sanitise an evil transcendental entity in order to compare it with a sacred principle of the Hindus.
[27] Prof. Bhu Dev Sharma, ex-president of WAVES, writes in an FHRS (Foundation for Hindu Religious Studies) post dated January 25, 2012: “On Clooney and having a 'dialogue' with him, I would like to share my experience. When I was President of 'WAVES, we invited Clooney at our 'Int'l Conference' held in 1992. He came. We put him as a member of the Governing Council of WAVES. He suggested for a Hindu-Christian dialogue. I worked on this project enthusiastically and finalized everything from the Hindu side. I attach and paste below the 'Announcement' prepared (it was to go out) by us on this long exercise. But at the last stage, Clooney backed out.”
[28] “You will find the names of three Hindu scholars: Professor Rajeshwari Pandharipande, Professor Vasudha Narayanan, Professor K.L. Seshagiri Rao, who had agreed to be part of the Hindu team for the dialogue proposed by him [Clooney].” – from FHRS post dated January 25, 2012 posted by Bhu Dev Sharma.
[29] “… missionaries encounter various religions in their respective contexts, so with this new emphasis on inter-religious dialogue the proclamation-dialogue debate emerges. That is, how do Christians reconcile the Great Commission, the call to evangelize, with the ecumenical priority of dialogue of Vatican II? Is dialogue really just to be veiled evangelization? Is dialogue a compromise of the evangelical task? Moreover, this question takes on renewed significance because of documents issued separately by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches, documents in which dialogue is viewed as part of the mission of the Church. .... In view of the Vatican Council’s positive valuation of the other, a question unique to our time emerges: What is to be an adequate method for engaging the other and for accounting for the variety of contexts in which this engagement occurs? How are we, in the words of Francis Clooney, going to insure that our dialogue does not become monologue [all emphasis added] (Clooney, 2005)?” See page 12 of “Methodological Presuppositions for Engaging the Other in the PostVatican II Context: Insights from Ignatius and Lonergan” By John D. Dadosky; see http://irdialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/JIRD-3-Dadosky.pdf
[30] Compare statements on “monologue” in Clooney’s blog (see link in footnote 10) and Clooney quoted in footnote 29, which reveal Clooney’s single-minded preoccupation with interreligious dialogues.
[31]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_pro_20051996_en.html
[32] http://www.zenit.org/article-28425?l=english
[33] See http://identitypublishers.org/insight/ins00.htm
The author is a freelancer
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2172
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)