Showing posts with label Gandhi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gandhi. Show all posts

Is there Moksha in Christianity?

Here is the link to the forum discussion. (you can join the Satsang. It is free). The short answer to the question is:
NO. Read 'Being Different' for a detailed and in-depth discussion. Here are some useful forum links discussing karma and reincarnation.


 

In this thread, a forum member shared his reasons for returning to Hinduism. We present some pertinent points below:
"I am a born Hindu, but I was converted to christianity in my teen age years. In my early 20's I read the Autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi in which he talked about his experience with christians and christianity. His christian friends tried to convert his, and his reply was that he must first study his own religion thoroughly before thinking of converting to another religion. After studying Hinduism and comparative religion, Gandhiji realized that his own religion is far superior to other religions.

 So, following in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi, I also did an in-dept study on comparative religion and came to the same conclusion. I IMMEDIATELY REVERTED TO MY ANCESTRAL RELIGION - SANATANA DHARMA.


[.....]


As Rajivji explained, there is no Moksha in christianity. Christianity goes as far as a realm called heaven, which in Hinduism is called Swarg. Beyond heaven/Swarg, there is an unmanifest State called Brahman. Moksha is merging into that State of Oneness with Brahman. ....This Oneness is open to ALL Truth seekers, and NOT exclusively to Jesus...

You said (as all christians do) that Jesus paid for the sins of others by his blood ..... (As Gandhiji said that Jesus proved nothing by dying)... MANY GREAT PEOPLE BRAVELY DIED for some good in the world.

[.....]

The Bhagavad-Gita says: "Better is your own Dharma, even with flaws, than the Dharma of another's."  If you were told by others that your mother was ugly, would you not still love your mother ?

 In Hinduism, this Age is called "Kal-yug" - it is the "Age of Delusion and Deception." So, Beware of False Religions.  Hinduism is NOT a deceptive religion. It NEVER tried to deceive others into believing....Sanatana Dharma does not have a conquering or converting agenda. In Hinduism : "Not Conversion, but Transformation is the Goal of True Religion: Become Better Human Beings: Love, Mutual Respect, Unity in Diversity, Etc., Etc."   These things are not taught in christianity and the other Abrahamic religions..."

Response to Aatish Taseer ad hominem on Rajiv Malhotra

In an earlier post, Megh had compellingly rebutted the biases and opinions of journalists of Outlook magazine.

In this post, he offers a rejoinder to Aatish Taseer on his ad hominem attack on Rajiv Malhotra. The Open Magazine article written by Taseer is dated 2014. However, that is no excuse for the vicious personal attack mounted by him.

Here is Megh's response which is reproduced from his comment below the Open Magazine article by Taseer:

Extract 1 from Aatish Taseer’s statements:
“…They’re not scholars; few of them have even a passable knowledge of Sanskrit;”
One (Oxford) meaning of the word ‘Scholar’ is "a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic”.

By the above definition, would Mahatma Gandhi, with no formal qualification in humanities, with no formal career as a ‘distinguished academic’ and with no formal certified specialization or original publications in Sanskrit, be considered ineligible by Aatish Taseer and his distinguished bretheren, to comment/observe on Bharat, about Bharat, about Sanskriti, about Sanskrit?

By the above definition:
> would widely regarded historian Will Durant (neither an NRI nor an Indian and with certainly little/no published original scholarship/expertise in the language Sanskrit or scholarship in Sanskrit) be feared, dismissed or considered ineligible by Aatish Taseer, to observe, as he (Durant) did in his book ‘The case of India’ “India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages...”
> and did Will Durant’s expertise in Sanskrit (or the lack of it) come in the way of the wide acceptance of his works by many across the world, including a subset of the world – the western academia?

If many in the world have few problems considering Mahatma Gandhi and Will Durant eligible to study and write about Bharat (i.e. India), Sanskriti, and/or Sanskrit with (or without) their apparent qualifications as a Sanskrit scholar or just a scholar, should not Shri Rajiv Malhotra, who with over 20 years of specialist experience and original scholarship [including the 2016-Amazon-best–seller book “The Battle for Sanskrit” ((in ‘Languages and Linguistics category)] be allowed to present his point-of-view? His views include observations of Sanskrit as ‘Sacred, Liberating, Living’ vis-à-vis observations of Sanskrit as Political, Oppressive and Dead (separately in various works) by Sheldon Pollock, who is:
➢ Author of “The death of Sanskrit”
➢ Speaker of the statement “The Mahabharata is the most dangerous political story, I think, in the world because it is this deep meditation on the fratricide of Civil war”
➢ General Editor of Murthy Classical Library of India (MCLI)
➢ And a self-declared secularist funded by an Indian, to interpret and propagate literature that is sacred to millions.

Objective observers of the world, India, History and Sanskrit are urged to:
a) consider these two varying positions ‘Sacred, Liberating, Living’ vis-à-vis Political, Oppressive and Dead’ reflect on it and take informed positions/views (if at all) 

b) and verify for oneself, the "eligibility criteria", before forming an opinion about the same.
Vande Mataram! (from the 'peanut gallery', and I hope that does not sound different or mean something else because it is from the 'peanut gallery').

Extract 2 & 3 from Aatish Taseer’s statements:

“These monkeys, they want the white man to tell them that India—which Malhotra couldn’t bring himself to live in—was once the greatest country of all.”

“determined to coerce Western academia into telling them the few banalities they want to hear: things that warm their little NRI hearts: the Aryans did not come from elsewhere but sprang up out of the soil of India; Sanskrit is not one of many Indo-European languages, but the mother of all languages…”

Some observations/responses to the above 2 extracts:

I did not know what to laugh at – Aatish Taseer’s ‘scholarly’ usage of the word ‘Monkey’, or his ‘expert conclusion’ of what ‘they’ want, i.e. per him “white man to tell ‘them’ that India…was once the greatest country of all”

I believe I find his expert conclusion more worthy of the first response because why would someone want something that has already been done?

Sample this (as-white-as-it-perhaps-gets with other shades too) list of observations from a Spanish-muslim-judge, American historian, French writer, German scientist, Japanese scholar, French-born-turned-Indian citizen, Chinese scholar:

SAID AL-ANDALUSI (1029-1070) - Judge for the king of Muslim Spain and author of Kitab-Tabaqat-al-Uman or "Book of the categories of Nation"

[Translation]

"The Indians among all nations, through many centuries and since antiquity, have been the source of wisdom, fairness and moderation. ...They have acquired immense information and reached the zenith in their knowledge of the movements of the stars (astronomy) and the secrets of the sky (astrology) as well as other mathematical studies."

WILL DURANT - American historian, writer, philosopher

" India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy.

Perhaps in return for conquest, arrogance and spoliation, India will teach us the tolerance and gentleness of the mature mind, the quiet content of the unacquisitive soul, the calm of the understanding spirit, and a unifying, a pacifying love for all living things."

ROMAINE ROLLAND - French writer

"If there is one place on the face of earth where all the dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India."

ALBERT EINSTEIN, German scientist

1) "We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made."

2) "When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous."

MARK TWAIN - American author

1) "So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left undone, either by man or nature, to make India the most extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds. Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing overlooked."

2) "India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable and most astrictive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only!"

HAJIME NAKAMURA - Japanese scholar

"The Indians are highly rationalistic, insofar as their ideal is to recognize eternal laws concerning past, present and future. ...The Indians are, at the same time, logical since they generally have a tendency to sublimate their thinking to the universal... Without Indian influence Japanese culture would not be what it is today."

MICHEL DANINO - French-born turned Indian citizen

"Western civilization, not even three centuries after the Industrial Revolution, is running out of breadth. It has no direction, no healthy foundations, no values left except selfishness and greed, nothing to fill one's heart with. India alone has preserved something of the deeper values that can make a man human, and the world will surely be turning to them in search of a remedy to its advanced malady."

LIN YUTANG - Chinese scholar

1) "India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian nights, animal fables, chess, as well as in Philosophy, and that she inspired Boccaccio, Goethe, Herder, Schopenhauer, Emerson and probably also old Aesop."

2) "My love and true respect for India was born when I first read the Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata...the literature of the world has not produced a higher ideal of womanly love, womanly truth and womanly devotion."

That Mahabharata:

➢ Which has been credited by Chinese scholar Lin Yu Tang as one of the sources that gave birth to his “love and true respect for India”

➢ Which houses the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, considered by hundreds of millions of Indians and non-Indians as a source of Sacredness, Liberation and certainly a very living treatise

➢ Is referred to by Philology scholar, General Editor of MCLI and author of “The Death of Sanskrit” – Sheldon Pollock – as “...the most dangerous political story, I think, in the world because it is this deep meditation on the fratricide side of Civil war”

➢ Is originally in the language Sanskrit, a language pronounced ‘political, dead, oppressive’ by Pollock (in separate works, interviews) and considered ‘sacred, living, liberating’ by author of 2016 Amazon-best-selling-book “The Battle for Sanskrit” Shri Rajiv Malhotra

It is this Shri Rajiv Malhotra, who:
> was born in India,
> raised in India,
> is author of path breaking, well regarded and best-seller books like “Breaking India” and “Indra’s Net”,
> funded widely respected efforts in Indology
is being referred to Aatish as “…Malhotra couldn’t bring himself to live in” India.

Aatish might perhaps do well to reflect on:

➢ what prompted our beloved past President ABDUL KALAM to lament "Tell me, why is the media here so negative?…We are such a great nation. We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. Why?" in order to attempt answering his own question “…when you start to refashion the past to fit the needs of the present, you must ask yourself why?”. He could, of course take inspiration from Harvard Law School that seems to have started “to refashion the past to fit the needs of the present” by changing their logo recently!

➢ And what historian Romila Thapar herself said “that the Aryan theory while prevalent at one point holds no ground because the scientific evidences have shown that no such thing had happened in the past”.

Prof. Ramasubramanian of IIT Bombay responds to critics of the petition

Rajiv Malhotra: Since Prof Ramasubramanian is named as the first petitioner, it is important to hear his side. Unfortunately, his side never got covered by any mainstream media. I re-post his response below:

At the time of filing this report, we understand that Prof. Ramasubramanian's response has not been posted to the mailing list in the Indology Discussion Forum by Dominik Wujastyk as requested by Prof. Ramasubramanian. 

Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Against the petition against Prof. Pollock
To: Dominik Wujastyk
Cc: Mandyam D Srinivas
Dear Prof. Wujastyk,

Thank you for your mail concerning the petition calling for a reconstitution of the editorial board of the Murty Classical Library of India. I am grateful to you for your kind words of appreciation on the work of our group on the Indian tradition of Mathematics and Astronomy.

At the outset let me clarify, as I have done elsewhere too, that I was not the prime mover behind this petition though I fully subscribe to it as a signatory. It was by error that the petition was uploaded in my name at change.org, an error which has been corrected subsequently.

I also appreciate your kind gesture to enclose the mail that you had sent to the Indology Discussion Forum in response to some of the issues raised in the petition. I just arrived in New Zealand as a visiting Erskine Fellow in the Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury, and it took sometime for me to settle here. I also had to give a couple of lectures, and hence the delay in responding to your posting in the Indology Forum.

The following response is prepared by me in consultation with my colleague Prof. M .D. Srinivas (cc-ed). We would greatly appreciate, if you could post this response in the Indology Discussion Forum.

Thanks much, and
Best regards,
-ram.

--------------------
Response to Prof. Wujastyk's posting in Indology Discussion Forum
--------------------
We are surprised that Prof. Wujastyk's response to our petition is totally silent on the main issue raised in the petition, which is that Prof. Pollock has been a prominent signatory of two statements which have strongly condemned the actions of the authorities of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and the Government of India in taking constitutionally mandated legal actions against the anti-national slogans raised by an unauthorized assembly of protesters at the JNU on the 9th of February 2016. While castigating the actions of the democratically elected Government of India as an “authoritative menace”, these statements do not condemn the protesters who called for the dismemberment of India and abused the Supreme Court of India for “judical killing”. Clearly Prof. Pollock and others who were signatories to these statements have no respect for the unity and integrity of India which has been won after a long struggle of the Indian people against colonial rule. We are at a total loss as to how Prof. Wujastyk could miss this central issue which was the `"main context" of this petition calling upon the Murty Classical Library not to be mentored by academics who have an ideological and political bias that does not allow them even to respect the unity and integrity of India.

In the following, we shall only briefly respond to Prof. Wujastyk's point that the petition has misconstrued the views of Prof. Pollock on “What South Asian Knowledge is Good For”.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ mesaas/faculty/directory/ pollock_pub/What%20is%20South% 20Asian%20Knowledge%20Good% 20for.pdf

He has referred to the following passage cited in the earlier version of the petition from the 2012 Heidelberg lecture of Prof. Pollock: "Are there any decision makers, as they refer to themselves, at universities and foundations who would not agree that, in the cognitive sweepstakes of human history, Western knowledge has won and South Asian knowledge has lost? ...That, accordingly, the South Asian knowledge South Asians themselves have produced can no longer be held to have any significant consequences for the future of the human species?”

Prof. Wujastyk would like us to believe that, Prof. Pollock is only presenting the above statement as a पूर्वपक्ष (purvapaksha). Sorry, if it were so, all the theses presented in पूर्वपक्ष have to be completely refuted before presenting the सिद्धान्त. Prof. Pollock has only begun with what he believes is a "statement of fact" that the leaders of Western academia are unanimous in their conviction that “Western knowledge has won and South Asian knowledge has lost” and that South Asian knowledge "has no significant consequences for the future of the human species".

If this were to be a पूर्वपक्ष in Pollock's paper, the rest of the paper would have been devoted to the खण्डन (systematic refutation), of this पूर्वपक्ष in its entirety. Here, we do not even see Prof. Pollock expressing his deep shock or strong condemnation that such a Western supremacist view is prevalent in the exalted circles of Western academia.

It is true that Prof. Pollock does concede (these are the examples that Prof. Wujastyk also cites) that there are some South Asian “forms of knowledge that may be thought of to possess a truth value for the contemporary world (the nature and nomenclature of nominal  compounding or aesthetic response) or at least a truth value for some people in the contemporary world (the benefits of yogic asanas and pranayama)”. However it is Prof. Pollock's considered view that the “greater part of South Asian achievements and understandings” have “no claim whatever ... to any universal truth value in  themselves, and precisely because they pertain to what are specifically South Asian modes of making sense of the world.”

Prof. Pollock is indeed very forthright in expressing his opinion that he does not believe that “South Asian contribution is the most important ever made to world knowledge” and that “What the region does provide is a record of achievements of human consciousness” which “allows us to frame a strong hypotheses about the nature of that consciousness and the conditions of its  transformation”. These need to be studied “in and of themselves” and not because they “enable us to live intelligently in the world."

Clearly, Prof. Pollock sees little role for “Indian knowledge” qua “knowledge” in the contemporary world or for the future of human species. Its relevance is mainly as a historical expression of human consciousness which could help “us” (namely, the Western academia) to learn something about the nature of that consciousness. After arguing for such a thesis (सिद्धान्त), it is indeed ironical that Prof. Pollock makes a claim in the end of his talk that "our understanding of 'usefulness' and 'truth' [of South Asian knowledge] has grown substantially in the time since Marx and Weber".

It was this thesis that was summarised in the petition by the statement that Prof. Pollock holds the view that “the shastras generated in India serve no contemporary purpose except for the study of how Indians express themselves.” It is indeed a fairly accurate summary of the thesis presented by Prof. Pollock in the Heidelberg lecture.

As regards Prof. Pollock’s 1985 paper, we would also not go into details, except for drawing attention to the following pronouncement in the abstract of the paper:

“The understanding of the relationship of Sastra (“theory”) to Prayoga (“practical activity”) in Sanskritic culture ...Theory is held always and necessarily to precede and govern practice; there is no dialectical interaction between them. “

Any scholar who has studied the standard texts of Indian sciences such as Jyotisha or Ayurveda would not fail to see how these texts advise the practitioner of their sciences to be acutely aware of the limitations of the theories expounded in the sastras which are only thought of as means (उपाय ). The Jyotisha texts emphasize the need for continuous examination (परीक्षा ) of the procedures taught through observations. The Ayurvedic texts, as Prof. Wujastyk is indeed well aware, go to the extent of declaring that “the entire world is a teacher of the intelligent” and that the “Sastra is a light which serves to illuminate. It is ones own intellect that perceives the correct course of action.” In his monumental work Narayaniyam, Narayana Bhattatiri succinctly summarizing an important section of Bhagavata observes: 
त्वत्कारुण्ये प्रवृत्ते क
इव नहि गुरु: लोकवृत्तेपि
भूमन् ?

Prof. Pollock only betrays his deep prejudice against the Vedic culture when he concludes the abstract with another pronouncement that “... [In sastras,] progress can only be achieved by a regressive re-appropriation of the past The eternality of the Vedas, the sastra par excellence, is one presupposition or justification for this assessment of sastra. Its principal ideological effects are to naturalize and de-historicize cultural practices, two components in a larger discourse of power.”

It is precisely scholarship of this genre that Mahatma Gandhi aptly characterised in his seminal work Hind Swaraj over a hundred years ago:

"The English ... have a habit of writing history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all peoples. God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the function of the Godhead... They write about their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into believing them. We, in our ignorance, then fall at their feet."

We are not upset by Prof. Wujastyk's claim that “Prof. Ramasubramanian has misunderstood Prof. Pollock's views by 180 degrees”, though it is totally incorrect. But we are deeply dismayed by his insinuation that many of those who have signed this petition (most of them eminent Indian scholars) “have signed Prof. Ramasubramanian's petition, presumably without having read Prof. Pollock's work for themselves, or having failed to understand it.” As indicated by Gandhi, statements exhibiting such condescension borders almost on racial prejudice.

K Ramasubramanian,
Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Bombay

M D Srinivas
Chairman, Center for Policy Studies, Chennai and Member ICHR


RISA's Token Hindus

This thread encapsulates the continuous attempts made by a section of the Western Academia to interpret, appropriate in ways that are convenient to them, ideas and developments that happen in the Hindu fold. They typically employ a reductive Western lens to analyze and 'deconstruct' events happening in the Dharmic world. Furthermore, they also act as gatekeepers, by not letting in the voices of practicing Hindus, and more importantly, any dissenting Dharmic. For example, the so-called 'RISA list' is barred to any practicing Dharmic who disagrees with this fabricated consensus, as Rajiv Malhotra does. Hence a person practicing dharma and coming from it is deprived of a seat at their own table where ostensibly, the freedom of speech is championed. On the other hand, we observe that token Hindus who are 'useful' for furthering this cause of western universalism are indeed welcomed at the table, and is one of the key talking points of this post.

A RISA list mail from Fred Smith was shared by Indrani:


Several people have asked me off list to compile the sources reported and to summarize the very preliminary findings from my question last week regarding an apparent convergence between followers of Vivekananda, even Gandhi, and the RSS.  I regarded these three as strangely matched bedfellows and wondered how to interpret it, if indeed my observations are valid at all. What I discovered is that Vivekananda, and even Gandhi, have been gradually appropriated into the culture of the RSS, and that this has been building for many decades. Also, however, mediate forces have emerged to both facilitate and transform this image. I was not aware, for example, that the well-known monument to Vivekananda found at the southern tip of India, at Kanyakumari, was constructed by the RSS in the late 1960s. (I visited it many decades ago and was not at that time aware of the politics involved in its construction.) For this and the activities of the Vivekananda Kendra regarding yoga, see Gwilym Beckerlegge, “Eknath Ranade, Gurus, and Jivanvratis: The Vivekananda Kendra’s Promotion of the “Yoga Way of Life,”in Mark Singleton Ellen Goldberg, Gurus of Modern Yoga, pp. 317-350 (OUP 2013). In addition to the citation in my original posting of the piece by Pralay Kanungo, seee his “Fusing the Ideals of the Math with the Ideology of the Sangh? Vivekananda Kendra, Ecumenical Hinduism, and Hindu Nationalism,” in Public Hinduisms, ed.  John Zavos, et al. pp. 119-140 (Sage, 2012). This excellent volume is worth our attention.

I am also struck by the way new but mediate ideologies are influencing the body politic and sectarian affiliations. An example is the influence of Lingayat gurus in Karnataka who seem to draw from both sides, from their own space in the middle, as well as from local political arrangements. For this, see Aya Ikegame, “The governing guru: Hindu mathas in liberalizing India,” in Jacob copeman and Aya Ikegame, The Guru in South Asia: New Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 46-63 (Routledge 2012). Her work is well worth following. I suspect that local configurations and affiliations are present in many states in India that most of us are unaware of.


John Cort reminded us of the posters and hoardings of a muscular macho Vivekananda in Gujarat as recently as this year, used as props by the BJP. Consistent with this, Adam Bowled noted, is a report in the Hindustan Times “that the BJP government in Haryana has appointed Dinanath Batra to guide a committee of educationists in Haryana. The accompanying photo shows Dinanath Batra in an (his?) office with a statue of Vivekananda in the foreground.” http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rss-ideologue-dinanath-batra-to-guide-haryana-on-education/article1-1285430.aspx
Robert Zydenbos suggested we look at “an in-depth chapter on Vivekananda” in Hans-Joachim Klimkeit's _Der politische Hinduismus_ (Harrassowitz, 1981), which, Robert says, “is still the standard work in German on the subject.” Robert also suggests that Vivekananda’s appearance at the Chicago Parliament of Religions in 1893 has been overplayed by Hindu nationalists, at least from the European perspective. OK, go ahead, blame America :-)
I agree with Pankaj Jain and everyone else that it’s not a good idea for scholars to reduce Gandhi or Vivekananda to any political agenda. Jeff Long emphasizes this point: “We need to be careful to distinguish between these uses and the self-understandings of these figures in their respective contexts.” Nevertheless, such noble aspirations have not prevented these appropriations from becoming a regular feature of political practice in India. I agree that the search for a new indigenous hermeneutic and epistemology is a worthy endeavor, but the primary thrust of the efforts I have encountered are preoccupied with rejectionist discourse coupled with the use of highly selective evidence with which to build their theories, compounded with insufficient deep knowledge of both texts and the history of intellectual debate in India (for the latter, see the vigorous and readable work of Larry McCrea).
Several people on and off-list brought to my attention Jyotimaya Sharma’s recent book A Restatement of Religion: Swami Vivekananda and the Making of Hindu Nationalism (Yale University Press, 2013). but James Madaio does not believe that Sharma has adequately addressed how the right has “diachronically appropriated figures like Vivekananda into their rhetoric and 'mediascapes',” even as he demythologizes Vivekananda and neo-Vedantic inclusivism. Madaio notes, perceptively: “It does not seem a coincidence that the (often impassioned) issue of who Vivekananda was is anachronistically caught up in the right's (selective) appropriation of him and, in turn, the left's intellectual critique.”
Jon Keune mentioned the common ground between Gandhi and Hindutva. For this, see Arundhati Roy's introduction to the annotated edition of Ambedkar's annihilation of caste:
Amod Lele refers us to his master's thesis on the rise of state-sponsored Hindutva with Singapore's Confucian experiments:https://bu.digication.com/amod_lele/International_development
and his article, "State Hindutva and Singapore Confucianism as responses to the decline of the welfare state,” in Asian Studies Review 28 (2004): 267-82.
Other sources that list members noted were:
Joe Alter’s Gandhi’s Body and his many works on yoga and Indian masculinity;
chapters 3 4 of Peter van der Veer’s Imperial Encounters, in which he discusses Vivekananda’s rejection of muscular Christianity even if muscular Hinduism developed later;
Arafaat Valiani’s work on Gandhi, masculinity, and performative politics in Gujarat, Militant Publics in India: Physical Culture and Violence in the Making of a Modern Polity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011);
Anup Kumar points out that in spite of the high profile of the hard edge of Hindu nationalism, most Hindus still identify with a softer, gentler Hinduism, and that “we are dealing with our own cognitive dissonance in face of the renewed focus on Gandhi by the BJP.” Similarly, Raymond Williams reminds us that in the early decades of Indian immigration to the U.S., Vivekananda was extolled as the Indian spiritual exemplar countering western materialism. How times have changed!!
Finally, and most recently, this from the NYTimes a few days ago:

Rajiv's reply to this was thus:


  • Fred Smith is well known in Hinduism studies, and I have had many dealings with him and his students/cabal over 2 decades. I will give some background so readers have a context for what he says above. (This perspective I can offer is an example of "getting out of my comfort zone" numerous times.)
  • His position above is what Indra's Net criticizes as the Neo-Hinduism theory of Hinduism - i.e. looking for evidence to depict modern Hinduism as a political fabrication by Vivekananda, Gandhi, etc. to unite Indians against Brits, which later fell into the hands of the Hindutva to use against Muslims minorities.
  • If he were a good scholar, he would refer to my book and its counter arguments, and address my issues directly. But he cannot face that, so he simply ignores IN. He mentions various experts who I have already dealt with and criticized. So he gives a one sided view.
  • Robert Zydenbos, Gwilym Beckerlegge, Mark Singleton, Ellen Goldberg, Amod Lele - these persons he cites are especially nasty anti-Hindu persons I have dealt with before.
  • Pankaj Jain (named by him) was my follower/supporter for years; told me he got inspired by my work to leave IT and enter a career in Hinduism studies; got my help to enter Columhia U's MA program; got much mentoring my to understand the issues. But once he went for his PhD to Univ. of Iowa, where Fred Smith rules, he flipped sides completely - I was to be avoided in order to suck up to Smith cohorts. Upon entering the job market as a junior prof, he realized he was a nobody; so he started lobbying with the Hindu diaspora for support to boost his career. Many knew him from the earlier days, and stayed away, seeing him  as untrustworthy. But several went around campaigning for him seeing him as a goody-goody face to help us. Eventually most of these supporters also left him, and now he is sitting in a corner of the kurukshetra with nothing important to say. Neither here nor there - inconsequential.
  • Pankaj and Jeff Long are cited by Smith to make it seem he has also mentioned the "Hindu side" and hence he is balanced. But neither is strong enough or creative enough, so they are "useful" to serve in this role.
  • On Jeff Long, I refer you to three urls where we had prior discussions on him, right here:
  • Another product of U of Iowa Fred Smith was Makarand Paranjape, a prof of English at JNU who likes to presents a pro-Hindu tilt. He has had to dance between working w me and appeasing his academic sponsor Fred Smith. He has agonized over this, at times telling me that his open association with me has cost his standing with them, and they stopped inviting him every summer to give lectures in USA like they used to. That's what this "intellectual freedom" amounts to. In any case, Makarand has been largely on the sidelines of important debates for the past decade, and writes relatively non-controversial stuff. This despite the fact that his mentor at JNU was Kapil Kapoor, a no-nonsense, fiery speaker solidly on our side.
  • Fred Smith has crisscrossed both sides of Hinduism, presenting himself as insider or outsider depending on what best suits his interest in a given situation. He is now translating the last 5 vols of Mahabharata for the Univ of Chicago - this is planned to become the international standard on Mahabharata. (Its initial volumes defined the lens: [kshatriya] was translated as "feudal lord" and shudra as "slave". The editor James L. Fitzgerald said the text should be seen as "God's genocide". You get the picture. )
To join the discussion, please sign up on the yahoogroups site and follow the thread here.

Now on the subject of Swami Vivekananda who is the subject of much study as shown above, here's a paper by Rajiv Malhotra which was published in the official RK Mission book commemorating his 150th anniversary and released by the President of India.




There are multiple posts in the Rajiv Malhotra yahoogroups forum where practicing Hindus share relevant  and useful points of view on Swami Vivekananda's message from a dharmic perspective.

Why Hinduism is simply not equal to Right Wing

The following is a reproduction of a seminal thought that Rajiv Malhotra articulates in the yahoo discussion forum. In this post he defines, describes and gives a whole new insight into why people propagating Hindu ideas/ideologies should not be calling themselves as right wing.

Here is the text reproduced in its entirety:

Many Hindu leaders refer to themselves as Rightwing in order to differentiate from the Left. The Left/Right categories need to be understood as an instance of Western Universalism not applicable to us.

After the French Revolution, in the new parliament it was possible for peasants also to get elected as MPs. Earlier the MPs were only feudal/landlords. However, the peasants and landlords elected did not like to sit together. For one thing, French people did not have the habit of bathing and hence their bodies would stink. The rich (landlords) had perfumes to cover up the bad odor. Perfume was expensive and used only by the rich. It was a sign of being rich. So the rich with perfume sat on one side, while the poor without perfume sat on the other side of the aisle in the parliament room. 

They did not know each other by name and the atmosphere was not always friendly. People started referring to an opponent as "the person on the Right (of the aisle)", and conversely, the man on the right would refer to "the person on the Left". The journalists started reporting to the debates as positions from the Left or Right respectively. This is how the poor seeking economic equality became known as the voices on the Left, while the elitists representing wealth were the Right.

A foolish JNU student once asked me, "Sir I am confused whether you are Leftwing or Rightwing. Please clarify who you are.

I replied: My tradition is to bather my body daily. Hence no stink and no need for perfume to cover that up. So I cannot be classified either as some using perfume to cover up the odor, or as someone stinking because of the lack of perfume.

Jokes aside, the Left/Right categories are superficial, silly. In the West, Left/Right refer to two separate packages of values. But this simplification does not allow mixing and matching across these packages.

Right commonly means a religious (i.e. Judeo-Christian) person who supports pro-rich economic policy, and elitist social programs. The Leftist is for the poor, against religion, bigger government, etc.

Question: Was Mohandas Gandhi a Leftist or Rightist? He was championing the poor, making him a Leftist. But he was articulate about supporting his dharma, making him a Rightwing. Many Hindu organizations do a lot for the poor, contradicting this neat pair of categories. There are many "secular" elitists, billionaires, etc. - again not easy to put into a box.

Hindu economic thought reflected in itihas, dharmashastra, arthashastra, etc. cannot be classified as elitist. It just does not fit this strange classification system. The lifestyle mandated for a brahmin is very simple, hardky resembling the typical Rightwing American.

Hindus should not classify themselves as Rightwing. Many so-called champions of "the Hindu Right" have become sucked into WU and operate in this colonial framework.

However, I do refer to some of my opponents as Leftists, because THEY brand themselves proudly in this manner. I am simply calling them by the name they give themselves.

A White Hindu who attended my workshop yesterday in Washington did not understand why I criticized this Left/Right categorizing. I proposed that we abandon this way to classify ourselves, and classify behavior as dharmic/adharmic. Those ideas are better defined for us.

She falsely assumed that I meant: Right = dharma, and Left = adharma. Hence she felt my classification system of dharma/adharma was insulting. She has no clue what dharma/adharma means and yet she blogs as "White Hindu". Need for more education.

I am not merely changing words from English to Sanskrit. I am demolishing the framework in which Left/Right are ways of classifying all persons, my intention being to rescue Hindus from self-branding themselves as Rightwing.

As a Hindu I espouse many qualities of the American Left and yet many other qualities of the American Right. I am not limited by either. I disagree with many things on both sides. This grid does not capture who I am.

Rajiv follows up with this further elaboration of what is now beginning to happen in the West which in a few years will be imported to gullible Indians as a new ideology. 

Rajiv quotes an invite to a workshop on what is named as "Future Left":


See below example of how Amercians are dissatisfied with the Left/Right dichotomy and are trying to build a new "synthetic unity". Why do we want to import this artificial divide in the first place? And then a decade later we will be borrowing American "Future Left" to cure the disease we imported. Instead we should develop new smritis using our frameworks.

..............................................................................................................................................
A Virtual Caucus on the “Future Left"
Saturday, October 25, 2014,10:00 AM Pacific
We'll be explaining what we mean by the “Future Left”—and how you can recognize it in yourself and others, and why it represents the future of progressive politics. Elizabeth Debold will also be a panelist and together with Steve and Carter, we'll examine how progressive politics is changing and how you can play a role in that transformation.
Both Steve and Carter are close personal friends of mine and I have followed the development of their Institute for Cultural Evolution from its beginnings in 2012. Last April, their white paper, Depolarizing the American Mind, was released to the public on the same day as our Beyond Awakening dialogue, where Carter and Steve articulated their strategies for overcoming the "wicked" problem of political polarization in America by helping to evolve both the Left and the Right. Their thesis is that the political polarity of Left and Right is relatively permanent and existential, continuing to reappear in new forms as society changes and evolves. Their approach accordingly seeks to anticipate the future state of these existential political positions by describing the form that the “Future Left” and “Future Right” will likely take in the decades ahead. 

According to Carter and Steve:

An evolutionary principle for working with positive-positive existential polarities, such as “liberal and conservative”, is that each pole needs the other for its own further and fuller development. If one pole dominates or vanquishes the other, pathology is the inevitable result. Applied to politics, this principle indicates that the most sound and politically effective liberal and progressive positions will be those that integrate legitimate conservative values, while still remaining true to their original progressive values. Conservative values can serve to improve liberal positions by challenging and moderating such positions in a way that makes them stronger. The same can be said about the role of liberal values in strengthening conservative positions.
By helping progressive politics move from a position of antithesis, which rejects many of the values of the rest of American society, to a more synthetic position that can better value what America has achieved, we hope to contribute to the emergence of progressive political positions that are able to overcome polarization and accomplish many of their laudable political goals. As described in "Depolarizing the American Mind", we are working to evolve the overall consciousness of the American electorate by increasing the quality and quantity of what people are able to value.

I invite you to join us on Saturday and help to define and develop a more evolved form of left wing politics. In this free conference call you will:
  • Better understand the deeper cultural and historical forces that explain how our nation has become increasingly polarized.
  • Take part in a “participatory caucus” where you can voice your opinion and vote for your priorities.
  • Develop a newfound hope and sense of potential in relation to the political, social, and environmental crises we currently face as a nation.
  • Discover how to view current issues through a developmental lens―which changes how we think about creating change.
  • Hear what pioneers of the “Future Left” have to say about the most important political issues of our time.
  • Develop a new understanding of what political leadership entails from an evolutionary perspective.

To follow further updates on this thread please sign up on the yahoo discussion group. The thread can be followed here.

Rajiv Malhotra's Video Lectures Not Specific to Hinduism

Rajiv Malhotra has shared a list of his videos not specific to Hinduism here. We have provided the Youtube links for now. They still need to be cataloged and indexed. He notes:
" ..Someone recently wanted to see a list of my videos that are not specific to Hinduism. A problem with such partitioning is that my work does not neatly fall into "disciplines" as defined in western education. Dharma for instance permeates so many fields, making it tough to segregate. However, I supplied the following examples in response to the request. This is just fyi."

(Date stamp: May 2013)

Intolerance in the name of freedom of expression

February 13, 2014.
We are posting the statement of respected Supreme Court advocate Monika Arora's statement on the forum. Here is the link to the original thread and followup comments. Join the forum to follow the discussion and understand the real Kurukshetra that is out there.

Rajiv Malhotra shares: "The following message is from Advocate Monika Arora who filed the lawsuit against Penguin and got the settlement. Her client was Shri Dinanath Batra, a mild matured, polite and serious intellectual in Delhi. I think this message gives an important rejoinder to critics."

[statement begin]

Intolerance in the name of freedom of expression

"I was shocked and aghast to read the comments of author Wendy Doniger calling Indian Judiciary as the main villain in this case. Equally shocking was the article of Ram Chandra Guha carried by your esteemed newspaper stating that courts have failed to protect artistic rights. Equally stunning was the letter of Arundhati Roy calling us Hindu fanatic outfit, fly-by-night-outfit and fascists on the one hand and threatening Penguin with protests outside their office on the other hand. All these three reactions displayed the same mindset which is anti Hindu mindset and holds “we will obey the law, if it suits us otherwise damn it.”

Wendy Doniger wrote in her ill famed book that Swami Vivekananda & Mahatma Gandhi advised people to eat beef. Mangal Pandey hero of 1st Independence Movement was under influence of bhang, opium, alcohol; Rani Laxmibai was loyal to the British. Shivalinga is a representation of the male sexual organ in erection. Lord Rama said only an idiot like father would give up a good son like him for the sake of pretty women. The map of India is shown without Kashmir.

The objectionable passages are per-se defamatory, objectionable and insulting to our freedom fighters and the Hindu Gods. Eminent personalities including former ambassador, historian, educationist, freedom fighter approached court of law for deletion of such passages. After 4 years of legal battle, Penguin agreed to withdraw this book and gave an undertaking to the court to this effect. Hence the withdrawal of this book is an outcome of a valid, legal battle fought by people of eminence in this vibrant democracy.

Further this lynch mob and intolerant pseudo-secularists in the name of freedom of expression are crying from rooftops and demanding freedom of defamation.

India is governed by Rule of Law which states that law is Supreme and governs the whole country and its people. Article 19 of the Constitution of India states the fundamental Rights of freedom of expression which comes with reasonable restrictions in public order, morality, unity and integrity.

But the likes of Arundhati Roy are alien to the concept of Rule of Law. She has been more in the news for being on the wrong side of law and was even held guilty for Contempt of Court. Criminal cases were lodged against her for sharing platform with separatists and preaching the separation of Kashmir from India. She has questioned the use of the word ‘Bharat’ for India by Penguin, not realizing that Article 1 of the Constitution of India calls “India, that is Bharat shall be a union of states.”

 Hence the aforementioned people are damning the Indian Courts, damning the publishing house which stated that it respected all religions and damning the group of eminent, educated people who out of their conviction did not resort to any violence but adopted purely legal, civilized means to approach the Court of law for a legal remedy for their legitimate legal grievances. But these champions of freedom of expressions have took upon them their favorite agenda to attack all those who do not agree with them and who dare to talk in favour of Hindus or the Freedom Fighters of this country. They are the likes of the American President who openly declared “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Similarly they declare that either you are with us or you are fascists, extremists and fanatics. This intolerant section has one motto damn everyone who does not agree with them in the name of freedom of expression.

I most humbly state that merely getting an International award does not make you Ms. Wendy Doniger and Ms. Arundhati Roy above the Indian Law and does not give you a right to damn the Indian Courts, Judiciary and all these voices who disagree with you. Further it does not give you freedom to defame the freedom Fighters and any religion in the name of freedom of expression."


Advocate Monika Arora
Supreme Court
Advocate for Sh. Dinanath Batra

[statement end]

Did Jeffrey Long 'Out' Rajiv Malhotra's new book before publication?

This post covers a controversy created by the actions of a Western scholar, who appears to have misused a pre-publication draft of the yet-to-be titled new book authored by Rajiv Malhotra, from whom he privately obtained the copy.

Jeffrey Long first showed up in this forum in Feb 2012 (#2270), where he was the subject of some positive feedback re Hinduism. Next, he appears in regards to the DHANAM conference, in November 2012 (#3373), where he was the steering committee member (despite which, there was room for just a single book discussion on BD).

July 2013
Please dont hijack my new book before it comes out
Rajiv Malhotra writes: Earlier this month, I shared with a small number of scholars the full draft of my new book that is a thorough refutation of the thesis of Neo-Hinduism started by Hacker and continued by others like Rambachan.  One of the very few scholars I trusted sharing my draft with is Jeffrey Long, who is a follower of RK Mission and whom I respect. It was done under strict confidentiality. He promised to write me his comments and suggestions, which I am still waiting for. Then I met Jeff at the recent Vedanta Congress, and we went to a private room to discuss his feedback to my draft....

Today, I see the following post written by him in the RISA List (where I am banned as are most scholars who do not "obey" the authority of Western hermeneutics.)

Clearly, Jeff is reflecting our conversation and my book thesis. Sadly, he chose the forum of his peer group to express this idea, while I had shared my book on the hope (and promise) to get useful feedback from him. I wonder why he could not wait for my book to come out first, and LET IT BE THE SOURCE OF THIS NEW DEBATE...

My disappointment is that he replaces all my work with other references, as though my hard work is to be ignored. Had I known this earlier, I would not have shared my draft with him. He was very keen to have my draft, as he said it would help him in his work, but I expected him to refer to it. (People often cite a work with the author's permission and say it is "forthcoming." So the means to do this attribution exists.)

Rajiv adds:
"...I wish to clarify that I do NOT accuse anyone here of plagiarism. However, if my ideas, which have been written and discussed in so much detail, "trigger" similar ideas in another scholar, it would be normal academic practice to cite me as a source. Even if one's ideas are independently derived, one cites others with similar ideas. Jeff certainly goes out of his way to cite academicians in this regard, but ignores me as if I do not exist. This is a double standard. Yet I see him as a friend and hope he will change this approach.

I am being treated like the "native informant" who has no voice, whose ideas "become valid" only when regurgitated by a "credentialed scholar". This asymmetric posture towards the native informants became the subject of so many of my writings over a decade ago. One sulekha article that summarized this was called "The asymmetric dialog of civilizations". There were many more I wrote on
this issue. That started a whole movement which has snowballed in many directions ever since.

The Europeans started this trend to appropriate the knowledge of pandits and publish it as their own. This is how "Sir" William Jones became established as the "discoverer" of Sanskrit in the eyes of the West - like Columbus being called the discoverer of America as though the natives who lived there for 10,000 years had not discovered it. In a massive wall carving in his honor at oxford, he is referred to as the man "who gave the Hindoos their laws".

To declare only those scholars with western credentials (and hence under their system of management) as being valid, is the worst form of colonization. By this criteria, none of our acharyas, gurus, and even the most advanced yogis would be legitimate. So Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Gandhi, Aurobindo, etc. - none of them and others like them qualify as voices of authority in their own right.

... You may disagree with many of Gandhi's positions (as I do myself). But what I found remarkable in his life was his courage to defy the colonial apparatus and set an example of resistance. We need scholars to be satyagrahis in this sense."

thepatrika adds: "....I am once again appalled  -- not surprised -- at the intellectual dishonesty among some of the Academicians in th US, even in fields which does not involve great amount of money. 
No wonder secrecy has become the hall mark of academic research in Science, Technology and Management, which the possibility of making a "killing" with patents, invention disclosures, or membership in national and int'l organizations, or corporate board memberships, even as they brag about academic freedom and "open" environment for enquiry in universities"

Surya wonders: "...I suspect that Jeffrey may already be engaged with other AAR members in dissecting the contents of the book. I would conjecture that Jeffrey will likely not offer any useful feedback to Rajivji but use the early access to direct his own research.

I hope Jeffrey has access to this forum and offers public response."

Shashi comments:
"...This is sad.

This emphasizes why the book "Invading the Sacred" commissioned by Rajivji is a must-read. Specially relevant is Yvette Rosser article. It exposes how RISA folks operate as a cartel. What is particularly sad in this case is betrayal at even person-to-person level trust.

Rajiv's response:
Thanks, Shashi ji.
I want people to know that Shashi drove from out of state just to attend my talk at the Vedanta Congress. He can verify that I spoke on this thesis in my forthcoming book. 

Ashish comments:
"...I am a dalit residing in India. And I am very very impressed by your work. Have read both of your books. Even though I am dalit I still love my country INDIA. India has given me opportunity to rise above the poverty in which I was born. I am a s/w engineer in a multinational firm in India..."

Madhu adds:
"... it is equally true that most westerners do look at us through a lens of superiority even if some manage to hide it, that is just the social conditioning they got via history, culture, church, society. There is nothing racial about this. There is still some time to go before these attitudes change. Until then there is no harm in being pragmatic about it."

Rajiv's response: 
"...   It has to do with the ego's mixed up loyalties and projects. I once reprimanded Sarah Caldwell who was simultaneously (1) a practicing Hindu in the academy and
very active in organizing Hinduism related events, and yet (2) more loyal to her academic peers than to dharma, and hence compromising 1 to benefit 2.

There are similar instances I encounter daily among Indian Hindus - conflict between their private domain of Hindu practice and their public domain of career or "reputation" or business interest, etc. "

Rahul thinks:
"... even as the new book is launched with an attempt to steal the limelight with an attitude that might go like "RM is treading a path that has already been examined critiqued  and debunked". They are likely going to launch a propaganda war with a head start having had time to read the transcript and formulate the approach to attack the new book (or RM)." 

Karigar provides additional context on Jeffrey Long:
"... I've had some personal interaction with him in the past. He's definitely a very nice guy, but -

I've no hesitating in completely agreeing with Rajiv's nuanced critique of his actions. Also, during last year's AAR (where a separate Panel featured Being Different) I recall some behind-the-scenes controversy at another panel where Jeff Long was involved. There his semi-public comments were an interesting study in virtually ignoring Rajiv, while off handedly (back handedly?) agreeing that the points made were serious enough to warrant a high level discussion/response.
I'd like to add just one point to what Rajiv has already said. It seems that he is a symptom of the Social Sciences scholar mentality, where one gets one's authority/credibility by subjective means, mostly by how "impressive" one sound/writes, etc. This just won't fly in the hard-sciences, technology or business, as one's capability can be very easily evaluated. 
For a religion scholar, to stay above the glass ceiling (& be called a scholar) it appears one has to ignore non-academia people's work as long as one can afford to get away with it. Jeff Long seems to be following this standard-operating-procedure. Of course it doesn't say much for his personal behavior & sense of judgement, when he does this to Rajiv.

Firstly, Rajiv has pretty much broken thru this 'glass ceiling' a long time ago; and secondly, he seems to be using private discussion material from Rajiv's work to preempt it's impact when it's published, even if he claims it was not intentional."

Jeffrey Long is welcome to respond at the 'Being Different Forum'.


Update: October 19
Jeffrey Long responded in the comments section below, as well as the forum (link here) defending his position, and Rajiv provided a counter response. After some followups, this thread was closed. I've summarized the final comments of Rajiv Malhotra below (emphasis mine):
"... I had made a remark on Jeff's writing many weeks ago, and he exercised his right to respond, and this started a brief back and forth discussion. I am glad he and I have agreed to cooperate as friends sharing our passions as Hindus. It is good when such episodes lead to solidarity and clarity going forward. So no point in further discussion as the [matter] is happily resolved. I look forward to Jeff's participation on this forum."
 

American Veda: A Digestion of Hinduism - Part 1

Prologue:
This is the first of two parts of a detailed summary that tracks the discussion on Phil Goldberg's American Veda (AV) in the forum. On the surface, this appears to be a very positive book about Hinduism that will have a positive impact in the long run. Besides, the author himself appears to be an amiable person (he's on twitter too). What does a deeper analysis of Phil's writings reveal? The first round of discussions was initiated in December 2011 that resulted in an email debate between Phil and Rajiv. A few more threads around this topic were posted in February and June of 2012.  The most recent discussions occurred in September and December 2012, and will be summarized in a sequel to this post. A big thanks to contributor Surya for the Purva Paksha done in this post!

There are three sections to part-1.
The first section introduces Phil's book. RMF gets to know of Phil's book. 

Section-2 gets inside the book and some of Phil's articles in Huffington Post and his Youtube videos. Evidence of digestion, deliberate erasing of original Hindu sources are sighted. 

Section-3 (Digestion) gives you a blow-by-blow textbook example of digestion, where the conversation starts with the greatness of Hinduism and how the world can learn from it .... and ends with a stiletto that says you don't really have to be a Hindu, no way to convert, have your Ash Wednesday, and you can just utilize Yoga and Hinduism like a "plug in" or a "add-on" to your existing religion (Abrahamic).


Section 1 (December 2011) Initial Exchange

The discussion of AV was motivated by the discussion in the following thread:
My response to a Christian wanting to DIGEST Hinduism into Christian The person writing the post below is threatened by my positions on difference between Hinduism and Christianity. He espouses how Hinduism can be digested into... 

In a followup response, Rajiv Malhotra had this to say in reference a quote from a Newsweek article posted by Surya:
"... We are all Hindus now - Lisa Miller, Newsweek, August 14, 2009,

..Quote 2
The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: "Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names." A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal."

Rajiv's response:

" The mindset in the above quotes, from Lisa Miller to Stephen Prothero, and on to Phil Goldberg's "American Veda" - all represent the digestion of dharma. Prothero above even says that Hinduism is nothing more than a collection of parts you can pick and choose from. he does not understand the
notion of integral unity I explain in chapter 3 of BD. That is what we need to understand to prevent this digestion by breaking into parts and cherry picking. "


In a subsequent followup, Rajiv noted:
"...Self-Realization Fellowship, Lisa Miller's article "We are all Hindus", Phil Goldberg's recent book called "American Veda" and many other similar works that our gurus parrot - these are accepting the Judeo-Christian premises into which Hindu deities and stories get mapped WITH APPARENT RESPECT...."

Someone forwarded Rajiv's comments to Phil, leading to an interesting email exchange and discussion that is captured in this thread. We carry excerpts here:
Phil Goldberg's exchange with me
Phil (to Rajiv): You are right that I rejoice in the impact the dharma has had on me and America as a whole.  You are not right in implying that I don't care if the original sources are not recognized.  I stated several times in American Veda that it is important to acknowledge the sources and maintain their purity. ... In the last chapter, for instance, I write:

...Even more important, respecting the source can help prevent something vital from getting lost in translation. . . .  while adaptation is inevitable and desirable, one hopes the process will be carried out with care. If we do not treat authentic Vedic teachings with respect, we will deprive the future of their true value. The task—a delicate and sacred one—is to carefully shape the ancient ideas to fit modern society without distorting them or diminishing their value.
I hope that clarifies my position.  I'm not sure what you mean when you say: So many Indians and Hindus support this book (and others like it) and are surprised when I tell them how dangerous this is.   Do you think there is something dangerous about my book?  If so, I'm at a loss to understand what you could possibly mean.

Rajiv to Phil: Hi Phil, I would be delighted to discuss with you online or live, with mutual respect. I regard you as a good writer and mean nothing personal when I feel a certain way of your thesis. If you recall, i spent considerable time with you in person in delhi in 2005 going through my UTurn Theory. At that time you said you were thinking of writing a book on the history of yoga in america. I pointed out to you that the real story is how its Indian roots got forgotten. You were intrigued. I also mentioned that the story does not end with yoga as commonly understood but goes into neuroscience, cognitive science, transcendentalism, etc. You were at my talks when i described all this in great detail using powerpoints. Later after a few months you wrote to me that you had extensively revised the book and it was going to take longer. When it finally came out, I did see a whiff here and there on the uturn theory, but my concern has been that it truncated it and glossed over the real issues with appropriation - the digestion into western universalism. ... This is what BEING DIFFERENT discusses, i.e. the irreducibility of core differences that force a choice. These choices are the boundary where the western ego recoils and wants to return home and reclaim western identity. The commonly celebrated "joy of being digested" as in the references to Lisa Miller or your writings are the result of not understanding the full dimension of digestion. None of this means that your work is intentionally "dangerous" - but its incompleteness in appreciating the process at work causes people to celebrate the digestion as a sort of merger of equals which it is not. The tiger digesting the deer remains the tiger, in fact stronger, but the deer turns into a pile of shit. This has happened to many civilizations that were also similarly "assimilated" into Christianity and the west - but they now live in museums... If you want to discuss this, I would be delighted. Lets approach it with open minds. 


Venkat comments:
"... A very good observation by Rajiv in his response to Goldberg. Historically, Christianity has usurped traditions that belonged to other religions and cultures, by a process George.T aptly calls Christian scavenging. Ironically, many traditions such as yoga (and its intrinsic aspect of meditation) are incompatible with Christianity. Recent researches in neuroscience make it clear that if one were to be faithful to Christianity, a contemplation on the Christian god results in rumination, which activates the limbic system and the amygdala, producing an undesirable fight-or-flight response, unlike Hindu meditation, which activates the anterior cingulate and causes bliss...."

Rajiv's response:
"I started this work in the mid 1990s as a theoretical physicist pursuing Indian philosophy. The center of my interest was consciousness studies. I invested heavily on inquiring why the appropriations from dharma into what became "western" theories in the mid 1990s was not see as an issue. Nobody cared, least of all the highly ignorant Hindu leaders patrolling with pomp all over the place.

So the first set of grants given by my foundation were specifically to get trained Indian philosophers into this area. After a few million dollars and several dozen events and sponsored scholars, we did achieve in making a few obscure Indian scholars very prominent.

But Templeton Foundation stepped in and appropriated nearly every one of them. This is a major story I want to write one day. The data is well organized but I have been too busy elsewhere...."
 
bluecupid commented:
"I like Phil's approach. The Dharmic traditions of the East are being accepted and mainstreamed into the West bit by bit and its creating an open-minded, inclusive atmosphere which benefits Indian Hindus, if only Indian Hindus would take advantage of that."

Rajiv response:
"The above view is precisely the one held by "liberal, secular,
progressive" westerners who (contrary to what liberalism ought to mean) cannot shed their fixation about western identity....
... Note her separation and dissection of dharma away from the cultural soil of the source. This is precisely what the west did to separate Buddhism from India and from Hinduism - all in the name of "cleaning" it of its cultural inferiority. ... now this digestion is rather open.

I predict that Hindu dharma is following suit fast - and bluecupid is an example of this mindset. Digestion is being called "mainstreaming". The old soil from which it emerged is to be rejected in favor of the new soil thats clean (and white).

This discussion is good education for those Indians and other Hindus sitting in silos imagining that the only danger is Christianity. I find folks of this kind at places like Esalen - a white bastion as its founder also once said - and their racism is indeed very deep but subtle."


Rajiv Malhotra is another followup brilliantly sums up the necessity for Purva Paksha:
"Reversing the gaze is a necessary but not sufficient condition to resist.

Until you do this, you will continue to live unconsciously in the colonized paradigms that have been downloaded over centuries. The mere act of gazing at the "other" turns the colonial framework into "other", creating space between
subject and object to examine the other unemotionally.

This separation then generates the need to understand the "self" that is doing the gazing. WHERE do I stand and gaze at them? How am I different? This is how I got started, and then begins the quest to understand one's difference in a way
that is not causing anxiety.

Once difference is clearly anchored (with mutual respect), then the resistance becomes a possibility.

Gandhi established his difference and used that as his ground for resistance - his use of purva paksha, difference and refusal to get digested are explained in the book as examples."

Wadhwa responds:
"Mr.Phil Goldberg's attempt to write American Veda and using this as a title for his book amounts to intellectual subversion and moral turpitude behind the mask of literature. Vedas are basically repositories of knowledge with a scientific basis standing for dignity and sublimity of human life and its perfection. They are the first and foremost books of the world literature and the foundation of Hindu religion since they form the root of most of Hindu scriptures. Apparently, using the title 'American Veda' by Phil is nothing short of a disinformation campaign to mislead people and a subtle attempt to digest real Vedism..."

Shaas responds:
"... "American Veda" - the title is sloppy, lacking humility and respect. But in the same manner, Veda is not Indian. As you stated, Veda stand for "dignity and sublimity of HUMAN LIFE and its perfection". Therefore they are as American as Indian and as Brasilian. Veda is the basis, the blueprint of life and the
Universe. They contain universal truths, universal laws."

Rajiv's response:
"yes, title is a non issue. I am in private discussion with Phil
and we both hope to have a video taped conversation between us to bring both sides openly and amicably. Meanwhile, as a courtesy to him as he is not present here (though we invited him to join), I am closing this thread."


Readers can find more details in a few posts from the blog "DigestingVeda": "Phil Goldberg's exchange with Rajiv Malhotra".

Section 2 (February 2012) Red Flag


A second thread that deals with Goldberg's work is:
American Digestion
This thread was initiated by Surya, and Rajiv provides a preface: 

"..Besides the issues raised by Surya below regarding Goldberg's book, I have expressed my displeasure to Goldberg. He interviewed me in depth in India and USA for material to write his book and received numerous leads from
me. I was speaking at a Delhi conference on my UTurn Theory and there he was in the front row with his recorder. So many of the ideas and examples I gave then found there way in his book - including the one about Mary baker Eddy mentioned below - with only a marginal acknowledgment.
So here is another kind of digestion also going on here: Western authors who learn from Indian "native informants" (myself in this case) then go on to write in their own names what ought to be credited to the "native informants". I will
address this issue in my uturn writings... In Jim Burklo's critique of BD (to be published in a week) he relies upon
Goldberg as his authority to claim that Hinduism is a bogus category invented by Indians under colonial influence! Talk  about one westerner quoting another, who in turn merely cited yet another - in a circular chain of quotes - to then
establish what becomes known as "fact", and this shows up in Wiki, media, textbooks, museum interpretations..."


Surya posted:
"The Background
---------------
Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910), founder of the Christian Science Movement, published "Science and Health With a Key to the Scriptures" in 1875. She was greatly influenced by writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry D. Thoreau who
made their Dharmic knowledge influence widely felt through books, magazines and newspaper articles. We find in as late as the 33rd edition of her book, excerpts from Sir Edwin Arnold's translation of Bhagavad Gita.

... Philip Goldberg, in one of the presentations of his book "American Veda", makes a reference to it and admits that these references were dropped in later versions. He just smiles uncomfortably as he says this and nothing more.

 

.... in future versions of Mary Baker Eddy's book, ideas were implicitly presented as Christian Science. No more references to Bhagavad Gita.

This is what Rajiv Malhotra calls digestion - as in, you digest the content and wipe out the identity of the source. Goldberg implicitly acknowledges in the presentation with his uncomfortable smile that digestion has happened.

Do not expect sympathy or remorse from Goldberg - he goes far enough to call Emerson the American Shakaracharya, kind of implying the split from Dharmic roots began with Emerson.

I applaud Goldberg for pointing out the Dharmic origins in his presentations. His comments on Dharmic systems are very respectful and complementary of their richness. Unfortunately, he does not make any direct references to Christian intentions of digesting Dharmic knowledge systems...

Let us take a look at his article in Huffington Post titled "Colbert: Try Hinduism for Lent".

In that article, Goldberg writes:
"(a) While researching my book, American Veda, I interviewed dozens of Christians and Jews -- among them ministers and rabbis -- who returned to their ancestral faith after a lengthy period of alienation or indifference, because the teachings that were birthed in India gave them a new perspective on what it
means to be spiritual.

(b) You don't even have to call yourself a Hindu for that matter. I know it seems weird, but the tradition is so adaptable and welcoming that tens of millions of Americans orient their spiritual lives around meditation, yoga and other practices from India but don't think of themselves as Hindus"


I rest my case"


Arjun adds:
"I dont think Rajiv's critique of the Western paradigm is anti westerner or anti white because most of his work is criticizing Indians much more.People like myself can appreciate his work because we have the advantage of seeing both worldviews much more clearly then most because we are brought up in both.So he's right on the points he's making because who wants to see Yoga stripped away from its roots where instead of a whole lifestyle based on Dharma becomes an accessory to a western lifestyle to later end up like a Tamagotchi doing the Asanas for you when you touch the buttons when you're out shopping at your local
shopping mall.."


Surya has a followup to his initial post:
"Philip Goldberg is an ordained interfaith minister.  He had openly stated that he is not a Christian...

Goldberg is definitely sympathetic (if not more) to Christianity.  ... If he really did not believe in Christianity, he should not try so hard to prop-up what he does not believe in.  Why not just encourage people to follow the secular spiritual practices that he so wholeheartedly preaches and ask them to shun what he himself does not believe in?  After all, he is so quick and frequent to suggest that these secular spiritual practices do not need religious beliefs.

... Every chance he gets, he is happy to write about taking spiritual aspects from Dharmic systems while suggesting that the Hindu religious beliefs can be dropped.  He is also quick to disqualify Hinduism as a hodge-podge of regional sects that was congealed into an incoherent mass by the constructive power of the British Raj.  But in the same breath, he is very happy to suggest layering these isolated spiritual practices with Abrahamic religions which he claims he does not believe in...

...It is cleaner for interfaith ministers to prop-up the edifice of Abrahamic religions by extracting aspects of Dharmic systems, call them secular, and add them to Abrahamic religions.  Would undermine the faith if a self-proclaimed Christian preacher or religious scholar were to do this.  There is the added benefit I suppose; Calling yourself interfaith and Universal lends you credibility that you need when you are busily searching for things to extract out of Dharmic systems.  But actions and words cannot hide biases and true intentions.

Systematic theology is always on the prowl for uplifting secular add-ons for updating theology to fit the thinking of the times.  Dharmic spiritual practices are fast penetrating American lives.  .... Since Christian core scriptures are  incompatible with other religions, stripping out Dharmic religious aspects is essential to ensure scriptural integrity before absorbing secular aspects of Dharmic systems.  ...  if you can undermine and dismember the connections to the scripturally-incompatible Dharmic religious aspects before digesting the compatible spiritual aspects.  Who better to deliver this than one who appears to love Dharmic spiritual practices but has nothing to do with Christianity?" 


Here is the post from Digesting Veda blog on section-2 
 2. Post 2: "Goldberg's Interfaith "Digestion" plan exposed!" 

Section 3 (June 2012) Digestion

This thread was motivated by a review of "Being Different".
Response to a BD review and Evolution of God
Veena posted:
"I came across a video on Youtube by Philip Goldberg who is the author of the book American Veda. This is a 46 minute lecture enlightening a group of Americans on the extent of influence of ancient Indian thought within modern American society. While I have not read his book, his effort appears
complementary to the efforts of Being Different."

Rajiv comment:

" Message 2255 and the thread that follows from there was a
discussion specific to how Goldberg's work is a uturn/digestion. I recommend you go through that. Superficial impressions can be misleading."


Renu asks a very interesting question:
"I heard Mr. Goldberg's talk at the U of M in Ann Arbor. My feeling was some what similar to Veena ji's. Later I read the discussions -- one question that presents itself is; so what will make us feel better? Should we let them (white Christian, Muslim and others to be like us or not)? How is Hindu Dharma to spread?     

Rajiv's response:  
" Same dilemma exists for every instance of digestion. Each digestion also has the effect of spreading oneself. The deer gets 'spread' widely once it gets digested into the tiger - as part of the tiger's DNA running around, as the tiger's shit being spread, as part of the powerful tiger's presence in the jungle. The price is the loss of one's separate self existence. Through the East India Company's digestion of India's wealth, one could celebrate that Indian wealth has 'spread' widely - the crown jewels in the London Tower are mainly digested Indian jewels, for instance. So lets celebrate this, ok?

Whats a better way to spread without losing one's SEPARATE SELF-EXISTENCE? I am afraid I have explained this time and time again in writing and talks, so I wont be able to do it again at this now..."

Surya follows up in a separate thread using the good cop / bad cop analogy that was also mentioned in section 2 [sorry, i edited it out, but you can read it in the original thread]

Digestion - The Good Cop Style Let us recall the good cop/bad cop roles.  (This was explained by Rajiv in Invading the Sacred, pages 253-261, and since then in numerous writings and talks.) They are two sides of the same digestion coin.

Bad cops are bad mouthing Dharmic traditions and calling for conversions.  They are easy to spot.  They are the tigers wanting to digest the deer.  Deer has no confusion  - Deer sees the tiger as is and is fully ware of what the tigers want to do.  Tiger has never any confusion and makes no efforts to be subtle.

Good cops are respectful and full of praises.  They are not easy to spot.  They are sophisticated tigers in sheep's clothing.  Deer often confuse the disguised tiger to be a real sheep.  Deer needs to be sophisticated and not fall for the external appearance.  ...


Let us take a look at one of Phil Goldberg's blogs and analyze carefully.

Phil Goldberg writes: "one of the unique merits of the Indian spiritual heritage that colonial powers labeled Hinduism is that it's so multifaceted it makes Christianity, Judaism and Islam seem uniform by comparison. You know all those deities -- the gods and goddesses that cause outsiders to think Hinduism is polytheistic? To Hindus, they're just different forms of the one ultimate reality called Brahman. Same with avatars like Krishna and Rama."

Comment: What a nice guy!  Such a friend of Hinduism.  He truly understands us.

Phil Goldberg adds: "So there's plenty of room for Jesus. Most Hindus are happy to include him -- along with Buddha -- in the pantheon of incarnations, saints, gurus and holy ones they regard as worthy of reverence.  In fact, if you visit any number of organizations created by Indian teachers in America, such as Swami Vivekananda's Vedanta Society or Paramahansa Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship, you will see portraits of Jesus in places of honor. And in some of those institutions, Christians who want to be initiated with a sacred mantra are invited to choose one associated with Jesus -- or with Mary, if they're inclined toward the Divine Feminine. It's part of a concept known as ishta devata, or cherished deity.

Comment: Phil is calling for reverse digestion!!  He is suggesting that Jesus should be assimilated as an Avatar.  Let us invite him to our temples for flattering talks to boost our egos and send some money his way to say thank you for being a friend.

Phil Goldberg adds: "For thousands of years, India has understood that the divine can be imagined and experienced in all kinds of ways, as in the oft-quoted verse from the Rig Veda, Ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti  -- typically translated as, "Truth is one, the wise call it by many names." Hence, individuals are free to use their preferred form in their spiritual practices. "

Comment:  Hmmm ... why is Phil suddenly bringing this up?  I have seen this verse quoted by tigers to tenderize Deer before digestion.  This should raise a red flag because it is being wrongly interpreted to soften and disarm Hindus.  The verse is saying that truth can be seen and presented in more than one way.  A convenient, but wrong, interpretation that is often invoked for this verse is that all religions offer the same truth...

Wait a minute.  Is that why he suggested that there is plenty of room for Jesus?  I see now that he is not suggesting assimilation of Jesus as an Avatar.   Instead, is he suggesting that Hindus should find it acceptable to use Dharmic practices with Christianity?!

Phil Goldberg adds: "While researching my book, American Veda, I interviewed dozens of Christians and Jews -- among them ministers and rabbis -- who returned to their ancestral faith after a lengthy period of alienation or indifference, because the teachings that were birthed in India gave them a new perspective on what it means to be spiritual. And you don't have to wear a dhoti, put a mark on your forehead (you've already done that for Ash Wednesday anyway) or declare your allegiance to anything. There is no Hindu equivalent of what we call conversion."

Comment: OK.  Not exactly cheering for Hinduism.  But he wants Christians and Jews to experience spiritual practices of Hinduism and return to their respective faiths.  Still no blatant digestion but getting suspicious.  Some of us happy-go-lucky Hindus are happy as long as they openly acknowledge that they are digesting Dharma (rather than be angry with the thief, they are happy as long as the thief acknowledges that he stole from their specific house.)

Phil Goldberg adds: "You don't even have to call yourself a Hindu for that matter. I know it seems weird, but the tradition is so adaptable and welcoming that tens of millions of Americans orient their spiritual lives around meditation, yoga and other practices from India but don't think of themselves as Hindus."

Comment: Hello!  Unadulterated, blatant, quintessential digestion!!  This is typical of good-cop U-turners as described by Rajiv Malhotra.

Source

The U-turner who wants to internally harmonize what he has brought back from Dharma must digest what he likes of Dharma into his biblical DNA. This goes through various stages of removing aspects of Dharma (such as karma-reincarnation) that are incompatible with biblical DNA. Some prior Western U-turner might have already gone through this sifting process, eliminating the incompatible. Many of the popular U-turners have gained their popularity because they have created digested versions (they were involved in digestion and/or compiled what others already digested) for consumption by the mass market."


Bhattacharya responds:
"I'd suggest that as soon as Phil says "so there is plenty of room for Jesus", warning flags should go up.

At this point, we may think to ourselves: hmmmmm...plenty of room for Jesus who? Jesus Christ? But exclusivist history-centric Christian truth claims are at odds with Dharmic embodied knowing and integral unity. I bet this Phil fellow is
using a 'good cop' routine on me, any second now he'll try to digest Dharma, and remap it into synthetic Christian 'sameness'/Western Universalism." 


Rajiv Malhotra presents necessary conditions for how non-Hindus, (Christians, for example), can respectfully embrace Hinduism

1) Start with mutual respect as a necessary condition that we demand. 

2) "Mutual" does not mean unconditional; it has to be reciprocated from the other side. This is why Ravana, Bin Laden, Hitler type of persons do NOT deserve our respect, i.e. because they simply cannot respect others who are different. 

 
3) History-centrism must be EXPLICITLY REJECTED by the other side, because HC results in mandatory exclusivity claims, and hence CANNOT respect others.


4) Accepting Jesus without the prerequisite of removing HC is like adopting a snake without first removing its poison. I am always inviting my Christian friends to adopt dharma and see Jesus as Ishta-devata, BUT always explaining that the concept of ishta-devata requires removing HC. No ishta-devata can be exclusive or HC as that would distort the principle of ishta-devata.
.."

Sameer comments:
"There is a growing section of the population in the west that calls itself Christian, wants to follow Jesus, but does not accept the history-centric exclusivity claims. It is this section that can be compatible with Dharma and I think Dharmic people ought to make them feel welcome."


Rajiv's comment: 

"Not so fast. This is the group represented by Gregg in my Patheos debate. Pls read that and all the comments following his post. This mindset is also represented by Mark Tully - pls go through that video.

The point is that most of the time the non-history-centrism is a posture to help digest dharma, but upon closer inquiry there remains in the background the notion of the historical Jesus as necessary. I request that you kindly do some reading beyond the "sameness Christianity" - thats the next bridge for you to cross."


Chandramouli adds:
"... Mark Tully, suave, cultivated, genteel, rational, reasonable, global - and focussed - reveals a mindset that underpins what Rajiv has pointed out even while Tully Sahib projects a cultured universalism.

Listen, for example, to his "Life in a Seminary" .."


Raghu adds some interesting comments:
"According to Carl Jung, there are three deficiencies in the Christian Myth. These are:
firstly, the space given to women. In Catholicism there is space for a virgin pure woman.

Secondly, the space given to matter is only as a dead entity. It is also seen as the devils play ground.

Third, the space given to the other. The other is evil.

The dharmic myths have a balance between the masculine and feminine. Every human quality has a god, and every god has a consort. Matter is divine, and man is one part of the infinite evolution and manifestation of matter. Matter is Prakruthi and a primal godhead. There is no 'other' to be fragmented, dumped with ones shadow, therefore hated. The other is to be embraced and is part of oneself. This was explicitly stated by the Buddha as he achieved Nirvaana.

The Dharmic ways are therefore psychologically holistic, sociologically inclusive and politically democratic, ecologically oriented and spiritually grounded. That's why they are the hope for mankind. Wars will end and the earth will be treated with love only when the myths based on the fragmentation between the victim, the oppressor and the savior retreat and give space to the myths of deep inner work and meditation. The fragmented myths are not only the stuff of the Abhrahamic books but also of every Hollywood film and TV serial. They are the subtext of every advertising commercial. "
Sameer has some questions on Surya's deconstruction of Phil's article:
1. Let's be fair. Phil is saying that Jesus is compatible with Dharma but he is not saying that all religions offer the same truth.
[Moderator notes that a history-centric Jesus is simply incompatible with Hinduism and Dharmic faiths, as explained by Rajiv earlier]

This [the final part where Phil simply mouse-cliks & deletes Hinduism] I agree is objectionable. If they adopt Indic practices, they should respectfully acknowledge the source."

Surya has a brilliant followup that hits the nail on the head:
"Please ask them the following questions:
(1) Do they believe that Jesus is the Son of God? [Rajiv's comment: I would add 'literal' son, otherwise they play games with what 'son' means.]
(2)  Do they believe that Jesus died to redeem us of sin?
(3) That humans can have salvation only through Jesus?

If they say NO to all three questions, we can agree that history-centric exclusivity has been dropped.

If the answer is YES to all [any] three of those questions, they have much bigger problems than worrying about compatibility with Dharma. 

For example:
(1) What did Jesus achieve? Did he die in vain? How does he compare with Gandhi in achieving freedom for his people?


(2) What are the moral implications of Jesus forgiving sins of other people?  


Is it morally right for Jesus to forgive someone who harmed me without me forgiving that someone first?  

What are the implications of a human Jesus taking away personal responsibility by taking their sin away?
 

(3) What does Christianity offer that Dharmic traditions do not already offer?
...

Ergo, Christianity needs history-centrism, and hence the importance of Nicene creed to Christianity.  There is no escaping.

Christianity is a very resilient religion.  It has faced much opposition in its history and Nicene creed is a very well thought out expedient for its stability and survival.

Thus, if a liberal Christian says that they reject history-centrism, either they do not know the implications of what they are saying or they are lying with the intent of digesting Dharma.

This leads us to the consideration that Rajivji mentioned in his response: "The point is that most of the time the non-history-centrism is a posture to help digest dharma, but upon closer inquiry there remains in the background the notion of the historical Jesus as necessary."

Rajiv's comment:

This is exactly the sharpness of purva paksha and response that our tradition calls for. We must learn to push deeper and not settle for easy answers.

Sameer proceeds to do a Purva Paksha of the SRF (spiritual research foundation) that does not raise any red flags at a first glance. Rajiv's response:

"...Swami Kriyananda is simultaneously speaking great things about Hinduism and also Christianity WITHOUT THE CAVEAT OF REMOVING HISTORY CENTRISM ..

...Recently a western documentary maker was
scheduled to interview me for a film on spirituality. He wants to show the sameness of all paths, but after reading BD he got uncomfortable. So at the last minute he got what he wanted in an interview with a well known RKM swami in the Boston area and another with a well known "sameness" Vedanta scholar in Rochester. Both of them were glad to oblige, and not provoke with a stand that forces people out of their comfort zone. So he called me to say that he already
has the statement from Hindu experts that suffice. I face this all the time ...


 ... I refer you to www.HinduGoodNews.com to understand the difference between Hindu and Christians good news about dealing with the human condition....

...I am disappointed but not surprised that such a large number of well meaning persons dont seem to understand some rudimentary logic: The universality of physics does NOT mean that ALL TRUTH CLAIMS are valid. I think people dont get the idea that truth claim is different than truth. Every physics-claim by every scientist does not turn out to be true; each claim undergoes validation as per the scientific method. Just making a claim by itself does not establish its validity. We have free speech which includes the right to make claims that could be false. Physicists make all sorts of hypotheses and every hypothesis is not necessarily true. You should refer to Christian doctrine as a hypothesis, no more and no less. You must go through my detailed responses in another thread recently that: All claims of dharma are not dharmic; otherwise the ideologies or Ravana, Bib Laden, Hitler, and every random person would be dharmic. Dharma would turn into moral relativism with no standards or criteria to determine it."

Jalan has another analysis of SRF and Paramahamsa Yogananda's writings on Christ. For brevity, we leave it out, but its worth reading in the original thread.

Surya responds to one of Sameer's earlier comments on universalism of science:
"> Sameer: Dharma is a universal science - it cannot belong to any nation any more than Physics can. The original teachings of Jesus are nothing but Dharma.

Underlying principle you are using is: Universal science does not belong to any one nation. It does not follow that people can take laws of Physics and add subjective variations and send back into the world of science.... It suffices to say that modifying or adding physics knowledge is a tightly controlled and managed process and not a free for all. Should not the same be true for Dharma? "

Rajeev has the last word in this long post. For brevity, only the highlighted ones are included: 
".....I do not deny that: Jesus' statement could be reinterpreted using entirely new categories and meanings to make them close to dharma. (So no use telling me how this or that swami reinterpreted. As per #1 above, we know that is a simple thing to do. What I question is the legitimacy of such reinterpretations. These new categories and meanings contradict the basic premises of Bible and Christianity, so such reinterpretations are lifting Jesus out of the context of that tradition....
 
.... Can you get Christians to install Krishna, Shiva, Durga, Kali, Ganesh, Hanuman into their church on the basis of sameness of divinity? Please watch my Tully debate in which I ask him to do this when he claims "we are same" and notice how he recoils at my bold suggestion."
 
 Epilogue:
At this point, it's clear that the evidence is quite damaging in that the approach chosen by the author (Phil Goldberg), what ever may be his intent, is in fact an example of digestion of Hinduism, where he is cherry-picking Hindu concepts (ripping them from Hindu context) and doing a plug-and-play into Western Universalism, essentially deeming Hinduism to be irrelevant to Westerners today. Yet, it seems there is some more to said about this encounter. Don't miss part-2.