| Fw: REBIRTH: Documented Modern Scientific Evidence of Rebirth: Reinc
Murali posts: "....There were references to reincarnation in the old and New Testaments. In A. D. 325 the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, along with his mother, Helena deleted references to reincarnation contained in the Bible. The second council of Constantinople, meeting in Ad. 553, confirmed this action and declared the concept of reincarnation a heresy. Apparently, they thought this concept would weaken the growing power of the Church.... Rajiv comment: Digestors like Carl Gregg love precisely this kind of claim. Everything they digest from dharma is said to have be already in early Christianity. It was lost due to politics over centuries. So now we are merely claiming back what was ours to begin with. Unfortunately, many people think they are doing themselves a favor by advocating this - also Jesus lived in India, Parmahansa Yogananda follower's claim that he equated Brahman = Christ.... The point is that these ideas were marginalized in Christianity for a reason - their incompatibility with Nicene Creed. You should understand why my target is this Creed per se. You cannot allow them to selectively import certain dharma ideas without working out the implications which topple their whole edifice of exclusivity. My point here holds for karma being accepted by many americans today, yoga, sacredness of earth, etc. One cannot pick and choose a few items here and there and digest them - rendering dharma redundant and its integrity compromised. Raj asks: "People who hold such "sameness" views regarding reincarnation in the bible need to be first clear about: "What" reincarnates? We know it is the Atman that goes through the birth-death-cycle. We have the entire Karma-Reincarnation phenomenon fully explained in our Dharmic traditions. Do the Abrahamic traditions have anything that is equivalent of Atman? Soul is NOT Atman. Soul CANNOT reincarnate. There is nothing in there about Karma - unless we compel ourselves to find it like Theosophy/Steiner/SRF folks do.
If at all reincarnation was there in the bible as suggested, it is just one more example of a Synthetic Unity of parts borrowed/stolen from elsewhere without bothering to properly understand and integrate into some existing system....
Rajiv comment: This is why in BD and various talks I explain that
atman is non-translatable and should be used as is in English. Not only
does soul not reincarnate, its relationship with God differs from the
atman-Brahman relationship in major schools of dharma; animals do not
souls where animals have atman and even plants do."
Prashanth wonders:
"Such confidence. I am sorry but you talk as though you know for a fact the there is an atman and a soul. I can never grasp how you can know such a thing exists."
Milanda Panha is a famous work of Buddhist literature that was supposedly compiled in the first century BC. The work is a dialouge about the Buddhist doctrine between the Bactrian Greek King Milinda and Buddhist monk Nagasena.Rajiv comment: The discussion and works we are dealing with concern TRUTH-CLAIMS of various traditions. Meaning we are comparing and contrasting what X and Y claim. I dont think you can prove ANYTHING in the realm of metaphysics using conventional notions of proof. We cannot prove karma theory or Original Sin, we cannot prove (or disprove) heaven/hell or reincarnation. But we are here to examine how they differ and what the implications are. If you want to inquire into whether atman exists or soul exists as a philosophical inquiry, I suggest a more productive use of your time would be to enroll in a curriculum on philosophy...." Sameer responds: Two remarks - firstly, the influence of Dharma on the west predates Christianity. For example, the Yogi Kalyana who accompanied Alexander on his way back, and took Samadhi in Persia, made a deep impression on the Greeks. Also, there was a Buddhist monastery in Alexandria, if I recall correctly. Rajiv comment: Indeed I am compiling influences in various periods. The pre-Christian influences are several - Buddhists brought the first bells to the Middle east which became church bells (Jewish temples did not have bells); monkhood went from Buddhism to Christianity (again not from Judaism); and so forth. But it does not negate my claim of more recent influences, does it?... Sameer-2: As regards westerners "merely claiming what is theirs to begin with", it must be pointed out that truth belongs to no one, it cannot be limited. Even if it is lost, it will be rediscovered. It does not belong exclusively to India either. Rajiv comment: Nobody denies this, but what does it have to do with my thesis? But people should have the grace to acknowledge the sources they have been inspired by.
Sameer-3: The SRF view of
Christ is the same as that of Yogananda and his Guru, Swami Yukteswar;
it is described in Yogananda's well known autobiography. Yogananda
claims to have personally communed with Christ ... these are matters
which one cannot judge without personal experience.
Rajiv comment:
...and a similar claim if often made by followers of Sri
Ramakrishna citing his own words. But the interpretation of 'Christ' by
these men differs from that of the Church. They simply use the term as
the western equivalent of Brahman, so the equation of Christ = Brahman
merely amounts to Brahman = Brahman by definition. This is a tautology,
nothing more. This is precisely why I introduce history centrism as
my category, because neither Parmahansa Yogananda nor Sri Ramakrishna
would accept a history centric notion of Christ as being the same as
Brahman. Of course you can call the truth by many names, but in the
process of renaming you must not alter its meaning. That point seems to
be missed in the above post.
Ramesh posts: Rajiv: You can download it... Rajiv closes with: "In chapter 2 of BD, Nicene Creed's incompatibility with dharma is explained using several points of difference, such as:
Koenraad Elst responds to Murali's original question: "At most a handful, and never as the normative teaching. ... Jesus goes against this hypothesis. There were all kinds of beliefs doing the rounds in the Hellenistic Middle East, and only some of these crystallized into Christianity, other were emphatically rejected. At any rate, the belief in reincarnation is *logically* incompatible with Christianity, which sees death [as] the cardinal problem of human existence. That much it has in common with Veda, Avasta, Daoism, which all glorify a vaguely defined value called [immortality]. But typical of Christianity (much less so for Islam and even Judaism, which follows the same creation story) is that it explains mortality as punishment for original Sin. This creates the need for salvation from sin and hence from mortality. The Christian Messiah (unlike the original Jewish Messiah, expected to come and restore the Kingdom of David) has to save us from sin and thereby from death. So, the birth and resurrection of Jesus only make sense within a framework that defines death as the central problem of human existence. Such is not the case at all in the reincarnation doctrine, where death is ephemeral, an illusion. In Jainism, Buddhism and the crypto-Buddhism that makes up much of post-Buddhist Hinduism, death is not the problem but is in a sense the hoped-for solution; while immortality is the problem, meaning the endless return to life. The Vedic seers, like the Hebrew sages and the Daoist "immortals", saw life as a good thing, to be cherished and prolonged. Christians partly agree, only they don't mean this life, tainted by irreducible sin, but a glorified life in Christ, whatever that may be. But the reincarnation beliefs, or at least their Shramanic versions (contrasting with those of many tribes the world over who believe in reincarnation and welcome it, or see it as a prize to be won) see life/incarnation as a burden from which we must free ourselves.... > In A. D. 325 the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, along with his mother, Helena deleted references to reincarnation contained in the Bible.< Conspiracy theory. The editing of the Bible was a complex process, pretty much complete before Constantine.... >The second council of Constantinople, meeting in Ad. 553, confirmed this action and declared the concept of reincarnation a heresy. Apparently, they thought this concept would weaken the growing power of the Church.....The early Church fathers had accepted the concept of reincarnation. The early Gnostics-Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Saint Jerome, and many others -believed that they had lived before and would again (pp 35-36).< Untrue of most, perhaps true of Origen, but rightly repudiated by the Church. If its doctrine was to make sense, the free-floating ideas of reincarnation had to be rejected as logically incompatible. Christ's resurrection loses its [unique] and salvific charcater if we all resurect anyway through reincarnation. ....The Gospel peddlers in Kandhamal have nothing to do with a third-century heresy, they teach a religion solidly wedded to the non-belief in reincarnation. The only possible Christian belief in reincarnation is one that also doesn't fit your polemical needs, viz. the one peddled by the Jehovah's Witnesses .... that there is no soul capable of leading a dismebodied existence. In their view, you disappear completely when you die, and Christ after his Second Coming will revive you in your physical body so that you can live forever on this physical earth. On condition that you are among the saved ones, the others will remain dead and non-existent forever. So, the saved ones will reincarnate exactly once, after the Second Coming, and the others never. Incidentally, the title of this thread is rather mixed up. "Modern scientific evidence of rebirth" and "reincarnation was in the Bible" are two wholly different issues. The second one is a truth claim that happens to be mostly untrue, the first one is a call to seek the truth experimentally. Given the cornerstone value that most of you accord to the doctrine of reincarnation, it seems to me that it [should] be in your interest to invest massively in proving it scientifically. Among other things, it would blow (serious, doctrinal) Christianity away. " Koenraad Elst responds to another question from Sameer: "> I'm interested in what exactly Jesus about reincarnation ... can you give a reference. > Jesus, to the extent that we know him through the Gospel, never expounds on reincarnation. Hanging on the cross, speaking with the "good murderer", he assures him that they will see each other in Heaven. This may be taken literally or as a figure of speech, but it belongs in the then-common Hellenistic view of a soul surviving death and going places in the afterworld, without any hint at reincarnation. In John 9:3, Jesus refuses to feed the apostles' speculation that the blind-born child was paying for its own sins or for those of its parents: "Neither he nor his parents, but through him God's works have to be revealed." .....The Jesus you have to deal with, is the one peddled by the missionaries, streamlined into Church doctrine. And there, we see not only an absence of reincarnation belief, but compelling reasons to reject it. There are plenty of post-Christian New-Agers and New-Agey borderline Christians who try to combine a lingering belief in a saving Jesus with a trendy belief in reincarnation; they are our counterpart to the sameness-preaching moron Swamis. They don't do it as a strategy to mislead Hindus or so, they really mean it. But they too are mistaken: you can have reincarnation or you can have Christianity, but never both. Innocent as they may be in their motives, they do find a place on the U-Turn curve. They are usually not the kind of people who will raise chauvinistic objections to the whole idea of borrowing Indian beliefs, but they feel that if the reincarnation doctrine is true, and if saints and seers have existed in all continents, then they must have been aware of reincarnation. Ergo, if Jesus really was (leave alone the Son of God) an exemplary wisdom teacher, then he too must have been aware of it and taught it." Arun shares: "....The best work that I have found is "20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation" by Ian Stevenson, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. It has 7 cases from India, 3 from Sri Lanka, 2 from Brazil, 7 from native Alaskans, and 1 from Lebanon. These are supposed to be representative of 200 cases the author has investigated first hand. As a physicist I would say that there is no evidence of means of persistence of information about the individual after death that can make it innate knowledge to the next body somewhere else. Further, I don't think karma needs reincarnation to work. The consequences of every action visit someone or the other; and it is only our clinging to our individuality that makes us want the consequences to visit the same individual as committed the action. It also suits our notion of justice... To try to put a metaphor around it - the tree is the One, and this I is but a leaf. This leaf is shed and another leaf grows - it is a foolish conceit that this I-leaf was reincarnated as this other leaf. We need this illusion because without it, from the common perspective, the nature of the universe seems very bleak. The connection between this leaf and that leaf and all other leaves is the tree. The consequences of this leaf is expressed in varying degrees in the other leaves." Raghu comments: "I am not sure where the idea of an Individuated (i.e., separate) soul arises from. Neither the Yoga Sutras ( i have more than a passing familiarity with it) nor any Buddhist sutras imply a personal soul. they do speak about the impacts of Karma. This does not need great esoteric frame works to understand. Biologically, i carry the Karma of all my ancestors (apes and beyond too as Bill Bryson says in his book); psychologically i carry all the impacts of my parenting and growing up, sociologically i carry all the conditioning of my society. Spiritually the i can not exist if i have to discover this realm!..." Viswa responds to Arun: "The tree-leaf analogy is .... precisely what our dharma indicates about our relationship with the ONE. I am just a ‘leaf’ and so are others, and all belong to the ONE. The only difference is, as our shastras indicate, we will all blend into the ONE after death. Having read his Upanishads thoroughly Tagore was one very persistent believer in this life after death. Very consistently, through his songs (especially Brahma-sangeet) and poems, he talked of his blending into the ONE after death. " March 19
March 21
March 21
March 21
March 22
Jitendra responds: "The director of this film is Evan Grae Davis. If you google ... you will see a lot of links who really he is. ... link with his connection to christ lutheran church.
Rajiv comment: BI has a lot of material on Lutherans, including a
whole chapter. They are amongst the most active in generating and
spreading atrocities literature, so this factoid is just another one of
hundreds...
March 22 Fw: [RISA-L LIST] Pluralism Conference cfp ... From: Franklin M.J. M.J.Franklin@...> To: risa-l@... Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:55 PM Subject: [RISA-L LIST] Pluralism... Rampersad posts: "Indian Pluralism and Warren Hastings’s Orientalist Regime 18-20 July 2012, University of Wales Conference Centre , Gregynog, Powys. Plenary speakers include Dr Natasha Eaton (King’s College, London ); William Dalrymple; Professor Carl Ernst ( University of North Carolina ); Professor Daniel White ( Toronto ). The aim of this conference is to provide a more complete and multidisciplinary picture of the amateur Orientalists of the Hastings circle and the politico-cultural significance of their work. Jones sought similitude between West and East, and part of this overarching project was to stress the compatibility of Hindu and Islamic mysticism. There was an imperialist ideological dimension here; it was a means of aligning the regime's need to appear both neo-Brahmanical and neo-Mughal....." Rajiv comment: The bit about William Jones is the standard stuff glorifying him. Someone should point out to them the facts about Jones revealed in Breaking India in the early chapters - about how Jones was obsessed with the Biblical Noah's sons as the races of humanity and tried to fit Hindus into that Biblical schema. His project had the over riding dimension of making "new" discoveries of civilizations fit into the Bible's idea of races... March 23
Ravi comments: "It is mind boggling what extreme individuality can do to a nice person's views on someone else being eaten up. At the core of the Christian message as spread historically is the idea of bypassing cultural diversity for the "one Kingdom Under God" (brilliantly articulated in BI & BD, & also by Arun Shouries detailed readings of Christian scriptures & effects). This kind of culturing still seems to survive robustly in otherwise compassionate & intelligent westerners who think nothing a host culture being a "sacrificial lamb" for the "Greater Good" ... of their own culture, which somehow is supposed to translate to "universal good"." Rajesh notes: "I believe the German lady has given a great hint as to why she made the U-Turn. She says: "What is lacking with them and most of the common clergy, no matter of which denomination, is the direct spiritual experience and the vision of the Truth, which is a fact indeed and no illusion." Many Christians who have a difficulty personally perceiving and experiencing the Divine in Christ, look towards Dharmic traditions to teach them methods of how to touch the Divine. They want to experience also. The lady learnt all she could with Sri Aurobindo. Then she went back to Germany and let her be re-baptized. Now as a Christian, she can superimpose her knowledge of the Divine on to Christ, and thus use the same methodology to experience Christ as she learnt for experiencing the Divine through Dharmic ways. During all this time, she was simply learning a new perspective how to view Christ and also Dharmic "technology" on how to "reach" him! The target had remained Christ for her the whole time. She could never manage to transfer her "loyalty" to Dharmic names for the Supreme! ... If one were to notice this involvement of the Westerners with Dharmic spirituality, in it they will always refer to the Supreme in general using terms like "Supreme", "Divine", "Bhagwan", "Ishwar", "Paramatma", etc. All these ways to refer to Him are generic. One can always superimpose these onto Jehovah or Christ, etc later on. Moreover this imagery is not idol-worship! However what these Westerners may hesitate to touch in Hinduism with a long pole, would be Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Durga, Ram, Krishna, etc. Meditating on these images would cause them discomfort.... Rajiv comment: Rajesh has captured the uturn psychology well. I go into extensive detail in the book. The western identity is history centric. It was never abandoned even in the depth of the person's love for Hinduism, guru, India, or whatever. It was merely set aside temporarily, perhaps in the unconscious. At a later date it pops up and resurfaces and then its uturn time! Many such persons do not have a premeditated goal to return to Christianity. They are open to new ideas but the loyalty to the deeply ingrained sense of collective western history runs too deep to go away easily. Real transformation has not happened even after decades of dedication to a Hindu guru or movement. The uturn moment is when (due to a combination of circumstances and forces which I discuss in detail) there is an internal conflict between whats been learned new from dharma versus old western ego that pulls back. In cases where the latter wins, there is the uturn..." Dwai responds to Rajesh: "In response to rajesh's post, in my experience with iskconites, they have simply replaced their native abrahamic faith with a dharmic one. The tendencies and psychoses associated with the abrahamic still exist quite strongly nonetheless..." Arjunshakti adds: "I see Iskcon as a trojan horse after interacting with them since childhood. I've seen their paintings of krishna turn from Indian to European and its not surprising that they often say that Krishna was not an Indian even if he was born there.They dont even class themselves hindus but only when they need donations or are in trouble like in Russia presently they suddenly become hindus.For years they have been trying to break away Vaishnavism away from Hinduism.They class Jesus as a great Vaishnava but attack other Gurus like Vivekanada and others." Ravi responds: "While the criticisms may be valid to a point, the situation is far more complex than articulated by the personal experiences on certain aspects/people of ISKCON. Calling it a "Trojan horse" seems a bit too far, as is extrapolating from a few personal experiences to a whole movement. It it's original thrust it seems to have gone furthermost in getting devotees/followers to dissolve their existing identities to take on the "dvija /reborn" new personality based on Vaisnava sampradaya traditions. A movement has to be in constant interaction with the societies it lives in, & it should be more a comment on Western Universalism's attempt to digest ISKCON when we see the "traditionalists" vs the "new liberals" trying to get to lead the movement as we see now..." Sumant comments: "It is also quite telling how often these U-turns are followed up by an immediate commercial venture - a "project", starting a "Christian meditation" organization (which purges all references to the dharmic traditons from where these techniques were learnt), "research" that is very often (very well) funded by organizations with a Christian agenda. All of these are merely the Church in a different garb. The narrow, exclusive and divisive agenda of the Church stays intact in all such endeavours. Plus they also yield very real, material and career/commercial benefits. The spirit of sadhana, of the ego-less pursuit of self-enquiry - which is the raison d'etre of the dharmic techniques and an intensely personal pursuit - is discarded in this process and is replaced by the egoistic domination that the Church seeks, albeit in a more insidious form." Rajiv shares an update: ".... The German Uturn lady is now watching my various videos on YouTube and writes to me: "Thank you Rajiv for all your interesting videos! I'm learning more about India and western & eastern spirituality through your talks than during the last 30 years of my life in and outside the different ashrams." However, I don't expect that this will reverse her uturn, though it could slow it down..." [on 'mutual respect' ] March 23
Rajiv responds: BD does not want to be over-ambitious in opening a certain kind of debate. It does not want to rush ahead and foreclose opportunities. First we must get to the forums where difference can be discussed seriously and candidly. Only then can one begin to argue whats true and false. For now, BD merely wants to assert that truth-claims (not the same thing as truths) differ in very serious ways. Even winning our own leaders on this point is very difficult. Right here in Toronto I came across a popular interfaith Hindu who is so full of this "sameness" stuff. Very smooth talker, nice guy, full of humor, kindness, gentle body language. But he slipped out when I explained that such interfaith positions of sameness by Hindus are one-sided because others do not ascribe to them, and that our interfaith representatives need to undergo serious training because they are unqualified to speak for us. The large gathering at the temple applauded, but he left..." bluecupid asks: "If a religion says that Hindus are going to hell and that "idol worship" is shirk, how is it that Hindus can respect that religion? Rajiv response: we have explained several times before that "mutual" respect means that if the other party wont respect us, we do not have to respect him. It is not "unconditional" respect I offer but mutual. That is why hitler, bin laden, ravana, etc do NOT deserve respect under the "MUTUAL respect" principle - because their exclusivity disrespects others." Surya adds: "There is no paradox. We cannot let people get away with 'unless you prove us wrong, yours cannot be right'. Here is the argument, according to these people: (1) Our truth claim is X and your truth claim is Y. (2) X and Y are incompatible - both cannot be true at the same time. However, both can be false. Logical conclusion from the above definitions of X, Y is: (X AND Y) is always false. From this, it is true that X cannot be True unless Y is False. It follows that "unless you prove us wrong, yours cannot be right". Are these people correct then? No, the argument is not complete. Argument is incomplete because they are not showing a crucial but implicit premise. They are missing a crucial premise in the argument and that crucial premise depends on who is making the argument. If they are framing the argument, they add the implicit premise "X is True" because that is their truth-claim. The conclusion then is "Y is False". If you are framing the argument, you add the premise "Y is True" because that is your truth-claim. The conclusion then is "X is False". Each party reaches a different conclusion because they have different implicit premises, their respective truth claims. The only thing one can say for sure is that both these truth claims cannot be true at the same time. We both can agree that we have incompatible truth claims. We also can agree that we cannot prove our respective truth-claims. Now, we have the choice to acknowledge this explicitly and engage each other with mutual respect. If you hold that your Truth claim is the Truth, thus concluding that my truth claim is False, I could do the same from my end. Claiming that your truth-claim is true without evidence is exclusivity. This is going to keep us from engaging each other with "mutual" respect. This is the basis behind the concept of Mutual Respect explained in BD...." Shaas notes: "Just considering the meaning of the term "religion" already distinguish "true religion" and mere superstition. Latin Re-ligare means binding back, binding back to the source If a "religion" just talks but fails to actually give the experience of Self-realization, fails to connect to Âtmâ or Brahman, it does not deserve the name "Religion"." Rajiv comment: Balagangadhara's book "The Heathen in his Blindness" revolved on the very point that Latin 're-ligare' is not the same thing as Christian 'religion' even though the Christians (mis)appropriated) the Latin term. So one cannot go to the Latin meaning of a term and use that to interpret a later phenomenon where it was misapplied. Analogy: Yoga gets misappropriated to denote "Christian Yoga" where it gets a new meaning. Centuries later comes a scholar who uses the Sanskrit notion of yoga to interpret Christianity. That would be wrong." March 25
|
Showing posts with label P.Yogananda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label P.Yogananda. Show all posts
American Veda: A Digestion of Hinduism - Part 2
This post covers Part-2 of the discussions on Phil Goldberg's 'American Veda.' Part-1 introduced his book, noted his initial defense of his book, his writings in various magazines and his video presentations to uncover the digestion of Hinduism into Western Universalism.
The discussions here started in September 2012 and progressed through December 2012. Phil uses some fancy footwork as he attempts a self-justification of "why his book does not include the word Hindu". The followup discussion totally exposes Phil's attempted appropriation of Hinduism as well as his weak attempts to cover up.
Original Christianity Original Yoga
Recently, I chanced upon and corresponded with this organization based in New Mexico (US) called "Original Christianity Original Yoga" (OCOY; website:.
In this post Surya noted:
"...digest Dharma. When they discuss essential cosmology, Dharmic ideas are digested and mapped onto Biblical traditions. No mention of Dharmic sources. In the end, this tells you why the Bible is retained. In the end, Ishannism is no different than Phil Goldberg. They differ in their means. They are different variations of Good-cop. No matter what flattering things they say about Dharma, in the end they are victimizing Dharma and protecting Christianity. The unstated goal is to stop tendencies of thinking Christians from crossing over to Dharma by offering a version of Christianity that comes in several shades and closeness to Dharma. At a more sinister level, it lowers the barriers and allows flow from Dharma to Jesus"
Science and Sanskrit tradition: A Western scholar'
A Westerner who is studying Sanskrit in India has sent me a paper that challenges the way Indians want to integrate modern science and Sanskrit. After a few...
The westerner here cites Golberg's work American Veda as one of his references.
Why the book American Veda is not called American Hinduism
Venkat posted:
"Phil Goldberg is the author of the recently published American Veda. He explains why the word Hindu is not there. Book reviews can be read
from this link: http://americanveda.com/
Below Sri Ashok Chowgule writes about his thoughts on the title of book and the next paragraph is Phil's explanation. Both conversations are extracted from the Abhinavagupta group (you have to be a member to access the messages). The topic is Debate on "White Hindu Converts"
Phil Goldberg's response:
Let me expand on your explanation about why my book was not called "American Hinduism" or "Hinduism in America" or a similar title. It's actually a bit more complicated than what I might have indicated earlier.
It was mainly to avoid confusing the reading public about the book's contents.
In the minds of Americans, the words Hinduism and Hindu are religious terms. Hinduism is the name of one of the five world's religions they've at least heard about, Hindu is the name of people who practice Hinduism, or are born into a family from that tradition. So, it was felt that people would think "Hinduism in America" was about the Indian diaspora, because they associate "Hindu" with "Indian." Also, the impact of Sanatana Dharma on America - which is the real subject of the book - has been secular as well as religious. It's impacted psychology, science, medicine, etc., and we felt
that point might get lost if we used a term people think of as religious in the title.
Plus, as you know, it has mainly been Vedanta philosophy and the methodologies of Yoga that were adopted in the West, not the normative Hinduism of India. Temple Hinduism is a relatively new phenomenon in the US, and its influence on the culture as a whole is in its early stages. We felt that having Hinduism in the title would narrow the scope of the book in people's minds, and they would think it's only about pujas, bhajans, and holiday celebrations.
Finally, as I say in the book's Introduction, "the most influential gurus and Yoga masters who came to the West made a big point of saying they were not preaching Hinduism. They were Hindus themselves, of course, but they asserted that all could utilize their teachings without deserting their own religions. Indeed, the ideas and practices they proffered did not have to be viewed religiously at all.." I remember thinking, Swami Vivekananda did not start the Hinduism Society, he started the Vedanta Society; Paramahansa Yogananda did not write Autobiography of a Hindu, and he called his organization the Self-Realization Fellowship, not the Hinduism Fellowship; and Maharish Mahesh Yogi did not call his TM practice Hindu Meditation.
In other
words, we felt we were being faithful to the decisions made by
the great teachers who brought the Vedic gifts to the US.
I hope that further clarifies the choice of titles. These decisions about language are very delicate, and I understand perfectly that many Hindus would prefer that we made a different decision. As I said in the book, I hope that the historic misconceptions are overcome soon so "future books
will use the term Hinduism freely, without fear of misleading the public."
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain this.
Phil"
Surya responds:
"Reminds me of something that friends from Bangalore told me happened in 1980s. A vendor close to their college was selling chapati and sabji for Rs. 2 each. Demand was lukewarm. The smart vendor recognized that students dressed, spoke, and craved for things with a Western motif. Vendor came out with a new product
called Frankie and priced it Rs. 15 each. Frankie was an instant success. Turns out Frankie was the same chapati rolled with sabji with a toothpick holding the roll together..."
Rajiv Malhotra responds:
"...Read carefully the points I listed in my prior post on this thread. I did not say the goat remains a goat but gets a new name given by the tiger. The goat does not remain a goat. Instead we have a pile of tiger shit and a stronger tiger. The goat is not there.
Before I select any instance of digestion as worthy, one of my criteria is to see if the entity got changed in some significant way that makes a difference. When western buddhists remove reincarnation to secularize it, its not the same thing with new ownership. When mantra is removed and replaced by some other word its a different vibration. When kerala ayurveda massage removes the requirement to chant mantra, its a change/distortion of the product.
... Many of our Hindu groups took up my complaint which I spoke about since the 1990s about yoga's appropriation; but they made making loud noises only that the origin was not being acknowledged. But none of these seem to have understood what difference that makes to the new variety of yoga being perpetrated. This is a dumb down version of the problem. They sound like whining kids in need of a pacifier. Give them a lollypop and pat on the back and they will stop crying.
I am glad that the maharishi people have understood what has changed due to Herb Benson's appropriation of TM. They will support my work on that specific matter, and have offered to get some researchers involved. Lets see where that goes; but at least I did not get a trivialized appreciation or some sort of patronizing sympathy. I feel they really get it.
Frankly, I would rather have a school named Oakridge that teaches authentic dharma, than a school named something like
maha-sanskriti-vishva-kendra that teaches a diluted version."
Sanjay posts:
"One of the books that Rajiv references in "Being Different" provides another illustration of the insidious manner in which minds get colonized: Jonathan Kirsch in "God against the Gods" relates how Jews began aping the Greeks after the conquests of Alexander.This is the passage (p 76):
Alexander brought Hellenism to the land of the Jews when he replaced the defeated Persian emperor as its overlord. Much to the horror of the Jewish rigorists, the Chosen People promptly showed themselves to be no less vulnerable to the charms and attractions of Hellenism than they had been to the "abominations" of their pagan seducers in distant biblical antiquity. By the second century B.C.E., the city of Jerusalem boasted its own gymnasium, where Jews studied the Greek language and practiced the athletic skills that were put on display in Olympic-style games. Not only did they insist on competing in the nude, aping the traditions of ancient Greece, but some of them resorted to a primitive form of plastic surgery to conceal the fact that they were circumcised-an act that was regarded by the rigorists as the ultimate betrayal of the God of Israel.
We cannot know how Judaism would have fared if the Jews of antiquity had been free to choose between their own traditions of monotheism and the attractions of Hellenism.Then, as now, the lure of assimilation was so powerful that no amount of scolding or sermonizing was effective in preventing defections from the oldest and strictest traditions of Judaism..."
tvikhanas notes:
"That's a funny argument Goldberg gives. When Yogananda identified himself as a Yogi he would done it as a further specialized identity on top of Hindu identity, not in exclusion of it. When Swami Vivekananda talked of Vedanta he
was using it as further qualification of the Hinduism he brought to America, not something different from it.
It is strange to turn this around, give it as an excuse to not use the word "Hindu". It's like we are comfortable with "quantum mechanics", "optics" etc but not with the term "Physics"."
Pratap adds:
"Like Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of needs" is welcome but not "panca kosa" theory."
Surya comments:
"Goldberg ... is one of those good cops who praises Hinduism but sees Hinduism as a deli from which you can pick and choose what you want.
tvikhanas notes:
The discussions here started in September 2012 and progressed through December 2012. Phil uses some fancy footwork as he attempts a self-justification of "why his book does not include the word Hindu". The followup discussion totally exposes Phil's attempted appropriation of Hinduism as well as his weak attempts to cover up.
Original Christianity Original Yoga
Recently, I chanced upon and corresponded with this organization based in New Mexico (US) called "Original Christianity Original Yoga" (OCOY; website:.
In this post Surya noted:
"...digest Dharma. When they discuss essential cosmology, Dharmic ideas are digested and mapped onto Biblical traditions. No mention of Dharmic sources. In the end, this tells you why the Bible is retained. In the end, Ishannism is no different than Phil Goldberg. They differ in their means. They are different variations of Good-cop. No matter what flattering things they say about Dharma, in the end they are victimizing Dharma and protecting Christianity. The unstated goal is to stop tendencies of thinking Christians from crossing over to Dharma by offering a version of Christianity that comes in several shades and closeness to Dharma. At a more sinister level, it lowers the barriers and allows flow from Dharma to Jesus"
Science and Sanskrit tradition: A Western scholar'
A Westerner who is studying Sanskrit in India has sent me a paper that challenges the way Indians want to integrate modern science and Sanskrit. After a few...
The westerner here cites Golberg's work American Veda as one of his references.
Why the book American Veda is not called American Hinduism
Venkat posted:
"Phil Goldberg is the author of the recently published American Veda. He explains why the word Hindu is not there. Book reviews can be read
from this link: http://americanveda.com/
Below Sri Ashok Chowgule writes about his thoughts on the title of book and the next paragraph is Phil's explanation. Both conversations are extracted from the Abhinavagupta group (you have to be a member to access the messages). The topic is Debate on "White Hindu Converts"
Ashok Chowgule:
"one of the source of my contention that more and more Americans (Hindus and non-Hindus, academics and outside) are openly expressing their appreciation, empathy, etc., about Hinduism is his book "The American Veda". I had mentioned to him, when I read the book, that I was disappointed that the word Hindu was not seen on the cover page. If I recollect correctly, he said to me that his publisher said that the
word at that place may turn away people from the book!
(At the same time, a book which came after "The American Veda", namely Wendy Doniger's book "The Hindu: An Alternative History", a book which does not look at Hinduism with empathy, has the word Hindu on the cover page. Perhaps the publisher felt that more people will read it
for exactly that reason!)
"one of the source of my contention that more and more Americans (Hindus and non-Hindus, academics and outside) are openly expressing their appreciation, empathy, etc., about Hinduism is his book "The American Veda". I had mentioned to him, when I read the book, that I was disappointed that the word Hindu was not seen on the cover page. If I recollect correctly, he said to me that his publisher said that the
word at that place may turn away people from the book!
(At the same time, a book which came after "The American Veda", namely Wendy Doniger's book "The Hindu: An Alternative History", a book which does not look at Hinduism with empathy, has the word Hindu on the cover page. Perhaps the publisher felt that more people will read it
for exactly that reason!)
I would like to bring to the notice a book by Thomas Wendell titled "Hinduism Invades America". It was published by The Beacon Press Inc, New York, in 1930, and reprinted by Kessinger Publishing in 2010. The title say 'Hinduism' and not 'Hindus'. And this is significant. The book talks about the many Hindu gurus, other than Swami Vivekanand, who had come to America to teach (to the people, not in universities) Hinduism. The period in which these gurus taught in America is interesting, since it was a period when generally Hinduism was projected in poor light, culminating in the work of Katherine Mayo's "Mother India". Also, due to colonisation, India was a poor country, etc. (Incidentally, the word Hinduism did not appear to distract the people from buying the book at the time!)
Phil Goldberg's response:
Let me expand on your explanation about why my book was not called "American Hinduism" or "Hinduism in America" or a similar title. It's actually a bit more complicated than what I might have indicated earlier.
It was mainly to avoid confusing the reading public about the book's contents.
In the minds of Americans, the words Hinduism and Hindu are religious terms. Hinduism is the name of one of the five world's religions they've at least heard about, Hindu is the name of people who practice Hinduism, or are born into a family from that tradition. So, it was felt that people would think "Hinduism in America" was about the Indian diaspora, because they associate "Hindu" with "Indian." Also, the impact of Sanatana Dharma on America - which is the real subject of the book - has been secular as well as religious. It's impacted psychology, science, medicine, etc., and we felt
that point might get lost if we used a term people think of as religious in the title.
Plus, as you know, it has mainly been Vedanta philosophy and the methodologies of Yoga that were adopted in the West, not the normative Hinduism of India. Temple Hinduism is a relatively new phenomenon in the US, and its influence on the culture as a whole is in its early stages. We felt that having Hinduism in the title would narrow the scope of the book in people's minds, and they would think it's only about pujas, bhajans, and holiday celebrations.
Finally, as I say in the book's Introduction, "the most influential gurus and Yoga masters who came to the West made a big point of saying they were not preaching Hinduism. They were Hindus themselves, of course, but they asserted that all could utilize their teachings without deserting their own religions. Indeed, the ideas and practices they proffered did not have to be viewed religiously at all.." I remember thinking, Swami Vivekananda did not start the Hinduism Society, he started the Vedanta Society; Paramahansa Yogananda did not write Autobiography of a Hindu, and he called his organization the Self-Realization Fellowship, not the Hinduism Fellowship; and Maharish Mahesh Yogi did not call his TM practice Hindu Meditation.
I hope that further clarifies the choice of titles. These decisions about language are very delicate, and I understand perfectly that many Hindus would prefer that we made a different decision. As I said in the book, I hope that the historic misconceptions are overcome soon so "future books
will use the term Hinduism freely, without fear of misleading the public."
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain this.
Phil"
Surya responds:
"Reminds me of something that friends from Bangalore told me happened in 1980s. A vendor close to their college was selling chapati and sabji for Rs. 2 each. Demand was lukewarm. The smart vendor recognized that students dressed, spoke, and craved for things with a Western motif. Vendor came out with a new product
called Frankie and priced it Rs. 15 each. Frankie was an instant success. Turns out Frankie was the same chapati rolled with sabji with a toothpick holding the roll together..."
Rajiv Malhotra responds:
"...Read carefully the points I listed in my prior post on this thread. I did not say the goat remains a goat but gets a new name given by the tiger. The goat does not remain a goat. Instead we have a pile of tiger shit and a stronger tiger. The goat is not there.
Before I select any instance of digestion as worthy, one of my criteria is to see if the entity got changed in some significant way that makes a difference. When western buddhists remove reincarnation to secularize it, its not the same thing with new ownership. When mantra is removed and replaced by some other word its a different vibration. When kerala ayurveda massage removes the requirement to chant mantra, its a change/distortion of the product.
... Many of our Hindu groups took up my complaint which I spoke about since the 1990s about yoga's appropriation; but they made making loud noises only that the origin was not being acknowledged. But none of these seem to have understood what difference that makes to the new variety of yoga being perpetrated. This is a dumb down version of the problem. They sound like whining kids in need of a pacifier. Give them a lollypop and pat on the back and they will stop crying.
I am glad that the maharishi people have understood what has changed due to Herb Benson's appropriation of TM. They will support my work on that specific matter, and have offered to get some researchers involved. Lets see where that goes; but at least I did not get a trivialized appreciation or some sort of patronizing sympathy. I feel they really get it.
Frankly, I would rather have a school named Oakridge that teaches authentic dharma, than a school named something like
maha-sanskriti-vishva-kendra that teaches a diluted version."
Sanjay posts:
"One of the books that Rajiv references in "Being Different" provides another illustration of the insidious manner in which minds get colonized: Jonathan Kirsch in "God against the Gods" relates how Jews began aping the Greeks after the conquests of Alexander.This is the passage (p 76):
Alexander brought Hellenism to the land of the Jews when he replaced the defeated Persian emperor as its overlord. Much to the horror of the Jewish rigorists, the Chosen People promptly showed themselves to be no less vulnerable to the charms and attractions of Hellenism than they had been to the "abominations" of their pagan seducers in distant biblical antiquity. By the second century B.C.E., the city of Jerusalem boasted its own gymnasium, where Jews studied the Greek language and practiced the athletic skills that were put on display in Olympic-style games. Not only did they insist on competing in the nude, aping the traditions of ancient Greece, but some of them resorted to a primitive form of plastic surgery to conceal the fact that they were circumcised-an act that was regarded by the rigorists as the ultimate betrayal of the God of Israel.
We cannot know how Judaism would have fared if the Jews of antiquity had been free to choose between their own traditions of monotheism and the attractions of Hellenism.Then, as now, the lure of assimilation was so powerful that no amount of scolding or sermonizing was effective in preventing defections from the oldest and strictest traditions of Judaism..."
tvikhanas notes:
"That's a funny argument Goldberg gives. When Yogananda identified himself as a Yogi he would done it as a further specialized identity on top of Hindu identity, not in exclusion of it. When Swami Vivekananda talked of Vedanta he
was using it as further qualification of the Hinduism he brought to America, not something different from it.
It is strange to turn this around, give it as an excuse to not use the word "Hindu". It's like we are comfortable with "quantum mechanics", "optics" etc but not with the term "Physics"."
Pratap adds:
"Like Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of needs" is welcome but not "panca kosa" theory."
Surya comments:
"Goldberg ... is one of those good cops who praises Hinduism but sees Hinduism as a deli from which you can pick and choose what you want.
In
his blogs on Huffington Post, Goldberg clearly mentioned that Vedas and
Yoga help Jews and Christians develop their spirituality and then go
back to their religious fold. He says Hindus accept all religions and
do not mind others choosing what they like in Hindu thought. THAT is
the main reason for focusing on secularized Veda. Not because Hinduism
does not sell..."
tvikhanas notes:
"You are touching on an important point when you mention Goldberg's HuffPost essays. One can find many westerners today setting themselves up as "authentic" representatives of Hinduism and undermining Hindus whether intentionally or
unintentionally. Goldberg seems to be one such character.
It is one thing for non-Hindus to adopt Hinduism but it is entirely different to set themselves up as insiders, or leaders or representatives. We can see this happening big time to "Buddhism". May be it requires a different thread to discuss how to deal with this.
What's happening to Buddhism and Yoga actually serve as powerful reminders why we must resist various Dharmic schools being severed from the larger Hindu religion. It becomes very easy for non-Hindus to set themselves up as representatives of these severed schools and then to steer
them in self serving directions. What's happening to Buddhism & Yoga in America is quite instructive. Most of the
visible Buddhists on various websites are westerners and they claim to be authentic representatives (until 10-20 yrs later they do a u-turn back to catholicism/judaism). If we point out the nonsense they are spouting, they claim their view is the authentic/original/scientific/rational version and that our
views are colored by Hindu superstition/chauvinism/nationalism!.."
unintentionally. Goldberg seems to be one such character.
It is one thing for non-Hindus to adopt Hinduism but it is entirely different to set themselves up as insiders, or leaders or representatives. We can see this happening big time to "Buddhism". May be it requires a different thread to discuss how to deal with this.
What's happening to Buddhism and Yoga actually serve as powerful reminders why we must resist various Dharmic schools being severed from the larger Hindu religion. It becomes very easy for non-Hindus to set themselves up as representatives of these severed schools and then to steer
them in self serving directions. What's happening to Buddhism & Yoga in America is quite instructive. Most of the
visible Buddhists on various websites are westerners and they claim to be authentic representatives (until 10-20 yrs later they do a u-turn back to catholicism/judaism). If we point out the nonsense they are spouting, they claim their view is the authentic/original/scientific/rational version and that our
views are colored by Hindu superstition/chauvinism/nationalism!.."
He further notes:
"There are many characters in the west calling themselves as "Vaishnavas", "Advaitins", "Tantrikas" or "Yogis". This serves two purposes:
1. It lets them avoid facing the unpleasant truth that they are voluntarily adopting what they themselves for the last ~300 yrs condemned as superstition and other worldly nonsense. 2. More importantly, they can spout nonsense and not be challenged by Hindus in general. They can always claim that's what their tradition teaches and there will naturally be far fewer from that particular tradition to challenge those claims
For instance, a lot of garbage is written by ISKCON [Western] dudes on HuffPost, and they claim to be authentic representatives of Gaudiya Vedanta. There are very few people from that particular tradition to respond and even if there are a few they will probably prefer to keep quite.
The point is these sub-categories are specialized identities within the larger Hindu framework, not something independent of it. The relationship between these
schools is very nuanced and some one who has lived in the west will have not have appropriate experience/analogies to understand them. They will only make nonsense of it (like Buddhism being a revolt against Hinduism just as
Protestantism was against catholicism).
It is farcical for westerners to claim to have become vaishnavas or yogis or what ever after a few years of practice. At the very least they have to unlearn some of the fundamental thoughts that their culture has given them, like eternal damnation..."
1. It lets them avoid facing the unpleasant truth that they are voluntarily adopting what they themselves for the last ~300 yrs condemned as superstition and other worldly nonsense. 2. More importantly, they can spout nonsense and not be challenged by Hindus in general. They can always claim that's what their tradition teaches and there will naturally be far fewer from that particular tradition to challenge those claims
For instance, a lot of garbage is written by ISKCON [Western] dudes on HuffPost, and they claim to be authentic representatives of Gaudiya Vedanta. There are very few people from that particular tradition to respond and even if there are a few they will probably prefer to keep quite.
The point is these sub-categories are specialized identities within the larger Hindu framework, not something independent of it. The relationship between these
schools is very nuanced and some one who has lived in the west will have not have appropriate experience/analogies to understand them. They will only make nonsense of it (like Buddhism being a revolt against Hinduism just as
Protestantism was against catholicism).
It is farcical for westerners to claim to have become vaishnavas or yogis or what ever after a few years of practice. At the very least they have to unlearn some of the fundamental thoughts that their culture has given them, like eternal damnation..."
Case Study: Debating with an Elite Convert
This thread covers a discussion that concluded in July 2011. Here is the original thread:
Jesus in India and the Digestion of Hinduism, June 2011
The debate was initiated by Rajiv Malhotra, and this thread provides one of the (many) links between his books 'Breaking India' and 'Being Different' that would come out a few months later. This is among the most important and thought-provoking discussions in the forum so far. Rajiv Malhotra has provided a tremendous amount of feedback in this thread, and the original thread should ideally be read in full to fully grasp the nuances in this debate. Also, this thread is best read in conjunction with another important debate around the sameness methodology embraced by the Ramakrishna mission.
This discussion was initiated in response to an email that reached Rajiv:
"Dear All,
You can watch my recent film ' The Rozabal Shrine of Srinagar'
on the subject of Jesus in India, on You Tube. This film has been made
by a follower of Sri Sri Thakur ji and produced by Films Division, Govt.
of India. The Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?`The Rozabal Shrine in Srinagar', India, contains one of the biggest mysteries of the world. It contains the tomb of Yuza Asaf who is supposed to be none other than Jesus Christ ! This fascinating film explores the research works of national and international experts who are convinced of this fact.."
"I dont personally believe in the jesus-in-india thesis. it is entirely speculative and based on one-sided evidence.
But many indians like to believe it. THIS HELPS THE EVANGELISTS AS THE INDIANS TARGETED FEEL THAT JESUS WAS ONE OF THEIR OWN. It facilitates inculturation. In the book "Breaking India" we discus how the myth of St. Thomas being in India gets used to convert Tamils "back to their original faith, i.e. Christianity." This Jesus in India myth serves a similar purpose. Hence even the pseudo-secular govt supports the story.
While many Hindus naively feel this approach assimilates Christianity into Hinduism, in fact the reverse happens, i.e., Hinduism gets digested into Christianity through devices such as Christian Yoga, Christian Centering Prayer (an appropriation from Transcendental Meditation), etc. The reason that Hindu-Christian synthesis results in a bigger, more robust Christianity with Hinduism as a subset is explained in my next book where I introduce the concept of "digestion" of one civ into another. What makes Christianity resilient to being digested into Hinduism is what I refer to as its History-Centrism. .."
Ganesh responds:
"... Found this great site that shows how a lot of Jewish belief's were hijacked and made part of present day Christianity.
The above link is related to the interview with Yashendra on his Rozabal tomb film. His very speculative answer to the very first question gives away the subversive nature and way people with vested political interest have been using Christianity as a religious tool,.."
At this point, a sub-thread talks about Deivanayagam (father-daughter duo peddling dubious theories, noted in Breaking India).
Ammangudi asks:
"Reading the exploits of the unstoppable Deivanayagam in your book, it struck me whether Madras university could be engaged in a discussion about Deivanayagam's thesis about St. Thomas and beyond, how such a thesis was issued despite evidence to the contrary ..."
Vedaprakash provides details:
"1. The "research" on such myths continue and now more than 50 M.Phil and Ph.D are done on the topic.
2. Aravindan knows very well that Baskaradass and three others have already completed their Ph.Ds...
3. The "Christian studies" and "Vaishnava studies" departments of Madras University have been working together to strengthen such myths ...
4. But none does research on christianity and their methods. Ironically, the "Vaishnaa studies" department puts hurdles who come to study the "Vaishnava" religion, philosophy etc..,
Jataayu makes an important point:
"While there are declared Chrisitans studying in the Shaivism
& Vaishnavism departments in the Univ of Madras, there are no Hindu students studying in the dept of Christianity. If Hindu students enroll, the dept is bound to accept them - they can not decline citing religion as the reason. So, at least in theory, nothing stops Hindus from studying in Dept of Christianity and writing research papers like "Impact of Upanishads and Buddhism on the early Judeo-Christian tradition" or
'Prophethood: its benign Indic origins and transformation in the semiitic faiths" or "Contesting St. Thomas visit to India: A historical survey" etc. etc..
The point is, we did not do it, nor are we even thinking about it now. ..."
Rajiv responds:
"The christians are practicing what I called purva-paksha. They study us. We started this tradition long before there was any intellectual traditiion in Christianity at all, in fact before there was christianity. But we lost it.
Notice the uproar when i suggested that we study Mormon university training system which produces 20,000 missionaries to go abroad every year.
I find most gurus are very ignorant of the other side, leading them to the sameness posture. Hence the syndrome of RKM, SRF, J. Krishnamurti and many others"
There was another response, and we return to the original thread.
Carpentier notes:
"The thesis of Jesus coming to India is old and deep rooted! Irrespective of whether it is historicqlly true; it has plausibility and conforms with India's universalistic ideals. There is no point fighting or trying to demolish by research, rather draw and present the right conclusions from it; Jesus was a master within an ancient esoteric tradition which transcended the sectarian Judaism of his day (itself influenced by Zoroastrianism, Egyptian and Babylonian religions) and had roots in India like its contemporary and competitor Mithraism."
Rajiv's response:
"see my earlier comment on political implications. Its not a
discussion about jesus or about philosophy, but about present day politics of religion. jesus' historicity become a device in this context. "
Ghare adds:
"... Shri.gaNeshajee knowingly or unknowingly has touched on Point to b Noted.
It is well known (but often forgotten) that both "Jesus Christ" and "mohammad" are recognised and described as "shiva_avataara" (Incarnations of Lord Shiva) in "bhavishya puraaNa".
To the best of my Knowledge and Memory, this fact is known to Prof.raajeevajee for more than a decade by now.
("hanumaana" or "maarutee" is another very popular Lord_shiva_rudra Incarnation.
However, for some unknown reasons, incarnations of Lord_shiva are not as well known and popular as those of Lord_vishNu)..."
Vishal notes:
"...All printed editions of the Bhavishya Mahapurana stem from a single Venkateshwara Press edition (from late 1800s, of which I have a copy). This edition itself was 'put together' by a Pandit of Amritsar. No known manuscripts older than the printed edition have the fables that the Pratisarga Parva of the Bhavishya Purana has, although parts of this Parva are indeed very ancient.
Most of the traceable quotations from the Bhavishya Purana in
Dharmashastra Nibandhas can be found in the Braahma Parva of the Purana,
and this is clearly the oldest section of the Purana..."
Suresh comments:
"... there is a book -Jesus Lived in India - by a Gernam Chaplain Holger Kirsten. The book gives archeological and other evidences to support the point. he visited India when he was under 12, and opposed animal sacrifices in Yagnas which
is malpractice of the Vedic teaching. The Vedics did not listen him, and he went back. There he survived crucification , and came back secretly to India and became a Bodhisatva, the book says. He had no followers in India at that
time."
Rajiv's response:
"there are several such books i have read about jesus in india.
bottom line: since jesus was indian yogi, lets become christian as we lose nothing by doing. Right? Thats the implication and strategy behind it. I hope this is clear. "
Ravindra notes:
"Rozbal Shrine in Kashmir was a creation after the conversion of the local population. There is no such statement in Kashmiri literature, and there is a lot of it available. No mention in Neelmat Puraana, no mention in RajaTarangani.
But it starts apperaing when the local Hindu shrines start getting usurped and local Muslims want to show their roots in Arabia. Unfortunately Hindus fall for such myths."
Desh suggests:
"Personally I believe that if we could do something in terms of narrative, then the Jesus in India could be a great way to hit at the evangelists. "
Rajiv Malhotra's response:
"one side is more organized than the other; one side has a
strategy, central institutions, ambitions, etc. while the other side (namely ours) does not. THIS IS WHY THE BRIDGE TO MOVE BOTH WAYS WILL GET MOSTLY TRAFFIC
MOVING FROM HINDU TO CHRISTIAN IDENTITIES. Until this gets solved such a proposal would be dangerous.
ANALOGY: Suppose we have an open border with Pakistan on a similar logic. The fact is that terrorists will infiltrate into india and your call form indians to migrate to pakistan and dominate there will go ingored"
Raj comments:
"The concept of Avatar is outright blasphemy in the Abrahamic religions, so are ideas like Self-realization, yoga etc. Hence redefining Jesus and Mohammad as a rishi or an avatar shows poor understanding of the "other" system. By trying to upgrade them to the same level as Shiva, Buddha, Shankara et al, we are in fact downgrading our own system. But such notions appeal to the ignorant Hindu and the liberal guilt-stricken White Christian. Both these groups want to simply ignore the vast difference that exists between closed-single-identity-repressive-exclusivism & open-pluralistic-dharmic-inclusivism - the former increases suffering, the latter is its preexisting antidote... "
Karigar has a followup to the previous comment:
"I quite agree with Raj Kashyap ji's persuasive framing of the issue. I'd also go one step further. The reason for Hindus (& other non-Westerners) to know European "enlightenment" thinkers is not quite to show that their thinking is in line with Vedanta or other Indic systems.
Some elements of that may be true, but the primary reason is to look at the HUGE tussle over centuries that took place (& is still taking place) between it & the Judeo-Christian worldview. This will (a) give apathetic Indians pause before absorbing everything from the West as "Progressive Modernity", or as "Christianity", and (b) learn the gory oppression conducted by Christian institutions upon their own European peoples before turning their sights on the rest of the world & lecturing other cultures on their shortcomings.
Also, on purely philosophical grounds, the "Enlightenment" thought comes inextricably linked with both the Industrial Revolution (that's now helping the world turn into a Wasteland, due to it's core Unbalanced principles), and Colonialism (which of course the BI book explains in admirable detail) ..."
Carpentier comments:
"It can be spun both ways. By presenting the tradition about Jesus coming to India as an aspect of the age-old legacy of spirituality which attracted people from all over Asia and Europe to India for millenia, Jesus is seen in his true light as another great wise man; It is not possible to disprove
scientifically that Jesus came to india as we know so little about him as a historical figure ...
... Unsurprisingly Christan Churches, beginning with the Catholic Church are very opposed to the theory that Jesus came to India as that would make him a student of Hinduism and Buddhism instead of being the Only Son of the Hebrew
God who knew everything from eternity because of his unique divine nature."
Rajiv Malhotra's response:
"The predominance of the above view is precisely why I write, "Myth of Hindu Sameness" many years ago. I request those holding such ideas please read it at: [previous link]
Come [Carpentier] is mixed up between dharma's universalism and sameness. The above article will convince him otherwise. As for the damage this has caused, I restate the following: After you read my forthcoming book (expected this fall), you will appreciate my arguments as to why the appropriation of Hindu elements into Christianity is leading to the demise of Hinduism. ...
...Hinduism becomes redundant, everything considered useful becoming a subset of Christianity. The husk left over is the "caste, cows, curry" stereotypes, and these end up in museums as exotic, primitive stuff.
Because the foolish swamis of RK Mission who succeeded Swami Vivekananda never understood this big picture, they facilitated this assimilation.
That is why in USA where RK Mission started big time, it has faded away, becoming redundant. Westerners were once drawn to it in very large numbers to learn meditation. But since the churches appropriated and started to teach the
same meditation, RKM no longer attracts young westerners....It is like another church, nothing unique to offer. Hence it is a second tier appendage to American Christianity for the most part. I do not recognize RKM swamis as legitimate representatives of Hinduism in America. Their effect on our identity is counter productive."
Harihara shares:
".. I remember listening a lecture (taped version) of Rev. Swami Ranganathanandaji of Ramakrishna Math & Mission, delivered to audiences in either Australia or New Zealand. At the end of the lecture session, Swami was asked a question, what is the future of Christianity? He sharply replies, they have to accept vedanta into their system and survive. ..."
Rajiv's response was already part of the response to Carpentier.
Rajiv Malhotra adds:
"Besides RKM, Self-Realization Fellowship is also entirely Christianized. Parmahansa Yogananda espoused sameness to bring his American Christian audiences closer to Hinduism, making it seem more approachable in Christian terms. But a few generations later, the state of affairs is that: inside American Christianity SRF is very very fringe, whereras in India it is a huge movement that HAS SECULARIZED THE HINDU FOLLOWERS.
Try discussing our issues with a typical SRF member and he will shy away calling you a hindu fanatic and other names. Ditto for RKM. They dont want to think of themselves as hindu except where the audience is such that it suits them to do so.
I am exposing this sameness lot big time in a future book. I do not accept them as voices for hindu dharma. They have their own agenda."
Manas comments:
"...
>> They dont want to think of themselves as hindu...<<
Come Carpentier responds to Rajiv's prior comment:
"Rajivji may also be misunderstanding what I said. I merely pointed out that rather than arguing endlessly that Jesus Christ could not possibly have come to India (futilely in my opinion as we will not change people's minds when they are made up, just like most people continue to believe that the apostle
Thomas visited India, irrespective of historical doubts); we should lend and propagate the right interpretation to tha story. Christianity borrowed from both Vedanrta and Buddhism as is made obvious by some of the early Christian neo-platonic and patristic writings. Tthe modern Chrsitan Churches will continue to try to absorb Hinduism whether or not JC came to India but many if not most people will draw the logical conclusio: it makes sense to go back to the source and bring Christianty back into the Dharma.
Rajiv's response:
I disagree with the last sentence. That is precisely what all
the sameness gurus think they are doing.
You must study the impact of following a strategy before advocating it. SRF and RK Mission are two prominent examples. Go to their gatherings and see if they have any interest in the kinds of issues being discussed in this egroup...
...The result of trying to "bring Christianity into dharma" has not led to mainstream Christians becoming any less history-centric. (That is the key stumbling block, and the Nicene Creed is the bedrock of this. See this discussed in detail in my next book.) These history-centric Christians will digest whatever element of dharma can fit into the exclusivist Christianity, hence Christian Yoga, Christian Bharat Natyam, etc.
In my book, I also present the right solution to this syndrome, a solution based on interviewing hundreds of westerners who did U-Turns back to Judeo-Christianity after a lifetime immersed in dharma. Why do they do this, what forces are at work, and what would prevent this? These are some research question i have pursued for over a decade quite systematically. "
Rakesh is succinct:
"A Hindu proselytization approach, such as SRF and RKM, will only achieve apologist status and end up beoming 'acceptable' to christians, in the US and Europe, when they turn christian".
Manas comments:
"It is quite interesting how because of socio-political circumstances over decades (discussed here), quite often without even realizing, many Hindus (?) have developed a tendency to go overboard with the "sameness" idiocy (probably in most cases, just in case someone throws adjectives like communal, fascistic, fanatic, Hindutvavaadi, etc.). While non-Dharmics keep propounding totalitarian, supremacist ethos and are still labelled secular by the self-styled secular-liberal brigade..."
Carpentier responds to Rajiv:
"Except that christianity is losing steam and breaking up into many sects which are not even really Christian."
Rajiv responds and has the last word, which we include fully here, given that this is a very, very important debate about a topic that has ramifications for people both India and the West in terms of their people continuing to learn the genuine and complete message of Hinduism and Dharma and not a mangled, diluted, and digested form achieved by giving History-Centric Christianity a superficial makeover:
"This is a common mis interpretation. Chaos in the other side
does not prevent them from causing harm to others. They are undergoing a reinvention of christianity to include science as well as dharma as proper subsets.
1) Science is being assimilated under the new Judeo-Christian doctrine of Intelligence Design - itself an appropriation of dharmic principles.
2) Vedanta is assimilated into a new kind of Christian non-dualism
3) Meditation is now Christian Centering Prayer, said to have been originated in Christian mysticism.
4) Yoga is Christian Yoga
5) Hindu ethics of environment is reformulated as sacredness of God's creation - opposite of the materialistic attitude for centuries.
6) Shakti and Kundalini are Holy Spirit that was always there but now we understand it better.
7) Bharat Natyam is Christ Natyam
However, while Hindus have many such good things, the EXCLUSIVITY OF JESUS' HISTORY AS ENSHRINED IN THE NICENE CREED MAKES IT INCOMPLETE AT BEST.
Bottom line: By converting from hindu to christian you lose nothing. But gain a lot - freedom from caste, cows, curry stereotypes; and most of all the love of Jesus as ONLY his birth made salvation possible.
X becomes a subset of Y. X is hence redundant and not worth fighting for.
This is why I regard most Hindu leaders to be confused morons, having failed to study the opponents in the manner called for by our purva-paksha tradition."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)