Please understand digestion!

This is another brief but important discussion on digestion initiated by Rajiv Malhotra in October 2013. Here is the link to the original thread on the forum. The forum has discussed this important issue several times, and you can find those forum discussions summarized via this search. What is remarkable about this particular post are the names named and specific instances of digestion with evidence provided. Question remains and must be asked: what do we as Indians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs do about this digestion and appropriation?

"This example is what digestion of advaita into Christianity does"
 Rajiv comments on this particular online article "Dharma in the Christian West" (working link thanks to Bhagwan) that on the surface appears to celebrate Hinduism in the west, but in reality, is yet another example of digestion.

"Most naive Hindus would go about celebrating that this Christian has shown great love for our tradition. It turns out that Father Keating (in the pic)

(link source: http://theinterfaithobserver.org)

is the prime digestor of maharishi Mahesh Yogi's TM and various other Hindu things into what he calls Christian Centering Prayer that has spread into a few hundred centers across. Plans are now to export it into India where it will become a rage among upper strata Anglicied Indians who will feel they are now sophisticated by adopting this American invention.

This is the sort of stuff in the book American Veda that has so many Indians jumping up and down in glee. Ditto with Lisa Miller's article and a hundred other examples.

Please understand digestion!!!"

Maria responds:
"... it is not surprising to meet parishioners in [Episcopal] congregation who attend yoga classes or belong to a Tibetan Buddhist sangha.". Then, neither real epicospalian, nor good yoga practiotioners, nor truely tibetans! Unfortunately, this is the tendency in the west, which is dragging or trying to drag the whole world with them.
.... what I clearly saw is the danger of this tendency....and the evidence of this digestion....so many wolves under the skin of lambs, as they say.... Most of the people are not aware of what they are doing by being so "fusion", but what it is behind this, I feel, is a "fishing of souls" (harvesting, like they say), but I would say fishing because they throw a fish hook, the hook of sameness, and fishes go running for it.

I found it dangerous because this way of presenting the things aims to/ and may attract to:

- hindus/dharmics with no very clear ideas and concepts in their minds: they can be brought to the "sameness" point. And from there to conversion, there is only one step.

- disappointed christians who have ran towards new-age movements looking for traces of sort-of spirituality

It is another threat different from the mainstream christians. But another threat, even more dangerous because of the "common points" that they squeeze to get from a barren land to present it as "see! we also have a profound philosophy!".

What to do? ... what about us, anonymous people, who don´t have any position of influence? "

Rajiv the follows up in a separate thread.
"It is important to be able to understand the celebration of digestion at work in writings such as this article from an influential interfaith journal, and other writings related to it. It praises Father Keating, but Keating has digested Transcendental Meditation into Christian Centering Prayer after he personally and his benedictine monks from Massachusetts learned TM from Maharishi in the 1970s. (I have a tape recording of Keating's speeches thanking Maharishi for teaching something not found in Christianity - thanks to a friend who was present at the time.) Now Keating's movement teaches it as core Christianity and the history of this is traced from a Christian text called "The cloud of unknowing" all the way back to Jesus.

The article then locates that "similar" things to Hindu non-dualism had already existed in certain medieval Christian mystics. But two key points are conveniently missed:

    First, these so-called Christian mystical teachings need a great deal of creativity for connecting the dots to make them non-dual without internal contradictions.

    Second, these obscure mystics were rejected by Christianity at their time and thereafter, and only recently got excavated after Hinduism's influence, and hoisted up as a way to dilute and digest Hinduism.

It then goes on to explain that "Jesus is the exemplar of non-dual consciousness", citing reinterpretations of the Bible to support the claim.

Please note that these are the stages of UTurns: From praise, to various degrees of digestion. This is why J. Krishnamurti has vanished from the scene as his ideas simply got digested. RK Mission in USA is largely consisting of old folks, because their meditation which had made them attractive to westerners some decades back is not digested into church sermons and programs thanks to people like Keating. Tantra is being digested into various forms of psychology and clinical therapy. Yoga become Christian Yoga. Vipassna becomes Mindfulness Meditation trademarked by jon-Kabat Zinn and turned into "Western medical breakthroughs". And so on - this is a very long list.

Here's what my own work has entailed:

The first frontier in the 1990s was to point out the blatant Hinduphobia that was/is in the academy/media. At first our very own Hindu leaders did not understand this or want to understand it, as it was disruptive and inconvenient to them. But under consistent pressure from the Hindu public, now there are many persons protesting against Hinduphobia, and its top advocates face opposition from Hindus unlike before.

The second frontier was sharpened in "Breaking India", namely, that India is being subverted systematically by a combination of forces that see its dharmic foundation as the problem to eliminate. Initially people told me this message was too sensational. I had to settle for a small, unknown publisher. But today it is a best-seller as people have made their own observations and realized that these things are indeed happening right now.

The third frontier was BEING DIFFERENT's message that there is something IRREDUCIBLY DIFFERENT we must recognize and not negotiate away, and that this is the foundation for any identity, education, interfaith work or public posturing.

Now we must tackle the fourth frontier: Here we have large numbers of our "leaders" going around promoting books, speakers, scholars, who praise Hinduism the way the tiger praises the deer he has invited to dinner. If you read the above article, its pro-digestion nuance should be clear though subtly presented. This article is meant to make people like us appreciate that the West has "adopted" the East - much like the pagan symbols, ideas, practices got adopted into Christianity. Full of praise for Hinduism's non-duality but also making clear that it is now becoming part and parcel of the Biblical history centrism."

Ashok asks:
"Am I the only one who gets anxious reading these messages?
Initially, I used to keenly await them and learned a lot. And I continue to do so. However, lately, I open these messages with some anxiety. The feeling of helplessness that one might feel while being swallowed up while paralysed but still conscious.
Is there nobody other than Rajivji fighting this? I'm sure the more learned in this group would know of what is being done to resist this digestion. If so, could we hear about some of that. For example, if there has been a response to this article, I would welcome seeing it..."

Rajiv comment:
"Thanks for your honest concerns. The fact is that most persons who feel they defend Hindu dharma are proud of being digested into the West. I dont want to name members here who invite and support authors and give funds to scholars who are in one of the following categories:
1) A digester
2) Praise other digesters, presenting it as "he loves Hinduism and took it to the West".
3) Understand the problem once I spend time to explain it to them. But WILL NOT FIGHT THE SYSTEM. I must end up doing the best I can to fight against mighty opponents.

Many of them in fact side with the other party in any dispute I might have..."

YB  adds: "RK Mission in USA is largely consisting of old folks, because their meditation which had made them attractive to westerners some decades back is not digested into church sermons and programs thanks to people like Keating." Should it read....."now digested......."

Rajiv comment: yes, thanks.
 

RMF Summary: Week of March 5 - 11, 2012

March 5

Today's 2 examples of digestion under way... Rajiv Malhotra posts: "Example 1 I wanted to say one thing more about Being Different: I am delighted that Sri Aurobindo is so frequently cited there, and find your work to be firmly in his tradition (in modern India, none is greater). ... I could not quite cognitively defend your (and Bhartrhari's, Abhinava's) thesis that (as Raja Rao put it to me once), "the essence of each thing is its [Sanskrit] name vibrating in the absolute."  On the other hand, as a meditator I perform that premise every day when I chant "Om." Finally, I want to nominate the Archive for Research in Archetypal Symbolism (ARAS) to the Infinity Foundation for possible support of efforts to expand the representation of Indian images. ...ARAS is a Jungian instituton with roots in the Eranos conferences in the 1930s and after.  See aras.org if this is of interest. Rajiv comment: Jung's Eranos conferences produced some of the greatest digestors on the past century – including Joseph Campbell, Eliade, Paul Tillich, etc. Now the above scholar who has practiced sadhana in Auroville is wanting funds from Infinity, to support work by his wife that would remap his mining of Sri Aurobindo for 25 years into western univeralism. He also told me with [pride] that his son is going for a phd under a prominent Indian scholar of religion in Florida, and how under her guidance all the dharma he learned will get "harmonized" with western thought. That scholar in Florida is well known for promoting sameness , digestion, Aryan theory, etc.  She is also popular at temples where she goes in sari with heavy jewelry and talks about the greatness of Hinduism. Hates me for calling her duplicity… Example 2: Read the Patheos.com comment discussion on my book.... Read onereview by Brianne Donaldson... See the comments after her review. These explain how she as head of dharma studies at a prominent university is in fact on a mining expedition to help further plagiarism. Her role in digestion is to promote whitehead who digested abhidharma Buddhism into his own repackaged versions, and to erase the dharmic sources. Ironically, she then uses Whitehead to criticize BD. Pls read and participate there." Margaret posts: "....I understand well how digestion works, thanks for your concrete examples and I am also reading your book  BD. I wonder who is the Florida scholar ....  Although India  is not my native land, I learn so much about how mental, universalism digestive scholarly colonization continues in mining expeditions of indigenous cultures"  Jayakumar shares his response to Brianne at Patheos: "... The reviewer Brianne Donaldson is commenting on a narrow portion of a several-hundred page book. Winning and Dominating are important for the West.  Dharma is too subtle and is not encumbered by such needs.  Openness, friendliness, originality and expertise by dharma practitioners have been exploited in well-honed and subtle ways.  On the other extreme, Universities in India are out of touch of indigenous thought and engaged in mimicry of the West.  Genuine ashrams in India which represent the tenor of age-old discourses, techniques and knowledge embodiments are neither funded by the State nor by corporations nor by universities.  These ashrams and their living practitioners live and die on a daily basis without much ado.  So who is to protect such time-tested critical knowledge-bases? Malhotra isn't advocating cessation of dialog or collaborations.  he is merely stating motivations and intentions in Western Scholarship and collaborations and demonstrating that with real data. Nothing should stop Claremont Lincoln University from pursuing what they do.  Cross-fertilization is between equals.  Dharma has a long way to go until it gains as stature equal to the West.  Until then, it will only be a good 'subject' to study, dharma will be '˜cool'. Reviewer Brianne is concerned about some perceived social inadequacies in India [gay taboo, dearth of female Indian voices].  This is based on a flawed logic that social problems in a country are a direct result of its religious or spiritual worldviews.  However, addressing India's social or cultural problems is not Rajiv thesis - just as there is no requirement that every study of America MUST focus on its racism and other problems.  Another implication of this stated concern is that the West either appoints itself as the solver of social problems in other countries, or has the authority to hold accountable speakers from those countries for those problems.  Do US school shootings, drug abuse, or teenage pregnancies invalidate the Principle of Liberty? The West has done a superb job of separating abhorrent practices (like slavery) from Religion or State by stating them as 'topical' problems. Why does the west get to set the agenda of what constitutes 'topics of interest' about India - is this not itself a sign of Western Universalism? There is no denying that Rajiv Malhotra's Being Different raises questions that can make many uncomfortable.  For example: Is a Sannyasi same as a Saint?  Is Iswara same as God?  Is itihasa same has history?  Is lack of well-chronicled linear history same as lack of definiteness of discourse or continuity and originality of thought?  Can a History of the 'Other' written by the West be considered as True History?  Does an assertion self-identity by other traditions imply cessation of dialog and cross-pollination?  Can a scholar of Jainism (regardless of nationality) be the same as a Jain?  Does a Professor of Asia Studies have the same authority to speak for Hinduism as a Hindu Sannyasi?  Is an article written by a Christian about Hinduism appearing in high school text books same as a similar article written by a Hindu?  Does a Western scientist studying the mind of Buddhist have the same authority to speak about advanced states of consciousness as the Buddhist 'subject' himself or herself?  Is the Whitehead Research Project in reality another Dharma Mining Project?  What are the criteria that must be satisfied in order for a Dharma Traditions Initiative in a US University to work in favor of those same traditions?  Who should control discourse - the perceiver or the perceived?  Some answers are clear, while others may take some time to develop. ..... I am surprised that the reviewer saw in Rajiv's book a '˜quest to divide the world into West and East. ... I found the title of Brianne's review interesting.  Can the West wear any less of its Westernized spectacles than Indians any less their Indianized spectacles?  It would be an ideal world where none of us had spectacles.  The problem is that even the Indian wears Westernized Spectacles making the scales very tilted!  This is where Rajiv's work has its greatest impact. Perhaps in the Reviewer is an earnest struggle to connect the West with a more holistic dharma world-view.  I've noticed and I do applaud the reviewer Brianne Donaldson for her active non-violent championing of animal rights such sensitivity is expected of Jains and those who claim to represent dharma traditions.  I hope comments on this website will serve to improve her dissertation."  March 5 Interfaith dialogue and history-centrism Surya posts: "Readers of BD have a clear understanding of how history-centrism is an unlikely candidate in an interfaith effort. BD makes it amply clear that history-centrism disables a religion from showing mutual respect.  Let us be clear, though.  No one is saying that followers of history-centric religions are bound to take up violence or become terrorists.  Large majority can and will show civility and political correctness but the underlying incompatibility engendered by history-centrism cannot be mitigated. Rajiv Malhotra makes a dire pronouncement in the introduction of BD: "I regard this history-fixation as the major difference between Dharmic and Judeo-Christian paths and as a problem which can breed untold psychological, religious, and social conflicts." Inter-faith ministers and liberal Christians are criticizing Rajiv Malhotra of unfairly painting all Judeo-Christians as being incapable of showing mutual respect.  They cite as examples some of the inter-faith efforts championed by Christians.  BD does not buy this picture of amity at face value.  BD takes a step further and challenges: If there is genuine mutual respect shown by followers of Judeo-Christian paths, it is possible only on fringes since all mainstream Christian denominations believe in the Nicene creed.  Nicene creed is tied inseparably to history and lays the foundation of exclusivity. Unfortunately, there are reasons why Nicene creed or the essence of history-centrism in Christian dogma cannot be shed. For example:   Bible tells us that Jesus forgave other people's sins.  There are tremendous immoral implications associated with the idea of forgiving other people's sins. Christian apologist C.S.Lewis took a hard look at vicarious atonement and made rather harsh observations: "You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God."    C.S. Lewis personally resolved this moral dilemma by choosing that Jesus must be the Son of God.  Clearly, this is a choice and not a logical deduction.  Unfortunately, such a choice made on the account of history automatically negates all other religions.   The following excerpt from "Mere Christianity" in which C. S. Lewis displays his horror at the notion of taking away the responsibility of someone else's sin (vicarious redemption):..." March 5  Book Review of Breaking India Book Review of Breaking India has appeared in Swami Dayananda Saraswathi's Arsha Vidya Newsletter dated Feb 2012. You can see in the below mentioned link ... March 5 Church role in Kudankulam protests merits wider probe Ganesh posts: "Sri Rajiv Malhotra's and Aravindan Neelakandan's book Breaking India mentioned in this prominent news article related to Church role in Kudankulam The crackdown on four non-governmental organisations on the charge that they diverted foreign funds intended for social development activities to the anti-nuclear protests in Kudankulam has focussed the spotlight on the activities of church-based NGOs in southern Tamil Nadu. On Tuesday, the Union Home Secretary announced that the bank accounts of four NGOs had been frozen after it was found that they had been diverting funds received from overseas donors to the anti-nuclear protests. Two of the cases have been registered by the CBI, and the two others by the Crime Branch of the Tamil Nadu police. The crackdown comes barely days after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went public with the charge that US non-governmental organisations were behind the agitation, which has stalled work on the nuclear plant in power-starved Tamil Nadu...." Rajiv Malhotra shares a link: "4 NGOs behind N-plant stir got Rs 36 crore from abroad" March 7 Debate on BEING DIFFERENT at Patheos.com ignites - please join Lower down the page, please read the reviews AND THE COMMENTS IN RESPONSE. Some of the threads are very insightful. These debate show what you are likely to face when you go outside the comfort zone of a group like this, and face western chauvinism that is often well disguised as "liberal Christianity", "New Thought", "Humanism" and the like. "Confessions of a Western Universalist" by Carl Gregg  is a good place to start. The variety of comments at its end are good responses to this scholar's defense of Christianity and his critique of BD. Read the patronizing piece by one of the 50 most influential rabbis, titled, "The gift of difference"  and then the comment below. The Associate Dean of Religious Life at USC gives his "Response to Being Different" and it has some good rejoinders below..." March 7 Civilizations of the forest and desert Please read Rajivji's new blog post at Patheos - from Chapter 4: Order and Chaos - Dharmic Forest and Judeo-Christian Desert: Civilizations of the forest and desert A quick look at world cultures and civilizations reveals how profoundly the geography and the human response to it affected those cultures. ... Since all civilizations have tried to answer such existential questions as who we are, why we are here, what the nature of the Divine and the cosmos are etc., why are some Indian answers so markedly different from the Abrahamic ones? more> The poster image is also available for sharing on my Facebook: Rajiv comment: I wish to thank Raj who has worked many iterations privately with me to develop the wonderful images contrasting desert/forest which I am using in my blog. He is proving to be a solid worker with a focus on visuals and presentation of the serious ideas in an accessible manner. Please stare at the image he has done and then re-read the blog, and then read chapter 4. March 8 Analysis of History-Centrism: blog shivadeepa posts: This is a landing page for ongoing research work that attempts to model History-Centric Thought Systems (HCTS), the nature of its membership and how it is likely to interact with thought systems that are not history-centric, as well as its impact on cultural diversity... Rajiv comment: This is the kind of scholar I have hoped to discover through my writings and inspire. He has immersed himself into the history centrism thesis, then emerged with his own creative manthana based on it. He proposes novel ways of looking at it. All the blogs listed on the right margin are the product of original hard work and worth reading. My thanks go to him. March 9 One 'Western Universalist runs away from debate Carl Gregg started with great confidence that he had blown my thesis apart. But the responses and comments to him were very solid. After he failed to deal with them using facts and reason, he resorted to quoting what Nussbaum wrote about me back in 2006/7 - unrelated to anything to do with BD. Then someone pointed out the rejoinders given to Nussbaum's statements (which she refuses to debate publicly), and how Gregg was being a loser by resorting to such an "amendment". So finally, Gregg asked the web site to stop accepting any comments for his blog. Just like Vijay Prashad many years ago ran away after debating me on OutlookIndia.com (the posts are still available in the archive), Gregg has chosen to run away. The archive of back and forth comments on his thread is extremely educational, because many westerners have similar ideas as Gregg that dont stand scrutiny. For example, they tend to say: Similar mysticism has also existed in Christianity. To which I point out that (1) those rare mystics were persecuted by the church for 2 millennia, and (2) it was recent dharma influence upon the west that led uturners to look for similar resources in western traditions, often with great exaggeration. That I am ill informed about the bible, to which I ask for specifics and then give my rejoinders. (The assumption is that most of us will either get scared and run away or turn abusive, both of which are unfortunately common responses from Hindus.) That Christianity has evolved, ironically by virtue of those theologians who have digested dharma into Christianity - Wilber, Berry, Swimme, Teilhard, Ryan, Panikkar, Bede, Keating, Teasdale....) Being a Christian Centering Prayer follower, he was unable to respond to my explanation of the history of how this got appropriated from Maharishi's TM via Bede to Teasdale to Keating. (My smoking gun is an audio recording of a talk at Maharishi Univ given by Keating himself thanking them for teaching his monks how to meditate. Likewise his citing Wilber's Integral Christianity was a great opening for a response...." Kaajal comments: "I'm amazed though not surprised at the sheer hubris of Carl Gregg. Just another reminder of what we are up against- the complete unwillingness of Western scholars to attribute to Hindusim and other Dharma traditions, what they have surreptitiously taken (digested) from India without any grace whatsoever to give credit where it is due. The arguments posted below Gregg's review were solid and well reasoned, and when he realized that he couldn't stand up to this knowledgeable lot, he did what bullies usually do - pulled in the other bullies, pulled rank by announcing their titles and finally closed down the very forum where such an animated discussion was taking place!...." March 9 Re blog "Confessions of a Western Universalist" Sumant shares: Dear Sir/Madam, I write in to you regarding the unfair and unilateral closure of the Comments section in Carl Gregg's blog *"Confessions of a Western ... March 10 Review of 'Being Different' authored by Shashi Tiwari Shashi posts: "Please find attached the review ofBeing Different, authored by me which is  now published in  " Sanskrit Vimarsh" , Journal of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, ,Deemed University, Under Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi; Vol 6, year 2012 ( A special edition brought out for the 15th World Sanskrit Conference, Jan 2012, New Delhi). Reference of publication should be mentioned if referred." March 10 Western Gurus of Non-dualism........ Mrithak posts: " ... Perhaps you are already aware of these western gurus of non-dualism as they should perfectly fit your U-turn theory. http://www.adyashanti.org/ http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=mukti_bio http://www.thechocolatebuddha.org/event/greg-marian-seattle-satsang/ ..... These people come about once a year in the town where I reside...." Rajiv responds: "Yes I have a whole laundry list of such persons and it keeps growing faster than I can keep up. The move to accuse Indian gurus went hand in hand with installing new white gurus. Some examples: 1) Yogi Amrit Desai was suddenly replaced by his all-white closest followers whom he had trusted with legal control of everything. So Kripalu Center now run by these white gurus is a new age spa. In fact, even Amrit Desai's own tapes, books are copyright owned by Kripalu and not him. 2) Likewise after Osho died it was found that 20 Western disciples had control over the Bahamas trust that owned all the property worldwide. This includes billions of dollars worth of real estate, all intellectual property and his brand name. I will show how large this scam has been. ... I saw a line of Indian women in the 1990s in queue to touch the feet of Eckhart Tolle. At that time he was a non entity claiming the same experience as Ramana Maharishi. He used to read the Indian gurus and then started to become one."  subra posts: Science and Nonduality (SAND) 2012 conferences in California and Netherlands List of sponsors includes California Inst. Of Integral Studies (of Angana Chatterji fame, apart from being a U-turner), Inst of Noetic Sciences, ... that are in listed in Rajiv ji's talk at Lady Sri Ram College [below] (Subra: ok, this is an amazing and important 2+ hour video to watch and learn: U-turns and western appropriation and digestion of Dharmic knowledge system) Rajiv comment: That conference and dozens like it every year are filled with speakers who are eminent digestors. I have little chance of getting in as speaker, because my talk would offer evidence they dont want to hear, except in such diluted form as to serve their purpose to show such critiques as false. March 10 Swami Vivekananda on history centrism Rajiv Malhotra shares: "The sublimity of the law propounded by Ramayana or Bharata does not depend upon the truth of any personality like Rama or Krishna, and one can even hold that such personages never lived, and at the same time take those writings as high authorities in respect of the grand ideas which they place before mankind. Our philosophy does not depend upon any personality for its truth. Thus Krishna did not teach anything new or original to the world, nor does Ramayana profess anything which is not contained in the Scriptures. It is to be noted that Christianity cannot stand without Christ, Mohammedanism without Mohammed, and Buddhism without Buddha [This is not true of Buddhism - Rajiv], but Hinduism stands independent of any man, and for the purpose of estimating the philosophical truth contained in any Purana, we need not consider the question whether the personages treated of therein were really material men or were fictitious characters. .....Is it necessary that a demon with ten heads (Dashamukha) should have actually lived as stated in the Ramayana? It is the representation of some truth which deserves to be studied, apart from the question whether Dashamukha was a real or fictitious character. You can now depict Krishna in a still more attractive manner, and the description depends upon the sublimity of your ideal, but there stands the grand philosophy contained in the Puranas." (Collected Works, vol. 5,204-208)"   Desh responds: "As much as I hold Swami Vivekananda high in my esteem - I would disagree that Krishna didn't offer anything new.  As I see it, Krishna can be credited with some pathbreaking work in Spirituality: Chhandogopnishad is one of the first two of the Upanishads.  It talks of Krishna (Devaki-nandan Krishna) in the past.  It is also clear that Upanishads were a clear break in philosophical underpinning and even discourse from the Vedas (Rig, Sam and Yajur - since he talks of only these 3). .... ... ... Lastly, apart from Shiva, I am not aware of many Masters who have LIVED all the Yogas as Krishna did.  Shiva and Krishna demo'ed the entire gamut of Yogic science like hardly anyone else has before or after.  In that, they are unique. However, Swami Vivekananda does put it right elsewhere where he says - Gita is not great because Krishna spoke it, rather Krishna is great because he gave Gita.  Very well put." Rajiv comment: The above misses Swami Vivekananda's point. SV does not say that Krishna gave no new interpretation or teaching. New discovery or new teaching of prior reality does not make it history centric. BD explains that Newton or Einstein did not create new reality, merely discovered what was already there. The claim made for Jesus is different - his virgin birth and crucifixion create a possibility for salvation which was preciously non-existent. Krishna does not cause moksha to become possible; it was always there - thats why its called sanatana dharma. Swami Vivekananda understands history centrism. The above comment appears not to do so."   March 11  An experiment with Western Daoists in context of BD Dvai shares:  "As a student of Daoism (and Taiji Chuan and Nei Gong), I participate in an on-line Daoist forum titled "The Tao Bums"). This forum has an eclectic mix of predominantly western Daoists, Buddhists, students of Tantra and Vedanta.  The recurring common denominator is typically that of a mid-to-late 20s or early thirties Westerner who has "given up" his/her judeo-christian upbringing and latched on to Daoist practices or Buddhism or Tantra or Vedanta or Yoga (often a mixture of many). The common theme is in "Universal" spirituality and a rampant attempt at making everything "same"...eliminating the differences, under the pretext of "taking the best of all worlds and discarding the worst". I posted a synopsis of BD with a call for seekers to read and reflect on the contents and ideas presented in the book and suggested that while the exercise might be painful for many, it would, at the end make each seeker see his/her chosen system in clearer light and help identify various "psychoses" they have inherited/internalized and unknowingly apply to the system thereof. It has been an interesting exercise and BD has helped me aritculate what I have been struggling to express (even completely understand) for the past 10 odd years. The reactions were as I had expected (vehement opposition to the idea of BD without the readers even having read the book). A couple of individuals were highly receptive and here are some excerpts from their posts..." March 11 Posted comment on Brianne Davidson's Review Surya shares: Brianne Donaldson wrote: "In concrete ways, many of these thinkers are purva paksha incarnate, living between nationalities, philosophical traditions, and...

A common misinterpretation of Unity Consciousness

[refer to previous week's post that started this Feb 2012 discussion, where a teacher of Hinduism and Buddhism made sincere and well-intentioned comments on the natural human tendency to seek sameness that failed to address some key points in BD. Rajiv Malhotra reiterates some critical points from BD on the relationship between multiplicity and oneness in Dharmic thought systems. This post covers the followup in depth. Although bulk of the discussion is around Chapter 3 (Synthetic Unity of West versus Integral Unity of Dharmic Civilization), arguments cover other key topics like 'non-translatables in Sanskrit, Chapter 4 - Order and Chaos, etc.]

A common misinterpretation of Unity Consciousness
Ellen's recent thread illustrates the common notion that non-duality is escapist from the mundane world on multiplicity. This became the handle with which Vedanta got thrashed as:

1) not progressive in the real world
2) causing dependency upon foreign Mother Teresa's to help the poor because Vedanta escapes responsibility
3) causing complicity with social irresponsibility.

Many colonial era writers made a big deal of this point and many Hindus ended up supplying them the fodder.

Today, Ken Wilber's reduction of dharma into what he calls "Advaita Hinduism" is used by him to claim that he has superseded the states of consciousness of Sri Aurobindo, and moved past the problems that dharma suffers from.

All this is a trap and many Vedantist teachers are unaware of the way their teachings get distorted.

Ramanuja and Sri Jiva Goswami (cited in BD) are very clear and explicit that  non-dualism does not mean that multiplicity is false. It means that multiplicity is dependent upon Oneness, and in the case of Sri Jiva all multiplicity is a form of the one, just as a smile is a form of the face and cannot be independent of it. The blueness of the blue lotus cannot exist separately from the lotus - a common example given in that tradition. This is the nature of the relationship between One and Many.

Another metaphor to understand the multiplicity is as lila, divine play.

Multiplicity is not false, be it seen as form of Brahman (Saguna Brahman) or as lila.  If the face is real then its smile and all its forms are real as well.

The above misinterpretation of multiplicity has led many dharma scholars to criticize my notion of difference. They think its a bad idea, because they feel it takes us away from oneness. Shouldn't we be seeing only oneness, they ask? I refer to this notion as pop Vedanta; it is also called Neo-Vedanta. Interestingly, Sri Aurobindo also lashed out against this kind of misinterpretation of Vedanta.

So I have on many occasions asked Swami Dayananda Saraswati, considered the most prominent authority on Vedanta philosophy today. I asked directly: If the world is unreal then whats the basis for dharma, karma, worrying about what evangelists do, curing diseases, helping those in need, etc? ... I must say that he gives very clear explanations to the effect that: we must deal with the differences in the world we live in, as part of dharma, karma, etc. The Gita's message is also this. Arjuna gave the escapist argument at first, to justify his inaction, and it takes Sri Krishna 18 chapters to explain why action in the world is necessary - without attachment to the results and without even the sense of being the doer.

Therefore, the dharma/Christian difference is as real for our lives as the dharma/adharma or deva/asura or tamas/sattva differences. Dharma is not moral relativism, though it is often attacked for being so.

Asserting differences is not a negation of Oneness. It is the insight into the richness of Oneness as including the differences as aspects within it.

Your posture towards difference should depends upon where you stand in terms of state of consciousness. If you are the rishi rooted in unity consciousness as your state (not some words you can parrot), then by all means you should act in the world in spontaneity - the One leads your actions amidst all the diversity. But if you are not there yet, you must make a conscious effort to understand right from wrong, what is what in the world - while at the same time reminding yourself that this relative level is a manifestation of one substratum.

One of the sutras in my Moron Smriti is about this moronic notion that "everything is same". According to such moronic minds, medicine can be substituted with poison because both as Brahman only;.... you need not obey any laws because these are man-made in the world of illusions, and so forth. In other words, the misunderstanding I refer to is very dangerous as it has produced a large population of morons who are simply dysfunctional.

Such a people are the product of colonialism as its easy to rule over morons.

Rampersad asks: ""Dharma is not moral relativism: Please explain the above when we say that Dharma is determined by desh, kaal aur paristithi. Or for example that killing a person is acceptable in line of duty but not otherwise. Duties and responsibilities as Dharma are not absolute but relative, some say.Please enlighten on this."

Rajiv's response:
Important question. Please read "contextual Ethics" section in chapter 4 of BD. It is only 12 pages and summarizes what was earlier a whole chapter of 100 pages. Basically, it goes as follows: Western normative ethics is deterministic, absolute like Ten Commandments. No ifs, ands, buts. "Thou shalt not kill" would never make it into Manu as he would ask things like: whether one can kill in war, kill a plant, kill bacteria that has diseased you, kill an animal if he is non-vegetarian, etc. Such ethics is called normative. The West is so afraid of "chaos" (as explained in chpt 4, that there is obsession to maintain control through "order" and this means that there was heavy policing of normative ethics throughout the Christian era. (Now in Islam.) The opposite of normative ethics was seen as moral relativism, which means "anything goes", or a chaotic place, an anarchy in which you do whatever you want to.
Thus, normative versus moral relativism are two opposite poles. But in the middle of these lies what is called contextual ethics and thats where dharma is. It is neither normative nor moral relativism....."


Surya comments:
"Sounds like Dharma then fall under the classification of moral universalism which allows for situation dependency but applies to all people in a given situation.  Moral universalism does fall in between moral nihilism/relativism and moral absolutism and also recognizes that morality is not always black and white (value pluralism).  Value pluralism is crucial in many common moral dilemmas and comfort with not excluding middle is a necessary mindset.

Catholic Church has struggled with its pro-life moral absolutist position taken since Thomas Aquinas and in recent times introduced what is called the "doctrine of double effect" which is situation specific morality. This doctrine is also used in wars where soldiers have to accept the fact that there could be unexpected civilian casualties.

Morality is rarely as clear cut as absolutism suggests. Morality is frequently situation specific and can have multiple valid but conflicting choices."

Koti posts a clarification (Rajiv: excellent post):
"...It was Gita that astutely harmonized conflicting schools of thought and ways of worship. It even made redundant post death rites which our acharyas were preoccupied with and which even to this date our orthodoxy swears on. [...]Obviously, they honoured Krishna but stayed with Arjuna of chapter 1.
FIVE BLUNDERS were done to Gita as a result to Vedanta itself, because Vedanta is part of Gita, although Gita is more than Vedanta....
1. Preached Gita solely as Moksha shastra, ignoring fully the jeevana dharma of it. Thus pushed it to last stages of life!
2. Force-fitted it to their dogma of Advaita, dvaita or anything in-between; Gita itself never used those terminologies. Basically narrowed it down through  interpolation and interpretation.
3. Misunderstood sva-dharma as one's religious sect/caste
4. Misunderstood VarNa. Even discovered a fifth varNa (outcaste). Thus killed the soul of millions without touching their body. In a way disproved Gita that soul can not be killed! Now we bend over backwards to tell that caste and dalits were products of colonial period.
5. Insisted on post death rites for liberation of ancestors on the same lines as Arjuna of Gita chapter 1."


Nagaraja strongly disagrees with certain aspects of Koti's clarification:
"With reference to the posting by ... Koti..., I strongly disapprove the posting for two reasons –

1.       Pitting one part of the vedic culture against another instead of treating it as an integrated whole (last rites v/s perceived essence of Gita,  perceived correct understanding of Gita v/s Acharyas’ schools of thought etc.) is a dangerous trend and should be discouraged.

Rajiv's comment: I agree with much of this post by Nagaraja. However, we cannot assume that there was no advancement in our tradition. In other words, to interpret one text as superseding another is not a sign of inferiority but a sign of the flow of knowledge over time. Smritis are intended to evolve with each time and context, and thats not seen as a contradiction. Also, to say that Arjuna in the early portion of Gita was confused compared to later in the text is not undermining the tradition. Our exemplars from Arjuna to Swami Vivekananda have challenged the authorities and learned in the process. Thats why so many texts are Q A and debate style. This does not denigrate the acharyas but shows free spirited argumentation.

2.       Making unsubstantiated, sweeping, derogatory remarks against the Acharyas (“Acharyas failed to understand Gita”, “They wasted their scholarship”, “what they did is circus” etc.) is another dangerous trend that can cause a nose dive of our serious efforts to understand the subject objectively...

 If the Acharyas did not do what they did, we would not be sitting and discussing Gita today.....

1.       What aspect of Dharma is upheld when and how depends on the social need at that time.  Even among the Avatars, Rama and Krishna did completely different set of things based on the needs of the society at that time....Please go through sections of Dharma Shasthras, Artha Shasthras and Kama Shasthras to understand why Gita is considered a Moksha Shasthra.
...
3.       ... The Jati/varna Dharma is indeed a part of svadharma.

5.       Contempt for rituals is a serious drawback of some of the people who want to stand up for Hinduism but don’t practice it themselves.  I suspect that the remark against last rites is one such case and is grossly incorrect.  Lord Rama himself carries out (even though at a distance) last rites for Dasharatha and encourages Vibhishana to do the last rites of Ravana with full honor. ...What is there to be blamed in this regard and how Acharyas are to be blamed if at all something is to be blamed?


The common misinterpretation of Advaita that is used to negate differences can be easily countered by resorting to correct interpretation of Advaita rather than by attacking the Acharyas arbitrarily.... "

Srinivas comments:
"As Ellen points out, science today wants to find out how matter became consciousness and Advaita is about how one consciousness became diverse matter. Science accepts the diversity in this world but is striving towards sameness concept via "everything is matter". Advaita / Achintya Bedha-Abheda says "everything is one consciousness" and is striving to explain the diversity. While both respect differences, fundamentally they do it because they believe in the sameness or reduction of all into either matter or one consciousness. ... Its like saying "I respect you because both of us are essentially the same"....While identity was restricted to a community, now it is taken to the level of universe/consciousness.
.....
In the context of this discussion it should be pointed out that there are other philosophical traditions in India that do not accept non dual consciousness i.e. reducing the universe to a single consciousness. Madhva's Tatvavada is one such and makes its case on 5 fundamental differences in the world. Briefly the 5 differences are explained with the basis that matter (jada) and consciousness (atma) are fundamentally different....

The 3 main points of Being Different can be explained without resorting to non-dual consciousness.

1. Embodied Knowing
If there is non dual consciousness, who is the Know-er and what is to be known? If everything is consciousness, how did ignorance arise and who is ignorant? God? Instead embodied, knowing is simply explained by the nature of atman (as BD does) as Sat, Chit and Ananda while still keeping many different atmans.

2. Integral Unity
BD justification for Integral unity is by denying dual consciousness. So if there is no "two", the question of Unity or Integration becomes a non starter. Instead the Indian concept to explain Integral unity is by way of different tatvas like Prana, Mahattatva, Chitta, Chetana, Ahankara, etc.

3. Comfort with Chaos
Again if there no "two" then there is no need to answer the question about chaos. A common Indian is comfortable with chaos not because she experiences non-dual consciousness but probably because she believes in Karma and Re-birth theory.

As a conclusion I would like to emphasize that non duality is not the only Indian tradition and is not fundamental to the main differences pointed out in BD. There are well developed vedic and theistic traditions which believe in the fundamental nature of differences in reality and consciousness."


Rajiv comment: I went through great length not to rely upon nondualism in explaining Integral Unity or Embodied Knowing or comfort with chaos. Had I wanted to equate Integral unity = Nondualism, I would not have had to work so hard to coin the new term and explain it. It would have been just another work on nondualism. I will explain this in a separate thread.

Desh adds:
"I disagree with Ellen and Srinivas that Science wants to find "How matter became consciousness".  For that never happens.

When we look at the classic issue in Quantum Mechanics and the entire question of Wave Collapse, we find that the question before BOTH Science and Spirituality is the SAME - 

How does the Infinite manifest as Finite?

If you look closely at the Copenhagen Interpretation, you will find Scientists grappling with exactly the question and issue that the Dualists and Non-Dualists grapple with.  There is no fight.  When one gives way, and goes by the way of the infinite - one experiences Non-dualism; if one "Is" there then dualism keeps on.

[...]

The question that Ellen is asking comes from a mind drenched in Newtonian Science.  It is in the Newtonian zone and looks at the new world of consciousness and asks the question...."

Rajiv Malhotra posts:
"BD's idea of dharma is not dependent upon advaita
In a popular version of advaita, all difference is illusory, hence reality is context free. This has led to the problems of other worldliness as alleged and explained earlier in this thread. Sri Aurobindo was one of many who criticized this harshly. So did Ramanuja, Sri Jiva and many others.

Integrality is oneness plus all built in diversity that is part and parcel of it and inseparable from it. The diversity is not unreal but has no separate existence. I keep repeating the separateness as the key issue throughout BD. This way I also bring in Madhyamika Buddhism as Integral: pratita-samutpada does not use unity consciousness as a positive entity, and rather it negates the existence of any "separate" entity from what I have described as Indra's Net. Implication: The argument against dharma as being world negating is rejected.

So Integrality = absence of separateness. Nondual consciousness is one way of having integrality. Pratita-samutpada is another way. Achinta-bheda-abheda is another. Sri Aurobindo's Integrality is another.

... My book's purpose is served so long as the common ground is different than the west.

Hence, the notion of synthetic is the big "aha" claim in the book. I go to great length to argue the synthetic nature of the West - both its history and its major philosophical/theological systems. The nature of dharma as Integral Unity is used as the foil against which to reverse the gaze on the West. Thats all its meant to serve. The book is not about dharma but about the West as seen by the dharmic gaze."
 
Raghu comments on the wrong usage of 'illusion' for 'Maya': 
"...Shankara talks of Vyaavahaarika prathyaksha as the first stage, leading to praathibhaasikam and then to paramaarthikam. The first stage is to have a clear understanding of the transactional world. Transaction is between two separate entities. When one has a deep understanding of this reality, one comes to its edge and can see the light of actuality. Vyaavahaarika is a real but ephemeral state of being, when one 'crosses over' one enters paaramaarthikam, a transcendent state when one is anchored in the unchanging state of Truth. When one looks back from here, one sees that holding on to the world of phenomenon as real and unchanging is delusional, therefore Maya.

The are many stories that illustrate this idea that one experiences the Vyaavahaarika as though it were substantive when it is not. Holding on to it and expecting that dukha can be ended by living in this space is delusional, thus one gets entangled in Maya."

Rajiv comment: 

I agree with this as the deeper view of advaita vedanta. My guru was an enlightened advaita master (not a regular teacher but enlightened), and said very clearly that we are not being asked to run away or escape the mundane world as some "illusion theorists" teach. We take birth as per prarabdha and must perform our dharma which is very much transactional in this world. Unfortunately, what we find today is pop-Vedanta in which they dismiss the world as illusion, causing all the confusion and problems I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Still, I dont want to push advaita as prerequisite for BD's thesis. Thats why I went through so much research, discussions, etc. with experts from: Sri Aurobindo, Kashmir Shaivism, Madhyamika Buddhism, Jainism, Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita, Sri Jiva's achinta-bheda-abheda, etc.
...
For, if I were to limit myself to Advaita Vedanta, then the western opponents get a perfect handle to attack: "You do not speak for dharma as such but only one tiny slice of it. There is no such thing as a unifying dharma, mere fragments that are randomly stuck together." In other words, the charge in the prevailing discourse has been that it is Hinduism and dharma that is a synthetic unity. This is a very big movement among scholars out there.

BD goal is to counter that and claim integral unity of dharma.

... Anyone who forgets that difference is the purpose of this exercise will find all sorts of flaws in BD, and I am well aware of the trade offs I made and why I made them."

Srinivas adds:
"Yes BD is not rooted in Advaita and can be explained using any of the Dharmic streams. Thats the beauty of it! Rajivji has stuck gold with the vocabulary. He has caught the essence of Dharmic streams by how they approach the problem and the mature subject space they apply themselves to.

For example I was disappointed not to see Madhva's Tatvavada in BD but there will be many such people and Dharmic streams which feel that way. However what is important is that the concepts in BD can easily be extended to other Dharmic streams and it takes very little effort to explain the 3 main differences according to each stream.

Rajiv's response to this para: "Since my knowledge of Madhva's work is inadequate I request that those who know better than me should post an explanation of Integrality, Embodied Knowing, Comfort with Chaos, and Non-Translatability as explained from that school..."

....
1. There is only one consciousness and all differences are in the "end" Maya/Mithya or whatever vocabulary you choose. This is the Advaita way.

2. There is only one or non-dual consciousness but it is also differentiated even in the "end". This is the Achintya Bheda-Abheda way.

3. There is multiplicity of consciousness coupled with the permanent 5 fold differences between God, Jeevatma and Matter. This is the Tatvavada of Madhvacharya.

There are other claims as well but we need to recognize that there are these differing claims with its own rich Vedic traditions. What we are concerned about is "what according to various schools of thought are the fundamental particles/tatva that make the universe?" This can be answered differently by Science, Advaita, Achintya Bheda-Abheda, Tatvavada, etc. We should also widen discussion to other claims and see how BD can be explained in the terms of those streams." 

Shaas responds to Srinivas: 
"... There is no place for "wrong" (mithya) in Advaita (Unity). Even the "differences" are just "one consciousness".

Maya does not mean mithya! Maya is Divine (DAIVI hyesha gunamayi, mama maya duratyaya, Gita VII ch.). Maybe it clouds the recognition of all is intrinsically one consciousness but it is all divine play.

When one perceives differences, differences must be dealt accordingly and aproprietly.

To all pseudo-unitarists: Unity consciousness is not achieved by being forgetful about differences. UC is seeing one's unbounded Self (Atma) in all differences." 

Srinivas follows up:
"All these truth claims, Advaita, Achintya Bheda-Abheda and Tatvavada address among many things, what the universe is made of. Is it matter, Is it Consciousness? If yes how many? The question I put forward was "what are the "fundamental particles" according each of these streams?"

Both Advaita and Achintya Bheda-Abheda accept unitary consciousness or non-dual consciousness. There is no separate consciousness dependent or independent of Brahman. Achintya Bheda Abheda deviates from Advaita in that it also accepts differentiation of the absolute Brahman while Advaita does not.

Tatvavada instead takes a totally different view in that it says the differences between God, Jeeva and Matter are real and eternal.

Now you can argue for how each of these theories account for diversity in this world. My post was not to explain how Advaita does or does not explain differences....The important thing is to accept the differences between these streams with mutual respect. We do not have to digest or force fit all streams of Vedanta as Advaita or have difference anxiety about the diversity of Vedic thought amongst different schools.BTW mutual respect amongst Dharmic streams will be an interesting topic!

The bottom line is BD's 4 main differences are still valid for all Dharmic streams. Only the way you explain them differs from one stream to another. BD is a good starting point and each of the Advaita, Achintya Bhed-Abheda and Tatvavada scholars need to take off from here and write detailed Purva-Paksha of West and Christianity according to their core beliefs."

Rajiv Malhotra adds another clarification to his concept of Integral Unity:

".... Integral Unity can be either without any internal content (as in some interpretations of advaita), or with all content/difference built into the unity consciousness itself (as in achinta-bheda-abheda).

Or it can be without using "ultimate reality = consciousness" as in the case of madhyamika Buddhism, where the idea of "everything is interdependent on everything else" implies such a unity and is expressed in the metaphor of Indra's Net.

Many dharma systems have different notions on the relationship between One and Many, but each satisfies my 4 differences including the one about Integral Unity. (I do need a good analysis of Madhava's system by some expert.)

My methodology went through multiple iterations: whats different wrt West that is at the same time shared internally among the dharma systems?.... After many trials and failures I reached these four differences that are robust on both fronts."

Wadhwa posts:

"WORLD IS NOT FALSE - A VEDIC VIEW
The theory of worldly existence as 'mithya', i.e, fictitious, deceitful and unreal is totally negated by the very definition of Dharma as given in the Vaisheshika Darshan of Kanada. It defines Dharma as "Yatho Abhyudhaya NihShreyasa Siddhi Sa Dharmah"i.e, Dharma is that which ensures material well being/progress and prosperity(Abhyudaya) as well as spiritual well being, (Nihshreyasa).
Maharishi Dayananda who was a realist, spirtualist and in a way highly pragmatic too opined that Vedic Philosophy denies that this world is an illusion. He did not endorse the view of Shankaracharya who said Jagat(world) is Mithya, i.e., false. Swamiji strongly protested against the sickly view of sorrow, pain and misery of the world. He said that world is not a purposeless phantasm and as per vedic conception there is no basis for unreality of the world. A complete God who is perfect and Purna cannot create an incomplete and illusionary world. The sorrows are of man's own creation as he violates the laws of nature resulting into pain and agony..." 

Rajiv's response:

"Shri Wadhwa is requested to address whether his interpretation of Vedas (which is the Arya Samaj interpretation) agrees or disagrees with each of the four differences mentioned in BD. We are dealing with differences from West in BD. Unfortunately, many Arya Samaj folks I meet are obsessively dedicated to proving differences with other interpretations of dharma. The in-fighting consumes them so much that they forget that today the enemy at the gate is not some rival sampradaya..." 

.....The focus of this thread should be to deepen our understanding of the four differences wrt to the West that comprise BD. Lets put forth arguments from various dharmic traditions. The idea was not to examine the intra-dharma relations good or bad, but the inter-faith differences. I repeat for the benefit of Arya Samaj, Madhavacharya scholars and others:

Q1: Does your worldview subscribe to Integral Unity or Synthetic Unity?
Q2: Does you worldview subscribe to history centrism?
Q3: Does your worldview consider so-called "chaos" as inherent in the cosmos or as an "evil" aberration that must be permanently exterminated?
Q4: Does your worldview accept Sanskrit translation of critical words into English or does it consider these words (such as those illustrated in chapter 5) as non-translatables?

Surya responds to Wadhwa:

" ....Shri Wadhwa writes: "Though Vedanta bears references to the Upanishads which are at its foundation, yet  all the above Vedantic schools out of  their own experiences  and endowment propounded different concepts. Notwithstanding their differences, they are all unanimous in their views with regard to  omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence of God."

This is in agreement with what BD says: "the Dharmic traditions see themselves as free from Western complexes: do not bear the burden of sin and guilt, and are not shackled by institutional authority, historical precedent or religious authority. ... Throughout the (Dharmic) tradition, the pursuit of truth is inseparable from spiritual practices (Sadhana), whose purpose is to alleviate suffering and bring illumination."

If you prefer a systems model identifying common ground, please see Appendix B.

Can Shri Wadhwa focus on this central comment of his email and address whether different Vedan  tic schools and their different concepts find a common ground on the core dimensions mentioned in BD?  Would very much like to see his exposition on the common ground. .."

Thayalan writes:

"Although Shankara did say that the world is false, he did not say that the world does not exist. ....its existence is a part and parcel of the Ultimate [Existence]. It is like our ignorant belief that we have many minds. Yet in reality there is one mind in which we all see the same sun. We we had separate minds we would have the problem of running interference when we try to see one object or another. Of course, if we really had our own minds then we could easily demonstrate where it begins and where it ends.

Rajiv comment: 

Illusion is our false perception that it exists BY ITSELF as a
"thing in itself". That comes from synthetic unity worldview. What exists is the rope, but the impression that it is a snake is illusory. The rope DOES exist."

Raghu adds:
"Satya comes from sat which is 'isness', eternal, truth all rolled into one. In the Chandogya Upanishads .... Maa is measurable, ya is disappearing so maaya is a perfect description of observable and measurable phenomenon that are impermanent. Maaya is reality as a person holds his/her superficial experience and understanding of the world, Satya is profound actuality accessible only to the enlightened meditive mind"

Thatte posts:
"I think the famous statement by Shankaracharya where he calls this physical world mithya has been misinterpreted . The Sanskrit word Mithya has a number of meanings and the correct meaning depends on the context. That seems to be the
case for many words in Sanksrit, including dharma as Rajiv puts it very well in BD. Mithya can be variously translated as unreal, untrue or impermanent depending on the context.

In Shakaracharya's statement, if mithya is translated into impermanent, then the issue of real or unreal gets resolved.

This physical world is indeed real but it is not permanent. Hence it is called mithya." 

Paranjpe concurs with Thatte:
"... There is a great need to disabuse the widespread misinterpretation of such Sanskrit terms, and much mischief has resulted from the interpretation of maya as mere illusion. The result is undue dismissal of an entire body of knowledge ...

Shankaracharya ... clearly and strongly refuted such a position adopted by the Vijnanavadi Buddhists. Also, he clearly said that the world is real to the extent that our knowledge of it, although ultimately provisional, is first, consensually supported, and second, necessary to the extent it is useful in successfully dealing with practical problems.

The words sat and vidya on the one hand and asat and avidya on the other are also misunderstood. Sat means that which ALWAYS is, and never is-not, i.e., permanent. Most things in the observable world are not permanent and eternal but
open to change. The knowledge of impermanent things is itself impermanent and this idea needs some clarification.

Vidya and avidya are technical terms. Avidya is NOT ignorance as is often translated. It means empirical knowledge, which is vyaavahaarika in the sense of
being based on the vyavahaara, i.e., transactions between the knower and the known through the sensory observations with the aid of reason. Such knowledge is CONTINGENT, as it is based on who is trying to know what, under what circumstances, and on the basis of what kind of pre-understanding. There are serious limits on ALL these factors (upaadhi), and the outcome of the search of
knowledge is always contingent on these factors...

Vidya, as the Upanisads point out, is knowledge at a different (higher) level. It is obtained in a state of consciousness where the distinction between knower and known has disappeared (nirvikalpa Samadhi). In such a state there is no TRANSACTION between the knower and the known; .....absolute, and irrefutable. And that is what Shankaracharya was aiming at.

....the Isa Upanisad says that those who do not possess Avidya are damned even more than those who lack Vidya. If we lack
empirical/rational/scientific knowledge, we may not even survive in the world, let alone be wise and happy." 

Ravindra notes:
"Shankara Vedanta posits three categories,
1) SAT : That exists is unborn uncreated and eternal. Its experience sublates (surates) all other experience.
2) MAYA: Maya means that is measurable thus endowed by Guna (Sato Rajo Tamo Gunaatmika iti Maaya asti). It is changing and gets born and perishes. It is experienced, but its experience can be sublated (subrated) and also sublates.
3) Asat. It does not exist and can not even be [experienced]." 

Nagaraja comments:
"Agree with most of what Sri Wadhwa has written. The only objection is that your objections to Advaita holds true only for the degenerated version of Advaita and not the original version. ...." 

Desh adds:
" In this debate of Advaita and Dvaita, a few thoughts:

1. Hindu Scriptures have never called existence as Kriti. We have called it Srishti instead. Srishti refers to manifestation as opposed to Creation. So, this debate falls at the very first step. Manifestation is real, but it is dependent on Observation and cannot exist on its own. Just like in Quantum Mechanics - the Wave Collapse occurs BECAUSE of Observation. On its own Electron is a wave.

2. The Rope-Snake argument hinges on the same Observation principle and not "Existence-Nonexistence" dichotomy.

3. It is a scientific truth that at the sub atomic level, there is no matter.  Somewhere along the way, the energy manifests as matter - which is what the search for "God's particle" (Higgs Boson - theoretical particle which provides mass such that the energy can manifest as matter) is for. The Vibration in this
"Intelligent energy" - which many scientists are now calling "Consciousness" is thought to be the manifesting cause of form and matter. Hindu scriptures like Yoga Vashishtha say this explicitly as well."

Wadhwa provides some perspective on the Arya Samaj position on BD:
".. I would like to clarify that Maharishi Dayananda, founder of Arya Samaj never intended to establish a new religion, sect or cult.  It is a socio-religious movement to unfold truth, remove ignorance and to expound Vedic knowledge ...my  personal reply is given against each question:

Q1: Does your worldview subscribe to Integral Unity or Synthetic Unity? -  Ans.Integral Unity

Q2: Does your worldview subscribe to history centrism?  - Ans.No

Q3: Does your worldview consider so-called "chaos" as inherent in the cosmos or as an "evil" aberration that must be permanently exterminated? -  Ans.Inherent in the cosmos

Q4: Does your worldview accept Sanskrit translation of critical words into English or does it consider these words (such as those illustrated in chapter 5) as non-translatables? -

Ans. Non-translatable.  Vedic Sanskrit language, is highly symbolic,figurative, multi-dimensional and has multi meanings. Literal translation of  Vedas by some Western Scholars especially has proved disastrous.  Swami Dayananda Saraswati(1824-1883) challenged Max Muller and other  scholars for their vulger interpretation of some of the Ved Mantras(Swamiji's rebuttal can be seen in his book Rigvedadi- Bhashya -Bhumika).  "

Jayakumar shares:

"... there is no [English] translation for "mithya".  (or even satyam, for that matter).

Brahma-satyam jagat-mithya.

Three key reality-expressing words in Sanskrit:
- Satyam - that which exists independent of anything else - implying that which has always existed (therefore anaadi - beginning-less), that which exists and that which will always exist. (aatmaa, Brahman).  Therefore this cannot be finite/limited.  It has to be attribute-less.

- AnRtam - False (e.g. a circular square, horns of an eagle)

- Mithya - That whose existence depends on something else. (i.e. every object, thought or concept that we know or do not know.  Even and illusion such as a mirage is mithya, so is my computer which is more "real").

In the examples below, face is sathyam, smile is mithya (relatively speaking), etc.

Likewise water is satyam, wave is mithya (relatively speaking).

Now let us see the words in the English language conveying the reality of existence:
- False
- Unreal
- Illusion
- Real
- etc.

AnRtam can possibly be translated as false.  That is reasonable.

But the English word "Real" is used for all objects.  This computer is real and the person sitting in front is also real.  And the real computer will perish and the real person also perishes.  So where does that leave us when we want to refer to the time-independent real, the reality that sustains time itself?

Hence, in English, we are forced to use this word "Real" both for mithya and sathyam.  However, this causes confusion and is not acceptable in Advaita Vedanta.  Not properly understanding satyam and mithya, many scholars had fallen into the trap of using the words "illusion", "false" or "unreal" for mithya (and maya).  Among various other reasons, this wrong translation also contributes to passivity (and confusion).

There is no established concept of Satyam or mithya in western thought.  Hence top-notch Vedanta teachers are constrained to use the words Satyam and mithya literally, as translations into English don't exist.

.....Bhagavad Gita.  Translations are from the Bhagavad Gita Home Study Course by Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam:

kiM karma kimakarmeti kavayo.apyatra mohitAH |
tatte karma pravakShyAmi yajj~nAtvA mokShyase.ashubhAt || (4-16)

Even the seers (scholars) are confused with reference to what is action (and) what is actionlessness. I shall tell you about action, knowing which you will be released from
what is inauspicious (samsaara).

karmaNyakarma yaH paShyedakarmaNi ca karma yaH |
sa buddhimAn manuShyeShu sa yuktaH kRRitsnakarmakRRit || (4-18)

The one who sees actionlessness in action and action in actionlessness is wise among human beings. That person is a yogi, who has done everything that is to be done." 

Nagaraja has the final word in this superb discussion:
"

Advaita and difference:  Lessons from Acharya's life

 Quite often, I find that certain public perception about Advaita is very different from its original spirit. And in the context of 'difference', there seems to be a perception of conflict between the notion of 'difference' and Advaita. But,if one were to dig deep and understand Advaita in an authentic way (studying authentic texts in a classical way under an Acharya's guidance and reinforcing the understanding through study of other texts such as Yoga Shasthra, Sankhya etc.), one would find that there is no conflict between the notion of 'difference' and the spirit of Advaita. I am attempting to bring this out in two independent postings - one on lessons from Acharya's life and the other on essence of Advaita philosophy itself and this posting is about the former.

 The public perception about Advaita of dismissing the world and worldly affairs as an illusion breeds its offspring's such as  -

1. Laxity in worldly duties (escapism)

2. A false ego bordering on megalo-mania that I am already great (Aham brahmasmi)

3. Everything is same; everything is Brahma(Sarvam Brahmamayam); no difference in other words;

This perception is perhaps a result of degeneration of the Jnana marga (the path of self-enquiry) into an intellectual drudgery and needs to be corrected.  In his short life-span of 32 years, the Acharya has made immense contributions in multiple fronts....

... These contributions imply that Adi Shankaracharya

1. Took THIS WORLD seriously.  He did not have anything to gain materially or spiritually as he was a Sanyasi and was already enlightened and yet  he did so much work.  ....He was the very opposite of escapism.
2.   He was focussed on Sadhana and results.  He knew that not everybody could follow the Jnana marga.  He therefore fostered many other ways of accessing divinity – Bhakthi, Rituals, Yoga methods and so on.  He never mixed up truths of spiritual states (such as sarvam brahmamayam) with mundane reality.  He was never oblivious of differences in worldly existence and worked with people according to their merit,....   
3.  In spite of being a true Jagadguru, he was a hall mark of humility.  He never behaved as if he is Brahma in his wakeful (Jagruth) state.  In his conversation with the divinity he says "I am your Dasa (servant)".  He says – hey lord I am all yours but you are not mine.  His stotras praise the glory of the divinity and beg for the grace of divinity but never claim an equal status with divinity.  The spirit of his relationship with the Almighty is best illustrated by the spirit of Anjaneya whose conversation with Rama reveals a multi-faceted relationship that he enjoyed with Rama....More about this state of unity or sameness of spiritual state in the next posting on Advaita sidhdhanta.
4. Another great man Sri Vidyaranya, 12^th Jagadguru of Sringeri Shankara Peeta, also responsible for consolidating the advaita Vedanta (which was spread in various commentaries of Adi shankara) is an excellent example of balance between spiritual world and material world.  Even though he lead an ascetic life himself, he worked fervently to build a Dharmic empire of Vijayanagara and till date the the material glory that the kingdom had attained is unparalleled.  To a possible surprise of many of us in the modern world, the Dvaita philosophy and Dvaita scholars also flourished well under the regime of Vijayanagara whose king-maker was a staunch Advaitist. So, by no means was he an ivory tower weaver of impractical theories. 

Thus a common public perception of Advaita is very distorted and does not carry the spirit of Acharya.  It is only the distorted version that can dilute the value of difference and cause an escape from assertion of difference.  The original spirit of Acharya does not negate or dilute the value of difference."

 

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?v=D9w-xJfSOyc&feature=share

`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...<<

This aversion for a Hindu identity is among other factors, largely a result of the Nehruvian policies of negating dharmic values from the Indian public and education system. This coupled with Indira Gandhi's patronization of the Marxists history engineers, aided by her education minister Nurun Hasan, resulted in textbooks that have not only brushed aside dharmic values, but in recent years have actually started demeaning them..."
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."