Avatar or Incarnation: Does it matter?

Short answer: yes, it does. A great deal.
This is a brief but important discussion in the forum that highlights a key defense mechanism to avoid getting 'digested' into adharmic ideology: Use of Sanskrit Non-translatables (refer to chapter in Rajiv Malhotra's book 'Being Different').

SNikhil had an interesting question:
I was watching Rajiv ji's video on youtube of his conversation with Mark Tully and being not conversant with the whole story of the Nicene Creed I googled it...

The fourth point in the original creed was "Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man" ; ... here is what Oxford has to say about the Origin of the word Incarnate:
Origin: Middle English : from ecclesiastical Latin incarnat-incarnare 'make flesh' , from Latin in-'into' + caro,carn-'flesh'.

... About the word Incarnation Dictionary.com gives the origin as follows:

Word Origin and History for incarnation :
n. c.1300, "embodiment of God in the person of Christ," from Old French incarnacion (12c.), from Late Latin incarnationem (nominative incarnatio), ...

And the definition of Incarnation given on same page is as follows :

Incarnation definition
The Christian belief that the Son, the second person of the Trinity, was incarnated, or made flesh, in the person of Jesus, in order to save the world from original sin.

-------------------------------

... do the words Incarnation and Incarnate,even if used in lexicon as stripped off its Christian Liturgical underpinnings,sufficiently convey the concept of Avtar as in our tradition without distorting/biblicizing the concept?

Rajiv Malhotra's response is worth reading and re-reading:

Your last sentence is critical - "stripping of its Christian liturgy". This is the issue with any translation. But it is not practical to sustain this.
You could also strip "soul" of its Christian meaning and translate atman = soul.
You can do this with anything - redefine a word that has been in long-term, deep usage in the West, and make the new definition what fits for us. It "feels good" does it not?
But this is the trap of getting digested.
POINT: We dont have the power to control how these words get used outside our narrow confines. Their usage in the long run is determined by forces outside our control.
We would give up our own non-translatable word, and once its "dead" it is virtually impossible in the future to revive its usage.
Its like voluntary surrender in the hope you can enter the prison and then make it a free space when you are inside.
This is a foolish thing to do though people constantly get tempted by it.
A word, symbol, brand, idea - these are always contested, and there are complex power dynamics at work.
We not only lack the power, we dont even have a home team to play this game and carry out a strategy consistently.
We dont have leaders who even understand what the issue is all about - "why this fuss" they say?

The Role of Prophets in Judaism and History Centrism

April 2014

This is an important thread where Rajiv Malhotra touches on how the history centrism of Abrahamic faiths is in direct conflict with Hinduism's basic tenets and how this is a key facet of how Dharmic faiths are different from Judeo-Christian ones. He also touches upon how people advocating the sameness theory are in fact dangerously helping the digestion of Hinduism into Abrahamic faiths. There are other links on this forum which also touch on various nuances of the same idea. All these ideas are dealt with in his seminal work Being Different. Here's a link to a site which exclusively discusses the book Being Different. To other posts on this site dealing with different nuances of the topic in question, please click here and here:

A forum member Jayant encountered the following question when explaining history centrism to a Hindu friend.

He wrote:

We know according to Nicene creed, Adam and Eve in Eden garden ate apple from tree of knowledge and they committed sin. Hence god curse them and all their progeny for eternal damnation. In Christianity solution for this problem has been found through crucification of Jesus hence humans got saved. In Islam they don't consider Jesus as son of god hence solution they give is Adam and Eve did committed sin, but all merciful god forgiven them then and there. 

Now what about the period of Judaism i.e. period between god cursing Adam and Eve and arrival of Jesus. When they have been cursed for eternal damnation then why god kept sending prophets with new instructions ?

Rajiv's reply:

Jews do not believe there has been a universal savior to rescue humanity. Such a man is called messiah and they are still waiting for the messiah to come. 

They reject that Jesus was the messiah. Thats what differentiates Jews from Christian. Release 2.0, i.e. Jesus as savior, is deemed a fraudulent claim, So they run on release 1.0, i.e  Old Testament or Torah. For a quick refresher watch the Youtube on my "systems model" of History Centrism:

According to Jews, God gave them a special deal: They got chosen doe this. They have to obey certain rules he laid down and in exchange they (and only they) would be rescued in God's special care. The strategy was for God to first create a role model set of tribes (= Jews) and later ask them to lead the whole world and spread the franchise. But until Jews have complied with his wishes and God gives the next Release they are NOT to evangelize and try to convert others. They are still working on Release 1.0.

None of the Abrahamic theologians I debated could refute my position that: 

1) These 3 history centric religions cannot resolve their core differences without serious compromises. 

2) The only way out for them is to reject their history centrism principle.

3) This, in turn, requires rejecting core metaphysics on the nature of God/Man/World separation, etc.

4) This entails having to swallow what I refer to as Poison Pills see IN.

5) In effect, they would end up getting digested into Hinduism. 

6) This is why Hindus must STOP trying to digest Christianity, or Jesus = avatara, or jesus lived in India, etc. UNTIL the above points are clearly understood - first and foremost by our leaders.

In response another forum member Aditya wrote:

On a related note, I was having a discussion with a friend about various mystical traditions. He was very impressed with so-called "Jewish mysticism" and Gnosticism (a form of Christian mysticism) and wanted to explore them further. I was explaining that all the Dharmic systems/traditions are inherently mystical by definition. He was taking it in the direction of a sameness argument: "all mystical traditions are the same as any other mystical traditions.

This simply isn't true....

I explained that Hinduism is inherently mystical and has a HUGE body of Scripture, traditions, and practices ("Inner Sciences") that have existed in some form for thousands of years. These other mystical traditions do not even come close to being nearly as fully developed as Hinduism in this respect. Also, the mysticism of history-centric religions are a "side branch" of the respective source religion and have struggled to survive because they are a huge threat to the core doctrines of the respective history-centric religion. They are not the featured event, but instead are a side show. 

With Hinduism, on the other hand, the featured event is the mysticism. There is no "side show" of mysticism and hence no struggle for survival within the tradition itself. And if there were a side show, it would be come kind of "history centric Hinduism" which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms....

Rajiv replied:

1) In response to liberal Judeo-Christian sameness (as ploy for digestion), you must create a wedge between this and their own history centrism. The mysticism that complies with history centrism is inherently limited and a way to domesticate true mysticism within the contours of history centrism.

2) After some gymnastics, he will try to claim he is not history centric as in Nicene Creed. Thats a good shift.

3) Now you take this even further and discuss specifically the history centrism of Jesus. A few of them will play the game of going further and will say that Jesus is not a historical person, or if he is, his historicity is not critical. This opens a wedge to discuss the whole metaphysics of Christianity as I have explained in BD. Now you must discuss the contradiction between a-historical jesus and church doctrine.

4) If he accept further that he rejects the church doctrine, and has his own belief in jesus: Now show that such a jesus is USELESS: As non compliant with church doctrine its just his personal opinion not backed by Christian theology. As a FULLY Hindu-ized Jesus in every respect, he is useless because Hinduism already has whatever such a jesus brings plus much more. So why not just become Hindu and stop the gymnastics?

5) The bottom line of having many such encounters is to understand that this sameness of mysticism is a pathway to digest Hindus - who tend to be confused already. 

Watch my Youtube conversation with Mark Tully where he tries to play this sameness Good Cop -- he likes Hinduism and wants no differences discussed. Note I keep asking that we remove differences by his adoption of Hinduism, and not the other way around.

                                       

Thread continues with Jayant who writes:

So as per your explanation for Judaism, (1) is similar to Islam where Adam and Eve have been forgiven by god then and there after committing sin. But it only differs in (2) with Islam, where for judaism these instructions were only for jews(chosen one) and in Islam any person who follow version 3.0 of instructions (set of do's and don'ts)  goes to Heaven. Hope I am getting it right.

With these, few more questions are coming to my mind. 

A) if Jews were given only certain instructions then why it took around 48 male prophets and 7 female prophets. ? Why they are so many versions like 1.1, 1.2 and so on. God wanted them to be perfect tribe before evangelize the world ? If so then does their latest prophet got the final set of instructions(like Koran) or still there are more prophets in pipeline ?

B) Once they got their final version, Is there any prophecy from god that Jews will going to get a messiah like Mohammed and they can start their evangelizing activity through out the world ? 

Rajiv's response:

A) God sent a series of Releases like CEO sends updated HR policy manuals. Jews dont question God's reasons or rights to do this, though they speculate. There is no certain way of knowing what God might do next, as he's the boss who keeps his cards close to the vest. But there is no finality clause in Release 1 as there is in Islam (Release 3).

B) Islam has lot more similarities with Judaism than with Christianity. This is ironic but true. 

Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet but NOT as son of God. There was never any son or daughter of God nor does he intend to produce any. The Judaic Islamic systems are based on God using regular humans as prophets to be intermediaries to communicate with us. Only Christianity has one "avatara-like" incarnation called jesus - but its dangerous for Hindus to accept jesus as avatara for reasons i explained many times. 

Muslims believe their Release 3 is final, perfect and complete. Older Releases 1 and 2 get acknowledged but MUST GET DIGESTED to fit into Release 3. So prior Abrahamic prophets are listed in Qur'an and accepted, but superseded by Mohammad who brought 3.0 that supersedes. 

The whole interfaith dialogue amongst the three abrahamic religions has tried hard to find ways to fit these 3 releases together in a win-win-win way. This has not happened and i show why it cannot happen ever without compromising one or more of the players.

Only a stupid or very ignorant Hindu would want to claim sameness with these beliefs. 

Digestion is very dangerous. Its easier to deal with encounters where the other side is openly rejecting us and wants to convert explicitly. At least our folks by now can understand whats going on, whereas most of them cannot interpret digestion properly. 

Jeffrey adds to the discussion. He writes:

Rajiv has written of Jesus, "As a FULLY Hindu-ized Jesus in every respect, he is useless because Hinduism already has whatever such a jesus brings plus much more. So why not just become Hindu and stop the gymnastics?"

A Christian might, however, become Hindu and still retain a belief that Jesus did exist and was an avatar in the Hindu sense, and that what has emerged as Christianity is a massive distortion of the authentic teaching of that Jesus avatar. 

Rajiv intervenes on this point. He writes

Pls dont distort avatara as that involves many things that cannot be removed from the notion. Example: There cannot be only one exclusive avatara. Etc. Lets not facilitate digestion of Hinduism, pls, using the Good Cop approach that this "original Christianity" was same as Hinduism anyway. A dangerous thing for Hindus to fall for. A partial similarity does not qualify as sameness. An apple has many similarities with an orange, a bicycle with a car...

Jeffrey continues

If one looks at the Gnostic literature suppressed by the church (and only rediscovered in the twentieth century), many early Christians held a worldview that was essentially Dharmic in its contours (a cycle of rebirth, Jesus as an enlightened master teaching by example the way to liberation, and so on).  This was the case right up until the Second Council of Constantinople, in the sixth century, where all such ideas were declared heretical--a council called not by the pope, but by the Emperor Justinian.  The Cathars held a worldview and followed a practice that was basically the same as Jainism, albeit cloaked in Christian language, until they were wiped out in a crusade launched in the thirteenth century by the ironically named Pope Innocent III.  Christianity, as it is known today, is a digestion of this earlier tradition--essentially a Gnostic or mystical branch of Judaism, probably influenced by ancient contacts with India--by the ideology of imperial Rome, which was able to utilize Abrahamic monotheism as a way to command exclusive loyalty to a single church-state complex.  This state-supported version of Christianity then turned upon and digested (as well as declaring outright war upon) the earlier Pagan traditions of Europe.  For many centuries, those who would dissent from this ideology and affirm the more ancient belief system (e.g. Giordano Bruno, who affirmed both rebirth and the existence of extraterrestrial life) would be burned at the stake.

Maria contributes to the discussion. She writes:

Yes, Mr.Jeffrey. I fully agree with Mr. Malhotra. Why do we need to retain anything? I keep saying that there is no way of keeping oneself at the two sides of the fence, given so many incompatibilities that there are between Christianity and Hinduism, no matter initial similarities. 

We as hindus give a respect to all, and demand respect from all. But giving respect doesn´t mean to praise to the skies neither Jesus nor proph. Muhammad. For that matter, we have both Christians and Muslims who will impose each of them on us. They don´t need our help with our undefined positions. 

Rajiv response was to point out that those who didn't take clear positions and preferred to sit on the fence advocating sameness of religions, were generally stage 2 u-turners. He reiterated that this phase was dangerous because the mirage of sameness led to a false "feel good" factor among Hindus who believed they were legitimized by a westerner. He also gave the example of Unitarians who tried hard to make "whitened Bengalis" (or sameness experts) of Ram Mohan Roy and other Bengali bhadralok with the result that they are an extremely marginalized (<1%) group among the US Christian population. He uses this example to drive home the point that most other Christian denominations reject "sameness". Rajiv also uses the fashion for sufism (a digestion tool) among Hindus today, pointing out that only a very small portion of mosques allow sufi music and dance. He stresses that the core of Islam has no place for sufism.

Rajiv ended by requesting people who preach sameness to approach hard core Christian denominations and ask them if they would be prepared to:

• install deities of Krishna, Ram, Kali, Durga...
• accept reincarnation, karma theories
• accept immanence and satchitananda cosmology

Rajiv posts part of another mail from Jeffrey and his response to that.

First Jeffrey's point:

Clearly if one were to see Jesus as an avatar in a Hindu sense then all claims of his being the only one or of Christianity being exclusively true go out the window. What is being proposed here is a Hindu digestion of Christ, not a Christian digestion of Hinduism. The Poison Pill would be: is the person who views Jesus in this way willing to also and equally worship and revere Sri Ram, Sri Krishna, etc? That would be the test of such a person's fundamental commitment--to a Dharmic view or to an exclusivist view.

Rajiv's response:

Not so. There are lots and lots of additional elements in Hinduism's integral unity. Incomplete knowledge is dangerous. You must accept multiple avataras, deities including female (such as kali), the idea of immanence, the abandonment of original sin and hence reject the story of Eden as believed in dogma, and so forth.

Each time a digesting liberal christian offers "I will accept Hindu principle x" hence claim sameness, I take the demand further and also ask for accepting y. If y gets accepted then accept z. This only ends when the TOTAL INTEGRAL UNITY of Hinduism's cosmology gets accepted.

This creates two problems. Firstly, there is no reason to convert Hindus if everything gets accepted. Secondly the integral unity Hinduism contains poison pills that undermine christianity.

Of course you can keep remodeling a hut to eventually turn it into a massive palace. But let them keep doing it and let us not make it easy and incomplete.

Mark Tully tries this hard in my 1.5 hour Youtube with him. Please watch. No point coming back every few months to try the same thing again and again hoping we will get tired and give up.

Rajiv's comment to "sameness" advocates to try influencing Christian denominations drew response from Jeffrey who states, that that has been his effort for a long time. He also says that his positions are in conformance with that taught by Ramakrishna Mission or Vedanta Society. Rajiv says that one has to defend one's viewpoints on their own merit and not as theories of this or that denomination.

Finally is a warning from Rajiv where he cautions all those who advocate sameness:

The most dangerous lie is the one that most closely resembles the truth. 

Digestion versus Inclusivism

This is one more in our series of blogs on digestion - what it is, and what it isn't. Here, we have a question from a western scholar who has rejected proselytization, and wants to know:
- the difference and similarity between 'inclusivism' and digestion. 
- and haven't some schools of thought in dharma always digested some other schools to yield what is today called Hinduism?

The responses and discussions are quite important. For example, it's pretty stunning that attempts to discredit Vivekananda, and brand Hinduism as some colonial construct, have continued since the 1890s - when Vivekananda enlightened the west, after which the holes in history-centric Christianity were permanently exposed. For a more complete answer to such attempts we will have to await Rajiv's new book 'Indra's Net: Defending India's philosophical unity'.

November 2013

Karl asks:
QUESTION 1:
"...categories/typologies used in interfaith forums to classify forms of dialogues and attitudes toward the "other"...:  exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism.
...
Do you see any similarities or differences between "inclusivism" and "digestion"? In what ways?"

Rajiv comment: 
"This is a good question.

I do not consider the standard academic classification of inter-religious postures into the three (exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism) to be adequate. I am aware that this classification is normative in the classroom. First of all, these are not mutually exclusive of one another because often a given person's attitude is a muddled combination of more than one of them. He might be exclusive on certain points and inclusive in others, for instance.

But more importantly and to the point of your question, Digestion is an outcome that can result from many starting postures including these three postures. An exclusivist posture like Protestant Nicene Creed based denomination explicitly rejects Hinduism and yet appropriates yoga into Christian Yoga. They do so by distorting those aspects of yoga that would not be digestible. So exclusivism can also lead to partial digestion. Similarly, Inclusivism and Pluralism are each prone to culminate as Digestion of Hinduism. My point is that the 3-way classification does not go deep enough as these three are surface positions where the encounter starts but does not end.

SPECIFICALLY, INCLUSIVISM IS NOT AN END STATE BUT AN INTERIM STATE. IT IS AN UNSTABLE STATE OF TRANSITION. The Christian spouse of a Hindu finds inclusivism convenient, and family/friends on both sides can get a period of peace because it can seem that there is no problem. But in fact they have just set aside the hard issues of differences rather than deal with them. So later on, I find in most such cases, problems surface. They would be better off extensively discussing differences up front, and reaching some sort of "deal" consciously rather than pretending there is no issues because they have slogans to chant from both sides."

QUESTION 2:
"Would you agree that what you define as "Hinduism" has also been, and will maybe always be, a locus of digestion of its own? Would you agree that "digestion", as you define it, has taken place within the work of various and great Indian thinkers without them caring much about giving proper acknowledgement to their sources, even sometimes completely modifying the nature of the material they incorporated? (For example, one could try to prove this point by showing how some Buddhist notions were absorbed and reformulated in Vedantic terms, without acknowledgement, even under the cover as one might say. ...) Or would you think that this is impossible?

If it did happen, what do you make of this phenomenon in regard to your own quest of identifying "digestion" in other traditions?"

Rajiv comment: "Yes, there is continual intra-dharma digestion-like process going on, BUT with one critical difference: The source does not get destroyed as in the case of digestion by Abrahamic religions due to their exclusivity claims, and their mandate to take over "100% market share of souls" in the world. The doxographers in India (I refer to them extensively in my forthcoming book (Indra's Net)) were cross-appropriating from one another and kept the debates and purva paksha vibrant all the time. This is how innovation took place. This is why Hinduism has always been dynamic, continuous and yet connected with its sources (whether explicitly acknowledged or not).

Borrowing without harming the source is a good thing. It is how humanity advances by learning from each other. But in Digestion per se, there is no trace of the source left - as Pagans getting digested into Christianity.

There is another important distinction between cross-borrowing among dharma traditions and Abrahamic digestion of others: As BD shows

there are important common tenets across most dharma systems and hence when they borrow the foundation is robust enough for this to happen with mutual respect.  

In history centric religions, the digestion must remove every trace of whatever disagrees with this absolutist and exclusivist historical grand narrative. Hence the latter is invariably destructive..."

Karl's followup:
"....I share your disappointment with the terminology (or typology) used in interfaith forums. ...

As for your views on digestion, if I understand your point, the problem lies in the power struggles generated by the Abrahamic faiths who always tried to impose their views and now try to absorb whatever is attractive in other systems. ... Coming from [], disillusionment with the Church and with other Christian missionaries is deep rooted.

...I am doing my [] research on Indian doxography. .."


Rajiv comment: The best evidence that Indian doxography did not lead to digestion (in the sense of digestion by the west) is that the systems incorporated or borrowed from by a given doxogrpher have continued to survive independently and separately as themselves, in most cases. For example, many Vedantins assimilated ideas from Samkhya but Samkhya flourishes as its own system. Similarly, Gaudapada got Madhyamika Buddhism ideas but nobody has destroyed Buddhism in the process. In other words, cross-learning was not destructive as it was in the case of history centric religions. I am trying to put your attention back on to history centrism."


Kundan adds:

".... your paper [] .... it is quite clear that it is inclusivism that bothers you...inclusivism has bothered the likes of Hacker and Halbfass and numerous other authors who are invested in a social constructivist approach of showing that Hinduism is colonial construct.

The reason why it bothers people who are opposed to inclusivism is the philosophy of Vedanta, which basically brings into its fold anything and everything which is in the universe and beyond—including the so called negative or demoniac forces.

Interpreted from the fundamentalist point of view, the nondual Vedantic philosophy makes the dualistic worldview of Nicene Creed Christianity a subset. This subordinated status is not acceptable to the Nicene Creed because of which the proponents of Vedanta have been under constant line of fire, including an attempt on the life of Swami Vivekananda (please see “On Himself” by him) who is considered to be the chief protagonist of the Vedantic thought in the west. After the fundamentalist Christians were not successful in killing him, they bandied to deconstruct and delegitimize him in western academia, mostly by spreading canards. In every era new ways were devised to do so—the latest is the philosophy of social constructivism under which people like Halbfass, Richard Kind, Brian Pennington, Andrew Nicholson, etc fall. Paul Hacker is actually the father of them all in the modern times. However this scholarship can be traced to the likes of James Mill.

...You have actually taken the battle of de-legitimizing the inclusivism of Vedanta even further—you have taken it to the pre-colonial times. ...you have taken the works of Sadananda and Jitatmananda, fifteenth and sixteenth century Vedantins, to show how inclusivism is based on a fraud (you give the name doxography). So basically, you and your ilk will go to everywhere in Indian thought where an attempt is made to bring existence, universe, cosmos, under the canopy of Oneness, because this threatens the exclusivism and the exclusivity of the Nicene Creed.

Now coming to your questions, if there is a difference between inclusivism and digestion. Rajiv ji has answered how the inclusivism of Nicene Creed becomes problematic when it engages with dharma traditions. Let me answer the question from the Vedantic perspective:

From the Vedantic perspective inclusivism is not digestion. Why? When Vedanta came to the West, it did not promote a singular and homogenous idea. When it spoke about Oneness, it spoke about diversity as well. It created a perfect harmony between Oneness and diversity. It spoke about its own truth but it did not invalidate the truths of Christianity. It did not inculturate to take over Christianity and push Jesus from the pantheon of the divine beings. .. It did not wean away Christians from Christianity but made an effort to make them better Christians—yes, in that wake, it did not dwell on the differences because of which we have “Being Different” now. Vedanta, explicitly and implicitly, did not harm Christianity. It did not go on a conversion drive.."

Let me take the following question (#2)

First and foremost, the thesis of this question itself is flawed. This is again based on the “construction of Hinduism” theme. If my understanding is correct, this will be refuted in Rajiv ji’s upcoming book. In the meantime, if at all you want to change your views, I am sending you a paper titled “Swami Vivekananda in Western Academia.” You can see for yourself the truth which makes you formulate your question in the above manner."

Manish adds a game-theory based thought

"..

// For example, many Vedantins assimilated ideas from Samkhya but Samkhya flourishes as its own system. Similarly, Gaudapada got Madhyamika Buddhism ideas but nobody has destroyed Buddhism in the process.// --- This is a quote from RM (below mailchain)

-- this sounds good and noble...but it has come at a great cost...since so many competing schools of thought are allowed to co-exist, there is no central theme, or a unified civilisational weltanschaaung (''UCW"), in our civilisation that binds people together...even how our people assess threats from enemies is not a uniform process, so our enemies have always found it easy to divide, make inroads and defeat us...

Rajiv comment: The example in the following sentences is a counter productive diversion away from the point that has already been expressed well above .




Manish provides a couple of options:

.... Option A: Take a misplaced pride in notions of nobility even if it means you are never able to forge your own UCW, and therefore are left vulnerable -- even predisposed --- to being decimated by other not-so-noble civilisations who have forged a UCW of their own.

Option B: Be pragmatic, dump all notions of nobility and recognise the stark reality that the civilisation that invariably wins is the one with a UCW (not necessarily the more noble one), which will conquer you and then force its unified civilisational weltanschaaung down your throat.

Game theory suggests that you are better off with (B). In other words, if you don't develop your own UCW, you will end up being subservient to an alien UCW. In either case, you have to have a UCW. So, why not one which is your own UCW?

Rajiv comment: The flaw with the above is seeing the philosophical exchanges among dharmic worldviews as a matter of "nobility" (whatever that might mean). The discussants in India saw their enterprise as a quest for truth, not a political quest.

Seeing in dharma terms, the deficiency being pointed out concerns kshatriyata in the kurukshatra of discourse. My new book (Indra's Net) has a long chapter in the end that gives my solution to this dilemma: how to remain true to our quest and at the same time not be weak and vulnerable to infiltrations/digestions. The problem I address is that we must remain open and yet pre-empt these attacks. Stay tuned..." 

Karl responds to Kudan:
"...I am not bothered by "inclusivism", not even by "exclusivism" or "pluralism". I am more prone to think like Mr. Malhotra on the issue, meaning that I believe that the categories are somehow superficial, at most that they are mental attitudes appearing in some circumstances and not in others..."
 
....you wrongly label my intentions and my work by putting it into some boxes pre-existing in your own worldview. Unfortunately, it does not capture the reality and appears to be a good example of "adhyâropa" (अध्यारोप)...

I have nothing to do with Christianity or any Abrahamic faiths .. as a matter of practice (sâdhana - साधन) I am guided by the Karma Kagyü Lineage of Tibetan Buddhism.
...my view (darshana - दर्शन) can hardly be defined by a single word, or concept, or any substantiation like an "ism". It is certainly not a "religion", not even a cultural phenomenon or some kind of a national identity. At best, it is nothing standing by and of its own.

I am in fact struggling to understand the worldview of those who find it relevant to reify their (relative) identity with such concepts as "ism" or"religion". Especially when these people claim to understand the such deep views as the one found in Vedânta for example. It appears to me as a really "relative" understanding indeed.

To continue, as a scholar, I reject the use of the word "religion", sometimes even of "philosophy". What we call "religion" today is in fact the end of "religion" as it have been understood and lived by most traditions in the past (see Wilfrid Cantwell Smith)." 

[to be continued ...]
 

 

Digestion of the Hindu Festival of Onam

The discussion started off with a reaction to the terribly biased NY Times article on Indian politics, then somehow switched toward a familiar theme in the last year or so: 'digestion': what it is, what isn't etc. This is a sufficiently important topic and one that we will continue to highlight. Here, we summarize the digestion of Onam into some secular 'feel good' festival.


October 2013
Protest against New York Times unfair/biased newspaper article
this is the article in question. shocking misrepresentation. Rajiv provided a link to a response to the article in India's arguably most popular media watchdog site 'mediacrooks' that has more than 5 million hits to date. 

 
Rajiv Malhotra: "One good rejoinder against NYT's white supremacist production of Atrocity Literature - http://www.mediacrooks.com/2013/09/imported-garbage-from-new-york-times.html#.Uj2S4z-yk0c


Now we come to the discussion of Onam that was triggered by this post.

Chandra notes: "The Guruvayurappan Temple Web site in Dallas has an announcement for Onam celebration at a local church.


It appears the Church is encouraging these kinds of celebrations and this trend is recent and over the last few years..."

Rajiv's response: " I am glad members here are picking up instances of digestion. 99% of the Hindus who have not read and understood digestion are still joyful when the tiger praises their culture. "I like your looks and aura", the tiger tells the stupid goat/deer, who goes about bragging to his fellow prey, "how lucky that the king of the jungle likes me". When invited to the tiger's dinner table, such a fool is convinced that the tiger has become his friend"

patrika adds: "... there is opposition in these public meetings for the City Council to give these local Hindus the permit to build Hindu places of worship. In many of these meetings, almost always, ordinary local citizens, mostly Caucasian Christians of liberal outlook,have supported our cases in City Council meetings when there was opposition from other sections of society.

I need to stress that these mainstream citizens supported the Hindus for the temple request in their capacity as ordinary citizens, and only rarely, if at all, they came representing their faith.

In our interactions with the outside organization Christian institutions, we will be better served if we keep these in mind and preface our discussions suitably. As Shri Malhotra has repeated stressed, we only seek mutual respect, nothing more, and nothing less either. ..."


Rajiv comment: "I agree. Liberal Americans are polite, and often open minded. We have failed to negotiate our place. It is our own leaders who have lacked the knowledge, courage and articulation to represent us well. That we are getting digested is the result of not knowing what differentiates us in ways which are non-negotiable. It is not that others have denied us the right to be different. Sikhs demand it as do Jews and Muslims. Only Hindus among the major faiths are confused, muddled up - the leaders who have enjoyed prestige and ceremonial pomp over the past few decades are accountable for this confusion because most of them are confused as well. The general public lacks the culture of accountability of leaders. There is too much sucking up to leaders - the blind leading the blind."


Mira: "...I don't think Christianity is tiger at all that can digest The universal truth carrier Sanathan Dharma that stood, Stands and will stand for ever as Drubotara. Nothing can Digest the Mighty truth..."

Rajiv comment: "This is very typical confusion. But I cant go on and on repeating the same arguments on digestion. So I wont bother. The individual needs to become more logical. For example;
- differentiate between truth and truth-claims;
- look at the history of being digested;
- go beyond simplistic slogans.

These are convenient ways to evade the issues: We have devatas on our side so lets not bother. We have eternal dharma which by definition cannot be destroyed, so why all this fuss. (We are morons after all, and hence whats the difference?)  "

Sukumar: "I was told by a friend who has settled in Canada that the local
church allowed them to conduct Sudarshan kriya classes of Sri Sri
Ravishankar in a local church. He said that there are no believers visiting the church and all those including the priest were keen on attending the kriya. How do we distinguish between such efforts and an effort towards 'digestion'?"

Rajiv comment: The same was true of RK Mission in USA until many decades back. Churches sent their members to RKM to learn meditation because demand was high and churches did not teach meditation. But then the churches sent their priests to learn how to teach meditation. In fact, Maharishi's TM movement and other Hindu groups are where they went openly sent to learn. But today, the RKM is empty in north america (except old folks from the past). The RKM leaders will tell you the reason is that now churches are teaching meditation which they learned from RKM. So church members do not need to go to RKM to learn.

Moral 1: Digestion is not usually instant. Like a chess game you must learn to think many moves ahead. Digestion usually comes later in the exchange. Very few Indians have the strategic vision to be able to figure out the long term trend. Most of them look at the immediate situation only.

... That's why I developed the Uturn Theory to explain the DIFFERENT STAGES at work. I have yet to edit and post that video. It makes this point clear.

Moral 2: The persons digesting often do not have bad intentions. You will miss the point if you evaluate based on "they are nice people who mean well" type of reasoning. It is to be seen clinically....

Chandra follows up:
"Onam is clearly a Hindu Festival...see the link on its origins at :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onam

Rather than strengthening the Hindu Roots of Onam and proudly proclaiming its Hindu Identity, We seem to be discussing that other faiths are also celebrating it in Kerala these days. Is it not the very root of the problem, not that other faiths are celebrating it, but Hindus are loosing the ability to Identify it to Hindu Traditions and Heritage."


Surya adds a couple of FAQ:
"1. Are Hindus against others celebrating Hindu festivals?

No, provided Hindu festivals are celebrated as Hindu festivals, with respect for Hindu traditions and beliefs.

Onam is not just a festival. It is a Hindu festival. That is how it should be celebrated.

2. Why are Hindus concerned about Christians celebrating onam?

Three reasons.

(1) Christian history has shown that they took pagan festivals and traditions, stripped them off the original tradition and merely kept the celebratory aspect..

(2) Christians have used inculturation as an instrument to convert. The idea is not to assimilate Christianity into native traditions but make it look alike...

(3) Christians are exclusivists. They do not entertain other religions as valid in their own right. ...there is no legitimate way for them to celebrate Onam as a Hindu festival..."

Rohit asks:

"Recently, I've been noticing the lines "Onam is a secular festival"/"Onam is also a secular festival" getting added/deleted to Onam article on Wikipedia. Can any learned Keralite friends please throw some light on how "secular" is Onam? Has it always been "secular" or is it a more recent phenomenon? A basic google search reveals numerous articles, all of them assert that Onam is a secular festival. If the argument is that since it is a harvest festival and hence secular, then by extension, every harvest festival becomes secular. That way a good amount of festivals go out of the ambit of dharma and join the secular league -- and we know where it goes from there."

 

Karthik adds: "....the idea of Onam being "secular" is invalid here. All festivals will have both laukika aspects in its celebrations (like new clothes, sweets, meeting with friends etc.). But that by itself does not make a festival "secular", if it has "non-secular" elements to it. In the case of Onam, the festival is connected to the Vamana-Mahabali incident from the puranas..."

Ram further notes:

"Mahabali is said to have ruled over Kerala. Onam is celebrated by the
malayalis to welcome their king mahabali who was sent to pathaala loka (
nether world) by Vamana avatar of Mahavishnu,.... Similar attempts to secularise Makar Sankaranthi / Pongal in tamil nadu was carried during last Karunanidhis term where he abruptly shifted the tamil new year nearby to pongal ( jan 14-15 thiruvalluvar day) and english new year instead of the tradition april 14"

 

Indra comments: "Let's not stretch this issue too far lest it should invite ridicule or a complex hue. Festivities of one religion into other(s), even up-to celebratory tone should be welcome to foster good inter-relation amongst communities and a feel-good environment."

Rajiv comment: "Please take time to understand how digestion works. It is a long term process. The export-import of such things results in asymmetric outcomes depending on the relative levels of power, strategic vision and leadership of both sides. These are not "mergers as equals". The side with clarity of self definition (e.g. via Nicene Creed or similar doctrine) has an advantage over the side with confused leaders who preach sameness. The side whose activists are a trained sales force (or army) wipes out the side that has confused activists.."

Yegne adds:

"While it is incorrect to call Onam a secular festival because of its Hindu mythological underpinnings,the adoption of its cultural ,regional aspects is a natural for the inhabitant original converts here and their descendants over centuries.
This is common in many christianized countries of Europe and all countries of South America,Africa,even after full digestion into Christianity;So-called Pagan festivals of yore,frowned upon by the catholic church, continue happily.
I am sure many cosmopolitan-minded Hindus join in Christamas festivities of close friends or even set up the christmas tree in their own houses,without accepting their tenets & canons or any fear of digestion into christian faith.
RM's explanation of digestion by stealth is not relevant here,I would say."

Rajiv comment: Digestion is not necessarily by stealth. Where did I say it was stealth? Christian Yoga, Christian Bharat Natyam, and many other examples are all out in the open. What does stealth have to do with the consequences - i.e. that the digested entity disappears as a self or loses its standing. Once again, you are mixed up on what point is being made.

That European pagans faced similar plight does not mean that we ought to follow suit. European pagans did disappear or at least became marginalized. So their example only proves our concern...." 

Manish notes: "I have received an invitation for Dandiya Raas Nights... and now after reading the discussion about Onam celebrations I realise that this Navaratri celebration in all big cities is a clear example of the digestion of a great spiritual and cultural tradition. Now it does not talk anything about any worship or  Pooja or Arati but instead talks only about  fun and food and rocking the floor. The highlights of the event are no more than Live Orchestra, DJ & Singers, best dancer competition, best dressed male / female etc... "

Koti adds: "I think this is an inevitable outcome. Same thing has happened to Holi, Christmas, Easter, Mardi Gras....even Iftar.
That alone is not evil, ..."

Rajiv comment: "What matters is the lens through which future generations will interpret these symbols, celebrations, festivals, sacred sites, rituals, etc. Future tour guides (trained by pseudo-sec or Abrahamic academies in India) will explain the Hills of Solomon instead of Tirupati; Festival of color instead of holi, festival of light instead of divali, and so forth. Look at the new vocabulary being taught under Christian Yoga and bharat natyam. In the first stages they add this new vocabulary in addition to the old one, so as to not sound suspicious. This can easily be sold to stupid Hindus as "sameness" or as "secularism". Some foolish leader can be cited and some verse quoted out of context... Over time. gradually the old vocabulary fades away, and the new becomes cool and fashionable among the youth and media. This is what digestion is about. IT IS BEYOND THE GRASP OF THOSE WHO CANNOT SEE LONG TERM AND THINK AHEAD IN MULTI-STAGES, AND CAN ONLY SEE WHAT IS IMMEDIATE. By the time such persons can see whats going on it is too late. Sadly most of our leaders are of this sort as the public has not demanded competence."

RMF Summary: Week of January 23 - 29, 2012

January 26
Invading the Sacred
Ganesh shares: Outlook India had published this article on "Invading the Sacred" in their Jun29, 2007 edition.
This is an article by Sri Rajiv Malhotra titled "Was the US Senate Attack on Hinduism an isolated Instance?"

January 26

What would a 'modern person' look like after 'Dharmic Universalism' JCP shares:

"...You have skillfully positioned "Dharm" to represent Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism & Sikhism, the latter three of which have already acquired the status of "minorities" in the Indian polity, if not in the Indian Constitution, which has no reference to the term "minority". That leaves only Hinduism in the word "Dharm" for all practical political & social purposes. The rubric of "dharmic traditions" now seems to be more appropriate & sufficiently nebulous for the purpose of including all the above four paths emerging out of Hinduism as well as to take away the pointing arrow from Hinduism, for the purposes of debates in inter-faith dialogues. Your concluding remark that Gandhi's example is the only hope for a meaningful turn around in the global context, is most apt & projects a ray of hope for the future. This is however, easier said than done. The strategy of how Gandhi's example can be followed as a way for a worldwide spiritual, intellectual & social movement, perhaps needs to be worked upon. With your vision, you could help in shaping the outlines of such a movement, drawing upon right-minded people from all over the world.

Our mission is "Dharmic Universalism" is what you had averred in one of your mails. I have just put some thoughts together to picture what an individual would be doing in such a world as follows:-

(i) Each person would intellectually believe in "being different", according to ones own world view of choice, inclining towards one of these - Western or Chinese or Islamic or Dharmic Universalism.

(ii) Emotionally, each person would be devoted to ones own passions &compassion, within ethically & socially acceptable restraints in conformity with ones own world view.

(iii) Action-wise, each person would work for ones own (& perhaps, ones family's) physical, mental & spiritual capacity development to full potential, in conformity with ones own world view, to enable creative thinking, giving rise to sustainable action leading to sustainable regenerative development.

(iv) At the foot-slogging level, each person would choose a path believing in "being different" according to ones own inclinations, capacities & capabilities & respecting the path chosen by every other person."

Nalini responds:
"... i would still hesitate to club the practised faiths all together, for their substance and essence in an organized frame soon degenerate into a fossilized mass that does not evolve along with human thought and experience. Can I continue to belong to an evolving Humanism unfettered by the prescriptions of any one dictum or dogma. At least I can continue to be my own kind of a Hindu, while you can be yours. i would still cherish my childish experience of Jesus the savior, in my catholic schooling, as i cherish the love trust and comraderie of the Sunni family in the border lands of Iran. The Babaji
of my Sikh Grand Mother, and the Arya Samajic traditions of my parental home. Not to forget the aggressive Atheism of my Husband and the gentle persuasion ....

Western Universalism reigned for a while linked as it was to Greek thought and supported by a positivist methodology. Eastern experience has been intuitive and inner directed, whereas the western was sensory, empirical and outward. The
Dualism plays itself out to coalesce into one unity, in every sphere. Let us patiently wait for that to happen."

Rajiv comment: I see JCP performing an important role in the churning process (the motif on the cover of BD of the churning of the ocean of creativity). Nalini appreciates her own churning sparked by the churning of many persons she names above. By the same token, I dont think we need to be afraid to churn further ourselves. We are endowed with the capacity to do so, unlike in history centric systems where only history can give us access to the truth.

While at the surface level, all the above named systems are ok to practice simultaneously within oneself, upon further churning by her, my prediction is that Nalini will appreciate that there are indeed contradictions amongst them, and that its better at some stage to deal with these. That is the stage at which the process starts where BD begins - appreciating the need to understand differences rather than avoiding them in the name of harmony."

Hitanshu suggests:
"The only solution I see in order to prevent digestion is to inculcate in Hinduism a conversion right. That is to say if some westerner wants to perform yoga then the yoga teacher asks them to denounce christ as a false god just the
missionaries do when the convert tribal hindus. This could be done by making the christian break christ statue or step on pictures of christ. But then, we wont be much different from them, right. On the other hand we should not forget that only poison can cure poison."

Rajiv comment: I disagree. This crude approach will backfire with the majority and will appeal only to an extreme on the margins. It will cause people to reject dharma and put it in the same image as Islam in many circles.

Instead, I propose the following steps:

1) Teach in yoga class the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali (and then Kapil's Samkhya foundation for advanced students), in which karma is emphasized. And karma is solidly linked with reincarnation.

2) Once karma-reincarnation are established as inseparable from yoga, the next step is to use chapter 2 of BD to contrast history centrism with adhyatma vidya.

3) Once history centrism is rejected, Nicene Creed gets thrown out the window.

I believe that many if not most Judeo-Christians who go to yoga (if taught properly) would be willing to come this far, which is quite a lot. I have tested it on many westerners in yoga over the years and even funded the teaching of Patanjali at such classes.

Its our gurus who gave it away without even trying this approach. Once the Nicene Creed and Jesus's historicity and exclusivity are removed (explained as blockages to advancement in yoga) THEN the student will undergo a cognitive shift with respect to Judeo-Christian affiliation."

January 28

Dharmic traditions: Vietnamese celebrate New Year at Hindu temple Venkat shares:  Vietnamese celebrate New Year at Hindu temple Saibal Dasgupta, TNN | Jan 24, 2012, 02.49PM IST BEIJING: A flood of Vietnamese are flooding a Hindu temple in Ho Chi Minh City during the 7-day Tet festival that began last Friday, according to Indian residents of the city and local Vietnamese. More than 50,000 people, almost all Buddhists, prayed at the Mariammam Temple through the day and the entire night during the Vietnamese New Year on Sunday. The flow continued through Tuesday with several thousand local people visiting each day. "The local Vietnamese believe that worshiping at this temple during the New Year festival will bring good luck," Atul Kumar, a businessmen who has been in HCMC since the 1980s told TNN. A visitor from India reported that people were observing both Hindu and Buddhist rituals to please the gods at the temple..." January 28 Heisenberg/Schrodinger and Hindu/Buddhist complementarities.... Hemachandra shares: As I was reading BD, I was doing some background reading (esp regarding Heisenberg's cnxn with Vedanta) and I came across this interesting post: ... January 29 Oprah may have read Being Different! Perhaps celebrity US TV personality Oprah Winfrey read the BD chapter 4 on Chaos! (IThough it's more likely these words below are her own :). Either way, it's... January 29 Why Krishna Historicity and Black color is critically pushed and pro bvk shares: Please take your valuable 35 minutes to watch the  interesting video to watch  and contemplate on the questions below:   Many of Rajiv Malhotra's fears seem to be turning out to be ground reality faster than expected. ` Breaking India, Being Different'  are an outcome  of  tolerating  `Invading the Sacred', not just by icons, personalities but  also by LANGUAGE of the SACRED, called  `SAMSKRUTHAM'. `Break Down in India' is much more serious issue that needs to be urgently addressed, in a much more serious way compared to `Invitation to Paryaya' deliberations....     2.      Please  Watch carefully how the language of the video  speaking :    Krishna as (Supposed) Father of Jesus ; Holy Ghost is Paramatma'  could trigger more serious ` Ideas appealing'  to current ` Anglicized  Hindu communities ` interpreting Gita in the light of `Biblical model'..." Krishna: History or Myth (with Portuguese subtitles) from Saraswati Films on Vimeo. Srinivas responds: "I think there are a lot of incorrect conclusions derived from the video here. I agree that referring to Krishna, as the father of Jesus, while fine if argued metaphorically is at the same time, very dangerous according to what BD says. But the question to ask here is if those ISKON devotees were right, "according to Hindu dharma", in conceptualizing Jesus as the son of Krishna, the God? I think the answer lies in a concept called Ista devata and Swa-Dharma, both explained in detailed in BD as central ideas. Dharma operates at 3 levels. One, Sanatana dharma being eternal truths from the Vedas and Upanishads. Two, Kala dharma or the one that changes wrt time like the smrithi. Third, Swa-dharma where you have the choice of choosing your Ishta devata. While Sanatana, Kala and Swa dharma could each be different, to be spiritually successful, each should support the other. I.E. Swa dharma should support Kala dharma and Kala dharma should support Sanatana dharma. Meaning Swa dharma needs to be sacrificed for the greater good of Kala dharma and similarly Kala dharma should align itself to Sanatana dharma. The problem comes when someone's Swa dharma is imposed as Kala dharma or Sanatana dharma of others as is happening in the many examples sited in BD. Swa dharma is also something very personal between a Sadhaka and his Guru. This results in many dangers when shared with the public who are not aligned with this thought process. The sadhaka should also make a difference between one's Swa dharma and the right of everyone else to have their own Swa dharma, different from oneself. One has to be very careful about what aspects of one's behavior can be elevated to Kala dharma. And only apaurusheya can be elevated to Sanatana dharma. Just because BD critiques history aspect of religions does not mean dharma traditions should not research into whether Mahabharata or Ramayana took place or not. I dont see a greater time and need for such research to happen in dharmic traditions. It is high time we encourage and support such work. None of this means dharma traditions become "history centric". The main thesis of BD is that in abrahamic religions, if history is taken away, does their belief and spirituality still have any meaning? I.E. if there was no original sin and if Jesus was not a historical figure would you still believe in Jesus' teaching? This is not ever the case in dharma or anywhere in this video...."

RMF Summary: Week of December 22 - 28, 2012

December 25

Christmas origins -- digested others What better time to scrutinise Christianity's insatiable and insidious digestion of pre-Christian festivals to come up with Christmas (please see the...  December 25 The urgency of religio-diversity http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.in/2012/12/conquering-religions.html The map on that page speaks volumes.... This is an important discussion which we summarized in some detail last week. We continue the discussion here. December 26 (continuing from December 16) Important video: My debate/panel with Hindu American youth on identi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpZPvFvzNlc This is an important video to watch. I am glad the lady representing Brahma Kumaris preached the standard "sameness";... Prashant comments: ".. one can see what a pitiful identify crisis even our so-called educated Indians are going through. It is also noteworthy that we have so many various organizations (i refuse to call them Paramparās, as they have no traditional backing) such as Brahma Kumāri, who cater to the same trite notion of 'one-ness'. I myself have seen Hindus use Māyā as an excuse to negate their worldly responsibilities toward dharma. There are two orders of reality spoken of in our Shāstras, one is the absolute order of reality, which we call Satyam, where as Rajiv ji correctly stated, no duality exists whatsoever. The second is the relative/transactional order of reality, which we call Mithyā, which is sustained by Satyam, and yet within Mithyā all transactions take place- including dharma/adharma,...etc..." Arun posts: "The dilemma is a bit clearer. If tVedanta has universal applicability, we should find glimpses of insight outside the Hindu sphere, even if Hindus are the ones who pursued this doctrine to perfection. Or else, Vedanta is just another one of competing truth-claims. If we assert the former, we open the door to "Christian Vedanta" - after all, we have inferred that Jesus had some Vedantic insight. This route thus opens the door to both Vedanta for everyone (good) and for Vedanta to be digested (bad!)..."  Rajiv responds: "...Lets say I take the first route, with the following critical enhancement: I add certain "poison pills" to my universal Vedanta. A poison pill is defined as an ingredient which when swallowed by the Christian theologian will undermine his theology. For example: (1) anti- history centrism, such as Nicene Creed, (2) affirmation of reincarnation, (3) affirmation of certain mantras that cannot be substituted with anything else - these are poison pills because if the christian swallows them he wont remain christian in the conventional sense. Vivekananda did not have poison pills included in his formulation, at least not so emphatically and explicitly, and not as ingredients that are mandatory; his ingredients seemed to be optional.... To prevent against the other party removing the poison pill and digesting what remains, I must imbed the poison pill in a manner that cannot be removed. It is not an option. Dharma is NOT to be presented as a buffet or a flea-market where you can randomly pick what you like and reject the rest. ..... Reverse digestion: My formulation of universal dharma will domesticate Judeo-Christianity if they try to swallow the dharma. Here is how it works: I have explained the metaphor of the tiger and the deer to show how digestion works. I will be explaining a third kind of creature: the porcupine. It cant be swallowed by the tiger because it has poison covered quills which will kill the tiger if swallowed. So the porcupine is not like the vulnerable deer. Yet the porcupine is not a predator like the tiger. It has what may be considered defensive offense: "I dont harm you, but you will get destroyed if you harm me." This complies with ahimsa and mutual respect. "  Alex questions: "... Not all "Christians" believe in Nicene Creed, the infallibility of the Bible, Creation myth etc., yet they remain as christians because they were born in that faith and see no need to change into any other new faith since all the tenets of a new faith may also not be fully in agreement with their intellectual understanding of what religion and spirituality should be, which is to strive towards one's own understanding of the purpose of one's life and its obligation to the peace and welfare of the planet and its inhabitants, both human and all other forms of life as well as the so-called inanimate parts of this earth and its atmosphere. As you know, I greatly admire your work and the pioneering work that you are doing. I hope that I am right in assuming that you too are aware that neither Hindus or peoples of other faiths like Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc., believe 100 percent in everything that their respective religion preach. .." Rajiv's response: "The above argument is typical of the anti-essentialism kind of argument, one that is over used and bookish. Such arguments try to say that the identities or categories being used by the opponent are not perfectly defined, that there are exceptions to these categories, and the boundaries are blurred. Hence, the argument tries to undermine the worthiness of the opponent's thesis. Postmodernists use this argument a lot. BD gives my response to this postmodernist argument. In effect, such arguments serve to maintain the status quo which happens to be in favor of one side over the other. When blacks critique white supremacy one can say that the same problems also apply to some blacks. When women try to fight gender bias, they get told that some women also have the same problem. Whenever any kind of group tries to make its case one should expect to hear such an argument. If we back off, the status quo remains, which is why postmodernist thought has worsened the prejudices, not solved them. Specifically regarding christians and Nicene creed: Yes, many christians do not believe that and one can therefore give each individual christian the following choice: - Reject the Nicene Creed and history centrism. - In which case you are fine, but then you must be explicit .... - You must not be able to deny the other religions the legitimacy of their deities, their narratives, etc. In other words, Christian exclusivity ends. - Such a person must challenge the relevance of the historical Jesus on the grounds that similar generic teachings are already found in other faiths such as Hinduism. - Hence it is christianity that gets digested into generic spirituality. - Evangelism is to be opposed by such a person on the basis that it is causing harm to others and brings nothing of value. I welcome such christians provided they are clear, sincere, public and firm on these points. My experience is that typically such postures are insincere and a game to deflect the pressure away. Deep down there is a fixation for Jesus' uniqueness, which in turn is rooted in history centrism, .... "  Venkat responds to Alex: "We are specifically interested only in those Christians whose actions affects Hindus -- say the Church, the evangelists, missionaries etc. ... Now the question is do those Christians in the former category believe in the "Nicene Creed, the infallibility of the Bible, Creation myth etc." ? If so then, that needs to be critiqued"  Alex responds to Venkat: "... thank you for your forthright clarification but also point out that I have always been in the forefront of criticizing the proselytizers of all monotheistic faiths, particularly Christian evangelists and fundamentalists. But, millions like me are not "fringe/lay believers" as you characterize them. They are human beings with no ill will towards any one of any faith, nor are they concerned about converting anyone else or be converted by anyone else. Frankly, for individuals like me, human kindness, civility and mutual respect are more important than the articulations of the merits or any religion over another..." Rajiv's comment:  "Alex is ... especially vocal against Christian proselytizing. His support has been very important over the years. I met him at Swami Dayananda Saraswati's ashram in Pennsylvania in the 1990s, where he attends Vedanta classes. ...  we must acknowledge and appreciate individuals like Alex who have stuck their necks out for us many times publicly." Prahalad shares Alex's review of BD. Rohit reviews the survey cited by Alex: "Even though categories are not separated clearly, the last category is well-demarcated.   The last category is the only one which says "Jesus is not essential to salvation."  Based on the definition of the last category, it is safe to say that the remaining 79% Christians in other categories carry this essential history-centric belief.  That belief is the crux of Nicene creed - rest of the creed builds to that belief. (Only son of God can bring salvation to others.  No human cam do this.  Because he was raised from dead, he must be divine, son of God as he claimed.) Thus, a large majority (79%) support the essential dogma of Nicene creed..." Sreedhar asks a straight question: " If the Brahma Kumari lady feels that doctrine of "oneness" obviates the need for an identity, then why have an organization/collective called the  Brahma Kumaris! After all, everything is universal! Why not be without an identity?" December 26 Queen Elizabeth's History Centric Spech I received the following message from someone not on this list - I have invited him to join. This seems interesting: Subject: History-centric-ism's re: chat...