RMF Summary: Week of April 2 - 8, 2012 - Part 2

Here is part-1 of the summary for the week. April 5 Christian and Hindu Good News - Original Sin and satchitananda Vinod posts: "While discussing Being Different with a Hindu friend of mine who is interested in both Indian and foreign knowledge systems, he pointed out that in his understanding, Original Sin and the concept of satchitananda are one and the same. The former is only a pessimistic view of looking at the cup as being half empty rather than half full. The latter is a more optimistic view of looking at the same glass as being half full. Is such an argument tenable?" Rajiv comment: Its stupid to equate self as original sinner with self as originally divine. Thats the whole point of making history centrism the central piece of my argument. Many evangelical scholars in the 1800s started this idea of equating. Then many foolish Hindu scholars started to promote this type of sameness. The consequence is that well meaning persons like you are confused today. I cannot afford the time to summary BD here. I did enough work writing it. Now you must do some work reading it. If you have not read it then its unfair to ask me such a question." Renu adds: "....Original Sin is very well entrenched in the Christian minds and so is the existence of Hell; scares them a lot! ...Very few are free of guilt in this system. In fact many conditions like dysfunctional relationships, broken families, children out of wedlock are a result of these ideas that are drummed thru classes into innocent heads from an early age. So is the idea of achieving Heaven by converting other persons; it does not occur to them that if the Almighty wanted someone to be a Christian then their help would not be needed by the Super power! The understanding of Christianity in India is very faulty --we have been told to see good [and same in all] so we do just that-- need to live in a Christian country to see the reality." Venkat posts: "Equating original sin with satchitananda is untenable. They are exactly antithetical. What exactly is original sin? As Nietzsche correctly stated, Christianity regards the acquisition of knowledge as the original sin of man (Genesis 2:17, 1 Corinthians 20-21, 26-29) thereby making any reasonable exploration of natural phenomena that characterize human existence impossible. In other words, the Christian position is one against acquisition of knowledge. One becomes a Christian by denying knowledge, admitting that any pursuit of knowledge is terrible, and then getting oneself redeemed if one had indulged in such a pursuit inadvertently. Most Christians, liberal or otherwise, educated or not, are ignorant of what original sin actually means. Your friend is no different as far as his understanding of this foundational belief of Christianity is concerned. Malhotra does an outstanding job of articulating what original sin is and how that foundational premise is incompatible with the dharmic approach to moksha etc. He specifically underlines the fact that in Christianity redemption from original sin is always a gift from above and is not an outcome of individual endeavor. In dharmic traditions it is exactly the opposite: one does not attain moksha either by denying knowledge or by exclusively receiving it as an accidental gift from above. For example, Sankara, in his Vivekachudamani (verses 13-15) emphatically asserts that knowledge (the pre-requisite to moksha) can only be obtained through atma-vichara and not as a gift...." April 6  Indian Christian working on misappropriating yoga into Christianity A news item relevant to Rajiv'ji writings: ************************ This monk gives yoga a Christian makeoverPaul Aims At Union Of Soul & God With Jesus In... April 6 On PBS - Asian and Abhramic religion Sourabh shares: This was on at our local PBS yesterday. I missed it as it played late at night. It followed NOVA. Has anyone seen it? Any opinion on the show? The website... [Link to a related video] Rajiv comment: Would like to know what it says (probably about sameness, exotic faith, etc.) and also who contributed to the content and story line. Ravi responds: "This made a decently big splash in the Indian e-community last year. If I recall, it had a better-than-usual portrayal of the distinctiveness of Hindu & other Dharmic faiths, and had a "much talked about" segment when the camera took viewers on a tour of a major temple in Washington DC area, and did some Q&A. Rajiv comment: I wonder if the "distinctiveness" was from the dharma lens and whether it pointed out Abrahamic "issues" - like history centrism. Otherwise, its just the fashionable distinctiveness as in pop culture where one music genre or cuisine differs from another, but its all "relative" and no logic to either."  Partha says: "The story-line of the program is presented here: Some excerpts - the attempts to show the sameness (comparing belief systems/ practices in Dharmic faiths with the Abrahamic faiths) can be seen here. Some of the statements (Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence based on the Jain religion) are inaccurate as well: Sameness: We also explore the Buddhist and Sikh practices and rituals, finding differences yet discovering surprising similarities with the Abrahamic religions...... Diana Eck comments voice-over: “It’s interesting having Hindu immigrants in America today because they bring something with them that’s distinctively American, a theology of religious pluralism.” Simply inaccurate (Ahimsa Paramo Dharmaha/ Dharma Himsa Thathaiva Cha referenced in the Mahabharatha)..." April 6 My blog: The tiger and the deer This is a new web site that caters to world affairs focusing on the BRICS countries' differences with the West. shivadeepa posts: ".... interesting article on 'Yoga and Judaism' that seeks to find 'deep ties between Yoga and Judaism'. This has some positive and respectful ideas about Yoga, but the equivalencies don't seem to be clear. e.g. the idea of replacing the sacred vibrations of Sanskrit with Torah reading, and the last couple of paras indicate a possible attempt at digesting Yoga into Judaism. Rajiv comment: There is a Hindu-Jewish group in AAR that champions this kind of equivalence. Many Jews entered ISKCON from the 1960s on, but most have uturned later. While Hindus are gradually becoming aware of Christians digesting hinduism, the trend is at least as aggressive with Judaism. Their favorite method is to use Hinduism to revive and reinterpret Kaballah and attribute all sorts of new meanings to it. They even claim non-translatable sounds in Hebrew that can replace as mantras. .... why is there a need of a separate Jewish identity based on birth, i.e. bloodline? Answer is history centrism. Judaism started the history centrism which Christianity and Islam took further. .... A good example of the popular use of Kaballah for digesting Hinduism into Judaism: April 6  Digestion via Self-Realization Fellowship This book purports to be written by Parmahansa Yogananda, but published long after his death. (Surpicious?) I tried unsuccessfully to gain access to the original manuscript. Another spinoff from Parmahansa Yogananda is the famous Swami Kriyananda, highly celebrated in India as a great guru. he, too, espouses sameness using the teachings of Parmahansa Yogananda. I practiced the kriya yoga system of SRF when I lived in San Diego in the 1970s. So I know them and do appreciate many things I benefited for my sadhana. But just as post-Vivekananda the RK Mission and its affiliates (unintentionally) facilitated the digestion of Vedanta (first into generic perennialism, then into "western" thought...) so also Parmahansa Yogananda's teachings have accelerated the fashion of digestion into "new, liberal Christianity". Hence the attacks by various folks like we saw at Patheos.com who feel that the differences I discuss deny that the same things already existed in Christianity. People, please decide: If you dont mind Hindus getting digested into Christianity (conversion being one of the many methods), then stop complaining at what is going on. Let it just happen. In fact, join in to facilitate the inevitable. You might even make some money, fame, prestige along the way like many others have. But if you find it important that dharma's distinctiveness is important to retain, then dont get mixed up with the lure of being digested. This involves a lot of study and understanding first. Only what you embody yourself can be projected externally into whatever your calling is. April 6 BI thesis and interventions via the UN After Sri Lanka now India in trouble,UN asks to repeal AFSPA   Rajiv: In BI I discuss the role of western churches like Lutherans, etc. in grooming and appointing people like Christof Heyns in posts where such decisions get made. April 6 Peter Heehs (American Historian in Auroville): Another U-Turner? Karthik posts: "One Peter Heehs, an American historian who has apparently spent the last 41 years in Pondicherry, was denied a visa extension by the GOI this year. Apparently this followed his publication of a controversial book containing speculations about the relationship between Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Now it looks like the "usual suspects": Ramachandra Guha, Romila Thapar etc. are ganging up to pressure the government against revoking his visa, in the name of "freedom of expression" and other high-minded ideals...." Rajiv comment: I met him a few times since the 1990s. Had a big fight the very first time we met, when i explained the appropriations and biases. But then we both moved on... Lately he got into trouble with certain people over his book (by Columbia U P) which I have read. This matter has polarized the Sri Aurobindo followers into 2 fighting camps. I no longer want to get "used" in this fight... Been there, done it...." Manas asks: "Speaking of double standards, some years back, communist terrorists in Nepal burnt down an entire Sanskrit university. How many Thapars, Guhas, Pollocks, etc, then raised voices of protest? How many petitions did these eminences take out?..." April 6 Re: Wall Street Journal Article on Swami Vivekananda's Influence.. Karthik posts: A very flattering article, but it may be interesting to trace the incidence of U-Turns among the various figures cited here as influenced by SV. ...  ....Re-reading it again, I am reminded of how the American academe (and popular culture) have consistently portrayed the life of J.D. Salinger. They cite him as a genius, a literary icon who changed the face of American writing. Yet, all the biographies I have come across refer to a period in his life when, after 1965, Salinger became "reclusive, anti-social, and hermetic." The implication is that he had psychological issues that made him a misanthropist, and caused him to shut himself away from the society that once celebrated him in New York. April 6 Digestion of Advaita, Shaivism Surya posts: See below how "Christian Advaita" is presented .  See the contortions of language to squeeze these incompatible ideas together.  "Christian experiences God not only through Jesus but in the human face of God."   "Advaita has a place in Christian experience via Jesus' awareness of his Advaita with the father." As BD points out, unbridgeable gap between God and human is bridged only through the Prophet.  Allowing direct experience would undermine primacy of prophet and the scriptures.  Once you allow direct experience, thus bypassing essentiality of Jesus and the scriptures, what is the need for Christianity?   Thus, Christian experience of God is ONLY "via Jesus' awareness of his Advaita with the father." Taking Advaita as is from Dharmic knowledge obviates the need for Christian alternative.  Hence the need for the tiger to digest the deer. That explains why "Liberal Christians" and "Emergent church" are desperately after absorbing Dharmic knowledge.... The recognition of limitations of language and the need to import Sanskrit words is also proposed below.  Purpose, as is made clear below, is not a better understanding of Dharmic knowledge and its acceptance, but to facilitate presenting Christ-consciousness as Christian Shaivism.  Thus, keeping Sanskrit words intact but not the context of Dharmic knowledge from which they are extracted, still facilitates digestion. ------------------------------------------ Christian Advaita: ----------------------- "Drop all ideas -- especially all Christian ideas (and before you respond, please just read/listen ... I'm here to help enhance faith/relationship/knowing truth .... not to diminish or challenge or debate). ... http://peterspearls.com.au/radical.htm The Christ and Advaitic Experience:  ------------------------------------------------ "The Christian experiences God not only through but in the human countenance of Jesus whose face is the human face of God....  ... advaita has a place in the Christian experience as in that of Jesus himself: the Christian shares in Jesus’ awareness of his advaita with the Father. This is Christian advaita." http://peterspearls.com.au/ccadvaita.htm The Shaivic Christian: ----------------------------- "Can the Christian experience be expounded – not falsely – in these terms, given, as we know, that Christian vocabulary cannot adequately express Christian experience? Can these Sanskrit terms become the vehicle for a theology which leads to the knowledge of the Christ who exceeds all that can be said of him? (or, the Christ-consciousness that exceeds all that can be said of it?) This attempt will be the beginnings of a Shaiva Christianity or a Christian Shaivism." http://peterspearls.com.au/shaivism.htm" Rajiv responds: The site referenced below is illustrative of hundreds of such movements run by Westerners who started their stage-1 journey with teachings of Ramana Maharshi, which they learned (already in diluted form) second to fourth hand via Nisargatta Maharaj, Papaji, Ramesh Baleskar and an assortment of other instant Indian gurus and pseudo-gurus. Later they mapped these ideas on the new frameworks by western uturners like: Eckhart Tolle (who I met in the 1990s), Adyashanti (via Zen), Adi Da (follower of Swami Muktananda who initiated the young Ken Wilber and later there was a big clash of Adi Da/Wilber super-egos), among others. The digestive tract is very long, with many such enzymes along the way helping to 'break down' the source till it disappears into the new DNA. April 7 Indian archeology. Chocka asks: ..... Where will you put this in your classifications of digestion? Rajiv comment: An interesting documentary on archeological findings. I am troubled that they cannot take Hindu claims (not myths are referred to but itihas) at face value even as claims. Because such claims definitely topple Biblical history claims or at least exclusivity, the archeological findings are being interpreted as some sort of extra-terrestrial work. The result is that either (1) it gets mixed up with all other UFO nonsense and sidelined to the margins, or (2) credited to aliens rather than Hindus. In the latter case, this alien origin of Hindu 'myths' is similar to the foreign origin of Aryans - in both cases Hinduism's own accounts of the past are seen as really the work of outsiders be they foreign aryans or aliens from outer space. We should utilize the hard facts of archeology and develop our own interpretations rather than getting sucked into others' interpretations..." Kundan shares: "I have read Graham Hancock's "Underworld: The Mysterious origins of Civilizations." He is shown at the beginning of this documentary. I will not be too surprised if he is at the man behind the documentary. As it is, the mainstream historians and archaeologists were going after him for contending the dates of the archaeological remains off the coast of Poompuhur and Dwarka to 9600 BCE and 6000 BCE respectively; now that his work is being linked with aliens and ETs, it will get further discredited in the academic community. It is quite possible that he himself is linking it. In the "Underworld," he came up with these dates by corresponding the depth at which these ruins were found with inundation maps that have been prepared for the world through complex computer calculations at various stages during the Post Glacial floods (the contention of Geologists is that after the Last Glacial Maximum, ice caps and glaciers around the world melted at a rapid pace leading to massive floods that inundated coasts around the world). If the post glacial flooding is true, then the inundation of  "Kumari Kandam" as described in Sangam literature is a distinct possibility--Sangam says that the first meeting was held in a city called Tenmadurai and the second at Kavatapuram, both of which have gone under water. The geologists contend that there were massive flooding that took place between 10,400 BCE and 8,600 BCE and many Tamil scholars say that first gathering of Sangam took place around 9600 BCE. The last of the post glacial floods took place between 5700 BCE and 4900 BCE and Sangam scholars say that the second Sangam took place 3700 years after the first one. There is a close correspondence between when Tenmadurai and Kavatpuram would have gone under water and occurrences of post glacial flooding. Graham Hancock took the help of local fisherman in the exploration off the coats of Tamil Nadu. His wife, Santha, is conversant in Tamil--she is of Tamil origin raised in Malaysia. The local fisherman speak of many ruins along the coast of Tamil Nadu. The fisherman know about this because they find schools of fish around these ruins--the fish need protected area to rest. The seabed off the coast otherwise is quite flat. The marine wing of the Archaeological Survey of India need to take these local folklore seriously and explore the coast. Graham Hancock says that the local fisherman were able to take him to the exact spot of the ruins. Emboldened by finding ruins in correspondence with the local itihasa, I think he has come up with the alien theory because the Tamil story is that Shiva and other gods were present at the first Sangam. Instead of using their names, he is saying that in those days the humans were in contact with the aliens. Unfortunately it does not help the dharma cause. ..." April 7 Do mappings with good intentions lead to digestion? Swami Vivekananda mapped akasha as ether at a time when ether was well-established in physics. Later physics rejected the notion of ether altogether. Where did that leave Hindu cosmology and the notion of ether? In hindsight it would have been better to leave akasha untranslated - as something that is not only physical, anyway, and hence cannot be mapped to a purely physical model. But when SV did this, the intention was to make Hindu cosmology more mainstream, more popular, more credible. But such a mapping meant that there was no longer any need to investigate into akasha, once ir was rendered redundant and replaced by ether that mainstream people already knew. This trend is very popular among scholars of dharma who are genuinely trying to show how "scientific" their tradition is. .... mapping of Sri Aurobindo's taxonomy to modern neuroscience - done with utmost respect: ....side effect is that once enough such mappings get perfected, he becomes redundant - a museum piece. On the other hand, neuroscience is very powerful and one must utilize it. So what can one do to have the benefits without this pitfall? Possible approach: How about doing neurological research actively using Sri Aurobindo's taxonomy directly? Keep his terms alive. Let researchers have to re-read what he said and try to figure it out better and better over time - just like we did not put the term yoga in a museum by substituting something like exercise, prayer, gymnastics, etc. I am illustrating my point using Sri A as one example. The same ought to be done to utilize the taxonomies of Kashmir Shaivism, Sankhya, and various other systems. Also: Do not try to collapse them into one another - that too is a reductionism which causes potential loss of experience contained in those terms. Sanjos responds: "Since I am the author of the blog article  you posted below, I'd like to clarify that the intent of the article was actually the opposite.  In other words, I was hoping that the digestion goes the other way - that modern neuroscience discoveries can be explained through the Integral Psychology of Sri Aurobindo.    In order for Sri Aurobindo's model to be accepted, one would have to be able to explain every possible neuroscience discovery using the extensive psychological insights given by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother in their works and that is what I am attempting. Rajiv comment: Thanks for writing that your goal is digestion in the reverse direction. That is also the goal of most advocates of dharma. But they end up dishing out the dharma into small bits that are digestible, quite the opposite of their noble intentions. ....the problem may be formulated as follows: X gets mapped to Y hoping that X will prevail over Y, i.e. it will digest Y. Under what circumstances will that happen, and what factors will make the opposite happen? One taxonomy/paradigm will prevail and digest the other, so the question is what determines which one will prevail. Like any other systematic inquiry, you cannot 'imagine' the answer or base it on wishful thinking. You must gather data on similar situations and see what happens and why. This is what I have been doing for 20 years. Why did RK Mission (following a similar strategy to yours) end up on the sidelines while its treasure trove of dharmic ideas got digested for a century? It was not lack of good intentions. It was a lack of purva paksha of the other party in the intellectual encounter, especially a lack of understanding the mechanisms of digestion One simple principle is: In cases where the other party is a religion (not neuroscience), the one that retains its history centrism (always exclusive by definition) prevails unless unless the other side has something non digestible into the history centrism. This is logical and also supported by evidence of what has actually happened. This is how inculturation works across the heathen world: bring Jesus' history centrism together with village deities and symbols into 'sameness' perception; but gradually you get the village symbols and rituals digested into the HISTORY CENTRISM OF JESUS. What if the other party is science and not anything to do with history centric religion? Here a key factor is that westerners are stronger than us by 50 to 1 in their scholars' quantity, quality, persistence, availability of funding and institutional apparatus for dissemination. In stage-2 of uturn they use folks like you to remove the context of the source tradition - what I have termed 'de-contextualization'. Much of Auroville and Pondy have been doing this for the past 40 years.....Again many of our folks are great facilitators and get rewarded by arriving on the world stage.....(Auroville's own Aster Patel being a prominent person.) In parallel there are those working on stage-4 which is to denigrate the source as inferior, the "caste, cows, dowry, sati, Godhra violence" variety of stereotypes that are all over the place, like carpet bombing in the media. All this culminates in stage-5 where the "new" discoveries by the west are re-exported back to India. Hence we see Andrew Cohan, Harold [Howard?] Gardener, Stephen LaBerge, many of Templeton Foundation's researchers... Since you are interested in Sri Aurobindo's works: You must understand how he is already getting digested into Wilber and through that into Integral Christianity led by Father Keating in collaboration with Wilber and Cohen. .... Hint: What you need to develop is: The non-digestible core of Sri Aurobindo, i.e. that which causes the reductionist western paradigm to crash when Sri A is ingested.  April 7 Blog: Dharmic Gaze Rohit's blog. Here is the link. Blog is dedicated to Being Different. April 7 Another digestion Dhiru posts: Another 'Digestion of Dharmic' idea has come from Ms. T. M. Luthermann (author of "When God talks back:Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God") who has written a piece in the Opinion page of WSJ April 6, 2012 under the heading: "when the Almighty Talks Back". He writes: "And yet people also report that when they pray in this way, they begin to experience God's presence in a personal way, something that is comforting and  empowering..." Rajiv responds: "Rajiv comment: Feeling God's immediate presence is something many Christians claim to be part of Christianity since very long. Many early Christians did express such feelings. So if you go too far and deny any such presence, you will not be taken seriously by Christian scholars. God is intimately felt in many Christian writings. That is not the point of difference. The point is that one can be intimate but in a dualistic sense. God "responds directly" fine, but its two distinct persons interacting - man and God. What is lacking is "aham Brahamasmi" and "tat tvam asi" type of integral unity. In synthetic unity there can certainly be close communication among the parties. The second difference is that history centrism makes God change the rules (called covenants) through some historically unique event, making that event NECESSARY to believe in. This event is the basis of exclusivity claims. So maybe God talks to a person directly, but even so his conversation does NOT allow the person to bypass Jesus as the exclusive mediator in history.."  April 8 in India Greek philosophers Maria posts: .... an interview with the Woodstock School Principal Dr. Jonathan Long about education in the Pioneer. He talks about the philosophical dimension, but mentions only Greeks. Unfortunately the interviewer did not draw out more from him. April 8 Is Jesus a mythical figure- Nice debate in CNN.com today. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/ Rajiv comment: It is irrelevant to my work whether Jesus existed historically. I am concerned with Christianity as a belief system promulgated and controlled by a powerful institution. As long as there is (1) a powerful church, which (2) demands the absolute belief in the historical Jesus as part of its overall Nicene Creed (i.e. the canon of history centrism), and (3) a large portion of powerful people adopt this as their worldview, that is the working definition of Christianity on which I am reversing my gaze. .... A big deal would be if the beliefs of a large majority of Christians changed such that they no longer regarded Jesus' historicity as real, or at least they considered it as unimportant. That would be a revolutionary mind shift. The domino effect would be: (a) No historical savior. (b) Hence no such thing as Original Sin. The Nicene Creed would unravel instantly. (c) Hence the old myths comprising the gnostics, pagans, gospels (those included and those left out by the Council of Nicea) would become free from the bondage of history centrism. (d) Then there would emerge the possibility of a different kind of universalism in which what BD describes as the desert civilization would not be the foundation. (e) Using the rishis' paradigm of the forest civilization, one would then be able to reinterpret the old stories of mystical experiences in the biblical lands, including allowing a place for Jesus as an archetype (NOT historical and certainly not exclusive). (f) This would be Christianity digested into Sanatana Dharma, with various people having their own mythic figures to imagine as deities and as their ishta-devatas. (g) Devatas are not historical persons, but intelligences-divinities to whom we humans give concrete images for our convenience of access. If we can imagine a given intelligence-divinity in form-x then it is equally valid (and equally relative) for someone else to imagine it as form-y. This is why Hinduism accepts village deities that are local and distinct forms, because such a local form of deity is the collective imagination and itihas of that community. Jesus would similarly be the local deity of certain people, respected as such, but not the Son of God or exclusive intermediary, or grantor of the church's franchise. Bottom line: It is dangerous to jump ahead directly to 'g' based on wishful thinking, ..." Ram argues: "...I see no reason to accept non Christian elements in this formula. The Christianity we are dealing with is mostly a creation of the last 2,000 years by western Europeans (Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Holland, Spain, Scandinavia etc) and to some extent the United States and Canada. Therefore I would advise rejection of any pre-Christian philosophy, writings, theology, legal systems, theology, culture on the part of Christians. Specifically, I see they have no claim to the stories and theology of the Old Testament, which are really Jewish mythology and scriptures. I would advise rejection of Christian claims to the heritage and achievements of the pre-Christian Greeks. Plato, Aristotle, the Greek idea of democracy, Greek thought, are NOT for Christians to colonize as their own. I would advise rejection of Christain claims to the heritage and achievement of the Romans, who were nearly all non Christian and before the supposed coming of Jesus. I would advise rejection of Christian claims to the heritage of the Mesopotomia early civilizations of Ur, of later civilizations of Babylon, the Persians, Crete, the north African cities, and the entire Mediterranean area before the Christian era. I would advise rejection of the Christian claims to the heritage of Egypt, claims to the heritage of the Scandinavian nations of Sweden, Norway etc. Strip these away from the western Christians and they are left with very little. The bulk of the Nicene Creed (creation story, Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, talking snake, original sin, coming of the messiah are all Jewish) is gone, all the thoughts of the  Romans and Greeks and their institutions have to fall away..." April 8  Digestion - The pagan roots of Easter (Guardian) Venkat shares: "The pagan roots of Easter By: Heather McDougall, Guardian, UK, From Ishtar to Eostre, the roots of the resurrection story go deep. We should embrace the pagan symbolism of Easter. Easter is a pagan festival. If Easter isn't really about Jesus, then what is it about? Today, we see a secular culture celebrating the spring equinox, whilst religious culture celebrates the resurrection. However, early Christianity made a pragmatic acceptance of ancient pagan practises, most of which we enjoy today at Easter. The general symbolic story of the death of the son (sun) on a cross (the constellation of the Southern Cross) and his rebirth, overcoming the powers of darkness, was a well worn story in the ancient world. There were plenty of parallel, rival resurrected saviours too. The Sumerian goddess Inanna, or Ishtar, was hung naked on a stake, and was subsequently resurrected and ascended from the underworld. One of the oldest resurrection myths is Egyptian Horus. Born on 25 December, Horus and his damaged eye became symbols of life and rebirth. Mithras was born on what we now call Christmas day, and his followers celebrated the spring equinox. Even as late as the 4th century AD, the sol invictus, associated with Mithras, was the last great pagan cult the church had to overcome. Dionysus was a divine child, resurrected by his grandmother. Dionysus also brought his mum, Semele, back to life...."   Rajiv comments: "This is well known: many pre-Christian elements including symbols, rituals, ideas and even philosophies got digested into Christianity. At the same time the source cultures suffered what amounts to cultural genocide. I point this out to audiences where they wonder, "whats wrong with getting digested?" One day, if the fashin of digestion continues, it is entirely plausible that Divali will be celebrated as a Christian "festival of lights" with sermons about bringing the light of Jesus into your life to dispel the darkness of Satan"  Manas adds: "...This is already happening in many Christian institutions in India. And it applies not only to Diwali but also to various other Hindu festivals, cultural mores, performing arts, dharmic literature, etc. One example: The dharmaram college, a Christian seminary based in Bangalore is very active in devising methods for digesting Hinduism into Christianity... Incidentally, Indian media reports this sort of blatant chicanery in positive light, as if, to use Rajiv'ji analogy, the deer getting eaten by the tiger is a good thing." April 8 Indian Gov's Documentary about Jesus in India Bluecupid shares: This is the GoI's official documentary about Jesus in India; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9w-xJfSOyc&feature=related...

RMF Summary: Week of February 20 - 26, 2012

February 20

Reversing the gaze - example from Thailand Willard posts: "A recent article in the Bangkok Post Feb 18, 2012 has the writer reversing the gaze on Western corporate ethics by citing the 4th century Indian king Chanakya...Quote from the article: But if you really were politically astute, you wouldn't be taking your tips from an Italian manual. A far more powerful treatise is available in the East which predates Machiavelli by at least 1,800 years: the Arthashastra (The Science of Material Success) by Chanakya, the genius behind the throne who masterminded the creation of the first Indian empire..." February 20 In a couple of sentences... Until Rajiv Malhotra's book, Hindus by and large approached inter-faith dialog with the attitude that "we are one tradition of music, and you are another. Nada... February 20 Essay on "God is Not One" Goel shares: Given below is the text of a speech on "God is not One." It might encourage others in the chat group to take the message of Hinduism to wider audiences rather than talking amongst ourselves. Please distribute it, if it has value.  The document is also attached for easier reading. GOD IS NOT ONE (Note: The speech on “God is Not One” was delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Church ..... before I had the benefit of Rajiv Malhotra’s excellent book, Being Different.  Unitarians are well versed with the sordid history and doctrine of Christianity.  Therefore, the speech dwells more on critiquing Islam than Christianity. Taking pride in being “tolerant”, Unitarians often give a pass to Islam. It is a short 35-minute speech and many arguments are left unsaid. A similar speech was delivered at Unity Church of Christianity. I have also delivered speeches on Essentials of Hinduism at the local churches (Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ) and at college and senior-citizen groups. A positive offshoot of the rise of Radical Islam is renewed interest in studying world religions. The US is not a monolithic society. There is room here to speak on Hinduism.) My topic originated with Stephen Prothero’s book: God is Not One: the Eight Religions that Run the World—and Why their Differences Matter, 2010..." Rajiv's response: "...Goel makes good points in his speech below. However, I wish to make two points: 1) Prothero's book which he comments on to make the case of "difference" does not show Hinduism in the same light as BD does. There are many who point out how Hinduism is different - in caste, lack of "progress" and so forth - by using criteria and picking differences that are not at all the same kind as in BD. I find Prothero's treatment of Hinduism overall unacceptable, ...In fact, Prothero does not give weight to a dharmic family of traditions as such. 2) Many of Prof. Goel's differences below are socio-political items like violence in Islam/Christianity. He discusses exclusivity, but BD's project is to ask: "what makes them exclusive?" The answer BD gives is history centrism. Otherwise, its a matter of "blaming" them for being bad guys. My point is that exclusivity is something those systems CANNOT HELP as long as they depend on truth exclusively through historical prophets. ... I want to find out whats in their DNA that makes this their very character. Having said this, I appreciate what Prof. Goel has done by way of spreading the notion that we must claim our distinctiveness and not join the bandwagon of sameness."  February 22 BD Chapter 3: Integral Unity vs. Synthetic Unity We cover the detailed discussions in this thread in a separate post here. February 24 Southern Baptist scholar's criticism of BD and my response Rajiv posts: This Southern Baptist leader in Washington, DC., saw my entire video of the talk at Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore): "Rajiv Malhotra explains his systems model of History Centrism" You can watch this video .. Then he wrote a rejoinder to me, which a friend in the DC area was kind enough to forward to me. I have been having such exchanges frequently for many years as part of my purva paksha. Since many persons here do not have such experience, I am passing on this particular criticism, along with my responses which are yellow highlighted in square brackets after each of his points. There is nothing new he says that I havent heard many times before. Many of his statements are outright false, some are a play on semantics. SB stands for Southern Baptist. SB: Others attained salvation (saving grace) before Jesus appeared in human form on the earth.  At that time Jews lived under the system of laws, not grace.  Their faith in attempting to keep the law was accepted as righteousness.  [He is referring to Jews only, not ALL others. So my point remains that humanity at large was eligible for salvation only after Jesus.] Jesus was born from God and Mary.  SB Response: Not quite – Christ existed from the very beginning with God.  Mary was used as a mechanism to bring Christ into the world as a descendent of Abraham (prophet) and David (prophet) to fulfill prophecy.  Christians believe Jesus is God.  [While Christ existed before, Jesus the human has a defined beginning in time. Thats why Christmas is celebrated and the start of the Christian calendar. Christians believe that Jesus = Christ's incarnation. So Jesus WAS born from God and Mary, hence the only human ever to be absolved from Original Sin. That's my point.] SB: Hindus believe we started out divine.  – The divine was lost?  God became corrupt in human form?  How did man lose his divinity and start to sin, or does sin exist in Hinduism? [He needs to understand the concept of avidya. Because he does not, his only recourse is to substitute it with Original Sin which is entirely different.] SB: 20:00 Christianity was started by Emperor Constantine.  Christ never used the term Christian.   Churches started under Constantine.  SB response: Constantine originally killed Christians. Christian means Christ like.  The Apostles  and Jesus' earthly brothers  started churches. [Wrong. It is true that Constantine did "originally" kill Christians, but that was before he became Christian himself. This is a slick manipulation on SB's part. The relevant point is that the NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN BY AN EDITORIAL TEAM UNDER CONSTANTINE. Whatever the early apostles and "earthly brothers" taught was superseded by the Church as a theocratic institution that went on a global rampage to conquer, plunder... which continues today by institutions such as Southern Baptist Church in places like Nagaland. Also, the early "brothers" included some like Thomas who got thrown out of the bible because their ideas were counter to centralized thought control. I am referring to Christianity as it exists now as a formal institution, the Southern Baptist Church being a prominent example.] ... Q & A SB: Rajiv quotes a Jesuit Catholic and a Vatican Catholic Harvard professor – they aren't Christians.  Catholicism rejects much of what the Bible says.  Catholics worship Mary and the "Saints". [This attitude that "my Southern Baptism is the only legit Christianity" is precisely what I wish to bring out as the curse of history centrism. Thanks to SB for helping me make my point.] SB: Rajiv says Pagan means country Bumpkin.  Not true.  The common meaning of Pagan: follower of polytheism. [People who were polytheistic got branded "pagan" which had the meaning of country bumpkins.]  "If it weren't for the Church, Jesus would have just been considered a Rishi" – SB  response: this isn't true.  The Bible says everything was created w/ Christ and nothing was created without him.  [In the Hindu system, too, everything is created from Brahman, in fact everything IS Brahman. My point is different and he either does not understand or want to understand. Rishi state is available to every human and is unity consciousness with Brahman. Jesus state is not available to any other person. Thats the difference, not how the world was created.]  "…Christian yoga…" – SB  response:  I know of no Christian Church that offers yoga. [This shows how ignorant he is or is in denial in front of Hindus to dupe them. He should google "christian yoga", go to a christian bookstore, do some research into this form of yoga that is spreading like wild fire.] Surya comments: "...History tells us that much of western scientific thought developed in opposition to Christianity.  History-centrism is the main reason that science faced and still faces opposition by Christians.  For example, The young earth creationists in Christianity believe that earth is not much older than 4000 BC. Some Christian [apologists] try to bridge this faith with fossil evidence by arguing that God created the Earth recently but with an earth with fossils that give the feel of being much older.  In 1950s, Pope Pius XII agreed to the academic freedom to study the scientific implications of evolution, as long as Catholic dogma is not violated.  You will notice such stubborn opposition to evidence in History-centric religions. The reason for the Nicene creed is, in my opinion, two fold: (1) to provide a common ground for different Christian divisions.   (2) to define the core thought that cannot be compromised.  What is outside the core can be (grudgingly) compromised but not without a fight and only if the evidence is unsurmountable.  Thus, the Vatican recently accepting Evolutionary biology is such a compromise.... Core, incompatible, ideology is protected using history centric arguments.  Rest of it grows and adapts through inculturation, serving as a protective layer to the core...."   Arun shares: "...I find this article, "Beyond Western Hegemonies" by Giovanni Arrighi, Iftikhar Ahmad & Miin-wen Shih to have an adequate explanation of how the West came to dominate Asia. It is not cultural or collective character defects of Indians. Quote: "The original and most enduring source of Western power in Asia has been the capacity of Western states to disrupt the complex organization that linked Asian societies to one another within and across jurisdictional and civilizational divides. This capacity has been rooted in Western advances in military technology on the one side, and in the vulnerability of Asian societies to the military disruption of their mutual trade on the other side.".."   Venkata adds: "...Refusal to engage either out of fear or on account of certain smugness of self-aasurance, with inimical forces, is another reason for the intellectual, economic and military subjugation of Hindus. One can see this factor persisting even today--for example in the view of some well-meaning Hindus that Hindu intellectuals interested in protecting Dharma should not waste their time in debating things with "foreigners", "missionaries" etc..."   NS Rajaram responds: "It is also a question of time. Many of us have a busy schedule and don't have the time needed to prepare and debate these people." Rajiv's response:  Agreed. Which is why it should not be taken up by people casually, inconsistently, without adequate commitment for the long run, without adequate training, experience, and the right depth of required knowledge. Once people appreciate that this is a specialty, not a casual hobby, only then can they respect others who specialize in this with commitment."    Carpentier responds: "Engaging with Evangelicals or Born Again Christians tend to be fruitless since they have an agenda based on "blind" faith which is by definition not amenable to reasoning." Rajiv's response:  I have said this many times here: If your goal is to change the mind of a debating opponent, you are wasting time in debate. But if your goal is to educate the large audience of undecided, confused, vacillating, persons then the above logic is irrelevant. Using your logic, one should not debate opponents in politics because one does not expect them to switch parties."  Arun adds: I second Rajiv Malhotra's response. The point of a debate is not to change the opponent, but to change the audience. Rajiv's comment:  The impact if any on the other side is irrelevant. The other side is merely to be used as a device to get one's own points out to the audience - not only those sitting in the hall but those who will watch it on YouTube later. If your impact on the audiences will be negative, then dont get involved. This could be the case if you are ill-prepared on purva paksha, inexperienced in debate, crude in communication skills, or if moderation will be biased against you. Most Hindu activists have suffered this fate. But I dont believe that I have suffered these conditions - my track record for a decade of taking on opponents is very public. Many new movements got inspired, many groups emerged, many writers taking the ideas I introduced and utilizing them. Yet, jealous "activists" want to stop my efforts of bringing new approaches to dharma into the mainstream. They need to understand my response below and Arun's comment above. If you failed, it does not follow that so will I. [this next thread seems to have gotten intertwined into the previous thread on Purva Paksha, and was initiated in December 2011..] Chapter 1 of 'Being Different' Kundan has a general overview of the book 'Being Different;: "I have received my copy of “Being Different” and have completed reading the first chapter. My first impression of the book from yesterday’s reading: Apart from the fact that it is astute in its intellectual formulations, it is soulfully written as well. I think this book is a must read for all Indophiles (lovers of India). I specifically liked Rajiv ji’s formulations on “Difference Anxiety” both from above and below. The preliminary discussions in this chapter on assimilation and digestion are extremely important because even for many of us Indians, who have had an English medium education, it was much later in life that we learned that Indian traditions have impacted the west in a major way in the last five hundred years: And we learn this only after we take a specialized study of humanities. This information is not readily available—not only that very few books are available on this topic, many of you will be surprised to know that Raymond Schwab’s important book “Oriental Renaissance” (as referenced in “Breaking India”) is out of print. “The Oriental Enlightenment” by J.J. Clarke is available, if you want to further learn about India’s impact on Europe during the times of Enlightenment.   ... Regarding “Purva Paksha,” I want to add that there is another book available which will complement “Being Different” very well. It is Sri Aurobindo’s “Renaissance in India with a Defence of Indian Culture.” An English journalist by the name of William Archer wrote a scathing book that represented the colonial view on Indian culture and its traditions. Sri Aurobindo in that book does a “purva paksha,” “khandana,” and goes on to discuss the Indian tradition from the perspective or “siddhanta” of his Integral philosophy. A pdf copy of the book is available on the following website: If you want to purchase a copy of the book, you can do so from their online shop" Wadhwa adds: "..plea to add "Renaissance in India with a Defence of Indian Culture", a book doing purva-paksha, by Sri Aurobindo which will complement 'Being Different' is a good suggestion.  Adding to this, I would also suggest the works of Maharishi Dayananda(1824-83) especially Satyartha Prakash.  His magnum opus  containing extensive use of purva paksha style debates is basically written for spreading  the message of truth without evincing personal hatred.  Sri Aurobindo acknowledged his legacy and in a chapter on Dayananda - The Man and His Work which is part of his publication 'Bankim-Tilak-Dayananda' (pub.by Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry 1st Ed.1940,6th Ed.2006) he writes "In Dayananda's life we see always the puissant jet of his spiritual practicality.  A spontaneous power and decisiveness  is stamped everywhere on his work."(page 49). At page 51 Sri Aurobindo says "Truth seems a simple thing and is yet most difficult.  Truth was the master word of the Vedic teaching, truth in the soul, truth in vision, truth in the intention, truth in the act.  Practical truth, arjava, an inner candour and a strong sincerity, clearness and open honour in the word and deed, was the temperament of the old Aryan morals.  It is the secret of pure unspoilt energy, the sign that a man has not travelled far from Nature.  It is the bar dexter of the son of Heaven, Divasputra.  This was the stamp that Dayananda left behind him and it should be the mark and effigy of himself by which the parentage of his work can be recognised."  .." Arjunshakti responds: Swami Dayananda maybe have done his critiques on islam and Christianity but he also reinvented through his interpretation the Vedas as being monotheist and anti idolatry ect.He used the very same Abrahamic templates he was attacking to become the Vedic world view which only opens the doors to the likes of Dr Zakir naiks on a common platform of 'monotheism' ..The Arya Samajis even have their equivalent to the 10 commandments.. Often I see present day Arya Samajis attacking other Hindus as 'puranics' and believes in multiple gods giving more ammunition to the anti hindus to attack Hinduism with.. Rajiv's response: Agreed. Both he and Ram Mohan Roy while doing their purva paksha of the west got "modified" themselves in the process.  Rakesh asks: "Even Ramakrishna math got modified ? swami vivekananda while he remined steadfastly hindu had to make hinduism palatable to the west and had to make Christ an avatara as well. Rajiv response:  While agreeing with the above, I want to differentiate between Jesus and Christianity. Indians need to understand that Christianity was not started by Jesus or proposed by him, but invented by Roman conquerors as a system of theocracy and mind control. The 4th century construction of the New Testament in Nicea (in modern day Turkey) is well accepted by Christian theologians and has never been doubted by mainstream churches. One can take Jesus' own words (such as Sermon on the Mount) and find great similarities with Vedanta. But Jesus was not history-centric - which is the problem with christianity, that if removed from it would de-fang it. In fact, the church would dissolve, and there would be a reverse digestion, i.e. Jesus would get digested into dharma while Christianity would disappear. Despite this position which I have worked out in detail, I dont advocate people promoting "Jesus lived in India" type of scenarios, because the ground is not ready to make such a massive onslaught on the edifice of the christian fortress. Such thinking today amounts to sameness, and is leading to Hinduism getting digested into christianity, not the other way around. .... The purpose of BD is to define what non-compromising positions of dharma must sustain in this encounter between cosmologies. In each of the differences identified, the two sides' positions are shown to be mutually incompatible, and the side that compromises gets digested into the other. Once you are secure in this knowledge and experienced in its deployment then by all means you should engage in interfaith dialogues and propose: "lets be the same, but on our terms". But first step is to get a solid grip of what "our terms" amounts to." Mukul asks: "Can you show the exact quote? I think Swamiji's [Vivekananda] position on Christ was not of an Avatar. He even challenged the historicity of Christ at one place" Nimesh comments: ...[Vivekananda] never challenged the history of jesus. he was just explaining the difference between a religion that is founded by one person [i.e. history-centric] vs the one that has evolved. [also,] it was one of the greatest experiment of his guru - ... Neeraj adds: We are starting here with an assumption that there WAS a 'Jesus Christ', which has not been proven by the most sincere of Christian historians (as per Sita Ram Goel's 'Jesus Christ: An artifice for aggression'). Do we have to accept Jesus to be a historical figure?... Rajiv's response: Whether jesus existed in history is irrelevant to my point (as is whether Shiva was a historical person). There are many states of consciousness in dharma and these may or may not be historical - they can also be ahistorical. My criticism in BD is (for strategic reasons) ONLY limited to history-centrism - this criticism has implications against the church which i want to separate from Jesus.   Desh comments: "....The fight between Dharma and Abrahamic dispensations is a classic fight between Inclusivity and Exclusivity. All that Exclusivist desires is to sit on the same pedestal as the Inclusivist. That is MORE than enough for him. Enough to about the agenda of "I am X, and SO you are Y, and that is why I hate you". The Inclusivist helps him by saying "I don't know who I am, but we are all one". This is Benign Inclusivism. Benign Inclusivism or Exclusivism may not be the only options. Dharmic Inclusivism is an alert construct where Exclusivism has to be fought with correctness of knowing. That is why I am completely convinced that your books will serve a much larger purpose than you may have intended. They are as revolutionary historically as Vivekananda's speech in 1893. Such contemporary and mainstream effort with solid knowledge of Dharma has not happened in a century now..."   Surya comments: "Read the following speech by Vivekananda on Jesus.  A very respectful speech. Vivekananda sees Vedantic thought in what Jesus says.  ... In the speech, the closest he came to elevating Jesus to God is when he says: If I, as an Oriental, have to worship Jesus of Nazareth, there is only one way left to me, that is, to worship him as God and nothing else. Have we no right to worship him in that way, do you mean to say? If we bring him down to our own level and simply pay him a little respect as a great man, why should we worship at all? Our scriptures say, "These great children of Light, who manifest the Light themselves, who are Light themselves, they, being worshipped, become, as it were, one with us and we become one with them." .... Need To read this carefully to avoid being digested.First, there is the supposition "IF" in the beginning of the sentence. Second, he is saying that worshipping great men of light brings us close to them and their teachings.  That is same as  "Guru sakshat parabrahma".  This is a core Hindu value - conferring very high respect to a teacher. If we agree with this, then we accept Jesus as a great teacher of Vedantic thought and confer the respect we give to other religious teachers but nothing more special.  Jesus is not called exclusively by Vivekananda as an Avatar or Son of God...  " Srinivasan comments: "That is exactly what the Swami Abhedananda who took over from Swami Vivekananda did when he was in America. His book"Why Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Churchianity" is a fine book which does the job of digesting Jesus into Dharma and rejecting the claim of Church andis printed by Ramakrishna Mutt.Swami Vivekananda rejected the idea of Sinner.His speech in Chicago echoes the thought well. "...the Hindu refuses to call you a sinner ...." Chandramauli comments: "If one goes by history, this stratagem of separating Jesus from Christianity has always ended up being albatross round the neck of Hindus. Example: "He (Raja RamMohan Roy) had demolished the most important Christian dogmas. But all along, he had kept Jesus on a high pedestal. Perhaps he was convinced that Jesus was a great moral teacher. Perhaps he was using Jesus only to beat the missionaries with their own stick. In any case, the Brahmo Samaj he founded had to pay a high price for his praise of Jesus.  Keshub Chunder Sen who took over the Brahmo Samaj at a later stage, became infatuated with Jesus, so much so that he got alienated more or less completely from the Hindu society at large. Keshub's disciples tried to get Jesus endorsed by Sri Ramakrishna who knew nothing about the mischievous myth. And that, in due course, led to Ramakrishna Mission's antics of denying its Hindu ancestry." http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhce/Ch8.htm Rajiv's response: I have had any number of arguments and debates with the RKM folks over this stand of sameness by them, including in public forums. In my uturn theory, i also include many other similar uturners - SRF, Brahma Kumaris, and so forth. A couple of years ago I had a big online fight with one Swami Bodhananda who has an ashram in Michigan supported by many NRIs, and the fight was specifically on his sameness nonsensical positions which he persisted in defending by avoiding the issues I raised. The discussion turned toxic once he tried to disqualify me on grounds that he had "adhikar" and I did not. So the whole uturn research is to understand this syndrome - both the role of the gurus/sampradaya side and from the side of the westerners who join such movements. The central question i started to focus on was: what would be non-digestible into Judeo-Christianity and yet inseparable from dharma? If these items of difference are clearly understood and planted firmly in every dharmic leader's public posture, then uturns would be prevented. My answer: attack history centrism. A focused target is easier than a wider one, such as a whole religion carte blanche. Many people who see themselves as christians join in attacks against history-centrism. THERE IS A WHOLE ANTI-CHURCH MOVEMENT WITHIN CHRISTIANITY ITSELF. A smart strategy knows the limitations in one's positions and does not try to fight a bigger battle than one can win. So all i hope to achieve through BD from westerners is to win over those who accept the problems caused by history centrism. Going beyond that is self defeating because you will get no supporters - not even the yoga/meditation types of westerners. (You should go out and try your various ideas as experiments to get real world empirical data first.) "    February 25 A case study in digestion : Influence of Indigenous Indian education Dear Rajiv Sir, I feel that the adoption of Indigenous Indian Education model by the Europeans is an example of the digestionyou have discussed in BD. The... [this thread below is summarized separately in two posts on  'American Veda', which you can find in the RMF archive. here is part-1] February 26 American Digestion [Preface by Rajiv: Besides the issues raised by Surya below regarding Goldberg's book, I have expressed my displeasure to Goldberg. He interviewed me in depth...

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...