1. Important comment by Swami Devananda Saraswati ("Ishwar Sharan") on the Vijayvaani article that AryaK posted 2 up in #574:
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplay...cle.aspx?id=638
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â The idea to incorporate Hindu scriptures into the Christian Bible originated with the Inculturation missionary Fr. Bede Griffiths aka Swami Dayananda of Sachidananda Ashram, also known as Shanti Vanam, near Trichy. He reasoned that as the Church was able to incorporated the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) with its primitive concept of a jealous creator God into the Christian Bible, it was logical for the Church to incorporate the far more sophisticated concepts of God found in the Vedas and Upanishads into an Indian Christian Bible. Theologians like Fr. Raimond Panikkar, who knew Sanskrit and had a knowledge of Hindu scripture, agreed with Griffiths though he pretended to be a critic of Griffiths' inculturation tactics. <b>Now we see that Griffiths' idea of joining the Veda with the New Testament, and therefore "fulfilling" the Vedic religion and bringing it to fruition in Jesus, has been taken up seriously by the Indian bishops. It is a form plagiarism with an ulterior motive behind it, but hasn't the SC ruled that the Vedas belong to all of humanity? The day will soon come when Hindus cannot call even their most sacred scriptures their own. </b>Â
 SDSÂ
 17 Jun 2009<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. Christian vampires wanted to fang Swami Devananda Saraswati - to death probably (isn't that what christian vampires always intend/attempt?):
http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayAr...spx?id=641
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>There are no grounds for dialogue with the Catholic Church or any other Christian denomination operating in India, so long as they have missionaries in the field collecting Hindu souls, killing Hindu sadhus (this writer has also been threatened with dire consequences by an emissary of Fr. Bede Griffiths after "Catholic Ashrams" was published), and abusing Hindu scriptures, images.</b> symbols, sacred places, cultural icons like Tiruvalluvar, and Indian history in general (which does not include the unedifying fable of St. Thomas). No self respecting nation state will dialogue with another state that is attacking it either overtly or covertly. The exception to this universal rule is India who dialogues with Pakistan even as Pakistan is the willing platform for every terrorist attack on India, and Hindu leaders who are so lacking in self respect and a Hindu religious self-consciousness that they will talk to any Vatican official who offers them an air ticket and throws them a crumb. The exception to this sorry state of Hindu affairs, is the Kanchi Acharya who recently met the Pope's representative and demanded an unconditional cease-fire from the Christian side if dialogue was to continue. No more conversions, no more abuse and misuse of Hindu scriptures, symbols and sacred places, etc. For the first time in recent history, a Hindu leader has met a Vatican representative on equal terms with a positive, uncompromising agenda. At the next meeting, if one should ever take place, the Hindu representative may consider making another request of the Pope's agent. He may request an unconditional apology for all the crimes committed by the Church in India in the last 400 years. These crimes are quite considerable. More important, the Indian Church cannot distance itself from those crimes committed during colonial times (such as the Goa Inquisition) when similar crimes are being perpetrated today by Indian Christians on their Hindu neighbors. Missionary zeal is no different today than in the Portuguese period except that money plays a bigger role in converting the poor and ignorant than do Christian armies. We suggest that at a future dialogue meeting between Hindus and Christians, Dr. Koenraad Elst's guidelines for dialogue may be considered: 1. an honest accounting of the calumnies which the Church has heaped on India and Hinduism; 2. informing Indian Christians and non-Christians about the findings of Bible scholarship; 3. informing them about the impact of scientific progress on Church doctrine; 4. acceptance that reality is multi-layered and that there are many ways of perceiving it; 5. bringing the zeal for conversion in line with the recent declarations that salvation is possible through other religions as well. With reference to # 5, there is no ground whatsoever for the religious conversion of Indians to Christianity or Islam within the Indian context. Full stop. But we should not fool ourselves: conversion will not stop in India because of an agreement between religious leaders even if the agreement was sincere (which it will not be on the Christian side). Conversion can only be controlled if it is made illegal in law, and this does not seem possible in the present Indian political and secular academic environment. Â
 SDSÂ
 18 Jun 2009<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Elst is wrong.
NEVER a dialogue with christianism. Death first.
No dialoguing with, no interacting with, no tolerating terrorist ideology that has the blood of millions upon hundreds of millions on its hands - amounts of sacred blood that will NEVER be washed off its claws. Too much unforgiveable bloodshed, and it would have much more still.
Perish meme. In no form to survive.
<i>That</i> should be the only 'dialogue' with christianism.
<b>ADDED for clarification:</b>
In case it wasn't clear:
"Death first" refers to "sooner die than dialogue with genocidal maniacs".
It does NOT mean "kill the christians before dialoguing with them".
It is used in literature. Even movies. To pick a popular (and most memorable) example, IIRC the hysterical comedy "The Princess Bride" has it too: where the swordsman hero is surrounded and asked to surrender and says "Death first". Hmmm, maybe I got the movie wrong, but the line and context are right.
It does NOT mean suicide either.
It implies defiance. A refusal to accept the other's terms, a "Fight you for it".
It's like the americanism "over my dead body".
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplay...cle.aspx?id=638
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â The idea to incorporate Hindu scriptures into the Christian Bible originated with the Inculturation missionary Fr. Bede Griffiths aka Swami Dayananda of Sachidananda Ashram, also known as Shanti Vanam, near Trichy. He reasoned that as the Church was able to incorporated the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) with its primitive concept of a jealous creator God into the Christian Bible, it was logical for the Church to incorporate the far more sophisticated concepts of God found in the Vedas and Upanishads into an Indian Christian Bible. Theologians like Fr. Raimond Panikkar, who knew Sanskrit and had a knowledge of Hindu scripture, agreed with Griffiths though he pretended to be a critic of Griffiths' inculturation tactics. <b>Now we see that Griffiths' idea of joining the Veda with the New Testament, and therefore "fulfilling" the Vedic religion and bringing it to fruition in Jesus, has been taken up seriously by the Indian bishops. It is a form plagiarism with an ulterior motive behind it, but hasn't the SC ruled that the Vedas belong to all of humanity? The day will soon come when Hindus cannot call even their most sacred scriptures their own. </b>Â
 SDSÂ
 17 Jun 2009<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. Christian vampires wanted to fang Swami Devananda Saraswati - to death probably (isn't that what christian vampires always intend/attempt?):
http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayAr...spx?id=641
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>There are no grounds for dialogue with the Catholic Church or any other Christian denomination operating in India, so long as they have missionaries in the field collecting Hindu souls, killing Hindu sadhus (this writer has also been threatened with dire consequences by an emissary of Fr. Bede Griffiths after "Catholic Ashrams" was published), and abusing Hindu scriptures, images.</b> symbols, sacred places, cultural icons like Tiruvalluvar, and Indian history in general (which does not include the unedifying fable of St. Thomas). No self respecting nation state will dialogue with another state that is attacking it either overtly or covertly. The exception to this universal rule is India who dialogues with Pakistan even as Pakistan is the willing platform for every terrorist attack on India, and Hindu leaders who are so lacking in self respect and a Hindu religious self-consciousness that they will talk to any Vatican official who offers them an air ticket and throws them a crumb. The exception to this sorry state of Hindu affairs, is the Kanchi Acharya who recently met the Pope's representative and demanded an unconditional cease-fire from the Christian side if dialogue was to continue. No more conversions, no more abuse and misuse of Hindu scriptures, symbols and sacred places, etc. For the first time in recent history, a Hindu leader has met a Vatican representative on equal terms with a positive, uncompromising agenda. At the next meeting, if one should ever take place, the Hindu representative may consider making another request of the Pope's agent. He may request an unconditional apology for all the crimes committed by the Church in India in the last 400 years. These crimes are quite considerable. More important, the Indian Church cannot distance itself from those crimes committed during colonial times (such as the Goa Inquisition) when similar crimes are being perpetrated today by Indian Christians on their Hindu neighbors. Missionary zeal is no different today than in the Portuguese period except that money plays a bigger role in converting the poor and ignorant than do Christian armies. We suggest that at a future dialogue meeting between Hindus and Christians, Dr. Koenraad Elst's guidelines for dialogue may be considered: 1. an honest accounting of the calumnies which the Church has heaped on India and Hinduism; 2. informing Indian Christians and non-Christians about the findings of Bible scholarship; 3. informing them about the impact of scientific progress on Church doctrine; 4. acceptance that reality is multi-layered and that there are many ways of perceiving it; 5. bringing the zeal for conversion in line with the recent declarations that salvation is possible through other religions as well. With reference to # 5, there is no ground whatsoever for the religious conversion of Indians to Christianity or Islam within the Indian context. Full stop. But we should not fool ourselves: conversion will not stop in India because of an agreement between religious leaders even if the agreement was sincere (which it will not be on the Christian side). Conversion can only be controlled if it is made illegal in law, and this does not seem possible in the present Indian political and secular academic environment. Â
 SDSÂ
 18 Jun 2009<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Elst is wrong.
NEVER a dialogue with christianism. Death first.
No dialoguing with, no interacting with, no tolerating terrorist ideology that has the blood of millions upon hundreds of millions on its hands - amounts of sacred blood that will NEVER be washed off its claws. Too much unforgiveable bloodshed, and it would have much more still.
Perish meme. In no form to survive.
<i>That</i> should be the only 'dialogue' with christianism.
<b>ADDED for clarification:</b>
In case it wasn't clear:
"Death first" refers to "sooner die than dialogue with genocidal maniacs".
It does NOT mean "kill the christians before dialoguing with them".
It is used in literature. Even movies. To pick a popular (and most memorable) example, IIRC the hysterical comedy "The Princess Bride" has it too: where the swordsman hero is surrounded and asked to surrender and says "Death first". Hmmm, maybe I got the movie wrong, but the line and context are right.
It does NOT mean suicide either.
It implies defiance. A refusal to accept the other's terms, a "Fight you for it".
It's like the americanism "over my dead body".