India/western Sociology

[Husky]

bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/rajiv-malhotras-endorsement-of-hindu-christian-dialogue-vijaya-rajiva/



Plus Sharan's earliest (bottom-most) comment to it.





The scary excerpt (bold and blue bit):

Rajiv Malhotra’s endorsement of Hindu-Christian dialogue – Vijaya Rajiva

Posted on January 3, 2012 by IS



“The present writer believes that the way to go is to reinforce the aam admi Hindu, the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, rather than undermining them by subtle methods and often openly downgrading them in various ways.” – Dr. Vijaya Rajiva



In an article in Huffington Post, author and writer Rajiv Malhotra repeats his interpretation of the ancient Hindu method of Purva Paksha as looking at various religions,especially

Christianity and Western thought with respect, while maintaining differences [color="#0000FF"](“Difference With Mutual Respect: A New Kind of Hindu-Christian Dialogue”)[/color]. While religious leaders have traditionally maintained the posture that all religions are similar, Mr. Malhotra argues for the differences, while maintaining respect for each other’s world view. As one continues to read the article the reader realises that Malhotra is not actually saying anything new. In fact, his concluding statement is that there is a Divine One and its various manifestations are “lila.” This well written, charming essay is worth a first read, if only so that Hindus can understand where the author is going with his claims of a new kind of Hindu-Christian dialogue.



[...]

Respect for christianism??? Translates to respect for institutionalised genocide and paedophilia.

Wouldn't everyone who's still sane and humane rather blow out their brains first?

Christianism threatens to wipe Hindu religion (hence Hindus) from the face of Bharatam and consequently the planet. And yet Hindus are supposed to have ... respect for christianism? Whose side is Malhotra on again? I actually can't work it out, considering also that:

1. Malhotra apparently behaves pleasantly toward the catholic Clooney.

2. Meanwhile he's made digs at established Hindoo Swamis. Plus gets annoyed at the masses of Hindoos for being Hindoos instead of falling in line with his vision for them. (Drat the heathens. They're Still not dead.)







Anyway, the comment by Ishwar Sharan that is relevant in general:

Undermining the traditional acharyas and flattering the amateur interlocutor is one of the tried and true tactics of Jesuit interfaith dialoguers. Unfortunately Malhotra’s own egotism blinds him to the trap he has got caught in.



It is also true that the aam admi are the people that count in Hindu India. As Rome christianised in the first centuries CE, the upper classes converted because it served their social and political interests to do so (the emperors, starting with Constantine, had already converted). But the Pagan deities continued to be worshipped by the peasants and farmers up to the 10th century within a 100 kms of Christian Rome.

Yes, the Loyal Laity. Never a nice ending for them. (Top-down missionising strategies were ever a nightmare to the heathen masses.)



Poor Hindoo laity too: considering that creepy people - who typically don't really even like Hindoos for being stubborn heathens - constantly attempt to hijack "lead" them (and tend to/would subvert them in the process. Speaking even more generally, Hindoos really should cut themselves off from all gangrene...)



But in the comparison between laities, at least the Hellenes for a time had Julian - who looked after the interests of his own kind (being one of them). Sigh. "If wishes were horses...." Still, there's the memory of him. Which is definitely something profoundly helpful in itself, not least because it shows what should be.