Quote:Time was when the Jesuits (the Society of Jesus established in 1539 by

St.Ignatius of Loyola) used every method to establish the ascendancy of

Catholic Christianity over the globe. Hindu India will remember the

infamous Goa Inquistion (1560)conducted by the followers of St. Francis

Xavier (said to be among the founders of the Jesuit order) against the

hapless Hindus of Goa. Francis Xavier was also a founding member of the

Society of Jesus and also the initiator of the Inquisition (1545)

Everything ranging from ferocious torture to murder and mayhem were

practiced in Goa (and elsewhere during the Inquisition) all in the name of

the Holy Church. The book Breaking India (2011) by authors Rajiv Malhotra

and Aravindan Neelakandan also writes about the first of the Jesuits in

India, Robert di Nobili (came to Goa in 1605 and settled in Tamil Nadu in

1606) who , in addition to claiming to be a scholar of Tamil, did not

hesitate to fulminate against the paganism of the Hindus. The goal of

Christianity in India has never changed : convert the Hindu pagans, harvest

their souls, as the Pope said publicly in India. His comment was : in the

first millennium Christianity spread to Europe, in the second millennium it

spread to the Americas, and in the third millennium it will complete its

mission in Asia. Since much of south east Asia has become Christianised,

India alone remains unconverted. The present writer believes that this will

remain so thanks to the devotion of the aam admi Hindus to their ancestral

religion and thanks to the spiritual strength of the traditional acharyas,

gurus, maths and so on.



Hence, the attempt of the Jesuit order to woo the elite of India is another

aspect of their strategy. The days of large scale conquests and violence

are over. The soldiers of Christ are heavily into the phenomenon known as

inculturation, started by Italian Jesuit Roberto di Nobili himself, the

borrowing of native cultural habits and practices and in general

ingratiating themselves into local culture. This inculturation was intended

to subvert the native cultures by stealth. An example would be di Nobili

wearing saffron instead of white and using Hindu words to describe

Christian rituals and so on. And now, Hindu-Christian dialogue (one wonders

what the purpose of this dialogue is).



An important aspect of the Jesuit order which needs to be mentioned : their

commitment to scholarship. Francis Xavier Clooney represents that branch.

He is a Jesuit, an accomplished scholar of comparative religion and has

published several books and articles. He is currently a professor at the

Divinity school at Harvard University (USA). He has impressed many Hindus

by his knowledge of Tamil and the bhakti religious tradition of Tamil

Hindus. Neverthless, as a Jesuit and as a dedicated Christian his innermost

and first priority is the conversion of pagan Hindus to Catholicism.

Needless to say this is never openly talked about. The goal of the

Jesuits(and of Christianity as a proselytizing faith) has never changed,

despite the change in methods. Dr.Clooney is heavily into the process of

inculturation. This is made possible by many intellectual Hindus who have

been drawn into what is called interfaith dialogue.



This was evident in the interfaith dialogue (so called) in which Dr.Clooney

participated, along with author/writer Rajiv Malhotra. This took place at

the University of Massachussetts during the talks on Malhotra’s new book

Being Different(2011) After Shri Malhotra’s talk on his book, which lasted

approximately 30 minutes, Dr.Clooney followed up with an approximately 45

minute talk mainly focused on Malhotra’s book Being Different. This book,

according to the author, is about a game changer. Instead of being the

object of Western scholars, Hindus must now view the West and the Judaeo

Christian tradition from the Hindu dharmic point of view. This is in itself

not a novel idea and whether the contents have been appropriately handled

will remain a question mark.



.

After Malhotra’s lecture, Clooney took the podium and the spectacle was

extremely illuminating to any discerning viewer. Clooney’s strategy was to

heap high praise( a euphemism for fulsome flattery !) on Malhotra, who

during his own comments on Clooney’s talk, agreed with him ! Clooney as

mentioned above is a well trained scholar and Rajiv Malhotra was no match

for him, in a sense. The range of Clooney’s intellectual cogitation was

impressive both for its subtlety and its delicate handling of contentious

issues.



In addition , his manner was courteous, soft spoken and well spoken (beware

of the Greek who comes bearing gifts !).



Some samples of the exchange between the two men are revealing:



Clooney : This is not the first time that Hindus have looked critically at

the West. Swami Dayananda Sarasvati and Swami Vivekaanana did that.

However, Rajiv has updated this in a sophisticated manner (read ‘improved’

on it, with the former being unsophisticated Hindus !).



Rajiv Malhotra was obligingly silent, presumably he agreed with this

remark. He must believe that he is an improvement on Swami Dayananda and

Swami Vivekananda ! Since liberal theorists in India such as Jyotirmaya

Sharma have written sneeringly about them, the least that Malhotra could

have done was to modestly insert some remark about their great contribution

to Hindu nationalism and the ongoing resurgence of Hindu thinking, not to

mention their profound spirituality and writings on Hinduism) But that

would go against Clooney’s agenda. To resume.



Clooney : Authors such as Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goyal have politicized

the Hindu Christian relationship. Rajiv does not do that. He is respectful

of the differences and shows understanding (one can guess at Clooney’s

target : authentic Hindus who resist Christian conversion methods !)



Rajiv Malhotra : I am not interested in ‘ politicization’. I am interested

in knowledge systems (By this time any discerning listener must surely

wonder where he is going with all this ready agreement with Clooney. What

does this remark mean except that it is a hit at Hindu nationalism ? Or at

Hindutva ? The intellectual and spiritual errors involved in this

distancing of himself from both need to be pointed out).



In that one statement Malhotra distanced himself from the aam admi Hindu

and Hindu nationalism. There were also some slighting references to the

ignorance of Hindu gurus regarding Western thought. His eagerness to secure

Francis Clooney’s endorsement for his book Being Different was all too

obvious. It was also clear that the magic of the Jesuit’s flattery was

working on him, slowly but surely.



This raises the question of why the intrepid author of the book Breaking

India (2011) was doing his own version of a u turn. That book clearly

documents the insidious workings of Christian missionaries in India. It

speaks about the first Jesuit Roberto di Nobili’s infamous methods. It

talks about inculturation and so on. It recognizes quite explicitly that

since the time of Max Mueller (the indologist) , the chosen enemy for

Christianity was Hinduism .



Ofcourse, the authenticity and strength of the book Breaking India also

come from the fact that the co author Aravindan Neelakandan is a Tamilian

and is knowledgeable about Tamil history, which constitutes a large part of

the book.



Mr. Malhotra is economically independent and has over a period of time in

the Hindu diaspora in North America done service to the community by

establishing the Infinity Foundation and helping with other Hindu causes.

He is articulate, intelligent and well read. Economic motives, the

acquistion of wealth, cannot be his agenda. Ofcourse, as with any

author/writer he would like to maximize the sales of his books. In his

case, there is also an almost messianic notion of wanting to reach out to

Hindus to empower them. Some would simply call it an ego trip. There is

also the fact that he is an autodidact and therefore his excursions into

Judaeo Christian and Western thought are a novel exercise for him. In this

exhilarating exercise (novel for him !) he lost sight of many things.





Purva Paksha, the method he borrows from ancient Hindu

intellectual/spiritual thought, and claims to use ,becomes simply an

occasion for self advancement. Mr. Malhotra is no Shankara. Purva Paksha is

not simply a ‘gaze’ at the adversary, but is accompanied by a rigorous

unflinching critique of the enemy, as Adi Shankara did, and alas, Rajiv

Malhotra is unable/unwilling to do ! Adi Shankara’s aim was to defeat, not

to accommodate the enemy. As is well known, Shankara’s efforts led not only

to the creation of Advaita Vedanta, but to the clearing of the decks for

the ongoing continuation of Hinduism. In Mr.Malhotra’s hands it becomes a

distortion both of the method and its aims.



Malhotra wants to accommodate the enemy so to speak (although that is not

his conscious agenda or so one hopes) and is therefore, a good candidate

for Francis Xavier Clooney’s agenda. The ripple effect of these many

discussions/debates on Hindu-Christian dialogue are Clooney’s great

opportunity at further inculturation.



And Rajiv Malhtora is entirely unprepared for this unequal balance of

power, whatever his own subjective feelings about the importance of such

events and the impact of his book. By putting forward his work as something

different from what other Hindus are already doing and by a constant

running down of Hindu gurus that they are not prepared to debate with the

West, Malhotra is in effect trying to advance, at the expense of Hindus.

This contradicts his own well meaning efforts at the empowerment of Hindus !



For Hindus, both in the diaspora and in the homeland, the lesson to be

garnered from the Clooney-Malhotra discussions (euphemistically called

Hindu-Christian dialogue) is that the tried and tested strength of Hinduism

will endure. New fangled attempts are just that. They can be a fun read,

but not to be taken seriously. The aam admi Hindu and the traditional

acharyas, gurus, maths, etc. will continue their traditions. There are no

signs that this will give way to what at present looks like the

intellectual equivalent of Wallmart’s attempted entry into Indian retail.



Has Mr. Malhotra set up only a straw man, the non existent uninformed Hindu

of his imagination, in order to demolish this straw man , and thereby

highlight his own albeit limited work ? And is Francis Clooney attempting

the impossible, the destruction of Sanatana Dharma ?



(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university).



http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=15182

Quote:Purva Paksha and the Siren Song of Hindu-Christian Dialogue

27/12/2011 02:50:39 Dr. Vijaya Rajiva



Author and writer Rajiv Malhotra has reported that he will be presenting his discussions with Francis Xavier Clooney, Jesuit priest, scholar and professor at the Divinity school at Harvard Universtiy (USA) as a model of interfaith dialogue. The present writer has previously critiqued this event (which took place at Harvard University) in the article ‘Francis Xavier Clooney : Building the Trojan Horse’ (Haindava Keralam 20/12/2011).



The word ‘dialogue’ and the phrase ‘interfaith dialogue’ have a misleading meaning in people’s minds, because they bring to mind visions of peace and co existence. However, the history of the two proselytizing faiths has hardly been one of peace and co existence and Shri Malhotra himself is quite aware of this fact and as well of the current strategy of the Catholic Church to subvert Hinduism by the phenomenon known as inculturation.(See the book Breaking India by him and co author Aravindan Neelakandan). In the above mentioned article the present writer has mentioned some of the reasons why Mr.Malhotra has taken a u turn and has begun to engage in interfaith dialogue, or as Dr. Clooney put it bluntly, in Hindu Christian Dialogue.



At the Harvard event Mr. Malhotra told us that his new book Being Different calls upon the West to understand Hinduism’s different world view on its own terms and not through the categories of the Judaeo Christian and Western thought. He highlights the differences between the two systems and stakes the claim of Hinduism’s own brand of universalism.



For Hindus these are not new insights nor have Hindu thinkers especially since the 19th century been indifferent to the challenges of Western thought. And so Mr. Malhotra’s own arguments are nothing new and in fact they represent , in the writer’s opinion , a type of capitulation to the very adversary that he has encountered in Judaeo Christian and Western thought. He is also seeking an endorsement of his position from the very same adversaries. This is not just the beginning of the slippery slope, it is the slippery slope itself.



This is evident in his use of the ancient Hindu shastra of Tarka (philosophical argument) of which Purva Paksha is the first step. In his thinking Purva Paksha is a sort of ‘gaze’ by which Hindus can look at the West , rather than be looked at, which has been the case till recently. This is a misunderstanding of Purva Paksha as practised by Hindu philosophers, of all schools, whether it is Mimamsa or most notably that of Adi Shankara. With the Hindu philosophers there is a three fold process:



1.Statement of the adversary ‘s position

2.Rigorous refutation of the adversary’s position

3.Statement of one’s own position



The purpose of Purva Paksha was to defeat the adversary. Adi Shankara’s Digvijaya tour of India accomplished just that, as he took on various adversarial schools such as Mimamsa and Buddhism.



Mr Malhotra on the other hand has tried to accommodate the adversary. He has been misled by the word ‘dialogue’. In Western thought it is most associated with Plato. However, here the word ‘dialogue’ does not mean an accommodation. Rather in each and every one of the great and small Platonic dialogues (36 of them) Socrates sets out to defeat the ignorance of his interlocutors through a relentless argumentative process, peeling away their layers of ignorance.There is no accommodation here. Our contemporary understanding (and that of Malhotra’s) of dialogue is neither Purva Paksha nor Platonic. It is a type of wishful thinking. It has its place in certain situations but not in the context of so called Hindu-Christian encounters, where the adversaries’ subterfuges need to be unmasked, not further covered over with meanderings.



Mr. Malhotra is misled (and misleads the audience) into thinking that a friendly accommodation of the adversary’s positions is the same as classical Purva Paksha or Platonic dialectics. He is perfectly entitled to his own adventure of ideas and as an auto didact this novel experience holds him in a certain thralldom. And as with every author/writer he wants to communicate his ideas to as large an audience as he can reach.



But should Hindus take this seriously as an enlightening or useful experience ? Should young Hindu students, who already have been deprived of a first hand experience of their own civilisational and cultural experience by the colonial experience and its camp followers at the various universities, be further distanced from the aam admir Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus, maths etc. of India ? Perhaps the ‘gaze’ should now be critically turned towards Mr. Malhotra’s own arguments, especially as the Catholic Church continues to make inroads into the country.



Dr. Clooney’s eager sponsorship of these discussions may seem to be purely intellectual/spiritual/religious forays, but objectively, they are attempts at his own brand of inculturation. He has found a ready ally, a golden opportunity, to facilitate this process. It is not clear to any thinking Hindu as to why there should be a Hindu-Christian dialogue. Or even an interfaith dialogue, especially one that is manipulated by interested parties. The two proselytizing faiths are guilty of dogmatism and exclusivity, not Hinduism. Why then the need for Hindus to engage as if they are also a guilty party ? If there are no mea culpas to be done, why should Hindus do them ? And what is the compulsion to seek the approval of the West ? Mr. Malhotra is entitled to his own adventure of ideas, but he should not take himself seriously as a defender of Hinduism, and nor should we. What do Hindus have to ‘dialogue’ about with a hostile adversary ?



Mr. Malhotra’s statement that he is not interested in politicization is misleading.

From start to finish the phrase Hindu-Christian dialogue is a misnomer. It is a heavily politicized enterprise and the author’s naivety is alarming, if not surprising. It is to be hoped that he will introspect and do a new u turn, and reject the siren call of Hindu-Christian dialogue.



(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university)

Quote:Koenraad Elst

28/12/2011 05:52:12 Purva Paksha

Funny how Malhotra's critics have picked up the term "U-turn" without understanding it. I am not a U-turner at all. I have never been a Hindu nor would-be Hindu in the first place, I am just a friend and well-wisher of the Hindus. If there has ever been a turn, it was from the assumption that there existed a Hindu party eager for Hindu victory, to the insight that most activist Hindus by far have other priorities than victory. Venting their emotions, looking good in front of fellow Hindus who don't notice it's all ineffective posturing, et al. Case in point: interreligious dialogue is an existing battlefield where your declared enemy is making minced meat of most Hindus who venture too close. Someone eager for victory would go there, but first prepare for the battle. But preparation is the last thing I see here. As SR Goel once told me, "most Hindus think they know everything about everything", so you pass haughty judgments on the Christian position largely without understanding it. Yes, in the dialogue forum you are unable to hold your own, because they come prepared and you are too lazy or smug for that. And that is why conversions etc. continue and accelerate. Of course you are free to criticize Malhotra (I have a critique of some central points of his Being Different in mind, forthcoming) but then please take the trouble of showing us a more effective alternative. Whatever it is you have been doing instead of dialogue, it has certainly failed to "stop evangelization and conversion, stop the mushrooming of Christian NGOs" etc., which in fact, as you yourselves admit, have only "increased to an alarming extent".

[color="#800080"](I think Elst above has misunderstood Thamizhchelvan's use of u-turn. The latter - in the comment below - does not appear to be using it in the Malhotra sense - "u-turn from dabbling alien to anti-Hindu alien" - but in the regular everday English sense of making a 180 from a previous held position. I think the two comments made blue further below are what constitute the u-turn that Tamizhchelvan is referring to.)[/color]



Thamizhchelvan

28/12/2011 04:50:47 Dear Dr.Elst!

What a surprise Dr.Elst? Wonder on what compulsion you made a u-turn!



Sri.H.Balakrishnan has caught you at the right place with your own writings.



As you are aware, the so-called Interfaith Dialogues have been going on for more than two decades, at various levels, as per your statement.



Pray tell me, if those dialogues were able to



1. Stop evangelization and conversions

2. Stop the mushrooming of Christian NGOs

3. Stop the construction of Prayer Houses & Churches near our Temples

4. Stop the Church from acquiring huge lands and properties

5. Stop the menace of Inculturation

6. Stop the flow of foreign money



In fact, Dr.Elst, all the above things have increased to an alarming extent, ever since the interfaith dialogues have started.



Simultaneously, those indulging in interfaith dialogues from the Hindu side, both spiritualists & intellectuals, have only improved a lot in their “status” and nothing beneficial has happened to the Hindu Samaj. These spiritualists and intellectuals could not stop the construction of even one Church; could not prevent the harvest of even one soul; could not put a full stop to the acquiring of even one inch of land by the Church; could not take even one Christian NGO to task; could not block the flow foreign money even to one Church or NGO.



Dear Dr.Elst, you are held in high esteem by Hindu activists like us, here in India. Please don’t make us change our opinion by supporting self-aggrandizing interfaith businessmen. Thanks.



Dr.Vijaya Rajiva

28/12/2011 02:09:15 To Critics of my article

It is important to remember that Adi Shankara intended to defeat the adversary not to appease him/her as RM seeks to do, and did in his talk at Harvard university.It is not an accident that Clooney has been active sponsoring these discussions because they are to his advantage, or so he thinks.When one tampers with Bharat's age old civilisation, its aam admi Hindu and its traditional acharyas, gurus and maths, then one must have a good motive. Fortunately, as some of the comments below indicate, many readers of my article are wise to Clooney's efforts at chipping away at this (with the help of some Hindus). It is surprising that someone as astute as Koenraad Elst has not seen this. In a comment to my earlier article George Thundiparambil put it succintly : the danger is when the rules of tarka are not observed.



Koenraad Elst may find this irrelevant, but some of us still revere Adi Shankara and are not prepared to adopt new fangled methods, no matter how attractive they may seem superficially. Therefore, it is important that Hindu youth are not also beguiled by siren calls.



The answer is not interfaith dialogue which only serves the purposes of inculturation, but to continue steadily to bring back Hindu youth to their moorings. This is being done by the Sangh Parivar organisations and others with those who have left the Hindu fold. A similar process can take place with our college educated youth.



Listening to the siren call of interfaith dialogue is not the way to go. It must be robustly exposed and defeated.



neo

27/12/2011 19:30:50 willful ignorance

Not sure what the author is actually griping about. Rajiv in his book and talks has clearly mentioned the motive of his dialogues/purva-paksha. It is actually aimed at the Hindu fence sitters to bring them out of the sameness myth by highlighting irreconcilable differences which the opponent has to endorse without a choice.



Radha Rajan

27/12/2011 19:34:42 Hindus as Losers?!

Hindus are losing the war against the predatory church not because we dont speak good english when we meet them across the table or because we dont know the Old Testament. We are losing today because this war is waged with money that is used at one end of the Hindu spectrum and the legitimacy which the Abrahamic cults are being given in respectable quarters and sacred Hindu spaces by idiot and villanous English-educated Hindus at the other end of the spectrum. No matter how much you dialogue, you cannot explain away genocide of entire nations, peoples and faiths carried out and still being carried out by the Generic Church with its imaginative and new weapons of war and the more effective and result-guaranteed old weapons of war. To even assume that Malhotra is peeling away layers of Christian ignorance is laughable because there si netiher ignorance nor innocence within the Abrahamic religions and their leaders. This inter-religious interaction is a fun-thing to do in the US universities and in Europe but when the same is done on this soil,it is no longer fun-thing, it is war by other means and no matter how some intellectuals may run down and abuse those who speak out against inter-religious dialogue, this war will be fought as ferociously as merited.



Radha Rajan

27/12/2011 18:53:43 Plump pumpkin in a spoonful of rice

Dr. Rajiva's caution about the siren's call is well-timed. All facts are by nature embryonic. The embryo cited by Dr. Rajiva is the Second Vatican Call to inter-religious dialogue notwithstanding the ducument Ad Gentes whoch asserts the missionary nature of the church. Redemptoris Missio is only the tree from this embryo. I am surprised at Dr. Elst's dismissal of Dr. Rajiva's caution as being a plump misstatement. It is the insistence that the war strategy called inter-religious dialogue initiated from the war office called PCID which is a plump pumpkin which RM (rajiv malhotra, not redemptoris missio) and Dr. Elst is seeking to hide inside a spoonful of rice.



Sujeev

27/12/2011 07:31:16 Rajiv Malhotra's U-Turn

Dr. Rajiva, appreciate your raising the alarm about Rajiv Malhotra's interaction with Dr. looney. It might even help Rajiv make a few course corrections. But I think we should wait till Rajiv comes out with the full complement of his promised 7 books on this issue before we pass judgement on the alleged U-Turn. "Being Different" is just the first book. Interestingly, I believe Rajiv's second book is going to be titled "U-Turn". Whatever Rajiv Malhotra does in the future, we have to appreciate what he has done this past decade - create an awareness among lay Hindus (among whom I count myself), that unless drastic action is taken by the Hindu collective, Hindu thought, consciousness, and civilization is headed down a path to take its appointed place in a museum somewhere alongside other extinct civilizations.



[color="#0000FF"]H.Balakrishnan

27/12/2011 06:09:45 Inter-faith Dialogue

On the so-called 'inter-faith dialogue', the Belgium scholar, Dr.Koenraad Elst, wrote in his his doctoral thesis - "De-Colonising the Hindu Mind"(2001) : " A Vatican document of 1990, 'Redemptoris Missio'[RM] - (The Redeemer's Mission) confirms that 'dialogue' is still a means of conversion rather than a meeting between equals. Winand Callewaert, a prominent Catholic Indologist, summarised RM as thus: 'The Church is by definition missionary - - - For our subject, it is important to note that RM strongly emphasizes the need for missionary activity in Asia. For this reason 'dialogue' and 'inculturation' are recommended as the best strategies.The challenge consists in turning that dialogue to the primordial goal, viz. 'evangelization'. After all RM declares: 'the obvious road to salvation is the Church, which alone is entrusted with the fulness of the instruments of salvation - - RM continues to assert that 'Christ is the only redeemer of all men' - the only mediator between God and man" (pp-282). Beware the 'Harvester of Souls'!![/color]



C S Sundaresha

27/12/2011 06:51:20 Inter faith dialouge

Dear Dr. Vijaya Rajiva,



You are absolutely correct. what is the use of inter faith dialogue? It will yield nothing. Christian and Muslim religious leaders don't have the intellectual honesty. We can never force a change in them by discussing with them. Inter faith discussion with Muslims and Christians is like cow discussing with hyena to make it make it vegetarian!!



[color="#0000FF"]Koenraad Elst

27/12/2011 04:45:07 purva paksha

Painful to read such a plump misstatement of the issues in interreligious dialogue in an otherwise meritorious publication like Haindava Keralam. The smaller cannot contain the greater, and clearly Vijaya Rajiva's understanding of the matter is too embryonic to grasp Rajiv Malhotra's well-researched insights. Whereas Rajiva does not go beyond rote-learning and parrotting a scriptural definition of Purva-Paksha, Malhotra shows his mastery by actually putting this concept into practice.

As for Rajiva's assumption that dialogue is necessarily detrimental to the Hindu side and must therefore be shunned: Hindu-Christian interaction or dialogue is taking place at many levels anyway, and as Trotsky said about politics: though you may choose to stay away from it, it will not stay away from you. Numerous Christian assumptions, ideas and habits are penetrating the Hindu world from all sides, finding it defenceless. If Hindus come out as losers most of the time in these de facto interactions as well as in formal debates, it is because they have lazily (or haughtily, as in Rajiva's case) refused to do their preparatory study of the other side, i.e. their Purva-Paksha. By contrast, Malhotra does a good job in his dialogue with Christian interlocutors, effectively "peeling away their layers of ignorance".[/color]

Quote:A state of grace simply means that they do not have any unconfessed mortal sin. When a baby is baptized, he comes into a state of grace. He stays in that state until he commits a mortal sin, which is a very serious sin. Then he doesn't get back into grace until he has confessed that sin.

It is not a mortal sin to miss Communion; deliberately missing Mass is a mortal sin

Quote:A modern writer has borrowed a lucid metaphor from Julian's own lips to capture the horror he felt: 'He saw, with a clarity bred of hatred, one blatant feature of his age - Christianity rising like a damp-stain on the wall of his beloved Hellenic culture.'109 Julian was not so self-deceiving as to think that the damp-stain could be checked by one more polemic against Christians. But he could do more than that: the gods had made him Emperor.110

Quote:It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind

the reasons by which I was convinced that

the fabrication of the Galilaeans

is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Quote:«... ών [εκ τών ανδρών, Ιησούς Παύλος, Κορνήλιος, Σέργιος Παύλος, κά.] είς εάν φανή τών τη­νι­καύ­τα γνωριζομένων επιμνησθείς -επί Τιβερίου γάρ ήτοι Κλαυδίου ταύτα εγί­νε­το-, περί πάν­των ότι ψεύδο­μαι νομίζετε.».

"But if you can show me that one of these men [Jesus, Paul, Cornelius, Sergius Paulus, etc.] is mentioned by the well known writers of that time, -these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius-, then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters."

(Loeb's Translation)

Quote:(RM's book Being Different) is actually aimed at the Hindu fence sitters to bring them out of the sameness myth by highlighting irreconcilable differences which the opponent has to endorse without a choice.

Quote:Gibbon's verdict, though, was studiedly ambiguous, and when he wished to convey the heart of the man he looked elsewhere: 'A devout and sincere attachment for the gods of Athens and Rome constituted the ruling passion of Julian.'19 In my view, that judgement deserves to stand.

Quote:showing us a more effective alternative.

Quote:Buddhist Vipassana + ISKCON + and was it Transcendental Levitation/Meditation/whatever +

Quote:I (Rajeev Malhotra) had previously learned and practiced meditation techniques from multiple sources for over 30 years, including: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Yogi Amrit Desai (who certified me as a teacher), Deepak Chopra, Vipassana, and more.

Quote:(* And in this context: IIRC, several Hindu Tantra texts state repeatedly they're of the Vedic religion and constitute an extension to the Vedam.)

Quote:The Tantra is regarded as a Shruti or Agama [...] It is thus classed with the Vedas. It is usually defined as "shrutishAkhAvisheShaH", a particular branch of the Vedas. This claim is strongly maintained not only by the later Tantras, but also by the earlier ones. One of the oldest Tantras available in manuscript, NS, holds that the Tantra is the culmination of the esoteric science of the vedAnta and the sAMkhya. In fact, it combines with the ultimate reality of Brahman or Shiva the validity of the world as an expression of His Shakti. The consort of Shiva therefore is first taught the vedAnta, then the 25 sAMkhyas [saamkhya categories], and after that the Shiva Tantra. P, which is an equally old tAntric text, says, 'The Tantra, first communicated by Shiva, came down through tradition. It is Agama with the characteristics of chandas (Vedas).'



The later Tantras reiterate the same claim. The K Tantra says (II. 140-41) that kuladharma is based on, and inspired by, the truth of the Vedas. In the same place, Shiva cites passages from the shruti in support of His doctrine. P2 and other Tantras cite vaidika-mahAvAkyas and mantras; and as mantras are a part of the Vedas, the M Tantra says that the Tantra is a part of the Vedas. The N Tantra calls the Tantra the fifth Veda, and kulAchAra the fifth Ashrama, which follows all the others. The MSM-tantra says that the disciple must be pure of soul and a knower of the Vedas. He who is devoid of vaidikakriyA is disqualified. The GT says that the tAntric sAdhaka must be a believer in the Vedas, ever attached to Brahman, living in Brahman and taking shelter with Brahman. The K Tantra says that there is no knowledge higher than that of the Vedas and no doctrine equal to the kaula.

Quote: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.



[...]

Quote: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.