<b>^ Bodhi's posts 97-100 are very important.</b>
Thanks so much for posting all this, Bodhi. I read it yesterday and again just now. Very important stuff. Where did you obtain it?
Am in agreement with Sandhya and Radha. (The one exception is that I am not opposed to all conversion: I think reconversions to Dharma inside ancient Bharatam is a must and ethically both acceptable and imperative.)
Also completely agree with Sandhya when she says that Hindus who voluntarily ended up outside India (and their progeny) should stay out of the business of Bharatam's Hindu Dharma. Do the crime, do the time. And yes, I consider it a great crime to have ever moved out of Bharatam into countries ruled by terrorist ideologies. Fortunately, we are an extincting species - the timer was set when we moved - and we'll live for a while where we are and then disappear into thin air. Good.
1. Sandhya wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->r  Some of my specific objections to the Vatican meeting are:-
1] It specifically endorses "the freedom to embrace another faith out of one's own free choice." In my understanding of Hindu Dharma, the family and not the individual is the smallest unit of the social organism, and this cannot be ripped apart by giving individuals the right to be brain-washed or bribed by an evangelist and leave the religion and culture to which he or she was born. This is the basic tenet of all native traditions in the world, and by agreeing that individuals can be weaned away from non-monotheistic faiths, the Hindu leaders SECRETLY signing this declaration were violating the tenets of the faith. The failure to respond to this charge is a self-indictment.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sandhya is very correct in perceiving how this Vatican clause is entirely christian, very anti-Hindu. Note how those of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha who signed the agreement with the Vatican have conceded to the same anti-Hindu <i>christianist</i> objective which the fraud swarmy uglyface has been peddling as well:
newstodaynet.com/newsindex.php?id=11599%20&%20section=26
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom of religion would remain a mirage unless the tradition of enrolling children to the parent religion ends, Swamiji ('agnivesh' uglyface) said.
(He is advancing the christian argument: "There is no thing such as ancestral tradition. All you heathens must realise you ought to be open to baptism.")<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->While uglyface admits publicly to having marxist sympathies, his words here are particularly christian - as christian as his buddy and colleague Valson Thampu.
Crypto christianism is very hard to identify. Hindus are forced to use inferences to do the identification. But the above is a very christian statement so it identifies the leanings of uglyface quite well. The endorsement of the Vatican clause by the HDAS likewise indicates christo-conditioning, christo-infiltration or just plain old vanilla crypto-christianism. Hindus deserve to know who signed it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2] I also questioned the need to sign any document at all in any gathering without a wider discussion of the same in the home country. If the Vatican document had been shown to any major Shankaracharya or Mathadhipathi, or concerned Hindu citizenry, it would NEVER have been signed. It could only be signed because it was kept a closely guarded secret, and the names of the signatories are still secret.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hindus MUST discover who all signed the document. It will tell us a lot, especially about people who should never represent us but be avoided at all costs. Sandhya says it well here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But as the Vatican 2006 document makes clear - a major sell-out of Dharma has taken place, surreptitiously. None of those associated with that document and subsequent dialogues can now be trusted to represent Hindu Dharma in any respect, at any forums, and must cease and desist from all such secret summitry. Even governments which are notoriously secretive do not function with such non-transparency.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. Independent of both Sandhya and Radha, I had also understood the Hindu-Jewish meet's declaration to mean the same thing. It is the only way it can be construed:
http://hamsa.org/Historic%20Hindu%20Jewi...ration.pdf
<b>HISTORIC HINDU JEWISH DECLARATION</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Swami Dayananda Saraswati organised the first Hindu-Jewish meet in February 2007 at New Delhi. Facilitated by âThe World Council of Religious Leadersâ (http://www.wcorl.org), this was a great event as both the Hindu and Jewish traditions, which do not have aggressive programs of conversion, and advocated a way of life to accomplish the view.
[...]
Judaism was born of the complete repudiation of idol worship and rabbinic literature abounds with denunciation of idolatry. Due to an incomplete understanding, Hinduism has been perceived by the Jewish traditions as idolatrous and promoting many gods. For centuries, both the Hindus and Jewish people have experienced at the hands of aggressive religions extremely violent consequences of wrong perceptions.The Historic declaration made at the Jerusalem meet sets to rest the wrong notion that Hinduism is idolatrous. The declaration reads: âIt is recognized that One Supreme Being in its formless and manifest aspects has been worshipped by Hindus over millennia. The Hindus relate to only the One Supreme Being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation. This does not mean that Hindus worship âidolsâ. They worship devataas who are manifestation of the One Supreme Beingâ. The Chief Rabbi announced that it was a matter of relief to know that their hitherto held perception was wrong. (On this declaration one can read Swami Dayananda Saraswatiâs article published by the media). This declaration is indeed a hallmark declaration showing way for meaningful dialogue between leaders of different religious traditions and to help remove wrong perceptions arising from lack of understanding and / or misunderstanding.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
R. Krishnan is a bit of a confused modernist Hindu:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Your readers can judge (without your poisonous spin) whether the One Supreme Being referred to in No.1 is in keeping with the Hindu Shastras and Sampradayas (no Vaishnava, Shaiva, Sakta or Smartha scholar or practioner that I have spoken to finds it objectionable, but perhaps in your exclusive self-created sampradaya it is).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Much of TN views each God separately from the others and do puja to each God for their own sake.
- From the abrahamic viewpoint many of us ARE polytheists.
- The Natural Traditionalist however does not know nor understand what monopolytheism means, nor what idolatry means. Merely knows our Gods exist in those different forms that we have always known our Gods in, and that a sure, frequently-vindicated way of approaching our Gods is through puja of temple Vigrahas and home moorthis. The more we perform puja to a Vigraham or moorthy, the more our Gods make their home inside them in anticipation of our directing our devotion to them through that sacred form and material.
So, no:
R. Krishnan need not try to speak so uniformly in declaring that "One Supreme Being" finds universal acceptance among all kinds of Hindus. The lovely Sandhya Jain on the other hand does speak for a great many I personally know.
Am grateful to Sandhya for her intervention on my behalf ("idolatrous polytheist" aka ultra-kaffir as the islamist calls my kind). The Hindu-Jewish meet has entirely ignored, sidelined and actually delegitimised a numerous and ancient type of Hindu.
Am moreover indebted to her and Radha for bringing the entire worrisome topic to my attention - everything from the secret anti-Hindu agreement with the Vatican, the push by popular jetsetting celebrity swamis to have some kind of centralised Hindu 'pope', the crypto associates of HDAS such as Padma Subramaniam and S Gurumurthy who aided in the character assassination of the Kanchi Swamigal, independent confirmation about what the Hindu-Jewish meet had in fact stated, independent confirmation that swarmy uglyface's statement was peculiarly christian as I had thought (since the exact same objective was also there in the Vatican agreement).
It is good all this knowledge was made public, instead of leaving such crucial information swept up under the carpet where others had tried to keep it and then tried to silence Sandhya and Radha into keeping it. I hope in future these two will write about all such worries as soon as they have considered them as carefully as they always do. Hindus <i>need</i> to know, and have only the sincere, caring Hindus like Sandhya and Radha to keep us informed about what ought to concern us.
Thanks so much for posting all this, Bodhi. I read it yesterday and again just now. Very important stuff. Where did you obtain it?
Am in agreement with Sandhya and Radha. (The one exception is that I am not opposed to all conversion: I think reconversions to Dharma inside ancient Bharatam is a must and ethically both acceptable and imperative.)
Also completely agree with Sandhya when she says that Hindus who voluntarily ended up outside India (and their progeny) should stay out of the business of Bharatam's Hindu Dharma. Do the crime, do the time. And yes, I consider it a great crime to have ever moved out of Bharatam into countries ruled by terrorist ideologies. Fortunately, we are an extincting species - the timer was set when we moved - and we'll live for a while where we are and then disappear into thin air. Good.
1. Sandhya wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->r  Some of my specific objections to the Vatican meeting are:-
1] It specifically endorses "the freedom to embrace another faith out of one's own free choice." In my understanding of Hindu Dharma, the family and not the individual is the smallest unit of the social organism, and this cannot be ripped apart by giving individuals the right to be brain-washed or bribed by an evangelist and leave the religion and culture to which he or she was born. This is the basic tenet of all native traditions in the world, and by agreeing that individuals can be weaned away from non-monotheistic faiths, the Hindu leaders SECRETLY signing this declaration were violating the tenets of the faith. The failure to respond to this charge is a self-indictment.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sandhya is very correct in perceiving how this Vatican clause is entirely christian, very anti-Hindu. Note how those of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha who signed the agreement with the Vatican have conceded to the same anti-Hindu <i>christianist</i> objective which the fraud swarmy uglyface has been peddling as well:
newstodaynet.com/newsindex.php?id=11599%20&%20section=26
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom of religion would remain a mirage unless the tradition of enrolling children to the parent religion ends, Swamiji ('agnivesh' uglyface) said.
(He is advancing the christian argument: "There is no thing such as ancestral tradition. All you heathens must realise you ought to be open to baptism.")<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->While uglyface admits publicly to having marxist sympathies, his words here are particularly christian - as christian as his buddy and colleague Valson Thampu.
Crypto christianism is very hard to identify. Hindus are forced to use inferences to do the identification. But the above is a very christian statement so it identifies the leanings of uglyface quite well. The endorsement of the Vatican clause by the HDAS likewise indicates christo-conditioning, christo-infiltration or just plain old vanilla crypto-christianism. Hindus deserve to know who signed it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2] I also questioned the need to sign any document at all in any gathering without a wider discussion of the same in the home country. If the Vatican document had been shown to any major Shankaracharya or Mathadhipathi, or concerned Hindu citizenry, it would NEVER have been signed. It could only be signed because it was kept a closely guarded secret, and the names of the signatories are still secret.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hindus MUST discover who all signed the document. It will tell us a lot, especially about people who should never represent us but be avoided at all costs. Sandhya says it well here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But as the Vatican 2006 document makes clear - a major sell-out of Dharma has taken place, surreptitiously. None of those associated with that document and subsequent dialogues can now be trusted to represent Hindu Dharma in any respect, at any forums, and must cease and desist from all such secret summitry. Even governments which are notoriously secretive do not function with such non-transparency.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2. Independent of both Sandhya and Radha, I had also understood the Hindu-Jewish meet's declaration to mean the same thing. It is the only way it can be construed:
http://hamsa.org/Historic%20Hindu%20Jewi...ration.pdf
<b>HISTORIC HINDU JEWISH DECLARATION</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Swami Dayananda Saraswati organised the first Hindu-Jewish meet in February 2007 at New Delhi. Facilitated by âThe World Council of Religious Leadersâ (http://www.wcorl.org), this was a great event as both the Hindu and Jewish traditions, which do not have aggressive programs of conversion, and advocated a way of life to accomplish the view.
[...]
Judaism was born of the complete repudiation of idol worship and rabbinic literature abounds with denunciation of idolatry. Due to an incomplete understanding, Hinduism has been perceived by the Jewish traditions as idolatrous and promoting many gods. For centuries, both the Hindus and Jewish people have experienced at the hands of aggressive religions extremely violent consequences of wrong perceptions.The Historic declaration made at the Jerusalem meet sets to rest the wrong notion that Hinduism is idolatrous. The declaration reads: âIt is recognized that One Supreme Being in its formless and manifest aspects has been worshipped by Hindus over millennia. The Hindus relate to only the One Supreme Being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation. This does not mean that Hindus worship âidolsâ. They worship devataas who are manifestation of the One Supreme Beingâ. The Chief Rabbi announced that it was a matter of relief to know that their hitherto held perception was wrong. (On this declaration one can read Swami Dayananda Saraswatiâs article published by the media). This declaration is indeed a hallmark declaration showing way for meaningful dialogue between leaders of different religious traditions and to help remove wrong perceptions arising from lack of understanding and / or misunderstanding.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
R. Krishnan is a bit of a confused modernist Hindu:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Your readers can judge (without your poisonous spin) whether the One Supreme Being referred to in No.1 is in keeping with the Hindu Shastras and Sampradayas (no Vaishnava, Shaiva, Sakta or Smartha scholar or practioner that I have spoken to finds it objectionable, but perhaps in your exclusive self-created sampradaya it is).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Much of TN views each God separately from the others and do puja to each God for their own sake.
- From the abrahamic viewpoint many of us ARE polytheists.
- The Natural Traditionalist however does not know nor understand what monopolytheism means, nor what idolatry means. Merely knows our Gods exist in those different forms that we have always known our Gods in, and that a sure, frequently-vindicated way of approaching our Gods is through puja of temple Vigrahas and home moorthis. The more we perform puja to a Vigraham or moorthy, the more our Gods make their home inside them in anticipation of our directing our devotion to them through that sacred form and material.
So, no:
R. Krishnan need not try to speak so uniformly in declaring that "One Supreme Being" finds universal acceptance among all kinds of Hindus. The lovely Sandhya Jain on the other hand does speak for a great many I personally know.
Am grateful to Sandhya for her intervention on my behalf ("idolatrous polytheist" aka ultra-kaffir as the islamist calls my kind). The Hindu-Jewish meet has entirely ignored, sidelined and actually delegitimised a numerous and ancient type of Hindu.
Am moreover indebted to her and Radha for bringing the entire worrisome topic to my attention - everything from the secret anti-Hindu agreement with the Vatican, the push by popular jetsetting celebrity swamis to have some kind of centralised Hindu 'pope', the crypto associates of HDAS such as Padma Subramaniam and S Gurumurthy who aided in the character assassination of the Kanchi Swamigal, independent confirmation about what the Hindu-Jewish meet had in fact stated, independent confirmation that swarmy uglyface's statement was peculiarly christian as I had thought (since the exact same objective was also there in the Vatican agreement).
It is good all this knowledge was made public, instead of leaving such crucial information swept up under the carpet where others had tried to keep it and then tried to silence Sandhya and Radha into keeping it. I hope in future these two will write about all such worries as soon as they have considered them as carefully as they always do. Hindus <i>need</i> to know, and have only the sincere, caring Hindus like Sandhya and Radha to keep us informed about what ought to concern us.
Death to traitors.