02-19-2009, 01:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â From: Krishnan R
 To: sandhya206@
 Subject: More Facts regarding your Open letter to the Acharyas
 Dear Ms. Jain,
 In my last letter, it was demonstrated that your charges against the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha and its venerable members, our traditional Acharyas, had no merit and only served to sow confusion. When your readers read the substance and tone of the Hindu-Jewish declarations for instance, they will discover that your accusations about the Hindu Acharyas' having disparaged Murti Puja and Hindu prayers and karmas were pure fabrications.
 In your response, you ignore all these facts, and raise yet another accusation which you say is the crux. You claim, again without any substantiation, that the Acharya Sabha had "secretly" signed a "binding agreement" with the Vatican in 2006 that explicitly endorses the Vatican's Christian Supremacist agenda on conversion. You lay a very serious charge on some very dedicated and revered people, who are a beacon of hope for many Hindus.
 I will demonstrate below that every element of your new charge is false and misleading. Again I speak only for myself, as a concerned Hindu. (I have been a long term supporter and admirer of the Infinity Foundation, & Rajiv Malhotra, but I do not speak for them or anyone else).
 You briefly tell your readers that this 2006 Vatican "agreement" is prominently featured on the Acharya Sabha website, but do not provide a link so that they can see for themselves what it says.
 Well, here is the link: http://www.acharyasabha.org/index.php?opti...id=34&Itemid=40
 The report on the Acharya Sabha website (originally posted in 2007) makes it clear that various Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, (and Muslims !), and others participated in a discussion with Catholics and Protestants to express their opposition to the Christian program of conversion and world hegemony. The Vatican had called the meeting to get input on why the Christian conversion program was considered unethical and objectionable by so many people, and to help inform further intra-Christian discussions leading to them drafting a code of conduct with regard to their conversion agendas. This is disingenuous on the Vatican's part surely, but to many non-Christian minorities in the world, the options are stark- either absent yourself from these meetings and have your point of view ignored and your basic human rights trampled upon by a behemoth, or engage in dialog and hope that decency and the human element of empathy will enable even the blindly fanatical to restrain their supremacist impulses over time.
 The report notes that the dissenters against proselytization made some powerful points against it, and the Christian establishment, predictably defended it. At the end of it a summary of the discussions and recommendations was issued by the organizers, where the Christian demands and contentions rest uneasily next to the some of the issues raised and recommendations made by the others. This is all it is, a summary - a very bad and self-serving summary to be sure- of the discussions issued by the Vatican office that organized it. It is NOT a "secret agreement" and is NON-BINDING.
 This report was posted (in 2007) on the Acharya Sabha website and it has always explicitly stated:Â
 "Furthermore the organizers clarified that the document is just a summary of discussions and recommendations of the first meeting on conversion, and one must NOT view them as a policy document, which would be binding at the level of action, in any manner."[My emphasis]
 You do not tell your readers that there was NO binding agreement, there was NO "secret" agreement (how can something posted on a public website be "secret"?), indeed the conclusion is that there was NO agreement at all, just a bad summary document.
 If you had informed your viewers of this, your entire case would have fallen apart. If you have evidence showing that the Vatican is claiming there was a binding agreement, you should expose the Vatican, not attack revered Hindu Acharyas or the individual Hindus who attended the meeting.
 Now as to the second part of your slander: that the Acharya Sabha (or key members of it) were involved in this meeting and non-existent "binding" agreement. Again, this is completely wrong. The Acharya Sabha was not invited, nor did it send a representative.Â
 From publicly available sources, on the web, it is very clear that 3 Hindus attended the meeting on the invitation of the Vatican. Two were academics: Prof Anantanand Rambachan (of St Olaf college, Minnesota) and Dr.Vrinda Chaitanya (lately of Stanford and Berkeley), and a third was one Sudheendra Kulkarni (variously described as an assistant / or secretary to the Indian politician LK Advani).Â
 I do not think an Indian political operative or Prof. Rambachan has any connection to the Acharya Sabha. But Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya has a very tangential connection- she studied Vedanta with Swami Dayananda Saraswati (a simple web search will reveal as much). The report on the Acharya Sabha Website was clearly identified since its posting in 2007 as prepared by Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya and posted on "behalf of the convener" of the Acharya Sabha, Swami Dayananda. It appears she informed her teacher of the discussions, and he had her post her report on the website publicly. The intent seems to have been purely to inform the Acharya Sabha and the public about the substance of this meeting, nothing else.
 So was Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya invited as, or attending as a representative of the Acharya Sabha, or of Swamiji? My information, readily obtained by reaching out to some of the attendees and to a highly placed "lay" official at the Acharya Sabha (I have not spoken to any of the Sadhus) shows that she was invited by the Vatican as an individual Hindu, and neither the Acharya Sabha nor its members were invited and did not send her or anyone else as a representative.Â
 The report on the Acharya Sabha website has never said that they sent a representative nor that they were invited, nor that they endorse anything in the report- I am not sure why you claim this. Perhaps you were confused by the report being posted "on behalf of the convener"- I think the Acharya Sabha volunteers who maintain the website have realized this is somewhat confusing and as of yesterday have made one single change to the website- the report is now identified as prepared by Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya "and submitted to Swamy (sic) Dayananda Saraswati, convener Acharya Sabha).
 It is indeed regrettable that you continue to make wild and unsubstantiated accusations against Hindu Acharyas rather than investigate and expose the powerful forces that wish to harm all Hindus. Please turn your attention to real issues that endanger us- we cannot afford the luxury of crying wolf.
 Greetings
 Krishnan Ramaswamy
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Sandhya Jain
19 February 2009
Dear Krishnan ji
Namaste.
To hear from you 17 days after your missive of 2 February 2009 was unexpected, and in my view, quite unnecessary.
1] You are an American citizen, and as I have explained both to the Acharyas and to the non-Indian Hindus in the West, you have NO locus standi in affairs and debates INTERNAL to this country and society.
Any observations made by you can only be as an external observer, like a foreign journalist or tourist. You will appreciate that this need have no merit or weightage with Insiders.
2] Your last letter proves your contentions only in your own imagination, and if the venerable Swamis who have hijacked the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha to an unknown agenda had the capacity to answer my queries, they would have done so directly. Despite a direct letter addressed to Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji, there has been only a studied silence.
3] A private letter of admonition by a respected Swami ji also failed to answer any substantial issue.
4] If you are going to defend the Acharya Sabha leadership, you must know that it has consistently refused to tell us who went to the Vatican and WHY a document was signed without knowledge and debate in India. Merely amending the website to deflect criticism is inadequate.
5] You fell into a trap when you came out with the names of Prof Anantanand Rambachan (of St Olaf college, Minnesota) and Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya (lately of Stanford and Berkeley), and one Sudheendra Kulkarni (assistant or secretary to Indian politician LK Advani).
We had privately learnt about the latter, and we wanted the other names, and WHY Acharya Sabha had put this Vatican declaration on its website if it was not endorsing it? Now the presence of two American academics technically being distanced from the Acharya Sabha only makes matters worse, not better.
The meeting was in 2006 and the original Acharya Sabha website posting was also in 2006, which was seen by some of us when we started asking questions, so the 2007 posting by Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya on "behalf of the convener" of the Acharya Sabha (i.e. Swami Dayananda ji) is clearly an amendment.
It is in extremely bad taste that a foreigner like you can reach out to some attendees as well as a highly placed "lay" official of the Acharya Sabha to establish what was concealed from Indian Hindus, namely, that Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya was invited by the Vatican as an individual and not a representative of the Acharya Sabha. What is her status to be there? If she did go as an individual known to the Pope - why is Acharya Sabha hosting her report? Constant fiddling with the website language will impress no one in India. However, we HAVE noted that her so-called report to Swami ji has NO dissent vis-Ã -vis the recommendations signed at the Vatican.
By the way, is Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya an Indian or foreigner who has taken an Indian name - I suspect the latter.
6] I have nothing to say about Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, but you might like to ask him if his reference to "disturbed and cognitively dysfunctional persons" applies to Rabbi Yona Metzger, under self-suspension from the Rabbinical Court on charges of accepting bribes, and under police investigation for charges of homosexual abuse.
The American Jews posing as Hindu bhaktas in American ashrams would have been aware of the scandals associated with the Chief Rabbi, so why was he brought to India for Inter-Faith Dialogue?Â
7] Please do not bother me with your letters again. It is a waste of time to read them, and quite disgraceful that Swami Dayananda ji is using foreigners to answer the domestic constituency.
8] There is no common danger to Hindus of India and Hindus of America. The American Hindus are part of the danger to Hindus of India, and Swami Dayananda ji is too intelligent not to understand this.
Warm regards
Sandhya Jain
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
 To: sandhya206@
 Subject: More Facts regarding your Open letter to the Acharyas
 Dear Ms. Jain,
 In my last letter, it was demonstrated that your charges against the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha and its venerable members, our traditional Acharyas, had no merit and only served to sow confusion. When your readers read the substance and tone of the Hindu-Jewish declarations for instance, they will discover that your accusations about the Hindu Acharyas' having disparaged Murti Puja and Hindu prayers and karmas were pure fabrications.
 In your response, you ignore all these facts, and raise yet another accusation which you say is the crux. You claim, again without any substantiation, that the Acharya Sabha had "secretly" signed a "binding agreement" with the Vatican in 2006 that explicitly endorses the Vatican's Christian Supremacist agenda on conversion. You lay a very serious charge on some very dedicated and revered people, who are a beacon of hope for many Hindus.
 I will demonstrate below that every element of your new charge is false and misleading. Again I speak only for myself, as a concerned Hindu. (I have been a long term supporter and admirer of the Infinity Foundation, & Rajiv Malhotra, but I do not speak for them or anyone else).
 You briefly tell your readers that this 2006 Vatican "agreement" is prominently featured on the Acharya Sabha website, but do not provide a link so that they can see for themselves what it says.
 Well, here is the link: http://www.acharyasabha.org/index.php?opti...id=34&Itemid=40
 The report on the Acharya Sabha website (originally posted in 2007) makes it clear that various Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, (and Muslims !), and others participated in a discussion with Catholics and Protestants to express their opposition to the Christian program of conversion and world hegemony. The Vatican had called the meeting to get input on why the Christian conversion program was considered unethical and objectionable by so many people, and to help inform further intra-Christian discussions leading to them drafting a code of conduct with regard to their conversion agendas. This is disingenuous on the Vatican's part surely, but to many non-Christian minorities in the world, the options are stark- either absent yourself from these meetings and have your point of view ignored and your basic human rights trampled upon by a behemoth, or engage in dialog and hope that decency and the human element of empathy will enable even the blindly fanatical to restrain their supremacist impulses over time.
 The report notes that the dissenters against proselytization made some powerful points against it, and the Christian establishment, predictably defended it. At the end of it a summary of the discussions and recommendations was issued by the organizers, where the Christian demands and contentions rest uneasily next to the some of the issues raised and recommendations made by the others. This is all it is, a summary - a very bad and self-serving summary to be sure- of the discussions issued by the Vatican office that organized it. It is NOT a "secret agreement" and is NON-BINDING.
 This report was posted (in 2007) on the Acharya Sabha website and it has always explicitly stated:Â
 "Furthermore the organizers clarified that the document is just a summary of discussions and recommendations of the first meeting on conversion, and one must NOT view them as a policy document, which would be binding at the level of action, in any manner."[My emphasis]
 You do not tell your readers that there was NO binding agreement, there was NO "secret" agreement (how can something posted on a public website be "secret"?), indeed the conclusion is that there was NO agreement at all, just a bad summary document.
 If you had informed your viewers of this, your entire case would have fallen apart. If you have evidence showing that the Vatican is claiming there was a binding agreement, you should expose the Vatican, not attack revered Hindu Acharyas or the individual Hindus who attended the meeting.
 Now as to the second part of your slander: that the Acharya Sabha (or key members of it) were involved in this meeting and non-existent "binding" agreement. Again, this is completely wrong. The Acharya Sabha was not invited, nor did it send a representative.Â
 From publicly available sources, on the web, it is very clear that 3 Hindus attended the meeting on the invitation of the Vatican. Two were academics: Prof Anantanand Rambachan (of St Olaf college, Minnesota) and Dr.Vrinda Chaitanya (lately of Stanford and Berkeley), and a third was one Sudheendra Kulkarni (variously described as an assistant / or secretary to the Indian politician LK Advani).Â
 I do not think an Indian political operative or Prof. Rambachan has any connection to the Acharya Sabha. But Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya has a very tangential connection- she studied Vedanta with Swami Dayananda Saraswati (a simple web search will reveal as much). The report on the Acharya Sabha Website was clearly identified since its posting in 2007 as prepared by Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya and posted on "behalf of the convener" of the Acharya Sabha, Swami Dayananda. It appears she informed her teacher of the discussions, and he had her post her report on the website publicly. The intent seems to have been purely to inform the Acharya Sabha and the public about the substance of this meeting, nothing else.
 So was Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya invited as, or attending as a representative of the Acharya Sabha, or of Swamiji? My information, readily obtained by reaching out to some of the attendees and to a highly placed "lay" official at the Acharya Sabha (I have not spoken to any of the Sadhus) shows that she was invited by the Vatican as an individual Hindu, and neither the Acharya Sabha nor its members were invited and did not send her or anyone else as a representative.Â
 The report on the Acharya Sabha website has never said that they sent a representative nor that they were invited, nor that they endorse anything in the report- I am not sure why you claim this. Perhaps you were confused by the report being posted "on behalf of the convener"- I think the Acharya Sabha volunteers who maintain the website have realized this is somewhat confusing and as of yesterday have made one single change to the website- the report is now identified as prepared by Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya "and submitted to Swamy (sic) Dayananda Saraswati, convener Acharya Sabha).
 It is indeed regrettable that you continue to make wild and unsubstantiated accusations against Hindu Acharyas rather than investigate and expose the powerful forces that wish to harm all Hindus. Please turn your attention to real issues that endanger us- we cannot afford the luxury of crying wolf.
 Greetings
 Krishnan Ramaswamy
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Sandhya Jain
19 February 2009
Dear Krishnan ji
Namaste.
To hear from you 17 days after your missive of 2 February 2009 was unexpected, and in my view, quite unnecessary.
1] You are an American citizen, and as I have explained both to the Acharyas and to the non-Indian Hindus in the West, you have NO locus standi in affairs and debates INTERNAL to this country and society.
Any observations made by you can only be as an external observer, like a foreign journalist or tourist. You will appreciate that this need have no merit or weightage with Insiders.
2] Your last letter proves your contentions only in your own imagination, and if the venerable Swamis who have hijacked the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha to an unknown agenda had the capacity to answer my queries, they would have done so directly. Despite a direct letter addressed to Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji, there has been only a studied silence.
3] A private letter of admonition by a respected Swami ji also failed to answer any substantial issue.
4] If you are going to defend the Acharya Sabha leadership, you must know that it has consistently refused to tell us who went to the Vatican and WHY a document was signed without knowledge and debate in India. Merely amending the website to deflect criticism is inadequate.
5] You fell into a trap when you came out with the names of Prof Anantanand Rambachan (of St Olaf college, Minnesota) and Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya (lately of Stanford and Berkeley), and one Sudheendra Kulkarni (assistant or secretary to Indian politician LK Advani).
We had privately learnt about the latter, and we wanted the other names, and WHY Acharya Sabha had put this Vatican declaration on its website if it was not endorsing it? Now the presence of two American academics technically being distanced from the Acharya Sabha only makes matters worse, not better.
The meeting was in 2006 and the original Acharya Sabha website posting was also in 2006, which was seen by some of us when we started asking questions, so the 2007 posting by Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya on "behalf of the convener" of the Acharya Sabha (i.e. Swami Dayananda ji) is clearly an amendment.
It is in extremely bad taste that a foreigner like you can reach out to some attendees as well as a highly placed "lay" official of the Acharya Sabha to establish what was concealed from Indian Hindus, namely, that Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya was invited by the Vatican as an individual and not a representative of the Acharya Sabha. What is her status to be there? If she did go as an individual known to the Pope - why is Acharya Sabha hosting her report? Constant fiddling with the website language will impress no one in India. However, we HAVE noted that her so-called report to Swami ji has NO dissent vis-Ã -vis the recommendations signed at the Vatican.
By the way, is Dr. Vrinda Chaitanya an Indian or foreigner who has taken an Indian name - I suspect the latter.
6] I have nothing to say about Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, but you might like to ask him if his reference to "disturbed and cognitively dysfunctional persons" applies to Rabbi Yona Metzger, under self-suspension from the Rabbinical Court on charges of accepting bribes, and under police investigation for charges of homosexual abuse.
The American Jews posing as Hindu bhaktas in American ashrams would have been aware of the scandals associated with the Chief Rabbi, so why was he brought to India for Inter-Faith Dialogue?Â
7] Please do not bother me with your letters again. It is a waste of time to read them, and quite disgraceful that Swami Dayananda ji is using foreigners to answer the domestic constituency.
8] There is no common danger to Hindus of India and Hindus of America. The American Hindus are part of the danger to Hindus of India, and Swami Dayananda ji is too intelligent not to understand this.
Warm regards
Sandhya Jain
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->