1. More remarks on:
[a] In the statement "Rani David laid down facts and demonstrated that Christianity existed along with Bharatanatyam and Sanga Thamizh, but history lost in time has given Christianity a western outlook", you can see Anita having been converted without her displaying the slightest awareness that that's what Rani David did to her: missionise on her.
Apparently Anita has a "PhD", but no brains to see mental manipulation.
[b] The whole turning Hindu religious practices into "art/exercise/spirituality/culture/civilisation/Indian" is at fault. Hindus acquiesced to that. That is why Bharatanatyam is presented as an "art" and people call themselves "artists" or "dancers", speaking of their "art". You can see the same christian pattern of appropriation take place with Kathakali, where cryptochristian inculturationists with Hindu names have stripped it of its Hindu identity by calling it "just art" before donating it to christianism as being "therefore equally christian".
The same is done with painting. It's now being presented as Hindu "art" that supposedly anyone can do/follow and Hindus are expected to recognise it as such. But there can be no such recognition because, in reality, the only imagery that represents Hindu Gods can be made by Hindus alone. The rest are not representations of our Gods at all. <- And that should be/should have been Hindus' response.
[c] Supposing, for the sake of argument, we imagined a scenario where "Christianity had existed along with Bharatanatyam and Sanga Tamizh" - as Anita declared - it can speak of no more than the presence of christianism in India in such a time. Bharatanatyam remains a Hindu Temple dance, its development was in Hindu Temples. And christians went to christian churches.
But I predict christians intend on developing their line of argument according to the following: "Since Hinduism didn't exist in Kerala and TN until 7th/8th century (=christian claim), there could have been no Hindu temples and therefore Bharatanatyam is likely to have developed in christian churches." (Ambedkarites regularly make that kind of argument about Hindu Temples that they want to claim for Buddhism, BTW.) First christianism may even claim Bharatanatyam and Carnatic music were "actually originally Buddhist or Jain", using the neo-buddhist foot soldiers, before transferring these to christianism. (Consider how Cilappadikaaram covers Hindu dance and music...)
If people think this is laughable and unlikely, so too were originally the claims made on a lot of Hindu things in the south (see Buddhism thread again): but by repetition and wikipedia-editing, it has all become "established history".
2. One more comment on this:
Again, like I said, if Hindus accept this now w.r.t. to Bharatanatyam, they should equally accept Malhotra or whoever else donating the Vedas and Vedic Rites as an equal "universalism" for christoislamania and other aliens to dabble in. (I anticipate they will do so in future. Trust angelsk-speaking Indian vocalists to not disappoint.) It holds equally. And christians will hold Hindus to it, the floodgates having already been opened - via the 'case' made for Bharatanatyam, which christianism merely needs to repeat for the Vedas etc:
Now is the only moment for Hindus to denounce such statements (christianism construes silence as acquiescence).
Hereafter we may as well be silent.
Quote:christianizingbharatanatyam.blogspot.com/2011/09/anitha-rathnam-nothing-is-interesting.html
Quote:"Nothing is interesting in Ramayana for me"
Bharatnatyam dancer [color="#FF0000"]Anita Rathnam, [/color]part of Leela camp, associated herself with Inculturation specialist Rani David and claims in her 2007 event in Maryland: "Rani David laid down facts and demonstrated that [color="#0000FF"]Christianity existed along with Bharatanatyam and Sanga Thamizh, but history lost in time has given Christianity a western outlook"[/color]
Rajiv Malhotra's response at the link indicates that he mistakes Anita for a naive Hindu. I'm betting she's a calculating cryptochristian.
[...]
Note how the christian says "Christianity, Bharatanatyam and Sanga Tamizh" but no mention of Hindu.
I'm sure this is related to how christianism's history-writing intends on making it "Established History" that Hindu religion was "introduced" into the regions of Kerala and even TN in a late century. (Topic already alluded to in the Buddhism thread.)
[a] In the statement "Rani David laid down facts and demonstrated that Christianity existed along with Bharatanatyam and Sanga Thamizh, but history lost in time has given Christianity a western outlook", you can see Anita having been converted without her displaying the slightest awareness that that's what Rani David did to her: missionise on her.
Apparently Anita has a "PhD", but no brains to see mental manipulation.
[b] The whole turning Hindu religious practices into "art/exercise/spirituality/culture/civilisation/Indian" is at fault. Hindus acquiesced to that. That is why Bharatanatyam is presented as an "art" and people call themselves "artists" or "dancers", speaking of their "art". You can see the same christian pattern of appropriation take place with Kathakali, where cryptochristian inculturationists with Hindu names have stripped it of its Hindu identity by calling it "just art" before donating it to christianism as being "therefore equally christian".
The same is done with painting. It's now being presented as Hindu "art" that supposedly anyone can do/follow and Hindus are expected to recognise it as such. But there can be no such recognition because, in reality, the only imagery that represents Hindu Gods can be made by Hindus alone. The rest are not representations of our Gods at all. <- And that should be/should have been Hindus' response.
[c] Supposing, for the sake of argument, we imagined a scenario where "Christianity had existed along with Bharatanatyam and Sanga Tamizh" - as Anita declared - it can speak of no more than the presence of christianism in India in such a time. Bharatanatyam remains a Hindu Temple dance, its development was in Hindu Temples. And christians went to christian churches.
But I predict christians intend on developing their line of argument according to the following: "Since Hinduism didn't exist in Kerala and TN until 7th/8th century (=christian claim), there could have been no Hindu temples and therefore Bharatanatyam is likely to have developed in christian churches." (Ambedkarites regularly make that kind of argument about Hindu Temples that they want to claim for Buddhism, BTW.) First christianism may even claim Bharatanatyam and Carnatic music were "actually originally Buddhist or Jain", using the neo-buddhist foot soldiers, before transferring these to christianism. (Consider how Cilappadikaaram covers Hindu dance and music...)
If people think this is laughable and unlikely, so too were originally the claims made on a lot of Hindu things in the south (see Buddhism thread again): but by repetition and wikipedia-editing, it has all become "established history".
2. One more comment on this:
Quote:Eventually, people like Rajiv Malhotra are going to make peace with some milder attacks on Hinduism, in order to appear reasonable.
Again, like I said, if Hindus accept this now w.r.t. to Bharatanatyam, they should equally accept Malhotra or whoever else donating the Vedas and Vedic Rites as an equal "universalism" for christoislamania and other aliens to dabble in. (I anticipate they will do so in future. Trust angelsk-speaking Indian vocalists to not disappoint.) It holds equally. And christians will hold Hindus to it, the floodgates having already been opened - via the 'case' made for Bharatanatyam, which christianism merely needs to repeat for the Vedas etc:
Quote:If people can sell Bharatanatyam - which is a deeply and exclusively Hindu religious dance - to non-Hindus (in which term christoislamics are especially included), then we can sell the Vedam to them too on the SAME PRINCIPLES. No? Can't have it both ways. People either agree to both statements or disagree to both.
So this is the statement that Rajeev just made:
Quote:There is NO problem with a person performing the Vedic rites regardless of his/her own faith. Thats not the issue. Lets not misrepresent the issue. Pls read what i wrote in my response yesterday. its about inculturation as a public program to infiltrate hindus by deception.
[...]
But many Christians have difficulty doing Vedic rites this way, because it conflicts with their Christian indoctrination - worship of "false gods" and "idols" and so forth.
Now is the only moment for Hindus to denounce such statements (christianism construes silence as acquiescence).
Hereafter we may as well be silent.