India/western Sociology

[Husky]

The following is another article by Rajiva on the same topic (see Dhu's post above first).



Several of the comments to the following are what's interesting.



haindavakeralam.com/HkPage.aspx?PAGEID=15205&SKIN=B

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)

[color="#0000FF"]Note[/color] that HK comments tend to be posted in reverse chronological order: latest comments first, so read comments from bottom to top in order to follow along.

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]

These "interfaith dialogue" overtures from the christians toward the Hindus bring to mind that chapter in history wherein the christians who invaded the US went about hounding the native Americans in order to hold "treaty" peace talks with them: something about a "mutual dialogue", to come to some sort of "arrangement", an "agreement" of ... "co-existence".

And then, once the meetings were at last arranged and the naive indigenous were roped into thinking the farce was genuine enough to be worth partaking in, the invading foreign "settlers" drew up their treaties and some native American representatives signed them - signed them as authority for all the represented native nations.

And time's shown how well all those arrangements worked out.



And now, here's an opportunity for Hindus to take part in a similar historical occasion of "dialoguing" "peacefully" with christianism. As if the many earlier dialogues with christianism - e.g. illustrated with documentation in SR Goel's History of Hindu-Christian encounters - achieved anything useful other than to teach the enemy more about us. No dialogue even delayed their onslaught. And the current christians overtures to "dialogue" serve as a screen for christianism to conceal its full-scale programme in India, including the murder/neutralisation (via the "Hindu terror" concoction and character assassination) of Hindu swamis and other key Hindus on the christian hitlist. Swami Lakshmananda, to the imprisoned Swami Aseemananda and Dara Singh, to the Kanchi Shankaracharya.



Of course, it turns out that Jayalalitha (who greenlighted christianism's framing of the Kanchi Swami) is a christian also - though no one wants to say it, presumably since Indians are still too sensitive to fingerpoint christianism - being a regular christian witness to catholic mass no less. From memory/my understanding, one needs to be baptised into the christian faith plus have received the sacrament of the Eucharist in order to attend catholic mass. That means that Jayalalitha has to be christian and a practising catholic if she's allowed at mass. Also:

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/RadioCM.html

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