Balai_C, see at end.
Still related to posts 177-179 containing Rajaram's statements about himself.
In particular, related to these two statements of his again:
The book mentioned in the Buddhism thread posts 182-185, contains an essay by Rajaram's friend, the inculturating Jesuit Clooney, on the Adi Shankaracharya and Advaita Vedanta.
Like all of Clooney's efforts, I'm betting this too is for inculturation, by first divorcing Vedanta from Vedic (Hindu) religion, then treating it as "universal" before finding the "christian truth" (jeebusjehovallah) at its centre "all along". (And IIRC other posts at IF show that Clooney is part of the gang behind claiming several major Hindu Kovils in TN for christianism. Of course.)
But I note Rajaram's efforts to divorce Vedanta from Vedas/Hindu Gods and turn it into something universal (hence "also meant" for a christian audience) covers the first phases of Clooney's plans for Vedanta too. So much in common. Soort zoekt soort, zeggen ze toch ook.
Balai_C:
O hallo.
My opinion is actually utterly irrelevant. Actually yours (i.e that of everyone other than me) is the only one that matters.
Do *you* think the "Ram janmabhoomi movement is an abberation of dharmic values"? Alternatively: do you want a Sri Rama temple back at Ayodhya?
I'm not asking for your answer: that is, you don't need to tell me your answer. But your answer tells you whether you think Rajiv Malhotra represents your interests or not.
That's a decision everyone has to make for themselves. And they *have* to make it. Because he's placing himself in the position of would-be representative/spokesperson.
(There's really only one uh ...vocalist - or rather public figure - who represents the totality of my interests for Hindus. And he's dead.)
[And "Husky" is not a "ji". Not an intellectual either. Am good at really only one thing. And it isn't writing OR thinking. (Actually, I'm good at napping and eating too, but those aren't talents I'm told...)
My opinions are no more important than the next guy's. You have the ability to form your own judgement on matters, and it really is the most important thing that you do so. Because - and this is the lesson one learns repeatedly - you have no (visible) representatives. Never rely on other people to make the arguments you want made for you, or to represent your position/interests. Be active in favour of your own interests. I think every Hindu needs to be. This is how we don't end up complying with the visions of persons who don't - and shouldn't - represent us.]
Still related to posts 177-179 containing Rajaram's statements about himself.
In particular, related to these two statements of his again:
Quote:I have myself lectured on Vedanta and the Gita at the Universal Unitarian Church.)
Quote:"My preference is to keep science separate from religion. I feel Vedanta also should be formulated as metaphysics without reference to God or anything divine."
The book mentioned in the Buddhism thread posts 182-185, contains an essay by Rajaram's friend, the inculturating Jesuit Clooney, on the Adi Shankaracharya and Advaita Vedanta.
Like all of Clooney's efforts, I'm betting this too is for inculturation, by first divorcing Vedanta from Vedic (Hindu) religion, then treating it as "universal" before finding the "christian truth" (jeebusjehovallah) at its centre "all along". (And IIRC other posts at IF show that Clooney is part of the gang behind claiming several major Hindu Kovils in TN for christianism. Of course.)
But I note Rajaram's efforts to divorce Vedanta from Vedas/Hindu Gods and turn it into something universal (hence "also meant" for a christian audience) covers the first phases of Clooney's plans for Vedanta too. So much in common. Soort zoekt soort, zeggen ze toch ook.
Balai_C:
Quote:Rajiv malhotra have for long accused Hindutwa groups of what he calls 'history centrism', something that is normally associated with abrahamic cults. What I personally find perplexing is his anxiety with Hindus framing their history , and sticking with it. According to him and his supporters, the Ram janmabhoomi movement is an abberation of dharmic values. I would value your opinion on this!
O hallo.
My opinion is actually utterly irrelevant. Actually yours (i.e that of everyone other than me) is the only one that matters.
- If you're a Hindoo - i.e. a heathen - I predict your reaction is somewhere on the disapproving end of the scale.
- If you're not a Hindoo, well, then there's a range of possible reactions (none of which concern me).
Do *you* think the "Ram janmabhoomi movement is an abberation of dharmic values"? Alternatively: do you want a Sri Rama temple back at Ayodhya?
I'm not asking for your answer: that is, you don't need to tell me your answer. But your answer tells you whether you think Rajiv Malhotra represents your interests or not.
That's a decision everyone has to make for themselves. And they *have* to make it. Because he's placing himself in the position of would-be representative/spokesperson.
(There's really only one uh ...vocalist - or rather public figure - who represents the totality of my interests for Hindus. And he's dead.)
[And "Husky" is not a "ji". Not an intellectual either. Am good at really only one thing. And it isn't writing OR thinking. (Actually, I'm good at napping and eating too, but those aren't talents I'm told...)
My opinions are no more important than the next guy's. You have the ability to form your own judgement on matters, and it really is the most important thing that you do so. Because - and this is the lesson one learns repeatedly - you have no (visible) representatives. Never rely on other people to make the arguments you want made for you, or to represent your position/interests. Be active in favour of your own interests. I think every Hindu needs to be. This is how we don't end up complying with the visions of persons who don't - and shouldn't - represent us.]