• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Inculturation: the OTHER christian conversion tactic
#43
Post 2/2



What everyone else is doing is inculturation and re-interpretation ("re-locating" Hindoo practices into the missionary replacement theologies. Re-location is the word used by S Korean christian hysterians to justify De Nobili's inculturation agenda).



If Buddhism and Jainism used yoga (and a modified version of sankhyan views, to make it suited to their intents) starting some 2500 years ago, after removing the rest of Hindoo cosmology from it, and this became legitimate in time rather than the subversionism it is from the original=Vaidika=Hindoo POV,

then if christianism removes all of Hindoo cosmology from yoga and markets 'yesu namaskaram' in place of suryanamaskaram and declares jeebus as yogacharya in christian yoga centres (both of which they have already done), then 2500 years from now, christianism too will be a valid sampradaya by "virtue" of the mere age of 'yoga' in christianism by that time. No?



If people are going to say No to inculturation, then can't be hypocritical about it.



We've only ever lost people to the inculturating missionary replacement theologies.



+ Koenraad Elst got away with declaring that Hindoos=heathens "polytheistic idolators" (i.e. theists) hijacked Patanjali's 'essentially atheist' yoga sutras.



+ IIRC it was in the same article that Koenraad Elst had averred that Hindoos had similarly essentially hijacked classical Sankhyam which was atheist too (Elst made some statement about Hindoos="pagans" having eclipsed the atheistic schools of thought or something). What an utter inversion.



+ Elst further pretended that kaivalya in Patanjali's YS made it closer to the atheistic spin on kaivalya seen in Jainism, despite the Vedic concept of kaivalya existing in the heathen context in several older, core upanishads [whose ancientry - especially vis-a-vis later Indic movements-turned-spinoff-religions - is not in question by anyone but ur-Shramanists and ideologically-motivated or ignorant indologists].



+ Feeling encouraged by Elst's successful (well, to his adulating audience) divorce of Sankhya-Yoga from Hindoo heathenism, Buddhism peddlers (inculturationists) at Elst's article had the audacity to comment that Patanjali's YS was closer to Buddhism than to 'theism and Vedanta' (IIRC the Buddhism peddlers actually made a distinction between the two. Since when were Vedantins - including very much advaitins - *anything* but theists. Of course, am not counting today's "atheist/agnostic" new ageists poaching on Advaita, who spout nonsense and pretend they're advaitins. They're a class apart.)

And even ignoring Patanjali and his YS, it still remains a fact that sankhya-yoga (inseparable from 'vedanta') is Vedic onlee in origin in very cosmology, and thus that all else that appeared and diverged from this thereafter is again: merely inculturation + re-interpretation by missionary=replacement religions that turned up later.



Yet the lies listed above will grow, have been growing, nurtured by aliens and various Indics ("Hindus" inclusive). And the Hindus vocalising frequently on the internet - but who remain silent in crucial matters such as the problems enumerated above - allowed such lies to spread and take root and grow. It will therefore not be an unforeseen harvest at all, except perhaps to those who do not wish to extrapolate to inevitable conclusions. People should have nipped this nonsense in the bud.



Instead, Hindoo heathenism is mired in new agey subversionists who like to peddle that all "Dharmics" should magically be allowed an equal claim to yoga, sankhya, tantra and OM (all of which are intimately connected parts of Vedic religion originally and still), even after these spin-off Dharmics have shown ur-Shramanistic or seccessionist tendencies. Rather, "the one universal Dharma" peddlers will lecture to Hindoos that these may not dare say that all such matters as OM, sankhya + yoga + vedanta + tantra are rooted in Hindoo cosmology onlee (and are of course of Vedic religion onlee; not merely in origin, but at the very least so). Yet they will implement no such censorship against other Indic religionists making claims of originality on any/most of these for their own religions instead: when encroaching Buddhists and Jains make claims to originality and uniqueness (via overt or subtle ur-Shramanism), and when western dabblers and new-agey Indian "atheist Hindus" (who aren't even following their direct ancestors' tradition, but want to do some "Hinduism" of their own accord and stripped of all things that won't compute to them now, though even then they presume the right to lecture traditionalists on Sanatana Dharma=Vedic religion onlee) encroach on Hindoos' natural right to their own heathen stuffs, by declaring these matters are 'equally' a lot of other people's, and moreover belong less to Hindoos than to the late re-interpretationists (as Elst's article and Bauddha comments there had done). <= All these others get away with robbing Hindoos. To enrich and aggrandise themselves. Which is missionising.



Therefore: why may christoislamaniacs not do the same replacement? "One man may steal a horse, the other may not even look over the hedge." Hmmm?



If OM can be re-interpreted by Buddhism to have something to do with its Buddhist un-Atma views, and if OM can be re-interpreted by Sikhism to refer to their invisible mono-deity who is specifically no longer anything Hindu (though it was before, and hence the use of the O~Nkaara in Sikhism now refers to an entity recently invented), etc, then why may christoislamism not declare OM refers to jeebusjehovallah next? And the same argument for all other encroachment too.



If some or any matters can be divorced from the very Hindoo cosmology they are rooted in, to thus be poached on by others for their purposes, why object to only one group that does so? That is,



+ Is it only the degree of divergence from the original tradition that provokes resistance about christianism? But then, between Atma and anAtta is a chasm that is already *quite* wide even by intra-Indic standards. (Not counting new-ageists that pretend it's all same-same or that the differences are inconsequential). And Buddhists are on record saying that all of Hindu heathenism "even advaita" is closer to christianism than Buddhism. (Buddhism also says the same of Taoism, btw. When really, all inculturating missionary replacement ideologies surely have more in common with each other; while heathenisms like Hindoo and Taoist and Hellenistic and Shinto religions - all of which have "polytheistic idolatry" and "monism" - certainly are more similar to each other than they are to other Indic traditions let alone the christoclass virus.)



+ Or is it only the 'ancientry' of the later...Shramanist re-interpretations of Upanishadic knowledge by Buddhism/Jainism that raises these last two religions to co-originators & to having an equal right of claim as Vedic religion has to itself (despite the later religions moreover trying to replace Vedic religion)? But if ancientry is the deciding factor, then, like I said, given enough time of inculturating on yoga, christianism should also merit the same right by automation, on expiration of the same time frame. Some 2500 years should do the trick.



+ Or (also weak): is it only the nativeness to the soil - of Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism - that gives them equal right to make equal claims to Vedic stuffs that pre-date all of them? But at least vocalists of two of these - being Jainism and Buddhism - now claim that Vedic religion is not native to India. (Part of the ur-Shramanism nonsense theory.) Aside: But regardless of whether Vedic religion is native or not, Vedic religion is the *sole* origin of sankhya-yoga-vedanta. And everyone else merely inculturated and re-interpreted aka poached, the latter being the apt word when they dare pretend it was Vedic religion that was unoriginal/plagiarist and moreover alien and oppressive, even as nouveau religions then try to pass themselves off as the originators and native to India and 'oppressed' and plagiarised, not to mention pretending to be far more ancient than they actually are. <- All for missionising purposes: same reasons why christianism attempts the same.



+ Is it that all promoters of the notion that "Yoga [and therefore Sankhya] belongs *equally* to all Dharmics (Hindoos may not dare to interject that it is Vedic in origin, even when Elst and Buddhists are allowed to sell this off as belonging more to other Indics and even to alien dabblers than to Hindoos)" <- is it that such "Hindus" as would argue so, believe in ur-Shramanism: that Buddhism, Jainism magically go back to at least as long as Vedic religion (via a hypothesised ur-Shramanism inserted backwards in time, along with backprojected multiple Buddhas and Teerthankaras), and that yoga was - from its very origins no less - magically "common to all these" since "the beginning" or at least "since the IVC"?

[INSERTED: An equidistant common source for yoga implies that Yoga was a separate/distinct thing or even movement, and that all extant Indic religions using yoga therefore merely borrowed or inherited from this common source. BTW, the Ur-Shramanism 'theory' falsehood, merely posits that that common source WAS ur-Shramanism (but that Vedic religion unnaturally adopted the features of yoga). The actual evidence on the other hand shows that Vedic religion originated sAMkhya-yoga: sAMkhya is from Hindoo cosmology, and yoga is the practice intimately associated with the implications of its views. As already argued in the Natural Religions thread, Hindoos' ancient Vedic religion is the *only* religion that can show its working on the derivation of both the views and the invariably associated practices. Buddhism and Jainism in contrast were magically born with bits and pieces of samkhya and yoga that they chose to adopt and adjust (re-interpret) to their views, like they did with so much else from Vedic religion. So the frequent nationalist pretence that yoga is equally common - let alone in its origins - to all "Dharmic religions" is a self-delusion. Then welcome christianism when it too poaches tomorrow.]





So which of these reasons is it? And who thinks any of them is valid? And furthermore, who thinks any of these reasons/subterfuges cannot be used by christianism next, to similarly inveigle its "equal right to claim" (and eventually even claim to originate, as an intrinsic christianism) yoga etc?



Inculturation was not invented by christianism/the christoclass virus.

It is an oft-seen feature in missionary religions, including the other Indic/Dharmic religions.



The self-immunisation programme must be greater. Greater than what 'Hindus' are willing to do now. They'll never wear it.



Rajiv Malhotra writes tomes to no purpose, it seems: He has repeated his earlier-seen deadly utterance on Bharatanatyam regarding yoga too now (and on the Vedam tomorrow). The same arguments against why that was dangerously self-destructive (turning the masses into lemmings after him?) applies now.



And the news was:



Malhotra's done it again. Nice backstab.



twitter.com/RajivMessage/status/606939028152328193

Quote:Rajiv Malhotra @RajivMessage



Yoga = Hindu refers to supplier, not user. Anyone can use. Some ideologies have contradictory ideologies: they must not distort yoga to fit


9:41 AM - 6 Jun 2015



179 179 Retweets

82
And 82 sycophants I mean favourites, 179 retweets.





Response as before, here.



And:

[quote name='Husky' date='02 October 2011 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1317559991' post='113123']

I'm afraid what the English-language vocalists/representatives for the Hindu side will have to say when the Vedam one day comes up as "disputed territory".

Will the argument go the same way as Yoga and Bharatanatyam? Recapping Hindu vocalists' arguments on appropriation of:

1. Yoga: "Just acknowledge it is Hindu, and all are allowed to dabble"

2. Bharatanatyam: "Inculturation not allowed. But all - including even christoislamaniacs - are welcome to dabble."



If the inculturating, appropriating and dabbling kind assume that the same logic therefore applies to the Vedam, one can hardly blame them for their conclusion, considering all the encouragement they've been getting so far on all other matters Hindu.



I certainly think the same logic does apply, but that 1 and 2 are entirely wrong. I.e. 1 and 2 should be "(Yoga/Bharatanatyam/...) has nothing to do with aliens and other non-Hindus." So that the same applies to the Vedam. In fact, that should form the universal response to all attempts to encroach on any part of Hindu religion.

[/quote]

(Point 2 above is what Malhotra is arguing for Yoga now.)



The tendency of "Hindus"* to universalise Hindoo heathenism is going to destroy Hindoos and turn heathenism into a travesty. And that includes their reluctance to say that Hindoo stuffs is not only of/by Hindoo heathenism but for (ethnic) HindOOs. All else being poaching and/or subversion, as explained by the L/N/Dakota Declaration of War on all encroachment on their sacred religion.



* On fire for nationalism, new-ageists, "I'm an intellectual/scholar, watch me sink my own ship" types.

"Thanks a lot Malhotra. Again."





ADDED: Connected to 198 and subsequent of the Sanatana Dharma thread.
  Reply


Messages In This Thread
Inculturation: the OTHER christian conversion tactic - by Husky - 06-11-2015, 08:52 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)