In an earlier comment I had mentioned the similarity of the mystical traditions vs. the difference of orthodox religious doctrines, as outlined in my e-book at www.suprarational.org In fairness to Dr. Prothero, I came across a later editorial review he which states: Mystics often claim that the great religions differ only in the inessentials. They may be different paths but they are ascending the same mountain and they converge at the peak. Throughout this book I give voice to these mystics: the Daoist sage Laozi, who wrote his classic the Daodejing just before disappearing forever into the mountains; the Sufi poet Rumi, who instructs us to "gamble everything for love"; and the Christian mystic Julian of Norwich, who revels in the feminine aspects of God. But my focus is not on these spiritual superstars. It is on ordinary religious folk—the stories they tell, the doctrines they affirm, and the rituals they practice. And these stories, doctrines, and rituals could not be more different. Christians do not go on the hajj to Mecca; Jews do not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity; and neither Buddhists nor Hindus trouble themselves about sin or salvation.

My apologies! Two glaring mistakes in my last post:

1.Paragraph two, line one, should read:
I have reason to believe that at least some people at BOTH GFCH AND HDAS have subsequently become ............ Abrahamic religions.
Since the context is a discussion on GFCH the earlier sentence makes no sense – but obviously I needed to make the required correction.

2.The irrelevant and useless word ‘distrust’ has inserted itself into the last line, last paragraph. Not sure where it came from unless it be from the words one needs to copy out to prove that one is not inserting spam.

Once again, my apologies.

Glancing at the GFCH approach paper one can agree with Karigar that the idea behind GFCH –a strategic initiative from the Hindu, Buddhist and other ancient civilizations could be a unique experiment in promoting global ...... – is laudable. The vision statement also clearly assures us that it regards conversion as a violence since this automatically assumes a religion is superior.

But, what defines ‘aggressive’? Eg, (I have reason to believe that at least some people at HDAS have subsequently become more aware of this aspect of the ‘non-aggressive’ denominations of some Abrahamic religions)

-If children are required to change their religion to get the benefits of cheap schooling – would it be called peaceful or aggressive?
-The same question comes up if one a family gets assisted with the last rites/ hospitalisation/.... if they choose to belong to the new religious group.
-Also if they are convinced – at an emotionally vulnerable point in life such as illness, job loss,... – that if they become believers they can be ‘saved’. .....

Also, one cannot simultaneously argue that ‘all religions are valid’ but the theology/ rituals/ the requirement that they convert others to their religion, which are integral to those religions are not valid. For religion itself is a more all-encompassing term that includes theology, ritual,....... Maybe the word ‘religion’ is not the one that best expresses what they want to say.

This only reinforces the idea that without looking at the structure/ vision statement/ functioning/ board members etc as a totality one cannot arrive at any definitive conclusions on the subject of HDAS and GFCH
distrust

For Information only.

Stephen Prothero is a religion professor at Boston University. These are excerpts from two essays based on his new book, ”God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter.”

The Wall Street Journal: A Dangerous Belief

......world's religious rivals do converge when it comes to ethics.........but they diverge sharply on doctrine, ritual, mythology, experience and law. Such differences ..... have real effects in the real world. ........ And in some cases religious disagreements move adherents to fight and kill......

.....In our most intimate human relationships, who is so naive as to imagine that partners or spouses must be essentially the same? What is required in any healthy relationship is knowing who the other person really is. Denying differences is a recipe for disaster. What works is understanding the differences and then coming to accept and, when appropriate, to respect them. After all, it is not possible to agree to disagree until you see just what the disagreements might be......

....It is commonplace among believers and nonbelievers alike to think of religions as unchanging dogmas demanding unqualified assent......

...But one function of the transcendent is to humble us, remind us that our thoughts are not the thoughts of divinity.......

The Boston Globe: Separate truths

......The gods of Hinduism are not the same as ...... To pretend that they are is to refuse to take seriously the beliefs and practices of ordinary religious folk who for centuries have had no problem distinguishing ......... [it] is not just false and condescending, it is also a threat. .......

.......what these people are doing ...... are not describing the world but reimagining it. .......They are hoping that their hope will call up in us feelings of brotherhood and sisterhood drawn to such hope, and such vision. Yet we must not mistake either for clear-eyed analysis.......

......What we need is a realistic view of where religious rivals clash and where they can cooperate. The world is what it is.

And both tolerance and respect are empty virtues until we actually know whatever it is we are supposed to be tolerating or respecting.

This seems to me to be a fruitless tangle. Let me try taking the discussion away from ideology per se.

The discussants here have come up with different ideas, have different concerns are differently positioned. However there are definite groupings. This is a result of the different approach, qualities, experiences, knowledge, etc of the discussants who are to an extent divided along certain set lines. Put in another way it may be said ‘we are different groups’, ie, though there are definite similarities in outlook/ approach/ goal/... that make for the groups, the groups themselves are different from each other.

Precisely...our perceptions and conceptions exist based on our conditioning (ie background that leads us to see,hear and interpret things in a certain way). The division is as natural and diverse as there are different "groups" in this world. Even our vision and conception of Divinity is depends on this (call it our world-view or our categorical framework).

But if for the sake of argument we ignore a couple of discussants - one can also say that the discussants are actually the same, ie, there are no differences ‘we are all the same’. All are men, physically endowed in more or less the same way, with facial hair for a beard (even if it is shaved off), male genitalia, genes and hormones that ensure masculine characteristics, etc etc. If for instance, they are admitted into hospital with a prostrate problem they would be all be admitted into the same wing of the hospital; in the male ward, , ie, they would be treated as ‘one’

Physical traits and qualities are not the same as intellectual qualities. What I mean is that, our worldview is not dependent on our physical qualities to a large extent.

However, if here in the discussion/ dialogue/ argument one group’s insists that ‘we are all one’ there is a problem. For if they decide to push the physical characteristics to the fore, ie, ‘we are all one’ they’ve lost their opportunity to think through/ convince/ project their ideas on matters that need the faculty called the mind. Meanwhile the others who know that they have a mind which can spew forth various ideas/ helps them plan, do things etc can keep using this mind to do what they like without having to dispute or disagree or spend any extra time on those who confine themselves to the idea that they are only the physical body.

Hope this helps

It actually does help. It shows that the "Hindu Universalist" perspective is not understood by it's critics. Again, I would like to point out the distinction between politics and Spirituality. There is a tendency to conflate the two. But it need not necessarily be that way. A Hindu can be totally against a particular religion's political position but still accept that it is a valid religion, because at the spiritual level, it is like just another finger pointing at the moon. If we focus on the finger, we miss the beauty of the moon.

The choice is between the finger and the moon. Some of us choose the moon, others the finger.

That is the rationale (imho) behind Hindu spiritual leaders (of certain persuasion) negating religion or suggesting that all religions are "same". It is not a Myth, if one considers the two-layer model of reality/truth. If one rejects it, of course it is because they don't understand it's import -- and that is what leads to the confusion.

This seems to me to be a fruitless tangle. Let me try taking the discussion away from ideology per se.

The discussants here have come up with different ideas, have different concerns are differently positioned. However there are definite groupings. This is a result of the different approach, qualities, experiences, knowledge, etc of the discussants who are to an extent divided along certain set lines. Put in another way it may be said ‘we are different groups’, ie, though there are definite similarities in outlook/ approach/ goal/... that make for the groups, the groups themselves are different from each other.

But if for the sake of argument we ignore a couple of discussants - one can also say that the discussants are actually the same, ie, there are no differences ‘we are all the same’. All are men, physically endowed in more or less the same way, with facial hair for a beard (even if it is shaved off), male genitalia, genes and hormones that ensure masculine characteristics, etc etc. If for instance, they are admitted into hospital with a prostrate problem they would be all be admitted into the same wing of the hospital; in the male ward, , ie, they would be treated as ‘one’

However, if here in the discussion/ dialogue/ argument one group’s insists that ‘we are all one’ there is a problem. For if they decide to push the physical characteristics to the fore, ie, ‘we are all one’ they’ve lost their opportunity to think through/ convince/ project their ideas on matters that need the faculty called the mind. Meanwhile the others who know that they have a mind which can spew forth various ideas/ helps them plan, do things etc can keep using this mind to do what they like without having to dispute or disagree or spend any extra time on those who confine themselves to the idea that they are only the physical body.

Hope this helps

think the biggest dilemma is about how to view Abrahmic religions?
Abrahmic religinos (Islam/xtanity) says that 'I am ok, you are NOT okay'.
If Hindu leaders take 'I am okay, you are NOT okay' approach towards Islam/xtanity, then how different are we from them?
If hindu leaders take "I am okay, you are okay" approach, then they fall into the trap of validating other religions without getting anything in return. Moreover, such an approach will label any criticism of Islam/xtanity as bigotry since it 'disturbs' the apparent inter-religion bonhomie.

My understanding of gangp's blog is that he prefers the later approach.

However, I prefer to tell the truth which is that both Islam and xtanity are not only false but fascist paths. Why to shy away from telling the truth for the sake of political correctness? Why to suppress the truth and claim them as valid paths in the hope that it'll shame them into acknowledging Hinduism as valid?

I would recommend you read this article:
http://www.medhajournal.com/re...?showall=1

Per Indian tradition, there is the recognition of the fact that there are two levels of Truth/Reality. The Vyavaharika and the Paramarthika. The Vyavaharika level is that of mundane reality and is an incomplete truth, when taken in light of the absolute reality that is Brahman. Even Ishvara is considered to be a relative/Vyavaharika truth (Saguna Brahman) , and all religions operate on the basis of this Ishvara (God with attributes, who is a creator, etc). Even those religions who claim God doesn't have any physical attributes ascribe certain psycho-emotional attributes to God (such as Jealous God, God who dishes Justice, etc). So, in light of the fact that all Religion is more or less in the realm of Vyavaharika, they all are flawed in making Universal Truth Claims.

However, the Hindu (especially Advaitic) perspective is one that transcends this barrier -- this categorical framework, this world of perception and conception (nama-rupa), or in other words, the world of Words and Descriptives. And since Saguna Brahman also falls under the category of Nama-Rupa, it too is incapable of raising the seeker out of the world (Maya). That is the rationale (imho) behind Hindu spiritual leaders (of certain persuasion) negating religion or suggesting that all religions are "same". It is not a Myth, if one considers the two-layer model of reality/truth. If one rejects it, of course it is because they don't understand it's import -- and that is what leads to the confusion.

Karigar,
I admit that I need to dwell deeper into interfaith dialogue as I don't full understand it.

which is founded on the conviction that all faiths are valid and sacred and therefore sees validity and sacredness in all faiths and believes that a harmonious relationship between them can be achieved based on that conviction

Does GFHC really believe it? If so, then we have a serious problem to deal with. However, if its mere public posturing as part of some strategy, then its fine.

I think the biggest dilemma is about how to view Abrahmic religions?
Abrahmic religinos (Islam/xtanity) says that 'I am ok, you are NOT okay'.
If Hindu leaders take 'I am okay, you are NOT okay' approach towards Islam/xtanity, then how different are we from them?
If hindu leaders take "I am okay, you are okay" approach, then they fall into the trap of validating other religions without getting anything in return. Moreover, such an approach will label any criticism of Islam/xtanity as bigotry since it 'disturbs' the apparent inter-religion bonhomie.

My understanding of gangp's blog is that he prefers the later approach.

However, I prefer to tell the truth which is that both Islam and xtanity are not only false but fascist paths. Why to shy away from telling the truth for the sake of political correctness? Why to suppress the truth and claim them as valid paths in the hope that it'll shame them into acknowledging Hinduism as valid?

deshika,
Many thanks to you for clarifying my position. You explained my viewpoint better than I myself did !

karigar,
I call GFHC's 'All religions are valid' as abject surrender. In my previous posts, I apportioned some blame for this surrender to Swami D. since he heads GFHC. To this, you responded by defending Swamiji and quoted his article on conversion from his website. Hence, I said that Swamiji's credentials or his views expressed on other forum doesn't mitigate the damage of GFHC's 'All religions are valid" approach.
Anyway, as deshika explained well, I remain opposed to hindu leader's penchant to issue validation certificates to Islam/Xtanity. No other major issues with interfaith dialogue.

Karigar - you are harping on 'credentials' ..

Please clarify the context, .........I'm harping about.

Listening in as I’ve been doing, it seems the problem is not with S. Dayanand Saraswati per se but lies rooted in the structure of GFCH including the lack of adequate information/ preparation etc before it was set up. Also that apart from the ‘we are all one’ approach, PH92 wants better assurance that GFCH does not eclipse/ undermine/ dilute/..... HDAS’s ‘being’/ efforts/ stand/.../.... So, without knowing more about GFCH – its genesis, set up, people, work etc etc – I don’ think we can make any break throughs.

A non-corporate cannot compete ...... spiritual leadership is needed, we will have business leadership(which is not a bad thing, but is potentially detrimental to spirituality)

.
and, related posts.
As I see it Hindus need to evolve a peculiarly Hindu ‘structure’ that addresses their (these) concerns (and more) but which is simultaneously able to function in the corporate manner of the Abrahamics. For instance, Hindus cannot totally go along with ‘provisional’ representation (the ‘Abrahamics’ will definitely try to corner the representative(s) or make the excuse that there is no real representation or..); yet one has to represent the diversity intrinsic to Hinduism.
But developing such a structure – which devolves various kinds/ levels/... of ‘adhikaara’ - requires that a much wider section of Hindus representing more aspects of Hinduism express their ideas, concerns, irritations, etc as clearly as the participants in this discussion

Frankly I am unable to understand these fears. Particularly when Hinduism is still regarded by some as the fiefdom of a few who were born into certain families/ geographical surroundings, when there are no leaders, when, when.... As one Muslim auto driver told me, “Pardon me for saying so, most Muslims were Hindus at some point but the pundits pushed us out and are still doing it to others. A Muslim will say ‘come be with us’ but these Hindus will say ‘you are not good enough, you cannot do..... or say..... only we know.’” Again, it is rather insulting to repeatedly face the insinuation that one does not (?cannot) understand / want to live by the basics of the Dharma.

As to what TMJ creates, that is in the hands of its administration. If you fear for it the easiest method of ending the problem is to stop discussions of this variety. Instead perhaps it would be better to discuss some safer aspects among those interested.

The problem is not with individuals organizing themselves into focus groups/think-tanks, etc. The problem is with homogenization of the narrative, so everyone has to speak the same "language", toe the same line, etc.

A non-corporate cannot compete in a marketplace dominated by mega-corporations. So, sooner or later we will be forced to create the "corporate" identity and sell the "product", whether we want to or not. We might be able to maintain a "compassionate corporation" kind of feel for a while, but sooner or later it will become a matter of making the sales, meeting the deadlines and quotas, etc. Where spiritual leadership is needed, we will have business leadership (which is not a bad thing, but is potentially detrimental to spirituality).

deshika,

But, apart from the one line on ‘all religions are valid’ (wherein Both Raghu Rao and Karigar are in clear agreement with you) you have not mentioned what it is that is bothering you.

Nothing! If the 'sameness myth' is kept out, I have no problem with interfaith dialogue. Lets talk to anyone and everyone but without diluting hindu position.
For example, I won't mind having a great personal friendship with Dr. Zakir Naik and talking to him in a very cordial atmosphere on all contentious issues but without diluting my position that Islam is religious fascism.

gangp,
Xtan scholars study hindu scriptures to dig out muck and dirt. If none exists, they distort.
Hindu scholars study xtan/Islamic scriptures to find profound vedanta gyan. If none exists, they invent.

I am sorry to say but such hindu scholars end up doing immense harm to Hinduism.
The enlightened hindu scholars/mahatamas who see divine everywhere are unfit to lead Hinduism survival movement. To use Rajiv Malhotra's idea although in a different context, Hindu leadership should have kshatriya qualities (diplomacy, stratagems, critical analysis of self and rivals etc) rather than Brahim qualities (see divine everywhere, talk loftily of rival religions and validating them etc).

Rudra,
I share your concern for uniqueness & spirit of Hinduism. It shouldn't end up becoming another copycat of Abrahmic religion in order to survive. But I guess you are overreacting. There are some attempts by some people to organize themselves to serve Hinduism better but noone is trying to organize the Hinduism itself. You need to differentiate between people organizing themselves vs. organizing Hinduism. I don't see any attempt for the later; do you? Where and how?

what comes to mind is that an organized institutional approach is being proposed ie like a corporate entity, which lives, breathes and eats it's product identity............ I sincerely hope that TMJ isn't helping create a corporate megalith that loses all the flexibility and flow of Hindu Dharma as we know it

Frankly I am unable to understand these fears. Particularly when Hinduism is still regarded by some as the fiefdom of a few who were born into certain families/ geographical surroundings, when there are no leaders, when, when.... As one Muslim auto driver told me, “Pardon me for saying so, most Muslims were Hindus at some point but the pundits pushed us out and are still doing it to others. A Muslim will say ‘come be with us’ but these Hindus will say ‘you are not good enough, you cannot do..... or say..... only we know.’” Again, it is rather insulting to repeatedly face the insinuation that one does not (?cannot) understand / want to live by the basics of the Dharma.

As to what TMJ creates, that is in the hands of its administration. If you fear for it the easiest method of ending the problem is to stop discussions of this variety. Instead perhaps it would be better to discuss some safer aspects among those interested.

I don’t think anyone is out to institutionalise Hinduism – it cannot be captured! – but there seems to be no harm in Hindus getting themselves organised to handle the concerns Karigar, PH92 and others have brought to the forefront. To my mind TMJ itself is one small effort in that direction – since it is providing an opportunity to read, discuss, throw up ideas, etc for intra and interfaith issues.

When concepts like "Global Market place, Corporation, competition" etc are being thrown around, what comes to mind is that an organized institutional approach is being proposed ie like a corporate entity, which lives, breathes and eats it's product identity. That might be good for marketing, but it subverts the beauty of Hindu Dharma.

I sincerely hope that TMJ isn't helping create a corporate megalith that loses all the flexibility and flow of Hindu Dharma as we know it. Like I said before, I share the concerns but I think the method of facing the challenges posed needs to match the elegance and flexibility of Hindu Dharma (ie Dharmic in itself) and not become a case of fighting "Fire with fire". I have argued on the other side of this equation too (just like PH92 etc). But I think that it is shortsighted to be that way...the fallout is far worse and long-term than the immediate relief (if any).

Karigar,
There are many topics of discussion here that have got mixed. Let me try to unbundle them.

On Sandhya Jain - I don't think Sandhya Jain talked about interfaith dialogue. Based on her previous good reputation, I tried to optimistically interpret her article on Global Hindus - that perhaps she is critical of Deepak chopra type of Global Hindus. But If I have to take a clear stand, its that "I strongly disagree with her on Global Hindus and Rajiv Malhotra". RM is a great Hindu intellectual, one of the very few who understands the challenges and threats to Hinduism and is tirelessly working for Hinduism.

On Radha Rajan - There are many issues that she cover. I couldn't fully understand some of the things like her reference to Chennai Clique. I found her respectful of Swami D. as well as HDAS though she is critical of GFHC. Anyway, rather than saying that I agree or disagree with her, I prefer to talk of the specific topics.

On Interfaith Dialogue - I am not sure whether they are so necessary as you think. Even if they are, the initiatives like HDAS is infinitely more important. As an analogy, talking to Pakistan or China may be important (or not) but taking steps to improve internal security, improve economy etc are infinitely more important.

Both the things are not mutually exclusive and can go in parallel. No issues.

But I strongly oppose going to talk table with Pak and jointly declaring that both the countries are victims of terrorism! I strongly oppose going to talk table with China and declaring that Tibet is integral part of China without anything in return for India. Is this the only way to talk? If this is the only way to talk, then no talk is better.
Similarly, I oppose Hindu leadership pompously declaring other religions to be valid at the very beginning without anything in return. This does immense harm to Hinduism.

Karigar - you are harping on 'credentials' of Swami D. to justify such an abject surrender. But it doesn't matter whether its Congress of BJP surrendering to China/Pak on negotiating table. The nationalist thoughts of Vajpaye expressed in an inhouse BJP meeting doesn't matter if he surrenders India's interests in Agra Summit. Similarly, Swami D's views on his website doesn't lessen the devastating effect of GFHC's declarations or efforts. In fact, it makes it more ironic and painful.

I hope you are able to understand my position, even if you disagree.

Pradip, who understands the principle of uncertainty and the possibility of more than one hypothesis to explain a physical phenomenon, is true to his make up when he says.

I will not tell the Christian to change. I will in any interfaith dialogue tell my interpretation of Vedanta. I will leave
it to the Christian or the other to do what they think is best course for them.

. For people to do what he is suggesting, it is not necessary to know beforehand whether one's hypothesis will be accepted by another dialogue-participant. If one is sure of one's own hypothesis, he enters the dialogue.
Karigar too believes that views will be diverse in regard to man's relation to the unknown, and believes that any one view deserves to be heard, if the proponent believes in it.
Regards. Partha

Gangp,

I will not tell the Christian to change. I will in any interfaith dialogue tell my interpretation of Vedanta. I will leave it to the Christian or the other to do what they think is best course for them

.

Which essentially means that you want them to give you time to read/ hear and hopefully digest what you have to say vis Vedanta and their Bible etc, after which they are free to go ahead with whatever they desire, including conversions. This is in contrast with Ph92’s goal which he says is ‘to serve Hinduism’ such that, he seems to imply, there is positive change towards Hinduism and its followers – the Hindus.

I found this rather inconsistent. I would have thought that if you really believed that Hinduism does tell us to change ourselves then you would have asked PH92 et al to change themselves rather than try to change the other!

As per the Dharma each has a role in the larger scheme of things. Those involved in this discussion apparently follow Hinduism so it is for them to position themselves. My role is lies in pointing out the possibilities and fault lines, occasionally holding up a mirror, etc

the idea that "Truth is one although sages call it by different names" is too basic a feature of Hinduism to be easily changed

I am afraid you are – without realising it – being rather insulting since ‘this feature’ is basic enough for us to know it (and try and live by it). Also, we need to recognise that the Christians though they do not ‘believe’ in this follow it in their own way. They (claim to) ‘know’ the one Truth and are faith-bound to pass it on to Hindus (as ‘Hindus are only interested in personal salvation even at the cost of their brother, even though they claim “we are all one”!’)

PH92
[

Sorry to say, but you are just repeating the same gibberish of 'necessity to talk'

.

I find your concerns –given the examples - very valid but suggest that like you Karigar (& RM et al) is also interested in serving Hinduism and he too recognises realities including the larger one borne of constant association with Christians. Within these he seems to think that the best way of handling the situation is to position Hinduism correctly. Perhaps the answer lies in a repositioning/ reorientation of GFCH, OR, a change in position/ role in the link between HDAS and GFCV, OR..... ???

I also agree that both GFCH and the rest of the Hindu leadership need to be much better informed and prepared and, think matters through much more carefully. But, apart from the one line on ‘all religions are valid’ (wherein Both Raghu Rao and Karigar are in clear agreement with you) you have not mentioned what it is that is bothering you. Is it something else you know about GFCH? Is it something in their plan(s) of action? Is it the grouping of the people? Is it......????

Dwai,

As far as I can tell, Hindu Dharma's unique feature has been it's reticence to Organization/being organized

.

I don’t think anyone is out to institutionalise Hinduism – it cannot be captured! – but there seems to be no harm in Hindus getting themselves organised to handle the concerns Karigar, PH92 and others have brought to the forefront. To my mind TMJ itself is one small effort in that direction – since it is providing an opportunity to read, discuss, throw up ideas, etc for intra and interfaith issues.

Deshika,
Since it is a matter of faith, this is something that cannot be argued for clear answers, definitely not at this forum.
For if the Great Commission is intrinsic to Christian faith they obviously cannot be expected to disregard it simply
because some Hindus think differently!

I agree with you that many Christians will not agree with the Hindu position. If they agreed then there will not be any
need for dialogue. Nor would I expect all of them to disregard the great commission.

Briefly, Your starting point for an interfaith dialogue is Vedanta as you understand it,

Yes, that is correct.

PH92 etal start with the Christian(immediate Abrhamic) belief system.

I don't know what is the starting point of PH92.

You think that Christians(and others) will factor in your concerns if you tell them where they are wrong;

No, I do not think that all Christians and others will factor in my concerns. Some will and some won't.

PH92et al don’t expect the Christians (and others) to change and so are inclined to alert Hindus to change
their ways (though I am not sure they have any idea of specifics at this stage)
Perhaps they have a point - Hinduism tells us to change ourselves rather than trying to change the other!

I found this rather inconsistent. I would have thought that if you really believed that Hinduism does tell us to
change ourselves then you would have asked PH92 et al to change themselves rather than try to change the other!

Moreover the idea that "Truth is one although sages call it by different names" is too basic a feature of Hinduism
to be easily changed.

I will not tell the Christian to change. I will in any interfaith dialogue tell my interpretation of Vedanta. I will leave
it to the Christian or the other to do what they think is best course for them.

gangp,
Your argument that 'All faiths are valid and sacred' and still 'Some of them have erroneous theologies' is too subtle and intellectual-type to render it of any use. Even if I assume it to be true, then GFHC's declaration should mention this - That some religious have wrong theology.
Without this clarification, its yet another one-sided Hindu's validation of rival religions without getting anything in return. Much like India's unilateral declaration of 'Tibet an integral part of China' without getting any concession from China.

karigar,
Sorry to say, but you are just repeating the same gibberish of 'necessity to talk'. Quite like Manmohan Singh's expression of helplessness that India has no option but to talk to Pakistan despite innumerable 26/11s or without any concrete agenda.
What talk? And why to concede everything beforehand? What do Hindus get in return?
Can we look at interfaith dialogue between Islam and Xtanity? Does Islam concede Jesus as son of God? Does Xtanity accept validity of Koran? Then, what is the desperate need for Hindu leaders to validate other religions?

Gangp, It seems that you are forgetting that what people understand of one’s words is often different from the intention of the person who said them. As far as a ‘true’ Christian is concerned it is irrelevant what a Hindu thinks of/ how s/he interprets the Gospels or whether s/he calls it theology/ spirituality. The only relevant point is that the Christian believes s/he will be (has been) ‘saved’ by the Saviour and would like to ‘save’ others.

Since it is a matter of faith, this is something that cannot be argued for clear answers, definitely not at this forum. For if the Great Commission is intrinsic to Christian faith they obviously cannot be expected to disregard it simply because some Hindus think differently! Given that you are still arguing that ‘all religions are valid’ I would suggest that herein lies the difference between the stand of GFCH and Hindus-of-your-view point and PH92/ RR and others.

Briefly, Your starting point for an interfaith dialogue is Vedanta as you understand it, PH92 etal start with the Christian(immediate Abrhamic) belief system. You think that Christians(and others) will factor in your concerns if you tell them where they are wrong; PH92et al don’t expect the Christians (and others) to change and so are inclined to alert Hindus to change their ways (though I am not sure they have any idea of specifics at this stage)

Perhaps they have a point - Hinduism tells us to change ourselves rather than trying to change the other!

We Are All Hindus Now
By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 15, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Aug 31, 2009
Share: Facebook Digg Tweet LinkedIn Buzz up! (180) Tools: 4,329 Post Your Comment Print Email


SPONSORED BY
America is not a Christian nation. We are, it is true, a nation founded by Christians, and according to a 2008 survey, 76 percent of us continue to identify as Christian (still, that's the lowest percentage in American history). Of course, we are not a Hindu—or Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccan—nation, either. A million-plus Hindus live in the United States, a fraction of the billion who live on Earth. But recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity.

The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: "Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names." A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal. The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like this. They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."

Americans are no longer buying it. According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life"—including 37 percent of white evangelicals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves "spiritual, not religious," according to a 2009 NEWSWEEK Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005. Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, has long framed the American propensity for "the divine-deli-cafeteria religion" as "very much in the spirit of Hinduism. You're not picking and choosing from different religions, because they're all the same," he says. "It isn't about orthodoxy. It's about whatever works. If going to yoga works, great—and if going to Catholic mass works, great. And if going to Catholic mass plus the yoga plus the Buddhist retreat works, that's great, too."

Then there's the question of what happens when you die. Christians traditionally believe that bodies and souls are sacred, that together they comprise the "self," and that at the end of time they will be reunited in the Resurrection. You need both, in other words, and you need them forever. Hindus believe no such thing. At death, the body burns on a pyre, while the spirit—where identity resides—escapes. In reincarnation, central to Hinduism, selves come back to earth again and again in different bodies. So here is another way in which Americans are becoming more Hindu: 24 percent of Americans say they believe in reincarnation, according to a 2008 Harris poll. So agnostic are we about the ultimate fates of our bodies that we're burning them—like Hindus—after death. More than a third of Americans now choose cremation, according to the Cremation Association of North America, up from 6 percent in 1975. "I do think the more spiritual role of religion tends to deemphasize some of the more starkly literal interpretations of the Resurrection," agrees Diana Eck, professor of comparative religion at Harvard. So let us

Deshika,
Even the gospels read like fiction

No, I disagree with you here. The statement "gospels read like fiction" does not imply that gospels have no truth value. All it means is that a fundamentalist reading
of gospels willnot be a correct way to read the gospels.

I suggest that your approach is more useful in an argument among friends or even opponents – for a winning position. But has no place in a dialogue since it begins by rejecting the ‘other’ at the most basic level. How does one find common ground with someone who believes s/he is entitled to decide what I should think about my religion? Again, if it is only a case of expressing opinions why enter into a dialogue? No one is stopping any Hindus holding onto/ expressing any opinions they want to and, if that is all one wants then what is this brouha about?

Again you are misreading my position. I am not rejecting the other but explaining the other why I disagree with the other. There is a difference between the two. How
can one enter into a dialogue without expressing one's opinion?

And, if Christians including converts, believe in the Great Commission it is for them to get as many more people into their fold by whatever means they can! They are not saying that Hindus have to believe in it – on the contrary it is because Hindus do not believe in it that they need to get the Light to Hindus.

I will explain to them why Hindus reject this position. Afterall dialogue is necessary only when there is disagreement not when there is agreement!

I suggested that most Christians [ie. There is no reference to my personal opinion] do not believe that Hinduism is a valid path. Else there would be no need to try and convert the Hindus to Christians.

There was a recent article by someone named Lisa Miller in probably Newsweek (?) who wrote an article titled "Christians are becoming like Hindus". In that article
she claims that mjority of Christians in America believe that all religions are valid.

Gangp,

I want truth to prevail

I think we are looking for two different truths. You are trying to decide the relative merits of Vedanta and Christianity while many of us are trying to understand the Christians’/ Hindus’ ideas of ‘truth’ to try and understand the extent to which some Hindus’ ‘we are all one’ holds true. In this, though you claim you think their path is valid you are in fact refuting Christianity’s basic texts and thoughts to the extent that you say:

Even the gospels read like fiction

I suggest that your approach is more useful in an argument among friends or even opponents – for a winning position. But has no place in a dialogue since it begins by rejecting the ‘other’ at the most basic level. How does one find common ground with someone who believes s/he is entitled to decide what I should think about my religion? Again, if it is only a case of expressing opinions why enter into a dialogue? No one is stopping any Hindus holding onto/ expressing any opinions they want to and, if that is all one wants then what is this brouha about?

And, if Christians including converts, believe in the Great Commission it is for them to get as many more people into their fold by whatever means they can! They are not saying that Hindus have to believe in it – on the contrary it is because Hindus do not believe in it that they need to get the Light to Hindus.

If you take the position even before the dialogue that one can not expect others to believe that Hinduism is a valid path then I see no point in having an interfaith dialogue.

/

I suggested that most Christians [ie. There is no reference to my personal opinion] do not believe that Hinduism is a valid path. Else there would be no need to try and convert the Hindus to Christianity.

The statement "All religions are valid and sacred" does not mean that all religions are correct in their theology.
It means that God does not look at a person's religion or dharma but instead looks at the quality of that person's
mind. Accepting validity and sacredness does not imply accepting wrong theologies including conversions.

1.My question to Hindus was not about methodology. The clarification I requested was:
If Vedanta believes that ‘all religions are valid’ then why do many Hindus object to conversions? (ch: PH92). To elaborate: Why should there be any need to ‘deal with conversions’? Christians follow their faith – the faith is valid so....
There is the bit on ‘theology’ vs ‘spirituality’. The point is that Christians believe the Great Commission is part of ‘spirituality’. Part of the practice of ‘swimming’ to get to the ‘Kingdom of God’ – all the mystics under reference practiced this. Of course it could again be a case of Hindus deciding their interpretation is more valid??!!.
2

...... the spiritual aspect of Christianity, viz, the mystical tradition of St John of the Cross, Terese of Avila, Ignatious of Loyola etc are very clearly experiences that many of our own Rishis went through during their periods of meditation and yoga.

Though often claimed by Hindus I am afraid I have not heard this from any (authoritative or otherwise) Christian source. Is it yet another case of Hindus thrusting their opinions down the throats of followers of a different faith?

But suppose we take this as true, if there is only one ‘Son of God’ how do the Rishis and five Mahavakyas which are intrinsic to most forms of Hinduism fit into this ‘mystical tradition’?

In any case what is referred to by Hindus as a ‘mystical tradition’ is not intrinsic to most forms of Christianity – the people under reference are ‘mystics’ there is no ‘tradition’. And it is precisely because of Hindu beliefs like that in the Rishis/ yoga/.. that Christians need to help Hindus get the Light.

Deshika,

The reference is specific to the Gospels NOT to the entire Bible. Each is ascribed to one of His direct disciples, ie,
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

Yes, and this supports the point I was trying to make that the Bible is not a book written by a single author and is a
contradictory text. Even the gospels read like fiction because they do not agree with one another.

The Great Commission sums up the responsibility Jesus laid on his disciples and followers and therefore the duty of
every follower of Christ (also known as Christians)

This position would only be true if there is no doubt that it was Jesus himself who said that. There is even considerable
doubt about the historicity of Jesus himself let alone what he said or didn’t say? Hindus do not have to accept this great
commission.

For Hindus to accept or reject anything in the Bible OR interpret it according as they like is akin to Wendy / Meera Nanda/
..../ interpreting the Vedas/ Ramayana/ any other Hindu scriptural text as they want to. If Hindus want emic views to prevail
for Hinduism they have to accept the same standards for Christians.

I have never said that I want emic views to prevail for Hinduism. I want truth to prevail. My position is that I accept the rights
of MN or Wendy D to express their opinions and I reserve my right to express my opinion.

The question of Hindu acceptance or rejection of parts of the Bible is only applicable if the Hindus in question decide that
the Bible is their scriptural text. Else it is like any other piece of literature whose ideas can be accepted or rejected or
differently interpreted in whole or in part.

The Hindu acceptance or rejection of the Bible comes into play since we are talking here of inter-faith dialogue. How can there
be any dialogue if Hindus do not have any knowledge of the Bible and do not have any opinion on the Bible?

‘agreement with Vedanta’ is a defining quality of a scriptural text for most people. In any case how can
non – Christians assume the right to know what was (not) said by Jesus?

I was thinking of Hindus when I wrote my comment about agreement with Vedanta. Since I was writing in the context of an
inter faith dialogue, Hindus will have to be aware and must have a position on latest scholarly research on what scholars
think about what Jesus said or didn’t say. Otherwise how can there be an interfaith dialogue?

I think that for Hindus to assume the right to decide what Christians should/ should not think, or to think they know better
than the Christian clergy how the Gospels should be interpreted is the height of audacity; no different to behaving like a
number of Wendys/ Meera Nandas in reverse! Also, if we use moral development as the defining quality of a scriptural text
then why not include the writings of people like Chaucer, Milton, Goethe, etc?

You seem to think that Wendys and Meera Nandas have done something wrong in expressing their opinions about Hindus
or Hindu scripture. I do not think there is anything wrong with expressing opinions. I disagree with their opinions. That is
different from trying to censor others.

You will have to ask a westerner why they did not include the writings of Chaucer, Milton or Goethe?
I am afraid I have not understood the point here. No one is stopping Hindus from believing all paths are valid. But that cannot
of itself be expected to translate into others believing that Hinduism is a valid path!

The whole point of an interfaith dialogue is to see if there is any common meeting ground between people following different
faiths and dharmas. If you take the position even before the dialogue that one can not expect others to believe that Hinduism
is a valid path then I see no point in having an interfaith dialogue.

And as PH92 has said, if 'all paths are valid' then why object to conversion?

I have already refuted PH92’s position in another comment.

Gangp

I think we are deviating from topic. Perhaps, there are other important issues to be discussed but my concern remains about "All religions are valid" stuff. A hindu leadership that starts with such a position is not informed/not prepared/not competent enough to serve Hinduism. Rather it ends up doing immense harm to Hinduism notwithstanding its good intentions. Such a hindu leadership is 'useful idiots' for aggressive Abrahmic religions.

Moreover, HDAS is a very important initiative; not GFHC. I support Radha Rajan in her assertion that HDAS is too important an initiative to be spoilt by GFHC/sameness crap.

I'd like to ask commenters to give some thought to this aspect:

The way they're structured right now, Interfaith dialogues are sociopolitical events. The reasons are many, primary among them being that they're driven by the Judeo Christian Muslim entities that dominate the 'Religions' landscape amongst global intelligentsia.

They are not (much to the disappointment of many hindus) satsanghs where seekers meet & exchange notes. Wishing that this were so is nice, but doesn't address the ground realities of what hindus have to contend with, in order to make sure that their concerns are met and they have a seat at the table.

Until the time hindu thought (re)gains some sway amongst intelligentsia, we have to contend with the way things are, and have a good solid prepared way to tackle this. Interfaith is sociopolitical competition in the 'marketplace of religious ideas' ...and we either play, or get even more sidelined than we already are...

The dual nature of Hindu Dharma plays a big role here. As far as I can tell, Hindu Dharma's unique feature has been it's reticence to Organization/being organized.

It has incredibly overwhelming elements of community celebration (as in Pujas and Festivals) of culture and devotion in one hand, and a deeply personal, personalized spiritual process in the other.

One of the reasons for Hinduism not being uprooted/decimated over the centuries is this unique aversion to organization (this is a known and much celebrated fact). Buddhism in India was in contrast, destroyed and "ran out" with the Islamic invasions due to it's penchant for being organized and having a formal and defined chain of command.

By "transforming", in our quest to compete in the "Globalized Marketplace of Religions", are we exposing/introducing into Hindu Dharma such a terrible blindspot and vulnerability?

There have to be other ways of combating conversion...

Deshika asks:

I am not sure what is meant by the above in view of the following quotations taken as examples from the most basic scriptural texts of all Christians: the Gospels. ‘These two scriptures [ie, the words of St Mathew and St Mark as quoted below] are known as the Great Commission and are incumbent on all Christians irrespective of other differences…..' [ ie, they are part of the 'spiritual aspect'.]
-Mathew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
-Mathew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
-Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
-Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
For, ‘Jesus Christ is who he says he is : "I am the way and the truth and the life." (John 14:16)’

And she has quoted theology. The spiritual aspect of Christianity, viz, the mystical tradition of St John of the Cross, Terese of Avila, Ignatious of Loyola etc are very clearly experiences that many of our own Rishis went through during their periods of meditation and yoga. Same can be said about the Sufi Mystical tradition (which is also part of Islam, albeit a fringe, thereof).

The difference between theology and spirituality is similar to the difference between reading about swimming and swimming in real life. Theology can provide instruction, but the spiritual endeavor of the seeker is what that matters most. And this is precisely the point I was trying to make with my comment on Spirituality vs Theology (Political posturing).

We talk about interfaith dialog and mutual respect (and not tolerance) between the various faiths in the interfaith fora. Then we turn around and say that One is right and the others are wrong. Is that not hypocrisy at it's worst? Heck, we cannot even maintain amicable intra-faith dialog without making ignorant claims like "Only my sampradaya is perfect, everyone else is fully or partially deluded".

I understand the historical baggage that we HIndus have to carry, but there can be another solution to that...this is not it. It only makes the baggage heavier...

The Bible is a composite book written by many authors with different views. The net result is that one can trace contradictory views in the book. Jesus Christ has been used as a vehicle for conveying the views of the authors of the 27 christian bible books

.

The reference is specific to the Gospels NOT to the entire Bible. Each is ascribed to one of His direct disciples, ie, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

It is not clear if Jesus authorized the great commission or the authors of the Gospels

.

The Great Commission sums up the responsibility Jesus laid on his disciples and followers and therefore the duty of every follower of Christ (also known as Christians)

As Hindus we do not have to accept the Christian great commission claim or anything written in the Bible which contradicts our position

.

For Hindus to accept or reject anything in the Bible OR interpret it according as they like is akin to Wendy / Meera Nanda/..../ interpreting the Vedas/ Ramayana/ any other Hindu scriptural text as they want to. If Hindus want emic views to prevail for Hinduism they have to accept the same standards for Christians.

We should only accept those things in the Bible which are in agreement with Hindu principles and helps in moral development.

The question of Hindu acceptance or rejection of parts of the Bible is only applicable if the Hindus in question decide that the Bible is their scriptural text. Else it is like any other piece of literature whose ideas can be accepted or rejected or differently interpreted in whole or in part.

The Bible makes Jesus say, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" and "Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect". These statements supposedly said by Jesus are in agreement with Vedanta and helps in moral fulfilment

.

Not sure that: ‘agreement with Vedanta’ is a defining quality of a scriptural text for most people. In any case how can non – Christians assume the right to know what was (not) said by Jesus?

Hence Christianity is a valid path (there are statements in the Bible which if followed can help in moral development) although its theology (the great commission in the Bible being an example of the theology) is largely bogus

.

I think that for Hindus to assume the right to decide what Christians should/ should not think, or to think they know better than the Christian clergy how the Gospels should be interpreted is the height of audacity; no different to behaving like a number of Wendys/ Meera Nandas in reverse! Also, if we use moral development as the defining quality of a scriptural text then why not include the writings of people like Chaucer, Milton, Goethe, etc?

It is because Hindus accept Christianity as a valid path that Hindus do not destroy churches. Muslim invaders of India did not accept Hinduism as a valid path and this attitude resulted in their destroying Hindu temples.

I am afraid I have not understood the point here. No one is stopping Hindus from believing all paths are valid. But that cannot of itself be expected to translate into others believing that Hinduism is a valid path! And as PH92 has said, if 'all paths are valid' then why object to conversion?

the Gospels. ‘These two scriptures [ie, the words of St Mathew and St Mark as quoted below] are known as the Great Commission and are incumbent on all Christians irrespective of other differences…..' [ ie, they are part of the 'spiritual aspect'.]
-Mathew 28

The Bible is a composite book written by many authors with different views. The net result is that one can trace contradictory views in the book. Jesus Christ
has been used as a vehicle for conveying the views of the authors of the 27 christian bible books. It is not clear if Jesus authorized the great commission or the
authors of the Gospels. As Hindus we do not have to accept the Christian great commission claim or anything written in the Bible which contradicts our position.
We should only accept those things in the Bible which are in agreement with Hindu principles and helps in moral development. The Bible makes Jesus say,
"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" and "Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect". These statements supposedly said by Jesus are
in agreement with Vedanta and helps in moral fulfilment. Hence Christianity is a valid path (there are statements in the Bible which if followed can help in moral
development) although its theology (the great commission in the Bible being an example of the theology) is largely bogus. It is because Hindus accept Christianity
as a valid path that Hindus do not destroy churches. Muslim invaders of India did not accept Hinduism as a valid path and this attitude resulted in their destroying
Hindu temples.

It so strange that while the spiritual aspect of religion (that which is the root of a religion) is relegated to the backburner and politics takes pre-eminence

.

I am not sure what is meant by the above in view of the following quotations taken as examples from the most basic scriptural texts of all Christians: the Gospels. ‘These two scriptures [ie, the words of St Mathew and St Mark as quoted below] are known as the Great Commission and are incumbent on all Christians irrespective of other differences…..' [ ie, they are part of the 'spiritual aspect'.]
-Mathew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
-Mathew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
-Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
-Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
For, ‘Jesus Christ is who he says he is : "I am the way and the truth and the life." (John 14:16)’

Karigar says the obvious when he avers

All I'm trying to point out is that Interfaith Dialogues are something the Hindu leadership cannot afford to run away from. That would be like a country without a diplomatic presence in the foreign capitals & world bodies like UN, an absolute disaster for it's sovreignity. Part of co-existence with others demands that you be able to talk to them. Without talk, you already conceded ground to others who wish to come in & encroach upon your way of life.

Let us be sure
1. that we will consistently oppose conversions and support Acharyas who oppose conversions
2. that we understand the phenomenon ably illustrated by Pradip that there will be other faiths and their adherents, all of which could be sacred to the adherents and all of which would have resulted from search for truth by different persons and whatever they obtained from the seeking.
3. and that we have to hold our own among the faiths, not away from them, being quite clear about our Truth.
and 4. that the phenomenon of spirituality being upstaged by political posturings pointed out by Dwai is real and that we must not be frustrated by it but deal with it.
Regards. Partha.

The statement "All religions are valid and sacred" will not encourage conversion but stop it. The statement does not mean that all religions are correct in their theology.
A person who believes that "All religions are valid and sacred" finds all conversions meaningless. Moreover, Christian and Islamic theologies do not accept the
above mentioned statement. So it matters considerably if a tribal Hindu or a second generation Indian living in the western world converts to these wrong theologies.

Christianity and Islam are valid and sacred but have considerable error in their theologies. Accepting validity and sacredness does not imply accepting wrong
theologies including conversions.

I find a lot of these objections about "conceding" something to the "others" simply posturing for the sake of political puritanism. Like you pointed out Pradipda, the theological aspect of the religion is one pole and the spiritual experience driving the religion is another pole.

It so strange that while the spiritual aspect of religion (that which is the root of a religion) is relegated to the backburner and politics takes pre-eminence.

Proudhindu92 wrote:
[pIf you concede beforehand that “All religions are valid and sacred”, then the differences between religions become just cosmetic, cultural or minor.
If all are valid, how does it matter if a tribal hindu switch from one valid to another valid religion and earn some gain as well? A 2nd generation Indian in Western world is even more justified to convert to another valid religion in order to overcome cultural gap and adjust to new culture.]

The statement "All religions are valid and sacred" will not encourage conversion but stop it. The statement does not mean that all religions are correct in their theology.
A person who believes that "All religions are valid and sacred" finds all conversions meaningless. Moreover, Christian and Islamic theologies do not accept the
above mentioned statement. So it matters considerably if a tribal Hindu or a second generation Indian living in the western world converts to these wrong theologies.

Christianity and Islam are valid and sacred but have considerable error in their theologies. Accepting validity and sacredness does not imply accepting wrong
theologies including conversions.

Did Swami Dayananda Saraswati go for the Hindu-Jewish summit primarily as a member of GFCH only or did he retain his primary identity as convernor of HDAS, ie someone who is representing Hinduism? As HDAS (who happens to be part of GFHC) he would talk and discusses essentially Hinduism, if only GFCH he could be expected to murmur that the Jews need to think of ............ with Hinduism as the focus of the moment.

From what I have read of the proceedings of the Hindu-Jewish summit he was there in the former capacity, ie, an HDAS person who is also a member of GFCH. To give an analogy, had the Dalai Lama gone to the summit he would be there in his capacity as member of GFCH; and no one would expect him to bat for a particular religion/ faith. More importantly, no one would expect the Dalai Lama to forget about Budhist and Buddhism's interests simply cos he is a member of the GFHC. Why are Hindus having such major problems?

Perhaps (and perhaps not!) it has something to do the set up and vision of GFHC?

karigar,
GFCH is majorly a Hindu initiative as can be seen from its composition. It has sole representatives from Islam and xtanity but it is driven by hindu leadership. So far so good. But why does it go on to declare "All faiths are valid"? This does not get a certificate of validity to Hinduism from Abrahmic leadership but hand over such certificate to Islam/xtanity from Hindu leadership.
If the intent behind such a declaration is to oppose religious conversion, the GFHC's vision should say that it consider conversion as aggression.

As an analogy, you show me interfaith initiatives of church/Islam where they declare other religions as valid.

I am not nitpicking on an odd statement in GFCH's vision but find it symptomatic of its poor preparedness & incompetence for interfaith dialogue thereby causing harm to Hinduism movement.

Finally, I would have ignored GFCH as yet another sameness jamboree but for the fact that is lead by HDAS leadership. HDAS is important, not GFHC. Radha Rajan has also expressed this concern that HDAS is too important an initiative to be led by people with sameness vision.

Karigar,
You are giving technical explanation of ‘All religions are same” dictum while ignoring the meat of it. If you concede beforehand that “All religions are valid and sacred”, then the differences between religions become just cosmetic, cultural or minor.
If all are valid, how does it matter if a tribal hindu switch from one valid to another valid religion and earn some gain as well? A 2nd generation Indian in Western world is even more justified to convert to another valid religion in order to overcome cultural gap and adjust to new culture.

By conceding equal validity of other religions beforehand, you are giving up the game even before it has started. I oppose personal attacks by Radha Rajan but she is justified in opposing GFHC.

Have you seen church or any prominent xtan leader or Islamic scholar giving certificate of validity/sacredness to Hinduism? I am really frustrated at hindu’s penchant for pompously declaring the validity of other religions even when uncalled for. Perhaps, they do so to sound politically correct and gain wider acceptability. Perhaps they are ignorant of other religions. But such a stand does immense harm to Hinduism. Besides, such a declaration is false.

I looked at GFCH's Vision statement. I agree that it can use better language to convey that every one's right to practice their religion should be respected. That does not imply that we have to validate their theologies. Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswati's position has always been, and continues to be, that "All religions are NOT the same". In his own words, "Do all religions have the same goal? I wish they had! Then the differences among religions would only be cultural. By its own commitment to a theology, each faith-based religion has its own belief of an end which differs from that of every other faith. The vision of Vedanta being what it is, the end is in the form of knowledge, not belief." [excerpted from the book "Do all Religions have the same goal?" - 29 pages; Arsha Vidya Research and Publication Trust, Chennai, India, ISBN - 978-81-906059-5-3]

proudhindu92 wrote:
a lie and rehash of the 'sameness crap' that is the biggest threat to Hinduism intellectual discourse." title="wikipedia: [As for GFCH, I still remain skeptical as the very 1st line of their vision is "All faiths are valid and sacred". This is obviously
a lie and rehash of the 'sameness crap' that is the biggest threat to Hinduism intellectual discourse." rel="nofollow" target="wikipedia">[As for GFCH, I still remain skeptical as the very 1st line of their vision is "All faiths are valid and sacred". This is obviously
a lie and rehash of the 'sameness crap' that is the biggest threat to Hinduism intellectual discourse.]

The statement, 'All faiths are valid and sacred', does not imply that all faiths are same. The statement means all faiths that
talk of a higher power are true although they may be quite different in their theology.

You must remember that humanity travels not from error to truth, but from truth to truth; it may be, if you like it better,
from lower truth to higher truth, but never from error to truth. Suppose you start from here and travel towards the sun in
a straight line. From here the sun looks only small in size. Suppose you go forwards a million miles, the sun will be much
bigger. At every stage the sun will become bigger and bigger. Suppose twenty thousand photographs had been taken of
the same sun, from different standpoints; these twenty thousand photographs will certainly differ from one another. But
can you deny that each is a photograph of the same sun? So all forms of religion, high or low, are just different stages
towards that eternal state of light, which is God Himself. Some embody a lower view, some a higher, and that is all the
difference.

- Vivekananda (Complete Works IV, p147)

I do not know whether I am saying anything new. But as a non-expert on the relationship between HDAS and GFCH, let me regroup my thoughts on some issues being discussed under this thoughtful blog on the SJ reflections.
1)I know and can feel the weight of the contributions and contribution potential of the venerable Swami Dayananda Saraswati. I would consider it wrong on the part of any lover of Sanatana Dharma to dismiss this weight and propose sidelining this venerable leader.
2)There are of course respectable methods of clearing one's doubts about any transactional moves the Swami could be making at any given time, by direct interaction with the Swami or his organization, without assuming that one's own doubts are likely to be universal or that they should be.
3) Debate is the essence of the evolution of our Dharma and dialogue with any person or belief has never been ruled out. If Hindus in recent times have always bungled or messed up such dialogues with men of Abrahamic faiths, they should perform better in subsequent dialogues and not retreat for ever with tails up.
4) I have written to the author of this blog some time ago that I visualize considerable value in our Dharma interacting to a useful extent with the only non-proselytizing Abrahamic faith, namely Judaism. I still hold the same view
4) Knowledgeable persons of our Dharma should not shy away from sensible discussions among our own groups and coming up with relevant consensual ideas for such debates.
5) Sanatana Dharma is for all, but any aspirant must humbly spend time learning its basics, even if born to it, and certainly if not born to it.

These are just some of my humble ideas.
Regards. Partha

Perhaps PH92 has hit the nail I was seeking. One post tangentially tells us that the first Hindu-Jewish summit - kicked off by the HDAS - helped Jews and Hindus realise they have a lot in common and also understand each other better. But GFCH seems to see Jews in a different light. In their document under reference in this discussion, S Dayananda Saraswati is referred to as the leader of the HDAS........... Are we now saying that the leader of the HDAS simultaneously holds that 'all religions are the same' (ch PH92)?????

Or does it suggest that the (Hindu) leader behind the two organisations, ie, HDAD and GFCH is different (which would appear to confirm what I have heard).

One commentator mentioned - fairly correctly when one reads Sandhya Jain's article - that S Dayananda Saraswati is being 'proved guilty by association'. I am still trying to understand the truth behind this and would appreciate any leads.

Karigar,
Thanks for explaining it in so much details.
However, if you look at the debate from both sides, it consists more of personal attacks and foul language. If I assume that Sandhya and Radha have ulterior motives, personal agenda and they started this mud slinging, paying them back in the same coin harms the very cause that these worthies seem to espouse.
I think we have a lot to learn from CAIR, Zafars etc on how to debate and suppress our ego (even self-respect) for the bigger cause.

As for GFCH, I still remain skeptical as the very 1st line of their vision is "All faiths are valid and sacred". This is obviously a lie and rehash of the 'sameness crap' that is the biggest threat to Hinduism intellectual discourse. Even if GFCH succeeds with Jewish groups, its irrelevant since Hinduism is not facing threat from them in 1st place. I don't see even a faint hope how'll GFCH succeed in dealing with xtanity and 'whiteness' threat. As Radha Rajan said, keeping channels of communication open is not same as become part of 'sameness' jamboree.
Anyway, I agree with you that healthy discussion on GFCH and such initiatives can continue but there is no place for personal attacks and gutter language (two cats etc).

Thanks Karigar. This is an interesting take on the Hindu- Jewish summit. It seems that the Hindu Acharya Sabha and Swami Dayananda Saraswati had the right idea on this one. Does anyone know about the genesis of the GFCH? As far as I knew it was started by another so am wondering.
PH92, Glad to meet up again! And, to see you bring up your points so well!

If we read Kalyanaraman’s article in conjunction with this one it seems that, though SJ has referred to ‘adhikaara’ as the “crux of our concern”, she herself sees the fundamental problem as rooted in (her version of) the ‘Varnashram Dharam’, (VAD), which is itself based on (her understanding of) the concept of ‘Varna’. This version seems to set geographical parameters as integral to VAD, and thereby cuts at the roots of a ‘religion’ which claims to be ‘Sanatana’ ie, eternal. It also cuts off another identifying characteristic of this ‘religion’ - the recognition that people are different and can follow different paths to the same goal.

However, without having got the details right, SJ could have a point on the need for ‘adhikaara’(s). Who decides what the ‘adhikaara’ is and who can talk, when? I suggest that characteristics like’ janambhoomi’ and ‘global’ (swamis or grihastis) are insufficient to arrive at conclusions on these aspects. Eg, SJ doesn’t think Karigar/ RM/ Swami Dayananada Saraswati have adhikaara, but many others think she and Radha Rajan don’t have adhikaara.

Since SJ’s starting point is VAD perhaps the problem for discussion can be restated as the need to arrive at some sort of consensus on what constitutes the ‘Varnasharam Dharma ‘ and, the parameters under which it functions, especially as relevant to understanding ‘adhikaara’ as related to a variety of issues – with the concept of Varna as starting point - such that we have a yardstick and some parameters to decide who, to what extent, has the ‘adhikaara(s)’ to which SJ refers.

Karigar,
I lapped up almost all the articles on this and see two parts of this controversy:

(1) Genuine difference of opinion b/w two camps with regard to Nityanand episode, inter-faith dialogues, global hindus

(2) Nature of debate involving personal attacks

Regarding (2), I really appreciate the way you have conducted yourself and written in most humble and respectful way. However, I see most of the people on both the sides making below-the-belt attacks and behaving in a very disgraceful manner. You may want to read "http://nijatamizhan.sulekha.com/blog/post/2010/04/shame-on-sandhya-jain-and-radha-rajan.htm" and my comments to understand this further.

Regarding (i), its perfectly fine to have a honest difference of opinion. I disagree with Sandhya on Global hindus but agree with Radha Rajan on 'inter-faith dialogue'. Radha has a very valid point in opposing Swami Dayanand as head of HDAS because he is also heading GFCH with conflicting charter. HDAS seeks to promote Hinduism while GFCH's charter is to promote 'sameness' crap (all religions are same - many thanks to Rajiv Malhotra for making us aware of this danger).
I'll like to hear your views on this.

Despite reading all the articles and comments, I still don't understand what exactly is the bone of contention?
I guess Sandhy'a concern is that we shouldn't rob Hinduism of its originality, traditions and roots in order to make it acceptable to whites. But this is exactly similar to what Rajiv Malhotra cautioned - packaging hinduism in multiple layers of abstraction and 'whiten' it.

From the age of 15 (I'm now 55) the Hindu Dharma has been a part of my life. From 15 to about 35 I called myself a Roman Catholic with strong Hindu influence. But one day I realized that I was hanging on to the useless label of "Catholic" out of nothing but habit & family tradition. I then fully embraced Sanatana Dharma in a formal initiation. Over the past 20+ years I have lectured extensively (including a 30 city tour of India's Northeast through Vivekananda Kendra), maintained a local meditation group, & most recently was ordained a Pracharak by our local temple here in Michigan.

Many people over the years have asked me about how native Hindus accept me (or not). It has been my experience that no one has ever indicated that I have any 2nd class membership in the great Hindu family.

There are several points made in this discussion that make sense. For one, I cringe when I hear other White Hindus claim their sampradaya as being superior. It also saddens me when Westerners scoff at certain Hindu practices. But I have heard a number of Indian born (& continue to live there) Hindus decry certain traditions that they feel are superstitious & are in need of reform. This is a healthy practice in any religion.

The exporting of the Dharma to the West is a new phenomenon. There will be growing pains & challenge; but I have every confidence that we will end up making great contributions to this most noble of spiritual paths.

I can completely understand Ms. Sandhya Jain's position. Your rebuttal Karigar OTOH, is quite weak and I'm not even sure you understood the original article by Ms. Jain very well. In any case, Ms. Jain has established herself as a credible author on Hindu issues throughout her long career. I do not believe she would make frivolous arguments and suddenly jump the bandwagon like Karigar has suggested.

And yes Karigar, make no mistake that your name and antecedents are very much relevant to the debate and to your own credibility. You may think that just making some lofty sounding arguments might justify the high moral ground you have claimed right now, but I'm not inclined to buy your argument unless I know what they're based on. What's your background?

There are certain types of credentials that qualify individuals to have greater authority on a said topic than the rest. But this is not such a case, nor is it such a topic. Neither is Ms Jain somehow more qualified than Karigar to articulate her opinions, and expect them to be taken as Gospel. If someone presents something in a public forum, they should be ready to hear/read criticism and be ready to defend their position.

From what I can gather (based on the exchange between Karigar and Ms Jain), she is demonstrating a "Bada-(mem)Sahib" attitude. What I infer from her posts is this:

"I don't care to listen to or even consider what you are saying, because you are a nobody! Who are you? I am Sandhya Jain!"

This is not a sign of humility. There are plenty of highly accomplished individuals who share their views and ideas here on Medha Journal. None of them can be faulted with that kind of hubris or arrogance.

What we should be asking is "Does what Karigar have to say make sense? Does it have any value?" instead of asking for his credentials. We are not discussing Quantum Physics or Darshana Shastra here after all!

I can completely understand Ms. Sandhya Jain's position. Your rebuttal Karigar OTOH, is quite weak and I'm not even sure you understood the original article by Ms. Jain very well. In any case, Ms. Jain has established herself as a credible author on Hindu issues throughout her long career. I do not believe she would make frivolous arguments and suddenly jump the bandwagon like Karigar has suggested.

And yes Karigar, make no mistake that your name and antecedents are very much relevant to the debate and to your own credibility. You may think that just making some lofty sounding arguments might justify the high moral ground you have claimed right now, but I'm not inclined to buy your argument unless I know what they're based on. What's your background?

Your further comments are no doubt you held opinions (and you've blogged about them earlier too), and may be valid to some degree. The issue here being Ms Jain's article, the 'White Hindus' no matter what their (& I'd say some of their) cultural insensitivity etc might be, they're nowhere in the picture in the way she alleges, i.e as some sort of crypto Christian nexus out to undermine HInduism in India via "Global Hindus" (who to her are of the NRI variety).

Dear Karigar,

I agree with you. Ms Jain has, imho, sensed what I have myself articulated, but has been unable to analyze that. As a result of that, she has misdirected her criticism towards the closest link to Global Hinduism that is visible to her, viz the NRIs.

Her position vis-a-vis Yoga vs Bhoga is ridiculous and it doesn't behoove someone of her stature to make such assertions.

Dear Karigar,

I have been thinking about Ms Jain's article and yours in response and I can only come to one conclusion (which I have alluded to in my previous comment). I have had the opportunity to engage some "Global Hindus" (specifically White converted Hindus) and also had a chance to read some material written by two such (Highly esteemed in the US, if I may say so) individuals. They are my role specimens because they have a large following (and one in particular articulates the official position of ISKCON), are very well read (might even call them learned in the Scriptures) and articulate.

They all seem to demonstrate a very unique trait (which seems typical to other Global Hindus such as the "Yogis/Yoginis" of the American Yoga movement too) in that they are either culturally insensitive towards the Mother Culture (Indian Culture, wherein lies the roots of Hinduism), towards the natives (Indians) or both.

One such individual even went on to say (in a semi-private discussion) that he considered the traditional aspect of Hinduism, as practiced in India, stupid. The other unique feature of these entities is that they tend to reduce Hindu Dharma (which is a fabric made of many threads) to their thread of choice. For eg:, The ISKCONite will trivialize or denigrate all other sampradayas in order to play-up the Gaudiya Vaishnavism of ISKCON.

Another Medhavi observed that even though a Indian Vaishnava might harbor such notions, that Krishna was completely different and separate from the other deities in the Hindu pantheon, they would never ever articulate something like that, lest they hurt someone's feelings. The subject being discussed however considered the Native Indian's cultural sensitivity (of not articulating absolute positions) a unique Indian trait of Conflict avoidance. So, in other words, if the Indian Hindus do not take an absolutist stance vis-a-vis their sampradaya, they are cowards or hypocritical, when the Global Hindu does a heroic deed by stating "Only my Tradition is correct and every one else is stupid or wrong"!

It might seem to a casual reader of this comment that I might be generalizing based on a small sample of Global Hindus, but I suggest that this is a common thread found among many Global Hindus. There is a disregard/disrespect towards Native Hindu practices and a degree of condescension towards the sincerity or sophistication of their spirituality.

Coming from this vantage point, I can see how Ms Jain might have misconstrued such an observation as being instigated by threats towards Hindu Dharma. But I think her analysis fails to recognize the basic dual nature of Dharma in practice -- The Scriptural/Spiritual side and the Traditional (Social/Ethical/Moral framework) side.

HInduism has had the opportunity to evolve in the lab called Bharatvarsha and is what it is due to that time. Global Hinduism is a new phenomenon, and is brash. Just as a teenager rebels against the parent, it tends to rebel against and go against the Indian Hindu practices. I put this on the immaturity of Global Hinduism (and the Global Hindus due to their association with this immature system).

Please note that I do not consider First Generation Indian Immigrants (NRIs) part of this Global Hindu Phenomenon and I think Ms Jain made a huge mistake by clubbing NRIs as such...

What Sandhya Jain has written about only India being karmabhumi is clearly hogwash. Varnasram dharma is not India specific.
She is conflating the peculiar Jati dharma practiced in contemporary India with Varnasram dharma mentioned in the scriptures.

India is special (or has been special till now) but not due to the reason mentions by Jain. India is special for the following reason:
Suppose some one born in India dies without attaining Moksha despite doing Yoga his whole life. It would be impossible for anyone
to practice Yoga in the next birth without being born in India in a Hindu family. The current spread of Hinduism in the world means
that now one can be born outside India and still be able to practice Yoga.

I thank Ravi and Dwai for enabling me to read this article.

Gangp

So what about Hindus born in 1946 India (now Pakistan)? What about Nepal? Afghanistan? Sounds like Ms. Jain has some issues with some NRI's, and is incorporating that bias into her arguments, in a very lame and intellectually hollow manner.

Under the circumstances we can only quote from Classic Tamil and English proverbs and lard our output with well-worn clichés.

L’affaire Swami Nityananda has set at least two, and possibly more, renowned Cats among the Hindu Pigeons of this Spiritual Land / Dharma Bhumi / Punya Bhoomi. Karma Bhumi be damned.

We have seen pages of Learned Stuff put out by said Cats, based on their own visions of Ithiha-haw-saw-ic, Puranasic, Vedasic Precepts & Practices, distorted by their own Egos, Hubris, and English Medium Journalistic Techniques, Maculay-bred Spin, Slant, Disinformation, dodginess – on the Netizen Circuit. We are up to here with that stuff already.

The Great Learning of these Cats leaves us dumbniks amazed.

“And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew

That one small head could carry all he knew”. (Goldsmith) He or she - as you like it.

We could get some Pundit to help us output something similar in Sanskrit, but that would leave our Target Pigeons as dumbstruck as the Ved-puranic content in Cat Quotes, and we would rather have our readers’ stay clear-headed in a language, albeit alien, he (gender neutral) understands. We have enough of Wendys worming around already.

Mercifully, the Alien-owned Mainstream Media after carrying out yet another Smear Campaign shitting on yet another Hindu Guru, has Enabled the Atheistic Government of Tamil Nadu to earn its share of Christian – C*twa Sh*t Funds by siccing the Law on the Seer, Sanyasi or whatever you want to label him.

What we want to ask, and tell these Learned Cats is –

1. Whose wooly-headed side or you on anyway, where Good Government, Justice, Fairplay vis a vis Hindus and Hindusthan are concerned?

2. Aren’t you making a Mountain out of a molehill, losing sight of the wood for the trees, and to use my own dear-heart Classic Tamil – “Thumbai vittu vittu vaalai pidikkiradhu-fying”* on the Major Issue of Hindu-Baiting, Hindu-murdering, Hindu-denigrating policies adopted by the Governments AND the Media - and the Minorities and Aliens calling all the shots in Hindusthan? Your Judgment, prima facie, is that Nithyananda is ‘Guilty as Framed via media and via Tamil Nadu government’, and 'let us steer the BJP Government of Karnatka into the Christian Guilt Trap'.

3. Why do you condemn a person before he is convicted by Due Process? The truthful Answer to this would be “Moral and Physical cowardice, and / or to enable the Aggressors to get away, and maybe parlay the situation into some Profit for ourselves while seeming to take a Moral High Ground.”

4. Would you recommend that all Hindu Sanyasis, Christian Priests, Muhammedan Clerics should be castrated, and organs and orifices normally (and abnormally) used for ‘sexing’ be surgically removed to ensure that they conform to your High Standards of ethical behaviour?

5. Since it is all about the Issue of Misuse of State and Media machinery against Hindus, and in favour of C*twas and Cross-breeds, why have we not heard you roar for the Death Penalty for child rape-murdering Padiris of Omalur, or indeed for Rapists in general, or at least castrating them? And why have we not heard your Learned Quotes and Opinions on circumcision of babies, halaal butchery, drinking liquor and calling it the blood of Jesus?

Our feeble, but clear, understanding of the Bhagavat Geetha is that even while we are indulging our complex Hindu intellects to elevate ourselves into the Realm Of The Absolute Brahman, we should not neglect but continue to practice Dharma for this Earthy World, and not run away from the battlefields of Life and retire into the Jungle to gaze into our navels. This holds true for all viprahas, varnas, vishkanyas, kshatriyas, householders, journalists, Hindu Religious Heads. Let us charitably say that these Cats are also following their swadharma.

For us, Fundamentalist and intolerant, modern, passport-wielding, or IRly's Monthly-Pass-holding Hindus we reproduce a couple of light-hearted stories with some Bearing on the Issue before us:

The Indian Shrimp Export story : It is said we export tonnes of live shrimp to the West in Open Crates. When they asked how come the shrimps don’t crawl out and escape they were told “These are Hindu shrimps; when one tries to escape the others pull him down”.

A couple of Zen stories to throw you off the One Track :

1. There was this Zen Master of great renown who lived in downtown Singapore, Macau or one of those bustling metropolises. A Chinaman went to him one day and said “Revered Master, I am very keen to become Spiritually Oriented. I am a very spiritual person fundamentally, I pray daily, burn many joss-sticks but still I am overcome by worry, sorrow, pain, anger, lust, and so on and so forth. I want to give all this up and attain Peace and Tranquility like you guys. Pray help me.”

The Zen Master said, “Go into the backside of my house. There I possess one extremely lazy Mule who does nothing all day except eat and defecate. Go observe him with your Mind Open and come and tell me.”

The Chinaman went over as instructed and saw a Mule squatting on the ground and moaning piteously. He investigated further and found that the mule was sitting on a Nail. He went back to the Master and reported what he saw, and said “I am surprised why the mule just does not shift his butt away from that nail, but only moans.”

Master said “I told you; it is a very lazy animal. Like most of us humans.”

2. An earnest seeker of Enlightenment spent years in severe Meditation and Contemplation under a Bodi Tree. After several years he gave up the effort and moved off. Some time later an ordinary man came and sat under that tree and felt great peace and obtained Enlightenment.

The Moral, says the Master, is that the Desire for Enlightenment Is also a Worldly Desire, and a hindrance to Spiritual Seekers. Give up desires. Hie to the Woods with some Hay (like The Sun makes) and a Ho (as in American Army women), and for hey-no-ni-no.
- - - - -
* Letting go of the reins and catching the (bull's?) tail.

Thank you Karigar for lucidly conveying the bafflement many of us feel about Ms. Jain's perspectives. I happened quite accidentally to find the Vijayvaani site and was quite taken aback at the blistering antipathy I sensed from her towards non-resident Indians. I've read her writings in her previous incarnation as an active contributor to e-groups several years ago, including Rajiv Malhotra's indictraditions and Harsh Verma's hindureform groups. I remember emailing her my appreciation of a couple of columns I found particularly insightful, although I dont remember now what it was about. I also remember that she participated in the WAVES 2004 conference. Evidently there was a time that she was not averse to engaging with residents of the the despised "mlechcha-bhoomi."

One can deaI with disagreement and differences of opinion about issues. But there really is no way to engage with someone who walls herself in behind a fortress of negative sterotypes and then shoots barbs in the general direction of an imagined enemy. It appears to her way of thinking that the NRI "abandoned" India for the good life abroad and must therefore be held in contempt. But I see no corresponding condemnation of people living in India, who enjoy a far higher standard of living than most middle class NRIs -- and yet show no sense of social obligation whatsoever.

This sort of dyspeptic journalism is truly unfortunate, particularly when it comes from a self-professed defender of the faith. It is unfortunate when it offers no constructive alternatives and articulates no broader vision beyond xenophobic tilting at windmills. As for Ms. Jain's criticism of Swami Dayananda, all I know is that even if I were so inclined, it would take me more than several lifetimes to approach his record in making a genuine difference in the lives of people.

Talk is cheap; bigotry-based judgment is even cheaper. It is not wrong to question, but it is wrong to phrase the question in such a way that it is assumed to be the answer. Some champions of Hindu Dharma seem to forget that humility, respect, and listening skills are a huge part of actually living by its precepts.

Dear Karigar,

Welcome back after such a long hiatus. Agree with you on all counts, except that those who aren't of Indian origin will not be cognizant of, and be able to empathize with "Indian Hinduism" (such a thing does exist and it is not simply theology/religion but an equal mixture of Tradition as well). I do not of course club NRIs in that group of Hindus (ie the Non-Indian Origin Hindus) and think Ms Jain's thesis wrongly includes NRIs in her assessment (and assertion) of the valid point -- that Hindus of non-Indian Origin cannot practice or empathize with the Hinduism that is practiced in India, for the most part. There are of course exceptions to the norm.

Best,

Dwai

Dear Karigar,
Thank you for indicating how one can admire and respect a person's views in general and still clearly disagree with one or two views of his/hers.
You also know how I have referred to the difference between the two categories of spiritual following, disciples and apostles more than once in my blogs.
My admiration for the unquestioned contributions of RM and his great erudition will not change just because I have not been able to join geneorusly in the supportive comments to the SN saga article, except to state that
1) I also believe that SN must resign,
2) that there is puranic support indicating procedures for the fallen greats to redeem themselves and
3) that I also understand that RM has changed the title of the article and may be looking for answers to come from the discussions, some of which could be consensual.
I have also tried to make my points about vedic views on the married state, especially in regard to Rishis and Gurus, and on sannyasa.
It would be clear too that I am with the majority who support strong revival by lay Hindus themselves of the tantra side of our vedic knowledge, and am not comfortable with the ideas of Acharyas and sannyasis being entrusted with practicing or teaching the practical side of tantra not to mention the sexual components thereof.
Others are entitled to their opinions, of course. Even among committed Medhavis, there must be at least a handful of others who think like me.
HAVING SAID THAT, I DO NOT SECOND OR SUPPORT STATEMENTS FROM ANYONE PURPORTING TO EXCLUDE PARTICIPATION OF NON RESIDENT HINDUS AND INDICS IN ACTIVITIES OF INTEREST AND BENEFIT TO INDIC THOUGHT AND PRACTICE. You have explained beautifully how ridiculous such a stand is.
Thank you once again.
Regards. Partha

"Well-known" does not mean "known in a good light" in the case of S. Jain. The proper term is "notorious". She is foul-mouthed, ill-brought-up, uncouth and downright stupid as her bigoted "logic" shows. Her version of Hinduism is the same as that of the "Hindus" who deny children access to drinking water in Indian villages, or burn brides, all in the name of "varna" and other code words for "sh1t-headed discrimination by idiots".

On the other hand, this cat-fight is excellent spectator sport. What a Pantheon of Idiots!!