RSS-Boy, M Venkaiah Naidu is an Idiot

Proud of my RSS background, Venkaiah says in LS

TNN | Dec 11, 2014, 06.36 PM IST

READ MORE Venkaiah Naidu|RSS|Lok Sabha|conversion debate

Venkaiah Naidu's praise for RSS in Lok Sabha during debate on conversions led to opposition protest. (File photo) 

NEW DELHI: There was uproar in Lok Sabha on Thursday over parliamentary affairs minister Venkaiah Naidu's praise for RSS during his reply on the issue of conversions.

"RSS is a great organization, I am proud of my RSS background," Venkaiah said leading to protests by opposition.

Some parties later staged a walk out over his remark.

Venkaiah hit out at opposition parties in his reply, responding to the debate on the issue of conversions in the light of the incident in Agra.

The parliamentary affairs minister accused the opposition of resorting to false propaganda.

Calling conversions a serious issue, Venkaiah Naidu said accusing parties is not a solution.

"I appeal to all parties to seriously introspect this. There should be anti-conversion laws in this country," he said.

Earlier in the day, there was uproar in Lok Sabha with almost all opposition parties demanding the suspension of the question hour and a discussion on the Agra "conversions".

As soon as the house met for the day, members of the Congress, Trinamool Congress, RashtriyaJanataDal (RJD) and CPM trooped near the speaker's podium, and also raised slogans like "Modi sarkaar hosh mein aao" (Wake up, Modi government) and "Hindu-Muslim bhai-bhai". 

 

 

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Be the first one to review.

Sid Harth • 3 mins ago

RSS dogma about any other religion being non-Indian is as stupid as M Venkayah Naidu saying he is proud of his RSS background. These goons have not yet proven, to my satisfaction, as to what their problem is. Image worship is also common in other religions. Christianity is full of image worship, saints' worship and all that goes in the name of their Lord, son of God, Jesus. Budhists, not part of Hindu religion, do imitate Hindus in all shapes, forms and their own liturgy. Jains, not part of Hindu religion are the worst offenders. They restrict all others, including image worshiping Hindus to enter their temples. Sikhism broke away from Brahminical terror and torture of the lesser castes. They have more terrorists than RSS variety. As for Islam and their own sectarian differences, in India or in the Middle-East, less said is better. Sunnis, the present owners of Islam's hottest sites of pilgrimage, Mecca and Medina, have termed all other factions as heretic. Hadith or rules of Islamic practices, have been a collection of rules, now accepted as standard, says nothing about their origins and why every Muslim must adhere to it, under the present secular laws that govern the countries of the world. Religion is an opium for the masses. That dictum applies to all religions. More so for these present-day RSS fanatics. Nobody appointed RSS, Sangh Parivar to defend and protect their funny concept of religious beliefs. They are not even experts on religion. Bunch of goons running around insulting others. More so called Sadhus, Sadhvis, Godmen have become millionaires than any one single Muslim Maulana, that I know-in India. ...and I am Sid Harth

Sid Harth • 23 mins ago

Book Review: Ramkrishna Bhattacharya, Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata, Società Editrice Fiorentina, Firenze 2009; Indian edition: Anthem Press India, New Delhi 2012. Dr KrishnaDel Toso was an Instructor in Philosophy of Religion at the Faculty of Scienze della Formazione, University of Trieste. At present he collaborates with the teaching of Theoretical Philosophy, Dept. of Humanities, University of Trieste. This review first appeared in Psyche and Society, December 2010

Sid Harth • 24 mins ago

In the last chapter of the book, which deals with the usage of the term nastika («negationist») in Vatsyayana’s Nyayasutrabhasya, it emerges that Vatsyayana makes use this word for indicating both an absolute idealist who denies the reality of things, and a materialist who denies the validity of every imperceptible thing (as the atman, etc.). This, indirectly, should lead us to be cautious in interpreting the term nastika as referring undoubtedly to C/L, when it occurs in other contexts too. Let us take for instance into consideration Manusmrti 2.11, where the nastika is said to be a twice-born dialectician. Kullukabhatta, who comments in his Manvarthamuktavali this word by referring to Carvaka, seems to be completely wide of the mark because here the description of the nastika reminds us the abovementioned lokayatika brahmana of the Buddhist sources and by no means a C/L materialist. To conclude, in his S-C/L Ramkrishna Bhattacharya examines an incredible number of sources, that speak, deal with or refer to C/L, with a critical disposition and a thorough attention, in this way restoring as far as possible the actual philosophical, historical and cultural horizon of this, now less lost, Indian tradition. For these reasons, this book is, and will be, an important milestone in the studies on C/L.

Sid Harth • 24 mins ago

Chs. 19-21 deal with three passages from the Carvaka chapter of Sayana-Madhava’s Sarvadarsanasamgraha. It is interesting to note here how in Ch. 19 Bhattacharya demonstrates that the half stanza yavaj jivam sukham jivet rnam krtva ghrtam pibet («while life remains let a man live happily let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt») has been concocted by Sayana-Madhava probably for decrying C/L thought, the original version attested by other sources (and by Sayana-Madhava himself in a previous passage!) being yavaj jivam sukham jivet nasti mrtyor agocarah («while life remains let a man live happily; nothing is beyond death»). In Ch. 21 Bhattacharya suggests that at least one verse among those quoted by Sayana-Madhava and ascribed by him to Carvakas has to be considered as taken from Jain sources. This is another case in which Bhattacharya’s sharp textual and philosophical analysis detects and unravels several problematic points, unnoticed by other scholars. With these chapters on Sayana-Madhava’s Sarvadarsanasamgraha, Bhattacharya sheds light on the peculiar attitude of this medieval thinker towards C/L, that is, an apparent tension between the objective need of describing the C/L philosophy and the subjective inclination to discredit it. Ch. 22 represents something new in the panorama of the studies on C/L, because it deals with the Perso-Arabic sources. Bhatthacharya here analyses the following texts: al-Biruni’s India, al-Shahrastani’s Ara’ahl al-Hind, Abu’l Fadl-i-Allami’s Acin-i Akbari.

Sid Harth • 25 mins ago

In Ch. 15 Haribhadra’s Saddarsanasamuccaya is considered, particularly the parable of the wolf’s footprint as representative of the criticism of the belief in supernatural things (soul, gods, heaven, hell, etc.). Then, three Chs. (16, 17, 18) on the meaning of the term lokayata follow, to which we can add also Ch. 10, where the significance of lokayata in Kautilya’s Arthasastra is pointed out. From all these studies it appears that lokayata originally meant nothing but «disputation», «dialectics», etc, and not materialism. In Pali and Buddhist Sanskrit, for instance, lokayatika brahmana is used to refer to (S-C/L, p. 191): «one who is fond of disputation, hence criticized as one engaged in sophistry or casuistry». Hence, we have to conclude, with Bhattacharya, that (S-C/L, p. 195) «Only later, but no much earlier than the fourth century CE, lokayata came to mean materialism […]. What was common to the older Lokayata-s and the new Carvaka materialists was perhaps disputatiousness: nothing was sacred to them».

Sid Harth • 26 mins ago

From Ch. 11 up to Ch. 15, Bhattacharya examines several texts dealing with C/L. In Ch. 11 we find an analysis of Santaraksita’s Tattvasamgraha 22.1856-1870 and Kamalasila’s Panjika thereon, which provide us with (S-C/L, p. 145): «(a) the names of three Carvaka philosophers, Aviddhakarna, Kambalasvatara and Purandara, (b) some extracts from their works, (c) the name of Aviddhakarna’s commentary [i.e., Tattvatika], and (d) no fewer than eleven fragments from the Carvaka- or Purandara-sutra». The fragments are collected in the abovementioned Ch. 6. In Ch. 13 a passage of Udayana’s Nyayakusumanjali: lokavyavaharasiddha iti carvakah, is explained on the basis of textual and philosophical evidences. Bhattacharya argues that (S-C/L, p. 160-161): «Udayana intends to suggest that the Carvaka-s make God out of their insistence on perception: whatever is not and cannot be perceived in this world is rejected by them». Thus, it can be underlined that according to Bhattacharya these – Santaraksita, Kamalasila and Udayana’s excerpts – are good sources for the study of C/L. In Ch. 12 the representation of the Carvaka in Jayantabhatta’s Nyayamanjari is considered; Bhattacarya concludes that Jayantabhatta, who in several places falls in contradiction for instance on the C/L doctrine of pramanas (S-C/L. p. 149-150), «in his polemics against the Carvaka-s does not help us to reconstruct the basic tenets of ancient Indian materialism, On the contrary, he has misrepresented the Carvaka view on inference» (S-C/L, p. 156). We find a similar conclusion of unreliability in Ch. 14, dealing with Hemacandra’s treatment of C/L. Also Hemacandra seems to have misunderstood the real import of C/L philosophy as Bhattacharya notices to us (S-C/L, p. 172): «Hemacandra’s stray remarks and comments on the Carvaka do not help us much in reconstructing the Carvaka system of philosophy […]. What is transparent is Hemacandra’s all-out antipathy to the materialist system». It appears that the aim of these two authors was not to expound the C/L doctrines, rather primarily to deride them; therefore, for extracting the reliable information contained in their texts, philosophical forcings and inaccurate references have to be detected. Bhattacharya here, as elsewhere in this book, demonstrates to have been able to carry acutely out this task.

Sid Harth • 26 mins ago

Besides these distinctions among several materialistic streams, and as it occurs to all philosophies in themselves, also C/L presents internal doctrinal differences due to distinct lectures and interpretations of the basic sutra-texts, and to different conceptual directions assumed in dialectical disputations with other schools. The most important among these differences regards the nature of consciousness inferred from the interpretation of the C/L sutra: tebhyas caitanyam. According to the ancient thinkers (like Bhavivikta), consciousness originates from the mixture of material elements as the alcoholic degree originates from the mixture of juices, sugar, etc. Thus, tebhyas is to be intended in the ablative case: “from these, consciousness [originates]”. There is also a “modern” position (Udbhata Bhatta), which adumbrates some inclinations towards Nyaya and Vaisesika philosophies. According to this perspective, which interprets tebhyas as a dative, the sutra would mean “to these, consciousness [is manifested]”. In this second case, consciousness is seen as a material element, different from, but dependent on, the four basic elements (earth, water, fire, wind). Such internal dynamism is the clear signal of the deep interest that C/L had in finding adequate reasons for corroborating their fundamental ideas against the criticism of their opponents. This attentiveness towards logic and debate leads us to consider that C/L was not in primis a hedonistic school: as Ch. 9 shows, indeed, the half verse yavaj jivam sukham jivet («while life remains let a man live happily»), attributed to the C/L, induces to Hedonism only according to a misinterpretation; according to the context, indeed, the verse means that there is no bliss beyond this life, because beyond this life there is nothing, thus if one looks for happiness, s/he has to find it here and now. Moreover, as Jayantabhatta has pointed out, sukham jivet is not in itself a prescription, since all humans follow this in practice.

Sid Harth • 27 mins ago

In Ch. 5 we find a list of five commentators of the Carvakasutras, the only five that we know by name: Aviddhakarna, Bhavivikta, Kambalasvatara, Purandara and Udbhata Bhatta. Among these philosophers, the sources refer to Purandara as a compiler of both a sutra and a commentary (vrtti); Purandara’s sutra-text has been commented in its turn by Aviddhakarna who compiled a work called Tattvatika, whereas Udbhata Bhatta wrote a commentary on the Carvakasutras called Tattvavrtti. All these philosophers flourished before the VIII century CE. If, thus, the VIII century CE can be considered as the period in which C/L reached its – so to speak – final form (with further developments up to the XII century), the origins of C/L philosophy can be traced back to at least the V century BCE, with Ajita Kesakambala, a senior contemporary of Gotama Buddha. Batthacharya shows that (Chs. II and III), even if it cannot be said with certainty that Kesakambala belonged to C/L tradition, from the accounts that we have on him it nonetheless appears quite clear that his philosophical perspective is to be regarded as at least a proto-Carvaka. This proto-Carvaka (and the subsequent C/L), founded on the theory of the existence of only four material elements represented just one school of materialism. Bhattacharya points out that other materialistic currents of thought were active in India. There existed for instance a school called of the bhutapancakavadins (those who believed in the existence of five elements), who added akasa, ether, to the admitted four material elements and who (S-C/L, p. 41): «are shown to be accidentalists (non-believers in causality) and hence inactivists, since human efforts are futile».

Sid Harth • 27 mins ago

To start with, it can be noticed that C/L, against the suppositions of Eric Frauwallner (History of Indian Philosophy, vol. II, p. 216) and other scholars, seems to have had a popular, not royal, origin (Ch. 1) as the very term lokayata bears witness to: lokesu ayatam, “widespread among the people”. It is nonetheless likely to think that at least some C/L perspectives at a certain point were accepted by kings and courtiers: some sources refer that the C/L were well versed in the knowledge of Arthasastras and Nitisastras, the treatises on the rules for a good administration. In any case, notwithstanding its “popularity”, only few fragments of C/L works have reached us as quotations inserted in writings belonging to non-C/L traditions (Buddhism, Jainism, Vedanta, etc.); Ch. 6 presents and discusses the 18 C/L aphorisms, the 30 excerpts from C/L commentaries and the 20 stanzas which constitute all that we have at the moment of C/L original texts. However, as regards the stanzas, the majority of which are collected in Sayana-Madhava’s Sarvadarsanasamgraha, Bhattacharya affirms that (S-C/L, p. 217): «It is impossible to accept his [i.e., Sayana-Madhava’s] declaration that Brhaspati [the eponimous founder of Carvaka system] is the author of all these verses», some of them being apparently from Jaina works. Notwithstanding this paucity of material, from these fragments we are nonetheless able to outline the guidelines of C/L philosophy. (1) Only four elements are real (earth, water, fire, wind). (2) Perception is the principal means of right knowledge (pramana), whereas inference is accepted only if supported by perception (Ch. 4); the validity of the other means of right knowledge is rejected. In consequence of these two points, (3) the self (atman) as everlasting substance, (4) God as a being powerful in/on the world and (5) past and future lives depending on karmic retributions are not admitted (indeed they cannot be proved by means of the accepted pramanas). The non-acceptance of any supernatural power (God, karman, etc.) as intervening into human life makes the C/L found its ethical perspective totally on human effort (purusakara) and consequently deny the validity of the Vedic sacrifice.

Sid Harth • 28 mins ago

Book Review: “Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata” Thursday, March 21, 2013 carvaka No comments Krishna Del Toso Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata (hereafter S-C/L) is a collection of 23 articles on various aspects of Carvaka/Lokayata (hereafter C/L) philosophy, written and published in several journals, mostly Indian, by Ramkrishna Bhattacharya during the last 15 years. This book not only represents the philosophical and cultural heritage received from Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya’s and Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya’s works on Indian materialism – the scholars with whom Bhattacharya studied the C/L thought –, but it also sets out new perspectives, helping us to better define the import of C/L on Indian history of philosophy.

Sid Harth • 29 mins ago

Hinduism as prevails today is a religion in all sense of the sociological characteristics. It is dominated by Brahminism is another matter. To say that Hindus are not a religious community is a wrong formulation to say the least. Posted in: Hinduism,Ram Puniyani

Sid Harth • 29 mins ago

It is interesting to note that till 8th century the so called Hindu texts do not have the word Hindu itself. This word came into being with the Arabs and Middle East Muslims coming to this side. They called the people living on this side of Sindhu as Hindus. The word Hindu began as a geographical category. It was later that religions developing in this part started being called as Hindu religions. Due to caste system there was no question of prosetylization. On the contrary the victims of caste system made all the efforts to convert to other religions, Buddhism, Islam and partly Christianity and later to Sikhism. Within Hindu religion two streams ran parallel, Brahmanism and Shramanism. Shramans defied the brahminical control and rejected caste system. While Brahminism remained dominant, other streams of Hinduism also prevailed, Tantra, Bhakti, Shaiva, Siddhanta etc. Shramans did not conform to the Vedic norms and values. Brahminism categorized religious practices by caste while Shramanism rejected caste distinctions. Brahminical Hinduism was the most dominant tendency as it was associated with rulers. Sidetracking the Hindu traditions of lower castes, Brahminism came to be recognised as Hinduism in due course of time. This phenomenon began with Magadh-Mauryan Empire after subjugating Budhhism and Jainism in particular. Later with coming of British who were trying to understand Indian society, Hindu identity, based on Brahminical norms was constructed for all non Muslims and non Christians. Vedas and other Brahminical texts were projected as the Hindu texts. Thus the diversity of Hinduism was put under the carpet and Brahminism came to be recognised as Hinduism. So Hinduism as understood as a religion is based on Brahminical rituals, texts and authority of Brahmins.

Sid Harth • 30 mins ago

Defining Hinduism in such is a difficult task for sure. The reasons for this are multiple. One, Hinduism is not a prophet based religion, it has no single founder and two, religions developing in this part of the world have been lumped together as Hinduism and three; there are so many diversities in the practices of Hinduism that all streams cannot be painted with a single brush. To this one may add the the practices and beliefs originating at different times continue to exist side by side. Lord Satyanarayn and Santoshi Maa do exist along with the concept of Ishwar (God) and a Nirankar Nirguna Ishwar (God beyond the attributes of qualities and form at the same time. The major point of departure for Hinduism is the imprint of caste system on the major aspects of Hinduism, the religious sanctity for social inequality, caste system being the soul of its scriptures and practices. The conditions under which the terms came into being also tell a lot about the real meaning of those terms. Aryans who came in a series of migrations were pastorals and were polytheists. During the early period we see the coming into being of Vedas, which give the glimpse of value system of that period and also the number of gods with diverse portfolios, the prevalence of polytheism. Laws of Manu were the guiding principles of society. This Vedic phase merged into Brahminic phase. During this phase elite of the society remained insulated from the all and sundry. At this point of time caste system provided a perfect mechanism for this insulation of elite. Buddhism’s challenge to caste system forced Brahmanism to come up with a phase, which can be called Hinduism. During this the cultic practices were broadened and public ceremonies and rituals were devised to influence the broad masses to wean them away from Buddhism.

Sid Harth • 30 mins ago

All this is a part of Hindu religion, to think that is universal all religion belief is a travesty of truth. Different sects of Hinduism worship different of these Gods. Some of these Gods are a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu like Ram and Krishna. In Greek mythology one does see a parallel to polytheism. In Christian tradition trithiesim of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is very much there. These are religion specific beliefs and don’t apply to other religions. In contrast to the verdict of the tribunal one knows that some religions like Jainism and Budhhidm don’t have faith in supernatural power. Some traditions, which developed in this part of the globe like Charvak also did not have faith in supernatural power. Coming to the conclusion of the tribunal that Hinduism is not a religion because there are diverse trends, this can be rejected right away. True, Hinduism has diverse trends but that is because this religion is not based on the teachings of a single Prophet. It has evolved-been constructed over a period of time. So the diversity is very much there, still all this does fit into the criterion laid down for understanding a religion.

Sid Harth • 31 mins ago

This is fairly hilarious. Idol worship is a major part of Hinduism, while religions like Islam and Christianity don’t resort to worship of idols. It is a Hindu religious activity, that’s how the whole Ram Temple issue could be built up and Babri mosque was demolished on the pretext of fulfilling a religious obligation of restoring Ram Temple, where the idols of Ram Lalla could be installed. Then, what is this new definition of ‘superpowers’ in the form of Shiva, Hanuman and Durga? Contemporary times mired in the world of politics regards the United States of America as the global superpower. In tribunal’s verdict we are being told about the Universal superpowers, Durga, Hanuman and Shiva amongst others. The learned tribunal needed to know that in Hinduism the concept of supernatural power goes through different stages. It begins with polytheism with Gods and Goddesses looking after one faction of the power. So you have Gods and Goddesses taking care of rains (Indra), air (Marut), power (Durga), knowledge (Sarswati), and even sex (Kam Devata) and wine (Som Devata). From here one goes to trithiesm where one God creates (Brahma), one maintains (Vishnu) and one destroys (Shiva). From here, one goes to the concept of monotheism (Ishwar). As such Hanuman is a mythological character, servant of Lord Ram and also referred to as God.

Sid Harth • 31 mins ago

Re-Redefining Hinduism Sunday, March 31, 2013 carvaka No comments Ram Puniyani While defining religion is a theological exercise, many a times the tribunals and judges are pontificating on the nature of Hindusim on the basis of common sense and their own perceptions of it. Many of these perceptions are dictated by the contemporary politics, which wants to present Hinduism in a different light. It was a great surprise that a recent Income Tax Tribunal held that Hinduism is not a religion and stated that Shiva, Hanuman or Goddess Durga are "superpowers of the universe" and do not represent a particular religion. (March 2013) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur, in a recent order, said the expenses on worshipping Hindu deities and maintenance of temple could not be considered as religious activity. They went on to declare that "Technically, Hinduism is neither a religion nor Hindus form a religious community.” Shiv Mandir Devsthan Panch Committee Sanstan' had argued that the temple run by it was open to everyone, irrespective of caste and creed and so "the temple does not belong to a particular religion and that installing idols is not a religious activity".

Sid Harth • 33 mins ago

Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World Paperback – November 13, 2007 by Ken Wilber (Author) Integral Spirituality is being widely called the most important book on spirituality in our time. Applying his highly acclaimed integral approach, Ken Wilber formulates a theory of spirituality that honors the truths of modernity and postmodernity—including the revolutions in science and culture—while incorporating the essential insights of the great religions. He shows how spirituality today combines the enlightenment of the East, which excels at cultivating higher states of consciousness, with the enlightenment of the West, which offers developmental and psychodynamic psychology. Each contributes key components to a more integral spirituality. On the basis of this integral framework, a radically new role for the world’s religions is proposed. Because these religions have such a tremendous influence on the worldview of the majority of the earth’s population, they are in a privileged position to address some of the biggest conflicts we face. By adopting a more integral view, the great religions can act as facilitators of human development: from magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral—and to a global society that honors and includes all the stations of life along the way.

Sid Harth • 34 mins ago

Although Malhotra’s most recent book (which is reviewed here and which is the only book by him I have read), seems to be of the “more temperate” variety, the history Nussbaum reports confirms my initial impulse to read his works with a skeptical eye.

Sid Harth • 35 mins ago

The following is one excerpt from Nussbaum’s book: The chief antagonist behind these attacks is Rajiv Malhotra, a very wealthy man who lives in New Jersey and heads the Infinity Foundation, which has made grants in the area of Hinduism studies. Had Malhotra decided to focus his energies on giving scholarships to students and graduate students in this area, he would greatly have enhanced the profile of Hinduism studies nationally. But in recent years most of his energy has been focused on Internet attacks against Doniger and scholars associated with her, on his website sulekha.com. Malhotra’s voluminous writings show a highly aggressive, threatening personality. His attacks are sarcastic and intemperate. He shows little concern about factual accuracy. Typically he makes no attempt to describe the book or books he attacks in a complete or balanced way; instead, his broadsides are lists of alleged mistakes or distortions, conveying little or no sense of what the book is about and what it argues. Malhotra also has associates, some both more able and more temperate than he (Vishal Agarwal is one of these). But all pursue a common enterprise: the discrediting of American scholars of Hinduism as sex-crazed defamers of sacred traditions. (248)

Sid Harth • 36 mins ago

Update: Given the unexpected flurry of comments on this book review, as well as the level of passion and persistence from the commenters, I did some research on the author Rajiv Malhotra, which led me the 2007 book The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India’s Future by Martha Nussbaum, an American philosopher I have long admired, who is currently the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago. She records some disturbing accounts of attacks against the work of other scholars I greatly admire, including Wendy Doniger (the Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago) and Jeffrey Kripal (the J. Newton Rayzor Chair in Philosophy and Religious Thought at Rice University, where he is also the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies).

Sid Harth • 37 mins ago

We Westerners need to listen more to post-colonial voices, but Malhotra too often succeeds merely in knocking down straw men. Despite the vitally important differences in our religious and cultural traditions, we ultimately have far more in common — rooted in our common humanity — than we have to keep us apart. We are all humans, living on one planet in the far corner of one galaxy, that is only one among more than 100 billion other galaxies. We do interpret our experiences of this one universe through the lens of different cultural-linguistic traditions, but we are still interpreting the same one universe. And in this one universe, I remain for now an unrepentant (Western) Universalist.

Sid Harth • 37 mins ago

Yes, there is plenty to correct about Western Christianity. There is a sense in which it is problematic that, “In Catholicism a spiritual teacher is formally recognized as a saint only after he or she is dead for a certain number of years, thereby eliminating any threat to institutional authority from the living person.” But the author overreaches when he says that the Church “controls the history and the interpretations of the canonized saint’s teachings, free from any of the risks associated with the subversive teachings of those who practice and advocate director contact with the divine” (94). There is some truth in his critique, but to name only a few examples, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and Ignatius of Loyola are all well-known Roman Catholic saints whose writings strongly advocate direct contact with the divine. Malhotra occasionally grants that there are exceptions to his rule. For instance, he highlights ‘dharmic’ Judeo-Christian thinkers such as Roger Kamenetz, Dom Bede Griffiths, and Raimondo Panikkar. But I would contend that progressive, ‘dharmic’ religious thought and practice is far more common in the West than Malhotra often acknowledges and may well be even more common in the near future (344).

Sid Harth • 38 mins ago

Similarly, when he talks about “Human Access to First Principles,” his championing of a “bottom-up” approach and emphasis on spiritual practices sounds like the entire Emergent Church Movement (62). And, importantly, this movement is not new-fangled. Rather, many scholars would argue that this perspective has always been present in Western Christianity in various forms (see, for example, Diana Butler Bass’ A People’s History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story). And I couldn’t disagree more that the Nicene Creed — which was written almost three centuries after the life of the historical Jesus — is “the gold standard of belief in Christianity” (343). Almost at every point, the approach of myself and most of my fellow progressive Christians seems much more like the so-called “Indian” perspective and much less like the problematic construct of Western religion being criticized. Ironically, Malhotra seemed to be unintentionally inverting and recapitulating the imperialistic gaze he was intending to criticize and deconstruct.

Sid Harth • 39 mins ago

In contrast, the kind of Christianity I practice and teach involves precisely the sort of pragmatism and cultivation of firsthand experiences with God that he describes as dharmic. And my perspective is far from anomalous. To name only the first two examples that come to mind, see The Naked Now: Learning to See as the Mystics by Richard Rohr, a Christian monk in the Franciscan tradition, and The Wisdom Way of Knowing: Reclaiming An Ancient Tradition to Awaken the Heart by Cynthia Bourgeault, an Episcopal priest. Moreoever, progressive Christianity in general takes individual experience extremely seriously as a criterion for authority and would reject out of hand a view of Adam and Eve as actual historical figures, as opposed to meaningful mythological characters (see my post on “There Was No Historical Adam and Eve“). I could add further that neither Judaism nor Eastern Orthodox Christianity has an understanding of “original sin” in the way that Malhotra describes.

Sid Harth • 40 mins ago

Confessions of a Western Universalist March 5, 2012 by Carl Gregg (Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, HarperCollins, 2011, 474 pages) Rajiv Malhotra’s latest book challenges many Western assumptions. He invites his Western readers to see their worldview through the eyes of India. Having read a fair amount of postmodern philosophy, I was sympathetically inclined to his general perspective, but I am willing to confess that at the end of the book I remain, for better or worse, a fairly unreconstructed Western Universalist. One of my problems with his argument is the way he contrasts the “Judeo-Christian” tradition with what he calls the “dharmic” traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism). He describes the dharmic traditions as based on each individual’s re-experiencing and testing of traditional religious claims in the crucible of their own internal and external firsthand experience. He then characterizes the Judeo-Christian tradition as about each individual overcoming the historical ‘original sin’ of Adam and Eve (5-6).

Source: TOI

...and I am Sid Harth