Being Different

[Aaron]

I think this is a good point and your post reminds me of a quotation from Anthony Demello that I think does a nice job of illustrating the potential value of religion/spirituality vs how it is generally, unfortunately, misused. I love Demello and this is one of my favorite parables of his.

For anyone unfamiliar with him, he was a Jesuit who lived and worked in India and was also a psychologist and spent much of his time providing psychological care for the Catholic clergy. I am not Christian, but through his talks I've been able to see and appreciate the deeper, spiritual core of Christianity. Unfortunately, it is deeply buried and inaccessible to most people, in large part due to the institution's desire for power. That very point is well illustrated by the following parable. His works were banned as heresy by the official Catholic censor (who is currently pope) but subsequently released for secular publication after his death.

 

 

"There was a man who invented the art of making fire. He took his tools and went to a tribe in the north, where it was very cold, bitterly cold. He taught the people there to make fire. The people were very interested. He showed them the uses to which they could put fire: they could cook, could keep themselves warm, etc. They were so grateful that they had learned the art of making fire. But before they could express their gratitude to the man, he disappeared. He wasn't concerned with getting their recognition or gratitude; he was concerned about their well-being. He went to another tribe, where he again began to show them the value of his invention. People were interested there too, a bit too interested for the peace of mind of their priests, who began to notice that this man was drawing crowds and they were losing their popularity. So they decided to do away with him. They poisoned him, crucified him, put it any way you like. But they were afraid now that the people might turn against them, so they were very wise, even wily. Do you know what they did? They had a portrait of the man made and mounted it on the main altar of the temple. The instruments for making fire were placed in front of the portrait, and the people were taught to revere the portrait and to pay reverence to the instruments of fire, which they dutifully did for centuries. The veneration and the worship went on, but there was no fire.

 

Where's the fire? Where's the love? Where's the freedom? This is what spirituality is all about. Tragically, we tend to lose sight of this, don't we? This is what Jesus Christ is all about. But we overemphasized the "Lord, Lord," didn't we? Where's the fire? And if worship isn't leading to the fire, if adoration isn't leading to love, if the liturgy isn't leading to a clearer perception of reality, if God isn't leading to life, of what use is religion except to create more division, more fanaticism, more antagonism? It is not from lack of religion in the ordinary sense of the word that the world is suffering, it is from lack of love, lack of awareness. And love is generated through awareness and through no other way, no other way. Understand the obstructions you are putting in the way of love, freedom, and happiness and they will drop. Turn on the light of awareness and the darkness will disappear."

Anthony Demello

 

 

Thanks for this post. I wouldn't disagree with what he said.

 

Aaron

Edited March 15, 2012 by Twinner

[JustARandomPanda]

Not true... Giving up religion is returning to your natural state of being. Unless of course you think religion is something we're born with.

 

Aaron

 

 

and which natural state of being would that be... as a human body, as a mind, as a soul, as a spirit? Religion is part of form and to deny form is at least problematic.

 

*sits back eating popcorn waiting for Twinner's answer*

[Mokona]

Very thoughtful posts here, it's all very insightful.

[dwai]

There is a great deal of depth to what I'm saying, you're just ignoring it. The fact of the matter is that nothing you've said has countered my argument. You didn't even bother answering the question. I know it's a tough question, but I find when I pose it to people they tend not to answer simply out of fear, fear that the framework upon which they've laid their lives upon might be fallible.

 

Dear Aaron,

 

I'm not ignoring your question. I have already given the answer...you haven't seen it yet.

I'm saying that there is no escaping Categorical frameworks...even so-called frameworks to leave all frameworks create a new framework.

 

This is called "Nama-Rupa" in classical Indian philosophy. Any "system" is a complex of one or more categorical frameworks. Why? Because the very fact that there IS a system suggests that there is a certain methodology used to facilitate cognition and intellectual interpretation. So members of a certain species have evolved a basic biological framework based on which they operate. As there is differentiation within the species (slice and dice it as you may -- ethnic groups, linguistic groups, cultural groups, etc) each have developed a unique set of categorical frameworks based on which they operate. While all humans share a common set of categorical frameworks, there is also diversity between them (eg: Eastern thought process is significantly different from Western thought process, as a function of the different intellectual models being used - materialist vs idealist, so on and so forth).

 

So, to make a really long story short, if there is a system, there is a categorical framework.

 

Also posited in Vedanta (and other Eastern philosophies) is the concept of relative and absolute truth. Relative truth operates in the realm of categorical frameworks. Absolute truth is beyond all categories and labels.

 

Also posited is (based on observation) that the relative realm is one of duality (subject and object). Absolute realm is pure subject. So, in the relative realm subject and object go hand in hand (there is never any single phenomenon in the relative world that is not dualistic in nature). Similarly, for something to be absolute, there can never be a duality, it is always non-dual (tad ekam, na dwitiyam -- that one, not dual).

 

So for a member of the human species to be always present in absolute truth is to be in a state of no-thought (because thoughts are also dualistic in nature). It is because of this reason, it is impossible to be bereft of categorical frameworks in the mundane reality. Even those great masters who have been enlightened have to step into the mundane world to communicate and operate. It is another matter that they don't really consider the mundane world "absolutely" real -- because the trappings and mechanics of the relative world become evident to them as being empty (of self-existence).

 

So, whether you have religion or not, there is no "freedom" from conceptualized ideation (of any particular thing). Whether one ascribes a value to what they experience is another matter.

 

For one to "get" the absolute realm, he/she still has to use the relative. So, one cannot discard the relative. Since the methdologies to get to this level (of non-dual awareness) are many, thus various religions have evolved to provide the framework to get there.

 

Some of these religions don't go beyond duality. Some others do. So, in the relative sense, as long as the religion provides a bulwark for humans to expand their consciousness and awareness and get closer to the absolute, it is perfectly valid.

 

Do various adherents of the various religions use them for control? Sure. Does that mean that these religions are bad? Surely not.

 

So, each individual has to choose which one in the buffet of religions works for them at a deeply personal level. For some none of them work, so they choose a different path. However, they still develop or use an alternate categorical framework to get what they want. That's why, no-religion is also a religion.

 

 

 

[JustARandomPanda]

This thread has deviated from discussion of the book. I'd like to hear more about what Dwai thinks about it (or anyone else who is reading it).

[dwai]

This thread has deviated from discussion of the book. I'd like to hear more about what Dwai thinks about it (or anyone else who is reading it).

Good point serene...please share more of your thoughts on this matter.

[JustARandomPanda]

I am loving this book. I agree with so much of it. I've only had mild disagreements here and there and even those might be resolved seeing as I have not finished the book.

 

It is a shame this author hasn't met Joscelyn Godwin. I think these two men would get along very well. Much of what Malhotra discusses has been examined by Godwin as well. Except Godwin comes at it from a Western Mystery perspective but he is quite aware of the dharmic traditions too. I really think these two men would get along very well if they knew one another.

 

I really liked the following excerpt: [ all italics are the book's, not mine - SB]

 

...I shall describe my experience at a world conference on science and religion in Bangalore in 2003, an experience which brought into sharp focus the fragile and inconsistent inner unity of Western thought. The Templeton Foundation, the biggest such institution in the field attempting to harmonize current science with religion (mainly Christianity), had flown in scientific luminaries, including Nobel laureates, most of whom had publicly proclaimed allegiance to Christianity. These scholars explained the ties between their personal religious beliefs and science. The then and present head of Templeton is a self-described Christian evangelical, which is ironic given that evangelicals traditionally oppose secular science in favor of literal biblical claims. Yet these speakers seemed genuinely to want to bring their faith and science together.

 

To accomplish this intellectual gymnastics, they had to resort to neo-Vedantic principles (without acknowledgement) that assert that consciousness is the only ultimate reality and basis of unity. These principles served as the scientific basis for their own religion no matter how much they had to stretch the interpretation of the authoritative biblical canons to make their case. Indeed, the Vedantic principles that consciousness is everything and that the material world is its manifestation have become the fashionable way to claim compatibility between religion and quantum mechanics.

 

But such scholars of science and religion fail to acknowledge that this view of consciousness is not at all the normative theology in the Jewish and Christian [and Muslim - SB] religions, and it contradicts some of their basic assumptions about the nature of the self and world and their relation to God. On this occasion, the speakers completely evaded the important distinction between divine and human consciousness, which can never be overcome in mainstream Jewish and Christian [and Muslim - SB] theologies. They glossed over the insistence that revelation happened only from 'above' as at specific points in history and gave the impression that all religions, including Christianity, are based on quantum mechanics. Upon observing these contradictions in the opening day's speeches, I had a restless night pondering my own talk, which was to follow the next day.

 

I decided to set aside what I had planned to say and discussed several key questions instead: Can universal truth-claims be considered scientific if they are contingent on a particular account of history, especially if they depend on a historical event that could never be replicated? More to the point, what does a scientist think of claims of God's unique interventions which are space-time discontinuities and which violate or permanently change the laws of the cosmos? Can science afford to legitmize any grand narratives of human history, including the notion of a apocalyptic End Time which God is said to have revealed via His interventions? Shoud the scientific approache to spirituality be to prove historical narratives of one's religion, o shout it be an open-ended process that also critiques the methods used to arrive at religious cannons? Should the attempts to apply science to religion use scientific standards of inquiry to question religious dogmas and not just to legitimize certain religions? Are not many scholars invested in the religious outcomes of their inquiries?

 

As a physicist, I was troubled that the eminent scientists assembled had deftly abstracted out the history-centrism at the core of their religious traditions in order to make them appear scientific. In other words, they had represented their religions without any reference to historicity whatsoever, thereby altering their message to suit the scientific audience. Nobody in attendance wanted to acknowledge these concerns. So I provked them further by asking: Are scientists with Judeo-Christian religious affiliations evading the problem of history-centrism in scientific discussions even though history-centricism is at the heart of their exclusivity claims?

 

 

And...

 

 

The scientists present also seemed to ignore more recent developments. It is well known that the European movement known as the Enlightenment was a prolonged attack on the Christian edifice in order to allow free scientific inquiry and clip the wings of the politically powerful clergy. Christianity lost this fight against science, and its theologians are now busy repackaging their historical dogmas in science-compliant ways. Such scholars are having a remarkable impact on the reconstruction of Christianity as a 'scientific theology'. They deploy philosophical categories such as 'Whiteheadian thought,' much as earlier church theologians had appropriated Greek philosophy.

 

As I delved deeper, I realized that the schisms between Christianity and science have never been resolved, not even after centuries of conflict. Instead, there is merely a veneer that attempts to hide the underlying cracks. This is not the case with dharmic traditions [and I would say with Taoist/Confucian ones either - SB] where there is no inherent conflict in principle between science and dharma.

 

Because it is non-linear, dharma does not proceed along a developmental line progressing toward a climax. Rather, it spirals from a germinating point to swell in value by return and repetition. conventional linear thought is quite inadequate to meeting the intellectual challenges of the non-Euclidean world of advanced mathematics and quantum physics. But the dharmic mind is at home in the subatomic and astronomical worlds.

[RiverSnake]

 

I'm not ignoring your question. I have already given the answer...you haven't seen it yet.

I'm saying that there is no escaping Categorical frameworks...even so-called frameworks to leave all frameworks create a new framework.

 

 

"The Tao that can be named is not the Tao" I love Lao Tzu it will be cool if we can chill once i permanently hit the hay.

 

My 2 cents, Peace

[JustARandomPanda]

A few points I would ask the author (or maybe he's answered them in the book? Haven't finished it so wouldn't know).

 

Since dharmic world-views are so flexible why did their respective societies not develop democratic governments such as seen in India today? That was an importation from the West - albeit one Indians (and other countries) have taken to like a duck takes to water and have utilized very well. In that I am glad they are a democratic nation and not an authoritarian one-party nation like China.

 

The author even goes so far as to say current Indian democratic government itself is also 'synthetically' put together. Something I'm suspicious his take on the Orient vs West framework kind of backs him into a corner in taking. Had India devised modern democratic government first I suspect he'd have put it forth as an example of how it's integral, not synthetic.

 

Also...it's clear the author's major gripe is with Christianity and Christians. Especially Christians who are moderates and don't realize the implications of their own beliefs. Because let's face it - only moderates give a rat's A** about trying to get along with other faiths. Those not of this mindset want to see alternative beliefs wiped out. They sure as hell don't hold Interfaith conferences (they have Vmarco's approval on that too oddly enough)~!

 

Non-moderate Christians want to see anyone not like them permanently gone - either converted or else wiped out. Same thing with Muslims (dunno about hardline Jews though and he doesn't mention hardline Jews or hardline Jewish Talmudic philosophy and theology at all). Witness the superiority attitude of the Jewish Fundamentalist Rabbi in Letters to a Buddhist Jew and how Judaism is superior to anything the Buddha taught. BTW - ever notice how Jews like to be defined first by Jewishness and secondarily as anything else? It's Buddhist Jew...not Jewish Buddhist. It's Atheist Jew, not Jewish Atheist. And I think they do it for a reason - to remind themselves that they are God's Chosen People (although anthropologists can just about show every other tribe/clan/nation has made the exact same claim at some point or another but I digress).

 

I'm rather surprised Jews and Muslims get only very scanty token mentions by the author in this book chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter...etc. He doesn't go into (ie. isn't specifically and detailed focus) into Jewish theology/beliefs vis-a-vis dharma at all and he completely ignores Muslim theology, practices and teachings Muslims give their young. But Christian societies get a detailed chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter... vivisection vis-a-vis dharmic traditions. In fact I think this minute focus on Christianity in detail and ignoring giving the other two Abrahamaic faiths a detailed vivisection vis-a-vis dharma is a serious and persistent weakness of the book.

 

Furthermore there ARE societies that are non-Western that display many of the same ideas and anxieties of the West. Witness the Japanese and their Ethnic Bloodline Purity Laws. In fact even the Japanese themselves acknowledge they will allow their country to sink into economic insignificance due to falling birthrates rather than open it up to immigration to try to stay an economic powerhouse in the world. If that isn't enshrining Egoic-based laws first I don't know what is. It's afraid of the 'other' the foreigner...the gaijin with his non-Japanese frameworks which is surely due to Ego's enthronement in a non-Abrahamaic country with a non-Abrahamaic history.

 

This is something that astounds me since it's my understanding India has a not-insignificant Muslim population within it's borders. Why attack after attack after attack on moderate Christians but the (almost total) ignoring of Jews and Muslims (the latter who are even more adamant on the history-centrist claim that Islam is the Final One True Religion (all non-Muslims are infidels - period - as per the Holy Koran) and Muhammed is the Final Prophet with the Final Message (Koran, Hadiths, Surrahs) from (transcendent-only) Allah and anyone who disagrees with the aforementioned will be thrown into the Everlasting Hellfire on the Day of Judgement and a legitimate target for Jihad).

 

How can a man who lives in a country with a not-insignificant practicing Muslim population not examine it in detail vis-a-vis dharmic traditions in this book? A true opportunity was missed.

 

The very societies he criticizes (yes..it de facto devolves to a LOT of primary critique specifically leveled at the United States and secondarily Great Britain) were the same ones who evolved national multi-ethnic democratic Rights-Based governments first...not the dharmic ones. They are the ones who gave us quantum mechanics, evolution theory and relativity theory (which all nations now piggyback off of and extend) and invented capitalism to raise the living standards of many people out of squalor (ditto). These 'synthetically unified' societies never evolved nor maintain a caste-system of Untouchables (though he does point fingers at the West's and especially the U.S.'s history of skin-tone based racism - to which I would reply, "pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot") and even fought wars within their own societies to end slavery and the slave trade and were the first to enfranchise women on a truly massive scale (something still not achieved in many societies today).

 

Would this author have had the courage to examine and deconstruct modern Islamic societies as he has Christian societies? I hope someday he will as it is very much needed.

 

I agree with many of the things he says but the fact remains he felt utterly safe in even publishing such a critique of the West (and especially of the U.S. population). So it's not as if the West is incapable of examining it's own frameworks. Had he made this same critique of say...current Saudi society frameworks I'm guessing we'd likely be hearing of a Fatwah issued on his head the same as was done on Salman Rushdie.

[dwai]

A few points I would ask the author (or maybe he's answered them in the book? Haven't finished it so wouldn't know).

 

Since dharmic world-views are so flexible why did their respective societies not develop democratic governments such as seen in India today? That was an importation from the West - albeit one Indians (and other countries) have taken to like a duck takes to water and have utilized very well. In that I am glad they are a democratic nation and not an authoritarian one-party nation like China.

 

The author even goes so far as to say current Indian democratic government itself is also 'synthetically' put together. Something I'm suspicious his take on the Orient vs West framework kind of backs him into a corner in taking. Had India devised modern democratic government first I suspect he'd have put it forth as an example of how it's integral, not synthetic.

 

Also...it's clear the author's major gripe is with Christianity and Christians. Especially Christians who are moderates and don't realize the implications of their own beliefs. Because let's face it - only moderates give a rat's A** about trying to get along with other faiths. Those not of this mindset want to see alternative beliefs wiped out. They sure as hell don't hold Interfaith conferences (they have Vmarco's approval on that too oddly enough)~!

 

Non-moderate Christians want to see anyone not like them permanently gone - either converted or else wiped out. Same thing with Muslims (dunno about hardline Jews though and he doesn't mention hardline Jews or hardline Jewish Talmudic philosophy and theology at all). Witness the superiority attitude of the Jewish Fundamentalist Rabbi in Letters to a Buddhist Jew and how Judaism is superior to anything the Buddha taught. BTW - ever notice how Jews like to be defined first by Jewishness and secondarily as anything else? It's Buddhist Jew...not Jewish Buddhist. It's Atheist Jew, not Jewish Atheist. And I think they do it for a reason - to remind themselves that they are God's Chosen People (although anthropologists can just about show every other tribe/clan/nation has made the exact same claim at some point or another but I digress).

 

I'm rather surprised Jews and Muslims get only very scanty token mentions by the author in this book chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter...etc. He doesn't go into (ie. isn't specifically and detailed focus) into Jewish theology/beliefs vis-a-vis dharma at all and he completely ignores Muslim theology, practices and teachings Muslims give their young. But Christian societies get a detailed chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter after chapter... vivisection vis-a-vis dharmic traditions. In fact I think this minute focus on Christianity in detail and ignoring giving the other two Abrahamaic faiths a detailed vivisection vis-a-vis dharma is a serious and persistent weakness of the book.

 

Furthermore there ARE societies that are non-Western that display many of the same ideas and anxieties of the West. Witness the Japanese and their Ethnic Bloodline Purity Laws. In fact even the Japanese themselves acknowledge they will allow their country to sink into economic insignificance due to falling birthrates rather than open it up to immigration to try to stay an economic powerhouse in the world. If that isn't enshrining Egoic-based laws first I don't know what is. It's afraid of the 'other' the foreigner...the gaijin with his non-Japanese frameworks which is surely due to Ego's enthronement in a non-Abrahamaic country with a non-Abrahamaic history.

 

This is something that astounds me since it's my understanding India has a not-insignificant Muslim population within it's borders. Why attack after attack after attack on moderate Christians but the (almost total) ignoring of Jews and Muslims (the latter who are even more adamant on the history-centrist claim that Islam is the Final One True Religion (all non-Muslims are infidels - period - as per the Holy Koran) and Muhammed is the Final Prophet with the Final Message (Koran, Hadiths, Surrahs) from (transcendent-only) Allah and anyone who disagrees with the aforementioned will be thrown into the Everlasting Hellfire on the Day of Judgement and a legitimate target for Jihad).

 

How can a man who lives in a country with a not-insignificant practicing Muslim population not examine it in detail vis-a-vis dharmic traditions in this book? A true opportunity was missed.

 

The very societies he criticizes (yes..it de facto devolves to a LOT of primary critique specifically leveled at the United States and secondarily Great Britain) were the same ones who evolved national multi-ethnic democratic Rights-Based governments first...not the dharmic ones. They are the ones who gave us quantum mechanics, evolution theory and relativity theory (which all nations now piggyback off of and extend) and invented capitalism to raise the living standards of many people out of squalor (ditto). These 'synthetically unified' societies never evolved nor maintain a caste-system of Untouchables (though he does point fingers at the West's and especially the U.S.'s history of skin-tone based racism - to which I would reply, "pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot") and even fought wars within their own societies to end slavery and the slave trade and were the first to enfranchise women on a truly massive scale (something still not achieved in many societies today).

 

Would this author have had the courage to examine and deconstruct modern Islamic societies as he has Christian societies? I hope someday he will as it is very much needed.

 

I agree with many of the things he says but the fact remains he felt utterly safe in even publishing such a critique of the West (and especially of the U.S. population). So it's not as if the West is incapable of examining it's own frameworks. Had he made this same critique of say...current Saudi society frameworks I'm guessing we'd likely be hearing of a Fatwah issued on his head the same as was done on Salman Rushdie.

 

Indeed...very good points. I know for a fact that he considers the islamic topic a larger phenomenon that he intends to tackle separately. In general he is working on abrahamic systems which include all three (c,j&i).

 

I dont think he is saying that everything about the west is bad or wrong. And neither that everything that happened in the indic context is free of wrongs. But what i ubderstood from his position is that relative intensity of wrongness dont warrant one system primacy over others ( and raising those bogies again is a result of applying that very same lens to criticize, ie western rules)

 

 

I will explain later why the typical western bogies of "indian" evils...sati, dowry and caste are not in fact result of dharmic traditions. Also, If you read on, he covers all that.

 

As far as democracy goes...well there was typically a mixed mode where in most cases there was a central monarchy with loosely associated and democratically governed villages. In fact if you read mahatma gandhi's model of india (tht he envisioned) , it was very much a decentralized democratic model based on early indian history...pre-islamic invasions, albeit without a monarchy.

 

What people forget is that european nations where modern demcracy evolved were tiny specs of land and population compared to the size and diversity of india. The US was a direct reult of setllement of primarily anglo-saxon immigrants from britain, where interstingly enough the native popultion was almost decimated. You think there was no cost paid for democracy in the us? Just go ask the native americans...

[JustARandomPanda]

Indeed...very good points. I know for a fact that he considers the islamic topic a larger phenomenon that he intends to tackle separately. In general he is working on abrahamic systems which include all three (c,j&i).

 

1. I look forward to it. Especially if he does give detailed examination of the other two. As I said I have not finished it.

 

I dont think he is saying that everything about the west is bad or wrong. And neither that everything that happened in the indic context is free of wrongs.

 

2. Neither was I implying that in my critique of his critiques of the West. Interesting that you think that's what I was implying.

 

 

But what i ubderstood from his position is that relative intensity of wrongness dont warrant one system primacy over others ( and raising those bogies again is a result of applying that very same lens to criticize, ie western rules)

 

3. See line 2.

 

 

The US was a direct reult of setllement of primarily anglo-saxon immigrants from britain, where interstingly enough the native popultion was almost decimated. You think there was no cost paid for democracy in the us? Just go ask the native americans...

 

4. Plenty of Americans don't forget that! I'm surprised you think that of Americans! Especially of me! What does that say about Dharmic-individual's frameworks on Americans?! Uh...every child in the U.S. is mandated to take both U.S. and state history and often-times (as I did) - World History as well. My knowledge of my own hemisphere's history extends to the tip of South America, Native American tribes (Native American history which is mandated by my state), deeply of Japanese history, deeply of Europe (especially of the U.K, Greece, Rome and Byzantium), Specialized university level classes in Soviet history, Soviet and Russian hemispheric geopolitics and political organization.

 

5. Contrary to what the author focuses on I believe plenty of non-abrahamaic countries/ethic groups have a history/predilection/liking-for conquering and/or ethnically cleansing other countries as well. Witness the Japanese conquest of China during WWII and the rape of Nanking. Japan's unwillingness to ask for China's forgiveness (something only an enthroned Ego [by a might I point out - Non-Abrahamaic / Non-Western Philosophy society] would have trouble doing - especially if it was historical fact these things took place) has strained their official and unofficial relations with China. Not smart foreign policy if you ask me - especially since China is the Dragon on it's way up in the World and Japan is on it's way down. And they BOTH know it.

 

Or see China's own Warring States Period. Or Mongolian Hordes sweeping across the plains conquering, raping and slaughtering all in their path. And anyone who thinks the Native Americans were not warlike doesn't have a good knowledge of Native American history nor especially of Plains Indian tribes. Or how about pre-European Aztecs and their brutal human sacrifices (although they didn't see it as brutal). Ethnic cleansing and Imperialism is not a disease only primarily displayed by the Anglo-European West.

 

6. I do confess I am very ignorant of Indian history. I know more of Japanese and Chinese history than I do of India. My critique was of the book so far - which has been persistent in it's attacks on Christians (including Christians in India) while Jews and Muslims get (so far) NO commentary AT ALL. Now...if I begin hitting chapters where he starts vivisecting Jews and Muslims vis-a-vis Dharmic societies and ethnic populations in the same way as he's persistently done with Christianity and Western Philosophy my already favorable impression of this book will go very high indeed. But so far the chapters I've read are not saying things I haven't seen U.S. citizen-critics (like authors Joscelyn Godwin and Walter Truett Anderson) level in-depth at their own societies' frameworks as well (so far).

Edited March 25, 2012 by SereneBlue

[dwai]

1. I look forward to it. Especially if he does give detailed examination of the other two. As I said I have not finished it.

 

 

 

2. Neither was I implying that in my critique of his critiques of the West. Interesting that you think that's what I was implying.

 

 

 

 

3. See line 2.

 

 

 

 

4. Plenty of Americans don't forget that! I'm surprised you think that of Americans! Especially of me! What does that say about Dharmic-individual's frameworks on Americans?! Uh...every child in the U.S. is mandated to take both U.S. and state history and often-times (as I did) - World History as well. My knowledge of my own hemisphere's history extends to the tip of South America, Native American tribes (Native American history which is mandated by my state), deeply of Japanese history, deeply of Europe (especially of the U.K, Greece, Rome and Byzantium), Specialized university level classes in Soviet history, Soviet and Russian hemispheric geopolitics and political organization.

 

5. Contrary to what the author focuses on I believe plenty of non-abrahamaic countries/ethic groups have a history/predilection/liking-for conquering and/or ethnically cleansing other countries as well. Witness the Japanese conquest of China during WWII and the rape of Nanking. Japan's unwillingness to ask for China's forgiveness (something only an enthroned Ego [by a might I point out - Non-Abrahamaic / Non-Western Philosophy society] would have trouble doing - especially if it was historical fact these things took place) has strained their official and unofficial relations with China. Not smart foreign policy if you ask me - especially since China is the Dragon on it's way up in the World and Japan is on it's way down. And they BOTH know it.

 

Or see China's own Warring States Period. Or Mongolian Hordes sweeping across the plains conquering, raping and slaughtering all in their path. And anyone who thinks the Native Americans were not warlike doesn't have a good knowledge of Native American history nor especially of Plains Indian tribes. Or how about pre-European Aztecs and their brutal human sacrifices (although they didn't see it as brutal). Ethnic cleansing and Imperialism is not a disease only primarily displayed by the Anglo-European West.

 

6. I do confess I am very ignorant of Indian history. I know more of Japanese and Chinese history than I do of India. My critique was of the book so far - which has been persistent in it's attacks on Christians (including Christians in India) while Jews and Muslims get (so far) NO commentary AT ALL. Now...if I begin hitting chapters where he starts vivisecting Jews and Muslims vis-a-vis Dharmic societies and ethnic populations in the same way as he's persistently done with Christianity and Western Philosophy my already favorable impression of this book will go very high indeed. But so far the chapters I've read are not saying things I haven't seen U.S. citizen-critics (like authors Joscelyn Godwin and Walter Truett Anderson) level in-depth at their own societies' frameworks as well (so far).

 

Relax...i wasnt making an attack on americans.

 

How ever i have seen many americans get extremely defensive when that sordid part of their otherwise glorious little history come up...i mean really extreme reactions...

 

Also i sense a subconsciously triggered need to compare "the bads" between the "us" and "them". Take a step back...let us approach this first as a purely academic exercise...

 

The purpose of this book is to reverse the gaze on the west and challenge western universalism. I supect you have not gotten to chapter 6 yet...

 

The predominant root of the west is christianity and its offshoots...so i guess thats why his focus has been on christianity.

[JustARandomPanda]

Relax...i wasnt making an attack on americans.

 

How ever i have seen many americans get extremely defensive when that sordid part of their otherwise glorious little history come up...i mean really extreme reactions...

 

Also i sense a subconsciously triggered need to compare "the bads" between the "us" and "them". Take a step back...let us approach this first as a purely academic exercise...

 

The purpose of this book is to reverse the gaze on the west and challenge western universalism. I supect you have not gotten to chapter 6 yet...

 

The predominant root of the west is christianity and its offshoots...so i guess thats why his focus has been on christianity.

 

 

 

What a curious reply.

 

I posted what I did because it's..uh...boring to say "hey, I agree with him 95%." and that's it. Where is there discussion in that?

 

I was giving assorted thoughts on the book as per your request. What were you expecting Dwai? I just realized I don't know what your expectations are of other readers of this book. Don't say you have none because you proved with your reply quoted above you do. Apparently my critiques didn't fit "it" since they were seemingly "subconsciously triggered", need to "take a step back" and were not a "purely academic exercise". What IS a "purely academic exercise", Dwai?

 

 

 

Actually...that may be a good question for you to answer. Then I'll know your expectations and how and what you are interested in discussing vis-a-vis this book and it's gaze at the West*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*which I submit is the author's code-word de facto for moderate U.S. Christian Intellectuals specifically and moderate U.S. Christian Intellectual frameworks specifically (because Indian Christians aren't Western and therefore don't need reverse-gazing at).

[dwai]

What a curious reply.

 

I posted what I did because it's..uh...boring to say "hey, I agree with him 95%." and that's it. Where is there discussion in that?

 

I was giving assorted thoughts on the book as per your request. What were you expecting Dwai? I just realized I don't know what your expectations are of other readers of this book. Don't say you have none because you proved with your reply quoted above you do. Apparently my critiques didn't fit "it" since they were seemingly "subconsciously triggered", need to "take a step back" and were not a "purely academic exercise". What IS a "purely academic exercise", Dwai?

 

 

 

Actually...that may be a good question for you to answer. Then I'll know your expectations and how and what you are interested in discussing vis-a-vis this book and it's gaze at the West*.

 

 

*which I submit is the author's code-word de facto for moderate U.S. Christian Intellectuals specifically and moderate U.S. Christian Intellectual frameworks specifically (because Indian Christians aren't Western and therefore don't need reverse-gazing at).

 

 

That is not the point..,indan christians are less than 10% of its population...while that subject does warrant a detailed look, imho, since the book is about looking at the west thru dharmic lens, indian christians re not covered beyond those that are instruments of the conversion business...

 

You could join the being different discussion group and ask your questions...im sure rajiv will be happy to respond .. The responses you will get from me are only my guesses and not the author's actual responses...

 

I said subconscious triggers because i can see them as clear as day...i dont insinuate anything about you when say that....only that it takes considerable effort to see all the layers of conditioning. And i am happy for you...that you have seen these layers...

 

 

Academic exercise in discussions is what we are trying to do. I could sense strong emotion in your responses before so i suggested that we take a more cerebral approach...

 

To help take myself out from between the reader and author, i will post a series of rajiv's talks in video...here is one he gave at the indian institute of science...

 

 

Rajiv's discussions the fr francis clooney at umass...

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2012 by dwai

[JustARandomPanda]

That is not the point..,indan christians are less than 10% of its population...while that subject does warrant a detailed look, imho, since the book is about looking at the west thru dharmic lens, indian christians re not covered beyond those that are instruments of the conversion business...

 

Then you just agreed with me.

 

 

 

I said subconscious triggers because i can see them as clear as day...i dont insinuate anything about you when say that....only that it takes considerable effort to see all the layers of conditioning. And i am happy for you...that you have seen these layers...

 

Ok, I see the angle you're coming from now better.

 

 

Academic exercise in discussions is what we are trying to do. I could sense strong emotion in your responses before so i suggested that we take a more cerebral approach...

 

 

I don't care if he wants to critique Western Philosophy or moderate U.S. Christians. I'm ok with critiquing Western Philosophy as it's had centuries of having exactly such criticisms and I think that's a strength of the book. Using dharma to critique Western Philosophy is a breath of fresh air. Too bad he's not a Taoist and Confucian as I would love to see Western Philosophy critiqued from those angles too (especially from a Confucian standpoint). Master Nan Huai-Chin has done that a tiny bit and I wished he'd do much more.

 

The author's critiquing moderate Christians is ok too. If he wants to gaze at the U.S. which is the whole purpose of the book by all means have at it (every example in the book in every chapter has been from the U.S. so it IS the U.S. he's gazing at in actual practice if not in theory). I'm not familiar with the anthropological works he says people have done to 'gaze at' India but I agree if they did so without practicing dharma themselves then any such research that resulted would be muddled at best and completely misguided at worst.

 

 

In any case I don't have anything to discuss about the book atm so I shall now retire and turn this thread over to you and to other readers. At least now all future thread contributors know posts need to be cerebral discussions.

[Jetsun]

Bashing Christian culture is popular these days and it is easy to do given it's past and it's association with colonialism but people often forget the positives. I work with a guy from India and he remarked to me how surprised he was when he came to this country how well people look after the disabled and people with learning problems, how much is done to support them and help them in their lives. Charity too is a big tradition, despite our current financial problems in the UK we still give India $500 million in aid a year despite them growing at an enormous rate and having their own space programme; the US too has a great tradition in philanthropy and charity, and the biggest aid and humanitarian organisations in the world like the Red Cross working in the most deprived and dangerous areas of the world are essentially Christian organisations

 

When the Tibetan refugees fled from Chinese invasion many Christian charity workers came to their aid and the Dalai Lama has remarked many times how his own people can learn a lot from them and their dedication to charity. I'm not a Christian myself but if Christian culture is going to be rejected it is not wise to throw out everything just out of principle.

[dwai]

I don't care if he wants to critique Western Philosophy or moderate U.S. Christians. I'm ok with critiquing Western Philosophy as it's had centuries of having exactly such criticisms and I think that's a strength of the book. Using dharma to critique Western Philosophy is a breath of fresh air. Too bad he's not a Taoist and Confucian as I would love to see Western Philosophy critiqued from those angles too (especially from a Confucian standpoint). Master Nan Huai-Chin has done that a tiny bit and I wished he'd do much more.

 

The author's critiquing moderate Christians is ok too. If he wants to gaze at the U.S. which is the whole purpose of the book by all means have at it (every example in the book in every chapter has been from the U.S. so it IS the U.S. he's gazing at in actual practice if not in theory). I'm not familiar with the anthropological works he says people have done to 'gaze at' India but I agree if they did so without practicing dharma themselves then any such research that resulted would be muddled at best and completely misguided at worst.

 

 

In any case I don't have anything to discuss about the book atm so I shall now retire and turn this thread over to you and to other readers. At least now all future thread contributors know posts need to be cerebral discussions.

 

Serene,

 

I appreciate your candor. If you have the time to listen to the talks (especially the talks at Dartmouth) you will find him referencing exactly what you are interested in -- a Confucian gaze-reversal (he calls it China's development of the Confucian Ethic) and about some 100 odd centers set up by the Chinese government all over the world to present the Chinese/Confucian worldview.

 

@Jetsun,

 

It is important to remember that the gaze-reversal by the author is an exercise used in classical indian philosophical systems to understand the subject via the native framework. In places like India, the Western mode of thinking is ubiquitous and there is no special need to "understand the west from its own perspective". It is funny however that the "purva paksha" has hardly ever happened.

 

I will give you an example from my own perspective. I came to the US in 2000 as young engineer. When I first arrived here, I was oblivious to the peculiarities of the West (i.e. the US) from a deeper cultural perspective -- the ideas, beliefs, preconceptions regarding my country and culture, etc (to a large extent there was ignorance and the instances where there was "awareness", it was more a negative image -- caste, cows and curry as many of us like to term it). I struggled for a few years trying to articulate this and as part of a group of writers on a diaspora web portal, I wrote some of my preliminary thoughts. One point that rose over and over again was -- "Why is there a need to use a Western lens to look at India?". I felt there was a need for an alternate paradigm at viewing the world, more in harmony with an Indian way.

 

After I started interacting with this author (who was also part of that same group), and reading his works, I started realizing that alternate framework -- now I have spent close to a decade in that space...so I have internalized the concepts (when I first started I had massive reservations against it, primarily due to a very superficial understanding of the thesis). This book is a beautiful first step in that direction.

 

Now one might ask, why is there such a need. The reason for me personally is that I am not comfortable with accepting the Western worldview completely, mainly because the vernacular view in India is/was greatly different and more integral than the western one.

 

I of course won't say that I reject the Western Worldview (I live and work in the West after all). I just don't' accept it as a universal...in the Western context, it might be perfectly logical. For those who don't share the roots with the West, it is peculiarly bothersome. The reasons for this are many (both trivial as well as deep).

 

I have in the past expressed my opinions on "Westernized" Eastern esotericism and I think that it is an abomination...but I also do understand that most of us are not even aware of our own subconscious conditioning (within the context of our primary culture).

 

As far as charitable acts and acts of human compassion etc are concerned...of course they are admirable qualities but its not accurate to say that such practices are not prevalent in places like India. A lot of this is built into the tradition itself (caring for the sick, aged, etc is automatically part of the familial structure -- such as joint family systems, elderly parents living with their children, etc). Charitable acts are part of rituals (where thousands of people are fed for extended periods of time during such periods). Yes...organized activities are far less outside of these contexts, but a lot of this is actually a function of the level of affluence in the society. As affluence rises, so will all these other things.

[JustARandomPanda]

Ok.

 

I spent my lunch reading more of chapter 4 (haven't finished it). As I said this book is awesome and I agree with huge portions of it.

 

I do have some quibbles with Malhotra that I just read.

 

1. He says that Ken Wilber's Integral Theory gives no credit to the east or India in the ideas that saturate Wilber's framework.

 

In this he is wrong as anyone who listens to Wilber knows Vedanta has heavily influenced his thinking and how he sees Western Philosophy. Wilber doesn't hide this.

 

Here's proof of Wilber displaying his being influenced by Vedanta by interpreting a Western Philosopher in Vedanta dharmic terms.

 

 

 

 

2. The author (so far) is making much of how Christianity has no history of inner science like meditation. In this he is factually wrong. Catholicism has a long history of using the rosary and things like Hail Mary, Our Father and the Lord's Prayer as mantra's. Monks and Nuns were taught to chant these as mantras with the rosary (aka mala and in Christiandom rosaries also consist of 108 beads) while focusing on the heart-center until the breath shut down (aka Embryonic Breathing commenced).

 

3. Hesychasm is also a specific form of inner science common in Eastern Orthodox Christendom. Just because it is not well known today doesn't mean it wasn't well known back in earlier centuries. Again it was explained as a form of prayer that led to the progressive shutting down of the senses until all senses and thoughts ceased in order to ascend to knowledge of God in one's heart-center.

 

4. Judaism has a history also of these same kinds of inner yogic sciences.

 

5. Islam has a history of inner sciences and Islamic western students engage in them too. Indeed it's managed to be the most well-known of the three as everyone has heard of the Sufis (who have come to the U.S. and U.K.) and I can vouch that they have the same inner science methods/realizations as found in India and China. When I was reading Shayk Muhammad Hisham Kibbani's (who is of the Naqshbandi Sufi Order and has U.S. disciples) The Sufi Science of Self-Realization I grinned from the very first page because he gave an account of No-Self (albeit he didn't call it No-Self but there was NO mistaking that was precisely what he was describing).

 

4. Current day Western scientists are indeed beginning to meld scientific research with inner sciences. Witness books like Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge among a host of other books on exactly this theme (convergence of inner contemplation and scientific research).

 

 

Now granted. The author is focused on what moderate Christian Intellectuals know (and they are typically - outside of Ken Wilber who does practice - are not practicers of inner yogic/qi-gong techniques) and of course currently the average U.S. Christian layman/laywoman does not have a clue about their own religion's inner 'yogic/qi-gong' techniques.

 

America is for the most part a profoundly secularist society (indeed that's one of the thing that pisses off the Fundie Evangelicals so much). Americans bow down to the "god of Capitalism" far more than they ever do or did of Jesus.

 

Europe is by far even more secularist/atheist than the U.S. Less than 5% of the U.K. population goes to church every week. Ditto the rest of Europe. The vast majority of Europeans don't give a rat's A** about any sort of spiritual tradition - abrahamaic, dharmic or anything else. They bow down to the god of Capitalism too.

 

On both continents secularism has taken such a deep hold that there are almost no Christian monks and nuns left and it's well known the Catholic Church has problems gaining new priests.

 

Now...I do agree with the author that non-Aristotelian forms of logic need to be better known. Unfortunately - in societies beset with economic problems that threaten funding of education at all levels I highly doubt such forms of logic will be known by anyone but a few experts in the field and maybe some higher-level mathematicians. Does it cripple the way the U.S. population - including it's intellectuals/elites - view and understand the rest of the world. Yes, I'm convinced it does.

 

I've long mourned the relative ignorance of the average American when it comes to understanding anything outside their little sphere (I'm the sole person in my family who bothers to read. Nobody else in my family does - they get all their info and worldviews from Fox News . I gave up a long time ago in trying to inject different views on the world that diverged from Fox as it only served to royally piss my family off).

 

 

I haven't yet hit anything in any chapters so far that I haven't seen critiqued in detail elsewhere but then I doubt most people bother to read some of the authors I read (most American's - just like my family - flat out don't read). On Taobums in fact the only person I've seen who reads the same offbeat stuff I do with any regularity is Drew Hemphill (aka Mr Full Lotus ).

 

 

I am eager to hit the Confucian chapters!

[3bob]

Since dharmic world-views are so flexible why did their respective societies not develop democratic governments such as seen in India today? That was an importation from the West - albeit one Indians (and other countries) have taken to like a duck takes to water and have utilized very well. In that I am glad they are a democratic nation and not an authoritarian one-party nation like China.

 

For much of the history of India I'd say flexible within the (Sanatana)dharmic laws, thus the ideal and truly dharmic practicing king and all the people of the kingdom (in my view) would be in depper atunement with Spirit - that is if we are comparing it to variations of worldly democracies. Obviously in much of our history the ideal and truly dharmic laws are not always being carried out, for in many cases kings and kingdoms (and various spiritual groups for that matter) have been corrupted and in that case I'd take democracy any day.

 

Btw, the heavenly worlds are not run and do not need to be run as democracies since true dharma is in greater effect there! I also know that many "democratic" people would revolt if they had to abide in a kingdom based on dharmic law and authority, which is why our worldly goverments are not of a "heavenly" order. (at this time)

[dwai]

Since dharmic world-views are so flexible why did their respective societies not develop democratic governments such as seen in India today? That was an importation from the West - albeit one Indians (and other countries) have taken to like a duck takes to water and have utilized very well. In that I am glad they are a democratic nation and not an authoritarian one-party nation like China.

 

For much of the history of India I'd say flexible within the (Sanatana)dharmic laws, thus the ideal and truly dharmic practicing king and all the people of the kingdom (in my view) would be in depper atunement with Spirit - that is if we are comparing it to variations of worldly democracies. Obviously in much of our history the ideal and truly dharmic laws are not always being carried out, for in many cases kings and kingdoms (and various spiritual groups for that matter) have been corrupted and in that case I'd take democracy any day.

 

Btw, the heavenly worlds are not run and do not need to be run as democracies since true dharma is in greater effect there! I also know that many "democratic" people would revolt if they had to abide in a kingdom based on dharmic law and authority, which is why our worldly goverments are not of a "heavenly" order. (at this time)

 

 

http://www.nipissing...em/indiadem.htm

 

One feels that modern scholars have still not come to grips with the existence of widespread republicanism in a region so long thought to be the home par excellence of "Oriental Despotism." 73 Republicanism now has a place in every worthwhile book about ancient India, but it tends to be brushed aside so that one can get back to the main story, which is the development of the surviving Hindu tradition.74 Historians, in India as elsewhere, seem to feel that anything which could be so thoroughly forgotten must have had grievous flaws to begin with.75 Most historians still cannot discuss these republics without qualifying using the qualifiers "tribal" or "clan."76 Long ago Jayaswal rightly protested against the use of these terms: "The evidence does not warrant our calling [republics] 'clans.' Indian republics of the seventh [sic] and sixth centuries B.C...had long passed the tribal stage of society. They were states, Ganas and Samghas, though many of them likely had a national or tribal basis, as every state, ancient or modern, must necessarily have." 77 He was equally correct when he pointed out that "Every state in ancient Rome and Greece was 'tribal' in the last analysis, but no constitutional historian would think of calling the republics of Rome and Greece mere tribal organizations." 78

 

Yet the phrases "clan-" and "tribal-republic" are still routinely used today in the Indian context, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are being used perjoratively. In both common and scholarly usage, to label a people's institutions or culture as tribal is to dismiss them from serious consideration. "Tribespeople" are historical dead-ends, and their suppression or absorption by more advanced cultures (usually those ruled by centralizing governments) is taken for granted.79 The terminology of even Indian historians demonstrates the survival of an ancient but inappropriate prejudice in the general evaluation of Indian republicanism.

 

Once that prejudice is overcome, Indian republicanism gains a strong claim on the attention of historians, especially those with an interest in comparative or world history.

 

It is especially remarkable that, during the near-millenium between 500 B.C. and 400 A.D., we find republics almost anywhere in India that our sources allow us to examine society in any detail. Unless those sources, not least our Greek sources, are extremely deceptive, the republics of India were very likely more extensive and populous than the poleis of the Greeks.<a href="http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/histdem/indiadem.htm#80">80 One cannot help wondering how in many other parts of Eurasia republican and democratic states may have co-existed with the royal dynasties that are a staple of both ancient and modern chronology and conceptualization. This may well be an unanswerable question, but so far no one has even tried to investigate it. If an investigation is made, we may discover things that are as surprising to us as the republics of India originally were.

 

The existence of Indian republicanism is a discovery of the twentieth century. The implications of this phenomenon have yet to be fully digested, because historians of the past century have been inordinately in love with the virtues of centralized authority and government by experts, and adhered to an evolutionary historicism that has little good to say about either direct or representative democracy. Perhaps the love affair is fading. If so, historians will find, in the Indian past as elsewhere, plenty of raw material for a new history of the development of human government.

 

 

 

[JustARandomPanda]

For much of the history of India I'd say flexible within the (Sanatana)dharmic laws, thus the ideal and truly dharmic practicing king and all the people of the kingdom (in my view) would be in depper atunement with Spirit - that is if we are comparing it to variations of worldly democracies. Obviously in much of our history the ideal and truly dharmic laws are not always being carried out, for in many cases kings and kingdoms (and various spiritual groups for that matter) have been corrupted and in that case I'd take democracy any day.

 

Btw, the heavenly worlds are not run and do not need to be run as democracies since true dharma is in greater effect there! I also know that many "democratic" people would revolt if they had to abide in a kingdom based on dharmic law and authority, which is why our worldly goverments are not of a "heavenly" order. (at this time)

 

Well as I have said I am ignorant of India and Indian history. It does not surprise me that an academic Groupthink has ruled anthropology, culture studies or whatever else in the U.S.

 

My interest in history lay elsewhere so that's what I studied. I do think the U.S. is on it's way down in the world. In fact...very deeply down while many other countries are on the way up - China in particular but other countries as well.

 

In truth I welcome America losing its pre-eminence in the world as I have long been quite weary of American Nationalism (I'm sorry but that's exactly what American "Patriotism" is in actual practice and I could tell from Dwai's posts to me that's the category he thinks I am "subconsciously" in and I feel threatened by being 'gazed back at' ) and how it drives U.S. foreign policy, trade policy and military policy. Taobums should be glad the U.S. is not up to my sole vote on directing its future for if it was I'd shutter every single military base not in one of the 50 States, cut military contracts by 2/3rds and devote the savings to paying down the national debt and bring all troops home completely. The vacuum left by such an about-face around the world would be most interesting to see.

 

 

 

 

Anyway...it's a good book. But so far I've seen the author's arguments from other sources albeit from sources Malhotra is completely unaware of. He relies way too much on woefully uninformed Catholic and Protestant Intellectuals who have never actually practiced the Christian inner science techniques passed down within Christian monasteries and convents.

 

One of the very few current moderate religious intellectuals who DOES have intimate familiarity with the long tradition of Christian inner yogic techniques is author Karen Armstrong. She used to be a Catholic nun and in an interview admitted the reason she finally left the convent was that she was unable to achieve any success with the Catholic meditation techniques the other Nuns at the convent had. So it's clear that in the few Catholic convents that still exist in the world these inner Christian yogic techniques do survive. But the modern academic environment doesn't promote people based on practices like that. It gives tenure and recognition based on publishing research and so that's what Catholic and Protestant Intellectuals focus on (duh). That's been in place since the turn of the 20th century (and I think in the 19th century as well).

 

 

 

p.s. Who in the world gave Malhotra this idea?

 

India often strikes the Westerner as dysfunctional, defying all rational expectations and surviving only by good fortune.

 

 

I have never had that idea of India. My impression was always one of a country where industriousness and intellectual achievement was revered by all its inhabitants. Why else would Indians strive so hard to study the sciences (something I wish more Americans were inclined to do). India gave the world the utterly freaking brilliant mathematician Ramanujan - who re-derived over 100 years of high level mathematics in total isolation all by himself as a 12 year old boy! Some of Ramanujan's equations are so advanced they have still not been solved!

 

Surely my impression of India and Indians is not that off-the-mark from other Americans.

[JustARandomPanda]

Here is a talk recorded back in 1998 by the awesome British Western Esoteric Mystery Traditions researcher Dr. Joscelyn Godwin.

 

The theme of the talk was

 

Rejected Knowledge

 

...ie....forms, categories, logic, etc and ways of looking at the world that have been shunned, ignored or otherwise refused and rejected by Western Intellectuals' and Elites' assorted Groupthink predilections. Notice Godwin used Atlantis to show the limitations of the current way scientific inquiry and indeed most western intellectual inquiry is conducted these days (and has been for a very long time).

 

While specifically not focused on dharma or dharmic frameworks I think Malhotra would find Godwin is a kindred spirit. Godwin's book The Golden Thread: The Ageless Wisdom of Western Mystery Traditions has to be hands down one of the best books on that subject I've ever read. I became a lifelong Godwin fan after that book.

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

A more recent Godwin talk (2008)

 

 

caption to the above video:

 

The search inspired by Platos myth of Atlantis has led to innumerable theories about where it was, what it was like, and why it ended. A special group of theories breaks the rules of rationalist history by allowing spiritual, psychic, and occult realities to play a part. This talk describes some of these, and their consequences.

 

Read: Godwin actually is a spiritual practitioner (not just a theoretical intellectual pointy-head) of western 'yogic' techniques (I think that's why he knows damn well the current frameworks permitted in the West - and especially of materialistic-leaning science - aren't the Be-All and End-All of knowledge).

Edited March 25, 2012 by SereneBlue

[JustARandomPanda]

Now compare Joscelyn Godwin's talk on esoteric forms of knowledge in the West of ancient mythic high cultures with another man I greatly admire:

 

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath on Manu (the mythic progenitor of the Human Race)

 

 

 

 

Both are focusing on forms of knowledge that are considered "unacceptable" and "unscientific" by current day Intellectuals (I'm sure Michael Shermer must be having a heart attack somewhere at Dr. Godwin giving accredited university classes on Atlantis ) But such forms of knowledge would be more acceptable in India than in the U.S. or Britain.

[Aaron]

Hello Folks,

 

I wanted to point out a misconception that was being presented in this thread in regards to the Abrahamic religions, in particular Judaism. In Judaism God (YHWH) is regarded much as the Tao and Brahma. YHWH, the essence of God (which literally means The Existent One) cannot be understood or comprehended by mankind logically or intellectually. YHWH is in essence unnameable and unfathomable, it is considered the true force of creation and also the compassion directed towards the world by this unnameable force.

 

Now I think the interesting thing about this misconception is that it is often brought about by a misunderstanding of the foundation of Abrahamic religions, Judaism, mostly because the offshoots of the Judaic traditions have totally forgotten this or completely ignored it.

 

The God in the bible is God, but one might not consider it to be YHWH, in that YHWH has compassion for all things, it might also be said that YHWH treats all things like straw dogs, in that it's compassion is not from good or evil, but founded upon the principle of equanimity and a greater purpose that is unknowable by man. This is why YHWH can allow good men to die and bad men to prosper, because ultimately the will of YHWH is not will at all, but the way of the universe.

 

Just to clarify, here's a quote that might be of interest to people regarding Ein Sof (which is a term used to describe the creation force, or Godhead, not necessarily the God that is talking in the Bible),

 

"Ein Sof is a place to which forgetting and oblivion pertain. Why? Because concerning all the sefirot, one can search out their reality from the depth of supernal wisdom. From there it is possible to understand one thing from another. However, concerning Ein Sof, there is no aspect anywhere to search or probe; nothing can be known of it, for it is hidden and concealed in the mystery of absolute nothingness." -David ben Judah Hehasid

 

Now, if one didn't know any better, you might think this was a discussion about Tao or Brahma. Just something to keep in mind, which is that the foundation of almost every major religion is predicated on the notion of nothingness, and that this nothingness is not fathomable by men, but is mysterious and completely beyond comprehension or logic, in other words, it can only be experienced through a spiritual connection with Tao, Brahma, YHWH, etc.

 

An important thing to remember is that, much like Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism, Judaism has different sects and certain sects believe things others don't. To use a term like mainstream robs us of some of this understanding, because of what we consider mainstream. In other words God as it is understand by a Jew is very different from God as he is understood by a Christian.

 

I get a kick out of this "being different" thread, because most of the stuff that's taught by Buddhist and Hindus is also taught in Judaism, yet because it is seen as the foundation of Abrahamic traditions, it's discarded or ignored.

 

So I would say, if you're going to follow religions or criticize them, at least take the time to understand them before you criticize them. Judaism at its root is filled with as much compassion as any other tradition out there and to say that it is the cause of the West's current disjointed nature of self is really not the whole truth, in fact it would be better to blame Plato and the other Greeks, for it is their general philosophies that caused much of current malaise.

 

Aaron

 

Edit- Just another point of fact, in Judaism Man is not made in YHWH's image, simply because, as previously stated, YHWH is unfathomable... that's a Christian misconception predicated upon Zeus and the Greek Pantheon. Also the notion that one's actions effect YHWH differs depending on who you talk to, one Rabbi will say that man's actions cannot effect God, the other believes that we can ask beings to intercede on our behalf (angels for instance), but most don't believe that our actions in the physical realm, sinful or otherwise, have any real effect on YHWH. The commandments and Torah were essentially God's instruction to the Jews on living a moral life, but morality itself was something that had no effect on YHWH.

 

Also, you can find most of this on Wikipedia if you take the time to look.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Twinner

[dwai]

Hello Folks,

 

I wanted to point out a misconception that was being presented in this thread in regards to the Abrahamic religions, in particular Judaism. In Judaism God (YHWH) is regarded much as the Tao and Brahma. YHWH, the essence of God (which literally means The Existent One) cannot be understood or comprehended by mankind logically or intellectually. YHWH is in essence unnameable and unfathomable, it is considered the true force of creation and also the compassion directed towards the world by this unnameable force.

 

Now I think the interesting thing about this misconception is that it is often brought about by a misunderstanding of the foundation of Abrahamic religions, Judaism, mostly because the offshoots of the Judaic traditions have totally forgotten this or completely ignored it.

 

The God in the bible is God, but one might not consider it to be YHWH, in that YHWH has compassion for all things, it might also be said that YHWH treats all things like straw dogs, in that it's compassion is not from good or evil, but founded upon the principle of equanimity and a greater purpose that is unknowable by man. This is why YHWH can allow good men to die and bad men to prosper, because ultimately the will of YHWH is not will at all, but the way of the universe.

 

Just to clarify, here's a quote that might be of interest to people regarding Ein Sof (which is a term used to describe the creation force, or Godhead, not necessarily the God that is talking in the Bible),

 

"Ein Sof is a place to which forgetting and oblivion pertain. Why? Because concerning all the sefirot, one can search out their reality from the depth of supernal wisdom. From there it is possible to understand one thing from another. However, concerning Ein Sof, there is no aspect anywhere to search or probe; nothing can be known of it, for it is hidden and concealed in the mystery of absolute nothingness." -David ben Judah Hehasid

 

Now, if one didn't know any better, you might think this was a discussion about Tao or Brahma. Just something to keep in mind, which is that the foundation of almost every major religion is predicated on the notion of nothingness, and that this nothingness is not fathomable by men, but is mysterious and completely beyond comprehension or logic, in other words, it can only be experienced through a spiritual connection with Tao, Brahma, YHWH, etc.

 

An important thing to remember is that, much like Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism, Judaism has different sects and certain sects believe things others don't. To use a term like mainstream robs us of some of this understanding, because of what we consider mainstream. In other words God as it is understand by a Jew is very different from God as he is understood by a Christian.

 

I get a kick out of this "being different" thread, because most of the stuff that's taught by Buddhist and Hindus is also taught in Judaism, yet because it is seen as the foundation of Abrahamic traditions, it's discarded or ignored.

 

So I would say, if you're going to follow religions or criticize them, at least take the time to understand them before you criticize them. Judaism at its root is filled with as much compassion as any other tradition out there and to say that it is the cause of the West's current disjointed nature of self is really not the whole truth, in fact it would be better to blame Plato and the other Greeks, for it is their general philosophies that caused much of current malaise.

 

Aaron

 

Edit- Just another point of fact, in Judaism Man is not made in YHWH's image, simply because, as previously stated, YHWH is unfathomable... that's a Christian misconception predicated upon Zeus and the Greek Pantheon. Also the notion that one's actions effect YHWH differs depending on who you talk to, one Rabbi will say that man's actions cannot effect God, the other believes that we can ask beings to intercede on our behalf (angels for instance), but most don't believe that our actions in the physical realm, sinful or otherwise, have any real effect on YHWH. The commandments and Torah were essentially God's instruction to the Jews on living a moral life, but morality itself was something that had no effect on YHWH.

 

Also, you can find most of this on Wikipedia if you take the time to look.

 

Yet comparatively is it not astonishing how few the practitioners of judaism are compared to those of its children - christianity and islam?