The inter-religious dialogue, which liberals in all religions believe is necessary for peaceful co-existence, was essentially deemed a dialogue of unequals where the Catholic church was superior while beliefs and practices of other religions and even those of other branches of Christianity were seen as inadequate pathways to the ultimate goal: reaching God. In short, all other roads to nirvana were blocked except that guarded by the pope.

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060607&fname=seema&sid=1

Kindly, point to me some references.

I, as a practicing Hindu, feel humiliated especially when it comes from an authority! I hope I dont ever say the same about non-Hindu’s and non-practitioners.

I donÂ’t mean to be provocative, but I genuinely would like to know why you feel as you do. I count myself a practicing Hindu as well. There is no reason for any practicing Hindu to quail at the thought that someone (somewhere) holds Hinduism in contempt.

That’s the nature of the world! People disagree. When the current Pope mocks Hinduism, it’s easy enough to answer in kind, if you’re so inclined (Btw, is it just me who thought of a ton of jokes about the Pope’s religion revolving around ‘autoeroticism’, when reading his remark?)

More to the point, the Xtn Pope is not an authority on any matter dear to me; his opinions count for as much (or as little) as any other man. I say we ought to join the debate and peddle our own arguments and counter-arguments. After all, that’s what our Acharyas did when confronted with Buddhism( Here, I’m thinking of Kumarila Bhat’s ‘Slokavarttika’).

Again, Anuj, I don’t mean to give offense, but the language you use (“…humiliated…”) is not the sort of thing one encounters in the classical Hindu tradition. I would urge you to read some of those commentaries, for their wonderfully bracing, no-holds-barred polemics against other religious traditions and adopt that spirit when encountering statements such as the Pope’s. Btw, when I write ‘polemic’, I mean it in the old-fashioned sense: A mode of disputation which involves argument and counter-argument. In the best polemics, both sides learn more about their own (as well as the other) faith.

Regards, Kumar

I find it fascinating that a few typed words (that may or may not have been typed under the influence) can instantly make clear to some of you my level of Hindu- or desi- ness.

I hope my posts didn’t cause offense; certainly, none was intended on my part. I have no interest in assaying the level of your ‘Hindu-ness’. In any case, I thought your comments were quite interesting and prompted me to bore the hell out of countless SepiaMutiny readers. Just look over my exchange with AK, continued below!

I beg your pardon. I refuse to go out with any man with a girlfriend or wife…

Ah, so there’s hope for some of us yet. J/K

AK:

That certainly isn’t what I meant to imply. And as I had anticipated, I don’t necessarily disagree with anything that you have written….

Yes, I think we agree more than disagree on many of the issues under discussion.

I’m not completely sure what you have in mind specifically when you refer to the current disengagement with classical Hindu traditions, and the costs of that disengagement, but at some point I look forward to hearing more.

Thanks for the invite AK. Post my exams (and the trolls of Sepia Mutiny willing), I may take you up on that in a substantive manner. For now though, let me simply trot out that old saw in comparative studies, i.e., the distinction between ‘thinking about’ and ‘thinking with’ a tradition. One of the worrisome effects of the disengagement with classical Hindu tradition is that far too many Hindus are inclined to do the former and not the latter.

Or, at the least, they don’t do enough ‘thinking with’ their (particular) Hindu tradition(s), which is a duty for Hindus I think. Not on all matters, of course, e.g., the sciences. (And, of course, one need not be a Hindu to ‘think with’ Hinduism.)

More, I fear that a tradition that is only ‘thought about’ is likely to decay into irrelevance, or worse. The result is already plain to see in India, or so I think: Shallow ‘spiritualists’ and ‘gurus’, politicos painting themselves saffron. All of it damaging to Hindus, not to mention the Indian polity.

Let me illustrate with an example human rights law (I take it youÂ’re a lawyer or interested in the law, from your previous posts). Purshottama Bilimoria, the Australian-Indian philosopher, has sought to investigate the extent to which universal human rights can be underwritten from a Purva Mimasaka p.o.v. As it happens, his conclusion is a negative one.

But his work illustrates the sort of thing I wish happened more often. A genuine engagement, and a wrestling with, ideas (seemingly) alien to Hindu tradition led Prof. Bilimoria to several novel ideas about how to apply Purva Mimamsaka ideas today, even though his conclusion was a negative one.

Btw, Shiva (# 83 , above) has given a good starting point in the work of Anantanand Rambachan. Rambachan has also written a book on the issue (Limits of Scripture; Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas); IÂ’m not sure I buy his causal thesis, but obviously I concur with his dismay at the current state of affairs.

Also you might want to check out BilimoriaÂ’s article ‘Is Adhikara good enough for Rights?’, as well as his very ambitious book (Sabdapramana).

KumarN:

Thanks for taking the trouble to change your screen-name (as well as the compliment).

Regards, Kumar

I think we are asking the wrong questions. The debate purely is whether the “practicing religionists”, and people who hold important religious positions with substantial authority, lend equal status and respect to other adherents. We should also note that critiquing is different than denigrating. For e.g.

the authors of Dominus Jesus called for a new evangelism while disparaging pluralism as “indifferentism” and “relativism.” In a widely quoted interview given in 1997, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who outraged many people when he denigrated Hinduism as a religion of “false hope” that guaranteed salvation based on a “morally cruel” concept of reincarnation resembling a “continuous circle of hell” and Buddhism as “autoerotic spirituality.”

Tune to the 700 club for more information.

I, as a practicing Hindu, feel humiliated especially when it comes from an authority! I hope I dont ever say the same about non-Hindu’s and non-practitioners.

“Ekan Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti” – Truth is one, the wise call it by different names.

I had SOME idea that classifying myself as a non-practicing Hindu MIGHT start something. I have always felt blessed that the religion of my parents and extended family did afford me the option of exploring other religions. It took me a long time to finally identify myself as a Hindu and I say “non-practicing” because I do not engage in any rituals of any religion. I find it fascinating that a few typed words (that may or may not have been typed under the influence) can instantly make clear to some of you my level of Hindu- or desi- ness. Please do enlighten me, as this is something I do not plan to calculate for myself.

Thanks to those who discussed Tharoor’s intriguing book (entertaining, but a bit forced) and casting a big-budget Mahabharatha (Shabana Azmi must have a bigger role–Kunti, of course, mourning Karna).

I think the only death threats she will receive will be from men whom she refused to go out with and from women whose boyfriends she went out with !!

I beg your pardon. I refuse to go out with any man with a girlfriend or wife since my torrid fling with David Beckham. That Skinny Spice is one mean bitch!

I should add that these Pakistanis I know do not deny or renounce their identities as being Muslim. They still consider themselves as Muslim, but have incorporated Buddhism into their daily lives.

Another thing: I personally know at least 5 Pakistanis who have studied Buddhism, hold it in high regard, and views its principles with reverence, even to the point of practicing it. There is also a notable Pakistani poet who remarked, “I admire the Prophet Mohammed, but my true inspiration is Buddha” (sorry, I can’t remember his name– I didn’t get if off of Google,though, I read it in a book!)

Notwithstanding and putting aside my observation, can I ask Everyone something? Why does it fundamentally matter whether Muslims embrace Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism? In other words, what’s the point of this debate? I’m very interested to know people’s thoughts on this.