JKhedrup wrote:Therefore, in terms of the Dharmic religions the most they [Abrahamic] can offer mere tolerance, but not a genuine respect.
JKhedrup wrote:(I'm very sad to be leaving India in 10 days).
viniketa wrote:JKhedrup wrote:Therefore, in terms of the Dharmic religions the most they [Abrahamic] can offer mere tolerance, but not a genuine respect.
Which, according to Malhotra, is due to the Abrahamic stance of 'exclusivity'. He is not the first to discuss this, but the way he juxtaposes 'exclusivity' and 'prophetic' aspects of 'linear historicity' sheds some new light, for me. Exclusivity, it would seem, not only prevents one religion from according mutual respect others, it also makes it difficult for others to accord respect to the exclusive groups.JKhedrup wrote:(I'm very sad to be leaving India in 10 days).
Osho wrote:Malhotra's 'argument' such as it is might be summarised as 'Derridean nostalgia'.
Raking over PoMo coals to bolster an interesting thesis detracts from both thesis and methodology. The book is an extended riff on an earlier paper.
The victors get to write the history books as Foucault said, at great length.
tobes wrote: I see linear historicity as grounded far more in Enlightenment philosophies which were really running against the Abrahamic religions. i.e. Darwin, Hegel, Marx et al and conceptions of historical progress.
Osho wrote:If one accepts 'linear historicity' as if-this-then-that causal temporality then it surely must be taken as underpinning later western empiricist philosophies,all of them including Malhotra who has both feet rooted firmly within the western methodological approach albeit the PoMo subaltern. The elightenment project did not spring fully formed from the void and the subaltern is its child not its live in domestic help.
Dawkins is,after all; an evangelist as were those of his predecessors cited above.
Malhotra is non different.
Huseng wrote:In the west we tend to prefer more up-to-date works that have digested the past works and conforms to present expectations and ideas. It isn't even a preference, the system demands it.
I only wish that Buddhist countries like Singapore had a Buddhist voice similar to Malhotra's in order to challenge the shift in culture that is leading to a youth uninterested in the teachings of the Buddha.
JKhedrup wrote::good: Agreed, "how" is a question for another thread.
JKhedrup wrote:My appreciation for Vedic culture arose after my arrival in India. Though I'm a Buddhist monk with firm refuge in the triple gem, I wanted to understand the broader culture from which the dharma arose.
This led me to travel to various Hindu and Jain holy sites on the subcontinent such as Vrindavan, Varanasi and several ashrams. Though the Buddhist teachings are definitely "for me", the thread that runs through these dharmic traditions is one of mutual reciprocity and development. Some developments in Buddhism closely mirror those of Hinduism during a certain time period and vice versa.
As an aside, does anyone know what philosophy of "Hinduism" was held by the family of Siddhartha Gautama, Lord Buddha? What would the practice of his family have been like?
Malcolm wrote:Buddha was a Vedic Indian.
viniketa wrote:Malcolm wrote:Buddha was a Vedic Indian.
We often see it written that Guatama Buddha 'rejected the Vedas' or 'rejected the authority of the Vedas', while it is my understanding that he rejected the authority of certain groups of Brahmin priests. See Stephen Knapp: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/buddhism_a ... ctions.htm
JKhedrup wrote:I only wish that Buddhist countries like Singapore had a Buddhist voice similar to Malhotra's in order to challenge the shift in culture that is leading to a youth uninterested in the teachings of the Buddha.
Malcolm wrote:He rejected the idea that the Vedas were shruti
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests