Morales' essay - on Radical Universalism

Quite a far reaching article by Frank Gaetano Morales about Radical Universalism. The article has both good and bad points. Discuss them here.

QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 10 2005, 12:35 PM)

Dharma Pravartaka Acharya.

Does he have a past connection with Iskcon? He now claims to be teaching Ramanuja's visistadvaita.

Here he is cited with the name "Dr. Frank Morales (Pranakrishna Das)"

QUOTE

Does Hinduism teach that all religions are the same?

I guess it does if by "Hinduism" you mean Swami Vivekananda and his posse.

QUOTE

In order to fully experience Hinduism in its most spiritually evocative and philosophically compelling form, we must learn to recognize, and reject, the concocted influences of neo-Hinduism that have permeated the whole of Hindu thought today.

Hmm... but what the heck is "Hinduism"?

Although I suppose that the Hindu revivalist crowd will appreciate Morales' rejection of "all-is-one" Hinduism, I think his historical analysis is frankly weak.

First of all, he is creating his very own Hinduism, as much as Ram Mohun Roy or Vivekananda ever did. Does he know what forces are guiding him? I find it rather contemptuous to refer to all those Hindus of the 19th century who were forced to reinterpret their own history, religion and traditions in the face of British imperial might as nothing more than sycophants.

And to call Ramakrishna a Christian fifth-columnist is really laughable. If Christian ideas crept into the Hindu world view, it's not because Hindus were sycophants or ignorant. It's because they looked at widow remarriage, widow burning, child marriage, the kulina brahmin practices, and many other such "Hindu" customs and agreed that they were wrong. If Hinduism got a good shaking, it's because it needed it.

Whatever Hinduism "history" produces in the next hundred years, it's not going to be the Hinduism of the 18th century.

QUOTE(braja @ Jan 10 2005, 06:00 PM)

QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 10 2005, 12:35 PM)

Dharma Pravartaka Acharya.

Does he have a past connection with Iskcon? He now claims to be teaching Ramanuja's visistadvaita.

Here he is cited with the name "Dr. Frank Morales (Pranakrishna Das)"

Unless I am mistaken, his full bio details appear to be shown in an article on VNN from 1998 entitled "Saving Prabhupada's Legacy": (note the 1986 date for "brahmana" initiation shown both in this article and on his bio on his own website, plus the link to post-graduate studies at the University of Wisconsin):

QUOTE

My initiated name is Pranakrsna dasa Adhikari. I have been a practicing Vaisnava for the last twenty years. I was associated with the International Society for Krsna Consciousness from approximately 1978 till 1985. At that time, I made the decision to take initiation from Srila B.R. Sridhara Gosvami Maharaja. I received first initiation in 1985, and brahmana initiation in 1986, both times in Navadvipa Dhama. Presently, I am a Advanced Opportunity Fellow working on my Ph.D. in South Asian Languages and Literature at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. My fields of specialization include Sanskrit, History of South Asian Religion and Philosophy of Religion. I am, first and foremost, a practicing and believing Vaisnava. I am not, however, affiliated with, or a member of, any current Vaisnava institution. I am neither pro nor anti-ISKCON, neither pro nor anti-Gaudiya Matha, neither pro nor anti-Rtvik.

That 1998 article looks pretty intelligent.

QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Jan 10 2005, 06:26 PM)

.....
Hmm... but what the heck is "Hinduism"?

Speaking frankly here Satyabhama, I find such throwaway cliched, pseudo-intellectual questions which to me appear to be affectations of incisive academicism quite quite wearying. I am sure that you have the intellectual acumen and the spiritual experience to work out the definition that works well for you. You can use it to assess the definition intimated by others' usage of the term.

Please do not disappoint me again!

QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 10 2005, 06:35 PM)

Does he have a past connection with Iskcon? He now claims to be teaching Ramanuja's visistadvaita.

I wondered where I had heard of Morales before, and then it struck me.

He is included on our popular website. He submitted an open letter there and he also supports our efforts. He speaks of his ISKCON connections in the latter.

Isn't this good for some other section of the forums, rather than here? Remember, we are trying to keep this the "Rupanuga Gaudiya" section, and strictly on that topic. Topics that are not directly relevant to our sadhana and sadhya and related traditions should go into any other relevant section.

Madhava, do you mean this should be elsewhere on Gaudiya Discussions, or on another forum? Because on my browser this thread is headed "GD - Other Traditions - Academic, Controversial, Eclectic"

?

I'm currently taking a "modern Hindism" class, so when I saw DR. so and so at the top of this I decided to see if it was useful for anything.

In addition to what others have said about this, what irks me is the overly, (and I guess intentional) persuasive tone, that is more at home in a Iskcon Sunday feast lecture than a presupposed scholarly paper. He should consider at least toning down the rhetoric if he wants people to take him seriously.

QUOTE

Speaking frankly here Satyabhama, I find such throwaway cliched, pseudo-intellectual questions which to me appear to be affectations of incisive academicism quite quite wearying. I am sure that you have the intellectual acumen and the spiritual experience to work out the definition that works well for you. You can use it to assess the definition intimated by others' usage of the term.

Please do not disappoint me again!

I take issue with the author's definition of Hinduism. In reality, Hinduism is not a single entity. Thus, Hinduism both accepts and rejects the idea of all religions being "one." Hinduism is at once polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, henotheistic, monotheistic ETC.

Please do not talk to me like that again, even if you find me childish and irritating. Instead you MAY politely ask me to keep out of the discussion.

Cliché notwithstanding, I tend to agree with Satyabhama on the "Hindu" idea. I personally have no trouble calling myself a Hindu, despite often hysterical reactions, but I resist the efforts at trying to homogenize Hinduism. This is what the VHP is doing, and it's what Morales is attempting to do here.

It's also what BSS was trying to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

To me sampradayas develop organically, and Hinduism is especially creative in this way. I think Morales' problem with the poor converted Hindu child is not that Hindu parents have told them "all religions are the same," but that they cannot show how one way of looking at God is better than another.

In other words, they have been unable to impart any religious vision. In an environment where religious leadership is "old-country" oriented, the young tend to adopt the belief system of the new country.

Here is what the sociologist Reginald Bibby (Restless Gods, 2002, pp. 83-84) says about the situation in Canada:

Other religious groups, including Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs, have experienced numerical growth in the post-1960's, primarily as a result of accelerated immigration from Asia and the Middle East. These Other Faith groups, when combined with Jews and people with ties to Eastern Orthodoxy, have a pool of affiliates that has jumped in size from under 500,000 in the mid-50's to about two million as of 2000. New arrivals have typically displayed high levels of religious commitment and enthusiasm, and these most recent cohorts are no exception. They have been socially and politically active and have raised the profile of major world religions in this country while expanding Canada's religious diversity.

As we saw earlier, the hurdle for new religious groups, past and present, lies in being able to sustain and increase numbers in a Canadian religious marketplace where Catholic and Protestant groups have held a virtual monopoly. Over time, smaller religious groups have encountered considerable difficulty retaining their offspring, many of whom "defect" to Catholicism and Protestantism through acculturation and assimilation. For example, 6% of current teens between the ages of 15 to 19 who have a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Sikh parent already see themselves as Protestants or Catholics. Conversely, less than 1% of teens with a Catholic or Protestant parent identify with any of those four Other Faith traditions. There is also little doubt that many young people who come from Other Faith homes will marry people outside their traditions. And Statistics Canada data through 1991 suggest that when they do, they more often than not will raise their children in the tradition of their Catholic or Protestant -- or even their No Religion -- partner. That's the prime reason that faiths other than Christianity have had difficulty making significant proportional gains in Canada over time...

QUOTE(angrezi @ Jan 12 2005, 04:30 PM)

I'm currently taking a "modern Hindism" class, so when I saw DR. so and so at the top of this I decided to see if it was useful for anything.

In addition to what others have said about this, what irks me is the overly, (and I guess intentional) persuasive tone, that is more at home in a Iskcon Sunday feast lecture than a presupposed scholarly paper. He should consider at least toning down the rhetoric if he wants people to take him seriously.

Well, you have to take into account his audience. He is perfectly justified in presenting his beliefs in a "belief" environment. I suspect that the attrition discussed in the previous posts IS higher amongst Hindus than amongst Muslims, though Buddhists tend to be similarly pretty laissez-faire about religion.

The thing about Hindus is that they traditionally are less dogmatic and more open to the religious marketplace model. Morales is trying to stem the tide in traditional Hindu communities, as are other Iskcon groups (viz. Pandava Sen in London). There is nothing wrong in that, but pride in a tradition is a kind of nationalism and not really a good basis for genuine spiritual faith. In this, Bhaktivedanta Swami was right: It's just another bodily designation--a kind of tribalism, as it were.

QUOTE

Cliché notwithstanding, I tend to agree with Satyabhama on the "Hindu" idea.

I have never ever engaged in this kind of debate before. If this is cliché I am not aware of it. In other words, I may be a walking cliché, but I am an ingenuous cliché.

Well, this is what Talasiga was probably objecting to. It has become a mode of sorts to deny that the term "Hindu" has any meaning at all. Prabhupada himself was one such.

This becomes an irritation to those who think that even a strictly undefinable entity can still be named, along the lines of "I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I can recognize one when I see one."

I have not been on the academic scene as long as you folks have (actually, I am not on the scene at all). Might I remind you that I am much younger than the rest of you, both physically and mentally. I am doing my level best to participate in this forum.

Like a child first learning to talk, the first words will be the simplest. I truthfully cannot do any better than that. It may be difficult for you all to believe that someone could be so ignorant. Well, I am from Kansas, so maybe that explains something.

QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Jan 12 2005, 09:42 PM)

.......
I take issue with the author's definition of Hinduism. In reality, Hinduism is not a single entity. Thus, Hinduism both accepts and rejects the idea of all religions being "one." Hinduism is at once polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, henotheistic, monotheistic ETC. There are as many "Hinduisms" as there are "Hindus."

The problem with the word "Hinduism" is that it takes all of India's wide and varied religious traditions and throws them into a single category marked "Hind" as if geographical proximity were a good motive for grouping things together.

Please do not talk to me like that again, even if you find me childish and irritating. Instead you MAY politely ask me to keep out of the discussion.

I am sorry, I was being childish and teasing you. Satyabhama, child of Kansas, I apologise if I offended you.
But my post still has a serious point. There is nothing wrong with you heckling the author for his definition of Hinduism and it is now apparent that is what you were doing. However I have an in principle objection to people's rejection of the label Hinduism as a generic application for the phenomena of religions or spiritual cultures indigenous to the South Asian sub-continent.

I suppose my exposition was too vague (an offhand comment

) I apologize.

QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 12 2005, 10:50 PM)

Well, this is what Talasiga was probably objecting to. It has become a mode of sorts to deny that the term "Hindu" has any meaning at all. Prabhupada himself was one such.

This becomes an irritation to those who think that even a strictly undefinable entity can still be named, along the lines of "I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I can recognize one when I see one."

Yes Jagat, you have diagnosed my irritation almost correctly. However, Prabhupad's rhetoric did not irritate me. I took it as reflective of the era and discursive culture he grew up in India. The Roy stuff was pretty recent when he was growing up and that sort of rhetoric was a reaction to it.

QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 12 2005, 05:46 PM)

Well, you have to take into account his audience. He is perfectly justified in presenting his beliefs in a "belief" environment.

That's true. My brain is currently jello from from all the acedemic reading I am obliged to do at present, and I assumed it was a scholarly paper. I guess that's why my eyes glazed over after reading the first two sections

.

It's good to read primary sources besides secondary ones. But you have to reprogram your mind and ask yourself different questions as you read.

Scholarly writing also often has an agenda, but it's more cleverly hidden behind secular assumptions. Since the university atmosphere places us within that set of assumptions, you don't always notice it.

QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 12 2005, 08:46 PM)

Scholarly writing also often has an agenda, but it's more cleverly hidden behind secular assumptions. Since the university atmosphere places us within that set of assumptions, you don't always notice it.

Indeed. Ten minutes ago I finished two articles about protests against Kali's Child by Jeffery Kripal in which he psychoanylzes Ramakrishna as a latent homosexual, and a book by Wendy Doniger that identifies the story of Ganesh as having an oedipal theme. Pretty creative. You've probably heard about this.

What you say is true, and to be honest I had some inner conflict about pursuing study in this field for that reason, but I was bored by everything else, and the professor I work under encourged me, so I changed majors.

QUOTE(Kamala @ Jan 12 2005, 09:42 PM)

Madhava, do you mean this should be elsewhere on Gaudiya Discussions, or on another forum? Because on my browser this thread is headed "GD - Other Traditions - Academic, Controversial, Eclectic"?

Moved it there yesterday from "Rupanuga - Philosophy".

Sorry - I should have thought about it and realised that had happened. I'm having trouble keeping up with the volume of new posts, and am not taking enough time to carefully read and think about the important ones!

QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 13 2005, 01:46 AM)

...
Scholarly writing also often has an agenda, but it's more cleverly hidden behind secular assumptions. Since the university atmosphere places us within that set of assumptions, you don't always notice it.

Yes. There is a rampant assumption that challenges relating to socio-religious and historical can be settled or wholly appraised on the basis of text based resources such as scripture and other documentation The corollary phenemona of painting, sculpture, dance, music and song are mostly ignored by exclusive one discipline focussed investigations.