|Myth of Hindu Sameness|
|Sunday, 12 February 2006 16:27|
This essay examines the often repeated claim by Hindus and non-Hindus alike that Hinduism is the same as other religions. Some common factors that cause many Hindus to slip into sameness are as follows: Hindus arrogantly assume that other religions want to be the same as Hinduism, and hence they feel that they are doing these other religions a favor. Against this one may point out that the traditional Hindu teachings make a clear distinction between valid and not valid religious claims, by separating them as dharma and adharma, sat (truth) and asat (falsity), devika and asuric, etc.
Myth of Hindu Sameness
Many Hindus misapply teachings about the Unmanifest when dealing with the diversity of the manifest, and the unity of transcendence in dealing with the diversity and conflict found in the worldly. Furthermore, they fail to distinguish between shruti and smriti. The unity of all shruti is assumed to mean that all smritis must be the same. In particular, Hindus fail to understand the critical history-dependence of the Abrahamic religions and the way their core myths and institutions are built around these frozen smritis. Often what Hindus really mean is that all religions are equal in the respect and rights they deserve, but they confuse this with sameness.
At the same time, there are strong arguments that religious differences lead to tensions and violence. Many Hindus have internalized these arguments, over simplifying the Hindu thought about there being one truth and all paths leading to it.
To address these and other issues, this essay presents a new theoretical framework for looking at religions and global religious violence. It classifies religious movements as History-Centric and non History-Centric. The former are contingent on canonical beliefs of their sacred history. Non History-Centric religious movements, on the other hand, do have beliefs about history, but their faith is not contingent on history.
The essay advances the thesis that non History-Centric faiths offer the only viable spiritual alternative to the religious conflicts that are inherent among History-Centric religions.
In analyzing the predominantly non History-Centric Hinduism through this framework, the essay looks at the two main Hindu responses in its interface with the predominantly History-Centric religions of Christianity and Islam. These are: (1) how Hinduism is trying to become History-Centric, and (2) how Hinduism is self-destructing under the Myth of Sameness, by offering itself as a library of shareware for "generic" spirituality.
The essay cautions that Hinduism runs the risk of becoming either (1) History-Centric itself, or (2) losing its identity and becoming digested into Christianity via the Sameness Myth.
Scenario #1 leads to a three-way jihad among three History-Centric religions – Christianity vs. Islam vs. Hinduism – in which Hinduism cannot win. Scenario #2 leads to the dissolution of Hinduism through a combination of hostile and friendly takeovers by Christianity, which, in turn, worsens the two-way jihad between Christianity and Islam. Therefore, both scenarios ultimately feed the clash of Christianity vs. Islam, i.e. between conflicting History-Centric positions.
To construct an alternative framework, the essay debunks the Sameness Myth, which reflects naïve Hindus' wishful thinking about how other religions ought to be rather than how they actually are.
The essay calls for Hindu scholars to develop a rigorous approach to purva-paksha (scholarly critiques of other traditions within the framework of the Indian darshanas); to highlight the Hindu history of constructions through its own smriti traditions; and to refute false presuppositions about Hinduism that have spread into many academic disciplines.
The essay recommends the promotion of equality-with-difference as a core Hindu principle, also referred to within this essay as difference-with-respect. This entails asserting a positive Hindu identity that is neither History-Centric nor dismissive of its distinctiveness.
There are two current trends in Hinduism that were born of a perceived 'threat' to Hinduism. These are as follows:
History-Centrism (#1) provides any religion with an identity fortress, which is both defensive and useful for an offensive. It also tends to collapse internal differences and encourage homogeneity. I shall argue against the merits of this kind of essentializing of Hinduism, and will suggest alternative ways of bringing cohesion and identity that preserve difference.
After a brief overview of History-Centrism, the main purpose of this essay will be to explain the problems that Hinduism is facing because of #2, i.e., the false myth that it is the same as other religions. I shall show that the Sameness Myth suffers from at least three problems:
Difference-with-respect is an attitude that is practically unachievable through History-Centric religions, except in the form of artificial political correctness commonly referred to as 'tolerance'.
My thesis of difference-with-respect is at odds with both #1 and #2 poles above. Furthermore, each pole's frenzy feeds the other:
The following factors have contributed to the Sameness Myth:
It is my claim that non History-Centric faiths offer the only spiritual alternative available to the Darwinian clash among History-Centric religions, i.e., the clash between one religion's jihad and another religion's jihad.
Therefore, if the projects of the kind outlined in Section IV fail, one of the following two scenarios shall prevail: (i) Either Hinduism shall be forced to become History-Centric and this will result in a three-way clash of History-Centric religions: Islam vs. Christianity vs. Hinduism, which Hinduism cannot ultimately win. (ii) Or Hinduism shall get digested into Christianity via the Sameness Myth, in which case the two-way clash between History-Centric Christianity and History- Centric Islam shall worsen.
The critical difference between Indic and Abrahamic religions crystallized in my mind a few years ago, when I was giving an informal talk on Hinduism to a room full of attorneys in New Jersey, none of whom knew much about Hinduism.
I started by asking this intellectually sharp audience a set of questions which went roughly as follows: What would happen to your religious lives if, hypothetically, all history were voided or made inaccessible to you or somehow falsified beyond hope? In other words, imagine that due to some strange reasons, the details of which are irrelevant, you have to live your lives without having any knowledge passed down from God through any historical events whatsoever. What would you do? Would it be possible for you to lead religious lives, and if so, by what authority would you do so? In other words, can you discover the spiritual truth for yourselves without dependence on historical sources, or would you be lost if such historical sources were simply unavailable or unreliable?
To my surprise, these very highly educated Jews and Christians were stumped. Many felt that it would be impossible to be religious under such circumstances because man lacks the ability to know God's will directly without the historical prophets. Others felt that only Jesus' very specific personal sacrifice (a historical event) had made it possible for man to get redeemed, as man had no inherent capability to achieve salvation on his own. Some found the very discussion troubling and became disturbed by my thought experiment with a loss of history.
I then explained to my audience that as a Hindu, my spiritual advancement through yoga was independent of the history of Patanjali who wrote the Yoga-Sutras and of any knowledge about his life history. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the Vedic mantras was independent of the personal history of the Vedic rishis, and the Vedas were considered a-purusheya (authorless); the practices of Tantra were not contingent upon belief in the history of anyone; the effect of bhajans (devotional songs) was not based on any belief in the history of the bhakti saints or the histories of any deities. Finally, I explained that deities were not historical persons but were ahistorical forces and intelligences just like the gravitation force; also, that many Hindus had personified these forces through the poetic language of their praises, as they acknowledged their inter-dependency in Nature.
Therefore, if all the history of my religion were falsified, it would not make any difference to the effectiveness of my spiritual practice. Every human being comes endowed with what I call the rishi/yogi potential. There have been innumerable realized saints over time and across world cultures that rediscovered the highest knowledge. History was only 'nice to have', but not a 'must have'.
The audience was rather shaken up but also highly impressed by such a stance. Could I have uncovered a serious blind spot, or at least subliminal assumption, among Biblical societies about the necessary role of history in religion?
My audience's reactions reminded me of the withdrawal symptoms of addicts who are deprived of their substance dependence. I wondered: Had my thought experiment deprived them of their history dependence and triggered a sort of withdrawal syndrome? Why was their religiosity so contingent upon and hence dependent upon specific historical episodes? Are institutionalized Abrahamic religions in bondage to history? Over several days, my thesis of History-Centrism emerged.
This thesis got a further boost when I participated in a major world conference on science and religion in Bangalore. The Templeton Foundation had flown in scientific luminaries committed to various Abrahamic religions, including Nobel Laureates, to discuss how scientific their respective religions were. But these speakers largely used neo-Vedantin thought (without ever acknowledging any Indic influences whatsoever) as belonging to their own religion, no matter how much they had to stretch their canons to make their case. One was left thinking that all religions were scientific, and that they were virtually identical.
But I knew very well that the very same religions also have major conflicts in the real world. It occurred to me that these scholars had suppressed in their talks the History-Centric dimension of their religions, and it was this dimension, which made each religion distinct and also caused conflicts with others. My question became: Why do Abrahamic religions evade discussing their History-Centrism in scientific discussions, while this is at the very heart of their evangelical campaigns to claim uniqueness?
Overnight, I revised my talk that was scheduled for the following day. I highlighted that History-Centrism could not be slipped under the rug because (i) it was in violation of the scientific method, and (ii) it was the principle cause of world conflicts.
For taking this stance, I was attacked on the stage by a prominent Indian Christian scholar, who was working for Templeton. The conference was suddenly shaken out of the pretence that 'all religions are all the same'. Privately, many Indian attendees congratulated me for opening this door. I felt convinced that I was on to something big in the field of comparative religions. My talk is published in the conference proceedings.
Most religions and (even non-religious philosophical systems) agree on some sort of upper limit of knowledge of humans in their ordinary state of mind. However, they disagree on man's potential to transcend this limit.
Hindus and Buddhists regard maya as being responsible for this limit to infinite knowledge, but believe that adept yogis and others can achieve states of self-realization or enlightenment in which ultimate truth is directly experienced.
Abrahamic religions believe that there is an infinite gap of knowledge between God and man, a sort of maya equivalent. But the vast majority of denominations believe that man can have access to the ultimate truth only when God sends a prophet with a message, and that man can never replace the role of the historical prophets. Without history, therefore, man is inherently lost in darkness.
The Indic approach leads to the experimentation and cultivation of human initiated self-realization processes, of which yoga/meditation are prominent examples. The Abrahamic approach leads to intensive studies of historical prophets' messages, because this knowledge can never be known by any other means.
The spiritual traditions based on self-realization hold that humans are born with infinite potential and their essence is divinity (sat-chit-ananda). Hence, if all historical records and knowledge were to vanish or become corrupted or inaccessible to humans for whatever reason, new self-realized living masters would be able to teach us the highest truths based on their own fresh enlightenment. Even though these masters are very rare, they have existed throughout history in many cultures. The result is that (i) knowledge of history is not necessary to be a religious person, and (ii) no culture has a monopoly on religious truth, although different cultures may have used or misused this knowledge in different ways.
The Abrahamic religions (according to the interpretations of most institutions) deny the existence of any such infinite human potential that, in effect, could make every human a potential prophet. They say, only God sends a few prophets with the message containing such critical spiritual knowledge. To abandon the history through which this prophetic knowledge has been passed down, or to lose the exact account of these historically transmitted canons would be catastrophic.
The latter approach to religion is defined as History-Centrism.
Every major religion has both strains -- History-Centrism from God initiated prophets, and also ahistorical human initiated self-realization. But in a given religion, one or the other tends to dominate and this characterizes religion and its society in profound ways.
For the Abrahamic religions, the history of religion is crucial; for Hinduism, the making of religious history via self-realization, etc., is what is important. This point is elaborated later.
What History-Centrism does not mean:
Historicity is not the same thing as History-Centrism, and this point deserves to be elaborated.
Newton had a personal history but his specific life events were not necessary for the gravitation laws to be in effect today. However, Jesus' personal life events are responsible for God granting man the ability to get saved from Eternal Damnation. Hence, there is a radical difference between these two examples of historicity. The first example does not make physics History-Centric, since gravitation would not get falsified if one falsified Newton's personal historical details or even proved that he never existed as a historical person.
Gautam Buddha emphasized that his enlightenment was merely a discovery about a reality that had always been there. He was not bringing any new covenants from any God. The history of the Buddha is not necessary for Buddhist principles to work. In fact, Buddha stated that he was neither the first nor the last person to have achieved the state of enlightenment. He also asserted that he was not God nor sent by any God as a prophet, and whatever he discovered was available to every human to discover for himself. This makes Buddhism not History-Centric.
A prominent theoretical physicist made the counter argument to me that the Big Bang was a unique event that physicists believe in, thereby making physics also History-Centric. However, this argument is flawed: Physicists believe in the Big Bang Theory not as a premise of physics (in the same sense as Christians believe in Jesus' historicity as the premise of Salvation). Rather, the Big Gang Theory is a conclusion that is scientifically derived based on physical laws and empirical evidence that is verifiable today. Hence, the Big Bang Theory does not make physics History-Centric: it is a result of physical theory and not a pre-requisite belief or cause of it. Those who regard it as evidence of History-Centrism are mixing causes and effects.
The following significantly characterize History-Centric religions:
The core Historical Grand Narrative of Christianity that is the minimum necessary belief required by the vast majority of denominations consists of the following:
Different Christian denominations also believe in other supplemental History-Centric and/or Predetermined-Future-Centric narratives in addition to the core beliefs listed above. These constitute beliefs that are non-negotiable in order for someone to be a member of the given denomination. Examples of prominent beliefs of this kind are as follows:
On the other hand, non History-Centric Christianity has been taught by many Christian mystics using Indic adhyatmika techniques. But these mystics were typically persecuted by the mainstream Christian institutions, because they were seen as a threat to authority.
Generic ideals of loving others, doing seva or service to others, living moral lives, and being socially responsible are non History-Centric elements contained in Jesus' teachings. But contrary to many educated Indians' naivety, such ideals do not define Christianity, because such generic spirituality is also found in every world religion, and there would be no reason to convert people away from their native faiths into Christianity simply for these reasons. The differences between religions are to be appreciated by examining their theological premises and not by superficially looking at the ethical mandates.
Liberal Christians belong to certain denominations such as Unitarianism. Unfortunately, these denominations add up to much less than 10% of the US population. While the public diplomacy by Christians often emphasizes this face, it is not what is preached and aggressively promoted to 'Save the Heathens' in the third world. Indians have to deal with the aggressive proselytizing denominations, which are exported to them. Hence, Indians must understand History-Centric Christianity, and not base their purva-paksha on the views held by relatively few fringe liberal Christians, such as many liberal arts college professors. (See www.adherents.com for statistics.)
Evangelical Christians have reacted to my thesis by confirming that their faith is founded on literal historical events, which I have termed History-Centrism, even though there is a mixed reaction to my use of this term. At the other end of the spectrum, liberal Christian academicians claim that this is not the 'real' Christianity: they find the hard facts about the growing institutional Christianity to be an embarrassment to their elitism.
Is Islam History-Centric? 
The minimum necessary condition to be called a Muslim is the History-Centric belief without question or doubt that the Koran is the exact and literal word of Allah who is the only God. This belief is not simply desirable, but is absolutely necessary in order to be a Muslim.
Furthermore, another required core belief is the status of the Kaaba, which is located in Mecca: It is a unique artifact that was historically placed in that specific spot by Allah. No replica of it is allowed. Muslims must point only to the Kaaba to pray five times daily.
If, hypothetically, the Kaaba was not History-Centric and hence unique, Muslims could build Kaabas in every mosque in the world and pray pointing locally towards those, and not towards Saudi Arabia. But this would devastate the Saudi royals' political capital over all Muslims, because the Saudis control the Kaaba.
Furthermore, if replicas of the Kaaba could be installed in Muslims' homes, they would be able to pray at home just as Hindus pray to a deity. This would decentralize the Muslim sacred geography, thereby decoupling Indian Muslims from Arabs, for example. It is the non-reproducibility of the Kaaba that differentiates it from being an idol, and hence the political emphasis to consider idolatry as blasphemous and punishable by death.
Sufi teachings, on the other hand, are very compatible with Indic traditions and also with the mystics of the Abrahamic faiths. But Sufis have been cruelly persecuted by Islam throughout their history. Furthermore, Islam's ideals and practices of egalitarianism and social justice are non History-Centric and are generic, but are not considered sufficient to be classified as a Muslim.
History-Centric Clash of Islam vs. Christianity:
To properly understand current geopolitics, the framework of History-Centrism is very helpful.
Muslim and Christian leaders both claim many similarities between their respective faiths: They worship one God, who is male, and both sides accept that he is the same God. They accept the long lineage of prophets of the Middle East desert, starting with Abraham. Most of all, in terms of moral values, both believe in universal love, brotherhood, prayer, compassion, avoidance of sinful living, and so on...
Then why is there so much conflict? I propose that intellectuals have simply failed to understand the deeply rooted History-Centric conflicts. Here are two examples of irreconcilable accounts of history, one issue from either side:
There are many other inherent conflicts besides these, but the above two suffice to make my case. Any History-Centric system must falsify all others in order for it to be valid. Both Islam and Christianity, in their History-Centric forms – which have been the dominant forms of both through most of their respective histories – are inherently conflict-ridden.
Therefore, almost all the interfaith dialogs are mainly about public relations and diplomacy. Each of these religions uses the term 'tolerance' to describe its policy towards other religions. Rather than accepting this term as a sign of their greatness, one must probe the underlying problems.
To tolerate means that the other is illegitimate but we shall put up with him. Would you go to someone's house to dinner if his invitation says, “I shall tolerate you to sit next to me?” We must demand respect, not tolerance. But Muslim and Christian leaders often have great difficulty about openly and formally giving respect to other religions, especially non Abrahamic religions, since this would legitimize these other religions. And, the History-Centrism of Christianity and Islam forbids them from legitimizing any other religions. Respecting other religions would de-legitimize the proselytizing campaigns that are the life-blood of many institutions.
History-Centrism is the best framework I am aware of to understand the origin of religious bondage and the sustenance of religious conflicts.
Is Hinduism History-Centric?
There are many non History-Centric Hindu paths, such as the following:
History-Centrism vs. Living Spiritual Masters:
History-Centrism also corresponds to Geography-Centrism, which means the uniqueness of the geography where the history allegedly occurred.
Furthermore, the geography privileges the specific culture of the place where these events occurred, and the inhabitants of these cultures tend to build institutions to control the history, geography and cultural norms as assets to preserve and to project their power. The politics of such a religion comes under the control of the institutions that emerge and win.
Living spiritual masters act as a counter balancing force to defuse institutional power. Therefore, History-Centric religions have considered living saints to be a threat. Such saints have the credibility to overrule institutional authority in matters of interpretation and practice, to de-legitimize the institution itself, and to take away its followers.
A religion with a continual supply of living enlightened masters has: (i) regular challenges to any established institutions of power and doctrine, (ii) fresh shruti (first principles) for the current time, place and context, and (iii) geographical (hence cultural) decentralization of the spiritual movements because spiritual masters emerge in unpredictable places and situations.
Therefore, History-Centric institutions only allow dead saints. For example, in the Catholic Church, to be canonized as a saint the person must have been dead for a certain number of years, thereby eliminating any threat from that person. The dead person becomes the property of the church, which controls the history and interpretations of the canonized saint's teachings, free from any of the risks associated with living saints.
As a result of the prominence given to living spiritual masters, non History-Centric religions evolve towards lineages of adhyatmika (inner science) practices. One may think of this kind of spirituality as embodied knowing as contrasted with discursive knowledge, which is a set of intellectual propositions, of which History-Centrism is one kind. Canons tend to be less powerful in traditions built on embodied knowing because of the emphasis given to living masters and their direct transmissions.
Centurion Archetype vs. Yogi Archetype: 
The two pivotal events that profoundly shaped the trajectories for Eastern and Western civilizations were the spiritual encounters of emperors Ashoka and Constantine, respectively. Indian Emperor Ashoka surrendered his entire military (centurion archetype) and became a Buddhist (yogi archetype). But the opposite took place in the case of Roman Emperor Constantine (centurion archetype) who captured and seized control over Jesus (yogi archetype) for his imperialist expansion.
In the former case, the yogi archetype prevailed over the centurion archetype, whereas in the latter case the centurion archetype prevailed over the yogi archetype. These two events characterize the dominant strains in Indic and Abrahamic religions, respectively. While both archetypes have existed worldwide, different ones have dominated in different traditions.
The centurion archetype is violence prone and extroverted. It is constantly uneasy with itself and, hence, with its environment. The peaceful introverted archetype of the yogi is embodied (adhyatmika) and at ease with itself and others.
The centurion archetype thrives on History-Centrism, heroism and control. Its priorities are worldly expansion and accumulation.
The yogi archetype seeks to ultimately transcend nama-rupa (constructs based on limitations). Its priorities are adhyatmika, purifying its gunas from tamas to rajas to sattva, advancing from lower to higher chakras, and evolving from the psychic body to the supra-mental body.
The centurion's belief system is founded entirely on God's historical interventions, proven by the prophets' miracles as reported in anecdotal accounts. The centurion controls this 'one true account of history' as his asset and source of personal identity. This account legitimizes his power, whether as the Catholic Pope or as an Evangelical Protestant Church. This canon combines both shruti and smriti into a frozen book. The yogi, on the other hand, is ever expanding his consciousness to discover more, has a massive library of texts that separate shruti and smriti, which is built cumulatively without purging the old.
Frozen canon and History-Centrism turn religion into a Darwinian game in which many strategies get deployed to expand, takeover, monopolize and plunder – all in God's name.
On the other hand, the creativity of new living spiritual masters is like an R & D lab using an open architecture that encourages fresh startups, and this threatens the orthodoxy in each era.
History-Centric religions advance very rarely, as it takes God's intervention using miracles as the proof of authenticity, and these advances are violent and kill the past identity, culture and history. On the other hand, open and free adhyatmika explorations are cumulative and do not impose on prior or competing worldviews. Such traditions are not boxed in the way that History-Centric religions invariably are.
The History-Centric approach demands conformity because it is membership oriented: You are either in or out, either one of 'us' or 'them', and this subliminally equates to 'we = good' versus 'others = evil'. Monotheism is more accurately described as My-Theism.
Finally, postmodernists must undertake a serious study of Indic thought free from contemporary politics of the left and right, and from Eurocentric mis-portrayals of the past. They need to appreciate the Indic traditions' resources for deconstruction; that it seeks a positive state that is free from conflict rather than the nihilism and cynicism that often results from postmodern deconstructions.
To evaluate the popular notion that Hinduism is the same as Christianity, let us consider some specific issues.
Shruti and Smriti:
One of the foundations of Indian thought is the separation between shruti and smriti as two different kinds of knowledge.
Shruti is authorless. It is heard as direct inner experience without any intermediary, not unfiltered through one's own conditioned mind. It is available only in high states of consciousness achieved by rishis and advanced yogis.
Smriti is constructed by persons in a historical, cultural context, and is conditioned by its authors. Hence, it must change with time and context.
Shruti is eternal truth, while smriti is meant to be changed and is to be applied like case law with great care taken for each context to determine its applicability and the required adaptation.
Shruti is the rishi's/yogi's present moment embodied experience of the ultimate reality. Smriti is disembodied knowledge that is objectified and discursive. Shruti is kept alive by living enlightened spiritual masters.
The Bible and Koran combine shruti and smriti into one. Furthermore, smriti prevails over shruti in these canons: Shruti was collapsed into smriti. All Shruti has been reduced to Smriti - unchangeable text rather than present realization. History became the supreme smriti of the institution as that enabled it to collect taxes, impose its police authority and to expand via imperialism. Shruti was sacrificed in the process. Therefore, the finality of canon forces a freezing and imposition of old smritis that were meant only for a given historical context. The key factor is that they regard History-Centric events as though they were shruti. This drags into the already frozen canons, many incidental historical details about the way Prophet Mohammed or Jesus or their respective followers lived.
Hinduism's and Buddhism's itihas (history) are viewed as smriti, and not as shruti. This separation allows changes in smriti as per human society's needs. But unfortunately, most of the condemnations of Hinduism cite smriti as though it were shruti. These critics mimic the colonial agenda to demonize native traditions and native identity. They use educational institutions and media to manufacture and/or distribute false interpretations. Hindu submission and acceptance leads to Hindus internalizing these falsities, and they often becoming pathological self-haters.
One may classify cultures as shruti centric or smriti centric. The yogi is shruti centric and seeks to ultimately transcend Nama-Rupa. Shruti refreshed by living spiritual masters prevents the fossilization of old smriti. But institutionalized religions drift away from yoga. Jihad (Islamic, Christian or Hindu), is a product of smriti that has taken over shruti.
Postmodernists rightfully deconstruct smriti, but they suffer in two ways: (1) They lack the yoga to be able to receive shruti and are stuck in disembodied intellectualism. (2) They de facto tend to use Western smriti, because their education, mentoring and career advancement are embedded in Western smriti.
The Biblical historical narrative is the essence of mainstream Christian denominations. When examined through the Indic lens, the core historical narrative of the Bible is incompatible with karma theory:
The tragedy is that by the time Christianity was taken seriously in India, the support systems and resources needed to do an adequate purva-paksha had vanished. Because of colonialism, Christians started dominating the discourse. Hundreds of Christians institutions exist that study Hinduism seriously, and thousands of Christians study it. Yet, we have few if any Hindus and Hindu institutions that systematically study Christianity. This is a necessity before an adequate purva-paksha can be done.
Meanwhile, we are left with nonsensical sameness talks by leaders who have failed to do an adequate purva-paksha of Christianity.
Biblical time is finite, with a specific beginning and an end. It is said to have begun a few thousand years ago only, and the End of Time is coming soon according to many mainstream denominations.  This finiteness of time boxes many Christians into haste, and eventually into terror that time is running out.
The peculiar combination of (i) Eternal Damnation (i.e. an infinite problem) and (ii) Finite Time has produced a state of desperation in Christian societies.
Every person is born into the infinite horror of Eternal Damnation, and the finiteness of time does not give enough opportunity to resolve this condition. Therefore, one must always be in a hurry and not waste time. The consequence of not getting saved is Eternity in Hell, and one simply cannot take any chances. This is why horrific images of Hell play a critical role in pressuring people to convert.
Reincarnation doctrine was banned in Christianity so as to raise this pressure, and this is especially effective as one becomes older. This is the one and only life that a person will ever have and Time is running out!
The reward offered to those who become members of this History-Centric belief is also infinite: Eternity in Heaven amidst God, along with one's family, friends and other 'good' people. The price of failure is unimaginable, the reward is too good to miss out, and the effort is trivial as one merely has to admit that the Historical Grand Narrative is true – and one is in!
This turns dangerous when it becomes extroverted and fuels the centurion-like militaristic evangelism.
Western linear progression in history:
After the Enlightenment in Europe, the Biblical linear historical narrative from evil to good became replaced by the linear 'progress' narrative from primitive to modern. Here, modern has a specifically European meaning. This is why the teaching of world history and civilization in America is unable to incorporate more than a limited amount about ancient accomplishments, as these refute the linear history, especially when these accomplishments are from non-Western cultures.
The Biblical notion of the soul gives it an individual essence, which easily gets conflated with one's Earthly identity in terms of gender, race, religion, and even Americans as having the unique Manifest Destiny. Hence, there are good souls and bad souls, with different places in the chain of being.
On the other hand, rebirth of the jiva-atman gives it experiences in living as different genders, races, cultures, levels of prosperity and so forth. This relativizes any Earthly identity formation as being only relevant for this one birth and not as one's atman's essence. 
Christ will return to restore all saved dead persons back to life, in their original bodies as of the time of their deaths. This helps the plastic surgery industry and also drives the fixing up of dead bodies prior to their burial: One must look forward to eternal life in this same body, and the specifics of the body's race, gender, height, weight, age, etc., are therefore critical priorities.
This sense of having one's physical body in heaven also encourages the youth industry and causes people to be in denial of aging. This is becoming a major factor in causing geriatric mental health problems, especially after the individual is forced to admit that aging has set and that s/he cannot fake youthfulness any longer.
Death and aging:
The ashrama system in Indian culture gives each life stage its own legitimacy and dignity, and its own dharma to follow. One is not measured by the norms of youth throughout one's life. The aged are respected, and regard their condition as being normal. Being old is not seen as an abnormality that one must cure or fight or be in denial of.
This respectful aging has enabled older people in traditional Indian societies to remain integrated in multigenerational families, until recent mimicry of Western lifestyles led to dislocated aging – ironically, the result of 'progress'.
The Bible's trauma of dealing with death and aging causes senility. The obsessive youth culture is the result of this fear of aging. It has been said that the West has a two-ashrama system: juvenile and senile. People invest heavily to remain young for as long as they can, forcing themselves into artificial extremes just to live up to the image. This is juvenile behavior, and it is out of the dread of eventually turning old and senile, and having a fearful death.
Property, privilege and entitlement:
In the Bible, God gives man ownership of all animals and nature, for man's own pleasure.
To support the plunder of other peoples, this supremacy was extended by Church theologians to argue in favor of the slavery of blacks and the genocide of millions of Native Americans, on the basis that they were heathens, i.e., not Christians. It was argued that the men who were given ownership of the bounty of nature were Biblical men and not the heathens.
Later, when these non-whites were converted into Christianity, this argument was replaced by a different approach to supremacy, namely, that the people of color were 'unfit to self-govern'. Therefore, it was declared the duty of Anglo-Saxon Christians to rule over others in the best interest of the others. Many criteria for 'fitness to self-govern' were established, including 'moral values', 'rationality', and so forth. Data was gathered to prove that non-whites lacked these qualities.
By the early 1800s America, this had evolved into the well-known doctrine called Manifest Destiny, which was the basis for the conquest of new territory (such as Texas) from Mexico, along with the territorial expansion Westwards by conquering the Native Americans. This doctrine explicitly gave white Americans the right to 'civilize' others by whatever means they considered appropriate, and to take over their lands, property and cultures.
In British India, the argument of 'fitness to self-govern' was very explicitly used to remove various native rajas and install the East India Company's governance. A prominent example was the removal of the Queen of Jhansi (who had led the war of independence against the British) on the basis that she was an 'immoral person' and that this made her 'unfit to rule'. The phrase 'regime change' that is so common in the media today was used in the 19th century by the British to force their rule upon Indians – argued on the basis that they brought 'freedom' and better 'human rights' than the local Kshatriya rulers.
Scholars in Whiteness Studies have developed a notion called 'white privilege', which refers to institutionalized and deeply rooted cultural privileges that whites enjoy, even when a given white individual is free from racial prejudices. Nowadays, the term has been replaced with 'American privileges', and refers to the superior rights and entitlements that Americans must enjoy in the world over and above other peoples.
The Bush Doctrine of spreading freedom and human rights has been called today's version of Manifest Destiny. It presupposes that America must impose its own social and political principles on others, in the others' best interests.
Any perceived threat to the status quo of privileges and entitlements that Westerners take for granted is sufficient provocation to trigger the revival of Christian fundamentalism. Post-9/11 is seeing the rise of this fundamentalism from its latent state.
One of the entitlements claimed by the West is in the field of knowledge production and dissemination, and this may be called epistemic privilege. This includes the right to select the topics for inquiry, the way issues are framed, who is qualified and certified as a scholar, the theories that are available to be applied, and so forth.
Individuals like me, who criticize the system, are deemed to be 'attacking' the scholars and the scholars are depicted as 'victims'. This diverts attention away from the real issues of substance that are being contested. Naturally, many Indians have joined such a system of privilege and protection, and have thereby earned the title, 'sepoys'.
The Church's institutional authority over all men lasted for centuries, and similar theocracies existed in the case of Islam. (In fact, the serious study Islam entails in large part a study of Islamic Law.) This does not have a parallel in Hinduism, where the raja was supposed to protect the diverse dharmas of every person and not impose his own personal dharma upon others.
The Christian and Islamic concept of enforcement of religious laws on people is different from the principle of voluntary dharmic compliance. The Gita is not a book of rules that any authority is supposed to enforce, nor was it ever the 'law'. It does not even say, “Thou shalt do this and not that...” It explains how the system of karma operates and what the consequences of various choices are on the individual choice maker. The individual remains with the freedom of choice and the knowledge of possible karmic consequences governed by the cosmos and not by human authorities/institutions. It is a description of natural rta/dharma, and not man-made laws. 
This is why Indian gays/lesbians do not need to have a parade in Delhi to 'fight for rights' (like the parades in major US cities), because no authority took away these rights from them in the first place.
Even the much maligned Manusmriti was never enforced as the law of the land, except under the British rule when it was enforced to prove that the colonizers were ruling in accordance with 'Hindu Law', a canon they constructed with the help of local pundits hired for the purpose.
A primary difference between Indian and Western approaches to institutional authority is that the living gurus are given a high status by Hindus, whereas institutions occupy the preeminent status in Abrahamic religions. (This is why Hindu gurus have now become a prime target of demonology, because Christian strategists realize that no destruction of physical temples or texts or institutions will erase Hinduism as long as its new gurus continue to appear and enjoy large popular followings.)
The institutionalization in Biblical societies has also brought about a culture of conformity with other members. Canonized knowledge leads to normative thinking and social standard for everyone to emulate.
Conformity is also the seed of social competition. Such a society is more vulnerable to advertisement driven consumerism.
Can sameness be one-sided?
If X is the same as Y, then Y must also be the same as X.  This gives us a reliable method to empirically test the sameness hypothesis in the real world.
How many Christian denominations would be willing to hold Vishnu worship ceremonies in their church? Besides a few relatively small denominations such as the Unitarians (who in combination have less than 10% share of the US Christian population), almost all mainstream denominations reject such proposals outright. Try launching a sameness program with leaders of Mormons, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, Pentecostals, etc. To be genuinely the same, Hinduism would have to be given equal and explicit treatment inside their congregation, and not in special meetings for PR purposes.
Would the US government print currency in which 'In God we trust' is replaced by 'In Shiva we trust' or 'In Allah we trust'?
Only after one tests the hypothesis in the real world (which is different than the academic cocoons and staged 'interfaith dialogs') could one begin to understand the sameness hoax that Hindus have been sold.
The role of Hindu leaders:
After India's independence, the leaders betrayed Gandhi's vision to re-imagine India in a manner that would respect India's culture, and which he felt lived in its villages. Instead, they filled the Englishman's shoes and became the brown sahibs ruling over Indians, using most of the same structures and ideas that the departed British left behind. This is ironic because Gandhi had emphasized that he did not oppose the English people, and merely opposed their English ways. The vacuum left by the British was a tremendous bonanza for Anglicized Indians. They preserved the English ways and replaced the English people.
In this milieu, Hindu gurus had few prospects within India and went to the US to teach. There, a thirsty audience awaited them. But unfortunately, they got trapped by their own instant marketing success. The gurus and/or their Western followers mapped Indic categories to Western categories, so as to gain quick legitimacy. This mimicry appealed to the Western followers, who could have their cake and eat it too, i.e., they could remain embedded in their Biblical identities and/or 'secular Western' chauvinist equivalents and yet gain the benefits of Indic traditions. In effect, Hindu gurus facilitated U-Turns.
Hindu leaders also betrayed their own darshana traditions in which they are required to do purva-paksha of other worldviews. This means a genuine, authentic and deep understanding of the prevalent worldviews must be developed in such a profound manner that a scholar from that other tradition would acknowledge it as being a true representation of their position. 
While in the past, the purva-paksha opponents were typically Buddhists, Vedantins, Jaina, Mimamsikas, and various others in India, today's globalized purva-paksha has to be of Christianity, Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment, as these are the three major strands out of which Western worldviews are built.
False information is more dangerous than acknowledgment of one's ignorance. Most Hindu leaders naively equate Christianity with Catholicism, US Christianity with European Christianity, and see all Christian denominations as being the 'same'. They lack any purva-paksha about Christian Liberation Theology, Inculturation strategies, constructive theologies, Christian Zionism, and so forth. When they gleefully quote that church attendance is down in the US, they fail to consider that home based Christian prayer groups have replaced church going in many communities across America, and such groups now represent a major component of fundamentalist Christianity.
Furthermore, they simply lump all 'secularists' and 'leftists' as the 'same', because they are untrained in Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment theories. Yet individuals (including Indians) who are grounded in these Western theories drive global culture, human rights, law, business codes, property rights, literature and media. This means that Hindu leaders are simply obsolete.
At the same time, one comes across many Hindu scholars who are chasing useless and chauvinistic bandwagons that are disconnected from today's relevant issues. For instance, they seem to be obsessed with 'proving' the age of the Mahabharata or geographically locating the Vedas, as if any Hindus were converting because the Mahabharata is not proven to be old enough! They are like ostriches with their heads stuck inside the temple, ashrama and/or political arena, while the globalized world has already passed them by. 
Being so isolated and inbred, these Hindu leaders failed to develop any effective 'home team' to represent Hinduism in the important global debates today. They have alienated themselves from large communities of intellectual Indian youth and have lost the enormous cultural capital that once existed amongst the white Americans practicing yoga/meditation, who number 20 million.
Dangers of the Sameness Myth:
The Myth of Hindu Sameness is leading to the dissolution of Hinduism. Patanjali's Yoga-Sutras are being clicked-and dragged into becoming footnotes to the Gospel of John or some other system of Western thought.
The Hindu Goddess became the subject of very serious and intense study by many white women in the 1970s when they revolted against the male centric Abrahamic religions. Today, the Hindu Goddess is often used to enhance the historical narrative of Mother Mary or to reinterpret European Goddesses such as Sophia, Diana, etc. Furthermore, Gloria Steinem, one of the pioneers of the women's liberation movement in the US, spent two years in India in the 1960s, and after her return to the US she helped to launch the feminist movement. She writes in her autobiography that it was her experiences with women's empowerment groups in India that inspired her later work in the US.
Yet, Western scholars and their Indian chelas have started to demonize the Hindu Goddess as vulgar, as a symbol of sexual oppression of Hindu women, and as a cause of violence by upper castes.
There is a long list of Hindu items being appropriated as Western ornaments to be preserved, modified, celebrated and used by the new owners. The source traditions are seldom acknowledged, and, instead, are burdened with negative images and liabilities to encourage their demise.
This kind of sameness perpetuates the colonial inferiority complexes, while feeding the cultural and political capital of the dominant culture. The burden to be same is upon the underdog culture in terms of power, i.e., it is Hindus who must prove their sameness to the dominant culture, and not vice versa, because it is the neo-Hindus who uphold sameness and not the other religions. The sameness is therefore on the terms of the dominant West. The West determines how authentic one's mimicry is and which Indians get legitimized to various extents through awards, certificates and brand value given to them. We are only as legitimate as we are similar to them, and they control the judgment on how well we are accomplishing this goal.
Ironically, one of the most common reasons given by Hindu youths to their parents when they convert to another religion is, “You taught us that all religions are the same, so how does it matter?” It would be okay if the parents and Hindu leaders would simply accept this fine logic and not be concerned. But they are concerned and do get angry. Yet, it has not occurred to the leaders that their own sameness myths have caused the very problems, which they are fighting.
Many Christian institutions and scholars do not practice sameness internally, but deploy it externally with non-Christians as a rhetorical ethics, i.e., as an ethics that is not meant to be implemented but is a public relations projection. Hindus are encouraged towards sameness with the strategic goal to (i) confuse them about identity, (ii) dilute their interest in seriously studying their own traditions, and (ii) bring Christian ideas into their lives in a Hindu-friendly manner, and gradually move them deeper into Christian fundamentalism.
The foregoing discussion leads to the following question: Can there be a positive Hindu identity and universals that are neither History-Centric nor a library of shareware for 'generic' spirituality? This section suggests projects that might help accomplish this. It is merely a preliminary list at this stage.
Develop History-Centrism vs. Ahistoricity as a theoretical framework:
History-Centrism is the cause of religious violence. Religious difference is not the cause of violence if it is difference-with-respect. This is a key entry point for discussing what Hinduism has to offer to the world today.
Religious freedom has become a major geopolitical initiative of the United States, as a sort of Manifest Destiny to intervene in other countries that get listed as being in violation, especially against Christians. The meaning of religious freedom must be debated in my proposed new framework: I posit that true religious freedom is freedom from History-Centrism. Evangelism towards any History-Centric religion reduces the freedom in the world because it boxes people into historical clashes. Therefore, the freedom to convert others into History-Centrism leads to loss of religious freedom from History-Centrism. (Analogy: Freedom to promote slavery would result in the loss of freedom of the slaves; hence this 'freedom' in not genuine.)
A sustained dialog must begin between Indic deconstruction theories and Postmodernism, in order to better understand areas of overlap and differences.
Develop antidotes to the Sameness Myth:
Expose the blunder of thinking that the equality of religions' rights implies their sameness. (Analog: Men and women have equal rights, but men and women are not the same.) Show Hinduism's principle of equality-with-difference:
Develop purva-paksha of other worldviews using various Indian siddhantas. European, Western, White, etc., identities were constructed via study and construction of others, and the Constructive Hinduism Project must engage in similar theorizing of others while being true to the Indian darshana tradition of honest debate.
The constant critique of others, including their History-Centrism, immunizes Hinduism from sameness. Point out how the mimicry of Whiteness creates the pressure for sameness among Indians. Whiteness Studies help decenter Whiteness and show Western thought to be relative and not universal. This makes elitist (Whitened) Indians self conscious of their inauthenticity, reducing their rate of multiplication into the next generation of students.
Sanskrit non-translatables must be explained in considerable detail, and the common translations should be problematized. These are the most robust and sustainable long-term anchors to preserve the authenticity and distinctiveness of Indic traditions.
Refute radical difference:
The opposite of sameness is radical difference, which means that Hinduism is so different that it cannot possibly make any sense to the West. A consequence of radical difference (sometimes referred to as radical relativism, as in the case of Richard Rorty), is that the study of Hinduism can only be positioned as a study of the South Asian exotic folks – in the same category as their monsoon and snakes.
Both sameness and radical difference are the result of on-going U-Turns. These distill Hinduism into two kinds of components:
Things that are deemed valuable for appropriation into the dominant culture are processed into generic sameness as an intermediate stage, pending being re-contextualized as 'Western'. These are eventually removed out of Hinduism, and the traces of appropriation are erased.
The residue consists of things that are considered 'undesirable' by the dominant culture's values at a given time, although these determinations are subject to future revision. These aspects are demonized and otherized. A polite version of this is to exoticize Hinduism as a property of the 'South Asian' geography.
The result is that Hinduism's claims of a universalism that rivals the West are denied. In fact, attempts to position Hinduism as a world religion invite insults from those who see this as Hindutva Nationalism and who dismiss without consideration its merits as a competitor to Western worldviews.
This Myth of Radical Otherness is used to protect American culture from equivalent scrutiny and blame as others are normally subject to:
However, the massive amounts of appropriations in the past to build 'Western' civilization prove that when it suits the West's self interest it has no difficulty to understand others. For example:
This is why the rediscovery and proper documentation and dissemination of the West's unacknowledged debts to others is an important academic project, because this would demolish the Myth of Radical Otherness.
Some years ago, the huge Cathedral in Mexico City was found to have been built by the European conquerors on top of a Mayan temple (which can now be visited under the basement). This and numerous other examples illustrate how the Myth of Radical Otherness has been a strategy of arson: plunder and destroy the source.
Challenge the resistance to Constructive Hinduism:
Study the history of Constructive Christian Theology to point out its series of reconstructions over many centuries.
Study Hinduism's history of constructions to show that this is nothing new, nor is it a violation of any canonized or frozen tradition. In fact, constructive theology is truer to the spirit of changing smritis of Hinduism than it is to Christianity's canonized History-Centrism.
Refute the scholarship that negates Hinduism as a world religion. The typical arguments used against the legitimacy of Hinduism include the following:
Refute the 'frozen in time' glorification of 'eternal India', essentialized as 'mystical' contrasted against 'rationality' - now internalized by too many Hindus. (In the doctrine of white people's Manifest Destiny, one of the criteria for declaring others to be 'unfit to self-govern' was 'irrationality'. Furthermore, 'mysticism' in Western history has occupied a less honorable place than in India, and is seen as a pre-rational or child-like stage of mental evolution.) This project entails separating shruti from socio-political smriti, and refuting the highly exaggerated (mis)use of Manusmriti as being the 'code' of Hindu culture.
Explore innovative solutions for today based on Indic traditions:
The Hindu ashrama system of four life stages, each with its own norms for dignity and its own dharma, provides many resources for socioeconomic and mental health applications. This can be developed into theoretical frameworks for managing aging with dignity, and managing the fear of death and 'running-out-of-time' anxieties that haunt Westerners.
The world population is expected to reach 9 billion by mid century, and the Western lifestyle has been sold successfully as the global standard of expectation and legitimacy.
The effectiveness of Hindu dana and Christian charity must be compared using quantitative methods. The sums spent must be seen in light of the tangible results produced, so that the efficiencies in the use of funds may be compared. Much has been written about Christian charity in India, but these accounts fail to consider the huge funds available to Christian charities. Comparisons must also include the value of real estate owned by the churches and affiliated institutions in India. (The church is said to be the largest non governmental land owner in India.)
Hinduism's adhyatmika technologies for embodied knowing could be applied as antidotes against a variety of body alienations and counter productive body fetishes: plastic surgery, anorexia, sexual orientation dogmas, mental health, addictions...
The jati structure (as distinct from caste) must be seen in light of growing multiculturalism in Western societies, a trend which is inevitable with globalization. Jatis provided identity-with-mutual-respect, giving both a sense of internal coherence and belonging and without the theological imperative to conquer others or make them the 'same'. (Wars have existed in non-Monotheistic societies, but usually not driven by religious mandates.)
Freedom from History-Centrism is a solution to the clash of civilizations. Denial of this clash by the left is merely an evasion of the deep-rooted problems caused by History-Centrism. Hinduism offers spirituality (which Communism admits it cannot eradicate), yet in a manner that is free from History.
Refute common presuppositions in many disciplines:
Hinduism has been disassembled into parts that are taken in isolation and reduced to prepackaged conclusions, which are then blindly applied in various humanities disciplines and mass culture. At each stage of this pipeline of misinformation, the conclusions from prior stages are simply assumed without enough critical examination.
For example, as per Prof. Paranjape (English Department, JNU), it is now the trend in English Departments everywhere to apply a few standard frames in examining Indian texts, movies, art, history, society, etc. These frames are as follows:
Meanwhile, positive aspects of Hindu culture are omitted, including: yoga, meditation, vegetarianism, ecological theologies, history of Indian science/technology, history of Indian economy prior to colonial disruption, etc. Because these themes would demolish the negative stereotypes, students are discouraged from pursuing them on the basis that they are not the 'real' Hinduism, i.e. they are not Hinduphobic. Those who persist in pursuing these topics are attacked as 'chauvinistic', 'killers of Muslims', 'rapists' and 'fascists', and other demonology that has become standard weaponry.
Therefore, literary and critical theories are taught with the specific goal to make students apply a given tool box of theories and derive the predefined negative set of conclusions about Indian culture. This is done in literary analysis, cultural studies, political science, sociology, etc.
One who is able to prove his/her competence at using the 'theories' imported from the West to reach one or more of the standard set of established stereotypes is advanced forward as a 'scholar'. The better the style and more unusual the data the more useful the person is considered to be.
This has turned a whole generation of Indian writers into 'hunters' looking for specific demons in Indian culture. It reminds one of the recent US hunt for WMDs in Iraq: The goal is predetermined, and any means may be used to reach that conclusion. Huge rewards await those who assert claims in support of the agenda. The result is to install deep Hinduphobia in young minds in college. Many become coolies or sepoys doing the dirty work of empire building while being led to believe that they are spreading Indians' “progress.”
In conclusion, the Constructive Hinduism Project should also engage various other disciplines and cannot be isolated to Religious Studies.
Neo-Hinduism is the Western influenced watered down version that is pop Hinduism today.
Perennialism must be differentiated from New Age, but the former led to the latter because of dilution of rigor and under pop demands. F. Schuon, a pioneer of Perennialism, does not speak about equality or identity between traditional forms but about a transcendental unity. Also, Guenon agrees with me that Abrahamic religions necessarily limit their exotericism by their theological and moral views, while Hinduism does not. Perennialists were also severe critics of New Age: Guenon was one of the first scholars to offer a radical critique of theosophy, of Vivekananda's neo-Hinduism, and of theories by Paul Lecour, a pioneer of New Age. (In 'Theosophy, History of a pseudo-religion' and in his 'General Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines', he highlights the mistakes made by Westerners on Hinduism). Nevertheless, I locate all these on the same spectrum of (mis) appropriation from Hinduism: Some did it more sincerely and authentically than others, but in the long run they fed off of each other and the result has been disastrous for the Hindu psyche. Westerners' harm was much less than that caused by Hindu leaders' own internalizing of Western mappings in the spirit of sameness.
Not all gurus slipped into this trap. Prabhupada, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, and many others remained authentic. On the other hand, Self Realization Fellowship and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar are examples of those who are promoting genericized spirituality that plays to the new age market. Ramakrishna Mission and Chinmaya Mission are examples where the founders were authentic, but which subsequently diluted their authenticity by resorting to the sameness syndrome for the sake of PR, political correctness, and possibly out of fear of being different than the dominant culture. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi remained true to Vedas as being distinct, despite the fact that he lost the majority of his white followers to U-Turns once it became clear to them that his generic TM program was only an introduction to deeper Vedic teachings. Yogi Amrit Desai, who trained the largest number of white yoga teachers in the US over a period of 30 years, avoided dilution, but he was dismissed by his institution's trustees over alleged 'sexual misconduct', and the new Western owners have drifted away from Hinduism.
 Many Western liberals/leftists do detest the classical Western heritage. They have waged a long-term and concerted attack against the Western literary canon. They often portray the West's great historical thinkers as 'dead white guys', ridicule and attack their own Judeo-Christian past (which is then, unfortunately, extended to all other religions, and 'religion' itself), etc. Many of the leftist intellectuals who have dominated American academia clearly have an ideologically driven crypto-Marxist agenda. What is 'good' in their eyes isn't necessarily what is explicitly Western, but what represents the 'oppressed', the 'disenfranchised', the 'lower' class, race, religion, gender, ethnic group, language, etc., in any given perceived (on their part) antithetical social-cultural coupling. Yet, their theories often embed deep and invisible Biblical epistemologies, and, furthermore, they have failed in impacting the West's own mainstream power structure while having colonized India's empowered intellectuals because of the latter's vulnerability to mimic. The Manifest Destiny doctrine of 19th century America expressed white supremacy in terms of 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'fitness to self-govern'. Ironically, today's leftist activism has inadvertently played into the hands of the reincarnated Manifest Destiny in the form of the Bush Worldview.
'Constructive Christianity' has been a project to protect the core idea of a unique historical revelation. Hence, it is a system of Christian apology of finding ways to incorporate new facts (using science and/or U-Turns from other plundered traditions) while pretending that it is all from the single original source (which can be made to say anything). Hinduism does not need that kind of construction because it does not have that kind of History-Centric problem to begin with. What it needs is expressions of the Truth gained from the adhyatmika experience for contemporary times, as well as new sociopolitical smritis for today. This is precisely what people like Aurobindo and others were up to. 'Constructions' without adhyatmika experience is what many Hindutva politicians have been doing.
 In Hinduism, the importance of (i) tradition (agama-pramana), (ii) lines of succession (sampradaya-parampara), and (iii) the sacredness of places (tirthas) due to sacred occurrences that happened there, are all important in preserving the teachings of Dharma. However, the subtle but critical point is that if all the above were lost one would still have the Truth revealed inwardly via yoga and meditation. Abrahamic religions are history-dependent, whereas Hinduism merely uses the examples of concrete instances of Truth revealed in what we call history as guides and tools for personal self-realization. Thus, Hinduism is not history-dependent.
Evangelical Christians, despite being the dominant American theological and political force, do not speak for the esoteric strands that are not History-Centric. Esoteric interpreters of the Bible map Indic Adhyatma-vidya on to Platonic metaphysics and consider the events of Sacred history and the Prophets as contingent manifestations of eternal Principles such as Logos. The esoteric interpretation of the Bible does not speak of the Original Sin as a sexual act between Adam and Eve. The symbol of the Tree (of knowledge) evokes rather an orientation of the will towards the world and duality, a subversion of the sprit by the soul. The Revelation and eschatological events are events in the Soul that any being on the spiritual path is potentially able to turn into an inner reality. The Perennialists would say that history-centrism is the result of the intellectual limitations of fundamentalist Evangelists. However, the Christianity that is 'on the ground' that Hindus must deal with, both in the form of proselytizers playing havoc in India and in the form of the geopolitical projection of Manifest Destiny, is not what Ivy League professors and their followers would like us to imagine.
A Sufi academic scholar wrote to me the following in defense of her tradition (paraphrased by me): “There were numerous debates in ancient Islam about the status of the Koran. It is absolutely necessary to distinguish between the 'Mother of the Book' and the physical Koran which cannot seriously be considered eternal or of non-human origin. The Sufi tradition distinguishes between the earthly Kaaba and the celestial one. Islamic History-Centrism is the result of degeneration of its traditional intellectuality and of the development of politicized schools of theology. The present situation only reflects the views that prevailed for political reasons.” My response to her was that Sufis represent around 1% or so of the worldwide Muslim population and that Islam as experienced popularly is best understood based on what is preached in the Mosque on Fridays and not what a few elitist intellectuals would like to project it to be externally.
Antonio deNicolas explains the difference as follows: “The Abrahamic religions base themselves on the discontinuous, while Hinduism bases itself on the continuous. Discontinuous based religions believe in a God that is unique, comes from the outside, and dictates eternal laws. The continuous religions make a God or gods as they practice internally the discipline of will development for decision making as the paradigm of the gods (different brain centers) demand according to the dharma in front of the individual. The discontinuous religions base their practice on the left brain, theoretical, conceptual descriptions of the path they want to follow and as convenient. The continuous religions base their practice on memory, imagination, and experience using the conceptual, theoretical left brain only as an instrument of translation. The discontinuous religions are imperialistic because one brain dominates all others, while the continuous religions base their practice on the ability to modulate all the brains and find a harmony leading to moksha.”
10i] Using the modern language of trusts, one may say that (i) Jesus established the Trust by contributing his suffering; (ii) the Church (long after Jesus' death) claimed the role of Trustee in perpetuity; (iii) the Beneficiaries are all those who join the History-Centric Grand Narrative; and (iv) the Distributions from the Trust to the Beneficiaries are Redemption from all their Sins. According to the Biblical Apocalypse, all Beneficiaries thus Saved are scheduled to be flown to Heaven and live there in Eternity. All those remaining will be massacred by Jesus personally when he returns at the End of Time which is just around the corner.
It is claimed to have been 'coming soon' for 1900 years based on the Book of Revelation in the Bible.
The Christian (especially Thomist) idea is that people have a soul like the property of a person. This soul is a metaphysical appendage of the person similar to the physical appendage of a spleen or a lung. Thus, a soul can be lost, sold or injured. This is a radically different notion from that of atman.
Hindu scripture – both shruti and smriti - is also packed with ethical norms, laws, proscriptions and prescriptions. The Bhagavad Gita is full of descriptions of right and wrong behavior; the Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali outline the yamas and niyamas, etc., etc. While it is true that the Manusmriti was not the 'law of the land' in Hindu India previous to the British Raj, the overall genre of the dharma-shastras were, nonetheless, always important guides for Indian/Hindu governance generally. The difference between the Abrahamic versus the Indic view of religiously acceptable behavior is that the former is a morality-based system in an ethnically parochial and sectarian morality sense (thus kosher laws, for example); i.e., a morality that is externally imposed. The latter is more of an ethically based system (internally cultivated) and focuses on the cultivation of inner virtues and excellences, somewhat akin to both Platonic and Aristotelian ethics. This has to do with the absence of yoga in Abrahamic religions, as least as a central feature of spiritual advancement (i.e. lack of adhyatmika) and the over-emphasis placed upon affirmation of faith in History.
Plus for X and Y to be interchangeably equated means that they must necessarily be the same in every respect.
 Serious purva-paksha analysis died with the birth of neo-Hinduism. Hindu philosophy declined from serious and systematic critiquing of other systems to then merely serving as a pseudo-intellectual tool.
 While these are important issues in their own right, they have caused Hindus to get stuck in the minutia while forgetting the larger, more important, picture.