Stupidity beyond compare and Brianne Donaldson’s work

Brianne Donaldson

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/takeandread/2012/02/replacing-our-westernized-spectacles/

“ [This post is part of a roundtable discussion on the new book Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism by Rajiv Malhotra, now featured at the Patheos Book Club.]

Rajiv Malhotra lays some of the most crucial insights of Indian philosophy on our front step in Being Different: A Challenge to Western Universalism. In the package we find an invitation to the practice of purva paksha (49), a dialectical hallmark of the Dharma traditions, which requires one to suspend her own worldview and preconceptions in order to understand an alternative perspective as fully as possible before engaging in dialog or critique. “

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/takeandread/2012/02/replacing-our-westernized-spectacles/

This article is by  Brianne Donaldson  and God forbid what will happen if we don’t give the references… but Rajiv Malhotra being a indian will be happy if we use his work to support India..

 

So here we put Rajiv Malhotra Critique of the Brianne Donaldson stupid article

 

Rajiv Malhotra says:

March 2, 2012 at 5:35 am

I am well aware of Whiteheadian thought. But as my next book will demonstrate, Whiteheadian thought is a repackaging of abhidharma Buddhism. Hence it is a dharmic critique of the west, restated and branded as “western”.

My UTurn theory shows that many such dharmic ideas have become repackaged as “Western” with a new line of “western pioneers” – whitehead being just one of many. Christian Yoga, Saussure’s structuralism, Teilhard de Chardin’s “world = body of christ”, Ramon Panikkar’s new Christianity, Jung’s reinterpretation of Bible, Ken Wilber’s repackaging of Sri Aurobindo onto a lineage of western thinkers, etc – these are a few more of the examples.

Firstly, such critiques are dharmic imports, and being re-charcterized as coming from western pioneers does not alter the philosophical consistency with dharma and disconnect with western thought. So while the face might be whitehead’s, the ideas remain dharmic.

Second, such new thinkers are yet to be accepted by the mainstream, and once they are, the “west” itself will cease to remain the “west”. When that happens, I will indeed be happy.

So my work is in line with what whitehead attempts. Only I refer to the original dharma sources and not western substitutes.