Wiki describes the Catholic Holy Communion a.k.a. Mass (emphasis added):
Communion rite
All together recite or sing the "Lord's Prayer" ("Pater Noster" or "Our Father"). The priest introduces it with a short phrase and follows it up with a prayer called the embolism and the people respond with the doxology. The sign of peace is exchanged and then the "Lamb of God" ("Agnus Dei" in Latin) litany is sung or recited, while the priest breaks the host and places a piece in the main chalice; this is known as the rite of fraction and commingling.
The priest then presents the transubstantiated elements to the congregation, saying: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." Then all repeat: "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." The priest then receives Communion and, with the help, if necessary, of extraordinary ministers, distributes Communion to the people, who usually approach in procession. Silence is called for following the Communion procession. A Prayer After Communion is then proclaimed by the priest while all stand.
What are these "transubstantiated elements"?
Wiki explains in another article:
Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the change whereby, according to Catholic doctrine, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood, while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species in Latin) remains unchanged. What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine, but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent. The manner in which the change occurs, the Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."
So, what is this ritual? An objective observer could say this is ritual cannibalism. ("not merely as a sign or figure")
Academics might note in passing that this ritual has been on occasion described as such, but when studying Catholics, their history, etc., they go by the Catholic understanding of their ritual. Can you imagine someone who keeps insisting that the Catholics practice ritual cannibalism will get a platform in a major university in the United States to publish and propagate those views? How many academic journals will accept their papers?
But, these rules do not apply to Hindus and Hinduism. Anyone who has the temerity to point out this glaringly obvious fact is accused of being a "Hindu fundamentalist", whatever that might mean.
Logging you in...
CIP · 578 weeks ago
However, I have a slightly OT question: Doniger subtitles her book "an alternative history." Can you recommend a book with the history she is presenting a supposed alternative to? A few requests: it should to be by an Indian author, available on Kindle, and ought to be more history than argument. I looked at Indra's Net, and may still read it, but it looks like more argument than history.
macgupta 81p · 578 weeks ago
And you'll have to ask Doniger that question. You want to read Indian history by Indian authors who are not trying to suck up to a Western audience, try http://www.manoharbooks.com/ (Manohar Books) and browse through their catalog. You can order books directly from them, or indirectly through a site like alibris.com or abebooks.com. It will take about a month for the books to reach.
Indra's Net is meant to be an argument, which would be obvious if you actually read beyond the first two words of the title which is "Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity".
CIP · 578 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 578 weeks ago
CIP · 578 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 578 weeks ago
CIP · 578 weeks ago
Here is John 6:66 - "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
macgupta 81p · 578 weeks ago
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%...
Quote:
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
End quote.
But the whole point is not the fact of theological dispute, nor its details - but rather, how this is treated in Western academia as compared to the treatment of Hinduism.
CIP · 578 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 578 weeks ago
- and this matters to me how?
"f you would rather hurl racist insults..."
- Really?
CIP · 578 weeks ago
I didn't think that was supposed to be a compliment.
In any case, my point was that Christianity too, has gotten some close and sometimes unwelcome scrutiny in the Academy and outside it. People have noticed, for example, that the Bible sometimes seems to talk approvingly of genocide, murder, and human sacrifice. It's also true that academics whose interpretations displeased one authority or another were frequently banned, persecuted, or even burned at the stake.
You seem to believe that Hindu scriptures are unique in being subjected to critical and historical scrutiny. I don't think that's true.
macgupta 81p · 578 weeks ago
CIP · 578 weeks ago
Also, there are plenty of people who brand European Civilization as immoral, and some blame Christianity specifically. In any case, it's hard to separate modern Christianity and European civilization. My own view is that people do moral and immoral things, often invoking religion as an excuse.
- and this matters to me how?
Evidently not much.
macgupta 81p · 578 weeks ago
Which is OK. The main goal is to convince lethargic Hindus that, it is not just the Heathen in His Blindness, the West is just as blind, and they should not be genuflecting to western academia. And if I had doubts about what Balu's works, this incident serves as ample confirmation. That sentence, which was not in disagreement with you, you interpret as racist. One might say that given the culture you are embedded in, it is impossible for you to find it something other than racist.
macgupta 81p · 578 weeks ago
I will return the compliment, and say that in your retirement, you have become functionally illiterate. You expect "a defence of the unity of Hindu philosophy" not to be an argument!!!! And the snippet above is from a full sentence:
"And this is the type of book academics write: http://books.google.com/books?id=1BWORikfM-0C (The Poetics of Transubstantiation), rather than converting European culture into that of a race of sublimated cannibals."
Which I tire of repeating, is the analog of what Wendy and her Children do to Hindus in their writings. I have no desire of terming European culture as a race of sublimated cannibals. But that is what I must do if Wendy Doniger, Jeffrey Kripal, Paul Courtright, etc, are the standard of scholarship.
---- As to why should I care what you think about me - I'll point out that i know your name **only** because Motl outed you; and because Motl is clever and unlikely to be wrong, not because you confirmed it. "CIP", "anonymous", what is the difference?
CIP · 578 weeks ago
Obviously you have lost interest in trying to explain it to me, so I will stop bothering you about it.
macgupta 81p · 578 weeks ago