You are not any better with the comments you have made about India and Hinduism.
In Sarva’s quick jump to defend Asuri or mitigate his racist and anti-Hindu comments(the irony is, Sarva is Hindu lol) we can clearly see why I think India is a doomed nation: because the people are idiots. They would rather fight among each other, than unite. Sarva is a Hindu who strongly subscribes to Puranic Hinduism(which I am strongly against) and I am a Hindu who subscribes to the Jnana universalist Hinduism(I do not reject Hinduism entirely, only the Puranic form of it which is popular today) Yet, Sarva considers me a more dangerous threat and would pal up with a known anti-Hindu and Christian fundamentalist against me.
This is exactly how India was invaded and completely subjugated by the British - because Indian people were so busy fighting among each other as they were highly fragmented - they never united against the British, but rather each of them tried to pall up with the British against their Indian rivals, and in the process they gave British their own land just to get at their Indian rivals. They were pit up against each other and finally assimilated.
Such idiotic people deserve such a fate. There is a reason why I have so few Indian friends. As I already forecasted, the same is going to happen in the near future with China. India is just as fragmented today, as it was when the British invaded. All it will take is just one organized power with imperialist intention to subjugate it - and China is right next door.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72737]… we can clearly see why I think India is a doomed nation: because the people are idiots. …
Such idiotic people deserve such a fate.[/QUOTE]I rest my case.
This is typical Surya Deva thinking. He has placed me in a box of who he thinks I am, then he has to distort and misrepresent my views in order to make me fit into his box. The truth of the matter is that my views regarding Samkhya-Yoga philosophy have nothing at all to do with Christianity. They have much more to do with my lack of affinity for Vedanta philosophy, and my belief that the dominance of Vedanta has resulted in the distortion of much of Samkhya-Yoga philosophy. So what I’m about has more to do with trying to discover the true meaning of these philosophies, minus the Vedanta influence.
I’ve learned a few things since joining this forum, and as a result I have, in fact, altered some of my views on the subject.
By the way just to back up my prediction that China will take over India and my opinion of Indian people’s idiocy: Refer to this article:
They want to encircle India from all sides, fan sub-nationalism in India and break up the Republic. Assamese, Tamils and Nagas along with Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan and the "decadent " Hindu religion will all be used to decimate India or rather dismember the great Indian federation. An article espousing such a strategy has appeared on a quasi-official Chinese website. So it cannot be taken lightly. China is not India, where democracy in expression of opinion prevails. On a quasi-official site, it is an opinion that has possibly some sort of official sanction.
The Indian government has rightly taken exception to the article, which incidentally has appeared just a few days ahead of our 62nd Independence Day. Whereas the Indian government and you and me have the right to fume at this open Chinese desire to break India, isn’t it a fact that we are all party to this “weakening” of India. Sixty-two years after our “tryst with destiny” are we really Indians, or do we think ourselves as Bengalis, Punjabis, Tamils, Malayalis, Gujaratis and Marathis?
Is our Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh identity more important to us than our Indian tag ? This is a point worth pondering over. Most of us, when asked the question, will say that our Indian identity is more important to us. But in reality our Indian identity becomes the most important identity when we are travelling abroad or watching a cricket match. In our own country we think nothing of denigrating other communities and generally looking down on them. This may not be the attitude of each and every one of us, but generally it is true. Worse still, most of us have made no effort to understand the sociology and culture of Indians living in other parts and their problems and would prefer to fly off abroad for a holiday rather than visiting other states.
Sixty-two years later not only have we failed to consolidate our Indian identity, but have regressed the other way. So in large parts of India, not to talk of being Indians, we are not even Marathis, Biharis, Tamils or Telugus. We are Rajputs, Reddys, Patels, Kshatriyas, Jats, Kurmis, Vaniyars, Dalits and what have you. This is the reason why the Chinese talk about balkanisation of India: they realise that if the Indians are moving in the opposite direction, instead of consolidating their Indian identity then it would not be too difficult to break them? Are they wrong in thinking so?
The Chinese may take delight in the dismemberment of India but we must also look inwards to figure out why we are unable to consolidate our Indianness and our position as a nation. A hundred and fifty-two years ago in 1857, the British were able to crush the Indian revolt because Indians did not think of themselves as Indians then — there were Sikhs, Biharis, Rajputs and Marathas. The British were able to play one community against the other and take the support of some of them to crush the others.
In 1993, RDX smuggled in through the sea route with the connivance of customs officials was used to bomb Mumbai and kill over 300 people. A senior customs official who allowed the consignment in said he did not know what the consignment contained. He just took a bribe and allowed the consignment in, and this is what he did for all consignments. Fifteen years later on 26/11, terrorists from Pakistan launched a deadly attack on the same city. They came by the sea route and one can be perfectly sure about this that they had local logistical support. So things have not really changed. Why blame the Chinese then for harbouring ambitions of dismembering India? Two hundred and fifty-two years ago in 1757 that is precisely the way Robert Clive was able to plant the English flag in India after the battle of Plassey. He bribed a general of the Nawab of Bengal, who stood inert with his troops as Clive’s men cut down to size the other part of Nawab’s team.
If our “tryst with destiny” has not resulted in consolidating our Indianness in 62 years, neither will it by taking pledges on August 15, which we do every year. But it is time to ponder and seriously think how to consolidate the concept of India, Indianness and Indian nationalism. It is not too late still. But time is running out with the enemy lurking around. And his ambitions are not hidden any more. What are your ideas, fellow Indians?
India is a nation, or more accurately civilization, that has historically been hopelessly divided. Hence it is also the nation that has been always falling prey to invasions. These Indian people never seem to learn that strength comes from unity not diversity. While Indians today are busy quarreling amongst themselves, China is silently encircling India from all sides, inciting revolutions in India and exploiting Indian fault lines, turning all of its neighbors against it.
And its because of idiots… like 
You are completely out of line here, implying that disagreeing with you results in the fall of India. You have an immense delusion of grandeur.
Well, I never thought much about Hindus at all, but if I were to base my opinion on the two of you, I’d have to say that Hindus are arrogant, egotistical, nasty little eggheads, bigots, haters, and BS artists
This is a good example of how you misunderstand and twist my words to suit your purposes. What I’m really saying here is that [I]you two[/I] (Surya Deva and Neitsche) are arrogant, egotistical, etc., and if I had to base my opinion of all hindus on you two, that is what my opinion would be. But implicit in the statement is that I do not base my opinion of all hindus only on you two, and that’s a good thing for them, because you are giving them all a bad reputation.
Now are you really so stupid that I have to explain this to you, or is there some other motive?
I have already explained elsewhere that the remarks I made that got me banned were directed at Neitsche, who went around this forum for months bashing Christians, and not anyone else. He deserved it.
From the article:
A hundred and fifty-two years ago in 1857, the British were able to crush the Indian revolt because Indians did not think of themselves as Indians then — there were Sikhs, Biharis, Rajputs and Marathas. The British were able to play one community against the other and take the support of some of them to crush the others.
You exhibit exactly the same mentality: You identify me as an outsider, outside of the fold of Indianess and Hinduism, and therefore I am your enemy and my enemy is your friend. Rather than seeing me as just another Indian and another type of Hindu, you exclude me, to the extent that you feel more affinity with a known anti-Hindu and racist.
And this is what happened when the British invaded India and in the 1857 first war of independence - where Indians rose to fight against the British - and do you know why they lost? Because it was Indians who rose to fight against those Indians 
I really hope other Indians can see how in Sarva you can see that very mentality that has lead to India historically falling prey to invasions again… and again… and again. Perhaps then you will begin to understand why I have such a low opinion of Indians.
[QUOTE=Asuri;72742]This is a good example of how you misunderstand and twist my words to suit your purposes. What I’m really saying here is that [I]you two[/I] (Surya Deva and Neitsche) are arrogant, egotistical, etc., and if I had to base my opinion of all hindus on you two, that is what my opinion would be. But implicit in the statement is that I do not base my opinion of all hindus only on you two, and that’s a good thing for them, because you are giving them all a bad reputation.
Now are you really so stupid that I have to explain this to you, or is there some other motive?[/QUOTE]
Save it, you were banned for 2 months for making explicitly racist anti-Hindu comments. You did the crime - and you’ve served the sentence.
You have already denounced India and you have denigrated almost every aspect of Hinduism and now you want me to pick your side because you are Indian. You can’t be serious.
No, I have denounced bad things about India and Hinduism. I am an Indian and Hindu(in the Santana dharma way) who is cable of self-criticism, but self-criticism is not the same as hatred or antagonism. You will find my criticisms are shared by Indian visionaries and spiritual leaders like Swami Vivekananda(who is also critical of idol worship) but you would side up with a known anti-Hindu and India racist against me. That is why the situation is so ironic and so idiotic as well
Again you support my argument that Indians would rather fight amogst each other, than fight an outside enemy.
Ah, so now you admit you are a follower of neo-vedanta which was heavily influenced by Biblical thinking and western esotericism. Swami Vivekananda was never even initiated into the order of Shankaracharya, he initiated himself into monkhood after telling the story of Jesus Christ to a few disciples of Ramakrishna after his demise in front of a campfire. The visionaries you talk about were all influenced by Christianity (Dayananda, Rama Mohan Roy, Vivekananda). It is clear that you are also looking at Hinduism through the eyes of Christianity while ironically you are accusing other people for being biased by Christianity. The difference is that you are the biggest missionairy of this Christianized Hinduism.
Neo Vedanta is not influenced by biblical thinking, but rather it is Vedanta as explained by modern Hindu gurus. Swami Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda’s guru, was not influenced by Christianity, he was a traditional Shakta. He was the one that taught Swami Vivekananda and Swami Vivekananda got a traditional Vedanta education. It is easy to see how well versed Swami Vivekananda is in Vedanta and Hinduism in general by reading his complete works. His explanations of Hinduism were the first exposure the West got on Hinduism and today in the UK the Vivekananda foundation runs courses on Hinduism at school, college and degree level as a part of the national curriculum.
My understanding of Hinduism is also not based on biblical thinking, but I certainly do bring a modern outlook to it, because I am after all a modern person. I base my understanding on the primary texts themselves - which by the way are the Vedas(sruti) NOT THE PURANAS. Even you know that the Vedas predate the Puranas by a huge margin.
The fact is that the Samkhya thinkers opposed the belief in Brahman as the source of the world, which is the central belief of Vedanta. I think that classifies Samkhya as non-hindu, because hindus accept Vedanta.
The following is a quote from Vijnana Bhiksu’s introduction to the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram.
It is therefore, on this ground alone that the disparagement of all darsanas except the Vedanta and Yoga in the Padma-Purana can be justified…
He then goes on to quote from the Padma Purana which names the "Tamasa Sastras’, including Vaisesika, Nyaya, Samkhya, Purva-Mimamsa, Charvaka, and Buddhism. It is a fact that Sankara also argued against many of these. So it is not my imagination to say that not only Samkhya, but Buddhism and others were suppressed. I cannot, however, justify a view that this was the result of an invading culture that dominated a pre-existing culture.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72748]Neo Vedanta is not influenced by biblical thinking, but rather it is Vedanta as explained by modern Hindu gurus. Swami Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda’s guru, was not influenced by Christianity, he was a traditional Shakta. He was the one that taught Swami Vivekananda and Swami Vivekananda got a traditional Vedanta education. It is easy to see how well versed Swami Vivekananda is in Vedanta and Hinduism in general by reading his complete works. His explanations of Hinduism were the first exposure the West got on Hinduism and today in the UK the Vivekananda foundation runs courses on Hinduism at school, college and degree level as a part of the national curriculum.[/quote]This is wrong, the reformist movements have been influenced heavily by Christianity and Vivekandanda by no means was a traditional vedantin or a traditional shakta. He was first a member of the reformist movement, the Brahmo Samaj, before he assigned himself the leadership of the Ramakrishna mission.
My understanding of Hinduism is also not based on biblical thinking, but I certainly do bring a modern outlook to it, because I am after all a modern person. I base my understanding on the primary texts themselves - which by the way are the Vedas(sruti) NOT THE PURANAS. Even you know that the Vedas predate the Puranas by a huge margin.
You create an unnecessary division between vedas and puranas. The Chandogya Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Atharvaveda all mention the Itihasa and Purana as the fifth veda. Shankaracharya also had great respect for the puranas and tantras. Also, I am not a follower of merely “puranic” Hinduism as you call it. I have been initiated into the vedic tradition since I was eight years old. You are basically an outsider to this tradition of the vedas.
This is a total misrepresentation of what I believe. My position is that [I]samprajnata samadhi[/I], in which the mind has become one-pointed but some mental activity remains, is the more useful and practical, and relevant form of yoga, and that total cessation only applies at the very highest levels, which is completely irrelevant to most practitioners.
You have a persecution complex. I don’t present Vedanta as anything. I almost never talk it. What I have said is that all of the Vedanta rationalizations against Samkhya and other philosophies are rooted in the belief in Brahman as the source of the world, which belief is derived from scripture and nothing else. This is a well documented, established fact. You can argue until the cows come home and it will not change this fact.
Since I have exposed this fact you have blown it way out of proportion and generalized it to all of Vedanta, but I have not said those things.
[QUOTE=Asuri;72749]The fact is that the Samkhya thinkers opposed the belief in Brahman as the source of the world, which is the central belief of Vedanta. I think that classifies Samkhya as non-hindu, because hindus accept Vedanta.
The following is a quote from Vijnana Bhiksu’s introduction to the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram.
He then goes on to quote from the Padma Purana which names the "Tamasa Sastras’, including Vaisesika, Nyaya, Samkhya, Purva-Mimamsa, Charvaka, and Buddhism. It is a fact that Sankara also argued against many of these. So it is not my imagination to say that not only Samkhya, but Buddhism and others were suppressed. I cannot, however, justify a view that this was the result of an invading culture that dominated a pre-existing culture.[/QUOTE]
These were insertions into the padma purana by later sectarian Vaishnavas. This section of the padma purana also disparages the Mayavada of Shankaracharya and vairous sects of Shaivism like pashupata and kapalikas, so it can’t be said that this was against non-Hindu sects. In the prime of the “debate culture” in medieval times, it was common for various sect to start maligning each other, even by making alterations in scriptures. There are also alterations in scriptures which call Madhvacharya a demon.
Swami Vivekananda was a modern Indian. He got a standard English university education and was very interested in religion and the question of god. He tried many different groups, including the Brahmo Samaj, before he found Swami Ramakrishna. It is from Ramakrishna he learned Vedanta and every other Hindu philosophy. He was dubbed ‘Vivekananda’ because he was exceptionally well learned in Hinduism. His knowledge of Hinduism is par excellence, and this is easy to see for anybody who reads his complete works(available online) He is widely considered the most important Hindu and Indian of the 20th century, alongside Gandhi and Sri Aurobindo.
Yes, they they did take a modern approach to Hinduism and bought reforms, that is called being progressive and keeping up with the challenges of modern times. If you see reforms as something wrong, then you clearly are a very regressive Hindu.
And by the way your interpretation of Hinduism is also influenced by modernist thinkers - Hindu nationalism was influenced by German and Italian fascism. The early Hindu nationalists even undertook trips to meet Hitler to seek inspiration in how to forumulate their nationalist Hinduism.
You create an unnecessary division between vedas and puranas. The Chandogya Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Atharvaveda all mention the Itihasa and Purana as the fifth veda. Shankaracharya also had great respect for the puranas and tantras. Also, I am not a follower of merely “puranic” Hinduism as you call it. I have been initiated into the vedic tradition since I was eight years old. You are basically an outsider to this tradition of the vedas.
The mention of the Puranas does not mean the Puranas that you are reading today. It is a well known fact that the Puranas have been edited continuously up until the modern age, so whatever you see in the Puranas today is not the same as the puranas that existed in the times the Chandogya and Brihadarankaya.
I am certainly an outsider to your nationalist brand of Hinduism - geographical Hinduism. I am not a born Indian national and nor am I born Hindu. However, I am not outsider to the original Santana dharama - universal Hiinduism - based on the eternal laws and principles and the actual true form of Hinduism. There is no geographical exclusion in this Hinduism, rather all of humanity is embraced as one family: vasudeva kutumbukum. In the Gita Krishna talks about manava dharma, not Indian dharma. Dharma applies to all. It is not an exclusively Indian thing.
Your problem is you fail to see the wider humanity and that is why I think you fail as a Hindu, because the Vedic Risis did not have this narrow-minded, nationalistic and myopic vision of the world that you do.
An irony we will note here is just how fundamentally at odds Sarva’s nationalist geographical brand of Hinduism is to the original Hinduism of the Vedas:
O citizens of the world
Live in harmony and concord
Be organized and co-operative
Speak with one voice
And make your resolutions with one mind
As our ancient saints and seers
Leader and preceptors
Have performed their duties righteously
Similarly, may you not falter to exercise
your duties
(Rig 10.191.2)
Another irony is more than 5000 years ago the sages of India were globalists and humanists - and Sarva living in a 21st century globalized world is a nationalist. Pitiful.
I am so glad I did not fall into the nationalist trap that many young Hindus are falling into today. Hindu nationalism is a big joke - and it is a joke on the Vedic sages of India.