Is Yoga Hinduism?

[Nietzsche]

Okay, I have looked at the evidence for vimanas and WMD as described in the literature and I think it is scarce and too circumstantial to make a positive case. So I will agree with you that we should leave it out of the picture.

I still believe there have been advanced civilisations on this earth in the past personally, but I accept there is no significant evidence for this.

Yeah, its definitely an intriguing concept.

If only there were time machines...

And I completely forgot about responding to your flood myth inquiry.

Here you go.

By the way, I have personally read mention of a worldwide deluge in numerous texts and scriptures, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Vishnu fish avatar, Chinese myths, etc.

[Sahasrara]

Yoga is Hinduism. read the comments of this youtube Video:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_eTupTCbI&feature=related

[reaswaran]

Yoga is Hinduism. read the comments of this youtube Video:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_eTupTCbI&feature=related

If you mean Yoga is part of Sanatana Dharma , yes. (Hinduism is a word coined in the recent past to label those who lived by the river Sindhu (Indus).) If you mean Yoga = Sanatana Dharma, that would be an inadequate interpretation, though there it could be said that the eight steps of yoga as prescribed by Patanjali are sufficient for self realisation. But then you would miss the beauty of the rituals and Bhakti yoga enshrined in the Vedas.

[Nietzsche]

If you mean Yoga is part of Sanatana Dharma , yes. (Hinduism is a word coined in the recent past to label those who lived by the river Sindhu (Indus).) If you mean Yoga = Sanatana Dharma, that would be an inadequate interpretation, though there it could be said that the eight steps of yoga as prescribed by Patanjali are sufficient for self realisation. But then you would miss the beauty of the rituals and Bhakti yoga enshrined in the Vedas.

I agree mostly.

However, Bhakti and rituals are merely a drawback to a true understanding of the world. These secondary means of realization only inculcate ignorance, superstition, and dogmatism.

These religious elements of Hinduism must go if we Hindus are to ever survive the assaults by enemy religious groups. We need more intellectual Hindus to combat their cultural and religious subjugation. The philosophical schools are the way to go.

[Surya_Deva]

I am going to say something in defense of Bhakti as my attitude towards it has mellowed over the past few months. I realised there was a fallacy in my insistence that we should only focus on Nirguna Brahman as the mysterious, impersonal, absolute and ultimate reality. This sounds a lot more scientific and philosophical than "Father" But the fallacy is that father is as much a word, as "mysterious, absolute and ultimate " are - its also from a human perspective. So what justification is there to say one is better than the other?

I have realised that not everybody has a scientific mind, thus abstract terms do nothing for them. They respond better to "Father, mother, son, almighty" These are people who live by their heart. The scientist lives by their intellect. Is one better than the other? They are both just different ways of approaching the same subject.

Ultimately, we must attain a balance of the heart and the intellect. If you are all intellect you will become a robot. If you are all heart you will become a fanatic.

[reaswaran]

I agree mostly.

However, Bhakti and rituals are merely a drawback to a true understanding of the world. These secondary means of realization only inculcate ignorance, superstition, and dogmatism.

These religious elements of Hinduism must go if we Hindus are to ever survive the assaults by enemy religious groups. We need more intellectual Hindus to combat their cultural and religious subjugation. The philosophical schools are the way to go.

These are secondary means, true. But by removing these, we will remove access to the path from the vast majority of people who are unable to follow the paths of Raja or Jnana Yoga. Bhakti and Karma yoga were designed for people who had different capabilities ie very Rajasic in nature and therefore prone to work or devotion. Jnana and Raja are only for those whose natures consist of Intellect and rationality.

[Nietzsche]

I am going to say something in defense of Bhakti as my attitude towards it has mellowed over the past few months. I realised there was a fallacy in my insistence that we should only focus on Nirguna Brahman as the mysterious, impersonal, absolute and ultimate reality. This sounds a lot more scientific and philosophical than "Father" But the fallacy is that father is as much a word, as "mysterious, absolute and ultimate " are - its also from a human perspective. So what justification is there to say one is better than the other?

I have realised that not everybody has a scientific mind, thus abstract terms do nothing for them. They respond better to "Father, mother, son, almighty" These are people who live by their heart. The scientist lives by their intellect. Is one better than the other? They are both just different ways of approaching the same subject.

Ultimately, we must attain a balance of the heart and the intellect. If you are all intellect you will become a robot. If you are all heart you will become a fanatic.

These are secondary means, true. But by removing these, we will remove access to the path from the vast majority of people who are unable to follow the paths of Raja or Jnana Yoga. Bhakti and Karma yoga were designed for people who had different capabilities ie very Rajasic in nature and therefore prone to work or devotion. Jnana and Raja are only for those whose natures consist of Intellect and rationality.

I guess I can see where you guys are coming from.

However, at the present, most Indians are Bhakti. Our intellectual traditions have been buried beneath over 1000 years of foreign oppression. When all factors are considered, modern-day Hindus probably have the weakest intellectual foundation out of any religious group. This makes those Hindus easy prey, for their weakness lies in the fact that they see nothing but superstition and organized religious dogma in THEIR OWN faith.

An intellectual revival of Hinduism MUST occur. The modern emphasis on rationalism, secularism, and humanism does not mix well with Bhakti.

Of course, there should be some semblance of balance between the two; however, our intellectual traditions should always have the upper hand (but not the point where a lack of tolerance leads to the desire for eliminating the other side).

This is important especially at a time where there is the AIT and rampant missionary activity and undesirable levels of Westernization at the expense of our cultural roots occurring.

[Surya_Deva]

There is a huge resurgence in Yoga spiritual teachers in India. So the Hindu intellectual traditions are also becoming well known.

The other way to make people aware is to include it in the general education system as part of philosophy, mathematics, literature and science. If you are not covering Aryabhatta and Pingala when doing mathematics or astronomy, not covering the six systems of Hindu philosophy and Buddha, Jaina and Charvaka when doing philosophy, not covering Kalidasa, Bharatihari and Vyassa when studying literature, and not studying Patanajli when doing psychology and Kananda when doing chemistry and physics, and not Panini when doing linguistics - then something is very wrong.

[Nietzsche]

There is a huge resurgence in Yoga spiritual teachers in India. So the Hindu intellectual traditions are also becoming well known.

The other way to make people aware is to include it in the general education system as part of philosophy, mathematics, literature and science. If you are not covering Aryabhatta and Pingala when doing mathematics or astronomy, not covering the six systems of Hindu philosophy and Buddha, Jaina and Charvaka when doing philosophy, not covering Kalidasa, Bharatihari and Vyassa when studying literature, and not studying Patanajli when doing psychology and Kananda when doing chemistry and physics, and not Panini when doing linguistics - then something is very wrong.

I agree. However, they should not be separate courses (for that defeats the purpose of a secular education) but included in courses like Linguistics and Philosophy.

After all, India's education system is India's education system. If Indian schools are not teaching their youth about their own heritage, then there is no point in having an education system. The youth of India might as well be citizens of another country.

[TatTvamAsi]

I agree mostly.

However, Bhakti and rituals are merely a drawback to a true understanding of the world. These secondary means of realization only inculcate ignorance, superstition, and dogmatism.

These religious elements of Hinduism must go if we Hindus are to ever survive the assaults by enemy religious groups. We need more intellectual Hindus to combat their cultural and religious subjugation. The philosophical schools are the way to go.

hi Nietzsche,

Finally joined this forum!

I must disagree with your statements [added emphasis by me] above. Hindus must be very careful about presenting the traditions to foreign audiences in terms of what is legitimate and what isn't. There is a tendency, over the past few decades, by many pro-Hindus who are western-educated to present a very narrow picture of Hinduism/Sanathana Dharma in order to cater to the west and other so-called rationalists.

By presenting this "clean" version of Hinduism, one would be redacting it to an unrecognizable system of philosophy. In my opinion, Hinduism is the human experience of the divine. To call one path legitimate and another illegitimate, within the framework of SD, is to redact it. Nobody has the authority to do that.

That is why the Aghori who meditates on a corpse and the Namboodri who considers other Brahmins as 'unclean' are considered Hindus. If we were to redact Hinduism to a purely Purva-Mimamsa/Vedanta level, the other paths that lead to liberation would be denied their legitimacy. In fact, as supporters of Hindu Dharma, Hindus must embrace the entire continuum of Hindu thought and practice and be proud of their variegated traditions and philosophies.

The sad thing is that many modern-day Hindu "gurus" are too keen on including even the Abrahamic religions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) into that fold. I completely disagree with that as they are outside VaidIka Dharma, but we must be careful about what we decide to respect/accept within Sanathana Dharma.

As a matter of fact, Hinduism's beauty is its scant regard for other's opinions and historicity. Hindus who try to emphasize Sri RAmA's historicity or Sri KrihnA's historicity run into the danger of redacting Hinduism into a history-centric religion. This is actually what Rajiv Malhotra says as well. Similarly, for the sake of appearing intellectual and advanced, if Hindus decide to discard the Bhakti and Tantric paths, they are hoodwinking themselves without knowing it.

Arya Samaj's stand on "idolatriy" is a shameful representation of Hinduism; mUrtI pUjA is one of the most fundamental aspects of Bhakti and to the Arya Samaji's, it is blasphemy. Hindus should not become like Muslims and Christians or Jews in order to counter them.

By the way, have you and Surya Deva read Breaking India by Rajiv Malhotra? It is a must-read for every Indian.

[Dwai]

I agree mostly.

However, Bhakti and rituals are merely a drawback to a true understanding of the world. These secondary means of realization only inculcate ignorance, superstition, and dogmatism.

These religious elements of Hinduism must go if we Hindus are to ever survive the assaults by enemy religious groups. We need more intellectual Hindus to combat their cultural and religious subjugation. The philosophical schools are the way to go.

Dear nietzsche,

Bhakti is absolutely necessary for true spiritual quest. Without reverence, we give up the most important part of our quest, the potential for humility.

Rituals are like encrypted, highly compressed knowledge systems which have to be decrypted by applying practice tempered with reference, humility and intelligence.

If we discard these two, we discard the ability to understand, "really understand, with body, mind and consciousness" that which is beyond duality, beyond intellect, beyond nama rupa. Meaning, that is not attainable by any one mean alone, one has to apply everything in concert unfold that which is enfolded

[Nietzsche]

hi Nietzsche,

Finally joined this forum!

I must disagree with your statements [added emphasis by me] above. Hindus must be very careful about presenting the traditions to foreign audiences in terms of what is legitimate and what isn't. There is a tendency, over the past few decades, by many pro-Hindus who are western-educated to present a very narrow picture of Hinduism/Sanathana Dharma in order to cater to the west and other so-called rationalists.

By presenting this "clean" version of Hinduism, one would be redacting it to an unrecognizable system of philosophy. In my opinion, Hinduism is the human experience of the divine. To call one path legitimate and another illegitimate, within the framework of SD, is to redact it. Nobody has the authority to do that.

That is why the Aghori who meditates on a corpse and the Namboodri who considers other Brahmins as 'unclean' are considered Hindus. If we were to redact Hinduism to a purely Purva-Mimamsa/Vedanta level, the other paths that lead to liberation would be denied their legitimacy. In fact, as supporters of Hindu Dharma, Hindus must embrace the entire continuum of Hindu thought and practice and be proud of their variegated traditions and philosophies.

The sad thing is that many modern-day Hindu "gurus" are too keen on including even the Abrahamic religions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) into that fold. I completely disagree with that as they are outside VaidIka Dharma, but we must be careful about what we decide to respect/accept within Sanathana Dharma.

As a matter of fact, Hinduism's beauty is its scant regard for other's opinions and historicity. Hindus who try to emphasize Sri RAmA's historicity or Sri KrihnA's historicity run into the danger of redacting Hinduism into a history-centric religion. This is actually what Rajiv Malhotra says as well. Similarly, for the sake of appearing intellectual and advanced, if Hindus decide to discard the Bhakti and Tantric paths, they are hoodwinking themselves without knowing it.

Arya Samaj's stand on "idolatriy" is a shameful representation of Hinduism; mUrtI pUjA is one of the most fundamental aspects of Bhakti and to the Arya Samaji's, it is blasphemy. Hindus should not become like Muslims and Christians or Jews in order to counter them.

By the way, have you and Surya Deva read Breaking India by Rajiv Malhotra? It is a must-read for every Indian.

Welcome to the forums TTA! There is much cleaning to be done on the forums, if you know what I mean.

I will respond to Dwai and you later.

Once again, I'm glad you're here! You, SD, and I will form an unstoppable trio!

[Surya_Deva]

hi Nietzsche,

Finally joined this forum!

Welcome TatTvamAsi. I look forward to your contributions on this forum.

I must disagree with your statements [added emphasis by me] above. Hindus must be very careful about presenting the traditions to foreign audiences in terms of what is legitimate and what isn't. There is a tendency, over the past few decades, by many pro-Hindus who are western-educated to present a very narrow picture of Hinduism/Sanathana Dharma in order to cater to the west and other so-called rationalists.

I agree, we should present a view of Hinduism that is authentic, honest and accurate and have no regard for how it is perceived by the West. If they like it, fine; if they don't, still fine. This is also why Hindus need to stop citing Western dates and Western reductionist interpretations of our traditions. I am afraid Neitzsche is guilty of this himself for he regards our scientific traditions as religious or philosophical, for that is indeed how they are portrayed to the West.
However, the darshanas are not philosophy, in fact there is no word for philosophy in sanskrit, they are Hindu scientific traditions and are regarded as vidya or shastra - science.

So if they are science where are mathematical proofs, documentation of experiments and techologies? Again, this is a Western reductionist way of looking at what science is. Who said that science should be based on mathematics, empirical experiments and produce technologies? Why do many Hindus take this for granted? We did indeed have a scientific method known as the pramana method - and what a great method is. Not a single experiment has to be done, all that is required is a bright intellect and it produces valid knowledge. What do we do with that knowledge? We use it to address human suffering.

The sad thing is that many modern-day Hindu "gurus" are too keen on including even the Abrahamic religions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) into that fold. I completely disagree with that as they are outside VaidIka Dharma, but we must be careful about what we decide to respect/accept within Sanathana Dharma.

This is known as universal plularism, and it's just as bad as its cousin relativism.
The Hindu tradition says that all dharmas are a valid way to liberation, it never said anything about adharama being a valid way. That is exactly how we would have classified Abrahamic religion: adharmic, asura, mleccha.

As a matter of fact, Hinduism's beauty is its scant regard for other's opinions and historicity. Hindus who try to emphasize Sri RAmA's historicity or Sri KrihnA's historicity run into the danger of redacting Hinduism into a history-centric religion.

While I understand the dangers of trying to historicise Hinduism which cannot be done because it is santana and will equally be applicable to people living 1 billion years into the future as it was to people living 1 billion years before. It is a natural religion based on the laws of nature itself. Even the aliens are practicing it - but still the historicity of Lord Krishna and Lord Rama is somewhat important because they are avatars and widely regarded in our tradition.

Tracing the history of our tradition as far back as we can is important. Hinduism maybe santana, but in our current epoch on Earth it does have a beginning and that is in the Vedic civiliasation which began flourishing in the Indus valley around 10,000 years ago. It certainly did not flourish in other parts of the world - the civilisations that arose elsewhere were all adharmic.

By the way, have you and Surya Deva read Breaking India by Rajiv Malhotra? It is a must-read for every Indian.

I can highly recommend reading the book without reading it myself - simply because I do not doubt the scholarship of Malhotra after reading many of his articles online, and because the thesis of the book is very important. Even if 50% of his claims are true of a conspiracy to break up India is true, every Hindu needs to know this and act accordingly.

[Surya_Deva]

To Hindus and non-Hindus well wishers:

To add to the point that we should not pander to the West and reduce our religion into something that fits neatly into the Western reductionist framework, we also should be bold in asserting our superiority. Most Hindus today are very hesistant in asserting superiority and hold onto cultural relativist points that all religions are different but equal. Yet, our forefathers never would have said this. They openly called other cultures adharma, asura or mleccha. They openly talked about stuff being superior or inferior.

The irony is the same people that Hindus try to defend from proud supremist Hindus like me(there are plenty of them on the forum, some of them have not even declared they are Hindu, because they are not proud enough of their identity) just a few decades ago openly derided our culture as inferior/heathen/pagan/primitive/uncivilised. These same people openly made statements like, "We must show them the root of their civilisation in order to destroy it" In the encylopedia of Brittanica blatantly chauvanistic stuff was written about us calling our poetry unsophisticated, our music crude and loud, our architecture rude. Now that I have turned it around, rather than uniting with me in destroying these myths, Hindus are jumping on me for being proud

Yeah, sure Western music is good - by their standards. Not by ours. The truth is their music is crude and loud. I mean come on anybody who is familiar with ragas, tala, sargam will know just how vastly superior our music is. The same goes for our drama and literature; yeah sure they have their Shakespeare's, Miltons, Austens, Elliots - but are they any comparison for our Vyasas and Kalidasas? Absolutely not. It is a whole different league.
Just a few decades ago they would not have hesistated from patronizing you underming all your cultural achivements - so why do you - especially when it is true! We know Indian music is more refined, sophisticated, complex and textured than Western music is. Ditto for poetry; dance; cuisine. So why not assert it? As I said before when they say:

Newton, Dalton, Joules - you say Aryabhatta, Kananda
Einstein, Schrodinger - you say Kapila
Shakespeare, Milton, Elliot - you say Kalisada, Vyassa
Leibiniz - you say Pingala
Sauserre, Bloomfield, Chomsky, Boole, Bakus - you say Panini
Roman empire - You say Mauraya empire, Chola emprie, Gupta empire, Vijaynagra empire
Medicine, Hippocrates - Ayurveda: Sushratua, Charaka
Freud, William James, Jung - You say Patanjali
Mill, Marx, Machivelli - you say Chanakya, Vidhura
Cantebury tales - You say Panchatantra, Hitupodesha
Plato, Aristotle, - You say Gotama, Adishankarcharya

You have what we in hindi say Moor tor Jawab - an answer to break their face i.e., to show them whose really ahead. Then why do you hestitate from doing it?

[TatTvamAsi]

To Hindus and non-Hindus well wishers:

To add to the point that we should not pander to the West and reduce our religion into something that fits neatly into the Western reductionist framework, we also should be bold in asserting our superiority. Most Hindus today are very hesistant in asserting superiority and hold onto cultural relativist points that all religions are different but equal. Yet, our forefathers never would have said this. They openly called other cultures adharma, asura or mleccha. They openly talked about stuff being superior or inferior.

The irony is the same people that Hindus try to defend from proud supremist Hindus like me(there are plenty of them on the forum, some of them have not even declared they are Hindu, because they are not proud enough of their identity) just a few decades ago openly derided our culture as inferior/heathen/pagan/primitive/uncivilised. These same people openly made statements like, "We must show them the root of their civilisation in order to destroy it" In the encylopedia of Brittanica blatantly chauvanistic stuff was written about us calling our poetry unsophisticated, our music crude and loud, our architecture rude. Now that I have turned it around, rather than uniting with me in destroying these myths, Hindus are jumping on me for being proud

Yeah, sure Western music is good - by their standards. Not by ours. The truth is their music is crude and loud. I mean come on anybody who is familiar with ragas, tala, sargam will know just how vastly superior our music is. The same goes for our drama and literature; yeah sure they have their Shakespeare's, Miltons, Austens, Elliots - but are they any comparison for our Vyasas and Kalidasas? Absolutely not. It is a whole different league.
Just a few decades ago they would not have hesistated from patronizing you underming all your cultural achivements - so why do you - especially when it is true! We know Indian music is more refined, sophisticated, complex and textured than Western music is. Ditto for poetry; dance; cuisine. So why not assert it? As I said before when they say:

Newton, Dalton, Joules - you say Aryabhatta, Kananda
Einstein, Schrodinger - you say Kapila
Shakespeare, Milton, Elliot - you say Kalisada, Vyassa
Leibiniz - you say Pingala
Sauserre, Bloomfield, Chomsky, Boole, Bakus - you say Panini
Roman empire - You say Mauraya empire, Chola emprie, Gupta empire, Vijaynagra empire
Medicine, Hippocrates - Ayurveda: Sushratua, Charaka
Freud, William James, Jung - You say Patanjali
Mill, Marx, Machivelli - you say Chanakya, Vidhura
Cantebury tales - You say Panchatantra, Hitupodesha
Plato, Aristotle, - You say Gotama, Adishankarcharya

You have what we in hindi say Moor tor Jawab - an answer to break their face i.e., to show them whose really ahead. Then why do you hestitate from doing it?

Hi SuryaDeva,

Yes, I agree with you that Hindus need to be assertive in declaring not only the validity of Hinduism and India, but the incomparable superiority of its culture and values.

I like to think of it in an analogy; Hindus are like people with McLaren F1s and the Abrahamics are with Hyundais. They keep honking their horns and telling others how great their cars are when we in the McLaren F1 have a chuckle but keep quiet due to politeness. It is time to stop being polite to those who are out to vilify Hindus, Hinduism, and India. We should put them in their place and show that there is no comparison between Hindu Dharma and Abrahamic cults like judaism, christianity, and islam.

[Pietro_Impagliazzo]

Yeah, sure Western music is good - by their standards. Not by ours. The truth is their music is crude and loud. I mean come on anybody who is familiar with ragas, tala, sargam will know just how vastly superior our music is. The same goes for our drama and literature; yeah sure they have their Shakespeare's, Miltons, Austens, Elliots - but are they any comparison for our Vyasas and Kalidasas? Absolutely not. It is a whole different league.
Just a few decades ago they would not have hesistated from patronizing you underming all your cultural achivements - so why do you - especially when it is true! We know Indian music is more refined, sophisticated, complex and textured than Western music is. Ditto for poetry; dance; cuisine. So why not assert it? As I said before when they say:

Newton, Dalton, Joules - you say Aryabhatta, Kananda
Einstein, Schrodinger - you say Kapila
Shakespeare, Milton, Elliot - you say Kalisada, Vyassa
Leibiniz - you say Pingala
Sauserre, Bloomfield, Chomsky, Boole, Bakus - you say Panini
Roman empire - You say Mauraya empire, Chola emprie, Gupta empire, Vijaynagra empire
Medicine, Hippocrates - Ayurveda: Sushratua, Charaka
Freud, William James, Jung - You say Patanjali
Mill, Marx, Machivelli - you say Chanakya, Vidhura
Cantebury tales - You say Panchatantra, Hitupodesha
Plato, Aristotle, - You say Gotama, Adishankarcharya

You have what we in hindi say Moor tor Jawab - an answer to break their face i.e., to show them whose really ahead. Then why do you hestitate from doing it?

Hello SD, nice list you got there.

Let me highlight one personality from that list that I consider a key element in bridging east and west. It is Carl Gustav Jung.

While outsiders may think he was merely a psychologist, he was also a great philosopher, knower of all fields of knowledge. His investigations in eastern philosophy/mythology/etc were rich because what was he really after was not a direct correlation of psychology in eastern texts, but the core symbology, what it really meant to the most profound unconscious level.

In the Tavistock lectures, a collection of introductory lectures on analytical psychology, Jung boldly states:

"We, the europeans, are not the only creatures in the world. We are just a peninsula of Asia, and in that continent there are old civilizations, where people trained their minds in introspective psychology for thousands of years, while we started our psychology not yesterday, but today morning."

The introduction of the concept of Self in his view of the psyche came from a direct interaction with eastern philosophy.

I'm currently reading the appendix of a doctorate thesis on Abhishiktananda (http://bit.ly/juUEwZ - part 4), a benedictine monk that went to India and after getting to know its philosophy became a swami there. This monk then turned swami got into contact with Jung psychology and then began to analyze his own experiences, his symptoms of moksha and that of other saints through the lens of analytical psychology. So it's a nice rich reading for me, a monk turned swami that utilizes the work of a psychologist that researched so much the east.

Analytical psychology is seen with great prejudice in the west, specially by the academy, dominated by the short-sighted ideals of Freud. A psychology that tries to reduce everything to repression and instincts, great for an animalistic society, ahm? But while our society (specially western) trails back again to the light, such gross views of life are going to be discarded and the rich work of Jung (a great scientific work, with not theories, but concepts based on extensive studies) is going to be the key in uniting west back to east. That is the reflection of a neurotic conscience that thinks reason and logic is the answer to all, back to its deep unconscious, from which it emerged, and where lies the key to all its angsts. As eastern philosophies clearly now, the macrocosm reflects the microcosm in a synchronical relation.

[GORI_YOGINI]

Suryadeva, may I ask, are you living somewhere with the constant threat of forced conversion to Christianity or Islam? You seem to be on a "mission" of some sorts, as if your religion, culture or way of life is being threatened.

We are living in a post-modern liberal age where "religious freedom" is upheld by the United Nations, if not the individual governments of all (well, most) nations on the planet.

[Nietzsche]

Suryadeva, may I ask, are you living somewhere with the constant threat of forced conversion to Christianity or Islam? You seem to be on a "mission" of some sorts, as if your religion, culture or way of life is being threatened.

We are living in a post-modern liberal age where "religious freedom" is upheld by the United Nations, if not the individual governments of all (well, most) nations on the planet.

Actually, the U.N's Declaration of Human Rights favors proselytizing religions as well as non-proselytizing religions.

Christians and Muslims have always been a proselytizing threat to every non-Christian/non-Muslim culture in the world.

India specifically has long been infiltrated by missionaries who poison the minds of Indians and turn them into conservative and intolerant bigots.

Muslims and Christians do not deserve religious freedom as they are most likely to use that freedom to restrict the freedom of others.

[GORI_YOGINI]

Christianity has been thriving in India from practically its very beginning. You can research the "Malabar Christians" or "Syrian Orthodox Christianity" of Kerala. They go back 2,000 years, and as far as I know, there has been no problem between that community and the surrounding Hindu community.

Now, as far as modern Christian missionaries who go to India from foreign countries, its a funny thing.

Rather than go to predominantly atheist/agnostic countries - the developed countries of Northern and Western Europe - they choose to go to an under-developed area of the world that already believes in God!

So instead of converting atheists to theists, they are converting theists to what - another form of theism? It just doesn't make any sense.

Why don't these missionaries go to Sweden and convert atheists instead?

[Nietzsche]

Christianity has been thriving in India from practically its very beginning. You can research the "Malabar Christians" or "Syrian Orthodox Christianity" of Kerala. They go back 2,000 years, and as far as I know, there has been no problem between that community and the surrounding Hindu community.

Now, as far as modern Christian missionaries who go to India from foreign countries, its a funny thing.

Rather than go to predominantly atheist/agnostic countries - the developed countries of Northern and Western Europe - they choose to go to an under-developed area of the world that already believes in God!

So instead of converting atheists to theists, they are converting theists to what - another form of theism? It just doesn't make any sense.

Why don't these missionaries go to Sweden and convert atheists instead?

Sadly, yes. Its been thriving in India around its time of inception and its influence has retarded the intellectual capacity of Indians in that area.

Because, as I said before, Christians are religious supremacists. They don't think this way.

This is why they should all be kicked out of India.