Religious pluralism vs Religious intolerance

Spirituality Religion
#56

Are the Abrahamic religions weakened due to our efforts? That depends on how you view “change.” We may not have changed the views of most of the people that post and visit here, but we have definitely altered it. Who knows, maybe the idea we implant will come to hold sooner or later. In my book, that is definitely a success.

Do you really think by posting here you have weakened the Abrahamic religions? In my 2000 posts here I have discussed and debated ideas for my own pass time. I am not here to teach anybody anything or implement some political agenda. If I was, I would be in the wrong place. Even going out on the street, forming campaigns is more effective in getting the message across, than having debates on some internet forum.

If you really want to affect political change, you need to join the appropriate organizations. If you want to challenge the prejudices against Hinduism in Western academia, then you need to get involved in academia. There are already big scholars in this area, such as Raj Malholtra. And they have succeeded to some extent to to get prejudices against Hinduism more exposed and out in the open, and fostered discussion on it. Unfortunately, people like Raj Malholtra and his ilk get labelled Hindutva, so they carry weak weak currency amongst mainstream academics.

David Frawley has also done his bit. He has published many books exposing the prejudices against Hinduism. He has written a book on this exactly and gives helpful advice on how to take action against it.

The BJP, RSS are doing their part to get the prejudice against Hinduism exposed in the Indian political scene. There are countless RSS scholars who have spoken up against these issues, and who have a lot more clout and power than you and I will ever have.

If you want to see changes happen, you need to get involved in the right platform. Don’t delude yourself into thinking that by debating with people on the Yoga forum, you are going to bring down the Abrahamic religion. Bringing down the Abrahamic religion is not going to be easy - because it is 2-3 billion strong. That is about half of the worlds population. In order to bring the faith of 3 billion people down, you are going to have to fight a lot of wars. The result will be immeasurable loss of life.

There is a second way, which I have now realised cus my eyes have opened up to it, the emergence of a world religion formed out of every religion in the world. This world religion needs to be as such that it promotes religious freedom, but its structure is based on sound science, education and psychology and driven by a humanistic ethic.

There is a third way, forget about the world for now, and just focus on your own spiritual development. When you are developed enough, you will have power(true spiritual power) and people will listen to you. This is the path I am choosing.

#57

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;53617]Do you really think by posting here you have weakened the Abrahamic religions? In my 2000 posts here I have discussed and debates ideas for my own pass time. I am not here to teach anybody anything or implement some political agenda. If I was, I would be in the wrong place. Even going out on the street, forming campaigns is more effective in getting the message across, than having debates on some internet forum.

If you really want to affect political change, you need to join the appropriate organizations. If you want to challenge the prejudices against Hinduism in Western academia, then you need to get involved in academia. There are already big scholars in this area, such as Raj Malholtra. And they have succeeded to some extent to to get prejudices against Hinduism more exposed and out in the open, and fostered discussion on it. Unfortunately, people like Rajiv Malholtra and his ilk get labelled Hindutva.

David Frawley has also done his bit. He has published many books exposing the prejudices against Hinduism. He has written a book on this exactly and gives helpful advice on how to take action against it.

The BJP, RSS are doing their part to get the prejudice against Hinduism exposed in the Indian political scene. There are countless RSS scholars who have spoken up against these issues, and who have a lot more clout and power than you and I will ever have.

If you want to see changes happen, you need to get involved in the right platform. Don’t delude yourself into thinking that by debating with people on the Yoga forum, you are going to bring down the Abrahamic religion. Bringing down the Abrahamic religion is not going to easy - because it is 2-3 billion strong. That is about half of the worlds population. In order to bring the faith of 3 billion people down, you are going to have to fight a lot of wars. The result will be immeasurable loss of life.

There is a second way, which I have now realised cus my eyes have opened up to it, the emergence of a world religion formed out of every religion in the world. This world religion needs to be as such that it promotes religious freedom, but its structure is based on sound science, education and psychology and driven by a humanistic ethic.

There is a third way, forget about the world for now, and just focus on your own spiritual development. When you are developed enough, you will have power and people will listen to you. This is the path I am choosing.[/QUOTE]

That is not what I meant when I said I had brought about change. I was saying that by saying what we say, we have altered the perceptions of the people in these forums. Of course I know that mere banter won’t affect any change in the long run, but in the short run, the ideas will be known (not necessarily accepted) for quite a while. You can’t deny that we have made an impact on these forums (semantics of the word impact aside).

As for the first path, you know I don’t have the education and experience to do that yet.

As for the second part, I am convinced that such a thing won’t be possible until every nation, every race, is roughly on the same level as the other. For example, it simply won’t do to have shamanic paths (which I believe to be the most advanced of all) be touted as viable when almost every nation/race who subscribes to it is considered undeveloped and uncivilized by capitalist and Western standards respectively. That day is far off.

As for the third part, you also know that I am way to young to do this. I have an obligation in this stage of my life, namely that of getting education and going to college so I can secure my future and support my parents.

When I grow up, I plan to do a mix of the first and the third. You can count on that. :smiley:

#58

I would like to think that your take on me being “politically correct” is nothing more than me trying to be kind and practicing ahimsa.

Nah, often you trying to be nice and practicing ahimsa is being politically correct. Although it has to be noted you are more politically correct vis-a-vis Abrahamic religions, than Hinduism.

I hate to break it to you, but even my friends who you don’t know, think you are too politically correct and sacrifice honesty for political correctness.

And I challenge you to find one post that I’ve expressed hatred toward Hinduism. What I have done is express my views as I was taught or through what I’ve read. Are those views different than yours? Yes, in some instances they are. It doesn’t make me anti-Hindu. Please stop with that kind of talk. It is not becoming to a Hindu.

Where there is smoke there is fire. The charge of anti-Hinduism is levelled at you because you spread false views like Yoga predates Hinduism and you exagggerate Indian socio-historical evils like caste system and dowry as Hindu problems. Meanwhile, for Abrahamic religions, every criticism made of these religions is an isolated incident.

I have never seen you criticise Abrahamic religions, even when the evils are blatant and clear, but I have seen you criticise Hinduism.

You have also in the past openly supported and congratulated anti-Hindu Indian posters.

#59

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;53623]Nah, often you trying to be nice and practicing ahimsa is being politically correct. Although it has to be noted you are more politically correct vis-a-vis Abrahamic religions, than Hinduism.

I hate to break it to you, but even my friends who you don’t know, think you are too politically correct and sacrifice honesty for political correctness.

Where there is smoke there is fire. The charge of anti-Hinduism is levelled at you because you spread false views like Yoga predates Hinduism and you exagggerate Indian socio-historical evils like caste system and dowry as Hindu problems. Meanwhile, for Abrahamic religions, every criticism made of these religions is an isolated incident.

I have never seen you criticise Abrahamic religions, even when the evils are blatant and clear, but I have seen you criticise Hinduism.

You have also in the past openly supported and congratulated anti-Hindu Indian posters.[/QUOTE]

And when we point out that it is a historical fact the caste system and sati were isolated cases in pre-British rule, we get scoffed at.

If this is what its like to be a Hindu, I can’t imagine what it is like to be an African. Bless their oppressed souls…

As for the anti-Hindu Indian poster, the ex-Dalit, I truly felt sorry for him…

#60

You have also in the past openly supported and congratulated anti-Hindu Indian posters.

If I thought someone made a good point or echoed my sentiments, then yes I congratulated them. I really think you are confusing people who are trying to show an opposing viewpoint and anti-Hinduism. I can’t recall anyone saying they hate Hindu’s or hate Hinduism.

I have never seen you criticise Abrahamic religions, even when the evils are blatant and clear, but I have seen you criticise Hinduism.

Really? This is not true. I have agreed with many of the atrocities perpetuated by the Catholic Church in particular. You keep saying the same things over and over. I assume that by doing so you will believe it to be true.

I hate to break it to you, but even my friends who you don’t know, think you are too politically correct and sacrifice honesty for political correctness.

You don’t hate to break this to me, SD, you enjoy it. I don’t care, to be honest. And I would have to question your motives for saying something that is so mean spirited.

#61

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;53627]If I thought someone made a good point or echoed my sentiments, then yes I congratulated them. I really think you are confusing people who are trying to show an opposing viewpoint and anti-Hinduism. I can’t recall anyone saying they hate Hindu’s or hate Hinduism.

Really? This is not true. I have agreed with many of the atrocities perpetuated by the Catholic Church in particular. You keep saying the same things over and over. I assume that by doing so you will believe it to be true.

You don’t hate to break this to me, SD, you enjoy it. I don’t care, to be honest. And I would have to question your motives for saying something that is so mean spirited.[/QUOTE]

Ignores my post and denies the obvious.

Moving on…

#62

That is not what I meant when I said I had brought about change. I was saying that by saying what we say, we have altered the perceptions of the people in these forums. Of course I know that mere banter won’t affect any change in the long run, but in the short run, the ideas will be known (not necessarily accepted) for quite a while. You can’t deny that we have made an impact on these forums (semantics of the word impact aside).

We have certainly made an impact, and that is because of how passionately we argue and defend our points. But if you think this caused people on this forum and lurkers to re-evaluate their beliefs, you are mistaken. These changes do not come overnight, and they certainly do not come by being militant and billigerant against people and calling them white supremists and Christian fundamentalists - all that does is put people on the defensive and alienate them further from whatever you represent.

Imagine if Swami Vivekananda in his opening speech in Chicago said, “Sisters and brothers of America, I have come to save you from the curse of these Abrahamic religions which are feeding you false doctrines and techniques and leaving you in ignorance” Before he would have began his sentences on Hinduism, he would have lost all of his audience. If you want to make people listen to what you have to say, you do so by not offending them. If they will accept Hindu teachings, only if Vivekananda says, “All religions are paths leading to the same summit, some winding, some narrow, some straight” then that is the best course of action to take.

There is also something called spiritual diplomacy. If your purpose is simply to get the message across, you can do so even by using slight deceptions. Like even accepting Jesus as an Avatar. This was Yogananda’s approach.

The Hindu gurus were so succesful in bringing the teachings of Hinduism into the West, that the West itself is shocked when did it start becoming Hindu. They did it with the message of religious pluralrism. Today, mantra jaap meditation is being done in Churches. Evangalists are scratching their head and asking, “How did this happen!”

be touted as viable when almost every nation/race who subscribes to it is considered undeveloped and uncivilized by capitalist and Western standards respectively. That day is far off.

Again, India’s development or lack of development made no difference to the proliferation of Yoga, meditation, Vedanta, Samkhya, Indian philosophy, Ayurveda and Hindu gurus in the West. The average Westerner does not think, “Oh, this is from a poor country” In fact what most Westerners think about Eastern disciplines is that they have backing by science.

#63

He was making a blatantly anti-Hindu statement and accused Hinduism of being a scientific religion of oppression, and you congratulated him.

Impartiality, I am sorry dear, is not a title you can claim.

Really? This is not true. I have agreed with many of the atrocities perpetuated by the Catholic Church in particular.

You called the witch burings an isolated incident.
You called the crusades an isolated incident.
You called the inquisitions an isolated incident.
You called modern day missionary activity in India against Hindus an isolated incident
You called the villification of Oprah by Churches in America and Christians an isolated incident.
You called the Pastor that wrote an anti-Hindu book defaming Hinduism, an isolated incident and
condemned his interviewer.

But caste system, dowry and sati you argued to be endemic problems in Hinduism.

Again, impartiality is not a title you can claim your highness.

#64

[B][I]The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.

  • Abby Hoffman[/I][/B]

:slight_smile:

Now Mr. Fred can we be nice to each other? We are after all in this thing together.

If you do something I don’t like I will tell you about it as I have done. If I do something you don’t like - then screw off - errr I mean let me know.

#65

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;53632]We have certainly made an impact, and that is because of how passionately we argue and defend our points. But if you think this caused people on this forum and lurkers to re-evaluate their beliefs, you are mistaken. These changes do not come overnight, and they certainly do not come by being militant and billigerant against people and calling them white supremists and Christian fundamentalists - all that does is put people on the defensive and alienate them further from whatever you represent.

Imagine if Swami Vivekananda in his opening speech in Chicago said, “Sisters and brothers of America, I have come to save you from the curse of these Abrahamic religions which are feeding you false doctrines and techniques and leaving you in ignorance” Before he would have began his sentences on Hinduism, he would have lost all of his audience. If you want to make people listen to what you have to say, you do so by not offending them. If they will accept Hindu teachings, only if Vivekananda says, “All religions are paths leading to the same summit, some winding, some narrow, some straight” then that is the best course of action to take.

There is also something called spiritual diplomacy. If your purpose is simply to get the message across, you can do so even by using slight deceptions. Like even accepting Jesus as an Avatar. This was Yogananda’s approach.

The Hindu gurus were so succesful in bringing the teachings of Hinduism into the West, that the West itself is shocked when did it start becoming Hindu. They did it with the message of religious pluralrism. Today, mantra jaap meditation is being done in Churches. Evangalists are scratching their head and asking, “How did this happen!”

Again, India’s development or lack of development made no difference to the proliferation of Yoga, meditation, Vedanta, Samkhya, Indian philosophy, Ayurveda and Hindu gurus in the West. The average Westerner does not think, “Oh, this is from a poor country” In fact what most Westerners think about Eastern disciplines is that they have backing by science.[/QUOTE]

No, I did not say that we had caused them to re-evaluate their beliefs. I said we made an impact that may or may not sprout change with time (most likely no change, but atleast these people are now aware of the larger picture regarding Hinduism, India, Indians, Hindus, etc).

Spiritual diplomacy…ugh…a contradiction. Sometimes, I truly feel there is no objective morality or reality in this world…

Jesus? Ewww. I personally would not want to associate myself with some non-existent Jewish carpenter who spouted clich?d and trite phrases with every breath (of course the uncivilized peoples in the region were astounded as they were by what the they regarded as “civilization”).

In America, they receive a largely negative and skeptical imagine. These teachings are seen as nothing more than mythology and metaphysics with no real application in real life. Sure our teachings may have made small advances with time, but the majority of America’s populace is woefully ignorant. The changes I am seeing in America these days are indicating that conservatism and ignorance is rising once again…which is to be expected due to the declining economy. Even my U.S history teacher confirmed this.

#66

No, I did not say that we had caused them to re-evaluate their beliefs. I said we made an impact that may or may not sprout change with time (most likely no change, but atleast these people are now aware of the larger picture regarding Hinduism, India, Indians, Hindus, etc).

Those who previously had negative views on Hinduism/India, will have had their views reinforced. People who were previously neutral, will have new negative views. You cannot expect people to listen, while you go around labelling everybody a white supremist and Christian fundamentalist who is oppressing you. This basic human frailty, if you attack another human being, their receptiveness to what you say will diminish and they will go on the offensive. Hence why Swami Vivekananda, or basically none of the Hindu gurus that went to the West, never condemned the native religions. Their approach worked wonders as they were instrumental in bringing many revolutions in the West.

Spiritual diplomacy…ugh…a contradiction. Sometimes, I truly feel there is no objective morality or reality in this world…

You do realise that Krishna was a diplomat right and Krishna is known as one of the most devious people in Indian history? In one of the Puranas Krishna is even called the deceiver of all deceivers. Krishna got the Pandavas to tell many lies, he himself lied. The aim was to get the final objective.

Here our objective is not to destroy Abrahamic religions, but to establish a dharmic world. If this means accept a few lies like accepting secret and esoteric knowledge of Western occultism and paganism as equal traditions to Yoga and Tantra, or the positive acceptance of Jesus, Moses and Mohammed, then sobeit. As long as the objective is met.

Jesus? Ewww. I personally would not want to associate myself with some non-existent Jewish carpenter who spouted clich?d and trite phrases with every breath (of course the uncivilized peoples in the region were astounded as they were by what the they regarded as “civilization”).

You are a young teenager in highschool. Swami Yogananda Paramhansa, who did in fact accept Jesus as an avatar and completely reinterpreted the gospels to give them a dharmic slant, was a highly advanced spiritual master from a recognised and long lineage of kriya yogis who was a massive success in the West and widely published. Why did he accept Jesus, but you cannot? Do you know Ramakrishna accepted Jesus and Mohammed?

In America, they receive a largely negative and skeptical imagine. These teachings are seen as nothing more than mythology and metaphysics with no real application in real life. Sure our teachings may have made small advances with time, but the majority of America’s populace is woefully ignorant.

Yep, spirituality the worldover gets treated with skepticism and negative views. In India it is no more favourable. The fact of the matter is Yoga, Ayurveda, Vedanta has succesfully penetrated deep into the West, despite mainstream disapproval. In the West some 20 million Americans practice Yoga. They are not fussed whether it comes from India or China.
So your point that first India needs to develop for these things to get acceptance is in error, these things have been flourishing in the West even before India’s economic boom began. The credit does to the work of Hindu gurus in the West.

#67

[QUOTE=The Scales;53639][B][I]The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.

  • Abby Hoffman[/I][/B]

:slight_smile:

Now Mr. Fred can we be nice to each other? We are after all in this thing together.

If you do something I don’t like I will tell you about it as I have done. If I do something you don’t like - then screw off - errr I mean let me know.[/QUOTE]

No. We are not in this thing together. One is Indian, the other is not. One in PC, the other is not. One is biased towards Hinduism, the other is not.

#68

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;53647]No. We are not in this thing together. One is Indian, the other is not. One in PC, the other is not. One is biased towards Hinduism, the other is not.[/QUOTE]

I bet I was hindu before you! Shaivite. Actually. And I yes I really lived there! Not that I remember - but I know.

Nor am I biased against any religion. Not a one. I have no religion - yet - they are all mine.

My favorite though I must admit is buddhism so I guess there could be a little bias. I don’t follow anyone particluar system per se or consider myself Buddhist or hindu or yahoo.

In terms of “being in this thing together.” I meant as humanity on this world all comming from the same place - originally.

You dig?

Now that the air is cleared are you still my Foe?

#69

If it was not for the small white lies Yogananda told, you would not have this today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFqY_lSU6SU&feature=related

Assembly starts at approx 1 min

#70

I was watching the school play on youtube to the end, and I noticed something very pertinent to our discussion. When Yogananda first landed in America, he was called a heathen, Yogananda did not respond in kind by saying, “You call me heathen, your demonic religion is responsible for the genocide of my people, you white supremist ignorant people, curse be upon you” he responded instead, “You call me heathen, but in India they call you heathen, so the intolerance is about 50/50, I have come not with a message of intolerance, but a message of mutual love” etc (I am paraphrasing, but this was the general effect) by the end he had won over his audience. This small victory lead to Yogananda’s popularity rising in America and in no time he was giving discourses to packed audiences of 5000+ people with housefull signs. His audience consisted of wealthy, educated men. He even had pastors in his audience.

#71

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;53659]I was watching the school play on youtube to the end, and I noticed something very pertinent to our discussion. When Yogananda first landed in America, he was called a heathen, Yogananda did not respond in kind by saying, “You call me heathen, your demonic religion is responsible for the genocide of my people, you white supremist ignorant people, curse be upon you” he responded instead, “You call me heathen, but in India they call you heathen, so the intolerance is about 50/50, I have come not with a message of intolerance, but a message of mutual love” etc (I am paraphrasing, but this was the general effect) by the end he had won over his audience. This small victory lead to Yogananda’s popularity rising in America and in no time he was giving discourses to packed audiences of 5000+ people with housefull signs. His audience consisted of wealthy, educated men. He even had pastors in his audience.[/QUOTE]

Ding!

#72

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;53487]Fix’d.[/QUOTE]
you’re so lame!! :stuck_out_tongue: i’m not even white.

#73

On second thoughts, it is perhaps a bit harsh to say that Yogananda lied, rather Yogananda twisted the truth slightly. He expressed from the outset he is not in the West to Indianize them, but rather to show them how to spiritualize their own culture. So he hand-picked verses from the gospels which would have a spiritual slant, bought attention to the West’s own spiritual traditions like the Christian gnostics, and over emphasised that aspect(at the behest of orthodoxy) and reinterpreted Jesus as a spiritual master, who he even claimed may have visited India to get his tutelage. Somehow he was able to read in the gospels everything from Yoga to reincarnation.

Yogananda certainly left his mark, as his reconstruction of Christianity is very popular in the new-age world today. It is because of him you will have white people say the name of Jesus, Krishna and Buddha in the same vain. In a way he demoted Jesus from the exclusive and only god status, to just another god-realised master. Although he said he was not indianizing his followers, that is exactly what ended up happening. His followers often wear Indian clothes, sing Indian classical music, are very familiar with the epic literature, and their entire understanding of reality, soul, mind, god is Vedic.

#74

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;53713]On second thoughts, it is perhaps a bit harsh to say that Yogananda lied, rather Yogananda twisted the truth slightly. He expressed from the outset he is not in the West to Indianize them, but rather to show them how to spiritualize their own culture. So he hand-picked verses from the gospels which would have a spiritual slant, bought attention to the West’s own spiritual traditions like the Christian gnostics, and over emphasised that aspect(at the behest of orthodoxy) and reinterpreted Jesus as a spiritual master, who he even claimed may have visited India to get his tutelage. Somehow he was able to read in the gospels everything from Yoga to reincarnation.

Yogananda certainly left his mark, as his reconstruction of Christianity is very popular in the new-age world today. It is because of him you will have white people say the name of Jesus, Krishna and Buddha in the same vain. In a way he demoted Jesus from the exclusive and only god status, to just another god-realised master. Although he said he was not indianizing his followers, that is exactly what ended up happening. His followers often wear Indian clothes, sing Indian classical music, are very familiar with the epic literature, and their entire understanding of reality, soul, mind, god is Vedic.[/QUOTE]

Mukunda was, as I see it, some time ago sewing the little seeds of truth.
His interpretation of christianity is - pretty much - as I see it.

So to me - under that light - the christian tradition stands.

I do realize that there are many christians that don’t quite see it that way.

So we talk.

#75

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;53646]Those who previously had negative views on Hinduism/India, will have had their views reinforced. People who were previously neutral, will have new negative views. You cannot expect people to listen, while you go around labelling everybody a white supremist and Christian fundamentalist who is oppressing you. This basic human frailty, if you attack another human being, their receptiveness to what you say will diminish and they will go on the offensive. Hence why Swami Vivekananda, or basically none of the Hindu gurus that went to the West, never condemned the native religions. Their approach worked wonders as they were instrumental in bringing many revolutions in the West.

You do realise that Krishna was a diplomat right and Krishna is known as one of the most devious people in Indian history? In one of the Puranas Krishna is even called the deceiver of all deceivers. Krishna got the Pandavas to tell many lies, he himself lied. The aim was to get the final objective.

Here our objective is not to destroy Abrahamic religions, but to establish a dharmic world. If this means accept a few lies like accepting secret and esoteric knowledge of Western occultism and paganism as equal traditions to Yoga and Tantra, or the positive acceptance of Jesus, Moses and Mohammed, then sobeit. As long as the objective is met.

You are a young teenager in highschool. Swami Yogananda Paramhansa, who did in fact accept Jesus as an avatar and completely reinterpreted the gospels to give them a dharmic slant, was a highly advanced spiritual master from a recognised and long lineage of kriya yogis who was a massive success in the West and widely published. Why did he accept Jesus, but you cannot? Do you know Ramakrishna accepted Jesus and Mohammed?

Yep, spirituality the worldover gets treated with skepticism and negative views. In India it is no more favourable. The fact of the matter is Yoga, Ayurveda, Vedanta has succesfully penetrated deep into the West, despite mainstream disapproval. In the West some 20 million Americans practice Yoga. They are not fussed whether it comes from India or China.
So your point that first India needs to develop for these things to get acceptance is in error, these things have been flourishing in the West even before India’s economic boom began. The credit does to the work of Hindu gurus in the West.[/QUOTE]

And what has sweet-talk with those who oppress us accomplished for, say, the last 1000+ years?

Yes, I knew this.

I must respectfully disagree. The formation of a world religion is not possible in this era of materialism, superficial perceptions, ignorance, and so forth. Maslow’s philosophy you see.

I do not accept Jesus because he was an egotistical and non-existent man who spouted trite and clich?d phrases with every breath. The barbaric semitic shepherds/people he preached to thought this was “civilization” and “morality.”

I do not accept Mohammed because he was nothing but a mass murderer of kaffirs. Where else do you think Muslims throughout the ages have got the inspiration to conquer and murder us Indians and other infidels?

Once again, most of the practitioners of Yoga here are woefully ignorant of Hinduism and spirituality. They prefer to do it as an exercise. I do not deny the extent to which Yoga has penetrated the West, but I do know that it is a rather superficial one.

For example, I had several friends in school whose parents ran Yoga classes at the mall. Quite frankly, they were surprisingly ignorant of Yoga and Hinduism. Some of them even had your typical Christian biases.