The Indus Valley Civilization

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#1

This is a topic that may be of interest to yoga practitioners, because it relates to the origins of yoga and related philosophies. There have been a few posts on this topic in other threads, which I will use to start the discussion.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;31781]…
I aso wanted to say, because I saw Asura mention his professor talking about the conquest of the Indus valley people by the Vedic conquerors, that this theory known as Aryan invasion theory has fallen into disrepute recently. It is very controversial and it is no longer posited as fact. There is significant evidence now to show that the Vedic people were indigenous to India, based on significant archeaological evidence. The evidence is also showing us the Vedas are even older than the Indus valley phase.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;31842]
Then there is a learned and considered understanding of Hinduism, as a henotheistic philosophy that worships a single god using multiple methods, but that is manifest in infinite forms. This is also found in the Rig Veda, “Truth is one, and the wise call it by name names” There are 330 million of these forms recognised by Hindus, and of these 330 million forms the principal forms are Shiva, Vishnu, Duga, which respectively are the deities of the three main traditions of Hinduism: Shivaism, Vaishvaism and Shaktism. All traditions accept several methods of worship: tantra, yantra, yoga, mantra, idol worship and accept several scriptures agamas, shastras, puranas, vedas. It will become clear then Hinduism is not defined by any particular diety, methods or ways, any scripture or founder, or language. Thus Hinduism has no problem embracing the deities, methods or scriptures of any other religion. If a Hindu wanted to accept Jesus as their deity, Hinduism would have no problem with this. In fact Hinduism has the concept of Ishtadevata which means one can choose any object of worship of their choice, even a living person if they wish.

How Hinduism is defined is by its genera philosophy which all Hindu traditions embrace. That is dharma, karma, reincarnation and yoga. Dharma is eternal laws and principles that one should live in harmony with; karma is the law of cause and effect; reincarnation defines ones goal in life as to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth and yoga is any kind of valid technique through which one can attain to the utimate goal of moksha/salvation. These in turn are based on the Upanishadic and Dashana philosophy(aka Vedic or Hindu phiosophy)[/QUOTE]

I believe that the second quote illustrates that Hindu culture was derived from two different cultures. This first was very much into chariot warfare and the worship of naturalistic gods and goddess. The second was much less inclined toward warfare and the worship of various deities, and more inclined toward Sanatana Dharma, meaning ?Eternal or Universal Righteousness?.

The Aryan invasion theory is concerned with how and when the combination of these two cultures occurred. For Indian people this is a hot topic. It remains to be seen how much interest will be generated here.

#2

I believe that the second quote illustrates that Hindu culture was derived from two different cultures. This first was very much into chariot warfare and the worship of naturalistic gods and goddess. The second was much less inclined toward warfare and the worship of various deities, and more inclined toward Sanatana Dharma, meaning ?Eternal or Universal Righteousness?.

The Aryan invasion theory is concerned with how and when the combination of these two cultures occurred. For Indian people this is a hot topic. It remains to be seen how much interest will be generated here.

There are two main theories here that we must consider to be objective about this

  1. Aryan invasion theory
  2. Out of India theory

In Aryan invasion theory there is an assumption that Vedic and Dravidian culture are different. In this context dravidian culture refers to the sophisticated, scientific and mystical urban civilisation of the Indus people around 3000BCE and Vedic refers to the fair-skinned anti-urban, war-like nature worshippers which originated in the caucasian mountains, spread from thereof in many directions, one branch called the Indo-Aryans went into the Indus valley in 1500BCE and conquered the dark skinned inhabitants. Then the Vedic culture and the indigenous yogic mystical culture merged together, resulting in a second urban and scientific phase of Indian history in 1000BCE and the rise of Indian philosophy.

This theory is not based on any empirical evidence, but relies completely on linguistic theories and particular interpretation of Vedic texts. Moreover, it is advanced by colonial scholars, and is used to justify colonial rule on the pretexts of the supremacy of the white race. It is still widey referenced by white supremacy organizations such as Stormfront. Some modern academics consider it a racist theory.

In Out of India theory there is no Vedic and Dravidian dichotomy. These cultures are both the same. There are no invasions or mass-migrations into India, there are however, migrations from India to other parts of the world, including Europe around 2000BCE, which is when we first the first tribes of Indo-Europeans(such as the hitties and mittani) after the Indus-Saraswati river dries up, alongside which most of the Indus settlements were based. There is perfect continuity between the culture of the Indus valley and the later vedic phase, and many of the traditions practiced during the Indus valley phase are still practiced in India today, and many of the iconic symbols of the Vedic religion are also present in the Vedic culture(including fire altars, swastikas, banyan trees, chakra) In fact, nothing much has changed at all, even the standarization of units used in the Indus valley, such as the ratio of the mud bricks used for construction, are the same as the one prescribed in Vedic texts, such as the arthshastra.

This theory is based primarily on empirical evidence. It is based on significant archeological evidence, historical evidence recorded in Indian texts such as the Puranas, and interpretation of geographical and astronomical facts in the Vedas. All of the evidence is strongly suggesting that Out of India theory is correct.

There is one thing that is very clear based on the archeological evidence, there is little difference between the Indus valley culture and post-Vedic culture, and this throws the Aryan invasion theory into serious question(hence its controversial status) If we invoke Occams razor here, Aryan invasion theory requires far more assumptions than Out of India theory requires.

It is understood that Out of India theory has been adoped by Indian nationalists to advance nationalistic philosophies and agendas, but this does not detract from the credibiity of Out of India theory, for it is not limited to just nationalists, but taken seriously by many academics today, Indian and non-Indian. In fact it is highly likely that Aryan invasion theory is going to be replaced soon by OIT, because the evidence is too strongly in favour of OIT.

#3

I think one of the most clinching of the evidence for OIT is how the Rig veda describes the geography of India, including the Indus-Saraswati river as a thriving and mighty river, which dried up in 2000BCE. Therefore strongly suggesting the Vedic people were already present in India before 2000BCE, long before the proposed invasion, and thus putting the Vedic people in the same phase as IVC.

Now this makes a lot of sense to me because the traditional Indian texts which date back history going back 10,000 years and beyond, record in 3000BCE an urban civilisation that matches the description of the IVC. This is the period when the Mahabharta war took place and Krishna was said to live.

Finally, we have evidence of astronomical configurations described in the Vedas, some which could not have taken place any earlier than 6000BCE.

Another very important point that needs to be discussed is the translation of the Rig Veda itsef, which will tell us a lot about the culture of the Vedic people. According to the Aryan invasion theory, the Vedic people are nomadic, barbarian people who worship nature gods that spread through invasions, and the Rig Veda has been translated using this assumption. In order to translate therefore the Vedic Sanskrit, a comparative linguistic method is used, by comparing Sanskrit words to other Indo-European words to translate it historically. However, even when you use this method, many hymns in the Rig Veda are strongly consistent with the later mystical and yogic philosopphies.

However, if you use the the standard translation methods of the Vedic people, using their etymologies, grammar and dictionaries, the Vedas are perfectly consistent with mystical and yogic philosophies, and everything that we find later is found is germinal form in the Vedas. It is also clear that the Vedic authors practice Yoga, because the Vedic mention the practices of “tapasya” which can mean meditation.

In summary, if we look at the empirical evidence, the history as recorded in Indian texts and the readings of the Veda as it was read by Indians for thousands of years, there is a convergence of evidence. This strongly suggests Indian history as recorded by the Indians is accurate. Now, what is most interesting, is how colonial scholars decided to disregard India’s historical records and its traditional scholarship, just because it contradicted the historical narrative they wanted to construct. I thus think Aryan invasion theory is basically a myth that European colonizers fabricated for political agendas. They have to a large part been very successful in rewriting Indian history, as this myth has been represented as fact for 200 years. However, current scholarship, which is based on secular, objective and global standards, can see Aryan invasion theory for what it is now, and are revising Indian history to represent it more accurately.

#4

Another point I want to add to this discussion is the implications of what OIT would do to history as we know it today, and why it is these implications which lead to staunch opposition against it.

1. Asiatic origins of civilisation: The current historical view is that civilisation begins in Sumer around 4000BCE, and this is also supported by the bible and biblical scholarship dates the creation of the world at this point. Although Sumer is not Western, Western civiisation traces its origins back to Sumer, because of it being the origin of popular Western religion and thought. OIT will change this historical view, showing that civilisation did not begin in Sumer, but in in the Indian subcontinent, in Hinduism. Hinduism thus would be the cradle religion of the world.

2. Indian origins of the Indo-European peope: The current historical view is that the proto-Indo-European people were white and originated in Europe. Western history traces its mother religion and the development of science and philosophy to Indo-Europeans like the Greeks. The OIT will change this historical view, and show that the Indo-European people originated in the Indian subcontinent. The mother of their religion and philosophy is Hinduism.

3. Ancient Modernity: The current historical view is that rational philosophy begins in ancient Greece and the age of science and reason begins in the modern age. Western civilisation prides itself on this. OIT will change this historical view, showing that rationality, science and reason did not begin in the modern age, but 3000BCE and prior in the Indian subcontinent. This would radically change our views on the level of scientific development of ancient people.

4. New mythology: The current historical view is that humans have only been on this planet for 1-2 mililion years(this is being revised constantly) OIT will make Indian mythology of timelines going back to billions of years ago, of previous advanced civilisations that are are created and destroyed more popular in the worl.

5. Hinduism will replace Abrahamic religions: The current historical view gives Abrahamic religion a lot of credibility and its main tenets of monotheism, priesthood, non-idolatory and blind faith are pervasive and this is because it has seen as the oldest religion of the first civilisation, the origins of astronomy, mathematics. OIT will change this, it will show the oldest, most advanced religion and cuture which is the origin of civilisation is Hinduism, and its tenets of dharma, yoga, karma and reincarnation will gain in credibility and eventually become the standard of the world.

Some say the biggest threat to Christinanity is Isam. It is not in fact, because although Islam is a rival religious tradition, it is still part of the Abrahamic lineage. The biggest threat to Christianity is Hinduism. It is a radically different lineage(dharmic) with radically different tenets. The anxieties of Christian scholars like Max Muller that created the Aryan invasion theory to rewrite Indian history are evident of the fact that Christian authorities very felt threatened by Hinduism and what its proliferation around the world would do. However, despite their best efforts to contain it, Hinduism did proliferate in the word through the efforts of Hindu missionaries to the West and liberal intellectuals, resulting in the new-age movement and the growing world spirituality that we see today.

I personally think Abrahamic religion is on its way out and Hinduism is going to replace it. This is because Hinduism can assimilate it, it’s gods, its scriptures and practices into the vast matrix of Hinduism. The clearest proof of this taking place is how Yoga has infilterated churches, and reactionary movements like Christian Yoga/praise-moves shows the assimilation is taking place. Now many religions in the world are being influenced by word spirituality, indirecty by Hinduism.

I predict that there is a new world religion in formentation and its Hinduism. It will be the religion of the 21st century. This has also been predicted by many intellectuals.

#5

Surya Deva you are clearly reflecting the bias of the Hindu nationalists and your own personal bias and agenda on this issue. This is completely understandable but not really conducive to arriving at the truth. How this pans out doesn’t affect me very much either way, and so I see my task as identifying and clearing away the bias from both sides in order to get to the truth. You’re still new here and I can tell you that people tend not to read the longer posts. A more conversational style is a lot more effective.

#6

Clearly much of the logic that was used to advance the Aryan invasion theory has been disproved. In case you didn’t know, the word Aryan comes from the Vedas themselves.

The racial theory, i.e. that the Aryans were a light skinned race has turned out to be wrong. Both the northern and southern Indian people are caucasion. The relatively darker skin of the southern Indians is due to climate. Even Max Meuller retracted the idea that the Aryans were a different race. That this racial theory was used to divide and subjugate the Indian people is regrettable.

Also the timeline used to advance the theory was based on Max Meuller’s belief in the Biblical account of creation, which puts the beginning of the world at around 4000 B.C. The evidence you wrote about, i.e. the satellite imagery of the now extinct Saraswati River, and the astronomical observations from the Vedas, etc., is convincing. This puts the Aryans in India long before the time proposed by Max Meuller.

Other evidence used to advance the theory is also suspect. But I have to say that, on the internet at least, there isn’t a lot of research on this. Rather there is the same research that is repeated in several places.

#7

The most convincing evidence of two distinct cultures is linguistic. The language of the northern Indians was found to be an Indo-European language, while the Dravidian languages of the south are not. Not only that, but the similarities between the northern and southern langages indicate that the Indo-European speakers originally spoke the southern language, and adopted the Indo-European language. As far as I know, these facts about the languages are not disputed.

The big question is, where did these Indo-European speakers come from? The Wikipedia article cites extensive research that has been done to try to figure this out, but no one has been able to do so. We just don’t know where they came from.

One thing that seems clear based on the methods that are used to determine the origins of languages, is that the Indo-European language did [I]not[/I] originate in India. The “Out of India” theory seems to be based mostly on the lack of any geographical references outside of India in the Rig Veda. That does seem to indicate that the Aryan people lived in India at least from the beginning of recorded history. But it does not disprove the theory of two cultures in India.

#8

I am not a Hindu nationalist. I am a Hindu though and clearly I am an adherent of its philosophy, culture and history and will represent it and argue for it. This does not mean I will not objective about it. In fact being objective about truth is a core tenet of Hinduism itself. It is said even if the supreme god Brahma told you something that contradicted your own reason, then you reject it. In the Vedic education system critical thinking and analysis of Vedic texts is mandatory.

Regarding the linguistic evidence showing there are two distinct cutures. No, what it shows is there are two different languages families in India. In fact there is a third language family called Munda. In various parts of the word several different languages have evolved in close promixity.

As you admit yourself the evidence clearly shows that the Aryans were present in India during the IVC phase, which means the IVC is a vedic civlisation. The Rig Veda was clearly composed in India and this would make Sanskrit the oldest of the Indo-European languages. The next members of the Indo-european languages appear much later in Europe suggesting the direction of migration to be from India and out. It shoud not be overlooked that this happens exactly during the time the Saraswati river dries up, which lead to migrations of the Indus people. This would also support why Sanskrit is the most inflected and developed language of the Indo-european family, and how the Indo-european family begin to degrade in complexity later on.

The traditional methods used in linguistics to determine origins of language are not infallible. They are based on finding the linguistic centre of gravity by looking at where most of the members of a language family are found, however it is not necessary that the origin will be where most members are found. A language can also proliferate and be exported from one country to another, such as English has been. If we tried to trace the origin of English today based on where it is found in the world, the linguistic centre would not be England. It is just as plausible that the migrants from the Indus valley exported their language and the language morphed into the various Indo-european languages we know today. It is interesting that the nearest relative to Sanskrit is Avestan which is right next door to India.

So there is still no evidence of two distinct cultures in India, just evidence of multiple languages in India. It is also clear that the IVC is vedic. It is also clear that the Vedas were composed in India and the Aryans knew no other home. On the contrary, migrations can clearly be seen happening after the drying up of the Saraswati river and it is during this time Indo-European language are discovered in Europe. This is all strongly supporting OIT.

#9

I thought will write few words out of respect to Hinduism. I used to be fascinated in hindu philosophy and culture. I found there things that I badly missed in more “classical” education at school and was absorbing one of the most beautiful theories ever. However, this state of fascination was shattered when I met hindu intellectuals. Instead of sharing wonder and analysis the world I was bombarded with praises of Hinduism and evidence showing how it is superior to everything else around. Just like the post from Surya Deva how this OIT will change the world as we know it. If the real greatness walks with humility, then I’m afraid the current Hinduism is not so great.

So I ask, as a person who wants to learn and appreciate the heritage of Hinduism - please don’t be pushy and so eager to show how other cultures are inferior. It’s difficult (if not impossible) to feel respect to this great heritage.

#10

As Hindu and a Hindu intellectual, I will say that we Hindus have the right to feel proud of our heritage, our history, philosophy, culture and contributions to the world. Having pride in ones heritage is not something unique to Hindus. In fact as a Hindu brought up in a Western education system, all I ever heard is what the Greeks did, what the Romans did and what the Europeans did for the world. So why should Hindus be humble when they talk about what they did?

Hinduism gave us philosophy, science, religion and spirituality. They were pretty much the teachers of the whole world in these areas and the whole world embraced their teachings. I am very proud of that as a Hindu. I am equally as proud of the West for contributions to technology. It was not Hindus who created railroads, factories and computers. So of course credit must go where it is due. As long as you don’t deny us our credit, were your friends.

#11

I think this sort pride is way beyond the healthy level. For example in your post you wrote:

  1. Hinduism will replace Abrahamic religions: The current historical view gives Abrahamic religion a lot of credibility and its main tenets of monotheism, priesthood, non-idolatory and blind faith are pervasive and this is because it has seen as the oldest religion of the first civilisation, the origins of astronomy, mathematics. OIT will change this, it will show the oldest, most advanced religion and cuture which is the origin of civilisation is Hinduism, and its tenets of dharma, yoga, karma and reincarnation will gain in credibility and eventually become the standard of the world.

This is not a pride of your heritage. It is rather an attempt to undermine other religions and replace them with your on. A view in which other religions (and I suspect whole cultures) are disposable, worse and should be replaced by a proper one (or at least resign from own identity and admit that they are part of Hinduism). When I read/listen to such propositions I feel mix of annoyance and sadness. Annoyance is normal – usually people who boast all the time cause annoyance in others. Sadness because I feel I’m losing interest and connection with things I really valued (in Hindu philosophy and spirituality). I had plans to read Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads. Now I have to struggle – I feel a bit of aversion and have to repeat to myself that these works were written by great souls in the past. And they have nothing to do with those arrogant, annoying, condescending people and viewpoints I encountered recently. Please read it only as my emotional reaction to what I think is the message in these posts – it has nothing to do with you as a person and your work toward affirmation of the Hinduism is admirable.

#12

Pawel, I prefaced those points by the following:

Another point I want to add to this discussion is the implications of what OIT would do to history as we know it today, and why it is these implications which lead to staunch opposition against it.

I have no wish to undermine other religions, but I am showing the implications of what would happen if OIT becomes accepted. It will become clear knowledge that Hinduism and Indian civilisation is the cradle of civilisation on this planet, obviousy this will lead to it gaining huge credibility. This has already happened in muslim dominated Indonesia, who have now become aware of their Hindu history and are reconverting back to Hinduism.

I have met several historically aware pagans who have converted back to Hinduism. When Christians become aware that Jesus was a yogi, they will look back at Hinduism as the mother of their religion.

It is a natural and logical consequence of the implications of what OIT would do. It is a radical revision of history as we know it. I mean come on look at world spirituality today, most of it is Hinduism or Buddhism(reformed Hinduism) Isn’t it clear then that Hinduism is taking over. It is a peaceful takeover as well. Christian churches themselves are embracing Yoga. In fact, something Swami Vivekananda once said, what Hinduism will ultimately do is make Christians better Christians; Muslims better Muslims and Jews better Jews.

Hinduism isn’t really a religion. It is a spiritual science. It is can be used by anybody. Just as physical sciences can be used by anybody. Whether you choose to read the Gita, Upanishads etc is your choice. In the end it is either your loss or gain.

#13

It’s a good point.You don’t really hear about courses in Vedic Civilisation say in western universities.There is indeed a lot we ,speaking for Westerners,probably owe to early ‘great’ civilisations other than those of the Greeks & Romans and indeed those that pre-date those.Sometimes perhaps we prefer to keep our heads buried in the sand .

There was an academic,he might have been black, that (see ‘Black Athena’) said ancient egyptians were actually black.But of course some folk don’t always like to hear this.

A very well-informed & learned thread.Appreciate all contributions.I am definitely learning a lot.

Perhaps the Hindus are superior, after all.:wink:

Surya Deva,
I am definitely interested in this idea that Hinduism is not really a religion in the conventional sense but does , at least, contain spiritual science and technology. I think that is pretty fascinating and right up my street.It’s possibly not the first kind of articulation of it i’ve heard. I actually like this idea. I think you’re onto something even if it’s been stated by others. You know that people i think possibly love the security that organised relgion provides, not to denigrate relgion but the divine is a personal thing i think, yoga teaches us that, and the greatest scirpture can be found within us all.

#14

I have a very good Greek friend who is an intellectual. He admits to me himself that ancient Greek culture was based on Hinduism. He tells me has done a lot of research on this and he was amazed to find out how similar they were, how eary Greek history is full of praise for Hindus, and how they share similar gods and legends, and how the Greeks had Indian gurus living in Greece teaching the Greeks. In fact some early Greek philosophers were clearly Hindu themselves, such as Pythagoras. There is a very good book on this subject written by a French intellectual, “Pythagoras in India” It is also very clear Socrates and Plato were yogis. Many Greek historians talk about how much they learned from the Hindus.

A lot of this is not taught in the Western education system and only the reason for this is Western pride. This is what is really unhealthy pride. They do not want to admit that an Eastern civilisation is the source of their civilisation, in fact of much of civilisation. I find this rather sad.

#15

Surya Deva,
I am definitely interested in this idea that Hinduism is not really a religion in the conventional sense but does , at least, contain spiritual science and technology. I think that is pretty fascinating and right up my street.It’s possibly not the first kind of articulation of it i’ve heard. I actually like this idea. I think you’re onto something even if it’s been stated by others. You know that people i think possibly love the security that organised relgion provides, not to denigrate relgion but the divine is a personal thing i think, yoga teaches us that, and the greatest scirpture can be found within us all.

Hinduism was never an organized religion in the entire history of Indian civilisation until the British gave the term to the cuture, philosophy and sciences that Indian civilisation practiced. It would be like giving a term that groups together Western cuture, philosophy and science and calling it an organized religion, Westernism :wink:

Hinduism is purely based on its philosophy and sciences. All of the core texts of Hinduism are all philosophical discourses. They are no more religious texts than Sartre’s, “Being and nothing” or Kant’s, “Critique of pure reason” are religious texts.

None of the core tenets of Hinduism are based on beliefs. They are all based on rigorous philosophical argument and scientific investigations, such as the scientific investigation of the mind by Patanjali.

#16

I would’nt be suprised if Plotinus and Socrates and many of the teachers in the academies of ancient Greece had, or had encountered, gurus and spiritual teachers from Asia Minor, the Arabic world and beyond. Ideas certainly do migrate ,with or without people, and so also does technology, philosophy and, of course, spiritual science.

Now you mention it, i can actually see it.Neo-platonism springs to mind, as does their architecture and love of reason,science, the good life and pantheism.

#17

Many western academics will go as far back as the Greeks or Minoans ( isle of Crete) but won’t venture further because the story would end up traversing into other continents and civilisations much older.Perhaps for them the archaeology appears slimmer but the literature and the yogic heritage is enormous.

#18

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32056]Pawel, I prefaced those points by the following:

Another point I want to add to this discussion is the implications of what OIT would do to history as we know it today, and why it is these implications which lead to staunch opposition against it.

I have no wish to undermine other religions, but I am showing the implications of what would happen if OIT becomes accepted. [/QUOTE]

So imagine there are two buttons. If you will press one all people on the earth convert to Hinduism (BTW, since you say Hinduism is philosophy and science, why you use this term "converted back" in so many places?). If you will press second one, all people will remain in their religions/cultures forever. Which one would you press? If the first one, you are an enemy of other religions/cultures. You seek to destroy them (but maybe in more "soft" fashion) - even if for the welfare of the people.

Jesus was as much yogi (e.g. because of his devotion to God) as much Gandhi was Christian (because of his love of the poor). I strongly not recommend watching this video:

in which renowned scholar shows how Hinduism is in fact misguided version of Islam (and they should realize that and turn to Islam). After watching him for 20min (and especiall part when he criticizes a book by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar) maybe you will understand what I feel :slight_smile:

This is confusing. Is it about giving credit to Hinduism (which I strongly support) or about taking over the world (which I would prefer not to happen). Also, its not very clear that Hinduism is taking over. I found some stats in the most reliable source of knowledge :wink:

#19

[QUOTE=core789;32066]Many western academics will go as far back as the Greeks or Minoans ( isle of Crete) but won’t venture further because the story would end up traversing into other continents and civilisations much older.Perhaps for them the archaeology appears slimmer but the literature and the yogic heritage is enormous.[/QUOTE]

They do not venture so far because the evidence is slimmer and slimmer. That’s why lots of crazy people venture there and invent incredible stories :wink:
However, there are also examples of really deep ventures:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070718140829.htm
Somehow I don’t see any “western scientist” despairing at the prospect that humans originated in Africa…

#20

So imagine there are two buttons. If you will press one all people on the earth convert to Hinduism (BTW, since you say Hinduism is philosophy and science, why you use this term “converted back” in so many places?). If you will press second one, all people will remain in their religions/cultures forever. Which one would you press? If the first one, you are an enemy of other religions/cultures. You seek to destroy them (but maybe in more “soft” fashion) - even if for the welfare of the people.

I think we need to ask another question before I tell you what button I would press.

Is Christianity worth preserving in its current form? Let us look at Christian history: Crusades, inquisitions, genocides, suppression of science and philosophy. Let us look at some of its core doctrines: condemnation(all are sinners) exclusivism (must accept Jesus, or you will go to hell) and tyrannical god(all non-believers will be damned in hell)

Is Islam worth preserving in its current form? Let us look at Islamic history: mass genocide, conversion by the sword, fundamentalism, oppression especially of women. Let us look at some of its core doctrines: Slavery(we are slaves to god), intolerance(kill the infidels) anti-philosophy(nobody can question the will of god) mysogony(women are made to serve men both here and the hereafter; a woman must give sex to a man whenever he demands it)

I would have to answer they are not worth preserving in their current form. So I would have to press button 1. We can have Christian gnosticism and Sufism which are perfectly compatible with Hinduism, but orthodox Christianity and orthodox Islam has obviousy been a curse on this planet.

The worse things you can point out about Hinduism is perhaps the caste system or wife burning. However, these are historical and cultural specific issues in differet periods in India and have nothing to do with Hindu philosophy. As Hinduism never existed as an organized religion, there is no authority in Hinduism to ordain anything.

Jesus was as much yogi (e.g. because of his devotion to God) as much Gandhi was Christian (because of his love of the poor). I strongly not recommend watching this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Oj8xxGaRY
in which renowned scholar shows how Hinduism is in fact misguided version of Islam (and they should realize that and turn to Islam). After watching him for 20min (and especiall part when he criticizes a book by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar) maybe you will understand what I feel

No, Jesus was not a yogi because of his devotion to god. He was a yogi because he was initiated by Hindu teachers, he taught Hindu teachings(reincarnation, non-dualism, and detachment from the sensory world) He even spent the rest of his life in India. See “Jesus in India” It is very clear looking at Jesus’s teachings the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism.

I have already seen the video by Zakir Naik. He is renowned only to Muslims, nobody else takes him seriously. He has been thoroughy discredited by academics. He claims Mohammed was predicted in the Vedas, in the bible and many other religious scriptures. He has been proven to fabricate citations. Outside of the Muslim world this man has no reputation.

This is confusing. Is it about giving credit to Hinduism (which I strongly support) or about taking over the world (which I would prefer not to happen). Also, its not very clear that Hinduism is taking over. I found some stats on the most reliable source of knowledge

20 million Americans in a Christian majority country practice Yoga. Churches in America are hosting Yoga. There is now even Christian Yoga. More and more Americans now believe in reincarnation, chakras, astral planes, kundalini, karma, higher sef, meditation, spiritual evolution. About 800 Hindu temples have sprung up across America. It is a silent take over. Hinduism dominates in every mind-body-spirit section in every bookshop. It has infuenced several movements in America: The American transcendentalist movement, the counter-cultural movement and the new-age movement. It has influenced the development of psychology and transpersonal psychology(which cite many Hindu texts) In the 21st century Hinduism will become the dominant philosophy of America.