Truth about yoga (a article for discussion)

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#241

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59850]I am going to assume you are an innocent and honest Hindu and have no agenda - till proven guilty. Hence I will be polite despite the fact that many statements you have made are false and highly ignorant:
[/QUOTE]
That is indeed a status as if you are the forum moderator. Are you? You have yourself used the words “idot” !!!

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59850]
I am assuming you are a Dalit sympathizer? That is good, we should sympathize with their plight because of how they are disadvantaged in Indian society today. Many Hindu organizations are also working towards their upliftment. However, what would be bad is holding Hinduism responsible for this, rather than histo-socio-economic factors. It sounds like you are, by saying the caste system was developed to keep certain people at the top and others in obedience.
[/QUOTE]
Neither I am Dalit nor a sympathizer. Right now, Indian society has changed enough so that the born-Brahmins will be soon claiming “sudra” status and vice versa. That is because of the actions/activities of individual persons.
However, I must say, the Indian caste system did most damage to Indian society and to Hinduism itself.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59850]
Brahmana: Scholars, to teach and advise. Requires the quality of intellect and refined speech
[/QUOTE]
Do they have that quality? Who verifies that they have “intellect and refined speech”? Is it by birth? How (and why not) others can become brahmins?

Ksatriyas: Warriors, to protect and govern. Require the quality of strength, courage.

Vaishya: Merchants, to manufacture, produce and distribute. Require the quality of working hard and knowledge of trade

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59850]
Shudras: Labourers, to work for the others. Require no qualifications
[/QUOTE]
Can any work be performed without qualifications/skills.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59850]
All are said to be born Shudras. This means everybody by default begins as a Shudra with no qualifications. They become twice-born when they attain qualifications via education allowing to move into other classes.
[/QUOTE]
Who gives them the education? Have you ever seen a born-brahmin claiming or doing jobs of a “sudra”?

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59850]
In the varna system social mobility has always been possible, but to a much lesser extent since the British. Consider the great Emperor Chandragupta Mauraya was born as a servant, but was selected by Chanakya because of his great warrior qualities and thus moved to the kshatriya class. Many Brahmana risis were born from carpenters, fishmongers, smiths etc, but because they were so intelligent, they were taken under the tutelage of gurus and moved to Brahmana class. Karana, though was actually born from Kunti and was therefore already kshatriya, was mistakenly believed to be the son of a charioteer. He moved to kshatriya class when Duryodhana made him a king noting his great warrior skills.
A king of Hastinapur was born from a fishmonger woman. The great scholar and prime minister of Hastinapur Vidhura was born from a maid.
[/QUOTE]
Some upward movements were done in caste-system but are rare. What about down-ward movements? Did they happen??

#242

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59857]Indeed Ray, Amir speaks from his self-created ivory tower of Buddahood telling everybody to reject philosophy, scriptures, thinking, language - and yet the irony is Amir reads tons of books himself, is always philosophizing in every thread, cites from scriptures all the time and obviously uses language.

He also says a lot of ignorant stuff born out of poor knowledge. Notice how I exposed many of those statements he arrogantly asserted, and he has not responded back :wink: Yet he still has not shut up his mouth about making statements on Hinduism/India/Yoga. It is pretty simple really if you don’t know something, then be humble and say you don’t know or say as much as you know and admit your ignorance. Yet, because he believes he is the Buddha he genuinely believes everything coming out of his mouth is universal truth.[/QUOTE]

To me, what Amir says makes sense. There is no such thing as what “Surya Deva” says is Bible/Gita for everybody.

There are many false facts circulated by all religions/sects of the world. There is no exception. What one believes depends on his own religion, upbringing, education, exposure, knowledge gained, how much brain-washing has happened.

#243

“Many of your post throughout this Forum seem to be natural ways of progressing when we?ve overcome lower levels of existence but you seem adamant to suggest we?re conditioned and that enormous effort is required to overcome these preconditions, I?m finding the progressions more instinctive and then substantiated through various methods, mostly meditation but these methods also seem natural in effort?”

Ray,

You are right that the desire for the path should not be something forced upon oneself. It is a natural desire that starts awakening as part of the evolution of every mind. That is why, if one is to assume a steady stream of evolution, enlightenment is inevitable for every human being. But as different human beings are so unique, not everybody evolves at the same pace.

But that does not mean that treading the path is not a commitment, or that no effort whatsoever is required. Mans system, left to work according to its tendencies, is like a machine or a computer. It is not interested in anything else except working according to its programming. Even if the nature desire for awakening starts arising, that does not mean that suddenly ones programming as disappeared. That desire is just a seed, a potential. It has to be nurtured. Though all are Buddhas, the realization of Buddhahood is just a potential. And while there are many paths and methods towards the same space, fundamentally they all come down to the same - to dissolve the psychological obstacles which are preventing oneself from coming to more awareness. These obstacles will not surrender by themselves. Tremendous effort is needed, not for awakening, but just simply to understand what these obstacles are. It is true what you have said, that the path is something that is to become more instinctive, but that is only true at a later stage. In the beginning - effort is needed to come to the effortless. Because when beginning the path - one must begin from the space where one already is. If one has been identified with ones ego, one will have to start from the ego. If one has as a result of this, been living in delusion, one will have to start with ones delusions. But once delusion enter into the light of ones understanding, then they no longer have such a hold over oneself, there comes a certain freedom. They become ladders to ones enlightenment rather than barriers. It all comes down to one essential phenomenon - awareness. Where there is awareness, there is freedom. Where there is unawareness, there is suffering. Effortless has a role to play in the process, you are right. But so does effort. And when to initiate effort and when to drop the effort - is something that one discovers as one continues along the path.

#244

First of all, Sarva, as somebody who specialises in Indian philosophy, I can validate that your are right to call Amir a Charvaka atheist and materialist. He accepts only the pramana of perception, but rejects other pramanas like inference, expert testimony. He also rejects special pramanas like yogic perception(a class of of perception)

The Pramana system is indeed exclusive to Indian philosophy. Although modern Western science uses individual pramanas like say perception, inference and expert testimony, it is not the same system the Indian scientific method of pramana. Here is the difference:

Modern science begins with perception by making measurements etc, but it then uses what is called the hypothetica-deductive method to represent those measurements in terms of a theory and from that create a mathematical model. This is rejected in the Indian method and called speculation. It is explained that the mind is not a valid pramana because it is based on a bundle of assumptions and prejudices which distort the truth. A similar argument has been made by Karl Popper.

The Indian method uses the inductive-deductive method as described in Nyaya darshana in order to adduce universals between the major and minor term in a syllogism, such that the major and minor term are invariably concomitant e.g., where there is a particular class of smoke, there is a particular class of fire. This logic can either be a priori, posteriori or anaological.

Western logic did not develop inductive logical systems because they rejected them as being non-demonstrative and thus preferred deductive logic. In deductive logic: we go from universal to particular and therefore the universal is already known(a priori) e.g, All ravens are black, Corvus mellori is a raven, therefore Corvus mellori is black. It is impossible for the conclusion to be false because the argument is deductive. However, the universal all ravens are black is false, because there are also white ravens. Thus we say this argument is logically valid but logically unsound.

In Indian logic the universal is induced by observing the relationship if p then q, such that it is impossible for q not to be true if p is true e.g, if there smoke billowing out of a building, there has to be fire. It is based on this scientific logic that the Indian philosophical schools produce their conclusions everything from the existence of atoms to the existence of purusha, prakriti, jivatman. Hence why it can be said that Hinduism’s central doctrines which are all developed in the darshanas formally are scientific, as opposed to religious or mystical.

I have seen modern new age writers compare samadhi with schizophrenia, but this is not accepted in the yoga traditions. The guru will guide a disciple to discern between past sanskaras manifesting during meditations and authentic samadhi. In the maitrayana upanishad the six limbs of yoga are pranayama, pratyahara, dhyana, dharana, [I]tarka[/I] and samadhi. Tarka is the discernment between hallucinations and authentic samadhi.

The ancients knew what Schizophrenia was. It is basically extremely high vritti activity - racing thoughts, instability etc. Samadhi is the total opposite in description it is complete thoughtless awareness and stillness. There is not a single thought present. Its phenomenological descriptions have indeed be scientifically researched in modern transpersonal psychology.

It sounds like yaram is a materialist and atheist.

#245

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59865]
It sounds like yaram is a materialist and atheist.[/QUOTE]

You can call me whatever you want…I give no importance at all to that.
I like this forum, because of couple of Indians are just throwing what they know as “sanskrit” words and show-off something. It does not serve any purpose at all…Nobody would like to becomes a Hindu/Yogi, just based on show-off of some terms.

The thread was started as to how a true Christian can cope with current Yoga classes/lessons. However, this thread might intimidate anyone who is not a Hindu to stay away of Yoga.

This is a good time-pass :stuck_out_tongue:

#246

Nope, I do not have to be a moderator to decide whether you have an agenda or not. It sounds though from your response to my previous reply you may have an agenda, because I have disproved your statements on the caste system in the previous post. If you were honest you would concede that your statements were false and change your views.

However, I must say, the Indian caste system did most damage to Indian society and to Hinduism itself.

I am certaining not condoning the current caste system. Many Hindu samapradayas have campaigned against it and did a lot to uplift those oppressed by it. Many of these Hindus are Brahmins, and in fact even during the British times, Brahmins worked hard to get rid of this caste system and sati practices. The British took credit for this themselves because they wanted to portray the Brahmins as evil to suit their colonial agenda.

Do they have that quality? Who verifies that they have “intellect and refined speech”? Is it by birth? How (and why not) others can become brahmins?

Ksatriyas: Warriors, to protect and govern. Require the quality of strength, courage.

Vaishya: Merchants, to manufacture, produce and distribute. Require the quality of working hard and knowledge of trade

Can any work be performed without qualifications/skills.

Education. Prior to British rule of India, India had a highly ancient and developed education system. Every village had a school, there hundreds of thousands of them and hundreds of colleges and universities. You have to bear in mind the first universities ever built were in India.

Who gives them the education? Have you ever seen a born-brahmin claiming or doing jobs of a “sudra”?

Well, I am in the UK so I have not been bought up a in caste society. In fact many Indians in modern cities also are not bought up in a caste system. I can appreciate it is very rigid in Indian villages. However, again, this is because the British created this rigid system. It was not like that prior to the British.

Some upward movements were done in caste-system but are rare. What about down-ward movements? Did they happen??

You are denying the research I showed you which shows that social mobility not only did happen but it was a common affair. Many modern sociologists(again cited in the articles I posted) now admit that caste is a very fluidic system and is contextual. The notion of having a caste was not a rigid category in India prior to the British classifying Indian society by taking a census based on caste and thereby freezing them.

It is clear to see there was no such oppressive caste system when the highest school attendence was by Shudras and not Brahmins. The Brahmins did not have a monopoly on education - they had a monopoly on Vedas. Just as priests have a monopoly on theology. Brahmins also were the poorest of the classes in Indian society, hence the saying, “Poor Brahmin” They lived in poverty and had to subsist on donations, and this was because as per the varna system the brahmin has no need for material comforts, thus they had no right to covert wealth but had a right to the Vedas. The Shudras lived more comfortably than the Brahmins and had rights to wealth, but had no right to the Vedas.

If you think about it the varna system makes a lot of sense. In our capitalist society the dominant class is the vaishyas and they have a right to decide everything based on profit: education based on profit; wars based on profit; living based on profit. The dominant value in our modern society is profit. The dominant value in varna society is dharma - duty.

#247

Sarva,

“You are pretending to be a yogi, but you are speaking like a charvakin (atheist materialist) accepting only pratyaksha pramana, direct perception as evidence”.

I am neither an atheist nor a theist. Because the belief in God is not something which I see as being of any relevance at all. There is something which can be called divine - but it has nothing to do with ones ideas, beliefs, and philosophies. To try and understand it through the mind is just like trying to force the whole ocean into the boundaries of a small cup, or trying to grasp the vastness of space into ones fist. The mind is not capable of anything else except an interpretation of things through the senses. And all of ones ideas of the divine are born of the mind - they are the projections of thought.
When one has really come into communion with the inexpressible Way - then all that is needed is a silent understanding without words. So while I am not an atheist, that does not mean that I do not recognize something which is eternal, both within man himself and the whole cosmos. But that does not mean that I am a theist either. What one is calling God is nothing more than a projection of ones imagination, created in ones own image.

“If you had any idea of why you are doing what you are doing, instead of just doing what looks fashionable (pretending to be enlightened), you would be true to your Charvaka philosophy”

I am not a Charvaka. The Charvakas believe that everything in existence is made up of only four elements. Besides these four elements, there is nothing eternal. When things decompose, the four elements decompose and continue to manifest in other ways. And like all philosophies - the philosophy of these Charvakas is just a projection of the mind in the same way as the philosophy of the Vedas. If Truth is undivided, if the Truth is one, you should ask yourself why there are a thousand and one different philosophies and belief systems - all which are declaring the same, that they have found the Truth, even though the things they are saying may be absolutely opposite to one another.

Let this be understood - as far as seeing things as they are is concerned, the mind is not capable of anything else except an interpretation of things through the senses.

“flood this discussion board with incoherent thought.”

What I have said is logical and straightforward.

“Whether you believe yogic knowledge comes in direct succesion from the highest being or whether you believe it was developed by sages, it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel. You can call me arrogant, but thinking that you can reinvent yoga on your own makes you not only arrogant, but also deluded”

You are speaking as though the philosophies which have been revolving around the practice of yoga are all in agreement with each other. The Tantrics have a different interpretation than the orthodox Brahmins, the Charvakas have a different interpretation than the Vedas, the followers of Samkhya have a different interpretation than those of Advaita, the Buddhists have a different interpretation than the Hindus and the Jains, the Jains have a different interpretation than the Buddhists and the Hindus, and yet all have made use of the same yogic sciences. Yoga is not a philosophy or a belief system - it simply refers to the science and the technology involved in the expansion of consciousness, as well as the end result. The word itself simply means Union - if you come to know of a state of consciousness which is in communion with ones own original nature, then one is in a state of Yoga. Yoga, as a state of consciousness, is not a philosophy. It is a living experience.

“How do you even know about liberation? How do you know that bhakti is a valid path towards liberation? You cannot answer these questions without giving credit to the tradtion”

Certainly the work of many of those who have come before me has been of great help. If others before me had not even discovered meditation, there would have been little possibility of even knowing that such a thing exists. But as far as my practice is concerned, as well as the process itself - all of the various methods and techniques are nothing more than skillful means to come to ones awakening. They are needed temporarily - but once you come to the space, you can cast them aside in the same way that one casts a staff aside when you can see with your own eyes. The staff will be needed when you are walking in darkness, but when you start seeing things out of ones own clarity, you can break the staff and thrust it aside. But there are people who continue using the staff for their whole life, for so long that they start thinking the staff to be their own feet.

#248

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59868]Nope, I do not have to be a moderator to decide whether you have an agenda or not. It sounds though from your response to my previous reply you may have an agenda, because I have disproved your statements on the caste system in the previous post. If you were honest you would concede that your statements were false and change your views…

[QUOTE]

Yes, I do have an agenda…to seek the truth and to know the unknown !!
You might have proved or disproved something by posting from internet. However, these are not ground realities. Your argument that there are schools in every village is NOT just true. You can post anything you want…but does not serve the purpose of this thread…

In simple terms: What you recommend a practicing, true Christian to do for Yoga classes/lessons? How can they confront their own beliefs and what Yoga teacher want to say? Any suggestions???

#249

Surya,

“Amir speaks from his self-created ivory tower of Buddahood telling everybody to reject philosophy, scriptures, thinking, language”

That is not what I have been saying. To use either of these things is one thing, and to start clinging to them is another.

“Notice how I exposed many of those statements he arrogantly asserted, and he has not responded back”

The reason why I do not respond back many times is because you are almost a hopeless case. You are far more interested in argument for the sake of argument, nor do you have a sincere desire to set aside your assumptions, doubt yourself, and start investigating.

“he genuinely believes everything coming out of his mouth is universal truth”

If the Truth is inexpressible, then how can what I say be the Truth ?

#250

“We are talking here about what yoga is and for that we have to look at the yoga shastras to look for definitions.”

Are all of these definitions in agreement with each other ? If not, and they certainly are not - then you will have to consider that all of these definitions are just interpretations of the mid. And an interpretation of the thing is not the thing itself. To know what Yoga is, you will have to practice and take the science to its innermost depth. This does not require any philosophy - but just a knowledge of how to use these methods to access your own system. What this means is - to come to know yourself, through and through. And if you come to know yourself - it is not a conclusion that is to be made. Truth is not a conclusion, it is the very stuff that you are made of. And what is relevant is not even the Truth - what is relevant is to liberate the mind from the root causes of ones suffering. Because what you are seeking is not God, or Truth, or some great Nirvana - what you are seeking is happiness and freedom. The only reason why you have become interested in something like God is just because you think that attaining to God is going to be the source of your happiness. The only reason you are interested in knowledge, is because you think knowledge is going to be the source of your happiness. Fundamentally, that is all that you are seeking. If you have already come to your freedom - one thing that is certain that the very idea of freedom does not even arise in the mind.

#251

Indeed, it is not true there are schools in every village today in modern India. This point was never in contention. Had you said it before, I would not have opposed it. As Gandhi said himself Indians today are more illiterate than they were 200 years ago due to the British.

This is why we need to undo the damage the British did by reinstalling our traditional industries, traditional sociological and traditional education system. Some villages and states are doing that now in India and there is some success with it as well.

As an Indian and Hindu you need to realise just how much our culture was damaged by the British and not forget. You need to realise the present is as it is because of what the British did. It was nothing short of an economic and cultural genocide. The industries were all wiped out rendering Indians extremely poor. Even then Indians were taxed to the point of starvation resulting in 25 million Indians dying over a century by several famines. There was not a single state of India that did not experience depopulation by starvation under the British. The education system was wiped out by Mcculay and replaced with an English education system in order to produce a class of Indians -“brown sahibs” that would be loyal to them and act as intermediaries and disloyal to their own heritage. Today it is this special class that is ruling India - while India 80% population is in poverty. According to Indian law traditional industry is still outlawed - but 80% of Indians population relies on traditional industries to survive. As their trades are not recognised they have no protection or recognition.

As somebody who claims to be Indian/Hindu how do you feel when you learn the above? In fact don’t answer it. I will give you an answer of the British/American famous historian Will Durant, he said, “It was as if I had stumbled on the greatest crime in history” What the British did to us was nothing short of the holocausts.

#252

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59868]
If you think about it the varna system makes a lot of sense. In our capitalist society the dominant class is the vaishyas and they have a right to decide everything based on profit: education based on profit; wars based on profit; living based on profit. The dominant value in our modern society is profit. The dominant value in varna society is dharma - duty.[/QUOTE]

The problem is identifying or interpreting what Dharma is.
In Gita, Krishna says that Dharma is fluid and dynamic. It changes with times.

Indian Society, somehow, did not practice the law of Dharma over the past centuries. It became dogmatic, rigid and static. Hence, the people never developed in technology and ITS APPLICATION in daily life.

It was all good till invasions came. After that the blame games started.

The root cause of all problems in current Hindu/Indian systems is not recognizing that Dharma is to be adapted with times. Not following what is written in scriptures is the biggest mistake. If Indians are more technical and strong in adopting technology, Britishers would not have come to India in the first place !!!

#253

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59879]Indeed, it is not true there are schools in every village today in modern India. This point was never in contention. Had you said it before, I would not have opposed it. As Gandhi said himself Indians today are more illiterate than they were 200 years ago due to the British.
This is why we need to undo the damage the British did by reinstalling our traditional industries, traditional sociological and traditional education system. Some villages and states are doing that now in India and there is some success with it as well.
As an Indian and Hindu you need to realise just how much our culture was damaged by the British and not forget. You need to realise the present is as it is because of what the British did. It was nothing short of an economic and cultural genocide. The industries were all wiped out rendering Indians extremely poor. Even then Indians were taxed to the point of starvation resulting in 25 million Indians dying over a century by several famines. There was not a single state of India that did not experience depopulation by starvation under the British. The education system was wiped out by Mcculay and replaced with an English education system in order to produce a class of Indians -“brown sahibs” that would be loyal to them and act as intermediaries and disloyal to their own heritage. Today it is this special class that is ruling India - while India 80% population is in poverty. According to Indian law traditional industry is still outlawed - but 80% of Indians population relies on traditional industries to survive. As their trades are not recognised they have no protection or recognition.
As somebody who claims to be Indian/Hindu how do you feel when you learn the above? In fact don’t answer it. I will give you an answer of the British/American famous historian Will Durant, he said, “It was as if I had stumbled on the greatest crime in history” What the British did to us was nothing short of the holocausts.[/QUOTE]

A country of sages, warriors and advanced in technology like India, how can it became a victim of invaders? Have you really thought about it, apart from blaming Britishers for everything?

To me, the reasons are:

  • Not putting into practice what is present as knowledge in vedas and vedanta.
  • “Preaching” as solution for all sorts of problems.
  • Not learning others and being “self-centered”, “know-everything” style of thought.
  • No unity among “kingdoms”.
  • Outdated war techniques…
    …

There are many reasons…!!!
One must remember that, unless a nation is internally weaker than the external forces, invasions will not happen.

#254

It is not dharma which is fluid or dynamic, but rather its actions which are fluidic and dharmic. Its actions are based on context. This is why in Hinduism there is no fixed moral code dictating actions, but rather general moral guidelines on what produces good(punyam) and bad(paapam) so morality is a spectrum(Krishna mentions this too) those guidelines are the yamas and niyamas of Yoga. For example stealing from an innocent person will produce paapam, but stealilng from a rich and corrupt man and giving it to poora and hungry man is punyam.

Dharma is adduced by analysing the properties of something and determining its nature. For example the dharma of water is said to be fluidity and wetness. The dharma is of a teacher is to teach. The dharma of a mother is to mother and nuture her child. The dharma of music is to express moods. The dharma of language is to communicate clearly and precisely - hence Sanskrit. Everything in Indian society is based on dharma. Hence why we are called the dharmic civilisation. This notion is more or less absent in Western society - where the prime value is power and profit.

Indian Society, somehow, did not practice the law of Dharma over the past centuries. It became dogmatic, rigid and static. Hence, the people never developed in technology and ITS APPLICATION in daily life.

India was under British rule then. It was not uncommon for example for Indian women to be raped on the streets by British men, sometimes in front of their parents to humilate them further. How can you develop in anything under these conditions?

If Indians are more technical and strong in adopting technology, Britishers would not have come to India in the first place !!!

Britain was actually technologically behind India when it first came. India had a 25% share of the industrial output in the world and produced everything from spices, textiles, ships, steel, zinc, dyes, soaps, gems at a much superior grade than the British or anywhere else in the world with much superior production technology. This technology was then appropriated by the British - just like appropriated Indian education system. Indian surgical techniques. Indian linguistics and Indian philosophy. Today, they are trying to appropriate Yoga and Ayurveda.

#255

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59883] For example stealing from an innocent person will produce paapam, but stealilng from a rich and corrupt man and giving it to poora and hungry man is punyam.

[/QUOTE]
“paapam” means sin.
“punyam” means virtue/good deed.

Ok. Now, I got, why the God made the Britishers to invade India and “loot” their wealth !!

India was very rich(may be corrupt also). Since stealing from rich and giving it to poor people (then, Britishers) is a “good thing”, they invaded India.

So, by this logic, every invasion in human history is a “good deed” !!:stuck_out_tongue:

#256
  • No unity among “kingdoms”.
  • Outdated war techniques…

Yes, these are the main reasons. Although we certainly cannot blame Hinduism for that. We had been under seiege from 700AD by Muslim warlords. We fought very hard with them and managed to hold onto South India and gave them hell in North India too. So when the British arrived they took advantage of this situation, pit one side against the other, funded both sides, stabbed both in the back. It should be born it was not the Hindus who invited the British into India, but the Muslims. It was the Muslim kings who gave them land to set up their East India company and allowed the British navy into India.

India under Hindu rule had many powerful empires which rise and fell over 5000 years of history. The Mauraya empire, the Gutpa empire, the Chola empire, the Vijaynagara empire, the Pallava empire. So it was not as if we were weak. We were a civilisaton of sages and warriors. We never stopped fighting.

#257

[QUOTE=yaram;59886]“paapam” means sin.
“punyam” means virtue/good deed.

Ok. Now, I got, why the God made the Britishers to invade India and “loot” their wealth !!

India was very rich(may be corrupt also). Since stealing from rich and giving it to poor people (then, Britishers) is a “good thing”, they invaded India.

So, by this logic, every invasion in human history is a “good deed” !!:p[/QUOTE]

It honestly seems you have nothing against the British but everything agaisnt the Indians. Then how can you call yourself Indian?

I have never met an African person who condemned their own people and spoke for the British. I have never met a Jew who condemned their own people and spoke for ther Nazis.

The British were not poor and India was certainly not oppressing the British. India never said as much as a word to the British. In fact on the contrary India allowed Britain to set up the East India company so it could trade with India and get prosperous itself. It was the British that took advantage of their hospitable hosts and stabbed them in the back.

You disgust me if you really are Indian and Hindu. Discussion over.

#258

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59887]
India under Hindu rule had many powerful empires which rise and fell over 5000 years of history. The Mauraya empire, the Gutpa empire, the Chola empire, the Vijaynagara empire, the Pallava empire. So it was not as if we were weak. We were a civilisaton of sages and warriors. We never stopped fighting.[/QUOTE]

There are other empires too which invaded most parts of earth and are based in India. The “saalivaahana” (on whose name, Hindu calender exists) was a global emperor. There are other emperors, like Ashoka, who had vast majority of land under him. He, however, got disappointed with violence and left for “sanyasa”.

So, invasions are not something that just Britishers and others did. There were invasions from Indian kings as well.

One can find evidence in the form of temples in Philiphines/Malasia/Burma etc…

#259

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59888]It honestly seems you have nothing against the British but everything agaisnt the Indians. Then how can you call yourself Indian?

I have never met an African person who condemned their own people and spoke for the British. I have never met a Jew who condemned their own people and spoke for ther Nazis.

The British were not poor and India was certainly not oppressing the British. India never said as much as a word to the British. In fact on the contrary India allowed Britain to set up the East India company so it could trade with India and get prosperous itself. It was the British that took advantage of their hospitable hosts and stabbed them in the back.

You disgust me if you really are Indian and Hindu. Discussion over.[/QUOTE]

Yes…I am Indian and am Hindu…Get some yoga classes to overcome anger,emotional fatigue.:smiley:

#260

[QUOTE=yaram;59890]There are other empires too which invaded most parts of earth and are based in India. The “saalivaahana” (on whose name, Hindu calender exists) was a global emperor. There are other emperors, like Ashoka, who had vast majority of land under him. He, however, got disappointed with violence and left for “sanyasa”.

So, invasions are not something that just Britishers and others did. There were invasions from Indian kings as well.

One can find evidence in the form of temples in Philiphines/Malasia/Burma etc…[/QUOTE]

India has never invaded any other country in its 10,000 years of history. Philiphines, Malasiya, Cambodia, Indonesia, Burma etc were not under any Indian political entity. They adopted Hinduism and Buddhism and traded with India extensively - but India did not invade them.

Scholars have noted this as wel that Indian spread its influence and culture peacefully and traded with its neighbouring countries. It never invaded them.

This only the Asura Western civilisation did.