Importance of Dialogue – a Hindu Perspective.

This article was written for the interfaith site homophilosophicus (meaning “the philosophical person”). Having been asked to write this, I found it quite a daunting task. My main worry was that I would misrepresent Hinduism either by making an error or saying something that applied to my lineage as though it applied to all Hindus. I was also worried that I was stepping into the territory of “real theologians”, people with doctorates in theology, but the article seems to have been well received.

If you have any comments for me about this article leave them below as usual. If you have any comments that you would like to share with the non-Hindus at the interfaith site then make them at the publication of the article there. The comments that I have received there so far show that most of the posters are sincere about wanting to know about Hinduism but some of them have a lot of misconceptions.

Interfaith Banner

Dialogue has always been important in Hinduism. Many of the Upanishads (religious texts) take the form of a dialogue, discussing philosophy from different points of view. Many of the Hindu saints were renowned for their debate and dialogue, frequently changing their opinions as a result. In theManisha Panchakam, Adi Shankara starts by asking an outcast to move aside, and ends up concluding that when one knows God, then caste is irrelevant, and that the outcast is Shiva himself. Satsang (literally meaning true company), is respectful dialogue among devotees along with reflection and meditation.  This is positively encouraged by many Hindu lineages. Nowadays this sometimes takes place in closed internet forums, private social networking groups, etc. This is seen as valuable as long as it aids learning and spirituality and does not lead to discord.

As well as having a lively tradition of dialogue within Hinduism, this has always extended to other dharmic religions. This is hardly surprising, as the dividing line between Hindu traditions and non-Hindu traditions is not clear cut. You might say that Sikhs are not Hindus because they reject the vedas, have their own saints, and don’t use murtis (devotional images). However the same is true of many sects that are generally accepted to be non-orthodox branches of Hinduism, such as Veera Saiva and Arya Samaj. Relations between Hindus and members of other dharmic religions are often very close, in many cases Hindus and Buddhists share temples (such as the the Bagh Bhairav Temple in Kirtipur) and festivals. Similarly festivals at my local Mandir are frequently attended by Sikhs, and Hindus often attend festivals in the local Gurdwara. Historically we can see the interplay between dharmic religions. The Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism certainly had an influence on each other, and Jainism played a part in emphasising Hinduism’s vegetarian tradition.

With this ongoing history of cooperation and respect between dharmic religions it is not surprising that Hindus are often at the forefront of Inter-religious dialogue and events. The 2009 “World Religions Dialogue and Symphony” was initiated by the Hindu preacher Morari Bapu, and many local, national, and international events are well attended by Hindus. Swami Vivekananda’s address at the World Congress of Religions in 1893 is often considered one of the best pro-interfaith speeches of all time.

However many Hindus are ambivalent about dialogue with non-dharmic religions. One reason for this is that Hindus attending these events are often seen by others as representing Hinduism as a whole. Many non-Hindus don’t realise how much diversity there is within Hinduism. For a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions I compare speaking for Hinduism to speaking for all Abrahamic religions:  Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, Shia Islam, Suni Islam, Ahmadiyya, Bahai, Mandeans, Druze, and all sects of Judaism. Imagine also that a lot of the other attendees had been taught that Branch Davidian and Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan were mainstream parts of your religion. This is the dilemma faced by a Hindu at an interfaith event. When someone does speak for Hinduism, other Hindus are not slow to point out when they say something that does not represent all Hindus. An example of this is the “Declaration of the Second Hindu-Jewish Leadership Summit”. Among other things this says:

It is recognized that one supreme being in its formless and manifest aspects has been worshipped by Hindus over the millennia. The Hindu relates to only the one supreme being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation. This does not mean that Hindus worship ‘gods’ and ‘idols’.

Now without going into a lengthy description of Hindu theology, most Hindus see some images of God as being aspects of the one creator God (Ishvara), whereas others are illustrious beings (Devas), and are as separate and individual as you or I. Different schools have different concepts of exactly how separate you, I, and the Devas are, ranging from absolutely separate at one extreme to any separateness from God being illusionary at another. I think it is reasonable to say that the view of Hinduism put forward here by Swami Dayananda Saraswati is overstepping the mark by implying that the statement covers all Hindu beliefs. Some Hindus have expressed this in very strong terms. Sandhya Jain wrote:

This is outrageous. A Hindu guru who upholds the legitimacy for Hindus of the literature of another religion, and tries to make Hindu Dharma pass standards set by that intolerant sect, is betraying the Devas, the Dharma, the bhaktas, the Desh – nothing more need be said in this matter. In one stroke, he has also legitimised the missionary and jihadi hatred of and assault upon Hindu dharma in Hindu bhumi.

Hindus who do take part in inter-religious dialogue should be very clear that they are not speaking for the whole of Hinduism. Except in very general terms, nobody can. This is why I make it clear that what I write reflects my own thoughts only.

Another reason that some Hindus are reluctant to get involved in inter-religious dialogue is that it is often seen as an attempt to evangelise or convert, or at least to find information useful when attempting to convert people. This is a genuine concern, as some groups openly suggest that inter-religious dialogue should indeed be used to hone conversion tactics. Jason Barker writes on the Evangelical Christian website “Watchman Fellowship”:

Interreligious dialogue is related to evangelism in two ways: “Christians must practice dialogue with non-Christians (1) to understand the situation of non-Christians and how the gospel answers their needs; (2) answer questions raised by people to involve them in a personal encounter with the claims of God.” This relation of dialogue and evangelism can be seen in the Bible.

… dialogue enhances the efficacy of evangelism. The clarified understanding of other religions will be published in books and articles about the religions, many of which will be read by pastors and evangelists, as well as transmitted to average churchgoers. These people will then be able to present the gospel in a way that most effectively addresses the needs and thinking of people in other religions.

Clearly these groups are not seeing dialogue as a means of mutual understanding but as a means to convert others to their own faith. Other Christian groups see the purpose of dialogue as an opportunity to state their own faith, while not necessarily trying to convert others. J.E. Lesslie Newbigin writes:

On the basis which has been laid down one can speak briefly of the purpose with which the Christian enters into dialogue with people of other faiths. This purpose ‘can only be’ obedient witness to Jesus Christ. ‘Any other purpose, any goal which subordinates the honour of Jesus Christ to some purpose derived from another source, is impossible for the Christian.’ To accept such another purpose would involve a denial of the total lordship of Jesus Christ. A Christian cannot try to evade the accusation that, for him, dialogue is part of his obedient witness to Jesus Christ.

But this does not mean that the purpose of dialogue is to persuade the non-Christian partner to accept the Christianity of the Christian partner. Its purpose is not that Christianity should acquire one more recruit. [emphasis mine]

Though less destructive than the previous reason for entering dialogue, being present only to state your own faith and not understand that of others makes it a futile practice. So, what is necessary for interfaith dialogue to work? I think that Leonard Swidler’s Ten Rules for Interfaith Dialogue set a good basis. I cannot quote them in full for copyright reasons, but the essence is that dialogue should be an open, honest discussion between equals, with all sides being willing to learn, and to attempt to “walk in the other’s shoes” and understand what it means to follow the other’s religion.

Dialogue under these rules has many positives. Probably the biggest benefit is the elimination of misunderstanding, so many people have preconceived ideas about what other religions believe. This is particularly true of Hinduism in the West, so many authors write in good faith about the minority Smarta/advaita vedanta philosophy as though it were Hinduism. We should not forget that Hindus too have misconceptions about other religions.

Inter-religious dialogue also helps us see our own religions from another perspective, which may help us understand and appreciate parts of our own religion, and to find new ways to express them. There are many examples of Hindus seeing their own religion reflected in others, such as the “Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta” by Swami Prabhavananda.

In summary I would say that Hindus should continue their tradition of close alliance with dharmic religions, and engage in genuine dialogue with non-dharmic religions. While it is certainly true that some people will study the dialogue and try to use this to convert Hindus, the benefits in mutual understanding and a new view of Hinduism outweigh this.

We should still avoid “false dialogue”, where one side has no intention of listening, and has come merely to express their own view. This at best wastes time, and at worst aids their conversion attempts without benefit.

Finally, we should clearly indicate when what we are describing is something believed by all Hindus (a very rare occurrence), by most Hindus, by our particular sect, or when it is our own thoughts. This is important for followers of most religions, but particularly to Hindus because of the diversity of beliefs.

Image of the interfaith banner by By Svadilfari on Flickr, which has been made available under the creative commons license. In addition to being available under the usual license terms of this site, this article has been made available to for any use. 

94 responses to “Importance of Dialogue – a Hindu Perspective.

  1. Well Swami Dayananda Saraswati did a mistake there, but he was true, when we go in depth, oneness or advaita is the message of Vedas, puranas and itihasas.
    On inter-religious dialogue we should be careful. Most of these dialogue change to comparitive religion and inflamming tensions.
    Guruji Ravishankar was invited to inter-religious dialogue, where idiot Zakir Naik took it towards comparitive religion. As he began to lose he started to get into personal and unhealthy talk gratifying himself, which again he was defeated.
    Ravishankarji is a humanitarian and never liked to down others’ belief but was forced to get into comparitive religion by that fanatic.

    • That’s a good point, inter-religious dialogue should be about bringing people together while holding your own beliefs. Comparative religion is at best an intellectual exercise and easily degenerates into “I’m right and you’re wrong”

  2. There was no need for Sandhya Jain to be outrageous at senior guru like Swamiji, who has always stood up for Hindu dharma. Its her own ill-knowledge that makes her shout like this on a Great saint who is 1000times knowledgfull than her.

    • I agree. All that was needed was a gentle reminder that there are Hindus following the dvaita philosophy who do see the devas as separate from God.

      • Dvaita is little different, there are many devas who were created by Vishnu, and they aren’t sort of God. God is Vishnu as per Dvaita founder Madhvacharya. The devas’ also aim to reach moksha/vishnu himself. Devas are really a ‘super-Man’, there is death even in heaven, brahma loka, shiva loka until you reach Vaikunta.
        Thats why shaivites were advaitists. Vaishnavas very rarely follow advaita, i am one of that rare

  3. Interesting as it is. I have been recently bombarded by such essays on this inter religious faith dialogue. I also read on various other posts such debates that are being promoted (cleverly) by the Christian theologians. In fact it has been going on for sometime, though I won’t guess its timeline but just perhaps a few years with some gullible Hindus in their isolation. This is their another hideous attempt. I shall be fair while I express my views with no disrespect. I may not sound what some my christian colleagues want me to say. But I have had some experiences recently about their behavior also.

    I read it last night late and have come back to reply my comment. I read the ten point formula as detailed in that by Leonard Swindler. It is a very clever ten commandment. This dialogue is nothing new but why they avoid the genuine Hindu authorities on Hinduism like the present Shankaracharyas instead of getting
    Sri Sri Ravi Shankarji or Morari Bapuji. They are revered Saints but not Hindu authorities. They have tried them earlier but failed on one point i.e. their conversion agendas. It is like keeping your Military firing and engaging in inter-religious dialogue for peace talks.

    That ten point utterly lacks it. Hence, with due respect to my christian freinds, if we see the “predatory conversion” going on non stop on one hand and engaging in this inter-religious dialogue with some ignonymous individuals would be no more that a propaganda stunt. There are a lot of techniques they are in.

    Like say, we can see some astute Max Mullers with more time tested refined techniques who even indulge in narrating this missionary predatory proselytisation
    but keep criticising Hinduism or RSS at every opportunity. It these same people who fund, promote, give their prime time time world class TV coverages to bash Hinduism and its culture. I recently came acroos a new terminology called “Inculturation”. I had never heard it and even the most English dictionaries also do not mention it. I was taken aback.

    Lastly why so much brohaha about this inter-religious dialogue? Hindus do not believe in conversion or jihad or fatwa or predatory conversion techniques. It is either of the Abrahamics who indulge in such activities in the name of religion. Why don’t they leave it to people themselves. Unless there are some hidden agendas, where is the problem with a peace loving Hindu. There are a lot of other things which are being tried in the name of religion, but suffice to say thus far. My humble submission would be, if there is a serious and sincere desire for such work, they should adopt proper channels and must stop predatory conversion before that. We promote such hideous dialogue on hand and keep the conversions and Fr Amorth working on the other hand will be doomed to a failure.

    There must be a visible and palpable sincerity in the attempt. I am sorry if I have not been a just yes man without my legitimate concerns. Yes dialogue we must, but with sincerity in purpose and with genuine people. Thanks.

    • Its a difficult issue. I am sure that Jason, who runs the homophilosophicus website is sincere in wanting to promote understanding without attempting to convert. On the other hand he is a member of the Anglican Church of Ireland, and following a few links we can see that they are active in missionary work in Nepal, which undoubtedly means trying to convert Hindus.

      Is it right to continue dialogue with people like Jason, who I feel would not support the things that other branches of the Anglican Church of Ireland are doing? It is something that I will certainly continually re-assess, but it seems to me that greater understanding and respect will reduce the support of missionary efforts, and may lead to them stopping. Of course the worst and most blatantly deceptive missionary efforts come from American evangelical groups, such as the ones I quoted.

      • Tandava, I am not sure as to what should I advise on continuing dialogue with Jason or anybody. What I do feel is that we can continue our enlightened and informed discussions with each other instead of a “dialogue” that seems to acquire a new meaning. You must be your best judge on it but anything short of an official dialogue is welcome.

        If I were you, I shall certainly ask them point blank questions about conversions which is being viewd more and more predatory. I agree on it. They are not doing a charity but a religious business to harvest souls that are naive, poor and uneducated. I think that is what is wrong. Like you said, let them profesize their faith, ideology and all its goodies without greed, pressure or any other such methods. If they embrace their faith, by all means, go ahead.

    • The basic ideology of RSS is nothing but Karma yoga. So Sangh needn’t worry of criticism.
      These people have failed with Morari Bapuji too! And there are some idiot people like puri Shankaracharya.
      Yes they are scared of Shankaracharyas like Paramacharya or Jayendra swamiji

      • syamukamath, I am taken aback with your comment about Puri Shankaracharya! But Morari Bapu is an authority for Hindus. Even Shankaracharyas are four, as you know it well. Certainly the lay book writer is not an authority to start a dialogue with. What is the way out? I fail to understand. You know, I still remember the comment of Zia-ul Haq, “Give the dog a bad name and then kill him”. Is it just a propaganda in the media to give such a bad name to Hindus for their refusal for dialogue and then use coercive measures like Muslims did in Kashmir.
        God bless

  4. On this blog with Western Hindus, I am not sure if they were paid by any Hindu group to convert? In fact one more new idea sprang in my mind to differentiate between the Hindu and other religions. Hindus should not call it conversion but a revertion. There was a time when there were everybody Hindus or people believing in Vedic philosophy. As the time has passed, newer and newer systems have evolved. The Abrahamic faiths have nothing new over the Vedic philosophy, hence they used all these predatory techniques which have nothing to do with religion but garnering foot soldiers for propaganda machinary or advancing a divisive political tool.

    • Dr Sudrania ji,
      I can assure you (and I am sure that you already know) that no Western convert to Hinduism has been paid, deceived, threatened, bribed, or in any other way induced to convert. In fact Hindu organisations go out of their way to emphasise that Hinduism is not an easy path, and even encourage people to take a look at their previous religion. The main aim is not to gain converts, but to ensure that those taking up Sanatana Dharma are sincere and genuinely feel that this is their path. I discuss this more in a post “ethical conversion“. Most converts also support Hindu organisations with financial donations.

      I see your point about using the word revertion, but I am afraid it sticks in my throat. It is tainted by the use by the one religion that it is least suitable for.

      • @Tandava,

        Thanks for comment reassuring as it is and I am sure of what you said on the issue of conversions. However I copy paste your last para here,
        “I see your point about using the word revertion, but I am afraid it sticks in my throat. It is tainted by the use by the one religion that it is least suitable for.”
        I didn’t get it well. Please enlighten me on it more explicitly.

        Why I said, what I mean, I shall talk on it after knowing your reason. I don’t claim to be right, it is just a wild thought that struck me last night while reading your post late at night.

  5. I think you are very clear about not representing ALL of Hinduism. Pagans of all sorts get painted with a broad brush if one Wiccan does or says something stupid. I think many Christians get flack for their fundamentalist and political branches, when there are many Christians who aren’t those ways. But more non-Christians have at least a working knowledge of Christianity, whereas most people do not understand even the basics of Hinduism or Paganisms.

    I think your blog is an excellent resource for inter (and even intra!) religious dialogue. Keep up the good work!

  6. Tandava, this is a good article. I’m very happy that you mentioned Swami Vivekananda, a role model for anyone who values interfaith.

    I’ll certainly be looking into homophilosophicus. Thank you for your work.

  7. Apologies for such a lengthy reply. I feel that your readers, Tāṇḍava, ought to have the same access to your question and my response.

    **My respected friend and colleague Tāṇḍava asked:

    Homophilosophicus, As agreed I have reblogged this article on my own blog. I have had a number of interesting replies, including some question as to whether I should take part in this dialogue. I am certain that you are taking part in this dialogue to bring people together without the aim to convert anyone.

    However a commenter has suggested that I ask you directly about your attitude to missionary and evangelical activities in general. I think that it is also fair for me to ask these questions in an open forum, where others can see your answers. I hope you understand my position, that as a convert to Hinduism I need to ensure that what I am doing is not considered harmful, and hopefuly will be considered as beneficial to Hinduism.

    A little link-following from the Anglican Church of Ireland site shows that it is connected to the organisation CMS Ireland, which among other things supports a mission in Nepal. Since Nepal is 80% Hindu this will certainly involve the proselytisation of Hindus.

    Do you support this, oppose this, or have no opinion on it? What limits and safeguards (if any) do you think there should be on what is done to convert somebody?

    **Homophilosophicus answered:

    Dear Tāṇḍava, This question is the most important question of the dialogue process. Thank you for asking it and thank your for the courage in asking it. My answer will, no doubt, upset some, but I ask that you read it all the way to the end before allowing any mid-point reactions. It certainly feels as though everyone reading is on the edge of their seats with bated breath waiting for an answer. The reason for the delay in answering – to clear that up – is that I was away from the city and this laptop last night and today.

    It is my hope to convert people; not to my faith, but to better understanding and to tolerance. We watch the television news and read the newspapers and see a world beset with conflict and intolerance. At the same time the secular media drives religion and religious dialogue out from the public platform, and yet fails to see that some (if not most) of the ills of modernity stem from cultural differences and anxieties in which religion and religious difference plays no small part. Rather than witnessing the secular agenda remove funding from the arts, theology and religious discourse, I would like to see a mature response wherein religion (in all its expressions) is seen as an integral component of the grammar underlying cultural conflict and therefore must be a key to bringing about religious and cultural tolerance – and indeed harmony.

    Christianity (my own faith expression) is missionary and evangelical by its very nature. It would be absurd to deny this. The means of understanding this nature, however, is in its interpretation. Religion, as part of the grammar of human interaction, may see my faith as a dialect of the universal language of the human experience of the divine, and I am happy with this understanding. As a Scot I know the experience of having my spoken dialect punished in school in favour of some artificial BBC English. I am a proud speaker of my Scots dialect, as I am a proud Anglo-Catholic (‘High Church Anglican’) Christian. I rejoice in the dialects and languages of the world in which I live; where yours and mine play a part in allowing us to speak. By Evangelical I understand that I am a Christian who is nourished by the Gospel and attempt to live out that Gospel in my own life. The term Evangelical, much to my own disgruntlement, has been hijacked by another, newer form of Christianity. To be diplomatic, let it simply be said that this is not my form of Christianity.

    I believe in Mission! I believe that it is my duty to comfort the heartbroken, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the prisoner. This is mission. There are forms of missionary activity which patronise and abuse the consciences and freedoms of others. I hold no truck with this nonsense. I categorically do not believe that I should or must tell people about Jesus or insist that they must be ‘saved.’ Again this comes down to the grammar of religion; no one need accept my BBC faith. As the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner wrote of the ‘Anonymous Christian’ in his discussion of the universality of salvation, so I am honoured to be called an Anonymous Hindu. In times past the Anglican Church was at the forefront of colonial Missionary work, hand-in-hand with British Imperialism. This was misguided, cruel, often barbaric and deeply sinful. This was history. I cannot apologise for others and yet I am stung by the memory and regret.

    CMS Ireland is a hangover of the past and is regarded with a great deal of embarrassment by many Irish Anglicans (myself included). It is, however, a present reality and thankfully a minority sport. It has ‘missions’ to Roman Catholics, Jews, Hindus and many other faiths. Within the context of Ireland, a ‘mission’ to Roman Catholics – in particular – has been a cause of great harm today and in the past. I believe that it is my duty to tell my truth, and I believe this to be misguided in the extreme.

    Conversion is something that happens in the interiority of the person, and something which I am content not to be involved with. Conversion, insofar as it is a moral conversion from wickedness and crime, by all means I will attempt to persuade a sister or brother from doing harm. I am committed to dialogue, as a place where we may all speak this language in our own dialect. I am committed to this not merely because many would call me a Liberal (which actually I am not), but because this commitment is a tenet of my Christianity. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer this question.

    • It is glad that you really want a dialogue. We too. And we aren’t against christianity.
      “I love your Christ more than your Christians” said Gandhiji. But what we oppose is also, as Gandhi said” missionaries even try to convert kids standing in front of schools.
      If a Christian doctor cures my disease, i am thankful, why should he expect me to convert to his belief”.
      My state has a good no of christians. Most are catholics. Some protestants and Church of South India by British. All these have almost stopped conversion tricks here hopefully. as 96% literate state is hard to convert any educated now. But pentacostal mission, they never learn,. One day a man came to my house, when i opened door, he said” join pentacostal mission.” me” don’t waste my time go away”. He” this temple(pointing to our shiva temple) would lead you to Hell. Only christ will save you. Jehova will punish idol worshipers.”. I told hm again am nt interested. But he again started,” this plant(tulsi plant infront of house) again is to hell. Then i lost my mind, i used the worst words ever in local language, and threatened him,” if again i saw you in this area or any hindu house, i will break your bones. I am Swayamsevak, not afraid of the police if you want to be alive then getlost”.

      • My friend, I too would have said the same to this man. And ‘if’ your faith sends you to hell – I would consider it a privilege to accompany you there. Yet I doubt this to be the case.

        • Most of my christian friends are like you. They never dig into my faith. We respect each other’s faith.

          • Well I am truly glad that you have Christian friends who present a positive image of Christianity. I hope that I will have the chance of ‘digging into your faith,’ but not to disrespect you or your faith, but to come to know You as You – a human being, and my brother.

    • My ancestors who were in Goa, run businesses there had to leave Goa, throwing aside our wealth home, due to the torture of So Called ST. Francis Xavier. He and portughese army set our temples on fire, abused our women and slaughtered our cows. Forcing our ancestors to eat beef and convert, they had no option but to leave to protect their faith and pride.

  8. Dear Tandava and others participating in discussions/debates,

    My humble suggestion to you all is to get useful resources at apart from and others. You can even ask Agniveer any particular issue to be addressed. I think, it will help both – we Hindus and the not-Hindus to dive deeper into the Sanatan Dharma and bring out pearls of new wisdom.

    BTY, today is Shivaratri.

    OM Namah Shivay

  9. Happy Mahashivaratri all.

  10. “Om Namah Shivayah” to you all on this auspicious occasion of “Shivraatri”. Shivraatri is an occasion which is observed at night as the word ‘raatri’ indicates. It has a special significance. I am born in north Indian Hindu family but never knew the difference between “Shiva or Vishnu” except as the part of “Trimurti”.

    Night is signified by darkness. Shiva as the universal ‘Guru’, is expected our own mental darkness, i.e. ‘avidya’ or nescience or ignorance. “Tamaso maa jyotirgamaya”. Guru is one who removes our darkness of nescience or lack of knowledge. Hence the “Shivraatri” is observed at night by remaining awake and in the heartfelt devotion to the “Universal Guru” to help us educate. But the disciple has to be attentive to the Guru by supplication, chants, worshipful observances to allow Guru do his duty.

    On the majority of occasions, the people misuse this opportunity due their ignorance by indulging in worldly affairs even while keeping awake. This is even worst awareness. Hence a correct significance of Shivraatri must be understood and then observed.

    At the end, today I shall refrain from indulging in any controversial issue of inter-faith. Suffice to say what I once remarked: I the best Christian because I am a good human being. For the same reason, I am the best Muslim, beacuse again…. I am the best Hindu, again because …. Likewise, if I am not a good human being, I am neither a good Hindu, nor a Christian, or Muslim or Buddha or any other denomination. That is what I consider my religion; I don’t know, Tandava, how many will agree with me or my faith.
    God the Lord Shiva bless us all.

  11. Errata: “Shiva as the universal ‘Guru’, is expected our own mental darkness, i.e. ‘avidya’ or nescience or ignorance.”
    Please read, “Shiva as the universal ‘Guru’, is expected to remove our own mental darkness, i.e. ‘avidya’ or nescience or ignorance.”

    Sorry for inconvenience. Respectfully as a feedback, Tandava, this design of box is a little difficult to post because of its inherent problem. I find it difficult to describe it exactly. But I think you can appreciate, what I mean.

    Om Namah Shivayah to all

  12. Happy Shivaratri to you all<3

  13. “Dharmic” religions and “hinduism” are only and the same thing. Hinduism is an umbrella term used to denote all schools under dharma.

    Here’s a good example:

    The mauryans where a huge dynasty that ruled undivided india.

    Chanakya – It’s military strategist was vedic.

    Chandragupta Maurya – The dynasty’s pioneer used to be a vedic but later converted to jainism.

    Bindusara – Chandragupta’s son took Ajivika.

    Ashoka – Bindusara’s son took buddhism.

    Do you see what happened?
    They didn’t CONVERT!!
    They just changed SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.

    Vedaism wasn’t a protected thought!!
    Ajivika wasn’t a protected thought!!
    Buddhism wasn’t a protected thought!!
    Instead, Dhrama was protected. Dharma was an established concept. It always rained supreme in debates. Every new school incorporated it.

    Dhrama was the state religion. Not vedantism, buddhism or jainism.

    The schools of thought didn’t vanquish each other. They simply entered into debates and the better school won.

    Buddhism faded away from prominence in india because indians realized that they were not standalone. Read invasions in india.

    Btw, you cannot debate with dogma. Again, please note the operative word, dogma. These are no schools of thoughts because schools of thoughts hold no allegiance.

    Anyone who holds allegiance is always ready to start a pissing contest.

  14. Anuj, very nicely put in brief. Sometime ago, I had used a word, “Inculturation”. I have suggested to Tandava another strategic aspect. These tactics of dialogue are
    another method of simply engaging in a so called “dialogue” with a drama of their old technique of “catch them young”. Here young will mean engaging with those sections of society who are not fully informed of their ulterior technique. At the same time look innocent, pious and peace loving groups who want the good of Hindus; which they are not.

    Had Hindus been intolerant, all these other thriving so called religions would not have been able to put their foot on this land. India has very glorious past when the rest of the world was still in the dark ages. India aka Hinduism is passing through its litmus test. The tradition of well time tested practice of “Spiritualism” has and will keep it vibrant. I am sure that these are passing clouds.

    I am aghast everyday when I see their strategies in this fast moving and politically charged world with West taking on everybody at the point of barrel. Hinduism in India is seen by them the most easy prey bcoz of their soft nature and peace loving nature. Christians won’t try it with Muslims. Hence they are taking on them directly by military attacks on them while their Church insinuating in their country from backdoor.

    I have just come across couple of posts, I post the links here for your kind perusal. They are trying to see the evil in Hinduism in everything now but they do talk that India today is dominated at Centre (Delhi) by a Catholic who is far more hard boiled. You can also judge her innocent recent so called treatment visit in US. Please peruse the links:

    • Dear Dr. O. P. Sudrania, with regard to your comment:

      “These tactics of dialogue are another method of simply engaging in a so called “dialogue” with a drama of their old technique of “catch them young”. Here young will mean engaging with those sections of society who are not fully informed of their ulterior technique. At the same time look innocent, pious and peace loving groups who want the good of Hindus; which they are not.”

      I would like to point out that I personally invited Tāṇḍava to the Interfaith Project because he was not ill informed, and because he is a man who knows his faith and writes well on the themes and subjects of his faith. I have no doubts that I am not ‘innocent,’ but with respect to sincere and educational conversation between between educated adults of different faiths and traditions I can assure you that I have no desire whatsoever to disrespect my friends.

      I would happily welcome your own participation in this conversation, as I am sure that only time and my own personal integrity and consistency on this matter will win your trust. I believe that disrespecting Hindu faith and religion diminishes everyone — myself included.

      • You called me just Dear Dr. O. P. Sudrania but I call you, if not inappropriate, My Dear homophilosophicus, because I do not look like as if I am an angry man due to my straight forward talks.

        I am sure you may have read my response to Tandava above when he asked me my advice on carrying on with you in “Dialogue”. I had no idea about you and your depth of personal or religious reationship with Tandava. Hence I did not deny him to “talk” versus “dialogue”. I have another Western convert whom I blog with. I am glad that Tandava mentioned Sandhya who is a versatile open person in her deliberations. She has been, and quite rightly, very vociferous on this issue of dialogue between Clooney versus some ignonymous Malhotra. He has written a book on some such agenda, may be this Fr. Clooney may have helped him and trapped him then.

        I am personally confused and amased at the same time. Because I know the behavior of these Evangelicals aka Missionaries. I never even tried to bother because they used to operate in the thick of interiors quitely where these Indian corrupt Nehruvians will not peep in either. I have even written a post sometime ago on the innovative style of missionary operations. Hindus have no defence against them. I am not talking of the 700,000 village folks in India but even the majority of Urbanites do not understand them. I have seen their slow encroachments in the bigger metrpolitans also. These fellows have now bought the properties in the thick Hindu residential areas bcoz they have plenty of supply of money from your side in the name of mission in your terms. Who monitors them? These secularists do not touch the Christian or Muslim institutions or establishments. Immediately their peers in Saudi Arabia or US/Eu will shout and malign the Hindus. Godhra scandal was initiated by ISI/LeT. This is not a secret. But our beloved most powerful lady is more interested in two things. She is a diehard Catholic, while she pretentiously puts a full length long “Tilak” or forhead vermillion mark. All three of them do it. Are they Hindus? I am not sure! But not convinced either way. We as Hindus have accepted both the Christians and Muslims; have they reciprocated in the same vein? I am not sure!

        Hence, to cut short the long story, if Tandava is still receptive to me, I would first like to ask, “Why did they refuse the Puri Shankaracharya in the first place when all he wanted was to stop this heinous, please mark my word that I do not want to use. UN has used even worst descritions about these predatory missionary conversions and a recent public outcry. I also felt that this band wagon by US to malign Hindus on one Christian burning in Orisa and then even deny Visa to Mr Modi of Gujrat for a decade long. Now the same country has reckoned his state as the best and showering praises on him. I was aghast on this revelation.

        I would leave it to carry on with other bloggers on this inhuman act of harvesting souls by predatory conversions. I have to conclude here as it is already long boring post.

        If you are sincere in your just humanitarian work only, then you should do:
        1. Involve the local informed Hindu groups, I repeat informed Hindu groups.
        2. Stop predatory conversions by paying money and helping in their employments on Hindu tax payers money, or even if it is Vatican money, it should be monitored by the genuine Indian authorities in transparent manner.
        3. If you charge money, then be uniform and allow people to visit your organisations by the Hindu NGOs, e.g. BJP or RSS. I can not understand to malign the RSS and BJP while the congress keeps playing the dirty vote bank politics with Muslim and Christian organisations? Hindus are the legitimate sons of the soil. I have read your proud comments on being a Scot. If I call you communal, Jason, “How would you enjoy it”? I am sure, you will kick me in my pants. I have lived in Scotland myself for long enough. This is just by the way.

        Jason, I do not want to sound stubburn, but everything must have a reasonable purpose. Hindus have four official “Peeths” established by the Great Adi Shankaracharya soon after the inception of Christianity and Buddhism. He toured the entire country and re-established Hinduism. To coordinate the entire country, He established these four “Peeths or Shrines” which still holds good. I would have liked better to hold talks with the genuine authorities than talking to people like me who have nothing to help your this issue, however sincere you may sound.

        I am myself very much aware of the missionary style. Once you even curiously ask a question, these fellows search another door. They are so well counselled.
        I am sorry for such a long post. I shall keep visiting this site from time to time and watch the developments with interests.

        Lastly, it just dons (my Scotish background of your national poets land) on me, I am not sure, why some of the Christians are raising an anti-Sathya Sai Baba tirade desperately like these evangelicals and even targetting His followers also.
        This is a preposterous blackmailing by these groups. They have even funded some medias also or else why do they so grotesquely play this most heinous and dirty job of inhumanly impostering as Hindus, sometimes, same fellow masquerading as male as well as female. They chase you and are still doing it. Why don’t they expose this corrupt lady from Italy whom we accepted but she is draining the nations wealth. She is being protected by all the Western establishments including the media, the Vatican and etc. Now you shoot me back with a question, “Do I have a proof”? Can you prove such high powered games until some Asange helps you!

        Last question, can you accept an Indian citizen as your most political powerful person? We have it and the entire powerful Western machinary is at her back. I am sorry, Jason, if I have sounded, I don’t know, how to put, but please forgive for an explicit exposition. This is a difficult question that I have to first satisfy myself on its desperation by the Catholic Industry? Hindus are not the aggressors, instead they are at the recieving end and they are not asking for it. To me it is as simple as this, if you do not feel comfortable, leave these fellows to pay for their sins. But the reasons are far more deeper than we are talking, that is where the problem is. Hence these bypass techniques. Let us go ahead.
        The world will not stop.

        In fact I have been having a very third rated experience following the demise of Sri Satya Sai Baba. They still keep me targetting. My only fault was that I just made a few very genuine civilised engagements on one UK Daily. I was nauseated at the quality deterioration of journalism. You allow your comment box to some imposters to openly and grotesquely engage in filthy abusive words used by the …. people especially proped up for this business. It is a shame but I suppose there is nothing shameful when ouyr parameters of shame
        have reversed. Then I also know, how they censor even the civilised comments on issues they feel by “them”. This is certainly not tolerable. Then one person exorcising and abusing Hindus openly and entire English media picks up the gear. Indian media are nothing but coconut seculars. Majority of INdian media are bought by the Westerners or Saudi petro dollars. What justice a poor weak timid Hindu expect standing from such a low pedestal. Hindu monks do not even know English, most of them are Sanskrit scholars and not aware of your cliques. When they go to your places, they are targeted as coconuts.

        I finally declare my batting is over. Back to you.

        With my very humble and kindest regards for your sincere approach to me. Despite what I have observed here, I am still open like a book. Please do get back if I can be of any help. But please do keep our angst in mind. We also need to survive in this game of life.
        God bless

        Please permit me to use Jason to address you, it is easier. I have read all your posts above but I was not very encouraged to interact with you directly. That is why I started with an amusing sentence, interesting etc. No wonder Tandava was confused and speechless.

        • Sundraniaji, you say media and secularist targeting RSS and Support Puri Shankaracharya who is also part of it? The one who prefered kashmir terrorist over RSS. Asked people to overthrow Modi. Justified congress action on Anti corruption activists! The same shankaracharya of puri who glorified social evil like sati as part of Hinduism?
          I don’t agree with you in that point. And for me there are 4 Shankaras, I consider Kanchi swamis instead of this man at puri.

        • Campaign Avatar purush like bhagavan Satya sai was the greatest expression of their intolerance towards disbelievers.

        • Dear Dr. O. P. Sudrania, thank you kindly for such a very long post. Thank you for taking the time and the thought. I am afraid that I will not be able to be your match on this score. If you do not mind, I will not take up the bat which you have kindly offered to me — as I do not believe that we are in a contest. If we want a dispute, an argument or even a fight on the questions of Hinduism, Christianity and missionary activities I shall happily declare you the winner.

          Now that this has been said, I feel that I must point something very important out to you, good doctor. You keep making reference to the actions of missionaries and ‘Western’ political agendas in India with the accusative ‘you (meaning ‘me’).’ Here I must declare that I am not a representative of the Vatican, the United States of America, the missionary activities of Christian groups in India or of anyone else. I am simply me (Jason Michael McCann) — I live in Dublin, Ireland. I do not know the details of any situations in India, I have never visited India and I have no intention of ever being a ‘missionary’ in India or anywhere else. I believe that all of your concerns are valid and rooted in the real experience of life in India, but I cannot be held accountable for these things, nor can I comment on them — as I know nothing about them.

          Dialogue (or casual conversation) to me is primarily educational. I would like to learn of Hindu life and belief from Hindus, not to convert but to understand and move towards a better understanding of the approaches of different people to the bigger questions of human existence. If you would take the time to look, you will see that already I have taken steps to reprimand and censor comments by a ‘fellow’ Christian because he showed great disrespect to the beliefs and opinions of others ( This was not a pleasant thing for me to do.

          • homophilosophicus ,
            Having read a lot of Dr. O. P. Sudrania Ji’s posts I think that he is trying to reach out and share his concerns. I know that he comes across as being belligerent, but as he says at the beginning his straight forward words can make him look angry, and he does not want to appear that way. Often when people write in their second language they appear very blunt and direct without meaning to.

            I think you have addressed the concern that you could be connected with missionary groups. One of the frustrations that Dr Ji expresses is that Hindus appear to be targeted because they are amenable and welcoming. Missionaries will come to India while bypassing Pakistan and the Middle east.

            Another concern, he has is that your dialogue is with me, a very ordinary Hindu and a convert rather than one of the recognised authorities. I think that discussion at every level is important. Maybe you could reassure him of your motives of approaching me rather than a religious authority.

            Another thing that probably needs explaining is Communalism, which has a very specific meaning in Indian politics. It is explained well here. Basically it is an accusation that any call for reform of the press, which is mostly owned by Christian and Muslim companies is not a call for freedom and equality but for Hindu only interests, as the Muslim and Christian owners are quite happy with the biased system. It is a sort of turning equality on its head.

            Finally I think that you missed the point about the question about having an Indian national as the most powerful political person. Dr Ji is referring to Sonia Gandhi, and the issue is not that she was foreign born but that she shows a blatant bias towards Western religious organisations. My understanding (and I would appreciate my Indian friends correcting me if I am wrong) is that there was a law forbidding the use of lies, deceptions, threats, or bribery to achieve religious conversion. Many evangelical groups complained that this was interfering with their right to practice religion, which mandated converting at any cost. She was instrumental in repealing the law, though most Indians supported it.

            From your later comments I see that you now realise that these are not aimed at you, but expressing a frustration at the actions of evangelicals in India.

            • Of course, I understand all of what you have said. I appreciate that the doctor is concerned. He need not worry. I would be more than happy to converse with the great authorities of Hinduism or any other faith — as I pose no threat to the integrity of their faith, I trust that I have nothing to fear. On the matter of choosing you; a very ordinary man and a convert to the faith I can only say this:

              If you and he read over the profiles on the ‘scriptores’ page of homophilosophicus you will see that every contributor is ordinary and many have converted to the faith they now profess. I too am a convert. I would like to think that I too am also an ordinary person. Homophilosophicus’ Interfaith Project is a conversation among ‘friends.’ Anyone is free to join in and ask difficult questions (and easy ones I hope), and as you have sadly now witnessed — there are no favourites when it comes to dealing with disrespect. The point of the project is to hear faith narratives from those faith perspectives. It is not colonial and it is not comparative — there is no score board. Just a current theme and the views of religious people. It is not even ‘about’ the religions per se, it is about the topic (technology or medicine for example), and the approach to these questions from different view-points. We may discover that other people have other and interesting ways of discussing the same things.

            • @both Jason and Tandava,

              First I point blank unconditionally apologise to Jason for any personal indignation that I never meant. If at all in the heat of my long post, my few words made a miss, I am deeply sorry. Why should I personally offend you? If you kindly care to read the last part, having finished, I did observe that you are welcome. Jason, there is a group, I don’t know if you are aware of them or not; who are using this word “dialogue” for engaging some Hindus for an Inter-Faith Hindu Christian Dialogue. That is why, when Tandava asked me, if I could advise him. You will know from my reply what did I say and I have observed it in my reply to you. Anyway, your present reply changes the entire picture from a church versus individual level. But please Jason, I have not been offensive to you. However please do keep our concern in mind. At least this IT has allowed us to communicate with each other and know. Things were happening before but without our knowledge. You gave an impression that you are a part of that team of dialogue. Again you have become sentimental but perhaps you missed my anxiety which Tandava has perfectly picked up. Now that we are talking more at a friendly level sans dialogue, again I apologise before I say, please be brief and to the point especially when you saw that there is already too much adrenaline is flowing. I am glad that I didn’t make a reference. Otherwise you may have been even more upset. You made a good observation about difference between Mission and Evangelicalism. I did compliment you for it.

              Tandava, thank you. You said it all and saved me repetition. My expression is often mistaken by people who don’t know or interact first time with me. If it is just a brain tweezer type exercise, but keeping these predatory Catholic Inc out, the issue is different. I don’t even say that I am a Hindu. I write a Human being if someone asks me of my religion. Who cares. This is India. Tandava, we will know more about each other as time goes.

              I think I wind up this discussion today here. Last night I was awake writing my last post on my Yoga series. At the same time, I wrote these replies. Hence I am now hoping to get to bed.

              Jason, before I leave, my once again apology if I had hurt you. But it was never intentional. May be that our thinking wave length difference did it unintentionally. Good night from me. God bless

          • Jason, dr. Sundraniaji’s comments are never personal or anger against anyone. But a concern that arises, when we are targetd in our own home.
            Just be a devout hindu and stay for a year in India, then you’ll experience how we are targeted.
            We are not against anyone. But we want to live in peace.:-)

            • Please do not imagine that I think that the doctor was angry with me. I certainly am not angry with him. All that I would like to achieve is to put his concerns to rest. I know that he is concerned and I know that missionaries are a pain and a source of consternation; we have ‘missionaries’ here too in Ireland. To many Evangelicals I am not a Christian and so they target me and others like me — but my form of ‘Liberal Christianity’ is indeed the silent majority. By discussing our traditions we offer even the Evangelicals the chance to learn and ‘mature’ in their faith.

        • As to having an Indian or Hindu political leader in Ireland — all that I can say is that Ireland is a free and liberal democracy. I am not prejudiced against persons of other faiths, nor would I consider myself a racist. Ireland is in a terrible condition; both politically and economically, and if a political candidate offered themselves for election as Taoiseach (prime minister of Ireland) or president who was Indian and/or Hindu, and that person had the gifts to execute their office better than we have at present, I would give that person my vote.

        • Dr. O. P. Sudrania (Ji), I am sorry if I have misunderstood your expression. Maybe now we can all press the ‘reset’ button and speak as friends. This is what I would most sincerely like. Thank you very much for your kindness in taking the time to explain. Have a very pleasant evening and sleep well.

          Your friend, Jason Michael

  15. @Dr. O. P. Sudrania
    Here is a little food for thought to you…

    India was under brutal islamic rule for more than 500 years yet today, india is still hindu. Why is that?

    You can make a narrative(reach an understanding) from the things that you can see but you cannot make a narrative from those things that you cannot see. The irony is that this “intangible” aspect lasts longer than the “tangible” one. I’m not making an “opinion”; I’m giving you a summary of history which is substantial in nature.

    The above is one of the reasons why the islamic world has an intangible advantage over the wests advancement in science, technology or more importantly, it’s fire power. It is why china lost tibet the day it invaded it. The point is, brute force or similar tactics do no last long. In fact, they are temporary. Those abrahamic religions that expanded in india though those tactics have no future. It’s a lesson from history.

    I don’t tell prophesies. But here’s something which military historians in india have known for too long but do not tell in public:-

    *India used to be in the vedic period what europe is today. India had its time with freedom, nudity, sex and all those things in the vedic times. It even recorded it history by building temples on that theme.

    *India went through invasions. It went through partition on religious grounds(india-pakistan 1947). Europe might be a few centuries behind india but eventually, it too will soon experience a partition on religious grounds. Expect europe to split in two or more territories in the next few centuries.

    *Mauryan king ashoka de-militarised his kingdom after a long brutal war. He opened up india to the non-indian world and himself took buddhism in his final days. Post WW2, europe is going through the same phrase.

    *Kshatriyas are attracted to power as vaishyas are attracted to money. I recognize a punjab syndrome in europe. The indigenous groups(celts, pagans etc) will probably rebel and outlast as always.

    • India was under brutal islamic rule for more than 500 years yet today, india is still hindu. Why is that?

      You can make a narrative(reach an understanding) from the things that you can see but you cannot make a narrative from those things that you cannot see. The irony is that this “intangible” aspect lasts longer than the “tangible” one. I’m not making an “opinion”; I’m giving you a summary of history which is substantial in nature.

      I wouldn’t take too much comfort in that, Most of what is now Islamic in the Middle East was once Hindu. That’s without even mentioning Bangladesh and Pakistan. Intangible aspects can last longer, but the brutal violence and destruction of the islamic fundamentalists means nobody dare express the these ideas. in Muslim countries. If you fail to express an idea and pass it on for a generation, then t is gone.

      • Tāṇḍava, this is very interesting: “Most of what is now Islamic in the Middle East was once Hindu.” Quite unrelated to the present discussion, I have been looking at the religion of the Ancient Near East. I am involved academically in this research – one in which you might be interested. You will see that I am a founder of the ‘Irish Society for the Study of the Ancient Near East —

        In this research I have been looking at the religion of Babylon and Assyria and frequently discovering thematic and cultic parallels with the religions of India. This is very interesting stuff. What do you know about it? I would really like to know your thoughts.

        • Jason,
          1. Have you heard of Hussaini Brahmins? A sect of Mohyal Brahmins but they never worked like Brahmins. Instead they fought battles and produced great wariors.
          Sorry I shall get back tomorrow but you can do a little Googling or Yahoo work on this topic. One link is here:
          Good night.

          • Thanks Dr. O. P. Sudrania Ji,
            I had not heard of this, very interesting. They must have been of similar character to the Gurkhas.
            Good night and thank you for your contributions

        • Dear homophilosophicus,
          I know much less about this than I should do. Maybe some of my knowledgeable friends can tell you more. I am sure you have heard of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, which were destroyed by the Taliban. In fact there were many Hindu temples also.

          During the eighth and ninth centuries AD the eastern parts of modern Afghanistan were still in the hands of non-Muslim rulers. The Muslims tended to regard them as Indians, although many of the local rulers were apparently of Hunnic or Turkic descent. Yet, the Muslims were right in so far as the non Muslim population of Eastern Afghanistan was, culturally, strongly linked to the Indian sub-continent. Most of them were either Hindus or Buddhists

          Much of the epic Mahabharata takes place in the land Gandhara, which is the modern-day Kandahar. I believe that Hinduism spread much further, but I don’t have details.

          I am interested in the link between Celtic beliefs and Hinduism. There are so many similar symbols. Standing stones marked with swastika designs, etc. There is an intriguing story that hints that there may have been a Hindu/Celtic land stretching as far as Britain. I would be interested if you know any more about it. The story of Eithne describes a princess or goddess who does not eat and only drinks milk from a cow from “India, which is the land of righteousness“. The story is often given a Christian ending, with her converting to Christianity, but I expect that is a later addition.

          • Yes, I have a fair bit of information on this subject. Give me a couple of days and I will put together a short dossier for you and send it by email. There are indeed many Celtic and Indic connections – they are both IndoEuropean peoples. The Celtoi migrated from modern Turkey through central Europe – though there is no proof that they ever reached Britain or Ireland – these people are Bronze Age Brittons and Pictoi, not Celts. I love this stuff – just give me a while to put some stuff together.

  16. @Tāṇḍava
    Anything outside of the indian sub-continent is out of hinduism’s purview. In the old days, those peripheries were absent which enabled hinduism to spread to some middle-east nations and a few south east asian states but that is no longer true. In the present age, hinduism is india and india is hinduism.

    Pakistan and india were fighting even before islam arrived. The pakistani side was made of taxilas. The indian side made of purus.

    Taxila’s real name was ambhi. He lived across the indus on the pakistani side. While puru king “porus” lived on the indian side of indus. They both fought many battles together and each time porus defeated ambhi, the later was let go. This happened many times and porus’s foolishness resulted in his destruction.

    Some years later, ambhi entered into a strategic partnership with alexander the great which resulted in the defeat of porus. Ironically, alexander too was left mortally wounded. Thus the macedonian army’s conquest came to an end in punjab and they retreated back.

    The mauryans who were situated in middle india would witness everything. The identified ambhi as a traitor of bharat(india) and went on to build an empire that spread to as far as afg.

  17. @homophilosophicus

    In this research I have been looking at the religion of Babylon and Assyria and frequently discovering thematic and cultic parallels with the religions of India.

    Yes, those movements looked to Indic traditions as a source of inspiration, wisdom and even memetic/civilizational ancestry, including the Theosophists and the Golden Dawn.

    In other words, these schools looked neither to jerusalem nor to rome as the ideological urheimat of the west… much of it looked, instead, to India.

    A very extreme form of ideology, albeit highly distorted through the prism of an autocratic cult of personality, found a dramatic political manifestation in the National Socialist Workers’ Party.

    It is not easy to trace the connections between Indic civilization and Hitler’s Nazism. For one thing, both the Judeo-Christians and the Socialists of the West have relentlessly bludgeoned Hinduism with the threat of demonization by association… so that hindus have become fearfully apologetic of even trying to draw a connection. That is not our Swastika, hindus say; those are not our Aryans. For another, India was not in a position to assert herself politically or even ideologically over those European movements that might have looked to her for inspiration; Indians were abject, a British colony. So it was only prudent, if ironic, that india sent its strongest and brightest to fight against the National Socialists on behalf of our British oppressors.

    Nonetheless, the connections do exist. Read Savitri Devi’s “The Lightning and the Sun” for clues.

    Following the utter destruction of Nazi Germany at the end of the Second World War, the two victorious schools of thought… Anglo-American and Russian Socialist… took every measure to ensure that nothing resembling Nazism would ever gain enough ideological currency to become a serious contender for Western political power again. The Holocaust of Jews proved a useful pretext for the stamping out and systematic demonization of everything Nazism was associated with… it enabled the Anglo-Americans to claim moral superiority, implicitly by virtue of a solidly Judeo-Christian and “democratic” ethic, over the crazy mass-murdering occultists who had dared to venerate heathen symbols and ideas in righetously Christian Europe. For their part, the Russian Communists went about negating the historical context of everything associated with Nazism just as Communists and Socialists will distort and negate any piece of history inconvenient to their worldview to this day.

    Ultimately, the philosophical contribution of Germany to Western thought was cauterized and summarized by the elegant and non-threatening trifecta: “Godel, Escher, Bach.” A sanitized version for the Anglo-Americans to appreciate in the twentieth century; though the Russian Communists even rejected these three figures as elitist emblems. Meanwhile, the industriousness, innovation, and genius of the German people are ascribed (in the Judeo-Christian narrative) to their “Lutheran work ethic.” Period. No hint that they ever had any other civilizational influences besides.

    Today everyone remembers Hitler the jew-hater, the madman, the warmonger. That is the legend that has been drummed into worldwide public consciousness at the behest of WWII’s victors. Everyone thinks of Hitler as somehow especially evil, notwithstanding the fact that his Holocaust was dwarfed by the Americans in the process of seizing their continent from its natives; by the British many times over, in India and their other colonial possessions; and by an array of twentieth-century Socialist despots from Stalin to Pol Pot.

    Hitler may have been a warmonger and a racist; but he was also a lover of animals and a vegetarian. These ideas did not come from any Bible or Torah. They came from something the Judeo-Christians and the Socialists alike fear far more terribly than they do one another (for indeed, Marxism is no more than an extension of Abrahamic/Semitic ideology, another “reformation” of Western social and political thought ultimately contrived to justify brute-force imperialistic expansion and the subjugation of other peoples.) They come from Dharma.

    Was Hitler Dharmic? To some degree he was, although he did many Adharmic things and paid the price for them. It is true, of course, that much of WWII German military tradition remained imbued with Christian symbology, the Iron Cross and so on, hearkening back to the Holy Roman Empire and more recently reinforced after German unification under a Kaiser with quasi-spiritual “divine right”. But that may only be because the full import of Nazi ideology, specifically its third-school aspects, had not had a chance to sink in to German civil society before the Germans went out to war. It is also true that the Church, specifically the Roman Catholic Church, collaborated with his Holocaust; but let us remember that the RCC had been more or less a rentier power since the reunification of Italy, with the Pope hanging his hat on whichever power seemed pre-eminent in Europe in the hope of patronage.

    The point is:
    1) that a third school of thought existed in the West at the turn of the last century, distinct from both Anglo-American Judeo-Christianity and from International Socialism;
    2) that the adherents of this school explored ideological foundations for European civilizational identity in Dharmic civilization… ideas that were extremely threatening to both Judeo-Christianity and Communism;
    3) and that, with the end of the Second World War, it was demonized by association with Nazism and consigned to ideological oblivion. For the next several decades, at least.

    When India became independent, it could not have been far from the minds of both the Anglo-American and Communist thinkers, how tremendous a fascination Indian civilization had exerted on their fellow White Europeans, not very long ago at all. It escaped the notice of neither the Christian Church nor the Jewish international business elite that even in an absence of temporal power, while India herself suffered the throes of slavery and misery, the power of Dharmic civilization to shape the imagination of the West had remained profound.

    What would happen now if India were allowed to re-establish the social, the political, the economic power of that Dharmic civilization as well? Merely on the strength of her ancient philosophical wisdom and devoutly preserved spiritual traditions, India had managed to influence the West in the early modern age while still under the British jackboot. Now suppose she gained what the Capitalists and Communists alike understood to be *real* power… material power?

    It has never been a secret to any sincere student of History that Dharmic civilization has been the pre-eminent cultural foundation of Asia, its influence immediately perceptible from Tibet to Indonesia to the Philippines and Japan, and historically discernible in regions of West and Central Asia despite the best efforts of Islamic marauders to scour it away.

    The real secret that the West has been keeping from us is the degree to which Dharmic civilization had influenced a great diversity of spiritual, philosophical, social and even political institutions in the West itself… from the Theosophical Society of Blavatsky and Annie Besant to the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Adolf Hitler. Western “right” and “left”, Anglo-American and Slav alike have no greater fear than that this will happen again; and that this time, there will be a Civilization-State with real temporal power seizing the helm of her destiny.

    The Third School still has its adherents today… such intellectuals as Koenraad Elst, Francois Gaultier and David Frawley continue the tradition, though they are little known outside their circles of scholarship. If the Third School ever re-asserts itself in the West, it will be thanks to the tireless and dedicated efforts of men and women such as these, who carried the torch through the decades of obscurity.

  18. @Anju
    i have to disagree with your comments on Hitler. There is no doubt in my mind that he was a madman, war-monger and Jew hater. He was not a true vegetarian, in fact the evidence is that he probably did not like meat much. He was known to have eaten ravioli (meat in pasta parcels, where it doesn’t show). In every other way he was adharmic. Compare the tolerance given to non-Evangelical religions such as Judaism and Zoroastrianism in India to that of Hitler’s. His use of the swastika came from the Norse runes rather than Hinduism, remember his love of the Norse sagas showing the Germanic races to be superior.

    I am not saying that he was worse than Stalin or the British in India, but there is no way that he should be seen as connected to Hinduism or dharma.

    • I wasn’t trying to make an argument in favour of hitler and his beliefs. How on earth am I suppose to make an argument in favour of a man and his empire that killed millions in organized genocide?

      What I did was to show you that they indeed took some influences from indian religions and incorporated it to fit their agenda. I hope you don’t mistake me for a jingo who waives his flag whenever he see’s an indic connection in something.

      The whole demonization by association campaign has become ridiculous and a waste of manpower and resources. If you ban the swatika on the basis of association then by that argument the state governments should also ban vegetarianism because hitler was also known to be a vegetarian. Do you see the dangers of this argument? The schools have political reasons to drum roll the narratives they want. Not surprisingly, the people have complied.

      There is a psychology theory. If you don’t make outright narratives(eg: X was good, Y was bad) then it becomes difficult to reach a conclusion. So hitler and everything associated with him must go.

      Off course, what I write is for understanding purposes only. If it causes any(well, obviously) psychological irritations then I’m sorry.

  19. @Anuj,
    “The Third School still has its adherents today… such intellectuals as Koenraad Elst, Francois Gaultier and David Frawley continue the tradition, though they are little known outside their circles of scholarship.”

    Anuj, you know history more than. I shall not go that far but in mind, it looks a sentimental touch. Nontheless, carry on your good stuff. I have put a piece from your post above where I request you to kindly reconsider your first name in there, “Koeraald Elst”. I have some reservations on this gentleman. Francois Gaultier and David Frawley are completely different.

    I personally disagree with that name and feel that he will turn out to a modern Max Muller. I have been collecting some difficult historical facts about Lord Macaulay’s (mis)quote that had rocked Indian subcontinent after that (in)famous Freedom Express started on 28th September 2007 in New Delhi when our great Lalu Yadav was Rail Minister. Rest I enjoy your reading. Meanwhile I request you all here to read his paper on that.
    I tried to locate it on Google but I have noticed a change recently about their search engine where they have made it selectively difficult to open. Is it due to that HC order on Google and Facebook? However do try it under the head, Merits of Lord Macaulay by Koeraad Elst. He sees merits in him while I reckon that two English Lords changed the course of present day Indian subcontinent. One is Lord Macaulay and other is Lord Mountbatten. First was a bachlor and second one was a sexually perverted debauch who lent his wife knowngly to achieve his political means. Hey Pamila, tell your Mum, it is important.
    God bless

    • Haha, well said Dr.ji. I have some problem with konrad too.
      But i sympathize with Mr. Mountbatten. He was a Nominal husband. Nehru is the Real one.:-D
      but David Frawley and Gautier are sincere.
      Konrad is more of an Islam hater than a Hindu lover.

      • We need a WikiLeaks to expose his resources. He pretends an atheist of some denomination in one breath, while admit that he still lives in Belgium, his children still go to Catholic school and frequently travels to India. He has no known source of income to support him. I am not very convinced of these unexplained dubious strategy. He sympathises with everyone who is opponent of Hinduism. His criticism of missionary activities are grotesquely misleading to just attract Hindu innocent elitists to make his job easier. He is doing a good business.

  20. Tandava, just a reminder. Is it possible to improve your comment box jumpy character? It is difficult to revise or is there a way out? Please look into. Thanks

    I have managed the link but I think it has been blocked. However you may locate this on his website. I request you all to kindly concentrate on my observation with an open mind. He pretends a Hindu sympathiser and even criticises missionaries and their activities but he never miss an opportunity to criticise Hinduism, RSS and BJP. But he keeps a complete silence on our corruption, UPA and Congress. Why? This is an important question. Either he is a non-political face, if he is not, then why singularly criticise BJP, RSS and Hindutva while maintaining a deafening silence on the current rulers. This is a dubious inculturation technique difficult to clasp on first glance. He is perhaps, a modern Max Muller. I would like your comments and assessments. Other thing, he goes out of the way to sympathise and even justify the anti-Hindu cry of Dalits, why? I have seen that the Catholics are proping up people like Chandra Bhan Prasad who has raised a “English Temple” in UP. Who is funding him and what interest of Dalits will be served? BBC enjoy these activities and air these monsterous news. A most notorious colonial imperialist news channel on line.

  22. Chandra Bhan Prasad throws every year lavish annual party in his Delhi home or wherever, spends a lot of money and calls a lot of personalities to advertise his “Dalit” mentality. It was sickening to read him. I confronted him on his some blog where they talk of “Dalit” politics and he never answered me on that, even when I tried to prod him. Elst is a great sympathiser of CP and Prof Elias who is another Dalit prominent activist in Osmania University. It is a shame to watch these dubious neo-religio-political insinuations to destry another culture.

  23. The parties are to celebrate the birthday of Lord Macaulay whom he thinks is a great savior of Dalits. Sorry I missed it in there. All these parties are savoured with meat, drink, and “kucch daru sharu ho jaai aur kucch Daliton ki baat ho jaai”. This is not the exact quote but a glimpse of the mindset and one of Koenraad Elst’s favourite groups. Gautier and Frawley are completely different stuffs.

  24. @ Homophilosophicus,
    “……but I cannot be held accountable for these things, nor can I comment on them — as I know nothing about them……”
    Yes and no. Iam afraid you have some vicarious responsibility here and cant sweep hindu protests (against illegal conversions) under the carpet. It is transparent that you have no interest to find out about the activities or alternatively you have some pleasure that infidels are getting saved. But I accept I cant read your thoughts, I can only speculate.
    The Irish church collections are officially diverted to various overseas churches and the most important objective of the funds is conversion . Providing some help to poor’s is just an good excuse to open shop in the area. All inmates of Mother Theresa orphanage have been converted quickly soon after providing them shelter, we don’t see a hindu staying there after a couple of weeks. It applies to all church activities across the globe.
    Ignorance is not a bliss Im afraid, in fact it is a burden if you think deeply. For Hindus blame it on all abrahamics and hold them guilty ignoring all their pleas of innocence. In case you are against the predatory methodology applied in poor neighborhoods in poor lands, then it is worthwhile asking the overseas Irish bosses.. Would you shrug and walk away on the catholic church child abuse issues if abuse has never happened in Ireland, I don’t think so. You will raise a question regardless of how far away a certain crime took place if your church is involved. Here I agree, it applies to all faiths.
    British politicians, recently, lamented that white girls (and non muslim girls) are an ‘ easy meat’ for muslim men, well it is true I felt the same when I lived in Britain in 90s. I also similarly feel hindus are an easy meat for abrahamics. This is the reason why hindus have no serious respect for abrahamics and we are hence reluctant to sit for an interfaith dialogue, because our precondition of interfaith dialogue for you is- to stop convincing us why your faith is better than ours. That is the premise on which the conversions are based: the superiority character.
    The interfaith dialogue is a waste of time so long as active conversion tactics are in full force. Do I say ALL conversions are to be banned. NO. One shining example of legitimate and well informed conversion is seen in that of incoming hindus. I see a miniscule number of caucasians and blacks embracing Hinduism wholeheartedly, all without anyone brainwashing them. This kind of VOLUNTARY conversions are fine. Only some illiterate, poor and beleaguered hindus are successfully converted by the abrahamics, whereas educated hindus don’t/ rarely embrace abrahamic faiths.

    • Dear Surya, thank you kindly for this thoughtful, if not rather rash, reply. We may need to clear up a few confusions before we can continue any meaningful discussion. For me to accept ‘some vicarious responsibility’ for the proselytisation of Hindus by Christians in India, would be similar to claiming the vicarious responsibility of a Muslim baby in England for an honour killing in Afghanistan. This is an absurdity. I have no personal investment in such activities and I have always, and shall always continue to condemn such action. On the matter of Mother Theresa, all that I can say is that she was a Roman Catholic and I have no input into or investment in the Roman Catholic Church.

      Would I be interested in preventing the sexual, physical or emotional abuse of children and vulnerable people if these clerical sex abuse scandals had not happened in Ireland? Yes, quite emphatically I would. Yes! It is for this reason that we call this a ‘scandal.’ It offends the heart and conscience of every person of good will. The abuse or torture of children in India is something which would deeply concern me. For you to suggest this would imply that you have no concern for the suffering of children in China (for example). I am sure that you would not be in favour of child abuse in China or Pakistan.

      I do not understand why you would hold me in anyway responsible for crimes that happen where I am not. I have no intention of sweeping the protests of Hindus under any carpets — I will have you know! It is to get things out from under the carpet that I wish to speak with my friends and neighbours; be they ‘Abrahamics’ or followers of the Dharmic religions.

  25. “ …So why then am I a Christian? Christianity is the grammar of my ascent. I have been conditioned and formed within a cultural context that speaks about God through the language of Christianity. I would say that it is an honest faith, and the best of all possible places to begin to develop a deeper and more meaningful faith….” — Jason Michael McCann.

    You can see you summed it up all so very well in your blog in no uncertain terms! Deconditioning wont be easy my friend but we should understand deconditioning is essential for a dialogue..
    Just a thought- You may gain some insights into hindu core doctrines and theology by reading David Frawley at and also by exploring

  26. @ homophilosophicus (michael Mc Cann)
    To set the record straight- I didn’t bring up the abuse issue to ridicule your faith, rather it is an imperfect analogy to substantiate my asking you about you ignoring some wrongdoing simply because the said crime happened far away from where you live.
    Coming back to the interfaith dialogue my concern is that your coreligionists by default condemned me to eternal damnation, no? Since you are so sure about my afterlife and you have a key to the heaven you want to be kind and you offer me a path that deflects away from hell, right?
    I have mentioned about the first hindu objection that is illegal and unethical conversion of poor and the gullible. Now this irreconcilable stand of damnation from your faith is the next most important problem a hindu faces from your faith and that of muslims.
    We have to ask you to reconsider and grant us legitimacy as believers of ‘some’ god. Per your doctrines hindus don’t get to claim any right to achieve salvation since both Christians and muslims have summarily dismissed their plea to access god. Hindus have foreseen this problem for the humanity, they have demolished all permanent hells and heavens, and instead they only permit the atman (? Soul) to merge with Brahman, the one true supreme being and one who has no physical form or gender. We are proponents of equal treatment of all, so this applies to ALL even without any official conversion, that is one of reasons why hindus don’t force conversions. Your deeds would accrue karma and you have to resolve the karma as your atman acquires a new body; you can do it in one sitting but isn’t easy, you may have to take several attempts to attain mukti or moksha. So please live free from fear of hell, for there is none!! Brahman won’t create someone and then enjoy seeing that one rotting in heaven without a second chance. Brahman is cool, very loving and forgiving regardless of one’s adopted faith. Namaste.

    • Dear Surya, once again you have taken the behaviour of ‘my coreligionists’ and formed from this a generalised understanding of Christian thinking. There are many Hindus on this earth, and look at the diversity of Hindu opinion and theology. There are more Christians; it stands to reason that there would be as much diversity of Christian opinion. So when you ask me “Since you are so sure about my afterlife…” All that I (personally) can answer is that I know nothing whatsoever about your afterlife — I have enough trouble worrying about my own. As to ‘deflecting you from hell,’ well I don’t believe in a hell to begin with and if there is a hell then we are faced with a rather absurd and nasty God who I don’t really want to worship anyway. Any God who can damn people to hell for all eternity is not worth my devotion — this is nothing more than symbolic language. I would be happy if you have any advice on escaping the fires of hell, as I’m clean out of ideas there.

      The way that you have described Brahman very much captures how I imagine my (Christian) God to be. We may have more in common that you are ready to see at them moment.

      • @surya brother, there are many christians who differed with church in their frauds and conversion tricks. And i think homophil. Is one of them.
        Instead of blaming them, can’t we join with them. It might avoid fights. May be an internal renaissance may force the leaders to stop their frauds. Although most of the church are now related to yudas who traited christ rather than jesus, but many christians especially in west believe in peacefull co-existence. As long as he hasn’t made any trick or fraud or such things, its useless to blame him.

  27. @surya,
    homophilosophicus has made it clear in his comments that he does not believe in eternal hell for non Christians, in fact he has threatened to ban users who try to intimidate non Christians with this belief. While this is certainly a fair criticism of many Christians, especially the evangelicals who operate in India, It cannot fairly be levelled at him.

  28. As is the usual case on these forum debates, sometimes misinterpretations creep in and sadly the intended question gets clouded.

    I was talking about one most important doctrine on which the faith is based and not about an individuals’ opinion nor about some insignificant lines in its major scriptures. Unless one starts a brand new sampradaya that decisively has eliminated hell, the hell/ heaven factor for after life stands firmly in the faith for now. We are talking about an organized religion here. You have to come up with lot more than what you wrote in 3 or 4 posts above my friends, like a name for example

    So therefore please go ahead and educate me which church (denomination) officially has done away with hell for after life. Provide the weblink for me. That will be new and am glad a great reform took place. A religion that talks about after life has a serious stake in retaining the same to keep the adherents focused, because the salvation/mukti is wound round the after life in this faith, unless iam wrong, no?

    • I am very impressed with the length and the depth which this threaded discussion has achieved. This is most encouraging, and I am sure that we have gone some way to better understanding one another.

      Dear Surya, you are perfectly correct that we are talking about Christianity as an ‘organised religion.’ Thus, from the point of view of Ecclesiology (the Church as she defines herself) I shall attempt to address your comment. The idea of ‘hell’ is an integral component of later Jewish and Christian theology. I do not believe in a hell nor does the Church demand such a belief. The Church defines her ‘normative’ theology in the Creed – this is all that is binding upon all Christians:

      The nearest that the Nicene Creed (325 CE) gets to the idea of a hell is in the notion of Judgement; “He [Christ] will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” I believe in judgement — I believe that there simply must be Justice for the violated, the oppressed, the vulnerable, the poor and all the victims of history. This justice need not be in the ‘fires of an eternal hell of endless suffering,’ as this runs fundamentally counter to the Orthodox Christian faith in a God of boundless and eternal love and mercy. What better justice might there be for the wicked or the perpetrator to see the fullest extent and consequences of their thoughts, words and deeds?

      Yes, in the documents of the New Testament there is frequent talk of hell. There was also frequent talk of demonic possession. These things were part and parcel of the world in which the Gospel and the New Testament were produced (2000 years ago). However much one may see the ‘truth’ in these texts, there is no need to see them as ‘facts.’ Moreover, Jesus spoke often of hell, but never once did he say that anyone was there.

      • homophilosophicus,
        Correct me if I am wrong, but very few denominations completely deny hell, but many leave it as a “thorny issue” that people are not required to believe. The necessity of the belief in hell was abolished for the Church of England in 1876 after a privy council ruling. As the Athiest philosopher Bertrand Russell said in Why I am not a Christian:

        Belief in eternal hell-fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.

        I understand that other Anglican churches adopted the same position later (correct me if I am wrong on this). Even though belief in hell is not seen as a requirement to be Christian, disbelief is still a dissenting position, as original sin and damnation are still articulated in the 39 articles of faith.

        For Roman Catholics the belief in hell is now virtually mandatory following the Pope’s declaration that “Hell Is a Real Place Where Sinners Burn in Everlasting Fire“.

        I think that the best answer that you can give to the charge that most Christian denominations have hell for non-believers as an integral part of their teachings is that this is true, but that distension on this view is allowed and you are a dissenter. Most ordinary Christians in the West do dissent (see pew forum survey) on this view, and you are working as a voice to marginalise the old views and bring the official beliefs into line with modern thinking. Fortunately I think that this is an excellent answer, and if you do stand a chance in changing the official view then we, as followers of a non-evangelical tradition who want to be left to follow our faith, should support you.

        • Tāṇḍava, as ever — thank you for this gracious response and question. As a religious Anglican I accept the place of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and treasure them as a fundamental building block of my tradition. This is, however, a historical document, and so must be treated as such. When I was still in training for ministry one priest, for whom I owe a great debt of gratitude (my guru if you will), once quipped that ‘The Thirty-Nine Articles are wonderful for ones’ spiritual health, but one simply must be careful not to take more than two a day.’

          The fact of that matter is that these Articles of Religion establish, in broad terms, what it means to be an Anglican Christian, but it is the Creed, and only the Creed, which establishes the faith of the Christian. No matter their official pronouncements, the churches of the Reformations and the Roman Catholic Church, together with the Eastern Orthodox, do not have the authority to change or amend the Corpus Fidei out with a full and general Oecumenical Council of the whole Church. So — at the most official level — hell is absent.

          On the ground, you are right. The churches in Schism have their own ‘official teachings’ on hell and damnation, but none of these are morally binding on the soul for the Grace of Salvation. It is in light of the highest Christian authority (the Creed) that, on the ground, I dissent from the idea of a real hell, but if the Pope and the Evangelicals really, really want one — sure, let them have it!

          • Thanks homophilosophicus,
            You have increased my understanding of liberal priests within the Anglican tradition. I had thought that the 39 articles were a statement of what the Church officially believed, and though they were not mandatory any priest who disagreed with them would be on “the edge”.

            • Generally someone as to be ‘on the edge’ before becoming a priest! One has to assume that the Anglican priest ‘accepts’ the Thirty-Nine Articles in the same way that a police officer ‘accepts’ the constitutional monarchy. More to the point; the divisions within the Anglican Communion are such that we need something to hang onto in the pretence of ‘unity.’

  29. Adam says: February 27, 2012 at 3:18 pm ==If your commitment to Christianity revolves around what you DON’T do then it’s not really a practice…unless it’s a practice in abstention, which in my experience is actually a pretty strongly Christian practice, at least, a mainstream Christian practice. ……………………………………………………….Lastly, can you attend as a Christian, and then do a compare and contrast with the sutras to the Bible (or equally Christian text) that might shed some meaningful light on either or both traditions? Or, really, you could infiltrate the group, then try and convert them while you’re there. That would be REALLY Christian of you.

    The above last couple of sentences say it all. You will not get it ever, because you haven’t seen, met and interacted with the scheming and cunniving and ruthless abrahamics. The dollars and euros flow to poor neighborhoods across the globe for one purpose only as above. Remember, the proposed dialogue is a means to achieving the same end goal. Stop being child like. There is no god but one god which is their god for the 2 abrahamics and, more importantly there is no prophet but one prophet/ messenger who is theirs, end of story. Interfaith is a platform to lure others and to convert them eventually . I am not worried about you but indeed Iam worried about the others, the unsuspecting lot. If you ask them ‘am I a born sinner ?’, promptly they say ‘oh no that’s too dumb’ , if you say ‘can I be forgiven without conversion’, they say ‘oh yes, of course you can count on that’. Everything goes your way to keep you in good humour. At best I will put our hemo in the universalist basket if he moves bit more towards reform. I have no problem with the universalists just as I have no problem with the atheists. They have to go thru karma cycle anyways. Enough of it.This is my last post on this thread. Namaste.

    • Dear Surya, you will forgive me if I imagine that you are reading now as though you are as extremist in your religious opinions as those whom you wish to condemn. I agree that you are right to condemn them, but one must be careful not to permit your anger and frustration with them to transform you into a monster after their own image. What do you profit if you win the fight and lose your very soul?

      I have replied to the gentleman you have taken the time to quote. Yes, it is true — he speaks for a constituency of the Christian faith with which I have no sympathy. He is both ignorant and foolish. Please don’t allow yourself to become like him.
      Rather, no Adam! That would not be ‘REALLY Christian.” It would, however, be really abusive and a crime against hospitality and love. My Christianity is not about what I don’t do. It is about what I do. I do show love, respect and gratitude for the hospitality shown to me by others.

    • Surya,
      I have occasionally come across scheming and conniving Abrahamics, and I condemn them absolutely. Homophilosiphicus is not one of them, and has condemned evangelical Christians himself.

  30. syamukamath

    Recent revelation by the Central government and the Prime Minister , brought out Christian Missionaries Whopping funds to India.
    Not even a single mission is there without it.
    PER YEAR INR 10000crore is being pumped into India from foreign Christian mission to Indian NGO counterparts for christening India!! Main funding is from USA, UK and Germany, assisted by Switzerland.
    Church of South India under Anglican Church, is involved in looting Rich Tirupati temple with the help of Andra state govt. The govt. Is giving income from Tirupati as grant to these missions and Hajj.
    The missionaries were also involved in funding left wing extremist, to kill hindu leaders.
    Swami Lakshmananda in orissa and 5 others were killd by them.

    • Yes, I have no doubt that Evangelical Christianity is spread by corruption. Also I find it worrying that the Western news always refers to the killers of Swami Lakshmananda as “Maoists”. Whereas this is true they are also Christians and make it clear that they killed the Swami because his speeches interfered with Christian evangelism – so they killed him as Christians. If they had said they killed him because he opposed the state ownership of the means of production then I would have no problem with them being referred to as Maoists, as that would have been the motivation.

      • syamukamath

        Yes, they were maoists. Maoists are not really spreading Marxism here. They are funded by China to create political unrest.
        Swami Laxmananda was an equal threat to both Catholicism and Marxism. He started schools to give them education,. If they became literate both leftwing and rightwing would lose.
        Catholic mission(not Evangelical) paid and maoist killed.
        That is they dread Vedic religion, than their born enemies, ie, communism.

  31. what do hindu or indians in this forum thinks about “Indian beef-eating festival” by dalits(church backed i think) which was not covered in mainstream media but by BBC.

    • I detect some ulterior motive. While some Hindu groups do eat meat the insistence on beef makes me think that this was pushed by someone with an anti-Hindu agenda. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was church backed – some evangelicals miss no opportunity to insult other faiths.

      • @indian,@tandav
        Due to extreme mordernisation and sickularism instead of secularism, there are many beef eating hindus, especially in south.
        But the Beef eating fest under the banner of Dalit org was a Joint venture of CSI(Indian anglican) church and some muslim organisation in hyderabad Osmania university.
        Indian media Kept silence to hide anti Hindu works frm India, While BBC and ABC reported it, TO SHOW HINDUISM IS JUST BRAHMINISM AND DALITS ARE MISTREATED HERE. And to furnish their Fake Aryan invasion and Aryan-Dalit fight theories.

  32. I personally was browsing for plans for my weblog and came
    across your post, “Importance of Dialogue – a Hindu Perspective.
    | Western Hindu”, do you care if I actually apply a number
    of of ur tips? Thank you -Shirley

  33. Pingback: What’s a Christian to Do with Multi-Faith? | Zweibach and Peace - Thoughts on Pacifism and Contemporary Anabaptism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s