“You start from anywhere, but will end up with Jesus Christ” – Mahatma Gandhi.

[radorth]

Whatever nice things Ghandi said about Mohammed, he actually followed the teachings of Christ or he would have been robbing caravans and using violence to achieve his ends. He used strikes and fasts and even blamed himself for the killing of about 400 Indians by British troops firing into an unarmed crowd. He blamed himself because he knew a better way, and certainly better than Mohammed could think of.

Wonder which "religious" founder inspired his ideas of nonviolent resistance.

Rad

 

[Proud Hindu]

I seriously doubt that number. If we multiply it by even 10,000,000 you are saying we have spent 3 trillion dollars on converts. Even at $10 each it would be $100 million dollars spent, still unlikely.

The number astonished me at first as well, but its really not that unreasonable. That is the average amount for each convert, taking into account the money spent on building churches, printing bibles and literature in hundreds of different languages, training indigenous missionaries, buying air time, etc.

In the US alone, $145 billion is spent every year for evangelistic purposes.

Facts and figures are here Indians against Christian aggression:

http://www.kentaxrecords.com/iaca/feature_statistics.htm

 

[Proud Hindu]

Whatever nice things Ghandi said about Mohammed, he actually followed the teachings of Christ or he would have been robbing caravans and using violence to achieve his ends. He used strikes and fasts and even blamed himself for the killing of about 400 Indians by British troops firing into an unarmed crowd. He blamed himself because he knew a better way, and certainly better than Mohammed could think of.

Wonder which "religious" founder inspired his ideas of nonviolent resistance.

So you’re saying Christianity is the only religion that teaches nonviolence?

Maybe I misunderstood you, but you should know that India has been the home of the most nonviolent religions. The Jains, a sect of Hinduism, were so peaceful, that they lived in the frigid mountains, to avoid accidentally stepping on grass and crushing it. They ate only what the wind blew into their laps.

There is an incident where the Garhwalis, a mountain people in north India related to the Gorkhas, heard that a nearby king had given the order to cut down a forest in the process of expanding his kingom. In protest, they went and lay themselves against the trees. They refused to move on the king’s orders, and hundreds were cut in half along with the trees. The king was astonished at their bravery and stopped the slaughter. He did not cut down the forest, and made the Garhwalis officially in charge of the forests of his kingdom.

In addition, Buddhism came from India, one of the most peaceful religions in the world. The emperor Ashoka, of the Indian Mauryan empire, was one of the most peaceful emperors the world has ever seen.

 

[radorth]

The number astonished me at first as well, but its really not that unreasonable. That is the average amount for each convert, taking into account the money spent on building churches, printing bibles and literature in hundreds of different languages, training indigenous missionaries, buying air time, etc.

In the US alone, $145 billion is spent every year for evangelistic purposes.

Facts and figures are here Indians against Christian aggression:

http://www.kentaxrecords.com/iaca/feature_statistics.htm

Hardly a trustworthy source.

But I would agree that we probably spend too much on missionaries and everything else we try to do to help people. The problem is that somebody else will come in and do it by force. If the American natives hadn't been "conquered" by Christians, they'd have been conquered by people even more unfriendly. That is what people are too short-sighted to note.

Durant called the Muslim wars in India, "probably the bloodiest in history." You make your choces and you takes your lumps.

Rad

 

[radorth]

So you’re saying Christianity is the only religion that teaches nonviolence?

No.

Rad

 

[Fiendishjester]

True. Hinduism has been less violent in its well over 3000 years of existence than Christianity has been in only 1000 of its 2000 years. That includes people who commit acts in the name of Hinduism or Christianity, whether anyone would consider them "true" followers or not.

Ghandi saw the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Hinduism as being very similar. He didn't see Christ as the sole Savior of mankind, and neither do any other Hindus, although you can find pictures of Jesus in the homes of many Hindus. This is also why Ghandi declined the "offers" from many missionaries to convert to Christianity. He also died with the name of Lord Rama, and not Jesus, on his lips.

Ghandi's ideas of nonviolent resistance found inspiration in several religions, although mainly from the Hindu ideal of Ahimsa, which was also adopted by Buddhists and Jains.

I would agree that India has given birth to the most peaceful religions in the world, (and also the most religions any country has ever given birth to.)

 

[Fiendishjester]

Hardly a trustworthy source.
The problem is that somebody else will come in and do it by force. If the American natives hadn't been "conquered" by Christians, they'd have been conquered by people even more unfriendly. That is what people are too short-sighted to note.

Rad

Wow, that's quite some speculation there, Rad. Who else would have conquered the Native Americans if not the Christians? (Yes, I do classify it as "conquer" and it was most definitely by force.) I don't think anyone else was even in a position to do so during that time period, or even afterwards. Secondly, I doubt it's possible to be more "unfriendly" to the Native Americans than the Christians were during their direct and indirect genocide of those people. They gave them diseases, cheated them out of their land for almost nothing, forced them to live on reservations, killed any who refused to obey them (hence "by force"), raped their women, and used their men as slaves. Their pitiful condition today is all a result of Christian invasion. I don't think it gets much worse than that.

 

[Proud Hindu]

No.

Rad

Okay, my mistake.

True. Hinduism has been less violent in its well over 3000 years of existence than Christianity has been in only 1000 of its 2000 years. That includes people who commit acts in the name of Hinduism or Christianity, whether anyone would consider them "true" followers or not.

Ghandi saw the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Hinduism as being very similar. He didn't see Christ as the sole Savior of mankind, and neither do any other Hindus, although you can find pictures of Jesus in the homes of many Hindus. This is also why Ghandi declined the "offers" from many missionaries to convert to Christianity. He also died with the name of Lord Rama, and not Jesus, on his lips.

Ghandi's ideas of nonviolent resistance found inspiration in several religions, although mainly from the Hindu ideal of Ahimsa, which was also adopted by Buddhists and Jains.

I would agree that India has given birth to the most peaceful religions in the world, (and also the most religions any country has ever given birth to.)

Exactly!

 

[sijo]

That is completely wrong.

"Yoga is said to be the oneness of breath, mind, and senses, and the abandonment of all states of existence."—Maitrî-Upanishad (6.25)

"Yoga is the separation (viyoga) of the Self from the World-Ground (prakriti)."—Râja-Mârtanda (1.1)

"Yoga is said to be the unity of exhalation and inhalation and of blood and sperm, as well as the union of sun and moon and of the individual psyche with the transcendental Self."— Yoga-Shikhâ-Upanishad (1.68-69)


Most people find relief with Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, Kali or Durga among others; and all of them are the eternal and uncreated Brahman.


Gandhi died with the name of Lord Rama on his lips. So I guess he ended up in the right place after all.

I just quoted what I felt in our Dojo. As I informed you, I am a Christian and not interested in Yoga. So I felt from the words of our Sensai that a yogi is searching truth in nature.

Further, I don't think the yoga we are practicing is not in its pure form. Because yoga would take hours. But so far as our purpose is concerned, we just have a meditation class with instructions from Sensai for 45 minutes and as a continuation, we move to San Chii - a mixture of Chinese Acupuncture and animal styles of Kung Fu. But in real Yoga, the yogi would be in high relief and concentration after yoga. He would not move fast anywhere from the state of being a yogi. So I would not argue that my words are sharply true.

I think, it clarifies the allegations.

sijo.

 

[traveller]

I would agree that India has given birth to the most peaceful religions in the world, (and also the most religions any country has ever given birth to.)

hmmm i wonder if thats how the People of Gujarat and kashmir feel?

 

[PhoenixDown]

I tend to view religion as but a path to God with the different religions as the roads themselves.

Actually, I tend to think that ones own spiritual path is ones own road to god and that road is unique for the individual. No one person, regardless of the religion, believe the same exact thing or give the same wieght and merit to the same scriptures.

 

[radorth]

Wow, that's quite some speculation there, Rad. Who else would have conquered the Native Americans if not the Christians? (Yes, I do classify it as "conquer" and it was most definitely by force.) I don't think anyone else was even in a position to do so during that time period, or even afterwards. .

Huh? You're saying if the English Christians had not gotten here first, nobody else would have either? Is that you logic?

Secondly, I doubt it's possible to be more "unfriendly" to the Native Americans than the Christians were during their direct and indirect genocide of those people. They gave them diseases, cheated them out of their land for almost nothing, forced them to live on reservations, killed any who refused to obey them (hence "by force"), raped their women, and used their men as slaves. Their pitiful condition today is all a result of Christian invasion. I don't think it gets much worse than that

I see, and some non-Christian Japanese or Germans would have been nicer to them. Well, believe whatever you like. You seem intent on blaming Christians, to the point of pretending nobody else could have conquered them or given them a disease.

Speaking of speculation.

Rad

 

[PhoenixDown]

To answer your retorical question -- Its widely believed that Columbus wasn't the first to find America and that visitors, mostly Nordic with some being asian, came to the America's long before Columbus did. The America's however did not have much that was worth trading for given the distance they had to travel.

 

[Proud Hindu]

hmmm i wonder if thats how the People of Gujarat and kashmir feel?

Gujarat was a rare, isolated case. And in Kashmir, it is the Jihadis that perpretrate most of the crimes.

When India was partitioned into India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh,

Pakistan was 88% Muslim, 10% Hindu.
Bangladesh was 69% Muslim, 31% Hindu
India was 12% Muslim, 87% Hindu

Now,

Pakistan is 97% Muslim, <1% Hindu.
Bangladesh is 88% Muslim, 11% Hindu
India is 14% Muslim, 82% Hindu

India has had 3 Muslim Presidents, Pakistan has had no Hindu ones.

 

[vajradhara]

India has had 3 Muslim Presidents, Pakistan has had none.

i know what you're saying... but Pakistan has a Muslim president now... i think that you mean to say that Pakistan has not had a Hindu president though India has had three Muslim presidents.

which, of course, quite clearly demonstrates the point you were making, in my view.

 

[Proud Hindu]

Lol, sorry Mistype

 

[Fiendishjester]

Huh? You're saying if the English Christians had not gotten here first, nobody else would have either? Is that you logic?

I see, and some non-Christian Japanese or Germans would have been nicer to them. Well, believe whatever you like. You seem intent on blaming Christians, to the point of pretending nobody else could have conquered them or given them a disease.

Speaking of speculation.

Rad

Well, first of all, I am intent on blaming Christians, only in the sense that whether or not other people would have conquered the natives, the Christians did. Even if others would have conquered the natives, that does not excuse the Christians or decrease the weight of their disgraceful, disgusting actions in any way.

Second, there is no evidence pointing to any other group even considering interacting with these natives or that land in any way. If there was, there is still no evidence which states that other groups would have inevitably colonized them, and could not have entered into a different kind of relationship with the natives. Other groups have interacted with each other in very cooperative and mutually beneficial ways in terms of trade or diplomacy.

I am not saying that these Christians and only these Christians could have done what they did, what I am saying is that it was not inevitable for the natives to be forcefully conquered by anyone.

 

[Fiendishjester]

India has had 3 Muslim Presidents, Pakistan has had no Hindu ones.

Yeah. Not even America can boast such a diverse government. I give much credit to India for their acceptance and tolerance of so many different groups.