Vasu Gokaraju Blog

Do Yoga Without Losing Your Dignity

2009-12-15T07:25:00.000-08:00

If you have the root of Hinduism, then the stem is Hinduism, and the flower is Hinduism.

-- Satguru Bodhinatha Veylanswami, Hinduism Today

Yoga is a gift to humanity from Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism). Thanks to technology, the world is learning about this scientific method of curing mind and body without any side effects.

Coming to the main point, recently I have come across "Christian Yoga" and "Muslim Yoga'. When I dig deep into it, I could not believe how religious organizations have exploited the ignorance of people. After reading several articles and opinions of the people, I felt that it is started in the West and now some Asians are also doing the same.

New Names to Yoga Postures:
The issue is, every Yoga posture has a Sanskrit name as it is originated from Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism). But people are not willing to accept Yoga if the original Sanskrit names are used while practicing the postures. It is not the issue of difficulty to pronounce these original names but it is the issue of religion. The name of the Yoga posture must be changed to something that does NOT sound like Hindu and only then people can practice Yoga without hurting their religious beliefs and personal pride.

First, Christians said that Yoga posters are demonic and cannot be practiced by "true" christian. Then they published Christian Yoga books with the same Yoga postures but different names. Now comes the Muslims. They first issued "Yoga Fatwa" banning muslims from practicing Yoga. Now they have released Muslim Yoga books suggesting the same techniques with different muslim fitting names. It is clear that they are trying to fool someone, but the question is whom they are trying to fool?

Here is my suggestion to those people. You could simply say "I practice yoga and heck with Hindus". Even your enemy would respect it as you are at least frank about it. But I don't think even your mom can support this self inflicting business of name changing. If you were to be right, eating at a Hindu restaurant should break your religious sentiments in a single bite.

Yoga in Secular Institutes:
As if that is not enough, even some schools are following the same habits. If the original Sanskrit names of the Yoga postures are pronounced in the school premises, it makes the school non-secular. But changing the name and doing the same Yoga posture some how justifies it. I don't know what kind of message the kids get from this justification. School is not the entire world. When those kids come into society, they will realize how twisted the school administration was OR the parents who forced the school to do it.

Adulteration of Yoga:
While we are in the context, I want to mention one more point about twisting Yoga to fit your ego. I have noticed that people are not happy with chanting AUM as prescribed by Yoga but instead they want to chant a sound that is religiously acceptable. If you are in that twisted mindset, you are the best candidate to be a future terrorist. The sound AUM is an integral part of Yoga and when practiced as suggested, it stimulates your body especially the brain.

As if that is not enough, some Hindu groups are even responding to these queries and giving conflicting responses without realizing that they are falling into the Western trap. Yoga has been practiced by other beliefs like Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism in its original form. But why these Christians and Muslims are finding it difficult to practice Yoga as it is? Why some of these Hindu groups are trying to convince Christians and Muslims as if Yoga cannot survive without them?

It is clearly stated in the Pathanjali Yoga Sutras that one should say AUM. But some prominent Hindu institutions are encouraging non-Hindus to use other religiously acceptable sounds like Amen or Allah instead of AUM. On what authority these Hindu organizations are making these changes? If the book says AUM you preach AUM. The only reason these Hindu organizations are making such blunders is to impress their non-Hindu followers. If that is not true, then I would like to hear what you got to say!

Religions or Spiritual Practice:
Now, here comes some “intellectuals” who try to conclude whether Yoga is Religions or Spiritual practice. The only reason why some religious groups in the West are trying to create this thought in the public is to separate Yoga from its roots. This deliberate action is needed for them in order to accommodate their non-Hindu followers without hurting their religious sentiments. Publishing the “Christian Yoga” and “Muslim Yoga” books is the proof. Now Western media joined the bandwagon and has been publishing numerous articles on whether Yoga is Religious or Spiritual practice without even mentioning the word Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma.

If you are one of those who is trying to figure out whether Yoga is Religion or Spiritual, please read this short story and figure out where you stand. The question is, are you knowledgeable enough to discuss whether Yoga is Religious or Spiritual practice? Do you know the whole picture on this subject? If you are new to Hinduism and your primary source of information on this subject is your local religious head, then your dog has more information to tell you.

In conclusion, you are most welcome to practice Yoga as it is but changing its Name or Form to fit your ignorance does not hurt anybody but yourself.

Why Hindus worship millions of gods?

2008-10-09T06:32:00.000-07:00

In recent days I have noticed many articles/blogs mentioning about multiple gods in Hinduism. So, here is my simple explanation of how to understand the concept of multiple gods.

Even in Hinduism, there is only one god but for the sake of people like you and me, they have created the idea of multiple gods. I will explain this with an example.

At room temperature you call this magical substance Water.
You heat the Water and call it Steam which magically disappears into thin air.
When Water falls from sky it is called Rain.
When Water shoots out from the ground, you call it fountain.
When Water freezes slightly, you call it Snow...when it freezes like a rock you call it Ice.
You mix Water with cup of sugar and couple of pesticides and call it Pepsi/Coke.
When the Water comes out of your kitchen tap, it is called regular water. But the same water is treated as Holy Water if it is given to you by the priest.
You stand in the beautiful beaches of Goa in Bharat (India) and look at the ocean and call it Hindu Maha Sagar (Indian Ocean). You stand in New York, USA and look at the SAME body of water and call it Atlantic Ocean. Though it is one body of water, we call it with 4 different names based on the location from where we are looking at it.

I can fill 10 pages like this but coming to the main point...

So, how the above example explains multiple gods in Hinduism? Let me explain that with examples as well.

According to Hinduism, if something/someone is helping you to survive, those things and those ones are Gods.

The Gods that you can see and feel:

The Wind, Fire, Sky, Earth and Water are gods because without them one cannot exist.
Cow is god because Hindus depend a lot on Cow for its milk, for dung as manure, for urine as pesticide, for bullocks to do farming.
Nature is another god because you need the cooperation of Nature to survive. In the West, they call it Mother Nature. Looks like they took a page from Hindu book.
River is another god because it helps you survive.
I have a friend who is a software engineer. He treats his computer as God because he believes that computer is the one that feeds his family.
...the list goes forever

The Gods that you can only experience:

Life is full of obstacles. So, Hindus are smart enough to create a God who can control all those obstacles. That god's name is Ganesh. Hindus pray Ganesh to remove obstacles in their way.
Hindus have a Goddess who controls wealth and that Goddess name is Lakshmi. Likewise Saraswathi is Goddess of knowledge/education.
Snakes are like another god to my father because he is a farmer and he needs snakes to control rats in the fields.
...the list goes forever.

So, the Hindu understanding of God is totally unique. Now the question comes, why do Hindus treat those things as Gods, why not treat them as something else?

It is very simple. When you talk to a stranger, you might be little careless when compared to the language that you use when you talk with your own parents. Because you behave well with people you care. On the same concept, the wise Hindus started propagating these elements as gods so that people respect them and save them. That is the reason Trees, Animals, Objects are treated as Gods so that they will be protected and respected by the powerful human beings. In return they help humans survive longer.

So, if it is okay for you to call the same Water with different names based on its location/form/behavior, it should be okay for Hindus to call the same God with different names as they wish.

Thank you,
Vasu Gokaraju

The need of super-rich spiritual Gurus in India!

2008-04-29T09:26:00.000-07:00

As a Bharatiya and as a Hindu, I see the great need of super-rich Hindu Gurus in present India. I am not talking about Gurus who are only popular in local crowd. I am talking about the high-profile Gurus with great financial power.

Typically a Guru is seen as one-way bridge from Ignorance to Enlightenment. Since I am not into spirituality, I see super-rich Gurus as a two-way bridge between rich and poor.

Bridge between rich and poor:
Well, not much explanation is needed here as the sub-heading is self explanatory. Lot of rich people make rich donations to AoL for whatever reason and the money is being spent for the benefit of poor people. In return, the donors get well needed and well deserved satisfaction or mental peace (whatever you call it).

The point that One needs to know is the grand scale of the social service activities and the responsibility taken by the AoL organization. When a good task is done in a grand scale, the ripples of it awakens the enthusiasm in people. This enthusiasm is what we need to bring change in our mother land Bharat.

Why only Hindu Gurus:
Because I have not seen any Gurus from other religions taking up social challenges. Christian organizations in India have been getting billions of dollars in the name of charity. But I have not seen any project that is done for the benefit of general public. They have established good number of schools to expand their faith. That is called business not social service. Coming to Muslim organizations, where is all the Gulf money going? If there is any project done by Muslim organizations, it should be visible to the public. I don't see any. The only significant and self-less projects that I see are listed below.

Great works done by super-rich Hindu Gurus:

Satya Sai Baba Water Project :: Super Specialty Hospital :: Sri Sri Schools :: Rural Development :: Sri Sri University :: Swami Ramdev Patanjali Yog Peeth

When it comes to super-rich Gurus, they have the well needed money power to get things done. The guts behind the success of AoL is the largest volunteer base and financial strength. There are many other Gurus who limited themselves to teach spirituality. But money is what allowed Sri Sri to reach out millions of needy people.

My wish list:
I wish Sri Sri would help Hindus to take control of their temples from the government. When Masques and Churches are controlled by religious organizations, why the Indian government still wants to control Hindu temples. I think it is time to speed up the "take control of our temples" movement and request Sri Sri for help to achieve this.

It is my wish that we Hindus should have vote bank to counter the tactics of the political parties that play vote banks politics. In a multi cultured country like India, vote banks are not desired at all. But to counter the enemy, I feel the great need of Hindu vote bank by next election in 2009.

It is my wish that Sri Sri would raise a strong voice against illegal religious conversions in India. Religious conversions are not good at all for the stability of our mother land Bharat. Sri Sri had volunteered to resolve issues between LTTE and Sri Lanka Governemnt. If religious conversion are not stopped, India will have similar conflicts in near future. To avoid such situation, I wish Sri Sri would initiate a movement in his mother land.

Thank you,
Vasu Gokaraju

Is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar a Con Man? -- Vasu Gokaraju reply

2008-04-13T15:01:00.000-07:00

Dear Nu,

I came across your letter to your brother about Art of Living. I found some of the points in your letter are interesting so thought of sharing my views.

Since it is posted on the web by you, it is not personal anymore. Because claiming it as personal email would close some doors to comment on your views.

I don’t know what you both had discussed before and I don’t know what you were asked to expect at ArtOfLiving.org website but it seems you only took what you want. My point is that you would have given much more matured opinion had you considered the following points.

Your second point “breathing is at the core of pretty much most Indian meditation practices……”

Here you are too quick to jump over the waters instead of jumping into the water to find the facts. Yes, breathing is the core but each breathing technique has specific advantages. You do not seem to know much about breathing and for sure anything about Sudarshana Kriya, so let us leave it there.

You have talked about packing and selling the stuff. You should have thought one more minute before comparing Sri Sri with other profit based companies. Yoga is very old practice and it has bee available to public for free. Even now there are less popular gurus who teach same Yoga for free in India. Now AoL commercialized its version of Yoga and people are paying for it. It is either people have lot of money to throw out OR there must be something new in it. Whatever it is, now there are two version of Yoga, FREE and PRICED.

So, if you want to compare apples to apples, let us ask HP, COKE and NIKE to release same quality FREE and PRICED products and see how many people would buy the priced products?

You have cautioned your brother about not having objective validity of your opinion. I am not sure whether this applies to all the points in the article or just to the paragraph above it. You have all the freedom to come to an opinion without objective validity, but unfortunately your letter is posted in public domain by you thus not personal anymore. So, I excused myself and asked the following.

About the third point, it seems you have lost your rational here. Who documented the questions that were asked over the thousands of years? Who gave answers to those millions of people and who documented those answers? Where did Sri Sri find those questions and answers? By the way, some answers change as time changes. Forget about thousands of years, few hundred years ago, the answer to the Black Plague was Death. Now the answer to the same question is vaccine.

About the secrets of “new age” gurus, you must be kidding in your FIRST point. If you seriously think that charisma and long hair are the first qualifications to become a guru, it only shows your ignorance of the subject.

Your second opinion about gurus is that they are good marketers. If you are talking about Indian gurus, you proved your ignorance one more time. Have you heard about Sri Aurobindo, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Dayananda Saraswati etc. What kind of marketing techniques did they use?

You also said that the market demands easy answers and quick results. Can you given me an example of a hard question and the easy answer given by Sri Sri? Coming to quick results, one has to do Sudarshana Kriya at least for several months to get ride of diabetes, but one can get quick relief by taking a modern medicine. Which one looks quicker to you?

Read this to find out whether Sri Sri had talked at the United Nations building. I never visited UN General Assembly halls but it seems big enough. This does not look like general assembly hall but must be somewhere else in the building. .

About the “sound bite”. AoL was started in 1982 in India and went to many countries before coming across UN. It was certified as an official United Nations NGO in 1994. So, one can safely assume that there was solid 8 to 10 years of service before coming onto UN’s radar.

See this link on AoL web site. Coming to the point, your examples of COKE and NIKE does not apply here. People accepted AoL well before UN “sound bite”. But the UN sound bite definitely helped to expand later on.

About the few dozen gurus who “packaged” the stuff, who are they? I guess one can talk anything if he/she does not have to worry about objective validity. About the $250 course fee, Art of Living only teaches 3 breathing techniques and Sudarshana Kriya is one of them. People can download another prominent Yoga teacher Swami Ramdev’s free video from YouTube and practice. Swami Ramdev teaches 7 good pranayamam techniques. But people are paying $250 probably because they must have seen something more valuable than $250.

Thanks for your time.

Vasu Gokaraju

My take on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

2008-04-07T18:27:00.000-07:00

I have collected some points from people who were critical of Sri Sri and provided my views on those issues.

Critique	My Response
Sri Sri Commercialized Spirituality, Yoga and Pranayamam.	Last time when I checked, people were still selling spiritual and religious books for price. Ayyappa cassettes are among the best sellers. People have to buy pooja tickets in some temples. I guess that is enough to understand the point. AoL needs funds to run the organization and for the social service activities. On the other hand, there are many Gurus who offer free services and people are free to go there. There are many books on the topic and people can read them on their own and get enlightened.
Sri Sri (Art of Living) robs people by charging hefty amounts for Pranayamam, which is suppose to be free.	Sounds like Robin Hood. See where the money is going. But the important point is why are you ignoring the social service being done by AoL? It seems you are only interested in blaming some one.
Sudarshana Kriya is not new and its effects can be achieved by doing other Pranayamam techniques.	If so, why no one had claimed it before? Please give the specific names of the techniques if you know what you are talking.
Sudarshana Kriya is patented in the USA. Never seen a spiritual guru with patent rights.	Sudarshana Kriya is Sri Sri's own invention, so there is nothing wrong in patenting his work. Sri Sri also teaches spirituality to those who is interested. What you are saying is that these two cannot be mixed. You might have your own ideas of how gurus should be but it does not have to be that way. By the way, have you seen a guru doing unconditional social service throughout the world?
Sri Sri and his guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had disputes.	Disputes on what? Does it really matter now? See how Sri Sri is resolving disputes.
Though it is Bharatiya (Indian) tradition to proudly mention one's guru's name, Sri Sri never mentions his guru's name. Even today, his website (ArtOfLiving.org) does not mention about his guru.	Sri Sri cannot be at fault just because his guru's name is not mentioned. ArtOfLiving.org website talks about so many other things that are truly useful to millions of people.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi scolded Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in public.	Where and when did this happened? What was the reason?
Sri Sri distanced himself from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as Mahesh Yogi became unpopular.	When did Maharishi Mahesh Yogi became unpopular and how did Sri Sri distanced himself?
Though Maharishi Mahesh Yogi rejected Sri Sri, after Maharishi 's death, Sri Sri, in one of his books, mentioned that he was a close associate to Maharishi. Since Maharishi is dead already, there is no one to question him about it.	So many unresolved points before coming to this conclusion. Better leave it alone.
Sri Sri and his cult are so influential that they even nominated him for Nobel Peace Prize.	Thank god he did not get that disgraced award. See this video and tell yourself whether he really needs recognition from a biased organization.
Sri Sri has hidden agenda and he has close links with Sangh Parivar.	Either these poor guys did not realize it Or you are desperate to say something.
I hate all these Gurus from India. They are nothing but cheaters.	If all Muslims are terrorists, then all Indian gurus are cheaters.
Sri Sri offers Sudarshana Kriya as the remedy to the problems of all the people. Stress of an Iraqi is grater than the stress of an American.	If Tylenol (head-ache medicine) can effect the same on both of them, why not Sudarshana Kriya. Anyways, see what these Iraqis are saying. I hope they are not saying it for fun.
Sri Sri travels by private jets and lives in costly hotels.	Firstly, what is wrong in it and secondly what do you think he should do?
Sri Sri occupied Karnataka government land.	No one can grab land from government. If he really did, then it is time to change Karnataka government.
Swami Ramdev, who is a prominent Yoga guru publicly asked people not to practice Sudarshana Kriya as it is not good for them.	Please, see this video. (skip the first 3 minutes)
Why Ravi Shankar needs two 'Sri's in his name. Helping himself?	Don't know and probably does not matter to these people who have real issues to worry about.
I have attended AoL course and it was great. But I hate the teacher for insisting us many times to bring our friends to AoL classes.	Well, you came to know about AoL because someone brought it to your attention directly or indirectly.
Sri Sri is a clever con-man.	Good for him. Even the Russians and Americans could not figure it out.
Sri Sri collects funds to support poor children and stays in expensive hotels and travel in first class.	When a person like Sri Sri comes to town, many dignitaries visit him. Probably it is not fair in Sri Sri's part to stay in a motel and expect them to visit him there. If you are expecting him to travel in economy class, why not on a cargo ship which is probably cheaper. How do you draw a line between moderate and expensive?
Sri Sri is cashing on people's weakness and stuffing himself.	Sri Sri has no personal life. He lives in a huge ashram with lots of people around. No wine cellar, no antique collection. No cool shades, no wrist watch no gold chains and no armani stuff. He does not drive Ferrari or Rolls Royce. No yacht, no private jets or helicopters yet. No country club, golf club membership. No vacation and no weekend parties (except annoying Satsangs). He mingles with terrorists, naxalites, you, me and the weak people that you have mentioned. Not married and no one to inherit. I heard he sleeps 4 hours a day. Do you really think that he needs to cheat someone to live such life?
Though AoL is registered as non-profit organization, it executes like a true profit oriented business.	Yoga is very old practice and it has bee available to public for free. Even now there are others who teach same Yoga for free in Bharat (India). Now AoL charges for its yoga classes and people are paying for it. So, there are two versions of Yoga, FREE and PRICED. Now let us ask profit based companies to release same quality FREE and PRICED products and see how many people would buy the priced products? Also, don't forget to bring the list of schools that the profit oriented businesses built. If you don't have the schools list, at least bring the list of villages that are adopted by the profit oriented companies.

Sri Sri is just an option in your life. He does not have to prove anything to anyone. It is like either you take it or leave it.

Criticism is good. Criticism followed by a Suggestion is helpful.

Thank you for your time.
Vasu Gokaraju

My experience with Sudarshana Kriya

2008-04-06T15:11:00.000-07:00

I have recently come to know about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and the Art of Living foundation during my Jan 2008 visit to India. I heard many great things about Sudarshana Kriya, so attended the Basic course in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India. My interest was to reduce my cholesterol levels without medicines.

The AoL teacher was very friendly and knowledgeable person. During the course, people reported of having some kind of visions after doing Sudarshana Kriya. When it comes to my experience, I felt like someone was poking my feet with nails. I had that feeling for the first 3 days of Kriya and it was gone forever. I was not sure whether it was because of Sudharshana Kriya or because I had to sit in Vajrasan before doing Sudarshana Kriya.

What made me addicted to Sudarshana Kriya is that the 8 long deep breaths that you take after completing Sudarshana Kriya. It takes about 6 minutes for me to complete these 8 breaths. During those 6 minutes, my entire body stays numb which I seem to enjoy very much.

Cholesterol:

Coming to cholesterol, I took Lipid Profile and Comp. Metabolic tests during my physicals on May 7th, 2007. My Triglycerides, Cholesterol and Glucose readings were above their higher levels. My doctor prescribed me zocor but I never took the pills and there was no change in my food habits.

So after doing 20 days of Sudarshana Kriya, I took Lipid Profile and Comp. Metabolic tests again on Feb 28th 2008. The results show that my cholesterol is down by 23 points and Triglycerides are down by 57 points. Even the Glucose levels have come down by 30 points, for a change. Though I am happy at the situation, I want to take another test at the end of April as the gap between my previous two tests is too long.

Anyways, Sudarshana Kriya seems to be making differences in peoples lives.

Thank you,

Vasu Gokaraju

How genuine ...

2008-04-06T14:46:00.000-07:00

I have recently come to know about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and the Art of Living foundation during my Feb 2008 visit to India. I have attended the Basic and Advanced courses. After my return to the USA, I started reading many reviews/articles about AoL and majority of them are favorable to AoL. One of the articles that caught my attention is "How genuine is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar?".

Click here to see the original article

The article was at least prepared with less emotional feelings, when compared with others. So, I took time to respond to the article.

Click here to see my response to Mr. Jonas

Once you read both the above and still interested to read further, following is the response that I got from Mr. Jones.

Click here to see Mr. Jonas' response to my comments

Now I am due to respond back to Mr. Jonas. Hummm, it may take a while though.

Thank you,

Vasu

How genuine ... (2 deep)

2008-04-06T14:45:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Jonas Slaats,

Thank you for publishing the article “How genuine is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar?”, I have recently came to know about AoL and started searching for content about the organization. 90% of the content is on his achievements and your article is one of few who criticized the organization and their practices.

By the way, my name is Vasu Gokaraju and I am from Andhra Pradesh, India. I have been living in the USA for last 10 years.

The article title “How genuine is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar?” sounded very encouraging as I was looking for some critiques, but at the end it left me mixed opinions. Here is my feedback.

The paragraph numbers that I have mentioned in my further discussions are referring the article published at
http://www.yunusnews.com/node/486

--------------------

To be frank, I never studied about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi before. Since it is mentioned in your article, I searched on the web and found the following page.

http://www.mahalo.com/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi

If you are basing such allegations to conclude Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as fraud, you have very weak argument. In your article, you have mentioned that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi became popular because of Beatles. As you have mentioned, his fame did not go away, even the Beatles left him. I don’t know about you but it tells me that his fame has nothing to do with Beatles. I am not discussing further as it is not the main topic.

I have visited ArtOfLiving.com website and noticed that they did not provide anything about Sri Sri’s pre-guru life. I don’t know why they did not mention about it but that should not put them at fault. But when I came to know about Sri Sri first time from my sister, she did mention about his association with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, so it is not quite hidden from Indian public at least.

Paragraph 6…: When you are after finding the truth, you cannot use guess work basing on the rumors on the Internet.

Paragraph 7…: It is hard to believe what Sri Sri achieved at early age. But if you look into other gurus that you seem to attest, they have similar abnormal stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi#Spiritual_quest_begins_in_childhood
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18716/BIOGRAPHY-OF-SWAMI-VIVEKANANDA

Paragraph 8…: Can you provide more details about what is the name of the “other yoga technique” that was suppose to be the original of Sudarshana Kriya? If those “Others” are familiar with the technique, they should know the name of the technique. In Yoga, each technique/posture has a name.

Paragraph 9…: I do not see anything wrong in registering the Sudarshana Kriya brand name. Sri Sri needs money for his charity activities so he needs a way to generate revenue. As Sri Sri said, “charity work can’t start from an empty bowl”.

As you know, the Sudarshana Kirya is patented in the USA. If you believe that this knowledge is not Sri Sri’s invention, you can disqualify his patent by providing the proof. That not only helps your frustration but also saves the world from another fraudulent Indian Guru.

Paragraph 10…: What breathing exercises the Sudarshana Kriya is centered around? Can you name those breathing exercises? Generalization might not help here?

Paragraph 11…: I do not know who those are but, if someone can experience the same effects of Sudharshana Kriya by doing “other” yoga breathing exercises, so be it. If there was such an alternative to SK, the original article would not be that lengthy. I feel that you are trying to prove a point that does not exist.

Paragraph 12…: Here also you have failed to name the other meditation techniques. Generalization only weakens any argument. Yoga/Meditation practices are very old and freely taught before. Now people are paying to learn Sudarshana Kriya.

Paragraph 13…: This paragraph did not offer anything new. Since Sudarshana Kriya is nothing but a form of breathing exercise it gives same effects. Sudarshana Kriya is the product of AoL and naturally they talk good about it. I do not know why you find it difficult.

Paragraph 14…: I do not know why you had to bring Sri Ramdev into this article. But coming to the point, I have personally met and talked to a 50 year old cancer patient in Vijayawada, A.P., India. She is an attorney by profession. It seems that her doctors told her that she only had 6 months to live. Now, after 5 years, she is still alive and leading a healthy and active life. Well, since she is an attorney, let us not take her word at its face value, just kidding. But she turned her house into an ashram for local Sudarshana Kriya practitioners. She dedicated her time and resources to propagate SK. As if it is not enough, her husband, who is a government servant, also bought into this by the facts. So, not having a scientific research on Sudarshana Kriya is not a big issue for me to believe its positive effects on Cancer. Surprisingly, less people are questioning the English medicine though their scientific predictions are not exactly true.

Paragraph 15 and 16…: I see you are desperate to prove that Sudarshana Kriya is no different than any other meditation technique. You should complain if AoL claims that none of other meditation techniques work.

Paragraph 17…: I personally convinced that Sudarshana Kriya can cure/delay cancer effects on human body. But you seemed to be research oriented person and you can understand the following articles better than I do.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050831071025.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

Now and then I see reports that a new research proved that previous findings were wrong. I do not know why you are so desperate about scientific research when it only helps to understand things up to certain extent.

Paragraph 18…: It is too technical for me, so no comments.

Paragraph 19, 20 and 21…: Again you have failed to provide the names of other breathing exercises.

Paragraph 22 and 23…: Yes, it is not very clear why Sri Sri had to initiate another organization.

Paragraph 24…: I am not sure what is the point here. To me, AoL generates lot of revenue thus made it possible to expand in many directions. Most of the service is being done by volunteers, I believe. Did I miss your point?

Paragraph 25…: AoL claims that SK is the medicine for depression and stress. If the outcome of all the mentioned problems specified in this paragraph is depression and stress, what is wrong in offering SK as treatment? What is your point? Should the SK not be offered as single treatment for all?

Paragraph 26…: I think it is a good question to direct to people who made the claims.

Paragraph 27 and 28…: I spend lot of time and resources in social service and I know what it takes to execute a public event. I checked artofliving.com website but could not find what you have mentioned in this paragraph. They have specified about their services in various countries but no mention of a specific number.

Paragraph 29…: Are you expecting him to engage in different type of discussions? If so, you should have mentioned what they are.

Paragraph 30…: Same point is repeated with frustration in this paragraph. If the same Tylenol could treat headache of American housewives and the people of war torn Iraq, why not SK?

Paragraph 31…: Here I feel you are running out of ideas. Are you in any way suggesting that encouraging dialog between the parties is not a good idea? Gandhi engaged civil disobedience to kick british out of Bharat. But here the Iraqis should live together in their country. I see Lot of difference.

Paragraph 32…: Gandhi and his practices were uncalled-for in this discussion. How do you know what would have happened had Gandhi asked people to meditate to get ride of their anger? You are talking about conditions that you are not familiar with. Let us focus on Sri Sri.

Paragraph 33 and 34…: So Gandhi was nominated for Nobel Peace prize 5 times and did not get it. So, where do you think is the problem…..Gandhi or the Noble Peace Prize Committee. I hope you are not suggesting that Gandhi’s non-violence and civil disobedience were not peaceful enough to win the peace prize. Guess who won the Noble prize, Henry Kissinger.

Again, I don’t see your point in comparing Sri Sri with Gandhi. Did Sri Sri ever said that he has done more than Gandhi did OR is it just you trying to make a point that fits your argument?

Paragraph 35…: I cannot stop noticing your hurry to conclude Maharishi as bogus. Is there any scientific way to prove that those who complained on Maharishi were telling the truth? If word of mouth is good enough for you to determine Maharishi as bogus, why not apply the same rule in believing Sudarshana Kriya. In case of Sudarshana Kriya, you seem to be interested in scientific research.

Paragraph 36, 37 and 38…: It would be helpful if you could elaborate what part of his practices/teachings make him criminal or beyond?

Paragraph 39…: I am sure the world is full of intelligent people and they can distinguish between good and bad. I know you are trying to talk for the world but not everyone in the world may accept with your opinion.

Paragraph 40…: I pray all the gods to work against Sri Sri getting so called Noble “Peace” prize. It is my opinion that there is no greater insult to Sri Sri than receiving Nobel prize.

Some points from the follow up discussions on the original article:
(further discussion can be found at http://www.yunusnews.com/node/506)

I could not stop noticing that you have addressed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as “Ravi” and “Shankar” in your article. I understand that you are not a big believer of Sri Sri but you could have shown minimum curtsy by addressing him as Sri Sri or SSRS as millions of people in the world believe in him.

In one of your responses, you have tried to bring the point that AoL did not spend any money that it had collected in 2004, in the USA. Well, as you are aware, AoL has been raising funds from more than 140 countries for more than 20 years. Probably they used funds raised from other countries in that year. You could have left this topic out as you did not have full information. Because you have been bashing AoL for not having enough proof on SK.

You have mentioned about Sri Sri misusing Gandhi’s concept of non-violence. I did a search on the web but could not find even one countable reference on the subject. I found some third party sites mentioning that Sri Sri is the next person after Gandhi in uplifting the poor. If this is the information you are basing on, this topic is not even worth discussing further.

Since you liked the methods of Gandhi, I have very fitting questions for you. During the Indian freedom movement, Gandhi had collected funds from people. I know this because my grandparents told me that Gandhi visited our neighboring village and almost every family in surrounding villages gave gold, silver and cash to their capacity. Gandhi never took accountability nor provided transparency in funds manipulation. When Gandhi does not even use private vehicle to travel, why does he need funds? What happened to all the millions of rupees? What freedom activities were conducted with that money? I am not suggesting Gandhi used all the money for his personal benefits, but the funds were collected on his name so I am curious what answers people like you could offer? Because, the reasons Sri Sri has been presenting to the public have striking similarities to Gandhi’s.

Here I have few questions out of topic. You are one of the editors of this website and this website seems to cover many things happening in India. But what I have noticed is that there is not even one article about the atrocities the Christian missionaries have been doing in India.

I am sure you know how the missionaries raise money under the name of helping poor people in poor countries like India. But they never mention about how the money is being used. They do not mention about how they abuse the religious freedom in India and force people into Christianity. They do not mention how they trick people into Christianity under the name of service or miracle.

The website also publishes very interesting articles on Islam and its intolerance. But surprisingly it does not even find one article that criticizes how the Christians are systematically killing/converting people from other religions. Initially this website seemed neutral but not until I started searching for articles on Christian activities. Here I am not providing any links to Christian atrocities in India as you can find them very easily, if you are really interested know.

If possible, please publish my comments under follow up discussions.

Thank you for your time.

Vasu Gokaraju

How genuine ... (3 deep)

2008-04-06T14:44:00.000-07:00

Dear Vasu Gokaraju,

As you answered quite extensively to my article, it took me some time to reply to everything. Also, i am currently not heavily maintaining my website. I would like to have more time, but that life has led me in different directions than previously expected (when i started my website). So i must apologize for the long time it took me to finally send you this reply.

Nonetheless, here it is. I have answered on every one of your comments. I hope it is all clear and understandable.

Peaceful regards,

Jonas

***

My answers:

"To be frank, I never studied about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi before. Since it is mentioned in your article, I searched on the web and found the following page. http://www.mahalo.com/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi If you are basing such allegations to conclude Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as fraud, you have very weak argument. In your article, you have mentioned that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi became popular because of Beatles. As you have mentioned, his fame did not go away, even the Beatles left him. I don't know about you but it tells me that his fame has nothing to do with Beatles. I am not discussing further as it is not the main topic."

My answer: This is indeed not the main topic. And the reason my article is quick in deciding that Maharishi wasn't as Maha (great) as he himself or others have claimed, is because the amount of evidence around showing the difference is amazing. After his death it was surprising to see how so many aknowledged mediahouses seemed to 'overlook' all this evidence. On my website i have mentioned that at the time of his death it "took a deep delve into the internet to find an article shedding a less positive light on the founder of the Transcendental Meditation movement" but it was not impossible. On top of it, those articles once again swept all the hagiopgraphy away. For example the last journalist to interview the Maharishi also wrote an article, and since he was the last to have a first hand account of an encounter with the Maharash his story is once again showing well enough why we should not consider the Maharishi as enlighted as he or his followers claim: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512747&in_page_id=1773
About his fame still being there. That is true, but that was not my concern. In any case his association with Beatles did make him an international star. That he remained popular afterwards does take that away. It just goes to show how people can disregard facts for years in a row.

But indeed, he is not our topic, so let's move on.

"I have visited ArtOfLiving.com website and noticed that they did not provide anything about Sri Sri's pre-guru life. I don't know why they did not mention about it but that should not put them at fault."

My answer: I do not know what site you looked at it, but this comes from http://www.artofliving.org/Founder/Biography/tabid/72/Default.aspx: "Often found deep in meditation as a child. At the age of four, astonishes his teachers by reciting the Bhagavad Gita, an ancient Sanskrit scripture / Starts lessons with his first teacher, Pandit Sudhakar Chaturvedi, a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi / Becomes a scholar in Vedic literature and obtains an advanced degree in modern science by the age of 17." This is quite the typical account of his young years you can find on lots of websites – not in the least his own personal website which is closely linked to the one of AOL.

Now about these things some small remarks:

One: As far as i know, the part with Pandit Sudhkar Chaturvedi is fairly new. But new or not, it is remarkable that it is there, stressing the relation with Gandhi – thus trying to show that he is in that tradition. (this is important for our discussion later on)

Two: If you try to show why he is in a certain tradition because of having had somebody as a teacher (A vedic scholar – by the way) why does he not mention his other teacher and Guru (who also claimed to be a vedic scholar)?

Three: Being a Gandhi-scholar myself (as i researched and wrote my graduation dissertation about Gandhi, satyagraha and his fasting. I wrote this dissertation in the Theology Department of the Katholic University of Leuven. You can see that here: http://www.kuleuven.be/nieuws/berichten/2006/thesis/godgeleerdheid.html ) i must also remark that Chaturvedi is not likely to be considered "a close associate". Sure, he witnessed Jallianwala Bagh, and of course he encountered and knew Gandhi personally and was a Gandhian, but that hardly makes him a "close associate" which would be something you'd reserve for people like Abdul Gafar Khan, Nehru, Vinoba, and the like. Not surprisingly so, if you search the net, its only the Sri-Sri-related sites mentioning Chaturvedi as a "close associate".

"But when I came to know about Sri Sri first time from my sister, she did mention about his association with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, so it is not quite hidden from Indian public at least."

My answer: As you later on comment on the further discussion on my article (http://www.yunusnews.com/node/506) you must have read it, and in it i first clearly give some links to websites who provide information about this, and then i add "On top of it, I was actually already aware of this fact since a couple of years (before I read any of these websites) when an Indian acquaintance had told me this as a regular "matter of fact". So I do not see the reason to hide this fact when it is so known." So, you actually just repeat my own observation: it is very known to Indian public.
That is why i argued that there is no sense in hiding it for others. Even more so, it is rather dubious not to mention it, considering the importance Hinduism gives to the guru-disciple relationship.

Of course, it is also a known fact to some Indian public that Maharishi has before publicly renounced and scolded SSRS. On top of it, in the West, as I have said before, Maharishi was not praised everywhere. He was, to say the least, a controversial figure. Two reasons why SSRS might not link himself to the Maharishi.

It is then of course also very telling that although his own websites artofliving.org and srisri.org make no mention of it whatsoever, the office of SSRS was very fast in publishing an article that supposedly came from the hand of SSRS himself about his days as a student with the Maharishi once it was clear that all the other mediaconcerns also reported nice things about him the day that he died. So as long as the guy is still alive you don't mention him in your 'official biography', but when he dies you all of the sudden start saying that he is "a great saint" and that you "have never seen anyone as deep as Maharishi".

http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg114644.html

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/feb/06aol.htm

He even continues by describing how the days he spent as a disciple had been. Apparently you could call Maharishi quite a significant person in his life then. Strange not to mention that explicitly before.... unless of course... you can only say it when the person you want to say something about can't reply to you and publicly contradict you. Considering Maharishi died, that prerequisite seemed fulfilled.

"Paragraph 6…: When you are after finding the truth, you cannot use guess work basing on the rumors on the Internet."

My answer:

One: what you refer to was not really meant as an argument for depicting the truth, it was meant as a possibility (and the above makes it clear that it still is a very big possibility) which is backed up by some.

Two: "rumors on the internet" was used as a literary phrase, i could just as well have said: "Some people who seem to have followed the matter for a longer time have said that..." But as i know that many people say many things on the net, i did not want to overstretch this argument or base it on authority. As i wasn't there when Maharishi said what he said, it suffices to say that i know that it is being said that he did.

Paragraph 7…: It is hard to believe what Sri Sri achieved at early age. But if you look into other gurus that you seem to attest, they have similar abnormal stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi#Spiritual_quest_begins_in_childhood
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18716/BIOGRAPHY-OF-SWAMI-VIVEKANANDA

My answer:

One: I have no problem with abnormal stories as such. I have a problem with it all being clouded in mystery. In the case of SSRS for example it are the same few sentences repeated all over again, never is there any more data about it. But above all they never offer a possibility of verification. And if there are people saying the opposite, and we use their accounts as argument it gets disregarded as 'hearsay', 'jealousy' or 'rumor'.

Two: Because of the fact that i KNOW that he was a pupil of Maharishi and he does NOT mention it and thus shows to not present his personal history very accurately, i also start questioning WHAT ELSE he does NOT mention and – by reaction - i also start wondering about the truthfulness of what he does mention.

"Paragraph 8…: Can you provide more details about what is the name of the "other yoga technique" that was suppose to be the original of Sudarshana Kriya? If those "Others" are familiar with the technique, they should know the name of the technique. In Yoga, each technique/posture has a name."

My answer: I did not mention any name, simply because in contemporary language "Yoga" has become a general term describing the huge amount of energetic body- and breathing exercises that come from India. In any case "Pranayama" is mostly mentioned as a predecessor to Sudarshan Kriya, but all in all one could of course also simply mention Hatha Yoga (the part of the Yoga system which is actually the physical (breathing)exercises which in the west has wrongly become to designate Yoga as such) or Kundalini Yoga. Or i could also refer to the Yoga Paramahansa Yogananda spread and was simply called: "Kriya Yoga". Or last and not least i could of course mention Transcendental Meditation which was taught by his guru – Maharishi.

Of course i reckon the last example is more focussed on mantra's then Sudarshan Kriya, but he can just take bits and pieces from everywhere and roll it into his own system. I have said it before: there is certainly nothing wrong with that. It is just wrong to present it as something new that you have 'come up with', because the truth of the matter is that Sudarshan Kriya presents nothing new under the sun. And that is not a shame, as the Yoga-system is in itself already more then extensive enough to offer the possibility to find both physical and mental health. It is just a shame that some find the need to say that they "cognised" a "natural proces" (see http://www.artofliving.org/Spirituality/SudarshanKriya/tabid/195/Default.aspx ). They have put together there own yoga system. That's what they should say. The former gives a sense of exclusiveness, the latter a sense of relation to already existing things.

So i'm not saying that that there is some kind of 'original' of Sudarshan Kriya. I'm saying that SK fits in between a whole bunch of other exercises within the bigger Yoga system that all use their bits and pieces of techniques which all have been around for many hundred years. Just like Maharishi didn't come up with Mantra's - but only used them in his own way -, SSRS didn't come up with the breathing systems of Sudarshan - but only used them in his own way.

Paragraph 9…: I do not see anything wrong in registering the Sudarshana Kriya brand name. Sri Sri needs money for his charity activities so he needs a way to generate revenue. As Sri Sri said, "charity work can't start from an empty bowl".

My answer: Again, this is already adressed in my further discussion on my article. And this was my answer there about the bowl argument was: "I totally agree. The article does not claim this idea would not be true. It is also simply another topic."

But when it comes to the patent it has no relation to the empty bowl idea. As i said before: "the reason for the pattenting one finds in the interview on http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jan/14inter.htm is "Because someone else was going to patent it. We patented it so we could teach. Otherwise, it would have become a commercial commodity in the US long ago. People started copying it and we stepped in." Thus the patent is not there to create more money for social work but for preventing somebody else to run away with the money.

"As you know, the Sudarshana Kirya is patented in the USA. If you believe that this knowledge is not Sri Sri's invention, you can disqualify his patent by providing the proof. That not only helps your frustration but also saves the world from another fraudulent Indian Guru."

My Answer:

One: I guess this means that you'd find it normal that somebody would have patented meditation itself once and that SSRS had to pay to that person because his Sudarshan Kriya is a form of meditation.

Two: How do you prove any meditation technique to be the same or not like another. If i inhale through my nose and exhale through my mouth, and you do the opposite i guess we both can patent 'our style'. But i do think that to most people that would seem at least a bit comical.

Three: I actually don't mind the patent. He can do as he pleases with his style of meditation. What i do mind however is that it gets presented as a means to an end (social works) while it was actually another one (preventing somebody else taking money for it).

Four: Above all a patent in itself simply seems to be a not-so-enlightened thing to do when your goal is to provide relief and enlightenment for the whole world. But that of course is more a matter of opinion than an argument – though an opinion i reckon that i would share with lots of honest spiritual people.

"Paragraph 10…: What breathing exercises the Sudarshana Kriya is centered around? Can you name those breathing exercises? Generalization might not help here?"

My answer: Again, the Indian Yoga system has for thousand of years known many different breathing exercises. "The control of breath" as such is simply an integral part of yoga. If Sudarshan Kriya is an energetic breathing technique, then it simply belongs to that Yoga system.

Considering the moments of what i'll call "fast breathing" (faster breaths that connect the inhale and the exhale – i.e. There is no pause between the two) many who have had experience with Sudarshan and wanted to share this have refered to it as being very much like "rebirthing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirthing-Breathwork) – and indeed it has many similarities - or "holotropic breathwork (http://www.holotropic.com/about.shtml). I personally also see similarities with some parts of Osho's Meditation techniques where fast breathing (to increase the intake of oxygen) were also used.

"Paragraph 11…: I do not know who those are but, if someone can experience the same effects of Sudharshana Kriya by doing "other" yoga breathing exercises, so be it. If there was such an alternative to SK, the original article would not be that lengthy. I feel that you are trying to prove a point that does not exist."

My answer: I'm not entirely sure about what you feel i'm trying to prove. Again, i have stated my intentions very clearly in my furter discussion on the article: "As a journalist I wanted to give another view on SSRS than is lately give a lot in the media like for example CNN because the information became to one-sided. As a philosopher/theologian I wanted to set some things straight like the weird way in which the existence of 'scientific research' is used as an argument, while the language to 'sell' the Sudarshan Kriya is very pseudo scientific. And as a spiritual person interested in peace and religion I also wanted to make sure that proper investigation is given to SSRS and AOL before they receive a Nobel prize."

Considering the point I want to make about SK, it is fairly simply this: "Nothing new under the sun." And thus a part of the point is that there are MANY alternatives. That is partly why my article and replies are in fact so lengthy because i always have to reference to other things.

I'll give you a list in the answer on your next comment.

"Paragraph 12…: Here also you have failed to name the other meditation techniques. Generalization only weakens any argument. Yoga/Meditation practices are very old an freely taught before. Now people are paying to learn Sudarshana Kriya."

My answer: I agree meditation has been freely taught before. And, yes, now people are paying for it – and in the case of Sudarshan Kriya even quite a lot. But the problem i address in paragraph 12 is of course the fact that the eternal argument of SSRS followers is that you have to try it yourself otherwise you can't speak about it supposedly.

Not even considering that that of course means that we should all pay for it, the argument is simply also totally flawed. First of all there have been enough people telling about their experience with Sudarshan Kriya (See for example here: http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2006/07/sri-sri-cons-iraqis.html) and they tell enough of what one needs to know, certainly if they have experience with other meditation practices that they can relate it to.

And before you say i'm too vague again, here's a list of what that can be (the ones with a * are the ones i have personal experience with):

Qi Gong*, Tai Chi, Pranayama, Hatha Yoga*, Kundalini Yoga, Kriya Yoga, Zen*, Tantra* (in the sense of the meditation that tries to preserve sexual energy), Sema, Transcendental Meditation, Dhikr, Vipasana, Christian meditation*, Rebirthing, and so on.

I really find it strange that i have to mention what sorts of meditation and Yoga there exist. That is quite self evident. Of course i group them. Not because i'm vague, but because it would be needless to every time give a list.

So again let me stress that my point is that Sudarshan belongs in a long list of possible practices.

If my list would not be good, because Sudarshan Kriya would be completely different or a lot better than all the other practices i mentioned, than, i am afraid, the need for proving this is entirely up to SSRS and AOL, and not to others. As far as i am concerned i have not seen, read or heard anything that would make Sudarshan Kriya seem different then other types of meditation – not its theory, not its practice and not its claimed effects. It is SSRS's and AOL's type of meditation and that is all that makes it different.

"Paragraph 13…: This paragraph did not offer anything new. Since Sudarshana Kriya is nothing but a form of breathing exercise it gives same effects. Sudarshana Kriya is the product of AoL and naturally they talk good about it. I do not know why you find it difficult."

My answer: So we do agree somewhere. And i do not find it difficult at all. Sudarshan Kriya is the PRODUCT of AOL. Indeed. It is a commodity that is created, patented and sold by AOL using all possible commercial means.

And that is exactly where i have a personal problem with the whole thing: meditation should not be a 'product'. Meditation is a religious practice that is supposed to help you on the path to enlightenment. Adding commercial value to it only inherently hollows it out. Like the Buddha said: "One road leads to wealth and fame, the other to the end of the road." It seems to me that the whole product-based dealings of SSRS and AOL make him walk the first path.

Not a problem so far. Many companies and corporations do so. Capitalism is certainly not inherently wrong. If AOL would just try to make as much money by use of the 'guru-business' then that would be just fine, but the problem is of course that AOL and SSRS claim to be interested in spirituality and service, and not on in becoming rich. Even more so they use exactly this claim to make people 'buy' their product.

Really, i can't see the spirituality in the 'productification' of meditation.

"Paragraph 14…: I do not know why you had to bring Sri Ramdev into this article."

My answer:

One: Because Sri Ramdev just like SSRS tries to 'prove' how good it is to practice his teachings and meditation because of claims that it can cure (or strongly help to cure) cancer and aids. So even in this quite impressive claim SSRS and his SK are not alone.

Two: Because Sri Ramdev and SSRS are at the moment the two Guru's with the biggest mediacoverage. And for some reason both of them (or their followers) always seem unhappy once the other one is mentioned.

In the case of Ramdev the Union Health Ministry has made it clear that Ramdev should watch out with making unsupportable claims. (http://www.moneycontrol.com/india/newsarticle/stocksnews.php?cid=1&autono=30049&source=ibnlive.com) Ramdev was quick in saying that he never claimed that he could 'completely cure aids' or that people should abandon their chemotherapy. Is previous stances softened and he said that his Yoga and medicines are a very useful addition to the other treatments. It seems to me that if Ramdev (the 'king' of claiming medical results of his ayurveda and yoga) is wise enough to soften his stance when he is told to 'wacth out', that other guru's should be wise enough not to go to far themselves either.

"But coming to the point, I have personally met and talked to a 50 year old cancer patient in Vijayawada, A.P., India. She is an attorney by profession. It seems that her doctors told her that she only had 6 months to live. Now, after 5 years, she is still alive and leading a healthy and active life. Well, since she is an attorney, let us not take her word at its face value, just kidding. But she turned her house into an ashram for local Sudarshana Kriya practitioners. She dedicated her time and resources to propagate SK. As if it is not enough, her husband, who is a government servant, also bought into this by the facts. So, not having a scientific research on Sudarshana Kriya is not a big issue for me to believe its positive effects on Cancer."

My answer: Of course i will not say your story is a lie, but obviously i have my doubts. First the story does not mention whether the person tried other therapies as well.

And even if it would be attributable to Sudarshan Kriya then the question arises where we could verify this because this would be an amazing thing! So for the good of the world it would be best if you could also tell which doctors were involved and will attest that SK can have this result. (Of course, to be really credible those doctors should also be independent from the AOL movement) So, if you can, please let me know how and where one can find more of those documented case, because i'm pretty certain you won't find it in the scientific research AOL provides as a backup of their SK - as these studies do not talk about such things.

Let me by the way also remark, that unlike certain other meditation types – let's call them the more 'traditional ones' – like Qi Gong, Hatha Yoga, Tai Chi, etc., about Sudarshan kriya the opposite stories also exist. For every miracle story there is an opposite one. So i wouldn't use 'stories of experiences' as relevant material to show the effectiveness of SK.

On http://guruphiliac.blogspot.com/2006/07/sri-sri-cons-iraqis.html you'll see a perfect example of how for every positive story or experience somebody else can provide a negative one.

"Surprisingly, less people are questioning the English medicine though their scientific predictions are not exactly true."

My answer: It is certainly not through that the English medicine (whatever that may be – i guess you mean 'western style' medicine) would not be questioned. The continual rise of alternative therapies for example shows exactly this questioning by the big masses.
On top of it the point of science is that it can be wrong in its predictions. That simply asks for renewed investigation and research - which also continuously goes on as far as i know.

"Paragraph 15 and 16…: I see you are desperate to prove that Sudarshana Kriya is no different than any other meditation technique. You should complain if AoL claims that none of other meditation techniques work."

My answer: I'm not really desperate to prove that. It's simply one of my arguments (the other arguments, as you know, follow further on the article).

Nonetheless i can also think of two very good reasons why proving that it isn't unique would be a very worthwhile as a goal in itself.

If it is the same as others, then it would mean that everybody can just go and learn the techniques that are taught for free as then there would be no need to pay for the AOL courses. And as such – maintaining the 'product'-idea – i could be considered as a critical consumer trying to show to other people who are wondering about it why they should or should not buy the thing. And my review would be clear: do not buy it, because you can get the same thing a lot cheaper.
It is presented as something different, better or special by AOL itself. If i'm right, that would amount that AOL is telling lies - and that will not often be considered as a very moral or spiritual thing to do.

"Paragraph 17…: I personally convinced that Sudarshana Kriya can cure/delay cancer effects on human body."

Answer: And it is your perfect right to believe so. Your conviction is yours. All i was saying is that the studies didn't prove that it did – AOL on the other hand does say that it is not just a matter of conviction, but that the effectiveness of SK in general, and by extension also when it comes to things like cancer is a proven fact. This seems like distorting the facts because the effects that the quoted research 'proves' is something very different. As i stated before, in the case of cancer for example it helps because people who are into meditation breath better and tend to smoke less. Less smoking, less lungcancer. It has in other words little to do with an inherent 'revitalizing' capicity of SK. Or at least, no research makes on think it does. So that means that it can indeed only be a personal conviction. And as i said, i will of course never try to stop you from believing something or being convinced like you are.

"But you seemed to be research oriented person..."

My answer: not really, but AOL and SSRS go through a lot of effort to show how research can back up their Sudarshan Kriya. So i just tried to show how it actually does not. I wouldn't even consider the research if they didn't constantly mention it and try to use it to show the worth of SK.

"... and you can understand the following articles better than I do.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050831071025.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

Now and then I see reports that a new research proved that previous findings were wrong. I do not know why you are so desperate about scientific research when it only helps to understand things up to certain extent."

My answer: Let's suppose i do agree with these studies (which i don't necessarily do – although i also do certainly not disagree with some points mentioned in the articles you present here. But that would be a totally different discussion about the value and practice of scientific research in the contemporary world and that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here).

Well then this can mean two things:

One: As it is not me but AOL trying to use scientific research to back up certain claims, it is not me but actually they who have a problem. That would mean that all there research has no value in any case, because it would most likely be false.

Two: As we can't trust medical research, the only things we have to go on are AOL and SSRS as authorities - but they are trying to sell a patented product to as many people as they can. Or we have to go with the stories of personal experiences of people. But as mentioned above, for every positive one we also have a negative one.

Paragraph 18…: It is too technical for me, so no comments.

My answer: To technical? Strange, i don't see what's so technical about it. Too bad you didn't seem to understand it completely, as i believe this paragraph actually backed up all my previous arguments in the most solid way. So let me try to make it clear to you in non-technical terms:

It wouldn't matter whether AOL comes up with a hundred researches like the ones they have because eventually, when they talk about Sudarshan Kriya, they do not make any use of the conclusions of the research. They say "it has been scientifically proven that it works" but once they explain why it works according to them, it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons the research provides. This to me, seems like abuse of research to fool the people for who it all would be 'too technical'.

In very vulgar terms it would be called: cheating or – yet again - telling lies.

Paragraph 19, 20 and 21…: Again you have failed to provide the names of other breathing exercises.

My answer: (I'll only consider paragraph 20 as 19 and 21 have no relation to that). Why do you constantly say i have to provide those names every time. "Yoga" as a term should suffice. Whether it is the way Shiva meditates or the way Buddha practiced it, whether it is Pranayama or Vipasana, that doesn't matter at all, all these things have been all around for many many years. And of course all those practices have been known to have beneficient effects.

"Paragraph 22 and 23…: Yes, it is not very clear why Sri Sri had to initiate another organization."

My answer: We agree here at least.

"Paragraph 24…: I am not sure what is the point here. To me, AoL generates lot of revenue thus made it possible to expand in many directions. Most of the service is being done by volunteers, I believe. Did I miss your point?"

My answer: In this paragraph there was no point yet so you couldn't really miss it. This paragraphy only helps building up the next argument.

"Paragraph 25…: AoL claims that SK is the medicine for depression and stress. If the outcome of all the mentioned problems specified in this paragraph is depression and stress, what is wrong in offering SK as treatment? What is your point? Should the SK not be offered as single treatment for all?"

My answer: this is exactly why i had to show that SK was not different of all other meditation forms, because, if that is true, then that means that SK can simply NOT be offered as a single treatment to all. No meditation can. I'm seeing meditation as one of the biggest helps in my personal life as well, but i would never claim that it will solve everything from depression to poverty. Medition has its limits. To present it as the one cure for all is as unrealistic as presenting antibiotics as the one remedy for all diseases. And if i am right that Sudarshan Kriya is not different then normal meditation (and i think i made a very strong case of showing this) than that means that it is just as incapable of solving all the problems in the world.

Paragraph 26…: I think it is a good question to direct to people who made the claims.

My answer: Well, that is what my article is about. So far from official AOL channels i have only received emails trying to discredit my article with weak arguments. Nobody has provided me with data or facts of why,when, how and whether all these people were truly helped.

Paragraph 27 and 28…: I spend lot of time and resources in social service and I know what it takes to execute a public event. I checked artofliving.com website but could not find what you have mentioned in this paragraph. They have specified about their services in various countries but no mention of a specific number.

My answer: Not the AOL website. My article specifically says the personal website of SSRS. Here's the link:

http://www.srisri.org/About%20Sri%20Sri.html

Paragraph 29…: Are you expecting him to engage in different type of discussions? If so, you should have mentioned what they are.

My answer: Read Gandhi's writings. Or Martin Luther King's. Or Nelson Mandela's. Or Michael Gorbatsjov's. Or Romero's. Or... those should give you a good idea of how you can discuss the same thing but in a deeper, more constructive, more argumented and more concrete way.

Paragraph 30…: Same point is repeated with frustration in this paragraph. If the same Tylenol could treat headache of American housewives and the people of war torn Iraq, why not SK?

My answer: I do not think that many people would find it acceptable to to compare the problems of the people of Iraq to something simple like a headache? I guess few people would disagree that it is quite something different to help an American housewife that is stressed because she has to get the kids in time, doesn't see her hard working husband enough and has a mother that is constantly meddling with her affairs. Believe me, i'm not downgrading such problems. They are problems in their own right, and everybody has the right to be helped. But i simply do not think they can be compared to the stress of people that live in constant danger of their lives because bombs explode around them every day in a neighbourhood that has bullet holes in every wall, of people that live in a country that has lost all its social structure, that lacks possibilities of proper healthcare, education and governance due to the fact that a foreign power with a totally different culture has invaded them and now imposes a legal and political structure on them that is totally foreign to them, of people that try to get by with bits and pieces because the daily economy is on completely shattered while just some kilometers outside of their city some big (foreign) companies are making huge profits because they could get a hold of some oil wells.

Although SK might – again, just like other meditation practices – possibly help with calming some of their emotions, could perhaps help dealing with their inner struggle and so on, i'm afraid that lots of other elements will also have to be tackled. To continue with your example: Your Tylenol won't do much good if your headache is caused by the fact that your neighbor every day comes into your house and hits you on the head with a heavy hammer.

Paragraph 31…: Here I feel you are running out of ideas. Are you in any way suggesting that encouraging dialog between the parties is not a good idea? Gandhi engaged civil disobedience to kick british out of Bharat. But here the Iraqis should live together in their country. I see Lot of difference.

My answer:

One: First of all the same thing applies: what good is it saying to somebody: take Tylenol when he does not get thought how to stop that other guy from hitting his head with a hammer? So encouraging dialog is perfect, as long as the right actions follow that dialog. I'm all for dialog, but it needs to be able to be held in certain conditions.

Two: Gandhi is the perfect example of how peace-making is not at all simply trying to create some dialog. When the dialog with the British would not be possible anymore he came up with very strong actions like the Dandi Salt March. When the fighting Muslims and Hindu's would not listen to him anymore, he would fast. A huge part of Gandhi's strength exists in his actions and not in his words (however inspiring they might be-.

Three: There is less difference then you might think. First of all the Iraqis are in many respects invaded by an alien country that imposes governance-structures on them in a manner that in many ways can be considered 'colonial' (imposing political structures, draining of resources, etc.) and secondly the other thing that Gandhi tried to do was to make the Muslims and Hindus of India live together. I would say that considering the fact that those two aspects are present in both cases (i.e. A search for proper self-rule and a way to live together with many different cultural groups), the situation of India then and the situation of Iraq today are actually very similar.

Paragraph 32…: Gandhi and his practices were uncalled-for in this discussion.

My answer: Here as well, not me but SSRS himself brought it up in his interview with CNN ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-Sstlp1u7Y ). So i just thought that it needed some reply as i considered his reference to Gandhi inapropriate - or at least he oversimplifies the Gandhian way of handling the conflict.

Perhaps i should here also remember you of my previous answer earlier where i showed how he specifically tries to link himself to Gandhi by claiming to be a pupil of Pandit Sudhkar Chaturvedi and calling this Chaturvedi a close associate of Gandhi.

How do you know what would have happened had Gandhi asked people to meditate to get ride of their anger?

My answer: We know what happened. As Gandhi constantly asked people to do just that. Wouldn't you think that a known quote like "My greatest weapon is mute prayer" (http://www.mkgandhi.org/epigrams/p.htm) hints in that direction. There is no way around it: For Gandhi the spiritual change was the most needed of all and for that he saw prayer (meditation) and fasting as the best techniques.

The only difference is that he added enormous actions, great political insight, huge efforts of education, social reform and even rural reform to it, based on quite a bit more then just a Yoga practice. You could say that SSRS and AOL do all of that as well, but as i have stated in my article: when you take a closer look at all the social relief work they offer it always seems to come down to teaching Sudarshan Kriya classes.

You are talking about conditions that you are not familiar with. Let us focus on Sri Sri.

My answer: As my graduation thesis in Theology was about Gandhi (again, see: http://www.kuleuven.be/nieuws/berichten/2006/thesis/godgeleerdheid.html), as i have frequently visited India many times for researching about this topic, i think i can say that i'm fairly familiar with it. I can even say that i seem to know quite some more about the topic then most of my Indian friends.

Paragraph 33 and 34…: So Gandhi was nominated for Nobel Peace prize 5 times and did not get it. So, where do you think is the problem…..Gandhi or the Noble Peace Prize Committee. I hope you are not suggesting that Gandhi's non-violence and civil disobedience were not peaceful enough to win the peace prize. Guess who won the Noble prize, Henry Kissinger.

My answer: I'm most certainly not suggesting Gandhi shouldn't get it. I'm only suggesting that we better first give Gandhi a Nobel prize before we even consider giving SSRS one. And as the Nobel commitee has given prizes after people died before, there is appearently a possibility to do that. I would be a big fan of doing so.

Considering Kissinger. He was certainly not the only one of the inapropriate ones. The commitee has been criticized more then enough and rightfully so. So be it, that's not my point. They have in any case shown a willingness to evolve as well as an institute. So they could still correct mistakes for example by offering Gandhi a noble prize after all.

To add one more point to that: They might also have been a bit too West-focused in the past. But luckely that is over now. So we can now dismiss the arguments you can find on the net of AOL people saying that SSRS is not chosen because he is Indian. Since Yunus Muhammad of the Grameen bank has been chosen that argument makes no sense at all anymore.

Again, I don't see your point in comparing Sri Sri with Gandhi. Did Sri Sri ever said that he has done more than Gandhi did OR is it just you trying to make a point that fits your argument?

My answer: Again, SSRS brings it up himself. He links himself to Gandhi, trying to show how he is in the tradition of this famous historical peace-person. (See CNN interview and the fact that he mentions Chaturvedi as his teacher – see above) But he does so in inappropriate ways as his way of handling things is not very Gandhian at all. Again, for me that amounts to fooling people. You say something to present people a certain image, but when you look into it you see that that image is false. Therefore he obviously neglects all the things that make Gandhi really Gandhi and SSRS really SSRS. Examples: Gandhi was a strong advocate of being poor with and for the poor, Gandhi would never have associated with extremist hindus but would have tried to bring them to other ideas and as Gandhi knew how tensionful the relations between Muslims and Hindu's were, he would never have written a book about Islam "in a hurry" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojeyl6v0lNc) - as this would lead to "many mistakes" (as it did in SSRS case, so he admitted).

Paragraph 35…: I cannot stop noticing your hurry to conclude Maharishi as bogus. Is there any scientific way to prove that those who complained on Maharishi were telling the truth? If word of mouth is good enough for you to determine Maharishi as bogus, why not apply the same rule in believing Sudarshana Kriya. In case of Sudarshana Kriya, you seem to be interested in scientific research.

My answer:

One: How could anybody be 'scientifically proven' to be bogus or not? We just will have to go with the information that people offer us. For my part one of the sources would be my uncle who happened to be one of Maharishi's very close disciples once. But i don't really need such personal acquaintances when you have witness-accounts like the one coming from the last journalist that could interview him. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512747&in_page_id=1773 ) And so why do i conclude from such an account that he is bogus? Well it's very simple. Both Maharishi and his followers claimed he was enlightened. The account given to us by David Jones (the journalist) however clearly shows us that he really wasn't – not unless angry frustration is a something you consider to be an aspect of enlightenment. Now, i'm not saying that i and others don't have my moments of angry frustration ourselves, but i and most of those others also do not claim to be enlightened.

Two: Once again i have to make the same point about Sudarshan Kriya. I'm not interested in scientific research about it, but SSRS and AOL seem to be. So if they say that it's effects have been proved scientifically, but the effects they themselves mention are not at all discussed in the research which they refer to, then i would consider that a bit bogus as well.

It's actually very simply all about integrity and honesty – for that would exactly be characteristics the Indian religions have linked to enlightenment.

Paragraph 36, 37 and 38…: It would be helpful if you could elaborate what part of his practices/teachings make him criminal or beyond?

I never said Sri Sri's practices or his teachings made him a criminal. If you are refering to the sentence "there is certainly enough grounds for reasonably doubt as well" than i can assure you that it does not refer to "his very commercial New Age image is far from a crime" but to the idea "that he might be genuinely wishing well for his followers and the rest of the world". For that is what my article of course hinted at (as the title also very clearly puts to question): that he probably is not genuine. That is not a crime, it only would make him quite a lot less enlightened as he is often pictured to be.

Paragraph 39…: I am sure the world is full of intelligent people and they can distinguish between good and bad.

My answer: And so am i.

I know you are trying to talk for the world but not everyone in the world may accept with your opinion.

My answer: You state it a bit grand, but i guess by putting it on the net "trying to talk to the world" could be a bit of the idea. Although i see it more as: offering that other very needed point of view that perhaps somebody might need to form a clearer picture. In that sense i am aware of the fact that is but the other point of view and that indeed certainly not everybody will accept it. I never wanted that. Neither is it needed in the least.

Paragraph 40…: I pray all the gods to work against Sri Sri getting so called Noble "Peace" prize. It is my opinion that there is no greater insult to Sri Sri than receiving Nobel prize.

My answer: I have admitted earlier on that the nobel peace prize commitee has made mistakes before but to call it an insult is to denounce the work of Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tuttu, the Dalai Lama, Mohammad Yunus, and so on. If SSRS would feel the same as you do i guess that would exactly make my point: that he's not so enlightened after all.

Some points from the follow up discussions on the original article:
(further discussion can be found at http://www.yunusnews.com/node/506)

I could not stop noticing that you have addressed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as "Ravi" and "Shankar" in your article. I understand that you are not a big believer of Sri Sri but you could have shown minimum curtsy by addressing him as Sri Sri or SSRS as millions of people in the world believe in him.

My answer:

One: I'll reserve the title Sri for those names where it is appropriate. So i'll for example gladly talk of "Sri Krishna" or "Sri Shiva". But i do not think it is really a necessity of courtesy to give mr. Shankar the title "Sri Sri". First of all the double honorific is already bogus in itself and second its even more bogus if you consider that he added this "Sri Sri" to his name himself (to distuingish himself from the famous sitar player). Suppose George Bush would call himself "Holy Holy George Bush" simply to distinguish himself from his dad, would you except it and use those terms because of courtesy?

Two: as an abbreviation i used SSRS in my answers. as the SS stands for Sri Sri i actually, in a certain way, did use this title to address him.

In one of your responses, you have tried to bring the point that AoL did not spend any money that it had collected in 2004, in the USA. Well, as you are aware, AoL has been raising funds from more than 140 countries for more than 20 years. Probably they used funds raised from other countries in that year. You could have left this topic out as you did not have full information. Because you have been bashing AoL for not having enough proof on SK.

My answer: I have the information of the USA that was enough. And sure, they make money elsewhere. But considering his own adagio of "charity work can't start from an empty bowl" isn't it at least a little bit strange that that charity-bowl does not get filled by the ones who have the most. Exactly the country where the wealthiest followers of AOL live together does not use any of their capital for that charity – it seems at odds with his own idea.

You have mentioned about Sri Sri misusing Gandhi's concept of non-violence. I did a search on the web but could not find even one countable reference on the subject. I found some third party sites mentioning that Sri Sri is the next person after Gandhi in uplifting the poor. If this is the information you are basing on, this topic is not even worth discussing further.

My answer: I gave the link in a previous answer as well. Here's the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-Sstlp1u7Y

Since you liked the methods of Gandhi, I have very fitting questions for you. During the Indian freedom movement, Gandhi had collected funds from people. I know this because my grandparents told me that Gandhi visited our neighboring village and almost every family in surrounding villages gave gold, silver and cash to their capacity.

My answer: And it is as well documented that he raised a lot of money. Up to the point that men would be scared if their women would go to meetings where Gandhi was present as his words would make them donate their jewelery. I certainly know all of that. I find the latter a funny anecdote even.

Gandhi never took accountability nor provided transparency in funds manipulation.

My answer: My own research was not really about this topic, though it would surprise me a lot. Even when Gandhi was studying in London he kept track of every penny that he spend in a notebook. I'll leave it over to the experts to answer this one completely, just stating that it probably was all quite well accounted for considering Gandhi's fastidiousness in those matters.

When Gandhi does not even use private vehicle to travel, why does he need funds?

My answer: Nice point there. If Gandhi could do all his work living in the most basic situation, why does mr. Shankar need all the plains and fancy hotelsweets?

But to answer your question: he needed it for Harijan work (see next answer).

What happened to all the millions of rupees? What freedom activities were conducted with that money? I am not suggesting Gandhi used all the money for his personal benefits, but the funds were collected on his name so I am curious what answers people like you could offer?

My answer: Gandhi mainly fundraised for Harijan (Dalit) work. But apart from that i would guess that where the money also would go to was this: the printing of his newspapers 'Young India' and 'Harijan' that kept the Indians informed about their struggle; Ashram work and rural development of the communities living around his ashram; health care (like leprosy-care. He for example took personal care of a lepper in his Sevagram ashram); education; etc.

Because, the reasons Sri Sri has been presenting to the public have striking similarities to Gandhi's.

My answer: In Gandhi's case though there were actual changes for the Dalits (such as getting them allowed into the temples, more political strength for their group, the official abolishment of "untouchability" in the constitution, ...) – and also all other consequences of what he did and set up are heavily documented. He never used a single rupee to many for his own good. His work extends far beyond teaching the same type of meditation in every possible situation.

But in any case i did not want to put Gandhi into question for that would mean a whole new research in itself - and i don't see the need, because i have never come across anything that would rouse my suspicion in these matters. By all means, take up the research if you feel the need to do so and provide me with your results.

In the case of SSRS and AOL on the other hand, what they present about their work is highly questionable. And it doesn't need much research to see that. Let me give you a quick and simple calculation. According to his personal website "In 1997, he founded the International Association for Human Values, a humanitarian Non-Governmental Organization that advances human values in political, economic, industrial, and social spheres. The Association is working in poor rural communities to promote sustainable growth, and has reached more than 30,000 villages." This means that in 11 years (or 4015 days) the association for Human Values has "reached out" to an average of more than 7 villages a day! Also the same official biography says that "Through personal interactions, teachings and humanitarian initiatives, SSRS has reached out to an estimated 300 million people worldwide." That means that if the 52 year old Shankar would have been "reaching out" to people ever since the day he was born, he and his organisations would have "reached out" to an average of about 15806 people a day! Rather high numbers all of them.

Here I have few questions out of topic. You are one of the editors of this website and this website seems to cover many things happening in India. But what I have noticed is that there is not even one article about the atrocities the Christian missionaries have been doing in India.

My answer: Indeed there is not. There are documented articles however about how Hindu extremists are becoming increasingly more violent towards other religious groups - especially Christians.

I am sure you know how the missionaries raise money under the name of helping poor people in poor countries like India. But they never mention about how the money is being used.

My answer: links? References? Data? Without any of those, these are purely allegations without grounds.

They do not mention about how they abuse the religious freedom in India and force people into Christianity. They do not mention how they trick people into Christianity under the name of service or miracle.

My answer: I have seen a couple of Christian (Catholic) NGO's in India. They all did really do service, claimed no miracles whatsoever and did not try to convert any of their members as most of their volunteers were of the different religions. In the NGO's i have personaly seen and investigated Hindu, Muslim and Christian were truly working together without a problem.

Neither have i ever seen any making claims to miracles.

And by the way, as the discussion was actually about Ravi Shankar, how come getting people into something 'by using service or miracles' is all of the sudden a problem. Is that not exactly what he, his organisation, and above all his websites try to do?

The website also publishes very interesting articles on Islam and its intolerance.

My answer: It actually publishes more about its tolerance and the contemporary misconception of how Islam would be an intolerant religion. Furthermore it publishes on fundamentalism of every religion to show that they all have it and that it is really not the acceptable form of any religion.

But surprisingly it does not even find one article that criticizes how the Christians are systematically killing/converting people from other religions. Initially this website seemed neutral but not until I started searching for articles on Christian activities. Here I am not providing any links to Christian atrocities in India as you can find them very easily, if you are really interested know.

My answer: You have not found such an article as i have not come across credible information concerning these matters. And if you were really interested in me knowing these, you would have provided me some of those authorative links instead of saying that i have to go and look for it. I as well provide enough links to back up what i say about SSRS.

In any case i will have to reply that your arguments about these matters are very common to Hindutva-thinking. I am also fully aware of the support Ravi Shankar gets by Hindutva politicians. The link between Shankar and Hindu nationalism is often mentioned by criticizers of Shankar. However, i do not need this information for my arguments.

But what i do need is people being honest and truthful in their accounts. Simply accusing other religions of criminal acts will bring no betterment to anybody. Even more so, such unargumented portraying of religious news that might distort facts, bring wrong ideas and incite hatred was exactly the reason why i started my website.

If possible, please publish my comments under follow up discussions.

I will indeed try to put all of this on the net. I am looking for the most appropriate way to do so.

Thank you for your time.

Vasu Gokaraju

You're welcome,

Jonas