response to the video of my talk on "Understanding Indian Spiritualities"

Please note that the video itself is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUDjQ2aFTQ
and that the talk was organised at a Hindu temple in the USA by IndUS Forum: www.indusforum.org

A friend passes on the following feedback from her daughter:

" Watched both videos though skipped over some parts. Nice talk.

 Interesting Q and A. Christians don't follow Christ, it seems. And the explanation for  this statement is simplistic at best:  The crusades.  This when he started the talk saying all religions falter and we must attempt to first understand what caused them to falter and then try to learn from it.

And Hinduism is about what, five thousand years old?  In comparison the crusades happened in the first lap of Christianity.  I put it to Prof Guptara that just as Hinduism evolved from the Vedic traditions all the way down to its current Dalit crisis,so also the Christianity of today has evolved from its origins two thousand years ago.

 His second point is that the Pope is a head of state.  How exactly does that prove Christ is not being followed?

And of course he has to retain the right to arms. Look at the size of his "state". Landlocked 0.2 square miles. Every religious leader on the planet has a security detail. Why? Because it is practical. Same difference. The Vatican must be able to defend itself. 

Look at nature. Every creature, every flower has been given a means to do so. It is only used when needed but yet, it is inherent. That is the point-  Self-defense is the most basic of ideas."

I responded to my friend along the following lines: 

"Many thanks for passing this on to me!

My response (IF you wish to pass it on too!):

Indeed "self-defense is the most basic of ideas" - yet, you have obviously forgotten (or perhaps have never known?) that Jesus the Lord not only refused to defend Himself but also rebuked those who tried to use the sword to defend Him (please read the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew) So anyone who tries to defend herself or himself is not following Jesus the Lord ...

BTW the Crusades did not happen in the first phase of Christianity (the first phase is generally considered to be the phase up to the 3rd century AD).  The first Crusade happened right at the end of the ELEVENTH century.  The last of the Crusades (the ninth) took place actually towards the end of the 13th century...

As to the matter of the Vatican being a "state": perhaps you have forgotten (or never known?) that Jesus the Lord did say that His Kingdom is not of this world...please read the Gospel of John, chapter 18, verse 36. So anyone who claims that her or his kingdom (or modern state) represents Jesus the Lord does not even begin to understand Him (only after understanding can one perhaps acquire the willingness to follow Him)

"evolution" can justify everything - the question is whether, in "evolving", Christianity has been or is true to its supposed Master or not - I submit that, on these and other major points, Christianity has been for some 1700 years (i.e. after the first phase) fundamentally untrue or unfaithful to Jesus the Lord

Please note that my position is that "many or most Christians may not follow Jesus the Lord, some clearly do; similarly, many or most Hindus may not follow Jesus the Lord, some clearly do - what is most important is not whether one is a Christian or a Hindu but whether one is a follower of Jesus the Lord; at root, the question is whether one is complacent and complicit in the status quo or whether one is really searching for God.

warm regards, with prayers and blessings

Prabhu"