It was a spontaneous exchange. I didn’t reflect much on my replies. Unfortunately, he was stuck in his ‘law of non-contradiction’ and couldn’t grasp that name and form are temporary, and the essence is eternal simultaneously.

My original post:

Why this opposition and even hatred for Hinduism? The reason may be that India’s wisdom endangers Christianity, Islam and Judaism, because it is empowering the individual and makes sense.
Three important factors are in favour of Hindu Dharma:
1. If people of other religions come to know about the Hindu concept of One Consciousness as the essence of all, they might realize that the concept of a separate and vengeful God in the monotheistic religions is a distortion and cannot be true.
2. If they hear of karma and rebirth, it probably would make more sense to them, than the claim that we all have only one life, which decides if we go to heaven or hell.
3. If they hear that the one consciousness permeates also animals and nature, they might stop this massive daily bloodbath of slaughtering our younger brothers and sisters, the animals, and respect nature.

Comment by @OsamaKhalid
The idea of multiple gods can never make sense to sane minds. There is but One Almighty Who reigns. The concept of equally powerful gods is nonsense
2. Karma is the one of the most diabolical concepts one could endorse. What you confused with vengeance is justice.

My reply:
You are right. the Source of everything must be one. the Vedas were the first to postulate the one source (Brahman, pure consciousness). Like all other forms and names, devas (and asuras) are within Maya, only longer lived and more powerful but not eternal.
Names and forms are like the temporary waves on the eternal ocean (Brahman). It means the Divine is within us. This knowledge lifts Hindu Dharma above the ‘monotheistic’ religions.
imo, the idea of a vengeful, separate God as being the one source behind this universe can never make sense to sane a mind, isn’t it? Check out my new book “Why Hindu Dharma is under attack by Muslims, Christians and the Left…”

Osama Khalid’s reply
Basically, for the 1st comment, you have fallen prey to the law of non-contradiction which the monotheistic religion doesn’t suffer from.
Again, what you confuse with vengeance is justice. A result for one’s efforts makes sense to sane minds.

My reply:
I don’t get what you mean in your first para – eternal oneness versus temporary plurality is no contradiction. Compare the one movie screen with the plurality of changing pictures on it.
And yes, result for efforts makes sense but, eternal hell for being born in the “wrong” family?? Does this make sense?

His reply:
Exactly, the example of law of non-contradiction, the changing pictures represent the mortal despite being the part of immortal i.e. the eternal. Its illogical either the picture is fully mortal or immortal. Who doesn’t know the reward is also eternal?

My reply:
It’s not illogical. The screen is ever the same, the pictures are ever changing. Yet when you touch any “thing” in the movie, you touch only the screen. The screen is the essence of all, similarly, Brahman is the essence in this Lila or Maya.
Try to understand, not just try to refute. Imo, Vedic wisdom is top. Your ancestors discovered it.

His reply:
It’s illogical since the picture/essence can either be immortal or mortal, can’t be both simultaneously. It’s like saying one likes hot-cold ice-cream. I am simply answering to your responses. &, btw, it’s was your original post which tried to refute monotheism.

My reply:
Can’t you see that the pictures are not the same (‘eternal’ doesn’t apply here as no analogy is fully apt for the truth) and the screen is the same simultaneously? Btw this ‘screen – movie analogy’ was given by Ramana Maharshi.
Monotheism postulates a separate, Creator-God somewhere in heaven. Monism or panentheism (Indian view, but why should we speak Greek?) is closer to truth. Truth does not fit into logic. but it also does not contradict it.
To defend logically the position that there is a separate God without addressing the question where it came from and with what he made the universe, is difficult.
The Rishis claim: something (not a thing of course) eternally is/exists (consciousness and it can be felt in yourself) and out of that the universe ‘appears’.

I really wish, Muslims would understand that their disdain for Hinduism is unjustified. Meditation is helpful to understand.
The division between Hindus and Muslims fits so well into the agenda of the deep state to divide societies everywhere.
Why should we do its bidding?

So far I haven’t heard back to my last comment.
By Maria Wirth

if you like my writing, consider getting my books
Title: “Why Hindu Dharma is under attack by Muslims, Christians and the Left” 2025, Rs 311
link: https://www.amazon.in/dp/8119670655 or

Why Hindu Dharma is Under Attack by Muslims, Christians and the Left: A Collection of Essays

The post An exchange with a Muslim on X (Twitter) first appeared on Maria Wirth.

One Austrian, Gloria Gotthard Reich, posted the following:

“Krishna is God. He is eternal. He does not belong to a particular person, people or nation. Krishna is God for everyone and all.”
And she attached the below photo with the prominent line “Krishna is not Indian”.

(I should mention that she had posted this earlier, too, and in another post she once said that Shiva is racially ‘white’ and has blonde hair.)
Her tweet got over 1 lakh views within 1 day, far more than my tweets usually get, even though her follower count is 12k and mine is 145k.

One @HellooSuee replied rather harshly:
“We don’t need a gora pakora stealing our Gods.”

The reaction to this tweet was in my view out of proportion. Almost every Hindu took Gloria’s side and came heavily down on HellooSuee. Some suspected her/him not to be Hindu. Others said, the tweeter is harming Sanatana Dharma. We should be glad when foreigners practise our Dharma, etc…

I felt @Helloosuee might have had genuine uneasiness when a foreigner declares that Krishna is not Indian, and I have actually similar apprehensions, maybe knowing westerners better than Indians do. Trying to appropriate Yoga as ‘Christian Yoga” is only one example.

So I replied to the post by HellooSuee:

“I think @HellooSuee could have used better language, but the outrage on her is too much.
Gloria Gotthard Reich @Ingestohter may not be aware (the pic is obviously not made by her), but there is clearly an attempt to take Hinduism away from Hindus, if I can say so.
Yoga is only one example.
Imo, Krishna has 2 sides – the person who was a King in Bharat and his direct identity/ knowing of being Brahman.
I would say, Krishna, the human form, was Indian, like Jesus was from Palestina (that’s what I learnt in school).

Why would anyone deny this? And make even posters to declare that Krishna was not Indian?
It doesn’t seem to be in good faith.

I wonder why Hindus came down so heavily on Helloo Suee but defend Gloria whose post also has its weakness.
Brahman of course is not describable, pervading and containing us all.” (end of my reply)

After that, there was a very lively debate in comments where another foreigner, William Seaborn, strongly took the side of Gloria.

He wrote among others:
“Krishna is the source of all that exists. Krishna existed before India existed. Krishna existed before the material world existed. Limiting Krishna to India is an insult and blasphemous.”

My reply:
“Is it so difficult to understand that there is also the Sri Krishna within Maya who was king, cousin of Arjuna, in Mahabharata… who was Indian, but his Divinity is not Indian, like our Divinity also is not Indian, Russian, German etc..

Why deny this?

I am suspicious because I once heard an US woman from Yoga Alliance at a yoga conference in India praise India for giving Yoga to the world.
I told her, I am glad, she acknowledged the Indian origin.
She immediately tensed up and said, of course we resist that some Indians claim that India owns yoga…

She also mentioned in her talk that “Yoga Alliance is on a roll now”.. So many institutes sign up (and pay). That may be the reason for not crediting India.” (end)

William wrote again:
“I’m saying that the almighty Krishna, his divinity is not Indian. I’m saying Krishna is universal and beyond nationality. Is it so difficult to understand? But some people got offended.”

So, I replied a bit longer:

“Look, William, absolute Divinity is without form and name, is pure (thought-free) consciousness. it is pervading everything. It alone is. everything in this apparent ‘creation’ is THAT only.
Do you agree?

So that indescribable, attributeless divinity is usually called Brahma(n) (not to be confused with the creator Brahma in the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) or simply TAT (THAT). it has no history, no birth or death.

It is within all the Devas, Avataras, humans and the whole of nature.
Agreed?

Now when ISKCON followers (some do) claim, it is ONLY Krishna who is the absolute Supreme, from whom everything originates and by whom all is permeated, there is a problem.
Can you see it?

Because Krishna is ALSO one of the manifestation of THAT in the form of an Avatar of Vishnu, naturally with attributes.

So if you take one Avatar and claim THAT ALONE is the absolute Truth, and everyone needs to accept Krishna as the Absolute Godhead, it puts people off, me at least. It reminds me of the dogmas of Christianity.
Could you follow?

in the Ganapathi Atharvasirsa Upanishad, Ganapati is claimed to be THAT from which all originates, but in the Shiva Upanishad, it is Shiva, in Srimad Bhagavtam it is Krishna.

So it means, THAT is not only in everything and everyone, but everyone IS basically only THAT because the rest is like a dream.

Therefore, I prefer the Vedic terminology when i refer to the Absolute. I see the Devas and Avatars as access points, because they have attributes, they can be imagined, can be loved.
Could i make my point clear?”

By Maria Wirth

The post An interesting debate on X about Sri Krishna with Indian and foreign Hindus first appeared on Maria Wirth.