the language and time of the Vedas and the language and time the Darsanas is different. The darsanas are in classical Sanskrit and they use technical words and present ideas philosophically, in other words they are philosophical texts. On the other hand, the Vedas are in Vedic Sanskrit and they present the ideas poetically. Hence, why I make no claim the Vedas are a philosophical text, they are spiritual texts. They contain all the ideas of the darsanas in their poetic hymns. These are extracted, expanded, and developed into entire systems of philosophy by the darsanas.
In the traditional Vedic teaching system each of the Vedas were associated with a particular science, engineering(shilpa vidya) music(ghandara vidya), medicine(ayurveda), martial arts(dhunar vidya)
In the classical phase different words are used to describe old Vedic concepts. For instance the word “Rudra” is replaced by Shiva. Aditi becomes Shakti. Rita becomes dharma and karma. Maruts becomes the tanmatras and Agni, pritvhi, vayu, apas, akasha become the mahabhuttas. Indra become buddhi. Mitra-Varuna becomes Manas. Saraswati becomes Kundalini.
In other words all that changes is the names, rituals and symbols, but the concepts remain the same. The Vedic religion was never a religion that worshipped “gods and goddesses” The Vedic religion has always been a religion of spirituality. Even the Vedas say themselves, “They call you Mitra, Indra, Varuna, Aryaman, but the wise one knows there is only ONE, but called by many names”
I guess only somebody who is well versed in both the Vedas and the darsanas can appreciate this. An outsider looking in, sees difference where there is none.[/QUOTE]
Since I am not well-versed in the Vedas, I suppose you will try to use that as a reason to dismiss anything that I have to say. But, you’re really just avoiding the issue, because you don’t want to admit the truth. The writer of the introductory article I referenced earlier used the word “worship” to describe the mantras and other practices that are used in connection with these deities, so apparently he believes they are externally existent entities. The word “worship” is only used in connection with gods, whether you call them luminous ones or something else. There are no rituals or worship practices associated with any of the philosophical principles of the darsanas. In India there are many religious festivals and temples and people who worship in them, and if you ask them what is their religion, I’m betting they’re going to say they are Hindu. So the idea that Hinduism is all about science and philosophy is not quite true, is it? It’s also very much about religion, defined as the worship of gods.
You said yourself that the devas control all of reality. So we have real, externally existent entities, controlling a reality, which, in the past, you have stated is merely a perceptual error. Is it just me, or is there something here that doesn’t quite add up?
I think you are engaging in some wishful thinking here. For example, you stated that the Vedas contain all the ideas of the darsanas, but if they did, it would not be necessary for the ideas to be expanded and developed.
I get the impression that you are a little embarrassed by all of the worshipping of gods that is going on. There seems to be a dichotomy in Indian culture. On the one hand you have the scientific,philosophical and spiritual people, and on the other hand you have the religious people, almost as if there are two different Hinduisms.
So the idea that Hinduism is all about science and philosophy is not quite true, is it? It’s also very much about religion, defined as the worship of gods
I think the definition religion constitutes a personal meaning, for our fault in the history of mankind was understanding religion as a social application. Today people still worship all those god idols and totems in India, however most of those practices are empty. Because authentraditions are cut off by British colonialism by 17th century, and new generation Indians have little access to authentic traditions.
Hinduism used to be a science when India was not a chaotic place. Today what defines Hinduism as religion is western institutions, and a billion people in India who are ingrained in western idealism.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36450]You say that I am reading the OT selectively, and then you present me two particular sections of the OT. I am sorry but the OT is full of violence, I have quoted passage after passage from the OT which is full of violence. Nothing has been taken out of context at all. It is full of accounts of god killing people. [/QUOTE]
Thank you for proving my point. You won’t even look at scripture that does not support your position. I suggested two entire books for you to read, not selected passages. You have not provided any context for accounts of violence in the OT.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36450]
Yes there is. “I am the way, the life and the truth, there is no way to heaven except me” arrogantly proclaimed by Jesus. Jesus appoints himself as the doorkeeper to god, deciding who gets in. He even threatens, “I will deny you before my father” to those who denied Jesus. He is very much like a man-child who is calling on his father when he is undermined by others, “I am going to tell daddy” This attitude is then adoped by the Christian church who become the doorkeepers and the ultimate arbiters of who is saved and not saved.[/QUOTE]
First of all, you need to tone down your remarks about “arrogance” and “going to tell daddy”. You are talking about the person who billions believe is the son of god. Your words are ignorant and offensive to many. Your statements about political correctness only show the depth of your ignorance. You do not have the common decency to show a little respect. You have only self promotion, as you think by these words you will gain favor with your Hindu extremist friends.
That being said, you have hit upon a thorny issue. On the one hand, there is the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, in which judgement is based on character and actions alone. On the other hand, you have judgement based on belief in Jesus, which are known as the “I Am” declarations. Both cannot be true, and yet, since both are the words of the Lord, both must be true. What is the explanation?
The explanation, which many Christians do not understand, is that the I Am declarations cannot be taken literally. I Am has to be understood as the name of God, which is given in the OT (I Am That I Am). I Am also must be understood as the self in every individual. Understood in that way, there is no inconsistency, and the concept is very much in line with yoga philosophy.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36450]
These are official clergy members of the Church with ties to the highest Christian authorities. So yes they are representative. If you think their activities are fundamentalist, then the Church in general then is fundamentalist.[/QUOTE]
Once again you prove my point, you refuse to acknowledge what I told you. Based on the articles to referenced, you are talking about a particular Christian group that is doing missionary activity in India. There are many groups or churches within Christianity, such as Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheren, Epicopal, Baptisit, Methodist. “Ties to the highest Christian authorities” makes no sense because there are different authorities within each different church.
[QUOTE=High Wolf;36456]I think the definition religion constitutes a personal meaning, for our fault in the history of mankind was understanding religion as a social application. Today people still worship all those god idols and totems in India, however most of those practices are empty. Because authentraditions are cut off by British colonialism by 17th century, and new generation Indians have little access to authentic traditions.
Hinduism used to be a science when India was not a chaotic place. Today what defines Hinduism as religion is western institutions, and a billion people in India who are ingrained in western idealism.[/QUOTE]
Hello, High Wolf. Of course religion is personal, but for the purpose of differentiating religion from philosophy, philosophy does not include the worship of gods.
I really cannot speak to what is happening inside India today and the effects of British colonialism. But just to say western institutions are defining Hinduism is too general a statement to have any real meaning. There are lots of institutions, like banks, universities, governments, hospitals, etc. Could you please tell us which western institutions are defining Hinduism?
Other people in the West including several Yoga teachers state that Yoga is not a religion. This can also be misleading. Yoga is not part of any religious dogma proclaiming that there is only one God, church or savior, nor have the great Yoga teachers from India insisted that their students become Hindus, but Yoga is still a system from the Hindu religion. It clearly does deal with the nature of the soul, God and immortality, which are the main topics of religion throughout the world. Its main concern is religious and certainly not merely exercise or health.
This is from Dr. David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri). Thought it was rather insightful considering the topic.
He even goes on to say that there are Christian and Islam missionaries who are promoting aggressive missionary work in India. And while this is true, one cannot assume that all christians and muslims are like this. And Surya, I know you will say, this is not true, but it is. I know of many people who have gone to India to do missionary work from varied religious backgrounds. None of them are aggressive or use type of violence. You just can’t lump them all together. Consider this…I am a very liberal democrat. Many of my friends are conservative republicans. Within the republican party we have the ‘extreme’ religious right, the tea party movement and also more moderate republicans. Do I think “all” republicans are like the religious right or the tea party? No. They do not represent the body of the party, or even a substantial #. What they do is spread hatred and make news. So if you only look at what you see or hear without really understanding the totality of something, you will get a skewed, false understanding.
This discussion, like many, is being hijacked into personally chosen war zones. If an attempt is to prove the intellectual prowess, enough is already on display.
What benefit such intolerance to other people’s interpretations, beliefs, or even mis-conceptions bring? Brief sense of triumph to the warriors and utter waste of time for many readers.
Let us be Yoga practitioners here. At the physical level, there is diversity. Higher you go there is connectedness and uniformity. So much so, that in the soul connection, we realize that the same divinity resides at the core of each one of us. If that is the goal of Yoga, the intellectuals seem to have completely lost their way.
It will be so nice if the experts of the ‘past’ were to meditate on why they are hurting their own cause, if there is one. While practicing Yoga, whether subscription to any religion matters or not is to be judged by the practitioner alone by having ‘self-realization’ as the only testimony. This self-realization happens ‘here and now’ and does not come with anybody’s IP rights in small print. I wish, perhaps like many others, that these heated and rudderless arguments become decent conversations.
Hinduism is not purely a science or philosophy. It is a way of life and a culture.
The words “religion” and “philosophy” are not even present in Sanskrit, because there was never a separation between spirituality and science in India. The closest words in Sanskrit for religion and philosophy is “dharma” and “darsana” and they mean principles/way and viewpoint/perspective respectively. So this attempt to force Hinduism into some category which is either religion or philosophy is artificial. There is no such distinction in Hinduism.
You say there are two Hinduism’s where one part is all about science, philosophy and spirituality, and the other is about rituals, idol worshipping etc. This is the understanding of somebody who does not have any historical and cultural contextual knowledge. You see them as separate because you are ignorant of this. Let us first look at the context: Idol-worship and temple building do not start to take off in India until 1AD onwards. The so-called golden age of India where temples start appearing everywhere and various sects form takes place around 5AD to 10AD. In this period Islamic, Christian influences have entered India, and dualist traditions are forming based on their monothist philosophy, leading to the Bhakti-movement(Devotion movement). This is legitimated by appealing to the philosophy of “Sadguna Brahman” in the Vedic religion where Brahman, that is the ultimate reality, can be expressed in infinitely different way. In this period we see the puranas are composed by various sects, giving narratives to their many gods and goddesses.
If we go back prior to 1AD there are no temples in India, no evidence of idol worship or a vast pantheon of gods. No temples have been found in the Indus valley. Instead what we find is just a culture of Yoga, meditation and philosophy. The Agamas back this up as well, that in preceeding ages bhakti was not practiced, but in the Kali yuga bhakti was considered to be the most suited form of spiritual practice for the modern temperament and the most effective. This tradition spawned many great saints and masters, and gained great popularity and hence why it has become more characteristic of modern Hinduism than Yoga, meditation and philosophy. However, Yoga, meditation and philosophy is not at all absent in any of the Bhakti traditions. In fact all of the Bhakti rituals are found in the Agamas, and they also prescribe yoga, meditation and philosophy. They are all based on the same Vedic philosophy and all of them embrace Vedanta. Even the myths they tell and and rituals they practice tell something about Vedic philosophy.
See this article for more on the philosophical context behind rituals in Hinduism:
Thus we can see that the rituals and the worship were created later by Indian society to accomodate for the changing times, in order that the Vedic tradition was kept alive and the masses can be taught Vedic concepts in a means most suited to their temperament. Later, when India was ravaged by invasions by the Muslims and then the British, the rituals were decontexualized and Indian people started practicing rituals blindly. This was especially true during British rule, because the British had outlawed Sanskrit education in India and replaced it with British education.
Learned Hindus know however that Hinduism is not a religion of gods and goddesses, but a religion of pure spirituality, philosophy and science.
You said yourself that the devas control all of reality. So we have real, externally existent entities, controlling a reality, which, in the past, you have stated is merely a perceptual error. Is it just me, or is there something here that doesn’t quite add up?
Nope, I said that the Devas are part of our psychic apparatus. This means they are not real external entities, but part of our psych itself. As you should know by now, Hinduism is idealist, it considers reality to be fundamentally made out of a mental-stuff. The Devas are the principles within the psyche that exist in the causal plane of reality. This is why they are considered the luminous ones. They are what govern Rita/dharma in existence. They are not people.
If you look back at the darsanas, none of the darsanas have an anthromoprhic understanding of god. The Nyaya-Vaiseshikas understand god to be a creative intelligence that creates and maintains the entire universe. The Samkhya-Yoga understand god to be Ishvara/Purusha or the supreme controller/observer. The Mimasa-Vedanta understand god to be ultimate reality. The Rig veda itself just says the “ONE”
God and god’s are not people in Hinduism.
I think you are engaging in some wishful thinking here. For example, you stated that the Vedas contain all the ideas of the darsanas, but if they did, it would not be necessary for the ideas to be expanded and developed.
They contain them as spiritual hymns. As the Vedas, at large, are praises to the Devas. They are full of great respect and love for the eternal principles.
The Darsanas and the shastras are scientific and secular elaborations and applications of these principles. For example we can find that the division of society along functional requirements based on aptitudes is found in the Purusha suktam in the Rig Veda. Later, niti/artha shastras are composed in order to realise that Vedic notion.
The Vedic education system has ALWAYS been based on only using written text as a reference. It is predominately remained an oral tradition. Even today if you watch a guru’s discourse, they base an entire discourse with reference to only one line of text. The Vedic people did not feel it was necessary to give verbose descriptions. Similarly, the Vedas were basically spiritual reference texts for the Vedic people, containing all the ideas of the Vedic people in germinal form. It is based on these Vedas that all Vedic sciences were based.
I get the impression that you are a little embarrassed by all of the worshipping of gods that is going on. There seems to be a dichotomy in Indian culture. On the one hand you have the scientific,philosophical and spiritual people, and on the other hand you have the religious people, almost as if there are two different Hinduisms.
Not at all. I recognise Bhakti as a valid path to self-realization and I recognise how important the path of Bhakti is to some people. But what I genuinely embarrasing, however, is Western peoples understanding of Bhakti. They go India and see the rituals, idol worship, cows etc and come back thinking that is Hinduism
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;36460]This is from Dr. David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri). Thought it was rather insightful considering the topic.
He even goes on to say that there are Christian and Islam missionaries who are promoting aggressive missionary work in India. And while this is true, one cannot assume that all christians and muslims are like this. And Surya, I know you will say, this is not true, but it is. I know of many people who have gone to India to do missionary work from varied religious backgrounds. None of them are aggressive or use type of violence. You just can’t lump them all together. Consider this…I am a very liberal democrat. Many of my friends are conservative republicans. Within the republican party we have the ‘extreme’ religious right, the tea party movement and also more moderate republicans. Do I think “all” republicans are like the religious right or the tea party? No. They do not represent the body of the party, or even a substantial #. What they do is spread hatred and make news. So if you only look at what you see or hear without really understanding the totality of something, you will get a skewed, false understanding.[/QUOTE]
Namaste Lotusgirl,
I have already said my point is not all people who call themselves Christians are Muslims are bad. My point is that the religions themselves, in general, are bad. They contain bad doctrines(conversion, condemnation of other religions, intolerance) which then engender fundamentalist activity. Read this article yourself to get an understanding of what the Church is up to in India. This article is written by a French Christian writer:
Thirdly, conversions in India by Christian missionaries of low caste Hindus and tribals are sometimes nothing short of fraudulent and shameful acts. American missionaries are investing huge amounts of money in India, which come from donation-drives in the United States where gullible Americans think the dollars they are giving go towards uplifting “poor and uneducated” Indians.
It is common in Kerala, for instance, particularly in the poor coastal districts, to have “miracle boxes” put in local churches. The gullible villager writes out a paper mentioning his wish such as a fishing boat, a loan for a pucca house, fees for the son’s schooling. And lo, a few weeks later the miracle happens! And of course the whole family converts, making others in the village follow suit.
American missionaries (and their government) would like us to believe that democracy includes the freedom to convert by any means. But France for example, a traditionally Christian country, has a minister who is in charge of hunting down “sects.” And by sects, it is meant anything that does not fall within the recognized family of Christianity – even the Church of Scientology, favoured by some Hollywood stars such as Tom Cruise or John Travolta, is ruthlessly hounded. And look at what the Americans did to the Osho movement in Arizona, or how innocent children and women were burnt down by the FBI (with the assistance of the US army) at Waco, Texas, because they belonged to a dangerous sect.
Did you know that Christianity is dying in the West? Not only is church attendance falling dramatically because spirituality has deserted it, but less and less youth accept the vocation to become priests or nuns. And as a result, say in the rural parts of France, you will find only one priest for six or seven villages, whereas till the late seventies, the smallest hamlet had its own parish priest.
And where is Christianity finding new priests today? In the Third World, of course! And India, because of the innate impulsion of its people towards god, is a very fertile recruiting ground for the Church, particularly in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Hence the huge attention that India is getting from the United States, Australia, or England and the massive conversion drive going on today.
It is sad that Indians, once converted, specially the priests and nuns, tend to turn against their own country and help in the conversion drive. There are very few “White” missionaries left in India and most of the conversions are done today by Indian priests.
Last month, during the bishop’s conference in Bangalore, it was restated by bishops and priests from all over India that conversion is the FIRST priority of the Church here. But are the priests and bishops aware that they would never find in any Western country the same freedom to convert that they take for granted in India? Do they know that in China they would be expelled, if not put into jail? Do they realize that they have been honoured guests in this country for nearly two thousand years and that they are betraying those that gave them peace and freedom?
It is apparent from the above article that Christian missionaries being sent from the West into India are spreading hate in India, exploiting vulnerable, illiterate and poor Indians, turning them away from their own culture. It is the classic “divide and rule” tactic which Christianity has used since its very inception.
So where is the evidence that things have changed? Nothing has changed. The same dirty tactics of the Abrahamic religions continue. This is why I maintain as long as these Abrahamic religions remain on this planet this planet will see no peace.
Now watch this German documentary(with subtitles) on what Christianity is doing in Iraq. Note at 2:10 how a Christian here says that it does not matter if Christian people die as a result
of conversations due to communal violence. It is just a temporal punishment on earth for eternal salvation.
It is clear this fundamentalistm is being perpetrated, sponsored and funded by the highest authorities in the Christian religion itself.
As a result of their religious politics innocent Christians are being killed by angry Hindus in India. If responsible Christians do not act now
to stop the Christian fundamentalism and terrorism, we could see deadly holocausts in India against Christians. As I said the Hindu nationalists
in India number in tens of millions. They are very very angry. They are not only having to tolerate the Abrahamic violence and fundamentalist
against their culture and identity, but a corrupt government headed by a roman catholic president, which uses communal politics to win power and
appeases them. Not to mention an English-language media controlled by Christians and Muslims. Hindus are feeling desperate in their own country,
and desperation leads to insanity. Like I said I do not condone violence against innocent people, but if holocausts against Christians and Muslims
do happen in India, Christians and Muslims will only have themselves to blame for provoking tolerant and peace-loving Hindus.
What we need here is not some illusion that all religions are peaceful, but action. Christians and Muslims need to stop apologising for what their religions
are doing and instead push for reform in these religions. Get rid of those evil doctrines present in their religion. Stop the conversion propoganda. Get out
of the past and join the modern scientific world.
I did not prove your point, but rather showed your point to be hypocritical. You accuse me of selective reading, then tell me to read particular sections of the OT. I will read them. However, I want you to tell me under what context is infanticide, murder, genocide and rape justified? As you cannot deny that the OT God ordains this directly.
First of all, you need to tone down your remarks about “arrogance” and “going to tell daddy”. You are talking about the person who billions believe is the son of god. Your words are ignorant and offensive to many. Your statements about political correctness only show the depth of your ignorance. You do not have the common decency to show a little respect. You have only self promotion, as you think by these words you will gain favor with your Hindu extremist friends.
I am not going to be politically correct. The statements Jesus makes are arrogant. If I said to you, “I am the way, nobody else, you’re not going to get anywhere without me” you would, as would any other sensible person call that arrogant. Similarly, if I cut down a tree because it was not giving fruits, when it was not the season for those fruits, you would, as would any other sensible person call that childish. If I told you to hate your parents, your brothers, sisters and join me, you would, as would any other sensible person call that divisive.
Just because it is Jesus does not make an iota of difference to me. I measure everybody by the same standards of humanity.
That being said, you have hit upon a thorny issue. On the one hand, there is the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, in which judgement is based on character and actions alone. On the other hand, you have judgement based on belief in Jesus, which are known as the “I Am” declarations. Both cannot be true, and yet, since both are the words of the Lord, both must be true. What is the explanation?
The explanation, which many Christians do not understand, is that the I Am declarations cannot be taken literally. I Am has to be understood as the name of God, which is given in the OT (I Am That I Am). I Am also must be understood as the self in every individual. Understood in that way, there is no inconsistency, and the concept is very much in line with yoga philosophy.
This is a common cop-out used by Christians and Muslims. If they don’t agree with something in their scripture, then it is metaphorical, otherwise it is literal. All sensible people know this is hyprocisy and nothing else. The story of creation of Adam and eve was literal to the current century, now Christians know that it is contradicted by science, they pretend it is metaphorical. Whether you like it or not, Jesus did in fact say that he is the way, life and truth and there is no other way than him. He did call himself the only begotten son of god. He did in fact create a personality-cult and had people worship him. He did in fact say that he can choose who and who does not get salvation
You can twist anything to mean anything if you twist it enough. This is what you are doing to put Yoga into Jesus’s mouth. Do you have any evidence that Jesus did not preach this exclusivist doctrine and a personality cult?
There are millions of personality cults in India alone today, where people are claiming to be gods/avatars/prophets, what makes Jesus any different?
The Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following activities, among others:
Murder
Adultery
Bestiality[13]
Rape [14]
Homosexual sex[15]
A betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped[16]
A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding[17]
Worshiping other gods[18][19]
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)
Taking God's name in vain or cursing God's name[20]
Cursing a parent[21][22][23]
Kidnapping[24]
Additionally, many of the military punishments recorded in the Bible would today be considered to be war crimes. One website summarizes the argument: "Myth: The Bible is morally pure and free from atrocity. Fact: The Bible is filled with countless acts of barbarism and tyranny."[25]
The people of Midian together with Moab began to interact with the people of Israel. The Israelites were staying in Shittim when the Moabite girls invited the people to their religious sacrifices. The people ate, and worshiped the Moabite gods[4].
For these transgressions, the Midianites were attacked by Moses and his followers[5]. When Moses learned that some Midianites had been spared[6], he ordered all males and non-virgin females killed, and all the virgin females to be taken captive[7]. The virgins were divided among the priests and the people[8]. For their hesitation in killing the children, God punished the Israelites with a plague[9].
He rose from the dead. Thats what made him different. He proved his case. I am that I am. I exist. The God of the universe whether he be God, Allah or Yahweh. It is sad that in all your short-sightedness you miss that message.
As for hating your brother,mother,sister or others, the reference is that you should love God (as Christ is trasfigured at this point of the Bible and considered the embodment of God on Earth) so much that your love for others seems like hate. This is also the same when Christ states I am the way the truth and the life, none can come to the father exept through me. Notice he does not say, be baptised and become a Christian. Christianity did not even exist at this point. Rather he says you must know and have a relationship with me(God) before you can truly be acknowledged by God.
I think you have a real issue with us. You can’t understand how a person can have faith. It goes against everything you believe. Well you can’t prove faith with science Surya Diva. Or it would cease to be faith. I have faith that if I live my life in a Christ-like manner (humility, mercy, compassion, generosity, tolerance, and servanthood towards others regardless of religion) that I will go to heaven. Notice none of those state that you must become a Christian to go to heaven. Christ does not even make that a requirement. Rather that you should model your life after his.
Even Revelations 20:11-15 doesn’t condemn non believers to the “second death"
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
No mention that it was just Christians being saved at the final death.
The fact is God tried to get our attention the first time with Adam and Eve. He was in relationship with us. Yet through our arrogance (hence why you anger so many with your words of become like God) we thought we knew better and disobeyed. We thought we could be like him but in fact we failed. We are violent, hateful, murderous, jeleous, greedy, bigots, racist, and many more things. Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Hindus, Buddists, and all others alike. We are human, Not God. We can strive to become better, but there is nothing we can do ourselves that will ever make us perfect enough to be in right relationship with God. We are God’s creation, his masterpiece. His first and only love. What does it take to get our attention? Sadly too much. A life that was lead so perfectly without blemish. That was the meaning of Christ. You missed the message. We don’t have the death penalties for the above transgressions because Christ took that all away. The God changed the rules with his death and rescerrection. We know longer had to pay the price for those sins or live as condemned men and women under the Rule of the Law of God. We were free from those burdens and allowed open and free access to God with the understanding that we would live lives that would reflect that relationship.
You don’t understand the Bible, rather you read and quote it. If you truly understood the message you would be more tolerant. Instead you base your opinions on excerpts of text you don’t understand.
You also justify future violence against innocents based on the actions of a fundamental wing of Christians. If Hindus were truly tolerant, they would be able to seperate those who are innocent from those who are not and not hold them accountable for their actions. We (as in most Liberal democrat Christians) don’t hold innocent Muslims accountable for terrorism or expect them to “reign” them in. Or ask other Hindus to “reign” in those ideas that are less than peaceful or tolerant.
I am glad I have other people in my life I have known that are Hindu. From what I have learned their view on salvation/enlightment is the same as mine.
Same message different words. I don’t speak and teach the same lessons to my children in the same manner. With one I must be strict and show myself as a good role model in order for them to learn. With another, I can challange their sense of intelligence and ethics to encourage them to find the meaning. With another, they must learn through trying, failing and then trying again until they understand the lesson. So many countless ways to teach and to learn. Just like God with his universe full of children. Just like Christanity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and all other religions. Same lesson, different words.
You maintain I have missed the message. However, it would be more accurate to say that I do not share your interpretation of the bible. Your interpretation itself is lacking in evidence and is based only on faith and nothing else. Even when one gives an interpretation for a text it has to be supported by evidence from the text. In the past I had given exactly the same interpretations as you did. I said that “I am the way, the life and the truth, there is no to heaven except me” is Jesus speaking from god-consciousness like Krishna, who says “Surrender everything to me” I said that “Hate your brother, mother, sister” was Jesus saying one must completely dedicate themselves to god. However, now that I have seen more evidence, I now realise these interpretations are wishful thinking at best and rationalizations. Now, more enlightened on the subject, I see more evidence for Jesus being the leader of a personality-cult than a spiritual master.
Jesus obviously was not in god-consciousness himself because he always referred to god as his father and prays to god. This means he is like anyone of us. In that case why did he act like god’s right-hand man? Why did he claim he was the only way? Why did he claim that he had the power to choose who was saved or not saved? Why did he throw tantrums such as cursing the fig tree when it did not bear fruit when he was hungry? The more I review evidence I see evidence that Jesus was just another bloke. However, with delusions of grandeur. If he really had such great power, why would he cry to his father in the end, “Why have you forsaken me”
The myth of his resurrection is just that a myth. Even if he did rise from the dead, it is no more impressive than countless people having near-death experiences. Rising from the dead is recorded by many cultures throughout the world. I mean what did Jesus do for the world that was so great? He died for our sins? Then why does sin still continue if he supposely wiped the slate clean? Why is it that immediately afterwards his religion was used to wage wars and kill pagans?
No guru has ever claimed they are the only way, other than charlatans. Nirmala Devi, the founder of Sahaja Yoga like Jesus makes very grandiose claims that she is an avatar of the divine mother herself, and she has made it possible for people to become self realised now, because she did the amazing deed of opening up the crown chakra of the world. I was a member of this group for a while, until I realised how arrogant the founder was. Her followers worship her blindly. I am now sharing the same feelings towards Jesus. Is he just one of the many false-gurus out there creating personality cults, who ended up upsetting too many people and got crucified and then his followered ended up usurpring his religion.
The Abrahamic god is obviously a person. As he seems to be just as moody, fickle and emotional as the average person. He changes the “rules” In the OT he kills people with impunity and thirsts for blood sacrifices. In the NT he sends his only begotten son to be tortured, beaten and crucified and watches the show silently. Such a god is surely a schizophrenic
I also wanted to point out a very interesting difference I have found between the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism.
The original sin of human beings is eating from the tree of knowledge and knowing the difference between right and wrong and becoming like god. Man is punished for trying to become like god. He was always suppose to be below god, to remain completely ignorant of the difference between right and wrong.
In Hinduism one is enjoined to realise their own personal divinity and expand in their knowledge by refining their intellect and knowing the difference between right and wrong, so that they become self-sovereign and act in wisdom.
The former is obviously the belief of a society where the commom man is oppressed, expected to be illiterate and ignorant and not interfere with the law of the state and expect any kind of parity with the elite. The latter is a belief of an equalitarian society where everybody is believed to have the same potential and is encouraged to realise it. It is easy to see which one is more enlightened.
I think I’m finished here. I don’t really see an honest effort to arrive at a some kind of consensus, just more extremist propaganda. David, please take note. You wouldn’t let a skinhead do this.
I would like to thank Suhas Tambe for her honest words in her above post.
One thing is clear in this thread… no amount of evidence will change anyones mind. Ever! There is no point in continuing with this discussion.
Surya Deva’s mind will never be changed. His perception of other religions, especially Christians and Islam, is not how most Hindus view them. Most Hindus are tolerant of other religions. He has studied these religions but does not know or understand them. Nor does he want to. It does not matter how you say it, why you say it, how many supporting facts you present, videos, quotes, etc. Nothing will change. His mind is made up and cannot be changed. We want something we cannot have…a resolution or agreement. Why try?
I think it would be fair to say that I am not spreading any kind of hate or extremist propoganda, but merely offering a critical Hindu perspective on Abrahamic religions and Western perceptions of Yoga. A perspective, which will be clear to many on this forum now, is shared by many Hindu intellectuals.
Many of the points I have brought up are all valid points and I expect you to continue this discussion by responding appropriately to those points. For instance I asked you an honest question under what circumstances is infanticide, genocide, murder and rape justified. It is you who are showing the intolerance by constantly calling for censorship of our perspective, and funnily enough, you argue for a while and when you find you are losing the debate, you are back to calling for censorship
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;36481]I would like to thank Suhas Tambe for her honest words in her above post.
One thing is clear in this thread… no amount of evidence will change anyones mind. Ever! There is no point in continuing with this discussion.
Surya Deva’s mind will never be changed. His perception of other religions, especially Christians and Islam, is not how most Hindus view them. Most Hindus are tolerant of other religions. He has studied these religions but does not know or understand them. Nor does he want to. It does not matter how you say it, why you say it, how many supporting facts you present, videos, quotes, etc. Nothing will change. His mind is made up and cannot be changed. We want something we cannot have…a resolution or agreement. Why try?[/QUOTE]
Namaste,
Too right there is not going to be any resolution. You have constantly failed to demonstrate any of your points. None of the supporting facts, videos and quotes you present demonstrate your points, but on the contrary sometimes end up supporting my points instead.
You basically cry foul when you are losing in a debate. Then you either call for censorship of those views or personally complain about me.(This is known as an adhominem fallacy)
Just to prove that my critical views of the Abrahamic religions are shared by many intellectuals. Review the following:
In an event sponsored by Harvard Book Store as part of Richard Dawkins’s tour to promote his new book, The God Delusion, the Oxford professor and avowed atheist boldly bashed belief in a supernatural God as a “pernicious delusion.”
Offering this excerpt from his book, Dawkins declared with disdain, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Another perspective by Richard Dawkins on tolerance and religion:
Richard Dawkins makes some valid points in this discourse that we cannot respect all religious beliefs. Something cannot be justified by saying you believe x, because you believe that you believe it. If such were justified, anything could be justified, such as believing in racism.
Too right there is not going to be any resolution. You have constantly failed to demonstrate any of your points. None of the supporting facts, videos and quotes you present demonstrate your points, but on the contrary sometimes end up supporting my points instead.
You basically cry foul when you are losing in a debate. Then you either call for censorship of those views or personally complain about me.(This is known as an adhominem fallacy)[/QUOTE]
Good morning Surya Deva.
Why is it you always use the same argument, ‘crying foul’, when we feel there is no further point in pursuing the discussion. It’s like beating a dead horse. If there is someone out there that shares in you views about abrahamic religions, I have not seen them post. Most all agreed that there is a history of violence, violence we are ashamed of. We agree that some fringe, extremist factions of abrahamic religions continue with this. We agree this is unfortunate. You are not a christian and do not understand their concept or interpretation of their religious text, the bible. You view the bible from a very skewed, narrow minded viewpoint. What you are doing is looking at isolated examples and literal translations. You need to look at the bigger picture of the bible and christians. You chose not to because it would prove our point.
TeeAs post echoes the sentiments of many. Many thanks to her for sharing her thoughts and feelings.
