God...Why?

sapr333 · Jul 13, 2009

arunshanker said:
I don't buy the argument that they are eternal timeless and spaceless truth
I

Dear Arun, found this point very interesting, and helpful to pull back the topic towards God.

A philosophy which was appealing to me is 'God is the Ultimate Truth", cos with human eyes and different perspective 'truth' becomes a comparative term.

Say suppose,a thrid person calls you, 'Arun,Are you are an egoistic?', you may say 'No' to him and he will also accept your statement asa 'Truth', though you know the truth within you is 'You are egoistic'..When we go to higherlevel, you father may not find you as an egoistic person,which is another truth, cos he has seen years than you ve seen yourself with the matured thoughts.. So where do fix the Ultimate truth? Who knows the ultimate truth? In my view I fix it on God.

Now in order to make it more understandable this logic...

Why in world we could reconcile with two truths,when truth itself could be only one. For eg, Husband wife fights,for a same truth. But both dont hold the truth,thats why they could reconcile with each other and strike peace.,othewise, truth cannot be reconciled with un-truth(an opposite claim/statement of a person). The basic term 'Reconcile' exists/survives in this world because, we dont carry the truth and its relative with different levels. So the ultimate truth lies with God..

Now, In this logic of Truth-Reconcillation truth in humans-Ultimate truth, could you pls work out how your view fits in.

arunshanker · Jul 13, 2009

OK! I am starting from the beginning
Sap asked in the first post of this thread
Why we need God? What if God is not there?
First Part answers
1. Why we need God?
-i) so that we are breaking the atom and accepting the first cause-If everything has a cause there shud be a first cause and if there is a first cause then that is GOd. We need God to axiomate this first cause but I ask why shud there be a cause at all
-ii) so that there are unbreakable natural laws and it can be said that God made this and make him a creationist! But I say why shud we confine ourselves thus. We can't we let ous imagination go beyond creation and why is it that is paramount to have a begining to all. to axiomisie that everything has a beginning is to restrict our frame of reference to the things we knwo and think that has a begining and hence we never think of things that coudl not have had a beginning. Infact it was said during the peak of Physics revival ( Bohr and Enstiein's time that in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard)
Even that is not exact, now that time wrap has been theorised and a Km in deep space in the far streches of the universe could be actually a million Km or the other way round
-iii)that God is required to bring justice into the world.
I totally disagree here I dont have to argue here you all know God is not just doiing that!
-iv) Safety - a very great reason to have God around - to feel that someone is watching you!
-v) fear and terror of the unknown and future! There better be a God to safegaurd these!
Second Part answer
What if God is not there?
Ah! this is the easier part
the answer is we would have a world exactly like what we are living in now!

arunshanker · Jul 13, 2009

sapr333 said:
'God is the Ultimate Truth".... So where do fix the Ultimate truth? Who knows the ultimate truth? In my view I fix it on God.

Now in order to make it more understandable this logic...

....two truths,when truth itself could be only one.

Now Sap that is what I am trying to say
like I said in one of earlier posts
all religious paths lead to a goal which in itself is a theological axiom with its self evidence central to it and very much related to the theological axiom and self evidence of the path
But when you question the theological axiom of the goal itself and its intertwined self evidence. The path to reach such a goal becomes a secondary issue!
which means that there is no "truth at all" and now where is the question of two truths and the paths leading to one or the other
In my parlance neither I am an egoist nor I am not and what I am is unknown
- Third person calls me egoist --- Untrure
- My father says I am not egoist ---- again untrue
Your so called "ultimate truth" is only a feeling within your frame of reference that it is the ultimate truth.
I prefer to say that these so called religions paths do not lead to the truth
only they claim that they lead to the truth
so why fight on which one is the real!??

sapr333 · Jul 13, 2009

arunshanker said:
>>We need God to axiomate this first cause but I ask why shud there be a cause at all

Hope you agree with me, Action is the result of Cause. This Cause&Action is an aristotelian metaphysical thought.

if you dont agree here, then, could you please give me some instances, where 'An action happened without a 'cause'?"

arunshanker · Jul 13, 2009

sapr333 said:
hope you agree with me, action is the result of cause. This cause&action is an aristotelian metaphysical thought.

If you dont agree here, then, could you please give me some instances, where 'an action happened without a 'cause'?"

the big bang!!!!

sapr333 · Jul 14, 2009

KRS said:
Dear Sri sapr333,

Why do you worry about what will happen to others in the after life? Faith is personal. >>Every religion has a 'model' about after life, as they have about cosmology.
KRS

Shri.KRS, actually my question out there was not to explore about the, life after-death of an atheist.. My objective was, how religions could find a common grouding answer to accomodate an atheist,through ONE GOD.Here I would attempt to touch upon the 'Various paths' on a platform without religious touch,but mainly focussing on atheism&God.

Im sure we both agreed to the foundation premise that GOD is one. I also agreed,about the possiblity of God taking incarnations in differnt times,in different ways to different cultures, and there could be a possiblity Lord Krishna would have come first as an Indian's God, and JC would have come later as a God for dessert. And we technically agreed that they both could have claimed themselves as 'Only God, I Am'.

Let see here, a few paths,which people believe about life after death and God..

Path 1)Eat Drink and be Merry,for tomorrow we may die, and noting more is left - SciFi Religion

Path 2)An atheist,who is also created by the same God, whoom we both agreed, claims that there is no life after death,and he is no more accountable for all the bad/evil actions he did in his life.
Every thing ends there.

Path 3) Another path says,there is God will not visit this world.

Path 4) A mormon says, I am also a god after death.

Path 5) Your are accountable to God, and life after death is decided based upon your current life, and punishement may be either though reincarnation or hell

With my poor knowledge and intellectuality, I cannot prove who is wrong, but I can stronly say, All of them are not Right..

If we could analyse these, what would be God's plan

1) One claims God will give punishment after death and definitely there is life after death, and another says, there is no life after death and no god at all.Can both be true. If so what would be our God's plan to treat them.

2) One says God will never come to this world at all, and we claim 'God has come already. Whose idea of God is true?

3) Yet another Mormon Christian says, I will become Another God after death (Same like All Powerful God-Version2), where as someone says, God is ONE.

4) Will there be a possiblity, God only created theists, and atheists were created by Darwinism?

So with this simple 5 paths itself, we can derive 5!(factorial) permutation and combinations. Could this be possible logically? In these complexity,is it possible to conceptualize 'One God' which covers all the paths? Could there be Two 'Truth", apart from pluralistic relative TruthS?

Thats why I asked about the after-life of Stalin/Lenin.Its natural we can only talk in terms of KarmaPhala, but according to Stalin or his grandchildren, he is dead and nothing more after..There cannot be two truths here about a single person,cos Truth is One. So either Lenin is right or we are wrong.

I would share this in an intersting tone.. A year ago, I was hanging out in a forum for 2 months, with the pretext of 'All Paths doctrine'..All of them pounded lot of innumerable convincing point..Annoyed,one poster asked me,'Cant you understand this silly logic,there cannot be Two Absolute Truths?.I was so much alienated, that I only felt as a fool out there" (No sarcasm here pls).

I think we discussed fairly deep on this topic,'One Path To God"..Its upto each one of us,including myself to grasp from it with our own God given asset called 'Reasoning'.

Our purpose is not for a check-mate, cos I know none of us carry the ultimate truth,and we only rely on those truths, which is more appealing to us,while using our knowledge tools like Critical examining/Reasoning/Philosophy/logic/Science etc etc..And thus I conclude here

Shri.KRS (as Moderator), if there is no strong refutal with an entirely different approach/perspective from the forum memebers, then I think, if you permit, I can move ahead with some new topics about God..Thanks indeed

KRS · Jul 14, 2009

Dear sapr333,

If you want to close this topic, you may do that - it is within your right as the originator.

However, let me summarize what we have been discussing and how you are missing some crucial points in explaining your conundrum.

1. God is one. We all agree on that. Hinduism goes further and says that God is one and encompasses all the worlds and jivas within them. But let us not quibble with this point. Let us agree that God is one, whether all pervasive or looking from outside.

2. God is defined as unknowable in Hinduism. Some religions say that He is like a man. Here, I would subscribe to the theory that God is formless, unknowable by mind, all powerful (as everything emanates from Him (no sex identity here)), all mericful and all the worlds and actions originates from Him(even the so called 'free will' of persons is granted by Him).

3. So, if one agrees to the above derivative, then one does not know how to 'know Him'. Different religions have different prescriptions to do this.

4. If there is only one path to reach Him, then may be one religion speaks the Truth (we do not know which and can not prove it) or logically, there is an equal chance that none speaks the Truth. Again, I reject both of these premises by the following: 1. If God showed the 'correct' way, He would have done it from the bigining of times. Not wait till some time to send His emissaries or come down by Himself and 2. Given the fact that the Man is conditioned to think about what is beyond and the connection between him and the craetor, it is not logical to say that no religion is non Truth. Even an atheist constantly thinks about God.

5. On the other hand, if the aim of a spiritual man is to know God, then he is limited by his experiences/culture/language/life style/mind set etc. Then if one accepts the fact that God is merciful (which ALL religions say), then one would think that God will accommodate to all the worldly limitations of His people (both theists and atheists) to show Himself accordingly to His worshippers, based on their own proclivities/limitations, in a form that will be easy to grasp.

6. This makes more sense because the tradition of Rishis, Gurus, Avatars, Bhagawans and Seers are not particular to just Hinduism. Every tradition has them in different quantities and emphasis based on their proclivity.

7. So, logically it makes sense to say that God will show many paths to know Him, as He made the Universe so diverse. Since the creation includes natural diversity, logically it follows that the comprehension mechanisms to 'know' the 'unknowable' should also be diverse. But, if you look at all these diverse paths and discard the 'grammer', you will find the same language. So, what seems 'diverse' on the surface are all remarkably the same underneath.

8. Lenin's judgement is based on whether he wantonly hurt/killed people. So was Stalin's. Hinduism says his karma phala will take care of it. You say there is 'absolute justice'. I prescribe to what Hinduism says on this because we believe in Karma and the evolution of a soul to maturity over several births. And this explains lots of happenings in the physical world, such as bad things happening to good people. But then, I do not think that one has to believe in such things to 'know' God, if one sincerely follows the path laid out in front of him by his religion.

9. Thus comparing religions on their 'grammer' is not only futile but also wrong. It is like comparing different languages to select a supreme language. Languages came about to serve the needs of certain people. In that sense they stand alone in their value. I guess one can have 'academic' discussions about the quality of literature etc. in a language, but even then, it does not say much about the languge, but rather the concerned society's civilizational development based on many many factors. For example, it is stated that certain African languages did not develop much because the need never arose for the practitioners to develop them. This does not mean that those languages are in anyway 'inferior'. Same way, because some communities found food easily in nature, they never developed the need to farm. Are such communities 'inferior'? No. We can only evaluate the superiority of a language by it's usage by the people who use them. In this sense I would argue that Latin, Greek and Sanskrit which have volumes of literature behind them are not 'superior' languages as they have been vanishing. Same way with the practice of 'knowing' God. Different religions speak different 'languages' about how to 'know' Him.

And this is the logic.

Regards,
KRS

arunshanker · Jul 14, 2009

KRS said:
Dear sapr333,

If you want to close this topic, you may do that - it is within your right as the originator.

However, let me summarize what we have been discussing and how you are missing some crucial points in explaining your conundrum.

1. God is one. We all agree on that. Hinduism goes further and says that God is one and encompasses all the worlds and jivas within them. But let us not quibble with this point. Let us agree that God is one, whether all pervasive or looking from outside.

2. God is defined as unknowable in Hinduism. Some religions say that He is like a man. Here, I would subscribe to the theory that God is formless, unknowable by mind, all powerful (as everything emanates from Him (no sex identity here)), all mericful and all the worlds and actions originates from Him(even the so called 'free will' of persons is granted by Him).

3. So, if one agrees to the above derivative, then one does not know how to 'know Him'. Different religions have different prescriptions to do this.

4. If there is only one path to reach Him, then may be one religion speaks the Truth (we do not know which and can not prove it) or logically, there is an equal chance that none speaks the Truth. Again, I reject both of these premises by the following: 1. If God showed the 'correct' way, He would have done it from the bigining of times. Not wait till some time to send His emissaries or come down by Himself and 2. Given the fact that the Man is conditioned to think about what is beyond and the connection between him and the craetor, it is not logical to say that no religion is non Truth. Even an atheist constantly thinks about God.

5. On the other hand, if the aim of a spiritual man is to know God, then he is limited by his experiences/culture/language/life style/mind set etc. Then if one accepts the fact that God is merciful (which ALL religions say), then one would think that God will accommodate to all the worldly limitations of His people (both theists and atheists) to show Himself accordingly to His worshippers, based on their own proclivities/limitations, in a form that will be easy to grasp.

6. This makes more sense because the tradition of Rishis, Gurus, Avatars, Bhagawans and Seers are not particular to just Hinduism. Every tradition has them in different quantities and emphasis based on their proclivity.

7. So, logically it makes sense to say that God will show many paths to know Him, as He made the Universe so diverse. Since the creation includes natural diversity, logically it follows that the comprehension mechanisms to 'know' the 'unknowable' should also be diverse. But, if you look at all these diverse paths and discard the 'grammer', you will find the same language. So, what seems 'diverse' on the surface are all remarkably the same underneath.

8. Lenin's judgement is based on whether he wantonly hurt/killed people. So was Stalin's. Hinduism says his karma phala will take care of it. You say there is 'absolute justice'. I prescribe to what Hinduism says on this because we believe in Karma and the evolution of a soul to maturity over several births. And this explains lots of happenings in the physical world, such as bad things happening to good people. But then, I do not think that one has to believe in such things to 'know' God, if one sincerely follows the path laid out in front of him by his religion.

9. Thus comparing religions on their 'grammer' is not only futile but also wrong. It is like comparing different languages to select a supreme language. Languages came about to serve the needs of certain people. In that sense they stand alone in their value. I guess one can have 'academic' discussions about the quality of literature etc. in a language, but even then, it does not say much about the languge, but rather the concerned society's civilizational development based on many many factors. For example, it is stated that certain African languages did not develop much because the need never arose for the practitioners to develop them. This does not mean that those languages are in anyway 'inferior'. Same way, because some communities found food easily in nature, they never developed the need to farm. Are such communities 'inferior'? No. We can only evaluate the superiority of a language by it's usage by the people who use them. In this sense I would argu that Latin, Greek and Sanskrit which have volumes of literature behind them are not 'superior' languages as they have been vanishing. Same way with the practice of 'knowing' God. Different languages speak different 'languages' about how to 'know' Him.

And this is the logic.

Regards,
KRS

Perfect! in fact excellent post Mr KRS
your post is very good! only thing it has a wee a very wee bit of Hindu leanings.
You said "Lenin's judgement is based on whether he wantonly hurt/killed people."
Actually Lenin was not a bad man at all (I am no commie coz I hate Stalin) Lenin was in fact a great man a very learned man and also a man who strived for peace in fact he was earnest in his peace attempts. He was not Anti Semitic. He did not order Purges. He did throw out the Tsar and the church and blood was shed but that was revolution! What Stalin was pure killing He also tried to put the best person after him in Leon Trotsky but Stalin was too smart for all this! You could have taken the example of Hitler for Bad men. I would say he was personification of a bad man!

As for me I guess my posts have atheist leanings ( I liked it when you said even atheists think of God!)
But just to let you know I am not an atheist
In fact I subscribe to the "Jedi" thought. The jedi religion does not have any official doctrine or scriptures it is so easy and simple
" Listen to the Force and Beware of the Dark Side"
Please do visit http://www.jedichurch.org/jedi-doctrine.html
I believe in "Peace, Justice, Love, Learning and using our abilities for Good so it's unlikely to fall in conflicts with anybody's beliefs and traditions. The path does not bother me!
May the force be with you all!

KRS · Jul 14, 2009

Dear Sri arunshanker Ji,

Thank you for your kind words. I never thought you are an atheist. A pure atheist would not have asked the questions you did.

Before I get in to the merits of the Jedi religion, let me do away with the myth about Lenin. Yes, he founded a movement based on idealism. But he was far from having his hands clean, without blood. To wit(from Wikipedia),

"According to Figes, Lenin had always been an advocate of "mass terror against enemies of the revolution" and was open about his view that the proletarian state was a system of organized violence against the capitalist establishment. Figes also claims that the terror, while encouraged by the Bolsheviks, had its roots in a popular anger against the privileged.[67] When Kamenev and Bukharin tried to curb the "excesses" of the Cheka in late 1918, it was Lenin who defended it.[68] In 1921, the Politboro, chaired by Lenin, expanded the Cheka's use of the death penalty.[69]
Lenin remained an advocate of mass terror, according to Richard Pipes. In a letter of 19 March 1922, to Molotov and the members of the Politburo, following an uprising by the clergy in the town of Shuia, Lenin outlined a brutal plan of action against the clergy and their followers, who were defying the government decree to remove church valuables: "We must (...) put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades. (...) The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing (...) the better."[70] Estimates of the numbers of the clergy killed vary. According to Figes[71] and The Black Book of Communism,[72] 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks and 3,447 nuns were executed as a result of Lenin's aforementioned directives. Historian Christopher Read estimates from the records that a grand total of 1,023 clergy were killed in the whole period 1917-23.[73] However, the late Alexander Yakovlev, the architect of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) and later head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, cites documents that confirm that nearly 3,000 were shot in 1918 alone.[74] Yakovlev stated that Lenin was "By every norm of international law, posthumously indictable for crimes against humanity."[75]
In September 1918, during the Red Terror, 25 former tsarist ministers and high civil servants, along with 765 so-called White Guards, were shot in Moscow. Lenin personally signed the execution lists, which, according to historian Robert Gellately, "invented another tradition that was carried out under Stalin."[76] David Remnick, pulitzer prize winning author of Lenin's Tomb, writes in a Time Magazine piece that Lenin paved the way not only for his successor, but also for Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot.[2]"

And Stalin learnt his lessons from his mentor.

Now about Jedism: It is well known that George Lucas based his films on Hinduism:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9H...jNzZDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

By the way have you ever read Joseph Campbell or seen his TV series (ran during late 1980's in USA)?

By the way, we all stand on the shoulders of our elders. When we say we are 'free thinkers', it only means that we are open to build on the ideas that already have been expressed. The Truth have been told - it is just a matter of how we interpret it to suit our present condition. And this is how it will be till the time when the Sun becomes a red giant.

Regards,
KRS

sapr333 · Jul 14, 2009

arunshanker said:
the big bang!!!!

Dear Arun,

What if I say, God caused the Big Bang? Metaphysically, every action should have a cause,right. So, Until you prove the reason which cause BB, till such time, I can keep God there

! Jokingly..

To make it meaningful, you need to present your view here on this.. ie, Did the universe start at one point,or its origin itself is infinite?

Actually First Cause was one of the very very oldest approach of God through Metaphysics. Then, are are numerous ways people has attempted/refuted 'Existence of God'.

One of the intersting article I read at the beginner level is an age old Hindu philosophical writting about Existence of God.. I think me and HH were debating for based upon that link in yet another thread..The author name slipped out of my mind..

H.H: Could you pls figure this link out, and post it to Arun.

arunshanker · Jul 14, 2009

Dear KRS ji
Lenin did have his hands in blood
Agreed
He was learned and was not inherently bad he did have his reasons for bloodshed
But again like you wud say who does not justify their killing even Hitler wud!
That apart Yes indeed Lucas did have his inspiration from Hindu Myth for star wars
In fact I used to think why not make a magnum opus movies with the story of Kacha and Deyvanani in Star wars style. From Shukra planet to Jupiter planet etc.,
The point is that the Jedi concept appeals to me
You say "By the way, we all stand on the shoulders of our elders. When we say we are 'free thinkers', it only means that we are open to build on the ideas that already have been expressed."
I agree to that
But you also say "The Truth have been told - it is just a matter of how we interpret it to suit our present condition. And this is how it will be till the time when the Sun becomes a red giant."
That I think is debatable especially regarding the assertion that "The truth has been told"

arunshanker · Jul 14, 2009

sapr333 said:
Dear Arun,

What if I say, God caused the Big Bang? Metaphysically, every action should have a cause,right. So, Until you prove the reason which cause BB, till such time, I can keep God there ! Jokingly..

To make it meaningful, you need to present your view here on this.. ie, Did the universe start at one point,or its origin itself is infinite?

Actually First Cause was one of the very very oldest approach of God through Metaphysics. Then, are are numerous ways people has attempted/refuted 'Existence of God'.

One of the intersting article I read at the beginner level is an age old Hindu philosophical writting about Existence of God.. I think me and HH were debating for based upon that link in yet another thread..The author name slipped out of my mind..

H.H: Could you pls figure this link out, and post it to Arun.

you say : What if I say, God caused the Big Bang?
Thats what I said in post # 227
repeated here : 1. Why we need God?
-i) so that we are breaking the atom and accepting the first cause-If everything has a cause there shud be a first cause and if there is a first cause then that is GOd. We need God to axiomate this first cause but I ask why shud there be a cause at all
But why are we have the obsession with the beginning
why don't you consider that the possibility of no beginning
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination[/FONT]
Why not thing is everything is randon in this universe? inyour word its origin itself is infinite

sapr333 · Jul 14, 2009

arunshanker said:
You could have taken the example of Hitler for Bad men.

Dear Arun, actually I saw little merit in your query about Lenin Vs Hitler (infact I quoted this eg), but then I intentionally stayed away responding back,for the simple reason,that, its not relevant to the thread's objective.

Infact, while composing, by default the first name instantly came on my mind was Hitler too. But I wanted to make it bit more precise to choose a Tyrant who is a Pure Atheist King ruler, and hence opted for Lenin.

but then, I intentionally stayed-away clarifying you back,for the simple reason,that, it has conveyed the message fairly well,based on the context of the recent discussions..

If we pick lines in between,every line will have a catchy point for debate.Possibly,for another 50 posts we would be only discussing if hitler is an atheist/theist/Nietscheist (or ) who killed the most Hitler/Komeni/stalin/Lenin... etc etc..

Actually,I thought you would, further strengthen the 9 excellent points shared by Shri.KRS.That would have added more value to the discussion. Correct me if Im wrong.

sapr333 · Jul 14, 2009

arunshanker said:
1) Why we need God?
2)why don't you consider that the possibility of no beginning
3)I ask why shud there be a cause at all

Dear Arun,

For the argument sake, lets say, I failed to give a convincing answer to you, and hence I put the question back in your own way..

1)Why there shouldnt there, be a need for God?

2)The literal word "BEGININING' itself has a 'Time' component instilled in it.., if not, then the other possiblity is, an existence of 'Infinity', ie, an enless beginning ,which is again different from your view of 'NO Begining';!!

If you are not convinced with this,then pls convince me (in detail), how a world with 'No Begining would be" without taking Time in to account

3) Cause is a philosophyical/metaphysical word here. Could you please prove that, in this world every thing could happen with a 'Cause'..

Most of the above questions cannot be answered by sheer Science..I think, its Sapthajiva asked an interesting question, which left unnoticed earlier,which could have helped here.. "What chemical,the 'Thought' is made up of'..

PS: I would appreiciate if you could give a elaborate convincing answer to these 3 questions.

sapr333 · Jul 16, 2009

KRS said:
Dear sapr333,

Shri.KRS, thanks indeed for the wonderful 9 points and I would like to continue this discussion. btw,I must have read them a dozen times.

I have picked up only 2 important points 'Truth' & 'Life after death' to talk in line with Many paths to God. Rest of those I will present in the next post. However, I have also considered some of those auxillary points, while writing this.

I am writing this in a hurry, and hence my articulation may not be good, please bear with me.

Still I need to beat around Lenin-Atheist eg.. As a follower of Hindu traditions, and its acceptance of many paths to god/atheism, one is forced to accept and accommodate Lenin’s path, and also looses the right to condemn Lenin (or) apply after-life/Karmaphala on him. Any rebuttal?

Again, when we confine a religion to geography/culture, then you loose the right to condemn /Correct, any future ‘Lenins’, cos you are confined with your geography/culture oriented path to God, and you are also ready to accept other cultural god’s/evils path. Even future ‘Hitler’ pops up, its gonna be ‘Live and Let Live’. This approach will have a problem in taking a ‘Worldview”.

Secondly, my refined temporary view (micro) is not to claim 'Only one religion speaks the Truth' and rest are false. When we go deep inside each religions, there are definitely some tint of lower level truth or Lies. For eg, Greek religions said Fire&water are the only Gods,which was definitely a truth, until Romans Gods said 'Entire Universe is God" which became a higher level of Truth, but again not 'ultimate Truth', cos Hinduism still carries logically better truth about God, than Greeks and Romans. A Christian who claims ''JC as an Ultimate truth' still has to clarify why there are Catholics & Protestants (I'm touching your point, which I intentionally skipped in an earlier post)

The word 'TRUTH' I mention here is Absolute Truth and there can only one such truth (not many truths) about God of Absolute Supreme..(Please ref my post # 226).And a Truth(relative) at lower level naturally becomes a 'Lie-UnTruth' when a higher level of Truth is explored.

Say suppose, one fine day God reveals to us and say, "Look human!!, for ages, I was only living in 'Lingam and nowhere other than that place", then, all other religions like Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Greek God's will become false and Hinduism will only be the True religion. Or , if god reveals to us, that, he existed in all religions including atheism, and who ever denied HIS point were all blasphemous, then Christianity would become false even in the eyes of God.

In this context definitely all paths cannot be True(absolute).. Also I can agree, each religion may carry some amount of 'Truth About God', and another religion may have a higher 'Level of Truth', in this light, the owner of the higher level of Truth will definitely the reject the religion of lower truth,cos there cannot be two TRUTHS. Hence, we are all still in the continuous pursuit of 'Ultimate Truth'.

For eg, Islam claims, it holds the Latest Ultimate Truth about God and prophet Mohammed claims 'He is the only last god-men' (which could be definitely wrong).Just because the Koran says so,one should not believe it.Or the entire Islam may become false for rejecting others as infidels..But, as a seeker of GOD, shouldn’t one try it and pursue and find out if Islam really holds "The Ultimate Truth?'. Shouldn’t one experience and verify it,with the God given ‘power of reasoning and critical examination!. If proved wrong, one should reject Islam and move to another religion and seek Truth..

After all, we are all in the Pursuit of 'Truth about God' (its not changing shirts). This pursuit is the basic human nature and Birth Right. In order to purse this 'Ultimate Truth About God' , we need to have a greater amount of religious freedom.

PS: I also request other participants to share their views on my posts. You are welcome to interfere here.

sapr333 · Jul 16, 2009

Shri.KRS, this is the supplementary to the previous post..

>>>. If God showed the 'correct' way, He would have done it from the bigining of times.>>

It’s a touch of button, for God to make every human as angels. Now that God has given ‘Freewill’ it may not be right for HIM to put all his things in ‘human minds,’ and stuff it at one go, which would be the violation of freewill. Similar arguments is also utilized by theist biologists, that these change is gradual and closer to the evolution of human brain, and God revealed gradually, in line with the evolution of human brain.

Monotheism presents this as 3 phases, and starts with the assumption that God would have chosen Jews,because,they were the one community in the world which believed in the ONE-GOD concept of that timeline.. In O.T God communicated through Voice in sky and miracles and prophesized his promise of revealing HIM to mankind, and in NT God comes down explains the nature of Godliness and sinless life and after he communes through his spirit form. Similarly, Lord Roma’s coming and then Lord Krishna’s lives could be seen as one among that sequence of gradual change. I am eager to know,monism's response on this..

>> show Himself accordingly to His worshippers, based on their own proclivities/limitations, in a form that will be easy to grasp.>>

A plausible point. But, looking around the world of different religions and atheism, we don’t find any uniformity in their stand on Morals/Sins/Teachings/Life after death/cause for suffereing etc. God cannot have one rule for a father and another rule for the son. As I said in the earlier post, if god has plans for atheists, then they also should be informed about life after death. In this context, Monotheism still covers atheists and claims that that they are condemned for not being ‘Obedient to God’ where as monism gives no explanation for them, I believe.

>>>>Since the creation includes natural diversity, logically it follows that the comprehension mechanisms to 'know' the 'unknowable' should also be diverse.>>

This is an interesting point.. This logic can also be used to refute my previous point, that God could have individual code-of-conduct and different types of life-after death solution for each individual. I need some time to respond here.. Incase you find any write up on this, please share with me.

KRS · Jul 21, 2009

Dear Sri sapr333,

My comments in 'blue':

sapr333 said:
Shri.KRS, thanks indeed for the wonderful 9 points and I would like to continue this discussion. btw,I must have read them a dozen times.

I have picked up only 2 important points 'Truth' & 'Life after death' to talk in line with Many paths to God. Rest of those I will present in the next post. However, I have also considered some of those auxillary points, while writing this.

I am writing this in a hurry, and hence my articulation may not be good, please bear with me.

Still I need to beat around Lenin-Atheist eg.. As a follower of Hindu traditions, and its acceptance of many paths to god/atheism, one is forced to accept and accommodate Lenin’s path, and also looses the right to condemn Lenin (or) apply after-life/Karmaphala on him. Any rebuttal?
Just because the Karma theory allocates the 'punishment' to a person does not mean that the society 'loses' it's right to condemn. There are punishments prescribed for crimes done on the societal level in one's life. But for folks like Lenin/Hitler who died before such punishments can be meted out, karmaphala will take care of that. No need to wait till end of time either.

Again, when we confine a religion to geography/culture, then you loose the right to condemn /Correct, any future ‘Lenins’, cos you are confined with your geography/culture oriented path to God, and you are also ready to accept other cultural god’s/evils path. Even future ‘Hitler’ pops up, its gonna be ‘Live and Let Live’. This approach will have a problem in taking a ‘Worldview”.
No, this is where you are wrong. Again 'karma theory' is not about 'live and let live' over injustice. The society has every right to regulate morality. In Hinduism that is done through 'Dharma' - a natural expression of life for each living being.

In a 'dharmic' world, if you corner a Cobra and it bites you, you let it go - because it's dharma is to bite and escape. But the snake does good to the society by controlling pest population and is not a natural enemy of man. This is different from the monotheistic teaching which says that the man controls other creatures. So, it is okay to kill the snake - as witnessed by the huge 'rattler round ups' in SW USA, just to kill off the snakes. But if there is 'adharma' as practiced by Hitler/Lenin/Stalin, Hinduism expressly requires that those people are defeated by the society. This is the difference.

Secondly, my refined temporary view (micro) is not to claim 'Only one religion speaks the Truth' and rest are false. When we go deep inside each religions, there are definitely some tint of lower level truth or Lies. For eg, Greek religions said Fire&water are the only Gods,which was definitely a truth, until Romans Gods said 'Entire Universe is God" which became a higher level of Truth, but again not 'ultimate Truth', cos Hinduism still carries logically better truth about God, than Greeks and Romans. A Christian who claims ''JC as an Ultimate truth' still has to clarify why there are Catholics & Protestants (I'm touching your point, which I intentionally skipped in an earlier post)
Again, He reveals according to the capability of understanding of different people. He revealed Himself as 'water' and 'fire' to the Greeks and revealed Himself as something else to the Romans. How can one say one is superior? For Christians, 'JC' may be the only path to Him. The problem only arises when they try to implement that dictum to other cultures, religions.

The word 'TRUTH' I mention here is Absolute Truth and there can only one such truth (not many truths) about God of Absolute Supreme..(Please ref my post # 226).And a Truth(relative) at lower level naturally becomes a 'Lie-UnTruth' when a higher level of Truth is explored.
Truth may be One but it's manifestations to people with different capabilities/cultures to understand it may be many. I think you have been confusing 'Truth' with it's many manifestations.

Say suppose, one fine day God reveals to us and say, "Look human!!, for ages, I was only living in 'Lingam and nowhere other than that place", then, all other religions like Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Greek God's will become false and Hinduism will only be the True religion. Or , if god reveals to us, that, he existed in all religions including atheism, and who ever denied HIS point were all blasphemous, then Christianity would become false even in the eyes of God.
This statement exactly tells what you are not grasping. If God can be known by just the mind, then we can agree with your statement. But the premise is God is not 'knowable'. If this is not true, then, there would be only one religion in the world. Because of this, we call the religions 'faiths'. Because it ain't about intellectual reasoning, but rather by faith. This is why prayers are universal in all religions.

In this context definitely all paths cannot be True(absolute).. Also I can agree, each religion may carry some amount of 'Truth About God', and another religion may have a higher 'Level of Truth', in this light, the owner of the higher level of Truth will definitely the reject the religion of lower truth,cos there cannot be two TRUTHS. Hence, we are all still in the continuous pursuit of 'Ultimate Truth'.
Sorry, in this context, all beliefs and practices are the same. Because their AIM are the same. This is why an aboriginy's practices are the same as the practices of a Shiite Ayatollah in Quom. God has given each of the peoples on this world to know Him. That is His 'Grace' that the Christians talk much about. To think otherwise would be to deny His Mercy and Grace.

For eg, Islam claims, it holds the Latest Ultimate Truth about God and prophet Mohammed claims 'He is the only last god-men' (which could be definitely wrong).Just because the Koran says so,one should not believe it.Or the entire Islam may become false for rejecting others as infidels..But, as a seeker of GOD, shouldn’t one try it and pursue and find out if Islam really holds "The Ultimate Truth?'. Shouldn’t one experience and verify it,with the God given ‘power of reasoning and critical examination!. If proved wrong, one should reject Islam and move to another religion and seek Truth..
Unless one is serious about one's religion, one can not just try out different religions on an intellectual basis. You will find the 'Truth' by the total practice of a religion, each of which has a deep connection to it's cultural root.

I was raised as a Hindu. I can not think of myself experiencing any other religion, because I can not identify with them emotionally, intellectually and faithfully.

Islam is for the people who believe in it. If Mohammed uttered words that they believe in, let them do so PEACEFULLY. Because as soon as ANY religion starts claiming superiority over any other, the problem starts.

This is exactly why I believe in the modern secular based democratic governance.

After all, we are all in the Pursuit of 'Truth about God' (its not changing shirts). This pursuit is the basic human nature and Birth Right. In order to purse this 'Ultimate Truth About God' , we need to have a greater amount of religious freedom.
What is 'greater amount of religious freedom?'

PS: I also request other participants to share their views on my posts. You are welcome to interfere here.

Regards,
KRS

KRS · Jul 21, 2009

Dear sri sapr333,
My comments in 'blue':

sapr333 said:
Shri.KRS, this is the supplementary to the previous post..

>>>. If God showed the 'correct' way, He would have done it from the bigining of times.>>

It’s a touch of button, for God to make every human as angels. Now that God has given ‘Freewill’ it may not be right for HIM to put all his things in ‘human minds,’ and stuff it at one go, which would be the violation of freewill. Similar arguments is also utilized by theist biologists, that these change is gradual and closer to the evolution of human brain, and God revealed gradually, in line with the evolution of human brain.
I do not think that the entire life's action by a human being can be attributed to just 'free will'. I know this is a complex subject with Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism in particular) on one side and the Abrahamic religions on the other side. I have thought a lot about this during my life and through observation and extension, I have come to this conclusion:

1. There is a huge body of work in Hinduism called 'Vedic Astrology'. Which essentially is the mapping of one's Karma Phala in the current life. But then, it is also well known that some people can 'overcome' their fates - essentially they can change their course of life during their current life by their 'free will'. But the caveat here is that, only a small percentage of people are able to do so.

2. So, this is the 'genetics' versus the 'environment' theory of upbringing.

Based on this then, if one were to agree with the unconstrained 'free will' theory, one would ask a simple question: If free will is unconstrained, why would not then each of us would be born with the same advantages and disadvantages? Why is He burdening a few worthy souls with burden while He gives silver spoons to the mouths of some undeserving rascals?

Because for the 'free will' to operate, one can not be constrained in their mind by their upbringing or nature of inherent qualities (gunas).

So, I reject the idea of God revealing Himself 'gradually'. Because certainly He did to our Rishis much before JC came on earth.

Monotheism presents this as 3 phases, and starts with the assumption that God would have chosen Jews,because,they were the one community in the world which believed in the ONE-GOD concept of that timeline.. In O.T God communicated through Voice in sky and miracles and prophesized his promise of revealing HIM to mankind, and in NT God comes down explains the nature of Godliness and sinless life and after he communes through his spirit form. Similarly, Lord Roma’s coming and then Lord Krishna’s lives could be seen as one among that sequence of gradual change. I am eager to know,monism's response on this..
When you say 'mankind' I hope you are not discounting 3/4ths of humanity comprising of Hindus, Chinese and Buddhists.

The 'gradual' change in Hinduism follows human evolution. The first 'Avatars' are animals. So the first avatar was as revealing to the then mankind as the last avatar. There are no quality differentiation between the avatars. We worship Rama and Krishna more because their avatars took place recently (in vedic age terms) and we can more readily identify with them. This does not mean that God did not reveal Himself fully with all other previous avatars to the respective people.

>> show Himself accordingly to His worshippers, based on their own proclivities/limitations, in a form that will be easy to grasp.>>

A plausible point. But, looking around the world of different religions and atheism, we don’t find any uniformity in their stand on Morals/Sins/Teachings/Life after death/cause for suffereing etc. God cannot have one rule for a father and another rule for the son. As I said in the earlier post, if god has plans for atheists, then they also should be informed about life after death. In this context, Monotheism still covers atheists and claims that that they are condemned for not being ‘Obedient to God’ where as monism gives no explanation for them, I believe.
I have already answered this. Dogmas are culture/understanding bound. Not the 'Truth' which is Him. You are again looking at this from a western Monotheistic point of view. Who is to limit God, saying what He would do and not do, based on how we think? The only universal idea is that He loves us all and He would show Himself to us through Search, Love, and Grace.

Rest of the beliefs about after life and such are dogmas mired in the fog of one's own cultural/theo;ogical thought.

>>>>Since the creation includes natural diversity, logically it follows that the comprehension mechanisms to 'know' the 'unknowable' should also be diverse.>>

This is an interesting point.. This logic can also be used to refute my previous point, that God could have individual code-of-conduct and different types of life-after death solution for each individual. I need some time to respond here.. Incase you find any write up on this, please share with me.
Please read the poems of Sufus; read Tao Te Ching; read the lost Christian mystics; read Kabaala; read Ramakrishna and Vivekanada and Ramana Maharishi. You will understand.

Regards,
KRS

sapr333 · Jul 24, 2009

KRS said:
Dear Sri sapr333,
[/COLOR]Regards,
KRS

Shri.KRS, apologize for the delayed response..In this post I will exclusively talk about ' Many paths to God (MPTG)', and the rest, I will address in my subsequent post.

My logical stand here is, 'All Paths cannot lead to God' (rather), all paths cannot be true, and there can be only one 'Absolute Truth'. And I would attempt to present my view with 2 topics, ie, Life after death/Conversion..Im sure, I was quite crispy to my point in my earlier post, ie 'loose the right to condemn Lenin'... I think, it was not addressed specifically. Let me sum it up again..

When one claims that 'All Paths lead to God', lets also set the linear premises, based on MPTG philosophy.

1) All Paths lead to God
2) All other religions also lead to God, and with the basic theme of 'Live and Let Live', and no-one is not going to point finger at other religions.
3) Accordingly, Islam,Judaism, Taosim,Atheism are also an accepted one, which MPTG strictly advocates, ie, every one should accept and accomodate other religious philosophies.
4)MPTG doesnt encourage its followers to criticise other religons, including atheism/charvaka. ie, One should not apply hinduism's law on a Moslem, rather, a hindu should accept and accomodate Islamic view, cos, Islam is also supposed to be true in its quest for God.

If we agree to the above premise and corollaries, I have a few queries....You may find myself repeating the same, but then, I cant help in asking the same , until im clarified with.

Hitler analogy:-

Hitler believed that there is no life after death, ie, 'Eat, Drink & be Merry, for tomorrow we may die and thats the end'..As a follower of 'Many Paths to God' one is forced to accept hitler too.. Hitler end his life without paying any price for his crime, and according to his belief, he is not going to pay any price even after death, which, MPTG has to accept it without any question.Hitler as an atheist has to be accomodated inside MPTG, inspite of him 'not' believing in his Karmaphala. As a believer of accomodating atheism, I mean, you loose your right to condemn/decide on Hitler, cos, you are caught in the dilemma, to accept and accomodate Nietsche's religion too!!

Now the basic question here is, about deliverance of Justice for Hitlers action.. If Hitler believed in Karma, he would get punishment in next life vide Karmaphala. But, in the last but one line of your response in first parah you responded saying 'But for folks like Lenin/Hitler who died before such punishments can be meted out, karmaphala will take care of that.."" But the problem here is, you have guaged Hitler based upon your religious views (Karmic scale), which you are not supposed to do so, cos you as a believer in 'All Paths" should have also accepted Hitlers/Nietsche's view of 'not' believing in ' Life after death'.. Unfortunately, you tried to guage Hitler based upon your Karmic View, because,by nature and human instinct, you and I are tempted to deliver 'Justice' to Hitler... Now my basic question remains the same... How are we going to deliver 'JUSTICE' to Hitler for all his crimes, in line with ' All Paths are True' philosophy..

My second point is... Keeping the premise ' all paths lead to God', MPTG accepts all religious views/doctrines/philosophy, without any question or debate.. It will end up in a logical fallacy,when we talk about conversions.. Hinduism says, All religions are one, and each religious views are Highly Respected and accomodated,without questions...

Now, Hinduism says, Dont covert to other religions, cos , all religions are same... Where as Islam says, all infidels need to be converted to Islam or to be decaptivated or pay an extra tax for being a non-moslem... Now, the fallacy here is, if hinduism truly accepts and accomodates Islamic point of view, then it should also accomodate Islamic view on conversion, ie, edicted to convert all hindus to Islam? I know already, you are not OK with this logic, which you expressed already.So, again in my view, 'All Path Leads to God' do have severe logical fallacy.

But still I can tread a safe tight rope walk here.. ie, May be this philosphy would have come up during Lord Krishna's times, where other non-karmic religions were not heard about in Sindh area, and hence it might have been addressed specifically to all the subsects of Hinduism, to claim them all religions (subsects) as one. ie, 'All Karma- Soul's oneness -God within' religions..ie, all religions like Hinduism/Sikhism/paganism/idolism/Jainism/Atheism etc are same..I think, this point of view goes well with that philosophy of 'All path lead to God'....May be, thats one reason, why, my point of view goes well with ISKON......Let me know your take on this.

Btw, I was once chafing with my collegemate arguing Economy Vs Oil Price and I said" Your statement exactly tells what you are not grasping".. And he shot back, 'Boy!! may be you are not good in articulating your points"..

PS:- Will address these missed out points in my next post, ie, Absolute Truth Vs Reconcillation- Manifestation of God based on human capablities - Free will-Role of animals in God's creation - God is not Knowable- Religious freedom

esarkey@yahoo.com · Jul 27, 2009

Dearsapr333ji, here is an answer for your question God why? and what is the purpose of life?

Our Lifeline (santmat principles)

Everything we are, and have, is a gift from our Creator, who cares for us. We are part of him, and cannot get away from him. That is why conscious contact with him is our lifeline. He created everything according to his great plan, about which we know almost nothing.

We are infinitesimal specks in his lila or play, which is so vast, at different levels of consciousness and in thousands of creations, that our mind can only wonder about him. Because we live as guests here its in our interest, and our life's tasks, to try to discover his will for us and live by that. Any guest should know who his host is and how to behave. But do we?

We are here in the lowest part of creation because we made wrong decisions previously; because we lived against our Creator's will, and thereby lost contact with God's spirit. We cannot afford to make more wrong decisions and turn our back on him, because by doing that we become defenceless among the worldly temptations and evils of the flesh; we become lost in a vast desert where we are at the mercy of mind's negative tendencies.

esarkey@yahoo.com · Jul 27, 2009

Happiness, inner peace and contentment come from sprituality, which we as humans can attain in this life by making contact with God's Spirit inside. The human being is the highest of all creatures on earth and is the only form in which God can be searched for and found.

The human form is given specifically to pursue self-realization and God-realization in this very life. For us to live godless and sinful lives is spiritual suicide, and inevitably leads to suffering, spritual degradation and darkness.

Moreover it will lead to reincarnation, rebirth, even in lower forms, to satisfy those sinful desires and to balance out our evil deds.

The scriptures of all religions prescribe a clean, moral and holy spritual life before God, who sees all and records automatically in our higher minds everything we do and desire.

To make and maintain inner contact with the holy spirit, some form of meditation is prescribed, which has to bring our restless mind, with its endless stream of desires, to absolute stillness. Then the inner Light can be seen and the inner Sound can be heard. By attending to this every day for several hours, we rise above the old sins of the mind, and inner peace and happiness results.

Everyone of us can long for God, for the soul can never be made permanently happy by our loved ones, our possessions and achievements. We are soul, living in a human body, and in foreign territory. Soul will always log for its Creator and its Source. Even when we suppress that longing with worldly activity, it will surface at times, and those who are called to go back to the Source now, will find it growing irresistibly strong. This longing has been called the cry of the soul.

That is why we have to make time daily to sit still and beg for mercy and forgiveness, to wake up, so that we pay attention to our Creator's indwelling presence and guidance. That opens the lifeline and strengthens it, so that in any crisis we do not let go of it. with regards S.R.K.

esarkey@yahoo.com · Jul 27, 2009

M for Masterm whom we cannot see,

E for effort, to get up a three,

D for drowsy, with head on chest,

I for itch, when attention is best,

T for temptation to go back to bed,

A for aches, from toes to head,

T for triumph - we will some day,

I for indefinite, the long delay,

O for outings, there are none

N for now we're up before the sun.

This little ode I dedicate to Tamil Brahmins (Thanks Spritual Link).

KRS · Jul 27, 2009

Dear Sri [email protected] Ji,

Will you please provide the links to both the 'Sant Mat' Lifeline principle as well as the 'ode' from the 'Spiritual Link'? A proper reference to other sources that we quote from is proper and necessary. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

sapr333 · Jul 28, 2009

Shri.Esarkay, thanks for the response. I would appreciate if you could visit here often.

btw,ref your post #245 & 246, I have a few clarifications.

1) Though you refered Santmat, but posting below is not of that school of thought.
2) Your posts mostly take a stand of 'Monotheism'..

And in post #111 of this thread, you quoted "
sapr 333ji, No god will appear during the time of death, only a Guru or the Master will come in the time of death and he will carry the soul and the sound current follow the soul to reach the destination, that is light of ocasan. s.r.k'

Could you please tally and clarify. I will wait for your response.

KRS · Jul 28, 2009

Dear Sri sapr333,

My first reaction on reading the last paragraph of your posting was to think how I can explain better my ideas. But then, I have realized something. I have allowed you to keep our arguments going with you always coveniently forgetting to explain what your position is regarding certain points I raise. For example, I noted in one of my previous posts 9 points. While you disagreed mildly with a point or two (religion being culture based, for example), you have not given me your thoughts on the rest.

We can not keep on going in circles, on the premise that I do not explain well. After thinking about this, my position is that you are like a man pretending to be blind! How can I make you see? (this is not said in anger, but with a lot of thought).

If you really want to go further (and I have answers to your posting here), I want you to go back to my 9 points posting and tell me your position vis-a-vis each of my point. This way, I know where you are in terms of your thinking.

This piece meal approach of addressing some selective (selected by you) points will not do. We have to continue our dialogue in toto.

Looking forward to a detailed response.

Regards,
KRS

sapr333 said:
Shri.KRS, apologize for the delayed response..In this post I will exclusively talk about ' Many paths to God (MPTG)', and the rest, I will address in my subsequent post.

My logical stand here is, 'All Paths cannot lead to God' (rather), all paths cannot be true, and there can be only one 'Absolute Truth'. And I would attempt to present my view with 2 topics, ie, Life after death/Conversion..Im sure, I was quite crispy to my point in my earlier post, ie 'loose the right to condemn Lenin'... I think, it was not addressed specifically. Let me sum it up again..

When one claims that 'All Paths lead to God', lets also set the linear premises, based on MPTG philosophy.

1) All Paths lead to God
2) All other religions also lead to God, and with the basic theme of 'Live and Let Live', and no-one is not going to point finger at other religions.
3) Accordingly, Islam,Judaism, Taosim,Atheism are also an accepted one, which MPTG strictly advocates, ie, every one should accept and accomodate other religious philosophies.
4)MPTG doesnt encourage its followers to criticise other religons, including atheism/charvaka. ie, One should not apply hinduism's law on a Moslem, rather, a hindu should accept and accomodate Islamic view, cos, Islam is also supposed to be true in its quest for God.

If we agree to the above premise and corollaries, I have a few queries....You may find myself repeating the same, but then, I cant help in asking the same , until im clarified with.

Hitler analogy:-

Hitler believed that there is no life after death, ie, 'Eat, Drink & be Merry, for tomorrow we may die and thats the end'..As a follower of 'Many Paths to God' one is forced to accept hitler too.. Hitler end his life without paying any price for his crime, and according to his belief, he is not going to pay any price even after death, which, MPTG has to accept it without any question.Hitler as an atheist has to be accomodated inside MPTG, inspite of him 'not' believing in his Karmaphala. As a believer of accomodating atheism, I mean, you loose your right to condemn/decide on Hitler, cos, you are caught in the dilemma, to accept and accomodate Nietsche's religion too!!

Now the basic question here is, about deliverance of Justice for Hitlers action.. If Hitler believed in Karma, he would get punishment in next life vide Karmaphala. But, in the last but one line of your response in first parah you responded saying 'But for folks like Lenin/Hitler who died before such punishments can be meted out, karmaphala will take care of that.."" But the problem here is, you have guaged Hitler based upon your religious views (Karmic scale), which you are not supposed to do so, cos you as a believer in 'All Paths" should have also accepted Hitlers/Nietsche's view of 'not' believing in ' Life after death'.. Unfortunately, you tried to guage Hitler based upon your Karmic View, because,by nature and human instinct, you and I are tempted to deliver 'Justice' to Hitler... Now my basic question remains the same... How are we going to deliver 'JUSTICE' to Hitler for all his crimes, in line with ' All Paths are True' philosophy..

My second point is... Keeping the premise ' all paths lead to God', MPTG accepts all religious views/doctrines/philosophy, without any question or debate.. It will end up in a logical fallacy,when we talk about conversions.. Hinduism says, All religions are one, and each religious views are Highly Respected and accomodated,without questions...

Now, Hinduism says, Dont covert to other religions, cos , all religions are same... Where as Islam says, all infidels need to be converted to Islam or to be decaptivated or pay an extra tax for being a non-moslem... Now, the fallacy here is, if hinduism truly accepts and accomodates Islamic point of view, then it should also accomodate Islamic view on conversion, ie, edicted to convert all hindus to Islam? I know already, you are not OK with this logic, which you expressed already.So, again in my view, 'All Path Leads to God' do have severe logical fallacy.

But still I can tread a safe tight rope walk here.. ie, May be this philosphy would have come up during Lord Krishna's times, where other non-karmic religions were not heard about in Sindh area, and hence it might have been addressed specifically to all the subsects of Hinduism, to claim them all religions (subsects) as one. ie, 'All Karma- Soul's oneness -God within' religions..ie, all religions like Hinduism/Sikhism/paganism/idolism/Jainism/Atheism etc are same..I think, this point of view goes well with that philosophy of 'All path lead to God'....May be, thats one reason, why, my point of view goes well with ISKON......Let me know your take on this.

Btw, I was once chafing with my collegemate arguing Economy Vs Oil Price and I said" Your statement exactly tells what you are not grasping".. And he shot back, 'Boy!! may be you are not good in articulating your points"..

PS:- Will address these missed out points in my next post, ie, Absolute Truth Vs Reconcillation- Manifestation of God based on human capablities - Free will-Role of animals in God's creation - God is not Knowable- Religious freedom

God...Why?

sapr333

Guest

Active member

Active member

sapr333

Guest

Active member

sapr333

Guest

Active member

Active member

Active member

sapr333

Guest

Active member

Active member

sapr333

Guest

sapr333

Guest

sapr333

Guest

sapr333

Guest

Active member

Active member

sapr333

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Active member

sapr333

Guest

Active member

Share this page

Share this page

Follow us on Social Media