• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

God...Why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sapr

>>On what basics/stratum, we decide the Right & Wrong??? Is there anything called Right desire and Wrong desire?<

Desire is a jeeva dharma(that which has motion is jeeva),without which nothing can exist.This desire transforms from yuga to yuga,untill the Lord makes appearance to show the dharma again.Its a inherent leela of the lord.

We are nothing but Iswara swaroopam.To realise this again and again,we call this a sport of the Lord.

Anthascharathy Bhutheshu Guhayam Vishwa Moorthishu

That which is inside all beings secretly is that Universal God

Om Thadhapa apo jyothi raso amrutham brahma bhur bhuvasuvarom

Om water is light, the essence is the nectar and the concept of Brahma is in all the seven worlds.
(Translated by Ramachander ji,our erstwhile member of this forum.)

sb
 
Dear Bala, thanks for the response..

Btw, the answer doesnt seems to be in line with the question, (or) may be, I am poor in comprehending things..Could you pls attempt to put it in a laymans language. Thanks in advance.



BALA/Seshadri>>>This desire transforms from yuga to yuga,untill the Lord makes appearance to show the dharma again>>

Dear Seshadri, we discussed this point of 'Lord Coming down to earth ealier... I said it in terms of 'Final Judgement day Monotheism", and Bala here agrees as re-delivering of Dharma.It also equates the contraction/end of universe. I think both the west&east talks about the same, in this subject.. Pls clarify.
 
Dear Bala, thanks for the response..

Btw, the answer doesnt seems to be in line with the question, (or) may be, I am poor in comprehending things..Could you pls attempt to put it in a laymans language. Thanks in advance.



BALA/Seshadri>>>This desire transforms from yuga to yuga,untill the Lord makes appearance to show the dharma again>>

Dear Seshadri, we discussed this point of 'Lord Coming down to earth ealier... I said it in terms of 'Final Judgement day Monotheism", and Bala here agrees as re-delivering of Dharma.It also equates the contraction/end of universe. I think both the west&east talks about the same, in this subject.. Pls clarify.


PS:pls refer Post #90 of Shri.Sesh.
 
Last edited:
re

Dear Bala, thanks for the response..

Btw, the answer doesnt seems to be in line with the question, (or) may be, I am poor in comprehending things..Could you pls attempt to put it in a laymans language. Thanks in advance.



BALA/Seshadri>>>This desire transforms from yuga to yuga,untill the Lord makes appearance to show the dharma again>>

Dear Seshadri, we discussed this point of 'Lord Coming down to earth ealier... I said it in terms of 'Final Judgement day Monotheism", and Bala here agrees as re-delivering of Dharma.It also equates the contraction/end of universe. I think both the west&east talks about the same, in this subject.. Pls clarify.

sapr

first things first.

sanathana=eternal.

dharma=living righteous principles.

in a broad manner,sathyam=truth.ahimsa=non-violence.dharma=right conduct.prema=love.shanthi=peace.all these constitute=living righteous principles.these are eternal in nature=time immemorial.

today sanathana dharma=hinduism.

only from sanathana dharma=hinduism ;approximately=abrahamic faiths.again i am not going to astika darshana or nastika darshanas in detail.plz read and learn or accept a qualified guru of your choice or if your quest is truthful,the guru will come to you.it could be even your own athma guru.

judaism=lord yahway
christanity= lord jesus
islam thru prohet mohamd=lord allah

are the gods.for abrahamic faiths.

lord abraham himself is an incarnate of lord brahmaa.sara an incarnate of godess saraswathi.

so,all roads or paths originate from trinity of siva,brahmaa,vishnu with their potent shakthis parvathi,saraswathi,lakshmi.that is why religious icon depiction of ardhanareeshwaran is taught.=hinduism=sanathana dharma.

the lord making his appearance or avataaram as we say it,is from yuge yuge.read bhagavath gita to understand this very important verse.if you read the mahabharatham,you will be stunned as to how the lord krishna skillfully utilises truth,valor...etc to his advantage to make Pandavas win.for layman,bhagavath gita study is a must,imho.

hinduism is a monotheistic religion with one supreme god called as brahman.brahman for some is sagunam ie with form or roopam and for some its nir-gunam ie without form or roopam.but in order to reach this understanding,a tutorial of practical living is established,which we call as hindu culture today.

by adhereing to sanathana dharma,the goal of attaining moksham,is guranteed.so no more births and deaths of physical body or spirit natures of astral body.this is my understanding,with simplistic view.gurus are there to explain much more profoundly with apt slokas,verses,books to quote with examples to facilitate understanding in a practical manner.

there is no west,east,north,south,.....all directions are lords directions.everything is from the lord.lord is the pramana or source.we are part of the whole lord.by our ignorance we seperate ourselves from the lord's form or swaroopam.

hitler was a destroyer amsam of the lord.what did he destroy?he destroyed avidya of a certain nature.humanity will think n number of times before venturing into a holy war,using god as an excuse to satiate mans evil propensities of killing.

sb
 
sapr333, my response in 'blue':

g

Dear KRS,I appreciate the way you attempted to explain 'Desire'.

And I agree with you, that, all the religions of this world fairly well agree with this view.Infact I can safely conclude (in line with your thoughts) that " Desire needs to be controlled, and all our pursuit (or purpose in life) is only to Desire God'.. I mean, Im taking back my question, ""Desire of God is just another desire!!"" (just another paradox).According to my concept of God , even the word 'Desire' itself is a by=product of God, so we should not use it to bench mark God-head.

Now, at a macro level, I have few strange thoughts, in defining what desire is all about.Amidst, lets ponder the word 'Dhukka'(suffering) of Buddhism, as an ultimatum for enlightment..

1) I have a desire to acquire KNOWLEDGE and I have a thirst to know about WW-11 holocaust.. Am I wrong?
No, you are not wrong. But let us make sure that the 'knowledge' you specify here is not the ultimate 'Knowledge' about the 'source'. So the 'desire' you have is based on your in born Dharma - like a desire of a bird to fly.

2) Like Galielo who had a desire to know whether earth is round or flat, I do have a desire to know about the 'Origin of this universe'.. Shouldnt I pursue it?

Of course. You should.

3) I have a desire to explore palmistry, so that I can predict my future..I should be ok with that!!

If that is what your born 'Dharma' is, ofcourse - because you are not hurting anyone else by doing so.

Clearly, knowledge and the desire for it cannot be explained with the same logic that we were using earlier. It doesn't follow the rules. With knowldge, desire can lead to no desire, and vice versa. Fulfilment can lead to sadness, or to happiness. So the question that I'm pondering here is basically: is it bad to desire knowledge? Matter of fact, desire any thing.. Who is going to tell us, that a particular desire is Right and wrong, and on what basis?

'Desire' or 'acting in certain way' comes because of a complex interaction of who you are and your Prarabdha Karma (Karma you will expend during this life time). You are assuming that anyone in this life can do anything - which is a fallacy. Let me ask you - will you wantonly kill a person? Will you seduce your friend's wife? My assumption is that you would say 'no'. Why is that? Is it because of your upbringing? Studies have shown that sociopathic criminals are born - not made.

So, what makes one's act 'right' or 'wrong'? Again we go back to the social norms. If you act against your 'dharma' then it is wrong. And here 'dharma' is defined by the society, when it comes to involving others.


According to me, Desire to bed with someone's wife is wrong, but desire to acquire a knowledge to 'Cure AIDS victims" is right..
Again you are bringing your pre conceived 'morality' in to the picture. Let us say, the person whose wife you bed knows about it and approves, and his wife also wants it, and you do not have a wife, is it wrong?

On the other hand you want to acquire knowledge to 'Cure AIDS victims' because you want to make millions of $s, then is it 'right'?

This is the relativism in morality - there is no black and white.

Regards,
KRS

Im taking back the discussion to the basics... On what basics/stratum, we decide the Right & Wrong??? Is there anything called Right desire and Wrong desire?
 
sapr

[SIZE=+2] j:nt:Ün:aø n:rj:nm: dÙl:üB:m:t:H p:Øøstv:ø t:t:að [/SIZE] [SIZE=+2]ev:)t:a[/SIZE] (vipratha)
[SIZE=+2] t:sm:a¾òedkD:m:üm:ag:üp:rt:a ev:¾tv:m:sm:atp:rm:Î .[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2] Aatm:an:atm:ev:v:ðc:n: sv:n:ØB:v:að b:ÒÉatm:n:a s:ø¡sT:et:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2] m:Øü¡Vt:n:aðü S:t:j:nm:kaðeXs:Økát:òH p:ØNyaòev:ün:a l:By:t:ð [/SIZE]

j:nt:Ün:aø - for all creatures
n:rj:nm: - a human birth
dÙl:üB:m:t:H - is difficult to obtain
p:Øøstv:ø t:t:að [SIZE=+2]ev:)t:a[/SIZE] -(vipratha)more so is a male body; rarer than that is
Brahmanahood
t:sm:a¾òedkD:m:üm:ag:üp:rt:a -rarer still is the attachment to the path of
Vedic religion
ev:¾tv:m:sm:atp:rm:Î -higher than the learned in the scriptures
Aatm:an:atm:ev:v:ðc:n: -discrimination between the Self and not-Self
sv:n:ØB:v:H -realization
b:ÒÉatm:n:a -identity with the Brahman
s:ø¡sT:et: H -continuing in a state
m:Øü¡Vt:H -Mukti (liberation )
S:t:j:nm:kaðeXs:Økát:òH -hundred crore of births
p:ØNy:òev:ün:a -with out well-earned merits
n:að l:By:t:ð -to be attained.

[SIZE=+1]Among the living creatures, to be born a human being is rare; rarer still[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]to be born a man; even rarer is to be born a Brahmin; higher than that is a life of pursuit of the Vedic path; and learning of the scriptures, discrimination of the eternal from the Transient, and realization and remaining in a state of oneness with Brahman are, in that order, still higher states. The last named state of liberation can be earned only by merit earned in a hundred thousand lives.[/SIZE]

http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/mirrors/vv/literature/sankara/vc1.html

http://www.archive.org/details/Vivekachudamani_520

The above is Guru Adi Shankara Achaaryals "Viveka-Chuda-Mani".If possible plz listen to it,who explains or read it.

sb
 
Apologize for the inconvenience..

The subsequent post (#109)also got replicated here by mistake.. So , pressed the EDIT button, and deleted the whole.
 
Last edited:
Dear KRS, few clarifications,keeping in mind our old conversation.. Please dont mistake me,that Im running around the same pillar....

>>But let us make sure that the 'knowledge' you specify here is not the ultimate 'Knowledge' about the 'source'>>

Hope Im not picking lines in between!!!... You seems to agree with me in the usage of term 'Ultimate' for referring God.. If I understood you right, you seems to infer, God as the 'Ultimate source for Knowledge' (or) an 'Ultimate knowledge' only can tak one towards God''...In this light, I add here, yet another trait 'moral', and would say, that, 'Ultimate Moral and Justice also lies in God".... this is my logical interpretation..Correct me if I'm wrong..

Secondly, about your point of 'Relative Morality', I have lots to share.. May be in due course of time, we can touch that topic..Richard Dawkins may possibly support your views..

>>will you wantonly kill a person? Will you seduce your friend's wife? My assumption is that you would say 'no'. Why is that? Is it because of your upbringing?>>

My Mom&Grandpa used nag me daily,that 'God told us not to steal'. She told me to mug up that term too.Yes, I didnt steal candies/biscuits/Murukku from kitchen, not because of God, but because of my mom said so, in the name of a person called God.But when I went to High-School (3kms away from Mom's sight), me and my classmates had a daily habit of parking the bicycle, and steal mangoes, and I never felt anything wrong in it. And I had no social pressure not to steal (as you & Richard dawkins claims), cos I know neither my mom nor my folks or men-of-town/Cops knew,that I've indulged in stealing. And all my school mates said, its ok to steal a mango,cos its few paisa worth.. But then, I know I wont indulge in that, cos, I have a personal conviction in the name of God.


For eg, yesterday, me and my friend had a heated argument with a grocer, for doing an intentional over invoicing in my last weeks purchase . When I reached home, I found that, the grocer had forgotten to invoice items in the recent purchase.. I called up my friend and narrated this .. He said, "Good, finally he paid the price, for all the cheating he did in past'..At the outset, I felt OK with that logic.. but deep inside, I felt, that what Im doing is wrong, based upon my moral convictions to a higher authority than my MOM or my FRIEND... Above all I have no social pressures on this particular incidence, rather I have my friends support, not to return the goods back. Myself, as a guy who used stole mangoes once as a habit, this is no way wrong. But my conviction towards God has only drove me to act like this..(Btw, this is just a personal narration, and I dont present it as a base for my argument here).. In my view, God could be the Ultimate for everything, including Morals and Judgments.

>>>>Let us say, the person whose wife you bed knows about it and approves, and his wife also wants it, and you do not have a wife, is it wrong?>>>

Its an intersting point which I wanted to share some time before.. I have read this logic in Buddhisms subsect, (dont remember the name, possibly Dharavada,though not sure), that it tells 4 ways to distinguish Right and Wrong.. Its says that, if an act is acceptable to both of those players, then that is no wrong..The counter goes, is it right,atleast? Philosophers say, is there some thing a middle path betwee,right&wrong?.Lets explore further.. if its not wrong (right) to both of the actors, will the whole mankind accept the same as right?. If we take a WORLDVIEW out of this ideology, incest with consent could be right? Assisting someone for a suicide is right? Abetting a criminal, who has helped me once could be right? All types of Debaunchery could be right!! Prostituion happens with the consent! Infanticide/Widowburning happens with consent of all.. Little moving futher, Hitler/Stalin could be right for their citizens, but not for the world..

In this context, the definition of right and wrong, moves out from a personal level to family level, elevates to a social level and end in a Global level? Having WORLDVIEW with that ideology takes us to a different highel level of thought, which is bit confusing and complex and uncomprehendable. The rule at a personal level, is not applicable to a global level.. Whats the answer? This is what our sages has been doing in their pursuit of God... Thats why mankind has sought for an Absolute/Universal Judgement and Moral.. And and easiest answer... Hmm!! Attribute it to God.


>>>On the other hand you want to acquire knowledge to 'Cure AIDS victims' because you want to make millions of $s, then is it 'right'?>>>

There is an interesting thing that Europe copied from Hinduism,was Monastic life. While our monastic sages pursed Philosophies/Hymns/Rituals/Yoga/Experiencing God, the western monastries tried another route to reach god, by implementing Gods will.. ie, 'Reduce the sufferings of Mankind' in line with gods idea of 'Good samaritan'. They worked on scientific inventions to reduce the suffering/hunger and disease,by opening the first modern day university, educating the public,inventing new farming techniques, hospitals etc (I can share lot about Monastrical inventions).. Both the Himalayan Sages and European monks lived a very simple life inside the four walls, and pursued their Goal towards God in a different way. Did Mother Theresa/Gandhiji/Nobel(TNT),Greger Mendel aim for stashing few million dollars in their attic? Its all about the conviction !!! (Possibly in the name of God)
 
My answers in 'blue':

Dear KRS, few clarifications,keeping in mind our old conversation.. Please dont mistake me,that Im running around the same pillar....

>>But let us make sure that the 'knowledge' you specify here is not the ultimate 'Knowledge' about the 'source'>>

Hope Im not picking lines in between!!!... You seems to agree with me in the usage of term 'Ultimate' for referring God.. If I understood you right, you seems to infer, God as the 'Ultimate source for Knowledge' (or) an 'Ultimate knowledge' only can tak one towards God''...In this light, I add here, yet another trait 'moral', and would say, that, 'Ultimate Moral and Justice also lies in God".... this is my logical interpretation..Correct me if I'm wrong..
'Ultimate' means which contains ALL. Not a particular 'name' or 'label' 'Moral and Justice'. For every attribute there is an opposite, which is also part of the 'Ultimate'. So, for every 'Moral' there is an 'Immoral' and for every 'Justice' there is an 'Injustice' which all comprise the Ultimate. Good and bad are part of the Ultimate. You somehoe seperate the anti attribute from the Ultimate. Why?

Secondly, about your point of 'Relative Morality', I have lots to share.. May be in due course of time, we can touch that topic..Richard Dawkins may possibly support your views..
Don't know him. Will read up.

>>will you wantonly kill a person? Will you seduce your friend's wife? My assumption is that you would say 'no'. Why is that? Is it because of your upbringing?>>

My Mom&Grandpa used nag me daily,that 'God told us not to steal'. She told me to mug up that term too.Yes, I didnt steal candies/biscuits/Murukku from kitchen, not because of God, but because of my mom said so, in the name of a person called God.But when I went to High-School (3kms away from Mom's sight), me and my classmates had a daily habit of parking the bicycle, and steal mangoes, and I never felt anything wrong in it. And I had no social pressure not to steal (as you & Richard dawkins claims), cos I know neither my mom nor my folks or men-of-town/Cops knew,that I've indulged in stealing. And all my school mates said, its ok to steal a mango,cos its few paisa worth.. But then, I know I wont indulge in that, cos, I have a personal conviction in the name of God.
God is just a name. I am sure your friends who wanted to steal mango also have been told in their homes the same thing you were told. Your personal conviction came about partly from your upbringing and partly because of your 'Guna'.

For eg, yesterday, me and my friend had a heated argument with a grocer, for doing an intentional over invoicing in my last weeks purchase . When I reached home, I found that, the grocer had forgotten to invoice items in the recent purchase.. I called up my friend and narrated this .. He said, "Good, finally he paid the price, for all the cheating he did in past'..At the outset, I felt OK with that logic.. but deep inside, I felt, that what Im doing is wrong, based upon my moral convictions to a higher authority than my MOM or my FRIEND... Above all I have no social pressures on this particular incidence, rather I have my friends support, not to return the goods back. Myself, as a guy who used stole mangoes once as a habit, this is no way wrong. But my conviction towards God has only drove me to act like this..(Btw, this is just a personal narration, and I dont present it as a base for my argument here).. In my view, God could be the Ultimate for everything, including Morals and Judgments.
You need a 'God' to convince yourself to do the right thing. I actually did the same thing you did many times. Not because my 'God' told me to do so. But in the society where I live in that is wrong. And so I acted accordingly.

>>>>Let us say, the person whose wife you bed knows about it and approves, and his wife also wants it, and you do not have a wife, is it wrong?>>>

Its an intersting point which I wanted to share some time before.. I have read this logic in Buddhisms subsect, (dont remember the name, possibly Dharavada,though not sure), that it tells 4 ways to distinguish Right and Wrong.. Its says that, if an act is acceptable to both of those players, then that is no wrong..The counter goes, is it right,atleast? Philosophers say, is there some thing a middle path betwee,right&wrong?.Lets explore further.. if its not wrong (right) to both of the actors, will the whole mankind accept the same as right?. If we take a WORLDVIEW out of this ideology, incest with consent could be right? Assisting someone for a suicide is right? Abetting a criminal, who has helped me once could be right? All types of Debaunchery could be right!! Prostituion happens with the consent!
With consent applies only to ALL the affected parties. If one is left out then it is not consent. In each of your example above, one or several 'affected' parties are left out. 'Interested' party can be a person, a family or a country.
Infanticide/Widowburning happens with consent of all.. Little moving futher, Hitler/Stalin could be right for their citizens, but not for the world..
No not at all. Where is the consent of that infant or that widow? H/S not only killed their own but others in the world. So your logic is not valid.

In this context, the definition of right and wrong, moves out from a personal level to family level, elevates to a social level and end in a Global level? Having WORLDVIEW with that ideology takes us to a different highel level of thought, which is bit confusing and complex and uncomprehendable. The rule at a personal level, is not applicable to a global level.. Whats the answer? This is what our sages has been doing in their pursuit of God... Thats why mankind has sought for an Absolute/Universal Judgement and Moral.. And and easiest answer... Hmm!! Attribute it to God.
By your own saying above, you are admitting that morality is 'relative'. One can not then argue that there is an 'absolute' morality. Mankind will always seek a Universal justice, because it is easy. I would as an infant need a 'mother' or 'father' to tell me what is right. This does not obviate the 'relative' morality. Depends on the societal/civilizational levels.

God has nothing to do with this. This is man made. Rishis did not waste their time on this for this particular reason.

Regards,
KRS


>>>On the other hand you want to acquire knowledge to 'Cure AIDS victims' because you want to make millions of $s, then is it 'right'?>>>

There is an interesting thing that Europe copied from Hinduism,was Monastic life. While our monastic sages pursed Philosophies/Hymns/Rituals/Yoga/Experiencing God, the western monastries tried another route to reach god, by implementing Gods will.. ie, 'Reduce the sufferings of Mankind' in line with gods idea of 'Good samaritan'. They worked on scientific inventions to reduce the suffering/hunger and disease,by opening the first modern day university, educating the public,inventing new farming techniques, hospitals etc (I can share lot about Monastrical inventions).. Both the Himalayan Sages and European monks lived a very simple life inside the four walls, and pursued their Goal towards God in a different way. Did Mother Theresa/Gandhiji/Nobel(TNT),Greger Mendel aim for stashing few million dollars in their attic? Its all about the conviction !!! (Possibly in the name of God)
 
Dear KRS Ji, indeed a mind boggling response from you..

Cos, Im on travel, stuffed with a bit tight agenda, I couldnt spare few healthy hours in compiling a meaningful and personalised response to you... Bear with me, will respond once I land back...
 
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.
 
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.

Dear esarkey,

I didnt say,that, god will come during time of death.. Life after death, is the major question all religions have been attempting to answer..

Life after death :- Both west and east are poles apart in defining it, but broadly they agree to the common point "Incarnation", ie, there exists something after death ..

Meeting God in daily life: Western philsophers question, thats, If God is all loving and what we see is all his creations, then should love us and have loving relationship with us, reveal to us in his literal form, he should commune to us,show himself to us, unless being a distant dream..

In context, prayers and hymn /mantra chanting/yoga could be one way to commune with god. If we consider that Shri.Rama/Krishana as God coming down,then it tallies to my view too (but few in this forum disagreed to my point). Life after death, mulitple reincarnation and cleansing of soul is more appealing that western reincaranation, esp, in answering to questions like "Why an unborn-child should die?" But taking a world view in light of 'Justice', i has lots to answer, to the modern thinkers.


PS: Responding to the topics in God, needs lot of reading.. Myself being on travel, find little time to spend here.. Will dedicate some good time to this, in forthcoming days. Its indeed an interesting topic to me.. Also, I personally request you to share some thoughts on this thread,frequently.Thanks in advance.
 
self deleted due to repetetive posting.
 
Last edited:
Dear HH, now that Mod. has given a green signal, I would try explain you about 'Concept of Trinity in world religions', instead of asking to find yourself by pressing Google button..

Trinity is a concept seen only in Hinduism & Christianity, where as Islam/Judaism/Buddhism rejects this.

Hinduism concept of Trinity (Father-Son-HolySpirit) is mostly based on 'Actions of God', ie, Shiva-Brahma-Vishnu in terms of Creation/Ruling/Destruction. Christian concept of Trinity is about 'Communication/Forms' of Godhead asFather-Son-HolySpirit(all as one essence God-Head).

From early Aristotelian days of Metaphysics (before J.C), the major unanswerable question was 'If God is All Powerful and All loving, then God should show the man the physical proof for his existence and should reveal to us, than being a 'Man on Sky" dodging somewherelse in mystics!!!..Also, there was an interesting question very often raised by Islamic scholars..ie, 'If J.C is God (in son form), then, who was controlling the universe, when he was hung on cross dead"

Christian answer to that was through Trinity.. God has 3 forms, ie God (FATHER)who communicated through 'Words&Mircles' to the human race before coming of J.C...And as son with the essence of God-head revealed God to humans in flesh (as J.C), in the same human form.

And the next question would be, Now that J.C has ressurected and gone back, so how God gonna commune and have a loving relationship with his creations called humans.. And that's the third essence/form of Godhead, called as Holy-Spirit, through minds and dwelling amongst humans..

PS: In order to maintain thread relevancy, I have shifted my response to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Sapr,

Thanks for the explanations, but all this is known stuff.

I'd like you to express on what i have made bold below as per your own convictions, that is, on what you feel about it. And also explain the 5 questions below.

You may also wish to justify on

1) why gnostics (early christians) call jesus as a teacher and path-shower to the divinity in each one of us, and why the church does not agree to it, (this is in the similar fashion that you say that a philosopher cannot be divine)...in other words why does the church see christ as the only divine in flesh form, not others, and what do you think about it?

2) do you think those who lived before the era of baptizement all went to hell
?

3) what do you think of the idea that baptizement is the only way to "salvation"?

4) who decided that selective canonical texts should be the bible that represented the church ( vatican, i mean, before all the various denominations happened) ?

5) why do you think the nag hammadi or gnostic gospels should or should not be the bible or be included in the bible of the catholics, protestants?



Dear HH, now that Mod. has given a green signal, I would try explain you about 'Concept of Trinity in world religions', instead of asking to find yourself by pressing Google button..

Trinity is a concept seen only in Hinduism & Christianity, where as Islam/Judaism/Buddhism rejects this.

Hinduism concept of Trinity (Father-Son-HolySpirit) is mostly based on 'Actions of God', ie, Shiva-Brahma-Vishnu in terms of Creation/Ruling/Destruction. Christian concept of Trinity is about 'Communication/Forms' of Godhead asFather-Son-HolySpirit(all as one essence God-Head).

From early Aristotelian days of Metaphysics (before J.C), the major unanswerable question was 'If God is All Powerful and All loving, then God should show the man the physical proof for his existence and should reveal to us, than being a 'Man on Sky" dodging somewherelse in mystics!!!..Also, there was an interesting question very often raised by Islamic scholars..ie, 'If J.C is God (in son form), then, who was controlling the universe, when he was hung on cross dead"

Christian answer to that was through Trinity.. God has 3 forms, ie God (FATHER)who communicated through 'Words&Mircles' to the human race before coming of J.C...And as son with the essence of God-head revealed God to humans in flesh (as J.C), in the same human form.

did christ say that "god has revelaed himself in a flesh form as me or in my form" or call himself as god ?


And the next question would be, Now that J.C has ressurected and gone back, so how God gonna commune and have a loving relationship with his creations called humans.. And that's the third essence/form of Godhead, called as Holy-Spirit, through minds and dwelling amongst humans..

PS: In order to maintain thread relevancy, I have shifted my response to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Sapr,

i also notice you have deleted posts. that does not give me the opportunity to quote them.

even if you think they are repetitive, i request you to put them back.
 
Dear HH,

As an originator of this thread, I think, I have a privilege in demanding this.. Lets keep the discussion in a broad spectrum of 'GOD Why', than deeply discussing in to the roots/history of religion. In fact, I dont want to drag the the term 'Faith/Belief' in to this.Rather, it would be nice if we could talk in terms of Philosphy/Metaphysics/Reasoning/Logic etc.

If you remember, the discussion I earlier had with Shri.KRS/Seshadri, ie batting within the boundaries of 'Ism's' like Monotheism/Atheism/Monism etc, and we never quoted any Koran/Talmund/bibilical/vedic scriptures.Yes, there are some (rare)instances, we may have to(forced to) touch the respective scriptures/religion/practise, for very important needs/relevancy, but definitely debated it in a broad way..

To make my stand, little more precise... My basic question is 'God exists or Not?' and 'Whats nature of God'....

Once God is accepted in heart, then its up to the individuals, to choose the right path (ie,religion) which appeals to him for reaching God.. Thats my stand here (as an originator of the thread). This deep conviction, also has triggered me to take another stand , ie, 'Respect for Religious Freedom', which I have been strongly advocating..

With this frame of mind, I have intentionally skipped many of your questions earlier. Also, this forum is not the right place to discuss that kind of topics, as it violates the norms. (Unless moderator opens a chapter focussed on inter-religious talks). Otherwise, it may create a turmoil..Btw, its my personal opinion,and I dont want to break it.

If you are really curious, may be, we can debate that in someother forums,provided if time&interest permits.

In this context, I regret to stay away from responding to those 5 questions posted above..Trust you would agree with me. Thanks in advance

PS: A small tip : Avoid using 'Red shades' in posts..



>>i also notice you have deleted posts. that does not give me the opportunity to quote them. i request you to put them back >>

I posted the reply button twice. Deleted it.. Why un-necessary waste the server space.



>>>Thanks for the explanations, but all this is known stuff.>>

So, whey did you ask earlier to explain me about TRINITARIANISM, for which I suggested you to google.
 
Last edited:
Sapr,

Before i answer your post below, wish to say this. I asked these questions, because i beleive they are pointers to why i think you come across as a christian theologist.

The common mode of spreading christinity to a theologist is to bring out all the "bad things" of all religions, rub them into dust, and then bring out out the so-called goodness of christianity. Like cutting off all heads to allow only one's own to remain standing.

Your poll on the decline of hindusim, insistance on evaluating kallar god and houries, comments on the shankaracharya, comments on nrn, praising of kancha, very easily commenting that "bad things" are found in yet another hindu 'school', all come under the purview of what a theologist wud do.

Since this forum explicitely represents hindusim, i deem it right on my part to question things that seek to pronounce negative things in my belief and faith.




Dear HH,

As an originator of this thread, I think, I have a privilege in demanding this.. Lets keep the discussion in a broad spectrum of 'GOD Why', than deeply discussing in to the roots/history of religion. In fact, I dont want to drag the the term 'Faith/Belief' in to this.Rather, it would be nice if we could talk in terms of Philosphy/Metaphysics/Reasoning/Logic etc.


If you remember, the discussion I earlier had with Shri.KRS/Seshadri, ie batting within the boundaries of 'Ism's' like Monotheism/Atheism/Monism etc, and we never quoted any Koran/Talmund/bibilical/vedic scriptures.Yes, there are some (rare)instances, we may have to(forced to) touch the respective scriptures/religion/practise, for very important needs/relevancy, but definitely debated it in a broad way..

To make my stand, little more precise... My basic question is 'God exists or Not?' and 'Whats nature of God'....

Once God is accepted in heart, then its up to the individuals, to choose the right path (ie,religion) which appeals to him for reaching God.. Thats my stand here (as an originator of the thread). This deep conviction, also has triggered me to take another stand , ie, 'Respect for Religious Freedom', which I have been strongly advocating..

This is exactly what applies to other people of other religions as well. Wonder why does not a christian extend the sensitivity he has to his own religion to those of other religions.

You seem rather intent on judging islam based on houries. How do you think a muslim wud react to it?

You also seem bent on evaluating a kallar's faith. Agreed dacoity is not right, but its been ages since a section of kallars stopped being highway bandits, how do you think a kallar who worships kallalaghar in the present day feel about it? Lets not forget that the goths became barbarians after continously being deprieved of food by the roman empire, and finally began looting villages out of desperation. Its an other matter they later rose to become visigoths. However, what we do see in time and history is that generally people don't like to be criminals on their own.



With this frame of mind, I have intentionally skipped many of your questions earlier. Also, this forum is not the right place to discuss that kind of topics, as it violates the norms. (Unless moderator opens a chapter focussed on inter-religious talks). Otherwise, it may create a turmoil..Btw, its my personal opinion,and I dont want to break it.

Its is my personal opinion that you have continuously avoided touching upon christianity, and have the attitude of passing negative remarks on other religions, rather casually, probably with the intension of decimating them as a christian theologist wud do.


If you are really curious, may be, we can debate that in someother forums,provided if time&interest permits.

Sure, perhaps on this forum, in an other thread.

In this context, I regret to stay away from responding to those 5 questions posted above..Trust you would agree with me. Thanks in advance

PS: A small tip : Avoid using 'Red shades' in posts..

any reason why? am using maroon..

>>i also notice you have deleted posts. that does not give me the opportunity to quote them. i request you to put them back >>

I posted the reply button twice. Deleted it.. Why un-necessary waste the server space.


>>>Thanks for the explanations, but all this is known stuff.>>

So, whey did you ask earlier to explain me about TRINITARIANISM, for which I suggested you to google.

i did not ask you to explain trinitarianism, i asked you explain why you think christ is the same as god, as god.
 
Dear HH, I am choosing the relevant one from your previous post, and responding here..

Since childhood days, I had a dilemma...Why not 'Thriuvalluvar' be god? After, all he also teaches fairlywell good moral standards. Then the question arises, did he claim about Divinity & authority over God?. A big no, rather he claimed himself to be an ordinary man,so its not right for me to make a common man as God, rather I have no authority to nominate a God.

As I said earlier 'God comes first, then its up to us, to choose a religion,which is more appealing to you'..

During teenages/the times we flirted with girls in school, most of our friends used to think, "Osho' or 'Mormon Church' should be our religion. In college days, I thought the band ' Dire Straites' could be my religion.Wondering upon Buddhism,buddha neither claimed divinity,nor Divinity,infact, he rejected God,but later people elevated him to be a God.. These kind of confusion always prevailed.

Now if we look in to the religions, Hinduism accomodates all religions,with scriptural authority.It says,'There are many a ways to reach God'. Islam is also very accomodative and talks similar to hinduism, ie, it accepts God of Christianity,Judaism and most of monotheist religions and even their respective teaching in its fold.
Christianity is bit trouble some here.. Though it has the advantage of convincing about 'God revealing to mankind and coming down to earth in human form' (not a mystic god of sky), its too much selfish/narrow minded in claiming, that 'Its the only path to reach God,Only way to God, and its the only religion in the world which reject, all other paths/religion". It also claims, that 'JC as God, divine, lived a sinless godly life" and substatiate its claim of God.. I'm not here to prove/disprove any facts here or to discuss in details about individual religion.. I've only presented here the various facts, accepted by their own religions

Now this lead to another logical question with a broad perspective on God & Religion..

If all paths can lead to God, then Christianity can also be right to be accomodated as one among them (Hinduism/Islam), and be considered as yet another path to reach God. But if all path's cannot lead to God(only one path exists to reach God), then Christianity by defalut will become the only religion of God.

This is the point most of the philosophers are banking on since ages... But still, none of us know, they mysteries of God fully. So we all live in some confusions. Do we have the wisdom/divine power to evaluate this..

Thats why I say, the faith in God is first.. Then comes religion, and its upto us to choose the path which is more appealing/logically convincing with a worldview..

At the moment,If Pink FLoyd got to start a religion, I would be the first one to enroll!!!
 
Dear sapr 333,

I do not want to interfere with your dialog with Srimathi HH Ji. But your last post, triggered some thoughts in my mind.

1. Islam does not believe in ALL other religions to be valid. Because of their single most important aspect of rejecting idolatry, they include Hinduism as a polytheistic religion with idol worship (this is not the case, if one understands Hinduism). Because Mohammed wanted to do away with all the idol worship prevalent in Arabia at that time (mainly represented by various desrt oriented Jinns (spirits)), he edicted so against idolatry. So he recognized only the Abrahamic religions as valid.

2. While Christ was supposed to have said 'I am the only way to reach Him', more and more scholors see this as either mis-interpreted as a literal saying or an answer to a specific question by Thomas. Clearly JC was responding to the doubting Thomas's query as to how would he know that JC was indeed the 'son of God'. So, while some very conservative theologians of Cristianity embrace the view you have expressed, more and more modern theologians veer away from this strict interpretation as it can not satisfy one logical question - does it then mean that ALL the souls before JC came on this earth would just have to wait for his next arrival to attain salvation? If God is all merciful, this does not seem to be likely.

3. Buddha never rejected God. He only rejected the Vedas as they were under the custodianship of the Brhamins. He particularly left out the question about the existence of God from his teachings - he instead concentrated on how to be liberated from the birth cycles and Karma Phala. Since such a liberation would make a soul to attain certain stae, it follows that such a special state can be equated to an exalted state (which may be attaining the level or merger with Godhead).

4. Arguing whether God came first or not is irrelevant. Religions are not the same - they serve different people based on culture, locality, time, and emotional & intellectual capacities. Diversity in Universe is a rule. So, it follows from it that different paths lead to Him. But people do not understand that it is not just enough to follow the rituals and not follow the true teachings in any religion to reach Him.

Regards,
KRS
 
Sapr,

i find the reply very irrelevant to what i have asked in post 115 and post 118.

You refused to enter discussion on the questions asked in post 115, ofcourse you have every right to do so. But in post 118, you have not yet answered how do you think a muslim or a kallar wud react to your stand of 'judging" their faith.


Dear HH, I am choosing the relevant one from your previous post, and responding here..

Since childhood days, I had a dilemma...Why not 'Thriuvalluvar' be god? After, all he also teaches fairlywell good moral standards. Then the question arises, did he claim about Divinity & authority over God?. A big no, rather he claimed himself to be an ordinary man,so its not right for me to make a common man as God, rather I have no authority to nominate a God.

As I said earlier 'God comes first, then its up to us, to choose a religion,which is more appealing to you'..

During teenages/the times we flirted with girls in school, most of our friends used to think, "Osho' or 'Mormon Church' should be our religion. In college days, I thought the band ' Dire Straites' could be my religion.Wondering upon Buddhism,buddha neither claimed divinity,nor Divinity,infact, he rejected God,but later people elevated him to be a God.. These kind of confusion always prevailed.

Now if we look in to the religions, Hinduism accomodates all religions,with scriptural authority.It says,'There are many a ways to reach God'. Islam is also very accomodative and talks similar to hinduism, ie, it accepts God of Christianity,Judaism and most of monotheist religions and even their respective teaching in its fold.
Christianity is bit trouble some here.. Though it has the advantage of convincing about 'God revealing to mankind and coming down to earth in human form' (not a mystic god of sky), its too much selfish/narrow minded in claiming, that 'Its the only path to reach God,Only way to God, and its the only religion in the world which reject, all other paths/religion". It also claims, that 'JC as God, divine, lived a sinless godly life" and substatiate its claim of God.. I'm not here to prove/disprove any facts here or to discuss in details about individual religion.. I've only presented here the various facts, accepted by their own religions

Now this lead to another logical question with a broad perspective on God & Religion..

If all paths can lead to God, then Christianity can also be right to be accomodated as one among them (Hinduism/Islam), and be considered as yet another path to reach God. But if all path's cannot lead to God(only one path exists to reach God), then Christianity by defalut will become the only religion of God.

A missionary tried hard to convince me that christianity is the only true religion in the world, the only religion of god, and one his points was the one you have put forward above. He has a PhD in christian theology from a US university and used that point rather frequently to show that because of his qualification, he understood things about "religion" better than others without formal qualification. He later started reading hindu scriptures and was guided by someone elderly from the local iskon centre in reading up relavant literature.

If you wish we can discuss this
(various paths to god) in an other thread. To me, christianity does not teach what christ taught, which i beleive the gnostics follow.

This is the point most of the philosophers are banking on since ages... But still, none of us know, they mysteries of God fully. So we all live in some confusions. Do we have the wisdom/divine power to evaluate this..

Thats why I say, the faith in God is first.. Then comes religion, and its upto us to choose the path which is more appealing/logically convincing with a worldview..

to have faith in, how do you "know" that god does exist in the first place? why do you think all religions must align with worldview? do you think christianity is in alignment with worldview? i'd prefer that you explain from both the appeal and the logic points of view. Again, in your own thots and ideas please.


At the moment,If Pink FLoyd got to start a religion, I would be the first one to enroll!!!
 
Shri.KRS,

I would really request your involvement here..Rather I would love it.

>>So he recognized only the Abrahamic religions as valid.>>

Yes, but still, Islam accept Judaism/Christianity,where as Christianity rejects both of them. In this context, Hinduism definitely has a broad aesthetically correct thought,by accepting all/any of them..But on logical arguments, it has a issue

Again, Idolatory is not the core foundations in any religions, even in Hinduism (as you said).. Its the form, people chose to define/express God, in the absence of 'Witnessing God alive in flesh form' or 'believing him as man of sky'.Yes,painting/Idols do carry some connect/reminder about God, which is not wrong.But, when it shifts to 'having an animal/bird idol as god, it violates the concept of God,and breaches the universal teachings of all religion's about 'Concept of God',which is 'All Powerful/All Loving/Creator". Moses condemned the 'Snake/Bufallo God', cos a bufallo cannot be 'All Powerful'.


2)>>>While Christ was supposed to have said 'I am the only way to reach Him', more and more scholors see this as either mis-interpreted as a literal >>

This is definitely a highly debated/contradicted subject, not only by scholars, but also by scriptures of Prophet.Mohammed/Koran/Jewish Talmud.

But for the healthy focussed argument sake,we should set the premise based upon whats accepted by the respective scriptures/practise. Otherwise, the discussion would unnecessarily stretch to Da Vinci Code/Satanic Versus/E.V.R/Charvaka,and then we will find only people throwing salvo's on each other..


3)>>Buddha never rejected God>>


Buddha talked about refinement on personal ground not on divine ground. His idea of exhaltation is on personal/human level (not related to divine), which is more of less like any sage in himalayas experience, and its more on human level, to attain a stage of innocense like an un-born child, giving up all desires. Will talk about in detail in forthcoming posts.



4) Arguing whether God came first or not is irrelevant.>>

Its not who came first, its about who should 'come in to our heart first'.. its religion or God..All Im saying, understanding the importance/Presence/feeling the presence of 'God' as first priority.Then one can choose the religion,which is more appealing to you.. With this frame of mind,if the societies will move, there wont be any Inquisitions/Death sentence for conversions/torching alive innocent kids/Demolishions etc.. Rather, it will be more of a dialogue between different communities/persons, to share the goodness he experienced in a particular religion which he is following/experiencing.
 
Last edited:
2)>>>While Christ was supposed to have said 'I am the only way to reach Him', more and more scholors see this as either mis-interpreted as a literal >>

This is definitely a highly debated/contradicted subject, not only by scholars, but also by scriptures of Prophet.Mohammed/Koran/Jewish Talmud.

Krishna, Christ and Buddha, all three of them said i am the truth, or the way or light, each in their own way. What are your views on it?

Christ supposedly referred to I as ena-ena when he said i am the truth, in aramaic (christ's teachings were translated into greek and later into english). The ena-ena is argued as referring to I of the self and I of the cosmic consciousness.

Ppl say there are loads of similarities in what christ taught and what buddha and krishna taught before him, like the concept of Aham Tat Sat (i am that i am) is in the exodus as exactly the same (i am that i am), and so on.

Found a relevant link: http://cameltranslations.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_archive.html

If one were to say christianity is the only religion, on what basis wud he have to make that claim, and more importantly, do you think the church in the present time does represent what christ taught?
 
Last edited:
Why god?

1. While we need Him, He doesn't need us.
2. He has no definite place of residence, because he is everywhere.
3. He doesn't belong to any particular religious path or linguistic
group.
4. It is we who attribute qualities and descriptions to him.
5. He doesn't intervene in one's life or chosen course, unless he is
called upon by an ardent and earnest devotee.
6. He doesn't belong to a particular period. Besides the past and
the present, He represents the unborn too.
7. He laughs at people who claim themselves to be 'the God'.
8. He mitigates the miseries of those who surrendered to him,
even if their social status in the eyes of others doesn't go up.
9. He is not anybody's property.
10. Unfortunately, his presence and need are felt by a man only at
the fag end of his life.
 
Dear Sri sapr333,

It would be my pleasure to post my thoughts here. However, I would like to do that without interfering with the spirited conversation that Srimathi HH Ji is having with you.

My response is in 'blue':

Shri.KRS,

I would really request your involvement here..Rather I would love it.

>>So he recognized only the Abrahamic religions as valid.>>

Yes, but still, Islam accept Judaism/Christianity,where as Christianity rejects both of them. In this context, Hinduism definitely has a broad aesthetically correct thought,by accepting all/any of them..But on logical arguments, it has a issue
Can you elaborate as to what you mean (I have highlighted the sentence)?
Again, Idolatory is not the core foundations in any religions, even in Hinduism (as you said).. Its the form, people chose to define/express God, in the absence of 'Witnessing God alive in flesh form' or 'believing him as man of sky'.Yes,painting/Idols do carry some connect/reminder about God, which is not wrong.But, when it shifts to 'having an animal/bird idol as god, it violates the concept of God,and breaches the universal teachings of all religion's about 'Concept of God',which is 'All Powerful/All Loving/Creator". Moses condemned the 'Snake/Bufallo God', cos a bufallo cannot be 'All Powerful'.
For American Indians, buffalo was a symbol of plenty and like the cow in oHinduism, it was worshipped for what it gave. Now, it was not viewed as God. Snake was worshipped because in certain religions it represented both magic and potency. But not as ultimate God. In Hinduism we worship Nava grahas. Are these wrong practices? Does divine exist only with an external God?
2)>>>While Christ was supposed to have said 'I am the only way to reach Him', more and more scholors see this as either mis-interpreted as a literal >>
This is definitely a highly debated/contradicted subject, not only by scholars, but also by scriptures of Prophet.Mohammed/Koran/Jewish Talmud.

But for the healthy focussed argument sake,we should set the premise based upon whats accepted by the respective scriptures/practise. Otherwise, the discussion would unnecessarily stretch to Da Vinci Code/Satanic Versus/E.V.R/Charvaka,and then we will find only people throwing salvo's on each other.
Yes, but the problem does not lie with what the scriptures say, but it is with our interpretation of what they say. All the 'controversial' interpretation you cite are also part of those religions. Because when we speak of 'God' we need to encompass everything in the Universe, both material and non material. Just because some only see the ear of an elephant instead of the whole animal, one can not exclude that ear being part of that animal. Small truths are also truths.
3)>>Buddha never rejected God>>
Buddha talked about refinement on personal ground not on divine ground. His idea of exhaltation is on personal/human level (not related to divine), which is more of less like any sage in himalayas experience, and its more on human level, to attain a stage of innocense like an un-born child, giving up all desires. Will talk about in detail in forthcoming posts.
Please read Huston Smith's 'World Religions'. Divine intention is explicitly absent from the almost clinical analysis of Karma, it is implicit in it's cause.
4) Arguing whether God came first or not is irrelevant.>>
Its not who came first, its about who should 'come in to our heart first'.. its religion or God..All Im saying, understanding the importance/Presence/feeling the presence of 'God' as first priority.Then one can choose the religion,which is more appealing to you.. With this frame of mind,if the societies will move, there wont be any Inquisitions/Death sentence for conversions/torching alive innocent kids/Demolishions etc.. Rather, it will be more of a dialogue between different communities/persons, to share the goodness he experienced in a particular religion which he is following/experiencing.
Again, this is why religion is cultural and emotional to start with. One as a child remembers only the rituals/festivals at home and gets involved only in the metaphysical questions later on well in to their lives. Such an emotional bonding since young age is akin to one's bond with one's parents and siblings. This is why, conversions by free will occur very rarely. This is why all religions are valid, if only one takes one's religion seriously and seek God.

This is also why there is no one 'great' religion. Because one's religion stems from one's total place in the Universe, with social, ethnicity, language, national, psychological, emotional and intellectual capacities, practice and mores. This is why religion is not like a shirt you can change just because one looks better than the other.

Regards,
KRS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top