Stephen Hawking: ‘There is no heaven’

[saarangam]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

Look here for Stephen Hawking's views on heaven.Stephen Hawking: ‘There is no heaven’

 

[subbudu1]

“Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing,” he said. “It is a matter of chance which we are in.”

I think this statement of Stephen shows the success has gone into his head. It is clear he is surrounded by a bunch of sycophants who have given stephen some feeling of an all knowing authority. I myself like science and genuinely doubt claims on spirituality. But this is an over confident statement.

 

[renuka]

Hawkins said:


“If you like, you can call the laws of science ‘God’, but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions.”



He is not entirely wrong cos its true ...we can call the Law of Science "God".Isnt everything Cosmic Science only?
Why view Science as opposing to Spirituality?
Science is just methodology of explaining a phenomenon.
Right now in Science we are mostly exploring the gross phenomenon more that even considering the Subtle.
Like in medical science we only learnt about the gross body.
But when you really dissect psychiatry and psychology there is some hints of subtle phenomenon there but still not fully explored.


Hawkins is not wrong: God in the True sense is not a personal One.
Ishwara is the personal perception of God and upon realizing the Truth verily only Brahman prevails.


Hawkins is an intelligent man..He might interpret the Truth in an easy way for us to understand some day.

His answers are not too far from

om purnam adah purnam idam
purnat purnam udachyate
purnasya purnam adaya
purnam evavashishyate

 

[sangom]

I think this statement of Stephen shows the success has gone into his head. It is clear he is surrounded by a bunch of sycophants who have given stephen some feeling of an all knowing authority. I myself like science and genuinely doubt claims on spirituality. But this is an over confident statement.

Dear Shri Subbudu,

I do not think it is correct to jump to the above conclusion unless you have more evidence about Hawkings' mindset, to be presented.

Is it necessary to postulate a "creator" because there is something perceptible? Even the sāṃkhyadarśana initially had no such concept of a "creator", I understand, and an īśvara was posited only at a later stage on to the original Kapila's sāṃkhyadarśana. Similarly, if we take the much discussed advaita, where is the "creator" in it? Brahman, the only reality, together with vikṣepa and āvaraṇa, two characteristics (here again advaitins are on slippery ground if we ask the question about the locus of these two items !) produce the illusion of jagat. Thus instead of one God Almighty "creating" everything in 6 days, taking rest on the 7th., etc., there is nothing created except an illusion and that too, by the combined agency of three entities. We may take these as demonstrative of successive, improved stages of human reasoning capability, and nothing more. The scientific thinking today may allow an eternal, beginningless multiverse idea as per theory. If any reader is conversant kindly elucidate for our benefit. Once theoretically we can think of a beginningless but eternal universe, it will not require a "creator" of the Biblical style.

But science has many phenomena for which one cannot find any single agency as the cause. In my very limited knowledge radioactivity, radioactive decay, half-life, bioluminiscence and even the most simple "fire" phenomenon cannot be attributed to any creator / source. They are there, we know many things about them, that is all we can say.

Note : My conclusions may be wrong. Oppoosing ideas are welcome.

 

[renuka]

We have to take a trip down memory lane of the Shad Darshanas which might have the answers we are seeking.
To refresh ourselves..I have put this link:

Shad Darshanas- Six Systems Of Hindu Philosophy:hilosophy and Spirituality

 

[renuka]

Mystery Of Creation - Some Vedantic Concepts::Vedanta

 

[zebra16]

Dear Shri Subbudu,


Is it necessary to postulate a "creator" because there is something perceptible?

Namaste

Can the proponents of "apaurusheya" of vedas also not use the same hypothesis to establish unauthoredness of vedas?

Regards,

narayan

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Shri Subbudu,

I do not think it is correct to jump to the above conclusion unless you have more evidence about Hawkings' mindset, to be presented.

Is it necessary to postulate a "creator" because there is something perceptible? Even the sāṃkhyadarśana initially had no such concept of a "creator", I understand, and an īśvara was posited only at a later stage on to the original Kapila's sāṃkhyadarśana. Similarly, if we take the much discussed advaita, where is the "creator" in it? Brahman, the only reality, together with vikṣepa and āvaraṇa, two characteristics (here again advaitins are on slippery ground if we ask the question about the locus of these two items !) produce the illusion of jagat. Thus instead of one God Almighty "creating" everything in 6 days, taking rest on the 7th., etc., there is nothing created except an illusion and that too, by the combined agency of three entities. We may take these as demonstrative of successive, improved stages of human reasoning capability, and nothing more. The scientific thinking today may allow an eternal, beginningless multiverse idea as per theory. If any reader is conversant kindly elucidate for our benefit. Once theoretically we can think of a beginningless but eternal universe, it will not require a "creator" of the Biblical style.

But science has many phenomena for which one cannot find any single agency as the cause. In my very limited knowledge radioactivity, radioactive decay, half-life, bioluminiscence and even the most simple "fire" phenomenon cannot be attributed to any creator / source. They are there, we know many things about them, that is all we can say.

Note : My conclusions may be wrong. Oppoosing ideas are welcome.

I am not ruling out anything that said with utmost humility. But he said - Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. That statement means that there is already a model which convincingly explains something out of nothing. It is a big statement. I am sure if that is so true, there will be no need for any more research in that area.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Subbudu,


Is it necessary to postulate a "creator" because there is something perceptible?

Namaste

Can the proponents of "apaurusheya" of vedas also not use the same hypothesis to establish unauthoredness of vedas?

Regards,

narayan

Shri Narayan,

The apauruṣeyatva vāda in relation to the vedas, means that the vedas were handed down in an esoteric way, not in any of the usual methods known to and capable of being done by ordinary mortals. It does not claim that the vedas were unauthored, IMHO.

To make matters a bit easier to grasp, let us consider what this apauruṣeyatva vāda will look like, if it is applied to, say, a mud pot (this is one of the favourite objects of our ancient philosophers). The mudpot will not be made in the manner known to most of us — a potter with his family/ assistants, identifies a location where he would get good clay, dig the site, carry the clay to his hut, mix water to the mud, make the fine paste necessary for the pot, take out small stones and foreign materials, (which will affect the quality of the finished product adversely), either manually, or through a sieve, take the processed mud, and, using the potter's wheel and stick and the innate skill of the potter, make a raw pot, sundry it and then bake it. This apauruṣeya mud pot will be made by one or more ṛṣis, who have spent hundreds or even thousands of years in tapas (austerities, penance) of the most extreme order, gained special siddhi/s as boons from different gods/goddesses which bestow superhuman powers to them.

One day one ṛṣi or a group of ṛṣis decides to make this apauruṣeya mud for the safe-keeping of man for eternity. They concentrate on the higher realms of existence, viz., bhuvarloka. suvarloka, maharloka, janaloka, tapoloka, satyaloka — each ṛṣi according to his abilities and preference and find out the best quality of clay in those 7 higher realms, bring the clay down here, make it suitable and free from particles etc., by employing their tapaśśakti, and also make a pot all without doing anything manually.

This pot has, just as the apauruṣeya vedas must have, its origin/s and creator/s. The only difference is that we will not be able to any statement like "this pot seems to be made in Karnataka', or "this pot has a small defect here; the potter seems to have been not very skilled", "this pot was not baked well in the right temperature, so it is brittle", etc., because, due to its apauruṣeyatva, all questions about its origin and potter/s is anathema and heretic; it is the divine mudpot and has everything that everyone wants and cannot have any defect of any kind whatsoever ! If you happen to see any shortcoming then it is due to your atheism/agnosticism/ lack of faith / sins of past births and so on and eternal hell is vouchsafed for such critics of the divine mudpot.

Last but not least, if something is not there in the divine mudpot, then it is completely to be rejected, unless the same is found in some other similar pot mfd by the ṛṣis of yore in the same, apauruṣeya method

Hope your request is carried out. You will see now that it is difficult to take away the names of the ṛṣis who are held to have brought out the vedic verses for us in this world.

 

[sravna]

I think it is a question of semantics. He really doesn't mean absolutely nothing? Does he? If so, it seems to be only an easy way out of the problem. When you cannot explain something you can make safe hypothesis like this as nobody can refute this.

 

[tks]

Hawkins said:


“If you like, you can call the laws of science ‘God’, but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions.”



He is not entirely wrong cos its true ...we can call the Law of Science "God".Isnt everything Cosmic Science only?
Why view Science as opposing to Spirituality?
Science is just methodology of explaining a phenomenon.
Right now in Science we are mostly exploring the gross phenomenon more that even considering the Subtle.
Like in medical science we only learnt about the gross body.
But when you really dissect psychiatry and psychology there is some hints of subtle phenomenon there but still not fully explored.


Hawkins is not wrong: God in the True sense is not a personal One.
Ishwara is the personal perception of God and upon realizing the Truth verily only Brahman prevails.


Hawkins is an intelligent man..He might interpret the Truth in an easy way for us to understand some day.

His answers are not too far from

om purnam adah purnam idam
purnat purnam udachyate
purnasya purnam adaya
purnam evavashishyate

Hawking's comments are in alignment with the vedantic vision - Iswara isin the form of order.
His comments about God are directed towards people who define that term in the Biblical theologies, IMO

 

[renuka]

Hawkins said:“Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing,” he said. “It is a matter of chance which we are in.”

This statement reminds me of the Sunyavada.

The phenomenal world is said to have no reality yet the world "underlying "
it defies all description because of our inability to see,grasp,comprehend "the thing itself".(svabhava)

All we can see and know is "dependent origination" and impermenance.

So if nothing is permanent and real(including seeming reality of I,me)Reality is empty(sunya) of any substance.



So Hawkins is spot on.

taken from:What is Sunyavada in Buddhism

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

I read what Stephen Hawking has said in the article"there is no Heaven" IMHO,he has made a correct statement comparing the brain to computers.
We do not require a knowledgeable world famous Scientist to state that the computer will fail when components fail.I sympathize with that person.
He is virtually living in hell.His statement is nothing but a statement from a frustated person suffering from some ailment for the last 49 years.
If scientists can prevent occurrence of Tsunami and other natural disasters and could control the temperature of the entire universe into a uniform one,prevent occurrence of droughts in some parts of the world and ensure sufficient quantity of water to meet the requirements of
mankind,I will recognize the Scientists as the only 'GOD'

 

[renuka]

I read what Stephen Hawking has said in the article"there is no Heaven" IMHO,he has made a correct statement comparing the brain to computers.
We do not require a knowledgeable world famous Scientist to state that the computer will fail when components fail.I sympathize with that person.
He is virtually living in hell.His statement is nothing but a statement from a frustated person suffering from some ailment for the last 49 years.
If scientists can prevent occurrence of Tsunami and other natural disasters and could control the temperature of the entire universe into a uniform one,prevent occurrence of droughts in some parts of the world and ensure sufficient quantity of water to meet the requirements of
mankind,I will recognize the Scientists as the only 'GOD'

Dear Krishnamurti Ji,

Forgive me that I am going to oppose you here.
You said :He is virtually living in hell.His statement is nothing but a statement from a frustated person suffering from some ailment for the last 49 years.


I have read before that some individuals take birth in what seems like apparently "like hell" only to burn off their sanchita karma and some of them are highly evolved individuals who take birth solely for benefit of mankind.
They voluntary take such births and they have extraordinary intelligence.
Hawkins could be one of them.

 

[tks]

Hawkins said:“Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing,” he said. “It is a matter of chance which we are in.”

This statement reminds me of the Sunyavada.

The phenomenal world is said to have no reality yet the world "underlying "
it defies all description because of our inability to see,grasp,comprehend "the thing itself".(svabhava)

All we can see and know is "dependent origination" and impermenance.

So if nothing is permanent and real(including seeming reality of I,me)Reality is empty(sunya) of any substance.


taken from:What is Sunyavada in Buddhism

It is a matter of defintion of the word 'nothing'.
In Vedic vision there is really nothing called Sunya. Even empty space with no material particles (vaccum) is not called Sunyam in the vision of Rshis. This is validated by the physical events.

"In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles.
(Morris, 1990, 25)"

When Stephen Hawkings talks about things happening out of nothing he is talking about phenomena such as the above (extended to possible existence of parallel universes with different laws of physics).

The observations support the vedic notion that there is no Sunya - even empty space with nothing (no particles) is 'alive' with activities.

We cannot translate Hawkings word Nothing to Sunya and his use of God to Isvara!

 

[nachi naga]

spirituality is the science of knowledge out of which has emerged material science.as life progresses the cyclic evolution will continue,the rishis termed the time frame as yugas,which carl sagan also admitted by far the closest validation of his cosmology knowledge to the rishis of yore.to be sarcastic about rishis of yore and present is shallowness,imho.stephen says there is no heaven or hell.i say there is heaven and hell,which we face in everyday/night in our life as the circumstance maybe.Propitiating the the spirit of a dead person is primarily done to rest in peace for the dead body's sprit or athma.I have personally experianced ouija baord aka planchette aka seance in my life and its no magic or fake thing.There are n number of para-normal beings amongst us despite the fact we all look alike but think uniquely.In fact in adyar we have the theosophical society wherein in olden times calling spirits and ther such phenomena were part of esoteric teachings.Religion has come into existence for a reason to provide succour,comfort for the soul.Now soul in a body ,i guess stephen will question that too and ask "where is the soul in a body"?

 

[Yamaka]

"Once theoretically we can think of a beginningless but eternal universe, it will not require a "creator" of the Biblical style."- Sangom Sir wrote.

This is the key here..

Most Scientists have rejected the "Creator" of Bible, Koran and the Vedas.. they have ridiculed the basis of ALL the Organized Religions of the world as a Man-made Story peddled by Godmen to dominate and exploit the masses.

Once you reject and walk away from this Organized Religions, you are free to think how and why the Universe was formed, and why the earth is moving at a rate of about 1000 miles per hour on its axis, and why is it moving at a rate of about 67000 miles per hour around the Sun, and what would happen to the earth when the Sun burnt itself out after about billion years etc..etc..

The real impediment to such inquiry is the so-called "Holy Books or the Vedas" and the Organized Religions propagated by egoistical human beings.

Spirituality is a state of mind that you feel "drunk" knowing the inside "truth' of something! lol

At least, you can put up with Spirituality over the nonsense of Organized Religions, IMO.

 

[Yamaka]

"Religion has come into existence for a reason to provide succour,comfort for the soul.Now soul in a body ,i guess stephen will question that too and ask "where is the soul in a body"?- Nachi Naga wrote.

Neurologically speaking, Soul is what the pre-frontal cortex of human beings "perceives" - a property of the uniqueness of the human brain and its ability to "imagine" larger than life realities...

When the human brain dies, "the Soul" just disappears into thin air without any trace!

Brain is such a very delicate "Super Computer" which will die if you remove glucose or oxygen for just about 4 minutes, and the "Soul" immediately vanishes!

So much is the nature of human Soul...

 

[tks]

"Once theoretically we can think of a beginningless but eternal universe, it will not require a "creator" of the Biblical style."- Sangom Sir wrote.

This is the key here..

Most Scientists have rejected the "Creator" of Bible, Koran and the Vedas.. they have ridiculed the basis of ALL the Organized Religions of the world as a Man-made Story peddled by Godmen to dominate and exploit the masses.

Once you walk out of this Organized Religions, you are free to think how and why the Universe was formed, and why the earth is moving at a rate of about 1000 miles per hour on its axis, and why is it moving at a rate of about 67000 miles per hour around the Sun, and what would happen to the earth when the Sun burnt itself out after about billion years etc..etc..

The real impediment to such inquiry is the so-called "Holy Books or the Vedas" and the Organized Religions propagated by egoistical human beings.

Spirituality is a state of mind that you feel "drunk" knowing the inside "truth' of something! lol

At least, you can put up with Spirituality over the nonsense of Organized Religions, IMO.

Y-ji -

Vedic vision does not include absolute creation as a concept. Creation is always described from a standpoint. You may see electricity generated (created) at one point in space-time but it was in another form of energy prior to this. Eneergy is not created or destroyed though one can understand a creation of a particular form.

What vedic vision is about manifest and unmanifest aspects of Brhman.
The laws of physics as observed do not contradict this vision.

What the biblical religion talk about is not what is in vedas with respect to concept of creation. Therefore it will be inaccurate to bunch the theology of biblical religious ideas with vedic vision in my view. Having said this, I do acknowledge that many Hindus do approach their traditions with a faith much like practitionars of biblical religions.

I am not here to defend Vedas since none of these concepts need defence by anyone in my view.
It is up to us to properly understand what is presented.

Regards

 

[suraju06]

To understand Stephen Hawking's latest views about God and Universe, we have to understand his journey to the present stage. In this context it is worth recalling his earlier views.

In the introductory chapter to his book A Brief History of Time Stephen Hawking says after discussing the existence of two partial theories (general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics) to describe the universe, “Now, if you believe that the universe is not arbitrary but is governed by definite laws, you ultimately have to combine the two partial theories into a complete unified theory that will describe everything in the universe. But there is a fundamental paradox in the search for such a complete unified theory. The ideas about scientific theories outlined above assume we are rational beings who are free to observe the universe as we want and to draw logical deductions from what we see. In such a scheme it is reasonable to suppose that we might progress ever closer toward the laws that govern our universe. Yet if there really is a complete unified theory, it would also presumably determine our actions.. And so the theory itself would determine the outcome of our search for it! And why should it determine that we come to the right conclusions from the evidence? Might it not equally well determine that we draw the wrong conclusion? Or no conclusion at all?
After raising these questions he goes on to answer them.” The only answer that I can give to this problem is based on Darwin’s principle of natural selection. The idea is that in any population of self-reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material and upbringing that different individuals have. These differences will mean that some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusion s about the world around them and to act accordingly These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce and so their pattern of behavior and thought will come to dominate……..Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way , we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid also in our search for a unified theory, and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions.”

When Stephen Hawking concluded in his latest interview that heaven exists only for those who are scared of death, may be, his hope that the reasoning abilities would not lead us to the wrong conclusions( highlighted above) has been belied.

For those who want to know what Stephen Hawking is talking about when he says there are two theories please read this(taken from his book A Brief History of Time):

When we combine quantum mechanics with general relativity, there seems to be a new possibility that did not exist before: that space and time together might form a finite, four dimensional space without singularities or boundaries like the surface of the earth but with more dimensions. It seems that this idea could explain many of the observed features of the universe, such as its large scale uniformity and also the smaller scale departures from homogeneity, like galaxies, stars and even human beings. It could even account for the arrow of time we observe. But if the universe is completely self contained with no singularities or boundaries and completely described by a unified theory that has profound implications for the role of God as creator.

Einstein once asked the question “How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?” If the no boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions. He would, of course, still have had the freedom to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. This however, may not really have been all that much of a choice: there may well be only one or a small number of complete unified theories, such as the heterotic string theory, that are self consistent and allow the existence of structures as complicated as human being who can investigate the laws of the universe and ask about the nature of God.

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?

Up to now most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up the advance of scientific theories. In the 18th century the philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science to be their field and discussed questions such as : Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the 19th and 20th centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or any one else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most popular philosopher of this century (20th) said “the sole remaining task for the philosophy is the analysis of language.” What a come down from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!

However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by every one, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all scientists, philosophers and just ordinary people be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.

 

[Yamaka]

Y-ji -

Vedic vision does not include absolute creation as a concept. Creation is always described from a standpoint. You may see electricity generated (created) at one point in space-time but it was in another form of energy prior to this. Eneergy is not created or destroyed though one can understand a creation of a particular form.

What vedic vision is about manifest and unmanifest aspects of Brhman.
The laws of physics as observed do not contradict this vision.

What the biblical religion talk about is not what is in vedas with respect to concept of creation. Therefore it will be inaccurate to bunch the theology of biblical religious ideas with vedic vision in my view. Having said this, I do acknowledge that many Hindus do approach their traditions with a faith much like practitionars of biblical religions.

I am not here to defend Vedas since none of these concepts need defence by anyone in my view.
It is up to us to properly understand what is presented.

Regards

Tks Sir:

My understanding is Torah is the documentary basis of Judaism, Vedas are the documentary basis of Hinduism, Bible (Old and New Testament) is the documentary basis of Christianity and Koran is the documentary basis of Islam - all the major Organized Religions of the world about which I have lots of anger! lol.

My opinion is all this Holy Books were written by some Godmen or their followers over a long period of time to control the masses, to dominate them, to fragment them, and thus get benefited from them to their personal gains.. at least to satisfy their humongous ego!

My wife tells me that Brahma does not have any temple and worshipers (she believes in the Doctrine of Trinity of Gods - Brahma being the Creator, Vishnu being the Nurturer and Shiva being the Destroyer of the world) because He lied to Shiva - the Supreme of All Gods!

Your interpretation of Brahma is not what the regular Temple goers in Madurai, Trichy or Chennai are subscribing to, I am afraid.

Most Hindus do approach their religion or tradition very much similar to the followers of Biblical Religions, I believe.

Cheers.

Regards

Y

 

[nachi naga]

Abraham and Sara are the common prohet & prohetess of the Abrahmic Faiths collectively known and singularly judaism,christanity,islam.because brahmas lies was found out,his worshipping dwindled drastically in India.On a closer look when we anagram brahmaa it becomes abraham and shorten saraswathi to sara ,which today is known as middle east asia,which once upon time was unified maha bharat eons eons back.That is why the ancient text of sanathana dharma was sysematically destroyed during occupation of various invaders in south asia.all religion have minor variations,but bhakthi is one and the same,imho.only when we suffer in life we realise the gods omnipresence in most cases,but the fortunate ones with grace realise gods omnipresence every moment of their life.god is embedded in us as butter in milk.

 

[Yamaka]

Abraham and Sara are the common prohet & prohetess of the Abrahmic Faiths collectively known and singularly judaism,christanity,islam.because brahmas lies was found out,his worshipping dwindled drastically in India.On a closer look when we anagram brahmaa it becomes abraham and shorten saraswathi to sara ,which today is known as middle east asia,which once upon time was unified maha bharat eons eons back.That is why the ancient text of sanathana dharma was sysematically destroyed during occupation of various invaders in south asia.all religion have minor variations,but bhakthi is one and the same,imho.only when we suffer in life we realise the gods omnipresence in most cases,but the fortunate ones with grace realise gods omnipresence every moment of their life.god is embedded in us as butter in milk.

Dear Nachi:

I was amused to read your aligning of Abrahamic Faiths to Brahma and Saraswathi - Yes, Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) had two sons - one Issac (via Sara) and another Ismail (via Hager); Issac's progeny became the Israelis and later Christians and Ismail's progeny became the Arab Muslims.

However, Abrahamic religions were dead against idol worship from day one.. historians say that the Holy K'aba in Mecca once had hundreds of idols; long ago Prophet Abraham cursed the idol worshipers (called the Pagan Worshipers) and advocated the removal of all the idols from the Holy K'aba. Later, Prophet Muhammed also preached against all forms of idol worship (Hindus are generally considered as Idol Worshipers).

I thought the Maha Bharat did not cover Saudi Arabia anytime in the past history.

Yes, some Moghal Rulers tried to destroy Hinduism but Akbar the Great tried to reconcile with the dominant religion of India - the Hinduism (Please watch Jodha Akbar and Mughale Azam).

"god is embedded in us as butter in milk."

How will you elaborate this view to the felonies of human beings? Will you say what Dominique Strauss Kahn allegedly did to the hapless House Maid is God's action?

Is God embedded in DSK? Perhaps, as a Christian he may think so!!

My view is Nature created human beings with FREE WILL... some act right according to his/her conscience and inner compass and others commit felonies...

I would like to know your pov on this..

Cheers.

 

[tks]

Tks Sir:

My understanding is Torah is the documentary basis of Judaism, Vedas are the documentary basis of Hinduism, Bible (Old and New Testament) is the documentary basis of Christianity and Koran is the documentary basis of Islam - all the major Organized Religions of the world about which I have lots of anger! lol.

My opinion is all this Holy Books were written by some Godmen or their followers over a long period of time to control the masses, to dominate them, to fragment them, and thus get benefited from them to their personal gains.. at least to satisfy their humongous ego!

My wife tells me that Brahma does not have any temple and worshipers (she believes in the Doctrine of Trinity of Gods - Brahma being the Creator, Vishnu being the Nurturer and Shiva being the Destroyer of the world) because He lied to Shiva - the Supreme of All Gods!

Your interpretation of Brahma is not what the regular Temple goers in Madurai, Trichy or Chennai are subscribing to, I am afraid.

Most Hindus do approach their religion or tradition very much similar to the followers of Biblical Religions, I believe.

Cheers.

Regards

Y

Y-Sir -

Let me share my view on religions in general.

Religions have created more wars than any other order in human history in my view though I am not a historian. Even today most of the conflicts arise out of religious differences.

This is because most religious traditions, especially the biblical ones and many of of Hindu sub-traditions base their practices on 'faith'. That word means - suspend reasons! So it is but natural if two people who have non-verifiable belief system can end up in conflict especially if the topic is about a concept called God and the stakes are high (hell or heaven whatever they may be).

Hindu religion is unlike any others. There are no books (no one has Vedas in their home, some may have Gita but most do not understand a reconciled view of all the chapters). There is no one form of worship. There are many leaders and practices and no one of authority (like Pope for example). There is no concept of conversion and no one can deny if someone says they are a Hindu (and I know a few Americans who are Sannyasis or on their path to Sannyasy and they are respected like anyone else by Hindu community in America). So it is not really an organized religion.

Even in practices such as Pooja one can do ‘substitutions’ of rice for Gold! There are also many practices that are not conformant to Vedic ideas because no one knows them. Even the priests that chant some vedic verses do a lot of ‘blah blah’ without fully understanding the meanings in many cases. People share bribes with the ‘Lord’ 

This can only happen in India! The greatest thing is that like Judaism it is a gentle religion with no requirement to convert others. So I will not lump Hinduism with other religion – it is in its own category!

The Vedas which is supposed to form the basis for many Hindu traditions teach (not preach) that Isvara ( purposely I am not using the word God) is to be understood and not believed. The traditions of temples etc. are to aid in that path to understanding. Many are not into learning the concepts and are served well by stories in the Purana which all started out with a message but have been embellished (which make them very interesting). So the story about Brahma , Vishnu etc like you cite is taken as true by common people. Often the significance of a story is lost or never learnt and the stories has evolved over the years. These stories cannot be compared with reading a Bible for example.

I was talking about the concept of Brahman and not the Puranic God in the form of creator Brahma.

Anyway you are right that the average person approaches the practices ‘as a belief system’ without fully understanding the underlying concepts and that may be fine if the concepts are grounded in truth that can be understood.

A religious person is expected to be ethical and may not be. An ethical person need not conform to any religion (traditions) and that is completely fine in the vision of vedas. A sannyasi is free from doing any religious rituals and focus only on learning (and of course to be ethical in how they deal with other beings including human beings).

The foundation of Sanathana Dharma and views of Upanishads about what is true are universal and applies to all beings. It does not belong to Hindus any more than gravitational laws do not belong to the country Newton was born. Therefore I will not lump vedic knowledge with the broad practices of Hinduism. The approach of Upanishads is scientific but the subject matter is beyond the scope of Science (and this is a huge topic).

Though my PhD in physics is dated, I can say that what Hawking taught or has written is not in opposition to the vision of Vedas. Once again in the vedic vision concept of creation does not exist - only manifestation, unmanifestation cycles. The possible and but unprovable existance of multiverses (parallel universes) do not contradict the vision of vedanta.

The best students of Vedanta tend to be in my experience from the religion (another belief system) of Atheism! Hope you will explore that as an Atheist!

Regards,

 

[nachi naga]

Dear Nachi:

I was amused to read your aligning of Abrahamic Faiths to Brahma and Saraswathi - Yes, Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) had two sons - one Issac (via Sara) and another Ismail (via Hager); Issac's progeny became the Israelis and later Christians and Ismail's progeny became the Arab Muslims.

actually when you anagram brahmaa you get abraham.in arabic thy pronounce it as ibrahmim jews pronounce as abraham.saraswathi got shortened to sara,in fact i know brahmaa and saraswathi reincarnated as abraham and sara,as brahmaa was literally persona non grata in bharat,has only two temples of worship as against hordes of 33 million dieties.

However, Abrahamic religions were dead against idol worship from day one.. historians say that the Holy K'aba in Mecca once had hundreds of idols; long ago Prophet Abraham cursed the idol worshipers (called the Pagan Worshipers) and advocated the removal of all the idols from the Holy K'aba. Later, Prophet Muhammed also preached against all forms of idol worship (Hindus are generally considered as Idol Worshipers).

recently i explained to an arabic person,how an idol or a image is use as a tool for realising the nirguna brahman or formless god which they call as al-lah.i pointed also how they use a book as an aid instead of an idol or image to reach the formless god.they got convinced about our idols were religious icons depicting divinity.

I thought the Maha Bharat did not cover Saudi Arabia anytime in the past history.

much before maha bharat was only existing,even now the red-indians aka native american indians have so much of similiar belief systems of sanathana dharma.there is even maya people called Mayans,whose calendar resembles luni-solar calendar of panchangam.

Yes, some Moghal Rulers tried to destroy Hinduism but Akbar the Great tried to reconcile with the dominant religion of India - the Hinduism (Please watch Jodha Akbar and Mughale Azam).

"god is embedded in us as butter in milk."

How will you elaborate this view to the felonies of human beings? Will you say what Dominique Strauss Kahn allegedly did to the hapless House Maid is God's action?

Is God embedded in DSK? Perhaps, as a Christian he may think so!!

he is not convicted of any crime as yet.he has been charged,lets see what happens.even inside him divinity is there,unless he works out his vasanas,he cannot be at peace and will continue to be reborn again and again in some other body,thats his karma.

My view is Nature created human beings with FREE WILL... some act right according to his/her conscience and inner compass and others commit felonies...

I would like to know your pov on this..

Cheers.

felony or divinity,is more or less two sides of a coin.when i realise all that came into existence because of brahman,and that brahman is a witness to the creation who have been endowed with innate nature or dharma to follow as free will,some use it wisely some use it in evil ways.only when evil is vanquished the good can triumph.god is neither responsible for the good or bad,we craete it ourselves and have to pay for it now or in later births.