PDA

View Full Version : Abrahamic Religions and God Realization



sm78
12 June 2007, 02:55 AM
Excerpts from Sivaya Subramuniyasawami's book "How to become a better Hindu".

Perhaves only the 2nd traditional hindu teacher (whom I have read) who categorically denies salvation possibilities of these faiths, without a shred of doubt or hesitation. He however stop short of calling them Asuric.

He also speaks the same theory as Shaktibad swami, that all Sanatana Dharma paths follow one of the many nerve currents in the spine, while asuric dogmas block these currents, making self realization impossible ~ unless by herculean self-effort.

Praise to this true guru of sanatana dharma. Jai Ho!!




Devotee: Do you have to be a Hindu to realize God?


Gurudeva: The Christian-Judaic-Islamic religions, also known as the Abrahamic faiths, do not hold to the doctrine that God is everywhere and in all things. Their belief is that God is eternally separate from the world He created. The first samadhi of Satchidananda, experiencing God in and through all things, postulated by Sanatana Dharma and other Eastern faiths, believed in and then attained by their followers, is in most cases unattainable through those religious paths that block the conscious and subconscious states of mind of their followers by negating and denying this mystical experience as apostasy. Extraterrestrial channels encased in the sushumna current in the spine of man are inherent in the fiber of the religions that know of and lead man's consciousness to God Realization. These inner channels of consciousness are available to its members, guiding them to their ultimate destiny on this planet. Still, there are rare souls who dive deeply into themselves despite their faith's beliefs, and penetrate into the states of Satchidananda, sometimes becoming heretical members of the faith that claimed no such mystical experience was possible. But once Satchidananda is even briefly experienced, the inner knowledge of reincarnation, the subtle forces of the law of karma and the presence of God in all things are intuitively understood. Actually, one of the major problems of the Abrahamic religions is having within them undeclared apostates who have had these universal inner experiences and who, in turn, silently sway the minds of other followers, not by preaching alien philosophies but by sharing their own compelling mystical encounters.

saidevo
12 June 2007, 06:35 AM
Namaste sm78.

You have brought out a very important point, thank you!

Even among Hindus, the vast majority of us don't do any sAdhAnA by yogAsana, prAnAyAmA and meditation. Bhakti is our prevalent and most preferred way to God.

The major difference is that by seeing God in everything, animate and inanimate, we Hindus increase the receptive capacity of our mind as well as have a vast field for God's power to communicate to us. Knowledge and experience might come to us through anyone, human or non-human, or even anything. Therefore we are in a better position to make use of God's grace, which is all around like the sunshine. Since mind (buddhi) is the master of all thoughts, emotions, feelings and their nerve channels, an expanded mind has the capacity to drain bad effects quickly and retain the good.

Our communication to God is likened to a funnel placed on its base. The apex is always single-pointed. The wider the base, the greater our experiences of devotion that surges upward.

The scriptures of Christian-Judaic-Islamic religions do not analyze the mind and its capabilities or about the vestures that cover the human soul, though such knowledge was available to Jesus and his teachers during their time. When the followers of these faiths gain this knowledge through their interaction with Sanatana Dharma and Buddhism, they naturally grow out of their faiths and carve out their own paths to God.

Agnideva
12 June 2007, 05:08 PM
Namaste Singhi,


...without a shred of doubt or hesitation. He however stop short of calling them Asuric.
This is exactly what I admire about Gurudeva. There was no wishy-washiness with him. He was very clear about every single point and never strayed from his path. He never diluted down any tradition or belief, and insisted on perfection from each of his followers. He also did not put down any belief system either. When he criticized, he did so constructively.


He also speaks the same theory as Shaktibad swami, that all Sanatana Dharma paths follow one of the many nerve currents in the spine The doctrines of nerve currents – ida, pingala and sushumna nadis – are largely Saiva-Shakta Agamic, and I am not certain if they are specificially taught in all schools, but I do believe they are inherent in all Sanatana Dharma paths.


while asuric dogmas block these currents, making self realization impossible ~ unless by herculean self-effort.Whether self-realization is possible in other systems is not for me to say, but I do agree that is depends primarily on the mindset, which is tied in with the yogic nerve currents. I believe that Dharma paths are specifically set up to foster that self-realization, or enlightenment as one may choose to call it, whereas others may not be.


Praise to this true guru of sanatana dharma. Jai Ho!!Jai Gurudeva.

OM Shanti,
A.

willie
12 June 2007, 09:03 PM
I hope that this is not another one of the long dead holymen that everyone likes to talk about. If he is not dead, he need to come to america and tell this story . Then he better take off running before the fight breaks out.

This is the poorest statement I have ever heard and would be laughed out of almost all churches.

sm78
13 June 2007, 03:51 AM
I hope that this is not another one of the long dead holymen that everyone likes to talk about. If he is not dead, he need to come to america and tell this story . Then he better take off running before the fight breaks out.

This is the poorest statement I have ever heard and would be laughed out of almost all churches.

Again only mis-informed, self prejudiced, big mouthed, talk and nothing else.

sm78
13 June 2007, 04:09 AM
Whether self-realization is possible in other systems is not for me to say, but I do agree that is depends primarily on the mindset, which is tied in with the yogic nerve currents. I believe that Dharma paths are specifically set up to foster that self-realization, or enlightenment as one may choose to call it, whereas others may not be


It is not our duty to judge others for no reason. At the same time it necessary to understand one's foes. Since religious leaders of the traditions in question have a agenda in front of them to destroy the Hindu culture and they openly share their view points about our traditions, it is necessary we understand who we are dealing with. That's all. Particularly when the lie of sarba dharma sama bhava is so prevalent amongst the followers of the dharmic religions.

Regarding your Gurudeva, the fully realized beings don't talk in uncertain terms. They remain unknown or they talk and do concrete things. (my opinion of course).

Adi Shankara Bhagvan is the glowing example in our yuga. It's only strange that most universalism proponents in our religion at least in philosophy look upto him, most of whose own life ironically was uprooting of Bauddha heresy.

Ganeshprasad
13 June 2007, 08:54 AM
It is not our duty to judge others for no reason. At the same time it necessary to understand one's foes. Since religious leaders of the traditions in question have a agenda in front of them to destroy the Hindu culture and they openly share their view points about our traditions, it is necessary we understand who we are dealing with. That's all. Particularly when the lie of sarba dharma sama bhava is so prevalent amongst the followers of the dharmic religions.



Pranam sm, pranam all

Your ideals and prem for the dharma is commendable just like you I knew one very great Hindu dharma premi called Maadhav, he used to post on India divine forum, his only mission in life was for Hindu eakta and awareness, against all the so called religions and their duplicity. I wish he could be with us.

Once again keep it up, we have to expose all this lies in the name of religion.

Vasudev kutumbak is fine and it is, but the cancer of conversion by force or cheating and inducement has no place in it.
Intellectual debate should be encourage, let the wind blow from all direction even hurricane but there is no chance of uprooting the Vedic dharma not even from adharmic forces.

Jai Shree Krishna

satay
13 June 2007, 09:22 AM
I hope that this is not another one of the long dead holymen that everyone likes to talk about. If he is not dead, he need to come to america and tell this story . Then he better take off running before the fight breaks out.


namast Willie,
Instead of 'hoping' why not google his name and find out for yourself. I am sure eve if you spend one minute on this activity of googling, you will find out for yourself instead of hoping.





This is the poorest statement I have ever heard and would be laughed out of almost all churches.

Yes, Willie, I agree with you. Your statement is the poorest I have ever seen.

Agnideva
13 June 2007, 11:45 AM
Namaste Singhi,

It is not our duty to judge others for no reason. At the same time it necessary to understand one's foes. Since religious leaders of the traditions in question have a agenda in front of them to destroy the Hindu culture and they openly share their view points about our traditions, it is necessary we understand who we are dealing with. That's all. Particularly when the lie of sarba dharma sama bhava is so prevalent amongst the followers of the dharmic religions.
I do not disagree with your statements. I understand the need to understand and criticize other systems. I am not one to say or believe that the central message of Hinduism is universalism. Hinduism, as far as I know, had never engaged in universalist thought before the time of Ram Mohan Roy, who imported the ideas of the Unitarian Universalist Church. Today the universalist message is so strong that many people actually think that Hinduism says all religions are one and the same. To criticize other systems has become an anathema and seen as "un-Hindu", whereas historically it never was.

Satay has brought up this point many a time on this forum: what does one say to a Hindu child who asks her/his parent, “if all religions are the same, why should I not become a Christian or Muslim?” The question I ask in response is does Hinduism really say all religions are one and the same?


Adi Shankara Bhagvan is the glowing example in our yuga. It's only strange that most universalism proponents in our religion at least in philosophy look upto him, most of whose own life ironically was uprooting of Bauddha heresy.Yes! I find this to be the greatest irony of all.

OM Shanti,
A.

MysticalGypsi
13 June 2007, 07:41 PM
In "real life", I don't see Hindu peoples constantly comparing their religion with other religions. I am not sure I understand this need to compare and point out flaws in other religions on this board. Or even if not pointing out flaws, there seems to be so many posts about being the best or defensive with other world views.

Just be. There really is no need to feel inferior or superior. Just be what you are.

saidevo
13 June 2007, 08:44 PM
Namaste MG,



In "real life", I don't see Hindu peoples constantly comparing their religion with other religions. I am not sure I understand this need to compare and point out flaws in other religions on this board. Or even if not pointing out flaws, there seems to be so many posts about being the best or defensive with other world views.

Just be. There really is no need to feel inferior or superior. Just be what you are.


The Christian public either generally underestimates the evils of proselytism or is indifferent to it. Just as a Hindu who drops money in the temple hundi doesn't question how it is used, so does a normal Christian who contributes to the church. In both the cases, however, most of the money goes for the Christian proselytism.

When the highest and most visible Christian religious authority, the Pope, hankers after the dogma of 'saving other souls' which is totally unsuitable to the world in the 21st century, gives a clarion call, and sends battalions giving them the power to buy governments and the media, the Hindus can't just bury their heads in the sands and feel it's all hunky-dory with the world! There is almost no denomination in the Christian religion that does not indulge in conversion in one way or another. I am not surprised that the threat seems slender or non-existent to the normal Christians, when thousand are coerced DAILY to turn to Christianity in India.

HDF is a Hindu forum that discusses Hinduism in depth, and has a wide readership that extends beyond its members. A primary duty of a forum like HDF is educate the Hindus in two ways: to help them know the depth and greatness of their religion and understand the limitations of the western religions so they can tackle the knock of the evangelist at the door effectively, that occurs these days in the houses of educated and elite Hindus.

The comparative study of western religions is normally confined to their own forums and threads. Sometimes it spills over into other threads when a post provokes it; otherwise the other threads are 'clean' as you may say.

A normal Christian who reads the posts that discuss the 'flaws' of Christianity may feel bad about people harping on it, but there is always the chance for the individual to logically refute it or simply accept and grow out of it, or just ignore it. The relevance of some passages in Hindu scriptures, even some of the scriptures such as Purusha Sukta, Manu's instructions etc. are freely discussed in several Hindu forums on the Net and the Hindu members there don't feel bad about it.

If Hindus start discussing the western religions in their normal life, the Christian proselyters and the Muslim aggressors will be running for cover!

willie
13 June 2007, 09:45 PM
It would appear that this gurudeva has not been dead that long so the discussion has moved up in time to later holymen.

I have not found his statement to be that true. I don't know of anyone who would say the brahman was not the same god as in other religions. And I don't see where this guy statement is anything more then trying to one up he competition. This sort of petty bickering in nothing new and has been going on for years. In the past it caused a lot of religious wars but mostly in modern time people just laugh at it.

It always seems to be some enlightened individual who says that those of another religion will never get to he point he has. Course all religions have these tpeo of people saying the same about all other relgions. It is a wonder that any of them ever got to this point , if indeed they did.

willie
13 June 2007, 09:58 PM
Now for a few words about church collections. Some churchs do take up donation for spreading the word but not as many as you might think. And mostly people know where their money is going and for what. Usually, there is a board of deacons or elders and they look at the books all the time and the disposition of all funds is public knowledge. A large part of the money goes to public feeding, disasters and for charity work in africa or other places. Organizations like the red cross , unicef , oxfam and the UN relief are given some money also. Other money is put back for building funds or repair. It is all accounted for.

The pope can say anything he wants but the most catholic areas are central and south america. And the protestants are gaining converts in those area every day.

Some of you seem to think that conversion are only in india but mainly conversion happens between christian groups all the time. I know of several people who were raised catholic and are now baptists or some other religon. I know jews, christians, bahis and some hindus. I know some who have been throught 3 or 4 christian denominations and no one thinks anything about it here.

saidevo
13 June 2007, 10:21 PM
Namaste Willie.

1. In India, the Hindu temples are controlled by the government, so we have no say or feedback on the money we contribute. Knowing Hindus in fact avoid dropping money in temple collection vessels. Instead they give it to the poor priest.

2. The moot question is: why should an abominable religious practice like conversion be followed in today's world of multiplicity at all? It is more abominable when it happens between the denos of a monotheistic religion. When a true Christian is prepared to ignore other irrelevant passages in the Christian scriptures, why should he/she allow this abominable practice to be followed at all?

mirabai
13 June 2007, 11:50 PM
Namaste,
I try to maintain my silence and learn, but I have to call your bluff on this one Willie.
Churches and other non-profit orgs in the United States are under no legal obligation or requirement to divulge any financial information whatsoever to the public or to anyone. They may voluntarily publish all or part of their financial statements if they choose which some do, but the vast majority do not.

The type of conversion you are speaking of - persons of the Abrahamic faiths changing denominations to try a different denomination whose doctrines fit their lifestyle and beliefs - is a far cry from the type of conversions being discussed here. Proslytization is devouring the native religions in India, Africa and other nations like a cancer.

sm78
14 June 2007, 02:21 AM
I send the post as a PM reply to MG.

yajvan
14 June 2007, 10:00 AM
Hari Om
~~~~

Now for a few words about church collections. A large part of the money goes to public feeding, disasters and for charity work in africa or other places. Organizations like the red cross , unicef , oxfam and the UN relief are given some money also.

Hello Willie,
Any good that comes of this money I am for... Yet in the Catholic church these days much of the money collected is being used for lawyers and paying fines and law suits. As of late the tally is $1.5 Billion dollars paid in litigation to parishioners that have taken issue with the intolerable behavior of priests. How many collections must this have taken to raise $1.5 billion from the givers who think this money is going to help people of lesser abundance. Good intentions on the minds of the giver, used for bad behavior on the side of the receiver.

Again, beneath the dignity of the family of man...

MysticalGypsi
14 June 2007, 02:10 PM
(Love) is the call of God to all creatures,
Animate and inanimate,
To return to his house of Oneness.
Love is the heartbeat of all life,
And the angel of incarnation.
Love is born in the garden of soul progress,
And it sleeps behind the darkness of other attachments.
It is the oldest and the sweetest nectar,
Preserved in the bottles of hearts.
Love is the light that dissolves all walls,
Between souls, families and nations.
Love is the unfading blossom of pure friendship,
In the garden of both young and mature souls.
Love is the door to heaven, the completed songs of souls.

~Yogananda

willie
14 June 2007, 09:12 PM
It may be true that the government require no reporting , by law, of where contributions go. But the lay people who work for the church know a lot about where the money goes and work gets out. If the congregation does not like the distribution of the funds then the minister better start packing. I know of several cases where ministers were shown the door , when the congregation members found out where donation went. I also know of instances where whole congregation withdrew from national organization because those organization made unpopular decisions.

In india it may be true the temple donations are controled by the government. So stand up and say " not so fast" in a democracy the people are the government and so the people can stop this. Vote out anyone who goes along with this grabbing of church funds.

In the case of the catholic church it is true that a lot of money was spent on lawyers to defend the church in court. But in a lot of those cased the money came from the sale of church property as the congregation sat is its wallet. And look at is this way , all the money that went to the lawyers, didn't go to convert any one to the catholic faith.

Sure christianity and islam are finding a lot of converts in foreign lands but maybe that is because people are looking around and thinking that the god of these religions takes pretty good care of his adherents.

This whole conversion idea is a moot point. In america the jehovas witnesses and mormans are thick as flies in the summer. And most chuches have an open door policy for anyone one who wants to come to services. All are looking for a few more warm bodies to fill the seats. The old idea that anyone who leaves the faith is doomed is not of much value any more and is generally laughed at. Even the jews have a few converts from time to time.

yajvan
14 June 2007, 09:47 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


In the case of the catholic church it is true that a lot of money was spent on lawyers to defend the church in court. But in a lot of those cased the money came from the sale of church property as the congregation sat is its wallet. And look at is this way , all the money that went to the lawyers, didn't go to convert any one to the catholic faith.



Willie, a very good point made... In San Diego, my location, the Church was 'coached' by the lawyers to hide the property (in paperwork, etc) , then claim Chapt 11. The court would have none of that and caught them in the act. Yet - point well made - if they are paying Lawyers, they then are not trying to converting people... Yet didn't do a very good job converting the lawyers either :>)

Your other point of Jehova Witnesses as thick as flies in the summer... I invite them in ( My lovely wife usually rolls her eyes back in her head), but I listen to them , to the Mormons. I am OK with their faith - for every one that is preaching God, they are not stealing cars or bringing harm to the family of man.

I spent a week in Utah at Brigham Young University. The people were mature, courteous and wholesome. [ I was on a project that took me to their campus]. I would revisit the campus tomorrow if offered. They are good, helpful people. I respect their freedom to choose their faith - that is what makes this country great ... I received no force feeding on their beliefs. Yet I did find some manipulative conversation techniques from the Jehovah Witnesses, but it was of no
concern to me. I will take Witnesses and Mormans as my neighbors vs. the alternatives ( which I can give you way too many in our society today).

thank you for your posts and ideas.

satay
15 June 2007, 09:08 AM
(Love) is the call of God to all creatures,
~Yogananda

namaskar MG,
Thank you for the beautiful poem by yogananda. The peom is perfectly in line with the teachings of Dharma.

Pity that adherents of abrahamic religions do not have the same understanding of the teachings of their own gurus.

Where a guru gets murdered and hung on a cross for delivering a similar message, how can one find hope?

satay
15 June 2007, 09:17 AM
[FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3]Sure christianity and islam are finding a lot of converts in foreign lands but maybe that is because people are looking around and thinking that the god of these religions takes pretty good care of his adherents.

Namaste Willie,
No you have it wrong. The reason why christianity and islam are finding a lot of converts is not due to their god 'taking care of their adherents' but due to the aggression of their adherents on the foreign lands.

Specifically in India, christian aggression has been passive since before the british ruled us but lately has been very active to the point of causing violence all over the place.

Before british ruled and robbed us, the whole of India went through slavery of muslims, where hindus and sikhs were burned alive, children beheaded, girls raped. The muslim aggression was so brutal that women chose to throw themselves alive in a fire pit instead of getting raped by adherents of this religion to save their dignity.

If anything that the god of these religions does for their adherents, it is: acceptance and promotion of these brutal acts against humanity.



The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist. -- Richard Dawkins,

satay
15 June 2007, 09:48 AM
In "real life", I don't see Hindu peoples constantly comparing their religion with other religions. I am not sure I understand this need to compare and point out flaws in other religions on this board. Or even if not pointing out flaws, there seems to be so many posts about being the best or defensive with other world views.

Just be. There really is no need to feel inferior or superior. Just be what you are.


namaste MG,

(no I am not picking on you again)

let me see if I can offer a different point of view without being too harsh and without comparing religions.

First, let's examine this statement: 'just be what you are' I have thought about this statement now for a few days but am unable to see how this applies to the problem hinduism is facing right now.

'Just be what you are' sounds all great and is very soothing to the heart.
'Just be what you are' nothing more, nothing less, just be...
Great indeed...

However, the statement is also very limiting!

For example, would you say this same statement to a child who is not doing so great in his school work?

Would you say this to someone who is getting robbed, what if worse, they are getting raped or murdered? Would you recommend to them, "just be what you are"?

What if a person had cancer and clearly he should seek medical advice, would you say, "just be what you are?"

'Just be what you are' applies to those who are already aware of the situation and responding accordingly.

It doesn't apply to those who are sleeping and the house is getting robbed. If the house is getting robbed, we should not be 'just what we are', We should 'wake up'

The irony of this statement 'Just be what you' are applies only to those who are already functioning at the optimal level. What of those who need improvement?

Second, you don't see hindus comparing religions in real life, yes, that is true. Most hindus don't care about other religions and are satisfied with the knowledge they received from their parents about dharma and dharmic activities. Most hindus, do a prayer in their puja room in their house and go about their daily business. This is the beauty of dharma. However, this is also the reason why adherents of other religions are able to force feed us messages such as " hinduism says, all religions are same" "hinduism is a cult" "hinduism is satan's religions" etc. etc. and the list goes on.

MysticalGypsi
15 June 2007, 11:56 AM
Satay,

I am not going to argue. You really are consumed with this though. It is a bondage to you. And, I do not mean that in judgemental way. I hope you move past this to just being in the healthy sense I meant it.

sm78
15 June 2007, 12:13 PM
(Love) is the call of God to all creatures,
Animate and inanimate,
To return to his house of Oneness.
Love is the heartbeat of all life,
And the angel of incarnation.
Love is born in the garden of soul progress,
And it sleeps behind the darkness of other attachments.
It is the oldest and the sweetest nectar,
Preserved in the bottles of hearts.
Love is the light that dissolves all walls,
Between souls, families and nations.
Love is the unfading blossom of pure friendship,
In the garden of both young and mature souls.
Love is the door to heaven, the completed songs of souls.

~Yogananda

And as per Bhagvad Gita, Love also comes from Atman ~ the one truth. But why do people think love needs to come at the cost of Truth itself ??

In this world to put forward one, we need to cut away another...that's duality. It has nothing for or against love, unless it is the emotional reactions we are confusing ourselves to.

Anyways no point arguing...may each of us realize the truth in our time.

Kaos
15 June 2007, 01:27 PM
"Love everyone, everything", is an ideal, a saintly quality.

However, while in contact with material nature, there comes a time, when one must drawn the lines.

In the Bhagavad Gita, even Krishna, was a charioteer for His friend Arjuna, in the Battle of Kuruksetra.

satay
15 June 2007, 01:49 PM
Satay,

I am not going to argue. You really are consumed with this though. It is a bondage to you. And, I do not mean that in judgemental way. I hope you move past this to just being in the healthy sense I meant it.

Namaste MG,
I appreciate your post and your concern about my well being. However, I am not sure what you mean by 'consumed with this'. Not sure what you are referring to.

If you mean, that I am consumed with the effort of 'waking up hindus' for the benefit of our children, then I am not so sure that I agree. I am too busy to be consumed with this. I am only making an observation and offering a different point of view.

Do you think that 'just be what we are' applies to those who need to improve ? If we should just be what we are then why even pursue 'love' or 'truth'? Why make any effort at all to do anything?

MysticalGypsi
15 June 2007, 03:20 PM
You misunderstand my definition of love. I am not saying mushy, unrealistic love. One of the practical reasons to love with boundaries as opposed to attack is...if you attack, you give the opponent power. If you love with boundaries, you retain your power. Plus, you avoid dipping into emotional lashing out at innocent people and stereotyping, which we can never justify.

I also am slightly amused that if I don't agree with some of the posts, I must be a Christian. I am not. :) I have also received private emails telling me that "we" feel this way. So, since I disagree, I am pushed out. This is really common, scary human nature. We have to "our" team and "their" team to feel satisfied. Unfortunately for our argument, the teams are an illusion.

Let's say Person A comes to my house and says in a nutshell, "Hindus are bad, Christ does not like you, repent!". Okay, person A is annoying and violating my right to peace at my home. I have a couple of options.

I respond in the same way, which may make me feel better (in the wordly, maya, flesh) and say, "I cannot stand you or your kind. There is nothing good about you or your kind". Then, I can be vigilant to make sure I keep this belief no matter who I meet. But, what do I accomplish, besides spreading more of the same thing that Person A is bringing to my door?

I could be mushy love and let this person walk all over me. I could say "Well, come in" and listen quietly, no matter how I feel. This is bad also because the person does not learn anything and I do not respect myself.

Option three would be to meditate first on this issue, because we all know this sweeps out the emotional clutter and helps us see reality. So, we could love Person A, realizing his shadows are our shadows. BUT, we can clearly state our boundaries, in love. "This is my home, I am a Hindu, please leave".

Obviously, this is over simplified, but hope you get the idea.

As far as others converting to Christianity, you will never stop them by militantcy. It only serves to push people further away. Plus, in this global world there will be more converts among all sorts of religions. Christian parents and families are just as stressed as you about Christians converting to another religion. And, Muslim parents and families the same. But, the world is ever going global and people are curious about other cultures and religions. And, I agree the "fear" factor of Christianity is an unfair card they play. But, option three is still the best option. An extension of this option would be to put money and time and resources into education about Hinduism or information about Christianity; pass laws about people going door to door (or lobbying for those laws), etc.

My problem with Option 1, where you lash back is that it continues to fuel what this world is full of. The constant, "he hit me, so I am going to hit him harder" or "he hit me, so I am justified in hitting him" or worse yet, "he hit me, so I am justified in not only hitting him, but his daughter and his aunt and his friend...." or "he hit me, so I will never allow myself to believe there are any good within his kind".

yajvan
15 June 2007, 08:47 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

"Love everyone, everything", is an ideal, a saintly quality. However, while in contact with material nature, there comes a time, when one must drawn the lines.

In the Bhagavad Gita, even Krishna, was a charioteer for His friend Arjuna, in the Battle of Kuruksetra.

Namaste Kaos,
A very insightful post... Many have a 'feel' of what love is; all know it when they see it. yet we on HDF have not explored it as a conversation. We are as humans expected to know this love almost as a pre-requisite... as if someone mentions it and people nod Oh , yes this love is a great thing. Yet each nod has a different view point, passion, and experience of this love.

If one watched TV and came to the conclusion based upon the acts we see on TV , I think we would agree that is NOT it.
Many say Love is God. That very well may be, yet it does not help us (me) comprehend the welling-up of emotion, of happiness , that accompanies this feeling.

So, to define this emotion, this feeling I think is to help with the conversation.

I have some views on this, so let me start. It does not even suggest that I am right, but for me, at this level of development, it 'feels' right. So let me give it a go, again not lecturing, just the experiences of life and being attentive to this 'feeling'.

For me, love is the highest level of appreciation one can have for another... I stop at another because love/appreciation as I see it is not limited to a another human. Many love their pets, their cars, etc. This appreciation gets to the feeling I have, but still requires and few more additions.
With this appreciation, one can then adore what one appreciates. So, for me some of the components when one adores+appreciates this thing of love, then there is an intimacy that is desired, a closeness, to know this love intimately.

Now I revert back to the saint that loves all - this can happen when one knows Brahman, the All. Then every-thing is known intimately as an extension of ones SELF. This robust love is then a daily natural thing and not contrived, no pretending to love all... it is just a natural thing.

I can only think of the first mantra of the Rig Ved - it says agnim ile... Agni I adore.
The first words for all the veda's start with the highest level of appreciation of Agni, Divine will. This is because the rishi Madhuchandis has intimate connection with this Divine Will in him, in his consciousness.

Until that time we need to do the best we can with this love of all things, and the help of yama and niyama to assist.

pranams,

willie
15 June 2007, 09:25 PM
India got a lot from the british, more than it lost. They left behind some form of government , a legal system, a language the public officials had to speak so others could understand them and the commonwealth system. That alone enabled a lot of indians to move to australia, canada , britian and other parts of the old empire.

Of course, you could have been ruled by the spanish. Then you could really complain.

satay
16 June 2007, 12:13 AM
India got a lot from the british, more than it lost.


namaste Willie,
you are wrong again. Please check your facts before making statements of India. British looted India for two hundred years until they didn't have anything to more to gain from India. Most of the wealth that the queen and the british have in their treasury is because they not only robbed the India kings but also the farmers and the common man.

May be try your luck with those who don't know the history of their country and they might buy such nonsense as 'india got a lot from the british, more than it lost'. I for one am not buying it.



They left behind some form of government , a legal system, a language the public officials had to speak so others could understand them and the commonwealth system. That alone enabled a lot of indians to move to australia, canada , britian and other parts of the old empire.


If you had checked your facts before posting, you would have found that India already had government, a legal system, a national laguage.

Obviously, since you have never said that you are from the indian origin, I can not blame you for not knowing all this but at least please try to make some effort to find out the facts before making statements otherwise you come across as ignorant.



Of course, you could have been ruled by the spanish. Then you could really complain.

Can I borrow your crystal ball for a day or two?

saidevo
16 June 2007, 12:37 AM
Namaste MG and everyone else.



Let's say Person A comes to my house and says in a nutshell, "Hindus are bad, Christ does not like you, repent!". Okay, person A is annoying and violating my right to peace at my home. I have a couple of options.


Obviously, the multi-religious western Hindus of HDF and elsewhere have very little idea of what is going on in India today in the name of conversion by Christianity, abusing the Indian constitutional freedom to teach their religion. Let us have a look into some typical 'situations' and see what option can and does the Hindus exercise in such a situation.

The three options that MG has suggested are:
1. React in the same way that you are acted on.
2. Tolerate everything with mushy love and lack of self respect.
3. Armed beforehand with your own knowledge of the situation, and politely ask the person to leave.

Hindus have a fourth option, which is mostly the cause of the whole trouble in the first place.

4. Be indifferent to your dharma, religion, society, government and nation; and be complacent with your materialistic pursuits based on western methods and culture.

Typical Situations

1. The storm and tsunami are raging outside. The entire village is inundated and the villagers go without food or medical aid in the initial days. A van comes carrying some officials from the local church with food and medical supplies. The officials freely enter the damaged homes, promise food and medical supplies, only for those who undergo conversion to Christianity on the spot. Many do convert due to their helplessness. The others who don't are denied the humanitarian service.

Reaction: Option 2 was largely exercised. In some villages, option 1 was used and the self-respecting villagers refused to convert and even complained to the police and the van promptly withdrew from the scene!

2. The church extends all help in a tsunami situation to the villagers, convert the gullible and force them to demolish the Hindu god statues such as the village guardian god (Ayyanar) and the Hanuman statue they worshipped. Later more storm rages, the village is inundated, the villagers read in the newspapers how Hindu temples survive while Christian churches such as the famous Velankanni church and the Santhome church in Tamilnadu suffer damages, repent for their action of demolition of their gods and promptly turn their ire against the Christian church officials.

3. A poor, illiterate family in a hamlet is sick. A Christian priest freely enters it, kneels down on the floor to pray, gives some allopathic medicine and says that Jesus will cure the ailing if they convert to Christianity. A couple of days later, the ailing person is promptly cured, the priest returns and harvests the souls.

As variations of this basic theme, coversion is achieved in a good number of cases by lure of employment, money, house and other comforts; even middle class Hindus fall prey to such efforts, exercising option 4 and 2.

Some examples from the source: http://www.christianaggression.com/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1180494701



The Christian MNC enterprises are targeting mostly SCs, STs and the poorest of the backward castes among Hindus. They tell the SCs and BCs not to disclose the fact of conversion for government records like the census. This is to avail of the reservations meant for SC and BC Hindu castes.

Almost all Christian nurses in hospitals, especially in government hospitals use their position to brainwash the stricken and the ill. They tell the patients that if they embrace Christianity, Jesus Christ would heal them. The distress of the people is thus exploited for gaining converts. (above ref.)

Conversion activity is organised as any other commercial profit-seeking investment. Pastors paid Rs. 10,000 per month are in charge of a group of propagandists. Some of them are full timers. They get Rs. 3,000 to 5,000 per month. In villages some converts are engaged on a retainer basis, paid Rs. 500 per month. These are all required to collect flocks of villagers when swastya kutamis (health and healing assemblies) are organized and miracle cures in the name of Jesus and Mary are staged.


Many politicians turn Christians out of sycophancy for their Chrisitian leaders (such as Sonia Gandhi) but keep their Hindu names to cheat the public. The powerful among them freely visit Hindu shrines, interfere in their activities and even demand a law to change traditional Hindu practices. Which option will work in such cases?

4. While they ruled India, the British created a situation that the poor and simple tribals in Eastern India become vulnerable targets for the Christian conversion machinary. "it is in these eastern states, some of which are 90 per cent Christian, that one finds the biggest drug problems (and crime) in India." (Francois Gautier). Worse, in some areas the Christians resort to persecution of the local miniority Hindus and indulge in violence and murder to prevent them observing their dharma. Worst, there is a real danger of these states demanding separation from the Indian Union.

5. For their own aggression, some Christians do meet with violence in return, but these cases are blown out of proportion and given the widest publicity in the Indian and International media, accusing Hindu outfits of fanatism and aggresion. Some examples:

Four nuns in Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh were raped. It was found to be "the doing of a gang of Bhil tribals, known to perpetrate this kind of hateful acts on their own women. Today, the Indian press, the Christian hierarchy and the politicians, continue to include the Jhabua rape in the list of atrocities against Christians." (FG)

Graham Steins, an Australian missionary, and his two sons in Orissa were burnt in their jeep by the locals. The Wadhwa commission, which probed the incident, ruled out involvement of Hindu outfits and reported that it was a case of personal vendetta by a man named Dara Singh and his people who were disgruntled by the activities of the Australian machinery and were having pent of feelings of hostility.

Many Christian travellers who come to India on tourist visa misuse it and start their conversion activities. When these cases are reported to the politice or other protest messures are taken, the media crys hoarse that Hindus persecute the minority Christians.

"It is common in Kerala, for instance, particularly in the poor coastal districts, to have "miracle boxes" put in local churches. The gullible villager writes out a paper mentioning his wish such as a fishing boat, a loan for a pucca house, fees for the son's schooling. And lo, a few weeks later the miracle happens! And of course the whole family converts, making others in the village follow suit." (FG)

6. Churches are sought to be built everywhere in India by all Christian sects. A typical method adopted is to buy at a higher cost the houses sold by villagers when they leave to reside in towns for better life prospects, and then convert these houses into prayers halls and later churches, right in the middle of Hindu residential areas.

The recent Christian aggression in Tirupati was actively countered by Hindus and their religious leaders using option 1, and only this forced the Andhra Pradesh state government to pass an ordinance by its governor, banning religious propagation in tradtional Hindu places like Tirupati and 19 others. This ordinance is yet to be enacted into a legislative law.

7. In Christian healing meetings, pamphlets are distributed abusing Hindu gods and goddesses. Benny Hynn's coterie was caught red-handed by the Hindu dharma outfits in this act. While the soulless pervert M.F. Hussain drawn pictures of Hindu gods and goddesses in naked form, when it comes to Christian and Muslim personalities he draws them fully clad. Commercial enterprises in the US and elsewhere use distorted pictures of Hindu gods and goddesses in toilet covers, beer cans and other consumer articles. The concepts of Hinduism are described in a distorted way in the school textbooks in the U.S. A recent development is that the US government has started denying visas to Hindu temple workers, delaying many such projects there.

The state, polticians, media, intellectuals and the aggressive in the population of western religions in India--everyone revile Hinduism and abuse Hindus with scant regard for human and national values. All this is due to the influence and background work of the western Christian missionary lobby, specially from the U.S.

In Christian or Muslim country the kind of situation that is prevailing for the Hindus in their own native land would have resulted in a civil war, flushing out the aggressive Christians and Muslims. It is because of the teachings of human and religious values of Hinduism that such a situation has not happened until now, but there is always a limit to restraint.

Those who appreciate the gravity of the sitation in India would feel that what we discuss in HDF by way of educating grass root Hindus about their own and other religions is very little and that a lot more needs to be done.

Ganeshprasad
16 June 2007, 07:17 AM
India got a lot from the british, more than it lost. They left behind some form of government , a legal system, a language the public officials had to speak so others could understand them and the commonwealth system. That alone enabled a lot of indians to move to australia, canada , britian and other parts of the old empire.

Of course, you could have been ruled by the spanish. Then you could really complain.

Pranam willie

here are some facts for you to consider not to mention all the atrocities that was committed. and the movements of indians as slaves.




SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY
Pages from the history of the Indian sub-continent
The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs

While few educated South Asians would deny that British Colonial rule was detrimental to the interests of the
common people of the sub-continent- several harbour an illusion that the British weren't all bad. Didn't they,
perhaps, educate us - build us modern cities, build us irrigation canals -protect our ancient monuments - etc.
etc. And then, there are some who might even say that their record was actually superior to that of
independant India's! Perhaps, it is time that the colonial record be retrieved from the archives and
re-examined - so that those of us who weren't alive during the freedom movement can learn to distinguish
between the myths and the reality.

Literacy and Education
Several Indians are deeply concerned about why literacy rates in India are still so low. So in the last year, I
have been making a point of asking English-speaking Indians to guess what India's literacy rate in the colonial
period might have been. These were Indians who went to school in the sixties and seventies (only two decades
after independance) - and I was amazed to hear their fairly confident guesses. Most guessed the number to be
between 30% and 40%. When I suggested that their guess was on the high side - they offered 25% to 35%.
No one was prepared to believe that literacy in British India in 1911 was only 6%, in 1931 it was 8%, and by
1947 it had crawled to 11%! That fifty years of freedom had allowed the nation to quintuple it's literacy rate
was something that almost seemed unfathomable to them. Perhaps - the British had concentrated on higher
education ....? But in 1935, only 4 in 10,000 were enrolled in universities or higher educational institutes. In a
nation of then over 350 million people only 16,000 books (no circulation figures) were published in that year
(i.e 1 per 20,000).

Urban Development
It is undoubtedly true that the British built modern cities with modern conveniences for their administrative
officers. But it should be noted that these were exclusive zones not intended for the "natives" to enjoy.
Consider that in 1911, 69 per cent of Bombay's population lived in one-room tenements (as against 6 per cent
in London in the same year). The 1931 census revealed that the figure had increased to 74 per cent - with
one-third living more than 5 to a room. The same was true of Karachi and Ahmedabad. After the Second
World War, 13 per cent of Bombay's population slept on the streets. As for sanitation, 10-15 tenements
typically shared one water tap!
Yet, in 1757 (the year of the Plassey defeat), Clive of the East India Company had observed of Murshidabad in
Bengal: "This city is as extensive, populous and rich as the city of London..." (so quoted in the Indian
Industrial Commission Report of 1916-18). Dacca was even more famous as a manufacturing town, it's muslin
a source of many legends and it's weavers had an international reputation that was unmatched in the medieval
world. But in 1840 it was reported by Sir Charles Trevelyan to a parliamentary enquiry that Dacca's population
had fallen from 150,000 to 20,000. Montgomery Martin - an early historian of the British Empire observed that
Surat and Murshidabad had suffered a similiar fate. (This phenomenon was to be replicated all over India -
particularly in Oudh (modern U.P) and other areas that had offered the most heroic resistance to the British
during the revolt of 1857.)
The percentage of population dependant on agriculture and pastoral pursuits actually rose to 73% in 1921
from 61% in 1891. (Reliable figures for ealier periods are not available.)
In 1854, Sir Arthur Cotton writing in "Public Works in India" noted: "Public works have been almost entirely
neglected throughout India... The motto hitherto has been: 'Do nothing, have nothing done, let nobody do
anything....." Adding that the Company was unconcerned if people died of famine, or if they lacked roads and
water. Nothing can be more revealing than the the remark by John Bright in the House of Commons on June 24,
1858, "The single city of Manchester, in the supply of its inhabitants with the single article of water, has spent a
larger sum of money than the East India Company has spent in the fourteen years from 1834 to 1848 in public
works of every kind throughout the whole of its vast dominions."

More if anyone interested
http://members.tripod.com/~india_resource/colonial.html (http://members.tripod.com/~india_resource/colonial.html)

Jai Shree Krishna

MysticalGypsi
16 June 2007, 08:12 AM
I am aware of that Saidevo, and I still stand by my post. We see this type of thing here also. And, for that matter, we have Hindu peoples working to spread Hinduism in America. Some Christians here feel the same way you do in India. Some Christians are learning from it. But, people have a choice to be proactive or reactive.

I still think 3 is the best and can incorporate the issues you address. Prejudice or hatred or backlash will never solve the problem.

yajvan
16 June 2007, 09:57 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste all,

I read the posts here and it seems we're playing the age old game of "Bring Me A Rock".
Bring me a rock... no, I want a bigger rock. Yes, but the big rock is not blue. Yes, the rock is big and blue yet it has sharp corners. Now the rock is big, blue and without sharp corners, what is it's origin? I Need one from Italy.
You can see that the well-intended are trying to satisfy a question that is not well defined. We then get into generalizing - (samanyacchala) and making challenging statements because the possibility of the Whole being wrong due to it's part being in question.

From some I 'sense' a provoking, from others a sincere intent to discuss this issue of India, Christianity and their intent, all good conversations,
yet we still end up with the same positions people had taken at the beginning of the conversation.

I am also impressed that the conversation has been done with civility.
Passions have not got the best of us on this issue....I am impressed that many have thought through their responses with data and facts , we should all applaud this approach - nothing beats facts, logic and insights from inferences and judgements based on the above approach.

Maybe, just a maybe, this is the case where one agree's to dis-agree.
Or we can go out back and box - the winner of 2 out of 3 rounds takes home the prize? [ yet I am not sure what the prize would be. I sense an 'understanding from the other side' is the quest at hand]


just a thought. I know this matter is near and dear to many

dhanyavadah,

Kaos
16 June 2007, 04:31 PM
Of course, you could have been ruled by the spanish. Then you could really complain.


Actually, no one should rule anyone else but instead man should give up all other engagements and fully surrender to the Lord.

So, your inference that one nation was better at "ruling" over another in the context of God Realization which is the subject of this thread does not apply.

willie
16 June 2007, 09:27 PM
With all these supposed advantages the indian could still not fight off the british interlopers. Must not have been much of a government if it would not defend the country. And with all the muslims it look like india could have put up quite a fight for a long time.

Back at the founding of america, a lot of people wanted to stay under british rule. The few germans did not have much command of english and the french who settled here didn't think much of either the english of germans. But they all came together and beat a world class army with a rag tag bunch of farmers and shopkeepers. Sure the french government helped some and a few of the indian tribe fought with the americans. But people got organized and went to war and got the job done. After it was all over they british and americans went back to trading with each other like nothing had happened.

Even today bin laden and his thugs have tied up a major army in 2 different countries. Out numbered and out gunned they have been fighting for a long time, with no end in sight.

But india with all those people could not fight off the british or make them wish they had stayed home. Some where something does not add up.

Kaos
17 June 2007, 11:43 AM
But india with all those people could not fight off the british or make them wish they had stayed home. Some where something does not add up.




I guess, if you're basing your standards on the Demoniac, in the context of the Bhagavad Gita, then the colonial powers that India could not fight off at that point in time would be right there among the top.

Things always add up. What goes around comes around.

yajvan
17 June 2007, 12:25 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Actually, no one should rule anyone else but instead man should give up all other engagements and fully surrender to the Lord.


Namaste Kaos,
This is a most noble action to pursue... Is the surrender you suggest Isvara-Pranidhana? Perhaps you can begin a new thread and engage in the conversation of surrender:

How would one begin?
How will the sadhu know if one is making progress?
What is actually done daily?
And, what is one surrendering to the Lord?dhanyavadah

Kaos
17 June 2007, 01:03 PM
Namaste, yajvan, and all.

The Supreme, Lord Krishna, is the only controller, and all living entities are controlled by Him. The living entities are His superior energy , same in quality but not in quantity.

Therefore, all living entities should surrender to His control and that surrender will make them happy.

yajvan
17 June 2007, 01:14 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste, yajvan, and all.

The Supreme, Lord Krishna, is the only controller, and all living entities are controlled by Him. The living entities are His superior energy , same in quality but not in quantity. Therefore, all living entities should surrender to His control and that surrender will make them happy.

Namaste Kaos,
you speak the truth... inform us on how.


pranams,

Kaos
18 June 2007, 08:45 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Kaos,
you speak the truth... inform us on how.


pranams,


Namaste yajvan and all,

Why seek the how outside of ourselves.

yajvan
18 June 2007, 09:38 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste yajvan and all, Why seek the how outside of ourselves.

Namaste Kaos,
this has moved to a new post location to pursue this dialog...
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1576
(HDF members) please consider adding your thoughts on this over in the 'Yoga' Folder....thank you

Painted cakes to do not satisfy hunger, say the wise. To talk of the cake, yet not showing the hungry how to obtain the cake leaves one still in need. There is no doubt that 'seeking' is inside of us, as that is where the SELF resides.
Yet for many on this forum, we look for the practical instuction , or discussion, on how to do this. You have been kind enough to tell is about the cake e.g. 'all living entities should surrender to His control and that surrender will make them happy' - Please now help HDF on the how; we know it is INSIDE us, now what does one do to unfold this?
If you asked an HDF member, please tell me how to walk... they would instruct, pick up one foot, place it forward, shift your weight and as you go forward, bring the other foot forward, and your locomotion will send you walking...The instruction is practical, I have a meausre of progress i.e. I have moved forward, yes? I can see I am making progress by the meters or inches I have progressed.Like that Kaos, if you can, and have the skills of this, lets us know how to surrender. The practical method, the measure one should look for - for moving forward.
If this is not within your skillset, that too is fine. If you have surrendered, and are making progress, then the stars rejoice in your progress. Perhaps you are lost for words as this is a subtle matter.

We on HDF are simple people and open minded - so as one gives suggestions, we also look for the 'blue print' a hint, a direction , on how to achieve ones suggestions.

If you do not know how to accomplish this, then you can ask others on the forum, this is where one leaves their ego at the door.

Let noble thoughts come to us from every side - Rig-Veda, 1-89-i



pranams,

satay
18 June 2007, 01:07 PM
Namaste MG,

You misunderstand my definition of love. I am not saying mushy, unrealistic love. One of the practical reasons to love with boundaries as opposed to attack is...if you attack, you give the opponent power. If you love with boundaries, you retain your power. Plus, you avoid dipping into emotional lashing out at innocent people and stereotyping, which we can never justify.


I am confused to read your post now. Are you implying that I am advocating something other than ‘love’ or that we should be attacking others or dipping into emotional lashing?

To the contrary, I am simply saying that ‘Hindus should wake up’
These four words seem to be confusing the Phds and MBAs and all the other scholars around here. It is because we love everything including our dignity that Hindus must wake up and smell the roses so to speak.

To clarify, I am not saying that Hindus should attack, hurt, dip into emotional lashing or any other type of lashing, use military means or any other misguided methods.

I am simply saying, “We need to wake up”

The confusing part for me is that how these four words are confusing to you.

If people are simply asking others to wake up how does that turn into violence, anger, hurt etc. etc. that you are implying?




I also am slightly amused that if I don't agree with some of the posts, I must be a Christian. I am not.


I think no one here cares if you are Christian, Buddhist, sikh or whatever. We have forums for each to discuss their views. However, this is a hindu forum and the only thing we request of the members is to not trash the sages, scriptures, the land of bharata etc. on this forum. If this is what a member wants to do, I always redirect them out of HDF and into the millions of other forums that just do that i.e. stay busy by insulting anything Hindu or Indian.



I have also received private emails telling me that "we" feel this way. So, since I disagree, I am pushed out.


I am not sure what you are trying to say. Please report to the admin (me) any incidence of communication that you consider is spam or unwanted. Spamming on HDF is not allowed.



This is really common, scary human nature. We have to "our" team and "their" team to feel satisfied. Unfortunately for our argument, the teams are an illusion.


So is love and hate illusion too? Again, I must clarify that the ‘Hindus wake up’ message is for hindus. By that, I mean those practicing Hinduism and especially those that live in India.

Most often Hinduism is confused in the west with ‘new age’ or some ‘free spirit’, hippy, marijuana smoking, fad. Or those who are practicing Hinduism as fad, they can simply ignore this message.



Let's say Person A comes to my house and says in a nutshell, "Hindus are bad, Christ does not like you, repent!". Okay, person A is annoying and violating my right to peace at my home. I have a couple of options.

I respond in the same way, which may make me feel better (in the wordly, maya, flesh) and say, "I cannot stand you or your kind. There is nothing good about you or your kind". Then, I can be vigilant to make sure I keep this belief no matter who I meet. But, what do I accomplish, besides spreading more of the same thing that Person A is bringing to my door?

I could be mushy love and let this person walk all over me. I could say "Well, come in" and listen quietly, no matter how I feel. This is bad also because the person does not learn anything and I do not respect myself.

Option three would be to meditate first on this issue, because we all know this sweeps out the emotional clutter and helps us see reality. So, we could love Person A, realizing his shadows are our shadows. BUT, we can clearly state our boundaries, in love. "This is my home, I am a Hindu, please leave".

Obviously, this is over simplified, but hope you get the idea.


No, actually, I do not ‘get the idea’. Firstly, I don’t get what you are trying to imply here. Instead of me putting words in your mouth, I request you to clarify what you mean by posting your different responses here.

Are you implying that Hindus or I am responding in the ‘wordly way’? To what?

Secondly, let me ask you this, in your example, what if person A comes to your house, you plan to respond with option 3 but before you respond, they make their way into your house, trash your place, collect all the material stuff they can, hit or injure you and your children then show a letter signed by your spouse that condones what they just did and in fact, gives them authority.

And to make matters worst, when they are injuring your children and trashing your house, you go to sleep and refuse to wake up. Now what if your sister who lives next door and hears all the commotion and noise, comes and tries to wake you up? I hope that your spouse in this example does not say, “just love this person who is injuring my children as their shadows are my own” or worse yet, “this is all an illusion”

If you respond in this way, that’s fine by me. However, note that this is not how Hindus have been instructed to respond. Perhaps you are mixing up other religions and movements with Hindusism? Maybe Buddhism and new age with Hinduism? However, only you know that for sure.




As far as others converting to Christianity, you will never stop them by militantcy.


Firstly, I don’t think that you comprehend the ‘issue’ of Christianity in India. And that is fine, I am not blaming you for that. Since you are not of Indian origin, you can’t be expected to fully understand the problems of a foreign land. As I have requested earlier, please do your own independent research and come to a conclusion of your own. Perhaps you would be so kind to post your research here and back up your message of 'love' with facts and figures and some practical ways to resolve the issues?

Secondly, no one is saying anything about ‘militancy’, violence or anything.

We are only saying to Hindus, “Wake up”. I do not know how simpler this message could be so that foreigners (including those of Indian origin) don’t get confused by it.



It only serves to push people further away. Plus, in this global world there will be more converts among all sorts of religions. Christian parents and families are just as stressed as you about Christians converting to another religion. And, Muslim parents and families the same. But, the world is ever going global and people are curious about other cultures and religions. And, I agree the "fear" factor of Christianity is an unfair card they play. But, option three is still the best option. An extension of this option would be to put money and time and resources into education about Hinduism or information about Christianity; pass laws about people going door to door (or lobbying for those laws), etc.


This is all common sense MG and no hindu is denying this.

Christians and muslims converting to other religions (not necessarily Hinduism) is a separate matter altogether.




My problem with Option 1, where you lash back is that it continues to fuel what this world is full of. The constant, "he hit me, so I am going to hit him harder" or "he hit me, so I am justified in hitting him" or worse yet, "he hit me, so I am justified in not only hitting him, but his daughter and his aunt and his friend...." or "he hit me, so I will never allow myself to believe there are any good within his kind".



I do not understand what you are trying to say here. No one on HDF is advocating hitting anyone.

In conclusion, I appreciate all your posts and concerns, however, your confusion of the issue is due to your lack of understanding of the background information. Though this is not surprising, even hindus born outside of India face the same confusion as you are doing.

No one here is advocating violence, backlash, emotion lashing out, militancy etc. etc..

“Hindus Wake Up” is meant for hindus, especially of those of Indian origin. If you are not in that category, please feel free to ignore these messages.

On HDF and in India we don’t care what religion you belong you, if there is no category for your religion, please let me know and I will create one (on HDF of course).

We only request that you allow us the dignity and respect that you want in return and not create violence in our country (and on HDF) even though that might be the central message of your scriptures.

Lastly, Hindus are Hindus, we are not Buddhists, we are not jains, and we are certainly not hippies of new age movement or any other free spirit fad.

satay
18 June 2007, 01:26 PM
With all these supposed advantages the indian could still not fight off the british interlopers. Must not have been much of a government if it would not defend the country. And with all the muslims it look like india could have put up quite a fight for a long time.


Namaste willie,
I am not sure that I follow your logic. India did fight off the british, this is why it is an independent country now.

However, I see some kind of implication underlying your post. Are you asking why it took so long to get rid of the robbers?

The answer to this question is complicated but looking from religious point of view, hindus are peace loving people. Nowhere in the history of the country, we attacked anyone. We only defended and responded to attacks when it was absolutely necessary as last resort, where peace had no option left. This is actually the Hindu way, as we can see even in the mahabarata, Lord goes over to the Kuru side the night before the fight is supposed to start, with a final attempt of peace.




Back at the founding of america, a lot of people wanted to stay under british rule. The few germans did not have much command of english and the french who settled here didn't think much of either the english of germans. But they all came together and beat a world class army with a rag tag bunch of farmers and shopkeepers. Sure the french government helped some and a few of the indian tribe fought with the americans. But people got organized and went to war and got the job done. After it was all over they british and americans went back to trading with each other like nothing had happened.



Yes, I admire what America did.




Even today bin laden and his thugs have tied up a major army in 2 different countries. Out numbered and out gunned they have been fighting for a long time, with no end in sight.

But india with all those people could not fight off the british or make them wish they had stayed home. Some where something does not add up.

Yes, willie, I see your difficulty. Why it doesn’t add for you is because you don’t know the vedic message, which is ‘love and peace’ Hindus have always lived by the motto of ‘live and let live’. We don’t care if you are british, german, French or from mars, you can live in our house as long as you respect others around you.

You make a valid point though that why so many Indians didn’t come together sooner. It reminds me of a comment a European friend of mine made to me once when I was in Belgium. He said, “I don’t understand what your (india’s) problem is with Pakistan. India is such a large population, close to one billion (in those days), why don’t you guys all stand at the Pakistani border and just ‘piss’ in that direction. Surely, you will flood that piece of land, and will win without using any military power, loss of life.”

I am not sure the logistics of this operation but I often wonder about this ‘operation piss’

Znanna
18 June 2007, 07:59 PM
namaste MG,

(no I am not picking on you again)

let me see if I can offer a different point of view without being too harsh and without comparing religions.

First, let's examine this statement: 'just be what you are' I have thought about this statement now for a few days but am unable to see how this applies to the problem hinduism is facing right now.

'Just be what you are' sounds all great and is very soothing to the heart.
'Just be what you are' nothing more, nothing less, just be...
Great indeed...

However, the statement is also very limiting!

For example, would you say this same statement to a child who is not doing so great in his school work?

Would you say this to someone who is getting robbed, what if worse, they are getting raped or murdered? Would you recommend to them, "just be what you are"?

What if a person had cancer and clearly he should seek medical advice, would you say, "just be what you are?"

'Just be what you are' applies to those who are already aware of the situation and responding accordingly.

It doesn't apply to those who are sleeping and the house is getting robbed. If the house is getting robbed, we should not be 'just what we are', We should 'wake up'

The irony of this statement 'Just be what you' are applies only to those who are already functioning at the optimal level. What of those who need improvement?

Second, you don't see hindus comparing religions in real life, yes, that is true. Most hindus don't care about other religions and are satisfied with the knowledge they received from their parents about dharma and dharmic activities. Most hindus, do a prayer in their puja room in their house and go about their daily business. This is the beauty of dharma. However, this is also the reason why adherents of other religions are able to force feed us messages such as " hinduism says, all religions are same" "hinduism is a cult" "hinduism is satan's religions" etc. etc. and the list goes on.



Namaste,

Being who you are in its most simplistic sense sometimes can be difficult for some.

Understanding that being is essentially effortless, and letting go of the notion that one has to try to 'be' ... well actually it is easier done than said.

YMMV


ZN

willie
18 June 2007, 09:14 PM
What sat india free was rosevelt knuckling churchill under during WWII. Rosevelt made chuchhill sign and agreement that said countries had to right to self determination. Churchill knew that the doctument would mean a free india but he needed supplies from america to run the war so he had to give in .

India must have learned to stand up some because when the pakistanis make bomb and missles , it was not too long before india developed them too. Nuclear weapons negate a large population and equalize all countries. But in the wong hands they could end the world we know today.

saidevo
18 June 2007, 09:56 PM
India must have learned to stand up some because when the pakistanis make bomb and missles , it was not too long before india developed them too. Nuclear weapons negate a large population and equalize all countries. But in the wong hands they could end the world we know today.


In their novel The Fifth Horseman, a thriller on nuclear terrorism, Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre describe that the American satellites have such powerful cameras that they can show the tent of Qaddafi in a desert with a horse standing nearby. Yet these satellites couldn't spot beforehand the underground nuclear tests conducted by India on May 18, 1974 despite the preparatory military activity in the desert area during the preceding days!

It was because of the apostle of peace Mahatma Gandhi that India did not evict the British by violence and war. Had Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and Vallabhai Patel been the leaders at the helm, history would been written differently, there would be no Pakistan, or if Pakistan was to be there after all, India would be free of any significant Muslim population.

willie
19 June 2007, 09:23 PM
As soon as the work started on the nuclear weapon someone knew who ,what , when and where it was and how it would be used. Intelligence know a lot , it just act dumb. Besides it was a good counter move for the indians and kept the balance of power in the region. Plus it decreased to border tensions and gave the US more leverage over the pakistani government.

satay
20 June 2007, 01:23 AM
What sat india free was rosevelt knuckling churchill under during WWII. Rosevelt made chuchhill sign and agreement that said countries had to right to self determination. Churchill knew that the doctument would mean a free india but he needed supplies from america to run the war so he had to give in .


namaste willie,
Once again you are wrong!
First let's clarify what agreement you are talking about. Are you talking about the Morgenthau plan between FDR and churchill? The agreement that was signed had nothing to do with India and everything to do with Germany.

Here are the facts for those who are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

India got their freedom for the following main reasons:
- there was nothing left to rob of indian people anymore; two hundred years of looting even the simplest farmers had made india almost bankrupt so the thugs of britain had nothing more to steal from us.
- british government was getting their a$$ kicked in the north, especially punjab where bhagat singh and other young men were killing their generals, judges etc. making a point to tell the british gov that the new generation will not tolerate them in India and that india belonged to indians
- gandhi's ahimsa march all over the country, british gov was afraid of gandhi because he became an international figure with his hunger strikes and ahimsa theme
- because of the efforts of subhas chandar bose and others indian heroes who wanted the country back at any cost
-redicule of british gov all over india by the common man

Once again, I request you to get your facts straight before posting nonsense about India.





India must have learned to stand up some because when the pakistanis make bomb and missles , it was not too long before india developed them too. Nuclear weapons negate a large population and equalize all countries. But in the wong hands they could end the world we know today.

pakistanis couldn't 'make' a broom out of a stick. Don't be fooled. The only reason they claim to have the missle or bomb is because they borrowed it from US during the cold war.

Don't forget that pakistan is a military ruled country. Compare that to a democratic India. Who do you think will have the itchy fingers a military ruler or an elected official when it comes to 'wrong hands'? Do your research and come to your own conclusions instead of spreading wrong information on HDF.

regards,

satay
20 June 2007, 01:29 AM
As soon as the work started on the nuclear weapon someone knew who ,what , when and where it was and how it would be used. Intelligence know a lot , it just act dumb. Besides it was a good counter move for the indians and kept the balance of power in the region. Plus it decreased to border tensions and gave the US more leverage over the pakistani government.

namaskar,

I have no idea what you are talking about. How does declaring 'nuclear' capability decrease border tension and gives US more leverage over the pakistani gov?

India had the capability long before pakistan managed to borrow from US, everyone knew that, even indian children. you need not be in 'intelligence' to know this fact.

sm78
20 June 2007, 01:48 AM
I agree with Satay except this one ...

- gandhi's ahimsa march all over the country, british gov was afraid of gandhi because he became an international figure with his hunger strikes and ahimsa theme

Another factor was a political pressure in UK itself to withdraw from imperialism...which is perhaves linked to the fact that they could not get anything profitable out of it anymore. Your 1st point is THE point why India and several other countries in close succession were given independence.

satay
20 June 2007, 02:04 AM
I agree with Satay except this one ...


Another factor was a political pressure in UK itself to withdraw from imperialism...which is perhaves linked to the fact that they could not get anything profitable out of it anymore. Your 1st point is THE point why India and several other countries in close succession were given independence.

Yes, the 'East India Company' was not profitable anymore because there was nothing left to rob. India had been looted to its deepest depths.

One last strike that cost us the most and will continue to cost us in the centuries to come--- division of the country.

And here we read nonsense of people such as willie who even deny indians the dignity that 'independence was due to the effort of indians actually'.

:rolleyes:

willie
20 June 2007, 10:10 PM
The meeting I am talking about took place off of the coast of canada aboard 2 destroyers. England was fighting the germans alone and was running out of supplies. The germans has developed the V2 and it could not be shot down like the V1. Churchill needed war supplies and needed them bad, so this was sort of the start of the lend lease program. But roosevelt took advantage of the situation and got a deal signed to free a lot of the empire, india being one of the countries. Sure roosevelt had heard or gandhi and knew what he was saying but keeping gandhi alive was sort of a political sideshow of the era.

I doubt that the british were worried about a few judges or generals being killed, there were plenty of people who wanted the jobs. And the population could be trained to work in factories for the future, if a supply of raw materials could be found.

Most of the pakistani and indian scientists that made the nuclear weapons were trained in europe or the US. So with the right materials they could produce weapons with little problem.

Both countiries having the bomb sort of stablized the border area , because neither side wanted to exchange nuclear weapons fire. I that sense, it took a lot of tension out of two armies watching each other over the border.
It gave the US leverage to force the pakistani to let then use the airports for the invasion of afghanistan. Which forced the pakistani government into siding against the terrorists.

When pakistan made a nuclear weapon everyone figured the india would produce one in short order, either with their own material or material that just showed up.

As for worring about whether a military dictatorship or a democracy would use a nuclear weapon, better remenber which form of governmenet was the only one to use a nuclear weapon in the past, so far.

saidevo
21 June 2007, 07:37 AM
Coming back to possibility of God Realization in Abrahamic Religions.

Karma & Reincarnation, and God's grace are the two fulfilling causes of God or Self Realization. Either of them is insufficient by itself and a soul needs both to attain liberation. Therefore the possibility of God Realization is related to the acceptance of these two causes in a religion.

The path to God Realization is through the disciplines of service, devotion and knowledge that are necessary to obviate karma and prevent reincarnation. In addition, the seeker must surrender to God and pray for His grace. Since spiritual practice by itself generates good karma, surrender to God results in surrendering the fruits of action, which leads past reincarnation to liberation.

Another main concept of God Realization involves belief in the presence of God in every atom and cell of the universe. God is immanent in them and the souls that reside in various bodies are divine in their inherent nature.

The Abrahamic Religions do not teach Karma & Reincarnation as part of their orthodox theology. They stress on the need to surrender for God's grace in the single lifetime available for a soul. They also generally believe that God is apart from His creation, only human beings have souls and they are sinners rather than divine.

The doctrine of "one chance-one life" appears ridiculous when probed by common questions. For example, if the soul leaves on the death of the body and awaits its Judgment Day where does it reside and in what form when there are only heaven, earth and hell as the places of inhabitation for a soul in the concepts of Abrahamic religions?

It is indeed strange that the religions founded by prophets such as Moses and Jesus who were taught by God should overlook the concept of reincarnation, specially when the faiths of their own days had it as a cornerstone. Did Jesus really overlook and ignore concepts of Karma & Reincarnation? If so, why did he not explicitly deny them?

Christianity seems to divide into two groups on this subject. The orthodox Christianity treats the subject of Karma & Reincarnation as anathema to their doctrines, while the discerning Christians think "that the fortunes of the Holy Scriptures and Christian doctrine in general have not always been in the hands of God's servants." In other words, they think that the doctrine of Karma & Reincarnation was taught in early Christianity but was deliberately suppressed since the Emperor Justinian called for a meeting of the entire Church in 553 C.E. known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council or the Second Council of Constantinople. They also believe that since Jesus was born as a Jew and baptized by a Jew he implicitly accepted the concepts of Karma & Reincarnation that were prevalent in the Jewish religion, as is revealed in many passages in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

For an idea of the Justinian's Council and about the teachings prevalent in early Christianity, check http://www.reincarnation.ws/reincarnation_in_early_christianity.html.

For passages in the Bible that suggest the K & R concepts, check:
http://www.reincarnation.ws/reincarnation_in_the_new_testament.html
http://www.reincarnation.ws/reincarnation_in_the_old_testament.html
http://www.reincarnation.ws/reincarnation_in_the_jewish_kabbalah.html
http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ListOfCollatedArticles/ReincarnationInBible.html

Thus it appears that the possibility of God Realization is remote within the precepts of Orthdox Christianity, but more and more discerning Christians due to the influence of Buddhism and Hinduism in the West are growing out of their religious sects and beginning to see as things they are.

willie
21 June 2007, 09:48 PM
More bird chirping and little else.

In islam and angel visits a dead person and the that person sits up in the grave and has to answer for its life. Hopefully, the answers are the right ones.

In islam allah considered humans to be a greater creation than angels. Is the quran satan was thrown out of paradise for not bowing to the human creation.

Additionally, in the quran at the end of time when all is gone only the face of god will remain.

Christianity is divided on the thought of salvation. Part think that good deeds and good works are needed to get into heaven . The other part thinks that faith alone can get you in.

Just because jesus did not denounce reincarnation and karma does not mean he believed in it , only the he is not deny it.

Kaos
09 July 2007, 04:37 PM
More bird chirping and little else.





Yes, that's true, willie. There seems to be a lot birds and parrots chirping in this forum, as if saying the same things over and over again, is enough. :)

Last time I checked, it is called Sanatana Dharma (the Eternal Dharma), and not someone else's own, personal, egotistical interpretation of Dharma.

Znanna
09 July 2007, 08:09 PM
Yes, that's true, willie. There seems to be a lot birds and parrots chirping in this forum, as if saying the same things over and over again, is enough. :)

Last time I checked, it is called Sanatana Dharma (the Eternal Dharma), and not someone else's own, personal, egotistical interpretation of Dharma.


Any interpretation is defacto personal.

What's your spin, anyways?


Chirp :P



ZN

Kaos
11 July 2007, 05:57 PM
Any interpretation is defacto personal.

What's your spin, anyways?


Chirp :P



ZN

Nothing "spins", but all phenomena are but manifestations of oneness.

Not my own spin, but a view shared by Eastern religions, both Hinduism and Buddhism in particular, with certain differences in the way it is presented.


Namaste,
Kaos

Kaos
12 July 2007, 09:27 AM
On the other hand, there are those who maintain that everything already "spins" not merely manifestations, yet still being contained within the One.

Nonbeing does not come from being. Being does not disappear.

Again, not my spin, but that of Tantra. What do we know? :)

Znanna
12 July 2007, 05:14 PM
On the other hand, there are those who maintain that everything already "spins" not merely manifestations, yet still being contained within the One.

Nonbeing does not come from being. Being does not disappear.

Again, not my spin, but that of Tantra. What do we know? :)


Twin says:


One creates from nothing. If you try to create from something you're just changing something. So in order to create something you first have to be able to create nothing.



ZN

Kaos
12 July 2007, 09:16 PM
Twin says:


Quote:
One creates from nothing. If you try to create from something you're just changing something. So in order to create something you first have to be able to create nothing.

----------------------




Nonsense.

So, can you create energy out of nothing?

Energy was already there, is present and will still be there.

Kaos
13 July 2007, 07:15 AM
I adore the primaeval Kali; her limbs like dark rain clouds, moon-crowned, three-eyed, clothed in crimson. Her two hands uplifted bless me and free me from fear. Seated on a red lotus, She turns her laughing face to Mahakala who, drunk on madhvika wine, is dancing before her.

- Mahanirvana-tantra V.141


There is one Mother, creator of all things. From her everything that exists was born and from her all things return. Kali is the primordial ground of being from which everything and even nothing springs. Kali is the primaeval energy of the universe.

Therefore, being cannot arise out of nothing.
Being was already there, is, and will be there.

atanu
13 July 2007, 02:05 PM
Twin says:

Quote:
One creates from nothing. If you try to create from something you're just changing something. So in order to create something you first have to be able to create nothing.

----------------------

Nonsense.

So, can you create energy out of nothing?

Energy was already there, is present and will still be there.


hehe,


I see the spin. One creates from nothing means ONE exists -- the being itself.

So, the 'Nonsense' may be uncalled for. My POV.

Om Namah Shivaya

Kaos
13 July 2007, 02:38 PM
hehe,


I see the spin. One creates from nothing means ONE exists -- the being itself.

So, the 'Nonsense' may be uncalled for. My POV.

Om Namah Shivaya


There is no such thing as "nothing". Even a vacuum has to be something, which it is not.

Therefore, you cannot create something from nothing. It's already there.

atanu
13 July 2007, 11:34 PM
There is no such thing as "nothing". Even a vacuum has to be something, which it is not.

Therefore, you cannot create something from nothing. It's already there.


Oh yes. There is no second.

So, 'Nonsense' word you used was uncalled for.

Note

With your own logic: There is no such thing as "nonsense" as it is some sense.

Kaos
14 July 2007, 12:56 AM
Oh yes. There is no second.

So, 'Nonsense' word you used was uncalled for.

Note

With your own logic: There is no such thing as "nonsense" as it is some sense.


Well, of course, using your logic that "nonsense" has sense, if you believe that the moon is made of cheese, and you can eat it too, go ahead, be my guess, who am I to stop you? :) LOL.


Is there any other sane person left in this forum? ; )

Kaos
14 July 2007, 01:12 AM
Oh yes. There is no second.




Agreed. There is no time. ;)

Kaos
14 July 2007, 08:42 AM
My apologies to Atanu, and all. I was only being playful. We need some humor in this forum. :)

Going back to the "spin" that nonbeing (asat) does not come into being (bhava); being does not disappear (abhava).


Again, this is not my spin, this is found in the Bhagavad-Gita 2.16

Modern science is catching on to what the Gita, the Tantras, etc. have been pointing at for millenia.

Quantum mechanics postulates that even in a quantum vacuum, electromagnetic fields are present and cannot be suppressed.

Quantum mechanics:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec06.html (http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec06.html)



Therefore, being does not come from "nothing". Being is already there and does not disappear.

Quantum mechanical ground state is both total emptiness (absolute nothing) and a plenum of infinite energy. This is Emptiness (sunyatta).

Znanna
14 July 2007, 02:28 PM
My apologies to Atanu, and all. I was only being playful. We need some humor in this forum. :)

Going back to the "spin" that nonbeing (asat) does not come into being (bhava); being does not disappear (abhava).


Again, this is not my spin, this is found in the Bhagavad-Gita 2.16

Modern science is catching on to what the Gita, the Tantras, etc. have been pointing at for millenia.

Quantum mechanics postulates that even in a quantum vacuum, electromagnetic fields are present and cannot be suppressed.

Quantum mechanics:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec06.html (http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec06.html)



Therefore, being does not come from "nothing". Being is already there and does not disappear.

Quantum mechanical ground state is both total emptiness (absolute nothing) and a plenum of infinite energy. This is Emptiness (sunyatta).


Namaste,


It is my understanding that's what "creating nothing" is about. A corollary, to me, would be the oxymoron of "seeking enlightenment".

When there is NO DIFFERENCE, there is no measure.



Regards,
ZN

Kaos
14 July 2007, 03:04 PM
Namaste,


It is my understanding that's what "creating nothing" is about. A corollary, to me, would be the oxymoron of "seeking enlightenment".

When there is NO DIFFERENCE, there is no measure.



Regards,
ZN


Agreed.

Namaste to you too, ZN

:)

Kaos
14 July 2007, 04:20 PM
Also, in regards to this thread, it is my view that Abrahamic religions are mostly concerned with control and conversion, (mostly forced), conquest and the resultant rape and plunder of subjugated peoples and cultures of other countries.

Throughout history, the Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam have been at a neck to neck race as to who will conquer, convert and plunder the most.

The Dharmic religions on the other hand seek an inner conversion.

atanu
15 July 2007, 02:15 AM
Namaste All,

Since discussions take place at the state of jagrat, the statement 'ONE creates out of nothing' does not contradict the shruti 'nonbeing (asat) does not come into being (bhava); being does not disappear (abhava)'. Since the No second is common to both. Bhava never becomes Abhava and vice-a-versa.


There are millions of varities of combinations of spins and colors of quarks, arising out of what science cannot see and that is what is world. This so-called nothing -- the ground, quantum scientists call 'The Implicate Order', which is as such before so-called big bang and which is the participator thereafter.

When in Jagrat, one says it is nothing. But the ONE is always there to know the Sunyata or whatever. This is the implicate order as well as the participator.

The so-called Abrahamic religions represent few different spins, which do not differ much from our Dvaita thinking, except in terms of differences in names and forms, on which all bitterness is built up. These must also represent the will of God. Who are we to be cynical?

Regards to all.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
15 July 2007, 02:20 AM
Well, of course, using your logic that "nonsense" has sense, if you believe that the moon is made of cheese, and you can eat it too, go ahead, be my guess, who am I to stop you? :) LOL.


Is there any other sane person left in this forum? ; )

Well Well,

Since the being is cheese and the being is the moon also, you are free to ----. You are the other sane person left.

Just joking.

atanu
15 July 2007, 02:30 AM
Namaste,


It is my understanding that's what "creating nothing" is about. A corollary, to me, would be the oxymoron of "seeking enlightenment".

When there is NO DIFFERENCE, there is no measure.



Regards,
ZN

Namaste,

There is no difference in fullness. Differences, however, galore in what we consider as fullness in ignorance.

What is day for an ignorant is night for the Yogi and vice-a-versa. Effort is required to reach the state of effortlessness. That is why Gaudapada Karika says on one hand, 'there is no one seeking enlightenment' and on the other hand, 'we worship that Supreme being as best as we can'.

Oh, you know everything. Just exchanging notes.

Om Namah Shivaya

Znanna
15 July 2007, 08:33 AM
Namaste,

There is no difference in fullness. Differences, however, galore in what we consider as fullness in ignorance.

What is day for an ignorant is night for the Yogi and vice-a-versa. Effort is required to reach the state of effortlessness. That is why Gaudapada Karika says on one hand, 'there is no one seeking enlightenment' and on the other hand, 'we worship that Supreme being as best as we can'.

Oh, you know everything. Just exchanging notes.

Om Namah Shivaya


Namaste, Atanu,

Oh, my goodness I don't know everything, I am just fortunate to have a good memory. :)

But, please note I said "*when* there is NO DIFFERENCE ..."


Is it more effort to clench one's fist or to have an open palm? Surrender indeed is effortless; trying to surrender is not the same thing, IMO.




Love,
ZN

atanu
15 July 2007, 10:05 AM
Namaste, Atanu,

------
Is it more effort to clench one's fist or to have an open palm? Surrender indeed is effortless; trying to surrender is not the same thing, IMO.

Love,
ZN

Namskar,

hehe,

'When there is no difference' can be understood in both ways: 1) there is no difference in any state, so there is nothing to attain or 2) when the perception of differences are removed as in Samadhi.

Don't u agree? But once you point you out, I agree to go with the 2nd meaning.



It's not up to me often. The fist gets clenched without me knowing.

Whatever you call it: Mindfullness, watching the mind, grasping the I, Pranayama, enquiry etc., and teachings of preceptors guide us to get a conscious control over the mind.

As Guru Ramana says, "In the beginnining, effort is unavoidable and with practice effort becomes hindrance".


For you it may be different. May be.

Regards

Om

Kaos
15 July 2007, 10:54 AM
Well Well,

Since the being is cheese and the being is the moon also, you are free to ----. You are the other sane person left.

Just joking.


Yes, it is done. I have eaten the cheese called "moon", and washed it down with Soma too.
Are you happy now? ;)

Namaste,
Kaos

Znanna
15 July 2007, 11:34 AM
As Guru Ramana says, "In the beginning, effort is unavoidable and with practice effort becomes hindrance".


Namaste,


My experience is more on the order of "resistance is futile" :D

Alternately said, "you get more of that which you resist."



ZN

atanu
15 July 2007, 12:34 PM
Yes, it is done. I have eaten the cheese called "moon", and washed it down with Soma too.
Are you happy now? ;)

Namaste,
Kaos

Very Happy.

Kaos
15 July 2007, 12:43 PM
Namaste,


My experience is more on the order of "resistance is futile" :D

Alternately said, "you get more of that which you resist."



ZN


I agree.
We have to get to know what it is that we want, or resist. Otherwise, it is merely an exercise in words and concepts. Reality is transcendental, beyond words and concepts.

atanu
15 July 2007, 12:50 PM
Namaste,


My experience is more on the order of "resistance is futile" :D

Alternately said, "you get more of that which you resist."



ZN

Namaste ZN

Partially true but not fully. Else, the teaching of Gita is false, which cannot be. Shri Krishna teaches Arjuna to bring the turbulent mind under control slowly and repeatedly with patience.

This question was also put up to Guru Ramana who just repeated Lord Krishna's teaching. And from my experience I can say that I am now more aware of wandering of mind than I was earlier and also that wandering happens for smaller periods than before.

Actually it is not resistance. It is coaxing and teaching the mind lovingly as to what is good. The being is infinitely stronger than the mind, so it should be possible. There are also scriptural evidences and living evidences of yogis in samadhi -- mind in yuktatma, yoked to Self.

And I think this is where Hinduism differs largely from Christian practices. Hinduism squarely puts the onus on individual. Christians try to improve others whereas a hindu has to primarily improve oneself first.

Om Namah Shivaya

Znanna
15 July 2007, 01:10 PM
(snip)

And I think this is where Hinduism differs largely from Christian practices. Hinduism squarely puts the onus on individual. Christians try to improve others whereas a hindu has to primarily improve oneself first.

Om Namah Shivaya


Namaste, Atanu,

As I am considered neither Christian by most Christians, and certainly am no Hindu, my opinion with respect to this is perhaps meaningless. :)

That said, most of whom call themselves Christian are indeed sheep leading one another over a cliff, in my opinion.

Sometimes the simplest things are the most difficult to understand!


ZN



23 John 14:10 (http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B43C014.htm#V10)Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
24 John 14:20 (http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B43C014.htm#V20)At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

atanu
15 July 2007, 01:24 PM
Namaste, Atanu,

As I am considered neither Christian by most Christians, and certainly am no Hindu, my opinion with respect to this is perhaps meaningless. :)

That said, most of whom call themselves Christian are indeed sheep leading one another over a cliff, in my opinion.

Sometimes the simplest things are the most difficult to understand!
23 John 14:10 (http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B43C014.htm#V10)Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
24 John 14:20 (http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B43C014.htm#V20)At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

ZN

Namaste ZN,

No, your opinion is not meaningless to me.

John speaks exactly like a yogi here. And I know it from Maharshi Ramana's teachings.

That said, most of whom call themselves Christian are indeed sheep leading one another over a cliff, in my opinion.

Agreed.

Om

Kaos
15 July 2007, 01:49 PM
Books, teachings even terms like "bodhisattva" are only verbal designations, words and concepts. It doesn't mean they are false, but at best they indicate the direction of enlightenment or whatever term you want to call it. Reality can only be understood by those who transcend words and concepts.

If to read and follow only a certain narrow path is sufficient, then it is putting a limit to the Divine which is Unlimited.

Although there is Oneness, yet there are differences however. One cannot read the Bhagavad Gita, thinking it is the same thing as the Bible.

For the same reason, that one cannot be a Hindu and a Christian at the same time, or that a tree cannot be a dog at the same time.

When one goes down to the limiting principles beginning with maya (she who covers), then delusion inherent in Ultimate Reality takes over wherein the One appears limited and measurable due to separation of subject and object.

atanu
17 July 2007, 12:58 PM
------
Although there is Oneness, yet there are differences however. One cannot read the Bhagavad Gita, thinking it is the same thing as the Bible.

For the same reason, that one cannot be a Hindu and a Christian at the same time, or that a tree cannot be a dog at the same time.

When one goes down to the limiting principles beginning with maya (she who covers), then delusion inherent in Ultimate Reality takes over wherein the One appears limited and measurable due to separation of subject and object.

Namaste Kaos,

The third paragraph above is believed to be true by most Hindus.

The second paragraph has a small flaw, evident from the third paragraph itself. Hindu, Christian etc., are labels.

About the first paragraph, I think Shri Sarabhanga, ZN, and MG will be better judges. From what ZN has cited I can say that Christian scriptures should also have the gnostic component, which given the egocentric-bodycentric character of western man, is largely un-utilised at present time.

I think Shri Sarabhanga will endorse this.

And finally the consciousness that illumines any scripture -- christian or hindu is ONE (I know that this may not tally with your philosophical inclination). Interestingly, these differences are also known in consciousness by the consciousness.

However, I fully agree that one cannot get same ouput/use from a table and a table lamp, though these two are also the consciousness of the being.


Regards,

Om

satay
17 July 2007, 01:08 PM
I think Shri Sarabhanga will endorse this.


Om

namaskar,
and so does sri nirmalaananda Giri.

http://www.atmajyoti.org/spirwrit-the_christ_of_india.asp

Kaos
17 July 2007, 01:51 PM
The second paragraph has a small flaw, evident from the third paragraph itself. Hindu, Christian etc., are labels.




Namaskar, Atanu,
I fully agree with your general lines of thought.

However, the flaw you pointed out in the second paragraph of my above post, is not a flaw.

Yes, there is indeed Oneness, but in our normal, practical, ordinary, day to day world, we do not see objects such as table and lamp in terms of Oneness.

Otherwise, we would be using a table for a lamp, and a lamp for a table. :)

Kind regards,
Kaos

atanu
18 July 2007, 04:59 AM
Namaskar, Atanu,
I fully agree with your general lines of thought.

However, the flaw you pointed out in the second paragraph of my above post, is not a flaw.

Yes, there is indeed Oneness, but in our normal, practical, ordinary, day to day world, we do not see objects such as table and lamp in terms of Oneness.

Otherwise, we would be using a table for a lamp, and a lamp for a table. :)

Kind regards,
Kaos


Of course.

I just wanted to indicate that the Bible is not devoid of gnosis, only that it is used in a fashion that reminds us of Da DA DA.

Regards

sarabhanga
19 July 2007, 01:35 AM
Namaste,




Christian scriptures should also have the gnostic component





All Christians would agree that Adam and Noah and Abrahm and Moses and John (the Baptist) and Jesus and John (the Apostle), all attained first-hand knowledge of God by direct experience. Indeed, all of the Prophets and Saints (by definition) must possess such divine Knowledge.

Judaism follows the same lineage up to Moses, and the Mandaeans up to John the Baptist (but excluding Moses).

The Mandaeans (also Sabaeans or Nasoraeans) are Gnostics who lived long before Jesus Christ and still exist today (mainly in Iraq and Iran). The Mandae consider both Moses and Jesus as heretics, whose innovations led to the establishment of Judaism and Christianity as distinct religions. The Mandae (Sabae, Nasorae) are followers of John the (Gnostic) Baptist, as was Jesus himself before his own Samadhi (when his Gnosis was finally confirmed).

The Mandaeans (and John the Baptist) are Gnostics, and Judaism is surely not without Gnosis (e.g. the inner teaching of the Kab-allah).

Moses was surely Gnostic ~ eyeh asher eyeh ~ and so too was John ~ ego eimi ho on.

His Guru arose from the fold of Gnosis, and his immediate Shishyas (Apostles or Disciples) were surely Gnostics (especially Judas and Thomas and John), and NO Christian can deny that Jesus himself was a Gnostic!

I am that ‘I am’.

Only those who reject the possibility of Sainthood (after the passing of Christ and perhaps a select few of his original disciples) can deny Gnosis or Jnana in Christianity.

Before the popular establishment of the Christian Church (and its official foundation at its first Council in 325 AD) there was surely true Gnosis in all of the monistic Religions. But the Light is only apparent when it is contrasted with Darkness, and until Christianity began to deny the possibility of true Gnosis for any but Christ (and of course the Pope, and select few Christian Saints) there was no particular “Gnostic” movement.

It was not the Gnostics who redefined the Christian message, but rather it is the Christians who have redefined the original message of Gnosis, passed directly from God unto Adam, and Noah, and Abraham, and always known by John (i.e. Jove or Jupiter, the immortal Guru whose own orbit embraces nearly 12 solar cycles) the Baptist.

ramkumar1213
24 July 2010, 07:33 AM
guys please wake up....

OUr ancestors were great star gazers...
they worshiped the stars.. stars gave them hte thought of god and heaven..

jesus christ was the re written form of horus/sopdet , the canis major star called sirius...the brightest star in niht sky..
it is also called the morning star as it rises early near the horizon..
you can refer wikipedia..
the thorough proof is the parable of 153 fishes in bible....it refers to a esotewric meaning..when mathew wrote abt it...he wanted us to watch and pray to this star for good rain, fertility etc..
this star makes an angle of 153 with the horison..
it is called the star of eat, mornign star, etc...
so bright it is..
the whole picture in wikipedia shows a beautiful piecture of a walk like structure walking onto earth..
also it has a star called miraim on the right...
that s wat they meant to say..

this is being pointed to by 3 stars in the constelation of oriris/orion whom jews, egyptians considered as the father of heaven/heavenly father