PDA

View Full Version : BibleGod vs Krishna



rcscwc
22 March 2009, 07:35 AM
BibleGod vs Krishna

Put Jehovah and Krishna parallel with each other. The former, "from the clouds and darkness of Sinai," said to the Jews: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. . . .

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

Contrast this with the words of Krishna [Bhagwad Gita Ch 9] "I am the same to all mankind. They who honestly serve other gods, involuntarily worship me. I am he who partaketh of all worship, and I am the reward of all worshippers."

Compare these passages. The first, a dungeon where crawl the things begot of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid with suns. . . .

The "first" is the god who haunted Calvin's fancy, when he added to his doctrine of predestination that of Hell being paved with the skulls of unbaptized infants. The beliefs and dogmas of church are far more blasphemous in the ideas they imply than those of the benighted Heathen.

The second is a God whose refuge is available to all, including christians only if they honestly serve their Jesus.

The first is ready to punish many generations for the perceived sins of one generation, the other has no such threats.

The first will reward those who dash the babies on the rocks, the other SHALL protect the babies even in the womb, and SHALL punish those who kill the babies, born or unborn.

yajvan
24 March 2009, 11:10 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté rcscwc.

I have read your post. Can you assist me with your outcomes or conclusions you have drawn?

praṇām

atanu
27 March 2009, 08:24 AM
"These cruel haters, worst among men in the world, I hurl these evil-doers into the wombs of demons only. Entering into demoniacal wombs and deluded, birth after birth, not attaining me, they thus fall, Oh Arjuna, into a condition still lower than that,"


This is not from Bible. Dvaita bound tamashic interpreters can always find something out of context and preach eternal damnation, whether in HInduism or in any other religion. On examining closely, I find the phrase "These cruel haters -----" as the key to understanding.

Om Namah Shivaya

rcscwc
05 May 2009, 09:28 PM
Verse number please

atanu
10 May 2009, 06:05 AM
Verse number please

Namaste,

BG 16.19-20

Om

raghu_001
13 May 2009, 12:59 AM
The differences between Sri Krishna and the "god" of the Bible are legion.

The Biblical god tells Moses that he is a jealous god, and that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." By contrast, Sri Krishna acknowledges anya-devata worship and states that worshippers of anya-devatas go to the worlds of anya-devatas, which He contrasts with His own eternal abode. He merely states this factually but does not maintain any hostility towards them.

The Biblical god demands loyalty and punishes disobedience with death. In Exodus, it is recorded that the Hebrews who took to the worship of the golden calf were punished with death when Moses came back down from Mt Sinai. By contrast, Sri Krishna never forces Arjuna to do anything. It is Arjuna who, in the 18th chapter of the Gita, indicates that his doubts are dispelled and that he is now willing to act according to Sri Krishna's instructions.

The Biblical god punishes the people of Egypt because pharaoah is stubborn and will not let the Hebrews go. As a result, the Egyptians suffer from plagues, locusts, etc and even the death of their first born. Does Sri Krishna do this? In the Bhagavata it is indicated that even the followers of Duryodhana who fought on his behalf got liberation by seeing Sri Krishna.

Anyone who claims that the "god" of the Bible is the same as the Supreme Brahman/Ishvara/Sri Krishna of the Vedas cannot maintain such a claim on logical grounds. For two things to be the same, they must have identical properties - this is elementary logic. But from even the most superficial comparison, we see that there are many differences between Sri Krishna and the Biblical god.

atanu
13 May 2009, 03:34 AM
Anyone who claims that the "god" of the Bible is the same as the Supreme Brahman/Ishvara/Sri Krishna of the Vedas cannot maintain such a claim on logical grounds. For two things to be the same, they must have identical properties - this is elementary logic. But from even the most superficial comparison, we see that there are many differences between Sri Krishna and the Biblical god.

:) Namaste,

Are there two Gods? You yourself said, in another post, that properties of God cannot be discerned. Then how do we discern two Gods?

Om

saidevo
13 May 2009, 09:18 AM
Namaste everyone.



Are there two Gods? You yourself said, in another post, that properties of God cannot be discerned. Then how do we discern two Gods?


I think we are wrangling over wrong points: it is not that there are two or more Gods (the Biblical, the Quranic and the Vedic) but that there are differing perceptions about the One God in these three religions, and the perceptions in the Abrahamic religions are certainly lacking in depth and text.

Sri KrishNa does sound like the Biblical God on a superficial reading of the BG verses 16.19-20 quoted by Atanu, but then in those verses KrishNa only talks about the inexorable law of Karma as Swamy Chinmayananta explains in his comments to these verses.

In BG, Sri KrishNa talks about karma, dharma, adharma, svadharma, and varNa as much as he talks about the three Yoga Paths. Do we find such depth and text of teaching in the Bible or the Quran even by some extrapolation?

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 12:51 AM
:) Namaste,

Are there two Gods? You yourself said, in another post, that properties of God cannot be discerned. Then how do we discern two Gods?

Om

No, reread what I wrote. I said that one cannot *fully* understand God because the infinite concept will not fit into one's head. Nevertheless, one can *begin* to understand Him by taking the shastras as a guide - hence "shAstra yonitvAt" of the brahma-sUtras.

Now as far as shAstras are concerned there is no evidence that the deity described in the Bible is the same Supreme Brahman worshipped by the Hindus. Logically there is only one Supreme Brahman (or God, or whatever term you prefer to use). If the Biblical "god" is the same as para Brahman, and we are to accept such a position without shaastric evidence, then at least logically there should be some supporting evidence in the form of these two deities having similar attributes and/or not teaching mutually contradictory belief systems. But factually this is not what we observe. The Biblical god is extremely intolerant of other deities while Sri Krishna offers no incitement towards violence against followers of other deities. The Biblical god hates "idol worship" while we know that icon worship is integral to Hindu culture and even Sri Krishna participated in it. There are so many examples, but suffice it to say that taking these respective scriptures at their word, these two God-concepts are different, and hence these two deities are likely different deities.

The Biblical god may be a minor deity or a figment of someone else's imagination. But to say that he is the same as para Brahman Sri Krishna is nothing more than politically correct white wash that could only be believed by someone who is unfamiliar with both sets of scriptures.

atanu
14 May 2009, 02:30 AM
No, reread what I wrote. I said that one cannot *fully* understand God because the infinite concept will not fit into one's head.

The Biblical god may be a minor deity or a figment of someone else's imagination.


Namaste Raghu,

You are correct that perceptions vary.

But that Bible God is a figment of someone's imagination is another such perception,which pre-supposses that things proceed from our end. No. DA-DA-Da is given to all from one God but Da-Da-Da is understood in three different ways as per guna predisposition.

Sages such as Kanchi Shankaracharya and most other Self Realised sages have not questioned that Bible and Koran are indeed the revealed word (vak-saraswati) just as Veda is. Who are we?

But if you were to really study Bible or Koran or Veda in full, you will find that the jealous God is indeed our own inner being (in a particular stage) and that same inner being is benevolent shivam (at another stage). Scriptures do mention of both these states of the Self-Brahman-God. These states are states of our understanding and depends on our actions-wisdom, but Brahman is immutable.

There is nothing that has not flowed from the immutable.

Om

simex
14 May 2009, 10:56 AM
. If the Biblical "god" is the same as para Brahman, and we are to accept such a position without shaastric evidence, then at least logically there should be some supporting evidence in the form of these two deities having similar attributes and/or not teaching mutually contradictory belief systems.

All attributes must exist in god, otherwise you could not be aware of them. Additionally, each attribute must have a dichotomous opposite, or no difference could be discerned, and therefor nothing could be discerned. There are no conflicts here. God must contain both wrath and benevolence. Nothing could appear wrathful without the existence of benevolence. But, saying that he has all attributes is the same as saying that he has none. Fullness cannot exist without emptiness.

Any description of God limits God, and is therefor incorrect. And yet all descriptions are true in the sense that everything we're aware of, including the wrath and pettiness of the Abrahamic God, can originate from only one source (i.e. God). Whatever you say about God is simultaneously true and false. If it weren't true, you couldn't say it, but you cannot say everything, so you will never be able to describe God completely.

That's why it's good that there are so many views. You can sharpen your own view by seeing how apparently different views are not mutually exclusive.

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 11:28 AM
Namaste Atanu,

The mere fact that something "flowed from the immutable" does not grant it authenticity. Even the murderous Osama Bin Laden "flowed from the immutable." So is his religion also valid in some sense?

Your insistence that the "jealous God" of the Bible and the Koran refers to some inner state of being is incorrect, as you would have known had you actually studied the Bible and the Koran. In Exodus, "God" tells Moses as one of his commandments, that, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, for I the Lord am a jealous God." And to prove this point "God" mercilessly slaughters the wayward Hebrew factions who took to the worship of the golden calf idol. You cannot assert religious compatibility by changing the teachings of other religions to bring them more in line with your own thinking any more than you can fit a square peg into a round hole. Christianity and Islam are what they are. Let us be honest when we represent other religions.

Saying that supreme truth is not revealed to any one being in its entirety may be true in some sense. But from this point it does not logically follow that someone else's version of "truth" must necessarily be the same supreme truth in a different form. There are many religions and pseudo-religions in the world. Blindly accepting them as valid is not suggestive of intelligence. One must make a dispassionate study of the subject rather than taking a politically correct position.

Orthodox Hindu sages are not often confronted by questions about mleccha religions because their audience is Hindu and they want to know about Hindu scriptures. As a matter of doctrine, orthodox Vedantins accept only certain scriptures as valid pramana - shrutis and smritis to the extent that they do not contradict shruti. When Hindu thinkers will decry the authority of even certain smritis, why would you think they would turn to Bible or Koran? Do not equate silence with acceptance. The Advaitin thinker Madhusudana Saraswati did once acknowledge the existence of other "religions" in his writings and stated simply that there was no need to address any of them since they are not based on apaurusheya granthas. This attitude of dismissal is more in line with how Hindus have historically perceived other religions.

regards,

Raghu

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 11:31 AM
All attributes must exist in god, otherwise you could not be aware of them.

In that case, it must be acceptable to you that God is partial and cruel, and that He can punish people for the wrong doings of their leader. Do you? Furthermore, you must accept that God can have a "chosen people," and play racial favorites by favoring one race (i.e. Hebrews) over another (i.e. Egyptians). Do you accept all this?


Any description of God limits God, and is therefor incorrect. And yet all descriptions are true in the sense that everything we're aware of, including the wrath and pettiness of the Abrahamic God, can originate from only one source (i.e. God). Whatever you say about God is simultaneously true and false. If it weren't true, you couldn't say it, but you cannot say everything, so you will never be able to describe God completely.

Simex, I'm sure that if you thought about what you just wrote, you would instantly realize that it is self-contradictory and unintelligible to anyone who can think about the subject matter carefully. Flowery language is not a substitute for critical thinking.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are Hindus who are so insecure about their own religion that they must seek validation from other religions like Christianity or Islam. Hinduism is true because Christianity and Islam just teach the same truth in a different form. Or so the "logic" goes. Why are you so averse to considering the point that these are all different religions with different origins? Why is it so difficult for you to accept even the theoretical possibility that someone who claims to be speaking on behalf of the omnipotent, omniscient and all-pervading God may not in fact be doing so?

regards,

Raghu

simex
14 May 2009, 11:43 AM
It's very easy to dismiss something you don't understand, out-of-hand, as "flowery language" or "politically correct". But, if you don't understand what I'm saying, how can you know if it is false?

I can, and will happily, walk you through every step and nuance of my reasoning. I'm well aware of the "style over substance" fallacy, and have eliminated it from all views I hold.

Let me put this to you in the form of a question:

If cruelty and exclusivity, as per your example, do not exist in god, where did they come from?

simex
14 May 2009, 11:49 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that there are Hindus who are so insecure about their own religion that they must seek validation from other religions like Christianity or Islam. Hinduism is true because Christianity and Islam just teach the same truth in a different form. Or so the "logic" goes. Why are you so averse to considering the point that these are all different religions with different origins? Why is it so difficult for you to accept even the theoretical possibility that someone who claims to be speaking on behalf of the omnipotent, omniscient and all-pervading God may not in fact be doing so?


Firstly, I'm not Hindu.

Secondly, I never said there were not distinct religions, only that they point to-- and away from-- one truth.

Lastly, God is the only speaker.

saidevo
14 May 2009, 12:28 PM
Sages such as Kanchi Shankaracharya and most other Self Realised sages have not questioned that Bible and Koran are indeed the revealed word (vak-saraswati) just as Veda is. Who are we?


So far as I can gather, this is what Kanchi ParamAchArya has said about the Abrahamic religions:
(From Hindu Dharma, part 1, ch.5 and 6 at http:/www.kamakoti.org)

• Devotion or bhakti is a feature common to all religious schools- Advaita (non-dualism), Dvaita (dualism), Visistadvaita (qualified non-dualism), Saiva Siddhanta, Christianity, Islam and so on.

• What is special about sanatana dharma or Hinduism as it has come to be called? Alone among all religions it reveals the one and only Godhead in many different divine forms, with manifold aspects. The devotee worships the Lord in a form suited to his mental make-up and is thus helped to come closer to the Lord with his love and devotion.

• The different religions have taken shape according to the customs peculiar to the countries in which they originated and according to the differences in the mental outlook of the people inhabiting them. The goal of all religions is to lead people to the same Paramatman according to the different attributes of the devotees concerned. So there is no need for people to change over to another faith. Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God.

• All religions that practice conversion employ a certain ritual. For instance, there is baptism in Christianity. Hinduism has more ritual than any other religion, yet its canonical texts do not contain any rite for conversion. No better proof is needed for the fact that we have at no time either encouraged conversion or practiced it.

• That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity.

That Kanchi ParamAchArya has expressed strongly against conversion and imposition of religious uniformity are pointers, IMO, that he did not treat the Bible or the Quran on par with the Vedas; had he did, he would have praised those scriptures explicitly and quoted from them.

atanu
14 May 2009, 12:30 PM
Namaste Atanu,

The mere fact that something "flowed from the immutable" does not grant it authenticity. Even the murderous Osama Bin Laden "flowed from the immutable." So is his religion also valid in some sense?


Namaste Raghu,

You are correct since Osama's philosophy flows similar to yours, based on ignorance of 'our and their as fundamental truth' rather than based on the understanding of ONE PURUSHA. But that does not invalidate Koran. Since, some ravaging bandits looted India in the name of Islam, it does not invalidate Koran -- which says God is merciful. Since, some Jews equate Zion to a piece of land and Dead Sea to a piece of water on earth to justify their earthly adventures, does not invalidate Bible.

Just as, despite Shri Krishna's teaching to know the saman Brahman, some Hindus also say "There is no such thing as saman Brahman". That does not invalidate Shri Krishna's teaching.

Vedas, Bible, and Koran are declared as revealed scriptures.




Your insistence that the "jealous God" of the Bible and the Koran refers to some inner state of being is incorrect, as you would have known had you actually studied the Bible and the Koran. In Exodus, "God" tells Moses as one of his commandments, that, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, for I the Lord am a jealous God." And to prove this point "God" mercilessly slaughters the wayward Hebrew factions who took to the worship of the golden calf idol.

I wonder, who is politically correct. Do not bind God to your rational standard. Thousands are slaughtered in India also -- through Tsunami, through all sorts of calamities. Are those happenings benign? Whatever you write is indication of a closed limited mind, which has decided that God should be such. Krishna does say that He hurls those who have 'hard hearts' to never ending hell.


Orthodox Hindu sages are not often confronted by questions about mleccha religions because their audience is Hindu and they want to know about Hindu scriptures. As a matter of doctrine, orthodox Vedantins accept only certain scriptures as valid pramana - shrutis and smritis to the extent that they do not contradict shruti.

I have not read orthodox writers saying that Koran or Bible are not revealed scripture. Can you show some reference?

On the other hand, it is recorded that Madhavacharya took entry into a Muslim king's region by proclaiming "My God and your God are one". Was Madhava merely political? Kanchi Seer's book "Hindu Dharma" records the timeless nature of revealed scripture and He does not deny that status to Koran or Bible. Shri Ramana Maharshi states "No scripture proclaims the truth of 'I am that I am' as pointedly as Bible does. Are these sages merely political?

There is no reason for a Hindu to follow Bible or Koran. And there is no reason to denounce them as 'not revealed'.

Om

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 12:57 PM
You are correct since Osama's philosophy flows same as yours, based on ignorance of 'our and their' as more fundamental that ONE PURUSHA. But that does not invalidate Koran. Since, some ravaging bandits looted India in the name of Islam, it does not invalidate Koran -- which says God is merciful.


Namaste Atanu,

Osama Bin Laden is a murderer and a terrorist, and the religious views upon which such actions are based are not valid. Period.

Koran teaches its followers to uproot other religions, by violence if necessary. The original ravaging bandits were the followers of Mohammed, who made war on Mecca in order to uproot the ruling merchant class and establish Mohammed's new religion. Indeed, the Koran is based on the utterings from Mohammed, all of which (not coincidentally) justified his every command to war. Not only that, but Mohammed even ordered the execution of civilians (writers, poets) whose ideas were not in line with his own. None of this is palatable to fans of political correctness, but it is historically true as per the writings of the Koran, which you think is a different but valid understanding of the Absolute Truth. You may wish to consult the following well-researched article on his life and times before you heap praise on Mohammed and the Koran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad


Since, some Jews equate Zion to a piece of land and Dead Sea to a piece of water on earth to justify their earthly adventures, does not invalidate Bible.

Atanu, before you can make any statement about the supposed compatibility of other religions with our own, you must first understand correctly what those other religions actually teach. The exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt and their eventual deliverance to the land of Israel is one of the *central tenets* of Judaism. Not understanding what this means to a Jew means not understanding Judaism. You claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are compatible with HInduism, but it is not the real Judaism, Christianity, and Islam you refer to, but rather the Judaism, Christiantiy, and Islam of your imagination.


Just as, despite Shri Krishna's teaching to know the saman Brahman, some Hindus also say "There is no such thing as saman Brahman". That does not invalidate Shri Krishna's teaching.

That's because the people who say there is no such thing as Brahman are wrong. Or at least, that is what a Vedantin would say.


Vedas, Bible, and Koran are declared as revealed scriptures.

But revealed by whom or what? Taking each tradition at its word:

1) Vedas are eternal truth revealed to the sages unchanged through parampara. They are unauthored.

2) Bible was written by people from all walks of life who were followers of Jesus. Before it was written there was no Bible.

3) Koran constitutes the utterings of Mohammed which he claims were revealed to him by Allah through the angel Gabriel. Before Mohammed there was no Koran.

By their own claims, Bible and Koran are not apaurusheya are authored works. Why would you equate them to Vedas?



I wonder, who is politically correct. Do not bind God to your rational standard. Thousands are slaughtered in India also -- through Tsunami, through all sorts of calamities. Whatever you write is indication of a closed limited mind, which has decided that God should be such.

I can live with being called "closed minded" if blind and uncritical acceptance of a religion that teaches its followers to murder non-believers is what I must do in order to be called "open minded."



On the other hand, it is recorded that Madhavacharya took entry into a Muslim king's region by proclaiming "My God and your God are one".

This is actually hearsay. There is no such statement by Madhvacharya anywhere. If you beg to differ, feel free to quote from Sri Madhva Vijaya.



Kanchi Seer's book "Hindu Dharma" records the timeless nature of revealed scripture and He does not deny that status to Koran or Bible. Shri Ramana Maharshi states "No scripture proclaims the truth of 'I am that I am' as pointedly as Bible does. Are these sages merely political?


Sri Ramana Maharshi does not represent traditional Vedantic Hinduism, much as his followers may not like to hear that. The truth is that many of the post-colonialist Hindu thinkers have been influenced by foreign beliefs, nationalism, and even liberal humanism. As far as Kanchi Seer is concerned, if he claims Bible is valid and revealed scripture, then ask him how to *honestly* reconcile contradictory and hostile viewpoints contained in the Bible against Hinduism. Please note that you cannot reconcile two scriptures by simply ignoring their differences.



There is no reason for a Hindu to follow Bible or Koran. And there is no reason to denounce them as 'not revealed'.

Om

Bible, John 14:6 - "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Koran, Sura 3.18-19 -
"[3.18] Allah bears witness that there is no god but He, and (so do) the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining His creation with justice; there is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise.
[3.19] Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning."

So I guess you would find these exclusivist statements to be revealed scripture and thus valid from a Hindu viewpoint. Would you like me to quote other "valid" pramanas from your Koran-shastra that justify the murdering of idolators and the burning of their temples?

Just out of curiosity, would you object to your children converting to Islam? After all, according to you, it is just another revealed (and thus valid) religion, right?

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 01:03 PM
Simex, you did not answer my question. Let me put it to you again -



In that case, it must be acceptable to you that God is partial and cruel, and that He can punish people for the wrong doings of their leader. Do you? Furthermore, you must accept that God can have a "chosen people," and play racial favorites by favoring one race (i.e. Hebrews) over another (i.e. Egyptians). Do you accept all this?

I will be happy to answer your questions if you first answer mine. The reason being that if you come to terms with the logical conclusions of your philosophy (in the form of answering objections like these), you will likely appreciate how tenuous your position is in the first place.


It's very easy to dismiss something you don't understand, out-of-hand, as "flowery language" or "politically correct".

Yes it is. It is also easy to spot something that is made to look like philosophy when in fact it is nothing more than fluff. Sorry, but I respect clarity, logic, and consistency. I do not respect attempts to make falsehoods look true by overly verbose writings that have no substance when scrutinized.

regards,

Raghu

simex
14 May 2009, 01:17 PM
Osama Bin Laden is a murderer and a terrorist, and the religious views upon which such actions are based are not valid. Period.


So, because Al Gore fudged some of the numbers in "An Inconvenient Truth", there is no such thing as global warming? People's subjective view of objective truth does not change truth. A cloud passing in front of the sun does not dim the sun.

simex
14 May 2009, 01:26 PM
In response to your initial question: I do not take all scripture at face value, that is quite a different thing from believing that all things flow from God. As I stated previously, I believe all scripture point to-- and away from-- truth.





Yes it is. It is also easy to spot something that is made to look like philosophy when in fact it is nothing more than fluff. Sorry, but I respect clarity, logic, and consistency. I do not respect attempts to make falsehoods look true by overly verbose writings that have no substance when scrutinized.


Which part, specifically, do you have issue with? I cannot argue against your blanket assertions, or the way you feel about my writing.

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 09:24 PM
So, because Al Gore fudged some of the numbers in "An Inconvenient Truth", there is no such thing as global warming? People's subjective view of objective truth does not change truth. A cloud passing in front of the sun does not dim the sun.

You are confusing two issues. The first is whether Truth is absolute or relative. Clearly it is absolute - there cannot be one Truth for Hindus and another for Muslims, etc. The second issue is whether a given belief system accurately (even if not completely) explains the Truth and is thus valid as a belief system.

Here we obviously disagree. If there are elements of falsehood ingrained in a belief system then all of it is at least suspect. A flawed human being or a flawed scripture with wrong ideas about God may be able to blindly assert some correct things about God, such as that He is merciful, omnipotent, etc - but this does not require divine wisdom or special understanding. The means by which to know God must contain correct knowledge of God - one cannot get knowledge by studying falsehoods.

If a flawed scripture can lead one to God, then why even bother with scriptures or gurus or prophets? Just follow your own opinion and see where that gets you.

What is needed to know about things beyond the purview of the senses, is a source of knowledge that is unadulterated by the imaginings of people who are limited by their senses. If such a thing exists, then religious inquiry becomes relevant and even desireable. If it does not exist, then one person's prattle is just as good as another for all practical purposes, and there is no way of measuring correctness or incorrectness. In other words - moral relativism.

atanu
16 May 2009, 04:36 PM
Namaste Atanu,

Osama Bin Laden is a murderer and a terrorist, and the religious views upon which such actions are based are not valid. Period.

Namaste Raghu,

Asserting something and saying 'Period', does not prove anything. How your assertions are different from common Muslim/Jew/Christian assertions of their respective scriptures being the ultimate?


Koran teaches its followers to uproot other religions, by violence if necessary.

Koran teaches to uproot aggressive non-believers. Koran also teaches "Spilling of blood is sin". On the other hand, Shri Krishna also shows Arjuna His all devouring KAla form. And Shri Krishna also teaches Arjuna to up-root adharma. Ishwara is indeed all destroyer of evil and beneficial to the humble.


Atanu, before you can make any statement about the supposed compatibility of other religions with our own, you must first understand correctly what those other religions actually teach.

I say the same of you. Such assertions have no value other than spoiling the common sense. It is useless to say that the Red colour and the Blue colour are same. But it is necessary to understand that the one witness that senses both the colours.


Sri Ramana Maharshi does not represent traditional Vedantic Hinduism, much as his followers may not like to hear that. The truth is that many of the post-colonialist Hindu thinkers have been influenced by foreign beliefs, nationalism, and even liberal humanism. As far as Kanchi Seer is concerned, if he claims Bible is valid and revealed scripture, then ask him how to *honestly* reconcile contradictory and hostile viewpoints contained in the Bible against Hinduism. Please note that you cannot reconcile two scriptures by simply ignoring their differences.


Bible, John 14:6 - "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Koran, Sura 3.18-19 -
"[3.18] Allah bears witness that there is no god but He, and (so do) the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining His creation with justice; there is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise.
[3.19] Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning."


About the Bible verse: Yes, "Om is the way and the truth and the life."

About the Koran verse: There are verses in Koran about which you do not know anything. You are just highlighting something going around in internet. Common Muslims also show example of immorality of Hindu divinities in this way and there is no end to such pettiness that flows from ignorance of ONE BRAHMAN as the substartum and the sutra of all life.

163. Your God is One God; there is no God save Him, the Beneficent, the Merciful. (Read Shivam in Sanskrit)

213. Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that mankind might judge concerning that wherein they differed. And unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed only through hatred one of another. And Allah by His will guided those who believe unto the truth of that concerning which they differed. Allah guideth whom He will unto a straight path.
----------------------------------

Man hates man and finds difference due to hatred embedded in heart and hatred generates from the ignorance of "I am something" instead of the knowledge of "OM".

Om

raghu_001
17 May 2009, 01:15 AM
In response to my saying the obvious and indisputed fact that, "Osama Bin Laden is a murderer and a terrorist, and the religious views upon which such actions are based are not valid. Period"

... you had this to say:




Asserting something and saying 'Period', does not prove anything. How your assertions are different from common Muslim/Jew/Christian assertions of their respective scriptures being the ultimate?

Atanu,

I am really quite shocked at your inability to agree with this simple statement. So if I cannot say that Osama Bin Laden is a murderer because you cannot accept the possibility that some things are simply and obviously true, then why have any discussion about religion? Everything is relative - isn't that really what your are getting at? I can't say that Osama Bin Laden is a murderer even though he is. I can't say that the "religious views" which rationalize his killing of innocent people are wrong, even though everyone knows that they are.

Is it ok for me to at least say that the sun is bright, or is even that suspect? Is 2+2=4, or by asserting that am I also guilty of some kind of fundamentalism?



Koran teaches to uproot aggressive non-believers.

No, that is merely your mistaken notion. The Koran clearly states that non-believers are to be subjugated, and does NOT qualify that by saying "aggressive" non-believers. Evidence:

"9.29": Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

And in case you aren't clear who comes in the category of non-believers, the very next verse of the Koran clearly spells out Christians and Jews being among them, meaning that Christians and Jews are also fair game:

"9.30": And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

As always, feel free to examine the context if you think I have misrepresented the Koran.



On the other hand, Shri Krishna also shows Arjuna His all devouring KAla form. And Shri Krishna also teaches Arjuna to up-root adharma. Ishwara is indeed all destroyer of evil and beneficial to the humble.

Sri Krishna urges Arjuna to fight the Kaurava *army* so as to remove the illegitmate Duryodhana, (who conspired to commit rape and murder), from the throne. Sri Krishna never urged Arjuna to enslave the wives of the Kauravas or behead his prisoners. Nor did he urge Arjuna to destroy the temples built by Kaurava dynasty.

Mohammed urges Muslims to fight non-muslims regardless of their virtues or vices (see above), and showed by his personal example that even surrendered souls and non-combatants were fair game for violence. He beheaded the men of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurazya and enslaved their women and children (Peterson, Daniel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Peterson) (2007). Muhammad, Prophet of God. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0802807542 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0802807542). page 126; Ramadan, Tariq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan) (2007). In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195308808 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0195308808). page 141).

Now you are going to explain to me that these obviously different standards of warfare are not different, right?



I say the same of you. Such assertions have no value other than spoiling the common sense. It is useless to say that the Red colour and the Blue colour are same. But it is necessary to understand that the one witness that senses both the colours.

Atanu, you have been quite evasive when confronted with evidence that contradicts your theories about religious oneness. So far whenever I quote Koranic evidence that disputes your claims, you make a plea that I am not entitled to make any assertions at all (even when they are based on facts). Then you turn around and make false claims about statements from the Koran that are easily disputed by actually reading the Koran. But of course, nobody should dispute your statements.



Yes I know that you are the only Vedantic representative. That is the hallmark. In similar vein you used to say that Shiva cannot even digest the poison unless Vayu grinds it for Him. Or that some bow cut off Shiva's head.

I think you have me confused for someone else.



About the Bible verse: Yes, "Om is the way and the truth and the life."

Lie. There is no such Bible verse, and saying things like


If you were pure enough to meditate beneath names and forms only then you would comprehend.

... does not change the fact that you just altered the original Bible verse to suit your own purposes.



About the Koran verse: There are verses in Koran about which you do not know anything.

Atanu, I have studied both the Koran and the Bible, and it is fairly obvious to me that you have not. This would not be a problem for you if you did not insist on mispresenting these religions in order to prop up your views.



You are just highlighting something going around in internet. Common Muslims also show example of immorality of Hindu divinities in this way and there is no end to such pettiness that flows from ignorance of ONE BRAHMAN as the substartum and the sutra of all life.

Now you are simply retreating into familiar territory. Of course we all agree that there is one Brahman who is the substratum of all. What does this have to do with the validity of Islam? You are speaking in non-sequiturs.



163. Your God is One God; there is no God save Him, the Beneficent, the Merciful. (Read Shivam in Sanskrit)

213. Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that mankind might judge concerning that wherein they differed. And unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed only through hatred one of another. And Allah by His will guided those who believe unto the truth of that concerning which they differed. Allah guideth whom He will unto a straight path.


Since you did not give me the full sura numbers, I cannot cross-examine your evidence. Was it your intention to keep me from discovering that you had taken them out of context? I guess I cannot say that I am surprised, since you have previously misrepresented the Bible and Koran earlier.



Man hates man and finds difference due to hatred embedded in heart and hatred generates from the ignorance of "I am something" instead of the knowledge of "OM".


Why can you not have a discussion about the facts of the issue without making sentimental appeals for everyone to agree with you lest they be guilty of hatred?

Isn't it the case that accusations of hatred are often an act of desperation by someone who wants to win an argument but cannot do so by an honest presentation of the facts?

regards,

Raghu

atanu
17 May 2009, 02:38 AM
Lie. There is no such Bible verse, and saying things like

Of course. What english call mother we call mA, so Mother and mA are two different things? OM is 'I am'. You can read Brihadarayanaka Upanishad to find "He said I and everyone does so even now". The "I", proclamation of God is all these. But individuals think that the "I" belongs to them.


Atanu, I have studied both the Koran and the Bible, and it is fairly obvious to me that you have not. This would not be a problem for you if you did not insist on mispresenting these religions in order to prop up your views.


Since you did not give me the full sura numbers, I cannot cross-examine your evidence. Was it your intention to keep me from discovering that you had taken them out of context? I guess I cannot say that I am surprised, since you have previously misrepresented the Bible and Koran earlier.

Please check two above quotes. Should i be surprised? You claim to have have read the whole Koran (and whole Bible), yet you do not know this verse? Please note that in Koran, there is also a verse about those who have not read the full scripture but take recourse to a single verse to justify spilling of blood, which is described as Sacred.

I respectfully request you to be slow (as is my request for every one) and see where the superposition of 'we and them' colours the decisions.

And I respectfully request that you do not accuse me of mis-representing scripture. You plese check Koran and see whether the verse is there or not. If you do not find it, then you have the right to accuse.

I have the right to show that the verse exists as I have cited it.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

raghu_001
17 May 2009, 03:22 AM
Of course. What english call mother we call mA, so Mother and mA are two different things? OM is 'I am'. You can read Brihadarayanaka Upanishad to find "He said I and everyone does so even now". The "I", procalmation of God is all these. But individuals think that the "I" belongs to them.

Atanu,

"Amma" and "mother" are words from two different languages that mean exactly the same thing.

"Om" and "Jesus" are not two different words for the same thing. The etymological derivation of Jesus is not the same as OM. When Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man goes to the father but by me," the meaning of "I" is obvious - it means Jesus.



Please check two above quotes.


I would be happy to if you would give me the chapter numbers. Why are you stalling? Are you afraid that I will discover that you have again taken something out of context?




I said that I have studied both scriptures. I didn't say that I memorized every single verse number. Are you so obsessed with one-upmanship that you are now going to quibble about the difference between learning and memorizing?

[quote]
Please note that in Koran, there is also a verse about those who have not read the full scripture but take recourse to a single verse to justify spilling of blood, which is described as Sacred.

That is all fine and good. Now what is your response to the suras I quoted earlier which enjoin one to attack non-Muslims and either convert or subjugate them?


I respectfully request you to be slow (as is my request for every one) and see where the superposition of 'we and them' colours the decisions.

What are you talking about? Why can you not just answer the questions raised? Why do you keep stalling by bringing up this sort of fluff? This sounds like more of the same attempts by you to rationalize why your views should be listened to without scrutiny.




And I respectfully request that you do not accuse me of mis-representing scripture.



You plese check Koran and see whether the verse is there or not. If you do not find it, then you have the right to accuse.

I have the right to show that the verse exists as I have cited it.



The Koran has 114 suras, and each sura has numerous verses. In order for one to locate a given verse, you need to provide two numbers for each verse in the format "sura#:verse#" You only provided one number for each verse - was this a deliberate attempt to make certain that I would not check them?

regards,

Raghu

atanu
17 May 2009, 04:08 AM
Atanu,

"Om" and "Jesus" are not two different words for the same thing.

Perhaps you may not be familiar with English grammar,


I thought the scripture was "I am the way, I am the light -----". Why are you replacing "I" with "Jesus"?


I would be happy to if you would give me the chapter numbers. Why are you stalling? Are you afraid that I will discover that you have again taken something out of context?


I said that I have studied both scriptures. I didn't say that I memorized every single verse number.


Atanu, I have studied both the Koran and the Bible, and it is fairly obvious to me that you have not. This would not be a problem for you if you did not insist on mispresenting these religions in order to prop up your views

The fonts in blue show that you disregard the genuinity of fellow debaters.

While claiming to have read the whole Koran, you still insist that I give you the details. And without checking out yourself you call me all things, 'mis-representer', 'unread', 'not knowing english grammar' etc. etc.

I respectfully request you to stop and recollect Koran (since you say that you have read it fully) to find the verse.

Om

raghu_001
17 May 2009, 04:12 AM
I thought the scripture was "I am the way, I am the light -----". Why are you replacing "I" with "Jesus"?

Hmmm, I don't know. Could it be because of the fact that Jesus is the speaker in that verse?



The fonts in blue show that you disregard the genuinity of fellow debaters.

While claiming to have read the whole Koran, you still insist that I give you the details. And without checking out yourself you call me all things, 'mis-representer', 'unread', 'not knowing english grammar' etc. etc.

I respectfully request you to stop and recollect Koran (since you say that you have read it fully) to find the verse.

Om

Once again:


The Koran has 114 suras, and each sura has numerous verses. In order for one to locate a given verse, you need to provide two numbers for each verse in the format "sura#:verse#" You only provided one number for each verse - was this a deliberate attempt to make certain that I would not check them?

atanu
17 May 2009, 04:14 AM
The cited post gives the Chapter number of the particular verses and a few others.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=23741&postcount=5

Om

raghu_001
17 May 2009, 04:19 AM
The cited post gives the Chapter number of the particular verses and a few others.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=23741&postcount=5


Now refresh my memory, what were you trying to prove by quoting these again?

atanu
17 May 2009, 04:22 AM
Oh, I now see that teeny tiny "2" at the top - I guess that is the sura number. It looks like you copy-cut-pasted these Koran quotes from some online source. No wonder the sura number was not more apparent.

Now refresh my memory, what were you trying to prove by quoting these again?

Forget it my friend.

raghu_001
17 May 2009, 04:34 AM
Forget it my friend.

Wait I have it - you were trying to claim that these are statements from Islam of universalism.

OK, now let us look at those in context.


2:163. Your God is One God; there is no God save Him, the Beneficent, the Merciful. (Read Shivam in Sanskrit)

There is nothing in this verse that specifically endorses the idea that Muslims worship the same deity as the Hindu. All this verse is doing is emphasizing the Islamic monotheism in contrast to the polytheistic paganism of Arabian society at that time. Following in this spirit, Muslims would likely denounce Hindu deities as non-existent just as they did the Arabian pagan deities.



213. Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that mankind might judge concerning that wherein they differed. And unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed only through hatred one of another. And Allah by His will guided those who believe unto the truth of that concerning which they differed. Allah guideth whom He will unto a straight path.

I fail to see how this is a statement endorsing other religions. In the context of this verse, the Koran 2.211 previously criticized the "Israelites" for (allegedly) neglecting God's sign and promising severe punishment by Allah for those who did likewise. Why would Hindus be privileged by this while Jews were criticized?

Anyway why bother quoting all this stuff from Koran? We don't need to quote Koran in order to establish what the Koran teaches, right? Words do not mean what they say, right?

atanu
17 May 2009, 04:50 AM
Wait I have it - you were trying to claim that these are statements from Islam of universalism.

OK, now let us look at those in context.


I said forget it.

Om

atanu
17 May 2009, 09:58 AM
Namaste everyone.

I think we are wrangling over wrong points: it is not that there are two or more Gods (the Biblical, the Quranic and the Vedic) but that there are differing perceptions about the One God in these three religions, and the perceptions in the Abrahamic religions are certainly lacking in depth and text.

Sri KrishNa does sound like the Biblical God on a superficial reading of the BG verses 16.19-20 quoted by Atanu, but then in those verses KrishNa only talks about the inexorable law of Karma as Swamy Chinmayananta explains in his comments to these verses.

In BG, Sri KrishNa talks about karma, dharma, adharma, svadharma, and varNa as much as he talks about the three Yoga Paths. Do we find such depth and text of teaching in the Bible or the Quran even by some extrapolation?


Namaste saidevo ji,

I am sorry that i missed this post earlier.

I certainly agree to the post and especially to the part that there are differing perceptions about the One God in these three religions, and the perceptions in the Abrahamic religions are certainly lacking in depth and text.

Certainly the perceptions are not of same level and the depth of Upanishadic query is almost entirely absent from the western scriptures. I think gnostic examination has been sidelined in the exoteric western religions (or actually it must be exactly as chalked out by Ishwara).

But the post is 'Bible God versus Krishna'. The original post or later posts talk not of perceptional differences but of fundamental difference between a wrathful god versus a sweet god?

Veda does indicate that God can be violent. Manyu, the wrath is worshipped in Rudram. Shri Krishna shows His all devouring fearful form to Arjuna. Shankara argued against the Nyaya and Mimamsa positions that hold that Ishwara is not the dispenser of fruits of karma. He established again that though, the effects are results of karma but Ishwara is the dispenser of the fruit in just and inviolable way. On the other other hand, God is also called Shivam in Veda. God is also called merciful and beneficient (which means Shivam only) in Koran and Bible.

It would become very lengthy to enumerate fully, but many teachings of Bible or of Koran do point to wrath of God at ill deeds of hard hearted souls. That is karma in another language. Passage to Hell, indicates that the wrong doer suffers.
---------------------------------

But the point i was contending was that showing a violent message in isolation, from Bible, Koran, or Veda to prove a point of difference may not be the correct thing to do.

As i mention, time and again, that muslims by this very method, show highest Vedic gods to be immoral. And similarly, christians ridicule Ganesha or Hanuman, without comprehending the esoteric knowledge. Similarly, we can see hindu sects, denigrate other faiths based on their partial faiths.

Have we not seen such differences based on reading of same Veda or same Gita? Have we not seen Shiva or Indra being called a demi-god?

On the other hand, the highest Hindu sages have taught that the Purusha's first utterance of "I" reverbates as OM and pervades every being to this date and which will pervade for all times to come is not different from the "I am" of Bible.

Do I put faith on such Self Realised Guru or some neophyte person who brushes aside the views of sacred gurus and opines that they acted out of political motives? In fact it can be shown that divisive people will borrow misplaced christian propaganda to frame points against Koran or misplaced muslim propaganda to prove point againt Bible.

Is it necessary to counter the missionary acts of christians with conviction and counter violent acts of muslims with firmness?

Or is it necessary to find faults with Bible or Koran?


Regards. I wait for a just reply.

Om Namah Shivaya

raghu_001
17 May 2009, 12:42 PM
Is it necessary to find faults with the Bible? Should we not just accept that the Bible is another version of the Truth? Can't we all just get along?

Sri Krishna spurred the Pandavas to war with the Kauravas so as to depose the adharmic Duryodhana and restore righteous rulers to the throne. So perhaps we should overlook incitements towards violence in other religions...

Or should we?

In the Bible we repeatedly see that "God" tells his followers to kill those who do not believe in him. Not only that but he even tells them to burn their cities to the ground.

Note that he does NOT qualify this by referring to "aggressive" non-believers:

Exodus 22:20 "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed. "

Deuteronomy 13:1-16:

1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. 12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=13&version=31#fen-NIV-5288a)] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=13&version=31#fen-NIV-5290b)] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes."

Now, the apologists will no doubt step forward and try to "interpret" away all these inconvenient bits of evidence. But we don't need them to see what is plainly apparent with our own eyes - the Biblical "God" is a jealous god who does not tolerate any rivalry whatsoever. His followers are instructed to even murder their own family members should they profess belief in other gods. It does not matter for the purposes of this analysis what those "other gods" are. Let us say they are fictional characters, vices, or whatever. The point is that these statements are quite genocidal in their content.

These and similar statements found throughout the Bible leads me to the conclusion that the "Biblical God" is in fact not God. Certainly omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence may have been ascribed to him, but we do not know for a fact that the Biblical deity has those attributes. God is not partial and cruel, but the Biblical god clearly is. QED these are two different deities.

saidevo
17 May 2009, 11:08 PM
Namaste Atanu.



But the point i was contending was that showing a violent message in isolation, from Bible, Koran, or Veda to prove a point of difference may not be the correct thing to do.

As i mention, time and again, that muslims by this very method, show highest Vedic gods to be immoral. And similarly, christians ridicule Ganesha or Hanuman, without comprehending the esoteric knowledge. Similarly, we can see hindu sects, denigrate other faiths based on their partial faiths.


I think I should fully agree with you on this point that is full of wisdom. The problem with the Abrahamic scriptures is that it is like a mix-up of our Shruti and Smriti with the estoeric passages of texts camouflaged amidst the play of 'guNas.' The hotchpotch arrangement of the Bible is possibly due to the deliberately wrong selection of the gospels by Emperor Constantine after which most other esoteric texts were sought and destroyed. And the strong 'rajo-guNa' flavour of the Quran might be a reflection of the predominant 'guNa' of their Prophet. Ironically, it is their 'God' who suffers from these shortcomings, since He is proclaimed not only as the One but as the Only God!

Since you have the right perspection, you would be doing great service if you could start a separate thread where you can post the esoteric texts in the Bible and Quran with their meanings, your comments on them and possibly how and where those texts correlate to our Shruti and Smriti. We just need to isolate the esoteric passages from the surrounding anachronistic ones and highlight them so it can serve as a reference to inter-faith debates.

atanu
18 May 2009, 04:28 AM
Namaste Atanu.

Since you have the right perspection, you would be doing great service if you could start a separate thread where you can post the esoteric texts in the Bible and Quran with their meanings, your comments on them and possibly how and where those texts correlate to our Shruti and Smriti. We just need to isolate the esoteric passages from the surrounding anachronistic ones and highlight them so it can serve as a reference to inter-faith debates.

Namaste saidevo ji,

Thank you and i think it will be a pleasure to collect such verses which are clear and which require no extrapolation to get any spiritual meaning. God willing, I will do it, but as my available time is very haphazard at present; no fixed free window being available, I request Reflections to begin a post on the subject as she has knowledge on the subject. Hope she will begin such a project. All this if other members do not object. I will add to it, if I have some time in between.

Thank you for considering me worthy for such a project.
-------------------
I will like to end this discussion (from my side of course) to point out a few aspects. These are my first impressions and I may be very wrong. But I would always start with the firm belief that Shivam is all merciful and all powerful. And nothing is beyond Shivam -- not Koran, not Bible. There is no 'other' for Shivam. He is the whole.

Simex in a thread has said a valuable thing: he will take care before applying literal meaning to any scripture. I agree and additionally suggest that without meditating/contemplating on the full chapter (at least), it is easy to get an incorrect picture. You will remember that Upanishad says that Gods like mystery -- there must be a purpose?

It is true that many passages in Koran and Bible incite fear. For example, the commandment to kill the pagans and many such. No doubt about that.

However it is not easy to understand such commandment when seen in the backdrop of another verse, which says: Blood is sacred and should not be spilled. And God dislikes aggressors and transgressors. No greater punishment is there than that which will be meted out to a transgresser. Koran also says: Do not covet. Koran also says that the highest war (jihad) is the striving against the inequities of the self.

It is also not easy to understand what actually a pagan is. But it is easy for a common muslim to say 'that other person is pagan and I/we are not; so kill that other'. And it is easy for a Hindu to imagine that 'yes being a Hindu I am under target'. Frankly speaking I do not think that the matter is so simple, though historically it has been so.

For a Hindu, accepting that another God's commandment to incite violence will prevail would mean that he has lost faith on his own God that HE is just and oversees everything. Same with a Muslim, since Koran also says that God is benefient and merciful. Why should a God who is beneficient and merciful incite violence? Similarly, it not easy to understand what an idolator is. I checked up Koran and it does not match to our perception. It matches to what a respected Hindu Guru says: Idolation means worshipping the body.

If I accept that God of Koran is vengeful and erratic, then I am accepting that my own God is powerless against such a vengeful God. And Koran specifically says that no harm can come to one who is strong of faith.
Reading Veda (or any scripture) is not one day's task. One had to study Veda under Guru for 12 years. Else it is easy to put one's guna color on the verses.

The attributes of Allah are not very different from Brahman as understood in Advaita. He is the ONE and only without any aid or partner, the hearer/knower/listener everywhere. It is He who knows and He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is also beneficient and merciful. The idea of taqdir (destiny) is very strong; what Allah has pictured that is immutable.

There is also a specific verse, which says that the harm accrues to one by one's own self and Allah has no role in it, similar to the Gita verse, which says "self slays those who are unmindful of the self".
There are many such inconsistencies about which a faithful and thinking person should ponder upon before barging out with criticism.

Moreover, as with Christianity, with Islam also much interpretations have been added by later day Rajahs/emperors/looters. It is difficult to isolate those, but I have seen a few verses in Koran that warn against the false faith of Arabs, in general. It is said that though they procalim to be adherents of Islam (surrender), but in heart they are not so. Very surprising.

Hope that Reflections will take the initiative on compilation as suggested by Shri Saidevo.

Finally, I reiterate that faith on one's own God as all powerful, yet beneficient and merciful, and encompassing the whole, will not allow one even to think that there can be another God whose commandments can harm the faithful. To doubt so would be the real treason and that is, IMO, the subject of Koran. I am forcing no one to this understanding.

Om Namah Shivaya

ScottMalaysia
22 May 2009, 12:38 PM
Raghu,

The God of the Bible is Indra. See what I wrote in this thread (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3978).

There is no need for Hindus to convert to Christianity just to worship a Hindu god mixed in with some Roman pagan ideas and Jesus Christ.

atanu
27 May 2009, 12:57 AM
Raghu,

The God of the Bible is Indra. See what I wrote in this thread (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3978).

There is no need for Hindus to convert to Christianity just to worship a Hindu god mixed in with some Roman pagan ideas and Jesus Christ.

Namaste Scott,

You may be correct that Hindus do not need to convert.

But, God is an unknowable thing and the way you assert that God of Bible is Indra, makes me feel that you might have personal direct knowledge/experience of what you state. God is not 'this or that' but we as per our choice and preference say so.

There is a detailed post on 'yahva' , which means "Ever moving, Mahat (Vishnu), Indra, Agni, Soma, Prajapati ----". If we go by linguistics then the Bible God is 'yahva'. However, as Indra is all, you might as well be intuitively correct.


Om

jaggin
05 June 2009, 10:43 AM
BibleGod vs Krishna

Put Jehovah and Krishna parallel with each other. The former, "from the clouds and darkness of Sinai," said to the Jews: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. . . .

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

Contrast this with the words of Krishna "I am the same to all mankind. They who honestly serve other gods, involuntarily worship me. I am he who partaketh of all worship, and I am the reward of all worshippers."

Compare these passages. The first, a dungeon where crawl the things begot of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid with suns. . . .

The "first" is the god who haunted Calvin's fancy, when he added to his doctrine of predestination that of Hell being paved with the skulls of unbaptized infants. The beliefs and dogmas of church are far more blasphemous in the ideas they imply than those of the benighted Heathen.

The second is a God whose refuge is available to all, including christians only if they honestly serve their Jesus.

[B]The first is ready to punish many generations for the perceived sins of one generation, the other has no such threats.

The first will reward those who dash the babies on the rocks, the other SHALL protect the babies even in the womb, and SHALL punish those who kill the babies, born or unborn.

I do not find a dichotomy in these words. I once asked God what happens when someone prays to Mary. He said that person gets me. This may work well enough in a Hindu setting of representations of God and gods that serve Him but it isn't going to work for a Pagan worshipping a tree because a tree is just a tree. However Krishna has not made a statement of what would happen if a person decided to exalt a diffeent God above him.

Your meaning is unclear.

I don't see any diffeerence between the two on this. After all isn't Krishna urging Arjuna on to do battle because justice requires it?

atanu
05 June 2009, 04:17 PM
-----but it isn't going to work for a Pagan worshipping a tree because a tree is just a tree.

Namaste jaggin,

I yet do not get it as to why a pagan has to be killed -- if there is no other meaning? Why did God allow a pagan to be raised in the first place, to be then slaughtered? You may say that Krishna arranged it so that Duryodhna is also slaughtered. But, you see, Duryodhana is no pagan in the conventional sense of pagan.

In this light, I do think that pagan word is not understood.

Om

atanu
06 June 2009, 08:54 AM
but it isn't going to work for a Pagan worshipping a tree because a tree is just a tree.

To clarify a bit further.

Veda says that Soma, the auspicious energy of Lord, is Food, Vishnu, Green and Brown. Also, Soma (green) is Lord's energy as plants. Brown perhaps is all of us.

In any case, I also pour a little water over some plant, with some understanding of auspicious kindness that exists therein.

Am I a pagan and will Lord militate a jew or a muslim to slaughter me?

Om Namah Shivaya
--------------------------------

Jaggin, I think that the understanding of pagan as above is for the purpose of furtherance of militant people's business' in areas of peaceful people.

Regards

rcscwc
31 July 2009, 07:10 AM
"These cruel haters, worst among men in the world, I hurl these evil-doers into the wombs of demons only. Entering into demoniacal wombs and deluded, birth after birth, not attaining me, they thus fall, Oh Arjuna, into a condition still lower than that,"


This is not from Bible. Dvaita bound tamashic interpreters can always find something out of context and preach eternal damnation, whether in HInduism or in any other religion. On examining closely, I find the phrase "These cruel haters -----" as the key to understanding.

Om Namah Shivaya

16.19 I cast for ever those hateful, cruel, evil-doers in the worlds, the vilest of human beings, verily into the demoniacla classes.

Detailed English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami Gambhirananda 16.19
Because of their defect of unrighteousness, aham, I; ksipami, cast, hurl; ajasram, for ever; all tan, those; who are dvisatah, hateful of Me; kruran, cruel; and asubhan, who are evil doers; samsaresu, in the worlds-who are on the paths leading to hell; who are the nara-adhaman, vilest of human beings, who are opposed to the right path, who are hostile to the pious people; eva, verily;
Because of their defect of unrighteousness [lacking dharma] I cast for ever those; who are dvisatah, hateful of Me, cruel who are evil doers; in the worlds-who are on the paths leading to hell; who are the asurisu, into the demoniacal; yonisu, classes-tigers, loins, etc., which are full of evil deeds. The verb cast is to be connected with 'into the classes'.nara-adhaman, vilest of human beings, who are opposed to the right path, who are hostile to the pious people;
asurisu, into the demoniacal; yonisu, classes-tigers, loins, etc., which are full of evil deeds.

The verb cast is to be connected with 'into the classes' or species.
From Shankar's commentary.
Many translators make mistakes, some genuine, but some michievious while translating Gita.


I hope "these cruel haters" is explained.

rcscwc
31 July 2009, 07:22 AM
:) Namaste,

Are there two Gods? You yourself said, in another post, that properties of God cannot be discerned. Then how do we discern two Gods?

Om

Can one entity have such conflicting attributes. Obviously they are different, except that biblegod is no God.

rcscwc
31 July 2009, 07:27 AM
Namaste Raghu,

You are correct that perceptions vary.

But that Bible God is a figment of someone's imagination is another such perception,which pre-supposses that things proceed from our end. No. DA-DA-Da is given to all from one God but Da-Da-Da is understood in three different ways as per guna predisposition.

Sages such as Kanchi Shankaracharya and most other Self Realised sages have not questioned that Bible and Koran are indeed the revealed word (vak-saraswati) just as Veda is. Who are we?

But if you were to really study Bible or Koran or Veda in full, you will find that the jealous God is indeed our own inner being (in a particular stage) and that same inner being is benevolent shivam (at another stage). Scriptures do mention of both these states of the Self-Brahman-God. These states are states of our understanding and depends on our actions-wisdom, but Brahman is immutable.

There is nothing that has not flowed from the immutable.

Om

For xians DA means DanDA. Their understanding of God is flawed.

atanu
31 July 2009, 08:23 AM
For xians DA means DanDA. Their understanding of God is flawed.

Exactly. That is the point. Da may mean different things to different people.

Sudarshan
01 August 2009, 03:38 PM
BibleGod vs Krishna

Put Jehovah and Krishna parallel with each other. The former, "from the clouds and darkness of Sinai," said to the Jews: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. . . .

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

Contrast this with the words of Krishna [Bhagwad Gita Ch 9] "I am the same to all mankind. They who honestly serve other gods, involuntarily worship me. I am he who partaketh of all worship, and I am the reward of all worshippers."

Compare these passages. The first, a dungeon where crawl the things begot of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid with suns. . . .

The "first" is the god who haunted Calvin's fancy, when he added to his doctrine of predestination that of Hell being paved with the skulls of unbaptized infants. The beliefs and dogmas of church are far more blasphemous in the ideas they imply than those of the benighted Heathen.

The second is a God whose refuge is available to all, including christians only if they honestly serve their Jesus.

The first is ready to punish many generations for the perceived sins of one generation, the other has no such threats.

The first will reward those who dash the babies on the rocks, the other SHALL protect the babies even in the womb, and SHALL punish those who kill the babies, born or unborn.

The "jealous" God is only a symbolic usage. The idea is this - pay attention only to the Sat and do not worship asat ( i.e any perishable entity). We have similar passages in the ISa upanishad that advise against worshipping avidya.

Even if you worship rocks or pieces of metal carved into a mUrti, always keep in mind the substratum that makes these names and forms possible. This is the principle of Monotheism or the "jealous God" theory. It is not that God becomes jealous but if we worship asat we will pay for our folly in the form of continued misery of the samsAra. The anger of God is a very symbolic term which has been abused time and again. You can see how even many Hindus failing to grasp the true essence of rigid Monotheism.

chandu_69
01 August 2009, 04:35 PM
The "jealous" God is only a symbolic usage. The idea is this - pay attention only to the Sat and do not worship asat ( i.e any perishable entity).

Namaste sudarshaniji.

Jealous god is not symbolic.
It is real.

From Bible(old testament):
Deuteronomy 13:6-18
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death,because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

"If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.

"Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. None of those condemned things [ shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes".

The christian clergy approves it as a sure way of Appeasing their god.
You may look at the text and commentaries at http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/13-6.htm

If a christian by any chance gets attracted to Hinduism it is deemed to be the work of Satan.

Sudarshan
01 August 2009, 05:23 PM
How many Gods do Christians have? Only one, viewed as a truine God, which is perfect.

Then what is the meaning of worshipping only this God? It makes perfect sense.

I can pull out dozens of quotes from our purANA-s that condemn the worship of dieties like Lord Shiva. How are you going to differentiate these quotes from the bible?

The message of rigid monotheism is to fix all our attention on a certain symbol/aspect/form of God. This is more productive to deep meditation than jumping from one God to another. It is better to dig one large pond than to dig many small pools of water.

I dont find anything wrong in the worship of a single form of God with all devotion, This idea is taught by many religions and even by many Hindu texts and teachers. It is a great idealogy provided its significance is understood properly but then if the followers understand monotheism means ridicule of others, then the religion is not at fault. Read the instructions given by Jesus near Galilee ( the Sermon on the Mount) and tell me how it is incompatible with Hinduism. It is common for religeous texts to describe God as wrathful probably to indimidate people to be dharmic. Have you seen the description of Yama gand various descriptions of hells iven in the purANa-s?

Let us not mix the true essence of a religion with the actions of the followers. I can assure you that many Hindus are as bad as christians. Why dont you search previous posts on this forum where some dieties were ridiculed and many such posts were deleted or the person banned. Disagreeable content is found on all religeous texts and this includes our own scriptures and so selectively quoting them is a double edged sword.

chandu_69
01 August 2009, 05:47 PM
How many Gods do Christians have? Only one, viewed as a truine God, which is perfect.Then what is the meaning of worshipping only this God? It makes perfect sense.


The old testament has only one god i.e. Yahweh.



I can pull out dozens of quotes from our purANA-s that condemn the worship of dieties like Lord Shiva. How are you going to differentiate these quotes from the bible?

Sure, you can.you can also pull out quotes that it is ok to worship other gods.

But there are no commands(In Puranas) to Kill worhippers of Other gods.That is the fundamental difference.

If you read Bhagavadgita Sri Krishna says it is he who provides material benefits to worshipers of other lesser gods.

Please take a note that Lord Siva doesn't come under this category of other gods.Ishwara is supreme in his own right(as per Gita)

chandu_69
01 August 2009, 05:57 PM
Read the instructions given by Jesus near Galilee ( the Sermon on the Mount) and tell me how it is incompatible with Hinduism

Could you please point out what impressed you the most?.

Eastern Mind
01 August 2009, 06:18 PM
Namaste: lol ... This is the irony I am chuckling at. I live in a predominant Christian country, have never read the Bible, and don't intend to. Could care absolutely less about whether Krishna is the same God as Xian God. I've been inside churches maybe 8 times in my life, always for weddings or funerals due to work or family obligations, but never ever dreamt of worshipping there. The little bit of Christianity i ever got exposed to exposed the simplistic lunacy in the tenets so fast I figured it out in Grade 2 or so.

But here we are, on a Hindu forum where people (probably from India, a predominantly Hindu country) are actually quoting from the Bible. Does anyone else see the irony?

Aum Namasivaya

rkpande
02 August 2009, 05:48 AM
I may want to quote from the book 'The selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkin, in secion 2-Replicator. Describing the error in replication of genetic material, he gives an example of the error in translation from Bible and I quote "I suppose the scholors of the Sepuagint could atleast said to have started big when they mistranslated the Hebrew word for 'young woman' in Greek word for 'vergin, coming up with prophecy:'Behold a vergin shall concieve and bear a son.."
If such major mistake can happen in translation in scriptures, one can imagine when translation and replications are done over and over again over a great period of time, misinterpretion and jugemental errors are bound to creep in, which the original text may not have ment.
Bible is a compilation of gospels which his followers had written which were subsequently deleted or altered or eliminated (The D'vinci code)because of political reasons or by religious groups. It was not a revealed scrupture for sure. There are books like 'Did Christ Visit India ' written by western authors who have given historical proofs for the period of his age 13 t0 29 when he visited India, which is not accounted for in the gospels . Vivakananada also makes a reference of Christ having come to india and having visited places like puri. He quotes some Russian account. It may be that his learnings from east may have been misquoted or diluted over the period of time.
The truth was revealed to Mohammad but his sayings were compiled much latter by one of his follower relative and again recronicalised much later,
our own scriptures being the oldest, have also traved from oral transmissions to written down versions, some being lost, some destroyed by invaders, some not tracable because the costodians were eliminated.
My point is, if billions and millions of innocent people have faith in their respective religions and are living pious life, then we are no body to point out look your faith is not better than mine. I am sure these learned commentators if were born in some other faith, might have defended otherwise.
may god bless us all.

chandu_69
02 August 2009, 06:43 AM
My point is, if billions and millions of innocent people have faith in their respective religions and are living pious life, then we are no body to point out look your faith is not better than mine. I am sure these learned commentators if were born in some other faith, might have defended otherwise.
may god bless us all.

I entirely agree with your point.But just because you live a pious life and don't explore what other religions teach and compare/criticize you cant expect islam and christian evangelists behave the same.

The vilification of hinduism gathered momentum after airing of COSMOS documentary by Carl sagan.Carl Sagan's admiration for the Hindu sages calculations of age of universe vis-avis 6000 year old(Young) earth has made the evangelists busy finding/manufacturing faults with hinduism and spreading them.

There are zillions of anti-hindu websites spreading false info on hinduism.The only way to counter them is with logic and deep study.An innocuous statement that it is all symbolic is not going to do any good

Historically Hinduism has given shelter to foreign religions with no records of persecution of belief systems.But that tolerance has not done Hinduism any good.

I am not for a second advocating a tit for tat approach.Scholarly and logical effort goes a long way in countering this propaganda.

rkpande
02 August 2009, 07:04 AM
Then we might have to produce another Vivakananda who dared them on their face on their own land.

ohmshivaya
02 August 2009, 09:43 AM
....

But here we are, on a Hindu forum where people (probably from India, a predominantly Hindu country) are actually quoting from the Bible. Does anyone else see the irony?...

Aum Namasivaya

There is irony indeed in this like you say (and see) - Indian Hindus or non-Indian ex-christians yet again trying to interpret and explain the Bible, and in some cases the whole religion of christianity, from a Hindu point of view - and also tragedy.

Interestingly, the cross-posting below from another forum explains quite a bit about the nature of christianization of India, particularly Tamil Nadu. As christianity of the more virulent and aggressive kind (only worship of Jesus, and none other, can save you!!) takes firm root in India and spreads its tentacles across the nation, one is going to see a tremendous increase in the number of ''christian apologetics'' coming from the non-christians populations.




Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 9:46 PM


...I will tell you the intolerance being spread here in South is growing. Christians are being asked to openly insult Hindus and force their relatives to accept Jesus. There used to be slogans and extracts from Bible on Cars and vehicles so far. But recently they are all turning into instructions : Like " Belive in Jesus and get Saved Otherwise... ". In another case I saw the bible being called Veda and Bible classes as Veda Patashala. I am attaching a photo I took while driving. By the way I am carrying a camera with me these days.

However the most dramatic and chilling experience was last week in Chennai. I intercepted an Autorickshaw guy. He had a Map of India very clearly and cleanly cut in white leatherlike material. In it there was an inscription in Tamil : "THIS NATION BELONGS TO JESUS". I cornered this guy with my car. I got down and asked him what is the meaning of it. He started shivering and then feigned ignorance. He said the auto belongs to his owner and that he himself is a Hindu. He had repeatedly asked the Christian owner to remove it. I threatened him with dire consequences and then reported to the local police station before I went to office.
But what I found was chilling he told me that owner's Pastor wanted him to put this on the AUTO and that pastor is an AMERICAN white guy.

CHaps this is getting out of hand and the designs are all there for us to see....



http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2177&pid=100091&st=600&#entry100091

Eastern Mind
02 August 2009, 11:48 AM
I think the day will come perhaps sooner than later that the government, either of the state, or of the nation, will have the clout and will to stop this kind of thing, and send the White American packing back to the states. There are anti-conversion laws in place in some places already, and its only a matter of time before such laws are passed. I don't like to see vigilante justice. Neither would the government. Hopefully they've learned some lessons from past experiences, and act before the vigilantes do their thing.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
03 August 2009, 03:02 AM
Partial cut and paste of scripture can show any scripture as illogical. Exactly that is what is done by so-called christian and muslim propagandists.

Religious propaganda and political propaganda are not a bit different and is indulged by ill-motivated people. I have seen play of huge amounts of resources employed by missionaries. Many of them stay in five star hotels, employ thousands of people and thousands of cars to teach/preach across every nook and corner of not only India but in other countries where christianity is not the main religion.

But that does not mean that these guys are spiritual and are following Jesus's teaching. I do not find anything wrong in countering these propagandists, who come as NGOs often. For that the sattwik understanding of Bible is not undesirable.

On the other hand, to insinuate that Swami Vivekananda and such sages are christian apologetics is grossly wrong. Even Shri Ramana Maharshi has said that "I am that I am" of Bible is the clear indication of the truth. These gurus have opened the eyes and hearts of many christians, who are ardent supporters of Vedanta. In God there is no division. Divsion is in our pscyche.

Jesus has taught "Remove the plank from your eyes before you attempt to remove the speck from your friend's eye." There are several verses, which actually prohibit teaching by the ignorant. But surely that does not happen.

The designs of the manipulative missionaries, if evil, cannot stand the power of the Truth. No individual or group can over-ride God's design.

-----------------------
The duty of a Hindu is to duty itself and not to the fruit. Lamentations are most unhindu.

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
03 August 2009, 05:17 AM
Namaste Atanu,


The designs of the manipulative missionaries, if evil, cannot stand the power of the Truth.

The missionaries are Fairly successful , aren't they?.
The unofficial estimates in Tamilnadu is that about 20% of population is christians.The converts don't declare it cause they will be losing the reservation benefits.

How can you say the Missionaries are evil?.
What is your basis?.They are manipulative but they believe that they are doing it to save Hindus from "eternal Hell".

Their Motto i.e. "only Jesus saves" is backed up by bible and Main stream christian Position.

They are aggressive and manipulative in spreading the core ideology of christianity.


In God there is no division

Well, in christianity there is a clear cut division.It is a recurrent theme in the bible(both OT And NT).

How can you expect christians and Missionaries to follow Ramana maharshi instead of The Main stream christian position of say, VATICAN?.

You may go through the Vatican position at
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm



Jesus has taught "Remove the plank from your eyes before you attempt to remove the speck from your friend's eye." There are several verses, which actually prohibit teaching by the ignorant. But surely that does not happen.

This has nothing to do with Spreading the gospel.

Jesus (while he was alive) asked his disciples to spread Gospel among the Jews and he also said the town that doesn't receive the preachers will suffer horrible punishment at Judgment day.

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or CITY, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that CITY.

Here is the account of Sodom and gomorrah from Old testament

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

atanu
03 August 2009, 08:19 AM
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that CITY.

Here is the account of Sodom and gomorrah from Old testament

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

:) Namaste,

So, what are we saying? That their Lord will rain fire on us and our God will fail to protect us? Our God will go into hiding?

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
03 August 2009, 11:04 AM
:) Namaste,

So, what are we saying?

It is Jesus who is saying that.


That their Lord will rain fire on us and our God will fail to protect us? Our God will go into hiding?There Are no god(s) outside of the bible.

Hinduism's concept of God is a trick of satan.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P7E.HTM

III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me"

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

The irony here is Hindu Intellectuals want Christian missionaries to respect Hinduism while bible explicitly declares Hindus practices as false.

atanu
03 August 2009, 01:02 PM
It is Jesus who is saying that.

There Are no god(s) outside of the bible.

Hinduism's concept of God is a trick of satan.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P7E.HTM

III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me"

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

The irony here is Hindu Intellectuals want Christian missionaries to respect Hinduism while bible explicitly declares Hindus practices as false.


Namaste chandu,

Thank you.

2112 The first commandment (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/8L.HTM) condemns (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/3/14.HTM) polytheism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/4/6M.HTM). It requires (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/DF.HTM) man (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1B.HTM) neither to believe (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/60.HTM) in, nor to venerate (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/3/60.HTM), other divinities than the one true (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/50.HTM) God (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/7.HTM). Scripture (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/7L.HTM) constantly (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/TE.HTM) recalls (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/P0.HTM) this rejection (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1/YA.HTM) of "idols (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/2/IU.HTM), (of) silver (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/2/R8.HTM) and gold (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/4/GS.HTM), the work (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/3U.HTM) of men (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/2K.HTM)'s hands (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/CS.HTM). They have mouths (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/3/E2.HTM), but do not speak (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/LT.HTM); eyes (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/M9.HTM), but do not see (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/A6.HTM)." These empty (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1/DY.HTM) idols (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/2/IU.HTM) make their worshippers (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/3/UC.HTM) empty (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1/DY.HTM): "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/HL.HTM) in them."42 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P7E.HTM#$27X) God (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/7.HTM), however, is the "living (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/5C.HTM)God (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/7.HTM)"43 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P7E.HTM#$27Y) who gives (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/6P.HTM)life (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/Y.HTM) and intervenes (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/4/D7.HTM) in history (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/8T.HTM).

-----------------------
God is truly one withouta second. He is called advita. God is also truly living. Even in a Murti He lives, because inspired living minds/hands install the heart in Murti with love. Else, christians should throw their icons, crosses, angels. God truly intervenes in history.

Have faith, since He intervenes in history. He even comes out of a wall to destroy adharma and adharmi. He is indivisible, even if Jesus's sayings may appear to you to be teaching that their God is different from our God. This 'their and our' is the ignorance, since God is indivisible and He is all. No one is external to this indivisible God.

In finding fault with christian teachings, how can we forget our scripture, which says: To do alloted duty is your right but not to aspire for its fruits?

Only thing that I would retort back to a christian missionary would be "Hey you, remove planks from your eyes before you attempt to remove speck from my eyes" and do the alloted duty as desirelessly as possible, leaving all else to God.
-----------------------------------------

But I agree that the above would appear fooilish idealism to most, since it is meant to be like that. People read Gita but practising it is another matter.

Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 August 2009, 01:06 PM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P7E.HTM

In the above page I do not find anything that is not known to (or is antithetical) to Hindus, through Veda, Vedanta, Purana, and Itihas.

Which darshana of Hindus teach polytheism?

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
03 August 2009, 02:58 PM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P7E.HTM

In the above page I do not find anything that is not known to (or is antithetical) to Hindus, through Veda, Vedanta, Purana, and Itihas.

Several lines.For example
1)Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God.

Majority of Hindus Worship God In the form of Idols(Murthy).As per the above line Hindus who worship Shiva In the form Of Shivling are Worshiping a false god.


Which darshana of Hindus teach polytheism?


which Which darshana of Hindus condemn polytheism?.


Now, the general examples.

The shaivaites who worship Ganesha are polytheists.

The Vaishnavaites who worship Ganesha(As prescribed in Bhagavatham) are Polytheists.

Hindus who invoke Blessings of Goddess Saraswathi are Polytheists.

Want More examples?.


I think you are more intelligent than the antihindus who claim Idol worship is Banned in Vedas.

chandu_69
03 August 2009, 03:25 PM
Namaste Atanu,


even if Jesus's sayings may appear to you to be teaching that their God is different from our God.

What it appears to me or You is irrelevant.
How it is understood By the christians all through out their History to the present times is what matters to the Missionaries.


This 'their and our' is the ignorance, since God is indivisible and He is all. No one is external to this indivisible God.

Well, The christians seems to think Otherwise.

Now, How do you propose to Remove their 'ignorance'?

i see you have a response i.e.


Only thing that I would retort back to a christian missionary would be "Hey you, remove planks from your eyes before you attempt to remove speck from my eyes" and do the alloted duty as desirelessly as possible, leaving all else to God.

Well, they are doing their Allotted duty(Allotted By Jesus) with Zeal and vigor to save the Idol worshiping Hindus from Eternal damnation.Your retort will only strengthen their resolve.:D :D


In finding fault with christian teachings, how can we forget our scripture, which says: To do alloted duty is your right but not to aspire for its fruits?I am not finding fault(atleast in this thread) with christian scriptures.I am only stating the christian View point which many of the "INTELLECTUAL" hindus miss.

The first scripture i read Is Bhagavadgita
which says
2:47 karmaṇy evādhikāras te · mā phaleṣu kadācanamä karma-phala-hetur bhür
mä te saìgo ’stv akarmaëi.

What i understand from that immortal sloka is that you have to do your duty with dedication and sincerity and not expect to get fruits "for your self".

Spiritualseeker
03 August 2009, 08:30 PM
Several lines.For example
1)Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God.

Majority of Hindus Worship God In the form of Idols(Murthy).As per the above line Hindus who worship Shiva In the form Of Shivling are Worshiping a false god.



which Which darshana of Hindus condemn polytheism?.


Now, the general examples.

The shaivaites who worship Ganesha are polytheists.

The Vaishnavaites who worship Ganesha(As prescribed in Bhagavatham) are Polytheists.

Hindus who invoke Blessings of Goddess Saraswathi are Polytheists.

Want More examples?.


I think you are more intelligent than the antihindus who claim Idol worship is Banned in Vedas.
Namaste,

see what you are failing to see is that God is within all things and yet is transcended above all things. There is only one reality. Monism is that there is just God he is the reality. When we realize we are not separate from God (the Kingdom within) than we have God Realization.

Different images of the deities are just a manifestation of that one Supreme God. His essence flows through all that exist. There is not a thing he is not in or else it would cease to be. We are simply a dream of God. His consciousness is manifesting us. God did not create us he manifested us. We are apart of that Reality. And all around us is simply dilusion. When you wake up to the dilusion you realize the only Truth is God. Saints and sages from many traditions have realized that everything that is worshipped upon earth is God. Why? Because God is the only reality.

Lord Ganesha and others are manifestations of God. God flows through them and is them and they are him. They are not separate. Lord Ganesha was manifested for a purpose and he serves his purpose and so are we. Worship of Ganesha is worship of God. Because Ganesha is a manifestation. Lord Ganesha hears, thinks, and acts. He is his own being, yet his own being is the being of God. Our concepts of separateness from God is simply illusion. It is all in the mind. When we worship the Deities, be it Lord Ganesha and Lord Muruga, or Krishna and others we worship them with the view that we are them. There is no seperateness. Ofcourse we only say this intellectually, but we can experience this as reality. This is what Yoga is all about. We merge with that God essence. and in reality we dont merge, we simply wake up to the fact that we are apart of God.

This world is but a dream. Everything is a vibration of energy. It is impermanent. The only truth is God. We can wake up to that hear and now. Even if one simply just worships Lord Ganesha and doesnt even worship Siva he is still worshipping Siva. It is all the same. One truth, one reality. God flows through us all. Just referring to quantum physics is enough to show that the "OUTWARD christian" way is not correct. We are learning that everything we were taught as youngsters has been a complete lie. Quantum physics shows that we are all interconnected.

We can learn to be that interconnectedness by simply realizing that interconnectedness. It is all interbeing. Interbeing with all that is is being inter are with God.

OM Namah Sivaya

Spiritualseeker
03 August 2009, 08:45 PM
Well, they are doing their Allotted duty(Allotted By Jesus) with Zeal and vigor to save the Idol worshiping Hindus from Eternal damnation.Your retort will only strengthen their resolve.


Saving Hindus from Eternal Damnation? All that is is a thought bubble. Belief systems of religions are based round simply formulating sets of thoughts and commanding its followers to adopt these thoughts. That is all it is. Thoughts are insubstantial. So, a christian says to a hindu, "Become christian or burn in hell forever". So the hindu says "Okay!" the Hindu then formulates thoughts such as "Jesus saved humanity of sin through sacrifice" etc... then suddenly he is "Saved". All that changed was a thought pattern. This is a dry way of viewing religion. There is no experience.

An Atheist can provide rational (thought patterns) arguments that God doesnt exist. Some people will believe the atheist because they find his thoughts to have truth in them. Another person gives great arguments for God (again some more thought bubbles) and some people will find his thoughts to be true. All of it is thought bubbles. People have killed other people because of Thought bubbles. People have condemned people due to thought bubbles. People continue to debate today because of thought bubbles. There is no experience. The only ones who experiences God and Ultimate reality are the mystics of all traditions.

A hindu wont become enlightened by forming thoughts about God, he or she will only become enlightened by direct experience of the divine. Same with a christian. You can preach all your thought bubbles that you want, but that is all it is. You have no experience to offer us. You have no eternal peace to offer us. Until you experience that Eternal peace then I suggest not to convert people to your way of life. If you look at the majority of religions and peoples, all they are doing is preaching that their way of thinking is correct. But none of them (hindu included) have truely experienced anything.

The beauty of Hinduism is it doesnt emphasize much faith. Instead it emphasizes experience. This is the experience of God we wish to realize, not in some far distant heavenly future, but the Paradise that is here and now.

with love
-Juan

rcscwc
03 August 2009, 09:02 PM
Namaste sudarshaniji.

Jealous god is not symbolic.
It is real.

If a christian by any chance gets attracted to Hinduism it is deemed to be the work of Satan.

Yes, it very much real, I know. And jealousy is what Krishna condemns, even in humans. Why should a jealous god be called even a wee god? Biblegod is SATAN himself, though you try to make them separate.

rcscwc
03 August 2009, 09:05 PM
The "jealous" God is only a symbolic usage. The idea is this - pay attention only to the Sat and do not worship asat ( i.e any perishable entity). We have similar passages in the ISa upanishad that advise against worshipping avidya.


You are mistaken. Biblegod is JEALOUSY himself, pure hatred.

rcscwc
03 August 2009, 09:27 PM
How many Gods do Christians have? Only one, viewed as a truine God, which is perfect.


I dont find anything wrong in the worship of a single form of God with all devotion, This idea is taught by many religions and even by many Hindu texts and teachers.

Read the instructions given by Jesus near Galilee ( the Sermon on the Mount) and tell me how it is incompatible with Hinduism.


Is the biblegod, full of jealousy and hatred, a perfect entity?

Hinduism too teaches about One Par Brahma.

A few compatibilities do not make it a real god, just as a swallow does not not mean summer.

How is the sermon on the mount Hinduism? Care to tell?

atanu
04 August 2009, 12:45 AM
Namaste Atanu,
What it appears to me or You is irrelevant.
How it is understood By the christians all through out their History to the present times is what matters to the Missionaries.
Well, The christians seems to think Otherwise.

Now, How do you propose to Remove their 'ignorance'?



Namaste chandu,

That is what i am saying. Who am i or you to remove their ignorance? It will be sufficient if i can remove mine.



The first scripture i read Is Bhagavadgita
which says
2:47 karmaṇy evādhikāras te · mā phaleṣu kadācanamä karma-phala-hetur bhür
mä te saìgo ’stv akarmaëi.
What i understand from that immortal sloka is that you have to do your duty with dedication and sincerity and not expect to get fruits "for your self".

Do we know the self?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 August 2009, 12:52 AM
It is Jesus who is saying that.

There Are no god(s) outside of the bible.

Who is Jesus? I do not know him and i do not hear him. I know the word and i interpret.


Hinduism's concept of God is a trick of satan.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P7E.HTM

III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me"

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God

The irony here is Hindu Intellectuals want Christian missionaries to respect Hinduism while bible explicitly declares Hindus practices as false.



Where does the above passage declare Hindu practices as false? Are Hindu practices idolatry? Why one first assumes that Hindu practices are idolatry and then construes the above verse as condemning Hindu practices??

Om Namah Shivaya

rcscwc
04 August 2009, 01:05 AM
Sermon on the Mount
Did Jesus deliver it on a mountain as per Matth or on a plain as per Luke 6?
Is it Sermon on the Mount or Plain?
From the sermon, Matth
(5:17) "Think not that I am come to destroy the law."
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament, Ten Commandments all, with the jealous angry god rolled in. Are all the commandments in conformity with the Dharma?
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus declares that OT is binding on all, Hindus included. If they balk then...

atanu
04 August 2009, 01:14 AM
Sermon on the Mount
Did Jesus deliver it on a mountain as per Matth or on a plain as per Luke 6?
Is it Sermon on the Mount or Plain?
From the sermon, Matth
(5:17) "Think not that I am come to destroy the law."
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament, Ten Commandments all, with the jealous angry god rolled in. Are all the commandments in conformity with the Dharma?
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus declares that OT is binding on all, Hindus included. If they balk then...

Namaste Dear rc

God is indeed jealous destroyer. He destroys the triple city of asuras. Yet, He is karunavatara.

If you proceed from the premise of indivisible one Brahman (beyond which none exists), you will realise the error perpetuated by a-priori fundamental status given to Our and Their. The division of 'our and their' is not there in God. It is entirely an imagination based on thinking that some white objects are 'they' and some brown objects are 'we'.

But in one Purusha there are differences based on time, place, and guna mixture thereof. Yet the differences are in one purusha and of purusha only.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 August 2009, 01:32 AM
which Which darshana of Hindus condemn polytheism?.

Now, the general examples.
The shaivaites who worship Ganesha are polytheists.
The Vaishnavaites who worship Ganesha(As prescribed in Bhagavatham) are Polytheists.
Hindus who invoke Blessings of Goddess Saraswathi are Polytheists.

I think you are more intelligent than the antihindus who claim Idol worship is Banned in Vedas.

So, you assume that Ganesha is one and Rudra another?

Well. Rudram in Yajur Veda does not teach so. It says Prostrations to Rudra in the form of Female Gods. --- Prostrations to Rudra in the form of Lord of Categories.

Svet. Upanishad says: Eko Rudra. Dvittiya nasthu.
Gita says: Vasudeva is all.
Veda says: Aditi is all.
Veda says "The truth is one, sages call it by different names.

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

My intelligence is truly questionable since i know it is dimly shining by a borrowed light. But, what about you? If you impose your idea of many ultimate Gods as true Hindu belief and claim that Vedas teach Polytheism, what you are doing?

Are you defending Hinduism?

Om Namh Shivaya

chandu_69
04 August 2009, 03:43 AM
Who is Jesus? I do not know him and i do not hear him. I know the word and i interpret.

The word Is In the bible.Do you have any other sources?.


and i interpretSure, you can interpret to your heart's content.I have no problem with that.

Now, shall we get back to the mainstream christianity's understanding which Missionaries base their work on.


Where does the above passage declare Hindu practices as false? Are Hindu practices idolatry? Why one first assumes that Hindu practices are idolatry and then construes the above verse as condemning Hindu practices??
Om Namah ShivayaAny Image(idol) of god Not explained in Bible is an Idol.
For example:

Leviticus 19:4
Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.


So only the Biblical God is valid.Any other understanding of God is null and void.

chandu_69
04 August 2009, 03:47 AM
So, you assume that Ganesha is one and Rudra another?

No, i am merely pointing out how it is Polytheism from christian point of view.
Leviticus 19:4
Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.


The I obviously is not what is mentioned in Hinduism.
Christianity's view of God is restricted to the descriptions given in bible.Any thing outside of that description is not God.

Do we have an agreement on this point?.

chandu_69
04 August 2009, 03:59 AM
Namaste Spiritualseeker,


Namaste,

see what you are failing to see is that God is within all things and yet is transcended above all things.

Nice writeup.I agree with your views.I am merely discussing Christianity's views on God and not My personal views.


Saving Hindus from Eternal Damnation? All that is is a thought bubbleIt is not a thought Bubble for the missionaries who base their work on Bible and Christian clergy understanding of it.

Now, getting back to the discussion of missionaries; We are discussing Christianity's views of God and the basis for their mission.

I suggest we stay focused.Shall we.

chandu_69
04 August 2009, 04:29 AM
Now, here is the Bible's guide to Salvation(New testament).

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

//You have to beleive that GOD sent his Son(Jesus) for Our Salvation//

Mark 16:16 (http://bible.cc/mark/16-16.htm) "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

//Condemned because//

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Revelation 21:7-8 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

chandu_69
04 August 2009, 05:30 AM
Here is what Sri krishna says In gita:

//One need not beleive in Sri Krishna to reach him(Supreme god/Brahman)//

Gita 12 :3-2

But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable—the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth—by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.



Namo Vasudevaya Namah .

rcscwc
04 August 2009, 08:55 AM
Atanu
Whatever high flown and romantic ideas you may have, your goose is cooked if you are not a xian. You may go on having any notions about God, unless you believe in Jesus as your only and final saviour, you will end up in a lake of fire made specially for by the biblegod.

atanu
06 August 2009, 02:34 AM
The word Is In the bible.Do you have any other sources?


That is the point. Word is Vak devi -- the same, the one, the indivisible. Diverse interpretations are as per Guna.


Gita 18th Chapter
20 Sarvabhooteshu yenaikam bhaavamavyayameekshate;


Avibhaktam vibhakteshu tajjnaanam viddhi saattwikam.



20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).
--------------------------------------

I am not bothered about what and how others interpret the word. I am primarily concerned, whether I do it in sattwik mode or not? In secondary mode, as a Hindu, I record my understanding. I record knowing that God's grace only bestows samadhristi -- the ability to see the single essence pervading everything.


There are people who read the Ashwamedha Yagna from Satapatha Brahmana and deride Hindu scriptures by showing that Ashwamedha culminate in intercourse of a horse with the queen and 100 virgins. There is a reference to such iunterpretation in a post in this forum also.


Ignorance. A sectarian mind can only form sectarian understanding.
BG 18.20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).
Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
06 August 2009, 04:34 AM
Namaste

That is the point. Word is Vak devi -- the same, the one, the indivisible. Diverse interpretations are as per Guna.

That is All nice and good but Christianity doesn't look it that way.

Here is the statement of Pope Benedict:

In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai.

"Not just any god"... this is the position of Christianity.

Christianity doesn't recognize Hinduism as a way to god and hence the conversions.


I am not bothered about what and how others interpret the word

That is your choice.

Then you have no reason to complain that christian missionaries are converting hindus on a mass scale and instilling hatred against hindu gods.

chandu_69
06 August 2009, 04:38 AM
There are people who read the Ashwamedha Yagna from Satapatha Brahmana and deride Hindu scriptures by showing that Ashwamedha culminate in intercourse of a horse with the queen and 100 virgins. There is a reference to such iunterpretation in a post in this forum also.That is anti hindu propoganda accepted by gullible hindus.

Here is a refutation to it.
http://www.lulu.com/content/multimedia/a-rebuttal-to-abul-kasem%E2%80%99s-article--women-in-hinduism-part-1/6097850

Gudam(sugar) is translated as Gudham.
There is no sex involved.


It is besides the point.No sage advocated Aswamedha in kali yuga.
You would not find any mainstream hindu scholar advocating sex with Horses.

chandu_69
06 August 2009, 04:43 AM
20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

Sri Krishna says in the same Gita that one has to fight for Dharma.

Dharmo Rakshati Rakshita.

atanu
06 August 2009, 05:43 AM
Sri Krishna says in the same Gita that one has to fight for Dharma.

[/color]Dharmo Rakshati Rakshita.

Dharma is sattwa. There is no contradiction in what i have said.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
06 August 2009, 05:47 AM
That is anti hindu propoganda accepted by gullible hindus.
Here is a refutation to it.
It is besides the point.No sage advocated Aswamedha in kali yuga.
You would not find any mainstream hindu scholar advocating sex with Horses.


The point is that scripture can always be painted as per one's wish. That however does not change Vak -- the word.

Om Namah Shivaya

rcscwc
06 August 2009, 06:02 AM
There are people who read the Ashwamedha Yagna from Satapatha Brahmana and deride Hindu scriptures by showing that Ashwamedha culminate in intercourse of a horse with the queen and 100 virgins. There is a reference to such iunterpretation in a post in this forum also.



Forget what some people do. Plain, this yajna was conducted by some aspiring king who wanted to be chakravarty samrat, for expanding his suzerainty. Crux is what YOU have read about it and where. Don't qote some site, site the AV.

atanu
06 August 2009, 06:18 AM
Forget what some people do.

Forget what some people do? You telling me this now?

But that is what i have been reminding "Protect sattwa and forget immature rendering of scripture by immature minds". It is easy to read scripture literally and find faults. There is no end to this abuse game.


http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/CAP/2009/08/06/14/Img/Ar0140801.png

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
06 August 2009, 06:46 AM
Dharma is sattwa. There is no contradiction in what i have said.

Om Namah Shivaya

Excuse me; Are you saying kshatra dharma is not dharma?

chandu_69
06 August 2009, 06:48 AM
The point is that scripture can always be painted as per one's wish. That however does not change Vak -- the word.

Om Namah Shivaya

Interpretation is one thing.Deliberate mistranslation is another thing.

This is a not a question of interpretation.
Please go through the link i provided at post 84.

chandu_69
06 August 2009, 07:13 AM
But that is what i have been reminding "Protect sattwa and forget immature rendering of scripture by immature minds".


If i am reading this correctly you are suggesting
that the Pope(s), the vatican and the christian clergy have wrongly(Immature is your word) interpreted their scriptures and continue to interpret it wrongly/immaturely and somehow

Atanu has figured it out all correctly.

That is really interesting.I hope the christian clergy read your opinion and mend their ways.

Om Tat Sat.

atanu
06 August 2009, 07:37 AM
If i am reading this correctly you are suggesting
that the Pope(s), the vatican and the christian clergy have wrongly(Immature is your word) interpreted their scriptures and continue to interpret it wrongly/immaturely and somehow

Atanu has figured it out all correctly.

That is really interesting.I hope the christian clergy read your opinion and mend their ways.

Om Tat Sat.

All answers are given.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=30865&postcount=89

chandu_69
06 August 2009, 09:14 AM
All answers are given.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=30865&postcount=89

Wow, now the christians have to read quran.
i am afraid that would be a tall order cause quran explicitly declares in several verses Jesus is a mere prophet of Allah.As per Quran Jesus is not even a son of God(Allah).

Quran 37:152, 9:30 ,5:72, 4:171 – 173 etc

atanu
06 August 2009, 12:23 PM
Wow, now the christians have to read quran.
i am afraid that would be a tall order cause quran explicitly declares in several verses Jesus is a mere prophet of Allah.As per Quran Jesus is not even a son of God(Allah).

Quran 37:152, 9:30 ,5:72, 4:171 – 173 etc

The scriptures quoted are not opinions. They are pretty simple straight forward statements, which by God's grace appeared in today's newspaper.

http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/CAP/2009/08/06/14/Img/Ar0140801.png

Regards and Om Namah Shivaya

rcscwc
07 August 2009, 12:17 AM
Atanu has figured it out all correctly.

That is really interesting.I hope the christian clergy read your opinion and mend their ways.

Atanu figures out everything correctly, but world at large does not agree to his views. What a neglected prophet. Even a few centuries ago he would have been inquisited by the church.

Per kuran, jesus was man. He did not resurrect.

devotee
07 August 2009, 03:56 AM
Namaste RCSCWC,

With due respect to you, may I suggest here that it is important to avoid sarcasm & abusive language for a real, serious & fruitful discussion ?


OM

rcscwc
20 August 2009, 02:54 AM
Where is the ABUSE?

Where is "sarcasm"? Had you only talked of derision.