PDA

View Full Version : The Suffering of the gods



rahulg
01 February 2010, 07:47 AM
In Hinduism, although various gods incarnate, they don't suffer on behalf of humanity. Or, do they? I am not clear on this point. Did Ram, Krishna, Shiva and others suffer at all? If not, what was the purpose of incarnating?

If it's to teach morals, they're already there in the holy books. There are other saints to teach by example. So why incarnate if the end can be achieved even without incarnating?

I hope I am making myself clear. Suppose I can do a job over the phone, my physical presence at the office (for instance) won't be necessary. If I am at the office, on the other hand, then it's taken for granted that my physical presence is necessary.

So, if the gods incarnate on earth, their physical presence must have been needed, or they wouldn't incarnate at all. But in the Hindu concept of incarnation, this wouldn't apply. Then why incarnate at all when the same job can be done without incarnating?

saidevo
01 February 2010, 09:28 AM
namaste RAhul.

It's a good question that you have asked. Here is what I happen to know for an answer:

• bhagavat avatAras are generally of three kinds: pUrNAvatAram--where God incarnates with his full might and power, shakti-avatAram--where God uses his divine power to eliminate adharma, and aMSha-avatAram--where God incarnates with only some of his features.

• The avatar of shrI KRShNa was a pUrNAvatAram; of shrI RAmA was shakti-avatAram, but the shakti was used only towards the end; until then shrI RAmA lived the life of a dharma-conscious man and suffered a lot in much of his life, with the sole intention of teaching us about the various kinds of dharma we should stick to in life.

• Shiva never took an avatara, living human life from birth to death, with perhaps the exception of shrI Adi Shankara BhagavadpAda. Shiva's avatars are mostly sudden appearances where a man/woman appears suddenly on the scene, does some lIlA--sport, makes a point and then disappears. Shiva, however, is perceived to have his aMshAvatAras in many sages such as BhagavAn RamaNa Maharshi, KAnchi ParamAchArya and most other AchAryas of Shankara MaThams, BhagavAn Sathya Sai Baba and others.

• In the times of the Satya yuga and TretA yuga, the earth was filled with asuras and rAkShasas, so God took shakti-avatAra to annihilate them. The very fact that God took most of his avatars in human form is proof enough that this form is the highest of his creations, and is fully equipped with the karaNas--senses, and shakti--power, to lead a life of dharma and become spiritually advanced.

During the DvApara yuga when shrI KRShNa took avatar, the demons were born as humans--KaMsa, JarAsaMdha and the Kauravas are examples--although there were some demons such as the NarakAsura, BahAsura, and BANAsura. shrImad BhAgavatam mentions that at that time, since bhUmi was full of men and demons who were bent on destroying dharma, BhUmA devi went and supplicated to BrahmA who took her to MahAViShNu and who in turn came out with a saMkalpam--determination, to take a pUrNAvatara and have a full set of lIlas, both as man and God, and the result was the KRShNAvatAram.

• With the exception of shrI KRShNa, none of the other nine avatars of MahAViShNu, gave us a complete set of code of dharma and yoga, although their teachings were by examples in their lives.

• Why should an avatar take sufferings on himself? In the earlier yugas, the Vedic and other Rishis lived a life of utmost purity (many of them were householders) and the people led a life of dharma in all the four stages of their life, so the Rishis, who were God's aMshavAtara in varying degrees, did not have to suffer on behalf of the people.

In the Kali yuga, however, we have seen sages like shrI RAmakRShNa, RamaNA and Sathya Sai undertake sufferings of their devotees upon their physical bodies in order to burn out their related karma far more quickly. These are usually cases where the devotee is a highly devout person and his/her present physical body could not withstand the suffering. By remaining unaffected by the pain and suffering, these sages teach their devotees to emulate them in life's advantages and adversities.

• God has devolved his powers and authority in an elaborate hierarchy of devas, rishis and humans in the creation and administration of the universe, just as in the various systems of hierarchy in the administration of affairs of human life. Therefore, it is not that God is physically present exclusively in their avatars of all kinds. God being immanent as the substratum of every atom of this universe, he is present everywhere in physical and subtle forms (in the advaitic sense), so all his avatars are only by communication and devolution of his powers to make them manifest to varying degrees in pure human souls.

Air, in the form of atmosphere, is present everywhere, but still by we need its perceptible presence in the form of focussed flow by the devices of an electic fan and an air conditioner for our own comfort.

bhaktajan
01 February 2010, 11:04 AM
Hiranyakashipu, Hiranaksha, Ravana and other such meglomaniacs did not care for any Deva. Such personalities sought to dominate the Devas to such a degree that such events necessitated an emergency call to Vishnu.

The OP may be directed to the lifetimes of various Devatas that preformed acts that proved to be embarrassing to themselves.

There are many many records of such embarrassments in the Vedas.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, aka 'God' almighty [vs, Devatas within the material Cosmos] never suffers.

It can be said that 'God' causes sufferring in the form of 'feelings of seperation' ---but that is an elevated spiritual situation relegated to long yearning devotees.

The sufferring of the Gods can be ascribed to the Gods' witnessing the use of free-will by conditioned embodied souls in the lower planetary systems who are pursueing enjoyment on the terrestial plane.

satay
01 February 2010, 01:34 PM
namaskar,


In Hinduism, although various gods incarnate, they don't suffer on behalf of humanity.

'Suffering' of Gods is an alien concept.

God has no reason to suffer nor should he send his son to suffer for humanity. :rolleyes:

yajvan
01 February 2010, 07:14 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


namaskar,
'Suffering' of Gods is an alien concept.

If one is talking of pain, hardships, and that of suffering we need to sort out what is what. Pain and hardships are of the body - suffering is that of one's mental state.

The Dali Lama makes it simple for me to comprehend; Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional ; this is for human beings.

I have read of śṛi rāmaḥ's tribulations - yet to consider 'suffering' of the Divine is not a possible option for me. Why so? Pain/suffering belong to the field of the 3 guna-s. The Divine is above and beyond this.

praṇām

rahulg
02 February 2010, 12:02 AM
I am sorry I didn't make myself clear the first time around, so let me rephrase...

If God's incarnation is to save people, then how can He do that without taking the suffering of humanity on Himself? If He doesn't, people will have to suffer, and if they do, his incarnation would be pointless.

So it seems as if the only purpose of incarnation is to eliminate human suffering, which isn't possible if God doesn't take on suffering upon Himself. Then why does He incarnate at all, if the purpose is only to impart knowledge, teach morals etc., things which can done even without his incarnation?

Physical presence requires a physical reason, if I may put it that way. But in Hinduism, the second half is missing and hence the concept of avatarhood makes little sense.

This is the suffering I am talking about, not the suffering of Ram losing Sita and all that. I mean suffering in the spirit of sacrifice, a noble suffering. This is entirely missing in avatars...either they're happy in their incarnations, or their sadness is only personal (as in Ram's case).

saidevo
02 February 2010, 11:43 AM
namaste.



If God's incarnation is to save people, then how can He do that without taking the suffering of humanity on Himself? If He doesn't, people will have to suffer, and if they do, his incarnation would be pointless.

So it seems as if the only purpose of incarnation is to eliminate human suffering, which isn't possible if God doesn't take on suffering upon Himself. Then why does He incarnate at all, if the purpose is only to impart knowledge, teach morals etc., things which can done even without his incarnation?


Alright, let us say that the divine personality you have in mind took all the suffering and sin of his mankind upon himself at his death. Are the people of his mankind free of sins and suffering after his death? Far from it. So, as per your logic his incarnation has been pointless.

Inasmuch as Yajvan has clearly explained (post $5) that any divine incarnation is beyond the three guNas, so there would be no suffering for them, I think the alien concept of God incarnating as man to take the suffering of mankind upon himself and save them to an eternal life in the heaven looks terribly silly to me.

In the Hindu Dharma, God does NOT take avatar to mitigate the pain and suffering of the people, and 'save' them to an eternal life in the heavens. His avatar is only to destory adharma when it upsets the balance of life in the universe, and let the people lead a life of dharma. God as such or in his avatar never interferes with the general karmic process, and lets the law of karma take its own course, which is why He is considered as a just God too, besides being a God of love.



Physical presence requires a physical reason, if I may put it that way. But in Hinduism, the second half is missing and hence the concept of avatarhood makes little sense.

This is the suffering I am talking about, not the suffering of Ram losing Sita and all that. I mean suffering in the spirit of sacrifice, a noble suffering. This is entirely missing in avatars...either they're happy in their incarnations, or their sadness is only personal (as in Ram's case).


When God took avatar physically in the earlier yugas, the physical reason was to destroy the people who by their adharmic activities and domination caused immense harship to the people who led a life of dharma. When the avatar destroyed such adharmic people, it resulted in the elimination of their external sufferings. Their personal/internal sufferings still persisted due to their karma. And the incarnate God did not make a bogus statement when the time of his avatar came to an end that he took upon himself all the sufferings and sin of all the people.

God is inherently happy. Happiness in the form of bliss combined with knowledge and existence is his inner nature. When such God takes avatar, any amount of personal tribulations he undergoes in life are only his lIlA--play, that he had scripted for his role. Thus the avatar's apparent personal sufferings are only the sufferings of a character in a play.

The alien religious concept that God sent his only Son in human form to the world, who preached his message, failed in his mission, got killed by his own people and died saying that upon his death he took upon himself all the sins and suffering of his mankind, so they all would go straight to heaven, and those who do not believe in this tamAsha--joke, would go to hell is the height of ignorance and arrogance, and no discerning Hindu would subscribe to it.

bhaktajan
02 February 2010, 11:56 AM
I am sorry I didn't make myself clear the first time around, so let me rephrase...

If God's incarnation is to save people, then how can He do that without taking the suffering of humanity on Himself? If He doesn't, people will have to suffer, and if they do, his incarnation would be pointless.

So it seems as if the only purpose of incarnation is to eliminate human suffering, which isn't possible if God doesn't take on suffering upon Himself. Then why does He incarnate at all, if the purpose is only to impart knowledge, teach morals etc., things which can done even without his incarnation?

Physical presence requires a physical reason, if I may put it that way. But in Hinduism, the second half is missing and hence the concept of avatarhood makes little sense.

This is the suffering I am talking about, not the suffering of Ram losing Sita and all that. I mean suffering in the spirit of sacrifice, a noble suffering. This is entirely missing in avatars...either they're happy in their incarnations, or their sadness is only personal (as in Ram's case).


Below the word "God" is replaced with the word, 'Sun Planet and its Light and heat'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


If Sun Planet emits its Light and heat is to save people, then how can Sun Planetdo that without taking the suffering of humanity on itself? If Sun Planet doesn't, people will have to suffer, and if they do, its Light and heat would be pointless.

So it seems as if the only purpose of the Sun's Light and heat is to eliminate human suffering, which isn't possible if Sun Planet and its Light and heat doesn't take on suffering upon itself. Then why does the Sun's Light incarnate at all, if the purpose is only to impart knowledge, teach morals etc., things which can done even without the Sun's Light?

Physical presence requires a physical reason, if I may put it that way. But in Hinduism, the second half is missing and hence the concept of avatarhood of the Sun's Light makes little sense.

. . . mean suffering in the spirit of sacrifice, a noble suffering. This is entirely missing in avatars...either they're happy in their incarnations, or their sadness is only personal (as in Ram's case).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Is it obvious that my attempt at an analogy is to point out that grand entities perform their own dharma for the benefit of all, without prejudice?

The Sun's light shines tirelessly regardless of the pastimes of rogues and saints —at least so far.

God incarnates to please his devotees. God's pastimes are above and beyond the pastimes of humanity.

God incarnates to perform His own pastimes. God is his own person —God is not a baby-sitter. Such pastimes are so sublime that its performance accomplishes multiple goals —the significance of which benefits all souls who are blessed enough to encounter it during a lifetime, and then, later those souls can exercise their free-will to rise above their native bonds to seek out comradeship with God's entourage.

We are spirits souls in material bodies of 8,400,000 species —all doing the same thing: Eat, sleep, mate, defend. If we are seeking only these four goals, then all comforts are there —it's just that, one being is food for another. Stop volunteering to be food for another's satiation and satisfaction.

rahulg
02 February 2010, 08:54 PM
In the Hindu Dharma, God does NOT take avatar to mitigate the pain and suffering of the people, and 'save' them to an eternal life in the heavens. His avatar is only to destory adharma when it upsets the balance of life in the universe, and let the people lead a life of dharma.

Again, this could be accomplished without having to incarnate...so the question remains: why incarnate, live in the human flesh for so many years, go through troubles like other humans, only to do a job (protecting dharma) that could've been done without incarnating?



God as such or in his avatar never interferes with the general karmic process, and lets the law of karma take its own course, which is why He is considered as a just God too, besides being a God of love.

So, if a person is going to die of leprosy -- suffering pain and humiliation, shunned by this world -- owing to his karma, then God won't do anything and let karma work through this. God of love, indeed! Besides, it raises another question as to whether we need a god at all when it's karma which is going to dictate and direct our lives (to such a degree that even god won't interfere in the process).



When God took avatar physically in the earlier yugas, the physical reason was to destroy the people who by their adharmic activities and domination caused immense harship to the people who led a life of dharma.

Again, this could've been done without physical manifestation...unless, of course, you believe that god is powerless.



God is inherently happy. Happiness in the form of bliss combined with knowledge and existence is his inner nature. When such God takes avatar, any amount of personal tribulations he undergoes in life are only his lIlA--play, that he had scripted for his role. Thus the avatar's apparent personal sufferings are only the sufferings of a character in a play.

Does that mean god is only pretending that he's suffering and isn't actually suffering? Why would he do that? What purpose would it serve?

saidevo
03 February 2010, 01:18 AM
namaste.

You have made it clear in this and other threads that you don't consider the Hindu gods as the equivalent of Jesus of the Nazareth who claimed himself to be Christ and whose very histority is in question. Before I can discuss your points in the last post, first tell us why did Jesus (assuming that he existed) have to incarnate in human flesh, how many people he freed from sin and disease, why did his own people kill such a man of miracles, why he did he die in such ignominy, the bogus claim he made while dying that he had taken upon himself all the sins and sufferings of his mankind, and the efforts to perpetuate this silly claim.

rahulg
03 February 2010, 01:40 AM
namaste.

You have made it clear in this and other threads that you don't consider the Hindu gods as the equivalent of Jesus of the Nazareth who claimed himself to be Christ and whose very histority is in question. Before I can discuss your points in the last post, first tell us why did Jesus (assuming that he existed) have to incarnate in human flesh, how many people he freed from sin and disease, why did his own people kill such a man of miracles, why he did he die in such ignominy, the bogus claim he made while dying that he had taken upon himself all the sins and sufferings of his mankind, and the efforts to perpetuate this silly claim.

You must ask these questions of Christians; I happen to be a Hindu, so I am unable to help in this regard. I had posted the questions on the Hindu idea of incarnation, only because, as a Hindu, I wanted to know more.

Ganeshprasad
03 February 2010, 05:15 AM
Pranam rahulg


You must ask these questions of Christians; I happen to be a Hindu, so I am unable to help in this regard. I had posted the questions on the Hindu idea of incarnation, only because, as a Hindu, I wanted to know more.

Strange Hindu that you are, knock all that is dear to Hindus but only praise for Christians. strange very strange.
Just be honest if you like Christ go for it.

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
03 February 2010, 07:37 AM
Pranam rahulg



Strange Hindu that you are, knock all that is dear to Hindus but only praise for Christians. strange very strange.
Just be honest if you like Christ go for it.

Jai Shree Krishna


Vanakkam all:

Ganeshprasad, I totally agree. Usually we see doubting Christians here. They are the westerners mostly that have seen all the hypocrisy in their faith and have begun to expand their horizons. They come here to learn, and may occasionally express doubts about the previous faith, or at least state why they feel Hinduism is more suited to them.

But rahulg here has this situation in reverse. Just as we welcome newcomers with open arms and love, gently explaining concepts, we should also gently lead him out out door to his new faith.

Ralulg: might I suggest that since you are so keen on Christianity, that you introduce your self as a 'Hindu' curious about Christianity in a Christian forum. I'm sure you will be welcomed there, just as we welcome open-minded people of all faiths here.

From my point of view, you are what you are. I had Hindu concepts clearly in my mind from the process of self-discovery several years before I encountered Hinduism in any formal way. I had no idea about the differences between Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism. But I had a clear idea of what made sense to me. Then when I did encounter Hinduism, it was like "wow!".. "This is it. This is what I believe."

As several others have insinuated, I too believe you are a Christian soul from your words and ideas expressed here in HDF. There is nothing at all wrong with that. You are who you are, and Ganeshprasad's words of "Go for it" are wise indeed.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo
03 February 2010, 09:01 AM
namaste Rahul.


You must ask these questions of Christians; I happen to be a Hindu, so I am unable to help in this regard. I had posted the questions on the Hindu idea of incarnation, only because, as a Hindu, I wanted to know more.

Since you vehemently deny your Christian propensity and want to know more about why God takes avatar physically in human form, if you are serious about learning those advanced concepts of Hinduism, please read this new thread I have created, which might answer your question:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5230

The explanations in this thread are based on the teachings of KAnchi ParamAchArya. If you are still skeptical after reading it, you might rest assured that the philosophical rationale might eventually dawn on you, since you are a Hindu.

satay
03 February 2010, 01:14 PM
Namaskar,

Aurobindo explains very well the concept of Avatara in Essays on The Gita (chapter 2). He explains that Avatara means the ‘descent into form’, the revelation of the Godhead in humanity. This descending of God into form seems to be the logical outcome of the vedantic view of life. According to vedantic world view, all existence is a manifestation of God. God is the only existence. Therefore, every conscious being is in part or in some way a ‘descent’ of the Infinite/God into the apparent finiteness of name and form.

Aurobindo explains further and says that it is a veiled manifestation and there is a gradation between the supreme being of the Divine and the consciousness. The embodied soul is the spark of the divine Fire.

Why there is a gradation to begin with seems to be a mystery or I haven’t yet come across anything that explains properly the reason for this gradation.

The vedantic view is that God resides within man and not some white bearded man sitting somewhere in clouds judging people and calling them sinful or someone promising some silly things like 72 virgins.

The relationship between God in man to man in God is explained by the double figure of Nara-Narayana. Nara is the human soul, eternal companion of the Divine, finds itself only when it awakens to that companionship and begins as the Gita says to live in God. Narayana is the divine soul always present in humanity. He is the mysterious, secret guide, friend and help of the human being, the “lord who abides within the heart of all creatures”.

When within us the veil of that secret sanctuary is withdrawn and man speaks face to face with God, hears the divine voice, receives the divine light, acts in the divine power then becomes possible the supreme uplifting of the embodied human conscious-being into the unborn and eternal.

The inner divinity is the eternal Avatar in man. The human manifestation is its sign and development in the external world.

The purpose of Avatar is to uplift the embodied human conscious being into the eternal.

Now, as far as God ‘suffering’ for humanity, it is a silly idea. First of all, if ‘God’ is ‘suffering’ he cannot be God as God is beyond all gunas (as explained by Yajvan).

If God claims that he has come down to take the ‘suffering’ of humanity then the questions to ask are:
a) Why is there suffering to begin with, When did it start and how?
b) Why did God allow suffering to begin with?
c) What prompted him to come to take over the suffering now i.e. what is so special about the time period that he came down to take the suffering?
d) Why was he waiting around to take away the suffering?
e) If God can ‘suffer’ then is he really God or some conman pretending to be God?
f) Since there is still ‘suffering’ e.g. leprosy all around, whoever claimed to have taken away the suffering was a liar and a conman.
g) Why would God need to come down to earth or send someone from his family (e.g. son or daughter) to take away the suffering? Is God so incompetent that he can’t do this task remotely?

Mohini Shakti Devi
03 February 2010, 01:14 PM
why he did he (Jesus Christ) die in such ignominy, the ... claim ... that he had taken upon himself all the sins and sufferings of his mankind

The basis of the Judeo-Christian Jesus pastime springs for the process of Sacrifice (Sacrifice as in the Western Traditions).

First, I do not understand the idea in the least. Why "Sacrifice"? What "Sacrifice"? Where does this "Sacrifice" come from? Is there correct & incorrect "Sacrifice"? ----These are Christian background questions as to the explaination of Christ's pastime.

But, for me, I do not understand the idea in the least.

Yet I do see that:
Western Civiliazation was bereft of the knowledge of the soul.

Knowledge of the soul is explained in the gita and is the elementary starting point of any yoga path.

Christ's pastime demonstrated that "We are not this body, we are spirit souls". Ergo, the Monarch/King is not a divine entity above common citizens. Ergo, all peoples are equal under God.

So, this knowledge, "We are not this body, we are spirit souls" is easily accessible by all common folks simply by hearing it accepting it and making it part and parcel of civil rights & laws. This is a great blessing for people that did not know the truth known as 'aham brahmasmi' (I am spirit soul).

In regards to 'taking away sin' (bad-karma), it does indeed seem to be correct only so far as a quick fix without any other overt affects.
If the populace needed to be elevated to a point of universally acceptance of the universal truth, "We are not this body, we are spirit souls" ---because such knowledge was lost (this is 'very bad karma') ---then when such knowledge is "re-established" by an Avatara, bad-karma (sin) has been removed. In that sense, Christ's pastimes are affirmed by the lessons of the Gita, where Christ alone died instead of all the miscreants that where "soul-less" (soul-less in the western sense).

satay
03 February 2010, 01:29 PM
namaskar,

I am afraid, I am in the same boat as you. I don't get this idea of 'suffering'. Suffering for what? Why would God come down to take the suffering? What suffering? Is God so incompetent that he can't take away the suffering remotely? Why the need to send a representative? Why allow suffering to being with?

Why create one son, fool him into disobedience, then label him and his progeny sinful and punish them for eternity. Then send second son to 'save' the first son and his progeny. Be totally irresponsible and make the second son take over the suffering instead of owning up and taking responsibility for his own foolishness.

Christian concept of God makes God look like a fool or a person with serious mental problem.


Chirstian concept of suffering is foolish but perhaps serves its purpose because it is best fit for the low intellectual capacity people. A person with a low intellectual capacity would certainly believe someone if they claimed that they were here to take away their sins and take away their suffering. This is because the vedantic concept of Nara-Narayana relationship is beyond the intellectual capacity of such people.



The basis of the Judeo-Christian Jesus pastime springs for the process of Sacrifice (Sacrifice as in the Western Traditions).

First, I do not understand the idea in the least. Why "Sacrifice"? What "Sacrifice"? Where does this "Sacrifice" come from? Is there correct & incorrect "Sacrifice"? ----These are Christian background questions as to the explaination of Christ's pastime.

But, for me, I do not understand the idea in the least.

sanjaya
03 February 2010, 02:12 PM
In Hinduism, although various gods incarnate, they don't suffer on behalf of humanity. Or, do they? I am not clear on this point. Did Ram, Krishna, Shiva and others suffer at all? If not, what was the purpose of incarnating?

If it's to teach morals, they're already there in the holy books. There are other saints to teach by example. So why incarnate if the end can be achieved even without incarnating?

I hope I am making myself clear. Suppose I can do a job over the phone, my physical presence at the office (for instance) won't be necessary. If I am at the office, on the other hand, then it's taken for granted that my physical presence is necessary.

So, if the gods incarnate on earth, their physical presence must have been needed, or they wouldn't incarnate at all. But in the Hindu concept of incarnation, this wouldn't apply. Then why incarnate at all when the same job can be done without incarnating?

Rahul, I think God incarnates as a person in order to teach us things that we can't learn on our own. Sri Krishna says that he does this on a regular basis to reverse mankind's moral corruption and increase righteousness. This is a task for which no mere mortal is prepared. It makes perfect sense that God himself will come to do it for us.

As for this idea of suffering "on behalf of humanity," I don't even know what that means. I'm sure that many avatars of God have suffered. Lord Rama suffered greatly to save his wife and to overthrow an evil demon. He suffered for the benefit of humanity. But what does it mean to suffer on someone else's behalf? This implies that humanity somehow needs to suffer, and I don't think that this is a good assumption. If you can define suffering on behalf of humanity, perhaps someone can answer your question more effectively.

nirotu
04 February 2010, 03:47 PM
The ancient Greeks believed that God, a "perfect being," must be impassible, incapable of experiencing suffering and pain. The ancient Hebrews however knew a far different God, a personal God whose image and likeness is reflected in our humanity.

Have you ever noticed that when a child suffers – be it due to toothache, fever or even getting a shot in the arm or a minor accident etc, - does the parent also suffer. It may not be physical suffering for the parent but to see his child go through suffering of any kind makes father go through emotional and psychological suffering and partake of that suffering with the child. How much more our heavenly Father suffers when His creation goes through trials and sufferings is unimaginable. It all stems from the unconditional love that He has towards His creation. If God is God of Love as we would like to believe, then suffering is also inevitable for God to show how much He loves us. Although His incarnation does not always remove our sufferings or pains, He fills them with meaning by absorbing them into His own suffering.

Human suffering remains meaningless and barren unless we have some assurance that God is sympathetic to our pain, and can somehow heal that pain. The incarnation of God is another expression of deep love God has towards us so that he can partake in our pain and suffering. I believe that God did not incarnate just to teach us morals or provide materials for Sunday sermons but to suffer along with those who are least amongst us. The Sermon on the Mount shows why God singles out the poor (not just financially poor but poor in every respect) and oppressed for special attention over any other groups. How calming it would be to a suffering soul to hear Him say, “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” His incarnation is to assure us of just that. For Christians the Cross means the physical suffering with the incarnate God leading to earthly defeat but spiritual victory.

“Elie Wiesel (Concentration camp survivor) lost his faith in God at the concentration Camp. For him God literally hung to death on the gallows, never to be resurrected. But in fact the image that Wiesel evokes so powerfully contains within it the answer to his question. Where was God? The voice within Elie Wiesel spoke truth: in a way, God did hang beside the young pipel (young man who was killed next to him). God did not exempt even himself from human suffering. He too hung on a gallows, and that alone is what kept him believing in a God of Love.” (From Philip Yancey – Where is God when it hurts)


As for this idea of suffering "on behalf of humanity," I don't even know what that means. I'm sure that many avatars of God have suffered. Lord Rama suffered greatly to save his wife and to overthrow an evil demon. He suffered for the benefit of humanity. But what does it mean to suffer on someone else's behalf? This implies that humanity somehow needs to suffer, and I don't think that this is a good assumption. If you can define suffering on behalf of humanity, perhaps someone can answer your question more effectively.
It is amazing why you all consider suffering of God an alien concept. It is said that Lord Shiva drank poison and suffered for the redemption of mankind. Lord Buddha according to Mahayana faith, refused to attain nirvana for the sake of man. In the Vedas the act of creation is treated as sacrifice in which the Purusha is the victim, the sufferer. The purusha is all this world, what has been and shall be.

Then there is Tapas, suffering voluntarily undertaken by those who are still on the path to perfection, for the sake of self-development or world-welfare. This is very difficult undertaking and some of the greatest souls of the world have quailed before it. Yet the story of Hinduism has many instances of Rsis and Buddhas who have sanctified “Tapas” and suffered more than they deserved for the sake of the world. This avoidable suffering is not the result of past sins. Witness the scene at Gethsemane. I think many Christians believe that suffering for the world out of love is the price which every son of man has to pay, if he is to be redeemed from evil and manifest himself as a son of God.

To believe God did not incarnate to suffer shows “intentional ignorance” on our part. There are many attributes of God that human mind has not even known, yet we when we begin to box God with our limited understanding, we trivialize God.

In my most humble opinion, for me, be it in Hinduism or in Christianity, it is difficult not to reconcile our suffering with the suffering of the incarnate loving God. To say that God does not have to suffer is to deny God His love.

Perhaps, I should leave it at that. Again, this is only an opinion of mine.

Blessings,
Greatly benefitted from reading:
Purusha Sukta
Yujur Veda
Indian religions, S.Radhakrishna
Religion of the Veda. Bloomfield.
Philip Yancey: Where is God when it hurts?

sanjaya
04 February 2010, 04:46 PM
Hello Nirotu. Allow me to address your points.


The ancient Greeks believed that God, a "perfect being," must be impassible, incapable of experiencing suffering and pain. The ancient Hebrews however knew a far different God, a personal God whose image and likeness is reflected in our humanity.

I think you implicitly recognize this, but it's worth mentioning that the Hindu conception of God is also of one who is personal and capable of experiencing emotions. But I don't think it makes sense to talk about a Hindu God, a Greek God, and a Hebrew God. There is only one God, though certain people may have a better understanding of him than others.


Have you ever noticed that when a child suffers – be it due to toothache, fever or even getting a shot in the arm or a minor accident etc, - does the parent also suffer. It may not be physical suffering for the parent but to see his child go through suffering of any kind makes father go through emotional and psychological suffering and partake of that suffering with the child. How much more our heavenly Father suffers when His creation goes through trials and sufferings is unimaginable. It all stems from the unconditional love that He has towards His creation. If God is God of Love as we would like to believe, then suffering is also inevitable for God to show how much He loves us. Although His incarnation does not always remove our sufferings or pains, He fills them with meaning by absorbing them into His own suffering.

Perhaps this is true, but I think we're confusing two different types of suffering here. It's one thing for a parent to suffer because a child is suffering. It's an entirely different thing for a parent to suffer on behalf of the child, which is what is addressed in the original post by Rahul. And since you say that God's suffering doesn't remove our suffering, God isn't suffering on our behalf.

Now, I'm aware that many Christians believe in a penal substitutionary atonement doctrine, whereby Jesus bears the wrath of God that was meant for man, thus absolving us of guilt and saving us from hell (there are also alternative atonement theories which say similar things). This would certainly constitute God suffering on our behalf. Do you believe this?


Human suffering remains meaningless and barren unless we have some assurance that God is sympathetic to our pain, and can somehow heal that pain. The incarnation of God is another expression of deep love God has towards us so that he can partake in our pain and suffering. I believe that God did not incarnate just to teach us morals or provide materials for Sunday sermons but to suffer along with those who are least amongst us. The Sermon on the Mount shows why God singles out the poor (not just financially poor but poor in every respect) and oppressed for special attention over any other groups. How calming it would be to a suffering soul to hear Him say, “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” His incarnation is to assure us of just that. For Christians the Cross means the physical suffering with the incarnate God leading to earthly defeat but spiritual victory.

This makes sense if you're referring to Jesus' life, in which he endured the same trials as ordinary mortals. If so, this is the same thing as the Hindu theology of incarnation, in which God regularly becomes a man, suffers as we do, often enduring severe austerities, and can thus "understand" the sufferings of people (not that anything is beyond God's understanding to begin with). However, you're referring specifically to the cross. As horrendous as crucifixion is, there are forms of execution that are worse. I don't see how the cross in specific allows God to suffer with us. Unless you subscribe to an atonement theory, in which case it makes perfect sense.


“Elie Wiesel (Concentration camp survivor) lost his faith in God at the concentration Camp. For him God literally hung to death on the gallows, never to be resurrected. But in fact the image that Wiesel evokes so powerfully contains within it the answer to his question. Where was God? The voice within Elie Wiesel spoke truth: in a way, God did hang beside the young pipel (young man who was killed next to him). God did not exempt even himself from human suffering. He too hung on a gallows, and that alone is what kept him believing in a God of Love.” (From Philip Yancey – Where is God when it hurts)

This is actually one reason I've brought up the atonement theories. If you subscribe to an atonement theory whereby God's wrath is spent on Jesus, you must believe that Elie Wiesel is going to hell. If you believe that God has wrath that needs to be spent, and if you consider that Elie Wiesel, as a Jew, doesn't believe in Jesus, then you must make the inescapable conclusion that God's suffering on behalf of humanity isn't applied to individuals such as Wiesel, who have a cultural barrier to Christian conversion due to centuries of oppression by Christians.

Anyway, I don't know how you personally view the cross, or what your soteriology is like. I'll ask for clarification before I continue on this point.


It is amazing why you all consider suffering of God an alien concept. It is said that Lord Shiva drank poison and suffered for the redemption of mankind. Lord Buddha according to Mahayana faith, refused to attain nirvana for the sake of man. In the Vedas the act of creation is treated as sacrifice in which the Purusha is the victim, the sufferer. The purusha is all this world, what has been and shall be.

I'm not familiar with the creation account you speak of (Hinduism has many). But in the versions of the story that I've heard/read about Lord Shiva drinking the poison, there was no element of vicarious suffering. If I remember correctly, his throat was constricted, thus blocking the poison, which incidentally is why he is often portrayed with a blue neck. I'm also not familiar with Lord Buddha, but by your own description, it seems he forsook nirvana to perform some other task. Again, it seems different from the Christian gospel, where Jesus' suffering itself effects some spiritual benefit to man.


Then there is Tapas, suffering voluntarily undertaken by those who are still on the path to perfection, for the sake of self-development or world-welfare. This is very difficult undertaking and some of the greatest souls of the world have quailed before it. Yet the story of Hinduism has many instances of Rsis and Buddhas who have sanctified “Tapas” and suffered more than they deserved for the sake of the world. This avoidable suffering is not the result of past sins. Witness the scene at Gethsemane. I think many Christians believe that suffering for the world out of love is the price which every son of man has to pay, if he is to be redeemed from evil and manifest himself as a son of God.

To believe God did not incarnate to suffer shows “intentional ignorance” on our part. There are many attributes of God that human mind has not even known, yet we when we begin to box God with our limited understanding, we trivialize God.

In my most humble opinion, for me, be it in Hinduism or in Christianity, it is difficult not to reconcile our suffering with the suffering of the incarnate loving God. To say that God does not have to suffer is to deny God His love.

Again, I still don't know what suffering "on behalf of man" means. In the examples you give, the suffering somehow sanctifies the person who endures it, so that he can better fulfill his dharma. That's very different from the idea of suffering directly accruing some merit for others.

rahulg
04 February 2010, 11:12 PM
Thanks for all your responses.

There's another thing about suffering that occurred to me. It's not about suffering itself but the NATURE of that suffering.

For instance, Rama's suffering (whether actual or part of his 'lila') revolved around losing his wife. It was personal, and it had nothing to do with humanity as such. Christ's suffering, on the other hand, was the exact opposite.

It's like this...John suffers because he's just lost his son. That's personal. James suffers hundred times more, merely witnessing John's anguish. James' suffering is different, because he suffers even when he doesn't have to. His suffering is more like compassion...

Have there ever been instances of this type of suffering in Hindu incarnations? I suppose not. Most of the avatars didn't suffer, nor did they give the vaguest hint that they were interested in humanity's welfare. Rama's actions revolved around his wife's rescue, nothing more. Krishna's incarnation was all about grabbing the kingdom from kauravs and giving it to the pandavas; his mission was political rather than spiritual. And so it was with other gods. There was no suffering, and if at all there was any, it was only personal.

Also, I wish people would stop turning this into a Hindu vs Christian debate. Nor do I like personal attacks. It's very painful.

sanjaya
04 February 2010, 11:38 PM
There's another thing about suffering that occurred to me. It's not about suffering itself but the NATURE of that suffering.

For instance, Rama's suffering (whether actual or part of his 'lila') revolved around losing his wife. It was personal, and it had nothing to do with humanity as such. Christ's suffering, on the other hand, was the exact opposite.

Well, since you brought up Christ...

Could you explain to me how Christ's suffering related to humanity? Don't misunderstand me, I don't mean to speak negatively of a holy man like Jesus. But I fail to see how being crucified by a group of Jews and Romans for upsetting the status quo with your teachings on love and forgiveness relates to humanity. A lot of Hindu spiritual teachers taught similar messages. If you look up Sai Baba of Shirdi (not to be confused with Satya Sai Baba), you'll see that his message was very similar to Jesus'. Again, I don't mean to say that one incarnation of God is better than another, since that wouldn't even make sense. But there are plenty of Hindu saints and avatars who have come specifically for the benefit of humanity. Most of them simply happened to not be executed for it, since they didn't live among the fanatical religous zealots that Jesus had to deal with.


It's like this...John suffers because he's just lost his son. That's personal. James suffers hundred times more, merely witnessing John's anguish. James' suffering is different, because he suffers even when he doesn't have to. His suffering is more like compassion...

That analogy is well and good, but I feel you may be overgeneralizing it. It's true that Jesus often felt compassion for suffering people that he saw in Judea. But he didn't witness the suffering of the entire world.


Have there ever been instances of this type of suffering in Hindu incarnations? I suppose not. Most of the avatars didn't suffer, nor did they give the vaguest hint that they were interested in humanity's welfare. Rama's actions revolved around his wife's rescue, nothing more. Krishna's incarnation was all about grabbing the kingdom from kauravs and giving it to the pandavas; his mission was political rather than spiritual. And so it was with other gods. There was no suffering, and if at all there was any, it was only personal.


My friend, have you read the Bhagavad Gita? I have only begun studying it recently, and it is a truly remarkable work. If you are looking to see where Sri Krishna displays his interest in humanity's welfare, you will find it here. Sri Krishna did not come into this world simply to effect political change. There is a verse from the Gita which my father taught me when I was a fair bit younger, but which I have finally encountered in my own study. It says,
Whenever there is a decline of righteousness and a predominance of unrighteousness, O Arjuna, then I manifest Myself. (BG 4.07)
This is why God becomes incarnate as a man. It's always to increase righteousness and to put an end to unrighteousness. You say that Sri Krishna's mission was political in nature, but I contend that the content of the Gita disagrees with this conclusion. It is timeless divine wisdom for all humans, as are the rest of God's teachings in Hindu Scripture.

Furthermore I would refer to the Sri Satyanarayana Katha, which Hindus read during our monthly pujas. In it, the story is told of how Lord Vishnu created the puja specifically to rid mankind of their sins and bring them salvation. In what way does God not demonstrate his love and concern for humans?


Also, I wish people would stop turning this into a Hindu vs Christian debate. Nor do I like personal attacks. It's very painful.

Agreed on the personal attacks. That sort of behavior ought to have no place among people such as ourselves who claim to be spiritually minded. As for the Hindu vs. Christian debates, you have contrasted Hinduism with Christianity. We're only answering your questions, and this will invariably involve addressing Christianity.

sanjaya
05 February 2010, 12:09 AM
Rahul, I sense that you find Hinduism to be lacking something which you believe Christianity can provide. I think this is fairly common among Indian Hindus in the West. After all, Christians have churches, regular worship on Sundays, Bible study groups, college campus ministries, and various other forms of heirarchy and organization that we lack. Indeed, Hinduism in the West is extremely disorganized. Are you living in the West? If so, then I don't entirely blame you for your feelings about Hinduism and Christianity. I myself, being born and raised in the West, am almost thoroughly Westernized, except my being Hindu. In fact I've never even been to India. But I imagine that in India, where Hinduism is a way of life for almost everyone, the religion would not seem deficient. My father has told me about how when he was a child in India, he used to go to the temple every afternoon when taking a break from his homework. In the West, most churches are only open for worship on one day of the week, and unfortunately this practice seems to have been adopted by Western Hindus. Here, Hindu temples are a rare find, and thus our ability to worship is severely restricted.

Hinduism is a highly ritualistic religion, but here in the West it seems to me that we have intellectualized our faith as if it were also Western. When stripped of the rituals, Hinduism becomes impoverished. I remember when I was much younger, I used to ask my mother why my Christian friends got to go to church every Sunday, while we rarely visited a temple. Sadly the only response I got was "that's because Hinduism isn't as organized," which I think was about as substantive as what most American Hindu parents teach their kids. My father gave me similar responses. If we aren't instructed in Hinduism with a Socratic philosophy, of course we'll fail to see it's richness. As a result of this lack of instruction in Hinduism, I too was once disillusioned with the faith and started studying Western religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is why I know Christianity so well, and Hinduism so poorly. I too am a beginner in all of this. But in my exploration of Christianity, I went to their churches, attended their Bible studies, listened to their explanations, and found that it wasn't as attractive as it looks from the outside.

Christianity lacks the reverent and deep view of God that we have as Hindus. But more importantly, it lacks the emphasis on worship that we have. A Hindu who practices his faith seriously begins and ends each day with worship. Every time I visit my parents, I see the rigor with which my father wakes early to perform his daily worship and offerings to God. Even though I'm an adult and in graduate school, my mother scolds me if I accidentally touch a piece of paper with my feet, and reminds me to pay respect to Goddess Sarasvati. I see that in Hinduism, all of life is worship, and Christianity is utterly devoid of this philosophy. In Christian churches, people spend more time on potlucks and other social gatherings than worship. Indeed, this was one of the biggest issues that turned me away from Christianity. When I go to a temple, I am there to worship God, not play cards or throw a football around before eating barbecue. But the latter is exactly what happens at most Christian gatherings. In Christian churches, actual worship only takes place once or twice a week, and even then it resembles a rock concert more than reverent contemplation of the Absolute Reality.

As I said above, Hinduism is highly ritualistic, but American Protestantism eschews ritual, and intellectualizes religion. A practicing Hindu's home contains many images of the Lord, as well as an altar where offerings to God can be made. These images remind us of God's presence in our homes, and Christians would blithely call this idolatry. What the Christians are left with is an almost atheistic religion where devotion to God consists merely of making it to Bible study on time and voting Republican (not that there's anything wrong with the latter, if that's what you want).

I understand why Christianity might seem attractive, but I would urge you to see Hinduism from a fuller perspective. My intent here isn't to attack Christianity (though I realize that's precisely what I've done), but rather to convey to you that I can relate to your feelings about Christianity, and have ultimately found those feelings to be based on misunderstandings about both Hinduism and Christianity.

saidevo
05 February 2010, 08:19 AM
namaste Nirotu.

All the ideas of God's (actual) suffering in Christianity, stem from their inherent perception that physical death is a ghastly, final affair. This perception, which is personal as well as religious, has not changed even today, although many Christians who are exposed to Hindu concepts, tend to question many of the teachings of Christianity.

• In Hinduism, death is not a ghastly, final affair. It is just a passge into subtler worlds. The personality of a jIva does not change overnight on death of its physical body. Since the prANa that leaves the body on death packs up the mental and emotional vAsanas--impressions, as it leaves for the astral world, the jIva in the pitru lokam--world of ancestors, lives with the same personality that it had during its earthly life. When the jIva reaches the svargam--heaven, however, its personal traits remain dormant there, because it is a world that has only pleasures and no pains and suffering.

• The idea that God suffers vicariously for the sufferings of humans is analogous to saying that a judge suffers the effects of his judgment to the criminal on trial in the court of law. To be a loving God, God need not necessarily be a suffering God, because the idea of suffering in God invites the questions as to why his suffering does not mitigate the human suffering, and if so how can be an all-knowing, all-powerful God, etc., etc., which can't be answered convincingly.

Along with the concept of a God of Love, the concept of a God of Justice is equally prevalent in most religious concepts including Christianity. If God is full of love, specially for his own Christian mankind as in Christianity, why should he have a Judgment Day and cast many souls to eternal damnation in Hell?

• In Hinduism, God is perceived to be immanent in every atom of the universe, as a God of sat-chit-Ananda, whether it is nirguNa Brahman, or a personal God of saguNa brahman. It is this state of bliss attained by a sAdhaka--seeker, in culmination of his sAdhana--efforts, that makes him mentally immune to all physical and mental pain and suffering in his own life and makes him remain as a witness to personal and outside world.

• In the wake of the theory of karma and reincarnation, death is not the singular culmination of human life, and hence pain and suffering in physical life are only the personal results of a jIva's impressions in past and present life. Every jIva knows it as such in Hinduism, and hence it would be meaningless to attribute it to God, who is a phala-dAdA--dispenser of fruits, or call for his intervention.



Human suffering remains meaningless and barren unless we have some assurance that God is sympathetic to our pain, and can somehow heal that pain. The incarnation of God is another expression of deep love God has towards us so that he can partake in our pain and suffering. I believe that God did not incarnate just to teach us morals or provide materials for Sunday sermons but to suffer along with those who are least amongst us.


This is a Christian perception (you are one among them, so it's not surprising that you should overlook the Hindu concept although you are very well familiar with it).

• In the Hindu concept, God does NOT take avatara to annul individual physical and mental sufferings of the people. His avatara is to destroy adharma and restore dharma as shrI KRShNa ParamAtma (who some Christians are fond of equating with Christ!) has clearly declared in his GItA: "yadA yadA hi dharmasya..." (4.7,8)

• The assurance to individual physical and mental suffering in Hinduism is in the karmic theory, which goads a Hindu to act according to dharma or else invite karmic problems. In extreme and deserving cases, however, God's grace mitigates the karmic problems, to the bhakta--devotee, who leads a dharmic life. God does not take avatar to shower his grace as he can do it internally.



It is amazing why you all consider suffering of God an alien concept. It is said that Lord Shiva drank poison and suffered for the redemption of mankind. Lord Buddha according to Mahayana faith, refused to attain nirvana for the sake of man. In the Vedas the act of creation is treated as sacrifice in which the Purusha is the victim, the sufferer. The purusha is all this world, what has been and shall be.


Again typical Christian concepts, whose extremity lies in the ridiculous distortion of truth by the Christians like Ninan who declare that the sacrifice of PuruSha as narrated in the PuruSha SUktam is not only the same as the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, but is borrowed from the Christian concept!

• The sacrice of PuruSha narrated in the PuruSha SUktam is metaphorical. Although described as a human being, PuruSha is not the first human creation, but he represents the embodiment of the unverse before creation, where the status quo of creation of the previous kalpa that remains dormant after the last pralaya is to be manifested. This is the reason he is described to have a thousand heads and hands and so on. It is to be noted that the hymn describes the manifestation of the universe as just a portion of the VirAT PuruSha and does not portray it as identical to him (rik 4). If the formless has to become formful, then it has to sacrifice a part of itself.

• Shiva drank the poison called hAlAhalam that came up when the milky ocean was churned, but Shiva did not die by it! As Sanjaya has pointed out, there is no question of Shiva suffering by its effect, although he keeps it constricted to his neck.

This puranic episode is replete with messages that include:

1. Shiva keeps the crescent moon on his head and by its nectar cools down the heat of the poison stuck in his neck. In the same way, we should suspend the passion and emotion that can be aroused by the words that escape from our vocal chords in the neck and learn to balance the heat by remaining coolheaded.

2. Had Shiva consumed the poison, it could have destroyed the devaloka causing an immediate mahApralaya. Had Shiva spit out poison, it would have destroyed the universe, the physical creation. So Shiva keeps it suspended and uses its power in his rudra-tANDavam at the time of pralaya.

3. The hAlAhala poison symbolises the suffering and pain that a sAdhaka encounters at the beginning of his spiritual sAdhana. When the mind is subjected to intense concentration, the first thing that comes up is the pent up vAsanas in the form of suffering and great turmoil. The sAdhaka should have the initiative, courage, willingness, detachment and austericity of Shiva to suspend it and go deep for the nectar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samudra_manthan)



To believe God did not incarnate to suffer shows “intentional ignorance” on our part. There are many attributes of God that human mind has not even known, yet we when we begin to box God with our limited understanding, we trivialize God.


In the Hindu perspective, to believe God suffered in his incarnation and did not do much to annul the suffering of the common people is deliberate, stubborn ignorance. There is only one attribute to God, whether he remains nirguNa or saguNa: sat, chit, Ananda. These are not three but only one combined attribute. The sat--existence, that is Brahman knows itself by the chit--knowledge, hidden in it and remains pUrNa prakAsha--brightness of fullness, and not sUnya andhakAra--darkness of emptiness, in which state it is the Ananda--bliss, of absolute oneness and independence.

satay
05 February 2010, 02:38 PM
namaskar,

“Sanctify the Lord, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.”

On the one hand Christians talk of God’s forgiveness, compassion and his love and on the other hand they say, “let him be your fear and let him be your dread.” What is this if not shear exploitation of man’s fear? Why terrify the man and make him tremble? Such is the love of bible god.

Christians say that jesus died for our sins. That idea is completely illogical.

How can one man die for another’s sins? They say that it’s because jesus was god or son of god (some Christians can’t make up their mind on this).

Well, if he was god then why did he have to ‘die’ for my sins? Can god really die? If god can die, then he is not really a god. If he didn’t actually die because he is god then what’s the point of doing the whole curcifixation drama? Why go through the trouble of making a show?

Similarly, we can say the same thing for suffering. Did jesus really suffer on behalf of humanity? If he is god, then as god can he really truly ‘suffer’? God is beyond gunas as has been explained by yajvan and saidevo so god is beyond suffering.

Do you see the logical problem here? If jesus is god, he can’t really suffer on my behalf because we hindus believe that god is beyond suffering. On the other hand, if he can ‘suffer’ then he is not really god.

Now, let’s talk a bit about jesus ‘death’. Judas tried to convince jesus of not going to Jerusalem.

“It is the Jewish holiday, and this is the time of year when people get crucified by the authorities”, said Judas, “you will be caught, there are rumors all around. It is better not to go to Jerusalem at this moment. Let this festival pass, then you can go.”

However, jesus in his fanatical hallucinations decided to ignore the sound advice of his own brother and said, “don’t you trust in God? This is a chance for the jews to know that I am the only begotten son of God. Let them crucify me, and God will do a miracle!”

It was a common thing for roman authorities to ‘crucify’ those who created trouble. Jesus was definitely creating trouble due to his fanatical hallucinations. So he was crucified by the authorities. What’s so special about that? It was a common practice to crucify trouble makers and criminals.

You don’t have to be a hindu to believe in the law of karma, your own bible talks about it. Jesus when he was in Tibet visiting Buddhists monasteries learnt about this principle.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction is a scientific fact. You put your hand in fire and you will be burnt. No god can prevent it. You rape a woman and you will suffer a deep wound of guilt. You may go mad and become crazy, but you will have to suffer. No god can suffer for you raping a woman.

The whole idea of god suffering on behalf of humanity is an ugly, illogical nonsense.

atanu
05 February 2010, 08:54 PM
Namaste All,

Vishnu is indeed Yajna-the sacrifice. And Shiva, called Protector of Yajna, takes the poison on behalf of Gods (Devas). So, it is wrong to say that in Hinduism, Man suffers and God enjoys. Man suffers because he is ego-centric. God should have suffered but He does not, though He takes poison on behalf of all. He incarnates as Guru to teach. But the full incarnation is visvarupa-the world soul, encompassing all time-space.


Mostly christians and many hindus (following in their footsteps) ascribe historicity and hero like personality to Incarnations, whereas actually the incarnation to be fully Brahman must be encompassing all time-space. And Shri Krishna says: kalosmi.

The Visvarupa darshana is the glimpse that He incarnates as the all devouring time-space.

God is just not a super man. He is also the old man with bent back and the blue bird and the River and anything one can know directly or by report. God is also the father of TIME and SPACE and He incarnates as TIME-Space.

He is known as yajna in Sanatana Dharma.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
05 February 2010, 10:30 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

namasté


Atanu speaks wisely....

I have one thing to add : sacrifice = yajña but where does one infer suffering occurs? If one is considering sacrifice=suffering then there is some knowledge missing regarding this matter.

yajño vai viṣṇu or yajña is viṣṇu, or yajña pervades everything.
From where does this come? Taittirīya samhitā 1.7.4 (kṛṣṇa yajur ved)

praṇām

sanjaya
06 February 2010, 03:36 AM
The whole idea of god suffering on behalf of humanity is an ugly, illogical nonsense.

Indeed, I believe that this doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is largely responsible for the gross hypocrisy and evil that we see in Christian churches. When you really believe that your guilt can be utterly absolved by praying a prayer and ceasing your sinful behavior (i.e. repentance), it takes away personal responsibility for sin. As Satay has pointed out, in Hinduism we believe that actions have consequences. Thus a person who commits, say, murder, can't be absolved of his sin by praying to God and ceasing his murderous ways. The law of karma implies that the person will suffer for this sin.

This is not to say that Hinduism is devoid of mercy. We fully believe that sincere prayer to God will move him to relieve the burdens of karma. Instead of being an act of divine retribution, one's personal sufferings can become a teaching tool. Indeed, in the Sri Satyanarayana Katha, we see that a combination of humble prayer to God and making amends for sin will alleviate the karmic burden of that sin. But sin doesn't simply disappear instantly.

In the early days of Christianity, many people adopted the "sin now, repent later" attitude. This led many people to only be baptized shortly before their deaths, because they believed that this ritual would wash away their sin. In fact, this was what Emperor Constantine did (he was baptized two weeks before dying). To be fair to the Christians, some theologians recognized the idiocy of this; Saint Augustine likened sin to a disease, and said that it's foolish to be ill for as long as possible before accepting the cure. But then, even Augustine did things like selling his possessions and giving to the poor. Clearly he recognized the importance of our deeds. At that point, the question of whether we are "justified" by our belief or our deeds is a fruitless intellectual exercise. Today, the same attitude is still present in evangelical churches. Most Christians sequester themselves in Christian subcultures, and genuinely believe that they are good people simply by virtue of the beliefs they hold.

Christians say that this doctrine of sola fide is central to their gospel. Indeed it is the hallmark of the Protestant Reformation. But what has it led to if not a faith where salvation effectively comes by conformity to the subculture, and where deeds are irrelevant. In the Bible, Jesus gave the example of two sons: one son said that he would not obey his father, but later did so. The other said that he would obey his father, but did not. The righteous son, as Jesus says, is the former and not the latter. I wonder, then, why Christians don't recognize that it is preferable to belong to the wrong religion and practice the right deeds than to practice the first four of the Ten Commandments (which all relate to intellectual assent to doctrine), and ignore proper treatment of one's fellow man.

Sola fide doesn't seem to sanctify anyone. The same pen that Martin Luther used to defend these doctrines was also used to author "On the Jews and Their Lies."

rahulg
06 February 2010, 08:11 AM
Indeed, I believe that this doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is largely responsible for the gross hypocrisy and evil that we see in Christian churches. When you really believe that your guilt can be utterly absolved by praying a prayer and ceasing your sinful behavior (i.e. repentance), it takes away personal responsibility for sin.

Good point. But even with personal responsibility, sin seems to be as strong as ever, so our personal efforts seem to be futile for the most part. So, does it really make any difference? Second, if a person repents only to shirk responsibility later on, has he really repented at all? Has he really accepted Christ?

Finally, just about anything can be used as an excuse. If sin is used as an excuse, karma too is used as an excuse: many hindus say that the poor deserve to be poor, because they must have done something wrong in their previous lives! This way, they tend to rationalize things and become heartless in the process.

Eastern Mind
06 February 2010, 09:03 AM
many hindus say that the poor deserve to be poor, because they must have done something wrong in their previous lives!

My response to this: And just maybe its also his karma that you feed him. Are you sure you believe in karma. Perhaps this wrong of not feeding him will have you walking his shoes in your next life!

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
06 February 2010, 01:08 PM
Good point. But even with personal responsibility, sin seems to be as strong as ever, so our personal efforts seem to be futile for the most part. So, does it really make any difference? Second, if a person repents only to shirk responsibility later on, has he really repented at all? Has he really accepted Christ?

I think I may not have made my earlier point as clear as I could have. I'm not talking about repentant sinners who return to their sin. I'm referring to repentant sinners who fail to actually make amends for their sin. Ask yourself: if a murderer feels bad about his deed and decides to stop murdering for the rest of his life (and if you're fairly sure he is sincere), should he be exempt from prosecution? Clearly not. So why is it different in the spiritual realm? Why do you get a free pass simply for repenting?

Christians would point out at this juncture that repentance isn't the whole story. One needs to also have his sin imputed to Jesus so that he doesn't have to bear God's wrath for it. But now we have another problem: the equalization of all sins, which I've discussed at length in other threads. The non-Christian murderer goes to the same hell as the non-Christian petty thief. What sort of justice is this?

As far as "really" accepting Christ goes, is there any evidence that evangelical Christians are better behaved people than other religious individuals? I know that there is data comparing Christians to atheists, which shows that atheists tend to be less altruistic. But I've never seen studies comparing different religious groups. In my personal experience, evangelical Christians preach the gospel supposedly out of love, but treat us non-Christians as second class citizens who are lost in darkness and who must be avoided unless we convert. You identify human sin as a problem, but I have seen no evidence that Christianity is the answer to the problem.


Finally, just about anything can be used as an excuse. If sin is used as an excuse, karma too is used as an excuse: many hindus say that the poor deserve to be poor, because they must have done something wrong in their previous lives! This way, they tend to rationalize things and become heartless in the process.

EM addressed this. I would simply add that poverty isn't necessarily a sign of bad karma. Rich people tend to have a lot more trouble in this world because they need to protect their assets. They also seem to not be as spiritually-minded, and I believe that Bhagavad Gita says that this is evidence of bad karma. Additionally, God has become incarnate as poor people before. Sai Baba, though he was the incarnation of God, lived his life in a masjid and subsisted on the charity of others. Surely no one would call him a sinner!

nirotu
06 February 2010, 01:17 PM
All the ideas of God's (actual) suffering in Christianity, stem from their inherent perception that physical death is a ghastly, final affair. This perception, which is personal as well as religious, has not changed even today, although many Christians who are exposed to Hindu concepts, tend to question many of the teachings of Christianity.

In Hinduism, death is not a ghastly, final affair. It is just a passage into subtler worlds.

Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for your kind response.

This is an understanding in Hinduism and I appreciate you pointing that out to me. To be honest, I see quite the contrary. If death is considered as the beginning of next phase (be it heaven, hell or return back), at death, why is there so much sorrow, wailing in Hinduism and celebration of life that is lived in Christianity? Why is that a Christian considers it a gain and a Hindu a loss. Again, this is also a deep-rooted faulty perception isn’t it?

To be a loving God, God need not necessarily be a suffering God, because the idea of suffering in God invites the questions as to why his suffering does not mitigate the human suffering, and if so how can be an all-knowing, all-powerful God, etc., etc., which can't be answered convincingly.
Good point. Why does He not alleviate suffering?
This again brings us back to our original point. His redemptive activity takes place in accordance with the order created by Brahma, God does not care to exalt Himself by condemning the laws of creation which His own fingers framed. The law is that righteous is rewarded and the wicked is punished. He could very well have extinguished all evil simply by raising His finger but, from our experience, we can deduce that He will not cross the very moral standards He has set. Even God is not considered to be an exception to this law of the triplicity (creation, redemption and justice) of all being.

That does not mean that He cannot in someway comfort a suffering soul. When He said, “My yoke, I share with you” is precisely what brings out the strength and courage to endure. When David says in Psalm 23, “ Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil. Because, thou art with me”. Such assurances, that God is suffering along side with you, are meant to give strength to endure during most difficult times.

If God is full of love, specially for his own Christian mankind as in Christianity, why should he have a Judgment Day and cast many souls to eternal damnation in Hell?
Very good point!

When the followers of Jesus raised him to the rank of God, love, wisdom and power were attributed to him. They considered Him as the savior who revealed his heart of love on the cross of Calvary. They considered Him as the judge-pronouncing sentence on all who offend Him when they did not abide in His teachings. “He that cometh after me,” says John the Baptist, “will separate sheep from the goats”. It is to set aside as judgment day by God through Jesus.

Sometimes, I do wonder if indeed there is a place called “hell”. I think, if the heaven is only for the pious and good, then evil-minded cannot be extinguished at death nor can they reach heaven. It all stems from differing beliefs rooted in Christianity and in Hinduism. Christians are uneasy and have felt for long about the doctrine of perpetual torment. They believed that there couldn’t be perpetual torment because you only lived once. So hell is necessary. On the other hand, in Hinduism, life is a perpetual dying till we are face to face with God. Thus, the suffering in every life is considered the condition of progress.

Even in Hinduism there are description of places just as grotesque, although, may not have been referred to as hell. We hear of Varuna thrusting the evildoer down into dark abyss from which he never returns. Lord Indra is prayed to consign to the lower darkness the man who injures His worshippers. It seems that the destiny of the wicked to fall into this dark depth and disappear. Heaven is for righteous and hell for the wicked seems to be the rule.

In the wake of the theory of karma and reincarnation, death is not the singular culmination of human life, and hence pain and suffering in physical life are only the personal results of a jIva's impressions in past and present life. Every jIva knows it as such in Hinduism, and hence it would be meaningless to attribute it to God, who is a phala-dAdA--dispenser of fruits, or call for his intervention.
If suffering is an inevitable result of karma, is there any hope for man other than simply go through the cycle perpetual torment? On a human level, partaking in someone’s suffering is considered a result borne out of compassion. Compassion moves one in to action to alleviate other’s suffering. It may not remove the pain of suffering but certainly it will reduce the burden in sufferer. In the same way, God’s intervention is to give a meaning to suffering and not to remove suffering.

This again brings us back to same Omnipotent God and that is; God will do everything for us, but if we persist in our sin and selfishness and do not turn to Him, law will have its course. Even the love of God has a method according to which it works. Because God, who shaped moral standards, cannot deny Himself. This does not constitute a limitation of His power. Omnipotence is not irrationality. Therefore, the implication of the curious doctrine of vicarious sacrifice is that the love of God is tempered only by His justice.

In the Hindu perspective, to believe God suffered in his incarnation and did not do much to annul the suffering of the common people is deliberate, stubborn ignorance. There is only one attribute to God, whether he remains nirguNa or saguNa: sat, chit, Ananda. These are not three but only one combined attribute. The sat--existence, that is Brahman knows itself by the chit--knowledge, hidden in it and remains pUrNa prakAsha--brightness of fullness, and not sUnya andhakAra--darkness of emptiness, in which state it is the Ananda--bliss, of absolute oneness and independence.
Agreed but what I have also noted in Hinduism that which is ignored completely is the justice aspect of God. Brahma’s activities in relation to this world are those of creation, redemption and judgment. It is said that the Brahma, representing the cognitive aspect of God, creates; Vishnu, representing God as love, redeems; Siva, who is God omnipotent, power and perfection, judges.

Therefore, God is not merely truth and love, but also justice. He is the embodiment of power and perfection, the judge of good and evil, the lord of Karma (Karmadhyksah). When we sin, it is Siva the judge, who punishes us. He is one viewed as threefold, eka eva tridha smrtah. Creation, redemption, and judgment are the fundamental aspects of the creative evolution.

I am bit surprised that you consider everything I say is a Christian concept and has no room in Hinduism. As I said some time back, the moral laws placed by God and as understood by Christians, are nothing different than what was already laid down in Vedas, but was revealed to many with remarkable insight with Jesus incarnation.

Blessings,

rahulg
06 February 2010, 11:41 PM
Ask yourself: if a murderer feels bad about his deed and decides to stop murdering for the rest of his life (and if you're fairly sure he is sincere), should he be exempt from prosecution?

Yes, definitely. It would be highly illogical to punish someone after he has repented.


So why is it different in the spiritual realm? Why do you get a free pass simply for repenting?It's NOT different in either physical or spiritual realm. Forgiveness must always follow repentance. How could it be otherwise? If a person has to pay the price no matter what (that's what karma is about), then there's no hope for man. He may commit sins without even knowing he's committing sins...if karma is the way forward, then man will be forced to work out his karma forever. There's no possibility of freedom, then.



EM addressed this. I would simply add that poverty isn't necessarily a sign of bad karma. Rich people tend to have a lot more trouble in this world because they need to protect their assets. They also seem to not be as spiritually-minded, and I believe that Bhagavad Gita says that this is evidence of bad karma. Additionally, God has become incarnate as poor people before. Sai Baba, though he was the incarnation of God, lived his life in a masjid and subsisted on the charity of others. Surely no one would call him a sinner!Of course! The rich worry about protecting their private jets and luxury homes, whereas the poor worry about their next meal, not getting cholera etc. etc. The poor certainly have good karma!:rolleyes:

This is the Hindu attitude I am talking about, a callous way of rationalizing poverty by referring to karma and all that. Contrast this with Mother Teresa's attitude and you'll see the difference.

saidevo
07 February 2010, 06:39 AM
namaste Nirotu.

Your post has so much information that we need to discuss it only in instalments. First, let us take up the case of death.



To be honest, I see quite the contrary. If death is considered as the beginning of next phase (be it heaven, hell or return back), at death, why is there so much sorrow, wailing in Hinduism and celebration of life that is lived in Christianity? Why is that a Christian considers it a gain and a Hindu a loss. Again, this is also a deep-rooted faulty perception isn’t it?


The Hindu concept of death is based on 'a deep-rooted faulty perception' you say? And it is a 'gain' and 'celebration of life that is lived in Christianity?' Let's compare some aspects for a proper insight:

• The dead body of a Hindu in most of the cases is cremated, these days electrically, saving precious space on earth. The dead body of a Christian is interred and that slot of land is almost permanently occupied, depriving Mother Earth of her gift of land to her needy children.

• The worst aspect of this 'celebration of death' is that the rich and mighty are kept in horribly expensive caskets in elaborately decorated tombs and nobody questions the needless spending on a dead body, which eventually decomposes to dust, whether it of the mighty rich or the wretched poor! Bodies of the prominent clergy are buried in churchyards, turning half of the church into a graveyard.

Compare this with the Hindu funeral of cremation, where the rich and mighty, along with the wretched poor are cremated on the same, common pyre, although some reckless rich would waste their money during the body's final procession to the cremation ground.

• The Hindu wears white cloths in the cremation ground, the Christian wears black clothes to 'celebrate' the event of death.

• The progeny of a dead Hindu perform elaborate antyeShTa-kriyA--funeral rites for twelve days in most cases (this varies among castes) and the celebration by--shubha svIkAram--restoration of prosperity, takes place only on the 13th day, with auspicious rites and a feast partaken by relatives and friends.

The purpose of the Hindu funeral rites is to enable the disembodied jIva to transit successfully from the stage of preta--ghost, to the realm of its pitru--ancestors. The celebration takes place only after this is ensured by proper funeral rites performed under the guidance of a priest.

As against this, the Christian 'celebrates death' immediately on returning home after burial, with an elaborate dinner where meat and alcohol are served. The 'celebration' among the rich goes to ridiculous extents with no regard to the dead or the mourning!

Perhaps such celebration has its origin in the Christian celebration of the Eucharist, which is an occasion of eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood, albeit symbolically. Believing that by such an act, a Christian becomes one with Jesus is 'high philosophy and knowledge' as against the Hindu concepts of death which is "deep-rooted faulty perception"!

• Most Hindus perform annual rites in memory of their deceased ancestors. Brahmins remember and honour their ancestors every New Moon day. So far as I have heard, this concept is not there in Christianity. (Anyone may please correct me if I am wrong).

• The sorrow and wailing by relatives on the day of death of a Hindu is for letting out their affection and the feeling of loss towards the deceased. Such wailing is not seen in the Hindu urban society these days, wherein people face the reality in silent knowledge.

The Hindu slowly learns not to disturb the dead in his/her gati--passage, in subtler worlds, by constantly mourning him throughout his life, except on the prescribed days. As against this, a Christian mourns death as an intolerable loss throughout the initial years. As to how it could hurt the disembodied soul, read Bishop C.W.Leadbeater's essay "To Those Who Mourn" published at the Theosophy Website http://www.anandgholap.net/To_Those_Who_Mourn-CWL.htm .

With such provisions about the event of death, a surviving Hindu in his 'a deep-rooted faulty perception' honours the deceased throughout his life. To the surviving Christian, however, death is a 'gain' and 'celebration' in the background of the spiritual knowledge provided by the Bible and the Church dogma that a dead body will be revived eons after its irreconcilable decomposition, on the Day of Judgment, and a new immortal body will be given to the good souls!

Eastern Mind
07 February 2010, 07:49 AM
Vannakkam Saidevo:

Nice little bit of side by side comparing there. I would like to add one thing, although I could be wrong. Its just been my observation over time, and that is fear of death. I have seen the Hindu to be more accepting. Some Christians claim to be accepting, but often their actions in the last days may indicate otherwise. Again, just my observation. Could it be that the heaven/hell theory raises more doubts than the reincarnation theory?

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
07 February 2010, 07:53 AM
Contrast this with Mother Teresa's attitude and you'll see the difference.

Rahulg: Please have a look about the internet for a more balanced view of this 'saint'. As with all such do-gooders, there are other sides to the story. Her greatness is in many ways a byproduct of western media portrayal.

Aum Namasivaya

satay
07 February 2010, 07:53 AM
Namaskar,

‘God suffering on behalf of humanity’ is an illogical idea. Let’s examine with an example.

A man rapes a child. Now who is suffering in this situation? The child herself and child’s parents. Police catches the man, charges him and the man is brought to justice.

The judge sentences him for life in prison (let’s assume because I don’t know what the sentence usually is in this type of case).
Now, god comes around and says, “hey wait a minute. I will hang myself and take away your suffering.” The child and her parents say, “what would we have to do for you to take away our suffering?” God says, “nothing! just believe that I am suffering on your behalf.”

The criminal man who was sentenced to life hears this nonsense of god and says, “hey god, I believe that you are suffering for me. please please I want you take away my suffering. this jail thing sucks big time.” god says, “yeah dude. no problem. Just believe that I am suffering for your sins.” The man says,”is raping a child included in that?” god replies,”of course it is. As long as it is a sin, I will get hanged and suffer on your behalf.” The criminal says, “cool. you are a cool dude god.”

Now, god is suffering on behalf of the child that was raped, the child’s parents and the criminal. The criminal is free to do the crime again and again as in every case all he has to do is believe that god is suffering on his behalf. The child will grow up with huge mental and social issues. The parents are not satisfied either since the criminal is free by god's misplaced grace.

Everyone looses including god. The criminal benefits! This is justice!

Even the so called sinful man here on earth has somewhat of an intelligent justice system in place to deal with criminals. But the christian god is so silly and foolish that he will hang himself instead of dealing with criminals.

The whole idea of god suffering on behalf of christianity is an illogical nonsense of the peasant christians who can’t comprehend how god works. Christians make god look like an illogical fool and a mental patient.

satay
07 February 2010, 07:57 AM
namaskar,


Contrast this with Mother Teresa's attitude and you'll see the difference.

Oh boy, are you sure you want us to open up that can of worms? I would be happy to in the christian section.

Teresa's attitude... hahaha What a wolf...

saidevo
07 February 2010, 10:09 AM
Hilarious, Satay!

I am reminded of the George Clooney movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" (2000) wherein a bunch of four criminals who are buddies, casually discuss the provisions in their religion for saving their souls, instead of selling it to the devil.

A group of villagers pass through a jungle and enters the river to pray, where a priest baptizes them. Three criminals (who along with another, are the main cast) happen to watch the scene. One of the three on a sudden impulse rushes to the priest hurriedly wading the waters and gets himself baptized.

"Where the hell's he going?"

"The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."
"Good Lord, show me the way."

"O sinners, let's go down..." says the priest as he immerses this chap in water.
"Delmar's been saved.", exclaims his friend to the third.

"Well, that's it, boys. I been redeemed. The preacher done washed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out. And heaven everlasting's my reward."

"Delmar, what are you on about? We got bigger fish to fry."

"The preacher said, all my sins is washed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo."

"You said you was innocent of that."

"Well, I was lyin'. And the preacher said that that sin's been washed away, too. Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now." And he goads his chums, "Come on in, boys. The water is fine." His friend rushes to get saved too, leaving only Everett (Clooney) unsaved.

And then they meet this notorious and belligerent bank robber called George Nelson, who believes that he was "Born to raise hell." They join him in a bank robbery. As they pack up the loot and start to leave, Nelson says to the frightened bank staffers,

"And remember, Jesus saves,
but George Nelson withdraws!"

In privacy, the robbers chat about the robbery. This chap Delmar asks, "Well, that was some fun, now, wasn't it, George? Almost makes me wish I hadn'ta been saved. Jacking up banks. I can see how a fella'd derive a whole lot of pleasure."

**********

Habits die hard, and die never, if God takes up the suffering on him! This movie has beautiful and meaningful old-English songs set to melodious music. A good adventury comedy that is a treat to watch.

Ganeshprasad
07 February 2010, 10:13 AM
Pranam Satay


Namaskar,

‘God suffering on behalf of humanity’ is an illogical idea. Let’s examine with an example.

A man rapes a child. Now who is suffering in this situation. The child herself and child’s parents. Police catches the man, charges him and the man is brought to justice. ----

The criminal says, “cool. you are cool dude god.”

The criminal is free to do the crime again and again as in every case all he has to do is believe that god is suffering on his behalf. The child will grow up with huge mental and social issues. The parents are not satisfied either since the criminal is free by god's misplaced grace.

Everyone looses included god. The criminal benefits! This is justice!

.

You forgot one thing should the victim be non Christan, they go to hell yet rapist get to go to haven, you call that justice?

boy this is unbelievable scenario

Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
07 February 2010, 10:24 AM
That is an excellent explanation, satay ! Ganesh Prasad ji made it even better ! :)

OM

devotee
07 February 2010, 10:37 AM
Namaste Nirotu,



This is an understanding in Hinduism and I appreciate you pointing that out to me. To be honest, I see quite the contrary. If death is considered as the beginning of next phase (be it heaven, hell or return back), at death, why is there so much sorrow, wailing in Hinduism and celebration of life that is lived in Christianity? Why is that a Christian considers it a gain and a Hindu a loss. Again, this is also a deep-rooted faulty perception isn’t it?


It is shocking to me that you see this in this manner ! Who is celebrating here ? The person who is dead ... if death has to be celebrated, it should be celebrated by him !It is his death after all !!

It is sheer heartlessness, arising out of too much dose of materialism, to indulge in celebratations by eating and drinking just after someone's death !

Why a christian who is on his death bed doesn't give a big party to celebrate his imminent death, if it is so much of a gain ? Why does he want to live at all costs ... if there is such a big gain really waiting for him ?

Strange !

OM

yajvan
07 February 2010, 12:33 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté devotee,


Namaste Nirotu,
... if death has to be celebrated, it should be celebrated by him !It is his death after all !!

I celebrate death - the death of ignorance.

praṇām

satay
07 February 2010, 12:51 PM
namaste,

I am assuming that they were all non-christians but since christian god offered to hang himself and take away their suffering they accepted his offer and became christians.

But yes, you are right, if the child doesn't accept god's offer then god is so crazy that he will send the victim i.e. the child to hell but the criminal goes free of suffering!

Amazing logic this god has.


Pranam Satay



You forgot one thing should the victim be non Christan, they go to hell yet rapist get to go to haven, you call that justice?

boy this is unbelievable scenario

Jai Shree Krishna

sanjaya
07 February 2010, 02:02 PM
Yes, definitely. It would be highly illogical to punish someone after he has repented.

My question was rhetorical. I'm aware of no justice system in the world where you can avoid punishment for murder by repentance. Either you don't really believe this, or we seem to have different understandings of repentance. In Christianity repentance is defined as turning away from sin and towards God. Is this your definition?


It's NOT different in either physical or spiritual realm. Forgiveness must always follow repentance. How could it be otherwise? If a person has to pay the price no matter what (that's what karma is about), then there's no hope for man. He may commit sins without even knowing he's committing sins...if karma is the way forward, then man will be forced to work out his karma forever. There's no possibility of freedom, then.

First of all, if you believe that forgiveness follows repentance, then you disagree with Christians. They believe that to be forgiven by God, you als need to become a Christian. Christianity says that repenting of your sin to God and remaining a Hindu will not save your soul.

Second, karma does not put us in an endless cycle of hopelessness. God's grace allows us to burn our karma by surrendering to his will. The difference is that we don't believe anyone needs to change religions to do this.


Of course! The rich worry about protecting their private jets and luxury homes, whereas the poor worry about their next meal, not getting cholera etc. etc. The poor certainly have good karma!:rolleyes:

This is the Hindu attitude I am talking about, a callous way of rationalizing poverty by referring to karma and all that. Contrast this with Mother Teresa's attitude and you'll see the difference.

May I ask what is callous about saying that poor people are not necessarily poor because of prior sins, and that they are often more spiritually-minded than the rich? You seem to be assuming that Hindus don't care about helping the poor. Christianity is the religion which says that we will always have poor people in the world. Hinduism makes no such claim about the futility of charity. Christian politics in America idolizes capitalism and demonstrates no concern for the poor whatsoever (it's a wonder they accuse us of idolatry). On the contrary, Hinduism places great value on caring for the poor. The only reason there are fewer poor in America is because the West, being more aggressive, is far more prosperous. I could name other Christian nations that are impoverished. I think you're making incorrect conclusions based on Christian theology. Or perhaps you misunderstand their theology.


You forgot one thing should the victim be non Christan, they go to hell yet rapist get to go to haven, you call that justice?

Yes, I don't understand it either. It's logically consistent if you believe that all sins merit the same punishment, I suppose. But according to Christianity, all non-Christian victims of violent crimes end up in hell. What a perverted sense of justice Christianity teaches.

saidevo
07 February 2010, 07:47 PM
Gods of Christianity

Here is a satire written by Raja Ram Mohun Roy on the concept of Gods in Christianity!

Ram Mohun studied the entire set of Christian scriptures in Greek and Hebrew and pinpointed the fourth gospel of the New Testament of an unknown author as the 'culprit' that offended the concept of monotheism in Christianity by its presentation of the Trinity, though it is this gospel that forms the pulpit that showcases the Christian/Churchian dogma.



Ram Mohun replied by writing a satire in Bengali, PAdarI Sisya SambAd, published in 1823, in order to ridicule the doctrine of Trinity. It was an imaginary dialogue between a European missionary and his three Chinese students.

After having taught the dogma, the missionary asked his students whether God was one or many.

The first disciple replied that there were three Gods, the second that there were two and the third that there was no God.

The teacher rebuked them and demanded an explanation of their answers.

The first one said, "You said that there are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. According to my counting that is one plus one plus one, making three."

The second one said, "You told us that there were three Gods and that one of them died long ago in a village in a Western country. So I concluded that there are two Gods, now living."

The third one said, "You have said again and again that God was one and that there is no other God and Christ is the real God. But about 1800 years have passed since the Jews, living near the Arabian Sea, crucified him. What else, do you think I can say, Sir, except that there is no God."

(http://voi.org/books/hhce/index.htm)

==========

rahulg
07 February 2010, 08:49 PM
What started out as a question on the Hindu gods has ended in a satire on the gods of Christianity! Doesn't make sense...it's like asking a question about X, but everyone starts attacking Y instead of giving answers about X.

Is our religion so weak that it has to exist by attacking other religions?

rahulg
07 February 2010, 08:57 PM
Namaskar,

‘God suffering on behalf of humanity’ is an illogical idea. Let’s examine with an example.

A man rapes a child. Now who is suffering in this situation? The child herself and child’s parents. Police catches the man, charges him and the man is brought to justice.



Your example isn't valid, because you're confusing sin with crime. Crime will be punished according to the law of the land. Sin, on the other hand, has nothing to do with law; you can sin and NOT be punished by the law. Yet sin darkens the soul, and without Grace, one isn't cleansed. This is the whole idea of repentance and forgiveness; it has nothing to do with people committing crimes and letting God take the blame.


Oh boy, are you sure you want us to open up that can of worms? I would be happy to in the christian section.

Teresa's attitude... hahaha What a wolf...

Are we talking about the same person?

saidevo
07 February 2010, 09:25 PM
Are we talking about the same person?


Very much. Check this thread:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1986&highlight=mother+teresa

rahulg
07 February 2010, 11:08 PM
Very much. Check this thread:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1986&highlight=mother+teresa

I am not sure what you're trying to say. Internet articles are hardly a reliable source, and they say bad things even about Mahatma Gandhi...the good are always reviled by mediocre minds. Besides, why did these accusations never come out ten years or twenty years earlier? Why now after all these years?

Besides, if a person has to come all the way from Europe to care for the sick and the poor in Indian slums, what does this say about our country? And the Hindu attitude toward the poor?

Of course, I am going to be attacked for even raising such questions, so I'd better not.

sanjaya
08 February 2010, 12:44 AM
What started out as a question on the Hindu gods has ended in a satire on the gods of Christianity! Doesn't make sense...it's like asking a question about X, but everyone starts attacking Y instead of giving answers about X.

Is our religion so weak that it has to exist by attacking other religions?

I don't think that Hinduism exists by attacking Christianity. We survived just fine for thousands of years before Christianity existed, and I have little doubt that we will survive for thousands of years after it has lost popularity. In every puja that I've been to, Christianity is almost never named. And even when it is, it's always just a brief and respectful mention of Jesus.

To address your point, you have to recognize that you're asking a loaded question. Asking why avatars of God don't suffer for humanity will almost certainly evoke Christian imagry, because the idea of God's incarnation suffering for man is a uniquely Christian symbolism. If you'll bear with a bit of my own satire, imagine if you will someone coming to HDF and asking "why doesn't Hinduism emphasize the importance of legislative democracy?" The thread will almost surely turn into a discussion on the American government. Legislative democracy is an alien concept to virtually all ancient religions, and it would be absurd to even ask why it's not taught in Hinduism. Likewise, the Christian doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement doesn't make sense in Hinduism. So why are you asking about it?

I don't mean to suggest that your question is in any way off limits. On the contrary, I think it's an important question. But it's a safe bet that anyone who asks this question has Christianity in mind, even if that assumption is ultimately false. So it's reasonable that the discussion will very quickly turn to Christianity.


Your example isn't valid, because you're confusing sin with crime. Crime will be punished according to the law of the land. Sin, on the other hand, has nothing to do with law; you can sin and NOT be punished by the law. Yet sin darkens the soul, and without Grace, one isn't cleansed. This is the whole idea of repentance and forgiveness; it has nothing to do with people committing crimes and letting God take the blame.

Actually I think that Satay's example is apt. It's the Christians, not us, who make the connection between sin and the law. In the Bible, the word "justification" is used to describe the Christian's status before God when he places his faith in Jesus. Justification is a legal term. It refers to being found free of all guilt in a court of law. When a person in a legal court is declared not guilty, he is being justified, i.e., declared just. So the Bible does indeed paint sin as transgression of God's law. Just let an intelligent evangelical preach his gospel to you and you'll see what I mean. He'll tell you that you're a sinner in God's court, found guilty of sin and sentenced to hell. But Jesus stands ready to absorb your guilt and take your punishment, so that you can be declared not guilty in God's eyes. If we're talking about sin in the Christian sense, then it's very important for us to maintain the legal analogy so that we don't end up arguing strawmen in discussions on Christianity.

If you're talking about the Hindu definition of sin, then it's a lot simpler. God punishes sin and rewards good behavior. By surrendering yourself to God, you can stop suffering as a result of your past sins and receive moksha, but this doesn't negate your need to make amends for your sins against others. I think this is a basic understanding of sin that all Hindus can agree upon, and which my parents have taught me. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



Are we talking about the same person?

Though I haven't checked, I'm pretty sure that a quick Wikipedia search will clarify what Satay has said. After Mother Teresa's death, it was discovered from her journals that she suffered from depression and sometimes doubted God and church teaching. She didn't do social reform in India so much as she just made sick and dying people in her neighborhood more comfortable. She also baptized the dying under some belief that their souls may be saved. Personally I think that her deeds were admirable, and I can't find any fault with her. I would not be one to criticize Mother Teresa. She had good intentions, and even the baptisms don't actually harm anyone. But to say that she's done more good for poor Indians than Hindus have is quite a stretch.


I am not sure what you're trying to say. Internet articles are hardly a reliable source, and they say bad things even about Mahatma Gandhi...the good are always reviled by mediocre minds. Besides, why did these accusations never come out ten years or twenty years earlier? Why now after all these years?

See my comments on her private journals.


Besides, if a person has to come all the way from Europe to care for the sick and the poor in Indian slums, what does this say about our country? And the Hindu attitude toward the poor?

Of course, I am going to be attacked for even raising such questions, so I'd better not.

I certainly hope not. A central tenet of Hinduism is open-mindedness, so I hope that no one would try to censor you. I've never experienced any such censorship on this forum.

As for Mother Teresa, please keep in mind that she's not the only person who's done good in India, just the most famous. I know a fellow Indian in my research group at work (unlike me, he's actually from India) who wants to quit astrophysics after his postdoc in order to work with the poor back in his hometown. There are many Indians who display the same selflessness as Mother Teresa. I'm not trying to disparage Mother Teresa so much as I'm trying to emphasize the contributions of Hindus.

satay
08 February 2010, 10:44 AM
namaste,



What started out as a question on the Hindu gods has ended in a satire on the gods of Christianity!

In the 3rd post of this thread, I told you that ‘god suffering’ is an alien concept to Hinduism. I think sanjaya has explained very well.
We are not attacking the alien religion, we are showing how stupid, illogical and nonsensical idea it is to think that ‘god suffers’.



Is our religion so weak that it has to exist by attacking other religions?


If you ask questions based on an alien concept be prepared to get a thorough answer. If you don’t like the answer, don’t complain that we are attacking the alien religion.



Your example isn't valid, because you're confusing sin with crime. Crime will be punished according to the law of the land. Sin, on the other hand, has nothing to do with law; you can sin and NOT be punished by the law. Yet sin darkens the soul, and without Grace, one isn't cleansed. This is the whole idea of repentance and forgiveness; it has nothing to do with people committing crimes and letting God take the blame.


So what you are saying is that raping a child is not a sin in god’s eyes. These are the morals that Christianity always harps about?
Forgiveness and repentance for what? Can you give us an example of what 'sin' is then?

I think you are confused since you claim that you are a hindu but ask questions from Christian point of view. You seem to not know about Hinduism nor do you know about Christianity. But don’t assume that other Hindus don’t know anything about Christianity.



I am not sure what you're trying to say.


We have been wondering about what you are trying to say here on a Hindu forum.



Besides, if a person has to come all the way from Europe to care for the sick and the poor in Indian slums, what does this say about our country? And the Hindu attitude toward the poor?


Did she really come to India to take care of sick and poor? What happened to the poor and sick in Europe? She couldn’t take care of the sick and poor in her own backyard? It’s idiotic to travel half way around the world to do something that can be done in one’s own backyard.

I am sure you know the real motives of Christians ‘helping the poor’ in different countries. The implication that Christians are the only ones that help the poor is completely wrong. They help in the guise of conversion and to destroy other cultures. Thus their ‘help’ is not actually help.

When I was in India last year, I witnessed hundreds of acts of kindness and help for the poor. From organizations to temples, to people working at the grassroots level, all helping the poor. So, not sure what hindu attitude you are talking about.



Of course, I am going to be attacked for even raising such questions, so I'd better not.


Again, don’t put your hand in fire if you don’t want to get burned. If you ask us questions, we will give you answers. If you don’t like the answers don’t complain that we are attacking you or alien religions.

As long as you follow the forum rules, you should be fine. The forum rules can be found by clicking on the FAQ link on the top bar.

Eastern Mind
08 February 2010, 11:05 AM
Satay: Wonderful sane answers. I always appreciate your sanity.

Rahulg: It is well documented that the fine Mother gave the last Christian rites to dying people under her care, regardless of their faith. This is what she believed they all needed for their salvation. She was strong ... but wrong.

I wonder what the reaction would be if I volunteered to go into a Catholic or secular hospital hear to chant "Aum Namasivaya" for the people who are dying because that is what I think they need to hear. You and I can pretty much guess what the reaction would be.

When Gideons came to give away their little 'free gifts' to students in our schools here in the west, I so wish the Moslems and ISKCON would have called up the principal to see if they too could come in aad hand out their 'free gifts'. That may have put a stop to it. Certainly a court would have ruled against all three.

Aum Namasivaya

satay
08 February 2010, 11:17 AM
pranam Eastern,


I wonder what the reaction would be if I volunteered to go into a Catholic or secular hospital hear to chant "Aum Namasivaya" for the people who are dying because that is what I think they need to hear.
Aum Namasivaya

This made me laugh out loud. In about an hour, I am taking my mom for an appointment to the hospital...

Eastern Mind
08 February 2010, 11:21 AM
Satay: Get that dhoti and a few beads on, go to the intensive care part while your mom is having her appointment, and start chanting the Hare Krishna mantra. But make sure Mom has cab fare home first.

Aum Namasivaya

satay
08 February 2010, 11:25 AM
hahaha...
Now, people around me are wondering if I am going crazy...since I am laughing to myself. :)



Satay: Get that dhoti and a few beads on, go to the intensive care part while your mom is having her appointment, and start chanting the Hare Krishna mantra. But make sure Mom has cab fare home first.

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
08 February 2010, 11:57 AM
Forgiveness and repentance for what? Can you give us an example of what 'sin' is then?

I hope this question gets answered, because we really need to clarify what Rahul means by "sin" before we go any further. Many of us have been throwing that word around, but it really is a Western, Christian word. Many English words come to us through Christianity, and sin is one of them. Being basically a Westerner myself (I'm Indian, but born in America), I tend to use this word as well. Even the Sri Satyanarayana Katha which I got from a Sri Venkateswara temple uses the word sin.

But just because we use Western words doesn't mean that our theology is Western. In Evangelical Christianity, sin is defined as transgression of God's laws. It is heinous to the point that even one seemingly minor sin is worthy of eternal condemnation (i.e. being sent to hell). In Hinduism we tend to take a more common sense view. We differentiate between sins against God, and sins against other people, whereas in Christianity, all sins are sins against God, which is why they merit eternal punishment even if the sinner makes amends with the person he has wronged.

Really, in Hinduism we don't have a concept of sin so much as we do one of dharma and adharma. We often use the word "sin," because we're all English speakers, and I don't object to using that word. But we should really bear in mind that the Hindu understanding of sin is not like the Christian one.

Mohini Shakti Devi
08 February 2010, 12:26 PM
BAck to OP:

Why "Sacrifice"? What "Sacrifice"? Where does this "Sacrifice" come from? Is there correct & incorrect "Sacrifice"? ----These are Christian background questions as to the explaination of Christ's pastime.

In the yogic traditions there is ideal of doing strict and thus painfull,disciplines [tapasya] and then re-jecting liberation inorder to spread the dharma for the benefit of other living beings, similarly in the west, "No greater sacrifice than for one man to lay down his life for another"

Ganeshprasad
08 February 2010, 04:11 PM
Pranam

What a comparison?
Sadhu's austerities for the welfare of all, spreading Dharma, emphasis is on DharmAchran, not absolving someones Paap. there is no escaping laws of Karma.


in the West who are these man that lay down their life for others?

Jai Shree Krishna

rahulg
08 February 2010, 08:57 PM
namaste,


In the 3rd post of this thread, I told you that ‘god suffering’ is an alien concept to Hinduism. I think sanjaya has explained very well.
We are not attacking the alien religion, we are showing how stupid, illogical and nonsensical idea it is to think that ‘god suffers’.

A child is playing with his toys; the house is on fire, but he's ignorant. The father saves the child, getting burned and killed in the process. There's suffering in this sacrifice. And there's love.

Man is playing with his sins, and God saves him with his sacrifice. What's stupid and illogical about this, I'd never know.

Besides, if it is stupid and illogical, then you must know a better way. And if you do, that would make you greater than God. And, if you're greater than God, why are you being subject to pain, disease, and eventually death? Why do you find yourself helpless if you're greater than God?



If you ask questions based on an alien concept be prepared to get a thorough answer. If you don’t like the answer, don’t complain that we are attacking the alien religion.You said Jesus was hallucinating, and that he was a fraud etc. etc. This isn't an answer, much less a thorough one; this is more of an attack.


So what you are saying is that raping a child is not a sin in god’s eyes. These are the morals that Christianity always harps about?Bhagvat Gita 9.30:

Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination.

You can ask the same question of Krishna as well.



Forgiveness and repentance for what? Can you give us an example of what 'sin' is then?Sin can be defined as the separation from God. As to who's forgiven, God alone knows. On the road to Damascus, St. Paul had a vision of Christ, although he was a sinner.


Did she really come to India to take care of sick and poor? What happened to the poor and sick in Europe? She couldn’t take care of the sick and poor in her own backyard? It’s idiotic to travel half way around the world to do something that can be done in one’s own backyard.Is there some rule that one has to do something in one's backyard before helping people elsewhere?


I am sure you know the real motives of Christians ‘helping the poor’ in different countries. The implication that Christians are the only ones that help the poor is completely wrong. They help in the guise of conversion and to destroy other cultures. Thus their ‘help’ is not actually help.This is the common Hindutva refrain, and I am not going to derail this thread by arguing.


When I was in India last year, I witnessed hundreds of acts of kindness and help for the poor. From organizations to temples, to people working at the grassroots level, all helping the poor. So, not sure what hindu attitude you are talking about. No offense, but as a guy who doesn't even live in India, you have no business commenting on matters pertaining to India.


Again, don’t put your hand in fire if you don’t want to get burned. Reminds me of the Lake of Fire. Thanks for the tip.

devotee
08 February 2010, 11:10 PM
Namaste Rahul,

Please don't tell me that you are Hindu. That will be a shock to me ! :)

Everything whatever is written in your posts is either your own idea or taken from Christianity. The Hindus don't have concept of "man playing with sin" & "father/mother coming and saving the kid" and "getting burnt Himself in the process". This sounds too human than God-like. If it is all playing, then why father/mother would create the fire in the first place ? Or do you think that like a human being, God is helpless and can't do anything on this account ?

You tell me one thing that I am never able to understand in Christianity :

If Jesus died for all past & present sins & there is no Karma theory in play now (after his crucification) .... and that the heaven is guaranteed for all Christians, irrespective of the fact whether they are good or bad .... and given that heaven is a far better place to live in than this life on this earth ............... what is the meaning of living like a christian ? Isn't it better to commit suicide & go straight to heaven ? Why don't all Christians commit mass suicide and go to heaven in an instant ? For others too, as God is all benevolent, why doesn't he convert everyone into Christian by his powers & send others to in heaven ?

OM

rahulg
09 February 2010, 12:24 AM
Everything whatever is written in your posts is either your own idea or taken from Christianity. The Hindus don't have concept of "man playing with sin" & "father/mother coming and saving the kid" and "getting burnt Himself in the process".

#2 from Saidevo:
In the Kali yuga, however, we have seen sages like shrI RAmakRShNa, RamaNA and Sathya Sai undertake sufferings of their devotees upon their physical bodies in order to burn out their related karma far more quickly.

Obviously, this concept is present in Hinduism as well.

sanjaya
09 February 2010, 01:49 AM
Rahul, you brought up a few points that I'd like to address.


A child is playing with his toys; the house is on fire, but he's ignorant. The father saves the child, getting burned and killed in the process. There's suffering in this sacrifice. And there's love.

Man is playing with his sins, and God saves him with his sacrifice. What's stupid and illogical about this, I'd never know.

That's a nice analogy. Indeed it's very similar to the analogy that evangelical Christians use (the would add that the child kicks the father and scream as he's being carried out of the house). Here's the problem: this discussion never goes past the analogy. The point of an analogy is to illustrate something in the real world, if only imperfectly. What is your fire analogy illustrating? Let's say that God suffers and dies for us. What does it accomplish? Christians will tell you that the death and resurrection of Jesus accomplishes our redemption from sin. The problem is that this is all just armchair theology. Maybe I'm just thinking too much like a scientist here, but there's no physical effect that can be observed by this supposed redemption from sin. The world has not been changed, and sin has not ceased. Christians say that this will only happen when Jesus returns. This, I believe, is a cop out. As any knowledgable Jew will tell you, the Old Testament says that when the Messiah comes, he will redeem Israel and save the Jewish people from the aggression of their neighboring countries. Christians excuse the lack of prophetic fulfillment by saying that the messianic work is not yet complete. At the end of the day, they've got nothing but theological talk.

Show me how God's sacrifice can actually accomplish anything to make mankind sinless, and then we can talk about the merit of this notion. Until then, we're talking about nothing. Not that I'm asking you not to talk. You clearly have issues with Hinduism, and I'm hoping that we can resolve them. But I'm asking you to use the sense of logic and reason that God gave you, instead of discarding it as though it were secret messages from an asura. That's how Christians behave, but it's not how we do.


Besides, if it is stupid and illogical, then you must know a better way. And if you do, that would make you greater than God. And, if you're greater than God, why are you being subject to pain, disease, and eventually death? Why do you find yourself helpless if you're greater than God?

Come now Rahul. Only Christians say that if you disagree with the Bible, then you are being arrogant and claiming yourself to be God. This statement presupposes that God really has sacrificed himself for man, and we do not believe that he has done any such thing. As to the question of why we are subject to pain, death, and continual rebirth, God gives us the answer. It's because of our poor karma: our past sinful deeds that continue to plague us. If you want to be free of that, then you should gather your friends and relatives, and do Satyanarayana Puja on the full moon day whenever possible. For this, God promises happiness in this life, and salvation in the next. There's no need for you to Westernize yourself and believe in some doctrine that condemns the rest of your Hindu family to hell.


Bhagvat Gita 9.30:

Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination.

My God! This looks like a verse out of the Christian translation of the Gita. I've found two versions of the Bhagavad Gita that make far more sense. Here's the same verse, 9.30, translated properly in two different ways:
Even if the most sinful person resolves to worship Me with single-minded loving devotion, such a person must be regarded as a saint because of making the right resolution.

If even a very wicked person worships Me, with devotion to none else, he should be regarded as good, for he has rightly resolved.
Do you see how Christians pervert the truth even as they claim to bring us knowledge of the truth? They would have you believe all kinds of lies about Hinduism, and I'm willing to bet that you got your translation of the verse from some Christian website. These missionaries are liars who care nothing about truth, and everything about conversion.

The Gita says precisely the opposite of what you were mislead into thinking. It doesn't say that evil deeds done in God's name are considered righteous. It says that even the worst of sinners are welcomed by God if they will only devote themselves to him. And this is a measure of grace that you'll never find in Christianity. Sri Krishna calls for no religious conversion. The Christian, Muslim, or Jew can worship God as they understand him, and be fully accepted without converting to Hinduism. I challenge you to find such theodicy in Christianity.


Sin can be defined as the separation from God. As to who's forgiven, God alone knows. On the road to Damascus, St. Paul had a vision of Christ, although he was a sinner.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. You've provided your definition of sin. And it comes straight out of the pages of Christianity. We do not share this definition of sin. We do not believe that a holy God is incapable of living with unholy humans. Let me ask you which man is the greater sinner: the godless atheist who spends his time caring for the poor, or the evangelical Christian who only cares about voting for political candidates who will lower his taxes so that he doesn't have to give any money to the poor? Do you think that God is closer to the evangelical Christian just because he has no sex outside of marriage, refrains from foul language, and goes to church every Sunday? What do you think God about more: following religious rules for holiness, or how we treat our fellow man? I am not disparaging good personal conduct, and indeed I try to practice it myself. But so-called "sin" doesn't separate us from God nearly as much as bad treatment of others. I believe your definition of sin leaves much to be desired. And since I do not believe in the Bible, I am free to trust my faculty of reason over it.


Is there some rule that one has to do something in one's backyard before helping people elsewhere?

I think his point was more that missionaries have no obvious reason to come to India, except that they believe they can have better luck converting Hindus than their own Western neighbors.


This is the common Hindutva refrain, and I am not going to derail this thread by arguing.
It's not just Hindutva propaganda. I do not consider myself a Hindu nationalist, and I do not believe that Hindus are superior to people of other religions in any way. And I most certainly do believe that Christians come to India under false pretenses to convert Hindus and to destroy our Indian culture. As I told you before, Christianity is a religion mostly devoid of worship. Whereas worship is the focus of Hinduism, Christians seems to care more about socializing (with other Christians). How would you like to go to your local temple two times a week to find people playing basketball in the gym on Thursdays and watching the football game on Mondays, and to see that God is only worshiped for a couple hours on Sunday (where "worship" consists of listening to rock music and training people to convert more people to Hinduism)? I shudder to think of an India where Hindu religious life consists of socializing instead of the worship of God. This is what could happen to our rich culture if ordinary Hindus like us don't stop falling for Christianity. We will certainly lose all that makes us Indian.


#2 from Saidevo:
In the Kali yuga, however, we have seen sages like shrI RAmakRShNa, RamaNA and Sathya Sai undertake sufferings of their devotees upon their physical bodies in order to burn out their related karma far more quickly.

Obviously, this concept is present in Hinduism as well.

This isn't really the same thing as penal substitutionary atonement in Christianity. But hypothetically: if it is, then why look to Christianity for it?

rahulg
09 February 2010, 08:25 AM
As we're going in circles, let me ask everyone here a simple question:

Is there any proof that Ram or Krishna ever existed? Proof for karma? for animal gods? for supernatural events described in puranas? Put simply, is there proof for anything at all in Hinduism? Isn't it then hypocritical to demand proof that God died for our sins?

Second, calling this idea (that God died for us) absurd. Fine, let's say it is absurd. But is it any more absurd than the hindu idea of god that lets people take birth over and over in the name of karma and reincarnation (when god, being all-powerful, could resolve the whole thing in one life)?

Bottom line, neither position can be established on an objective, material basis. We have to go by faith alone -- either faith in a god that allows one to take birth a million times or faith in the God who makes a sacrifice and sets us free in one life.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Eastern Mind
09 February 2010, 08:38 AM
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Sounds like you think is a bad thing. The world is a school. Some are in the kindergarten class, while others are the aides to students working on doctoral theses! That is one of the failings of those who try to convert and convince others that their way is the right way. Its the simple failure to see the richness of the planet's diversity of culture, of religion, of thought form.

I'm so happy that each can find a place that suits them, from atheism, to simplistic whatever, to multi-faceted complex structures like Sanatana Dharma.

Aum Namasivaya

satay
09 February 2010, 10:46 AM
As we're going in circles, let me ask everyone here a simple question:


No, actually we are not going in circles. You asked us in the OP if incarnations of god in hinduism suffer.

We have been telling you that the concept that ‘god suffers’ is stupid, illogical and nonsense. This is irrelevant of the worldview you have faith in including Christianity.

Since you brought up Christianity, we have been telling you specifically, that the Christian concept of god suffering is stupid, illogical and nonsense. This is because if god can ‘suffer’ then he is not a god. This is based on our understanding of god. God tells us in the Gita that he is beyond guna. He is beyond karma, thus he cannot ‘suffer’ for anything. He is sat-chit ananda i.e. bliss.

We have been telling you that god cannot suffer because God is God and he is beyond any suffering. If he can ‘suffer’ and cry out ‘save me save me’ then he is not a god but a conman or a person with a serious mental problem who thinks that he is god.

Since you brought up jesus, we have been telling you that jesus was a fanatic trouble maker and was hallucinating. He did not listen to the sound advice of his brother and went to make trouble. Because he was making trouble, roman authorities hung him just like they would any other criminal. There is nothing about martyrdom or sacrifice in that hanging. He was disturbing the law of the land and was hung for making trouble. Simple as that there is nothing more to it.

Your example of father saving the child from a burning house is good and shows the love of the father. I would do the same for my child.

However, with that example, are you saying that the Christian god is dead!? If Christian god is dead then his death was of no use because humanity is still suffering and now on top of that god is dead so humanity is in a state of hopelessness. If Christian god is not dead then he was a liar and thus my previous question of why he put up the drama of hanging himself if he can’t really die!

Once again this concept of a ‘dead god’ is alien to Hinduism. In Hinduism god doesn’t die, God is eternal. So since the Christian god is dead, Christians can safely burn their bible and join Hinduism where God is eternal and lives forever.

So you see, we are not going in circles. We have telling you that the concept of god suffering or dying or hanging himself etc. etc. is stupid, illogical and nonsense. Perhaps this concept is good for the peasants because they don’t have the intellectual capacity to analyze it with logic but if you bring this concept to us hindus, it will be examined with all logical faculties and shred to pieces.

Note that we are not saying that the peasants should stop believing in this foolish concept that god hung himself. We are simply saying that the concept of god hanging himself fits and suits the peasant mental capacity. Cult of jesus had mostly peasants and criminals as its members. Nothing wrong with that in itself but because the karma of the peasants has not ripen yet so we hindus will not interfere with it. They will come to know the mystery of god when their karma ripens.



Sin can be defined as the separation from God. As to who's forgiven, God alone knows. On the road to Damascus, St. Paul had a vision of Christ, although he was a sinner.


We don’t believe in sin as defined by you or Christians. We don’t believe that we are separated from God.

paul has been a controversial figure in christianity and I personally believe him to be a fraud.

For more on paul visit http://www.interfaith.org/articles/pauline_conspiracy/ (http://www.interfaith.org/articles/pauline_conspiracy/)



And if you do, that would make you greater than God. And, if you're greater than God, why are you being subject to pain, disease, and eventually death? Why do you find yourself helpless if you're greater than God?


I have no idea of what you are talking about. You asked if hindu gods suffer. We told you that the god suffering is an alien concept. Then we showed you if examined logically, the concept of god suffering is stupid, illogical and nonsense.

I am not experiencing any pain, disease or death. Actually, I can’t die. This is what God told us in Gita that we can’t ‘die’, we simply change our body. And I am generally a happy, capable person and I don’t find myself helpless at all. I don’t know what you are talking about. We don’t believe in the alien concept that man is useless and incapable. That concept comes from the alien peasant religion. In Hinduism we call it Maleccha i.e. barbaric cults.



Is there some rule that one has to do something in one's backyard before helping people elsewhere?


Probably there is no such rule but it is illogical for a senior citizen to travel to the other side of the world to help the poor and sick when it can easily be done in their own backyard. Perhaps teresa flew to india because Europeans are rejecting Christianity as junk and thus she simply could not find poor and sick that will even give her any attention. I don’t really care either way. The point is that Christians ‘helping the poor’ in disguise of converting them to their cult is barbaric, unethical and immoral. Thus teresa was barbaric, unethical and immoral. Christians can thank their dead god that india is a secural democratic country otherwise, she would have been deported back to where she came from.



Is there any proof that Ram or Krishna ever existed?

Plenty of proof that both existed historically. Here is excerpt from Essays on The Gita by Aurobindo:



In seeking the kernel of the thought of the Gita we need, therefore, only concern ourselves with the spiritual significance of the human-divine Krishna of the Mahabharata who is presented to us as the teacher of Arjuna on the battle-field of Kurukshetra. The historical Krishna, no doubt, existed. We meet the name first in the Chhandogya Upanishad where all we can gather about him is that he was well known in spiritual tradition as a knower of the Brahman, so well known indeed in his personality and the circumstances of his life that it was sufficient to refer to him by the name of his mother as Krishna son of Devaki for all to understand who was meant. In the same Upanishad we find mention of King Dhritarashtra son of Vichitravirya, and since tradition associated the two together so closely that they are both of them leading personages in the action of the Mahabharata, we may fairly conclude that they were actually contemporaries and that the epic is to a great extent dealing with historical characters and in the war of Kurukshetra witha historical occurrence imprinted firmly on the memory of the race. We know too that Krishna and Arjuna were the object of religious worship in the pre-Christian centuries; and there is some reason to suppose that they were so in connection with a religious and philosophical tradition from which the Gita may have gathered many of its elements and even the foundation of its synthesis of knowledge, devotion and works, and perhaps also that the human Krishna was the founder, restorer or at the least one of the early teachers of this school. The Gita may well in spite of its later form represent the outcome in Indian thought of the teaching of Krishna and the connection of that teaching with the historical Krishna, with Arjuna and with the war of
Kurukshetra may be something more than a dramatic fiction. In the Mahabharata Krishna is represented both as the historical character and the Avatar; his worship and Avatarhood must
therefore have been well established by the time—apparently from the fifth to the first centuries B.C. —when the old story and poem or epic tradition of the Bharatas took its present form. There is a hint also in the poem of the story or legend of the Avatar’s early life in Vrindavan which, as developed by the Puranas into an intense and powerful spiritual symbol, has
exercised so profound an influence on the religious mind of India. We have also in the Harivansha an account of the life of Krishna, very evidently full of legends, which perhaps formed the basis of the Puranic accounts.


Let me remind you though, that we hindus don’t care for the historical proof of if Lord existed in his incarnation as Ram or Krishna. Even if there were no Ram and Krishna or no Gita, Hindus and Hinduism will still exist.

Though you can’t say the same for christinaity. The whole Christian mythology becomes more useless and illogical if jesus is taken out of the equation. In fact, if you study history one finds out very quickly that there was actually no jesus as hallucinated by paul. The whole myth is stolen from pagans.



Isn't it then hypocritical to demand proof that God died for our sins?


No, it is not hypocritical to demand proof for what Christians are selling us as god. We think that logically god ‘suffering’ or killing himself or hanging himself accomplishes nothing.

The concept of a dead god is not acceptable to hindus. We believe in a god that is sat-chit-ananda.



No offense, but as a guy who doesn't even live in India, you have no business commenting on matters pertaining to India.


Cute. But no, I will not listen to you. I have every right to comment on matters pertaining to India. My physical location is irrelevant.

Eastern Mind
09 February 2010, 11:01 AM
Satay: Now this is proof of karma in action. Yesterday apparently I made you laugh. So the karmic consequence is that today you make me laugh. Great and humourous (to me, not to Rahulg, I suspect) response.

Aum Namasivaya

bhaktajan
09 February 2010, 11:34 AM
Pranam

Sadhu's austerities for the welfare of all, spreading Dharma, emphasis is on DharmAchran, not absolving someones Paap. there is no escaping laws of Karma.

in the West who are these man that lay down their life for others?

At a tirtha the sadhus absorb the pilgrams bad-karma.
Upon diksha from Guru, the Guru absorbs the bad-karma.

All selfless action for the benefit of other's happiness is laying down onesown blood, sweat & tears for the Greater-Good and it is also the very performance of NON-GREEDY obligated self-duties in a Conscious/Concientious way.

WHY WOULD WE BE HAPPY?:
Bhagavad-Gita 3.10:
Krishna says to his cousin Arjuna, on the first day of a civil war, at dawn on the day of Moksha ekadasi 5,102 years ago:
In the beginning of creation, the Lord of all creatures sent forth generations of men and demigods, along with sacrifices for Vishnu, and blessed them by saying, “Be thou happy by this yajna [sacrifice] because its performance will bestow upon you everything desirable for living happily and achieving liberation.”

BECAUSE:
BG 3.11:
The demigods, being pleased by sacrifices, will also please you, and thus, by cooperation between men and demigods, prosperity will reign for all.

IOW, without the proper yajna [or worse acts of mass adharma ie: cow slaughter et al] the Devas will be pained to pass on the karma-phalam (fruits-of-our-actions) with out nuetralising the acid effect of untreated bad-karma--- and that would be dis-pleasing to munificent Devas et al.

sanjaya
09 February 2010, 12:10 PM
As we're going in circles, let me ask everyone here a simple question:

Is there any proof that Ram or Krishna ever existed? Proof for karma? for animal gods? for supernatural events described in puranas? Put simply, is there proof for anything at all in Hinduism? Isn't it then hypocritical to demand proof that God died for our sins?

What kind of "proof" do you want? Historical proof? This is what Christians demand. They set up their own standards of proof (and I would add that they don't even meet these standards). But we most certainly do have experiential proof. My own father has had visions from God. Just a hundred years ago, Sai Baba lived in Shirdi and did many of the same miracles as Jesus. And we know he exists, because he lived when photography was in its infancy, and there is a photograph of him. I don't have direct proof that Lord Rama or Lord Krishna existed (though Satay seems to have found something). However, Sai Baba clearly said to his disciples that the story of the Ramayana was historically true.

I would, however, go with the advice of the Buddha. Don't trust what anyone says about God, whether it's coming from us, or opportunistic Christian missionaries. You need to learn for yourself what God is like. If you look for him in prayer, meditation, and puja, I believe that you can experience him.


Second, calling this idea (that God died for us) absurd. Fine, let's say it is absurd. But is it any more absurd than the hindu idea of god that lets people take birth over and over in the name of karma and reincarnation (when god, being all-powerful, could resolve the whole thing in one life)?

You've chosen a specific wording that portrays Hinduism negatively. Let me employ this technique:

We have our choice between two religious philosophies. One says that all people everywhere in the world are given one chance to believe in a religion that they may or may not have heard about, otherwise they will go to an eternal hell, regardless of their deeds. The other philosophy state that people are given many chances to mend their ways and become closer to God via whatever religion they are born into, and that once they have made sufficient progress with God's help and grace, they will receive salvation.

Now which one sounds better to you?


Bottom line, neither position can be established on an objective, material basis. We have to go by faith alone -- either faith in a god that allows one to take birth a million times or faith in the God who makes a sacrifice and sets us free in one life.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

First of all, this portrayal of Hinduism is wrong. God doesn't just leave us to our own devices. Secondly, you're forgetting a crucial detail: in Christianity you go to eternal hell if you don't convert! Do you think that your Hindu parents and ancestors deserve that? Thus far I've answered all of your questions directly. If you could, please give me a direct answer to this one.

Ganeshprasad
09 February 2010, 03:33 PM
At a tirtha the sadhus absorb the pilgrams bad-karma.
Upon diksha from Guru, the Guru absorbs the bad-karma.



Pranam



No sadhu I know advertise that we are free from karma by simply accepting them. They will always enjoy us to stick to Dharma is it not? They do not condemn those who have no faith in them to hell do they? You might never have met a Sadhu but you are pious and have faith in God you are not doomed are you?

Pilgrimage it self is an age old tradition to gain punya or mitigate paap, this in it self is an endeavor, and no Shastra or sidhanta enjoy us to shirk our duty towards dharma,
there is no question of the illusion, of committing paap with such a knowledge that we will be absolve from it.

all type of people go on pilgrimage, a seeker, an observer on holiday as well as cheater beware of pick pockets, not everyone gets the same merit.

It may very well be true that Guru absorbs the karma but on diksa a greater responsibility is placed on the chela (seeker ) to follow Yama Niyam (rules and regulation).

Sankracharya emphasizes that, in order to realise the bliss of liberation, one's own individual effort is an essential factor. Mere book-learning never yields this bliss; it can be realized only through Self-enquiry or vichara, which consists of sravana or devoted attention to the precepts of the Guru, manana or deep contemplation and nididhyasana or cultivation of equanimity in the Self.

Jai Shree Krishna

grames
11 February 2010, 01:15 AM
Suffering? Why would someone suffer?? Except the Paulism under the grand brand name of Christianity, there is no religion which preaches its foundation as Sin and then redemption of that Sin as liberation. Since there are millions of people who blindly believe in such philosophy with out questioning what the actual philosophical meanings behind it, they "Suffer" out of their ignorance. God do not suffer and as satay said "If God suffers, He is no longer God".

Hindu incarnation is for various purposes unlike "coming to take the burden of Human Sins" and redeem the sufferings etc etc.





In Hinduism, although various gods incarnate, they don't suffer on behalf of humanity. Or, do they? I am not clear on this point. Did Ram, Krishna, Shiva and others suffer at all? If not, what was the purpose of incarnating?

If it's to teach morals, they're already there in the holy books. There are other saints to teach by example. So why incarnate if the end can be achieved even without incarnating?

I hope I am making myself clear. Suppose I can do a job over the phone, my physical presence at the office (for instance) won't be necessary. If I am at the office, on the other hand, then it's taken for granted that my physical presence is necessary.

So, if the gods incarnate on earth, their physical presence must have been needed, or they wouldn't incarnate at all. But in the Hindu concept of incarnation, this wouldn't apply. Then why incarnate at all when the same job can be done without incarnating?

sanjaya
11 February 2010, 01:57 AM
Suffering? Why would someone suffer?? Except the Paulism under the grand brand name of Christianity, there is no religion which preaches its foundation as Sin and then redemption of that Sin as liberation. Since there are millions of people who blindly believe in such philosophy with out questioning what the actual philosophical meanings behind it, they "Suffer" out of their ignorance. God do not suffer and as satay said "If God suffers, He is no longer God".

It really sounds like a sales pitch, doesn't it? Christians invent a problem that we didn't know we had (sin that needs to be dealt with by hellfire alone), and then try to sell us the only known solution (penal substitutionary atonement by faith in Christ). My God, Lord Jesus must not be happy with his alleged followers.

rahulg
11 February 2010, 02:22 AM
My God, Lord Jesus must not be happy with his alleged followers.

Hmm...so we know what Jesus meant, and we know it better than billions of Christians, including the scholars and priests. Okay, that's not at all arrogant of us.

Anyway, I'll conclude this thread by saying that it's egotistic to feel that we can do everything on our own. This has nothing to do with Christianity. It's the truth: we're weak and powerless, and we can never save ourselves. Only an egotist would say otherwise.

grames
11 February 2010, 02:33 AM
Dear ji,

Even if every other living in this world say a false thing as truth because that is how they understood, it doesn't make it right as long as you are conscious about the Truth. Billions is just a number and add no strength to the Truth. On the other hand, false and cheap things are very easy to market and get followers on such ideals and no wonder we are living in the world of fast food and unhygienic unethical world!

Your conclusion has a wrong point to point out. We are not saying we can do everything on our own and it is a statement out of just deep desperation. We are also strongly believe in the Grace of God but not for some random so called Sin!

Only if you uphold pessimistic view, you will see India alone being going through all that you have mentioned. It is just blind eye view that you do not see the severe punishements that most of the countries who claim they follow True Christianity goes through. Your reasoning sounds very dumb about people playing God or His so called punishment. Sametime you again prove one more time as one of the billions who got no brains or qualification to receive Grace of such Supreme God instead believe in a mere redemption forgetting the duties, actions that you have to perform to qualify yourself for such mercy.

A blind faith will not even lead you to Jesus! It will only lead you to self destruction or a psychological syndrome where you abuse yourself as sinner and wait for a pure Supreme being to come over and take it in His bag. God's mercy shouldn't be that cheap and unworthy!

grames
11 February 2010, 02:42 AM
Dear Satay,

Wonderful response from Shri Aurbindo and i appreciate your vast interests. Also you have raised a question or is it a question from Shri Aurbindo?? I do not know but i am just attempting to answer this particular question.




Why there is a gradation to begin with seems to be a mystery or I haven’t yet come across anything that explains properly the reason for this gradation.

This is very interesting and also very scientific thing about science of differences. Imagine, we have two red balls with same diameter, color, weight, shape and all metrics being same. It is not impossible to have two balls with all attributes same in this world. Do you agree?? But, what makes us to perceive or understand that they are in fact two different balls even though they are "same" in all aspects? There must be something else which makes that "difference" between these two balls permanent. Can you see that principle? If yes, that is what is called "inherent" property of that object or svarupa lakshana. The "difference" itself is inherent to every entity and that svarupa lakshna is what makes them an entity in first place. This is the basis on which the entire world is existing and this svarupa will never cease as it is eternal. Twins, two rocks, bag of balls or anything and everything that are existing in this world exhibits this svarupa lakshana of "difference" and it is undeniable real principle.

If we agree or sense to this 'difference' as real principle, then it expands to various tenets of the doctrine of differences where it states

1. Differences exist between two jivas
2. Differences exist between two jadas
3. Differences exist between jiva and Jada
4. Differences between Jiva and Parameswara
5. Differences between Jada and Parameswara

This svarupa lakshana is the criteria for degradation amoung jiva in very short.

I just presented a very simple view of the degradation and if you are interested to know more, i ll post later.




.

rahulg
11 February 2010, 03:07 AM
Sametime you again prove one more time as one of the billions who got no brains or qualification to receive Grace of such Supreme God instead believe in a mere redemption forgetting the duties, actions that you have to perform to qualify yourself for such mercy.

A blind faith will not even lead you to Jesus! It will only lead you to self destruction or a psychological syndrome where you abuse yourself as sinner and wait for a pure Supreme being to come over and take it in His bag. God's mercy shouldn't be that cheap and unworthy!

If mercy is earned, it becomes a wage. So all this talk about working hard is just a respectable way of saying: I have a big ego, and I can do anything. A humble person would accept his sinful nature and wallow in remorse and sorrow; that's what true spirituality is about. Hinduism and Christianity (and even Islam and other religions) teach this.

grames
11 February 2010, 03:19 AM
Dear,

its not arrogance but it is the practical way of knowing what can give you that required thing which u mentioned it as "Humble". I am glad you pronounced that word "Humble".

Now, go back and start thinking and expand what can make a man "Humble"?

Yes only a "Humble" person will be eligible for His grace. We say same thing but we do not say or elevate everyone overnight as Humble. A small difference but profound intelligence behind it.

No i am not being arrogant but i sense u are on the verge of it. I can discuss with you with pleasure provided i expect you to use your brain along with your learning instead of simply parroting. Its not arrogance but respect for equals.

Mercy is not earned but given and to receive that given mercy, you need your vessels clean. If God is not partial, why he wouldn't shower His mercy for anyone and everyone? For whom He is waiting? To someone who submits? Submission is not an act where then such Grace after submission will not be a wage? Do not play with mere words please.

Thanks


If mercy is earned, it becomes a wage. So all this talk about working hard is just a respectable way of saying: I have a big ego, and I can do anything. A humble person would accept his sinful nature and wallow in remorse and sorrow; that's what true spirituality is about. Hinduism and Christianity (and even Islam and other religions) teach this.

atanu
11 February 2010, 04:02 AM
If mercy is earned, it becomes a wage. So all this talk about working hard is just a respectable way of saying: I have a big ego, and I can do anything. A humble person would accept his sinful nature and wallow in remorse and sorrow; that's what true spirituality is about. Hinduism and Christianity (and even Islam and other religions) teach this.

Dear rahulg,

I agree about what you write about humbleness. You will note that Shri Krishna identifies only one character, on account of which He hurls back demonic people to lower and lower realms -- and that is Hard Heartedness.

There is not much to add after what grames has written. I just wish to point out that you started the thread by pointing out presumed inferiority of Hindu understanding.

As far as I can understand, the Hindu understanding is layered. Which is apparently not the case with christianity that is being preached, taught, and imposed upon. Most christians begin with a premise of superiority. They even want to convert Hindu sages. Where is humility in that?
-------------------------

Regarding suffering, I will re-iterate that Hinduism is layered, absorbing in devotees of many levels of readiness. So, some Hindus do have the concept of Sin and Suffering and God's role in mitigation. As you said, while citing saidevoji, that Guru taking the burden of shishya is similar. Hindu concept of Shiva taking the poison is very important. On another level, it will be taught that sin is the pain of separation from God (this point also, i believe, you have touched upon). At another level, it is taught (in christianity also) that every one is born a sinner -- since birth is due to desire, which is equated to death and the sin.

But finally, it is taught that the Atma, the true self, is untainted by work and sin, just as air is not truly tainted by objects in it. Obviously, not every one will get to hear this knowledge from Guru. When it is taught that your atma is untainted, how can you expect God to suffer on atma's account?

None of the understanding of sin may be wrong but different layers of understanding help people situated differently. I hope that you will desist from presuming since you say that humbleness is the crucial thing. I agree.

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
11 February 2010, 09:54 AM
But God does suffer.
*** Yet, He is never devoid of pleasure.
God puts on a show of observing the hapless souls, but this is due to a passing imposition that occurs when God visits the material Worlds ---for the ultimate elevation of souls toward free-will devotion to Him, beyond maya.

God is a Person, who is the resorvoir and fountainhead of all "personal & inter-personal" exchanges [mellows/Rasas].

God can feel your pain [see: note *** above] --he can stop it by His causeless-mercy.

But since paramatma is localised as our own individual conscious-life-force, known as 'souls' ---this is as near as we can get to God.
And in the blink of God's eye: epochs pass ---there is only so much God can do to impose a fix for a soul's condition, when that soul is conditioned to seek theirown lordship of all the soul surveys & no other aide except from other those who would be heros and assistants in quest of their own self-engrandisment .

God suffers to see his children seeking maya, so God is free to say, "They are making their own plans, why should I stop them [from getting their (maya) desires]". This is a real 'catch-22'.

But the discussion should be "SACRIFICE" in western tradition. From where did this notion evolve? The Vedic culture? But why does the 'sacrifice' derive its doctine and logic?

bhaktajan
11 February 2010, 10:06 AM
Bhaktivedanta Swami wrote :

[I]" . . . From His kingdom the Personality of Godhead sends His bona fide servants to propagate this message by which one can return to Godhead, and sometimes the Lord comes Himself to do this work. Since all living beings are His beloved sons, His parts and parcels, God is more sorry than we ourselves to see the sufferings we are constantly undergoing in this material condition. The miseries of this material world serve to indirectly remind us of our incompatibility with dead matter. Intelligent living entities generally take note of these reminders and engage themselves in the culture of vidya, or transcendental knowledge. . . . "

Suffering = the absence or distruption of continual Pleasure.

Suffering is an occurrance that 99% of the time is a 'temporary and fleeting' state. Remember, that same "temporary and fleeting state" is famously called Time. "Time heals all wounds" Eternity of heaven is NOT a fleeting condition of life.

In interpersonal exchanges, we suffer on behalf of eachother all the time.

Mass karmic reactions finds us all in the sameKarmic network, seperated by six-degrees-of-seperation.

Contrarily, Does God feel the pleasures of Mankind?

bhaktajan
11 February 2010, 10:10 AM
Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad
"No sadhu I know advertise that we are free from karma by simply accepting them."




You may be 100% Wrong on this one!

When the brahmana comes to your door for rice ---Why is this tradition occurring?!

rahulg
11 February 2010, 11:07 AM
Dear rahulg,

I agree about what you write about humbleness. You will note that Shri Krishna identifies only one character, on account of which He hurls back demonic people to lower and lower realms -- and that is Hard Heartedness.

There is not much to add after what grames has written. I just wish to point out that you started the thread by pointing out presumed inferiority of Hindu understanding.

As far as I can understand, the Hindu understanding is layered. Which is apparently not the case with christianity that is being preached, taught, and imposed upon. Most christians begin with a premise of superiority. They even want to convert Hindu sages. Where is humility in that?
-------------------------

Regarding suffering, I will re-iterate that Hinduism is layered, absorbing in devotees of many levels of readiness. So, some Hindus do have the concept of Sin and Suffering and God's role in mitigation. As you said, while citing saidevoji, that Guru taking the burden of shishya is similar. Hindu concept of Shiva taking the poison is very important. On another level, it will be taught that sin is the pain of separation from God (this point also, i believe, you have touched upon). At another level, it is taught (in christianity also) that every one is born a sinner -- since birth is due to desire, which is equated to death and the sin.

But finally, it is taught that the Atma, the true self, is untainted by work and sin, just as air is not truly tainted by objects in it. Obviously, not every one will get to hear this knowledge from Guru. When it is taught that your atma is untainted, how can you expect God to suffer on atma's account?

None of the understanding of sin may be wrong but different layers of understanding help people situated differently. I hope that you will desist from presuming since you say that humbleness is the crucial thing. I agree.

Om Namah Shivaya

I agree with most of the things you say. Only thing I don't agree with is the monistic idea you've presented, the identity between soul and God. I believe that man and God are ever separate, and that man is sinful. And only God, who is sinless, can save him.

As to Christians trying to convert Hindu sages, that's probably out of concern, I guess, rather than plain arrogance.

rahulg
11 February 2010, 11:16 AM
Mercy is not earned but given and to receive that given mercy, you need your vessels clean. If God is not partial, why he wouldn't shower His mercy for anyone and everyone? For whom He is waiting? To someone who submits? Submission is not an act where then such Grace after submission will not be a wage? Do not play with mere words please.

Thanks

The point is, He showers His grace on whomsoever He pleases. Which is why you find sinners and unlikely, worldly people who are often blessed by Him. So it is His prerogative. We can't bribe him with anything. Nor can we make the effort, because we're basically impotent. We're more or less worms, and we have no strength or knowledge or any redeeming quality at all. So the very thought that one can make the effort and please Him is sheer arrogance; we're nobodies and we want to become kings. That's pride!

saidevo
11 February 2010, 11:18 AM
namaste.

In the relativity of Creation, the Universe with all its sensate and insensate beings, is actually Ishvara's physical body. The other sheaths like the astral, mental and causal are also God's respective sheaths in totality. So, all the good and bad, pleasure and pain, peace and suffering, knowledge and ignorance that occurs in the physical and other sheaths respectively, disturbing the dhArmic balance of the universe and leaving pain and suffering as major visible aspects of human life, should also be partaken by God, logically speaking.

From our POV, yes it must be so: God should be happy, sad, angry, even revengeful as delineated in the mythological texts of all religions. At the same time we should understand that such delineation is only for our sake, to foster our remembrance of God, worship and be devoted to him and live our life in dharma as much as practicable. Even as the child feels that the characters it watches on the TV screen are real and partakes their emotions, we feel the delineated facets of God as real, mainly because God as a Human Personality is indelibly impressed in our psyche.

This is so far as our POV goes. The mistake that the western religions make is to assume that it is also God's POV! Only Hinduism, which is SanAtana Dharma, has probed deeper into this subject, trying to look at how it could be from God's POV. The Hindu investigations end up with two perceptions about God: God as the Supreme Personality having saguNa, and God as the nirguNa Brahman, who is immanent in everything.

Both these perceptions unite in the concept that the world all its beings and facets of life, is only a drama, Ishvara lIlA, and Ishvara stays as a witness to it all. Ishvara himself is unaffected by it, and he always showers his grace like sunshine to everyone. The jIvas acquire that grace according to the purity of their vessels and with that nectar in their heart get their pain and suffering mitigated, and where it can't be so, obtain the strength to face life's adversities.

The lesson we learn is that since we are God's children, and are made after his image, we should progressively learn to look at our pain and misery from God's POV as revealed in Hinduism, and keep our vessels pure in order that we may make full use of his grace which is forever present surrounding us like the atmosphere, and face the adversities of life, armed with his grace, knowledge and mental strength.

Ganeshprasad
12 February 2010, 10:05 AM
Pranam





You may be 100% Wrong on this one!

When the brahmana comes to your door for rice ---Why is this tradition occurring?!

Are you asking or making a point that i can not fathom?

I am willing to be corrected on this

Brahmin comes to my door could be for any reason
Athithi Devo bhava
It is a great Hindu tradition
Giving cherity is mode of goodness,a Brahmana would certainly bless.

But no Brahmin gives license to Do Paap.period

Jai Shree Krishna

satay
12 February 2010, 10:33 AM
namaskar,



As to Christians trying to convert Hindu sages, that's probably out of concern, I guess, rather than plain arrogance.

No. That's because in the west, christianity is being rejected as the junk it is by the westerners. Thus the poison of paulinity is being spread to africa and to the east since there are no buyers in the west.

But not to worry, Shiva holds the poison in his throat and won't let it spread in Bharata. ;)

Happy Maha Shivratri!

satay
12 February 2010, 10:38 AM
namast grames,

The question came from me.
Thanks for the response. If your time permits, please elaborate in a new thread.

Thanks!


Dear Satay,

Wonderful response from Shri Aurbindo and i appreciate your vast interests. Also you have raised a question or is it a question from Shri Aurbindo?? I do not know but i am just attempting to answer this particular question.




This is very interesting and also very scientific thing about science of differences. Imagine, we have two red balls with same diameter, color, weight, shape and all metrics being same. It is not impossible to have two balls with all attributes same in this world. Do you agree?? But, what makes us to perceive or understand that they are in fact two different balls even though they are "same" in all aspects? There must be something else which makes that "difference" between these two balls permanent. Can you see that principle? If yes, that is what is called "inherent" property of that object or svarupa lakshana. The "difference" itself is inherent to every entity and that svarupa lakshna is what makes them an entity in first place. This is the basis on which the entire world is existing and this svarupa will never cease as it is eternal. Twins, two rocks, bag of balls or anything and everything that are existing in this world exhibits this svarupa lakshana of "difference" and it is undeniable real principle.

If we agree or sense to this 'difference' as real principle, then it expands to various tenets of the doctrine of differences where it states

1. Differences exist between two jivas
2. Differences exist between two jadas
3. Differences exist between jiva and Jada
4. Differences between Jiva and Parameswara
5. Differences between Jada and Parameswara

This svarupa lakshana is the criteria for degradation amoung jiva in very short.

I just presented a very simple view of the degradation and if you are interested to know more, i ll post later.




.

sanjaya
12 February 2010, 03:20 PM
The point is, He showers His grace on whomsoever He pleases. Which is why you find sinners and unlikely, worldly people who are often blessed by Him. So it is His prerogative. We can't bribe him with anything. Nor can we make the effort, because we're basically impotent. We're more or less worms, and we have no strength or knowledge or any redeeming quality at all. So the very thought that one can make the effort and please Him is sheer arrogance; we're nobodies and we want to become kings. That's pride!

Rahul, you have a very low view of humanity, lower than what I think is warranted. How do you know that God views humans as worms? I don't know where you're getting this information from? Or should I say, I do know, and I believe that your source is not reputable. Still, I think my question deserves an answer. On what basis do you hold to your view of humans?

Christians often say that the sinfulness of man can be seen simply by looking in the daily newspaper. This is true, but what often isn't reported is the altruistic deeds that people do. How does your view of humanity account for altruism?


As to Christians trying to convert Hindu sages, that's probably out of concern, I guess, rather than plain arrogance.

Be careful, my friend. You think that Christians are out to convert you out of concern. And you're right. But when you say "no thanks" to their gospel, their concern will quickly turn into hatred. Just as a man or woman can be inflamed with hatred by spurned love, so too will the Christians turn to attack you when you reject their supposed offer of salvation. Christianity is not what you think. The questions I'm asking you about Christianity are based on legitimate concerns and theological issues, and they need to be addressed. Why are you ignoring them or replying with mere platitudes? As Grames said, you're playing with words instead of giving answers grounded in reality. I'm not saying this because I want to insult you or win some debate for its own sake. I say these things because I believe that you're missing out on the rich spiritual heritage that you have available to yourself as a Hindu.

And since we don't believe that you'll go to hell for apostasy, we won't try to destroy you if you do ultimately convert. Please consider carefully my claim that belief in hell leads to arrogance and hatred of the supposedly unsaved.

satay
13 February 2010, 12:08 AM
namaskar,
You are correct that this the kind of junk christianity teaches that they
themselves are worms and basically impotent. Well, what can we do? Such is their karma. ;)


Nor can we make the effort, because we're basically impotent. We're more or less worms, and we have no strength or knowledge or any redeeming quality at all.

Eastern Mind
13 February 2010, 07:02 AM
The point is, He showers His grace on whomsoever He pleases. Which is why you find sinners and unlikely, worldly people who are often blessed by Him. So it is His prerogative. We can't bribe him with anything. Nor can we make the effort, because we're basically impotent. We're more or less worms, and we have no strength or knowledge or any redeeming quality at all. So the very thought that one can make the effort and please Him is sheer arrogance; we're nobodies and we want to become kings. That's pride!

Aum: At the core of our existence lies the Self, which in quality is identical to God. We and God are one and the same. This is not a redeeming quality?

Aum Namasivaya

satay
13 February 2010, 03:20 PM
namaste,


Rahul, you have a very low view of humanity, lower than what I think is warranted. How do you know that God views humans as worms?

psalm 22: A cry of Anguish

My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?...

... But I am no longer a man; I am worm,
despised and scorned by all!

smaranam
13 February 2010, 03:43 PM
Namaste Rahul ji (Rahul g)

May I offer some friendly advice ?

Please take a moment to see if you really want to understand what Sanatana Dharma has to say.

If the answer turns out to be yes , ONLY then ....

Please do not look around and judge any communities for a while
Take a good Bhagavad Gita and go to a quiet hill
Read it all the way.

See what He has to say

What He (God) wants us to do is to be understood thru' these 18 chapters,
at the end of which Krshna says - forget all dharmas (to do-s, social customs, environmental advices) and surrender unto Me. I shall take care of you.

You may ask qns about the Gita. If you have personal guidance, that's wonderful. In any case, the section Scriptures-->Bh Gita is the place to ask
any authentic Gita qns.

Why waste yours and other people's energy ?

grames
15 February 2010, 01:05 AM
Dear Ji,

He showers His grace on whomsoever He pleases! This is where the entire SD's knowledge is. It is not that SD do not have any idea about what God is as you assume. So, continue your faith and it is no point in discussing about SD as you do not have any idea about what SD is. Instead of wasting your time and energy, pls wait for the Lord to shower His grace upon you and also if time permits, pray for all of us as we do not have to do anything significant when all merciful people like you are there to remind God to shower His grace towards us with out we doing anything. Show your mercy my Lord.

Bhavu
20 February 2010, 03:24 AM
Dear Rahulg,


The point is, He showers His grace on whomsoever He pleases.

This happens only on judgement day!!!


Which is why you find sinners and unlikely, worldly people who are often blessed by Him. So it is His prerogative. We can't bribe him with anything.I think this a very narrow thinking. As a follower of our Sanatana Dharma, you must know that your experiencing pain or pleasure is nothing extraneous to yourself, but only the sum total of the results of your past & present actions.

As God is but the dispenser of the fruits in accordance with the merits of actions, pleasure or pain, representing those fruits, is not his creation but only yours. so why ascribe partialty to god.


Nor can we make the effort, because we're basically impotent. We're more or less worms, and we have no strength or knowledge or any redeeming quality at all. So the very thought that one can make the effort and please Him is sheer arrogance; we're nobodies and we want to become kings. That's pride!This is what as follower of SD we should believe in -

"There is nothing which is really unattainable. A thing, however, may be unattainable to us at the particular stage at which we are, or with the qualifications that we possess. The attainability or otherwise of a particular thing is thus not an absolute characteristic of that thing but is relative and proportionate to our capacity to attain it..."


Asatoma....Sadgamaya
Tamasoma...Jyothirgamaya

I have paraphrased few excerpts under the topic "Fate & Freewill" from "The Dialogues with the guru". I sincerely recommend you to read this entire book to have much better understanding on SD.

Pranam

Adhvagat
15 May 2011, 05:09 AM
I can't believe I missed this thread, and the guy even lied saying he was a Hindu. Unbelievable.

Christianity is a complete philosophical and theological mess. This thread is a gem, Satay's example of the rapist is hilarious.

And the analogy of the kid playing in the burning house shows the mentality level of Christians, immature kids.

LittleLight
15 May 2011, 07:15 PM
Did Ram, Krishna, Shiva and others suffer at all? If not, what was the purpose of incarnating?

I think they did: Rama suffered when his beloved Sita was abducted, Krishna suffered when he had to leave for Mathura and let Radha behind and Shiva suffered terribly when Sati commited suiccide (he even carried her body on his shoulders over the earth).

yajvan
16 May 2011, 10:38 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



I think they did: Rama suffered when his beloved Sita was abducted, Krishna suffered when he had to leave for Mathura and let Radha behind and Shiva suffered terribly when Sati commited suiccide (he even carried her body on his shoulders over the earth).

Sīta speaks to Hanumānji - Know Rāma to be the Supreme Brahman - One without a second. I, in the presence of Rāma, His power (or Prakriti) created the Universe unwearied... adhyātma rāmayāna, bala khana, śloka 32-43

Where can be this suffering? Suffering is that if the finite, not of the infinite.


praṇām

ॐ harsh
20 May 2011, 05:29 PM
namaskar,



'Suffering' of Gods is an alien concept.

God has no reason to suffer nor should he send his son to suffer for humanity. :rolleyes:

of course yes thats the true answer i agree with this, i don know why people dont open eyes to see this concept

ॐ harsh
20 May 2011, 05:32 PM
namaskar,



'Suffering' of Gods is an alien concept.

God has no reason to suffer nor should he send his son to suffer for humanity. :rolleyes:

hmm, correct i agree...