A logical debate. Interested?

[satay]

Admin Note

Namaskar,
Would anyone be interested in having a logical debate supported by evidence over the following issue?

Does hinduism accept scriptures from other religions as truth or originated from the same source as Vedas? Specifically, Do Bible and Koran the same truth and message as of Hindu scriptures?

I would request Yajvan as the moderator of the discussion after agreeing on some basic discussion rules. Of course, I haven't asked Yajvan if has the time to do this.

Anyone interested in having such a debate?

[raghu_001]

Admin Note

Namaskar,
Would anyone be interested in having a logical debate supported by evidence over the following issue?

Does hinduism accept scriptures from other religions as truth or originated from the same source as Vedas? Specifically, Do Bible and Koran the same truth and message as of Hindu scriptures?

I would request Yajvan as the moderator of the discussion after agreeing on some basic discussion rules. Of course, I haven't asked Yajvan if has the time to do this.

Anyone interested in having such a debate?

It appears that we are already having that debate in the Abrahamic religions subforum.

Before anyone can even begin to assert that the Bible, Koran, and Vedas all contain the same truth, one should at least know the Bible, the Koran, and the Vedas. Unfortunately many individuals who make this assertion are not familiar with any of the above three, what to speak of all of them.

Then if one agrees to base such a debate on the Bible, the Koran, and the Vedas, then one must agree to discuss the specific evidence within each and whether they are truly compatible or contradictory. Again, my observation is that people who claim that these are all the same truth just ignore the 99% of evidence which contradicts their point of view.

Finally, if there is a debate about the supposed oneness of all religions, debaters need to take these religions *as they are.* They should refrain from inventing some new idea and passing it off as belonging to one of these religions. For example, one poster recently tried to argue that the idea of a "jealous God" in Abrahamic faiths represents an inner vice rather than the characteristic of the God whose teachings are enunciated in the scripture. This is not intellectually honest as it brazenly contradicts what the "jealous God" himself says in the Old Testament.

The most important feature of any debate is to get at the truth. Debate should serve as a crucible where the impurities of false ideas are burned away leaving only a pure product - the truth. Religious debate is not for trying to propagate one's own personal ideas.

[Znanna]

There are so many debates within religions relative to OneNess ... while compare and contrast across orthodoxies is interesting (yours truly guilty as charged), it's my impression that the general precepts are uniform both within as well as between religions.

So, seems to me that having the Many/One argument within one tradition known well in these environs would likely be more productive than the Many/One argument here, across different POV.

That said, I'd still quite enjoy a hardcore trinitarian/unitarian cross-religion smackdown.


ZN

[saidevo]

There are at least two good books with perhaps opposite views on the subject:

Christianity, Hinduism: Cosmic Game (Ramanuja Achari)
http://srimatham.com/srimatham/cosmi...cosmicgame.pdf

The author of this books says (p 71):

"There are, as I have demonstrated many similar teachings found in both the Bible and the Gita. But the Gita is truly a HOLY Scripture dealing with the nature of the soul, the nature of the Godhead, our relationship with Him and the path of virtue and love. Nowhere in all the sacred revelation of India — the Vedas, the Upanishads or the Gita is there to be found anything comparable to the most appalling and repulsive teachings and injunctions which are found in the Bible."

(As God would have it, the author of this book "one of only two Westerners to be ordained as Priests in the conservative lineage of the Srivaishnava tradition of South India, and the first to have been confirmed as Acharya (Spiritual Preceptor) in 1990 by His Holiness Sri Varada Yatiraja Jiyar Swamigal — the pontiff of the Adi Kesava Perumal Temple in Sriperumbudur, Tamilnadu. He studied Hebrew and Arabic in Israel, Sanskrit.")

The other books is this:
Essential Unity of All Religions By Bhagavan Das
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22e...G=Search+Books

About this book Dr.Rajendra Prasad says:

"This book Essential Unity of All Religions, clearly proves, by more than a thousand quotations of texts from the most honoured scriptures of all the eleven living great Religions of the world, that all these Religions are really identical in their Essential Teachings and Injunctions..."

It could be fruitful to base our discussions on these and other similar books, feeling free to express our own individual opinions on the points of views of the books.

[devotee]

Namaste all,

I strongly believe that the Truth is ONE & it can never be different for different faith.

The scriptures are guide for pointing to the Truth. The Truth has to be experienced ... mere theoretical knowledge of books doesn't lead you to the Truth. The Truth ... same Truth is there in all scriptures ... but in almost all scriptures there are also things which had their validity within a given time-period, social structure & value system of the society. The Man is continuously evolving ... so, the best way of the that time have lost their meaning in our time. To find the Truth which must always be the Same in all scriptures we must be able to segregate these "time-specific" truth from the Truth.

If someone believes that only Lord Shiva & Lord Krishna are the Truth & Jesus Christ & Allah are not-Truth ... it is because he has yet to experience the Truth ... the Reality. I can't believe that we Hindus who are approximately only 14% of World population have the Truth & all other 86% have Not-Truth. Let's not compare two dissimilar scriptures. If we compare the Q'uran with the
Vedanta then there is simply no comparison. But if we compare the Puranas with Q'uran .... it is saying almost similar things ... there is a creator which has to be worshipped & that particularly named creator is more powerful than any other deities ... if you do good you get heaven & if you bad things you get hell.

We can compare Vedanta with Islamic mysticism which talks about Non-duality in almost similar way. I shall give here a few examples :

Baba Kuhi of Shiriz says :

"In the market, in the cloister--only God I saw.
In the valley and on the mountain--only God I saw.
Him I have seen beside me oft in tribulation;
In favour and in fortune--only God I saw.
In prayer and fasting, in praise and contemplation,
In the religion of the Prophet--only God I saw.
Neither soul nor body, accident nor substance,
Qualities nor causes--only God I saw.
I oped mine eyes and by the light of His face around me
In all the eye discovered--only God I saw.
Like a candle I was melting in His fire:
Amidst the flames outflashing--only God I saw.
Myself with mine own eyes I saw most clearly,
But when I looked with God's eyes--only God I saw.
I passed away into nothingness, I vanished,
And lo, I was the All-living--only God I saw."

Isn't is as pure as the Vedanta ?

This is from Jalaluddin Rumi :

"Look for the moon in the sky, not in the water!
If you desire to rise above mere names and letters,
Make yourself free from self at one stroke.
Become pure from all attributes of self,
That you may see your own bright essence,
Yea, see in your own heart the knowledge of the Prophet,
Without book, without tutor, without preceptor."

And this Ultimate one from Al Mansoor "Hallaz",

" I Am The TRUTH" !

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

Many such examples can be quoted but I don't want to flood this post with them.

If we look at Christianity, the things are too much mixed. The Truth is mixed with the time-specific truths in a more complicated way than in Islam. Somehow, the hard-core clerics of Islam have not allowed mixing of the Duality based religion with Non-duality. In Christianity we don't have a clear-cut divide.

But I shall quote some of the excerpts which indicate that there are many places where the Truth of Vedanta echoes with similar clarity :

1. In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God & the Word was God. ---- John 1.1 (Bible)

===> Please mark these words, " The Word was God" ..... is it different from "OM" ? ( Mandukya Upanishad)

2. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, & that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? ----- Corianthians 3.16 (Bible)

====> proclaims the Truth that God has to be found within & also hints that same God dwells in all.

3. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. ------ John 1.12 (Bible)

====> This passage makes it clear that it was not only Jesus who was Son of God. Anyone can become the Son of God. Read it with what the Son of God said, "I and my father are One".

4. The light of the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light. ----- Matthew 6.22

====> " If thine eye be single" ----> This points to higher state achieved in meditation.

5. I and my Father are ONE. -----John 10.30

===> Jesus declares attaining the state of Non-duality.

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

Did all scriptures arise from the same source ? Yes ! Where is the doubt ? The source of all knowledge is the One without a second !

OM

[raghu_001]

Namaste all,

I strongly believe that the Truth is ONE & it can never be different for different faith.

That is all very nice and good, but are you prepared to submit your beliefs to scrutiny? Because if the conclusion of any debate is that your belief is true, regardless of how much evidence is provided showing the total incompatibility of other religions with Hindu thought, then there is no point of debating now is there?

The Muslims who uprooted paganism in ancient Arabia are no different in their methodologies from the Mulsims who attacked ancient India and attempted to uproot Hinduism. If Islam is true, then there is validity in the evil acts which Muslims did in the name of their religion.

Frankly, my observation has been that those who claim that all religions are true are just crass sentimentalists who do not bother to acquaint themselves with the evidence.

[devotee]

That is all very nice and good, but are you prepared to submit your beliefs to scrutiny? Because if the conclusion of any debate is that your belief is true, regardless of how much evidence is provided showing the total incompatibility of other religions with Hindu thought, then there is no point of debating now is there?

Namaste Raghu,

What I have seen in your other posts is reflected again here that you first make a pretty strong opinion to the point of not-listening & then come to discuss. Please forget my post, that was not for you.

Instead of posting the above lines if you had posted some proof against what I said, I would have appreciated your approach.

The Muslims who uprooted paganism in ancient Arabia are no different in their methodologies from the Muslims who attacked ancient India and attempted to uproot Hinduism. If Islam is true, then there is validity in the evil acts which Muslims did in the name of their religion.

If you interpret the scriptures wrongly, then similar problems are with all religions including Hinduism. Which Hindu scripture asks you to maim, rape & kill innocents ? But has it not happened whenever riots have broken out ? The sufferers, most of the time, in all such cases are innocents & that is not permitted in any religious scripture.

As far as killing innocent Hindus is concerned, it was not only the aggressors from outside, there were elements here itself in sufficient quantity. please refer to ancient Indian History & find out how many wars were fought for capturing territories by one Hindu king against the others. The
brutal fight between "Shaivites & the Vaishnavas", the "Hindus & the Buddhists" .... was it sanctioned by the scriptures ?

The problem lies not in the scriptures but it lies in wrong interpretation of the scriptures & in the mentality, "Mine is better than yours" & it lies in a closed-mind-set which doesn't leave any scope for listening to the other side. And these factors are present in all civilisations regardless of faiths.

Frankly, my observation has been that those who claim that all religions are true are just crass sentimentalists who do not bother to acquaint themselves with the evidence.

Do you really think you are here for a discussion or branding people with titles as per your "idea" of the Truth ?
OM

[raghu_001]

Namaste,

I am very sorry that devotee feels that I am egotistical and that I am not listening to him. In fact I have read and analyzed all of his statements very carefully, and have posted counter rebuttals that have largely gone unaddressed (excluding the ad hominem attacks and attacks on my character, possibly motivated by the difficulty answering the inconvenient questions I have posed). The problem here seems to be that while devotee is satisfied quoting evidence from the Koran that backs his point of view, he is still not willing to address the evidence from the Koran which contradicts his point of view.

Surely we can all agree that the soundness of a theory lies in its ability to explain the greatest degree of the available evidence. Claiming that Islam is compatible with Hinduism and then ignoring most of the Koran which is hostile to Hinduism is not convincing.

In response to the evidence I have provided from the Koran inciting Muslims to fight against non-believers and murder non-combatants, "devotee" brings up wars on the Indian subcontinent between rival Hindu kingdoms to bolster his point of view that Islam and Hinduism are similar. Now, let us be crystal clear in our thinking. The point is not that there were no wars in India amongst the Hindus. The point is that Muslims are specifically enjoined to attack non-believers and even to violently suppress non-combatants (Mohammed's own example). This makes Islam incompatible with Hinduism.

However, the wars among rival Hindu kingdoms had nothing to do with religious differences and were fought between armies. We do not find in Indian history a *recurring* trend towards Hindu kings massacering civilians and enforcing conversions from one sampradaya to another by the sword. Indeed, there is no Hindu scriptural precedent for attacking non-combatants and forcing them to change their religious views by violence. But in Islam we see the precedent for this in Mohammed's own example.

I respectfully submit that Devotee is taking the position of an apologist for Islamic atrocities by comparing apples to oranges.

Devotee also implies that I am "interpreting" the Koran incorrectly. However, I have provided the English translations and verse numbers, and have checked context in each case. If Devotee feels I have misinterpreted the Koran, he is certainly welcome to examine the context and explain the correct interpretation of the suras from the Koran so that I can correct my wrong thinking. "Correct interpretation" of the Koran means what its author had meant by those verses - not what someone else wants them to mean. We must deal with the Koran as it is - we cannot claim to speak about Islam and then refer to ideas superimposed upon the Koran to make it more palatable to fans of political correctness.

regards,

Raghu

[devotee]

Namaste Raghu,

I have read and analyzed all of his statements very carefully, and have posted counter rebuttals that have largely gone unaddressed (excluding the ad hominem attacks and attacks on my character, possibly motivated by the difficulty answering the inconvenient questions I have posed).

Can you cite some or even one of the inconvenient question that remains unanswered ? I can't sit replying your posts the whole time dear ! Wait, the answer will come, that is certain. And there is no attack on you, for your info. I actually believed that you wanted to discuss the issues but when I posted the replies, it was clear to me that it was otherwise. I might be wrong in my assessment but that still has to be proved.

The problem here seems to be that while devotee is satisfied quoting evidence from the Koran that backs his point of view, he is still not willing to address the evidence from the Koran which contradicts his point of view.

Did you quote any verses which say otherwise ?

Claiming that Islam is compatible with Hinduism and then ignoring most of the Koran which is hostile to Hinduism is not convincing.

Please quote verses, then we shall discuss. If you can't then I can quote quite a number of verses which are bothering you. Just tell me. But I can also quote verses from Hindu Scriptures which justify killings.

[quote]In response to the evidence I have provided from the Koran inciting Muslims to fight against non-believers and murder non-combatants,

Isn't it a white lie ? "In response to the evidence" ?? ... which evidence are you talking about, dear ? Please quote your evidence that you have mentioned above in this post. The sad part of your posts is that they are judgemental without any support from anywhere ... you just make a statement without quoting from an authority. This is repeated in all your posts. If you are interested I can cite all your posts where you have passed judgement without giving any logic or quoting any authority.

"devotee" brings up wars on the Indian subcontinent between rival Hindu kingdoms to bolster his point of view that Islam and Hinduism are similar. Now, let us be crystal clear in our thinking. The point is not that there were no wars in India amongst the Hindus. The point is that Muslims are specifically enjoined to attack non-believers and even to violently suppress non-combatants (Mohammed's own example). This makes Islam incompatible with Hinduism.

You are giving only "your" statements without any proof & also giving "your" verdict.

I respectfully submit that Devotee is taking the position of an apologist for Islamic atrocities by comparing apples to oranges.

This is yet another sentence from you without any supporting evidence from you side. First of all, why should I be apologist for Muslims ? Do you think it is not absurd ?

Devotee also implies that I am "interpreting" the Koran incorrectly. However, I have provided the English translations and verse numbers, and have checked context in each case.

Why should you be reminded that you have not quoted any verse from Q'uran yet, let alone its interpretation etc. ?

If Devotee feels I have misinterpreted the Koran, he is certainly welcome to examine the context and explain the correct interpretation of the suras from the Koran so that I can correct my wrong thinking.

That stage can come only when you quote the specific verses, right ?

"Correct interpretation" of the Koran means what its author had meant by those verses - not what someone else wants them to mean.

... & who will decide who is really aware of what was in the heart of the writer ? Raghu ?

We must deal with the Koran as it is - we cannot claim to speak about Islam and then refer to ideas superimposed upon the Koran to make it more palatable to fans of political correctness.

This is your opinion that I am trying to superimpose my ideas on Q'uran. Please prove what you say, if you feel that your opinion should be accepted & other's opinion should be rejected. I am not forcing you to accept my opinion because mine is again an opinion. Everyone has his right of having an opinion. If you have a different opinion than that of mine, why should there be any problem ?

OM

[raghu_001]

Did you quote any verses which say otherwise ?

I have already quoted in my previous postings the following:

1) Mohammed's practice of beheading his enemies (even after they had surrendered) and enslaving their women and children. We do not find such a practice among Hindu warriors.

2) The directives from the Koran inciting Muslims to attack and convert non-believers, defined as those who do not follow Allah/Koran.

Please refer to my previous postings from other threads for details.

Please quote verses, then we shall discuss. If you can't then I can quote quite a number of verses which are bothering you. Just tell me. But I can also quote verses from Hindu Scriptures which justify killings.

I am calling your bluff. Show me evidence from Hindu scriptures directing Hindus to attack non-Hindus and convert them by threat of violence. Please show me evidence from Hindu scriptures rationalizing the beheading of captives and the enslaving of their families. Then you will have proven your point and I will concede defeat.

regards,

Raghu