Does science have all answers?

[Sudarshan]

To accrue grace, which leads to highest state one does not have to evolve by adhering to Dharma rules as a precondition! While the rules of Dharma may be sufficient condition for a normal spiritual growth, it is not a necessary condition.

wow. What do you know of Dharma? I am not surprised that Christians tried to evolve without adhering to Dharma. The history of Christianity is ample proof.

There are cases of sudden conversion, upsurge of the spirit from seemingly common souls, which I witness daily in my walk of life. These people never had any education in spirituality, or any strong inclination to turn to God yet give us a testimony of conversion that is very touching.

Indeed, the stories of Christians leaving Christianity is also very touching. And how many of them embrace Dharma is also very touching after their encounters with the spirit of the God of Hinduism. Education is not a prerequisite for spiritual development, and we Hindus know that much better than anybody else. Sometimes education and shAstra jnana can work against spiritual development too, as too much rational thinking can rob one of the innocence that is needed to be a devotee.

There are what are called arthavAda, or eulogizing one point over the other. There are many key points to attaining perfection, and no religion addresses all of them simultaneously as it is beyond the capability of ordinary human beings. So every religion talks about one or more of the concepts unerlying the attainment of perfection. For eg, Shankaracharya laid more stress on Jnana than anything else and completely put down Karma Yoga. Sri Ramanuja laid much more emphasis on devotion and surrender than anything else. Madhvacharya held that even Jnana and devotion cannot lead to salvation, and only grace of God can. Like these, every religion tries to project one aspect above the other. Christianity and Islam have similarly highlighted certain aspects over the other. That is why we have so many religions in the world. We take birth in all these religions many times in different births, and gradually acquire all the skills needed to attain perfection. A Hindu does not put down others for this reason, because he knows the bigger picture.

However, a particular religion does not tell its followers that it is partial and incomplete, as it would lead to lack of confidence in the followers. The goal of every religion is to tell the followers that it is complete and the only truth, but is founders were certainly aware of the bigger picture. If they were not, then they were not enlightened and their claims may be dismissed. Truly enlightened people see the utility of all concepts and religions, and all of them deserve a place in the kingdom of God and his infinite variety. Hindus are sometimes forced to oppose religions like Christianity because the bigger picture is missed by most followers of Abrahamic religions. They keep shouting "my elephant has two tails" like kids!!

Just read these sample stories to see how certain points are highlighted beyond proportion:

1. The story of Ajamila. ( to show how even remembering the Lord without devotion is a gift)
2. The story of Valmiki ( how sometimes even a sinner can become a sage)
3. The story of Jaya and Vijaya. ( which shows that one is not free from the danger of samsAra as long as dualty is present, as technically a curse is impossible in Vaikunta. If you think you are apart from God, danger stalks you even in Vaikunta)
4. The story of Vyasa.( which shows that a person of any parentage can be a sage, so much for the unwarranted attacks on Hinduism)

The list can go on...

That does not mean any of these is an absolute truth and we should steer clear of following these kind of lives to the extent possible. Perfection is attainable by man, and perfection gives salvation. Every man is a mini avatar, in various degrees - he needs to investigate and realize this. Calling oneself a sinner is a practical reality, but the sinner must progress to divinity someday. Every man has the capability, and will do it in his own way. All religions are there to contribute their share....

[Sudarshan]

As a close friend puts it, "christianity is for peasants" obviously, he means for those of us who are spiritual peasants.

Why would a hindu go for the primitive god concepts when bhakti movement is so widely accessible and GOD himself has given clear instructions on how to reach him directly.

The Lord gave us the instruction in one single verse - why do we look for any other source.

11.55

Whosoever performs all acts like the study of the scripture, considering them as several modes of worship, 'he works for Me.' He who 'looks upon Me as the highest,' namely, one to whom I alone am the highest purpose in all his enterprises, has Me as 'the highest end.' He who is 'devoted to me,' i.e., is greatly devoted to me and hence unable to sustain himself without reciting My names, praising Me, meditating upon Me, worshipping Me, saluting Me etc., he who performs these always considering Me as the supreme end --- he is My devotee. He is 'free from attachments,' as he is attached to me alone, and is therefore unable to have attachment to any other entity. He who is without hatred towards any being, is one who fulfils all the following conditions: his nature is to feel pleasure or pain solely on account of his union or separation from Me; he considers his own sins to be the cause of his sufferings (and not the work of others or that of God); he is confirmed in his faith that all beings are dependent on the Lord. For all these reasons he has no hatred for any one.

Summary:

1. One who is unable to live for a moment on earth in the separation of God.
2. One who has no interest in anything other than the Lord.
3. One who works solely for the Lord.
4. One who has no hatred even towards enemies.

These are the sure ways to attain the feet of Krishna, and these are the means to secure his grace. A Hindu need to look for no further guidance or saviours, and all instructions have been summarised in a single verse. The rest of the Gita shows how to attain these qualities, starting from the basics of beleif in God, worshipping God, working for God, thinking of God, meditating on God etc.

[nirotu]

the following seems more ridiculous than 'I am Brahman':

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

Dear Satay:

I am surprised that you feel that way. In my view such utterances “I am Brahman” or “I and MY Father are one” can only come from the divine. Even the enlightened one has only the privilege to say, “ God has become me” and not “I am become God”. In my view, only one who can say that has to be divine in all respects.

The soul at any level, higher or lower” cannot utter these words unless it is the trace of ego that takes hold of him. You see, any one who claims that he is God, whether in his evolving state or enlightened state, he is blaspheming the very God he is trying to reach.

Can a wave ever become ocean? The ocean can remain without wave but wave cannot remain without ocean. Likewise, souls can never claim the authority to be God at any level. Souls are part of God but never become God.

You sit on a fire, claiming you are fire, you will inevitably suffer the consequence of pain and suffering even though it was never the intention of fire to burn you.

In that sense, either Christ is telling the truth or He is lying. Again, in my view, if historical events, fulfillment of prophesized birth and crucifixion, innumerable miracles is any indicator of truth proclaiming His Divinity, then I am convinced that Jesus is telling the truth. Do you think Jesus is lying?

Look at the parallel verse from Gita in Chapter XIV and verse 27 and translation goes like this- “And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal.” Here again Krishna, according to this verse, declares Himself to be divine (I am Brahman).
Do you think Krishna is lying here?

I would be interested to know what makes you believe one not the other?

Blessings,

[nirotu]

You did not get it correctly: These verses of equality are actually the egos of liberated souls.

"I am He" , means I have extreme similarity with He, otherwise there would be no need to use "I" and "He" separately. Similarly, other such abedha vAkyas have a similar meaning. The idea is to say that the liberated soul is almost equal to Brahman( boga mAtra sAmya linga ca), but not one and the same, and dependent on Brahman for existance. Accepting such a distinction avoids the need to posit unnecessary and artificial meanings on the scripture, like calling the world as an illusion etc.

Dear Sudarshan:

I agree in principle but somehow the connotation of the phrase “I am Brahman” has wider implication and could be misleading at times. But I do not agree they refer to ego-liberated souls.


In my view, even the truly liberated soul does not have the authority to claim, “I am Brahman”, rather it is more of an experience of “God becoming me “. It is God’s grace that grants them to feel, as Jesus did, “I am my Father are one”. I reconcile the ecstacy of "self-realized" soul saying "I am Brahman" this way: A completely liberated soul in the heat of its experience finds such a union where it is difficult to draw the line of distinction. It is because liberated soul does not have mind as it has transcended every thought-originating mind, and therefore, does not see that distinction. However, liberated souls keep their identity or individuality throughout eternity.


I like to think the liberated soul is like a fetus in mother’s womb always feels secure, safe and connected with the mother all the time through the cord. Mother feels joy of carrying this fetus, nourishing with good food (always eating for both), and carries with her wherever she goes. The fetus may experience oneness with the mother but it is never one. It will always be the part of the mother but never can assume as mother.


For a realized soul it is only the beginning of that transcendental realization. It still needs to move forward through several stages until it has the ultimate realization of the absolute. I believe, that when Jesus says, “ In my Father’s house there are many mansions”, He is referring to these different stages (different or many mansions) for evolved souls.

Blessings,

[Sudarshan]

Dear Satay:

I am surprised that you feel that way. In my view such utterances “I am Brahman” or “I and MY Father are one” can only come from the divine. Even the enlightened one has only the privilege to say, “ God has become me” and not “I am become God”. In my view, only one who can say that has to be divine in all respects.

The soul at any level, higher or lower” cannot utter these words unless it is the trace of ego that takes hold of him. You see, any one who claims that he is God, whether in his evolving state or enlightened state, he is blaspheming the very God he is trying to reach.

Agree - Brahman is all, but all cannot be Brahman. This purely a one sided equation. I doubt if christianity even says this. I believe it says God made man in his own image? That looks like Dvaita to me- with its bimba pratibimba vAda. Because Vishsitadvatins beleive that God and soul are connected in much more than merely a part.

See this -

yada pasya pashyate rukmavarnam kartaaram isam purusham brahmayonim tada vidvan punya pape vidhuya niranjana paramam saamyam upaithi.( Mu Up 3.1.3)

"When the jnani ( freed from the bonds of Karma) sees the Lord, he attains supreme equality with him."

How are you going to interpret "supreme equality"? Hindu scripture is very clear that the distinction between man and God is very thin. There maybe difference at every level, but the difference almost dies out in liberation. You become like water dissolved in milk - virtually indistiguishable and inseperable. If this is not what Christianity preaches, then there is no point pushing the divinity of Jesus in specific. Vishistadvaitins hold that barring the functions of cosmic governance, both the soul and God are equal - in bliss, in knowledge etc. God is so magnanimous as to grant you equality with him on almost every respect - that is why he is worthy of being called graceful, loving, Lord, and being worshipped.. I worship Lord Narayana because he is worthy of it, and has the ability to share all he has with me. God is God because of his exceptional qualities and grace - he elevates you to a position that is almost equivalent to him.

Look at the parallel verse from Gita in Chapter XIV and verse 27 and translation goes like this- “And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal.” Here again Krishna, according to this verse, declares Himself to be divine (I am Brahman).
Do you think Krishna is lying here?

I would be interested to know what makes you believe one not the other?

Blessings,

Krishna not only claimed to be divine but proved it showing that the entire infinite universe rested inside him. What did Jesus do? Walking on water and healing the leper can be done by every Yogi in India. What man cannot is to show that he is infinite- not even the enlightened ones. Jesus never did, because he even cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". Krishna never needed any help from the above, and was always in control of proceedings. He proved that he was God - what more proof is needed when he has shown that the countless universes reside in him, and he resides in every atom of the universe?

Jesus filling the prophecies in a personal opinion and one sided.
Please read this: http://www.geocities.com/bennoah1messiah/ to have another view, the Jewish view.

[Sudarshan]

I agree in principle but somehow the connotation of the phrase “I am Brahman” has wider implication and could be misleading at times. But I do not agree they refer to ego-liberated souls.

Yes, that would be a Christian perspective. While Advaita treats them as identical, Vishistadvaitins also read it in the same way, but interpret in the sharira-shariri bhAva, or the body-part way. I dont beleive Christianity supports any idea of the soul have such connection with God.

For a realized soul it is only the beginning of that transcendental realization. It still needs to move forward through several stages until it has the ultimate realization of the absolute. I believe, that when Jesus says, “ In my Father’s house there are many mansions”, He is referring to these different stages (different or many mansions) for evolved souls.

Blessings,

This part is quite acceptable. Moskha is certainly in stages, moving through sAlokya ( living with God), samIpya ( nearness to God), sArUpya ( having great similarity with God) and sayujya ( inseperable union with God)

But these stages are all attainable on earth itself, and Christianity lacks any means to attain them. They are all possible through the practice of Bhakti Yoga where intensive love for God attained by the rigorous practice of Yoga that reveals God in many steps. Following the path of grace without Yoga leads either to Brahma Loka or to sAlokya mukti from where you continue to evolve until sAyujya is attained.

Sayuja is the state where extreme equality with God is attained. I doubt if Christianity has anything to this effect apart from your personal opinions, if at all you accept this.

[Sudarshan]

Most Hindus, except Dvaita accept the Brahman is both instrumental and material cause of the universe. I have not seen even one Christian even come close to this. In Chrisianity, Creator and Creation are indeed disconnected.

[nirotu]

Evasive! Please show us where the bible and the vedas stand in terms of philosophical depth. Bible is just kid's book. Vedas are for grown ups.

Yes Truthseeker, you are right about that. The Bible is for kids because the goal is to become childlike! The so called adult version of scriptures you refer to keep one’s mind entangled, constantly keeping endlessly engaged and never reaching the goal.


My goal here is not to compare religions or try to be one up but keep the focus in mind and that is the practical nature of journey undertaken by any one of us. Otherwise, it simply becomes a mind game without accomplishing anything positive.


I do believe, regardless of one’s knowledge, the practicality of the nature of journey remains the same. That is what needs to be addressed rather than going in a tangent.

You have repeatedly mentioned about humbling ego but have not specified why some one has it and the other does not!

That is because some have grace and others do not! Many have that initial recognition (turning point) of grace, whereas others turned their back on to it. It all depends on which direction one is facing. If it is turned towards right direction, he beckons grace. That I call initial turn to grace and what you call “right condition”.

Ravana’s Bhakti was unparallel. His devotion to God and practice of meditation was intense. Yet, look how far away he was from having the grace of Rama. Because, he never made that initial turn around by humbling himself to the grace. Ravana’s Ahankara (ego) kept him far away from that grace.


Judas, a disciple from the innermost circle of Jesus, in spite of being with the divine lost the hand of grace. It was not that grace wasn’t seeking him but he was leading himself far away from grace. Jesus never violated Judas’s free will. Again, Judas failed to make that initial turn.

Each one thinks to his capacity. Some students in the class though that those who work hard are fools and one who beleives in the grace of the teacher are promoted! If you are truly able to surrender that ego, well and good for you and means you have evolved through the path of Dharma. One who thinks he has a shortcut over the other is certainly deluded! I had a Pentecostal neighbour, who had an attack of Typhoid. He refused to take any medicines even with his family pressurizing him. He kept repeating the name of Jesus and died. This I call as true surrender. Apart from complete surrender, I dont find much sense in what you say, apart from all Hindus already know. Gneral Hindu view is the path of enlightenment, which need not be gradual, subject to right conditions. It is possible to get enlightenment in a single birth by the grace of God, under the right conditions. Until we see the hand of God, we have our duty to work towards the goal, and not skip Dharma rules. Dharma is a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation, and Dharma is the awakening of Ajna Chakra. If you are truly established in the love of God and righteousness, your Ajna Chakra would awaken, and lead you to liberation by Mother Durga herself showing you the way...until such an event happens, that is the vision of Saguna Brahma, one has the duty to engage in Dharma and sAdhana for liberation.

At the expense of repeating like a broken record, let me summarize this way. My view is that there is a simpler way as a starting point that is humbling and turning towards grace. That instant recognition of the presence of grace is essential. What these “Only dharma”, “Only devotion”, “Only Bhakti” need is the knowingness of the matter-bound –I of the Father (grace). Grace is availed not when you reach certain “chakra” but when you most need it at any level.


I am not here to argue with you on theology but simply discuss the practical nature of journey and how our mind works in relation to that. I just don’t understand why it seems so difficult a point. Perhaps, it is the “simplicity” and that in itself might be a problem with your mind, which wants to have complex answers. At least from Sudarshan's answers it is clear he is determined to fight with me in theology with complex nomenclatures. I am afraid, I am not interested!!

Blessings,

[Sudarshan]

I am not here to argue with you on theology but simply discuss the practical nature of journey and how our mind works in relation to that. I just don’t understand why it seems so difficult a point. Perhaps, it is the “simplicity” and that in itself might be a problem with your mind, which wants to have complex answers. At least from Sudarshan's answers it is clear he is determined to fight with me in theology with complex nomenclatures. I am afraid, I am not interested

Fighting with you? We are right on the same track, whoever has contributed on this thread. The first goal is faith, which you been repeatedly stressing. What to do after turning to God's grace? You have not mentioned anything except telling us grace takes care of everything else....that part is rejected by all Hindus.

Even Srivaishnavites would disagree with such a view. Both Vedanta Desika and Alvars have categorically denied any salvation for people who desire for material things. Those who desire material things while clinging to grace will get all there desires fulfilled before the grace lifts them out of the well. Nammalvar openly says that first throw away the worldly bonds and then seek the feet of the Lord.

For a Srivaishnavite, just turning to grace is not sufficient. There are three mantras which must be meditated upon with great devotion and sincereity every day. You must live a sin free life, with no excuses. If you break the commandments of Acharyas, prAyaschitta has to be performed depending on the kind of offence, without a single exception. You have to follow the five fold PancharAtra worship everyday, which means most of your time is spent in divine contemplation. You have to perform the daily prayers including the Sandhya Vandanam without fail everyday without expecting any results. You have to do all you activities with the sole aim of pleasing the Lord. To put in a nutshell, God must become your sole objective in life, yet you must discharge every dutiy in life, depending on your varNa dharma. If you not live upto the ways as mentioned above there is no guarantee that you will be granted salvation( some exceptions are allowed based on the situations in life), grace or no grace. Because of serious limitations on a human being to surrender to God, one can perform Acharya niSTa, or surrender to the guru, and if the guru is truly enlightened and alive, and pleased with you, he will be able to redemm you from any sins committed unknowingly. Sins committed knowingly will incur the Karmic penalty no matter what, and will stall your salvation. The path of Bhakti Yoga is harder but allows you to manipulate the Karmic law due to enlightenment and thus save yourself. The way of surrender requires you to be truly sinless.

Your first part is correct, we must turn to God and seek his grace. You have not mentioned what are the requirements of a Christian and how he must lead his life, and totally avoided the question. Perhaps you will now point to the "Sermon on the Mount" and say that is the recommended way of life. What happens if a person does not live upto it? Hinduism in general rejects that any person who breaks the laws of his Acharyas could get moksha, because there is always another opportunity to do it right . In Christianity, you either just beleive or perish - no middle ground, so much for your earlier mocking of the law of Karma.

[TruthSeeker]

Yes Truthseeker, you are right about that. The Bible is for kids because the goal is to become childlike! The so called adult version of scriptures you refer to keep one’s mind entangled, constantly keeping endlessly engaged and never reaching the goal.

Mind is entangled in thoughts as long as it is not one pointed, and the religion must be focussed on that. How do you propose to attain the one pointedness?

My goal here is not to compare religions or try to be one up but keep the focus in mind and that is the practical nature of journey undertaken by any one of us. Otherwise, it simply becomes a mind game without accomplishing anything positive.

Your goal here is to promote Christianity and its gospel. I have not observed anything else.

I do believe, regardless of one’s knowledge, the practicality of the nature of journey remains the same. That is what needs to be addressed rather than going in a tangent.

Correct - we are on the same page.

Ravana’s Bhakti was unparallel. His devotion to God and practice of meditation was intense. Yet, look how far away he was from having the grace of Rama. Because, he never made that initial turn around by humbling himself to the grace. Ravana’s Ahankara (ego) kept him far away from that grace.

Ravana is not the arrogant ego that you have wrongly imagined. Ravana is the master of his senses and mind , his only defect is that he still has an ego.( which you cant have, not even the humble ego you are talking about) Had you been 1% of Ravana, you would have been liberated long ago. Ravana's stealing of Sita is a well defined in process in Yoga( the usage of tAmasic mAyA to destroy ahamkAra), which you wont understand. (it is not abduction by a demon!) It is a great progress if you can become a Ravana, aim for it! Ravana is a just a door step away from moksha, infact the closest one can get to.

Judas, a disciple from the innermost circle of Jesus, in spite of being with the divine lost the hand of grace. It was not that grace wasn’t seeking him but he was leading himself far away from grace. Jesus never violated Judas’s free will. Again, Judas failed to make that initial turn

Yes, so dont become a Judas - be a Christ all your life.

At the expense of repeating like a broken record, let me summarize this way. My view is that there is a simpler way as a starting point that is humbling and turning towards grace. That instant recognition of the presence of grace is essential. What these “Only dharma”, “Only devotion”, “Only Bhakti” need is the knowingness of the matter-bound –I of the Father (grace). Grace is availed not when you reach certain “chakra” but when you most need it at any level.

At the expense of repeating like a broken record, let me summarize this way. My view is that there is a simpler way as a starting point that is humbling and turning towards grace. That instant recognition of the presence of grace is essential.

But what is the definition of a humble ego that you have repeatedly used?
1. Established in universal love, called as non violence
2. Established in Truth. ( except in times of distress or a public welfare)
3. Established in constant dwelling of God.
4. Not possessing more than what is necessary.

I hope your definition of a humble ego is the same as these? Or can it violate these?

I am not here to argue with you on theology but simply discuss the practical nature of journey and how our mind works in relation to that. I just don’t understand why it seems so difficult a point. Perhaps, it is the “simplicity” and that in itself might be a problem with your mind, which wants to have complex answers. At least from Sudarshan's answers it is clear he is determined to fight with me in theology with complex nomenclatures. I am afraid, I am not interested!!

Me neither. I agree it is better to keep the topic to ones capacity. Simplicity is always good - be happy with your journey. As somebody said earlier, talk to a peasant like a peasant.

Hinduism simplies the journey to the four cardinal points raised above - whether you beleive in God or grace is totally immaterial. Because without these, no grace is going to function and become manifest anyway.