namaskar,
Why is this in the 'Scriptures' section of HDF?
sri sri sri sri swami satayanandagiri maharaj ji
namaskar,
Why is this in the 'Scriptures' section of HDF?
sri sri sri sri swami satayanandagiri maharaj ji
satay
Pranam
Redical universalism was discussed here
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6422
And here,
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4982
The Sword of Kali
Reply to "A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism"
by Chittaranjan Naik
http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101.htm
Jai Shree Krishna
Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.
We need to be careful when we paint everyone with a broad stroke.
I am NOT a universalist , and my belief is in SD .I do not think that Muhammad or Buddha or Mahavir ever showed the true path for salvation (moksa) , or ever explained the nature of the relationship between Brahman and the manifestations.
But I have different take on Jesus. Reading thru Gnostic literature & reading the direct quotes attributed to him in testaments, it is clear to me that he was preaching advaita. ‘I am the way and the light’ is a direct challenge to the deity of Jehovah , and comes close to ‘aham Bramamsi’ . Papal councils & even Orthodoxy routinely edited the contents that they were uncomfortable with and we may be missing a lot in Bible. He was talking to an audience who were steeped in Jewish traditions , and they could have missed quiet a lot of SD like concepts put forth to them , or they could have been edited out.
If someone claims the Jesus was an acharya , I wont categorize him as a universalist. It is an irony that the religion that is practiced as Christianity is an invention of Rome & its offshoots , and is not what Jesus preached – and definitely doesn’t lead to moksha.
Namaste satay,
I put it in scriptures since it dealt with a prophecy made in scripture.Please move it to the appropriate thread if you feel like.
To seeker:I would say that in the last century itself thete have been many hindu saints greater tgan hesus.Then why bothet about him?
To satay,why has thexabrahamic forum been closed?
To Ganeshprasad,does this mean you agree all religions are the same?What is your stand on this?Di you want me to rebut the criticism to frank morales essay you have posted?I am ready to do so.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
If someone comes on a hindu forum and posts-ram and allah are the same as was said in the abrahamic forum,I find it deeply offensive.I am sure most here would feel the same.
To seeker-please do not interpret other's scriptures for them.It is generally accepted by historians that the gnostic gospel of thomas us more authentic and accurate in representing the beleifs of jesus.But it is a gnistic scripture and gnostic doctrine is closer to bheda abheda rather than advaita.Do not twist the words of the gnostic gospels to suit your beleif.Gnosticism is NOT advaita.
They believe the world was real,and created by an evil demiurge who eas other than god.They also view matter as intrinsically evil.As an advaitin,would you agree to this?
Suppose jesus did teach advaita.So what?Does a hindu NEED jesus?Do we not have much greater saints and teachers within our iwn tradition?
Last edited by Omkara; 02 August 2012 at 01:51 AM.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
Pardon typos. All this is being typed on a cellphone.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
Pranam Omkara and all
I have not offered my view on here, my views are well known I don't need to rehash them but since you ask, no i am not a universalist.
Feel free to rebutt the rebuttal
Jai Shree Krishna
Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.
Namaste Omkaraji,
It was I who posted the above. No, I am not a saint who envisioned the above and posted it as per my whims and fancies. I have read the story of sant Kabirdas and of Sri Madhwacharya who have said the same.
Madhwacharya: http://www.bharatadesam.com/people/madhwacharya.php (Read para which says 'Your god is my god').
In the thread 'Islam song I love' I posted some important questions, as to why Sriman Narayana for instance, forsake some noble souls of Islam that he should abandon them to a religion that is not true, if that is really the case?
As for sentiments of most people in this forum, I cannot comment on that, it may be religious supremacy or dislike stemming from Muslim tyranny on Indian soil and 9/11. But what I posted was on the religion itself as practiced by millions, not on what its present state is. Therefore if most people disagree with me, I can only quote the 2 saints whom I immensely believe than these people who disagree with me, who have not had their spiritual vision.
Pranam,
Aspirant
As per my own views,
I am a staunch devotee of Sriman Narayana (Lord Rama and Lakshmi Narasimha to be specific),
I believe Sanathana Dharma will surely help one attain crown emancipation or complete self-realization,
but I also believe other religions are also true, where spiritual ascension is possible but not complete liberation and that for complete liberation or 'jeevan-mukti', one needs to be born in Hinduism.
Thus I believe in every religion.
namaskar,
I know I shouldn't take the bait but I couldn't help it.
This is a contradiction in terms. 'Every religion' is not the same e.g. the most popular religion of the day Christianity oposses Islam and vice verca, they oppose everything else. Thus if you say I believe in all religions it is a contradiction.
Probably what you meant to say is that you respect all other religions. This is a logical position most hindus take. There is nothing wrong in respecting other religions.
satay
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks