Response from nirotu

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

At the outset let me make one thing clear and that is; My knowledge and comprehension is very limited and is nothing compared to God’s infinite knowledge. Therefore, I may not have all the answers for you.
I believe, when God says,”8:For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. “(NIV). That’s what it means. No matter how analytical a person is in his thinking, one cannot comprehend God completely.

Having said that, I can see the difference between you and me right away, which also speaks for the respective religions in general as well. The Bible teaches us that we can't fully understand everything, only God is Omniscient, whereas Hinduism is teaching that if you don't understand, you just haven't spent enough time and study to become a God yourself.”

To me, even the present tools at our disposal that in Science is inadequate in many respects. I believe more we know from science more God will be revealed to us. But one thing I know for sure is that the Bible has sufficient information regarding man's “salvation.”

You said in an earlier post that "Man is a saint who sins" or something like that.

Ram and you have failed to notice the subtle humor in my statement. The Saint committing Sin is certainly an oxymoron to me. The point I was making here that we are essentially good but always tend to sin. The word saint was used metaphorically to represent the good, that’s all.

Whether we are divine or not divine - how do you find this? You really tell me now. Your only source for the info comes from the bible when interpreted in a specific way - and the bible is true because it says so and you think so?

Again I repeat, the object of my faith is Christ and the Bible is the faithful witness to that. Therefore, the words in the Bible that revealed Christ to me are truth to me. Yes, my source is the Bible. Many a time, I refer to scriptures in other religions, only to show similarities and to make a point. When I quote from mystics, scholars and other alike it does help to make my point clear and also helps improve the dialogue.



If God is the source of all (100%) that is “good”, then He cannot be source of “evil”. Likewise, if a person is fully divine then there cannot be evil in him. Evil by itself has no identity. It is a privation or lack of good. Therefore, because man has evil nature in him, I do not consider him essentially of divine in nature. He would have been divine except it was marred by Adam’s sin.



This brings us to Adam. See next…

Even Hindus are not questioning the concept of man being a sinner. We are asking you, why did man become a sinner? Why did God create him a sinner by default? You have not answered me yet....

We do accept man is divine by nature, but as long as he is in bondage (samsara) he is not. Thus sinner concept is not alien to Sanatana Dharma, but you have given no reason for God to create man in sin.

Biblical concept of sin is misunderstood and misrepresented over the centuries of dogma that somehow accepts the notion that God indeed created sin in man and wrath of God against sinners makes God heartless.

This is how I understand it. In the beginning, God’s perfect creation implied Adam was created perfect. God never created Sin in Adam. When God created Adam, He did not deny Adam the revelation of Himself. The communion between Adam and God was natural and without any obstruction. God never denied Adam or Eve His visit until they knowingly transgressed His code of conduct. The word “knowingly” implies the understanding through knowledge but where did they get that knowledge? This is where the cunning evil enters the realm to disturb the peace and tranquility that existed between God and Adam. It was the lure of temptation that began to stir their uncorrupt mind, which ultimately resulted into disobedience. God being Holy Himself cannot and will not stand anything that is less than Holy. The consequence of such disobedience is “spiritual death or separation” from God. While, God did not drive them away from His sight but Adam and Eve drove themselves out of paradise by their disobedience.

Where did the physical death come from? God could not see Adam eating from the tree of life as well and live forever separated from Him. The solution was to impart physical death as a consequence. We have inherited that consequence through our lineage to Adam as hereditary disposition. In all these, when you look at the Big Picture you will realize evil has a place in God’s plan.

God wants to reconcile us with Himself and restore us into original Adam but all the atonement man can offer as a ritual sacrifice cannot even come close to cleansing of our conscience from imputed sin. The annual rituals and sacrifices would only become a reminder of man’s disobedience but never atoned for the sin itself. God’s love for us was and is unconditional, therefore, the only way He could attain reconciliation was through His perfect, begotten son Jesus as propiation atonement for sins ones and for all.

Therefore, forgiveness is the key to understanding God’s grace. The very birth of Christ epitomizes meaning of “forgiveness.” Therefore, the very incarnation of Jesus was to set us free not only from the law of sin and death, but also from the power of sin to dominate us -- something we must realize experientially as we mature in Christ. Thus, when we come into a relationship with Christ we embark on a process that lasts a life-time and we call that sanctification or to be set apart for Christ.. Therefore, as we grow more spiritually mature with Christ cosciousness and walk with Him, we fall into sin less and less.

All beings, that used their freewill even once to explore non-divine pleasures have fallen into this samsara. Once you do this (it called evolution) it is a hard Karma trap.

I do agree with you if you want to call sin a wrong choice of free-will, which I mean it as a contrary to God’s will. Calling it “samsara” does not make sense to me. You are making “samsara” as wages of sin that a man has to pay in return. That is unrealistic to me. While a Christian believes the samsara is necessary but it is not necessarily evil in itself. It makes salvation very inaccessible to a man as long as he is bound by “Samsara”. Only Monks and Sadhus who are devoid of such attachment may qualify to attain this. But, in my view, if salvation is for all it must be accessible to all as well.

But the way out of it is (involution) always available thru Bhakti Yoga and the path of self surrender( Isvara pranidhana). The gates to God are never closed in our belief, but are never opened as long as you dont choose that.

Yes, I agree with you that the gates of heaven is always open to all, invitation is to all those who heed the call. Anyone with repentant heart, contrite spirit is forgiven! Again, we do agree on man’s “choices” rather than random “chances”. But disagree with you in that the Bhakti yoga of self surrender is inaccessible path for a man who is bound by Samsara!

What makes you think that a man who rejected God is wicked? That is the judgment of Christianity and it makes no sense to me. Even in one earthly life, many wicked men have reformed and truned new leaves. So dont you think, in the model of reincarnation, each man, who is the creation of the divine, not turn new leaves?

The very purpose of Christ’s atoning work was to redeem the world. Don’t get me wrong, He was especially interested in wicked, destitute, rejected and sinners, which was clear when we see Him constantly rebuking Pharisees, kings, noble men of that time. All people including wicked ones have life time as an opportunity to realize and save himself.

But it is absolutely wrong to assume that the wrath is upon those who do not accept His message. When you read the message of Jesus, it will be clear to you:



John 12:47, "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. (NIV)”

Again, your mentioning of God coming to save mankind has no evidence outside the bible. Infact, we believe God appeared many times in different contexts to save many people.

What makes you think that? Look at the verse, Hebrews 1:1 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, (NIV)”

God has His own way of revealing Himself. It does not have to be in the form that only eyes can identify. I see God appearing in a man when he is able to do something that is considered beyond his sensory capabilities. I see men jumping over the bridge to save a person caught in the raging river. I see a man without regard for his own life jumping into fiery house to save occupants. In all these, I see God’s enabling them through His presence. I have seen through my own eyes a person being healed from an incurable cancer. This has happened to people not necessarily of Christian faith. Therefore, the so called Bible God must not be assumed to be present only to Bible believing people.

You know what? Please enlighten me how God expects somebody to believe that he sent a prodigal son to save the world?

You read my post wrong! The “prodigal son” is not the savior. He is the one who is repentant of his sins returning to his father. Read Luke 15:11-32

And in your words, such an acceptance has to be in word and deed. How many Christians do you think are eligible for salvation, when Jesus said very few people enter the gates of heaven. Dont you see an irony? How could God devise a scheme where a vast majority of his creation land in hell? So what is the purpose of his creation?

As P.Yogananda so aptly puts it, “The gateway to delusion is wide, opening into the broad pathway of evil. Many fools blindly go through the gate of ignorant impulses and find themselves in the path of evil actions. Because it is easy to go on that path. As evildoers jostle madly along, the path of evil suddenly ends in precipitous fall into the valley of misery. However, the straight gate of goodness is narrow and is less easy to pass or more difficult to climb. This is the path that leads to everlasting life.”

If a parent does not take any interest in his child’s upbringing, say right from birth, the child can easily fall into wrong path; pick up all bad habits as he or she grows because it is very easy. But to be good, parent with infinite patience has to train that child constantly. You see, the path of righteousness is very difficult to follow.


Blessings,

p.s. It continues on to next post . . . .

 

[nirotu]

Cont. from last post . . .

I am not bothered about hell or punishments as long as they are finite in nature. Surely, this Osama needs to be punished heavily for his sins. But does he deserve to be tortured for eternity?

Let me understand what you are saying this way; our life span is a fleeting moment or a tiny speck on the cosmic time scale. Yet, we are promised eternal position either through”hell or heaven”. Does our sin or good work merit such a reward after life? In other words, our sins committed for such a short time while on earth merit such a reward?

But, if you can accept eternal heaven as a reward for your good deed, why can’t you accept eternal hell also as a judgment? The perception of unfair punishment of hell only undermines God’s righteous justice.

Perhaps, we can look at this way….
Conversely, we must look to our value in God's eyes as being most important indeed. We are looked as precious in His sight. It is written that if just one soul is won over to the Kingdom of God all the angels in heaven rejoice. The most compelling reason being, He sent His only Son to die for us. The entire redemptive work was to restore us to the state that was present prior to Adam. And why is that?

We get a glimpse of God’s mind through Jeremiah chapter 29:11 - "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.”

Certainly we do not deserve it, but then we do many things for our children when they don't deserve it either. It is all based on love. As such, this pure and unconditional love of God is incomprehensible to human mind. It is all about grace and nothing else. Instead of calling it wrath, I would call it God’s righteous anger, which is as important as the love He has for us ( courtesy: Kings Kid).

Again, take the case of Buddha. What does Christianity say about him? He lived even before Christ and he had not even heard of the fact that he needed a savior. . . . . . Poor Buddha, there was never a Jesus to save him, nor did he comit any sins in his life. And he has to join the same baracks as Osama? Dont you see something fundamentally faulty in your reasoning? And you beleive it just because a book said so?

There were many who lived before Jesus have obtained salvation. Moses, Abraham, Elijah etc, to name a few. Many among Hinduism Shankara, Ramanuja, Buddha and many more became Alwars – Mystic Saints. This goes to show they may not have known Christ but they had “Christ Consciousness” in their hearts. To me, the descent of Christ - the Son of Living God was to make that awareness known to all generation – not subjectively but intuitively and objectively.

It is disappointing to see you agreeing with that dogma - God allows man to use his freewill to choose his own destruction while he has every power to save him, but he chooses not to. . . . .

I cannot tell or force my spouse to love me. But, if she chooses on her own to love me despite my shortcomings it will only make me happy. That love is unconditional and not coerced. God desires such a love out of our choices. He will provide you with all tools but you have to take the first step in making that decision. Therefore, God will not violate your free-will.

We exercise our freewill because we do not know God.

No! That is cop-out metality. On the contrary, it is man’s persistence in error is why he is banished from God-consciousness. Man knows God but out of sheer ego he has raised the bars of ignorance. When our soul identifies itself with sense pleasures, it forgets the divine nature. Thus, it is a war between spirit and flesh that man goes through and he and only he can make that choice to be either on God’s side or flesh (world) side in that tug-of-war.

Has any person rejected God after knowing for sure God exists? In that case, it is reasonable to assume that God chooses to allow his freedom of choice and even push him into hell.

Many times people go through very difficult times in their lives. It can be so painful that their faith in God is totally shaken to the point that forces them to reject God as the only option to move on. Such people tend to blame God for being very selfish – sitting on a throne distant to us but consigning his creation to go through trials. My question to those is - who else is there for you to believe if you don’t want to believe God?

Such people have separated themselves by their individualism. Remember, God is Omnipresent and He is grieved when we grieve. I don’t know why we suffer. But I do know that God is with me through the trials I go through. When a man fails to realize this truth, inevitably he rejects God.

Why does God choose to inspire only some people like this? Is that not unfairness on his part to give spiritual instruction to a select few who even never beleived in him?

There are many things that I do not understand regarding the nature of God. Just because I do not understand with my feeble knowledge does not mean God is limited by my standards. As God himself said, “My thoughts are higher than your…” is an indication that human understanding of the unmanifest source is limited at best. Why God selectively appears to some and not others is a mystery to me. Then again, I dare not question sovereign will of God.

To people who repeatedly reject God, just because they found no evidence for God, I have no doubts that God will reveal himself in someway to instill that faith. Do you think any atheist will reject God if he gets some divine experience?

Again, atheist’s exercise of free-will dictates if he is on God’s side or on the side of the world. God may reveal Himself to an atheist but it is an atheist who has to make that choice to either accept Him or reject Him. God will never violate our free-will. Otherwise the love that any one shows towards God will be coerced one. If it is willful disobedience despite knowing God, God will simply step aside to take its course. It is not God who wants such people in Hell but they make themselves worthy candidates.

There are many Christians who accepted Christ for salvation and have fallen back and some even have become apostates. My understanding is that they never vere saved to begin with. Once a saved person who truly upholds the message of Christ in his heart will never fall back.

Blessings,

Contd. . . .

 

[nirotu]

Cotd. from last post. . . .

Nonsesne. How many Hindus have clarified here that Karma is the reason why you exist in the world, and that it is impossible to remove Karma by your own efforts. Are you even reading the posts?

Here are some reasons why I can’t accept karma/reincarnation as "the truth" and why I think it’s a theology in which God is projected as irresponsible:

1. The implication of Hinduism is that we have an impotent God who has no sovereignty over creation. He is just a helpless spectator of the human tragedy. The spirituality taught hinges on the ascension or development of the spirit by means of reincarnation, not by a knowledge and the omnipotence of God.

Reincarnation doesn’t make sense. Who actually works out the effects of his past? In Buddhism there is no real self. This physical life is an illusion, when we die our “personhood” of this life ceases to exist and our karma is all that is passed on in the next life. Buddha used the analogy of the light of a candle, which came from another candle and doesn’t have a substance of its own. As with the candles there is no transfer of a “self” from one body to another. The only link from one life to the next is cause and effect (the flame), or accumulation of karma. So, how can anyone learn from his mistakes? Karma is a simple accounting of rights against wrongs. You and I are both inconsequential physical beings and when we die we cease to exist and we can’t be punished or learn from our deeds of this life. All that remains of us is our karma.

In contrast, Christ teaches us that the state and existence of each one of us is important. Each one of us is known by God and is precious to him. It is written that if just one soul is won over to the Kingdom of God all the angels in heaven rejoice.

2. There is no morality in the system of reincarnation. If someone suffers a misfortune – e.g. he gets murdered, or if someone is born poor or deformed – that’s him canceling out deeds from a past life. We should therefore not feel compassion for him. We should not help people in misfortune, we should actually be happy when bad things happen to people, because it means that they are working out bad karma and getting closer to enlightenment. We shouldn’t jail criminals because they are in fact the “punishers” of people who have accumulated bad karma. By interfering with the process of karma in this way (preventing bad people from carrying out their destiny), are we not consequently gathering more bad karma for ourselves? If a little girl is raped, maybe it’s necessary in order to get rid of the debts of her past. Maybe she’s an incarnation of Jack the ripper. Who are we to comment?

Christianity teaches us that each one of us was considered and conceived by God. It is no mistake that we were born beautiful or imperfect, or out of wedlock or the wrong color in a hostile country. Whatever, it’s not a punishment or a reward it’s just part of the package we were given in order to serve God in a chosen way.

3. There is no justice in reincarnation. It is just a vicious circle. For example if you look at someone truly evil, like Hitler. He will have to live many, many lives in order to cancel out his karmic debt. That means subsequent incarnations of Hitler will have to endure all kinds of hardship in order to cancel out the debt. Any social worker will tell you that people touched by poverty, crime and violence do not adopt a noble resignation to their fate. In fact they will react with indignation or rebellion and in turn accumulate more bad karma. It’s accepted that violence breeds violence. People who are abused generally continue the cycle of abuse. What kind of justice is this that starts more problems than it solves?

The Bible teaches that no matter what you have done or how damaged your life is, you can change it. While you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, you can acquire a spiritual rebirth through a process of acknowledging your sins, giving your life to God and accepting his forgiveness. It also teaches that while we have a God who finds sin repugnant, he is always willing to give anyone a second chance. “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:27,28 ).

4. There is no such thing as forgiveness in the system of Reincarnation. Therefore it makes Christ’s life and all his teachings absurd and useless. Reincarnation is just a relentless accounting system that defies logic and according to its ideology, Christ’s death on the cross means nothing except he had some bad karma to get rid of.

Reincarnation denies the existence of an all-powerful God. An all-powerful God exists in a dimension outside of the three dimensions of space (obviously, because he created the Universe). Therefore he can achieve things we can’t even imagine. An all-powerful God can do things (that the idea of) a mere spectator-God can’t do. People are flawed and cannot achieve perfection by themselves (especially through a bankrupt system like Reincarnation). An all-powerful God can take a person and with the tiny amount of humility, faith and love that such a weak entity can muster, can make that person beautiful and perfect enough (without destroying the person’s identity) to exist in heaven with him. That is awesome power.
http://www.netbibleinstitute.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1318

There is only one way to salvation - Love and complete surender to God, which automatically implies love for all of his creation and universal tolerance. If you beleive Hinduism is preaching "doing good works to heaven" you got it completely wrong. If you think that Hindus beleive in getting slavtion by helping others, charity or such material things, you got it dead wrong. There is no salvation by any means outside that of love for God and all his creation in which he resides.

My friend, there is no disagreement here. What is not correct in my view is having faith and not work, which is meaningless. If someone knock’s at my door in the middle of night asking for food, what would make more sense? Do I say to him, just have faith and go on with your life or actually get up and open the refrigerator and provide him with some food? I think the latter, won’t you? The faith that compels you to do the work is important not just the faith and surrender without having to share the fruits of that faith but just sit tight and watch for God to act! If you belong to a philosophical school that accepts this, yes we have something in common.

Blessings,

 

[nirotu]

deleted. . . due to duplication.....

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Dear nirotu,

At the outset let me make one thing clear and that is; My knowledge and comprehension is very limited and is nothing compared to God’s infinite knowledge. Therefore, I may not have all the answers for you.
I believe, when God says,”8:For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. “(NIV). That’s what it means. No matter how analytical a person is in his thinking, one cannot comprehend God completely.


Having said that, I can see the difference between you and me right away, which also speaks for the respective religions in general as well. The Bible teaches us that we can't fully understand everything, only God is Omniscient, whereas Hinduism is teaching that if you don't understand, you just haven't spent enough time and study to become a God yourself.”

This is a general excuse used by all aplogetics, humility and calling onself as incompetent and having limited knowledge, in comprehending the divine. Do you think Hinduism claims so? We are very clear that God is not knowable as long as we are entangled by the view of the Lord's maya, which is not a hit or miss process like in Chritianity.

BTW, I do not beleive that I become the God - you do not know the Srivaisshnavite or Vishitadvaita Philsophy. We simply do not beleive in becoming the God. Probably you need to review your discussion with grames, Padmai and winsome in the past, and if I remember right you were critical only of advaita. But suddenly now you are showing ignorance of my own philosophy? Man, Vaishnavites do not beleive in becoming God or Lord Vishnu, never, it is even considered a blasphemy.

To me, even the present tools at our disposal that in Science is inadequate in many respects. I believe more we know from science more God will be revealed to us. But one thing I know for sure is that the Bible has sufficient information regarding man's “salvation.”

Ha ha, this is also a usual excuse that is used. I wonder why religions try to distance from science. If it is the word of God, how can it contradict very fundamental axioms.

Ram and you have failed to notice the subtle humor in my statement. The Saint committing Sin is certainly an oxymoron to me. The point I was making here that we are essentially good but always tend to sin. The word saint was used metaphorically to represent the good, that’s all.

Huh?

Again I repeat, the object of my faith is Christ and the Bible is the faithful witness to that. Therefore, the words in the Bible that revealed Christ to me are truth to me. Yes, my source is the Bible. Many a time, I refer to scriptures in other religions, only to show similarities and to make a point. When I quote from mystics, scholars and other alike it does help to make my point clear and also helps improve the dialogue.

But what is the proof for the bible? Suppose I say here that "I am the God" and I write a book, and engage a few witnesses, would that make me God and my book the word of God?

Your words said it all - your proof is faith only, nothing else. That is no use in a discussion like this. And whatever is found illogical or beyond explanation, the usual strategy is to hide behind human limitations in understanding God and his word.

Nirotu, there is no problem with a book claiming to be the word of God. If it claims that it is the only word of God, and debunks other books that make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. You cannot sit back and say - my faith tells me this book is true and the rest false.

You could make that claim, if you could really prove others are false, first. Do you even know any HInduism to disprove it? And do you know that even Hindus can hide behind the same logic of "human limitations in understanding God" wherever you come across passages that are mutually contradictory or apprently illogical?

Have you ever read the Brahma sutras? And its commentaries by Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva etc? I have even posted a critique of Shankara's interpretation on the Hindunet but did not have the time to complete it, so I am still doing it. Anybody, who dares to question Hinduism must first atleast have sound knowledge of the Brahmasutras and its important commentaries.

All of Hinduism are contained within the Brahmasutras, Bhagavad Gita and the ten major upanishads. All these are highly abstract content and no beating about the bush. No fairy tales, no myth.

Biblical concept of sin is misunderstood and misrepresented over the centuries of dogma that somehow accepts the notion that God indeed created sin in man and wrath of God against sinners makes God heartless.

This is how I understand it. In the beginning, God’s perfect creation implied Adam was created perfect. God never created Sin in Adam. When God created Adam, He did not deny Adam the revelation of Himself. The communion between Adam and God was natural and without any obstruction. God never denied Adam or Eve His visit until they knowingly transgressed His code of conduct. The word “knowingly” implies the understanding through knowledge but where did they get that knowledge? This is where the cunning evil enters the realm to disturb the peace and tranquility that existed between God and Adam. It was the lure of temptation that began to stir their uncorrupt mind, which ultimately resulted into disobedience. God being Holy Himself cannot and will not stand anything that is less than Holy. The consequence of such disobedience is “spiritual death or separation” from God. While, God did not drive them away from His sight but Adam and Eve drove themselves out of paradise by their disobedience.

Where did the physical death come from? God could not see Adam eating from the tree of life as well and live forever separated from Him. The solution was to impart physical death as a consequence. We have inherited that consequence through our lineage to Adam as hereditary disposition. In all these, when you look at the Big Picture you will realize evil has a place in God’s plan.

God wants to reconcile us with Himself and restore us into original Adam but all the atonement man can offer as a ritual sacrifice cannot even come close to cleansing of our conscience from imputed sin. The annual rituals and sacrifices would only become a reminder of man’s disobedience but never atoned for the sin itself. God’s love for us was and is unconditional, therefore, the only way He could attain reconciliation was through His perfect, begotten son Jesus as propiation atonement for sins ones and for all.

Nice story, but what is the proof for the existance of Adam and Eve? Dont you think this could be a metaphor? And when did Adam and Eve live? Any historical records? Arcahelogical evidence, fossil bones etc?

I hope you are aware that the story of Adima and Heva is already found in many Hindu puranas....which we beleive is the basis of the bible myth or metaphor.

And we know the actual meaning of these metaphorical stories of Adam and Eve as in the puranas - infact you can find them in the Matsya Purana, and also some of the older puranas like Linga and Siva Purana.

One verse in Siva Purana reads as

"O Siva, thou god of fire, mayest thou destroy my sins, as the bleaching-grass of the jungle is destroyed by fire. It is through thy mighty Breath that Adhima (the first man) and Heva (completion of life, in Sanskrit), the ancestors of this race of men have received life and covered the world with their descendants."

It is always amusing for Hindus to hear about these stories of Adam and Eve, which find mention in the oldest Puranas....

I do agree with you if you want to call sin a wrong choice of free-will, which I mean it as a contrary to God’s will. Calling it “samsara” does not make sense to me. You are making “samsara” as wages of sin that a man has to pay in return. That is unrealistic to me. While a Christian believes the samsara is necessary but it is not necessarily evil in itself. It makes salvation very inaccessible to a man as long as he is bound by “Samsara”. Only Monks and Sadhus who are devoid of such attachment may qualify to attain this. But, in my view, if salvation is for all it must be accessible to all as well.

That is your assumption. Salvation is Hinduism either requires you to complete renounce worldly life in search for God, or to place full surrender in God to directly show the way. Ascetics follow the former path while non-ascetics follow the latter. Salvation is for all, only in Hinduism. By mainstream christianity we might see salvation perhaps for 1% of so of humanity, who are "true" Christians who beleive in Jesus in word and in deed and keep his commandments.

Yes, I agree with you that the gates of heaven is always open to all, invitation is to all those who heed the call. Anyone with repentant heart, contrite spirit is forgiven! Again, we do agree on man’s “choices” rather than random “chances”. But disagree with you in that the Bhakti yoga of self surrender is inaccessible path for a man who is bound by Samsara!

That is elementary philsophy according to us. We think only small kids require the help of a saviour. People have trodden the track can find their own way to God.

So according to you, man has exactly one choice? And failing that it is eternal doom?

The very purpose of Christ’s atoning work was to redeem the world. Don’t get me wrong, He was especially interested in wicked, destitute, rejected and sinners, which was clear when we see Him constantly rebuking Pharisees, kings, noble men of that time. All people including wicked ones have life time as an opportunity to realize and save himself.

Dont you think it encourages promiscuity to sin? What happens if we accept Christ and yet commit sin knowingly, due to our human limitations?

But it is absolutely wrong to assume that the wrath is upon those who do not accept His message. When you read the message of Jesus, it will be clear to you:

Ha ha what else is it?

What makes you think that? Look at the verse, Hebrews 1:1 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, (NIV)”

God has His own way of revealing Himself. It does not have to be in the form that only eyes can identify. I see God appearing in a man when he is able to do something that is considered beyond his sensory capabilities. I see men jumping over the bridge to save a person caught in the raging river. I see a man without regard for his own life jumping into fiery house to save occupants. In all these, I see God’s enabling them through His presence. I have seen through my own eyes a person being healed from an incurable cancer. This has happened to people not necessarily of Christian faith. Therefore, the so called Bible God must not be assumed to be present only to Bible believing people.

It means Jesus is nothing special, but just one of the prophets.

Anyway which does not reveal God diretctly cannot be considered as proof of God. Apparently, you have no idea of Yogic enlightenment.

As P.Yogananda so aptly puts it, “The gateway to delusion is wide, opening into the broad pathway of evil. Many fools blindly go through the gate of ignorant impulses and find themselves in the path of evil actions. Because it is easy to go on that path. As evildoers jostle madly along, the path of evil suddenly ends in precipitous fall into the valley of misery. However, the straight gate of goodness is narrow and is less easy to pass or more difficult to climb. This is the path that leads to everlasting life.”

Have you read the book "The autobiography of a Yogi" by Yogananda? Have you seen his teachings? Please dont quote from his works to preach Christianity. Whatever you have mentioned here is with respect to the Hindu Philosophy of reincarnation, not the one chance or fail logic of Christianity. He makes it clear that an extraordianary sincere effort is required to enter the everlasting life...if you can, read chapter 43 from that book, and please do not take things out of context.

Yogananda quotes from Christ once or twice, but he does not preach anything related to mainstream Christianity. Hindu monks can find good teachings whever they find them, and not dismiss everything else as inspired by the Satan.

You may not be aware, Yogis like Yogananda do find the perfect sense in the bible when viewed from the stand point of Sanatana Dharma. But they do not read the bible literally.

If a parent does not take any interest in his child’s upbringing, say right from birth, the child can easily fall into wrong path; pick up all bad habits as he or she grows because it is very easy. But to be good, parent with infinite patience has to train that child constantly. You see, the path of righteousness is very difficult to follow.

What do you mean? Do you want somebody to follow the path of righteousness or not?

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Let me understand what you are saying this way; our life span is a fleeting moment or a tiny speck on the cosmic time scale. Yet, we are promised eternal position either through”hell or heaven”. Does our sin or good work merit such a reward after life? In other words, our sins committed for such a short time while on earth merit such a reward?

But, if you can accept eternal heaven as a reward for your good deed, why can’t you accept eternal hell also as a judgment? The perception of unfair punishment of hell only undermines God’s righteous justice.

Have you even understood what I have explaining so far....we never get salvation for good deeds. It seems you are stuck in the salvation through Karma. I have told you very clearly - salvation is obtained only thru love of God so deep that reveals God to you. Do you really classify that as a finite "good deed"?

We dont get salvation for blindly beleiving in some stories. Faith is just the starting point in our quest for God. Faith is what that drives us into a spiritual search. The only thing that confers salvation is Jnana or knowledge of God. There are essentially three ways to obtain this Jnana.

I have explained already, yet I am doing that again, because you always seem tio return to the karma zone, either ignorantly or deliberately.


1. The path of intense love for God, called the Bhakti Yoga
2. The path of renucitation and Yoga, where entire life is dedicated towards realization of God.
3. The path of complete self surender, is called the Prapatti Yoga. This is not so simple as the word "surrender" implies, it implies complete self surrender in word and deed, and depending on the Lord for everything, including the very life.

None of these involve any Karma or good deeds unless you are going to call

"love for God", "thirst for God", and "surrendering to God" as Karmic ways. If you are sure, Christianity is not advocating any of these, well....it means nothing to me.

Karma Yoga is an essential part of all these Yogas, without which the morality of religion breaks down. Are you trying to state that a Christian can do whatever he wants but just needs to beleive in Jesus? In that case, I might choose to call it just a blind superstition.

Since moraility in the basis of religion, where people really need to be truely selfless and have love for the whole of mankind, Karma Yoga is a sina qua non in salvation. But Karma Yoga, as such is only an auxiliary- the two true ways are

Jnana Yoiga and Bhakti Yoga in conjunction with Prapatii( surrender).

They have nothing to do with Karma and take your time to understand the concept without trying to reply quickly and bring everything under the Karma hood.

No Hindu or non Hindu can get salvation purely by Good Karma, it is just the starting point that leads to knowledge of God.

Certainly we do not deserve it, but then we do many things for our children when they don't deserve it either. It is all based on love. As such, this pure and unconditional love of God is incomprehensible to human mind. It is all about grace and nothing else. Instead of calling it wrath, I would call it God’s righteous anger, which is as important as the love He has for us ( courtesy: Kings Kid).

Do you even think?

There were many who lived before Jesus have obtained salvation. Moses, Abraham, Elijah etc, to name a few. Many among Hinduism Shankara, Ramanuja, Buddha and many more became Alwars – Mystic Saints. This goes to show they may not have known Christ but they had “Christ Consciousness” in their hearts. To me, the descent of Christ - the Son of Living God was to make that awareness known to all generation – not subjectively but intuitively and objectively.

Shankara, Ramanuja, Alwars and Buddha had Christ consciousness? That is interesting.

So it is with their "Christ Conscious" that Shankara propunded the advaita philosophy, Ramanuja propounded the Vishsitadvaita Philsophy and so on...?

No Alwar or these "Christ conscious" people ever said man is a sinner. They are considered man as divine, who summum bonum of life is to realise the divinity in him.

I cannot tell or force my spouse to love me. But, if she chooses on her own to love me despite my shortcomings it will only make me happy. That love is unconditional and not coerced. God desires such a love out of our choices. He will provide you with all tools but you have to take the first step in making that decision. Therefore, God will not violate your free-will.

If your spouse does no love you, divorce her. Why torture for eternity?

No! That is cop-out metality. On the contrary, it is man’s persistence in error is why he is banished from God-consciousness. Man knows God but out of sheer ego he has raised the bars of ignorance. When our soul identifies itself with sense pleasures, it forgets the divine nature. Thus, it is a war between spirit and flesh that man goes through and he and only he can make that choice to be either on God’s side or flesh (world) side in that tug-of-war.


Many times people go through very difficult times in their lives. It can be so painful that their faith in God is totally shaken to the point that forces them to reject God as the only option to move on. Such people tend to blame God for being very selfish – sitting on a throne distant to us but consigning his creation to go through trials. My question to those is - who else is there for you to believe if you don’t want to believe God?

Dear nirotu, you fail to realise that it is great suffering that brings us very close to God. Suffering is the true gateway to God. You can read many testimonies on Hindunet of how many people have found God in times of dsitress. Even Satay who as atheist, here, turned to God, only after life forced him to.

I disgree with your version which is not an impartial one.
Is God truly just or not - that is the question.

In Hinduism, salvation of God is obtained on knowing God in reality, called the Jnana, in one of the may ways I mentioned earlier. There is perfectly just here, because each one is measured by the same yard stick.

Now, look at the problem in Christianity.

1. What happens to an infant who dies?
2. What happens to a lunatic?
3. What happens to a person who never hears of God because he lived in a jungle?

The only explanation I either hear is
a) They go to hell. (literal or figureative)
b) They go to heaven.
c) They are judged by God differently. ( implying whim and fancy logic)

The problem with

a) is that it is unfair because an infant, a lunatic and a jungler all have no chance to beleive in God.

b) is fair to the people concerned, but unfair to people who are otherwise normal. Because the infant, the lunatic all got a free pass while the others had to earn it one way or the other, and had to suppress their freewill.

c) I dont have to elaborate because it is completely stupid.

Such people have separated themselves by their individualism. Remember, God is Omnipresent and He is grieved when we grieve. I don’t know why we suffer. But I do know that God is with me through the trials I go through. When a man fails to realize this truth, inevitably he rejects God.

God is not grieved when we grieve? Why?

Because God is all powerful. He needs to grieve only if he is helpless to save anybody. Removing the suffering of man is a moment's notice for God.

All this suffering in the world , which are of finite nature, bring no reaction in God, essentially because he can rectify it any moment he wants. You grieve only when you are truly helpless to save somebody else.

Dont make earthly comparisons here, God is not limited in powers. He can do anything, and hence never grieves.

There are many things that I do not understand regarding the nature of God. Just because I do not understand with my feeble knowledge does not mean God is limited by my standards. As God himself said, “My thoughts are higher than your…” is an indication that human understanding of the unmanifest source is limited at best. Why God selectively appears to some and not others is a mystery to me. Then again, I dare not question sovereign will of God.

This is an irrational answe,dont you think if God gives direct inspiration to some atheist and forces the rest of use to use "free will" to choose the right path is injustice?

I have heard plenty of testimonies to people turning to God for some unusual experience that convinces them of the truth. Some people never have the chance. You cannot just hide under "I dare not question sovereign will of God.".

Again, atheist’s exercise of free-will dictates if he is on God’s side or on the side of the world. God may reveal Himself to an atheist but it is an atheist who has to make that choice to either accept Him or reject Him. God will never violate our free-will. Otherwise the love that any one shows towards God will be coerced one. If it is willful disobedience despite knowing God, God will simply step aside to take its course. It is not God who wants such people in Hell but they make themselves worthy candidates.

Nonsense, no person rejects God on knowing God exists, and especially if God is revealed to him. Revelation is a bogus if it does instill faith in a man.


[quote-nirotu]
There are many Christians who accepted Christ for salvation and have fallen back and some even have become apostates. My understanding is that they never vere saved to begin with. Once a saved person who truly upholds the message of Christ in his heart will never fall back.
[/QUOTE]

Are you sure you are saved? Or do you think there is a possibility of you ending in the eternal hell of your God?

I have seen you using foul words on Hindunet occasionally (to Pagan in particular who is normally very abusive himself)) - are you sure you are keeping the message of Christ with these acts, or all these forgiven?

So how do you know you are saved or not?

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Logical refutation of Reincarnation? Copy-paste material, eh.

Let us see.

1.The implication of Hinduism is that we have an impotent God who has no sovereignty over creation. He is just a helpless spectator of the human tragedy. The spirituality taught hinges on the ascension or development of the spirit by means of reincarnation, not by a knowledge and the omnipotence of God.

The true impotence of God is evident when he is unable to save a vast majority of his creation from eternally getting separated from him and tortured for eternity.

There is no morality in the system of reincarnation. If someone suffers a misfortune – e.g. he gets murdered, or if someone is born poor or deformed – that’s him canceling out deeds from a past life. We should therefore not feel compassion for him. We should not help people in misfortune, we should actually be happy when bad things happen to people, because it means that they are working out bad karma and getting closer to enlightenment. We shouldn’t jail criminals because they are in fact the “punishers” of people who have accumulated bad karma. By interfering with the process of karma in this way (preventing bad people from carrying out their destiny), are we not consequently gathering more bad karma for ourselves? If a little girl is raped, maybe it’s necessary in order to get rid of the debts of her past. Maybe she’s an incarnation of Jack the ripper. Who are we to comment?

That is a good joke I have heard recently.

Which Hindu teaching makes you think that Hinduism asks you leave somebody to their fate as if it is due to their karma...

Hinduism is established on the principles of Yama and Niyama, which are


The first rule is called ahimsa – harmlessness. It means trying not to injure, as far as possible, any living being in deeds, words, thoughts or emotions.

Sathya (truthfulness) is a second rule of yama. Jesus Christ said about this concisely: “Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'” [10]. We can deserve respect from people and from God only if we behave in this way.

The third rule is asteya – non-covetousness, renunciation of a desire to possess something that belongs to someone else. We should totally concentrate on the cognition of God. Craving for material objects, especially those belonging to others, is an utter perversion of the true orientation of consciousness, which at the same time leads to harming other people.


The fourth rule is aparigraha – limiting one’s possessions to necessary things. Unnecessary things only distract our attention from the essential: from being focused on attaining the state of Mergence with the Creator.


Brahmacharya – the fifth rule – literally means “acting in Brahman (the Holy Spirit)”. This implies renunciation of one’s “earthly” desires (except for attending to elementary needs of one’s body) and redirection of one’s attention to God, to searching for Him first with one’s mind and then with one’s developed consciousness.


The sixth rule is – saucha – maintaining purity of the body.

The seventh rule is mitahara – pure nutrition, and moderation in diet, that ensures everyone will get food.

The eight rule – santosha – is constant maintaining of a positive emotional attitude. If we feel presence of the Lord and devote our lives to Him totally, if we do not act out of self-interest, if we know that He is constantly watching us, leading us, teaching us, that He creates difficulties for us so that we could learn and then Himself helps us to find solutions to the problems – why would we not live in a permanent joy?


The ninth rule is svadhyaya – philosophical speculations, conversation and readings that make for a thorough comprehension of the meaning of one’s life and of the Path to Perfection.

The tenth rule – tapas – implies any kinds of self-restraint and self-constraint for the sake of overcoming one’s vices. Among other things tapas teaches us a spiritual discipline as well as to follow the principle “it should be done!” as opposed to “I do only what I want!”

The eleventh rule is Ishvarapranidhana. This implies feeling that everything that exists is pervaded with Consciousness of the Creator (Ishvara), feeling of His constant presence inside and outside one’s body, bodies of other people and also material objects, seeing Him as the Teacher and a Witness of everything that one does and that happens to one.



These eleven rules are the very basis of Hinduism and religions like Buddhism which beleive in reincarnation.

No indiference is shown to anybody. In Hinduism, everything is seen as God, unlike Christianity where you see each other as a sinner deserving that fate.
When we see a person suffering, we see the Lord suffering in him, and can never be indifferent. Service to mankind is service to the Lord - in Hinduism.

There is no justice in reincarnation. It is just a vicious circle. For example if you look at someone truly evil, like Hitler. He will have to live many, many lives in order to cancel out his karmic debt. That means subsequent incarnations of Hitler will have to endure all kinds of hardship in order to cancel out the debt. Any social worker will tell you that people touched by poverty, crime and violence do not adopt a noble resignation to their fate. In fact they will react with indignation or rebellion and in turn accumulate more bad karma. It’s accepted that violence breeds violence. People who are abused generally continue the cycle of abuse. What kind of justice is this that starts more problems than it solves?

This is the perfect justice....which you cant seem to grasp.

Hitler needs to suffer, he has acted in arrogance and will be punsihed heavily by his own karma. He will become meek, weak, stupid, sick and what not - all his arrogance will dissappear in due time.

I am even surprised you consider the suffering of Hitler an injustice, even when you consider something as monstrous as eternal hell to be a "just" act.

There is no such thing as forgiveness in the system of Reincarnation. Therefore it makes Christ’s life and all his teachings absurd and useless. Reincarnation is just a relentless accounting system that defies logic and according to its ideology, Christ’s death on the cross means nothing except he had some bad karma to get rid of.

True, Christ death on the cross means nothing to many Christians and to all non Christians. This is no argument to use against non Christian idealogies.
True forgiveness exists only in the system of reincarnation, where even the worst criminals who failed to repent are still given further chance to prove themselves. In Christianity, if you dont repend for your acts, you are done for - where is forgiveness?

Shall we forgive all the serial killers and rapists in our nation, without sentencing them, if they just repent for their sins?

 

[satay]

Logical refutation of Reincarnation? Copy-paste material, eh.

Let us see.



The true impotence of God is evident when he is unable to save a vast majority of his creation from eternally getting separated from him and tortured for eternity.





That is a good joke I have heard recently.

Which Hindu teaching makes you think that Hinduism asks you leave somebody to their fate as if it is due to their karma...

Hinduism is established on the principles of Yama and Niyama, which are


The first rule is called ahimsa – harmlessness. It means trying not to injure, as far as possible, any living being in deeds, words, thoughts or emotions.

Sathya (truthfulness) is a second rule of yama. Jesus Christ said about this concisely: “Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'” [10]. We can deserve respect from people and from God only if we behave in this way.

The third rule is asteya – non-covetousness, renunciation of a desire to possess something that belongs to someone else. We should totally concentrate on the cognition of God. Craving for material objects, especially those belonging to others, is an utter perversion of the true orientation of consciousness, which at the same time leads to harming other people.


The fourth rule is aparigraha – limiting one’s possessions to necessary things. Unnecessary things only distract our attention from the essential: from being focused on attaining the state of Mergence with the Creator.


Brahmacharya – the fifth rule – literally means “acting in Brahman (the Holy Spirit)”. This implies renunciation of one’s “earthly” desires (except for attending to elementary needs of one’s body) and redirection of one’s attention to God, to searching for Him first with one’s mind and then with one’s developed consciousness.


The sixth rule is – saucha – maintaining purity of the body.

The seventh rule is mitahara – pure nutrition, and moderation in diet, that ensures everyone will get food.

The eight rule – santosha – is constant maintaining of a positive emotional attitude. If we feel presence of the Lord and devote our lives to Him totally, if we do not act out of self-interest, if we know that He is constantly watching us, leading us, teaching us, that He creates difficulties for us so that we could learn and then Himself helps us to find solutions to the problems – why would we not live in a permanent joy?


The ninth rule is svadhyaya – philosophical speculations, conversation and readings that make for a thorough comprehension of the meaning of one’s life and of the Path to Perfection.

The tenth rule – tapas – implies any kinds of self-restraint and self-constraint for the sake of overcoming one’s vices. Among other things tapas teaches us a spiritual discipline as well as to follow the principle “it should be done!” as opposed to “I do only what I want!”

The eleventh rule is Ishvarapranidhana. This implies feeling that everything that exists is pervaded with Consciousness of the Creator (Ishvara), feeling of His constant presence inside and outside one’s body, bodies of other people and also material objects, seeing Him as the Teacher and a Witness of everything that one does and that happens to one.



These eleven rules are the very basis of Hinduism and religions like Buddhism which beleive in reincarnation.

No indiference is shown to anybody. In Hinduism, everything is seen as God, unlike Christianity where you see each other as a sinner deserving that fate.
When we see a person suffering, we see the Lord suffering in him, and can never be indifferent. Service to mankind is service to the Lord - in Hinduism.




This is the perfect justice....which you cant seem to grasp.

Hitler needs to suffer, he has acted in arrogance and will be punsihed heavily by his own karma. He will become meek, weak, stupid, sick and what not - all his arrogance will dissappear in due time.

I am even surprised you consider the suffering of Hitler an injustice, even when you consider something as monstrous as eternal hell to be a "just" act.




True, Christ death on the cross means nothing to many Christians and to all non Christians. This is no argument to use against non Christian idealogies.
True forgiveness exists only in the system of reincarnation, where even the worst criminals who failed to repent are still given further chance to prove themselves. In Christianity, if you dont repend for your acts, you are done for - where is forgiveness?

Shall we forgive all the serial killers and rapists in our nation, without sentencing them, if they just repent for their sins?

Well thought out replies. Bravo...

satay

 

[satay]

[/i]



Dear nirotu, you fail to realise that it is great suffering that brings us very close to God. Suffering is the true gateway to God. You can read many testimonies on Hindunet of how many people have found God in times of dsitress. Even Satay who as atheist, here, turned to God, only after life forced him to.

It's amazing to even think that about a year ago I was someone that thought this GOD nonsense is for fools and those who don't use their brains and are religious idiots.

Not until Bhagwan touched me personally...one thing is for sure...the malecchas will never be able to convert people like me.

aham kratur aham yajnah
svadhaham aham ausadham
mantro 'ham aham evajyam
aham agnir aham hutam

pitaham asya jagato
mata dhata pitamahah
vedyam pavitram omkara
rk sama yajur eva ca

aham hi sarva-yajnanam
bhokta ca prabhur eva ca
na tu mam abhijananti
tattvenatas cyavanti te

I am the father, the mother, the support the grandsire...I am the object of knowledge, the purifier the syllable OM...I am rig, I am sama and the yajur...

I alone am the enjoyer...oh Arjun!

OM TAT SAT

 

[selwyn]

Sathya (truthfulness) is a second rule of yama. Jesus Christ said about this concisely: “Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'” [10]. We can deserve respect from people and from God only if we behave in this way.

Man. As a person who strongly supported incoherence, speculative views and self-contradictory claims , how on earth could you ever say this now? Did you even read back all the partial truths and partial fallacies you strongly supported about hinduism so far. Aren't you the same one who claimed that even your own school of thought is just partially true? And would you go back and count the number of times that you have given answers between "yes and no" in your so called logic posts? With all these under your hat, how on earth were you screaming for answers from me especially knowing very well that "we can deserve respect fom people only if we are truthful" while all along you were hypocritically without any regret trying to defend your incoherent self contradictory partially true statements as well as the incoherence and partial truths of hinduism?
I have a small question in here. Did you really mean "truthfulness" in your post or could it be that you meant "truthpartialness" and spelt it incoherently in here?

 

[Proud Hindu]

Lol, if nothing else selwyn, your posts are good for comedic value.

 

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

Perhaps, you need to settle down a bit and think with your thinking cap. All along I am saying the very thing you are holding as against me. “Christianity does not believe in individual karma leading to salvation. It is only the grace of God through our faith”. Doing good-karma (charity, compassion, love) is simply the outcome of having that faith."



Aside from your hand-waving arguments and condescending smirks, there is nothing you say has challenged me to respond. However, in the interest of keeping the spirit of debate alive, I will answer but at later time.



For now, one thing that stood-out loud and clear from your posting. And that is:

I have seen you using foul words on Hindunet occasionally (to Pagan in particular who is normally very abusive himself)) - are you sure you are keeping the message of Christ with these acts, or all these forgiven?

I take these accusations very seriously. I would like for you to show me where I have disparaged anyone with foul language in Hindunet! I think you owe that to show me first. I know that I have used utmost restraint not to disparage anyone (In proper context even pagan, if he can remember!).



One thing, I will not tolerate from anyone is the dishonesty. If I find that in you, then you are not worth even talking to let alone debating.



BTW, your remarks at the end of post “I am not interested in further discussion with one who himself is saying he will never answer my questions. Your posts are just childish arguments, as we all can see...and like a confused child you are not even confident of your own religion.” If that is truly what you mean, let us not debate with each other. I respect your views and let’s us move on!



Blessings,

 

[vajradhara]

I read the Bible and felt nothing. Before, I labeled myself as an Indian or a follower of Sanatana Dharma or whatever, but I see these are just actions of the mind to be something, a subconscious act to cover up the fact that we're nothing. When I remove these labels, I see what is. I plan on studying the Buddha and Sanatana Dharmas more in order to find a structured path (guess the unstructured path wasn't for me, vajradhara).

Namaste Indianx,

the unstructured path is difficult to follow precisely because there is no structure.

of course, not all beings require the same thing presented in the same manner.

i wish you success on your endeavor!

IHAMO!

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

This is unlike Hindu or a Buddhist view of salvation where goal is to escape from this temporal order.

Namaste nirotu,

thank you for the post.

this is not correct with regards to the Buddha Dharma. in fact, quite far from it. of course, that may not be all that germane to the converstation.

metta,

~v

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Aside from your hand-waving arguments and condescending smirks, there is nothing you say has challenged me to respond. However, in the interest of keeping the spirit of debate alive, I will answer but at later time.

Hand waving arguments. Are you joking? Come on man, I have seen this attitude in the past. Dont leave out reasoning and fall for emotions. Show which of the remarks are hand waving and I will clarify.

I take these accusations very seriously. I would like for you to show me where I have disparaged anyone with foul language in Hindunet! I think you owe that to show me first. I know that I have used utmost restraint not to disparage anyone (In proper context even pagan, if he can remember!).

Oh man, you expect such posts to be left undeleted by the mod? Many of your posts have been deleted as far as I know, mostly for preaching the gospel against the rules. But I can tell you that Pagan initiated such conversations, and your response was natural. I think Pagan has been banned due to his repeated behaviour and I have not seen him posting for a long time. Pagan's posts are all gone too, so I cannot prove this objectively to you - your conscience knows it. If you dont remember I think it was in the thread "Concept of God in Hinduism" in which a lot of posts are gone because the last half of the thread was fully fiery, flaming and abusive, and many posts by you and other Hindus were deleted. This was the thread that changed the lineant rules that existed previously on Hindunet. Nowadays, not even slight flaming is allowed there, and the user is warned or banned, does not matter if he is Hindu or not.

FYI, I never posted in that thread as I never used to post in those days but just watch the action. Nirotu, dont deny that you were never flaming in that thread. The last half of that long thread is gone and you know why right? It is possible some of these posts survived the mods assault and attention and if I come across any, I will tell you.

One thing, I will not tolerate from anyone is the dishonesty. If I find that in you, then you are not worth even talking to let alone debating.

Prove it! Dishonesty in what - my arguments or accusations?

BTW, your remarks at the end of post “I am not interested in further discussion with one who himself is saying he will never answer my questions. Your posts are just childish arguments, as we all can see...and like a confused child you are not even confident of your own religion.” If that is truly what you mean, let us not debate with each other. I respect your views and let’s us move on!

That one is not for you and the concerned person understands, and I put a sign board for a few days so that the discussion flows a bit freely, and I will remove that once we wind up this discussion. It has become a bit difficult for me to see somebody barge in now and then and post some ridiculous irrelevant remarks and then go into hiding.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste nirotu,

thank you for the post.

i hope you wont mind a few corrections in your understanding of Buddha Dharma.

Reincarnation doesn’t make sense. Who actually works out the effects of his past?

Buddhism doesn't teach this concept. so, no more need to discuss it here.

In Buddhism there is no real self. This physical life is an illusion, when we die our “personhood” of this life ceases to exist and our karma is all that is passed on in the next life.

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not.

it is true that Buddhism teaches the lack of inherent self nature. that is not the same as saying that life in an illusion. it most certainly is not an illusion. when we talk about selflessness, we are talking about the idea of a self or soul which exists independent of causes and conditions and that has an eternal element.

with regards to rebirth, which is different than reincarnation, it is true that our karmic influence conditions the next arising of consciousness, however, it is is also true that very subtle aspects of the consciousness accompany the arising of the conditioned consciousness.

Buddha used the analogy of the light of a candle, which came from another candle and doesn’t have a substance of its own. As with the candles there is no transfer of a “self” from one body to another.

this is correct. what is transferred is, essentially, the karmic inclinations and the Alaya consciousness. well... as well as the two most subtle aspects.

The only link from one life to the next is cause and effect (the flame), or accumulation of karma.

this is not correct as explained above.

So, how can anyone learn from his mistakes?

good question, how do human beings learn things?

Karma is a simple accounting of rights against wrongs.

from the Buddhist side, this is not correct. in point of fact, Buddha Shakyamuni explains that the full workings of karma are so subtle and vast that only fully Awakened beings can understand the full ramifications.

You and I are both inconsequential physical beings and when we die we cease to exist and we can’t be punished or learn from our deeds of this life. All that remains of us is our karma.

since you aren't existing now, there is no you which dies. not very intuitive, i'll grant you, but there it is.

metta,

~v

 

[satay]

Namaste nirotu,

thank you for the post.

i hope you wont mind a few corrections in your understanding of Buddha Dharma.

[/font][/color]

Buddhism doesn't teach this concept. so, no more need to discuss it here.

[/font][/color]

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not.

it is true that Buddhism teaches the lack of inherent self nature. that is not the same as saying that life in an illusion. it most certainly is not an illusion. when we talk about selflessness, we are talking about the idea of a self or soul which exists independent of causes and conditions and that has an eternal element.

with regards to rebirth, which is different than reincarnation, it is true that our karmic influence conditions the next arising of consciousness, however, it is is also true that very subtle aspects of the consciousness accompany the arising of the conditioned consciousness.

[/font][/color]

this is correct. what is transferred is, essentially, the karmic inclinations and the Alaya consciousness. well... as well as the two most subtle aspects.

[/font][/color]

this is not correct as explained above.

[/font][/color]

good question, how do human beings learn things?

[/font][/color]

from the Buddhist side, this is not correct. in point of fact, Buddha Shakyamuni explains that the full workings of karma are so subtle and vast that only fully Awakened beings can understand the full ramifications.

[/font][/color]

since you aren't existing now, there is no you which dies. not very intuitive, i'll grant you, but there it is.

metta,

~v

Namaste VJ,
Thanks for the beautiful explanation as usual. This is good for the benefit of dharma seekers on this forum.

satay

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste VJ,
Thanks for the beautiful explanation as usual. This is good for the benefit of dharma seekers on this forum.

satay

Namaste Satay,

well.. i don't know about that, but thank you for the kind words

of course... one of the difficulties in the Dharma traditions is that, in the final analysis, it isn't about which doctrine one practices.. it is, rather, about the experience that one has during their practice.

as is demonstrated, many Adharmic traditions are completely the opposite, whereby the insist on adherence to a particular doctrinal point of view and discount the invidual experience of said practice.

what positive can come from this sort of approach, i really couldn't say. it is, however, all too easy to point out the negatives that are engendered due to views such as this.

metta,

~v

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Namaste Satay,

well.. i don't know about that, but thank you for the kind words

of course... one of the difficulties in the Dharma traditions is that, in the final analysis, it isn't about which doctrine one practices.. it is, rather, about the experience that one has during their practice.

as is demonstrated, many Adharmic traditions are completely the opposite, whereby the insist on adherence to a particular doctrinal point of view and discount the invidual experience of said practice.

what positive can come from this sort of approach, i really couldn't say. it is, however, all too easy to point out the negatives that are engendered due to views such as this.

metta,

~v

Namaste VJ, that was an excellent explanation.

You may find me a slightly deviant Hindu, because I belong to a different school which is slightly dogmatic in character, but of course, we do not dismiss personal experiences.

My personal opinion is that both Buddhism and Hinduism are talking about the nearly same abstract concept, which for lack of human words, translates differently when put on paper. I have given considerable thought to the Buddist doctrines and the views of own school - they are definitely different.

Buddhism and advaita share a great deal in common, except for the concept of the soul, which in my opinion is superflous, because they might ultimately referring to the same concept.

Buddhism and my own school (Vishsitadvaita) cannot really get on well, because our concept of God is personal, and hence Buddhist doctrines are not readily taken, but we do give in the fact that Buddhism is talking about a stage that just precedies realization of the atman.(soul). Advaita stops with the concept of realiization of the atman, and we beleive our own school is talking of the concept of realization of Brahman, a step higher in conciousness than self realization. I know Buddhism talks about ten layers of consciousness, so either we have to accept that

1. The eleventh step of self realization is not covered.
2. The twelfth step of Brahman realization is not covered.

(or)

These layers of conciousness as really abstract and not describable in human words, and hence it is quite possible they refer to the same concepts as self and Brahman realizations.


Given all these, we reject neither Buddhism, advaita or any of the Dharmic philosophies, but we think Jnana occurs in sequence:

Anatman to Atman to Brahman.

 

[satay]

Namaste VJ, that was an excellent explanation.

You may find me a slightly deviant Hindu, because I belong to a different school which is slightly dogmatic in character, but of course, we do not dismiss personal experiences.

My personal opinion is that both Buddhism and Hinduism are talking about the nearly same abstract concept, which for lack of human words, translates differently when put on paper. I have given considerable thought to the Buddist doctrines and the views of own school - they are definitely different.

Buddhism and advaita share a great deal in common, except for the concept of the soul, which in my opinion is superflous, because they might ultimately referring to the same concept.

Buddhism and my own school (Vishsitadvaita) cannot really get on well, because our concept of God is personal, and hence Buddhist doctrines are not readily taken, but we do give in the fact that Buddhism is talking about a stage that just precedies realization of the atman.(soul). Advaita stops with the concept of realiization of the atman, and we beleive our own school is talking of the concept of realization of Brahman, a step higher in conciousness than self realization. I know Buddhism talks about ten layers of consciousness, so either we have to accept that

1. The eleventh step of self realization is not covered.
2. The twelfth step of Brahman realization is not covered.

(or)

These layers of conciousness as really abstract and not describable in human words, and hence it is quite possible they refer to the same concepts as self and Brahman realizations.


Given all these, we reject neither Buddhism, advaita or any of the Dharmic philosophies, but we think Jnana occurs in sequence:

Anatman to Atman to Brahman.

Nice post. In my opinion...

Anatman and Atman are the same! Think about it...

OM TAT SAT
satay