Response from nirotu

[indianx]

meh, it doesn't matter. I just wish people would say the truth, instead of lying for the most trivial of things.

 

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

Disrespect to whom? I dont care for such intentional or unintentional name abuse -- Call me Sudarshan.

Thank you!

I don’t agree with this. This is a very generalized statement. Some Hindus still feel bitter at the very poor treatment at the British, followed by the missionaries who slander their religion at all costs. The average masses in India are not even aware of all these things - they know their religion, their God and their welfare. They dont have knowledge or time to abuse Christianity. The internet represents perhaps 0.01% of these people and I am surprised at your generalization. I hope you know that most of the posters on the Hindunet live in US and represent their views only. How many Hindus in India have you met? My mom for example does not even know who Jesus might be.

It was not a generalization at all. I am implying that those with dogma and preconceived notion will never benefit from such discussion. There are many Hindus who are genuinely interested in knowing other religion who will always be interested in such dialogues. That does not have to alter their core belief at all. Can we not just engage in a discussion without disparaging each others? At the end of the day one will have to examine himself and know and believe that which is guided by his/her faith.

I personally dont have any problems with christians and I get along well with many colleagues, clients and also have many christian friends. But that does not mean I tolerate people abusing or talking ill of my faith. Give respect and take respect. Historically Hindus are a very peaceful group, and never moved beyond India for "soul saving". They taught spiritual wisdom to people who asked for it. If muslims and christians did not interfere, they would still be a very peaceful group and dont complain now.

The purpose of my coming here not to put down or abuse Hindu faith but to correct misconceptions that are floating around about Christian faith.

I would suggest you to read Ramana Maharishi fully before quoting from parts of his works.

Perhaps, you have not grasped the context in which I was using this quote appropriately. Again and again, Ramana warns us that in the guise of dogma attachment (even if it is to one’s own faith) it only strengthens the ego and thickens the veil of false identity. The ego (thief) dressed in guise (dogma) preaching which it will never catch! This is the context in which Maharishi Ramana is being quoted. If you go back and read his words (Talks by Ramana Maharishi) you will get his answer to the question of ego.

I did not read the last few posts because I was away for a while, but I noticed the thread was moved to another forum and a few posts deleted. I asked the mod about it, and said he suspected that many people of different faiths were claiming to be Hindus and then bashing Hinduism - he mentioned the user tantrikgoddess for example. If you have noticed on Hindunet there has been spurt of anti Hindu posts recently, from people claiming to be Hindus. So every anti Hindu post is currently viewed with suspicion. The mod Shaivite recently posted about it on the General Talk forum - read that post if you want.

I can only speak for myself. My motives were clear from the beginning. There is no mistake in my views when read in context. For someone to imply, somehow, I am in a Hindu garb to bash them is non-sense. Perhaps, they should reread whatever left out there. My disagreement with any Hindu view should not be taken at a personal level. If one does so, then I have nothing to discuss with such people. After all, the confrontation should not be between Hindus and Christians but between their views shaped by their beliefs.

I also know that people with opposing views seldom come to any agreement on issues such as these. It is only in forums like these, you can air those differences, express opinions etc. Otherwise, we need not be on the forum. It is healthy to have such exchange, which unfortunately was stifled by moderators at the other site.

BTW, Just because I don’t believe in someone’s view, does that cause for a deletion? How can you call it a forum where, on one hand, you invite people to express opinions and on other hand delete the post if that does not agree with your views?

You do not realize that Hindus do not beleive in the Holy spirit. You convey promotion of christianity and not discussion - against the rules. Same as CF.

I am not promoting but expressing my views. It is your prerogative to believe or not. Nobody is shoving that on any one. It is this kind of conclusion (short sighted!) take us on a tangent.

Again and again, I have been trying to educate people not to get stuck on names and labels. When Hindus talk of such deep Devotion and Bhakti, who are they addressing, if not the “Holy Spirit”, the unmanifest of all? You are getting entangled in your own concept of Namarupa. It is a gift of Ramanuja to mankind of making us aware of the pitfalls of words and labels, which you are propagating (very wisely I might add!)

Do you know the concept of salvation in my Hindu school kniown as Srivaishnavism? Just surrender to Lord Vishnu and our guru Acharya Ramanuja. Salvation is assured under all conditions. Your post displays lack of knowlede of Hinduism, and no wonder it was deleted. You are completely assuming Hinduism is advaita. It is not - there are many schools that advocate concepts similar and give even more emphasis on grace than Christianity.

Thank you. You just supported my earlier point. You see, when you put label like Krishna, Vishnu, Ramanuja you bring tradition in mind. This labeling only distracts you from the real connection that son ought to have with the “father”.

In my school's opinion, man cannot seek salvation himself under any circumstance - and cannot adopt any spiritual discipline including Jnana, Karma and Bhakti Yoga.

According to my school, only one real way to salvation exists and is called the Prapatti, also called Baranyasa or Bharasamarpanam - total surrender to Lord Vishnu and confessing to him, of my own inability in adopting any discipline for salvation. Once you adopt this resolution thru a process of baptism called the Samashrayanam and followed by Prapatti, the Lord will see to it that you will get salvation no matter what - even if you commit innumerable sins. THis is the beleif of my school. but many Hindus would disagree, just the way they reject Christian view of salvation.

Now my friend, think about it! How is that what you just said is any different from the central message of Christianity? But, before you do that let me remind you to be aware of names and labels. Go to the core message and you will find that the essence is the same.

This is the perennial message of Christ who lived, and died and gloriously resurrected to show us that our spirit has to rise from the dust once and for all. Only "grace" is the sole enabler for that not the "karma"

Thus, you have viewed Hinduism from a very narrow perspective and tried to promote your superiority in views there. My school does not admit the Christian view of eternal damnation. As long as you fail to adopt the path of complete surrender, you will continue to be born in many life forms. The Lord will accept you as soon as you confess your own inability to do anything and fully surrender yourself to him. All Karma, past, present and future cease to operate with immediate effect of total surrender.

In the human realm the eternal damnation is of our ignorance of our connection to our heavenly Father. Therefore, our own true nature (identity). And the way out of this darkness is through grace that is in Christ. Therefore, your view of surrender is the key in Christianity as well.

All of you are unfortunately so much conditioned that you are reacting to the labels of Christianity. Some how "hell" has thrown you so far off-course from its real intended meaning.

Sad irony is that Jesus was crucified once; but his teachings are being crucified daily by false interpretations.


Blessings,

 

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

Why are you christians jumping to use the term "contradiction" in every post of yours? You will naturally drive away people who want to discuss with you.

Creation Theory and Evolution Theory can easily coexist. Please note that I clearly mentioned that I do not beleive in abiogenesis and you silently bypassed that. Show some intellectual honesty.

God enabled the first life to form and Hinduism accepts that many life forms were initially created by God( rather prakriti because God is beyond nature). Mother Durga is the representiative of the intelligence of nature.

These initial organisms can eveolve into more complex and other life forms. Simply put, we dont beleive some chemical reactions produced the first life. It was initiated by the intelligent nature represented by the mother Durga also known as Yogamaya.

God enabled first life to form. That indeed is the essence of the Bible that believes in the creation by sovereign God. If creation indeed took place, how can then “Sanatan Dharma” be called eternal? Therefore, no religion can be eternal unless the creation is also eternal, which it is not. Only the unmanifest is eternal. Moment it manifests, it comes into time and space that is creation (Prakriti).

The ten avatars are symbolic. You are forgetting that time is eternal, and Hindus dont just beleive in earth as the center of creation. God incarnates in every plane of conciousness and not as one son of God on earth.

If avatar is only symbolic, how do you explain evolution of the soul, which you alluded to in an earlier post?

Does christianity beelive in extra terrestrial life? If so, they also have to believe in the resseruction of Jesus to attain salvation?

You need to further clarify what you are trying to convey. There is no connection between extraterrestrial and salvation of Christ.

Blessings,

 

[indianx]

I am not promoting but expressing my views.

It doesn't matter, man. It's the same policy here and there. But, who cares about rules. I don't go over to the hindunet forums and start complaining or whining about Christians because my posts were deleted.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Karma2Grace,

Weren't you the one who assumed a Hindu ID and pretended to ask doubts as if your christian friend asked you? And then started slamming? Now you are complaining? I know who you are from your very writing style.

I was also ejected from the forum, the moderator (Shaivite) was so arrogant and delete post disable accounts with out any reasons, my account was removed because I posted some verses from Rig Veda which supports “blood Sacrifice” , I posted with proper reference from Vedas

Really, they banned for doing "nothing"?

But here the moderators are so liberal not deleting posts of people like ‘Satay‘ , You cannot expect a Christian to accept Karma and Reincarnation while debating on the Hindu forum

You dont have to, but discussion and promotion are altogether different.

I find it very silly to complain about getting banned from a site - they must have found some reason, something against the rules which you violated intentionally or unintentionally. None of you ever came for a discussion, but only with the gospel message - and that is what you will get on a HIndu forum.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

No idea but no way to prevent it. It's not the multiple ids that was the cause of her ban over and over again but the fact that she kept repeating the same anti-hindu nonsense and breaking the rules of the site. You have to realise that mods at the hindu site are very liberal and to get banned there takes a lot of time and effort and nonsense. Not like here...a hindu breathes and gets a warning....

satay

Yeah, multi ID was not the issue. I know many guys who use multi ID on Hindunet but if they are anti Hindu it is not an issue. This Karma2Grace as far as I know, used atleast 4 ID and recently with a new ID with the same motive.

Why not boldly say you are a christian and that you want a friendly discussion. Why hide behind seeker and Hindu ID and then bash Hinduism? How do you expect mods to tolerate such behaviour?

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Dear nirotu,

The purpose of my coming here not to put down or abuse Hindu faith but to correct misconceptions that are floating around about Christian faith.

True, the testimony of the agnostic is proof enough. Assuming, you have not made up those posts, which I did not read.

I can only speak for myself. My motives were clear from the beginning. There is no mistake in my views when read in context. For someone to imply, somehow, I am in a Hindu garb to bash them is non-sense. Perhaps, they should reread whatever left out there. My disagreement with any Hindu view should not be taken at a personal level. If one does so, then I have nothing to discuss with such people. After all, the confrontation should not be between Hindus and Christians but between their views shaped by their beliefs.

Yes, I appreciate your honesty.

I also know that people with opposing views seldom come to any agreement on issues such as these. It is only in forums like these, you can air those differences, express opinions etc. Otherwise, we need not be on the forum. It is healthy to have such exchange, which unfortunately was stifled by moderators at the other site.


BTW, Just because I don’t believe in someone’s view, does that cause for a deletion? How can you call it a forum where, on one hand, you invite people to express opinions and on other hand delete the post if that does not agree with your views?

Yes, I agree that mods are not always fair but you have to concede that they are just doing their duty. I am sure many non christian posts have been deleted here too. I have not seen any Hindu complain about that on HIndunet about their posts getting deleted at CF or getting banned here. That is very childish. I wont mind if any mod deletes my post here is he thinks it is against the rules - that is what they are for.

For very liberal exchange of ideas, you cannot debate either on Hindu forum or CF, you need to find a site that allows all kinds of debate without rule violations. Any site affiliated to one particular religion will never allow promotion of another religion. Understandably so. Hindunet explicitly states that. There are other Hindu forums that dont mind promotion of non Hindu religions, but sure the memebers are not going to be easy on you. This site is exceptionally tolerant, especially the Christains and it has helped me form a better image about Christianity.

Again and again, I have been trying to educate people not to get stuck on names and labels. When Hindus talk of such deep Devotion and Bhakti, who are they addressing, if not the “Holy Spirit”, the unmanifest of all? You are getting entangled in your own concept of Namarupa. It is a gift of Ramanuja to mankind of making us aware of the pitfalls of words and labels, which you are propagating (very wisely I might add!)

Thank you. You just supported my earlier point. You see, when you put label like Krishna, Vishnu, Ramanuja you bring tradition in mind. This labeling only distracts you from the real connection that son ought to have with the “father”.

Man, it is Hindus who dont atach this importance on names and labels. If you ask me if Lord Vishnu is same as Yahweh or Allah, I would readily give in. How many christians would be ready to accept that? You answer me, who is more enlightened?

Dont use your example. I am sure a majority of christians are tied to names and forms. Lord Vishnu is symbolic of the Brahman, because he is all pervading. Vishnu represents the complete aspect of the Brahman while other names like Shiva, Durga etc represent certain attributes of the Brahman - though some Hindus may disagree with me.

Now my friend, think about it! How is that what you just said is any different from the central message of Christianity? But, before you do that let me remind you to be aware of names and labels. Go to the core message and you will find that the essence is the same.

This is the perennial message of Christ who lived, and died and gloriously resurrected to show us that our spirit has to rise from the dust once and for all. Only "grace" is the sole enabler for that not the "karma"

Yes, but our very problem is that Hinduism recognizes this fact, while Christianity does not...

And mind you, Srimad Ramanuja has 3 million followers worldwide. And no proselytizing like ISKCON.

In the human realm the eternal damnation is of our ignorance of our connection to our heavenly Father. Therefore, our own true nature (identity). And the way out of this darkness is through grace that is in Christ. Therefore, your view of surrender is the key in Christianity as well.

All of you are unfortunately so much conditioned that you are reacting to the labels of Christianity. Some how "hell" has thrown you so far off-course from its real intended meaning.

True, the hell alone is enough for me to not consider seriously. It is very unlike Jesus and his father to eternally seprate men from him. Jesus was a loving saint - I disbelieve he ever talked of hell except as a metaphor and as a temporary state.

Sad irony is that Jesus was crucified once; but his teachings are being crucified daily by false interpretations.

By whom? Not by Hindus - we understand him very well.


~Sudarshan~

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Dear nirotu,

I am sorry if I spoke a bit harshly. I too concede from your posts that your understanding is very correct, the references to namarupa- unlike most other Christians. But dont you realize that , under such a case Christianity has nothing in particular to offer? How do you see Srimad Ramanuja's school as different from Christianity?

I am not against Jesus at all, but I dont think the bible is inspired by Jesus. I reject all those doctrines in bible that talk about eternal hell, the oneway logic etc - other than that, Christianity has much in common with my own school called Srivaishnavism - we beleive totally in the grace of God and admit that salvation by karma or jnana is very difficult. Also note that Ramanuja's schools posits material causalty, and like every other Hindu thought, we also beleive it is the Lord who is present everyhwre and is part and parcel of the creation. There is not one atom in which the LOrd does not exist.

God enabled first life to form. That indeed is the essence of the Bible that believes in the creation by sovereign God. If creation indeed took place, how can then “Sanatan Dharma” be called eternal? Therefore, no religion can be eternal unless the creation is also eternal, which it is not. Only the unmanifest is eternal. Moment it manifests, it comes into time and space that is creation (Prakriti).

Sanatana Dharam is eternal because this creation by God is just one of the many infinite cycles of creation. Maybe Christianity beleives that this is the first attempt by God to engage in creation and his plan flopped and he decided to punish everybody. According to Sanatana Dharma, this has been happening in cycles eternally.

If avatar is only symbolic, how do you explain evolution of the soul, which you alluded to in an earlier post?

Why, what is your difficulty? Avatar is symbolic and conveys many mesages. But it is also a general Hindu beleif that these were real events too. There are not many Hindus who beleive that Krishna was a myth, even though it can never be proved with certainity either way.

 

[Vayu]

First of all, you have to understand what myth is and what is real. Krishna and Rama are purely mythological stories written by sages under the divine inspiration of God. The writings are prescriptions for leading a morally upright life.



For example, Rama is portrayed as Atman, Sita as wisdom or higher knowledge and Ravana as evil or Maya. When Sita was caught in “Maya” because of the ego in her, the atman (Rama) had to liberate her from the ego. It is called grace.



Look at “kurukshetra” where the central figure is the Krishna a metaphor for the divine. The author wants you to treat the exchange between Arjuna and Krishna as being between you and the divine one.



You need to understand the difference between reality (what really occurred) versus divine metaphors in an epic. It would be wise to learn the message rather than glorify the mythical characters and identify with them as real.



When you come with certain dogmatic principles you will always be caught in the web of your own ignorance. In that, only the hand of grace can save you from the veil of ignorance.



Blessings,

Hey Anil,

So this is where the party is huh? Nice to see you here and your silly little partner here.

What happened? You guys were chased out of hindunet or what? Sadly, most of my posts were also deleted the mods there have no mercy even for seekers of hinduism.

pagan from hindunet

 

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

. . . Assuming, you have not made up those posts, which I did not read.

Before I justify further, I would like to point out that your comment is doing sever injustice to the quality of spirit that should be flowing in this exchange. The moment there is doubt and fear the ego steps in. I want to once again summarize to all my readers that this forum is much more than a theoretical exchange for me, which is why I don’t mind about my time spent in it. I am not doing it for the shear pleasure of an idle chatter. Therefore, honesty is the foundation on which the exchange should be based.

Let me then assure you that the post was written in response to that seeker but did not get the chance to be delivered.

Blessings,

 

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

I am sorry if I spoke a bit harshly. I too concede from your posts that your understanding is very correct, the references to namarupa- unlike most other Christians. But dont you realize that , under such a case Christianity has nothing in particular to offer? How do you see Srimad Ramanuja's school as different from Christianity?

No hard feelings. First of all, I agree and that is what I point out in that the Ramanuja’s message of “surrender and grace” is completely in sinc with the message of Christ. In fact, I believe, Ramanuja is far ahead of Shankara in his understanding of connection between manifest and the unmanifest. I am glad that I have finally met a Hindu who is conceding the message of Christ. So my friend, I am enjoying my exchange with you because I became a little tired of engaging with some Hindu friends on the other site whose egos had thickened into an intellectual crust that was not open for any fresh insight.

I am not against Jesus at all, but I dont think the bible is inspired by Jesus. I reject all those doctrines in bible that talk about eternal hell, the oneway logic etc - other than that, Christianity has much in common with my own school called Srivaishnavism - we beleive totally in the grace of God and admit that salvation by karma or jnana is very difficult. Also note that Ramanuja's schools posits material causalty, and like every other Hindu thought, we also beleive it is the Lord who is present everyhwre and is part and parcel of the creation. There is not one atom in which the LOrd does not exist.

To me the object of my faith is not the Bible. The object of my faith is Jesus Christ and the Bible is the faithful witness to that account. It is the Bible that revealed Christ to me. Therefore, apart from the Bible I have nothing to go about knowing Christ. If you then believe in Christ Jesus, you would have to believe in the source that revealed Him to us.

I have said this many times and I will reemphasize again that the content of the Bible has to be interpreted deeply and very subtly. There are lots of people doing surface interpretation. I myself struggle at times to make sense of deeper level of message. Please, do not confuse human misunderstanding with the message itself. For it is not whether Hindus or Christians misunderstand it but the human mind and ego within its finite capacity is unable to grasp the infinite message in the Bible.

Bible talks of many things that make perfect sense when taken in context. BTW, I would like to know what verse in the Bible that intimidates people. While, I am no scholar in either the Old- or the New-Testaments, I would certainly make an attempt to answer or get the correct answer for you.

Sanatana Dharam is eternal because this creation by God is just one of the many infinite cycles of creation. Maybe Christianity beleives that this is the first attempt by God to engage in creation and his plan flopped and he decided to punish everybody. According to Sanatana Dharma, this has been happening in cycles eternally.

Moment something manifests it cannot be eternal. Regardless of multiple cycles, it still falls within creation and, therefore, enters the realm of time and space and, thus, is not eternal. Only the unmanifest supreme is eternal. The moment you say number of cycles, you brought a tangible beginning to that.

Why, what is your difficulty? Avatar is symbolic and conveys many mesages. But it is also a general Hindu beleif that these were real events too. There are not many Hindus who beleive that Krishna was a myth, even though it can never be proved with certainity either way.

Your tolerance of both stances dilutes the perception and the commitment of the truth. Truth by definition is one and exclusive, and therefore, it cannot be “either or”. Therefore, Krishna is either a myth or real. While you may believe him to be true by faith, although there is no historical evidence, but there is ample evidence showing these were characters in great epic revealed to sages.

Blessings,

 

[nirotu]

Dear Vayu:

Hey Anil,

So this is where the party is huh? Nice to see you here and your silly little partner here.

What happened? You guys were chased out of hindunet or what? Sadly, most of my posts were also deleted the mods there have no mercy even for seekers of hinduism.

pagan from hindunet

Thanks! BTW, who is the silly little partner you are referring to? I don't believe I came here with anyone but myself.

Blessings,

 

[nirotu]

Hi Nirotu,

Welcome in here.

Hope you will have a nice time in here.

Thanks, Selwyn.

Blessings,

 

[selwyn]

Hmm.

I cannot strictly comment on why these were deleted but here is why...

Do you know the concept of salvation in my Hindu school kniown as Srivaishnavism? Just surrender to Lord Vishnu and our guru Acharya Ramanuja. Salvation is assured under all conditions. Your post displays lack of knowlede of Hinduism, and no wonder it was deleted. You are completely assuming Hinduism is advaita. It is not - there are many schools that advocate concepts similar and give even more emphasis on grace than Christianity.

Interesting indeed. There was one guy up here adamantly declaring that Christianity involved no grace at all. Of course, he never ended up explaining what grace meant according to him. Here is some another hindu saying here that his school of thought has "even more emphasis on grace than Christianity" implying that Christianity involves and emphasizes definitely grace. But is this just another incoherent viewpoint as it has been claimed before that even hinduic scriptures are incoherent?

In my school's opinion, man cannot seek salvation himself under any circumstance - and cannot adopt any spiritual discipline including Jnana, Karma and Bhakti Yoga.

Do you really mean "cannot" according to your school? Or would that term "cannot" also mean "maybe"? Because if you say "cannot" assertively, then you naturally invalidate the other paths, isn't it or not? In other words, you are rejecting these other ideas as having even "partial truths" (10%, 50%, 80% etc.). Isn't it "true"?

According to my school, only one real way to salvation exists and is called the Prapatti, also called Baranyasa or Bharasamarpanam - total surrender to Lord Vishnu and confessing to him, of my own inability in adopting any discipline for salvation. Once you adopt this resolution thru a process of baptism called the Samashrayanam and followed by Prapatti, the Lord will see to it that you will get salvation no matter what - even if you commit innumerable sins. THis is the beleif of my school. but many Hindus would disagree, just the way they reject Christian view of salvation.

What? Do they reject even your school of thought? Is this what you guys call as acceptance and validity at another end?

Thus, you have viewed Hinduism from a very narrow perspective and tried to promote your superiority in views there. My school does not admit the Christian view of eternal damnation. As long as you fail to adopt the path of complete surrender, you will continue to be born in many life forms. The Lord will accept you as soon as you confess your own inability to do anything and fully surrender yourself to him. All Karma, past, present and future cease to operate with immediate effect of total surrender.

Man. What do you mean by past, present and ( this is really interesting indeed!!!) future Karma?

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

nirotu,

No hard feelings. First of all, I agree and that is what I point out in that the Ramanuja’s message of “surrender and grace” is completely in sinc with the message of Christ. In fact, I believe, Ramanuja is far ahead of Shankara in his understanding of connection between manifest and the unmanifest. I am glad that I have finally met a Hindu who is conceding the message of Christ. So my friend, I am enjoying my exchange with you because I became a little tired of engaging with some Hindu friends on the other site whose egos had thickened into an intellectual crust that was not open for any fresh insight.

So dont try to pull any Vaishnavas into Christianity - it just wont work. Christianity is redundant for us and has got nothing new

To me the object of my faith is not the Bible. The object of my faith is Jesus Christ and the Bible is the faithful witness to that account. It is the Bible that revealed Christ to me. Therefore, apart from the Bible I have nothing to go about knowing Christ. If you then believe in Christ Jesus, you would have to believe in the source that revealed Him to us.

Not necessarily. It could have many man made additions not necessarily the teachings of Jesus.

Moment something manifests it cannot be eternal. Regardless of multiple cycles, it still falls within creation and, therefore, enters the realm of time and space and, thus, is not eternal. Only the unmanifest supreme is eternal. The moment you say number of cycles, you brought a tangible beginning to that.

The soul is eternal, though it could become embodied or not. As you know, soul was not created by God and exists eternally as part and parcel of God.

Your tolerance of both stances dilutes the perception and the commitment of the truth. Truth by definition is one and exclusive, and therefore, it cannot be “either or”. Therefore, Krishna is either a myth or real. While you may believe him to be true by faith, although there is no historical evidence, but there is ample evidence showing these were characters in great epic revealed to sages.

Historical evidence is unnecesary. After all, there is no proof for even God, why do you believe? Religions based on history are far more vulnerable to attacks.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Interesting indeed. There was one guy up here adamantly declaring that Christianity involved no grace at all. Of course, he never ended up explaining what grace meant according to him. Here is some another hindu saying here that his school of thought has "even more emphasis on grace than Christianity" implying that Christianity involves and emphasizes definitely grace. But is this just another incoherent viewpoint as it has been claimed before that even hinduic scriptures are incoherent?

True, you cannot compare the concepts of grace in Vaishnavism and christianity. There is a lot of difference between "salvation for all" and "salvation for a select few".

Do you really mean "cannot" according to your school? Or would that term "cannot" also mean "maybe"? Because if you say "cannot" assertively, then you naturally invalidate the other paths, isn't it or not? In other words, you are rejecting these other ideas as having even "partial truths" (10%, 50%, 80% etc.). Isn't it "true"?

What? Do they reject even your school of thought? Is this what you guys call as acceptance and validity at another end?

Rejecting means that the present spiritual discipline of Jnana. Karma or Bhakti Yoga cannot lead directly to salvation. They can only lead to nobler future births which purifies somebody to the extent that they seek the grace of God. Who told you that partial truths dont lead to God? It does not - in the one chance method of Christianity. That is no big deal in Hinduism.

Man. What do you mean by past, present and ( this is really interesting indeed!!!) future Karma?

Once a soul makes a complete surrender to God and even expressing that I am incapable of seeking my own salvation - all past and present karma cease to operate. Any actions done by the soul until his death(future karma) , do not add to karma at all.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Dear Sudarshan:



Before I justify further, I would like to point out that your comment is doing sever injustice to the quality of spirit that should be flowing in this exchange. The moment there is doubt and fear the ego steps in. I want to once again summarize to all my readers that this forum is much more than a theoretical exchange for me, which is why I don’t mind about my time spent in it. I am not doing it for the shear pleasure of an idle chatter. Therefore, honesty is the foundation on which the exchange should be based.

Let me then assure you that the post was written in response to that seeker but did not get the chance to be delivered.

Blessings,

Hehe, I was just kidding. I do beleive your words - but yet you might appreciate those posts no longer exist and I cannot be sure.

Are you sure these posts were deleted because they addressed a seeker? I dont think so - your comparison of Jesus and calling Hindu saints as small bulbs compared to Jesus, would not exactly be a comment that would be tolerated on a Hindu forum. Had you praised Jesus and yet respected the Hindu saints, you would always be welcome over there - calling them low voltage bulbs is a sheer insult to Hindu Dharma. And you offered no explanations - that is called trolling.

Shall I start a thread here saying Jesus was a small mosquito compared with the likes of Sri Ramanuja without even giving an explanation. Do you think that post will be deleted or not? That is troll behaviour and all such posts will be deleted on any forum - I dont sympathise with your ousting there.

If you dont know, even two of my posts at Hindunet have been deleted so far, so dont just call the mods as unfair with you. They just do their duty, any post not in accordance with forum rules gets deleted. Sometimes you are lucky and get away with it.

 

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

Hehe, I was just kidding. I do beleive your words - but yet you might appreciate those posts no longer exist and I cannot be sure.



Are you sure these posts were deleted because they addressed a seeker? I dont think so - your comparison of Jesus and calling Hindu saints as small bulbs compared to Jesus, would not exactly be a comment that would be tolerated on a Hindu forum. Had you praised Jesus and yet respected the Hindu saints, you would always be welcome over there - calling them low voltage bulbs is a sheer insult to Hindu Dharma. And you offered no explanations - that is called trolling.

My friend, there you go again taking the comment out of context and as a personal attack. If you read the whole exchange carefully, you will see that I have again and again shown tremendous respect for Hindu sages and Saints. But in this one context, the nature of the spiritual process was being compared. I was merely pointing out that while Hindu Sages and Saints (Ramanuja, Buddha, Ramana included) underwent severe penance in seeking enlightenment, whereas, Christ descended directly as the Son of the supreme Father. He did not have to seek but offer hope for seekers.



Therefore, the mystical quality of his knowing-ness was being compared to the natural-ness of the “Sun” light. There was natural-ness without being switched “on” and “off” as in a light bulb.



Once again I caution you to interpret the metaphors correctly.


Blessings,

 

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

So dont try to pull any Vaishnavas into Christianity - it just wont work. Christianity is redundant for us and has got nothing new

I am saddened that you still think like that. That is not what I am attempting to do on this forum at all. Rather than pull anyone into Christianity, I am merely attempting to clarify and remove thick layers of misunderstanding of the essential message of Christ and, as we saw in yesterday’s exchange, there is no difference between your school of thought and Christ teaching regarding salvation through “Surrender and Grace”. Once again I urge you and all Hindus to keep our focus on the real and not get distracted by the unreal.

Given the harmony of the messages that exists there is no place for redundancy!

Not necessarily. It could have many man made additions not necessarily the teachings of Jesus.

I cannot truly answer that other than knowing deeply and with ample evidence that the essential message is there and has to be understood and interpreted appropriately and that message is of Christ and that is what I have been trying to clarify over and over in my postings.

The soul is eternal, though it could become embodied or not. As you know, soul was not created by God and exists eternally as part and parcel of God.

We are not talking of soul in isolation. We are talking of creation where the soul has now entered the realm of matter, time and space and thus, not eternal. Although, soul is eternal by itself, when it is embodied in matter it is no longer eternal.

When Jesus said, “I am the Son of my Father”, He is referring to the nature of the awakened soul. It is that level that Jesus wants us to attain in the human incarnation.

Historical evidence is unnecessary. After all, there is no proof for even God, why do you believe? Religions based on history are far more vulnerable to attacks.

Agreed but when the question becomes historical, the answer has to be historical. I cannot exchange with someone who does not base his argument in proper context. Please, try and keep things in context. The question related to providing proof.


While faith has place of its own, yet when the context is historical then the discussion and the explanations will be come historical. If discussion is scientific then you will demand hard core data and you cannot dare make statement to that audience of faith.


Blessings,

 

[indianx]

My friend, there you go again taking the comment out of context and as a personal attack. If you read the whole exchange carefully, you will see that I have again and again shown tremendous respect for Hindu sages and Saints. But in this one context, the nature of the spiritual process was being compared. I was merely pointing out that while Hindu Sages and Saints (Ramanuja, Buddha, Ramana included) underwent severe penance in seeking enlightenment, whereas, Christ descended directly as the Son of the supreme Father. He did not have to seek but offer hope for seekers.

What you have to understand is that we (Non-Christians) don't believe "Christ descended directly as the Son of the supreme Father". Lol, that's why we are not Christians. So you can't hope to convince us or make a point using something that we don't believe in.