Response from nirotu

[Ram]

Dear Selwyn:

This might interest you. Recently, I got this from my friend "sam" from another forum:

And I do agree with my good friend Sam when he said the following:

Hinduism has always been in a state of flux and continues to be so. The two factors coming to bear down on its development today are:

1) the influence of the Fundamentalist faction on the face it presents to the world

2) the influence of its intellectual supporters both Indian and Western on its apologetics (defense)

Fundamentalist Hindu is an oxymoron in the sense that the normative Hindu tactic of dealing with aggressive proselytising from Zoroashtrian, Islamic and Christian missionaries was of absorption and dilution. The unexpected acceptance of ones views by ones audience lulls one into a false sense of success, and letting down of your guard leading to heresies, hijacking of your resources, and loss of your identity. Fundamentalist Hinduism on the other hand takes a page out of the aggressiveness methodology of Christian and Muslim Fundamentalist and adopts words like evangelism, rigidly adheres to set doctrine and views martyrdom as an acceptable means of defending the faith.

Intellectual input from Western converts and modern college trained Indian believers has further honed the apologetic skills of the Hindu body. And no, it hasn't stopped evolving: today talking with a well-educated Hindu believer about moksha elicits a condescending smirk. They have a more refined theology now, one with more authentic "roots". In it there is no idol worship, no 330 million gods and no moksha.

Blessings,

Full trash.

Have you even read about Hindu polemical literature? Do you even know the depth in the argumentative skills of former Hindu philosophers.

You must atleast read the works of Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, Vedanta Desika, Vyasatirtha, Vadiraja etc. You are completely exposing your ignorance by making claims like "Intellectual input from Western converts and modern college trained Indian believers has further honed the apologetic skills of the Hindu body". You have absolutely no idea of Hindu scripture and polemical literature. The current breed of apologists would be silenced in minutes if they had encountered any of these names I mentioned.

Hindu philosophers have nothing to learn from western apologists. Do you even know that there is an explicit Hindu school of polemics? (Nyaya philosophy) Have you even heard of Tarkashastra?

 

[Priyasri]

I just want to ask , Who is eligible for God's grace according to Christians? God's grace is avaliable freely or you have to do something for that?

If it's available freely , than everyone should get his grace ...even non-christians.

If it's not freely avaliable , than you guys must be doing some good things to become eligible for grace like Devotion , Love, Faith, Unselfish help to needy etc. (also called Bhakti Karmas)

If Christians believe these things are also not necessary for Grace, that means you are saying just theoretically accept Jesus (and remain like hitler) and it's enough for grace.

Yes, I would also like to get an answer for this.

 

[selwyn]

Welcome back Ram,

Selwyn, you have done the same thing.....repeated the same nonsense.

And what on earth are you doing up here with your posts? Aren't you just posting more and more self-contradictory claims up here and uncertain speculations not sure about anything claiming partial truths as truths etc? By the way, did you get a chance to read the following response of my post to your post?

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18756323&postcount=128

If, if by incoherence means conflicting beliefs, Christianity is also fully incoherent.

Man. Did you even read Sudharshan's posts to begin with before jumping in here to defend his claims? Do you even know that he was the one who started vigorously claiming up here that hindu scriptures are incoherent and that the incoherence of hindu scriptures are the very strength of them?

By the way, you not answered any questions yet- I repeat the same things others said, you simply hide under some words.

And what kind of answers do you prefer here - speculations, partial truths, incoherent answers, relative truths, uncertainities, assumptions - Aren't you someone who is comfortable with any kind of answers? And can't you understand that I have the liberty to choose on how to respond in my reply, what to respond, when to respond and whom to respond in here inspite of your own choices about your so called search for answers? You have been crying aloud again and again that I am not answering. But don't you even realize that I am responding to almost each and every post of yours with questions?

On the other hand, aren't you someone who proclaimed strongly based on your assumptions that people out here are not even grown up to understand what you guys proudly claim to have understood? Now, how on earth could you even hypocritically demand answers from the very same persons whom you criticized vociferously? Are the answers really so difficult for you (so called highly mature dharmic adherent) to figure out? Or is it that now you are caught up in your web of self-contradictions, speculations and uncertainities, you want to somehow desperately claim that other people also contradict themselves and therefore there is no big deal in self-contradicting oneself regarding any claims? And man, what type of answer do you want, man to begin with? Do you want partial truths, or truths compromised by your so called theories of errors of omission and commission, or partial lies or relative truths or incoherent answers - What on earth do you want?

 

[selwyn]

You must be too naive to claim that Hinduism claims inclusivity. It does not. You might want to learn the ABC of HInduism.

Are you the same Ram who wrote the following in here? (let me put it in bold phrase so that you won't misss what you claimed out loud)

Hinduism essentially includes in it all beleif system, the collection of which we beleive is the truth.

Christianity could be blunt wrong because there is only one version, but Hinduism covers all possible notions of God and Philosophy. That is why we dont convert anyone.

Ref:http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18705806&postcount=122

The important difference in Hinduism is that following a wrong beleif does not lead to permanent doom as in Christianity. Following Christianity cannot lead to salvation according to Hindusim because it is an adharmic path and against vedic teachings.

By the later phrase, you are just killing what you have written in the former phrase in here.

Even then, christians do a lot of good things and earn enough good "karma" to take birth as a Hindu in a later birth.

And by this phrase, you are again just killing just the previous phrase before it.

It is not incoherence, but accodmodation.

Wow!!! Really?!!!! Is this what you call accomodation - destroying your own claims in the previous sentence by your very next sentence constantly? Or is it called incoherence? Man!!!

Because we dont beleive in scaring people with eternal punishments just for increasing our numbers.

And who is scaring people here for just increasing numbers? And is that what you claim as any understanding to begin with?

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Oh man!!!! Who told you that I am playing word jugglery here? On the other hand, don't you think that words have typical meanings? When you say something and then contradict that same statement again, what on earth makes you think that I am going to sit here doing without questioning you for your own contradictory claims? And will an irrational person ever be even bothered or question anything regarding the meaning of words and coherence to begin with?

You think that by repeating the same lie many times, it becomes the truth. All you have done so far is avoid all questions and taking words out of context from different people and Hindus and claiming what you call a contradiction. When you are presented with a self contradiction you are simply shying away and hiding in a saree.

Man. Aren't you the one who is ending up proving yourself to be a clown here by your own posts. At one end you claim that your hinduic scriptures are incoherent and then come here and now claim that you are really coherent with your own posts while again repeating here immediately that hinduism can afford to be incoherent? Added to this are the so many self contradictory claims of you about your own faith. How on earth do you even ask a question out here? And my question for that will be again, if you want a coherent answer or an incoherent answer. And would you give the reason as to why you want a coherent answer or an incoherent answer before even expecting any answer from me? And, moreover aren't you guys claiming as if you guys are much mature and intelligent than us and as if you guys know everything and anything from your so called vastness of hinduic scriptures? How on earth are you guys then hypocritically looking for answers from people here after deriding them as irrational and as clowns up here? Or is this just another vociferous attempt by you guys to just mock people up here hypocritically later by jumping according to your change of mood to one of your many hypocritical platforms (the so called schools of thought) claiming aloud again that such an incoherence of your early position and set of speculations and partial truths as such is the strength of your hinduism?

What do you mean? Hindu scriptures are incoherent in the sense multiple interpretations are possible. The same thing applies to the bible. One interpretation must be valid - I am not internally incoherent as I have clarified. Similarly an advaitin is not internally incoherent. Taken as a whole, there is incoherence or inconsistancies. You have the same thing in the bible.

I told you I defend only my own school and consider the rest as false. The same question was asked to you - and you now went under water for hiding the seven hundred and sixty sixth time.



I dont want to waste my time in arguing with you and the rest of your points the usual nonsense, a person who has no sense of debate and just hides behind some buzzzwords and under the carpet, if you really know something answer these questions and I will rip you apart.

1. Which Christian denomination is correct and why? As for Hinduism, I state boldly that only the Vishtadvaita Philosophy is correct and the rest are false and I can prove it. There is no incoherence in my views as you seem to be obsessed with...?

2. If grace of God is unmerited by very definition, what should a man do to attain salvation.

a) Does he need beleif in Jesus?
b) Does he need to follow the tend commandments and the word of God in the bible?

If so, what do you mean by unmerited favour?

3. If Jesus is the saviour, and appeared only 2000 years ago, what was your graceful God doing for 2 million years before Jesus when human beings have lived on the earth?

Let us see if you are a man and can answer any of these questions boldly. We will take a review if you can answer these questions.. Else I am done with you. Answer these questions and I will trap you in your own web of contradictions and incoherences. We know well why you dont answer - simply because you know you can only ask questions, and cant answer a single question.

Your buddy nirotu has been trashed several times on Hindunet and his final response always was that he could not entertain any views heretical to his thought because he feared hell!! Man, christians cant argue and appreciate other views - it is blasphemy and leads to hell.

 

[nirotu]

You must atleast read the works of Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, Vedanta Desika, Vyasatirtha, Vadiraja etc. You are completely exposing your ignorance by making claims like "Intellectual input from Western converts and modern college trained Indian believers has further honed the apologetic skills of the Hindu body". You have absolutely no idea of Hindu scripture and polemical literature. The current breed of apologists would be silenced in minutes if they had encountered any of these names I mentioned.

You seem to quote all these sages to refute what Bible says. Understand that there are great many similarities between their teachings the teaching of Jesus on a surface level. I have a great respect for these sages and seekers of the truth.



I have read Shankara who believes in impersonal God. How can God be knowable at the same time be impersonal? I have read Dvaita philosophy as well, which believes God being both personal and impersonal at the same time. You need to be little more diligent and have a discerning mind. I would say, if any, Ramanuja comes closest to Christian doctrine to some extent. I explained this to Sudarshan. I will add it to your benefit as well. Ramanuja’s Panentheistic philosophy is not a stranger to Christianity either. The divine is viewed as both immanent (indwelling) and as transcendant (beyond the limits of humanness), which is Panentheistic. In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian tradition maintains both that God is immanently in all things (or all things are in God due to His creation) and the God is transcendentally beyond all things (He is beyond our comprehension).


Therefore, if you believe all paths are acceptable then you have an inherent problem of “coherency” in your thought!!!


Firstly, do not be so naïve into thinking that Christianity is based on “fear of hell”. You have either not understood the message of Christ or simply emotionally charged to repudiate (baseless, I might add) anything a Christian says.

Let me try this way. What happens after we die is only speculative since neither of us know the exactly what is in store for us. But, the Bible is clear on certain things that we know very clearly. For example, in human realm, we all are suffering from the ignorance that is hell in us. Therefore, instead of speculating what the judgment day going to be after death, don’t you think it is much more productive to heed the call of Christ who has shown us to deal with both heaven and hell that resides in us?

The lifetime you spend on this planet is an opportunity for refining and transforming from our hell of ignorance into heaven of awareness and a deeper knowing of our true nature and connection with the Father. My friend, do not waste time in idle speculations.

Secondly, the notion that all Hindus have is “There is constant unending torment for those who are not Christians”. It is a false notion. Christ never said that if you understood it correctly. What He says is “if you do not heed to His message, then you are bound to suffer in your own ignorance through eternity (all your life!).” The metaphor Jesus used was in context of city rubbish dump which was always on fire. It was a picture of final destruction, not a conscious unending torment. The language of “destruction” is the most common description of final loss in the Bible.

Thirdly, the Bible never says that non-Christian will be judged according to his deeds. The Bible makes it plain and simple that nobody is saved according to ones deeds. It is only the grace of God that you are saved!!!!! The good deeds that you do are a logical outcome of your faith in God.

There are many more verses that people mistake it by taking completely out of context. Therefore, you will be doing lot more justice if you are careful in reading the Bible verse before presenting your thought.



Blessings,

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

You seem to quote all these sages to refute what Bible says. Understand that there are great many similarities between their teachings the teaching of Jesus on a surface level. I have a great respect for these sages and seekers of the truth.

Though I disagree with anybody other than Ramanuja, I have more respect towards these sages who had compassion for all. They never preached anything like the "one way" nonsense failing which there is doom and nothing else. It is a negative philosophy.

Advaita is partly correct and is correct in its abstractness. It is not correct when it says "Man is fully God" and "God is impersonal".

When you read the bible and quran, you get filled with fear and depression, because you are portrayed as a born sinner which was the design of God and he does not do anything in this matter unless somebody sells his brain completely and chooses to beleive in a myth.

When you read the Bhagavad Gita, you get filled with happiness, because it is very positive approach. Krishna dictates which are the path ways to disaster in chapter 16, and how to avoid them. He does state that the soul is his very dear to him and his very own - isn't it that something to bring some cheer to the otherwise miserable world? And states that he is very impatrial to all - he neither loves nor hates anybody bringing out the impartial nature. If somebody surrenders their very being to him, he gives him the wisdom and place on his very frame.

I have read Shankara who believes in impersonal God. How can God be knowable at the same time be impersonal?

Advaita is not correct in my beleif. Atleast, the impersonal God and the concept of total identity with God are not acceptable to me - and do not have adequate scriptural basis. In one of his works, Shankara hints that absolute non-dualty may not be correct.

I have read Dvaita philosophy as well, which believes God being both personal and impersonal at the same time.

Incorrect. Dvaita never says God is impersonal, where did you get that info from? Dont read Dvaita capsules, read from the original sources.

You need to be little more diligent and have a discerning mind. I would say, if any, Ramanuja comes closest to Christian doctrine to some extent. I explained this to Sudarshan. I will add it to your benefit as well. Ramanuja’s Panentheistic philosophy is not a stranger to Christianity either. The divine is viewed as both immanent (indwelling) and as transcendant (beyond the limits of humanness), which is Panentheistic. In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian tradition maintains both that God is immanently in all things (or all things are in God due to His creation) and the God is transcendentally beyond all things (He is beyond our comprehension).

I agree, but nevertheless there is considerable difference between a philosophy where "man is a sinner" and "man is divine" philosophies. I dont think it is worth much comparison.

Therefore, if you believe all paths are acceptable then you have an inherent problem of “coherency” in your thought!!!

Nirotu, I want you to use your brain before jumping to conclusions like this. Do you even understand why more than one path is acceptable?

Truth is one, and only one philosophy can be correct? Which is that - advaita, vishitadvaita, dvaita, dvaita-advaita, bedha abedha etc etc. It is very hard for us to judge which is correct because there are no ways to verify them. There are no ways to prove or disprove that a particular religion or philosophy is correct.

How is a man expected to choose a right path? God gave man his brain for this purpose. If a man uses his brain too much, there is no proof for ever God so all religions are false for a scientist. Thus, it becomes more a question of faith and personal opinions.

A God who created us certainly understands how our brains function. If he intended us to be free birds with free will, certainly he knows that we are not in true control of destiny. If God wanted everyone to obey him, he should have created robots not humans. The result of dosbeying God cannot be punishment, as God is essentially a self contained being and in supreme bliss already.

It is for these simple reason why Hindus cannot take the version of Christianity or Islam seriously, because God is portrayed incorrectly.

Philosophies may be incorrect, in my opinion both advaita and dvaita re incorrect, but those following these religions are not respoonsible. They just happen to meet gurus who preached these philosophies and they have learnt spiritual disci0pline from them. How can God now punish these people - he should punish their gurus for false preachings, if at all.

I dont beleive anything other than Ramanuja's teachings are correct. But I dont beleive advaitins or dvaitins or for the matter christians or muslims will spend their eternity in hell. That is simply not an alternative for failing to possess the right knowledge. People who fail to understand God correctly this time will do it next time, spirituality is a step by step process. Rahul, Proud Hindu etc will be with God one day even if they are advaitins today.

Firstly, do not be so naïve into thinking that Christianity is based on “fear of hell”. You have either not understood the message of Christ or simply emotionally charged to repudiate (baseless, I might add) anything a Christian says.

Let me try this way. What happens after we die is only speculative since neither of us know the exactly what is in store for us. But, the Bible is clear on certain things that we know very clearly. For example, in human realm, we all are suffering from the ignorance that is hell in us. Therefore, instead of speculating what the judgment day going to be after death, don’t you think it is much more productive to heed the call of Christ who has shown us to deal with both heaven and hell that resides in us?

The lifetime you spend on this planet is an opportunity for refining and transforming from our hell of ignorance into heaven of awareness and a deeper knowing of our true nature and connection with the Father. My friend, do not waste time in idle speculations.

Take out hell and Satan - what is Christianity left with? Nothing to warrant any specific interest in it.

Secondly, the notion that all Hindus have is “There is constant unending torment for those who are not Christians”. It is a false notion. Christ never said that if you understood it correctly. What He says is “if you do not heed to His message, then you are bound to suffer in your own ignorance through eternity (all your life!).” The metaphor Jesus used was in context of city rubbish dump which was always on fire. It was a picture of final destruction, not a conscious unending torment. The language of “destruction” is the most common description of final loss in the Bible.

So all Christianity teaches is to surrender to God? You mean all Hindus get salvation by becoming Ramanujites?

 

[selwyn]

You think that by repeating the same lie many times, it becomes the truth. All you have done so far is avoid all questions and taking words out of context from different people and Hindus and claiming what you call a contradiction. When you are presented with a self contradiction you are simply shying away and hiding in a saree.

Man. I am not going to give any answers to you especially after your ridiculous claim up here that incoherence is the very strength of hinduic scripture and your repeated reassertions suggesting your strong approval of incoherence.

What do you mean? Hindu scriptures are incoherent in the sense multiple interpretations are possible.

A re-interpretation?!!! Man. No offense meant. Do you think that we are fools sitting around here when you come up here and twist your words and the meaning of your words according to your whims and fancies for the mere pleasure of winning in a debate? In the whole process, remember one thing you will end up mainly deceiving yourself here.

The same thing applies to the bible. One interpretation must be valid - I am not internally incoherent as I have clarified. Similarly an advaitin is not internally incoherent. Taken as a whole, there is incoherence or inconsistancies. You have the same thing in the bible.

Won't you stop talking about the bible, please without even knowing what you are talking about? Yeah. You are not even sure of what you are talking about and you did accept that you are speculating with issues in here. And since you yourself have accepted that you are pretty much comfortable with incoherence and have given so many incoherent answers out here in the name of logic which in itself is an incoherent claim, how on earth would you ever even understand anything that is written in the bible?

I told you I defend only my own school and consider the rest as false.

Man. Then why on earth did you claim hypocritically up here that many others are partly true. Are you telling lies now or were you telling lies then? Man. Isn't that a big lie from your side in the name of truth?

The same question was asked to you - and you now went under water for hiding the seven hundred and sixty sixth time.

Man. Tell me what is the point in answering anything to you. The only consistency in your so called posts is your repeated twists and turns to the nasty extent that most of what was once asserted by you to be true eventually now became false via partial truths. Who knows what this same fallacy will become tomorrow in your posts, tomorrow? It may become tomorrow again as a partial truth or what not!!!!! When you are oscillating to that extent up here in your posts, what on earth is the point in giving you any answer up here? The problem is not me hiding anywhere. The problem is that you are hiding yourself in a position so as to not see any answers even if they are given in here while screaming out loud here that you want answers.

Let me make this clear to you that I am not going to answer any question to you as long as you keep on twisting your own words and reinterpret your phrases according to your whims and fancies up here. Clearly you are pretty much exposed with your contradictions. And now the fact that you claim that there is incoherence as a whole and your desperate struggle here to find incoherence in other religions itself is an indication that you have lowered down your standards as you are caught off gaurd in your so called logical debating. And the moment that you claimed incoherence as the strong point of hinduism, you have very much destroyed all your very own logic. Now you are desperately trying to reinterpret it. It is obvious that you did not realize that then? But isn't it really ironical that you are still not able to realize it? Or is it that you realized it in here and could not digest the blunders you have made up here in your non sensical posts in the name of logical debating?

I dont want to waste my time in arguing with you and the rest of your points the usual nonsense, a person who has no sense of debate and just hides behind some buzzzwords and under the carpet, if you really know something answer these questions and I will rip you apart.

Who told you that I am in here to argue anything with you? Neither am I in here for winning any argument.I have told here often that I am not in here to argue with you guys. I do put up questions here. I have already stated clearly that you guys need not even answer my questions up here. And, man. I am not hiding anywhere. But I do choose whom to answer, when to answer, what to answer and how to answer. But on the other hand, do you even remember how you started your discussion here with me in here hoping to rip me apart here? You might want to go and read what you claimed then. After so many posts, are you finding the other way round that you have been ripped apart here and that your posts have been exposed of the nasty contradictory claims and height of incoherence that you are now trying to hide under the lie, "taken as a whole, everything is incoherent and inconsistent, so what?"? Man.

1. Which Christian denomination is correct and why? As for Hinduism, I state boldly that only the Vishtadvaita Philosophy is correct and the rest are false and I can prove it. There is no incoherence in my views as you seem to be obsessed with...?

2. If grace of God is unmerited by very definition, what should a man do to attain salvation.

a) Does he need beleif in Jesus?
b) Does he need to follow the tend commandments and the word of God in the bible?

If so, what do you mean by unmerited favour?

3. If Jesus is the saviour, and appeared only 2000 years ago, what was your graceful God doing for 2 million years before Jesus when human beings have lived on the earth?

Believe whatever non-sense you want to believe. I am not going to answer you anything as long as you come out clear regarding your position. Most of what you once claimed to be atleast partially true have become now false according to this last post of yours. Added to that, you had admitted speculating about things here . Live as you want and believe whatever nonsense you want to believe as truth. But just make sure that you won't blame anyone later for your hypocritical choices.

Let us see if you are a man and can answer any of these questions boldly. We will take a review if you can answer these questions.. Else I am done with you. Answer these questions and I will trap you in your own web of contradictions and incoherences. We know well why you dont answer - simply because you know you can only ask questions, and cant answer a single question.

Remember this. No offense meant. I can answer your questions. But I am sorry to say that at this moment, considering all the non sensical claims of speculations and change of your opinions according to your mood changes and incoherent posts that you have written in here especially, you openly declaring incoherence as the strength here, I choose not to answer your questions in here. Isn't it non-sensical on your part to repeat the same questions again and again without mentioning if you want a coherent or incoherent answer here to begin with? And what on earth can you even do in either case of the answer. If the answers are coherent, won't you again hypocritically claim in here that incoherence is the very strength of any answer and therefore the answers are invalid, and if the answers are incoherent, won't you again change your position according to the whims and fancies of your mood and claim that they infact need to be coherent? And in all these when you yourself have demonstrated height of incoherence and in your posts to the extent of most of what you once called as truth to now lies, how on earth can anyone answer anything to you? You don't even have to answer any of my posts in here.

Your buddy nirotu has been trashed several times on Hindunet and his final response always was that he could not entertain any views heretical to his thought because he feared hell!! Man, christians cant argue and appreciate other views - it is blasphemy and leads to hell.

Man. If that is the case then I wonder why on earth you are wasting your time in Christian forums up here.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

OK Selwyn, so you still are in the hiding - see you there.

Everyone knows where you are now. One sentence made it clear - I choose not to answer you. Have you answered the questions of any other Hindus? None. You have not found one contradiction yet as you claim because my own views are consistant- prove me otherwise. You cant do that - so you take words out of context and your usual deciet.

Then what are you doing on NCR, just showing minority frustrations?

That is the last I will have with you. I want to discuss/debate withe people who are honest, not people who run away or choose not to answer questions, infact none of them.

Regarding your defence of the bible, you have defended it by no answering questions - I asked you which interpretation is correct and you met it with silence. That shows it is full of contradictions.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Nirotu, if you want you can continue because your attitude is good - I am done with Selwyn.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

This thread was started by nirotu to essentially discuss with me - see the OP. This Selwyn came into the middle all of a sudden( what for?), and if it is a discussion/debate, then he is expected to be honest. He is supposed to defend his words and not say words like "I choose not to answer you" when my very questions are against his defence of his concepts of grace. He says he has found inconsistancies in all Hindus when he hmself has not answered a single question. So his only aim is mischief.

He makes fun of Carl Lewis loose to Leroy Burrel when he himself can run 100m in 30 seconds.

 

[FriendlySeeker]

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,

Hey Nirotu, great to see you here. I found your posts very entertaining and very comforting within my own beleif system. The agnostic you talked to was me.

I was very pleased to find a very open minded christian on a Hindu forum and was really enjoying my talk with you, until the mods rudely deleted all posts including mine. I was very disappointed, but I never could talk to you after that. I did not know you are registered here and I never saw you here before.

I had been using PM on this forum with many people here and dont post much. One christian on this forum voluntarily agreed to clear all my doubts about Christianity, but I soon realised his intentions were not good. Instead of talking of the great gospel of Jesus, he began talking about the evils of Hinduism and told me all hindus on this forum are liars. It did not take me long to decide that this guy could not present a true picture of his own religion because he was filled with hatred for others. He has fallen short of Jesus at the very first step and I shut out my conversations with him now. I need to talk to christians who are open minded , not people who are short sighted about their own beleifs and have no regards for others. People should understand that all religions are just beleifs and there is no need to assume "I am right others are wrong". No religion has been proved correct yet.

A few Hindus and Buddhists were conversing with me on this forum and they were very friendly and filled with respect for all and very open minded in discussions and I dont remmeber any of them talking ill of other faiths. That got me interested in their own view points and that is how I came to Hindunet. I have read most of the post there are I was pretty impressed by the show of tolerance and respect to all others.(barring some exceptions which are understandable)

I read all your posts and I found in you a very different personality and I have great respect for you. Your approach to Christianity is actual defence of Christianity and comparison with other religions - that was my objective. For almost every christian met, the way to promote christianity was to ridicule other religions, which is almost nauseous to me. See, I have no preconceived notions and I will look only for logic and reasoning, not the prejudiced and blind beleifs and hatred for others.

I asked the mod on Hindunet why he deleted my posts because I never talked ill of Hinduism, I was told that the thread was completely off topic and it was their policy to delete all related posts. But I was disappointed to see an entire long thread deleted because it was a very nice discussion and you were truly brilliant. Anyway, I hope to learn something from you here.

I truly appreciate the mods on this site who always step in with their "mod hats" to warn posters from straying on the OP, before locking or deleting posts. On that Hindunet forum, there is no such warning and it was irritating to see a huge thread disappear in a moment's notice without warning. And I have not posted there ever since...it is very depressing to see wanton deletion of all posts just because a few posts strayed off the OP.

Pam

 

[nirotu]

Hey Nirotu, great to see you here. I found your posts very entertaining and very comforting within my own beleif system. The agnostic you talked to was me.

Hi Pam:

I am glad you are here. It was an honest exchange of ideas that did not serve well to the cause of Hindu-net. After all, when a person who is honestly seeking the truth, it is our duty to clear the bush (so to speak) so that you have a clear view of God. I was bitter that they took you also out of forum for being honest and open. That speaks for the tolerance they (Hindu net ) show to the people of other faith. With them a genuine discussion is not possible.

Well, we will have thoughtful conversation, no doubt.
Blessings,

 

[nirotu]

Though I disagree with anybody other than Ramanuja, I have more respect towards these sages who had compassion for all.

You see, the compassion in its strictest sense was played out when Jesus was crucified. Only Jesus knew that the people who hanged Him were suffering more so in their ignorance than His body on the cross. Therefore these words, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing.” I would call that a compassion.

I agree that all sages had compassion and there is no doubt about it. But, it is all theoretical! The way I see it is that the compassion does not idly sit and watch a blind man walk across a steep hill. Compassion moves a person to do something about that. Mother Teresa did not nurse sick lepers because it was a part of social service but was truly moved by compassion as she saw God in every lost soul that society rejected. Jesus was compassionate in that He healed all those who approached Him. Not a single one left out. There was no discrimination as to whether that person believed in Jesus or not.

They never preached anything like the "one way" nonsense failing which there is doom and nothing else. It is a negative philosophy.

Again, I repeat you read carefully. Nowhere in the Bible will you see this. The stumbling block in understanding Jesus and His message lies in the ignorance of man.

Advaita is partly correct and is correct in its abstractness. It is not correct when it says "Man is fully God" and "God is impersonal".

I know God because of His attributes that are manifest in us. I know God is love and I can adore Him with my love only if He is personal to me. How can He be impersonal? I agree that Advaita is incorrect in your latter part of statement. If man is fully God why do we have worship?

In the words of “Proud-Vedic (Hindunet)” Dvaita and Advaita philosophies have chinks in their armor. What I cannot understand is the nature of God to be personal and impersonal at the same time. In the matter of salvation, the differing view among Advaita and Dvaita philosophy is apparent, where an advaitan will realize he is the Brahman in salvation where as, dvaitan will realize that he is different from the Brahman in salvation.



On the other hand, to a Christian, the loving God is always personal and knowable. The salvation brings us back to the state of bliss called heaven where we are in tune with God (all the time) enjoying the communion with all redeemed souls.

When you read the bible and quran, you get filled with fear and depression, because you are portrayed as a born sinner which was the design of God and he does not do anything in this matter unless somebody sells his brain completely and chooses to believe in a myth.

When you read the Bhagavad Gita, you get filled with happiness, because it is very positive approach. Krishna dictates which are the path ways to disaster in chapter 16, and how to avoid them. He does state that the soul is his very dear to him and his very own - isn't it that something to bring some cheer to the otherwise miserable world? And states that he is very impartial to all - he neither loves nor hates anybody bringing out the impartial nature. If somebody surrenders their very being to him, he gives him the wisdom and place on his very frame.

When you read the Bible with such a narrow and pre-conceived view, you will only come out with that view. Such faulty perceptions always lead to prejudice. It is that prejudice we have to be careful about because inevitably prejudice leads to confrontation. I have no problem reading Gita. I enjoy rich subtle wisdom in scriptures. When a person shows passion that is strictly guided by emotion, he will have lost an opportunity to learn and better himself from these scriptures, be it in the Bible or Gita.

Again, your understanding the Bible is based on watered down philosophy that seems to take you far away from the truth. Man is not born a sinner. Man is born with the capacity to sin. Until you actualize that potential you have not committed sin. Man is truly a triumph of God’s creation. Why would God not love the creation that is in His image, breathed by Him? God gave every apparatus for us to live including our own free will. No matter what, God will not violate our freewill. If I am to love God only because He says so, then it will not be called love at all but like a robot following keyed in instructions. It is the exercise of our free-will that happens to be according to His desire will glorify Him.

Advaita is not correct in my belief. Atleast, the impersonal God and the concept of total identity with God are not acceptable to me - and do not have adequate scriptural basis. In one of his works, Shankara hints that absolute non-dualty may not be correct.

Have you discussed this among your peers (Hindunet : Grames, Anadi)?

Incorrect. Dvaita never says God is impersonal, where did you get that info from? Don’t read Dvaita capsules, read from the original sources.

This came from experts like Grames (Hindu net). I can refer to that thread (when I get a chance!). Do you think Grames or Anadi know what they are talking about?

I agree, but nevertheless there is considerable difference between a philosophy where "man is a sinner" and "man is divine" philosophies. I don’t think it is worth much comparison.

In that sense, I consider “we are all saints who happen to sin!” The holiness and justice of God cannot pretend that evil is only “maya” and, therefore, does not matter. It must be dealt with. It is like cancer infecting and spreading, and fatal.

Nirotu, I want you to use your brain before jumping to conclusions like this. Do you even understand why more than one path is acceptable?

Even when I use brain I come to the same conclusion and it is simply based on this (Michael Green):

Buddhism is religion without God, and without even a final existence.

Muslim Allah is personal, with no subordinate deities and an absolute prohibition of idols or any other representation of God.

Hinduism cannot be sure if the divine is personal or impersonal, though approached through countless deities and statues.

In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no forgiveness other than workout your own Karma as an effect of your causal life. There is no supernatural aid.

How can you say you accept all paths when there is inherent contradiction among each other?

Truth is one, and only one philosophy can be correct? Which is that - advaita, vishitadvaita, dvaita, dvaita-advaita, bedha abedha etc etc. It is very hard for us to judge which is correct because there are no ways to verify them. There are no ways to prove or disprove that a particular religion or philosophy is correct.

I agree this to be true among various paths described within “Sanatan Dharma”. Christianity invites investigation! You will find all evidences that point to the deity of Christ Jesus. I would have to agree with C.S.Lewis who said, “In the end you have the right not to believe in Jesus but you do not reserve the right to say – there is not enough evidence.”

How is a man expected to choose a right path? God gave man his brain for this purpose. If a man uses his brain too much, there is no proof for ever God so all religions are false for a scientist. Thus, it becomes more a question of faith and personal opinions.

Yes, I agree with you. But that faith comes by hearing the word of God. I do believe those words are in the Bible. I do know that God not only revealed His will but also His person in the Bible.

Philosophies may be incorrect, in my opinion both advaita and dvaita re incorrect, but those following these religions are not responsible. They just happen to meet gurus who preached these philosophies and they have learnt spiritual disci0pline from them. How can God now punish these people - he should punish their gurus for false preachings, if at all.

Wow! I wonder how this will play out if you were to discuss this with Anadi and Grames of Hindu-net, who believe without a Guru one is a lost soul!

So all Christianity teaches is to surrender to God? You mean all Hindus get salvation by becoming Ramanujites?

No! Surrender to God not Ramanuja. Surrender to the same God whom Ramanuja sought so diligently.


Blessings,

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Hey Nirotu, great to see you here. I found your posts very entertaining and very comforting within my own beleif system. The agnostic you talked to was me.

I was very pleased to find a very open minded christian on a Hindu forum and was really enjoying my talk with you, until the mods rudely deleted all posts including mine. I was very disappointed, but I never could talk to you after that. I did not know you are registered here and I never saw you here before.

I had been using PM on this forum with many people here and dont post much. One christian on this forum voluntarily agreed to clear all my doubts about Christianity, but I soon realised his intentions were not good. Instead of talking of the great gospel of Jesus, he began talking about the evils of Hinduism and told me all hindus on this forum are liars. It did not take me long to decide that this guy could not present a true picture of his own religion because he was filled with hatred for others. He has fallen short of Jesus at the very first step and I shut out my conversations with him now. I need to talk to christians who are open minded , not people who are short sighted about their own beleifs and have no regards for others. People should understand that all religions are just beleifs and there is no need to assume "I am right others are wrong". No religion has been proved correct yet.

A few Hindus and Buddhists were conversing with me on this forum and they were very friendly and filled with respect for all and very open minded in discussions and I dont remmeber any of them talking ill of other faiths. That got me interested in their own view points and that is how I came to Hindunet. I have read most of the post there are I was pretty impressed by the show of tolerance and respect to all others.(barring some exceptions which are understandable)

I read all your posts and I found in you a very different personality and I have great respect for you. Your approach to Christianity is actual defence of Christianity and comparison with other religions - that was my objective. For almost every christian met, the way to promote christianity was to ridicule other religions, which is almost nauseous to me. See, I have no preconceived notions and I will look only for logic and reasoning, not the prejudiced and blind beleifs and hatred for others.

I asked the mod on Hindunet why he deleted my posts because I never talked ill of Hinduism, I was told that the thread was completely off topic and it was their policy to delete all related posts. But I was disappointed to see an entire long thread deleted because it was a very nice discussion and you were truly brilliant. Anyway, I hope to learn something from you here.

I truly appreciate the mods on this site who always step in with their "mod hats" to warn posters from straying on the OP, before locking or deleting posts. On that Hindunet forum, there is no such warning and it was irritating to see a huge thread disappear in a moment's notice without warning. And I have not posted there ever since...it is very depressing to see wanton deletion of all posts just because a few posts strayed off the OP.

Pam

So nirotu was truthful in his posts - good. Thank you for confirming this. I did not read last part of that thread.

I would still tell you not to feel disappointed over deletion of posts, rules of different sites are different. Some of my posts on Hindunet have been deleted because they strayed off the topic and occasionally I found my posts deleted for no good reason, whom do I complain to?

I am sure your posts were not deleted due to conversation with nirotu, because such discussions were allowed in the past.

I wonder who told you that "All Hindus are liars", as far as I can see, there are only 3-4 members on this part of the forum that fit that description.

 

[satay]

Hey Nirotu, great to see you here. I found your posts very entertaining and very comforting within my own beleif system. The agnostic you talked to was me.

I was very pleased to find a very open minded christian on a Hindu forum and was really enjoying my talk with you, until the mods rudely deleted all posts including mine. I was very disappointed, but I never could talk to you after that. I did not know you are registered here and I never saw you here before.

I had been using PM on this forum with many people here and dont post much. One christian on this forum voluntarily agreed to clear all my doubts about Christianity, but I soon realised his intentions were not good. Instead of talking of the great gospel of Jesus, he began talking about the evils of Hinduism and told me all hindus on this forum are liars. It did not take me long to decide that this guy could not present a true picture of his own religion because he was filled with hatred for others. He has fallen short of Jesus at the very first step and I shut out my conversations with him now. I need to talk to christians who are open minded , not people who are short sighted about their own beleifs and have no regards for others. People should understand that all religions are just beleifs and there is no need to assume "I am right others are wrong". No religion has been proved correct yet.

A few Hindus and Buddhists were conversing with me on this forum and they were very friendly and filled with respect for all and very open minded in discussions and I dont remmeber any of them talking ill of other faiths. That got me interested in their own view points and that is how I came to Hindunet. I have read most of the post there are I was pretty impressed by the show of tolerance and respect to all others.(barring some exceptions which are understandable)

I read all your posts and I found in you a very different personality and I have great respect for you. Your approach to Christianity is actual defence of Christianity and comparison with other religions - that was my objective. For almost every christian met, the way to promote christianity was to ridicule other religions, which is almost nauseous to me. See, I have no preconceived notions and I will look only for logic and reasoning, not the prejudiced and blind beleifs and hatred for others.

I asked the mod on Hindunet why he deleted my posts because I never talked ill of Hinduism, I was told that the thread was completely off topic and it was their policy to delete all related posts. But I was disappointed to see an entire long thread deleted because it was a very nice discussion and you were truly brilliant. Anyway, I hope to learn something from you here.

I truly appreciate the mods on this site who always step in with their "mod hats" to warn posters from straying on the OP, before locking or deleting posts. On that Hindunet forum, there is no such warning and it was irritating to see a huge thread disappear in a moment's notice without warning. And I have not posted there ever since...it is very depressing to see wanton deletion of all posts just because a few posts strayed off the OP.

Pam

Hey Nirotu, great to see you here. I found your posts very entertaining and very comforting within my own beleif system. The agnostic you talked to was me.

I was very pleased to find a very open minded christian on a Hindu forum and was really enjoying my talk with you, until the mods rudely deleted all posts including mine. I was very disappointed, but I never could talk to you after that. I did not know you are registered here and I never saw you here before.

I had been using PM on this forum with many people here and dont post much. One christian on this forum voluntarily agreed to clear all my doubts about Christianity, but I soon realised his intentions were not good. Instead of talking of the great gospel of Jesus, he began talking about the evils of Hinduism and told me all hindus on this forum are liars. It did not take me long to decide that this guy could not present a true picture of his own religion because he was filled with hatred for others. He has fallen short of Jesus at the very first step and I shut out my conversations with him now. I need to talk to christians who are open minded , not people who are short sighted about their own beleifs and have no regards for others. People should understand that all religions are just beleifs and there is no need to assume "I am right others are wrong". No religion has been proved correct yet.

A few Hindus and Buddhists were conversing with me on this forum and they were very friendly and filled with respect for all and very open minded in discussions and I dont remmeber any of them talking ill of other faiths. That got me interested in their own view points and that is how I came to Hindunet. I have read most of the post there are I was pretty impressed by the show of tolerance and respect to all others.(barring some exceptions which are understandable)

I read all your posts and I found in you a very different personality and I have great respect for you. Your approach to Christianity is actual defence of Christianity and comparison with other religions - that was my objective. For almost every christian met, the way to promote christianity was to ridicule other religions, which is almost nauseous to me. See, I have no preconceived notions and I will look only for logic and reasoning, not the prejudiced and blind beleifs and hatred for others.

I asked the mod on Hindunet why he deleted my posts because I never talked ill of Hinduism, I was told that the thread was completely off topic and it was their policy to delete all related posts. But I was disappointed to see an entire long thread deleted because it was a very nice discussion and you were truly brilliant. Anyway, I hope to learn something from you here.

I truly appreciate the mods on this site who always step in with their "mod hats" to warn posters from straying on the OP, before locking or deleting posts. On that Hindunet forum, there is no such warning and it was irritating to see a huge thread disappear in a moment's notice without warning. And I have not posted there ever since...it is very depressing to see wanton deletion of all posts just because a few posts strayed off the OP.

Pam

Namaste Pam,
Nice to see you back here. A note about the hindunet mods. Warnings have been issued time and again but hindus as well as Malecchas don't listen so this is why the mod there deleted posts left right and center.

satay

 

[satay]

Hi Pam:

That speaks for the tolerance they (Hindu net ) show to the people of other faith. With them a genuine discussion is not possible.

Well, we will have thoughtful conversation, no doubt.
Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu,

I think you are mixing up "tolerance" with "respect". But then again I don't expect a Maleccha to be able to understand these two words since you guys paint or want to paint everyone with one brush and one color.

Happy conversing with "like minded" emotionally addicted people.

satay

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Hi nirotu,

You see, the compassion in its strictest sense was played out when Jesus was crucified. Only Jesus knew that the people who hanged Him were suffering more so in their ignorance than His body on the cross. Therefore these words, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing.” I would call that a compassion.

I agree that all sages had compassion and there is no doubt about it. But, it is all theoretical! The way I see it is that the compassion does not idly sit and watch a blind man walk across a steep hill. Compassion moves a person to do something about that. Mother Teresa did not nurse sick lepers because it was a part of social service but was truly moved by compassion as she saw God in every lost soul that society rejected. Jesus was compassionate in that He healed all those who approached Him. Not a single one left out. There was no discrimination as to whether that person believed in Jesus or not.

Sri Ramanuja's compassion for mankind is legendary.

Excerpts from his biography:

Ramanuja was soon initiated into Sri Vaisnavism by Mahapura according to the panca-sanskara rites. Sometime later Ramanuja relinquished his family life and became an ascetic (sannyasi). By this time he was about age 32. Afterwards he sought further initiation from Gosti Purna, another follower of Yamuna. Ramanuja's biographers tell us that it took Ramanuja successive attempts before Gosti Purna would accept him for initiation. In the end Gosti Purna initiated Ramanuja into what was then the most secret and sacred of Vaisnava prayers, the eight syllable (astaksari) mantra: om namo narayanaya. The story goes that immediately after initiation Ramanuja proceeded to climb the temple tower at Tirukkottiyar and call this mantra and the teaching of Gosti Purna out to anyone who would listen. On hearing of this Gosti Purna became furious and condemned Ramanuja to hell. Ramanuja readily accepted, saying that if the sacred teachings of Gosti Purna could elevate everyone to the state of salvation (moksa), he would gladly sacrifice himself to hell. On hearing Ramanuja's explanation Gosti Purna blessed him.

Thus Ramanuja was willing to take hell for himself for ensuring the salvation of others. Where can you find an equal?

It is sometimes disappointing to know that many Hindus have not even heard of Sri Ramanuja while Advaita and Shankara are well known and almost represented as standard Hinduism.

Again, I repeat you read carefully. Nowhere in the Bible will you see this. The stumbling block in understanding Jesus and His message lies in the ignorance of man.

If you say so. I doubt if many christians would agree with you. Even yesterday, an ex-hindu here was proudly declaring his God as a dictator.

I know God because of His attributes that are manifest in us. I know God is love and I can adore Him with my love only if He is personal to me. How can He be impersonal? I agree that Advaita is incorrect in your latter part of statement. If man is fully God why do we have worship?

Agreed. We agree that God is impersonal in the sense that God is incomprehensible, not otherwise.

In the words of “Proud-Vedic (Hindunet)” Dvaita and Advaita philosophies have chinks in their armor. What I cannot understand is the nature of God to be personal and impersonal at the same time. In the matter of salvation, the differing view among Advaita and Dvaita philosophy is apparent, where an advaitan will realize he is the Brahman in salvation where as, dvaitan will realize that he is different from the Brahman in salvation.



On the other hand, to a Christian, the loving God is always personal and knowable. The salvation brings us back to the state of bliss called heaven where we are in tune with God (all the time) enjoying the communion with all redeemed souls.

Agreed, I agree with you than advaitins and dvaitins. We do not beleive either in "becoming God" or "being separate from God".

Personal God is somebody who has attributes understandable to the human intellect - love, grace, majesty, power etc.

Impersonal God in the sense, certain aspects of divinity are not comprehensible by the limited human senses.

That is my view.

I think advaita stresses the impersonal side and hence does not present God's grace in salvation.

Vishistadvaita and dvaita stress the personal side of God, and hence advocate the grace of God.

When you read the Bible with such a narrow and pre-conceived view, you will only come out with that view. Such faulty perceptions always lead to prejudice. It is that prejudice we have to be careful about because inevitably prejudice leads to confrontation. I have no problem reading Gita. I enjoy rich subtle wisdom in scriptures. When a person shows passion that is strictly guided by emotion, he will have lost an opportunity to learn and better himself from these scriptures, be it in the Bible or Gita.

Again, your understanding the Bible is based on watered down philosophy that seems to take you far away from the truth. Man is not born a sinner. Man is born with the capacity to sin. Until you actualize that potential you have not committed sin. Man is truly a triumph of God’s creation. Why would God not love the creation that is in His image, breathed by Him? God gave every apparatus for us to live including our own free will. No matter what, God will not violate our freewill. If I am to love God only because He says so, then it will not be called love at all but like a robot following keyed in instructions. It is the exercise of our free-will that happens to be according to His desire will glorify Him.

Good, but I am yet to hear to many Christians echo a similar view.

Have you discussed this among your peers (Hindunet : Grames, Anadi)?

I will quote from Shankara - I want to see what other advaitins have to comment on it.

satyapi bhedApagame nAtha tavAham na mAmakInastvam
sAmudro hi tarangah kvacana samudro na tArangah ||

Even when I am not under the influence of Dualism, O Lord,
I belong to You but You don't belong to Me ;
the waves belong to the sea but the sea never belongs to the waves.
(Shankaracharya's VishnuShatpadi)

I have posed this to advaitins in the past and usually there is no defence from their side - this is from their own guru.

I think advaita is misunderstood. I think Hinduism does not speak this total non dualism and is actually monotheistic like Christianity. ( not monistic).

There is no evidence for advaita in Bhagavad Gita either. Non dualism is just about realizing that you are a part of the Lord as waves in a ocean, that exactly is Vishistadvaita.

This came from experts like Grames (Hindu net). I can refer to that thread (when I get a chance!). Do you think Grames or Anadi know what they are talking about?

See above. Impersonal when taken as incomprehensible makes sense.

Morover, Grames is not a dvaitin. He is a Hare Krishna. Nomadeva knows the best - I will ask him about it and tell you.

In that sense, I consider “we are all saints who happen to sin!” The holiness and justice of God cannot pretend that evil is only “maya” and, therefore, does not matter. It must be dealt with. It is like cancer infecting and spreading, and fatal.


Even when I use brain I come to the same conclusion and it is simply based on this (Michael Green):

Buddhism is religion without God, and without even a final existence.

Muslim Allah is personal, with no subordinate deities and an absolute prohibition of idols or any other representation of God.

Hinduism cannot be sure if the divine is personal or impersonal, though approached through countless deities and statues.

In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no forgiveness other than workout your own Karma as an effect of your causal life. There is no supernatural aid.

How can you say you accept all paths when there is inherent contradiction among each other?

Who told you all Hindus think all these are simultaneously correct? Each Hindu has exactly one beleif set. We do not know which is correct. I hold an opinion similar to Christian version of God but with significant differences compared to most christians. ( though I think I agree with your liberal views)

Following the wrong path does not lead to salvation, accepted by all Hindus. But Hindus acknolwledge that there are many chances to arrive at the truth. It is not a "hit or land in eternal hell". My school for example beleives without realizing the majesty of the Lord and completely surrendering at his feet, salvation will bypass in this birth. We do not think advaitins can get moksha- not in their present incarnation.

Anybody who thinks himself to God is considered a blasphemy in my school which will deny salvation in that birth. One should assume that he is divine and fully belongs to the Lord, but the Lord alone can grant salvation thru his grace and not possible by any Yoga. Still, there is need to live a morally and spiritually good life, without which every religion breaks down. That is why I reject Selwyn's view of grace - even on Hitler. That is incompatible with my school. God's grace has to be earned by fully trusting and pleasing him by surrendering to him.( not unmerited)


[qiuote=nirotu]
Wow! I wonder how this will play out if you were to discuss this with Anadi and Grames of Hindu-net, who believe without a Guru one is a lost soul!
[/quote]

Dont mistaken me, without a guru you cannot know which path to follow and hence the need of a guru. Or you can accept God as guru. Following God directly is better than following fake gurus claiming to be avatar in my opinion.

No! Surrender to God not Ramanuja. Surrender to the same God whom Ramanuja sought so diligently.

Absolutely. Sri Ramanuja is only the means to the end, not the end in itself.

I know Srivaishnavites and liberal Christians can always agree upon.
I did not find any problems with the version of Christianity you presented here as long as you dont make claims of eternal hell and such things.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Namaste Nirotu,

I think you are mixing up "tolerance" with "respect". But then again I don't expect a Maleccha to be able to understand these two words since you guys paint or want to paint everyone with one brush and one color.

Happy conversing with "like minded" emotionally addicted people.

satay

I dont think nirotu deserves to be called that way - as you can see his views differ radically from malecchas. I find in him considerable wisdom.

Views maketh the man, not his religion....

 

[satay]

I dont think nirotu deserves to be called that way - as you can see his views differ radically from malecchas. I find in him considerable wisdom.

Views maketh the man, not his religion....

yes, you are right.