Response from nirotu

[selwyn]

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".

What on earth do you mean by "salvation for all"? How on earth are you going to explain this invalidating your so called karma and continue deceiving yourself in here incoherently claiming your non-sensical incoherent understanding of grace as grace. No wonder, you have problems understanding the perfection of grace as displayed and demonstrated in the gospel.

Rejecting means that the present spiritual discipline of Jnana. Karma or Bhakti Yoga cannot lead directly to salvation.

That is from your dictionary of incoherent meanings, right? Man. How many times will you keep on lying like this up here and end up deceiving yourself?

They can only lead to nobler future births which purifies somebody to the extent that they seek the grace of God.

What?!!! If "future births" through karma are purifying, what on earth do you mean by grace finally, man? Aren't your infact destroying your own assertion of salvation only by grace by this? And is this what you called as grace? Oh!! Maybe you are talking about the incoherent meaning of grace as portrayed in your so called hinduic scriptures which are again incoherent, Right? Oh man. No wonder you cannot compare the perfect grace portaryed in the gospel with this incoherent description of grace according to your incoherent hinduic scripture.

Who told you that partial truths dont lead to God?

What is partial truth man? And what if the person who (whoever it maybe) told you that partial truth leads to God infact just told you only a partial truth and not the truth? Will you blindly believe that partial truth and end up deceiving yourself? Again, what is partial truth? Is it 50% lie and 50% truth or is it any customized percentage of lies according to one's whims and fancies to deceive himself/herself as "truth"? What is this partial truth that you are boasting about? No offence meant. If you have a kid, will you teach your kid from childhood to speak partial truth and not just the truth? And imagine if everyone adapts such a nasty value system for educating the future generation!!! Can you even imagine the nasty consequences and web of deception that will rule the world in the future generation?

It does not - in the one chance method of Christianity. That is no big deal in Hinduism.

Wow. Wait a minute. So do you accept in other words, that partial lies are not a big deal in hinduism and is part and parcel of hinduism as partial truths? And do you want me to believe any such non-sense here as truth? If that is the case, what is the guarantee that you can give here that you are speaking the truth up here and not mixing it up with your own set of speculations and lies?If you make these kind of assertions, aren't you indirectly admitting in here that you are just speculating issues or even may be telling lies in here and destroying your own point of discussion? Man. You have already hit too many same side goals!!! Can't you even realize that in here?

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.

And is that a patial truth? Or is it an incoherent answer in the sense that any fellow claiming to have surrendered himself to your so called God can commit all the non sensical atrocities as according to your version of hinduism, his so called future karma is taken care off already? Isn't that another big lie or would you polish it here in the forum and sugarcoat it for yourself and others in here and call it as "partial truth"?

 

[nirotu]

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"?

Dear Selwyn:

This is the classic problem that Hindu faces. They do not know the difference between "Religious Tolerance" and "Religious Truth". So don't get sucked into their idea of them saying "we are tolerant". If they truly are tolerant why do they get upset when someone becomes Christian upon knowing the Truth?

Blessings,

 

[nirotu]

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.

Dear Indianx:

You came to the right site! This is where you can get educated. Perhaps, when you see the truth you may one day believe. It is sad that your loyalty to religion is based not on sincere desire to seek the truth but an emotional attachment to your traditions and cultures.

Blessings,

 

[indianx]

I don't identify myself with anything, atleast I am trying not to identify myself with any country, religion, or ideology.

 

[selwyn]

I don't identify myself with anything, atleast I am trying not to identify myself with any country, religion, or ideology.

Then what did you mean when you said the following:

Ref: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18185932&postcount=20

I'm from Tamil Nadu. I briefly flirted with different religions from Islam to Christianity, but I couldn't find any element of spiritual peace in those religions. So, I am a born again Hindu, but I don't put the symbol in my profile, because I don't feel that I am doing justice to my religion, until I fully live Sanatana Dharma, I won't put the symbol there.

And did n't you identify yourself as a hindu in the following post:

Ref: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18329499&postcount=107

Or could it be that it was a mistaken identity of yourself or deliberate false identity or an incoherent identity?

And here is one more post of you where you claimed that you are trying to be a hindu while in your recent post, you claim that youyourse try not to identify lf with any country, or religion or idealogy

Ref: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18332594&postcount=112

I am trying to be a Hindu. Until I can dedicate myself completely to my religion, I can't do it justice.

Is this a demonstration of incoherent replies or that of self-contradictory claims about oneself? Or could it be that you are really confused with your identity, currently as reflected in your posts?

 

[indianx]

No, it's called people changing their beliefs. Using your rhetoric, Arunma contradicts himself, because he used to call himself a Hindu once and now he calls himself a Christian. I am reading Krishnamurti's works and I am observing and thereby changing my beliefs. This is why you misuse the word contradiction. You use it without knowing its meaning. Lol, believe it or not, I imagined you responding the exact same way you did, when I wrote that post.

 

[selwyn]

No, it's called people changing their beliefs. Using your rhetoric, Arunma contradicts himself, because he used to call himself a Hindu once and now he calls himself a Christian. I am reading Krishnamurti's works and I am observing my beliefs. This is why you misuse the word contradiction. You use it without knowing its meaning. Lol, believe it or not, I imagined you responding the exact same way you did, when I wrote that post.

How frequently do you change your beliefs? Do you change your beliefs with every post of yours? And now are you going to claim here that you recently changed your beliefs and from now onwards won't identify yourself with hindus in here or anywhere as you have done in your above posts? Or are you going to claim from now onwards that you are not going to try to live as a hindu anymore? And do you change beliefs with every book you read out there?

 

[indianx]

What are you talking about? I sense a case of logorrhoea. Any doctors here?

 

[selwyn]

What are you talking about? I sense a case of logorrhoea. Any doctors here?

Didn't you say that you were changing your beliefs? Could you explain from what beliefs to what in the light of the posts of you that I have referred?

Here is what you said:

No, it's called people changing their beliefs. Using your rhetoric, Arunma contradicts himself, because he used to call himself a Hindu once and now he calls himself a Christian. I am reading Krishnamurti's works and I am observing and thereby changing my beliefs. This is why you misuse the word contradiction. You use it without knowing its meaning. Lol, believe it or not, I imagined you responding the exact same way you did, when I wrote that post.

 

[indianx]

And do you change beliefs with every book you read out there?

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

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Dear Sudarshan:



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,

Hey Nirotu ( somebody called you Anil here, are you?),

Now you said:

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.

May I know the basis of your statement? Sri Ramanuja was a swayam-vyakta or karuvile-thiru as we call him in Tamil. ( enlightened in the womb). He had no need to seek anything.

Srimad Ramanuja is considered the avatar of Lord Ananta, one of the eternally free souls ever present with Lord Vishnu. As you might call him, he descended directly as the son of the supreme father. Dont just be addicted to your philosophy, and dont talk about things you do not know...Seek and you shall find.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Hi nirotu,

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.

I have never been. I want you to ask your fellow christians how many of them accept your comparison of the teachings of Jesus and Ramanuja. If you get a 50% vote, I will take your words seriously.

I appreciate the teachings of Jesus more than other Hindus perhaps, because my school is heavily leaned on the principle of grace. But that does not mean the concepts of grace are the same in both schools.

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,

Jesus has not been historically proved, nor it is proved that bible represents his exact teachings. Infact many people have left christianity after having serious doubts to its historic validity. Why dont you post an article proving the historicity of Jesus without any doubts. I am sure you will get a lot of objections.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Dear Selwyn:

This is the classic problem that Hindu faces. They do not know the difference between "Religious Tolerance" and "Religious Truth". So don't get sucked into their idea of them saying "we are tolerant". If they truly are tolerant why do they get upset when someone becomes Christian upon knowing the Truth?

Blessings,

When a Hindu becomes a Christian, he looses his former identity and suddenly starts vomitting at anything non-christian.(look at arunma for eg) Suddenly they get sucked up by the Holy Spirit and start bashing their ex-faith - is that what Christianity teaches you?

When a Christian becomes a Hindu, there is no change in his perception, he still loves his old tradition, understands the teachings Jesus better, and is free of all religeous dogma.

Dont confuse tolerance and truth - Hindus are truly tolerant to any other faith that is tolerant, and not otherwise. That is asking for the impossible. If every christian would echo your words - like Jesus and Ramanuja taught similar things, perhaps we are in for a good mutual understanding. You know it is not possible - because Christian denominations have no scope for such incluvism. We have no objections to any christian deniomination that is all loving and promotes tolerance of all ( see what I said to Cassiopea).

In general, the bashing of Christianity you see on Hindunet is against the following divisons of Christianity.

1. Evangelical wing that do that by hook or crook.
2. Those denominations that beleive every other faith to be false.
3. Those denominations that think all non christian religions need to wiped off.
4. Those denominations that think that any non follower of Jesus lands in a eternal fire pit.

I cannot see any reason why a Hindu would be tolerant of beleif systems like these. There is no reason for a Hindu to post praises of such divisons, and doing so automatically dismantles his own faith.

 

[coolbodhi]

No, it's called people changing their beliefs. Using your rhetoric, Arunma contradicts himself, because he used to call himself a Hindu once and now he calls himself a Christian. I am reading Krishnamurti's works and I am observing and thereby changing my beliefs. This is why you misuse the word contradiction. You use it without knowing its meaning. Lol, believe it or not, I imagined you responding the exact same way you did, when I wrote that post.

IndianX, May I ask what kind of work (books/ articles) are you reading? Would you like to share it with me?

 

[nirotu]

May I know the basis of your statement? Sri Ramanuja was a swayam-vyakta or karuvile-thiru as we call him in Tamil. ( enlightened in the womb). He had no need to seek anything.

Srimad Ramanuja is considered the avatar of Lord Ananta, one of the eternally free souls ever present with Lord Vishnu. As you might call him, he descended directly as the son of the supreme father. Dont just be addicted to your philosophy, and dont talk about things you do not know...Seek and you shall find.

I sought and I found this:

Ramanuja was born in India during the year 1017 A.D. when, according to astrological calculations, the sun was in the zodiacal sign of Cancer. His parents were Asuri Kesava and Kantimati, both from aristocratic families. Ramanuja passed his childhood days in Sriperumbudur, the village of his birth. At the age of 16 he was married to Rakshakambal.

Only four months after his wedding, Ramanuja's father was struck with a severe illness and died. Upon the death of his father, Ramanuja became head of the household and decided to move to Kanchi, a holy city famed for its scholars and magnificent temples.

....and story goes on to describe his Vedic scholarship and devotion to God etc. Please, refer to:

http://www.gosai.com/ramanuja/sri_vaishnava/#Ramanuja-sri-vaishnava


Where do you find him to be a direct descendent of God? He may have been a very advanced in his understanding of God but that does make him God. His understanding was far superior to many of his contemporaries. He had greater revelation and knowledge. But, unfortunately, many among Hindus believe their gurus as truly an avatar of God and You are no different! Go to ISKON you will see a bust of Prabhupada next to Krishna, go to Shankara Math in Sringeri you will see bust of their present guru ready to be worshipped along with other deities.

In that sense, metaphorically speaking, “we are all created in the image of God but we are not God” and “God is in us but God is not us”. Ramanuja was not any different. He was very evolved and awake soul but that does not make him a mystical descent of the supreme itself. Do not over idolize him.

I have never been. I want you to ask your fellow christians how many of them accept your comparison of the teachings of Jesus and Ramanuja. If you get a 50% vote, I will take your words seriously.

I appreciate the teachings of Jesus more than other Hindus perhaps, because my school is heavily leaned on the principle of grace. But that does not mean the concepts of grace are the same in both schools.

In case of grace, yes, I agree with you! In fact, they are diametrically opposite in their view of grace.



This is how I understand it:



Hinduism views that in God’s kingdom, each man will enter in accordance with the strength of his faith and the merit of his life. This is the law of Karma, which tells us how God’s justice operates. There is a balancing act that takes place in which God provides grace where we fail and credits us with merit where we do good. It seems the object here is to simply do the good work (I mean “nishkama karma”) and be credited with grace. You have to earn grace by your good works.



The reality of life is such that the person ends up doing both good and bad deeds (karma) in his/her life, he hopes that eventually his good works will outweigh the bad and obtain “salvation”. One does not know, then, what the cut-off point is where he/she is justified to have that grace enough for “salvation”.



On the other hand, Christianity takes a practical view on this, which says that it would be impossible to achieve salvation on our own. Our karma, especially bad one, constantly prevents us from achieving that goal. Even doing good karma does not merit us that state either. It is not that people cannot do good things – but they cannot help doing evil things. The evil is so pervasive that the problem of evil is acute. Therefore, our inability to stand by our own bootstraps cries out for a savior who can deliver us.



Therefore, it is my understanding that Hindu view exaggerates the justice of God (based on action and reaction principle) while the Christian lays more stress on the grace of God.

Jesus has not been historically proved, nor it is proved that bible represents his exact teachings. Infact many people have left christianity after having serious doubts to its historic validity. Why dont you post an article proving the historicity of Jesus without any doubts. I am sure you will get a lot of objections.

You want historical evidence? I will link you with some soon. Remember nobody has said or will say that Jesus is out of an epic like Mahabharata or Ramayana. It is never said that Jesus is from a tale.



Blessings,

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

I sought and I found this:

Ramanuja was born in India during the year 1017 A.D. when, according to astrological calculations, the sun was in the zodiacal sign of Cancer. His parents were Asuri Kesava and Kantimati, both from aristocratic families. Ramanuja passed his childhood days in Sriperumbudur, the village of his birth. At the age of 16 he was married to Rakshakambal.

Only four months after his wedding, Ramanuja's father was struck with a severe illness and died. Upon the death of his father, Ramanuja became head of the household and decided to move to Kanchi, a holy city famed for its scholars and magnificent temples.

....and story goes on to describe his Vedic scholarship and devotion to God etc. Please, refer to:

http://www.gosai.com/ramanuja/sri_vaishnava/#Ramanuja-sri-vaishnava


Where do you find him to be a direct descendent of God? He may have been a very advanced in his understanding of God but that does make him God. His understanding was far superior to many of his contemporaries. He had greater revelation and knowledge. But, unfortunately, many among Hindus believe their gurus as truly an avatar of God and You are no different! Go to ISKON you will see a bust of Prabhupada next to Krishna, go to Shankara Math in Sringeri you will see bust of their present guru ready to be worshipped along with other deities.

I am a follower of Sri Ramanuja and it is well known that he is an avatar of Lord Anantha, one of the eternally free souls. If you want to classify this as a myth, then ascribing divinity to Jesus carries just about the same weight for me.

As for worshipping the guru( a guru is considered the living embodiment of divinity), it is considered a very important aspect of Hinduism, and I believe you are doing the same thing. (Jesus).

In that sense, metaphorically speaking, “we are all created in the image of God but we are not God” and “God is in us but God is not us”. Ramanuja was not any different. He was very evolved and awake soul but that does not make him a mystical descent of the supreme itself. Do not over idolize him.

Correct - dont do that for Jesus too.

Just because a billion people believe him to be God or that he made a claim do not make him so. We do not consider Ramanuja to be God, but as a jnani or enlightened.

Hinduism views that in God’s kingdom, each man will enter in accordance with the strength of his faith and the merit of his life. This is the law of Karma, which tells us how God’s justice operates. There is a balancing act that takes place in which God provides grace where we fail and credits us with merit where we do good. It seems the object here is to simply do the good work (I mean “nishkama karma”) and be credited with grace. You have to earn grace by your good works.



The reality of life is such that the person ends up doing both good and bad deeds (karma) in his/her life, he hopes that eventually his good works will outweigh the bad and obtain “salvation”. One does not know, then, what the cut-off point is where he/she is justified to have that grace enough for “salvation”.

Your understanding is faulty. Nobody earns salvation by outweighing his good and bad - salvation is not possible even if you have a shred of either good or bad karma. Figure out how you can do this yourself.

In my school, we dont try to do "good" works. We just surrender ourselves to the Lord and spend entire life in this contemplation.

On the other hand, Christianity takes a practical view on this, which says that it would be impossible to achieve salvation on our own. Our karma, especially bad one, constantly prevents us from achieving that goal. Even doing good karma does not merit us that state either. It is not that people cannot do good things – but they cannot help doing evil things. The evil is so pervasive that the problem of evil is acute. Therefore, our inability to stand by our own bootstraps cries out for a savior who can deliver us.



Therefore, it is my understanding that Hindu view exaggerates the justice of God (based on action and reaction principle) while the Christian lays more stress on the grace of God.

And you call this practical? Yours appears to be a scheme that seeks to damn a vast majority of men. Tell me what happens to a soul like Gandhi.

You want historical evidence? I will link you with some soon. Remember nobody has said or will say that Jesus is out of an epic like Mahabharata or Ramayana. It is never said that Jesus is from a tail.



Blessings,

True, a historical Jesus is possible. But what proves he was God or that he ever made that claim? Prove it outside the bible - else it is just a circular reasoning.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

What on earth do you mean by "salvation for all"? How on earth are you going to explain this invalidating your so called karma and continue deceiving yourself in here incoherently claiming your non-sensical incoherent understanding of grace as grace. No wonder, you have problems understanding the perfection of grace as displayed and demonstrated in the gospel.





That is from your dictionary of incoherent meanings, right? Man. How many times will you keep on lying like this up here and end up deceiving yourself?





What?!!! If "future births" through karma are purifying, what on earth do you mean by grace finally, man? Aren't your infact destroying your own assertion of salvation only by grace by this? And is this what you called as grace? Oh!! Maybe you are talking about the incoherent meaning of grace as portrayed in your so called hinduic scriptures which are again incoherent, Right? Oh man. No wonder you cannot compare the perfect grace portaryed in the gospel with this incoherent description of grace according to your incoherent hinduic scripture.




What is partial truth man? And what if the person who (whoever it maybe) told you that partial truth leads to God infact just told you only a partial truth and not the truth? Will you blindly believe that partial truth and end up deceiving yourself? Again, what is partial truth? Is it 50% lie and 50% truth or is it any customized percentage of lies according to one's whims and fancies to deceive himself/herself as "truth"? What is this partial truth that you are boasting about? No offence meant. If you have a kid, will you teach your kid from childhood to speak partial truth and not just the truth? And imagine if everyone adapts such a nasty value system for educating the future generation!!! Can you even imagine the nasty consequences and web of deception that will rule the world in the future generation?




Wow. Wait a minute. So do you accept in other words, that partial lies are not a big deal in hinduism and is part and parcel of hinduism as partial truths? And do you want me to believe any such non-sense here as truth? If that is the case, what is the guarantee that you can give here that you are speaking the truth up here and not mixing it up with your own set of speculations and lies?If you make these kind of assertions, aren't you indirectly admitting in here that you are just speculating issues or even may be telling lies in here and destroying your own point of discussion? Man. You have already hit too many same side goals!!! Can't you even realize that in here?



And is that a patial truth? Or is it an incoherent answer in the sense that any fellow claiming to have surrendered himself to your so called God can commit all the non sensical atrocities as according to your version of hinduism, his so called future karma is taken care off already? Isn't that another big lie or would you polish it here in the forum and sugarcoat it for yourself and others in here and call it as "partial truth"?

Dont mix your imperfect understanding of Hinduism with a half baked knowledge of advaita.

I am not an advaitin and you have zero knowledge on what you are talking about. Learn something about Vishistadvaita - and we will discuss again.

Coherently incoherent answers from Selwyn, as usual.

 

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

Jesus has not been historically proved, nor it is proved that bible represents his exact teachings. Infact many people have left christianity after having serious doubts to its historic validity. Why dont you post an article proving the historicity of Jesus without any doubts. I am sure you will get a lot of objections.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/157

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2591

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1764

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/87

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/266

Blessings,

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

What is partial truth man? And what if the person who (whoever it maybe) told you that partial truth leads to God infact just told you only a partial truth and not the truth? Will you blindly believe that partial truth and end up deceiving yourself?

Your fallacy is that you are too naive enough to be decieved into something supposedly called the truth....when no proof has been offered.

None of us really know it and we just choose to follow different gurus because of birth conditions, environment and personal choices. If you are born in India, 90% chance you will be a Hindu, if you are born in USA there is a 70% chance you will be a christian. How many people do you think make a conscious choice? On what basis?

Inspite of the continuos missionary efforts, christianity is only 2% of India and that should explain to you the strength of Hinduism, which you so strongly despise. Perhaps some Hindus have been bitter to you in the past. Christianity has never tasted such bitter results in any other country where they ruled for centuries. Christianity can meet any other religion but for Hinduism - if given the opportunity we would see christians all over the middle east which does not happen because all these regions are theocratic Islamic states that ban any non Islamic conversions. But "Hinduism is more than a match for the christian philosophy. Try converting a single Srivaishnavite like me --- it is next to impossible, At best, some down trodden people in India will convert to christianity, and no religeous Hindu will ever do so. You look for a change when you are not satisfied. Hinduism allows you to choose a variety of means to the realization of God, and in general it is accepted that Vaishnavism is the most popular.

You are under the impression that Hindus are Hindus just because of tradition. Many Hindus, like many other religeous people, get many divine and esctatic experiences. Many people have personal spiritual and God experiences. This is rather common with Vaishnavites though they will generally not talk about it openly. I have heard personal testimonies from many people, including close relatives.

There is nothing like "one path" to God. There are many paths, and ultimately everyone will be with God - including the atheists of today. Partial truths also lead to God - maybe not in this birth. Who are we to judge who is eligible? Hinduism does not pass such handed judgements on who is eligible for salvation - it is not dependent on religion or caste or race --- it depends only on how devoted you are to God.

 

[nirotu]

Dear Sudarshan:

I am a follower of Sri Ramanuja and it is well known that he is an avatar of Lord Anantha, one of the eternally free souls.

I am happy that you are a follower of Ramanuja (Vishistadvaita) and I respect that. But saying that he is an avatar of God is not correct. Many think and consider Sai-Baba of Puttaparthy as an incarnation of Buddha, Krishna and Jesus all put together. Does that mean they understand and follow the truth? It only shows one’s loyalty without regard to knowledge of discernment. By portraying every Jnani to be God, you only dilute the diety of God, because God transcends this universe and its inhabitants.

If you want to classify this as a myth, then ascribing divinity to Jesus carries just about the same weight for me.

There lies the difference between “God incarnate” and “Human incarnate.” Jesus as “God incarnate” is not a myth. Refer to links I posted earlier. It is not shear faith but objective, rational evaluation of the truth.

As for worshipping the guru (a guru is considered the living embodiment of divinity), it is considered a very important aspect of Hinduism, and I believe you are doing the same thing. (Jesus).

It is good to have a guru for to learn and be directed into right path. But he is not necessary for your soul to evolve.Unless the energy to learn comes from within, the work of any guru is useless.

Next time when you enter a garden, look at the beautiful rose that is in full bloom. Ask yourself this question: did that rose require guru to bloom? My answer is “no”. All it needed was “grace” and all it did was to “surrender” to the nurturing from the nature. Similarly, your soul can also evolve in its progress towards salvation without a guru, just by surrendering to the grace of God.

I do not worship human guru. To me, my guru is invisible one who is God – Jesus.

In that sense, metaphorically speaking, “we are all created in the image of God but we are not God” and “God is in us but God is not us”. Ramanuja was not any different. He was very evolved and awake soul but that does not make him a mystical descent of the supreme itself. Do not over idolize him.

Correct - dont do that for Jesus too.

You see, the Bible says, humans are created in the “image of God” but not “in essence.” Jesus is an embodiment of essence, with the very nature of the Heavenly Father.

Just because a billion people believe him to be God or that he made a claim do not make him so.

Reread links I posted!

We do not consider Ramanuja to be God, but as a jnani or enlightened.

Right! Now you get the point!

Hinduism views that in God’s kingdom, each man will enter in accordance with the strength of his faith and the merit of his life. This is the law of Karma, which tells us how God’s justice operates. There is a balancing act that takes place in which God provides grace where we fail and credits us with merit where we do good. It seems the object here is to simply do the good work (I mean “nishkama karma”) and be credited with grace. You have to earn grace by your good works.

The reality of life is such that the person ends up doing both good and bad deeds (karma) in his/her life, he hopes that eventually his good works will outweigh the bad and obtain “salvation”. One does not know, then, what the cut-off point is where he/she is justified to have that grace enough for “salvation”.

Your understanding is faulty. Nobody earns salvation by outweighing his good and bad - salvation is not possible even if you have a shred of either good or bad karma. Figure out how you can do this yourself.

May be my understanding is faulty. Perhaps, you can clarify the difference between the nature of grace through “Vishistadvaita” philosophy and a Christian understanding of grace through the Bible.

In my school, we dont try to do "good" works. We just surrender ourselves to the Lord and spend entire life in this contemplation.

Good! What is the role of “karma” in Hinduism? How does it relate to Reincarnation?

Therefore, it is my understanding that Hindu view exaggerates the justice of God (based on action and reaction principle) while the Christian lays more stress on the grace of God.

And you call this practical? Yours appears to be a scheme that seeks to damn a vast majority of men. Tell me what happens to a soul like Gandhi.

While, I cannot judge others I can tell you this. God judges us all. I cannot tell you what that judgment is like. God gives enough light to everyone, which each one of us can comprehend. If he progresses in that He gives more light. He will judge each according the light he received. He will not judge anyone according to the light that he did not receive.

True, a historical Jesus is possible. But what proves he was God or that he ever made that claim? Prove it outside the bible - else it is just a circular reasoning.

Now you shift gear! You were demanding historical proofs and I gave you links. Now you want the proof that is outside the Bible. Again, I refer you to same links with historical proof that is “archeological” and not “Biblical”.

Blessings,