Response from nirotu

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

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.

Man, Ramanuja as an avatar is not folklore, that is the Srivaishnavite tradition. Ramanuja is very much a historical figure and lived until the age of 120! His historicity is much more valid than Jesus.(12th century A.D)

Nirotu, you have absolutely no knowledge of panentheistic philosophies. Vishistadvaita is almost panentheistic - where every soul is divine, and not a sinner or something like that. Christianity has one saint Jesus, the traditions in Hinduism has countless saints, and yes, each such saint is a son of God. Why should I believe in your version that God had only one son?

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.

Proving the historicity of Jesus has nothing to do with proving he is the sole saviour of all. Prove objectively now - that Jesus is the only son of God and salvation is possible only thru him - let us see if you can convince any atheist here...

You have hardly any idea on what constitutes an objective proof.

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.

Read the story of Swami Vivekananda and what his guru Ramakrishna Paramahamsa did for him. God is generally inaccessible to mankind, and is readily accessible thru a guru who is in communion with the divine. Until God shows himself up as your guru, a human self realised guru is critically important.

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

No problems, but dont expect everybody to follow you.

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.

True, the bible says that, but is there any objective proof for your statement? The dvaita philosophy would agree with you on this count, as they call soul a binnamsha (similar to God) and not a swamsha ( same in essence).

I personally think this kind of philosophy which states that man is an image of God but not in essence represents a stage of realization below the highest stages of self realization where true divinity is realized.

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.

OK, that will be in another post, as I dont have time right now.

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

Karma is the fuel for existance or samsara. Salvation is obtained when this fuel is fully burnt. Both Good and Bad karma are equally good enough to prolong existance. Classical Hinduism holds that Karma can be extinguished by

1. By enduring the effects of Karma and exhausting it in the form of happiness or suffering.

2. BY obtaining enlightenment, all sanchita karma ( past karma) are resolved and the human body continues to exist until the prarabdha karma(karma responsible for the present birth) wears out.

3. By discharging duties selflessly, no karma is accrued and karma burns off as with passage of time and future births.

4. By the grace of God, all karma, sanchita and prarabdha are resolved without human effort.

The former three belong to Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Karma Yoga. In these Yogas , some human effort is involved in salvation. But they are considered as difficult paths even in the Bhagavad Gita.

The fourth is not recognized in many HIndu schools like advaita. It is recognized only in certain Hindu schools like Vishitadvaita.

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.

Why then show light to anyone at all? If you show light and they reject, they face a harsher judgement dont they?

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,

I am not bothered about a historic Jesus. If he existed Hindus have no problems in acknowledging that he was a great saint. That is not the issue here - you cannot prove that he was the only saviour who existed, objectively, can you?

 

[nirotu]

Man, Ramanuja as an avatar is not folklore, that is the Srivaishnavite tradition. Ramanuja is very much a historical figure and lived until the age of 120! His historicity is much more valid than Jesus.(12th century A.D).

In one post you said,” 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.”

Yet in another post you seem to state,”We do not consider Ramanuja to be God, but as a jnani or enlightened.”

Do you consider Ramanuja to be enlightened one or an avatar of God? To me, they do mean different things.

Nirotu, you have absolutely no knowledge of panentheistic philosophies. Vishistadvaita is almost panentheistic - where every soul is divine, and not a sinner or something like that. Christianity has one saint Jesus, the traditions in Hinduism has countless saints, and yes, each such saint is a son of God. Why should I believe in your version that God had only one son?

Unfortunately, despite explaining in detail, you are still hoisting ideas up on “namarupa” based siddhanta. You are still hung up on name “Ramanuja”. You have difficulty in conceptualizing that which is divine. The divine is viewed as both immanent (indwelling) and as transcendant (beyond the limits of humanness), which is Panentheistic. Look, Panentheistic philosophy is not a stranger to Christianity either. 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).

Having said that, Christians do not subscribe to Pantheistic aspect of religion. We believe God is still one in nature and there cannot be multiple representation as in Gods and demigods. It only negates the “Omnipotence” and “almighty” ness of God. Therefore, in Christian religion there is no room for spiritual philosophy in which the Divine takes the form of a spiritual dimension not only within living humans, but animals and possibly other things.

Therefore, the statement that “we are created in the image of God and we are all sons of God but that does not make us God” does hold well !!!

Please, do not understand me wrong! Ramanuja is one of the great seekers and was truly an enlightened man like Buddha. I have a great respect for his understanding of the Vedas. You may be evolved in thinking Ramanuja as truly a God incarnate. That is far from being the direct descent of God. Again, I caution everyone that in my case, being able to see the truth in Sages and in their interpretations does not deter from my fundamental faith in my own path.

Proving the historicity of Jesus has nothing to do with proving he is the sole savior of all. Prove objectively now - that Jesus is the only son of God and salvation is possible only thru him - let us see if you can convince any atheist here...

You have hardly any idea on what constitutes an objective proof.

I do not believe Jesus to be God incarnate blindly. I am not propagating Christianity out of blind faith but because of my own conviction of the role that “grace” plays in my journey back to my source. To me it is not merely an attachment derived out of a tradition but more of a call of the soul.

Let this be a starter for now.
http://www.churchofindia.com/mantras.htm

Read the story of Swami Vivekananda and what his guru Ramakrishna Paramahamsa did for him. God is generally inaccessible to mankind, and is readily accessible thru a guru who is in communion with the divine. Until God shows himself up as your guru, a human self realised guru is critically important.

God uses all of us as His instruments to achieve the purpose in us. God used Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. God can use you and me also if we are available. Thus God does not look for special “ability” but the “availability” in us to work through us. Ramana Maharishi did not rely on guru to discover and realize himself.

You are again missing my point. I never said Guru is not important. The sole energy to assimilate knowledge comes from the intense desire of the disciple. Guru can only guide you to proper path. The ultimate journey of your soul depends upon you and you alone. In my view, one can evolve without a “guru”, which is quite unlike “ISKONITES” who seem to believe that one cannot progress spiritually without a guru.

Originally Posted by: nirotu

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


No problems, but dont expect everybody to follow you.

Just so you know, no body is asking you to follow Christianity or Jesus. I am pointing you to the truth that I believe in. These are all in response to “non-sense” questions posted on the net.

True, the bible says that, but is there any objective proof for your statement? The dvaita philosophy would agree with you on this count, as they call soul a binnamsha (similar to God) and not a swamsha ( same in essence).

I personally think this kind of philosophy which states that man is an image of God but not in essence represents a stage of realization below the highest stages of self realization where true divinity is realized.

Agree in part! Man’s highest goal is to realize the connection with the heavenly Father and but not become as Father (which he cannot, anyway!). When Jesus said that the difference between us and Him is, “ I know the Father and you know not”. His purpose was to bring us to that realization. When He says,” when you believe in me you too are the sons of the Father and have same relationship that I had, and you are privileged to call Him Abba” He is offering that privilege to all.

You and others alike have misunderstood Christ and His message. He did not come merely to provide sermon materials to Sunday Pastors for generations to come. When you read His message with proper context, separating literal from metaphorical, you will see Him clearly. The very purpose of His coming is to bring in us awareness and awaken our soul to be Christ Conscious that connects us with the Father.

Bad karma are equally good enough to prolong existance. Classical Hinduism holds that Karma can be extinguished by

1. By enduring the effects of Karma and exhausting it in the form of happiness or suffering.

2. BY obtaining enlightenment, all sanchita karma ( past karma) are resolved and the human body continues to exist until the prarabdha karma(karma responsible for the present birth) wears out.

3. By discharging duties selflessly, no karma is accrued and karma burns off as with passage of time and future births.

Firstly, these 3 explanations make man only a bystander and let the “karma” take its course. Secondly, How come one cannot know past karma? I would be interested in knowing my past karma to be able to do better this time around. Otherwise, I am working in the dark so to speak. For example, in the field of medicine the diagnosis and treatment works best knowing the past medical history of patient. Otherwise, the Dr. is working with trial/error method. Thirdly, and more importantly, if one has to work out his karma by himself in this life and if I do get a chance to help some suffering soul, would I be interfering with his karma?

4. By the grace of God, all karma, sanchita and prarabdha are resolved without human effort.

This comes closest to the Christian way of thinking! A true believer in Christianity knows that he is utterly helpless to stand on his own bootstraps so he cries out for the savior! Surrender and grace is the key and not human efforts. The good work that one does in life is the logical outcome of that faith in God and not the “means to an end”.

I am not bothered about a historic Jesus. If he existed Hindus have no problems in acknowledging that he was a great saint. That is not the issue here - you cannot prove that he was the only saviour who existed, objectively, can you?

I am not here to prove anything. There are certain things that can only be realized, which only comes from personal experience. It is the conviction of my heart in which “grace” of God through Christ played the role in my understanding of His nature. Regardless, whether you and others believe it or not the truth in Christ will remain the same for me. So, unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them, they will never be ABLE to believe. My job is to convey the Gospel in a language they can understand and in a context they can grasp.


1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.


There are many eye-witness accounts recorded by Josephus or Tacitus. There is no lack of information or evidence but it is the willful rejection of the evidence causes man to be in the dark.


“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 :

Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 39-53.

Also, the works of Cornelius Tacitus.

Christ has shown over and over again who He is and they still reject Him. How can I make a skeptic believe Jesus when he comes without an open mind?

“Christ will remain unknown to those who know him solely as a body. He is known truly only to those who perceive Him as spirit. Thus, through the spiritual eye, the worshipper can behold not only the Christ with form, but the formless Christ felt in the vastness of the inner perception.” – Paramahamsa Yogananda.

The following exchange shows how the hardened heart operates:

Luke 16:27,”The rich man said, 'Then please, father {Abraham}, send Lazarus to my father's house on earth!”

Luke 16:28, “ I have five brothers. Lazarus could warn my brothers so that they will not come to this place of pain.”

Luke 16:29,”But Abraham said, 'They have the law of Moses and the writings of the prophets F267 to read; let them learn from that!”


Luke 16:31, “ He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.” (Easy to Read version)

It is not because He hid Himself but people chose to remain in the dark and be the enemies of light. If their question is out of arrogance then they may be left in their blindness and nothing will move them. If it is out of a desire to know God He can move to show Himself.

But the bottom line is that even Josephus or Tacitus will not be able to convince you or the other skeptics. But, I don’t despair, because the Word of God says:



Isa 55:11 so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Blessings,

 

[NickD]

In one post you said,” 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.”

Yet in another post you seem to state,”We do not consider Ramanuja to be God, but as a jnani or enlightened.”

Do you consider Ramanuja to be enlightened one or an avatar of God? To me, they do mean different things.



Unfortunately, despite explaining in detail, you are still hoisting ideas up on “namarupa” based siddhanta. You are still hung up on name “Ramanuja”. You have difficulty in conceptualizing that which is divine. The divine is viewed as both immanent (indwelling) and as transcendant (beyond the limits of humanness), which is Panentheistic. Look, Panentheistic philosophy is not a stranger to Christianity either. 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).

Having said that, Christians do not subscribe to Pantheistic aspect of religion. We believe God is still one in nature and there cannot be multiple representation as in Gods and demigods. It only negates the “Omnipotence” and “almighty” ness of God. Therefore, in Christian religion there is no room for spiritual philosophy in which the Divine takes the form of a spiritual dimension not only within living humans, but animals and possibly other things.

Therefore, the statement that “we are created in the image of God and we are all sons of God but that does not make us God” does hold well !!!

Please, do not understand me wrong! Ramanuja is one of the great seekers and was truly an enlightened man like Buddha. I have a great respect for his understanding of the Vedas. You may be evolved in thinking Ramanuja as truly a God incarnate. That is far from being the direct descent of God. Again, I caution everyone that in my case, being able to see the truth in Sages and in their interpretations does not deter from my fundamental faith in my own path.



I do not believe Jesus to be God incarnate blindly. I am not propagating Christianity out of blind faith but because of my own conviction of the role that “grace” plays in my journey back to my source. To me it is not merely an attachment derived out of a tradition but more of a call of the soul.

Let this be a starter for now.
http://www.churchofindia.com/mantras.htm


God uses all of us as His instruments to achieve the purpose in us. God used Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. God can use you and me also if we are available. Thus God does not look for special “ability” but the “availability” in us to work through us. Ramana Maharishi did not rely on guru to discover and realize himself.

You are again missing my point. I never said Guru is not important. The sole energy to assimilate knowledge comes from the intense desire of the disciple. Guru can only guide you to proper path. The ultimate journey of your soul depends upon you and you alone. In my view, one can evolve without a “guru”, which is quite unlike “ISKONITES” who seem to believe that one cannot progress spiritually without a guru.




Just so you know, no body is asking you to follow Christianity or Jesus. I am pointing you to the truth that I believe in. These are all in response to “non-sense” questions posted on the net.


Agree in part! Man’s highest goal is to realize the connection with the heavenly Father and but not become as Father (which he cannot, anyway!). When Jesus said that the difference between us and Him is, “ I know the Father and you know not”. His purpose was to bring us to that realization. When He says,” when you believe in me you too are the sons of the Father and have same relationship that I had, and you are privileged to call Him Abba” He is offering that privilege to all.

You and others alike have misunderstood Christ and His message. He did not come merely to provide sermon materials to Sunday Pastors for generations to come. When you read His message with proper context, separating literal from metaphorical, you will see Him clearly. The very purpose of His coming is to bring in us awareness and awaken our soul to be Christ Conscious that connects us with the Father.



[/size]

nirotu,

Thanks for the information! I have gone through the link you provided and it was excellent.

Praise the Lord!!!

NickD vbmenu_register("postmenu_19155865", true);


Firstly, these 3 explanations make man only a bystander and let the “karma” take its course. Secondly, How come one cannot know past karma? I would be interested in knowing my past karma to be able to do better this time around. Otherwise, I am working in the dark so to speak. For example, in the field of medicine the diagnosis and treatment works best knowing the past medical history of patient. Otherwise, the Dr. is working with trial/error method. Thirdly, and more importantly, if one has to work out his karma by himself in this life and if I do get a chance to help some suffering soul, would I be interfering with his karma?


[/font]
This comes closest to the Christian way of thinking! A true believer in Christianity knows that he is utterly helpless to stand on his own bootstraps so he cries out for the savior! Surrender and grace is the key and not human efforts. The good work that one does in life is the logical outcome of that faith in God and not the “means to an end”.



I am not here to prove anything. There are certain things that can only be realized, which only comes from personal experience. It is the conviction of my heart in which “grace” of God through Christ played the role in my understanding of His nature. Regardless, whether you and others believe it or not the truth in Christ will remain the same for me. So, unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them, they will never be ABLE to believe. My job is to convey the Gospel in a language they can understand and in a context they can grasp.


1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.


There are many eye-witness accounts recorded by Josephus or Tacitus. There is no lack of information or evidence but it is the willful rejection of the evidence causes man to be in the dark.


“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 :

Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 39-53.

Also, the works of Cornelius Tacitus.

Christ has shown over and over again who He is and they still reject Him. How can I make a skeptic believe Jesus when he comes without an open mind?

“Christ will remain unknown to those who know him solely as a body. He is known truly only to those who perceive Him as spirit. Thus, through the spiritual eye, the worshipper can behold not only the Christ with form, but the formless Christ felt in the vastness of the inner perception.” – Paramahamsa Yogananda.

The following exchange shows how the hardened heart operates:

Luke 16:27,”The rich man said, 'Then please, father {Abraham}, send Lazarus to my father's house on earth!”

Luke 16:28, “ I have five brothers. Lazarus could warn my brothers so that they will not come to this place of pain.”

Luke 16:29,”But Abraham said, 'They have the law of Moses and the writings of the prophets F267 to read; let them learn from that!”


Luke 16:31, “ He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.” (Easy to Read version)

It is not because He hid Himself but people chose to remain in the dark and be the enemies of light. If their question is out of arrogance then they may be left in their blindness and nothing will move them. If it is out of a desire to know God He can move to show Himself.

But the bottom line is that even Josephus or Tacitus will not be able to convince you or the other skeptics. But, I don’t despair, because the Word of God says:



Isa 55:11 so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Blessings,


[/font][/font][/color]

Nirotu,

I have gone through the link that you have provide and it was excellent information. Thanks for sharing the information!

Praise the Lord!!!

NickD

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

In one post you said,” 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.”

Yet in another post you seem to state,”We do not consider Ramanuja to be God, but as a jnani or enlightened.”

Read carefully please. You guys have an extraordinary abilitty to detect contradictions when there isn't any... as usual.

Let me repeat - Sri Ramanuja is considered an avatar of Lord Anantha, an eternally free soul ever present with Lord Vishnu. Did I ever say Ramanuja was an avatar of Lord Vishnu himself? No.

Sri Ramanuja is considered an amsa avatar unlike Lord Krishna who is a purna avatar. An amsa avatar is typically the avatar of a higher diety like Garuda, Hanuman, Anantha etc.

Unfortunately, despite explaining in detail, you are still hoisting ideas up on “namarupa” based siddhanta. You are still hung up on name “Ramanuja”. You have difficulty in conceptualizing that which is divine. The divine is viewed as both immanent (indwelling) and as transcendant (beyond the limits of humanness), which is Panentheistic. Look, Panentheistic philosophy is not a stranger to Christianity either. 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 do not have the addiction to the namarupa siddhanta. It is with you. When namarupa vanish, Jesus has no relevance whatsoever. Do you think I am following a right tradition or not? What is the relevance of Jesus to me if you dont beleive in namrupa and what exactly is then implied by "death and resseruction" of Jesus for mankind?

Nirotu, Hinduism does not need any kind of namarupa siddhanta. Without it, Christianity falls like a pack of cards.( Take away Jesus, and what has Christianity got to stand on? Take away Ramanuja, Shankara and all these people, Hinduism is still alive in the same form.)

Having said that, Christians do not subscribe to Pantheistic aspect of religion. We believe God is still one in nature and there cannot be multiple representation as in Gods and demigods. It only negates the “Omnipotence” and “almighty” ness of God. Therefore, in Christian religion there is no room for spiritual philosophy in which the Divine takes the form of a spiritual dimension not only within living humans, but animals and possibly other things.

Sorry, we dont beleive that. We beleive God is the indweller of all animate and inanimate entities. It does not compromise omnipotence in anyway - what exactly do you mean by that? Christianity is like Dvaita, not my school of thought.

We do beleive that God can assume many manifestations. Just like the Trinity. If there can be a trinity, what is your problem in understanding multiplicity?

Therefore, the statement that “we are created in the image of God and we are all sons of God but that does not make us God” does hold well !!!




Please, do not understand me wrong! Ramanuja is one of the great seekers and was truly an enlightened man like Buddha. I have a great respect for his understanding of the Vedas. You may be evolved in thinking Ramanuja as truly a God incarnate. That is far from being the direct descent of God. Again, I caution everyone that in my case, being able to see the truth in Sages and in their interpretations does not deter from my fundamental faith in my own path.

Similar. I do not think Jesus was anymore greater than Ramanuja. I have no reasons to understand otherwise. Ramanuja never preached this eternal hell and such illogical concepts.

I do not believe Jesus to be God incarnate blindly. I am not propagating Christianity out of blind faith but because of my own conviction of the role that “grace” plays in my journey back to my source. To me it is not merely an attachment derived out of a tradition but more of a call of the soul.

Let this be a starter for now.
http://www.churchofindia.com/mantras.htm

I have seen this site before. I think most christians do not approve of this church.

Agree in part! Man’s highest goal is to realize the connection with the heavenly Father and but not become as Father (which he cannot, anyway!). When Jesus said that the difference between us and Him is, “ I know the Father and you know not”. His purpose was to bring us to that realization. When He says,” when you believe in me you too are the sons of the Father and have same relationship that I had, and you are privileged to call Him Abba” He is offering that privilege to all.

We do not believe in becoming the father, but rather in a sayujya mukti where individual ego still exists. But the soul inherits all the supreme bliss and consciousness of the Lord - no differences.

You and others alike have misunderstood Christ and His message. He did not come merely to provide sermon materials to Sunday Pastors for generations to come. When you read His message with proper context, separating literal from metaphorical, you will see Him clearly. The very purpose of His coming is to bring in us awareness and awaken our soul to be Christ Conscious that connects us with the Father.

Whatever way you may convince me, there is no way most Hindus will accept

1. An eternal hell concept.
2. Salvation without merit ( pure grace)
3. The one way, one truth, one saviour concept

These are completely against the teachings of Sanatana Dharma,

 

[selwyn]

Hi Sudharshan,

I am back here again. My computer was down and man within few days. Man, here we go with my response for your posts. How are you doing?

Please Note: I have used boldened phrases of your quotes just to represent to you what you have claimed in your posts so that you would not miss or your own sayings up here and not to offend anyone up here.

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.

Man. I know that you claimed once that you are not an advaitin. Here is one of your posts implying that.

And isn't it ironical that you are claiming my posts as "incoherent"? Are you equating them to your so called "hinduic scriptures" which again you proudly boasted as incoherent and the incoherence being the strength of hinduic posts? Man, isn't that an incoherent equation? On the other hand, what on earth are you finding incoherent about my posts? First of all, isn't it that most of my posts are just questions about your own self-contradictory claims in here?
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18488478&postcount=320

But aren't you the one who said the following about the beliefs of Vishitadvaita schools?

Karma is the fuel for existance or samsara. Salvation is obtained when this fuel is fully burnt. Both Good and Bad karma are equally good enough to prolong existance. Classical Hinduism holds that Karma can be extinguished by

1. By enduring the effects of Karma and exhausting it in the form of happiness or suffering.

2. BY obtaining enlightenment, all sanchita karma ( past karma) are resolved and the human body continues to exist until the prarabdha karma(karma responsible for the present birth) wears out.

3. By discharging duties selflessly, no karma is accrued and karma burns off as with passage of time and future births

4. By the grace of God, all karma, sanchita and prarabdha are resolved without human effort.

The former three belong to Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Karma Yoga. In these Yogas , some human effort is involved in salvation. But they are considered as difficult paths even in the Bhagavad Gita.

The fourth is not recognized in many HIndu schools like advaita. It is recognized only in certain Hindu schools like Vishitadvaita.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19064414&postcount=61


Man. What on earth are you ranting around here? And man is this what you claim to be knowledgable speculation? Your posts are getting filled more and more with self contradictory claims. Would you preferably go back and learn your own belief system before writing every other non-sense here in the name of truth which you later also admit are mere speculations?

And aren't you the same one who claimed out here that

Call God as partial or unfair to a few, almost every Hindu school is unanimous in conclusion - every soul will get salvation oneday by his own efforts coupled with the grace of God. In the ultimate analysis, God is completely impartial.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19064574&postcount=64

And followed that by saying ( I have emboldened really big what you have said that you won't miss or misread what you said up here)

And moreover to make full sense, a Hitler after commiting a hundred thousand murders cannot seek God's grace in my school. Such unwarranted behaviour will cause many births even if he seeks the grace of God.

Human effort is certainly needed, you do need to be a good human being to seek God's grace. You cannot be a demon and yet get salvation.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19065681&postcount=71

And are you the same one who said here?

Where did you get this info from - nobody can get salvation thru good works. Good works lead only to temporary heaven. Salvation is possible only by total surrender to Lord Krishna. The Bhagavad Gita is categorical about it:

18.66

Abandon all duties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction(karma). Do not fear.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19018100&postcount=31

Man. Let me just wait and see what replies you are going to give for your own posts. Isn't it that your posts imply that hinduism is filled not just higly uncertain speculations filled with so called "partial truths" as you yourself had admitted but also proves itself to be a bunch of illogical, incoherent and self contradictory claims as clearly reflected by your own posts?

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Selwyn, I do not understand why you have misquoted me, and also taken words out of context. It is better to be incoherent than to be decietful.



Where did I say this - this following quote by you.

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”.

I know my own understanding of this concept and I do not recognize these words of mine. I think you are deliberately misquoting me. Which post and post number is this?

It contains these words " he hopes that eventually his good works will outweigh the bad and obtain “salvation”" to which I protest wherever I see them, and I know I could have never said them myself. Moroever the his/her style of writing in that post is not my style of writing. If however, you show me that post of mine, I take back this post and admit I must have scribbled them in the dead of night.


You said this,

And moreover to make full sense, a Hitler after commiting a hundred thousand murders cannot seek God's grace in my school. Such unwarranted behaviour will cause many births even if he seeks the grace of God.

Human effort is certainly needed, you do need to be a good human being to seek God's grace. You cannot be a demon and yet get salvation.

Here, you have taken me completely out of context, and try to read the passages.

Grace, as no Hindu school beleives is unmerited. It is not Christianity where you can be a serial rapist and yet need to only beleive in Jesus. No, that is not HInduism. You dont have to be a saint to get salvation in my school as such, but certainly you need to live in accordance with the scripture. Dont take me wrong - you have a completely wrong understanding of grace.

Surrendering to God implies surrendering of all evil actions consciously too. This is not the Christian version of grace- unmerited. God takes care of sins which you commit without your knowledge once you choose to surender to him. If I surrender to God, then indulge in a spree of murders, you think I could get salvation? Really? I think your reasoning has been clouded due to some blind addiction to some illogical concept of grace.

It is like this I commited the murder, but did that in self defence and to save many people near me.

See how bad the text in bold appears when taken out of context? That is what you are doing in every post, dont take words out of context, and for God's sake, dont use quotes that I never quoted. That is against forum rules. If I did mention those quotes, I apologize for my words in advance, but I demand you to show my post.

 

[selwyn]

Selwyn, I do not understand why you have misquoted me, and also taken words out of context.

Where did I say this - this following quote by you.

I know my own understanding of this concept and I do not recognize these words of mine. I think you are deliberately misquoting me. Which post and post number is this?

It contains these words " he hopes that eventually his good works will outweigh the bad and obtain “salvation”" to which I protest wherever I see them, and I know I could have never said them myself. Moroever the his/her style of writing in that post is not my style of writing. If however, you show me that post of mine, I take back this post and admit I must have scribbled them in the dead of night.

Okay. I take that back. It is nirotu's post. For some reason, when I was browsing your post history, my search result ended up there. It may have been a browser (the new browser version I just installed, My computer was down for a week now) scrolling issue for the search result. Sorry about that. It is nirotu's post I believe and here is the reference:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19049023&postcount=55

It is better to be incoherent than to be decietful.

Whom are you accusing of being deceitful here? I for one don't think that I misquoted his post as yours over here deliberately.

I will edit my post now. But that said, even having that removed, isn't it that you still ended up contradicting yourself by your assertive but speculative claims which I have represented in bold letters.? And no. That misquote was not done deliberately. I am sorry about the technical error that led to that inclusion there. It is a mere technical error of search result due to scrolling of the new browser version that I just installed. As such my computer was down for a week and I am just restoring things up here. I don't know why you jumped immediately to the conclusion that it was done deliberately. And I didn't even accuse you there but merely questioned if that was what you said and meant.

But that said, your other posts up here clearly are giving contradictory signals. Isn't it or not?

Here, you have taken me completely out of context, and try to read the passages.

What is taken out of context? That was your reply and follow up post to my post in which I asked you:

What? Are you the same person who claimed out loudly in here that salvation is only through the grace of God according to your school of thought?

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19065354&postcount=66

Grace, as no Hindu school beleives is unmerited.

There you go. That is the fundamental problem. Your definition of grace and infact the so called hinduic understanding of grace seems to be severely flawed. Isn't it that, in strict sense Divine grace, by definition is unmerited favor rendered by God to mankind? And isn't that the mild distinguishing feature between mercy and Divine grace?



I

t is not Christianity where you can be a serial rapist and yet need to only beleive in Jesus.

When you don't understand anything about Christianity, won't it be better for you to learn about it rather than throwing absurd comments about it like this? Who told you that a rapist can continue in his sinful lifestyle after accepting Christ?

No, that is not HInduism.

And where on earth did you get the idea that whatever you define out here will become part and parcel of Christian belief system? On the other hand, isn't it that your so called hinduism is a highly inclusive faith system? How on earth are you now trying to make it atleast relatively exclusive?

You dont have to be a saint to get salvation in my school as such, but certainly you need to live in accordance with the scripture.

Well. I think that there will be atleast few hindus who will not accept this claim. If my memory is correct Ram was asserting at one point that only saints will attain salvation. But should it surprise anyone if you contradict with another hindu when the bigger problem here seems be often you contradicting yourself?!!!!

Dont take me wrong - you have a completely wrong understanding of grace.

Is it you or me who has the wrong understanding of grace? Why don't you go and check Webster's dictionary online.

This is what it says about the meaning of grace:

1 a : unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification b : a virtue coming from God c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace.

That is why I had been asking right from the start what on earth you meant by gracem the least of which is reflected in your posts while you had been hypocritically claiming aloud as if you had a perfect understanding of grace. And isn't it ironical that you who had admitted clearly that you are speculating about lot of issues here crying out loud that my understanding of grace is wrong? First of all, you yourself admittedly is caught up under your own world of speculations and assumptions and incoherence. On top of that, how on earth can you even think of claiming up here that someone else's understanding out here is wrong?

Surrendering to God implies surrendering of all evil actions consciously too.

Who told you that one can happily live in sin after surrendering his life to Christ?

This is not the Christian version of grace- unmerited.

Man. The english meaning for grace by definition is unmerited favour. At best, the closest word I think that you can use to describe what you are claiming here according to your so called dharma may be just "mercy" and not grace at all.

God takes care of sins which you commit without your knowledge once you choose to surender to him. If I surrender to God, then indulge in a spree of murders, you think I could get salvation? Really? I think your reasoning has been clouded due to some blind addiction to some illogical concept of grace.


It is like this I commited the murder, but did that in self defence and to save many people near me.

Who on earth told you that one can happily continue to live in sin after accepting Christ without surrendering himself to Him? Why do you want to twist and give your own interpretation about the concept of Christian grace here to match your whims and fancies?

Man. At the other end do you remember your very own claim up here that even the future karma of someone who supposedly surrenders to your so called God is nullified and that he is not responsible for his actions anymore whatever it may be? Man. What if the so called surrendered fellow goes ahead and kills some guy knowingly or unknowingly? According to your so called concept of grace, isn't that nullified by your very own claims up here?
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19010233&postcount=36

See how bad the text in bold appears when taken out of context?


That is what you are doing in every post, dont take words out of context,

No. It was your follow up reply to one of my posts in which I had asked about your contradictionary claim to your own earlier claim for salvation only through grace according to your school of thought.

and for God's sake, dont use quotes that I never quoted. That is against forum rules.

I already explained that it is an unintended mistake up here and I have edited my post.

If I did mention those quotes, I apologize for my words in advance, but I demand you to show my post.

It is my mistake although unintentional out here. I am sorry about that. But even after removing that part, isn't it that the rest of your claims up here are highly self contradictory filled with speculations and misunderstandings ?

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Okay. I take that back. It is nirotu's post. For some reason, when I was browsing your post history, my search result ended up there. It may have been a browser (the new browser version I just installed, My computer was down for a week now) scrolling issue for the search result. Sorry about that. It is nirotu's post I believe and here is the reference:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19049023&postcount=55

Whom are you accusing of being deceitful here? I for one don't think that I misquoted his post as yours over here deliberately.

OK, if it is a mistake, not deliberate, then it is accepted.

I will edit my post now. But that said, even having that removed, isn't it that you still ended up contradicting yourself by your assertive but speculative claims which I have represented in bold letters.? And no. That misquote was not done deliberately. I am sorry about the technical error that led to that inclusion there. It is a mere technical error of search result due to scrolling of the new browser version that I just installed. As such my computer was down for a week and I am just restoring things up here. I don't know why you jumped immediately to the conclusion that it was done deliberately. And I didn't even accuse you there but merely questioned if that was what you said and meant.

But that said, your other posts up here clearly are giving contradictory signals. Isn't it or not?

No, I have not contradicted anywhere unless you take things out of context. The grace and the theory of karma go hand in hand. Grace, as in Hinduism is never a "free gift" even to a Hitler. That is the illogical part of your concept and since you have not tried to understand the concept of Karma, you always end up with contradictions.

Let me repeat, it is impossible for anybody to attain salvation by trying to do good karma and overriding his bad karma. It is simply impossible. To get salvation, you need to have zero Karma.

It you take a birth, you will do karma, and if you have karma you will have another birth. It is a vicious cycle. That is why, it is impossible to get salvation by own efforts. The key is salvation is zero Karma ( not good Karma) and zero Karma is acheived solely by positive surrender of the fruits of all past karma. From that point of surrender, try to live as blemishless life as possible and accrue no Karma that results in salvation.

Do you think that Hinduism teaches that you can get salvation by doing good karma or try to atatin a zero karma yourself? No where. Without the intervention of God, cancelling out karma is impossible. This intervention of God happens only when you completely surrender to God to take care of you. Until that point, God will remain indifferent to you and allow your karma to govern your wheel of life and death. When you take the positive action of doing a complete surrender of all positive karma to God - all these Karma disappear.

It takes many births for a soul to find out that trying to solve the karma equation himself is impossible. But following various religions and various wrong and right paths, the soul gets stranded in a mire and hoplessness that the final wisdom dawns - that is when the soul is able to completely surrender its fate to the Lord.

Think about why many people are atheists and many people are trying to do karma yoga, bhakti yoga and all other ways to reach God? These people are not in a stage to realize that they can really get salvation with their own abilities. Until they do it, they will keep reincarnating time and again.

Your understanding of Hinduism and Karma Theory is so minimal that you find contradictions everywhere.

Once you have surrendered to God and willing to take his grace, does not give you the license to act and behave the way you want. That automatically cancels out grace. From the point of complete surrender to the point of death, you should surrender in all respects - as Srivaishnavites, our way of complete surrender is completely unique to all religions.

After making the surrender, which we call as prapatti, we live only to the will of the Lord.

1. If we get sick, we never see a doctor, even if it means death.
2. I do not defend myself in lawsuits or any problems in life. If I am framed and punished for an offence I did not commit, I will not even hire a lawyer and defend the case. Just look to the Lord.
3. Srivaishnavites get virtually detached from the world and each moment in their lives is spent in the contemplation of the Lord.
4. Accept any good or bad things with equality.

Typically, the point in getting the grace of the Lord is not through doing good works, but rather depending on the Lord for everything, including the very life breath. That is why I asked you to read up on the Srivaishnavite Philosophy. Grace is not unmerited, but you seek his grace by depending on him for everything(not by doing good works like charity), and completely loosing your human ego.

Well. I think that there will be atleast few hindus who will not accept this claim. If my memory is correct Ram was asserting at one point that only saints will attain salvation. But should it surprise anyone if you contradict with another hindu when the bigger problem here seems be often you contradicting yourself?!!!!

That is not my issue. I am giving my view and the view of my school. Ask any christian to tell me who will get salvation and every christian will give different answers, even when the fact is they are all quoting from one bible. You have always escaped this question. Christianity is full of contradictions in this respect, when you cannot standardise anything with even a single book. Hinduism on the other hand - is not based on a single book and naturally we will find many opinions.


No point in touting me with your illogical definition of grace given even to a Hitler, a child molestor etc - by a mere act of accepting a saviour. That is the biggest joke I have heard. Read what I mentioned about grace from the my school point - God's grace acts when you give up everything for the Lord - your very ego, your very dependence on any earthly things, your very life. When every moment of your life is dedicated to the Lord and the Lord alone you get salvation - that is the only way Hinduism teaches, all other ways Yoga, or doing good works or prayers etc can at the best help you realizing that these cannot lead to salvation on their own merit. Yoga can lead to an awakened knowledge that teaches you that without divine grace, salvation by own efforts is impossible. Thus, even Yoga can serve as an indirect means to salvation, but it cannot lead to salvation by its own merit.


Of course, I know many Hindus will not accept my views, but this is my view and the view of my school.

 

[indianx]

Lol, you are certainly more calm than me, Sudharshan. I remember using some "not so kind" words when he misquoted me.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

There you go. That is the fundamental problem. Your definition of grace and infact the so called hinduic understanding of grace seems to be severely flawed. Isn't it that, in strict sense Divine grace, by definition is unmerited favor rendered by God to mankind? And isn't that the mild distinguishing feature between mercy and Divine grace?

Who told you that one can happily live in sin after surrendering his life to Christ?



Man. The english meaning for grace by definition is unmerited favour. At best, the closest word I think that you can use to describe what you are claiming here according to your so called dharma may be just "mercy" and not grace at all.

Do you know that Christianity also contradicts this definition of grace of "unmerited favour"?

By true unmerited favour, there should be universal salvation regardless of the conditions. Why does Christianity require performing the "good karma" of beleiving in the death and reserruction of Jesus, who may essentially be a myth? That contradicts the condition that it is unmerited favour.

When you don't understand anything about Christianity, won't it be better for you to learn about it rather than throwing absurd comments about it like this? Who told you that a rapist can continue in his sinful lifestyle after accepting Christ?



And where on earth did you get the idea that whatever you define out here will become part and parcel of Christian belief system? On the other hand, isn't it that your so called hinduism is a highly inclusive faith system? How on earth are you now trying to make it atleast relatively exclusive?

These are comments that will contradict a vast majority of the doctrine of Christianity.

Who on earth told you that one can happily continue to live in sin after accepting Christ without surrendering himself to Him? Why do you want to twist and give your own interpretation about the concept of Christian grace here to match your whims and fancies?

Let us look at you comment:

"Who on earth told you that one can happily continue to live in sin after accepting Christ without surrendering himself to Him?"

It is not a question of living happily in sin after accepting Christ. The question is what happen if somebody sins after accepting Christ? Dont say that all christian never sin after that. If we go by strict definitions of "sin" a vast majority of christins will end up sinners even after accepting Jesus Christ. If the wage of sin is death, then why should these christians get salvation? If Jesus Christ guarantees salvation by no merit, then what prevents a child molester from getting salvation after accepting Christ? So after accepting Jesus, certain sins are acceptable and others are not? So where goes the definition of grace which means completely impartial or unmerited favour? Dont beat about the bush.

Man. At the other end do you remember your very own claim up here that even the future karma of someone who supposedly surrenders to your so called God is nullified and that he is not responsible for his actions anymore whatever it may be? Man. What if the so called surrendered fellow goes ahead and kills some guy knowingly or unknowingly? According to your so called concept of grace, isn't that nullified by your very own claims up here?
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19010233&postcount=36

Here is where my concept of Grace score over yours. After surrendering to the Lord, all your sins till the present are washed away by the Lord, so it guarantees salvation provided you do not commit any sins knowingly after that. So what happens if I indulge in a murder after my act of surrender? Tell me what the Christian God Yahweh does after somebody commits a murder out of a rage even after he has surrendered to the Christ? He has just two choices - either pardon the sin ( which encourages a christian to indulge in whatever he wants, if one sin can be forgiven why not every sin?), or eternally cast the "christian" into hell. How could Yahweh do the second after he has surrendered? In either case, this unmerited grace is illogical.

Look at my exploanation. If I indulge in sin after the act of surrender, the Lord will try to make me expiate me for this sin in my very birth. Which means, I could be put to extraordinary tests after committing this murder. I cannot complain, nor can I defend myself with a lawyer and take the punishment given by law and nature.

If, however, I happen to die before I expiate for this sin, a rebirth is inevitable. The Hindu God need not send me to the eternal hell after I made the surrender. If I break the terms of total surrender, I will be born again in favourable conditions, where I will surrender again to the Lord in the same identical fashion- the grace of the Lord will ensure this. This will be repeated until I mature to the point that I can successfuly pass the test of the Lord - God never needs to punish me eternally nor needs to allow me scot free for any sin that I commit. Infact, if I murder after I surrender, I do have to account for it in some way - but never with eternal punishments. That ensures the best of God's grace and justice. God's grace ensures that you will be born with favourable conditions each time you fail - never stray away in future. Had I commited this murder prior to surrendering to the Lord, I will not be born in suitable conditions to continue the spiritual journey - perhaps be born as an atheist otherwise.


In short, I understand perfectly the concepts of grace in both schools, but know that in terms of Christianity, it ends up illogical as far as I am concerned.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Lol, you are certainly more calm than me, Sudharshan. I remember using some "not so kind" words when he misquoted me.

No I think it was a genuine accident. So no need for me to show any displeasure.

 

[selwyn]

No, I have not contradicted anywhere unless you take things out of context.

Man. After accepting the fact that you don't mind being incoherent with your replies as well as the incoherence of your own so called scripture, how on earth can you even talk about any context? It is just another incoherent statement by you up here.

The grace and the theory of karma go hand in hand.

What? For someone who vociferously claims that his school believes only in salvation by grace, this is a long journey indeed through this discussion!!!! But before, I could finish writing that, I just remembered that you consider incoherence as strength. So I don't know what your incoherent position on this will be tomorrow?

Grace, as in Hinduism is never a "free gift" even to a Hitler.

Your hinduic so called grace by definition as given by you (may be an incoherent definition) is flawed severely. First of all, you need to verify if you are using the correct term ("grace") for the concept you are talking out here. Atleast, Webster's online dictionary as I had referred gives a different meaning for grace.

That is the illogical part of your concept and since you have not tried to understand the concept of Karma, you always end up with contradictions.

So are you claiming that even Webster's dictionary that I have quoted is illogical in its claims. Here are some of the meanings given in dictionary.com for grace

"A favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence"
"Divine love and protection bestowed freely on people. "

"The state of being protected or sanctified by thefavor of God."

Let me repeat, it is impossible for anybody to attain salvation by trying to do good karma and overriding his bad karma. It is simply impossible. To get salvation, you need to have zero Karma.

There you go. Once again you are demonstrating incoherence in your discussion here. If that is the case as you have repeated here, man then your theory of karma and grace walking hand in hand will totally collapse and crashes down to pieces without any scope for revival. Isn't it?

It you take a birth, you will do karma, and if you have karma you will have another birth. It is a vicious cycle. That is why, it is impossible to get salvation by own efforts. The key is salvation is zero Karma ( not good Karma) and zero Karma is acheived solely by positive surrender of the fruits of all past karma. From that point of surrender, try to live as blemishless life as possible and accrue no Karma that results in salvation.

Man. Are you the one who just before few posts claimed aloud that the guy after surrendering himself to God is free of responsibility of all his karma? Then how on earth are you now dumping upon the surrendered guy to now be careful about his karma?

Do you think that Hinduism teaches that you can get salvation by doing good karma or try to atatin a zero karma yourself? No where.

Is there any one thinking that is left excluded from hinduism to begin with, when you want to portray its coherence as its so called strength? Actually I don't even have to say anything about that here. Some of your own fellow hindus have claimed out loudly here that salvation is only through karma. And I know you will happily and hypocritically agree with them for you believe incoherence is the strength for your hinduism. For example, if I remember correctly, Ram has claimed out loudly here that salvation is only for saints who do good works and is attained only through good works only. I don't have the time to find the reference here. Forget about that, even you are giving a really messy picture of what you really believe while claiming alternately here that salvation is only by grace only to contradict that again by saying grace and karma go hand in hand only to later again contradict yourself again and again!!!!!

Without the intervention of God, cancelling out karma is impossible.


This intervention of God happens only when you completely surrender to God to take care of you. Until that point, God will remain indifferent to you and allow your karma to govern your wheel of life and death. When you take the positive action of doing a complete surrender of all positive karma to God - all these Karma disappear.

It takes many births for a soul to find out that trying to solve the karma equation himself is impossible.

All you have said by that statement here is that there is utterly no grace involved in this so called cycle of births. So much for claiming grace and karma walking hand in hand!!!!!! And man, doesn't it even sound ridiculous to you to claim out here that your so called God would be sitting there "indifferently" after all your hyped up claims of an everloving God?

But following various religions and various wrong and right paths, the soul gets stranded in a mire and hoplessness that the final wisdom dawns - that is when the soul is able to completely surrender its fate to the Lord.

Oh man!!! By the way, what on earth did you mean by various wrong and right paths? Do you remember your claims about partial truths still?

Think about why many people are atheists and many people are trying to do karma yoga, bhakti yoga and all other ways to reach God? These people are not in a stage to realize that they can really get salvation with their own abilities.

Man. There are hindus who believe strongly that by their own good works, they can reach God. Would you disagree with that? Or are you going to say that these guys are hopelessly doing all these things as they are still no where near salvation before many more births?

Until they do it, they will keep reincarnating time and again.

And, in between, they also end up in some so called torturous hells as described in your puranas for only few thousand years, right? Oh man!!!!!

Your understanding of Hinduism and Karma Theory is so minimal that you find contradictions everywhere.

Where is the question of any need for understanding even (for anyone for that matter), when you claimed out loud and "clear"(!!!) that the hinduic scripture as a whole is totally incoherent? Isn't that the first thing that you destroyed out here when you strongly claimed support for incoherent view points? Now how on earth are you going to even talk about any understanding out here? And what on earth have you done here? You have been making oscillatory claims according to your moods out here and have also admitted that all these may be just partial truths and may involve many speculations!!!! That being the case, when you yourself are not really sure of lot of things and speculating about issues here, how on earth are you going to convince anyone here about anything?

Once you have surrendered to God and willing to take his grace, does not give you the license to act and behave the way you want. That automatically cancels out grace. From the point of complete surrender to the point of death, you should surrender in all respects - as Srivaishnavites, our way of complete surrender is completely unique to all religions.

Are you the same person who asserted 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.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19010233&postcount=36

In simple words, even after the so called surrender, you are simply talking about karma by "cancelling out grace". What on earth are you then definining here as grace man? At the other end, after all these, I am all the more convinced of the excellence of the gospel and the perfect grace as portrayed in the bible. Whatever non-sense you are ranting out here in the name of grace and karma seems to be no match before the perfect demonstration of grace as given in the bible.

After making the surrender, which we call as prapatti, we live only to the will of the Lord.

1. If we get sick, we never see a doctor, even if it means death.
2. I do not defend myself in lawsuits or any problems in life. If I am framed and punished for an offence I did not commit, I will not even hire a lawyer and defend the case. Just look to the Lord.
3. Srivaishnavites get virtually detached from the world and each moment in their lives is spent in the contemplation of the Lord.
4. Accept any good or bad things with equality.

Typically, the point in getting the grace of the Lord is not through doing good works, but rather depending on the Lord for everything, including the very life breath. That is why I asked you to read up on the Srivaishnavite Philosophy. Grace is not unmerited, but you seek his grace by depending on him for everything(not by doing good works like charity), and completely loosing your human ego.

What? I hope you will go back and start reading all your own posts up here. But aren't you the one out here who considers incoherence as the strong point? Oh!!!! Could it be that, in that "context", are you having a strong point of incoherence here?!!!

Here it is. This is what you asserted to which you are incoherently contradicting now. First of all this is not even out of context. At the other end, remember that you have already waived your chances to talk about any context in here when you claimed incoherence, partial truths and speculations to be very much acceptable.

Human effort is certainly needed, you do need to be a good human being to seek God's grace.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19065681&postcount=71

That is not my issue. I am giving my view and the view of my school. Ask any christian to tell me who will get salvation and every christian will give different answers, even when the fact is they are all quoting from one bible. You have always escaped this question. Christianity is full of contradictions in this respect, when you cannot standardise anything with even a single book. Hinduism on the other hand - is not based on a single book and naturally we will find many opinions.

No point in touting me with your illogical definition of grace given even to a Hitler, a child molestor etc - by a mere act of accepting a saviour. That is the biggest joke I have heard. Read what I mentioned about grace from the my school point - God's grace acts when you give up everything for the Lord - your very ego, your very dependence on any earthly things, your very life. When every moment of your life is dedicated to the Lord and the Lord alone you get salvation - that is the only way Hinduism teaches, all other ways Yoga, or doing good works or prayers etc can at the best help you realizing that these cannot lead to salvation on their own merit. Yoga can lead to an awakened knowledge that teaches you that without divine grace, salvation by own efforts is impossible. Thus, even Yoga can serve as an indirect means to salvation, but it cannot lead to salvation by its own merit.


Of course, I know many Hindus will not accept my views, but this is my view and the view of my school.

Man. As I have already said, the bigger problem here is you contradicting yourself with your very own posts and your own incoherent descriptions about hinduism. And when asked about it, your reply was that your moods change and therefore your opinion will change with time and that you may even be speculating things up here as well as the fact that you may be just talking about partial truths out here which according to you is very much accetable. Isn't it or not? That being the case, how on earth can you even claim here hypocritically to anyone out here to look at things with based on your so called school of thought? And moreover, I did read the non sensical explanation of your so called grace needs merit before the so called surrender and again gets cancelled out when someone sins again. So much for your claims about grace. Isn't that why I was asking you to define what you meant by the term "grace"? Oh man!!! Take some time before posting your next post and read all your very own claims up here. Or is that you are going to claim up here that incoherence of your posts is your very own strength out here?

 

[Ram]

Man. After accepting the fact that you don't mind being incoherent with your replies as well as the incoherence of your own so called scripture, how on earth can you even talk about any context? It is just another incoherent statement by you up here.



What? For someone who vociferously claims that his school believes only in salvation by grace, this is a long journey indeed through this discussion!!!! But before, I could finish writing that, I just remembered that you consider incoherence as strength. So I don't know what your incoherent position on this will be tomorrow?



Your hinduic so called grace by definition as given by you (may be an incoherent definition) is flawed severely. First of all, you need to verify if you are using the correct term ("grace") for the concept you are talking out here. Atleast, Webster's online dictionary as I had referred gives a different meaning for grace.



So are you claiming that even Webster's dictionary that I have quoted is illogical in its claims. Here are some of the meanings given in dictionary.com for grace

"A favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence"
"Divine love and protection bestowed freely on people. "

"The state of being protected or sanctified by thefavor of God."




There you go. Once again you are demonstrating incoherence in your discussion here. If that is the case as you have repeated here, man then your theory of karma and grace walking hand in hand will totally collapse and crashes down to pieces without any scope for revival. Isn't it?



Man. Are you the one who just before few posts claimed aloud that the guy after surrendering himself to God is free of responsibility of all his karma? Then how on earth are you now dumping upon the surrendered guy to now be careful about his karma?



Is there any one thinking that is left excluded from hinduism to begin with, when you want to portray its coherence as its so called strength? Actually I don't even have to say anything about that here. Some of your own fellow hindus have claimed out loudly here that salvation is only through karma. And I know you will happily and hypocritically agree with them for you believe incoherence is the strength for your hinduism. For example, if I remember correctly, Ram has claimed out loudly here that salvation is only for saints who do good works and is attained only through good works only. I don't have the time to find the reference here. Forget about that, even you are giving a really messy picture of what you really believe while claiming alternately here that salvation is only by grace only to contradict that again by saying grace and karma go hand in hand only to later again contradict yourself again and again!!!!!

Without the intervention of God, cancelling out karma is impossible.


This intervention of God happens only when you completely surrender to God to take care of you. Until that point, God will remain indifferent to you and allow your karma to govern your wheel of life and death. When you take the positive action of doing a complete surrender of all positive karma to God - all these Karma disappear.



All you have said by that statement here is that there is utterly no grace involved in this so called cycle of births. So much for claiming grace and karma walking hand in hand!!!!!! And man, doesn't it even sound ridiculous to you to claim out here that your so called God would be sitting there "indifferently" after all your hyped up claims of an everloving God?



Oh man!!! By the way, what on earth did you mean by various wrong and right paths? Do you remember your claims about partial truths still?



Man. There are hindus who believe strongly that by their own good works, they can reach God. Would you disagree with that? Or are you going to say that these guys are hopelessly doing all these things as they are still no where near salvation before many more births?



And, in between, they also end up in some so called torturous hells as described in your puranas for only few thousand years, right? Oh man!!!!!



Where is the question of any need for understanding even (for anyone for that matter), when you claimed out loud and "clear"(!!!) that the hinduic scripture as a whole is totally incoherent? Isn't that the first thing that you destroyed out here when you strongly claimed support for incoherent view points? Now how on earth are you going to even talk about any understanding out here? And what on earth have you done here? You have been making oscillatory claims according to your moods out here and have also admitted that all these may be just partial truths and may involve many speculations!!!! That being the case, when you yourself are not really sure of lot of things and speculating about issues here, how on earth are you going to convince anyone here about anything?



Are you the same person who asserted here?:



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19010233&postcount=36

In simple words, even after the so called surrender, you are simply talking about karma by "cancelling out grace". What on earth are you then definining here as grace man? At the other end, after all these, I am all the more convinced of the excellence of the gospel and the perfect grace as portrayed in the bible. Whatever non-sense you are ranting out here in the name of grace and karma seems to be no match before the perfect demonstration of grace as given in the bible.



What? I hope you will go back and start reading all your own posts up here. But aren't you the one out here who considers incoherence as the strong point? Oh!!!! Could it be that, in that "context", are you having a strong point of incoherence here?!!!

Here it is. This is what you asserted to which you are incoherently contradicting now. First of all this is not even out of context. At the other end, remember that you have already waived your chances to talk about any context in here when you claimed incoherence, partial truths and speculations to be very much acceptable.



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19065681&postcount=71






Man. As I have already said, the bigger problem here is you contradicting yourself with your very own posts and your own incoherent descriptions about hinduism. And when asked about it, your reply was that your moods change and therefore your opinion will change with time and that you may even be speculating things up here as well as the fact that you may be just talking about partial truths out here which according to you is very much accetable. Isn't it or not? That being the case, how on earth can you even claim here hypocritically to anyone out here to look at things with based on your so called school of thought? And moreover, I did read the non sensical explanation of your so called grace needs merit before the so called surrender and again gets cancelled out when someone sins again. So much for your claims about grace. Isn't that why I was asking you to define what you meant by the term "grace"? Oh man!!! Take some time before posting your next post and read all your very own claims up here. Or is that you are going to claim up here that incoherence of your posts is your very own strength out here?

Rubbish.

I think we can awaken a sleeping man, but to awaken a man pretending to be asleep you have give him an electrical jolt.

I disagree with Sudarshan here--I think the comparson of grace in Hinduism and Christianity does not even deserve a comparison. There cant be any grace or compassion or mercy in a God who would punish eternally for a finite sin, however small it may be.

By the way, granting salvation to a serial killer "unmerited" maybe called grace, but it is most illogical.

Selwyn, Chrsitianity is a bundle of contradictions - the one book bible can be interpreted in 2700 ways according to the whims and fancies of different people. And you call that a coherent philosophy?

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

Do you ever answer any questions or simply play around with words? You think you are an expert in word jugglery, but you are a poor one. Stop hiding under the terms contradictions and incoherence etc and answer my questions asked earlier. You are like muslims on mulsim forums, I thought christians were more rational.

Atleast answer this question, without acting like a clown - "You do not beleive in relative truths or partial truths. You beleive in a single absolute truth. Anybody not following this truth goes straight to hell and rots for eternity. Now tell me which denomination of Christianity is this absolute truth without playing in circles. If you dont answer, this is my last reply to you because I cant keep arguing with a clown.

From my point, I have clarfied very clearly. I also do not beleive in relative truths or partial truths. I beleive in a single version of truth, which is that of my Srivaishnavite school. I consider all other religions and other Hindu schools including advaita as imperfect philosophies. I do not think any HIndu, advaitin or anybody else will never get salvation until he completely surrenders to Lord Vishnu and will keep reincarnating until he does that. I am very clear and coherent in my views. If you are not convinced read my posts on the Hindunet forum where I have questioned the validity of the philosophy of advaita and their interpretations of Hindu scripture- I am not a politician and always question anything. Including any other Hindu school. No advaitin answered my charges on Hindunet. I am not afraid of other Hindus or other non Hindus when stating my opinion. I will state bluntly with my eyes closed - There are no ways to salvation , in my opinion, than to completely surrender to the feet of Lord Vishnu - there are no grey areas. Is that coherent or incoherent in you view?

Let me know which you consider the truth and let me see if you are bold enough to admit it. Stop hiding under the mattress please.

Man. After accepting the fact that you don't mind being incoherent with your replies as well as the incoherence of your own so called scripture, how on earth can you even talk about any context? It is just another incoherent statement by you up here.

Hinduism can afford to be incoherent because it does not beleive in eternal damnation. Though no path to salvation exists outside Lord Vishnu and seking him as your saviour, you get many chances to do this. Christianity cannot hide under the same incoherence. Are you so dumb not to grasp this? Be honest Selwyn, dont indulge in word gimmicks.

What? For someone who vociferously claims that his school believes only in salvation by grace, this is a long journey indeed through this discussion!!!! But before, I could finish writing that, I just remembered that you consider incoherence as strength. So I don't know what your incoherent position on this will be tomorrow?

Nonsense....do you even understand my posts?

Your hinduic so called grace by definition as given by you (may be an incoherent definition) is flawed severely. First of all, you need to verify if you are using the correct term ("grace") for the concept you are talking out here. Atleast, Webster's online dictionary as I had referred gives a different meaning for grace.

So are you claiming that even Webster's dictionary that I have quoted is illogical in its claims. Here are some of the meanings given in dictionary.com for grace

"A favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence"
"Divine love and protection bestowed freely on people. "

"The state of being protected or sanctified by thefavor of God."

That is what I said too. Christianity is also flawed in this respect. Grace of God by that definition should be universal salvation. Salvation given to people requiring to do good karma ( beleiving in Jesus) cannot be called grace anyway.

Unmerited favour means unmerited favour - no preconditions. NO beleif in Jesus can be presupposed by your so called God. Then it is not grace - you have ended up in self contradiction which you so viciously argue against Hindus.

There you go. Once again you are demonstrating incoherence in your discussion here. If that is the case as you have repeated here, man then your theory of karma and grace walking hand in hand will totally collapse and crashes down to pieces without any scope for revival. Isn't it?



Man. Are you the one who just before few posts claimed aloud that the guy after surrendering himself to God is free of responsibility of all his karma? Then how on earth are you now dumping upon the surrendered guy to now be careful about his karma?



Is there any one thinking that is left excluded from hinduism to begin with, when you want to portray its coherence as its so called strength? Actually I don't even have to say anything about that here. Some of your own fellow hindus have claimed out loudly here that salvation is only through karma. And I know you will happily and hypocritically agree with them for you believe incoherence is the strength for your hinduism. For example, if I remember correctly, Ram has claimed out loudly here that salvation is only for saints who do good works and is attained only through good works only. I don't have the time to find the reference here. Forget about that, even you are giving a really messy picture of what you really believe while claiming alternately here that salvation is only by grace only to contradict that again by saying grace and karma go hand in hand only to later again contradict yourself again and again!!!!!

Man. There are hindus who believe strongly that by their own good works, they can reach God. Would you disagree with that? Or are you going to say that these guys are hopelessly doing all these things as they are still no where near salvation before many more births?



And, in between, they also end up in some so called torturous hells as described in your puranas for only few thousand years, right? Oh man!!!!!



Where is the question of any need for understanding even (for anyone for that matter), when you claimed out loud and "clear"(!!!) that the hinduic scripture as a whole is totally incoherent? Isn't that the first thing that you destroyed out here when you strongly claimed support for incoherent view points? Now how on earth are you going to even talk about any understanding out here? And what on earth have you done here? You have been making oscillatory claims according to your moods out here and have also admitted that all these may be just partial truths and may involve many speculations!!!! That being the case, when you yourself are not really sure of lot of things and speculating about issues here, how on earth are you going to convince anyone here about anything?



Are you the same person who asserted here?:



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19010233&postcount=36

In simple words, even after the so called surrender, you are simply talking about karma by "cancelling out grace". What on earth are you then definining here as grace man? At the other end, after all these, I am all the more convinced of the excellence of the gospel and the perfect grace as portrayed in the bible. Whatever non-sense you are ranting out here in the name of grace and karma seems to be no match before the perfect demonstration of grace as given in the bible.



What? I hope you will go back and start reading all your own posts up here. But aren't you the one out here who considers incoherence as the strong point? Oh!!!! Could it be that, in that "context", are you having a strong point of incoherence here?!!!

Here it is. This is what you asserted to which you are incoherently contradicting now. First of all this is not even out of context. At the other end, remember that you have already waived your chances to talk about any context in here when you claimed incoherence, partial truths and speculations to be very much acceptable.



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19065681&postcount=71






Man. As I have already said, the bigger problem here is you contradicting yourself with your very own posts and your own incoherent descriptions about hinduism. And when asked about it, your reply was that your moods change and therefore your opinion will change with time and that you may even be speculating things up here as well as the fact that you may be just talking about partial truths out here which according to you is very much accetable. Isn't it or not? That being the case, how on earth can you even claim here hypocritically to anyone out here to look at things with based on your so called school of thought? And moreover, I did read the non sensical explanation of your so called grace needs merit before the so called surrender and again gets cancelled out when someone sins again. So much for your claims about grace. Isn't that why I was asking you to define what you meant by the term "grace"? Oh man!!! Take some time before posting your next post and read all your very own claims up here. Or is that you are going to claim up here that incoherence of your posts is your very own strength out here?

Plain rubbish to which I care not respond. You dont know a bit of Vishitadvaita Philosophy. Sure, Lord Vishnu does not grant salvation on a serial rapist no matter he surrenders or not.If you think that is grace, you are free to live and cherish your illogical version of the concept of grace.

Sorry, if that is harsh, but this what I can respond to your post. You have zero logic or coherence in your post.

 

[rahul_sharma]

So are you claiming that even Webster's dictionary that I have quoted is illogical in its claims. Here are some of the meanings given in dictionary.com for grace

"A favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence"
"Divine love and protection bestowed freely on people. "

"The state of being protected or sanctified by thefavor of God."

Man. There are hindus who believe strongly that by their own good works, they can reach God. Would you disagree with that? Or are you going to say that these guys are hopelessly doing all these things as they are still no where near salvation before many more births?

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.

 

[Ram]

Let us see what Selwyn defines grace as:

"A favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence"

First, Hinduism's portrayal of God is not as a totally indifferent being. So the "who need not do so" is not applicable to Hinduism. According to Hinduism, man is a divine spark who is related to God like God's very own eyes. He can never be indifferent. God considers man and his creation as essentially himself, and evil is nothing more than dirt on the skin of God. He washes it away for himself when he "notices" it - not for any specific cause. He "notices" it when man undertakes specific methods, essentially including beleiving in God, having an interest in attaining God and living for that end goal.


"Divine love and protection bestowed freely on people. "

The freely clause contradicts Christianity. Because man never gets divine love and protection freely - he has to beleive in a fairy tale, about the death and reserruction of Jesus, and also obey the ten commandments. Any love God showevers for following these rules can no longer be called free or unmerited favour.

Answer me - Is a Christian beleiving in Jesus free to break the ten commandments at will? If so, why these commandments are needed? In that case, is a christian free to live the way he wants in violation of these commandments?

In Sudarshan's view total surrender to the Lord is needed and total dependence on God is required to obtain God's grace. In Selwyn's view beleif in Jesus and keeping of ten commandments is needed to obtain God's grace. Both these violate "free" or "unmerited" favour.

In short, God can be said to possess grace only when salvation is guaranteed to all irrespective of one's beleifs and actions. Hinduism comes closest to defintion, because salvation is guaranteed to all someday.


"The state of being protected or sanctified by thefavor of God."

This definition mentions nothing about the unmerited part of favour so it is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[selwyn]

Do you ever answer any questions or simply play around with words? You think you are an expert in word jugglery, but you are a poor one. Stop hiding under the terms contradictions and incoherence etc and answer my questions asked earlier. You are like muslims on mulsim forums, I thought christians were more rational.

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?

Atleast answer this question, without acting like a clown - "You do not beleive in relative truths or partial truths. You beleive in a single absolute truth. Anybody not following this truth goes straight to hell and rots for eternity. Now tell me which denomination of Christianity is this absolute truth without playing in circles. If you dont answer, this is my last reply to you because I cant keep arguing with a clown.

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?

From my point, I have clarfied very clearly.

What? Is it that you even have a misunderstanding or an incoherent understanding of the word, "clearly"?

I also do not beleive in relative truths or partial truths.

But you validate that and claim out loud that your religion has no problems with them, right? How on earth can you validate something without even believing anything about it?

I beleive in a single version of truth, which is that of my Srivaishnavite school.

If you claim exclusivity of the so called truth of your school, then you are naturally rejecting the other schools. Isn't it or not? After all, aren't you the one who is claiming out loud here that you don't believe in relative truths or partial truths ( but a variable claim of you, though considering your strong support for incoherence and your earlier attempt to validate atleast most of the paths leading to salvation/God!!!)?

I consider all other religions and other Hindu schools including advaita as imperfect philosophies. I do not think any HIndu, advaitin or anybody else will never get salvation until he completely surrenders to Lord Vishnu and will keep reincarnating until he does that.

I am very clear and coherent in my views.

This is the funniest part. After accepting that you are speculating about many issues out here, how on earth can you ever claim out here that you are "clear" in your views? And don't even mention the word "coherence". How on earth are you going to use your "incoherent hinduic scripture" (as accepted and asserted by you) as the source to even think of coming up with any coherent claims up here?

If you are not convinced read my posts on the Hindunet forum where I have questioned the validity of the philosophy of advaita and their interpretations of Hindu scripture- I am not a politician and always question anything. Including any other Hindu school. No advaitin answered my charges on Hindunet. I am not afraid of other Hindus or other non Hindus when stating my opinion.

If that is the case, then why on earth were you hypocritically defending every other view point of your so called dharma when asked about it ? I do remember the way you ended up deceiving yourself by trying to claim out loud here that Sefroth is a hindu while he himself claimed that he as well as some other hindus up here was not one. And aren't you the one who vociferously claimed out to me that you find no contradictions in many of the posts of hindus that I was referring to up here? Or is it that you guys want to put up a mask here covering all the contradictions and go and argue vigorously against each other in the hindu forum crushing each other's throats in there?

I will state bluntly with my eyes closed - There are no ways to salvation , in my opinion, than to completely surrender to the feet of Lord Vishnu - there are no grey areas. Is that coherent or incoherent in you view?

Man, aren't you the one who claimed out aloud that most of the other ways atleast are partially true and valid? Now, how on earth are you making this exclusive claim closing your eyes (do you mean to say, blindly?!!!!!) and hoping that you may be coherent too?

Let me know which you consider the truth and let me see if you are bold enough to admit it. Stop hiding under the mattress please.

I am not hiding anywhere. I am still here. Neither am I afraid of anything up here. As I have told you again and again, I am pretty much convinced strongly of Whom I am believing in. But don't you realize that the big problem is on your side who is asking the question out here? Aren't you someone, who has no problems with incoherence at one end? Also, aren't you the same person who closes his eyes and blindly claims out loud assuming that he is coherent too? That being the case, what on earth do you even mean by "answer" to begin with? Don't you realize the problem in here. Is there even any common platform at your end that you can be assumed to stand for a while holding on to just one view point? Aren't you the one who also claimed that as your mood changes, your viewpoints might change? That being the case, on what level do you want an answer here - a coherent level, an incoherent level, a partially true level, a fully valid level, or partially valid level? And this no joke. Neither is it any jugglery of words. With so much of self-contradictions and incoherence from your end, unless you make up your mind clearly about what you are infact believing especially regarding exclusivity, there is no point in you expecting any answer from anyone, not only me. Even if someone says anything, what difference is it going to make to you one way or the other? After all, aren't you someone who considers incoherence as your religion's strong point? Isn't it or not? That being the case how on earth should it matter to you or how on earth can you throw mud at some other religion for either coherence or incoherence to begin with?

Hinduism can afford to be incoherent because it does not beleive in eternal damnation.

There you go again. Don't you even realize the obvious contradiction of that very claim? And such statements end up being subtle yet highly deceptive. Can't you even realize that? Man. You are claiming that incoherent hinduism says that there is no eternal damnation and you want people to believe it because it is incoherent!!!! Can any claim be any more ridiculous than that? At the other end is this major flaw in that statement, that the moment that you have said that hinduism can afford to be incoherent, you have reduced and compromised the standards of your so called hinduism by your own claims. You can no longer claim from now onwards that your so called hinduism is at some so called higher state or whatever you would want to imagine as higher standards.

Though no path to salvation exists outside Lord Vishnu and seking him as your saviour, you get many chances to do this. Christianity cannot hide under the same incoherence. Are you so dumb not to grasp this? Be honest Selwyn, dont indulge in word gimmicks.

And are you so dumb not to grasp that the moment you compromised on your coherence as well as the coherence of your hinduic scripture, you have crushed and destroyed all the standards (wondering if there were any to begin with) which you had been hypocritically claiming out here again and again incoherently?

Nonsense....do you even understand my posts?

Are they even coherent to begin with? Or is it that they are coherent explanations of a highly incoherent hinduic scripture the very incoherence of which is considered as its strength?

That is what I said too. Christianity is also flawed in this respect. Grace of God by that definition should be universal salvation. Salvation given to people requiring to do good karma ( beleiving in Jesus) cannot be called grace anyway.

Oh man. I wish I can answer the beauty of Christianity and th perfect demonstration of grace to you. But at this point, you are not even on the same playing ground constantly for even a moment even for asking any questions up here (even when considering your own claims in just one single post of yours) because of your claims about the incoherence of your own religion as well as your own compromise with incoherence and partial truths as even valid or partially valid or invalid or unbelievable ( whatever you want to change it in your later posts according to your moods). You seem to be stuck up oscilating between these varied confusions as demonstrated in your posts. But where on earth did you get the idea, that salvation is given to people requiring to do "good karma" and what on earth did you even mean by believing in Jesus as "good karma"?

Unmerited favour means unmerited favour - no preconditions. NO beleif in Jesus can be presupposed by your so called God. Then it is not grace - you have ended up in self contradiction which you so viciously argue against Hindus.

All I can say is that you are thoroughly confused about the whole concept of grace. I hope that you will just sit down and think about it. Don't you realize that grace by definition is unmerited favour? You are confused to the extent that you have assumed something about my belief and ended up writing here that I have contradicting myself. Relax please. But do you really think that grace meaning unmerited favor means that it will be dumped and imposed on people who don't want that at all by any means and want to reject anything that is related to grace? Isn't that not a violation of their free will of choice? But remember, before coming to any conclusion from that, it is just a question for thought from my side? Please don't jump to conclusions for any answers. The bigger problem here is if you want coherent answers or incoherent answers. With you claiming that both coherence and incoherence are valid (!?!!) and even going to the extent of claiming that incoherence is the very strength of hinduism and hinduic scripture, I think that you have waived your chances to ask even any questions out here for any reasonable coherent answer.

Plain rubbish to which I care not respond. You dont know a bit of Vishitadvaita Philosophy. Sure, Lord Vishnu does not grant salvation on a serial rapist no matter he surrenders or not.If you think that is grace, you are free to live and cherish your illogical version of the concept of grace.[/QUOTE

Sorry, if that is harsh, but this what I can respond to your post. You have zero logic or coherence in your post.

Man. I am not very much bothered nowadays about harshness of language here. And I don't want to be even ever harsh with anyone personally here. But I think that the biggest problem for you discussing anything up here is that you have already validated and even asserted strongly that incoherence of hinduic scriptures as the strength of hinduism and that hinduism can very well afford to be incoherent as well as accept so called "partial truths" and speculations as part of its idealogies. So I don't know how on earth could you even judge here what is coherent and what is incoherent considering that you are so comfortable with incoherence already? And how on earth could you even complain about anyone for that matter for being incoherent in here even if they by chance end up being incoherent? Let us face the reality of the issue up here.The better thing for you will be to accept the mistake of that earlier claim by you up here. But even if you do that now, you will still end up self contradicting yourself up here as long as you try to defend other hinduic paths as valid while not believing them at all claiming that you believe the exclusivity and the correctness of your faith regarding salvation.

 

[nirotu]

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,

 

[Ram]

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

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

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

 

[Ram]

Man. I am not very much bothered nowadays about harshness of language here. And I don't want to be even ever harsh with anyone personally here. But I think that the biggest problem for you discussing anything up here is that you have already validated and even asserted strongly that incoherence of hinduic scriptures as the strength of hinduism and that hinduism can very well afford to be incoherent as well as accept so called "partial truths" and speculations as part of its idealogies. So I don't know how on earth could you even judge here what is coherent and what is incoherent considering that you are so comfortable with incoherence already? And how on earth could you even complain about anyone for that matter for being incoherent in here even if they by chance end up being incoherent? Let us face the reality of the issue up here.The better thing for you will be to accept the mistake of that earlier claim by you up here. But even if you do that now, you will still end up self contradicting yourself up here as long as you try to defend other hinduic paths as valid while not believing them at all claiming that you believe the exclusivity and the correctness of your faith regarding salvation.

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

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.

Even then, christians do a lot of good things and earn enough good "karma" to take birth as a Hindu in a later birth. It is not incoherence, but accodmodation.

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