Religion Thread - 5

Locked
nitinjindal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 11:51

Re: Question??

Post by nitinjindal »

Alok_N wrote:
nitinjindal wrote:I thought I understood it fine. Could you be a little more specific.
specifically, if you understood fine, you would have no difficulty refuting this bogey:
because idols are not symbolizing Him
they symbolize something/someone else
I can refute the above quote, but what about the rest of his message, specially the ramayana part. I would appreciate if some one gives a holistic reply to the message. Even it would help me understand few thing better.

nitin
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Post by negi »

Nitin from whatever I understand ,one needs to realise the fact God,religion and the various epics are deseparate.While I am myslef confused about the concept of God (basically fit into 'C' types as Alok ji would put it) ,I can try to help you out with the Ramayan part.Imho Ramayan and other epics (Mahabharat and likes) in a nutshell highlight a common thing 'Satyam eva Jayate'.What we guys need to realise is how does Ramayan and its message is relevant in todays world.Imho when one says he/she worships Lord Rama it simply means they consider 'Rama' and the way he lived his life as an example and a guideline
a few which I could recollect,

1.'Pran jaye par bacahn na Jayee'
2.'Janani Janma Bhumisch Swarga dapi Gareeyasi'

.Your friend would first need to understand the concept of God as described in 'Hinduism' and it is only then he/she would be able to appreciate the idol worship and other rituals associated with our Religion.

All in all none of us can prove/convince the other of God's existence the only things over which consensus can be reached is whether what is preached by a particular 'religion' is relevant and helpful to one in leading a virtous life.In the case of 'Ramayan' it is irrelevant to discuss whether its a Myth or actually a part of 'History' what is important is it imbibes the essence of 'Hindu' religion (for that you would have to go through the entire thread).

-phew saw that what BRF has done to me in less than a years time--- :shock:
Last edited by negi on 28 Mar 2007 12:53, edited 1 time in total.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Pulikeshi wrote: We got ourselves to blame for not creating any new product in eons! We can't even agree if we have a product :shock:
Constantine had created a "product".

A similar "product" in hinduism is unlikely, given the diversity AND continued evolution. It should be possible to extract a baseline "product" on which there is maximal agreement. But who is going to decide that... Christianity had Constantine, Buddhists had gatherings such as the one organized by king Harshavardhana where the basics of bauddha-dharma were agreed upon.

The last such gathering for hinduism, I think was during Upansiahadic times, involving Rishi Yajnyavalkya and others when a certain agreement was reached regarding vedanta.

Many great individuals like Swami Vivekananda have created pretty strong products, yet their acceptance is not universal.

Is it feasible in the present age to hammer out such a common baseline product for hinduism by organizing such a gathering? A daunting task, but may be worth pondering about.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Question??

Post by abhischekcc »

Ok nitin, let me take apart your 'friend's' arguments.

because idols are not symbolizing Him
they symbolize something/someone else
First of all, your friend just made an accusation against all Hindus - that we insincere in our worship. What he really said in those words was that we don't REALLY worship a god when we say we do. He is making a hostile assumption about Hindus without any provocation, or basis.
When A Hindu says that he is worshipping Him in an idol, that should be enough proof of our procedure, unless proven otherwise. Islam, with its inbred hostility to idol worship is the last entity to make a judgement on Hindusim.
the INTENTION at Hindu's heart is not to worship the single diety of universe. They symbolize dead humans, or animals, not their creator.
Again, an assumption without basis.
There has to be a distinction in mind. I've heard that originally Hinduism wasn't supposed to be worshipping warriors of Ramayan, but later on like many other religion was altered by humans.
So what is he trying to suggest? That we should not worship Ram (and perhaps give up the ram mandir to them :) ).
Remember, intentions determine what you are doing worship for.
Exactly. So who is he to question our intentions?
To be omnipotent and omniscient, "God" has LOGICALLY got to be omnipresent .

Can an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent "God" bind itself to be ABSENT from "idols" ? Laughing

And if it IS present in those idols, what is the objection to "idol worship" ?
You probably provoked your friend by the second sentence. Islam does not consider God to be part of the Universe. So, logically, he cannot be present in the idols. By presenting you case like you did, you questioned the basis of Islamic 'god-view' itself.
Joype
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 12 Jul 2005 18:13

Post by Joype »

To be omnipotent and omniscient, "God" has LOGICALLY got to be omnipresent .

Can an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent "God" bind itself to be ABSENT from "idols" ? :lol:

And if it IS present in those idols, what is the objection to "idol worship" ?
Frankly, I am not against idol worship.

But, since it is established here that God is omnipresent, my question is, why should someone need an idol to worship?
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Post by negi »

Joype wrote: But, since it is established here that God is omnipresent, my question is, why should someone need an idol to worship?
You know what Joype,I guess you are asking this just for the sake of asking a question for if you really believe that God is omnipresent then you would have questioned the very need to build Mosques,Churches and Temples and not just idol worship,infact for the sake of argument I would say 'Hinduism' is consistent in its ideology and hence we have Temples and idols .
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Focus. Concentration. :)
G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Idol worship and Xtianity

Post by G Subramaniam »

Hindus do idol worship
Xtians do Icon worship which is no different from idol worship

Worship of icons of saints, sacred relics, Mary, Infant Jesus, etc
G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Is xtianity, a buddhist attempt to inculturate judaism?

Post by G Subramaniam »

Buddhism wherever it has travelled has adapted to the local religion,
Hinduism in India, Taoism in China, Shintoism in Japan

It is well known that there were buddhist colonies in the mediteranean
as early as 100BC

Look at the similarities
*Celibate monks
*Celibate nuns
*Chanting
*Bells
*Savior concept
*Incarnation
*Organised Sanga or Church
*Monasteries
*Proselytism
*Shaven Monks

None of the above have anything to do with the ostensible parent religion Judaism

In addition, until a 100 years ago, the Catholic church was celebrating
the Buddha under the name Saint Josaphat
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Question??

Post by shiv »

nitinjindal wrote:
because idols are not symbolizing Him
they symbolize something/someone else
the INTENTION at Hindu's heart is not to worship the single diety of universe. They symbolize dead humans, or animals, not their creator. There has to be a distinction in mind. I've heard that originally Hinduism wasn't supposed to be worshipping warriors of Ramayan, but later on like many other religion was altered by humans. Remember, intentions determine what you are doing worship for. We also prostrate in front of a black stone at Kaaba, but it is nothing but a symbol for someone whom we are not permitted to see. Like Umar bin Khattab said When Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph, came to kiss the stone, he said, in front of all assembled: "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither harm anyone nor benefit anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Messenger kissing you, I would not have kissed you."


Thnx and regards,
Nitin
Islam requires you to assume (on pain of punishment or death) that Allah is an unseen entity who cannot help you unless you follow all (every single one of) the rules set by Islam.

Once you build a structure with so many rules that you are not supposed to disturb or break, you are restricting your mind to stay within that structure. That "structure" Islam says God cannot be present in a human or an animal and is "something else". The mind that is restricted by Islam says that.

Hindu thought does not give you a set of rules to memorize about God and merely tells you that all of creation is part of God - and that God is actually present everywhere in the universe and beyond - including in cockroaches and pigs. And of course within yourself. But as posts by Valkan have pointed out, Hindu thought does not require you to restrict your mind to this. You can go beyond "God" into metaphysical interpretations of the universe and existence. Not only is this an abstract mental exercise - it is actually disallowed by the restrictive rules of Islam that basically do not allow free rein to your own mind. God need not exist at all in any form - by some views of Hindu thought. That thought is so dangerous in Islam that it warrants a death sentence. Among Hindus - you are not killed or punished for free or new thoughts.

Can God exist in a lump of shit? Since a lump of shit is equally part of God's creation you can find God in a lump of shit, as well as in the shit producer and the toilet bowl itself. Whether you want to see God in a lump of shit is a different matter. But that lump may be manna literally dropping from heaven for a dung beetle. God's gift to beetlekind. Your human prejudices make you fail to realise that. You feel disgust instead.

Notice that it is entirely possible that squiggly twirls of shit on a hard surface may end up spelling the word "God" in some language or the other. If such a squiggle of turd spelt "Allah" in Arabic would it be given the same reverence as "Allah" spelt by similar chance by a pattern on a leaf, or a birthmark on a newborn, or would it lead to violence and riots as we have seen when a random squiggle on a shoe appears to spell "Allah". If Allah was not present in those squiggles - it should not worry anyone should it?

Even the followers of Allah see their God represented by something when it pleases them despite their protestations to the contrary. But if they admit it out in the open, they are contradicting the word of their own God. So you find them blurting the standard rules that they blurt out.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Joype wrote:
Frankly, I am not against idol worship.

But, since it is established here that God is omnipresent, my question is, why should someone need an idol to worship?
Since the freedom exists to see God whenever and wherever you want, those who need temples build them. Those that don't need them don't go there. There is no compulsion to go to a temple on a given day or at given times during the day.

The choice is entirely yours. As is the choice of the form of idol you want to use to think of God. God is yours and all around you and in yourself. You choose what you want in this free market.

The question is why would anyone want to question what another person chooses in this free market. Unless you want to restrict the market to your product?

First you restrict God, and then restrict people to comply with the restricted pwers and presence of that restricted God. Those restrictions do not appply to Hindus.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Post by JwalaMukhi »

Apologies if this link is posted earlier. This site contains interesting and easily understandable aspects on SD.

http://www.iish.org/download.asp

Trappings due to the usage of language like idol worship, etc. will be cleared. Interesting topics (a must for anybody who needs to get SD in right perspective) are:
Customs_and_Rituals_Part3.MP3
Customs_and_Rituals_Part3.MP3
Customs_and_Rituals_Part3.MP3
Hindu God Concept Part 1.MP3
Hindu God Concept Part 1.MP3
Symbolism in Hindu Gods Part 1 through
Symbolism in Hindu Gods Part 4
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Murugan wrote: Alokguru, it should be sat chit Anand...
Actually the words Anantam and Anandam are identical,- Anantam Eva Anandam.

'Unhappiness' is caused by some limitations imposed upon you.

If only you were not limited by money and resources, you could obtain all the goodies that would make you happy.

If only you were not limited physically by space-time, you could do all the things that would make you happy anywhere anytime.

So, 'happiness' or 'bliss' is a direct corollary of freedom from limitations.

Now, Anantam is freedom from limitations ( Infinite/Limitless ).

And freedom from limitations is Happiness/Bliss aka Anandam.

So, Anantam is Anandam.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

NirguNa brahman doesn't have the guNa "Ananda", but is it not "ananta"?
Last edited by Kumar on 28 Mar 2007 19:21, edited 1 time in total.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Rakesh wrote: Thanks for the offer, but I will keep my faith in Jesus Christ :)
Not a problem.

Since this was presumed to be a logical discourse, I merely suggested you apply logic to your arguments.
That in my books is irrational belief. But I guess if you believe otherwise, then in your world it must be.
In case you glossed over it, I have actually laid out a threadbare logical defence of WHY what I stated was NOT belief, but a provable assertion.

And, just to clarify, I did NOT take recourse to ANY scriptural "authority".

It was purely a logical conclusion from First Principles.

Like I said many times before, if you feel my proofs are "irrational", I would love to see a refutation LOGICALLY.
I don't know and it does not concern me. The Bible says that God was present since the beginning. I don't try to answer questions like what God breathed before creation, who created God and who God spoke to. But you obviously know all about God and his most intimate thoughts. Bravo!
I did not make the claim that idols were "dumb", or that they didn't have "breath" in them, while simultaneously upholding the claim of a "living God" in the Christian tradition.

You quoted it as part of your scriptural claims as to why idolatry is "wrong".

In a logical discourse, if you claim something/someone as "living" while castigating the other as "dead", there has to be a logical justification.

Since you accept that neither you, nor your scripture can provide sufficient proof of "breath" by the Judeo-Christian "God", the biblical argument of why idolatry is wrong is itself refuted.

That's all I wanted to demonstrate, and I did.
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
Please read that sentence again.

It is YOUR scripture.

It makes a statement with NO qualifications whatsoever, correct ?

Surely "all things" does include urine, excreta, saliva, semen, blood and drugs.

So, urine and excreta are OF( ORIGINATES FROM) your "God".

And they are sustained BY your "God".

Also, they return TO your "God".

Surely one can't deny that millions of species have been passing urine and excreta for the last so many millions of years( or about a few thousand years if you stick to the literal words of the Bible ).

All that urine and excreta must have originated from your "God" and must have returned to your "God", and form part of your "God" by now.

So, YOUR scripture itself sustains the view that excreta and urine are part of your "God".

So, why should "God" being present in urine and excreta seem irrational to you ?
Last edited by S.Valkan on 28 Mar 2007 19:45, edited 1 time in total.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Kumar wrote:ananta (infinite/unlimited) is a necessary condition for Ananda (bliss) but not a sufficient one.
Logically incorrect.

When am I happy ?

I am happy when I have no dearth of anything.

Even the smallest limitation/dearth makes me unhappy.

As soon as that limitation is removed ( i.e., I get/do what I want ), I am happy ( until the next limitation surfaces ).

If I do NOT have any limitation, I am automatically happy.

Anantam is BOTH necessary AND sufficient condition for Anandam.
NirguNa brahman doesn't have the guNa "Ananda", but is it not "ananta"?
I think the confusion of what 'Nirguna' is persists.

Let's take an example of "Nirakara" ( shapeless).

Is Brahman square, circular, triangular, rhododenral, conical, spherical, torus-like, Mobius-strip-like ?

This is similar to asking,- is Gold shaped like a ring, a bangle, a chain ?

Well, Gold can be of ANY shape, and hence it is essentially shapeless.

Likewise, Brahman can be of any shape, and hence it is shapeless.

If you LIMIT Brahman to any one shape, or attribute, then you are violating the logic of Limitlessness.

Attributes are limitations. If you have a flower with an attribute of yellow colour, you are limiting it by that attribute ( it CANNOT ever be red or blue or green or pink or violet etc ).

Now what if the same flower could be yellow, orange, blue, red, pink, white, green, ANY colour ?

What would you say the "colour" attribute of the flower was ?

You COULDN'T say anything. It could be of ALL the colours.

A logically terse expression would be it has NO attribute called Colour.

Likewise, if you have something that is BOTH tall and short, what is its height attribute ?

Logically, the most you can say is it has NO attribute height.

Since Brahman is the Whole ( Purnam ), NO one attribute can characterise it.

Since ALL the mutually contradictory attributes of the parts apply at the same to the whole, the Whole cannot have limitations/attributes that characterise it.

You are only refuting the constrictions on the attributive characterstics of the Purnam ( the whole ).

So, "Nirguna" simply means that there is NO LIMITATION on Brahman.

Let's now deal with "Anandam".

Let's say for the sake of simplistic argument that Brahman is (You + Me + Nintendo Wii + Everything else).

Let's say that you are x happy because you have a Nintendo Wii, and NOTHING else.

Let's also say that I am ( Infinite - x ) happy because I have EVERYTHING else, but not Nintendo Wii.

Let's assume that Nintendo Wii and Everything else has delta-A ( where delta-A --> 0 ) happiness ( to make things simple ).

What is the status of Anandam in Brahman ?

As you, Brahman has x Anandam.

As me, Brahman has (Anantam -x) Anandam.

So, in effect, Brahman has Anantam Anandam.

Let's get back to serious dissection.

Anantam is NOT an attribute/"Guna" of Existence, it is the Essence of Existence.

Any limitation/boundary on Existence is of the nature of Existence itself.

So, Existence is of the nature of Limitlessness.

I hope that clears the air.
Last edited by S.Valkan on 28 Mar 2007 22:14, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

S.Valkan wrote: Actually the words Anantam and Anandam are identical,- Anantam Eva Anandam.

'Unhappiness' is caused by some limitations imposed upon you.

So, Anantam is Anandam.
Very well put.

The word "anta" is related to "end". and an-anta, with the prefix -"an-" is equally related to "unending"

Unending, limitless.

It is the limits that are applied to you that lead to dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Islam has taken the route that says "You are limited. God is unlimited. You should know your place and limit yourself to so much and no more, and God will be pleased with you. Do not aspire to anything more than xyz."

To me - this story is not good enough. It might be good enough for some - but not for me.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Across the Universe, by < who else? >

Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup,

They slither wildly as they slip away across the universe

Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my open mind,

Possessing and caressing me.

Jai guru deva om

Nothing's gonna change my world,

Nothing's gonna change my world.



Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes,

That call me on and on across the universe,

Thoughts meander like a restless wind inside a letter box they

Tumble blindly as they make their way

Across the universe
[ Lyrics found on http://www.metrolyrics.com ]


Jai guru deva om

Nothing's gonna change my world,

Nothing's gonna change my world.



Sounds of laughter shades of life are ringing

Through my open views inciting and inviting me

Limitless undying love which shines around me like a

Million suns, it calls me on and on

Across the universe

Jai guru deva om

Nothing's gonna change my world,

Nothing's gonna change my world.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Another ray of light seen by the Beatles

(And your bird can sing)
You tell me that you've got everything you want
And your bird can sing
But you don't get me, you don't get me

You say you've seen seven wonders and your bird is green
But you can't see me, you can't see me

When your prized possessions start to wear you down
Look in my direction, I'll be round, I'll be round

When your bird is broken will it bring you down
You may be awoken, I'll be round, I'll be round

You tell me that you've heard every sound there is
And your bird can swing
But you can't hear me, you can't hear me
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

madhu wrote:
because idols are not symbolizing Him
they symbolize something/someone else
I feel direction of prayer also to be symbolism….. Hindus use idol to worship god and Muslims use direction as idol to worship god.

Man cannot imagine something unimaginable and worship it as god. He needs a symbol/idol to imagine god and it be stone or direction.
definition of "Idol" itself is alien concept.. In Sanskrit it should be "Vigraham", meaning "Stronger I" or "Stronger Self". Vigra=>Strong(force/energy/mindfull), Aham=>self/I.

sope, Idols are for the weak hearted.. and for those who are in the C & D types. The Bs and As would go for "Vigraham"s.

:wink:

PS:
1. Perhaps etymologically Vigra-> Vigorous!?

2. Perhaps Adi Sankara understandings concrete-ized certain abstractness in vedic language. I am sure, "Vigraham" came before Sankara (existence).. you figure the rest.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

url

In early October the same Christian fundamentalists had issued a diktat ordering the indigenous tribal Hindus to stay away from Durga Puja celebrations (Hindu Festival) and warned that any tribal members seen taking part in the festival would be instantly killed. In its official public statement, the NLFT said it wanted all tribals in Tripura to become Christians. They also stated that salvation for Tripura lies only in Christianity and would eliminate anyone who dared to come in the way of their plans to forcibly convert all of Tripura to Christianity.

http://www.christianaggression.org
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by TSJones »

bala wrote:Thanks to Valkan for that superb discourse on Hindu philosophy. That philosophy book, in English, would do wonders to thwart the EJs.

Question for the Xtian followers. Are all people whether good or bad (deemed by the Bible) born prior to Jesus Christ gone to hell?
Ah, Bala, that is a very good question. It certainly deserves a good answer. :)

traditionally, some rabbinical teachings have stated that Moses, Elijah, etc. went to "Abraham's bossom". Which suggests heaven. Obviously Moses, Elijah, etc. all predated Jesus so how could they go to heaven?

The answer is they followed the laws and traditions of the people of Israel. They were judged by that law and *also what was in their heart's*. God knows what is in people's heart.

Here is another example taken the chapter of Luke:

Luke 23:39-43 (New International Version)

39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[a]"

43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

How can this be? Obviously these men were thieves being excuted along with Christ. Where was the Golden Rule? Where was their baptism? Where was their love of God with all their hearts mind and soul? It simply wasn't there and it didn't have to be there.

One of the thieves repented. yes, at the last minute, staring at death. And yet, he proclaimed Jesus innocent and asked to be remembered when jesus went to his Kingdom. Bingo! He got the winning ticket! Why? Because he repented and acknowledged Jesus as Lord.

I would like to point out that probably won't work nowadays. Jesus left very strict rules on how we were to achieve salvation. Jesus was still alive on the cross. He hadn't died yet. He could make deep picks if he wanted to. That was his perogative. Now, we are under a new set of rules. We have certain guidelines to follow. They are very clear. The Old Testament no longer applies to Christians on how to get into heaven.That's just the way it is.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Valkan,

Nice post regarding ananta=Ananda!

But I don’t think the issue regarding the nirguNa Brahman was properly addressed.

An immediate problem with ananta=Ananda:

SaguNa Brahman = sat-chit-Ananda
If Ananda = ananta, meaning nothing can be beyond it, then what happens to the nirguNa Brahman which supposedly lies “beyondâ€
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

The repentence and redemption story is there in the Srimad Bhagavata too. A habitual sinner on his death bed calls out the name of his son who is named Narayana and attains swarga. So taking the Lord's name is even in vain is sufficient.

Maybe Alok or Valkan or others can give the full story.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Post by JwalaMukhi »

Forces at play and the President

link: http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items07/210207-6.html

"
[....Christian Church's involvement with proselytization is about power over the converted and not about the welfare of the converted. They are not there to look after the poor Christians in Latin America and in Africa. Do we see the Vatican sending millions to those affected by the Typhoon Durian in the Phillipines, a very Catholic country?

The world Christian Churches and the Western Powers are in a symbiotic relationship and profit from each other. The Church provides moral enslavement; western powers the economic exploitation. Together they share the bounty...... ]
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Post by rsingh »

Wah wah kya naam hai.........but I think they are not going to allow this for long :lol:
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

[quote="Kumar"] An immediate problem with ananta=Ananda:

SaguNa Brahman = sat-chit-Ananda
If Ananda = ananta, meaning nothing can be beyond it, then what happens to the nirguNa Brahman which supposedly lies “beyondâ€
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Post by Aditya_V »

ramana
Forum Administrator


The repentence and redemption story is there in the Srimad Bhagavata too. A habitual sinner on his death bed calls out the name of his son who is named Narayana and attains swarga. So taking the Lord's name is even in vain is sufficient.

Maybe Alok or Valkan or others can give the full story.
Ramana- you are talking about the story of Ajamila, and it is about Ajamila attaining Moksa and not "swarga". I know the full story but it would take me time to type it, it would shorter to google it and get it on the web. ' Swarga' is going to Indraloka or a material planet whereas moksa generally means going to Vaikuntam or permenant heaven.

I think the concepts that Valkan has talked about are related to the Advaita school of thought, I doubt people who follow the advaita school of thought follow Srimad Bhagvatam.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

You are right. It was moksha and not swarga.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Aditya Vikrams wrote:I doubt people who follow the advaita school of thought follow Srimad Bhagvatam.
Is that a statement of personal belief, or a provable conjecture ?
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Post by Aditya_V »

More like personal belief and experience, since Srimad Bhagtvam deals more with Bhakti and Devotinal service, not many people in the advaita school of thought follow it.
Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Post by Alok_N »

uh oh ... it is deja vu all over again ... now aditya is going to get guruji's hammer for saying that bhagvata is not in line with advaita ...

<ducking out>
pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Post by pradeepe »

Another perspective for those interested. A father to a son -
Guru will come into your life, when the time is ripe and you have amassed sufficient thirst for reaching your spiritual goal.

My beliefs are simple. I believe God in any shape is only an abstract form, for pre-civilized and somewhat simple minded people. It (the concept of God) satisfies their inability to comprehend ununderstandable things and satisfy their ego.

I think I read somewhere, if dog was to think, it would personify God in the form of dog. God, in any particular form, doesnot exist. It is the underlying thing in every creation of the universe. Like it says in our scriptures, he is Vishwa Virat, that is, he has all the forms found in the universe.
If we were to take iron, it could be found in cars, scooters, house hold things etc. But if we were to analyse and go back into the formation, it is made of certain arrangements of atoms. And the same atoms also formed into other elements/materials. A child may think different forms as different things. But to a scientific-minded person, he knows all are composed of the same basic material, in different form. So what is it that doesn't have atoms, almost nil.

I said almost because, apart from material things that we could identify with our physical senses, there are also others that are understandable with our mind. for example feelings like knowledge from others experiences, books, imagination, knowledge of after-life, super-natural phenomena, love, happiness, etc. In this way if we were to trace back everything that is in our field of thinking, we will come to a phenomena THE origin, which is also part of final product.
That is concept of God. Like our master garu says, we have three commonly understandable states, wakeful, dreaming and deep-sleep. The world we observe during wakeful is different from the world we experience in dreams Both, during their presence are true. If we feel fear due to a snake in the dream, is true during that stage, there is sweating, twitching, etc. When we wake up, that world disappears, just like wakeful world disappears during dreaming stage. During deep sleep, however, not only the physical body relaxes, but after waking up, we say we enjoyed happiness stage. that happiness is same for all of us, immaterial religion, nation or gender. How did that happen, because at that time, the mind isn't working. This is the principle of meditation. If we could experience, during wakeful, a stage when mind stops functioning, then the presence of the Divine part in us can be experienced. Patanjali states this, (Chittha vritthi nirodhaha, Yogaha). That is the truth, for now, for past, for future, for everything. Doesn't change with time, region etc. For experiencing that Blissful stage, it needs practice, to control the mind to be one-pointed to start with., then going into thoughtless stage, which is mind stopping its functioning. God is present in all of us, during all the time. But since the mind is getting our ego occupied, we were unable to experience Him. At the same time, we need the mind to carry out our functions efficiently. So, we give more importance to it, since we identify with our physical capacities.

Realised persons, like master garu, function their worldly duties efficiently, while the ego is identified with Divine. He is an example we can carry out our normal living, while enjoying Divine presence. This is what is called jeevan muktha.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Aditya Vikrams wrote:since Srimad Bhagtvam deals more with Bhakti and Devotinal service
At least you realise that Bhakti and "Devotional Service" isn't the end-all of Srimad Bhagavatm.

Have you wondered what Sri Krishna's teachings to Uddhava in Canto 11 constitute, if not Advaita ?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

isn't swarga (heaven/paradise) inclusive in moksha, where moksha is something more .. attainment -- enlightened, liberated, knowledge, peace?

my concern here is nothing of these relevant on "death".. hence, the cycles must be experienced within the course of understanding (materialistic -> nirvana state). this if it happens before you die, and you get to an understanding, you have gotten moksha. apply moksha rules to yourself, and see if you are deemed fit? if not seek for it., and not after death.

the atman once lost into paramatman, then where is the question of the 'I', hence all moksha-ed-selfs would get to rebirth if the understanding is lost. hence, for every misunderstanding, there exists a rebirth.

:wink:
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Post by Aditya_V »

Valkan S. I am not familiar with the whole of Srimad Bhagvatam so I am aware of the specific passages you are talking about. The few followers of advaita whom I had met in the past were not too familiar with Bhagvatam so I generally thought Srimad Bhagvatam is not given too much in the advaita school of thought as compared to the vaishnava school of thought
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Alok_N wrote:uh oh ... it is deja vu all over again ... now aditya is going to get guruji's hammer for saying that bhagvata is not in line with advaita ...

<ducking out>
Not likely. :wink:

Actually, I am tired of the ad nauseum misguiding charge that Advaita is the brainchild of Adi Shankara, and that it is "Mayavadam Asat Shastram Prachchhannam Baudhham".

Even Adi Shankara learnt Advaita from his teacher Govindacharya, who learnt it from Gaudapada, and so on in a disciplinic succession.

Leaving aside the obvious Advaita teachings of the Upanishads, even the supposedly "theistic" texts like Srimad Bhagavatm and Vishnu Purana are wonderful examples of Advaita.

Advaita is a difficult concept, and it is not necessary that everyone accept it, or go through the intellectual and logical contortions to understand it in its original Vedanta form.

Advaitins enjoy Srimad Bhagavatam just as much as Bhaktas do.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Aditya Vikrams wrote: The few followers of advaita whom I had met in the past were not too familiar with Bhagvatam
That's always possible.

But no need to generalize.

Jnana doesn't preclude Bhakti.

Let's take an example.

Without fire, you can't cook rice.

But you do not throw out the water from the vessel just because you have lighted a fire.

Bhakti is like the water, and fire is like Jnana.

Without being immersed in the liquid of Bhakti, the rice won't cook with just the fire of Jnana,- you will only get half-baked, burnt rice.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

negi wrote:
Joype wrote: But, since it is established here that God is omnipresent, my question is, why should someone need an idol to worship?
You know what Joype,I guess you are asking this just for the sake of asking a question for if you really believe that God is omnipresent then you would have questioned the very need to build Mosques,Churches and Temples and not just idol worship,infact for the sake of argument I would say 'Hinduism' is consistent in its ideology and hence we have Temples and idols .
Ignorance is the root cause of any kind of Worship. Vednata actually grant worship a lower status, a tool for the beginer. All the worshippers of God are looking for Ultimate Being outside, outwardly assuming separation from Supreme Reality. Upnaishads claim whatever is out there is also here inside, there is no difference.

Alok Ji, Akasha , Shunya , out there also in side, part and parcel of us . 8)
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

[quote="S.Valkan"][quote="Kumar"] An immediate problem with ananta=Ananda:

SaguNa Brahman = sat-chit-Ananda
If Ananda = ananta, meaning nothing can be beyond it, then what happens to the nirguNa Brahman which supposedly lies “beyondâ€
Locked