God...Why?

pannvalan said:

Since human beings are capable of thinking and carrying out so many other mental
functions, we are tempted to think it is we who have created Him! Then who is the real Master?

Click to expand...

happyhindu said:

Krishna, Christ and Buddha, all three of them said i am the truth, or the way or light, each in their own way. What are your views on it?

Click to expand...

sapr333 said:

there are innumerable similarities between Lord Krisha & J.C,

Click to expand...

pannvalan said:

?

fiction of a human being?

Click to expand...

KRS said:

AAAA>>>Yes, but still, Islam accept Judaism/Christianity,where as Christianity rejects both of them. In this context, Hinduism definitely has a broad aesthetically correct thought,by accepting all/any of them..But on logical arguments, it has a issue

Shri.KRS>>>Can you elaborate as to what you mean (I have highlighted the sentence)?

Click to expand...

sapr333 said:

If one says, “All religions lead to God, I might revert: “How do we know? Have you tried them all and found God at the end of each one?”

Click to expand...

sapr333 said:

Dear Arun, bit of logic/Philosophy...

1) For every thing or happening, there is a cause behind.. So what would have been the First cause?

2) Whats the purpose of our life? Philosophically/Logically, for any actions, there should be an Objective/Goal/Purpose, right!! So why are we living here, in this world? What are we supposed to do? Whats the action plan for this life?

Could you please ponder with a little bit of philosophical or even scientific bend of mind..Curiously awaiting your response.

Click to expand...

sapr333 said:

Dear H.H,

If we look at it in the social angle, there are innumerable similarities between Lord Krisha & J.C, ie Christ &Chrishna ends up with the common Latin/Greek/Sanskrit term Chrishto. Both were sheperds,ended up the same death by shedding blood,worked for awakening the doomed society etc etc.. The main contradiction here is, Lord Krishna claimed himself coming from God and said he is 'THE way to God' where as 'JC claimed he is the son of God, and 'ONLY way to God'.

Nope, not right. That's why i asked you to read the gita. Krishna said he is the source of everything and that everything is connected to me. Please read from this page onwards: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-07-07.html and esp this: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-07-10.html; and this seems to refer to the parabrahman what the sages say: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-07-13.html

Am giving you a scenario, lemme know what you think of it:

It is very possible that probs with scriptures comes with intended meaning. Each time Krishna or Christ referred to I, apparently they were not refering to themselves, to their selves or their body. But perhaps it may be assumed that way by what some call as short-sighted ppl who cannot understand the intended meaning or do not wish to understand. When Krishna said he is the source of everything, did he mean himself?

Whenever Christ and Krishna said "I", it is believed they referred to the cosmic consciousness within themselves. Having become one with it, they found no diff b/w it and themselves. So each time they referred to the cosmic consciousness within themselves as "I". THis is what the gnostics were teaching, before the church overwrote their intended meaning with the literal meaning, since it suited the church. Does the aramaic ena-ena refer to the english "I" ?

In case of hinduism, thankfully, it is not an organized unit dependent on the 'spreading' of teachings. The sages have always explained the intended meaning and showed each soul as a "divine" being, capable of becoming one with the supreme consciousness.


Again coming back to the same point.. If Lord Krishna is right, there can also be many a god-men who can lead people to God, and its indeed a good thought in being accomodative,by which, even J.C could also be accepted as one amongst as Gods.. But if J.C's statement is right (Only way to God), then, rest of them will all get it wrong.

Please read the bhagavad gita, first please.

Yes, there are many who feel the same as the cosmic consciousness and can elevate the other to that state, Examples of people who attained various states of Samadhi are Raghavendra Swami, Ramakrishna Pramahansa, Swami Shivananda, Brahmendra swami, etc. Also heard of Mahaavtar Babaji?

There are "souls" who can take any form at will, they can heal, and do things what ppl call as '"miracles".

Also wanted to post something on Satya Sai based on someone known personally who got cured of cancer some 20 years back, when therapies were not so advanced, but the post got lost (there was some server maintainence). Well, all that a lady with terminal cancer did was to smear herself with the mix of kumkuma, vibhuti, turmeric, chandanam that fell of a pic rather continously and was collected in bowls for a period of 10 years, no chemotherapy, radiotheraphy, no medicines, except b-complex tablets. The lady is still alive.

Btw, Im presenting my facts, not based on literal interpretation/errors/translation errors/scriptural corruptions.. Im presenting my arguments, based on what the majority believers say,in line with their current form of scriptures..

I wud prefer that you present things based on your own beleifs.

PS:Regarding unresponded queries,I will definitely touch upon that subject, when relevancy comes.

Please go ahead and explain, there is no need to wait for relevancy.

Click to expand...

arunshanker said:

Sorry about this Sapr There was one BIG Dissimilarity here
Krishna was a womanizer (if thats the right word) and JC was not I guess from what I read!!!!!!
Personally I think what we know about them is not what they were anyway!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

sapr333 said:

Shri.KRS,

Earlier we have touched these subjects with the analogy of '72Houries/god of petty thiefs' (Attn: Handle H.H, Im touching your pending query here).. this time, I'm attempting it in a broader way..

Claiming all religions leads to the same truth could be definitely right in a political set up with peaceful thinking in terms of harmony, but logically its a naive view.

Hindusim accepts all paths to the one, its not a political peaceful thinking in terms of harmony,,,it is what the sages saw...they saw that all paths did eventually lead to the one. Kindly elaborate on what basis you think "logically it is a naive view"?


If that statement is true,we wouldnt have had the fights between Shivaites&Vaishnavites or we wouldnt have had those great historical debates, with Buddhists.If so,we could have ideologically/doctrinally/Philosophically (Im not talking about Society here)accomodated Buddhists too, right!!

There are sages that say hari and sivan are one, the fights are by ppl who have so much soaked in their own path, that all other paths do not seem valid to them, since they know their method of making sambar as best, sambar cooked in all other households are nice, but their own taste is most familiar and hence feels most comfortable. Probably they wish to see their own path as most popular, as just a desire as well, does not mean the essential reality of existence changes...

Buddhists are ofcourse here to stay, i think they are well accomodated by hindus, jains and buddhists themselves...when it comes to philosophy (not theology or doctrines), i don't think any philosophy can wipe out the other completely to a non-existent state..

Logically, we cannot have two truths,esp,when we evaluate a proposed truth in a higher level. For eg, Newton's law is definitely true for this visible globe, but its not applicable for the entire of universe. So Einstein's could be a 'better' truth when tested with Time&Space..So my first premise would be "There can only be one (Universal) truth about God".

All are exploring the same truth in different paths. Ekam satya vipra bahuda vadanti, the one truth gets described in various ways by the wise and the theologicians (the ones who establish various paths). The paths vary, the truth itself does not change. Sure there are various truths, as various paths, but they are not really unconnected to the other. Why do you think there can be only one universal truth about god?

Secondly,, we have to define what a religion is?. Is it just a culture or about God?According to websters, its one and only about 'God'.. So what about Charvaka/Buddhism? How can we call the one who rejects God, as also a religion? And what about Satanism/Scientology? Are all these religions gonna lead us to God?

Religion is is not about god or non-god, it is a set of beleifs. Yes, ofcourse a religion can be based on non-god. To belong to a religion, one has to adhere to its beleifs, the's all. Nothing wrong in satanism and scientology. They have the right to explore thiee path of god or non-god or whatever they beleive in. Why do you think all religions have to lead one to "god"? Why cannot it be non-god? I asked you before, i repeat it again, what do you think is "god"?

Thirdly,different religions contradict one another.For eg, eastern religions talk about 'Absolute Justice of Karma', where as west talks about 'Forgiveness of Sins, which definitely violates the Absolute Justice of 'Sow&Reap',though its right in claiming,that, its utilising the 'Absolute Love' of God for forgiveness.

Am not gonna question you on karma, because it is apparent that you have not read much on it, if not you wud not have said "absolute justice" of karma, probably you are understanding karma from a monotheistic point of view.

But you are right in saying the approach of east and west varies, east tends to be more philosophical in its approach and absorbs theology within its fold; the west is more theological in its approach and tries to absorb philopsohy within its fold. Please explain why you think forgiveness of sins violates absolute justice of sow and reap.

A god of 'absolute justice' should not be of forgiving in nature(common man's view),cos those did wrong should be punished. In this kind of contradictions, God should be having an universal formula to decide the justice, not like how we decide/think.. In this context,I think, there could be only one path to God.

Nope sorry, a common man's view may be a forgiving lord. To err is human, to forgive is divine, is actually from the vedas, yajur i think. Why do you think a god of absolute justice should not be forgiving in nature? And why does "god" (again wht is "god") need to have a universal formula to decide justice (btw, may i know what is that formula to decide "justice")? And based on this only, you think there is only one path to god? how?

Finally,yet another issue is that, each religion has its own idea about salvation/life after death. Atheists have nothing to talk about it,cos, for them, this is the only life and every thing ends with the death.. But for all, these are 'Gods Children', for some, it is illusion, an elimination of personal consciousness. For others, it is an eternity with personal consciousness. I wonder how these teachings can lead in the same direction.

What is personal consciousness? Does it get eliminated? I think you are either confused or have not understood consciousness as taught by various seers.

Also, please explain why you think atheism ends with death? Please explain what you think is salvation as well? If salvation is thru baptizement, did everyone who lived before the era of baptizement, go to hell? How about Abraham, the patriarch? http://www.godwords.org/posts.php?id=76

Not only are the teachings of christ similar to what he seems to have learned in india (have you read 'jesus lived in india' yet?), the ritual of baptizement appears to be a somewhat crude form of punyavachanam as well.

In baptizement water is poured on the person or child, whereas in punyavachanam, varuna, the water god is invoked and finally the water is spinkled to purify the place and the people, also done during namakaranam, a very indian custom, that seems to have been exported to the middle-east via the greek world. Baptizement is used in the context of original sin here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html Can you explain original sin, salvation and baptizement as per your convictions, that is, do you think they are the only ways to "god"?

If one says, “All religions lead to God, I might ask back: “How do we know? Have you tried them all and found God at the end of each one?”

From those who have found 'god' using various paths, we know that various paths are valid and do lead to "god". Just an inane question: do you think a lifetime is enuf to try each one of them? in depth i mean, not skimming over things?

From Raghavendra swamy and those who take samadhi, from Ramakrishna Paramahansa who spoke to god, from Yogananda Paramahansa, who felt the 360 degreee vision, and cud see things that happened behind him, from Mata Amritanandamayi who heals with her hugs, from Mahavtar Babaji who appears at will to anyone anywhere, we know that various paths to "god" exists. They may or may not be "religions" following doctrinal thinking (they appear to be paths that exist despite religions).

Logic says, they could all be wrong, but logic also says they can’t all be right.

You may wish to use logic to prove that only one path exists as you tried to explain here...please go ahead.

Click to expand...

happyhindu said:

You may wish to use logic to prove that only one path exists as you tried to explain here...

Click to expand...

sapr333 said:

At the moment,my stand here is, if many paths can lead us to God,then all religions are right, but say suppose if there is only path, all religions like Islam/Hinduism/Buddhism will get it wrong..

Did all the religions islam, hinduism, buddhism say all paths lead to god? Nope i don't think islam says so. I don't think buddism says there is "god" explicitely either, then where is the path? Within hindusim, each school beleives its own path is THE path. But the wise sages said all paths lead to the same destination. I specifically asked you "what do you think is god"? Please answer this first, as per your own convictions, then please proceed to using logic or speaking on anything else.

Lord Krishna also said 'I AM"..But JC said 'Only I AM'. One may seek scriptural interpretation here. As I requested earlier, lets set an argument based on what the respective religions teach in todays context and what its majority of believers follow, so that, the discussion wont get deviated.

I think you did not read my previous post previous to the one you have chosen to answer: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=22898&postcount=139

Lemme put it this way:
1) did jc really say "only i am"?
2) did jc say mean to say "only he is god" or path to god?
3) on what basis do we need to believe jc? on what basis should one hold him as god or the way to god?

Ofcourse just as JC feels like god to chrstians, hindu gods also feel like gods to hindus. Then why does not a Christian leave a hindu alone? Why does a Christian choose to obliterate native faiths time and again? Why makes a Christian go to the extent of burning libraries and ravaging land, like the spanish who erased native aztec culture? Does Christianity teach that, to spread the "word" no matter what destruction a conquistador has to bring, is a right thing to do?

Say suppose, like J.C, If lord Krishna has said 'Only I Am" the path to God, then its either JC is right or Lord Krishna is right. Both cannot be right, and one of them has to be wrong.

Why do you think both cannot be right? What if both are right? And what if Christ was elevated from yogi to god ? (btw, again, we hindus tend to treat our gurus as gods, so we have no conflict with yogis being treated as gods).


Now take the Indian Legend 'Elephant and six blind men', shared here by Shri.KRS. All religions must have, definitely some truth about God.They all could be right in one way or other in certain areas.

But the one who had touched the entire parts of Elephant definitely would reject the claim of the one who had defined the'Ear/tail' as entire elephant. Contrarily, the blind man who touched only the tail would agree with the other blind men,saying'Yes,any way we all have seen the elephant, in one or otherway' .. But the one who touched the entire parts of Elephant would definitely reject the claim of others. So out here, JC's claim of 'Im the ONLY way' to God stands closer to the one who has felt the entire Elephant..

On what basis do you say that JC felt the entire elephant? How wud you or anyone know?

My question is, interestingly, that wise blind man could have touched a 'buffallo' instead of an Elephant .. In this context JC could be totally wrong in not refering to 'True God', where as rest of them all could right!!. Then if JC is proved wrong of his exclusivity, then, the the statement 'All paths lead to god' also becomes a faulty statments, cos Fake claims cannot be a path to God.
The point here is not toleration of all religions, its about validation of all religions.

Do you think one is capable of validating religions ? on what basis? do you think you can validate religions? and do you expect your validation should be acceptable to others as well?


>>In case of hinduism, thankfully, it is not an organized unit dependent on the 'spreading' of teachings. >>

Being unorganised, is an asset or weakness?

talking about religions only, it can be both i suppose..but considering the fact that whn organized stuff falls, it fall hard, to the extent of getting fragmented into various units / denominations, so i think not being organized in terms of religion is an asset. but it wud really depend on the event, situation, etc...

Click to expand...

sapr333 said:

Shri.KRS,

Earlier we have touched these subjects with the analogy of '72Houries/god of petty thiefs' (Attn: Handle H.H, Im touching your pending query here).. this time, I'm attempting it in a broader way..

Claiming all religions leads to the same truth could be definitely right in a political set up with peaceful thinking in terms of harmony, but logically its a naive view.
What is naive about it? It is only 'naive' if you think that a religion's role is also political. Logically it is the proper view, otherwise different religions would not have come about all of whose aim is to reach Him. Even in Koran, God speaks through Gabriel to Mohammed saying that He has sent His messengers and revealed the Truth to other people that Mohammed did not know about. And having such diversity in the world in terms of culture and lifestyle, it is only logical to think that God would reveal Himself in the proper format and style suitable to specific people.

So, it is very illogical to think that there can be only one valid path leading up to Him. Not only this is illogical, it is immature to think this way, because it introduces exclusivity and favouritism by Him.
If that statement is true,we wouldnt have had the fights between Shivaites&Vaishnavites or we wouldnt have had those great historical debates, with Buddhists.If so,we could have ideologically/doctrinally/Philosophically (Im not talking about Society here)accomodated Buddhists too, right!!
This is where wisdom and ability to discriminate comes in. The Paramahamsa tested the multiple path theory by living as a muslim, a christian, a jew, a buddhist etc. He could do this, because he was a yogi, with extraordinary powers. His experience led him to say that the multiple paths lead to the same source, one same God. Such people of wisdom are very few in each religion. Because religion is cultural and faith based, it is very difficult for ordinary people to have this view in an epistemological sense. But Hindus have at least demonstrated this generally over time by 'live, let live' policy.
Logically, we cannot have two truths,esp,when we evaluate a proposed truth in a higher level. For eg, Newton's law is definitely true for this visible globe, but its not applicable for the entire of universe. So Einstein's could be a 'better' truth when tested with Time&Space..So my first premise would be "There can only be one (Universal) truth about God".
This is true if the 'Truth' you are seeking has only one dimensional solution to it. Truth here is 'God' Himself. Since every religion agrees that He revels Himself through 'messengers' or 'avatars' in different ages and circumstance, this is a situation where ALL those different paths (the teachings are the same, only the methods/physical requirements are different) are true to reach the one Truth. Again, if He is ALL MERCIFUL, I do not think that He would have waited till the year CE 0 to reveal Himself to a very small community. So, your premise on it's face is totally wrong.
Secondly,, we have to define what a religion is?. Is it just a culture or about God?According to websters, its one and only about 'God'.. So what about Charvaka/Buddhism? How can we call the one who rejects God, as also a religion? And what about Satanism/Scientology? Are all these religions gonna lead us to God?
Charvaka and Buddhism are not an atheist philosophies. At best you can say that they are agnostic. They do not dispute the existence of God, nor do they acknowledge it. Same with Scientology. But Satanism, if I am correct does not accept the existence of God and views Him as enemy. So, you can not group them all together.

By the way, there is a big difference between what is 'religion' and what is a 'cult'. Please do not mix them up with each other.
Thirdly,different religions contradict one another.For eg, eastern religions talk about 'Absolute Justice of Karma', where as west talks about 'Forgiveness of Sins, which definitely violates the Absolute Justice of 'Sow&Reap',though its right in claiming,that, its utilising the 'Absolute Love' of God for forgiveness. A god of 'absolute justice' should not be of forgiving in nature(common man's view),cos those did wrong should be punished. In this kind of contradictions, God should be having an universal formula to decide the justice, not like how we decide/think.. In this context,I think, there could be only one path to God.
Again, you are wrong here. Not all western religions talk about 'forgiveness'. Only Christanity does. Judaism and Islam do not.

By the way this is why Christianity is verymuch the way of 'Bhakthi' in Hinduism. Bhakthi is love for God and if that love is strong enough to reach Him, all Karma phalas are washed away - another way of saying that if you sincerely repent your sins (by focusing on Him), He will wash away your sins. So, again, God encompasses everything including justice and injustice, because we have started with the premise everything in the Universe was created by Him. So, you think that God is 'testing us as a 'teacher or a stern father'. This explanation does not explain reality - because this does not explain the misfortunes occurring to really good people. Theology behind such an assumption does not stand up to realities in life.
Finally,yet another issue is that, each religion has its own idea about salvation/life after death. Atheists have nothing to talk about it,cos, for them, this is the only life and every thing ends with the death.. But for all, these are 'Gods Children', for some, it is illusion, an elimination of personal consciousness. For others, it is an eternity with personal consciousness. I wonder how these teachings can lead in the same direction.
Religious cosmology is different for each religion - it is not science based. In a way, I believe somewhat in what Sri arunshaker Ji has said. We all have different notions about life after death based on out beliefs. But those beliefs, in my opinion has little to do with 'knowing' Him. These are beliefs, not scientifically verified laws. In these things a man's belief creates his own universe. But that does not mean God is not reachable if you believe that.
If one says, “All religions lead to God, I might ask back: “How do we know? Have you tried them all and found God at the end of each one?”
As I have said, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa did and said so. Other Gnanis have talked about the same. If you ask this question, then what that means is that your idea of a God is one wherein He reveals Himself selectively to one set of people and revealed only to those set of people a 'specific' way to reach Him. So, by how illogical this is, one has to say that the opposite to exclusivity must be true.
Logic says, they could all be wrong, but logic also says they can’t all be right
Problem here is you think all of these religions operate within one big logical universe. All different religions are non intersecting sets, with their own logic/solution suited to their specific followers with specific culture/lifestyle/history so that they may all reach the same end. This is the beauty of diversity in all of God's creations.

Click to expand...

sapr333 said:

At the moment,my stand here is, if many paths can lead us to God,then all religions are right, but say suppose if there is only path, all religions like Islam/Hinduism/Buddhism will get it wrong..

Lord Krishna also said 'I AM"..But JC said 'Only I AM'. One may seek scriptural interpretation here. As I requested earlier, lets set an argument based on what the respective religions teach in todays context and what its majority of believers follow, so that, the discussion wont get deviated.

Say suppose, like J.C, If lord Krishna has said 'Only I Am" the path to God, then its either JC is right or Lord Krishna is right. Both cannot be right, and one of them has to be wrong.

Now take the Indian Legend 'Elephant and six blind men', shared here by Shri.KRS. All religions must have, definitely some truth about God.They all could be right in one way or other in certain areas.

But the one who had touched the entire parts of Elephant definitely would reject the claim of the one who had defined the'Ear/tail' as entire elephant. Contrarily, the blind man who touched only the tail would agree with the other blind men,saying'Yes,any way we all have seen the elephant, in one or otherway' .. But the one who touched the entire parts of Elephant would definitely reject the claim of others. So out here, JC's claim of 'Im the ONLY way' to God stands closer to the one who has felt the entire Elephant..

My question is, interestingly, that wise blind man could have touched a 'buffallo' instead of an Elephant .. In this context JC could be totally wrong in not refering to 'True God', where as rest of them all could right!!. Then if JC is proved wrong of his exclusivity, then, the the statement 'All paths lead to god' also becomes a faulty statments, cos Fake claims cannot be a path to God.
The point here is not toleration of all religions, its about validation of all religions


>>In case of hinduism, thankfully, it is not an organized unit dependent on the 'spreading' of teachings. >>

Being unorganised, is an asset or weakness?

Click to expand...

sapthajihva said:

The concept of God is similar to the concept of time within time.

Unfathomable, infinite and beyond comprehension.

I see here from the some of the posts that the social concept of organized and harmonious living is misunderstood and hence linked to godhood. Either, the definition of god here is narrowed down to mean 'good human personalities' or there is a incapability, of the mind, to go beyond one's preferred choice (of god).

God need not be an all supreme 'separate being', rather it could be the very pervading and primeval substance out of which the entire spectrum of existence has arisen. Then, in a sense, regression would get us to the very source and progression would lead to further theories, new action/reaction sequences, etc. This satisfies the evolution theory also.

Click to expand...