God...Why?

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I am a biochemist by profession
my dream is to unravel the biochemistry of the mind and the soul
BTW you said understanding the soul
what do you think are these things? -- Soul, Mind and God --- are they really there ... do they exist? If they do what is the matter that they are made of
or they massless particles that Physicists talk about!!

Arun i found it tuf to understand this soul-stuff from the biochem angle of view. Sure we are a byproduct of all the chem reactions that take place in our brain, and there is the theory of VMAT2 that apparently is responsible for certain sensations...i did really love this god gene book: http://www.amazon.com/God-Gene-Faith-Hardwired-Genes/dp/0385500580 , but ofcourse the scientific world has just started on the idea of exploring the "mind" based on genes, and i reckon it wud take us sometime before the unravelling happens...wud be very interesting...

i do think the soul is just etherous matter, glimpses of which can become visible to ppl, either in meditation or in regression, usually as dense vaporous matter in the form of light, usually blue colored light or bright like the afternoon sunlight. ofcourse i dunno, if it is massless particles like photons..neither do my gurus seem to know..but it really is a very high probability that the soul is a single photon that experience no time, probably surrounded by vaporous ether..

Am just supposing that probably the etherous matter (incl the photon) is supported by anti-matter, just as all matter tends to be..and the anti-matter probably determines the gravitational pull of the etherous matter towards a larger light that simply gets termed as "god". Much like how the solar system is formed by the sun that pulls the planets towards itself with its gravity, and that something from the sun that pushes the planets away from itself to allow for a systemic orbit to exist (until it all lasts ofcourse, before "re-creation").

The mind, being in a conditioned state, makes it tuf to connect with the light, so i suppose its just as the gurus say, that one needs to drop or move away or beyond the mind, and allow the connect to happen....i do think its all in the genes, probably delusional, but the delusion does not explain things like premonitions, instincts, visibility beyond the seen, OBEs, etc...well, anyways, at the end of the day i really dunno to what "religion" this quest belongs to, the indian sages were into it...whatever it is, i do think its best to leave each to his own path without no interference from the other...

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapr333,

Yes, as the originator of this thread, you have every right to pull back the conversation to the original topic. However, I do not think that you have the right to make some statements and then when people ask you to elaborate to shut them off under the rubrik of 'maintaining peace and decorum'.

I also think that we have been following the topic's intent.

Seems to me again that you do not want to discuss certain specifics of a particular religion, yet you make statements about other religions very freely as Srimathi HH pointed out.

We can not escape discussing about different religions when one takes the point of view that certain religions support 'logic' while others do not. Please argue your point of view - you seem to shy away from what is on your mind and heart. If you are really looking for 'Truth' by studying/knowing different religions, then you should not shy away from talking about your take on any religion that you know.

It is disappointing that you are not answering my and Srimathi HH Ji's specific questions to you.

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr,

Once again, as the originator of this thread, I wish, the debate-format go in a broader way. At the moment, we are discussing the point 'One Path Vs Many Paths' to God. In order to maintain a harmonius engaged dialogue, we all need to stick to few norms, so that it will not create any animosity which inturn leads to the death of the discussion. I repeat again, the stand taken here is based on the 'What the respective religions/followers say, but not on what some critiques say'.Though the critiques may have a valid point, lets not poke in to this (at the moment), cos it will deviate the discussion. So questions like Original Sin/Status of souls/Gnostics/womanizer etc, are all a kind of deterrents, at this phase of discussion.

Probably you should have done this exploring before deciding to do some evaluation and validation of religions..or running a poll on the decline of hinduism or passing casual judgements on religions..

As shri.KRS rightly quoted " Divine intention is explicitly absent from the almost clinical analysis of Karma, it is implicit in it's cause. Though it a valid point,which I always agreed,but it doesnt touches the core theme here..

hmmm..so how to explore the core theme here? How to explore the idea of "one path versus many" without taking each path's beleifs like karma into account?

Also, points based on Faith/Divine may not be useful, atleast, at this stage of discussion.

??

Pls pay attention to this word 'Claim'.. Lets come out of religious mindset and analyse those 'CLAIMS' made by Lord Krishna,JC,Prophet Mohammed, Buddha etc in terms of 'Paths to reach God"..

well, they may have had some basis to make the claims they made...i suppose it depends on how they explained things without merely just stating a claim, like i am the only way..


In this context I sum it up the important points shared by the participants;-

KRS>>>Just because some only see the ear of an elephant instead of the whole animal, one can not exclude that ear being part of that animal. Small truths are also truths (Elephant-Blind man analogy)

KRS>>>Because one's religion stems from one's total place in the Universe, with social, ethnicity, language, national, psychological, emotional and intellectual capacities, practice and mores

KRS>> 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.

KRS>>there is a big difference between what is 'religion' and what is a 'cult

ARUN>>God only exists in the Human Mind!

SAPR333>> If every religion leads to God, then 'Suicide bombers are also right in reaching their claim to heaven'

SAPR333> JC claimed 'Im the God, Only way to God", Option here is JC is wrong or rest of all are wrong. And he is the only one who claimed of exclusiveness, no even Islam claimed such stand

Arun>>Here is where validity comes in as I ask how do we know that JC's claim was not fake!?

Sapthajihva>>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.

Lets take on these points and discuss futher.

since you have put forward the basis on how the discussion should be, the onus of starting the discussing based on these points shd also begin with you..so please explain what you think about each of the points mentioned by Shri KRSji, Arun and Sapthajihva.

 

[arunshanker]

Thanks Sapr for giving me two slots
the mind thing I cant say anymore
but I want to further the discussion with this "Arun>>Here is where validity comes in as I ask how do we know that JC's claim was not fake!?"
All refs are to the New international Bible here
Actually this takes us to the root of the saying is John 14:6 -"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" now if we see why JC said this. In John 14 : 1-4 JC says "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going
Here note that JC assumes that Thomas and the other Apostles know the way
But gets an unexpected retort from Thomas "5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Now JC was stymied ( Actually I will writing about the author of this gospel because primarily we shoudl infer this as the authors words) He had to say something so he said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
This is not thesynoptic tradition but the apostolic or canonical tradition
An important point to note here is that the three synopitc gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthwe never say this " I am the way" The Gospel of John differs significantly in theme, content, time duration, order of events, and style, reflecting a Christian tradition different from that of the synoptics. The liberal Christians have siad that the two or more unknown authors have written it as against John the apostle himself
John's gospel differs in ethos and theological emphases and Godifyies JC unlike the synoptic ones
hence my take is that this was written much later to the skeptical and the suspecting initial converts and the orthodox Jews at large who actually started questioning is JC=God and rejected JC without further thought
whereas in the synopitcs humanity was emphasized for Gentile audience who were non-Israelite tribes or nations. But Jews would not accept this and hence a canon had to come with JC as God
SO here I would say that JC never said that "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
which is actually a good conclusion because that absolves him of not only the accusation that he is showing a fake path but also a sense of arrogance in the tone. Actually John makes God a very jealous and highly discriminatory and these qualities DeGodifies the God and makes him more human and that too a not good human

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapr333,
In spite of my opinions abouve, in the spirit of discussion let me address specifically the two points you have raised (my response in 'blue')

SAPR333>> If every religion leads to God, then 'Suicide bombers are also right in reaching their claim to heaven'
Killing innocent lives is explicitly forbidden in Holy Kroran. So this act does not belong to Islam or any other religion and so your question is wrong on it's premise to start with.

SAPR333> JC claimed 'Im the God, Only way to God", Option here is JC is wrong or rest of all are wrong. And he is the only one who claimed of exclusiveness, no even Islam claimed such stand
If one believes that JC said that, then one must ask oneself a question - what is the context. Please remember, he is answering 'Doubting Thomas's question. So, in that context, trying to explain to one doubting person, he said whatever he was supposed to have said. This is the only charitable explanation one can give to this expression, IF THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.

In fact, this is the same expression that alienates Islam, which recognizes Christ as a 'messenger', not as God. So, if one accepts JC as a 'messenger', then there is a better and newer 'messenger' in Mohammed.

Again, if one does not accept this assertion, then JC is an 'avatar' or incarnation of Godhead, which then leads one to accept all other avatars in Hinduism. If one does (as sapr333 equated JC with Krishna), then the exclusivity falls by the way side. So either way, this statement becomes logically unsupportable.
Lets take on these points and discuss futher.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sapthajihva]

If we were to debate on claims, then undoubtedly, the first such instance has to be accorded higher authority. I say this, because latter claims could have been done with the knowledge of the former.

Krishna in Chapter 15, verse 15 of the Bhagvad Gita says:

'I am the indwelling monitor in the heart of all beings, from Me arises consciousness, wisdom, and forgetfulness; verily I am to be known by the Vedas, I am the compiler of the Vedas and the knower of the meaning of the Vedas.'

Dating of the Mahabharatha war, though contentious, can be safely assumed to be at least a thousand years prior to the birth of Jesus. (The Mahabharatha War is believed to be at least 3000 years before the common era)

With this info, can we conclude that the first claim is THE right one and hence authoritative over all other subsequent claims?

 

[arunshanker]

Arun i found it tuf to understand this soul-stuff from the biochem angle of view. Sure we are a byproduct of all the chem reactions that take place in our brain, and there is the theory of VMAT2 that apparently is responsible for certain sensations...i did really love this god gene book: http://www.amazon.com/God-Gene-Faith-Hardwired-Genes/dp/0385500580 , but ofcourse the scientific world has just started on the idea of exploring the "mind" based on genes, and i reckon it wud take us sometime before the unravelling happens...wud be very interesting...

i do think the soul is just etherous matter, glimpses of which can become visible to ppl, either in meditation or in regression, usually as dense vaporous matter in the form of light, usually blue colored light or bright like the afternoon sunlight. ofcourse i dunno, if it is massless particles like photons..neither do my gurus seem to know..but it really is a very high probability that the soul is a single photon that experience no time, probably surrounded by vaporous ether..

Am just supposing that probably the etherous matter (incl the photon) is supported by anti-matter, just as all matter tends to be..and the anti-matter probably determines the gravitational pull of the etherous matter towards a larger light that simply gets termed as "god". Much like how the solar system is formed by the sun that pulls the planets towards itself with its gravity, and that something from the sun that pushes the planets away from itself to allow for a systemic orbit to exist (until it all lasts ofcourse, before "re-creation").

The mind, being in a conditioned state, makes it tuf to connect with the light, so i suppose its just as the gurus say, that one needs to drop or move away or beyond the mind, and allow the connect to happen....i do think its all in the genes, probably delusional, but the delusion does not explain things like premonitions, instincts, visibility beyond the seen, OBEs, etc...well, anyways, at the end of the day i really dunno to what "religion" this quest belongs to, the indian sages were into it...whatever it is, i do think its best to leave each to his own path without no interference from the other...

I like that looks like someone thinks like me in this forum after all LOL!
That is why I say that mind can be explained biochemically or at least can be altered biochemically
There is an assortment of psychoactive drugs that are used recreationally to purposefully alter one's consciousness, as entheogens for ritual or spiritual purposes, as a tool for studying or augmenting the mind.

 

[sapthajihva]

Arun and Happy, one question for you both - What material/substance is thought made of?

 

[arunshanker]

Arun and Happy, one question for you both - What material/substance is thought made of?

Let me "Think" LOL

 

[arunshanker]

If we were to debate on claims, then undoubtedly, the first such instance has to be accorded higher authority. I say this, because latter claims could have been done with the knowledge of the former.

Krishna in Chapter 15, verse 15 of the Bhagvad Gita says:

'I am the indwelling monitor in the heart of all beings, from Me arises consciousness, wisdom, and forgetfulness; verily I am to be known by the Vedas, I am the compiler of the Vedas and the knower of the meaning of the Vedas.'

Dating of the Mahabharatha war, though contentious, can be safely assumed to be at least a thousand years prior to the birth of Jesus. (The Mahabharatha War is believed to be at least 3000 years before the common era)

With this info, can we conclude that the first claim is THE right one and hence authoritative over all other subsequent claims?

Firstly to know which path is right we have to know what was said by whom but here logic really says we should question was it said at all? I went to a great extant in trying to answer the question on what is said in John 14:6
Secondly the Mahabharata should not be brought it here, it is the Geetha we are talking about
it is generally accepted that it was inserted in the Bhishma parva much later in the textual evolution of the epic Mahabharata
The origin of the Geetha is definitely in the pre-Christian era. The date of composition and the author of the Geetha is not known with certainty. Scholars have opined that the date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita is between the 5th and the 2nd century BC. That makes it close enough for JC or other Greeko-Buddhist to know about this. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Buddhist influence spread to the Essenes a type of tribe in Israel that lived in monkish style and [/FONT]Let me remind you that a lot of scholars consider JC belonging to the Nazarene Essene tribe (The historical JC I mean) early life of JC is unknown bibilically and extra bibilicaly. What we do know is that Jesus was considered a Therapeutae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae) and the word itself was hellinisation of the pali word Thera putra meaning the Elder Son and so is what the JC cliamed to be. SO there is every chance that JC knew [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Buddhist teachings and possibliy the Gita. [/FONT]Whats again importnat here is that who authored the Geetha is not known with certainty (please note that I am not being skeptical about religious texts I am just assuming that no text has been revealed but all the texts have actually been composed and has had a considerable textual evolution) the analysis of the text itself differences of style and by linguistic and other peculiarities, that it was composed at different times and by different hands.
Now please if someone here can tell exactly where the Quote " I am" from Geetha has been lifted here in the discussion
I understand it is something like this I am the way, sustainer, lord,
witness, shelter, refuge, friend, source, dissolution, stability, treasure, and unchanging seed
can some tell me the Chapter and the verse
I will go further in my next post

 

[sapthajihva]

Firstly to know which path is right we have to know what was said by whom but here logic really says we should question was it said at all? I went to a great extant in trying to answer the question on what is said in John 14:6
Secondly the Mahabharata should not be brought it here, it is the Geetha we are talking about
it is generally accepted that it was inserted in the Bhishma parva much later in the textual evolution of the epic Mahabharata
The origin of the Geetha is definitely in the pre-Christian era. The date of composition and the author of the Geetha is not known with certainty. Scholars have opined that the date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita is between the 5th and the 2nd century BC. That makes it close enough for JC or other greeko budhists to knwo about his. Let me remind you that early life of JC is unknown bibilically and extra bibilicaly. Whats again importnat here is that who authored the Geetha is not known with certainty (please note that I am not being skeptical about religios texts I am just assuming that no text has been revealed but all the texts have actually been composed and has had a considerable textual evolution) the analysis of the text itself differences of style and by linguistic and other peculiarities, that it was composed at different times and by different hands.
Now please if someone here can tell exactly where the Quote " I am" from Geetha has been lifted here in the discussion
I understand it is something like this I am the way, sustainer, lord,
witness, shelter, refuge, friend, source, dissolution, stability, treasure, and unchanging seed
can some tell me the Chapter and the verse
i will go furhter in my next post

Yes, you are right in saying that we should question all the claims, but my reply was restricted to the evaluation of the claims within themselves.

The Gita is a revelation, which happened during the Mahabharatha war. You used the word 'compose' and inferred it to mean that the text form was not available. But these were/are termed 'shrutis' ie., they were passed on through the 'sound' medium.

Of course, the sceptic can always question the oral, but does it not apply to the textual too?

The verse from Gita which says 'I am' is from Chapter 10 verse 8:

'I am the original generating cause of all causes, everything emanates from Me; comprehending this the spiritually endowed with devotional sentiments become devoted unto Me.'

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/ - This is a link on BG, just in case.

 

[arunshanker]

sapthajihva said "If we were to debate on claims, then undoubtedly, the first such instance has to be accorded higher authority. I say this, because latter claims could have been done with the knowledge of the former".
That will put us in a fair deal of fix here
seems everybody ignored the old testament God and Jewish theology any views here HH, SAP and KRS ?
The Old testament God was almost running hand in hand with the early Hindu God

 

[arunshanker]

Sapta said "The verse from Gita which says 'I am' is from Chapter 10 verse 8: 'I am the original generating cause of all causes, everything emanates from Me; comprehending this the spiritually endowed with devotional sentiments become devoted unto Me.'
Now please I need Sapr's attention is this the above verse we are discussing here?
If so then the whole string will change if we take this on with John 14:6
and if it is not can Sap please quote the exact verse we are discussing on?

 

[sapr333]

Dear Arun,

Its up to each one us to make comparison of scriptures and stake claims/ or make our own interpretation. I suggest, lets not go deep in to the scriptures (and waste time), rather, lets work on the modalities of 'What in gerneral the religions claim'..

Given a chance, I would interpret the above verse from Holy Gita as , 'Lord Krishna could be the Only God' and his path could be the only True religion.

For argument sake, if we consider Lord Krisha as the only cause-for-cause (ie only True God), then the logic would tend to be,1) Lord Krishna is the Ulitmate Only True God 2)Automatically J.C will become fake God 3)There cannot be 'Two True Gods of Ultimate', so, accordingly the common statement 'All religions lead to same path' becomes wrong..

This is the approach which Im looking at, than digging deep in to scriptures.

In this context, I do agree with Shri.KRS response about 'Suicide Bombers-Taliban', I take back my statement (for a while), cos thats not 'relevant' to what Islam in generally claims.

Also, Saptajiva has an interesting point.. ' "If we were to debate on claims, then undoubtedly, the first such instance has to be accorded higher authority. I say this, because latter claims could have been done with the knowledge of the former"

Ultimate truth may not have any time lines.. Truth can be the oldest or the latest one and cannot be weighted by its age, like a JackDaniel/Johhnywalker.. It we rely by the 'age' of Truth,then Mandicore/Apollo/Sumerians would have been the owners of the 'Ultimate Truth about God'

If Saptajiva infers,that JC copied it from Lord Krishna, and added a world "ONLY" to his claim of GOD, then, one needs to substantiate (which is again is NOT this thread's cup of tea to do research on scriptures/history), rather, lets see what in General ,the majority of followers of those religions claim on this dispute..

Btw, I welcome SaptaJiva here... His posts reminds me of SeshSubra

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Arun,

Its up to each one us to make comparison of scriptures and stake claims/ or make our own interpretation. I suggest, lets not go deep in to the scriptures (and waste time), rather, lets work on the modalities of 'What in gerneral the religions claim'..

Skimming to make inferences and judgements don't help. My mum and I look different so r u gonna say we are unrelated ....the more one seems to understand things in some depth the similarities seem to come out..one cannot judge books by their covers alone..

Given a chance, I would interpret the above verse from Holy t Gita as , 'Lord Krishna could be the Only God' and his path could be the only True religion.

For argument sake, if we consider Lord Krisha as the only cause-for-cause (ie only True God), then the logic would tend to be,1) Lord Krishna is the Ulitmate Only True God 2)Automatically J.C will become fake God 3)There cannot be 'Two True Gods of Ultimate', so, accordingly the common statement 'All religions lead to same path' becomes wrong..

Why do you think two ppl cannot speak the same thing? Or rather why do you think two ppl cannot be mentioning abt the same path? Your argument that there can be only one path, one god of the physically seen type sounds rather illogical to me.


This is the approach which Im looking at, than digging deep in to scriptures.

is this the only approach u have?

In this context, I do agree with Shri.KRS response about 'Suicide Bombers-Taliban', I take back my statement (for a while), cos thats not 'relevant' to what Islam in generally claims.

Also, Saptajiva has an interesting point.. ' "If we were to debate on claims, then undoubtedly, the first such instance has to be accorded higher authority. I say this, because latter claims could have been done with the knowledge of the former"

Ultimate truth may not have any time lines.. Truth can be the oldest or the latest one and cannot be weighted by its age, like a JackDaniel/Johhnywalker.. It we rely by the 'age' of Truth,then Mandicore/Apollo/Sumerians would have been the owners of the 'Ultimate Truth about God'

the quest for "god" is as old as human intelligence. The sumerians are no different from the indians or greeks, human origins are either common or overlap somewhere or the other.

If Saptajiva infers,that JC copied it from Lord Krishna, and added a world "ONLY" to his claim of GOD, then, one needs to substantiate (which is again is NOT this thread's cup of tea to do research on scriptures/history), rather, lets see what in General ,the majority of followers of those religions claim on this dispute..

I think this shd be explored further in this thread itself.

Btw, I welcome SaptaJiva here... His posts reminds me of SeshSubra
somehow this poster is not reminding me of sesh.

just some inputs.

 

[sapr333]

>>There are sages that say hari and sivan are one>>Buddhists are ofcourse here to stay, i think they are well accomodated by hindus, jains and buddhists themselves.>>>

Dear HH,

In order to stay focussed on the theme, I take back my statement on Shivites&Vaisnavites. But then I'm still wondering how can Buddha be equated to another God of a religion, which doesnt suit philosophically. Two contradicting philosophies cannnot be views as Single philosophy.. Hindus accomodating Buddhists is a political/social set up,but not a philosophical accomodation.

Earlier, in another thread where we were debating about God&Philosophy, Shri.TBS asked you a question..By another hundred years, one may make Gandhi also as God! Do you still agree with that.


>>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.>>

You are partly right here.. Religion is all about few set of beliefs supernatural powers /Divine power. In this context, I cannot agree with the thought of mixing/identifying God with a particular Culture/Nationality.. Yes.Shri.KRS said, as religions grew up in particular localities,it naturally got an identity of it.. True, but, God of that religion will not confine himself to a culture. Rather, he is for the whole universe..

>>>Please explain why you think forgiveness of sins violates absolute justice of sow and reap. >>

The first appeal I get over Karma Vs Forgivenes of sin, and my vote goes to Karma. It is defnitely a right/simple view and stands for Absolute Justice nature of God and goes well with nature and without any divine intevention also. Why we put the robber in Jail, because,we want to deliver justice to the robber and society..One who sows should reap..It also appeals to me from the Jealous God of JC, who condemns every one straight to hell-fire, instead of the choice given in karma to refine myself, through next birth suffering..

But it misses the point of Absolute love of God (I feel so, and I may be wrong)..Again, if we keep aside God/Divinity out of Karma, and call it a natural law, then, if we take a world view out of it (atleast Indian view out of it), it makes any one ponder, is that because 'Natural law of Karma' that 600Mn people were forced to be viewed as 'Second class'? Could that be a right idology. Again I may be wrong here.. But....

With this, I have intentionally skipped the rest of your questions, just to drive my point 'Thread-Theme". We will take up this point, once there is a relevancy comes.Im sure you would be having very much a valid points to rebut my view on Karma, and possibly you could be 100% true also.But we both would be running another 50posts rebutting each other. In the process, we wont be touching any single point on the current running topic "All paths lead to God''.Subsequently, other fellow posters also will shift the discussion..And each one will throw few salvos.. End results.. Again the discussion will come to a grind halt...

Yes, in a thread, some of the statements of a person could be wrong..Lets skip those,than trying to prove somebody wrong there.Lets discuss the core points in a such a way, that, we are exchanging ideas.

One may end up in loosing an argument in terms of God and Religion.. That doesnt mean, God will also feel lost and embarassed, and gets locked up in his Kitchen..

Btw, I may also break the rules un-knowingly.. But please dont hesitate to point it out.. thanks in advance

 

[sapr333]

Dear HH,
Whenever you valid countering points, I never hesitated to respond back...I liked this point very much.

>>Why do you think two ppl cannot speak the same thing? Or rather why do you think two ppl cannot be mentioning abt the same path? Your argument that there can be only path, one god of the physically seen type sounds rather illogical to me.>>>

In nutshell, two people cannot calim that they both were 'The ONLY Path To God'.. It defeats the purpose..

Yes, if I could interpret your point in a different way, Yes, they both were carrying the same path to the Ultimate God, but cannot accept both of them claiming exclusive authority to God..(for argument sake, and as per Aruns scriptural quote, lets say Lord Krishna also claime exclusiveness over God)

Upon your clarifications on this, then we have a valid point to discuss.. Here I would definitely touch your earlier unanswered queries like Original sin/Life after death/reincarnation/forgiveness of sins/Karma etc..


>>Sapr, The quest for god is as old as human intelligence. The sumerians are no different from the indians nor greeks, human origins are either common or overlap somewhere or the other.>>

HH, I perfectly agree with you first line..We moved from animal sacrifice to worship and rituals in the last 2000Yrs. Animals dont have any quest for God, and they cannot be equated with humans.. So is the difference of morals between an animal and human...At this juncture, we all are in exploring about the ultimate truth about that 'Man on Sky'.. the mystic super man, called God.. I do fully agree with you



>>>>>>>If Saptajiva infers,that JC copied it from Lord Krishna, and added a world "ONLY" to his claim of GOD, then, one needs to substantiate (which is again is NOT this thread's cup of tea to do research on scriptures/history), rather, lets see what in General ,the majority of followers of those religions claim on this dispute..

Sapr, I think this shd be explored further in this thread itself.>>

If majority of followers of Lord Krishna feels that J.C copied his teachings from him, then I have no issues.. Lets substantiate it.


>>Sapr , nope this poster does not remind me of sesh.>.

HH, thanks for the alert. .. Still Im terribly missing handle Sheshadri Subramonium here ..

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Arun,

Its up to each one us to make comparison of scriptures and stake claims/ or make our own interpretation. I suggest, lets not go deep in to the scriptures (and waste time), rather, lets work on the modalities of 'What in gerneral the religions claim'..

Given a chance, I would interpret the above verse from Holy Gita as , 'Lord Krishna could be the Only God' and his path could be the only True religion.

For argument sake, if we consider Lord Krisha as the only cause-for-cause (ie only True God), then the logic would tend to be,1) Lord Krishna is the Ulitmate Only True God 2)Automatically J.C will become fake God 3)There cannot be 'Two True Gods of Ultimate', so, accordingly the common statement 'All religions lead to same path' becomes wrong..

This is the approach which Im looking at, than digging deep in to scriptures.

In this context, I do agree with Shri.KRS response about 'Suicide Bombers-Taliban', I take back my statement (for a while), cos thats not 'relevant' to what Islam in generally claims.

Also, Saptajiva has an interesting point.. ' "If we were to debate on claims, then undoubtedly, the first such instance has to be accorded higher authority. I say this, because latter claims could have been done with the knowledge of the former"

Ultimate truth may not have any time lines.. Truth can be the oldest or the latest one and cannot be weighted by its age, like a JackDaniel/Johhnywalker.. It we rely by the 'age' of Truth,then Mandicore/Apollo/Sumerians would have been the owners of the 'Ultimate Truth about God'

If Saptajiva infers,that JC copied it from Lord Krishna, and added a world "ONLY" to his claim of GOD, then, one needs to substantiate (which is again is NOT this thread's cup of tea to do research on scriptures/history), rather, lets see what in General ,the majority of followers of those religions claim on this dispute..

Btw, I welcome SaptaJiva here... His posts reminds me of SeshSubra

Dear Sap
you seem to back track and take back your word once too often!
Make sure you post something you can stick by
and you also give us all a do's and dont's in the posts
You say "lets see what in General" here let me remind you that the majority of the followers JUST FOLLOW and don't question! I wud like to discuss things with people who tend to question
for example-- John 14:6 implies JC as the only God. But in the later years of Christianity around 300 BCE Arianism which is the theological teaching of Arius dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not of one substance with the Father and that there had been a time before he existed. Arius was an early Christian and true in his faith. But the mistake he made was to question!?
The First Council of Nicaea was called for to make him a heretic. you then again talked about toleration and validation- here i wud mention that neither was present in Christianity. The Papal supremacy did not have a semblance of tolerenace to any other religion (in spite of their pagan origins) nor did it allow validation of its own religion ( In fact I wud add that this was a BOON in Disguise as this attitude gave rise to the Rennaisance and the new world order in spite of burning at stakes and in fact I wish the Hindu religious gurus were this strict and politically coercive on religion then prbly we here in the east wud have had a Rennaisance too!)
The theological origins of this religion was more a dictatorship like political activism by Constantine who called the above council to impose the religion on everyone and clearly stated that those who opposed the Creed are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
In short nobody could actually debate on John 14:6 let alone question
But in the case of Geetha ( unknown author and unknown exact date but surely BCE) there was no coercion and there was allowance for free thinking. I think that was a better God and a better path towards God (BUT unfortunately no Rennaisance) My (our) ancestors just followed because we did not have competition here like what was happing in Mid and not so Mid West ( Pagan-- Greek _ Roman and Jew Gods and their respective FOLLOWERS fighting with each other!)
and whats more is I buy this argument by HH >>Why do you think two ppl cannot speak the same thing? Or rather why do you think two ppl cannot be mentioning abt the same path? Your argument that there can be only path, one god of the physically seen type sounds rather illogical to me.>>>
You said "If Saptajiva infers,that JC copied it from Lord Krishna, and added a world "ONLY" to his claim of GOD, then, one needs to substantiate"
and also you said about John 14:6. Now what I say is before saying that JC copied that from Krish why dont we go around substantiate if JC said that at all? In fact I have come close to trying to reason out that JC might have copied in my post #160

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri arunshanker Ji,

Old testament God is a pure Dwaitha God. And from where the expression 'God fearing' came about. It was about brimstone and fire.

By the time Upanishads came about, the Vedic God was predominantly 'advaithic'.

The former is rooted in a culture that was predominantly external looking and therefore somewhat materialistic. Hence the giving of 'moral code' and law were the result.

The latter was mainly inward looking and hence, Karma and Dharma were the results.

Regards,
KRS

sapthajihva said "If we were to debate on claims, then undoubtedly, the first such instance has to be accorded higher authority. I say this, because latter claims could have been done with the knowledge of the former".
That will put us in a fair deal of fix here
seems everybody ignored the old testament God and Jewish theology any views here HH, SAP and KRS ?
The Old testament God was almost running hand in hand with the early Hindu God

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Sri arunshanker Ji,

Old testament God is a pure Dwaitha God. And from where the expression 'God fearing' came about. It was about brimstone and fire.

By the time Upanishads came about, the Vedic God was predominantly 'advaithic'.

The former is rooted in a culture that was predominantly external looking and therefore somewhat materialistic. Hence the giving of 'moral code' and law were the result.

The latter was mainly inward looking and hence, Karma and Dharma were the results.

Regards,
KRS

Thanks KRS ji
I take that for now I will get back after research!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapr333,

Since your response to Sri arunshanker Ji contains many points we have touched upon, let me respond in 'blue':

Dear Arun,

Its up to each one us to make comparison of scriptures and stake claims/ or make our own interpretation. I suggest, lets not go deep in to the scriptures (and waste time), rather, lets work on the modalities of 'What in gerneral the religions claim'..
If we are going to do a comparative analysis of each religion's claim how can one do so in a 'general' way?
Given a chance, I would interpret the above verse from Holy Gita as , 'Lord Krishna could be the Only God' and his path could be the only True religion.
You are partially correct. Yes, Lord Krishna is the only God, but more importantly, the message of Gita is that we all have this substance we call 'God' in us and in that sense we are all 'Gods'. I think your own vision of God in a monotheistic way is preventing you to understand this.

Even in Gita, it says that there no 'one path' to rech the goal. It enumerates at least four different paths to reach Him. These are called Yogas. (Karma, Bhakthi, Gnana and Raja). Sure even within Gita, we speak of multiple paths.
For argument sake, if we consider Lord Krisha as the only cause-for-cause (ie only True God), then the logic would tend to be,1) Lord Krishna is the Ulitmate Only True God 2)Automatically J.C will become fake God 3)There cannot be 'Two True Gods of Ultimate', so, accordingly the common statement 'All religions lead to same path' becomes wrong..
Your assertion #2 is wrong on logical grounds. This assumption presupposes that God can not reveal Himself twice in two different human forms during different epochs. Once you admit that God can come as a human, why restrict Him to only one time appearence? I think again your monotheistic world view which does not accept multiple births for humans is not allowing you to see the logical extension. Remember, God is all powerful.
This is the approach which Im looking at, than digging deep in to scriptures.

In this context, I do agree with Shri.KRS response about 'Suicide Bombers-Taliban', I take back my statement (for a while), cos thats not 'relevant' to what Islam in generally claims.

Also, Saptajiva has an interesting point.. ' "If we were to debate on claims, then undoubtedly, the first such instance has to be accorded higher authority. I say this, because latter claims could have been done with the knowledge of the former"

Ultimate truth may not have any time lines.. Truth can be the oldest or the latest one and cannot be weighted by its age, like a JackDaniel/Johhnywalker.. It we rely by the 'age' of Truth,then Mandicore/Apollo/Sumerians would have been the owners of the 'Ultimate Truth about God'

If Saptajiva infers,that JC copied it from Lord Krishna, and added a world "ONLY" to his claim of GOD, then, one needs to substantiate (which is again is NOT this thread's cup of tea to do research on scriptures/history), rather, lets see what in General ,the majority of followers of those religions claim on this dispute..
The issue here is you are wanting to 'logically' select which God is a true God, based on the claims of different religion's followers, who base those claims on 'FAITH' not logic. This is why one can not arrive at a place where one religion will be crowned King at the expense of all other religions.

Religions are tools given by the almighty based on culture and the way of living of certain people to TRY to understand HIM, who by the way is beyond understanding by mind.

Btw, I welcome SaptaJiva here... His posts reminds me of SeshSubra

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear srisapr333,

My response also on this - in 'blue':

>>There are sages that say hari and sivan are one>>Buddhists are ofcourse here to stay, i think they are well accomodated by hindus, jains and buddhists themselves.>>>

Dear HH,

In order to stay focussed on the theme, I take back my statement on Shivites&Vaisnavites. But then I'm still wondering how can Buddha be equated to another God of a religion, which doesnt suit philosophically. Two contradicting philosophies cannnot be views as Single philosophy.. Hindus accomodating Buddhists is a political/social set up,but not a philosophical accomodation.
Because, in the end the wise understand that like we have different spoken languages and we have different terms in each one to call, let us say, 'rice', all of them point to the same kernel. God reveals Himself to the tastes of the followers. This is why, this is not a linear logical riddle as you seem to think it is.
Earlier, in another thread where we were debating about God&Philosophy, Shri.TBS asked you a question..By another hundred years, one may make Gandhi also as God! Do you still agree with that.
Buddha never claimed he was God. People who follow him made him a God. In that respect what is to prevent some people sanctifying Gandhi Ji as 'God?'. But in Hinduism, I doubt it will happen, because he is not considered as an Avatar, only a Maha Atma today.
>>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.>>

You are partly right here.. Religion is all about few set of beliefs supernatural powers /Divine power. In this context, I cannot agree with the thought of mixing/identifying God with a particular Culture/Nationality.. Yes.Shri.KRS said, as religions grew up in particular localities,it naturally got an identity of it.. True, but, God of that religion will not confine himself to a culture. Rather, he is for the whole universe..
Oh, why then, God of Abraham spoke in Hebrew, why JC spoke in Aramaic, why God spoke in Arabic to Mohammed through Gabriel and why Vedas are composed in Sanskrit? Why did He not thrust Himself on various people through one Univarsal language that everyone can understand all the world over?
>>>Please explain why you think forgiveness of sins violates absolute justice of sow and reap. >>

The first appeal I get over Karma Vs Forgivenes of sin, and my vote goes to Karma. It is defnitely a right/simple view and stands for Absolute Justice nature of God and goes well with nature and without any divine intevention also. Why we put the robber in Jail, because,we want to deliver justice to the robber and society..One who sows should reap..It also appeals to me from the Jealous God of JC, who condemns every one straight to hell-fire, instead of the choice given in karma to refine myself, through next birth suffering..

But it misses the point of Absolute love of God (I feel so, and I may be wrong)..Again, if we keep aside God/Divinity out of Karma, and call it a natural law, then, if we take a world view out of it (atleast Indian view out of it), it makes any one ponder, is that because 'Natural law of Karma' that 600Mn people were forced to be viewed as 'Second class'? Could that be a right idology. Again I may be wrong here.. But....
Love of God in any religion is not spontaneous on His part. As I told you before, one has to work for it (usually through prayers, Bhakthi). The 600 mn people in India came about because of the wrong application of divine law by man, not because God wanted them to be. The same happened, as we discussed many, many times here in religions where there was supposed to be Universal love. Untouchability is a social problem based on mooda nambikkai, same as Spanis inquisition was a social problem based on different sets of mooda nambikkai. Please do not think that the Varna system alone contributed to untouchability. Same as Christian theology of love did not contribute solely to the inquisitions and the compulsory conversions of heathens. I am not even going to talk about Islam here.

With this, I have intentionally skipped the rest of your questions, just to drive my point 'Thread-Theme". We will take up this point, once there is a relevancy comes.Im sure you would be having very much a valid points to rebut my view on Karma, and possibly you could be 100% true also.But we both would be running another 50posts rebutting each other. In the process, we wont be touching any single point on the current running topic "All paths lead to God''.Subsequently, other fellow posters also will shift the discussion..And each one will throw few salvos.. End results.. Again the discussion will come to a grind halt...

Yes, in a thread, some of the statements of a person could be wrong..Lets skip those,than trying to prove somebody wrong there.Lets discuss the core points in a such a way, that, we are exchanging ideas.

One may end up in loosing an argument in terms of God and Religion.. That doesnt mean, God will also feel lost and embarassed, and gets locked up in his Kitchen..
Only if one sees that there is only one way for humans to follow to reach Him, your statement is correct. But as we have argued elsewhere, you seem to be confusing the existence of one God with the existence of one single way to reach Him.

Btw, I may also break the rules un-knowingly.. But please dont hesitate to point it out.. thanks in advance

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapr333,

I just want to make sure to let you know where I am coming from:

While arguing above against the 'God only through me' as a universal logic, my thinking is that all the scriptures and theology and philosophy of a particular religion applies only to it's followers. For a Christian, God is probably through JC.

In matters of faith, which is intertwined with culture, no logic will show one religion as a superior path compared to others.

I hope you understand. My intention is not to question or look down upon anyone's faith as either inferior or illogical.

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

Thanks much Shri KRS-ji.
Sapr, please take KRS-ji's inputs as mine as well while answering.

I like that looks like someone thinks like me in this forum after all LOL!
That is why I say that mind can be explained biochemically or at least can be altered biochemically
There is an assortment of psychoactive drugs that are used recreationally to purposefully alter one's consciousness, as entheogens for ritual or spiritual purposes, as a tool for studying or augmenting the mind.

Our neurotransmitters ofcourse decide in a large way why we feel what we feel, and they are in turn decided by genes and influenced by environment..

Chemicals do alter us emotionally, mentally...during a spinal anesthesia abt ten years back, i saw spirals of various colors while passing out, and then met with a late guru in a knocked off state, he spoke a lot on death and i remember it even now. While an anesthetist is able to explain the process of unconsciousness, he is not able to explain why diff patients have diff experiances after becoming unconscious, though depending on the drug, some experinces may be common to some patients...

i suppose there is still some time to go before a lot of things are understood with certainity by science...

Arun and Happy, one question for you both - What material/substance is thought made of?

This wud remind anyone of the first line in bs, athathobrahmajigyasa..

No material / substance...the only answer i can think of is that thots occur to us based on previous states of energy. Its like a system of flux, where the current event and thot happens based on a previous event. Meaning, the events are thots and vice-versa, occuring in a state of methodic randomness..And the probablity of a current event happening from an accumulated sanchita, i think is not computable, atleast for now.

A differentiated conditioned state does not happen unless both sides or all sides of an experiance are felt, either currently or have been felt previously. Therefore it wud be rather impossible to fill in all forms of experiences in a database, and then decide the probablity of which experience is going to happen within the next one minute, from the random innumerable experiences of the sanchita karma. That's one reason i do beleive in "surrender" to this possiblity as surrender to the "divine". This "divine" is called by so many names...all the same "one".

 

[sapthajihva]

The crux

I reproduce, verbatim, some verses from the BG from the site quoted earlier:

"Chapter 7,

Verse 4

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, spiritual intelligence and false ego; thus these are the eightfold divisions of My external energy.

Verse 5

O mighty armed one, this external energy is inferior, but superior to this, you should know another, My marginal energy comprising the embodied souls of all living entities by which this material world is utilized.

Verse 6

Be aware that everything living are manifested by these two energies of Mine; I am the creator, the sustainer and the destroyer of all the worlds.

Verse 7

O Arjuna there is nothing superior to Me; everything existing is connected to Me like pearls on a thread.

Verse 8

O Arjuna, I am the sweetness of flavour in water, the radiant luster of the sun and the moon; the primordial root syllable Aum within all the Vedas; the subsonic element of sound in ether and the ability in man.

Verse 9

I am the original fragrance in the Earth, the heat in fire and the vitality of all beings; also I am tolerance in those who perform austerities.

Verse 10

O Arjuna, try to understand me as the eternal origin of all living entities. I am the wisdom of the spiritually intelligent and the prowess of the powerful.

Verse 11

O Arjuna, I am the strength of the strong devoid of attachment and passion and the energy of procreation in all beings which is not contrary to righteousness.

Verse 12

Know that all states of beings of being in the mode of goodnes, the mode of passion and whatever is in the mode of ignorance as being manifested by Me alone; but I am not within them, they are within Me.

Verse 13

This complete universe is deluded by the threefold condition of the modes of the external energy; certainly no one knows Me, who is beyond them, Immutable and Supreme.

Verse 14

This divine illusion of Mine, consisting of the three modes of the external energy, certainly is difficult to overcome; but those who surrender unto Me, they only are abe to surmount this illusory energy.

Verse 15

The depraved, the foolish, the lower levels of humanity, do not surrender unto Me; their discrimination degraded by the illusory energy they betake to the nature of the demoniac."