| Username |
Post |
| Nepali |
Posted
on 21-Nov-01 05:27 PM
Hey Guys, how do you compare our faith to Christianity.Does anyone want a philosophical discussion on the key issues related to our own faith and Christianity? A sort of pros and cons!!!!
-Nepali
|
| krishna |
Posted
on 21-Nov-01 05:39 PM
>Hey Guys, how do you compare our faith to
>Christianity.Does anyone want a
>philosophical discussion on the key issues
>related to our own faith and Christianity?
>A sort of pros and cons!!!!
>
>-Nepali
When you say "our" fait", you exclude non-Hindus. Would you please clarify why you wish to have only hindus comparing the two religions. Also, fuller discussion could involve Christians (particularly ex-Hindu Nepali Christians, who can speak from experience in both) and Hindus. You invitation to compare the two is a great idea; I'm offering you advice you requested on "how" to compare. Hope you generate a lot of discussion!
|
| Nepali |
Posted
on 21-Nov-01 06:59 PM
Krishna Jee, Sorry about the words.... Everyone is welcome to express their ideas and feelings,its an open discussion. I said "ours" coz most of the nepalese are Hindu's and if not, then they do know a lot about Hinduism. Ex-Hindus,non-hindus, christians,x-christians regardless on any religion are free for the discussion. Lets observe what comes out of it, and use it to logically address all the pros and cons. Thanks.
Same Old Nepali,
Aadit
|
| Montou Gurung |
Posted
on 21-Nov-01 07:41 PM
Thank you very much for whoever brought up this topic. I am not sure how serious you are but had a tremendous urge to reply regarding my personal encounter with God.
Though we say we believe in God, we never really take Him seriously. At least it was the case with me. I was blinded with my own selfish reasons and never ever thought about God till I hit rock-bottom. God then seemed far real to me than my own existence.
I don't want to talk about how rotten or evil my past was because I won't have enough space to write them down here and again I would never be able to make you understand anyways. But though painful and unreal my past is, I am here to talk more about how God has changed me for good.
I am here not to argue about other religions cause I am convinced that JESUS came to earth 2000 years ago and died on the cross for our sins. Growing up in a Hindu Culture, it might seem strange that I am talking about JESUS. But it was my own personal experience. I found God after coming to the United States and found out what JESUS did for me eventhough I did every other way to offend Him, who loved me all along. Now Knowing Jesus has given me inner peace, hope and a new-life. But there is more I need to do for Him who died on the cross for my sins.
I have a big plan and a big responsibility ahead of me. I just have to go about in a wise way-the way God wants. I am all for THE SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION that will eventually bring about PEACE AND LOVE among all humanity here on earth and eventually in eternity in HEAVEN.
Christianity as most people have a mis-conception that it is a part of the western culture. Christianity is developed in the American Culture, which is through media has been unpopular among other nations as the harbor of pornography, drugs, violence and rock & roll. It is popular among the Hindu Society that it is not only bad but totally "unethical" to accept Christianity.
Have we taken God seriously? Are we still concerned about ourselves and completely blinded by what the world says and easily give up to the temptations of the world? Do you feel there is no meaning to life and don't look forward to living another day with excitement but as a burden? Then you need to really sit down and think about your relationship with God and what He has done for you.
Make no mistake here that I am trying to make anybody accept Christianity. I just felt I needed to share my experience. It is all upto us as God has given us a free-will, only God can change anybody's mind and draw near to Him.
Feel free to comment or email me if you want to know more about my relationship with God.
By His Grace,
Montou
|
| idon'tknow |
Posted
on 21-Nov-01 07:52 PM
Growing up Hindu in a Christian and Moslem dominated world poses serious dilemmas. Hinduism is seen by most of the rest of the world religions as archaic and total gibberish. When they think about Hinduism they think "how ridiculous that they belive in flying monkeys and six handed gods and ten headed monsters". Can Hinduism find a way to survive in such a modern world? All religions belive in the supernatural. Hinduism just stretches the imagination more than other religions.
Most humans sooner or later come to a point in their lives where they feel the need to belive in an unseen force. Belief in the unknown relieves anxieties and worries. When a person reaches this stage in life (unless he or she has been indoctrinated from birth to belive in a particular religion), the person tends to go toward the religion that he or she grew up with. This is because we are constantly force fed throughout our lives how great this or that particular religion is. Sooner or later, during moments of weakness, the mind gives in to the religion that the mind is most familiar with or associates with goodness.
It is the existence of anxiety that causes religion to exist. To feel like one is part of a bigger community with shared beliefs is incredibly important for mental balance. Humans will do whatever it takes to not feel completely alone. Loneliness is one thing the mind is not capable of handling for too long.
Thus, the argument of which religion is right and wrong, superior or inferior is a mute question. Religion is simply the product of our anxieties, our need to feel like a part of a community. Politicians have understood this and have utilized religion to their own advantage.
|
| Montou |
Posted
on 21-Nov-01 07:55 PM
Just to add to my earlier message. It's sad that Christianity today has been corrupted and the wrong message is being passed on to the world. The important part of Christinity is JESUS CHRIST which is missing and what He did 2000 years ago when He walked on earth. It's even worse that even who claim to be Christians but not really mean it have helped convey the wrong message among the people.
Mahatma Gandhi made a sad but true statement about Christianity. He said, "I really like your Christ but because of so many "Hypocrite Christians", I am hesitant to follow Christ." It is so sad that person like Mahatma Gandhi had an opportunity to say like that. Not only at Gandhi's time but we still have those Christians these days and we need to change that. We need a SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION in the world.
By His Grace,
Montou
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 22-Nov-01 06:12 AM
One thing that surprises me these days in Nepal is the sheer number of churches that have sprung up. In Lalitpur alone, there are over 100 churches, many of them built in the last 5 years. I have seen churches even in the middle of nowhere, so to speak, in Dhading zilla.
One thing about some of these Nepali churches, especially the ones in Lalitpur, is that their interior architecture is breathtakingly beautiful -- a combination of Western designs and Nepali sensibilities.
Nepali Christians are being perceived as an increasingly influential group, because
last year Madhav Nepal and other politicians issues statements wishing them Merry X-Mas.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Alu |
Posted
on 22-Nov-01 08:24 AM
I think that Christianty gives stress more on God but hinduism is more about doing something good in life and for other people. There are a lot of good and bad things about both hinduism and christianty. Well, is it because of the different religion that america is so much different than Nepal and is so much advanced?
Its hard to answer this question. What are the different aspects that all the both the religion share?Anyways, whatever, gotta be going right now.. will be back later
-Alu
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 22-Nov-01 11:04 AM
A great discussion guys, and thanks to the person bringing in this topic for discussion.
before my carrying on, let me ask all you scholars out there, why is there -ism in hinduism, and why don't we call christianty christianism? Why Islam and why Buddh-ism? Why not Islamism? Don't you guys think that English scholars did a very fine job in narrowing our religion by adding -ism to it and made their religion(s) look broad by adding -ity to it? Somebody please shed some light on this.
Now, getting back to the question re: two religions, I thinik both are equally good. The only difference, however is that we Sanatan_Dharmawalambis [we were called HINDU(s) by the Persian traders, there's no mention of this word in any of our religious text] don't encourage prolesitizing (sp??), because we belive that one has to be born hindu to be hindu, where as others especially Christians say that one can convert to Christianity, get all his/her sins washed and go to heaven. We Hindus even went so far so as to include jesus Christ in our Puran (there's a verse on Bhavisya Purana which goes like this...this saint sees a strange looking man and asks him about his hwatabout.whereabouts. Then, that strange looking man answers back in sanksrit " Isha putram cha mam biddhi, kumari garva sambhawam.." [I am the son of the Lord himself, born of the Virgin Mary], based on this, I find it that Hindusim is more tolerant towards other religions, where as Christianity dismisses the followers of other religions as hethens and pagans. I know, I have my own biases towrads chritianity because I personally believe that the Christian missionaries destroyed many ethnic cultures, and they are doing it now in nepal. But, I have met good christian missionaries like fatehr gaffney who himself was a christian priest but had himself cremeted as a hindu. And there are Hindu fanatic groups like Shiva Sena whose views I don't buy. Again there are hindus who say "ekani devo bahuda badhanti" (there's only one god but has many forms/names) , and there are Christians like Father Gaffney who had an immense respect for Hinduism. So, both religions have pros and cons to them, but based on my analysis (I might be biased), I find we, sanatan-dharmawalambis more tolerant towards the others, and this is the biggest strength of hinduism.
Trailokya
I might be wrong , feel free to correct me. I am always willing to learn.
|
| Man |
Posted
on 22-Nov-01 11:46 AM
I strongly agree with Trailokya on this matter. Hindu's are more tolerant than any other religions. I dont know if thats because our culture or our religion but I have seen Christians who just focus on Jesus and any other religion are unacceptable for them.
Christians are mostly focussed on the word "GOD" rather than following what he said. Whereas Hinduism tries to encourage people to ge good, do good and live a simple and peaceful life and not only say "oh, GOD this did and God did that". Although I am a neutral person towards religion I find that Hinduim tries to convey a lot of good things.
I am not biased against anything but thats what I have found from my experience. There are some stupid stuffs that the hindus follow too. Sacrificing animals for God is one example that I dont agree with. We say that killing anybody is against the religion but how about the sacrifices we make in the name of GOD?
Montou, its good to know that you are amazed by the wonderful things GOD has done in you life. We all agree with you and we all are free to beleive in anything. So, you dindt beleive in God before right,I was just wondering what made you turn yourself into a true christian and why did that happen after coming to America?Its not a personal questions or anything of that sort and you are free to agree disagree with what I say.
Take care guys
|
| le chef |
Posted
on 22-Nov-01 09:42 PM
when you say "hinduism is more tolerant than christianity", arent you saying, in a roundabout way, that the hindu faith is better, and thus "more right" than christianity?
if so, how different are you from those suppsedly "intolerant" christians who think you are "heathens" and "pagans"
btw, i think the only purpose of god in our society is as a scapegoat
if you screw up, oh well, it was god's will
a figment of human imagination is always the best place to put the blame on.. noone gets burned by the consequences and we can go right along, cannibalizing the planet as only humans see fit
|
| nepali |
Posted
on 22-Nov-01 10:42 PM
I know at least in one case, one Nepalese Hindu found God in Jesus after he Green Card sponsored by a church! He has become Father X from Mr. X! So much for finding God in Jesus! Poor Nepalese are finding God in Jesus precisely for the same reason .. money!
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 22-Nov-01 11:38 PM
Mr le cheft de nuit (i hope i got your name right, pardon my French)
When I say, Hinduism is more tolearnt towards other religions, i say it absed on facts, its not coming from top of my head just like that. And, no, i didn't compare otehrs to heathens and pagans. Hinduism doesn't encourage that. I was merely presenting you with examples so that i can prove my point.
And I afree with Mr. Nepali jyu, while in DC, twop mormons approached me and went even as far as to tell me that they would issue me everythinb (Greencrad) and what not, if i became one of them! They were even willing to admit me in their university in utah for graduate studies..atleast, you won't find hindu jogis going around places luring people with such things. You want to be hindu, be a hindu.. you want to be something else, be something else.. so, we are more tolearnt than Christian9s) [not all sects/schools of Christioanity though].
Trailokya
|
| Gokul |
Posted
on 23-Nov-01 10:17 AM
Hi Trailokya,
Your question that why there is "ism" in Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism and not in Christianity and Islam is very important because it shows the range and scope of these religions. Hinduism, because it is an "ism" , is always growing, changing, modifying its philosophical content to explain and meet the requirements of the contemporary society. Because it is an all-encompassing philosophy, it is tolerant and dynamic. The lack of central authority (both in terms of The holy books and the founders) has given it that profound sense of universal acceptance.
The basic difference between Eastern and Western religions lies in the Initial State Values of human life.
Western (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) = Initial State Value is Minus Infinity. When you are born, you are born as a sinner and you have taken debts from God. You owe money to god, the Shylock and unless you pay him back, he is not going to open the door to heaven. So you must wash your sin. You must read his publications "n" number of times in a day and so on. You can not alter his writings. You can not seek to explain his writings in your own word. In this way, their God is like modern day University professor, whose writings must be quoted unaltered.
The goal of these religions is to come at least to the breakeven point. Montou- our friend seems to have achieved this and I am happy for him. God's debt must be paid. If you pay his debt, then he will give so many things to you later on.
Beautiful heaven - No need to pay mortage, rent , utilities
Beautiful women - In Islam, they are called "hur". You can have as many as you like. They are guaranteed to be AIDS-free.
Wine/Brandy far better than Cognac - There is an exact word for this in Islam which I forgot now. Drink as much as you want. There will be rivers of wine, not just some distilleries and bars like here on earth. No need to show your ID. God will take care of that.
O God, You are a shrewd politician and businessman. You can even make a very good Harvard School's business professor. I am just worrying that your publication record is not just very good (in must cases just 1) so it may be difficult for you to find tenure track position. But we will see.
Eastern Religions - You start with POSITIVE INFINITY. When you are born, you are NOT sinner but just ignorant that you have so much potential and money. Your objective in your life is to know that You already have what you need. And obviously, the sooner the better. You don't owe anything to god.So you are more tolerant and free than those belonging to other religions. Hey man, your God can be Harvard's professor as well because Your God has very good publication records. Your God wrote so many classics - Gita, Vedas, Upanishads, Tripitak.
Each deserves a Nobel prize. I am not kidding. On Guy - Deepak Chopra has been very successful in plagiarizing your god's writings. But we really don't care because we will put his wriitngs in our God's writings ultimately. We don't care about the individual writers. We just care about the ideas and their strengths in solving the present problem.
Your God can not guarantee you "hur" and "cognac" (although it seems he tried sometimes but later gave up as a stupid idea). You can enjoy them here as long as you remember that you have enough CASH to pay for these and you don't owe a dime to God. When you clearly see how much you have, how much you can give then you will cry in joy - Aham Brahmasmi !!!
Yes - Tat Tvam Asi
If you are tired, then go and drink beer.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 23-Nov-01 10:29 AM
Dear Gokul jee,
I just read your posting. My God (Just your run-of-the-mill kind of)! [No bribing with wine, no cognac serving God here. A plain old fool, even, just might as well a non-existent God - I am talking about]. [That is why I like Buddhism, I think. Buddha says leave your God to the heaven or hell whereever they are supposed to be. they don't have anything to do here]Anyway, my God! your explanation! I am your chela from now on. Do you come to Boston? If you do, Do you want to give a talk on Hinduism vis-a-vis other religion? I think we all will be benefitted. This last two sentence - I am saying in all seriousness.
NK
|
| Gokul |
Posted
on 23-Nov-01 11:19 AM
NK,
Thanks for your compliments. There is no doubt that Buddhism is the most intellectual, scientific, compassionate and yet least malignant spiritual way that a human being can walk in this world. The only difference between Vedanta and Buddhism in my opinion is that
Vedanta - stresses the need and essence of the unity of the whole things that exist. All that exists is good.
Why do you want to differentiate between black and white?Both are true. Contraria sunt complementa. They are the same. We are not an isolated, frustrated, rational, individual existence (as claimed by existentialists), but Sat (Truth), Chit (Consciousness), Ananda (Joy) - Satchidananda. When you see this Bliss - then what is left in your eyes is Gyan. [Schopenhauer misunderstood will as the Brahma (The world as a will and idea) and he suffered.]
That is why we say we are GOD. It simply means the same law that governs microscopic (electrons, quark etc - Quantum physics) world governs macro world (Black hole, White Dwarf - astro physics), although physicists are still looking for that Theory of Everything. I call Vedanta - the Integral calculus.
Buddhism - stresses the need and essence of each moment and each scenario. All things arise and pass away. Why do you want to differentiate between black and white? None of them is true. Both will vanish. When you see beyond desire and illusion, then all else is void. The void is the same as Joy - The Joy is the same as void. The void in Budhhism is not the lack of something but simply the potential to grasp anything till infinity. When you see this nothingness - then what is left in your eyes is Karuna. You see the futility of all things. The sheer meaninglessness. This feeling is not devastating and pessimistic. It can give you enormous strengths since you no there is NOTHING. Buddhism is not nihilism. Buddhism is not pessimism. It is not existentialism. Its essence is NOT knowledge (although it is the most dynamic and rational of all religions). It is KARUNA. The spirituality of feeling not simply understanding the VOID.
Discriminate, Differentiate and FEEL. I call Buddhism - the Differential Calculus.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 23-Nov-01 11:54 AM
Gokul-ji,
Thank you very much for sharing your views on this topic. As NK already pointed out, your expert knowledge on religion(s) and your willingness to share it with us in this forum has benifitted all of us, who are interested in these issues.
Gokulji, now, I have anotehr question: do yo0u considedr Busshism as a religion or just a philosophy of life? I find it hard to take Busshism as a seperate religion, because I find it an offshoot of Hindu thoughts. Didn't Shankaracharya talk about the same things after Buddha (As far as my little knowledge goes, I think Bhaja-Govindam by Adi Sankaracharya is nothing than the teachings of Buddha! was he influenced by Buddha?)?
Trailokya
|
| NK |
Posted
on 23-Nov-01 12:22 PM
To reduce existentialism to “an isolated, frustrated, rational, individual existence” is a bit unfair, I think. As I read along I also see you have said “the futility” in rejoicing, being sad on events. And I agree the underlining philosophy of futility.. I think when I talk about existentialism I tend to think that aspect - the futility – more than anything. And the freedom to choose. Choice is central human existence. Even to refuse to choose is a choice! To me, that is the essence of existentialism.
True, as Buddhism, it (existentialis) does not give us any path to “salvation” just leaves many of us depressed and frustrated. That is why I totally agree with you when you said Buddhism is the most rational religion of all. I don’t know about “scientific.” If you meant rational by saying scientific then yes, I agree, but science as we are discovering is not tell us the whole truth. There is no “whole truth” by the way. There is not single unifying thesis to explore, to understand this world. That is where postmodernism comes…….
I don’t understand one thing. How does ‘karuna’ come when there is void, the sunyata? Could you explain it a bit more, if you have some free time?
|
| Gokul |
Posted
on 23-Nov-01 02:03 PM
Trailokya,
Please do not take me very seriously as I am NOT an expert in this field. I am just interested, that's all.
>>Gokulji, now, I have anotehr question: do yo0u considedr Busshism as a religion
>>or just a philosophy of life?
I see a problem here because I consider RELIGION as THE philosophy of life. Religion tries to find meaning and significance of human life and in this sense Budhhism is the most successful one in this analysis. If you consider Hinduism and Taoism as religions, then Buddhism is also a religion.
>>I find it hard to take Busshism as a seperate religion, because I find it an offshoot of Hindu thoughts.
Buddhism is the jewel that came from Hinduism but it is not the same as Hinduism. Just because Einstein developed his theory (Relativity) analysing classical Newtonian mechanics, we can not ignore his theory as an off-shoot of Newtonian theory.
>>Shankaracharya talk about the same things after Buddha (As far as my little knowledge goes, I think Bhaja-Govindam by Adi >>Sankaracharya is nothing than the teachings of Buddha! was he influenced by Buddha?)?
Bhaj Govindam is not about Budhha. Shankaracharya wrote this when he saw an old man learning Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha (in fact Panini's Grammar) and trying hard to memorize them. Then he said, "You are about to die. what is the use this knowledge? Instead, Worship Govinda." (Certainly not a good story for our adult literacy programs :-)
Yes. Shankarcharya was called "Prachhanna Budhha" (The Hidden Buddha) by his opponents, not by his supporters. Shankaracharya was more interested in establishing intellectual superiority of Vedanta and there is little place for heart in his teachings. He was an Intellectual Tyrant. Tushaanal - is the fire from chaff. Many Budhhists died in Tushaanal after losing the debate with him. The condition of the competition - Losers should die by entering Tushaanal. He came to Kathmandu and defeated Budhhists from there. He offered "Shree Yantra" (whcih is still there) in Pashupati as a symbol of his victory.
"Sukhyo madhyamiko Vivartamakhilam Shunyasya mane Jagat
Yogachar mate tu santi matayastasam Vivarto khila
Arthosti Kshanikastwa sawanumito Buddhyeti Sau Tantrica
Prathyakccham Khyanda Bhanguram cha sakalam Vaibhasiko Bhasate."
(Madhyamik, Vivartabaad, Yogachaar, Buddha, Tantrica, Vaivhasik)
This summarizes the whole philosophical streams our Sanatana dharma and obviously, Budhha is considered just a rivulet in this ocean of Hindu thoughts.
My observation:
Vedanta + Heart = Buddhism
But Buddhism - Heart NOT Vedanta it is ZERO because Budhhism is full of HEART.
=====================================================================================
NK,
Thanks for your comments. Yes, existentialism also talks about freedom of choice but I think that that concept is more useful for Christians, than for Hindus and Budhhists because the whole slogan of Vedanta & Buddhism is that " You are Free. You are GodDamn free. You are free from DAMN god. You are DAMNED to be free from GOD." So I do not see any appeal in Existential's offer of freedom. I already have my freedom because I am Hindu/Budhhist.
>>True, as Buddhism, it (existentialis) does not give us any path to “salvation” just leaves many of us depressed and >>frustrated. That is why I totally agree with you when you said Buddhism is the most rational religion of all.
Thanks for agreeing in this. Do you know any existentialist who lived a happy life? If the purpose of a religion is to make life happy, then they have miserably failed. If the purpose is to find truth, then also they failed.
>>I don’t understand one thing. How does ‘karuna’ come when there is void, the sunyata? Could you explain it a bit more, if >>you have some free time?
I think this is a very, very important question because in this lies the whole philosophy of Buddhism. It is very difficult to explain but I will try to convey the idea through example (you may consider trivial).
(1) You are angry - why? Because somebody did not understand you or your ideas or did not respect, like, love you. That means you have placed a value for your ideas and yourself. Your anger is the indication of your self-attachment. When you know all these are just phantasmagoria, then you don't feel that much urge to be angry. So the knowledge of the VOID makes one calm.
Next part:
(2)When you are really calm, then you will see many things clearly. When you see people becoming angry, then not only you feel calm yourself, but also that you feel sorry for them. You want to help them. So Shunyata inevitably brings Karuna. (Lotus Sutra).
Points to remember:
This Karuna is the not feeling of do-gooder's high. You do not feel elevated when you do good Budhhistically. You are as impassionate and unattached as before. (Read Eliot's Waste Land- Attachment to self and to things and to persons...)
The Karuna is the not from the feeling that we are all doomed. It is beyond all that. The Buddhist Karuna is NOT CONDESCENDING. It is being.
|
| K |
Posted
on 25-Nov-01 07:11 PM
Hey guys, I have heard of the cases where some nepalese changed their religion to Christianity due to some 'lobh labh' but how about some christians turning into Hindu's...?? Why does that happen? What is so significant about hinduism that people prefer to be a hindu? Any comments?
|
| ? |
Posted
on 25-Nov-01 10:07 PM
k,
hmm... that is an interesting question. let me think about this gahakilo prashna and get back. maybe tomorrow.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 26-Nov-01 10:55 AM
Gokul,
Thanks for explaining about Karuna. Makes a whole lotta sense to me.
|
| joie de vivre |
Posted
on 26-Nov-01 11:44 AM
I think comparing religions is like comparing apples to oranges. All I have to say on this topic is - TO EACH HIS OWN!!!!
|
| NK |
Posted
on 26-Nov-01 12:47 PM
dear jdv:
nobody is trying to convert anybody, nobody is trying to establish the supremacy of any given religion. we are just (at least my purpose was) comparing notes. what this religion/philosophy says if you take all the fluff out. I honestly thought we were comparing kafal with kafal not kafal with oranges. one religion with another *religion.*
|
| Hyaaa |
Posted
on 26-Nov-01 03:03 PM
Yeah, we are here to learn more about christianity and hinduism rather than converting. I think that living in Nepal is great experience. We can learn so much about various cultures and religion. We have muslims, we have christians and we have many more religions in our country and still people dont look down upon each other.The key point is, we are human and we treat each other as humans regardless of religion. Whereas in America, the christians are not exposed to any other religion other than Christianity. Some people dislike christianity and they dont wanna to follow the Bible-it dosent make any sense to them. One reason they dont beleive in God might be that they dont know what other religion have to say,other relgion might be inspiring for some people. Because of the 9-11 attack Americans have been inquisitive about Islam and various other religion. Its surprising to know that Americans do not know much about Hinduism and when they ask me about my religion then I dont even have an appropiate way to describe it. Our religion is vague. One Indian guy showed some americans "Ramayan" and those dudes were telling us the story and cracking jokes. They were amazed to see our "hanuman jee" flying with his long tail....heeh... Well, they dont have that in Bible but still, isnt our religion kinda funny.
Can anyone tell me if we have any particular book like "bible" that we hindus have to follow?
|
| NK |
Posted
on 26-Nov-01 04:54 PM
OK, without much further ado I will just add some thoughts on Hinduism. I am sure Gokul would be the right person to do it but, hey if i want to make a fool of myself, it is my prerogative!
Tell your friends who laughed at the flying monkey (come to think of it, even i am tickled) than they shuould read Gita, and for that matter you should too. while we are at it why don't you tell your friend who showed Ramayana (was that a hindi series?), to read Gita. Gita, my friend is our "bible." As Gokul pointed out, our Gods have other publication too unlike Christans' bible. If you have time read them too.
What does Gita say?
You must have heard, "karma gar, karmako phal nagar." Do your duties. Krishna said this when Arjuna was totally distressed that he had to kill his brothers for a just cause. that is really a sar of gita. Yhe Gita counsels us to retain our equanimity.
What else does Gita say? It also says there are many ways to achieve God, but all these roads eventually will lead to One God. Here I would like to think it mean The Ultimate Truth = God. The paths to emancipation (from darkness to lightness) are numerous: 1. karma yoga. 2. bhakti yoga 3. gyana yoga. etc.
To think Ramanya is hinduism is funny. Homer wrote Illiad, and all those great kabya. That does not mean that is Christianity. Ramayana was just a story told in verses and Rama was supposedly following his 'dharma.' I think , personally, he is a screw ball. He follows scripts blindly, does not intrepret himself, to the demand of the time. So Gita as you know is a part of Mahabharata. which is a short form of Bhagvata Gita meaning Song of the Lord.
aajalai yetenai.
NK
|
| Hyaaa |
Posted
on 27-Nov-01 12:28 AM
Thanks NK for explaining the Gita... So, in Gita krishna says "karma gara phala nagara..." Thats what I like about hinduism, it emphasizes more on living a good life and doing good to others regardless of the outcome. But one thing surprises me, isnt God the creator and dosent he have plans for everyone of us? So, why did he create people like Krishna, Ram etc and why did he create Rawan, duryodhan etc... Dosent it just sound like a "play" and we all are actors as Shakespare said? Why does that happen in hinduism only? Whereas in Christianity Jesus was born to take away all our sins. Jesus died for us but Ram was born to kill Rawan whom the God created himself. Why does that happen in our religion? Well, seems like I really got to read Gita someday... I dont understand what our religion is about!!!
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 27-Nov-01 01:39 AM
to Hyaa or whoever it was who got laughed by his christians friends..
Dear, if they laugh at our religious texts again, just tell them this up-front : If you guys believe that a virgin can give birth to a baby, then hell yes, our god can fly across the ocean! and if you believe that your god had healing touch, then our gods had multi arms! I hope this helps. I was once in the same situation when a freshman casked me how come you believe in all those stupid things re: multi armed dieties and everything about Hindusim.. I was brave enough to tell this to him up front, hey dude, if you believe that Jesus was born of virgin Mary, contradictics what you have been reading in biology all these years, then hell, yes, I believe that multi-armed, muti-faceed gods exist.
Trailokya Aryal
|
| NK |
Posted
on 27-Nov-01 09:37 AM
Trailoyka writes:
"Dear, if they laugh at our religious texts again, just tell them this up-front : If you guys believe that a virgin can give birth to a baby, then hell yes, our god can fly across the ocean! and if you believe that your god had healing touch, then our gods had multi arms! I hope this helps"
T. that was funny. but there is a reason why some of our gods are shown with 10 arms. it is purely symbolic. i will write later on this.
i like this discussion by the way. thanks for starting this thread.
|
| amina |
Posted
on 27-Nov-01 11:31 AM
I am loving this discussion. Thanks to all those who have shared their ideas.
I do not consider religions ( or philosophies, whatever you choose to call them) such as Buddism and Hinduism as “faiths”. When I was young, my dad had told me never to believe or have faith in what I read in scriptures unless I had reason to believe in it. And I do believe that the “truth” (whatever that is) is something that cannot be expressed in human language or written down in books, but something to be experienced, both intellectually and spiritually (as Buddha did).
I tried to understand the deeper truth in Christianity, but I was told to take the Bible as it is and have “faith” in it. When I tried to reason with the content, I was told my soul had been captured by the devil, therefore, I was unable to have “faith”. I felt Christianity was not for me. I think the problem that I personally had with Christianity was the literalism.
And I had same problems with Hinduism as it was practiced in our society, taking everything for granted, without questioning it. But later I understood that the essence of Hinduism doesn’t lie in celebrating dashain, or going to Pashupati every Saturday or doing puja every morning.
What appealed to me most about Buddhism and Hinduism is that, you have the opportunity to seek your own truth. I haven’t read a great deal on both, I am still learning.
Gokul ji, thanks for your explanations on Hinduism and Buddhism and karuna etc.
My understanding was, compassion was related to the Mahayana order of Buddhism. As explained to me ( by a learned person), the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism lies in the concept of “atmaa” and “anatmaa”. The former follows atmaa and the latter anatmaa. Buddhism says there is no "self" or "i". The reason why we come back again and again is because of attachment. When there is no "I", there is no desire. When all attachments/desires are gone, there is nothing to bring us back to this world..and hence one attains nirvana. When asked, if there is no “self”, then who “attains” nirvana ? he explained, that nirvana is not something to be “attained” by “someone”. It is a state. I am still pondering on that one. The goal of Hinayana is to reach personal nirvana. Once a state of nirvana is reached, one is free from the cycle of rebirth. Mahayana teaches that one should not only focus on individual nirvana but universal nirvana. Hence, those who follow Mahayana use Compassion (Karuna, the desire to help others) as the form of attachment with this world to gain rebirth so they can contribute their wisdom towards universal salvation. Tibetan Buddhism is also based on the Mahayana order of Buddhism.
That is my limited understanding so far..
I eager to hear/learn more from you guys.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 27-Nov-01 01:14 PM
Dear NK,
I too believe that all those multi-armed, multi-0faced dieties in Hinduism have something symbolic to them. I personally think that the whole hindu-ism is very symbolic. Here's an example:
"matsya kurma barah-scha, nrisimho bamans-tatha
Rama, rama yo Rama-scha, Buddha kalki Tathaiwacha"
This is about the 10 incarnation of Vishnu. First he was aquatic (fish), then an amphibian (turtle), then a boar (probably mamals), then something that was half human, half lion (could it be primates?), then baman (dwarf, can be compared to australopithecus), then came Ram (Homo-Habilis, because by the time of Ram they knew how to use tools), then Parshu-ram and Krishna (Homo erectus and Neanderthals, because by this time, they knew how to domisticate animals and make stone tools), Buddha (homo sapiens, who could think).. and Kalki (the nuclear age).. So, what took the west 2000 years to learn/prove, our rishi-munis had done this 2000 years ago!
My views.. feel free to disagree.
Trailokya
|
| i don'tknow |
Posted
on 27-Nov-01 02:19 PM
No offense, but your logic is a bit of a stretch for me. With that kind of logic, Nostradamus is a real seer and Jonathan Edwards can talk to the dead. Not buying it.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 27-Nov-01 05:02 PM
Hyaaa wrote: >isnt God the creator and dosent he have plans for everyone of >us? So, why did he create people like Krishna, Ram etc and why did he create >Rawan, duryodhan etc... Dosent it just sound like a "play" and we all are actors as Shakespare said? Why does that happen in hinduism only? Whereas in Christianity Jesus was born to take away all our sins. Jesus died for us but Ram was born to kill Rawan whom the God created himself. Why does that happen in >our religion?
...and so on.
To Hyaa,
What i think is (since it is just a thought,not backed by 500 lbs of footnotes) "God" did not create ram, rawan, sita and all those characters. first, it is a story told in verse. second, they could have had existed a long time ago. sita might have been kidnapped by some villians... second, Balmiki wrote it. third, "God" does not have anything to do with it. Any time some thing unexplainable happens: horrendous tragedies, fanatstic comedies, people attribute these to "Gods." Your 7 year old dies from a stray bullet, it is god's will. your young seemingly loving wife runs with a villaneous propagandist serpent then that too is god's lila. You see that is why I like to say as buddha says, leave those jokers of a God out of our affair.
If you are a true hindu then do your KARMA. I cannot emphasize that enough. if you are intellecutally inclined gyana yoga is for your.
if you are too dazzeled by all those multihanded deities, then bhaki yoga is for you and so on... at the end you will find your "God." For buddhist that is Nirvana. For me it is the Truth. So, Go my man, Hyaaa, find your own way and find your own personalized "God." That is in essense our Hinduism, at least to me.
|
| Gokul |
Posted
on 27-Nov-01 07:41 PM
"My mama says, Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what comes next."
- Forrest Gump
The topic regarding Gita and Karma is really interesting. When I watched Forrest Gump, I got a strong feeling that this movie is about Gita, about Karma. How Forrest does his work without any desire for success and reward, how he loves things without any sense of possession and attachment and more importantly how he succeeds while others who tried so hard fails? I think the secret of our life lies there. Do your work, your duty. Why worry about the result? Isn't that what management gurus, Prahalad and Hamel, call Strategic Intent?
Dear friends
I am happy that this thread is taking some meaningful direction in understanding Hinduism and Buddhism. Definitely, Hinduism has its drawbacks - its caste ridden society, its empahsis on rituals and do's and don'ts, its confusion and superstitions. Still, it is one of the most beautiful religion in the world. Seeing all rifts between high castes and untouchables, seeing the hypocracies of the higher classes, one may not feel proud to be called Hindu. Seeing other Hindus being converted to other religions everyday, one may get the sense of belonging to an ever diminishing minority. seeing the utter hopelessness of Nepal - the only hindu country in the world, one may wonder what force and strength Hinduism might exert in the future?
But believe me, Hinduism will never die. As long as there will be humanity that yearns to seek and understand the life beyond, then there will be Hinduism. People may call it by different names. But that does not matter. In essence, the words never mattered in Hinduism. That is the sole reason for its existence.
I am not sure of many things. But one that I am definitely sure is that:
Being a Hindu gives you a lot of freedom, a freedom that you can never ever find in any other religion. Only Hindu can laugh at his/her gods. Only Hindu can make jokes about religions. Only in Hinduism you can say, I am NOT Hindu and people still call you Hindu.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 28-Nov-01 12:02 AM
Dear Gokulji,
Please take no offense when I say that the verse "karmandewa dhikarasthe, ma faleshu kadachana" (geeta) has a serious error to it. I personally believe that something got lost during the writing/re-writing process. Why would someone do anything, if he/she doesn't expect anything in return? Why would Arjun fight with Bhisma/Kauravs if he didn't expect to win? So, there's somwething clearly missing in this verse.Probably, the original author was trying to imply that, work and expect the return based on your work. Don't be over-ambitious. (this is purely my guess). Otherwise, why would a farmer go work on the fields? Why would students go to their GURUS and learn Vedanta and Upanishads? So, something is expected when we do something. This was the case when the Geeta was written, and this is the case now. So, let's not believe in that particular verse. As you are well aware of, many hindu texts lost their actual meanings in the proicess of writing/rewriting.. and things got exaggerated and misquoted.
And I have also heard scholars say that the very first verse of the GEETA "Dharma kshetre kurukshetre..samabeta yuyutsava...." is gramatically incorrect. I don't know the sanksrit grammar, but this is what I have heard frfom credible sources.
Trailokya Aryal
|
| NK |
Posted
on 28-Nov-01 12:48 PM
I see my beloved thread was left out for too long so here I am, once again.
Trailokya,
I know you were asking Gokul but I am sure you don't mind jumping in. If you examine your question regarding not to expect anything you see the futility in expecting the reward.
As all the religion, in principle, try to understand the 'Dukh' (as buddhists would say) and try to find a way out of this condition, Hinduism is addressing that question too. 1st find out what your duty is and DO IT. If you are looking for reward for doing certain things, and you did not get the reward, what will you do then? Disappointment, right? Thus you will be Dukhi. So at all costs hindusim and buddhism is trying to find a way where you will be in a blissful stage. The first of the Four Nobel Truths of Buddha talks about this Dukh, and immediately following, the Second Nobel Truth is the realization, the cause and on the Third Nobel Truth he talks about the cure, so to speak and so on.
So if you truly want to be happy, find out what your duty is: as a son, as a father, as a husband, as a good citizen and lead your life. True happiness lies there and consider yourself you found the "God."
PS how come you know so much sanskrit? did you learn the language?
|
| visitor |
Posted
on 28-Nov-01 07:06 PM
Hmmm... Good arguments and an interesting topic for a debate. I just think that both the religions share many things in common. Not only christianity and hinduism but most of the religion in the world tries to makes us a Good Person. Different religions have different Do's and Dont's but I dont think that really matters. Its our belief and we can choose whatever we want. We try to be a good person in the name of God and thats the essence of religion. Although I do feel that Hinduism is much tolerant than Christianity but to me both of them dosent bother me. Infact, what pisses me off are the people who go to Temples and spend lot of money worshipping just to purify themselves. Gaushala, to me seems like Bihar.... Those stupid smart asses commit so much sin in their life and then they pray to God!! Thats really stupid. Ok, the God forgives them for the first time, but people will again start commiting sins. So, are they bribing GOD???? I am not against the people who after commiting a sin goes to God and asks for forgiveness and promises not to be a sinner again, but some people think that they could keep on doing bad things and go to Pashupati Nath or whatever and clean their 'sin history'. Dosent that bother God, that those kinda people are taking advantage of him???
And on the other hand, Jesus came to take away all the sins that we did... I really dont understand that... Its acceptable for me to think about Shiva drinking the poison to save the world but how about Jesus??
The point about Virgin Mary and Hanuman was a good one..... Yeah, let them laugh at our Bachelor Hanuman Jee and we will laugh upon their foolishness too.
NK jee, you said that Ram, hanuman and so on cannot be confirmed because of various reasons, so how can we confirm about that God does exist? Just wanted to know your views...
Take care guys!
|
| NK |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 10:19 AM
Hi Visitor,
right now i am racing to meet a deadline so i will try to answer your doubt by the end of the day. just in case you are waiting and waiting :)
NK
|
| nobody |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 11:02 AM
I agree with Trailokya on this one. Nothing great has been achieved without the vision of it and striving towards it. So when one doen't achieve the expected rewards, he can take two paths... be Dukhi like NK said or use that as a motivation. If things are that easy to achieve maybe it's not worth achieving them at all. If Buddha had been Dukhi at not seeing the Light earlier (his failure to do so) and accepted the futility of reward, will we have Buddhism today?
Wasn't Krsna matipulating Arjun's gullibility to make him go against his conscience with that line?
And aren't Nirvana or Karuna or Eternal Truth "fruits" too? After all it is said that you'll be Dukhi until you see these transcendental truths.
|
| Gokul |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 11:12 AM
Trailokya,
"Karmanyevaadhikarate ma faleshu kadachana"
It means you have got the right to do your Karma, but no right on the result. It does NOT mean that you should just work and not enjoy the fruit of your effort. Of course, we all care for the bottomline. What the shloka says is:
Your control is only on your duties and karma. You have no control over whatever result it brings. Even if you fulfill your duties rightfully, sometimes the result may be adverse. In that case, it is not your fault. The Gita says You have done the right work although the result is negative.
The meaning of the shloka does NOT mean:
(1) A student should not work hard. Why should he/she worry about the result? Fallacy: Student by definition, has the duty to excel in knowledge. So by not studying, he/she is not doing the duty.
(2)"Why would Arjun fight with Bhisma/Kauravs if he didn't expect to win?" (Your question) - I am sorry to say that YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT. He didnot fight to win. He fought because he got convinced that it was his DUTY to fight, regardless of the OUTCOME. This is the whole point. The result, fruit, bottonline, profit, fun, glory, kirti, fame, enjoyment ARE just the BYPRODUCTS. They are not end in them selves.
Applications of this Shloka
(1) You are going for job interview. You are very much worried because if you didn't get the job, then you may be out of status, you may be running out of cash, etc. But if you just focus on the result, then can you do well in the interview? Certainly not.
What you should do:
-Establish that your duty is to get a good job because in that case you will be able to fulfill so many of your responsibilities. Once you establish your duty, then you should focus on your Karma - the steps necessary to achieve that. Now Focus on your Karma without ever thinking about the result. You may or may not pass the interview. But in either case, you have done your DUTY and there is no point in feeling sorry, if you fail. Anybody will agree that you are likely to pass the interview if you follow this approach.
So what is the disadvantage in following this shloka? Give me just ONE example where you can show that it is disadvantageous to work without worrying the result.
From the law of Causation,
We have control in (Causes) but not in Effects (results).
My friend, why don't you worry where you HAVE to worry and why do you worry when you DON'T have to worry?
|
| nobody |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 11:38 AM
Gokul,
I agree with your part about "Your control is only on your duties and karma. You have no control over whatever result it brings. Even if you fulfill your duties rightfully, sometimes the result may be adverse. In that case, it is not your fault. The Gita says You have done the right work although the result is negative."
But Arjun's DUTY to fight is a strategy towards his fruit to WIN. He did not fight because it was his DUTY to fight, he fought hecause he had to WIN. Whether he wins or not is completely beyond him though.
You have to expect the "fal" and if you don't get it blame it on anyone but yourself, and a little more motivation for next effort...
In your interview example, isn't it true that I worry about my future, so I try to be the best I can be. That "worry" is driving me. If I didn't worry, who cares? I'll just put half-ass effort into it.
If Krsna didn't worry, he wouldn't be preaching to Arjun.
|
| somebody |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 02:25 PM
Nobody wrote:"But Arjun's DUTY to fight is a strategy towards his fruit to WIN. He did not fight because it was his DUTY to fight, he fought because he had to WIN. Whether he wins or not is completely beyond him though."
Dear nobody, I dont think that Arjun was fighting to win. He was fighting for the truth. He didnt have any intention for the war and neither did he wanted to kill Bhisma and fight with dronacharya. yes, it was his duty to fight but he fought for the truth and against the evil.
Somebody
|
| nobody |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 02:43 PM
OK... "win" becomes "truth", still doesn't change anything right?
"... Arjun's DUTY to fight is a strategy towards his fruit -TRUTH. He did not fight because it was his DUTY to fight, he fought hecause he had to get TRUTH." And regardless of the outcome, he fought because he wanted to find TRUTH... I don't buy it that it was his DUTY. A DUTY only becomes a duty when it's towards certain goal or reward... Otherwise it'll be just some meaningless act...
Any action should be towards some goal, even when the goal is not within your control and you should be smart enough to realize it. And, I agree with Gokul, failing is OK, but at least you know your reward/goal and where you are heading...
|
| NK |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 04:13 PM
Hi Site admn.
it does not let me post my message. it says some words are objectionable! For God's sake I was talking about God! What kind of inflammatory thing could I have said?
|
| Prativa |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 05:06 PM
-
Could anyone please explain to me, what the explanation of the creation of the world is in Hinduism?
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 29-Nov-01 11:29 PM
Dear Gokul ji,
Thank you very much for clearing my doubts on that verse. I liked your explanation and for the time being--unless i find something else--i believe in what yoiu wrote. So, thank you again for enriching me and otehr posters with your atha-ha gyan of Sanskit and Hinduism.
NK, I don't know Sanskrit. I memorized some verses while growing up because my grandfatehr and I had made a dedal.. A Five Star candy bar (I wonder whether they still make it) for a verse that I memorize. That's why I know many verses of sanskrit but don't know what they imply.
To the person who asked about the creation in Hinduism:
I think its the same as in Chinese. The Chinese have Yin and Yang theory, and we have Prakriti-Purush theory.. and surprisingly enough, The Genesis has Adam and Eve theory...Yin (female, Yang Male).. Prakriti (female, Purush Male) and Adam (Male), Eve (female).. So there's this universality in the creation myth. I am sure Gokul ji knows more about this, so I request him to shed some light on this too, at his convenience.
This has so far been the best discussion thread where each new post is refreshing and enlightening.. and i hope that this thread doesn't get influences by other threads where after a certain period, posters just starts to attack each other just to prove... I don't know what.. their superiority? That they are always rigjht??
Anyway, thanks much to Gokulji, NKji and all others. Let's keep this discussion going and a set a new example in this board.
Trailokya
|
| Nepali |
Posted
on 30-Nov-01 12:01 AM
Thank you everyone for sharing your views.Its been a great discussion so far and I am glad that many people expressed their intellectual views on this topic. It is good indeed to know about religion, specially our own religion and what it is trying to convey, what are the good and bad points about our religion. I hope that we will have a much wider knowledge on this topic and will utilize it to further understand what religion(s)is all about. Lets not be bias against any other religion and lets try to achieve good morals from it. Thanks to everyone again. I hope that this thread will keep on rolling.
-Nepali
|
| amina |
Posted
on 30-Nov-01 10:52 AM
Yes I agree, this has been the most interesting discussion. I really loved Gokul’s explanation on Geeta and Karma. And I do agree with what you have to say as that was my understanding of Karma. True Karma is that which is devoid of any desires ( desires of fruits). As Vivekananda said, “work for the sake of work”. That is something that is difficult to put into practice as we are used to focusing on the goals.
|
| Paakhe |
Posted
on 30-Nov-01 12:15 PM
Hi,
I have been following this thread since its inception by "Nepali" and am enjoying it. But what worries me is the portrayal of Hinduism as another religion which blindly accepts the existence of god, which tries to answer every imaginable questions. Hinduism, in my view, is not a religion, it is a way of life. As most of us know, gist of all the books of hinduism, veda, purans, and all others, is: "doing other good is the best religion (paropakaaram paramam dharma)." So, where is god. Where did it come from? In my view, gods are only the characters created by the great writers to clarify the relationship among nature and life. What do you think, Agni, Bayu, Jal, and many other devtas signify? They only represents the things life depends on and characterizing them as god is only one of many way to instil respect for nature. Apart from this, more important and also more confusing thing in our religious stories is the mention of tettis-koti devtas (thirty-three lakh gods). In my view, it is one of many ways to shows interrelationships among creatures and objects in nature.
So, please do not think Hinduism as any other religion, it is a philosophy? And it doesnot attempt to answer every question and it also doesnot try to answer the creation of Universe, as question asked by "Prativa". It is only due to some hypocritic Hindus of later times that made this philosophy a religion. Caste system in Hindu culture also didn't exist at ancient ages. As we can find in many stories, anyone can become anyone through his/her karma. For example,Bishwamitra became brahmin after long tapasya. Brahmin was not the same thing as bahun now. And also, Brahmin were not regarded with more veneration than for a architect, Vishwakarma. Vishwakarma, though it is now a caste and regarded as lower caste, was, at the ancient time, a great architect. He used not to be regarded as any lower caste.
I read Montou Gurung account how her/his life changed by Christianity, but s/he didn't mentioned exactly how it changed. I would be very happy if s/he can write something about that. And one last thing, as Gokul put it, only the Hinduism lets Hindu criticise its god because in Hinduism there is no absolute god. Responsibility of managing this world is divided among tettis-koti devtas.
What do you feel?
|
| NK |
Posted
on 30-Nov-01 02:14 PM
I remember a story. A man wanted to find the truth but everytime he would go to this renkown monk, the monk would return him right back, saying you are not ready to find the truth yet.
somehow the postings from Nobody reminds me of that story. One has to have a mind set to find the Truth. If that person is not ripe (intelellectually ) enough everything said to him/her goes above his head. he/she cannot look past his/her toes. Even Siddharatha had to waid until he got his 'gyan' below that big tree.
This above 2 paragraphs are in not meant to be slanderous. Just my thoughts on Gyan, Truth, Seekers and Wanders.
anyway Visitor, about the question about God - .
I have this uneasy feeling that you really did not read my other postings. I have said the exactly opposite thing. I equal God to Truth.
First of all let me ask you a question. What do you mean when you say God? Is this somebody with three eyes. Somebody with the ultimate knowledge, what exactly is it, when you say the word "GOD?"
Second, What do you want this "God" for? When you are in trouble? When you are happy? When you want to get married? Why do you want god to exist?
[i am puting quotation around God because the God you are thinking of may not be my God.]
I, NK, don't believe in the God who resides in heaven or somewhere around me to punish me for bad behaviours and reward me for my good behaviours. Those Gods don't exist. Like I said before (in my posting), they don't have anything to do with out affairs. That is why they are depicted in stone and paper. That is a great SYMBOL right there for you. They are for to decorate your house and your city. They are not going to come to you when you need them, believe me. Otherwise nuns who were vioilated and obliterated would never had to go through this from guatemala to columbia.It is not that it is hard to prove the existence of God therefore I don't believe it but because of the circumstantial evidence. Look around you. And you know what I mean.
Just because I am a non-believer in that kind of God does not mean I don't believe in anything. These two matters are entirely different thing.
Rather than listening to this sermon i urge you to find out what your dharma is and do your karma.
(i wanted to post this when 'Visitor' posted his question to me, so it may look a bit off)
|
| amina |
Posted
on 30-Nov-01 05:04 PM
I happen to be a bit free today. While we're talking about "GOD"..here's something on the lighter side :
From the Nov 26 Issue of The Nation, under the " In Fact" column.
God's Side
The copious reference to God in public life these days leave the Rev. Peter Laarman of the Judson Memorial Church in New York City unimpressed. He sent us what he calls " Among the Reasons God May Temporarily Be Unavailable to Bless America." Among them:
1) because God has had it up to here with the assumption that prayers for national exemption from pain and tragedy deserve an answer;
2)because God is too busy processing Americans' prayers for their high school football teams;
3)because God takes for granted that the bombs falling on Kabul are America's real prayers;
4)because such a tasteless and lurid efflorescence of red, white and blue ( including flags wrapped around church steeples) gives God a massive headache.
This is just for your reading pleasure. Please do continue with the interesting discussion of religions....
|
| ? |
Posted
on 30-Nov-01 09:59 PM
Dear NK,
Did you explain about the multi-armed Gods that you said you would explain. I might have missed it or may be your Bzness made you forget it. Anyways, I was just curious to know why our Gods are multi-armed! Thanks NK.
|
| Nobody |
Posted
on 01-Dec-01 04:25 PM
NK, I'm with you on definition of GOD. Goodness of heart rather than some idol in some temple. And kicking a dog at the entrance to the door and then lighting 'lakh-batti' isn't my religion.
But, in your example of a monk returning the man back, saying he isn't ripe enough,if "duty" is more important tham "fruit", it's monk's duty to try to transfer the wisdom,but he seems to be guided by the end result (that the man is not capable and hence won't accomplish anything, so no point training him) rather than duty. The monk's expecting some "fruit", so we can't call him enlightened either, by your argument. (I think the monk in question was Buddha, correct me if I am wrong.)
So you say, Siddhartha wasn't after the "fruit" wisdom, rather he was just executing his "duty" meditation. While at the same time you say he has to have his mind set on finding the truth. Aren't those two thoughts contradictory, you're saying you one mustn't except a fruit while at the same time have one's mind set on it? And isn't that almost like what i've been saying- one must know where one is going but should have the wisdom to know that reaching there is not completely within one's control, and keep on trying. My interpretation is he was after the "truth" (and had his mind set on it) and after a number of failures, he finally achieved it- perseverence pays. Otherwise, why did he leave that tree after he found the "light", shouldn't he meditating there forever, instead of trying to spread the light? Siince he isn't after any fruit, he would not know when to leave the tree. But he left, because he knew he's found what he was looking for.
From "still haven't found what I'm looking for" to "imagine"...
|
| Nobody |
Posted
on 01-Dec-01 04:43 PM
There's Principle of Creative Tension by Peter M. Senge. Knowledge of present reality and vision of future and that difference creates a creative tension, which drives the learning/efforts. It's formulated for Organizational behavior, but it's validity in other situations cannot be undermined.
|
| Bheja |
Posted
on 01-Dec-01 10:15 PM
Some comparision between hinduism and christianity.
Hinduism:
*Philosophy Of Karma
*Continuity Of Life
*Mystical( Human experience)
*Self realizatino(Direct contact with God/Slef)
*Individual
*Freedom to choose God(s)
*Human Suffering-Soul's Ignorance
*no eternal heaven/hell
*the scriptures has limited/no authority
Christianity:
*One life and eternal judgment
*Judgment Day
*Eternal Heaven/Hell
*One God
*Gpd's Message Revealed thru prophet
*god chooses prophets
*congregational
*Human suffering if disobeyed the God
*the world is created by God
*scripture of ultimate reality.
There is a verse in Matthew 18:8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off andthrow it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire." Christianity does not forgive any sin unlike hinduism. In hinduism if somone commits a sin then God, invites him for confession and for the further purification of the self being.
-Bheja
|
| ? |
Posted
on 03-Dec-01 08:35 PM
Bible says:
*Do not swear oaths at all. Jus say Yes or NO.(matthew 5:34,37)
*Do not judge, so that you may not be judged (Matthew 7:1)
*When you pray, do not pray where others may be you;but go into your room, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is in secret.(Mathhew 6:5-6)
*Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone wh o wants to borrow from you. (Mathhew 5:42)
*do not resist an evildoer,and if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other also. (Matthew 5:39)
*Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth.( Matthew 6:19)
*If your hand causes you to sin, cut it of; if your foot causes you to sin, cut it of; and if your eye causes you to sin, pull it out. It is better to go through life maimed, crippled, and one eyed-than to be whole and thrown into hell. (Mark 9:43)
What do you think Guys???
|
