imranhasan

Actually these Questions are applicable to each and every religion.

Agreed. But, this is a Hindu forum. Will I be wrong to ask about these basis in Hinduism?

In Sanatana Dharma, Self-realisation is the only answer and there is no short cut to this. I don't want to give usual answers to such questions which people of other religions give. Study, research and give time....You will get answers.

Please review my questions. Are you saying that 'Self Realization' is your answer to my questions?

I gave my answer already.

Pankaja:

Which of my questions did you give an answer to?

Thank you brother Pankaja_Dasa. Greetings to you.

We believe Qu'ran to be a mellacha scripture. [Meat-eaters]. And it to be temporary for time and cirumstance. On the other hand Vedic Scriptures are Eternal. Everything in the Qu'ran is inside the Vedic Scriptures in one way or another. But the entire Truth is not given inside Qu'ran for instance:

1.Re-incarnation

2. Animals don't have souls

Vedic Scriptures say anything which is conscious has a soul. And it is not different in each and everybody. I hope you have come here to learn because that is exactly what shall happen.

Unfortunately, I could not find answers to any of the questions that I had asked. Please do not presume anything about my religious ascription. My name is Imran, I was born in a Muslim family. Is that enough to make me one? I really do not think so. Even if I were one, would that be considered a disqualification in understanding the teachings of Hinduism or any other religion for that matter.

If you consider the Koran to be limited for a particular time and space. You must have a reason for that. However, my questions do not presuppose anything about your understanding of any other religion. These questions are related to the scriptures of Hinduism alone.

Trust me, I am interested in learning only. I have no intentions, whatsoever, of proving or disproving anything. I ask my questions for my own understanding. Subsequently, I make a presentation of my understanding in front of a group and try to get questions from them. I respect your beliefs and commend you for knowing what you believe in. I assure you, this is a not a very common quality in this day and age. Most of the times, I have seen people believing without even knowing any basis of what they believe in.

My fond regards to you and God bless you.

Thank you, my brother. Your reply is precise as expected.

According to Hinduism, the purpose of life is to conduct ourselves in such a way that we get rid of the cycle of life and death and reach the supreme abode. Depending on what we do in this life as well as some of what we did in some of our previous lives, our next life will be decided. This is a corollary of what we call as the law of karma. Do good and good will happen to you. Do bad and bad will happen to you. We know that there are different grades of good works. Two works may both be good, but one may be better than another. Accordingly there are different heavens. Likewise there are different hells. Through various lives, if we keep on becoming better and better, then we will achieve higher and higher heavens. Someday we may even achieve the highest of all possible heavens, which is the supreme abode. Once we reach that, then that will be total bliss in the sense that our sufferings will cease. Now, the details of that supreme abode varies from one group of Hinduism to another. But, I have written above what is the commonly believed purpose among different groups.

Is this purpose mentioned in the scriptures? Can you please guide me to where I can find it in the scriptures?

Also, would you agree that the questions related to the 'good' and 'evil' actions in trees, animals, insects and all life forms other than humans is pertinent with reference to the full understanding of this purpose?

Thank you, very much my brother. God bless you.

In one of his posts, my dear brother and teacher Avinash writes:

Our scriptures say so. This can be considered as blind belief. But Hindus believe that the scriptures were authored by great sages of the past. Those sages, through their good conduct, could directly perceive the existence of demigods. Some of them even got knowledge from God Himself. Therefore, we should believe in what these scriptures say.

My questions with respect to this are:

• Do hindus believe the scriputres to be divine and flawless and applicable for all times?
• If yes, what is the basis of this belief?
• With reference to the statement 'Those sages, through their good conduct, could directly perceive the existence of demigods', we know through experience that even great and pious people make mistakes and sometimes very big ones. With this in mind, what is the basis of ascribing to the belief that whatever is entailed in these teachings of these great sages is flawless and true?
• How can we be certain that some of these sages god knowledge from God?

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

It may indeed be thought that we should worship only the supreme. If all Hindus worship only the supreme, then they should not worship different gods. But, in practice, we do observe Hindus worshipping different gods. The reasons are the following:-

1. Not all Hindus agree on who the supreme is. Vaisnavas (one group of Hindus) say that Visnu is supreme. Saivas (another group) say that Siva is supreme. Vaisnavas worship Visnu. Saivas worship Siva. In this sense Visunu is supreme and Siva is demigod for Vasinavas. It is just the opposite for Saivas.

May I kindly request you to clarify the basis of this difference? Is this difference based on the scriptures?

I agree that our beliefs should not contradict what we observe. If, in some cases, they are found to contradict, then there should be some reason as to why we did not trust in what we observed.

I fully appreciate that. I understand from this that when our belief is found to contradict what we observe, the reason we did not find our observation to be decisive would be easily understandable and communicable to others. Am I correct?

However, there are many things in all religions which can neither be conclusively proved nor disproved through what we observer. Take an example of what happens after death. Different religions have different answers to this. By observing things in this world during our lifetime, we cannot be sure which of these answers is correct.

I agree. But as you have clarified earlier, the basis of this belief will be understandable and communicable to others. No?

Based on faith, we accept one of these.

I agree that that is the case. However, would you not agree that it should actually be based on our understanding of the strength of the reasoning, rather than faith?

So, it is true that our beliefs should be based on our physical and observable experiences. But the same experiences can be interpreted in many ways.

I agree again. In such a situation, what would you tell a person who is truly trying to seek the truth to do? Which of the many different interpretations should he follow?

It is true that our belief in God is based on our observing things in the universe. In that sense, our belief is based on what we observe. However there are people (i.e. atheists) who observe the same things but say that there is no God. The case of interpreting the same observation in different ways.

I have talked to a few of my athiest friends. I have great regard for them as human beings and I give them all the right to ascribe to whatever they understand to be correct. Nevertheless, as much as I have talked to them, I have never been able to see that there is a difference of interpreting the observation. It is, on the contrary, a refusal to interpret the observation. A believer in God would say that this universe and all that is in it is an indicator of how grand its creator is. While an atheist would say that there is no need to take from this whole creation any indications about its creator. Let us, on the contrary, just take this whole existence to have come into existence on its own, without a creator.

I would again give the example of different religions giving different answers to what happens after death. Two persons may observe the same things in their lifetimes. But they may believe in different (even contradictory) answers.

I agree, my brother. Once again, I would ask you if these people were to exhange their interpretations respectfully, do you not think they'd be able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each of the interpretations and, thereby, arrive at what was correct, according to their understanding.

If you are asking if there is any basis in believing in demigods (even if there are people who observe the same things but do not believe in demigods), the answer is yes. The reasons for believing in demigods are:-

1. Our scriptures say so. This can be considered as blind belief. But Hindus believe that the scriptures were authored by great sages of the past. Those sages, through their good conduct, could directly perceive the existence of demigods. Some of them even got knowledge from God Himself. Therefore, we should believe in what these scriptures say.

I would never pass any value judgments about any beliefs. whether a belief is ascribed to 'blindly' or not is not for me to decide. It is for you to teach me. However, in view of the importance of this topic, I have taken the liberty to start a separate thread on this topic, so that it can be given its due importance.

2. Many Hindus learn from religious teachers whom they call as gurus. By observing the way these gurus live, by hearing their words, by listening to their arguments, their followers have reasons to believe in the gurus. They may not be able to convince others of what they believe in. But, when they interacted to their gurus, then, for some reason, they felt that what gurus spoke were correct. And their gurus talked about demigods.

I respect this. However, I am sure you would agree that when matters of belief are based on feelings, rather than reasoning and understanding, then such beliefs can only be of value to the person who has felt. Not for anyone else.

God does not say that it is a must to believe in demigods and goddesses. Therefore, not believing in them will not amount to sin.

So, one may not believe in demigods and still be a hindu, without any sin of rejecting a Truth?

Thank you, my brother. God bless you for your enlightening posts.

God is omnipotent. He has the power to control everything without making an appearance. But, from this we cannot conclude that He never incarnates for the following two reasons:-

1- If God can control something by making appearance and also without this, then there is no reason to believe that one should always be better than the other. If He does something by incarnating, then one can ask why He did not do that without incarnating. So, God does have an alternative way of achieving that. The alternative is not to incarnate. But, just because we are able to give an alternative, we cannot say that the altenative is better than what God really did.

I assure you, my brother, I never meant that. Please allow me to express my apologies, if my statement implied my suggesting that an alternative course would have been better for God. I really did not mean it that way.

What I had actually meant was that when we believe and agree upon that God has the power to control all kinds of evil without making an appearance, then to say that God made a certain incarnation for checking the evil of 'X' cannot be the main reason for that incarnation. There must be some other reason that can be termed as a main reason. Controlling any evil may be a secondry cause, but not the primary cause. Don't you agree?

2- What if making appearance is itself one of the purposes that God wants to achieve? For example, what if together with killing Hiranyakashipu, God's purpose was also to appear before His devotee Prahlad?

My dear brother, I am really not in a position to say what may have been the reason for any of the incarnations of God. 'What if' will only lead us to conjecture about God's actions. As you have rightly stated, because of our limited knowledge, we cannot do that. Does the scripture that informs you about God's incarnation not inform you why God, who normally has preferred not to make an appearance, decided to make an appearance in a particular situation? I am sure, that the reason given by the scripture would really be the most important one.

There are some other sources also but all of those are either scriptures of Hinduism or taken from the scriptures. I am not aware of any other source.

So, I would be correct in saying that the only primary source of the information regarding God's incarnation is a particular scripture, that is held to be divine. Is that correct?

Thank you, very much my brother Avinash,

Gettting back to the original topic under discussion, may I please ask you to kindly state in your precise manner, what might we state as the purpose of life, according to Hinduism?

Thank you, very much.

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

Correct

Brother, if this is correct, then - without intending any disrespect - why would anyone worship any demigods. If all the blessings and all the afflictions are controlled only by God, why should anyone then worship anyone but the Supreme God?

Not only the concept of demigods but many concepts in any religion are not directly known through our physical and observable experiences.

I agree with this. You are right. My statement was not correct. Please accept my apology. What I had intended to imply was not that our beliefs and religious concepts should always be known through physical and observable experiences, but rather that our beliefs should be based on observable and communicable realities. Would you agree with this?

The very concept of God is one of these. That is why, there are many people who do not believe in God.

I fully agree that the concept of God is not a physically observable experience. But, I have always felt that we believe that there is a God on the basis of the study of His creation? If this is true, then our belief in God is based on a physically observable and communicable reality - the existence of the vast universe, the magnicent and varied forms of life, etc. If this is not true, then what exactly is the basis of our belief in God?

But, what is important is that the concept should not be inconsistent with what is known to be a fact. As far I understand, the concept of demigods is not inconsistent with any known fact. Though, of course, if somebody does not believe in demigods, then his belief also will not be inconsistent with any known fact.

This is slightly confusing. Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that both believing as well as not believing in demigods/demigodesses is not inconsistent with any 'known facts'. This can only be true if the 'known facts' was irrelevant to the belief in demigods and demigoddesses. Isn't that true? Please elaborate.

Testing beings could be one possible reason, though, it may be that there are other reasons as well. However, let us concentrate on this particular reason. It is true that, just as God can test other beings, he tests demigods also. The same demigod is not given a particular post for ever. Consider Indra, the god of rain. The word Indra is a post. Something like prime minister. Rightnow, somebody is the prime minister of a particular country. But, he did not always hold that post and also he will not always hold that post. Likewise, there have been and will be many Indra's.

A demigod is given some authority depending on his earlier conduct. But, depending on his conduct during the time he was holding that authority and also depending on the conducts of some others, somebody else can be given that authority i.e. made as the demigod for that position.

There are also stories in Puranas in which some human being became more powerful than a demigod because of his conduct.

The concept of demigods will be difficult to understand if you put them in a group together with God. Think of them as beings the way there are many other beings. All beings are given some power. Demigods also have some power. No being is perfect. Demigods are also not perfect.

Ok. Just two more questions in this respect:

1- For people who do not hold the Puranas to be divine, how would you recommend that I present the Hindu belief in demigods and demigodesses?

2- In your example of human governments, people say that human beings have to govern through delegation of control because of the lack of omnipotence and omniscience. Why do we believe that God would govern on the same principle?

God does not require us to believe that demigods can never be wrong. But, just as we request some human beings in power for some favours even though we know that they may not grant those favours, we worship (in the sense of praying or requesting) demigods. The word devotion towards demigods is to be understood in this sense. So far love is concerned, we are required to have love towards demigods the way we should have love towards other beings.

I am extremely sorry for not being clear in my statement. Does God not require us to believe in demigods and demigoddesses? Would a person who does not believe in demigods/demigodesses be considered sinful in not believing so?

Thank you, my brother. God bless you.

Thank you, all my brothers. I request you to please allow me some time to consider all the arguments one by one. As that will be the only way for me to learn.

Respected Avinash, I request your attention for now. I write this with reference only to your last response.

To same extent I have found many people basing their opinions on something other than scriptures. Some of them outright refuse to believe in what scriptures say. Of course, they should not be called as Hindus. However, there are some who want to believe in scriptures but, on some particular topic, they are not sure what scriptures say and they get answer to that based on their personal belief. I would not outright consider them as non-Hindus, but I would say that their belief is not exactly as per the scriptures of Hinduism.

My dear brother and teacher, I praise your beautiful remarks. You are indeed a very tolerant man, not only in practice (which I have sufficiently experienced, personally... ) but also in your thought and ideology, as is evident from this statement of yours. God bless you.

I am myself not very much clear about this. I have read some stories in which somebody had to take the form of a tree till a particular time because of some bad action that he had performed earlier. After the expiry of that period, he was back in his earlier form. These stories do not talk about good and evil done by trees. But both tree-life and also the life after that were due to something that happened before the tree-life. But, I am not very clear about what scriptures say about good and bad done by trees. I will wait for sometime for somebody else to post answers. If nobody posts, then I will assume that those knowing the answers may not have read this post of mine and I will start a different thread on this topic.

I thank you, very sincerely for the attention and importance that you've given to my question. I would request you to please do try to find these answers and help me understand them too. I find your explanations and arguments very understandable indeed. Thank you.

In this respect, two further points may kindly be added in your investigation: Firstly, these questions may also kindly be answered with reference to animals and insects and all other life forms, besides humans. Secondly, to make these answers more generally understandable, any non-scriptural evidence (which obviously would have more general acceptability) may kindly also be offered for convincing others. Thank you.

I am not sure what should be considered as basic moral values. Could you give any example of what you could consider as basic moral value. The example need not be as per Hinduism. It could be based on your belief. Then I will answer what Hinduism says about that. Many would consider telling lies as bad. But, depending on situation, telling lies can be better than telling the truth.

By basic moral values, I mean the value of 'Truthfulness', 'Honesty', 'Justice', 'Kindness' etc. Remember, we are not talking about any situations. We are talking about the concepts truthfulness, honest, justice and kindness etc. When we say that "depending on situation...", we are then not talking about concepts, but the application of these concepts (whether by individuals or by societies). To explain this further, It would be a basic moral value statement to say that 'we should show kindness to those who are weaker than us'. However, there can be a situation where 'kindness' may go against another - more important - moral value in that situation. For instance, if you are made a judge, you should decide with 'justice'. In this situation, your 'kindness' towards the perpetrator may be seen as unjust and therefore 'unkindness' towards a person who has already been wronged.

Finally, just consider this: 'Truthfulness is what is right, but depending on the situation lying can be right'. The statement itself clearly implies that we do not need any justification for truthfulness, however, if we want to establish that lying is correct in a particular situation, we need to justify it from the situation. I think it will be even clearer to you to understand what I mean, if you try to imagine where 'telling lies can be better than telling the Truth'.

In view of this, I have always held that basic moral values are not specific to any religion. These are universal in their nature. Everyone, without exception agrees with and ascribes to these values. However, there can be situations in which deviations from these moral values may be considered justifiable.

I would love to hear your comments. Thank you, my brother.

Thank you very much, Avinash,

Because of our limitations, we cannot know all the reasons. But, there is nothing wrong in trying to know the reasons (at least some of those). Example: One reason known to us for Nrisimha incarnation was, as mentioned in a previous post, to check the evil of Hiranyakashipu.

Thank you, for the answer. As I had stated earlier, I fully appreciate the point that because of our limitations, we may never be able to understand why God did something that he wants us to believe in. However, when I discussed this point with some of my friends (ascribing to various beliefs), there were some points raised on this concept. Most of these questions were of the nature of debate and lack of appreciation of other's position and stance. I did not have any problem in them and neither do I consider them to be of importance. However, there were a few question, that I find relevant but was unable to answer on my own. Please help me, if you find these questions relevant.

1- Does God have the ability and the power to control everything without making an appearance? If He does, then this cannot be the real reason to make an incarnate appearance. If He does not, how can we hold God to be Omnipotent? Please do comment.

2- When and where did the narrated story of Nrisimeh take place? Do we have any sources, independent of the Puranas, narrating this story?

Thank you very much, my brother. God bless you all.

Namaste Eternal Law, Thank you for your time.

Yes, it may not be significant in Abrahmic religions where God is saparate from creation. Hinduism has concept of Brahman. Only Brahman exists and nothing else. So, in a way Hinduism is more Monotheistic than Abrahmic religions provided you understand concept of Brahman.

Probably, I could not make myself clear. What I meant was. Any concept that is based on understanding can be communicated to others too. That is why differences become insignificant, for at least, we'll have a common grounds to communicate our ideas to others and others can communicate our ideas to us.

I am most certainly interested in understanding the concept of Brahman. But does that imply the agreement that it is, in fact, our understanding that will make us believe or not believe anything?

Law of Karma and concept of reincarnation is one of the most basic things in Hinduism (Later adopted by Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism).

If life is one and God is not partial, then Why many people are spiritual from very beginning and some can't even understand divine all their lives?

If life is one and God is not partial then why God allowed people to take birth in sufferings of Africa and others in divine spiritual enviornment or in comforts of America?

If life is one and God is not partial then Why that Child was born with AIDS or is without family and another with good Health or in a respected family?

If life is one and God is not partial and their is only one true religion (Islam or Christianity)..then Why God allowed soul to take birth in false religions and suffer?

.

.

.

.

practically their are unlimited Questions like these...

Brother, you have made your point very clear. And look, you have provided arguments for your belief. Right? That is exactly what I had requested you to confirm your agreement for. If we believe things on the basis of arguments, then our belief is based on understanding. If it is not on the basis of arguments but on the basis of tradition, then my questions may not find the answers, they'd be seeking.

Do we agree on the points that I had given in my first post addressing you?

In general, yes. However, in order to be precise, I would just add that God can make anything happen without the help of any demigod. So, if God wants to make it rain, either he can cause that Himself or ask some demigod to do so.

This, to my understanding, means that if God were to bestow a blessing on me or to afflict me with an injury, no one among the demigods and/or demigoddesses will be able to hold that blessing back from me or to save me from that injury. Is that correct?

Why did God create any being (not only gods but humans and other life forms as well) who are not perfect? Why did God give any power to any such being? Whatever is the reason God allows humans to be incharge of some affairs even though human may make mistakes is the reason that God has made gods as incharges of some affairs.

Before describing this in more detail, I would like to know if I have understood your question correctly and then we can discuss this in more detail.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity for elaborating my question. Firstly, let me explain the reason that I ask this question: You see, a human being having authority over me, is not a matter of belief for me. It is merely a matter of the appreciation of his position, through my physical and objectively observable experiences. No one considers the individual in authority to be perfect in knowledge, power or wisdom. We would only accept his decisions, to maintain organization of the society. Furthermore, considering the decisions of another human being to be wrong or foolish or even sinful does not make me lesser in my faith or belief regarding that human being, for I never held him to be perfect, to start with.

Now, if I were told to believe that God has delegated matters to other lesser gods, the matter does not fall within the scope of my observation. It is a matter that I may never be able to observe in this lifetime. On what communicable and understandable basis, then, would I be told to believe in this phenomenon?

As for the question, "Why did God give any power to any such being?", the answer that comes to my mind is to test these beings in the very sphere in which they have been given power. Would the same answer apply to the appointment of demigods and demigoddesses? Is God testing these demigods and demigoddesses for their abilities? Why does he, then, require us to believe in them, worship them, and have love and devotion for them?

I do sincerely hope that these questions are not indicative of a confused and unclear mind...

God bless you.

Of course he gave some interpretations of Vedas and showed that we could not treat Puranas as divine if we assumed Vedas as divine. Some may consider this as academic basis. But, in reality, the basis is not really academic. Puranas did not match his personal belief, and therefore he interpreted Vedas in such a way that some of the contents of Puranas could be shown to be wrong. On that basis, he claimed that Puranas were not of divine origin.

So, irrespective of whatever method he chose to show that Puranas should be rejected, the basis was his personal belief.

I would love to know more about the Mr. Saraswati's interpretation of the Vedas and his arguments. But, obviously, that should come later.

Scriptures say that, because of our limitations i.e. lack of perfect knowledge, we do not know all the reasons why God does something.

I think that is a very valid argument. Indeed, we cannot fathom all the reasons and all aspects of wisdom in any of God's actions. That, truly, is a matter beyond our comprehension and knowledge.

However, when we are required to believe something about God, would it not be reasonable to seek a reason for that belief? Would I be wrong in asking for a reason to believe that God incarnated in various forms?

Please guide. God bless you.

A single incarnation may server many purposes. So, it is possible that Nrisimha incarnation was for other reasons as well. However, if you consider the main reason known to man, then the reason was what you mentioned, viz., keeping the evil of Hiranyakashipu in check. Of course, it was also good for devotee Prahlad in the sense that he could see God (though in the form of man-lion).

Thank you very much for your beautiful response once again, I truly appreciate your contributing time for me.

Ofcoure, everyone will agree with these basics points. At the same time, People of different religions may disagree with defination of God.

I would once again request you to please review these points once again. These points are not an enumeration prepared by a learned scholar, these are my own points. I assure you, I will be delighted to review and revise them on the basis of a better understanding.

The reason I say that you may kindly review these points once again is that if you agree with these points, then the part, "At the same time, People of different religions may disagree with defination of God" does not remain as significant. Understanding is universally communicable. You have very rightly stated that peoples ascribing to different religions differ in their concept of God. I also acknowledge that differences in understanding are quite likely. But I still believe that even if such intricate concepts like the concept of God were presented on the basis of our God-gifted faculty of understanding, we would, at worst, be able to appreciate and acknowledge these differences in understanding and, at best, resolve them.

True aim of Soul is to progress spiritually. Every Soul is not equal spiritually. This explains why there is difference between Gandhi and Hitler.

I am not sure if I have understood this point correctly. Please clarify: Are you saying that Gandhi was Gandhi only because of the level of progress that Gandhi's soul had attained and Hitler was Hitler only because of the same reason? Was this level of progress of each of these souls in the hands of these people or was it because of something beyond the control of these people?

Do you think that Hitler was devoid of the sense of Moral and Immoral action or would you think that he refused to listen to the voice inside of him and knowingly acted against it, even if he tried to justify his actions to himself and to the world, in general?

Two people read same scripture, one becomes Terrorist and another Suffi saint who has universal understanding. This is because of difference in Spiritual advancement of Soul.

I really do not know how to judge what you term as "Spiritual advancement of the Soul", but I do know that the two people understand the scriptures differently and are very active in trying to propagate their respective understanding to others. One can try to understand their respective views on the basis of one's own understanding and decide which of the two are correct. I really feel that this is the only objective way of approaching any subject. i really do not possess any objective criterion to measure the spritual advancement of people around me. But I do possess an ability to understand their point of views and decide if they are wrong or right.

For primary class student, Theorems of College are useless, he have to learn basics and advance to understand them. That doesn't mean teachings of his class are not basics of some higher spiritual truths which he will learn in future when that soul will progress spiritually.

I fully agree with this. Where would you guide a person to begin, if he wants to take up an understanding of Hinduism?

Yes, ultimately there is only one Sanatan (Eternal) Truth which can't be explained but realised.

I request you to please let me know how is a person supposed to accept this Eternal Truth, if he cannot understand it. What is the means of realizing it, without understandig it?

Thank you very much for your generosity. God bless you.

Agnideva is the god of fire. It is because of him that fire works. Indra is the lord of rain. it is because of the grace of Indra that there is rain.

I see. So, the idea is that fire burns, fire warms and fire cooks because Agnideva directs it to. And rain comes down only when Indra directs it to.

Just to understand more. If God were to decide about rain at a particular place, would he order Indra to send rain there? Would Indra have the authority to refuse or delay the execution of God's directives? If Indra were to decide about rain at a particular place, but God's Omniscience and Wisdom would require otherwise, would God be able to stop the rain?

Yes, it is true that because of their ignorance they may make mistakes. Also, they sometime make mistakes because of ego or greed. However, even these (i.e. ego and greed) can be considered as corollary to not being perfectly knowledgeable because perfect knowledge would tell us that ego and greed are not good. So, you are in right in saying that they make mistakes because of the lack of perfect knowledge and power.

This is interesting. The questions that immediately comes to mind after reading this part is: Why has the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Wise God given powers of execution as well as decision-making to those who lack in knowledge, power and wisdom? Furthermore, why would an Omniscient God appoint a being subject to such qualities as "ego and greed", in charge of the affairs of a part of His creation? And thinking about it, I feel even a more basic question should have been, why did God give away a part of His creation to anyone, however capable, knowledgeable and safe from greed and ego that other being might be?

Yes, that is correct. Supreme God (often referred as God with uppercase 'g') is perfect and never makes any mistake.

Can it be called a mistake to give charge of affairs to beings who are not perfect? If God did this knowingly, does He give us any idea about the wisdom behind such an apparently inexplicable phenomenon?

Please do not misconstrue my questions as criticisms. These are truly my honest questions and I have recorded them, as they occured to me. I assure you I respect you with all my heart, for you have given the most important asset in your life - time and attentioin - I am truly grateful for this. Please do not hesitate to refuse any questions that you may not wish to address immediately. We can continue with the next point, if and when you'd feel that way.

Thank you, my brother. God bless you.

Thank you very much, Avinash. Your introduction of the Arya Samaj is truly enlightening and extremely interesting. It does raise a few questions in my mind, but I think we should defer these till I understand the basic issue under consideration here. Thank you.

However, there is just one question that I would like you to briefly throw some light on. You write:

But he did not believe in Puranas (another set of scriptures of Hinduism), because Puranas contain stories of various incarnations; some Puranas contain various methods of statue-worship and they contain many other things which Dayanand Saraswati did not believe in. He said that the stories in Puranas were later additions by man and were not divine.

Do you mean that Mr. Saraswati rejected the divine origin of the Puranas, merely on the basis that he didn't want to believe in what they said? Did he have no academic basis of challenging the divine origin of these puranas and yet he challenged them just to get rid of some of the beliefs? Did he have ANY academic basis of challenging these beliefs propagated by the Puranas? I find this quite intriguing. Nevertheless, if you so decide, we can take this up, later.

There are many incarnations. Let me take the example of Nrisimha. There was a teenager named Prahlad... Lord Nrisimha took him to the entrance of his palace and killed him there.

This is an interesting and, to my mind, a fantastic story. I'd like to ask a few questions about it, but that would take us away from our basic topic. I would, therefore, try to keep any questions on this story aside, for the time being.

If I were to derive the reason for the incarnation of God at the instance referred to in the story, I'd probably term it as keeping the evil of Hiranyakashipu under check. Would this be correct?

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, very much my brother Eternal Law

Beliefs are the building blocks of the mind. Our beliefs determine our thoughts and attitudes about life, which in turn direct our actions. By our actions we create our destiny. Beliefs about sacred matters—God, man and cosmos—are essential to one’s approach to enlightenment. But beliefs are not mere matters of agreement. They are what we value and hold as true.

This is most brilliantly and eloquently put. I find it to be the voice of my own heart. I have always felt that Beliefs must precede actions, for they provide meaning as well as the basis for all actions.

My dear brother, before I address my questions on your points, I would like to first seek your comment on one of the important starting points in my approach to understanding. This point relates to something I very strongly believe in through introspection. Nevertheless, I assure you, if I am convinced that this belief of mine is wrong (which, as you will see can only be done by resorting back to it), I will review and revise it, without a problem. This is my promise with myself...

• I believe that God created man;
• I believe that God gave man all the faculties and senses so that he could live an enlightened life by using these faculties and senses properly;
• I believe that with these faculties of and senses, God also gave us the ability to distinguish right from wrong and good from bad. This entails man's universal awareness of and ascription to the basic moral values.
• I believe that God's first and foremost guidance to man is to bestow on him the faculty of understanding and it is man's duty towards God to use this faculty of understanding and to take his decisions in the light of this faculty of understanding.
• I believe that the only true universal standard of right and wrong is also provided by this faculty of understanding and the universal inherent awareness of the basic moral values.

Thank you very much, indeed for your time and brilliant and precise response. God bless you.

When various Hindus respond to questions on Hinduism, their responses differ. Some differences are because of differences of understanding. However, there is another reason for the differences. The reason is that they do not always respond based on their understanding of scriptures. They combine that understanding with the understanding that they have from other sources e.g. from whatever they have studies in Science and in some cases, their personal beliefs. Since their understandings from other sources differ, their responses differ.

I can understand that being a written word, one's interpretation of a scripture can be significantly different from another's. Such differences of opinion, I would presume, would be considered simple differences of understanding and within the allowable frame of differences. However, when someone would base his opinion on somethiing other than the scripture, this, as I see it, would amount to a much graver difference (in basis) even if the resultant difference of opinion is not as huge. Would you consider a person who does not derive his beliefs from a scriptures to be a Hindu? This question again is of secondry importance only and may be ignored for the time being, if you deem fit.

Hinduism says that even tress have soul. So, they can possess the choice of good and evil.

But is it not against common human observations? What would be the basis of believing that a tree "can" possess the choice doing good and evil, when our observation suggests otherwise.

Yes, exactly.

So, the basic moral (and immoral) values are absolute and unchanging. Correct?

Thank you very much my brother, Avinash

There are many scriptures of Hinduism. Puranas are included in these. Some people (e.g. those belonging to Arya Samaj) do not believe in the stories written in Puranas (at least not literally). But that is their personal belief. If we go by what Puranas say, then God has incarnated many times in various forms. So, according to the scriptures of Hinduism, incarnation is an essential belief.

Without intending any disrespect towards any of my brothers here, can I ask if the Arya Samaj, because of not believing in the Stories of the Puranas, cannot be considered as Hindus? I ask this question only because when you say that they don't believe in God's incarnation, while "according to the scriptures of Hinduism, incarnation is an essential belief", then, it seems that those who do not accept this belief, would not be Hindus. Am I correct? I am sorry, if this is a wrong question, you may ignore answering it, as it is not even directly related to the topic of this thread.

Different incarnations were for different reasons. If you mention any specific incarnation, then I will try to tell some of the reasons why that incarnation happened.

Please excuse my ignorance. I am not even aware of any of these incarnations. How can I ask about the reason for any one of these. Can you pick up one, from the many and let me know why God incarnated Himself in that particular case.

Thank you very much for your time. God bless you.

Thank you very much, my brother, Avinash.

The answer depends on what you will take as 'creating'. I may build a car and thus I am the creator of that car. In that sense demigods also can create many things. Of course, they can and do create many things which I may not even be able to imagine.

But if I build a car then I have to use many materials which are not created by me. Likewise, when demigods create something, then they use many things which are not created by them. If you are asking about the ultimate creator i.e. who has created things without using things created by somebody else, then the answer is 'the one Supreme'. Demigods are not ultimate creators in this sense.

I guess when you used the word 'creator', you meant in this second sense. But I just wanted my answer the clear and that is why considered both meanings.

You are absolutely right. I meant it the second way. I have got your absolutely clear answer. Thank you so much. So, would I be correct to assume that in this second sense. The One Supreme God, alone is the creator?

It is mostly democratic in the sense that supreme God has given authorities to them within their spheres of authority. However, He does exercise control from time to time when need arises.

I see. Can you please give me just a few examples of some of these demigods/demigoddesses and their respective sphere of authority. This is just for my understanding. Thank you.

He has full control.

 

Understood. Thank you.

If supreme God asks them to do something, then they have to do it. But the same thing can be done in various ways. to select one of those ways, the demigods may take their own decisions.

One more things. Some demigods in some situations may not directly interact with supreme God. They may interact with somebody above them but below the supreme.

 

I see. So it is almost exactly like the way governments are run.

Yes, He is alone the one who is omnipotent and omniscient. Demigods may be very powerful and knowledgeable but they have some limitations.

I understand that these limitations are in their not being omnipotent and omniscient. Is that correct?

To a large extent but in some cases, even within their sphere of responsibility they may make some mistakes.

This is interesting. Though, I think it would be an obvious corollary of their not being omnipotent and omniscient. The lack of their perfect knowledge and power would obviously result in their making mistakes. Would you consider that right?

Just a related question. Would the Supreme God also be considered perfect in His Wisdom? Also, would the Supreme God's omniscience and omnipotence also guarantee that He, unlike the demigods and demigodesses, never makes a mistake.

Thank you, very much for your time. God bless you.

Thank you, my brother SM744 for contributing your time,

Ideally the answers to your question on purpose of life should be given by all moms to their children. But moms typically get busy trying to attend to the crying child which wants food or to sleep etc. This goes on & on. The answers on purpose of life are seldom articulated clearly by the moms.

What I understand from this is that, according to you, just as a child is not intellectually in a position to understand, at an early stage in life, so is man not in a position to understand such concepts as the purpose of life. Just as a child must do what its mother tells, so should we just "live" in a particular way and not try to understand the purpose of life. Is that right?

So I don't agree with you with your statement above that one cannot aspire of achievements without knowing the purpose of life. Many a moms are proud of their children's achievements in this world.

Is it not because a mother would only tell a child what to do, according to what she herself sees as the welll being of a child. A mother may not teach a child about the purpose of its life, at its birth. However, it would only guide it to do, what she sees is in its benefit, according to the ends that she wants the child to reach. What I mean is that in the 'mother-child' analogy, even if the purpose may never be expressed, yet it may be very clear and apparent through the actions and the teachings of the mother. Will you not agree that all of man's conscious actions do have a purpose and, subsequently, the success and failures of these actions are only to be judged with reference to this purpose?

I consider that purpose of life is best understood through spirituality. Without a quest for spirituality, an answer on purpose of life to you has to be quite different, I wonder, from that suggested by me earlier.

Please forgive me for my ignorance. What is spirituality? What is the means of attaining it?

Thank you Gaea. While I wait for brother avinash's reply, i'd like to ask you for some clarifications regarding some of your points:

I can only answer your questions from my viewpoint so please forgive me if i'm not more expansive...

I thank you, very dearly for your answer, my brother.

...the Shiva Purana will have a teaching that many Dvaitins will find antagonistic.

This is interesting. Please excuse my ignorance, can you - if it is not considered wrong - please let me know this teaching of the Shiva Purana, which is taken to be antagonistic by the Dvaitins, and why?

You see, you it must understood that there are different teachings for different people. Imagine your body is a vessel. Different people have different sized vessels. Moreover there may be some substances that the vessel might not be able to hold because of its material. Therefore the Vedic people of old, realised souls, evolved beings (whatever you want to call them) taught an ideology that was relevant for the time and the place and for the people who were listening. So, Christ taught his Teachings, Mohammed taught his Teachings, etc. etc. - the teachings were relevant for the time/place/constitution of the people who "needed saving".

I think I understand what you are saying. What you mean is that just like a good teacher would only teach his students the concepts that they would be able to understand and digest and also in a manner that they will understand and digest, so too these great reformers. Am I correct?

However, If what I have understood is correct (and please ignore this, if it is not correct), then the basic difference between the teachings of these reformers should be of the nature of more or less expansive. Obviously, if there are any facts about somethiing that these great reformers have told their audience, those facts cannot be mutually exclusive. Will you not agree?

Thank you.

The one thing you will find constant is LOVE AND DEVOTION for God, whatever the intracacies of philosophy. I would ask you to see this unity in diversity.

Hey, why not? "Hindu", as Avinash alluded to, is just a label for the body. If it makes you happy, good for you, use it. Spirituality is universal to everyone.

Some will say God has a form/name, some will say not. Some will say everybody is God, others will be disgusted by this thought and say God is above us. Very different, as you can see. However none of them will say "Hate God", "Hate people" etc. All realise the importance of Love.

This is a popular misconception encouraged by those who know nothing about Hinduism and try to write text books about it. Hindus are not Idol worshippers in the sense that the Ten Commandments forbid (OTHER POSTERS - if you have a quiff with this start off a different thread please!). Why we use Murtis ("Idols") is a whole different story. But essentially yes, there are many Hindus who do not use Murtis in their regular practice. There are also some Hindus (but not many) who don't believe in reincarnation. Are they gonna burn in hell for this? No, i don't think so. The most important thing is LOVE GOD. That is the essence of Hinduism. It is the essence of almost every religion on this planet (at least in their original states).

G.

Thank you amala dasa, you write:

So we could conclude this subject in the following way:

True/false or good/bad like dualities are relative and will change according to time, place, and situation. so we could say that this will depend on the state of mind at large. That is what Bhagavad Gita states. Ultimately we need to control our mind for a real or good venture. So we need to look for a cleaning process.

 

Do you mean that good and bad behavior is so relative what is good behavior today may not have been so at another place or time? I really would like some clarification on this, as I have always felt that moral values in their essence are universal and unchanging. Though the form in which a society applies these moral values, may differ, yet the basic values remain the same. Is that not the case?

Thank you.

Greetings to all,

During my initial exposure of Hindu theology, I have come accross the thought that during various times, God incarnated himself in various physical entities and that the idols worshiped by the Hindus are, in fact, images of these physical incarnations of God. Is this true? Is the idea of physical incarnations of God an essential belief of Hinduism?

My question with respect to the incarnations of God is: why did God need to incarnate himself in a limited physical being at any given time?

Thank you.