animesh

One day I was discussing with one person, roughly of the same age as me, who is a christian. The discussion started with theory of evolution, but then it moved towards christianity. He told me about "father, son and holy spirit". He said only those in whom holy spirit had entered could call themselves as true christians. He belived that holy spirit had entered into him and therefore he was a true christian. When I asked him as to why he was so confident, he made many statements which I could neither prove nor disprove. Example: Using my spiritual eyes, I am right now seeing that I will reach God after death.

Not only that he even went on to the extent of claiming that other than christianity, every other religion was a lie. He said to me that if God really loved someone, then that person would convert to christianity. By giving many arguments, I tried to convince him that his way of thinking was very dangerous. But he was fully confident that his belief was correct. I did not feel like continuing that discussion further and stopped the discussion.

After that I really started wondering: If a person whom God really loves and in whom holy spirit has entered, starts making such kind of communal statements, then is it worth that God should love anyone?

Hi ggohil,

One clarification. I do not consider believing in God as anything bad. It is said that there are people who have realized God. Well, I have not realized, but I accept that there might be people who have really realized- it is definitely a possibility. So, belief in God is nothing bad, but I do criticize so many vice in society in the name of religion.

The biggest reason for so many vice (sati system, casteism etc.) in the name of religion is,in my opinion, blind faith. When you blindly follow somebody or some book, then you do not exercise your thinking ability. In turn, you do many wrong things thinking that they are right. Example can be given of sati system. When this system was very much in vogue in India, then close relatives of a new widow used to force her to jump into funeral pyre. It is not that all of these people were criminal. No. But they used to do such heinous act because they really belived that the widow would become a devi.

Now also I find that there are many who think that one should have blind faith in religious matters. Even if their faith is extremely dangerous for both themselves as well as the society, then also they will not change their belief. According to them, these beliefs are commanded by God and ,therefore, must be true. They think that those beliefs may seem to be bad but because it is written in some book which they consider as holy or because it is told by somebody whom they consider as holy person, then they should blindly follow that.

Hi Love,

If I read the stories in puranas, I feel that Indians used to do many things which were considered to be great deeds but, in my opinion, should not have been done as doing those things was tantamount to giving advangate to enemies. Example: When somebody asks for something, give him. You will find numerous examples in which somebody gave donated something knowing fully well that the person who was asking for favour had an ulterior motive. It might be considered as great deed but I don't think it is at all practical.

Hi Love,

I know very little about Hindu scriptures. But I have read somewhere that there are some shastras which teach casteism. They teach that if a person of lower caste recites Vedas, then he should be severely punished, his tongue should be cut off.

A few days back, I started reading Upanishads. I am really getting absorbed into them. The teachings in them are very nice. Also, the phrases have got poetic beauty.

I really wonder why it is that some of the books teach universal love and there are some who teach hatred.

One reason could be that the books that teach hatred were written by some people who became very selfish. It is just impossible to believe that whatever is written in these books was taught by ancient sages of India. Because, how could those sages who were very righteous, who were content with worshipping God, doing yagna, imparting knowledge and who had no greed for material wealth could ever teach these things.

In Taittiriopanishad, guru is instructing his pupil at the end of their course:

Always say what is true.

Do your duties.

Continue, without neglect, the daily study of the Veda.

Now that you have come to the end of your stay with your teacher, live the life of a householder.

Do not swerve from Truth and Dharma, and do something useful in the social economy.

Achieve greatness, and do not fail to refresh your memory in respect of what you have learnt.

Remember the gods and your ancestors.

Honour your mother. Look upon her as God.

Honour your father. Look upon him as God.

Honour your teacher as God.

Honour your guest. Look upon him as if God came to receive your attention.

May you ever exercise your understanding and, distinguishing the good from the blame-worthy, avoid the latter and ever do what is good.

Follow all that was good in your teacher’s life. You will meet with better men than even the teachers with whom you have lived. Show them due respect.

Give gifts with faith, not neglectfully but with joy, with humility, and with kindness.

We should not speak ill of food. We should not throw away food. We should cltivate plenty of food. We should let no one who comes for food be turned away.

How about having a topic for contributing what we learn from Vedas and Upanishads?

I really do not understand why idol worshipping is so much ridiculed by some. If an idol helps someone concentrate, it is perfectly OK to do this. Those who ridicule idol worshipping usually say that an idol is not the actual God and that the idol is made of some materials like stone, soil etc. But if the same people are asked to tear into pieces a photograph of someone whom you love, then they won't do it. Afterall what is photograph? Just a piece of paper. Then why be afraid of tearing it off?

Hi Love,

Is this your first entry in this forum? Welcome.

You have written that there are many holy books in Hinduism. Well, I do not think that it is necessary to have only one holy book. It is perfectly OK to have many. But they should not contradict each other. If they do, then it should be clearly mentioned which one will get precedence. If my knowledge is correct, then vedas and upanishads are considered to be most holy books in Hinduism.

You have also written that it is time that we Hindus understood what it meant to be a Hindu. But you have not mentioned what you consider as "being Hindu".

btw: Let me take this opportunity to say that I really liked your reply. It is very nicely written. It seems that English is your first language.

_________

According to Madhva, there are is only one way of interpreting Shastra. Tattva-vadi scholars are required to criticize other interpretations when they differ from Madhva's and refute them. That is their tradition.

__________

Has Madhva laid down any guidelines for interpretation of shastras? Also, is there any reason to belive that all those interpretations that do not conform to Madhva's must be refuted?

I will use this topic to post the doubts that I get after reading scriptures.

My first doubt is:

It is written in Bhagwat Puran that at the end of previous kalpa, vedas fell from the mouth of Brahma and a demon named Hayagriva stole it. But vedas are said to be transcedental sound. How can anybody steal it? Is there any hidden meaning in this story? If yes, what?

I will use this topic to post the doubts that I get after reading scriptures.

My first doubt is:

It is written in Bhagwat Puran that at the end of previous kalpa, vedas fell from the mouth of Brahma and a demon named Hayagriva stole it. But vedas are said to be transcedental sound. How can anybody steal it? Is there any hidden meaning in this story? If yes, what?

Hi shvu,

Thanks for the correction. This is how I will know if my knowledge is correct. In fact, when I used the word 'impersonal', I did not know that it had any distasteful meaning. In fact, I was under impression that impersonal meant "without form".

I do not know if curious is still reading the posts in this forum. If he is, then I think, what I am going to write below may be of some use to him. Because he says that he is interested in knowing about many religions.

________

The knowledge given in sacred books of hindus is so vast that even though I am a hindu by birth, I have got a very small fraction of that knowledge. But, based on whatever knowledge I have got, I will try to explain what hinduism is.

Before explaining what hinduism is, let me first tackle the most common miscoception about this religion in the minds of followers of other religions. Many times, I have found followers of other religions claming that there is no one God for hindus. Rather they believe in many gods. It is true that there is concept of many gods (mark lowercase 'g') in hinduism. But there is also concept of a single supreme God (mark uppercase 'G'). God is considered as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. But these attributes are not applicable for so many gods. The gods can be more knowledgeable and more powerful than many human beings. But they are not, by any means, all knowledgeable or all powerful. You can consider these gods as intermediaries between human beings and God. Just like, we approach a police person if something is stolen, a doctor when we do not feel well, a shop owner when we want to buy something, a software engineer when we want a software to be developed; similarly, there are different gods for providing different kinds of material needs. But, in hinduism, none of them can be considered as comparable to the single supreme God.

Apart from being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, God is also eternal. He is considered to be ever present, i.e. he did not come into being some finite time in the past and also He will never go out of existence. The gods (Indra, Varun etc.) live for a much much longer time than human beings, but they also have to die one day.

Let me talk about the incarnation of God as mentioned in hindu scriptures. It is said that whenever virtue declines and vice increases to an extreme, then God manifests Himself in order to save virtuous people and destroy sinful people. Based on situation, He can manifest in any form: boar, fish, human form etc. He can manifest with all his attributes or a part thereof. Now one question can be asked here: If He manifests with all his attributes on earth, then who takes care of the rest of the universe? The answer is that He does not leave the rest of the universe even when he incarnates. Because God can and is present in a large no. of forms and at different places (in fact all places) at the same time.

Some scholars consider God as sagun which means having form and attributes. Others consider Him as nirgun, which means without form and attributes. Well, God is both. Whenever He needs to do anything which requires form, e.g. creating universe, fighting with cruel, coming before devotees to give them blessings or to impart some knowledge to them, then He has form. Now different deeds may require different forms. So, at any time, He is present in a large no. of forms. So, he is also known by large no. of names. You can consider formless God as something like energy (this may not be a very good analogy, but it will do for the sake of explanation). He is present as impersonal (formless) Brahman throughout the universe. (Please do not confuse the word 'Brahman' with a caste called 'brahman'; the former is pronounced as brahm and the later as braahman).

There is concept of rebirth. It is said that whatever happens to any living being is a result of what he did in this life as well as his previous lives. There are doctrines of dwait and adwait. Both of them talk about a large cycle of births and rebirths. But dwait talk mainly about God having form and advait about impersonal Brahman. Dwait teaching is that once any jivatma (soul of a living being) has no longer to go through the cycle of births and deaths, then it goes to God and serves Him etenally, even though he remains different from Him. Advait teaching is that the jivatma becomes one with impersonal Brahman, i.e. there does not remain any difference between jivatma and impersonal Brahman. Even though both these doctrines may seem to be contradictory, it is possible for both of them to be true, because it is possible for God to take large no. of forms and also be present throughout iniverse as formless (impersonal Brahman). Dwait doctrine teaches us that we are not the actual doer anything we may seem to do. So, we must not have ego. It also teaches that we are not the real owner of anything in this world as the actual owner is God. So, we must not cry and must not have attachment with anything in this material universe. Advait doctrine teaches us that since the souls of all beings

are same as impersonal Brahman. This in turn tells us that we are all equal. So, we should love other beings as if there is no difference between us and them.

<HTML>

<BODY>

Let me also test

</BODY>

</HTML>

Hmmm, nice questions.

__________

If Destiny is the set path of a human being then why do we discuss on the doings of a Human being during his lifetime ?

__________

May be that it is our destiny to discuss such things.

__________

A person who is a murderer might be destined to be one so why blame him for his doings?

__________

Again, may be that it is destiny to blame him.

Well, I do not know if everything that is ever going to happen is pre-determined. But if it is, then everything becomes a part of destiny, including discussion over doings of human beings, blaming a murderer etc.

I am typing this reply. That also is a part of destiny.

I respect Gautam Buddha a lot because his love towards all beings was completely genuine and without any selfish motive.

Now a days, very often one may hear the following statements: -

1)He is in need. He is in my relation. If I do not help him, then what will society say?

2)Why should I help him? He is nobody to me.

These statements prove that very often we do something good for others to SHOW to society that we are helpful. Because of this we keep lots of pride in our heart after helping someone. We start thinking that we have done some big favour on the person whom we have helped and that he is lower than us in some respects. Our behaviour towards him changes. We do not give him the same respect as we used to give him earlier. We start telling everybody that we helped this person. We start boasting that without our help, he was going to be in extremely big trouble.

If we do good for others without any ulterior motive, we will not be considered as social. But if we meet people, say things like "Hi, hello", PRETEND that we are very much concerned over some problem of somebody known to us, then we will be considered very social and praises will be showered on us.

I respect Gautam Buddha a lot because his love towards all beings was completely genuine and without any selfish motive.

Now a days, very often one may hear the following statements: -

1)He is in need. He is in my relation. If I do not help him, then what will society say?

2)Why should I help him? He is nobody to me.

These statements prove that very often we do something good for others to SHOW to society that we are helpful. Because of this we keep lots of pride in our heart after helping someone. We start thinking that we have done some big favour on the person whom we have helped and that he is lower than us in some respects. Our behaviour towards him changes. We do not give him the same respect as we used to give him earlier. We start telling everybody that we helped this person. We start boasting that without our help, he was going to be in extremely big trouble.

If we do good for others without any ulterior motive, we will not be considered as social. But if we meet people, say things like "Hi, hello", PRETEND that we are very much concerned over some problem of somebody known to us, then we will be considered very social and praises will be showered on us.

Hi Jaya ji (earlier I used to refer to you as Jayasriradhey ji, but since that requires lots of key strokes, I have shortened it)

I do believe that telepathy is possible, though I do not know of anyone who knows how to do this. I mean I believe that it is theoretically possible. I will tell you something very interesting mentioned in Quantum Physics. It has been experimentally confirmed that if two particles are produced from a single particle (e.g. if a neutrino and an antineutrino are produced from a single photon), then they are inter-related even if they are kept very far from each other. The moment you change any property of one (e.g. spin), the other is immediately affected. Now we know that the no. of particles in the universe in the past must have been far less than that at present. So, a large no. of particles at present are inter-connected. If anything happens to particles in your brain, it is highly possible that the particles in my brain will be affected.

Hope I did not bore you much. :-)

Hi Jaya ji (earlier I used to refer to you as Jayasriradhey ji, but since that requires lots of key strokes, I have shortened it)

I do believe that telepathy is possible, though I do not know of anyone who knows how to do this. I mean I believe that it is theoretically possible. I will tell you something very interesting mentioned in Quantum Physics. It has been experimentally confirmed that if two particles are produced from a single particle (e.g. if a neutrino and an antineutrino are produced from a single photon), then they are inter-related even if they are kept very far from each other. The moment you change any property of one (e.g. spin), the other is immediately affected. Now we know that the no. of particles in the universe in the past must have been far less than that at present. So, a large no. of particles at present are inter-connected. If anything happens to particles in your brain, it is highly possible that the particles in my brain will be affected.

Hope I did not bore you much. :-)

And what a reason is being given- that the statues are un-Islamic. By making such a statement, they are trying to say that Allah hates Buddha who is an epitome of compassion and love towards all beings. But it is just impossible that Allah can hate such a person. What is being done in Islam right now is completely un-islamic.

One day Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him. "You have no right teaching others.", he shouted, "You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but a fake."

Buddha was not upset by these insults.

Instead, he asked the young man, "tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong ?" The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, "it would belong to me because I bought the gift."

Buddha smiled and said " that is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself. "If you want to stop hurting yourself, you must get rid of your anger and become loving instead. When you hate others, you yourself become unhappy. But when you love others, everyone is happy."

One day Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him. "You have no right teaching others.", he shouted, "You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but a fake."

Buddha was not upset by these insults.

Instead, he asked the young man, "tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong ?" The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, "it would belong to me because I bought the gift."

Buddha smiled and said " that is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself. "If you want to stop hurting yourself, you must get rid of your anger and become loving instead. When you hate others, you yourself become unhappy. But when you love others, everyone is happy."

In Savatthi there was a scavenger named Sunit. As a road-sweeper he received barely enough to support himself. He slept on the roadside for he did not have a house to go to. He saw other people enjoying themselves but he could not mix with them because these people called him an outcaste. Whenever a higher caste person went on the road Sunita had to run and hide so his shadow did not fall on them. If he was not quick enough he would be scolded and beaten. Poor Sunit lived a miserable life.

One day as he was sweeping a dirty dusty road, Sunit saw the Buddha with thousands of followers coming towards him. His heart was filled with joy and fear and finding no place to hide he stood, joining his palms in respect. The Buddha stopped and spoke to him in a sweet gentle voice saying, "My dear friend, would you like to leave this work and follow me?"

Nobody had ever spoken to Sunit like this before. His heart was filled with joy and his eyes with tears. "O most venerable Sir, I have always received orders but never a kind word. If you accept a dirty and miserable scavenger like me I will follow you."

So the Buddha ordained Sunit and took him along with the other monks. And from that day forth no one knew what Sunit's caste was and everybody - kings, ministers commanders - respected him.

In Savatthi there was a scavenger named Sunit. As a road-sweeper he received barely enough to support himself. He slept on the roadside for he did not have a house to go to. He saw other people enjoying themselves but he could not mix with them because these people called him an outcaste. Whenever a higher caste person went on the road Sunita had to run and hide so his shadow did not fall on them. If he was not quick enough he would be scolded and beaten. Poor Sunit lived a miserable life.

One day as he was sweeping a dirty dusty road, Sunit saw the Buddha with thousands of followers coming towards him. His heart was filled with joy and fear and finding no place to hide he stood, joining his palms in respect. The Buddha stopped and spoke to him in a sweet gentle voice saying, "My dear friend, would you like to leave this work and follow me?"

Nobody had ever spoken to Sunit like this before. His heart was filled with joy and his eyes with tears. "O most venerable Sir, I have always received orders but never a kind word. If you accept a dirty and miserable scavenger like me I will follow you."

So the Buddha ordained Sunit and took him along with the other monks. And from that day forth no one knew what Sunit's caste was and everybody - kings, ministers commanders - respected him.