survey

[Guest guest]

who's teachings do u consider more divine? or i should say, who's word do u listen to over the other?

 

if anywhere in there teachings, there was a contradiction, who's word would you take?

 

Adi Sankara or Jesus Christ?

[Guest guest]

the teachings of adi shakaracharya are not absolute but purposeful for the situation of defeating buddhism

 

the teaching of jesus are not so sure because there's not a valid disciplic succession who have brought them to us.. but there's surely something valid

 

i choose both... but i assume that shankaracharya's ultimate instruction is "bhaja govindam", "worship govinda, krishna" not the advaita stuff

[Guest guest]

If it was out of the two it would have to be be Adi Sankaracharya, who truly cared for Hinduims and revived it and brought india back to the vedic fold.

 

Because Jesus said you need to go through 'him only' to get to heaven, I reject him as I see other spiritual figures whose messages make more sense and are worthy of respect. Jesus (or the church) tries to make out that only jesus is true and all others are flase and will go to hell. I believe this is said to scare naive people into conversion and I will not be fooled by that sort of nonsense.

 

Plus I find the Abrahamic faiths completely unbelievable and has not got satisfying answers to simple questions.

[Guest guest]

jesus said "trough me only" in his context and times.. he in that circumstance was really the only one

 

in sanatana dharma there's many masters who say like that to recall the attention of disciples... we know the context, the purpose and we understand

 

so please let us do it also for lord jesus christ, aparadha is a great obstacle in searching for moksa

[barney 0]

Moksha (Freedom or Salvation) from the cycle of birth and death is the ultimate goal of Hindu religious life. And to seek that freedom Hinduism paved many ways such as Self realization, Service to Guru, Service to mankind and many others. In Christianity it is different in the sense the apostles [preacher like Srila Prabhupda who insist only through Krishna] who wrote the scriptures or gospels preached that only through Jesus one can find salvation and I do not say they are wrong in the sense it was Jesus who appeared at that time and period of waiting for the delieverance by the Jewish peasants. Jesus also requested that the apostals go out and spread his word [only for that region] but the apostals mistook or misunderstood Jesus words and began their mission out of their region believing that Jesus was for the whole world. They did not realize that at the very time of Jesus in India there were divine persons who had come to revive the Vedas and guide the people to moksha. Even Islam was misunderstood by its followers where they thought that Islam is for he whole world. Religion is th choice of individual, the duty of the masters were to propogate and explain the way but it is left to the individual to make the choice. No one should compel a person to accept the belief that is against one's own belief. The trouble here today is most of the religious scriptures have been misinterpreted and misguided by the clergies for self satisfaction and not the real purpose. Freedom of religion and tolerance would bulit a healthy society and peaceful co-existence of the human race no matter to which denomination one belings to.

[Guest guest]

i find that perhaps jesus is the higher authority. Jesus did teach that salvation came thru him, but so did Krishna. To me, they are both incarnations of the Supreme and in that case, they are both right. JEsus was right in saying that salvation will come thru Him. For he is the Lord incarnate and worship of JEsus will bring us salvation.

 

Perhaps the reason he did not preach multiple aveunes of worship was because there weren't any people worthy of worship in that area at that time. Whereas, in India there were many, so it made it easier to worhsip diversly.

 

If India had no sages or saints around 800 BCE, would Adi Sankara be the only person to worship and would he have taught us to worhsip him only?

[Guest guest]

Moksha (Freedom or Salvation) from the cycle of birth and death is the ultimate goal of Hindu religious life. And to seek that freedom Hinduism paved many ways such as Self realization, Service to Guru, Service to mankind and many others.

 

you have missed the subject.. i have not equated vedic culture with christian culture... i hav only said that we have to give proper judgements to jesus christ or it is an aparadha

 

(you are continously pronouncin the name of krsna and prabhupada.. if you go on like that you will develope attachment and you will be a good gaudya vaishnava)

[Guest guest]

i believe that there is only one supreme consciousness whom we worship in different ways and call by different names. if there was any contradiction i would take the essence of both their sayings and form my own ideas.

[Guest guest]

Well if that's the case I choose Krishna over Jesus anyday. But the question was over Adi Sankara and Jesus and I chose Sankara. And Jesus was not an incarnation of God, though some oddballs seem to make him out to be a 'Hindu'. Buddha was around before Jesus and I'd even accept him more.

 

Look, before we get into this further you should realise that the Abrahamic faiths are different to the 'eastern' faiths...the Abrahamics believe in heaven and hell, God and devil, not re-incarnation or moksha. I DON'T believe in the Abrahamic faiths being the ultimate truth...following any religion will give you some spiritual benefits but I don't accept Christianity or Islam as the whole truth and certainly don't agree with the fundamentals of these faiths.

 

I understand what you mean about him being for 'his time' but I think there is still that bit of intolerance on his part. Christians are a higher authority on Jesus than any Hindu, anyway so I think they are closer to his message. Just because I don't accept Jesus doesn't mean that you'd do the same, go worship your Jesus if it makes you happy. I'm happy worshipping God.

[Guest guest]

bhagavad gita suggests that you learn what divine qualities are, then, when you meet some one who is called god or master, you have the instruments to understand if he's really god or master

 

why care if the followers of that manifestation of god or that master are sectarian?

 

be more open minded

[Guest guest]

"why care if the followers of that manifestation of god or that master are sectarian?"

 

Because I DON'T BELIEVE in their master, so I'm not gonna be a one of their followers. There may be some things the master said that I agreed with, but not everything, so I will not give in to 'the master'. Why should I? What's the problem if I don't believe in that manifestation of God? I believe in another which I'm happy with. If a Christian doesn't believe in Krishna they are entitled to it, I'm not gonna change them.

 

So Jesus had these qualities and Adi Sankara didn't?

[Guest guest]

What's the problem if I don't believe in that manifestation of God?

 

-it is contraddictory.. if you, examining at the light of bhagavad gita.. you find that one is a manifestation of god, you have to believe, or it is blasphemy, offence.

 

If a Christian doesn't believe in Krishna they are entitled to it, I'm not gonna change them.

 

-it is not an exchange... why care for the opinion unfortunate people who do not believe in krsna? Do not change anything of your religion or worship.. but be more open minded and do not despise god when you find him in another tradition

 

So Jesus had these qualities and Adi Sankara didn't?

 

-two answers 1)religion is not a war... despising a manifestation of divine one is actually despising all the divine....... 2)jesus teachs love for god, shankaracharya teachs something that is purposefully useful mainly if one is a nichilist or a gross materialist. My opinion is that at the light of bhagavad gita we can and must appreciate both. Religion wars and jealousies are not religion

[Guest guest]

"it is contraddictory.. if you, examining at the light of bhagavad gita.. you find that one is a manifestation of god, you have to believe, or it is blasphemy, offence."

 

how is it blasphemy? we don't have blasphemy in Hinduism. So everything is a manifestation of God, including all Humans, bad and good, etc, Jesus and Hitler included! If I'm not happy with everything these two have said (though they are opposites) why should I accept them? If I'm happy with krishna alone, why the need to seek others whose ideas I'm not fully comfortable with?

 

You think I'm narrow-minded, but I think I'm realistic. I don't despise Jesus, I just don't agree or believe evrything he said. There are differences in religions as there are different opinions and I'm very comfortable with that fact. There's no use of tying to 'absorb' religious personalites of other faiths and trying to claim them as your own. I guess that's one of the reasons Hindus get laughed at.

 

[Guest guest]

how is it blasphemy? we don't have blasphemy in Hinduism. So everything is a manifestation of God, including all Humans, bad and good, etc, Jesus and Hitler included!

--all is manifestation of god.. but humans are not the supreme.. this is blasphemy

 

If I'm happy with krishna alone, why the need to seek others whose ideas I'm not fully comfortable with?

--no one says that you have to change your preference.. simply if you criticize a manifestation of god, you are criticizing god. God is not a pillow or a mattress that you have to be comfortable with

 

You think I'm narrow-minded, but I think I'm realistic.

--realistic is one who follows the real message of gita.. gita does not impose to you god or a master, gita says to you the features, then, by yourself, you can recognize god and master... if you feel that god and the guru has to be only indian to be in hinduism it is a gross mistake

 

There's no use of tying to 'absorb' religious personalites of other faiths and trying to claim them as your own.

--i agree with you... the behaviour is the opposite: if one is a religious personalities he is already belonging to vedas and sanatana dharma. What's different from the principles of sanatana dharma (not hinduism) it is not possible to absorbe it

 

I guess that's one of the reasons Hindus get laughed at.

--so you think that people has to be fanatic to be well respected in the world

[Guest guest]

{if you criticize a manifestation of god, you are criticizing god.}

 

It depends if you see Jesus as a mainfestation of God or not. I do not see him so, but as a teacher of his view of religion for his time. I don't believe Jesus is an incarnation of God (is not the supreme lord), but I understand that everything is a manifestation of God. That doesn't mean I'm going to worship everything as God, including evil people like Hitler, though ultimatley all is a manifestation.

 

{I guess that's one of the reasons Hindus get laughed at.

--so you think that people has to be fanatic to be well respected in the world}

 

No, Hindus need to be comfortable with themselves first. Hindus have so many Sages, bhaktas and manifestations of God, it looks rediculous that they still would try to absorb a founder of another religion and put their ideas of religion on him. Haven't we got enough as it is?

[Guest guest]

I do not see him so

••before you have said different

 

I don't believe Jesus is an incarnation of God

••there's no need to believe.. you have cognitive instruments given by scriptures

 

No, Hindus need to be comfortable with themselves first.

••to be comfortable means to be well situated in the vedic culture.. and vedic culture does not say that god is indian or american... scriptures give the features of god and we can recognize him if we see in any place

 

Hindus have so many Sages, bhaktas and manifestations of God, it looks rediculous that they still would try to absorb a founder of another religion and put their ideas of religion on him

•••vedic scriptures make no discrimination wheter god appears in india or palestine or whatever. So if jesus is a manifestation of god he does not belong to another religion but to sanatana dharma

 

i do not want you to change your sadhana or worship... only understand that sanatana dharma has no boundaries and that we have to learn to recognize god or his representative everywhere.. otherwise where's the difference form other religions?

[Guest guest]

{I do not see him so

••before you have said different}

 

No I didn't. I have not contradicted myself, I've never thought he wasn an incarnation.

 

{I don't believe Jesus is an incarnation of God

••there's no need to believe.. you have cognitive instruments given by scriptures}

 

Jesus is not mentioned as an incarnation of Vishnu and is in no Hindu scritures.

 

{we have to learn to recognize god or his representative everywhere.. otherwise where's the difference form other religions?}

 

But jesus said differently that he is the only way and you can only go through him to God and no other. This is essential to christianity. There is a conflict.

 

 

[Guest guest]

••there's no need to believe.. you have cognitive instruments given by scriptures}

Jesus is not mentioned as an incarnation of Vishnu and is in no Hindu scritures.

---two answers... avataras are infinite and gita gives the instruments to recognize them

... jesus is in maha bhavisha purana

 

But jesus said differently that he is the only way and you can only go through him to God and no other

--many masters say like that even in hinduism... we understand the context and we understand that this instruction is not sectarian

 

this fact of exclusivism we have discussed it at the beginning of the dialogue... you simply feel that you are a better hindu if you are more fanatic

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

{But jesus said differently that he is the only way and you can only go through him to God and no other

--many masters say like that even in hinduism... we understand the context and we understand that this instruction is not sectarian}

 

No not exactly. Those who were non-sectarian can clearly be understood in the 'context' in which they said it. Those who are sectarain we know of their bias, through their writings and the attitude of their followers.

 

{jesus is in maha bhavisha purana}

 

Really what's that about?...it is quite an obscure purana. When was it written?...after the time of Jesus by certain Hindus with vested interests? It sounds almost as bad as the supposed one with mohammed as an avatar. This purana you mentione doesn't seem to be well known or universally accepted. The only religious personality from another faith that is belived to be an avatar is Buddha.

 

{this fact of exclusivism we have discussed it at the beginning of the dialogue... you simply feel that you are a better hindu if you are more fanatic}

 

The fact of the matter is simple...I don't believe Jesus is an incarnation of God...plain and simple and I'm not gonna change because you don't like my opinion or belief. There may be many avatars but I don't think Jesus qualifies as one. Jesus was a teacher of his religion during his time in his environment and a great social reformer.

 

I'm not being fanatic, I'm saying I've never been convinced otherwise. It's just too bad you can't accept that. Like I said before, you can go ahead and worship your Jesus as God if you want to, but I won't.

[Guest guest]

Hindus should act with self-respect. There is so much in Hinduism itself, so why are they so desperately trying to please Christian fanatics, instead of following their own religion first?

[Guest guest]

do you want to follow hinduism or sanatana dharma?

 

if you want to follow hinduism/indianism you are right to despise everything that seems to you not indian

 

if you want to follow sanatana dharma you have to be able to recognize the divine everywhere

 

in sanatana dharma there's nothing about india, nations, boundaries, exclusivism and so on

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(do you want to follow hinduism or sanatana dharma?)

 

No difference actually, Hinduism is a name given to the followers of sanatan dharma.

 

Re

 

(if you want to follow hinduism/indianism you are right to despise everything that seems to you not Indian)

 

It is not wrong to discriminate between right and wrong or to reject that is alien to Hindu culture.

 

Re

(if you want to follow sanatana dharma you have to be able to recognize the divine everywhere)

 

The whole creation is divine; Hinduism is a way of life, not just theory.

 

Re

 

(in sanatana dharma there's nothing about india, nations, boundaries, exclusivism and so on)

 

In Vedic time India was known by some other name there were many kingdoms and boundaries.

of course for a sanyasi all this designation has no meaning.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

No difference actually, Hinduism is a name given to the followers of sanatan dharma.

-- old discussion... sanatana dharma is one dharma, having opposite dharmas inside hinduism, hinduism cannot identified with only one dharma, sanatana or not

 

It is not wrong to discriminate between right and wrong or to reject that is alien to Hindu culture.

-- discrimination has to be made by features, not nationality

 

The whole creation is divine; Hinduism is a way of life, not just theory

-- so live by this principle.. not that if god or his representative appear outside india we are suspicious

 

In Vedic time India was known..

-- in vedic time there was no india... sanatana dharma was all over the world.. and sanatana dharma was exactly identified as theism, vaishnavism

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(-- old discussion...)

 

It is easy for you to tell, who I am, unfortunately I had no way of knowing it is the same guest I have had this discussion, any way HARIBOL.

Re

(sanatana dharma is one dharma, having opposite dharmas inside hinduism, hinduism cannot identified with only one dharma, sanatana or not)

 

Nice to know you can define sanatan dharma.

What is the need of volumes of literatures and all the effort by individual souls in pursuit self-realization?

 

If only the rainbow was of only one color.

 

Re

(-- discrimination has to be made by features, not nationality)

 

It is easy to see the difference in lifestyle between east and west.

 

Re

( -- so live by this principle.. not that if god or his representative appear outside india we are suspicious)

 

No Hindu will disrespect god or his representative, if we are taught from the very beginning to respect all life form such a question does not arise. Problem is when you get burnt you avoid the fire,

 

 

Re

(-- in vedic time there was no india...)

What, India has just appeared from no where?

Re

(sanatana dharma was all over the world..)

Yes

Re

(and sanatana dharma was exactly identified as theism, vaishnavism)

 

This is your sweet opinion, you will find a lot of different worship going on in vedic time Vaishnavism, Saivism,sakta are all new formation or grouping in recent time, that is not to say the worship of Vishnu or Shiva is new

 

Lord Krishna says in BG

Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna and said: By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11) (Deva means a deity, a demigod, a celestial person, the agent of God, one who fulfills desires and protects.)

The Devas, nourished by Yajna, will give you the desired objects. One who enjoys the gift of the Devas without offering them (anything in return) is, indeed, a thief. (3.12)

O Arjuna, the faith of each is in accordance with one's own nature or Sanskaara. A person is known by the faith. One can become whatever one wants to be (if one constantly contemplates on the object of desire with faith). (17.03)

The Saattvika persons worship Devas, the Raajasika people worship demons, and the Taamasika persons worship ghosts and spirits. (17.04)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

Nice to know you can define sanatan dharma

••no problem for our subject.. if you cannot define sanatana dharma how you can say that hinduism is sanatana dharma? (for me sanatana dharma is BHAGAVADGITA18,66)

 

(-- discrimination has to be made by features, not nationality)

It is easy to see the difference in lifestyle between east and west.

••i am speaking of the features of god and saints

 

Problem is when you get burnt you avoid the fire,

••so do not get again burnt by using sectarian conceptions to judge god and saints

 

What, India has just appeared from no where?

••from muslims... they decided that the land beyond sindhu river had to be called (s)ind(h)ia

 

that is not to say the worship of Vishnu or Shiva is new

••and what's vaishnavism if not the worship of sri vishnu? what is arjuna if not a vaishnava?

 

The Saattvika persons worship Devas, the Raajasika people worship demons, and the Taamasika persons worship ghosts and spirits. (17.04)

••and the transcendental person ... "sarva dharma....." he surrenders to sri krsna accepting in this way the "eternal duty" or "sanatana dharma"

 

my opinion of course.. but enough to sustain that there's no identity between sanatana dharma and hinduism because hinduism hosts many opposite dharmas