What about other religions?

[Guest guest]

Hi, It is clear that this website is predominantly hindu, but what is the general views here on other religions like Christianity, Judaism or Islam? Do you think they are inferior to Hinduism?

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

To love God

[theist 1]

to love God. To the degree that some religious process helps one awaken to love of God to that degree it is most helpful to us.

 

At some point sectarian views of hindu muslim christian become burdensome and must be respectfully set aside.

[Gauracandra 1]

I don't believe in cultural equality. Some are higher than others, some are lower. This doesn't mean that various cultures don't have good or many redeemable qualities. So with that in mind here are my thoughts on various religions:

 

Judaism - Lots of practical advice though very ritualistic. It obviously has given the strength to the Jewish people to survive, though I don't think it has any desire to see a greater good outside its own community. Working to support your own community is good and this is what Jews have always done. Though I'm unaware of any charities, soup kitchens, or programs that are expressly Jewish that are meant to help non-Jews.

 

Christianity - It took a lot of the practical advice about how to live a good life from Judaism, but made a religion that was meant to outreach to others. Thus you do find Christians who actively work for the betterment of others. It is a lot less ritualistic than Judaism.

 

Islam - I think this religion is best for those in the modes of passion and ignorance. It is a militant religion that appeals to those who need major discipline. I think this is why many in the inner city of America, who see drug addicts, and crime run rampant turn to Islam. To them Christianity has failed because it isn't militant enough. In this sense it can have some positive value.

 

Buddhism - This is a religion in the mode of goodness. However, its ultimate goal is the extinguishing of desire and the self. On a practical level what does this do for society. So it says that ultimately life is meant to amount to nothing. Its not exactly an inspiring message to bring about creative development of life. War is meaningless but so too is love.

 

Hinduism - Many good ideas drowned out in confusion. Too many sects, too many gurus, too many scriptures, too many everything. Hinduism doesn't mean a whole lot as there are so many contradictory schools caught up in that label. There are meat eating Hindus, and caste conscious Hindus, there are Hindus who believe in 1 God, and Hindus who believe in unlimited number of Gods, and Hindus who don't believe in any God. Myself, I would say I'm a Vaisnava. I think there are many good ideas, though often misconstrued. Like Karma. If we look at karma as a proactive way of understanding how our actions ripple through the world, this can give us a long-term view and we and society will benefit from such introspection. However, if we think karma means that successful people are good (or "were good") then we might mistake the symptoms for the cause. This results in people thinking that someone who is beautiful is better than someone who is ugly, or someone who is rich is better than someone who is poor, or someone who is born in a high caste is better than someone born in a low caste. We praise success as if it was the cause of goodness, rather than praising goodness which would result in success. So there are many high ideals, but many pitfalls as well.

 

So those are my views. Can't say any of them have shown themselvse to be perfect. But we can't fault just because the world isn't made up of perfect people.

[Gauracandra 1]

I wouldn’t say that most religions are confused. Many have quite a bit of symmetry even as they’ve changed over the centuries. Hinduism is quit different for a number of reasons. Partly because it has not resolved whether it is a philosophy of form or formlessness. If it is a philosophy of form, it can have shape, if it has shape it can have symmetry. If it has symmetry then the ideas do not step on top of one another. Buddhism is a philosophy of no form, and thus while it has no shape it does have a certain symmetry, even if that means nothingness or emptiness. This is one reason why I think there has been a struggle between Mayavadis and Vaisnavas. They are trying to resolve this difference once and for all to move forward. Yes there are differences in Christianity, but the differences between a Seventh Day Adventist, and a Presbyterian are really quite small, especially when viewed between the differences found in Hinduism. Secondly, there is the issue of structure (again, it is an issue of form). A person founds a school and has 50 disciples. When he passes those 50 disciples go out and have their own disciples. Some will remain pure and follow those teachings, others will start to deviate according to their own mind. A teacher will create “The International Society for Krishna Consciousness” and teach to chant “Hare Krsna”, and 30 years later someone will decide to create “Govindaianity” and say what he really meant to teach, if he only had time to say so, was to chant “Hare Govinda”. Of course that is just the beginning. Project out another 10 generations and you’ll have something called “Omega Govindism” the future of Enlightenment where you chant “Om Ega Govinda”. We’ll be told that since Omega means the end, this means Omega Govinda is the ends to reach Govinda. This is what the teacher really meant, if only he had the time to say so. Add 1 billion people, let simmer for a few thousand years, and see how many new, strange, and contradictory ideas all grow and develop.

[Guest guest]

 

I wouldn’t say that most religions are confused. Many have quite a bit of symmetry even as they’ve changed over the centuries. Hinduism is quit different for a number of reasons. Partly because it has not resolved whether it is a philosophy of form or formlessness.

 

First of all Hinduism isn't confused as you may think as it consists of many sects from different periods but is related due to being based on the interpretations of Sruti texts(Vedas). The original source may be the same but the interpretations are different. Also because some Hindu sects give greater importance to later scriptures (e.g Bhagvatam) this causes a different of opinion among followers of different sects on has an effect on the particular sect based on it. This is why Hindus today are so diverse.

 

It is the individual Hindus who are confused because most Hindus tend to mix 'n' match spiritual ideas from many sects. If you look at the teachings of all the sects and their acharyas, their ideas are quite clear, their founders have wrote commentaries and texts on what the followers should believe and what they do not. Some followers may disagree with other followers and form subsects (e.g. BAPS in Swaminarayan).

 

The argument isn't always about whether God is formless or with form or both. It is also about the nature of the Soul and matter and the inter-relation. Arguments are also about ritualism and it's relevancy today, good rituals and bad rituals, true and false, ethics, morals etc.

[dattaswami 0]

 

Hi, It is clear that this website is predominantly hindu, but what is the general views here on other religions like Christianity, Judaism or Islam? Do you think they are inferior to Hinduism?

 

Defects and merits of Christianity , Hinduism, Islam

Hinduism has two defects. The first is that all the rituals are not conducted in the mother tongue. The rituals involve hymns in Sanskrit. In the ancient days, Sanskrit was the mother tongue of the sages. They understood the meaning of the rituals and were very much interested in God. Every ritual explains about God only directly are indirectly. Today the rituals are like the dead bodies without life. Their real aim and purpose is lost. Not even a trace of devotion is developed through any ritual. At least the priest should translate the hymns and should create interest in the ritual. If you observe the other religions, this defect does not exist because all their rituals are performed in their mother tongue.

 

This is the reason for the sincere devotion in Christianity and Islam. Added to this, like Ghee for fire, the concept of only one present human birth in the other religions has developed tremendous interest in God due to fear. In Hinduism the belief of several future human births brought lenience towards spiritual field. If you allow the candidate to pass the examinations in several attempts, no serious view can be developed. If you say that one has to pass the examination in single attempt, the education system will be perfect. Observing the other religions must rectify these two defects.

 

Christianity and Islam have their own defects. They should also rectify their defects by observing Hinduism. Selfishness, pathetic scenes and fear develop their belief in God. If you want to develop interest in God by saying that Jesus suffered for your sins and by showing the pathetic scene of crucifixion, it is not real and pure love. When you get interest in Jesus since He suffered for your sins, your love to Him is only based on selfishness. Your love to Jesus should be based on His divine personality and knowledge without any trace of selfishness. Similarly, these two religions try to create fear in the minds of human beings by mentioning the permanent hell. Fear should not be the basis for the love to God. The love should be spontaneous and without any selfishness in a free atmosphere. The reason for this deficiency in the foreign religions is due to absence of metaphysics in the scriptures.

 

Those scriptures mainly deal with the development of proper human behavior to balance the society. Such scriptures are mainly dealing with ethics only and not with the philosophy of God like the nature of God, path to please God etc. The analytical development in the spiritual knowledge is not much in these scriptures. They have confined God to the path of Pravrutti only and God is simply an administrator bound by His own rules. He is just a judge to deliver the judgment and a jailer who jails the sinners. He is just a mechanical examiner without any freedom or love to devotees. He cannot go beyond the rules of justice. Of course, all this is good for the initial development of the human beings.

 

Mere happy life in a society is not sufficient because such life is not eternal. The life after death should be also analyzed. Mere judicial procedure is not the ultimate of God. The love towards God, the sacrifice for the sake of God, the concept of contemporary human incarnation for the sake of most beloved devotees etc., are points of higher importance than mere limitation to the petty family only. The view is at the best generalized to the service to the society. Society is only a large family of your colleague souls only. God is beyond society. You must transit from the service to family to the service to the society and finally to the service to God. These three are the subsequent steps in ascending order. The foreign religions are mainly confining to the first two steps only and not to the third step. In the name of the third step they are only staying in the second step (social service) only.

 

The basis for this deficiency is lack of the concept of contemporary human incarnation. They criticize the idol worship of Hinduism. But they are doing the same in another form in their churches and Mosques. The exploitation of the devotees by priests is common to their religions also because the concept of the contemporary human incarnation is completely eradicated from the root in these religions because the selfish priests do not allow this. The same thing happened in the case of Holy Jesus. Hence, Holy Mohammad did not allow this concept for the fear of such horrible jealousy towards the contemporary human incarnation.

 

In Hinduism also the selfish priests oppose the contemporary human incarnation. However in Hinduism, this concept is at least partially alive since Gita says that God will come again and again (Yada Yada hi…) and that God will come in human form (Manusheem tanumashritam…).

At the lotus feet of Shri Datta Swami

[dattaswami 0]

 

SUB: NECESSITY-DEMAND-CUROSITY-SUSTAIN

The Spiritual quest must be sustained in order find UNITY in DIVERSITY.

Cosmology Interlinks help in this direction

For INTEGRATION: Science,Philosophy and Religion

Unity of Consciousness in Science,Religion and Philosophy

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=239

Sponsors for Interaction Center requested to contact

Vidyardhi Nanduri

Cosmology World Peace

 

You are the cream of Christianity and Hinduism. In course of time the devotees of other religions will also join you and make this group a complete representative of Universal Spirituality. I wish that all of you retain the identification of your individual religions. Let this group be a chain of gems of different colours. Let not the other gems be coloured by white paint so that the whole chain can become a garland of only white gems. Let the pearls remain in the garland, which are white in colour. Let them not insist that the other gems also be coloured by white paint. A chain with different coloured gems looks more beautiful than a chain of mere pearls. The thread running through all these gems is Universal Spirituality. Religion is a gem with a particular colour. Spirituality is the thread that is holding all the different gems in the garland.

Christians are the followers of Christ. Buddhists are followers of Buddha. Janis are followers of Mahaveer Jain. Hindus are the followers of various forms of God. Muslims were the followers of all the prophets up to Mohammad. Thus, the word ‘Muslims’ is general just like the word Hindus. You cannot say that only the followers of <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> are Hindus. Followers of Shiva are also Hindus. Later on the word Muslims was used specifically for the followers of Mohammad. Before the arrival of Christ and Mohammad all the non-Hindus were called as Muslims. In Sanskrit the word Muslims is represented by the word ‘Mlechcha’ which means all non-Hindus. Thus, in ancient times there were only two religions. One was Hinduism in <st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region> and the other was Mlechcha or Muslim out of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region></st1:place>. Sage Vyasa wrote a scripture called ‘Bhavishyat Purana’ which mentions about the arrival of Christ to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region></st1:place> after His crucifixion and His conversation with King Salivahana. Therefore, this point has the validity from scripture. The historical proof exists for the burial tomb of the Christ in Kashmir (<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region></st1:place>) even today. We cannot help if some conservative people like the well-frogs, deny this [a frog in a well thinks that his own well alone is the mighty ocean].

The word Brahman means the greatest. Any item, which is the greatest in a category, can be called as Brahman. An officer in a department is Brahman. The president of the country is Brahman. The officer is the greatest among the staff of the department. The president is greatest among all the citizens of the country. The word greatest or Brahman is common to both the officer and president. This does not mean that the officer and president are equal. You have to take the sense of the same word according to the context. Similarly the soul is greatest among all the items of creation. The soul can be called as Brahman. But God is greater than the soul. Therefore, God is the greatest among all the items whereas the soul is the greatest among the items of creation. Both God and soul can be called as Brahman. This does not mean that God is the soul. Similarly, a non-Hindu is called as a Muslim. The follower of Mohammad can be also called as Muslim. This does not mean that all the non-Hindus are followers of Mohammad.

When the body of Jesus was pierced by a spear, blood came out. This means that life was retained by the body of Jesus even after the crucifixion. This shows the yogic power of Lord Jesus. Jesus was in the <st1:place w:st="on">Himalayas</st1:place> from 16th to 30th year of age. He did severe penance and was in the association of great sages in the caves of <st1:place w:st="on">Himalayas</st1:place>. He attained all the yogic powers. He used the yogic power and retained His life. This is only the praise of Jesus and should not be misunderstood as a false crucifixion.

The word Brahman refers to Parabrahman or God pervading all the pure awareness. A very little part of the pure awareness in which God has not entered is like the mud used to prepare the pot. The rest of pure awareness pervaded by God is like the pot-maker. The pot is this universe. The Veda says that the pure awareness used for the creation is just like a ray of the sun (Padosya Visvaa Bhutaani). Sage Vidyaranya in his famous philosophical book called ‘Vedanta Panchadasi’ also mentions this same point. The part of the mind or the nervous energy, which is used for the conversion into a dream, is very very little. This spectator-part of the mental energy is huge compared to the mental energy that is converted into the dream. Due to the vast quantative difference between the spectator energy and the modified energy, the modification is almost nil compared to spectator. Thus, the spectator is real and the modification is almost unreal. This is the concept of Shankara of the unreality of the world. The word ‘Mithya’, used by Shankara does not mean completely unreal. It means almost unreal. A dream is almost unreal compared to the dreamer. A daydreamer will control the dream like God controlling the universe. A night-dreamer is controlled by the dream like the soul which is controlled by creation. This difference is made clear through these two examples.

If you see the difference between God and the soul, the word God indicates the Parabrahman or God associated with pure awareness. The word soul means only the pure awareness without Parabrahman. The quantity of pure awareness that is associated with Parabrahman is like the ocean. The quantity of pure awareness which is the soul is like a tiny water drop. The ocean is Mula Prakriti. The soul is the drop of the ocean. Even without the reference to God, there is a lot of quantitative difference between the Mula Prakriti (Ocean) and the soul (drop). Both these are qualitatively same. But once the Mula Prakriti is pervaded by Parabrahman, there will be a qualitative difference also. The ocean and the drop are quantitatively different but are qualitatively similar. Suppose the ocean is illuminated by a lot of energy and the drop is not at all illuminated. Now, the illuminated ocean is different quantitatively as well as qualitatively from the non-illuminated drop. There is no difference between Brahman and Ishwara. Brahman is the non-spectator. Ishwara is the spectator. When you are sitting in the house peacefully you are like Brahman. Suppose you are watching a movie on TV, you are like Ishwara. Brahman and Ishwara are essentially one and the same. The work of watching the creation is the only differential point, which is not an essential difference. Therefore, Ishwara and Jeeva (soul) are qualitatively and quantitatively different. This is the theory of Ramanuja and Madhva. If you take the water item alone [not considering the illumination aspect, given the above example], the ocean and drop are qualitatively one and the same. This is the monism of Shankara. The dualism of Ramanuja and Madhva arises only when the illuminating energy of the ocean and the quantity of water in the ocean are both considered.

The human incarnation is the illuminated drop of water [other souls are non-illuminated drops of water]. The energy that illuminates the ocean as well as the drop is beyond the spatial dimensions. Therefore, from the point of the energy, the quantitative difference between the ocean and the drop disappears. This means that the God present in the universe and the God present in the human incarnation are one and the same; both qualitatively and quantitatively. Due to the unimaginable power of this energy, even the quantative difference in terms of water between ocean and drop also disappears. Thus the Cosmic Ishwara and Lord Krishna are one and the same qualitatively and quantitatively in terms of God as well as in terms of the pure awareness. Therefore, the entire cosmos is present in the small body of <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>. In every aspect the cosmic Ishwara and the human incarnation are exactly one and the same.