Guest guest Posted August 12, 2002 Report Share Posted August 12, 2002 Hello Everyone Learn religion from a video game is a very interesting article. Very well written to explain the concepts to even a very small kid. Following this, I have a request. I know a couple of people around me who have turned agnostic in the recent times. Personal failures turned them away from god and religion. Is there any article that someone can point me to that will help me talk to these people about God and religion? Tracing back to the old old issue of what is the proof of existence of god...... How do I talk to these people to make them understand that God guides our life path. I kindly request someone to throw some light as I really want my dear ones to start believing in God. Thanks Sridevi _______________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2002 Report Share Posted August 13, 2002 To answer your mail Sridevi, let me also first point that the analogy of video-game was excellent. But what did the analogy really cover ? It addressed the concept of re-incarnation as a means to attain perfection finally. It also talked about progress and failures and the role of Guru etc. Now when people turn agnostic due to failures what can be said ? The first point is that all the happenings in one's life are only due to Prarabdham (fate). Happiness and sorrow are just functions of what we have done in our past of which we possess no knowledge. And everyone is subject to time (kaalam). Even Sri Rama who was god himself surrendered his kingdom and spent time in the forest. The Pandavas who were so close with Krishna experienced all kinds of problems right from poisoning of Bhima, burning their house, sending them to forest, Durvasa's visit and then the Mahabharata battle, and finally they also lost all their sons and grand-children except Parikshit. What about all these problems for those who can directly put questions to Sri Krishna itself ? Kunti in her stuti prays to Krishna to give her more problems!!! The reason being that whenever there is a problem, Krishna was by their side. Same with all the gopa, gopis of brindavanam. One should take problems as a good thing to do some introspection and realise the impermanence of happiness. Even Indra the lord of heavens, is just a post holder for sometime, which may appear long for us, but then when it gets over, he too will have to exit. And for any spiritual progress Sri Krishna tells Uddhava that he first takes away the devotee's ego which happens through failures in life. Only when one realizes that things are not under one's one control that there's any scope for Bhakti to begin. I know not much sinks in when one is agnostic. But how can God consciousness be instilled by anyone other than himself ? It is only through his Grace that one can understand his presence. > "..I kindly request someone to throw some light as I really > want my dear ones to start believing in God.." When someone shines a powerful light from above a tower, everthing below gets illuminated and we can everything being below. But unless the person turns the light towards himself, we cannot see him. So the light towards God can only be shown by himself in through a Guru (who is himself). Radhe Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2002 Report Share Posted August 13, 2002 SRI: SrImathE Ramanujaya namah: Dear Smt Sridevi Krishnan, Just explain to them (which we already now): The five senses- the discrimatory powers, the intellect, who gets these rarest gifts from the Lord? Of all the beings, being a human itself is a blessing by the Lord. For some good karmA that we had done, sometime in our past births (or deemed by the Lord as good deed, though it was not done intentionally), we are born human; that too in the sampradayam that answers all (ALMOST) questions that are raised by one and all unambiguously. And above all, where do we get the paths laid out by Poorvacharyas in such clear crystal manner? A simple thinking that mere existence of our lives itself is His kripa. If He decdies to call it a day and with a wave of His Hand, he can wipe out, like a tecaher wipes off it on the black board. Swamy desikan lists His mercy (upakaaram- help) in upakaara sangraham very beautifully. Any intelligent person will have queries like "Who am I?" ; "Who is God?" ; "What is my duty ?" ; "Why am I suffering through the process of birth , old age , disease and death ?" ; "What is death ?";"What is the relationship between myself and God ?"; etc. These are highly important queries, which leads one to know the actual realities. The fact is that, everyone is individually a spiritual entity called jIvAtmA , who is eternally subservient to the Supreme Lord Sriman NArAyanA . Due to the karmA (good and bad activities) associated with the jIvAtmA , it takes varieties of bodies like that of a bacteria , plant , bird ,animal , human being etc. It is very very rare to get a human body. Once a jivAtmA gets the highly precious human body, he ('he' refers to jIvAtmA even though there is no gender associated) has to start knowing about the actual purpose of life. There may be so many varieties of knowledge floating around. But he has to pick up the 'sAram'(essence). He should choose that type of knowledge, which will answer all such important queries as raised above. These fundamental queries are answered by the spiritual knowledge. Materialistic knowledge (as explained by modern science etc) finally doesn't help the jIvAtmA.For instance , a glorified Nobel Laureate may take the body of donkey in the next birth. What is then the Credit of being a Nobel Laureate in his human birth? The purpose of human birth is to have the realization of God ( Sriman NArAyanA). If this human body is used for other purposes, then the activities of that person boils down to eating , sleeping and mating. Of course , this is the way an animal also spends its life. As long as one identifies himself as a body made of flesh and not as a jIvAtmA , he leads a life of an animal and thereby wastes the most precious human body. The greatness of Spiritual Knowledge is that it makes one understand the truth that he is a jIvAtmA, subservient to Sriman NArAyanA and not the body housing him . It also gives the processes ( Bhakti YogA and Prapatti ) by which one can terminate the repeated cycles of birth and death in this material world , and reach the spiritual kingdom of Sriman NArAyanA known as "Vaikuntam", thereby attaining complete bliss. One has to start knowing about himself first ,rather than speculating about matter. Without knowing the answer for the question "Who Am I ?" , what is use of studying so many other things ? Without knowing the purpose of human life , what is the use of engaging in varieties of activities ? So an intelligent seeker of knowledge gets hold of the spiritual knowledge which is complete in itself and thus understands the Ultimate knowledge one needs to know. For more of this, read Sri Anand Karalapakkam's article on Samasrayanam. If you wish to know anything else, let me know and I can be of little assiatacne to you performing this kaimkaryam Regards Namo Narayana aDiyEn sridevi krishnan [sridevikrishnan] Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:21 AM vijayragmcc; vmadha; ; sv-general Hinduism Hello Everyone Learn religion from a video game is a very interesting article. Very well written to explain the concepts to even a very small kid. Following this, I have a request. I know a couple of people around me who have turned agnostic in the recent times. Personal failures turned them away from god and religion. Is there any article that someone can point me to that will help me talk to these people about God and religion? Tracing back to the old old issue of what is the proof of existence of god...... How do I talk to these people to make them understand that God guides our life path. I kindly request someone to throw some light as I really want my dear ones to start believing in God. Thanks Sridevi _______________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2002 Report Share Posted August 14, 2002 Hari Om. Well said. Agnostic literally means "One Who doesn't know" (whether God exists or not)! Atheist is one who denies the existence of the God. So if Ms.Sridevi has used the word Agnotic in its correct literary sense, they have only moved away from aposition of total faith to doubting thomas stage. They have not closed the door on god! These bouts of varying faith come to move and test. They try to reason and use intellect to guide the life and soon realise that reason, intellect etc. are fine but they can't take them far all the time. Suddenly a development comes along which shakes the from that position and hopefully puts them back in a position of faith in God. This phase may be good for them since agnosticism normally make people depend on self-effort and may be that is required at this point of time! One simple technique to bring some one else to the right path is to pray to God (after all your faith is intact) to help them and bring them to the true path quickly! Hari Om. Swamy SV At 07:26 13/08/02 -0000, you wrote: >To answer your mail Sridevi, let me also first point that the analogy >of video-game was excellent. > >But what did the analogy really cover ? It addressed the concept of >re-incarnation as a means to attain perfection finally. It also >talked about progress and failures and the role of Guru etc. > >Now when people turn agnostic due to failures what can be said ? The >first point is that all the happenings in one's life are only due to >Prarabdham (fate). Happiness and sorrow are just functions of what we >have done in our past of which we possess no knowledge. And everyone >is subject to time (kaalam). > >Even Sri Rama who was god himself surrendered his kingdom and spent >time in the forest. The Pandavas who were so close with Krishna >experienced all kinds of problems right from poisoning of Bhima, >burning their house, sending them to forest, Durvasa's visit and then >the Mahabharata battle, and finally they also lost all their sons and >grand-children except Parikshit. > >What about all these problems for those who can directly put >questions to Sri Krishna itself ? Kunti in her stuti prays to Krishna >to give her more problems!!! The reason being that whenever there is >a problem, Krishna was by their side. Same with all the gopa, gopis >of brindavanam. > >One should take problems as a good thing to do some introspection and >realise the impermanence of happiness. Even Indra the lord of >heavens, is just a post holder for sometime, which may appear long >for us, but then when it gets over, he too will have to exit. > >And for any spiritual progress Sri Krishna tells Uddhava that he >first takes away the devotee's ego which happens through failures in >life. Only when one realizes that things are not under one's one >control that there's any scope for Bhakti to begin. > >I know not much sinks in when one is agnostic. But how can God >consciousness be instilled by anyone other than himself ? It is only >through his Grace that one can understand his presence. > >> "..I kindly request someone to throw some light as I really >> want my dear ones to start believing in God.." > >When someone shines a powerful light from above a tower, everthing >below gets illuminated and we can everything being below. But unless >the person turns the light towards himself, we cannot see him. > >So the light towards God can only be shown by himself in through a >Guru (who is himself). > >Radhe Krishna > > > > > > >Srirangasri- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2002 Report Share Posted August 20, 2002 , "S.V.SWAMY" <swamy@n...> wrote: > >So if Ms.Sridevi has used the word Agnotic in its correct literary sense, they > have only moved away from aposition of total faith to doubting thomas > stage. They have not closed the door on god! This is not correct. Let me reproduce the dictionary meaning of the word agnostic from webster on line: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" In other words someone is committed to not care about ultimate reality. This is not "doubting stage". There is no doubt in the minds of these individuals as suggested in this response. They are convinced that the existance of god can neither be proved nor disproved. I hope the readers get the subtle actual meaning of the word agnostic. -- dileepan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2002 Report Share Posted August 27, 2002 Hari Om. Shri Dileepan is right. The dictionary meaning of Agnostic is what he gave. But in any of our indian languages do we have a word equivalent to that? Probably not. so what I menat and what I should have said in my last mail is that they have passed from a stage of faith to a stage of doubt and if they continue on that path will end up with there is no God. These phases do come in the lives of many. Only poorva janma punyam will give a staunch unflinching faith in God. The next best is that with His grace, they will come out of the present problems and with hindsight, will realise that whatever problems they faced were for their good. Let us hope He helps them. And thank you, Mr.Dileepan. Swamy SV At 21:17 20/08/02 -0000, dileepan wrote: >, "S.V.SWAMY" <swamy@n...> wrote: >> >>So if Ms.Sridevi has used the word Agnotic in its correct literary >sense, they >> have only moved away from aposition of total faith to doubting >thomas >> stage. They have not closed the door on god! > > >This is not correct. Let me reproduce the dictionary >meaning of the word agnostic from webster on line: > > "a person who holds the view that any ultimate > reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; > broadly : one who is not committed to believing > in either the existence or the nonexistence of > God or a god" > >In other words someone is committed to not care about >ultimate reality. This is not "doubting stage". There >is no doubt in the minds of these individuals as suggested >in this response. They are convinced that the existance >of god can neither be proved nor disproved. I hope the >readers get the subtle actual meaning of the word agnostic. > >-- dileepan > > > > > >Srirangasri- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2002 Report Share Posted August 27, 2002 Dear Sri S.V. Samy and readers of SRS: namo narayana! Thank you for your note. My note was only about the meaning of the English word cited. Hope not to side track the interesting discussion. Many use English words without realizing what they actually mean. For instance, when citing chronology, many use the suffix AD, like 1500 AD, etc. But, AD here means "in the year of my Lord Jesus Christ". This is particularly grievous for Sri Vaishnavas for whom there is no one but Sriman Narayana. As Kulasekarazhvar says, like the patient who loves the doctor who treats him with painful cuts and burns, even if Sriman Narayana gives us sorrow and grief, for us there is no one but Sriman Narayana. Therefore, we must never use the abbreviation AD. In stead, use the chronology suffixes, BCE and CE, with BCE = Before Common Era and CE = Common Era. BCE and CE are generally well accepted and understood abbreviations. Coming back to Agnostic, it is quite probable there are no equivalent word in Tamil/Sanskrit for Agnostic. It is equally probable that there is no equivalent word for Atheist and Theist. The dictionary meaning of Atheist is, "one who denies the existence of God". For Theist the meaning is, "belief in the existence of a god or gods". The usual translation for Atheist is "nAStikan", but it is not correct. nAStikan only means one who rejects Vedas. Thus, there are many devout theists who are nAStikAs. In fact we could say that most Theists are nAStikAs. regards, -- dileepan p.s. At 03:52 PM 8/27/2002 +0500, you wrote: >Hari Om. In our tradition it is customary not the spell out praNavam in public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2002 Report Share Posted August 27, 2002 Thank you one and all , for sharing your thoughts. Many amongst us run into hasty conclusions when we face a failure. We start blaming god and religion for our actions. I hear people saying this many times - God is responsible for all our actions. If I perform a good deed, I convince myself that god made me do that, similarly if I do something wrong, I would blame the same god and religion for having guided me in the wrong path. What I have learnt is that, God always says Do your duty and leave the rest to me. Am I wrong if I say god does not assume responsibility for all our actions? It is easy to misunderstand the statement - god is the guide to our mind and soul. I have just shared my views here. Please correct me if I am wrong. Again, thanks for sharing your views. Thanks and Regards Sridevi _______________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 Jai Sriman Narayana! I agree with you regarding the use of the word AD when refrerring to the year. Why not use the Kaliyuga year. All you have to do is add 3101 years to the cristian year (AD) to get the year in the Kali yuga. Kaliyuga started immedaiately after the disappearance of Lord Krishna from the earth. Perhaps we should use DK signifying that the date is after the disappearance of Lord Krishna. This year it is 5103 DK. In the coming April it will be 5104 Dk and so on. If at least some of us start using the year, there is a finite chance that the next generation will know that there is a Hindu calander and the dates back to atleast 5000 years (actually it dates back to billions of years). Jai Sriman Narayana Narender Reddy --- Parthasarati Dileepan <dileepan wrote: > Dear Sri S.V. Samy and readers of SRS: > > namo narayana! > > Thank you for your note. > > My note was only about the meaning of the English > word cited. Hope not to side track the interesting > discussion. > > Many use English words without realizing what they > actually mean. For instance, when citing > chronology, > many use the suffix AD, like 1500 AD, etc. But, AD > here means "in the year of my Lord Jesus Christ". > This is particularly grievous for Sri Vaishnavas for > whom > there is no one but Sriman Narayana. As > Kulasekarazhvar > says, like the patient who loves the doctor who > treats him > with painful cuts and burns, even if Sriman Narayana > gives > us sorrow and grief, for us there is no one but > Sriman > Narayana. Therefore, we must never use the > abbreviation AD. > In stead, use the chronology suffixes, BCE and CE, > with > BCE = Before Common Era and CE = Common Era. BCE > and CE > are generally well accepted and understood > abbreviations. > > Coming back to Agnostic, it is quite probable there > are no equivalent word in Tamil/Sanskrit for > Agnostic. > It is equally probable that there is no equivalent > word for Atheist and Theist. The dictionary meaning > of Atheist is, "one who denies the existence of > God". > For Theist the meaning is, "belief in the existence > of a god or gods". The usual translation for > Atheist > is "nAStikan", but it is not correct. nAStikan only > means one who rejects Vedas. Thus, there are many > devout theists who are nAStikAs. In fact we could > say that most Theists are nAStikAs. > > regards, > > -- dileepan > > p.s. > > At 03:52 PM 8/27/2002 +0500, you wrote: > >Hari Om. > > In our tradition it is customary not the spell out > praNavam in public. > > > Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 Dear Sri Svamy, Here is a quip you might want to savour: "An atheist doubts Belief. An agnostic believes in Doubt." Regards, dAsan, Sudarshan --- "S.V.SWAMY" <swamy wrote: > Hari Om. Shri Dileepan is right. The dictionary meaning of Agnostic > is what > he gave. But in any of our indian languages do we have a word > equivalent to > that? Probably not. so what I menat and what I should have said in > my last > mail is that they have passed from a stage of faith to a stage of > doubt and > if they continue on that path will end up with there is no God. > > These phases do come in the lives of many. Only poorva janma punyam > will > give a staunch unflinching faith in God. The next best is that with > His > grace, they will come out of the present problems and with > hindsight, will > realise that whatever problems they faced were for their good. > > Let us hope He helps them. > > And thank you, Mr.Dileepan. > > Swamy SV > > > > At 21:17 20/08/02 -0000, dileepan wrote: > >, "S.V.SWAMY" <swamy@n...> wrote: > >> > >>So if Ms.Sridevi has used the word Agnotic in its correct > literary > >sense, they > >> have only moved away from aposition of total faith to doubting > >thomas > >> stage. They have not closed the door on god! > > > > > >This is not correct. Let me reproduce the dictionary > >meaning of the word agnostic from webster on line: > > > > "a person who holds the view that any ultimate > > reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; > > broadly : one who is not committed to believing > > in either the existence or the nonexistence of > > God or a god" > > > >In other words someone is committed to not care about > >ultimate reality. This is not "doubting stage". There > >is no doubt in the minds of these individuals as suggested > >in this response. They are convinced that the existance > >of god can neither be proved nor disproved. I hope the > >readers get the subtle actual meaning of the word agnostic. > > > >-- dileepan > > > > > > > > > > > >Srirangasri- > > > > > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > > > Srirangasri- > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 Dear Shri Sudarshan, Good. May I slightly modify it. "An atheist believes in non-believing. An agnostic doesn't know what to beleve! Only a true theist believes that he believes!" Regards. Swamy At 22:51 27/08/02 -0700, you wrote: > >Dear Sri Svamy, > >Here is a quip you might want to savour: > > "An atheist doubts Belief. An agnostic believes in Doubt." > >Regards, >dAsan, > >Sudarshan > >--- "S.V.SWAMY" <swamy wrote: >> Hari Om. Shri Dileepan is right. The dictionary meaning of Agnostic >> is what >> he gave. But in any of our indian languages do we have a word >> equivalent to >> that? Probably not. so what I menat and what I should have said in >> my last >> mail is that they have passed from a stage of faith to a stage of >> doubt and >> if they continue on that path will end up with there is no God. >> >> These phases do come in the lives of many. Only poorva janma punyam >> will >> give a staunch unflinching faith in God. The next best is that with >> His >> grace, they will come out of the present problems and with >> hindsight, will >> realise that whatever problems they faced were for their good. >> >> Let us hope He helps them. >> >> And thank you, Mr.Dileepan. >> >> Swamy SV >> >> >> >> At 21:17 20/08/02 -0000, dileepan wrote: >> >, "S.V.SWAMY" <swamy@n...> wrote: >> >> >> >>So if Ms.Sridevi has used the word Agnotic in its correct >> literary >> >sense, they >> >> have only moved away from aposition of total faith to doubting >> >thomas >> >> stage. They have not closed the door on god! >> > >> > >> >This is not correct. Let me reproduce the dictionary >> >meaning of the word agnostic from webster on line: >> > >> > "a person who holds the view that any ultimate >> > reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; >> > broadly : one who is not committed to believing >> > in either the existence or the nonexistence of >> > God or a god" >> > >> >In other words someone is committed to not care about >> >ultimate reality. This is not "doubting stage". There >> >is no doubt in the minds of these individuals as suggested >> >in this response. They are convinced that the existance >> >of god can neither be proved nor disproved. I hope the >> >readers get the subtle actual meaning of the word agnostic. >> > >> >-- dileepan >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Srirangasri- >> > >> > >> > >> >Your use of is subject to >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------ Sponsor >> >> >> Srirangasri- >> >> >> >> Your use of is subject to >> >> >> > > > > > Finance - Get real-time stock quotes >http://finance. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 At 10:39 PM 8/27/2002 +0000, sridevi krishnan wrote: >What I have learnt is that, God always says Do your duty and leave the >rest to me. Am I wrong if I say god does not assume responsibility for all >our actions? [..] >I have just shared my views here. Please correct me if I am wrong. Swami Sri Desikan narrates the story of two individuals in Srimad Rahasya Traiya Saram. One is called Kshatrabhandu, an evil king prone to commit unspeakable sins. But he was able to overcome his sins and ultimately ascend to Sri Vaikuntam through association with a sadAcharya. The second is called Pundareekan, a brahmin leading a devout life of worship and other good deeds. However, only after he came into contact with a sadAcharya he was able to get released from this samsara and reach paramapadam. The upshot of this is your sins will not be an impediment for reaching the ultimate goal once you get the protection of a sadAcharya. Further, no amount of good deeds, i.e. puNyam, will bring you the ultimate without the grace of sadAcharya. With this the importance of seeking a sadAcharya is emphasized. When it comes to material matters, from simple things like riding a bicycle or cooking rice, we seek a qualified teacher. But when it comes to spiritual matters, somehow we feel we can figure things out on our own. Such thinking is flawed and will only bring misery to us. Our first step in our spiritual journey must be approaching a qualified Acharya and falling at his feet. Who is a qualified Acharya? There are many who proclaim that they are great Acharyas, maharishees, etc. Then, there are those who claim absolute divinity for themselves. These are also creations of Lord Sriman Narayana to mislead and punish the wicked. But be careful, do not fall into such traps. SadAcharya is one who belongs to a tradition, i.e. sampradaya, that accepts all of the Vedas without violating any part of the Vedas. Some traditions reject the Vedas outright. Others accept the supremacy of the vedas, but advocate that some parts of the vedas supercedes others; i.e. some parts are not valid, the parts that they do not like. There is only one tradition that accepts the vedAs in its entirety and gives a completely consistent interpretation for all the seemingly contradictory verses. This is the ultimate test for authenticity of tradition. Such a tradition is the only true parama vaideeka sampradayam. That sampradayam is Sri Vaishnava samparadayam of Swami Bhashyakarar and Swami Sri Desikan. Seek out an Acharya in this sampradaya and start your spiritual journey. Do not speculate what God will do or say on your own. -- dileepan srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.