All is one? No distinctions?

[rishi07]

i am having a discussion with a Christian who is telling me that Hinduism says that "All is one" look at the argument he is presenting:

 

"In effect Hindus say that there are no distinctions, and yet say that we are not yet in nirvana. They say there are no distinctions, yet draw a distinction between our life now, and nirvana."

 

So he is saying Hinduism is one big contradiction, how do I counter this argument?

[Kulapavana]

his understanding of Hinduism is extremely shallow. arguing with such people is a waste of time. they only see what they WANT to see.

 

even in the monist philosophy "All is one" simply means "all is PART OF the supreme oneness"

[mahak]

The christian has defeated the whole idea, and should be congratulated.

 

However, "hinduism" is so far reaching, from babajis of bhajananandi propensity who are vaisnavas, vaisnava gosthyanandi preachers, the whole gamut to kalima worshippers who may be quite cannibalistic.

 

What one has to do if a christian presents this correct view on monism, that the whole nirvana trip is bogus in that compassion cannot happen to one who has merged into the spiritual sky, is to ask him his view on spiritual life. One may find the christian quite similar to the vaisnava if they understand the true teachings of their Lord Jesus Chrisat. A bond can be made, and the vaisnava can go from there.

 

Some christians, though, are sentimentalists and can never have a good discussion with anyone outside their congregations. Others are as mayavada as the worst of the "I am god" freaks.

 

But in this case, the christian has made a good point, and the distinction between "hinduism" (a word applied by muslim conquerers) and actual sanatana dharma must be made.

 

Hare Krsna, good luck, ys, mahaksadasa

[cbrahma]

nirvara is primarily a Buddhist concept. The closest idea in the 'Hindu' Gita, is moksa which means liberation. It is an impersonal state. The individual jiva 'merges' with the impersonal brahmajyoti which is pure spirit.

This 'white light' is said to be radiating from the body of Visnu.

Although I am not an expert on Buddhism, I know Buddhism is essentially atheist and believes that the Absolute is void (no thing). Nirvana is a state of complete emptying 'sunyata' where all suffering is anihilated.

So there is quite a diversity of views regarding Oneness. Personalist vaisnavas understand the existence of spiritual qualities or form 'vigraha'.

The soul is called sat-cit-ananda vigraha or eternity-knowledge-bliss.

All consciousness is such. But the individual remains even as part and parcel of the Absolute, which is Bhagavan Krsna. That is a philosophy of inconceivable oneness and difference.

 

 

i am having a discussion with a Christian who is telling me that Hinduism says that "All is one" look at the argument he is presenting:

 

"In effect Hindus say that there are no distinctions, and yet say that we are not yet in nirvana. They say there are no distinctions, yet draw a distinction between our life now, and nirvana."

 

So he is saying Hinduism is one big contradiction, how do I counter this argument?

[Guest guest]

 

i am having a discussion with a Christian who is telling me that Hinduism says that "All is one" look at the argument he is presenting:

 

"In effect Hindus say that there are no distinctions, and yet say that we are not yet in nirvana. They say there are no distinctions, yet draw a distinction between our life now, and nirvana."

 

So he is saying Hinduism is one big contradiction, how do I counter this argument?

 

Actually, nirvana is a STATE of consciousness, it represents the level of consciousness a person is operating/vibrating from. In truth, nirvana, heaven and hell are all omnipresent, there is no real distinction between any of these layers, but WE make the distinctions because of the level of consciousness we are functioning from.

[Guest guest]

 

Actually, nirvana is a STATE of consciousness, it represents the level of consciousness a person is operating/vibrating from. In truth, nirvana, heaven and hell are all omnipresent, there is no real distinction between any of these layers, but WE make the distinctions because of the level of consciousness we are functioning from.

 

 

It's like saying that if string theory were a fact and there were 11 dimensions of space-time, yet we only operate within the classical 4 dimensions of space-time. The 7 other dimensions are still there, it's just that we don't perceive them (maybe enlightened souls do, but that's a very small percentage of the population). Those 11 dimensions are still there, they're omnipresent, but the common man is only cognizant of 4 dimensions of space-time and thus acts according to that which he can perceive.

[cbrahma]

As far as I know the Buddhist does not understand persons to be absolute truth. There is no jiva-tattva as such.

 

Nirvana With and Without "Remainder"

Nirvana is neither a place nor a mental state. It is a fact about us. A nirvana is the absence of afflictions in someone whose cultivation of wisdom has resulted in the destruction of ignorance, desire, hatred, etc. That mere absence is the nirvana.

On that, all Buddhist schools agree. However, they disagree over the use of the term "remainder" used in conjunction with nirvana. Other than Prasangika, it is said that after a person attains nirvana, he or she subsequently can be said to have a "nirvana with remainder," the "remainder" being the body and mind. Death cuts the remainder. However, the nirvana without remainder is a single moment, occurring just at the time of death but not after. After death there is no person to whom the nirvana can belong!

 

http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/N64_8.php

 

 

Actually, nirvana is a STATE of consciousness, it represents the level of consciousness a person is operating/vibrating from. In truth, nirvana, heaven and hell are all omnipresent, there is no real distinction between any of these layers, but WE make the distinctions because of the level of consciousness we are functioning from.

[Guest guest]

 

nirvara is primarily a Buddhist concept. The closest idea in the 'Hindu' Gita, is moksa which means liberation. It is an impersonal state. The individual jiva 'merges' with the impersonal brahmajyoti which is pure spirit.

This 'white light' is said to be radiating from the body of Visnu.

Although I am not an expert on Buddhism, I know Buddhism is essentially atheist and believes that the Absolute is void (no thing). Nirvana is a state of complete emptying 'sunyata' where all suffering is anihilated.

So there is quite a diversity of views regarding Oneness. Personalist vaisnavas understand the existence of spiritual qualities or form 'vigraha'.

The soul is called sat-cit-ananda vigraha or eternity-knowledge-bliss.

All consciousness is such. But the individual remains even as part and parcel of the Absolute, which is Bhagavan Krsna. That is a philosophy of inconceivable oneness and difference.

 

Nirvana in Hinduism is moksha. The term does exist in Hinduism, and honestly, I believe that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't very different as far as experience goes. Semantically, they have opposing viewpoints, but in truth, the experiences I believe are the same. Where one may call a feeling "empty", another may call it "full". It really doesn't matter, one way or the other, the point really is to engage in a spirutal quest to expand your consciousness so you become cognizant of all dimensions of the universe and see the world as "in God", "from God", and "all God".

[Guest guest]

I don't think the Buddhists even attempt to label absolute Truth in the first place. their goal primarily is to end suffering, so nirvana is descriptive of that state. Buddhists may use terms that Hindus share to describe things in a different way than the term is originally associated with, but as I said before, it's easy to get caught up in the words and forget the truth of the experience and what I believe is the common experience and traditions between the two. Ultimately the goal of the Hindu and Buddhist is the same, but it is described differently, and gone about in possibly a different way (depending on the school of thought).

 

I think it's foolish to presume that the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc. go to different destinations, or have different goals in mind. The goal is ultimately the same, yet, they are described differently. There are many who get caught up in the words and see differences between the religions, and on this plane of existence, they are different: the traditions, the words used to describe the Truth, the way of pursuing the Truth are different. The thing is, the Truth that they're all pursuing is the same, it's just the methodologies and descriptions that differ.

[cbrahma]

Though other religious systems are considered to be the products of time, circumstance and the people amongst whom they were instituted, devotional service to Krsna even when executed by an imperfect practitioner is considered by Prabhupada, in keeping with the Caitanya-caritamrta, to be transcendental:

 

•  

  When we are on the material platform, there are different types of religions-Hinduism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, and so on. These are instituted for a particular time, a particular country or a particular person. Consequently there are differences. Christian principles are different from Hindu principles, and Hindu principles are different from Mohammedan and Buddhist principles. These may be considered on the material platform, but when we come to the platform of transcendental devotional service, there are no such considerations. The transcendental service of the Lord (sadhana-bhakti) is above these principles. The world is anxious for religious unity, and that common platform can be achieved in transcendental devotional service. This is the verdict of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. When one becomes a Vaisnava, he becomes transcendental to all these limited considerations (CC Madhya 25.121P).

  
  

http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_2/62jagat.html

 

Nirvana in Hinduism is moksha. The term does exist in Hinduism, and honestly, I believe that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't very different as far as experience goes. Semantically, they have opposing viewpoints, but in truth, the experiences I believe are the same. Where one may call a feeling "empty", another may call it "full". It really doesn't matter, one way or the other, the point really is to engage in a spirutal quest to expand your consciousness so you become cognizant of all dimensions of the universe and see the world as "in God", "from God", and "all God".

[rishi07]

so does anybody have an appropriate way to counter his argument, i dont want to back away from the discussion.

[cbrahma]

There is nothing to argue about. Because Hinduism is too broad a category with too many different concepts of oneness to generalize. Hinduism is not one on the topic. Your christian friend needs to study Indian/Vedic religious sects before making sweeping statements about what they believe.

 

 

so does anybody have an appropriate way to counter his argument, i dont want to back away from the discussion.

[sanatan]

 

so does anybody have an appropriate way to counter his argument, i dont want to back away from the discussion.

 

You can explore the fact that in regard to Hinduism or sanatana-dharma, advaita or absolute non-dualism is only one aspect of philosophical thought and spiritual practice. The theistic or dvaitin philosophies that were developed the post-Vedic period by Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhvacharya and carried forward to the present day, most notably by Caitanya Mahaprabhu and successors, should provide plenty of material for discussion with a Christian, especially if he can understand the concept of the independent jiva and the free-will aspect that is so central to Vaisnava philosophy.

[Guest guest]

 

i am having a discussion with a Christian who is telling me that Hinduism says that "All is one" look at the argument he is presenting:

 

"In effect Hindus say that there are no distinctions, and yet say that we are not yet in nirvana. They say there are no distinctions, yet draw a distinction between our life now, and nirvana."

 

So he is saying Hinduism is one big contradiction, how do I counter this argument?

 

The neo-Vedanta spread by people like Vivekananda, Raman Maharishi etc. pass for Hinduism in most western countries. And because advaita/neo-Vedanta states that 'all is one', people assume that hinduism is all about oneness of jiva with brahman. They just don't realize there are plenty of other schools within Hinduism that disagree with the above.

[cbrahma]

Nobody said they label the absolute Truth. I previously cited from Buddhist sources

Another quote from a Buddhist source

 

 

What kind of absolute would it be which changed like the ordinary things of the world ? Being immutable, the absolute is forever unmoved, pure, eternal, still and serene. This is, in fact, a common description of the absolute in all Mahayana forms of Buddhism. However, Fa-tsang next says something which not only seems to contradict this statement but which also is very unusual in Buddhism; he says that moved by certain conditions, this pure, unmoved eternal Reality changes and appears as the universe of phenomenal objects. However, like the gold which has become the ring, the immutable absolute remains the immutable absolute. Here the picture is apparently one of the emanation of the concrete universe from an immutable absolute with the result that things are a mixture of the absolute and the phenomenal.

 

 

http://www.nembutsu.info/absolute2.htm

 

So there is a concept of absolute. No doubt the quest ends in a state which is close to the Vedic concept of moskha. That is NOT the goal of the Gaudiya Vaishnava. The devotee seeks Prema Bhakti, pure unalloyed love of Krsna. He/She is content with nothing more or less than unalloyed service.

It is a theistic personalist goal, unlike the Buddhist who can barely be described as theist.

 

 

 

II think it's foolish to presume that the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc. go to different destinations, or have different goals in mind. . The thing is, the Truth that they're all pursuing is the same, it's just the methodologies and descriptions that differ.

[Guest guest]

Ask him to clarify in which Hindu scripture does it say this, which verse, and from which one of the four branches of Hinduism he is getting this information? Ask him to be clear and specific and cite references.

 

Then after he cites whatever, you may point out that other branches of Hinduism do not feel the same way, that "all is one", such as in Gaudiya Vaisnavism it says that the jiva and God are simultaneously one and different, "Achintya bheda bheda tattva."

 

Then to prove the superiority of your argument play him the song by the band K called 'Tattva". Just kidding. But it's good to keep a sense of humor and keep things friendly and light if you possily can. In my opinion, it is probably better to be a good and kind representative of your religion than to be able to win an argument but seething full of bitterness and rancor.

 

If your friend believes that "God is Love" and "Love is patient and kind" as it says in the Bible, then if you are the most patient, kind, and loving person he has ever met--in a genuine way, not show-bottle self-aggrandization-- then later on in life when he really needs a helping hand, or a good role model, or when his life flashes before his eyes at the moment of Death, he will remember your goodwill, exemplary conduct, and nice example more than any biting words that pierced the heart which were technically "correct".

 

Who you are as a person, how you live your life, and the quietly positive unconditional love that you share with others really does penetrate and resonate deep down inside and can touch another person on the soul level, effecting a permanent change of heart that lasts longer than the lingering enmity and rancor that can develop after the intellectual arguments fade.

 

You may also wish to point out that there are as many different versions and interpretations as to what "Hinduism" is as there are different sects in Christianity. Focus on the positives and commonalities of both worldviews' universal concepts: the Sanatana Dharma or eternal truths. If he insists to be right then with a wink and a smile say, "You are certainly a very devout person! I hope that you will keep me in your prayers and put in a good word about me to your Maker!"

 

Then with an embrace of brotherhood and a namaste to God within the heart of your friend--he may call it Holy Spirit, you may call Him Param Atma--work together cooperatively as global citizens of the same planet. Inside we all want the same things: to be listened to, to be loved, to have shelter, food, clean air and water, to have work that is meaningful and the opportunity to learn and grow, and a brighter future for our children.

 

Sow the seeds of kindness and in parting wish your friend well, knowing internally that "Truth is one, sages explain it variously." Know that God is Love and as such is beyond all sectarian designations.