I think i am completely wrong about God, being atheist sucks

[Narasingh]

The "Pain" of Love is considered by many to be the greatest Joy of Life. Prema Bhakti.

[raghu]

 

Through history we know that man is naturally gregarious - tends to live in societies and thrives in a family environment. Then some religions come along and tell you to do the exact reverse by going against nature - do not eat for taste, do not have sex, do not accumulate material possessions, do not get attached to people...everything that man's natural instincts drive him to do, these religions tell him not to do. A little bit of irony here - give up everything you like to do and you will be happy!

 

In my opinion, such religious systems can only result in a repressed, depressed, confused, brain-numbed individual - for all we know, people who may have possibly been happier if they had never come in contact with such religions.

 

Cheers

 

Some people confuse regulation with repression. All I have to say is that I have never met the man who attained permanent happiness simply by connecting his senses to temporary sense objects over and over again. And who says that happiness is obtained merely via negation? Even the Gaudiyas don't say that. Unless you consider most of the posters here Gaudiyas, in which case anything goes.

 

A philosophy that holds that the path to happiness is through one's "natural instincts" does not benefit the many who don't have luxuries to attain the things you speak of. So either give up some of what you have to help others (thus sacrificing some of your own happiness), or accept that you are naturally selfish, and that you will enjoy while others suffer.

[Amlesh]

What else should I expect from you Kaisersose?

[sambya1]

raghu ,

 

nowhere in my post did i mention ramakrishna mission or vivekananda. instead i gave bharat sevashram sangha as an exapmle . i said that i am a ramakrishna vivekananda follower in a different thread. you are making personal attacks here .

 

i cannot continue a dialogue with you beause you expressedly said that you dont believe as all religions being equally true. and thats exactly the message i want to convey . before coming to a sound scientific conclusions one must observe , experiment and then draw an inference. i guess you have finished all the three steps for all the existing faith systems and have finally concluded that only your religion is true. if thats the case ,its fine .

 

if not then i must say that you lack in scientific and rational logic . as argument is all about logic i cannot do that with you . you live happy in your belief and me in mine . enjoy ..........

[Amlesh]

What Raghu outlined is rational thinking.

 

Thinking good and doing good is not enough...Your science should teach you also the deep rooted meaning of what perfect action is.

 

Sometimes back.. I went to an Ashrama of Sri RamaKrishna Mission...

I spent some times there and I got to hear from one of Swami there about compassion and one of their previous acharya's benevolent attitude of how he gave food and clothing to a distressed fellow near a mandir.

And that action is to be considered great.

And That was all in all.

However, I should say, I agree with the good intention of those swamis.. but since they don't hear much about what Krishna says in totality, their action is still bounded by the material mode of Goodness and hence still Karmic.. pertaining to action and reaction.

What they might have thought is good might not be necessarily good..

for example the same beggar who received some money or food could have been a terrorist from an organisation, collecting money for this and that.

 

Krishna teaches.. well he is the only one to do that..the secret of perfect action...don't worry few knows that... don't pinpoint Iskcon.. they themselves don't know that secret with perfection...that's why you can see stupidity from time to time from their part also.

 

The RamaKrishna mission like many other schools have their thinking and saying about the Gita... but like Iskcon and the rest.. not in detail.

[sambya1]

amlesh,

 

i guess everyone should agree on one point , hatred is born out of ignorance . this is equally applicable in this case also .

 

each and every man that criticises ramakrishna or vivekananda that i have seen till date have either not read their books at all or have read very little. and on this flimsy grounds they base their conclusions . i wouldnt have objected if someone dislike them after gathering sufficeient knowledge about them . thats his freedom of thought . i would respect that . but that never happens.

 

religion is never seperate from society . a religion that denies society perishes in time . this was one of the causes of dissapearence of buddhism from india , because they stressed monasticism more than householder life and started concentrating only on that aspect . religion and society are inseperable parts . so any religious thought has its consequent influence on the social structure . vivekananda in his attempt to revive the ancient indian religion also attempted to revive the dying indian civilization . thats why he spoke and worked at lenghts on topics like starvation , poverty , india etc . you ought to analyze it in the context of those dark times .

 

while you practise sadhana you cannot sit idle . a jiva goes on performing karma all times . but for an aspirant such karma should be sattvic karma which can boost their spirituality . such noble works directly helps with your sadhana. destroying the false ego ( me , mine) is another most crucial aspect of any sadhana . by constant service to the poor and helpless this deep seated ego gradually reduces . one begins to think in terms of we and ours. this is how the entire outlook of the man changes and helps him in broadening his mind. this broadness and purity is absolute necessary for realization. other similar sattwik works are puja dhyan japa seva etc. they all result in chittasuddhi .

 

when vivekananda said about playing football or watering eggplant that was all in accordance with the place time and circumstances in which it was being spoken. when he toured entire subcontinent on foot he saw the actuall pitifull state of the demoralised nation sleeping under the burden of 1000 years of foriegn rule . he realised that only the spirituality of india can save the nation . but poverty , weakenss and over dependence on england stood in way of this spiritual revival. those who were poor never realised their greatness . and those who were educated looked forward to britain for greatness . this was the reason the made his fiery speeches , devoted his time to charity etc . the nation needs to be awaken first. one must relise that they are independent free thinking glorious individuals before they can lay their trust on thier gods . how can a poorest peasant who has heard that his gods are all but idols from christian missionaries right since his childhood ever take to spiritual paths ?? this tough shell needed to be cracked first .

 

similarly west thought of india as a idol worshipping ,superstitious ,widow burning, tribal country. vivekananda spoke advaita and impersonal god to them to make them realize that hindus are not merely blind idol worshippers .they have their own beatifull philosophy and a far better one. evrything he said or wrote had a particular target . you must read though the entire original text and the circumstances in which it was spoken before you get a proper picture .

 

lastly , why criticise yaar ?? can everyone belive and practise the same path ? then there would be one single vast religion by now.

 

 

What they might have thought is good might not be necessarily good..

 

applicable to you also...

 

 

for example the same beggar who received some money or food could have been a terrorist from an organisation, collecting money for this and that.

 

so do you stop feeding the foodless , lest some terrorist join in disguise and benefit from the kichhdi ? is this your logic ??!!!

 

 

Krishna teaches.. well he is the only one to do that.

 

says who? says the vaishnavs .......right? now isnt it natural that his follwers would always say that? going by this logic of yours sathya sai baba's followers might as well correctly say that its he (baba) who can only teach. so on and so forth .

 

The RamaKrishna mission like many other schools have their thinking and saying about the Gita... but like Iskcon and the rest.. not in detail.

 

its not about detail . each have thier own persective and own understanding of the text and thats percisely how gita is universal . if you say it has only one interpretation it automatically turns it into a sectarian text .

[kaisersose]

I specifically wrote that in response a post where a solution was offered to give up on everything. Let us keep the context is perspective.

 

 

Some people confuse regulation with repression. All I have to say is that I have never met the man who attained permanent happiness simply by connecting his senses to temporary sense objects over and over again.

 

Depends on how we define permanent here. There are plenty of happy people in this world - happy with the way their lives turned out , etc. - something that religion will not acknowledge as its promises are mostly for grand things to happen after death. There are 6.7 billion people on the planet - it is hard enough to know if my neigbor is happy or not - let alone the rest of the people. We cannot possibly decide on the absence of happiness across the board.

 

To put it differently, I do not care if I am reborn or not. Neither do millions of other people. Not everyone is anxious to get off the planet to a "better place" as promised by religion. It is my opinion that such an anxiety can only exist if things are not going well here and now.

 

 

And who says that happiness is obtained merely via negation?

 

The poster to whom I responded.

 

 

A philosophy that holds that the path to happiness is through one's "natural instincts" does not benefit the many who don't have luxuries to attain the things you speak of.

 

It is not a rule that happiness lies through following natural instincts. But if one follows path of giving up everything that he is naturally inclined to do, then I do not see any chance for happiness.

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

i cannot continue a dialogue with you beause you expressedly said that you dont believe as all religions being equally true.

 

All religions are not equally true, a fact that is obvious to anyone who is honest enough to study the subject matter rationally.

 

 

and thats exactly the message i want to convey . before coming to a sound scientific conclusions one must observe , experiment and then draw an inference.

 

Vaishnavas and Shaivites disagree with each other as to who God is. Advaitins and Non-Advaitins disagree with each other about what liberation is. Jews and Christians disagree with each other about the second coming. Muslims disagree with almost everyone else.

 

Scientifically speaking, all available evidence (respective scriptures, etc) indicates that these are different religions. Two things which have the same properties could be the same. But if two things have any different properties, then they are not the same. This is common sense.

 

By what sort of methodology do you conclude, in spite of their obvious differences, that all these religions are equally true?

 

Aren't you just being a wishy-washy, politically-correct, sentimentalist who habitually postulates ridiculous assertions and then dismisses all evidence to their contrary?

[raghu]

 

I specifically wrote that in response a post where a solution was offered to give up on everything. Let us keep the context is perspective.

 

And what you wrote:

 

 

Through history we know that man is naturally gregarious - tends to live in societies and thrives in a family environment. Then some religions come along and tell you to do the exact reverse by going against nature - do not eat for taste, do not have sex, do not accumulate material possessions, do not get attached to people...everything that man's natural instincts drive him to do, these religions tell him not to do. A little bit of irony here - give up everything you like to do and you will be happy!

 

In my opinion, such religious systems can only result in a repressed, depressed, confused, brain-numbed individual - for all we know, people who may have possibly been happier if they had never come in contact with such religions.

 

..certainly bears some examining, regardless of the context. We don't really know which religions you are referring to.

 

 

Depends on how we define permanent here. There are plenty of happy people in this world - happy with the way their lives turned out , etc. -

 

We don't need to split hairs over the word "permanent." Anyone can observe, without any religious bias whatsoever, that "happy" people are sometimes happy and sometimes not happy. No one stays happy all the time, unless they are happy when they lose friends and family, happy when they suffer from disease, happy when they are victims of crime, etc.

 

 

something that religion will not acknowledge as its promises are mostly for grand things to happen after death.

 

Here you are obviously generalizing about all religion (unless you wish to qualify your statement). Also, the second part of the sentence does not follow from the first. A religious ideology can certainly acknowledge the ephemeral nature of happiness in this world while still postulating a greater and more lasting happiness in the next.

 

 

There are 6.7 billion people on the planet - it is hard enough to know if my neigbor is happy or not - let alone the rest of the people. We cannot possibly decide on the absence of happiness across the board.

 

The question isn't one of "absence of happiness" but really "absence of lasting happiness." And we don't have to pretend that we cannot observe that even in our everyday experience.

 

 

To put it differently, I do not care if I am reborn or not. Neither do millions of other people. Not everyone is anxious to get off the planet to a "better place" as promised by religion. It is my opinion that such an anxiety can only exist if things are not going well here and now.

 

Not everyone recognizes the cyclical nature of enjoyment and suffering. Naturally such people don't look for anything better since they delude themselves into believing they can insulate themselves from any significant suffering in this world. When questioned about the greatest wonder of this world, Yudhishthira replied that the greatest wonder was that people see death and suffering all around them, yet they never fully come to terms with their own mortality.

 

 

It is not a rule that happiness lies through following natural instincts. But if one follows path of giving up everything that he is naturally inclined to do, then I do not see any chance for happiness.

 

Cheers

 

You may not see it, but you can surely acknowledge that there have been those across different cultures and different time periods who have given up their "natural inclinations" (if you define that the way I think you are defining it) voluntarily in pursuit of some intangible, "spiritual" goal. One wonders why so many people do that throughout time and across the spectrum of different cultures when it is supposedly against their basic instincts. If you look at it objectively, you have to acknowledge that your view that "happiness = ability to satisfy materialistic natural inclinations" does not tell the whole story. I would argue that man is also naturally inclined to wonder about the purpose of life (if any), acknowledge the fleeting nature of pleasure and pain in this world, and inquire about the means (if any) of escaping it. You can surely acknowledge that history bears this out.

[Amlesh]

 

 

i guess everyone should agree on one point , hatred is born out of ignorance . this is equally applicable in this case also .

 

No hatred but pointing to some of the thing I can see.

 

 

each and every man that criticises ramakrishna or vivekananda that i have seen till date have either not read their books at all or have read very little. and on this flimsy grounds they base their conclusions . i wouldnt have objected if someone dislike them after gathering sufficeient knowledge about them . thats his freedom of thought . i would respect that . but that never happens.

 

Well, I may discriminate but for sure..I don't despise.

 

 

religion is never seperate from society . a religion that denies society perishes in time . this was one of the causes of dissapearence of buddhism from india , because they stressed monasticism more than householder life and started concentrating only on that aspect . religion and society are inseperable parts . so any religious thought has its consequent influence on the social structure . vivekananda in his attempt to revive the ancient indian religion also attempted to revive the dying indian civilization . thats why he spoke and worked at lenghts on topics like starvation , poverty , india etc . you ought to analyze it in the context of those dark times .

 

I never said the contrary.

 

 

while you practise sadhana you cannot sit idle . a jiva goes on performing karma all times . but for an aspirant such karma should be sattvic karma which can boost their spirituality . such noble works directly helps with your sadhana. destroying the false ego ( me , mine) is another most crucial aspect of any sadhana . by constant service to the poor and helpless this deep seated ego gradually reduces . one begins to think in terms of we and ours. this is how the entire outlook of the man changes and helps him in broadening his mind. this broadness and purity is absolute necessary for realization. other similar sattwik works are puja dhyan japa seva etc. they all result in chittasuddhi .

 

Agreed, I again never said the contrary.

 

when vivekananda said about playing football or watering eggplant that was all in accordance with the place time and circumstances in which it was being spoken. when he toured entire subcontinent on foot he saw the actuall pitifull state of the demoralised nation sleeping under the burden of 1000 years of foriegn rule . he realised that only the spirituality of india can save the nation . but poverty , weakenss and over dependence on england stood in way of this spiritual revival. those who were poor never realised their greatness . and those who were educated looked forward to britain for greatness . this was the reason the made his fiery speeches , devoted his time to charity etc . the nation needs to be awaken first. one must relise that they are independent free thinking glorious individuals before they can lay their trust on thier gods . how can a poorest peasant who has heard that his gods are all but idols from christian missionaries right since his childhood ever take to spiritual paths ?? this tough shell needed to be cracked first .

 

I'm happy to hear about his call.

 

similarly west thought of india as a idol worshipping ,superstitious ,widow burning, tribal country. vivekananda spoke advaita and impersonal god to them to make them realize that hindus are not merely blind idol worshippers .they have their own beatifull philosophy and a far better one. evrything he said or wrote had a particular target . you must read though the entire original text and the circumstances in which it was spoken before you get a proper picture .

 

I know many who showed the Puranic way.. and were tremendously successful.

Idol worship.. hmmm???

I guess, dear Swami Vivekananda did not know much about Archa Vigraha.

He showed a philosophy that neared the Muslim philosophy.. which I'll accept.. since that Philosophy is part of the Upanishad also.. and described in the Gitam as well.

 

He might have spoken according to time and circumstance to show to the westerners that somewhat we are not blind idol worshippers, but the thing is I don't expect the Westerners either to understand Archa Vigraha.

I won't plunge into something based on circumstance.. that I'll leave to those Westerners and also to those Indians who's thinking capacity limits itself to the same level as the westerners.

I don't understand why craps hate those Murtis, when we know how our Lord is.. His yellow dhoti, peacock feather on his Head, and charismatic smile, Mayurakshi [Lotus eyes] et al.

He know him.. Bhaktas try to reciprocate those visions with carvings, paintings, statue, murti, idols and we get to appreciate all that.

You people are stuck with no vision at al and even if you want to depict him.. you'll be stuck with that to do next...

 

Nevertheless, let me clear this part... Westerners are against Idol Worship... but you can find these days in many church.. Statues of Jesus Christ and many other saints.. and they worship them.

Why buddy?

 

And they've are coming to something that we practiced since the beginning.

Not to mention various Bhuddist Positions and statues being prayed.

You all divert from the Vedic ways to come back again to that same old tradition.

 

Your cases are hopeless.. you pray to no one.

 

Ok.. To be fair.. we also come stage where we see Krishna in everyone and everything.. The Murti Worship will be given secondary thoughts.. but only when your mind is completely cleansed.

 

 

 

 

lastly , why criticise yaar ?? can everyone belive and practise the same path ? then there would be one single vast religion by now.

 

I've heard from you many times on Iskcon.. I diverted for the first time on RamaKrishna Mission.

I don't see why there is any fuss in all that.

 

 

applicable to you also...

 

Yeah.. I don't go with my thinking.. but His.

 

 

 

so do you stop feeding the foodless , lest some terrorist join in disguise and benefit from the kichhdi ? is this your logic ??!!!

 

No... see you don't understand what I meant to say..

Any action should not be tainted with the 3 qualities, even with Goodness.

How it is accomplished... you secret only Krishna reveals.

 

 

 

says who? says the vaishnavs .......right? now isnt it natural that his follwers would always say that? going by this logic of yours sathya sai baba's followers might as well correctly say that its he (baba) who can only teach. so on and so forth .

 

Before reading the Gita, I did not know.. what is a Vaishnava.

After reading the Gita also, I did not know.. what is a Vaishnava.

 

It was very after that I came to know that there are many organisations and Group thinking.

 

I should say, I was protected since a child against all those Groups and orgs.

 

When I first touched the Gita... I was completely unbias.

I never really came from any school of thought.

 

The Gita was scrutinised really well and I can say.. no higher authority is there and will be there that can produce such a Marvellous teaching.. and none will be there.

Many came after Krishna.. but none could give a teaching as complete as the Gita.

 

 

its not about detail . each have thier own persective and own understanding of the text and thats percisely how gita is universal . if you say it has only one interpretation it automatically turns it into a sectarian text .

Hahahahahaha.. funny.

Did you know that...

The Gita's text teaches according to one's nature of being.. but there is one central teaching whose meaning never gets altered.

That is to be known in parallel with the variable text.

 

And that meaning is equal to all.. that from the barber..to the fisherman.. till the politician et al.. sees it with no difference... but few gets that Privilege.

But don't worry.. for Hari there is no dooms day.. he sees you green always.. if not this birth, then the next...

[theist]

I haven't read the thread so I am sorry to interject but this sentence caught my eye.

 

sambya:but what they seem to forget is that religion is a luxury for starving millions .

 

It reminded me of an incident I heard about where Srila Prabhupada was getting off an airplane in India. Many reporters came around him and one asked, "Sir, is your philosophy Advaita or Dvaita?". Prabhupad answered to the effect of, "What does that matter? A hungry man does not want to hear philosophy."

 

This was in the early seventies when India was having a crisis of lack of food. We can't ignore the practicle side of life when presenting God consciousness.

 

Does it make sense to read scripture to a man dying on the roadside due to thirst or to offer him water so that he may be able to listen to the same scriptures after his thirst is quenched.

 

God consciousness does not mean abandoning common sense humanity.

 

In Isopanishad Prabhupada writes, "Altruist activites done in the spirit of Isopanishad are another form of karma-yoga."

 

 

Also it is taught that a Vaisnava wants to see to everyone's welfare both materially and spiritually.

 

 

If I have misdirected the thread I apologize.

[sambya1]

 

Vaishnavas and Shaivites disagree with each other as to who God is. Advaitins and Non-Advaitins disagree with each other about what liberation is. Jews and Christians disagree with each other about the second coming. Muslims disagree with almost everyone else.

Scientifically speaking, all available evidence (respective scriptures, etc) indicates that these are different religions. Two things which have the same properties could be the same. But if two things have any different properties, then they are not the same. This is common sense.

By what sort of methodology do you conclude, in spite of their obvious differences, that all these religions are equally true?

 

yes , every faith is externally different from the other . its ideals , practice and expectations do not match many a time. but its true that at the end they are all searching out that one same god . maybe their approach and methods or understanding of that god varies . but all religions search for god. there's no denying that . and god is always one.

 

when i say all religions are same i dont mean that they are similar (which you are understanding out of my words) . i mean that they struggle for same truth -- to find the causes of this existence and the inherent conciousness of the cosmos. they are not similar but strive for the same answers.

 

secondly when you say that they are not equal it implies that they do not search for the same truth . then it also implies that only one of them is true . this would provoke severe sectarianism , bloodshed and fanaticism in addition to what already exists. this might ruin the civilization and is certainly undesirable for the society .

 

now , can a thought that collectively injures the society as a whole be of benefit to individuals? even if it actually benefits some it cannot be 'religion' .religion is meant for total upliftment not individual upliftment.

 

this veiw might drag in much of sociology but telll me something , is society and religion seperable individual units ??

[sambya1]

 

but the thing is I don't expect the Westerners either to understand Archa Vigraha.

I won't plunge into something based on circumstance.. that I'll leave to those Westerners and also to those Indians who's thinking capacity limits itself to the same level as the westerners.

I don't understand why craps hate those Murtis, when we know how our Lord is.. His yellow dhoti, peacock feather on his Head, and charismatic smile, Mayurakshi [Lotus eyes] et al.

He know him.. Bhaktas try to reciprocate those visions with carvings, paintings, statue, murti, idols and we get to appreciate all that.

You people are stuck with no vision at al and even if you want to depict him.. you'll be stuck with that to do next...

 

couldnt get you ...... i wasnt speaking about archa vighrha or idol worship..........neither am i an westerner.

 

 

I've heard from you many times on Iskcon.. I diverted for the first time on RamaKrishna Mission.

I don't see why there is any fuss in all that.

 

 

let me clarify . i have indeed said against iskcon a couple of times . but thats because iskcon itself attacks against almost all indian sects . they are adept at making personal attacks also. had they been silent about others and continued in their own belief it would not have been an issue atall. but they dont do that. they'll irritate you till you are forced to retaliate. as regaurds ramakrishna mission , they never criticised anyone . they are happy with their belief . whats the need of attacking them.

 

but i will have full respect about your thoughts on mission .its your own belief .

 

 

When I first touched the Gita... I was completely unbias.

 

does that mean you are biased now ??

 

 

read ramakrishna vivekananda ( at least the gospel of ramakrishna and complete works of vivekananda ) and then criticise with your full heart . trust me, ill come and support you .coz ,it shall be your learned opinion not the ignorant one . moreover ramakrishna himself preached in freedom of thought .

 

enjoy........

[sambya1]

 

Also it is taught that a Vaisnava wants to see to everyone's welfare both materially and spiritually.

This was in the early seventies when India was having a crisis of lack of food. We can't ignore the practicle side of life when presenting God consciousness.

 

Does it make sense to read scripture to a man dying on the roadside due to thirst or to offer him water so that he may be able to listen to the same scriptures after his thirst is quenched.

God consciousness does not mean abandoning common sense humanity.

good !! nice understanding .

 

but what charitable work was done by isckon in 70's when india was starving ? or even in 80's ?

 

(remember ,im not attcking vaishnavs here)

[soham3]

Outer God is a mental projection. You can feel real God inside you after removing all thoughts.

[Smiley]

 

good !! nice understanding .

 

but what charitable work was done by isckon in 70's when india was starving ? or even in 80's ?

 

(remember ,im not attcking vaishnavs here)

 

I am not an ISKCON person but I would like to point out that Swami Prabhupada could have meant that people were starving spiritually. However from another perspective, I believe they have a rule that no one should go hungry within 10 km of a temple. Therefore by establishing more temples, more people are being physically fed. I agree with some of your other points BTW.

[Amlesh]

 

couldnt get you ...... i wasnt speaking about archa vighrha or idol worship..........neither am i an westerner.

 

Decide for yourself.

 

 

let me clarify . i have indeed said against iskcon a couple of times . but thats because iskcon itself attacks against almost all indian sects . they are adept at making personal attacks also. had they been silent about others and continued in their own belief it would not have been an issue atall. but they dont do that. they'll irritate you till you are forced to retaliate. as regaurds ramakrishna mission , they never criticised anyone . they are happy with their belief . whats the need of attacking them.

 

Agreed.

Agreed also that the Rama Krishna Mission never criticize any other belief system. I respect them a lot for that.

Isconites have made many self created rules.

but i will have full respect about your thoughts on mission .its your own belief .

 

 

Me also

 

does that mean you are biased now ??

 

Nope.. just some English problem.

I'm from a French Speaking country.

[Pays Francophone]

 

read ramakrishna vivekananda ( at least the gospel of ramakrishna and complete works of vivekananda ) and then criticise with your full heart . trust me, ill come and support you .coz ,it shall be your learned opinion not the ignorant one . moreover ramakrishna himself preached in freedom of thought .

 

enjoy........

But he did not preach in totality about everything.

Everything is revealed only and only when one cannot live without Sri Krishna.

Point Bar.

[raghu]

 

yes , every faith is externally different from the other .

 

Thank you for finally acknowledging reality and recanting your previous statement.

 

 

its ideals , practice and expectations do not match many a time. but its true that at the end they are all searching out that one same god .

 

Really? How is that true? Is it true merely because you say it is true, or do you have some scientific proof?

 

Objectively, the end as envisioned by these different religions is not the same as per their respective scriptures. The end sought by Vaishnavas is not the same end as sought by Advaitins, and this is not the same as the end sought by Buddhists, which in turn is different from the end sought by Christians/jews/Muslims.

 

Please explain sensibly how the end these different religions seek is the same, when the respective ends they describe are completely different. Example - remaining separate from God cannot be another way of saying realizing oneness with God. Either one or the other must be true, assuming you have some common sense.

 

 

when i say all religions are same i dont mean that they are similar (which you are understanding out of my words) . i mean that they struggle for same truth -- to find the causes of this existence and the inherent conciousness of the cosmos. they are not similar but strive for the same answers.

 

Saying they strive for the same thing is not the same thing as saying they are the same. But in any case they do not strive for the same thing if you read about what they each claim to be striving for.

[sambya1]

 

Saying they strive for the same thing is not the same thing as saying they are the same. But in any case they do not strive for the same thing if you read about what they each claim to be striving for.

 

in most of my posts i have used the phrase ' all religions are equally valid ' . when i say all faiths are same i mean they are all equally valid.

 

respective ends as mentioned in the scriptures are different but the reason behind their origin and the purpose of their existence is always same. conciousness , death , birth , existence , nature etc were the puzzles that mankind wanted to solve since times immemorial . the quest for these answers brought them closer towards god . over time various understanding of this puzzles devoloped . they were the different religions.

 

with time these religions evolved to varying degrees . while some never left their primitive stage , some as in case of vedic religion , evolved to a very high degree of perfection .

 

you are taking taking things only in its literall sense ( not suprising , most of your vaishnav brothers do that). just because the end result or target of each religion vary greatly you are assuming all of them to be totally different. you think that out of all only one is true religion.

 

it means that the rest all are absolutely wrong paths . here i would like to say one thing . say for example an innocent man thinks that god is formless and not with form.and with such thought he dedicates himself in the pursuit of this formless god. would god , who is causelessly mercifull and absolute perfect curse him ? would not god understand that it is actually he , who is being called ? does the father chastise the baby when he calls his father 'pa' instead of 'papa' ??

 

it is the understanding of god that varies and creates these differences in the respective targets of these religions . but all of them do search for god . god is unity . he is not plural . ask a tribal he would say that his faith leads to god . ask a christian and he'll say that christianity leads to god ..........so on and so forth.it can be clearly seen that all of them are thinking about a phenomenon called god. all of them want a relief from material existence , death , diseise etc . all want to find a place of comfort and dependence . thus the internal targets of all religions are same . their external beliefs and idea about the ways to reach this plane of happiness might vary . this is how all religions are 'same' .

 

externally a religion might be striving for moksha or prema bhakti but internally it is seeking liberation from this mundane existance. this way its same . its internal goals are non different.

 

im sorry if you didnt understand . not everyones mental faculties are same.

lastly you must understand that its my own personal belief . you are free to practice and profess your belief that most religions are wrong.

 

enough of this....................

[raghu]

 

in most of my posts i have used the phrase ' all religions are equally valid ' . when i say all faiths are same i mean they are all equally valid.

 

Fine. But you still have not proven that. And while you claim to believe that "all religions are equally valid," you obviously have a problem with the belief that "all religions are not equally valid" which is implicitly understood in many of the religions whose validity you claim to believe in. Thus, you contradict yourself. Unless you are going to now claim that all religions are valid to the extent that these individual religions don't disagree that all are valid. Now that would be truly funny to see you do.

 

 

respective ends as mentioned in the scriptures are different but the reason behind their origin and the purpose of their existence is always same.

 

Excuse me dear, but you wrote, "its true that at the end they are all searching out that one same god ." Now you are again modifying your view.

 

 

conciousness , death , birth , existence , nature etc were the puzzles that mankind wanted to solve since times immemorial . the quest for these answers brought them closer towards god . over time various understanding of this puzzles devoloped . they were the different religions.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are merely spouting politically-correct Vivekananda propaganda without actually thinking about what you are saying. Only a third standard student would swallow this bunk.

 

Let us take Islam for example. Muslims do not have any doubts about consciousness, death, birth, existence, etc. The whole premise of their religion is complete submission to Allah and to spread this religion by force if necessary to the infidels who do not already believe in it.

 

Christians consider themselves to be sinners by nature and believe that they can only be redeemed by accepting Jesus as their saviour. There is hardly any question of soul-searching metaphysics in their religion, which was born out of the fires of Roman persecution and likely influenced by several pre-Hebrew polytheistic belief systems.

 

 

with time these religions evolved to varying degrees . while some never left their primitive stage , some as in case of vedic religion , evolved to a very high degree of perfection .

 

So other religions are primitive. Don't you find it amazing that in your effort to be tolerant and accepting, you still manage to insult them?

 

And just of curiosity, what do you think you know about "vedic religion?" Have you ever even studied the Vedas?

 

 

it is the understanding of god that varies and creates these differences in the respective targets of these religions . but all of them do search for god .

 

Not true. Buddhists don't search for God. They conceive of the highest end as the total cessation of desire. A personal God does not even figure into it.

 

 

im sorry if you didnt understand . not everyones mental faculties are same.

lastly you must understand that its my own personal belief . you are free to practice and profess your belief that most religions are wrong.

 

Thanks for letting me know that I am free to disagree with you. I feel better already knowing that the soldiers of religious political correctness will not be bashing down my door and forcing this "all religions are equally valid" idea down my throat. Really. And yes, I do think that many will continue to disagree with you because they have that annoying ability to think for themselves, and they recognize inconsistency when they see it. I can see how that might be an obstacle to spreading your beliefs.

[sambya1]

raghu , im curious to know what is your idea or belief regarding god ? which path do you follow ?

 

also i never want to force any thought on anybody . but at the same time i dont want anybody to criticise other peoples much cherished beliefs . its just when some people blasphemise other beleifs that i feel irritated . its not necessary nor practical to think that everyone would support or like other faiths . but its definately desirable to keep atleast silent if you cannot have respect for them .

 

i would like to have another answer from you .......

 

how can a religion ( or belief ) that creates sectarianism and rifts in the society be of any collective benefit to the mankind ? can any such narrow belief that creates social differences be termed as true religion?

[Justin]

 

also i never want to force any thought on anybody . but at the same time i dont want anybody to criticise other peoples much cherished beliefs . its just when some people blasphemise other beleifs that i feel irritated . its not necessary nor practical to think that everyone would support or like other faiths . but its definately desirable to keep atleast silent if you cannot have respect for them .

 

i would like to have another answer from you .......

 

how can a religion ( or belief ) that creates sectarianism and rifts in the society be of any collective benefit to the mankind ? can any such narrow belief that creates social differences be termed as true religion?

Vedic religion was not purposed for the collective benefit of mankind. It talks about God and how an interested individual can attain Him. There are people who do not believe in God or have wrong notions about God. Vedic religion was not meant to and will not benefit such people.

 

Sectarianism is created automatically. Those who do not believe in a religious path have their own sect. E.g. there are people who said humanity is greater than divinity. They formed their own sect and are now throwing stones at anyone who practices Godliness. Those who believe in a particular path are already sectarian in a sense. For e.g. you said that when people blaspehemize others beliefs, you get irritiated and you DO NOT want them to criticize. This itself indicates that you are intolerant towards people who do not share your world view. Unknowingly you are criticizing those people who do not agree with your opinion.

[sambya1]

 

Sectarianism is created automatically. Those who do not believe in a religious path have their own sect. E.g. there are people who said humanity is greater than divinity. They formed their own sect and are now throwing stones at anyone who practices Godliness. Those who believe in a particular path are already sectarian in a sense. For e.g. you said that when people blaspehemize others beliefs, you get irritiated and you DO NOT want them to criticize. This itself indicates that you are intolerant towards people who do not share your world view. Unknowingly you are criticizing those people who do not agree with your opinion.

 

evrything in this world is relative . there is nothing absolute except god . viewed from that perspective any one who follows a sect is sectarian . thats ok . but such a perspective would unnecessarily make matters complex . only that much should be accepted which helps people collectively , not individually. because individual progress which retards collective progress is harmfull . religon , as we all know is a process of evolving-- from lower to higher life forms , from lower to higher and from higher to highest levels of conciousness. although its true that only a few people become truly religious in strict sense of term , it also cannot be denied that religion is the sustainer of society and culture. therefore any religion that collectively degrades the social progress is not an idealistic religion . as i said religion and society are not seperate.

 

 

Vedic religion was not purposed for the collective benefit of mankind. It talks about God and how an interested individual can attain Him. There are people who do not believe in God or have wrong notions about God. Vedic religion was not meant to and will not benefit such people.

 

 

im sorry but this is an absolutely wrong notion. vedic religion was indeed for collective benefit . lets take the varnashrama dharma for example. a student passes through brahmacharya , grihstha , vanaprshtha and finnaly sannyasa . vedic seers knew that only a few would be interested for true realization and the rest would be contended to lead a ordinary life. but they also realised that self relization is the only way towards happiness and thats the goal of human birth . thats why they laid down this injuction so that all indivduals can slowly learn to strive for god. after enjoying the sensory pleasures in householder life he was compelled to slowly try and learn the way to god. this slow and compulsory training would elevate the soul and thereby he shall get another chance in his next birth.

 

similarly we find mention of dharma artha kama and moksha as the four goals of an average human's life. when the rishis understaood that all cannot take to self realization they taught people to enjoy material world in a regulated way but taking care that their ultimate goal should always be moksha. thats why moksha was always kept higher than artha kama or dharma. all four were the necessary , but none equalled moksha . such injuction were made for collective social benefit with the full realization that everyone cannot spontaneously turn towards god.

 

also vedic religion is one such religion that doesnt directly condemm any other faiths . it lays stress on following dharma or that which is inherent in man . dharma also varies with change in social status and caste. but by following ones own respective dharma he is supposed to remain in the correct path . such an injuction is also for collective benefit of society.

 

infact when atheistic doctrines like charvakas surfaced they were also not thrown out of the society . although buddhism disagreed with the vedas it was not denounced but given a place in the society . vedic religion has always been broad and universal . this also reflects the belief in collective benefit , not individual benefit .

 

may be what you are suggesting here is that only a few blessed individuals ever strive for spiritual enlightment and the spiritual disciplines are shown for them . while that is true , it doesnt stop shastras from formulating various ways for collective upliftment.

[Justin]

I am confused by your posts. You are providing a personal opinion explaining the purpose of the Vedic religion. Personal opinions differ from individual to individual. So if anyone disagrees with you, does that make that person a sectarian? You consider anyone who does not follow Vedic religion to be sectarian. You wrote that you get irritated when someone points out flaws. Why not be tolerant towards those people and give them respect instead of denouncing people who disagree? Are you sure that Vedas can be practiced by every Tom, Dick and Sally!!?

[raghu]

 

raghu , im curious to know what is your idea or belief regarding god ? which path do you follow ?

 

 

What difference does it make? Are you ever going to answer the questions I put to you which exposed the fallacies in your thinking? Or, like Primate, are you another one of those armchair Vedantins who claims to have a more logical understanding of religion but has to fold when his bluff is called?