Hinduism-Xianity-Advaita

August 20, 1999

Dear Fellow MAdhvas and/or Fellow Hindus:

Below are two messages communicated to me. The first is by a

Christian youngster (who shall remain nameless) who has

befriended a MAdhva girl (who shall also remain nameless) and

tried many a times to challenge her Hindu beliefs in general

and MAdhva beliefs in particular and convert her to his

Christian views. The intelligent girl that she is, communicated

this to me and I have sent her two installments of rebuttal

already.

Further down is a nasty assault on shrImadAcArya by a Tamilian

Advaitin.

My purpose for posting both these letters is that let us not

think that " tarka " is in any sense a waste of time, since

those who attack and hate us or even challenge are quite

alive and kicking! Sometimes the challenge is " too close for

comfort " as in the case of the Christian youngster and the

MAdhva young lady.

Our youth are growing up here and what we need is a

" NyAyasudhA " type defense of Hindu beliefs against Christianity

(the majority religion of this land).

Towards this, I am thinking of holding a seminar in

Wshington, Allentown and Detroit on how to fend-off challenges

against Hinduism by Christians using the Bible and our

Scriptures. This way our children growing up here will know

how to meet these new Padma TIrthas and PuNDarIkapuris!

On the Hindu-Christian debate at least, VMS can organize with

other Hindu groups for mutual benefit. I pledge to give all

proceeds to VMS!

Your kind cooperation on this matter is requested.

Regards to all,

Hari-vAyu smaraNa

BN Hebbar

RECENT CHRISTIAN CHALLENGE OF HINDUISM

Dear Sir,

Hello, my name is XXXXX; a senior at XXX High School. I've been

friends with XXX for about a year and a half now and have learned a

great

deal about Hinduism in this time. Before I met XXX no one had shared

the

aspects of Hinduism with me, I had no idea how much I was missing out

on.

Everyday it seems, I would ask more and more questions on Hindu

doctrine.

XXX answered them the best that she could, but because of her limited

knowledge eventually I started asking questions that she couldn't

answer.

That is what this letter is for. Because I have been raised in a

Christian

home a lot of Hinduism's teachings contradict my beliefs. But because I

despise ignorance, I am always seeking out the facts. Since you believe

in

many gods and Christianity worships one, we both cannot be correct. My

whole life it has been taught that you are wrong and Christianity is

right,

I am interested in your proof on the contrary. Please do not take this

letter lightly. If you do not respond it will make a sizable impression

on

your students. It will make it look as though the person that they come

to

about Hinduism, a teacher of doctrine no less, cannot defend his faith

against a 17 year old high school student. Just remember that this

letter

is meant to get my questions answered and not to offend you in any way.

With all that said, let's get it on.

Let's start off with what the history books say about Hinduism. During

the

4th century BC. Aryans; the same people who developed Greek culture,

conquered much of present day India. Their Pantheon of Gods (similar to

that of the Greeks) combined with ancient Indian traditions of

meditation to

form a loose combination of beliefs and practices that came to be known

as

Hinduism. This theory is accepted by all history books and major

universities today as the origin of Hinduism. However most Hindu's

refuse

to believe this; why I do not know. Perhaps you can explain this to

me. If

you have evidence on the contrary I'd love to hear it. I also learned

that

the Caste systems were created by the Aryans to divide the Indians to

hinder

them from uniting and revolting against their conquerors. The Vedas

tell a

much more interesting story. It states that Brahma created Manu, the

first

man. From Manu came the 4 different types of people, as Brahma

determined.

>From Manu's head came the Brahmins, the best and most holy people. Out

of

Manu's hands came the Kshatriyas, the rulers and warriors. The

craftsmen

came out of his thighs and are called Vaisyas. The remainder of the

people

came from Manu's feet and are known as Sudras. These two stories are

obviously in stark contrast. One day I asked XXX what Caste she was in.

She quickly responded with " Brahmin. " When asked why she was in that

caste

she replied that her family has always been. I thought this was quite

interesting so I probed further. " Do you believe that Brahmins are

actually

higher in some way than the other castes? " " Yes " she said, " and I find

that

most Brahmins are generally smarter than the other sects. " I found this

remark astonishing. Also, XXX informed me (not in a cocky, boastful

manner, but in a way to just straighten the facts) that I was in the

lowest

class because of my Christianity. So here is my question: If Brahmins

are

so much further along reincarnation-wise, are more holy and smarter,

then

how come an overwhelming majority of today's technology and inventions

have

been made at the hands of non-Hindu inventors? (Men like Albert

Einstein,

Tomas Edison, and Benjamin Franklin were all Christians.) This seems to

contradict your theory. Perhaps you can explain this to me.

Anytime you want to find out information about a religion, you needn't

venture any further than their religion's book of sacred writings, their

" Bible " . A while back I was interested in Mormonism so I read The

Book of

Mormon. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and the author of the

book,

said it was divinely inspired by God. He also said it's the most

" correct

book upon the earth. " I laughed at this statement because archeology

has

repeatedly failed to substantiate it's claims about events that

supposedly

occurred long ago in the America's. In fact, the Smithsonian Institute

itself states in unequivocal terms that it's archeologists see " no

direct

connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject

matter of

the Book. " As authors John Ankerberl and John Weldon concluded in a

book on

the topic, " in other words, no Book of Mormon cities have ever been

located,

no Book of Mormon person, places nation, or name has ever been found, no

Book of Mormon artifacts, no Book of Mormon scriptures, no Book of

Mormon

inscription.... nothing which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is

anything

but myth or invention has ever been found. With all this knowledge in

hand

it's no mystery why I don't become a Mormon. This experience has taught

me

a valuable lesson, I cannot read the Vedas and automatically believe

everything that they say. As Rene Descartes the father of modern

philosophy

stated " de omnibus dubitandum " - doubt is everything.

Now please allow me to voice my doubts. According the the Vedic

history,

the scriptures were written down 5,000 years ago. Historians date the

writings much later, 1400 BC. to be exact. Historians also claim the

the

Vedas are a collection of books from different sources that, while

untrue,

are still important because they give us a better understanding of

Indian

culture at that time. Of course the Vedic scripture maintain a

completely

different story-one of ancient cultures, timeless revelations, and

divine

incarnations. These stories were written down to prevent them from

being

lost in the upcoming Kali-yuoa, the iron age, the most fallen in the

cycle

of ages. These two scenarios cannot both be true. One is true while

the

other is most certainly false. One Indian philosopher offers his

reasoning

for not believing the scientists, " the Veda is understood by simply

accepting what the Veda says about itself. History claims that they (

the

Vedas) were written over a long period, starting after the Hypothetical

Aryan invasion into the Indian subcontinent, about 1000 to 1500bc. When

a

mixture of tribes formed the " Vedic " culture. If we believe this

scenario.

Then it is natural to think that the Indian scriptures are a mass of

unsystematic mythological texts. Therefore we must believe the Vedas,

because we know that they are true. "

Now call me close minded if you wish but I cannot completely ignore

historians and " simply accept what the Veda says about itself. " Why is

it

uneducated to believe Mormonism and smart to believe Hinduism because

Hinduism says so. There is a Latin phrase for this type of proof, ipse

dixit, " he himself has said it " . This is the proof Hinduism has relied

on

for centuries. When a devotee of Krishna was asked about proof for his

beliefs he usually answered " it's true because my guru told me that

it's

true. " The problem with this type of evidence is that it lies only in

words. And words alone don't prove anything. Another more modern

phrase

for this is circular reasoning. This is where you came in. I am in

eager

anticipation of any and all proof you can give me that will increase the

Vedas' credibility.

Since we are on the subject of Indian scriptures there is a question

I've

had for a long time.

A lot of the people that I've talked to that don't believe in

Christianity

have the same issue that they get stuck on: they think that Jesus was

just a

guy, maybe a good person, maybe even a prophet. And that over time his

legend grew until he was the son of God who walked on water and healed

the

sick. While I can prove that this wasn't the case I will save that for

later on in this paper. Now taking a look at Hinduism I ask the same

question. How do we know that King Rama was actually blue and a

reincarnation of Vishnu? I have a serious problem believing pretty much

all

of your, for a lack of a better word, mythology.

According to the Ramayana, Rama is exiled from the throne for several

years

because of a promise his father made to his mother. While in the woods

his

wife Sita is kidnapped by the demon King Ravana. Rama employs the

services

of Hanuman to get her back and of course they do and eventually Rama

comes

back home a hero. After reading various Indian apologists I've learned

that

anyone who challenges these stories is said to not understand Hindu

ways.

So at the risk of sounding ignorant let me ask you several questions.

First of all how do you know (without using " the Vedas said it " as a

reason) that this story is based at all in fact? Was Rama even a real

person? The Ramayana is a multi-author multi-rescension book of

thousands

of verses. The latest rescension of the Ramayana is dated about the

year

200 CE. in the early stratum, " Rama is simply a hero, miraculous in

strength

and goodness, neverless wholly human (early in the Ramayana) but in the

later stratum.... Rama appears as a God on earth, " ( Lionel D. Barnett,

1922. Notes From Hindu Gods and Heroes) There is indeed a city called

Ayodhya, but this Ayodhya has no connection with the Rama legend:

kingdom,

temple or civilization. Archaeologists making a frantic search have

failed

to come up with the smallest shred of evidence. There is nothing to

show

that Rama was even a real person instead of a made up magical figure.

But

let's just say that Hinduism is correct and there was a King Rama. How

do

you know that his life resembled what is written about him in the

Ramayana?

How do we know that his exploits didn't become greater and greater

overtime

through folklore? After all, the Vedas were relayed by word of mouth

for

Hundreds of years before they were written down. For all we know,

Ravana

started off as a rival king who was very powerful and over time legend

turned him into a giant 10-headed demon. I once read that Rama shot a

Demon

in the heart with an arrow and it launched him 100 miles into a lake. I

am

incredibly interested in finding out how anything can pick someone up,

obviously high enough in the air to clear the trees, and throw them a

100

miles. How come bullets don't do this to people? Everyone knows that

they

travel much faster than arrows. When one wants to analyze the Rama

legend

for a example of legend making his feats greater, the story of Rama

stringing the bow of Shiva raises a red flag. Not only does it greatly

resemble the Iliad when Odysseys comes home and has to prove who he was,

so

guess what, he strings a magical bow, but it also has a scene where it

takes

500 strong men to pull the box that holds the bow. 500 men! How is it

possible to make a small box that heavy? You can get three strong guys

to

flip over a car. But I can sit here and debate possibilities all day,

but

if you have evidence that it happened I guess it's true. So here's the

question........

John Mcray, an archeologist who has worked with national geographic

magazine and has written a 432-page text book on archaeology. He has

studied at Hedrew University, the ecole biblique et archeologique

Francaise

in Jerusalem, Vanderbilt University Divinity school, and the University

of

Chicago. He is also a former research associate and trustee of the

American

Schools of Oriental research, a current trustee of the Near East

Archaeological Society, a supervisor of excavating teams in Caesarea,

Sepphoris, and Herodium has studied Roman archaeological sites in

England

and Wales, and has analyzed digs in Greece. Mcray with all his

credentials

behind him casts a questioning glance at the Hindu religion.

Mcray questions Hinduism's validity because he constantly uses

archaeology

to see if it will corroborate with the claims of various religions.

Corroborate means to make more certain, confirm. In effect,

corroborative

evidence acts like the support wires that keep a tall antenna straight

and

unwavering. The more corroborative evidence, the stronger and more

secure

the case. So lets look for the corroborative evidence that backs up the

Ramayana. " Well " you say, " it's proven that Sri Lanka is in that area

so it

must be true. " Heinrich Schlieman, once searched for Troy in an effort

to

prove the historical accuracy of Homers Iliad. He did find Troy. But

that

doesn't prove that the Iliad was true. Unless I'm horribly mistaken no

islands in India have been found with castles made of gold, no flying

airships have ever been excavated, no life giving oshadas have ever been

unearthed, and no monkey or bear army fossils have ever been found.

Actually it has been proven that the monkeys and bears who were allies

with

Rama were actually aborigines who bore animal names as totems, as they

still

do today.

All right, the Ramayana cannot pass the archaeological test, how does

it

fair against science? Well apparently Ravana: " he who makes the

universe

scream, " once sat atop a mountain top and became so still that he

stopped

winds that move the planets and keep the universe alive. Let me say

that

again, he stopped the winds that move the planets. I don't know how

much

science you took in school but it's pretty much an established fact the

planets are not moved by winds. Later in the story we learn the while

he

was young Hanuman once tried to pluck the sun from the sky. He jumped

for 3

full days only to get struck by one of Indra's thunderbolts. When

Hanuman

landed he broke only his jaw. I'd like you to explain to me how

anything in

this story is possible. For the sake of time I will bring up one last

thing. How exactly does one go about up rooting a mountain? Hanuman

did

know that a mountain is a collection of loose soil and rocks and not a

giant

triangle like it is in the cartoons didn't he?

There are several other stories that I'd like to discuss but for the

sake

of time I'll consider my point made. I've saved my most important

question

to last. Who or what does Hinduism teach that Jesus was? Was he an

incarnation of Vishnu, a sage, a prophet, or just an ordinary man? At

first

glance it seems easy to put Jesus in any of these categories. But if

you

look further into his life and his teachings it's clear that the only

logical conclusion is that Jesus was the sun of God.

First of all why isn't there any other 1st century Jew who has millions

of

followers today? Lots of men from that time period claimed greater

things,

had more money, and promised Israel that they would free them from Roman

oppression. Then a rabbi named Jesus appears from a lower class

region. He

teaches for 3 years about doing good to others, forgiveness, and praying

for

your enemies, gathers a following of lower-and middle class people; gets

in

trouble with the authorities, and gets crucified along with 30 thousand

Jewish people who are executed during this time period. But 5 weeks

after

he's crucified, over 10 thousand Jews are following him and claiming

that he

is the inventor of a new religion. Does that make sense? If he had

merely

been an innocent sage telling nice little parables, how did he end up on

a

cross, especially at Passover season, when no Jew wants any Jew to be

executed. It doesn't add up. There had to be a reason that there was a

sign above he's head that said, " this is the king of the Jews. " It must

be

understood that the crucifixion was the most abhorrent fate anyone could

undergo, Roman citizens weren't allowed to be crucified because it was

too

painful, the fact is that a movement based on a crucified man must be

explained. But you can easily explain away all this evidence by

classifying

Jesus as a incarnation of Vishnu, can't you? The answer is that, no, you

can't. Throughout Jesus' entire time on earth he is constantly

preaching

that he is the son of God, not son of a God, but the son. In John 14:

5

one of Jesus followers Tomas asked him how they can meet Jesus in

Heaven.

Vishnu would say " by continuous devotion to me, that way you can slowly

improve through reincarnation till you reach Nirvana. " Jesus said, " I

am

the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father except through

me. " Jesus teaches something else Vishnu wouldn't even think of in

Hebrews

9:27 ... " Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment " .

Also Jesus teaches something no Hindu believes, in Acts 1:5 " For John

baptized you with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the

Holy Spirit. " Does this last statement resemble anything any god has

ever

been quoted as saying in Hinduism? But even with all this proof you

could

still dismiss Jesus by saying, " All right, well perhaps Jesus was simply

insane. and snowballed millions of people into believing that he was

God.

Show me some proof that he was who he claimed. " I believe that the Old

Testament prophecies are the corroborative evidence that you're looking

for.

There are more than 4 dozen major predictions about Jesus in the old

testament. Isaiah revealed the manner of the messiahs birth (a virgin);

Micah pinpointed the place of his birth (Bethlehem); Daniel 9:24-26

foretells that the messiah would appear a certain length of time after

king

Artaxerxes I issued a decree for the Jewish people to go from Persia to

rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. This happened to be right when Jesus

was

born. Genesis and Jeremiah specified his ancestors ( a descendant of

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the tribe of Judah, the house of David);

the

Psalms foretold his betrayal, his accusation by false witnesses, his

manner

of death (pierced through hands and feet, although crucifixion hadn't

been

invented yet) and his resurrection ( he would not decay but ascend on

high.)

All this sounds rather impressive, but how do we know that some

overzealous

Christians didn't just find a guy who happened to fulfill their

prophecies

so they could say, " Look, we've found the Messiah! " First of all this

wouldn't have worked because, back then, the Jews thought that God's son

was

going to come down as a king and that he would free Israel from Roman

rule.

Jesus never claimed that he was going to do this. Secondly Peter W.

Stoner,

who's credentials would take up an entire page, did that math and

figured

out that the probability of just eight prophecies being fulfilled is 1

chance in 100 billion. He also computed the probability of someone

fulfilling 48 prophecies is 1 chance in a Trillion Trillion Trillion

Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion

Trillion Trillion Trillion. Our minds can't comprehend a number that

big.

If right now your thinking, " O.K.. let's say for the sake of argument

that

Jesus was who he said he was. How do you know that he actually rose

from

the dead? Prove to me that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't added over

time

through peoples exaggerations of the truth. " Two prominent scholars

Craig

L. Bloomberg Ph.D.. and Edwin M. Yamauchi Ph.D.. have dedicated their

lives

to answering that question. Bloomberg has received a doctorate in New

Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, and has served as a

Senior

research fellow at Tyndale house at Cambridge University in England,

where

he was part of an elite group of international scholars who produced a

series of acclaimed works on Jesus. Yamauchi has received a bachelors

degree in Hebrew and hellenstictics, and Masters and Doctoral degrees in

Mediterranean studies from Brandeis Universities. He has studied 22

languages including Ugartic and Commanche. He has delivered 71 papers

at

Universities, and lectured at over 100 seminaries and colleges,

including

Yale, Princeton, and Cornell. In 1968 he participated in the first

excavations of the Herddian Temple in Jerusalem, and has written many

books

about archaeology. Now that you know their credentials let me share

what

their research has come up with. The fact is that we have better

historical

documentation for Jesus that for the founder of any other major

religion.

Because of this, it is easy to analyze the resurrection. If we look in

the

Bible, specifically the gospels, (Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John) we can

see

that it talks about Jesus rising from the dead three days after he died

(this is not a teaching of reincarnation because Jesus came back in the

same

body with all the scars that he acquired while on the cross and his body

was

no longer in his grave). The Gospels were written progressively 40-80

years

after Jesus' death. This means that many eyewitnesses of Jesus life

were

still alive then, and could have easily made it known that the gospels

were

inaccurate. Many people had reasons for wanting to discredit the

Christian

movement and would have done so if they could have simply told history

better. In fact it's in 1 Corinthians 15, a book of the bible that

predates

any of the Gospels, that the claim involving the largest number of

people

seeing Jesus after he died (500) is recorded. This creates problems for

the

legend development theory. Also, the site of Jesus' tomb was known to

Christians and Jews alike. So if it wasn't empty, it would be

impossible

for a movement founded on belief in the resurrection to have come into

existence in the same city where a man had been publicly executed and

buried. Sir Lionel Luckhoo, the attorney who's astounding 243

consecutive

murder acquittals earned him a place in the Guinness Book of World

Records

as the most successful lawyer has subjected the historical facts about

the

resurrection to his rigorous analysis for several years. Finally he

declared , " I say unequivocally that the evidence of Jesus Christ is so

overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leads absolutely

no

room for doubt. " But wait there's more, British theologian Michael

Green

said, " The appearances (of Jesus) are as well authenticated as anything

in

antiquity. There can be no doubt that they occurred. " German Historian

Hans von Campenhausen says, " This account meets all demands of

historical

reliability that could possibly be made of such a text. " Scholars

Norman

Geislor and William Nix conclude, " The New Testament, then, has not only

survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it

has

survived in a purer form than any other Great book- a form that is 99.5%

pure! " Gary Habermas Ph.D., D.D. has an interesting point to bring up.

Habermas, who has earned a Doctor of divinity degree from Emmanuel

College

in Oxord, England and a doctorate from Michigan State University has

authored seven books dealing with Jesus rising from the dead, including

The

resurrection of Jesus: A rational inquiry; and Did Jesus Rise From the

Dead?

The Resurrection Debate, which is based on his debate with Anthony Flew,

one

of the leading philosophical atheists in the world. This man who's 100

articles have appeared in such books as The Baker Dictionary of Theology

has

an interesting point to bring up. " When Jesus was crucified, his

followers

were discouraged and depressed. They no longer had confidence that

Jesus

had been sent by God, because they believed anyone crucified was

accursed by

him. They also had been taught that God would not let his messiah

suffer

death. So they dispersed. The Jesus movement was all but stopped in

it's

tracks. Then after a short period of time, we see them abandoning their

occupations, regathering, and committing themselves to spreading a very

specific message- that Jesus Christ was the messiah of God who died on

the

cross, returned to life, and was seen alive by them. They were willing

to

spend the rest of their lives proclaiming this, without any payoff from

a

human point of view. It's not as if they had a mansion waiting for them

if

they converted enough people or did enough good deeds. They faced a

life of

hardship, they often went without food, slept exposed to the elements,

were

ridiculed, beaten, imprisoned, and finally most were executed in

torturous

ways. For what ? Good intentions? No, because they were convinced

beyond

a shadow of a doubt that they had seen Jesus Christ alive from the

dead. "

I hope that I have fairly represented my questions non offensively. I'm

sure that you will answer them all and am excited to read your response.

In

closing I'd like to add one last thing, my final challenge to you.

Don't

take my word for anything said in this letter, but don't take your

Guru's

either. Spend the time to research the facts and questions that I've

presented. I am in search of knowledge and if you can prove any of the

preceding things wrong then I will be deeply indebted to you. Please,

don't

take this task lightly, Stan Telchin a Jewish east coast business man

along

with Jack Sternburg, a prominent cancer physician in Little Rock,

Arkansas,

tried to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah. After being alarmed by

the

evidence against their case they asked three rabbis to help them

disprove

Jesus' claims that he was the Messiah. They couldn't, and today all

five

have accepted Christ as their savior.

Sincerely,

XXXXX

Some of what I say here is from secondary sources, but I'll try to

give references as much as possible. The name " Madhva " itself is very

interesting. AnandatIrtha, interprets a hymn in the R^igveda to

supposedly refer to 3 incarnations of vAyu: hanumAn, bhIma and a

" Madhva " . The former two are mythological characters and AnandatIrtha

basically identifies himself as Madhva. The sarvadarshana-sangraha

written by mAdhava (identified with vidyAraNya, an advaitin and _not_

madhva!) a junior contemporary of AnandatIrtha (or slightly later)

describes the doxography of various philosophical schools. When he

talks about dvaita he sarcastically refers to " Madhva " as " This

mystery was promulgated by pUrNa-praGYa mandira, who esteemed himself

the third incarnation of vAyu " , page 102, translation by E.B.Cowell.

About pramANa-s: The first is from a secondary source and was given to

me by a scholar of Ramanujas philosophy, who is also well read in the

system of sha.nkara and " Madhva " . He pointed out to me one of Madhvas

curious statement. Apparently he says that not only will he quote from

shAstra-s written prior to him and being written now, he'll also quote

from shAstras which will be written in the future!!! Aptly, when he

wants to split sandhi in the chhAndogya statement " AtmAtatvamasi "

(usually given a non-dualist meaning) as AtmA - atattvamasi (Atman,

that thou art NOT) he quotes some weird text called the brahma-tarka!!

In other places he quotes an unknown text called parama-upanishhad! He

quotes many dubious texts and not just upanishhads. When he talks

about the mANDUkya he says it was revealed by vishhNu in the form of a

frog. The text quoted is a verse from garuDa (or nArada, sorry I am

quoting from memory). But Karmarkar in his study of the gauDapAda

kArikas points out that this verse is not to be found in any extant

manuscript of the purANa.

One could say that these texts might be lost. Perhaps so in the case

of purANa-s, but it is somewhat curious that the upanishhads like the

parama and other texts like brahma-tarka which he uses in _key_ places

have not been conserved by his school, though they have had an

uninterrupted tradition from the time of AnandatIrtha! appayya dIxita

was a scholar who lived in the 1500s and made contributions to many

fields like philosophy to poetics. He openly accuses AnandatIrtha of

manufacturing upanishhad statements. Now, appayya was an advaitin and

we have to be careful. But appayya was also an " inclusivist "

( " Inclusivism " has been much discussed by Halbfass, Oberhammer et

al. ). Though he wrote a book called rAmAnujamatakhaNDanam criticizing

Ramanuja's philosophy, he also wrote a commentary on one of deshika's

poems on vishhNu. deshika is one of the premier scholars of Ramanuja

sidhhAnta. Thus appayya was an " inclusivist " . But appayya does not

have even one kind word to say about Madhva, so we may take it he

really believed that Madhva manufactured statements from upanishhads.

He hotly disputes at many places Madhva's contention that he was an

incarnation of vAyu.

This reference was given by a friend a long time back, I haven't read

the book myself.

" V.S. Ghate in the book 'The vedanta, a study of BS with the bhashyas

of Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbaraka, Madhva, and Vallabha.' compares a

few major suutras. He concludes that Madhva's commentary on

brahmasuutra is not only inadequate, but makes unreasonable and

distorted interpretations of statements, and often gives scriptural

citations of doubtful authority. "

Perhaps, that will give some more instances of " dubious " claims. This

all points out to the evolution of what " authoritative " texts are. A

great discussion of evolution of " authoritative statements " by Prof

Aklujkar can be found in

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/dhirc/1994-95seminars.html

under " Twists and Turns in the Transition from Veda to Vedanta " .

Even then Madhva is probably an extreme in the spectrum because he

probably really believed he was an incarnation of vAyu and hence could

" see " upanishhads and other texts which others could not. So, as an

exegite he is very uninteresting since he can quote arbitrary things

as shruti or smR^iti, which he seems to do (by the status of being

vAyu!). But from a philosophical standpoint he is certainly

interesting.

Dear Sir,

Hello, my name is XXXXX; a senior at XXX High School. I've been

friends with XXX for about a year and a half now and have learned a

great

deal about Hinduism in this time. Before I met XXX no one had shared

the

aspects of Hinduism with me, I had no idea how much I was missing out

on.

Everyday it seems, I would ask more and more questions on Hindu

doctrine.

XXX answered them the best that she could, but because of her limited

knowledge eventually I started asking questions that she couldn't

answer.

That is what this letter is for. Because I have been raised in a

Christian

home a lot of Hinduism's teachings contradict my beliefs. But because I

despise ignorance, I am always seeking out the facts. Since you believe

in

many gods and Christianity worships one, we both cannot be correct. My

whole life it has been taught that you are wrong and Christianity is

right,

I am interested in your proof on the contrary. Please do not take this

letter lightly. If you do not respond it will make a sizable impression

on

your students. It will make it look as though the person that they come

to

about Hinduism, a teacher of doctrine no less, cannot defend his faith

against a 17 year old high school student. Just remember that this

letter

is meant to get my questions answered and not to offend you in any way.

With all that said, let's get it on.

Let's start off with what the history books say about Hinduism. During

the

4th century BC. Aryans; the same people who developed Greek culture,

conquered much of present day India. Their Pantheon of Gods (similar to

that of the Greeks) combined with ancient Indian traditions of

meditation to

form a loose combination of beliefs and practices that came to be known

as

Hinduism. This theory is accepted by all history books and major

universities today as the origin of Hinduism. However most Hindu's

refuse

to believe this; why I do not know. Perhaps you can explain this to

me. If

you have evidence on the contrary I'd love to hear it. I also learned

that

the Caste systems were created by the Aryans to divide the Indians to

hinder

them from uniting and revolting against their conquerors. The Vedas

tell a

much more interesting story. It states that Brahma created Manu, the

first

man. From Manu came the 4 different types of people, as Brahma

determined.

>From Manu's head came the Brahmins, the best and most holy people. Out

of

Manu's hands came the Kshatriyas, the rulers and warriors. The

craftsmen

came out of his thighs and are called Vaisyas. The remainder of the

people

came from Manu's feet and are known as Sudras. These two stories are

obviously in stark contrast. One day I asked XXX what Caste she was in.

She quickly responded with " Brahmin. " When asked why she was in that

caste

she replied that her family has always been. I thought this was quite

interesting so I probed further. " Do you believe that Brahmins are

actually

higher in some way than the other castes? " " Yes " she said, " and I find

that

most Brahmins are generally smarter than the other sects. " I found this

remark astonishing. Also, XXX informed me (not in a cocky, boastful

manner, but in a way to just straighten the facts) that I was in the

lowest

class because of my Christianity. So here is my question: If Brahmins

are

so much further along reincarnation-wise, are more holy and smarter,

then

how come an overwhelming majority of today's technology and inventions

have

been made at the hands of non-Hindu inventors? (Men like Albert

Einstein,

Tomas Edison, and Benjamin Franklin were all Christians.) This seems to

contradict your theory. Perhaps you can explain this to me.

Anytime you want to find out information about a religion, you needn't

venture any further than their religion's book of sacred writings, their

" Bible " . A while back I was interested in Mormonism so I read The

Book of

Mormon. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and the author of the

book,

said it was divinely inspired by God. He also said it's the most

" correct

book upon the earth. " I laughed at this statement because archeology

has

repeatedly failed to substantiate it's claims about events that

supposedly

occurred long ago in the America's. In fact, the Smithsonian Institute

itself states in unequivocal terms that it's archeologists see " no

direct

connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject

matter of

the Book. " As authors John Ankerberl and John Weldon concluded in a

book on

the topic, " in other words, no Book of Mormon cities have ever been

located,

no Book of Mormon person, places nation, or name has ever been found, no

Book of Mormon artifacts, no Book of Mormon scriptures, no Book of

Mormon

inscription.... nothing which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is

anything

but myth or invention has ever been found. With all this knowledge in

hand

it's no mystery why I don't become a Mormon. This experience has taught

me

a valuable lesson, I cannot read the Vedas and automatically believe

everything that they say. As Rene Descartes the father of modern

philosophy

stated " de omnibus dubitandum " - doubt is everything.

Now please allow me to voice my doubts. According the the Vedic

history,

the scriptures were written down 5,000 years ago. Historians date the

writings much later, 1400 BC. to be exact. Historians also claim the

the

Vedas are a collection of books from different sources that, while

untrue,

are still important because they give us a better understanding of

Indian

culture at that time. Of course the Vedic scripture maintain a

completely

different story-one of ancient cultures, timeless revelations, and

divine

incarnations. These stories were written down to prevent them from

being

lost in the upcoming Kali-yuoa, the iron age, the most fallen in the

cycle

of ages. These two scenarios cannot both be true. One is true while

the

other is most certainly false. One Indian philosopher offers his

reasoning

for not believing the scientists, " the Veda is understood by simply

accepting what the Veda says about itself. History claims that they (

the

Vedas) were written over a long period, starting after the Hypothetical

Aryan invasion into the Indian subcontinent, about 1000 to 1500bc. When

a

mixture of tribes formed the " Vedic " culture. If we believe this

scenario.

Then it is natural to think that the Indian scriptures are a mass of

unsystematic mythological texts. Therefore we must believe the Vedas,

because we know that they are true. "

Now call me close minded if you wish but I cannot completely ignore

historians and " simply accept what the Veda says about itself. " Why is

it

uneducated to believe Mormonism and smart to believe Hinduism because

Hinduism says so. There is a Latin phrase for this type of proof, ipse

dixit, " he himself has said it " . This is the proof Hinduism has relied

on

for centuries. When a devotee of Krishna was asked about proof for his

beliefs he usually answered " it's true because my guru told me that

it's

true. " The problem with this type of evidence is that it lies only in

words. And words alone don't prove anything. Another more modern

phrase

for this is circular reasoning. This is where you came in. I am in

eager

anticipation of any and all proof you can give me that will increase the

Vedas' credibility.

Since we are on the subject of Indian scriptures there is a question

I've

had for a long time.

A lot of the people that I've talked to that don't believe in

Christianity

have the same issue that they get stuck on: they think that Jesus was

just a

guy, maybe a good person, maybe even a prophet. And that over time his

legend grew until he was the son of God who walked on water and healed

the

sick. While I can prove that this wasn't the case I will save that for

later on in this paper. Now taking a look at Hinduism I ask the same

question. How do we know that King Rama was actually blue and a

reincarnation of Vishnu? I have a serious problem believing pretty much

all

of your, for a lack of a better word, mythology.

According to the Ramayana, Rama is exiled from the throne for several

years

because of a promise his father made to his mother. While in the woods

his

wife Sita is kidnapped by the demon King Ravana. Rama employs the

services

of Hanuman to get her back and of course they do and eventually Rama

comes

back home a hero. After reading various Indian apologists I've learned

that

anyone who challenges these stories is said to not understand Hindu

ways.

So at the risk of sounding ignorant let me ask you several questions.

First of all how do you know (without using " the Vedas said it " as a

reason) that this story is based at all in fact? Was Rama even a real

person? The Ramayana is a multi-author multi-rescension book of

thousands

of verses. The latest rescension of the Ramayana is dated about the

year

200 CE. in the early stratum, " Rama is simply a hero, miraculous in

strength

and goodness, neverless wholly human (early in the Ramayana) but in the

later stratum.... Rama appears as a God on earth, " ( Lionel D. Barnett,

1922. Notes From Hindu Gods and Heroes) There is indeed a city called

Ayodhya, but this Ayodhya has no connection with the Rama legend:

kingdom,

temple or civilization. Archaeologists making a frantic search have

failed

to come up with the smallest shred of evidence. There is nothing to

show

that Rama was even a real person instead of a made up magical figure.

But

let's just say that Hinduism is correct and there was a King Rama. How

do

you know that his life resembled what is written about him in the

Ramayana?

How do we know that his exploits didn't become greater and greater

overtime

through folklore? After all, the Vedas were relayed by word of mouth

for

Hundreds of years before they were written down. For all we know,

Ravana

started off as a rival king who was very powerful and over time legend

turned him into a giant 10-headed demon. I once read that Rama shot a

Demon

in the heart with an arrow and it launched him 100 miles into a lake. I

am

incredibly interested in finding out how anything can pick someone up,

obviously high enough in the air to clear the trees, and throw them a

100

miles. How come bullets don't do this to people? Everyone knows that

they

travel much faster than arrows. When one wants to analyze the Rama

legend

for a example of legend making his feats greater, the story of Rama

stringing the bow of Shiva raises a red flag. Not only does it greatly

resemble the Iliad when Odysseys comes home and has to prove who he was,

so

guess what, he strings a magical bow, but it also has a scene where it

takes

500 strong men to pull the box that holds the bow. 500 men! How is it

possible to make a small box that heavy? You can get three strong guys

to

flip over a car. But I can sit here and debate possibilities all day,

but

if you have evidence that it happened I guess it's true. So here's the

question........

John Mcray, an archeologist who has worked with national geographic

magazine and has written a 432-page text book on archaeology. He has

studied at Hedrew University, the ecole biblique et archeologique

Francaise

in Jerusalem, Vanderbilt University Divinity school, and the University

of

Chicago. He is also a former research associate and trustee of the

American

Schools of Oriental research, a current trustee of the Near East

Archaeological Society, a supervisor of excavating teams in Caesarea,

Sepphoris, and Herodium has studied Roman archaeological sites in

England

and Wales, and has analyzed digs in Greece. Mcray with all his

credentials

behind him casts a questioning glance at the Hindu religion.

Mcray questions Hinduism's validity because he constantly uses

archaeology

to see if it will corroborate with the claims of various religions.

Corroborate means to make more certain, confirm. In effect,

corroborative

evidence acts like the support wires that keep a tall antenna straight

and

unwavering. The more corroborative evidence, the stronger and more

secure

the case. So lets look for the corroborative evidence that backs up the

Ramayana. " Well " you say, " it's proven that Sri Lanka is in that area

so it

must be true. " Heinrich Schlieman, once searched for Troy in an effort

to

prove the historical accuracy of Homers Iliad. He did find Troy. But

that

doesn't prove that the Iliad was true. Unless I'm horribly mistaken no

islands in India have been found with castles made of gold, no flying

airships have ever been excavated, no life giving oshadas have ever been

unearthed, and no monkey or bear army fossils have ever been found.

Actually it has been proven that the monkeys and bears who were allies

with

Rama were actually aborigines who bore animal names as totems, as they

still

do today.

All right, the Ramayana cannot pass the archaeological test, how does

it

fair against science? Well apparently Ravana: " he who makes the

universe

scream, " once sat atop a mountain top and became so still that he

stopped

winds that move the planets and keep the universe alive. Let me say

that

again, he stopped the winds that move the planets. I don't know how

much

science you took in school but it's pretty much an established fact the

planets are not moved by winds. Later in the story we learn the while

he

was young Hanuman once tried to pluck the sun from the sky. He jumped

for 3

full days only to get struck by one of Indra's thunderbolts. When

Hanuman

landed he broke only his jaw. I'd like you to explain to me how

anything in

this story is possible. For the sake of time I will bring up one last

thing. How exactly does one go about up rooting a mountain? Hanuman

did

know that a mountain is a collection of loose soil and rocks and not a

giant

triangle like it is in the cartoons didn't he?

There are several other stories that I'd like to discuss but for the

sake

of time I'll consider my point made. I've saved my most important

question

to last. Who or what does Hinduism teach that Jesus was? Was he an

incarnation of Vishnu, a sage, a prophet, or just an ordinary man? At

first

glance it seems easy to put Jesus in any of these categories. But if

you

look further into his life and his teachings it's clear that the only

logical conclusion is that Jesus was the sun of God.

First of all why isn't there any other 1st century Jew who has millions

of

followers today? Lots of men from that time period claimed greater

things,

had more money, and promised Israel that they would free them from Roman

oppression. Then a rabbi named Jesus appears from a lower class

region. He

teaches for 3 years about doing good to others, forgiveness, and praying

for

your enemies, gathers a following of lower-and middle class people; gets

in

trouble with the authorities, and gets crucified along with 30 thousand

Jewish people who are executed during this time period. But 5 weeks

after

he's crucified, over 10 thousand Jews are following him and claiming

that he

is the inventor of a new religion. Does that make sense? If he had

merely

been an innocent sage telling nice little parables, how did he end up on

a

cross, especially at Passover season, when no Jew wants any Jew to be

executed. It doesn't add up. There had to be a reason that there was a

sign above he's head that said, " this is the king of the Jews. " It must

be

understood that the crucifixion was the most abhorrent fate anyone could

undergo, Roman citizens weren't allowed to be crucified because it was

too

painful, the fact is that a movement based on a crucified man must be

explained. But you can easily explain away all this evidence by

classifying

Jesus as a incarnation of Vishnu, can't you? The answer is that, no, you

can't. Throughout Jesus' entire time on earth he is constantly

preaching

that he is the son of God, not son of a God, but the son. In John 14:

5

one of Jesus followers Tomas asked him how they can meet Jesus in

Heaven.

Vishnu would say " by continuous devotion to me, that way you can slowly

improve through reincarnation till you reach Nirvana. " Jesus said, " I

am

the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father except through

me. " Jesus teaches something else Vishnu wouldn't even think of in

Hebrews

9:27 ... " Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment " .

Also Jesus teaches something no Hindu believes, in Acts 1:5 " For John

baptized you with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the

Holy Spirit. " Does this last statement resemble anything any god has

ever

been quoted as saying in Hinduism? But even with all this proof you

could

still dismiss Jesus by saying, " All right, well perhaps Jesus was simply

insane. and snowballed millions of people into believing that he was

God.

Show me some proof that he was who he claimed. " I believe that the Old

Testament prophecies are the corroborative evidence that you're looking

for.

There are more than 4 dozen major predictions about Jesus in the old

testament. Isaiah revealed the manner of the messiahs birth (a virgin);

Micah pinpointed the place of his birth (Bethlehem); Daniel 9:24-26

foretells that the messiah would appear a certain length of time after

king

Artaxerxes I issued a decree for the Jewish people to go from Persia to

rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. This happened to be right when Jesus

was

born. Genesis and Jeremiah specified his ancestors ( a descendant of

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the tribe of Judah, the house of David);

the

Psalms foretold his betrayal, his accusation by false witnesses, his

manner

of death (pierced through hands and feet, although crucifixion hadn't

been

invented yet) and his resurrection ( he would not decay but ascend on

high.)

All this sounds rather impressive, but how do we know that some

overzealous

Christians didn't just find a guy who happened to fulfill their

prophecies

so they could say, " Look, we've found the Messiah! " First of all this

wouldn't have worked because, back then, the Jews thought that God's son

was

going to come down as a king and that he would free Israel from Roman

rule.

Jesus never claimed that he was going to do this. Secondly Peter W.

Stoner,

who's credentials would take up an entire page, did that math and

figured

out that the probability of just eight prophecies being fulfilled is 1

chance in 100 billion. He also computed the probability of someone

fulfilling 48 prophecies is 1 chance in a Trillion Trillion Trillion

Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion

Trillion Trillion Trillion. Our minds can't comprehend a number that

big.

If right now your thinking, " O.K.. let's say for the sake of argument

that

Jesus was who he said he was. How do you know that he actually rose

from

the dead? Prove to me that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't added over

time

through peoples exaggerations of the truth. " Two prominent scholars

Craig

L. Bloomberg Ph.D.. and Edwin M. Yamauchi Ph.D.. have dedicated their

lives

to answering that question. Bloomberg has received a doctorate in New

Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, and has served as a

Senior

research fellow at Tyndale house at Cambridge University in England,

where

he was part of an elite group of international scholars who produced a

series of acclaimed works on Jesus. Yamauchi has received a bachelors

degree in Hebrew and hellenstictics, and Masters and Doctoral degrees in

Mediterranean studies from Brandeis Universities. He has studied 22

languages including Ugartic and Commanche. He has delivered 71 papers

at

Universities, and lectured at over 100 seminaries and colleges,

including

Yale, Princeton, and Cornell. In 1968 he participated in the first

excavations of the Herddian Temple in Jerusalem, and has written many

books

about archaeology. Now that you know their credentials let me share

what

their research has come up with. The fact is that we have better

historical

documentation for Jesus that for the founder of any other major

religion.

Because of this, it is easy to analyze the resurrection. If we look in

the

Bible, specifically the gospels, (Matthew, Mark , Luke, and John) we can

see

that it talks about Jesus rising from the dead three days after he died

(this is not a teaching of reincarnation because Jesus came back in the

same

body with all the scars that he acquired while on the cross and his body

was

no longer in his grave). The Gospels were written progressively 40-80

years

after Jesus' death. This means that many eyewitnesses of Jesus life

were

still alive then, and could have easily made it known that the gospels

were

inaccurate. Many people had reasons for wanting to discredit the

Christian

movement and would have done so if they could have simply told history

better. In fact it's in 1 Corinthians 15, a book of the bible that

predates

any of the Gospels, that the claim involving the largest number of

people

seeing Jesus after he died (500) is recorded. This creates problems for

the

legend development theory. Also, the site of Jesus' tomb was known to

Christians and Jews alike. So if it wasn't empty, it would be

impossible

for a movement founded on belief in the resurrection to have come into

existence in the same city where a man had been publicly executed and

buried. Sir Lionel Luckhoo, the attorney who's astounding 243

consecutive

murder acquittals earned him a place in the Guinness Book of World

Records

as the most successful lawyer has subjected the historical facts about

the

resurrection to his rigorous analysis for several years. Finally he

declared , " I say unequivocally that the evidence of Jesus Christ is so

overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leads absolutely

no

room for doubt. " But wait there's more, British theologian Michael

Green

said, " The appearances (of Jesus) are as well authenticated as anything

in

antiquity. There can be no doubt that they occurred. " German Historian

Hans von Campenhausen says, " This account meets all demands of

historical

reliability that could possibly be made of such a text. " Scholars

Norman

Geislor and William Nix conclude, " The New Testament, then, has not only

survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it

has

survived in a purer form than any other Great book- a form that is 99.5%

pure! " Gary Habermas Ph.D., D.D. has an interesting point to bring up.

Habermas, who has earned a Doctor of divinity degree from Emmanuel

College

in Oxord, England and a doctorate from Michigan State University has

authored seven books dealing with Jesus rising from the dead, including

The

resurrection of Jesus: A rational inquiry; and Did Jesus Rise From the

Dead?

The Resurrection Debate, which is based on his debate with Anthony Flew,

one

of the leading philosophical atheists in the world. This man who's 100

articles have appeared in such books as The Baker Dictionary of Theology

has

an interesting point to bring up. " When Jesus was crucified, his

followers

were discouraged and depressed. They no longer had confidence that

Jesus

had been sent by God, because they believed anyone crucified was

accursed by

him. They also had been taught that God would not let his messiah

suffer

death. So they dispersed. The Jesus movement was all but stopped in

it's

tracks. Then after a short period of time, we see them abandoning their

occupations, regathering, and committing themselves to spreading a very

specific message- that Jesus Christ was the messiah of God who died on

the

cross, returned to life, and was seen alive by them. They were willing

to

spend the rest of their lives proclaiming this, without any payoff from

a

human point of view. It's not as if they had a mansion waiting for them

if

they converted enough people or did enough good deeds. They faced a

life of

hardship, they often went without food, slept exposed to the elements,

were

ridiculed, beaten, imprisoned, and finally most were executed in

torturous

ways. For what ? Good intentions? No, because they were convinced

beyond

a shadow of a doubt that they had seen Jesus Christ alive from the

dead. "

I hope that I have fairly represented my questions non offensively. I'm

sure that you will answer them all and am excited to read your response.

In

closing I'd like to add one last thing, my final challenge to you.

Don't

take my word for anything said in this letter, but don't take your

Guru's

either. Spend the time to research the facts and questions that I've

presented. I am in search of knowledge and if you can prove any of the

preceding things wrong then I will be deeply indebted to you. Please,

don't

take this task lightly, Stan Telchin a Jewish east coast business man

along

with Jack Sternburg, a prominent cancer physician in Little Rock,

Arkansas,

tried to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah. After being alarmed by

the

evidence against their case they asked three rabbis to help them

disprove

Jesus' claims that he was the Messiah. They couldn't, and today all

five

have accepted Christ as their savior.

Sincerely,

XXXXX

RECENT ADVAITIC ASSAULT ON SHRIMADACARYA