Evolution?

[Cassandra]

Sorry for any offense. I am usually right on the money about this type of thing. If I was off I am so sorry.

Seems to me you have a high opinion of yourself.
Apologies are supposed to come from the heart, this feels more like a second insult.

 

[Cassandra]

I also reject Universalism. But when Kabir says. Benares is to the East, Mecca to the West; but explore your own heart, for there are both Rama and Allah. I believe what he has to say.

Cassandra says:
Moral teacher eat your mouth
then speak with the tongue
Spit out the words
Give back what you steal

 

[Cassandra]

Buddha is an avtar of God.
Jesus in Bible says - I am son of God. I am not God.

Namaste Vrindavana Das

From a Hindu viewpoint this may be defended, but as far as I know, Buddhist and Christians challenge this notion. They have a different way of looking at things. From a personal viewpoint I perceive too much incompatibility with accepted Hindu avatars like Ram and Krishna to see them as Hindu avatars of God.

Buddha's is a 'lila' or 'pastime' like that of Rama or Krishna.

To understand, first we must understand the backdrop.

The vedas teach sacrifice as a means to gradually elevate the levels of consciousness of the sacrificer from modes of ignorance to passion to goodness and then ultimately become situated in the transcendental platform. At the transcendental platform, aim is to know God and engage in His loving devotional service. It is noteworthy that, through the power of vdic hymns, the sacrificed animal got a more evolved life form in the next birth. This way, both benefited.

Thus, whenever a person wanted to indulge in meat eating, he had to go through the ordeal of performing a fire sacrifice and after all labour, he would get only a small portion of animal sacrificed to himself. However, with the passage of time, people started using this vedic sacrifice system to slaughter poor innocent animals to satisfy their taste buds. Irreligion became rampant in the name of religion.

God claims that He descends whenever there is a rise in irreligion.

yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srijamy aham​

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion -- at that time I descend Myself. B.G. - 4.7

Thus Lord Buddha appeared and defied the very existence of Vedas. Instead of the Vedic path for self-realization, He showed the 'middle-path'. Which is, one should not be too harsh on his own self (like he was while following a life of severe renunciation), that lead him nowhere in the quest for self-realization. He taught non-violence as a means of achieving enlightenment. At the heart of it, the idea was to stop rampant animal killings for sense gratification, happening in the name of vedic sacrifices.

God always teaches religion according to the time, place and circumstance of any situation.

Breaking with deva worship and authority of the Veda's, that I would call a decline in religious practice, not restoring it.

As i see it, universalist often make the claim they come to set thing right. Muslims says the polytheists were Irreligious. Christians claim the same. But these claims are to a great extend propaganda for their own cause. Mohamed's first wife was an rich independent Business lady and widow, who hired Mohamed for her caravans, and later promoted him to caravan leader, then married him, though she was much older. Mohamed never married another wife while she was alive. Still Muslims claim women had much less rights in those days. They say there was no social system, but Mohamed who became an orphan himself, was well taken care off by his greater family. The pagan emperors were tolerant to all religions, this ended with Christianity, still Christians claim pagans were religious persecutors. Universalist religions are based on ideology and history shows universal ideology (theist and atheist) repressive to other ideas and they tend to twist history to fit their world view.

I can not see Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. I think he was a formidable intellectual, an absolute genius, maybe the greatest the world has ever seen. But If we need another Avatar, i rather prefer Adi Shankara as a restorer. As i see it, if Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu, Buddhism would not be a separate religion today, but part of Sanatan Dharm.

 

[Vinayaka]

Namaste jg22,

With due respect, but why do I have to base my self on shruti? I use my own faculties, I like that approach. Do you think quoting scripture is a superior approach? As I see it: the Veda's did not create the enlightened ones, the enlightened ones created the Veda's. A subtle difference.

As I perceive it, universalists are jnani, they strive for unity, but create division, because active conversion leads to conflict. They create something so perfect, they want to spread it, so all may believe in it. I prefer devotion. The nice thing about devotion, is you do not have to believe anything. I find it liberating not having to believe things others conjectured. Especially their moral talk. I do read in texts but only for inspiration, I think that is the purpose of spiritual writings. (spiritual -> inspiration) I freely develop ideas, please do not take offense of them, they are only personal insights, and by no means truth.

This aligns very well with my version of Hinduism. Between common sense and scripture, I go with common sense every time. My own common sense (some may call it intuition) is far more consistent than a bunch of Hindu scripture may be. Bhakti strengthens the common sense.

As to the original discussion in this thread, which now seems way divergent, I take much of the past like TOE or its main opponent bot with a grain of salt. I'm more inclined to be active in the present to break into a decent future, so really have nothing to offer but simple opinions.

 

[Madhuri]

This question of 2+2=7 does not arise. We are talking of taking knowledge of God from authorized scriptures and authorized spiritual masters following in disciplic succession. Please refer to the quote on 4 authorized sampradayas as per our scriptures.

Now we are starting to go in circles. You believe that when you read or hear you can have perfect understanding or that it should all be taken literally.

I believe that it takes lifetimes to fully understand Veda. And I believe that each guru is only teaching us one small aspect of Truth.

I do not think we are going to see eye to eye here.

What kind of a proof are you talking of. Please clarify.

I mean by providing me with the reference or page number etc. of the actual Puranas instead of the quote from Prabhupada.

In God's creation, there must be a purpose for each of 8.4 million species. All contribute towards a self-sustained ecosystem of the universe and are inter-dependent. So, there is every reason to believe that they co-exist simultaneously. It is like a gigantic machinery with 8.4 million parts. Even if one part of the machine goes missing, it becomes useless. Is it not?

Well actually I disagree. The world still holds despite innumerable species having gone extinct. What do you make of the fact that species go extinct in relation to the reference concerning the number of species created/existing and this ecosystem example?

What I understand is that when some vital part of an ecosystem collapses, it harms and potentially destroys the whole ecosystem. But it does not necessarily destroy it and often there are other developments that occur so that the ecosystem will simply change or 'evolve'.

As per scriptures Bramha has created 8.4 million species. They populate the whole universe and not just planet earth. A species may become extinct from our planet, but it can manifest on some other planet in this universe. Similarly, a species earlier not on our planet can manifest on our planet. This is guided by individual karmas of the soul and also the karmas of the souls in the particular planetary ecosystem that soul appears on or disappears from. Something like reward or punishment for both. But in essence, TOTAL = 8.4 MILLION.

Wait, in the part of this paragraph I have bolded, are you referring to evolution?? I mean, evolution is all about new species manifesting on the planet.

If we agree that 'species' refers to levels of consciousness, then we can understand things in following light:-

Humans species, as per scriptures are 4 Lac. As per theory of evolution, humans = homo sapiens sapiens = 1 species (if I understand the theory of evolution correctly). There are 4 Lac levels ofalready created human consciousness levels according to individual's karmas. Thus my karmas dictate the particular consciousness level body I will get after death. If the number of consciousness levels have been fixed, it means the pains and pleasures of that soul have already been predetermined. Evolution happens if we are adapting to changing environmental challenges. i.e., minimize pain and maximize pleasure. But as there is the same is predetermined, there is no meaning to physical evolution.

The one species of humans you speak of, according to evolution theory, refers only to the physical body. It does not contradict the belief that different human beings will have varying levels of Consciousness maturity.

I disagree with you actually. It is the consciousness and karma of the soul that determines the shaping and development of the body. The body does not exist before the soul enters it. And the level of consciousness in any body is not determined by genetics. One person might be at a very different level to his/her parents. It is my understanding that soul consciousness and karma shape the body.

Even what you have said just now does not contradict evolution. If the 8.4million refers to level of consciousness, AND it is speaking about the entire universe, not just Earth, then there is plenty of scope for physical evolution to occur. And the 8.4 million may still mean that this is the number of incarnations that occur throughout the course of the creation cycle.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, btw. I have found this last part of your post difficult to interpret.

 

[Cassandra]

This aligns very well with my version of Hinduism. Between common sense and scripture, I go with common sense every time. My own common sense (some may call it intuition) is far more consistent than a bunch of Hindu scripture may be. Bhakti strengthens the common sense.

As to the original discussion in this thread, which now seems way divergent, I take much of the past like TOE or its main opponent bot with a grain of salt. I'm more inclined to be active in the present to break into a decent future, so really have nothing to offer but simple opinions.

Namaste Vinayaka,

Nice to meet a fellow seeker, a rare treat. As i see it, finders are plenty, seekers are rare. Most that call themselves seekers are only looking in books to find what they already believe. They collect stones to build higher walls. Say something different and they start throwing stones. Reading enough scripture one can handsomely defend any position, without ever having to change ones mind.

I agree with you, devotion leading to Intuition (=looking in) is the source of continuous insights, inner knowledge. With "common sense" i think you mean straightforward thinking. "Common sense" rather prevents thinking. As Einstein said: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen". But the combination of intuition ("to perceive directly without reasoning") and straightforward thinking (" Not circuitous or evasive; honest and frank, Free from ambiguity or pretense; plain and open") is very powerful indeed.

As to the subject of evolution, it is my impression that science is evolving into a new universalist religion and evolution theory is becoming the new creation story. The fanaticism with which it is defended is remarkable. It has become above reproach, a scientific fact. It must be taught in every classroom as the one and only right theory. People seem to forget that much of religion once was considered science too. And science today regularly tells nonsense that is revoked by new nonsense. The difference is not as big as people think. Religious and scientific views of existence are baked by the same over-rationalizing self-convinced intellectuals.

I feel blessed, I am a simple person devoted to devotion. Simple does not mean stupid, i just dislike overcomplicated rationalizations to explain things, and rather prefer to investigate the deeper meaning. And why all this reading, if God and Deva's can give you the answers directly, with purer understanding, and without the mental circus act and the accompanying intellectual arrogance.

I know one thing with inner certainty, i am not the product of evolution. i am working very hard to regain my true self, so my next life will be better and hopefully in another world again. If others want to believe they come from lower beasts, then for them that is true.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Hi, friend Zenzero,

Sanatan Dharma celebrates the diversity, while other religions like to create unity. And the funny thing is, the ones that celebrates diversity have few quarrels, but the ones that strive for unity have conflicts all the time.

Sanatan Dharam = Eternal occupation of soul = Service of God = Religion

However, for most of us;

Religion = individual faith that suits our personal convenience = diversity = clash of interest = conflict

 

[zenzero]

Friend Cassandra,

As I see it ... from my humble point of view... I think you are preaching to the wrong crowd.
There is no one that is *preaching* at best is a friend *sharing* his personal understanding which is open to broader understanding that may emerge from such sharing.
For Hindus this is simply stating the obvious. Hinduism knows more paths than all other religious traditions combined. Which means that those who go by the labels *hindus* are not humans?? DHARMA includes paths developed by all humans till date and even those that are getting developed here on too rather all paths follow dharma.

We are all children of God. Priests like to preach this all the time. But awareness of the similarities, does not make us love each other. There is difference between awareness and merging in awareness. Those who have not merged in awareness differences will remain.

I think this is the fundamental difference between Sanatan Dharma and many other religious traditions. Sanatan Dharma celebrates the diversity, while other religions like to create unity. And the funny thing is, the ones that celebrates diversity have few quarrels, but the ones that strive for unity have conflicts all the time. Yes that is reflected in societies in India and in the west??? that IS funny???

I think this goal of unity was one of Buddha's gravest errors, echoed by Jesus and Mohamed. But then again, I am an ignorant, simple minded person.
One that is still in the *THINKING* mode is not in the MEDITATING* mode and so is yet to lose that *I* to merge in Oneness where all dualities merge.

Love & rgds

 

[Vinayaka]

deleted

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Now we are starting to go in circles. You believe that when you read or hear you can have perfect understanding or that it should all be taken literally.

Before anything, let us come on the same page. I am saying:
THE PURPOSE OF SCRIPTURES IS TO KNOW GOD.
TO ENGAGE IN HIS TRANSCENDENTAL LOVING SERVICE IS THE ESSENCE OF SCRIPTURES.
THERE IS NO OTHER HIGHER PURPOSE OF SCRIPTURES.

Now, coming to what you mentioned about perfect understanding:

I ‘KNOW’ that when we read, we may or may not understand.

We WILL NOT understand: Because we are trying to understand the ‘creator’ (God) with ‘created’ faculties (intelligence). Note the use of word ‘creator’ and not ‘scriptures’; which means I am talking of the 'spirit' or 'essence' of scriptures and not literally the letter of scriptures.

God says:

na me viduḥ sura-gaṇāḥ
prabhavaḿ na maharṣayaḥ
aham ādir hi devānāḿ
maharṣīṇāḿ ca sarvaśaḥ​

Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and sages. B.G. 10.2

So, how can we, know Him with our limited intelligence. What is our level of intelligence as compared to Bramha – the creator of universe?

WE WILL understand:

teṣāḿ satata-yuktānāḿ
bhajatāḿ prīti-pūrvakam
dadāmi buddhi-yogaḿ taḿ
yena mām upayānti te​

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me. B.G. 10.10

A person may have a bona fide spiritual master and may be attached to a spiritual organization, but still, if he is not intelligent enough to make progress, then Kṛṣṇa from within gives him instructions so that he may ultimately come to Him without difficulty.

I believe that it takes lifetimes to fully understand Veda. And I believe that each guru is only teaching us one small aspect of Truth.

Please note the PURPOSE OF STUDYING VEDAS, for us to be on same platform, as mentioned below.

sarvasya cāhaḿ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo
mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaḿ ca
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāha​

m
I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. B.G. 15.15

So, when the purpose of reading vedas is to know God, He will help you by giving the required understanding – as mentioned in above verse B.G. – 10.10. However, if the purpose of reading Vedas is devoid of its ONLY AIM – God, you are on your own! We can go on not just this ONE lifetime, but MILLIONS OF LIFETIMES, without reaching any conclusion. Which sadly means, we have wasted precious human life and time to achieve NOTHING.

And I believe that each guru is only teaching us one small aspect of Truth.

The ‘complete whole’ or ‘Absolute Truth’ here is saying:

tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaḿ
jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ​

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.

Also,

sadhu-sanga, sadhu-sanga — sarva-sastre kaya
lava-matra sadhu-sange sarva-siddhi haya​

The verdict of all revealed scriptures is that by even a moment’s association with a pure devotee, one can attain all success. Sri Caitanya-Caritamrta 22.54

I do not think we are going to see eye to eye here.

Forgive me when I say it, but yes, if you think you know better than God Himself and the revealed scriptures, then we are not going to see eye to eye here.

I mean by providing me with the reference or page number etc. of the actual Puranas instead of the quote from Prabhupada.

I have given you the verse of Padma Purana cited by Srila Prabhupada, which is proof enough to establish the validity of the statement beyond the scope of doubt. You can also find the same here:
Uncategorized | Dharmasastra3's Blog | Page 8

Well actually I disagree. The world still holds despite innumerable species having gone extinct. What do you make of the fact that species go extinct in relation to the reference concerning the number of species created/existing and this ecosystem example?

The physical become extinct but the number of species 'levels of consciousness' are constant at 8.4 million in the ecosystem.

Wait, in the part of this paragraph I have bolded, are you referring to evolution?? I mean, evolution is all about new species manifesting on the planet.

Please note the following:

- A UNIVERSE houses 8.4 million species.
- 8.4 million SPECIES means 8.4 million LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

When the ecological condition changes and a physically manifest body disappear (becomes extinct), then THAT SOUL can:
1. Continue to exist in same ‘LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS’ in a BEFORE KNOWN/UNKNOWN PHYSICAL BODY. This is ‘PSUDO EVOLUTION.’ The number of SPECIES is maintained at 8.4 million.
2. Soul can EVOLVE/DE-EVOLVE into a ‘different level of consciousness’ in a BEFORE KNOWN/UNKNOWN PHYSICAL BODY. This is EVOLUTION/DE-EVOLUTION. This real EVOLUTION/DE-EVOLUTION is not known to science. Here also the number of SPECIES is maintained at 8.4 million.

The one species of humans you speak of, according to evolution theory, refers only to the physical body. It does not contradict the belief that different human beings will have varying levels of Consciousness maturity.

I agree with you. On a deeper level, when Evolutionary theory deals with ‘physical evolution’, which is actually ‘no evolution’, there is no meaning to Evolutionary Theory.

I disagree with you actually. It is the consciousness and karma of the soul that determines the shaping and development of the body. The body does not exist before the soul enters it. And the level of consciousness in any body is not determined by genetics. One person might be at a very different level to his/her parents. It is my understanding that soul consciousness and karma shape the body.

Even what you have said just now does not contradict evolution. If the 8.4million refers to level of consciousness, AND it is speaking about the entire universe, not just Earth, then there is plenty of scope for physical evolution to occur. And the 8.4 million may still mean that this is the number of incarnations that occur throughout the course of the creation cycle.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, btw. I have found this last part of your post difficult to interpret.

What you are saying here is what I am alos saying and agree with. However, I think you are confusing PHYSICAL ADAPTATION for EVOLUTION. What does the ToE say about man coming from monkey? Please explain.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Namaste Vrindavana Das

From a personal viewpoint I perceive too much incompatibility with accepted Hindu avatars like Ram and Krishna to see them as Hindu avatars of God.

I did not understand the term incompatibility. Please clarify!

God plays different pastimes to attract the minds of conditioned souls towards Him.

Not all people have similar tastes. Just like some people like sweet, some salty, some bitter; similarly, to attract persons with different taste, God plays different pastimes. Some are attracted to Krishna form, some to Rama, Some to Narsimha and so on.

Breaking with deva worship and authority of the Veda's, that I would call a decline in religious practice, not restoring it.

Forgive me, but I differ with your opinion on this.

A person at home teaches his children not to kill. Same person, when in court, may give a verdict to hang someone. Does he become responsible for breaking his own law?

Religion in it's essence teaches us to please God. If it pleases God that Arjuna kills on the battlefield. Then that is religion. If Buddha teaches non-violence defying the Vedas, then that is religion.

God teaches principles of religion according to time, place and circumstance. He is the father of religion and knows what to teach as He knows past, present and future perfectly.

I can not see Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. I think he was a formidable intellectual, an absolute genius, maybe the greatest the world has ever seen. But If we need another Avatar, i rather prefer Adi Shankara as a restorer. As i see it, if Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu, Buddhism would not be a separate religion today, but part of Sanatan Dharm.

I can only give scriptural facts which I am aware of. We all are entitled to our own opinions of what we accept and what we choose to reject.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

As i see it, if Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu, Buddhism would not be a separate religion today, but part of Sanatan Dharm.

I would like to add here that we must come on the same page to understand Sanatana Dharma.

Sanatana Dharma is, as the name suggests, Sanatana = Eternal; Dharma = Nature
Therefore it is the eternal nature of an individual soul.
Many people understand dharma to be religion or personal belief. Today I believe in Christianity, tomorrow I can change my belief to Hinduism, later to Buddhism. No all these are beliefs...not dharma. Beliefs can change.

To clarify; the eternal dharma of sugar is sweetness. The dharma of water is liquidity. Similarly the dharma of Soul is service.

If you grind sugar, will it say that you have ground me, so I will give up my sweetness? NO. Every particle will have that sweetness. It is not like belief which can change from hinduism to Buddhism and so on.

The nature of soul is SERVICE. We see everywhere someone is serving another. Wife is serving the husband, husband is serving the wife, servant is serving the master and he is serving some other master...

Service is ETERNAL. We are serving maya OR we are serving GOD. But serve we must!

That eternal service when directed towards to eternal master, God, is known as SANATANA DHARMA.

Now, coming back to your point; if we agree that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, service of Buddha is also a part of Sanatana Dharama. People who are following Buddhism are SERVING Buddha...is it not? They are attracted to the Buddha avtar of Vishnu, following His path and therefore shall go to Buddha. Just like followers of Vishnu will go to Vishnu or Krishna to Krishna.

 

[Cassandra]

Friend Cassandra,
As I see it ... from my humble point of view... I think you are preaching to the wrong crowd.
There is no one that is *preaching* at best is a friend *sharing* his personal understanding which is open to broader understanding that may emerge from such sharing.
For Hindus this is simply stating the obvious. Hinduism knows more paths than all other religious traditions combined. Which means that those who go by the labels *hindus* are not humans?? DHARMA includes paths developed by all humans till date and even those that are getting developed here on too rather all paths follow dharma.

We are all children of God. Priests like to preach this all the time. But awareness of the similarities, does not make us love each other. There is difference between awareness and merging in awareness. Those who have not merged in awareness differences will remain.

I think this is the fundamental difference between Sanatan Dharma and many other religious traditions. Sanatan Dharma celebrates the diversity, while other religions like to create unity. And the funny thing is, the ones that celebrates diversity have few quarrels, but the ones that strive for unity have conflicts all the time. Yes that is reflected in societies in India and in the west??? that IS funny???

I think this goal of unity was one of Buddha's gravest errors, echoed by Jesus and Mohamed. But then again, I am an ignorant, simple minded person.
One that is still in the *THINKING* mode is not in the MEDITATING* mode and so is yet to lose that *I* to merge in Oneness where all dualities merge.
Love & rgds

Hi friend Zenzero,

As i See it, posting without reacting can be called sharing, but a preacher wants to share his beliefs too, but he is handing out. It seems to me what you are expressing is the basis of Hindu culture. I think, everything else grew out of that. Go to villages and meet simple people who know nothing about scripture and their lofty concepts. The lead simple lives, they share with their heart, not with their mouth.

As i see it, If people want to share their mind possession, it is because they think beliefs are important. I feel different, Heart knows, or not, beliefs are like garments. Clothes hide the inner. Sharing clothes does no good. It makes ugly people look refined and good, and beautiful people look simple, less beautiful. It is the ugly that are looking for better clothes. I think it counterproductive to hand out beautiful clothes. It creates confusion. Allow ugly people to wear ugly clothes, allow beautiful people simple clothes. Then all will recognize themselves and others for what they are.

Yes i find it funny that people striving for unity harvest division and people celebrating diversity harvest unity. This funniness is called irony. God is Lila. I definitely sense the Gods have a sense of humor too. They see our big words and say, look how certain he is, lets put these words on his path, so he may stumble over them, and fall flat on his face. Big words like:
One that is still in the *THINKING* mode is not in the MEDITATING* mode and so is yet to lose that *I* to merge in Oneness where all dualities merge.
It is big, too big for me. One day i hope to forget all the big words
no think
no thing
nothing

 

[Cassandra]

Sanatan Dharam = Eternal occupation of soul = Service of God = Religion

However, for most of us;

Religion = individual faith that suits our personal convenience = diversity = clash of interest = conflict

Namaste Vrindavana Das,

There are many ways to express this,
i would frame it like this:
Dharma is recognizing the universe as it is: diversity in unity
Religion is what the mind strives for: unity in diversity

The first needs no change, only acceptance
The second wants to create something superficial, a belief, it is for people that do not feel unity.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Namaste Vrindavana Das,

There are many ways to express this,
i would frame it like this:
Dharma is recognizing the universe as it is: diversity in unity
Religion is what the mind strives for: unity in diversity

The first needs no change, only acceptance
The second wants to create something superficial, a belief, it is for people that do not feel unity.

Hi Cassy,

I see a lot of sense in that statement.

If I understand correctly, by 'diversity in unity' you mean all DIVERSE individuals are striving for the satisfaction of that ONE God. Something like many circles with one center - no overlapping/clash of interest as in the center is God. In other words devotion to God or SANATANA DHARMA.

The second is where many minds give different 'theories' of religion. Underlying basis is my own sense gratification - subtle (like speculation) or gross (like meat eating). Something like many circles with different centers of individual interest/belief in the center. Thus there is overlapping and clash whilst it is superficially trying to propagate unity in the name of religion.

 

[Cassandra]

I did not understand the term incompatibility. Please clarify!

God plays different pastimes to attract the minds of conditioned souls towards Him.

Not all people have similar tastes. Just like some people like sweet, some salty, some bitter; similarly, to attract persons with different taste, God plays different pastimes. Some are attracted to Krishna form, some to Rama, Some to Narsimha and so on.

Namaste Vrindavana Das

I agree with that. But respecting each for his own uniqueness, is not the same as saying they are compatible.

From your earlier words i perceive we agree that the path of Dharma does not even need religion. So differences in religion are at another level, they are at the level of ideas. As I see it, celebrating diversity is recognizing differences. But people who strive for unity easily interpret stressing differences as disrespect, and trying to look down. But when I say I think Buddhism is different from Hinduism, that is not disrespect, but Respect for their uniqueness. I myself experience it as disrespect when people do not recognize my individuality.

Religions can be divided according to their core ideas in astika ("accept the authority of the Vedas") and nastika (do not). Philosophical schools like Nyayá, Vaisesika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa and Vedanta are considered astika. schools like Carvaka, Jainism and Buddhism are considered nastika.

As I see it, If a religion is based on another foundation, we should not try to put a sauce on it, saying: it is basically all the same. It is not. It is fundamentally different. Universalism tries to break down the barrier's. What it leads to we can see in communism, Christianity, Islam, basically repression of all other ways to experience reality. We all have to fit the mould.

Is it not wonderful that you and i have different opinions in stead of the same, and why should we try to equalize that and create a boring flat mental landscape? If i perceive difference and you perceive equality. Fine for both! That is why you say:

Forgive me, but I differ with your opinion on this.

And I say: That is great!

I can only give scriptural facts which I am aware of. We all are entitled to our own opinions of what we accept and what we choose to reject.

I do not see it as a right, but a fact of life and i celebrate it. Differences give taste and color.

When it is written: For the the wise man a piece of gold or a piece of rock, it is the same. I interpret that not that he lost his faculties to see distinction. I interpret it as both give him the same pleasure, because he rejoices diversity. Appreciating ideas of others without having to accept them is another form of that. Those who have lofty ideas about unity and equality often have problems with people thinking different. Lofty ideas do not make a better world, they imply the world is not good enough. They make us sad.

 

[Cassandra]

Hi Cassy,

I see a lot of sense in that statement.

If I understand correctly, by 'diversity in unity' you mean all DIVERSE individuals are striving for the satisfaction of that ONE God. Something like many circles with one center - no overlapping/clash of interest as in the center is God. In other words devotion to God or SANATANA DHARMA.

The second is where many minds give different 'theories' of religion. Underlying basis is my own sense gratification - subtle (like speculation) or gross (like meat eating). Something like many circles with different centers of individual interest/belief in the center. Thus there is overlapping and clash whilst it is superficially trying to propagate unity in the name of religion.

Namaste Vrindavana Das

I think more simple than that, with "diversity in unity", I mean God creates diversity out of pure joy. That is an aspect of Gods Lila. Would all this diversity be there if it was not to the liking of God?

God realizes his Self in us, we realize our Selves in God. These are opposite movements (diversity in unity <-> unity in diversity). That is what creates all the circle movements.

But when we truly realize "Thou are That". When we truly identify with God we start to celebrate the differences like God does. But many people are absorbed in re-uniting with God, they want to overcome differences. Move towards God.

But if the purpose of a journey around the world is to go home, then why leave home? So why did God leave home?

Turn it around "God is you", God is you on a tour and he wants to enjoy it, for he is only discovering his magnificent Self, through you. If you really want to unite with God the quick way, than the path of adharma is the quicker one. Seek total desperation and God will terminate you for you desire for self-destruction. Because God likes to enjoy his trips, and you are no fun.

Basically I see religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and many Hindu samprayas too as attempts of suicide of the self. Lets get it over with and reunite with God. Those people are in such a hurry to end it. Lets break the chain of rebirth now. Only unhappy people can think like this, people that have not found God. The intellectuals that rather think than go on the path of devotion. God lives in their mind, not in their heart. And so they keep longing for God. Lets end this suffering, says Buddha, it is unbearable. Let us end this suffering says Jesus, I come to rescue you. But hindu Sages live on and on and on, happy.

I am a bhakt, God lives in my heart and I am truly happy. Why commit spiritual suicide? The path of Dharm makes me happy. I still enjoy all the experiences: joy, wondering, pain, sadness, relief, yes even despair at times. They are the flavors of this existence. Some are powerful and must be used with care. It is only because we put to much pepper and salt in the soup that it becomes uneatable. Then we no longer want to eat soup. Harmony means balance all the ingredients. Then we feel like a young child on a school trip, enjoying it to the fullest. Then we give God the pleasure he seeks in existence. God is not looking for a way out.

That is how I see it.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Cassandra,

As i See it, posting without reacting can be called sharing, but a preacher wants to share his beliefs too, but he is handing out. It seems to me what you are expressing is the basis of Hindu culture. I think, everything else grew out of that. Go to villages and meet simple people who know nothing about scripture and their lofty concepts. The lead simple lives, they share with their heart, not with their mouth.

As i see it, If people want to share their mind possession, it is because they think beliefs are important. I feel different, Heart knows, or not, beliefs are like garments. Clothes hide the inner. Sharing clothes does no good. It makes ugly people look refined and good, and beautiful people look simple, less beautiful. It is the ugly that are looking for better clothes. I think it counterproductive to hand out beautiful clothes. It creates confusion. Allow ugly people to wear ugly clothes, allow beautiful people simple clothes. Then all will recognize themselves and others for what they are.

Yes i find it funny that people striving for unity harvest division and people celebrating diversity harvest unity. This funniness is called irony. God is Lila. I definitely sense the Gods have a sense of humor too. They see our big words and say, look how certain he is, lets put these words on his path, so he may stumble over them, and fall flat on his face. Big words like:
One that is still in the *THINKING* mode is not in the MEDITATING* mode and so is yet to lose that *I* to merge in Oneness where all dualities merge.
It is big, too big for me. One day i hope to forget all the big words
no think
no thing
nothing

Thank you for those beautifully flowers!
Am sure you had asked permission from the plants to pluck them [flowers] as they too are beings who may not understand your language but do understand the feelings of another being.
Since we are all born free with whatever *gunas* it be; we may travel separately with only those friends who are in oneness [for that moment of togetherness outside the gunas] to finally realize and understand that the source and destiny of each form is the same consciousness!

Love & rgds

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

you believe a material evolution, preceded evolution of consciousness?

Not consciousness, I think we evolved physically and intellectually until we could understand and question our purpose.
consciousness I think does not evolve.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Satya,

Consciousness is that which is labelled as Brahman and so it is the very source and destiny for everything known or unknown and so non-evolving. That is SATYA! no thinking should/can comes in IT's way!

Love & rgds