Virtue and Happiness - Page 116

http://geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page116.htm

(8-16-99)


someone wrote:

Many philosophers have tried to prove that God exists. Some of the
various proofs became so famous that they were given names. Likewise,
with equal vigour many philosophers have challenged these proofs. In
18th century, Kant suggested that the proof of Gods existence was not
provable and that some other aspect of reason must be considered as
the source of the idea of God. He postulated that the existence of
God was the grounds for the necessary connection between virtue and
happiness. Subsequently, Kierkegaard suggests three levels of
existence for humanity. The first is his "aesthetic stage",
the second his "ethical stage" and the third his "religious" stage.
He who lives at the "aesthetic stage" grasps enjoyment. Good is
whatever is beautiful, satisfying or pleasant. He is a slave to his
desires and moods. "Ethical man" tries to live by the law of morels.
Whether he acts correctly or not in a given situation is less
important than that he has in fact a view of what is ethical and
attempts to act "correctly". (Socrates) Kirkigaard's idea of
the "religious man", is postulated from the idea that "ethical man"
comes to realise that lack of knowledge of situations from an ethical
viewpoint will lead him necessarily to making inaccurate ethical
choices.

This leads to a sense of guilt and the need to leap by an act of
faith into a "religious existence" The idea of faith in the
connection between virtuous living and happiness seems to be an
important motivator for many Christians in making their leap to
a "religious existence". I am interested to know to what extent this
statement applies to different religious philosophies.

Sitaram's response:

Excellent post!

So many Religions have a quid-pro-quo aspect (something for
something). IF you do these good things, and abstain from these bad
things, THEN you will receive and enjoy THESE good things, OTHERWISE,
you will be deprived of good things and suffer these BAD things.

In Christianity, we see that the soul has a beginning in time: Psalm
139:6 "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in
thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were
fashioned, when as yet there was none of them" and Hebrews 9:27 "And
it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
So he soul is immortal, but not eternal, for it has a beginning in
time. And based on the Judgment, the soul is either contemned to
everlasting death (the worm that does not die, the wailing, the
gnashing of teeth), or it is rewarded with everlasting life ; Isaiah
64:4 "For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor
perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee,
what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him." And 1
Corinthians 2:9 "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which
God hath prepared for them that love him."

In Hinduism, we read in the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna telling
Arjuna, "There was never a time when you were not or when I was not.
You do not remember your births but I remember all my re-births and
incarnations." So, in Hinduism, the soul (jiva, atman) has NO
BEGINNING in time, It is a spark from the great Light of Brahman. The
soul is truly ETERNAL as opposed to the simple IMMORTALITY of
Christianity. But, it seems to me that Hinduism goes beyond the QUID-
PRO-QUO mentality. Lord Krishna says in the Gita that He receives all
worship, offerings and prayers, even from those ignorant of His
true nature. And on the walls of the ancient Temple of Sri
Vinkanteshera in Tirupati there is an inscription which says "All
offerings everyware, come to Me." In fact, else where in the Gita,
Lord Krsna says "Out of THOUSANDS , hardly ONE seeks me, and out of
THOUSANDS WHO DO seek Me, hardly ONE comprehends my true nature. So
we see here a concept of God who does not expect all mankind to know
Him or understand Him or to have correct doctrinal belief concerning
Him. How different this picture of God is from the Old
Testament verses in which God says "My name is Jealous", Exodus
34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name
is Jealous, is a jealous God."

Our modern physics understands matter as primordial atoms, made of
even more primordial sub-atomic particles, whose origin in time is
perhaps the first moment of the Big Bang, but otherwise unknown. And
these atoms and sub-atomic particles are RECYCLED in a sort of
TRANSMIGRATION, as nebulous gas clouds congeal to form suns, and suns
cast out streams which become planets, and planets give off material
to become moons, and the atoms which yesterday were in an apple tree,
are today a part of my bloodstream, and tomorrow will be in
a mosquitoes wing. Also, in modern physics, we see great laws of
preservation or conservation of matter and energy in the various aws
of thermodynamics and in Einstein's equations. And yet, for Jewish,
Christian and Islamic theologies, each soul is created once, and
never recycled.

I once heard an Islamic theologian say that, since God (Allah)
desired to create the world, He must of necessity create it as OTHER
than Himself, and since He is PERFECT, therefore, of necessity, the
world that He creates must be OTHER, and therefore IMPERFECT. This
NECESSITY which God is under must be POWERFUL INDEED, if it can
constrain God's actions!

I read another theologian elsewhere (I cant remember where) saying
that since God had nothing but Himself, He created the world OUT OF
HIMSELF. Now this notion sounds more Hindu. Consciousness IN ANYFORM,
whether a humans, a dogs, or a mosquito's is a spark from that
CONSCIOUSNESS which is Brahman.

In Isaiah 55:7,8 we read "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the
unrighteous man his THOUGHTS: and let him return unto the LORD, and
he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly
pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways
my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than
your thoughts." In this passage, we see God having THOUGHTS
(i.e. CONSCIOUSNESS), albeit not at the same level or quality as
HUMAN THOUGHTS (CONSCIOUSNESS), but THOUGHTS nonetheless.

Jesus mentions that a sparrow, which is sold for a few cents, cannot
fall from the sky, but the Heavenly Father knows. Most westerners
envision God somewhere in Heaven with his Supernatural TELESCOPE
watching that sparrow fall from heaven. But from the point of view of
the Svetasvatara Upanisad (which describes each being as a tree with
two birds, one the individual doer, and the other the Paramatman
beholder, God), God does not see the sparrow fall from His Heavenly
Telescope, from some distant vantage point, BUT FROM INSIDE THE
SPARROW, as the INDWELLING Paramatman. Western theologies (and I
consider Islam western, despite the geography of Mecca) consider the
material universe as something which God creates as separate from
Himself. He winds it up and sets it running, like the Energizer
Bunny of Duracel Battery Fame. God gives the material universe a set
of immutable laws, and gives creatures free-will, and then stands
back to see what happens, intervening only occasionally to suspend
those physical laws in the form of a miracle. Some western theologies
even posit that God intentionally limits himself and gives up some of
His Omniscience and Omnipotence, and sacrifices His Divine
Foreknowledge of all future events, in order to make this Energizer
Bunny Universe of ours work properly. And, of course, there is ONLY
ONE UNIVERSE, which, in parallel with the western concept of the
Soul, was created at a point in time, but which IS NOT IMMORTAL. At
some point, as we read in Isaiah 34:4 an Revelation g:14 "And all the
host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled
together as a scroll: as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a
falling fig from the fig tree……. And the heaven departed as a
scroll
when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved
out of their places." Hence, in the Western view, the TIME-SPACE
continuum ceases, much like Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of
Time". And at the End of Time, at the End of Space, we read in the
Book of Revelation 7:15-17 "Therefore are they before the throne of
God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth
on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more,
neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any
heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed
them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God
shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." TIME-SPACE ceases, and it
is GOD who becomes their LIGHT, their FOOD, their RAYMENT, their
SHELTER. And is not this concept in Revelation, of God being the
space, light, food and raiment, IS NOT THIS CONCEPT STRANGELY
PANTHEISTIC (namely that God IS all things). One of the words in the
Torah for God is MAKOM, which means PLACE or SPACE. Hence, the
Talmudic saying, "God is the PLACE of the Universe. God is not IN the
Universe." In face the Jewish Mystical Kaballah has a notion of Tsim
Tsum (or Zim Zum, which means CONTRACTION or WITHDRAWEL). God is such
a FULLNESS, COMPLETENESS, PERFECTION, that He must CONTRACT AND
WITHDRAW, to make a PLACE (Makom) for the Universe. Strangely, for
western minds, the physical, material universe is somehow dirty and
defiling, and it is blasphemous to suggest that God IS the Universe,
or that the Universe is somehow MADE out of Godstuff. And yet these
theologies insist that God is "everywhere present and fillest all
things" (as in the ancient Greek prayer 'O Pantaxou paron kai ta
Panta pleiron').

Modern Physics and our friend Stephen Hawkings postulates that there
are BLACK HOLES, perhaps COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF BLACK HOLES scattered
throughout our universe. Some physicists postulate that our very
Universe itself is INSIDE a black hole. The notion is that inside
each black hole is ANOTHER BIG BANG, another expanding TIME-SPACE
Continuum, a Reimann-Space, finite but unbounded. Now Hinduism sees
Creation, Preservation, and Destruction as a continuous cycle. This
Black Hole notion extends such a notion to a MULTITUDE OF UNIVERSES
(Big Bangs) all nicely tucked one inside the other, like N-
Dimensional Russian Dolls (where each doll has a smaller doll
inside). And each "Universe" might be at a different stage of
development, each with its Avatars, its Lord Rams battling Ravanna,
its Lord Krishnas playing their flutes, its Buddhas awakening and its
Christs resurrecting.

Getting back to our QUID PRO QUO observation about western
theologies, we may contrast with a story from the Mahabharat (I would
love to know the chapter and verse if someone has it please email).
There is a King and Queen who are driven into exile from their
kingdom and are forced to live in a simple hut in sight of the
majestic Himalaya Mountains. The King is a very religious
person and always performs his prayers and offerings, in good times
and in
bad. One day, the Queen emerges from their impoverished hut and sees
the King ardently engaged in prayer and worship. She asks him, "Why
do you continue to worship God so ardently, seeing that we have been
deprived of all our riches, and live in such poverty?" The King
points to the majestic Himalaya Mountains in the distance and
says, "See how grand, majestic and beautiful the Himalayas are! Do
those mountains bear some guilt for our misfortunes? Should
I cease to gaze upon them and admire them and praise them, and spite
my eyes and my senses to behold them no more, simply because of my
misfortune?"

Only a very few actual writings and prayers have come down to us from
Lord Chaitanya , the sixteenth century Vaishnav saint. One of those
prayers basically says, "O Lord, I do not ask for money, or
pleasures, or even liberation from the cycle of birth and death, but
only to serve at Your Lotus Feet life after life, even if your foot
should crush me." We see that when Lord Ram shot the wicked Balin,
who had usurped his brothers throne, Lord Ram had compassion upon him
and offered to heal his wound. But Balin replied, "How many lifetimes
might come and go without receiving the honor to die at
the hand of the Lords' Avatar." So Balin was seeking Union and
Moksha, rather that further life and enjoyments.

Christianity has a curious habit of asking other people for their
prayers. "Pray for me because I am sick. Pray for my parents. Pray
for my son and daughter. Pray for that nation torn by war, plague and
famine." Epictetus made an interesting observation in his Discourses.
He wrote, "Why do you pray to Jupiter for the safety of your son
before he embarks upon a long journey.
Why not ask Jupiter for the Equanimity of an Even-Keeled Spirit, to
endure whatever good or bad fortune might result." Lord Krishnas,
similarly, says to Arjuna, "It is necessary that Joys and Sorrows
should enter each persons life, but he who endures them with
Equanimity and a balanced spirit is the True Yogin and master of the
Self." The Western, quid pro quo notion of prayer is to ask for
something. The Hindu notion is that each good and ill that we suffer
is our very own doing; a karmic consequence of some thought or
action from this life or a previous life. And furthermore, each good
and ill that we suffer is for our benefit. King Solomon basically
said (if I may paraphrase his writings) : "Every son whom the Lord
loves he chastens every one whom He receives, and places their souls
in the fire of adversity, until they reach a seven-fold purity like
gold in the furnace." There is a sort of impertinence in the notion
of asking God to alter our circumstances, if they are for our own
benefit and instruction. Such supplicatory prayer is almost a
lack of faith in Divine Wisdom, Mercy and Providence and a sort of
insult to God. And the insult is compounded when we do not even offer
such prayers ourselves but ask others to do it for us. If we had an
important favor to ask of a King, and we sent a relative, to ask on
our behalf, what would that King thing. It is for a busy King to
dispatch a messenger to us, and we are honored by such a visit but it
is our place to petition in person, if we are to even petition at
all.

The early Greek theologians told a parable about the three types of
devotion of believers; the Slave, the Hired Hand, and the true-born
Son. The Slave acts out of fear of punishment. The Hired Hand acts
from hope of reward. The true-born Son acts neither from fear of
punishment nor from hope of reward but from selfless love of the
Father. I am somehow reminded at this moment, as I write these words,
of Chaitanya's words concerning "the Lord's CAUSELESS MERCY", and
that verse in the Gita where Lord Krishna says (paraphrasing),
"What my Devotee has achieved, I preserve from birth to birth, and
what my Devotee lacks, I supplement and provide through Grace." In
the oddest sort of way, we see that God does not create the physical
Universe, or sentient beings as His goal. What God CREATES or RE-
CREATES, IS GOD. Even an Greek Bishop of the first centuries
said, "God became man so that Man might become
God."

Atheists and Agnostics might speak about man creating God.
Theologians might speak about God creating the Universe and mankind.
But there is in Hinduism, I suspect, some talk of God CREATING GOD
through the perfection of all beings in His Divine Lila or Pass-
Times.

(reply from Sidhartha):

Sitaram,

I read through your post. Interesting. I am reminded of an answer I
received for my question regarding creation.

This individual pointed me to a fractal video (those cool iterative
pictures). He told me look at it, that is Brahman he said, and then
he set the fractal into motion, and the movie went into one of the
fractals aspects, and he said, that is you, and the movie kept
zooming into the aspect and then after a few zooms, the original
fractal came at me again.

I thought this to be a nice analogy of Brahman. The Supreme without a
beginning in time nor an end. So the person suggested that the
question regarding creation is trivial, because one cannot put a
finger on where it all began.

What Hinduism IS; and what it ISNT
Sat Feb 12 09:30:46 2000


Gita speaks of three paths, Jnana, Karma, and Bhakti.... (Knowledge,
Works, Devotion)

Sri Vallabhacharya founded his grihastha lineage as Pusti Marga, path
of Grace.... there are many many paths ranging from the pure Monistic
Adwaita side of the spectrum, represented by Shankarachariya, through
the Vasisthdwaita of Ramanuja, to the pure Dualism of Chaitanya. Then
you have more recent phenomena like Sri Ramakrishna/Vivekananda ,
Meher Baba, Satya Sai Baba....Shirdi Sai Baba, etc. Who is to say
that any of them are not Hindu?

Lord Krishna states in the Gita that He accepts all worship, even
from those totally IGNORANT of His nature (even those evil devils,
the Muslims?) ... so Gita does not seem to be to picky about
dogmatic, doctrinal or liturgical differences...

It is interesting to note that in Vedas... there is, to the best of my
knowledge, no word for the religion or name for it... and no mention
of any HERETICS or false teachings or groups in opposition to the
Vedas....

one simply worshipped.....

by the time we reach 600 C.E., Muhammad is explicitly telling Arabs
in the Koran that "God" (in my estimation, this is actually the
demon, Allah, who disguises himself as God) has NAMED the religion
Islam, and specifically decreed it for all the Arab peoples, as
oppossed to "all those other FALSE religions"....

====== (the above written in response to the posts below)

Reading my Guru's books I get the feeling that Ananda Marga is not a
Hindu religion. But what do Hindus think ? Do they consider the
Ananda Marga a part of Hinduism ? On the BBC-news the Ananda Marga
monks were recently called "Hindu missionaries". Would anyone who
considers himself/herself a Hindu like
to comment?

The last verse 10 (below) "Infinity's Holy Feet" reminds me that one
reader inquired several weeks ago concerning the significance or
symbolism of "The Feet of Lord Vishnu"....

I had promised to make some comments and speculation concerning this
topic of "The Feet of The Lord"

One finds the concept of "The Lord's Feet"  in the Scriptures of many
religions.

The Pslams mention "God's foot-stool"....

Moses took the 70 elders up Mt. Sinai to "see the Lord".... and it
describes how they behold the Lord's Majesty and Enthronement, but
their principle attention is to gaze into the blue, translucent
sapphire expanse at the base of the throne....

When we think of "feet", we think of "foundation"....

the word "Understand" suggests both that which is the "base", upon
which the feet stand....

The tilak mark of Vaishnavs is a V shaped mark, which is supposed to
symbolize the "footprint" of the Lord's Avatar or Incarnation,
proving that God has "walked the earth".......

Moses Maimonides (Rambam), famous Jewish Rabbinical
philosopher/theologian, stresses in "Guide for the Purplexed" around
chapter 50, that the Omnipotence and Omnipresence of God so transends
human speech and thought, that the only proper worship is silent
meditation, or as the Psalms say "Be still and know
that I am God"...

Shankaracharya wrote a Bhajan (hymn) which begins "Oh Thou, from whom
all words recoil", also echoing the thought that God eludes speech....

Ekanath Easwaren relates a charming story about the death of his own
mother, who was a great spiritual guide to him in his childhood.  Her
last words were "I have caught Lord Ram by the Feet".

So,..... in summation,  the Feet of the Lord (and His "footprints")
are a testimony that God enters the world and is present, both as
Avatar or Incarnation, and in many other ways.....   and also that,
whatever is accessible to mankind concerning the Divinity is only the
meerest beginnnings, foundation, cornerstone.....  and yet that which
is a base or basis,  although at bottom, is of high importance in
that it supports everything else.....

As God said to Moses,.... "I shall pass by you, but cover you with my
hand, so that you shall not see My Face, but shall only see me as I
depart....."

and of course, when Christ ascended into heaven, the last glimpse
which the Apostles had was "The Feet of the Lord".....

But, were it possible for humanity to behold the "Godhead" or Face of
God, we would be undone in our Individuality and person-hood, as we
would merge into the Godhead, as a drop enters into the Ocean, (and
at the same time, the Ocean enters into the drop).....

I hope these few thoughts and speculations have helped satisfy some
of the questions of those who meditate upon "The Feet of the Lord"

==========
found posted at www.sulekha.com   philosophy section

You may write to gurudeva-kural@... for direct posting of
Kural in your mailbox in installments (two to four or five verses a
day) or come here to the CH on Monday, Wednesday and Friday for a
full course of ten verses at a time, the length of each topic.
__________________
Known for his keen intellect, Thiru (Mr.) Valluvar lived in the 2nd
century BC in what in modern times is Madras (Chennai). His marriage
to Vasuki was considered legendary. They had no children. He was a
weaver by profession.

Valluvar's highly revered work Kural has 1330 couplets on 133 topics
that deal with everyday life and life's everyday moral challenges.

His work also provides a window into the life around 2nd Century BC
in that part of India, the issues that were relevant and also the
cross section of people who lived back then. In many ways Valluvar
was also a chronicler of his times and surroundings.

Many of Valluvar's verses were meant for rulers. But they can be
applied by others too in certain situations.

Those who find Valluvar's work inspiring, much power to you. Enjoy!
Those who haven't begun to fully appreciate it yet it's my hope that
eventually you will. Often translations are a far cry to the original
yet they serve a certain purpose.

All Best.

Ro.


In Praise of God

Verse 1

"A" is the first and source of all the letters. Even so is
God Primordial the first and source of all the world.

Verse 2

What has learning profited a man [or woman], if it has not led him
To worship the Good Feet of Him who is pure knowledge itself?

Verse 3

The Supreme dwells within the lotus of the heart. Those who reach
His/Her Splendid Feet dwell endearingly within unearthly realms.

Verse 4

Draw near the Feet of Him/Her who is free of desire and aversion.
And live forever free of suffering.

Verse 5

Good and bad, delusion's dual deeds, do not cling to
Those who delight in praising the immutable, worshipful One.

Verse 6

A long and joyous life rewards those who remain firmly
On the faultless path of Him/Her who controls the five senses.

Verse 7

They alone dispel the mind's distress
Who take refuge at the Feet of the Incomparable One.

Verse 8

They alone can cross life's other oceans who take refuge
At the Feet of the Gracious One, Himself/Herself an ocean of virtue.

Verse 9

The head which cannot bow before the Feet of the Possessor
Of eight infinite powers is like the senses lacking the power to
perceive.

Verse 10

The boundless ocean of births can be crossed,
But not without intimate union with Infinity's Holy Feet.

Why do Muslims persecute other religions?

Because they can't bear to face up to their own problems.

In the Western World we take it for granted that there is an open
forum for debate and discussion of religious issues, and anyone is
free to follow whatever religion they choose. We also take for
granted that we are free to evangelise others, provided we do it
peacefully, and people can change from one religion to another.

Not so in the Muslim World, where the followers of all other
religions, including Jews, Christians and Bahais are reduced
to "dhimmi" status, so that they are second-class citizens and do not
have equal rights with Muslims. While dhimmi status is applied to all
non-Muslims, including those who were brought up as non-Muslims,
those who are converts from Islam are treated much more severely,
often with threats to their lives.

Islam tolerates other religions only in countries where Muslims are a
minority. As soon as Islam becomes the majority religion, all other
religions are persecuted. For a discussion of the persecution of
Christians, including details of specific incidents, see Project Open
Book. Why is Islam so intolerant, and why do they so relentlessly
persecute those who have converted from Islam? The answer is that
Islam, unlike other religions, does not allow open debate. Muslims
are not allowed to question Islam.

They are just expected to accept it and anyone who has doubts about
Islam is considered to be an Apostate. Converts from Islam are
persecuted, not because of what they have been converted to, but
because of what they have been converted from. They are dragged
before the Sharia courts and charged with "Apostasy from Islam".

Why does Islam so relentlessly stifle open discussion and debate? The
only possible answer is that they have got something to hide, and
they are afraid that if it became known, the whole system would fall
apart. What Are They Hiding?

In the days of Muhammed, there used to be 360 gods at the Kaaba in
Mecca, including "Allah" who was the god of the Kuraish tribe to
which Muhammed belonged. Muhammed abolished all the other gods and
declared that only Allah was to be worshipped. This, so far, is
common knowledge among Muslims but is rarely a topic for open debate.

What is not so well known, is that Allah has a long pre-history that
goes back to ancient Babylon and Sumer, as far back as 2300 BC and
maybe even further. Allah is identified by a variety of names such as
Alala, Allallu, Ilani, Ilah and Enlil, which are all derivatives of
LIL. Historians are agreed that this was one god among a pantheon of
other gods, and was sometimes worshipped as a "high god". However
there is disagreement about the precise nature of the pre-Islamic
Allah. Some believe it was a moon god. Others believe it was a male
sun god that went around with three goddesses.

There was moon goddess called Allat and a stellar goddess called Al-
Uzza who was Venus, giving the origin of the crescent moon and star
of Islam. The third was a goddess of fate and destiny called Manat.
Islam has been ostensibly monotheistic since the days when Muhammed
and his followers successfully disposed of the other gods, although
the roots of Islam are, at best, henotheistic, which means belief in
one god without asserting that he is the only god. If it is true that
the crescent moon and star represent Allat and Al-Uzza, then Islam
today is still honouring these goddesses and is henotheistic rather
than monotheistic.

For a detailed discussion of the things you were never allowed to
know, see the following: Balaam's Ass Publishing - Al Hajj Ya Allah.
The pilgrimage of Allah from Sumer to Mecca. Chick Publications.
Information on Islam Research and Education Foundation - Truth
Seekers page on Islam.

The Satanic Verses

When an Arab tells a story he starts off with "Kan ma kan, fi qadim
azzaman" which means "It was so, it was not so, in a time long ago".
Salman Rusdie gives a more liberalised translation "It was so, it was
not, in a time long forgot".

The story is like this: Muhammed went up to the mountain to speak
with the angel Gabriel and was given the following verses which
became part of Sura 53. 19. Have you then considered the Lat and the
Uzza, 20. And Manat, the third, the last?

These are the exalted females whose intercession is to be desired.
The last sentence, about the "exalted females", caused him some
trouble. His struggle against the idols of Mecca had been
compromised, so he went back to the mountain to talk to the angel
Gabriel and get the text clarified. He came to the conclusion that he
had received the offending text, not from Gabriel himself, but from
Satan impersonating Gabriel.

He cut it out of the Quran, and continued the Sura so that the
complete passage up to verse 27 is as follows: 19. Have you then
considered the Lat and the Uzza, 20. And Manat, the third, the last?
21. What! for you the males and for Him the females! 22. This indeed
is an unjust division! 23. They are naught but names which you have
named, you and your fathers; Allah has not sent for them any
authority.

They follow naught but conjecture and the low desires which (their)
souls incline to; and certainly the guidance has come to them from
their Lord. 24. Or shall man have what he wishes? 25. Nay! for Allah
is the hereafter and the former (life). 26. And how many an angel is
there in the heavens whose intercession does not avail at all except
after Allah has given permission to whom He pleases and chooses. 27.
Most surely they who do not believe in the hereafter name the angels
with female names.

Muhammed appears to have denounced these idols outright with the
phrase "They are naught but names", but then he offered them the
status of angels. Verses 21 and 27 give the real reason why he didn't
want these goddesses. It wasn't because they were idols, but because
they were female. He considered it unfair that Allah only had
daughters while humans can have sons. It seems like a half-hearted
way of denouncing idols, (considering that Allah also had
the Black Stone at the Kaaba) but this is apparently what Muhammed
did.

That's the end of the story, which was so, or was not so, but the
sequel is that thirteen centuries later the Ayatollah Khomeini,
spiritual leader of Iran, issued a death threat against the British
author, Salman Rushdie, just for telling it in his book called the
Satanic Verses. Rushdie went into hiding, under police protection,
and has been there since 1989. When the storm broke, thousands of
people who would not otherwise have heard of the Satanic Verses, went
out and bought the book to see what all the fuss was about. Although
it was a satirical novel, the continuing enforced seclusion
of it's author means that people began to take it seriously, and some
have even written commentaries on it.

Muhammed was the prophet of Islam during the 7th century, from 610 AD
until his death in 632 AD. A number of Islamic historians, from the
8th to the 10th centuries, attempted to deny that the story of
Muhammed and his offending verses ever occurred. One of these was
Tabari who, according to Rushdie, invented the term "Satanic Verses".
The volume of denials is in itself a give-away, because it means
there must have been something to deny. Clearly some Muslims at the
time believed it was true, but nobody today can prove it one way or
the other. There is a passage in the Quran that suggests a verse
might have been given by Satan and then withdrawn by Allah. Sura
22:52 says: And We did not send before you any apostle or prophet,
but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his
desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does
Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise,... It
doesn't matter that this was in a different part of the Quran,
because the Quran was not assembled in any particular order. It was
written on leaves, animal skins and pieces of wood, and then
apparently thrown together at random. For a detailed discussion of the
historicity of the story of Muhammed and his offending text, see
Satanic Verses.

The Quran itself is available at the Wiretap Gopher Site. See also:
Islam and Peace. Muslims are trying to change the image of Islam by
suggesting that the word Islam means "Peace", on the grounds that it
can be identified with Salaam, the traditional Arabic greeting. While
they might get away with this in the Western World they would not
fool anyone who speaks Arabic. Although Islam and Salaam come from
the same root, they are entirely different. Islam means "Submission"
and Salaam means "Peace". Muhammed used to sign off his letters with
Aslem, Taslam! which means "Surrender and you will be safe", or
in other words, "Surrender or die".

Religions and Mathematics

Let me focus on this interesting statement you made and say a few
things:

I personally dont believe in many of the beliefs in Upanishads, or in
Bhagvat-Geeta, but I respect them all the same just as I respect
Newton and acknowledge his contributions to Science though I dont
take all his equations to be true.

Now, we all know that Newtonian mechanics works just fine to measure
the trajectory of cannon balls, and even the motions of the planets
(within an acceptable degree of accuracy). But it does not word for
intergalactic phenomena or subatomic phenomena.

Same is true with Euclidean geometry. Gausse measured the triangle
formed by three mountain peaks and, within the limits of instrumental
accuracy, could not determine whether the interior triangles were
EXACTLY the sum of two right angles (180 degrees), or whether they
EXCEEDED 180 (as hyperbolic geometry dictates) or FELL SHORT (as
elliptical geometry predicts).

And yet Euclidean geometry, fine for fields, and mountain peaks and
architecture, is not suitable for intergalactic or subatomic space.
One must look to a Reimannian model of "finite but unbounded", or
some other non-Euclidean model.

The mathematical constant PI , taken to ten decimal places, is
adequate to measure the circumference of the perceptible universe to
within the accuracy of one foot. Need more accuracy? Take more
decimal places! Take all you like! PI is an INFINITE irrational
sequence of non repeating numbers. You may approach AS CLOSE AS YOU
LIKE (but you can NEVER be precise and exact). This is the nature of
incommensurability between the finite and the infinite; between the
material and the spiritual.

Religions are not much different. What does Lord Krsna say in the
Gita. Some people say "Vasudeva is all". Others worship various demi-
Gods. Yet others worship demon and rakshasa Gods. Others worship
ghosts. Krsna says that ALL WORSHIP comes to Him, even from people
who are totally ignorant of His nature.

And whatever we worship, the Gita says thats where we go. We get what
we want. If we worship the demiGods, we go to them. If we worship
Jesus or Allah, we go to Jesus or Allah.

My point is, within the CONTEXT of a devotee's nature, based on the
gunas and karma of past lives, their particular religion IS ACCURATE
ENOUGH for that context. Just like Euclid and Newton are fine in the
context of cannon ball trajectories. Lord Krsna ALSO mentions those
individuals who, because of their particular nature, turn everything
about and call DHARMA as adharma, and make adharma into Dharma.

So what this all boils down to is simply that, "Truth is relative and
in context". Truth is a particular truth in the context of a given
axiomatic system (where certain things are assumed on FAITH. For if
EVERYTHING were to be proved and derived, it would be an INFINITE
REGRESSION).

So a Euclidean geometer TAKES ON FAITH the Axioms "a point is that
which has no part" and "a line is a breadthless length".

Axios in Greek means "worthy" (worthy of being accepted
unquestioningly as something apriori and obvious).

When a Greek Bishop ordains a new priest, the congregation shouts
three times "Axios! Axios! Axios!" (worthy of being accepted without
question).

If we cannot find absolute truth even in MATHEMATICS or Physics, but
realize that everything is realtive to separate, mutually exclusive
axiomatic systems, then why should we assume that there is one true
religion and that all the rest are false, since there is a close
analogy between religious systems of beliefs and mathematical
axiomatic systems.


=============

: Sankar

: hi. thanks for your thought-provoking reply.

: : I think Hinduism deserves to be called a religion. As you said,
it is exploratory rather than revelatory. However, it has all the
trappings of religion (rituals, places of worship, gods, priests).
The concept of "bhakti" exists within Hinduism as within other
religions. Even great Hindu philosophers and intellectuals have been
devotees of some god or the other (although they made it clear that
such devotion is not inconsistent with their philosophies). In this
sense, it certainly is a religion like any other. Indeed, I think
the "institutionalized religion" aspect of Hinduism is necessary for
its very survival. That is why, in a previous post, I also
raised the question of "trivialization" of Hindu practices (the
corruption of the caste system, observance of trivial customs while
ignoring the important ones) and the claims of being "orthodox
Hindus" by unqualified persons.

: I think our difference is based on the different definitions
of 'religion' and 'hinduism' we seem to follow. Of course hinduism
includes many different streams of religion-like things, I dont think
it is a single 'religion', because though there are rituals, places
of worship etc., you are not forced to follow any of them in order to
be a hindu, as there is no structure that defines hinduism per se. It
is more like a superset of a lot of strongly interacting religious
streams, but again that is not a right definition. It may be defined
as a 'super-religion' different in internal and external
manifestations from the semitic 'religions'. By the way I have the
semitic
religions in mind when I define a 'religion'.

: I wholeheartedly agree that some sort of institutionalization may be
neccessary for hinduism to survive in these times of arrogant
aggressive
evangelisation, but lets not lose the awe-inspiring beauty of our
philosophy.

:
It is true that Hinduism lays stress on logical reasoning and this
sets it far apart from Middle eastern religions. However, in the
final analysis, its beliefs (as set down in the Upanishads, the most
fundamental philosophical works) are as non-verifiable as any other
religious belief. So, in my opinion, the definition of Hinduism as a
religion is quite valid.

Once more, you talk about 'panths'. I dont know of any well defined
and universally accepted set of beliefs in Hinduism that can not be
questioned. Even vedas could be, and have been throughout our
history. I personally dont believe in many of the beliefs in
Upanishads, or in Bhagvat-Geeta, but I respect them all the same just
as I respect Newton and acknowledge his contributions to Science
though I dont take all his equations to be true.

In my opinion, defining hinduism as a 'religion' is a big demotion for
something much greater.

:
: : Maybe someday, some learned Hindu will incorporate quantum
mechanics into Hindu philosophy in a non-trivial way - why not ?

: That should not be too difficult! As long as they dont try to take
over each-other's territory. We will have another pseudo-science on
our hand then.
:-)
====================

Aha, but are you free to have Islam without the Qur'an? Or Islam
without the "prophet" Muhammad?

Are you free to be Muslim and drink wine?

It is amusing to see all the imagery of wine in the Rubaiyyat of Omar
Khayam, which also contains the seeds of Sufi movement.

Historically in Hinduism, we have seen both men and women become
spiritual leaders considered as Avatars by their devotees. Can
Muslims also become charismat avataric spiritual leaders with large
numbers of followers?

Shirdi Sai Baba lived in an old, abandoned Masjid. Was Shirdi Sai
Baba a Muslim?

One Sufi Martyr exclaimed "I am Allah" which is a very Vedantic
sentiment; but the Orthodox Muslims executed him for blasphemy.

My point is, ONE IS FORCED to confess or accept Muhammad as the seal
of the prophets, and accept all sorts of beliefs that make the
personality of "prophet" Muhammad as the finest and noblest example
of humanity which ever walked the earth.

If one DOES NOT accept these beliefs about the person of Muhammad,
then one is really not a genuine Muslim.

You say that every Muslim relates to god, Allah, DIRECTLY. How can
this be. Not even "prophet" Muhammad got to speak to Allah directly!
Everything was through the Angel Gabreel. Muhammad never heard or saw
Allah (even though the Qur'an mentions that Allah somehow has hands
and feet, and sits upon a throne). And yet the "Sayings of Muhammad"
preserved in Hadith state that the devil is present at every call to
prayer, and performs certain distracting irreverant acts, and then
proceeds to whisper DIRECTLY into the ear of each and every
worshipper.

Does noone find it odd that the Devil has such a direct line of
communication with each and every human being, whereas Allah could
not even talk to Muhammad, but used Gabreel as an intermediary.

The Qur'an is constantly saying "Ascribe no partner to Allah", but
that is EXACTLY what Gabreel seems to be, a partner to Allan. Why,
Allah seems HELPLESS without him!

================

: So is in Islam ,every man relates to god ,Allah directly,there is
no priest or pope intervening.Exploratory nature of hinduism is not
unioque to hinduism but probably all religions thats why you have
saints in christians,sant in hindus & sufis,in moslems.I dont buy
this distinction between hinduism & islam.Islam gives you any space
in the world to worship not a mandir or mosque. What more
availability of god to common man can there be in any other
religion.There is no exclusivity of brahmin with holy book or purohit
to perform puja /.
:
**********************************************************************
**:
This is an excellent distinction, "exploratory as opposed to
revelatory". I have not seen this before, said in this fashion.

: : A religion based solely on the eye witness of one or two figures
from the shadowy mists antiquity leaves more room for doubting than a
religion which invites the devotee to experience divinity first hand
in a subjective fashion.

: : ===============================

: : : Another difference is that Hinduism is an exploratory
philosophy as opposed to a revelatory one. Every person is free to
search for knowledge/God. There are no fixed points in Hindu thought
and God is equally available to anyone who searches. That precludes
the messiahs/prophets in the semitic sense of the term.
===========================================================
What is wrong with "inventing your own religion". Muhammad obviously
invented his own religion, and one billion people in the world think
that its wonderful (and 5 billion people dont think its wonderful).

Why should I be any different that Muhammad?

Why would God be less inclined to speak directly to me, than to
Moses, or Muhammad, or any other human being for that matter?

===============================================================
: iTHINK YOU HAVE INVENTED YOUR OWN RELIGION MR. SITARAM.iHAVE LIVED
ALL MY LIFE AMONG hINDUS & YOU TELL ME THIS MYSTICAL SUFI
PHILOSOPHY ,WHICH IS NOT HINDUISM IN iNDIA. iN iNDIA HINDUISM IS
dURGA pUJA, sARASWATI pUJA, gANESH cHATURVEDI .hOLI. dEEPVAALI.nOW
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU LIKE RELIGION SUPER
PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS(IN iSLAM) DERIVATIONS WHICH ARE NOTHING
BUT CREATION OF YOUR ARGUMENTATATIVE,DEBATING,MIND BUT NOT FACT. iSAW
HINDUISM UP CLOSE & PERSONAL YOU MAY EXPLAIN THAT IF YOU DRINK WINE
YOU SEE GOD OR BE FREE THEN ONLY SEE GOD I THINK THAT IS HIPPIE
ELEMENT IN YOU REMNENT OF YOUR DAYS IN 60 S /

Ive been meaning for a while to create a webpage at my site called:
"Meta and Metta"

Meta is Greek for "beyond" or "after", and "Metta" is Sanskrit/Pali
for "loving compassion" (im guessing).

Kurt Godel's work in the 1920's was a form of "metamathematics"

The statement "2 + 2 = 4" is a mathematical statement.
The statement "2 + 2 = 4 IS TRUE" (makeing an assertion) is a
METAMATHEMATICAL STATEMENT.

Godel assigns "Godel numbers" to all the different types of assertions
possible in proving a theorem, so that he can reduce the "motion of
thought" in the theorem (so to speak) to a unique sequence of Godel
numbers.  He then proves that every true theorem in any given
axiomatic system (e.g. euclidean geometry) may be represented by a
unique sequence of Godel numbers. He the proves THE CONVERSE; that
any sequence of Godel numbers MUST represent some true theorem in
some axiomatic system (perhaps yet to be discovered).

George Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel stepped back, took a look at
the "motion of thought" in the history of philosophy, and created
a "philosophy of philosophies", or "meta-philosophy" which concerns
itself with the constant dialectal motion of the philosophic process
from Thesis, to Antithesis, to the Synthesis of the two opposing
systems, only to become a NEW THESIS, to being they cycle again.

It is meaningful to speak of a "meta-religion" which stands back and
looks at the pattern or "motion of thought" in all religions.  I
think it is accurate to say that the socalled New Age spiritualies
that are evolving are in some sense a "metareligion".

This "meta" business all started with Aristotle, who wrote an
initially untitles work which publishers (or scribes) always placed
AFTER (Meta) the "Physics", so over the centuries the subject matter
of that work came to be known as "metaphysics".

As for "metta" or "loving compassion", it is said that once an enemy
of the Buddha set a herd of raging elephants to attack him. The
Buddha merely radiated METTA, and the elephants ceased their rage and
became rather friendly.

Meta-religion, Meta-Mathematics, and Meta-Philosophy (thought there
is no etymological relationship between the words META AND
METTA), .... such meta-systems ironically make possible a lot of
METTA in the process, in that the bring to a halt that raging heard
of maddened elephants who are always dialectically battling one
another to gain supremacy.  Any "metasystem" has as its name to
establish a sort of peace or "shanti", within some hitherto
perennially tumultuous and discordant dialectiacal process.

===================

ps2:  Another question:  By calling God 'filler material' or Mozart 'a
child prodigy' have we explained anything?  We have only recast and
shuffled our vocabulary.  I think we have not explained anything.
Don't know how many will agree with me here..


: Discussion on topics such as God is so tempting, yet so futile.
What do you think of that ? :-).

This is a meta discussion now -- discussing discussing God. :-)

Religion in Daily Life

Excellent thread. Excellent question.

Important qualities which any genuine religion should help us to
actualize in our daily lives are those qualities which conditioned
Mohandas Gandhi to utter "Ram Ram" as his final words, and which
conditioned Pope John Paul to bless his Muslim assassin. Gandhi and
John Paul performed these acts the moment they were shot, as a
reflex, a deeply engrained second-nature.

But we only know if we have been truly successful in acquiring such
qualities at the moment of near death, or severe crisis or loss.

===========================================

Have been reading this section as time permits.  I do find much of
the info interesting in an acadmeic sort of way. I mean this vis a
vis the posts that  deal with the various schools of Hindu/ Buddhist
philosophy. Here is a bottom line question: How does all this apply
in your personal life? I don't mean that in a rhetorical way, but
rather in the sense of really wanting to know. Seems to me if the
stuff is all abstract, beyond mental gymnastics, it has little value
in day to day life.

The practical actionable essence is primarily the following:

-- process-orientation whereby the focus is on the present task at
hand

-- slow and gradual attainment of freedom from mental disturbances
and temptations

These are the two that I think are most useful imports of Eastern
mysticism...but remarkably tough to practise.

From a very small, pocket size book:

"Sufism - The Alchemy of the Heart"
ISBN 0-8118-0410-0
published by Chronicle Books - San Francisco

Page 39:

"The Discouse of the Birds" is a Persian allegorical poem describing
how a group of birds (representing various human types of souls)
embark upon a great pilgramige in search of the "Simurgh", the
mythical bird which represents the Supreme Being. Along the way of
their journey they pass through many valleys, with names such as
Quest, Love, Understanding, Detachment, Unity, Bewilderment and
Extinction.

Upon finding and worshiping and meditating upon the majestic and
beautiful Simurgh, the pilgrim birds achieve their essential and
eternal life and identity by annihilating their individual selves and
identities into Him (the Simurgh).

Annihilation or Extinction in God  (al fana fi LLah) is followed  by
the Diving Give of Eternal Being THROUGH God (al-baqa bi LLah).

Second moral to story:

If you ever need a lawyer,

get a Jewish lawyer.  (smile)

===================

  I am bringing this piece to whomever want to question the posts of
Sitaram. In my view he is well versed with Koran and many religions
better than we are. The below is totally taken from an article which
appeared in THE HINDU,
Saturday, january 4th, 1998.

  I hope this helps.

  ===============================================
  The Voice of reason... and the voice behind it.
  ===============================================

  According to the Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with some other
rabbis about a point of law and, unable to convince them, said "If
the law is as I think it is, then this tree shall let us know."
Immediately, the tree jumped a hundred yards, but the other rabbis
said, "One does not prove anything from a tree." Rabbi Eliezier then
appealed to a brook, which immediately began to flow upstream, but
his colleagues replied "One cannot prove anything from a brook."
Rabbi Eliezier said "If the law is as I think, then the walls of this
house will tell." And the walls began to fall. At that point Rabbi
Joshua reprimanded the walls, "If scholars argue a point of law, what
business have you to fall?" Then the walls stopped midway: to show
the respect for rabbi Joshua, they did not fall further; and in
deference to Rabbi Eliezier, they did not straighten up. Then Rabbi
Eliezier appealed to heaven, and a voice from the above said "What
have you got against Rabbi Eliezier? The law is as he says." The
Rabbi Jirmijua replied "The Torah has been given on Mount Sinai, so
we no longer pay attention to voices; for on Mount Sinai already
thou hast written into the Torah to decide according to the majority."

  Sometime after this dispute, Rabbi Nathan met Elijah the prophet and
asked him what the holy One, blessed be His Name, had done in that
hour. And Elijah replied "God smiled and said: My children have won
against me, my children have won."

  Excerpted from Walter kaufmann's "Critique of Religion of
Philosophy". WK notes in this connection that "No appeal to miracles
is tolerated, and decisions must be based on arguments- but these
arguments must be based on citations and interpretations of an
absolutely authoritative text, and no critical questions about the
text are allowed any more than an appeal to other books or
independent observation."

  The moral of the story? Reason can only carry us so far. For,
without an accepted authority, how are we to choose between
contending reasons.

Is Evil from Satan, Ourselves, or Allah?

4:78
Say: "All things are from Allah."

4:79
Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from Allah;
but whatever evil happens to thee, is from thyself.

4:82
Do they not ponder on the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.

Evil things are without doubt a subset of "all things", and if "all
things are from Allah" then the evil things are from Allah as well,
and and the author of the Qur'an can't pass the guilt on and blame
others as done in verse 79.

It is interesting that Muhammad would contradict himself within two
consecutive verses and then write three verses later that discrepancy
is a sign that it is not from God.

But this topic isn't over with just yet.


38:41
Commemorate Our Servant Job, behold he cried out to his Lord:
"Satan has afflicted me with distress and suffering!"
Now we have a third party joining the contest for responsibility. Is
evil from ourselves? Is it from Satan? Or is it from Allah?

Any two of them contradict each other, but in particular do the first
two (4:79, 38:41) contradict the third (4:78) as Allah claimed all
things as from himself.

In fact, the above passages are only the beginning of the problems
raised in the Qur'an and Hadith on the issue of predestination, free
will, and the responsibility for sin.


========

Interesting point Sitaram!

So what causes the individual to act in an evil manner? It seems we
are all born with a clean slate, so to speak. Perhaps we become
influenced by the modes of nature such as passion and ignorance and
when they override the innate goodness within us, we begin to become
evil.

Interestingly, Bhagavad Gita says that everything emanates from Sri
Krishna who is the cause of all causes. I think this is true if you
consider that all material qualities such as goodness, passion,
ignorance operate under the grand creator, who also provides Maaya to
bewilder us.

What is the purpose of Maya? I think that's a valid question.

So would you agree that we should strive to rise above the various
modes of especially passion and ignorance and thereby overcome the
influence of 'maaya' in order to break free?

I read somewhere that one will not realize God until 'God' grants the
individual that opportunity. Elsewhere I heard that one should seek
out a spiritual path.

To pursue with our own efforts seem more feasible to me. I feel the
individual is capable of determining what he wants to pursue and can
go to great heights if he allows himself...

So in essence, I would not say that God is directly related to
someone's evil doings, although God controls all..

: sushma

=============

Off the top my head, without digging out my Gita and looking up Ch.
and verse numbers...... i will paraphrase a few things from memory..

Lord Krsna tells Arjuna something like.... "Even if you try NOT to do
what is in your nature,.... you will wind up doing it anyway, because
of the gunas, and karma... etc....

"all beings are as if mounted on the wheel of a machine,... revolving
about (in a certan pattern)... with Krsna as the driving force...

"the mere recognition that there is such a thing as Yoga, and that it
is desireable, is the beginning of the spiritual path...

"what my devotee achieves is preserved from birth to birth in no way
lost, and what my devotee lacks I supplement through my grace...

"whatever the form that someone chooses to worship Me (presumably
even those who choose the form of ghosts, demons, rakshasas), I give
them the gift of UNWAVERING devotion and single-mindedness to that
form

and yet, at the end of the Gita, Lord Krsna says: 'Give up ALL FORMS
OF DHARMA and concepts of righteousness and worship only Me.....


perhaps this indicates that desire or covetousness for virtue and
perfection in moral rectitude can in and of itself be idolatrous and
passionate, .....

even the DESIRE for Liberation is, in itself, an impediment to
Liberation.... in the sense that all desire is the source of
suffering and rebirth...

those who build up Puniya (merit), are reborn in heaven, godlike, and
dwell their until that merit is exhausted.....

but wise are those who see action in inaction, and no longer desire
the fruits of action, but offer everthing as an offering
(atmanivedana)

ah the God of all gods, the cause of all causes, the "unmoved mover"
of Aristotle.....

===== anyway, there are some quick reactions off the top of my head

Death Speaks

by Somerset Maugham

There was a merchant in Baghdad who sent his servant to market to buy
provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and
trembling, and said, "Master, just now when I was in the market-
place, I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw
Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening
gesture; now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city
and avoid my fate. I will go to Samara and there Death will not find
me. The merchant lent him the horse and the servant mounted it and he
dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could
gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the market place and
he saw me standing in the crown and he came to me and said,"Why did
you make a threatening gesture to my servant when you saw him this
morning"? "That was not a threatening gesture", I said, it was only a
start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Baghdad, for I had
an appointment with him tonight in Samara."

Idols, Avatars, Dolls, and Ideals

Nice verse (see post below). I greatly admire Lord Ram.

We often hear someone saying that so-and-so is "an idol of stage
screen and television", meaning some famous media personality.

Great sports figures become idols, as do military and political heros.

Gandhi was often secretly upset by the persistance of the "darshan
seekers" wherever he went.

The making of such "idols" is inherent in human nature, apart from any
religion or ethnic heritage.

It is an etymological coincidence that the word "idol" bears some
similarity both to the word "ideal" and also to "doll" (as in barbie
doll, a childs toy).

Any child of any culture, even an Australian Aboriginie in the remote
bush, will pick up a stick or a stone, treat it as a doll, invest it
with personality, and perhaps even seek to establish a "personal
relationship" (Protestans are always so fond of the term 'personal
relationship with Jesus').

Our human nature is always looking for ideals of perfection, and then
elevating something or someone to that "avataric" ideal (or idol),
who then becomes "the incarnation" of truth, honesty, mercy,
compassion.

Certainly Prophet Muhammad has been elevated to such an "ideal"
status, as the most perfect unique and favored of Allah who ever
lived. Why else would it be essential to Islam to profess a belief
that Muhammad is "the seal of the prophets", why would not  a
profession of the singularity of Allah be sufficient?

Similarly, Jesus, Buddha, Ram, Krishna, Zoroaster, and a host of
others have been promoted to such an avataric status, each in their
own way; some as God become man, others as a man become God-like.

Even a book, like the Bible, or the Adi Granth, can become an idol of
sorts,.... a focal point, a symbol.


Such things are neither good nor bad, they are simply in our nature.


======(above in reply to post below at www.sulekha.com):

You could try this verse next time God appears:

: Lokaabhi raamam ranaranga dheeram
: Raajeev anchtram raghuvamsa naadham
: kaarunya roopam karunaa karamtam
: sri raamachandram sharanam prapadhye

: I surrender at the feet of Sri Ramchandra who delights the world,
valorous in battle, lotus-eyed, lord of the dynasty of the Raghus,
personifies kindness and performs acts of kindness.

: regards,
: sushma

A few months ago, someone suggested that I read Somerset Maugham's
novel "The Razor's Edge" because they felt that the novel's
protagonist was in many ways very similar to me.

Recently, the movie version of "The Razor's Edge" aired on Public
Television.


Of course, I made a special point to watch it, because I had become
very curious as to what it might possibly be about, and whether I
would see myself at all in the character.

The story is about a young man of modest means (from a small
inheritance, $3000 per year, but in the early 1900's that was a
lot.... even in the 1950's families could live on that sum).  He
became engaged to a young woman who associated with a wealthy upper
class, but was not herself wealthy.

His main goal was to travel the world in search of wisdom and knowlege
regarding the fundamental philosophical questions of life.  His young
fiancee wanted him to settle down at a practical career so that they
might become prosperous and enjoy the finer material things of life.

He realizes that they are not suited to each other, so they break off
their engagement.  She marries a man who is more career/investments
oriented, and who also has some considerable wealth.   The man leaves
America to live in Paris, study, contemplate, and have a variety of
adventures with more earthy and 'down to earth' people.

He seems to take jobs as a laborer, or at least socialize with
laborers and longshoremen.  He spends several weeks playing cards
with a flamboyant, rough and tumble man who is rumored to cheat at
the game.

One night, during a card game, the this card-shark tells our hero
that he once went to India to visit a "holy man".  He describes this
holy man as most remarkable because it is not by anything he says or
teaches that he helps people, but merely by his presence.

Of course, this "holy man", who remains unnamed in the movie, was in
real life Ramana Maharshi, whom Somerset Maughm visited for a week.

When our hero asks the cardshark why he was moved to visit India, he
answers that he is always travelling about, trying to escape someone
whom he has wronged.  In every port and city, he constantly expects
at any moment to feel a hand on his shoulder and find that he has
been tracked down and discovered.

Our hero asks the cardshark "Wouldnt it be better to stop running and
face your punishment?"

"Oh, no.", he answers, "it is not punishment I would have to face,
for I could easily face execution or imprisonment.  It is love and
forgiveness which I must face, and which I cannot endure. For, you
see, it is no person whom I have wronged, but it is God. God is the
one who relentlessly pursues me and whom I forever flee. For I am a
de-frocked priest."

Now, getting back to the real life pilgrimage of Somerset Maugham to
Ramana Maharshi:

On Maugham 's first day at the Ashram, he wandered by the room where
Ramana Maharshi was seated with his devotees.  Maugham did not enter
the room, for he was wearing big klunky boots, which he did not feel
like removing (and he would not be allowed in with boots or shoes
on).  So Maugham simply peeked in the room to observe the scene, and
then went up to his room.   Maharshi Ramana was aware of his visitor,
and the next day went to Maugham's room for a private meeting.    As
was Ramana's practice, he simply sat in silence gazing at Maugham.
Maugham became slightly uneasy and nervous after the first minute or
two, and asked "Is there anything that I should be doing now.
Is something supposed to happen?" (an understandable western
apprehension and expectation).    Appearantly, at some point during
the visit, Maugham became quite overcome for some reason and fainted
briefly.  Maugham returned to England, but before leaving, requested
that any books or literature availble from the Ashram be forwarded to
him in England.

Of course the scene in the novel/movie, "The Razor's Edge", depicts
the "holy man", not as Ramana Maharshi looked and acted, but as a
more "western" and verbal holy man with a long flowing beard and a
library of books.

The holy man sends our hero up to a hut in the mountains to meditate
for some weeks, hinting that "sometimes strange things happen when
alone in those mountans", and adding "but what happens depends on
YOU."

Some weeks later, the Holy Man goes to visit him in the mountain hut,
and our hero relates his experience: "at the moment of dawn, when
night turns to day, I experienced a oneness with God."   The holy man
tells him to return to his country and his people, and that this
experience of oneness will remain with him for the rest of his life.


Well I could tell you more about the movie, but this post is
sufficiently long.  I did see an incredible similarity between the
character in the book and myself, although the book's character had
fewer flaws and shortcoming than I have.

I did read an excellent paperback some years ago called something
like "Many Ramayans". In it a scholar delt with the centuries of
traditions surrounding the over 300 different versions of "Ramayan"
written in dozens of different languages.

There was a Jain version which portrayed Ravanna as a noble Jain, a
student of some Jain Tirthankar or holy man, while Ram and his rag-
tag band of
monkeys and bears is portrayed as "the bad guy".

The author mentions that in his most favorite version of all,...
Rama and Sita are arguing about whether or not she should follow him
into exile in the forests.  Sita argues: "How many different versions
of the Ramayan have you ever read, and in which one is it that Sita
does not accompany Ram into exile..."   (so she make her point and
got to go along)....




: Om Namassivaya:

: Is there a good source of Kamban Ramayanam on the internet.

: How is Raman potrayed as, somekind of evil???

: Dasarathan had 16000 wives. Never heard of that.

: Where did you get this info.

Buddha said: "As a net is made up of a series of ties, so everything
in this world is connected by a series  of ties. If anyone thinks
that the mesh of a net is an independent, isolated thing, he is
mistaken. It is called a net because it is made up of a series of
interconnected meshes, and each mesh has its place and
responsibility in relation to other meshes."

Perhaps there are more black holes in the universe than visible
stars, each one smaller than our moon, like little black pearls,
radiant. And beyond the event horizon, inside, ANOTHER BIG BANG
expanding space-time continuum;

BUDDHAS awakening, Christ childs in the manger, young Krisnas playing
their flutes.

Perhaps there are many black holes, each with a big bang universe
inside.

And inside that universe, and other black holes, other  Universes,
all tucked one inside the other; worlds within worlds, universes
within universes.

The Universe of universes is Indra's web; each crossing of the web
has an eye which sees all the other eyes.

: ======================

Liked and agree with the subject 100%. But I would try and rework
this piece a bit more and make it a classic!! Looks like a piece
which flowed on paper...or is it a keyboard...A very good first
draft, but certainly should be worked on.

Shiva

(a poem posted at www.sulekha.com)

Innernet versus internet

As I was speeding down the freeway
In rush hour traffic to go to work that day
I was talking to the person at the wheel
Telling him about the way I feel
He was engrossed in digital thoughts
This was afterall the generation of dotcoms
Where people are preoccupied with the internet site
And surf the world wide web when they have respite

While they forget about the web they weave
And how their family and love they leave
To go after success in ecommerce
And develop some remote resource
The cobwebs of the mind still remain
Even though some obscure field they may redefine
While search engines are at the tip of their finger
Their childrens birthdays they have to search their memory to remember
This makes me ponder
What makes one a winner
Is it knowing the world wide web to a tee
Or is it the way you weave the web of life
To feel unburdened and free.

A physicist writes:

I am posting one of the most intriguing hymns of Rg Veda. The beauty
of this hymn lies in the sophistication of thought, especially for a
physicist like me.

A time is envisioned when the universe was not, just a fluid chaos
('the dark, indistinguishable sea'), and a warm cosmic breath, which
could give an impetus of life. Notice how thought gives rise to
desire (when something is thought of, it can then be desired), and
desire links non-being into being. Yet, the whole process is shrouded
in mystery. Where do gods (or God) fit in this creation scheme?

The Creation (Cosmological) Hymn


Non being was not; neither the being
Atmosphere was not, nor the heavens beyond
What was concealed? Where? In whose protection?
Was it a fluid? An unfathomable abyss?

There was neither death nor immortality then
No distinction of day or night
The One breathed without air, by its own power
Other than that there was nothing else

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning
All this was an indistinguishable sea
That which becomes, that which was enveloped by void
That One was born through the power of heat.

Upon That desire arose in the beginning
This was the first discharge of thought
Sages discovered this link of the being from non-being
Having searched their heart with wisdom

The line of vision was extended across
What was below? What was above?
There were impregnators, there were forces
Inherent power below, impulses above

Who knows truly?
Who will say whence it arose, this creation?
Even the gods came afterwards
Who, then, knows whence it came into being?

Whence this creation came into being
Whether it was created or not
Hi in the heighest heaven, its surveyor
Maybe He knows, or perhaps he knows not.

==========

This hymn is a favorite of mine....

Notice that initially, there is neither non-being nor being. Plato in
his Timaeus throws "becoming" into the mix, as a mediator betweein
non-being and being.

The verse 'perhaps He knows, perhaps He knows not' is so honest and
open-minded and refreshing.

Most refreshing in constrast to scriptures which speak about 'clots
of blood'.


=======

Wow! Reading the original hymn in sanskrit after a long time literally
brought tears to my eyes. Had not read it in original for many years.

Thanks again.

==============

10.129.1

naasad aasiin no sad aasiit tadaaniim naasiid rajo no vyomaaparo yat

kim aavariivah kuha kasya sharmannambhah kimaasiid gahanam gabhiram

10.129.2
na mrtyur aasiid amrtam na tarhi na raatryaa ahna aasiit praketah

aaniidavaatam svadhayaa tadekam asmaaddhaanyan na parah kim canaasa

10.129.3
tama aasiit tamasaa guulamagre'praketam salilam sarvamaa idam

tuchyena abhvapihitam yadaasiit tapasastanmahinaa jaayata ikam

10.129.4
kaamas tad agre samavartataadhi manaso retah prathamam yadaasiit

sato bandhum asati niravindan hrdi pratiishyaa kavayo maniishaa

10.129.5

tirashciino vitato rashmir eshaam adhah svidaasii
retodhaasan mahimaana aasan svadhaa avastaat prayatih parastaat

10.129.6
ko addhaa veda ka iha pra vocat kuta aajaataa kuta iyam visrshtih

arvaag devaa asya visarjanenaathaa ko veda yataababhuuva

10.129.7
iyam visrshiryata ababhuuva yadi va dadhe yadi va na

yo asyaadhyakshah parame vyoman so anga veda yadi va na veda

My favorite quote from Hobbes ("Leviathan") is, "If men were angels,
there would be no need for government."  During my childhood in the
50s and 60s, Communism came to be synonymous with evil in the USA.
The fact is that the pure economic concept underlying Communism is
an "angelic" one, of each individual taking only what they need but
working for the common good in a noble, devoted fashion.  If we look
at the world through history, we see only one very small community
which has successfully achieved a form of pure communism for
centuries. That community is Mt. Athos, at the end of the
peninsula of Thessalonika in Greece, which has been exclusively
Orthodox monasteries since at least the third century. But the monks
who comprise these communities are renunciates who seek
only "treasures in heaven". Oh, certainly not every monk is a saint,
but Mt. Athos, or any number of other religious communities, do come
close to the Communist ideal.  There are even some passages in the
Epistles of St. Paul which suggest such a life among early Christians
of sharing all things in common.

If Communism is an economy for angels, then certainly Capitalism is an
economy for "fallen angels".  Let us look at the peasants in
Communist Russia working for a "Kalkoz" or state owned farm. Two
peasants, lets call them Igor and Ivan, work small patches of land
side by side for the commune. But being fallen angels in nature, Igor
and Ivan are afflicted with the shortcoming of greed and pride (as
well as sloth). They do not see the produce of the land as their own,
so the feel no pride in its bounty, so their pride does not
work to motivate them. Since all is shared in common, they cannot be
motivated by their greed, because they cannot personally keep the
fruits of their labor and amass personal wealth. So their sloth and
complacency dominate.  But if we suddenly give Igor and Ivan their
OWN LAND, and tell them they can do what they like with the produce,
now the pride and greed take over. Each desires to outshine the
other. They are now competitive. They want to demonstrate the
dominance of their own personal excellence, and also maximize
profits.  Hence the less noble system of Capitalism has HARNESSED
the human faults of pride and greed, and turned them as enemies and
traitors to their brothers Sloth and Complacency.

Jewish Talmudic tradition speaks about "Yetzer Harah", the innate
human tendency towards evil. In Judaism, Religion HARNESSES this
tendency to evil and redirects it to Good.  If a man is greedy, the
RELIGIOUS man now becomes greedy to excel in Righteousness and
knowledge of Talmud and Torah.




: Thanks once again for all the info. about this book.

: There have been postings here on Sulekha about democracy / religion
(read non-Islamic / Islamic) countries and there were arguments back
and forth.

However, right now I am thinking about non-democratic, non-religious
country - (erstwhile USSR / China etc). Though the atheism part may
not fit into your beliefs, I would like to know your take on
socialism or the performance of these countries.

There is a wonderful little paperback called "Questions to a Zen
Master" written I think by Desimoro, who was a Rinzai Master that
came to France from Japan.  In that book, the author tells the story
of visiting a Zen Monastery with a friend as a young man. They were
served tea. They both asked the Zen Master, "If we come to the
monastery and spend our lives as monks, what benefit shall we
receive."  The Zen Master said, "Absolutely nothing."  The
acquaintance was disheartened by these words and lost interest in
Zen. But Desimoro stayed and eventually became a Zen Master. He said
it was that "absolutely nothing" which fascinated him.

:
: PRAYER
: Then how much longer should you pray for getting the
: Lord's infinite Grace. Go on praying all your life.
: Do not expect anything out of it, then you will get everything."

: Swami Sivananda

It has been 30 years since I read Homer's two epic poems, the Ilyiad
and the Odyssey.

My memory is not as good as I would like it to be, and sometimes I
feel quite frustrated when I cant remember a name.

This morning, I suddenly remembered a name that I was trying to
remember all day yesterday: Proteus.

When I saw a thread with the name Morpheus, my first thought was the
greek 'morphos' which means form or shape, and then I thought
about "shape shifters" which I guess is some science fiction concept.

In Homer's Ilyiad, the hero Odysseus needs some special "secret"
information in order to accomplish his goals. His patron Goddess is
Athena, Goddess of Wisdom.  Im not certain, but I think it is Athena
who advises Odysseus to catch hold of this being called Proteus, and
force the information out of him.  She warns Odysseus that once he
seizes hold of Proteus, Proteus will change and transform into
thousands of terrifying shapes and monsters in an attempt to terrify
Odysseus. But the secret is to be calm and patient and hold onto
Proteus until Proteus becomse exhausted and realizes that you are
not frightened. Then and only then will Proteus reveal to you the
secrets which will be the key to your success.

I cant remember now precisely what it is that Proteus finally tells
Odysseus.


In the early 1980's, I read a fascinating science fiction novel
entitled "Vision of Proteus" about a future world in which people
could undergo medical procedures to totally change themselves into
other fantastical forms and creatures.

There seems to be some profound philosophical and religious message
hidden in the myth of Odysseus and Proteus.

Modern science is much like Odysseus, having caught firm hold of
nature and the Universe, and unwilling to realize it until it finally
gives up and yields its secrets to us.

In the same way, the religions of the world resemble Odysseus. They
have caught hold of the hem of God's garment, and God is shape-
shifting and transforming in most frightening manners.

The woman in the Gospels with an issue of blood, who caught hold of
the hem of Jesus' garment was instantly cured and made whole and
healthy.  Let us hope that the nature of this hidden God is as
merciful as the God of the Gospels, and not some hateful vengeful
lusty bloodthristy being who will ultimately blind our eyes, stop our
ears, cast us into even DEEPER contemnation, and then MOCK us as we
are ghoulishly tortured for all eternity, with no hope of repentance
or forgiveness or reform.

If "Love" means never having to say you are sorry, then perhaps
"Religion" means never having to say the word "Heresy".

An Anglican Bishop once said "Perhaps the only heresy is that there
was ever and dogma or doctrine to begin with". (from "History of
Heresy" by David Christy-Murray)

Perhaps the multiplicity of Religions is like the multiplicity of
languages in the story of the Tower of Babel. Think how proud and
conceited humanity would be if they DID possess the "One True
Religion".

Perhaps the multiplicity of Religions is the ultimate Koan, with God
as a transcendental Zen Master.
==============================================

: There seems to be a lot of confusion here about what exactly
hinduism is. So, here are my thoughts on the topic, as I have
understood hinduism to be.

: I think the whole problem of defining hinduism arises out of the
unfortunate use of the term 'religion' for it. Hinduism is anything
but a religion. Rather it is an alternate to religions.

: First of all, lets see what hinduism is not. It is not a religion
in the semitic sense of the term. It is not an exclusivist path to
God. It does not have a dogma, a basic set of belief that the
followers have to agree to. In short, it is not an 'ism'. Someone
said recently, probably it was Vajpayee in South Africa, that
Hinduism is a commonwealth of religions... closest definition I have.
But even the use of the word 'religion' may not be suitable here.
Hinduism is basically India's answer to religions, an other
way of spirituality. The word closest in meaning to religion in Hindu
thought is probably 'panth', or path, as used in Kabir Panth, Dadu
panth etc. These are the paths, equivalent to Islam or Christianity,
that lead to God. But in order to remain in the Hindu manifold, these
panths have to remain non-exclusive. The migration between different
paths have to remain open and dynamic. It has to be a person's
individual choice to select the path to follow and for how long.
Again, Hinduism is not just a collection of different panths. You
could visualise it as a space, a field on which all the paths to
spiritual fulfillment lie. You are free to follow any path, as long
as you like, if you want to have it easy. But you could also make
your own path, partly or fully. And that path may even be an atheist
one.

: Another difference is that Hinduism is an exploratory philosophy as
opposed to a revelatory one. Every person is free to search for
knowledge/God. There are no fixed points in Hindu thought and God is
equally available to anyone who searches. That precludes the
messiahs/prophets in the semitic sense of the term.

: The only limitation,in my opinion, in Hinduism is that of logic.
You should be able to logically defend your thoughts. That is
why 'shastrartha' has been given so high place. And that encompasses
every type of knowledge. Adi shankara had to withdraw from a
shastrartha from Mandan Mishra because his (Mishra's) wife wanted a
shastrartha on Kam Shastra. So, there are no areas untouched.

: Hinduism is also a layered philosophy. God is nitya, anadi, ananta,
aroopa, nirakar, but a person is allowed to approximate it to one's
intellectual capabilities. As the mental capabilities increase, the
concept of God becomes more sophisticated, but whether it goes closer
to God or not, who knows? Because Good is too big a concept to be
ever fully understood by humans. So, hinduism makes no statements
about the real form of God, or even if there is a 'real' God, but
only of our approximation of God. In this sense, I find hindu concept
of God tantalisingly close to Quantum Mechanics, my field of study.

: I had posted this before but that stream has become obsolete. I'd
love to get feedback.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go on a camping trip, set up their
tent, and fall asleep. Some hours later, Holmes wakes his faithful
friend.

"Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see."
Watson replies, "I see millions of stars."

"What does that tell you?"

Watson ponders for a minute. "Astronomically speaking, it tells me
that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of
planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Time-
wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three.
Theologically, it's evident the Lord is all powerful
and we are small and insignificant.

Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
What does it tell you?"

Holmes is silent for a moment, then speaks. "Watson, you idiot,
someone has stolen our tent."

Perhaps you know this; perhaps you dont.

There is a verse in the Psalms, which reads:

"Out of the depths I have cried unto Thee, O Lord."

In the Latin Vulgate, this reads "De Profundis clamavii, Domine"

Out of the depths of our own human imperfection, we are constantly
crying.

And Imagination is both our greatest friend and our greatest enemy:

Our enemy because we can imagine a perfection and a glory greater that
anything which will ever be possible.

And our friend because Imagination is all we have to console
ourselves in the depths of that suffering.

It was either Nietzche or Kierkegaard who described a cruel tyrant who
created a hollow bronze bull. He would place his enemies inside that
bronze beast, and build a fire underneath. The bull was artfully
constructed to transmute their screams of agony into hauntingly
beautiful music.

This cruel bronze bull is a metaphor for the Artist. In a like
fashion, the artist transmutes his suffering into beauty.

(above in reply to post below at www.sulekha.com):

: This is now a vexed point with me. I have, for years, steadfastly
ignored my "friend's" interpretation of this great man as a mad, self-
pitying drunk with a Victorian imagination driven mad by his hatred
for all this Victorian.

This is, frankly, bull. The man is an absolute genius- perfection.
Anyway, I've read & adored the poetry, the plays, the fairy tales,
the novel...and suddenly, like a bad dream, there arose the horror of
De Profundis & all that self-pitying narcissist stuff I'd always
scorned began to seem alarmingly credible. Can anyone tell me, how,
HOW, a man, a genius, like Oscar Wilde, of all people, wrote THAT.
Agreed a private letter. Agreed under great stress.

But the point is I thought him utterly incapable of it. He repudiates
everything. He gibbers, after a glorious career on the principle
of 'no sin but stupidity',  of his 'sin'. Sin! Oscar Wilde! Someone
elucidate this for me, please, its appalling.

Many a Truth Said in Jest

My friend from Madras told me an interesting joke once that he had
heard in India.

A practical joker is walking along a street in a city in India, sees
a lamp post, and decides to play a trick.  He places a spot of red
sayndoor on the post. Then he bows his head, folds his hands and
pretends to pray devoutly.

Soon a second person, walking along, sees him in prayer and stops to
pray also.  Very quickly, a third person is attracted to  pray with
them, and then a forth.

Before long, a large crowd has gathered.

======

Perhaps the joke could end there. Or one could elaborate it and say
that eventually a shrine was built at that site.


Obviously the intent of the joke is to poke fun at the gullibility of
superstitious people who will assume that there is something sacred,
or holy when in fact, it is simply a practical joke which an agnostic
or even an atheist is playing.

But in a different way, this joke is a sort of tribute to the
spiritual and religious nature of mankind. One might say that it
is "sui generis", perpetually self-generating.

That the human spirit is an inexhaustble well-spring of religiosity,
the numinous, the holy and sacred.

Even 70 years of the Communist's experiment in Atheism in the
U.S.S.R., raising 3 generations of people in an officially atheist
society,  was not successful in extinguishing this "naughty habit" of
ours to ever seek the transcendent.

(from a thread on arranged marriages at www.sulekha.com)

Lives of Quite Desparation

As an American, I was curious to know peoples thoughts concerning
arranged marriages. So one day, I asked my young friend (age 25) from
Madras what his thoughts were, and if he intended to enter an
arranged marriage.

He answered as follows:

Yes, I want to enter into an arranged marriage. It will be difficult
or impossible for an American to understand the reasoning. In India,
the relationship to ones family is SO CLOSE, SO IMPORTANT, that I
would not want to marry a woman that my parents did not approve of.
So they will pick someone out, and if we like each other, we will
marry, and hope and strive to make that marriage successful.

====== (end of his explanation)

Of course, if each of us saw God everywhere, in everyone and
everything; if each of us were a perfect embodiment of love, then we
could successfully marry ANYONE, and find happiness. Conversely we
could also marry noone, remain celibate, and find equal happiness in
solitude.

Sadly, many of us never find happiness in anyone or anything and we
lead lives of "quiet desparation".

=======================

: Mail order bride was the first thing that came to mind after
reading the first paragraph.

: I think arranged marriages aren't so much 'arranged' per se, as
they were in the past. Now, in liberal families anyway, the women
have as much say as the man.

: The scenario you described makes it sound as if the guy picks
whatever woman he wants and she just goes along with it. If that's
the case, it's pretty antiquated, even by current Indian standards.

: Neither of my parents had a say in their marriage, not even my
father.

: I think it evolved from that point to the guy saying, 'yeah, I like
her', and the girl had no say in the matter.

: It has since evolved, with liberal families, to the point where
girl and guy determine their compatibility as opposed to the parents
saying 'yeah, he has a good background, good job, and she looks
homely'. I think there is still pressure on both to make it happen,
but it's by no means an imperative.

: This business of Americans wanting Indian wives and wanting to go
through the 'system' smacks of an archaic way of thinking. It makes
it sound as if the guy is in the market for a subservient wife,
regardless of whether or not the woman is in the 'market' for a loser.

Subj: Gita Take-Home Lessons


Posted by Sitaram6465 on June 18, 2000 at 14:17:52:


: (1) What is the relevance of Bhagavath Geetha of few thousand years
to us Living in US today?

As Krsna says: "it is inevitable that pleasures and sufferings shall
come to each of us, but that person who remains unmoved by fortune or
misfortune, pleasure or pain, is a true Yogin (as in english cognage
Yoke, to be joined together with God, like a yoked pair of oxen,
which is similar to UNION, which is not far removed from Communion).

In one word EQUANIMITY, an even keeled balanced spirit in the face of
all things.

: (2) What is the take home lesson?

Some take home lessons?

1.) God is so merciful that God graciously receives ALL FORMS OF
WORSHIP, even from those TOTALLY ignorant of God's true nature.

2.) God views ALL BEINGS the same, none is hateful or dear (compare a
verse from a different religions scripture which says "Be thou APES,
despised!") Although it is also true that though God is the same to
all, at the same time God is very close to His devotee. In the
geometry of Euclidean space, if point A is close to point B, then
point B is EQUALLY close to point A, but in SPIRITUAL GEOMETRY,
though God is EQUALLY close to EACH OF US, it does not necessarily
follow that each of us is equally close to God.


: (3) How? What are the teachings we can use it to uplift ourselves
or to become better?

"There has never been a time when I was not or when YOU were not. I
remember all My Births. You do not remember yours. ..... even though
a person be THE WORST OF SINNERS... when he becomes devoted to Me he
shall quickly be purified,... for he has come to that right
resolution ... (saying Vasudeva is all)...

for That person who comes to see ME , in all things, in all
creatures, no other puja or tapas is necessary...

You will be born again and again, until you "get it right" (dummy!)
(smile)

: (4) What are the principles or teaching of Lord Krishna, which we
can use in our daily, lives TODAYHERE IN THIS COUNTRY.

Your own duty or dharma, even though done imperfectly is far better
than doing the dharma of another, however excellent it might seem to
you... (so if it seems like you are ment to enter the family
business, do your best, and dont pine away to be a movie star... and
if you are a movie star, do your best, dont pine away for the privacy
of the ordinary life, or why you cannot ever be certain if people
really "love you for yourself"....


: (5) How reading Bhagavd Githa changed your life. IN What way? Are
you better person today than before reading Geetha?

"I am the sacrifice, I am the fire, I am the ghee that is poured into
the fire, I am the Pujari who poors,..... My true nature is more
radiant that 1000 suns, .... although all things are mine and I have
no goals or desires, yet I never cease My activity... and were I to
cease my Activity for one single instant... then COUNTLESS WORLDS and
beings would perish..... and yet all those worlds and beings are
supported from moment to moment by BUT A SINGLE SPARK OF MY ENERGY
AND MAGNIFICANCE.... of sacrifices I am Japa (silent repetition), of
syllables I am AUM, .... I am Ram of Warriors, I am Shiva , I am
Brahman.... I am being and non-being... I am death itself, and
destruction, and I am life and creation.... " But most of all..... I
am your intimate friend and associate,.... I am waiting to play my
flute for you, I am waiting for you to join Me in my Divine Lilas....


If you can but internalize something of the above, which I have
quickly typed from memory, paraphrasing, then you will not be able to
repeat it to yourself without you face becoming wet with tears and
your skin raised with goose bumps, as I am at this moment....

I hope the above helps in some way to answer some of your questions...

=================================

: As usual we started quoting slokas (most of us knew few slokas by
heart, or suggested to read commentary by this author or that author.
:
: Or started selling the story once upon a timeDharma Kshetre Kuru
Kshetreetc ---
: - Bhavad Githa is Universal applies to all times-Universal to all
people etc.
: Eternaland What is it Universal for today every body evaded or gave
nonspecific answers Beta---------Etc
: But when the above questions are repeated we had no answer to the
point
: Since there are lot of learned people in this form I respectfully
request them to
: Educate us.
========================
: : Thanks Sita Ram for answering these questions.I lookforward
forany other posts and comments
: : Thanks again.
: : Venkateswara
: : (I will-compile them and give it to the youth Group
: : SitaRam You are very prompt in your reply:)

==========================
Sitaram's reply:

Glad if I can help.

If I am prompt in my reply, it is because I have enternalized what I
say over a period of years and it has become part of me.

I say that, not to boast, but to point out to those few who might be
interested, that this is our task, if we are to make spiritual
progress.

St. Paul speaks of people being "vessels of clay" (clay pots) in
which God places His treasures of gold.

Whatever path we choose, whatever scripture, whatever Name of God,
with form or formless, we must become the very embodiment of that
scripture, that Name, that Form. It must become as natural as our
breath and it must flow from every pour like our sweat. And when we
pass through a room, our presense and passing should leave that
fragrence of divinity.

If you read "Way of the Pilgrim" by an anonymous Russian author just
before the revolution, you will see how the poor pilgrim, with a
withered arm, who cannot work, becomes literally an embodiment of the
Jesus prayer (Prayer of the heart) which he constantly repeats, and
the Gospels and Philokalia which he constantly reads.

The first 100 pages of Doestoevsky's "Brothers karamazov" describes
that same transformation in the monk Zossima (whose real life model
was the real monk that Doestovsky met at the Optina Pust monastery,
Father Amvrosy). This is the ultimate monastic process, the ultimate
process of sanctification. Of the nine forms of devotional
excellence, Shravana, Kirtana, Smarana, padasevena, Arcana, vandana,
shakya, dasya... the final one is ATMANIVEDANA,... the sacrifice of
self, of ego, upon the alter of bhakti (devotion)....

If we can achieve that,... then .... as St. Paul said "the old man
has died, but Christ lives in me."

This is the only manner in which there is a "living faith".

As Gandhi once said, "MY LIFE is my message".

A Teenage Girl Questions Sexual Morality

(I had this chat in Yahoo.com Hindu chat room with a 15 year old girl
in India. I have given her the fictitious name "Manjoola", to protect
her identity. Her real name is not Manjoola.)

Manjoola: Sitaram. Can you tell me the reason behind idol worship in
Hinduism?

Sitaram: An idol is like a focal point for man, God is invited to
dwell in idol during worship. In Old Testament Bible, King Solomon
and King David built a "house" for God, a temple, a dwelling...so in
a way the Jewish temple is not so different from a Moorty (idol).

Manjoola: Another question, a very different question: What is wrong
to have sex with more than one person?

Sitaram: Unsanitary, health risks, for one of many many reasons.

Manjoola: But human beings enjoy it, why not have a variety?

Sitaram: Here are some excerpts from my website, the page "Religion
and Sexuality":

http://geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page011.htm

=============================

The Hare Krishna groups are very strict for example.. even for a
married couple... sex is only permitted once a month when pregnancy
is desired... and as soon as the woman is pregnant, sex must stop

At other end of spectrum, are Bhagwan Rajneesh (Osho) groups which
encourage even group sex... and believe that you will "tire" of it
eventually and become more "spiritual"..."detached"...

There are other Hindu groups which are not so strict... it all
depends on how fast you want to achieve Liberation or Moksha...

I personally wish I could be like Ghandi was and practice
Brahmacharyia... but I am not ready yet

If you still have a great desire for sex... you will have sex... but
you can still pray... read religious scriptures... worship... but you
will keep being reborn again and again... but that is no reason not
to worship ... pray... just because you have a weakness for sex...

Anyone can worship God.. but... lets put it THIS WAY... if someone
were a Heroine addict, injecting themselves with drugs,... they could
still be a Hindu... and worship...but....it is not ADVISED or
ENCOURAGED... to be a drug user..... whatever your situation... you
may worship... and it is beneficial... but some life-styles are more
beneficial spiritually... and others are less beneficial....

In fact,... even in Christianity... if you visit an Episcopal
Church... you will find pamplets which encourage even sexually active
Gay men and women , to receive Holy Communion.

So the Episcopal Church is one of the uniquely compassionate
Christian denominations.... recognizing Holy Communion as a medine to
cure our weaknesses, our illnesses.. not as a REWARD, for haveing
become perfect , and sinless.

For example... if you want to go to the gymnasium and work out... but
you Love to Eat Ice Cream... well... you can still go the the gym and
exercise... but... you will not become an athlete AS QUICKLY ... as
if you also stop eating ICE CREAM... but.. it is still beneficial to
exercise... EVEN WHILE YOU CONTINUE TO EAT ICE CREAM....

If you find the right place... the right kind of hindu group.. or
ba'hai or buddhist.. wherever you feel most comfortable....

you see.. you ask me "is that ok"... well very few religious groups
will say "YOU MUST HAVE MORE AND MORE SEX... with as many women as
possible...etc etc... TO BE SAVED".. you will find some religious
groups who say "Oh, ... if you have lots of sex,.. outside of
marriage... you cant come here.. you will go to hell"...

But other groups say "Well, if you have lots of sex you may come and
worship with us... but one day you should try to have less
sex..."... .

..but you will not find so many groups who say "Oh, youre not having
enought sex... and you should be smoking and drinking more too... or
you will not be saved..." .... you MIGHT find some group which says
this ... but they are a VERY STRANGE GROUP.. .. and it is better to
stay away from them....

You see.. if you believe God is truly merciful... well just like your
Mother and Father.. if they open your bedroom door.. and SEE you
engaged in sexual activity.. they wont MURDER you or TORTURE you for
all ETERNITY.... right?...

No.. they will just close the door,...and go away... and smile... and
say... Oh...now he is a teenage boy.... he needs to engage in sexual
activity... but we still love him.... later... he will change...
become different... more mature...

(end of website excerpts)

================================

Manjoola: But you are talking about people obsessed with sex, I am
talking about a normal person. Lets see my point this way. A person
is looking for a perfect partner for himself/herself; why not
experiment?

Sitaram: If you had great spiritual balance, equanimity, you could
find happiness even in arraged marriage, Gandhi found happiness with
Kasturbai (a marriage arranged at age 6).

If you have very great balance, you can find happiness in bramacharya
(celibacy). If you have little balance, you will find no happiness
even with many partners and experimentation.

Sitaram: But you will be compelled to do what is in your nature, even
Gita says this, to work out your samskaras, and let your karma ripen.

Manjoola: But I can only think about this life, and in this life,
having sex with someone you love cant be termed "bad".

Manjoola: You are saying that having sex with more than one person
means not being spiritually balanced?

Sitaram: What you ultimately will or will not do is not really
necessarily in your immediate control in this particular lifetime.
Your actions are based on samskaras (impressions,tendencies) of past
experiences,...which must unfold and be worked out, like knots, as
your karma ripens. You will find your own path, and forge your own
morality during this process. And your moral and ethical code may
well change and evolve as you change and evolve in this present life.
As J. Krisnamurthi said, "Truth is a pathless land", you must be a
pioneer and blaze your own path. But you shall not be able to know
with any certaintity what constitutes absolute Dharma, Righteousness,
Justice or Goodness. Consider it a blessing that you are even
concerned to ask such questions,... many do not even question, but
simply act.

Manjoola: As a teenager, if I see an attractive boy, I naturally want
to have sex with him. But then I think of my parents saying this is
wrong. so I question why is it wrong? Sex is also made for enjoyment,
and not necessarily only for reproduction.

Manjoola: Am I abnormal if I desire sex with many people?

Sitaram: Your desire does not denote abnormal vs normal... it does
not denote "imbalanced" or "balanced". The scale of degrees of
spiritual perfection are infinitely varying. There are even murderers
who have some greater degree of mercy or compassion, when compared to
more heartless, sadistic murderers. And there are saints with
personality weaknesses and moral imperfections who are at a lower
spiritual level that other, more advanced saints. Whether or not you
engage in more or less sexual activity.... or even if you are
celibate....the point is, you will find no happiness or peace.
Happiness through sense pleasure is an illusion. You will always feel
an emptiness and a dissatisfaction. Only when you turn your attention
to the ultimate cause of that emptiness and dissatisfaction will you
begin your journey on the road to peace.

Manjoola: Really?

Sitaram: This perennial emptiness and dissatisfaction in the
aftermath of all enjoyments and indulgence is the real point which
lies at the heart of your dilemma, and not moral issues of what is
right or wrong in your actions.

Manjoola: Why would I feel emptiness? I liked this guy and we shared
love.

Manjoola: I am age 15 (female) . The boy I like is age 20.

Sitaram: Hmmm. I see. As you grow older, you will come to understand
the emptiness which I describe, and you will remember this day, and
our conversation and my words. Being so young, it is natural that you
are curious about your body, and what sex is like. You may also
possibly feel intoxicated by the power which a young attractive woman
has over those many men who desire to be with her.

Manjoola: So, what should I do now?

Sitaram: You must search for the answer to that in your heart.
Nothing that I can possibly tell you will help you in that search.
You must find the answer for yourself for it to be meaninful to you.

Manjoola: I have been searching for so long.

Sitaram: When you are spiritually ripe to hear the words, then and
only then will you be able to hear them and understand the meaning.
And that may not happen for many lifetimes. If you read through my
website, you will find useful ideas.

Manjoola: I am kind of person who listens to her mind. Is it too late
for me?

Sitaram: No, it is never too late. You shall be born again and again
until you reach ultimate spiritual perfection. The very fact that you
ask such questions means that you are already on a good path.

Manjoola: Please dont tell me about rebirth. those things are so
unconvincing!

Sitaram: When you come to a tailor he can only tell you of needles
and threads. You come to me, I can only tell you what I know.

Manjoola: My boyfriend is not Indian, and I know to make him happy I
would have to have sex with him.

Sitaram: So, he cannot love you without the sex?

Manjoola: Im not sure. I am trying to think of ways to keep him happy
cause I love him.

Sitaram: That statement in itself says a lot!

Sitaram: It reveals many things , both about you and him. As you said
yourself, you dont know him well, you dont know yourself well, and
perhaps you are not certain what "love" means.

Manjoola: I am only 15 and I want things to be clear! Im afraid he
wont marry me if he thinks I am a prude.

Sitaram: Clarity only comes with time and experience.

Manjoola: What is love?

Sitaram: To quote an old song from my childhood, "Love is a many-
speldored thing". Another old song from 1950's "Falling in love with
love is falling for make-believe".

Manjoola: But give me a definition of love!

Sitaram: Books are filled with definitions of love. A definition from
a book will have no meaning for you. You must ultimately BECOME in
some fashion an embodiment of love. As Gandhi said once "my LIFE is
my message". Your own life must reflect any definition of love that
will be meaningful to you. And if you "love" yourself, then you will
not let yourself be used and exploited in a dishonerable fashion. And
if you cannot love yourself, then how will you be able to love
another?

Manjoola: But is my definition of love incomplete?

Sitaram: The physical world is a process of BECOMING; it is not
BEING. As long as there IS a physical world, as long as we are born
repeatedly into physical bodies, then nothing can be COMPLETE but
rather everything is BECOMING.

Manjoola: I dont understand.

Sitaram: Perhaps this answer is too philosophical for you at this
stage in your life.

Manjoola: WHEN WILL MY DEFINITION OF LOVE BE COMPLETE?

Sitaram: Your definition will be more complete when you become old
like me.

Manjoola: But I need it NOW!

Sitaram: The NOW moment is always filled with NEEDS. This is the
source of our suffering.

Sitaram: Your 20 year old boyfriend is wrong to attempt to take
advantage of a 15 year old. That is a criminal act in many countries.
You are not old enough, or experienced enough, at age 15, to be
entitled to grant your free will consent for sexual activity with
anyone. That is why the laws protect minors like you from such people
who use and exploit. You will see. When he is finished with you and
has had his fill of forbidden fruit, he will discard you like a
kleenex tissue. I have seen it happen over and over, hundreds of
times. If he loves you, what is wrong with waiting until marriage?
Especially since he is older and will be able to earn a living sooner
than you? The choices are all yours. You are master of your destiny
in this respect.

Sitaram: Tell him: "It is easier to make a lover out of a friend,
than it is to make a friend out of a lover. Don't you want to be my
friend first?"

Sitaram: If you store gasoline next to a lighted candle, what do you
think will eventually happen? If you keep playing with fire, you will
eventually get burned.

Manjoola: Which fore am I playing with?

Sitaram: A Freudian slip, you said "fore-play", when you ment to say
which FIRE am I playing with. Stay away from motel rooms, keep your
clothes on, and go for movies, walks in parks. Get to know each
others families, if possible.

Manjoola: Should I just stop seeing him?

Sitaram: Get to know other people too, before you settle on this one
person as your life-partner. Tell him you are too young and
inexperienced to make serious life-time commitments. Tell him if he
sincerely cares about you, he will be content to be your friend and
wait 3 yrs until you are at least 18.

Sitaram: Well then. Listen to your heart, and dont give away your
goodies until the right person comes along, or perhaps you will
regret it and feel cheap and used.

Manjoola: I think I am simply curious about boys right now.

Sitaram: You are probably correct. You are simply curious what boys
are like.

Manjoola: I think I will dump him!

Sitaram: You see how quickly you change at this age. That is why the
law protects you against such unscrupulous older people. Why hasn't
this person found someone his own age?? Stick with boys your own age!
Stick to just being friends, and keep your clothes on. One day you
will thank me for this advice. Age 21 is plenty soon enought to start
with all the bare naked sex stuff. You have many years to gain
experience in sexual matters. Right now, concentrate on highschool,
and making lots of different friends. Remember what I said about
playing with fire, and gasoline. And dont experiment with alcohol or
drugs with some guy, because then you will loose your inhibitions and
wind up naked having intercourse.

Sitaram: Plus, here is a TRUE STORY! I knew a 14 yr old girl, who met
a 19 yr old boy. She was "curious", so she didnt let him have sex,
but she did let him kiss her vagina. She got HERPES from that one
first time experience, which can never be cured!

Manjoola: What is Herpes?

Sitaram: It is a painful rash which keeps coming back to your
genitals and mouth for the rest of your life. And you will give it to
any other sexual partner. Dont ever go near anyone who has any kind
of sores or blisters on penis or mouth. Be very careful! Always,
ALWAYS use condums if you have to have sex. And condums will not
protect against Herpes. You can get Herpes even from kissing.

Manjoola: Oh thats bad!

Sitaram: What you dont know CAN hurt you. So better if you hear it
from me than never hear it from anyone.

Manjoola: So , we shouldn't indulge in lots of sex because it is so
risky!

Sitaram: Stop and think. If you meet a guy who only takes you on 3
dates, keeps hinting at sex, and then dumps you cause you are
a "prude", well, is it not very obvious that he just wanted to USE
you for sexual pleasures, and did not care at all about you as a
person, an individual.

Sitaram: Never trust any male, I mean completely, even if they are
minister or priest or pandit or doctor or rabbi. They can seem very
moral, but suddenly they will make a move on you, when you least
expect it.

Manjoola: My Mom tells me that!

Sitaram: I am a male and age 51, so I know these things.

Manjoola: Gee, you are 51 and I am 15.

Sitaram: Ha, Ha! I didnt think about that!

Manjoola: This has been a very useful conversation, I must say! You
finally did "come down to my level", where I could understand.

Sitaram: Glad if I can help.

Manjoola: Actually, you did help.

Sitaram: Dont even trust someone like me, who seems to be giving you
well meaning, good advice. Dont trust any male, and assume that
nothing could or would happen. Male sexuality is like a wild beast,
let us say a tiger. We have all seen wildlife films depicting tigers
or lions in the wild. They are very dangerous beasts. We have also
visited zoos and circuses, and seen tigers in cages behind bars, and
even trained tigers who perform tricks at their trainer's request and
bidding. If you meet a very moral religious male, his sexuality is
like that tiger in the zoo or in the circus. That moral male has
placed his tiger of sexuality behind the bars of moral and ethical
restraints. That does not mean that the wild beast no longer exists.
That does not mean that this predatory killer never roars, never
paces back and forth restlessly, eyeing potential victims with fiery
glances. That tiger has been trained and restrained by discipline,
moral and ethical values. That tiger seems very non-threatening. But
when we visit the zoo, we would be very foolish to reach our hands
into the cage to pet the tiger inside. The danger and threat is still
present, but in a different, subdued form. Even the most skillful
animal trainer in a circus, who commands the tigers and lions to do
many amazing tricks, jumping through flaming hoops, that animal
trainer will never be so foolish as to turn his back on those animals
and assume that he is totally safe.

Manjoola: So I should wait until I am 18 to have sex?

Sitaram: At least! Even better, wait until you are 21. There is
plenty of time for that sort of thing in your 20's. It is BEST if you
can save yourself until marriage. But very few young people seem to
be able to do that these days.

Manjoola: Sometimes I dont know how to deal with the way men stare at
me...

Sitaram: All men are looking at women, trying to imagine them naked,
in bed naked, or squatting naked in some lewd position. That is the
nature of "the male beast". Anyone 18 or older who flirts with 15
year old girl is a child molester. It is even shameful even for a boy
age 17.

Manjoola: He doesnt flirt, just wants to be friends.

Sitaram: That's what YOU THINK! Dont trust anyone, sex, and a woman's
body, is like a drug for males. Some men will be strong and honorable
and resist temptation, but all will feel the temptation. There are
only a minority of males with real moral character who would step
back and say "this is inappropriate, you should talk to your mother".

Sitaram: If you don't believe the truth of what I say, then try this
experiment sometime (but it is a very dangerous experiment). Pick
anyone you think of as safe, like a big brother or father figure, and
drop 'hints",very subtle hints, that you might be interested in a
secret affair with them. Watch their eyes light up, as they steer the
conversation towards the possibility of doing something sexual with
you, seduction.

Manjoola: I try not to be seductive. I do dress modestly.

Sitaram: Forbidden fruit looks more tempting and delicious than
slutty looking, easy, loose, promiscuous girls.

Sitaram: Dont ever advertise the fact that you are a virgin. If
someone asks you about your status, make some cryptic answer like "I
was hurt once... now I am more careful". If they suspect you are a
VIRGIN, many boys will chase after you simply to be "the first".

Sitaram: You will find a true measure of love when you are older, and
have a child of your own, as a mother to your child. But your child
will never return that love to you in the measure that you desire. A
mother's love for her child is one of the greatest loves which humans
can experience. And it is a pure and selfless love.

This excerpt is taken from the following URL which is the transcript
of a dialogue which took place between Albert Einstein and
Rabindranath Tagore

http://www.cs.brockport.edu/~smitra/einstein.html

TAGORE: I was discussing with Dr. Mendel today the new mathematical
discoveries which tell us that in the realm of infinitesimal atoms
chance has its play; the drama of existence is not absolutely
predestined in character.

EINSTEIN: The facts that make science tend toward this view do not say
good-bye to causality.

TAGORE: Maybe not, yet it appears that the idea of causality is not
in the elements, but that some other force builds up with them an
organized universe.

EINSTEIN: One tries to understand in the higher plane how the order
is. The order is there, where the big elements combine and guide
existence, but in the minute elements this order is not perceptible.

TAGORE: Thus duality is in the depths of existence, the contradiction
of free impulse and the directive will which works upon it and
evolves an orderly scheme of things.

EINSTEIN: Modern physics would not say they are contradictory. Clouds
look as one from a distance, but if you see them nearby, they show
themselves as disorderly drops of water.

Someone posted the following question at deja.com - alt.religion.hindu

"Why are Hindus not compassionate, since it took a stranger, Mother
Theresa, to build Hospices?"

(my reply):

I must admit, this is an excellent question, and one that is
difficult to
answer.  I have never been to India, so I cannot know whether there
was never
any history of such hospices.  I will most certainly ask those people
that I
know from India and in India.

But what you have stumbled on here, (i.e.  a powerful, rhetorical
question) is a proverbial "double-edged sword" which cuts both ways.

Since I can look at the history of the Christian world and ask the
same types of questions regarding different matters.  In fact, I have
done just that over the past two years, and have collected some of
the results at a website which I entitle "Hindism and Interfaith
Dialogues"

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425

Now, at that website, you will find several pages in praise of Mother
Theresa; pages which defend her actions against various criticisms
which have been leveled against by various detractors who post on
message boards just such as this one.


But getting back to that "double-edged sword", I emphasize throughout
my many dialogues, the various manners in which the history of
Christianity can be viewed in an extremely evil and insideously
demonic light. I do this to combat those rabid fundamentalists who
would seek to portray Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Zoroastrians,
et. al  in that same evil, deluded, misguided, demonic light.

For example, it is only in this just-passing 20th century that
Christianity has awakened to the horror of anti-semitism which it has
nurtured and harbored for many centuries.  It took the ugliness of
Nazi Germany and the Holocaust to bring that to the forefront of
world consciousness.  By contrast, India offered shelter many
centuries ago to those Jews who were fleeing the pagan persecutions
of Antiochus Ephiphanes around 180-160 BCE, to the Parsi-Zoroastrians
who were fleeing Persian/Iranian Islamic persecution a thousand years
ago, and in the 20th century, shelter for the Dalai Lama fleeing
Communist persecution and ethnocide.  Yet I read a letter
from one Pope (by no means a recent Pope) which refused any shelter
to Jews who were in need at the time, and threatened to baptize them
all should they set foot on Italian soil.  And during World War II,
the United States sent a boat load of Jews back to Europe, to their
deaths, refusing them shelter.

And as far as religious tolerance and ecumenical and inter-faith
progress, it seems to me that Hindus and Buddhists have for countless
centuries been far ahead of Christians and Muslims.  Ramakrishna
seemed to really crystalize such inter-faith attitudes with
the "Gospel of Ramakrishna". And Ramakrishna's disciple Vivekananda
seemed to be a light to the west when he came to America to speak at
the First World Parliament of Chuches.

One might well ask why Christianity never produced such open-minded
tolerance and inter-faith attitudes over the centuries. Instead,
Christianity has an ugly history of Slave Trade, Inquisition,
Crusades and "Holy Wars", witch burning, etc.   Yet they had the
beautiful teaching of Jesus, the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the
Mount.  Those Beatitudes were among Mohandas Gandhi's favorites.  Yet
why is it that non-violence/ahimsa was invented and perfected
by the Jains and popularized by Gandhi?  Why werent the Christians at
the forefront of such pioneering spiritual technology?

Ahhhh but you will turn to me and say..."You CANT EAT non-violence.
You can dress yourself in Tolerance or wrap it around you when you
are cold."  The charity of Christian Missionaries brings the MATERIAL
PALPABLE TANGIBLE GOOD$ of food and medicine and blankets.  Such a
materialistic world we have become. It is far easier for us to
recognize and acknowledge material treasures over spiritual treasures.

Yet in India, the term "rice Christians" is used to denote those
people who have sold out their beliefs and heritage for a bowl of
rice and a blanket from Missionaries. And it is such missionaries who
become dispicable, trafficking in the buying of souls, far more
dispicable than the needy person who sells out their dignity. And
have these "rice christians" excanged a lower form of spirituality
for a higher one in the bargain? I think not.

But here is an irony for you, regarding the West's choice of Material
over Spiritual wealth, which comes STRAIGHT out of both the Jewish
Torah AND the Gospels.  Moses forbade people to glean their fields.
Moses commanded that the shreds of produce be left for the poor to
gather (and also for the animals that might be hungry).  Moses adds,
almost as an afterthought "...for the POOR shall always be with you".
Jesus ECHOS these very words, when the woman anoints His feet with
precious ointment, and an apostle complains that it might be sold and
given to the poor, Jesus remarks "...the POOR shall always be with
you."

Now if we take Moses' and Jesus' words LITERALLY, and look for a
deeper mystical meaning, we realize that there is some DEEP MYSTICAL
PURPOSE FOR POVERTY AND ILLNESS, and that though we are bidden to do
charity to alleviate such suffering, we are UTTERLY FOOLISH to work
towards some materialist Utopia in which sickness and poverty does
not exist; foolish simply because our own sacred scriptures tell us
that such is not in the divine plan. Ah, but who pays any attention
to sacred scriptures nowadays?  Why would Jesus say "Blessed are the
POOR for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven".  Why would he say that if
poverty could be eliminated? Why would Jesus merely heal the sick, if
it were possible to ILLIMINATE ALL ILLNESS? Why would the prophesies
of the "last times" speak of wars and rumors of war if world peace
were realistic possibility? And those last times prophecies describe
economic collapse as well, not the elimination of world poverty.

Now, the Good Samaritan of Jesus' parable was much like Mother
Theresa. He nursed a stranger back to health, a stranger which two
Pharisees had passed by.  Now a Samaritan was considered a heretic in
his day. Samaritans rejected all biblical books except for the
Pentateuch or Torah as holy, and they would not worship at the Temple
of Jerusalem, but only considered Mt. Sinai as holy.

Now, the good which the Samaritan did, he did ANONYMOUSLY. He didnt
call it the "SAMARITAN HOSPICE AND MEMORIAL SHELTER". He didnt hand
out little samaritan pamplets explaining how Samaritanism was the one
true faith  (yet obviously, if you were to ask the Samaritan which
was the truest religion, he would undoubtedly name his own).

The Samaritan didnt stand in the marketplace tooting his horn and
crowing to the world (much like the Pharisee in the parable of the
Publican and the Pharisee) saying "Lord, I thank Thee that Thou has
made me as I am, fasting and tithing, rather than as that wretched
Publican over yonder".

Perhaps poverty and illness are the greatest blessings, since they
teach the poor and afflicted a humility and a spiritual strength
which the wealthy and healthy can never know.

Wealth, health and the opportunity to be charitable is a secondary
gift (IF the individual CHOOSES to be charitable, and as we know,
many do not). I rather imagine that Mother Theresa had to twist a few
Catholic arms along the way (and even episcopal arms) to achieve her
ends. But it is so easy to loose any benifit of doing charity through
pride and ostentation. That is why Jesus says, "Do your prayers and
charity in secret, and what God sees in secret He will reward openly
(but the ostentatious already have their reward)".

Well, I think by now in this post I have made a certain point, at
least in the minds of those who are open-minded enough to read this
carefully and thoughtfully, and I am sure that such people are in the
minority. And as for the rest, I could write entire volumes, and it
would roll off their backs like water off a duck's back, basically
because they are in some kind of self-righteous denial.

But if anyone cares to explore such thoughts as these further, they
have the URL to my website, which has 223 browser pages to-date, and
would print out to around 2000 pages.

This is all I have to say here.

Thanks for your time.

In article <sc5mcl1nee6172@...>,
   <paulk@...> wrote:
> Please respond to the below post
>
> [ Catholic Discussion ]
>
>    [ Catholic Debate Board ]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> ----
>
> Subject:     a rhetorical question
> Posted By: Tabbycat   (Global user)
> Posted At: 2/28/00 9:29:29 am
> From IP:    Reply

> "How are we to be recognised by our fruits if we are no different
to others? Especially as you say, we are probably even worse than the
rest."
>
> I'll answer that with another rhetorical question:
>
> Why all the fuss about Mother Theresa...?
>
> Think about it a minute. We know that Indians are kind, decent,
deeply compassionate people.
>
So why did it take a foreigner, with an alien religion, to get
hospices built in their country? Why hadn't the Indians done it
themselves, long ago, w/o any outside interference, out of their own
boundless compassion & goodness? We know it wasn't due to lack of
funds or other resources, since Theresa used local money & the
resources that were already available.
>
> If all religions are the same, why weren't there hospices in India
previous  to the arrival of Christian missionaries?
>

God's Party Game of Souls


Each of us holds a piece of the puzzle, an aspect of the truth:
the fool and the philosopher; the begger and the king; the harlot and
the renunciate. The Truth is too big for any one person, or to be put
in "layman's terms".

I am very fond of this anecdote (which is a modern day version
of "Divine Lila"):

God's Party Game: a theory of the origins of souls

Once upon a time, there was a large group of powerfully divine
creatures. After doing everything they could do, they got woefully
bored. Then someone had the bright idea (writer's interjection: "I'm
going to strangle this person when I find him"), namely, to lock a
whole lot of ourselves into a box, except we wouldn't know it was a
box, and we wouldn't be ourselves, but a tiny shade of our divinity,
eking out an existence in this world, given a brief lifespan before
our memories are washed away and we would have to start all over
again.

To be really bright, you'd have to:

a)realize you were in a box
b)get yourself out of the box and
c)get everyone else out of the box, and the end of which, we'd have
this really great party whilst we talk about all our experiences of
being different people.

One person would have to oversee the operation, and this person would
be, for all intents and purposes: God. God would do his best to keep
us in the box (maybe there's a time limit or maybe not) by modifying
things, but basically he'd be part of the box too, and be locked into
it as we are, playing by the rules.

These two stories could be the same story, seen by different people.

-Renfield

"Does it hurt?" asked the Rabbit. "Sometimes", said the Skin Horse,
for he was always truthful. "When you are Real, you don't mind being
hurt."

-The Velventeen Rabbit, Margery Williams

==========

some posts from the thread at www.sulekha.com Philosophy/Religion

: Thanks! I knew I could count on Sulekha for a good explanation in
short order.

: Hmmm.... so a large salt or sugar crystal in the perfect shape of
Lord Ganesh would represent lower entropy, and dissolved in the ocean
it would then be higher entropy?


: Hmmm... so low entropy is high disorder, the disorder of having
Ganesh concentrated in one large crystal, rather than giving an equal
taste to the universe?  So hmmmmm.... (double hmmmm), God in Genesis
1:1 is a high state of Tohu Va Bohu, in the sense that God is
concentrated in Nowhere, in a most selfish fashion, rather than
saying "Let there be Light", selflessly sacrificing Himself, and
having God spread out in a big bang of Everywhere (in a most
democratic fashion).  So the disorder of God, the Tohu va Bohu (void
and darkness) is perhaps the divine darkness of which Dionysius the
Aeropagite speaks, that darkness which is neither dark nor light (as
the Psalm verse says), but is "a Divine Darkness luminous with
potentiality"?   (just thinking out loud)....

I encountered the following intriguing post 2 years ago in Yahoo
religion chat:

======== (start of religion chat quote):
We begin life full of potential but having accomplished nothing. We
end life without potential but having accomplished all that we could.
If you die before that potential is executed completely (and we all
do!), WHERE DOES THAT POTENTIAL GO?

The physics law of CONSERVATION OF ENERGY surely apply to our
spiritual lives - and POTENTIAL energy is energy nonetheless! This is
the STRONGEST argument for reincarnation.
====== (end of religion chat quote)

Your mention of conservation of matter and energy brought the above
quote to mind.

:
: ========================================
: :
  In Paul Davies book "God and the New Physics", he points out that
biological life "feeds" on negative entropy. I would like to have a
clearer understanding of what it means to say "negative entropy" (in
layman's terms).
  ======
The second (?) law of thermodynamics stated that entropy (or
disorder) in the universe always decreases. Read the book 'Maxwell's
Demon' to understand the subtleties associated with the concept. It
is definitely not straightforward, even in the 19th century
formulation that dealt with steam engines and stuff. If you apply the
law to quasars and black holes you have one hell of a subtle thing
going on.

For a simple metaphor of negative entropy, consider this: water in a
piple going downhill can flow uphill for short sections. Entropy is
like that: overall, and globally, it increases, but that doesn't mean
it doesn't do complex stuff on its way up. (Just substitute "up"
for "down.) "On its way up" entropy can have lots of local "down"
sections that can create things called dissipative structures
(orderly matter that survives on entropy-flow) ranging from tornadoes
up to life.

Living beings don't use energy. Energy is conserved, as is matter
(the two are the same). What living beings do is use up low entropy
sources. We take highly ordered things (plants/other animals) and
break them down into less ordered chemical messes, thereby
maintaining our own order. And then we die: ashes to ashes, dust to
dust :-) (Beautiful poem about this, Ali Sardar Jafri's "Mera Safar"
translated by Philip Nikolyev on Sulekha). At the bottom of the food
chain, plants produce order from disorder (leaves from manure) by
using up low-entropy energy from the sun (high frequency light) which
itself is feeding off other sources ... and from there on things
start to get complicated and I wouldn't know how to explain them in
layman's terms.

Strive to find happiness and meaning within yourself - Page 164

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page164.htm

(9-24-99)

(a young man posted this on mangalore.com message board):

Kanekodi

What is next?

Fri Sep 24 06:18:19 1999

I married a beautiful girl two year back. Somehow I could not live
with her and just divorced. I do not have any child. What should I do
further. How to live my remaining life? Please suggest me.

Love,

Kanekodi

Here is my response:

My sympathy goes out to you concerning your sorrow. Many people look
for happiness and meaning outside of themselves, in a spouse, a
child, a parent, a job, friends, material possessions, food, drink,
amusements.

The religious answer is that we are always desiring things because we
feel an emptiness within, somehow incomplete. We think that if we can
only marry a certain person, buy a certain fancy car, earn a special
academic degree, that THEN we shall finally be happy and fulfilled.
But our emptiness stems from a dim memory deep within us that we were
once a part of God, and now we suffer from SEPARATION. So we have a
hunger which can never be filled; a thirst which can never be
quenched.

Even Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, "If you drink the
water in this well, you shall thirst again in a little while, but I
can give you LIVING WATERS, which, once you drink, you shall never
thirst again." (I am paraphrasing again, but this is the essence of
what was said.)

Perhaps the first step to happiness and peace is to recognize the
futility of seeking them outside ourselves.

We all know examples of very wealthy, famous, powerful people who
become so unhappy as to take their own lives in suicide. This is a
lesson to us that the their fame and wealth did not help alleviate
the pain of their own existence.

We also know examples of people who managed to find peace in
happiness and meaning even in the poorest and most oppressive
circumstances, even in places such as a Jewish Concentration camp in
Germany. You might like to read Viktor Frrankl's book "Mans Search
for Meaning". He is a medical doctor who survived a German
concentration camp in WWII.

As for your life, simply meet new people, nice decent people, and try
to be their friends. You will see that, if you are patient, an
appropriate spouse and life partner will be provided for you.
Sometimes happiness comes when we are not expecting it or looking for
it.

It is ironic that the other day, I was reading something about peace
and happiness which quoted Gandhi as saying, "Peace must be found in
turmoil, not in tranquility. What value to me is someone who tells me
to find peace in a tranquil situation. OF COURSE THERE IS PEACE IN
PEACE, but what good is that to me. Peace is only of value to me if I
can find it in the midst of turmoil, discord, strife, adversity." I
suppose one might say the same of Holiness or Sanctity. Of course
there is Holiness in the Holy, but it is more profitable to find
Holiness in the midst of evil and wickedness, for it is when you are
in the midst of wickedness that holiness is most needful.

This post seems sufficiently long for now, though I feel I could say
more. I will think about these things, and your situation, and as
more occurs to me, I will add additional posts to this one.

Hope these words help you a little.

An additional question:

Kanekodi

Re: Strive to find happiness and meaning within yourself

Fri Sep 24 08:26:25 1999

Thank you Sitaramji for your kind advice. Is there any solution in
Islam for my problem?

Love,

Kanekodi

My response:

Certainly, if you read this message board regularly, you know my
position on Islam, which leads me to suspect that perhaps you are
baiting me for your own amusement, to see my reaction.

Nevertheless, I will answer your question honestly. Any individual
who is able to achieve in their life, in their heart, a deep and
abiding faith and belief and confidence IN ANY RELIGION, be it Islam,
Christianity, Saivite, Vaishnav, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist, Sufi or
Zoroastrian; THAT person will experience great comfort and peace and
their hearts will always be filled with hope.

Such Faith is a gift from God to a particular individual. We cannot
choose or will to have such faith, saying "Aha! Today I will take
steps to become a person of deep faith!". No, it is a gift which is
given only to those who are ripe for it, who have matured from past
experiences.

Nor can one truly CHOOSE a religion or belief. This again is
something which depends on the indivdual's character and nature,
conditioned by past experiences in this life, or in previous births.

This is why it is a futile and ignorant effort that many religions
undertake to "convert the whole world" to some "one true faith".

For those familiar with Hindu scriptures, I will point out that the
wicked King Ravanna of Lanka, enemy to the Lord Ram, Avatar of Lord
Vishnu; Ravanna also had a religion, and it was from this religion
that Ravanna drew his strength to be an adversary of the Lord.

If we turn our attention to Jesus and His temptation in the desert,
we notice that even Satan seems to have had religion, since Satan
quotes chapter and verse from the scriptures several times, and asks
Jesus to bow down and worship him. Even the demons in the possessed
man, in a sense "prayed" to Jesus, in that they requested him to send
them into the herd of swine, and their prayers were answered!

So, you see, even the wicked have a religion. Even devils and demons
have a religion.

Even superstitious people, such as some professional baseball
players, have a religion, in the sense that their ritualistic
gestures, such as touching the brim of their cap so many times "for
luck"; its a form of OFFERING or POOJA, and in return they hope for
something AUSPICIOUS.

The true miracle of God is the Maya or Illusion of "the one true
faith". Each of us believes that we are uniquely in possesion of the
truth, the Lord's most intimate devotees, a chosen people, elect.
Every pious Hasidic Jew believes this. Every Muslim Iman is convinced
of this. Hindu Sanyassins and Roman Catholic priests and nuns feel
this with the utmost certainty. It is the protection of this Maya or
Illusion of our unique, priveliged relationship with God which gives
us the strength and courage to practice our devotions.

Perhaps the best religion is patience, persistance, reflection
humility, and surrender.

Be persistant in performing life's duties or Dharma. Be patient and
dont give up. At each moment of life, under every circumstance,
continually reflect within yourself, "Where have I come from? What am
I? Who am I? What is my ultimate purpose? What is my ultimate
destination." Finally, have the humility to recognize your own dharma
and nature, and accept it, surrender to it.

If you devoutly follow THIS religion, whose FIVE PILLARS are
patience, persistance, reflection, humility, surrender. Then all else
which is necessary for you shall be added in due time; spouse,
children, friends, outward religion, career.

Remember, if you cannot be a friend to yourself, then how can you
expect anyone else, even God, to be your friend. Even if they ARE
your friends, if you are an enemy to yourself, you will reject their
friendship, or not recognize it. If you cannot help yourself, then
how any some outside agency, any angel or prophet or incarnation help
you; since even if they ARE trying to help you, it is only through
your CO-OPERATION, i.e. helping yourself, that you will allow them to
help you.

You remember in Christian scriptures the story of the Prodigal son
who asked his Father for his inheritance, and then squandered it in a
foreign land, and fell into poverty. Yet, when the Prodical son
reflected within himself that he had reached a low estate, and hit
rock bottom; and then resolved to return to his Father,.... well, you
will observe that the Prodigal son was doing everything that I am
advising you hear. As the Prodigal son approached the Fathers home,
the Father saw him from a long way off, and came out of the house and
ran to meet the son. So for each step that the Prodigal son took
homwards, the Father was taking ten running strides. But you see, it
all hinged on the Prodigal sons OWN actions and freewill choice. Once
the Prodigal son INITIATES those small steps, then the Father ADDS
what is necessary, by running to meet the son.

Lord Krishna says in Chapter 9 of the Gita; "What ever My devotee
lacks, I suppliment and compliment and complete; and whatever My
devotee has achieved on their own, is preserved and conserved and in
no wise lost."

As to your specific question regarding Islam, you will notice which
religions and scriptures I have drawn my parables and examples from.

Islam teaches that Allah creates and pre-destines and fore-knows each
and every soul as a saved soul or a damned soul. Allah simply allows
them to be born into the world, so that their actions will CONFIRM
their damnation, and they will have no reason to complain that they
were never given a chance. Furthermore, the Koran explicitly states
many times, that Allah will INTENTIONALLY blind the unbeliever, and
stop their ears, and abandon them so that they may fall into even
DEEPER condemnation.

Nevertheless, if it is nature to find comfort in Islamic doctrines
and practices, then that is your Dharma, and you must make the best
of it.

I never tire of quoting from the Koran Surah 5, verse 48 (I
believe)... where Allah says, "IF I HAD WANTED TO, I could have
created ALL PEOPLE as one religion and nation, BUT FOR MY OWN
REASONS, I chose to create people as DIFFERENT religions and races
and nations (including Hindu). So, IF YOU MUST COMPETE WITH EACH
OTHER, then compete in doing GOOD WORKS, and when you return to Me, I
shall explain to you the REASONS for the differences between you."

Of course, I am paraphrasing that verse of the Koran from memory, and
many Orthodox Muslims will violently object that my words do not
reflect the true meaning and intent of that verse (obviously, since
my version ascribes to God a very tolerant INTERFAITH attitude). But
my paraphrase describes what I believe God would actually say, and if
God's nature is antithetical to such sentiments, then I have no
interest in worshiping such a God, not even to gain the reward of a
carnal Pardise, slopping like a swine in rivers of wine and milk and
honey, nor to avoid the tortures of hell, wheree I am "given a fresh
skin" each time my skin burns away, so that I may "taste the
torment").

No thanks. No such God for me. I prefer to be in hell next to Gandhi
and Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul and the Dalai Lama, since the
Koran says that hell is especially reserved for those who do not
submit to Islam.

I hope my honest answers will help you, assuming that your question
is sincere, and that you are not simply baiting me for your own
amusement.

Kanekodi

Re: Is there a solution in Islam.

Fri Sep 24 10:11:42 1999 Thank you my dear Sitaramji. I was really
serious when I asked this question whether there is solution in Islam
for my present problem.

I have come across many Muslims who are dragging me saying that Islam
will solve all our problems. I have read many of your messages and
found you have done deep study in many religions including Islam.
Hence I put question to you.

I am very much grateful to you for responding me sparing your
valuable time.

Hope now I will be able to think independently and take the decision
of my future.

Thank you once again.

With Love and Respects,

Kanekodi

My response:

I am glad that your question was sincere. Forgive me for being
suspicious.

Until I began to visit this message board (at the invitation of a
Muslim) I was quite unaware of how life might be in a city in India
such as Mangalore; the pressures and propaganda which Muslims
aggressively exert on their neighbors to convert. Since Muslims
represent only a small minority in India, between 10 or 20 per cent
(I forget the exact figure) you can just imagine what tremendous
pressure must be exerted upon non-Muslims in countries like Pakistan,
Iran, or Saudi Arabia!

Of course, Christians also are agressive in seeking converts, but not
to the extent that Muslims are, and not with such resort to force,
bribes, threats, or violence.

Hindus (with the exception of Hare Krishnas) and Jews (with the
exception of Lubavitchers) and Buddhists (with the excption of Soka
Gakkai) are not aggressive or prosyletizing.

I am gladdened to see the Hindus on this board being so much more
vocal. Perhaps there is a reason why I have come here.

I want you to choose your religion for yourself. You will notice in
my posts that I always offer choices and varieties and never say that
one path is particularly good over another. I even have some good
things, in fact many good things, to say about the Sufi denomination
of Islam.

Bear in mind that, if you do choose Orthodox Islam, I for one will
not personally condemn you. I do not believe in an eternal Hell or a
powerful Satan figure, so I certainly cannot condemn you to Hell and
Torments for your choice. I believe that God is very merciful, and
give each soul as many chances as are necessary (in the form of re-
birth) until that soul can mature and ripen and become itself Divine.

And we Hindus must bow in gratitude to our Muslim oppressors, for
they are great teachers to us and have greatly contributed to the
strength and equanimity of Sanatan Dharma. And where would Tulsidas
and the Ramacharitamanasa be without Ravanna? Where would Schindler's
List be without Hitler? What would Jesus do without Judas Iscariot?
Jesus Himself said, "It is necessary that such a one betray me, but
woe to him who has been born into this world for that task, better
that he were never born". (I am paraphrasing from my poor old memory,
but I am certain that Jesus says something like this, and these words
are MOST SIGNIFICANT regarding rebirth and the function of EVIL in
the world.

I raise my hand to you in Auspicious Mudra, Kalyanamastu!

May you find the peace and happiness which every conscious being
seeks!

Om Shanti Shanti Shanti, Hari Om!