God in Vedas and Upanishads

Re: # 172: So, this is the conclusion:
1. There are very few people who have enough knowledge to distinguish between Vedas and Vedanta.

2. urstruly and krishna_abcd exchange shows that neither Hindus nor Muslims are free of their -unalterable? - biases.

3. krishna_abcd`s #199 shows that alot of brahmins are masquerading under anti-Islam flag to bring th Brahminical dominance back to Hindu fold. I think if such prevail that is an omen for Hindus.

4. Thanks harshreality.

#195 by Inquirer on June

i have some knowladge of theory of karma.operative content of theory of karma as per jain philosophy is ``there is now power who is managing everything. univerce is eternal.
soul is in pure form had no karma attached to it.but souls actions attached karma to soul.
only way to pure soul is minimize actions which attach strong karmas to soul.so soule can librate from karma & librate from never ending cycle of birth & die.when soul shunn all karmas he can become omniscient who could see everything & had every knowladge.
he didnt have any confusion abt anything``

I think above is basic.
but if somebody want extensive knowladge then he have to go some learn person.

#198 by Inquirer

[In view of your conveniently forgetting to define ``philosophical content`` when asked for..]

No. I did not forget. I don`t think it is necessary to define very common word in the lexicon before I use it here on this website. I might as well ask you to define the word ``define`` before I give you a definition. All this semantic sword-play is not going to hide the fact that on points, you have NOTHING to say.


[... after you dismissed Islamic conception of the creation of the world, one can only infer that your aim is to denigrate Islam and its scriptures.

I can not participate in that. ]

Heh heh. Yes. I dismissed it all right. But your anger raises this question in my mind - are you Christian, or maybe a Dalistan freak-job?


[As far as I am concerned Urstruly has addressed your original concern. Of course, he took an easy path to do it and put the burden of finding the answer on yourself. I tried to help but you still refused to see it. ]

Yes. Your help. I highly appreciate it. I was talking to you not because I thought you are very qualified to talk about these things, but because you were polite. There is no two-way ``divergence`` in Hindu Philosophy, for example. Although your article is an amaeturish, undereducated attempt, I did not want to be rude. Your idiotic assertion that the Upanishads was distinct from the Vedas, for example.


[I will repeat again that Hindus have to (and this time ``have to`` means ``have to`` ) to stop looking down upon other religions. Otherwise they are no better than the Wahaabis.]

Or else what? Hindus ``have to`` do nothing. You can take your non-Hindu (Christian/Dalistani?) rants somewhere else.

Have a nice life.

Re: # 186:
In view of your conveniently forgetting to define ``philosophical content`` when asked for after you dismissed Islamic conception of the creation of the world, one can only infer that your aim is to denigrate Islam and its scriptures.

I can not participate in that.

As far as I am concerned Urstruly has addressed your original concern. Of course, he took an easy path to do it and put the burden of finding the answer on yourself. I tried to help but you still refused to see it.

I will repeat again that Hindus have to (and this time ``have to`` means ``have to`` ) to stop looking down upon other religions. Otherwise they are no better than the Wahaabis.

#187 by Urstruly

[#185 Krishna

You write: ``As you can see, the thought processes are primitive, crude and lacking any sophistication. There is a sum total of ZERO philosophical content. ``

Answer:

and none was claimed.]

I`m glad to see that you are honest enough to admit it.


[As a matter of fact I did write a number of posts below to explain just this point that Islam does not present its universal vision in some convoluted phiolophical, jargon heavy, polemic. It is as simple as it can get. It is a vision that even the lowest common denominator in the human intelligence can understand. It puts forth examples from everyday life that an ordinary human being witnesses with his own eyes.]

If you say that it is a simple-minded religion for simple-minded folks, you will get no argument from me.


[But as it is said that `less is more`, it is the case with Islam as well.]

A student once tried the ``less is more`` approach in an exam. For every difficult question, he wrote ``X`` as an answer. THe examiners still gave him a big, fat ZERO.


[If a religion is so, so that its ``essence`` could be understood by only select few with supehuman divinely induced intelligence then it creates classes with in religion, as it has happened in Hinduism or Catholicism, where only a class of priests cliams to be the knower of the truth and rest are only expected to follow rituals.]

Actually this is nonsense repeated by people who try to show Hinduism in a bad light. I could give you many quotes that explicitly states that anyone could choose to learn Hindu philosophy - and many have through history. In fact there are no ``rules`` in Hinduism that bar people from doing anything (I am talking about Hindu philosophy here). Many of the great sages over the millenia have been people from non-priestly classes. Priests were people who did it as a livelihood, but no one was barred from learning anything.


[This is not the case with Islam. The argument is so simple, the leaps of faith are so few that every individual who wishes to understand it, can. I do not understand why a concept has to be complex and beyond understanding to be considered as valid. Please explain. ]

The concept of god arose in primitive societies when man was incapable of expaining phenomena like storms and thunder and lightning, and earthquakes and so on. When people could not explain something, they answered it with an ``X`` - that ``X`` was ``God``. That was the explanation for everything. Islam and Christianity are no different than this primitive thinking. But Indian society developed philosphies that went beyond this kind of primitive thinking - collectively known today as ``Hindu`` philosophy - although it did not have a name - it used to be called ``sanatana dharma`` or ``eternal philosophy`` (The word ``dharma`` does not mean the same thing as the word ``religion``).

#193 by Inquirer

[I am enjoying interaction with you because, like me, you do follow explicitly the thread of an argument. ]

Unfortunately it is a very rare trait.


[1. By rational I mean not optimal, not fair, not universal; simply, that a logical system - though it may be totally arbitrary that arises from a prophet or a committee following him/her. ]

Here`s some of the definitions of the word ``rational``:

Having or exercising the ability to reason.
Of sound mind; sane.
Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

SO I`ll give you a piece of advice, if you do not mind:
You need to take a stand-apart view of definitions and reduce coloration from your individual ideas of what a word means. :)


[2. By psychology I do not mean any individual. I refer to the psychology of humanity as recognized by ``rishis.`` In the current context, God exists only in the community collective brain. See the the quotation from Brihad Aranyak in the Summary of the Article. ]

Maybe, but when you say that non-Semitic religion - Hinduism - in the current context, is ``based on psychology``, you are making a very sweeping statement. There are two aspects of religion - social and spiritual. The social flows from the spiritual, but the spiritual aspect is the true aspect of a ``religion`` like Hinduism (of course, Hinduism is not a ``religion`` in the same sense as Christianity or Islam). In the spiritual aspect, or the true aspect, the society, or the concept of ``God`` as understood by the society, does not matter. So to say that Hinduism is based on psychology is an inaccurate statment.


[3. By ``granting`` I mean recognizing that the various populations would have their own premises and the related rules of derivation of conclusions therefrom, irrespective of what you think. ]

Yes, different populations will have their own premises. Like the Nazis, for example. But I don`t ``have to`` grant them their premise. If I think their premise is bone-headed, it should be okay to say so.


[4. Religions are the cults that have lasted a long time. ]

Yes. In the conventional meaning of the word ``religion``. But not as it applies to Hinduism.


[5. Success of societies are documented by the history, your individual view is unimportant.]

Where in ``history`` has this ``success`` been documented? I am guessing, only in your ``individual`` brain.


[6. Yes, the Muslims did not rule some parts but from India to Spain they ruled.]

Muslims did not rule most of the ``known`` world - by landmass, and by population. So what`s your point?


[And the technology advanced under them most rapidly. ]

Technology like what?


[It is interesting you noted the similarity with kaalchakra. I like his ways of thinking. See Buddhism Essay. I am concerned to find that he is undergoing some surgery. Let us hope he will be back among us soon. No, I am Inquirer in Chowk and New York Times for past 8 years. ]

He was prone to making ambiguous statements, and sought to modify his views to please people at times.


[By the way, a piece of advice, if you do not mind:
You need to take a stand-apart view of arguments and reduce coloration from your individual preferences/prejudices. Try to see truth independent of your self. ]

Here`s another piece of advice for you. Give advice ONLY AFTER establishing that your advice is relevant.

Re: # 194, harshreality:
Are you Jain? Do you know what is the operative content of Jain Karma theory? I can find books on the internet by myself. What I want is a personal description. But you got to know first!

#193 by Inquirer on June

You can find number of gr8 books on theory of karma on this site
http://www.jainworld.com/library/jain_books11.asp

Re: # 192, krishna_abcd:
I am enjoying interaction with you because, like me, you do follow explicitly the thread of an argument.

The responses below are in sequence to your comments on my observations.

1. By rational I mean not optimal, not fair, not universal; simply, that a logical system - though it may be totally arbitrary that arises from a prophet or a committee following him/her.

2. By psychology I do not mean any individual. I refer to the psychology of humanity as recognized by ``rishis.`` In the current context, God exists only in the community collective brain. See the the quotation from Brihad Aranyak in the Summary of the Article.

3. By ``granting`` I mean recognizing that the various populations would have their own premises and the related rules of derivation of conclusions therefrom, irrespective of what you think.

4. Religions are the cults that have lasted a long time.

5. Success of societies are documented by the history, your individual view is unimportant.

6. Yes, the Muslims did not rule some parts but from India to Spain they ruled. And the technology advanced under them most rapidly.

It is interesting you noted the similarity with kaalchakra. I like his ways of thinking. See Buddhism Essay. I am concerned to find that he is undergoing some surgery. Let us hope he will be back among us soon. No, I am Inquirer in Chowk and New York Times for past 8 years.

By the way, a piece of advice, if you do not mind:
You need to take a stand-apart view of arguments and reduce coloration from your individual preferences/prejudices. Try to see truth independent of your self.

#191 by Inquirer

[As I have repeatedly tried to explain Semitic religions are not based in psychology, they are rational systems. ]

Rational? Really?

And non-Semitic systems are based on psychology? Whose psychology?


[You have to grant them their fundamental premise and agree to certain rules of derivations from the premise.]

Why do I have to?


[Once you do that they evolve into a way of life which has the rigidity of an arbitrary formulation as well as the absence of self-standing validity. ]

I agree. This is true of most cults.


[The efficacy of the religions and consequently their ways of life is determined by the coherence of the societies they engender, the success of which, since times immemorial, has been judged by the military prowess. ]

Judged by who? Not me certainly. Or people like me.


[From this formulation, the Muslims were the dominant people of the World from eightth to fifteenth century AD.]

I disagree. Most of Europe, China, and South East Asia were outside their evil influence.


[Now since Islam is the religion of discussion at hand, the premise is: God is all powerful. The rule of derivations is that the prosperity of Muslims HAS to be assured. Therefore, for the inter-community interactions Muslims should first convince the non-Islamics to convert, if they do not, then see what military tactics can do to remove the obstructions.]

This is true.


[The seeming abolishment of hereditary classification/caste systems in Islam made it attractive to the down troddens in other religions. That is why the rapid expansion of Islam occurred in 9-13 centuries. No doubt the rational use of war tactics also went a long way.]

Yes. Seeming abolishment.



BTW, are you Kaalchakra in a different incarnation? You sure sound like him.

As I have repeatedly tried to explain Semitic religions are not based in psychology, they are rational systems.

You have to grant them their fundamental premise and agree to certain rules of derivations from the premise. Once you do that they evolve into a way of life which has the rigidity of an arbitrary formulation as well as the absence of self-standing validity.

The efficacy of the religions and consequently their ways of life is determined by the coherence of the societies they engender, the success of which, since times immemorial, has been judged by the military prowess.

From this formulation, the Muslims were the dominant people of the World from eightth to fifteenth century AD. And Christians have been from sixteenth to now. Of course, the success of Christians was assured by the scientific component of the Enlightenment.

Now since Islam is the religion of discussion at hand, the premise is: God is all powerful. The rule of derivations is that the prosperity of Muslims HAS to be assured. Therefore, for the inter-community interactions Muslims should first convince the non-Islamics to convert, if they do not, then see what military tactics can do to remove the obstructions.

The seeming abolishment of hereditary classification/caste systems in Islam made it attractive to the down troddens in other religions. That is why the rapid expansion of Islam occurred in 9-13 centuries. No doubt the rational use of war tactics also went a long way.

Re: # 188, yrstruly:
Your correction is incorrect! Why add otherwise?

Re: # 186, krishna_abcd:

Define philosophical content.

The first line in #187 should read ``and none was claimed otherwise.

#185 Krishna

You write: ``As you can see, the thought processes are primitive, crude and lacking any sophistication. There is a sum total of ZERO philosophical content. ``

Answer:

and none was claimed. As a matter of fact I did write a number of posts below to explain just this point that Islam does not present its universal vision in some convoluted phiolophical, jargon heavy, polemic. It is as simple as it can get. It is a vision that even the lowest common denominator in the human intelligence can understand. It puts forth examples from everyday life that an ordinary human being witnesses with his own eyes. But as it is said that `less is more`, it is the case with Islam as well. If a religion is so, so that its ``essence`` could be understood by only select few with supehuman divinely induced intelligence then it creates classes with in religion, as it has happened in Hinduism or Catholicism, where only a class of priests cliams to be the knower of the truth and rest are only expected to follow rituals. This is not the case with Islam. The argument is so simple, the leaps of faith are so few that every individual who wishes to understand it, can. I do not understand why a concept has to be complex and beyond understanding to be considered as valid. Please explain.

#185 by Inquirer

[Both urstruly and krishna_abcd are my friends and there seemed to be a missing bridge between them for developing understanding.]

Actually, much as anybody would like to paint all this as a lack of understanding, the reality is that Urstruly is avoiding doing something very simple (he is instead directing me to websites).

And with good reason. There is NO philosophy contained in the Koran. Or the New or the Old Testament, for that matter. These were developed by simple and uneducated people for a simple audience.

I cannot say otherwise just to appear democratic and friendly.


[The Question

Wilson: Of what material did the Almighty create life?

Chirri. The Holy Qur`an declares that God has created all living beings out of water:

``Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the Earth were closed up, so We split them, and We made from water everything living? Will they not then believe?`` 21:30

``And God has created every walking life out of water, of them that which crawls upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them that which walks upon four. God creates what He pleases. Surely God is Possessor of power over all things.`` 24:45 ]


As you can see, the thought processes are primitive, crude and lacking any sophistication. There is a sum total of ZERO philosophical content.

If I am wrong, anyone is welcome to SHOW ME.

Both urstruly and krishna_abcd are my friends and there seemed to be a missing bridge between them for developing understanding. Furthermore, their interchanges made me curious, so I looked for the Cosmology in Islam. Of course, my findings are mere scratches on a vast field but I present them so that the first bricks for the formation of the bridge may be laid.

So here it is from an interested ignoramus in Islam. Please note that the discussion provided below is not a peer review but rather a question from a recent convert to an admired imam. First the introductions:

Imam Mohamad Jawad Chirri
Director of the Islamic Center of America Revised Edition 1986 Published by THE ISLAMIC CENTER of AMERICA
and
``I am one of the many who have benefited from Imam Mohamad Chirri`s teaching. I was his first ``convert``; but never having been a believing Christian, it would be more exact to say that I came to believe in God for the first time through the path of Islam, patiently guided by my imam. ``
Wilson H. Guertin, Ph.D. University of Florida

The Question

Wilson: Of what material did the Almighty create life?

Chirri. The Holy Qur`an declares that God has created all living beings out of water:

``Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the Earth were closed up, so We split them, and We made from water everything living? Will they not then believe?`` 21:30

``And God has created every walking life out of water, of them that which crawls upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them that which walks upon four. God creates what He pleases. Surely God is Possessor of power over all things.`` 24:45

The references above are to the three separate translations of Koran by Yusufali, Pickthal and Shakir.

With best wishes to all for dveloping understanding not argumentation.

#179 by Urstruly

``I went silent because I had got the feeling that no matter what I would have done or written would never be accepted as a qualified answer.``

A student once tried this explanation to explain why he did not answer any of the questions in an exam.

The examiner still gave him a zero.


``Even though the choice is yours, but what I was telling you was for your own good.``

I think you should resist this impulse to do good to others and just stick to answering my question.

And no, please don`t direct me to any website.

Just:

1) Cut and paste a few philosophy-laden suras from the Koran (just 2 or 3 would do for now),

2) Cut and paste their translations.

3) Explain the philosophy contained in the suras you cut and pasted (a few lines will suffice).

Re: # 182, urstruly:
Do you know the parts of Koran that would supply what Krishna is asking for??

If you do, then why don`t you quote the way you have quoted your instruction???

That is all he is asking for. No need to quote the vaporous article of Maududi. None for any of the sites you provided.

CENTRAL THING IS TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER.

Re: # 181

I delivered, what I was asked to deliver. He had another agenda, which he admits to in the post below.

But keep in mind that I am not disappointed with this excahnge and do not feel betrayed. Communicating with people at chowk has enabled me to read between the lines; but I had an agenda of my own. Anyway, in these situations our instructions are clear:

``“So if they dispute with thee (addressing Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)), say: ‘I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me,’ And say to the People of the Book and so to those who are unlearned: ‘do ye (also) submit yourself? If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message”

(House of Imran Surah 3:20).

Re: # 179, urstruly:
You probably have noted my response to Krishna_abcd.

You need to think through yourself first as to what is of significance in your references and then summarize it in your response. You simply put the burden on krishna. No one is so interested in your answer as to derive the data from references provided by you.

Re: # 178, krishna_abcd:
Thanks for responding in detail.

There are many issues but I will select a few.

a. `` As most people on this board know, my previous nicks are Ajeya and Ramanujan.``
****I recall some Ramanujan, but not clearly. Did you have many a tiff? Enough to require a new pen-name?****

b. ``No I don`t agree. In SOME OF Christ`s teachings alone there is an emphasis on love. That is a crude approximation, for example, to the interpretation of the Heart Chakra - where we see ourselves in others. ``
**** I am not sure if you understood what I meant. So some clarifications. By stating that the Semitic religions are an approximation to Vedant what I mean is that Upanishads have tried to go beyond the arbitrary specification of the nature of God. See the article: Summary paragraph and the last but one paragraph under Upanishads. The Semitic religions start with arbitrary statements which every believer HAS to accept. Please explain the Heart Chakra statement.****

c. ``Exactly which summation is it that is ``not one hundred percent correct``?``
****By writing ``there is not an iota of sophistication of thought in that book. It is for simple-minded and superstitious folks, or sheeple, as someone put it in a post recently. Not very different from the other Semitic books.`` you are making a very sweeping statement. Admittedly, there may not be a cosmology in Koran - though I tend to doubt it, see, e.g., urstruly`s #170, http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries/4.html; it may not be grounded in philosophical psychology, but it is there. Your above statement indicates a desire to condemn without giving just consideration. ****

d. ``Now THAT is a crude (inexact - not necessarily untrue, though - it depends on what you mean by it) statement. What do you mean when you say that 75% of Muslims are ``crude``?``
**** I think You misunderstood me. I did not say that the Muslims are crude. I only implied that seventy five percent of Muslims crudely state the superiority of Islamic tenets. Notice it does allow for 25 % for the refined Muslims. Any group of humans with 25% of them classified as refined is doing well, Hindus included!!****

Finally, notice inspite of our differences, we are trying to asymptotically reach an understanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I went silent because I had got the feeling that no matter what I would have done or written would never be accepted as a qualified answer. I don`t care about traps; only those are scared of traps who intend to hide something.

Even though the choice is yours, but what I was telling you was for your own good.

#174 by Inquirer

[I am glad you responded to my summation. You were probably cut to quick by my inference 3. ]

I really hadn`t noticed. And even if I had, would have made no difference.

[It is not for me to say how you could have introduced your question to urstruly but I proffer this so that a statement may be made about the dialog process.

1. If you are so well informed about Koran, then you set a trap for urstruly. How nice it would have been if you had clearly stated your familiarity with the depth of Koran by referring to the contents of their relevant statements about a selected issue? Then may be urstruly would have excused himself or some more sophisticated respondent would have picked up your question.]

I have. Many times. I have quoted chapter and verse, and what it means. Urstruly types always go silent at the end. Masadi etc. become abusive and don`t bother to respond in the end. So this time I was giving him a free hand to see what he had to say. Urstruly started by trying to avoid having to respond directly, by directing me to websites. When I persisted, he clammed up.


[Without any presence of your profile, urstruly reasonably assumed you to be a non-Islamic person who needs general information.]

Well I corrected him, didn`t I?


[2. You also were a little bit appearing to indict the Koran by brusquely demanding a quote and its translation. That attitude would be OK for a non-believer Muslim but with a name like krishna it reeked of communalism. ]

As most people on this board know, my previous nicks are Ajeya and Ramanujan. Also, in that case, he would not have responded at all. But he did respond - and directed me to different websites.


[3. As I have repeatedly indicated in the thread, Semitic religions, nay even the Vedas, are approximations to the socio-psychological interpretations of reality in the Vedanta. If you are a professor in religion, then I would have loved you to pick up that statement and assess it. ]

No I don`t agree. In SOME OF Christ`s teachings alone there is an emphasis on love. That is a crude approximation, for example, to the interpretation of the Heart Chakra - where we see ourselves in others.


[4. WE NEED TO EXCHANGE VIEWS NOT BRICK BATS IN THE CHOWK. AGREEMENT AND REFUTATION SHOULD LEAD TO SOME SORT OF UNDERSTANDING OR THE SEMBLANCE THEREOF.]

You are sorely mistaken if you think ``AGREEMENT AND REFUTATION SHOULD LEAD TO SOME SORT OF UNDERSTANDING``. I have almost NEVER seen anyone on this site acknowledge that they were wrong about anything. As I have said many times before, if they don`t have anything left to argue with, they shut up, and start mouthing the same arguments and the same reasonings two minutes later on some other forum.

[5. Finally, your summation to me is not one hundred percent correct. You see you may be the most informed person on Koran including even the Muslims but you can not compare yourself to a believer. Because the believer represents, in howsoever miniscule fashion, the faith in the religion which makes alll the difference. Dry academics are important for the analysis and guidance of action but they cannot provide how the foundations of any religion constitute the religion itself. ]

Exactly which summation is it that is ``not one hundred percent correct``?


[PS. After all this, I think it behooves on you to present a brief analytical article on Koran/analysis of cosmic ideas of the Semitic religions.]

Really? Why?

[We Hindus generally fail to indicate any desire, to learn about different faiths - though I am not sure it even exists - and have a clear tendency to look down upon them.]

I think you should speak for yourself. In my opinion, Hindus are the most liberal bunch of people on this planet. You will find pictures of Jesus Christ in many Hindu households, and when I was growing up, the cross on a chain was a fashion statement amongst the youth. We don`t think anything of adopting traditions and rituals from other religions like Valentine`s day etc. This, in spite of statements like ``Holy Cow`` etc. amongst Christians. My wife used to work with some Goanese Christians. It is amazing how they are taught in Church to look down on Hinduism. Sanyasis are portrayed as some kind of perverts, and the whole idol thing as somehow backward and low-class.

It is the left-wing hand-wringers in our midst that will one day result in the obliteration of Hindu culture as we know it.


[Of course, we are not crude like seventyfive percent of Muslims.]

Now THAT is a crude (inexact - not necessarily untrue, though - it depends on what you mean by it) statement. What do you mean when you say that 75% of Muslims are ``crude``?

Re: # 61, rizwan:
Upon reading harshreality (#175), I noticed that I had not responded to you though I did want to at that time.

You and pmishra2 interacted on the issue of supremacist attitude in religions. pmishra2 was saying that Islam regarded itself as the final word in the field of the sacred (which by the way is the fault of all religions) and the followers of Islam have continued to literally champion that statement which obviously might have been relevant at one place and one time.

In response to this, of course, you pointed out that Hinduism makes no mention of other religions and prophets. All of the Avataras are supposed to have happened in India and they all spoke Sanskrit. What you point is correct but that has not translated among the followers of Hinduism into a political statement that all others should be converted or wiped out.

It is this distinct difference in the attitudes of the followers - between Islam and Hinduism - that is clearly the important issue.

All religions developed at one place and one time period so they are bound to be local and temporal. There is nothing wrong in it. It is to be expected. BUT THE FOLLOWERS NOW HAVE THE RAPID COMMUNICATIONS AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPROACHES OF THE FOLLOWERS OTHER THAN THEIR OWN RELIGION. Therefore, we need to separate the politics of the religions from the spirituality. We have to consistently adhere to the uniqe spirituality of our own religion but we MUST accept and ACKNOWLEDGE the right of the followers of all other religions to do the same.

Re: # 175, harshreality:
I am glad you returned. Your statement regarding your cut and paste may have some truth even though he persisted for some time without referring to your posts.

I appreciate your not taking offence at my summation regarding your massive post! Believe it or not, I did print good part of your posts and found that it is a detailed discussion of the the Karma Theory in Jain interpretation.

Now, generally all religious treatises are in general very hard readings due to their arbitrary demand on submission to them. Yours was not an exception. Therefore, like all of them it was ineffectual because no body probably reads it.

A constructive way to enhance and assure communication which is really our sole purpose we should summarize the main points. Only then can we be effective in spreading a view point.

I would still value your summary of the previous posts.

172 by Inquirer on June 19, 2006 9:51am PT
Inferences from the discussion of my presentation at the Chowk.

Dear Friend,
rijwan not express his desire to learn but starting to abuse the theory of karma & vedic philosophy.
Its only my copy & pest post from some learned site he ran away with tail in legs else you people are to ill equipped to face him with his third rate arguments.

Thanks

Re: # 173, krishna_abcd:
I am glad you responded to my summation. You were probably cut to quick by my inference 3.
It is not for me to say how you could have introduced your question to urstruly but I proffer this so that a statement may be made about the dialog process.

1. If you are so well informed about Koran, then you set a trap for urstruly. How nice it would have been if you had clearly stated your familiarity with the depth of Koran by referring to the contents of their relevant statements about a selected issue? Then may be urstruly would have excused himself or some more sophisticated respondent would have picked up your question. Without any presence of your profile, urstruly reasonably assumed you to be a non-Islamic person who needs general information.

2. You also were a little bit appearing to indict the Koran by brusquely demanding a quote and its translation. That attitude would be OK for a non-believer Muslim but with a name like krishna it reeked of communalism.

3. As I have repeatedly indicated in the thread, Semitic religions, nay even the Vedas, are approximations to the socio-psychological interpretations of reality in the Vedanta. If you are a professor in religion, then I would have loved you to pick up that statement and assess it.

4. WE NEED TO EXCHANGE VIEWS NOT BRICK BATS IN THE CHOWK. AGREEMENT AND REFUTATION SHOULD LEAD TO SOME SORT OF UNDERSTANDING OR THE SEMBLANCE THEREOF.

5. Finally, your summation to me is not one hundred percent correct. You see you may be the most informed person on Koran including even the Muslims but you can not compare yourself to a believer. Because the believer represents, in howsoever miniscule fashion, the faith in the religion which makes alll the difference. Dry academics are important for the analysis and guidance of action but they cannot provide how the foundations of any religion constitute the religion itself.

PS. After all this, I think it behooves on you to present a brief analytical article on Koran/analysis of cosmic ideas of the Semitic religions. We Hindus generally fail to indicate any desire, to learn about different faiths - though I am not sure it even exists - and have a clear tendency to look down upon them. Of course, we are not crude like seventyfive percent of Muslims.

#168 by Inquirer

[As an intelligent and probably a well informed person you wanted information direct from Koran facilitated by a believer.]

Inquirer,

If you think that I am waiting with bated breath for Urstruly to unlock the secrets of the Koran for me, you are dead wrong. I have read several tranlations of the Koran. I have read explanations of the passages by different scholars from different periods in history. And I have been forced to conclude that there is not an iota of sophistication of thought in that book. It is for simple-minded and superstitious folks, or sheeple, as someone put it in a post recently. Not very different from the other Semitic books.

I put the question to Urstruly to see how he could reconcile this lack of any philosophical content with his insistence that Islam is the best thing since sliced bread.

As I mentioned earlier, this is more of an exercise in human psychology, than anything else.

Inferences from the discussion of my presentation at the Chowk.

1. I appreciate the interest taken by the correspondents but I cannot hide my disappointment at the absence of any correspondent taking specific statements in the presentation and elaborating/disputing/confirming them.
I am led to the conclusion that the people did not lead to enhancement of my own knowledge for which I was really hoping.

2. Interesting sidelights were provided on the aspects of polytheism in Hinduism and how to to interpret it.

3. I was hoping for a more interactive and fruitful conclusion of urstruly and krishna interchanges but evidently it did not materialize because of the non-specific questions and even more non-specific answers.

4. I noticed the random fire approches of harshreality and rizwan. People should avoid quoting unrelated articles when what is really needed is thinking, crystallizing and concisely presenting the thoughts for consideration by others. Rizwan at least expressed desire to learn, harsh reality`s downloads served no purpose.

5. I think the contributions of swarrier, pmishra2 and jang are valuable and have served to provide useful thoughts.

6. Finally, thanks to all for their effort for interactions.

#170 by Urstruly

[Krishna

I am not trying to wiggle out of anything. I am in fact trying to get your iquiry focused on one specific thing so that we are do not start discussing Encycopedia Britanica starting from letter A. ]

Urstruly,


You DO NOT have to discuss the Encyclopedia Brittannica.

But since so far you have been able to type about 3 long responses to my statements, it should be quite easy, in comparison, to type (or cut and paste from the websites you mention), a few lines from the Koran, and the corresponding translations, along with the explanations of the philosophy behind those lines.

Now is that too much to ask?

Krishna

I am not trying to wiggle out of anything. I am in fact trying to get your iquiry focused on one specific thing so that we are do not start discussing Encycopedia Britanica starting from letter A. Qura`n has discussed almost every aspect of human inquisition and any behavior that man is capable of doing as individual or as a group. Similarly it has put forth arguments to convince doubters and deniers and it has provided evidence to support its arguments not merely by logic but by the phenomenon and things that even the most uneducated person observes almost daily. In other words, its argument is so simple yet so wholesome that no one can claim that any part of it she did not undersatnd.

The following website discusses in detail the Islam`s Views on creation of the universe and man. The argument is put forth in a question answer format which has been the classical mode of teaching islamic teachings for centuries. As per your demand almost every argument is supported with the Qura`nic quotes or verses. Use the navigation arrows to go to several next pages. For a visual concept, I would recommend you to read the the An Illustrated Guide to Islam through the link that I had sent in my previous post. As a matter of fact open the two websites in two windows simultaneously. Here is the website with Islams views on Creation of Universe:

http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries/4.html


In some of the arguments the writer has not put the actual verse but only the number of it. In that case I would recommend you to open the Qura`n online with English translation from this website and find the verse:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/#M

Krishna_abcd: Oh, I forgot in the seriousness of Vedant. You description of urstruly`s God as X-mark is not only true but hilarious!!

Re: # 167, Krishna_abcd:
I had seen #166 yesterday but I deliberately waited to have your assessment of urstruly submittals.

I have interacted with him for about three years. He is an earnest Muslim. But as your assessment states here that is not enough.

As an intelligent and probably a well informed person you wanted information direct from Koran facilitated by a believer. However, while urstruly is an ``informed`` Muslim, I use the format of the preceding phrase advisedly, he is considered by many a more ``formally educated`` Muslims, like Mantolives and tahmad32, as a near-Mullah and a simplistic Muslim.

You see you can only ask a certain type of questions from him- or, for that matter as I believe from any Muslim on the issues that you had interest in. That is where the idea of Upanishadic supaatra comes in. I do not know if you saw urstuly`s ``deep`` reference by Maududi. It is nothing but rigmarole.

As I have indicated in the article as well as the discussions, the monotheistic religions, e.g., Semitic religions are an approximation to the psycho-philosophical gamut of the Upanishads. Even the Vedas do not reach that level of the Upanishads. That is why the Upanishads are called Vedant. The Vedas, and all three Semitic religions are like Euclidean Geometry. You accept their axioms without challenge and thinking and then follow the simple but limited logic, and you get A working system, though admittedly at a lower level of sophistication. Vedant can be compared to spherical geometry which is closer to the truth in the World.

I do not know whether urstruly did mean a few sentences in his #166, viz.: ``There is only one assumption in this model, which is that there is One God. If one assums this assumption to be true then everything in universe falls into its place. `` I never thought until now that urstruly will ever think of Allah as an assumption. I never expected him to be so intellectually aloof.

Finally, I wish you luck in your search but I doubt if you will ever get information at the same level as ``“Whoever worships a deity thinking that to be one and himself another - he does not know.” (Brihad Aranyak Upanishad Part I.Chapter IV,10) ``

#166 by Urstruly

[Krishna and Inquirer

I understand your dilemma.]

You have got the attitude down pat. The attitude of an assured, learned person who has the benefit of superior knowledge, sauvely holding forth on subjects quite elementary to him, but difficult to us earnet, but simple folks.

The reality, however is quite different. In your post you have come off as the back-bencher and chronic low-grader who doesn`t have a clue about the tough questions staring him in the face in an exam paper, and who puts an ``X`` as an answer to each question, because he doesn`t have the foggiest notion about how to solve the tough exam questions, and has no idea about the answers.

The ``X`` in your case, of course, is ``God``.


[Actually, this dilemma is common across the board among non-Muslims who would want to understand the model that Islam puts forth for the universe. Probably, you were expecting a long winding polemic argument pondering the answers to age old question that man has, i.e. who is he and where did he come from.]

No, I was expecting exactly what I asked of you - quotes from the Koran, with translations, and explanations.

But you are trying to wriggle out of that.

[THere is a philosophical principle that states that `` Given a choice between two explanations, choose the simplest -- the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions``; this principle is called Occam`s Razor. If we look at the Model of universe that Islam has presented we see that Islam presents the most simplistic model of the universe ever. There is only one assumption in this model, which is that there is One God. If one assums this assumption to be true then everything in universe falls into its place. This is a model that even the lowest common denominator of human intelligence can understand.

There is another principle in philosophy that is called the Principle of Parsimony, according to which ``This principle stipulates a criterion for deciding among scientific theories or explanations. One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic``. If I could take the liberty to modify this principle a bit, I would state it as ``One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of faith. In Islam there is only one leap of faith and that is ``There is One Absolute God`` ]


I don`t need a general discourse on philosophy - you might be surprised at how much I can lecture you back on philosophy - I need exact quotes from the Koran, their translations, and their explanations.

Is this too hard to understand?



[There is a whole plathora of philosophical literature in Islam that discusses in detail the Islam`s model of universe.]


Maybe. But I need quotes from the Koran, their translations, and their explanations.

I am not interested in winged creatures or hellfire or other profound stuff like that. Just the philosohy will do.

Looking forward to your answer to be finally posted.

Thank you.

Krishna and Inquirer

I understand your dilemma. Actually, this dilemma is common across the board among non-Muslims who would want to understand the model that Islam puts forth for the universe. Probably, you were expecting a long winding polemic argument pondering the answers to age old question that man has, i.e. who is he and where did he come from.

THere is a philosophical principle that states that `` Given a choice between two explanations, choose the simplest -- the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions``; this principle is called Occam`s Razor. If we look at the Model of universe that Islam has presented we see that Islam presents the most simplistic model of the universe ever. There is only one assumption in this model, which is that there is One God. If one assums this assumption to be true then everything in universe falls into its place. This is a model that even the lowest common denominator of human intelligence can understand.

There is another principle in philosophy that is called the Principle of Parsimony, according to which ``This principle stipulates a criterion for deciding among scientific theories or explanations. One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic``. If I could take the liberty to modify this principle a bit, I would state it as ``One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of faith. In Islam there is only one leap of faith and that is ``There is One Absolute God``

There is a whole plathora of philosophical literature in Islam that discusses in detail the Islam`s model of universe. A couple that bear the status of classic in literature is Kashaful Mahjoob by Ali Hajveri of Lahore written some 9-11 centuries ago and the other one is Mujadid Alif Saani the famous Muslim cleric who was prisoned by Emperors Akbar and Jehangir when he protested their apostasy and invention of Deen-e-Ilahi. There might be other sources on the net as well but here I have used the Occam`s Razor as well and provided you with the simplest of all that there is. As a matter of fact the first link, that is , the illustrated one, should be read in reverse order i.e. starting from the last chapter. In the end the author presents the big picture and then funnels it down to the minute details in first chapters. (going in reverse order).

urstruly, Krishna_abcd:
By the way, urstruly`s non-deep site: http://www.islam-guide.com/
is more meaningful, though it naturally presents and interprets the evidence
selectively to prove its points. There are questions about its validity but at least it is not rigmarole.
Since all religions are ``elementary science,`` each one can gin up info like the quoted site.

#162, Krishna_abcd:
Monotheistic religions of Abrahamic tradition are an approximation to the Vedantic Philosophy, though that does not mean that they are deficient in any practical way. As far as the practice is concerned like any other simplification of a complex situation they are more user-friendly. Nevertheless, they do not stand at the same footing as the Vedant.

Each one of them makes certain definite starting assumptions. These are their axioms as it were, just like the Euclidean Geometry. Once you accept their axioms, there is a logic that is built within their axiomatic formulations. This logic REQUIRES that you repudiate all other schools of thought.

The motivation for doing this arises from the desire to convert adherents of other schools of thought to extract the benefit from them. Islam has done this by developing a caste system within the converteds - ashrafs, moguls, arabs etc. Christianity did that by developing the caste system based on the colonial policies. The means of assuring the benefits is the same in both religions, though Christians are not as crude as the Muslims. Now I am not talking about hte philosophical ones in both religions but the Mullahs and Missionaries.

Both Islam and Christianity have deliberately kept this caste system out of their religious philosophy for the practical reasons of enforcing their caste system without the pricks of conscience among the thoughtful of their members and also due to the fact that the framework of their religions are inadequate to accomodate this temporary, ad hoc development.

On the issue of Vedas I completely share your views, thanks for stating them. We, as Hindus, need to de-emphasize the Shruti nonsense and develop framework to modernize and condense the the religious literature. I do not recommend abandoning the ground literature rather the emphasis should be on dveloping a working set for the common average ability Hindu, and by developing a workable system with coherence we shall be able to make our own society more just, coherent and strong. As I have said earlier, Indian Democracy is doing this in a diffuse way but slowly and it is often impeded by the political exigencies.

#157 by Urstruly

[I would like to suggest two sources to address your question.]

I appreciate your pointing me in the right direction. But please don`t. I would appreciate it if you did what I originally requested - provided me with 1) ACTUAL QUOTES FROM THE KORAN ALONG WITH 2) THEIR TRANSLATION AND 3) THEIR EXPLANATION.

And as I have mentioned, ``I am only interested in the philosophical aspects. Where there is some kind of discussion on the nature/origin of the universe, on the nature of consciousness, on the meaning of life and existence etc. ``

As a knowledgeable Muslim who keeps insisting that Islam should be taken seriously by the intellectuals of this world, could you kindly help me out here.

Thanks.

#153 by Inquirer

[I am not a Muslim but I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. ]

This could be an illuminating exercise in human psuchology.

[I do not think that Islam concerns itself with the philosophical aspects of epistemology. Like other Judeo-Christian religions, it starts with the given assumption that Allah created the world and its inhabitants like a kumhaar, if you understand the Hindi term.

Above all Islam is, much more so than Christianity, a politico-social strategy. Upto that point it was very effective in introducing reforms in arbitrary and ritual laden West Asia and Northern Africa, even in India due to exploitative caste system. ]

That`s what I meant when I said that I ``came up empty``.

[Even the Vedas are not philosophical despite the quotation from Rig Veda given in the article above. It is the unique charateristic of the Upanishads that you are trying to find the analog of in the Islamic Koran and it is nowhere to be found other han the Upanishads. ]

The vedas are considered sruti - that which is learnt by ear. For hundreds/thousands of years, nobody wrote them down. So finally when they were written down, they were a hodge-podge of different people`s impressions and additions. So when you read the Vedas, you see that a whole lot of it is quite banal, consisting of rituals and invocations to God asking for more grains or more rain or this or that. But once in a while you will find a passage that absolutely stands out from the rest - by its depth of analysis and breadth of scope - where the thoughts and the thought-processes of some long-ago introspective mind is evident.

And yes, the Upanishads contain much more philosophical content. But the Upanishads are not strictly distinct from the Vedas. The Khandogya-upanishad actually belongs to the Sama-veda. Together with the Brihad-aranyaka, which belongs to the Yagur-veda, it has contributed the most important materials to what may be called the orthodox philosophy of India, the Vedanta (Vedanta meaning - the end, or the the true purpose of the Vedas).

Re: # 160: What is the connection between the three platitudes you have enumerated and
http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/quran/understand.html ?

Re: # 158

I don`t think that the approach demands a complete submission before treading into understand the philosophy. As a matter of fact the Moulana have made it very clear in the very beging that there are three ways to get to the truth, but only one way will take you to it:

1. One way is to tread on the journey towards truth by committing to oneself that since the object of my pursuit is all a lie and falsehood therefore the purpose of my journey is to confirm my preconcieved notions.

2. The second way is to tread on the journey towards truth by committing to oneself that since the object of my pursuit is absolutely true therefore the purpose of my journey is to reaffirm my preconcieved notions.

3. The third way is to tread on the journey towards truth by committing to oneself that the object of my journey is to find out the truth and I do not know whether it is the right path or the wrong one; but I will find out.

But one does not have to be a Moulana to understand that only the third way is the valid and correct way for learning. This is called an open-mind approach.

Re: # 156, Swarrier:
Thanks for showing interest in those papers. Unfortunately I do not have them and I tried to locate them on the internet but did not succeed.

Re: # 157: I hope krishna_abcd finds help reading your input. I looked at the ``deeper`` article and find that it merely repeats the demand to accept, without understanding, the arbitrary statements that are quite routinely purveyed by Mullahs.

#151 abcd-Krishna.

I would like to suggest two sources to address your question. Please keep in mind that when Allah chose to communicate with human beings thruough a conduit named Mohammad (pbuh) the addressee were all possible range of people. On one hand there were people who were already aware of the message of Islam. Those were the oldest surviving Mulims who had started calling themselves Jews and Christians and on the other hand there were polytheists, animists, Naturists, and of course the atheists. Qura`n uses a different argument for each of these categories of people to convince them and bring them to their true Creator. So an atheist if reads the arguments meant for polytheist may not find them convincing and vice versa.

The first source is quite general but does address the question regarding the philosophical basis of Islam. The core addressees of the argument presented here are atheists, secularists and people of the book. If you have short attention span, and would like to feel just the gist of the philosophy visist this:


A BRIEF ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

http://www.islam-guide.com/



But if you would really want to go into the relatively deeper philosophical argument then visit this:

An Introduction to the understanding of the Qur`an


http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/quran/understand.html


Please let me know if you have any questions.

Re: # 155

Is it possible to get some of those papers on Thugee? I had read somewhere else that the British also over-did the hype on them.

Christians are no strangers to genocide. The Crusades were a power consolidating, money grabbing exercise sanctioned by the Pope Urban. And weren`t the Mafia dons good Catholics to a man.

[Ultimately, the acceptability of any practice hinges on the where withal to support it.]
Very true. I agree it is easy to blame things on religion. And sometimes people end up believing it too. People should be always be vigilant against the purveyors of inhuman cruelty.

Re: # 154, swarrier:
You have the right attitude toward religious practices. I agree with it.

You mentioned Thuggee. My father had published several research papers on that subject. He established that it was not a part of Hindu religion. Due to a general collapse of societal structure between 1700 and 1800, there was a widespread unscrupulousness then. Many a crooked organizations just adopted an easy way of robbing the travellers who had proliferated due to amassing of wealth away from homes and the British misinterpretted them attributing their casual and shallow signalling system to be originating from religious practices. Attributing Thuggee to Hinduism is just like attributing sea-piracy to Christianity.

Child-sacrifice is simply irresponsible parenthood into which the hapless couples blundered in. Since there were no laws to protect a child - until recently women and children all over the world were regarded as proerty of the man who had to gather resources to bring them up. Ultimately, the acceptability of any practice hinges on the where withal to support it.

Re: # 153
Inquirer
In my opinion no religion is perfect. All of them have imperfections because I believe they are man-made. There is no need to sanctify things that will creep into a religion such as Hinduism because of it`s accomodating nature.

The cult of the Thuggee is one such example, child sacrifice is another . There have been other esoteric cults that have been practiced various tribes in the past, I can look them up in some of the books that I have back in India. Now a lot of these have fallen by the wayside because people have taken strong objections to them. We should continue to do so.

Besides some rituals , beliefs etc made sense years ago. There is no need to hang onto them when they outlive their time, especially when our religion has not been created from some divine revelation.

We must never stop questioning our beliefs. I`m thankful that Hinduism can accomodate my agnosticism very well. It does not make me laugh at my mother`s belief in fasting on specific days of the week , going to all neighbourhood temples etc. . But I will criticise when somebody brings up something that justifes caste based discrimination or worse.

Again these are my opinions. We can argue about them, as they aren`t perfect either. -)

#150, swarrier: Unless you know and have experienced what an esotric thing is it is better to not commit to trash it.

#151, Krishna_abcd:
I am not a Muslim but I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree.

I do not think that Islam concerns itself with the philosophical aspects of epistemology. Like other Judeo-Christian religions, it starts with the given assumption that Allah created the world and its inhabitants like a kumhaar, if you understand the Hindi term.

Above all Islam is, much more so than Christianity, a politico-social strategy. Upto that point it was very effective in introducing reforms in arbitrary and ritual laden West Asia and Northern Africa, even in India due to exploitative caste system.

Even the Vedas are not philosophical despite the quotation from Rig Veda given in the article above. It is the unique charateristic of the Upanishads that you are trying to find the analog of in the Islamic Koran and it is nowhere to be found other han the Upanishads.

However, Islam has been completely done-in by the ridiculous and fascist emphasis on one god. This is simply because due to most acute lack of secular education the Muslims are a cheap and effective cannon fodder for the clever internal rulers who are buttressed by the foreign powers due to their own selfish needs.

#152, majumdar:
Inspite of the fact that Kabir did take inspiration from Islam, your comment does injustice to Nirguna because Nirguna is based in the Upanishads` Absolute rather than the jealous allah.

Maulana Urstruly (pbuh)

(God is absolute and he is above all human emotions, norms, and criteria of justice. He is not constrained by time and space. Just as a woman hates to share his man with another woman or vice versa, God does not like His rule shared. )

Your views on God are not very different from the nirguna (i.e. attributeless) theory of God that some Hanuds have-according to them too God is formless, infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent etc. But obviously your God does have one human quality- jealousy.

Regards

I would like some knowledgeable Muslim to expound on the philosphy of the Koran. With quotes. I am not interested in social rules and regulations, hellfire and stuff like that.

I am only interested in the philosophical aspects. Where there is some kind of discussion on the nature/origin of the universe, on the nature of consciousness, on the meaning of life and existence etc.

I have looked pretty hard, and come up empty. So if there is something I am missing, I would appreciate someone pointing it out. With quotes. And translations.

And there are some areas of Hinduism I`d like to confine to the rubbish heap of history. Sati, caste, the patriarchal bits, some esoteric aspects of tantrism. ..... We`ll get there eventually.

Re: # 148, swarrier:
You are entirely consistent with my #125.

Re: # 147
The meek shall inherit the earth, but they won`t keep it for long.-) Do you like my Christian take on it?

We still worship our swords and our kul-devi Bhagawati in our ancestral home.

Re: # 145, swarrier:
In the ecstasy to praise Hinduism, let us not forget the Sanskrit formula:

Viir bhogyaa Vasundharaa.

Re: # 144, swarrier:
All religions have God forgiving of the ``truly`` repentant. What I am referring to by Forgiving God is related to adoption of non-violence in daily life - turning of the other cheek. Sorry, if I was not clear.

For your question about the Hindu God: No, that is the entire Karma theory. Do good you will be rewarded, do ill you will be punished if not in this life in the next. See also, in the article above. Later thinkers have tried to introduce the concept. For example the common Hindu Prayer at the end of the day:

Hey Prabhu rakshaa karo Hamaarii,
Ham aaye haiN sharan tihaarii;
Din bhar key aparaadh hamaarey,
Kshamaa karo Karunaanidhi saarey.

By the way, the envisaging of a forgiving God is also a means to have assuaging of the pricks of the Conscience which as pointed out in #142 forms one third of the Vedantic God which according to me is the Quintessential God (QG). Other interpretations prevalent in polytheistic Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the subsets (no undermining implied) of the philosophical/psychological mix.

Monotheistic models of Semitic religions are simply user-friendly approximations which people with average abilities can grasp and function with. Buddhism in contrast with the the religions above adopted an agnostic approach - by declaring non-existence of soul. I am afraid that is all that could be done 2500 years ago as there was no idea of DNA to be used at that time to explain the operation of living organisms.

Re: # 141
I have to agree with pmishra2. There is no one way. It is best to have many roads and many pilgrims and doubters.
Actually one of the most endearing parts of Hinduism is the belief that everything is a manifestation of the divine. There is no superior life form.
Hinduism does not command that animals be subservient or slaves to man, or that man should exploit the earth. This is of course present in other religions but not in the Abrahamic traditions.

Pmishra2 I am one up on you. I had to feed an elephant after the puja. It was exhilarating and frightening. -)

Re: # 142
Inquirer
The Judaeo-Christian god forgives those who truly repent. Them as don`t will suffer hell-fire and damnation. It is still very much in that tradition. At least my reading of the testament and the bible leads me to that conclusion. By the way does Hinduism mention a forgiving god in the early stages at all?

Re: # 141, pmishra2:
No, it is not hard to explain, provided the the mind to which it is imparted is not closed and averse to others.
Directly from Upanishadic tradition, polytheism is a simple man`s interpretation of the syncretically enveloping Self of the thinker.

#137, swarrier: Repentance is different from a Forgiving God. Repentance shows existence of a conscience while The Forgiving God derives from the distinctly different ``non-violence to any one.``

#138, pmishra2: Can you shed light on Zoroastrianism and Manichaenism in this connection? I referred to Chritianity as our focus here is on Semitic and Hindu Religions.

#139, sanjay: Your interpretation of Hinduism is practice centered. No doubt it is important recognize the practice but it shows a de-emphasis on the philosophical understanding. People who do not know much about Sanatan Dharma in depth tend to emphasize the populist layman`s approach to multiple gods in Hinduism.

By the way ``Inclusive Monotheism`` is a good approximation but beware of its fundamental limitations. I would still say polytheism in Hinduism should be interpretted as mutiple ways of worshipping - defined as surrendering to a mix of conscience+humility+goodwill to all, called Self, in a formalized manner - rather than enumeration of many unrelated gods.

#139 sanjay

Let us agree to disagree on this in the best traditions of indic discussion and debate!

I respect very much both the sikh and arya samaji traditions but I cannot but help notice that both are stern, male-centred, authoritarian and have sometimes been violent. You are surely aware that the once very broad sikh tradition has now become dominated by people obsessed by ``apostasy``, ``purity``, insisting people keep long beards, separation from hinduism etc. In other words, a poor quality copy of islam.

The arya samaj people have done wonderful work in education and reducing child marriage. Yes some of their writings on other religions, including sikhs, are downright disgusting. They helped instigate the split with the sikhs in punjab in the early 19th century; this later lead (for various reasons) to the punjabi hidu-sikh divorce in the 60s and on.

In my mind, these are all the consequences of rejecting diverse ways to approach god. Once you start to believe there is only one way, inevitably you will conclude it is superior. Once you refuse to believe that the divine can manifest in many forms: animal, vegetable or human, you become obsessed with finding the one correct way.

The monkey and elephant gods of hinduism are symbols of our tribal history and our engagement with all nature. When I was a child, everyday once pooja was complete, I was asked to feed a cow, a crow and a dog with rotis! To me the hindu obsession with multi-faceted divinity is one of its most powerful and endearing facets. We need to deepen it and modernize it, not reject it because it is hard to explain.

A good analysis of Hindu Polytheism is given at Wikipedia. Just search for ``Polytheism``. Hindisim has been termed as ``Inclusive Monotheism`` i.e. One God is seen in different manifestations.

MISHRAJI, BHARATH,INQUIRER

I do not say that polytheism is bad or wrong. The problem is Polytheism, as a religous philosphy, has been rejected by most of the religions. Even Hindus have objected to Polytheism and Idolatory from time to time. Sikhs are one example--Sikh is a monotheist religion based on ``Ek Onkar`` or ``One God``

---

the others were Arya Samajis and others such reforming groups. So the concept of 330 Million Gods & Goddesses as is being practiced by Hindus will be questioned again and again by Hindus themselves.

The second, and important point- I feel, is that Polytheist Hinduism prohibits or it rather puts brakes on Hindus to join various Interfaiths dialogues. This prevents Hinduism to join world religions because nobody is going to accept the Puranic form of God i.e. Elephant God, Monkey God, Snake God etc. etc. which is most prevalent in India. So to take Hinduism to the world platform, we have to speak in consonance with other world religions and fortunately for that we dont have re-invent our religion. We have to only rediscover it.

If my understanding of what is going around in 21st Century is correct, then I can say that Hinduism is already moving or taking turn in that direction. Today the buzz-word is not temples but ``Spritual Centres`` the most famous being ``The Art of Living Foundation`` run by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in Banglore. The emphasis of these centres is move away from symbols and dogmas of religions, idol worship, multiple Gods etc. and move on to sprituality to have direct comunion with One God.

Thanks and regards.

#133 Inquirer

This Christ-in-India thing is not generally accepted. In any case, why focus so strongly only on christianity?

Other traditions such as Zoroastarianism and Manicheanism have also been significant and could have been influences. Judaism is of course a key faith for Christianity; we need to engage with all these traditions.

Greek was spoken for 100s of years in what is now pakistan. Mingling of indic and hellenic culture is another area of enquiry.

Re: # 135
I think Christ could have got his ideas about a forgiving god anyway from Judaic traditions too. The whole period of Yom Kippur where one atones for sins etc , is there, so that people become truly repentant, then they are forgiven by Yahweh.

Re: # 118, urstruly:
Your first paragraph is nothing but self-delusion without basis. Remember the impact of Tsunami on Indonesian Muslims?

The second paragraph is unalloyed bunkum.

Re: # 134, jang:
I agree. But this is an area where additional work may change some perspectives. However, the emphasis on a forgiving God in Christianity points to its derivation from a Hinduism and Buddhism mix. Needless to say that the philosophy could not take root in Europe just as Buddhism did not survive in India too long.

#133 i objected to the ``widely believed`` part. the overwhelming christianity (people, scholars) do not contribute to this theory. the fundamentalist live (and some die) by the bible, and they do not subscribe to this. most akcnowledged (harvard-yale types) bible historians also do not support this. so i would say its a fringe belief.

Re: # 132,jang:
First, you have to believe that Christ was a human.

Next, the life of Christ between the ages of 13 and 30 is known to be unknown.

Finally, The Rosicrucians, a sect in Christians, openly believe that he had gone to India during that period.

Also, the Resurrection is a believed by many to be a description of picking up of Christ from the Cross and subsequent transport to Kashmir where he died at the age of 50.

The current versions of the Bible are Officially convenient stories, though that does not mean they are insignificant.

#131 {It is well known that Christ had spent a lot of time in India and he learnt the sophistication of the religious philosophy there. }

i am not sure its ``well-known``..the church certainly does not acknowledge this, nor do crhistians followers...if they did, they would show-up in kashmir as pilgrims. do you know of any scholarly/historic references?

Interesting conversation between sanjay and bharath.

I would like to state the following in connection with one god(monotheism), multiple gods(polytheism and its version henotheistic polytheism) and monism.

First from the article above:

1.Section b. ``Earliest form of religion consists in the worship of natural powers. In other words early man personifies the powers of Nature, which by virtue of great strength become his gods. These deities are divine only in a qualified sense, for, though called gods, they are necessarily conceived in a human mind and are regarded as being actuated by the same motives and passions as the person that conceives of them. In capsule, the man creates god in his own image.``
****This is the conception of multiple gods of the Vedas.****

2. Section b. ``Monism: The search for godhead was soon recognized to be yielding only partial unity. Monotheism necessarily implied duality. There is a higher conception of unity including nature as well as god and this is monism.``
****The Rishis thought through and found that any God other than that constituted from the Self is just a matter of unfounded belief.****

Secondly:

It is well known that Christ had spent a lot of time in India and he learnt the sophistication of the religious philosophy there. So, when he returned he tried to teach a combination of Buddhism and Hinduism. As a person knowledgeable about the limitations of common man, he adopted an approximation of Vedantic philosophy represented by monotheism. This had the benefit of adopting the Jewish monotheism - hence, its accessibility to common man - and incorporating Buddhistic element of non-violence with moderated views about women originating in Vedic but not Vedantic Hinduism.

Thirdly, so much for the historical development. For Today`s Hindus, the most important thing that is needed is to make Hinduism more just for the deprived and disenfranchised lower castes which Indian democracy is doing fairly well, though slowly. The intolerant wings of Hindus are as much at fault as the radical Muslims in the context of the of peaceful development of India.

Islam HAS to tone down its pronouncements of ultimacy and the Hindus have to ABANDON their exclusivity. As for polytheism in Hinduism, I think it is incorrect to say that the Hindus should be justly proud of polytheism. Hindus accept various ways of worshipping a god. The question of The God does not arise because all conceptions are based on human psyche and how can any two of them be identical? It is futile even to develop a common way of living let alone try for a common way of thinking. Of course, clever people have tried to delude humans since times immemorial to adopt regimentation which benefit none except the promoters of any set of books.