*** Science Or God? ***

[rhitwick]

@Mediator,
First u bring "Global Warming" in discussion of God. I though u would stop doing that. The found u didn't. I provided a ton of links and quotes yesterday that "Global Warming" is still a hypothesis, its more a warning than a real "warming".

Then u comment on Hinduism ans just tell that Vaishnaba and Shaiva never clashed. C I liked u for ur aruments which had logics and menaing. But U should stop reciting these baseless comments.
FYI...Vaishnaba and Shaivas used to fought and as per this link 18,000 people were killed in that battle. The link has date and place.
For ur convenience I'm quoting its content here too.

1760: Saiva sannyasis fight Vaishnava vairagis in tragic battle at Hardwar Kumbha Mela; 18,000 monks are killed

and another link about Tikkana who proposed the unity of God. Quote from that site.

During the reign of Emperor Ganapatideva, Shaivites, Vaishnvites, Jains and Buddhists were fighting among themselves. The emperor arranged for religious meetings to control this religious intolerance. Tikkana participated in those religious meetings and defeated the Budhist and Jain participants and established Hinduism. During this time he proposed the unity of God. He preached that Lord Shiva (Hara) and Lord Vishnu (Hari) were one and that the apparent differences in names were made up and were untrue.

Again, let me help u remember who u r. U r a theist who voted here in the option "who cares...i dont have time for these things" and contributes more and devotes his full attention here. U r confused.

And, u r an ideologist. Every sentence/para of u posted in this thread and "reservation" thread starts/ends with "whould be", "could be". This is not how the world works. Those are IDEAL situations or should I say those are "best case scenario". There is a long gap between "Ideal" and "Practical" situation.

U demand something to be done which is proved and verified. The laws of gravity, energy conservation and law of transformation from one form to another. All are mathematically proved. I think u'll at least believe the truthfullness of Math or will u question of being true of basic equations like 2+2=4. No u may ask. Who told u? How do u know its 4? R u sure it won't ever be 5 or 3? Have u proved it on urself? If I then point u to some books/authors who have already proved it, will u ask if I myself verified it?? Won't u?

Now u r repeating my words, which I long back posted as an my version of explanation of ur metaphor.

And I got ur point in "that" portion I quoted. U wanted to express that all of who just refer to some "book" are hollow in knowledge or just "believe" in science.

on its reply u posted this

Wrong again! Even recommending a book requires correct knowledge of it. Surely a teacher would recommend a thorough reads to a student before explaining something deeper in concept.

Today when Amitash, Karni refers u some book, quotes, links, u just forget what u told already. U r contradicting urself. (as I've already said u r confused). U ask us to verify/experiment ourselves all theories that science have provided with proof till date. Why would we do that.
All those proofs are pure mathematical equations.
Were u ever a science student, I wonder. Else u would have never commented that way.
e=mc^2 has a Biiiiiiiig mathematical explanation.
Gravity has. All three laws of Newton has mathematic explanation.
Heat, mechanics, dynamics, fluid mechanics, quasntam mechamics all have mathematical explanations.

Come to chemistry, Properties of Gas, chemical equations, why water symbol is H2O not HO2? every fcuking thing in checmistry in checmistry is derived by laws mathematics.

Biology or bioscience; cell division, nature of chromosome, DNA structure, RNA structure, gene and why/how it creates BOY/GIRL. Mendel's table etc.

Now, ur task is to challange Math and prove every fcuking rule, formula, theory are false, wrong. (NO, don't u say NO, its u who is opposing already established truth with hard evidense, evidense which measureable, verifiable and comparable, so its ur task to prove them wrong)

GO publish ur papers in some journal, get some nobels (u'll get a truck load of as u'll be proving wrong numerous number of laws, proofs, theorems of math). Then come back to us (me). I'll be ur best devotee. U'll be my GOD (GOD, because till then u've already proved Math as false and science is standing on MATH, so science is fake and existense of GOD will automatically be established. As u'll be doing this "HOLY" task which even vatican popes couldn't do, u'll be my GOD).
So, go ahead. Best of luck. C ya soon.

 

[mediator]

^Vairagis and Sanyasis fighting?? Thats new! I hope you know what vairagi and sanyasi is. When I was discussing science, you did not discuss science and now when the topic is more about "Is religion at fault in killing", you are generalising on me and putting up emotional statements. Oh well, guess that u.

For example, for a Vaishnav, Krishna is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Gita “my text”. They deny everything that is not mentioned or supported by Gita. So a huge chunk of Vedas and Puranas are practically rejected. In fact, their god, is not even mentioned in the Vedas.

The verse BG 15.15 implies, that the Vedas were compiled by Krishna, in the incarnation of Vysadev (Ref: Pravupada’s interpretation). Which of course means, Krishna preceded the compilation of Vedas, albeit in another incarnation, just opposite of what you are trying to imply. Yet, he, forgot to mention anything about himself or any of his Avataras. In fact the concept of “avatara” is not only missing, but the word itself is absent. Interesting, isn’t it ?

You got it wrong! I couldn't get "pravupada's interpretation. Can you give me the source?
1. The point was about "rejection" and "viewpoint" again. If Krishna himself told about the authority of Vedas, then how could a "huge chunk of vedas be rejected"?
2. Is it important that he should mention about his 10 avatars from the start or in Vedas?
3. If you read the stories of all the 10 avatars, then you will realize how people ( the rishis/sages ) foresee them as avatar of Vishnu themselves and AFAIK, each avatar introduced himself as an avatar revealing his true self either in the end or in the beginning.
4. Krishna predicted about his next two avatars, i.e Buddha and Kalki. Buddha has already played his part and the one who is yet to come is Kalki.
5. Krishna even predicted the signs of Kaliyug. I would advise you to read Kalki puran even if you hate such things. Read it without any bias.

So it is not "opposite" to what I'm stating, but in "line" with what I'm stating.

4. The major gods in Rg Veda were, Indra, Soma, Varuna and Agni. Vishnu, in Rg Veda, is a minor god, who requires the help of other gods, for example, Indra, to defeat his enemies, not something that a supreme being would need. The supreme nature of Vishnu, e.g. the episode of “trivrikrama” (3 steps, one in Heaven, one on Earth and one in Hell), appears much later in the vedic cannons and is found in interpolated verses of Rg Veda.

I don't know where you got that from, for what I know is actually the opposite i.e all the other gods i.e Indra etc took the help of the supreme one i.e Vishnu when their thrown was at stake. Further, I think your translation of "trivikrama" is wrong.
*www.vedah.com/org2/audio_vis/selected_rv/vishnu.asp

Also absent are Ganesha, Durga, Kali, Shiva (although the character Rudra is considered to have evolved into what we today know as Shiva), Hanuman, Ram. Interesting, what say you ?

I really don't know much about Ganesha, Durga, Kali or even Shiva for I'm still learning what is distorted and what is not. I disagree about Ram though, reasons already given!

Certainly not, at least not today. There is evidence of such animosity in the past though. But my argument of Shaivism and Vaishnism was not regarding intolerance but regarding the misconception that Hinduism is homogeneous, or that the mere floating of the term in the air would mean anything at all. Hinduism is a sum greater than its parts. So please do me a favour and don’t conflate everything into tolerance v/s intolerance.

AFAIK, Manusmriti was practised much intensely in the past. So again, we need to clear out what was the real thing.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Opinion about self is irrelevant. I can think of myself as superman. But I wouldn’t be perceived as superman, unless I really show, what a superman is supposed to do. Personal faith or practice is not a matter of concern, as long as it remains personal.

It is not irrelevant. By exluding me, you ignoring the part of statistics that you are basing your judgement on and hence your judgement is bound to be flawed. And further, you will find plenty of people like me. My opinions have not come from meditation, but reading the reads suggested by other people and after much inspection "agreeing" with them. And hence you will find plenty of people who are more knowledgable than me. I guess you are only biased. Besides, superman is an incorrect analogy!

Nope, you don’t have to. I remember how he rejected “smriti” as scriptures, not realizing that Gita is a “smriti”. Actually that link was a huge turn-off, cause I have seen better arguments.

AFAIK, he didn't "reject" smritis, but only called em as "commentaries" on Vedas, and "not Gita". Further he said that Ramayan, Gita and Vedas are the only supreme Hindu scriptures. I guess you did not understand what he said.

Firstly, what does it matter what Veda means textually. Bible means “collection of writings”, and Koran means “to call out to”. What difference does it make to what these actually imply.

May be the stress on the "meaning" of the name that you quoted yourself?

Read it like this, that Bible/Koran say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions pagan/kaffir. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Bible/Koran to be a good human? Is he a pagan/kaffir ?

Sounds right, doesn’t it ?

Like I said, keep abrahamic religion out of the debate. I'm not willing to even read on them.

Actually no religious text says that it is the best. What they do say, though, is that their godhead is the only godhead and rest are a nullity or inferior. Bible does that. Koran does that. And your Gita does that too. Some samples from your Gita. (Translations by Swami Sivananda)

“There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string” – BG 7.7
COMMENTS: So a Christian’s God, or a Muslim’s Allah, or a Jews Yewah are pretty much inferior. In fact, a certain Shiva, or Durga or a Ganesha are inferior too.

“The evil-doers and the deluded, who are the lowest of men, do not seek Me; they whose knowledge is destroyed by illusion follow the ways of demons.” – BG 7.15
“Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.” – BG 9.11
COMMENTS: So basically, one who is not worshipping Krishna, is a “evil doer”, “deluded”, a “fool”, and of course they are demon followers.

“To those men who worship Me alone, thinking of no other, of those ever united, I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess.” – BG 9.22
COMMENTS: Means, “surrender to me, or you are doomed”.

Will these verses count as self-glorification. Of course not, if you are a Hindu or more specifically a Vaishnab.

Like I said you don't have the unbias when it comes to religion. Let me show you your flaws...

1. Krishna is not saying that the gods of "other religions" are inferior, the point which is center of the debate. I don't see it in the verse "you" quoted, but its only your imagination.
2. "Surrender to me" does not mean "you are doomed". I certainly wasn't expecting this kind of view from you.
Further "surrender to me" has various aspects like from worshipping, "karma", "spiritual knowledge", "love" etc.
3. You seem to have quoted GITA COMPLETELY out of context.

4. Beneath your verse 9.22, is the verse 9.23 ...
"9.23 Those who worship other gods with faith, worship ME alone, although improper method."

Comment : Again improper method doesn't mean any superiority among different religion's Gods. Read the commentaries.
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-09-22.html

So here, the God himself is the source of "tolerance".

5.The verse 7.15 clearly talks of knowledge. Do I need to remind what 15.15 says? Further there are verses from karma yoga you would like to read. And so it becomes an example that I gave while explaining "mleccha" i.e....

Now people of this world irrespective of their faiths are having conscience, morals and much of the Vedic knowledge themselves. Many follow science which is stressed by Vedas and seek path of knowledge both spiritual and scientific. So, Did they read Vedas?

And so, If you want to quote it like this, then I believe you would only be showing your ignorance on the matter. I would only suggest you to read the GITA "completely" and not quote a certain statements. You only wasted your time in proving your bias, the time which could have been utilized to read the Gita completely.

So please do me a favour and don't tell me the meaning of a book which you yourself have not read. You are only quoting it out of context as to promote your biased arguments.

First, Kamasutra is medieval Mills & Boons, (read it to know it) and has nothing to do with divinity. Sculptures at Kahjuraho, also do not depict divine in the nude or in sexual act.

Second, I am sure, Koran didn’t tell Khomeni to issue a fatwa on Mr Rushdie for writing a novel. But it did happen, just as death threats on Mr Hussain. You can’t dilute the issue by referring to these. Some of these “few” hindus are actually hindu intellectuals and includes pretty heavy names. I am sure they know it better than you and I do.

Third, through out human history, it is always a “few” who do.

Fourth, even Muslims say that there are only few who do what they do. Is that stopping you from generalizing. This argument of “majority” is a fallacy, because, you can never know, how many support something morally, without being actively involved.

Fifth, what Babji did was illegal. Having bones in medicine was not the issue. But not printing it on the label, was. In any case, there were number of demonstrations against Ms Brinda Karat, where her effigies were burnt. CPI(M) party office at Delhi was ransacked, by “few” of his followers.

1) My point was not about divinity. Go figure?
2) Ignored coz of abrahmic connection!
3) Korrect!
4) The fallacy is in your judgement. Check the statistics and acquaint yourself with the reality to know yourself. Next, read the scriptures to know which religion is telling to kill. You certainly did not entertain my request to do that in the first place.
5) The point is about accusing a system, which is doing good to thousands of people, without even verifying and AFAIK, there were no bones in the first place, but yes only a problem of labelling. It again goes in line with the "parent" example and next, it has nothing to do with scriptures.

Please tell us what you think, science is.

I won't!! First you agree we are going round and round in circles, repititions etc. Second, you did not read the discussion from start and now you are devising a strategy to kill me? I'm done with repitions!

Buddhism, is what Buddha taught. One who follows Buddha’s teachings is called a Buddhist. Hinduism is a way of life, reflected in certain ancient texts. One who follows that way of life is a Hindu. What Krishna taught, rather lectured, came to be known as Gita. One who follows that, is called a Vaishnab.

Lets see if I can fit it with science vis-à-vis corporation. One who follows science is called a corporation ?

Nahhh…doesn’t fit. Does it ?

But, what if I say, one who follows science, is scientific minded. Hmm…makes some sense. Doesn’t it ?

Again reading a reply to someone else requires......do I need to tell again? or go figure?


You simply have not shown even after asking repeatedly "where" these religions, that I stated, are calling for their own superiority. If you don't know about Sikhism, jainism, then perhaps its time to learn a little about it too. Instead you translate something like "surrender to me" as "you are doomed" which is absolutely incorrect. You talked bt Hinduism (Gita), but even that was flawed. And hence, read without bias and read the complete thing.

 

[rhitwick]

^Vairagis and Sanyasis fighting?? Thats new! I hope you know what vairagi and sanyasi is.

I know what a Vairagi is, do u know? Don't go by the meaning of the word, u'll be mislead, know why they are Vairagi ?
And, did u "believe" that there were fights b/w Shaivites and Vaishnavas or not? If not please go back to ur history class. The link I've provided has even the Year and place of the fight, u'll surely get a confirmation on that.
Oh hell, I've even given another link on the same topic. Get familiar with ur "that" south indian neighbor and ask about it. U'll come to know.

When I was discussing science, you did not discuss science and now when the topic is more about "Is religion at fault in killing", you are generalising on me and putting up emotional statements. Oh well, guess that u.

I didn't discuss?!!!

I tried to ask u a question, and u replied back I should only speak if I'm asked...!!!
And I made u a promise that I won't reply until Amitash posts. I kept it and now u'll hear from me too.

And what about proving math wrong, have u started working on them??
And there's no emotional statements (well apart from accepting u as my GOD), so stop blabbering.

You got it wrong! I couldn't get "pravupada's interpretation. Can you give me the source?

U want "prabhupada", let me give u enough links with his audio interview which will make ur day.
Here it is: *krishna.org/category/prabhupada/mp3-audio/page/4/

2. Is it important that he should mention about his 10 avatars from the start or in Vedas?

Yes, its important. If he can do it for 9 of his, then he should have mentioned about that too.

U know, he did tell Arjuna about his being Avatar. At the end of Mahavarata u'll come to know that he got killed by Arjuna's arrow. Before dying he told the truth to Arjuna. I guess Gita was already in press, so that part was not mentioned.

3. If you read the stories of all the 10 avatars, then you will realize how people ( the rishis/sages ) foresee them as avatar of Vishnu themselves and AFAIK, each avatar introduced himself as an avatar revealing his true self either in the end or in the beginning.

as I just wrote above.

4. Krishna predicted about his next two avatars, i.e Buddha and Kalki. Buddha has already played his part and the one who is yet to come is Kalki.

First, krishna did never told about "Buddha" avatar, he can never tell as "Buddha" was not his avatar.

The ten avatar by him are as follows:-
1. Matsya (the fish)
2. Koorma (the tortoise)
3. Varaha (the boar)
4. Narasimha (the human-lion)
5. Vamana (the dwarf)
6. Parasurama (the angry man, Rama with an axe)
7. Lord Rama (the perfect man, king of Ayodha)
8. Lord Krishna (the divine statesman)
9. Balarama (elder brother of Krishna)
10. Kalki (the mighty worrior)
source:-
*hinduism.about.com/od/godsgoddesses/a/10avatars.htm
and
*www.srivaishnavam.com/stotras/dasavatharam_meaning.htm

If u want, read Puran.
In Bhagabata Puran Buddha is mentioned as his avatar, but in that Vishnu has 22 avatars not 10.
If you don't know, Shree Chaitanya is also considered to be his avatar by some.
"Pabhupada" even mentioned in some of his lectures about krishna that "Jesus Christ" was also his avatar (source, the link on prabhupada already given above)

So, where does it put u on "AVATAR" system???
In our state, jokingly we call someone a avatar who poses as humbug, if u want u can be called one avatar too.

Oh yeah, I've read somewhere "Sathya Saibaba" is also considered to be his(vishnu) avatar. (May be he only thinks so)

It is not irrelevant. By exluding me, you ignoring the part of statistics that you are basing your judgement on and hence your judgement is bound to be flawed. And further, you will find plenty of people like me. My opinions have not come from meditation, but reading the reads suggested by other people and after much inspection "agreeing" with them. And hence you will find plenty of people who are more knowledgable than me. I guess you are only biased. Besides, superman is an incorrect analogy!

I guess u'll agree "prabhupada" being more knowledgeble than u in this topic.
Go through that link I provided.
To be more specific I'm posting some links which I think u should read,
1> *krishna.org/science-defined-mp3-audio-morning-walk-with-srila-prabhupada/

2> *krishna.org/sunday-feast-lecture-the-higher-science/

3> *krishna.org/krishna-he-has-all-opulences-in-full/

1. Krishna is not saying that the gods of "other religions" are inferior, the point which is center of the debate. I don't see it in the verse "you" quoted, but its only your imagination.

Read the translations of veda. Krishna is also an avatar of Vishnu. so he can't claim none is greater than him.
But Vishnu says that everything that we see and we can't see, is him.
as "Prabhupada" told:

He gives his decision: "The greatest personality is Krsna." Just like we are sitting, so many ladies and gentlemen here. We can analyze who is the greatest here. So, say, for arguing, you can accept that "You are the greatest." But I am not the greatest. I have got my spiritual master. He has got his spiritual master. He has got a spiritual master. In this way, we go up to Brahma. Brahma is the original spiritual master within this universe, who gave us the Vedic knowledge. He's therefore called forefather, er, grandfather, pitamaha. But he's also not independent. In the Vedanta-sutra or Bhagavata it is said that Brahma… He's the first creature. There was no other any other living entity when he was created first. So if I say that he also got knowledge from others, then the argument may be, "Who is the next person to give him knowledge?" So therefore Bhagavata says, "No. He received knowledge from Krsna." How? "From the heart." Tene brahma hrda. Hrda. Because God, Krsna, is sitting in everyone's heart–your heart, my heart, everyone. And He can give you instruction. His name is therefore Caitya-guru. Caitya-guru means who give conscience and knowledge from within. In the Bhagavad-gita Krsna says, sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto: "In everyone's heart I am sitting." Hrdi, "within the heart"; sannivisto, "I am sitting there." Sarvasya. Not only you and me, even animals insects, birds, beasts, Brahma, everyone. Sarvasya. All living entities. So sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto mattah: "from Me";

*krishna.org/sunday-feast-lecture-the-higher-science/

2. "Surrender to me" does not mean "you are doomed". I certainly wasn't expecting this kind of view from you.
Further "surrender to me" has various aspects like from worshipping, "karma", "spiritual knowledge", "love" etc.

for this I want to quote Prabhupada again

Pusta Krsna: So if everyone accepts that there is no happiness at all to be found in this world…

Prabhupada: Then they are intelligent.

Pusta Krsna: Then what to do?

Prabhupada: Yes. Tad-vijnanartham… Therefore you go to guru. Go to Krsna.

Devotee (1): Do I have to join your movement to be happy? Can I just take Krsna consciousness outside your movement?

Prabhupada: Yes.

Devotee (1): So there is no possibility of me being Krsna conscious outside your movement.

Prabhupada: Krsna consciousness can be developed with devotees. Alone it is difficult.

At the beginning of the process u r discouraged, so how do u see a success in pessimism. U r told to stay with the flock, else very hard to get to the goal.
Did u get it. "Doomed" would be very harsh word but "difficult" is what politically correct.

So please do me a favour and don't tell me the meaning of a book which you yourself have not read. You are only quoting it out of context as to promote your biased arguments.

And u go read the proofs on Newtons law, relativity, quantum mechanics, fluid dynamics, DNA structure, RNA structure etc.

4) The fallacy is in your judgement. Check the statistics and acquaint yourself with the reality to know yourself. Next, read the scriptures to know which religion is telling to kill. You certainly did not entertain my request to do that in the first place.

No religion tells to kill. Its how u interpret to defend u certain activity which in turn becomes a distorted truth in near future. Remember I told u how history proves that a long practiced false ideology becomes truer than the truth. It happened with them too.

5) The point is about accusing a system, which is doing good to thousands of people, without even verifying and AFAIK, there were no bones in the first place, but yes only a problem of labelling. It again goes in line with the "parent" example and next, it has nothing to do with scriptures.

What about the recent news on the controversy on "Charlie Chaplin" statue in south. which was removed from its place due to oppose of some hindus.

The thing is that, such protests from hindu community are there. only its not organized. Diff. parties would call these, today "Bajrang Dal" found something agaainst Hindu dharma, they protest, destroy national property (burn bus, train, break shops etc), next day some other party would stand up with some other issues.
How many times have u heard a NDTV news station being ransacked, Ajtak reporters being beaten, star news reporter's camera taken away, office destroyed. Were u sleeping then or u r occasionally blind/deaf?

The thing with the "other" is they have a dedicated post/office for such "fatwas", so it seemed to be only them. Being a minority every step of them are observed, measured and compared. And media gets what it needs. and thus u too.

 

[karnivore]

What you don’t realize is that, every time you try to make a distinction between THEIR religion and YOUR religion, you just keep on proving the point that lesser mortals like amitash, rhitwick and, even lesser mortal, actually the worse of the lot, i.e. yours truly, are making.

You got it wrong! I couldn't get "pravupada's interpretation. Can you give me the source?
1. The point was about "rejection" and "viewpoint" again. If Krishna himself told about the authority of Vedas, then how could a "huge chunk of vedas be rejected"?
2. Is it important that he should mention about his 10 avatars from the start or in Vedas?
3. If you read the stories of all the 10 avatars, then you will realize how people ( the rishis/sages ) foresee them as avatar of Vishnu themselves and AFAIK, each avatar introduced himself as an avatar revealing his true self either in the end or in the beginning.
4. Krishna predicted about his next two avatars, i.e Buddha and Kalki. Buddha has already played his part and the one who is yet to come is Kalki.
5. Krishna even predicted the signs of Kaliyug. I would advise you to read Kalki puran even if you hate such things. Read it without any bias.

So it is not "opposite" to what I'm stating, but in "line" with what I'm stating.

First, the link to Prabhupada’s translation.
*prabhupadabooks.com/?g=4958

Now.

1. The point was about not mentioning of Krishna in the Vedas, specifically Rg Veda. Not about rejection. Please don’t conflate one argument into another.

2. This is a tangential argument. The concept of avatara, is a central construct to Krishna’s character. In fact, if this concept is rejected, the whole Gita falls apart, because, then Krishna simply ceases to exist. Such is the importance of this concept, and yet, this concept is grossly absent in Rg Veda, in spite of it been written by one incarnation of Krishna. Even in the interpolated texts, these are missing. Implying that the concept came much later.

3. Irrelevant. All these Upanishads and Puranas, came much later to Rg Veda.

4. Incorrect. Buddha, in spite of being anti-veda, was inducted in the pantheon, as an interpolation, in response to the threat of Buddhism on Hinduism. Gautama Buddha is indeed mentioned in many Hindu texts, but these are all post Buddha texts. Some pre-Buddha text like Mahabharata and Ramayana do mention of a Buddha, in the passing, but certainly not of Gautama Buddha. Buddha means “enlightened” ones. Remember one thing. The word “Buddhist” was absent, till about 1500 yrs. Any ancient text that uses this word, gets automatically dated as having been written within the last 1500 yrs.

5. Kalki Purana is again, much later text. It is easy to retrofit predictions. Besides, interestingly, “Buddhists” are seen as enemies in Kalki Purana.

If I recall correctly, you said, that since Krishna was not born before the compilation of the Vedas, it is only obvious, that he was not mentioned. I have argued, that, as per BG, he is himself the compiler of the Vedas, thereby dismissing your argument of veda being pre-Krishna text. Further, in spite of being the compiler of the Vedas, he doesn’t mention himself, or the most important aspect of his existence – avatara, and makes Vishnu, whose supposed avatara he is, a minor god. Which part of your argument seems to be “in-line” with mine.

I don't know where you got that from, for what I know is actually the opposite i.e all the other gods i.e Indra etc took the help of the supreme one i.e Vishnu when their thrown was at stake. Further, I think your translation of "trivikrama" is wrong.
*www.vedah.com/org2/audio_vis/..._rv/vishnu.asp

Look around more.

Like I said, keep abrahamic religion out of the debate.

Missed the point again. What I showed you is that, whatever you are saying, can exactly be said, by anyone, about his religion. Abrahamic or not.

Read it like this, that Vedas say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions mleccha. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Vedas to be a good human? Is he a mleccha?

Read it like this, that Bible/Koran say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions pagan/kaffir. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Bible/Koran to be a good human? Is he a pagan/kaffir ?

I'm not willing to even read on them.[/

Remind me please, who was it, who filled pages after pages on a thread about how people “reject without considering” or some sh!t like that, and how that makes them rigid.

Like I said you don't have the unbias when it comes to religion. Let me show you your flaws...

1. Krishna is not saying that the gods of "other religions" are inferior, the point which is center of the debate. I don't see it in the verse "you" quoted, but its only your imagination.
2. "Surrender to me" does not mean "you are doomed". I certainly wasn't expecting this kind of view from you.
Further "surrender to me" has various aspects like from worshipping, "karma", "spiritual knowledge", "love" etc.
3. You seem to have quoted GITA COMPLETELY out of context.

4. Beneath your verse 9.22, is the verse 9.23 ...
"9.23 Those who worship other gods with faith, worship ME alone, although improper method."

Comment : Again improper method doesn't mean any superiority among different religion's Gods. Read the commentaries.
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-09-22.html

So here, the God himself is the source of "tolerance".

5.The verse 7.15 clearly talks of knowledge. Do I need to remind what 15.15 says? Further there are verses from karma yoga you would like to read. And so it becomes an example that I gave while explaining "mleccha" i.e....

First you have already proved my point:

“Will these verses count as self-glorification. Of course not, if you are a Hindu or more specifically a Vaishnab.”

Now.

1. What does “There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me…” mean ? I would imagine, it means, everything else, is inferior to Me (Krishna), because I (Krishna) am the highest. Or is their anything higher than highest ?

2. What does “…I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess” mean ? That would mean, that whatever one already has (i.e. present), and whatever one may posses (i.e. future), will be preserved, only if one surrenders (i.e. have faith) to Me (Krishna). The flip side: If one doesn’t surrender, then one’s present and future will not be preserved. How wrong was it to call it being doomed ?

3. Well, everybody says that when his religion is questioned. But then, they will do the same, that they accuse us of, to prove their point.

4. BG 9.23 (there are many more such verses) means that no matter, which god one prays to, one, in effect, prays to Me (Krishna), but being of other faith, the procedure of prayer (rather faith) is “improper”. The flip side: one’s god doesn’t have separate existence without Krishna and following it is being faithless to Me (Krishna).

5. “The evil-doers and the deluded, who are the lowest of men, do not seek Me…” means, that those who do not follow Me (Krishna), i.e. belong to other faith, are evil-doers, deluded and of course are low-lifes. The knowledge part comes later. But then is, “knowledge” without Krishna ?

But one thing is for sure. You have finally understood the meaning of mleccha.

EDIT: Damn you rhitwick for comming up with better replies.

Please tell us what you think, science is.

I won't!!

No problem. Don’t worry, I won’t harangue. But, it appears a bit dishonest, when you repeatedly judge someone, while you yourself refuse to show your own understanding on the subject.

Again reading a reply to someone else requires......do I need to tell again? or go figure?

Asked some uncomfortable questions, didn’t I ?

 

[mediator]

What you don’t realize is that, every time you try to make a distinction between THEIR religion and YOUR religion, you just keep on proving the point that lesser mortals like amitash, rhitwick and, even lesser mortal, actually the worse of the lot, i.e. yours truly, is making.

Wrong! The point from the start was that all religions are not the same. You yourself categorised two i.e jainism and buddism under a category.

1. The point was about not mentioning of Krishna in the Vedas, specifically Rg Veda. Not about rejection. Please don’t conflate one argument into another.

2. This is a tangential argument. The concept of avatara, is a central construct to Krishna’s character. In fact, if this concept is rejected, the whole Gita falls apart, because, then Krishna simply ceases to exist. Such is the importance of this concept, and yet, this concept is grossly absent in Rg Veda, in spite of it been written by one incarnation of Krishna. Even in the interpolated texts, these are missing. Implying that the concept came much later.

3. Irrelevant. All these Upanishads and Puranas, came much later to Rg Veda.

4. Incorrect. Buddha, in spite of being anti-veda, was inducted in the pantheon, as an interpolation, in response to the threat of Buddhism on Hinduism. Gautama Buddha is indeed mentioned in many Hindu texts, but these are all post Buddha texts. Some pre-Buddha text like Mahabharata and Ramayana do mention of a Buddha, in the passing, but certainly not of Gautama Buddha. Buddha means “enlightened” ones. Remember one thing. The word “Buddhist” was absent, till about 1500 yrs. Any ancient text that uses this word, gets automatically dated as having been written within the last 1500 yrs.

5. Kalki Purana is again, much later text. It is easy to retrofit predictions. Besides, interestingly, “Buddhists” are seen as enemies in Kalki Purana.

3) Yes, but AFAIK, Vishnu purana is the oldest purana and it has prophesized the avatars in it.
4) Incorrect, Buddha was not anti-veda, but simply rejected that Vedas were God utterances, but simply a work of sages. Read ...
*www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/articles/buddhism_hinduism.shtml

Further, you are again making illogical statement like "buddism was absent". Did Krishna say, something like for his earlier avatars like rama, there would be a religion called "ramism", kurma => kurmism? So how can you even expect or think of something like "buddhism" be stated by an earlier avatar? He simply stated Buddha and kalki will be the next in line and not "Buddhism" or perhaps your next statement might include "Kalkism"?

5. Yes I was expecting that statement from u. And if you go to a buddhist forum, you will find how angrily buddhist attack Hinduism, quoting B.R ambedkar, rejecting Buddhism as a part of hinduism etc. It is almost as if you can feel the punch on your face. Go, see for yourself. And, just like a hindu doesn't necessarily means a person who is "aware" of his scriptures, similarly buddhist doesn't automatically imply someone who has read and understood the buddhist scriptures. Kalki Purana simply show you the signs of Kaliyug and how kalki will come and destroy injustice emanating out of people "irrespective" of faith. Further, the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given. It tells us about a war with China more specifically.

ANd FYI, the Kalki has been mentioned in Buddhist works too as the 25th matreya buddha arising from "shambhala".


Here's an excerpt from kalkipurana...

On hearing the words of Kalki, mighty Jin said "The fate can never be seen. I am a materialist, Buddhist. Nothing but the perceptible are accepted by us. The unseen and the imperceptible are banished by us.

Do you understand how the words of the self proclaimed buddhist are simpy not conforming to buddhism?

So buddhist doesn't necessarily means one who is "aware" of buddhist scriptures. It is similar to someone calling himself a brahamin by birth even when his karma might be that of "a mleccha".

If I recall correctly, you said, that since Krishna was not born before the compilation of the Vedas, it is only obvious, that he was not mentioned. I have argued, that, as per BG, he is himself the compiler of the Vedas, thereby dismissing your argument of veda being pre-Krishna text. Further, in spite of being the compiler of the Vedas, he doesn’t mention himself, or the most important aspect of his existence – avatara, and makes Vishnu, whose supposed avatara he is, a minor god. Which part of your argument seems to be “in-line” with mine.

What you are quoting is only getting absurd.

Krishna identified himself as Rama in tretayuga. Does it mean Ramayan should have stated Krishna? Further the roles of all the avatars have been different. So expecting the prophecies in Vedas and Krishna's name, is simply illogical.

Missed the point again. What I showed you is that, whatever you are saying, can exactly be said, by anyone, about his religion. Abrahamic or not.

Again my point, that all religions are not same and from the start I have mentioned only a few religions to talk on with amitash until when you showed up and tried to take it to new directions without even reading what was being debated and expecting something more. So in simple terms, you did nothing but trolling.

First you have already proved my point:

“Will these verses count as self-glorification. Of course not, if you are a Hindu or more specifically a Vaishnab.”

Now.

1. What does “There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me…” mean ? I would imagine, it means, everything else, is inferior to Me (Krishna), because I (Krishna) am the highest. Or is their anything higher than highest ?

2. What does “…I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess” mean ? That would mean, that whatever one already has (i.e. present), and whatever one may posses (i.e. future), will be preserved, only if one surrenders (i.e. have faith) to Me (Krishna). The flip side: If one doesn’t surrender, then one’s present and future will not be preserved. How wrong was it to call it being doomed ?

3. Well, everybody says that when his religion is questioned. But then, they will do the same, that they accuse us of, to prove their point.

4. BG 9.23 (there are many more such verses) means that no matter, which god one prays to, one, in effect, prays to Me (Krishna), but being of other faith, the procedure of prayer (rather faith) is “improper”. The flip side: one’s god doesn’t have separate existence without Krishna and following it is being faithless to Me (Krishna).

5. “The evil-doers and the deluded, who are the lowest of men, do not seek Me…” means, that those who do not follow Me (Krishna), i.e. belong to other faith, are evil-doers, deluded and of course are low-lifes. The knowledge part comes later. But then is, “knowledge” without Krishna ?

But one thing is for sure. You have finally understood the meaning of mleccha.

Yes, you can "assume" from "your" side that your point has been proven!

REad again, "where" and in which context I talked about "self glorification". Neither you read what I said properly, nor you understand my replies to someone else. And then you make me repeat.

1,2) It seems you are getting emotional about the definition of God. You simply have not replied where the religions or supreme Gods are preaching intolerance for other faiths?. Your earlier point was already refuted.

3) Even scientists will accuse someone if they attack science without reading the sceintific work in the first place. They will simply call you ignorant, do you honestly expect a scientist to enlighten you of quantum physics, or mathematician be teaching you calculus when you don't understand the basics in the first place?

Neither you know the basics, nor you understand the ethics of reading the book completely before questioning it.

Now the part in bold again exposes your ignorance.
1. Krishna is just a name and hence he does not say whoever prays goes to someone called krishna. Remember he is supposed to be a supreme god! Every theistic religion has a supreme god.
2. He identifies himself with "other names" as being Rama, kalki, buddha etc....again doesn't say buddha is the best or rama is the best. He simply says "know me, understand me" i.e the supreme reality. It doesn't have anything to do with the "name" Krishna that you have put in brackets illogically.
4. It is not bt about the procedure or has to do anything with the style in which he is doing prayer, but "true devotion". I guess you really did not read the commentaries even after my suggestion.
here's one commentary from that source...

The word ananyas meaning exclusive denotes that such devotees have no other goal than the Supreme Lord, thinking only of service to Him day and night with full heart and soul. But because they are so fully devoted to Him they sometimes fail to take care of the realities of the body, senses and mind and so in this case the Supreme Lord arranges for their maintenance Himself supplying the necessities they need to exist. He also protects them in all respects from any situation that may obstruct their attainment of Him before the end of their life.

Here's another verse...
"O son of Kunti [Arjuna], I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man."

It means "He is all pervading, he is the nature".
Try to connect it with the former commentary. May be it means "to respect nature"????

If he is the everything, he is the karma, he the righteousness, the ability etc, and and if someone does "true devotion" to him, then doesnt that implies to do the work "religiously, follow righteousness and respect nature" since everything is him??



5. You are repeating and I talked of knowledge also. Again shows how for your biased arguments you are quoting it out of context.

Evil-doers and lowest of men in complete Gita are identified as those who fulfill the following qualities....
1. Those who do not understand the supreme reality.
2. Those who are without conscience and morals
3. Who do not posses knowledge
4. Those who are without spiritual knowledge
5. etc read complete Gita.

Krishna is simply trying to enlighten Arjuna in a conversation. He has not put a power point presentation and put under one heading telling who all are "lowest" of men and identified them with asteriks like I did here for u. So it seems you neither know what Gita is, "how" the explanation was done, nor anything about its verses in true comprehension.

Again, I'm not attacking you, but simply saying its a bad habit of people to quote from critic sites or just to prove their point quote the statements individually and then try to comprehend it. What I am saying is that such comprehension cannot be made if you have not read till the last word of Gita.

First you didn't know of 9.23 and now when you kow of it, you do not understand it.

EDIT: Damn you rhitwick for comming up with better replies.

Nope, IMO, only amitash has put the most logical and genuine arguments so far if a comparison is made.

Asked some uncomfortable questions, didn’t I ?

Nope, about 90% of your posts, IMO, are repeated everytime and that question was a part of the posts that you missed while I replied to amitash everytime. Further if you think I'm being uncomfortable, then think again. I didn't ask you to quote on eastern religions for no reason! And further, I'm not just debating with you. I think you do not understand these lines I put in most of the debates.

And hence, I might stop at some point when I'll see your post as totally useless.

 

[karnivore]

Here goes nothing...

3) Yes, but AFAIK, Vishnu purana is the oldest purana and it has prophesized the avatars in it.
4) Incorrect, Buddha was not anti-veda, but simply rejected that Vedas were God utterances, but simply a work of sages. Read ...
*www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/a...hinduism.shtml

Further, you are again making illogical statement like "buddism was absent". Did Krishna say, something like for his earlier avatars like rama, there would be a religion called "ramism", kurma => kurmism? So how can you even expect or think of something like "buddhism" be stated by an earlier avatar? He simply stated Buddha and kalki will be the next in line and not "Buddhism" or perhaps your next statement might include "Kalkism"?

3. Vishnu Purana mentions, Maurya empire, which automatically makes it a post-Buddha, post-Mahavira text. Prophesizing the past is pretty easy. If you want to pretend to know something, at least google about it for 2 minutes.

4. I meant that only. That Buddha rejected Vedas and hence, even, philosophically speaking, a “nastik”. A “nastik” Vishnu ? That’s rich. If you, for once, get off that high horse of "your" religion, you will realize, the contradiction, and the mental gymnastics that the then Brahmins went through to rationalize this inclusion of Buddha into their pantheon. Actually it makes for a pretty interesting read.

I didn’t say, "buddism was absent". I said, “The word “Buddhist” was absent, till about 1500 yrs.” This is a method used by linguist to date ancient texts. If that word is found in a text, it means, that it was written after Buddhism had started to spread and had assumed its own identity. That will make it a text, “written within the last 1500 yrs.” Rocket science ?

What Zarathushtra taught came to be known as Zoroastrianism. What Buddha taught, came to be known as Buddhism. What Mahavira taught, came to be known as Jainism. What Jesus taught, came to be known as Christianity. What Muhammad taught, came to be know as Islam. What Guru Nanak taught, came to be known as Sikhism. Bet you still don’t see where I am going with this.

5. Yes I was expecting that statement from u. And if you go to a buddhist forum, you will find how angrily buddhist attack Hinduism, quoting B.R ambedkar, rejecting Buddhism as a part of hinduism etc. It is almost as if you can feel the punch on your face. Go, see for yourself. And, just like a hindu doesn't necessarily means a person who is "aware" of his scriptures, similarly buddhist doesn't automatically imply someone who has read and understood the buddhist scriptures. Kalki Purana simply show you the signs of Kaliyug and how kalki will come and destroy injustice emanating out of people "irrespective" of faith. Further, the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given. It tells us about a war with China more specifically

Firstly, you have now started justifying calling another religion, “enemy”. See you prove us right once again. We kept on arguing, that religion doesn’t specifically ask one to hate anyone, but provides justification for “hatred”. You have found your own justification. Perhaps you are not “hating”, in the stricter sense of the word, but the battle lines have already been drawn in your mind. That’s what that matters.

Secondly, you are therefore aware that not everything is hunky-dory with your religion and how it is viewed by a person from without. I wonder if you visit a Pak forum, what will you do, when Buddhist criticism makes you “feel the punch on your face”.

Thirdly, that now you are seeing signs of communism in Kalki Purana’s narration of Buddhism, makes you a special person in your own right. I have been hanging around different religious forums, for long enough to know, that it is not something that you have come up with. But still.

But one lesson that you have learnt from this debate, is the correct usage of the word “mleccha”. Congrats.

1,2) It seems you are getting emotional about the definition of God. You simply have not replied where the religions or supreme Gods are preaching intolerance for other faiths?. Your earlier point was already refuted.

One last shot: What if someone claims that he is the MOST intelligent person on the forum. Where does that place you ? Please explain that without resorting to unnecessary sarcasm.

3) Even scientists will accuse someone if they attack science without reading the sceintific work in the first place. They will simply call you ignorant, do you honestly expect a scientist to enlighten you of quantum physics, or mathematician be teaching you calculus when you don't understand the basics in the first place?

Neither you know the basics, nor you understand the ethics of reading the book completely before questioning it.

Says the one, who didn’t even know, till today, who Prabhupada was. Hilarious.

Now the part in bold again exposes your ignorance.
1. Krishna is just a name and hence he does not say whoever prays goes to someone called krishna. Remember he is supposed to be a supreme god! Every theistic religion has a supreme god.
2. He identifies himself with "other names" as being Rama, kalki, buddha etc....again doesn't say buddha is the best or rama is the best. He simply says "know me, understand me" i.e the supreme reality. It doesn't have anything to do with the "name" Krishna that you have put in brackets illogically.

I had retained the word “Me”, because it means the godhead (i.e. the supreme god with all his avatars). I had put “Krishna” in the bracket, as a reference to the context, which is Krishna speaking to Arjuna. Your penchant for picking up the peripheral issues and ignoring the main point, is now approaching the bizarre.

4. It is not bt about the procedure or has to do anything with the style in which he is doing prayer, but "true devotion". I guess you really did not read the commentaries even after my suggestion.
here's one commentary from that source...

The word ananyas meaning exclusive denotes that such devotees have no other goal than the Supreme Lord, thinking only of service to Him day and night with full heart and soul. But because they are so fully devoted to Him they sometimes fail to take care of the realities of the body, senses and mind and so in this case the Supreme Lord arranges for their maintenance Himself supplying the necessities they need to exist. He also protects them in all respects from any situation that may obstruct their attainment of Him before the end of their life.

Here's another verse...
"O son of Kunti [Arjuna], I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man."

It means "He is all pervading, he is the nature".
Try to connect it with the former commentary. May be it means "to respect nature"????

If he is the everything, he is the karma, he the righteousness, the ability etc, and and if someone does "true devotion" to him, then doesnt that implies to do the work "religiously, follow righteousness and respect nature" since everything is him??

You are fighting a loosing battle and you don’t even realize that.
Swami Prabhupada’s commentary:

““Persons who are engaged in the worship of demigods are not very intelligent, although such worship is offered to Me indirectly,” Krishna says. For example, when a man pours water on the leaves and branches of a tree without pouring water on the root, he does so without sufficient knowledge or without observing regulative principles. Similarly, the process of rendering service to different parts of the body is to supply food to the stomach. The demigods are, so to speak, different officers and directors in the government of the Supreme Lord. One has to follow the laws made by the government, not by the officers or directors. Similarly, everyone is to offer his worship to the Supreme Lord only. That will automatically satisfy the different officers and directors of the Lord. The officers and directors are engaged as representatives of the government, and to offer some bribe to the officers and directors is illegal. This is stated here as avidhi-purvakam. In other words, Krishna does not approve the unnecessary worship of the demigods.”
​

COMMENTS: Regarding the parts in bold, it means, that demigods (i.e. all other gods) don’t “have separate existence without Krishna”
Source

5. You are repeating and I talked of knowledge also. Again shows how for your biased arguments you are quoting it out of context.

Evil-doers and lowest of men in complete Gita are identified as those who fulfill the following qualities....
1. Those who do not understand the supreme reality.
2. Those who are without conscience and morals
3. Who do not posses knowledge
4. Those who are without spiritual knowledge
5. etc read complete Gita.

Krishna is simply trying to enlighten Arjuna in a conversation. He has not put a power point presentation and put under one heading telling who all are "lowest" of men and identified them with asteriks like I did here for u. So it seems you neither know what Gita is, "how" the explanation was done, nor anything about its verses in true comprehension.

Pruabhupada, translates the same verse (BG 7.15) as:

“Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.”

He then goes on to make commentary, where he elucidates the “miscreants” or “duskriti”: (Edited for brevity)

“(1) The mudhas are those who are grossly foolish, like hardworking beasts of burden. They want to enjoy the fruits of their labor by themselves, and so do not want to part with them for the Supreme.
……

(2) Another class of duskriti, or miscreant, is called the naradhama, or the lowest of mankind. Nara means human being, and adhama means the lowest. Out of the 8,400,000 different species of living beings, there are 400,000 human species. Out of these there are numerous lower forms of human life that are mostly uncivilized.
……

Nor is religion without God religion, because the purpose of following religious principles is to know the Supreme Truth and man’s relation with Him. In the Gita the Personality of Godhead clearly states that there is no authority above Him and that He is the Supreme Truth. The civilized form of human life is meant for man’s reviving the lost consciousness of his eternal relation with the Supreme Truth, the Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna, who is all-powerful. Whoever loses this chance is classified as a naradhama.
……

(3) The next class of duskriti is called mayayapahrta-jnanah, or those persons whose erudite knowledge has been nullified by the influence of illusory material energy. They are mostly very learned fellows—great philosophers, poets, literati, scientists, etc.—but the illusory energy misguides them, and therefore they disobey the Supreme Lord.
……

(4) The last class of duskriti is called asuram bhavam asritah, or those of demonic principles. This class is openly atheistic. Some of them argue that the Supreme Lord can never descend upon this material world, but they are unable to give any tangible reasons as to why not. There are others who make Him subordinate to the impersonal feature, although the opposite is declared in the Gita.”
​

Source

Guess who needs to read Gita. Knowing you, I get the feeling that you are going to come back, by attacking Prabhupada's credibility.

BTW, you havn't told us: Who is a Hindu ?

 

[rhitwick]

Wrong! The point from the start was that all religions are not the same. You yourself categorised two i.e jainism and buddism under a category.

Karni is right. U always defend urserlf under meaning of words. U didn't even understood what "all religions are same" means. It does not mean that all the verses, quotes from their Gurus (I'm generalizing the source of that religion) have to be exact word by word, letter by letter, punctuation by punctuation (font color, size, smilies etc)

"Same" means the theme, the purpose it was created for. Its the ultimate GOAL which unites all these different religions.
As Ramkrishna Paramhansa Deb quoted "jato mat tato path (As many religions as many ways to the same God)" (SOURCE).
Did u get it? Or I need to say more.

3) Yes, but AFAIK, Vishnu purana is the oldest purana and it has prophesized the avatars in it.

First the internet source of Vishnu Purana
1>*www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/index.htm
and the actual book scanned (wait for the link to load and enable java script in ur browser)
2>*www.scribd.com/doc/14456786/Vishnu-Purana-Complete-English-Translation-byManmathaNathDutt

Then let me tell u who was "the Buddha" described in Vishnu Purana.

Of heretics, or those who reject the authority of the Vedas: their origin, as described by Vaśisht́ha to Bhíshma: the gods, defeated by the Daityas, praise Vishńu: an illusory being, or Buddha, produced from his body.

Book III, chapter XVII, Vishnupurana

Does it resemblems with your Buddha (Gautam Buddha, who was son of King Suddhodana, the chief of the Shakya nation)? Does it. And if u r still clueless or confused who was responsible for Buddhism, let me tell u, the person was this Gautam Buddha not that who is described in Vishnupurana.

More from "ur" Vishnupurana,

Buddha goes to the earth, and teaches the Daityas to contemn the Vedas: his sceptical doctrines: his prohibition of animal sacrifices. Meaning of the term Bauddha. Jainas and Bauddhas; their tenets. The Daityas lose their power, and are overcome by the gods.

BOOKIII, Chapter XVIII, Vishnupurana.

If u r interested to read more, u'll find that the story of Rama comes a lot after "Buddha", but according to our history, Gautam Buddha was born loooooong after Ram dynasty.

I hope I've cleared ur confusion about Buddha

4) Incorrect, Buddha was not anti-veda, but simply rejected that Vedas were God utterances, but simply a work of sages. Read ...

(already proved how those two buddhas are diff. but couldn't resist to reply this post)
Buddha rejects the source of Vedas and he is still a god to ur eyes (see, to u he's a avatar of Vishnu, so obviously he's a God) and when we reject the source of Veda being God, we are fool etc.
Why such treatment with ur friends, at least give us stature of some demigods

Further, you are again making illogical statement like "buddism was absent". Did Krishna say, something like for his earlier avatars like rama, there would be a religion called "ramism", kurma => kurmism? So how can you even expect or think of something like "buddhism" be stated by an earlier avatar? He simply stated Buddha and kalki will be the next in line and not "Buddhism" or perhaps your next statement might include "Kalkism"?

Already told about Buddha, so no point discussing again.

ANd FYI, the Kalki has been mentioned in Buddhist works too as the 25th matreya buddha arising from "shambhala".

So, what? Just because it was mentioned in their works it does not mean this Buddha is that Buddha.
We are also mentioning Matsa, Kurma, Varaha (I even mentioned 10 avatars of Vishnu) so 1000yrs from now, where do my works stand? OR I'll be considered an avatara then?

Krishna identified himself as Rama in tretayuga. Does it mean Ramayan should have stated Krishna? Further the roles of all the avatars have been different. So expecting the prophecies in Vedas and Krishna's name, is simply illogical.

FYI, Krishna avatara was in Dwapar yuga. The order of Yugas are like this: Satya, Treta, Dwapar and Kali.
Obviously Krishna avatar has not come into existence then. How could Ramayana mention about Krishna then
Ramayana mentions about Vishnu; I guess u know at least this. Or u require one more link.

Again my point, that all religions are not same and from the start I have mentioned only a few religions to talk on with amitash until when you showed up and tried to take it to new directions without even reading what was being debated and expecting something more. So in simple terms, you did nothing but trolling.

I've already described how all religions are same and just because we are differing with your opinion, does not mean we are trolling.

3) Even scientists will accuse someone if they attack science without reading the sceintific work in the first place. They will simply call you ignorant, do you honestly expect a scientist to enlighten you of quantum physics, or mathematician be teaching you calculus when you don't understand the basics in the first place?

So, u accepted mathematics. Wow! Phew! So, from now on at least u won't mind if we refer u some links which requires some level "basic" knowledge. Whoa, that’s a breather.

Neither you know the basics, nor you understand the ethics of reading the book completely before questioning it.

Its not we, its u (theists) who pointed to science. U asked us to verify, re prove all those theorems (calculus, quantum physics in ur language) by ourselves.
We have our basics clear, do u?

And there is nothing to prove in Ramayana, Mahabharata (or are there)

1. Krishna is just a name and hence he does not say whoever prays goes to someone called krishna. Remember he is supposed to be a supreme god! Every theistic religion has a supreme god.

To be correct it would be "Every theistic religion has their supreme god."
If its supreme, then it has to be one, or if u divide supreme by theism then it would their particular supreme totally ignorant of others.
And, Krishna being supreme of all gods, read Prabhupada's commentary (or u can listen too, my previous links have the audios too)

Here's another verse...
"O son of Kunti [Arjuna], I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man."

It means "He is all pervading, he is the nature".
Try to connect it with the former commentary. May be it means "to respect nature"????

That’s ur interpretation.
How about,
Water=Varunadev
Sun=Suryadev
Moon=Chandradev

Now, don't say I'm misinterpreting, as the way u r right, I must be. None of us has taken any ref.

If he is the everything, he is the karma, he the righteousness, the ability etc, and and if someone does "true devotion" to him, then doesnt that implies to do the work "religiously, follow righteousness and respect nature" since everything is him??

LOL!!!
This is hilarious.
As doing everything is serving God. U serve directly to God and stop doing things.

Now let me come to things which includes serving God. I can't name all jobs/acts but naming some.
Helping disabled person
Donating to poor.
Do ur daily duties. (There is a story about how Narada, who chants Narayana every second is less devotee than a grocer who chants only 4 times his name; guess u don't know)
Save the endangered.
etc.

Now, u stop doing all these (know what! to do all these u don't even need to know any religion, any god, get confused about 10/22 avatars, verses and its inner meaning etc) and truly devote urself to the supreme and expect God's grace.
So does this "truly devotion" qualifies to get his grace?
(the vice-versa isn't always true)

Krishna is simply trying to enlighten Arjuna in a conversation. He has not put a power point presentation and put under one heading telling who all are "lowest" of men and identified them with asteriks like I did here for u. So it seems you neither know what Gita is, "how" the explanation was done, nor anything about its verses in true comprehension.

SO u tell how was it told?
Was Krishna in seating position and Arjuna in standing? or the reverse? Which way they were facing. Did Krishna drank water in between the long lecture or Arjuna went for a bathroom break? U r nitpicking, so u must know these info.

Nope, IMO, only amitash has put the most logical and genuine arguments so far if a comparison is made.

Lol! Divide and rule, eh?
So r u accepting Amitash's points??

Nope, about 90% of your posts, IMO, are repeated everytime and that question was a part of the posts that you missed while I replied to amitash everytime. Further if you think I'm being uncomfortable, then think again. I didn't ask you to quote on eastern religions for no reason! And further, I'm not just debating with you. I think you do not understand these lines I put in most of the debates.

Ur metaphors are not understood by most of us (lesser human beings) including Amitash
So, from next time help us understand by describing a bit more.

 

[send2sidz]

In my opinion the real debate is not science or god.. but science or religion...

I feel that religion is for the weak hearted or for those who need guidance to do good(PURELY MY OPINION)...If at all there is a god.. i m sure the "path to heaven" is not based on how you worship or how committed you are to him\her.. if "god" decides your fate after death on the basis of religion then "god" is corrupt...

its time we realize that we are our own gods and that prayers and idol worship are a form of hope.. nothing more... whatever god made us gave us technology... technology is everything from a pen to a car to a computer.. it is simply an extension of human performance.....

True religion would not require specific places of worship... true religion would not discriminate any god made entity .. like a pig or alcohol or any sex or even marijuana.... everything we see around is made by some "god".. so it s all part of the same system.. its part of you....

 

[mediator]

I accept my dumbness but I still could not get that part.

@rhitwick you are only wasting your time. I already said I'm not gonna entertain you. Why even bother then? Accept you own statement one more time.

3. Vishnu Purana mentions, Maurya empire, which automatically makes it a post-Buddha, post-Mahavira text. Prophesizing the past is pretty easy. If you want to pretend to know something, at least google about it for 2 minutes.

4. I meant that only. That Buddha rejected Vedas and hence, even, philosophically speaking, a “nastik”. A “nastik” Vishnu ? That’s rich. If you, for once, get off that high horse of "your" religion, you will realize, the contradiction, and the mental gymnastics that the then Brahmins went through to rationalize this inclusion of Buddha into their pantheon. Actually it makes for a pretty interesting read.

I didn’t say, "buddism was absent". I said, “The word “Buddhist” was absent, till about 1500 yrs.” This is a method used by linguist to date ancient texts. If that word is found in a text, it means, that it was written after Buddhism had started to spread and had assumed its own identity. That will make it a text, “written within the last 1500 yrs.” Rocket science ?

The point reflects pretty well on you, "that if you want to know something then google it". So all this time I believe you've done nuthing bt googling instead of genuinely reading GITA. You are repeatedly at flaw on Gita and googling is a naive solution to finding such answers!!

I don't know how many times you will say buddha was "anti-veda" or "rejected Vedas" and keep glorifying your ignorance just as you did on cast system? I told you to read. Dunno why I have to quote it everytime for you. Now read....



*www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/articles/buddhism_hinduism.shtml

Ways in which Buddhism and Hinduism are similar:

1) Both believe in reincarnation.

2) Both believe there are many different paths to enlightenment.

3) Both believe that our suffering is caused by excessive attachment to things and people in the physical world.

4) Both believe in an ultimate spiritual reality beyond the illusions of the physical world.

5) Both practice meditation and other forms of yoga.

6) Both believe that eventually all living spirits will achieve enlightenment and liberation, even if it takes many incarnations.Remember that in Mahayana Buddhism, the original teachings of the Buddha are assimilated to Hindu practices, including prayers, gods (even the Buddha as god in all his many incarnations). Mahayana Buddhism also introduces the idea of (temporary) heavens and hells.
.
.
.
.
Buddha was not anti- Vedas

Buddha does not accept Vedas as God's utterances. They are the achievements of sages through meditation. He has been anti Vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations after the death of his father. He considers 'Gayatri Mantra' the premier mantra. Had he been anti-Vedas he would not have uttered those words- Not to read Vedas is to collect scum one one's mind. Study of Vedas is very dear to him. He believes in 32 embellishments of a lofty soul as propounded in Vedas. Similarly he is not anti- Brahaman. He praises the old brahmans but wants his contemporary brahmans to shun and cast off their short comings. He wants them to purify themselves through reforms. They should be as they were.

Did you understand anything? If you look closer, then Buddhism was against much of the "distorted" Hinduism, just like I am trying to showcase in some threads.


I think you are getting annoyed just because your little "googles" on Gita are getting nulled and your bias against religion exposed every single time.

Firstly, you have now started justifying calling another religion, “enemy”. See you prove us right once again. We kept on arguing, that religion doesn’t specifically ask one to hate anyone, but provides justification for “hatred”. You have found your own justification. Perhaps you are not “hating”, in the stricter sense of the word, but the battle lines have already been drawn in your mind. That’s what that matters.

Secondly, you are therefore aware that not everything is hunky-dory with your religion and how it is viewed by a person from without. I wonder if you visit a Pak forum, what will you do, when Buddhist criticism makes you “feel the punch on your face”.

Thirdly, that now you are seeing signs of communism in Kalki Purana’s narration of Buddhism, makes you a special person in your own right. I have been hanging around different religious forums, for long enough to know, that it is not something that you have come up with. But still.

But one lesson that you have learnt from this debate, is the correct usage of the word “mleccha”. Congrats.

You seem to be jumping to conclusions very quick. Now where did I "justify" another religion as "enemy" which is considered a "part of Hinduism" itself by many? You seem to contradict your own point. Please tell us in "detail" where's the "hatred"? And no, battles lines are not drawing on my mind, but I believe its your hatred for religion which is making you impotent to understand my posts and jumping to all sorts of illogical and wierd conclusions.

The "feel the punch on your face", is a phrase that means I tried to logic with them "unbiasedly" and yet they were "emotional" doing namecalling/abusing etc. So you jump to conclusion again just like you did on Gita verses illogically. And yes, it is the same thing I'm feeling from atheists in this thread who are namecalling,abusing,generalising etc on theists. It is as if a battle is going on with sides ready to nuke each other. You are simply one step ahead of them by continuing you train of illogic on every single Gita verse like a true religion hater. You are not attacking actively/directly but more like "passively"/indirectly which I fear is more dangerous, not for me, but for u only.

Your third point pretty much says that you again "googled", read the between the lines and not the complete things.

IMO, it accurately describes the symptoms of kaliyug. The Kalki purana as I said, shows the symptoms of the age and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China and people as comminists and buddhists. The terms have been used interchangeably since it is only a prediction, based on the signs/symptoms of the people, place and the size of the army that kalki will fight with. It doesn't mean the symptoms of buddhists. But buddhists and communists have been used as they are the ones in large numbers in China. And further, it certainly doesn't mean that Kalki will be at war with the "foundation of Buddhism". So get your facts straight first!

I shall enlighten you further depending on your level of hate in your next speech.


And I know the usage of word "mleccha". I only hope you understand its meaning fast for you are the only one who come up with this term and shoot it repeatedly whenever Hinduism is debated.

One last shot: What if someone claims that he is the MOST intelligent person on the forum. Where does that place you ? Please explain that without resorting to unnecessary sarcasm.

My nature doesn't contain filters of hatred to accept or reject something. I simply wont care if someone says he is a dumbass or intelligent. Intelligence is not shown by mere mumbling but by showcasing it and AFAIK, arjuna's every sorrow, confusion and grief was removed afterwards. I happen to agree with most verses of Gita after deep thoughts. But like I said I have not seen a god and I don't pray. I hope you already know that.

So, I think I decide my own place, and not someone else (some person). Further, understand the part in "bold". Someone who showcases his true form which is not visible to the naked eyes, shows the path to someone in grief, discusses and show cases his all pervasiveness and supreme nature whose true form is formless, I guess is not a "person" in the first place. I think we were discussing about theistic religion or did you forget that?

Krishna is just a name and an avatar. The true definition of him that he explains is "not of a person". So please tell me where the "person" is in the verse I quoted before. i.e,
"O son of Kunti [Arjuna], I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man."

Is the person a "taste" or the "light". Or is a person defined as an "ability"?

Says the one, who didn’t even know, till today, who Prabhupada was. Hilarious.

Is it important to know who all "translate" and "comment" about Gita, then just reading GITA yourself? I don't even know who all major Hindu preachers are.

Perhaps you can continue to laugh in your own ignorance.

I had retained the word “Me”, because it means the godhead (i.e. the supreme god with all his avatars). I had put “Krishna” in the bracket, as a reference to the context, which is Krishna speaking to Arjuna. Your penchant for picking up the peripheral issues and ignoring the main point, is now approaching the bizarre.

And that "me" is not a person, but the supreme nature, the supreme reality. And don't forget the verse 9.23.

You seem to be just repeating your age old rants.

You are fighting a loosing battle and you don’t even realize that.
Swami Prabhupada’s commentary:

““Persons who are engaged in the worship of demigods are not very intelligent, although such worship is offered to Me indirectly,” Krishna says. For example, when a man pours water on the leaves and branches of a tree without pouring water on the root, he does so without sufficient knowledge or without observing regulative principles. Similarly, the process of rendering service to different parts of the body is to supply food to the stomach. The demigods are, so to speak, different officers and directors in the government of the Supreme Lord. One has to follow the laws made by the government, not by the officers or directors. Similarly, everyone is to offer his worship to the Supreme Lord only. That will automatically satisfy the different officers and directors of the Lord. The officers and directors are engaged as representatives of the government, and to offer some bribe to the officers and directors is illegal. This is stated here as avidhi-purvakam. In other words, Krishna does not approve the unnecessary worship of the demigods.”

COMMENTS: Regarding the parts in bold, it means, that demigods (i.e. all other gods) don’t “have separate existence without Krishna”

So, with hatred towards religion mixed with emotional psyche just becoz you have been proved wrong on the verses, you are now further treating this is as a battle?

Like I said, you only put verses and commentaries you find, proving you biased point that you agree with. You state them without even understanding the meaning of it and behave like "Hey, explain this!". So which part may I ask, "proves" your point? Again I give you a clue : You have not read the complete GITA.

Pruabhupada, translates the same verse (BG 7.15) as:

“Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.”

Thats again quoting without understanding. Like I said, the defintion of him has been clearly mentioned by "him"

One such definition of "him" is the supreme "nature". There is nature outside us within which we are all situated and happening without our control and then, there is nature within us. Perhaps God is nature within which we are all situated? I do believe in nature, don't you?

Don't you believe if we respect nature, it will respect us indeed? Now read my debate with @amitash on "nature" before you are all set to repeat me again.

BTW, you havn't told us: Who is a Hindu ?

IMO, Indians are hindu, since it was a term originally used my mughals to identify Indians. So originally Hindu meant all those living in India "irrespective of faith". I believe you simply did not ask the correct question. Take your time.

Guess who needs to read Gita. Knowing you, I get the feeling that you are going to come back, by attacking Prabhupada's credibility.

I certainly didn't attack anyone so far, did I? I may "question" (not attack) in future, who knows? But it wud be the logic not the credibility! Whereas most of your posts can be predicted now. The only random factor remains where I expect intelligence from you and you do the opposite. You still haven't read GITA genuinely without any bias, but only doing little "googles" n then quoting out of context.

Remember, from one verse you may or may not understand anything and certainly not everything. But with complete GITA in mind, you will understand everything.

 

[Faun]

IMO, Indians are hindu, since it was a term originally used my mughals to identify Indians. So originally Hindu meant all those living in India "irrespective of faith". I believe you simply did not ask the correct question. Take your time.

AFAIK Hindu was defined by Persians, it was just a distorted form of those living around Sindhu river.

 

[rhitwick]

@rhitwick you are only wasting your time. I already said I'm not gonna entertain you. Why even bother then? Accept you own statement one more time.

Why?
Why not...? Meri kaya galti hai?

And, u don't need to reply me. I'll be happy enough to know that u've read my post and accepted the "facts" (which I've provided with proper sources).

It would be enough for me to read ur posts and finding that u r presenting arguments based upon already revealed "facts".

Regards

 

[karnivore]

@rhitwick you are only wasting your time. I already said I'm not gonna entertain you. Why even bother then? Accept you own statement one more time.

Replying to someone is your prerogative so I can’t ask you to reply to rhitwick. But, just to let you know, he is making some really valid points and avoiding him is like avoiding his points.

So all this time I believe you've done nuthing bt googling instead of genuinely reading GITA.

If you think, just by googling you can come up with verses from Gita, that would support your view, then my friend, you do not have a clue about the enormity of the text. It is almost impossible to pick up verses, unless one has some sense of the arrangement of these verses, the chapters and the nature of these chapters.

1) Both believe in reincarnation.

Wrong. First, Rg Veda, the sanctum sanctorum of the vedic texts, do not talk of reincarnation. Second, in Hinduism, reincarnation is when soul takes birth in a new body. (Sort of old wine in new bottle type stuff) In other words, soul is central to reincarnation. Buddha rejected the idea of soul and so reincarnation in Buddhism is entirely different from that of Buddhism. Buddhism believes in transmigration.

2) Both believe there are many different paths to enlightenment.

Nirvana, in Buddhism, is, when body transcends the (earthly) miseries e.g. the cycle of birth and death, by following the 8 fold path. Besides, Nirvana is attainable by anybody. Moksha, in Hinduism, is when, one realizes the Brahman, the One. Only a Brahmin can attain Moksha. Two entirely different concepts.

3) Both believe that our suffering is caused by excessive attachment to things and people in the physical world.

Yes, but again with a difference. In Hinduism, its all a maya, and the suffering is because we do not realize the Brahman. While in Buddhism, misery is inherent to birth, a reality.

4) Both believe in an ultimate spiritual reality beyond the illusions of the physical world.

Physical world is illusory in Hinduism, but in Buddhism it is a reality.

5) Both practice meditation and other forms of yoga.

So ?

6) Both believe that eventually all living spirits will achieve enlightenment and liberation, even if it takes many incarnations. Remember that in Mahayana Buddhism, the original teachings of the Buddha are assimilated to Hindu practices, including prayers, gods (even the Buddha as god in all his many incarnations). Mahayana Buddhism also introduces the idea of (temporary) heavens and hells.

Buddha never claimed to be a god, in fact he rejected that there is any god. He rejected idol worship or any objectification. The relation between the Buddha and his devotees is more like a teacher and disciple, and not like a provider and receiver, like, for example, Krishna and Vaishabs. In fact, influence of Buddhism in Hinduism has been profound. The most notable influence has been the concept of “Ahimsa”.

Problem is, you are viewing Buddhism, through your Hindu eyes. You are just scratching the surface and seeing, what you want to see. But beneath the surface, there is a whole host of difference. Actually you still don’t know what (il)logic went into the disingenuous act of including Buddha into your pantheon. Anyway, read Buddhism from a Buddhist perspective.

Now where did I "justify" another religion as "enemy" which is considered a "part of Hinduism" itself by many?

“Many” believe that modern Hinduism is part of Islam and “many” other believe that it is part of Christianity. I hope, you are not going to go into some sort of seizure now.

…I tried to logic with them "unbiasedly"…

By that you mean, from your Hindu perspective.

You are not attacking actively/directly but more like "passively"/indirectly which I fear is more dangerous, not for me, but for u only.

I am touched by your concern.

Your third point pretty much says that you again "googled", read the between the lines and not the complete things.

IMO, it accurately describes the symptoms of kaliyug. The Kalki purana as I said, shows the symptoms of the age and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China and people as comminists and buddhists. The terms have been used interchangeably since it is only a prediction, based on the signs/symptoms of the people, place and the size of the army that kalki will fight with. It doesn't mean the symptoms of buddhists. But buddhists and communists have been used as they are the ones in large numbers in China. And further, it certainly doesn't mean that Kalki will be at war with the "foundation of Buddhism". So get your facts straight first!

I had read about dating of ancient Indian texts, a long time back, and in it I came across the fact that the Maurya empire was mentioned in Kalki Purana. (If I recall correctly it was a name of a king of Maurya dynasty). It escaped my memory until you raised the topic. To be certain I googled and found my confirmation. Googling is easy, I know, but you have to know “what” you are looking for. This “what” part is the hardest part.

The rest of that quote is, GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out. But it’s a good thing that you have sort of come away from the so called “prophecy” claims.

And I know the usage of word "mleccha". I only hope you understand its meaning fast for you are the only one who come up with this term and shoot it repeatedly whenever Hinduism is debated.

And by using it, you are yourself telling us, what it is supposed to mean.

My nature doesn't contain filters of hatred to accept or reject something.

Regarding abrahamic religion:

I'm not willing to even read on them.

Ignored coz of abrahmic connection!

And if one searches this forum, many such gems would be found.

I simply wont care if someone says he is a dumbass or intelligent.
…

So, I think I decide my own place, and not someone else (some person).

Nice way to sidestep the point. But, finally you have realized, the stand an agnostic/atheist take with respect to religion. That wasn’t too hard, was it.

The rest part of that quote is conflation. Irrelevant.

Is it important to know who all "translate" and "comment" about Gita, then just reading GITA yourself? I don't even know who all major Hindu preachers are.

Not “all” but at least the ones who are considered as authority. Why ? Because - one, most of us are not as intelligent as we think we are; two, academic study, something different from religious mass consumption.

And that "me" is not a person, but the supreme nature, the supreme reality.

What I said was: “I had retained the word “Me”, because it means the godhead (i.e. the supreme god with all his avatars).” Which part of the “godhead”, you didn’t understand ?

So, with hatred towards religion mixed with emotional psyche just becoz you have been proved wrong on the verses, you are now further treating this is as a battle?

Like I said, you only put verses and commentaries you find, proving you biased point that you agree with. You state them without even understanding the meaning of it and behave like "Hey, explain this!". So which part may I ask, "proves" your point? Again I give you a clue : You have not read the complete GITA.

If you are saying it, then it must be right. But I agree, dismissing Prabhupada is beyond you. I am glad that you haven’t used your typical ad homenims against him, just to score a brownie point against me. Wise decision.

And yes, I rest my case.

One such definition of "him" is the supreme "nature". There is nature outside us within which we are all situated and happening without our control and then, there is nature within us. Perhaps God is nature within which we are all situated? I do believe in nature, don't you?

Yes, ONE such definition, but not the ONLY definition. You accused me of being selective, and here you are, being selective in choosing “his” definition. But its OK, except that you got the meaning of BG 7.8 wrong (because you are making literal interpretation), which actually speaks of all-pervasiveness of the godhead and extends beyond the physical “nature”.

Who is a Hindu ?

IMO, Indians are hindu, since it was a term originally used my mughals to identify Indians. So originally Hindu meant all those living in India "irrespective of faith". I believe you simply did not ask the correct question. Take your time.

Your obsession with the Mughals is now getting a bit irritating. The word “hindu” makes its appearance, for the first time, in Persian texts. It meant, those who live on the other side (east) of the river Sindhu. Ancient Persian didn’t have a “S” and was replaced by “H”. Thus from Sindhu to Hindu. The word is also found in Greek texts as well. Much later Mughals started using the term, for administrative purpose, to make a distinction between the Muslims, Sikhs and the rest. This was followed by the British as well, and it was them, who gave an official recognition to “Hinduism” as distinct religion.

Anyway, I did ask you the right question and I did get my answer. Ask a similar question to people of other religion and they will come up with a readymade answer. Belief in their gods, belief in their prophets and finally faith in their holy books. But ask this question to a average person, who claims to be a “hindu”, and watch him grope for an answer for 10 minutes. Look at you. You have given me a lecture on the origin of word, that too an incorrect one.

The only random factor remains where I expect intelligence from you and you do the opposite.

If it makes you feel good, I am cool with it.

 

[mediator]

@ichi : Yes, u r right!
@rhitwick : No I haven't "accepted" most of your points. But your understanding of my points is simply very childish to even debate on. Further, much of your post is filled with "generalizations, lols, hahas, hilarious terms" than any connection with the topic. So the topic originally started with @amitash, where you popped up and questioned the evolution & orgin of life example, where you confessed to being "dumbass" before @amitash's reply. I know your nature and thats why asked you to refrain. Further it was "pink unicorns" days which I was referring to where you did not discuss science. Well, see yourself, You couldn't even grasp that.

I did not agree with @amitash and hence discussed with him. Just saying that he put the most sensible, logical and genuine arguments doesn't mean I accepted his statements. Why would I have discussed with him then? The genuine nature of his talks simply means that he was not quoting any other critics, but simply putting forward his own views. Neither he is arrogant nor reluctant to understand any of the views so far.

Whereas even after quoting some of the commentaries to you guys and telling about the verses myself and then suggesting to read a book before commenting on it, you are simply googling here and there finding commentaries to suit yourself and your agenda. It is like to fulfill your illogical hatred towards religion, you are willing to do anything illogical.

Remember, a wise man doesn't opine on a book until he reads the last word and here I am connecting you, enlightening you with other verses. The book might sound boring in the beginning, but might have twist and turns in the end. May be the start is connected with the end?

Even after all these rants you guys still have not told me where these religions, I asked for, or God are preaching "intolerance" about the gods of other religions. I gave a verse and sourced the page having lot of commentaries bt it where Krishna himself preaches tolerance.

Where is Krishna saying that "Krishna is the best"? Where is Buddha saying "Buddha is the best"? Where is Guru Nanak Dev saying "Guru Nanak is the best"? etc?

 

[rhitwick]

@ichi : Yes, u r right!

That means u don't even know who were Hindu...

@rhitwick : No I haven't "accepted" most of your points. But your understanding of my points is simply very childish to even debate on. Further, much of your post is filled with "generalizations, lols, hahas, hilarious terms" than any connection with the topic.

Is it so? How about skipping those two words "LOL and hilarious" and read the whole post. If u ask I'll edit my post for ur smooth read.

So the topic originally started with @amitash, where you popped up and questioned the evolution & orgin of life example, where you confessed to being "dumbass" before @amitash's reply. I know your nature and thats why asked you to refrain. Further it was "pink unicorns" days which I was referring to where you did not discuss science.

Well, I accept again that in certain topic when my opponent claims that he/she has much much more knowledge than me, then I assume that I'm a noob in comparison to him/her. I then ask to make me understand, enlighten the poor soul. Guess what, those knowledgeable persons totally ignore this request. Either they they don't want to share their knowledge or they don't have anything to share.
And, about "pink unicorn days"; my first post here was, post no. 651 (I just checked ) which I made after reading the first 3 pages (My post even mentions it). After making the post I read the whole thread till that page. And came to know about ur "pink unicorn" and "clock". If I were from the beginning of this thread u would have find me posting more.
Now, u r ignoring me only because I'm not as experienced as u "in this particular thread". Hmmm, freshers are welcome nowhere

The genuine nature of his talks simply means that he was not quoting any other critics, but simply putting forward his own views. Neither he is arrogant nor reluctant to understand any of the views so far.

This is dangerous! As his claims won't be verifiable. Science discards anything which is not verifiable, he id doing nothing better than a theist who just goes and claims something "putting his own views".

Purdon me @Amitash, but I think u should always put verifiable comments with proper source of information, else one day these theists would point to u, how did u get to that conclusion. Its always with them, they can't produce proof but will always ask for one.

Whereas even after quoting some of the commentaries to you guys and telling about the verses myself and then suggesting to read a book before commenting on it, you are simply googling here and there finding commentaries to suit yourself and your agenda. It is like to fulfill your illogical hatred towards religion, you are willing to do anything illogical.

Well, u google and provide comments that suits u (now, don't say u didn't google as u own "those" sites/blogs) and I googled and provide comments which suited me best.
About me doing illogical , point a comment (without lol and hilarious "words") which talk illogically, I'm off this thread.

Its u who talks illogical, comments without even doing a research.
Just in past few days u came combined Global Warming with God and I provided u tons of links which tells how false u r on claiming.

U commented on Buddha (The source of still practiced Baudhya dharma) being a avatar of Vishnu, u referenced Vishnupuran. I then brought Vishnupurana (one link even had the original book scanned) and proved that There are two "Buddha" and u've messed up the right one here.

U commented that not all religions are equal and asked us to prove our points, I again proved it.

U claimed Vaishnava and Shaiva never fought, I provide u time and venue of the clash.

U asked more knowledgeble person from u who knows of lord Krishna more than u. I brought up commentarys of "Prabhupada" and again showed u how he claims that Krishna is supreme of all (gods)

Remember, a wise man doesn't opine on a book until he reads the last word and here I am connecting you, enlightening you with other verses. The book might sound boring in the beginning, but might have twist and turns in the end. May be the start is connected with the end?

Guess what, u refer a book to prove ur auguments are proper and I use the same book to show that ur arguments are false.
Then, who has read the book?

Most of the comment u make to prove ur arguments are later proved wrong and ur arguments are found to baseless and imaginary (obviously, GOD is imaginary, so every argument to prove his/her being has to be imaginary)

Even after all these rants you guys still have not told me where these religions, I asked for, or God are preaching "intolerance" about the gods of other religions. I gave a verse and sourced the page having lot of commentaries bt it where Krishna himself preaches tolerance.

Intolerence is not mentioned in any book or verse.
But all verses surounding a particular god (Krishna, Shiva, Shakti etc) tells that only he/she is supreme and thou shal devote to him/her only.
Its we, who interpreted wrong.

Take an example of two communities who are unknown to each other. Both of them has one supreme god A and B and provide offerrings to only A/B.
Now, one day if they come together both of them would notice that the other community is not accepting their god and not claiming A/B being the only one (supreme).
This is how an unrest starts or in ur words "intolerance".

 

[mediator]

I then ask to make me understand, enlighten the poor soul. Guess what, those knowledgeable persons totally ignore this request.

And thats your problem. Explaining to you is like "bhains ke saamne been bajana". Your troll tells that you r ignorant on the enlightenment I gave long ago. i.e Read the complete GITA.

Buddha is not going to come in every era and repeat the same statements just for you. Wisdom lies in reading what is already stated.......completely!!

Replying to someone is your prerogative so I can’t ask you to reply to rhitwick. But, just to let you know, he is making some really valid points and avoiding him is like avoiding his points.

You should be concerned bt yourself rather than your "friend" in a debate. Besides, you did not read Gita completely or the commentraies I put up. You are neither giving your "own" views on the different verses of Gita but only "googling". That is like "avoiding" the discussion with your opponent.

If you think, just by googling you can come up with verses from Gita, that would support your view, then my friend, you do not have a clue about the enormity of the text. It is almost impossible to pick up verses, unless one has some sense of the arrangement of these verses, the chapters and the nature of these chapters.

Exactly what reflects on you and what I'd been telling you. With 9.22 you forgot 9.23. All the verses are somehow connected and wisdom lies in reading them all unbiasedly instead of a mere googling for a few.

Wrong. First, Rg Veda, the sanctum sanctorum of the vedic texts, do not talk of reincarnation. Second, in Hinduism, reincarnation is when soul takes birth in a new body. (Sort of old wine in new bottle type stuff) In other words, soul is central to reincarnation. Buddha rejected the idea of soul and so reincarnation in Buddhism is entirely different from that of Buddhism. Buddhism believes in transmigration.

Deviation from the point has become something of your interest isn't it?

1. The point was not about reincarnation, but being "anti-veda" that I highlighted
2. Why are you only talking of rigveda? Or just like selecting random verses to prove ur biased point, you have decided to select random works of Hinduism? Hinduism also consists of Gita, the other 3 vedas also.
3. I think you are wrong about transmigration, as the buddhist definition of rebirth is much more intense.
*www.buddhanet.net/funbud10.htm

Further, buddhs is said to have "remembered" his past lives. And also we have the mention of kalki from "shambhala" in buddhism.
*www.buddhist-temples.com/nirvana-buddhism.html

Nirvana, in Buddhism, is, when body transcends the (earthly) miseries e.g. the cycle of birth and death, by following the 8 fold path. Besides, Nirvana is attainable by anybody. Moksha, in Hinduism, is when, one realizes the Brahman, the One. Only a Brahmin can attain Moksha. Two entirely different concepts.

Like I repeatedly state now, you say something without even understanding it. Understand if you can...
*www.boloji.com/culture/020.htm

Yes, but again with a difference. In Hinduism, its all a maya, and the suffering is because we do not realize the Brahman. While in Buddhism, misery is inherent to birth, a reality.

Why digress again? In simple terms it means materialistc attachement.

What is "by birth" has to anything here? The point still remains that their is "suffering is caused by excessive attachment to things and people in the physical world".

Maya is not just the worldy "suffering" you know. If you want to use a term, then atleast try to understand its meaning first.

4) Both believe in an ultimate spiritual reality beyond the illusions of the physical world.

Physical world is illusory in Hinduism, but in Buddhism it is a reality.

Who is talking about the physical world only? I think I discussed spirituality in some thread at length. Spirituality deals with the state of mind, nature also. e.g nirvana that you quoted yourself.

Illusions of physical world also means the "materialist attachments, desires etc". Again read GITA, you are only googling.

Buddha never claimed to be a god, in fact he rejected that there is any god. He rejected idol worship or any objectification. The relation between the Buddha and his devotees is more like a teacher and disciple, and not like a provider and receiver, like, for example, Krishna and Vaishabs. In fact, influence of Buddhism in Hinduism has been profound. The most notable influence has been the concept of “Ahimsa”.

Problem is, you are viewing Buddhism, through your Hindu eyes. You are just scratching the surface and seeing, what you want to see. But beneath the surface, there is a whole host of difference. Actually you still don’t know what (il)logic went into the disingenuous act of including Buddha into your pantheon. Anyway, read Buddhism from a Buddhist perspective.

I never view anything from a perspective for even perspective might lead to a bias, but I view like a student who has "no tags" on him.

But even if we go by your logic, you haven't done well even after so much repeatition, on the verses of GITA. REad the complete GITA will you?

“Many” believe that modern Hinduism is part of Islam and “many” other believe that it is part of Christianity. I hope, you are not going to go into some sort of seizure now.

For their belief they should conform to
1. Scriptures
2. "Origin" of the scriptures and the teachings

Your logic clearly fails on both. And again you deviate. Where did I "justify" another religion as an "enemy"? Care to explain in detail?

By that you mean, from your Hindu perspective.

Quoting the scriptures and facts is not called "Hindu perspective". Like I said Buddha was more like "removing" "distortions in Hinduism" though not entirely. So just like you, these buddhists happen to quote manusmriti and cast system "by birth" and seem to have something against the brahmins. Did you understand anything remarkable?

Regarding abrahamic religion:

Like I said you jump to conclusion very soon.

Not “all” but at least the ones who are considered as authority. Why ? Because - one, most of us are not as intelligent as we think we are; two, academic study, something different from religious mass consumption.

What if I say I understand GITA without the guidance of any 3rd party authority? You don't always need tuition do you? Commentaries are for those who can't understand the verses themselves. You fit the case perfectly. You are only googling and quoting a few verses for your own agenda.

What I said was: “I had retained the word “Me”, because it means the godhead (i.e. the supreme god with all his avatars).” Which part of the “godhead”, you didn’t understand ?

And like I said Krishna is merely an avatar, like his other 9 counterparts with "names". Avatars merely had roles in establishing the righteousness. I also said behind the "name" is the true definition of that "Me" that also maps to the supreme "nature" in which you are living and breathing and providing you food to live on. This nature is functioning on its own and we are not controlling it. Sun is emitting light and you are surviving on it. Sunlight is essential for human bones and for sustaining "warmth" on earth. It is this nature that pervades everything. It is this supreme being/nature which is different from avatars.

Which part of my statements did you not understand?

Yes, ONE such definition, but not the ONLY definition. You accused me of being selective, and here you are, being selective in choosing “his” definition. But its OK, except that you got the meaning of BG 7.8 wrong (because you are making literal interpretation), which actually speaks of all-pervasiveness of the godhead and extends beyond the physical “nature”.

Like I said read GITA urself, for explaining this now will lead to massive repeatitions.

You have given me a lecture on the origin of word, that too an incorrect one.

I accept my fault. But it was not completely wrong! My meaning was Sindhu only and where I was at fault was at "persian" I believe.


You did not answer to my question, Do you believe in nature or not? Don't u believe nature works without human control? Do you think Sun has anything to do with "human control"? Please answer these!


You did not comment to the point of "anti-veda" and you have yet not shown how "religion, Gods" (the few I stated) preach "intolerance" over other faiths. I hope you agree to it that all religions are not the same and the few I stated don't "preach" intolerance. So lets stop this stupid squabbles and "googling".

If you are saying it, then it must be right.

I'm honoured! So please take my friendly advise and read Gita completely.

 

[Faun]

Intolerence is not mentioned in any book or verse.
But all verses surounding a particular god (Krishna, Shiva, Shakti etc) tells that only he/she is supreme and thou shal devote to him/her only.
Its we, who interpreted wrong.

Take an example of two communities who are unknown to each other. Both of them has one supreme god A and B and provide offerrings to only A/B.
Now, one day if they come together both of them would notice that the other community is not accepting their god and not claiming A/B being the only one (supreme).
This is how an unrest starts or in ur words "intolerance".

First of all the existence of different gods is in itself a proof of tolerance in Hinduism. The birth of Indian religions like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc is another proof.

Your reasoning is flawed in that term. It's when a religion specifically says that there is only one path to reach God and there is only one God, all others must accept it or they will suffer in hell. All Abrahamic religions fall on this fear and force tactic.

Monotheism was a great gift from Gods

Different path taken by many rivers but ultimately each path leads to the ocean. The same philosophy applies for Hinduism.

 

[awww]

First of all the existence of different gods is in itself a proof of tolerance in Hinduism. The birth of Indian religions like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc is another proof.

i think it goes the other way before the invasion of the British there were no clear idea about Hinduism
they just put all Indian religion into one category as Hinduism

 

[karnivore]

Explaining to you is like "bhains ke saamne been bajana".

Calm down. Loosing a debate is not the end of the world.

You should be concerned bt yourself rather than your "friend" in a debate.

You are my friend too, I suppose.

You are neither giving your "own" views on the different verses of Gita but only "googling".

If that thought makes your day, I have no problem.

With 9.22 you forgot 9.23. All the verses are somehow connected and wisdom lies in reading them all unbiasedly instead of a mere googling for a few.

How do you think I knew, that verse 9.22 is what I am looking for. Rest assured Krishna didn’t whisper into my ears.

Regarding, 9.23, I have already put up the commentary of Prabhupada, who is considered to be an authority on Gita. The thing is 9.23 complements 9.22. Not the other way round.

Deviation from the point has become something of your interest isn't it?

1. The point was not about reincarnation, but being "anti-veda" that I highlighted
2. Why are you only talking of rigveda? Or just like selecting random verses to prove ur biased point, you have decided to select random works of Hinduism? Hinduism also consists of Gita, the other 3 vedas also.
3. I think you are wrong about transmigration, as the buddhist definition of rebirth is much more intense.
*www.buddhanet.net/funbud10.htm

Further, buddhs is said to have "remembered" his past lives. And also we have the mention of kalki from "shambhala" in buddhism.
*www.buddhist-temples.com/nirvana-buddhism.html

1. If Buddha preached something, that is not attested by veda, does that make him pro-veda.

2. Just so you know that half the things that you consider as part of your religion, isn’t even mentioned in the most sacred of the sacred text.

3. You didn’t notice the contradictions in those two links, did you ? The first link talks of “rebirth”, the second “reincarnation”. The first is talking of lack of “continuity”, disingenuously so, while the second about “continuity”. In fact the second link is even talking of “soul” when, Buddha discarded the concept of “soul”. A case of blindly googling, without knowing what to look for. See, googling is not that easy.

The reason why I buy the transmigration argument is because of the belief that Buddha remembered his past lives (of course metaphors). Now in Hinduism, there is a concept of soul and death is when the soul leaves this current body, and birth is when it enters a new one. The soul doesn’t die. It simply changes abode. Vivekanada, explained it with a metaphor of reading a book. When we read a book, we turn the pages, but until the last page is turned, we are not done reading. Soul is that book, while the pages are the different forms it takes to reach to the last page. That last page, of course is the moksha. The point is of continuity. In Buddhism, the problem is that there is no concept of soul. Therefore, clearly, the rebirth is not the transmission of soul from one form into another (man in one birth, cat in another, depending on karma). Yet then, one is supposed to remember his past. Which means, memory is indeed expected to be transmitted between the births, without, of course, transmission of soul. Therefore the continuity is indeed there (that’s why I called, the first link’s claim, that there is no continuity as disingenuous) but not in the sense that Hindus understand. The concept of transmigration, solves the problem of continuity, at least for me.

Like I repeatedly state now, you say something without even understanding it. Understand if you can...
*www.boloji.com/culture/020.htm

The reply lies in this question: How do you suppose, a sudra will attain moksha ?

Why digress again? In simple terms it means materialistc attachement.

What is "by birth" has to anything here? The point still remains that their is "suffering is caused by excessive attachment to things and people in the physical world".

Maya is not just the worldy "suffering" you know. If you want to use a term, then atleast try to understand its meaning first.

“Maya” in Hinduism refer to the dream dreamt by the Brahman, the One. Thus we are all animated characters in his dream and what we see all around, is illusory, even our suffering. But Buddha, rejected the idea of the One. Therefore, the sufferings are real.

Who is talking about the physical world only? I think I discussed spirituality in some thread at length. Spirituality deals with the state of mind, nature also. e.g nirvana that you quoted yourself.

Illusions of physical world also means the "materialist attachments, desires etc". Again read GITA, you are only googling.

Read the above first. Now, since the whole world, that is our world, is illusory, even the attachment to materialistic pleasures is also, an illusion. Spirituality for Hinduism, is transcending this illusion. Capische.

I never view anything from a perspective for even perspective might lead to a bias, but I view like a student who has "no tags" on him.

People who have argued, against your point of view, will disagree. But then again, can any opinion be without perspective. Even, neutrality is a perspective.

For their belief they should conform to
1. Scriptures
2. "Origin" of the scriptures and the teachings

They actually quote verses to support their theory.

Your logic clearly fails on both. And again you deviate. Where did I "justify" another religion as an "enemy"? Care to explain in detail?

First:

…the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given. It tells us about a war with China more specifically

And then later:

The Kalki purana as I said, shows the symptoms of the age and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China and people as comminists and buddhists. The terms have been used interchangeably since it is only a prediction, based on the signs/symptoms of the people, place and the size of the army that kalki will fight with. It doesn't mean the symptoms of buddhists. But buddhists and communists have been used as they are the ones in large numbers in China.

Not withstanding the childish assumption that China will remain communist or Buddhism will survive for the next 427,000 years (Kalki is set to appear 432,000 years after the beginning of Kali-yug and only 5,000 odd years have passed since the beginning), the point is, that the mention of the word, “Buddhist”, as enemy, has led you (not you, personally) to look for attributes that appear like Buddhism, which is a “nastik” concept, ergo communism. In other words, you have defined your (i.e. Humanity’s) enemy, in terms of “Buddhism” and its attributes. Hence, the justification.

Quoting the scriptures and facts is not called "Hindu perspective". Like I said Buddha was more like "removing" "distortions in Hinduism" though not entirely.

Everytime you imply that Buddha is Vishnu’s avatar, or is somehow part of Hinduism, you are using a “Hindu perspective”. Period. You are regarding Hindu texts as something axiomatic. Guess what ? It is not.

Like I said you jump to conclusion very soon.

And more often than not, they turn out to be right.

What if I say I understand GITA without the guidance of any 3rd party authority? You don't always need tuition do you? Commentaries are for those who can't understand the verses themselves. You fit the case perfectly. You are only googling and quoting a few verses for your own agenda.

I agree, I am not uber intelligent like you are, and I do need some authority to clarify things. But then again, what is it that Gita says about “ego” ?

And like I said Krishna is merely an avatar, like his other 9 counterparts with "names". Avatars merely had roles in establishing the righteousness. I also said behind the "name" is the true definition of that "Me" that also maps to the supreme "nature" in which you are living and breathing and providing you food to live on. This nature is functioning on its own and we are not controlling it. Sun is emitting light and you are surviving on it. Sunlight is essential for human bones and for sustaining "warmth" on earth. It is this nature that pervades everything. It is this supreme being/nature which is different from avatars.

Which part of my statements did you not understand?

I had retained the word “Me”, because it means the godhead (i.e. the supreme god with all his avatars). I had put “Krishna” in the bracket, as a reference to the context, which is Krishna speaking to Arjuna.

Guess who is repeating and clutching at straws.

Yes, ONE such definition, but not the ONLY definition. You accused me of being selective, and here you are, being selective in choosing “his” definition. But its OK, except that you got the meaning of BG 7.8 wrong (because you are making literal interpretation), which actually speaks of all-pervasiveness of the godhead and extends beyond the physical “nature”.

Like I said read GITA urself, for explaining this now will lead to massive repeatitions.

One repetition is not going to kill us, would it. So do explain, why we should consider “nature” as “his” only definition, and not consider those that defines “him”, as the “cause”, the “creator”, the “ruler”, the “enforcer of rules” ect. of Universe. And also, explain, what “taste of water”, “light of the sun and moon” and “Om” in BG 7.8 represent.

Why specifically “taste of water” ? Why not just stop at “taste” ? Why not “taste of food” ? What is so special about water and its taste ? More importantly, what “taste” does water have ? Sweet, sour, something else ?

Why “light of sun and moon”? Why not just “light” ? Or Why not “light” of fire ? Why not “light” of stars ?

Common, it will be a walk in the park for you.

You did not answer to my question, Do you believe in nature or not? Don't u believe nature works without human control? Do you think Sun has anything to do with "human control"? Please answer these!

Do I believe in nature ? Don’t I believe nature works without human control ? Of course I do. Do I think Sun has anything to do with “human control” ? Of course not.

You did not comment to the point of "anti-veda" and you have yet not shown how "religion, Gods" (the few I stated) preach "intolerance" over other faiths. I hope you agree to it that all religions are not the same and the few I stated don't "preach" intolerance. So lets stop this stupid squabbles and "googling".

At the core of the Vedas is the concept of the One, called the Brahman. Everything in Hinduism, gets explained in terms of the Brahman. Buddha rejected this idea of the One and therefore the very heart of Hinduism. How does that make him pro-Vedas. As with “intolerance”, scroll back and read the verses from Gita again.

 

[karnivore]

Finally a new line of argument.

First of all the existence of different gods is in itself a proof of tolerance in Hinduism. The birth of Indian religions like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc is another proof.

Not really. The undercurrent between Vaishnavs and Shaivites is pretty strong. You will never see a Vaishnav visiting a Sahivite temple and vice-versa. Also, the birth of these religions came along as criticism against Hinudism or as protest against Brahminism, and all had to withstand the onslaught. Can you explain why Buddhism, which was once the majority religion in India, is virtually non-existence in India.

Your reasoning is flawed in that term. It's when a religion specifically says that there is only one path to reach God and there is only one God, all others must accept it or they will suffer in hell. All Abrahamic religions fall on this fear and force tactic.

I agree, and always do, that eastern religions are not as bellicose as the abrahamic religions and I have given a very brief reasoning as well - among other things, lack of central authority in most, and influence of Buddhism, as some say. In any case, Vaishnavs actually say what you are accusing other religion of.

Monotheism was a great gift from Gods

Actually, Hinduism is also Monotheistic. Just that it hides under several layers of polythiesm, deism, pantheism, henotheism and for an average Hindu, it is virtually impossible to reach to the monotheistic aspect of hinduism. In any case, realizing this monotheistic aspect of Hinduism is all about attaining "moksha".

Different path taken by many rivers but ultimately each path leads to the ocean. The same philosophy applies for Hinduism.

Only if it were that simple.

 

[rhitwick]

Only if it were that simple.

Well, u've efficiently replied to ichi, I've nothing to add more.

But, I think, if they just concentrate on their business and stop poking on neighbor's kitchen they would be happy.
And the main purpose of every religion is stay happy and don't fight.