Do All Religions Teach the Same Truth?

Dec 5, 2012 Full story: OpEdNews 51

He cut an exotic figure, the turbaned swami with the princely bearing. "Sister's and brothers of America!" the orange-clad monk began his address to the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago in 1893.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“ *_* Happy-go-lucky *_*”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#41 Dec 14, 2012
According to Hinduism, the goal of the human life should be to achieve salvation i.e. freedom from the bondage of the cycle of birth and death. Life on earth is full of sorrows and sufferings. Our deeds or karma decides the fortune for the next birth and the sufferings of this birth is purely based on the deeds or karma of the previous birth.
Mark

Hedel, Netherlands

#42 Dec 15, 2012
Maxxx Payne wrote:
According to Hinduism, the goal of the human life should be to achieve salvation i.e. freedom from the bondage of the cycle of birth and death. Life on earth is full of sorrows and sufferings. Our deeds or karma decides the fortune for the next birth and the sufferings of this birth is purely based on the deeds or karma of the previous birth.
That is too much of simplification.

In Hinduism it is accepted that people are in different stages of development. First they move away from God and at some point they start to long to move back to God. So many people are not at all interested in breaking the cycle of birth and life. And many people doing good do that to be rewarded in heaven rather than escape the life cycle. Hinduism respects these differences and goals rather than forcing a universal goals on all people.

And what sets Hinduism apart from almost all other religions is its optimism that people can become enlightened here on earth. True bliss is achievable here! Maybe not this life, but it is achievable. And every person has control over his happiness by controlling his own actions and can improve his happiness. Most religions only have dead guru's to follow, but Hinduism provides new enlightened masters all the time to inspire people.

Also there is no religion that has such high opinion of Man. Man is not an inferior being to Gods, Man can even surpass Gods in knowledge. Hinduism says that that there is nothing Man can not achieve. This is in great contrast to Abramic religions in which Man is made totally subservient to a wrathful, fear demanding, jealous God and threatened with eternal torture etc if he does not bend to the will of this God. In Hinduism the Deva's (Gods) serve Man or rather they serve each other. If a God does not server them, people will reject that God.

In the west people are used to the idea that everything must be done in one life cycle. They must attain heaven or fail and end in hell. This creates a lot pressure and haste. That is why in the west training course promise short term success. In the East people have no problem with the idea it takes thousands of lives to become enlightened. They are not in a hurry to end the state of suffering. Life rather flows like river slowly but surely.

People are more concentrating on character improvement than the end goal. But in the West I hear people say they are not coming back, they think that rational knowledge of Eastern philosophy is enough to become enlightened, even though their character hardly changed at all.

but that is logical, in a western perspective and time frame there is only one life. East and West developed from different philosophical viewpoint. But because in the West the idea prevails that their can be only one truth they want to deny the fundamental differences in thinking. They say there is only one God and all people want to escape suffering, so it is all the same.

I think Hinduism offers people much more than escape of suffering. Life in Hinduism is rather something to celebrate and had infinite possibilities. Their Gods are not tortured on a cross to convince people how hopeless this world is and salvation only lies in the afterlife. That is the ideology that logically fitted the brutal Roman slave society in which 80% of the people lived without hope for a better life.

From that heritage an equally pessimistic "scientific" survival theory was born that life is a struggle of the fittest, dog eat dog. That kind of thinking is not making people happy. And that is one of the insights that Eastern philosophy developed: What you project on reality becomes true to you. We create our own future. If you want a bright future think positive, if you want suffering think negative.

But that is all up to the individual.

“ *_* Happy-go-lucky *_*”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#43 Dec 15, 2012
Mark wrote:
That is too much of simplification.
In Hinduism it is accepted that people are in different stages of development. First they move away from God and at some point they start to long to move back to God. So many people are not at all interested in breaking the cycle of birth and life. And many people doing good do that to be rewarded in heaven rather than escape the life cycle. Hinduism respects these differences and goals rather than forcing a universal goals on all people.
And what sets Hinduism apart from almost all other religions is its optimism that people can become enlightened here on earth. True bliss is achievable here! Maybe not this life, but it is achievable. And every person has control over his happiness by controlling his own actions and can improve his happiness. Most religions only have dead guru's to follow, but Hinduism provides new enlightened masters all the time to inspire people.
Also there is no religion that has such high opinion of Man. Man is not an inferior being to Gods, Man can even surpass Gods in knowledge. Hinduism says that that there is nothing Man can not achieve. This is in great contrast to Abramic religions in which Man is made totally subservient to a wrathful, fear demanding, jealous God and threatened with eternal torture etc if he does not bend to the will of this God. In Hinduism the Deva's (Gods) serve Man or rather they serve each other. If a God does not server them, people will reject that God.
In the west people are used to the idea that everything must be done in one life cycle. They must attain heaven or fail and end in hell. This creates a lot pressure and haste. That is why in the west training course promise short term success. In the East people have no problem with the idea it takes thousands of lives to become enlightened. They are not in a hurry to end the state of suffering. Life rather flows like river slowly but surely.
People are more concentrating on character improvement than the end goal. But in the West I hear people say they are not coming back, they think that rational knowledge of Eastern philosophy is enough to become enlightened, even though their character hardly changed at all.
but that is logical, in a western perspective and time frame there is only one life. East and West developed from different philosophical viewpoint. But because in the West the idea prevails that their can be only one truth they want to deny the fundamental differences in thinking. They say there is only one God and all people want to escape suffering, so it is all the same.
I think Hinduism offers people much more than escape of suffering. Life in Hinduism is rather something to celebrate and had infinite possibilities. Their Gods are not tortured on a cross to convince people how hopeless this world is and salvation only lies in the afterlife. That is the ideology that logically fitted the brutal Roman slave society in which 80% of the people lived without hope for a better life.
From that heritage an equally pessimistic "scientific" survival theory was born that life is a struggle of the fittest, dog eat dog. That kind of thinking is not making people happy. And that is one of the insights that Eastern philosophy developed: What you project on reality becomes true to you. We create our own future. If you want a bright future think positive, if you want suffering think negative.
But that is all up to the individual.
Thanks for providing an elaborate explanation.
da3 muskeetears

Hanoi, Vietnam

#44 Dec 15, 2012
Maxxx Payne wrote:
<quoted text>
May be because he thinks like you.
The existence of souls has been proven. If souls exist, then there has to be a power which controls those souls. That power is known by the name of God.
the name of God?!! U wanne know the True nothing but da Truth?!!! her name is Ann Curry


;-0000000h, Cun you reading English?!! hope U don't hav the India accent...here;)
www.greatseal.com
good luck currry

“ *_* Happy-go-lucky *_*”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#45 Dec 17, 2012
da3 muskeetears wrote:
the name of God?!! U wanne know the True nothing but da Truth?!!! her name is Ann Curry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Y83MU00aXZ4XX
;-0000000h, Cun you reading English?!! hope U don't hav the India accent...here;)
www.greatseal.com
good luck currry
My comments in Indian accent are much better than your f*****g comment with a f*****g accent which murders the simple rules of English grammar.
Go back to school and take a lesson on grammar. You need some practice.
Ha ha ha!
:-D
anup ka papa

Delhi, India

#46 Dec 17, 2012
jisko bhi kisi religion ke bare me detail me jan'na ho to mere pass aaye
ye ek bahut bda topic hai jiska ant bahut mushkil hai kyuki hr religion ke apne alag mayne hai
the three Amigon

Hanoi, Vietnam

#47 Dec 17, 2012
anup ka papa wrote:
jisko bhi kisi religion ke bare me detail me jan'na ho to mere pass aaye
ye ek bahut bda topic hai jiska ant bahut mushkil hai kyuki hr religion ke apne alag mayne hai
do U know what is Relend means? does Hindus or Hebrew had more time and less space of Legency!!;-0000
the three Amigon

Hanoi, Vietnam

#48 Dec 17, 2012
Maxxx Payne wrote:
<quoted text>
My comments in Indian accent are much better than your f*****g comment with a f*****g accent which murders the simple rules of English grammar.
Go back to school and take a lesson on grammar. You need some practice.
Ha ha ha!
:-D
do U know how many gram of MA in the Calories of compounding English Curriosity!!;-0000h, just kidding kid i knew UK taugh U ESL well!! I"m not humanize liked U think....and have you own the Hynudai Motor accent vehicle? or Ford Motor nano Tata:-000h, India have Taco Bell franchise...i know Starbuck over U;)

“Jeezuz in the Potty”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#49 Jan 5, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
What is God? How can you confirm or deny existence of anything without first defining it?
OK! You define it, then you prove it.
Mark

Hedel, Netherlands

#50 Apr 1, 2013
Ozada wrote:
OK! You define it, then you prove it.
First let me distinguish between 'the Divine' and 'Gods'. Those are different and should not be mixed into a container 'God' like Abramists do. That is one of their prime mistakes, that creates so many contradictions they had to force it on people to stop them bringing it down (enforced dogmas).

So lets start with 'the Divine':

The Divine can not be defined. I will try to talk around it so you understand why. The Divine is the absolute Nothingness. Not just emptiness, but true Nothingness. Emptiness can not be separated from fullness.

Giving it a word like 'nothingness', suggests their is such a thing, but Nothingness is no thing, it is the absence of all things and all properties. Lacking any form even quality, there is 'nothing' to describe or define.

As hard as it may be to understand, this absolute Nothingness is the birth-ground of Everything. Everything spontaneously arises from this, not once as Abramists proclaim (creation), but at any moment.

The Divine can not be defined because a definition is the expression of one thing in other things or qualities. Nothingness can not be expressed in anything, nor can anything be expressed in nothingness.

Some call God "the first cause". The Divine is not the first cause. Cause and effect are related to time, the Divine is/has neither time nor dimensions. It does not "cause" things. What ever springs from Nothingness springs spontaneously. It is not until things are sprung from it that order (like time) starts to manifest.

These things were long known by the Greeks before Christianity started to spread her total nonsense. It were Greek philosophers like Plato who created the wrongful idea that God was a perfect being, from which all other beings were imperfect copies. He started monotheism.

But before that Greek mythology tells us that everything in existence was born out of Chaos. Chaos is not a bad word for absolute Nothingness as there is no order in the Divine.

Yes the same philosophers Plato, Aristotle that created science, were so eager to create order that they postulated a God as a cause for this order. And from this grows the idea of an omnipotent perfect ruler. These Hellenistic ideas influenced the Jewish God-concept that was a tribal God before. They mixed that into one and so we get this confusing Abramist God concept of a personal but at the same time perfect universal God with a plan. This is a further contamination.

We should clearly separate Gods (beings) from the Divine (Nothingness).
So now about "Gods". The word "God" was used to describe Gods, not the Divine. Even a supreme God, a dominant ruling God (like Zeus) is only a God.

Gods are beings, the Divine is not a being. You may well say: The Divine does not exist. Does Nothingness exist? No Nothingness has no existence. To exist something has to "be", hence being. The Divine does NOT exist as a being (not even a 'perfect' being). Still it is All and in all

Gods on the other hand are beings not unlike humans. The difference that they live mostly in a higher realm/dimension. Thus many do not have a physical body like humans.

Humans partly live in this realm too, through our mind we have access. Gods do have an effect in the physical realm, just like our mind has an effect on the physical realm.

We have to distinguish between Gods that take on a physical body and those that do not or temporarily. For instance the Sun is a God. But primordial Gods exist as mere principles. That's were we derive principles from in the first place. Our abstract thinking would not even exist without them. Even lower principles like jealousy are based on beings (demons not Gods) that have no physical body in our realm, but can take possession.

To understand reality takes more than relating physical properties to other physical properties like science does. Personal experience is true knowledge, reasoning a watered down substitute.
Mark

Hedel, Netherlands

#51 Apr 1, 2013
As to you your 'proof'. First understand what proof is.

People only need proof of things they can not experience. Experience is proof in itself.

The Divine can not be defined as I explained, it can not be explained in anything else, but it can be experienced! Both directly and indirectly. Few people have had the experience directly, we call those enlightened ones and the experience Divine Bliss.

All people experience God in directly as it pervades everywhere and in everything. We call this experience Joy, Happiness.

The Gods can be experienced too, both directly and indirectly. We can experience the Sun directly through her rays of light. Is there anyone who want the disprove the existence of the Sun? Time and Love are primordial Gods. Is there any one who wants to disprove the existence of time or Love?

Abramists placed their 'God' outside of Nature and gave 'him' human traits at the same time. Such a God can not be proven ever. But Hindu Gods make up nature!

All Abramists and scientists ever did is relabel these Gods. First Abramists relabelled them as servants to their omnipotent God, then scientists relabelled them again as natural phenomena without conscience.

They are natural phenomena, like man is too, but they do have consciousness. It is consciousness in the first place that creates experience.

Scientists describe the mechanism in nature, that explanation only tells the part of the how, it does not tell us the why? You can explain how the Sun shines, that does not make her any less a conscious being. Just like the fact that science can also explain how the human body and brain functions, does not make human less a conscious being.

Everything material has a body, and a body acts in limited ways, that can be described. Describing the movements of bodies does not proof or disproof consciousness. It does not rob man of his consciousness nor does it with other beings.

But Nowadays people are made to believe that if something can be described scientifically this is disproof of consciousness. That is just as invalid as the Abramist belief that relating everything to a holy book makes the holy book true.

You can always fit anything in you thinking scheme through creating logical connections presented as proof.

There is only and only one real proof, that is personal experience. You can accept my explanations of the Divine and Gods by the definition I give, that is still merely belief. The only real proof is the personal experience.

Consciousness allows for direct experience. Consciousness connects all beings and this can be directly experienced. The reason modern man finds this harder and harder is that he is conditioned from early age to accept indirect logical connections over direct experience. First unprovable dogma's/axioms are forced upon people at an age to early to question them, then they are taught to use it as a base for reasoning and collecting proof.

This creates the modern man that wants everything proven. He becomes totally dependent for his proof on an intellectual authority. Scholars, intellectuals like priests and scientists, that do the complex math and far-fetched reasoning. He becomes a 'believer' unable to reason for himself on the basis of personal experience.

He demands proof!

Demanding proof is a simply a sign of inability to experience. And proof never is more than a substitute for personal experience.

You want to experience the Divine, or the Gods? Stop asking proof, open your mind to the experience. That is the only way you will ever gather the proof you desire. Like your eyes your mind only sees when it is open. But even worse the mind only sees what it wants to see and mostly only sees what is has learned to expect to see.

Personally I do not care or mind what you see. I wish you well whatever you see or may not see. It is not my concern. If you are happy I congratulate you, and if you are not that I regret that, but it is still your concern not mine.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Liberal Political News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pizza Man Cain wants a third party for conserva... (Nov '12) 2 hr Bee Eff Dee 4
Everyone in Detroit Should Have Access To Clean... 3 hr Smack Down 2
Rescue Me - Cross River Gorilla Campaign - Africa 3 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
Response to Bill O'Reilly: Jesus Didn't Start a... 3 hr woodtick57 385
Ukraine's Neo-Nazis Demand Respect 4 hr Lukashenko is Dr ... 27
Cubans Mobilize to Fight Ebola 6 hr WE JUST DONT CARE 29
The Next Attorney General Should Make President... 6 hr thegreatlc33 3

Liberal Political News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE