From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep6.043203.5226@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:13:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.043203.5226@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> 
prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
>IMHO, what Bhagavat Gita teaches about faith is identical to that
>of Christ's. But, there is a fundamental difference between Hindu 
>and Christian thoughts. Hindu belief is that God (if he/she/it 
>exists) *IS* everything or that "I am God". Gita describes *A*
>way to realize that belief. 

I think what happens is that Hindu belief is that God is already inside
and one needs a way to realize that belief. Christian belief is that one
needs a way to bring God inside, i.e., be one with Jesus. But, there
really is no difference here is there? A good Hindu comes to the
realization that one is one with God and a good Christian comes to be
one with God. The difference is does one need to 1) find something or 
2) SEE something that was there all along? Is that difference a "real"
difference or merely a difference of "perception"?

>Krishna does not claim that his (Karma Yoga) is the only way or
>that without believing in him, one cannot attain salvation (if
>I may use that word). In fact, Hindu belief is that *ALL* paths
>(including that of a Christian) lead to God. 

Now Jesus, in comparison, says belief in Me is the only path, but He
provides no formulas for the "dogma" of this belief. This is why there
are so many different versions of Christianity. Isn't this another form
of *ALL* paths? If the teacher says that the student must believe in the
teacher, but is not clear in how to practice or affect these beliefs,
isn't the teacher really saying that *ALL* paths are valid? How is
believing in Christ different than believing in Krishna, other than
Christ says one must believe in Christ to be "saved" and Krishna, if I'm 
not mistaken, says one can believe whatever on choses to believe? Are
these just cultural differences? Hinduism starts right off with some
thought on the part of the student required, whereas Christianity seems
to start with the statement that all that is required is the simple
belief in Christ? Both progress from there, because Krishna's formula of
"doing the right thing" is not so easy to practice and Christ is vague
about what specifically belief in Christ entails. This makes
Christianity easier to exploit for the purpose of making money from
those who wish not to think, but this manipulation also occurs in
Hinduism. P.T. Barnum said that a fool is born every minute, and
unfortunately this appears to be the case. There are too many who
believe that someone else can show them how to live their own right
livelyhood. No true teacher can provide a "one true way". A true teacher
can only teach, that is provide ideas for the students. It is the
students who must find the "one right path", that is the one right path
for the one. Unfortunately, there are many who do not wish to learn, who
do not wish to be good students, and that is where the con artists come
in, to provide the "one true answer", at a fee of course, but the final
fee is quite large, that fee is loss of individual identity, loss of the
original path, loss of the path that could have been.

>Namaste

Now the standard Christian greeting is In Cristo or In Christ. Since I
suspect you know more about Sanskrit that I, perhaps you would like to
translate Namaste into English and compare and contrast?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15812 talk.origins:10979