From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Subject: Re: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 02:14:00 GMT

In article <fSjgPbV@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> 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? 

I will argue that the God in Bible (meaning the God as described
in Bible) is different from the God in Vedas and Gita. To set some 
terminology straight, when I say that object A is different from
object B, I mean that the collection of attributes of A is not
equal to that of B. 

IMO, Christian philosophy treats human soul as something different
from God (God is in some sense superior). Christians also
believe that a human soul *CANNOT BECOME* God. So a Christian's
idea of salvation is not to become God, but to be in some sort
of union with God (I am unable to explain what it is that a
Christian means by salvation; I believe that I am right about
what it is not). The point I am belaboring to make is that from
a Christian point of view, God and human soul both exist (not
necessarily independent of each other) and that they are different.
Moreover, God in the Bible has a personality, is not evil, and
does not cause evil (correct me if I am wrong). While the God
in the Bible created the Universe, He *IS NOT* the created.

On the other hand, Hindu belief is that God alone exists. So if
X is some object that exists, then X *IS* God. The Vedic God
has no gender. It is good and evil, creator and created, life
and death simultaneously. It is simultaneously Sadhguna (to 
possess all attributes) and Nirguna (to possess no properties).
(Vedas call it "Achinthya Bheda-Abheda" : Achinthya - that
which cannot be thought or imagined, Bheda-Abheda means
simultaneous difference and agreement. "To possess no
quality" is a quality. So the concept of Nirguna God is
paradoxical. Sadhguna God also leads to paradoxes such as
as the rock so heavy that God cannot lift it).

Since the attributes are different, God in Bible is different
from God in Vedas and Gita. So the objects that Christians
and Hindus are trying to realize are different. Apart from
that, the word "realize" is understood differently. The
sentence "God is inside something" presupposes that that
something exists and is possibly different from God. From
the Hindu view point, it has no meaning since nothing but
God exists ("God is inside God" is trivial). So as a Hindu
what I mean by realize is that I am God. From the Christian
stand point, both God and human soul exist and the soul has
the will to choose (or not) to imitate Jesus Christ. So as
a Christian, what one means by realize is that he/she imitate 
Jesus or be one with Jesus.

> 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"?
>

As I have stated, IMHO the concepts of salvation are different.

Perhaps, when I have learned more, when I am closer to being one  
with Jesus, I wont see any difference at all, real or otherwise. 
But, at this moment, my ignorant self can only see differences. 

> 
> 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? 

IMO, each version of Christianity provides a possibly different 
path to Jesus. "Many paths" seems more appropriate. I agree that
Christianity is not just one path.

The Hindu belief that all paths lead to God apply even to that 
of a serial killer. Those who wrote the Vedas, the Upanishads 
and the Gita were greatly concerned with logical consistency
of their arguments. While the Hindu belief may not appeal to
an average human's moral views, it is the only logical position.

Jesus, while not stating which path to take, DOES state CLEARLY
which path not to take. IMHO, His' is a very practical approach
but not logical (from the Hindu view point).

> 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? 

No. The teacher is demanding belief in the teacher. Hence those 
paths that do not demand belief are not considered.

> 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? 

Believing in Christ is no different from believing in Krishna
if the believer is unwilling to submit that belief to questioning.
Where Hinduism differs from Christianity is in the Hindu
position that *ALL* beliefs are questionable. I am sure that
Christianity questions many beliefs. But not all. That Jesus is
is the only son of God is not questioned by any version of 
Christianity. Hindus are free to question anything. The "Song
of Creation" in Rig Veda questions God's ability to know. 
Charaka (an ancient Hindu philosopher) questioned the existence
of God. In fact, the Vedic outlook is closer to that of a skeptic 
than to that of a believer.

> 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.

I studied to a Catholic school and was fortunate to read the
"Imitation of Christ". My belief is that imitating Christ is
not a simple matter. The same is true with Krishna. 

> 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. 

True.

> 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.

I agree. The role of a Guru (teacher) is identical to that of
a mother helping her baby walk. We all start off as babies
unable to walk the way to God. Guru can only teach me how to
walk. Whether I decide to be one with Jesus or turn back is
entirely upto me.

> 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.
>

Very true.

> >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?

Namaste : I bow before you. While saying it, we hold both hands
in the shape of a folded lotus, about chest high. The gesture 
means that I offer you my heart as well

I dont know what In Christ means. Perhaps, you can help me out. I 
will end this rather long post with a verse from "Taitiriyopanishad"

	     Hari Om ...
	     May He protect us both
	     May He nourish us both
	     May we work together with great energy
	     May our study be vigorous and effective
	     May we not have ill feelings
	     Let there be peace peace peace

In Christ,
RKP

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc