email@comparativereligion.com Ernest Valea comparativereligion.com - notes Namaskar Ernest, my name is Jan and I took time to read information on your site. I think it gives one of the most comprehensive analysis of Eastern traditions from the Christian point of view I have ever seen. Yet it has got some problems. First let me say that I follow the Gaudiya Vaishnava path of the Vedic tradition. Sorry to disagree with you since we face the same enemy - New Age and other materialistic doctrines sometimes masked as spiritual (see Ephesians 6:12). Therefore the difference between the genuine Vedic wisdom and half-true (half-truth is worse than lie) New Age mysticism should be known so that genuine teachings and their followers are not offended. It would make your efforts counterproductive. I wrote an overview of a lecture focusing on this, to my knowledge the only of its kind (www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/newage.htm). But it is just the beginning. Here I'd like to comment on some points on your site I disagree with. I hope this can help you to better understand these topics. After all, mutual misunderstanding lies at the root of relationship problems. General observations How did you gather the information - by your own study or from other sources? If by yourself, how many years did you study and under which teacher/s? I ask this question because there are many quotes but much less understanding - personal qualifications and link to guru-parampara are necessary. Most of your views of 'Hinduism' pertain to its monistic (mayavada) version, a misleading concept against the genuine purpose of the Vedas (understanding of the five tattvas & their relationship and acting accordingly). If you would devote more effort to study Vedic theistic schools you would reach more understanding. Vedic teachings have two levels - dharma and para-dharma (higher dharma, i.e. bhakti). God's actions (creations, descends as avatar etc.) are lila, not a duty as you assume. Spiritual traditions are not one. They can be compared to school classes - in higher classes can be taught things in seeming contradiction with lower learning (e.g. negative numbers in math). Principles are that there is God and we are His servants. Details are secondary. What objective criteria gives one tradition the supreme status? Vaisnavas use BhP (Bhagavata Purana) 1.2.6: that which leads to pure love of God (sa vai pumsam paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhoksaje). One could also turn it: and provokes hate from demoniac. Demons always recognize dharma and never fail to oppose it - their attacks prove the presence of dharma. So genuine Christians as well as Vaishnavas have experience of persecution. Specific comments * your statement - my comment BG - Bhagavad-gita BhP - Bhagavata Purana 1. God * henotheism, the religion of the ancient Vedas and later Vaishnavism and Shaivism, which states that many gods exist, but one of them is more important than the others - Henotheism is a form of polytheism. It says that there are many gods, one of which rules the others, as Indra rules the demigods. The ruling god, however, is neither absolute nor eternal. He is just for the time being more powerful than the other gods. Max Mueller mistakenly thought the Vedic religion was henotheistic: the Vedas present many gods, and when any one of them is worshiped, that god or goddess becomes the highest deity of the Vedas. Vedic tradition is ultimately monotheistic. * age of the scriptures, generations of Vedic gods - see notes under Reincarnation * Indra's weakness - he is a deva, administrator of the universe (something like a government member), not God; sacrifice (yajna) is a part of cosmic order (dharma) * Vishnu's secondary role in the Vedas - reason for Vyasa's criticism by his guru Narada, that he encouraged karma-kanda and not bhakti * golden egg - in BhP 3.26.51-53 a form of the universe; Rg Veda describes the pradhana stage of matter ("indiscriminate, void"), "stirring" refers to the second stage, mahat-tattva - BhP 3.26.54: the One, (virat-)purusa, is a cosmic form of God, Vishnu, consisting of material elements; it becomes manifested by the tapas of Brahma (Prajapati), the secondary creator (he is not mentioned by name in the Rg Veda quote) empowered by God it is not the original (personal) form of God gods and men's bodies come from virat, not they themselves * asat - refers to pradhana; sat = Brahman, Self (BhP 1.2.11 - brahmajyoti/immanent, paramatma/immanent+transcendent, bhagavan, i.e. Vishnu/transcendent) * "let me become many" of Taittiriya Up. 2.6.1 - also Chandogya Up. 6.2.3 (bahu syam); proves the ultimate personality of Brahman, Vishnu * Badarayana (4 century AD) - another name of Vyasa, compiler of all the Vedic texts, he was alive already before the beginning of Kali-yuga, when river Sarasvati was still manifested (according to satellite scanning methods disappeared 3000-2000 BCE) * rope and snake - disproves advaita: both rope and snake exist, one is just misperceived to be the other; empirical world is not illusory, only temporary advaita rejects the world (vairagya, or phalgu-vairagya - vain rejection), dvaita schools use it in God's service (yukta-vairagya) material world is a reflection of the spiritual world advaita: vivarta-vada, or brahman-parinama-vada (transformation of Brahman), pantheism dvaita schools: sakti-parinama-vada (transformation of Brahman's energies), panentheism There are many refutations of advaita by Ramanuja, Madhva, Chaitanya, Baladeva etc. * Vishnu Purana quote: Brahman as monist entity, source of gods - whose translation is this? - BhP 1.2.11, 2.9.33-36 etc. - ultimately personal; monist aspect subordinate; devas are expansions of Krishna * devotion a path to a monist union - view of so-called Bhagavata-sampradaya, they cultivate bhakti to Vishnu as Vaisnavas do but ultimately reject Him as a person; most offensive approach * personhood as the main source of illusion - not real personhood but ahankara, false personhood * Vishnu creating world out of Himself - through His saktis * BG 9.7-8 refers to Garbhodakasayi Vishnu, not to Krishna Himself * Krishna has to "follow the pattern" (of cyclic creation) - see notes under 6. Bhagavad-gita - He establishes the cyclic creation; when He comes into the material world to perform His lila He usually follows the nature laws although not always (depends if it is possible for the lila) * God has to create - creation is en expression of His grace toward the jivas, He could also keep them in the latent state within pradhana * Samkhya by Kapila - see notes under 4. Samkhya * semblance of bodhisattvas and Hindu avatars - bodhisattvas are ascending beings (by their spiritual advancement), avatars descend from the spiritual world - avatars are different from gods (devas) who are more similar to b. * bhakti-yoga for inferior and weak people to attain the monist Ultimate Reality - just the opposite is true, U.R. is personal and bhakti, at least in its higher stages, is actually for the most advanced yogis who are able to fully surrender in love to God, free from all egoism * creation ex nihilo - Christian theologians have not attempted to explain their doctrine of the relationship of God to the world in the rigorous philosophical fashion as have India's Vedantists. Augustine's doctrine is called creation ex nihilo, 'creation out of nothing' In this view, God is eternal and transcendental and creation had a beginning in point of time. But God created the world out of nothing. Augustine argued that if God created the world out of some pre-existent substance, this substance would either be God Himself or something other than God. Since God is immutable, the substance could not be Him. And it could not be a substance other than God, for in the beginning only God existed. So Augustine's conclusion is that the world arose out of nothing at all by the will of God. Thus God is the operative cause of the world but there is no material cause whatsoever. This is a statement of faith that hardly meets the needs of philosophy. A Vedantist would reply, 'If it is the nature of reality that something arises from nothing, then this process should be visible today. But we see that all effects must have a material cause. Furthermore, if something can come out of nothing, then it would logically follow that anything could come out of anything--a human being could hatch from a hen's egg or a woman could give birth to a chicken. But we observe that creation follows the rule of like cause, like effect. By this rule, nothing must come from nothing, and something must come from something. This rule is not a limitation of God's supreme power, rather it is a statement of His power, because it is given by God Himself'. There is a fitting Latin saying in this regard, "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing comes out of nothing). - BhP 2.9.33-36 etc. states that at the creation material elements emanate from the Lord and after destruction of the cosmos they return into Him 2. Man * Divine justice was assured by the gods Yama, Soma and Indra, not by an impersonal law such as karma. - see the note under Reincarnation * from the notion of breath (Sanskrit "an" = "breathing") derived the notion atman (reflexive pronoun), which came to designate the self, man's spiritual being. Therefore atman is not the seat of personhood, or man's soul, as it is sometimes mistakenly translated, but a spiritual entity distinct to personhood and to the physical body. - atma and prana are very close and in some scriptures may be taken as one, whereas in more philosophical scriptures they are distinct, upon close examination it is seen that words soul (nephesh) and spirit (ru'ah) are connected to the breath, or prana; jiva, the immaterial being, thus differs from the soul (see Luke 10:27 - "your soul", soul belongs to me, i.e. is different from me, the self) - I don't see how self is not the seat of personhood - who else should be? Vishal Mangalwadi in the appendix to his book "When the New Age Gets Old" (section Oneness in physics and non-dualism in Hinduism) says: While the Upanishads emphasize the oneness of the human and divine self, they do not teach the oneness of the material body and the conscious self, let alone the oneness of self and the material world. At death, the Upanishads teach, the material body (called sthula sarira) remains on the earth, while the suble body (suksma sarira) separates from the former and goes to the astral world. The 'subtle body' is what is called the 'soul' in English. The soul is not the self. At the 'soul' stage the notion of individuality remains intact. It therefore reincarnates repeatedly in other material bodies until the 'self' is realized. When that happens, we are delivered from bondage to the material world and the subtle astral body (soul) and cease to reincarnate. * he question of how souls first came under the power of karma is unanswered, because the cosmic process has no beginning - the entrance point is beyond time and space, so it can't be ascertained; when the soul turned away from God's service, it came under the sway of maya and were placed in the material world (BG 7.27) * man is not a pre-existent celestial soul fallen into a material body - even the Bible mentions pre-existence: Jeremiah 1:5, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ephesians 1:4 - post-existence: Philippians 1:21-24, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, 12:2-3 (soul different from the body, Paul's OBE) * The Vedic ritual suggests a different situation. Here the sacrifices performed by the priests are necessary in order to sustain the universe and the gods. - sacrifice supports dharma, otherwise people tend to behave destructively; demigods survive even without it - they live for many mahayugas so the absence of yajna in every Kali-yuga is no problem for them, same goes for the universe - it doesn't "need" us * ahamkara - false concept of personhood, identification with gross and subtle material body, false ego, absorption in this concept = abhinivesa (Bhagavata Purana 7.2.60 - sva-para-abhinivesena); real personhood means to understand one's self as immaterial, individual self, the jiva * evil is not created by God - Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. (Hebrew: I cause good and I cause evil.) * In Christianity there is no room for the impersonal law of karma and reincarnation. - the idea of karma is found e.g. in Job 4:8, Ezekiel 18:20-21, Matt. 7:1,2, 23:34-35, Mark 14:21, Luke 12:58-59, 18:14, John 5:14, 2 Cor. 9:6, 11:14-15, Gal. 6:5-9, 2 Thes. 1:6 - reincarnation could be suggested in Psalms 104:29-30 But even if reincarnation is not taught in the Bible it cannot be taken as refutation (see General observations). * Hindu terms translated as "sin", they do not represent a crime against God, but an act against dharma (the moral order) and against one's own self - acting against dharma, God's law, means acting against God's plan, but the 'original sin' means individual's leaving God's association and loving service which turn into lust (BG 3.37); there is no inheritance of o.s. * The Bible teaches that man does not possess an intrinsic divine nature, and thus is incapable of saving himself from his fallen state. - jiva is a divine energy, yet it can't save herself, without God's mercy * "heart" is the core of man's being - heart is the seat of jiva * man continues to be accused by his conscience - Paramatma, localized aspect of God in our heart, represents conscience 3. Salvation * markata (monkey) vs. marjara (cat) approach - technically called sadhana siddhi and kripa siddhi, a sadhana siddha even though he puts great endeavor on his sadhana he never thinks that he is advancing because of his sadhana. He always thinks he is advancing only because of the mercy of Vaishnavas, guru and Krishna. A devotee actually advances due to a combination of personal endeavour + causeless mercy. In one of the south Indian sampradayas there was a split on this philosophical point. One group said a devotee is delivered at the lotus feet of Krishna only by one's personal endeavor or sadhana. The other group said no it is only by causeless mercy of Krishna. Each gave one analogy. The baby monkey holding the mother on it's own and the mother jumps or travels from tree to tree. The baby totally depends on his own endeavour to hold on to the mother. The second group gave the analogy of a cat carrying a kitten. The kitten totally depends on the mercy of the mother holding it in the jaws, from place to place, and does not depend on it's own endeavour. The problem in both these analogies is in one case the person may become independent, that he can achieve Krishna by his own personal endeavour and does not formally surrender to any guru, and take diksa. In the second case he becomes totally lazy, and take diksa from some bonafide guru and think his business is over and thinks that by causeless mercy of guru he can be delivered. He will not do any personal endeavor. This philosophical split was resolved only recently by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. He gave the wonderful analogy of a person drowning in a deep well. Someone throws a rope from top and he holds on to the rope and climbs up and is simultaneously pulled from the top. Here the person is delivered out of the well by his personal endeavour of holding on to the rope + the mercy of the person who holds/pulls the rope from above. So all conditional souls are delivered by a combination of personal endeavor (sadhana) and causeless mercy (kripa). They are simultaneously sadhana siddhas and kripa siddhas. Depending on the degree of endeavour they may be classified as sadhana siddhas or kripa siddhas. * He is not a mere avatar, a periodical incarnation of a Hindu god, but the unique incarnation of God the Son, become God the Man, perfect in both His divine and human nature. This double nature of Jesus Christ is the key for understanding His mission of reconciling man with God. In Vaishnava Hinduism none of the avatars has a perfect union of the two natures. As they have no historical basis, it is very difficult to speculate on how their divine nature combined with the physical one (animal or human). Due to considering the physical body a mere garment that is put on and off (according to Bhagavad Gita 2,22), there cannot be any real association of god with a physical body. Christ came to redeem the physical body as well, therefore His association with it was real. For the same reason there is so much accent laid on His physical resurrection, which for a Hindu avatar would be completely absurd. Therefore the avatar fits best in the Docetic understanding of Christ (the appearance of a physical body, with no intrinsic value to it), which is considered a classic heresy in Christianity. - Jesus himself didn't teach that he is God, just servant or son of God (see esp. John 14:28) - double nature from the Vaishnava point of view means God playing a human role (nara-lila) - his position is understood by understanding the doctrines of guru-tattva and acintya-bhedabheda-tattva (guru is one and different from God) - the body of avatar is durvibhavyam, or hard to understand (BhP 5.5.19), it looks like human but it is not material human body (no Docetism), God is not forced to accept a particular body, human or other, rather He descends in His own nonmaterial (although looking like material) body, there is no real combination of two natures - the need for redemption of physical body is rooted in the linear Judeo-Christian paradigm that matter is spoiled by sin and has to be restored; Vaishnava view is that matter will remain as it is - there is nothing wrong with it as it is one of God's energies with specific function * Therefore, when interpreting His sayings, we have to remember that Jesus Christ came to Israel, to the only monotheistic culture of that time, not to the Far East. - one among other monotheistic cultures of that time was the Vaishnava culture * "I and Father are one" (John 10,30) - Greek original does not mean physical/numerical oneness (Greek "heis") but "hein" ("we are together"). Their unity refers to the oneness of interest, or mission. The numerical oneness is found neither in apocryphal nor synoptic Gospels: Matt 10:24, John 13:16: a disciple/servant is not greater than his master Matt 24:35-36: day of judgement is known only to the Father, not to the son Matt 19:17, Mark 10:18: no one is good but God alone John 7:16: my doctrine is not mine but my Father's John 14:28: my Father is greater than I * According to the syncretistic trend of our days, Jesus Christ should be considered as one of the great spiritual masters of the world, but not the only Son of God; one to be followed, but not to be worshipped. - Vaishnavas don't agree with this, they have no problem with the worship of Jesus * However, given His identity, Jesus is more than a great teacher; He is the Master of masters and has no equal among them. Even if there are attempts to find some similarities between His life and that of other important religious leaders, they cover only a few aspects of His life. - one who teaches devotion is definitely standing out among other masters * Jesus Christ as "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1,29), is the cornerstone of Christianity and its non-paralleled element. - a guru takes disciple's karma: [Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.77] rajni camatyaja dosah patni-papam sva-bhartari tatha sisyarjitam papam guruh prapnoti niscitam "Just as a king accepts the faults of his minister and a husband the sins of his wife, similarly a spiritual master receives the sins of his disciples." A Vaishnava doesn't accept guru in initiation to be released from karma but to be lead toward pure devotional service. * True liberation (moksha) is defined against any personal existence and must break any bondage of the physical body. - not in the Vaishnava view, material body is neither illusory nor wrong, only temporary * "I'm the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14,6) - in Greek original: ego eimi ha hodos kai ha alatheia kai ha zoa, ondeis ERKETAI pros ton patera ei madi Dr. Boyd Daniels (American Bible Society): "Oh, yes. The word 'erketai' is definitely the present tense form of the verb 'emon'. Jesus was speaking to his contemporaries." He was the only teacher of devotion in Palestine at that time. Aside this, he came more than once in history. * The idea of finding liberation through the merits of an external savior cannot be reconciled by any means with karma without contradicting its basic demands. There can be no escape from the consequences of karma by grace, because the personal forms of manifestation of the impersonal Ultimate Reality cannot be above this law. Sins have to be paid for, not forgiven. - God lords over karma (BG 4.14, 18.66) * God's revelation touched human history, which is why the Christian faith requires trust in a certain line of historical events that culminate with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. This historical element confers to the Christian faith enough relevance to be set apart from both positive thinking and the parallel concept in Hinduism, that of shraddha. Hindu “faith” has its origin in Vedic ritualism and meant trust in the efficiency of the ritual, being in fact just a form of positive thinking. (Only in the bhakti movements it came to be oriented toward a god or a guru, but then also mostly as an instrument to accumulate merits.) - every appearance of God, including the last one - of Sri Chaitanya - touches human history - Vaishnava process has nine stages: 1. sraddha is the preliminary faith ('by this process I'll get to know God'), 2. sadhu-sangha (association with sadhus), 3. bhajana-kriya (initiation and beginning of purification process), 4. nistha, or firm faith based on realization, 5. ruci (spiritual taste), 6. asakti (attachment to devotional service), 6. bhava (preliminary love of God) and finally 7. prema (pure love of God); and even prema can be further developed - accumulation of merits is misra-bhakti (mixed devotion) and is not pursued in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition * On the other hand, pride is a bad product of personhood, and we therefore meet another paradox: The follower of Eastern spirituality refuses the grace of God as a result of his pride, an attitude he should have eradicated from his life, according to his own Eastern religious teaching. Paradoxically, he seeks to destroy his personhood, rather than a bad attachment of it (pride). This raises important questions about the Eastern religion’s consistency within itself. - pride is a symptom of ahankara, false ego, which should be destroyed, but the real ego, jiva, is indestructible, so advaitists, buddhists, and other monists will not succeed - the removal of false ego is the most difficult feat * Rev. 3,20 - similarly, after speaking Bhagavad-gita, Krishna says to Arjuna 'now do as you wish to do' (BG 18.63) * Christianity does not proclaim universalism, the doctrine of universal salvation of all souls, regardless of their spiritual option during this earthly life. Universalism is rather a characteristic of Eastern religions, but not as a result of divine love, but rather of the necessity imposed by the cyclic manifestations of the Ultimate Reality. - Vaisnavism does not teach universalism * "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12,30). - he also says otherwise, "he that is not against us is for us" (Luke 9:49-50) * On the other hand, in the Eastern religions, karma discredits any notion of individual freedom. The only "freedom" left to man is the possibility to give a detached sense to his predetermined actions (see Bhagavad Gita 18,59-60). In other words, the only freedom left is that of "choosing" the predetermined destiny stated by karma, which means resignation to fate. - the most usual misunderstanding of karma as mechanical predestination leading to passive resignation - at every moment there is both previous karmic reaction and free choice to act - BG 18.59-60 refers to a work connected to one's nature - tendency is not the same as certainty * The Christian solution is much better than those of the East, which leave man alone in his endless struggle with karma. - another misunderstanding, the struggle can be ended Salvation (mukti, moksa) is one of the four purusharthas, or human goals (dharma, artha, kama, moksa) outlined in Vedic texts. Beyond it is bhakti, unmotivated love and devotion to God, taught by Jesus (Mark 12:30). Later Christian stressing of mere salvation constitutes a departure from his pure devotional teachings. 4. Evil * The Upanishads ground a pantheistic perspective on Ultimate Reality - Upanisads are in reality monotheistic (see note 1. God, henotheism) * Although it is difficult to determine the very beginning of karma's manifestation, a text in Kausitaki Upanishad (3,8) indicates that Brahman himself causes the good and evil done by humans, and so he must be the one responsible for the origin of karma: He (Brahman) causes him whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds to perform good action. This one, indeed, also causes him whom he wishes to lead downward, to perform bad action. - Brahman (in the form of Paramatma, BG 13.23 - anumanta) does not cause neither good nor evil action but only permits jiva to 'act' through the material nature in the way she desires; jiva herself, when in the material environment, is inactive (BG 5.13-15, 13.30) - for the origin of karma see BG 7.27 mentioned also in 2. Man * Man cannot be considered guilty for the evil in the world, not even for his own bad deeds, because all of them originated in past lives, of which he cannot be aware. - he can (see notes under 1. Reincarnation) * These writings adopt a middle way in explaining evil, between the dictates of karma and the responsibility of the gods in producing it as sovereign agents in the universe. As these two elements are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive, the solutions to the problem of evil are themselves contradictory. The character of the gods becomes ambiguous in the Epics and Puranas. They are responsible for producing both good and evil. - devas are not sovereign agents in the universe, they are also fallible, yet some of them are empowered to dispense karma, regarding Indra see note under 1. God, regarding Krishna see notes on lila under 8. Avataras, when Krishna kills a demon, that demon is liberated, not recycled over and over again, all His actions are lila * Brahma, the creator god, is often accused of being creator of both good and evil. - see note under 1. God (Isaiah 45:7) * Not only is evil inevitable in creation, it is said to be a good thing, a necessary dynamic factor in the universe. For instance, in the Devibhagavata (4,13), Brihaspati, the guru of the gods says: "All creatures, even gods, are subject to passions. Otherwise the universe, composed as it is of good and evil, could not continue to develop." - from the point of view of creation's and universe's role it is necessary (unless there are criminals, there can't be a jailhouse) but it does not mean it is good to be in a jailhouse of this world and not at home, in the immaterial world in God's company * Eastern religions promise to help man escape suffering, but while on the way towards liberation they ask us to ignore human suffering. Not only is this contradictory, but such denial of suffering can be accomplished only by denying life itself, a situation that is the ground for the pessimistic view of Eastern religions on human existence. The ultimate cause of this situation is the lack of a personal Creator, directly involved in man's condition by his grace. - suffering serves as the first impetus to search for liberation - if I realize that I am dirty, I start a process of dirt's removal (e.g. showering), yet I have to ignore the dirt until I am completely clean - there is no need to deny life, only the life conditioned by matter - lack of personal Creator is there in some Eastern traditions but not in Vaishnava tradition * According to God's justice (and not weakness), they [demons] will exist forever, but without the chance to return to the spring of real existence and communion with God. - are they not free to refuse evil as they were free to accept it? * The doctrine of hell, as horrifying as it looks to be, proves that evil has an end, that is has no eternal existence in God’s creation. - is this also the end of free will? * As a result, man's attitude toward evil should be neither one of resignation, as in the Eastern religions (in order to stop the accumulation of karma), nor of rebellion against God, but one of a conscious and responsible participation in the world. Evil has an end, as well as human suffering. What is requested from us while waiting for it is to fight against evil and suffering, especially against our sinful nature - at least the Vaisnavas don't resign but oppose evil influences in and around us, responsibly participating in this world but especially cultivating our life in God's presence even in this world (jivan-mukta), if you understand this world as jail the best help to your neighbors is to help them out, not to adjust their jailhouse lives, as Jesus' main mission was preaching about the kingdom of his father and his healing and miracles were only secondary 5. Conclusion - see the end of this file ---- 1. Reincarnation You are not refuting r., only the strawman of its mistaken understanding R. fits into the scheme of nature and cosmos (cyclic changes). * r. leads to falldowns of jivas - only in human bodies, not following sastra and not trying to improve one's material or 'spiritual' position * academic datation of sastras, Vedas don't mention r. - academicians on one hand admit they don't know how old the sastras are, on the other hand they put out dates (mainly based on royal dynasties and the expected age of their members as well as language analysis) - who and how decides which sastra/concept is older or younger? - anumana (prone to error), can be used also against the Bible etc. (two-edged weapon); roots in the history and goals of indology - modern scientific methods like satellite technology supports the Vedic datation of sastras (before 3000 BCE) - vedic samhitas and brahmanas are ritual manuals, i.e. specialized literature (ex.: future archeologists would find only the first grade schoolbooks and conclude that our civilization was very primitive); therefore there is a difference in language, one of them, Vedic, being considered older than Puranic etc. - they constitute karma-kanda (materialistic part) of the Vedic canon, effort to preserve the body for enjoyment after death (Upanisads, part of jnana-kanda, try to cross over svarga-loka to reach brahmajyoti and bhakti-sastras like Bhagavata Purana bring us beyond it, to Vaikuntha spiritual planets, kingdom of God) - Vedic canon is compact system, the "young" sastras are mentioned in and supported by the old ones - one has to know the whole structure and purpose of Vedic sastras; therefore saints and sages accept sastra as truth, others not - age of concept means nothing (argumentum ad antiquitam/novitam) - sastra is eternal and eternally valid, not necessarily eternally manifested * tribal religions unaware of r. (only pre-existence) - legends including r. can be cited (North American Indians, Celts etc.) * sati - husband and wife leave (r.) for higher planets (svarga-, pitri-loka) * sraddha - r. after various periods, can be prolonged by prolonging the stay on h. planets * asu = prana (BhP 4.22.37, 4.29.18, 6.10.12, 7.1.35, 7.2.45, 10.10.30) jiva = asu-bhrt, enjoyer of asu (BhP 6.3.16) In 8.5.38 both prana and asu are there. The commentators explain that "prana" means the first five life airs, (prana, apana, etc), while "asu" refers to the last five life airs (naga, kurma etc.) The actual distinction seems to be only there in the earlier language. Grassmann, in his Woerterbuch zum Rigveda, lists only "life, life force, vitality, spirit life, life of the soul" etc. He does not mention wind, air or breath or life breath. (Please refer to notes regarding academic datation of sastras under 1. Reincarnation.) * Yama-loka (Pitri-loka) as eternal abode - within the Vedic context theoretically possible (if sraddha is given eternally) - followers of Vedic dharma go to svarga-loka but the stay there must end latest at the destruction of the universe (there are also partial destructions which include svarga at the end of kalpa) * devas dispensers of justice, not impersonal karma - karma presents infallible justice - BhP 3.31.1: karmana daiva-netrena (karma supervised by the Lord, Paramatma in the heart) BhP 5.26.6, 6.1-2: Yama as its direct dispenser BhP 7.9.41: jiva (Prahlada Maharaja) begging the Lord for mercy to remove the karma * eternal stay in hell - from the point of view of the sufferer (different time scale) BhP 8.19.35 (nistham narake) - BhP 5.26.37: after the hell punishment jiva reborn on earth - one can't _escape_ from there, but must be released by Yama or the Lord (as by chanting His holy name - BhP 9.4.62) - St. Odran (563) of Iona, after being buried for some time as a human sacrifice, said he had a look into afterlife and claimed: "The saved are not forever happy, the damned are not forever lost." He was buried again as a heretic. * speculation in the Puranas - who can judge what is speculation? * impersonal atman - atma (jiva) is personal, individual particle of God, it accumulates karma - karma is recorded within the subtle body of atman and "read" by Paramatma * "newly shaped person", "his actions" - the same person who changed the 'clothes' (body) but himself didn't change * subtle body an adopted concept by Vedanta - an integral part of the organism (manas, buddhi, ahankara) - personal attributes belong to jiva and are manifested through subtle and gross body, they don't depend on gross body * conscious memory of past bodies (janma-anusmrti) not preserved - BhP 3.31.20,23,24 (caused by maya after birth) - BhP 3.26.30: memory (smrti) is an aspect of intelligence (buddhi), part of sukshma-sharira, which moves from one sthula-sharira to another; thus character is a sort of unconscious memory (more noble people already learned their lessons in previous lives) - personal evolution, geniality as its extreme form - we forget even things from our present life - if we would remember all from the past it would lead to mental collapse - in some cases (bhaktas) it is preserved (Narada Muni, BhP 1.6.4 etc.; Maharaja Bharata, BhP 5.8.27, 5.12.15; M. Indradyumna, BhP 8.4.11-12; Asamanjasa, BhP 9.8.15-16; M. Nrga, BhP 10.63 etc.) thanks to Paramatma, the supreme witness ("third ontological nature") directing the karma dispension and reincarnation directly and indirectly (through Yama) - previous life can be ascertained by regressions, advanced astrology (both anumana only), one's purified consciousness with the help of Paramatma or by those who can read others' samskaras and know the dharma-sastra (specific karmic reaction for sins) - bhakti-yoga helps to remember the original, immaterial body in God's realm (Vaikuntha-loka) * soul preserving the attributes of personhood - see notes under 2. Man * objection 1 - man doesn't cease to exist at death (this is a Judeo-Christian idea) it is person, jiva, in human body who simply changes the bodies and suffers/enjoys one's own karma, not only in the physical body but also in subtle body in hell, between two incarnations * obj. 2 - resignation and submission to karma is wrong, one has to "make the best out of bad bargain", or "play with the cards in one's hand" regardless of if he knows why he suffers or not (though it may help him to understand his position) and those who know should mercifully help him spiritually (lack of compassion is also an ignorance) - it is not interfering with his karma but part of higher plan (see ajnata-sukrti below) - people don't react to bad karma in an unified manner, the negative reaction is due to ignorance - one will sooner or later "wake up" after being punished many times and try to get out of the vicious circle (only few percent of people are 'incorrigible criminals' - those with demoniac nature, not only atheists but anti-theists, God-haters), such people are receptors of mercy of God and turn to Him - fasting to death as the only karma-free suicide but not the best way to liberation - this is the taking shelter in God (sharanam) * growth/conservation of evil - grows with time, in each yuga, Kali-yuga the worst - other factors in play: ajnata-sukrti (unknowing pious acts of special nature), saintly people working against it (important role in enabling others to do ajnata-sukrti), God's plan (includes all; special plan in this Kali-yuga - sankirtana movement) * endless cycle of punishments - dharma is the criteria if the next person will be punished or not - there are persons entrusted with dispension of law - ksatriyas (on earth level), demigods (on cosmic level) and ultimately God (policeman killing a criminal doesn't get karma, neither judge etc. provided they acted according to dharma, God's law), here is a problem of man-made law which often doesn't correspond with dharma (dharma-sastras) - revenge is against dharma and brings bad karma (but it is not so common as suggested here) - "Nazis did the right thing" is what the demoniac Nazis themselves thought - ahimsa is dharmic, butchers adharmic - they are not forced to kill, not being the authorized dispensers of karma (absolute ahimsa is also adharmic: someone has to oppose the adharma) * Council of Constantinople rejecting pre-existence of souls - accepted in Jeremiah 1:5, Ephesians 1:4 * Gregory of Nyssa etc. unable to understand r. - this does not make it nonexistent * r. affecting morality - only if misunderstood as the only factor to consider; there is dharma which defines what is right and wrong, from this is derived karma - mechanical understanding of karma as unchangeable fate is wrong - there is a parallel action of karma and free will at any moment and grace can change any karma (miraculous cures etc.) ("ammorality proposed by Krishna in the BG" is a complete misunderstanding; Krishna restores dharma by removing the demons - this is clear from the context, i.e. Mahabharata) - r. supports responsibility in life (sins lead to suffering, no escapism or hedonism/powermongering - outgrowths from the one-life paradigm gotten rid of God), sense of continuity and unflinching position while facing negative conditions (present situation as a result of own actions), empowerment (by understanding interaction of karma and free will), respect for all life (living beings including those in subhuman forms as children of God) * salvation through our own efforts - plus God's grace * no texts in the Bible or Church history allegedly teaching r. - Bible doesn't mention many other facts about this or spiritual world * demons producing r. proofs to contradict Christianity - if the Vedic sages are also demons or under their influence, why they cast them out as Jesus did in Matt. 12:24-28? This section is expanded at www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/reincarnation.htm 2. Four criteria tested object: Vaisnava Vedanta in the context of the whole Vedic tradition 1 - internal consistency: tested in Vedanta-sutra by objections of other philosophies personal identity eternal (BG 2.12) 2 - harmony of empirical and absolute knowledge: three vedic pranamas: pratyaksa-anumana-sabda complementing each other sabda is supreme (definition: information whose import is not contradicted is a valid source of knowledge) most complete exposition of apara- and para-vidya (material and higher knowledge), best ability to explain the recent scientific discoveries absolute truth can be to some extent expressed through language, mainly by analogies 3 - viability: varnasrama-dharma as the most complete system to involve every member of a society, endured time test for thousands of years 4 - contradictions with other religious perspectives: Vaisnava saints and the saints of other traditions develop the same qualities (humility etc.) and have similar realizations. Contradictions come from presentation based on time, place and audience as well as from human interpretation. These criteria make one understand that Vedic tradition and Vaisnavism, its ultimate form, is the right, most profound and most complete description of material and immaterial existence (five tattvas) as seen in the Vedanta-sutra (defeating other main philosophies, both vedic and nonvedic) Vedic criteria: - three models/categories of Vedic pursuit, "karma-jnana-bhakti", include all other spiritual traditions and enable to understand their relative position to each other - tri-guna criterium (BG 14, 18) - sambandha-abhidheya-prayojana (theory, practice and goal) - guru-sadhu-sastra as the internal check system to discern truth from falsity 3. Pantheism incomplete understanding of sastras - acintya-bhedabheda-tattva (oneness and difference between atma and Brahman), the ultimate understanding of Vedanta taught by Sri Chaitanya, avatar of Kali-yuga, defeats Shankara's Advaita and upgrades Madhva's Dvaita - after liberation personality continues - maya is to consider the world permanent reality, world is not the illusion, in a sense of 'nonexistent' 4. Samkhya - one of the six darshanas of progressive understanding of the Vedic tradition - monotheist bhagavata sankhya of Devahuti-putra Kapila (Bhagavata Purana 3.25-33), a form of bhakti-yoga vs. monist nirishvara sankhya by later Kapila 5. Yoga * So why are plants "killed" for preparing food? Even more, bacteria should also be spared by not boiling water when preparing food. Although such requirements are practically absurd, they should be respected in order to be consistent with the ahimsa principle. - one Vedic maxim says "jivo jivasya jivanam", one living being is food for another, but still there is regulation, animals can't choose their food but humans can, therefore the scriptures prescribe what to eat - killing plants also brings negative karma, so one should first offer the food to the Lord as a sacrifice, when He accepts it it becomes cleansed of all karma and spiritually purifying, such food is called prasadam (mercy) (BG 3.13, 9.26) * A second aspect concerns the fact that the moral demands in Yoga do not have the purpose of achieving social harmony, but only to feed the Yogi's own spiritual progress. One should not have in mind what is good for his neighbor, but only his personal quest toward liberation. Considering the meaning of liberation (detaching purusha from its psycho-mental attachments), one has to surpass moral values, attain a state of total detachment toward them, and not become attached to them. As long as morality makes sense only in communion with other people, and Yoga demands detaching oneself from the illusory status of such involvement, the Yama and Niyama morality is different from what we commonly understand by morality, i.e. following positive demands in order to seek what is good for our neighbor. - yogi is an individual who doesn't participate in society, he must live in a secluded place in forest or mountains - yama and niyama are not the same as moral values (niti) although they do improve the life of those following them * Another paradoxical aspect is that, while advancing in practice, many Yogis (especially in the West) forget the basic moral requirements and become arrogant, acquiring a feeling of superiority toward the profane world. Instead of being humble and pure (shaucha), they often behave like they feel pity for the inferior fellow-humans. Although they claim that the ego has to disappear, as it is a primitive character feature, their pride and contempt grows. This reveals a lack of truthfulness (satya), self-control and purity (shaucha) of mind. Far from detaching from any egoistic attachments, the result a Yogi often reaches is weakening or even breaking his relations with "ignorant people" (usually the family) and establishing an idolatrous relation toward the guru, the one in charge of interpreting his experiences and keep him moving along the right path. The relation with the guru usually becomes very subservient, with the disciples surrendering their entire life to him and even worshiping him as a god. Therefore, the requirement of abandoning personal attachments seems to be valid only toward the profane world, while the strongest personal relation (attachment) becomes that with the guru. - this constitutes a wrong development, guru should discourage this attitude - this description fits many Christians, simply exchange the word 'guru' for 'Christ' - regarding confusing guru with God see notes under 3. Salvation - relationship with guru is not material, detachment relates only to material reality * Therefore, Yoga cannot be reduced to a mere form of psychophysical therapy. It has always been considered a path toward transcendence, a way of surpassing our world of illusion and reaching the Ultimate Reality. It was and will always be religious. This aspect has never been doubted in the East. Only after it was brought in the Western world, the terms in which it was described were changed. However, its goal has not changed. It still aims to annihilate man's psycho-mental life and anything that can define personhood. - the word 'religion' means 're-linking' (with God), thus being synonymous with the word 'yoga' - it aims at annihilation of material psycho-mental life and material ego (ahamkara), not the real ego (jiva) * A paradoxical aspect to be mentioned here is the appearance of the psychic powers (the siddhis) through the practice of samyama. From a naturalistic viewpoint, it seems that they are nothing more than illusions induced by the practice of meditation. For instance, although the Yoga Sutra mentions the attainment of powers such as the profound knowledge of the solar system (3,27) and that of the organization of the body (3,30), all the knowledge we have in this area was produced by classic scientific research, and never as a result of meditation insights. But if such knowledge is truly available through the practice of samyama, and as the demands for such knowledge are not egoistic at all, why has nothing been revealed until now? Although the purpose of Yoga is not to provide such information, there is no other way to prove that the so-called psychic abilities are real. Therefore, the experience of having such powers must be subjective, useful only for the spiritual advance of the Yogi but with no relation to the external world of empirical experience. - who doesn't believe in reality of siddhis should meet a yogi and experience them firsthand * Although the way of attaining mystical experience through Yoga and drugs is different, the actual experiences are similar. The psychedelic drug users also claim to attain a superrational, superconscious level of liberation from profane existence, a sense of fulfillment and finding a deeper meaning of existence, etc. - the use of drugs is dangerous, therefore they are traditionally used only by trained and experienced shamans etc., they are not meant for everyone - even though one can thus experience astral (subtle material) realm, one can't realize God in this way, that would mean drugs are more powerful than God * Unusual effects, like automatically assuming difficult yoga postures, the inability to control or stop the kundalini process, speaking in unlearned languages, temporary manifestations of clairvoyant abilities and the like, certainly suggest that something supernatural is afoot. There are parallels between kundalini symptoms and symptoms that are currently associated with demonized states, including deranged thinking, emotional extremes (deep melancholy, ecstasy), trancelike states or periods of unconsciousness, apparent seizure activity, and unusual pain unrelated to illness and injury (p. 128). - these effects could also be attributed to a unsuccessful yogi in this or previous life * The common element in meditation, the repeating of mantras and, to some extent, the use of psychedelic drugs is the annihilation of critical thought and normal state of consciousness. This is considered of primary importance for entering the appropriate state of consciousness for liberating the self. However, shutting down the mind in order to grasp irrational higher realities and giving up critical discernment opens the way for the phenomenon of spiritual possession, i.e. the taking of control of one's life by an external personal being. As during meditation such openness toward external spirit guides exists, the experience of meeting certain spiritual beings occurs pretty often. Could they be harmless, or even trustable? The answer depends on the authority we use in order to judge them. - proper discrimination (viveka) is important, guru helps with this - possession happens in case of weakened, unstable individuals, not yogis, there is room for it in left-hand tantra though, which enables a shortcut to siddhis, very dangerous practice - using demons' help leads to negative incidents or even death of practitioner because they demand a payment for their help in the form of horrible sacrifices even up to offering one's own flesh, genuine yogis don't meet such an end - gods and demons have similar powers because they get it from the same source, Vishnu, no one is independent of Him * Therefore Yoga practice can lead to a quite different end from that much-advertised peace of mind and inner balance. The experiences it produces may be very dangerous because they are either the premise or the actual experience of demonic possession. If this interpretation seems absurd for some, in what other way could we explain the experience of Eastern initiation, especially when trying to be consistent with Christian theology? - you claim 'yoga = demonic possession' but have no evidence for it, just some suggestions of similarities - if we, trying to be consistent with Christian theology, try to interpret things this theology has not enough information about we may reach wrong conclusions From the description given it is clear that astanga-yoga is too difficult and impractical for most people. This fact is admitted even by Arjuna (BG 6.33). In this age the bhakti-yoga is recommended for self-realization, not the monist paths (BG 12.3 etc.). 6. Bhagavad-gita Here you are refuting strawman of your gross misunderstandings. * 'probably composed' and 'later incorporated into MBh' - not supported by evidence; BG must be understood in the context of Mahabharata * a new path towards liberation - rather renewed revelation (see beginning of its ch. 4) - bhakti-yoga the perfection of other yogas, including them * Hindu god Krishna - Krishna proves His divinity as the Supreme Lord throughout the BG, esp. in ch. 11 by showing His visva-rupa - karma vs. Krishna's grace: 6.45 refers to nondevotional yoga so 9.29 doesn't apply (you forgot to quote the whole verse btw) - BG is a bhakti-sastra, needs to be understood with bhakti commentary, pantheistic interpretation is misleading - karma is like a punishment by a court, Krishna is like a king who can pardon a criminal (grace) - grace achieved by sincerity and devotion, not by mere effort - dharma is not generated by karma, rather it defines karma (law defines punishment) - Arjuna is not compelled by his karma to act but has also a free will (BG 18.63: yatha icchasi tatha kuru) * Vishnu according to Vedanta only a form of Brahman's manifestation - reference? - BG 14.26: brahma-bhuya is not a physical fusion with Brahman or Krishna (it never happens) but an elevation to the level of Brahman (immaterial consciousness) * Krishna as the prakriti - He expands His energies which transform into more and more gross ones (shakti-parinama-vada doctrine, opposite to vivarta-vada of Shankara) - BG 9.8 - avasham prakrteh vashat refers to bhuta-gramam, material manifestations (universes), not to Krishna - periodic manifestations are Lord's lila * Mr. Dasgupta - has no clue about 'indian philosophy' he writes about; Krishna is impartial like a judge but judge is definitely partial (affectionate) to his family members * motivation for acting - bhakti to Krishna, mukti secondary (it is included in it) - personal dharma within varnasrama system is ascertained by personal qualities and characteristics (guna) and tendencies for certain actions (karma) (BG 4.13), not by birth (janma); then one follows dharma-sastras for specific duties - ethical/moral tension in BG between apara and para ethics paradigm (two levels of Vedic worldview: dharma and para-dharma - BhP 1.2.6); when judged from the material platform para ethics seems illogical and unfeasible - Kamsa in BhP 10.4.22 may have a glimpse of transcendental realization and repent but BG 2.19 doesn't encourage unrestricted killing, it just defines the immortality of the jiva. There is an important qualifying remark: "One whose mind is free from egotism, whose intellect is pure, is not bound even though he slays many people, for he does not truly slay." (BG 18.17) - social harmony regarding para ethics depends on the advancement of society members; for the general society apara ethics is meant - viability of doctrine recognizing jiva as different from body was proved by thousands of years of Vedic civilization's existence; modern Western civilization with opposite understanding is after two thousand years on the verge of moral and environmental collapse 7. Buddhism temporary revelation fitting into the plan of dharma restoration - its four main schools defeated in Vedanta-sutra and its natural commentary, Bhagavata P. 8. Avataras Here you present a material vision of God. - avatar is technically not an incarnation in a biblical sense (one who "enters flesh", or takes material body), this can refer only to saktyavesa-avatars (empowered jivas), not the vishnu-tattva avataras who descend in their original immaterial body - appearances and activities of avataras are lila, pastime, not a need - Krishna's amorous adventures with married cowgirls is lila, not a depravity; it is glorified by sages who practice strict celibacy and thus hardly condoning any illicit sex affairs - Krishna's departure from this world is called maushala-lila - Krishna is not killed into his vulnerable spot (this may fit to Achilles) * cross being the crux of Jesus' incarnation - general Vaisnava view is that Jesus came to show us how to follow him, purify our character and 'become perfect as our Father is' (Matt 5:48) - every avatar takes away the sins of the world by His mere appearance, what to speak if people follow Him and develop love to Him with all their heart, soul and mind - avatar's saving the jivas is like the president's amnesty after election, it gives the chance but doesn't change the character of the criminals, like in a state there will always be a need for jails, and this world is a big jail * avatars saving devas more often than humans - they act where adharma starts to prevail (BG 4.7, BhP 1.3.28); devas are only God's representatives for administration of the universe and sometimes they need help; the Kali-yuga avatar doesn't kill demons but destroys their demoniac mentality; in the Bible God and devas (angels) also fight with Satan and other demons (Apocalypse) * Parasurama fighting with Ramacandra - lila of ksatriya-avatars; Parasurama will become one of sapta-rshis in the next manvantara (BhP 8.13.15-16) * gods cooperating with demons during Kurma-lila - devas and asuras 'staged' the lila for Sri Kurma and Mohini Murti; - reason for their truce is explained in BhP 8.6.17 (temporary time advantage for demons) - they are of the same nature and use the same source of power - Vishnu, the source of all power (cf. Isaiah 45:7) - Buddha rejected Vedic rituals degraded into mass animal slaughter, and established temporary platform for renewal of Vedic dharma - Rabindranath M.'s opinions are uninformed and have no value; many persons were resurrected by God's power (BhP 6.16.1 - Harshashoka, 8.6.37, 8.11.1 - devas, 8.11.47, 8.15.3 - asuras, 9.16.24 - Jamadagni Muni, and even animals sacrificed in Vedic yajnas), in more recent times Sri Chaitanya's devotee Saranga Thakura, son of Srivasa Thakura (revived by Sri Chaitanya) etc. 9. Equivalents to Jesus' sayings * Jesus as the Kingdom of God (Luke 17:20-21) - "Kingdom of God" usually means the spiritual world, God's rule in this world and its doctrine - gospel, glad tidings; this would fit better. The text says 'the kingdom of God is within you'. Is this interpretation supported by any commentators? 10. Prodigal son parable - in Vaisnava tradition understood in the same way as in Christian tradition (jiva leaving the association of God) - Luke 15:20 same as Brhad-bhagavatamrta 2.6.60 (jiva returns to Krishna) - contradicts the doctrine that soul is created at birth (i.e. it had no previous association with God in spiritual world) 11. Revelation in Christianity - Ultimate Reality has both impersonal and personal nature (BhP 1.2.11) * yoga experience an hallucination - in this way one may rule out all the supersensory perceptions of saints from all traditions (visions, revelations etc.), that's what materialists like to do - judge by the results - quality of life change (hallucinations = chaotic mental state, yoga (communion with God) = harmonious state) - revelation in agreement with guru, sadhu and sastra * Gen. 1:28 - why Christianity interprets ruling over animals as a concession for killing? Who follows "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) etc.? * science in the East - not developed through pratyaksa and anumana (experimentally) but revealed in the Vedic sastras (sabda); modern science in some ways approaches its perfection - Western science grew from the Christian background but turned against Christianity, undermined its authority and ushered in materialism Conclusion Jesus' followers were quite different from today's Christians. Many aspects of modern Christianity were introduced by Paul (Paulinism) and later enforced by Thomas Aquinas, the follower of materialist philosopher Aristotle. Pre-thomist Christianity is based on Platonic ideas quite close to the Vedic tradition. Vaishnava dharma - devotional service (bhakti) - is the essence of religion (= yoga). It helps to understand the position of other religions. Vaishnava saints and the saints of other traditions develop the same qualities (humility etc.) and have similar realizations like the saints from other traditions. More info: www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/index.php