R u an atheist?
I don't know about u all but I personally belive that all the crap in the world is somehow related to your faith, just wanted to know what u guys thought about it ?
do u even care about ur' faith ? have u read or ever tried to read gita or some of our other religious books

thanks to all for the input.. Vis.. i was not trying to be personal either, i was just explaning myself i guess.. lol!!.. n' yeah i wud like some input regarding the questions....

as matter of fact, i had read somewhere that there are only about 180,000 mentioned names in all the manuscripts including estimates on those that were lost or thougth to have been existed. (i mean you are not serious about me reading all those Puranas and Upnishads... i will be 80 before i complete reading them, even if i read them every day without sleep).

my research is nothing to do with proving the claim that there actually are 330 million gods. nothing personal but i am not trying to measure the diameter of the sun with a tape. i am just trying to collect information to come to a conclusion about the sun's diameter. and i am not going average or even make scientific reasearch if a claim is true or not. i am just to going to believe that the sun is there and it has some diameter. someone calculated it to a perfection.. well very nice. i have a good info.

in real sense, and many hindu scriptures suggest that 330 million is used just to sense us that evereything we see at any given time is a form of god, or at least represent. now, it would be a nice to prove if at any given time, we are abel to see 330 million things, objects with our physical eyes. may be, may be not. and if you know that hinduism is an inclusive religion, that said, it tend to accept that all other faith are okay, because it is just another way of bhakti. so, perhaps we can incorporate deities and angels of those religions as well. in my website, i have explained the criteria... extremely simple. all the names of the objects, person, names, temples etc that anyone on earth worship as a divine force - could end at 1 millions, or500k or perhaps there actually are 330 million... well you may want to call it the height of optimism... but i have nothing to gain or loss... i might just loose this interest in a few days, years... i don't know... :-)

BUt again... how can you prove/disprove GOD scientificallyor logically for that matter, how can u test the validity of GODS?? I appreciate what sujanks and VIshontar have suggested but i don't think faith is sth that you can hypothesize about at all, mainly because it's a perception not a being or thingl.. i mean i am sure i can find answers in the Puranas, Upanishads n' other texts but I dont' belive that it wud satisfy my logic. Logically or scientifically i need numbers, data, recordings but these things can't be obtained rationally when u r talking about GOD. I went thru this conflict in college, i am chem/bio major and i loved taking all sorts of religion and philosophy courses and it was hard to put science with rel/phi together, i was forced to view them frm 2 diff. windows, it worked. I personally think that proving/disproving the validity of GODS is sth that comes a long time after you understand them enough to be able to draw some conclusions for yourself. Ii am naive in this regard, so to me there's still a long way! I also feel that most of us do not have as much knowledge about our religion/faith either; also for different ppl religion/faith mean diff things. So that's where conflict arises.

Okay, this is what the Sanatana Dharma actually was built upon from the very early Vedic days. This is about 10-9th centry BCE. There was no such thing as worshiping. There were hymns and prayers to the 8 rulers of the 8 directions (dikpalas) and were considered supreme being. The concept of trinity and other gods, came much much later. Mahabharat was only written much later around 6th century AD. 330 millions gods were first propounded in Puranas, during the 1st-3rd centuries (writing assuming that you know the origins of veda, upaveda, upanisads and puranas). that's when hinduism really got corrupted. priests were telling us that if i don't puja so-so god like Indra, Ganesh etc., he will be pissed and put bad on us. well sanatana dharma never talked about anything bad. no harm is done to us, unless we want to. we do not gain or loose by whether worshiping or not. we just need to realize the truth and embrace it. if you can't, that is fine. you might just be following other paths to moksha, which is still okay.

There is no correct path. All path leads to Moksha, but we have to completely understand that truth. it's like, if you start walking a long distance in a straight like (vector), at some point you'll come to the point where you originated. Same truth applies to the Universe, the mind the body and the soul. No matter what we do, we'll still remain the same, just more understanding of the truth. experiece is gained.. which is good, which may not be true for someone else. However one truth is for sure - i (my body, mind and soul) exist and i see other around me who exist. they are related to me somehow or the other, whether object, living, dead or illusionary.

And by the way, hinduism does not have hell. None of the Vedas, Upavedas and Upanisads have hell. They do have the realm of bliss, where we are all happy. but it considers mrytulok, or the land of the mortals to be the realm of suffering, not necessarily hell... We do not have to fear the almighty, whether God, Allah or gods.

i think you'll like this article.

http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=584

after reading this,, please argue if everything written and that we have read are actually what the truth is, because truth on spiritualy changes all the time. Christians thought that saying the earth is round is heresy and is punishable (eg. Galileo) and see, they now accept it beautifully, adn now if you say that the earth is flat, they'd laugh (to themselves???).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/

You'll enjoy this article. it is about a man suing a priest if Jesus existed. There cannot be argument on what the real truth is. Ther is god, there is no god. it is like language. we communicate in the language we know. we cannot express what we are really thinking to other in true nature.

for example. some one lies to me contantly and i believe it all the time, not knowing that i was being lied. once i discover that i was being lied, it is so difficult to know afterwards if i am being told the truth. even if i am being tried to convince that that is the truth, it is just not possible for me accept it, because how can i accept it.

i was in estes park and i had a small nepali gift shop. i used to have all kinds of people come there. once there were 5 people (2,2 m/f and a child). they were dressed in orange and men had long beard and had malas on them. right that moment i thought were were buddhist/shaivite. after a few conversation (i talk a lot when people talk with me)... i asked what faith he is in.. and he said he is a devout christian... i was so stereotyping and wrong.. and i told them how sorry i was to judge them by appearance... they were so humble.. he said, don't worry, it doesn't matter what i follow or what you think i follow.. i don't even care what you think... i just know you are another being... all it matters is that somehow we met and have talked for last 4 hours and gained each other so much that we are continuosly being wiser every moment...

Sujanks Ji, thanks for the response. Do you know what made me to post on this thread?

This one:

The concept of advaita vedanata (non-dualism) came much later when indian subcontinent was attaked by the muslims and threatened the end of hindu rulers there aound the end of 1st millenium (9th century, i think).

You have revealed a fact which came out of the research. Yes, he was Shankaracharya who first advocated for Adwait. There had been a discussion on this some time ago, if you have time please read my first posting on this thread.

PleaseClick Here

Those few words of yours were very reality and very impressive. Perhaps you don't know these words of yours are shading light on what you have been saying frequently ie one and only one Brahma. I can not compare Adwait with monotheism of Judaic tradition (Jewis, Christanity and Islam), they are completely different. However, the concept of Adwait was introduced in last millinium. And the person who introduced it was Shankaracharya.

This has been found through research. Isn't this a nice thing that we are not blindly believeing this? Isn't this a nice thing that we know someting for sure? Isn't this a nice thing to know that the concept of Adwait was not given by some suprime power (Brahma) at the beginning of the Kalpa? Isn't this nice thing to know that Adwait is not a Vedic concept? Now there is much more reality to be uncoverd in this field.

If something is true, it should be true for sure. We are blindly believeing a lot many things. We should believe them for sure as we beleve for sure about Adwait. We should move from belief to knowlege.

I will write more on 330 million gods later. I think you misunderstood me regarding the exmaple of measuring the diameter of the sun :). Forgive me if you felt offensive, I didn't mean it though. That was just a suggestion. BTW you already have half answered the question in your second posting. You are pretty close to the answer I guess.

Gyan yoga is considered by many to be revered as the highest level of path towards moksha for human kind. Actually Raja yoga, but that is to achieve divinity, and requires life time dedication to meditation, hatha yoga and severe penance. The last one to achieve moksha thru raja yoga was Guru Yogacharya Parambhansa Yogananda. Even Vivekananda the forerunner and teacher of Raja Yoga of the modern age admits not achieving the pinnacle of Raja Yoga.

Anyways, i totally agree with vishontar when you say, we should go by knowledge (gyan) and not by belief. however not compltely because not all of the human beings can indulge in finding the knowledge. there are two most common and easier path we can practice - either bhakti (faith, belief) and Karma (action). By saying, there is not difference in the amount of Moksha you can attain. All four leads to the same goal, to be in the bliss, and it is good. however, bliss cannot be achieved as long as you have desire.

i suggest a book by HH the Dalai Lama - A Policy of Kindness. In one of the interviews he was asked, what is the purpose of his meditation. he said, he meditates to find the bliss (nothingness). when the mind, body and soul are embodied as one rather than separate. Another question was asked if he had been meditating for so long, if he has achieved it and when. HH said, once in 1955 and haven't since then. Amused by the answer since it was 1989, why only once. and not again. HH said, when he was meditating back then, he was only meditating and never gave a chance to his heart to desire bliss. Once he found it, he desired to see it again, and never got it.

btw. i am never offended by any discussion. it is just discussion where we are all tying to find the answer for the question we don't know. so.. i am having a lot of fun. A little selfish myself because i want to find the answer... that's why i cannot be enlightened... :-)

Sujanks Ji, now you have collected a lot of information. As you mentioned there was no worshiping system before where as today's Hinduism is focused on Idole worshiping. It means ancient Hindu practice was differnt than modern day Hindu practices. Now find out why Hindus changed their pracices? Whether new practice is efficient or inefficient compare to the old one? Why did they change? Was the change an evolution or declination? This will clear out all those blind faith we have about our Hindu practices.

As I have told you that you will find 330 million gods in Puranas, you found it. Now find why only 330 millions? Why not 320 or 340 millions? For that you have to go to Veda, and analyze wisely. As you have already mentioned that Puranas were written in AD, now to get the answer of why 330 million, you need to know that why were they be composed? Under what ground were they (Purana) be written?

I don't think it will take life long time to read all Puranas and Upanisads. There are 108 upanishadas, most of them are like one chapter of a book. Few are lil long though. I have gone through some of these. I think Puranas are lil longer but not that long as you think. I have read some of these as well. All I can say is if you read them in your free time with interest, you can finish them all in 6 month.

I know the gist of Puranas, however, I want someone who want to read them all. Because right now I don't have time to read them though I want to :). Unlike Veda and Upaniseda, they are not online as well.

Thanks for other information though, but let me not touch Bhakti, Karma, and Gyana in this thread. I probably will get lost. Let me be limited to faith. I will write only about faith and related, nothing more.

Faith is belief. I m focusing on a popular belief among the Hindu society, which is, there are 330 million gods. Now answer has to come either affermative or negative, but rational and logical. As we know the age of Adwait Vedanta, which is about a thousand years and origionated by Shankaracharya. It is no longer a mith but a reality for us. We have to be able to know about 330 million gods, at least with similar accuracy as that of Adwait Vedanta. We have to establish a exploring culture. We had that culture, we lost it. Now we must regain it back. It is the product of exploration where the western world is right now.

So please share whatever you know about faith.

No one Ji, I liked your questions so tried to answer them.

So what is it that keeps us tied to our faith sometime beyond rationality .. not that GOD/spirituality belong to the rational world .... why do i think that depite all the superstitions we are born into, I still respect and love my religion??

This is due to the tendency of our mind. Mind has such a tendency that it gets attached to the things possessed by the person. "My", "Mine", "Our" these are the words that mind likes very much. Despite being underdeveloped we like our country, why? Because there is ours. Every parents like their kids, every kids like their parents, because they are theirs.

If you have bought an used car from your next-door-neighbor. You wouldn't love it and care for it before you bought it. Why? Because it wasn't yours. An activist of a political party feels victorious while his/her candidate wins. A cricket fan, foot ball fan, or a base ball fan feels victorious while the the team s/he was supporting wins. All is due to my issue, mine issue and our issue. In spritual language this is called EGO. Mind is so sticky to one's own possision.

Same it true for the faith, culture, traditon etc. You just accept them because they are yours. You just like them because they are yours. They are your properties handed over by your beloved forefathers, that's why you like them and respect them.

There is space for logic and reason because you don't analyze them. Mind is programmed this way. You even don't know what is going on. This is called blindness. You will live advocating your faith, you might die without knowing it. This is true for many people of the world. Faith is not what you care; what you really care is whether it is yours or not.

Whether something is superstation or not that need to be tested scientifically.

Even though our religion obviously disparages women in a million way, I still like to belive that it's chaging and it's good for me??? is it arrogance or do I have a blind, blind faith?? ?

It depends how you define religion. If you define religion as culture or tradition you might be right. In every culture, and tradition women are biased somehow. However, if you define religion as a practice of wholesome actions, they are not biased at all. Men or Women, anybody can practice goodness, no restriction :).

Since the question is focused on Hindu tradition, I don't think that it is completely biased too. All depends on individual. There were/are houses where women were/are considered as goddesses. She was/is the incharge of the house and most beloved of the family. Such family was/ is the happy family. Where as there were/are people who disrespect women, as a result there was/ is no harmony in their family and they were/are miserable. Wise people give respect to other and live happily, fool people try to take advantage and happiness leave them.

Religion has nothing to do with that. All is art of living which is free from space and time. There were men who used to respect to women, there are and there will be. There were men who used to mistreat women, there are and there will be. Its all individual.

Believe me or not I have seen women who mistreet their husbands. Their life is so miserable. What religion will this be :)?

I hope I have answered all of your questions. Regarding whether you are in blind faith or not, who else can answer it other than you?

Since the thread is all about faith, finally I will post one more posting about it.

View/Share this post only

Mistake:

Please read
There is space for logic and reason because you don't analyze them.


As

There is no space for logic and reason because you don't analyze them (faith, culture, and tradition).

Thanks

I don't think you can ever categorize or consider faith to be blind. Faith means someting you truly believe it. If you have faith that is great. Do not be fooled that you are blinded. If you even give a chance to youself that faith or love is blind, then you are not in faith or love. you are beyond it now.

if faith is questionable in mind then you are tying to explore the possibility of finding the truth in other ways. Just like the diameter of the sun. i don't need to find it, because someone has already found it with calculations and i believe him because the person who conducted was a great scientist.

Faith is something you have to believe without analyzing anything, just like christianity or islam. it's like your mother telling you not to touch fire or be bad when you were a child. if you had faith you would never do it. if you didn't then you'd go and touch the fire and finally know it is not nice to touch fire. either way, you know that the fire is something you just don't touch. You came to know the truth either or.

Let me list what they really mean in terms of people who have followed a specific path:

Faithfuls: Chaitanya Mahapravu, Pope etc.
Knowledge: Sankaracharya, Buddha etc.
Action: Sudama, Gandhi, MLK
Divinity: Jesus, Paramhansa Yogananda

SujankS Ji, nice to hear from you.

You wrote:
I don't think you can ever categorize or consider faith to be blind. Faith means someting you truly believe it. If you have faith that is great. Do not be fooled that you are blinded. If you even give a chance to youself that faith or love is blind, then you are not in faith or love. you are beyond it now.

I am not quite agree with you on this.

Faith can be blind as well as enlightened. For example: When someone first calculated the diameter of the Sun and decleared it or published it. If I isntantly believe without any analysis, it is blind belief. I have 50-50% chances to be right. However, if I read his paper and find him logical, rational then believe. Or if I don't understand scientific language then analyze with some other techniques like common sense. If the scientists of the world are approving his work, then have faith if not don't have faith. This will leave me either 100% right or 0% right. This is enlightened faith.

Blind faith is the faith wihtout proper analysis where as enlightened faith is the faith with right analysis. If somebody advartizes his product and you buy it on the basis of his words, that's blind faith, because you bought it without testing his wrods. There is 50-50% chance to be cheated. However, if you analyze him, his character, his motivation and finally see the product, there will be either 0 or 100% chance to be cheated. Now you have faith on his words, this faith is enlightened faith.

If someone come to you and say he can make cream out of water, and you believe it, that is blind faith. If you don't analyze, of course you are left with nothing other than to believe.

If someone come to you and say he can make you disappear in a fraction of second, if you believe it that is blind belief. If you don't analyze, of course you are left with nothing other than to believe.

These are lil bulk type of blind beliefs, everybody's intellect can catch them easily. However, the theory is equally valid for subtal ones, they are subtal so they may deceive the normal intellect.

If you have faith without analysis, that is a blind faith. There is 1/2 chance to be right. You don't have to test everyting yourself, you can analyse them with common sense or through differnt means. Kids don't touch the fire not because their mom said so, but because they feel hot when they go close. You can not keep poison bottle in your self and say to your kids not to drink it because it will kill.

Kids intellect is not matured enough to protect them so they need baby sitters and proper attention. However, when They grow up your intellect is matured enough to have faith on their parents. Your intellect is automated to believe your parents. You have already tested them. You know they can not deceive you. So you have faith on them. This is enlightened faith. (More later on this)


If you even give a chance to youself that faith or love is blind, then you are not in faith or love. you are beyond it now

I will write about faith some other time, however, let me tell something about love. I believe "Love" you mean passionate love. Compassionate love is different, its very rare and you can hardly find compassionate people. Passionate love is blind. Of course it is blind which has already been proved scientifically. Scientists scaned the brains of lovers for the physical test and found that analytical part of the mind being inactive. They found that while you are in love, you can't see the negative aspects of your lover. Isn't this a psychological blindness?

Lot of mistakes, sorry. Please correct them yourself.

that is correct, but when you differentiate between "blind" faith and enlightened faith, what you are actually talking about are two different, extremely different things. the blind faith you are saying is the faith and the enlightened faith you are talking about is knowlodge.

Because when you faith in something, someone, you do not know the facts and evidences behind it. what i am trying to say, is that once you know certain things and believe it then it becomes wisdom, knowledge just like Einstein or myself out of physics class. however, if you completely believe in something, someone without facts and evidence then that is faith. Just like Pope or myself out of a temple.

We can however put it this way. A blind belief is a faith; factual belief is knowledge. Because if you can't believe in something blindly it is no more faith. But if you insist believing then that is faith. Only few can revere such faith. And only few can truly understand the questions to answer. Most human linger between these two without reaching anywhere, and thus suffer.

Sorry Sujan Ji couldn't write earlier; life is hec-tic.

Interesting! Ya its little confusing, enlighten faith seems like knowledge. However, it isn't. Let me try to differentiate knowledge from enlighten faith.

If you know somehthing, have perceived something though your own senses, and there is no room left for doubt at all; it is knowledge.

If you don't know it, haven't perceived it through your own senses, but you trust it because it seems logical and rational to your intellect; that is enlighten faith. Might be tiny little but there can always be room for doubt in enlighten faith.

Let me illustrate by some examples:

I don't know whether this is right example or not but ets talk about diameter of the sun again. If you are a science person and have gone through the problem or have recalculated yourself and get convinced. This can be said as knowledge because you know it by yourself for sure and there remains no doubt for your.

However, if you believe it to be true because the scientific community examined it and passed it, it is an enlightened faith. You trust scientific community which makes you to trust their analysis. You don't know it by yourself but you accept it.

Knowledge is the truth perceived by yourself. However, enlighten faith is the truth perceived by somebody else but accepted by yourself.

Knowledge -----------You know it for sure by yourself.
Enlighten faith ------You accept it under the logical ground.

Knowledge gives you the feeling of ------------ Indeed it is true!
Enlighten faith gives you the feeling of ------- Seems to be true!

Knowledge can definitely say ............. This is the truth!
Enlighten faith can say ........ This sounds truth! This appears to be truth!

Finally let me give you one more example.

I: Suppose you got lost on your way to some destination, and you asked for the direction to a pedestrian. You got directions and followed them instently without any analysis. You trusted the person blindly- This is blind trust or blind faith.

II: You got the direction but analyzed it. Whether the person completely understood where you wanted to go. Whether the location you were heading to matched to the direction given by the person. How the person looked like? Was s/he mentally sound? etc etc. After proper analysis your common sense found that person as logical, rational and trustworthy and you followed. You trusted the person through analysis - This is enlighten trust or enlighten faith. In this case you don't know for sure whether the person is right or not. S/he might be right, might not be, but sounds right. Though a little, there is room for doubt. Things are not perfectly clear.

III: You got directions, followed them, walked over the path and found the destination. Now you know for sure the person was trustworthy. Now no doubt is left, everything is clear. Now you can definitely say that the directions were right. --This is knowledge.

Knowledge = You know for sure.
Enlighten faith = You don't know for sure but seems true.

I don't think that I will be able to make clearer than this.

Indeed faith doesn't embrace everyone! Assure me the faith you are talking about is not the blind faith!

Contd...................

I wonder who found out that Vedas, Mahabharat were written in XX AD or BC. I assume they existed in oral form long before the manuscripts. Enlighten me, please

Jesus was born in 1 AD.

vishiontar,

i your case, there could be a process:

blind faith -> enlightened faith -> knowledge.

So, there is nothing wrong to have blind faith. There is no way you can get to knowledge without first appearing to have some kind of faith. to have an enlightened faith, you sure must be blind to believe it, that's why you continue to pursue the answers, by sources or by yourself.

i don't think all those people who crowd in certain temples and follow certain rituals are blind faithed, because they were told by someone that it is true and they agree, so everyone are enlightened faithful. Oral transfer of messages from generations. There are written evidences however do we know if those writings have evidences to back them up. Ok, may be may be not. However, Vyas says that he has seen the past, the present and the future. He wrote the Vedas as he was told by Brahma himself. Now, should i believe what he said. he was a great thinker and there were 18 of them in the past in the sub-continent. Paramhansa Yogananda achieved divinity through Raja Yoga (medical evidences from UCLA Med school), should we believe that unless we have actually seen with our own eyes. Ramakrishna was 86 when he was experiencing orgasms for minutes without sex (medical evidences). Those extra ordinary beings cannot just achieve that with magic or illusions. they achieved through great penance and yogic practice. if such things were possible then how come faith can be blind or enlightened.

Diameter of the Sun: i blindly believe or i believe that experiments found it where many scientists agree, or i actually measure it myself. I think this does apply to our spirituality. How do we want to believe the existence of god. Because everyone says so and everyone agrees and this has to be agreed if you believe any of them. Or you find it yourself. So, there is is no place for blind or enlightened faith. It is just faith. Or you question the existence a lot, and find it out yourself (measure the diameter of the sun), then you have knowledge. Just accept the fact that the sun is there and it has diameter then you are living with actions. You actually go to the sun to feel if it really exists, then you have divinity.

to magdadela:

Vedas are thought to have been uttered by Brahma during creation which was first passed into Narad (Brahma's son) and the Sapta Rishis. Sapta Rishis brought this to earth and Vyas enlightened everyone with the knowledge. The compilation of the 4 vedas are thought to have been done by the 18 Vyas's, which passed down orally to everyone unit the 4th century when they were actually written.

About Mahabharat : please read this article should help you.

- http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_vartak.html

Jesus was bron 4 AD. He "went to heaven" 34 AD.

sorry guys.. ... school started so it's kinda difficult to keep up with you guys!