An unanswerable question to fanatics of Islam / Hindu / Christian etc

dattaswami2's picture



Average: 4.3 (4 votes)

An unanswerable question to fanatics of Islam/Hindu/Christian etc

If you argue that the human incarnation of your religion alone is correct, you will face the following powerful question:

Your human incarnation appeared in a particular region in a particular time only and gave the correct message to the people of that particular region only. After that, several generations passed before that particular message reaches the other regions of the world. All these generations missed that message and went to hell after death. If your message reached all the regions of the world in the beginning itself, at least some of the passed generations might have benefited. If your God alone created this entire earth and all this humanity is His issue, there should be no partiality in giving the message to one region only and allow other regions to be deprived of such fortune. This concludes that your God is partial to one region without reason or that your God did not create this entire humanity.

You have no answer for this question but we have the answer. Your God is impartial to all humanity and is the creator of this entire humanity. Even though the absolute God gave a particular message to a particular region through a particular human form, the same absolute God gave the same message in different human forms to other regions also. The language of the message may differ but the message is one and the same. The form, culture, dress etc., of the human incarnations in different regions may be different but the absolute God in these human incarnations is one and the same and hence His message is also one and the same delivered to all regions in the same time impartially.

Therefore, all the human beings are the children of the same God and hence there must be brotherly hood between all the human beings.

www.universal-spirituality.org



K.Venugopal's picture

The forms and the formless are one

What we call God is nothing other than life. The whole of existence is nothing other than life or God in various forms. There is no difference between formless God and God in various forms. The idea of God having created forms is not true in the sense that God is separate from his creation. The formless becomes the forms, changes forms, and becomes formless again.

K.Venugopal | Sun, 06/28/2009 - 15:35
kulchnaui's picture

Secular concept of God

True.

But we must be extra careful not to neglect in such a deduction the metaphysical aspects. There is a great tendency of doing so which results in many spiritual people who base their spirituality and concept of God on logic and unknowingly reduce it into philosophical concepts and consequently are actually pure skeptics and secular.

This brings the importance of praying, devotion, meditating, cultivating the heart, loving and whatever activity that bypasses the logical mind and the thinking process.

kulchnaui | Sun, 06/28/2009 - 15:51
K.Venugopal's picture

The divine qualities of being.

Logically understanding that there is no separation between us and all of existence would cause a radical shift in our living and our living, as life is, would become divine. Then praying, devotion, meditating, cultivating the heart, loving etc. would be the very qualities of our being.

K.Venugopal | Sun, 06/28/2009 - 19:54
Phroggy's picture

~

Well said. There is a depth to that realization, as there is to all realizations. What we sometimes must be careful about is fearing the mind so much that we never allow for a focus of consciousness to bring us to that depth. It may remain forever a cherished 'mystery of the heart', which is desired but never known to be true.

Phroggy | Mon, 06/29/2009 - 00:26
kulchnaui's picture

Logical understanding and radical shifts

Logical understanding and any mind-based reasoning lead to nothing, especially not to any radical shift. There can be no conviction about any product of the thinking process including unity because thinking process can yield only hypothesises and there is always the other voice in the mind who knows that the opposite of a hypothesis may also be true. You know it very well from your experience.

Stubborn insistence on using the mind or tricky claim that mind is neither good nor bad are covers for addiction to the mind of beginners who are still trapped in the mind. Once they experience for the first time no-mind (manage to overcome their fear of meditation), they taste from a different quality of realization and manage to abandon the reliance on logic. As long as they do not overcome that fear of meditation and no-mind, they are just playing with a useless primitive toy and cannot understand that even if you tell them so hundred times.

Self realization is not the same as any other realization, it is just a confusion of language as we use the same word "realization" in both of them. Self realization has nothing to do with mind and understanding.

This is extremely important! It makes all the basic difference.

kulchnaui | Mon, 06/29/2009 - 07:07
K.Venugopal's picture

From logic to intuition.

A brilliant exposition. I congratulate you. But when you say, "Logical understanding and any mind-based reasoning lead to nothing, especially not to any radical shift", the very fact that in communicating we need the logic of language proves that logic leads us and could be used to lead us beyond logic. Otherwise how do we go beyond logic into the realms of intuition?

K.Venugopal | Sun, 07/05/2009 - 09:49
Phroggy's picture

~

It's not logic that takes you beyond logic. The mind does not bring about intuitive insight, rather moments of isight are perhaps 'allowed' beyond mind, and this informs mind of it's errors of logic and reason, or rather the concepts on which they are based. also, communication does not lead to clarity, although it can form a focus of consciousness in which clarity may come about in the absence of mind's incessant thinking. This is intuition.

Phroggy | Tue, 07/07/2009 - 04:32
gatesofgrace's picture

Fanatics!

Can we agree, this is not to say that diversity in itself is wrong? Even diversity, for a time with little insight, carries a seed of awareness within. For such times, when isolated from the all knowing, what is temporal needs to be clung to tightly. This one has not seen a god formless nor with form, that has not responded to this seed that lies within all things... fanatical or otherwise.

Until the cup of peace and love has been filled... it would appear each god has their part to do. A special thanks to each of you in that.

As one gives more than one takes... both are soon diminished... when diminished they are no longer two.

gatesofgrace | Sun, 09/06/2009 - 12:26
NIDHI PARKASH's picture

difference of name and form

Each one speaks that ones own religious incarnation is correct and also the best of all. Ones own God is the highest----have been spoken by all the religious people and this is absolutely accurate as well as acceptable because of one pointed love, devotion, surrender to the 'IDEAL'.This difference remains up-to the time until devotees get the self-realization/nirvichaar samaadhi.
To understand to this, assume a story of an elephant and four blinds.They all the four persons starts to know elephant and explain the animal with 4 different views. Each one of them touches animal to feel what kind of it is. Person who touches elephant's tail says elephant is like a rope; while other after touching the tusk of animal says that elephant is like a solid rod as well as log of a wood. Third person touch ears of elephant and explains the elephant is like a thatch. Fourth blind also feels elephant after touching belly and he tells that elephant is like a big flat thing. All the four blinds are partially accurate but non of them is fully accurate as per their feeling and knowledge. This is applicable to all religious people for their explanation of their human incarnations. Nobody knows the full truth. Only the persons who have self-realization may express the full truth.
Sri Ramakrishna practiced various religions and felt the full truth; so declared the truth of all religions that the goal of all religions is the same one. He said God is one but religions have been expressing them by various names and forms just like the water.Water in different kinds of containers seems various kinds (shapes, forms) of as being ice, drops, water in vapors, water in a cup, glass and in a bucket assuming various shapes while as elemental theory the same water is contained in all containers.So also the water is called by various names as jal, amrit, paani and aqua, salila etc.
Therefore, just like the water; there is difference of names and shapes but elemental stuff of divinity is the same one and all religions are leading towards the same one goal.

NIDHI PARKASH | Thu, 09/10/2009 - 19:30
dattaswami2's picture

Our feelings and unreal bonds of the world

Our feelings and unreal bonds of the world

A paper and pen are sufficient to give a certificate. Similarly the knowledge and devotion, which are also made of nervous energy, are sufficient to attain the grace of God. The attachment to wealth is also a bond like the bonds with your family members. You are sacrificing your attachment to wealth and family members for the sake of God. Already the wealth and your family members are the immovable and movable properties of the Lord. For the sake of God, Shankara sacrificed the attachment to His mother and not sacrificed the mother because she is already a part of the movable property of the Lord. Similarly Gopikas sacrificed their families and butter (wealth) for the sake of the Lord and here also sacrifice of their bonds is the point. All the game is only with these feelings (bonds) which are almost unreal and not with real things. Therefore there need not be any tension regarding the bonds. Your bonds with other souls are unreal compared with the bond with God, just like the bonds in the drama are unreal compared with the bond with the owner of the drama.

The dramatic bonds change from one drama to the other. Similarly the bonds with your souls change from one birth to the other. The bond with God is real and eternal because, even in Maha Pralaya (the final dissolution of the creation) the souls exist in God, which are controlled by Him always. The Master-Servant bond exists always, which is the essence of any other bond also.

At Thy Lotus Feet His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony
www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

dattaswami2 | Fri, 09/11/2009 - 02:16
gatesofgrace's picture

Brotherhood!!

The brotherhood and bond that has been shared here by Sri Dattaswami, is it not constantly revealed by each living soul? The love of a mother, brother, or loved one carries the reflection of that bond. Even hate/anger, is a reflection one and the same as it is conditional.

An unconditional nature that accepts both love and hatred unequivocally, has learned to dismiss these temporal conditions, yet they are bound to them as they are unbound.

A Master who is unbound (united) within him/her self, will remain bound to the devotee, as much as if they too still shared in the dilemma's that remain unfolding before the devotee.

We could then say the copulation of fanaticism is an expression of a bound nature. United for a time... as an expression of that bondage, an expression of matters that have become unyielding for those sharing in it. Again, these are conditional reflections that are in each, united within the whole who share in it.

In all cases they must be fervently supported to the point of fanaticism in order to be sustained. One true master, whom is in a position to be heard, would shatter such illusions swiftly.

This one suspects a time for this is coming soon.

gatesofgrace | Sun, 09/27/2009 - 12:40
NIDHI PARKASH's picture

bond of the self

On account of these bonds we called in bondage, liberation of soul has been opposite to it; cutting asunder all kinds of THE bonds is designated as MOKSHA. If we have even bond with the God we cannot be liberated; however, on account of bond with God we may be at higher and higher heavens of consciousness as Goloka etc.

www.sahajayoga.org www.sahajayoga.org.in

NIDHI PARKASH | Wed, 10/07/2009 - 15:38
dattaswami2's picture

Differentiate Satguru & Guru

In the word Satguru (Lord in human form), the prefix ‘Sat’ means truth. A Satguru always preaches the truth. Truth is always harsh and is not liked by several people. Therefore a Satguru will have only very few disciples. A Satguru says that the path with thorns will lead to the Lord. People will not like this. He also says that the path with flowers leads to hell. People will not be happy with this preaching. A Guru preaches which several people like. The Guru says that the nature of the goal will be the nature of the path. Since the Lord is full of bliss the path also must be with flowers giving happiness. Since the hell is giving you lot of pain the path with thorns which also gives lot of pain must lead to the hell. This argument is very attractive.

Several people will like this and will become the followers of Guru. Several people will praise him and give lot of Guru Dakshina because his argument is pleasant. But a Satguru says that the path with thorns alone will lead to the Lord because in this path you have to cut the bonds with your family and with your hard-earned money. Sacrifice gives lot of pain and sacrifice alone will lead to the Lord. The path with flowers strengthens your bonds with your family and money which gives you lot of happiness. Such path leads to the hell.

Several people do not like such argument and so only one or two persons who can realize the truth will become His disciples. A Satguru will never worry about the number of the disciples and about the quantity of Guru Dakshina. Even if a single disciple is available He is happy. Majority always goes to hell. Only one in millions like Sankara, Vivekananda, Meera can reach the Lord. Diamonds are always in minority. Gravel stones are in majority. Therefore a Satguru will be only one in thousands of Gurus and a true disciple will be only one in millions of disciples.

When you are doing prayers you are praising the Lord as a poet praises a king. The foolish king may give some gift to the poet. But the omniscient Lord can never be fooled by such praise. When you sing songs are chant the name of the Lord or express the feelings of devotion by shedding tears or by meditation you are getting the happiness and peace immediately. You have achieved the fruit. The Lord will not give another fruit for these things. When you are pained and loose peace by cutting the family bonds and by sacrificing your work and wealth to the Lord, then only the Lord will give the real gift to you. When you are working in the field for the owner, doing the work pains you. The owner will pay money for your work. Without doing the work, if you are simply chanting the name of the owner or sing songs on the owner, a wise owner will never give any gift.

You have already derived the bliss and peace by eating the sweet in your hand. Why should I pay you when you are eating the sweet? When you sacrifice the sweet to me I shall pay you. A Satguru teaches only the sacrifice which is the path with thorns leading to the Lord.

Veda says that sacrifice alone can bring the grace of the Lord (Dhanene Tyagenaike). If you ask the payment by prayers and devotion the Lord will pay you from your pocket only. He will bring the results of good deeds from your future life cycles and present them to you. But when you are sacrificing the sweet to the Lord in spite of your hunger and your heart pain, the Lord rewards you from His pocket. Therefore the true path leading to the Lord can be identified by loss of peace, mental worry, pain etc., The path to the hell is identified by peace, happiness, benefit etc., Satguru leads you to the Lord and Guru leads you to the hell.

At Thy Lotus Feet His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony
www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

dattaswami2 | Mon, 09/28/2009 - 02:15