• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Para Brahman

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
This is the definition of salvation that I found. I had to look it up to become at all familiar with the term.

sal·va·tion
salˈvāSH(ə)n/
noun
Theology
noun: salvation
  1. deliverance from sin and its consequences, believed by Christians to be brought about by faith in Christ.
    synonyms: redemption, deliverance, reclamation
    "salvation by way of repentance"
    antonyms: damnation
    • preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss.
      "they try to sell it to us as economic salvation"
      synonyms: lifeline, preservation; More
      means of escape, help, saving, savior
      "that conviction was her salvation"
    • a source or means of being saved from harm, ruin, or loss.
      noun: one's salvation; plural noun: one's salvations
      "his only salvation was to outfly the enemy"
 

Kirran

Premium Member
For me it cognates with words like freeing, liberating, like that. People get odd ideas about it - but many Hindus have odd ideas about moksha too! I've met a lot who think of moksha as a place you go to after you die, synonymous with heaven!
 

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
I've been reading quite a bit of the B-Gita. There is no doubt it derives from someone (Krishna) who new the path to merging "the individual consciousness with the Supreme Consciousness". However, there are some parts that.. Krishna died around 3100 BC and the B-Gita was recorded around the 5th century BC at the earliest? Is this the consensus? That is a long period of time in between.

Still, my "spiritual intelligence," as Krishna calls it, sees the most truth in the B-Gita as well as in the Gospel of Thomas more so than any other text I've come across.

Thanks again for all the info.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I've been reading quite a bit of the B-Gita. There is no doubt it derives from someone (Krishna) who new the path to merging "the individual consciousness with the Supreme Consciousness". However, there are some parts that.. Krishna died around 3100 BC and the B-Gita was recorded around the 5th century BC at the earliest? Is this the consensus? That is a long period of time in between.

Still, my "spiritual intelligence," as Krishna calls it, sees the most truth in the B-Gita as well as in the Gospel of Thomas more so than any other text I've come across.

Thanks again for all the info.
You are mixing religious tradition with secular history. In Indian religious tradition, the time of the Mahabharata war has been calculated (by some) to be 3000 BCE based on analyzing the chronology provided in the religious documents.Hence Krishna is placed at that time. Historians, based on the social structure and kingdoms depicted in the Mahabharata and correlating with records of the 16 Kingdoms mentioned in many texts from 600 BCE onwards (Buddhism, Jainism, some of the Upanisads)...believe that the Mahabharata is itself a literary epic composed in an oral form at around 600-300 BCE based on memories of a huge war fought between the Kingdom of Kuru and the Kingdom of Panchala at around 900-800 BCE (in a way Illiad was a epic based on memories of the older Mycenaean age of Greece). I personally don't care either way. It is a great book with exceptional exposition into theology and philosophy from an Indic perspective written by people who had superlative insights of intellect and spirit. What is being said there interest me, so I read it, not who said it. (Note:- This concept that ideas and insight, not identity of the speaker matter is also repeated in many places both in Mahabharata and the Upanisads.)
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I've been reading quite a bit of the B-Gita. There is no doubt it derives from someone (Krishna) who new the path to merging "the individual consciousness with the Supreme Consciousness". However, there are some parts that.. Krishna died around 3100 BC and the B-Gita was recorded around the 5th century BC at the earliest? Is this the consensus? That is a long period of time in between.

Still, my "spiritual intelligence," as Krishna calls it, sees the most truth in the B-Gita as well as in the Gospel of Thomas more so than any other text I've come across.

Thanks again for all the info.

What I write below is my own understanding and other Hindus may disagree:-

Mahabharata is an epic on the philosophy of living within the context of War and Peace. The closest analog is indeed Tolstoy's War and Peace (by 2nd favorite book after the Mahabharata). But while Tolstoy tries to provide a semi-historical account and injects his fiction to make it come alive and impart his own philosophical take on the great events, Mahabharata's task is more ambitious. Its writers has seen a (relatively) major war happen between kingdoms and is fearing the onset of civilization destroying Total War as kingdoms continue to grow and expand into empires, empires into states and so on. The fear was very prescient. Look at the Peloponessian wars, China's Spring and Autumn period that absolutely wrecked both civilizations for hundreds of years. Look at the immense disruption of Western Civilization caused by the wars of Romans with the Germanic tribes. Look at how close to complete destruction the entire world came to during the 2nd world war and Cold war. The writers of the Mahabharata feared that a sufficiently sophisticated civilization with immense power but riddled with human follies will inevitably destroy themselves in a Total War. Simple ambition of leaders, petty rivalries and jealousies, even loyalties to king and country and duty are sufficient to bring moderately good or moderately bad people into such a terrible conflict. The writers wrote an epic warning the people of this possibility of Total War by crafting a story that said the last great civilization of the previous epoch (there was one in actuality..the Indus Valley civilization) fell into its destruction in such a Total War and what could be learned from this experience. The story tries to prevent a future by retrojecting that possible future in the past.

The story tells how such a war came to be (or could come to be)
1) Loyalty to nation and kings have become an unquestioned virtue. (Bhisma and Karna)
2) The more peaceable kings and states consistently appease the more belligerent kings and states and give in to their escalating demands. (Yuddhisthira)
3) The kings have the power to bring billions of men into war and enough wealth and loyalty to sustain such a war indefinitely. (Pandavas and Kauravas)
4) The civilization is advanced enough to wield world destroying celestial weapons that ensure mutually assured destruction, and near the end the survivors of the war become desperate enough to use. (Arjuna and Asvathhama)


I hope all of this sounds familiar. You will not find a better and more enjoyable analysis of the causes of the World Wars and the Cold War of the 20th century than this epic poem written 2600 years before the event. The impact of Mahabharata (and parallel developments in Buddhism and Jainism) is the reason why Indian history is not defined by warmongering tyrants winning this "glorious" victory or causing that "glorious" revolution and why its greatest emperor (Asoka) had to apologize for winning a war:-

Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight years after his coronation.[25] One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one hundred thousand were killed and many more died (from other causes). After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas.

Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered. But Beloved-of-the-Gods is pained even more by this -- that Brahmans, ascetics, and householders of different religions who live in those countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees -- that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones. Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected. These misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.

There is no country, except among the Greeks, where these two groups, Brahmans and ascetics, are not found, and there is no country where people are not devoted to one or another religion.[26] Therefore the killing, death or deportation of a hundredth, or even a thousandth part of those who died during the conquest of Kalinga now pains Beloved-of-the-Gods. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods thinks that even those who do wrong should be forgiven where forgiveness is possible.

Even the forest people, who live in Beloved-of-the-Gods' domain, are entreated and reasoned with to act properly. They are told that despite his remorse Beloved-of-the-Gods has the power to punish them if necessary, so that they should be ashamed of their wrong and not be killed. Truly, Beloved-of-the-Gods desires non-injury, restraint and impartiality to all beings, even where wrong has been done.

Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest.[27] And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni.[28] Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. Even where Beloved-of-the-Gods' envoys have not been, these people too, having heard of the practice of Dhamma and the ordinances and instructions in Dhamma given by Beloved-of-the-Gods, are following it and will continue to do so. This conquest has been won everywhere, and it gives great joy -- the joy which only conquest by Dhamma can give. But even this joy is of little consequence. Beloved-of-the-Gods considers the great fruit to be experienced in the next world to be more important.

I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this world and the next.

Imagine Julius Ceasar, the great hero of the Western Civilization writing this. Nah. Can't. :)

 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
For me it cognates with words like freeing, liberating, like that. People get odd ideas about it - but many Hindus have odd ideas about moksha too! I've met a lot who think of moksha as a place you go to after you die, synonymous with heaven!
Yes, I've encountered that too, but generally its been with Hindus who have been heavily influenced by Christianity, like in Sri Lanka, or in Fiji.

The BIG difference I see goes back to the one (Christianity) seeing it as all in this lifetime, versus the other (us) seeing it as over many lifetimes. There are other significant differences too, but for me, that;s the biggy, because it so much effects the way we live moment to moment.
 

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
What I write below is my own understanding and other Hindus may disagree:-

Mahabharata is an epic on the philosophy of living within the context of War and Peace. The closest analog is indeed Tolstoy's War and Peace (by 2nd favorite book after the Mahabharata). But while Tolstoy tries to provide a semi-historical account and injects his fiction to make it come alive and impart his own philosophical take on the great events, Mahabharata's task is more ambitious. Its writers has seen a (relatively) major war happen between kingdoms and is fearing the onset of civilization destroying Total War as kingdoms continue to grow and expand into empires, empires into states and so on. The fear was very prescient. Look at the Peloponessian wars, China's Spring and Autumn period that absolutely wrecked both civilizations for hundreds of years. Look at the immense disruption of Western Civilization caused by the wars of Romans with the Germanic tribes. Look at how close to complete destruction the entire world came to during the 2nd world war and Cold war. The writers of the Mahabharata feared that a sufficiently sophisticated civilization with immense power but riddled with human follies will inevitably destroy themselves in a Total War. Simple ambition of leaders, petty rivalries and jealousies, even loyalties to king and country and duty are sufficient to bring moderately good or moderately bad people into such a terrible conflict. The writers wrote an epic warning the people of this possibility of Total War by crafting a story that said the last great civilization of the previous epoch (there was one in actuality..the Indus Valley civilization) fell into its destruction in such a Total War and what could be learned from this experience. The story tries to prevent a future by retrojecting that possible future in the past.

The story tells how such a war came to be (or could come to be)
1) Loyalty to nation and kings have become an unquestioned virtue. (Bhisma and Karna)
2) The more peaceable kings and states consistently appease the more belligerent kings and states and give in to their escalating demands. (Yuddhisthira)
3) The kings have the power to bring billions of men into war and enough wealth and loyalty to sustain such a war indefinitely. (Pandavas and Kauravas)
4) The civilization is advanced enough to wield world destroying celestial weapons that ensure mutually assured destruction, and near the end the survivors of the war become desperate enough to use. (Arjuna and Asvathhama)


I hope all of this sounds familiar. You will not find a better and more enjoyable analysis of the causes of the World Wars and the Cold War of the 20th century than this epic poem written 2600 years before the event. The impact of Mahabharata (and parallel developments in Buddhism and Jainism) is the reason why Indian history is not defined by warmongering tyrants winning this "glorious" victory or causing that "glorious" revolution and why its greatest emperor (Asoka) had to apologize for winning a war:-



Imagine Julius Ceasar, the great hero of the Western Civilization writing this. Nah. Can't. :)

I see, so the primary motivation of the Mahabharata was more about what you explained rather than as putting together a sort of authoritative text in order to preserve the spiritual teachings of the time. That makes sense. I'd imagine they relied more on oral traditions and myth to pass along the spiritual truths?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Yes, I've encountered that too, but generally its been with Hindus who have been heavily influenced by Christianity, like in Sri Lanka, or in Fiji.

The BIG difference I see goes back to the one (Christianity) seeing it as all in this lifetime, versus the other (us) seeing it as over many lifetimes. There are other significant differences too, but for me, that;s the biggy, because it so much effects the way we live moment to moment.

I found it in Varanasi big time.

That's an excellent point, yes, I agree. Although to be honest, the lines do rather blur. At Skanda Vale, there are many regular devotees, even second-generation devotees, who'd call themselves Christian. Catholic, often. One of the senior Swamis has spoken a few times about how one matures past religion, that religion is something to leave behind. The term religion is slippery of course, so I think he means dogmatic and doctrinal structure and defined beliefs and so on.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I see, so the primary motivation of the Mahabharata was more about what you explained rather than as putting together a sort of authoritative text in order to preserve the spiritual teachings of the time. That makes sense. I'd imagine they relied more on oral traditions and myth to pass along the spiritual truths?

I don't think sayak meant to say that it isn't a very powerful source of spiritual insight and advice. I would certainly say it is, and I think that sayak's regard is similar - but I've been wrong before!
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I see, so the primary motivation of the Mahabharata was more about what you explained rather than as putting together a sort of authoritative text in order to preserve the spiritual teachings of the time. That makes sense. I'd imagine they relied more on oral traditions and myth to pass along the spiritual truths?
Spiritual reflections are part of the process. After all the great philosophers in Greece and China too lived and wrote during such periods. Nothing comes to be unless there is a need. Buddha, Confucious, Socrates all lived in such times of war and uncertainty spurring their investigations and writings. While Buddha and Socrates were more radical (from first principles) type people; in Gita and works of Confucius we see a clearer exposition of insights that came before (from Vedic and early Zhou period) that have been sharpened by the urgent crisis of the times.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I found it in Varanasi big time.

That's an excellent point, yes, I agree. Although to be honest, the lines do rather blur. At Skanda Vale, there are many regular devotees, even second-generation devotees, who'd call themselves Christian. Catholic, often. One of the senior Swamis has spoken a few times about how one matures past religion, that religion is something to leave behind. The term religion is slippery of course, so I think he means dogmatic and doctrinal structure and defined beliefs and so on.


There's this superstition that you get instant moksha for dying at Varanasi, or dipping there. Same for swamis that say you will get 'instant realisation' (for a fee of course) I don't know how all this came to be but I suspect it was originally simple exaggeration for effect, that later got turned into a literal interpretation. It's sad, because common sense and the law of karma will trump it.

Yes, the more mystically or reflective inclined Christians generally found in Orthodox or Catholic will say such things, I've even heard reincarnation mentioned. But it's not mainstream Christianity as far as I know. The one constant with this, as it was with Bede Griffiths, is the unwavering need for Christ to be the guide or whatever.

When the lines blur like that, I'm not sure how the individuals reconcile it all enough to make for clarity rather than a blur.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
"
Treasure Hunter"

Namaste,

...... I am not a Hindu; I am a white guy from the USA and I don't follow any religion.

Ok, I am a Hindu; I am a Brown Bloke from Aussieland, And i try to Follow Dharmah only.

I believe that, like Jesus, Krishna achieved salvation (Moksha) and the parts of Hinduism that I recognize as being true came from him. However, much like in Christianity, stuff gets changed and added because the truth is unpopular.

Hmm, I don't Understand how a follower of no religion can believe in Jesus?

I do have an agenda: my agenda is to, for those that are open to it, help point them to what is true. My intention in this thread is to ask questions in order to understand and diagnose the problem. The best way to solve a problem is to first understand it completely. It's been made clear to me that this forum isn't appropriate for my attempts to give advice, so I won't anymore. But I'm still interested in diagnosing the problem. I figured this forum (in addition to google) is a good place to do that.

Firstly, If i may inquire how do you know that you have truth?

Secondly, What Problem are you talking about?

Trying to keep with forum rules, i will stop at these questions.
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
Namaskaram Ji

I see, so the primary motivation of the Mahabharata was more about what you explained rather than as putting together a sort of authoritative text in order to preserve the spiritual teachings of the time. That makes sense. I'd imagine they relied more on oral traditions and myth to pass along the spiritual truths?

Mahabarata comes under histories but within it is the one chapter we know as the Bhagavad Gita the song of God , ...Bhagavan Sri Krsna , ....that is God with capital G , ....this one chapter is the most explicit of spiritual instructions given by the Lord to his devotee , ....it is the one instruction that dispells all ignorance , it explains the reality of our own true nature and the position of the devotee in relation to God , ....here Sri Krsna reittereates timeless truths for the benifit of this age of Kali , ....
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
For me it cognates with words like freeing, liberating, like that. People get odd ideas about it - but many Hindus have odd ideas about moksha too! I've met a lot who think of moksha as a place you go to after you die, synonymous with heaven!
That is hardly a problem. To differ is our hall-mark. We are not conformists. But to say that Lord Krishna attained 'salvation' is blasphemy. He is the one who provides 'salvation'. He is Lord God Himself, Brahman.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Excellent post, Sayak, as always. Winners all. Let me add something. Injustice to the powerless. The seeds of Mahabharata were sown the day when the blind Kaurava prince Dhritarashtra was married to the beautiful Gandharan princess. Gandharis could not do much, Kurus were powerful. But Shakuni, the brother of the princess vowed that he will bring destruction to the Kurus. That is what he finally was able to achieve by fraudulently defeating Yudhisthira in the dice game and having Draupadi dishonored. :)
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Does salvation not mean the individual soul merging with the Ultimate, thus becoming one with the Ultimate, thus becoming the Ultimate? Doesn't Krishna repeatedly state this idea in the B-Gita?
Actually that is not what salvation means in Christianity, though its more cognate with the Hindu idea of moksha. This is not a Christianity DIR forum, but Christianity affirms the absolute distinction between the Created and the Creator and no merging is possible or conceivable, and thus while in the Kingdom of Heaven on the renewed earth, the saved will exist as citizens and in relationship with God in God's presence, but remain as distinct individuals going about their activities in imperishable bodies along with the other beings of God's host. Paul and Revelation are good sources.



As it is stated in the Gospel of Thomas by Jesus, our faith begins as the size of a mustard seed but it grows and grows.
Thomas? You are a neo-Gnostic? Interesting.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Does salvation not mean the individual soul merging with the Ultimate, thus becoming one with the Ultimate, thus becoming the Ultimate? Doesn't Krishna repeatedly state this idea in the B-Gita?
In Hinduism, it could be one of the two - becoming one, or being in proximity with his/her chosen deity. What Krishna says in Gita can be interpreted in various ways. As an advaitist (believer in non-duality) and an atheist, I do not subscribe to any second entity (God). I am none other than Krishna. The whole universe is Krishna only. You too are Krishna. But many Vaishnavas (worshipers of Vishnu) do not want to combine with the deity. They feel it is more enjoyable to live in his shadow and be a devotee. They say just give us your devotion, we do not want anything else. The same could be said of other streams of Hinduism. Hinduism accepts both views.

The rest of the things like what Christians believe should be discussed in Comparative Religions forum.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
sayak83 .. Do you consider yourself Hindu?
Let me reply for Sayak. No, Sayak is not a Hindu, but he is well-versed in our ways, very balanced, always wonderful to interact with. Why should he be under any obligation to become a Hindu? We do not need to grudge his freedom.

If Sayak wants to add something, he is welcome to do so. :)
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Let me reply for Sayak. No Sayak is not a Hindu, but he is well-versed in our ways, very balanced, always wonderful to interact with. Why should he be under any obligation to become a Hindu?

If Sayak wants to add something, he is welcome to do so. :)
No one is under obligation to be a Hindu. But you are required to be Hindu to comment in this DIR. Non-Hindus may ask respectful questions at the most. Perhaps you personally like what he says so you think this particular individual is OK. If he said things you dislike then he wouldn't be OK.
 
Top