Spirituality Vs Religion

[dattaswami]

Spirituality Vs Religion

Every Religion in this world wants you to get rid of bad qualities at least from today for the admission into that religion which is practically impossible. The reason is that these bad qualities were grown like hills for the past millions of births. This small human life is insufficient even to move them, not to speak of removing them. People can control the bad qualities to some extent by their efforts. These bad qualities are frequently sparking in the minds of even the most pious sages. If one says that he is good and he is devoid of all the bad qualities, it only cheating others, which in turn is cheating oneself. Due to this practically impossible condition, for the religious admission, people have developed allergy towards any religion because the eligibility for admission is impractical.

The religious preachers have confused the whole situation by fusing religion and spiritualism. Religion is the context of GOD to establish peace and justice in this world. In this context, you must control your bad qualities so that you will not disturb the peace and justice and will not harm any good person in this world. If you disturb the world by your bad qualities, God will punish you. But, in this context, it is sufficient if you control the bad qualities since you cannot remove them. The Religion ends here. Some religions strictly end here without any spiritualism.

The spiritualism is the context in which you have to make efforts to reach God. In this context, you need not even control your bad qualities because, God has no personal objection towards your bad qualities. These bad qualities cannot be obstacles in any manner in this context. Moreover, when you turn these bad qualities towards the God, they become your helpers. Any quality whether good or bad, is created by God only to help you in reaching Him. If you realize the original aim of all these qualities, good or bad, why should you control these qualities, which are with you as a helper? No fool controls his helpers. So, any quality when involved in spiritualism is used for its original aim, it becomes a good quality. So all your qualities become good in spiritualism and you need not put any effort to remove or even control them. When the qualities are not used for their original purpose, they become bad qualities. Therefore, whatever qualities turned towards the world, are bad qualities. In this spiritualism, there is no need of any effort even to control these bad qualities.

Then, for what, our effort should be made? Our effort should be concentrated to achieve “Bhakthi” which is the love on God. “Bhakthi” is achieved and is grown by the knowledge of God. For example, you came to know that Bombay City exists. This is the knowledge of existence of Bombay. By this you want to see Bombay. As you know the details of Bombay more and more, your desire to see the city becomes more and more. Knowing details about the Bombay City is again the further knowledge. So, knowledge is directly proportional to desire. First Rukmini heard that there is Lord Krishna on this earth. As she heard more and more about Lord Krishna from Sage Narada, her love on Krishna increased enormously. Narada means he who gives knowledge. Therefore, ‘Jnana”(knowledge) generates and develops “Bhakthi (devotion)”. Due to Bhakthi, the Lord is attained. Gita says the same ‘ONLY BY BHAKTHI I AM ATTAINED’ (‘Bhaktya………’).

[Alethias]

Are you Hindu?

Are you here to teach us or to discuss with us? Because this is a discussion forum.

If you are at all interested in discussing, please tell me what you mean by the word 'God' in your post? Is it measurable or testable in a way that someone like me can use to validate whether or not it even exists? If not, then it is a meaningless word and there is no point in even discussing the rest of your post, since it appears to be a foundational concept to everything else you are saying.

So, dattaswami, what is god? Once you answer that, how would you go about proving that it exists? And once that is accomplished, why should I care? What impact should it have on my life?

[Jobar]

Most of us here are atheists or agnostics, and I know that there are specifically atheistic schools of thought within Hinduism. In fact we have members (Hinduwoman, among others) who will be able to discuss these schools more knowledgeably than most of the rest of us, who come from predominantly Christian countries. I'll alert her to this thread.

[David B]

Welcome dattaswami. It's a pleasure to have someone here representing a religious view that does not spring from the Abrahamic traditions.

I am British, but gave up on Christianity at a young age. Later in life, though when I was still quite a young man, I mistakenly thought that atheism led inexorably to nihilism, and disliking that started exploring the eastern religions. To the point where I had a couple of years of Ashram life. So I have some idea of what you are talking about.

I think that in a forum like this you will have a bit of trouble persuading people that reincarnation - which you seem to at least strongly imply is a reality - is in fact something that can happen in the real world. Much of your post seems to me to be predicated on the reality of reincarnation. But perhaps I am wrong about that - if so please comment.

Do you have any evidence you can point to for the reality of reincarnation?

David

[Haswell]

It seems special pleading for his own deities. I dislike the word 'spiritual' as in its true sense means believing in spirits.

In so far as we use the common meaning, you do not need religion to be 'spiritual' as we recognise it (whilst it is hard to define).

When i see and play with my little Granddaughter I'm as spiritual as anyone. I appreciate love and kindness, art and happiness. I am an atheist. Why would I need to believe in entirely invalidated woowoo ideas to be 'spiritual'?

[dattaswami]

Are you Hindu?

Are you here to teach us or to discuss with us? Because this is a discussion forum.

If you are at all interested in discussing, please tell me what you mean by the word 'God' in your post? Is it measurable or testable in a way that someone like me can use to validate whether or not it even exists? If not, then it is a meaningless word and there is no point in even discussing the rest of your post, since it appears to be a foundational concept to everything else you are saying.

So, dattaswami, what is god? Once you answer that, how would you go about proving that it exists? And once that is accomplished, why should I care? What impact should it have on my life?

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The beginning and the end of the cosmic energy or space or the creation are also unimaginable. Therefore, the beginning and the end are unimaginable for the unimaginable item like God and also for the imaginable item like space.

Therefore, the two points, which are the beginning-less and end-less characteristics cannot help you in understanding the real nature of God. If you start recognizing the God by simply these two points (beginning-less and end-less), you may think that God is an imaginable item like the space or energy or the creation. In fact based on these two characteristics people have imagined God as an imaginable item like space or energy or creation. This concept has misled people to such a low level that people think that God is the very infinite space or infinite energy or infinite creation. Therefore, one should filter the concept of God at this juncture itself. One should think that God has no beginning and no end because the beginning and the end of an unimaginable item are also unimaginable.

[dattaswami]

It seems special pleading for his own deities. I dislike the word 'spiritual' as in its true sense means believing in spirits.

In so far as we use the common meaning, you do not need religion to be 'spiritual' as we recognise it (whilst it is hard to define).

When i see and play with my little Granddaughter I'm as spiritual as anyone. I appreciate love and kindness, art and happiness. I am an atheist. Why would I need to believe in entirely invalidated woowoo ideas to be 'spiritual'?

Playing with your relatives is not spritual......

It is only a justice only, not spiriutal.

Spirituality comes when there is creator invovled in which one serve creator, who is God.

[Haswell]

Who the hell are you to tell me what is spiritual or not?

And you dismiss Buddhism and Taoism by your own definitions.

I smell troll.

[DMB]

Dattaswami, you really do need to back up your statements. Where is there any verification of reincarnation?

If God is unimaginable, why bother to imagine it?

[Eudaimonist]

Spirituality comes when there is creator invovled in which one serve creator, who is God.

I find that many people use the term "spiritual" differently. In their view (and mine), being spiritual doesn't require any service to a Creator God. For instance, Buddhists are regarded as spiritual, even though they probably don't believe in or serve a Creator God.

I personally regard myself as a spiritual atheist.

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable.

I find little use for unimaginable concepts.

If by "God" you mean the universe, we can agree that the universe exists, even if we might not agree on precisely what the universe is, or know everything about its past and future.

Then, for what, our effort should be made? Our effort should be concentrated to achieve “Bhakthi” which is the love on God.

I have no personal interest in devotion to any God, partly for the important reason that I don't believe in the existence of anything that I would regard as "God". I'm an atheist -- a non-believer in divine beings.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[dattaswami]

Dattaswami, you really do need to back up your statements. Where is there any verification of reincarnation?

If God is unimaginable, why bother to imagine it?

The philosophy deals with the discussion of the existence of unimaginable item. When you say that God is unknown, there is a danger of establishment of the non-existence of God. Philosophy says that God is unimaginable and is existing. The Philosophy further says that the unimaginable God enters and pervades a specific known medium, so that you can experience the mediated God. It is just like the unseen electricity entering a seen metallic wire giving you the experience of its existence through the shock.

The philosophy deals with the investigation of the real path to please God etc., Therefore, Philosophy cannot be limited to one single statement, which states that we need not speak about God since God is unimaginable. Some say that the awareness is God and several others say that other imaginable items are God. We have to negate all these proposals by establishing that all these are imaginable items and hence cannot be the unimaginable God. All these aspects are to be dealt in detail and in depth and this makes philosophy a vast subject.
www.universal-spirituality.org

[dattaswami]

Spirituality comes when there is creator invovled in which one serve creator, who is God.

For instance, Buddhists are regarded as spiritual, even though they probably don't believe in or serve a Creator God.

I personally regard myself as a spiritual atheist.

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable.

Mark

Buddha kept silent about God

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words, mind and logic as said in the Veda. Buddha means the Buddhi or Jnana yoga that speaks about the absolute God. Thus He is the greatest incarnation of God. If one thinks Him as atheist, there can be no better fool. Mohammed showed the formless medium in which God exists, which is energy and this is presented by Shankara, because basically energy and awareness are one and the same. The prophet itself means human incarnation. Prophet is carrying on the message of God. The divine knowledge is in Him. Is He not greater than other human beings? Message of divine knowledge is the characteristic of God (Satyam Jnanam – the Veda) and so we say God is in Him. Why do you deny it, when God is omnipresent? Then every human being should give the same message of God, since God is omnipresent. But why Mohammed alone gave it? Because the power of God or knowledge of God is in him only. Then the power of God, in the form of knowledge is not omnipresent.

In any case, you have to accept that either God or His Power is only in Prophet Mohammed. That is what human incarnation is. You are fighting with us, without analysing the concept of human incarnation. Thus Buddha, Mohammed and Shankara have made the single phase, which was essential to the level of the followers at that time. The concept of human incarnation was well established by Krishna and Jesus. You can find all three branches of Hinduism (Advaita, Visishta Advaita, Dvaita) in Christianity because Jesus told that He and God are one and the same (Advaita), that He is the son of God (Visishta Advaita) and that He is the messenger of God (Dvaita). The stage of philosophy was expressed according to the required stage of the people of that time.

[DMB]

I don't think you can talk about "the" philosophy, as though there is only one type or one school of thought. Do you mean "my philosophy"?

[DMB]

Dattaswami, there always have been and there still are people who claim some sort of divine status or whose followers claim it for them. But claims don't make something true.

[dattaswami]

I don't think you can talk about "the" philosophy, as though there is only one type or one school of thought. Do you mean "my philosophy"?

Philosophy, which is the spiritual knowledge, travels in one direction in the circle of research. Science, which is the physical knowledge, travels in the opposite direction in the same circle of research. A Philosopher or a Scientist should travel extensively, so that they will meet at the same point in the circle. If they are in the middle of their journey only, they will be opposite to each other and therefore, will fight with each other. The Philosopher says that God is beyond this world and He is inexplicable. The Scientist says that this world itself is God and accepts the inexplicable points in the nature. The Philosopher says that God pervades all over the world. The Scientist accepts the inexplicable nature of the world, though some concepts of the world are explicable. When God is inexplicable, the very characteristic nature of the God is only inexplicability. Philosopher calls the explicability as the creation and the inexplicability as God. The explicable part is agreed by both philosopher and scientist. The inexplicable part of the world is also accepted by both. This inexplicability is called as God by the Philosopher and the Scientist calls the same as inexplicability. The Scientist says that there is wire and heat in a hot wire. The Philosopher says that the fire and the wire are co-existing. The only difference is in words. The Scientist calls heat and the Philosopher calls the heat as fire. The wire is the explicable part of the world, which is agreed by all. A Scientist calls the other inexplicable part as a property by calling it as heat. The Philosopher calls the same as the possessor of the property i.e., fire. The intensive heat is fire.

Thus the possessor of a property and the property are one and the same. The Scientist says the independent existence of the inexplicable power as an independent existence of a field of energy. The Philosopher says that there is a substratum of that field of energy, which is called as God and which, is not perceived so far. The Scientist accepts that they have to go still deeper. The Philosopher infers the existence of the substratum in such a deeper state. The argument of the Philosopher is that power cannot independently exist and needs a possessor. Suppose the Sun is not seen due to overlapping cloud, it should not be concluded that the light transmitting through the cloud is independently existing power. The Scientist may see the Sun in future after piercing through the cloud. So, where is the difference or quarrel between a matured Philosopher and a matured Scientist?

The inference of the Philosopher is based on the perception of a similar concept existing in the explicable part of the world. The Scientist does not believe this because it is not a perception of the direct concept. Both have not seen the Sun. Both accept the perception of light. Both accept that their search and research has not reached the end. At this stage the Philosopher infers the Sun, whereas the Scientist does not infer the Sun but still accepts that the final truth is still to be achieved after piercing through the cloud of ignorance. At this point the support for the Philosopher is the Human Incarnation, which preaches the existence of such substratum. If the Scientist accepts the alternative genuine path of the miracles, the human incarnation definitely becomes the final authority about the existence of the possessor of such inexplicable power. If the Scientist has patience to reach the bottom most end, he will become a spiritual philosopher. An impatient Scientist existing in some middle place of the path becomes the atheist.

[BWE]

It seems special pleading for his own deities. I dislike the word 'spiritual' as in its true sense means believing in spirits.

In so far as we use the common meaning, you do not need religion to be 'spiritual' as we recognise it (whilst it is hard to define).

When i see and play with my little Granddaughter I'm as spiritual as anyone. I appreciate love and kindness, art and happiness. I am an atheist. Why would I need to believe in entirely invalidated woowoo ideas to be 'spiritual'?
rex said it well I think:
What does it mean? What does "spirituality" mean? Do you have to be a dualist to attach any meaning to these words. I ask this because all my life I have had difficulty understanding these terms. You will get a perfectly serious discussion about, say, education or hospital care and there will be demands for spiritual provision for children or patients and I don't know what the hell it means.

If I just think spiritual = woo, will that be right or wrong? Please help me out over this.I haven't read this thread, but I'm happy to give you my answer because I think this is a good question.

First, spirituality and religion, though often conflated, are different in very important ways. Religion is more about ritual, conformity, while spirituality is more about creativity and freedom.

In that light, I view spirituality as personal. It does and should mean something different for each individual. In general it is necessary that each of us needs to make sense of the world and our own place in it, to search for meaning in our lives, fulfillment, happiness, purpose, self-actualization and that sort of thing. If religion provides those things for a person, then religion for that person is spiritual. Otherwise, religion is unnecessary or can even hinder a person's spiritual journey.

It can be oppressive when the term spirituality is made to fit a mold determined by a group, especially by powerful groups who attempt to force others into conformity of their mold.

If you have no need of the term spirituality, then choose whatever term(s) you need.

[BWE]

Spirituality comes when there is creator invovled in which one serve creator, who is God.

For instance, Buddhists are regarded as spiritual, even though they probably don't believe in or serve a Creator God.

I personally regard myself as a spiritual atheist.

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable.Mark

Buddha kept silent about God

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words, mind and logic as said in the Veda.no. no he didn't. That is false and uninformed. And also, even if he had, let's say Bob kept silent about god. that in no way means anything about god. I haven't mentioned any number of things I don't believe in. But Buddha quite specifically said there is no eternal soul and what gods there may be do not live with mortals and they are not enlightened.

Buddha means the Buddhi or Jnana yoga that speaks about the absolute God. Thus He is the greatest incarnation of God.
Jeesus christ on a popsicle stick. Did you just make all this up or did someone actually tell you all this bs?

If one thinks Him as atheist, there can be no better fool. Mohammed showed the formless medium in which God exists, which is energy and this is presented by Shankara, because basically energy and awareness are one and the same. The prophet itself means human incarnation. Prophet is carrying on the message of God. The divine knowledge is in Him. Is He not greater than other human beings? Message of divine knowledge is the characteristic of God (Satyam Jnanam – the Veda) and so we say God is in Him. Why do you deny it, when God is omnipresent? Then every human being should give the same message of God, since God is omnipresent. But why Mohammed alone gave it? Because the power of God or knowledge of God is in him only. Then the power of God, in the form of knowledge is not omnipresent.

In any case, you have to accept that either God or His Power is only in Prophet Mohammed. That is what human incarnation is. You are fighting with us, without analysing the concept of human incarnation. Thus Buddha, Mohammed and Shankara have made the single phase, which was essential to the level of the followers at that time. The concept of human incarnation was well established by Krishna and Jesus. You can find all three branches of Hinduism (Advaita, Visishta Advaita, Dvaita) in Christianity because Jesus told that He and God are one and the same (Advaita), that He is the son of God (Visishta Advaita) and that He is the messenger of God (Dvaita). The stage of philosophy was expressed according to the required stage of the people of that time.
ahhh,

you are muslim? And potentially defend the taliban over at talkrational?

[Eudaimonist]

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words, mind and logic as said in the Veda.

I have it on good authority from a knowledgable Tibetan Buddhist that while the Buddha kept silent about a Creator God in one sutta, he clearly argued against the existence of a Creator God in others.

Buddha means the Buddhi or Jnana yoga that speaks about the absolute God.

False. In one sutta, the Buddha is asked if he is a god. He replies "no". What asked what his is, he replies "I am awake." Buddha means "awakened one". This doesn't mean anything like "absolute God".

Your facts seem to be in error.

Thus He is the greatest incarnation of God.

This is certainly not what the Buddha said!

If one thinks Him as atheist, there can be no better fool.

Only if I am mistaken. If I am correct, and I have good reason to think that I am, then you are the fool.

Mohammed showed the formless medium in which God exists, which is energy and this is presented by Shankara, because basically energy and awareness are one and the same. The prophet itself means human incarnation. Prophet is carrying on the message of God. The divine knowledge is in Him. Is He not greater than other human beings?

Are you kidding me? Why would I think of Mohammed in this way? I'm not sure if you fully understand this. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in divine knowledge. I don't believe in any formless medium in which God exists. I don't believe that Mohammed is greater than other human beings.

You don't seem to understand your audience here. You might want to ask more questions and learn more about our worldviews.

Message of divine knowledge is the characteristic of God (Satyam Jnanam – the Veda) and so we say God is in Him. Why do you deny it, when God is omnipresent?

I don't believe in the existence of your God. Why would I believe that God is omnipresent?

Then every human being should give the same message of God, since God is omnipresent. But why Mohammed alone gave it?

Are you a Muslim? I'm not one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Alethias]

Are you Hindu?

Are you here to teach us or to discuss with us? Because this is a discussion forum.

If you are at all interested in discussing, please tell me what you mean by the word 'God' in your post? Is it measurable or testable in a way that someone like me can use to validate whether or not it even exists? If not, then it is a meaningless word and there is no point in even discussing the rest of your post, since it appears to be a foundational concept to everything else you are saying.

So, dattaswami, what is god? Once you answer that, how would you go about proving that it exists? And once that is accomplished, why should I care? What impact should it have on my life?

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The beginning and the end of the cosmic energy or space or the creation are also unimaginable. Therefore, the beginning and the end are unimaginable for the unimaginable item like God and also for the imaginable item like space.

Therefore, the two points, which are the beginning-less and end-less characteristics cannot help you in understanding the real nature of God. If you start recognizing the God by simply these two points (beginning-less and end-less), you may think that God is an imaginable item like the space or energy or the creation. In fact based on these two characteristics people have imagined God as an imaginable item like space or energy or creation. This concept has misled people to such a low level that people think that God is the very infinite space or infinite energy or infinite creation. Therefore, one should filter the concept of God at this juncture itself. One should think that God has no beginning and no end because the beginning and the end of an unimaginable item are also unimaginable.You present a statement that is not possible to either validate or invalidate. Thus, I have no reason to accept that there is any truth in your statement.

In practice, I most commonly hear or read statements like this in the realms of religion and con artists. The primary difference between the two is that most that are promoting their religion actually believe their own con game.

In areas where validating the truth or falsehood really makes a difference, there is always a way to prove something such as this. In other words, there needs to be a measure that if it fails, it shows the words to be false. Without that, you may feel you have a point in maintaining your belief, but you give me absolutely no reason other than trusting you to adopt yours, and no offense, but I don't trust you.

Interesting post, though :)

[BioBeing]

Who the hell are you to tell me what is spiritual or not?

And you dismiss Buddhism and Taoism by your own definitions.

I smell troll.

A quick google tells me this guy is posting this stuff on a lot of forums.

Hey, dattaswami. Why don't you slow down on the cut and paste posting and engage in a little more actual conversation?

[LoneWolf]

Dattaswami, you really do need to back up your statements. Where is there any verification of reincarnation?

If God is unimaginable, why bother to imagine it?

The philosophy deals with the discussion of the existence of unimaginable item. When you say that God is unknown, there is a danger of establishment of the non-existence of God.

Even his replies to our questions aren't original (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+philosophy+deals+with+the+discussion+of+t he+existence+of+unimaginable+item.+When+you+say+th at+God+is+unknown%2C+there+is+a+danger+of+establis hment+of+the+non-existence+of+God.%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enVN331VN331&ie=UTF-8).

If you want to have a conversation than participate, don't just copy and paste across the web.

[BioBeing]

Dattaswami, you really do need to back up your statements. Where is there any verification of reincarnation?

If God is unimaginable, why bother to imagine it?

The philosophy deals with the discussion of the existence of unimaginable item. When you say that God is unknown, there is a danger of establishment of the non-existence of God.

Even his replies to our questions aren't original (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+philosophy+deals+with+the+discussion+of+t he+existence+of+unimaginable+item.+When+you+say+th at+God+is+unknown%2C+there+is+a+danger+of+establis hment+of+the+non-existence+of+God.%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enVN331VN331&ie=UTF-8).

If you want to have a conversation than participate, don't just copy and paste across the web.

I just made that same observation (about a different post!) in one of his/her other spam threads here.

[HinduWoman]

Proof of this thing called God?
After all there is no evidence except sayings of men.

[dattaswami]

Proof of this thing called God?
After all there is no evidence except sayings of men.

Miracles are done even by demons and black magicians and therefore cannot be the identifying marks of God. Miracles alone are not sufficient to detect the Lord. Krishna is identified by not miracles but by excellent knowledge of Gita. Krishna lifted the mountain but Ravana also lifted the Kailasa Mountain. You should not test God by demanding miracles and this was told by Jesus to Satan, when Satan asked Him to convert the stone into bread. The saint asks Me to kill him and give him life again as proof. In the history of human incarnations no body asked like this and no human incarnation did like this. If such challenge is thrown, a demon will certainly come forward with a miracle. Lord Krishna killed several evil people but never gave life to them. Due to His plan only, Abhimanyu was killed. When Subhadra asked to give life to him, He refused. But He gave life to Parikshit and brought back the dead son of His Guru. He did miracles in the case of exceptionally deserving devotees only, but not on any challenge. Whenever the devotee deserves and the Lord by Himself wishes, any miracle can take place spontaneously. Sukracharaya knows to give life to a killed person but he is not God. Vatapi and Ilala were demons. Ilala kills Vatapi and serves him as food to the guest. Then Ilala calls Vatapi. Vatapi becomes alive and comes out by tearing the stomach of guest. Does this means that they are God?

The saint told that Krishna only created, maintained and dissolved the Universe, which is an exceptional miracle. But Krishna did not dissolve all this Universe and created it again keeping you separately as a spectator. He only showed the cosmic form as a vision to Arjuna. In the vision He created the Universe, maintained it and finally dissolved it. During this vision the universe is not affected. Even Durroyadhana saw it and discarded it as hypnotic illusion. Arjuna believed the vision for some time. Udanka appreciated the vision forever. Of course, this vision proves that Krishna is God. Since Veda and Brahma sutra also gives this as the super most miracle of identification which is not possible for any body except God. On one Guru Purnima day I was giving a divine discourse and suddenly I stood for five minutes silently in highly excited state. Then I sat again in the chair. I asked two devotees in the crowd to tell what they saw simultaneously. Both of them told that they had the vision of cosmic form (Viswaroopam). Of course, God in Me gave that vision and I have nothing to do with it.

If God is not in Me how that vision was given? How I identified only those two devotees? How I said that both of them had the same vision and they should explain it to other devotees? If one person gets the vision it may be illusion. How the same illusion is created to both the devotees simultaneously. The analysis made me also believe that God (Parabrahman) is present in Me. When God is given to the devotees through human body He is called as Datta. Veda also says that the special divine knowledge comes form God only (Satyam Jananam, Prajnanam..).

Gita also says the same (Jnanitvatmaiva…..). I gave importance to these aspects in analyzing that God is in Me to give this special knowledge and that special vision. Of course, Duroyodhana discarded even that as hypnotiam. Brahma sutras also tell these two aspects as the identifying marks (Janmadyasya…, Sastrayonitvat).

[Daydream]

dattaswami, have you ever met a sanctimonious religious fanatic who intended to proselytize you with their brand of religious delusions?

[HinduWoman]

dattaswami your entire answer to me relied on myths which are not proof of any kind.

[dattaswami]

dattaswami your entire answer to me relied on myths which are not proof of any kind.

The essence of all the religions is one and the same since the Universal God gives it. The religions are different from each other because the religious leaders who are the human beings create the material that surrounds the essence. The skeleton is one and the same and there is no difference in the skeletons of the human beings. The difference lies only in the external materials covering the skeletons, which are flesh, skin etc., in these external materials differences arose due to deficiencies. Suppose there are two students. One is weak in physics and the other is weak in chemistry.

Each student mocks the other for the deficiency. Therefore, the deficiency is the root of difference and quarrels in the religions. The reason for the deficiency is the human brain that developed the external body of the spiritual knowledge. Therefore, the spiritual knowledge is the skeleton and the religion is its body. The deficiency in a religion can be removed by taking the merits of the other religions. Every religion has deficiency and the rectification of that deficiency should be from other religion without any ego and jealousy. Do not think that you are without defects. Do not think that your parents have no defects. Do not think that your teachers and preachers do not have defects. Therefore, observe others and take the merits from anybody without prejudice.

The blind thinking that your nation, your state, your district, your town or village, your caste, your family, your parents, etc., is the best or highest should be eradicated from your brain. Always base your self on your analysis and commonsense that is observed from the examples in the world. Your elders might have polluted the scriptures but this world is the best scripture written by God. This world-scripture is Universal without any color of any religion. You can develop the entire spiritual knowledge by observing this world and the scientific knowledge existing in the various examples or items of the world. Any human being cannot pollute these. You must be scientific and analytical in your belief. The ignorant and clever religious elders always exploit blind belief.

[Ray Moscow]

Spirituality Vs Religion

Every Religion in this world wants you to get rid of bad qualities at least from today for the admission into that religion which is practically impossible. The reason is that these bad qualities were grown like hills for the past millions of births. This small human life is insufficient even to move them, not to speak of removing them. People can control the bad qualities to some extent by their efforts. These bad qualities are frequently sparking in the minds of even the most pious sages. If one says that he is good and he is devoid of all the bad qualities, it only cheating others, which in turn is cheating oneself. Due to this practically impossible condition, for the religious admission, people have developed allergy towards any religion because the eligibility for admission is impractical.

The religious preachers have confused the whole situation by fusing religion and spiritualism. Religion is the context of GOD to establish peace and justice in this world. In this context, you must control your bad qualities so that you will not disturb the peace and justice and will not harm any good person in this world. If you disturb the world by your bad qualities, God will punish you. But, in this context, it is sufficient if you control the bad qualities since you cannot remove them. The Religion ends here. Some religions strictly end here without any spiritualism.

The spiritualism is the context in which you have to make efforts to reach God. In this context, you need not even control your bad qualities because, God has no personal objection towards your bad qualities. These bad qualities cannot be obstacles in any manner in this context. Moreover, when you turn these bad qualities towards the God, they become your helpers. Any quality whether good or bad, is created by God only to help you in reaching Him. If you realize the original aim of all these qualities, good or bad, why should you control these qualities, which are with you as a helper? No fool controls his helpers. So, any quality when involved in spiritualism is used for its original aim, it becomes a good quality. So all your qualities become good in spiritualism and you need not put any effort to remove or even control them. When the qualities are not used for their original purpose, they become bad qualities. Therefore, whatever qualities turned towards the world, are bad qualities. In this spiritualism, there is no need of any effort even to control these bad qualities.

Then, for what, our effort should be made? Our effort should be concentrated to achieve “Bhakthi” which is the love on God. “Bhakthi” is achieved and is grown by the knowledge of God. For example, you came to know that Bombay City exists. This is the knowledge of existence of Bombay. By this you want to see Bombay. As you know the details of Bombay more and more, your desire to see the city becomes more and more. Knowing details about the Bombay City is again the further knowledge. So, knowledge is directly proportional to desire. First Rukmini heard that there is Lord Krishna on this earth. As she heard more and more about Lord Krishna from Sage Narada, her love on Krishna increased enormously. Narada means he who gives knowledge. Therefore, ‘Jnana”(knowledge) generates and develops “Bhakthi (devotion)”. Due to Bhakthi, the Lord is attained. Gita says the same ‘ONLY BY BHAKTHI I AM ATTAINED’ (‘Bhaktya………’).

Whoa, Datta. You really turned on the time machine for this one: verbatim from 2006 (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=60943)!

Truth (and of course spam) are eternal!

[BWE]

well. that pretty well sums up with a scratch head smiley.