2012
| 16 May 2011
The theory of Re-incarnation of souls, also known as the cycle of birth and death, is very central to Hindu philosophy. To a common Muslim this is a new idea which he/she has not previously encountered. We may not accept it, but we cannot cavil at the logic of it; more especially as it is born from the same causes which, in Muslim theology, give rise to the concept of Hell and Paradise. If life on earth is a life of preparation in which we have to attain certain qualifications essential for our entry into Paradise (Brahma Lok in the words of Shri Krishna), will it not be necessary, so would argue a Hindu divine, for us to return to earthly life again, if we have left it without acquiring the necessary perfection?
We had to attain certain experiences not available in the next world; we left this world without doing so and consequently we do need to come back to it again. This logic is not bad and the reasoning is quite plausible; but they do not coincide with what we observe in the universe.
For example, a fruit may leave a tree in defective condition. It need not go back into the branch of the tree it came from, to make up its deficiencies. The food we eat everyday will eventually take the form of a sperm and ovum, which will convert itself into the human shape of a child. The sperm has to pass through many stages before it reaches that stage. Things not properly cooked are sometimes taken in by us; they cause pains in the stomach, but the trouble is removed by medical treatment. The food is not sent back from stomach to the kitchen to be cooked again. We take medicine to help digestion, and enable the food to pass through the regions where it is made into blood. Sometimes, when, through the function of the stomach or through the function of a diseased liver, we produce poor blood, we seek a remedy in medicine, but no drop of that poor blood is allowed to return to the liver or the stomach for the purpose of rectification.
If therefore, this rule be universal in Nature, that the thing which has failed to attain the requisite state of perfection in one state of being is passed into the state of being next highest, where its deficiencies are corrected; and if such a system be more expedient and more conducive to the rapidity of the real progress then I fail to find any reason for subscribing to the theory of re-incarnation or transmigration of the soul.
THEORY OF KARMA
Closely linked to this theory is the doctrine of Karma (actions). The two, in fact, are one and the same theory, representing different aspects of the same doctrine. The doctrine of Karma takes for its genesis the diversity of circumstances in which people find themselves at their birth, from causes beyond their control. Some are born in affluence, poverty and indigence; some are born into the world with bodily defects, while others are blessed with bodily perfection; and this disparity, producing arbitrarily, comfort and discomfort, happiness and misery does seem a strange blot on the Divine Providence.
The theory of Karma, in Hindu theology, thus explains this seeming incongruity in the Divine dispensation. According to this theory, all that we receive at our birth in the form of happiness or misery, and all the differences in social status that come into our being at birth are the outcome of our deeds in the life before the present life. We take birth after birth to complete our course on this earth, and what we sow in the one; we must reap in the next. No one would question the logic of the view that human society works on the Laws of Actions. That actions must bear their fruit is the basic principle of every other religion, except Pauline Christianity. Differences in social position, in many cases, undoubtedly arise from our own actions. We are the creators of our own comfort and misery.
According to this philosophy, inferiority of a person to a second person in the social scale is due some of his sins in his bygone life. However, differences in occupation and employment are the motive power of social machinery. We must serve each other in a wide variety of differing capacities, if adequate contribution is to be made to the common comfort. If, however, difference of this kind is attributed to some past sin, then comfort and progress must demand the existence of evil. Men of one generation must necessarily commit sin so that, in the next, they may be reborn in the lower for the purpose of contributing to the happiness of the upper social stratum. What kind of philosophy is that considers sin and misdeeds essential to maintain and sustain the cycle of life. It is absurd on the very face of it. The process of procreation demands difference of sex. You may ascribe your present difference from another man to some cause in your previous life, but where were the actions which caused difference of sex in the first pair, whence our species has its being?
HAPPINESS A BENEFICENCE AND NOT A FRUIT OF ACTION
If all our present means of happiness are given to us as a reward for past actions, how are we to explain the happiness which comes to us providentially? Much of our happiness is derived from the varied manifestations of Nature, like the Sun, the Moon, the Earth and all that it provides; and the proportion of happiness that we acquire through our actions depends too, upon the working out, by us, of sources of Nature which were in existence long before man came on the Earth. How can all this be the reward of our past actions? We cannot live without the pre-existence of millions of things in the universe; they all add to our happiness. They all come as beneficence of God, and not in reward of actions. Divine Providence, as exhibited in Nature, makes Divine Blessing, which is the main store of our happiness, a pre-existing thing; while the theory of Karma makes our actions to pre-exist the Divine Blessing, which is absurd on the face of it.
If all our happiness has to arise from out actions, our happiness would be next to nothing. What comes out of our actions in the shape of happiness sinks into insignificance when compared with what we get as Divine Blessings. If we get everything due to the actions of our past life, then we need not be grateful to God anymore. As you can see, this is a blot on the Beneficence of God.
THE THEORY WEAKENS THE SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY
If our actions receive their birth and mould from our beliefs, we should not entertain any tenet or doctrine which tends to ruin our sense of responsibility, and to create in us oral or mental imbecility. Fatalism, in the received sense of the word, was condemned by Islam for this very reason. Vicarious Atonement in Christianity is another condemnable belief. If another has to bear the burden my burden, incentive for action, on my part, is lost. Similarly, we strive hard to alleviate our misery, because we believe that it is possible to alleviate it; but when we find that our trouble is absolutely without remedy, our zeal is gone, for what is the use of trying in such a case? Our misery, under the theory of Karma has come to us as the fruit of some past actions. It cannot be undone, and all our efforts to undo it will be in vain. I committed some wrong in a previous life, I must suffer for its consequences in the present life, and all my efforts to be free from it are simply to give the lie to that theory. If 'A' is down will cholera which he has got on account of some past wrong, it hardly befit him to seek medical relief if he subscribes to the principle of Karma. The theory thus makes man a fatalist and thereby impedes human progress.
Pain in this life, they say, is the penalty of past actions. If persecution and want of comfort may come within the category of pain, no progress in human society has, till now, been achieved without them as the famous proverb goes, "No gains without pains". The world has seen its best benefactors in the persons of prophets, reformers and philosophers, but, unfortunately, they are the persons who have always been subjected to every kind of persecution. Similarly all scientific discoveries, to which we owe so much of our comfort and happiness, are fruits of pain and hardship. Should we believe that all these great teachers and inventors were wicked men and sinners in the past life, because they have been for the most part persecuted people and leading the most painful lives?
No one gets happiness without some pain and according to this theory; pain is the penalty of sin. Evil therefore becomes essential for enjoying happiness in the life to come. Such a theory cannot give birth to high character. If 'A' receives some injury from 'B', it is, as a Hindu would say, to make up for some injury received by 'B' from 'A' in his previous birth. Thus, offence becomes a justification in the eye of a culprit, if he believes in the philosophy of Karma. I need not be thankful to my benefactors, because, I receive from them only what I gave to them in charity in the past life. The more I think upon this subject, keeping in view all the consequences to which such beliefs much logically lead, the more I am strengthened in my conviction that this philosophy is most unfavourable to our moral growth.
The explanation given by our Holy Quran of the misery around us, and of the social differences which we have been discussing, appeals to me more, as it strengthens my sense of responsibility. Parents are more interested in their children than in their own selves. the welfare of the family often keeps its members away from such misdeeds as are sometimes unscrupulously committed by those who lead single lives.
If the consequences of every action I do be shared by my own children, I shall make my actions more steady and righteous. But if I alone have to reap what I sow, despair or temptation may, sometimes, lead me to extremes. Belief, therefore, that children born with bodily defects, owe their misfortune to paternity, which sometimes may come to them from three or four generations back, will generally prove a more efficacious check to intemperate actions, than the belief that the children are themselves responsible for their physical deficiencies. A person may not care much for the evil consequences of his actions if they are to be confined to him; but his care to see his family happy may reform him.
PLEASURE AND PAIN
The whole difficulty is one of misconception; or rather to conceive adequately of pain, or of pleasure, or of the real object and purpose of this our earthly pilgrimage; for what is pain to one is pleasure to another, who is to decide whether prince or peasant sleeps sounder in the nights or whether the millionaire or the bricklayer has the just perception of the end of life? The sublimation of our consciousness is the main purpose of our sojourn on earth; riches and poverty are both helpful and harmful to this end; helpful to one and harmful to another; a blessing to 'A', a curse to 'B', and vice versa. Consequently, there can be no ground whatever for any theory which ascribes the prosperity and poverty of this life to the good and evil deeds of an existence that is past.
And the same is true of all other cases wherein different persons have been variously endowed with the gifts of God. In the ordinary way of life, the organs of sense are the vehicles of knowledge and any deficiency in one tends to strengthen the perceptive power of the others. Blind persons are more imaginative that those who possess the faculties of physical sight; and if imagination be a blessing and an aid to the perfection of knowledge, then here is a blessing disguised as a curse.
When sometimes a hard problem arises, to which it is necessary that we devote our whole minds, to the exclusion of all other matters, we choose to site with closed eyes, in a room apart, so that we may be distracted by neither seeing nor hearing. In other words, we deprive ourselves of the use of these senses in order that we may use those that remain to the fuller advantage. The implication of this would be that the use of these senses of hearing and sight causes a distraction to our imagination process. So, it follows, at least at that time, the loss of the organs of sense must be a blessing, if anything, a reward for the past good deeds, rather than the punishment of old misdoings.
Don't forget to share this post
Similar articles
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 8346
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (182)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Muhammad Ayub, May 17, 2011
Very good analysis of this flawed concept. It would have been nice if you had dealt with the scriptural evidence as well. What do you say?
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 17, 2011
Thanks brother for your appreciation. Regarding dealing with scriptural evidence, that is in the pipeline. I have decided to deal with that in a separate article. In this article, I only restricted myself to the logical flaws of the theory of rebirth.
Peace.
Peace.
written by KalBhairav, May 17, 2011
I appreciate the initiative to use logic and rationality to examine various theological concepts. Taking this further, hopefully you guys dont simply consider things to be true because a book says so. Critical and skeptical analysis is needed in all walks of life, especially theology.
That being said, reincarnation can be defended even without taking recourse to Hindu scriptures. Even atheists probably cannot find fault with the following logic of reincarnation. Here it is (in quotes because these are not my words, I am quoting from someone else on the web):
If this is not reincarnation, what is?
Now, I would like to hear some empirically verifiable logical thoughts about the truth of existence of Judgement Day, eternal heaven and eternal hellfire.
What say you, Abrahamics ;-)
That being said, reincarnation can be defended even without taking recourse to Hindu scriptures. Even atheists probably cannot find fault with the following logic of reincarnation. Here it is (in quotes because these are not my words, I am quoting from someone else on the web):
(After burial, cremation, etc.) The body is eaten by maggots and it becomes a part of them. The fluids leach into gound, mix with ground water and circulate sometimes coming out in springs, sometimes through roots of plants. We drink that water, eat those plants, it again becomes us. The rest turns into powder (nitrogen and calcium) and enriches the soil, helping plants to sprout. The change from living to non-living and vice-versa is happening all the time, even during the time when we live. The cycle never stops, life never comes to a close. Our bodies are made of all that. It has been like that from the beginning of universe, it would be till the end of universe; and then there could be a new cycle (though I am not sure about that) [since we are using empirically verifiable logical thought here].
If this is not reincarnation, what is?
Now, I would like to hear some empirically verifiable logical thoughts about the truth of existence of Judgement Day, eternal heaven and eternal hellfire.
What say you, Abrahamics ;-)
written by Apolloreach, May 18, 2011
This is a poorly researched piece of work. I do not say this because I am a Hindu but because the author has not be able to integrate the multiplicity of the doctrinal views on rebirth and karma. More importantly, the author is unable to rise beyond his bias against Hinduism or against Christianity. A subject like this is an apt case to understand how academically motivated an author is but if beating Hinduism with the stick of karma and rebirth is all what the author wanted to achieve, he is late by almost 900 years,as, within the theology of Hinduism, tons have been written in support of and against the concept of rebirth and karma.
By the way, if the author wanted to understand a non-Hindu take on rebirth, he ought to have read Plato's works. And if he wanted to know the beliefs of rebirth in Islam, I am sure Mushafiq knows what Alawis of Syria believe in and why Ismailis
indulge in the ritual of chantas or the beliefs of Ghulat sub-sect in Islam.
Now to the meat of my response. The scriptures of Vedic dharma do not force feed the concept of rebirth or karma as a MANDATED one. If anything, these two concepts gained acceptability during the period of Vedanta.
The core of the concept of rebirth: The idea behind rebirth is not about accumalating some set of qualifications to break away from the cycle of births,as the author alludes, to but shedding away the wants and needs of an individual that have a physical / material angle. The true nature of SELF cannot be known unless ego conciousness is overcome. Possessing ego conciousness leads to attachments driven by desires that inturn lead an individual to assume proprietorship of things/persons that he/she comes across and this in turn leads to miseries. Only when an individual matures to the extent that he/she overcomes this trait can the birth cycle be broken. This is a key aspect of rebirth.The author has tried out many examples on metamorphosis to explain away rebirth in a faulty way.In order to achieve what's stated above the individual has to execute his duties dispassionately by leavnig the fruit of results of his actions to the Almighty. The author has completely missed capturing the essence of the concept of rebirth in Hinduism.
The core of the concept of karma: Karma in English simply means action.The author here picks and chooses what he wants to present to the audience from what he claims to be Hindu theology. Had he really read the Hindu theological view of Karma, he
would have clearly stated, how Karma gets created and what are the divisions of Karma, as per Hindu theology.
By the way, if the author wanted to understand a non-Hindu take on rebirth, he ought to have read Plato's works. And if he wanted to know the beliefs of rebirth in Islam, I am sure Mushafiq knows what Alawis of Syria believe in and why Ismailis
indulge in the ritual of chantas or the beliefs of Ghulat sub-sect in Islam.
Now to the meat of my response. The scriptures of Vedic dharma do not force feed the concept of rebirth or karma as a MANDATED one. If anything, these two concepts gained acceptability during the period of Vedanta.
The core of the concept of rebirth: The idea behind rebirth is not about accumalating some set of qualifications to break away from the cycle of births,as the author alludes, to but shedding away the wants and needs of an individual that have a physical / material angle. The true nature of SELF cannot be known unless ego conciousness is overcome. Possessing ego conciousness leads to attachments driven by desires that inturn lead an individual to assume proprietorship of things/persons that he/she comes across and this in turn leads to miseries. Only when an individual matures to the extent that he/she overcomes this trait can the birth cycle be broken. This is a key aspect of rebirth.The author has tried out many examples on metamorphosis to explain away rebirth in a faulty way.In order to achieve what's stated above the individual has to execute his duties dispassionately by leavnig the fruit of results of his actions to the Almighty. The author has completely missed capturing the essence of the concept of rebirth in Hinduism.
The core of the concept of karma: Karma in English simply means action.The author here picks and chooses what he wants to present to the audience from what he claims to be Hindu theology. Had he really read the Hindu theological view of Karma, he
would have clearly stated, how Karma gets created and what are the divisions of Karma, as per Hindu theology.
written by Apolloreach, May 18, 2011
Karma gets created by an individual by way of thoughts,deeds, words and interactions with other individuals. There is something called sanchita karma (the sum of past karmas),prarabdha karma( that karma that is the reason for the current birth from the sanchita karma) and kriya karma (the karma that creates currently). Karma is dependent on rebirth. If there is no rebirth there is no karma.And why does rebirth occur? As we saw above it is owing to an individual's unwillingness to rise above the material / phycial joys of fruits of action.If today, I envy,say a Sachin Tendulkar, his skill and his money, I am sure to be born once more. Unless this trait is destroyed, the cycle of rebirths and hence karma will continue.
Again the authhor seems to have missed the plot from whatever he read about this in the Hindu theology, he claims he read. Within the Hindu theology, there are a set of scriptures that capture both the so called theistic and non-theistic views of both karma and rebirth. This post from the author is positive proof that this great masterpiece was never read by the author.
The theistic view puts a God as effecting karmic cycles (in Hindu theology) explains that God creates environments for a soul (and an appropriate body) to deal with the past karmas ( Sanchita Karma and Prarabda Karma) and gives chances to break the cycle of births to secure salvation. The quasi theistic view (within Hindu theology) puts God an a non-participating observer that lets the individuals figure it out as to how they can break the cycle of births.Apparently the author seems to have missed all this bigtime and posted wahetever he deem appropriate to trash Hinduism. But both the theistic and quait theistic views recommend reighteous dharmic practices in life to overcome karma and hence rebirth.
Again the authhor seems to have missed the plot from whatever he read about this in the Hindu theology, he claims he read. Within the Hindu theology, there are a set of scriptures that capture both the so called theistic and non-theistic views of both karma and rebirth. This post from the author is positive proof that this great masterpiece was never read by the author.
The theistic view puts a God as effecting karmic cycles (in Hindu theology) explains that God creates environments for a soul (and an appropriate body) to deal with the past karmas ( Sanchita Karma and Prarabda Karma) and gives chances to break the cycle of births to secure salvation. The quasi theistic view (within Hindu theology) puts God an a non-participating observer that lets the individuals figure it out as to how they can break the cycle of births.Apparently the author seems to have missed all this bigtime and posted wahetever he deem appropriate to trash Hinduism. But both the theistic and quait theistic views recommend reighteous dharmic practices in life to overcome karma and hence rebirth.
written by Apolloreach, May 18, 2011
The author then waxes eloquence about sense of responsibility & about fatalism. The corner stone of Hindus theology, which the author seems to have missed clearly states that God does not distribute happiness or miseries to individulas but only the results of karma,for which, the individual is solely responsible.So what have got here? The author completely dropping the ball on the key take aways from what he claims to be Hindu theology, by choice or by design & then trying to make Islam look good. So in the Hindu theology,unlike what the author claims, the individual is responsible for the actions and reactions & it is not about fatalism.
Let us now contrast this with Islam,where,based on injunctions of that faith, if an individual has not been Isalmic enough or un-Islamic, he encounters the wrath of eternal hellfire, where, fresh sheaths of skin are given after the old one gets
toasted,making even a repenting individual to escape. But hey, this guy on the toaster in hell, is already dead anyway. Why burn what is already burnt? Now which sounds logical? The eternal hellfire or the opportunities given to an individual soul to mature?
And about fatalism, if anybody spends time with a Muslim,we can hear him repeatedly use the phrase "In sha Allah (if God wills)." I have heard this in professional discussions in Dubai & also in fast food restaurant counters in Dubai (why call Allah to get a filafel done in 10 minutes). I can quote even serious examples. King Fahd of KSA, July 1990. In response to the death of over 1400 pilgrims in Mecca (due to suffcation and trampling in the crowd)during the sacrifical feast." This is God's will. Had the victims not died in the tunnel they would have died elsewhere at the same predestined moment." Many Muslims hold this view that it is Allah's will alone that leads some toward the righteous path and others away from the righteous path. If so, why do those that were led astray by Allah himself get burnt in eternal hell fire?So again which is logical and who is fatalistic?
Let us now contrast this with Islam,where,based on injunctions of that faith, if an individual has not been Isalmic enough or un-Islamic, he encounters the wrath of eternal hellfire, where, fresh sheaths of skin are given after the old one gets
toasted,making even a repenting individual to escape. But hey, this guy on the toaster in hell, is already dead anyway. Why burn what is already burnt? Now which sounds logical? The eternal hellfire or the opportunities given to an individual soul to mature?
And about fatalism, if anybody spends time with a Muslim,we can hear him repeatedly use the phrase "In sha Allah (if God wills)." I have heard this in professional discussions in Dubai & also in fast food restaurant counters in Dubai (why call Allah to get a filafel done in 10 minutes). I can quote even serious examples. King Fahd of KSA, July 1990. In response to the death of over 1400 pilgrims in Mecca (due to suffcation and trampling in the crowd)during the sacrifical feast." This is God's will. Had the victims not died in the tunnel they would have died elsewhere at the same predestined moment." Many Muslims hold this view that it is Allah's will alone that leads some toward the righteous path and others away from the righteous path. If so, why do those that were led astray by Allah himself get burnt in eternal hell fire?So again which is logical and who is fatalistic?
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 19, 2011
@Kalbhairav
The example that you have given is not reincarnation at all. It is just transformation of matter into various forms. We're talking about reincarnation of the soul based on its Karma. The body is not eaten by maggots based on its Karma. :p
When reincarnation is disproved the only other plausible substitute is the concept of Judgment Day and hell. Nevertheless, I would accept your request and write a separate article on why the Islamic concept is correct.
The example that you have given is not reincarnation at all. It is just transformation of matter into various forms. We're talking about reincarnation of the soul based on its Karma. The body is not eaten by maggots based on its Karma. :p
When reincarnation is disproved the only other plausible substitute is the concept of Judgment Day and hell. Nevertheless, I would accept your request and write a separate article on why the Islamic concept is correct.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 19, 2011
@Apolloreach,
Time and time again, I have pointed out your double standards, when you criticized my articles and ignored the anti-Islamic bias of Agniveer.In fact, for some time now you have become quite popular with agniveer and his team, reproducing your comments on my website on theirs and getting lauded.
All you can come up with is a bunch of personal attacks and sarcasm.
I can sense some Buddhist influence on your ideas. I don't want to know from you how the cycle is broken, because I disproved that the cycle is invalid. Your division of Karma also does not solve that problem. You have not addressed a single point from my article.
Then, your third comment is confirming my argument, which was that in Hinduism happiness is not a beneficence of God. God need not be thanked at all because whatever we have received is only due to our own actions. Our misery, under the theory of Karma has come to us as the fruit of some past actions. It cannot be undone, and all our efforts to undo it will be in vain. I committed some wrong in a previous life, I must suffer for its consequences in the present life, and all my efforts to be free from it are simply to give the lie to that theory. If 'A' is down will cholera which he has got on account of some past wrong, it hardly befit him to seek medical relief if he subscribes to the principle of Karma. The theory thus makes man a fatalist and thereby impedes human progress.
So your comment stands refuted.
Now, even though you have left most of the article unaddressed, you cannot accept clearly that the philosophy is wrong. Therefore, you now bring up Islamic concept of hell (which is by the way propounded by the Vedas as well). A person undergoing the punishment of hellfire will not be dead. His soul will not leave his body and this he wont die and his skin will be refurbished as soon as it is roasted. This is perfectly logical. If rencarnation is an opportunity for the soul to mature, this has already been disproved by me, giving the examples of an unprepared fruit, stomach problems due to badly cooked food and poor blood. The food does not have the opportunity to go back to the kitchen. Thus reincarnation stands refuted.
Insha Allah, is an expression of acknowledging the power and universal will of Allah. Our will functions subservient to the Will of Allah, where as in Hinduism, God is a mere concept but not actually powerful.
Time and time again, I have pointed out your double standards, when you criticized my articles and ignored the anti-Islamic bias of Agniveer.In fact, for some time now you have become quite popular with agniveer and his team, reproducing your comments on my website on theirs and getting lauded.
All you can come up with is a bunch of personal attacks and sarcasm.
I can sense some Buddhist influence on your ideas. I don't want to know from you how the cycle is broken, because I disproved that the cycle is invalid. Your division of Karma also does not solve that problem. You have not addressed a single point from my article.
Then, your third comment is confirming my argument, which was that in Hinduism happiness is not a beneficence of God. God need not be thanked at all because whatever we have received is only due to our own actions. Our misery, under the theory of Karma has come to us as the fruit of some past actions. It cannot be undone, and all our efforts to undo it will be in vain. I committed some wrong in a previous life, I must suffer for its consequences in the present life, and all my efforts to be free from it are simply to give the lie to that theory. If 'A' is down will cholera which he has got on account of some past wrong, it hardly befit him to seek medical relief if he subscribes to the principle of Karma. The theory thus makes man a fatalist and thereby impedes human progress.
So your comment stands refuted.
Now, even though you have left most of the article unaddressed, you cannot accept clearly that the philosophy is wrong. Therefore, you now bring up Islamic concept of hell (which is by the way propounded by the Vedas as well). A person undergoing the punishment of hellfire will not be dead. His soul will not leave his body and this he wont die and his skin will be refurbished as soon as it is roasted. This is perfectly logical. If rencarnation is an opportunity for the soul to mature, this has already been disproved by me, giving the examples of an unprepared fruit, stomach problems due to badly cooked food and poor blood. The food does not have the opportunity to go back to the kitchen. Thus reincarnation stands refuted.
Insha Allah, is an expression of acknowledging the power and universal will of Allah. Our will functions subservient to the Will of Allah, where as in Hinduism, God is a mere concept but not actually powerful.
written by KalBhairav, May 20, 2011
Mushafiq:
I specifically mentioned that I am talking about empirically verifiable stuff and refrained from going into Hindu theological *beliefs* about reincarnation/Karma. There is nothing empirically wrong about what I wrote.
Is judgement day/eternal heaven/eternal hell empirically verifiable during one's human lifetime? If it is a blind belief that helps you sleep peacefully at night, I have nothing against it. Just dont expect Kufrs like me to believe in the same fairy tales that you do.
I specifically mentioned that I am talking about empirically verifiable stuff and refrained from going into Hindu theological *beliefs* about reincarnation/Karma. There is nothing empirically wrong about what I wrote.
Is judgement day/eternal heaven/eternal hell empirically verifiable during one's human lifetime? If it is a blind belief that helps you sleep peacefully at night, I have nothing against it. Just dont expect Kufrs like me to believe in the same fairy tales that you do.
written by Apolloreach, May 20, 2011
@ Mushafiq: Buddy, why do you sound so worked up? What double standards are we talking about here? Many of your brethern conditioned by scriptural injunctions and sound and visual bytes think that Hindus and other kafirs are najis (impure / dirty). Are you willing to do a write up (even a couple of paragraphs) stating that Hindus or any kafirs are not najis?
Yes. I am posting my responses to your articles on a few other sites. I did not start the practice. There were a few brethern of yours that started this practice on facebook and a few other sites. So the Hindu audience of those sites needed to get the other side of the story. Hence I am doing so. And me gaining popularity could be your perception. I am simply pushing back on polemics as I know best, that is that. And yours is not the only source that I contest. There are much larger fishes whose viewpoints I contest.
Now to the actual topic of discussion.Your claim that I have not responded to anything in your article but that my viewpoint stands refuted may give you an adrenaline rush.Good for you. My responses are about extraction of truth about a given topic. And the readers can see all that was discussed here. I really do not play the game of soccer in these discussions to claim I won 3:2. Again, if you think you have won, my wishes are with you.
If you think that by merely posting this article and claiming rebirth and karma to be wrong, you have disproved the theory then the concept of eternal hellfire has been disproved many many times by a whole bunch of bloggers like you.You have disproved zilch. When your understanding is flawed (as I showed in my previous posts), how can you disprove something that you could never grasp, for starters??
Unless you understand and are able to clearly categorize the immanence and transcedence of God, you will only keep claiming that as per my response God need not be thanked for the blessings. Did you not read what I said about leaving the fruits of action to God after performing the duty? Doing one's duty to the best of his abilities is necessary and this is not fatalism. What is fatalsim is what King Fahd claimed about the death of 1400 people or what a waiter in a restaurant claimed about getting the filafel done in 10 minutes based on Allah's will. Unless a human labors and assumes responsibility and sacrifices the fruits of action to Almighty, the karmic cycle cannot be broken.
And what use is it for Allah to willfully guide people astray from his own injunctions but then burn them in hell forever, box their souls in,keeps reloading thier skins and punish them for eternity? Now what happens to thir internal systems? Do these burning people also get their intestines and hearts and brains reloaded everytime those get burned out? And all this seems logical. But souls being given opportunities to shed earthly materialsitic / physical desires is not logical to you? I am impressed....
Yes. I am posting my responses to your articles on a few other sites. I did not start the practice. There were a few brethern of yours that started this practice on facebook and a few other sites. So the Hindu audience of those sites needed to get the other side of the story. Hence I am doing so. And me gaining popularity could be your perception. I am simply pushing back on polemics as I know best, that is that. And yours is not the only source that I contest. There are much larger fishes whose viewpoints I contest.
Now to the actual topic of discussion.Your claim that I have not responded to anything in your article but that my viewpoint stands refuted may give you an adrenaline rush.Good for you. My responses are about extraction of truth about a given topic. And the readers can see all that was discussed here. I really do not play the game of soccer in these discussions to claim I won 3:2. Again, if you think you have won, my wishes are with you.
If you think that by merely posting this article and claiming rebirth and karma to be wrong, you have disproved the theory then the concept of eternal hellfire has been disproved many many times by a whole bunch of bloggers like you.You have disproved zilch. When your understanding is flawed (as I showed in my previous posts), how can you disprove something that you could never grasp, for starters??
Unless you understand and are able to clearly categorize the immanence and transcedence of God, you will only keep claiming that as per my response God need not be thanked for the blessings. Did you not read what I said about leaving the fruits of action to God after performing the duty? Doing one's duty to the best of his abilities is necessary and this is not fatalism. What is fatalsim is what King Fahd claimed about the death of 1400 people or what a waiter in a restaurant claimed about getting the filafel done in 10 minutes based on Allah's will. Unless a human labors and assumes responsibility and sacrifices the fruits of action to Almighty, the karmic cycle cannot be broken.
And what use is it for Allah to willfully guide people astray from his own injunctions but then burn them in hell forever, box their souls in,keeps reloading thier skins and punish them for eternity? Now what happens to thir internal systems? Do these burning people also get their intestines and hearts and brains reloaded everytime those get burned out? And all this seems logical. But souls being given opportunities to shed earthly materialsitic / physical desires is not logical to you? I am impressed....
written by Apolloreach, May 20, 2011
@ Mushafiq: And before you did a deep dive into Hindu theology to come up with a grossly erroneous post, did you not check your own Islamic backyard. You see to be fond of proving Islam to be non-fatalistic. But your own scriptures expect you to believe in FATE. Don't you know this?? I bet you have read about "qadar." Quadar (fate / destiny) is something that is part and parcel of beliefs in Islam. And within Islamic theology aren't there two sets of viewpoints about qadar. Infact,what is contained in the lauh al mahfuz?? Among other things,it also contains everybody's destiny. So, in Islam, for a Muslim, everything is pre-destined fate, based on the book that Allah possesses. Now how can you make a grand claim that Islam is non-fatalistic, when your own scriptures claim the opposite??
You know the Quran, the sahih bukhari and sahih muslim better than me. Please confirm that "QADAR" (FATE) as a key belief is NOT present in any of these.Will you, Sir? If you cannot, you ought to stop claiming that Hinduism espouses fatalism (I have shown you it does not) and that Islam is non-fatalistic. But the truth is Islam is overtly fatalistic, as we saw above.
You know the Quran, the sahih bukhari and sahih muslim better than me. Please confirm that "QADAR" (FATE) as a key belief is NOT present in any of these.Will you, Sir? If you cannot, you ought to stop claiming that Hinduism espouses fatalism (I have shown you it does not) and that Islam is non-fatalistic. But the truth is Islam is overtly fatalistic, as we saw above.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 20, 2011
@KalBhairav
Judgment day can be verified in any court proceeding, where the person appears in the court of law, and is either punished or released. Haven't you paid attention to this setup? What else is a court if not the earthly depiction of the grand judgment day?
Hell is a place where harmful viruses are quarantined and dealt with a appropriately. Those viruses that can be healed are healed and the rest are deleted into perdition.
Judgment day can be verified in any court proceeding, where the person appears in the court of law, and is either punished or released. Haven't you paid attention to this setup? What else is a court if not the earthly depiction of the grand judgment day?
Hell is a place where harmful viruses are quarantined and dealt with a appropriately. Those viruses that can be healed are healed and the rest are deleted into perdition.
written by KalBhairav, May 20, 2011
Mushafiq:
Judgment day can be verified in any court proceeding, where the person appears in the court of law, and is either punished or released. Haven't you paid attention to this setup? What else is a court if not the earthly depiction of the grand judgment day?
This is weak. I will now puncture your analogy.
(a)An earthly court can verify whether an accused has committed the crime. The crime can be empirically verified. Sometimes the evidence is not clinching. Yet a strong case is built based on available *EVIDENCE*. Existence of Allah cannot be verified (you cannot quote the Quran/Hadiths to prove Allah as that would be a fallacious argument going counter to your claim of being logical in your post) and hence a purported judgement day when disbelievers in Allah/apostates will be punished does not make sense. That is enough to refute your analogy. I will go a step further though.
(b)No earthly court condemns to death a person for his beliefs. Belief/disbelief in Allah is just that - a belief. The Islamic judgement day condemns one to eternal hellfire for the "wrong" belief. That this belief is "wrong" is also arrived upon due to fallacious reasoning (circular argument: Allah is God coz Quran says so and Quran is right coz it is Allah's words).
Can you come up with a more robust analogy capable of withstanding scrutiny?
Judgment day can be verified in any court proceeding, where the person appears in the court of law, and is either punished or released. Haven't you paid attention to this setup? What else is a court if not the earthly depiction of the grand judgment day?
This is weak. I will now puncture your analogy.
(a)An earthly court can verify whether an accused has committed the crime. The crime can be empirically verified. Sometimes the evidence is not clinching. Yet a strong case is built based on available *EVIDENCE*. Existence of Allah cannot be verified (you cannot quote the Quran/Hadiths to prove Allah as that would be a fallacious argument going counter to your claim of being logical in your post) and hence a purported judgement day when disbelievers in Allah/apostates will be punished does not make sense. That is enough to refute your analogy. I will go a step further though.
(b)No earthly court condemns to death a person for his beliefs. Belief/disbelief in Allah is just that - a belief. The Islamic judgement day condemns one to eternal hellfire for the "wrong" belief. That this belief is "wrong" is also arrived upon due to fallacious reasoning (circular argument: Allah is God coz Quran says so and Quran is right coz it is Allah's words).
Can you come up with a more robust analogy capable of withstanding scrutiny?
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 20, 2011
@Apolloreach
Than double standards that I am talking about are very simple. You you are telling me that I am biased against Hinduism and yet you never remind your own master satyagni/agniveer that he is biased against Islam. Then your accusation on Kafirs being Najis are unfounded. No Muslim source says this except Shiaism. So, why bring it up? To score points? But What about the teaching of your ancestor Manu,
"All those tribes in this world, which are excluded from (the community of) those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman), are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlekkhas (barbarians) or that of the Aryans."[Manu 10:45]
and
22. But (the tract) between those two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Nobles).
23. That land where the black antelope naturally roams, one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) the country of the Mlekkhas (barbarians). [Manu 2:22-23]
This is supreme racism and even today Indians suffer from this racism and extreme-nationalism.
Well you can post the responses whereever you like. After all you are now showing your true colours. Welcome formally to the world of polemics.
If you're not playing the game of soccer, why are you then so eager to claim fake victories on satyagni/agniveer websites?
You play lot of mind tricks in the hope of avoiding answering the fundamental issues at hand. If my understanding is flawed, why don't you disprove each and every point in detail? To undermine my grasp of this theory is a good way to eascape the real questions. Why do you need to thank God, when everything you have received is due to your own actions? This question is still puzzling you and you are beating round the bush. Children are born handicapped due to some sins in their previous life, according to your theory. Therefore, seeking a doctor to cure this deficiency will be challenging the Karmic philosophy. Today we have sophisticated techniques and medicine to cure handicapped persons. This facility was not available in the olden times. So, the theory falls flat just with this one fact. Thus, in order for you to uphold this theory you should not seek any medical help to cure a handicapped child. This is fatalism.
Then you have touched another lost cause by claiming that Allah willfully guides people astray. This is another sham allegation. Whatever will happen to the internal systems you will get to know when you reach there.
Than double standards that I am talking about are very simple. You you are telling me that I am biased against Hinduism and yet you never remind your own master satyagni/agniveer that he is biased against Islam. Then your accusation on Kafirs being Najis are unfounded. No Muslim source says this except Shiaism. So, why bring it up? To score points? But What about the teaching of your ancestor Manu,
"All those tribes in this world, which are excluded from (the community of) those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman), are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlekkhas (barbarians) or that of the Aryans."[Manu 10:45]
and
22. But (the tract) between those two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Nobles).
23. That land where the black antelope naturally roams, one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) the country of the Mlekkhas (barbarians). [Manu 2:22-23]
This is supreme racism and even today Indians suffer from this racism and extreme-nationalism.
Well you can post the responses whereever you like. After all you are now showing your true colours. Welcome formally to the world of polemics.
If you're not playing the game of soccer, why are you then so eager to claim fake victories on satyagni/agniveer websites?
You play lot of mind tricks in the hope of avoiding answering the fundamental issues at hand. If my understanding is flawed, why don't you disprove each and every point in detail? To undermine my grasp of this theory is a good way to eascape the real questions. Why do you need to thank God, when everything you have received is due to your own actions? This question is still puzzling you and you are beating round the bush. Children are born handicapped due to some sins in their previous life, according to your theory. Therefore, seeking a doctor to cure this deficiency will be challenging the Karmic philosophy. Today we have sophisticated techniques and medicine to cure handicapped persons. This facility was not available in the olden times. So, the theory falls flat just with this one fact. Thus, in order for you to uphold this theory you should not seek any medical help to cure a handicapped child. This is fatalism.
Then you have touched another lost cause by claiming that Allah willfully guides people astray. This is another sham allegation. Whatever will happen to the internal systems you will get to know when you reach there.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 20, 2011
Mr. KalBhairav,
Empirically verifying the crimes is another issue. You asked me an observable and emprically verifiable evidence of JUDGEMENT DAY, not the procedure of Judgement Day. Your change of question is a mark of your defeat. I was giving the analogy of the court structure, not how the court works. By the way existence of Allah is verifiable this is beyond doubt. I do not understand why do you Hindus starting becoming atheists and the lawyers of atheism when confronted with tough questions.
Then, who told you that Allah will condemn a person merely for not believing? Unless the truth has been manifested upon a person properly, he won't be held accountable. Allah will not place a burden on any soul greater than it can bear. This is the teaching of the Quran.
On the judgement Say no evil person will have the excuse to deny his crimes. Everyone will be satisfied with the verdict. All the records would be there and he would be a sufficient judge for his own actions. However, in reincarnation one has no recollection of one's supposed previous life. Thus justice does not appear to be done. So, the whole Karma philosophy becomes a mere sham.
The analogy I gave is perfect by the grace of God but skeptics like you won't be satisfied with anything unless you meet your deserving end.
Empirically verifying the crimes is another issue. You asked me an observable and emprically verifiable evidence of JUDGEMENT DAY, not the procedure of Judgement Day. Your change of question is a mark of your defeat. I was giving the analogy of the court structure, not how the court works. By the way existence of Allah is verifiable this is beyond doubt. I do not understand why do you Hindus starting becoming atheists and the lawyers of atheism when confronted with tough questions.
Then, who told you that Allah will condemn a person merely for not believing? Unless the truth has been manifested upon a person properly, he won't be held accountable. Allah will not place a burden on any soul greater than it can bear. This is the teaching of the Quran.
On the judgement Say no evil person will have the excuse to deny his crimes. Everyone will be satisfied with the verdict. All the records would be there and he would be a sufficient judge for his own actions. However, in reincarnation one has no recollection of one's supposed previous life. Thus justice does not appear to be done. So, the whole Karma philosophy becomes a mere sham.
The analogy I gave is perfect by the grace of God but skeptics like you won't be satisfied with anything unless you meet your deserving end.
written by KalBhairav, May 20, 2011
Mushafiq:
Here is my quote from before:
Didnt you understand the context before claiming your victory?
By the way existence of Allah is verifiable this is beyond doubt.
Proof please. Quotations from Quran/Hadiths not permitted as that would be a fallacious argument. Asking for proofs is not the sole prerogative of atheists. When someone wants to kill/convert me or a fellow human being for becoming an apostate of Allah, it is a moral obligation of all decent humans beings to shun ideologies that enable that.
Then, who told you that Allah will condemn a person merely for not believing? Unless the truth has been manifested upon a person properly, he won't be held accountable. Allah will not place a burden on any soul greater than it can bear. This is the teaching of the Quran.
This is a perfect example of a circular fallacious argument and hence worthy of immediate dismissal. You can get out of this by saying "I dont have evidence that Quran is the word of God. But I believe in it anyway. So, per my belief, of which I have no evidence, Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his last and only prophet worthy of respect". Then, I would have nothing to debate with you as you are absolutely free to believe whatever you want.
The analogy I gave is perfect by the grace of God but skeptics like you won't be satisfied with anything unless you meet your deserving end.
Hmm...So, what exactly is my deserving end? Is this again your belief or is it knowledge? Save the Quran quotes as (for the third or fourth time I repeat) that would be a fallacious illogical circular argument.
Here is my quote from before:
Is judgement day/eternal heaven/eternal hell empirically verifiable during one's human lifetime?
Didnt you understand the context before claiming your victory?
By the way existence of Allah is verifiable this is beyond doubt.
Proof please. Quotations from Quran/Hadiths not permitted as that would be a fallacious argument. Asking for proofs is not the sole prerogative of atheists. When someone wants to kill/convert me or a fellow human being for becoming an apostate of Allah, it is a moral obligation of all decent humans beings to shun ideologies that enable that.
Then, who told you that Allah will condemn a person merely for not believing? Unless the truth has been manifested upon a person properly, he won't be held accountable. Allah will not place a burden on any soul greater than it can bear. This is the teaching of the Quran.
This is a perfect example of a circular fallacious argument and hence worthy of immediate dismissal. You can get out of this by saying "I dont have evidence that Quran is the word of God. But I believe in it anyway. So, per my belief, of which I have no evidence, Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his last and only prophet worthy of respect". Then, I would have nothing to debate with you as you are absolutely free to believe whatever you want.
The analogy I gave is perfect by the grace of God but skeptics like you won't be satisfied with anything unless you meet your deserving end.
Hmm...So, what exactly is my deserving end? Is this again your belief or is it knowledge? Save the Quran quotes as (for the third or fourth time I repeat) that would be a fallacious illogical circular argument.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 20, 2011
I perfectly understood the context of what you were saying. But now you're switching questions and bringing up new questions.
Do you want me to write an entire article on the existence of Allah?
You do like the topic of apostasy very much. Don't you? You can't do without this topic. May I know why do Hindus kill innocent Christian missionaries? At least Christians don't kill apostates. In principle, Islam does not advocate the killing of apostates. However, that subject is outside the scope of this article.
My argument is not a circular fallacious argument. I gave the fundamental principle of Islam if. A person in the pursuit of the truth is much valuable before Allah than one who does not use his faculty of thinking.
The deserving end of those who are confronted with the truth and still persist in rejecting it is hell, the very thing which you attack by sarcasm.
Do you want me to write an entire article on the existence of Allah?
You do like the topic of apostasy very much. Don't you? You can't do without this topic. May I know why do Hindus kill innocent Christian missionaries? At least Christians don't kill apostates. In principle, Islam does not advocate the killing of apostates. However, that subject is outside the scope of this article.
My argument is not a circular fallacious argument. I gave the fundamental principle of Islam if. A person in the pursuit of the truth is much valuable before Allah than one who does not use his faculty of thinking.
The deserving end of those who are confronted with the truth and still persist in rejecting it is hell, the very thing which you attack by sarcasm.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 20, 2011
Let us see what your own boss Swami Dayanand says on this issue,
"Though the human souls posses the capacity for ascertaining truth, yet through self-interest, obstinacy, wrong-headedness, ignorance and the like, it is led to renounce truth and incline towards untruth.” [English Satyarth Prakash Introduction, P ii, ]
“What a wonderful progress have they (i.e., the Buddhists) made in ignorance? They have really no equal in this respect. It is certain that this is the result of their opposing the Veda and God.” [English Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 12, Page 518]
Notice that Swamiji considers the increase in the ignorance of Buddhists the consequence of their opposing the Veda and God. Similarly, as a consequence of rejecting the truth of Islam after it has become manifest, people sink in ignorance, which is compared to the sealing of the hearts.
Listen also to what Yajur Veda Adhyay 25; Mantra 13 says,
“… Ishwar who bestows knowledge and disobedience of His Will is death…”
"Though the human souls posses the capacity for ascertaining truth, yet through self-interest, obstinacy, wrong-headedness, ignorance and the like, it is led to renounce truth and incline towards untruth.” [English Satyarth Prakash Introduction, P ii, ]
“What a wonderful progress have they (i.e., the Buddhists) made in ignorance? They have really no equal in this respect. It is certain that this is the result of their opposing the Veda and God.” [English Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 12, Page 518]
Notice that Swamiji considers the increase in the ignorance of Buddhists the consequence of their opposing the Veda and God. Similarly, as a consequence of rejecting the truth of Islam after it has become manifest, people sink in ignorance, which is compared to the sealing of the hearts.
Listen also to what Yajur Veda Adhyay 25; Mantra 13 says,
“… Ishwar who bestows knowledge and disobedience of His Will is death…”
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 20, 2011
"They are atheists and of weak intellect, ad continually remain sunk in the depths of misery and pain who do not believe in, know, and commune with, Him who is Resplendent, All-glorious, All-Holy, All-knowledge, sustainer of the sun, the earth and other planets, Who pervades all like ether, is the Lord of all and is above all devatas. It is by the knowledge and contemplation of God alone that all men attain true happiness." RIG VEDA: I, 164, 39. [Quoted by Swamiji is SAtyarth Prakash]
"Let a man never associate with those who are atheists, and liars, nor with those who are indolent, guilty of breach of faith, hypocritical, selfish and deceitful. Let him always move in the society of men who are learned, truthful, pious and have public good at heart. This, in truth, constitutes good conduct." [Satyarth chapter 10]
"Let a man never associate with those who are atheists, and liars, nor with those who are indolent, guilty of breach of faith, hypocritical, selfish and deceitful. Let him always move in the society of men who are learned, truthful, pious and have public good at heart. This, in truth, constitutes good conduct." [Satyarth chapter 10]
written by KalBhairav, May 20, 2011
Mushafiq:
Firstly, I dont outsource critical thinking to anyone else. So, your quotes of "my boss" (Swami Dayanand) make no impact on me. You are free to pursue an extended interview of what Satyarth Prakash says with folks over at Agniveer who are more knowledgeable on this issue. I do comment on Agniveer but we Hindus are not like parrots that all of us have to say the same thing every time. We can reasonably differ with one another without calling for each others' heads.
Secondly, I am an agnostic theist. I am humble enough to acknowledge that I cannot prove the existence of God to a third person but I believe that God exists.
Do you want me to write an entire article on the existence of Allah?
Pointless. Dont walk around with an inflated ego that you can do that and convince skeptics. I know enough of the philosophy of religion to know this has not and cannot be done. In any case, if you can, do write an entire article on the existence of Allah *without quoting the Quran/Hadiths*. Otherwise, here we go again, circular reasoning for the win!
The deserving end of those who are confronted with the truth and still persist in rejecting it is hell, the very thing which you attack by sarcasm.
I asked for proof of this. You cant provide me with one and now have to resort to threats of eternal hell as a comeback? What is this truth that you keep referring to? I have asked here, there and everywhere whenever Muslims talk of this supposed truth. What the hell (pun intended) is this and how do you know it is the truth? Here we go again, avoid circular reasoning if you can.
Yes, apostasy is an easy stick to beat Muslims with. I cannot imagine someone in the 21st century taking recourse to their unprovable "holy" book in order to justify killing another human being just because he has rejected the holy book and become an apostate or follower of another ideology. What if the Quran had mentioned in one of its passages that every child born out of wedlock should immediately have one of its eyes removed?
Firstly, I dont outsource critical thinking to anyone else. So, your quotes of "my boss" (Swami Dayanand) make no impact on me. You are free to pursue an extended interview of what Satyarth Prakash says with folks over at Agniveer who are more knowledgeable on this issue. I do comment on Agniveer but we Hindus are not like parrots that all of us have to say the same thing every time. We can reasonably differ with one another without calling for each others' heads.
Secondly, I am an agnostic theist. I am humble enough to acknowledge that I cannot prove the existence of God to a third person but I believe that God exists.
Do you want me to write an entire article on the existence of Allah?
Pointless. Dont walk around with an inflated ego that you can do that and convince skeptics. I know enough of the philosophy of religion to know this has not and cannot be done. In any case, if you can, do write an entire article on the existence of Allah *without quoting the Quran/Hadiths*. Otherwise, here we go again, circular reasoning for the win!
The deserving end of those who are confronted with the truth and still persist in rejecting it is hell, the very thing which you attack by sarcasm.
I asked for proof of this. You cant provide me with one and now have to resort to threats of eternal hell as a comeback? What is this truth that you keep referring to? I have asked here, there and everywhere whenever Muslims talk of this supposed truth. What the hell (pun intended) is this and how do you know it is the truth? Here we go again, avoid circular reasoning if you can.
Yes, apostasy is an easy stick to beat Muslims with. I cannot imagine someone in the 21st century taking recourse to their unprovable "holy" book in order to justify killing another human being just because he has rejected the holy book and become an apostate or follower of another ideology. What if the Quran had mentioned in one of its passages that every child born out of wedlock should immediately have one of its eyes removed?
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Your reply is very diplomatic. Why don't you just say whether Dayanand Ji is right or wrong in condeming atheists and unbelievers in the Vedas? ok let me make it more clear. Listen to how SDS replies to a question,
"Are then the teachings of the Dadupanthee true?"
to which he replies,
"The only true path is that of the Vedas. Follow it if you can otherwise you will always be sunk in ignorance and misery." [Satyarth, Page 446]
Now he is claiming the monopoly of truth for the Vedas alone. Why don't you ask agniveer to stop promoting such a book?
I can understand why you Hindus start becoming agnostics, atheists, etc while debating us here. Hinduism cannot be defended. So you try to play safe.
Regarding the proof for your deserving end, I gave you the verdict of your own Vedas and the great modern Rishi, Dayanand Ji. How he considers Buddhists to be deviated and the cause of this deviation was their opposition of the Vedas. So anyone who does not follow the Vedas is bound to be deviated according to SDS.
Also check this popular Hindu website as well. http://bharateeya.wordpress.com/about/
I would suggest that you go and speak to Mr. Agniveer and his team on how to deal with this issue before you again comment here to criticize us shamelessly.
"Are then the teachings of the Dadupanthee true?"
to which he replies,
"The only true path is that of the Vedas. Follow it if you can otherwise you will always be sunk in ignorance and misery." [Satyarth, Page 446]
Now he is claiming the monopoly of truth for the Vedas alone. Why don't you ask agniveer to stop promoting such a book?
I can understand why you Hindus start becoming agnostics, atheists, etc while debating us here. Hinduism cannot be defended. So you try to play safe.
Regarding the proof for your deserving end, I gave you the verdict of your own Vedas and the great modern Rishi, Dayanand Ji. How he considers Buddhists to be deviated and the cause of this deviation was their opposition of the Vedas. So anyone who does not follow the Vedas is bound to be deviated according to SDS.
Also check this popular Hindu website as well. http://bharateeya.wordpress.com/about/
I would suggest that you go and speak to Mr. Agniveer and his team on how to deal with this issue before you again comment here to criticize us shamelessly.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
@Apolloreac
You have not understood the concept of Qadar. Your comment shows that you have no idea what it is. However, the Vedic Ishwar is worst when it comes to managing the affairs of the creation. Atharvaved 4:16:5 says
Vedic Ishwara is busy playing dice with this creation, and dice is all about chance. so, my dear, why are you defending a gambler god?
You have not understood the concept of Qadar. Your comment shows that you have no idea what it is. However, the Vedic Ishwar is worst when it comes to managing the affairs of the creation. Atharvaved 4:16:5 says
All this the royal Varuna beholdeth, all between heaven and
earth and all beyond them.
The twinklings of men's eyelids hath he counted. As one who
plays throws dice he settles all things.
Vedic Ishwara is busy playing dice with this creation, and dice is all about chance. so, my dear, why are you defending a gambler god?
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
The author has got the theory of karma all wrong!
The article is a perfect example of refutation for the sake of refutation.It's an example of an individual sacrificing his integrity and credibility for the cause of his ideology.That's the only compliment the author deserves.
1.The author does not understand that bodies are agents of the soul.Perfection is to be attained by the soul , not it's body.He subjects reincarnation to the Islamic belief that "bodies have soul" and that is where he messed up big time! He must know that the theory he was investigating(?) states that "souls have bodies" (to be able to act) and not otherwise.
and this is exactly why he throws ludicrous examples of rotten fruits and ill-cooked food...that are nothing but inert entities.The soul has already left the cooked seed or grain.seeking perfection is not the goal of the body but the soul.body is just an agent, it's "apparent" perfection is only a perception at best and temporal for sure.
2.Again, when investigating the theory of karma, the author does not do away with his Islamic bias.He forgets that the world and an individual's position in the world are only to provide the "right" field of action for the soul.It's obvious from the fact that being born rich does not guarantee happiness in this world nor do the scriptures suggest that all who are born rich will attain moksha!
he confuses the "right" environment as a punishment/reward and hence finds such a system illogical.This again reflects his islamic bias.Say for example , a person proud of his riches may be born in a poor environment in next birth according to theory of karma.In Islam any proud person would be roasted in hell for eternity.
which of these two philosophies is logical and just is obvious.The purpose of environment we are born in is remedial.It's another matter that a clouded mind perceives it as a punishment or reward.
3.Again, on the topic of happiness, the Islamic bias has robbed the author of his rationality.He forgets that happiness is a state of mind.The moon or sun are not sources of everybody's happiness.some people hate the rain, others love it.The sun is a source of happiness in england and misery in sahara.
the author is surprised that happiness and sorrow are our own doing.He needs a carrot and stick master to arbitrarily reward and punish whom he pleases.On this aspect he bids farewell to logic and what we observe in our day to day life that it's indeed our actions that bring about the results that we get from them.and as i said , joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain are what brain reports to us based on how it perceives the "result" of our actions.
begging and thanking god for carnal rewards is fatalistic.It takes away the very essence of hard work and sense of achievement.[ PS: Worship God ONLY if you have a good reason, He's not dying for your worship.Hasnt he created angels who worship him 24x7?
]
4.then the author muddles up everything in building a case against karma by stating that it weakens the sense of responsibility!!
a theory which states that we ALONE are responsible for our ACTIONS weakens the sense of responsibility?????you must be joking!
If the theory said that there is God sitting in the sky who could forgive your past karmas- then only one could say that the sense of responsibility is weakened( as in Islam)
the author does not understand how the karma cycle works .knows nothing about sanchita and prarabdha karma and hence confuses between suffering pain AND taking pains.A scientist "takes" pains to make our lives comfortable.A so called "sinner" suffers pain to correct his/her behavior.The former is positive action , while the latter is remedial result.
Totally bungled up article Mushafiq.try harder
The article is a perfect example of refutation for the sake of refutation.It's an example of an individual sacrificing his integrity and credibility for the cause of his ideology.That's the only compliment the author deserves.
1.The author does not understand that bodies are agents of the soul.Perfection is to be attained by the soul , not it's body.He subjects reincarnation to the Islamic belief that "bodies have soul" and that is where he messed up big time! He must know that the theory he was investigating(?) states that "souls have bodies" (to be able to act) and not otherwise.
and this is exactly why he throws ludicrous examples of rotten fruits and ill-cooked food...that are nothing but inert entities.The soul has already left the cooked seed or grain.seeking perfection is not the goal of the body but the soul.body is just an agent, it's "apparent" perfection is only a perception at best and temporal for sure.
2.Again, when investigating the theory of karma, the author does not do away with his Islamic bias.He forgets that the world and an individual's position in the world are only to provide the "right" field of action for the soul.It's obvious from the fact that being born rich does not guarantee happiness in this world nor do the scriptures suggest that all who are born rich will attain moksha!
he confuses the "right" environment as a punishment/reward and hence finds such a system illogical.This again reflects his islamic bias.Say for example , a person proud of his riches may be born in a poor environment in next birth according to theory of karma.In Islam any proud person would be roasted in hell for eternity.
which of these two philosophies is logical and just is obvious.The purpose of environment we are born in is remedial.It's another matter that a clouded mind perceives it as a punishment or reward.
3.Again, on the topic of happiness, the Islamic bias has robbed the author of his rationality.He forgets that happiness is a state of mind.The moon or sun are not sources of everybody's happiness.some people hate the rain, others love it.The sun is a source of happiness in england and misery in sahara.
the author is surprised that happiness and sorrow are our own doing.He needs a carrot and stick master to arbitrarily reward and punish whom he pleases.On this aspect he bids farewell to logic and what we observe in our day to day life that it's indeed our actions that bring about the results that we get from them.and as i said , joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain are what brain reports to us based on how it perceives the "result" of our actions.
begging and thanking god for carnal rewards is fatalistic.It takes away the very essence of hard work and sense of achievement.[ PS: Worship God ONLY if you have a good reason, He's not dying for your worship.Hasnt he created angels who worship him 24x7?
] 4.then the author muddles up everything in building a case against karma by stating that it weakens the sense of responsibility!!
a theory which states that we ALONE are responsible for our ACTIONS weakens the sense of responsibility?????you must be joking!
If the theory said that there is God sitting in the sky who could forgive your past karmas- then only one could say that the sense of responsibility is weakened( as in Islam)
the author does not understand how the karma cycle works .knows nothing about sanchita and prarabdha karma and hence confuses between suffering pain AND taking pains.A scientist "takes" pains to make our lives comfortable.A so called "sinner" suffers pain to correct his/her behavior.The former is positive action , while the latter is remedial result.
Totally bungled up article Mushafiq.try harder
written by KalBhairav, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq:
Ha. You are clutching at straws here buddy. It was not without any reason that I refrain from discussing *theology*, whether it is Quranic or Arya Samaji. Go through all my posts here, if needed, and tell me if I have made any *theological* attack on Islam. My only interest is how it is applied in real life.
While I do comment on Agniveer, I dont have to agree with each and every one of their view points and in fact I dont! I havent read SDS nor do I need to to comment here. Your Satyarth Prakash quotations are irrelevant for me. Do you see Arya Samajis calling for the head of other Hindus/non-Hindus based on the teachings of SDS? Have they/other HIndus gone invading into other countries and demanded a separate country when they form a sizeable number in the population? If and when they do, your posts will have meaning. Otherwise zilch. I can and have already pointed out to numerous examples of real Islamic intolerance (go to Islam spread by peace thread, Islam Human Rights thread, etc.) The response you have produced so far are AIT (which has been debunked), some casteist comments (which all condemn). This is a classic case of not responding to my posts but trying to point out something in your opposing camp's side which they condemn themselves! Way to go!
I cannot understand your tactic in your posts at all. You want me to go to Agniveer (who are hatemongers, per you) first and resolve differences with them before I come commenting here? By that same logic why cannot I ask you to resolve differences with the Indonesian Preacher I linked to (whom YOU called an extremist, not me) in the Islam/Human Rights thread? You were so dismissive of that there! Moreover, even someone who is NOT a Hindu can question your position here. How would you respond to him? You are employing classic shoot-the-messenger tactics.
When I ask for proof of Allah and truth (whatever it may be) your response is to quote SDS? You were walking with a swagger that you could do so without engaging in circular logic. How is quoting SDS helping your position? Try again.
So, do you intend to tackle my pointed questions to you head on without beating about the bush and quoting from SDS whom you detest anyway? To make it easier for you I summarize them below. You have a tendency to walk over without addressing my questions (remember you walked away when I asked you to name bad Islamic rulers with reasons? ;-)). Try and refrain from doing that if you can in your next response here.
(a)Is judgement day/eternal heaven/eternal hell empirically verifiable during one's human lifetime?
(b)Provide a robust analogy (that cannot be punctured) about Judgement Day. Your previous analogy of earthly court was easily dismissed.
(c)Quoting from before.
Proof please. Quotations from Quran/Hadiths not permitted as that would be a fallacious argument.
(d)Quoting from before.
I asked for proof of this. You cant provide me with one and now have to resort to threats of eternal hell as a comeback? What is this truth that you keep referring to? I have asked here, there and everywhere whenever Muslims talk of this supposed truth. What the hell (pun intended) is this and how do you know it is the truth? Here we go again, avoid circular reasoning if you can.
You can get out of the spot you find yourself in by saying that you *believe* in the Quran as the true word of Allah. But you cannot prove it as it is unknowable. That would make you an agnostic theist too. If you are a true gnostic theist, you shoulder a massive burden of proof to justify your position. In 14 centuries no one has been able to do that. ;-)
Ha. You are clutching at straws here buddy. It was not without any reason that I refrain from discussing *theology*, whether it is Quranic or Arya Samaji. Go through all my posts here, if needed, and tell me if I have made any *theological* attack on Islam. My only interest is how it is applied in real life.
While I do comment on Agniveer, I dont have to agree with each and every one of their view points and in fact I dont! I havent read SDS nor do I need to to comment here. Your Satyarth Prakash quotations are irrelevant for me. Do you see Arya Samajis calling for the head of other Hindus/non-Hindus based on the teachings of SDS? Have they/other HIndus gone invading into other countries and demanded a separate country when they form a sizeable number in the population? If and when they do, your posts will have meaning. Otherwise zilch. I can and have already pointed out to numerous examples of real Islamic intolerance (go to Islam spread by peace thread, Islam Human Rights thread, etc.) The response you have produced so far are AIT (which has been debunked), some casteist comments (which all condemn). This is a classic case of not responding to my posts but trying to point out something in your opposing camp's side which they condemn themselves! Way to go!
I cannot understand your tactic in your posts at all. You want me to go to Agniveer (who are hatemongers, per you) first and resolve differences with them before I come commenting here? By that same logic why cannot I ask you to resolve differences with the Indonesian Preacher I linked to (whom YOU called an extremist, not me) in the Islam/Human Rights thread? You were so dismissive of that there! Moreover, even someone who is NOT a Hindu can question your position here. How would you respond to him? You are employing classic shoot-the-messenger tactics.
When I ask for proof of Allah and truth (whatever it may be) your response is to quote SDS? You were walking with a swagger that you could do so without engaging in circular logic. How is quoting SDS helping your position? Try again.
So, do you intend to tackle my pointed questions to you head on without beating about the bush and quoting from SDS whom you detest anyway? To make it easier for you I summarize them below. You have a tendency to walk over without addressing my questions (remember you walked away when I asked you to name bad Islamic rulers with reasons? ;-)). Try and refrain from doing that if you can in your next response here.
(a)Is judgement day/eternal heaven/eternal hell empirically verifiable during one's human lifetime?
(b)Provide a robust analogy (that cannot be punctured) about Judgement Day. Your previous analogy of earthly court was easily dismissed.
(c)Quoting from before.
By the way existence of Allah is verifiable this is beyond doubt.
Proof please. Quotations from Quran/Hadiths not permitted as that would be a fallacious argument.
(d)Quoting from before.
The deserving end of those who are confronted with the truth and still persist in rejecting it is hell, the very thing which you attack by sarcasm.
I asked for proof of this. You cant provide me with one and now have to resort to threats of eternal hell as a comeback? What is this truth that you keep referring to? I have asked here, there and everywhere whenever Muslims talk of this supposed truth. What the hell (pun intended) is this and how do you know it is the truth? Here we go again, avoid circular reasoning if you can.
You can get out of the spot you find yourself in by saying that you *believe* in the Quran as the true word of Allah. But you cannot prove it as it is unknowable. That would make you an agnostic theist too. If you are a true gnostic theist, you shoulder a massive burden of proof to justify your position. In 14 centuries no one has been able to do that. ;-)
written by Abdullah, May 21, 2011
@Appoloreach & Kalbhairav
Well, that was several levels of entertaining crazy, but it addressed none of the practical issues with reincarnation. Care to talk about those?
@ Mushafiq Sultan thunbs up for you..Really after reading the article these few question came in mind.
Should the life of a sufering person be saved in the circumstances, when according to the theory of Transmigration he is being punished by God for some sin or other ? I wonder if a beliver in this theory would let his only son die without medical treatment, taking the illness to be a just retribution from God visited on the son for some past sin of his ?Then again it might help the son to sufer the pain patiently and perhaps to die without protest, if he could be told clearly and in so many words as to his past sin for which he is being punished. If this is not possible, then the whole theory is an impious fiction
In fact it may be come inhuman and illegal. For example A murders B now witness C(a believer in the transmigration of souls) believing that B suffered death because of his past sins and A was only an Instrument of God to effect that punishment, and allows A may even help him to escape.What would police think of C.
Well, that was several levels of entertaining crazy, but it addressed none of the practical issues with reincarnation. Care to talk about those?
@ Mushafiq Sultan thunbs up for you..Really after reading the article these few question came in mind.
Should the life of a sufering person be saved in the circumstances, when according to the theory of Transmigration he is being punished by God for some sin or other ? I wonder if a beliver in this theory would let his only son die without medical treatment, taking the illness to be a just retribution from God visited on the son for some past sin of his ?Then again it might help the son to sufer the pain patiently and perhaps to die without protest, if he could be told clearly and in so many words as to his past sin for which he is being punished. If this is not possible, then the whole theory is an impious fiction
In fact it may be come inhuman and illegal. For example A murders B now witness C(a believer in the transmigration of souls) believing that B suffered death because of his past sins and A was only an Instrument of God to effect that punishment, and allows A may even help him to escape.What would police think of C.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Abdullah Biraadar
how lenient you are with your investigation.
you are as confused as Mushafiq about action and results of action.
while disease is a RESULT for the ill, it's at the same time opportunity of the doctor and parent to ACT
read the karma theory once again
how lenient you are with your investigation.
you are as confused as Mushafiq about action and results of action.
while disease is a RESULT for the ill, it's at the same time opportunity of the doctor and parent to ACT
read the karma theory once again
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
@Halal Biraadar
Congrats for accepting that Karma theory is false. If disease is an opportunity for the parents to ACT, then the sin of the patient/diseased was inevitable. In other words, if the diseased child had not committed sins in his previous life, the doctor and he parent WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACT. So Sin becomes mandatory as per this philosophy and thus renders this philosophy INVALID AND UNETHICAL. This point I had already explained in the article. May be you are too much excited to comment. You must first learn to read and understand what is being said.
Congrats for accepting that Karma theory is false. If disease is an opportunity for the parents to ACT, then the sin of the patient/diseased was inevitable. In other words, if the diseased child had not committed sins in his previous life, the doctor and he parent WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACT. So Sin becomes mandatory as per this philosophy and thus renders this philosophy INVALID AND UNETHICAL. This point I had already explained in the article. May be you are too much excited to comment. You must first learn to read and understand what is being said.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq Biraadar
quick rebuttal
you are still not out of your confusion.It's not the sin that was inevitable, it is the environment that was perfectly created based on the collective actions of individual souls
you are hitting at the resultant world which is both a field of action and results essentially created out of OUR COLLECTIVE karmas
quick rebuttal
you are still not out of your confusion.It's not the sin that was inevitable, it is the environment that was perfectly created based on the collective actions of individual souls
you are hitting at the resultant world which is both a field of action and results essentially created out of OUR COLLECTIVE karmas
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Don't play tricks here. Sin is part of the environment. So sin, has become mandatory for a person to be born diseased, in order to give an opportunity for others to help him. Our opportunity to help such a person is subservient to his sins. So Karma philosophy promotes sins.
The for you to say that the resultant world is both a field of actions and results is hilarious. I already showed you that actions are subservient to the results of the previous life. In order for the doctor and parent to act, the child had to have committed sins. You are just rehashing in different words what I already refuted. Good try. But wont work
The for you to say that the resultant world is both a field of actions and results is hilarious. I already showed you that actions are subservient to the results of the previous life. In order for the doctor and parent to act, the child had to have committed sins. You are just rehashing in different words what I already refuted. Good try. But wont work
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq Biraadar
I think you also found out the fallacy of your argument.didn;t ya?
what is sin? isn't it an action? what is service ? isnt it an action?
how can you conclude that it's sin alone that drives the world.Others(like christians) suggest that it's service alone for which the world is created.
but the theory is karma gives the complete picture.each indvidual soul contributes to the creation of the world as we see it in-front of us with all the myriad states of death,life,pain,pleasure,sin,piety etc.
It would have only been unethical if the world was not created as the "right" field of action.If you look myopically from the angle of the patient, you may conclude that world is driven by sin.But if you shift your myopia towards the doctor, you would find that world is driven by service.so which one is it? IT IS NONE!
look at it holistically and you would have no ratioanl problem with the theory of karma
I think you also found out the fallacy of your argument.didn;t ya?
what is sin? isn't it an action? what is service ? isnt it an action?
how can you conclude that it's sin alone that drives the world.Others(like christians) suggest that it's service alone for which the world is created.
but the theory is karma gives the complete picture.each indvidual soul contributes to the creation of the world as we see it in-front of us with all the myriad states of death,life,pain,pleasure,sin,piety etc.
It would have only been unethical if the world was not created as the "right" field of action.If you look myopically from the angle of the patient, you may conclude that world is driven by sin.But if you shift your myopia towards the doctor, you would find that world is driven by service.so which one is it? IT IS NONE!
look at it holistically and you would have no ratioanl problem with the theory of karma
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Halal
Man, you are talking about a holistic view. Let me give you the holistic view. Let us look from the myopic view of Vedic Ishwara.
Reincarnation is necessary evil for Vedic Ishwara to keep his dictatorship going. How?
We know that Vedic Ishwara cannot create any soul. Souls are limited. Consequently, Ishwara is helpless to create more souls. Therefore, if he won't play dice by making some committ sins and some committ good deeds, all the souls would achieve moksha and attain freedom from Ishwara who would then be useless.
As Atharvaved 4:16:5 says,
All this the royal Varuna beholdeth, all between heaven and
earth and all beyond them.
The twinklings of men's eyelids hath he counted. As one who
plays throws dice he settles all things.
Vedic Ishwara is busy playing dice with the souls, and dice is all about chance. So, my dear, your actions are a product of the dice of God. If the dice is good you do good actions and if it is bad you do bad actions. So we can call this a gambler god. Can't we?
Man, you are talking about a holistic view. Let me give you the holistic view. Let us look from the myopic view of Vedic Ishwara.
Reincarnation is necessary evil for Vedic Ishwara to keep his dictatorship going. How?
We know that Vedic Ishwara cannot create any soul. Souls are limited. Consequently, Ishwara is helpless to create more souls. Therefore, if he won't play dice by making some committ sins and some committ good deeds, all the souls would achieve moksha and attain freedom from Ishwara who would then be useless.
As Atharvaved 4:16:5 says,
All this the royal Varuna beholdeth, all between heaven and
earth and all beyond them.
The twinklings of men's eyelids hath he counted. As one who
plays throws dice he settles all things.
Vedic Ishwara is busy playing dice with the souls, and dice is all about chance. So, my dear, your actions are a product of the dice of God. If the dice is good you do good actions and if it is bad you do bad actions. So we can call this a gambler god. Can't we?
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq Biraadar
Lolz, I thought you were not discussing scriptures here.
first concede that you got the theory of karma wrong. then we will discuss about scriptural aspects.You yourself have stated that you will deal with scriptures laters.
so are you now clear that theory of karma is logical indeed?
Lolz, I thought you were not discussing scriptures here.
first concede that you got the theory of karma wrong. then we will discuss about scriptural aspects.You yourself have stated that you will deal with scriptures laters.
so are you now clear that theory of karma is logical indeed?
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Halal
Are you kidding? Is it logical? You are beating round the bush. Let me make it simple for you. Sin is compulsory for an animal to be born. But animals are part of this environment and are necessary for the proper functioning of the planet. So, it follows that sin is necessary. Many animals live comfortable lives as pets and many humans live pathetic lives. So again karma theory is exposed. Are you kidding me that this theory is logical?
Are you kidding? Is it logical? You are beating round the bush. Let me make it simple for you. Sin is compulsory for an animal to be born. But animals are part of this environment and are necessary for the proper functioning of the planet. So, it follows that sin is necessary. Many animals live comfortable lives as pets and many humans live pathetic lives. So again karma theory is exposed. Are you kidding me that this theory is logical?
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Also, if whatever we get is due to our own previous actions, there is no need to thank God.
If we accept this unethical theory, then you have to accept that it is possible for a man to have sex with his own mother in next life. Halal Jawab, can you say to your mother, I wish you become my wife in next life. Pathetic theory this karma is.
If we accept this unethical theory, then you have to accept that it is possible for a man to have sex with his own mother in next life. Halal Jawab, can you say to your mother, I wish you become my wife in next life. Pathetic theory this karma is.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq biradar
again! the tail is not the elephant! look holistically.
let me explain: How are you so sure that the animal was born as a part of "sinful" acts in previous life? It could have been a tree "upgraded" to animal birth for it's selfless service as a "tree" in previous birth!
now what? should we conclude that the world driven by selfless service ? No!
think holistically pleasee
again! the tail is not the elephant! look holistically.
let me explain: How are you so sure that the animal was born as a part of "sinful" acts in previous life? It could have been a tree "upgraded" to animal birth for it's selfless service as a "tree" in previous birth!
now what? should we conclude that the world driven by selfless service ? No!
think holistically pleasee
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Halal
Man, if a tree is upgraded to a lion, then Ishwara is a lunatic, because that lion feeds on a deer who feeds on a tree. So, your Karma legitimizes meat eating :p
Plus, if a tree becomes a lion, he will do sin of meat eating while tree was a peaceful thing. So is it up gradation or degradation according to your ideology?
Yes yes I am thinking holistically, but you seem to be clutching at straws here.
Man, if a tree is upgraded to a lion, then Ishwara is a lunatic, because that lion feeds on a deer who feeds on a tree. So, your Karma legitimizes meat eating :p
Plus, if a tree becomes a lion, he will do sin of meat eating while tree was a peaceful thing. So is it up gradation or degradation according to your ideology?
Yes yes I am thinking holistically, but you seem to be clutching at straws here.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq Biraadar
to your second point that why should we not thank god for the happiness we get is again answered by looking at this holistically.
now, do you curse god for your miseries? the n why do you thank God for your happiness?? Got it!
please look holistically ..i am requesting again and again bro!
Now about marrying your own mother in the next birth.Your relationships & environment is a temporal thing in the present life.The soul does not have a parent or offspring.It's only in the world that these become necessary.
Your question is clouded by the islamic bias that the body identifies your soul, which is not the case with the concept of soul in the theory of karma.
hope that clarifies
to your second point that why should we not thank god for the happiness we get is again answered by looking at this holistically.
now, do you curse god for your miseries? the n why do you thank God for your happiness?? Got it!
please look holistically ..i am requesting again and again bro!
Now about marrying your own mother in the next birth.Your relationships & environment is a temporal thing in the present life.The soul does not have a parent or offspring.It's only in the world that these become necessary.
Your question is clouded by the islamic bias that the body identifies your soul, which is not the case with the concept of soul in the theory of karma.
hope that clarifies
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
So no thanks and no curses is the lesson of the Karma theory. That is what I am saying. God becomes useless here. Again my holistic view.
Okkkk,, so my mother is the body only not the soul? So where from do her motherly emotions come from? This karma theory is just so unethical and useless.
Okkkk,, so my mother is the body only not the soul? So where from do her motherly emotions come from? This karma theory is just so unethical and useless.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq Biradaar
again you miss the elephant for the tail!
what if the tree was an insect eating tree? LOLz
we can go on and on with this, trust me.
meat eating is definitely allowed for the lion that perspires from it's tongue , kills with it's claws and has enough acid in its stomach to digest meat. It does not mean that Mushafiq should start sinking his teeth in flesh BECAUSE he does not perspire from his tongue(hopefully), his intestines are not designed to do away with the meat as efficaciously as that of the lion.
look at it holistically bro
again you miss the elephant for the tail!
what if the tree was an insect eating tree? LOLz
we can go on and on with this, trust me.
meat eating is definitely allowed for the lion that perspires from it's tongue , kills with it's claws and has enough acid in its stomach to digest meat. It does not mean that Mushafiq should start sinking his teeth in flesh BECAUSE he does not perspire from his tongue(hopefully), his intestines are not designed to do away with the meat as efficaciously as that of the lion.
look at it holistically bro
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Karma theory is not about thanking God or cursing God for the results of our actions as we alone are responsible for the results of our action.understanding God is another debate altogether.
Also, Nimrod and Oedipus married their mothers in their own lifetimes it self.people have married their own daughter-in-laws for what i know from history.These are actual unethical acts and not the ones where you are no longer attached to the body or environment.
there's no permanent body for the soul.The soul is complete.The motherly love you talk about is not shown to all others who would have been her sons in the previous births!
the mother is attached to her own child in this very birth.It;s a role that the soul plays through the body.It;s hard for you to comprehend because you believe in permanent bodies.
BUT you cannot apply your "permanent bodies" yardstick to "changing bodies" concept of theory of karma
Also, Nimrod and Oedipus married their mothers in their own lifetimes it self.people have married their own daughter-in-laws for what i know from history.These are actual unethical acts and not the ones where you are no longer attached to the body or environment.
there's no permanent body for the soul.The soul is complete.The motherly love you talk about is not shown to all others who would have been her sons in the previous births!
the mother is attached to her own child in this very birth.It;s a role that the soul plays through the body.It;s hard for you to comprehend because you believe in permanent bodies.
BUT you cannot apply your "permanent bodies" yardstick to "changing bodies" concept of theory of karma
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Halal,
Remember you were talking about selfless service of the tree. So at least you agreed that eating insects was the selfless service of the tree. So at least insect eating is legal.
Thanks again for accepting that your Ishwara is helpless to prevent a lion from eating meat. I think that is why he has outsourced the job to Vedic followers to kill lions.
Yajurveda Chapter 15; Mantra 15 says
I am sure that our society will not allow Vedic followers to kill the Lions. A person who has common sense, will never accept this unscientific teaching. Lions by nature, eat flesh. This verse wants to make them herbivorous. If this teaching is implemented, Lions will become extinct.
Remember you were talking about selfless service of the tree. So at least you agreed that eating insects was the selfless service of the tree. So at least insect eating is legal.
Thanks again for accepting that your Ishwara is helpless to prevent a lion from eating meat. I think that is why he has outsourced the job to Vedic followers to kill lions.
Yajurveda Chapter 15; Mantra 15 says
"...Let injurious animals like Lions and others that eat flesh and grass be destroyed. Let murderous crowds of men that destroy others like a powerful weapon, be killed. Let virtuous rulers protect us from those animals, and make us comfortable. In the jaws of these animals we place the ferocious man whom we hate and who hates us."
I am sure that our society will not allow Vedic followers to kill the Lions. A person who has common sense, will never accept this unscientific teaching. Lions by nature, eat flesh. This verse wants to make them herbivorous. If this teaching is implemented, Lions will become extinct.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq brother
again you shift back to scriptures and mix up other concepts of duty and "intrinsic nature"(Swabhava)
first get this concept right.Then we can talk about scriptures and duties and intrinsic nature of beings when you publish relevant articles on the same.
no point digressing from the topic
again you shift back to scriptures and mix up other concepts of duty and "intrinsic nature"(Swabhava)
first get this concept right.Then we can talk about scriptures and duties and intrinsic nature of beings when you publish relevant articles on the same.
no point digressing from the topic
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Halal,
God is intertwined with this concept. You cannot escape so easily. God does not deserve anything from us according to this Karma theory. Period. You are accepting it, though silently.
Yes I know Nimrod and Oedipus married their mothers and also Prajapati in the Vedas, cohabited with his own daughter to create this creation. But you are telling me that the relationship of my mother and father is not permanent. This just pathetic. You have not answered my question. Where does motherly love come from, the body of the soul? Who is your mother, the body or the soul? Also if man and woman are equal, on what basis do certain souls get a female body and certain souls a male body? It follows that women are inferior.
God is intertwined with this concept. You cannot escape so easily. God does not deserve anything from us according to this Karma theory. Period. You are accepting it, though silently.
Yes I know Nimrod and Oedipus married their mothers and also Prajapati in the Vedas, cohabited with his own daughter to create this creation. But you are telling me that the relationship of my mother and father is not permanent. This just pathetic. You have not answered my question. Where does motherly love come from, the body of the soul? Who is your mother, the body or the soul? Also if man and woman are equal, on what basis do certain souls get a female body and certain souls a male body? It follows that women are inferior.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq Biraadar
It's you who has gone silent from his initial position of "thanking God" to understanding how illogical is it for us to thank God for our happiness when confronted with the idea that what would follow from that is that we should curse God for our unhappiness
Now, theory of karma focuses on the soul and not God.so the subject of God is inordinate in the discussion.
Now enough of my mother.lets put your mother through an islamic divorce.she would become somebody's else's wife(and not get custody of you).she would then bear her new husband's children and show motherly love only to them
what;s worse that some permutations and combinations can allow the offsprings to intermarry is this the perfect ethics you are envisaging?? No!
it therefore follows that this life, motherly love or fatherly hatred or brotherly hatred are all a result of attachment of the soul to the body.My mother or your mother or me or you are NOT OUR BODIES !
got it bro?
It's you who has gone silent from his initial position of "thanking God" to understanding how illogical is it for us to thank God for our happiness when confronted with the idea that what would follow from that is that we should curse God for our unhappiness
Now, theory of karma focuses on the soul and not God.so the subject of God is inordinate in the discussion.
Now enough of my mother.lets put your mother through an islamic divorce.she would become somebody's else's wife(and not get custody of you).she would then bear her new husband's children and show motherly love only to them
what;s worse that some permutations and combinations can allow the offsprings to intermarry
is this the perfect ethics you are envisaging?? No! it therefore follows that this life, motherly love or fatherly hatred or brotherly hatred are all a result of attachment of the soul to the body.My mother or your mother or me or you are NOT OUR BODIES !
got it bro?
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
addendum
as to why do some get female bodies and some male bodies is again decided by what is the perfect for the soul to carry out its actions.remember its should be the right field of action.
If the soul needs to feel inferiority it would be born as a muslim female (or a hindu female in a remote orthodox village) otherwise it would be born as western female.so it does not follow that women are inferior, what follows is that Islam (or orthodox hinduism) creates that perfect environment where women can feel amply inferior
as to why do some get female bodies and some male bodies is again decided by what is the perfect for the soul to carry out its actions.remember its should be the right field of action.
If the soul needs to feel inferiority it would be born as a muslim female (or a hindu female in a remote orthodox village) otherwise it would be born as western female.so it does not follow that women are inferior, what follows is that Islam (or orthodox hinduism) creates that perfect environment where women can feel amply inferior
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Firstly, thanks for accepting that sin becomes mandatory according to this philosophy.
Secondly, I did not say that you would curse God for your unhappiness. Scroll above this is what I said,
"So no thanks and no curses is the lesson of the Karma theory. That is what I am saying. God becomes useless here. Again my holistic view."
I don't view God like that so this does not apply to me.
The you say: Now, theory of karma focuses on the soul and not God.so the subject of God is inordinate in the discussion.
Thanks for accepting that God is useless in Karma.
Man, you don't have any mother. It is a mere object which begat you. What you call mother is actually an object which gives you birth and feeds you.
If my mother begets more children through another man, that does not stop her from being my mother. She cannot be my wife. damn it. Is this an argument?
But as per your sham theory, my mother has been my former wife in some birth.
Secondly, I did not say that you would curse God for your unhappiness. Scroll above this is what I said,
"So no thanks and no curses is the lesson of the Karma theory. That is what I am saying. God becomes useless here. Again my holistic view."
I don't view God like that so this does not apply to me.
The you say: Now, theory of karma focuses on the soul and not God.so the subject of God is inordinate in the discussion.
Thanks for accepting that God is useless in Karma.
Man, you don't have any mother. It is a mere object which begat you. What you call mother is actually an object which gives you birth and feeds you.
If my mother begets more children through another man, that does not stop her from being my mother. She cannot be my wife. damn it. Is this an argument?
But as per your sham theory, my mother has been my former wife in some birth.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Mushafiq Biraadar
you have lost trail of the discussion
firstly, i never said sin is mandatory. I only highlighted that looking at theory of karma through the myopic lens of sins is as naive as looking at the theory from the myopic angle of service.forgot the example i gave?
secondly, law of karma does not apply to God.In your theory law of Karma may be applicable to your God but it does act on karma theory's God.You cannot thank or curse God for your actions and their subsequent results.
I also clarified that it's not sins that drive the shape of the world but our collective karmas.you skipped that insight altogether
thirdly, marrying a daughter in law is so goody goody for you and you talk about ethics in the same breath!
according to karma theory, there's no mother and father of a soul. so the concept of incest does not apply to souls.Indeed a soul attached to a body in the current life can have parents and daughters-in-laws.If the soul commits incest in the current body , it is deplorable like a father in law marrying a daughter lin law in it's active body.
but the soul has no gender as be karma theory.the problem occurs in Islamic theology where the divorced and remarried mother will never meet her children from the previous marriage but would enjoy carnal pleasures with the new husband and children for eternity. that is what i call an unjust,unethical, un-motherly infinite separation of mother and child
you have lost trail of the discussion
firstly, i never said sin is mandatory. I only highlighted that looking at theory of karma through the myopic lens of sins is as naive as looking at the theory from the myopic angle of service.forgot the example i gave?
secondly, law of karma does not apply to God.In your theory law of Karma may be applicable to your God but it does act on karma theory's God.You cannot thank or curse God for your actions and their subsequent results.
I also clarified that it's not sins that drive the shape of the world but our collective karmas.you skipped that insight altogether
thirdly, marrying a daughter in law is so goody goody for you and you talk about ethics in the same breath!
according to karma theory, there's no mother and father of a soul. so the concept of incest does not apply to souls.Indeed a soul attached to a body in the current life can have parents and daughters-in-laws.If the soul commits incest in the current body , it is deplorable like a father in law marrying a daughter lin law in it's active body.
but the soul has no gender as be karma theory.the problem occurs in Islamic theology where the divorced and remarried mother will never meet her children from the previous marriage but would enjoy carnal pleasures with the new husband and children for eternity. that is what i call an unjust,unethical, un-motherly infinite separation of mother and child
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Halal Biraadar
When you were beating round the bush, who lost the trail?
How would you say that sin is mandatory. That would be the end of this discussion. You are silently saying it. You see dear, if sin caused the disease in a person, I should not interfere in it nor seek to cure it because it is a punishment. Modern science can cure illnesses which hundred years back could not be cured. So, Ishwara becomes partial according to your own theory. I can remove the illness (punishment) much quickly today than a hundred years back. Thus if the punishment was static for the same crime, how can the punishment be cut short? So to be fair, you better not try to cure any diseased person as per this theory.
Halal biraadar when did I deny collective karma? I am emphasizing that sin is part of that collective karma and sin shapes the world. You are skipping here.
Who said I can marry my daughter in law?? You are confusing Prajapati with a Muslim. It is the Vedas dear.
yes according to karma theory you have no mother and father, so why is incest wrong?
Why won't divorced and remarried women not meet her children??? Who told you this?
When you were beating round the bush, who lost the trail?
How would you say that sin is mandatory. That would be the end of this discussion. You are silently saying it. You see dear, if sin caused the disease in a person, I should not interfere in it nor seek to cure it because it is a punishment. Modern science can cure illnesses which hundred years back could not be cured. So, Ishwara becomes partial according to your own theory. I can remove the illness (punishment) much quickly today than a hundred years back. Thus if the punishment was static for the same crime, how can the punishment be cut short? So to be fair, you better not try to cure any diseased person as per this theory.
Halal biraadar when did I deny collective karma? I am emphasizing that sin is part of that collective karma and sin shapes the world. You are skipping here.
Who said I can marry my daughter in law?? You are confusing Prajapati with a Muslim. It is the Vedas dear.
yes according to karma theory you have no mother and father, so why is incest wrong?
Why won't divorced and remarried women not meet her children??? Who told you this?
written by Abdullah, May 21, 2011
What is the evidence of our having lived previously ?Do we retain any memory of former
births ? Any Hindu will tell you that we do not, that the soul before re-birth is washed clean of all memory.As there is no memory Positive data for the doctrine of transmigration fail utterly and absolutely
There are two doctrines one of which Dayananda is a representative,assumes the existence of a God who gives rewards and punishments , according, to
the deeds. The other, represented by the Theoso-phists, makes God a nullity and denies the idea of rewards and punishments. According to the doctrine of karma, God is an Ocean of Love He is the Great Attributeless, ineffable and altogether too happy in Himself to worry about the affairs of other?Karma means the law of cause and effect. You reap what you sow. If the harvest is pleasant, it is just the consequence of your deeds ; if it is unpleasant, that too is the effect of a cause. Neither the one is a " reward " given by God nor
is the other " punishment." God is far too big to interest Himself in our affairs. The whole affair is managed by the law of nature.
Both of these theories are worthless from the standpoint of practical ethics. The one, intended to save God from the charge of partiality, makes Him out into a heartless tyrant who punishes without letting the sufferers know what they suffer for. Want of memory takes away all chances of improvement and chastisement becomes mere vindictiveness on the part of the Deity.
Karma or the law of cause and effect is still more hopeless, because it excludes ethical considerations, as it does not recognize the idea of rewards and punishments. Rewards and punishments presume ethical judgments of good and bad. As the former are absent, so are the latter. Salvation will depend then, not upon the goodness of conduct, for the term " goodness" itself becomes meaningless when there are no rewards and punishments, but upon cessation of all conduct. The doctrine of transmigration, understood one way or the other, is inimical to all good conduct; it means the negation of all activity. How can one conduct oneself, when one does not know for what he is suffering ; how can one decide which line of conduct to adopt and which to avoid?
The feeling that one is suffering from what one cannot undo, of whose very nature he is ignorant cannot but be most oppressive. The suffer must believe that his sufferings are unavoidable, because they are the just awards of the Deity according to one idea or the results of an inexorable law of cause and effect according to the other idea. This feeling of helplessness must naturally hinder activity and desire of self-improvement, and lead to the belief of fatalism.
births ? Any Hindu will tell you that we do not, that the soul before re-birth is washed clean of all memory.As there is no memory Positive data for the doctrine of transmigration fail utterly and absolutely
There are two doctrines one of which Dayananda is a representative,assumes the existence of a God who gives rewards and punishments , according, to
the deeds. The other, represented by the Theoso-phists, makes God a nullity and denies the idea of rewards and punishments. According to the doctrine of karma, God is an Ocean of Love He is the Great Attributeless, ineffable and altogether too happy in Himself to worry about the affairs of other?Karma means the law of cause and effect. You reap what you sow. If the harvest is pleasant, it is just the consequence of your deeds ; if it is unpleasant, that too is the effect of a cause. Neither the one is a " reward " given by God nor
is the other " punishment." God is far too big to interest Himself in our affairs. The whole affair is managed by the law of nature.
Both of these theories are worthless from the standpoint of practical ethics. The one, intended to save God from the charge of partiality, makes Him out into a heartless tyrant who punishes without letting the sufferers know what they suffer for. Want of memory takes away all chances of improvement and chastisement becomes mere vindictiveness on the part of the Deity.
Karma or the law of cause and effect is still more hopeless, because it excludes ethical considerations, as it does not recognize the idea of rewards and punishments. Rewards and punishments presume ethical judgments of good and bad. As the former are absent, so are the latter. Salvation will depend then, not upon the goodness of conduct, for the term " goodness" itself becomes meaningless when there are no rewards and punishments, but upon cessation of all conduct. The doctrine of transmigration, understood one way or the other, is inimical to all good conduct; it means the negation of all activity. How can one conduct oneself, when one does not know for what he is suffering ; how can one decide which line of conduct to adopt and which to avoid?
The feeling that one is suffering from what one cannot undo, of whose very nature he is ignorant cannot but be most oppressive. The suffer must believe that his sufferings are unavoidable, because they are the just awards of the Deity according to one idea or the results of an inexorable law of cause and effect according to the other idea. This feeling of helplessness must naturally hinder activity and desire of self-improvement, and lead to the belief of fatalism.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Halal Biraadar
When you were beating round the bush, who lost the trail?
How would you say that sin is mandatory. That would be the end of this discussion. You are silently saying it.
Mushafiq Biraaadar, let me assure you that's your presumption and nothing else.
You see dear, if sin caused the disease in a person, I should not interfere in it nor seek to cure it because it is a punishment.
There you go bungling it again! person A's disease is the RESULT of person's A's actions. What should be your ACTION when you encounter person A?
whether you tend to the ailing or leave him just like that, is your karma (action) in response to the field of action(kshetra: the ailing person A infront of you)
in short person A's condition is your field of action and your condition may be the field of action of person C or D.
Modern science can cure illnesses which hundred years back could not be cured. So, Ishwara becomes partial according to your own theory. I can remove the illness (punishment) much quickly today than a hundred years back. Thus if the punishment was static for the same crime, how can the punishment be cut short? So to be fair, you better not try to cure any diseased person as per this theory.
again a flawed example.the actions of people,nature everything changes.Science has given us new cures AS WELL AS new diseases.
[also, we are solely responsible for our karma, why do you start blaming God in all this again and again.seems like you are not able to detach from the Islamic bias that you r so deeply associated with ]
If science can cure diseases faster now , it can alos kill greater numbers than before.I hope you now understand that the speed of action and it's reaction can not be consistent forever when so many souls collectively create this unified field of experience and action in a dynamic way
Halal biraadar when did I deny collective karma? I am emphasizing that sin is part of that collective karma and sin shapes the world. You are skipping here.
you are back to square one despite the examples i provided.How difficult it is to understand that the world is filled with souls involved in virtuous as well as sinful deeds. its myopic to look at one aspect and ignore another.
Who said I can marry my daughter in law?? You are confusing Prajapati with a Muslim. It is the Vedas dear.
I assumed you were a muslim and knew that the prophet married(not in an empirical sense but lets say he did) his daughter in law ! There's one more prophet Lot in Islam , well he is the torch bearer after of course adam and eve of whatever is called incest
yes according to karma theory you have no mother and father, so why is incest wrong?
Only a soul that is detached from the body is independent of relations.till the time i have a body , any wrong doing by in this body is wrong, as simple as that.
Why won't divorced and remarried women not meet her children??? Who told you this?
I am sorry , again i thought you were a muslim.In Islam the women get reunited with their husbands forever after death. now a much divorced wife cannot get united with all her previous husbands and offsprin ..right? so its an eternal separation indeed (for the previous offspring) in Islamic theology.
hope that answers the questions of the brother
When you were beating round the bush, who lost the trail?
How would you say that sin is mandatory. That would be the end of this discussion. You are silently saying it.
Mushafiq Biraaadar, let me assure you that's your presumption and nothing else.
You see dear, if sin caused the disease in a person, I should not interfere in it nor seek to cure it because it is a punishment.
There you go bungling it again! person A's disease is the RESULT of person's A's actions. What should be your ACTION when you encounter person A?
whether you tend to the ailing or leave him just like that, is your karma (action) in response to the field of action(kshetra: the ailing person A infront of you)
in short person A's condition is your field of action and your condition may be the field of action of person C or D.
Modern science can cure illnesses which hundred years back could not be cured. So, Ishwara becomes partial according to your own theory. I can remove the illness (punishment) much quickly today than a hundred years back. Thus if the punishment was static for the same crime, how can the punishment be cut short? So to be fair, you better not try to cure any diseased person as per this theory.
again a flawed example.the actions of people,nature everything changes.Science has given us new cures AS WELL AS new diseases.
[also, we are solely responsible for our karma, why do you start blaming God in all this again and again.seems like you are not able to detach from the Islamic bias that you r so deeply associated with
] If science can cure diseases faster now , it can alos kill greater numbers than before.I hope you now understand that the speed of action and it's reaction can not be consistent forever when so many souls collectively create this unified field of experience and action in a dynamic way
Halal biraadar when did I deny collective karma? I am emphasizing that sin is part of that collective karma and sin shapes the world. You are skipping here.
you are back to square one despite the examples i provided.How difficult it is to understand that the world is filled with souls involved in virtuous as well as sinful deeds. its myopic to look at one aspect and ignore another.
Who said I can marry my daughter in law?? You are confusing Prajapati with a Muslim. It is the Vedas dear.
I assumed you were a muslim and knew that the prophet married(not in an empirical sense but lets say he did) his daughter in law ! There's one more prophet Lot in Islam , well he is the torch bearer after of course adam and eve of whatever is called incest
yes according to karma theory you have no mother and father, so why is incest wrong?
Only a soul that is detached from the body is independent of relations.till the time i have a body , any wrong doing by in this body is wrong, as simple as that.
Why won't divorced and remarried women not meet her children??? Who told you this?
I am sorry , again i thought you were a muslim.In Islam the women get reunited with their husbands forever after death. now a much divorced wife cannot get united with all her previous husbands and offsprin ..right? so its an eternal separation indeed (for the previous offspring) in Islamic theology.
hope that answers the questions of the brother
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 21, 2011
Abdullah Biraadar
Abdullah biraadar
What is the evidence of our having lived previously ?
what is the evidence of an after life? God? heaven? hell? flying donkeys?
in short , tell me if you are going to discuss empirically or supra-rationally?
Do we retain any memory of former births ? Any Hindu will tell you that we do not, that the soul before re-birth is washed clean of all memory.As there is no memory Positive data for the doctrine of transmigration fail utterly and absolutely
The hindu is right. do you remember what you ate when you were 3 months 2 days old for dinner? if you don't remember, then would it be fine to assume that you did not exist when you were 3 years old?
There are two doctrines one of which Dayananda is a representative,assumes the existence of a God who gives rewards and punishments , according, to the deeds. The other, represented by the Theoso-phists, makes God a nullity and denies the idea of rewards and punishments. According to the doctrine of karma, God is an Ocean of Love He is the Great Attributeless, ineffable and altogether too happy in Himself to worry about the affairs of other?Karma means the law of cause and effect. You reap what you sow. If the harvest is pleasant, it is just the consequence of your deeds ; if it is unpleasant, that too is the effect of a cause. Neither the one is a " reward " given by God nor
is the other " punishment." God is far too big to interest Himself in our affairs. The whole affair is managed by the law of nature.
Both of these theories are worthless from the standpoint of practical ethics. The one, intended to save God from the charge of partiality, makes Him out into a heartless tyrant who punishes without letting the sufferers know what they suffer for. Want of memory takes away all chances of improvement and chastisement becomes mere vindictiveness on the part of the Deity.
again a flawed analysis . The theory that we are responsible for own actions aka karma theory is pragmatic and fair. One is not punished or rewarded whimsically by a tyrant sky god hungry of worship
Karma or the law of cause and effect is still more hopeless, because it excludes ethical considerations, as it does not recognize the idea of rewards and punishments. Rewards and punishments presume ethical judgments of good and bad. As the former are absent, so are the latter. Salvation will depend then, not upon the goodness of conduct, for the term " goodness" itself becomes meaningless when there are no rewards and punishments, but upon cessation of all conduct.
it's naive to say that karma theory excludes ethical considerations.rather, rewards and punishments bring in a sure degree of ethical dilemma as it involves not the actor but some third party showing the carrot and stick! ethics is about knowing ones intrinsic nature and behaving according to it rather than waiting for a sky God to wash away all our sins and bless us with rewards instead.
the predicament is visible by imagining an Osama bin laden in heaven and mother tersessa in hell ...which is impossible in theory of karma but very much possible in the abrahmic framework
The doctrine of transmigration, understood one way or the other, is inimical to all good conduct; it means the negation of all activity. How can one conduct oneself, when one does not know for what he is suffering ; how can one decide which line of conduct to adopt and which to avoid?
ask this question to drug addicts who know why they are suffering, but refuse to reform. It's a lame argument to state that just knowing the cause of misery is all it takes for a soul to rectify itself.Everybody knows that stealing is bad, killing is bad etc etc..people still kill and steal.I would like you to ponder over this, rather than elaborate on the missing element here.
also, it's naive to say that the theory of action(karma) negates all activity ..LOLZ
The feeling that one is suffering from what one cannot undo, of whose very nature he is ignorant cannot but be most oppressive. The suffer must believe that his sufferings are unavoidable, because they are the just awards of the Deity according to one idea or the results of an inexorable law of cause and effect according to the other idea. This feeling of helplessness must naturally hinder activity and desire of self-improvement, and lead to the belief of fatalism.
on the contrary, the memory is erased and the person is no longer tied to the guilt that would accumulate because of actions of previous births.only a portion of the accumulated karma is what the soul gets to work on in any given life.Fatalism is when a God from sky declares that this life is worthless, what matters is after life.no matter what sins you commit , just worshiping that sky god would erase your bad actions. and that's a picture perfect template for fatalism, specially when the Sky God has predetermined your fate even before you are born.
Abdullah biraadar
What is the evidence of our having lived previously ?
what is the evidence of an after life? God? heaven? hell? flying donkeys?
in short , tell me if you are going to discuss empirically or supra-rationally?
Do we retain any memory of former births ? Any Hindu will tell you that we do not, that the soul before re-birth is washed clean of all memory.As there is no memory Positive data for the doctrine of transmigration fail utterly and absolutely
The hindu is right. do you remember what you ate when you were 3 months 2 days old for dinner? if you don't remember, then would it be fine to assume that you did not exist when you were 3 years old?
There are two doctrines one of which Dayananda is a representative,assumes the existence of a God who gives rewards and punishments , according, to the deeds. The other, represented by the Theoso-phists, makes God a nullity and denies the idea of rewards and punishments. According to the doctrine of karma, God is an Ocean of Love He is the Great Attributeless, ineffable and altogether too happy in Himself to worry about the affairs of other?Karma means the law of cause and effect. You reap what you sow. If the harvest is pleasant, it is just the consequence of your deeds ; if it is unpleasant, that too is the effect of a cause. Neither the one is a " reward " given by God nor
is the other " punishment." God is far too big to interest Himself in our affairs. The whole affair is managed by the law of nature.
Both of these theories are worthless from the standpoint of practical ethics. The one, intended to save God from the charge of partiality, makes Him out into a heartless tyrant who punishes without letting the sufferers know what they suffer for. Want of memory takes away all chances of improvement and chastisement becomes mere vindictiveness on the part of the Deity.
again a flawed analysis . The theory that we are responsible for own actions aka karma theory is pragmatic and fair. One is not punished or rewarded whimsically by a tyrant sky god hungry of worship
Karma or the law of cause and effect is still more hopeless, because it excludes ethical considerations, as it does not recognize the idea of rewards and punishments. Rewards and punishments presume ethical judgments of good and bad. As the former are absent, so are the latter. Salvation will depend then, not upon the goodness of conduct, for the term " goodness" itself becomes meaningless when there are no rewards and punishments, but upon cessation of all conduct.
it's naive to say that karma theory excludes ethical considerations.rather, rewards and punishments bring in a sure degree of ethical dilemma as it involves not the actor but some third party showing the carrot and stick! ethics is about knowing ones intrinsic nature and behaving according to it rather than waiting for a sky God to wash away all our sins and bless us with rewards instead.
the predicament is visible by imagining an Osama bin laden in heaven and mother tersessa in hell ...which is impossible in theory of karma but very much possible in the abrahmic framework
The doctrine of transmigration, understood one way or the other, is inimical to all good conduct; it means the negation of all activity. How can one conduct oneself, when one does not know for what he is suffering ; how can one decide which line of conduct to adopt and which to avoid?
ask this question to drug addicts who know why they are suffering, but refuse to reform. It's a lame argument to state that just knowing the cause of misery is all it takes for a soul to rectify itself.Everybody knows that stealing is bad, killing is bad etc etc..people still kill and steal.I would like you to ponder over this, rather than elaborate on the missing element here.
also, it's naive to say that the theory of action(karma) negates all activity ..LOLZ
The feeling that one is suffering from what one cannot undo, of whose very nature he is ignorant cannot but be most oppressive. The suffer must believe that his sufferings are unavoidable, because they are the just awards of the Deity according to one idea or the results of an inexorable law of cause and effect according to the other idea. This feeling of helplessness must naturally hinder activity and desire of self-improvement, and lead to the belief of fatalism.
on the contrary, the memory is erased and the person is no longer tied to the guilt that would accumulate because of actions of previous births.only a portion of the accumulated karma is what the soul gets to work on in any given life.Fatalism is when a God from sky declares that this life is worthless, what matters is after life.no matter what sins you commit , just worshiping that sky god would erase your bad actions. and that's a picture perfect template for fatalism, specially when the Sky God has predetermined your fate even before you are born.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
A's disease is the result/punishment of his actions. From the Karmist point of view I am not supposed to act. If I will act, that causes 2 problems
1. My actions would become the consequence of sin. I have to act ONLY because he committed the sin. Had HE NOT COMMITTED the sin I did not have to act.
2. I would be interfering in the punishment.
Science has given us the cure of the congenital diseases. If science has given new diseases that closes the case. That it is not previous sins which cause diseases. So again this is a problem for you.
I am not blaming God. I am speaking as a Karmist. you are just putting your mess on me.
Can science cure and kill the same individual at the same time? You are misplacing the examples by Comparing apples and oranges. Your great grandfather was born with a heart disease which could not be cured at that time. but you were born with the same heart disease which can be effectively cured now in no time. So, Karma is being challenged here.
Am I denying that the world is not filled with virtuous and sinful? I am saying that as per Karmic philosophy sin is mandatory. Without sin your world won't function as all will be equal and no different professions would arise. No plants and animals would be there. So your theory is just nonsense.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had no son, so where did you get his daughter in law? Yes Lot is a Prophet. So? Talk with references.
lol. I am not asking you when can you do wrong and when can you not. I am saying prove to us that by Karmic theory incest with your mother is wrong.
you are confused man. A divorced woman wont be united with the former husband, because he is not her husband. what wrong in it? But offspring is the offspring. Children would be united too. You are messing up.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 21, 2011
Also, Mr. Halal Jawab, please inform us about the total number of souls that exist. According to you God creates no new souls. So, Vedas should at least give a figure of the number of souls. PLz let us know how many are there.
written by KalBhairav, May 21, 2011
Abdullah:
What is the evidence of our having lived previously ?Do we retain any memory of former births ? Any Hindu will tell you that we do not, that the soul before re-birth is washed clean of all memory.As there is no memory Positive data for the doctrine of transmigration fail utterly and absolutely.
I actually respect you for questioning things that DONT have positive data/evidence. You atleast are not a puppet who blindly believes what is written in books without questioning. Or do you? ;-)
The rest of your post is wild speculation that is way off the mark. Please dont take it upon your Abrahamic self to make up us Kufr Hindus' minds for us. We are quite capable of interpreting our religion ourselves.
What is the evidence of our having lived previously ?Do we retain any memory of former births ? Any Hindu will tell you that we do not, that the soul before re-birth is washed clean of all memory.As there is no memory Positive data for the doctrine of transmigration fail utterly and absolutely.
I actually respect you for questioning things that DONT have positive data/evidence. You atleast are not a puppet who blindly believes what is written in books without questioning. Or do you? ;-)
The rest of your post is wild speculation that is way off the mark. Please dont take it upon your Abrahamic self to make up us Kufr Hindus' minds for us. We are quite capable of interpreting our religion ourselves.
written by KalBhairav, May 22, 2011
Mushafiq:
A's disease is the result/punishment of his actions. From the Karmist point of view I am not supposed to act. If I will act, that causes 2 problems
1. My actions would become the consequence of sin. I have to act ONLY because he committed the sin. Had HE NOT COMMITTED the sin I did not have to act.
2. I would be interfering in the punishment.
This is the problem. You dont understand the concept of righteous action/Dharma and end up creating meaningless false dilemmas. Every entity has a duty to do righteous action. Fatalism is not Karma however much you may like to think it is. Try as you might you fail yet again in trying to interpret our religion for us.
In this thought experiment the answer is simple. A has free will. He/She should do everything possible to cure herself of her disease. Meditation/Yoga/Pranayama may be recommended even if he/she is a Muslim. It is only when we have a healthy body and a healthy mind that we can dispense our Dharmic duties in life.
Dharma is a difficult concept to grasp for Hindus ourselves. It is virtually beyond the capability of Abrahamic my-way-or-the-highway-to-hell-type minds to grapple with.
I suggest you try to contemplate on the message of the Bhagvad Gita.
A's disease is the result/punishment of his actions. From the Karmist point of view I am not supposed to act. If I will act, that causes 2 problems
1. My actions would become the consequence of sin. I have to act ONLY because he committed the sin. Had HE NOT COMMITTED the sin I did not have to act.
2. I would be interfering in the punishment.
This is the problem. You dont understand the concept of righteous action/Dharma and end up creating meaningless false dilemmas. Every entity has a duty to do righteous action. Fatalism is not Karma however much you may like to think it is. Try as you might you fail yet again in trying to interpret our religion for us.
In this thought experiment the answer is simple. A has free will. He/She should do everything possible to cure herself of her disease. Meditation/Yoga/Pranayama may be recommended even if he/she is a Muslim. It is only when we have a healthy body and a healthy mind that we can dispense our Dharmic duties in life.
Dharma is a difficult concept to grasp for Hindus ourselves. It is virtually beyond the capability of Abrahamic my-way-or-the-highway-to-hell-type minds to grapple with.
I suggest you try to contemplate on the message of the Bhagvad Gita.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 22, 2011
@Mr. Kalbhairav
You seem to be all charged up. calm down. Why don't you make us understand Dharma? We are only raising questions and hope that you with your magnificent knowledge will answer.
Yoga cure is best. Let us close down all hospitals and send all Doctors to their homes to relax. If he intervenes to cure him/her then his action is subservient to the sin and in other words the good actions of his was dependent on the sin of the diseased. So sin is mandatory.
Let me make you understand Dharma properly.
The Yajur Veda mentions in Chapter 30 how Ishwar created various professions of the sinner and the saints. For example, it says
.jpg)
The Mantras are saying, that like a Brahmin who has been created for Preisthood, Ishwar has also created the harlot for pastime and Kama (erotic love), thus giving legitimacy to it. For all jobs He has created the people, according to these mantras of the Vedas. According to the Hindu conception, the harlot has been made a harlot depending on her deeds in the previous birth. Why will an omnipotent Ishwar (?) create or allow such a profession, which is a source of misguidance for millions?
You seem to be all charged up. calm down. Why don't you make us understand Dharma? We are only raising questions and hope that you with your magnificent knowledge will answer.
Yoga cure is best. Let us close down all hospitals and send all Doctors to their homes to relax. If he intervenes to cure him/her then his action is subservient to the sin and in other words the good actions of his was dependent on the sin of the diseased. So sin is mandatory.
Let me make you understand Dharma properly.
The Yajur Veda mentions in Chapter 30 how Ishwar created various professions of the sinner and the saints. For example, it says
4. We call on him distributer of wondrous bounty and of wealth, on Savitar who looks on men.
5. For Brahman (Priesthood) he binds a Brahman to the stake; for Kshatra (Royalty) a Râjanya; for the Maruts a Vaisya; for Penance a Sûdra; for Darkness a robber; for Hell a homicide or a man who has lost his consecrated fire; for Misfortune a eunuch; for Venality an Ayogû; for Kâma (erotic love) a harlot; for Excessive Noise a Mâgadha.
[Yajur Veda Adhyay 30: Mantras 4, 5]
The Mantras are saying, that like a Brahmin who has been created for Preisthood, Ishwar has also created the harlot for pastime and Kama (erotic love), thus giving legitimacy to it. For all jobs He has created the people, according to these mantras of the Vedas. According to the Hindu conception, the harlot has been made a harlot depending on her deeds in the previous birth. Why will an omnipotent Ishwar (?) create or allow such a profession, which is a source of misguidance for millions?
written by KalBhairav, May 22, 2011
Mushafiq:
You want me to explain Dharma to you and at the same time you quote Mantras to me in an attempt to make up your own answer! Didnt I say I will not volunteer for an extended interview about the meanings of various theological points?
Assuming you are still looking for my answer, here goes.
I will focus on *my understanding* of the beautiful concept of Dharma from a secular/practical point and also briefly touch up few theological aspects in this post. For any of this to make sense you first need to rid yourself of the Abrahamic my-way-or-the-highway-to-hell glasses that are currently clouding your vision.
Dharma, broadly defined (IMHO - dont try and quote Vedic hymns in a meaningless attempt to "correct" my opinion) is anything that makes one move towards Brahman. If one is diseased, curing oneself of that disease is Dharma for otherwise he/she cannot contemplate Brahman. If one is poor or hungry, making oneself sufficiently well off and well fed is one's Dharma for without it one cannot contemplate Brahman.
A secular definition of Dharma can be provided as well. In today's world where many of us are engaged in jobs of various kinds, Dharma can be looked as one's job description. For a doctor, it is his Dharma that he try his best to save a patient's life. For a professor, it is his Dharma that he teaches and does research well. For a mother, it is her Dharma that she take care of a new born first putting her own sleepiness/tiredness second.
Wanton indulgence in desires of the senses are adharmic. But desire to attain Brahman via Bhakti/Jnana etc. are not.
None of this is anything new. It is a short extrapolation of the message of the key message of the Bhagvad Gita. This was why I said you ought to contemplate on it first to make any meaningful comment/post on Dharma/Karma/Reincarnation/Atman/Brahman, etc.
You want me to explain Dharma to you and at the same time you quote Mantras to me in an attempt to make up your own answer! Didnt I say I will not volunteer for an extended interview about the meanings of various theological points?
Assuming you are still looking for my answer, here goes.
I will focus on *my understanding* of the beautiful concept of Dharma from a secular/practical point and also briefly touch up few theological aspects in this post. For any of this to make sense you first need to rid yourself of the Abrahamic my-way-or-the-highway-to-hell glasses that are currently clouding your vision.
Dharma, broadly defined (IMHO - dont try and quote Vedic hymns in a meaningless attempt to "correct" my opinion) is anything that makes one move towards Brahman. If one is diseased, curing oneself of that disease is Dharma for otherwise he/she cannot contemplate Brahman. If one is poor or hungry, making oneself sufficiently well off and well fed is one's Dharma for without it one cannot contemplate Brahman.
A secular definition of Dharma can be provided as well. In today's world where many of us are engaged in jobs of various kinds, Dharma can be looked as one's job description. For a doctor, it is his Dharma that he try his best to save a patient's life. For a professor, it is his Dharma that he teaches and does research well. For a mother, it is her Dharma that she take care of a new born first putting her own sleepiness/tiredness second.
Wanton indulgence in desires of the senses are adharmic. But desire to attain Brahman via Bhakti/Jnana etc. are not.
None of this is anything new. It is a short extrapolation of the message of the key message of the Bhagvad Gita. This was why I said you ought to contemplate on it first to make any meaningful comment/post on Dharma/Karma/Reincarnation/Atman/Brahman, etc.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 22, 2011
A's disease is the result/punishment of his actions.
It's not a punishment but a remedial result.A is free to "act" on the result
From the Karmist point of view I am not supposed to act.
From a karmic point of view EVERYBODY is supposed to act appropriately in his/her field of action.So essentially both A and you are supposed to act.
As i said earlier A is your environment (field of action) , now if you choose not to help the diseased A , you have not acted compassionately to A. This gets added to your karma kitty.You will thus get a result so that you could learn the art of compassion ,for example
It's no coincidence that A is your field of action.It's a complex interconnected environment where everybody gets the perfect field of action and remedial experience.
So A is not only in conditioning mode but also the kshetra(field) for others like you to act
If I will act, that causes 2 problems
1. My actions would become the consequence of sin. I have to act ONLY because he committed the sin. Had HE NOT COMMITTED the sin I did not have to act.
Wrong. It's not that simplistic.let me explain through an example.Suppose A does not exercise regularly and thus got ill.Now is that a sin?? No! Now you as the doctor encounter A as your field of action.You may advise A to exercise regularly to avoid such trouble in future.
BUT THIS AGAIN IS JUST HALF THE PICTURE. look at them jews who become rich and win nobel prizes for instance
They create google (now google was not created because of anybody's sins right? ) .So it's myopic to view this complex web of field of actions as being driven by sin.
what you are missing big time is that you are assuming yourself to be perfectly right and A to be perfectly wrong. A needs to learn something and you too need to learn something when you encounter each other. Not to mention the possibility of some As who learn to die in the wilderness unattended
2. I would be interfering in the punishment.
as i said.It's not a punishment.It's a remedial result for A and field of action for both of you. A is brings himself to your field of action.Had you been perfect , you would not have encountered A in the first place.He/she is your environment and call to act
I am not blaming God. I am speaking as a Karmist. you are just putting your mess on me.
It was you who were blaming god for reward and punishment .My job was to remind you that Allah has no role in karmic theory
contd..
It's not a punishment but a remedial result.A is free to "act" on the result
From the Karmist point of view I am not supposed to act.
From a karmic point of view EVERYBODY is supposed to act appropriately in his/her field of action.So essentially both A and you are supposed to act.
As i said earlier A is your environment (field of action) , now if you choose not to help the diseased A , you have not acted compassionately to A. This gets added to your karma kitty.You will thus get a result so that you could learn the art of compassion ,for example
It's no coincidence that A is your field of action.It's a complex interconnected environment where everybody gets the perfect field of action and remedial experience.
So A is not only in conditioning mode but also the kshetra(field) for others like you to act
If I will act, that causes 2 problems
1. My actions would become the consequence of sin. I have to act ONLY because he committed the sin. Had HE NOT COMMITTED the sin I did not have to act.
Wrong. It's not that simplistic.let me explain through an example.Suppose A does not exercise regularly and thus got ill.Now is that a sin?? No! Now you as the doctor encounter A as your field of action.You may advise A to exercise regularly to avoid such trouble in future.
BUT THIS AGAIN IS JUST HALF THE PICTURE. look at them jews who become rich and win nobel prizes for instance
They create google (now google was not created because of anybody's sins right? ) .So it's myopic to view this complex web of field of actions as being driven by sin. what you are missing big time is that you are assuming yourself to be perfectly right and A to be perfectly wrong. A needs to learn something and you too need to learn something when you encounter each other. Not to mention the possibility of some As who learn to die in the wilderness unattended
2. I would be interfering in the punishment.
as i said.It's not a punishment.It's a remedial result for A and field of action for both of you. A is brings himself to your field of action.Had you been perfect , you would not have encountered A in the first place.He/she is your environment and call to act
I am not blaming God. I am speaking as a Karmist. you are just putting your mess on me.
It was you who were blaming god for reward and punishment .My job was to remind you that Allah has no role in karmic theory
contd..
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 22, 2011
contd..
Can science cure and kill the same individual at the same time?
chemotherapy... rings any bells .just joking btw, elaborate on this, i dint get why you mention this?
You are misplacing the examples by Comparing apples and oranges.
No i am not. It's you who is bewildered by the changing environment and confuse it for the breakdown of the karmic theory.
Your great grandfather was born with a heart disease which could not be cured at that time. but you were born with the same heart disease which can be effectively cured now in no time. So, Karma is being challenged here.
You ignore every time that the world is a result of the collective karma of souls.It has changed pace and shape since ages and the field of action(the world) will not remain the same essentially because so many souls are modifying this environment all the time.if you had heart disease as perfect killer in the past, you have AIDS in the present.The environment keeps changing, THE POSSIBILITIES DON'T .
Am I denying that the world is not filled with virtuous and sinful? I am saying that as per Karmic philosophy sin is mandatory. Without sin your world won't function as all will be equal and no different professions would arise. No plants and animals would be there. So your theory is just nonsense.
Sin isnt madatory. In this very world where A is busy sinning, B is working towards moksha doing virtuous deeds, C is enjoying the happiness of his past good karmas.It's free-will at play
and most importantly the world is not the focus of karma theory, it's the soul.this world will get created and destroyed many times.
lol. I am not asking you when can you do wrong and when can you not. I am saying prove to us that by Karmic theory incest with your mother is wrong.
karma theory states that one has to adhere to the dharma of the form you are born in.As a human being , it is indeed adharma (unless you are Jew LOlz)
you are confused man. A divorced woman wont be united with the former husband, because he is not her husband. what wrong in it? But offspring is the offspring. Children would be united too. You are messing up.
lets see who's confused.suppose a woman has 5 kids from first marriage, 3 from second, 2 from thrid and finally dies with her fourth husband without any issues. Now imagine this woman with her husband and 10 children in heaven..Lolz! the poor husband would be living hell in heaven
i will elaborate much interesting scenarios, but please give me an Islamic reference stating that offspring from previous husbands would be united with the mother.
Can science cure and kill the same individual at the same time?
chemotherapy... rings any bells .just joking
btw, elaborate on this, i dint get why you mention this? You are misplacing the examples by Comparing apples and oranges.
No i am not. It's you who is bewildered by the changing environment and confuse it for the breakdown of the karmic theory.
Your great grandfather was born with a heart disease which could not be cured at that time. but you were born with the same heart disease which can be effectively cured now in no time. So, Karma is being challenged here.
You ignore every time that the world is a result of the collective karma of souls.It has changed pace and shape since ages and the field of action(the world) will not remain the same essentially because so many souls are modifying this environment all the time.if you had heart disease as perfect killer in the past, you have AIDS in the present.The environment keeps changing, THE POSSIBILITIES DON'T .
Am I denying that the world is not filled with virtuous and sinful? I am saying that as per Karmic philosophy sin is mandatory. Without sin your world won't function as all will be equal and no different professions would arise. No plants and animals would be there. So your theory is just nonsense.
Sin isnt madatory. In this very world where A is busy sinning, B is working towards moksha doing virtuous deeds, C is enjoying the happiness of his past good karmas.It's free-will at play
and most importantly the world is not the focus of karma theory, it's the soul.this world will get created and destroyed many times.
lol. I am not asking you when can you do wrong and when can you not. I am saying prove to us that by Karmic theory incest with your mother is wrong.
karma theory states that one has to adhere to the dharma of the form you are born in.As a human being , it is indeed adharma (unless you are Jew LOlz)
you are confused man. A divorced woman wont be united with the former husband, because he is not her husband. what wrong in it? But offspring is the offspring. Children would be united too. You are messing up.
lets see who's confused.suppose a woman has 5 kids from first marriage, 3 from second, 2 from thrid and finally dies with her fourth husband without any issues. Now imagine this woman with her husband and 10 children in heaven..Lolz! the poor husband would be living hell in heaven
i will elaborate much interesting scenarios, but please give me an Islamic reference stating that offspring from previous husbands would be united with the mother.
written by Abdullah, May 22, 2011
@Halal Jawab
The punishment inflicted, therefore, is absolutely useless, for if the soul that is reborn has no warning is utterly ignorant of the sins for which it is made to suffer,what benefit can accrue to it from the punishment that is inflicted upon it and how will the punishment help it in shunning similar sins again. It should be borne in mind that human nature with all its excellences and beauties has this defect in it that on account of its inherent weakness it sometimes stumbles and falls into sins, but the Almighty God who is its Maker has not made it thus weak to keep.
@ Kalbhairav
Till now no substantial point you put forward.
Well lets make it simple for both of you.
The beginning of creation must have happened, whether it be millions of years ago, at the beginning of creation whats the base of earlier deeds.(सृष्टि के प्रारम्भ में मनुष्य के जन्म का सैद्धान्तिक आधार क्या था)
The punishment inflicted, therefore, is absolutely useless, for if the soul that is reborn has no warning is utterly ignorant of the sins for which it is made to suffer,what benefit can accrue to it from the punishment that is inflicted upon it and how will the punishment help it in shunning similar sins again. It should be borne in mind that human nature with all its excellences and beauties has this defect in it that on account of its inherent weakness it sometimes stumbles and falls into sins, but the Almighty God who is its Maker has not made it thus weak to keep.
@ Kalbhairav
Till now no substantial point you put forward.
Well lets make it simple for both of you.
The beginning of creation must have happened, whether it be millions of years ago, at the beginning of creation whats the base of earlier deeds.(सृष्टि के प्रारम्भ में मनुष्य के जन्म का सैद्धान्तिक आधार क्या था)
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 22, 2011
Abdullah Biraadar
You are still viewing the result of actions as punishment/reward, whereas its nothing more than a remedial experience for the soul.
You also ignore my point that souls don't bank upon memory to graduate to higher levels.Once the learning and wisdom are acquired, memory may end up being a disadvantage than advantage. I also gave you a practical example from your life itself where i reminded you that how you don't remember what you had for dinner when you were 3 years 2 days old as its of no meaning to you now and it's good that your memory was cleared of this insignificant stuff
Now to your simple question about what's the basis of earlier deeds at the beginning of creation there's a simple answer - creation and destruction are beginningless and endless cycle.so your question does not apply to the current creation, it goes back to the previous creation cycle and so on ad infinitum
hope that strengthens your belief in re-incarnation
You are still viewing the result of actions as punishment/reward, whereas its nothing more than a remedial experience for the soul.
You also ignore my point that souls don't bank upon memory to graduate to higher levels.Once the learning and wisdom are acquired, memory may end up being a disadvantage than advantage. I also gave you a practical example from your life itself where i reminded you that how you don't remember what you had for dinner when you were 3 years 2 days old as its of no meaning to you now and it's good that your memory was cleared of this insignificant stuff
Now to your simple question about what's the basis of earlier deeds at the beginning of creation there's a simple answer - creation and destruction are beginningless and endless cycle.so your question does not apply to the current creation, it goes back to the previous creation cycle and so on ad infinitum
hope that strengthens your belief in re-incarnation
written by Abdullah, May 22, 2011
@Halal Jawab
The creation did not start itself, Almigthy God created it, and he will destroy it so how is this cycle of creation and destruction thoughtful?
The rest of your post I will catch it all don't worry about it, no escapism from my side.
The creation did not start itself, Almigthy God created it, and he will destroy it so how is this cycle of creation and destruction thoughtful?
The rest of your post I will catch it all don't worry about it, no escapism from my side.
written by KalBhairav, May 22, 2011
@Abdullah:
Till now no substantial point you put forward.
I was responding to Mushafiq who asked about Dharma after he posed a meaningless thought experiment. According to me, the thought experiment has been solved. Which part of my response do you disagree with and why? What makes you say my response is insubstantial?
The beginning of creation must have happened, whether it be millions of years ago, at the beginning of creation whats the base of earlier deeds.(सृष्टि के प्रारम्भ में मनुष्य के जन्म का सैद्धान्तिक आधार क्या था)
There are numerous philosophical ways in which this can be answered maintaining the internal self-consistency of Hindu beliefs. However, we have no ways of verifying these because we are talking of cosmogony. The answers provided even by science on this front are agnostic. You *believe* God created the world in 6 days and created Adam and Eve. Hindus do not. Why is your belief correct and ours wrong or useless.
Till now no substantial point you put forward.
I was responding to Mushafiq who asked about Dharma after he posed a meaningless thought experiment. According to me, the thought experiment has been solved. Which part of my response do you disagree with and why? What makes you say my response is insubstantial?
The beginning of creation must have happened, whether it be millions of years ago, at the beginning of creation whats the base of earlier deeds.(सृष्टि के प्रारम्भ में मनुष्य के जन्म का सैद्धान्तिक आधार क्या था)
There are numerous philosophical ways in which this can be answered maintaining the internal self-consistency of Hindu beliefs. However, we have no ways of verifying these because we are talking of cosmogony. The answers provided even by science on this front are agnostic. You *believe* God created the world in 6 days and created Adam and Eve. Hindus do not. Why is your belief correct and ours wrong or useless.
written by Apolloreach, May 23, 2011
@ Mushafiq: Kafirs being najis is not unfounded as you claim. Your own scriptures state so. To me a Muslim is a Muslim (it does not matter whether a Shia holds this belief or a Sunni holds this belief). If as you claim, only Shias think that kafirs are dirty, are Shias not Muslims?
On your quotes from Manu, I think I have already mentioned a few times that if something in a secondary scripture does not hold up against the primary one, it needs to be passed. And if you use Manu Smriti as a corner stone about the sufferings of human race, humanity has suffered many times more owing to the barbarism that emanated out of the Arab peninsula. Hajaj clutched the head (devoid of torso)of Hindu king,knelt,thanked and prayed to Allah. Should I try to establish a link as to what propelled this action of Hajaj and his ilk later? On my posts in Agniveer, when dealing with people (your brethern that write to me and also post on Agniveer)that do think discussions like these are nothing more than an entries in a win/lose coulmn, I obviously have to make such claims. They don't seem to understand academic discussions at all.
Me beating around the bush? Buddy, you are missing the forests for the trees, well, bushes...If in English turning over the fruits of actions to God does not mean reposing faith in God, what is? Where did I say that one ought not to thank God? This is why I said, you do not understand immanence and transcedence of God. Inorder to help someone break from the cycle of births, God is giving opportunities but God does not control daily operations in a given environment. Heard of the proverb - We can take the horse to the pond but who will drink the water? Well God is giving us opportunities. It is for us to get the job done. And where did I say that kids are born with defects due to sins from previous births?Again Hindu theology does not point to a book or a tablet that God owns in which everybody's fate is pre-determined like what Islam says.
And Allah willfully guiding people astray is not a sham allegation. The evidence is right in the Quran 14.4.So Allah can willingly lead some astray in this world and having done so, those that went astray are still going to be punished by Allah on judgement day. This is double whammy and this is all because of the InshaAllah fatalism,emanating from the grand book that Allah keeps referring to on every human's life.Simple, eh? And can you please tell as to what is in the Lauh al Mahfuz about an individual? Is it the cause of an action or the action itself that a person executes? Your response will further attest the Islamic fatalism.
And if I do not understand Qadar (fate), can you explain it, please? You wanna call Qadar as some divine pre-determination instead of fate, fine. For your information, I have read treats on the Islamic theological school of Al Jabiriyah, where they use Quranic/Hadith evidence to prove that everything in a Muslim's life is predetermined by Allah without exceptions. You want proof, here it is,
Surah Ta-Ha: 20:110: He (Allah) knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them (in the Hereafter), and they will never compass anything of His Knowledge.
Surah al-Qamar 54:49 Verily, We have created all things with Qadar (Divine Preordainments of all things before their creation as written in the Book of Decrees Al-Lawh Al-Mahfooz)
Surah al-Hadeed 57:22 No calamity befalls on the earth or in yourselves but it is inscribed in the Book of Decrees (Al-Lawh Al-Mahfooz) before We bring it into existence. Verily, that is easy for Allah
Surah al-Qamar 54:49 Verily, We have created all things with Qadar (Divine Preordainments of all things before their creation as written in the Book of Decrees Al-Lawh Al-Mahfooz)
So, everything in a Muslim's life is based on pre-determined fate, driven by Allah. If this is not fatalism, what is? Allah, even determines who goes to the Haj pilgrimage based on the night of Qadar.So I am reiterating my point. Islam is a heavily fatalistic system, as opposed, to what you have claimed in your article.
On your quotes from Manu, I think I have already mentioned a few times that if something in a secondary scripture does not hold up against the primary one, it needs to be passed. And if you use Manu Smriti as a corner stone about the sufferings of human race, humanity has suffered many times more owing to the barbarism that emanated out of the Arab peninsula. Hajaj clutched the head (devoid of torso)of Hindu king,knelt,thanked and prayed to Allah. Should I try to establish a link as to what propelled this action of Hajaj and his ilk later? On my posts in Agniveer, when dealing with people (your brethern that write to me and also post on Agniveer)that do think discussions like these are nothing more than an entries in a win/lose coulmn, I obviously have to make such claims. They don't seem to understand academic discussions at all.
Me beating around the bush? Buddy, you are missing the forests for the trees, well, bushes...If in English turning over the fruits of actions to God does not mean reposing faith in God, what is? Where did I say that one ought not to thank God? This is why I said, you do not understand immanence and transcedence of God. Inorder to help someone break from the cycle of births, God is giving opportunities but God does not control daily operations in a given environment. Heard of the proverb - We can take the horse to the pond but who will drink the water? Well God is giving us opportunities. It is for us to get the job done. And where did I say that kids are born with defects due to sins from previous births?Again Hindu theology does not point to a book or a tablet that God owns in which everybody's fate is pre-determined like what Islam says.
And Allah willfully guiding people astray is not a sham allegation. The evidence is right in the Quran 14.4.So Allah can willingly lead some astray in this world and having done so, those that went astray are still going to be punished by Allah on judgement day. This is double whammy and this is all because of the InshaAllah fatalism,emanating from the grand book that Allah keeps referring to on every human's life.Simple, eh? And can you please tell as to what is in the Lauh al Mahfuz about an individual? Is it the cause of an action or the action itself that a person executes? Your response will further attest the Islamic fatalism.
And if I do not understand Qadar (fate), can you explain it, please? You wanna call Qadar as some divine pre-determination instead of fate, fine. For your information, I have read treats on the Islamic theological school of Al Jabiriyah, where they use Quranic/Hadith evidence to prove that everything in a Muslim's life is predetermined by Allah without exceptions. You want proof, here it is,
Surah Ta-Ha: 20:110: He (Allah) knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them (in the Hereafter), and they will never compass anything of His Knowledge.
Surah al-Qamar 54:49 Verily, We have created all things with Qadar (Divine Preordainments of all things before their creation as written in the Book of Decrees Al-Lawh Al-Mahfooz)
Surah al-Hadeed 57:22 No calamity befalls on the earth or in yourselves but it is inscribed in the Book of Decrees (Al-Lawh Al-Mahfooz) before We bring it into existence. Verily, that is easy for Allah
Surah al-Qamar 54:49 Verily, We have created all things with Qadar (Divine Preordainments of all things before their creation as written in the Book of Decrees Al-Lawh Al-Mahfooz)
So, everything in a Muslim's life is based on pre-determined fate, driven by Allah. If this is not fatalism, what is? Allah, even determines who goes to the Haj pilgrimage based on the night of Qadar.So I am reiterating my point. Islam is a heavily fatalistic system, as opposed, to what you have claimed in your article.
written by Apolloreach, May 23, 2011
@ Mushafiq: And on Varuna, you are only trying to bend the meaning of the verse and this also gives me another opportunity to call out a key aspect of fatalism. Varuna is that aspect of God that monitors the cosmos (BUT is not involved in daily ops like what is found in the book that Allah possesses). And in the verse Varuna does not play dice but rolling of dice is a similie.Varuna counts the blink of every eye and reckons, like a dicer, his throw in the cosmic system and settles the returns, in terms of cycle of births. And in the Vedas, Varuna has established the Vedic order and monitors the same. Ofcourse, Varuna is impersonal and transcedental to what the humans do with those decree on a daily basis. Vedic God needs no defence from a mere mortal like me, just because, you bend the interpretaion of verses.
And Vedic God enables men to be intuitive enough and take corrective action. There are enough verses on these lines about Varuna. Again, this aspect of Varuna is so different from Allah pre-determining everything/everybody & in some cases, willfully misleading people and then getting them toasted in hell.But yes,you will claim that all this done by Allah is logical.
Again Islam is inherently fatalistic.And you are completely wrong by claiming that it is not so.
And Vedic God enables men to be intuitive enough and take corrective action. There are enough verses on these lines about Varuna. Again, this aspect of Varuna is so different from Allah pre-determining everything/everybody & in some cases, willfully misleading people and then getting them toasted in hell.But yes,you will claim that all this done by Allah is logical.
Again Islam is inherently fatalistic.And you are completely wrong by claiming that it is not so.
written by Apolloreach, May 23, 2011
@ Kal Bhairav and Halal Jawab: Great going folks. Irrespective of what the other side posts, your posts do appeal to and are centered around common sense.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 23, 2011
Sorry for the late reply. I have been busy since yesterday with other work.
@Kalbhairav
If the mantras are making you uncomfortable, ask yourself why.
I did not mention anything about my-way-or-the-highway-to-hell
I quoted SDS who said the following
"Are then the teachings of the Dadupanthee true?"
to which he replies,
"The only true path is that of the Vedas. Follow it if you can otherwise you will always be sunk in ignorance and misery." [Satyarth, Page 446]
I think SDS was not Abrahamic. So, avoid any strawman arguments.
Thank you for accepting that Dharma is a profession, nothing more. Our beloved Manu says
"96. A man of low caste who through covetousness lives by the occupations of a higher one, the king shall deprive of his property and banish.
97. It is better (to discharge) one's own (appointed) duty (Dharma) incompletely than to perform completely the Dharma of another; for he who lives according to the law of another (caste) is instantly excluded from his own."
[Manu 10:96-97]
The Dharma of a everyone is given by birth. You cannot change your Dharma in your present life. It is clearly mentioned in the Gita, that qualities o an individual are not those of acquisition by personal effort in one's own life, but are 'born of their own nature,' (svabhaava) and are allotted before the individual takes birth. Let me quote few proofs.
"The activities of the brahmanas, Kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras are clearly divided according to the qualities born of their own nature."
We find a similar echo in Gita 4:13
A person, therefore, is a Brahmin, Kshatriyya or a member of other castes by birth and not by free choice as of a profession, as you are trying to portray. Brahmin is considered Uttama or superior. Shudra is not equal to the Brahmin. Reverence and making gifts to the Brahmins are enjoined not the other way around. It completely gives a lie to what you are saying.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 23, 2011
@Halal Jawab
You are just agreeing with me but refusing to admit openly. 'your field of action' proposition is just not a good reply. This field of action is dependant on diversity. Diversity results from sins. So sin is mandatory. Come on you are just repharsing the same point over and over again which I already refuted in the false hope that you can get out this vicious circle.
Then you say: Wrong. It's not that simplistic.let me explain through an example.Suppose A does not exercise regularly and thus got ill.Now is that a sin?? No! Now you as the doctor encounter A as your field of action.You may advise A to exercise regularly to avoid such trouble in future.
So you are essentally agreeing that the results of our illness are not past sins but mere mistakes of this very life. Kudos.
Why are you hesistant to call a spade a spade. Call it a punishment as it is. Dand is punishment. I was yesterday hearing your own scholar in 'Shanka Samadhan'. He called it dand. Why are you being deceptive here by calling it remedial measure?
My point is what sort of remedial measure is it if the person doesn't even remember for what sin is he being rememdied? This is nonsensical. All people with basic common sense accept the dictum that 'Justic must not only done. It must also APPEAR to have been done'. This karma philosophy fails this basic dictum, because people like me do not take any misery as a punishment (or ur diplomatic word remedy).
Adopted son is not one's own son and this was precisely the practice which was to be rooted out by marrying Zainab. Hope you digest it.
You are just agreeing with me but refusing to admit openly. 'your field of action' proposition is just not a good reply. This field of action is dependant on diversity. Diversity results from sins. So sin is mandatory. Come on you are just repharsing the same point over and over again which I already refuted in the false hope that you can get out this vicious circle.
Then you say: Wrong. It's not that simplistic.let me explain through an example.Suppose A does not exercise regularly and thus got ill.Now is that a sin?? No! Now you as the doctor encounter A as your field of action.You may advise A to exercise regularly to avoid such trouble in future.
So you are essentally agreeing that the results of our illness are not past sins but mere mistakes of this very life. Kudos.
Why are you hesistant to call a spade a spade. Call it a punishment as it is. Dand is punishment. I was yesterday hearing your own scholar in 'Shanka Samadhan'. He called it dand. Why are you being deceptive here by calling it remedial measure?
My point is what sort of remedial measure is it if the person doesn't even remember for what sin is he being rememdied? This is nonsensical. All people with basic common sense accept the dictum that 'Justic must not only done. It must also APPEAR to have been done'. This karma philosophy fails this basic dictum, because people like me do not take any misery as a punishment (or ur diplomatic word remedy).
Adopted son is not one's own son and this was precisely the practice which was to be rooted out by marrying Zainab. Hope you digest it.
written by RAS, May 23, 2011
@Apollo,
Brother, you are everywhere. Now I see you here praising others and trying to showcase your OWN reasoning skills without refuting point by point on this subject. Its not a good debating skills though. Try refuting or see how subject matter experts talk.
To me brother Kalbhairav seems to be a man who SPEAKs of what he THINKS not like OTHERS who doublespeak, regularly. Insha Allah, if he researches more without any prejudice, he will come to know the correct creator of this world, his attributes and his message to mankind and purpose of this life.
Please do not ride on other's back when YOU are in the same page. Hope this is commensense for you :-)
Peace,
Riaz
Brother, you are everywhere. Now I see you here praising others and trying to showcase your OWN reasoning skills without refuting point by point on this subject. Its not a good debating skills though. Try refuting or see how subject matter experts talk.
To me brother Kalbhairav seems to be a man who SPEAKs of what he THINKS not like OTHERS who doublespeak, regularly. Insha Allah, if he researches more without any prejudice, he will come to know the correct creator of this world, his attributes and his message to mankind and purpose of this life.
Please do not ride on other's back when YOU are in the same page. Hope this is commensense for you :-)
Peace,
Riaz
written by KalBhairav, May 23, 2011
Mushafiq:
Ah, you continue to focus on caste differences because that seems to be all you have. That is understandable.
Gita 4:13 does indeed talk of caste. But that is a stick using which you can beat only those who believe in caste being propagated by *heredity*.
Gita 4:13 can be interpreted in other more useful ways too. Here are some:
(1)Intellect, energy, organization and motion (4 castes). All of these are needed within an individual for proper functioning with none being better or worse than the other. Some people may have more of one of these qualities leading to a predominance of one these "castes". This is independent of their birth family, thankfully. Do you disagree?
(2)A society cannot be comprised of doctors alone or engineers or folks specializing in one profession alone. For proper functioning of a society folks capable of performing all activities are needed. This is true of all societies at all points in time.
I thought you were a regular at Agniveer...havent you seen articles there debunking birth-based hereditary caste system? You can only take a horse to the pond...I am sure you can finish the rest of the adage.
Quit trying to reinterpret my religion for me (although I think you will continue to as this is all you have). I choose to label myself Hindu AND I dont believe in birth based caste system. Which part of this doesnt compute with you? Maybe you should put a link somewhere here which says that only those Hindus who *believe* in birth-based caste system are allowed to comment on IH. That way folks like me can know what is the type of audience you are appealing to and wanting to attract so that I can steer clear of here.
[I am not a sociologist but as an aside I can venture a guess as to how hereditary caste system based on profession would have come into being. A potter's son would see his father work and learn. He would see his father interacting with his suppliers/customers. He would have hands on learning from a very young age as to how to work with typical potters' instruments. Thus, he would (without any effort) very easily be initialized into the ways and means of livelihood of his father. Same with a farmer, carpenter, teacher, midwife, trader, preacher, etc. All these professions were equally valuable in mainly pastoral/agricultural villages thousands of years ago. These days as we have moved away from barter system and agrarian-type economies, hereditary caste system is anyway falling away and people move between professions without batting an eyelid. You underestimate the inherent flexibility of Indian society which owes a lot of this feature to the broadmindedness of the Hindu way of life.]
Ah, you continue to focus on caste differences because that seems to be all you have. That is understandable.
Gita 4:13 does indeed talk of caste. But that is a stick using which you can beat only those who believe in caste being propagated by *heredity*.
Gita 4:13 can be interpreted in other more useful ways too. Here are some:
(1)Intellect, energy, organization and motion (4 castes). All of these are needed within an individual for proper functioning with none being better or worse than the other. Some people may have more of one of these qualities leading to a predominance of one these "castes". This is independent of their birth family, thankfully. Do you disagree?
(2)A society cannot be comprised of doctors alone or engineers or folks specializing in one profession alone. For proper functioning of a society folks capable of performing all activities are needed. This is true of all societies at all points in time.
I thought you were a regular at Agniveer...havent you seen articles there debunking birth-based hereditary caste system? You can only take a horse to the pond...I am sure you can finish the rest of the adage.
Quit trying to reinterpret my religion for me (although I think you will continue to as this is all you have). I choose to label myself Hindu AND I dont believe in birth based caste system. Which part of this doesnt compute with you? Maybe you should put a link somewhere here which says that only those Hindus who *believe* in birth-based caste system are allowed to comment on IH. That way folks like me can know what is the type of audience you are appealing to and wanting to attract so that I can steer clear of here.
[I am not a sociologist but as an aside I can venture a guess as to how hereditary caste system based on profession would have come into being. A potter's son would see his father work and learn. He would see his father interacting with his suppliers/customers. He would have hands on learning from a very young age as to how to work with typical potters' instruments. Thus, he would (without any effort) very easily be initialized into the ways and means of livelihood of his father. Same with a farmer, carpenter, teacher, midwife, trader, preacher, etc. All these professions were equally valuable in mainly pastoral/agricultural villages thousands of years ago. These days as we have moved away from barter system and agrarian-type economies, hereditary caste system is anyway falling away and people move between professions without batting an eyelid. You underestimate the inherent flexibility of Indian society which owes a lot of this feature to the broadmindedness of the Hindu way of life.]
written by KalBhairav, May 23, 2011
Riaz:
Insha Allah, if he researches more without any prejudice, he will come to know the correct creator of this world, his attributes and his message to mankind and purpose of this life.
You KNOW the correct creator of the world, his attributes/message and purpose of life? It always helps to differentiate between knowledge and beliefs - especially in matters of religion which can easily be twisted for abhorrent purposes.
Insha Allah, if he researches more without any prejudice, he will come to know the correct creator of this world, his attributes and his message to mankind and purpose of this life.
You KNOW the correct creator of the world, his attributes/message and purpose of life? It always helps to differentiate between knowledge and beliefs - especially in matters of religion which can easily be twisted for abhorrent purposes.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 24, 2011
Mushafiq Biraadar
You are just agreeing with me but refusing to admit openly. 'your field of action' proposition is just not a good reply.
On the contrary, i gave you the correct reply according to the theory of karma. You don't find it good because it contradicts your bias.
It's a good theory indeed. To the point that it explains why you and i are discussing with each other We both are each others field of action and though "sin" may be our subject of discourse BUT NOT the driver of our diverse opinions
This field of action is dependant on diversity. Diversity results from sins.
By stating this you are admitting that Allah is a sinner. He created humans into diverse tribes: isn't that what Islam asserts? So shall it be correct to say that Allah is Sin Himself who causes diversity??
Biraadar, diversity exists because of free-will.And exercising their free-wills, countless souls shape the world the way it is, with sin , piety, pleasure, pain as the byproducts
One cannot "act" without the "field of action". It's another matter that exercising their freewill , some people act rightfully while others wrongfully. We cannot say that the rights have it or the wrongs have it .What can be surely said is that sin is not the driver , but our collective free-wills that are shaping this world, sometimes sin being the dominant constituent and sometimes piety and virtues being dominant
So sin is mandatory. Come on you are just repharsing the same point over and over again which I already refuted in the false hope that you can get out this vicious circle.
You have not be able to refute the point i made . I tried to explain with so many examples that the dynamics of the world should not be viewed myopically from the glasses of sin or virtue or pleasure or pain.
Then you say: Wrong. It's not that simplistic.let me explain through an example.Suppose A does not exercise regularly and thus got ill.Now is that a sin?? No! Now you as the doctor encounter A as your field of action.You may advise A to exercise regularly to avoid such trouble in future.
So you are essentally agreeing that the results of our illness are not past sins but mere mistakes of this very life. Kudos.
Lolz, how wrong you can go dear Mushafiq.
that i did not exercise in the PAST is the reason for my getting ill TODAY ..right? so actions in the past bring results in the future ..as simple as that.
what's getting you consufed again and again is your Islamic bias of Judgment Day. While the theory of karma states that we receive the result of of actions in a continuous cycle(in present as well as future births). That's what makes the theory of karma stand apart from Abrahmic faiths where Justice is delayed till the Judgment day .JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED
so we receive the results of our actions in this life as well as future lives if the action is not exhausted in the current. No action goes without a result.isnt that beautiful ?
Why are you hesistant to call a spade a spade. Call it a punishment as it is. Dand is punishment. I was yesterday hearing your own scholar in 'Shanka Samadhan'. He called it dand. Why are you being deceptive here by calling it remedial measure?
It's you who's calling a spade an axe my friend.
I have made it more than clear that people also receive GOOD RESULTS in the present due to PAST GOOD ACTIONS as well as REMEDIAL RESULTS to correct PAST BAD DEEDS.To say that the world is only a punishment hub is myopic to say the least.
contd..
You are just agreeing with me but refusing to admit openly. 'your field of action' proposition is just not a good reply.
On the contrary, i gave you the correct reply according to the theory of karma. You don't find it good because it contradicts your bias.
It's a good theory indeed. To the point that it explains why you and i are discussing with each other
We both are each others field of action and though "sin" may be our subject of discourse BUT NOT the driver of our diverse opinions This field of action is dependant on diversity. Diversity results from sins.
By stating this you are admitting that Allah is a sinner. He created humans into diverse tribes: isn't that what Islam asserts? So shall it be correct to say that Allah is Sin Himself who causes diversity??
Biraadar, diversity exists because of free-will.And exercising their free-wills, countless souls shape the world the way it is, with sin , piety, pleasure, pain as the byproducts
One cannot "act" without the "field of action". It's another matter that exercising their freewill , some people act rightfully while others wrongfully. We cannot say that the rights have it or the wrongs have it .What can be surely said is that sin is not the driver , but our collective free-wills that are shaping this world, sometimes sin being the dominant constituent and sometimes piety and virtues being dominant
So sin is mandatory. Come on you are just repharsing the same point over and over again which I already refuted in the false hope that you can get out this vicious circle.
You have not be able to refute the point i made . I tried to explain with so many examples that the dynamics of the world should not be viewed myopically from the glasses of sin or virtue or pleasure or pain.
Then you say: Wrong. It's not that simplistic.let me explain through an example.Suppose A does not exercise regularly and thus got ill.Now is that a sin?? No! Now you as the doctor encounter A as your field of action.You may advise A to exercise regularly to avoid such trouble in future.
So you are essentally agreeing that the results of our illness are not past sins but mere mistakes of this very life. Kudos.
Lolz, how wrong you can go dear Mushafiq.
that i did not exercise in the PAST is the reason for my getting ill TODAY ..right? so actions in the past bring results in the future ..as simple as that.
what's getting you consufed again and again is your Islamic bias of Judgment Day. While the theory of karma states that we receive the result of of actions in a continuous cycle(in present as well as future births). That's what makes the theory of karma stand apart from Abrahmic faiths where Justice is delayed till the Judgment day .JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED
so we receive the results of our actions in this life as well as future lives if the action is not exhausted in the current. No action goes without a result.isnt that beautiful ?
Why are you hesistant to call a spade a spade. Call it a punishment as it is. Dand is punishment. I was yesterday hearing your own scholar in 'Shanka Samadhan'. He called it dand. Why are you being deceptive here by calling it remedial measure?
It's you who's calling a spade an axe my friend.
I have made it more than clear that people also receive GOOD RESULTS in the present due to PAST GOOD ACTIONS as well as REMEDIAL RESULTS to correct PAST BAD DEEDS.To say that the world is only a punishment hub is myopic to say the least.
contd..
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 24, 2011
contd...
My point is what sort of remedial measure is it if the person doesn't even remember for what sin is he being rememdied?
This is where you are the most confused regarding the theory of karma. please remember that The BODY IS NOT THE SOUL!
The correction of the SOUL is not the same as the correction of the BODY. The correction of soul has to be INDEPENDENT of the BODY ( as soul is eternal and body keeps changing)
memory is an aid for the soul in the body , for the current field of action.If the souls current mind is filled with all it's memories from countless previous births, it may die of information bombardment and bewilderment .
why go far , look at our current life itself.If bad memories keep haunting us we feel depressed and refuse to act and go astray most of the times.If good memories haunt us all the time we keep resting on our laurels.All this indicates clearly that memory is just an aid and not the DRIVER of the souls reform.The example above illustrate that memory can sometimes act as a deterrent to the progress of the soul too
This is nonsensical. All people with basic common sense accept the dictum that 'Justic must not only done. It must also APPEAR to have been done'. This karma philosophy fails this basic dictum, because people like me do not take any misery as a punishment (or ur diplomatic word remedy).
common sense dictates that Justice delayed is justice denied..so the abrahmic concept of Judgment Day is the first thing you must denounce
common sense also dictates that the purpose of Justice is remedy and NOT REVENGE , so you must reject the eternal hell fire concept of Islam
common sense also dictates, that Justice cannot be done for an "eternal entity" like the soul by REMINDING it of it's crime but REFORMING it from it's propensity to commit crime.How? we see from common experience that people make the same mistakes again and again despite having suffered the bad consequences of those mistakes. why do they do that ? because they have not INTERNALIZED THE LEARNING and NOT because they don't remember the mistakes.
same applies to souls, the remedial results are for the souls to internalize their learning and once wisdom and learning are gained , there's little use of memory and other aids.
Adopted son is not one's own son and this was precisely the practice which was to be rooted out by marrying Zainab. Hope you digest it.
Sorry , no human can digest it !
The good practice of adopting sons and treating adopted sons as ones own son would be commended by all humanity. But Islam, it seems, stands opposite to humanity and you attest it by saying that the prophet was responsible for breaking this noble tradition of the pre-Islamic Arabs. what a colossal damage to altruism .
I am surprised that you mention this so boastfully , it would be an embarrassment for any human being !!
My point is what sort of remedial measure is it if the person doesn't even remember for what sin is he being rememdied?
This is where you are the most confused regarding the theory of karma. please remember that The BODY IS NOT THE SOUL!
The correction of the SOUL is not the same as the correction of the BODY. The correction of soul has to be INDEPENDENT of the BODY ( as soul is eternal and body keeps changing)
memory is an aid for the soul in the body , for the current field of action.If the souls current mind is filled with all it's memories from countless previous births, it may die of information bombardment and bewilderment .
why go far , look at our current life itself.If bad memories keep haunting us we feel depressed and refuse to act and go astray most of the times.If good memories haunt us all the time we keep resting on our laurels.All this indicates clearly that memory is just an aid and not the DRIVER of the souls reform.The example above illustrate that memory can sometimes act as a deterrent to the progress of the soul too
This is nonsensical. All people with basic common sense accept the dictum that 'Justic must not only done. It must also APPEAR to have been done'. This karma philosophy fails this basic dictum, because people like me do not take any misery as a punishment (or ur diplomatic word remedy).
common sense dictates that Justice delayed is justice denied..so the abrahmic concept of Judgment Day is the first thing you must denounce
common sense also dictates that the purpose of Justice is remedy and NOT REVENGE , so you must reject the eternal hell fire concept of Islam
common sense also dictates, that Justice cannot be done for an "eternal entity" like the soul by REMINDING it of it's crime but REFORMING it from it's propensity to commit crime.How? we see from common experience that people make the same mistakes again and again despite having suffered the bad consequences of those mistakes. why do they do that ? because they have not INTERNALIZED THE LEARNING and NOT because they don't remember the mistakes.
same applies to souls, the remedial results are for the souls to internalize their learning and once wisdom and learning are gained , there's little use of memory and other aids.
Adopted son is not one's own son and this was precisely the practice which was to be rooted out by marrying Zainab. Hope you digest it.
Sorry , no human can digest it !
The good practice of adopting sons and treating adopted sons as ones own son would be commended by all humanity. But Islam, it seems, stands opposite to humanity and you attest it by saying that the prophet was responsible for breaking this noble tradition of the pre-Islamic Arabs. what a colossal damage to altruism .
I am surprised that you mention this so boastfully , it would be an embarrassment for any human being !!
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 24, 2011
@Kalbhairav
I was not discussing caste here. I was explaining Dharma to you. Dharma comes from birth not from your own effort in this life and it cannot be changed. also, since you gave diplomatic examples like doctor and mother, I gave more scriptural examples like Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra.
You cannot translate Gita 4:13 as per your whims and convenience. On what basis did you use the words intellect, energy, organization and motion? Plz care to provide some proofs. Here is Kesava Kashmiri's Commentary who belongs to the Kumara Vaisnava Sampradaya:
The same idea is of Ramanuja.
I congratulate you that you do not believe in birth based caste system. However, your scriptures teach so. But, I think we have deviated here from the topic, which was reincarnation.
I was not discussing caste here. I was explaining Dharma to you. Dharma comes from birth not from your own effort in this life and it cannot be changed. also, since you gave diplomatic examples like doctor and mother, I gave more scriptural examples like Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra.
You cannot translate Gita 4:13 as per your whims and convenience. On what basis did you use the words intellect, energy, organization and motion? Plz care to provide some proofs. Here is Kesava Kashmiri's Commentary who belongs to the Kumara Vaisnava Sampradaya:
"This verse refers to the four orders of Vedic culture exclusively being the brahmins or priestly class, the ksatriya's or the royal and warrior class, the vaisya's or farming and trading class and the sudra or the servant classs. These were created according to the natural qualities of their prenatal disposition and classified accordingly to their corresponding birth. The Brahmins have the prenatal quality of sattva or goodness, the ksatriya's have the prenatal quality of rajas or passion being dominant and sattva being subordinate, the vaisya's have the prenatal quality of tama guna or ignorance with rajas being subordinate and the sudras have the prenatal quality of ignorance."
The same idea is of Ramanuja.
I congratulate you that you do not believe in birth based caste system. However, your scriptures teach so. But, I think we have deviated here from the topic, which was reincarnation.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 24, 2011
@Halal biraadar.
Why don't you pay attention to rhythm of the discussion?
I said : This field of action is dependent on diversity. Diversity results from sins.
You reply : By stating this you are admitting that Allah is a sinner. He created humans into diverse tribes: isn't that what Islam asserts? So shall it be correct to say that Allah is Sin Himself who causes diversity??
Biraadar, diversity exists because of free-will. And exercising their free-wills, countless souls shape the world the way it is, with sin , piety, pleasure, pain as the byproducts
I was speaking from the Karmist viewpoint, not from an Islamic viewpoint. You should keep this in mind. According to the Karmist viewpoint, diversity results from sins. I know it is faulty and you agreed. So Allah is out of question. Stick to your theory. Don't drag the Islamic concept into this discussion in the hope of deviating the topic.
Then, praise be to Allah, you agreed with us
You said: One cannot "act" without the "field of action".
True but you theory says the sins of the past life give your field of actions. Hence your field of actions cannot come into being without sins. So sin is mandatory again. You have to accept it or explain it satisfactorily.
That you did not exercise in the past is the reason that you get ill today. This is correct. But not doing exercise and getting ill are in the SAME LIFE not in past birth. This is important.
Now, you brought up another lost cause of Justice delayed. May I know how long is a delay? According to Karmist theory, does a soul immediately take birth in an instant? If yes give the proof. If no, then why not call it delay by your own faulty standard. I don't think you have studied the Chandogya Upanishad. Let me inform you what it says,
But you can read the whole chapter if you want. So mr. Halal, where is your so called instantaneous Justice? This is such a long cycle. from moon to the corn. You need to do some serious study of your scripture before engaging in any discussion.
Why don't you pay attention to rhythm of the discussion?
I said : This field of action is dependent on diversity. Diversity results from sins.
You reply : By stating this you are admitting that Allah is a sinner. He created humans into diverse tribes: isn't that what Islam asserts? So shall it be correct to say that Allah is Sin Himself who causes diversity??
Biraadar, diversity exists because of free-will. And exercising their free-wills, countless souls shape the world the way it is, with sin , piety, pleasure, pain as the byproducts
I was speaking from the Karmist viewpoint, not from an Islamic viewpoint. You should keep this in mind. According to the Karmist viewpoint, diversity results from sins. I know it is faulty and you agreed. So Allah is out of question. Stick to your theory. Don't drag the Islamic concept into this discussion in the hope of deviating the topic.
Then, praise be to Allah, you agreed with us
You said: One cannot "act" without the "field of action".
True but you theory says the sins of the past life give your field of actions. Hence your field of actions cannot come into being without sins. So sin is mandatory again. You have to accept it or explain it satisfactorily.
That you did not exercise in the past is the reason that you get ill today. This is correct. But not doing exercise and getting ill are in the SAME LIFE not in past birth. This is important.
Now, you brought up another lost cause of Justice delayed. May I know how long is a delay? According to Karmist theory, does a soul immediately take birth in an instant? If yes give the proof. If no, then why not call it delay by your own faulty standard. I don't think you have studied the Chandogya Upanishad. Let me inform you what it says,
"3... they who living in a village practice (a life of) sacrifices, works of public utility, and alms, they go to the smoke, from smoke to night, from night to the dark half of the moon, from the dark half of the moon to the six months when the sun goes to the south. But they do not reach the year.
4. 'From the months they go to the world of the fathers, from the world of the fathers to the ether, from the ether to the moon. That is Soma, the king. Here they are loved (eaten) by the Devas, yes, the Devas love (eat) them.
5. 'Having dwelt there, till their (good) works are consumed, they return again that way as they came', to the ether, from the ether to the air. Then the sacrificer, having become air, becomes smoke, having become smoke, he becomes mist,
6. 'Having become mist, he becomes a cloud, having become a cloud, he rains down. Then he is born as rice and corn, herbs and trees, sesamum and beans. From thence the escape is beset with most difficulties. For whoever the persons may be that eat the food, and beget offspring, he henceforth becomes like unto them." [Chandogya 5:10:3-6]
But you can read the whole chapter if you want. So mr. Halal, where is your so called instantaneous Justice? This is such a long cycle. from moon to the corn. You need to do some serious study of your scripture before engaging in any discussion.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 24, 2011
If the soul is eternal, its knowledge too must be eternal, since it has consciousness according to you (Sat and Chit). Why does its old knowledge perish? So either accept that the soul is not eternal or accept that its knowledge must be eternal.
To see Justice being delivered knowledge is a MUST. If we do not know the wrongs we did how can we accept the result to be fair? You are giving a lame excuse that previous knowledge will haunt people. This is the fallacy of the karmic concept. Let it haunt him. The haunting is no excuse to wash the memory.
Then, I have already dealt with Justice delayed argument. There would be no delay because the time-scale of this world is completely different from the other world.
Of course Justice means getting what you deserve. No one calls it revenge. As you sow so shall you reap. But we do not believe in blind actions and results. We also believe in the Grace and Forgiveness of God, which is missing in Hinduism. There is something called sincere repentance and asking for forgiveness. However, I do not want to open a new topic now altogether. Eternal heaven and hell is also taught in Vedas. Vedas speak nothing about any reincarnation, I have already written in detail about Vedic Paradise. You can read that. i will write on Vedic Hell shortly. So your objections would not stand.
There is no adoption is Islam in the sense that you change the family name of the boy unless it is a rare case. Guardianship is what Islam believes in and it is perfectly human. Your objection shows the negligible knowledge you have of Hindu scriptures. That is why I have been consistently suggesting that you should go and read the Vedas properly before discussing here or get a scholar to discuss with us. Vedas clearly prohibit adopting sons in Rigved 7:4:7-8
So, you unknowingly condemned your own scripture.
May you receive guidance.
To see Justice being delivered knowledge is a MUST. If we do not know the wrongs we did how can we accept the result to be fair? You are giving a lame excuse that previous knowledge will haunt people. This is the fallacy of the karmic concept. Let it haunt him. The haunting is no excuse to wash the memory.
Then, I have already dealt with Justice delayed argument. There would be no delay because the time-scale of this world is completely different from the other world.
Of course Justice means getting what you deserve. No one calls it revenge. As you sow so shall you reap. But we do not believe in blind actions and results. We also believe in the Grace and Forgiveness of God, which is missing in Hinduism. There is something called sincere repentance and asking for forgiveness. However, I do not want to open a new topic now altogether. Eternal heaven and hell is also taught in Vedas. Vedas speak nothing about any reincarnation, I have already written in detail about Vedic Paradise. You can read that. i will write on Vedic Hell shortly. So your objections would not stand.
There is no adoption is Islam in the sense that you change the family name of the boy unless it is a rare case. Guardianship is what Islam believes in and it is perfectly human. Your objection shows the negligible knowledge you have of Hindu scriptures. That is why I have been consistently suggesting that you should go and read the Vedas properly before discussing here or get a scholar to discuss with us. Vedas clearly prohibit adopting sons in Rigved 7:4:7-8
"7 The foeman's treasure may be won with labour: may we be masters of our own possessions.
Agni, no son is he who springs from others: lengthen not out the pathways of the foolish.
8 Unwelcome for adoption is the stranger, one to be thought of as another's offspring,
Though grown familiar by continual presence. May our strong hero come, freshly triumphant."
So, you unknowingly condemned your own scripture.
May you receive guidance.
written by KalBhairav, May 24, 2011
Mushafiq:
I was explaining Dharma to you.
You dont have to. I thought I asked you to refrain from trying to interpret my religion for me. You read it but yet continue to not understand the meaning of it.
You cannot translate Gita 4:13 as per your whims and convenience. On what basis did you use the words intellect, energy, organization and motion?
The Gita is one of the most heavily commented upon scriptures. Not only has Ramanuja provided an interpretation of it, but so have Madhavacharya and Adi Shankara. The usage of intellect, energy, organization and motion that I mentioned was from another commentary on it by Paramahmsa Yogananda. Try and read that if you can.
However, your scriptures teach so.
This may be my 13 or 14th post on this topic. This is also the 13th or 14th time I am reminding you not to teach me Hinduism. If someone wants to learn about Hinduism and practise it, IH is not going to be their first (or for that matter any) point of reference at all.
Focus on trying to make Islam relevant in the 21st century.
I congratulate you that you do not believe in birth based caste system
Good. You and me seem to have found some common ground. Let us work towards a society that doesnt discriminate between people based on caste or belief or lack of belief in "La Ilaha Il Allah Mohammed Rasool Allah" or race or nationality. Just as a Dalit became India's president let us hope an Indian can one day make it to the Caliphate of the Ummah. ;-)
I was explaining Dharma to you.
You dont have to. I thought I asked you to refrain from trying to interpret my religion for me. You read it but yet continue to not understand the meaning of it.
You cannot translate Gita 4:13 as per your whims and convenience. On what basis did you use the words intellect, energy, organization and motion?
The Gita is one of the most heavily commented upon scriptures. Not only has Ramanuja provided an interpretation of it, but so have Madhavacharya and Adi Shankara. The usage of intellect, energy, organization and motion that I mentioned was from another commentary on it by Paramahmsa Yogananda. Try and read that if you can.
However, your scriptures teach so.
This may be my 13 or 14th post on this topic. This is also the 13th or 14th time I am reminding you not to teach me Hinduism. If someone wants to learn about Hinduism and practise it, IH is not going to be their first (or for that matter any) point of reference at all.
Focus on trying to make Islam relevant in the 21st century.
I congratulate you that you do not believe in birth based caste system
Good. You and me seem to have found some common ground. Let us work towards a society that doesnt discriminate between people based on caste or belief or lack of belief in "La Ilaha Il Allah Mohammed Rasool Allah" or race or nationality. Just as a Dalit became India's president let us hope an Indian can one day make it to the Caliphate of the Ummah. ;-)
written by Apolloreach, May 25, 2011
@ Riaz: I see you seem a bit irritated about my being everywhere,as you claimed (whatever that means). Anyway, instead of advising me about how not to ride piggy back on others (which I never did unless you construed my complimenting KalBhairav and Halal Jawab to be so), why don't you try to go through my responses and my questions to Mushafiq and respond? Mushafiq claimed Hindu theology was fatalistic and Islam was not. But I have fursnished evidence contrary to his claim. So why don't you give it a shot in pushing back my evidence based statement that Islam is inherently fatalistic?
And analysis based blogs (with supporting evidence)are like a chain. I have stated this earlier and let me repeat it - this chain is only as strong as the weakest link. One need not refute every word of a post. I have clearly shown Mushafiq does not understand the karmic theory or the concept of rebirth.Hence the analysis and the blog is flawed. If anything Mushafiq's responses to KalBhairav and Halal Jawab are substantiating my standpoint in this regard.
And analysis based blogs (with supporting evidence)are like a chain. I have stated this earlier and let me repeat it - this chain is only as strong as the weakest link. One need not refute every word of a post. I have clearly shown Mushafiq does not understand the karmic theory or the concept of rebirth.Hence the analysis and the blog is flawed. If anything Mushafiq's responses to KalBhairav and Halal Jawab are substantiating my standpoint in this regard.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 26, 2011
I was speaking from the Karmist viewpoint, not from an Islamic viewpoint.
Actually you were speaking ON karmist viewpoint but FROM an Islamic viewpoint.The only recourse was to expose that bias somehow, and hence the mention of Islam.
True but you theory says the sins of the past life give your field of actions. Hence your field of actions cannot come into being without sins. So sin is mandatory again. You have to accept it or explain it satisfactorily.
The theory says that it's not SINS but our FREE-WILLS that produces the field of action (adhiyajna)
Is it so hard to understand that we can act BOTH WAYS - either sinfully or piously? It's naive to assume that all souls are involved in sinful actions alone.What you are ignoring so far is that even pious deeds shape this field of action.The past actions and current actions lay the foundation for future environments.It's a continuous cycle.
and the google example was given to explain this very concept. Google or internet was not created out of a past sins, but the current action of a soul or group of souls.Thanks to their action (which was not driven by sin) , you and i can exercise our free-will on the internet(field of action) promoting either sins or virtues.The field of action is an equal opportunity provider for our free-wills
That you did not exercise in the past is the reason that you get ill today. This is correct. But not doing exercise and getting ill are in the SAME LIFE not in past birth. This is important.
This is not important.The karma theory states that this life alone is not where the story begins and ends( notice that it resolves rationally the variant environments and conditions that people are born in and the variant circumstances in which they die).There is an undeniable continuity not restricted to the present birth or death alone
According to Karmist theory, does a soul immediately take birth in an instant? If yes give the proof. If no, then why not call it delay by your own faulty standard.
O dear! The caterpillar takes time to transform into a butterfly..but it's always evolving..don't confuse apparent breaks in "manifestion" to be real loss of continuity.Poor souls can't see the continuity of transformation for their equipments fail the and the same holds for the failure of our faculties in comprehending the transmigration of souls.
By the way, you have quoted chandogya upanishad in your response.and in that light, it's a surprise that you still ask this question.Study the Panchagni-Vidya sections and you would get a detailed answer dear Svetaketu
I don't think you have studied the Chandogya Upanishad. Let me inform you what it says,
......
But you can read the whole chapter if you want. So mr. Halal, where is your so called instantaneous Justice? This is such a long cycle. from moon to the corn. You need to do some serious study of your scripture before engaging in any discussion.
as i suspected, it's you who needs to learn a lot my friend. Chandogya is a saprapancha upanishad and still you could not understand the chapter.
interestingly, your only complaint is about the cycle being long and not discontinuous. To that i would say that a long cycle is infinitesimally small when compared against ETERNITY that souls survive.
contd...
Actually you were speaking ON karmist viewpoint but FROM an Islamic viewpoint.The only recourse was to expose that bias somehow, and hence the mention of Islam.
True but you theory says the sins of the past life give your field of actions. Hence your field of actions cannot come into being without sins. So sin is mandatory again. You have to accept it or explain it satisfactorily.
The theory says that it's not SINS but our FREE-WILLS that produces the field of action (adhiyajna)
Is it so hard to understand that we can act BOTH WAYS - either sinfully or piously? It's naive to assume that all souls are involved in sinful actions alone.What you are ignoring so far is that even pious deeds shape this field of action.The past actions and current actions lay the foundation for future environments.It's a continuous cycle.
and the google example was given to explain this very concept. Google or internet was not created out of a past sins, but the current action of a soul or group of souls.Thanks to their action (which was not driven by sin) , you and i can exercise our free-will on the internet(field of action) promoting either sins or virtues.The field of action is an equal opportunity provider for our free-wills
That you did not exercise in the past is the reason that you get ill today. This is correct. But not doing exercise and getting ill are in the SAME LIFE not in past birth. This is important.
This is not important.The karma theory states that this life alone is not where the story begins and ends( notice that it resolves rationally the variant environments and conditions that people are born in and the variant circumstances in which they die).There is an undeniable continuity not restricted to the present birth or death alone
According to Karmist theory, does a soul immediately take birth in an instant? If yes give the proof. If no, then why not call it delay by your own faulty standard.
O dear! The caterpillar takes time to transform into a butterfly..but it's always evolving..don't confuse apparent breaks in "manifestion" to be real loss of continuity.Poor souls can't see the continuity of transformation for their equipments fail the and the same holds for the failure of our faculties in comprehending the transmigration of souls.
By the way, you have quoted chandogya upanishad in your response.and in that light, it's a surprise that you still ask this question.Study the Panchagni-Vidya sections and you would get a detailed answer dear Svetaketu
I don't think you have studied the Chandogya Upanishad. Let me inform you what it says,
......
But you can read the whole chapter if you want. So mr. Halal, where is your so called instantaneous Justice? This is such a long cycle. from moon to the corn. You need to do some serious study of your scripture before engaging in any discussion.
as i suspected, it's you who needs to learn a lot my friend. Chandogya is a saprapancha upanishad and still you could not understand the chapter.
interestingly, your only complaint is about the cycle being long and not discontinuous. To that i would say that a long cycle is infinitesimally small when compared against ETERNITY that souls survive.
contd...
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 26, 2011
If the soul is eternal, its knowledge too must be eternal, since it has consciousness according to you (Sat and Chit). Why does its old knowledge perish? So either accept that the soul is not eternal or accept that its knowledge must be eternal.
This is one good question in your whole response up-till now.
lets first understand what does knowledge require in the context of your question. For knowledge to happen, there must be a knower, an object of knowledge and the right means of knowledge.
The "knowledge" in sat-chit-ananda is not the same as "knowledge" in empirical sense.don't confuse between the two.
in other words, knowledge of the soul is different from the knowledge of the soul-body-mind complex.
knowledge for the soul is discriminating the eternal from the non-eternal
knowledge for the soul-body-mind complex is about knowing objects of knowledge through the right means(pramana) of knowledge.
with that understood , lets answer your question as to why empirical knowledge is not eternal...the answer is simple
empirical knowledge is space-time bound and would become useless after a time.in other words , that what is knowledge today is no-knowledge tomorrow! so would you call this knowledge at all from an "eternal" perspective????? Of course not!
and this is exactly the reason why souls don't store empirical knowledge as it's useless in an eternal game.
(as an example , the knowledge of mechanical computers was considered advanced knowledge in the past.Today you wont even care to read about it...right?)
you may ask: then what is that the soul knows eternally? the answer is that the soul indeed gains some knowledge eternally and it's nothing else but the knowledge of "all things eternal !"
get out of your mind-body complex and you will recollect all the "eternal knowledge" you have acquired so far .. om tat sat
To see Justice being delivered knowledge is a MUST. If we do not know the wrongs we did how can we accept the result to be fair? You are giving a lame excuse that previous knowledge will haunt people. This is the fallacy of the karmic concept. Let it haunt him. The haunting is no excuse to wash the memory.
You are still viewing karma phala from the perspective of crime and punishment.That's where your record is stuck unfortunately.
You ignore the fact that people do get depressed when bombarded with the memories of the bad things they have done. It's not a fallacy of karmic concept rather it's an evidence that supports karma logic.
You also ignored another fact i presented and it is that people do know the difference between many rights and wrongs, but still they choose to do wrong.So knowledge is no guarantee of a soul reforming itself .Reform in the karmic concept is the freeing of the soul from wrong predilections of its own will , no matter what the drivers of predilections were.
Then, I have already dealt with Justice delayed argument. There would be no delay because the time-scale of this world is completely different from the other world.
Lolz! how have you answered the question in the context of THIS WORLD in OUR TIME_SCALE??
A God who is unjust in our time-scale raises the probability of His being unjust in another time-scale by at least something higher that 0 for sure This would render such an entity somewhat less than perfect and hence would obviate His godhood !
Of course Justice means getting what you deserve. No one calls it revenge. As you sow so shall you reap. But we do not believe in blind actions and results.
A god that punishes you infinitely for finite mistakes or a rewards you infinitely for finite goods has already walked into the troubled waters of blind judgment and injustice.
Karma theory is free from such absurdities.the actions are of our OWN FREE_WILL and we are responsible for the RESULTS of our OWN ACTIONS. No crazy God is allowed to intervene in this just and logical concept.
This is one good question in your whole response up-till now.
lets first understand what does knowledge require in the context of your question. For knowledge to happen, there must be a knower, an object of knowledge and the right means of knowledge.
The "knowledge" in sat-chit-ananda is not the same as "knowledge" in empirical sense.don't confuse between the two.
in other words, knowledge of the soul is different from the knowledge of the soul-body-mind complex.
knowledge for the soul is discriminating the eternal from the non-eternal
knowledge for the soul-body-mind complex is about knowing objects of knowledge through the right means(pramana) of knowledge.
with that understood , lets answer your question as to why empirical knowledge is not eternal...the answer is simple
empirical knowledge is space-time bound and would become useless after a time.in other words , that what is knowledge today is no-knowledge tomorrow! so would you call this knowledge at all from an "eternal" perspective????? Of course not!
and this is exactly the reason why souls don't store empirical knowledge as it's useless in an eternal game.
(as an example , the knowledge of mechanical computers was considered advanced knowledge in the past.Today you wont even care to read about it...right?)
you may ask: then what is that the soul knows eternally? the answer is that the soul indeed gains some knowledge eternally and it's nothing else but the knowledge of "all things eternal !"
get out of your mind-body complex and you will recollect all the "eternal knowledge" you have acquired so far .. om tat sat
To see Justice being delivered knowledge is a MUST. If we do not know the wrongs we did how can we accept the result to be fair? You are giving a lame excuse that previous knowledge will haunt people. This is the fallacy of the karmic concept. Let it haunt him. The haunting is no excuse to wash the memory.
You are still viewing karma phala from the perspective of crime and punishment.That's where your record is stuck unfortunately.
You ignore the fact that people do get depressed when bombarded with the memories of the bad things they have done. It's not a fallacy of karmic concept rather it's an evidence that supports karma logic.
You also ignored another fact i presented and it is that people do know the difference between many rights and wrongs, but still they choose to do wrong.So knowledge is no guarantee of a soul reforming itself .Reform in the karmic concept is the freeing of the soul from wrong predilections of its own will , no matter what the drivers of predilections were.
Then, I have already dealt with Justice delayed argument. There would be no delay because the time-scale of this world is completely different from the other world.
Lolz! how have you answered the question in the context of THIS WORLD in OUR TIME_SCALE??
A God who is unjust in our time-scale raises the probability of His being unjust in another time-scale by at least something higher that 0 for sure
This would render such an entity somewhat less than perfect and hence would obviate His godhood ! Of course Justice means getting what you deserve. No one calls it revenge. As you sow so shall you reap. But we do not believe in blind actions and results.
A god that punishes you infinitely for finite mistakes or a rewards you infinitely for finite goods has already walked into the troubled waters of blind judgment and injustice.
Karma theory is free from such absurdities.the actions are of our OWN FREE_WILL and we are responsible for the RESULTS of our OWN ACTIONS. No crazy God is allowed to intervene in this just and logical concept.
written by Halaal Jawaab, May 26, 2011
contd...
We also believe in the Grace and Forgiveness of God, which is missing in Hinduism. There is something called sincere repentance and asking for forgiveness.
The Grace of God does not lie in interfering with the self-paced growth of souls.And SINCERE repentance is not directed towards God but towards the self and first towards the one whom you have hurt. as an example. If god starts forgiving rapists, He is taking away the right of the VICTIM to either forgive or not forgive the culprit.That's utter injustice and abrupt interruption in scheme of justice.
sincere repentance is repenting to the one who is aggrieved not to some sky god who has nothing to do with your act or the result of your act on others.hope you get the point
However, I do not want to open a new topic now altogether. Eternal heaven and hell is also taught in Vedas. Vedas speak nothing about any reincarnation, I have already written in detail about Vedic Paradise. You can read that. i will write on Vedic Hell shortly. So your objections would not stand.
since this would be the subject of another article, i would only say that disagree with your proposition.more when the article comes up.
There is no adoption is Islam in the sense that you change the family name of the boy unless it is a rare case. Guardianship is what Islam believes in and it is perfectly human. Your objection shows the negligible knowledge you have of Hindu scriptures. That is why I have been consistently suggesting that you should go and read the Vedas properly before discussing here or get a scholar to discuss with us. Vedas clearly prohibit adopting sons in Rigved 7:4:7-8
"7 The foeman's treasure may be won with labour: may we be masters of our own possessions.
Agni, no son is he who springs from others: lengthen not out the pathways of the foolish.
8 Unwelcome for adoption is the stranger, one to be thought of as another's offspring,
Though grown familiar by continual presence. May our strong hero come, freshly triumphant."
So, you unknowingly condemned your own scripture.
We are not discussing scriptures here.
Also, its a pity that you read this profound hymn so literally.It's a greater pity that you don't know that Bharata (from where India got its original name bharat) adopted a son (bhumanyu) as the heir to his throne and not his own incompetent sons. He knew his vedas right , unfortunately you don't
May guidance receive you with open arms when you need it as much you need breath!
We also believe in the Grace and Forgiveness of God, which is missing in Hinduism. There is something called sincere repentance and asking for forgiveness.
The Grace of God does not lie in interfering with the self-paced growth of souls.And SINCERE repentance is not directed towards God but towards the self and first towards the one whom you have hurt. as an example. If god starts forgiving rapists, He is taking away the right of the VICTIM to either forgive or not forgive the culprit.That's utter injustice and abrupt interruption in scheme of justice.
sincere repentance is repenting to the one who is aggrieved not to some sky god who has nothing to do with your act or the result of your act on others.hope you get the point
However, I do not want to open a new topic now altogether. Eternal heaven and hell is also taught in Vedas. Vedas speak nothing about any reincarnation, I have already written in detail about Vedic Paradise. You can read that. i will write on Vedic Hell shortly. So your objections would not stand.
since this would be the subject of another article, i would only say that disagree with your proposition.more when the article comes up.
There is no adoption is Islam in the sense that you change the family name of the boy unless it is a rare case. Guardianship is what Islam believes in and it is perfectly human. Your objection shows the negligible knowledge you have of Hindu scriptures. That is why I have been consistently suggesting that you should go and read the Vedas properly before discussing here or get a scholar to discuss with us. Vedas clearly prohibit adopting sons in Rigved 7:4:7-8
"7 The foeman's treasure may be won with labour: may we be masters of our own possessions.
Agni, no son is he who springs from others: lengthen not out the pathways of the foolish.
8 Unwelcome for adoption is the stranger, one to be thought of as another's offspring,
Though grown familiar by continual presence. May our strong hero come, freshly triumphant."
So, you unknowingly condemned your own scripture.
We are not discussing scriptures here.
Also, its a pity that you read this profound hymn so literally.It's a greater pity that you don't know that Bharata (from where India got its original name bharat) adopted a son (bhumanyu) as the heir to his throne and not his own incompetent sons. He knew his vedas right , unfortunately you don't
May guidance receive you with open arms when you need it as much you need breath!
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 29, 2011
@Kalbhairav
I think you have come to the wrong place if you do not want me to speak on 'your' religion.
I think we need not discuss more you are making such a request. You can stay out of the discussions.
Islam is relevant and it is inclusivist. The criteria for being honoured in the sight of Allah is God consciousness and piety (Surah 49: 13). Rest comparing India and the Caliphate is comparing apples and oranges.
Peace.
@Apolloreach
I claimed that Karma philosophy is inherently fatalistic and I stand by it. Till now you have not logically disproved it but instead have tried to cover it up by bring Islamic concept into our disussion, which is a sure sign of your failure.
This article is not a chan but a critique on Karma philosophy. I do not want to start a fresh discussion with you from scratch.
I think you have come to the wrong place if you do not want me to speak on 'your' religion.
I think we need not discuss more you are making such a request. You can stay out of the discussions.
Islam is relevant and it is inclusivist. The criteria for being honoured in the sight of Allah is God consciousness and piety (Surah 49: 13). Rest comparing India and the Caliphate is comparing apples and oranges.
Peace.
@Apolloreach
I claimed that Karma philosophy is inherently fatalistic and I stand by it. Till now you have not logically disproved it but instead have tried to cover it up by bring Islamic concept into our disussion, which is a sure sign of your failure.
This article is not a chan but a critique on Karma philosophy. I do not want to start a fresh discussion with you from scratch.
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 29, 2011
@Halal Jawab
I said according to the Karmist view diversity results from sins and there can be no field of actions without diversity. Therefore, sins are mandatory.
The Karma theory has no free will concept. I showed you how it kills the thought of free will. You are begging the question.
Of course we can act both ways. However, righteousness is a positive point and sin is a negative point. I am not assuming that all souls are involved in sinful actions. But sin is mandatory as per this theory. If no one will sin how will the diversity come about, which gives you the field of action? Think over it again.
I know google is not created because of past sins. It is illogical to think so. However, in the theory of karma no actions takes place on its own. It has a cause. You are coming to the Islamic viewpoint slowly. Congratulations.
I know Karma theory is an infinite loop and therefore is absurd.
Now coming to the delay in the process. I am surprised that you brought in the evolutionary view. As per the evolutionary view Karma theory stand zero chance. There is no regression observed in nature.
My quotation of the Chandogya Upanishad was to show the stupidity of your question on the Judgment Day. You raised the topic of delay and I showed you the tremendous delay in the Karma philosophy. You need to go and study your scriptures seriously.
I told you there is no delay between the death and the Day of Judgment purely because time measurement is very different. Example of this is given in the Quran itself, if only you had cared to read it properly.
I said according to the Karmist view diversity results from sins and there can be no field of actions without diversity. Therefore, sins are mandatory.
The Karma theory has no free will concept. I showed you how it kills the thought of free will. You are begging the question.
Of course we can act both ways. However, righteousness is a positive point and sin is a negative point. I am not assuming that all souls are involved in sinful actions. But sin is mandatory as per this theory. If no one will sin how will the diversity come about, which gives you the field of action? Think over it again.
I know google is not created because of past sins. It is illogical to think so. However, in the theory of karma no actions takes place on its own. It has a cause. You are coming to the Islamic viewpoint slowly. Congratulations.
I know Karma theory is an infinite loop and therefore is absurd.
Now coming to the delay in the process. I am surprised that you brought in the evolutionary view. As per the evolutionary view Karma theory stand zero chance. There is no regression observed in nature.
My quotation of the Chandogya Upanishad was to show the stupidity of your question on the Judgment Day. You raised the topic of delay and I showed you the tremendous delay in the Karma philosophy. You need to go and study your scriptures seriously.
I told you there is no delay between the death and the Day of Judgment purely because time measurement is very different. Example of this is given in the Quran itself, if only you had cared to read it properly.
"Or (take) the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: "Oh! how shall Allah bring it (ever) to life, after (this) its death?" but Allah caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up (again). He said: "How long didst thou tarry (thus)?" He said: "(Perhaps) a day or part of a day." He said: "Nay, thou hast tarried thus a hundred years; but look at thy food and thy drink; they show no signs of age; and look at thy donkey: And that We may make of thee a sign unto the people, Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh." When this was shown clearly to him, he said: "I know that Allah hath power over all things." [Quran 2:259]
written by Mushafiq Sultan, May 29, 2011
Coming to the knowledge of the soul. If the soul knew that it was eternal , there would be no dispute on this between you and me. Case closed.
The example which you gave of mechanical computers. Firstly, it is not personal knowledge. Secondly, the history of computers is still knowledge and needs to be studied. But the knowledge of my own actions is important for me to know why I am being punished? If the court of law cannot prove that I committed the crime, even though I may know that I have done it, will I be punished? Which court punishes such a person? So unless, I know for what sin am I being punished (or remedied using your diplomatic vocabulary) the concept of justice is undermined.
I am not saying that knowledge is guarantee that the person would improve. However, it is ESSENTIAL for the punishment to be called a just punishment.
The time scale argument has already been covered.
Finite is a tricky word. If the period of punishment should equate the time of the crime, then God save this world. According to Swami Dayanand quoting on the authority of Many Smriti, the punishment of bribery is as follows,
"Let the king punish properly the magistrate who accepts bribe ether from the plaintiff or the defendant in a case and, therefore, gives an just decision, confiscate all his possessions, and banish him to a place from which he can never return." [Sayarth Prakash, Chapter 6]
A bribe is taken in few minutes while the punishment being given is of a lifetime. Is this justice? Thus your own criterion is going against you. The truth is that in a Judicial system there are many such crimes for which the punishment is not proportional to the period of crime, but to the severity of the crime.
For the detailed answer check my rebuttal http://www.islamhinduism.com/r...e-creation
I am amazed that you are denying the forgiveness of God even if a person sincerely repents of his sins. You have no clue about the concepts of forgiveness and repentance. The example which you have given is twisted. A rapist also has a chance of repentance in the remaining part of his earthly life. He would be forgiven for the next life after death but this actions carries a penalty in this world which must be inflicted on him even if he repents. The punishment in this world would be sufficient. Repentance and forgiveness is not negated by it.
Adoption.
We are discussion scriptures. You objected to the Quran. The hymn is in front of you, the inference of this hymn made by SDS is in front of you. It is clearly forbidding adoption. There is no adoption. Succession is a separate issue altogether.
The example which you gave of mechanical computers. Firstly, it is not personal knowledge. Secondly, the history of computers is still knowledge and needs to be studied. But the knowledge of my own actions is important for me to know why I am being punished? If the court of law cannot prove that I committed the crime, even though I may know that I have done it, will I be punished? Which court punishes such a person? So unless, I know for what sin am I being punished (or remedied using your diplomatic vocabulary) the concept of justice is undermined.
I am not saying that knowledge is guarantee that the person would improve. However, it is ESSENTIAL for the punishment to be called a just punishment.
The time scale argument has already been covered.
Finite is a tricky word. If the period of punishment should equate the time of the crime, then God save this world. According to Swami Dayanand quoting on the authority of Many Smriti, the punishment of bribery is as follows,
"Let the king punish properly the magistrate who accepts bribe ether from the plaintiff or the defendant in a case and, therefore, gives an just decision, confiscate all his possessions, and banish him to a place from which he can never return." [Sayarth Prakash, Chapter 6]
A bribe is taken in few minutes while the punishment being given is of a lifetime. Is this justice? Thus your own criterion is going against you. The truth is that in a Judicial system there are many such crimes for which the punishment is not proportional to the period of crime, but to the severity of the crime.
For the detailed answer check my rebuttal http://www.islamhinduism.com/r...e-creation
I am amazed that you are denying the forgiveness of God even if a person sincerely repents of his sins. You have no clue about the concepts of forgiveness and repentance. The example which you have given is twisted. A rapist also has a chance of repentance in the remaining part of his earthly life. He would be forgiven for the next life after death but this actions carries a penalty in this world which must be inflicted on him even if he repents. The punishment in this world would be sufficient. Repentance and forgiveness is not negated by it.
Adoption.
We are discussion scriptures. You objected to the Quran. The hymn is in front of you, the inference of this hymn made by SDS is in front of you. It is clearly forbidding adoption. There is no adoption. Succession is a separate issue altogether.
written by KalBhairav, May 29, 2011
Mushafiq:
I think you have come to the wrong place if you do not want me to speak on 'your' religion.
I define 'my' religion. As I mentioned elsewhere I do not let others - in this case you - do the thinking for me.
Rest comparing India and the Caliphate is comparing apples and oranges.
In the context of a Dalit becoming India's President and an Indian becoming leader of the Caliphate, your statement is a textbook case of special pleading.
I think you have come to the wrong place if you do not want me to speak on 'your' religion.
I define 'my' religion. As I mentioned elsewhere I do not let others - in this case you - do the thinking for me.
Rest comparing India and the Caliphate is comparing apples and oranges.
In the context of a Dalit becoming India's President and an Indian becoming leader of the Caliphate, your statement is a textbook case of special pleading.
written by rj3865, June 22, 2011
Brother Mushfaiq,
Can you please share your views please :-
Those child who claims and remembers from their past life ..and many a times these claims are true and they remember incident from their past life , are they all false ...
Many muslim scholars claim Prophet Muhammad to be Kalki avtaar , if this is so then muslim scholars then they themselves believe in reincarnation ..
Many a times Zakir Naik claims Prophet is prophesized by lord Buddha and Lord Buddha said he will come again and have more follower than him and if it is true then they are accepting reincarnation theory ..
Can you please share your views please :-
Those child who claims and remembers from their past life ..and many a times these claims are true and they remember incident from their past life , are they all false ...
Many muslim scholars claim Prophet Muhammad to be Kalki avtaar , if this is so then muslim scholars then they themselves believe in reincarnation ..
Many a times Zakir Naik claims Prophet is prophesized by lord Buddha and Lord Buddha said he will come again and have more follower than him and if it is true then they are accepting reincarnation theory ..
written by rj3865, June 22, 2011
I also want to inform you brother that your knowledge about hinduism is very poor ..
Let me explain you that those who meditate and realise their soul by par exellence knowledge and when they are able to control their sense and feelings and not run before worldy pleasure becomes immortal and reaches bramhlok and rest lives in cycle of birth and death and god gives fair chance to realise their soul ... We don't kill people in name of god to reach heaven for some virgin spouse ..
Let me explain you that those who meditate and realise their soul by par exellence knowledge and when they are able to control their sense and feelings and not run before worldy pleasure becomes immortal and reaches bramhlok and rest lives in cycle of birth and death and god gives fair chance to realise their soul ... We don't kill people in name of god to reach heaven for some virgin spouse ..
written by al-Khwarizmi, June 23, 2011
@rj3865,
Those child who claims and remembers from their past life ..and many a times these claims are true and they remember incident from their past life , are they all false ...
Well, I don't know if it is true or false. But, the question here is why only a smaill meagre minority is able to remember, why not the billions of people not able to remember even a single incident?
I am especially concerned about the people born in extremely poor families or people born with congenital defects. Since, they are not able to remember anything, they have to suffer a life not even knowing what for they are punished. Also, whatever one strived to acquire in one birth (all the knowledge/experience/skills etc.) gets lost when they are reborn as the memory is whitewashed.
Other issue is that all souls are attached to their parents and children atleast. Is there any hope for me to see them after my death?
We don't kill people in name of god to reach heaven for some virgin spouse ..
Are you trying to portray yourself as another joker here ? Please answer this.
Is virgin spouse UNAVAILABLE on earth that people go on to kill others ???
Please name a few people who have killed others specifically for this reason (virgin spouse) with proof.
Those child who claims and remembers from their past life ..and many a times these claims are true and they remember incident from their past life , are they all false ...
Well, I don't know if it is true or false. But, the question here is why only a smaill meagre minority is able to remember, why not the billions of people not able to remember even a single incident?
I am especially concerned about the people born in extremely poor families or people born with congenital defects. Since, they are not able to remember anything, they have to suffer a life not even knowing what for they are punished. Also, whatever one strived to acquire in one birth (all the knowledge/experience/skills etc.) gets lost when they are reborn as the memory is whitewashed.
Other issue is that all souls are attached to their parents and children atleast. Is there any hope for me to see them after my death?
We don't kill people in name of god to reach heaven for some virgin spouse ..
Are you trying to portray yourself as another joker here ? Please answer this.
Is virgin spouse UNAVAILABLE on earth that people go on to kill others ???
Please name a few people who have killed others specifically for this reason (virgin spouse) with proof.
written by burak, June 24, 2011
@al-Khwarizmi
Sorry for jumping in.
>>Well, I don't know if it is true or false. But, the question here is why only a smaill meagre minority is able to remember, why not the billions of people not able to remember even a single incident?
Only who has got more attachment left to the previous life, they will remember. And according to the theory god/system wipes out the previous memory so that people can enjoy their new life. But why are you asking about the people not remembering while there is evidence of people remembering the past life?
>>I am especially concerned about the people born in extremely poor families or people born with congenital defects. Since, they are not able to remember anything, they have to suffer a life not even knowing what for they are punished.
punishment where did you get this idea from?
>> Also, whatever one strived to acquire in one birth (all the knowledge/experience/skills etc.) gets lost when they are reborn as the memory is whitewashed.
Ordinary knowledge will be lost, but the desires and fears called vasanas will not get lost and they are stored in the soul.
>>>Other issue is that all souls are attached to their parents and children atleast. Is there any hope for me to see them after my death?
If you are so attached, you will reach them and join them in next life, ofcourse with new life and with no memory,but you definitley will join them based on your attachment.
Sorry for jumping in.
>>Well, I don't know if it is true or false. But, the question here is why only a smaill meagre minority is able to remember, why not the billions of people not able to remember even a single incident?
Only who has got more attachment left to the previous life, they will remember. And according to the theory god/system wipes out the previous memory so that people can enjoy their new life. But why are you asking about the people not remembering while there is evidence of people remembering the past life?
>>I am especially concerned about the people born in extremely poor families or people born with congenital defects. Since, they are not able to remember anything, they have to suffer a life not even knowing what for they are punished.
punishment where did you get this idea from?
>> Also, whatever one strived to acquire in one birth (all the knowledge/experience/skills etc.) gets lost when they are reborn as the memory is whitewashed.
Ordinary knowledge will be lost, but the desires and fears called vasanas will not get lost and they are stored in the soul.
>>>Other issue is that all souls are attached to their parents and children atleast. Is there any hope for me to see them after my death?
If you are so attached, you will reach them and join them in next life, ofcourse with new life and with no memory,but you definitley will join them based on your attachment.
written by Sunder Das, June 29, 2011
Reincarnation has to be understood with an open mind and it is simple to understand by pure logic and is based on the Law of cause and effect.
It is said as you sow so shall you reap. There is a saying in hindi which says if you have sown the seed of a thorn bush you can't expect to get mangoes out of it.
We all know that Allah is just and kind towards all His children, yet we see someone born rich, other poor, some blind and lame some healthy, now why would Allah who loves all equaly make someone rich and someone poor and someone blind and someone healthy? All He did was gave man a free will and mis used it. No one would want a murderer, or a rapist to go scot free of his crime, but many times they do go scot free because of lack of evidence, yet such an individual shall not go free form divine justice, he has to reap the harmful effects of his wrong actions, and the good person will benefit of his good actions. So only the re-incarnation theory can explain the seeming injustices in life. Another way of putting it is that we know that there are people in this world who are full of negative qualities and no good quality in them and then there are people in this world who have all the good qulities in them and no bad quality at all. Say one man who has all the bad qualities is at one end of a bracket and the other man who has all the good qualities is on the other end then the entire mankind falls between these two ends with its admixture of good and bad qualities in varying proportions. Supposing we have slider which can move from one extreme to another, at the midway point we will have a man or a person which has 50% good and 50% bad qualities and as the slider moves further towards good the negative reduces and goodness increases. Now this journey of a man from possesing all negative qualities to being transformed to all good qualities does or cannot happen in one life time. Allah does not make saints and snners arbitrarily. He gives them succesive opportunities over several lifetimes to improve. If a boy fails in class 9 he can appear several times till he passes that class. If there were only one lifetime then what would be the purpose to do good? It is said eating sleeping drinking and reproducing man has in common with beast(animal)the only thing that differnetiates man from beast is righteousness(vivek)wisdom discrimination, to choose to do right or wrong. An animal does not reap the results of its actions for is instinct bound, even if you tell a tiger not to kill it will kill, and if you feed a cow meat it will not take for they go by instinct, but whereas a man knows what is right and what is wrong. Till the time he does not act in a particular way he is free, but once he has taken an action he bound to face the results whether good or bad depending upon the nature of his action. Getting a certain percentage in results due to an exam faced is an example of action(karma) and results of that action(karma). Allah does not want you to suffer he has given man discrimination and reason to choose good actions over wrong, but if one chooses to do bad over good then he is bound to suffer. Allah has given man the wisdom not to put his hand in fire, but if he puts his hand in it, it will burn his hand Allah did not force him to.
It is said as you sow so shall you reap. There is a saying in hindi which says if you have sown the seed of a thorn bush you can't expect to get mangoes out of it.
We all know that Allah is just and kind towards all His children, yet we see someone born rich, other poor, some blind and lame some healthy, now why would Allah who loves all equaly make someone rich and someone poor and someone blind and someone healthy? All He did was gave man a free will and mis used it. No one would want a murderer, or a rapist to go scot free of his crime, but many times they do go scot free because of lack of evidence, yet such an individual shall not go free form divine justice, he has to reap the harmful effects of his wrong actions, and the good person will benefit of his good actions. So only the re-incarnation theory can explain the seeming injustices in life. Another way of putting it is that we know that there are people in this world who are full of negative qualities and no good quality in them and then there are people in this world who have all the good qulities in them and no bad quality at all. Say one man who has all the bad qualities is at one end of a bracket and the other man who has all the good qualities is on the other end then the entire mankind falls between these two ends with its admixture of good and bad qualities in varying proportions. Supposing we have slider which can move from one extreme to another, at the midway point we will have a man or a person which has 50% good and 50% bad qualities and as the slider moves further towards good the negative reduces and goodness increases. Now this journey of a man from possesing all negative qualities to being transformed to all good qualities does or cannot happen in one life time. Allah does not make saints and snners arbitrarily. He gives them succesive opportunities over several lifetimes to improve. If a boy fails in class 9 he can appear several times till he passes that class. If there were only one lifetime then what would be the purpose to do good? It is said eating sleeping drinking and reproducing man has in common with beast(animal)the only thing that differnetiates man from beast is righteousness(vivek)wisdom discrimination, to choose to do right or wrong. An animal does not reap the results of its actions for is instinct bound, even if you tell a tiger not to kill it will kill, and if you feed a cow meat it will not take for they go by instinct, but whereas a man knows what is right and what is wrong. Till the time he does not act in a particular way he is free, but once he has taken an action he bound to face the results whether good or bad depending upon the nature of his action. Getting a certain percentage in results due to an exam faced is an example of action(karma) and results of that action(karma). Allah does not want you to suffer he has given man discrimination and reason to choose good actions over wrong, but if one chooses to do bad over good then he is bound to suffer. Allah has given man the wisdom not to put his hand in fire, but if he puts his hand in it, it will burn his hand Allah did not force him to.
written by Amit, June 30, 2011
hi,
keep aised ved and quran.if u r from india u must have heard the news of avtar.the child of seven years who told people about his past life and how he was killed.police is now taking the case and court is undertaking the process.so how will u deal wiht this reality.even some months ago one more child of haryana told about past life and it was true after testing.
keep aised ved and quran.if u r from india u must have heard the news of avtar.the child of seven years who told people about his past life and how he was killed.police is now taking the case and court is undertaking the process.so how will u deal wiht this reality.even some months ago one more child of haryana told about past life and it was true after testing.
written by Anti Loon, July 04, 2011
@Amit
Brother I have heard about Avatar, I tried to search on the Internet about him but got nothing, on the basis of what I remember from his interview I had seen on television I conclude that his case is a weak one and does not establish reincarnation to be valid. Here are the reasons :-
Firstly he was not able to reveal anything other than what was already known about his supposed previous life. Personally I feel he should be able to reveal some exact information like time of his murder or the amount of money he had when he was killed (he was allegedly killed for money) etc Someone observed on the show that the villages weren't too far away (I could not verify this) so its possible that through village talks he must have heard about it and that got imprinted on his mind.
Through out the interview he was not able to make any statement what I mean is he was shown some photographs from his supposed previous life but he did not instantly recognize them. When the anchor asked him "Who is he?" he could not reply but when the anchor asked "Is he your brother?" he would reply.
Additionally had he been able to produce anything convincing the media would have covered the story more, but nothing much was said in media (I conclude from this that nothing substantial was produced by him otherwise you know how our media is).
For these three reasons I find no reason to believe that story of Avatar is a proof of reincarnation.
In any case (assuming reincarnation to be true) if some people are able to remember past lives while others are not this shows that system designed by God is not foolproof some people get to remember their lives (by mistake?) while others don't!!
@burak
I would like to know who is not attached to his previous life everyone is curious to know such things about themselves.
You are contradicting yourself here if God wipes out previous memory then how can you previous statement about people more attached to previous lives remembering their past lives be true? It does not show God in good light. It means
1. There is discrepancy in God's system (obviously this can't be true)
2. God decides who should remember his past life according to persons desire (and not according to any definite law).
I would like to stress on second point. According to theory of karma bad deeds in present life will cause suffering in future life, right? Now this suffering is a punishment (or remedial whatever you like) so that the soul may mature. This not like a physical ailment wherein you administer the medicine (remedial) and the the ailment will be cured. Only when a person knows the cause of his suffering can he appreciate the present suffering and its purpose (just like a child learns that fire is dangerous when he actually burns his fingers). So I believe that if a person is suffering he should know why he is suffering and this should not be based on desires of the person there should be some definite rule.
And of course the people enjoying this life do not necessarily need to remember their previous life (though I think that it would be better as it would motivate them to continue with their good work rather than get complacent and get into wrong deeds) but people suffering this life should.
There is no conclusive proof of reincarnation till now this what Ian Stevenson concluded after studying 20 cases of children remembering their past lives
Again if only some remember their past lives then the system of reincarnation is inefficient, it allows some to remember and some to forget.
(whatever I have written is on the basis of whatever little I have understood of this doctrine please do correct me if I have made any mistake)
Regards
Brother I have heard about Avatar, I tried to search on the Internet about him but got nothing, on the basis of what I remember from his interview I had seen on television I conclude that his case is a weak one and does not establish reincarnation to be valid. Here are the reasons :-
Firstly he was not able to reveal anything other than what was already known about his supposed previous life. Personally I feel he should be able to reveal some exact information like time of his murder or the amount of money he had when he was killed (he was allegedly killed for money) etc Someone observed on the show that the villages weren't too far away (I could not verify this) so its possible that through village talks he must have heard about it and that got imprinted on his mind.
Through out the interview he was not able to make any statement what I mean is he was shown some photographs from his supposed previous life but he did not instantly recognize them. When the anchor asked him "Who is he?" he could not reply but when the anchor asked "Is he your brother?" he would reply.
Additionally had he been able to produce anything convincing the media would have covered the story more, but nothing much was said in media (I conclude from this that nothing substantial was produced by him otherwise you know how our media is
). For these three reasons I find no reason to believe that story of Avatar is a proof of reincarnation.
In any case (assuming reincarnation to be true) if some people are able to remember past lives while others are not this shows that system designed by God is not foolproof some people get to remember their lives (by mistake?) while others don't!!
@burak
Only who has got more attachment left to the previous life, they will remember.
I would like to know who is not attached to his previous life everyone is curious to know such things about themselves.
And according to the theory god/system wipes out the previous memory so that people can enjoy their new life.
You are contradicting yourself here if God wipes out previous memory then how can you previous statement about people more attached to previous lives remembering their past lives be true? It does not show God in good light. It means
1. There is discrepancy in God's system (obviously this can't be true)
2. God decides who should remember his past life according to persons desire (and not according to any definite law).
I would like to stress on second point. According to theory of karma bad deeds in present life will cause suffering in future life, right? Now this suffering is a punishment (or remedial whatever you like) so that the soul may mature. This not like a physical ailment wherein you administer the medicine (remedial) and the the ailment will be cured. Only when a person knows the cause of his suffering can he appreciate the present suffering and its purpose (just like a child learns that fire is dangerous when he actually burns his fingers). So I believe that if a person is suffering he should know why he is suffering and this should not be based on desires of the person there should be some definite rule.
And of course the people enjoying this life do not necessarily need to remember their previous life (though I think that it would be better as it would motivate them to continue with their good work rather than get complacent and get into wrong deeds) but people suffering this life should.
But why are you asking about the people not remembering while there is evidence of people remembering the past life?
There is no conclusive proof of reincarnation till now this what Ian Stevenson concluded after studying 20 cases of children remembering their past lives
All the cases I've investigated so far have shortcomings. Even taken together, they do not offer anything like proof
Again if only some remember their past lives then the system of reincarnation is inefficient, it allows some to remember and some to forget.
(whatever I have written is on the basis of whatever little I have understood of this doctrine please do correct me if I have made any mistake)
Regards
written by Amit, July 06, 2011
may be u didnt find it and deleted my earlier reply by mistake.
i m sending it again.go through it.
it was approxi. on every news channel.
http://post.jagran.com/killed-7-years-ago-rajasthan-boy-wants-to-bring-culprit-to-book-1308668404
if u need more i will send u more.i m on research on it.not to prove anyone but to know the real truth not a bookish truth.
enjoy
i m sending it again.go through it.
it was approxi. on every news channel.
http://post.jagran.com/killed-7-years-ago-rajasthan-boy-wants-to-bring-culprit-to-book-1308668404
if u need more i will send u more.i m on research on it.not to prove anyone but to know the real truth not a bookish truth.
enjoy
written by Anti Loon, July 06, 2011
@Amit
Thank you brother for the link. I did a Google search earlier but didn't get anything about Avatar (maybe I used wrong parameters), anyways about reports published in newspapers, first of all they are just reports and not evidence. I can cite hundreds of reports related to UFO sighting but is that an evidence brother? Of course not. They are what they are reports to elevate them to the status of evidence is not right.
Now coming to the particular report you linked to. Did you read the report completely? There is a point mentioned at the end of the report here it is
I wonder why only these people.
I did a Google search again (with correct parameters "abohar avtar singh faqir chand subhash") even then I got just one report in 5 pages of results that I checked (of course you don't want me to go through all the 482 pages!! Rest of the results were about directory of officers. Funny how Google works sometimes!!). Here is what it said
http://www.tribuneindia.com/20...da.htm#top Scroll to the end of the page.
Need I say more brother? I would like to add that there are contradictions in the two reports but discussing them would be waste of time.
On a final note I would like to know what is the criteria of remembering our past lives? Why are some more fortunate than others when it comes to remembering past lives? And best of luck for your research brother.
Regards
Thank you brother for the link. I did a Google search earlier but didn't get anything about Avatar (maybe I used wrong parameters), anyways about reports published in newspapers, first of all they are just reports and not evidence. I can cite hundreds of reports related to UFO sighting but is that an evidence brother? Of course not. They are what they are reports to elevate them to the status of evidence is not right.
Now coming to the particular report you linked to. Did you read the report completely? There is a point mentioned at the end of the report here it is
According to sources, Avatar recognizes parents and relatives of his past life, but he does not have any idea about his friends and other villagers.
I wonder why only these people.
I did a Google search again (with correct parameters "abohar avtar singh faqir chand subhash") even then I got just one report in 5 pages of results that I checked (of course you don't want me to go through all the 482 pages!! Rest of the results were about directory of officers. Funny how Google works sometimes!!). Here is what it said
He added that Satwant Singh, assistant sub-inspector (ASI) of Punjab Police, who met Avtar Singh, had also told him that what Avtar Singh had narrated to him in connection with his murder in last birth, was a concocted story and hence, could not be relied upon.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/20...da.htm#top Scroll to the end of the page.
Need I say more brother? I would like to add that there are contradictions in the two reports but discussing them would be waste of time.
On a final note I would like to know what is the criteria of remembering our past lives? Why are some more fortunate than others when it comes to remembering past lives? And best of luck for your research brother.
Regards
written by Amit, July 06, 2011
tnx bro,
but 1` thing .there is a lot difference between UFO and this case or 1 more which i m in touch of.there r no live evidences in UFO case.pics can be morphed also.ut these cases are live enough to see and interact.
in avtar case one correction is there that he recognized not only his murders and parents but also every friend and relative.hopeless media only covers politicians.not topics like this.so after news channels it was v hard for me also to find an article on him.
the whole matter going on legally is can this be enough evidence to punsih the guilty.lets see wat happens.i willl condust some test of mine also with him if allowed.
but 1` thing .there is a lot difference between UFO and this case or 1 more which i m in touch of.there r no live evidences in UFO case.pics can be morphed also.ut these cases are live enough to see and interact.
in avtar case one correction is there that he recognized not only his murders and parents but also every friend and relative.hopeless media only covers politicians.not topics like this.so after news channels it was v hard for me also to find an article on him.
the whole matter going on legally is can this be enough evidence to punsih the guilty.lets see wat happens.i willl condust some test of mine also with him if allowed.
written by Anti Loon, July 06, 2011
@Amit
So brother what makes you think that a child can be taught to behave in a certain way? I have given you the statement of a person who met him personally and the conclusion he reached. He said it in most ambiguous word "concocted story".
I partly agree with you brother (about politicians), but it was you claimed that every news channel featured his story.
I don't agree with this part. Whats better than such kind of stories to get the TRP ratings through the roof?
Maybe you are closer to the actual scene so you might have more knowledge about this, but in the interviews I have seen about Avatar none of the legal experts said this could not be used as an evidence.
Best of luck with your tests brother. But after so many days Avatar would have got well acquainted with his new family (the family of supposed previous birth) so I have doubts about the results. Now that you are researching about reincarnation I would like you explain me these cases as well these are from Ian Stevenson's book (I have personally not read the book I got these from some other website) Remember none of these are my personal views.
There you are brother. How do you explain these cases? I hope you will get answers of these questions as well. And finally repeating my previous questions
Again best of luck with your research.
Regards
pics can be morphed also.ut these cases are live enough to see and interact.
So brother what makes you think that a child can be taught to behave in a certain way? I have given you the statement of a person who met him personally and the conclusion he reached. He said it in most ambiguous word "concocted story".
hopeless media only covers politicians.
I partly agree with you brother (about politicians), but it was you claimed that every news channel featured his story.
not topics like this.so after news channels it was v hard for me also to find an article on him.
I don't agree with this part. Whats better than such kind of stories to get the TRP ratings through the roof?
the whole matter going on legally is can this be enough evidence to punsih the guilty.
Maybe you are closer to the actual scene so you might have more knowledge about this, but in the interviews I have seen about Avatar none of the legal experts said this could not be used as an evidence.
i willl condust some test of mine also with him if allowed.
Best of luck with your tests brother. But after so many days Avatar would have got well acquainted with his new family (the family of supposed previous birth) so I have doubts about the results. Now that you are researching about reincarnation I would like you explain me these cases as well these are from Ian Stevenson's book (I have personally not read the book I got these from some other website) Remember none of these are my personal views.
Jasbir, aged three and a half, who was very ill and lapsed into a coma which his family temporarily mistook for death. He revived a few hours later, and after several weeks displayed a completely transformed behavior, claiming to be a Brahmin named Sobha Ram, who died in an accident while he (Jasbir) was sick. Since Sobha Ram died when Jasbir was already three and a half years old, his "past-life recall" obviously cannot be a proof of reincarnation. More than that, the "reincarnation" of Ram’s soul must have taken place even before he had physically died, according to the timing of his accident and the illness of Jasbir. For the previous 3.5 years both persons lived physically in nearby villages. While speaking through Jasbir, the "reincarnated Mr. Ram" said that he was advised by a saint to take cover in Jasbir’s body. As a result, at a certain moment there were present two personalities in Jasbir’s body: the one of the child and the one of Mr. Ram. This suggests that it cannot be a case of reincarnation, but rather a possession of Jasbir’s body by the so-called spirit of Mr. Ram.
Second, there is the case of Lurancy Vennum, a one-year-old girl who began to display the personality of Mary Roff when she (Mary Roff) died. This situation lasted several months, while Mary Roff claimed to have occupied the vacated body of the little girl. After this period Mary Roff departed and Lurancy Vennum resumed control. The overlapping of personalities and messages displayed during that period are strong indications of possession, excluding any possibility of reincarnation. Ian Stevenson admits in his book that "other cases of the present group of 20 cases may be instances of similar ‘possessing influences’ in which the previous personality just happened to die well before the birth of the present personality’s body" (p. 381).
Third, there is the case of a Buddhist monk, Chaokhun Rajsuthajarn, who was born a day before the death of Nai Leng, the personality he claimed to have been in his previous life. Stevenson commented in an interview: "I studied this case with much care but couldn't find an explanation for the discrepancy" (Omni Magazine 10(4):76 (198).
There you are brother. How do you explain these cases? I hope you will get answers of these questions as well. And finally repeating my previous questions
I would like to know what is the criteria of remembering our past lives? Why are some more fortunate than others when it comes to remembering past lives?
Again best of luck with your research.
Regards
written by Anti Loon, July 06, 2011
Correction
So brother what makes you think that a child cannot be taught to behave in a certain way?
Regards
So brother what makes you think that a child can be taught to behave in a certain way?
So brother what makes you think that a child cannot be taught to behave in a certain way?
Regards
written by Anti Loon, July 06, 2011
Another correction really sorry
.....none of the legal experts said this could be used as an evidence.
Regards
Maybe you are closer to the actual scene so you might have more knowledge about this, but in the interviews I have seen about Avatar none of the legal experts said this could not be used as an evidence.
.....none of the legal experts said this could be used as an evidence.
Regards
written by Amit, July 06, 2011
bro,
the debate is still on to see that wether it can be used as proof to punish someone.
regarding media--as per wat i saw approx all main news channels.
media today is not more than a prostitute in india.at the same time exceptions are always there.
regarding the criteria for remembering past lives.do u really think everything has some criteria .if almighty is really beyond senses how can we judge.in a life many things are there for which we leave it to almighty to judge.say it (its up to him).
again i m not proving anything but i have my own regards that i dont beleive in anybook.regardless of religion.
the debate is still on to see that wether it can be used as proof to punish someone.
regarding media--as per wat i saw approx all main news channels.
media today is not more than a prostitute in india.at the same time exceptions are always there.
regarding the criteria for remembering past lives.do u really think everything has some criteria .if almighty is really beyond senses how can we judge.in a life many things are there for which we leave it to almighty to judge.say it (its up to him).
again i m not proving anything but i have my own regards that i dont beleive in anybook.regardless of religion.
written by Anti Loon, July 07, 2011
@Amit
Well brother, I did say that you maybe closer to the scene so you may have more knowledge about it. You should have provided some link at least so that I could have verified your claim.
I do not remember every news channel featuring this story (after so many searches I ended up only with two article featuring this story), even I was interested in this case. About media I understand your sentiments but there are better ways to express yourself. Lets not discuss media here. I gave the most unambiguous statement of a person who had met him and he called it a concocted story. So brother lets leave this aside and let the law take its course. I hope your future comments will be regarding reincarnation itself and not this particular story (there are more reasons to disbelieve in the story than to believe in it).
I have no objection to this statement of yours but there is one fundamental problem. One of the major philosophical argument that is put forth by proponents of reincarnation is "How do you explain the sufferings of innocent babies, and other inequalities of life?". The idea of divine will of God according to which he tests different people in different ways is rejected by these people (we will reserve this topic for some different thread), the point is these people do not leave it to almighty to judge as you want to do in this case.
Perplexed by so called inequalities of life, philosophers came up with the idea of reincarnation wherein a person suffers because of his deeds in past life. But brother now you are saying that people remember their past lives according to will of God. Don't you think this shows some inconsistencies in God's behavior. Let me put this in simpler terms.
1. The status (both social and physical) one achieves (or is born with) in this life is a result of his own actions in past life. God does not use his will (here) to decide the status, because he is just, impartial. So there is a criteria here (deeds of past life).
2. There is no criteria (according to you) which allows one to remember one's past life. God uses his will to decide who would remember his past life. But isn't knowing the cause of suffering essential to appreciate the suffering and its purpose? Why is God being partial (unjust) here with only a few remembering their past lives?
Now brother I would like you to explain the inconsistency in God's behavior in the two cases above. Why is he impartial in first case and partial in second case? Let me put this in other (better) way why do you reject God's will (in terms of status at birth) in one case and accept in other?
Now I hope you understood why I asked about criteria for a person to remember his past life (because since there is criteria for status at birth of a person then why not for remembering our past lives? Justice demands it).
So the questions for you are as follows
1. Whats the criteria for remembering our past life? (I have given you the reason why I am asking for criteria)
2. How does reincarnation explain the three cases mentioned in my previous post?
Here is new one
3. What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?
Finally I would like to know whats the concept of soul according to you. Who is Amit (yourself)? Is it your soul? Is it your body? Is it half body, half soul (if so what part is responsible for what areas of one life) ?
Waiting for your reply brother. (Everything I wrote is based on my personal understanding please do correct me if I have gone wrong anywhere I would correct myself)
Regards
the debate is still on to see that wether it can be used as proof to punish someone.
Well brother, I did say that you maybe closer to the scene so you may have more knowledge about it. You should have provided some link at least so that I could have verified your claim.
regarding media--as per wat i saw approx all main news channels.
media today is not more than a prostitute in india.at the same time exceptions are always there.
I do not remember every news channel featuring this story (after so many searches I ended up only with two article featuring this story), even I was interested in this case. About media I understand your sentiments but there are better ways to express yourself. Lets not discuss media here. I gave the most unambiguous statement of a person who had met him and he called it a concocted story. So brother lets leave this aside and let the law take its course. I hope your future comments will be regarding reincarnation itself and not this particular story (there are more reasons to disbelieve in the story than to believe in it).
regarding the criteria for remembering past lives.do u really think everything has some criteria .if almighty is really beyond senses how can we judge.in a life many things are there for which we leave it to almighty to judge.say it (its up to him).
I have no objection to this statement of yours but there is one fundamental problem. One of the major philosophical argument that is put forth by proponents of reincarnation is "How do you explain the sufferings of innocent babies, and other inequalities of life?". The idea of divine will of God according to which he tests different people in different ways is rejected by these people (we will reserve this topic for some different thread), the point is these people do not leave it to almighty to judge as you want to do in this case.
Perplexed by so called inequalities of life, philosophers came up with the idea of reincarnation wherein a person suffers because of his deeds in past life. But brother now you are saying that people remember their past lives according to will of God. Don't you think this shows some inconsistencies in God's behavior. Let me put this in simpler terms.
1. The status (both social and physical) one achieves (or is born with) in this life is a result of his own actions in past life. God does not use his will (here) to decide the status, because he is just, impartial. So there is a criteria here (deeds of past life).
2. There is no criteria (according to you) which allows one to remember one's past life. God uses his will to decide who would remember his past life. But isn't knowing the cause of suffering essential to appreciate the suffering and its purpose? Why is God being partial (unjust) here with only a few remembering their past lives?
Now brother I would like you to explain the inconsistency in God's behavior in the two cases above. Why is he impartial in first case and partial in second case? Let me put this in other (better) way why do you reject God's will (in terms of status at birth) in one case and accept in other?
Now I hope you understood why I asked about criteria for a person to remember his past life (because since there is criteria for status at birth of a person then why not for remembering our past lives? Justice demands it).
So the questions for you are as follows
1. Whats the criteria for remembering our past life? (I have given you the reason why I am asking for criteria)
2. How does reincarnation explain the three cases mentioned in my previous post?
Here is new one
3. What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?
Finally I would like to know whats the concept of soul according to you. Who is Amit (yourself)? Is it your soul? Is it your body? Is it half body, half soul (if so what part is responsible for what areas of one life) ?
Waiting for your reply brother. (Everything I wrote is based on my personal understanding please do correct me if I have gone wrong anywhere I would correct myself)
Regards
written by Anti Loon, July 07, 2011
I think I was not able to explain my point properly in my last comment so I will try to put forth my arguments in a better way.
Firstly reincarnation is based on the principle that God is just and impartial and so the inequalities in our present life are result of our deeds in our so called past lives. This rejects the idea that God has provided different people with different provisions (as a test for them) according to his divine wisdom. In short nothing is "left" to God almighty everything is result of our actions (the problems of this concept are given in the article). So there clearly is a criteria here.
The entire concept of reincarnation was put forth to explain the inequalities in life by giving a certain criteria for existence of such inequalities. If we accept God's divine wisdom as a cause of inequalities there is no need for the theory of reincarnation.
Anyways coming to our case of some people remembering their past lives (without getting into whether the stories are true), I asked you for criteria as to why it some people remember their past lives and others don't? You replied that this should be left God alone, he alone will judge (decide) it, there is no fixed criteria here.
Now when I consider the first case (about status at birth) mentioned above and your response to second case about criteria for remembering past lives I see a contradiction.
In first case the concept of divine wisdom behind so called inequalities of life is rejected completely, the basic idea behind this rejection is that, since God is just, he won't create inequalities, they (inequalities) are result of our own actions. But in second case you accept the concept of divine wisdom and say that it should be left to God almighty alone.
Here I would like to ask since here God is allowing only few to remember their past lives according to his own (God's) will without any fixed criteria, isn't he been unjust?. Isn't he himself by allowing only a select few people (without any criteria) to remember their past lives and creating inequality (being partial)?
So the two cases (in my opinion) show inconsistencies in God's behavior. He is impartial in first case but partial in second case (this obviously cannot be the case). I hope I explained my position on this issue.
So brother Amit the question (in addition to four questions I asked you in last comment) that I will ask you is why reject idea of God as deciding force in first case but accept in second case?
Regards
Firstly reincarnation is based on the principle that God is just and impartial and so the inequalities in our present life are result of our deeds in our so called past lives. This rejects the idea that God has provided different people with different provisions (as a test for them) according to his divine wisdom. In short nothing is "left" to God almighty everything is result of our actions (the problems of this concept are given in the article). So there clearly is a criteria here.
The entire concept of reincarnation was put forth to explain the inequalities in life by giving a certain criteria for existence of such inequalities. If we accept God's divine wisdom as a cause of inequalities there is no need for the theory of reincarnation.
Anyways coming to our case of some people remembering their past lives (without getting into whether the stories are true), I asked you for criteria as to why it some people remember their past lives and others don't? You replied that this should be left God alone, he alone will judge (decide) it, there is no fixed criteria here.
Now when I consider the first case (about status at birth) mentioned above and your response to second case about criteria for remembering past lives I see a contradiction.
In first case the concept of divine wisdom behind so called inequalities of life is rejected completely, the basic idea behind this rejection is that, since God is just, he won't create inequalities, they (inequalities) are result of our own actions. But in second case you accept the concept of divine wisdom and say that it should be left to God almighty alone.
Here I would like to ask since here God is allowing only few to remember their past lives according to his own (God's) will without any fixed criteria, isn't he been unjust?. Isn't he himself by allowing only a select few people (without any criteria) to remember their past lives and creating inequality (being partial)?
So the two cases (in my opinion) show inconsistencies in God's behavior. He is impartial in first case but partial in second case (this obviously cannot be the case). I hope I explained my position on this issue.
So brother Amit the question (in addition to four questions I asked you in last comment) that I will ask you is why reject idea of God as deciding force in first case but accept in second case?
Regards
written by Amit, July 09, 2011
hello bro anti loon,
i think u have explained so much that i got confused.now according to ur comment that everything is result of our action can u give some examples. or why is it so.other than any book.which i can think like practical.
all religions have so much fantasy stories about rebirth or death or god.beside those fantasies anything practical ava?hindus say that its on karma but still so much problem.muslim say god is not unjust everthing written in a book icant remeber the name may be lohe m,ahfooz.than if everthing predecided than wat is the use of this whole vreation and drama.i dont know much about christians and others...
i will believe with some practical examples.
i think u have explained so much that i got confused.now according to ur comment that everything is result of our action can u give some examples. or why is it so.other than any book.which i can think like practical.
all religions have so much fantasy stories about rebirth or death or god.beside those fantasies anything practical ava?hindus say that its on karma but still so much problem.muslim say god is not unjust everthing written in a book icant remeber the name may be lohe m,ahfooz.than if everthing predecided than wat is the use of this whole vreation and drama.i dont know much about christians and others...
i will believe with some practical examples.
written by Anti Loon, July 09, 2011
Hello brother Amit
I feared that I would confuse you. Anyways the point I was trying to make is this:-
God does not interfere in deciding the status of an individual at the time of birth, its all according to his deeds (Hindu Philosophy). So the deeds of a person in his previous life are the criteria here. OK.
But when I asked you the criteria for remembering one's past life you said there is no criteria its God's will as to whom he will allow to remember his past life.
The cases are contradictory in the sense that the same God who does not want to interfere (use his free will) in deciding the status of a person at the time of his birth in first case, suddenly starts interfering (using his free will) in affairs of people and allows only some people to remember their past lives.
Moreover there is no fixed criteria for these past life memories, it depends on God's will, in complete contrast to the first case, where there was a criteria (deeds of a person in previous life). He is just in first case but unjust in other. Why???
So brother Amit, please explain this inconsistency in God's behavior.
Nope, brother Amit, this not my opinion, I have derived this question for the main argument in favor of reincarnation.
Again my question is not based on any book.
Brother let me remind you have not answered any of my questions in the last comment of mine, so allow me to repeat them
1. Whats the criteria for remembering our past life?
2. How does reincarnation explain the three cases mentioned in my previous post?
3. What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?
4. Finally I would like to know whats the concept of soul according to you. Who is Amit (yourself)? Is it your soul? Is it your body? Is it half body, half soul (if so what part is responsible for what areas of one life)?
Brother personally I feel trying to drag Islam into the discussion is a bad move, the thread is related to Reincarnation so lets stick to it. Still since you have asked about Law-e-Mafooz I will give a brief explanation of it
One of the attributes of Allah (SWT) is that he is all Knowing, he knows all the things that have happened, is happening and will be happening. Law-e-Mafooz is his knowledge of all things. Remember Allah (SWT) knows what man will do, he does not force them to do so, but he already knows what will happen. His knowledge does not interfere with free will of a person rather he knows what a person will choose, this is the concept of Law-e-Mahfooz.
Valid question but tell me brother, had Allah (SWT) started judging the person only on the basis his knowledge without people actually doing anything, would you call it justice? It is emphasized in Qur'an that people will be able to see their deeds themselves, this would not have been possible without what you call "drama". I hope I made my point clear. There is a lot more to this but it would be off-topic, so I'll provide you the link of a good website discussing these things
http://www.questionsonislam.co...acat&id=12
Brother please elaborate what you mean by practical example and I'll provide you with it, and please do provide a practical example for reincarnation also.
Finally, brother I request you not to drag Islam into this particular discussion not because I won't be able to answer but because it would be off-topic. And remember I have asked you four questions please do answer them in your reply.
Regards
I feared that I would confuse you. Anyways the point I was trying to make is this:-
God does not interfere in deciding the status of an individual at the time of birth, its all according to his deeds (Hindu Philosophy). So the deeds of a person in his previous life are the criteria here. OK.
But when I asked you the criteria for remembering one's past life you said there is no criteria its God's will as to whom he will allow to remember his past life.
The cases are contradictory in the sense that the same God who does not want to interfere (use his free will) in deciding the status of a person at the time of his birth in first case, suddenly starts interfering (using his free will) in affairs of people and allows only some people to remember their past lives.
Moreover there is no fixed criteria for these past life memories, it depends on God's will, in complete contrast to the first case, where there was a criteria (deeds of a person in previous life). He is just in first case but unjust in other. Why???
So brother Amit, please explain this inconsistency in God's behavior.
now according to ur comment that everything is result of our action can u give some examples
Nope, brother Amit, this not my opinion, I have derived this question for the main argument in favor of reincarnation.
or why is it so.other than any book.which i can think like practical.
Again my question is not based on any book.
Brother let me remind you have not answered any of my questions in the last comment of mine, so allow me to repeat them
1. Whats the criteria for remembering our past life?
2. How does reincarnation explain the three cases mentioned in my previous post?
3. What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?
4. Finally I would like to know whats the concept of soul according to you. Who is Amit (yourself)? Is it your soul? Is it your body? Is it half body, half soul (if so what part is responsible for what areas of one life)?
muslim say god is not unjust everthing written in a book icant remeber the name may be lohe m,ahfooz.
Brother personally I feel trying to drag Islam into the discussion is a bad move, the thread is related to Reincarnation so lets stick to it. Still since you have asked about Law-e-Mafooz I will give a brief explanation of it
One of the attributes of Allah (SWT) is that he is all Knowing, he knows all the things that have happened, is happening and will be happening. Law-e-Mafooz is his knowledge of all things. Remember Allah (SWT) knows what man will do, he does not force them to do so, but he already knows what will happen. His knowledge does not interfere with free will of a person rather he knows what a person will choose, this is the concept of Law-e-Mahfooz.
than if everthing predecided than wat is the use of this whole vreation and drama.i dont know much about christians and others...
Valid question but tell me brother, had Allah (SWT) started judging the person only on the basis his knowledge without people actually doing anything, would you call it justice? It is emphasized in Qur'an that people will be able to see their deeds themselves, this would not have been possible without what you call "drama". I hope I made my point clear. There is a lot more to this but it would be off-topic, so I'll provide you the link of a good website discussing these things
http://www.questionsonislam.co...acat&id=12
i will believe with some practical examples.
Brother please elaborate what you mean by practical example and I'll provide you with it, and please do provide a practical example for reincarnation also.
Finally, brother I request you not to drag Islam into this particular discussion not because I won't be able to answer but because it would be off-topic. And remember I have asked you four questions please do answer them in your reply.
Regards
written by Amit, July 09, 2011
bro anti looon,
i m sorry if i hurt .it was a genral statement commenting on both islam and hinduism.if u r hurt again sorry.regarding the question u asked so i m not scholar of any religion.i cant answer those.that is why i said i leave upto god if there is really a god. as per me i dont believe in books and religion.
every religion fighting with another to prove its the best.
i saw the reincarnation thing so i asked about it.as going through ur website there was so much against this theory.i dont know much about law-e- mahfooz.but my only thought was that if every thing was pre decided then wat is the use of all this.though by birth i m a hindu still i dont beleive on anybook of them.so many fantasies in all religious books.
so gaain if i hurt u i m sorry
i m sorry if i hurt .it was a genral statement commenting on both islam and hinduism.if u r hurt again sorry.regarding the question u asked so i m not scholar of any religion.i cant answer those.that is why i said i leave upto god if there is really a god. as per me i dont believe in books and religion.
every religion fighting with another to prove its the best.
i saw the reincarnation thing so i asked about it.as going through ur website there was so much against this theory.i dont know much about law-e- mahfooz.but my only thought was that if every thing was pre decided then wat is the use of all this.though by birth i m a hindu still i dont beleive on anybook of them.so many fantasies in all religious books.
so gaain if i hurt u i m sorry
written by Anti Loon, July 09, 2011
Hello brother Amit you did not hurt me at all .
As I said previously I appreciate questions. I have no problems with objective criticism.
Now we have new religion (atheism) involved in this battle.
This website is not mine I just comment here. Read the following to know the purpose of the website.
http://www.islamhinduism.com/about-us
I hope I explained you about the concept of Law-e-Mahfooz, and why creation took place even though everything waspre decided known already to God (so that justice is delivered and people can themselves see their deeds).
I appreciate that you are searching for truth. Sorry if I hurt in any of my responses, that was never my intention. Best of luck with your search for truth.
Peace
. As I said previously I appreciate questions. I have no problems with objective criticism.
every religion fighting with another to prove its the best.
Now we have new religion (atheism) involved in this battle
. i saw the reincarnation thing so i asked about it.as going through ur website there was so much against this theory
This website is not mine I just comment here. Read the following to know the purpose of the website.
http://www.islamhinduism.com/about-us
i dont know much about law-e- mahfooz.but my only thought was that if every thing was pre decided then wat is the use of all this.
I hope I explained you about the concept of Law-e-Mahfooz, and why creation took place even though everything was
though by birth i m a hindu still i dont beleive on anybook of them.so many fantasies in all religious books.
I appreciate that you are searching for truth. Sorry if I hurt in any of my responses, that was never my intention. Best of luck with your search for truth.
Peace
written by Anti Loon, July 10, 2011
I asked the question
because some poster had written this
Simple, isn't it? Unfortunately no. This leads to infinite regression, and raises more question than it answers.
I asked about soul because I have heard the soul is impersonal, the soul possess a body, the soul does not have a personality. This solves the problems of mixing relationships of previous birth with those in this birth.
But since the body has a personality it implies that when I say that person A has died, the personality A ceased to exist. So if the soul of A takes body of B, then B is a completely different personality. Then why should B suffer due to actions of a completely different personality A which has already ceased to exist?
Most of the the people that suffer in this life resort to other sinful activities (eg. poor people resorting to crime) and would suffer for these in future, they are in this sense trapped in a vicious cycle. You can blame it their ignorance but then again thats not their fault, they should have been made to remember their deeds from previous birth.
Again in order to punish a person for murder in previous life there is a need of another person to act as an "instrument" of punishment, only to be punished in his next life for this!!!
Lastly an examination cannot be used as an analogy for reincarnation, because the principle of examination is like court proceedings wherein your knowledge is judged by the examiner and you are declared passed or failed. The repetition and other things are introduced because we cannot afford to have more and more uneducated people to be accumulated. Moreover earlier the basis for promotion was age and not academic performance!!!
An analogy for Judgment day is court proceedings, before raising objections against it we must keep in mind that in human courts cases of affairs between humans are looked after, while on Judgment day the actions of Humans with regard to God will be considered. And its obvious that whenever a crime is committed the duration of crime is not the most important factor, but against whom the crime is been committed is the factor.
Regards
3. What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?
because some poster had written this
Now to your simple question about what's the basis of earlier deeds at the beginning of creation there's a simple answer - creation and destruction are beginningless and endless cycle.so your question does not apply to the current creation, it goes back to the previous creation cycle and so on ad infinitum
Simple, isn't it? Unfortunately no. This leads to infinite regression, and raises more question than it answers.
I asked about soul because I have heard the soul is impersonal, the soul possess a body, the soul does not have a personality. This solves the problems of mixing relationships of previous birth with those in this birth.
But since the body has a personality it implies that when I say that person A has died, the personality A ceased to exist. So if the soul of A takes body of B, then B is a completely different personality. Then why should B suffer due to actions of a completely different personality A which has already ceased to exist?
Most of the the people that suffer in this life resort to other sinful activities (eg. poor people resorting to crime) and would suffer for these in future, they are in this sense trapped in a vicious cycle. You can blame it their ignorance but then again thats not their fault, they should have been made to remember their deeds from previous birth.
Again in order to punish a person for murder in previous life there is a need of another person to act as an "instrument" of punishment, only to be punished in his next life for this!!!
Lastly an examination cannot be used as an analogy for reincarnation, because the principle of examination is like court proceedings wherein your knowledge is judged by the examiner and you are declared passed or failed. The repetition and other things are introduced because we cannot afford to have more and more uneducated people to be accumulated. Moreover earlier the basis for promotion was age and not academic performance!!!
An analogy for Judgment day is court proceedings, before raising objections against it we must keep in mind that in human courts cases of affairs between humans are looked after, while on Judgment day the actions of Humans with regard to God will be considered. And its obvious that whenever a crime is committed the duration of crime is not the most important factor, but against whom the crime is been committed is the factor.
Regards
written by sorab, July 26, 2011
this is really one superficial research work on rebirth...anyway there is a lot to say on this but i will cursorily touch a few points:
* u talk of souls taking up bodies and give examples of food inside the guts,sperm in the penis,fruits from trees etc...so inappropriate examples fails ur first argument.
souls and matter are different,is it clear?i can write more on this but ur examples actually belittles ur standpoint,lets move to other point.
* sins committed by some people are a pre-condition to our comforts...really...
i would say good done by people are actually pre-condition to their comforts;some people enjoy life becos they did good others suffer becos they did bad;now here we can see that both did something(good or bad);human life is conditioned as much with sin as with goodness.DOING SOMETHING moves on the life not just DOING SINS. you said "we must serve each other in wide variety of different capacities if adequate contribution is to be made to the COMMON COMFORT";so we all are contributing to the common comfort not just rich people's comfort.secondly,world is a place of relativity,nothing is absolute;X is a sinner,Y is a worse sinner and there is no worst sinner.similarly,A is good man,B is better but there is no best;so even if,hypothetically,there are no sinners alive on earth and all are good doers,there will again be a lower class and an upper class based on the amount of their good deeds...this time u might say that less good deeds of others is prerequisite to the
comforts of people who did good deeds.ITS ONLY ACTION THAT CHURNS THE SOUL IN THIS LIFE CYCLE.
* u talk of souls taking up bodies and give examples of food inside the guts,sperm in the penis,fruits from trees etc...so inappropriate examples fails ur first argument.
souls and matter are different,is it clear?i can write more on this but ur examples actually belittles ur standpoint,lets move to other point.
* sins committed by some people are a pre-condition to our comforts...really...
i would say good done by people are actually pre-condition to their comforts;some people enjoy life becos they did good others suffer becos they did bad;now here we can see that both did something(good or bad);human life is conditioned as much with sin as with goodness.DOING SOMETHING moves on the life not just DOING SINS. you said "we must serve each other in wide variety of different capacities if adequate contribution is to be made to the COMMON COMFORT";so we all are contributing to the common comfort not just rich people's comfort.secondly,world is a place of relativity,nothing is absolute;X is a sinner,Y is a worse sinner and there is no worst sinner.similarly,A is good man,B is better but there is no best;so even if,hypothetically,there are no sinners alive on earth and all are good doers,there will again be a lower class and an upper class based on the amount of their good deeds...this time u might say that less good deeds of others is prerequisite to the
comforts of people who did good deeds.ITS ONLY ACTION THAT CHURNS THE SOUL IN THIS LIFE CYCLE.
written by sorab, July 26, 2011
and yes,do u really believe that for procreation 2 sexes are required compulsorily...then all i can say is that ur an infidel becos allah created JESUS from virgin MARY;no male intervention.moreover,why one need man and women to create babies when he can just say "KUN" and babies start falling from skies.anyway,this banishment from heaven of adam and eve to fall upon earth out of nowhere is simply unscientific and ridiculous...humans have EVOLVED here;i dont know when will u people realize this fallacy.and since they have evolved from lower species so there again comes in the fact of rebirth.
written by sorab, July 26, 2011
* about third point i dont know whether to laugh or cry,its so imbecilic.
u wrote that nature,moon,sun etc existed long before us even millions of years before us,and u still believe that they were made for our happiness...funny...even animals and plants are getting that happiness from them,what makes u any different?epochs chance, civilizations die/vanish,species become extinct but nature remains the same with same moon and sun.happiness is mental and mind is for humans...if u get happiness from nature only then probably u dont need anything that is man made...so please discard ur clothes,ur house,ur money and enter some forest to be more close to happiness.u should not be enjoying any of this modern day comfort.
people who live in SAHARA and ALASKA might not agree with u.
and if u really want to thank god for this natural happiness then u must also curse him for TSUNAMIS and EARTHQUAKES which are natural sorrows.
u wrote that nature,moon,sun etc existed long before us even millions of years before us,and u still believe that they were made for our happiness...funny...even animals and plants are getting that happiness from them,what makes u any different?epochs chance, civilizations die/vanish,species become extinct but nature remains the same with same moon and sun.happiness is mental and mind is for humans...if u get happiness from nature only then probably u dont need anything that is man made...so please discard ur clothes,ur house,ur money and enter some forest to be more close to happiness.u should not be enjoying any of this modern day comfort.
people who live in SAHARA and ALASKA might not agree with u.
and if u really want to thank god for this natural happiness then u must also curse him for TSUNAMIS and EARTHQUAKES which are natural sorrows.
written by sorab, July 26, 2011
* your fourth throw-up is illogical,totally;first of all how do u know that ur suffering is not going to end no matter what u do?this is close to knowing what u were in ur last life...ridiculous...may be the man suffering with cholera will be cured in one year or in two year...how can u base ur action on such assumptions...u better see some psychiatric;i think ur suicidal.how do u know how grave were ur sins?may be they were small mischiefs for which u are to suffer for some small period of time...but really man,no kidding,ur a real pessimist.
i must take some brake now from ur pessimism...to be continued
i must take some brake now from ur pessimism...to be continued
written by Anti Loon, July 26, 2011
@Sorab
Hello brother,
As far as I understood the post, what the author tried to show is this
So he was not confused between soul and matter. He tried to show that a phenomenon similar to Reincarnation is not observed in nature.
Brother please do tell me what is your explanation of a "good act".
So you are saying people will be born as laborers (and other under privileged people) even if they do good deeds!!!! Thats bad
Hinduism does not need Islam to explain itself, does it? I would love to know how evolution proves reincarnation.
Explain this to me, lets take the example of a very hot place. There is a rich person who is enjoying his deeds from previous life and a poor man suffering for the same, but when a cool breeze blows they both enjoy it. So here previous life's deeds are not responsible for the happiness that the two people get, is it? How does reincarnation explain this happiness which does not differentiate between these two people?
OK so I won't try to cure cholera because if I am suffering for some "small mischief" then I won't die, I will get cured (automatically) as soon as I have received my punishment (remedial result) for my "small mischief". And in case I am suffering from cholera because of some serious sin then no matter what I do, I will die. Am I right?
Regards
Hello brother,
* u talk of souls taking up bodies and give examples of food inside the guts,sperm in the penis,fruits from trees etc...so inappropriate examples fails ur first argument.
souls and matter are different,is it clear?
As far as I understood the post, what the author tried to show is this
This logic is not bad and the reasoning is quite plausible; but they do not coincide with what we observe in the universe.
So he was not confused between soul and matter. He tried to show that a phenomenon similar to Reincarnation is not observed in nature.
i would say good done by people are actually pre-condition to their comforts
Brother please do tell me what is your explanation of a "good act".
so even if,hypothetically,there are no sinners alive on earth and all are good doers,there will again be a lower class and an upper class based on the amount of their good deeds
So you are saying people will be born as laborers (and other under privileged people) even if they do good deeds!!!! Thats bad
and yes,do u really believe that for procreation 2 sexes are required compulsorily.........from lower species so there again comes in the fact of rebirth.
Hinduism does not need Islam to explain itself, does it? I would love to know how evolution proves reincarnation.
* about third point i dont know whether to laugh or cry,its so imbecilic.
u wrote ......... are natural sorrows.
Explain this to me, lets take the example of a very hot place. There is a rich person who is enjoying his deeds from previous life and a poor man suffering for the same, but when a cool breeze blows they both enjoy it. So here previous life's deeds are not responsible for the happiness that the two people get, is it? How does reincarnation explain this happiness which does not differentiate between these two people?
may be the man suffering with cholera will be cured in one year or in two year...how can u base ur action on such assumptions....may be they were small mischiefs for which u are to suffer for some small period of time...
OK so I won't try to cure cholera because if I am suffering for some "small mischief" then I won't die, I will get cured (automatically) as soon as I have received my punishment (remedial result) for my "small mischief". And in case I am suffering from cholera because of some serious sin then no matter what I do, I will die. Am I right?
Regards
written by sorab, July 28, 2011
i will start from the last one where u speak of cholera;yes u are right in both cases except when u say that medicine is not required.medicine will make ur suffering less and here seeking divine blessing will also act as medicine;remember cycle of action does not prohibits praying to god: infact by seeking divine intervention u let urself in the hands of ur friend,ur eternal guide who makes ur passage thru thick and thin easier;god will not override the law of karma for one person or people becos that would call for reprieval of whole cosmos but for sure he can and he does make everybody's path easier and a little remembrance of him keeps u connected to receive the blessings consciously,and this blessing can come in material shape as medicine...getting cured is one thing and reducing suffering is another...now we also see that many people die in spite of best medical treatment and some of them survive so its again not medicines which cure them but their past actions...if not then no rich man would ever die of diseases which is clearly not the case. and u talk of inaction/doing nothing which is against the law of karma.so please take medicine if ur sick becos they may not cure u but they can lessen ur pain.u will get cured or die if u have to.
written by sorab, July 28, 2011
about these natural happiness ur just reiterating my point;yes ofcourse there is no play of previous karma here becos even animals can also take pleasure from cool wind,its for every being.ur friend MUSHAFIQ called these natural things as result of rebirth which i said is wrong.kindly read my earlier response again.these things were present long before we existed.even dinosaurs played with cool breeze.these things would have been here with or without us;they dont exist becos of our actions.
written by sorab, July 28, 2011
about referring to islam to explain hinduism...let us see...first of all coming of 2 sexes together is natural,biological phenomenon not hinduism exclusively.
when u speak that it is imperative for creation of new life that 2 sexes come together
u exhibit ur belief in science which is applaudable but i know and u also must not forget that ur a muslim and so u ought to believe in the unscientific pregnancy of virgin MARY...keeping this in mind u must try to avoid such conflicting ideas which can let u down in such debates.look u cant challenge flying HANUMAN if u accept flying MOHAMED ON DONKEY.
when u speak that it is imperative for creation of new life that 2 sexes come together
u exhibit ur belief in science which is applaudable but i know and u also must not forget that ur a muslim and so u ought to believe in the unscientific pregnancy of virgin MARY...keeping this in mind u must try to avoid such conflicting ideas which can let u down in such debates.look u cant challenge flying HANUMAN if u accept flying MOHAMED ON DONKEY.
written by sorab, July 28, 2011
AND ABOUT U WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION...WELL... ITS TOO SCIENTIFIC FOR UR BRAIN TO GET HOOKED TO.
written by sorab, July 28, 2011
i must say ur approach is a close cut of zakir naik's...beings will be born so long one is doing less than the other;so long the relativity exist...once they all have achieved oneness in all aspects of goodness...or if i say they all have risen above this puddle of pair of opposites...or they all have reached the pinnacle of natural evolution of soul,that day my friend will be the day of LIGHT and LIBERATION.anything less than that will be a process and not end.remember u see and feel that ur debating me but actually ur debating against urself becos i and u are one and one is this whole cosmos,only ego separates us...actually thru this conflicting and doubting attitude the individual soul comes to realize its oneness with its surrounding by uncovering the truth of its real nature...
written by sorab, July 28, 2011
MUSHAFIQ talks about sins in this article...why dont u first explain to me what is sin? then i talk about good act.
written by sorab, July 28, 2011
u cant talk like that...its hilarious...u talk about its signs in nature...ofcourse it is there everywhere...u cant see it...becos of intellectual blindness...moreover,i dont see moon breaking in half anymore,i dont see any real donkey flying to heavens,i dont see sun setting in a pool of mud etc...at any rate mushafiq comparison of fruits falling from trees with souls leaving the bodies is gibberish and nonsense...then he must also add that these fruits will go to islamic heaven with souls.and do u see any bit of heaven on earth?any sign of it?but u believe in it.and please show me a soul in nature free from body...u cant...but u believe in soul,dont u?
written by Anti Loon, July 28, 2011
@Sorab
Sorry to say bro, but if this is true then Reincarnation is fatalistic.
Brother suffering is a result of our past deeds, isn't it? If yes then, if God interferes and reduces suffering of a person (which he deserves) then is he not overriding the law of Karma? Of course he is (correct me if I am wrong).
Yes you are right but the sufferings of a person when he is sick is the result of his past deeds. Then how can God reduce this suffering with overriding the law of Karma?
About remembering God, praying and all, well I have no objections with it, but if reincarnation is true then why do I need to pray to him? At the end of the day whatever I enjoy/suffer is result of my own deeds, he does not interfere in this cycle. The only thing that God does is he implements the law of Karma. And he cannot reduce my suffering without overriding the law of Karma (which of course he won't do) as seen above.
How is inaction against the law of Karma, please explain?
This is exactly what I asked you, if every happiness/suffering is result of our actions then how does not reincarnation explain this kind of happiness?
No he didn't say that, reread the relevant part of the article, rather he concluded this from Reincarnation. Here is his conclusion
It seems you are agreeing that this conclusion is absurd, well thats the point Reincarnation can lead to absurd conclusions. It would be better if you answer this question (by the author)
Please enlighten us on this.
i will start from the last one where u speak of cholera;yes u are right in both cases
Sorry to say bro, but if this is true then Reincarnation is fatalistic.
....infact by seeking divine intervention u let urself in the hands of ur friend,ur eternal guide who makes ur passage thru thick and thin easier;god will not override the law of karma for one person or people becos that would call for reprieval of whole cosmos but for sure he can and he does make everybody's path easier and a little remembrance of him keeps u connected to receive the blessings consciously,and this blessing can come in material shape as medicine...
Brother suffering is a result of our past deeds, isn't it? If yes then, if God interferes and reduces suffering of a person (which he deserves) then is he not overriding the law of Karma? Of course he is (correct me if I am wrong).
getting cured is one thing and reducing suffering is another...
Yes you are right but the sufferings of a person when he is sick is the result of his past deeds. Then how can God reduce this suffering with overriding the law of Karma?
About remembering God, praying and all, well I have no objections with it, but if reincarnation is true then why do I need to pray to him? At the end of the day whatever I enjoy/suffer is result of my own deeds, he does not interfere in this cycle. The only thing that God does is he implements the law of Karma. And he cannot reduce my suffering without overriding the law of Karma (which of course he won't do) as seen above.
and u talk of inaction/doing nothing which is against the law of karma.so please take medicine if ur sick becos they may not cure u but they can lessen ur pain.u will get cured or die if u have to.
How is inaction against the law of Karma, please explain?
about these natural happiness ur just reiterating my point;yes ofcourse there is no play of previous karma here becos even animals can also take pleasure from cool wind,its for every being.
This is exactly what I asked you, if every happiness/suffering is result of our actions then how does not reincarnation explain this kind of happiness?
ur friend MUSHAFIQ called these natural things as result of rebirth ....they dont exist becos of our actions.
No he didn't say that, reread the relevant part of the article, rather he concluded this from Reincarnation. Here is his conclusion
Divine Providence, as exhibited in Nature, makes Divine Blessing, which is the main store of our happiness, a pre-existing thing; while the theory of Karma makes our actions to pre-exist the Divine Blessing, which is absurd on the face of it.
It seems you are agreeing that this conclusion is absurd, well thats the point Reincarnation can lead to absurd conclusions. It would be better if you answer this question (by the author)
If all our present means of happiness are given to us as a reward for past actions,how are we to explain the happiness which comes to us providentially?
Please enlighten us on this.
written by Anti Loon, July 28, 2011
about referring to islam to explain hinduism...let us see...first of all coming of 2 sexes.........u cant challenge flying HANUMAN if u accept flying MOHAMED ON DONKEY.
Sorry to say brother even if you call me a retard and Islam unscientific it won't prove your point. How would you answer an atheist?
About the point you made about virgin birth and other miracles, well man is limited by science not Allah. Its problem for Hindus because they redefine the meaning of God's omnipotence according to their own understanding, Muslims don't believe in a God who is a slave of the laws that he himself created.
Anyways returning to the topic please answer the question instead of trying to hide behind Islam. What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?
AND ABOUT U WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION...WELL... ITS TOO SCIENTIFIC FOR UR BRAIN TO GET HOOKED TO.
Oh so you think I am stupid, no problem, but still you can try to explain it to me, why are you running away?
i must say ur approach is a close cut of zakir naik's....... truth of its real nature...
I am not a fan of Zakir Naik. Enough of philosophy answer the questions. I have no problems with relativity. But as I said if a person is born into lower class even after doing good deeds (though they were less) then its bad.
why dont u first explain to me what is sin? then i talk about good act.
Why not, for me sin is unjust violation of rights of any entity, be it an individual, be it society.
consider good act just the opposite of what he explains as sin.
Good act is opposite of sin??? Then whats the opposite of murder, rape etc. Your definition does not work here. Please provide a proper definition of "good" act. Well let me help you, a "good act" is to help someone who is suffering. Do you agree?
u cant talk like that...its hilarious...u talk about its signs in nature...........show me a soul in nature free from body...u cant...but u believe in soul,dont u?
You are just trying to evade the topic by hiding behind Islam brother. I won't answer the irrelevant part.
at any rate mushafiq comparison of fruits falling from trees with souls leaving the bodies is gibberish and nonsense
Again I will repeat brother Mushafiq is not comparing "fruits falling from trees with souls leaving the bodies". What he said is this
This logic is not bad and the reasoning is quite plausible; but they do not coincide with what we observe in the universe.
u cant talk like that...its hilarious...u talk about its signs in nature...ofcourse it is there everywhere...u cant see it...becos of intellectual blindness
An example will help your case brother.
And please don't fill this space calling others hilarious, ridiculous, "u better see some psychiatric", suicidal, real pessimist etc not that it bothers me but it does not show in good light. If we disagree on something we can discuss it in a better way.
Regards
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
fatalism as per dictionary means belief that events are decided by fate and that u cant control them or that u cant prevent something from happening;
now under the light of this definition tell me honestly how many times u succeeded in preventing the death of ur near and dear ones?tell me have u lived so far untouched by any sorrow?tell me sincerely how many things can u control in ur life?
second thing,if u have cholera then the symptoms will start appearing on u:let us say loose motions,so now if ur running to toilet 10 times a day then by taking medicine u might need to go only 6 times(say);but the getting cured of cholera is a different thing.if u did ur acts not very bad then u will get cured and if u were really bad then u will suffer and die.but before death takes u away u can keep reducing ur suffering by taking medicines;i told u before that medicines cant guarantee ur cure otherwise nobody would ever die of disease,especially,the rich class becos they get the best medical treatment.many people smoke but not all die of cancer;even some i have seen live a long life.what is ur take on this?
thirdly,reincarnation is about writing ur fate and believing and fulfilling what u wrote.if somebody is suffering a lot becos he wrote his fate in bad ink then by praying to god and remembering HIM he can write his new fate for next life and hence shall suffer less in next life.but remember he can only break the chain of birth by removing all stains from his soul,even a single stain is sufficient to bring him back.again by doing good he can better his next life.so by doing nothing and sitting idle in this life he will only spoil his future.so clearly reincarnation does not believe in fate exclusively.
now under the light of this definition tell me honestly how many times u succeeded in preventing the death of ur near and dear ones?tell me have u lived so far untouched by any sorrow?tell me sincerely how many things can u control in ur life?
second thing,if u have cholera then the symptoms will start appearing on u:let us say loose motions,so now if ur running to toilet 10 times a day then by taking medicine u might need to go only 6 times(say);but the getting cured of cholera is a different thing.if u did ur acts not very bad then u will get cured and if u were really bad then u will suffer and die.but before death takes u away u can keep reducing ur suffering by taking medicines;i told u before that medicines cant guarantee ur cure otherwise nobody would ever die of disease,especially,the rich class becos they get the best medical treatment.many people smoke but not all die of cancer;even some i have seen live a long life.what is ur take on this?
thirdly,reincarnation is about writing ur fate and believing and fulfilling what u wrote.if somebody is suffering a lot becos he wrote his fate in bad ink then by praying to god and remembering HIM he can write his new fate for next life and hence shall suffer less in next life.but remember he can only break the chain of birth by removing all stains from his soul,even a single stain is sufficient to bring him back.again by doing good he can better his next life.so by doing nothing and sitting idle in this life he will only spoil his future.so clearly reincarnation does not believe in fate exclusively.
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
see suffering makes us suffer becos we feel it mentally;just like when ur nerve endings get damaged u cant feel any pain even if ur hurt becos ur brain does not receive the signal.all suffering is psychological and once u get a mental support u feel relieved even though u might be in the same physical suffering as before.so it is good to call god in ur sufferings becos u get a mental support and back-up.u start feeling that now ur journey will be easier becos he is with u.islamic world does not know of this secret vedic yoga in which yogis quit eating and drinking and still live a long life just by living a divine life,they dont feel the suffering of starvation.
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
inaction is AKARMA which is opposite of KARMA;please ask sensible questions;if u want to find opposites and synonyms kindly see some dictionary.
ur posing questions as if someone is forcing u.dont come up with something which makes u look more intellectually elementary.
man is a mental being...he calculates his happiness in mental terms.if his mind is disturbed, no matter what his outer condition is,he will feel unhappy;irrespective of cool breeze etc.if ur father has just died u will not feel happy in cool breeze.
will u?and if he is happy mentally then he will not feel unhappy in hot summers.
i personally have worked in adverse conditions but i only felt unhappy when my mind was disturbed and all other times i was happy.yogis meditate endlessly on snowy himalayas-dont deny that please cause u will look like a fool,in loin clothes without feeling unhappy about it becos they are mentally happy.so dont fix these natural things as ur means of happiness.these are natural conditions in which we are born,they dont exist just to make us happy.and also if u take them as boon from god u should also take tsunamis and earthquakes as curse of god;if u thank him for the breeze u should also curse him for these disasters,be fair!
mental happiness is some thing which u get partly from ur past deeds and partly by ur attitude towards life.somebody is not happy with his air-conditioned room and other is happy just by sleeping under the fan.someone is not happy with his tons of money while other is happy with only handful of it.its peace of mind that gives happiness to man.
ur posing questions as if someone is forcing u.dont come up with something which makes u look more intellectually elementary.
man is a mental being...he calculates his happiness in mental terms.if his mind is disturbed, no matter what his outer condition is,he will feel unhappy;irrespective of cool breeze etc.if ur father has just died u will not feel happy in cool breeze.
will u?and if he is happy mentally then he will not feel unhappy in hot summers.
i personally have worked in adverse conditions but i only felt unhappy when my mind was disturbed and all other times i was happy.yogis meditate endlessly on snowy himalayas-dont deny that please cause u will look like a fool,in loin clothes without feeling unhappy about it becos they are mentally happy.so dont fix these natural things as ur means of happiness.these are natural conditions in which we are born,they dont exist just to make us happy.and also if u take them as boon from god u should also take tsunamis and earthquakes as curse of god;if u thank him for the breeze u should also curse him for these disasters,be fair!
mental happiness is some thing which u get partly from ur past deeds and partly by ur attitude towards life.somebody is not happy with his air-conditioned room and other is happy just by sleeping under the fan.someone is not happy with his tons of money while other is happy with only handful of it.its peace of mind that gives happiness to man.
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
happiness that the author speaks of as providential is no longer providential,my friend...it has been commercialized...wheat,rice,fruits are not created by man it comes from NATURE but still u have to pay for it,if u have MONEY.today to get fresh air we need to buy garden tickets to enter it.so ur "providential happiness"is no longer providential anymore.water,electricity,roads,everything ur paying for it,be realistic.so today only thing that is coming for free is cool breeze.and as i explained before cool breeze does not give u happiness if ur mind is sad so to get happiness from cool breeze u need to make ur mind happy first and for that u have to fulfill its desires first,whatever they are...if it asks for food or water or sex or fame or name or power,then it will let u draw happiness from cool breeze;not before that.dont tell me ur only desire is cool breeze,u will look ridiculous..hehe..
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
"Sorry to say brother even if you call me a retard and Islam unscientific it won't prove your point. How would you answer an atheist?"
questions must be answered keeping in mind the background of the questioner.u cant explain newton's second law to a student of art, mathematically;u need to go theoretically with practical examples.so become an atheist to get reply from that perspective.
"About the point you made about virgin birth and other miracles, well man is limited by science not Allah. Its problem for Hindus because they redefine the meaning of God's omnipotence according to their own understanding, Muslims don't believe in a God who is a slave of the laws that he himself created."
but ur esteemed scholar of islam GREAT SHEIK AHMAD DEEDAT has said in one of his "taqreer" that god cant do everything...he cant do injustice,he cant lie...whatever the reasons might be whether moral or ethical,these are things that GOD CANNOT DO...so that makes god partially omnipotent.god is bound by laws of goodness,he is bound nonetheless.
questions must be answered keeping in mind the background of the questioner.u cant explain newton's second law to a student of art, mathematically;u need to go theoretically with practical examples.so become an atheist to get reply from that perspective.
"About the point you made about virgin birth and other miracles, well man is limited by science not Allah. Its problem for Hindus because they redefine the meaning of God's omnipotence according to their own understanding, Muslims don't believe in a God who is a slave of the laws that he himself created."
but ur esteemed scholar of islam GREAT SHEIK AHMAD DEEDAT has said in one of his "taqreer" that god cant do everything...he cant do injustice,he cant lie...whatever the reasons might be whether moral or ethical,these are things that GOD CANNOT DO...so that makes god partially omnipotent.god is bound by laws of goodness,he is bound nonetheless.
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
how can i hide behind islam?i am not a muslim.but yes,i am trying to remind u that ur a muslim;why ru shying away?ru embarrassed?
" What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?"
this is another way of asking what is evolution? and i would love to answer it but since u said "enough of philosophy", i cant say on it anymore becos whatever i would say will be fact of life in terms of logical philosophy and u dont want it so i am helpless.u dont want the answer.actually the philosophy that i presented earlier was a bait for u to say something on it and u said what i had expected;it was precisely an islamic ignorance and incapacity to understand the underlying principles of life.
" What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?"
this is another way of asking what is evolution? and i would love to answer it but since u said "enough of philosophy", i cant say on it anymore becos whatever i would say will be fact of life in terms of logical philosophy and u dont want it so i am helpless.u dont want the answer.actually the philosophy that i presented earlier was a bait for u to say something on it and u said what i had expected;it was precisely an islamic ignorance and incapacity to understand the underlying principles of life.
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
u say u understand relativity and still u ask such a question...is this a joke?
i already explained in detail about this...so long things are still in a relative state of being there will be rebirths.chain will continue till 'the relative' has become 'the absolute'.see i will try to feed this to ur islamic mind in this way:consider a cycle race which is not going to end until everybody wins.is it clear?there must be no first,no second etc but all winners.
"Why not, for me sin is unjust violation of rights of any entity, be it an individual, be it society."
well,well...this definition is just so unislamic.in islamic society rights of non-muslims are utterly curtailed...they pay jizya, cannot build their places of worship higher than mosques,cannot preach and practice their faith openly and freely.i must ask u are u an apostate?cause u sound like one.
i already explained in detail about this...so long things are still in a relative state of being there will be rebirths.chain will continue till 'the relative' has become 'the absolute'.see i will try to feed this to ur islamic mind in this way:consider a cycle race which is not going to end until everybody wins.is it clear?there must be no first,no second etc but all winners.
"Why not, for me sin is unjust violation of rights of any entity, be it an individual, be it society."
well,well...this definition is just so unislamic.in islamic society rights of non-muslims are utterly curtailed...they pay jizya, cannot build their places of worship higher than mosques,cannot preach and practice their faith openly and freely.i must ask u are u an apostate?cause u sound like one.
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
"Good act is opposite of sin??? Then whats the opposite of murder, rape etc. Your definition does not work here. Please provide a proper definition of "good" act. Well let me help you, a "good act" is to help someone who is suffering. Do you agree?"
really!!!ur becoming more and more childish,i dont why i am i writing to u?
anyway if this imbecility continues i will have sign off forever.and if i do, kindly leave this thread undeleted to let the readers know ur childish mind.first let me test u...tell me what is 2 2?is it 4 or 5?
anyway...to murder is to kill and its opposite is to save and prevent the murder;
to rape is to outrage a woman's modesty and its opposite is to honor a woman and save her modesty...i think my definition works.
see ur definition of good act is incomplete becos u must also help urself if ur suffering...although i have to add a lot more to this definition but i am content that u atleast know this much...bravo!!
"You are just trying to evade the topic by hiding behind Islam brother. I won't answer the irrelevant part".
IRRELEVANT!! is it so?ur asking for example but how am i to know that u understand the soul? u ask about reincarnation of soul without knowing what is soul...is this logical?so i just asked u what u understand from term 'soul'?u cant understand calculus without knowing arithmetic.so give me an example of soul then i will give u an example of rebirth.u believe in soul becos islam says so but have u personally seen or experimented with it?
u see mushafiq at least admit that rebirth sounds plausible and does not look bad;he only doesnt find it in nature but i must say that islamic one birth is fallible and completely illogical.it does not explain a thing in practical world.why one is born as muslim and other as non-muslim?,why this random testing of souls and on what basis?why serving eternal damnation for crimes committed in fixed span of time?if soul is born when the person is born then it must also die when the person dies?and so so so many more.
"And please don't fill this space calling others hilarious, ridiculous, "u better see some psychiatric", suicidal, real pessimist etc not that it bothers me but it does not show in good light. If we disagree on something we can discuss it in a better way."
if u dont really mind them then just ignore them unless ur showing all this to ur parents and getting it cross-checked like a school boy.hehe...
really!!!ur becoming more and more childish,i dont why i am i writing to u?
anyway if this imbecility continues i will have sign off forever.and if i do, kindly leave this thread undeleted to let the readers know ur childish mind.first let me test u...tell me what is 2 2?is it 4 or 5?
anyway...to murder is to kill and its opposite is to save and prevent the murder;
to rape is to outrage a woman's modesty and its opposite is to honor a woman and save her modesty...i think my definition works.
see ur definition of good act is incomplete becos u must also help urself if ur suffering...although i have to add a lot more to this definition but i am content that u atleast know this much...bravo!!
"You are just trying to evade the topic by hiding behind Islam brother. I won't answer the irrelevant part".
IRRELEVANT!! is it so?ur asking for example but how am i to know that u understand the soul? u ask about reincarnation of soul without knowing what is soul...is this logical?so i just asked u what u understand from term 'soul'?u cant understand calculus without knowing arithmetic.so give me an example of soul then i will give u an example of rebirth.u believe in soul becos islam says so but have u personally seen or experimented with it?
u see mushafiq at least admit that rebirth sounds plausible and does not look bad;he only doesnt find it in nature but i must say that islamic one birth is fallible and completely illogical.it does not explain a thing in practical world.why one is born as muslim and other as non-muslim?,why this random testing of souls and on what basis?why serving eternal damnation for crimes committed in fixed span of time?if soul is born when the person is born then it must also die when the person dies?and so so so many more.
"And please don't fill this space calling others hilarious, ridiculous, "u better see some psychiatric", suicidal, real pessimist etc not that it bothers me but it does not show in good light. If we disagree on something we can discuss it in a better way."
if u dont really mind them then just ignore them unless ur showing all this to ur parents and getting it cross-checked like a school boy.hehe...
written by Anti Loon, July 29, 2011
@Sorab
OK so you accept Reincarnation as fatalistic.
Is death a punishment? Is death the result of our past deeds? Of course not, death will come to you irrespective of your past deeds. The suffering a person receives between his birth and death is the result of his past deeds. I never asked you to prevent death, I asked you why do I take medicine.
So I need to take medicine to reduce my suffering. Now suffering (not death) is the result (punishment) of our past deeds. So my simple question is if medicine can reduce my suffering (punishment) then is it not interfering with the law of karma?
OK no problem with it. But as I said this makes you helpless in your present life, working for your future lives is not a bad idea though. There still remains a question people from poor background often resort to crimes. As a result of this they will be born in the same situation in future, what about these people they are trapped in a vicious circle? To add to their misery they don't even know what they are suffering for.
You are partly right here, but what about the physical suffering? Do we suffer from diseases because of our mentality?
Oh maybe thats why mordern day gurus need luxury cars. And air conditioned pandals for yoga shibirs, with VIPs in the first row.
Understand what I am asking before trying to answer, I am not asking you dictionary meanings. I asked you why should I take medicine, you said
Can I choose to not to take medicine, of course I can. You can't tell me to take medicine just because it would be against law of Karma, can you? So the reason you gave is not good enough.
Absolutely mental happiness is partly because of past deeds, but which deeds, of course the deeds which you remember i.e. the deeds from this life itself. You don't remember the deeds from your past lives, do you? Do you feel sad now because of some crime you did in your past life?
fatalism as per dictionary means belief that events are decided by fate and that u cant control them or that u cant prevent something from happening;
OK so you accept Reincarnation as fatalistic.
now under the light of this definition tell me honestly how many times u succeeded in preventing the death of ur near and dear ones?tell me have u lived so far untouched by any sorrow?tell me sincerely how many things can u control in ur life?
Is death a punishment? Is death the result of our past deeds? Of course not, death will come to you irrespective of your past deeds. The suffering a person receives between his birth and death is the result of his past deeds. I never asked you to prevent death, I asked you why do I take medicine.
second thing,if u have.......if u did ur acts not very bad then u will get cured and if u were really bad then u will suffer and die.but before death takes u away u can keep reducing ur suffering by taking medicines;......even some i have seen live a long life.what is ur take on this?
So I need to take medicine to reduce my suffering. Now suffering (not death) is the result (punishment) of our past deeds. So my simple question is if medicine can reduce my suffering (punishment) then is it not interfering with the law of karma?
thirdly,reincarnation is about writing ur fate and believing and fulfilling what u .........will only spoil his future.so clearly reincarnation does not believe in fate exclusively.
OK no problem with it. But as I said this makes you helpless in your present life, working for your future lives is not a bad idea though. There still remains a question people from poor background often resort to crimes. As a result of this they will be born in the same situation in future, what about these people they are trapped in a vicious circle? To add to their misery they don't even know what they are suffering for.
see suffering makes us suffer becos we feel it mentally....... support and back-up.u start feeling that now ur journey will be easier becos he is with u.
You are partly right here, but what about the physical suffering? Do we suffer from diseases because of our mentality?
islamic world does not know of this secret vedic yoga in which yogis quit eating and drinking and still live a long life just by living a divine life,they dont feel the suffering of starvation.
Oh maybe thats why mordern day gurus need luxury cars. And air conditioned pandals for yoga shibirs, with VIPs in the first row.
inaction is AKARMA which is opposite of KARMA;please ask sensible questions;if u want to find opposites and synonyms kindly see some dictionary.
Understand what I am asking before trying to answer, I am not asking you dictionary meanings. I asked you why should I take medicine, you said
and u talk of inaction/doing nothing which is against the law of karma.so please take medicine if ur sick becos they may not cure u but they can lessen ur pain.
Can I choose to not to take medicine, of course I can. You can't tell me to take medicine just because it would be against law of Karma, can you? So the reason you gave is not good enough.
mental happiness is some thing which u get partly from ur past deeds and partly by ur attitude towards life.
Absolutely mental happiness is partly because of past deeds, but which deeds, of course the deeds which you remember i.e. the deeds from this life itself. You don't remember the deeds from your past lives, do you? Do you feel sad now because of some crime you did in your past life?
written by Anti Loon, July 29, 2011
somebody is not happy with his air-conditioned room and other is happy just by sleeping under the fan.someone is not happy with his tons of money while other is happy with only handful of it.its peace of mind that gives happiness to man.
Interesting a peasant who is poor because of his "bad" deeds in past life is happier than a seth who is rich because of his "good" deeds from previous birth.
make ur mind happy first and for that u have to fulfill its desires first,whatever they are...if it asks for food or water or sex or fame or name or power,then it will let u draw happiness from cool breeze;not before that.
Oh so you telling that we can't be happy unless we fulfill our desires. But people say to be happy you should control your desires. Which one is true?
questions must be answered keeping in mind the background of the questioner.u cant explain newton's second law to a student of art, mathematically;u need to go theoretically with practical examples.
Not a good excuse to avoid my question. The question is important not the questioner. Do you feel that my question is good enough that it needs an answer? If yes then you should answer it.
About Allah's omnipotence and your illogical questions read this. If you have any questions related to it post it there.
how can i hide behind islam?i am not a muslim.but yes,i am trying to remind u that ur a muslim;why ru shying away?ru embarrassed?
Embarrassed where did you get that idea from? Do you realize that you were not able to answer my question and were trying to bring in Islam to avoid it? And I answered your question about miracles but I won't discuss it further because it is off topic. Stay on the topic, answer my questions if you can instead of resorting to tu quoque.
this is another way of asking what is evolution? and i would love to answer it but since u said "enough of philosophy", i cant say on it anymore becos whatever i would say will be fact of life in terms of logical philosophy and u dont want it so i am helpless.
Don't lie when I asked you about it you tried to avoid the question by saying my brain can't understand it. And my response about philosophy was for evolution but because you were not answering my question (just check my previous comment). So irrespective of my earlier response, now answer it philosophically.
u say u understand relativity and still u ask such a question...is this a joke?
Oh so even if do a good deed (and not bad deeds) though less than others, I will be born as a laborer, tell me you are not joking.
anyway...to murder is to kill and its opposite is to save and prevent the murder; to rape is to outrage a woman's modesty and its opposite is to honor a woman and save her modesty...i think my definition works.
The opposite of murder (taking away life) is giving life to be precise. Can you give anyone life? Saving life is not giving life. Moreover even if I accept your definition, to save someones life you need to someone who is suffering (from disease), and for the person to suffer you need him to commit sin in his previous life. So sin becomes necessary.
see ur definition of good act is incomplete becos u must also help urself if ur suffering...
Of course helping (looking after) oneself is a good act, its not a problem for me. But the theory of Karma says that suffering is result of my previous life's deed. So if I try to reduce my suffering I will go against the theory.
About your questions on Islam I won't answer it, since you believe you are very smart I guess you the reason.
IRRELEVANT!! is it so?ur asking for example but how am i to know that u understand the soul?
Scroll up and see which part of your response I called irrelevant.
if u dont really mind them then just ignore them unless ur showing all this to ur parents and getting it cross-checked like a school boy.hehe...
My parents taught me that been foolish not as big a mistake as been arrogant. If calling others names gives you good sleep no problem continue.
written by Anti Loon, July 29, 2011
Leaving aside all that has been said previously (which you failed to answer satisfactorily) please allow this foolish (according to you) person to repeat his stupid question
What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?
Answer it if you can without resorting to tu quoque.
Another "stupid" question
The soul is impersonal, isn't it? So its the body that possesses personality and not the soul, do you agree? Assuming you agree, when a person, lets say A, dies his personality ceases to exist. Now the soul which is impersonal will reincarnate as a "different personality", lets say B, which will suffer for the deeds of a completely different person A, which has already ceased to exist. In short according to the reincarnation person A sows and another person B reaps, since no personal characteristics can be preserved from one incarnation of the impersonal self to the next. Is my conclusion correct? Please do correct me if I am wrong.
What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?
Answer it if you can without resorting to tu quoque.
Another "stupid" question
The soul is impersonal, isn't it? So its the body that possesses personality and not the soul, do you agree? Assuming you agree, when a person, lets say A, dies his personality ceases to exist. Now the soul which is impersonal will reincarnate as a "different personality", lets say B, which will suffer for the deeds of a completely different person A, which has already ceased to exist. In short according to the reincarnation person A sows and another person B reaps, since no personal characteristics can be preserved from one incarnation of the impersonal self to the next. Is my conclusion correct? Please do correct me if I am wrong.
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
go thru my response where i have proved that reincarnation is not fatalism exclusively/only.
death and life both are result of past life;they constitute the cycle of karma,if there were no births there would be no deaths.moreover,death comes to all of us but when and how is a result of past life;some people die young while others die in old age,some die brutal death others die peacefully;some are born dead others live upto 100 years.how do u explain this phenomenon from islam?random test...funny...
about medicine thing i think i have written enough but still since u insist i shall further explain:man is born with his fate written by him from past life and his present actions;the fruits of past life actions will be plucked by him whether good or bad and he cant exchange bad with good; this is law of karma...but then comes in his present actions by which he can reduce the INTENSITY of bad effects by turning towards god and offering him all that he is receiving...if this surrender is complete then he does not need any medicine and if this surrender is still not complete then he may take medicines to reduce the pain which again is blessing from divine but in material form.remember suffering/pleasure is a gift of past life and it cant be removed by ur action but its intensity can be lessened and that is not overriding of karmic law becos u will suffer till ur time is up but slowly u can reduce its intensity to a bearable level by right action and thoughts.overriding would be reducing time period of suffering before ur destined time is up.
the beauty of this law is that nobody is going to end up as loser...those people from poor back ground often follow wrong path becos they are born with immature minds in a bad environment but here comes the right action becos nobody is forcing them to follow wrong path;they were born in such conditions that is their destiny from past life but they can groom their mind by proper actions and live a normal life,its their will to follow what is right or what is wrong.and in any case even if they dont rectify their ways they will get new chances in multiple lives till they realize what is right;they will not get lost or serve eternal damnation in islamic hell.NOBODY WILL BE A LOSER IN THE END.
" You are partly right here, but what about the physical suffering? Do we suffer from diseases because of our mentality? "
Yes and no;yes becos some diseases are a manifestation of mental state...u might have felt this in ur life also when sometimes u went down with some flu or cold or migraine it was mostly becos ur mind was feeling unwell/low,when u were weak mentally u were invaded by these illnesses.similarly some people get some serious sickness like cancer etc becos their mind harbors ill for others,it wants to destroy others...and no becos in children mind is in incipient state but still they catch sickness, so in both cases whether from mind or otherwise, sickness comes from past life.
i am not talking about frauds but those genuine ones who live hidden from ordinary eyes,i have seen one myself.
about medicine i have already explained enough so if i attempt any further i will end up as a pharmacist.
"Absolutely mental happiness is partly because of past deeds, but which deeds, of course the deeds which you remember i.e. the deeds from this life itself. You don't remember the deeds from your past lives, do you? Do you feel sad now because of some crime you did in your past life?"
u see this question calls for some trespassing into the metaphysical world which on this platform i dont consider appropriate.but i will try to explain it to u in simpler terms:u need something becos u dont have it in u and so we need happiness becos we dont have it already and why dont we have it already in this life?its becos our mind was not healthy in its inception otherwise no one would be unhappy on earth.some children are born mentally sick what did they do in this life to get this unhappiness? similarly each one of us is born with some unhealthiness of mind and this unhealthiness i call ignorance.it is this ignorance that impels us to take birth and gain knowledge.remember ignorance leads to action and action leads to rebirth.now if we do wrong things in this life it will further corrupt our minds but that does not mean that whole corruption of mind is from this life.
death and life both are result of past life;they constitute the cycle of karma,if there were no births there would be no deaths.moreover,death comes to all of us but when and how is a result of past life;some people die young while others die in old age,some die brutal death others die peacefully;some are born dead others live upto 100 years.how do u explain this phenomenon from islam?random test...funny...
about medicine thing i think i have written enough but still since u insist i shall further explain:man is born with his fate written by him from past life and his present actions;the fruits of past life actions will be plucked by him whether good or bad and he cant exchange bad with good; this is law of karma...but then comes in his present actions by which he can reduce the INTENSITY of bad effects by turning towards god and offering him all that he is receiving...if this surrender is complete then he does not need any medicine and if this surrender is still not complete then he may take medicines to reduce the pain which again is blessing from divine but in material form.remember suffering/pleasure is a gift of past life and it cant be removed by ur action but its intensity can be lessened and that is not overriding of karmic law becos u will suffer till ur time is up but slowly u can reduce its intensity to a bearable level by right action and thoughts.overriding would be reducing time period of suffering before ur destined time is up.
the beauty of this law is that nobody is going to end up as loser...those people from poor back ground often follow wrong path becos they are born with immature minds in a bad environment but here comes the right action becos nobody is forcing them to follow wrong path;they were born in such conditions that is their destiny from past life but they can groom their mind by proper actions and live a normal life,its their will to follow what is right or what is wrong.and in any case even if they dont rectify their ways they will get new chances in multiple lives till they realize what is right;they will not get lost or serve eternal damnation in islamic hell.NOBODY WILL BE A LOSER IN THE END.
" You are partly right here, but what about the physical suffering? Do we suffer from diseases because of our mentality? "
Yes and no;yes becos some diseases are a manifestation of mental state...u might have felt this in ur life also when sometimes u went down with some flu or cold or migraine it was mostly becos ur mind was feeling unwell/low,when u were weak mentally u were invaded by these illnesses.similarly some people get some serious sickness like cancer etc becos their mind harbors ill for others,it wants to destroy others...and no becos in children mind is in incipient state but still they catch sickness, so in both cases whether from mind or otherwise, sickness comes from past life.
i am not talking about frauds but those genuine ones who live hidden from ordinary eyes,i have seen one myself.
about medicine i have already explained enough so if i attempt any further i will end up as a pharmacist.
"Absolutely mental happiness is partly because of past deeds, but which deeds, of course the deeds which you remember i.e. the deeds from this life itself. You don't remember the deeds from your past lives, do you? Do you feel sad now because of some crime you did in your past life?"
u see this question calls for some trespassing into the metaphysical world which on this platform i dont consider appropriate.but i will try to explain it to u in simpler terms:u need something becos u dont have it in u and so we need happiness becos we dont have it already and why dont we have it already in this life?its becos our mind was not healthy in its inception otherwise no one would be unhappy on earth.some children are born mentally sick what did they do in this life to get this unhappiness? similarly each one of us is born with some unhealthiness of mind and this unhealthiness i call ignorance.it is this ignorance that impels us to take birth and gain knowledge.remember ignorance leads to action and action leads to rebirth.now if we do wrong things in this life it will further corrupt our minds but that does not mean that whole corruption of mind is from this life.
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
"Interesting a peasant who is poor because of his "bad" deeds in past life is happier than a seth who is rich because of his "good" deeds from previous birth."
yes,there ur,here comes in the right and wrong intentions/actions in this life...that farmer is happier mentally becos despite his miserable conditions he has kept his actions right and godwards while that 'seth' in spite of his good fate is ruining his mind by wrong intentions/deeds so is unhappy mentally.i guess u can see that reincarnation is not only fatalist from this example.
" Oh so you telling that we can't be happy unless we fulfill our desires. But people say to be happy you should control your desires. Which one is true? "
oh ! here u r confusing mentality with spirituality and in any case hindus and buddhists say such things why do u care?islam wants satisfaction of desires so just stick to what u believe.
"Not a good excuse to avoid my question. The question is important not the questioner. Do you feel that my question is good enough that it needs an answer? If yes then you should answer it. "
really!!!so tell me how will u explain newton's law to a 5th standard student who has elementary knowledge of mathematics? this is not an excuse but a reality u cant feed something to everybody in the same manner.so yes,questioner is also important.
i could have given 100 links to all ur questions but that would have weakened my stand;if u dont know some answer just say it but dont hide behind some link...
"Embarrassed where did you get that idea from? Do you realize that you were not able to answer my question and were trying to bring in Islam to avoid it?"
i answered ur questions from islamic point of view for u to understand better; if u still dont get it may be ur understanding of islam is also defective.i just made things easier for u.
"Don't lie when I asked you about it you tried to avoid the question by saying my brain can't understand it. And my response about philosophy was for evolution but because you were not answering my question (just check my previous comment). So irrespective of my earlier response, now answer it philosophically."
i wanted to answer this thing of urs but before that i threw in a brainteaser as a bait for u...but u failed miserably so again i again assure u that i will answer ur question if u could tell me what i was trying to convey to u in that piece of philosophy.if i find that u have understood the meaning of that small piece i will rest assured that u will also understand the meaning of bigger philosophy.
"Oh so even if do a good deed (and not bad deeds) though less than others, I will be born as a laborer, tell me you are not joking."
so tell me something from common sense if u save someone's life then u will get some
award from the district magistrate and if u save lives of hundred people u get some national award from prime minister now if this is fair justice then why do u want bigger awards for small acts of goodness?
" The opposite of murder (taking away life) is giving life to be precise. Can you give anyone life?... So sin becomes necessary."
check up the dictionary; to murder is to kill somebody deliberately and illegally and to kill is to make somebody die."taking away life" is a poetical phrase not valid for debates.and even if i accept this argument then by literal sense "taking away life" would mean u take somebody's life after he is dead which clearly u cant becos life is not material object so the question of giving life also does not arise.
again u come up with same thing,i think ur running out of questions?
its not sins but action which is necessary.i will not say it again,go back to my earlier talks where i have answered the point raised by mushafiq about necessity of sins or action.
"Of course helping (looking after) oneself is a good act, its not a problem ..."
i already answered this in this post about reducing the suffering;ur really running out of questions...
"About your questions on Islam I won't answer it, since you believe you are very smart I guess you the reason".
hahaha...i think u find urself trapped and not only i but also u consider me very smart...way to go...way to go.but this also raises some serious doubts about ur intentions now look u want me to explain everything to the end and when i dont u start crying but when i ask u something u dont want to answer me or u give me some stupid link...where is this heading?
okay so now please explain to me what is soul and give an example so that i could explain to u how soul takes another birth and will give u an example.this is not irrelevant.
i never used any foul/uncivilized words...if u have problems with ridiculous,hilarious,funny,etc. go speak to CHARLES DICKENS cause he used them most in his civilized novels.
yes,there ur,here comes in the right and wrong intentions/actions in this life...that farmer is happier mentally becos despite his miserable conditions he has kept his actions right and godwards while that 'seth' in spite of his good fate is ruining his mind by wrong intentions/deeds so is unhappy mentally.i guess u can see that reincarnation is not only fatalist from this example.
" Oh so you telling that we can't be happy unless we fulfill our desires. But people say to be happy you should control your desires. Which one is true? "
oh ! here u r confusing mentality with spirituality and in any case hindus and buddhists say such things why do u care?islam wants satisfaction of desires so just stick to what u believe.
"Not a good excuse to avoid my question. The question is important not the questioner. Do you feel that my question is good enough that it needs an answer? If yes then you should answer it. "
really!!!so tell me how will u explain newton's law to a 5th standard student who has elementary knowledge of mathematics? this is not an excuse but a reality u cant feed something to everybody in the same manner.so yes,questioner is also important.
i could have given 100 links to all ur questions but that would have weakened my stand;if u dont know some answer just say it but dont hide behind some link...
"Embarrassed where did you get that idea from? Do you realize that you were not able to answer my question and were trying to bring in Islam to avoid it?"
i answered ur questions from islamic point of view for u to understand better; if u still dont get it may be ur understanding of islam is also defective.i just made things easier for u.
"Don't lie when I asked you about it you tried to avoid the question by saying my brain can't understand it. And my response about philosophy was for evolution but because you were not answering my question (just check my previous comment). So irrespective of my earlier response, now answer it philosophically."
i wanted to answer this thing of urs but before that i threw in a brainteaser as a bait for u...but u failed miserably so again i again assure u that i will answer ur question if u could tell me what i was trying to convey to u in that piece of philosophy.if i find that u have understood the meaning of that small piece i will rest assured that u will also understand the meaning of bigger philosophy.
"Oh so even if do a good deed (and not bad deeds) though less than others, I will be born as a laborer, tell me you are not joking."
so tell me something from common sense if u save someone's life then u will get some
award from the district magistrate and if u save lives of hundred people u get some national award from prime minister now if this is fair justice then why do u want bigger awards for small acts of goodness?
" The opposite of murder (taking away life) is giving life to be precise. Can you give anyone life?... So sin becomes necessary."
check up the dictionary; to murder is to kill somebody deliberately and illegally and to kill is to make somebody die."taking away life" is a poetical phrase not valid for debates.and even if i accept this argument then by literal sense "taking away life" would mean u take somebody's life after he is dead which clearly u cant becos life is not material object so the question of giving life also does not arise.
again u come up with same thing,i think ur running out of questions?
its not sins but action which is necessary.i will not say it again,go back to my earlier talks where i have answered the point raised by mushafiq about necessity of sins or action.
"Of course helping (looking after) oneself is a good act, its not a problem ..."
i already answered this in this post about reducing the suffering;ur really running out of questions...
"About your questions on Islam I won't answer it, since you believe you are very smart I guess you the reason".
hahaha...i think u find urself trapped and not only i but also u consider me very smart...way to go...way to go.but this also raises some serious doubts about ur intentions now look u want me to explain everything to the end and when i dont u start crying but when i ask u something u dont want to answer me or u give me some stupid link...where is this heading?
okay so now please explain to me what is soul and give an example so that i could explain to u how soul takes another birth and will give u an example.this is not irrelevant.
i never used any foul/uncivilized words...if u have problems with ridiculous,hilarious,funny,etc. go speak to CHARLES DICKENS cause he used them most in his civilized novels.
written by sorab, July 29, 2011
"Leaving aside all that has been said previously (which you failed to answer satisfactorily) please allow this foolish (according to you) person to repeat his stupid question"
really!!! go back and check what u have written.u have expressed satisfaction in more than two places...dont lie,please.
"What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?"
i said i will answer this question of evolution once u do what i asked of u earlier.
"The soul is impersonal, isn't it? So its the body that possesses personality and not the soul, do you agree? Assuming you agree, when a person, lets say A, dies his personality ceases to exist. Now the soul which is impersonal will reincarnate as a "different personality", lets say B, which will suffer for the deeds of a completely different person A, which has already ceased to exist. In short according to the reincarnation person A sows and another person B reaps, since no personal characteristics can be preserved from one incarnation of the impersonal self to the next. Is my conclusion correct? Please do correct me if I am wrong."
MASHALLAH, this is in no way a stupid question but an excellent one.believe me i am really happy that u could come up with such a beautiful thing after this long a time and this gives me a hope that one day muslims will take a break from 4wives,multiple children,mechanical praying,spreading jihad,hurting themselves in MOHARRAM procession and will try to discover the finer and subtler elements of life and soul...bravo,bravo...
AND INSHALLAH I WILL ANSWER IT TO ALL MY CAPACITY but its getting late now so will do tomorrow.
really!!! go back and check what u have written.u have expressed satisfaction in more than two places...dont lie,please.
"What was the basis on which God created the first beings? Of course all were not humans so why were some humans and rest animals, plants etc?"
i said i will answer this question of evolution once u do what i asked of u earlier.
"The soul is impersonal, isn't it? So its the body that possesses personality and not the soul, do you agree? Assuming you agree, when a person, lets say A, dies his personality ceases to exist. Now the soul which is impersonal will reincarnate as a "different personality", lets say B, which will suffer for the deeds of a completely different person A, which has already ceased to exist. In short according to the reincarnation person A sows and another person B reaps, since no personal characteristics can be preserved from one incarnation of the impersonal self to the next. Is my conclusion correct? Please do correct me if I am wrong."
MASHALLAH, this is in no way a stupid question but an excellent one.believe me i am really happy that u could come up with such a beautiful thing after this long a time and this gives me a hope that one day muslims will take a break from 4wives,multiple children,mechanical praying,spreading jihad,hurting themselves in MOHARRAM procession and will try to discover the finer and subtler elements of life and soul...bravo,bravo...
AND INSHALLAH I WILL ANSWER IT TO ALL MY CAPACITY but its getting late now so will do tomorrow.
written by Anti Loon, July 29, 2011
@Sorab
Brother we are just repeating things so instead of writing all over again I will in short repeat my questions.
About fatalism in you agreed that nothing much can be done in present life which was my main point. I agreed on the point that we can still prepare for our future life.
About suffering vs medicines, my point was this, suffering is result of our past deeds, so taking medicine to reduce it is going against the law of Karma. How can God reduce the punishment (remedial) which we deserve?
Now you are saying "when and how death is result of our past lives". What about the period between birth and death? And we cannot say that a person died earlier because of past deeds, because death in itself is not suffering the pains that we receive between birth and death is suffering. Do you agree?
It would have been better if we would have remembered our deeds. Without remembering their deeds it is obvious that poor will turn indignant.
What about diseases because of environmental factors?
I don't agree with you on this, people become (un)happy because of their deeds in this life or some other factors in this life itself.
Exactly, even though God wanted the peasant to suffer he is actually enjoying his life, while the seth is struggling. The reason you gave of right/wrong intentions, well they are from present life aren't they? This is exactly what I believe whatever be your state you should be thankful to God this would give you happiness. And been thankful is not a result of our past deeds but a quality that a person develops in this life.
Please clear the confusion. Islam wants submission and thankfulness to Almighty Allah.
OK you don't want to answer fine, I believe if a question merits a response it should be answered. Anyways I won't bother you.
What is this thread related to? Isn't it Reincarnation? The link that I gave you is related to your question, I am not obliged to answer you here since your question is not related to reincarnation. And your response shows you are not interested in the answer. Anyways I won't discuss it further.
Yes thats the point the magistrate will award me. Though less than the other person. In our case even if a person has helped someone he would suffer in his next life because his deeds were not as great as his contemporaries. This does not fit into "as you sow you shall reap" scheme of things. Thats not justice
OK my mistake, I will correct myself. Using your definition to murder is make a living person die. So the exact opposite would be to make dead alive, can you do that? If no, than your definition is not complete.
About my definition of a good act i.e. helping a suffering person, please tell me what problem you have with it?
For a doctor to do his duty he needs a patient (one who suffers), what exactly makes someone a patient?
Brother we are just repeating things so instead of writing all over again I will in short repeat my questions.
About fatalism in you agreed that nothing much can be done in present life which was my main point. I agreed on the point that we can still prepare for our future life.
About suffering vs medicines, my point was this, suffering is result of our past deeds, so taking medicine to reduce it is going against the law of Karma. How can God reduce the punishment (remedial) which we deserve?
Now you are saying "when and how death is result of our past lives". What about the period between birth and death? And we cannot say that a person died earlier because of past deeds, because death in itself is not suffering the pains that we receive between birth and death is suffering. Do you agree?
the beauty of this ......NOBODY WILL BE A LOSER IN THE END.
It would have been better if we would have remembered our deeds. Without remembering their deeds it is obvious that poor will turn indignant.
Yes and no;yes becos some diseases are a manifestation of mental state...... becos their mind harbors ill for others,it wants to destroy others
What about diseases because of environmental factors?
u see this question calls for some trespassing into the metaphysical world .......from this life.
I don't agree with you on this, people become (un)happy because of their deeds in this life or some other factors in this life itself.
yes,there ur,here comes in the right and wrong.......only fatalist from this example.
Exactly, even though God wanted the peasant to suffer he is actually enjoying his life, while the seth is struggling. The reason you gave of right/wrong intentions, well they are from present life aren't they? This is exactly what I believe whatever be your state you should be thankful to God this would give you happiness. And been thankful is not a result of our past deeds but a quality that a person develops in this life.
oh ! here u r confusing mentality with spirituality and in any case hindus and buddhists say such things why do u care?islam wants satisfaction of desires so just stick to what u believe.
Please clear the confusion. Islam wants submission and thankfulness to Almighty Allah.
really!!!so tell me how will u explain.......so yes,questioner is also important.
OK you don't want to answer fine, I believe if a question merits a response it should be answered. Anyways I won't bother you.
i could have given 100 links to all ur questions but that would have weakened my stand;if u dont know some answer just say it but dont hide behind some link...
What is this thread related to? Isn't it Reincarnation? The link that I gave you is related to your question, I am not obliged to answer you here since your question is not related to reincarnation. And your response shows you are not interested in the answer. Anyways I won't discuss it further.
so tell me something from common sense......bigger awards for small acts of goodness?
Yes thats the point the magistrate will award me. Though less than the other person. In our case even if a person has helped someone he would suffer in his next life because his deeds were not as great as his contemporaries. This does not fit into "as you sow you shall reap" scheme of things. Thats not justice
check up the dictionary; to murder is to kill somebody deliberately and illegally .........question of giving life also does not arise.
OK my mistake, I will correct myself. Using your definition to murder is make a living person die. So the exact opposite would be to make dead alive, can you do that? If no, than your definition is not complete.
About my definition of a good act i.e. helping a suffering person, please tell me what problem you have with it?
For a doctor to do his duty he needs a patient (one who suffers), what exactly makes someone a patient?
hahaha...i think u find urself trapped and not only i but also u consider me very smart........another birth and will give u an example.this is not irrelevant.
written by Anti Loon, July 29, 2011
Do you accept the fact that while commenting we should remain on the topic of the thread. This is the exact reason why I didn't answer you.
Alright please continue.
Of course at two places I accepted your point but that does not mean you have answered everything satisfactorily.
Were you saying we all in fact everything in this universe is a manifestation of God, and finally we will reunite. I yes then please answer the question on evolution, if no correct my understanding.
And yes answer my question (atleast you think it merits a reply).
i never used any foul/uncivilized words
Alright please continue.
really!!! go back and check what u have written.u have expressed satisfaction in more than two places...dont lie,please.
Of course at two places I accepted your point but that does not mean you have answered everything satisfactorily.
i said i will answer this question of evolution once u do what i asked of u earlier.
Were you saying we all in fact everything in this universe is a manifestation of God, and finally we will reunite. I yes then please answer the question on evolution, if no correct my understanding.
And yes answer my question (atleast you think it merits a reply).
written by sorab, July 30, 2011
"Brother we are just repeating things so instead of writing all over again I will in short repeat my questions"
its u who is repeating so i will also write my response in short;
i already explained that many things could be done about present life and also maintain a belief in your past actions.go back and check.
about medicines,i said ur term of suffering is karmic law and not intensity of it.go back to check.
ur dont seem to have any brain;see...past action cause birth and birth will surely lead to death so by induction method past actions cause death becos without birth,death is not possible.how do u know that death is not a suffering?have u ever died?or have u asked any dying man?...ridiculous...why do u think people are so afraid of death?
"It would have been better if we would have remembered our deeds. Without remembering their deeds it is obvious that poor will turn indignant"
remembering past life would also imply remembering a previous one to previous and that would mean remembering all the past lives since the starting of universe becos no one life is meaningful without its previous one,if he remember all that then how will he perform wise actions in his present life?...he will go crazy remembering all that horrible things he did...be sensible!!
"What about diseases because of environmental factors? "
environment is just an agent not the cause of disease;cause lies in past life...people of one city live in same environment but not all of them catch the same disease;even in a family not all members catch one disease.
"I don't agree with you on this, people become (un)happy because of their deeds in this life or some other factors in this life itself."
please tell me why the child whose parents died when he when he was born has an unhappy life lying on the footpath all alone and the baby who is going to be born to ABHISHEK BACHAN is going to have a happy life with love of his parents and all the comforts?what wrong and right did they do in this life?
" Exactly, even though God wanted the peasant to suffer he is actually enjoying his life, while the seth is struggling. The reason you gave of right/wrong intentions, well they are from present life aren't they? This is exactly what I believe whatever be your state you should be thankful to God this would give you happiness. And been thankful is not a result of our past deeds but a quality that a person develops in this life."
ur replies are full of fallacies...i showed u the role of present actions in the state u were born becos of past life.i showed u how a man who is born in certain conditions becos of his previous life may lead a mentally happy life by his current actions.he cant change his external state if that is his fate but he can change his inner state by his actions...you said that man can become happy by his actions whatever his conditions are but you never gave any reason as to why he was born in that state in the first place? is it random testing or ALLAH O ALAM.?PLEASE ANSWER THIS, ITS NOT OUT OF CONTEXT.IF NOT THEN ACCEPT UR DEFEAT AND REMOVE THIS ARTICLE.
its u who is repeating so i will also write my response in short;
i already explained that many things could be done about present life and also maintain a belief in your past actions.go back and check.
about medicines,i said ur term of suffering is karmic law and not intensity of it.go back to check.
ur dont seem to have any brain;see...past action cause birth and birth will surely lead to death so by induction method past actions cause death becos without birth,death is not possible.how do u know that death is not a suffering?have u ever died?or have u asked any dying man?...ridiculous...why do u think people are so afraid of death?
"It would have been better if we would have remembered our deeds. Without remembering their deeds it is obvious that poor will turn indignant"
remembering past life would also imply remembering a previous one to previous and that would mean remembering all the past lives since the starting of universe becos no one life is meaningful without its previous one,if he remember all that then how will he perform wise actions in his present life?...he will go crazy remembering all that horrible things he did...be sensible!!
"What about diseases because of environmental factors? "
environment is just an agent not the cause of disease;cause lies in past life...people of one city live in same environment but not all of them catch the same disease;even in a family not all members catch one disease.
"I don't agree with you on this, people become (un)happy because of their deeds in this life or some other factors in this life itself."
please tell me why the child whose parents died when he when he was born has an unhappy life lying on the footpath all alone and the baby who is going to be born to ABHISHEK BACHAN is going to have a happy life with love of his parents and all the comforts?what wrong and right did they do in this life?
" Exactly, even though God wanted the peasant to suffer he is actually enjoying his life, while the seth is struggling. The reason you gave of right/wrong intentions, well they are from present life aren't they? This is exactly what I believe whatever be your state you should be thankful to God this would give you happiness. And been thankful is not a result of our past deeds but a quality that a person develops in this life."
ur replies are full of fallacies...i showed u the role of present actions in the state u were born becos of past life.i showed u how a man who is born in certain conditions becos of his previous life may lead a mentally happy life by his current actions.he cant change his external state if that is his fate but he can change his inner state by his actions...you said that man can become happy by his actions whatever his conditions are but you never gave any reason as to why he was born in that state in the first place? is it random testing or ALLAH O ALAM.?PLEASE ANSWER THIS, ITS NOT OUT OF CONTEXT.IF NOT THEN ACCEPT UR DEFEAT AND REMOVE THIS ARTICLE.
written by sorab, July 30, 2011
"Please clear the confusion. Islam wants submission and thankfulness to Almighty Allah".
well u follow MUHAMAD and he never subjugated his desires; instead his sexual hunger did not even spare a 6 year old baby girl AISHA and his daughter-in-law ZENAB and also he says in quran "to go to ur tilth(women)whenever and however u like".so i dont expect much control from u.i can give u references but as u said we cant discuss things out of topic.
"OK you don't want to answer fine, I believe if a question merits a response it should be answered. Anyways I won't bother you".
before i could answer that questions i asked u to give me two answers;one u have given in an incorrect way(the philosophy) and about other ur still silent.i asked u to explain to me what is soul and give me an example of it and then i will show u how it moves from body to body with example?kindly do so.it is relevant topic.
"Yes thats the point the magistrate will award me. Though less than the other person. In our case even if a person has helped someone he would suffer... Thats not justice "
remember one shall not be liberated until and unless all aspects of being has been purified and that includes not only ur external actions but also ur thoughts,ur mind ,ur attitude,ur emotions,ur intentions,ur habits...all the external and internal things that make up a being.so if someone is doing less good than the other it means that he has some impurity in some part of his being; may be he wants something in return of his good deed and does not do it selflessly ...lack of opportunities will not make u suffer but lack of will.in another act of goodness of saving some ordinary guys he might think why should i take trouble,i wont get any reward.
well u follow MUHAMAD and he never subjugated his desires; instead his sexual hunger did not even spare a 6 year old baby girl AISHA and his daughter-in-law ZENAB and also he says in quran "to go to ur tilth(women)whenever and however u like".so i dont expect much control from u.i can give u references but as u said we cant discuss things out of topic.
"OK you don't want to answer fine, I believe if a question merits a response it should be answered. Anyways I won't bother you".
before i could answer that questions i asked u to give me two answers;one u have given in an incorrect way(the philosophy) and about other ur still silent.i asked u to explain to me what is soul and give me an example of it and then i will show u how it moves from body to body with example?kindly do so.it is relevant topic.
"Yes thats the point the magistrate will award me. Though less than the other person. In our case even if a person has helped someone he would suffer... Thats not justice
" remember one shall not be liberated until and unless all aspects of being has been purified and that includes not only ur external actions but also ur thoughts,ur mind ,ur attitude,ur emotions,ur intentions,ur habits...all the external and internal things that make up a being.so if someone is doing less good than the other it means that he has some impurity in some part of his being; may be he wants something in return of his good deed and does not do it selflessly ...lack of opportunities will not make u suffer but lack of will.in another act of goodness of saving some ordinary guys he might think why should i take trouble,i wont get any reward.
written by Anti Apollo, July 30, 2011
daughter-in-law ZENAB and also he says in quran "to go to ur tilth(women)whenever and however u like".so i dont expect much control from u.i can give u references but as u said we cant discuss things out of topic.
I am ready to have discussion on these points.
Come here...
http://islamhinduism.com/misco...dam-aisha
As i dont want to distract from main Topic.What Say???
written by sorab, July 30, 2011
"OK my mistake, I will correct myself. Using your definition to murder is make a living person die. So the exact opposite would be to make dead alive, can you do that? If no, than your definition is not complete."
yes,of course,people do it all the time,JESUS did it,doctors do it,great saints have done it...haven't u heard that after the heart beat of some person stopped,doctors revived him by giving electromagnetic shock on his chest,sometimes they put life back into a drowned person who is not breathing by giving artificial respiration.sometimes when the person has been declared dead doctors revived him by giving a shot of injection directly to his heart thru his chest.even ur great SHEIK AHMAD DEEDAT in one of his 'taqreer' admits it and said that some maulana/hafiz asked a dead body to get up and it got up.also great saint MANSOOR HALLAJ once ordered a dead body to become alive and it did.in indian spiritualism this thing has happened a lot.
second thing u can do is make a clone of that person,the exact replica of that person and that will fill dead man's place...remember by death u mean death of a body and so i am giving u the same body alive.
"About my definition of a good act i.e. helping a suffering person, please tell me what problem you have with it?"
ur definition of good act is inadequate-it also implies speaking truth,not cheating others,being honest in all u do,respecting others,loving others etc.etc...so many more things not just helping the sufferers.there are so many acts of goodness that dont depend on suffering people.u can do good act even if there is no one suffering.
people choose to become doctors;if there are no patients they will do some other good things,their goodness does not depend on patients.
"What is this thread related to? Isn't it Reincarnation? The link that I gave you is related to your question, I am not obliged to answer you here since your question is not related to reincarnation. And your response shows you are not interested in the answer. Anyways I won't discuss it further."
remember u brought up the topic that god can do anything and i proved thru ur SHEIK that he cannot so it was ur call not mine.
" Do you accept the fact that while commenting we should remain on the topic of the thread. This is the exact reason why I didn't answer you."
u are asking me the secret of so many births and u dont want to tell me secret of only one.what is this?it is still not out of topic becos it is still secret of birth whether one or many.remember my task is more difficult becos i have to explain all the births but for u answer should be easier.so please explain.
yes,of course,people do it all the time,JESUS did it,doctors do it,great saints have done it...haven't u heard that after the heart beat of some person stopped,doctors revived him by giving electromagnetic shock on his chest,sometimes they put life back into a drowned person who is not breathing by giving artificial respiration.sometimes when the person has been declared dead doctors revived him by giving a shot of injection directly to his heart thru his chest.even ur great SHEIK AHMAD DEEDAT in one of his 'taqreer' admits it and said that some maulana/hafiz asked a dead body to get up and it got up.also great saint MANSOOR HALLAJ once ordered a dead body to become alive and it did.in indian spiritualism this thing has happened a lot.
second thing u can do is make a clone of that person,the exact replica of that person and that will fill dead man's place...remember by death u mean death of a body and so i am giving u the same body alive.
"About my definition of a good act i.e. helping a suffering person, please tell me what problem you have with it?"
ur definition of good act is inadequate-it also implies speaking truth,not cheating others,being honest in all u do,respecting others,loving others etc.etc...so many more things not just helping the sufferers.there are so many acts of goodness that dont depend on suffering people.u can do good act even if there is no one suffering.
people choose to become doctors;if there are no patients they will do some other good things,their goodness does not depend on patients.
"What is this thread related to? Isn't it Reincarnation? The link that I gave you is related to your question, I am not obliged to answer you here since your question is not related to reincarnation. And your response shows you are not interested in the answer. Anyways I won't discuss it further."
remember u brought up the topic that god can do anything and i proved thru ur SHEIK that he cannot so it was ur call not mine.
" Do you accept the fact that while commenting we should remain on the topic of the thread. This is the exact reason why I didn't answer you."
u are asking me the secret of so many births and u dont want to tell me secret of only one.what is this?it is still not out of topic becos it is still secret of birth whether one or many.remember my task is more difficult becos i have to explain all the births but for u answer should be easier.so please explain.
written by sorab, July 30, 2011
"Were you saying we all in fact everything in this universe is a manifestation of God, and finally we will reunite. I yes then please answer the question on evolution, if no correct my understanding".
u have given incomplete answer but its still great to come from u...anyway what about my soul question and its example?
"And yes answer my question (atleast you think it merits a reply)"
i was quite enthusiastic about it till this morning but after i read ur replies on previous answers i became disappointed and now i think we must not move forward to another question till u become fully satisfied about previous questions.its a step-by-step movement.
u have given incomplete answer but its still great to come from u...anyway what about my soul question and its example?
"And yes answer my question (atleast you think it merits a reply)"
i was quite enthusiastic about it till this morning but after i read ur replies on previous answers i became disappointed and now i think we must not move forward to another question till u become fully satisfied about previous questions.its a step-by-step movement.
written by sorab, July 30, 2011
yes i promise i will discuss this topic also but we take topics one-by-one and u must also answer my questions to play it fair.
written by Anti Apollo, July 30, 2011
I think you are having some problem.I said I am Ready to discuss on your Allege quote but I dnt want to distract this topic thats why I requested you to come for discussion on the given link.I am not the same person to whom You are discussing.I am ready to discuss on your so called Allegation.Now whay say????Are you ready if yes put you comment on that Article.And let Truth come forward.
written by Anti Loon, July 30, 2011
@Sorab
Lets see what you explained, I asked you a simple question, go check the question and answer it.
Thats a lovely explanation, so that means that a person suffering for cholera for a period say 1 month has had the same reward according to Karmic law as the person who had his hand fractured for 1 month. Doesn't the intensity of suffering matter?
Did you abuse anyone? No no... you didn't.
Death is termination of life, the period between birth and death is where we suffer.
Does he suffer because of what he did in his previous to previous birth also? No he suffers because of his deed in his previous life, he should atleast remember which deed of his he is suffering for (excluding the details) but alas the poor chap is suffering with knowing the cause of his suffering, what is he going to learn from this. No wonder people turn indignant.
Immunity, pathogens are a much better answers than believing in some deed of past life which I don't even remember.
There much better reasons they may have died because they did not have enough money for treatment of disease. Its the collective failure of the society (and not the past deeds of these poor people) that we ignored this section of the society. Moreover the parents died in this life itself.
All along you have been putting forth fallacious arguments to avoid my questions, anyways point out the fallacies.
Whats the use of the so called "external" conditions then if a man can stay happy with whatever he has? The external conditions are such so that he can suffer but man is smarter than God he will submit himself to God and voila the "external" conditions which God created after doing so many manipulations does not matter anymore.
Who said its random its all delicately linked with actions of others. I won't be oppresses unless someone oppresses me. I am born as a farmer's family because my parents chose this profession, I am poor because the society ignored the importance of my profession. I don't need to ask God why I am so, I need to ask the society why its so selfish. At the end of the day we are not independent entities actions of others does affect my life.
i already explained that many things could be done about present life and also maintain a belief in your past actions.go back and check.
Lets see what you explained, I asked you a simple question, go check the question and answer it.
about medicines,i said ur term of suffering is karmic law and not intensity of it.go back to check.
Thats a lovely explanation, so that means that a person suffering for cholera for a period say 1 month has had the same reward according to Karmic law as the person who had his hand fractured for 1 month. Doesn't the intensity of suffering matter?
ur dont seem to have any brain;
Did you abuse anyone? No no... you didn't.
how do u know that death is not a suffering?have u ever died?or have u asked any dying man?...ridiculous...why do u think people are so afraid of death?
Death is termination of life, the period between birth and death is where we suffer.
remembering.......he will go crazy remembering all that horrible things he did...be sensible!!
Does he suffer because of what he did in his previous to previous birth also? No he suffers because of his deed in his previous life, he should atleast remember which deed of his he is suffering for (excluding the details) but alas the poor chap is suffering with knowing the cause of his suffering, what is he going to learn from this. No wonder people turn indignant.
environment is just an agent........members catch one disease.
Immunity, pathogens are a much better answers than believing in some deed of past life which I don't even remember.
please tell me why the child.......what wrong and right did they do in this life?
There much better reasons they may have died because they did not have enough money for treatment of disease. Its the collective failure of the society (and not the past deeds of these poor people) that we ignored this section of the society. Moreover the parents died in this life itself.
ur replies are full of fallacies...
All along you have been putting forth fallacious arguments to avoid my questions, anyways point out the fallacies.
i showed u the role of present actions........change his inner state by his actions
Whats the use of the so called "external" conditions then if a man can stay happy with whatever he has? The external conditions are such so that he can suffer but man is smarter than God he will submit himself to God and voila the "external" conditions which God created after doing so many manipulations does not matter anymore.
is it random testing or ALLAH O ALAM.?PLEASE ANSWER THIS, ITS NOT OUT OF CONTEXT.
Who said its random its all delicately linked with actions of others. I won't be oppresses unless someone oppresses me. I am born as a farmer's family because my parents chose this profession, I am poor because the society ignored the importance of my profession. I don't need to ask God why I am so, I need to ask the society why its so selfish. At the end of the day we are not independent entities actions of others does affect my life.
written by Anti Loon, July 30, 2011
IF NOT THEN ACCEPT UR DEFEAT AND REMOVE THIS ARTICLE.
Hold on I am not the owner/member of this site, I just comment here when I get time.
well u follow .....i can give u references but as u said we cant discuss things out of topic.
Again!!! Can't you explain Hinduism without referring to Islam? Anyways brother Anti Apollo gave you the link kindly post your references there. I will simply repeat my question
Please clear the confusion (between Hindu understanding of spirituality and mentality).
before i could answer that questions i asked u to give me two answers;one u have given .......to body with example?kindly do so.it is relevant topic.
Nice way of not answering listen I didn't comment here with a broad chest saying "You know what I can prove soul to you". You tried to disprove the article so please do the honours, would you sir? Why don't you explain your understanding of soul to me so that an ignorant (sadly me) will benefit from it remember it would be a good Karma. Anyways I answered your question why one is born in a farmers family and others in fimstars' above. No would you let me know your view.
....so if someone is doing less good than the other it means that he has some impurity in some part of his being....
Its a "good" act nevertheless isn't? Still I suffer?
If I don't deserve to be born as "Abhishek Bachchan" let me be born as "Tushar Kapoor" atleast, why should I be born in Dharavi even after doing "good" (not bad) deeds?
yes,of course,people do it all the time........giving u the same body alive.
Jesus (PBUH) did not it on its own he did it by will of God. I am still to hear some doctor saying that he gave anyone life, God alone has this right. At any rate if for argument sake I accept your point, then I will have be a MBBS to do good acts. Really good example of cloning but can you prepare a body for me and after someone kills me put my soul into the body you prepared? Only then can I say that you gave me life.
ur definition of good act............if there is no one suffering
Been honest, respecting others etc are the basic requirement which a person does more for his own good (to be treated with respect). It is when he sees someone suffering and he helps him that he stands out from the crowd.
remember u brought up the topic that god can do anything and i proved thru ur SHEIK that he cannot so it was ur call not mine.
Don't lie mate scroll back to your OP and see who brought up the issue of virgin birth to escape a question. And I from the onset pointed out that this is off topic. Of the objection you raised about "omnipotence" I gave you the link start a discussion there if you want to.
u are asking me the secret of so many births.......please explain.
The discussion is strictly on "Reincarnation" and not "Islamic theology vs Hindu Theology", so stick to the topic. You asked me about soul of course we will have difference over so instead of asking me why don't you clear the mist and explain me the concept of soul in Hindu dharma and explain reincarnation through it? It would save a lot of our time. I never said I won't accept your concept of soul.
u have given incomplete answer but its still great to come from u...anyway what about my soul question and its example?
Please then enlighten me about soul how would I learn without you explaining me anything?
written by Anti Loon, July 31, 2011
@Sorab
Brother for the sake of discussion I'll just in short repeat my questions maybe you answer them one by one
1. Why do I take medicine?
Your point is intensity of suffering does not matter, the term of suffering is the main thing. So we can reduce intensity of suffering by taking medicine. I disagree with you on this and I gave an example above
Which of course is not true, so intensity of suffering does matter. If you feel I have made some mistake in my conclusion please correct me.
2. You said we should fulfill our desires do gain happiness while people say we should contain our desires. Which one is true? If I am confusing mentality with spirituality please clear the confusion.
3. You said happiness comes from submission to God, so anyone from a peasant to a rich businessman can stay happy, so if the source of happiness is submission to God then there is no need to worry about external conditions in which you are born and trying to find its causes in your past life.
You mentioned about miracles I replied that God is omnipotent and the other questions you raised related to omnipotence I gave the link and asked you to start discussion there so that this discussion is not derailed. Fair point?
If you think that above questions of mine are silly then atleast answer the ones below
4. Why a person does not remember his past deed for which he is suffering? It would be better than people turning indignant.
5. What was the basis on which God created the first beings?
6. The question of a different personality suffering because of deeds of some other personality.
"Soul is impersonal, eternal and because of its ignorance trapped into this cycle of rebirth" this is what I know of concept of soul in Hinduism, if you think my understanding is flawed then please explain the concept of soul and answer the questions.
Brother for the sake of discussion I'll just in short repeat my questions maybe you answer them one by one
1. Why do I take medicine?
Your point is intensity of suffering does not matter, the term of suffering is the main thing. So we can reduce intensity of suffering by taking medicine. I disagree with you on this and I gave an example above
A person suffering form cholera for a period say 1 month has had the same reward according to Karmic law as the person who had his hand fractured for 1 month
Which of course is not true, so intensity of suffering does matter. If you feel I have made some mistake in my conclusion please correct me.
2. You said we should fulfill our desires do gain happiness while people say we should contain our desires. Which one is true? If I am confusing mentality with spirituality please clear the confusion.
3. You said happiness comes from submission to God, so anyone from a peasant to a rich businessman can stay happy, so if the source of happiness is submission to God then there is no need to worry about external conditions in which you are born and trying to find its causes in your past life.
You mentioned about miracles I replied that God is omnipotent and the other questions you raised related to omnipotence I gave the link and asked you to start discussion there so that this discussion is not derailed. Fair point?
If you think that above questions of mine are silly then atleast answer the ones below
4. Why a person does not remember his past deed for which he is suffering? It would be better than people turning indignant.
5. What was the basis on which God created the first beings?
6. The question of a different personality suffering because of deeds of some other personality.
"Soul is impersonal, eternal and because of its ignorance trapped into this cycle of rebirth" this is what I know of concept of soul in Hinduism, if you think my understanding is flawed then please explain the concept of soul and answer the questions.
written by sorab, July 31, 2011
"Lets see what you explained, I asked you a simple question, go check the question and answer it."
u said"nothing much can be done in this life becos of fatalism" and i said and showed that many things can be done in this life while believing in ur past actions.
"Thats a lovely explanation, so that means that a person suffering for cholera for a period say 1 month has had the same reward according to Karmic law as the person who had his hand fractured for 1 month. Doesn't the intensity of suffering matter?"
i will show you now sheer stupidity of ur brain,just check ur statement and then read this:- I NEVER SAID TYPE OF SUFFERING IS NOT KARMIC BUT THE INTENSITY OF SUFFERING,U WITH UR LIMITED UNDERSTANDING CONFUSED 'TYPE' WITH 'INTENSITY'...GROW UP.
Did you abuse anyone? No no... you didn't.
no,i didnt,its not an abuse but a medical condition that i mentioned..hehe
"Death is termination of life, the period between birth and death is where we suffer."
u dont ask me that but go and ask it from a dying man;he will give u a befitting reply or should have asked DANIEL PEARL whose head was slowly removed from his body...he might have said "o!i am ecstatic"...just dont say anything becos u have a mouth...think also.
"Does he suffer because of what he did in his previous to previous birth also? No he suffers because of his deed in his previous life, he should atleast remember which deed of his he is suffering for (excluding the details) but alas the poor chap is suffering with knowing the cause of his suffering, what is he going to learn from this. No wonder people turn indignant."
when he comes to know what he did in earlier life, it will still not satisfy him becos the next question would be what did he do in life previous to that life to get
that life and so the question will continue till the beginning of life.dont tell me we dont want to know from the beginning;scientists are still working on it,BIG BANG ETC.
"Immunity, pathogens are a much better answers than believing in some deed of past life which I don't even remember".
really!!!so kindly explain why mr.X was born with low immunity and vulnerable to pathogens and mr.Y is immune to all kind of disease? read it twice before u answer...it carries all kind of possibilities;u cant say that mr.X was born in poor conditions and Y in good one becos it happens even among twins;one is sick other is always healthy...question is deep, not confined to immunity and stuff...why in the first place mr.X was given such a sick body and not one with better immunity at the time of birth? it is still deeper...when god was creating him did he ask or tell him about his future body if he wants it or not?or did he just force his soul into
that sick body?if u say that mr.X was just born to parents with low immunity then the question would be:why was he not sent into the womb of another healthier woman
who has also a healthy husband?anyway,the basic question what is the pre-condition or reason as to why someone is born in some situation?why was ur soul not sent into the body of zakir naik and his soul into ur body?the initial reason...please
u said"nothing much can be done in this life becos of fatalism" and i said and showed that many things can be done in this life while believing in ur past actions.
"Thats a lovely explanation, so that means that a person suffering for cholera for a period say 1 month has had the same reward according to Karmic law as the person who had his hand fractured for 1 month. Doesn't the intensity of suffering matter?"
i will show you now sheer stupidity of ur brain,just check ur statement and then read this:- I NEVER SAID TYPE OF SUFFERING IS NOT KARMIC BUT THE INTENSITY OF SUFFERING,U WITH UR LIMITED UNDERSTANDING CONFUSED 'TYPE' WITH 'INTENSITY'...GROW UP.
Did you abuse anyone? No no... you didn't.
no,i didnt,its not an abuse but a medical condition that i mentioned..hehe
"Death is termination of life, the period between birth and death is where we suffer."
u dont ask me that but go and ask it from a dying man;he will give u a befitting reply or should have asked DANIEL PEARL whose head was slowly removed from his body...he might have said "o!i am ecstatic"...just dont say anything becos u have a mouth...think also.
"Does he suffer because of what he did in his previous to previous birth also? No he suffers because of his deed in his previous life, he should atleast remember which deed of his he is suffering for (excluding the details) but alas the poor chap is suffering with knowing the cause of his suffering, what is he going to learn from this. No wonder people turn indignant."
when he comes to know what he did in earlier life, it will still not satisfy him becos the next question would be what did he do in life previous to that life to get
that life and so the question will continue till the beginning of life.dont tell me we dont want to know from the beginning;scientists are still working on it,BIG BANG ETC.
"Immunity, pathogens are a much better answers than believing in some deed of past life which I don't even remember".
really!!!so kindly explain why mr.X was born with low immunity and vulnerable to pathogens and mr.Y is immune to all kind of disease? read it twice before u answer...it carries all kind of possibilities;u cant say that mr.X was born in poor conditions and Y in good one becos it happens even among twins;one is sick other is always healthy...question is deep, not confined to immunity and stuff...why in the first place mr.X was given such a sick body and not one with better immunity at the time of birth? it is still deeper...when god was creating him did he ask or tell him about his future body if he wants it or not?or did he just force his soul into
that sick body?if u say that mr.X was just born to parents with low immunity then the question would be:why was he not sent into the womb of another healthier woman
who has also a healthy husband?anyway,the basic question what is the pre-condition or reason as to why someone is born in some situation?why was ur soul not sent into the body of zakir naik and his soul into ur body?the initial reason...please
written by sorab, July 31, 2011
"There much better reasons they may have died because they did not have enough money for treatment of disease. Its the collective failure of the society (and not the past deeds of these poor people) that we ignored this section of the society. Moreover the parents died in this life itself."
all this u will understand once u find answer to my above mentioned question. All along you have been putting forth fallacious arguments to avoid my questions, anyways point out the fallacies.
"All along you have been putting forth fallacious arguments to avoid my questions, anyways point out the fallacies."
time and again i have pointed out ur fallacies and couple of times u have accepted them also,kindly go back and find ur apologies.
"Whats the use of the so called "external" conditions then if a man can stay happy with whatever he has? The external conditions are such so that he can suffer but man is smarter than God he will submit himself to God and voila the "external" conditions which God created after doing so many manipulations does not matter anymore."
ur getting frustrated...i will show u how...initially u were unhappy with rebirth becos u felt man was helpless and cant do much about his life and now after my explanations that he can do something about his life ur again unhappy with rebirth becos now u feel he is smarter than god...hahaha...ru for real?
just look at ur statement again u said man is smarter than god by submitting to him;
how is this possible?can u submit to or worship a buffalo becos ur smarter than it?
have u ever submitted(worshipped)someone once u felt ur smarter than him?
COME ON MAN!!!
all this u will understand once u find answer to my above mentioned question. All along you have been putting forth fallacious arguments to avoid my questions, anyways point out the fallacies.
"All along you have been putting forth fallacious arguments to avoid my questions, anyways point out the fallacies."
time and again i have pointed out ur fallacies and couple of times u have accepted them also,kindly go back and find ur apologies.
"Whats the use of the so called "external" conditions then if a man can stay happy with whatever he has? The external conditions are such so that he can suffer but man is smarter than God he will submit himself to God and voila the "external" conditions which God created after doing so many manipulations does not matter anymore."
ur getting frustrated...i will show u how...initially u were unhappy with rebirth becos u felt man was helpless and cant do much about his life and now after my explanations that he can do something about his life ur again unhappy with rebirth becos now u feel he is smarter than god...hahaha...ru for real?
just look at ur statement again u said man is smarter than god by submitting to him;
how is this possible?can u submit to or worship a buffalo becos ur smarter than it?
have u ever submitted(worshipped)someone once u felt ur smarter than him?
COME ON MAN!!!
written by sorab, July 31, 2011
"Who said its random its all delicately linked with actions of others. I won't be oppresses unless someone oppresses me. I am born as a farmer's family because my parents chose this profession, I am poor because the society ignored the importance of my profession. I don't need to ask God why I am so, I need to ask the society why its so selfish. At the end of the day we are not independent entities actions of others does affect my life."
NO I THINK U NEED TO ASK GOD WHY HE SENT U IN SUCH A FILTHY SOCIETY?HE COULD HAVE JUST KEPT U WITH HIMSELF.
anyway,again u should ask god why did he send u to such foolish parents and not smarter ones?
why someone is born handicapped,born blind,retard? ask society and they will say
"ASK GOD?" hehehe...
"Hold on I am not the owner/member of this site, I just comment here when I get time"
u sound like one.
"Again!!! Can't you explain Hinduism without referring to Islam? Anyways brother Anti Apollo gave you the link kindly post your references there. I will simply repeat my question"
yes,i said i will answer once i am done with u.
"Nice way of not answering listen I didn't comment here with a broad chest saying "You know what I can prove soul to you". You tried to disprove the article so please do the honours, would you sir? Why don't you explain your understanding of soul to me so that an ignorant (sadly me) will benefit from it remember it would be a good Karma. Anyways I answered your question why one is born in a farmers family and others in fimstars' above. No would you let me know your view."
hey hey hey...tell me ur joking cause u made this link to rebut rebirth and i am just here to prove u wrong...dont tell me this article is dedicated to me.
why i asked u this question about soul? i will tell u simply...if i have to solve for u an arithmetic problem i must know if u are acquainted with numbers like 1,2,3 etc...now u have written this whole thing disproving rebirth of soul and u dont even know what is soul.then what is the point?even from this point of view u should ask ur boss to remove this link...it becomes illogical.
moreover,mushafiq wrote that he finds rebirth plausible but he cant confirm it in nature,so u on his behalf asked for an example and in return i asked u(him) to give me an example of soul which sounds fair.
so now we have come to a point that u want my explanation of soul which is ok for me...but everything has a process...since u have no knowledge of soul(as per ur say)
so u cant write anything about its rebirth and hence remove this link and make a new one about soul as per islam and then i will come there and explain it all to u...
and if u believe that u know all the answers then please save this KAFIR(sadly me) from hell fire and book a seat for urself in heaven.
NO,U NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT ONE BEING BORN TO A FARMER...LET ME SAY IT AGAIN: BEFORE U WERE BORN UR PARENTS WERE ALREADY A FARMER;THEY DID NOT BECOME FARMER SUDDENLY WHEN UR MOTHER DELIVERED U.SO THE QUESTION IS WHY DID GOD SENT UR SOUL INSIDE THE WOMB OF A FARMER'S WIFE?
NO I THINK U NEED TO ASK GOD WHY HE SENT U IN SUCH A FILTHY SOCIETY?HE COULD HAVE JUST KEPT U WITH HIMSELF.
anyway,again u should ask god why did he send u to such foolish parents and not smarter ones?
why someone is born handicapped,born blind,retard? ask society and they will say
"ASK GOD?" hehehe...
"Hold on I am not the owner/member of this site, I just comment here when I get time"
u sound like one.
"Again!!! Can't you explain Hinduism without referring to Islam? Anyways brother Anti Apollo gave you the link kindly post your references there. I will simply repeat my question"
yes,i said i will answer once i am done with u.
"Nice way of not answering listen I didn't comment here with a broad chest saying "You know what I can prove soul to you". You tried to disprove the article so please do the honours, would you sir? Why don't you explain your understanding of soul to me so that an ignorant (sadly me) will benefit from it remember it would be a good Karma. Anyways I answered your question why one is born in a farmers family and others in fimstars' above. No would you let me know your view."
hey hey hey...tell me ur joking cause u made this link to rebut rebirth and i am just here to prove u wrong...dont tell me this article is dedicated to me.
why i asked u this question about soul? i will tell u simply...if i have to solve for u an arithmetic problem i must know if u are acquainted with numbers like 1,2,3 etc...now u have written this whole thing disproving rebirth of soul and u dont even know what is soul.then what is the point?even from this point of view u should ask ur boss to remove this link...it becomes illogical.
moreover,mushafiq wrote that he finds rebirth plausible but he cant confirm it in nature,so u on his behalf asked for an example and in return i asked u(him) to give me an example of soul which sounds fair.
so now we have come to a point that u want my explanation of soul which is ok for me...but everything has a process...since u have no knowledge of soul(as per ur say)
so u cant write anything about its rebirth and hence remove this link and make a new one about soul as per islam and then i will come there and explain it all to u...
and if u believe that u know all the answers then please save this KAFIR(sadly me) from hell fire and book a seat for urself in heaven.
NO,U NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT ONE BEING BORN TO A FARMER...LET ME SAY IT AGAIN: BEFORE U WERE BORN UR PARENTS WERE ALREADY A FARMER;THEY DID NOT BECOME FARMER SUDDENLY WHEN UR MOTHER DELIVERED U.SO THE QUESTION IS WHY DID GOD SENT UR SOUL INSIDE THE WOMB OF A FARMER'S WIFE?
written by sorab, July 31, 2011
Its a "good" act nevertheless isn't? Still I suffer?
u just reached the end of ur reasons..hehe
"If I don't deserve to be born as "Abhishek Bachchan" let me be born as "Tushar Kapoor" atleast, why should I be born in Dharavi even after doing "good" (not bad) deeds?"
no,not even TUSHAR KAPOOR becos u did not do that much good even.since every rank in the society has to be filled up so the lowest rank would be filled by least good doer.u cant even become a TEA BOY in film industry becos u once in ur last life u threw one bread to a dog and remained selfish all other times;now remaining selfish does not mean necessarily that ur hurting others but that u just look after ur needs and ignore others.the competition is really tight.pull up ur socks...
"Please clear the confusion (between Hindu understanding of spirituality and mentality)."
sorry!! as per ur rules i cant;beyond the scope of this debate.
"Jesus (PBUH) did not it on its own he did it by will of God. I am still to hear some doctor saying that he gave anyone life, God alone has this right. At any rate if for argument sake I accept your point, then I will have be a MBBS to do good acts. Really good example of cloning but can you prepare a body for me and after someone kills me put my soul into the body you prepared? Only then can I say that you gave me life."
the idea behind this was to tell u that the opposite of murder is also possible,so my definition works.yeah..so dont commit murder until u get MBBS,and if u find someone lying dead just rush him to the doctor and revive him and once u become a doctor do it urself;who is stopping u?in the meantime do some charity...
so now murder means soul leaving the body;its not in the dictionary and medical science dont believe it and also u said u dont know about soul.
u just reached the end of ur reasons..hehe
"If I don't deserve to be born as "Abhishek Bachchan" let me be born as "Tushar Kapoor" atleast, why should I be born in Dharavi even after doing "good" (not bad) deeds?"
no,not even TUSHAR KAPOOR becos u did not do that much good even.since every rank in the society has to be filled up so the lowest rank would be filled by least good doer.u cant even become a TEA BOY in film industry becos u once in ur last life u threw one bread to a dog and remained selfish all other times;now remaining selfish does not mean necessarily that ur hurting others but that u just look after ur needs and ignore others.the competition is really tight.pull up ur socks...
"Please clear the confusion (between Hindu understanding of spirituality and mentality)."
sorry!! as per ur rules i cant;beyond the scope of this debate.
"Jesus (PBUH) did not it on its own he did it by will of God. I am still to hear some doctor saying that he gave anyone life, God alone has this right. At any rate if for argument sake I accept your point, then I will have be a MBBS to do good acts. Really good example of cloning but can you prepare a body for me and after someone kills me put my soul into the body you prepared? Only then can I say that you gave me life."
the idea behind this was to tell u that the opposite of murder is also possible,so my definition works.yeah..so dont commit murder until u get MBBS,and if u find someone lying dead just rush him to the doctor and revive him and once u become a doctor do it urself;who is stopping u?in the meantime do some charity...
so now murder means soul leaving the body;its not in the dictionary and medical science dont believe it and also u said u dont know about soul.
written by sorab, July 31, 2011
"Been honest, respecting others etc are the basic requirement which a person does more for his own good (to be treated with respect). It is when he sees someone suffering and he helps him that he stands out from the crowd."
ur definition of good act was shallow from the start ;
u think if one is pulling himself out of ignorance by sticking to truth and honesty is not good act...tell me how can u help others if u r a lier and a cheat?so u respect ur parents not out of love but so that they respect u in return...how ridiculous...
"Don't lie mate scroll back to your OP and see who brought up the issue of virgin birth to escape a question. And I from the onset pointed out that this is off topic. Of the objection you raised about "omnipotence" I gave you the link start a discussion there if you want to."
REMEMBER MUSHAFIQ BELIEVED THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR MAKING BABIES THAT 2 SEXES MEET SO I JUST CALLED VIRGIN MARY TO PROVE HIM WRONG.I AM HERE TO DISPROVE,THATS WHAT I AM DOING.SINCE HE IS A MUSLIM SO THIS EXAMPLE IS BEST FOR HIM TO UNDERSTAND.
" You asked me about soul of course we will have difference over so instead of asking me why don't you clear the mist and explain me the concept of soul in Hindu dharma and explain reincarnation through it? It would save a lot of our time. I never said I won't accept your concept of soul."
YES SO SHOW ME WHAT KNOWLEDGE U HAVE OF SOUL AND THEN I WILL TRY TO "COME TO COMMON TERMS BETWN U AND ME"(in zakir naik's language);we can sort out the differences.
at least give me the basic idea what u have of soul.then it will be easier for me to explain to u.
"Please then enlighten me about soul how would I learn without you explaining me anything?"
sure,i will,but sometimes u say u dont know about soul and other times u say we have differences on that topic...what is this confusion in u?
ur definition of good act was shallow from the start ;
u think if one is pulling himself out of ignorance by sticking to truth and honesty is not good act...tell me how can u help others if u r a lier and a cheat?so u respect ur parents not out of love but so that they respect u in return...how ridiculous...
"Don't lie mate scroll back to your OP and see who brought up the issue of virgin birth to escape a question. And I from the onset pointed out that this is off topic. Of the objection you raised about "omnipotence" I gave you the link start a discussion there if you want to."
REMEMBER MUSHAFIQ BELIEVED THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR MAKING BABIES THAT 2 SEXES MEET SO I JUST CALLED VIRGIN MARY TO PROVE HIM WRONG.I AM HERE TO DISPROVE,THATS WHAT I AM DOING.SINCE HE IS A MUSLIM SO THIS EXAMPLE IS BEST FOR HIM TO UNDERSTAND.
" You asked me about soul of course we will have difference over so instead of asking me why don't you clear the mist and explain me the concept of soul in Hindu dharma and explain reincarnation through it? It would save a lot of our time. I never said I won't accept your concept of soul."
YES SO SHOW ME WHAT KNOWLEDGE U HAVE OF SOUL AND THEN I WILL TRY TO "COME TO COMMON TERMS BETWN U AND ME"(in zakir naik's language);we can sort out the differences.
at least give me the basic idea what u have of soul.then it will be easier for me to explain to u.
"Please then enlighten me about soul how would I learn without you explaining me anything?"
sure,i will,but sometimes u say u dont know about soul and other times u say we have differences on that topic...what is this confusion in u?
written by Anti Loon, July 31, 2011
@Sorab
Do you really think you last post did merit any reply? Anyways you repeated the same things I will just reply the new things you mentioned
There was no need to shout. So intensity does not matter. Take this example two people are sentenced for a month of imprisonment for the same crime. The first one has connections within the prison, and manages to have some luxuries while other gets none. Which one of these really got the reward (punishment) they deserved? If your answer is both got the same reward just because they were in prison the for same amount of time, then you can have your way.
You are confusing "suffering before death" with "death". Death is end of life and not the suffering that occurs before it.
If he would remember atleast what he did (excluding the details) because of which he is suffering he would not turn indignant. A criminal just wants to know atleast what his crime (and not the other details) is before facing the punishment, justice demands it. Your last line falsifies your claim about restlessness since man is still not satisfied and is searching for his origins, not remembering has not helped much.
As I said there are many factors that explain the things you mentioned satisfactorily and to list them out I will have to become an encyclopedia so please do yourself a favor and find those factors. Now your question about criteria of been born in one family. I believe in Qur'an so I leave you with this verse if you would think a little you will get the answer. Don't expect me to answer you since I have lost the respect I had for you because of your replies.
Fallacies? I asked your questions when you made a valid point I accepted it. I have pointed out your fallacy earlier you check it first.
Scroll up read your comments see who has resorted to shouting, calling others stupid and who is trying to put in some cheap laughter after replies then you will know who exactly has got frustrated (and also desperate). Still you haven't answered my point satisfactorily. Calling me unreal won't cut it. You explained nothing.
The adjustments made by God so that can earn rewards for his past deeds fail once man submits himself to God. All the efforts by God go down the drain and the person who might have committed some crime for which he was going to suffer is actually satisfied and living a happy life.
And if happiness comes from submission to God than why worry about the external conditions?
What you think does not matter much, the fact will remain that Blacks were oppressed because Whites did so it was the racist mentality of the Whites because of which Blacks suffered. Whites were not communicated by God to oppress Blacks it was Whites themselves who abused their freewill.
Thats your delusion, surprisingly you wrote rest of you comments with this assumption. For the final time "I in no way contribute to this site (except these comments you are reading)". I am just a layman with some questions about Reincarnation and yes you saying I wrote this article was funny.
I didn't write this article.
Not an answer at all.
Atleast I didn't snatch away bread from someone why should starve on footpath then?
Reread what I wrote, who actually made those things happen? You are yet to prove your point. And I never said "I don't know soul at all" rather I gave you the advantage and asked you to explain it to me and then answer my questions.
Whom should I take to the doctor? Of course someone who has a health problem. And you said something about the "real" cause of health problem. Who should I give charity? Of course to some poor. And why he is poor? Now do answer these questions atleast.
Do you really think you last post did merit any reply? Anyways you repeated the same things I will just reply the new things you mentioned
i will show you now sheer stupidity.......UNDERSTANDING CONFUSED 'TYPE' WITH 'INTENSITY'...GROW UP.
There was no need to shout. So intensity does not matter. Take this example two people are sentenced for a month of imprisonment for the same crime. The first one has connections within the prison, and manages to have some luxuries while other gets none. Which one of these really got the reward (punishment) they deserved? If your answer is both got the same reward just because they were in prison the for same amount of time, then you can have your way.
u dont ask me that but go and ask it from a dying man;he will give u a befitting reply or should have asked DANIEL PEARL whose head was slowly removed from his body...he might have said "o!i am ecstatic"...just dont say anything becos u have a mouth...think also.
You are confusing "suffering before death" with "death". Death is end of life and not the suffering that occurs before it.
when he comes to know what he did........scientists are still working on it,BIG BANG ETC.
If he would remember atleast what he did (excluding the details) because of which he is suffering he would not turn indignant. A criminal just wants to know atleast what his crime (and not the other details) is before facing the punishment, justice demands it. Your last line falsifies your claim about restlessness since man is still not satisfied and is searching for his origins, not remembering has not helped much.
so kindly explain why mr.X was born with low immunity......................
all this u will understand once u find answer to my above mentioned question
As I said there are many factors that explain the things you mentioned satisfactorily and to list them out I will have to become an encyclopedia so please do yourself a favor and find those factors. Now your question about criteria of been born in one family. I believe in Qur'an so I leave you with this verse if you would think a little you will get the answer. Don't expect me to answer you since I have lost the respect I had for you because of your replies.
4:1 O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women; reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you.
time and again i have pointed out ur fallacies and couple of times u have accepted them also,kindly go back and find ur apologies.
Fallacies? I asked your questions when you made a valid point I accepted it. I have pointed out your fallacy earlier you check it first.
ur getting frustrated...........smarter than him? COME ON MAN!!!
Scroll up read your comments see who has resorted to shouting, calling others stupid and who is trying to put in some cheap laughter after replies then you will know who exactly has got frustrated (and also desperate). Still you haven't answered my point satisfactorily. Calling me unreal won't cut it. You explained nothing.
The adjustments made by God so that can earn rewards for his past deeds fail once man submits himself to God. All the efforts by God go down the drain and the person who might have committed some crime for which he was going to suffer is actually satisfied and living a happy life.
And if happiness comes from submission to God than why worry about the external conditions?
NO I THINK U NEED TO ASK GOD ........ ask society and they will say "ASK GOD?" hehehe...
What you think does not matter much, the fact will remain that Blacks were oppressed because Whites did so it was the racist mentality of the Whites because of which Blacks suffered. Whites were not communicated by God to oppress Blacks it was Whites themselves who abused their freewill.
"Hold on I am not the owner/member of this site, I just comment here when I get time"
u sound like one.
hey hey hey...tell me ur joking cause u made this link to rebut rebirth and i am just here to prove u wrong...dont tell me this article is dedicated to me.
Thats your delusion, surprisingly you wrote rest of you comments with this assumption. For the final time "I in no way contribute to this site (except these comments you are reading)". I am just a layman with some questions about Reincarnation and yes you saying I wrote this article was funny.
so u cant write anything about ......and explain it all to u...
I didn't write this article.
Its a "good" act nevertheless isn't? Still I suffer?
u just reached the end of ur reasons..hehe
Not an answer at all.
no,not even TUSHAR KAPOOR ...... ur needs and ignore others.the competition is really tight.pull up ur socks...
Atleast I didn't snatch away bread from someone why should starve on footpath then?
the idea behind this was .......also u said u dont know about soul.
Reread what I wrote, who actually made those things happen? You are yet to prove your point. And I never said "I don't know soul at all" rather I gave you the advantage and asked you to explain it to me and then answer my questions.
if u find someone lying dead just rush him to the doctor and revive him and once u become a doctor do it urself;who is stopping u?in the meantime do some charity...
Whom should I take to the doctor? Of course someone who has a health problem. And you said something about the "real" cause of health problem. Who should I give charity? Of course to some poor. And why he is poor? Now do answer these questions atleast.
written by Anti Loon, July 31, 2011
ur definition of good act was .......out of love but so that they respect u in return...how ridiculous...
Read what I wrote, try to understand
Been honest, respecting others etc are the basic requirement which a person does more for his own good (to be treated with respect). It is when he sees someone suffering and he helps him that he stands out from the crowd.
Loving/respecting parents is a good act no doubt but that is just a way of returning (we actually can never return) them the immense love and care they provided us with. So in that sense its something that was a debt on us which we try to return. Additionally even a criminal loves his parents but does that make him good?
As I said when we help someone who helpless that we have the right to claim to have done a genuinely good act. Even a can help liar can help a poor person been dishonest does not mean you are ineligible for any good act.
REMEMBER MUSHAFIQ BELIEVED THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR MAKING BABIES THAT 2 SEXES MEET SO I JUST CALLED VIRGIN MARY TO PROVE HIM WRONG.I AM HERE TO DISPROVE,THATS WHAT I AM DOING.SINCE HE IS A MUSLIM SO THIS EXAMPLE IS BEST FOR HIM TO UNDERSTAND.
Why so much of shouting? Do you believe in Islam or Christianity? You have already called it unscientific so you cannot use this as an argument, atleast be honest to yourself.
YES SO SHOW ME WHAT KNOWLEDGE U HAVE OF SOUL .......what is this confusion in u?
Why the obsession with Zakir Naik? I am not his fan. I never said "I don't know" about soul, I said you to explain your understanding of soul then to explain Reincarnation thats an advantage for you. At any rate I gave my understanding of Hindu concept of soul to you and asked you correct me where I went wrong, then proceed with my questions but you ignored that part of my response.
Finally do Vedas mention Reincarnation? This is just an innocent question I am not a scholar so a simple yes or no would do, if you don't mind.
written by sorab, August 01, 2011
"There was no need to shout. So intensity does not matter. Take this example two people are sentenced for a month of imprisonment for the same crime. The first one has connections within the prison, and manages to have some luxuries while other gets none. Which one of these really got the reward (punishment) they deserved? If your answer is both got the same reward just because they were in prison the for same amount of time, then you can have your way."
when did u hear my voice?shout...writing in bold letters is not shouting but to lay emphasis on something.
so u accept ur folly that u confused 'type' with 'intensity'?
all rewards come from the functioning of the law of karma which was made by GOD...so now if 2 people have been sentenced to 1 month of prison term for the same crime and one of them is having some luxuries then as i told u before that one can reduce the intensity of his suffering by amending his ways and remembering god in the present life;so the man who is feeling relaxed inside the jail has surely developed some good qualities and love for god in this life that the jail authorities are treating him with compassion.this compassion they are showing is coming from god and the other man might still be cursing the society and god for his punishment and so jail police is treating him as a prisoner.
"You are confusing "suffering before death" with "death". Death is end of life and not the suffering that occurs before it."
you are calling "suffering of death" as "suffering before death";there are so many sufferings after birth and BEFORE DEATH but only one of them cause death.death is end of life but it is an event also, it has its drama;soul does not leave the body in nano-seconds;actually nobody wants to leave his body but actually they are pulled out of it and it takes some time, a few seconds at least and that is suffering of death;u should go and ask a dying man,no jokes,if ur a sincere seeker then u must and if ur just an internet guy then just keep assuming.soul is connected to its body in many ways and leaving the body means cutting all connections which is actually painful;sometimes people actually shit in their pants while dying and others die as if they have seen something horrible with eyes and mouth wide open.death never comes as a pleasure its always painful.so death is a suffering but last suffering.
"If he would remember atleast what he did (excluding the details) because of which he is suffering he would not turn indignant. A criminal just wants to know atleast what his crime (and not the other details) is before facing the punishment, justice demands it. Your last line falsifies your claim about restlessness since man is still not satisfied and is searching for his origins, not remembering has not helped much."
dont u know that a person does not suffer only once in his life time but many times so he must also know all the things he did in previous life to know about all his present sufferings.its as if he has to know his whole past life which again imply that he should know what he did in previous to previous life;we all know that man is very curious.if today we dont know anything about our previous life and we want to know it then if we had known it by birth then we would want to know previous to previous also;its unending.
when did u hear my voice?shout...writing in bold letters is not shouting but to lay emphasis on something.
so u accept ur folly that u confused 'type' with 'intensity'?
all rewards come from the functioning of the law of karma which was made by GOD...so now if 2 people have been sentenced to 1 month of prison term for the same crime and one of them is having some luxuries then as i told u before that one can reduce the intensity of his suffering by amending his ways and remembering god in the present life;so the man who is feeling relaxed inside the jail has surely developed some good qualities and love for god in this life that the jail authorities are treating him with compassion.this compassion they are showing is coming from god and the other man might still be cursing the society and god for his punishment and so jail police is treating him as a prisoner.
"You are confusing "suffering before death" with "death". Death is end of life and not the suffering that occurs before it."
you are calling "suffering of death" as "suffering before death";there are so many sufferings after birth and BEFORE DEATH but only one of them cause death.death is end of life but it is an event also, it has its drama;soul does not leave the body in nano-seconds;actually nobody wants to leave his body but actually they are pulled out of it and it takes some time, a few seconds at least and that is suffering of death;u should go and ask a dying man,no jokes,if ur a sincere seeker then u must and if ur just an internet guy then just keep assuming.soul is connected to its body in many ways and leaving the body means cutting all connections which is actually painful;sometimes people actually shit in their pants while dying and others die as if they have seen something horrible with eyes and mouth wide open.death never comes as a pleasure its always painful.so death is a suffering but last suffering.
"If he would remember atleast what he did (excluding the details) because of which he is suffering he would not turn indignant. A criminal just wants to know atleast what his crime (and not the other details) is before facing the punishment, justice demands it. Your last line falsifies your claim about restlessness since man is still not satisfied and is searching for his origins, not remembering has not helped much."
dont u know that a person does not suffer only once in his life time but many times so he must also know all the things he did in previous life to know about all his present sufferings.its as if he has to know his whole past life which again imply that he should know what he did in previous to previous life;we all know that man is very curious.if today we dont know anything about our previous life and we want to know it then if we had known it by birth then we would want to know previous to previous also;its unending.
written by sorab, August 01, 2011
no it does not falsifies my claim;if man is so restless in mind without knowing what he did in last life just think if he comes to see how many horrible things he did then he will go crazy just thinking it all over and over again and will not be able to fulfill his present duties.man wants to live in the past; we keep on remembering things of past from this life and we say "o! i should have done that instead of this"
and so we worry our mind with our past memory from this life; just think if we also remember our past life then our lives will only become a dream.
and so we worry our mind with our past memory from this life; just think if we also remember our past life then our lives will only become a dream.
written by sorab, August 01, 2011
"As I said there are many factors that explain the things you mentioned satisfactorily and to list them out I will have to become an encyclopedia so please do yourself a favor and find those factors. Now your question about criteria of been born in one family. I believe in Qur'an so I leave you with this verse if you would think a little you will get the answer. Don't expect me to answer you since I have lost the respect I had for you because of your replies."
this reply raises serious doubts on ur intentions.once while travelling in a train i met an indian-american muslim man and he asked me the same questions about rebirth and we talked till we reached his station;at the end of the conversation he was just doing some deep thinking on what i had said but he had no answers so he said just what u said "i believe in quran and u will find ur answers in quran";so all of u are just the same.only difference between u and osama bin laden is that ur not shooting people,u only want to believe in quran and nothing else even if its true.
"4:1 O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women; reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you."
this verse explains we were born from a pair in countless number and that we revere ALLAH and through him we demand our rights and wombs from him...
so it does not answer any of my question but raises another one if we can demand our womb from allah then it implies that our soul existed before our bodies were even made and so how long back our souls were created before body? and also if u demanded ur womb from allah then why did u demand a farmer's womb and not some rich woman's womb?secondly,it says "ye demand the womb" which only means u demanded a life and does not explain what kind of life.so kindly explain.
this reply raises serious doubts on ur intentions.once while travelling in a train i met an indian-american muslim man and he asked me the same questions about rebirth and we talked till we reached his station;at the end of the conversation he was just doing some deep thinking on what i had said but he had no answers so he said just what u said "i believe in quran and u will find ur answers in quran";so all of u are just the same.only difference between u and osama bin laden is that ur not shooting people,u only want to believe in quran and nothing else even if its true.
"4:1 O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women; reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you."
this verse explains we were born from a pair in countless number and that we revere ALLAH and through him we demand our rights and wombs from him...
so it does not answer any of my question but raises another one if we can demand our womb from allah then it implies that our soul existed before our bodies were even made and so how long back our souls were created before body? and also if u demanded ur womb from allah then why did u demand a farmer's womb and not some rich woman's womb?secondly,it says "ye demand the womb" which only means u demanded a life and does not explain what kind of life.so kindly explain.
written by sorab, August 01, 2011
"Scroll up read your comments see who has resorted to shouting, calling others stupid and who is trying to put in some cheap laughter after replies then you will know who exactly has got frustrated (and also desperate). Still you haven't answered my point satisfactorily. Calling me unreal won't cut it. You explained nothing".
when did u hear my voice?
U ARE DOING ONLY-I-AM-RIGHT REASONING;U STARTED WITH REBIRTH NOT A GOOD IDEA BECOS MAN CANNOT DO ANYTHING,HE IS PUPPET OF FATE BUT WHEN I PROVED U WRONG U ARE AGAIN FINDING PROBLEMS WITH IT BY SAYING THAT NOW MAN CAN STAY HAPPY WITH HIS FATE BY SUBMITTING TO GOD BECOS HE IS SMARTER THAN GOD...THIS IS A FALLACIOUS STATEMENT AND DOES NOT HOLD IN THE COURT OF DEBATE;ITS ROUND AND ROUND REASONING.U SHOW IT TO ANYBODY.HE WILL ONLY MOCK U...I WILL NOT ANSWER THIS ONE AGAIN BECOS U HAVE LOST IT.
UR UNHAPPY WITH MAN NOT DOING SOMETHING AND ALSO WITH MAN DOING SOMETHING...
when did u hear my voice?
U ARE DOING ONLY-I-AM-RIGHT REASONING;U STARTED WITH REBIRTH NOT A GOOD IDEA BECOS MAN CANNOT DO ANYTHING,HE IS PUPPET OF FATE BUT WHEN I PROVED U WRONG U ARE AGAIN FINDING PROBLEMS WITH IT BY SAYING THAT NOW MAN CAN STAY HAPPY WITH HIS FATE BY SUBMITTING TO GOD BECOS HE IS SMARTER THAN GOD...THIS IS A FALLACIOUS STATEMENT AND DOES NOT HOLD IN THE COURT OF DEBATE;ITS ROUND AND ROUND REASONING.U SHOW IT TO ANYBODY.HE WILL ONLY MOCK U...I WILL NOT ANSWER THIS ONE AGAIN BECOS U HAVE LOST IT.
UR UNHAPPY WITH MAN NOT DOING SOMETHING AND ALSO WITH MAN DOING SOMETHING...
written by sorab, August 01, 2011
"And if happiness comes from submission to God than why worry about the external conditions?"
YES,BUT HOW MANY OF US CAN ACTUALLY SURRENDER TO GOD?ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE...
ACCEPTING EXTERNAL CONDITIONS AS A REWARD OF OUR OWN DEEDS WILL KEEP A CHECK ON OUR PRESENT DEEDS AND REMOVE THE DOUBT THAT GOD HAS BEEN UNFAIR TO US.
"What you think does not matter much, the fact will remain that Blacks were oppressed because Whites did so it was the racist mentality of the Whites because of which Blacks suffered. Whites were not communicated by God to oppress Blacks it was Whites themselves who abused their freewill."
whites followed wrong path in their lives by abusing the blacks but blacks suffered not only becos of their fate;they suffered collectively becos of their wrong action.they did not fight back,they tolerated and suffered and did nothing about it.they also followed wrong path but the moment they realised this and fought back, they were liberated.if ur not resisting injustice,it is also a crime.
NELSON MANDELA fought against apartheid and eventually became president of south africa.he followed the right path.he was put in some strong situation by fate and by his right action he came out of it happy.also remember that not all blacks were tortured; only in few places of africa whites were ruling.and not all blacks were slaves.
"The adjustments made by God so that can earn rewards for his past deeds fail once man submits himself to God. All the efforts by God go down the drain and the person who might have committed some crime for which he was going to suffer is actually satisfied and living a happy life."
who said man does not get his reward?he is still living in the same state but by doing right action he can reduce his suffering but not eliminate it.say if a man suffers from some disease then he will suffer so long he has to as per his fate but by devoting himself to god and taking medicines he can reduce his suffering but will only be cured fully at the end of his term.
YES,BUT HOW MANY OF US CAN ACTUALLY SURRENDER TO GOD?ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE...
ACCEPTING EXTERNAL CONDITIONS AS A REWARD OF OUR OWN DEEDS WILL KEEP A CHECK ON OUR PRESENT DEEDS AND REMOVE THE DOUBT THAT GOD HAS BEEN UNFAIR TO US.
"What you think does not matter much, the fact will remain that Blacks were oppressed because Whites did so it was the racist mentality of the Whites because of which Blacks suffered. Whites were not communicated by God to oppress Blacks it was Whites themselves who abused their freewill."
whites followed wrong path in their lives by abusing the blacks but blacks suffered not only becos of their fate;they suffered collectively becos of their wrong action.they did not fight back,they tolerated and suffered and did nothing about it.they also followed wrong path but the moment they realised this and fought back, they were liberated.if ur not resisting injustice,it is also a crime.
NELSON MANDELA fought against apartheid and eventually became president of south africa.he followed the right path.he was put in some strong situation by fate and by his right action he came out of it happy.also remember that not all blacks were tortured; only in few places of africa whites were ruling.and not all blacks were slaves.
"The adjustments made by God so that can earn rewards for his past deeds fail once man submits himself to God. All the efforts by God go down the drain and the person who might have committed some crime for which he was going to suffer is actually satisfied and living a happy life."
who said man does not get his reward?he is still living in the same state but by doing right action he can reduce his suffering but not eliminate it.say if a man suffers from some disease then he will suffer so long he has to as per his fate but by devoting himself to god and taking medicines he can reduce his suffering but will only be cured fully at the end of his term.
written by sorab, August 01, 2011
"Thats your delusion, surprisingly you wrote rest of you comments with this assumption. For the final time "I in no way contribute to this site (except these comments you are reading)". I am just a layman with some questions about Reincarnation and yes you saying I wrote this article was funny."
no i already accepted that ur writing comment for ur boss MUSHAFIQ.i used 'u(him)'to symbolize his role.check again.
"Not an answer at all"
already answered several times.
"Atleast I didn't snatch away bread from someone why should starve on footpath then?"
yes u should becos u did not even give bread to dog.
"Reread what I wrote, who actually made those things happen? You are yet to prove your point. And I never said "I don't know soul at all" rather I gave you the advantage and asked you to explain it to me and then answer my questions."
yes so become like him.about doctors get connected to medical news or google.all those cases happened.also see talks given by AHMAD DEEDAT.man giving back life by god's will is still giving life back,god's will acted thru him.if JESUS had not asked god in the first place why would that person come back to life?
please dont be so generous,i like disadvantages.
"Whom should I take to the doctor? Of course someone who has a health problem. And you said something about the "real" cause of health problem. Who should I give charity? Of course to some poor. And why he is poor? Now do answer these questions atleast."
already proved that good deeds are not limited to helping suffering people;there are many other good things u can do;then dont give charity but speak truth always and become honest.already answered many times.ur running out of questions. "Loving/respecting parents is a good act no doubt but that is just a way of returning (we actually can never return) them the immense love and care they provided us with. So in that sense its something that was a debt on us which we try to return. Additionally even a criminal loves his parents but does that make him good?"
YES,THATS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU DO IT AS RETURNING A DEBT;ITS CONDITIONAL LOVE...UR PATHETIC.
yes he is good from one angle.
how can a liar and a dishonest person help someone sincerely without wanting anything in return?
"Why so much of shouting? Do you believe in Islam or Christianity? You have already called it unscientific so you cannot use this as an argument, atleast be honest to yourself."
but u and mushafiq believes in islam so i am explaining things in ur language to make u and him understand.
"Why the obsession with Zakir Naik? I am not his fan. I never said "I don't know" about soul, I said you to explain your understanding of soul then to explain Reincarnation thats an advantage for you. At any rate I gave my understanding of Hindu concept of soul to you and asked you correct me where I went wrong, then proceed with my questions but you ignored that part of my response."
becos u sound like his student...both are illogical,
u gave me hindu concept of soul but not urs,give me ur view on soul then we shall proceed.
"Finally do Vedas mention Reincarnation? This is just an innocent question I am not a scholar so a simple yes or no would do, if you don't mind."
becos u love zakir naik then i must tell u that he once read a passage from vedas explaining rebirth.so yes he said that he found atleast one verse explaining rebirth in vedas.i believe him becos he was quoting directly from vedas.
no i already accepted that ur writing comment for ur boss MUSHAFIQ.i used 'u(him)'to symbolize his role.check again.
"Not an answer at all"
already answered several times.
"Atleast I didn't snatch away bread from someone why should starve on footpath then?"
yes u should becos u did not even give bread to dog.
"Reread what I wrote, who actually made those things happen? You are yet to prove your point. And I never said "I don't know soul at all" rather I gave you the advantage and asked you to explain it to me and then answer my questions."
yes so become like him.about doctors get connected to medical news or google.all those cases happened.also see talks given by AHMAD DEEDAT.man giving back life by god's will is still giving life back,god's will acted thru him.if JESUS had not asked god in the first place why would that person come back to life?
please dont be so generous,i like disadvantages.
"Whom should I take to the doctor? Of course someone who has a health problem. And you said something about the "real" cause of health problem. Who should I give charity? Of course to some poor. And why he is poor? Now do answer these questions atleast."
already proved that good deeds are not limited to helping suffering people;there are many other good things u can do;then dont give charity but speak truth always and become honest.already answered many times.ur running out of questions. "Loving/respecting parents is a good act no doubt but that is just a way of returning (we actually can never return) them the immense love and care they provided us with. So in that sense its something that was a debt on us which we try to return. Additionally even a criminal loves his parents but does that make him good?"
YES,THATS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU DO IT AS RETURNING A DEBT;ITS CONDITIONAL LOVE...UR PATHETIC.
yes he is good from one angle.
how can a liar and a dishonest person help someone sincerely without wanting anything in return?
"Why so much of shouting? Do you believe in Islam or Christianity? You have already called it unscientific so you cannot use this as an argument, atleast be honest to yourself."
but u and mushafiq believes in islam so i am explaining things in ur language to make u and him understand.
"Why the obsession with Zakir Naik? I am not his fan. I never said "I don't know" about soul, I said you to explain your understanding of soul then to explain Reincarnation thats an advantage for you. At any rate I gave my understanding of Hindu concept of soul to you and asked you correct me where I went wrong, then proceed with my questions but you ignored that part of my response."
becos u sound like his student...both are illogical,
u gave me hindu concept of soul but not urs,give me ur view on soul then we shall proceed.
"Finally do Vedas mention Reincarnation? This is just an innocent question I am not a scholar so a simple yes or no would do, if you don't mind."
becos u love zakir naik then i must tell u that he once read a passage from vedas explaining rebirth.so yes he said that he found atleast one verse explaining rebirth in vedas.i believe him becos he was quoting directly from vedas.
written by abs, August 01, 2011
@Sorab,
While discussing theology, refrain from passing judgements on Prophets unnecessarily. This is not a site for you to show your hatred. If you have anything to discuss on, do so on the relevant articles and maintain a decorum.
And mind that it only takes few seconds to bring down Hindu gods to the status of stray animals, straight by quoting Bhagavatam and Puranas...
While discussing theology, refrain from passing judgements on Prophets unnecessarily. This is not a site for you to show your hatred. If you have anything to discuss on, do so on the relevant articles and maintain a decorum.
And mind that it only takes few seconds to bring down Hindu gods to the status of stray animals, straight by quoting Bhagavatam and Puranas...
written by sorab, August 01, 2011
@ abs
friend,i am just saying what ur hadis are saying....why angry?
about hindu gods,i dont believe in any forms say anything u like...i didnt say anything about prophets but a prophet(muhamad) from ur own books.
friend,i am just saying what ur hadis are saying....why angry?
about hindu gods,i dont believe in any forms say anything u like...i didnt say anything about prophets but a prophet(muhamad) from ur own books.
written by abs, August 01, 2011
sorabji,
I just wanted to show you how easy it is to pass judgment, based on references without a proper study. I can say "Krishna was ONLY a killer, cheater, lusted on Radha without marriage (though married plenty others), stealed clothes to see women nude, etc. With quotes from YOUR mahabharata, YOUR bhagavatham, YOUR purana etc. And then make a bold statement : Why don't you leave Hinduism and follow Christ ? How does that sound dude?
Sorry, I am not interested in this sort of stuff. I don't want to make this valuable section to be full of filth as in Agniveer/Satyagni sites.
I just wanted to show you how easy it is to pass judgment, based on references without a proper study. I can say "Krishna was ONLY a killer, cheater, lusted on Radha without marriage (though married plenty others), stealed clothes to see women nude, etc. With quotes from YOUR mahabharata, YOUR bhagavatham, YOUR purana etc. And then make a bold statement : Why don't you leave Hinduism and follow Christ ? How does that sound dude?
Sorry, I am not interested in this sort of stuff. I don't want to make this valuable section to be full of filth as in Agniveer/Satyagni sites.
written by Anti Loon, August 01, 2011
@Sorab
Don't you know what shouting is?
Do you understand the meaning of an analogy? What I gave was an analogy. Kindly reread the post and try to honestly answer the question
The discussion is getting more and more meaningless. Death is the end of life that moment when a person ceases, every thing before it is life and all the suffering is counted as suffering before death.
A poor child who is orphaned deserves to know what was his crime. Knowing atleast his crime (not details) from previous life does not imply he has to know even his previous to previous life. He would be satisfied with the knowledge of his crime, besides it would help him learn from his mistakes.
Had he remembered his crimes and seen the suffering he is receiving he would have truly appreciated his suffering, rather than turning indignant. A person feels restless when he does not know the cause of a certain event, so knowing the cause of his suffering would have helped him a lot. And people still say "Oh! I should have done this instead of that" but they also learn to move on. And you did not answer the justice factor involved.
That was funny, I gave you a verse to see how you understand it.
Are you serious? Is this the only thing you understood from the verse? The verse is in simple English, where did you get the idea of demanding wombs from Allah? I will keep my word and not help you.
About the rest of the questions don't worry bro, those are very simple ones if you would try to research a bit you would get your answers. I won't entertain any discussion on it for its off topic. Before closing this topic just a last point in Islam submitting to the creator is the primary reason for existence, happiness comes through this submission, while Hinduism is human centric, Islam is God oriented. Lets return to the main topic.
Started shouting again. Anyways I accepted your valid points. Rather you feel whatever you say is automatically proven.
You did not prove man is not a puppet of fate, you only said that suffering can be reduced by submitting to God, but God would not change what the person will face, he can just reduce the suffering. Additionally you are saying that only period of suffering matters and not the intensity. Please answer the question I asked in the analogy (of prisoners) so that things get clearer. You always avoid the questions.
I am not unhappy with anything When you answer a question then you should be able to answer the counter questions as well. Keeping aside the way I framed my sentence earlier. Here is the core issue, weren't the elaborate preparations made by God rendered useless once man submitted himself to God? So suppose a person has committed a crime, instead to receiving the reward (punishment) for his acts, he submits to God and stays happy. Why don't you point out where I am wrong?
Many, almost everyone leaves things to God.
Everything you said was done in one life only (of the people), Whites oppressing the Blacks was result of Whites abusing their freewill in their life as well as the Blacks not fighting back, and Nelson Mandela fighting back. Are you saying that bad deeds of Blacks in past lives forced Whites to do what they did to Blacks? Of course not Whites abused their freewill themselves no role of Blacks' past life here. And this applies to every oppression that occurs on earth.
Suffering without intensity is a joke. And medicines works on atheist too so how can you say that suffering is reduced through submission to God only.
Boss Mushafiq? Laughter is good for health.
If at all I deserve to be born in the same state because neither did I give (good act) nor did I snatch (bad act).
Repeating the same points. What was the cause. It was God alone who did that. A human in his personal capacity cannot give life to anyone.
Don't you know what shouting is?
so now if 2 people have been sentenced ......police is treating him as a prisoner.
Do you understand the meaning of an analogy? What I gave was an analogy. Kindly reread the post and try to honestly answer the question
Take this example two people are sentenced for a month of imprisonment for the same crime. The first one has connections within the prison, and manages to have some luxuries while other gets none. Which one of these really got the reward (punishment) they deserved?
you are calling "suffering of death" as.......so death is a suffering but last suffering.
The discussion is getting more and more meaningless. Death is the end of life that moment when a person ceases, every thing before it is life and all the suffering is counted as suffering before death.
dont u know ........................ become a dream.
A poor child who is orphaned deserves to know what was his crime. Knowing atleast his crime (not details) from previous life does not imply he has to know even his previous to previous life. He would be satisfied with the knowledge of his crime, besides it would help him learn from his mistakes.
Had he remembered his crimes and seen the suffering he is receiving he would have truly appreciated his suffering, rather than turning indignant. A person feels restless when he does not know the cause of a certain event, so knowing the cause of his suffering would have helped him a lot. And people still say "Oh! I should have done this instead of that" but they also learn to move on. And you did not answer the justice factor involved.
this reply raises serious.........nothing else even if its true.
That was funny, I gave you a verse to see how you understand it.
this verse explains we were born from a pair in countless number and that we revere ALLAH and through him we demand our rights and wombs from him...
Are you serious? Is this the only thing you understood from the verse? The verse is in simple English, where did you get the idea of demanding wombs from Allah? I will keep my word and not help you.
About the rest of the questions don't worry bro, those are very simple ones if you would try to research a bit you would get your answers. I won't entertain any discussion on it for its off topic. Before closing this topic just a last point in Islam submitting to the creator is the primary reason for existence, happiness comes through this submission, while Hinduism is human centric, Islam is God oriented. Lets return to the main topic.
U ARE DOING ONLY-I-AM-RIGHT REASONING;
Started shouting again. Anyways I accepted your valid points. Rather you feel whatever you say is automatically proven.
U STARTED WITH REBIRTH NOT A GOOD IDEA BECOS MAN CANNOT DO ANYTHING,HE IS PUPPET OF FATE BUT WHEN I PROVED U WRONG
You did not prove man is not a puppet of fate, you only said that suffering can be reduced by submitting to God, but God would not change what the person will face, he can just reduce the suffering. Additionally you are saying that only period of suffering matters and not the intensity. Please answer the question I asked in the analogy (of prisoners) so that things get clearer. You always avoid the questions.
U ARE AGAIN FINDING PROBLEMS WITH IT BY SAYING THAT NOW MAN CAN STAY HAPPY WITH HIS FATE ........NOT DOING SOMETHING AND ALSO WITH MAN DOING SOMETHING..
I am not unhappy with anything
When you answer a question then you should be able to answer the counter questions as well. Keeping aside the way I framed my sentence earlier. Here is the core issue, weren't the elaborate preparations made by God rendered useless once man submitted himself to God? So suppose a person has committed a crime, instead to receiving the reward (punishment) for his acts, he submits to God and stays happy. Why don't you point out where I am wrong? YES,BUT HOW MANY OF US CAN ACTUALLY .......HAS BEEN UNFAIR TO US
Many, almost everyone leaves things to God.
whites followed wrong path in their..........whites were ruling.and not all blacks were slaves.
Everything you said was done in one life only (of the people), Whites oppressing the Blacks was result of Whites abusing their freewill in their life as well as the Blacks not fighting back, and Nelson Mandela fighting back. Are you saying that bad deeds of Blacks in past lives forced Whites to do what they did to Blacks? Of course not Whites abused their freewill themselves no role of Blacks' past life here. And this applies to every oppression that occurs on earth.
who said man does not get his reward?.......cured fully at the end of his term.
Suffering without intensity is a joke. And medicines works on atheist too so how can you say that suffering is reduced through submission to God only.
no i already accepted that ur writing comment for ur boss MUSHAFIQ.i used 'u(him)'to symbolize his role
Boss Mushafiq? Laughter is good for health.
"Atleast I didn't snatch away bread from someone why should starve on footpath then?"
yes u should becos u did not even give bread to dog.
If at all I deserve to be born in the same state because neither did I give (good act) nor did I snatch (bad act).
yes so become like him.......i like disadvantages
Repeating the same points. What was the cause. It was God alone who did that. A human in his personal capacity cannot give life to anyone.
written by Anti Loon, August 01, 2011
already proved that good deeds .......times.ur running out of questions.
You feel that anything you say is automatically proved. A manager is not called a "good" manager if he only does the things which are his duties, it is only when he gives the extra bit that he would be called "good" manager else he just remains a manager. Similarly being honest is the basic duty. Only when a person lends a helping hand he deserves to be called good.
YES,THATS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU DO IT AS RETURNING A DEBT;ITS CONDITIONAL LOVE...UR PATHETIC.
yes he is good from one angle.
Your understanding is pathetic what I meant is that their debt is already on us, so when we respect/love them its nothing in front of their sacrifices (did you read "we actually can never return"), it is our basic duty, even if we keep emotions aside.
but u and mushafiq believes in islam so i am explaining things in ur language to make u and him understand.
Thats dishonesty on your part you call something unscientific still try to use it to defend yourself!!!
u gave me hindu concept of soul but not urs,give me ur view on soul then we shall proceed.
Is that a joke? A Hindu concept should be answered through Hindu understanding. If you don't want to answer then no one is forcing you.
becos u love zakir naik then ........he was quoting directly from vedas.
You and your delusions. I have not watched a single video of Zakir Naik. Is your understanding of Vedas so poor that you have to rely on Zakir Naik whom you call illogical?
This discussion has been meaningless so far.
written by gnana prakash, August 02, 2011
If Ishwar can't create a soul, why population is increasing? We must have same number of people since day one!
Reincarnation is nothing but an element used by brahmins to oppress other caste people and gain their wealth!
Reincarnation is nothing but an element used by brahmins to oppress other caste people and gain their wealth!
written by sudeepta, October 30, 2011
From the article
That is a poor example followed by a poor conclusion. A belief system can not be completely justified by a verifiable empirical mechanism. For example, you can't produce a scientific or empirically verifiable proof of the Eternal Hellfire an ordinary Muslim beliefs in.
From a philosophical point of view the theory of reincarnation serves its purpose better than some other theories and has obtained a wide acceptance even outside the South East-East Asian religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
The dispensation of Karma by a supreme God is not outside the realm of Theist schools of Hinduism.
In some of the comments by Mushafiq, it appears that he grasped a skewed idea of Karma as a method of punishment. I couldn't find any ground for this conclusion in the few books that I have read, neither does it follow from this article.
No. I don't think an ordinary Hindu believes this, neither did I find an explanation on these lines in the Sharmana traditions.
The prince, the peasant, the millionaire and the bricklayer respectively.
And that is good and resonates with the message in Gita.
This is more of a Buddhist approach, but there also the last part of the above quote is not valid. You need not be aware the wrong you did in your previous birth. You have been given a life, use it well to ensure a better future in this life and next (if you have to come back). This is not fatalism, this is the hope you have of attaining further spritual betterment.
I quote from another response by Mushafiq. Going by the same fruit based example how is this 'perfectly logical'? It is just another doctrine in a belief system called Islam.
For example, a fruit may leave a tree in defective ....
That is a poor example followed by a poor conclusion. A belief system can not be completely justified by a verifiable empirical mechanism. For example, you can't produce a scientific or empirically verifiable proof of the Eternal Hellfire an ordinary Muslim beliefs in.
From a philosophical point of view the theory of reincarnation serves its purpose better than some other theories and has obtained a wide acceptance even outside the South East-East Asian religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
The dispensation of Karma by a supreme God is not outside the realm of Theist schools of Hinduism.
In some of the comments by Mushafiq, it appears that he grasped a skewed idea of Karma as a method of punishment. I couldn't find any ground for this conclusion in the few books that I have read, neither does it follow from this article.
According to this philosophy, inferiority of a person to a second person in the social scale is due some of his sins in his bygone life.
No. I don't think an ordinary Hindu believes this, neither did I find an explanation on these lines in the Sharmana traditions.
who is to decide whether prince or peasant sleeps sounder in the nights or whether the millionaire or the bricklayer has the just perception of the end of life
The prince, the peasant, the millionaire and the bricklayer respectively.
Fatalism, in the received sense of the word, was condemned by Islam
And that is good and resonates with the message in Gita.
Our misery, under the theory of Karma has come to us as the fruit of some past actions. It cannot be undone, and all our efforts to undo it will be in vain. I committed some wrong in a previous life, I must suffer for its consequences in the present life, and all my efforts to be free from it are simply to give the lie to that theory
This is more of a Buddhist approach, but there also the last part of the above quote is not valid. You need not be aware the wrong you did in your previous birth. You have been given a life, use it well to ensure a better future in this life and next (if you have to come back). This is not fatalism, this is the hope you have of attaining further spritual betterment.
A person undergoing the punishment of hellfire will not be dead. His soul will not leave his body and this he wont die and his skin will be refurbished as soon as it is roasted. This is perfectly logical
I quote from another response by Mushafiq. Going by the same fruit based example how is this 'perfectly logical'? It is just another doctrine in a belief system called Islam.
written by M. Krishna, December 15, 2011
In short, if a theological system has to accept good deeds should result
in happiness and bad deeds in misery. This essentially is Karma.
Now given the general observation that people suffer even while they did
good deeds and vice versa, the only way for any school of thought is to
accept reincarnation.
I don't see any scope of escape from Karma and rebirth.
in happiness and bad deeds in misery. This essentially is Karma.
Now given the general observation that people suffer even while they did
good deeds and vice versa, the only way for any school of thought is to
accept reincarnation.
I don't see any scope of escape from Karma and rebirth.
written by M. Krishna, December 15, 2011
Your summarizing of re-incarnation as
"return to earthly life again, if we have left it without acquiring the necessary perfection"
is more or less accurate. There may be inaccuracies in your understanding of "earthly life" and "perfection," but that is fine as of now. But your refutation of reincarnation in the form of analogy that -
"a fruit may leave a tree in defective condition. It need not go back into the branch of the tree it came from"
is having flaws. Reincarnation also doesn't posit that a person dying as joe will be reborn as joe again. He will be born in some other place in some other time as some other person depending on where he left at in order to attain his "perfection."
Also there is problem of expection in your analogy. Expectation on person trying to reach "Brahm lok" is "perfection." Similarly, if the expectation on the fruit is that it be sweet, lacking any defects and ripe, then this fruit will have to be taken for further processing, not necessarily back to the same tree and branch.
"If therefore, this rule be universal in Nature, that the thing which has failed to attain the requisite state of perfection in one state of being is passed into the state of being next highest"
The universal rule is quite more simple than that. The rule is "unless you reach the state of perfection, you need to continue your efforts." That may or may not mean going back to the same state as previous one. Your "defective fruit" example is the one where the fruit need not go back to the same state. On the other hand, a student failing
"return to earthly life again, if we have left it without acquiring the necessary perfection"
is more or less accurate. There may be inaccuracies in your understanding of "earthly life" and "perfection," but that is fine as of now. But your refutation of reincarnation in the form of analogy that -
"a fruit may leave a tree in defective condition. It need not go back into the branch of the tree it came from"
is having flaws. Reincarnation also doesn't posit that a person dying as joe will be reborn as joe again. He will be born in some other place in some other time as some other person depending on where he left at in order to attain his "perfection."
Also there is problem of expection in your analogy. Expectation on person trying to reach "Brahm lok" is "perfection." Similarly, if the expectation on the fruit is that it be sweet, lacking any defects and ripe, then this fruit will have to be taken for further processing, not necessarily back to the same tree and branch.
"If therefore, this rule be universal in Nature, that the thing which has failed to attain the requisite state of perfection in one state of being is passed into the state of being next highest"
The universal rule is quite more simple than that. The rule is "unless you reach the state of perfection, you need to continue your efforts." That may or may not mean going back to the same state as previous one. Your "defective fruit" example is the one where the fruit need not go back to the same state. On the other hand, a student failing
written by M. Krishna, December 15, 2011
On the other hand, a student failing in X standardexam has to reappear for the same exam again.
written by M. Krishna, December 15, 2011
Theory of Karma
"According to this theory, all that we receive at our birth in the form of happiness or misery, and all the differences in social status that come into our being at birth are the outcome of our deeds in the life before the present life"
This needs to be corrected as below
"According to this theory, all that we receive at AT ANY TIME in the form of happiness or misery, are the outcome of our deeds in the PAST"
Corrections are specifically,
1. Happiness and misery at any point in time are results of past actions.
2. Social status, disablities, poverty etc., may or may not be cause of happiness or misery (general observation).
3. All happiness and misery are not necessarily results of past life only. But any past actions (in same or previous lives).
Even though you did also mention happiness and misery as the result of actions, you
included some "social status" as well as result of actions and then onward focus
purely on "social status" for refuting. I don't think high social status necessarily
result in happiness for the individual (ex. Osama living in high social status
in abbottabad but still lived misery life and killed like dog).
Continuing on the false assumption of the claim that social status is result
of karma you then say this
"Men of one generation must necessarily commit sin so that, in the next, they may be reborn in the lower for the purpose of contributing to the happiness of the upper social stratum"
Problem here apart from assuming karma results in higher social status, is that the
happiness only comes from someone serving from below. Secondly, even the one
who is always being served may not be necessarily happy (Like osama again).
So to put in your
own words this refutation is "absurd on the very face of it".
"According to this theory, all that we receive at our birth in the form of happiness or misery, and all the differences in social status that come into our being at birth are the outcome of our deeds in the life before the present life"
This needs to be corrected as below
"According to this theory, all that we receive at AT ANY TIME in the form of happiness or misery, are the outcome of our deeds in the PAST"
Corrections are specifically,
1. Happiness and misery at any point in time are results of past actions.
2. Social status, disablities, poverty etc., may or may not be cause of happiness or misery (general observation).
3. All happiness and misery are not necessarily results of past life only. But any past actions (in same or previous lives).
Even though you did also mention happiness and misery as the result of actions, you
included some "social status" as well as result of actions and then onward focus
purely on "social status" for refuting. I don't think high social status necessarily
result in happiness for the individual (ex. Osama living in high social status
in abbottabad but still lived misery life and killed like dog).
Continuing on the false assumption of the claim that social status is result
of karma you then say this
"Men of one generation must necessarily commit sin so that, in the next, they may be reborn in the lower for the purpose of contributing to the happiness of the upper social stratum"
Problem here apart from assuming karma results in higher social status, is that the
happiness only comes from someone serving from below. Secondly, even the one
who is always being served may not be necessarily happy (Like osama again).
So to put in your
own words this refutation is "absurd on the very face of it".
written by M. Krishna, December 16, 2011
HAPPINESS A BENEFICENCE AND NOT A FRUIT OF ACTION
"Much of our happiness is derived from the varied manifestations of Nature, like the Sun, the Moon, the Earth and all that it provides;"
"They all come as beneficence of God"
Your argument confuses between SPIRITUAL cause of happiness/misery and PHYSICAL
cause. Karma is a SPIRITUAL cause behind experience of happiness/misery. Sun, Moon
etc., are PHYSICAL causes.
I think you brought in God for no better reason here. It's not necessary, as such
between different religions their understanding is different about God.
However, coming back to karma, it's a SPIRITUAL cause of happiness & misery.
For example, someone eating his favourite dish is happy, PHYSICAL cause is
the dish and SPIRITUAL cause is good past karma. Without the latter, the person
wouldn't be in a position to have his favourite dish at that point in time.
Similarly, someone suffering from Malaria, the PHYSICAL cause is the bacteria,
SPIRITUAL cause is again the karma which effected the person to contract the
bacteria.
"What comes out of our actions in the shape of happiness sinks into insignificance when compared with what we get as Divine Blessings"
You are unnecessarily creating a conflict between 'actions' and 'Divine Blessings'.
They DONT in Vedanta schools of thinking.
Putting it the other way, if 'Divine Blessing' is all that is needed for
happiness, then what is the purpose of doing good deeds?
"Much of our happiness is derived from the varied manifestations of Nature, like the Sun, the Moon, the Earth and all that it provides;"
"They all come as beneficence of God"
Your argument confuses between SPIRITUAL cause of happiness/misery and PHYSICAL
cause. Karma is a SPIRITUAL cause behind experience of happiness/misery. Sun, Moon
etc., are PHYSICAL causes.
I think you brought in God for no better reason here. It's not necessary, as such
between different religions their understanding is different about God.
However, coming back to karma, it's a SPIRITUAL cause of happiness & misery.
For example, someone eating his favourite dish is happy, PHYSICAL cause is
the dish and SPIRITUAL cause is good past karma. Without the latter, the person
wouldn't be in a position to have his favourite dish at that point in time.
Similarly, someone suffering from Malaria, the PHYSICAL cause is the bacteria,
SPIRITUAL cause is again the karma which effected the person to contract the
bacteria.
"What comes out of our actions in the shape of happiness sinks into insignificance when compared with what we get as Divine Blessings"
You are unnecessarily creating a conflict between 'actions' and 'Divine Blessings'.
They DONT in Vedanta schools of thinking.
Putting it the other way, if 'Divine Blessing' is all that is needed for
happiness, then what is the purpose of doing good deeds?
written by M. Krishna, December 16, 2011
THE THEORY WEAKENS THE SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY
This is section is much what happens when someone "believes" wrongly in Karma,
dabbles in it all the time.
What one has to do in day to day life like respecting elders, gratitude to your
benefactors etc., are well laid out guidelines in Shastras. One simply has
to live up to that expecation.
To handle a crisis situation like contracting a disease, there are secular
guidelines on how to get it treated. I don't think one needs to worry about
karma there.
To summarize, if karma is not accepted, then what other SPIRITUAL cause
is behind your happiness/misery? If there is one which overrides worth
of your actions and causes misery/happiness unjustified- what point is there to do
good deeds and avoid the wrong ones?
If Karma is accepted then reincarnation has to be accepted because otherwise
there is no other way to explain why one goes through pain even while having
not done any wrong deeds (and vice-versa).
Thus, any school of thought worth its salt must accept both Karma and reincarnation.
This is section is much what happens when someone "believes" wrongly in Karma,
dabbles in it all the time.
What one has to do in day to day life like respecting elders, gratitude to your
benefactors etc., are well laid out guidelines in Shastras. One simply has
to live up to that expecation.
To handle a crisis situation like contracting a disease, there are secular
guidelines on how to get it treated. I don't think one needs to worry about
karma there.
To summarize, if karma is not accepted, then what other SPIRITUAL cause
is behind your happiness/misery? If there is one which overrides worth
of your actions and causes misery/happiness unjustified- what point is there to do
good deeds and avoid the wrong ones?
If Karma is accepted then reincarnation has to be accepted because otherwise
there is no other way to explain why one goes through pain even while having
not done any wrong deeds (and vice-versa).
Thus, any school of thought worth its salt must accept both Karma and reincarnation.
written by Shahnawaz Shah, December 28, 2011
The another reason why i feel that the theory of reincarnation is false is because it fails to give account of the "extincted species". Suppose a person commits "X" quantity of sins & he gets incarnated as Tiger in his/her next life. But what if tomorrow tiger species gets extinct? New tigers will be never born spontaneously. Does that mean people will never again committ "X" sins in future? Oh comeon.
What theory of reincarnation has to say for extincted species? It fails there.
Also around 85% population of current world is non-hindu. Obviously their Karmas won't be as good as compared to hindus. Hence this current 85% non-hindu population will get incarnated as worst things in their next life like mosquito, snake, etc. This means population of non-hindus should decrease drastically in next generation as compared to population of hindus. But that doesn't happen in reality. Now hindus will argue and say that the new non-hindus population will come from soul of animals, insects, birds, plants etc. But do animals, insects, plants have got sanity to differentiate between good and evil things. Can a bacteria committ sins and become a non-hindu in it's next life. I mean to say how can a bacteria or Algae plant become a Brahman in it's next life when it can't differentiate between good and evil?
What theory of reincarnation has to say for extincted species? It fails there.
Also around 85% population of current world is non-hindu. Obviously their Karmas won't be as good as compared to hindus. Hence this current 85% non-hindu population will get incarnated as worst things in their next life like mosquito, snake, etc. This means population of non-hindus should decrease drastically in next generation as compared to population of hindus. But that doesn't happen in reality. Now hindus will argue and say that the new non-hindus population will come from soul of animals, insects, birds, plants etc. But do animals, insects, plants have got sanity to differentiate between good and evil things. Can a bacteria committ sins and become a non-hindu in it's next life. I mean to say how can a bacteria or Algae plant become a Brahman in it's next life when it can't differentiate between good and evil?
written by sudeepta, December 28, 2011
@Shahnawaz
New species always evolve don't they? Or do you not believe in evolution?
Karma theory doesn't identify anybody by religion. So a Muslim's karma won't be worse than a Hindu's of comparable moral character.
See the response above why this conclusion is flawed.
But what if tomorrow tiger species gets extinct?
New species always evolve don't they? Or do you not believe in evolution?
Also around 85% population of current world is non-hindu. Obviously their Karmas won't be as good as compared to hindus
Karma theory doesn't identify anybody by religion. So a Muslim's karma won't be worse than a Hindu's of comparable moral character.
Hence this current 85% non-hindu population will get incarnated as worst things in their next life like mosquito, snake, etc
See the response above why this conclusion is flawed.
written by Chakravarty Samrat, February 08, 2012
Hi My Muslim Brothers, Just Think
Why a Man is Born in a remote place in Africa, Knows nothing about religion only tribes and war and dies in early age. Say 25
But Someone is born in NewYork Enjoys all pleasures of life and dies peacefully.
Why ? Why ? Why ?
If Allah does this disparity then Allah is partial towards Humans.
But Hindus have the Answer. Karma & Rebirth
Also please answer me whether the man who died w/o knowing anything except war and tribes, Will he go to jannat or jahannum.
My Confused Muslim Friends Answer
Why a Man is Born in a remote place in Africa, Knows nothing about religion only tribes and war and dies in early age. Say 25
But Someone is born in NewYork Enjoys all pleasures of life and dies peacefully.
Why ? Why ? Why ?
If Allah does this disparity then Allah is partial towards Humans.
But Hindus have the Answer. Karma & Rebirth
Also please answer me whether the man who died w/o knowing anything except war and tribes, Will he go to jannat or jahannum.
My Confused Muslim Friends Answer
written by Chakravarty Samrat, February 08, 2012
@Shahnawaz Shah
Dear Good Karma is not limited to Hindus. Any person of the world of Any religion can do good karma and reap benefits but yes for liberation of Soul Yoga is done, be it Bhakti, Jnana, Karma or Dhyana.
These techniques are for Union with God, Realization while u are alive.
So U wont get liberation but u will reap benefits if u do good karma.
In Hinduism heaven is temporary, after that u have to come back to the cycle of birth & Death.
Dear Good Karma is not limited to Hindus. Any person of the world of Any religion can do good karma and reap benefits but yes for liberation of Soul Yoga is done, be it Bhakti, Jnana, Karma or Dhyana.
These techniques are for Union with God, Realization while u are alive.
So U wont get liberation but u will reap benefits if u do good karma.
In Hinduism heaven is temporary, after that u have to come back to the cycle of birth & Death.
written by Stranger, February 08, 2012
@ Chakravarty Samrat
One thing that I would like to say is that in Islam this world is seen as a test so its obvious that you will face difficulties in your life there is no need attribute it to some previous life. Every person has some or other problem whether he lives in the deserts of Sahara or New York. Secondly I don't think being poor or rich helps you in being religious.
I would like to know, do Vedas, the supreme scripture according to most Hindus (correct me if I am wrong), mention reincarnation? Why should I believe a man-made theory of Karma & Rebirth which does not have solid scriptural proof? I would humbly say I don't know, there must be some divine wisdom behind this which we humans cannot comprehend.
You are asking the wrong person here, only Allah (swt) is the judge no one else can issue a judgement on this. Here is an article on this subject.
Why a Man is Born in a remote place in Africa, Knows nothing about religion only tribes and war and dies in early age. Say 25
But Someone is born in NewYork Enjoys all pleasures of life and dies peacefully.
One thing that I would like to say is that in Islam this world is seen as a test so its obvious that you will face difficulties in your life there is no need attribute it to some previous life. Every person has some or other problem whether he lives in the deserts of Sahara or New York. Secondly I don't think being poor or rich helps you in being religious.
But Hindus have the Answer. Karma & Rebirth
I would like to know, do Vedas, the supreme scripture according to most Hindus (correct me if I am wrong), mention reincarnation? Why should I believe a man-made theory of Karma & Rebirth which does not have solid scriptural proof? I would humbly say I don't know, there must be some divine wisdom behind this which we humans cannot comprehend.
Also please answer me whether the man who died w/o knowing anything except war and tribes, Will he go to jannat or jahannum.
My Confused Muslim Friends Answer
You are asking the wrong person here, only Allah (swt) is the judge no one else can issue a judgement on this. Here is an article on this subject.
written by shabeer_hassan, February 14, 2012
LOGICAL ERRORS OF REINCARNATION:
1) According to the theory of Reincarnation, a brahmanan or superior class people, they don’t know what are the good things did their past lives?
2)According to the theory of Reincarnation, a chandalan or street dogs can’t understand what are the sinned did their past lives? That is they never and ever bothered about what they did their past lives.
3)How can we say that life of Brahman’s are superior, in India many Brahman’s are live like poor family, many of them are lived Painless. Their birth was superior, but their life style sadness. How can it consider as paradise?
4) We can’t saw even a single verse from Rig Veda about Reincarnation, but Veda mention the life after death. It indicate that period of Veda saint does not understand Reincarnation. Death, judgment day and life after death Rig Veda indicate life experience of another world. Reincarnation making by people for little profit. We can’t saw even single verses from Upanishath.
5) We can saw the verses from Upanishath that after the dead good people going to haven, they never died.( Shwethashathora Upanishath
3:10), (Eshavaswa Upanishath 14, 12, 3)
There is contradiction between the Hindu belief and Veda; here we can saw that the Brahmins are dead, upanishith say “they never died”.
6)“No fear, not wrinkled and always happy” (kado Upanishath 12).contradiction again, the entire Human got fear, unhappy and wrinkled.
7)Reincarnation was created by rishis like king Jaiwaly and Brahman Aruni from chandyokath during the period of ‘vidika karmakanda’; because people deviated from the path of truth and morality. They make Reincarnation for hold the people trust. (Vishwa darshanam rahul samskrithyayan page 579)
1) According to the theory of Reincarnation, a brahmanan or superior class people, they don’t know what are the good things did their past lives?
2)According to the theory of Reincarnation, a chandalan or street dogs can’t understand what are the sinned did their past lives? That is they never and ever bothered about what they did their past lives.
3)How can we say that life of Brahman’s are superior, in India many Brahman’s are live like poor family, many of them are lived Painless. Their birth was superior, but their life style sadness. How can it consider as paradise?
4) We can’t saw even a single verse from Rig Veda about Reincarnation, but Veda mention the life after death. It indicate that period of Veda saint does not understand Reincarnation. Death, judgment day and life after death Rig Veda indicate life experience of another world. Reincarnation making by people for little profit. We can’t saw even single verses from Upanishath.
5) We can saw the verses from Upanishath that after the dead good people going to haven, they never died.( Shwethashathora Upanishath
3:10), (Eshavaswa Upanishath 14, 12, 3)
There is contradiction between the Hindu belief and Veda; here we can saw that the Brahmins are dead, upanishith say “they never died”.
6)“No fear, not wrinkled and always happy” (kado Upanishath 12).contradiction again, the entire Human got fear, unhappy and wrinkled.
7)Reincarnation was created by rishis like king Jaiwaly and Brahman Aruni from chandyokath during the period of ‘vidika karmakanda’; because people deviated from the path of truth and morality. They make Reincarnation for hold the people trust. (Vishwa darshanam rahul samskrithyayan page 579)
written by pseudo, February 14, 2012
@Shabeer_hassan
What are the logical errors you are talking about? There is a concept of punarmrityu (re-death) in Veda.
And don't mis-quote or half-quote from sacred texts. That is called Quote-mining and is used michiviously by non-muslims(Hindus included) in criticizing Kuran and vice-versa.
Svetâsvatara, adhyay 3, 10 is "That which is beyond this world is without form and without suffering. They who know it, become immortal, but others suffer pain indeed" and I am quoting Max Muller here.
Next, I think you have to learn a bit about what is a logical error and what is not!
What are the logical errors you are talking about? There is a concept of punarmrityu (re-death) in Veda.
And don't mis-quote or half-quote from sacred texts. That is called Quote-mining and is used michiviously by non-muslims(Hindus included) in criticizing Kuran and vice-versa.
Svetâsvatara, adhyay 3, 10 is "That which is beyond this world is without form and without suffering. They who know it, become immortal, but others suffer pain indeed" and I am quoting Max Muller here.
Next, I think you have to learn a bit about what is a logical error and what is not!
written by shabeer_hassan, February 14, 2012
@pseudo
clear the allegation by point to point ,don't hang unusual topics..................
clear the allegation by point to point ,don't hang unusual topics..................
written by Raj, April 08, 2012
att: shabeer_hassa and to the joker who wrote this:
Have u read the vedas? Are u qualified in the first place? Can you tell me firstly how knowledge is understood in Sanatana Dharma? pls enlighten us so we know you are qualified to write this and not a half past six like zakir naik with a half baked understanding of the vedas pls. This whole article is illogical and riddled with jokes and misquotes.
Have u read the vedas? Are u qualified in the first place? Can you tell me firstly how knowledge is understood in Sanatana Dharma? pls enlighten us so we know you are qualified to write this and not a half past six like zakir naik with a half baked understanding of the vedas pls. This whole article is illogical and riddled with jokes and misquotes.
Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|