Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I disagree about those bits of logic, Rian.

Following your logic, the following does not make sense:

"God is a rock. God is not a rock."

This, according to you, (correct me if I am wrong), does not make sense. Let's add sentenced in between those statements.

"God is a rock. He is what I hold on to in this world, so that I do not flow away with the tide. He is my salvation. However, God is not made up of physical minerals, I will not pray to a boulder. God is not a rock."

Make sense? It should. The first statement, "God is a rock", is a metaphor. The second statement, "God is not a rock," is a statement meant literally. Your ideas about logic don't take important language devices into account. "God is a rock. God is not rock" can sound nonsensical, but you don't know if it's a nonsensical statement until you know what the speaker means. I am suggesting that meaning is more important than the words used for them.

According to me, those statements do NOT make sense IF you are using "rock" in the same sense in both sentences. However, you are NOT, as you pointed out. Your example makes perfect sense, as long as it is expressed that one is a metaphor and one is meant literally. That makes all the difference.

Take my example.

"That is a table. That is the Sun." Is it a table, or the Sun? It can't be both, right? What if you did the add-ins?

"That is a table. The table was a tree. The tree could not survive without the Sun. The Sun is in that table. That is the Sun."

Now it's more complex, and the first statement "That is a table" is the literal statement, while "that is the Sun" is more figurative.

But you don't need the add-ins, as long as you understand that they are there. Thus "That is a table, that is the Sun" can be a perfectly true and understandable statement. One must read between the words, and beyond them.

It's a huge jump from "is in" to "is", and IMO, it's unjustified, unless you're just enjoying talking poetically with someone and it's understood that it's not literal. But there is a huge difference between poetical talk and talk that is meant to be an actual, literal comment on reality. I think both types are necessary, but if one claims that poetical talk is literal, I think it's dangerous, because then you can say anything is true about anything - and it's meaningless. And that's dangerous.

Two examples -

First : You're walking with me thru a forest. You're blindfolded, because I told you I wanted you to experience the forest with your other senses more. We reach a deep chasm. I tell you "Ñólendil, this chasm is spanned by a tree. You go on ahead and I'll guide you from behind." As you take the first step, you step onto the REAL thing that is ACTUALLY spanning the chasm - some nice quality, scented, double thick ... toilet paper. As you plunge down the chasm, giving an artistic Gandalf effect, you call out "That wasn't a tree!!" I yell down after you, "But I was speaking poetically! Toilet paper comes from trees - trees are in toilet paper - toilet paper is a tree!" Poetry is fine - I love poetry and beautiful speaking and metaphors - but one MUST understand the difference.

Second : If you take the table that supposedly "is" the sun, and replace the REAL sun with this table, then ... we would all die, Ñólendil. We would all die. And THAT'S reality. The table is NOT the sun, altho it has depended upon the effects of the (REAL) sun.


SO - the talk sounds nice, and I have no problem with metaphors. But sometimes we must talk about reality, or we will die. And I think Hinduism/Buddhism takes this talk too far - they will say "all religions are one" in the same way they'll say "the table and the sun are one". But if the truth claims of one worldview are contradictory to the truth claims of another - the easiest example being atheism and Christianity - then "God exists" and 'God does NOT exist" cannot both be true, unless you're saying you're talking poetically somehow. But at some point, we also need to deal with reality, and make decisions based on what we think is true ...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I absoluty abhor the caste system. ...

But Ñólendil, why would you abhor it, if it is a person's fate in that particular life of theirs to be, say, an Untouchable?

Interesting that you should quote Swami Prabhavananda. He was the one who started the Southern California faction of the Vedanta Society, and the temple and monastery in Hollywood, which I attend.

Oh, how interesting!

You may be confused now, though, about the difference between Brahma and Brahman. Apparently, linguistically, they are the same word. Mythologically and Philosophically, they are different.

But how can they be different, if you also say:

"This and That are One and the Same,"

This is an example of what I think is dangerous talking. It encourages the false (IMO) idea that there is no reality. If everything is "One and the Same", then there is no difference between, say, the God described in the Bible, and a god like Moloch, who loved infant sacrifice - the babies would be burned alive ...

I cannot accept that the God described in the Bible is "One and the Same" with Moloch, and I think it is dangerous to try to say they're the same. What are your thoughts on this?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Eventually, for each individual, one's good karma must outweight one's bad karma. Eventually, for each individual, one must move "upward", yes. The process is actually practiced widely in one of the four main kinds of Yoga (which have nothing to do with physical exercises). That Yoga is called, of course, Karma Yoga, the Yoga of work and self-sacrifice. In this path to enlightenment, one focuses on one's own actions, and of non-attachment to the results of those actions. But yes, as you suggest, those actions must be positive. I now perceive I didn't understand your question before.

So if someone was almost perfect in life but then commited murder then they would progredd in life with more good karma than abd, or do different things, result in more amounts of karma.

[Ñólendil]

I'm afraid i don't know the english translation of the top of my head,
but the mantra itself is entitled
Om Mani Padme Hun

Oh! I know what that much means. "Jewel in the Lotus", the symbol of purity and enlightenment.

According to me, those statements do NOT make sense IF you are using "rock" in the same sense in both sentences.

I absolutely agree.

However, you are NOT, as you pointed out.

When did I point that out? I am NOT using "rock" in the same sense in both sentences. As I said, one is a figurative statement, the other is literal.

Your example makes perfect sense, as long as it is expressed that one is a metaphor and one is meant literally. That makes all the difference.

But one can't go around reminding everybody that one is talking in metaphors. There is nothing wrong with saying "God is a rock, but God is not a rock", and allowing it to be interpreted by others. This particular example is a bad one because it's unconventional. But if I were to say "There is only death. There is no death." I think that would be acceptable. The delivery is more profound, and the nature of the sentences asks one to think about it. There are a number of ways it can be interpreted. If you take both sentences as rigidly literal, it doesn't make any sense at all. There can not be only death if there is no death.

But they're not meant to be taken that way. I did not invent this particular passage ("There is only death. There is no death."), but I can tell you that, at least, I do not mean it literally. There is only death because everything immediately tangible passes away and dies, and almost nothing is lasting. There is no death because death itself cannot touch pure consciousness, which is above and beyond the bounds of death.

It's a huge jump from "is in" to "is", and IMO, it's unjustified, unless you're just enjoying talking poetically with someone and it's understood that it's not literal.

Both "is in" and "is" are not to be taken literally. If you touch the table, your hand will not be incinerated. But the table would not exist without the Sun. In fact, as is tought particularly in Buddhism, the whole cosmos exists within that table. If you look deeply into the table, you will not find the table. You will find everything else. The table and the Sun are just two examples, but everything is connected in this way. It is not just poetic talk. If the table is not made up of table, then it is not a table, and it is whatever makes it up. One of things that makes a table is the Sun. Thus, that table is the Sun. Why does all this have to come with a disclaimer that it is not literal? My own mind is wont to take things figuratively. Should I demand that all literal statements come with a literal disclaimer? I do not always agree with other people, when they say something is to be taken literally. I think it is a wonderful thing that we are allowed to interpret.

But there is a huge difference between poetical talk and talk that is meant to be an actual, literal comment on reality. I think both types are necessary, but if one claims that poetical talk is literal, I think it's dangerous, because then you can say anything is true about anything - and it's meaningless.

I think there is more danger in it than that. But people confuse both sides. Take Jesus's statement, "I am the way." I think he may have meant, "My life is the way, live as I have lived, and you will enter the Kingdom of God." But I think I would be right in saying that you take it literally. Isn't my interpretation potentially dangerous? If you are right about what he meant, then I can easily go down the wrong path in life. I am stating this as a fact, not a highlight of our disagreements But Jesus shouldn't say, "I am the way, and I mean that literally." His words wouldn't seem so powerful to those that heard. My point? Jesus shouldn't say "I am the way, and I mean that figuratively", either. I think it is nice that we can interpret what people mean, even if it means that we can be wrong. It is not practical, and in my opinion it is not desirable, to make sure people know exactly what you mean before you say it.

I hope you are not offended if I tell you that I think your examples are unfair and silly. I'm sure they're meant to be silly. It is not always good, though, to speak literally if someone doesn't understand you're speaking literally. I am preparing for battle against a particularly nasty giant, and I come to you for encouragement, and advice.

"Rian, I need a mighty weapon to defeat this giant. What shall I use?"

"Your weapon should cut like the thorn of the rose, and yet dazzle your enemy with the brilliance of a sunflower. I will give you such a weapon."

I nod, confident in your ability to supply with me the proper tool of destruction. Now I stand on the battlefield, and the giant draws his mighty club.

"Rian, now!"

And out you rush with a rose and a sunflower, and press them into my hands.

"What the heck am I supposed to do with these?"

"It's a rose and a sunflower. I said it should cut like the thorn of a rose and dazzle your enemy with the brilliance of a sunflower. Therefore, that is exactly what I meant."

And now I'm dead, Rian, the giant killed me. Thanks.

[Ñólendil]

SO - the talk sounds nice, and I have no problem with metaphors. But sometimes we must talk about reality, or we will die.

And reality always must be talked about with literal speech? The metaphor about God being the rock of salvation is from the Bible. You don't really believe that God is a clump of earth out there somewhere, do you?

And I think Hinduism/Buddhism takes this talk too far - they will say "all religions are one" in the same way they'll say "the table and the sun are one".

"The table and the sun are one" is a statement that arises out of the ideas of emptiness and interdependence. "All religions are one" can arise out of the same things, but it also arises out of the idea that all religions are organizations which help people strive for the same thing. Not the same word, or the same name, or the same notion, but the same thing. That thing which underlies and is represented by both "Heaven" and "nirvana" is the same thing. That's the idea.

But if the truth claims of one worldview are contradictory to the truth claims of another - the easiest example being atheism and Christianity - then "God exists" and 'God does NOT exist" cannot both be true, unless you're saying you're talking poetically somehow.

Correct you are Rian. If you hear me say "God exists. God does not exist.", please understand that I am not speaking literally, and I never meant for those sentences, taken together, to be meant literally. "God exists." God is a personal reality that pervades and transcends all things. That's the literal sentence. "God does not exist." There is no man at the top of a volcano named Yahweh, there is no man on a physical throne with a scepter and crown, deciding who dies and who does not die, there is no word called "God" that exists apart from the minds of human beings. "God does not exist", if taken together with "God exists", coming from me, is a figurative statement, and I believe it is absolutely true. I think atheists are right, there is no man at the top of a volcano named Yahweh, there is no man on a physical throne with a scepter and crown, deciding who dies and who does not die, and there is no word called "God" that exists apart from the minds of human beings. Atheists take it further--to them, there is no God at all, literally or figuratively. I am suggesting that this is because they are turned off by the ideas of God, and not by God Himself, who can still be the Presence in their lives.

But at some point, we also need to deal with reality, and make decisions based on what we think is true ...

I think we should all deal with reality in our own way. I like to use figurative language to describe reality. And I have made decisions based on what I think is true. I think Atheists and Christians are both right. I am able to think this way, because I look beyond the words and the notions, and see Truth as something that is absolute, but something that may be interpreted, and taken up in different forms among different people, with differing notions. But it is still Truth.

But Ñólendil, why would you abhor it, if it is a person's fate in that particular life of theirs to be, say, an Untouchable?

Because I don't believe a person can have such a fate. I don't believe the Bhagavad Gita is correct on this point. I think the Bhagavad Gita was written by human beings who make mistakes. I also think the Song of God is a wonderful story with a great, deep, spiritual lesson.

But how can they be different, if you also say:

Quote: "This and that are one and the same."

Because "this and that are one and the same" is not a literal statement. Obviously it is not, because the words "this" and "that" are spelled and pronounced quite differently. Even if it wasn't obvious, I think it is nice that we can interpret the passage. Brahma and Brahman are essentially the same. They are both different ways of looking at God. But, as I said, mythologically, and philosophically, they have slight differences. Brahma is the Creator, a personal aspect of the Divine. Brahman is the Absolute, the impersonal grounds of being. These two things are one and the same, just not literally.

This is an example of what I think is dangerous talking. It encourages the false (IMO) idea that there is no reality. If everything is "One and the Same", then there is no difference between, say, the God described in the Bible, and a god like Moloch, who loved infant sacrifice - the babies would be burned alive ...

You are speaking literally, but he statement is not a literal statement. The horrible people who burned babies alive have the souls that come of God. So do the babies. And so do the Christians who worship the God of the Bible in peace. "Yahweh" and "Moloch" can be the same because they are both ideas of God. "One and the Same" refers to essential nature. Yes, Yahweh is very real. But Moloch would be just as real if his followers believed in him and practiced his ways in a compassionate, loving way.

A quote from Krishna:

When a devotee wishes, with unwavering faith, to worship me in a particular form, I take that form.

This is not a literal statement.

I cannot accept that the God described in the Bible is "One and the Same" with Moloch, and I think it is dangerous to try to say they're the same. What are your thoughts on this?

I think it is dangerous too. I don't know anything about Moloch, but if his followers murdered babies, then yes, that would be a dangerous thing to believe. Not that believers in God of the Bible haven't done horrible things in his name, either.

Anyway, "that" is often used in the Upanishads to indicate the Divine. "This" is more subjective. So, "this and that are one and the same", as I said, is like saying "He (or She, or It, or You) are divine."

So there is something to be said for both figurative and literal language, but I think what overrides them both is context.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

If you hear me say "God exists. God does not exist.", please understand that I am not speaking literally, and I never meant for those sentences, taken together, to be meant literally. "God exists." God is a personal reality that pervades and transcends all things. That's the literal sentence. "God does not exist." There is no man at the top of a volcano named Yahweh, there is no man on a physical throne with a scepter and crown, deciding who dies and who does not die, there is no word called "God" that exists apart from the minds of human beings. "God does not exist", if taken together with "God exists", coming from me, is a figurative statement, and I believe it is absolutely true. I think atheists are right, there is no man at the top of a volcano named Yahweh, there is no man on a physical throne with a scepter and crown, deciding who dies and who does not die, and there is no word called "God" that exists apart from the minds of human beings. Atheists take it further--to them, there is no God at all, literally or figuratively. I am suggesting that this is because they are turned off by the ideas of God, and not by God Himself, who can still be the Presence in their lives.

very well put!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

What's your curiosity?

I'll explain now

I call my friends my "friends" because I know something of them, and care about them. ... I have a friend named Des. ... She's very energetic, and has a rediculous sense of humor. ... The important thing about her in relation to me is that she's the kind of person I don't ever want to lose contact with. I want to be an old man, sitting on the couch with her, watching an old dvd of 13 Going On 30, cause she thinks it's a cute movie.

That was the kind of reply I was hoping for from you

One of the things that I dislike about Hinduism, and that seems to ring false, is the kind of absortion thing going on. Perhaps I'm mixing it up with Buddhism, which came out of Hinduism, but I thought Hinduism was pretty much stating that basically one gets absorbed into the one reality, and that "losing" onesself was a goal. To me, that's really sad, because I think people are awesome, amazing, beautiful creations. However, since I asked this question, IIRC, you said that you don't think people lose their individualism. Isn't that against what most of your teachers would say, tho?

Someone on the Moot asked me once what a "soul" was (I think it was Nerdanel). I never got around to answering it, because it was on a really busy thread, but let me give it a shot.

A "soul" is who you want to tell a great joke to. A "soul" is someone you want to sit on the couch with and watch a movie. A "soul" is someone that will comfort you and give you pillows to cry on. When you are bummed out and a friend calls you, it's their "soul" that makes your heart happy again. When you're happy, it's a "soul" that you want to share it with.

"Ñólendil" or "Dylan" is not who you ARE, but it IS a name that I identify with a particular SOUL, and everything that makes it unique and beautiful (i.e., it's easier to say "Dylan" than "you know, that guy that is this tall, and has this color hair, and lives there, etc. etc.")

When I log on the Moot and see that "Ñólendil" is in the user list, I smile because I like him. I think of cheetos and geese (remember these? Prob. not! ) and how kind he was to provide a list of the letters with those diacritical marks and how to type them for me, when I was just a newbie Mooter. I think of his great sense of humor, and his kind and considerate heart, and his bright intelligence. And to me, it would be a shame to lose "Ñólendil" to a vast, impersonal "reality". And I don't see a reason why wonderful souls like "Ñólendil" would be created, just to end up absorbed somehow and lost And that's an intellectual/heart problem I have with Buddhism, and from what I can tell, Hinduism, too. One can't "weigh" different worldviews in a physical scale to tell which one is true; one can only "weigh" them in the scales of the heart and mind. And in my scales, Hinduism is found lacking.


Another question (is this too many?) - what does Hinduism say about providing for the poor and needy? Are there any official statements like "help the widow and orphan" in Hindu literature? Are there any Hindu orphanages run by monks (as opposed to the state). I know that India is mostly Hindu, and orphanges would prob. be run by Hindus, but do you see what I'm saying - is it because of the initiative of the STATE, or the RELIGION?

[Ñólendil]

To me, in one sense, the Dylan or Nolendil you talk to all the time is not my soul.

I think I am always working on the surface level, the level of the ego. The ultimate witness that sees through my sight and so on is my soul, the goodness in me is my soul, but I can't feel my soul. I do not know that it is there. Intelectual knowledge is not the same as true knowledge. I do not realize that I am my soul. I think I am my ego.

But my soul is there, and the absorption has already happened. That's the thing. Hinduism and Buddhism both teach that the other shore, which we must reach, is the same as this shore. We walk and we walk and we walk upon the path that we have chosen, and when we get to the end, we realize that we have never moved at all. We are everywhere.

So I don't think you were thinking of Buddhism, rather than Hinduism.

"Losing" oneself is the goal, if by "oneself", you mean "one's ego". But realizing oneself is also the goal, the same goal, if by "oneself" you mean one's soul. This is the Hindu way of putting it.

To Buddhists, the Hindu ego is the Buddhist "self", and the Hindu soul is the Buddhist "Buddha-nature" or "innermost clear light", so there is potential for confusion.

This is why Buddhists speak of transcending the self, while Hindus speak of Realizing the Self. Both mean the same thing, because both are using different meanings for "self".

I speak in the Hindu senses. I do not believe one remains a seperate individual when one is at one with Brahman. Dvaita Vedantists do believe this, but I am more of an Advaita (non-dualist) Vedantist. But this does not mean that you or I go away, and no longer exist. It means that "you" and "I" go away, and no longer exist. My soul is still there, and your soul is still there. But there is no fundamental difference between my soul and your soul. But we know eachother. We know our Self. And we, who are one, will remember all the experiences we ever had together, in any and every life lived in any and every body, or ego. To be at one with Brahman is, among other things, to transcend the laws and limitations recognized by human beings. We will be one, yes. But even the One Himself manifests as the Many. The joy is the union, where there is no suffering, but no one fades away into nothingness.

I will not longer be 6'0, with my blonde hair, or my favorite Ice Breakers mints in my pocket. I will be at one with the Divine, an incomprehensible but wonderful thing.

So, the wonderful souls (like Nolendil and Rian) will not be absorbed somehow, and lost. The Atman is already at one with Brahman. It is the realization of the Atman, the soul, that will be gained. What will be lost is the ego, that which creates suffering. Suffering will be lost.

I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from.

[Rían]

Blonde?!

I always thought you were one of the Ñoldor, who were mostly dark-haired! (your user name goes with this, right?)

I guess you're from Finarfin's family

[Ñólendil]

And to me, it would be a shame to lose "Ñólendil" to a vast, impersonal "reality".

God also has personal aspects. If an impersonal God bothers you, it is best not to think of God in this way. God is pure consciousness and love, and all powerful, and though He is, as Brahman, formless, God's forms are countless. Think of it has becoming one with a father, or a lover, or a friend. Everyone has different chosen-ideals, different ways of viewing God. I view God as Brahma and Saraswati. Brahma is Creator, and Brahma is knowledge, and the silence of the soul, and father of all beings. Saraswati is Creativity, and culture, and the beauty of the arts, and glorious sound of the universe, and mother of all beings.

So it doesn't have to be viewed as a Thing, or an It. If the idea bothers you, then it will not be a helpful idea for you.

Another question (is this too many?) - what does Hinduism say about providing for the poor and needy? Are there any official statements like "help the widow and orphan" in Hindu literature? Are there any Hindu orphanages run by monks (as opposed to the state). I know that India is mostly Hindu, and orphanges would prob. be run by Hindus, but do you see what I'm saying - is it because of the initiative of the STATE, or the RELIGION?

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with India. There is this passage from the Bhagavad Gita:

Strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world; by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. Do your work with the welfare of others always in mind.

I'd have to look around for others. I don't normally memorize passages. I'll look for one. But, while I was looking through my old e-mails, I found some good quotes for our conversation:

This Self who gives rise to all works, all desires, all odors, all tastes, who pervades the universe, who is beyond words, who is joy abiding, who is ever present in my heart, is Brahman indeed. To him I shall attain when my ego dies.

--Chandogya Upanishad

Three men went into the jungle on different occasions and saw a chameleon. "A chameleon is red," said the first man. "No a chameleon is green," said the second man. "Nonsense, a chameleon is brown," said the third man. Those who disagree about the nature of God are like these three men.

--Hindu Teaching Story

[Ñólendil]

I always thought you were one of the Ñoldor, who were mostly dark-haired! (your user name goes with this, right?)

Actually Ñólendil just means "friend of ñóle", i.e., "friend of knowledge".

Ñoldor is related, it means "Lore-masters" or "the Knowledgeable", and other things. Both names go back to the Primitive Quendian "ñgôlê", which means "Science/Philosophy". The Noldor in those days were called Ñgôlodôi, or something along those lines.

[Rían]

Do you find salvation by looking within?


(and who wants to go next, BTW - I imagine Ñólendil's seat is getting numb!)


And the reason behind my other question about Tolkien - C.S. Lewis writes "If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world."

I wanted to see what was calling to your heart.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Three men went into the jungle on different occasions and saw a chameleon. "A chameleon is red," said the first man. "No a chameleon is green," said the second man. "Nonsense, a chameleon is brown," said the third man. Those who disagree about the nature of God are like these three men.

--Hindu Teaching Story

Yet the actual truth is that it is the very nature of the chameleon to be able to change colors. It does not change its nature/being (i.e., it can't turn into a horse); it CAN change its colors.

Again, I see what you're driving at. I just disagree with it. I don't see how one person can find nirvana thru a god that requires infants to be burned alive, and another thru the God of the Bible, yet I see Hinduism saying this. Am I wrong?

[Nurvingiel]

Maybe the infant-burning God is not real and/or does not lead to Truth. Just because some people believe it doesn't necessarily mean it is a way.

Am I getting the gist here?

Of course, this opens the door to everyone's beliefs and how do you know they're true. But you would get really bad karma from burning an infant, so that could be a guide too.

Maybe another guide is, does it hurt others? Am I making the world a better place by this action? If you are, then maybe that's another step towards Truth.

I really have enjoyed all your posts Nolendil, I hope you stay on the seat a little longer, at least until Wayfarer asks his mysterious question. Hope your butt's not too sore.

[Rían]

On Moloch, from Wikipedia, since it's popular (there's other info out there, too, tho):

Traditional accounts and theories
The 12th century rabbi Rashi, commenting on Jeremiah 8.31 stated:

Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.

A different rabbinical tradition says that the idol was hollow and was divided into seven compartments, in one of which they put flour, in the second turtle-doves, in the third a ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a child, which were all burnt together by heating the statue inside.

Later commentators have compared these accounts with similar ones from Greek and Latin sources speaking of the offering of children by fire as sacrifices in the Punic city of Carthage. Cleitarchus, Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch all mention burning of children as an offering to Cronus or Saturn, that is to Ba‘al Hammon, the chief god of Carthage.

Paul G. Mosca in his thesis (described below) translates Cleitarchus' paraphrase of a scholia to Plato's Republic as:

There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the 'grin' is known as 'sardonic laughter,' since they die laughing.

and from another source (don't have the link, just do a search) :

Moloch was represented as a huge bronze statue with the head of a bull. The statue was hollow, and inside there burned a fire which colored the Moloch a glowing red. Children were placed on the hands of the statue. Through an ingenious system the hands were raised to the mouth (as if Moloch were eating) and the children fell into the fire where they were consumed by the flames. The people gathered before the Moloch were dancing on the sounds of flutes and tambourines to drown out the screams of the victims.

[Rían]

Now does Hinduism say Moloch is a manifestation of God? If no, why not? It seems to me they're saying all gods are paths to nirvana. Whatever works for a person is fine. If this is NOT so, then they are selective. If they have to be selective, then it's obvious that not all worldviews/religions are considered to be right. There seems to be a contradiction here.

[Ñólendil]

Do you find salvation by looking within?

Me personally, or in general?

I have not found salvation yet.

Looking within I think is one thing people need to do.

Yet the actual truth is that it is the very nature of the chameleon to be able to change colors. It does not change its nature/being (i.e., it can't turn into a horse); it CAN change its colors.

I don't understand what you mean here. You're right, it does not change its being. It is a chameleon. The sillyness comes when people disagree about its color. In this analogy, the chameleon is God. True, in this analogy, God is not a horse. But maybe Atheists aren't looking for horses. Maybe they say "I don't believe in chameleons, and I'm not going to look for one, because everyone is fighting about its colors, and red, brown, or green don't make sense to me." It's hard to take this analogy so far in either direction, because I don't think it was made for it.

It's primary purpose so far as I can tell is to illustrate how people with differing opinions of God's nature can all be correct. I don't think it takes Atheists and the like into account. If it did, I have no idea how the story would go. Maybe it would say Atheists are wrong in every way. I don't know.

I do know that lots of Hindus don't see where Buddhism comes into friction with Hinduism. Buddhism is a religion, but some see it shares some things in common with Atheism. Buddhists generally don't believe in a personal God. Many will tell you that there is no God. But this is not a problem for Vedantists. "Buddha-nature" and the "innermost clear light" is the same as Atman, or Brahman.

Other Hindus look utterly down on Atheism and Buddhists altogether, unfortunately. The Buddha was very unpopular with the Brahmins (the Hindu priests), because he very much downplayed rituals and personal deities. He stressed the importance of non-attachment, and non-self, and emptiness (or openness, interdependence), and of letting go to notions such as "Shiva" or "Vishnu", which really get in our way. His followers were driven out of India, (I think mostly into China), and the Brahmins invented horrendous myths about the Buddha being sent to deceive the wicked with Buddhism, in order to seperate the good people from the bad people (the good being the Hindus). This is a horrible thing that was done, and there are other positive, much better myths about the Buddha in Hinduism. The Buddha was speaking to a certain audience and a certain time, which needed exactly what he was telling them. And I think everyone can still benefit greatly from Dharma, the Buddha's teachings.

So even within one religion (any religion), people are not going to agree. But I think there is nothing wrong with Buddhism, or other "godless religions" as the Dalai Lama put it: Jainism (also an offshoot of Hinduism), Taoism, Confucianism. And I don't think there is anything wrong with Atheism, either.

Again, I see what you're driving at. I just disagree with it. I don't see how one person can find nirvana thru a god that requires infants to be burned alive, and another thru the God of the Bible, yet I see Hinduism saying this. Am I wrong?

Yes. There is not a god out there who requires infants to be burned alive. What there were, were people who felt that their god required infants to be burned alive. I don't think burning infants is an acceptable path to moksha (liberation) any more than you do. I also don't think that burning witches is an acceptable path to take, or sending children alone to the holy lands to beg for a victory, only to be intercepted and sold into slavery.

Maybe the infant-burning God is not real and/or does not lead to Truth. Just because some people believe it doesn't necessarily mean it is a way.

Am I getting the gist here?

Well, yes. I think it depends on intention coupled with action. God takes any form that is worshipped with earnest faith and compassion.

Of course, this opens the door to everyone's beliefs and how do you know they're true. But you would get really bad karma from burning an infant, so that could be a guide too.

Maybe another guide is, does it hurt others? Am I making the world a better place by this action? If you are, then maybe that's another step towards Truth.

I really have enjoyed all your posts Nolendil, I hope you stay on the seat a little longer, at least until Wayfarer asks his mysterious question. Hope your butt's not too sore.

Why thank you Nurvingiel. I hope so too

And I think you're right. I remember asking my therapist once, how I should distinguish between true realizations and delusion. I was meditating, and getting answers to my questions (which inevitably came from myself in some fashion). He told me that the feeling one gets is a good indicator, and the effect it has on you. What kind of behavior does it encourage? If it makes you feel bad, or ashamed, or fearful, it is probably not real. But if it brings you happiness, and clarity of mind, or relief, etc., it is probably a truth you have come to. I don't recommend this sort of scale of others, but it is comparable to what you are saying. Look at the effects.

Now does Hinduism say Moloch is a manifestation of God? If no, why not?

The thing is, there are no passages about Moloch in Hinduism. Sometimes I feel like a poor representative of my religion, as I don't observe the holidays or the rituals, I don't live among Hindus, I wasn't raised by Hindus, and aside from those at my temple, I don't know any Hindus. I have read books. So, I am reluctant to suggest what Hinduism says or does not say, on those terms.

I also don't know what writings, if there were any, said about Moloch. I don't know if he was supposed to be worshipped a certain way, and then it was horribly, horribly, perverted. I read what you have posted here. I will say that those people burning infants were in the wrong, the far wrong, and although I have no idea what God would "say" on a given subject, or what kind of sandwich he would like for dinner (to speak of specific knowledge about God), I can't imagine that God would want his followers to kill anyone.

So, speaking for myself (granted, a Hindu), I don't think Moloch is a manifestation of God provided the information you have given me. I don't think so because at least some of the ideas about him must be completely unjust and down right corrupt, and practiced widely by perhaps the entire religion. To me, it is comparable to murders by the Klu Klux Klan, who claim to have been doing God's work. Or to anyone who murders in the name of God. Should I look at the KKK, and say "Do you really believe their God is real?" It seems like an unfair question. The focus should be on the criminals, in such cases, and not "the god they worship". Moloch, real or not real, did not commit those crimes. It was the people who did, and those people's faith was askew. That is what I would say.

Their beliefs were not good beliefs.

[Ñólendil]

It seems to me they're saying all gods are paths to nirvana. Whatever works for a person is fine. If this is NOT so, then they are selective. If they have to be selective, then it's obvious that not all worldviews/religions are considered to be right. There seems to be a contradiction here.

Vedantists say that all religious paths lead to nirvana. Whatever works for a person is fine, yes, but burning babies does not work for anyone. There are things which move us closer to Realization, and there are things which push us away. The idea is that all the world's major religions, at least, are moving us closer. This includes Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, and others. This includes any faith that is practiced in good ways. Let me put it another way.

I don't care if you call God "Mr. Shoe" and wear Him on your foot, as long as you have ideas of real love and compassion that you are striving for in your life, you're going to be okay. Just don't use Mr. Shoe to kick people.

[Lizra]

There is no such thing as "Mr Shoe".

[Ñólendil]

Bah. How can you disbelieve in Mr. Shoe? You're like an ashoeist or something.