8

Some people say that Jesus came to India and got the powers by meditating. I ask a general question, MOST of those saints meditate upon the Supreme being (Lord Krishna or Lord Shiva) and get the powers will not tell us about the supreme being and instead say that

Pray me, I'll kill your sins and fulfill your material desires.

Why doesn't they say to pray the Supreme being (Lord Shiva or Lord Krishna) who gave them the powers and why didn't they tell us the truth that it is because of the Supreme being they got the powers, and ask their disciples to worship that supreme being?

Why do these many religions exist when the Supreme being has the POWER to inject faith in the people without the need of creating religions.

  • This is the sattvic abhiman that comes to everybody if they come near salvation as last test and toughest one too if they passed it they become jeevanmukta if don't result is in front of you like Daksha Prajapati,Lord Bramha etc – Yogi Nov 10 '14 at 13:16
  • Thanks for your reply. But i would like to know why doesn't those people who are the gods of other religions say about Lord Siva or Lord Vishnu from whom they got the powers. If they are devoted to them, they MUST say the name of the supreme being but not themselves (I am not talking to criticize them, which I NEVER do, but I would like to know the reason why?). – user12458 Nov 10 '14 at 13:50
  • Advaitist answer: God is the in-dweller, the ultimate reality, the essence, the True Self. People call Him by various names and various forms. Saivites call the Supreme God as Shiva. Vaishnavites call the supreme God as Vishnu. They say that Vishnu (the supreme Lord) comes down as several incarnations. Every religion has its own name for God. They believe that their God has the ability to come down as Man (but sadly some also believe that other's God doesn't). – Sai Nov 10 '14 at 16:57
  • Jesus preached the same eternal religion as Hinduism (although the interpretations can be twisted to mean something else). He said that through the power of His Father (who is God), He has the ability to ‘save’ (liberate) anyone. Just as we call our God with the name of Shiva, or Vishnu, he gave a different name to God (he gave the name Father). Basically saying that Jesus did give credit to the “God” from whom He obtained all His knowledge, but the difference is He called God by another name, not necessarily the name that we are used to. :) – Sai Nov 10 '14 at 16:58
4

What you call religions are only maps. Real religion means to realize God. If you want to know why God created all these different religions, realize God and ask him. Have you seen God? Has your father or your grandfather? How do you know His name is Vishnu or Shiva? Realize God. Before that everything is only opinions. Hinduism is THE only religion that teaches that you can realize Him in this very lifetime. Not after death, Now. It is the only religion that tells you you must go beyond the scriptures. The scriptures are only guideposts.

Why are there these different religions? Why do you like Coke and I like Pepsi? People with different backgrounds, different cultures, have different ways of doing everything, whether it's cooking, or rules for driving, or just the way we think because we're all built differently. Your size shirt won't fit me. Why should your concept of God fit everyone else? Why shouldn't you accept my concept of God?

You have a finite mind - how can you presume to begin to comprehend the Infinite?

God has revealed Himself in different ways to different people. God is all of those concepts and many more that we can't even imagine.

Vivekananda hoped that there would be not be less, but more and more religions because that way more and more men would find their way to God.

  • -1 for the claim that Hinduism is THE only religion, that... Consider Buddhism just as a counter-example. – zwiebel Apr 9 '16 at 14:25
  • @zwiebel where in my answer does it say that Hinduism is THE only religion? – Swami Vishwananda Apr 10 '16 at 4:43
  • Read your own answer. Quote: Hinduism is THE only religion that teaches that you can realize Him in this very lifetime. – zwiebel Apr 11 '16 at 10:29
  • There is a difference between the only religion that teaches you can realize Him in this lifetime and the only religion. All religions are true, all lead you to God, but only one says you can realize Him now, not after you die. As far as Buddhism, Buddhism is properly a sect of Hinduism, and also teaches that you can know Him in this very life. Buddha was a sannyasin. – Swami Vishwananda Apr 13 '16 at 8:14
  • Probably about every buddhist I know would contest the claim that Buddhism is a sect of Hinduism and so do I (adhering to neither of the two). And btw: read correctly pls. I never charged you with claiming that Hinduism is the only religion. – zwiebel Apr 13 '16 at 21:10
1

Its all because of "LOKO BHINNA RUCHI" people have different taste. People like worship god in different ways.

For example Christians like to light candle in front of Jesus. Christians presents Wine in church like we saw in PK movie.

Hindus likes to light Deepam in temple. Hindus presents Coconut, flowers, agarbattis.

Like wise i guess people who didn't like some concepts in Sanatana Dharma followed Mohammed and Jesus believed, like them most so base of all religion would be Sanatana Dharma but they migrated and started new religions separately.

As every one know the word Sai Baba also says "Sabka Malik Ek" In Kannada also we say "Devanobba Nama Halavu" one god many names.

As you see Sanatana Dharma is oldest of all other religions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion

  • You should cite sources. – The Destroyer May 16 '16 at 13:29
  • Check the time line of religion. – Nagarjun May 18 '16 at 13:18
1

There are two aspects of this question:

First, I sense a separation assigned between Krishna and the Supreme being. It is not only about getting powers from there, when you meditate upon Brahman, you become that. This has been the experience of many Rishis over time. Hence, any apparent difference is illusory. Krishna, says in the Bhagavad Gita, that He is the source of everything. Hence, whether you meditate upon Him or the Supreme being, it is the same thing. It was, infact, easier to meditate upon Krishna (for Arjuna) because Krishna was available there in His physical form and not as some abstract notion. Here is what Krishna says

O Arjuna, understand me as the eternal origin of all living entities. I am the wisdom of the spiritually intelligent and the prowess of the powerful. 7.10.

Second, you have to look at the context in which the knowledge is given. Krishna gave knowledge in battlefield, Ashtavakra gave knowledge to Janaka in a royal palace. Hence, some of the knowledge is universal and some is context-based. The condition in which Jesus, Buddha or anyone gave knowledge would have been different. The current situation is different and a Guru or a spiritual master will give the knowledge in different way in today's era. In my opinion, this context-based knowledge is the root for the origin and difference in religion.

Reference used: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-07-10.html

1

Jaya Nitai! Others have given wonderful answers. I would like to actually quote an article written by our Acharya Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur on the reason why there are many different religions and sects:

Sectarianism is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. When acaryas first ascertain and instruct the Truth, it is not polluted with sectarianism. But the rules and regulations received through disciplic succession regarding the goal and the method of achieving it are changed in due course of time according to the mentality and locale of the people. A rule that is followed by one society is not necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is different from another. As a community gradually develops more respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial. This is prominent amongst neophytes and found to some extent amongst madhyama-adhikaris. Amongst uttama-adhikaris, however, there is no trace of sectarianism. Adherence to a particular standart is the prominent symptom of a society. There are three types of standards-alocakagata, alocanagata, and alocyagata. Alocakagata is when sectarianists accept some external signs. Examples of alocakagata are tilaka, neck beads, saffron robes, and the baptism that is practiced abroad.

The different activities practiced in the process of worship are called alocanagata. Examples of alocanagata are sacrifices, austerities, fire sacrifices, vows, studying scriptures, deity worship, constructing temples, respecting the purity of various trees and rivers, dressing like sannyasis, acting like acaryas, dressing like brahmacaris or grhasthas, closing one s eyes, respecting particular types of books, rules and regulations in eating, and respecting the purity of particular times and places. The examples of alocyagata are attributing personalism or impersonalism on the Supreme Lord, installing deities, exhibiting the mood of an incarnation of the Lord, speculating on heaven and hell, and describing the future destination of the soul. The different forms of these spiritual activities create divisions of sectarianism.

Differences that arise from places, times, languages, behaviors, foods, dresses, and natures of various communities are incorporated within people s spiritual practices and gradually make one community so completely different from another community that even the consideration that everyone is a human being may cease to exist. Due to these differences there is disagreement, cessation of social intercourse, and fighting, even up to the point of killing one another. When an asslike mentality becomes prominent within the kanistha-adhikaris, they certainly indulge in these things. But if they develop a swanlike mentality, then they do not take part in quarrels; rather, they endeavor to attain a higher level. Madhyama-adhikaris do not quarrel so much about external standards, but they are always attacked by philosophical disagreements. Sometimes they condemn the standards of neophytes and establish their own standards as superior. They condemn the neophytes deity worship in order to establish the worshipable Lord as formless. In such cases, they are also considered asslike people. Otherwise, if they had a swanlike mentality and a desire to attain a higher level, they would respect others practices and inquire about higher topics.

Contradictions actually arise only due to asslike mentality. Swanlike persons consider the necessity for different practices according to one‘s qualification, so they are naturally detached from sectarian quarrels. In this regard, it should be understood that both asslike and swanlike people are found amongst the kanistha-adhikaris and madhyama-adhikaris. I do not expect that asslike people will accept this book with respect. If neophytes and madhyama-adhikaris become completely indifferent in regard to the contradictions found in various practices and try to advance further, then they become swanlike persons. Then they are our respectable and dear friends. Although swanlike personalities may accept a particular practice from birth or childhood according to instructions they have received, they nevertheless remain indifferent and nonsectarian

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .