Veda--teologie si filozofie vedica

mario_bril, on 26 noiembrie 2012 - 00:38, said:

Stiam ca vei spune asta, fii far' de griji!
Doar ca ideea era cu totul alta si la mine dar nu ai inteles-o. Pentru zeu, era important ce ardea ala pe altar sau era important faptul ca ala era doar recunoscator zeului dar nu ii jertfea nimic doarece nu era retard si era constient de faptul ca zeul nu avea nevoie de oaia lui?

quantiqus, on 26 noiembrie 2012 - 01:19, said:

Si tu si Mario ati atins doua idei dupa parerea mea foarte bune:

1. Conceptul de sacrificiu implica oferirea posesiunilor celor mai de pret pentru persoana respectiva, in mod simbolic Persoanei Supreme. Acum, in functie de nivelul de avans civilizational oamenii ofera ce considera ei mai de pret, in cazul evreilor erau animalele. Ceea ce Moise voia sa invete norodul cu care plecase in Exil nu era diferenta dintre suflet, corpul subtil si corp si cum prin austeritati te poti eleva spiritual, ceea ce ar fi fost poate prea mult pentru ei, ci cum sa devina mai constienti de Dumnezeu in conditiile potrivnice date -- triburi pe fuga prin desert. In loc sa manance ca salbaticii animalul in camp, macar sa-l aduca la cortul intalnirii unde ritualizarea sacrificiala putea sa-i mai eleveze un pic, sa-i mai apropie de Dumnezeu. Ideea era civilizarea unor salbatici pas cu pas, coborand la nivelul lor de intelegere, asa cum se practica de pilda in calea yoghinica pentru cei in modul ignorantei in Vede -- tamasika tantra yoga, in care oamenilor patimasi, care nu pot face austeritatile necesare pentru elevare spirituala rapida, li se concede consumul de carne, alcool sau practici sexuale printr-o anumita ritualizare a lor, tinandu-le sub control, oferindu-le lui Shiva, o anumita manifestare divina, cu functia de a eleva oamenii foarte degradati. Practicile acestea insa sunt foarte periculoase, dar necesare pentru unii care nu au alta speranta altfel.

Pentru oamenii civilizati si indeajuns de empatici sa inteleaga ca suferintele prin care trec animalele (vezi documentarul excelent Earthlings de pilda), fiinte foarte avansate dpdv al complexitatii emotionale comparativ cu plantele de pilda sau indeajuns de inteligenti sa inteleaga ca pe termen lung alcoolul iti intetoseaza facultatile mintale, iar sexul in exces te degradeaza spiritual, nu este nevoie de asa ceva. De exemplu, Dumnezeu ii spune lui Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita:

"If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it." (9.26). Accentul este pe "with devotion".


2. Divinitatea nu are nevoie de nimic de la noi. Posesoare a tot ceea ce exista, ar fi stupid sa credem altfel, insa dezvoltarea unei relatii spirituale necesita o trecere de la mentalitatea exploatativa, egocentrica in care vedem tot ce e in jurul nostru ca fiind DE CONSUMAT, facut pentru placerea noastra personala la o mentalitate generoasa, filozofica in care ne realizam pozitia noastra constitutiva de parti dintr-un Intreg, de subordonare, daca vrei, fata de Persoana Suprema. Prin constiinta dezvoltata in timpul ritualului ne recunoastem dependenta fata de divinitate , nu pentru ca ar avea el nevoie de asa ceva ci pentru ca altfel nu putem depasi iluzia in care ne gasim, in care noi ne credem buricul existentei, iar resursele naturii precum si celelalte fiinte, inclusiv Dumnezeu sunt acolo sa ne serveasca pe noi.

quantiqus, on 26 noiembrie 2012 - 01:19, said:

Era important ca omul sa simta valoarea acelui sacrificiu. Ca de dat din gura este extrem de usor. Dumnezeu nu are nevoie de osanale ci de cainta sincera. Care se exprima prin fapte.

Dharmapurusha, on 26 noiembrie 2012 - 11:56, said:

Religia, ritualul si filosofia pe tema ei.
Un hindus vede lumea diferit de un crestin
Brahmanul, tapiseria pe care s-a tesut universul cu toate ornamentele sale:timp, spatiu si materie
Acolo exista insa si nirguna brahmanica, fara trasaturi care se afla dincolo de intelegere , de descriere ori de atingere.
Poarta multe denumiri: unul, adevarul, unitatea, absolutul, existenta suprema, esenta fiintei sau divinitatea-care nu vrea nimic de la noi (oare?)
Tot pe tesatura exista saguna brahmanica, adica brahman relevat simturilor-(de ce daca nu vrea nimic de la noi?)-sub forma de shiva, krishna ori ghanesha cu multiple calitati strict umane: afectuoas, inspaimantatorr, duios, razbunator.
brahman revelat nediferit de fel de atman, spiritul dinauntru omului.
brahman se leaga de atman in acelasi fel in care Tatal se leaga de oameni prin Fiul, totul prin misterul Sfantului Duh
Here we go again
atman incearca sa se implineasca in brahman unindu-se deplin cu absolutul cum omul se indumnezeieste prin Isus, omul avatar a lui Dumnezeu.
atman incearca de multiple ori sa se elibereze de legaturile care il tin captiv pe pamant
prin karma unde contabilitatea cuprinde faptele rele sau pe cele bune
pentru atman, viata este un pelerinaj intre nastere si moarte, iarasi si iarasi pana cand in final se uneste cu absolutul
Karma lui Isus a fost altfel, nici nu a avut Karma, pentru ca a murit o singura data.
A inviat
si aici nu mai suntem la fel
chestie de optiune.

Edited by ThinkAbout, 26 November 2012 - 14:47.

mario_bril, on 26 noiembrie 2012 - 00:09, said:

1. Pedeapsa vesnica (iadul, anihilarea), ce este, nu tot o amenintare?! Isus a gresit prin faptul ca a permis consumul carnii, sclavagismul (chiar a incurajat sclavagismul), etc.!

2. De acord cu ce?! Cu consumul carnii?! Nici vorba!!

3. Eu nu am o viziune deformata asupra crestinismului, te asigur de asta... vad ca incet incet, subtil, de abati de la problema... Tu ai adus pustnicii in discutie, iar eu ti-am dat un contra-exemplu: preotii... si era vorba despre cei foarte credinciosi care vad in preot un "indrumator spiritual"!

4. Ceea ce se intampla in cadrul crestinismului in zilele noastre este ipocrizie, "iubeste-ti aproapele"... dar macelareste animalele... brava voua!!! (si tot voi sunteti cu gura pe sus)

@mario_bril... am vazut o inregistrare in care cineva afirma ca papa Ioan-Paul al II-lea ar fi recunoscut ca nu exista iad si nici purgatoriu, tu sti ceva despre asta?! Este foarte important lucrul asta pentru ca atunci poti aborda lucrurile din alt punct de vedere! E mult mai usor sa accepti anumite lucruri prin prisma universalismului!

heart_of_ice, on 26 noiembrie 2012 - 23:46, said:

• Crestinismul o asimileaza ca o consecinta a faptelor noastre. Daca eu de exemplu iti spun ca poti muri daca vei traversa pe rosu inseamna ca te amenint?
  
  
• Nu parerea personala despre modul tau de viata ma interesa. Ci faptul ca ar trebui sa accepti ca oamenii sunt construiti pentru a consuma carne.
  
  
• Ascetismul este una si viata normala este altceva. Din acest punct de vedere veganismul este tot o forma de ascetism. De aceea discutam despre cei ce il practica in crestinism.
  
  
• Depinde ce inelegi prin verbul a macelari. Daca intelegi prima sau a doua definitie.

MĂCELĂRÍ, măcelăresc, vb. IV. Tranz. 1. A ucide cu sălbăticie și în masă; a masacra, a extermina. ◊ Refl. recipr. Luptătorii se măcelăreau. 2. (Rar) A tăia animale pentru consum. ♦ (Înv. și reg.) A tăia în bucăți; a sfârteca, a ciopârți. – Din măcelar.

heart_of_ice, on 29 noiembrie 2012 - 01:23, said:

Eu nu cred ca ar fi afirmat asa ceva. Pentru ca ar distruge practic ideologia catolica. Baza catolicismului consta in conceptele rai-purgatoriu-iad. Baza crestinismului consta in dualitatea rai-iad, in general. Desfiintand una dintre acestea, desfiintezi crestinismul.

Edited by mario_bril, 01 December 2012 - 14:09.

mario_bril, on 01 decembrie 2012 - 14:08, said:

1. De acord! Insa nu uita ca toti suntem copiii lui D-zeu si El este Atotputernic... nu?! Daca El vrea ne poate ierta si salva pe toti, fara discutie!

2. Initial nu era asa, omul nu afost "construit" sa consume carne ci fructe si legume... ulterior datorita imperfectiunii s-a adaptat, a "evoluat"! Insa scopul fiecarui om ar trebui sa fie vegetarianismul! Un link interesant, ce parere ai de asta?!   http://www.gandul.in...tre-oms-9441467

3. Nu discutam despre veganism ci despre vegetarianism! Ascetismul este ca o picatura in ocean... nu rezolva problemele crestinismului!

4. Eu inteleg o combinatie intre cele doua definitii!

5. De ce sa distruga ideologia catolica?! Poate ca s-a inteles gresit pana in prezent anumite dogme, cinste lor daca au curajul sa recunoasca! Eu personal am auzit la radio intro emisiune religioasa un preot (ortodox) care a explicat faptul ca iadul nu este asa cum si-l inchipuie unii... ci un pic mai "diferit"!

Edited by heart_of_ice, 02 December 2012 - 00:16.

heart_of_ice, on 02 decembrie 2012 - 00:14, said:

• Iertarea o dobandim daca avem o cainta sincera. Altfel nu.
  
  
• Ce baze ai cand afirmi asta? Antropologia nu are date conform carora sa afirme ca omul a fost vreodata ierbivor. Din contra, prezenta caninilor dar si a incisivilor precum si forma molarilor atesta clar ca omul era omnivor chiar si preistoric fiind. Cat priveste link-ul oferit, pot sa iti spun ca desi nu sunt adeptul masurilor extreme, veganismul este nociv pentru sanatate pe termen lung.
  
  
• Veganismul este doar sora mai rebela a vegetarianismului. Si este comparabil cu ascetismul. Insa nici macar vegetarianismul nu este o solutie in situatia in care omul are nevoie de un consum de calorii intens datorita conditiilor climaterice sau eforturilor depuse.
  
  
• Pentru mine sunt doua lucruri distincte. Pot spune ca nu sunt de acord cu prima definitie si total de acord cu cea de-a doua.
  
  
• In doctrina catolica (desi nu sunt specialist) exista infailibilitatea dogmelor. Daca o dogma ar fi recunoscuta ca fiind gresita, ar insemna ca acest principiu al infailibilitatii este complet gresit si ca atare tot esafodul dogmatic al catolicilor s-ar prabusi. Si dupa cum ti-am spus, exceptand purgatoriul, toti crestinii afirma existenta celor doua locuri: raiul si iadul. De altfel insusi Hristos a fost in iad (locuinta mortilor). Modul in care acesta este inchipuit tine de revelatii si de speculatii.

Edited by mario_bril, 02 December 2012 - 11:45.

mario_bril, on 02 decembrie 2012 - 11:45, said:

1. Nu va exista nici un copil al lui D-zeu care to the end of the time sa nu se caiasca sincer! Imposibil! Si cand spun "copil al lui D-zeu" ma refer la toti oamenii din toate timpurile! Intra aici:   http://carm.org/universalism

2. Geneza! Daca D-zeu a creat omul sa consume carne in Eden... atunci pentru mine subiectul este inchis!

3. Vegetarianismul nu este veganism! Vegetarianismul permite consumul laptelui, a mierii etc.! Eu personal cunosc devoti ai lui Krishna care sunt vegetarieni de multi ani, sanatosi tun si cu o pofta de viata de invidiat!

4. Eu nu sunt de acord cu nici una dintre ele! Sa iei viata unei fiinte de pe pamant pentru niste "proteine animale" mi se pare o ineptie, incultura, involutie, salbaticie, primitivism etc.! Omul viitorului, omul nou trebuie sa se schimbe radical, doar nu crezi ca in rai oamenii vor consuma animale! De ce sa nu incepem de pe acum?! Ce pierdem?!

5. Conceptul pedepsei eterne este incompatibil cu iubirea lui D-zeu (absoluta), in cazul asta D-zeu pierde si El nu poate sa piarda! Studiaza universalismul!

heart_of_ice, on 02 decembrie 2012 - 15:00, said:

1. Secte minuscule exista peste tot... Care mai de care mai eretice. Nu reprezinta in niciun caz crestinismul acesti obscuri CARM.

2. Se pare ca nu ai inteles Geneza. Ti-o explic eu atunci. Desi la inceput i s-a dat omului un regim vegetarian (Facerea 1:29), dupa Noe tot Dumnezeu ii da omului urmatoarea porunca:

1. ªi a binecuvântat Dumnezeu pe Noe ºi pe fiii lui ºi le-a zis: "Naºteþi ºi vã înmulþiþi ºi umpleþi pãmântul ºi-l stãpâniþi!

2. Groazã ºi fricã de voi sã aibã toate fiarele pãmântului; toate pãsãrile cerului, tot ce se miºcã pe pãmânt ºi toþi peºtii mãrii; cãci toate acestea vi le-am dat la îndemânã.

3. Tot ce se miºcã ºi ce trãieºte sã vã fie de mâncare; toate vi le-am dat, ca ºi iarba verde.

4. Numai carne cu sângele ei, în care e viaþa ei, sã nu mâncaþi. (Facerea 9:1-4)

3. Daca pe cei care ii cunosti tu i-ai aduce in situatia in care sa aiba nevoie de un aport mai mare de proteine si calorii, te asigur ca nu ar mai face fata. Nu spun insa ca vegetarianismul este o cale gresita ci doar ca este una particulara si atat.

4. Vezi punctul 2.

5. Nu exista conceptul pedepsei eterne in crestinism. Studiaza deci crestinismul.

mario_bril, on 02 decembrie 2012 - 18:05, said:

1. Secte minuscule?! Dar de Pantaenus, Clement din Alexandria, Origen, Didymus cel orb, Macrina cea tanara, Grigorie din Nisa, Nestorie, Teodor de Mopsuestia, Johannes Scotus Erigena, Johannes Tauler, Meister Eckhart, Ioan din Ruysbroek, Julian din Norwich, Hans Denck, Peter Boehler, William Penn, Elias Hicks, Jacob Boehme, William Law, James Relly, George de Benneville, Elhanan Winchester, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Potter, John Murray, Hosea Ballou, John Wesley Hanson, Hannah Whitall Smith, Olympia Brown etc. etc. etc. ai auzit?! Secte minuscule?! Ca sa nu mai vorbim de William Barclay...   http://exegeza.net/B...rsalist.htm  

2. Pai si daca la inceput D-zeu a interzis consumul de carne, ulterior permitand consumul de carne, asta nu inseamna ca omul nu a fost "conceput" sa consume carne de la inceput?!

3. Deja o dai in filozofie! Pai daca nu este o cale gresita, atunci inseamna ca este o cale buna, nu?! Iti recomand cartile astea:   http://www.jovis.ro/...ach-386.htm   si http://www.jovis.ro/...l-China-376.htm

4. Vezi punctul 2.

5. ???!!! Deci esti Universalist?! Pai zi asa!!  

Edited by heart_of_ice, 05 December 2012 - 11:50.

heart_of_ice, on 05 decembrie 2012 - 11:48, said:

• Ideea centrala a crestinismului este Parousia. Adica a doua venire a lui Hristos cand iadul va fi distrus si cei salvati vor capata trupuri noi, vesnice. Deci pedeapsa eterna nu poate exista cata vreme avem aceasta idee centrala ce reprezinta baza crestinismului. Unii din Sfintii Parinti au speculat pe aceasta tema intrucat nu stim exact ce si cum. Printre care si cei citati de tine.
  
• Se pare ca omul a capatat cu totul alte insusiri dupa ce a fost izgonit din rai. A devenit muritor, a inceput sa experimenteze suferinta, etc. Deci cei care isi bazeaza vegetarianismul pe poruncile biblice, nu au o baza reala. Repet insa, nu este nicaieri gresit ca sa il practici in masura in care poti. Dar nu este o porunca si nici macar un indemn.
  
• Este o cale particulara precum am spus. Nu poti aplica o dieta vegetariana asupra tuturor oamenilor intrucat o activitate ce necesita un consum mare de calorii nu poate fi mentinuta cu o dieta vegetariana oricat de mult ar incerca unii sa demonstreze asta teoretic. In niciun caz un sportiv sau un eschimos sau un taietor de lemne nu ar rezista cu o dieta vegetariana. Au fost desigur cateva exemple date, dar sa nu uitam ca omul modern are un consum de calorii mare datorita stresului cotidian, efortului intelectual, muncii peste normele obisnuite. Concluzia este ca o dieta echilibrata care sa contina si carne este mai adecvata majoritatii oamenilor. Uite aici cam ce vreau sa spun http://www.ovia.ro/f...-si-contra.html
  
• Eu da. Insa vezi punctul 1.

mario_bril, on 05 decembrie 2012 - 12:40, said:

1. OK!
2. OK!
3. OK!
4. OK!

Edited by heart_of_ice, 05 December 2012 - 23:13.

Un articol foarte bine informat despre viziunea vedica asupra constiintei, a liberului arbitru si a gradualitatii relatiei dintre suflet si Dumnezeu. Sus in stanga la sectiunea "Blogs" si "Resources" mai sunt si alte articole la fel de pline de profunzime pe diverse alte teme:

http://vediccreationism.com/node/30

PS: ...e relevant mai ales pentru cei care deja studiaza conceptele vedice sau au interese conexe

Edited by Dharmapurusha, 31 January 2013 - 15:10.

Quote

Iisus Hristos este Maha-Avatar d-aia n-are karma.

P.S. Maha-Avatar inseamna incarnarea lui Dumnezeu Tatal.

Cum raspund vishnuitii si hindusii la argumentele lui Robin Collin
http://home.messiah....lins/EASTR1.htm

In link se gaseste critica la adresa vishnitilor Madhva,Ramanuja,Chaitanya

alte linkuri http://prosblogion.e...n-philosop.html

http://prosblogion.e...rn-religio.html

Like Sankara, Ramanuja affirms a deep sort of unity between God and the world, since he believed that this was clearly taught by scripture. Specifically, Ramanuja takes seriously the so-called "identity text" mentioned above, along with those many scriptural images and metaphors that assert that the world somehow emerges or issues forth out of Brahman. Unlike Sankara, however, Ramanuja believed that the Hindu scriptures, and common experience, also clearly teach the real existence of the world. As noted above, the difficulty for Ramanuja was to develop an account of the identity between God and the world that did not at the same time either deny the existence of the world or compromise God's absolute perfection.
One way Ramanuja tries to develop such an account is by referring to the world as God's body. In calling the world God's body, however, Ramanuja should not be taken as saying that God is in any way limited by, or bound to, the world as we are to our bodies: Ramanuja is emphatic that God transcends the world, and is absolutely perfect and without any limitations. Rather, in saying that the world is God's body, Ramanuja simply means to affirm that the world is completely dependent on the God for its very being, and that God expresses his nature and brings about his purpose through the world, much as we do through our own bodies. As Ramanuja puts it, "that which [e.g., the world], in its entirety, depends upon, is controlled by and subserves another [e.g., God] and is therefore its inseparable mode, is called the body of the latter" (p. 76) Insofar as Ramanuja speaks of the world as God's body, therefore, his view of God's relation to the world seems perfectly compatible with Western theism.(7)
Elsewhere, however, Ramanuja seems to want to assert a deeper identity between the world and God, saying that the world, particularly sentient beings, are inseparable aspects or modes of God. At this point, Ramanuja's view becomes particularly hard to understand, since along with this assertion of an identity between world and God he also wants to assert that the world is really distinct from God. As we saw above, for instance, Ramanuja wants to assert that even though we suffer, God never suffers, and even though we commit evil acts, God never does. Thus, he wants to claim that we are really distinct centers of experience, will, and action from God. Indeed, one of the major schools of Ramanuja's followers held that we have true free will, and thus we, not God, are responsible for our actions. This sort of distinctness and distancing of selves from God, however, initially does not seem compatible with asserting that we are modes or aspects of God. It is therefore unclear whether in the end his view is coherent.
Attempts to provide a coherent interpretation of Ramanuja's thought in this regard nonetheless abound. My own attempt goes as follows. As far as I can tell, Ramanuja can reasonably be interpreted as saying that God is the source and locus of all Being. Imaginatively, this idea of Being could be thought of as something like a universal substance that underlies, and provides for the existence of all things; individual things are then the particular form and set of properties this "universal substance" of Being takes on. It follows, then, that if God is the locus of all Being then nothing has any Being apart from God, and insofar as a thing has being, it partakes of God's Being. On the other hand, the individual properties a thing has, or the activities in which it engages, are truly distinct from God. For example, insofar as souls undergo change, are ignorant, experience suffering, or commit evil acts, they do not partake of God. In some ways, one could think of God's relation to the world as analogous to the relation between a vine and its branches, with the vine, its sap, and the branches being analogous to God, God's Being, and the world, respectively. Just as the branches only have life insofar as they partake of the sap of the vine, so the world has being or existence only insofar as it partakes of the being or existence of God. Moreover, just as a leaf on a branch can dry up without the branch drying up, so things in the world can undergo suffering, ignorance, and the like without God undergoing any of these things.
Given the above discussion, we could summarize Ramanuja's views regarding God's relation to the world as follows: i) God freely, and beginninglessly, creates the world (and souls it contains) out of his own being; ii) God determines the karmic results that each soul will undergo because of its deeds in previous lives, and God beginninglessly causes our universe and other universes to undergo the cyclical process of formation, stasis, and dissolution; iii) The world, and the souls therein, are completely subservient to God and are completely dependent on God for their existence and ultimate fulfillment; iv) At their most fundamental level, that of their existence or Being, both the material world and souls are identical with God, though they are truly distinct from God in regards to their individual properties.

Madhva's Account of God's Relation to the World
To both protect God's perfection, and at the same time preserve the world's reality, Madhva went further than Ramanuja in distinguishing the world from God. Unlike Ramanuja, Madhva held that God is neither the source of the being of the world, nor any of the entities in the world. Rather, for Madhva, at least four kinds of things always existed as "brute givens" from all eternity: God, souls, non-intelligent substances, and the matter composing the physical world. None of these were derived from, or created by, any of the others, nor were they derived from any other being. Nonetheless, God does play a role in the development of the world and souls. In the case of the material world, God is responsible for each cycle of the cosmos. God is like a great potter who, during the formative phases of the cosmos, molds the matter into its various forms by giving it properties such as shape, size, and motion, and then destroys these forms in the dissolution phase. But like the potter's clay, the matter exists on its own apart from God, being a sort of found material that God uses. As for souls, God is the controller of the soul from within that enables the soul to fulfill its destiny, a destiny that is ultimately determined by the soul's inherent, uncreated nature. For most souls, this destiny is to escape the cycle of rebirths by achieving a union with God based on absolute love and adoration for God, but in which nonetheless the soul remains distinct from God. Unlike the rest of Indian thought, however, Madhva allowed for the possibility that the inherent nature of some souls dooms them to either eternal rebirths or everlasting hell.
Evaluation of Ramanuja and Madhva
At least on the surface, Ramanuja's and Madhva's view of God and God's relation to the world, along with their belief in reincarnation and karma, seem to be internally coherent. Moreover, the main Western arguments for belief in God, such as the design argument and the moral argument, seem to work as well for their view of God as the Western theistic view of God.(8)
Despite this, a serious problem arises for Ramanuja's (though not Madhva's) worldview when we consider his doctrine of the eternality of souls. This doctrine is not only taught by the Upanishads, but by all three schools of Vedanta and most of Indian philosophy. According to this doctrine, souls in this world have always existed in a state of bondage within the cycle of rebirths, undergoing an infinite number of past lives in the process. Moreover, at least for Ramanuja, while the universe goes through cycles of creation and then dissolution, souls continue to exist from cycle to cycle, though they exist in a state of stasis during periods of cosmic dissolution. Within and through each cycle, souls carry their baggage of good or bad karma into the next life, determining the conditions into which they are born.
Stated in terms of Christian terminology, Ramanuja's view implies that every soul that has ever existed endured an eternity in "hell" (i.e., the cycle of rebirths) before it could enter "heaven" (i.e., union with God). Now unlike Madhva, Ramanuja claims that God freely, and beginninglessly, created the world, and all existing souls, out of his own being. This latter claim, however, presents Ramanuja with a very severe problem of evil: that of reconciling his belief that God is perfectly good and all loving with God's ultimate responsibility for the beginningless existence of souls in a state of sin and suffering.
The problem of evil faced by Ramanuja here is much more severe than that faced by Western theists. First, unlike Western theists, Ramanuja cannot say that this evil is a necessary consequence of God's creating creatures with free will. Although the suffering of a soul in any individual life could be blamed on the bad karma resulting from its free choices in previous lives, the fact that the suffering is beginningless--and hence infinite--cannot be blamed on free choice. The reason for this is that, no matter what free choices souls make in this life, or have made in any previous life, they cannot change the fact that they have beginninglessly endured an infinite amount of suffering; but one cannot be responsible for what one was powerless to change. Followers of Ramanuja, therefore, do not seem to have recourse to the traditional free will theodicy invoked in the West to explain evil.(9) Second, the amount of evil that needs to be explained is infinitely larger than that faced by Western versions of theism,(10) since, according to Ramanuja each soul has committed an infinite number of evil acts and endured an infinite period of suffering. Unfortunately, as Julius Lipner points out, neither Ramanuja, nor any other orthodox Hindu theologian, ever attempted to address this particular problem of evil since they took the eternality of the world and souls as an "unquestioned datum for life and thought" (p. 94).
Unlike Ramanuja (and Western theism), however, Madhva's theology largely avoids the problem of evil. The reason for this is that in his theology God is neither responsible for the beginningless existence of souls in a state of bondage, nor for the fact that they continue to remain in bondage, this being ultimately the result of their inherent, uncreated nature.(11) Nonetheless, his system suffers from two drawbacks when compared to Ramanuja's view. First, Madhva's system leaves one with a plurality of ultimates--souls, matter, and God--without accounting for their existence. Although this is not a devastating criticism of Madhva, everything else being equal, views that hypothesize a single, unified source of everything (such as God), are in virtue of their simplicity, philosophically more satisfactory. Second, even though Madhva claimed to base his view on scripture, from the perspective of many orthodox Hindus his theology seems to contradict both those passages of Hindu scripture that appear to imply a deep sort of identity between God and souls and those that appear to imply that the world emerges out of God.

pro-civilizatie, on 10 februarie 2013 - 22:29, said:

O intrebare mai concisa nu ai, pusa de tine, pe baza a ceea ce ai citit mai sus?