Expert: John of AllFaith - 10/28/2009

Question
what you say about this?

who has eyes let him see
who has ears let him hear
no more there should be division between religions
for the only begotten son of god brahma creates the world during first three ages
in kali yuga shiva does the creation, his creation is that of destruction
therefore he is named satan, and brahma comes as christ
while brahma creates shiva helps to realize the truth
while shiva destroys brahma helps to realize the truth
both of them are ultimate devotees of krishna
while vishnu just maintains that what is going on therefore he is named god
brahmas body is spirit
shivas body is ego
vishnus body is supersoul in each heart
if your consciousness is egoistic, destructive suffering from satan will come on you
if your consciousness is spiritual, creative mercy from christ will come on you
if you realize your true nature, which is soul, eternal liberation from god will come on you
there is no end coming now - just one big love

you - priests and acharyas - stop the war at once

there is no mode of being more reasonable than love
from love comes life, peace, beauty and harmony

in the name of father vishnu, son brahma and holy ghost krishna - be love, be happy and be free

Answer
Hi Magda,

Frankly, this sounds like something written by someone who knows neither Hinduism, Christianity nor Judaism trying to create a unity that is not there.

The phrase: "who has eyes let him see who has ears let him hear" is a Christian expression not used in Indian religion nor in Judaism (etc) and would have no meaning for them.

Brahma is not the "son of god," Brahma is the Creator God. Different Sanatana Dharma sects define his origins in different ways, but he is never called "the son of god" and the notion of "only begotten" as implied is a completely alien concept to Hindus and the Vedas (and Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhs, etc).

Hindus at large celebrate the Trimurti -- the Three Forms --(their much older version of the Trinity): Brahma, Visnu/Narayana and Siva/Rudra. These three are co-equal, co-eternal etc. Different Hindu sects handle this in different ways.

Brahma did not create three ages. He created the substrata of the lokas (planets/material existence). Lord Visnu (the Sustainer) established the ages and there are four of them not three: Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga and Kali Yuga.

Lord Siva/Rudra never creates nor destroys, he transforms (nothing real can ever be destroyed and nothing illusory really exists to be destroyed according to Hinduism) and is in no way comparable to Satan. The very idea would be deemed highly offensive to millions of Hindus.

According to many Vaisnavas Sri Krsna is "the Supreme Bhagavan" or God (according to the rest he is a high level avatar (manifestation) of the Supreme God (Visnu/Narayana).

If Sri Krsna were to be placed into the Roman Pagan and/or Nicean Christian Trinity it would not be as the Holy Spirit but as either the Father or the Son. It is his earthly lilas or pastimes that Sri Krsna is praised for, so the role of the Son would be most appropriate (but still inaccurate) in my opinion.

As an Avatar -- incarnation -- of Lord Visnu (or as the Source of Lord Visnu according to some) Sri Krsna is the Sustainer God. The Hindu Trinity assigns very different roles to its three Gods than does the Nicean Creed, that maintains there is but One God eternally known in three Forms.

Some Hindus do equate Jesus with Lord Brahma because John 1:1-4 refers to the Logos (understood as Jesus) as the Creator, but understand that practically no Hindus worship Lord Brahma directly (and most who do, do so as Paramatma, the Indwelling Presence, which is the closest Hinduism has to the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit). So the comparison obviously breaks down at this level anyway. Most Hindus worship either Visnu, Siva or Durga (the Goddess) or focus on the Unmanifest Ek (Oneness/Unity) as does Advaita.

I could continue with this, but the fact is that virtually every line of this is inaccurate of the religions they try to draw from and the entire concept stands in sharp contrast to all historic religions and their belief systems.

Anyone with a knowledge of any of these religions would scratch their heads and say, "that's just bizarre."

No offense intended.

This is however reminiscent of what the Roman Pagans did. When they encountered various religions they would try and categorize them into the Roman pantheon. However even then they didn't try and merge them all into one and the specific categories were preserved.

In my opinion, to honor all the various religious traditions it is vital to accept them as they are. Trying to redefine their beliefs into a single eclectic belief system dishonors the various traditions and takes away the truths they have to share.

This is why I consider myself "AllFaith" rather than Interfaith, eclectic and so on. The religions all have countless wonders to reveal. They should all be honored and handled for what they are and what they offer individually.

You wrote:

".. you - priests and acharyas - stop the war at once"

Stop what war?

If the non-Muslim world stops resisting the global Islamic aggression it will fall and the entire world will be enslaved by Sharia.
Standing against Islam is our only viable option.

"Love" also includes the willingness to resist evil and wrongness if need be to the death.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing."

Love requires that we Stand.

I hope this critique was helpful,

In the name of the One God,
May you be enlightened and blessed.

~ John of AllFaith