World Religions:

[dattaswami]

If anyone says that his/her religion is the only path to God and that other paths lead to hell, I have one humble question. The question is for every religion without any trace of partiality. The simple question is: Today I have heard your Religion and if I follow that, I reach God and if I refuse I will go to the hell for my own fault. This is very much reasonable. But before your ancestors discovered our country, the literature or even the name of your religion was not known to our ancestor and he could not reach God for no fault of him. But your ancestor reached God through your religion at that time.

 

Even if I assume that my ancestor will take rebirth now and will follow your religion to reach God, such possibility is ruled out because you say that there is no rebirth for the soul. Thus my ancestor suffered forever for no fault of him and the responsibility for this falls on the partiality of God. Had the God been impartial, He could have revealed your religion to all the countries at a time. Had that happened, my ancestor might have also reached God as your ancestor. Therefore your statement proves your own God partial.

 

The only way left over to you to make your God impartial is that you must accept that your God appeared in all the countries at a time in various forms and preached your path in various languages. The same form did not appear everywhere and the same language does not exist everywhere. The syllabus and explanation are one and the same, though the media and teachers are different. Can you give any alternative reasonable answer to my question other than this? Certainly not! Any person of any religion to any other religion can pose this question.

 

Moreover every religion states that their God only created this world. Unfortunately this world is one only and every God cannot create the same world. There are no many worlds to justify that each God created His own world. Therefore any human being with an iota of commonsense has to agree that there is only one impartial God who created this one world and He came in different forms to different countries and preached the same path in all the languages simultaneously at one time.

 

Let this logic sword of the divine knowledge cut the rigid conservatism of the religious fans in this world to establish the Universal Peace. I need not beg all these religious followers to be united and harmonious to each other for the sake of world peace. Such begging appeals are made enough in the past. The religious fans feel that there is no unity really in the religions but they have to be united since their kind hearts melted by these appeals. Thus a temporary change was only brought. At the maximum one generation of the followers got united. The next generation fights with each other because they feel that there is no real unity in them due to lack of the real unity in their religious scriptures.

 

A permanent solution for this does not lie in the begging appeals, which may or may not unite the followers. Even if the appeals unite such unity is not permanent. If the real unity in all the religious scriptures is exposed through the logical divine knowledge, the followers have to be united for generations together. Therefore, My attack is not on the hearts of the followers through love and kindness. My attack is on all the religious scriptures through intellectual logical analysis of divine knowledge. The unity of hearts through love can be only temporary. The unity of brains through intellectual analytical divine knowledge will be permanent. Hearts agree but brains realize. Agreement is temporary, but realization is permanent. Thus this is My first blow of My divine Conch shell for the permanent unity of all the religions aiming at eternal Universal Peace.

[scotter]

Namaste Swami. Thank you for your post of wisdom. Although some of us may not totally agree with you, please post more often.

[pandora]

Agreed (with scotter).

 

 

Perhaps some of the Christians will be open to your perspective. If only all religious folk could do away with dogma as you have done, dattaswami. However, you say you have no god. Do you mean only that you do not have a personal Creator God, but another force of some sort? Or are you a pure athiest? I ask, because it seems to me your position is a strange one if you are an athiest.

 

Thanks for posting.

[pandora]

A strange one for an athiest or a Buddhist... is your position based on a desire for pluralism and universality? As a Buddhist (of sorts, I assume), do you still find beliefs in personal creator gods that can answer human inquiries immature or misguided? What is your solution to this?

[dattaswami]

Agreed (with scotter).

Perhaps some of the Christians will be open to your perspective. If only all religious folk could do away with dogma as you have done, dattaswami. However, you say you have no god. Do you mean only that you do not have a personal Creator God, but another force of some sort? Or are you a pure athiest? I ask, because it seems to me your position is a strange one if you are an athiest.

 

Thanks for posting.

 

My main aim to propagate the divine knowledge

On this earth is Universal Spirituality

For World Peace, because there should not be difference

Based on the religion, two people should not fight

For the sake of Nivrutti, which is reaching the Lord.

Nivrutti is related to Lord and is very sacred.

Should one stab another for the sake of this?

In India have you not heard of a Muslim stabbing Hindu

And vice-versa just for the sake of religion?

There is meaning if two fight for wealth etc.,

Which is Pravrutti, Pandavas and Kauravas fought

With each other for wealth, it is justified

Both belong to the same Hindu religion

They did not fight for the religion

It is shameful for the Lord to see such fights!

The same Lord is in two different dresses.

 

And you both are fighting for the difference in the dress!

You are not recognizing that the same teacher came

And taught the same syllabus in two different languages.

To one class He came in red shirt and to another class

He came in white shirt, you are fighting for His shirts!

You are fighting for the two languages, which differ.

The teacher is the same and the syllabus is the same.

You sit and analyze the contents of His teaching.

You treat the teacher as your Master in your section.

Is He not the Master for the other section also?

Both the sections constitute the whole school.

You say that He is the Master of the whole school.

 

The school consists off two distinct sections vividly.

If you say that He is the Master of the whole school,

The school must contain only your section, then only

Your statement is right, but the school shows two sections.

Your statements are contradicting each other clearly.

Hindus say that Brahman is the creator, Muslims say

That Allah is creator, Christians say that the creator is

Jehovah, all say that the creation is this entire world.

If Hindus say that Brahman created India, and if

Muslims say that Allah created Arabian countries and

If Christians say that Jehovah created the western countries,

The problem is solved, there can be three Gods together,

Who have created the three parts of the earth separately.

But this is not so, each religion says that their God only

Created the entire world, unfortunately there is one world!

One world only! Come on, all of you sit together here

And give me the final conclusion after debate, otherwise,

The scientists are laughing on all of you! Shame to all!

They criticize that these religions do not have even

The basic logic, which is the fundamental common sense.

Because of you, the greatest God is also mocked by them

They say that the religions are rigid conservatisms!

Even a small boy is putting this question to all of you.

Stop all your discourses and first answer this question.

If you want to say that God created the entire world,

You have to accept that there is one God only always

And that His names are all the above three names.

We see in the world a single person having three names.

If there is one God, He only created this entire world.

All the human beings are invariably His children only.

No Father is partial to a single child and therefore

He must have preached the same knowledge to all

In different languages and in different methodologies

To different levels, this is Universal Spirituality.

 

I find Christians trying to convert Hindus in India.

Similarly Hindus are trying to convert Christians in West.

Do you think that Hinduism and Christianity are two

Different political parties to rule the spiritual kingdom?

These conversions then become very much essential,

Because the ruling party must have a clear majority.

Jesus said that majority of people are traveling

On a very wide high way that leads to hell! He also told

That the way to Him is very narrow with few people only!

Krishna told that one in millions can only reach Him!

Both Jesus and Krishna speak about qualitative minority

And not about useless quantitative majority, realize this.

If you analyze, both philosophies are one and the same.

 

Buddhism is an offspring of Hinduism, both are same.

Buddha is the incarnation of Vishnu, God of Hinduism.

Islam and Christianity are separated just on one point only.

Islam treats the prophet as messenger of God, Christianity

Treats the prophet as son of God or God Himself also.

Hinduism contains all these three views of the same point.

Whether the prophet is the messenger or the son of God

Or God Himself, think, how does it matter as far as

The message of God is concerned? Since God is same

And His message is also the same. Whether God says

Or His son says or His messenger says, no difference,

In all the three cases it is the message of God only.

Unable to practice the message of God, all of you are

Quarreling seriously on unnecessary immaterial point!

Let all the human beings on this earth recognise one God,

Let them recognise the only one path that is sacrifice,

Let them recognise themselves created by the same God

And therefore they are brothers and sisters in this world.

Let there not be stabbings of brothers for the sake of God.

Let there not be wars based on religious differences.

 

At Thy Lotus Feet

 

Anil Antony

 

www.universal-spirituality.org

Universal Spirituality for World Peace

antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

[pandora]

Yes, Hindu. I apologize. I just saw your last post in another thread and it dawned on me.

 

If you must claim a label for yourself, are you Hindu? Yet you say you have no god?

[Skankboy]

If you must claim a label for yourself, are you Hindu? Yet you say you have no god?

I believe (and certainly correct me if I'm wrong) he's a Hindu. All Hindu's are really deists technically because they believe that all "gods" are just temporal manifestations of a greater power.

 

Buddhism is an offspring of Hinduism, both are same.

Buddha is the incarnation of Vishnu, God of Hinduism.

 

I know this is a common belief among Hindu's but I feel it betrays the Buddha's teachings at it's very core. For Buddha, becoming a manifestation of Vishnu would have been a step backwards on the journey he was trying to undertake.

 

IMOHO,

[Antlerman]

Buddhism is an offspring of Hinduism, both are same.

Buddha is the incarnation of Vishnu, God of Hinduism.

 

I know this is a common belief among Hindu's but I feel it betrays the Buddha's teachings at it's very core. For Buddha, becoming a manifestation of Vishnu would have been a step backwards on the journey he was trying to undertake.

 

IMOHO,

From my understanding the Buddha rejected the beliefs in reincarnation and deities from Hinduism, and was essentially atheist in this regard. Theravada Buddhism follows more this atheistic approach whereas later as Buddhism spread and added deities back into Buddhism, it became Mahayana Buddhism. Would this be a correct? If so, then yes it would make sense that Buddha would consider being considered as god to be a step backward.

[No Heaven for Kevin]

You guys should check out the website he has at the bottom of his post:

 

www.universal-spirituality.org

 

What he's selling is way more corny than good ole fashion Hinduism or Bhuddism. Datta Swami is the god this poster worships, and apparently this Swami guy thinks he was incarnated as Jesus, Muhommad, etc.. So basically he is all the gods/prophets rolled into one, how convenient for him. He is saying "Ok, everyone in the world, worship me!".

 

(Jim) BEAM ME UP!

[Antlerman]

I have a question?

 

WHY DOES GOD NEED A WEB SITE???

 

(www.universal-spirituality.org)

[Skankboy]

Would this be a correct? If so, then yes it would make sense that Buddha would consider being considered as god to be a step backward.

 

Yes, Therevada doesn't require that anything divine exist. It is the later traditions and pre-buddhist traditions that claim one can be reincarnated as a god. As being a god is a HUGE attachment to this existence, it would be a step backwards. But I agree with you, I think the Buddha was working with the systems that existed in his culture at that time, but didn't necessarily believe they were true. Much like Confucius was the expert on matters of "heaven", but most likely didn't believe in it's existence.

 

Does that make sense? In Therevada the buddha achieved nirvana, in other words he doesn't exist anymore and so couldn't have "returned" to being Vishnu (theologically speaking). In addition, he was supposed to have remembered all of his previous existences and I don't recall him mentioning having ever been Vishnu...

[pandora]

If you must claim a label for yourself, are you Hindu? Yet you say you have no god?

I believe (and certainly correct me if I'm wrong) he's a Hindu. All Hindu's are really deists technically because they believe that all "gods" are just temporal manifestations of a greater power.

 

Buddhism is an offspring of Hinduism, both are same.

Buddha is the incarnation of Vishnu, God of Hinduism.

 

I know this is a common belief among Hindu's but I feel it betrays the Buddha's teachings at it's very core. For Buddha, becoming a manifestation of Vishnu would have been a step backwards on the journey he was trying to undertake.

 

IMOHO,

 

 

Ah. So he isn't Hindu. Whatever. I bet he doesn't answer my question.

 

But yes, I agree with your definition of Hinduism... but many "average joe"

Hindus don't necessarily see it that way. It is a philosophical point that scholars of religion have found in Hinduism, but like in Buddhism, most average adherents do not care about the technical philosophical beliefs of the religion. For example, the Four Noble Truths are not well known to most Buddhists. Many Buddhists "worship" gods as well, (even in areas where Theravada is prominent) often from their own culture, apart from the Buddha. I had a professor that once said that the only Buddhists that practice and believe like we learn about in scholarly study are the monks (and even then, only an elite few are truly that "pure" in belief). Thus I suspect that most Hindus take the manifestations of Brahma as more literal than they are meant to be taken in practice.

 

I find this topic fascinating, merely because I know that we have such an emphasis on belief here in the West. Even after dropping Christianity, we still cling to that definition of a religoin... just a point to ponder.

 

Also, I agree with you on the Buddha-- the scriptures seem to indicate that the Buddha thought that gods existed, but were still caught in samsara... and he was enlightened, and to escape it.

Of course, that is what they SAY... LOL Who knows, right? Other religions' scriptures are no more reliable than the Bible.

 

LOL I just looked at his website... isn't it just Bah'a'i-ism taken a few steps further?

 

I have a great respect for Indian culture and spirituality, but man... this is just too much.

 

 

Mr. Swami-- we left Christianity. What makes you think we would want another systemized religion?

[SkepticOfBible]

The problem is solved, there can be three Gods together,

 

No they are not.

 

Allah, Brahma, Jesus and Jehovah are all different gods.

 

Did Brahma gave the following to rule to his people

 

1)If a man rapes a women, he should marry her

2)He should buy slaves from other nation

 

 

In bible god gives command to his people to kill children in their mothers womb?Did that come from Brahma

 

Buddha is the incarnation of Vishnu, God of Hinduism.

Says who?What is your proof of Vishnu existance?

[Fweethawt]

This person (dattaswami) has made seven posts as of this moment to ExC. Four of the seven posts were ended with this even though ALL of them read as though they're from the same person:

 

Anil Antony

 

www.universal-spirituality.org

Universal Spirituality for World Peace

antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

 

Either dattaswami is Anil Antony, or this person is fond of the writings of Anil Antony and likes to copy and paste his stuff wherever it seems applicable in dattaswami's opinion.

[white_raven23]

All I can say is that his style of writing is a long muddy road to slog through when it comes to getting to the point.

 

I really don't mean any disrespect, but I feel a bit of pity for any of his professors reading his papers. No doubt he got "A"s, but the prof got reading glasses out of the deal.

[All Gods Fail]

My solution is a lot more elegant and simple.

 

There are no gods.

 

There is more truth in accidentally breaking a glass than in all the mystical pontifications ever uttered.

[dattaswami]

My solution is a lot more elegant and simple.There are no gods.

There is more truth in accidentally breaking a glass than in all the mystical pontifications ever uttered.

 

Building is there. Implies Builder should be there. Creation is there. Creator should be there. I can see the building, which is in front of my eyes, but builder need not stand in front of the building. He will be in his own job. If you want to meet the builder, you should definitely put effort to locate the builder and see him. Likewise Creation is there in front of our eyes. But have we put anytime effort to locate and identify the creator? Instead of that, with least effort we can propagate to others also that God is not there. They are not only blinded, they are making others also blinded.

 

Some people who are theists may become prey for the propagation of this ignorance also unfortunately. The greatest sin on the earth is to be unfaithful.

 

To identify the builder you should know the identification marks, where he lives, what he does etc.. and we have to enquire if we don't know. i.e., knowledge is required to identify any person. This knowledge is called divine knowledge if the aim is to identify the Lord, which actually only is to be propagated.

 

Lord created this universe for the enjoyment without any selfish motive and we human beings are enjoying the creation. Like through nice parents, wife, children, beautiful nature consisting of pleasant looking mountains, rivers, sea, nature, changing weather etc.

 

If we cannot please the Lord, the human life is incomplete. We serve our family members by spending our hard earned money and also physically. Are we not serving family as Servant, and these family members are nearly equal to us. Where as, Lord is omnipotent and requires no help from us, many times satisfied our desires, saved us from mishaps etc. and if we cannot bow our head in front of Him, it is very ridiculous. It is very great honour to serve Him, this is the path followed by His real devotees. These real devotees could overcome ego and always wants to serve Him as servant.

 

Jesus preached the gospel and His followers participated in His mission as servants for further propagation of divine knowledge. These great devotees never hesitated to serve Lord Jesus and their names have also been known even today.

[Asimov]

My solution is a lot more elegant and simple.There are no gods.

There is more truth in accidentally breaking a glass than in all the mystical pontifications ever uttered.

 

Building is there. Implies Builder should be there. Creation is there. Creator should be there. I can see the building, which is in front of my eyes, but builder need not stand in front of the building. He will be in his own job. If you want to meet the builder, you should definitely put effort to locate the builder and see him. Likewise Creation is there in front of our eyes. But have we put anytime effort to locate and identify the creator? Instead of that, with least effort we can propagate to others also that God is not there. They are not only blinded, they are making others also blinded.

 

That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.

 

Of course you define the Universe as Creation if you think it's made by a Creator. We don't think of the Universe as Creation so we don't think there is a Creator. Obviously....

[Astreja]

I also call BS. I think it far more probable that the universe "created" gods, not the other way around.

 

The universe is not a building, and does not have a builder. It is chaos with scattered pockets of comparative order. There is no proof for a creator-deity outside the scriptures of various religions.

 

And the idea that we should "please the Lord" is pure, unadulterated crap. If this being exists and is as powerful as its followers claim, we aren't even on its radar. There is no honour whatsoever in serving as an underling, although I admit that it does feel good and proper to serve our peers or those less fortunate than ourselves.

 

But the worst of it is the claim of only one god and only one world. This universe is far too vast for that to be likely. IMHO, it's only a matter of time (possibly less than a century) before another planet with sentient life is identified.

 

This stinks to high non-existent heaven of an Islamic-Vedanta-Christian-Buddhist-Theosophical syncretic mess. I'll pass, thanks.

[dattaswami]

My solution is a lot more elegant and simple.There are no gods.

There is more truth in accide.....................ink there is a Creator. Obviously....[/b]

 

 

The logic of atheists is based on perception (Pratyaksha Pramana), which was propagated by the sage Charvaka. Perception means the knowledge derived from the observation with the naked eyes. In fact in the logic (Tarka Sastra) all the means of knowledge are based on perception only. In the inference (Anumana) also, the fire on the hill is inferred by its smoke. But the relationship between the fire and smoke is perceived with the naked eyes only. Similarly other means of knowledge are also based on the perception only. Thus Charvaka forms the basic of the entire logic and without logic there is no knowledge. The statement that the God is above logic must be proved only by perception. The divine miracles performed by the human form of Lord prove that there is a power above the logic. These miracles are seen by the naked eyes. The atheists must be allowed to prove whether the miracles are simply magic tricks. When they cannot prove, they must accept the existence of super power above the logic. If they do not accept this they are contradicting their own basis, which is the perception. The divine miracles are experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted. If the experience is contradicted, the experience of the atheists is also contradicted. Therefore atheists must be open-minded and should not be conservative. If they are conservative they have no right to criticize the religious conservatism.

 

The theory of Vedas and Bhagavath Gita never contradicts the perception and therefore the logic of atheists becomes the basis of the spiritual knowledge. The Lord comes in human form and this human form is perceived by the naked eyes. Even the miracles performed by demons establish the existence of super power. Therefore to convince the atheists the miracles of the Lord are not necessary. When they are convinced about the existence of the Super power (Maya), the possessor of the Super Power, the Lord, coming in human form must be also accepted because the form is seen by the naked eyes. The salvation is breakage of the bonds in this world. Since the bonds of this world exist based on the perception, the salvation is also existing based on the perception. Since the family members and the money are perceived by the eyes, the bonds with them are also perceived. Thus the salvation (Moksha) must be accepted by the atheists. A single bond with the human form of the Lord is called ‘Saayujya’ or ‘Kaivalya’. Since the human form is perceived, Sayujya or Kaivalya is also perceived and must be accepted by the atheists.

 

The Bliss is derived by the devotee from the divine knowledge of the human form of the Lord. Therefore the Bliss is also true according to atheists. Thus the goal, the means to please the Lord (Sadhana) and the fruit of Sadhana (Moksha and Kaivalya) are perceived and exist in this world itself. Veda says ‘Yat Saakshat Aparokshaat’, ‘Pratyagatmana Maikshat’ which mean that the Lord in human form is perceived by the naked eyes. Veda also says ‘Ihachet Avedeet’, which means that everything is true as seen in this world itself. This is called ‘Jeevanmukthi’, which means attaining the salvation while one is alive and not after death. The salvation after the death is not true because that has no basis of perception. Thus if the atheists are little bit patient and leave their aggressive nature of criticism, they are best fitted in the true spiritual knowledge of Vedas. In fact Swami Vidyaranya included the philosophy of Charvaka in his book as one of the logical philosophies (Darsanaas).

 

At Thy Lotus Feet

 

Anil Antony

 

www.universal-spirituality.org

Universal Spirituality for World Peace

antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

[Antlerman]

My solution is a lot more elegant and simple.There are no gods.

There is more truth in accidentally breaking a glass than in all the mystical pontifications ever uttered.

 

Building is there. Implies Builder should be there. Creation is there. Creator should be there. I can see the building, which is in front of my eyes, but builder need not stand in front of the building

You claimed in an early posting that you have found the ocean in which science and sprituality come together. From what you just stated my friend, you most clearly are on the immature river --- because you do not understand science. If you did, you would not make such an observation when it comes to the natural.

 

Call back once you've arrived at the ocean.

[dattaswami]

Yes, Hindu. I apologize. I just saw your last post in another thread and it dawned on me.

 

If you must claim a label for yourself, are you Hindu? Yet you say you have no god?

 

I want to bring the world peace by bringing the brotherly-hood among the religions. Unless this is brought, the brotherly-hood among the followers of various religions will not come. Religion is only the external plastic cover. Spiritualism is the same material packed in different religions. Whatever may be the color of the external plastic cover, the internal metallic wire and current are one and the same in all the wires. Whatever may be the color of the plastic cover, every wire will move the fan since the same current is passing in all the wires. For the sake of money, one man is quarreling with another man without recognizing the same soul that is present in all the human beings. Similarly one country is fighting with another country due to the difference in the religions without recognizing the same spiritual current that exists in all the religions. If you want to convey the greatness of spiritualism present in your religion, you must expose the common points between your religion and the other religion.

 

Then the person of other religion will become your friend. After that you expose the greatness of spiritualism in your religion. Then he will understand and appreciate your religion. But if you deeply analyze, the same spiritualism to the same depth is present in all the religions. The Lord is only one and came to different countries and taught the same syllabus in different languages. Religion is only the external culture of dress, food habits, language etc.; Spiritualism is the subject related to one God who created this entire universe.

[dattaswami]

If you must claim a label for yourself, are you Hindu? Yet you say you have no god?

I believe (and certainly correct me if I'm wrong) he's a Hindu. All Hindu's are really deists technically because they believe that all "gods" are just temporal manifestations of a greater power.

 

Buddhism is an offspring of Hinduism, both are same.

Buddha is the incarnation of Vishnu, God of Hinduism.

 

I know this is a common belief among Hindu's but I feel it betrays the Buddha's teachings at it's very core. For Buddha, becoming a manifestation of Vishnu would have been a step backwards on the journey he was trying to undertake.

 

IMOHO,

 

Skankboy;

 

My religion

 

I do not belong to any particular religion. I belong equally to all religions. Infact I am not religious but spiritual.

 

Religion is like a medium of instruction and spirituality is the curriculum. One can get doctorate degree through any medium and a doctorate will be respected by all over the world equally. Thus we should pursue to reach higher levels in spirituality in our own religion. Nobody need not change his religion. Change of religion is moving horizontally and moving to higher classes in spiritual curriculum is moving vertically, which is only called growth. Spirituality is beyond religion. Infact any true divine preacher never confined to any one particular religion, caste, creed etc, because all require God.

[Antlerman]

My religion

 

I do not belong to any particular religion. I belong equally to all religions. Infact I am not religious but spiritual.

 

Religion is like a medium of instruction and spirituality is the curriculum. One can get doctorate degree through any medium and a doctorate will be respected by all over the world equally. Thus we should pursue to reach higher levels in spirituality in our own religion. Nobody need not change his religion. Change of religion is moving horizontally and moving to higher classes in spiritual curriculum is moving vertically, which is only called growth. Spirituality is beyond religion. Infact any true divine preacher never confined to any one particular religion, caste, creed etc, because all require God.

In principle what you say I could agree with. What I object to is some one particular person who either is setting themselves up, or is being set up as the incarnation of various deities. That's about a person, not individual spirituality. Hence my earlier comment: "Why does God need a web site?" Additionally, to claim a blending of science with their beliefs, when in fact the science is bad science which contradicts accepted and tested knowledge.

 

By the way a friendly correction: You use the term "Spiritualism” You should be using "Spirituality" instead. "Spiritualism" was a U.S. and British movement in the mid 19th and 20th centuries involving talking with dead spirits through séances and other mysterious conjuring. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism for more information. This a very specific belief and not a general one like you're intending to communicate. (Just to help you be clear with what you’re trying to say)

[Skankboy]

I do not belong to any particular religion. I belong equally to all religions. Infact I am not religious but spiritual.

 

But you do use Hinduism as the basis for your beliefs. "Religious vs. Spiritual", I've heard this before as well. "It's not a religion, it's a relationship." Now in your case this might be true, religion to me has always implied an element of worship. And while you don't seem to "worship", you most certainly seem to agree with the concept of a divine being of some sort.

 

Infact any true divine preacher never confined to any one particular religion, caste, creed etc, because all require God.

 

This was my point exactly. You assumption of a divinity and that Buddha was one, is insulting and contrary to the message he preached. This "river" you claim that all religions follow is the illusion. You do not need, and indeed are hindered by, a belief in dieties to following his teachings.

 

IMOHO,