Religion Thread - 6

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2007 15:21

SRoy wrote:Shiv,

A very good illustration to explain the situation to non-SD bystanders. But you should complete the story in our situation. The story that, in our case, the surgeon actively prevents and discourages the assistant from learning the basic scientific principle behind the profession. The surgeon actually quotes some Dharma Shashtra to preach the assistant to tell him that he is not supposed to look for knowledge.

Unless these surgeons i.e. the petty "thekedars" of Hinduism are outrightly culled, we'll have no hope.


Sroy I think India has moved past all that. All the surgeons, good and bad, are dead.

All that remains is the memory of the ritual.

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1920
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Postby SRoy » 30 Mar 2007 15:33

shiv wrote:
SRoy wrote:Shiv,

A very good illustration to explain the situation to non-SD bystanders. But you should complete the story in our situation. The story that, in our case, the surgeon actively prevents and discourages the assistant from learning the basic scientific principle behind the profession. The surgeon actually quotes some Dharma Shashtra to preach the assistant to tell him that he is not supposed to look for knowledge.

Unless these surgeons i.e. the petty "thekedars" of Hinduism are outrightly culled, we'll have no hope.


Sroy I think India has moved past all that. All the surgeons, good and bad, are dead.

All that remains is the memory of the ritual.


I believe a lot of non-metro, non-BRF, non-elite will contest your view. I'll not derail the thread with this.

But something needs to be done. Right? How do you want others to go about it then? Glasnost first or perestroika first?

You are suggesting glasnost first...a recipe for confusion among masses and collapse of Hindu social structure.

Why not perestroika first? Clear some deadwood and strengthen some fences. People will find it more conducive to listen and debate in an atmosphere of security and certainty.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9479
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 30 Mar 2007 18:42

abhischekcc wrote:Well, if religion is crap, then I insist that all religions are equally crap, and no religion should be consider more crappy than another :mrgreen:


Well said. So going by what Richard Dawkins said, are you willing to abandon your religion and is everyone on this forum willing to do the same? Throw your Bible, Gita & Quran out the window. After all, according to Richard Dawkins, they are all crap. Flatten all the temples, churches & mosques and conver them to parking garages. That would be a better use of space, no?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9479
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 30 Mar 2007 18:47

disha wrote:Oh common! $450 shoes is for the poor/down trodden. The real wealthy should have $2500 ones and no two same for the same day. And definitely different for every new day. It is not extortion, if it is, it would not have been sold out! This choos are just priced right!


Okay the Choos are priced just right! :) No argument there.

disha wrote:True. Just like some see divinity in the idol of a poor bloke who is hung by nails on a wooden cross.


Well at least the "poor bloke" felt pain when he was being nailed to the cross. They did not take a statue and nail it to the cross did they?

disha wrote:With the above statement no offence meant. But it is whatever in you that sees the divine in "things". For some, that thing can be a thought, for others it could be a cosmological constant, for some it is the singularity near the black hole spinning the galaxy like a sudarshana chakra, for others it is in the book and for others it is in the idols and for others it is in seeing joy in their fellow beings. The problem stems when one group says that one set of divinity is better than other.


Yes I agree and again no argument there. But I have always held the claim that it is my faith and my faith cannot be force fed to anyone.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 30 Mar 2007 18:55

But something needs to be done. Right? How do you want others to go about it then? Glasnost first or perestroika first?

You are suggesting glasnost first...a recipe for confusion among masses and collapse of Hindu social structure.

Why not perestroika first? Clear some deadwood and strengthen some fences. People will find it more conducive to listen and debate in an atmosphere of security and certainty.


Well phrased. I've been advocating glasnost ('openness') in inter-religious dialogue as a prerequisite for developing genuine goodwill among Indians of all faiths. This 'truth and reconciliation' process first involves 'truth' - e.g. telling history as it is (yes, including all those parts that show certain renowned figures among Hindus, Muzlims and xtians in bad light), exposing bigotry and religiously motivated hate literature, exposing social evils and malpractices that don a religious garb etc.

Then reconciliation can reasonably follow. No more 'mine is bigger than yours' contests because everybody's misdeeds stand exposed and as a scoiety India'll learnt (hopefully) what not to repeat. But suppressing and spinning truth as our avowed marxists and macaulaites have thus far done serves no one well. JMT.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 30 Mar 2007 18:58

shiv wrote:Excellent stuff - these reflect thoughts that i have had time and again


http://www.india-forum.com/articles/266 ... ditions%3F


Again, please do not mistake me. I am neither attacking the swamis nor denigrating the role of Gurus in the Indian traditions. I just want you to start reflecting critically about your own answers and suggest that our problems do not know of easy solutions. We need hard labor today to even make sense of why we need Gurus or who can qualify for this. The Gurus of the twenty-first century world will not be mere 'Sanyasins', who know Sanskrit or have studied the Upanishads all their lives. We need a new breed that is at home in the modern world and has used the best scientific theories in the market place to make the Indian traditions their own. Such is the requirement for keeping our traditions alive and vibrant today.
[/quote]

aah, my partner in rant ... 8) must find an excuse to go to Ghent, Belgium ...

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9479
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 30 Mar 2007 18:59

[quote="Pulikeshi"]Brahman, at least in my understanding, is a concept beyond any “creatorâ€
Last edited by Rakesh on 30 Mar 2007 19:01, edited 1 time in total.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 30 Mar 2007 19:01

Rakesh wrote:I don't see the logical reasoning behind God being present within urine, excreta, a bag of chips, a monitor, a pen, a car or a human being.


SIGH! :roll: God certainly created urine & excreta, but He is not present in it. Does a shoe become part of a shoemaker, after it has been built? The shoe did originate from the shoemaker, but the shoemaker does not live within the shoe.



Please pay careful attention to the following logic.

It may, or may not contradict your faith, but it certainly would clarify the air.

Any act of "creation" requires a MATERIAL cause, and an INSTRUMENTAL/EFFICIENT cause.

A shoemaker is NOT in the shoe he makes, because he didn't make the shoe from his own skin.

He used leather which is a distinct MATERIAL cause, correct ?

Now, you ( and your scripture ) claims "God" created this universe. ( ie "God" was the INSTRUMENTAL cause )

But what about the MATERIAL cause ?

In other words, there was NOTHING other than "God" until the universe was created.

So, WHAT did "God" make the universe WITH ?

You have two possibilities :

1) "God" created it OUT OF itself

2) "God" created it OUT OF NON-EXISTENCE

The First choice automatically means "God" has BECOME whatever was "created", and so logically IN them.

The Second choice is a logical disaster for your position.

For any object to come into existence involves a change of state of that object.

Any change of state logically requires the existence of a PRIOR state.

Since "God" created it out of NON-EXISTENCE, that would mean
Non-Existence existed.

This is a clear case of Reductio Ad Absurdum.

So, that position is UNTENABLE.

So, "God" cannot have created anything UNLESS it was OUT OF ITSELF.

And, if that is so, the contention from you and your scripture is illogical from the inception. :wink:

If God was present within everything, then God should be present within man as well


Precisely.

This is the precise reason why you believe Jesus is "Son" of "God" and "God made Flesh" at the same time, simply because the "Holy Spirit" descended upon Mary.

BTW, although I don't want to enter into a scriptural argument with you on this, there are UMPTEEN examples of Holy Spirit descending on a whole lot of people other than Mary, and more than one claim of "begotten Son of God" in the KJV Bible you so ardently believe in.

and then it is no wonder that why man in his depravity claims no responsibility for his actions, because God must be present within everything and thus God is the one who is at fault now!


Very good questions.

Obviously, this merits a proper response.

When you dream, what are the characters in your dream made of ? Some neurochemical within you, correct ?

When one of the dream characters murders another in your dream, who is responsible ?

Is it you ?

Now you are entitled to believe – and you have clearly stated so – that the scripture does not provide sufficient proof that the Judeo-Christian "God" does not breathe. Then in your logical world, it surely must be ;)


I asked for proof of the Judeo-Christian "God" breathing before creating "air".

Well, logical consistency demands that you respond with an appropriate quote which states that "God" was "breathing" without Space-Time prior to creation.

If not, the logical reposte stands vindicated. :wink:

That is where faith comes in. You, however, want to apply logic to it. However faith & logic don't go together. Can we logically explain how much & why we love our parents? Our children? Our spouse? Not everything can be explained logically, especially God.


Unfortunately for you, there are logical explanations for WHY we love our parents, children, spouse, and how much.

A lot of psychological ( and sometimes cruel physiological ) research has been done on this matter.

The problem with the Judeo-Christian concept of "God" is that it is posited as "truth", but when challenged logically the believers hide behind "faith".

If it is "truth", it should not be contradicted at any time/place.

Or is your "truth" relative ? :wink:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2007 19:07

There is ritual and there is tradition. Often they are derived from each other. A good priest/poojari will describe the whys of the ritual while conducting it and if you care to listen.

Disha is right about the unstitched garments while performing puja. A Hindu wedding is not a ritual act. It is an act of propitiating the gods(Rama and Sita) who are invoked in the bride and bridegroom. That is why all those guests attend its not because they love you. They get to witness the wedding of the eternal couple and get blessed. Even in SI temples the kalyanam is a very popular pooja.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 30 Mar 2007 19:14

Rakesh wrote:Well said. Is that similar to Exodus 3:14 "I AM THAT I AM" ?


No.

To a certain extent, Yah-Wah ( I am that I am ) is a statement that comes close to saying "I am unknowable", like the Kantian Noumenon.

In Hinduism, "Tat Tvam Asi" is a statement of affirmation of identity with Brahman. [ Tvam = You , Asi = Are , and Tat = That ].

It would be blasphemy in Judeo-Christian tradition, no ?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 30 Mar 2007 19:15

Valkan ji would you please care to elaborate what do you mean by the term 'God' at least in the context of whatever you have posted.I have a few fundamental queries :

1.Why did God create universe and Mankind(specailly the ones who debate 'God's very existence)

2.If the same God is responsible for creating Hindus,Christians and Muslims then what exactly are we discussing over here ? that it is my idea of God which is more accurate than yours (other religion) or something similar ?

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5378
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Postby SBajwa » 30 Mar 2007 19:24

Talking about rituals and traditions. This is how our desi society make traditions out of nothing.

Nanak Says that pilgrimages do not erase your sins or send you to heaven now Sikhs have Golden Temple and many other gurudwaras as pilgrimages.

Nanak says that Janeu (sacred thread) does not really makes you a better man, now we have people in turbans going around (turban in punjab replaced janeu for many brahmin converted to khalsa).

Nanak started Langar, which was food cooked and eaten by all (low-medium-high) castes., now we have sikhised the castes.

Sikh Gurus were asked by Mughals to show miracles if they really are divine. Both Guru Arjan dev (fifth guru) and Guru Tegh Bahadur (9th guru) refused and were martyred. but the later day sikhs like Baba Dip Singh whom Sikhs think showed a miracle when despite of his severed neck he fought against abdali to end in Golden Temple (how can a common Sikh fight with a severed head), isn't that a blasphamy? but majority of Sikhs do not see it.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 30 Mar 2007 19:28

negi wrote:Valkan ji would you please care to elaborate what do you mean by the term 'God' at least in the context of whatever you have posted.


The "God" in quotes refer to the Judeo-Christian concept of an extra-cosmic entity that "created" this universe out of nothing.

1.Why did God create universe and Mankind(specailly the ones who debate 'God's very existence)

2.If the same God is responsible for creating Hindus,Christians and Muslims then what exactly are we discussing over here ? that it is my idea of God which is more accurate than yours (other religion) or something similar ?


Those are questions better asked of someone that believes in a singular act of "creation".
Last edited by S.Valkan on 30 Mar 2007 19:30, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9479
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 30 Mar 2007 19:29

S.Valkan wrote:Now, you (and your scripture) claims "God" created this universe. ( ie "God" was the INSTRUMENTAL cause ). But what about the MATERIAL cause? In other words, there was NOTHING other than "God" until the universe was created.


Yes, there was nothing i.e. no MATERIAL cause.

S.Valkan wrote:So, WHAT did "God" make the universe WITH ?

You have two possibilities:
1) "God" created it OUT OF itself
2) "God" created it OUT OF NON-EXISTENCE

The First choice automatically means "God" has BECOME whatever was "created", and so logically IN them.

The Second choice is a logical disaster for your position.


Actually the second choice is not a logical disaster for my position, because if you bothered to read Genesis, Chapter 1 it would say so;

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Thus before there was anything, MATERIAL or otherwise, God existed.

Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

The rest of the creation story goes more along these lines. God said it and it was created. It did not exist before and it is not like he turned a switch on!

S.Valkan wrote:For any object to come into existence involves a change of state of that object. Any change of state logically requires the existence of a PRIOR state. Since "God" created it out of NON-EXISTENCE, that would mean Non-Existence existed.


Thanks for the lesson in physics and thank you for believing that non-existence actually existed :lol:

S.Valkan wrote:So, "God" cannot have created anything UNLESS it was OUT OF ITSELF.


When God ordained the fact for light to exist, he did not become part of the light. He ensures that the sun continues to shine, but He is not within the sun. Why is that so hard to understand? :)

S.Valkan wrote:This is the precise reason why you believe Jesus is "Son" of "God" and "God made Flesh" at the same time, simply because the "Holy Spirit" descended upon Mary.


John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

ties in with

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Glad to know that we finally agree, at least on something :)

S.Valkan wrote:BTW, although I don't want to enter into a scriptural argument with you on this, there are UMPTEEN examples of Holy Spirit descending on a whole lot of people other than Mary, and more than one claim of "begotten Son of God" in the KJV Bible you so ardently believe in.


The Holy Spirit came upon a lot of people, but only through Mary was Jesus Christ born. So I don't see your point.

S.Valkan wrote:Very good questions. Obviously, this merits a proper response. When you dream, what are the characters in your dream made of ? Some neurochemical within you, correct ? When one of the dream characters murders another in your dream, who is responsible? Is it you?


Dreams are not reality, but I guess in your logical world they must be ;)

S.Valkan wrote:I asked for proof of the Judeo-Christian "God" breathing before creating "air". Well, logical consistency demands that you respond with an appropriate quote which states that "God" was "breathing" without Space-Time prior to creation.


I don't have any, but my faith rests in my Bible. That is all the proof I need.

S.Valkan wrote:Unfortunately for you, there are logical explanations for WHY we love our parents, children, spouse, and how much. A lot of psychological ( and sometimes cruel physiological ) research has been done on this matter. The problem with the Judeo-Christian concept of "God" is that it is posited as "truth", but when challenged logically the believers hide behind "faith". If it is "truth", it should not be contradicted at any time/place.


Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

I am not hiding behind faith, but faith is what the Bible asks of us. There is no reason to hide behind it. You are more than welcome to contradict it. I can't make you believe anything.

S.Valkan wrote:No. To a certain extent, Yah-Wah ( I am that I am ) is a statement that comes close to saying "I am unknowable", like the Kantian Noumenon. In Hinduism, "Tat Tvam Asi" is a statement of affirmation of identity with Brahman. [ Tvam = You , Asi = Are , and Tat = That ]. It would be blasphemy in Judeo-Christian tradition, no ?


If Tvam Asi Tat means you are God, then yes that is blasphemy.

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 30 Mar 2007 19:31

shiv wrote:A surgeon frequently has to treat wounds that may take months to heal. There is a set procedure that the surgeon follows when he dresses the wound and he has a standard set of paraphernalia ("pooja items" :lol:) to aid him with his job. ...
Very often this ritual surgical "pooja routine" is picked up by an unskilled nursing assistant. He learns that there are three or four solutions used with no idea of when and how they are used optimally, or why they are used. He just sees the surgeon using them as he pours a little of each out when the surgeon asks him.

Later, when the surgeon is unavailable, or retired, or in some other place - he starts performing the ritual of washing wounds serially with detergent, spirit, hydrogen peroxide and antiseptic and then applying a dressing. In most instances small wounds heal despite the unskilled usage, larger ones heal with delay or do not heal. If the unskilled assistant is questioned by someone as to why he uses what he does he says "Surgeon saab uses all these things"

In a society in which surgeons disappear and the "ritual" is carried on only by unskilled assistants learning from each other the "wound dressing pooja ritual" undergoes a gradual transformation into a meaningless and harmful ritual. This actually does happen time and time again - and I won't go into details of how this transpires.

Apply this story to the carefully set thali/plantain leaf. The salt in the far left corner, the khir in the near right corner (or some such thing)

It is very likely that this "ritual" was instituted for some reason.

Very good analogy Shiv! :) A number of "rituals" may have been based on an original utility, which then got carried through mindlessly beyond their domain of applicability.

But a deeper study of rituals (karma-kanda) actually shows that there is another class of rituals, perhaps the biggest, which creates an utility for itself by being ritualized.

Indian theory of karma-kanda forms one of the six hindu philosophical systems, called mimAnsA of Rishi Jaimini (Ramana also mentioned it). In fact vedAnta itself is called uttara-mImAnsA while the usual mImAnsA is called pUrva-mImAnsA. Ther term mImAnsA literally means analysis, specifically of vedas. pUrva mimAnsA is the analysis of the vedas from ritualistic perspective (karma-kanda), and uttara-mImAnsA (or vedanta) is the analysis of vedas from the knowledge (jnAna-kAnda) perspective.

More recently, Frits Staal of Berkeley Univ. has been the one who IMHO properly understood the import of ritual in hinduism, and a voluminous book by him called "Agni" about the agniShToma ritual of sAmaveda, goes into many details regarding the philosophy behind rituals.

I will just briefly point out my understanding. I will take a shAkta perspective here where the universe is run by the universal power or shakti and its various manifestations.

In shiva-sUtras of kAshmir-sahivism, there is a beautiful sUtra:
icchA shaktiH umA kumArI
The universal will-power is umA, the playful young girl

If we pause to think how can universe be run by the highest power that there is, i.e. the parA-shakti herself. Despite a strong focus in this forum so far on mental, intellectual, scienfic analysis, parAshakti can-not be bound by any laws. HER WILL IS THE LAW.

So how does she energise the universe, creating, maintaining and subsuming its various forms? Like a playful little girl, as the shiva-sutra says.

Watch children play. They will start giving imaginative identities to objects, e.g. children building a sand castle may decree that a piece of straw is the soldier guarding the castle. From then on that piece of straw 'becomes' the soldier as far as the play is concerned. Then 'rules' of the play are enacted. Not because there is any fundamental justification to enact those rules. But once the rules are 'enacted' they become 'serious rules/laws' and start governing the rest of the play. At the end of the play the playful children, may just jump on the castle and stomp to destroy what they created with such a long effort, and were involved in the 'play' for so long. Then they may go back home to take a nap, and begin tomorrow, afresh with a new play, new set of identities that are deemed on things like pieces of straws, and new rules etc.

Looking from the highest level the universal Mother parAshakti is a playful little girl, that creates worlds in her fancy and enacts identities, rules, laws, and when it is time for a nap, she withdraws, to resume again at Her will.

This view of ritual is very startling from an "intellectual" viewpoint. That is a ritual gains life and meaning and utility by being ritualized and not necessarily because there is a fundamental reason behind it.

So, are all rituals as fanciful as a child's fertile imagination and nothing else? Well if you are willing to accept that the universe is a playful-girl's fanciful play, then it would be good to remain open to larger possibilities, despite strong 'scientifc' tendencies which imply that there must be original laws, rules and justifications for everything.

Several studies of shamans have repeatedly shown that a certain ritual which was believed by the participants to cure them of a certain illness, often did so. In modern medicine this is called the "placebo effect", where a mere psychological belief that a medicine is real, starts curing a patient even if the pills were in reality just pieces of candy. Then there is the topic of psychosomatic effects, suggestion etc.

In the realm of mind/emotions/body at least it is acceptable to many that, 'rituals' start to have a deemed utility once they have been enacted and assigned a role.

Advance Warning:
[The following may cause severe neuronal-allergy to some. Proceed at your own risk] :)


Hindu philosphers never stopped half way. If a ritual or karma, can start having effect just by ritualising, then it is possible to 'assign' a deemed utility to any ritual, and if properly 'assigned' that ritual gains a life and utility by itself, and not only in mental domain, but can apply to physical domain too.

In yoga-sadhana, when a practitioner becomes adept and starts gaining "powers", then that often involves a free-power to assign a deemed utility to an act or object too. This is a reason, why people give so much importance to blessings by great sages, because they believe that those sages have reached a stage where their personal will and the Will of the universal Will-power, parAshakti herself, start to merge in some ranges. And just as parAshakti, the playful little girl, can create and merge worlds at her whim, advanced sages may start to get a fraction of that ability too.

This may also be the reason why some temple rituals instated by some great sages are held in such respect.
Last edited by Kumar on 30 Mar 2007 20:23, edited 5 times in total.

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby HariC » 30 Mar 2007 19:36

If i may ask the experts here.

What is the rationale behind the earlier thought that crossing the oceans would make a hindu lose his religion? This practice existed till the eighteenth or the nineteenth century.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 30 Mar 2007 19:36

Rakesh wrote:Yes, there was nothing i.e. no MATERIAL cause.

God said it and it was created. It did not exist before and it is not like he turned a switch on!


Please re-read the above, especially "God said it, and it was created".

Now, if there was NO MEDIUM (air) to transmit the sound, and NO SPACE or TIME to do anything, HOW did he speak ?

I hope you get the drift ? :wink:

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 30 Mar 2007 19:44

HariC wrote:If i may ask the experts here.

What is the rationale behind the earlier thought that crossing the oceans would make a hindu lose his religion? This practice existed till the eighteenth or the nineteenth century.

Hindus were seafarers in early times. Indus valley shows seals with large boats, Dwarka, Lothal etc seem to have good port facilities. Indian influence expanded to SE asia only through sea route. Indian merchants used to sell spices and cotton to Rome. Indians used to have extensive trade links to ancient civilizations.

So, it is clear that this later 'practice' is not rooted in hinduism itself, but was a later development. There have been some guesses about 'why' it may have come about. Most of it is related to phobias of outsiders who repeatedly came to pillage and loot. It perhaps got entrenched in some minds that interaction with outsiders is not good, because then it lures them to the great rich land of India, the golden-bird (sone ki chidiyaa).

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 30 Mar 2007 19:56

S.Valkan wrote:The "God" in quotes refer to the Judeo-Christian concept of an extra-cosmic entity that "created" this universe out of nothing.


That means all this time you have been trying to prove what is Wrong,rather than telling us what is right.I asked a simple question according to you what is God ? When you would define it is only then I , and other BRF ites (including yours truly) would be able to understand what are you trying to convey.


Those are questions better asked of someone that believes in a singular act of "creation".


Again every thing would become clear only when you answer my first question.

anyways I believe in God and the singular act of creation,but as usual I am open to discussion. :wink:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 30 Mar 2007 19:59

Rakesh... regarding the crap, I think what you are missing is the understanding that God is not a physical or material variable or constant. It may be static or dynamic subject, but exists only in thoughts and does exists in those works reflecting such thoughts (books, temples, church, society -- all things human).

Hence, if you think God is mindfully need for 'crap', he is better there else, crap wouldn't be crap for those mindful thinkers. The very fact that crap can react with your brain ( in terms of the definition of crap itself), is by means there is existence in crap, for its understanding of meaning of crap.

a cow's crap is holy thing in many hindus especially villages... elephants crap can give you the best shot of antibiotics & vitals ever.. this is serious if you are caught in wilderness no were to go and eat, need to survive, squeeze elephant's sh!t into your mouth.. you can walk 20 miles. baby elephants eats mother's crap as the first shot after being born.. its more than colustrum.

just see to the scientific angle.. thats all needed., and nothing more. of course, you can crap it off.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 30 Mar 2007 20:01

negi wrote:That means all this time you have been trying to prove what is Wrong,rather than telling us what is right.I asked a simple question according to you what is God ? When you would define it is only then I , and other BRF ites (including yours truly) would be able to understand what are you trying to convey.


boss, you will be nominated for Speed Scroll-By of the Year Award if you claim that you flew by all the discussion of Satyam Jnanam Anantam ...

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 30 Mar 2007 20:03

Your Are That

is totally different from
That You Are.

furthermore, I don't think Veda said "That = God", nor equated "Brahman = God". we have to be careful!

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 30 Mar 2007 20:06

"I yam what I yam" is also different ...

these one-liners need to be examined as well:

1. To be or not to be
2. To do is to be
3. To be is to do
4. Doobey-doobey Do

Along the same lines ... Descartes was in a restaurent and the waiter asked him, "More Wine?" ... Descartes said, "I think not" ... Poof! He disappeared ... :)

<ducking out>

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 30 Mar 2007 20:13

so does "You Are What You Are".. in the sense, a good set of axioms for co-existence of Hinduism with other religions. :wink:

imho: Brahman = "Evolution"

sope, substituting, "Evolution You Are" or "You Are Evolution" sounds sound.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 30 Mar 2007 20:17

Alok ji are you very clear with the very concept of God ? if yes would you please explain the same to me ? The Satyam Jnanam Anantam thingy was something at very high level it never described 'God' clearly(in case I missed out on something would you do me a favour by explaining the same).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2007 20:18

Negi, Other than questioning Valkan what are you doing? Why dont you answer your own questions?

He is not conveying nothing. Its for you to partake of the stream of knowledge he is sharing. So its up to you if you come as a seeker or a questioner?
Last edited by ramana on 30 Mar 2007 20:20, edited 1 time in total.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 30 Mar 2007 20:20

actually, one more thought ...

for those who believe in a "supernatural" component to reality, rather than a logical "natural" reality ...

all folklore and religion is full of "miracles" ... they were defined as miracles by the peers of the society at that time ...

it seems that there were miracles of all forms, levels, complexity etc ... not just gods but even saints and lower levels dudes were performing miracles ...

so, what has happened today? ... where are the miracle makers?

why do EJ, for example, have to use all sorts of techniques when they could simply employ a miracle maker?

is it possible that the "peers" have become more critical, and miracle making is just not as easy as it used to be?

in my childhood, I saw 3rd rate miracle making like vibhuti appearing on Sai Baba's picture etc ... didn't impress even a 6 year old ... :lol:

in the west, miracles have been reduced to seeing Jesus on pancake or some such ...

IMO, one good first rate miracle globally televised and webcast would settle this debate ... :)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 30 Mar 2007 20:20


negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 30 Mar 2007 20:21

ramana wrote:Negi, Other than questioning Valkan what are you doing? Why dont you answer your own questions?
Oh ramana ji I am not questioning Valkan's intent I only seek some gyaan about God and the idea of creation ? If Valkan ji could explain what is 'God' and the theory of creation then the whole discussion would fall in place.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 30 Mar 2007 20:21

negi wrote:Alok ji are you very clear with the very concept of God ? if yes would you please explain the same to me ? The Satyam Jnanam Anantam thingy was something at very high level it never described 'God' clearly(in case I missed out on something would you do me a favour by explaining the same).


yes, God == SJA

simple, ain't it? ... it may not satisfy you, but it is simple ... :)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2007 20:22

OK.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 30 Mar 2007 20:26

got an email..


1984 World Mission Expenditure for the Top Twenty US Missionary Organizations With Operations in India

Southern Baptist Convention US $136,43,351

World Vision $83,647,492

General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists $70,155,000

Assemblies of God, Foreign Missions $56,799,964

Churches of Christ $52,000,000

Wycliffe Bible Translators $36,815,000

United Methodist Church World Program Division $23,155,592

Campus Crusade for Christ International $20,000,000

Church of the Nazarene World Mission Division $17,589,000

The Evangelical Alliance Mission $16,597,341

Christian Churches/Churches of Christ $15,598,000

Map International $14,180,651

Trans World Radio $13,600,000

Compassion International $13,417,125

Presbyterian Church USA Program Agency $13,104,468

Christian and Missionary Alliance $12,416,451

Baptist Bible Fellowship International $12,407,803

Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society $12,307,902

Lutheran World Relief, Inc. $11,170,396

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Mission Services $10,801,563

Note: . The above information is from the 13th edition of Mission Handbook, published by MARC, Monrovia, California.

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby HariC » 30 Mar 2007 20:29

Kumar wrote:
HariC wrote:If i may ask the experts here.

What is the rationale behind the earlier thought that crossing the oceans would make a hindu lose his religion? This practice existed till the eighteenth or the nineteenth century.



So, it is clear that this later 'practice' is not rooted in hinduism itself, but was a later development. There have been some guesses about 'why' it may have come about. Most of it is related to phobias of outsiders who repeatedly came to pillage and loot. It perhaps got entrenched in some minds that interaction with outsiders is not good, because then it lures them to the great rich land of India, the golden-bird (sone ki chidiyaa).


Is there anything published in the scriptures about how this practice of not crossing the oceans came about? the only seafarers with a distinct hindu history are teh cholas and kings from the south. They certainly didnt have any qualms in crossing the oceans. However I think this practice was more in the north who were least likely to have seen the oceans.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 30 Mar 2007 20:31

negi wrote: If Valkan ji could explain what is 'God' and the theory of creation then the whole discussion would fall in place.


there is a serious issue here ...

SJA is absolute and hence, true at all times ... there is "infinite time translation symmetry" in that reality ...

a "theory of creation", as the name implies, breaks this symmetry into two, i.e., it creates time "zero" before which there was nothing and after which there was creation ...

so, that is self-contradictory ...

the correct way to think about thos dichotomy is that "God created Time as well" ...

somehow, folks tend to think of creation as creation of "space" and "the worlds within it" ... it is easy to fall into the folly of viewing creation as a "movie" sequence of events ...

the procedure that causes "me head hurts" momemts is to focus on "creation of time by God" ... :)

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 30 Mar 2007 20:31

Alok_N wrote:
shiv wrote:Excellent stuff - these reflect thoughts that i have had time and again


http://www.india-forum.com/articles/266 ... ditions%3F


Again, please do not mistake me. I am neither attacking the swamis nor denigrating the role of Gurus in the Indian traditions. I just want you to start reflecting critically about your own answers and suggest that our problems do not know of easy solutions. We need hard labor today to even make sense of why we need Gurus or who can qualify for this. The Gurus of the twenty-first century world will not be mere 'Sanyasins', who know Sanskrit or have studied the Upanishads all their lives. We need a new breed that is at home in the modern world and has used the best scientific theories in the market place to make the Indian traditions their own. Such is the requirement for keeping our traditions alive and vibrant today.


aah, my partner in rant ... 8) must find an excuse to go to Ghent, Belgium ...[/quote]
Last edited by svinayak on 30 Mar 2007 21:09, edited 1 time in total.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 30 Mar 2007 20:32

Acharya, let's talk on yahoo mail ...

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 30 Mar 2007 20:34

It is not possible to accept Vedanta, and dismiss the claim that as the consciousness rises to higher levels, personal will-power must also expand towards the universal will power. And if the universal will is ultimately free, then a certain freedom of action must then start to accrue to anyone who can muster to rise to higher levels of consciousness.

At the highest level the "Will" creates/maintains/destroys at its fancy.

By the way, "Ananda" and "Will" are closely related.
Last edited by Kumar on 30 Mar 2007 20:36, edited 1 time in total.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 30 Mar 2007 20:35

negi wrote:I asked a simple question according to you what is God ?

anyways I believe in God and the singular act of creation,but as usual I am open to discussion. :wink:



As you can clearly see yourself, the question carries a lot of baggage.

If you wish to discuss logically, first you have to posit your belief regarding 'creation' and 'God'.

No other concept of 'God' would make sense to you, when you have a prior conception of 'God' from belief or indoctrination.

The Satyam Jnanam Anantam thingy was something at very high level it never described 'God' clearly


I have laid out my arguments in a logically consistent manner.

Whether the level is suitable for you depends entirely on you.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2007 20:40

HariC wrote:If i may ask the experts here.

What is the rationale behind the earlier thought that crossing the oceans would make a hindu lose his religion? This practice existed till the eighteenth or the nineteenth century.


Don't know the exact answer but may be related to the mlechcha factor. My grandfather was ostracized by his family for travelling abroad in the early 1900s. Not that he cared.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 30 Mar 2007 20:43

negi wrote:If Valkan ji could explain ... the theory of creation then the whole discussion would fall in place.


If you could clarify what you mean by the word 'creation' that you believe in, it would be of immense help.

It would be even better, if you clarified whether you believe in creation 'ex nihilo' or something else.

Unless you clarify the scope of the discussion, it is difficult to focus.


Return to “Religion Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests