If our inner self is different from what we project because if reasons of diplomacy et al and to still claim to be spiritual i think is doing a big disservice to the term spiritual. Positive hypocrisy is an oxymoron.
-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Best of both worlds
- Thread starter sravna
- Start date
- Status
If our inner self is different from what we project because if reasons of diplomacy et al and to still claim to be spiritual i think is doing a big disservice to the term spiritual. Positive hypocrisy is an oxymoron.
sangom
0
Dear readers, young and old,
I am a person who turned agnostic after trying to follow religion sincerely and finding it to be not intellectually satisfying. Since the non-existence of God cannot be proved rationally (just as God's existence can also not be proved rationally) I have chosen to be an agnostic after more than 60 years.
In post #15 above I have cited excerpts from the account of a Swamiji who has been held in very high esteem and is still being done. He has been spoken of as a true Jivanmukta with superhuman powers of knowing things which happened in his absence but he could not visualize how the idol of Kamakshi looked like through his superhuman ability and had to ultimately hug a photograph of Kamakshi and shed tears of joy when he was in his last days. Is this not adequate proof for the truth that, ultimately, there is no such thing as jnaanadrishti or jeevanmukta and all that. (A jeevanmukta, according to advaita - which alone permits mukti for a person even while he is alive - would have, as per definition, realized or experienced the Absolute, nirguna Brahman. If such a person still harbours mundane desires like seeing a particular idol of some temple, etc., then he was not a jeevanmukta, obviously. By implication, the same holds good for the other venerated personalities who are all eulogised with this epithet.)
So, the gullible public is being taken for a ride. But people who have been brainwashed, will like others also be like them, lest their fragile basis for god-belief crashes and they are left in a psychological crisis, will exhort others, as may be seen from some of the posts subsequent to mine.
That Swamiji himself has said, during his conversation with a certain European, the following:—
"If the existence of God is so patent a fact and so easily inferable, how do you account for atheists and agnostics in the world? Do you mean to say that their powers of intellect and capacity for reasoning are in anyway inferior to yours? On the other hand, you will find that the thinkers who have taken the trouble to think out the existence of God and failed are men of extraordinary intellect. Their failure to prove God is not due to any fault in their intellectual equipment, but to the fact that God is essentially uninferable. Further assuming that by the aid of reasoning you can infer the existence of God, who told you that there is a God to be inferred? Certainly you depend upon some previous information for that knowledge. If somebody tells you that there is a God, you may try your reasoning powers at proving him. If you have never heard of God at all, there is nothing to incite or awaken your powers of reasoning."
It will thus be seen that the Swamiji agrees that atheism and agnosticism are natural and that the atheists and agnostics are in no way inferior to the "believers". He also admits that God is uninferable and that if a person has not heard of God at all, such a person can live godless. Hence, God-belief is at best a fashion to be followed, not a necessity. But unlike other fashions, religion is compulsorily imposed on people by the religion, through the parents/guardians.
It is the individual's choice to adopt this compulsorily imposed fashion or to leave it.
I am a person who turned agnostic after trying to follow religion sincerely and finding it to be not intellectually satisfying. Since the non-existence of God cannot be proved rationally (just as God's existence can also not be proved rationally) I have chosen to be an agnostic after more than 60 years.
In post #15 above I have cited excerpts from the account of a Swamiji who has been held in very high esteem and is still being done. He has been spoken of as a true Jivanmukta with superhuman powers of knowing things which happened in his absence but he could not visualize how the idol of Kamakshi looked like through his superhuman ability and had to ultimately hug a photograph of Kamakshi and shed tears of joy when he was in his last days. Is this not adequate proof for the truth that, ultimately, there is no such thing as jnaanadrishti or jeevanmukta and all that. (A jeevanmukta, according to advaita - which alone permits mukti for a person even while he is alive - would have, as per definition, realized or experienced the Absolute, nirguna Brahman. If such a person still harbours mundane desires like seeing a particular idol of some temple, etc., then he was not a jeevanmukta, obviously. By implication, the same holds good for the other venerated personalities who are all eulogised with this epithet.)
So, the gullible public is being taken for a ride. But people who have been brainwashed, will like others also be like them, lest their fragile basis for god-belief crashes and they are left in a psychological crisis, will exhort others, as may be seen from some of the posts subsequent to mine.
That Swamiji himself has said, during his conversation with a certain European, the following:—
"If the existence of God is so patent a fact and so easily inferable, how do you account for atheists and agnostics in the world? Do you mean to say that their powers of intellect and capacity for reasoning are in anyway inferior to yours? On the other hand, you will find that the thinkers who have taken the trouble to think out the existence of God and failed are men of extraordinary intellect. Their failure to prove God is not due to any fault in their intellectual equipment, but to the fact that God is essentially uninferable. Further assuming that by the aid of reasoning you can infer the existence of God, who told you that there is a God to be inferred? Certainly you depend upon some previous information for that knowledge. If somebody tells you that there is a God, you may try your reasoning powers at proving him. If you have never heard of God at all, there is nothing to incite or awaken your powers of reasoning."
It will thus be seen that the Swamiji agrees that atheism and agnosticism are natural and that the atheists and agnostics are in no way inferior to the "believers". He also admits that God is uninferable and that if a person has not heard of God at all, such a person can live godless. Hence, God-belief is at best a fashion to be followed, not a necessity. But unlike other fashions, religion is compulsorily imposed on people by the religion, through the parents/guardians.
It is the individual's choice to adopt this compulsorily imposed fashion or to leave it.
sangom
0
Interest in the Society....
In Sep 2007, I left my son at Stanford, CA for his undergraduate education... he was raised in a very Secular environment. He never had any Religious or Spiritual education. Practically he was raised as an Atheist.
When I left, I told him "Kid, Don't get into problems; focus on your studies"... nearly the same advice my parents gave me June 1967 when I went to Madura College, Madurai, TN.
After about 6 weeks, when I visited the Stanford Campus Newspaper online, I saw his picture with a huge banner on his shoulder reading, "Where are our Rights...?" heralding a huge crowd of university employees.
I called and asked him, "What's going on?". This is what he said, "I am in PRAGMATIC SOLIDARITY with the Poor and the Voiceless; Stanford has not been treating the new immigrant employees right.... I am fighting for their RIGHTS... I am marching with them to see the Provost".
I asked, "Can't the Seniors take care of it?"
"No, Dad, I need to do my part... I just can't wait for others do theirs...because we all have our duties"
I murmured under my breath, "Yes, I raised him well as a full fledged citizen".
He is today living among one of the rural Haitians to understand their problems!
Where's God in all this?
Shri Y,
When one believes that whatever happens (well) is due to God and whatever goes wrong is due to one's own Poorva Janma Karma, all that you have listed above happened merely because God allowed it, kindly. He could have just spoiled the whole show in a myriad ways with just one snap of his holy finger.
Beware and LOL if you still feel like.
Govinda
0
Nara, the whole world, in 16 directions are materially oriented. Only with the change in the inside, we can change our perception of the outer world. By changing a few, will inturn change a hundred thus to many. We might then change and reorg the village, then the city ... the world.
Our ancestors opposed the British education/ways till 1860 from the day of mughals. With butchering of 10 million by mughals, 12 hard hit famines losing about 5 million hindus during East India reign, and whole country suffering in poverty, our spiritual,simple people accepted to the idea of British administration. It was 2000 years of struggle, until they decided to lose their simple, human, natural ways of living for appeasing the atrocious, vile, material beasts.
So, it should take another 2000 years to bring back our minds back to spirituality. So, be it NithyAnanda, Baba or xyz, even our vedic acharyas don't see any competition from them. They are in a way guiding people towards such change, though it is slow and incomprehensive. We need a beginning somewhere.
My dear younger people:
Here's a part of what Steve Jobs - the Secular Prophet - told you at the Commencement Speech in Stanford University (2005) a year after diagnosis of pancreatic cancer:
"No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It's life's change agent; it clears out the old to make way for the new.
Right now, the new is you. But someday, not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it's quite true.
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life.
Don't be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people's thinking.
Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition.
They somehow already know what you truly want to become."
Please note of the "inner voice, heart and intuition" that I have been writing about - it's there in everyone irrespective of being a Believer or an Atheist.
Steve became a Zen Buddhist first, then an Atheist. He believed in Science, Engineering & Technology more than anything else.
Please follow what the Secular Prophet told you.
Here's a part of what Steve Jobs - the Secular Prophet - told you at the Commencement Speech in Stanford University (2005) a year after diagnosis of pancreatic cancer:
"No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It's life's change agent; it clears out the old to make way for the new.
Right now, the new is you. But someday, not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it's quite true.
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life.
Don't be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people's thinking.
Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition.
They somehow already know what you truly want to become."
Please note of the "inner voice, heart and intuition" that I have been writing about - it's there in everyone irrespective of being a Believer or an Atheist.
Steve became a Zen Buddhist first, then an Atheist. He believed in Science, Engineering & Technology more than anything else.
Please follow what the Secular Prophet told you.
Last edited:
renuka
Well-known member
Dear Yamaka,
Wow I am surprised to read this line you wrote:
How come you have given a gender to something that is NON Existent for you!!!LOL
prasad1
Active member
Y,
I think you give credit to Steven Jobs, under the impression that he was secular.
For your information he was Buddhist. Then you will conveniently claim Buddhism is not a religion. LOL
"The New Yorker released its tribute cover of Steve
There’s only one problem here: Steve Jobs was a Buddhist."
I think you give credit to Steven Jobs, under the impression that he was secular.
For your information he was Buddhist. Then you will conveniently claim Buddhism is not a religion. LOL
"The New Yorker released its tribute cover of Steve
Jobs
, which will grace the October 17 edition of the magazine. In a blog post, The New Yorker shows that the cover will depict Steve Jobs meeting
Saint Peter at the pearly gates. Saint Peter is using an iPad, apparently using it to do a little research before deciding if Jobs will be admitted to heaven or sent to a place with a warmer climate.There’s only one problem here: Steve Jobs was a Buddhist."
Last edited:
renuka
Well-known member
Wow what insight Steve Jobs had:
punarapi jananam punarapi maranam
punarapi jananii jathare shayanam
iha samsaare bahudustaare
kripayaa apaare paahi muraare
punarapi jananii jathare shayanam
iha samsaare bahudustaare
kripayaa apaare paahi muraare
Born again, death again, birth again to stay in the mother's womb! It is indeed hard to cross this boundless ocean of samsara. Oh Murari! Redeem me through Thy mercy.
vasamsi jirnani yatha vihaya
navani grhnati naro ’parani
tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany
anyani samyati navani dehi
navani grhnati naro ’parani
tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany
anyani samyati navani dehi
Translation
As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones. mudha jahiihi dhanaagamatrishhnaam
kuru sadbuddhim manasi vitrishhnaam
yallabhase nijakarmopaattam
vittam tena vinodaya chittam
kuru sadbuddhim manasi vitrishhnaam
yallabhase nijakarmopaattam
vittam tena vinodaya chittam
Oh fool! Give up your thirst to amass wealth, devote your mind to thoughts to the Real. Be content with what comes through actions already performed in the past.
He was truly a realized Soul!!!
He was truly a realized Soul!!!
Last edited:
renuka
Well-known member
Interest in the Society....
In Sep 2007, I left my son at Stanford, CA for his undergraduate education... he was raised in a very Secular environment. He never had any Religious or Spiritual education. Practically he was raised as an Atheist.
When I left, I told him "Kid, Don't get into problems; focus on your studies"... nearly the same advice my parents gave me June 1967 when I went to Madura College, Madurai, TN.
After about 6 weeks, when I visited the Stanford Campus Newspaper online, I saw his picture with a huge banner on his shoulder reading, "Where are our Rights...?" heralding a huge crowd of university employees.
I called and asked him, "What's going on?". This is what he said, "I am in PRAGMATIC SOLIDARITY with the Poor and the Voiceless; Stanford has not been treating the new immigrant employees right.... I am fighting for their RIGHTS... I am marching with them to see the Provost".
I asked, "Can't the Seniors take care of it?"
"No, Dad, I need to do my part... I just can't wait for others do theirs...because we all have our duties"
I murmured under my breath, "Yes, I raised him well as a full fledged citizen".
He is today living among one of the rural Haitians to understand their problems!
Where's God in all this?
Dear Yamaka,
You asked :
Answer : In your son's actions.
OP
OP
sravna
Well-known member
Dear Yamaka,
If there is only one life, what is the point of all that one achieves during one's life? If everything is going to perish what is the significance of creation? There is really no point in all what one does. Is it going to matter in the final analysis? Unless you think you can be immortal . But I do not think physical immortality is possible. Anything physical will eventually perish. So don't build castles in the air.
If there is only one life, what is the point of all that one achieves during one's life? If everything is going to perish what is the significance of creation? There is really no point in all what one does. Is it going to matter in the final analysis? Unless you think you can be immortal . But I do not think physical immortality is possible. Anything physical will eventually perish. So don't build castles in the air.
N.R.Ranganathan
Active member
It is not that everything said or written in the scriptures is accepted . Sri
Adi Sankara, in his commentaries, has clearly raised objections called
purva paksha and answered them logically. Again, he put himself in the
position of possible opponents to the explanation, raised further queries and
answered them. Thus he subjected his analysis to the possible criticisms
and provided logical answers. He himself held the view that everything
must be subjected to scrutiny and then only accepted.
Adi Sankara, in his commentaries, has clearly raised objections called
purva paksha and answered them logically. Again, he put himself in the
position of possible opponents to the explanation, raised further queries and
answered them. Thus he subjected his analysis to the possible criticisms
and provided logical answers. He himself held the view that everything
must be subjected to scrutiny and then only accepted.
C RAVI
0
A different outwardly projection for the sake of diplomacy would nullify one's spirituality within onself?? And that's the big disservice to the term spiritual?
I don't know whom you are talking about? I mean, with whom you are associating the term "Positive Hypocricy", coined by Sri Sravna?
If you are keeping yogis/sadhus/gurujis (God Men) in your mind and attempting to demonstrate your counter argument in order to consider "Positive Hypocrisy" an oxymoron, than you are utterly wrong.
AS WELL
If you are keeping Atheist in your mind and attempting to make a convincing rejection of the term "Positive Hypocrisy" and consider it as an oxymoron, than you are absolutely wrong.
AS WELL
If, in your friends circle you know some men who do all poojas at home as true bhaktha and profess and preach a differnt concepts and phylosophy considering enlightening humans for the better and present onself as social reformist, practical oriented & smart personality, rediculing the inner spirituality of the theist in this chellenging environment, your consideration of "Positive Hypocrisy" as an oxymoron, would than be a great disservice to friendship, unless you are the same as your friend.
------------------------------------
"Positive Hypocrisy" needed to be administered by Theists in order to keep oneself energized and directed by inner spiritual conscious, who all have to cope with this fast progressing and competing globalized world and be in synch with the changing environment.
Neither to abandon one's spiritual inclinitiion and the values and principles arising out of purest inner spiritual self Nor to be blinded and remain mental blocked, restricting one self from being pragmatic.
"Positive Hypocrisy" will be understood as doing disservice to the term "spiritual" and an oxymoron Unless one is a theist, a matured and a sincere person with some reasonable wisdom.
Last edited:
OP
OP
sravna
Well-known member
Dear Amala,
Many spiritually inclined people do not really adapt in the right way but greatly compromise on their values. The problem is they think there is substance to the present day pragmatism. Pragmatism of today is based on the principle of survival of the fittest. This is invariably done by reducing your opponent than by elevating self.
Pragmatism of today is not in tune with good values. It views them as naive. The way I think the spiritualists need to be counter this, is by being pragmatic themselves. Just as the real pragmatists view good values as naive you view this view of pragmatism itself as naive. That way you become a super pragmatist. If you do not take the views of present day pragmatism to heart or very seriously you have formed the right perspective and your adaptation is likely to be very effective. You can very well remain a spiritualist at heart.
After all, what is pragmatism? It is survival and not withering away. The point is if you can laugh away the concepts underlying the present day pragmatism you yourself are being both pragmatic and also retain your spirituality. You do not have to think of compromising. Your actions and reactions will automatically be appropriate and look pragmatic. But I think it does take some good resolve to practice.
Many spiritually inclined people do not really adapt in the right way but greatly compromise on their values. The problem is they think there is substance to the present day pragmatism. Pragmatism of today is based on the principle of survival of the fittest. This is invariably done by reducing your opponent than by elevating self.
Pragmatism of today is not in tune with good values. It views them as naive. The way I think the spiritualists need to be counter this, is by being pragmatic themselves. Just as the real pragmatists view good values as naive you view this view of pragmatism itself as naive. That way you become a super pragmatist. If you do not take the views of present day pragmatism to heart or very seriously you have formed the right perspective and your adaptation is likely to be very effective. You can very well remain a spiritualist at heart.
After all, what is pragmatism? It is survival and not withering away. The point is if you can laugh away the concepts underlying the present day pragmatism you yourself are being both pragmatic and also retain your spirituality. You do not have to think of compromising. Your actions and reactions will automatically be appropriate and look pragmatic. But I think it does take some good resolve to practice.
Last edited:
C RAVI
0
Very well explained Sri Sravna...
IMO, as I stated in my post #37, one need to belong to the other world (spiritual side) as well, as per your thread tittle (Best of both worlds), to understand what your are trying to convey.
OP
OP
sravna
Well-known member
Sure Ravi.
The main point can also be stated like this: When someone tries to mock or suppress the good values, you should see the inbuilt paradox in that as good values can never be triumphed over.
I consider the above as a law of nature and anything that attempts to contravene it, sooner or later, is made to redress.
Last edited:
sangom
0
Dear Shri Sravna and Shri Y,
Permit me to say something. There is a saying:-
பழுத்த இலை காம்பு அற்று விழும், பச்சை இலை ஒரு நாள் பழுக்கும், ஆனால் கொம்பு வளர்ந்து கொண்டே இருக்கும்
paḻutta ilai kāmpu aṟṟu viḻum, paccai ilai oru nāḷ paḻukkum, āṉāl kompu vaḷarntu koṇṭe irukkum
Similar to the above phenomenon which we see all around us in nature, each life contributes to the humanity as a whole. What that humanity does to us is an opportunity to study and learn from it through history and many other sources.
I don't think even the most orthodox people believe in reincarnation of plant/tree leaves, jeevas for individual leaf, etc. Our individual human life is analogous to the life of a leaf. Just as the leaf grows initially by drawing sustenance from the tree through the branch to which it is attached, each human being also grows, up to some stage. Thereafter just as the leaf makes food, energy and oxygen through photosynthesis, we human beings should also contribute positively to humanity in the small way available to us. That is the purpose of life.
But religions have done an excellent job of indoctrinating human minds to do many many undesirable things and the cumulative effect has been degradation of humanity. The analogy here will be imho, drill a small hole in the main trunk of some tree (I have seen this work in coconut trees and jackfruit trees) and inject a few drops of mercury (Hg). The tree will wither away gradually, pathetically, in a few months. In the case of humanity, may be it will take centuries or millennia, for the mercury of religion to complete its task.
PS: In Malayalam, mercury is called "rasam" and the above job is known as "rasam veykkuka".
Thank you SravnaJi. I read you. But i was very confused over what Ravi was trying to say in his very long post to me. I was merely saying positive hypocrisy is an oxymoron not keeping anyone in mind as Ravi seems to think I am. Replacing positive hypocrisy with being pragmatic sure does make a wor(l)d of difference
namaste everyone.
I am a late entrant to this thread. My impressions:
OP of Sravana:
Sravana, from what I see around, these days it is doubtful a TamBram men, even after his retirement, takes up his brAHmaNa dharma seriously and do at least the prAtaH sandhyAvandanam and be regular in his other nitya karma or pUja or pitRu tarpaNam and at least get to know the basics of our ancient Hindu texts. Most TamBram women, specially after their marriage, are fairly regular and devout their religious routines.
• It is no wonder then, that our TamBram people who are in a job, find hardly any time or inclination to even know and do the basics of Hindu Dharma. Most of their leisure time is spent in watching TV or browsing the Net, and such is also the case with our TamBram elders.
• However, TamBram people, who are willing to share their opinions and learn, resort to forums such us TBF, HDF and such others. Taking the case of TBF, we find that the most number of threads and posts is in the 'General Section', which is the worldliest of all the sub-forums.
• I sometimes wonder, whether we had been/are, like passive smokers, passive atheists during the times we were/are young and able that we find it difficult/reluctant to take up our dharma, even to a minimum extent.
Post #4 of Yamaka:
As I wrote before many times, everyone has conscience and "inner self" whether you believe in God or not.. In fact, a FAITH is not required to have a "conscience and the inner self", with which an Atheist can lead a moral and ethical life...
I wonder if it is not hypocritical to say outwardly that there is no 'inner self', it's all only the action in the brain and its neural network, but still feel the 'inner self' and conscience at heart, specially when the element of faith is supposed to be completely absent. Perhaps the consciousness of the forest rubs on its trees, some of which are atheistic trees. (This is not to say that an atheist cannot be ethical and moral, only point out the difference between what we say and feel.)
Post #7 of Sangom:
Although a declared agnostic, are you not doing the same thing yourself that you accuse the theists of: watching the milk and the cat at the same time? You have said that you believe in God and pUrva janma karma, you are well-versed in the ancient scriptures that you explain when people ask you to, and yet you are dead against brAhmaNa dharma and its AchAryas. At the same time you are in the fond hope that science would have all the answers ultimately. Where does this fit in, in your milk and cat example?
Post #8 of Nara:
sravna, have you been smoking weed or something, really???
Is 'smoking weed' is a sort of modern American idiom, Nara? If it is not, your question, however friendly and sportive it was, was in bad taste.
Post #10 of Prasad:
It is not possible to change opinions when both sides think they know best.
This is a good point: peaceful co-existence with mutual respect is always best. But what we find most of the time in our discussions here is that the peaceful co-existence is forced, and the mutual respect is conspicuous by its absence.
But Sravana's idea, I think, is that how much can the theists dilute their religious obligations and spiritual sAdhana in their daily life surrounded by its paraphernalia of the necessaries of modern, worldly life.
I am a late entrant to this thread. My impressions:
OP of Sravana:
Sravana, from what I see around, these days it is doubtful a TamBram men, even after his retirement, takes up his brAHmaNa dharma seriously and do at least the prAtaH sandhyAvandanam and be regular in his other nitya karma or pUja or pitRu tarpaNam and at least get to know the basics of our ancient Hindu texts. Most TamBram women, specially after their marriage, are fairly regular and devout their religious routines.
• It is no wonder then, that our TamBram people who are in a job, find hardly any time or inclination to even know and do the basics of Hindu Dharma. Most of their leisure time is spent in watching TV or browsing the Net, and such is also the case with our TamBram elders.
• However, TamBram people, who are willing to share their opinions and learn, resort to forums such us TBF, HDF and such others. Taking the case of TBF, we find that the most number of threads and posts is in the 'General Section', which is the worldliest of all the sub-forums.
• I sometimes wonder, whether we had been/are, like passive smokers, passive atheists during the times we were/are young and able that we find it difficult/reluctant to take up our dharma, even to a minimum extent.
Post #4 of Yamaka:
As I wrote before many times, everyone has conscience and "inner self" whether you believe in God or not.. In fact, a FAITH is not required to have a "conscience and the inner self", with which an Atheist can lead a moral and ethical life...
I wonder if it is not hypocritical to say outwardly that there is no 'inner self', it's all only the action in the brain and its neural network, but still feel the 'inner self' and conscience at heart, specially when the element of faith is supposed to be completely absent. Perhaps the consciousness of the forest rubs on its trees, some of which are atheistic trees. (This is not to say that an atheist cannot be ethical and moral, only point out the difference between what we say and feel.)
Post #7 of Sangom:
Although a declared agnostic, are you not doing the same thing yourself that you accuse the theists of: watching the milk and the cat at the same time? You have said that you believe in God and pUrva janma karma, you are well-versed in the ancient scriptures that you explain when people ask you to, and yet you are dead against brAhmaNa dharma and its AchAryas. At the same time you are in the fond hope that science would have all the answers ultimately. Where does this fit in, in your milk and cat example?
Post #8 of Nara:
sravna, have you been smoking weed or something, really???
Is 'smoking weed' is a sort of modern American idiom, Nara? If it is not, your question, however friendly and sportive it was, was in bad taste.
Post #10 of Prasad:
It is not possible to change opinions when both sides think they know best.
This is a good point: peaceful co-existence with mutual respect is always best. But what we find most of the time in our discussions here is that the peaceful co-existence is forced, and the mutual respect is conspicuous by its absence.
But Sravana's idea, I think, is that how much can the theists dilute their religious obligations and spiritual sAdhana in their daily life surrounded by its paraphernalia of the necessaries of modern, worldly life.
Last edited:
C RAVI
0
Interest in the Society....
In Sep 2007, I left my son at Stanford, CA for his undergraduate education... he was raised in a very Secular environment. He never had any Religious or Spiritual education. Practically he was raised as an Atheist.
When I left, I told him "Kid, Don't get into problems; focus on your studies"... nearly the same advice my parents gave me June 1967 when I went to Madura College, Madurai, TN.
After about 6 weeks, when I visited the Stanford Campus Newspaper online, I saw his picture with a huge banner on his shoulder reading, "Where are our Rights...?" heralding a huge crowd of university employees.
I called and asked him, "What's going on?". This is what he said, "I am in PRAGMATIC SOLIDARITY with the Poor and the Voiceless; Stanford has not been treating the new immigrant employees right.... I am fighting for their RIGHTS... I am marching with them to see the Provost".
I asked, "Can't the Seniors take care of it?"
"No, Dad, I need to do my part... I just can't wait for others do theirs...because we all have our duties"
I murmured under my breath, "Yes, I raised him well as a full fledged citizen".
He is today living among one of the rural Haitians to understand their problems!
Where's God in all this?
Sri Yamaka,
I am really touched with humanists qualities in your son right from his youth. It is your pride and pleasure to have your children like you - A humanist and a Naturalist.
People of this sort are the must to sustain human life in this planet in true sense. We all should bless them and wish them all success in their endeavor towards social service.
Now to the debating point -
As I have stated in another thread - "Karma Theory", please bear the point that, though you are Atheist and your children been brought up as Atheist, your wife, that is your chidren's mother is a Theist who often visits temple and pray the allmighty for the wellbeing of each of her family members. Other than that you couples were been blessed with good children.
Please be noted that such kind hearted, successful and huminst sons/daughters are there who all been brought up as theists by their theists parents, doing their part to the society to the best of their ability.
Please be noted that reverse kinda humans survived and surviving in this world irrespective of how they been brought up (as theist or atheist) by their theist or atheist parents.
Just because many good things are existing in this world, the existence of bad things can not be ruled out and vice versa.
Just because we dont believe in God and spirituality does'nt mean we gonna be criminal.
As well just because we believe in God and spirituality doesn't mean that we can be materilistically fulfilling.
Being moral and immoral as well got nothing to do with belief or non belief in God and spirituality.
Being humanist, naturalist, socialist, criminal, moral, immoral, hypocrite, mental, balanced etc..etc are human qualities, the qualities of the soul and got nothing to do with the ultimate truth of God and Spirituality.
Unfortunately we can Wait and Watch what's happening around us only in our present life and some people never could get to watch the ultimate truth of God and Spirituality till the end and get their firm conclusioin against the existence of God and the value of Spirituality.
No isses. The soul would undergo the treatment process as per one's Karma doesn't matter what one has understood and concluded subjectively in this world, in his/her present life.
Last edited:
C RAVI
0
Thank you SravnaJi. I read you. But i was very confused over what Ravi was trying to say in his very long post to me. I was merely saying positive hypocrisy is an oxymoron not keeping anyone in mind as Ravi seems to think I am. Replacing positive hypocrisy with being pragmatic sure does make a wor(l)d of difference
Amala,
Unfortunately my post coud not make "you" understand. I can well understand that.
I was not speculating on whom you are keeping in mind to counter the term "positive hypocricy".
I was trying to see with what group of people in society you are associating this term and finding it to be disservice to the term "spiritual" and concluding the term as an oxymoron. As such I listed out certain probable groups with whom the term "positive hypocrisy" would not be withstanding.
FYI, any term coined to explain a subject need to be understood as per the points been focused/higlighted to support the term. Just picking up the term literally and making conclusion would not help you understand the serious debate in hand.
Last edited:
OP
OP
sravna
Well-known member
I understand that the use of the phrase "positive hypocrisy" is a bit confusing. A bit of elaboration:
By being pragmatic, one implies you are not being naive. From the point of view of the worldly person the spiritualist is naive. But from the point of view of the latter the worldly person is really naive. Both are being pragmatic in their own way but the spiritual person sees that from a higher perspective.
Therefore what I meant was you are trying to be in sync with the times not in the normal way but by appeal to timeless values. You are being worldly wise because you achieve your objective by appeal to timeless values and therefore successful in worldly sense too. So I used the phrase to mean the achievement of worldly success in a positive way. It is positive because present worldly success is more achieved through negative approaches. I just gave a twist to the definition of the word "hypocrisy" by adding the word positive. That is you are projecting yourself as being pragmatic or not naive by appeal to positive values.
Anyway I feel the above details are not that important but since the phrase has been the subject of confusion I thought I would clarify.
By being pragmatic, one implies you are not being naive. From the point of view of the worldly person the spiritualist is naive. But from the point of view of the latter the worldly person is really naive. Both are being pragmatic in their own way but the spiritual person sees that from a higher perspective.
Therefore what I meant was you are trying to be in sync with the times not in the normal way but by appeal to timeless values. You are being worldly wise because you achieve your objective by appeal to timeless values and therefore successful in worldly sense too. So I used the phrase to mean the achievement of worldly success in a positive way. It is positive because present worldly success is more achieved through negative approaches. I just gave a twist to the definition of the word "hypocrisy" by adding the word positive. That is you are projecting yourself as being pragmatic or not naive by appeal to positive values.
Anyway I feel the above details are not that important but since the phrase has been the subject of confusion I thought I would clarify.
Dear Sravna:
1. As others have said, hypocrisy IS hypocrisy. There's no two ways about it... You claim "Both are being pragmatic in their own way but the spiritual person sees that from a higher perspective."
I feel you are only projecting here the EGO of the spiritual person who sees that "from a higher perspective
2. What are your timeless values, any way? As I have said before, we ALL have "Conscience and inner self" to tell us what's right and what's wrong, irrespective of being Religious or NOT.
3. Clearly, I see your attempt to give "a twist" to peel away from the core Belief of Hinduism.
Hindus core believe is FATALISM derived from Reincarnation & Rebirth and Janma Poorva Karma!
Which the Atheists reject to the core!!
More later.
"though you are Atheist and your children been brought up as Atheist, your wife, that is your chidren's mother is a Theist who often visits temple and pray the allmighty for the wellbeing of each of her family members. Other than that you couples were been blessed with good children." Ravi post 44
Correction... my wife occasionally visits Temple perhaps once in two months! But, in the past 5 months she has not been to the Temple, because she has her own doubts whether there is any purpose at all!
As you know, I totally reject Janma Poorva Karma, because there can't be a Super Agency out there that receives the prayers, records the deeds and punishes or rewards anybody for any action.
That's simply a FANTASY and/or a FICTION.... a simple Belief of Hindus.....
Correction... my wife occasionally visits Temple perhaps once in two months! But, in the past 5 months she has not been to the Temple, because she has her own doubts whether there is any purpose at all!
As you know, I totally reject Janma Poorva Karma, because there can't be a Super Agency out there that receives the prayers, records the deeds and punishes or rewards anybody for any action.
That's simply a FANTASY and/or a FICTION.... a simple Belief of Hindus.....
N
Nara
Guest
Would you care to explain why Saidevo, what is so "bad taste" in asking this rhetorical question?
Cheers!
As I wrote before many times, everyone has conscience and "inner self" whether you believe in God or not.. In fact, a FAITH is not required to have a "conscience and the inner self", with which an [COLOR=#DA7911 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#DA7911 !important][FONT=inherit !important]Atheist[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR] can lead a moral and ethical life...[/COLOR]
"I wonder if it is not hypocritical to say outwardly that there is no 'inner self', it's all only the action in the brain and its neural network, but still feel the 'inner self' and conscience at heart, specially when the element of faith is supposed to be completely absent. Perhaps the consciousness of the forest rubs on its trees, some of which are atheistic trees. (This is not to say that an atheist cannot be ethical and moral, only point out the difference between what we say and feel.)" - Saidevo post 43
This is one confused post...
Human brain and the neurocircuitry connecting the specialized Sensory Neurons only create the sense of "Consciousness, Inner-Self, the "I"-ness, the Sense of Right or Wrong".
This is going on in Atheists and in Believers of God and Janma Poorva Karma!
It's the FANTASY of Theists that they Believe they only have conscience and Inner-Self.
Very wrong...
"I wonder if it is not hypocritical to say outwardly that there is no 'inner self', it's all only the action in the brain and its neural network, but still feel the 'inner self' and conscience at heart, specially when the element of faith is supposed to be completely absent. Perhaps the consciousness of the forest rubs on its trees, some of which are atheistic trees. (This is not to say that an atheist cannot be ethical and moral, only point out the difference between what we say and feel.)" - Saidevo post 43
This is one confused post...
Human brain and the neurocircuitry connecting the specialized Sensory Neurons only create the sense of "Consciousness, Inner-Self, the "I"-ness, the Sense of Right or Wrong".
This is going on in Atheists and in Believers of God and Janma Poorva Karma!
It's the FANTASY of Theists that they Believe they only have conscience and Inner-Self.
Very wrong...
Last edited:
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
Wanted Need of a Brahmin lady cook in AdambakkamRequire a Brahmin female cook in 40s to 60 to cook for a family of 4 adults +2 kids in...
- LakshmiRajesh (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Need Brahmin cook for homeBrahmin cook needed to make breakfast and lunch at home (Mylapore) for 4 people. Please text...
- ram1618 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
-
-
Announcement Hobby Classes.Hobby art classes are conducted by an experienced senior lady for high school children and adult...
- rckappu (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated: