"Complicatedism"

[palindrome]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This is ridiculous argument. For every caste prejudice that the casteists exhibit whether it be buddhist followers or jaina followers or any of the non-brahminical followers, the brahmins cannot be blamed!

So calling their prejudices "brahminical" only shows your prejudice against brahmins.

Before Buddha, During the lifetime of Buddha, and for some time after Buddha, the society was feudal. And laws of the feudal society were the dharmashastras. Lets not use the generic term Brahmin, because today it encompasses a wide variety of sampradayams, including those of agamic cultures.. As regards your claim of prejudice, let my comments show anything KB. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and so are you.

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Renuka, our ancients were very smart. Valmiki wrote Ramayana under duress. so he cleverly put in many many caveats so that people like us can find out the real truth. He calls Ravana a Tripura Sundara & then says Rama accuses him of kidnapping Sita. any girl would have run away with a Tripura Sundara (most handsome man in 3 worlds). By the way, Paris is also known as the most handsome man in 3 worlds in Homer's Illiad. Cheers,

 

[renuka]

Dear JK,


You know in most Tamil movies of yesteryears there will be a main story but the comedy track will be running in a separate track.

If you see in this thread now...serious debates are taking place among stalwarts and you and I are providing some comedy relief!LOL

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Renuka,

LOL !!. thats why when Iyers & Iyengars marry, they say it will result into “kirk” pasanga

Pun intended. Not trying to start a Shaivite vs Vaishnavite war here.

Cheers,

 

[renuka]

Hi Renuka,

LOL !!. thats why when Iyers & Iyengars marry, they say it will result into “kirk” pasanga

Pun intended. Not trying to start a Shaivite vs Vaishnavite war here.

Cheers,

Dear JK,

In your earlier post you mentioned that the Blond Blue Eyed original Brahmins got mixed with the local Dravidian population...so if Iyer -Iyengar union produces "Kirk Pasanga" what will Brahmin -Non Brahmin union produce??

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear JK,

In your earlier post you mentioned that the Blond Blue Eyed original Brahmins got mixed with the local Dravidian population...so if Iyer -Iyengar union produces "Kirk Pasanga" what will Brahmin -Non Brahmin union produce??

Obviously must be a Buddhist based on the vehement posts from some of our forum colleagues !! LOL !

 

[ShivKC]

Agree, Hitler was no where close to being a Blonde. Infact many believe he was himself a half jew. I think that Idiot was waging the unfinished war of Shaivite vs Vaishnavite religion. Unfortunately different religion fought against each other in History & continues to this day & in this forum

Savitri Devi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sh.JK,

whats your take on this lady Maximiniani Julia Portas.. she is a monotheist, which contradicts your stand on Hitler..

 

[Jaykay767]

Savitri Devi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sh.JK,

whats your take on this lady Maximiniani Julia Portas.. she is a monotheist, which contradicts your stand on Hitler..

Dear ShivKC,

I am not clear how Julia’s views are related to Hitler’s, she was a Nazi supporter, but I don't think her religious views had any bearing ?

I only responded to Renuka’s post in passing that for all you know, the Idiot Hitler could have been waging the Shaivite/Vaishnavite war (pun intended).

On Hitler, I think he had a very personal hatred with Jews that went beyond any other cultural, religious differences. I will leave the reasons, why he hated them so much etc.. to the millions of historians who have spent their lifetimes analyzing this !!

Cheers,

 

[sarang]

I will limit my observation to one issue from the paper by Ankur barua.
Ref. No 7 in his paper is connected to pakistan defence, and our friend barua has lifted a anti hindu, anti brahmin post from a thread titled: DailyMuslims - Disappearance of Buddhism from "Non Violent India": An Untold Story


[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]A scholarly paper has just used unsubstantiated (no traceable references) verbal filth from a pakistan islamic forum. Barua has given this reference in his scholarly paper. [/FONT]


[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Source: [/FONT]Disappearance of Buddhism from "Non Violent India": An Untold Story


He also repeats what others have said without any reference to original sources. Like - puranas from bengal make fun of buddhists, but which purana, what is said and when, no mention but wild stone throwing. He just repeats what is written in other papers he has given as reference.

And brahmins are not responsible for the disappearance of buddhists. Even Ambedkar says that muslims are responsible for forced conversions and elimination. Brahmins never eliminated anyone by physical means.

This should make one laugh or angry. From the forum post, repeated by Barua in his paper:

"The extermination of Buddhism in India was hastened by the large-scale destruction and appropriation of Buddhist shrines by the Brahmins. The Mahabodhi Vihara at Bodh Gaya was forcibly converted into a Shaivite temple, and the controversy lingers on till this day. The cremation stupa of the Buddha at Kushinagar was changed into a Hindu temple dedicated to the obscure deity with the name of Ramhar Bhavani. Adi Shankara is said to have established his Sringeri Mutth on the site of a Buddhist monastery which he
took over. Many Hindu shrines in Ayodhya are said to have once been Buddhist temples, as is the case with other famous Brahminical temples such as those at Sabarimala, Tirupati, Badrinath and Puri.

Source: Disappearance of Buddhism from "Non Violent India": An Untold Story

Okay Dear Sri Sarang Ji.

I have highlighted a sentence from you,below.

Please let us know what other 'papers' that exist in support of your view.

It is very easy to dismiss history. One can not run from it. But at the same time, one has to understand history within the context of those days' mores.

So when people say that the Brahmins attacked Buddhism then, I have no problems accepting it as a fact, without drawing any conclusions based on today's mores. Brahmins were the the safeguards of Hinduism then and I have no issues with them trying to preserve the traditions with whatever allowed practices that existed then. I am sure the other religions tried to do the same.

The problem crops up when we do not acknowledge this truth. We need to acknowledge the reality - that which started as an idealistic system, viz. the Varna system, has morphed in to a caste system, which by the way worked fine for a long time, because of an agrarian hamlet society, and does not work in the modern world.

We can move forward as a community, if we acknowledge this. Let us also understand that any constructive criticism directed towards us in goodwill, should not be viewed as 'attacks' on our community. More than that, it is time to cast away the caste identities and embrace all Hindus as our brethren, and understand how the caste system put our brothers in a deep diasadvantage vix-a-vis the modern world.

Having said this, I also totally reject the ideas of those who blame our community as wholly responsible for the current caste mess. I do not agree with the quota system - I think it saps valuable limited resources without achieving it's objectives, while creating new victims.

Just my pov.

Regards,
KRS

 

[tks]

Complicated vs Complex

The universe as we understand them today via objective study is indeed complicated. By careful and systematic study human beings are able to send a probe to explore the surface of another planet (like Mars) hundreds of million kilometers away. That is indeed complicated but attempting to understand why humans think that they want to live forever while still seeing destruction of everything over time is indeed complex.

Attempting to understand why we seem to experience a sense of existence for a short duration of time of x years (time is another experience) in a place (space is another experience) is complex. But it is not complicated. What is complicated is what we know about nature of space and time

Aspects of our core teaching representing universal knowledge applicable to all beings and certainly all human beings is actually simple but its application and interpretation to complex situations indeed tends to be complex. Complexity is not inherent in the teaching but arises by the subject's baseline of understanding and state of universal ignorance.

If one can be taught how to 'unlearn' all the wrong notions, understanding the universal truths may still be complicated but not complex.

I know the thread is about a new term complicatedism .. postings here reveal the thread actually is complexism and confusedism LoL

 

[tks]

Hindus are taught universal acceptance ..

I see another thread within this thread of complicatedism, complexism and confusedism - it is about history veterans debating about who did what to who ...

There was no religion called Hinduism some centuries ago - it is a name given by people that came from outside to visit what may be called Indian subcontinent. I am not a history buff and have no interest - I think study of history may have a value if there are key learnings applicable to today's life here and now. However most history as written in my own life seem to be distorted from my vantage point. So it is confusion and distortion that is propagated by more who want to do the same. Wars lasting centuries arise out of so called History focus. It tends to divide people than unite

So study of history by and large is a quadrant 4 activity in my view - I do not expect anyone to agree with me. Our forefathers did not keep history for a good reason.

Trying to keep history is like writing with a hand on a flowing stream of water that is mingling into a river while other historians try to read what the person before wrote and write more into the stream of water.. I guess it must be a fun activity for some - I am amazed PhD degrees are awarded in History ! Oh well .. that is my bias - I admit.

Most Hindus know that something called vedas is the root scripture but many do not know what it is all about. Unlike other religions Vedas are not like bible or Quran that one can readily reference and use.

However most Hindus in my experience tend to know that all religions have some basic truths and that universal acceptance of others as opposed to mere tolerance is the emphasis of our teaching. They may not practice what is taught but that is a different topic.

So trying to see commonality is in our core system of beliefs. Gandhiji emphasizes 'isvara allah tere naam' . We have temples of Sai Baba all over India though people know he was raised as a Muslim.

Budha may have rejected Hindu rituals and may have founded a faith that do not accept vedas (and hence it is not Hinduism). But Hindus have accepted Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu .

Here is a verse from Dasavathara Stotra from Gita Govinda by Sri Jayadeva

"nindasi yajnavidhe-rahaha srutijatam
sadaya-hrdaya darsitapasughatam
kesava dhrta buddhasarira
jaya jagadisa hare."


While Wikipedia, Yahoo sites, Blogs are not legitimate reference sites in my view since anyone can write anything there (just like this forum) we can understand what people think by seeing blogs and such sites.

There are number of articles by Hindus trying to think Christ has a connection to Sri Krishna

Hindus are taught universal acceptance even if the other religions may not accept Hinduism.

For us a cross is a symbol and everything in Hindu temple is symbolic based on metaphors.

When my parents were alive I took them to some well known and historical churches in NY city (back in early 80s).
They had never been to a church before and started saying several stotras and wanted to go around the cross / alter.

From the posts here in this thread I see that for people who want to emphasize the differences it is offensive to say Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. For those who tend to focus on universal acceptance I think emphasizing the differences is offensive.

Regardless let us accept all religions as having a value for their followers even if we do not agree with their theology as true ...

 

[palindrome]

Am ignoring most part of your post, since it is 4th quadrant non-sequitur activity. Am addressing some points bcoz they are common contrapoints a 'hindu' uses in his favor; though non-hindus disagree.

Budha may have rejected Hindu rituals and may have founded a faith that do not accept vedas (and hence it is not Hinduism). But Hindus have accepted Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu.

The term 'Hindu' is misleading. Buddha is not accepted in the vedic religion (there are no mantras dedicated to Buddha and offered in vedic havans).

Absorbing (or attempting to absorb) Buddha into the 'hindu' side of agamic religion thru the avatara system; is no different from absorbing grama devas, and various divinities (after transforming or describing them as forms of Shiva and Vishnu). Priests did it, in order to find social relevance for themselves. By doing so, the other religion got downgraded (as an independent religion) and became subservient to the religion which absorbs the divinity.

From the posts here in this thread I see that for people who want to emphasize the differences it is offensive to say Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. For those who tend to focus on universal acceptance I think emphasizing the differences is offensive.

On the contrary, offensive are those who claim falsities, the ones who claim Buddhism is an offshoot of 'Hinduism' (whatever is this 'Hinduism'). It is quite a way to malign Buddha (since all his life he remained against vedic religion, against birth-based inequalities which were lawful in his time). Buddhism is an outcome of (a) teachings of Buddha (b) shramana belief forms of his times. Nothing to do with Vedic.

 

[palindrome]

An interesting video on time (and the passage of time) being an illusion: 2. The Illusion of Time - YouTube

Another video on Higgs boson: Higgs boson found, now what? (Inside Story - 5th July 2012) [HD] - YouTube

(to appreciate what it took to find the higgs boson, this one is worth watching: The Hunt For Higgs - amazing HD Documentary - YouTube )

 

[padders]

Hi Renuka:

You are voicing just what I feel. If you've ever read J. Krishnamurti, (very often reviled), you'll find he says something similar to what you said at the end of your piece, that in order to get to know God better, we need to discard religion. Here's his quote:"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect."
Before I invite the wrath of "religious" people, let me add that I think it's up to each one of us to follow our religious path be it rituals or beliefs but to not compare with others or, worse still, be sanctimonious and think we are superior to someone just because we think we are more religious/ritualistic.

 

[sangom]

An interesting video on time (and the passage of time) being an illusion: 2. The Illusion of Time - YouTube

Another video on Higgs boson: Higgs boson found, now what? (Inside Story - 5th July 2012) [HD] - YouTube

(to appreciate what it took to find the higgs boson, this one is worth watching: The Hunt For Higgs - amazing HD Documentary - YouTube )

If one understands "time" he has understood God and everything else in this universe. The "arrow of time" is also one of the effects of mAyA, perhaps.

Very good video.

 

[palindrome]

If one understands "time" he has understood God and everything else in this universe. The "arrow of time" is also one of the effects of mAyA, perhaps.

Very good video.

Yes sir, its a very good video. If the passage of time and our experience of it is an illusion; with the past, present and future all existing at the same 'time', it would also strengthen the multiverse theory. So you may like this one: 4. Universe or Multiverse? - YouTube (its an excellent video, will recommend as must watch...since time is so dependent on gravity this video helps understand what gravity can do to time. ).

WRT the "arrow of time" the video explains in terms of the mathematical formulation of entropy (s=k log W); wherein entropy is a measure of disorder or randomness; with a tendency to move from order to disorder; and more disorder increasing with the passage of time.

In terms of relating it to mAyA, i feel, the literal meaning of mAyA is appropriate here. As you are aware sir, Mayrhofer says the word mAyA is either from the root may (meaning, "exchange") or from mA (meaning "measure"). The literal meaning of "measure" is, i feel, appropriate in this context.

Maya as a "measure' or "measurement", finds acceptance from writers such as Devdutt Pattnaik who gives his opinion in this book (p.15-19) and Vasant Joshi in this book (p.80). Apart from these two, there are several writers who also subscribe to a similar meaning. (as a "measure"), such as Deepak Chopra (here in p.27). Of these, my view is similar to that of Vasant Joshi; wherein the implicit meaning is 'creation' which can flow forward and backward, in random, such that in a particular time space an order appears to exist before transforming into an other state.

Whether this 'creation' is an illusion or not, is a zillion dollar question. Buddha spoke of understanding reality. According to advaita since Brahman is nirguna, and cannot create unless 'aided' by mAyA, it seems, understanding reality rests in understanding mAyA. If only advaita explained mAyA....

Just some random thots.

 

[sangom]

Yes sir, its a very good video. If the passage of time and our experience of it is an illusion; with the past, present and future all existing at the same 'time', it would also strengthen the multiverse theory. So you may like this one: 4. Universe or Multiverse? - YouTube (its an excellent video, will recommend as must watch...since time is so dependent on gravity this video helps understand what gravity can do to time. ).

WRT the "arrow of time" the video explains in terms of the mathematical formulation of entropy (s=k log W); wherein entropy is a measure of disorder or randomness; with a tendency to move from order to disorder; and more disorder increasing with the passage of time.

In terms of relating it to mAyA, i feel, the literal meaning of mAyA is appropriate here. As you are aware sir, Mayrhofer says the word mAyA is either from the root may (meaning, "exchange") or from mA (meaning "measure"). The literal meaning of "measure" is, i feel, appropriate in this context.

Maya as a "measure' or "measurement", finds acceptance from writers such as Devdutt Pattnaik who gives his opinion in this book (p.15-19) and Vasant Joshi in this book (p.80). Apart from these two, there are several writers who also subscribe to a similar meaning. (as a "measure"), such as Deepak Chopra (here in p.27). Of these, my view is similar to that of Vasant Joshi; wherein the implicit meaning is 'creation' which can flow forward and backward, in random, such that in a particular time space an order appears to exist before transforming into an other state.

Whether this 'creation' is an illusion or not, is a zillion dollar question. Buddha spoke of understanding reality. According to advaita since Brahman is nirguna, and cannot create unless 'aided' by mAyA, it seems, understanding reality rests in understanding mAyA. If only advaita explained mAyA....

Just some random thots.

I will now give my collected views about mAyA, not random thoughts.

mAyA happens because the whole universe is just "felt" to be experienced by us (that means, our physical senses), but we do so because we are alive. We can be somewhat sure that before our birth as palindrome or sangom, we could not have felt the universe at all, though we may not be clear at all about our very early infancy. After our deaths we do not know whether we will "feel" this universe just the same way as we do now, but one thing is certain and that is, this physical body and the senses embedded therein will no longer be there, because we have the inert, dead body as evidence.

Hence, all that we see and experience as the universe is just a conditional phenomenon and not either permanent nor real in the absolute sense, therefor. That is why this "feeling" during the living interregnum becomes an illusion or mAyA. It cannot be maesured. It is always 100%; otherwise, we will be only partially living or physically handicapped.

'Creation' itself is thus an illusion in whichever way we may view that word. It is the power or energy or field called Life which causes the otherwise dead foetus to become a live foetus, and then onwards to a living being and then finally leaves it to make it dead and mingle with the elements (as in the Karna mantra, which was discussed in some thread) which is at the base of all this drama. He who understands this understands something about mAyA, I think.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji, Sir,

You have proposed something, which, in my opinion is very profound.

But, let me think a bit about it more. Thank you for articulating it.

Regards,
KRS

I will now give my collected views about mAyA, not random thoughts.

mAyA happens because the whole universe is just "felt" to be experienced by us (that means, our physical senses), but we do so because we are alive. We can be somewhat sure that before our birth as palindrome or sangom, we could not have felt the universe at all, though we may not be clear at all about our very early infancy. After our deaths we do not know whether we will "feel" this universe just the same way as we do now, but one thing is certain and that is, this physical body and the senses embedded therein will no longer be there, because we have the inert, dead body as evidence.

Hence, all that we see and experience as the universe is just a conditional phenomenon and not either permanent nor real in the absolute sense, therefor. That is why this "feeling" during the living interregnum becomes an illusion or mAyA. It cannot be maesured. It is always 100%; otherwise, we will be only partially living or physically handicapped.

'Creation' itself is thus an illusion in whichever way we may view that word. It is the power or energy or field called Life which causes the otherwise dead foetus to become a live foetus, and then onwards to a living being and then finally leaves it to make it dead and mingle with the elements (as in the Karna mantra, which was discussed in some thread) which is at the base of all this drama. He who understands this understands something about mAyA, I think.

 

[palindrome]

I agree with KRS sir. I would also like to reflect on what Sangom sir has said. For now, am wondering

a) If Creation itself is an illusion, why does it happen at all ?
b) Additionally, if creation (mAyA) is the energy or field called Life, why is Brahman needed at all in this scenario, though mAyA is supposedly a part of brahman?
c) Is brahman without mAyA still an absolute ?

Will be happy to hear views of KRS sir and Sangom sir on this.

 

[sangom]

a) If Creation itself is an illusion, why does it happen at all ?

I am nowhere near any of our great Acharyas like Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, and so on and hence what I write here may be taken as just the result/s of sincere thinking of an ordinary mortal, just like anyone of you. E&O E, that is.

I believe that this universal stage has been set (by whom? I don't know) as the venue for all creation to do Karma as also to enjoy/suffer the results of all those Karmas. One cannot do, say, some good Karma here and hope to enjoy its favourable results elsewhere in some other world/s; the results also have to be experienced here (and, also perhaps "now" itself, if we are able to perceive Time as relative to space, as told in your video; it will be like shooting a rape scene and the rapist getting killed by the hero - in adjacent sets in a cinema studio, but the two may be separated by two hours of plot development in the actual viewing of the film on screen.) Since we are unable to cross the arrow of time, the action and its reaction do not appear simultaneous to our senses. In actual truth it may be so happening and that was why BG said "कर्मण्येवऽअधिकारस्तॆ मा फलेषु कदाचन (karmaṇyeva:'adhikāraste mā phaleṣu kadācana)", meaning thereby that one just cannot get any reprieve to amend or do "parihArams" etc., to mitigate or undo the karmaphala at all.

In short, this universe is the "correction home" for the humans and all other living entities, in a certain sense.

b) Additionally, if creation (mAyA) is the energy or field called Life, why is Brahman needed at all in this scenario, though mAyA is supposedly a part of brahman?

creation is an appearance but the one which causes that appearance is the energy or field called Life; in this sense, the Brahman and the Life Force are interchangeable. I hold that Shankara, in his times and according to the familiar vacabulary of those times named it "Brahman" and described it to his best capacity. Today, after 13 centuries or so, we may be more familiar with the concept of a universal field etc.

mAyA is not a part of Brahman or the Life Force. It is like a shroud (that was why Shankara named it as "अध्यास (covering or layer)" very aptly, I feel. This अध्यास is the net result of all our Karmas up todate, like a coded programme to be fed into a compiler; it gets attached to a newly forming foetus and gives concrete shape to a unique individual.

c) Is brahman without mAyA still an absolute ?

Will be happy to hear views of KRS sir and Sangom sir on this.

I don't get what you mean by the word "absolute". Shankara said it is the only Reality. That is true because all the rest are appearances caused because of its manifestation in a certain physical body. And, Brahman does not need the shroud of mAyA for its own (absolute?) existence. It is we living beings who need both Brahman and the mAyA for our familiar lives.

 

[palindrome]

Very nice post # 419 Sangom sir. Hope to hear views of KRS sir and others also on those 3 questions.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sangom, Greetings.

Sorry for the long delay. I was not visiting the forum. You expressed your point of view quite eloquently in post # 217 here. Thank you. Personally I don’t see that as ‘rational explanation’ though. Still it falls under ‘belief’. I still would not entertain ‘poorva janma karma’ theory. I am listing some of the reasons here.

Any person born with any physical deficiency gets automatically considered to go through ‘poorva janma bad karma’. I have seen such persons hurt psychologically by others. Also others anticipate such persons with physical deficiency to act submissively.

I have also seen discrimination extended to persons born in poor families and in castes socially considered as ‘lower’.

I don’t have the capacity to debate with you. While I respect your opinions, I wish to say I do not accept them. I neither can accept the ‘poorva janma theory’ nor can accept reincarnation concept. The reincarnation concept, in my opinion was made only to support ‘poorva janma theory’.

When people could not give a reasonable reason for the inequities when they preached ‘creation theory’, they could have invented ‘poorva janma karma theory’ and ‘reincarnation concept’. I fail to see anything ‘rational’ in any of these concepts.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

I thought about this a lot yesterday. Unfortunately, I do not have a counter possibility, except that perhaps Ravana's time had not come or that though wounded Ravana was blessed with the boon to live on. So perhaps Rama let him go (knowing well Ravana could not be killed no matter how badly wounded). It is in aditya hrydayam that Agastya tells Rama to realize himself. Rama learns Ravana could be killed if hit in a specific spot in the abdomen (the stomach).


For you specifically, made all those posts above, so it becomes clear that asuras are indians as well.

Sri/Sowbagyavathy Palindrome, Greetings.

Thank you for detailed reply in posts #239, 240, 241 and 242. Sorry I did not respond earlier. I did not visit the forum earlier.

I did not think Asuras were not 'Indians'. I thought in those days Bharatha Kandam extended up to and included present day Iraq. I could be wrong. But I remember reading blogs from an Iranian's site in effect to such notion.

Cheers!

 

[auh]

creation is an appearance but the one which causes that appearance is the energy or field called Life; in this sense, the Brahman and the Life Force are interchangeable. I hold that Shankara, in his times and according to the familiar vacabulary of those times named it "Brahman" and described it to his best capacity. Today, after 13 centuries or so, we may be more familiar with the concept of a universal field etc.
.

So is Brahman the Life force or, could it be a conscious Life force?

 

[Govinda]

So is Brahman the Life force or, could it be a conscious Life force?

umm.. auh auh..

Brahman is nirguna and cannot take adjectives (conscious)