God Exists

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I am not sure if they were intended to be complex and deliberately designed for a few.

As an example, take the subject of mathematics. To begin with, it was simple arithmetic, it became geometric, then algebra, then vector algebra, tensors then linear algebra, further became complex into group theory, and into Field theory.... and endlessly getting more abstract for even PhDs to catch up quickly. Upanishads must have evolved in a similar manner and became complex. It is not their fault. We want everything simple like a fruitcake and don't want to climb trees to pick the fruits.

My point is, complexity of a subject should not be regarded as an obstacle. Complexity is a requirement for some subjects. Human body is complex. It is made up of so many DNAs and proteins, metabolic pathways. Is it possible for anyone to explain the whole human body in one page of text? Why should we shy away from difficult subjects? Can one explain how a plane is able to fly with that much load, to a common man, without fluid dynamics? Reynolds number? Can anyone explain to me how internal combustion engine in the car works without a course in thermodynamcs and Carnot's cycle? Why do we accept complex subjects for science but demand one liners for Philosophy?

Dr Barani,

You know you amaze me with your replies.Never have I seen anyone play William Tell over and over again!!!
I think many are running out of apples for you.

 

[renuka]

Dear Raghy:

Thanks for your response.

1. Yes, Ms. Renu did not start this "doctor" discussion. I answered to post #161, where the poster claimed "Dr. Renu here is the REAL Doc". Please see my post #164. And her post #185.

2. I did not say a word about her post #185 because we have had similar silly talks before... she has ridiculed me as "Yamakananda" "LoLa" etc, which I enjoyed. She knows that.

3. I believe the mischievous players are "middle men" who demanded an apology from me. You bought into their "venom" unfortunately.

4. I have opined on the matter of who is the REAL Doctor. That's all. Nothing more.. nothing less.

5. Ms. Renu has said very clearly that she is doing very well with just MBBS and a diploma in Family Medicine in Malaysia (monetarily speaking). Please read her posts answering my response.

I wish her well as a physician; I am sure, in spite of her deep religious belief, she will be a successful physician serving the community.

Take care.

Peace.

Y

Dear Raghy and Yamaka,

I just hope we can just settle this.Its nice of you both to clear the matter here.
I thank you both for that.
Please do me a favor, just close this case and it will make me feel much better as I am rather unwell today with sinusitis and just came online to feel better by seeing forum.
I am logging off now and when I wake up tommorow I want to see Yamaka and Raghy kiss and make up.

good nite
renu

 

[DrBarani]

Dr Barani,

You know you amaze me with your replies.Never have I seen anyone play William Tell over and over again!!!
I think many are running out of apples for you.

Stop testing my attempts to be modest! LOL

But I don't want Mr.Kunjuppu or others to misunderstand me into "it is not possible to reduce Upanishads and others into easier language". I think it is possible, and that is what Mr.Kunjuppu was driving at, so perhaps I went into a tangent mode. But to reduce a work of hundreds of years requires a dedicated long term effort by many capable people. How many are willing to join as a team and try it out? Mr.TKS asked me that marvelous question and I am afraid I didn't rise up to that level yet.

 

[kunjuppu]

well drb,

i was not thinking along those lines.

i was wondering as to why tamil bible sells several times more and constantly in print than any hindu scripture, consideriing that now we hindus still claim about 80% of tamil folks (50 years ago it was more than 90%).

i saw the beauty of tamil hinduism as practised in the community prayer sessions in the batu murugan temple. there men and women, of all walks of life, displayed a unity, which is seldom seen in tamil nadu.

should we not atleast stray our thought that no matter what reasons we give for the exclusivity of the upanishads or whatever, the reality is that these will never be enounced to the masses.

unlike the tamil marais, like thiruvasagam etc which were meant for the common man, and still used for the common man.

which is why, i always feel, uncomfortable, even thoughtful tambrams, provide excuses and take shelter in the esoterica and mysteriousness of the sanskrit based scriptures, with the blind faith, that even though i or no one i know understands it, that is ok, for it only means, that it is beyond the understanding of common man. ie attribute it to the mysteries of the faith.

roman christianity is great at this concept. if we give some thought to it, we are probably more adept than them, though less versed in the skills of survival propagation, of current times.

should we not atleast wonder base of the upanishads or vedas? or do we meekly accept the inevitable, that these too, like the tibetan or the egyptian book of the dead, will be another treatise, safely esconced in the venerable libraries, the world over, gathering dust.

a knowledge, gathering dust, i think, is no knowledge. just dust. nothing more. nothing less.

 

[DrBarani]

well drb,

i was not thinking along those lines.

i was wondering as to why tamil bible sells several times more and constantly in print than any hindu scripture, consideriing that now we hindus still claim about 80% of tamil folks (50 years ago it was more than 90%).

i saw the beauty of tamil hinduism as practised in the community prayer sessions in the batu murugan temple. there men and women, of all walks of life, displayed a unity, which is seldom seen in tamil nadu.

should we not atleast stray our thought that no matter what reasons we give for the exclusivity of the upanishads or whatever, the reality is that these will never be enounced to the masses.

unlike the tamil marais, like thiruvasagam etc which were meant for the common man, and still used for the common man.

which is why, i always feel, uncomfortable, even thoughtful tambrams, provide excuses and take shelter in the esoterica and mysteriousness of the sanskrit based scriptures, with the blind faith, that even though i or no one i know understands it, that is ok, for it only means, that it is beyond the understanding of common man. ie attribute it to the mysteries of the faith.

roman christianity is great at this concept. if we give some thought to it, we are probably more adept than them, though less versed in the skills of survival propagation, of current times.

should we not atleast wonder base of the upanishads or vedas? or do we meekly accept the inevitable, that these too, like the tibetan or the egyptian book of the dead, will be another treatise, safely esconced in the venerable libraries, the world over, gathering dust.

a knowledge, gathering dust, i think, is no knowledge. just dust. nothing more. nothing less.

Those are some good contrasts with other religions. I think Hinduism is still very unorganized, less attractive for ordinary people as they aren't sure of what to do and when. The task of translating and producing concise versions of older sanskrit scripts should have been taken up by the mutts. They failed. The Church produces tamil bibles. They have mastered the art of marketing. Hindus... as I have always held... lack unity in many respects including how to streamline the religious lifestyle.

 

[kunjuppu]

as a post script to my post 254

whether we like it or not, the world is becoming very knowledge based. and that too widespread and more indepth at that.

ideas today flow faster than wind or waves. what took months to produce a book, today is done, with the speed of the fingers, and pressing the 'enter' button.

i think it is upto folks who hold the superiority of the upanishads and vedas, if they care to have a convincing audience, spread the word, and ensure the benefits of those knowledge emerges and spreads to one and everyone.

a dog in the manger, of either keeping it exclusively to a set group of folks, or even worse, giving up on understanding the erudition, because it is so deep or heavy, is of no use to common folks.

there exists in the universities of europe and the vatican, works of knowledge, of the cabbalas of the jews, works of mastermind.

anyone who cares, will know these exists. but these are all strongly stored away, under lock and key, and of no use to anyone present. we tend, i think, to use our intellectual key to lock away the knowledge of the upanishads, and throw away the key, within the bins of brahminism, and ultimately, cutting our nose, to spite our face.

peace!!

 

[ShivKC]

I gave the reasons

Do you think self creation is possible?
The other possibility for jagat to not have a cause is for time to have no beginning or end. The reason this doesn't make sense too is because if the past is infinite how would be ever have arrived to our present?

The only possibility where the notion of creation doesn't exist is the world beyond space and time.

good point.

in line with this, the atheist question to you asking for proof that 'there is no cause effect beyond time, i refer a famous atheist philosopher Hume who himself says,

1. "The cause and effect must be contiguous in space and time."2. "The cause must be prior to the effect."3. "There must be a constant union betwixt the cause and effect. 'Tis chiefly this quality, that constitutes the relation."
Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


that's the philosophical proof we can give to atheists. those who seek scientific proof for this, can always show that there exists a cause effect beyond time & space, by any modern means. most welcome.

 

[DrBarani]

good point.

in line with this, the atheist question to you asking for proof that 'there is no cause effect beyond time, i refer a famous atheist philosopher Hume who himself says,

1. "The cause and effect must be contiguous in space and time."2. "The cause must be prior to the effect."3. "There must be a constant union betwixt the cause and effect. 'Tis chiefly this quality, that constitutes the relation."
Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


that's the philosophical proof we can give to atheists. those who seek scientific proof for this, can always show that there exists a cause effect beyond time & space, by any modern means. most welcome.

The cause and effect are reversible in a time-reversible Universe, as there is no preferred directionality of time. Also, even in a smaller scale where time appears to go in one direction, the events aren't naturally ordered on their own. The events are ordered by us, as we observe them. For example, if someone arrives at Bangalore from Chennai he is "first comer". If someone arrives at Bangalore from New York, he is "second comer", even though the New Yorker left his home earlier. Thus, each person orders the events as per their own perception and senses and creates an empirical timescale. That is not an absolute timescale. There isn't any absolute timescale. Not in small portions of Universe, not in the Whole Universe. Universe IS a timeless system. It is not bound by any external or internal time measuring device. It is incorrect to ask when it all began, how, what existed before it began. As before, that simplistic "logic" fails.

 

[Yamaka]

Yamaha had shot off a number of questions which are supplementary to the question of the existence of God.

But what he has failed to understand is that these questions have been asked time and again by all believers. In fact the believers have more questions than the non-believers.

We have been seeking answers to these questions for thousands of years.

The Hindus propounded half a dozen Karma theories in answer to these questions. Of these theories only two assign a role to God. The older theories do not assign any role to God.

They created Swarga, Naraka, the different Lokas like Pithru Loka. All in an attempt to answer the questions.

But the answer has not been found.

Will never be found.

It is like trying to find an answer to the question of creation of the Universe. Theories abound. But no answer.

Dear Nacchi Sir:

At least in this Thread I don't see the Theist asking those questions that I have asked....Their simple answer to my question is "it's all Janma Poorva Karma", which I intuitively reject as a simple cop out.

Personally, AFTER I walked out on all Organized Religions and their Gods forty years ago, I am doing extremely well to the irritation of most of the Theists.

I hate poverty so much (but I empathize with the poor people very much)... that I want the Theists to solve it by their God Power because most of them claim that their "Gods are Omnipotent..Most Merciful and All Knowing"....

I agree with you "But the answer has not been found..." I am not sure of "Will never be found".

Cheers.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Kunjuppu,

The answers to these questions do not I repeat do not occur in the Upanishads.

It is an age old practice to

1. Claim that answers are found in the Upanishads.

2. When we say that there are hundreds of translations of the Upanishads and the answers are not found therein the claim is that none of these are correct.

3. Again a claim that you are not educated enough to understand.

4. A claim that you do not have proper teachers. This from the Tamil Brahmins the vast majority of whom do not even have a proper Guru. A Kula Guru is all that they have.

5. Then dismiss all your questions as irrelevant.

It is this attitude of the orthodoxy which has made Hinduism unpopular.

They talk about Brahman and Atman to people who are seeking ways of improving their lot and are trying to find solace in Hinduism.

I am a Hindu and proud to be one. I love Hinduism warts and all. Not because it is perfect.

 

[ShivKC]

i have to repeat the same argument here .

before an atheist rejecting 'Janma Poorva Karma', he should offer a solution for rendering justice to the acts debauchery. karma though not be visually be proved to the atheist,( belief system), it gives an enormous judicial answer and controls the society from doing wrong, where as atheism has no answer to this.

secondly, if religion is to be blamed for poverty for keeping people below rs.150 a day, 5 years ago, MuKa could give TV/20Kg rice. if Manmohan/J.J decides to give rs.150 a day to all Indians below P.L, will the atheists accept that god exists? i think, thats an absurd argument.

what if U.S president decides to make it socialistic country,nationalise all, and give $200 a day starting from Yamaka to Bill gates? would that life be interesting,challenging etc, while we admire the beauty of creation of god with all its creation and nature?

 

[nachi naga]

issue to understand is,we all exist within god as a being.the heart lives within a body.this body of god is infinite not easy to comprehend by human brain,but can experiance the godness within.all that exists is god nothing else bbut god.the duality of feelings must go and be in one consonance to experiaqnce and each individual should experiance it otherwise,one will never know- god.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Dear Nacchi Sir:

At least in this Thread I don't see the Theist asking those questions that I have asked....Their simple answer to my question is "it's all Janma Poorva Karma", which I intuitively reject as a simple cop out.

Personally, AFTER I walked out on all Organized Religions and their Gods forty years ago, I am doing extremely well to the irritation of most of the Theists.

I hate poverty so much (but I empathize with the poor people very much)... that I want the Theists to solve it by their God Power because most of them claim that their "Gods are Omnipotent..Most Merciful and All Knowing"....

I agree with you "But the answer has not been found..." I am not sure of "Will never be found".

Cheers.

Service to Humanity is service to GOD -Swami Vivekananda

There are a number of people and organizations which believe in that. We may not be able to answer the question as to why they are poor. But would definitely do something about the alleviation of poverty.

It was not part of the traditional Hinduism. But it has become part of it in the last 150 years.

People who believe in it do not depend on the Gods for that. They do it on their own.

The Vivekanananda Mission in Kanyakumari is a standing example.

More and more Hindus are doing it and helping their brethren improve their lot.

 

[tks]

well drb,

i was not thinking along those lines.

i was wondering as to why tamil bible sells several times more and constantly in print than any hindu scripture, consideriing that now we hindus still claim about 80% of tamil folks (50 years ago it was more than 90%).

Sri K -
First let us recognize that there are well funded and politically powerful organizations behind religious conversions by two of the aggressive religions. The Pope has said that in this millennium India is a rich place to 'harvest'. Also people are looking for simple solutions - like in the story about searching for an object where there is light as opposed to where they lost their object. If these aggressive religions can solve world's problems I would say 'why not' but these ones have created more wars than any others because conversion is built into their theology and is required.

Also a bible preaches - it is based on a requirement of a belief system into the scripture even before one can embark on the study. Upanishads detailed in terms of conversations are about teachings which is lot harder since it has to be understood like one would understand any branch of a subject (e.g., Science).

i saw the beauty of tamil hinduism as practised in the community prayer sessions in the batu murugan temple. there men and women, of all walks of life, displayed a unity, which is seldom seen in tamil nadu.

should we not atleast stray our thought that no matter what reasons we give for the exclusivity of the upanishads or whatever, the reality is that these will never be enounced to the masses.

You are absolutely right - Upanishad and its teaching was never meant for masses to learn and understand. The masses includes all those that are 'educated' as well and leading a comfortable life. Just like any field of serious study, there are significant prerequisites ('Adhikara') needed before one can seriously embark on such studies. Because some of our religious traditions are based on teachings of Upanishads there is this mistaken notion that it is possible to 'get this' by being immersed in rituals often practiced without understanding.

The Shanti Mantra that I referred to once (in one of the posts) is recited at the end of Poojas but most people do not understand that it contains the entire essence of vedantam. Millions that recite 'Gayathri Mantra' everyday do not know why it is called so though it is recited towards Surya (Sun). Books on Sandhayvandanam even print a little picture of 'Goddess Gayathri' to continue the confusion.

First step is to focus on simple things like why character is important. Why one has to be 100% responsible for their actions and that they should assert their 'freewill' they are endowed with to face any problems. Like Vivekananda says - Upanishads teach about the meaning of true 'fearlessness'. Such ideas are easily accessible.

My issues have always been with 'educated illiterates' who confuse the teachings with their own கை சரக்கு; create issues that arise out of their own ignorance and attribute them to the teachings.

Also it is hard to have reasonable conversation with anyone who is already practices a religious tradition by faith (read as 'suspending their ability to reason').
This includes many so called atheists that also are faithful to their belief system.

unlike the tamil marais, like thiruvasagam etc which were meant for the common man, and still used for the common man.

which is why, i always feel, uncomfortable, even thoughtful tambrams, provide excuses and take shelter in the esoterica and mysteriousness of the sanskrit based scriptures, with the blind faith, that even though i or no one i know understands it, that is ok, for it only means, that it is beyond the understanding of common man. ie attribute it to the mysteries of the faith.

I feel people should have the right to pray in whatever form they want if that gives them peace of mind. It is only when their action negatively affect others that there are issues in which case the educated mass should speak against those behavior. The way to solve problems of human condition in India and elsewhere is to teach people to be 100% responsible and try to lead a life Integrity. This is what BG (Gita) teaches, the model of Karma-Dharma teaches.

roman christianity is great at this concept. if we give some thought to it, we are probably more adept than them, though less versed in the skills of survival propagation, of current times.

should we not atleast wonder base of the upanishads or vedas? or do we meekly accept the inevitable, that these too, like the tibetan or the egyptian book of the dead, will be another treatise, safely esconced in the venerable libraries, the world over, gathering dust.

a knowledge, gathering dust, i think, is no knowledge. just dust. nothing more. nothing less.

This assumption is incorrect. With the advances in technology (web sites as one example) there is information explosion in these topics. The issue is how one can sift through for authentic information. The idea is not to do intense research into history since that is irrelevant in my view. It is to make sure that the teaching resolve paradoxes we run into in life. Finding good teachers and good books is and will always be a problem.

I know a handful of Americans, leading uneventful life and are not teachers. But their knowledge and insights about Upanishads deserve full body Namaskaram in my view. So it is not gathering dust. It is readily accessible from my life experience.

 

[tks]

Time is an illusion!

The cause and effect are reversible in a time-reversible Universe, as there is no preferred directionality of time. Also, even in a smaller scale where time appears to go in one direction, the events aren't naturally ordered on their own. The events are ordered by us, as we observe them. For example, if someone arrives at Bangalore from Chennai he is "first comer". If someone arrives at Bangalore from New York, he is "second comer", even though the New Yorker left his home earlier. Thus, each person orders the events as per their own perception and senses and creates an empirical timescale. That is not an absolute timescale. There isn't any absolute timescale. Not in small portions of Universe, not in the Whole Universe. Universe IS a timeless system. It is not bound by any external or internal time measuring device. It is incorrect to ask when it all began, how, what existed before it began. As before, that simplistic "logic" fails.

DrBarani - You have made insightful comments in the past about time. For example before one can ask about creation of universe, let us ask about origin of time. There is a realization that the flow of time taken for granted in ordinary life as well as in most aspects of science (we even have clocks that synchronizes with 'atomic clock') is not needed to describe the physics. A metaphor is to the use of a currency - is that needed for commerce though it is a convenience. The concepts of time in today's physics are in alignment with the views of time expressed in Upanishads.

I cited in this post a reference to a recent article about nature of Time in an issue of Scientific American.
Let quote the beginning part from that article.

"As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.
Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies;Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past."

 

[tks]

I am not sure if they were intended to be complex and deliberately designed for a few.

As an example, take the subject of mathematics. To begin with, it was simple arithmetic, it became geometric, then algebra, then vector algebra, tensors then linear algebra, further became complex into group theory, and into Field theory.... and endlessly getting more abstract for even PhDs to catch up quickly. Upanishads must have evolved in a similar manner and became complex. It is not their fault. We want everything simple like a fruitcake and don't want to climb trees to pick the fruits.

My point is, complexity of a subject should not be regarded as an obstacle. Complexity is a requirement for some subjects. Human body is complex. It is made up of so many DNAs and proteins, metabolic pathways. Is it possible for anyone to explain the whole human body in one page of text? Why should we shy away from difficult subjects? Can one explain how a plane is able to fly with that much load, to a common man, without fluid dynamics? Reynolds number? Can anyone explain to me how internal combustion engine in the car works without a course in thermodynamcs and Carnot's cycle? Why do we accept complex subjects for science but demand one liners for Philosophy?

DrBarani - Great set of examples indeed.
Let me another perspective as well.

Complexity also arises often from the point of view of how a 'problem' is stated.
If there are issues with the point of view there can never be a solution.
Or if the frame of logic or mathematics is inadequate simple problems become very complex

Let me give an example. If someone is trained only in Roman numeral system of counting, the act of doing long division or finding a square root of a number itself will require the effort needed to that of doing a PhD thesis. With our current number system this is taught in primary schools.

Science and mathematics invents new way of stating a problem. A complex differential equation in certain classes of problems become algebraic equations by doing 'Laplace Transforms' which is easily solved. Here the progress is made by coming with the right mathematical construct which is same as the right logic processing framework.

For many people not involved in sciences it is difficult to understand what it means to do computations in a number system other than base 10. So a system of prior training can also pose complexity. If we did not have ten fingers I suspect a binary system would be the most natural one to understand which only has 0 and 1.

 

[kunjuppu]

dear tks,

thank you for your exhaustive well thought out post.

if i look at your post a few times, i think, it is more convincing of what i am trying to say - the essential tambram view, of the upanishads et al, is something to be venerated, not quite understood, accept the ignorance, at the same time the omniscience and excellence of our supposed distant ancestors who may have created it, or be it of divine origins.

i am indeed appalled at the banality of those committing to many such views with a fanaticism worthy of a jihadist. as can be judged by the numerous comments in this very thread.

i think, instead of leaving the upanishads alone, instead of acknowledging the mystery in it, maybe it is time, we caught the bull by the horns, analyzed it, commentarize it and abridge it, to be a handy tool for the common man, something for him to lean on, on a day to day basis, and seek maybe if not solace, atleast kindle a curiosity of the unknowns. we need claim to know all, but we can make a start to study and discuss. n'est pas?

sadly, i realize, that i may be of the minority of one here and everywhere. hence, for want of better space or ideas, i will go along with nacchinarkiniyan's post #260, in this very thread, which that honourable member has addressed to me. it is my privilege to receive and accept it.

thank you again tks.

peace.

 

[tks]

dear tks,

thank you for your exhaustive well thought out post.

if i look at your post a few times, i think, it is more convincing of what i am trying to say - the essential tambram view, of the upanishads et al, is something to be venerated, not quite understood, accept the ignorance, at the same time the omniscience and excellence of our supposed distant ancestors who may have created it, or be it of divine origins.

i am indeed appalled at the banality of those committing to many such views with a fanaticism worthy of a jihadist. as can be judged by the numerous comments in this very thread.

i think, instead of leaving the upanishads alone, instead of acknowledging the mystery in it, maybe it is time, we caught the bull by the horns, analyzed it, commentarize it and abridge it, to be a handy tool for the common man, something for him to lean on, on a day to day basis, and seek maybe if not solace, atleast kindle a curiosity of the unknowns. we need claim to know all, but we can make a start to study and discuss. n'est pas?

sadly, i realize, that i may be of the minority of one here and everywhere. hence, for want of better space or ideas, i will go along with nacchinarkiniyan's post #260, in this very thread, which that honourable member has addressed to me. it is my privilege to receive and accept it.

thank you again tks.

peace.

Sri K -

I appreciate your forthright comments and please do accept and follow what makes sense to you.

The topic area that Upanishad addresses related to this title of this thread has to do with an esoteric topic called Moksha which is not 'heaven'.
For most people it is not relevant in their stage of life. Also Upanishads or Vedas do not have a single 'commandment' and this is not accidental. Therefore this topic area does not help most people. BG (Gita) may be more appropriate.

There are works of Sri Vivekananda, Ramana Maharishi, Swami Dayanda and his disciples, Swami Chinmayananda , Sri Sathya Sai Baba on this topic, Amritandandamai's work all aim at making this information accessible to common people. Because of variety of perspectives and approaches it could be confusing and select interpretations may come across as incorrect. Therefore there is a need for a teacher which is not easy to find and there has to be 'impedance match' for the teachings to make sense.

Today's problems faced by the humanity will never be solved by the topic of this thread in my view.
However if there is religious freedom people are free to get a peace of mind at their chosen place - be it a beach or a temple or a church or Mosque.

Can we improve upon the available material to make them more easily understood using better frameworks to explain the content? The answer is yes but before we do that we have to answer the question "what problem are we trying to solve". I am not convinced there is a need for that.

For today's problems of the society we need to more focus on character and personal responsibility.

I am not into too many rituals though I don't mock them. I do not think science as we know is addressed in Upanishads though the concepts of time and space are aligned with what we seem to know in Physics. I do not agree with anything that does not have a strong basis of reason such as 'Mantra and its vibrational power', Kundalini and its power etc.

Most of my life I have lived outside USA - hardly a TB place. Also hostel life at IIT (Kanpur) was not a TB place. I grew up in Delhi which had TB community but we were not very active in that community. My convictions about the statement I make are based on studies over 18 years. If you want to lump me with Tambrams that is an honor

Anyway, I am not asking you to accept any of these statements.

Thanks again for your comments

Regards

 

[Raghy]

Sowbagyavathy Renuka said -

.....Please do me a favor, just close this case and it will make me feel much better.....

I closed it already. I requested for the last word. Now I got the last word from Sri.Yamaka too. I have nothing more to say.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

...So if atheists and theists in this thread are not able to reach a consensus, why not agree to disagree amicably rather insist on proving one-upmanship?....

Dear Amala, I wish to use your sensible suggestion to make a general comment about the acerbic nature of some posters. However, I don't want to bring you into the nastiness. Therefore I request you to not post a response to this post.

I think it is possible for people with diametrically opposing views to still have a civil exchange. We can disagree to our bones and still not say the other is an arrogant ignoramus, or give a vulgar finger.

I am really sorry that such behavior attracts lots of likes, it surely gives a bad name to the community of believers.

Cheers!

As part of that duty, my middlefinger is shown to nonbelievers!

.....Ignorance and arrogance is a deadly combination.

 

[Nara]

...what is the use of having esoteric outputs, if they are to be consigned to the libraries or to the few minds, who claim they understand it all..

Dear K, you are right on. There are supposed to be 108 Upanishads and I have gone through some of them. What I have seen are not very impressive, filled with inane stuff. The few major upanishads do have some very interesting passages, giving us a glimpse to the free-thinking ancients. But, Brahminism has made sure these free-thinking speculations are elevated to divine status that a believer is required to freeze their minds to a time about 2500 years ago. All the advances of knowledge is either suspect, or gets retrofitted to the ancients.

But K, don't despair, the world is moving on, those who wish to be stuck in Vedic times are going extinct. It is only a matter of time, as you predict, these speculations will be consigned to the history.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

I gave the reasons

Well sravna, they are all your words, mere conjectures, ones that can have no more validity than my conjectures.

Do you think self creation is possible?

What I think is unimportant and cannot have any significance. On the other hand, the respected Cosmologist Stephen Hawking recently commented a god is not necessary for creation to take place. Whether you agree with him or not, his views need to be taken very seriously.

My basic question about who created the creator still remains. Why is a creator god exempt from a cause? You sravna, at least try to give some answers, which are simply conjectures. But, the others only conflate and obfuscate. I have not seen any of them state their position without any ambiguity, yet take pot shots by simply misstating or completely making stuff up. In this respect, I appreciate your civil exchange.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

Some interesting points to share.

We experience every object as "is"-- book is,car is and so on.
Without "is-ness", no object can exists.All existent objects have existence(sat) yet existence is not an object.

For example, without the concept of beauty,beautiful objects would not be known.
Beautiful objects can be described and shown but beauty itself is beyond words.
Further non-existent objects cannot exists,non-existence(asat) cannot exists and Existence can never become non-existence.

The thoughts of existing objects(satpratyayaah) are many but the Existence principle is one.
The objects and their thoughts keep changing and differ in name,form qualities but the Existence which supports them is unchanging therefore indestructible.

Thus on giving up names and forms the Truth is experienced as pure Existence.
Existence being the support of all is all pervading.Its is however experienced in the heart as Consciousness and therefore names Hrt.

It illumines all thoughts,itself remaining free from thoughts.In other words this "is-ness" of objects is experienced as "I"within every experience.
It is not somewhere far or near but one with me.
Thoughts exists becos of me;but I exists independent of thoughts.

One can only remember something different from oneself.The Truth being one with me cannot be remembered.Remembering and forgetting are both experienced as thoughts.
Truth is free from thoughts of objects and therefore cannot be remembered or forgotten.

The only way to remember It is to be one with it.
I remember that I am a human being by being one,not as a thought of my mind which I need to repeat.Firm abidance in the Truth as "I am Existence" which is the substratum of all objects and is the Consciousness which illumines all thoughts is Sat Darshana.


taken from SatDarshana of Ramana Maharishi with Commentary by Swami Tejomayananda.

 

[tks]

Holier than thou

Dear Amala, I wish to use your sensible suggestion to make a general comment about the acerbic nature of some posters. However, I don't want to bring you into the nastiness. Therefore I request you to not post a response to this post.

I think it is possible for people with diametrically opposing views to still have a civil exchange. We can disagree to our bones and still not say the other is an arrogant ignoramus, or give a vulgar finger.

I am really sorry that such behavior attracts lots of likes, it surely gives a bad name to the community of believers.

Cheers!

My criticism have not been directed at self proclaimed atheists but rather at the display of what I consider questionable character issues displayed.
DrBarani's quote had a smiley and it is mischievous to remove it while citing .. It was meant as a joke and not anyone in particular - hence they received likes.
Let us take it easy and not start this 'holier than thou' posts!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

With all due respects to Hawking, let me say that he may be a big name in Science. but I think the western scientists in general are ignorant of or ignore the excellent insights that some religions offer. One who is well conversant in both science and scriptures, I bet would have a more balanced perspective than those who are not.