-
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.
God Exists
- Thread starter Brahin
- Start date
- Status
Dear Mr. Yamaka,
My mind is not paranoid. and I have no fear of the unknown. I am aware that there can be people who are intense in their convictions to such an extent that they would like to bomb, kill, slaughter others with different convictions. so what do we do? Give up all convictions?
"unknown power" in the words of Mr. Subbudu morphed into "non-existent power" in your words. The opiate called atheism is perhaps playing havoc!!
Cheers.
My mind is not paranoid. and I have no fear of the unknown. I am aware that there can be people who are intense in their convictions to such an extent that they would like to bomb, kill, slaughter others with different convictions. so what do we do? Give up all convictions?
"unknown power" in the words of Mr. Subbudu morphed into "non-existent power" in your words. The opiate called atheism is perhaps playing havoc!!
Cheers.
N
Nara
Guest
Ravi, have you read Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene? I have. That book presents a Darwinian argument, IMO a persuasive one with which you may disagree, for altruism in general, not just among humans, but other species as well. From the comments you offer about this concept I have a feeling either you have not read the book or you are misrepresenting the argument.
Also, I submit to you, evolution is not about randomness at all. The reason primates share so many physical features is not by accident. Evolution is a process of random mutation and natural selection -- the second part of this process is what makes evolution possible.
Cheers!
p.s. Ravi, I feel your "Ayya" is completely disingenuous, if I use Ayya as respect I wouldn't then mock or denigrate the person, but that is just me.
sangom
0
Dear Shri Ravi,
I find some mutually contradictory statements in the above posts.
First, you say — Faith in God is not enough in preserving the balance of mind. Any one can addopt some faith, expecting some positive results, having "Selfish Genes"
GOD/Spirituality is not something that can be procured similar to bying something by cash, to achieve what the "Selfish Genes" want.
Subsequently you state — One has to get into true belief in God and true spirituality, to overcome uneasiness, wavering mind, unreasonbale selfishness, fear of death etc as a single human being.
To me, therefore, it appears that it is true belief in God and true spirituality which are at the core whereas what is usually found, as exemplified by many other death scenarios which I have witnessed (not only the two referred to earlier)- of old people for whom it should have been evident that their time was nearing - shows that, by and large, people do not have what you consider as “true belief in God and true spirituality”.
So, kindly tell me as to how you propose to distinguish between the run-of-the mill theists and those with “true belief in God and true spirituality”.
Anyway this point needs to be clarified by you.
It is not clear to me as to what you intend by “as a single human being”; are you filtering out schizophrenics?
You will most probably agree that all theists cannot and do not come up to the level of the great tapsya to which you refer to. And I have had to witness many death bed scenes (probably these experiences also had a role in my becoming an agnostic) and almost all humans do not leave this world with the type of detachment which you imagine comes due to the great tapsya. Thus we have to reckon with what is available in reality and not some imaginary population. Hence I would like to know from you as to how you propose to drive away the selfish gene’s imagined effect on human psyche with mere theism as generally found among humans.
I find some mutually contradictory statements in the above posts.
First, you say — Faith in God is not enough in preserving the balance of mind. Any one can addopt some faith, expecting some positive results, having "Selfish Genes"
GOD/Spirituality is not something that can be procured similar to bying something by cash, to achieve what the "Selfish Genes" want.
Subsequently you state — One has to get into true belief in God and true spirituality, to overcome uneasiness, wavering mind, unreasonbale selfishness, fear of death etc as a single human being.
To me, therefore, it appears that it is true belief in God and true spirituality which are at the core whereas what is usually found, as exemplified by many other death scenarios which I have witnessed (not only the two referred to earlier)- of old people for whom it should have been evident that their time was nearing - shows that, by and large, people do not have what you consider as “true belief in God and true spirituality”.
So, kindly tell me as to how you propose to distinguish between the run-of-the mill theists and those with “true belief in God and true spirituality”.
If what you posit is correctly understood by me, you do not accept the “selfish gene” theory of the atheists (Dawkins), and so, according to your postulate, humans do not have any selfish gene in them. But most people are not comfortable with their imminent deaths irrespective of whether they are atheists or confirmed theists. Hence, the reluctance to die is human and may possibly be inbuilt into the atheists by the “selfish gene” whereas this reluctance to and morbid fear of death in the truly and not-so-truly theist humans may be a handiwork of their respective gods!
Anyway this point needs to be clarified by you.
It is not clear to me as to what you intend by “as a single human being”; are you filtering out schizophrenics?
You will most probably agree that all theists cannot and do not come up to the level of the great tapsya to which you refer to. And I have had to witness many death bed scenes (probably these experiences also had a role in my becoming an agnostic) and almost all humans do not leave this world with the type of detachment which you imagine comes due to the great tapsya. Thus we have to reckon with what is available in reality and not some imaginary population. Hence I would like to know from you as to how you propose to drive away the selfish gene’s imagined effect on human psyche with mere theism as generally found among humans.
N
Nara
Guest
Dear narayan sir, Like Sangom sir I also went back to that thread to understand what you were saying, but I came away scratching my head. I request you to kindly elucidate, what prediction in that thread by whom invalidates what opinions expressed here. I hope you will take my request seriously.
Cheers!
tks
0
Sri Sangom - Namaskaram!
Thanks for your detailed post.
Let us take your analogy about helping a child solve an arithmetic problem. Let us say what is being taught is doing long division using roman numerals and that too incorrectly with rules that make no sense. In this metaphor you are the one in your view with the knowledge that this system of arithmetic does not work. In that case why do you want to propagate information that is useless anyway. Rather, you may want to tell the child to stop trying to make sense out of roman numerals. If the rules of engagement do not permit to do that , an appropriate response is *no response* at all.
I can give you my reasoning as to what may be happening here. For many Hindus and for many self proclaimed TBs, ability to autheritatively say a few Sanskrit verses from Vedas is equated to education and maturity. (It is like poor people in India equating ability to speak in English with authority). Such people with their knowledge of rituals and Sanskrit immediately command respect in the community because many TBs recite many things without an iota of understanding of the significance.
This kind of Shraddha is not bad in my view because when time is right they can go and learn the right things. However this kind of blind respect also makes them easy target for being a victim to silly ideas propagated by those with knowledge of rituals that are actually harmful.
Hence my suggestion is for people to reject showing respect to anyone reciting Sanskrit verses unless they show understanding of the significance and demonstrate maturity in describing what they have learnt with easy to understand explanations.
You may have critqued Smt Renu for her beliefs. I think from her posts she has shown significant understanding and maturity. When she uses a verse of Sanskrit to make a point there is sincerity of purpose in my view. Given her roots it is admirable how much she has learnt on her own and is able to articulate with the right context.
You are a smart and intelligent person and have probably seen a lot in life. You may have learnt scriptures in a more proper setting but in my view it is all corrupted by the motive underlying the need to display such information. I am being direct in stating this and I do not expect you to agree.
After 18+ years of studying and with help of teachers I have now come to understand why there is such an emphasis on learning Upanishads under the guidance of a well educated teacher.
In Hindu tradition and for that matter Asian traditions, context makes a huge difference. Many in western culture (and I have lived in USA for almost all my adulst life), context is not significant and all interactions have self defined context.
There is no way for anyone to understand how this simple verse has all of the Advita Vedanta described. Not only precise knowledge of Sanskrit is required but one has to know the context in which this verse appears.
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णश्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
All Upanishads describe the same topic area.
My question to you are the same that I asked Sri Nara for which he never gave an answer and danced around as usual. Let me ask the same question differently to you if you care to answer.
1. What is the problem that Upanishads address in your view? If you say you learnt this, why did you do that? What problem were you trying to solve?
2. Do you think Upanishads describe yet another philosophy? or is it a lot of mumbo-jumbo for silly atheists? What do you think the subject matter is about?
3. We all confront what we think is reality in our life. What is your defintion of reality?
Based on your answers I will be willing to engage further.
It will not be correct, in my humble opinion, to make such character/attitude judgements without even knowing the other person, or even seeing him. But for the theist who can make so much of judgements about God Himself without having knwon, seen or moved with, HIM, this will be a very small job, perhaps and very much ethical too
Well, we may not know a person but we do know their online persona based on their posts. If you re-read my posts they refer to the content of the posts and what 'hypocratic' messages they tend to convey.
I dont consider myself theist (believer) or atheist (non-believer).
People have a certain notion of 'God' in their head and either they believe that or they reject that.
In my view Isvara is a concept to be *understood* and not believed. Before one can even understand this concept of Isvara one has to understand oneself.
My personal view is that theist or self proclaimed atheists or agnosticists (who are skeptical, which I consider healthy) can agree on trying to understand what is 'Dharma' and why in our tradition 'Dharma' is an independent Purushartha. Most people only follow Artha or Kama as pursuits even if when go to a temple. Wanting to go to 'heaven' may be classified as Artha-pursuit only.
Well no one can stop you or anyone from disseminating any information. However, I question the motive behind such acts.
In my understanding one does not have to have a notion of personal God or follow any rituals to pursue Dharma which is a manifestation of Isvara as well.
For somone who is an elderly gentleman having experienced many things in life, I am sure you appreciate that there are far too many (hidden) variables that play a role in achieving what any of us want and that most of such variables are not in our control.
A person faced with issues of life may go to a temple of their choice and pray so that these variables work to their favor. No one can prove or disprove if their prayer have any effect. But if the act of prayer gives a sense of peace to that person why are you against it?
If you do not need to pray, fine dont.
Sangom Sir said in his post #922 to Mr. tks,
The problem with atheists/agnostics is that they never get this clear that a good number of theists have more than adequate knowledge of not only the scriptures of different religions but also of the sciences, that they have come to their conclusions about God after a lot of thought and contemplation, that they are at an advanced stage of evolution/journey of life, that they have understood the limitation of languages and communication between individuals and that they are not a child standing on the shores of a vast ocean wondering in a confused state as to what the ocean contains (as the atheists fondly and sincerely believe). Once they get out of this wrong notion there can be a meaningful dialogue between atheists and theists about each one's experiences. Though theists have their reservations about the limitation of language as a tool in communicating their experiences, they would like to have this dialogue to understand the depth, range and contours of the atheists understanding. The likely thought processes in atheism are attractive and that is enough to engage in this dialogue. But invariably this dialogue is thrown into disarray because of the name calling,ridiculing, temptation to engage in shadow boxing and simple and pure dislike for the opposite camp. I hope this would put at rest any desire to assume a intellectual higher plane by any one in these matters.
This again is a wrong assumption. While my antenna is sensitive enough to pick up and interpret static like "certified" in the above quoted message, I choose to ignore that and look at only the signal. A theist's belief in God crosses the stage of that rational intellect's reasoning at a very preliminary stage of his evolution.
I happen to be the member referred to here. The bhakta was one of the three well known saivait savants-Appar, Sundarar and Aaludaipillai- and not the imaginary vaishnavite one picturised in Kamal's movie. The saivakkuravar was not drowned and he lived to sing his experience in the words quoted by me viz."katrunai pootti oru kadalile paaychchinum natrunai aavathu namachchivaayave". It appears what I had written was not understood and hence this clarification.
This is the problem with atheists. Do me this favour or that favour because I believe in you(or worse still "do me this or that favour so that I will believe in you") is the kind of "binary box" out of which they are unable to come and look at other options. This argument can be taken further if there is a kind of ground rules/given initial conditions etc.. Till we move to that stage....
Cheers.
The problem with atheists/agnostics is that they never get this clear that a good number of theists have more than adequate knowledge of not only the scriptures of different religions but also of the sciences, that they have come to their conclusions about God after a lot of thought and contemplation, that they are at an advanced stage of evolution/journey of life, that they have understood the limitation of languages and communication between individuals and that they are not a child standing on the shores of a vast ocean wondering in a confused state as to what the ocean contains (as the atheists fondly and sincerely believe). Once they get out of this wrong notion there can be a meaningful dialogue between atheists and theists about each one's experiences. Though theists have their reservations about the limitation of language as a tool in communicating their experiences, they would like to have this dialogue to understand the depth, range and contours of the atheists understanding. The likely thought processes in atheism are attractive and that is enough to engage in this dialogue. But invariably this dialogue is thrown into disarray because of the name calling,ridiculing, temptation to engage in shadow boxing and simple and pure dislike for the opposite camp. I hope this would put at rest any desire to assume a intellectual higher plane by any one in these matters.
This again is a wrong assumption. While my antenna is sensitive enough to pick up and interpret static like "certified" in the above quoted message, I choose to ignore that and look at only the signal. A theist's belief in God crosses the stage of that rational intellect's reasoning at a very preliminary stage of his evolution.
I happen to be the member referred to here. The bhakta was one of the three well known saivait savants-Appar, Sundarar and Aaludaipillai- and not the imaginary vaishnavite one picturised in Kamal's movie. The saivakkuravar was not drowned and he lived to sing his experience in the words quoted by me viz."katrunai pootti oru kadalile paaychchinum natrunai aavathu namachchivaayave". It appears what I had written was not understood and hence this clarification.
This is the problem with atheists. Do me this favour or that favour because I believe in you(or worse still "do me this or that favour so that I will believe in you") is the kind of "binary box" out of which they are unable to come and look at other options. This argument can be taken further if there is a kind of ground rules/given initial conditions etc.. Till we move to that stage....
Cheers.
Last edited:
N
Nara
Guest
Folks, the topic is "God Exists". Where we the self-loathing brahmins (in my case ex-brahmin) have locus standi, whether we troll sewer (BTW, it is gratifying that other side has accepted, perhaps unwittingly, that parts of their scriptures are sewer), whether brahmins or evil -- which we never say, the question still remains, does god exist?
If one were to summarize, the argument in favor is, don't look for evidence with rational scientific approach, you have to experience god, it can be seen only through intuition which will suddenly, and perhaps miraculously, clear all doubt and deliver illumination.
Interestingly, at least to me, this is also an argument against the proposition God Exists. If it is beyond scientific observation and can only be experienced, what is the guarantee that this experience is nothing more than tricks the brain plays. In a magic show we see a woman getting sawed and put back together. One can say what happened was real, others may say it is only a trick. So, why is this intuition and experience nothing more than mere neural activity making one believe in things that are not true?
Cheers!
p.s. I will respond only to those posts that are free of put downs and personal attacks.
If one were to summarize, the argument in favor is, don't look for evidence with rational scientific approach, you have to experience god, it can be seen only through intuition which will suddenly, and perhaps miraculously, clear all doubt and deliver illumination.
Interestingly, at least to me, this is also an argument against the proposition God Exists. If it is beyond scientific observation and can only be experienced, what is the guarantee that this experience is nothing more than tricks the brain plays. In a magic show we see a woman getting sawed and put back together. One can say what happened was real, others may say it is only a trick. So, why is this intuition and experience nothing more than mere neural activity making one believe in things that are not true?
Cheers!
p.s. I will respond only to those posts that are free of put downs and personal attacks.
N
nachi naga
Guest
N
nachi naga
Guest
sometimes avathars take human form aka saguna brahman.
accurate is god in all beings as in dweller.try seeing within.spiritual gamma rays vision is needed,which has to be there as an instrument within you.even though brain activity is mapped now,but we are uncertain about full working of the brain.how thoughts gets processed in cpu within skull.the third eye region when focused constantly opens up glands in many other dimensions of space time.in the bargain if you become cock-eyed plz dont blame me,but its worth a try at the very least,to see or witness god.certainly a gotcha moment a bliss so profound one can only experiance it despite my description and truly its possible for all to experiance this phenomena.its priceless.
Folks this is about the post #935:
The attempt is to appropriate the adjective 'rational' to scientific methods! This basic approach is itself questionable.
What are the experiences that the brain by its tricks gives you and what are not is an issue already discussed threadbare by great acharyas. They have even suggested what to follow as authentic. Are we ready to take that advice? When we are in a stupor due to our single track belief in atheism where is the question of exploring around.
For a start let us first define 1. what is put downs and 2. What will constitute a personal attack. That will be helpful.
Cheers!
The attempt is to appropriate the adjective 'rational' to scientific methods! This basic approach is itself questionable.
What are the experiences that the brain by its tricks gives you and what are not is an issue already discussed threadbare by great acharyas. They have even suggested what to follow as authentic. Are we ready to take that advice? When we are in a stupor due to our single track belief in atheism where is the question of exploring around.
For a start let us first define 1. what is put downs and 2. What will constitute a personal attack. That will be helpful.
Cheers!
DrBarani
0
Yes, I can give an example. Atheists have one track mind. They can count up to 10 with their ten fingers. I can count up to 1024 with unique showing of fingers. See? It all depends on what one calls "rational".
I asked one senior atheist to show me that X-rays exist since we can't see them. You think he will be able to prove x-rays beyond doubt (or without provoking questions like "it is only a play of some chemicals on film, not a proof of x-rays") ?
As simple as x-rays, atheists can't prove to us that they exist. And then they want us to prove something far more complex than that!
C RAVI
0
Shri Sangom,
You are very much senior to me. You are extremely talented and having a great persona. I have respect towards you from the very begining.
So, please consider my below reply as a general one and not as a reply to you personally. My statements below are all just as a stand alone statement, expressing my views in common to all.
-----
You can never ever technically, scientifically and logically explain other humans as what True belief in God and True Spirituality is all about
True belief in GOD and True sense of spirituality has no measuring scale for onself and to demonstrate and explain to others as how that measurment need to be calculated and determined to its perfection.
A theist with True believe in GOD and having True sense of Spirituality, just continues his process of realization, acceptance, understanding and experiencing stage by stage till his death.
A person as 100% theist alone can have the patience, endurance and interest to keep exploring and experiencing.
A person as 100% theist alone can know how much he/she has measured the true sense of belief in GOD and true sense of his Spirituality. Still he/she would have many doubts and confusions. To begin with, one has to either surrender onself to a genuine Guru (thats is difficult in this kali yuga, to indentify a true Guru), or best surrender to oneself and to the rule of the nature.
True belief in God and True sense of Spirituality is a continueous process and a person in this process may time to time find himself cynical about it and get's the clarity of the things (being 100% theists) on his/her own, ASAP.
This can not be achieved by many "middle path" seekers, easily.
When a person truly believe in God and be in true sense of Spirituality, he/she would, for sure, continues the same, what may be the offers of the life time situations.
I am very much accepting "Selfish Genes" and I have the highest regard for Lord - Richard Dawkins for his contirbutions. I have no sarcasm against him. What I told is, in this scientific yoga, a human with exceptional brain has to scientifically prove the truth of "Selfish Genes", which was much clearly prooved by many Maha Rishis 1000s of years before. Humans in this physical world of kama, krodha, lobha etc would obviously be selfish as the order of the nature and need to recognize, realize, understand the existance of God and to be into Spirituality to refine one's soul and seek liberation from this so called wonderful Human Life in this physical world.
The reality is very much in real. But we humans tend to overlook the reality and wants to live to the utmost satisfaction.
Birth is the reality, Death is the reality, The fear of death is the reality, Happyness is the reality, Sorrow is the reality, Love is the reality, Hatred is the reality....etc..etc...There are lots of reality in this physical world, which the "Selfish Gene" is coping with, laboriously.
A person who could be 100% theist and sincerely continues his process of measuring his belief in GOD and sense of Spirituality with his consciousness and genuinity and live his life with absolute justification without any major guilty consciousness can well leave this world with peace of mind and without fear of death.
renuka
Well-known member
and i have 1 1 1 somewhere in the human anatomy
nachi I dont quite get it this 1 1 1..i thought is 0 1 0...
DrBarani
0
A primer on "randomness"
There is no such thing as "randomness" by itself.
Randomness AND a Method that measures that Randomness is a coupled system.
Here is an example:
You cannot measure a Snake movement with a Straight Ruler. Therefore, the snake movement is "random" with respect to the Ruler. But the snake movement by itself is not random! The movement can be measured by a curved measuring scale such as a sine wave function or a Fourier Transform. Hence the snake movement is NOT random with respect to a sine-wave ruler.
Simply because YOU don't know how to measure doesn't make THAT system as an absolute Random system. Your methodology/ruler is incapable of meaningfully measuring the system and that incapability is what is rephrased as "randomness".
Hence, let us not invoke some fantastic explanation as "randomness" as a driving force of the nature. Any claim about randomness must include what method was used to define that randomness.
There is no such thing as "randomness" by itself.
Randomness AND a Method that measures that Randomness is a coupled system.
Here is an example:
You cannot measure a Snake movement with a Straight Ruler. Therefore, the snake movement is "random" with respect to the Ruler. But the snake movement by itself is not random! The movement can be measured by a curved measuring scale such as a sine wave function or a Fourier Transform. Hence the snake movement is NOT random with respect to a sine-wave ruler.
Simply because YOU don't know how to measure doesn't make THAT system as an absolute Random system. Your methodology/ruler is incapable of meaningfully measuring the system and that incapability is what is rephrased as "randomness".
Hence, let us not invoke some fantastic explanation as "randomness" as a driving force of the nature. Any claim about randomness must include what method was used to define that randomness.
N
Nara
Guest
Those who want to challenge what the adjective "rational" means may look it up in any one of the online dictionaries.
The question is about the validity of personal experience and intuition as general proof for the proposition "God Exists". The answer given now is that great acharyas have vouched for their validity. This answer is quite inadequate in many ways.
- This is a classic case of the logical fallacy -- appealing to authority.
- The acharyas of the theists can be authoritative only to the theists belonging to that particular sect, not to anyone else.
- Within the scope of Vedic Brahminism, there are many Acharyas each giving diametrically opposing interpretations. Some are downright hostile to competing interpretations, so much so, they characterize them as nothing short of poison.
- Even these Acharyas categorically reject the notion that the existence of god can be definitively ascertained by human faculties. These disparate acharyas at logger heads on how to interpret scriptures agree on one thing, they speak in one voice that the presence and nature of God can be established only through scripture, which in turn requires the unflinching faith that these scriptures are inerrant.
- Even within a given sect, the Acharyas words get interpreted in multiplicity of ways. In the case of SV, the Vadakalai and Thenkalai insist the other side is wrong about what their common Acharya, Bhagavat Ramanuja, says.
IMO, anything about the person presenting an argument that elevates heat but does not illuminate must be carefully avoided. The problem is, one side takes pointed criticism of ideas as bashing and starts calling names of the other side. For example, this poster made this comment:
When we are in a stupor due to our single track belief in atheism where is the question of exploring around.
We have seen vulgar showing of middle finger to the atheists with intent to insult -- with a smiley at the end of course, and comments like throwing the atheists to dogs. I leave it to the fair minded spectators to decide what these are.
Thank you...
p.s. I will continue my responses only if the responses are free of put downs and personal attacks...
Folks,
This is in response to post #943 above:
I don't look up the dictionary in the internet. I have a handy Mini Oxford dictionary for quick reference and a maxi Mariam Webster for leisurely reference. The mini says that the word 'rational' when used as an adjective means "able to reason; sane;based on reasoning". Now coming to my objection: I had said in my post that the attempt was to appropriate the adjective ‘rational’ to ‘scientific methods’. By my statement I have drawn attention to 2 facts. They are:
1. Scientific methods can also give insane conclusions. They may appear to be 'reasoned' ones but only in a 'relative' way. This has been proved umpteen times in the history of science from the time of Newton and Descartes to Max Planck.
2. Other methods which scientists won't accept as scientific can also give conclusions which are sane. Only a different type of reasoning may be needed here.
So, I said “do not appropriate the adjective to scientific methods”.I do not get what is the issue here. If any of you get it please enlighten me.
Not so fast. That was in response to this:“…….If it is beyond scientific observation and can only be experienced, what is the guarantee that this experience is nothing more than tricks the brain plays?” I did not say Great Acharyas have vouched for the validity of intuition though I would like to take it up later. I said the possible pitfalls in human perception has been discussed in detail by the Acharyas and there is no need to go through them again when there was a reference to brain’s tricks. That was not ‘appealing to authority’ either. Please go through the sequence of posts once again.
I will keep coming here 1.to post my ideas when I want to have a discussion about them and 2. whenever I find someone in a funny mood talks ill of Hinduism, its Scriptures, Brahmins and their culture etc. I will do that irrespective of the so called put downs, calling names and what not because I leave my ego hanging in the coat stand inside the wardrobe before I come here.
Cheers.
This is in response to post #943 above:
I don't look up the dictionary in the internet. I have a handy Mini Oxford dictionary for quick reference and a maxi Mariam Webster for leisurely reference. The mini says that the word 'rational' when used as an adjective means "able to reason; sane;based on reasoning". Now coming to my objection: I had said in my post that the attempt was to appropriate the adjective ‘rational’ to ‘scientific methods’. By my statement I have drawn attention to 2 facts. They are:
1. Scientific methods can also give insane conclusions. They may appear to be 'reasoned' ones but only in a 'relative' way. This has been proved umpteen times in the history of science from the time of Newton and Descartes to Max Planck.
2. Other methods which scientists won't accept as scientific can also give conclusions which are sane. Only a different type of reasoning may be needed here.
So, I said “do not appropriate the adjective to scientific methods”.I do not get what is the issue here. If any of you get it please enlighten me.
Not so fast. That was in response to this:“…….If it is beyond scientific observation and can only be experienced, what is the guarantee that this experience is nothing more than tricks the brain plays?” I did not say Great Acharyas have vouched for the validity of intuition though I would like to take it up later. I said the possible pitfalls in human perception has been discussed in detail by the Acharyas and there is no need to go through them again when there was a reference to brain’s tricks. That was not ‘appealing to authority’ either. Please go through the sequence of posts once again.
So What? Knowledge, whichever source it comes from and whatever form it comes in cannot be rejected. If some one wants to prove that the Acharya was wrong in his argument it is welcome-in fact there are theses written on exactly this topic for a Ph.D. in the philosophy departments of universities.
I can answer this point. But I have a problem as long as the member is unable to define the term brahminism/vedic brahminism. Because this term has been loosely used by the poster in earlier posts. I will answer if an answer is forthcoming to this request.
The Acharyas may be at logger heads with each other because interpretations are involved but they are certainly not at logger heads with the scriptures. You either accept their words and move forward or reject their words and go your way.
Again the difference is between sects and not between sects and scriptures. Speaking about these differences does not serve any purpose. All I say is that one who is after truth/knowledge can take in all the literature on the subject that is available and start thinking about them further instead of reinventing the wheel in all its ‘glory’. It is in this context that I had mentioned about Acharyas and their contribution.
I think here I see a genuine problem. As long as ideas can not be separated from individuals this problem is bound to crop up. Sharp criticism,pointed criticism,blunt answers etc are all taken to a personal level by the reader because of this indistinguishability perceived by the individual. When I throw an idea into the arena called the forum I am prepared to take whatever darts are thrown at those ideas and me because at any point I own those ideas as mine. The only bottom line I would draw would be that there should not be any expletives or abuse. If it deteriorates to that level it becomes a different ball game. I think no one would need a definition for these two words (expletives and abuses). I am supremely confident that all members who come to this forum are not capable of violence in whatever form and this certainly includes verbal violence. This confidence gives me the strength to look at only the ideas and not behind it for possible bad intentions. I would like to engage only those who have similar perceptions about this matter as otherwise I may be causing unintentional hurt however hard I may try to avoid it.
No. Not putting down. I believe it addresses the question in hand. Every one here use a lot of alphabets and words to convey ideas. If we all convert to being cryptic this forum will become a terribly boring place. Instead of telling an atheist friend, “there are possibilities outside the perceptions you hang on to” I have said “come on get up from your slumber and the sweet dreams there are more real things to handle”. It can also be interpreted to have said “hey stupid lazybone atheist, come on you have taken anough. Get up and start moving. Leave your stupid ideas to the next session” It depends on your mindset to decide which one you are able to identify yourself with.
I refuse to get provoked to go into this victimhood induced statements. Already people have done enough research going deep into archives about the first occurrence of this middle finger mudra in these threads. Yes every one is watching.
I will keep coming here 1.to post my ideas when I want to have a discussion about them and 2. whenever I find someone in a funny mood talks ill of Hinduism, its Scriptures, Brahmins and their culture etc. I will do that irrespective of the so called put downs, calling names and what not because I leave my ego hanging in the coat stand inside the wardrobe before I come here.
Cheers.
sangom
0
Shri tks sir,
I will reply in detail to the various points contained in your post #933, not withstanding the hidden taunt therein, which I opt to overlook. My comments on Upanishads answering to your queries about them will be longish; I will also have to brush up my books because I have not learnt them 'by heart'. Since my typing is dead slow (and I tend to avoid mistakes to the best of my abilities) it may take quite some time, but I will reply.
The following are some of my observations in the meanwhile :-
If you see the OP in this thread, it will be evident that the existence of God was that God's existence is denied because people in sufficient numbers do not go to God. Since the comparison in the story was with barbers, people with dirty long hair 'n untrimmed beards, etc., a direct inference from the OP would be that people can and may approach God for whatever services they expect from Him.
Now most of us are somewhat assured that a barber will do a certain type of service in return for payment, and the vast majority of people approach God also with a very similar mindset, the service here being wish-fulfilment (though the tenor of the posts under this thread has changed to the more philosophical one of God or self-realization, lately, in the zeal to put down and counter the opposite camp.).
So, we have to once again set the rules and decide whether we should stick to the contents of the OP and discuss if a God of the type envisaged therein is what we have as subject. If not, we should first deny the OP itself as wrong.
The Original Poster then went on to state in post #3, that God's knowledge is infinite (omniscient) while humans are not so.
We then had a mention of the syādvāda of Jainism but nobody took off from that. If we consider the syādvāda, the God proposition will come under the syādvāda 6th category, viz.,"in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable" will make it to the category of "May be it does not exist is a valid proposition for affirmed non-existence that is consistent with not affirmed existence and is not undescribable". According to syādvāda no assertion is entire of itself. Cognized awareness of an object rooted in independent reality is a basis of its descriptions. Thus what is at the root of syādvāda is cognized awareness and in this regard, the theists do not satisfy the requirement for a valid assertion, IMO. I would like more knowledgable members to elucidate.
I will reply in detail to the various points contained in your post #933, not withstanding the hidden taunt therein, which I opt to overlook. My comments on Upanishads answering to your queries about them will be longish; I will also have to brush up my books because I have not learnt them 'by heart'. Since my typing is dead slow (and I tend to avoid mistakes to the best of my abilities) it may take quite some time, but I will reply.
The following are some of my observations in the meanwhile :-
If you see the OP in this thread, it will be evident that the existence of God was that God's existence is denied because people in sufficient numbers do not go to God. Since the comparison in the story was with barbers, people with dirty long hair 'n untrimmed beards, etc., a direct inference from the OP would be that people can and may approach God for whatever services they expect from Him.
Now most of us are somewhat assured that a barber will do a certain type of service in return for payment, and the vast majority of people approach God also with a very similar mindset, the service here being wish-fulfilment (though the tenor of the posts under this thread has changed to the more philosophical one of God or self-realization, lately, in the zeal to put down and counter the opposite camp.).
So, we have to once again set the rules and decide whether we should stick to the contents of the OP and discuss if a God of the type envisaged therein is what we have as subject. If not, we should first deny the OP itself as wrong.
The Original Poster then went on to state in post #3, that God's knowledge is infinite (omniscient) while humans are not so.
We then had a mention of the syādvāda of Jainism but nobody took off from that. If we consider the syādvāda, the God proposition will come under the syādvāda 6th category, viz.,"in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable" will make it to the category of "May be it does not exist is a valid proposition for affirmed non-existence that is consistent with not affirmed existence and is not undescribable". According to syādvāda no assertion is entire of itself. Cognized awareness of an object rooted in independent reality is a basis of its descriptions. Thus what is at the root of syādvāda is cognized awareness and in this regard, the theists do not satisfy the requirement for a valid assertion, IMO. I would like more knowledgable members to elucidate.
S
subbudu1
Guest
In reply to Suraju's post #925
It is not just staying in an agraharam and marrying within one's own community but the inability to mingle with lower castes or even guide them when required , not touching them in the name of theendal. Until the last century brahmins were looked upon as role models, so the onus was on us. The next thing is that brahmins who took up secular education kept a distance from other castes. When you have given your jathi dharma why do you want to preserve only the madi and acharam? If people were sincerely concerned about purity it should have been seen. Let us prepare a list of brahmins in the early 19 th century who kept concubines, two wives, did other things unsustainable for brahmins, were corrupt , practiced nepotism , men and women who have practiced even the slightest acts of stealing( even a simple example of a woman taking her sister in law or co-sister's materials is a thief, or a brother who cheats his own brother ),accepted bribes, took interest for loans( as you may be aware a brahmin should not lend money on interest ) and so on. So by truth, all these fallen brahmins should have been isolated, touching them should have been made a sin. Neither was this done but the so-called brahmins of pure lineage are now polluted because they have married their sons and daughters to these fallen brahmins.
Marriage is an unavoidable consequence of occupation the Dharma of an individual if you like to call it. Men and women who marry out of caste unless they belong to some political ideology, marry out of caste, not due to a sudden loss of faith in caste, but they find they are able to relate to each other since they share similar education and occupation and outlook. Reform which I am talking about is something else.
This statement is malicious. It is not only brahmins who are marrying out of caste but also the middle castes. One of the person in my relations, a youngster, she married out of caste and is showing her true colors. She has isolated her in laws completely and does not want to even leave her kid in their house to be taken care of. I had recently been contacted by a person seeking alliance a family with mixed background but who want only brahmin alliance for their family. They say that all their relations exist only in the brahmin side. Where did other relations go, in thin air?All this is hypocrisy and the sufferers are the parents of non brahmin parent of the boy or girl who choose to marry a brahmin. Yes there is a case of a brahmin girl married to a muslim and even her traditional mother has to meet her daughter only as she is wearing a burkha, such strange treatments do exist in intermarriages. But in any case regardless of who practices it, the one who is seen as a role model, must alter one's behaviour. Marriage is a different thing and is not completely dependant on reform in society but it gets reformed in parallel due to changing roles , occupations and combined identities we develop as a nation.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
nachi naga
Guest
god is existing.even the name god is only a feeble label for the energy prevalent in most obvious transparent existance.some acknowledge some dont.only when one is alive in a body can experiance god is an opinion some hold.unless atheist taste sugar thru sense perception they will not know the experiance of sweetness of sugar,which is an attribute of sugar.god must be experianced to know his/her existance is my opinion.i personally know the existance of god,bcause i know i am divine,as i come from a divine and go to a divine.for atheist they dont know - period.maybe another lifetime experiance will enlighten them.i hope they will realise meaning atheist,that even though they were not part of the creation process of their body mind,but soul existed with no beginning or end.atheist are like kindergarten student and making them sit in a class of Phd will make them scratch their head.i empathise their thinking faculty,but they are good human beings imho.
S
subbudu1
Guest
I find it weird that someone has to say Science is not rational. All inferences and conclusions in Science is to be constructed rationally. Certain theories are popular even though there is no adequate evidence in support of them. Yet the weight of rational minds is in favor of these theories and because no alternate explanation at a particular period of time is equally rational. One can easily argue this on behalf of Scientists that one cannot dismiss the conclusions of thousands of rational scientists in favour of intuition or guesswork of some others.
Acharyas could have also been affected by illusion.
It may have happened that somebody had seen god. But one cannot dismiss the possibility of many others deluded to believe they witnessed God.
There was a time when I was intensely in work and when my wife asked me a question I answered something from some topic related to my work completely irrelevant to her question.
This happens to the brain when it is very focussed on something else. My brain even invents dreams based on the general thing that I have been focussing in life. There was once a dream which I felt so true that I am still not able to understand how it did not happen . The only clue it did not happen is nothing was rational about it. The characters dont behave in normal life the way they did in the dream. There were many other absurdities.
Now suppose it is my intense goal to have such a vision and a necessary part of the process is to believe that this vision can happen, and if I concentrate all my efforts in that direction and if suddenly I have a dream which creates this vision, then most certainly I am likely to believe what happened is not a dream. It is even possible to have a waking dream. All this does not mean that person is insane as it happens to all of us. But since the subject constantly contemplates on such subjects, the subject is affected by it which tends to cut away one's questioning of these occurrences. We cannot rule out that atleast some of these experiences were hallucinations.
Many experts feel today that certain founders of certain sects have these experiences. The completely wicked nature of the rules of these sects makes us realize that hallucinations do occur, which make people feel they are seeing god or hearing god, as no god could say or propagate something like this, considering the definition of God. In such cases internal inconsistencies in texts can sufficiently make us realize that these rules and scripts were man made. While we are able to clearly identify such hallucinations being the cause behind certain behaviour in these extreme cases, there is no reason why one cannot extend the possibility of such occurences in not so clear-cut cases, even in sects which are not very fierce or fanatic.
Acharyas could have also been affected by illusion.
It may have happened that somebody had seen god. But one cannot dismiss the possibility of many others deluded to believe they witnessed God.
There was a time when I was intensely in work and when my wife asked me a question I answered something from some topic related to my work completely irrelevant to her question.
This happens to the brain when it is very focussed on something else. My brain even invents dreams based on the general thing that I have been focussing in life. There was once a dream which I felt so true that I am still not able to understand how it did not happen . The only clue it did not happen is nothing was rational about it. The characters dont behave in normal life the way they did in the dream. There were many other absurdities.
Now suppose it is my intense goal to have such a vision and a necessary part of the process is to believe that this vision can happen, and if I concentrate all my efforts in that direction and if suddenly I have a dream which creates this vision, then most certainly I am likely to believe what happened is not a dream. It is even possible to have a waking dream. All this does not mean that person is insane as it happens to all of us. But since the subject constantly contemplates on such subjects, the subject is affected by it which tends to cut away one's questioning of these occurrences. We cannot rule out that atleast some of these experiences were hallucinations.
Many experts feel today that certain founders of certain sects have these experiences. The completely wicked nature of the rules of these sects makes us realize that hallucinations do occur, which make people feel they are seeing god or hearing god, as no god could say or propagate something like this, considering the definition of God. In such cases internal inconsistencies in texts can sufficiently make us realize that these rules and scripts were man made. While we are able to clearly identify such hallucinations being the cause behind certain behaviour in these extreme cases, there is no reason why one cannot extend the possibility of such occurences in not so clear-cut cases, even in sects which are not very fierce or fanatic.
N
Nara
Guest
I take note that these answers do not invalidate my objections -- that citing Acharya does not make the independently-unverifiable personal experiences and intuition any more valid an argument in favor the proposition God Exists.
This is the reason I have to go case by case and respond only if the post is free of put downs and personal attacks.
Thank you ....
S
subbudu1
Guest
Let me reproduce this from this site
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41204.htm
This website is a very very interesting site
Approximately 50% of patients with epilepsy have partial epilepsy. Partial epilepsy is often of temporal lobe origin. However, the true prevalence of TLE is not known, since not all cases of presumed TLE are confirmed by video-EEG and most cases are classified by clinical history and interictal EEG findings alone. The temporal lobe is the most epileptogenic region of the brain. In fact, 90% of patients with temporal interictal epileptiform abnormalities on their EEG have a history of seizures.History:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41204.htm
This website is a very very interesting site
Approximately 50% of patients with epilepsy have partial epilepsy. Partial epilepsy is often of temporal lobe origin. However, the true prevalence of TLE is not known, since not all cases of presumed TLE are confirmed by video-EEG and most cases are classified by clinical history and interictal EEG findings alone. The temporal lobe is the most epileptogenic region of the brain. In fact, 90% of patients with temporal interictal epileptiform abnormalities on their EEG have a history of seizures.History:
- Aura
- Auras occur in approximately 80% of temporal lobe seizures. They are a common feature of simple partial seizures and usually precede complex partial seizures of temporal lobe origin.
- Auras may be classified by symptom type; the types comprise somatosensory, special sensory, autonomic, or psychic symptoms.
- Somatosensory and special sensory phenomena
- Olfactory and gustatory illusions and hallucinations may occur. Acharya et al found that olfactory auras are associated more commonly with temporal lobe tumors than with other causes of TLE.
- Auditory hallucinations consist of a buzzing sound, a voice or voices, or muffling of ambient sounds. This type of aura is more common with neocortical TLE than with other types of TLE.
- Patients may report distortions of shape, size, and distance of objects.
- These visual illusions are unlike the visual hallucinations associated with occipital lobe seizure in that no formed elementary visual image is noted, such as the visual image of a face that may be seen with seizures arising from the fusiform or the inferior temporal gyrus.
- Things may appear shrunken (micropsia) or larger (macropsia) than usual.
- Tilting of structures has been reported. Vertigo has been described with seizures in the posterior superior temporal gyrus.
- Psychic phenomena
- Patients may have a feeling of déjà vu or jamais vu, a sense of familiarity or unfamiliarity, respectively.
- Patients may experience depersonalization (ie, feeling of detachment from oneself) or derealization (ie, surroundings appear unreal).
- Fear or anxiety usually is associated with seizures arising from the amygdala.
- Patients may describe a sense of dissociation or autoscopy, in which they report seeing their own body from outside.
- Autonomic phenomena are characterized by changes in heart rate, piloerection, and sweating. Patients may experience an epigastric "rising" sensation or nausea.
- Following the aura, a temporal lobe complex partial seizure begins with a wide-eyed, motionless stare, dilated pupils, and behavioral arrest. Oral alimentary automatisms such as lip smacking, chewing, and swallowing may be noted. Manual automatisms or unilateral dystonic posturing of a limb also may be observed.
- Patients may continue their ongoing motor activity or react to their surroundings in a semipurposeful manner (ie, reactive automatisms). They can have repetitive stereotyped manual automatisms.
- A complex partial seizure may evolve to a secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizure.
- Patients usually experience a postictal period of confusion, which distinguishes TLE from absence seizures, which are not associated with postictal confusion. In addition, absence seizures are not associated with complex automatisms. Postictal aphasia suggests onset in the language-dominant temporal lobe.
- Most auras and automatisms last a very short period—seconds or 1-2 minutes. The postictal phase may last for a longer period (several minutes). By definition, amnesia occurs during a complex partial seizure because of bilateral hemispheric involvement.
- Approximately two thirds of patients with TLE treated surgically have hippocampal sclerosis as the pathologic substrate.
- The etiologies of TLE include the following:
- Past infections, eg, herpes encephalitis or bacterial meningitis
- Trauma producing contusion or hemorrhage that results in encephalomalacia or cortical scarring
- Hamartomas
- Gliomas
- Vascular malformations (ie, arteriovenous malformation, cavernous angioma)
- Cryptogenic: A cause is presumed but has not been identified.
- Idiopathic (genetic): This is rare. Familial TLE was described by Berkovic and colleagues, and partial epilepsy with auditory features was described by Scheffer and colleagues.
- Hippocampal sclerosis produces a clinical syndrome called mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). MTLE begins in late childhood, then remits, but reappears in adolescence or early adulthood in a refractory form.
N
nachi naga
Guest
atheist think only body exists.spiritualist think,the spirit soul has acquired the body.fundamentally spirit soul exists with or without a body.if one can comprehend this truth,many a discussion will be fruitful.in the milky way,our earth is a miniscule part.in earth,we humans are a much minuscular part.such a minicular being tocomprehend and know god,requires grace.not all have this grace imho.
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
Wanted Fulltime care person neededLooking for a fulltime lady who can look after 80 yr old person who has dementia. She can manage...
- vashok (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Free [Bride Wanted] Bride WantedLooking for Bride - Family Oriented and brought up from Cultured Family
- SRIKANT S -(Bride Wanted) (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
-
Free [Bride Wanted] TAMIL BRAHMIN VADAMA BRIDE WANTEDMust to be willing to relocate to Bengaluru Must be willing to accommodate joint family
- self today (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted [Cook Wanted] Wanted cook for Home at Gandhipuram Coimbatore. Decent Salary offeredHi, we need a female Brahmin cook for home ( 5 members family) at Coimbatore. Morning and...
- gchitra (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated: