God Exists

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Shri tks sir,
.
.
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.

Thanks for offering to reply considering that it is an effort to type out a long response. I think plain English to share your understanding will do IMHO, though you are welcome to consult books.

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.).

Rather than call the stories such as the one in the OP as naive I would say we all grow from one level of understanding to another as we grow and mature. It is a fact that as an infant we all were totally dependent on our parents for our survival and our ignorance of the world was total. Many have extended the concept of parents - one who nurtures, protects, rewards, punishes and gives what you need rather than what you want - as God in their adult life. Stories such as the one in the OP appeal to the infant in us as we try to understand what this world is all about.

With maturity the world view of Isvara (I dont use the word God since it has a specific meaning in the context of Biblical religions) changes for some people. For many God enters their mind either because they are in trouble or because they desire something in this life or their imagined after-life ("heaven"). All religious traditions cater to the pursuit of Artha and Kama ONLY! This in my view includes Hindu traditions as well. Such pursuits are completely legitimate in Hindu world view and one need not have guilt pursuing Artha (Security) an Kama (Desires). The issue comes when one ignores Dharma (set of universal principles in this context) that act on us whether we acknowledge or not.

A person who lives in the world of bribes thinks - due to ignorance - that he can bribe his concept of God also. The role of people who have better perspective, knowledge and experience should be to teach such people why their methods are flawed without putting down a person's tradition. If going to a temple helps them to feel stronger it is nice. If they feel more secure or think their desires can be fulfilled because they do an Archana then that is wonderful. I see nothing wrong with this.

If someone has a headache then you look to correct that condition rather than ask them to cut their own head off.

Our Vedic view and this is unique only to Hindu religion is that Dharma is stated as an *independent* purushartha (pursuit) even in the absence of any specific desire to pursue Artha or Kama. The question then is why should this be so. What Dharma are we talking about here?

The reason I am asking these questions is because I want to understand your understanding of such basic topics.

Regarding your reference to 'put downs' here is my thought. Showing someone is illogical is not a put down in my view especially if they tend to make extreme and possibly insensitive statements under the name of logic. If one is logical they should be able to understand that 'binary logic' is not the only type of logic that is available for analysis. If one invokes science and physics in their arguments then it is natural to expect that they have a good understanding of notion of time and space that are established through peer reviewed publications. If one invokes concepts of Chaos theory or randomness then they should be able to readily understand post #942 (primer on randomness by DrBarani). If one claims they are rational and logical they should be able to articulate the axioms and means of knowledge and proof to make their points.

Making loose comments under the name of logic & scripture are done often by people of 'faith'. I find that our self proclaimed 'atheists' here tend to make illogical statements and I have called those out when appropriate. In my view, they are no different in their 'logic' than the 'born again Christians and their script' that I have come across in my life to quote an example. In my mind, calling this out is not a put down. I dont expect you to agree.

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.

Since concept of personal God is personal, concept of proof is an oxymoron.

Infinite is just a mathematical abstraction and does not have meaning.

If intelligence is reflected in the manifestation and we are able to see that even randomness is predictable (otherwise the whole area of statistics and statistical mechanics is not possible) then one can call that intelligence pervasive and hence omniscient. Certain laws of nature do not seem to change across the cosmos, otherwise we could not make conclusions about what is out there in the distant part of the universe. The mass of electron does not seem to be different here or in the moon. Hence the intelligence that apparently seem to be manifested is all across the universe and hence omniscient. What is your objection to this understanding of Isvara (manifested as laws of nature) ?

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 personally do not care for history unless there is a lesson to learn for what we do today. Universal truths by definition are invariant under time and space. So without labeling we could try to understand such truths. We also do not need any scripture to validate such truths. In my mind the only reason to cite Upanishads or BG is to only provide amplification and more precise definition.

I look forward to your response to my earlier questions as well as a few that I have added here as well

Regards

 

[subbudu1]

I normally avoid discussing on posts of tks. Here is a quote from his post #952

A person who lives in the world of bribes thinks - due to ignorance - that he can bribe his concept of God also. The role of people who have better perspective, knowledge and experience should be to teach such people why their methods are flawed without putting down a person's tradition. If going to a [COLOR=#da7911 !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]temple[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] helps them to feel stronger it is nice. If they feel more secure or think their desires can be fulfilled because they do an Archana then that is wonderful. I see nothing wrong with this.

If my understanding is not wrong TKS feels that if people feel that certain things give them peace, and they appear to be harmless they can continue that.
It is nice to know that we can feel good to live in a dreamy world. But that is not the real world. There is no harm in trying to awake a person from a dream, if the other person feels that the sleeping person is in a dream. But I agree that one cannot do anything if the sleeping person refuses to wake up even if the sun is right above his head and the man pulls up his blanket over his head and obstinate about sleeping.

 

[ShivKC]

subbudu1 wrote :

• 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.

Subbudu sir,

aura, miracles, poojas followed by answering from god , yogic hallucination as communion with god being discounted as work of brain, prediction of dreams and predicting the future in the name of god... etc etc etc

i have a simple question..

you are free to reject it, saying its a brain work and hallucination. you are even free to say, communing with god through prayers is just a brain effect.. all fine..

i can add paranoia here too, for your advantage.

now that the atheists claimed to stake a statement, that its all the activity of brain, and no god is involved here, i wish my request would be answered.

the neuroscience is so advanced in this world, why dont you (or the scientists) attempt to prove all those Prayers,miracles, rituals of a theist, is all nothing but a chemical trigger of brain? why so struggle so much to prove non-existence of god... try this simple stuff... I would appreciate that, and I would be always on your side


I have one pending response of those 3 points, will respond after this, soon.

 

[subbudu1]

the neuroscience is so advanced in this world, why dont you (or the scientists) attempt to prove all those Prayers,miracles, rituals of a theist, is all nothing but a chemical trigger of brain? why so struggle so much to prove non-existence of god... try this simple stuff... I would appreciate that, and I would be always on your side
.

What is so unusual about any of them. None of these have been demonstrated in front of a scientific audience. Some rationalists even invited miracle makers to their audience and openly said that if these are demonstrated in front of them, they would accept it. Was it ever done. Has there been a single thing which is nothing more than a magic trick. So I dont understand your question but I believe this answers to what I believe approximates your question

 

[nachi naga]

subbudu,you are the living example of a miracle called life.you did not create yourself but yet you are born!!what more proof you need?

 

[biswa]

The only way Brahmins could have accomplished (1) and (2) would be, if the Almighty God was on their side!

Wait, what? God is on the side of the Brahmins? I thought it was the other way: Brahmins were on the side of God!

 

[suraju06]

This is what I have to say about post#946 above:

t 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.

Where was this inability? I did not have any such inability in moving with my friends. Even today when I visit my village I am able see the same love affection in the eyes of my friends there when we meet. Again if you are targeting the madi acharam etc., I have already explained it to you. Brahmins had an overriding anxiety about purity in serving God and in pursuing knowledge about God. My father was very particular that I did not touch him in the morning until he finished his daily Aradhanam. This even if I had taken my bath. So now I hope you understand what is this madi. He was a teacher who built a school in a nearby village and taught in it too as a single teacher. It was purely a dharma without any monetary expectations. He felt that the village children needed education and as they did not have a school they were not bothered about it. He thought he had the resources to give them education and he did that. In the evening lon returning from school he used to take a bath before doing his evening pooja. None in the village ever thought that what he was doing was hurtful to them. They rather liked him and respected him. Once you get your mind corrupted with imaginery grievances you can look at this real life story from an entirely different angle and find only negatives in every action that the poor teacher took.

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?

What is your objection? Is it to people keeping distance from others or is it to people giving up this madi acharam etc.? Jathi dharma does not have any meaning. madi and acharam have meaning if you think you have to maintain a certain level of purity for exploring true knowledge. It is a belief and it is personal. What is your problem with that? Brahmins did not rub it on others.

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.

I understand your anger. But the fact that all that did not happen needs corrective action-not giving up every thing.

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.

Perhaps they relate to each other in their common attitude towards panchamans!! Please tell me what other reform do you have in mind.

This statement is malicious. It is not only brahmins who are marrying out of caste but also the middle castes.

You have not answered my simple question.I repeat: There are honour killings in which a panchaman -middle caste marriage is underlying reason. How many brahmins have hounded out their children for marrying outside their caste? Who needs reform?

Cheers.

 

[ShivKC]

again a double standard by sh.nara. a Tehelka news!!

hope he wont call it as a personal attack claiming in public with a hue & cry.. just want to get clear with one's stand..

few 100 posts ago a member posted a question to him, asking " why not take the words of the theists , who vouch by experiencing god and his wonders made in to each ones personal ife, who(theists) form a majority of this world.. and he was quick to discount it saying, that he is a rationalist, and doesn't got the majority.. but look at this post what he said..

just a refresher... sh.KRS and Sh.nara was on a debate in another thread, about god/religion/science, and sh.nara was trying to prove his point with numbers of MAJORITY ( as supporters) ..

{NARA said{{{

A study appearing in Nature magazine in 1998, summarized here, shows that an overwhelming majority of NAS scientists do not believe in god (about 70%), with physical scientists leading the way with 79%.
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-traditions/5885-after-death-what-8.html

Post # 80

}}}

looks like argument based on majority is chosen by ones own convenience!!! having said this, hope I would not be seen as just another person resorting to personal attack.. a public claim made with an angelic note by some..

 

[nachi naga]

only in the forum people are atheist.in real life consultation with acharyaals contnue...oopsy i let the cat out of the bag

 

[Nara]

A study appearing in Nature magazine in 1998, summarized here, shows that an overwhelming majority of NAS scientists do not believe in god (about 70%), with physical scientists leading the way with 79%.
.

Not that this is going to make any difference, but like I said to narayan sir, this was not to claim support for my position based on majority but to show that the claim some people make that most scientists are believers is a false claim.

I request members to not twist what I say ....

 

[suraju06]

Please refer to post #949

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.

Well now I am at my wits end. Why there is a refusal to understand plain english here? I have made it clear that the reply given by me was to a few sentences posted here about the tricks played by brain. I said already acharyas have discussed what is valid knowledge and in that context they have discussed exhaustively about the tricks of brain. So there is no need to invent the wheel again. Verifiable personal experiences and intuition are altogether a different topic. So the objections will become valid or invalid only when we discuss it.

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.

I am not ready to play ball in this game!! My posts are not for any pre-audit by anyone and particularly by the poster to judge them case by case.

Cheers.

 

[zebra16]

Not that this is going to make any difference, but like I said to narayan sir, this was not to claim support for my position based on majority but to show that the claim some people make that most scientists are believers is a false claim.

I request members to not twist what I say ....

I have to agree with Sri Nara here. While replying to my message, Sri Nara had stated that his quoting of percentages was in response to another message (probably Sri Sravana, but not sure) which claimed almost all the scientists had belief in God and his quoting of percentages was not on stand alone basis and not to play number games.

Regards,

narayan

 

[ShivKC]

What is so unusual about any of them. None of these have been demonstrated in front of a scientific audience.

frankly, its a bit silly argument. im not talking about walking on water or fire. .. a simple thing, billions of people commune/talk/pray with god. according to you, its a hallucination. billions believe they got answers..

its evident every where , across the temples, churches, mosques etc. why not neuro scientists work on this. why not prove that Prayers are just hallucination?

its so cheap an argument to say, let those who pray, come in front of a scientist so that you will prove it wrong!.. pls give it a healthy thought in to this point?

Galileo never waited for majority to confront him that 'earth is flat'.. he knew majority are believing that, the world is Flat, and he took his own initiative to prove the majority wrong.. pls try it sir..

 

[DrBarani]

I have to agree with Sri Nara here. While replying to my message, Sri Nara had stated that his quoting of percentages was in response to another message (probably Sri Sravana, but not sure) which claimed almost all the scientists had belief in God and his quoting of percentages was not on stand alone basis and not to play number games.

Regards,

narayan

I get the logic! I won't use "majority" argument to support my claims, but if thats what it takes to dispute an opponent's claim, I will use it! Yup! No double standard there, Read my Lips!

 

[nachi naga]

that made me ponder,that people believed eart was flat in western hemisphere and in the eastern hemisphere they were postualting geometry thiru-ganitham (trignometry) and fully explain earth is spheroidal....yet we do not honor those ancient masters instead give glory to likes of pythogoras ,now who is paithyakaran?asians from caucasus mountains are simply genius genes wonder which chromosomes plays vital part X or Y ? anyways god exists in both.

 

[ShivKC]

Not that this is going to make any difference, but like I said to narayan sir, this was not to claim support for my position based on majority but to show that the claim some people make that most scientists are believers is a false claim.

I request members to not twist what I say ....

sir, lets not twist the words. any one who had witnessed the whole discussion between you and sh,KRS on that subject would know it all.

you were bend upon to prove that, majority of the scientists are atheists, and tried to prove your point to sh.krs, that science rejects theism (based on majority opion).. where as in this thread , you are rejecting MAJORITY as noting but crows of arid lands. i mean with KRS, you stressed the majority view to buy your point, but in this thread you were rejecting it..

let me quote few clips from that discussion..

KRS responding to CLN (nara a part of discussion):

Most of the Physicists I know are not atheists (I have been trained in both Theoretical and Nuclear Physics at the doctorate level in the USA). The reason is that they understand the limitations of Science in answering the 'big' question.

NARA to KRS validating his stand based on quantity of supporters #80.

Dear Shri KRS, your statement above leaves an impression that scientists in general believe in god and they do not see any dichotomy. This is far from reality.

A study appearing in Nature magazine in 1998, summarized here, shows that an overwhelming majority of NAS scientists do not believe in god (about 70%), with physical scientists leading the way with 79%.

nara in post 85 to sh. KRS bringing statistics of majority to prove his point , as majority support theism..

Here let me cite Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, and host of the popular TV show NOVA ScienceNow, in a speech he gave in Beyond Belief 2006 conference in San Diego. In the following quotation, Tyson is referring to a study of NAS scientists conducted some months earlier and the following is at about 3 minutes.

Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. ​

gradually, not sustaining sh. nara carefully end the talk with sh.krs this way in post#90..

You are wasting your time talking to one already

And when I quoted it all in this forum, exposing few posts of him before, pat came the reply, with an appeal to public toned with crocodile tears...

Not that this is going to make any difference, but like I said to narayan sir, this was not to claim support for my position based on majority but to show that the claim some people make that most scientists are believers is a false claim.

I request members to not twist what I say .

..

sir,i say again.. a foot scale is just 12 inches, come what who hold the measuring tape.. i was only citing this reference, when you out rightly brushed aside a members post, when he quoted a reference of Majority as theists stand.

dont make it or high light it as personal attack please..

 

[tks]

I normally avoid discussing on posts of tks. Here is a quote from his post #952
.
.
.



It is nice to know that we can feel good to live in a dreamy world. But that is not the real world. There is no harm in trying to awake a person from a dream, if the other person feels that the sleeping person is in a dream. But I agree that one cannot do anything if the sleeping person refuses to wake up even if the sun is right above his head and the man pulls up his blanket over his head and obstinate about sleeping.

All-

I consider the above an arrogant statement or silly logic (one can have a pick) thinking that other people are sleeping and the enlightened one is duty bound to wake them up

 

[sangom]

Thanks for offering to reply considering that it is an effort to type out a long response. I think plain English to share your understanding will do IMHO, though you are welcome to consult books.

Honestly sir, your plain English itself is too tough for my understanding. So, with my meagre command of English I do not think I will be able to convincingly rebut your arguments or answer your queries, unless I do proper homework.

Rather than call the stories such as the one in the OP as naive I would say we all grow from one level of understanding to another as we grow and mature. It is a fact that as an infant we all were totally dependent on our parents for our survival and our ignorance of the world was total. Many have extended the concept of parents - one who nurtures, protects, rewards, punishes and gives what you need rather than what you want - as God in their adult life. Stories such as the one in the OP appeal to the infant in us as we try to understand what this world is all about.

With maturity the world view of Isvara (I dont use the word God since it has a specific meaning in the context of Biblical religions) changes for some people. For many God enters their mind either because they are in trouble or because they desire something in this life or their imagined after-life ("heaven"). All religious traditions cater to the pursuit of Artha and Kama ONLY! This in my view includes Hindu traditions as well. Such pursuits are completely legitimate in Hindu world view and one need not have guilt pursuing Artha (Security) an Kama (Desires). The issue comes when one ignores Dharma (set of universal principles in this context) that act on us whether we acknowledge or not.

A person who lives in the world of bribes thinks - due to ignorance - that he can bribe his concept of God also. The role of people who have better perspective, knowledge and experience should be to teach such people why their methods are flawed without putting down a person's tradition. If going to a temple helps them to feel stronger it is nice. If they feel more secure or think their desires can be fulfilled because they do an Archana then that is wonderful. I see nothing wrong with this.

If someone has a headache then you look to correct that condition rather than ask them to cut their own head off.

The prescription of Dharma, Artha, kāma and Mokṣa, (you have omitted the fourth probably because for theists it is guaranteed.) as puruṣārthas are, in my view, instructions to a person (let us not forget it was called puruṣārtha and not manuṣyārtha) to live by honest means, earn money in that way, live like any ordinary mortal with usual worldly desires and finally to be ready to detach oneself from everything and exit from this world when death comes calling.

I am happy to note the following observations from you:—

"All religious traditions cater to the pursuit of Artha and Kama ONLY! This in my view includes Hindu traditions as well. "

But when you say "Such pursuits are completely legitimate in Hindu world view and one need not have guilt pursuing Artha (Security) an Kama (Desires). The issue comes when one ignores Dharma (set of universal principles in this context) that act on us whether we acknowledge or not.", I differ. Dharma is not any set of universal principles but is honesty, pure and simple. This term has been so disfigured by Hindu scriptures that the essence has been lost. And it is strange why you don't include the last item viz., Mokṣa.

In living honestly, earning by honest means, having normal human desires or in being ready to quit this world into the unknown, the need for a God concept, a firm belief in Iswara or God, is not necessary. Hence the people who by tradition have made God also as bribable and are suffering from that sort of headache can be cured only when they become convinced that a God or Iswara concept is not a necessary pre-condition to lead a proper life. It is not cutting the head off, but administering analgesic, unless it is considered that belief in God is like the head.

I do not think infants are born with god-belief of any sort. An orphan adopted by a couple at a young age is brought up into the adopting parents' religion. If the child has been more than 5 years or so, it remembers its earlier religion (may be of its biological parents' or the religion taught in the orphanage). The parents adopting the orphan are given detailed instructions on how to gradually wean the child out from one religion to the other. Thus your assumption of head-cutting is absurd, according to me.

Our Vedic view and this is unique only to Hindu religion is that Dharma is stated as an *independent* purushartha (pursuit) even in the absence of any specific desire to pursue Artha or Kama. The question then is why should this be so. What Dharma are we talking about here?

The reason I am asking these questions is because I want to understand your understanding of such basic topics.

I think I have already answered the above queries.

Regarding your reference to 'put downs' here is my thought. Showing someone is illogical is not a put down in my view especially if they tend to make extreme and possibly insensitive statements under the name of logic. If one is logical they should be able to understand that 'binary logic' is not the only type of logic that is available for analysis. If one invokes science and physics in their arguments then it is natural to expect that they have a good understanding of notion of time and space that are established through peer reviewed publications. If one invokes concepts of Chaos theory or randomness then they should be able to readily understand post #942 (primer on randomness by DrBarani). If one claims they are rational and logical they should be able to articulate the axioms and means of knowledge and proof to make their points.

Making loose comments under the name of logic & scripture are done often by people of 'faith'. I find that our self proclaimed 'atheists' here tend to make illogical statements and I have called those out when appropriate. In my view, they are no different in their 'logic' than the 'born again Christians and their script' that I have come across in my life to quote an example. In my mind, calling this out is not a put down. I dont expect you to agree.

There are several generalisations in the above portion of your post and I do not think it is wise or appropriate to respond to this without getting some more clarification. Specifically, please elaborate/elucidate the following:-
1. What illogicality are you referring to?
2. What is the statement which appears to you as "extreme and possibly insensitive"?
3. Who, according to you are "our self-proclaimed 'atheists'"?

Since concept of personal God is personal, concept of proof is an oxymoron.

I see that you have chosen to leave "Iswara" now in favour of "personal God"; do you mean a God who has a human persona, or a particular notion of a certain godhead like "ishta daivam"? Not clear to me.

Infinite is just a mathematical abstraction and does not have meaning.

I agree with the first half but the second half, viz., that "infinity" does not have "meaning" is new knowledge to me. Will you kindly demonstrate how mathematically this has been proved?

If intelligence is reflected in the manifestation and we are able to see that even randomness is predictable (otherwise the whole area of statistics and statistical mechanics is not possible) then one can call that intelligence pervasive and hence omniscient. Certain laws of nature do not seem to change across the cosmos, otherwise we could not make conclusions about what is out there in the distant part of the universe. The mass of electron does not seem to be different here or in the moon. Hence the intelligence that apparently seem to be manifested is all across the universe and hence omniscient. What is your objection to this understanding of Isvara (manifested as laws of nature) ?

I do not understand how a pervasive intelligence by itself becomes omniscient. Regarding laws of nature I think you are donning the cloak of a pure scientist. Are we sure that the laws of nature are the same within a black-hole?

I personally do not care for history unless there is a lesson to learn for what we do today. Universal truths by definition are invariant under time and space. So without labeling we could try to understand such truths. We also do not need any scripture to validate such truths. In my mind the only reason to cite Upanishads or BG is to only provide amplification and more precise definition.

I look forward to your response to my earlier questions as well as a few that I have added here as well

Regards

IMHO, the one universal truth is that there can be no such thing as universal truth. Regarding our human view that the entire visible universe must obey the truths as we postulate here, whether in the field of science or philosophy or religion, is just our wish, not proven sufficiently by scientific standards.

 

[DrBarani]

All-

I consider the above an arrogant statement or silly logic (one can have a pick) thinking that other people are sleeping and the enlightened one is duty bound to wake them up

What else can be expected from white-skin worshipping self-loathing Brahmins in USA? After all, USA invades dozens of other countries to "liberate them" even when nobody asked them to do so... Therefore, under the same arrogant logic 'waking up others' is well justified! And lets not forget, 'liberated' countries were getting a friendly autocrat puppet to rule!

 

[subbudu1]

Dharma is not any set of universal principles but is honesty, pure and simple.

I want to stand up and applaud you for this. It is a simple point driven home with clarity and conviction. No doubt about that.
In this regard I like the story of the Satyakama Jabala.

 

[subbudu1]

All-

I consider the above an arrogant statement or silly logic (one can have a pick) thinking that other people are sleeping and the enlightened one is duty bound to wake them up

When you have made your pick and when you already want others to make their pick(according to your inclination) leaving very little to choice really, why pretend to give them an opportunity to make a pick. It is this dishonest style of debate that keeps me away from you. Sorry to say your further responses in this matter will not provoke me any more to respond. Thanks .

 

[subbudu1]

frankly, its a bit silly argument. im not talking about walking on water or fire. .. a simple thing, billions of people commune/talk/pray with god. according to you, its a hallucination. billions believe they got answers..

its evident every where , across the temples, churches, mosques etc. why not neuro scientists work on this. why not prove that Prayers are just hallucination?

its so cheap an argument to say, let those who pray, come in front of a scientist so that you will prove it wrong!.. pls give it a healthy thought in to this point?

Galileo never waited for majority to confront him that 'earth is flat'.. he knew majority are believing that, the world is Flat, and he took his own initiative to prove the majority wrong.. pls try it sir..

What should I say- Isnt it self evident that so many anandas and babas had followers in the count of millions and they all believed that their prayers were answered by their patron saint. But then truth as time goes stands exposed and of course the devotees continue to believe in their Guru. What to say. How can I study every twist and turn human mind takes. There are so many idiosyncrasies of us humans. It is best explained by some probability theory.

 

[ShivKC]

What should I say- Isnt it self evident that so many anandas and babas had followers in the count of millions and they all believed that their prayers were answered by their patron saint. .

allright! you have science and statistics on your platter.. why not you use them to prove it wrong? which also lead to the non-existence of god.

why are we making jokes here?

 

[nachi naga]

What else can be expected from white-skin worshipping self-loathing Brahmins in USA? After all, USA invades dozens of other countries to "liberate them" even when nobody asked them to do so... Therefore, under the same arrogant logic 'waking up others' is well justified! And lets not forget, 'liberated' countries were getting a friendly autocrat puppet to rule!

i really dont think usa is invading any country,unless provoked,which any self respecting country will do to protect its interest.afaik white skin ppl are just like brown skin ppl,in fact white skin ppl lack pigmentation a crucial ingredient and are basically handicapped on account of that in their genes.despite mumbai being terrorised and other places having law and order,no action has been taken to stop a neighbouing country near india to stop them from committing atrocious acts of espionage,terror etc.i think the world respects the political leaders who protect their ppl first,and i think usa leaders just are tops.maybe its my thinking that its majority ppl are from lord brahmaa lineage namely abrahamic faith,its in total control lord brahmaa & goddess saraswathy rules western hemisphere

 

[nachi naga]

I want to stand up and applaud you for this. It is a simple point driven home with clarity and conviction. No doubt about that.
In this regard I like the story of the Satyakama Jabala.

as i understand that story,the sage says "only a brahmin gene" maybe possible for such exemplary act of truth.instead of gene he may have said lineage or parampara of sathyakama jabala