God Exists

[DrBarani]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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

Whatever food you ate a while ago, you should avoid it in future!

 

[subbudu1]

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?

Dear , what is there to understand here. Humans are quite insensible. We all have our whims and fancies and we can believe in a lost cause not for one generation but even a hundred generations. The catholic church until recently believed that earth was centre of the universe. Fake Babas are worshipped for hundreds of years. This is true so why is it necessary to answer a question like why people believe in religion? If people's wishes to come true can be fixed to a probability scale, then whenever the wish comes true, due to natural law of probability, it still gets attributed to God. Why should not the atheists use the same argument and say, since there is suffering in this world and since good suffer, it is difficult to believe there is God. I think I am fairly clear and if I am not I dont care either atleast it is clear to myself. End of story.

 

[Nara]

Folks,

Like I suspected, it didn't make any difference. I will give it one more try and then leave it to the better judgment of fair minded members.

Two cases are being cited to pin the charge of double standard on me, one of appealing to majority when it suited my case, but objecting to it when others wanted to use it to bolster their case.

This is a completely bogus accusation. So far in this thread, outside of the two case cited, nobody has cited majority as proof and there was there was no need to object to it from my side. I myself have never appealed to majority view as proof of anything what I was saying. So neither did I use majority opinion to bolster my case, nor did I object to its use by the opposition. So, this charge is completely bogus.

Now, let me show that in the two cases being cited, I was only responding to statements about majorities made by others.

Case 1 - Exchange with Shri KRS:

In post #76 Shri KRS said, "Most of the Physicists I know are not atheists" and in post #79 stated, "Any scientist is a human being too. So they know that while these are two different things, Science is also the part of the greater mystery and therefore they do not see any dichotomy between the two."

These statements left an impression that most scientists believe in some sort of god. As a response to this, in post #80, I cited a study that showed that an overwhelming majority of NAS scientists do not believe in god (about 70%), with physical scientists leading the way with 79%.

This is the chronology. First came Shri KRS's claims in posts 76 and 79, and then, in post 80 I responded with the results of a survey.

Case 2 - Exchange with Sravna about which shri narayan has already commented.

In post #275 sravna stated, "With all due respects to Hawking, let me say that he may be a big name in Science. but I think the western scientists in general are ignorant of or ignore the excellent insights that some religions offer."

I responded in post #297 in which I cited the same survey results that his view about "western scientists in general" is contradicted by the survey.


Members, I know most don't keep close track of what was said a few weeks or even months earlier. This gives an opportunity to miscreants to misrepresent what was said, leaving the accused in an untenable situation -- either ignore and allow the malicious accusation to stick, or litigate the charge and get derailed, which is the objective of the miscreants in the first place. In this instance, ShivKC has succeeded, he has dragged me into defending his ridiculous and bogus charge of double standard against me.

From now on, I am not going to respond to any accusations from ShivKC. I request members to remember this instance, when he makes accusations in the future.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

Whatever food you ate a while ago, you should avoid it in future!

actually i ate grapes but they were not sour

pulippum kasappum sila naalukku thaan

 

[subbudu1]

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



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.



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.



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



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



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
.

Raju our ancestors actually practiced untouchability not just madi in the morning after bath. If you justify it please be aware that you are breaking the law of India. It is we as brahmins who have set the standards for this practice, now still continued by others. I made it clear that I was talking of early part of last century at which time I am most certain that your ancestor like mine followed strict untouchability.

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

Sorry what corrective action is possible now. The only corrective is moving out with a broad outlook. There is hardly any brahmin who is worth being called a brahmin by the definition of smritis or acharyas.

Please tell me what other reform do you have in mind.

While I cant answer for specific brahmins but by and large humanity, inviting well behaved low castes home to start with( did not happen in early part of last century which is my main point of discussion), showing no difference in selection of candidates to any of the posts( Did not happen in the Hindu, TVS, Simpsons etc) and many many more, a simple read of Bharathiar's poems should do the job.

 

[nachi naga]

by reminding people of horror of untouchability a new generation is made guilty for the sins of foreparents!!!i not to touch everyone and let everyone touch me and do what not,and i am living in present time.some brahmins are crazy and i thot i am the only one if we touch god we will get eliminated or electrocuted as god is electric-city was the view in olden era and they did not know how to explain kirilian technology of aura or auric energy.

 

[tks]

.

.




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 omitted Moksha from the discussions here because if the basics about Dharma is not clear there is no context to speak about Moksha which is highly misunderstood in my view. It is not about 'guarantee' and it is not Swarga and is not realized because someone is a 'believer' of a concept of Isvara.

These Purusharthas may seem like instructions and perhaps preached that way by many. However they cannot be followed if they are mere instructions of a scripture. Without clarity of what the terms means supported by compelling logic it is not possible to follow any of these prescriptions in my view. Why should a person lead a life of integrity which is even a stronger principle than honesty?

When one is drawn to money, power and other desires and they seem to be reachable easily at the expense of honesty why should a person deny themselves that? With more power one can accumulate more money which in turn can give more power and so on. So why would anyone want to pursue honesty and integrity if there is a strong chance of being able to get away with it? Without being able to answer basic questions such as this it is not possible to understand why Dharma is termed as an *independent* Purushartha.

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.

One can be honest but can kill others and cause harm. There are mafias who are honest and their hit men will execute with honesty for a price. Therefore there is more to this term 'universal principles' than just honesty though that is included with a right context.

I do agree that by over use of the word Dharma (for all kinds of specialized aspects) the meaning of universal principles are seemingly lost.

Let me repeat the question to you using your understanding of Dharma- Do you think Dharma is an independent Purushartha and if so why? If a person in all likely hood could stand to gain major power and money and there is almost zero chance they will not be caught would you suggest them to be honest and give up large amount of power and money? If so why and what is the basis for your recommendation?

I wanted to hear answers to my other questions in my previous post before talking about Moksha. Hence I omitted in my post.

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.

I agree and one does not need a notion of personal God to lead a life of integrity. In our tradition, pursuit of Dharma is pursuit of Isvara.

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.

By teaching that Isvara is manifested as Dharma and that pursuits of Kama and Artha can only be meaningful when it does not violate Dharma one can educate a person. One need not stop a person from worshipping their Ista-Devatha in a temple but give them the right context for them to attain the peace of mind. It is all about 'pulling' people and not putting them down for their belief systems.

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.

My point about infant - parent relationship is that many tend to evolve parental relationship as relationship with Isvara. In my view there is nothing wrong with this *belief* and that with study of Upanishads under proper teacher one's view of Isvara will mature and help them discover and *understand* Isvara.

A person with less mature view of Isvara may choose to make 'deals'. That is like a 'headache'. The idea of telling them to stop going to temples is like asking them to cut their head off. Teaching them to provide a more mature view of Isvara is like providing a right medicine.

.
.

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'"?

I have been interacting with few people in this forum and I was referring to those posts where I was blunt in pointing out illogical reasoning when I encountered them. I did not consider my responses to be put-downs. That was the point. It will be a digression in my view to rehash some of those old posts at this point.

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.

I will try to be more consistent in my usage of terms as we move forward.

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?

There are many concepts like imaginary number (square root of -1), Infinite dimensional Hilbert space etc that are mathematical abstractions. One of the questions in my earlier post is for you to define 'reality' and then word like 'meaning' will have more of a context.

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 do have a PhD in Physics and two other Masters degrees. I work with people who dwell in logic all the time. I am not making statements about Upanishads and its teachings by a sheer belief system. I was not raised in an orthodox family like yours. My effort to learn about teachings of Upanishads over 18 years has been with the skepticism of a science person. I have found the logic, depth and profundity so far to be phenomenal.

Black-holes are revealed because of certain laws of nature that we are able to measure. Loosely stating, the concept of time and space is not valid within black holes from what is known. I am not sure why you brought up black-holes here. Such objects as discovered do follow certain laws.

The pervasive intelligence does not become Omniscient. The pervasive intelligence in terms of Physical order for example IS omniscient.


There is order manifested as laws. The violation of laws and their consequences is within this order.

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.

Not sure I understand your assertion. There is knowledge that is pervasive and the Universe as perceived is seemingly intelligently put together. Even random is predictable. This pervasive knowledge is personified as omniscient Isvara in the minds of many. You dont have to agree or understand this point.

Hope you reply to the questions raised in my earlier post.

 

[DrBarani]

There is knowledge that is pervasive and the Universe as perceived is seemingly intelligently put together. Even random is predictable. This pervasive knowledge is personified as omniscient Isvara in the minds of many.

Actually, this is also what the atheist-darling Stephen Hawking has been saying. According to him if we can find out the laws of nature, especially how big bang originated, "we will know how God's mind works" (his exact words).

Fortunately, I think it won't be many years before a unified theory will arrive that related all observables in the Universe as interdependent functions...(hint hint).

 

[tks]

Actually, this is also what the atheist-darling Stephen Hawking has been saying. According to him if we can find out the laws of nature, especially how big bang originated, "we will know how God's mind works" (his exact words).

Fortunately, I think it won't be many years before a unified theory will arrive that related all observables in the Universe as interdependent functions...(hint hint).

Great point. I thought Stephen Hawking was rejecting the Biblical theologies which is all he is exposed to from what I could discern.

What I have stated is teaching from Upanishads which will be more acceptable to Hawkings if he ever gets exposed to a right teacher which is unlikely.

 

[happyhindu]

Of late i have either been getting news of folks dying or have been witness to deaths. 5 cases in less than 45 days. Just when we think we can recover from one, there is another.

Sleepless nights apart, day times can also get bothersome with questions from my kid who especially wants to know who went to heaven, and who did not make it.

The most difficult questions are
(a) how is God a dispenser of justice if he is so cruel to cause pain, anger, depression, suffering and deaths.
(b) what is justice in such cases.

My kid now thinks God does not exist. Has suspended praying. I wud like to think it is the effect of immediate trauma, esp after witnessing a gruesome hit and run accident of a school child hit by a speeding car (i think that is too much to anyone to take, let alone a young child to witness).

The car driver did not stop. His selfish genes wanted to ensure his own escape and survival. So he sped off after the accident.

I explained to my kid it is in the human design to think of one’s own survival; and that all living being want to ensure the propagation of one’s own self. I gave examples (like Napolean’s armies that involved in cannibalism to stay alive after their Russian invasion, etc).

My kid cannot believe there is something called ‘selfish genes’ which makes us that selfish. We got talking. The example list extended to everyone. We ended up asking each other are we going to heaven or hell.

My kid wanted to know “if selfishness is evil, are all humans evil by birth”? I said “I don’t know”. I have no answer. But have been thinking of religionists.

Have been thinking about fake gurus, fake babas, koli samiyars, etc, who are elevated to the position of sitting gods, meditating gods, gods still alive in our hearts, etc by faith. Sure they have done good things for people (infact most of us will also do the same if not more, if we had that kind of popularity or money).

But what about tricks (or perhaps the misuse of siddhis) for an objective, or for name or for wealth, etc. For duping gullible public, do fake samiyars go to hell or heaven?

I wonder if under all piety, a dark underside exists; like a “dark area” right below a lamp?

Gautama Buddha made sickening indecent type of fun of the hindu priestly creed. Buddhism was widely practiced, endorsed by kings. Patronage for brahmanical sacrifices dwindled putting the survival of the hindu priestly kind into doldrums.

Did Buddha go to hell (for depriving a group of their livelihood)? Or to heaven (for enlightening people and showing them the way to the middle-path)?

On the same note, what about some Brahminists who went to great lengths to ensure survival of their own kind, unmindful of the social unrest they created. To them, it is their dharma, to the others it is adharma. They wud like to think they go to heaven. But some others (like ‘dalits’) wud like to think they go to hell.

Christians like to think they go to heaven because they believe in Christ. They have no answer when asked if everyone (Abraham, Moses, etc) went to hell because they had no Christ to believe in (in their time). Missionaries battle a range of diseases in remote places, and go to great lengths to safeguard what they think is their dharma.

Then you have the DK goons who do what they do, to safeguard what they think is their own dharma. (ps - tamil purists believe there was no role for brahminists, varnas, brahmanical gods, etc in dravidian culture...to them, anyone who tries to impose things to spoil their culture is an enemy to be fought against, irrespective of whether it is a sinhalese or a ‘brahmin’).

Then you have Jihadists who kill to safeguard their own dharma for their own god. They await houries in jannat, but we like to think they went to hell. But hey, martyrdom is noble in Bhagavad Gita and those who die fighting for dharma go to heaven. Mbh says Duryodhana went to heaven. So really, do Jihadists, DK goons, Christian missionaries, Brahminists, Buddhists, go to heaven or hell?

Then we have stupid church people who sought (and still seek) a ban on stem-cell research simply because *they* think it is unethical, and that humans must suffer for what *they* call the ‘original sin’. By seeking the ban, they deprive(d) treatment for thousands (if not millions) who suffer(ed) from cancer and various multifactorial diseases.

By depriving the diseased of their chance to get cured, and by pushing such people to death, do these church lobbyists go to heaven or hell?

And what about those who believe they have great faith (in bible, quran, or esp in vedas, upanishads, gita, etc as we see in this forum). They can wax eloquent, but can be holding an empty sack of faith and a mere pretense of knowledge. However they may believe the sack they hold is knowledge and/or is holy. But is this knowledge or ignorance? Can knowledge or ignorance take people to heaven or hell?

Do heaven and hell exist? And does a God exist who assigns souls to heaven, hell, or to rebirth?

The puranic view is that Yama’s dhoots come and take souls. Chitragupta keeps a record of a soul’s good and bad deeds. Justice is delivered by assigning the soul to a place in Svarga or by assigning it to one of the Narakas like Maharaurava, Kumbipakam, Andhagopam, etc. (remember Anniyan movie?)..

According to some puranas, even souls eligible for Svarga spend some time in one of the Narakas for expiation (whatever that means). And rebirth is inevitable according to puranic view.

But then there are different approaches within the hindu dharma. According to Adi Shankara, self-identity with symbols, branding one’s body with symbols does not result in moksham.

But to Vaishanvites accepting Narayana and showing that thru panchasamskaram (with shanku-chakra on the arms) is the best approach to moksham.

Is there a god who decides which one is right, Adi Shankara or SV approach?

Is there some such thing as “their God” and “our God”?

Some universalists like to think there is no heaven, no hell, no rebirth even, but tend to believe that there maybe just “one power” which may or may not interfere with the functioning of humans. But is that one power God?

Where is God?

 

[subbudu1]

Of late i have either been getting news of folks dying or have been witness to deaths. 5 cases in less than 45 days. Just when we think we can recover from one, there is another.

Sleepless nights apart, day times can also get bothersome with questions from my kid who especially wants to know who went to heaven, and who did not make it.

The most difficult questions are
(a) how is God a dispenser of justice if he is so cruel to cause pain, anger, depression, suffering and deaths.
(b) what is justice in such cases.

My kid now thinks God does not exist. Has suspended praying. I wud like to think it is the effect of immediate trauma, esp after witnessing a gruesome hit and run accident of a school child hit by a speeding car (i think that is too much to anyone to take, let alone a young child to witness).

The car driver did not stop. His selfish genes wanted to ensure his own escape and survival. So he sped off after the accident.

I explained to my kid it is in the human design to think of one’s own survival; and that all living being want to ensure the propagation of one’s own self. I gave examples (like Napolean’s armies that involved in cannibalism to stay alive after their Russian invasion, etc).

My kid cannot believe there is something called ‘selfish genes’ which makes us that selfish. We got talking. The example list extended to everyone. We ended up asking each other are we going to heaven or hell.

My kid wanted to know “if selfishness is evil, are all humans evil by birth”? I said “I don’t know”. I have no answer. But have been thinking of religionists.

Have been thinking about fake gurus, fake babas, koli samiyars, etc, who are elevated to the position of sitting gods, meditating gods, gods still alive in our hearts, etc by faith. Sure they have done good things for people (infact most of us will also do the same if not more, if we had that kind of popularity or money).

But what about tricks (or perhaps the misuse of siddhis) for an objective, or for name or for wealth, etc. For duping gullible public, do fake samiyars go to hell or heaven?

I wonder if under all piety, a dark underside exists; like a “dark area” right below a lamp?

Gautama Buddha made sickening indecent type of fun of the hindu priestly creed. Buddhism was widely practiced, endorsed by kings. Patronage for brahmanical sacrifices dwindled putting the survival of the hindu priestly kind into doldrums.

Did Buddha go to hell (for depriving a group of their livelihood)? Or to heaven (for enlightening people and showing them the way to the middle-path)?

On the same note, what about some Brahminists who went to great lengths to ensure survival of their own kind, unmindful of the social unrest they created. To them, it is their dharma, to the others it is adharma. They wud like to think they go to heaven. But some others (like ‘dalits’) wud like to think they go to hell.

Christians like to think they go to heaven because they believe in Christ. They have no answer when asked if everyone (Abraham, Moses, etc) went to hell because they had no Christ to believe in (in their time). Missionaries battle a range of diseases in remote places, and go to great lengths to safeguard what they think is their dharma.

Then you have the DK goons who do what they do, to safeguard what they think is their own dharma. (ps - tamil purists believe there was no role for brahminists, varnas, brahmanical gods, etc in dravidian culture...to them, anyone who tries to impose things to spoil their culture is an enemy to be fought against, irrespective of whether it is a sinhalese or a ‘brahmin’).

Then you have Jihadists who kill to safeguard their own dharma for their own god. They await houries in jannat, but we like to think they went to hell. But hey, martyrdom is noble in Bhagavad Gita and those who die fighting for dharma go to heaven. Mbh says Duryodhana went to heaven. So really, do Jihadists, DK goons, Christian missionaries, Brahminists, Buddhists, go to heaven or hell?

Then we have stupid church people who sought (and still seek) a ban on stem-cell research simply because *they* think it is unethical, and that humans must suffer for what *they* call the ‘original sin’. By seeking the ban, they deprive(d) treatment for thousands (if not millions) who suffer(ed) from cancer and various multifactorial diseases.

By depriving the diseased of their chance to get cured, and by pushing such people to death, do these church lobbyists go to heaven or hell?

And what about those who believe they have great faith (in bible, quran, or esp in vedas, upanishads, gita, etc as we see in this forum). They can wax eloquent, but can be holding an empty sack of faith and a mere pretense of knowledge. However they may believe the sack they hold is knowledge and/or is holy. But is this knowledge or ignorance? Can knowledge or ignorance take people to heaven or hell?

Do heaven and hell exist? And does a God exist who assigns souls to heaven, hell, or to rebirth?

The puranic view is that Yama’s dhoots come and take souls. Chitragupta keeps a record of a soul’s good and bad deeds. Justice is delivered by assigning the soul to a place in Svarga or by assigning it to one of the Narakas like Maharaurava, Kumbipakam, Andhagopam, etc. (remember Anniyan movie?)..

According to some puranas, even souls eligible for Svarga spend some time in one of the Narakas for expiation (whatever that means). And rebirth is inevitable according to puranic view.

But then there are different approaches within the hindu dharma. According to Adi Shankara, self-identity with symbols, branding one’s body with symbols does not result in moksham.

But to Vaishanvites accepting Narayana and showing that thru panchasamskaram (with shanku-chakra on the arms) is the best approach to moksham.

Is there a god who decides which one is right, Adi Shankara or SV approach?

Is there some such thing as “their God” and “our God”?

Some universalists like to think there is no heaven, no hell, no rebirth even, but tend to believe that there maybe just “one power” which may or may not interfere with the functioning of humans. But is that one power God?

Where is God?

In light of your positive uncertainity about things related to god let me add a few things which I feel may be right if God exists.
If God exists I would assume that he is dispersed in this universe everywhere and is part of every growth and every event. Yet that does not mean all things are the same but I would assume that he is already visible to us in the form of nature and nature's laws. There is probably nothing more to know about him than know and coexist with nature? A blind speculation no doubt.

 

[happyhindu]

In light of your positive uncertainity about things related to god let me add a few things which I feel may be right if God exists.
If God exists I would assume that he is dispersed in this universe everywhere and is part of every growth and every event. Yet that does not mean all things are the same but I would assume that he is already visible to us in the form of nature and nature's laws. There is probably nothing more to know about him than know and coexist with nature? A blind speculation no doubt.

Sir, i feel the assumption of dispersal of God is just a speculation as you say.

If the universe is "intelligent" or has an "intelligent design", that does not automatically translate to positive certainty that God exists. There could an other factor X that does not even intend for the universe to be intelligent but is merely perceived so.

I don't know how existence of nature, planets, black-holes, etc, is proof of God's existence.

Am thinking why does it always have to be theist or atheist. Why cannot an agnostic who says "I don't know" be an equally valid answer. Why is agnotheism not considered an equally valid faith system for those who are unsure of God's existence, but are not willing to accept atheism either.

These days if anyone asks me does God exist, i say "i don't know". And am hoping that it is a valid answer.

 

[DrBarani]

These days if anyone asks me does God exist, i say "i don't know". And am hoping that it is a valid answer.

It is a very valid answer.

Generally, disappointments in life drive people towards God; Later Frustration in not getting desired support drives them away. (I am talking about ordinary people, not intellectuals who are after philosophy).

 

[happyhindu]

It is a very valid answer.

Children are just children in their childish platter. But their questions can be painfully sickening to us adults. Most of times the only answer i give is "I don't know". But i do encourage my kid to pray in the hope that it provides solace, and will distract the kid from any further questions.

 

[zebra16]

Hi All,

I think the sum and substance of Sri Subbudu’s message no. 948 is:

(a) when one person sees or feels or understands a strange phenomenon which rationalists or scientists cant explain - it is delusional

(b) when a group of person feels or sees or understands the same strange phenomenon – they are affected by illusion

What he has not said and but which logically follows is: © when everyone feels or sees or understands a strange phenomenon (for which scientists have still no answer) it is natural.

Now let us bring the God into equation and let the whole population consist of only rationalists or scientists. And for argument sake, let us presume that He stops the time by prolonging daytime and preventing timely sun set.

(i) When one scientist alone experiences this phenomenon the rest would call that particular scientist – a delusionist;

(ii) When a group stands outside the phenomenon they would call that group experiencing the phenomenon as – illusionists

(iii) When all the people experience the phenomenon they would still call themselves as scientists or rationalists.

They would never realize the God’s action, explaining the phenomenon by giving out their theories of delusion, illusion etc. and would form mutual admiration society, unless the God makes the mistake of letting the silly man-made clock keep ticking away. So it would require a mistake by God to let these rationalists realize their folly.

Regards,

narayan

 

[suraju06]

Response to post#981 above:
Mr. Subbudu,

Raju our ancestors actually practiced untouchability not just madi in the morning after bath. If you justify it please be aware that you are breaking the law of India. It is we as brahmins who have set the standards for this practice, now still continued by others. I made it clear that I was talking of early part of last century at which time I am most certain that your ancestor like mine followed strict untouchability.

I am disappointed that you refuse to understand. People in those days had certain kind of ideas about personal hygiene. There are precise rules laid down as to how many times you should wash your private parts after going to the loo. There are precise instructions also about what should be used to wash along with water (mud). The rules prescribe what should be the quantity of the mud to be used for various purposes and how many times it should be used. These days we do not bother about these instructions because we have soaps and handwash lotions.So it was a deep concern bordering on a kind of obsession-that is purity and hygene. So they maintained it in their transactions with other people and that included their own kith and kin. In another thread I had explained an incident while travelling by the tube in London. An European who was travelling in the same coach in which I was travelling was very upset about the jostling and pushing while getting down at a station and he cursed the asians who formed a good part of the crowd. Don't you call it untouchability? He was actually critical about his fate-having to tolerate the physical contact of these asians. I have seen many europeans who do not like close physical proximity of others. If you look at it as an idiosyncratic behavior of a group at a particular period of time the sting of untouchability will go. If it was untouchability it was there prevalent in the entire society of our ancestors. The attempt to single out brahmins for this idiosyncratic behavior is pure non-sense. It is the staple diet on which hate mongering politicians thrive. I am sad that you have fallen a prey to this contagion. Now we are in the present times. Brahmins have come a long distance from the strict untouchability idiosyncracies of yester years. The anonimity that a city life ensures has helped in the complete disappearance of this practice. There is no meaning in speaking about this now and stoking the embers of a victimhood..

Sorry what corrective action is possible now. The only corrective is moving out with a broad outlook. There is hardly any brahmin who is worth being called a brahmin by the definition of smritis or acharyas.

Look at the spirit of those instructions and not the form or letters. You will get the answer.

While I cant answer for specific brahmins but by and large humanity, inviting well behaved low castes home to start with( did not happen in early part of last century which is my main point of discussion), showing no difference in selection of candidates to any of the posts( Did not happen in the Hindu, TVS, Simpsons etc) and many many more, a simple read of Bharathiar's poems should do the job.

Why only brahmins again? Speak for eradication of inequality in the society as a whole. Then we will be talking about not only the infrequent occurrence of untouchability practised by brahmins, we will also talk about the denial of right to panchamans to participate in the car festival of kolavizhi amman temple managed by middle castes, the honour killings of young couples who dared to defy the dictats of their casteist parents, the keelvenmonies in which the poor agricultural labour of dalit community were burnt alive by Naidus, the Vachathies in which the tribals were raped and killed by a heartless Govt. machinery (which did not have a single brahmin in the command line) and many more such cases. That would be fair. Not this harping on an imaginery grievance again and again. About Hindu, Simpson or TVS, can you tell this to Tatas and Birlas too? If not please tell why?

 

[zebra16]

Certain theories are popular even though there is no adequate evidence in support of them.

So you agree that science also passes on certain half-baked theories and it may also contain inane stuff?

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.

Is it implied then, that in the absence of alternate explanation at a particular period of time, half-baked theories are "equally rational" according to science?

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.

Is it sheer numbers then? (thousands of rational scientists) Just because of number of thousands scientists concluded something, have we to accept it? Sri Nara Sir was advocating otherwise.

Acharyas could have also been affected by illusion.
....
.....

Please refer to my message no. 991

Regards,

narayan

 

[happyhindu]

<removed>

 

[suraju06]

This is with reference to post#955 of Mr. Subbudu:

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

When there is a paradigm difference between the two levels of knowledge, where is the need to prove it before an audience of scientists? Scientists are not an assembly of Sangam period poets having a Sangappalakai which will accept valid materials and reject invalid ones to be thrown into the waters of potramaraikkulam. Particularly when you (scientists) are still struggling to get your act together in a unified field theory you have no right to ask any thing to be presented before your sangappalakai for approval.

Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Raju,

Ref to your post 992 to Shri Subbudu.

Untouchability is not about personal hygiene. Anyone who reads just the manusmrithi will know the difference.

Brahminists have tried enuf obfuscation with talk of personal hygiene. Sometimes i wonder if various claims made by you are true or not. Anyways, unfortunately (for brahmanists), people cannot be fooled any more.

Untouchability is about designating people by birth into untouchables, because the shastras endorsed to doom those people to be tied like chattel into rigid birth-based occupations.

No one chooses to clean filth on their own. Slaves did it in the past. Those who do it today are people who have no other means of earning a living. But they do not want their children to clean filth. So they educate them and send them to decent jobs.

Well I do not want to engage you in any discussion. I have put you in the ignore list because you once called me a lier and did not repent it. But before closing please read this:
"No one chooses to clean filth on their own. Slaves did it in the past".--your words above.

Why the word slave is used here by you instead of panchamans? If I wonder whether it is because of a subconcious level aversion to panchamans in the minds of the middlecastes will I be wrong?

 

[happyhindu]

the keelvenmonies in which the poor agricultural labour of dalit community were burnt alive by Naidus

This is a blatant lie. Thanks to Venkat, i read about the 1968 Keezhavenmani episode.

The ones who burnt farm-laborers were hired-workers (not naidus). The Paddy Producers Association (PPA) was made up of landlords of various 'castes'. Gopalakrishna Naidu merely happened to be the president of that association at that time.

The PPA wanted farm laborers to stop demanding a hike in wages. But the farm-labourers agitated. A decision was taken collectively by everyone in PPA to hire outside-workers to terrorize farm-labourers, into stopping their demand for a wage-hike.

The outside-workers (hired goons) in the spur of the moment began torching huts. The PPA had not given them instructions to torch the huts but the hired goons did that on their own. But no one expected people inside the huts to burn to death. Generally if a hut is torched people will come running out. It was a freak incident.

Am not denying the existence of caste-discrimination by those in positions of power against the 'dalits'. But what you are saying is a blatant lie.

For new comers who may be interested, please go thru the following posts:

1) http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...low-some-norms-ethics-forum-20.html#post52603

2) http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...low-some-norms-ethics-forum-23.html#post52747

the Vachathies in which the tribals were raped and killed by a heartless Govt. machinery (which did not have a single brahmin in the command line) and many more such cases.

Just because there were no 'brahmins' in the command line does not mean 'brahmins' did not uphold caste-discrimination. Those who wanted to gain social power and elevate themselves as 'kshatriyas' and 'brahmins' naturally involved in suppressing 'dalits' and in caste-fights. Well, its the brahmanical system (the shastras) to blame.

 

[happyhindu]

Well I do not want to engage you in any discussion. I have put you in the ignore list because you once called me a lier and did not repent it. But before closing please read this:
"No one chooses to clean filth on their own. Slaves did it in the past".--your words above.

Why the word slave is used here by you instead of panchamans? If I wonder whether it is because of a subconcious level aversion to panchamans in the minds of the middlecastes will I be wrong?

Raju, Please give me one good reason why i should use varna terms like 'brahmin', 'shudra' or 'panchama'? What do you get by still using varna terms under a democracy? Especially when the term 'panchama' has a derogatory intent in the shastras. You could be arrested for practicing caste-discrimination.

 

[suraju06]

raju, please give me one good reason why i should use varna terms like 'brahmin', 'shudra' or 'panchama'? What do you get by still using varna terms under a democracy? Especially when the term 'panchama' has a derogatory intent in the shastras. You could be arrested for practicing caste-discrimination.

lol.

 

[suraju06]

<removed>

 

[suraju06]

This is a blatant lie. Thanks to Venkat, i read about the 1968 Keezhavenmani episode.

The ones who burnt farm-laborers were hired-workers (not naidus). The Paddy Producers Association (PPA) was made up of landlords of various 'castes'. Gopalakrishna Naidu merely happened to be the president of that association at that time.

The PPA wanted farm laborers to stop demanding a hike in wages. But the farm-labourers agitated. A decision was taken collectively by everyone in PPA to hire outside-workers to terrorize farm-labourers, into stopping their demand for a wage-hike.

The outside-workers (hired goons) in the spur of the moment began torching huts. The PPA had not given them instructions to torch the huts but the hired goons did that on their own. But no one expected people inside the huts to burn to death. Generally if a hut is torched people will come running out. It was a freak incident.

Am not denying the existence of caste-discrimination by those in positions of power against the 'dalits'. But what you are saying is a blatant lie.

For new comers who may be interested, please go thru the following posts:

1) http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...low-some-norms-ethics-forum-20.html#post52603

2) http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...low-some-norms-ethics-forum-23.html#post52747


Just because there were no 'brahmins' in the command line does not mean 'brahmins' did not uphold caste-discrimination. Those who wanted to gain social power and elevate themselves as 'kshatriyas' and 'brahmins' naturally involved in suppressing 'dalits' and in caste-fights. Well, its the brahmanical system (the shastras) to blame.

I am not interested in continuing a debate with you. I can give a hundred links and references to you about what actually happened in Kilvenmony. But I am not interested in discussing this with you for reasons I have already given. If you post any more on this I will ignore completely.