God Exists

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear happyhindu,

I make an assertion and support it with a reasoning. Therefore it is up to someone who disagrees with me to show by his own reasoning why what I said is flawed. I will reply to your post 998 once i go though it.

Sravna,
Please let me know what is the reasoning you have given for saying universe is a "sport for god"? Meaning, what is the reasoning to support "sport for god"?

What is the reasoning for "spiritual reality" and "ultimate reality"?

Either you can explain on this thread or i can make a new thread for you to answer these questions if you find them bothersome on this thread.

Yes, i await an answer for post 998.

Thanks.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Shri.Subbudu,

If you feel compelled to amuse yourself and others, public forum is definitely a wrong choice and ceratinly not at others expense, at least that is what civilty says.

With due apologies to you my conscience is clear and public forum is meant not only for a few. When Dr and N were having this imaginary dialogue, some real person was being mocked at. At that time everyone came in defense of the said people. Just because I believe that you are a Good person does not mean I can shed the Madrasi Mylapori part of my alter-ego

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri.Subbudu,

If you feel compelled to amuse yourself and others, public forum is definitely a wrong choice and ceratinly not at others expense, at least that is what civilty says.

oops, am i missing something here?

sravna, what do you mean by "others expense" ? Is shri subbudu amusing himself at anybody else's expense here? I simply find no such thing anywhere on this thread.

 

[sangom]

Dear members/readers,

Though I intended this to be just a reply to Shri tkrs with reference to his query as to what I thought about Upanishads, etc., after reading it on completion, I find that it has become very long and covers almost all that I want/wanted to express in regard to the theme "God exists". Please forgive me if you find this post boring.

This forum has members of two categories as regards their views on (Hindu) religion as also the God concept. While one set, who now label themselves as "theists" generally uphold brahminism, the Hindu scriptures, the God concept and religions in general, they exhibit different levels of intolerance to alien faiths. But their immediate and most-hated enemies seem to be the "non-theists" - a term I have coined - and which includes all the rest who do not conform to the belief system of the Theists. The non-theists here in this forum comprises avowed atheists as also agnostics like me. To further elaborate my views, I do not deny the existence of some superior power or form of energy which is at the basic root of the universe, but I strongly contribute to the view that religions, including Hindu religion, have not been able to have a complete and scientifically acceptable knowledge about this super-power. Neither has modern science been able to uncover this so far. Hence I believe that religions are misleading people into a certain imaginary thought process and some of the religions have been able to generate so much of fanaticism as to result in utter cruelty being perpetrated in the name of their gods, over the millennia.

Shri tks in this post (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6798-god-exists-94.html#post89281) had written —

"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.

om̐ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇātpurṇamudacyate
pūrṇaśya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate ||
om̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ||


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?"

Let us look at the context, of which tks talks so highly, in which this hymn appears in the kāṇva śukḷa yajurveda, of which it is the last portion (book/chapter 40). Since there is nothing subsequent to it in that Veda, we have to see the just previous book or chapter 39. I have attached screen captures of the original of the chapter in Sanskrit with swaras and give below the translation by Ralph T. Griffith. This translation may not be acceptable to our theist friends but if they can, they are free to provide any other authentic translation of their liking and refute Griffith's.


"The Texts of the White Yajurveda, tr. Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1899], at sacred-texts.com

p. 301
BOOK THE THIRTY-NINTH.

SVÂHÂ to the Vital Breathings with their Controlling Lord!
To Earth Svâhâ! To Agni Svâhâ! To Firmament, Svâhâ!
To Vâyu Svâhâ! To Sky Svâhâ! To Sûrya Svâhâ!
2 To the Quarters Svâhâ! To the Moon Svâhâ! To the Stars
Svâhâ! To the Waters Svâhâ! To Varuna Svâhâ! To
the Navel Svâhâ! To the Purified Svâhâ!
3 To Speech Svâhâ! To Breath Svâhâ! To Breath Svâhâ!
To Sight Svâhâ! To Sight Svâhâ! To Hearing Svâhâ!
To Hearing Svâhâ!
4 The wish and purpose of the mind and truth of speech may
I obtain.
Bestowed on me be cattle's form, swept taste of food, and
fame and grace. Svâhâ!
5 Prajâpati while in preparation; Samrâj when prepared;
All-Gods’ when seated; Gharma when heated with fire;
Splendour when lifted up; the Asvins’ while milk is
poured in; Pûshan's when the butter trickles down it;
the Maruts’ when the milk is clotting; Mitra's when the
milk's skin is spreading; Vâyu's when it is carried off;
Agni's while offered as oblation; Vâk when it has been
offered.
6 Savitar on the first day; Agni on the second; Vâyu on the
third; Âditya (the Sun) on the fourth; Chandramâs (the
Moon) on the fifth; Ritu on the sixth; the Maruts on
the seventh; Brihaspati on the eighth; Mitra on the
ninth; Varuna on the tenth; Indra on the eleventh;
the All-Gods on the twelfth.

p. 302

7 Fierce; Terrible; The Resonant; The Roarer; Victorious;
Assailant; and Dispeller. Svâhâ.
8 Agni with the heart; Lightning with the heart's point;
Pasupati with the whole heart; Bhava with the liver.
Sarva with the two cardiac bones; Îsâna with Passion;
Mahâdeva with the intercostal flesh; the Fierce God with
the rectum; Vasishtha-hanuh, Singis with two lumps of
flesh near the heart.
9 The Fierce with blood; Mitra with obedience, Rudra with
disobedience; Indra with pastime; the Maruts with
strength; the Sâdhyas with enjoyment.
Bhava's is what is on the throat; Rudra's what is between
the ribs; Mahâdeva's is the liver; Sarva's the rectum;
Pasupati's the pericardium.
10 To the hair Svâhâ! To the hair Svâhâ! To the skin Svâhâ!
To the skin Svâhâ! To the blood Svâhâ! To the blood
Svâhâ! To the fats Svâhâ! To the fats Svâhâ! To the
fleshy parts Svâhâ! To the fleshy parts Svâhâ! To the
sinews Svâhâ! To the sinews Svâhâ! Svâhâ to the bones!
Svâhâ to the bones! To the marrows Svâhâ! To the
marrows Svâhâ! To the seed Svâhâ! To the anus Svâhâ!

p. 303

11 To Effort Svâhâ! To Exertion Svâhâ! To Endeavour Svâhâ!
To Viyâsa Svâhâ! To Attempt Svâhâ!
12 To Grief Svâhâ! To the Grieving Svâhâ! To the Sorrowing
Svâhâ! To Sorrow Svâhâ!
To Heat Svâhâ! To him who grows hot Svâhâ! To him
who is being heated Svâhâ! To him who has been heated
Svâhâ! To Gharma Svâhâ!
To Atonement Svâhâ! To Expiation Svâhâ! To Remedy
Svâhâ!
13 To Yama Svâhâ! To the Finisher Svâhâ! To Death Svâhâ!
To the Priesthood Svâhâ! To Brâhmanicide Svâhâ! To
the All-Gods Svâhâ! To Heaven and Earth Svâhâ!"

Shri tks has gone on record as follows, in his above post:-

"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. "

I do not claim any knowledge of Sanskrit which will make me capable of translating these hymns of the śukḷa yajurveda and so I am prepared to accept a different interpretation of the meaning of these hymns. But as it is, Griffith's seems to me to be an honest literal translation which it was intended to be.

Now the point to be considered is how the hymn pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ... syncs with the abovesaid last portion of the saṃhitā, which gives the mantras of the hotṛ in animal sacrifice or paśubandha.

The "pūrṇamadaḥ" hymn is in the anuṣṭubh metre which is an ancient metre alright but the language style stands out as post-Panini and distinctly different from that of the just preceding chapter. Hence there is ground for the Upanishad having been a later composition which was adopted by the kāṇva yajurvedis as their Upanishad, and in order that no doubt would be raised subsequently, the upaniṣad was made an integral (last) part of the saṃhitā itself. According to authorities, including the Kamakoti Mandali (Shukla Yajurveda), this kāṇva śākhā is the oldest of śukḷa yajurveda śākhās. Here one has to bear in mind the fact that the older kṛṣṇa yajurveda did not incorporate its taittirīya upaniṣad into the saṃhitā text. The taittirīya upaniṣad is in prose.

This hymn states pūrṇād pūrṇaṃ udacyate, i.e., from the whole, the whole became (created). And this is referred to as supporting the advaitic pov of jīvātmā and the parabrahman being one and the same. This is the advaitic view, but the dvaitins strongly refute this. So, which is correct and to what extent is this hymn useful? I do not think that "All Upanishads describe the same topic area", as stated by Shri tks. There are more than 200 upaniṣads currently and may be some more have not come to light. Out of these only about 10 or 11 are generally considered authoritative. Many of the later upaniṣads are sectarian works.

It is true that the authoritative upaniṣads mainly deal with the Absolute Reality underlying the entire creation, which these texts term as brahman. These upaniṣads are sometimes very cryptical, but we find also in the upaniṣads a great variety of concepts which many a time look contradictory as well. However, these texts gather so entirely around one common centre, and are dominated by the one thought of the sole reality of the ātman or brahman, that they all present themselves as variations upon one and the same theme. But then the fact that the upaniṣads were not giving a consistent interpretation of the One Reality which they were enquiring after, possibly made someone compose a set of sūtras known aptly by the name brahma sūtra, the very authorship of which is disputed by the different sects, some with deep schisms within, and whose very origin was based on conflicting interpretations of the one and only brahmasūtra, that any normal person is led to the inescapable conclusion that these upaniṣads themselves did not get an accurate idea about the brahman, nor did the author of the brahmasūtra do any better; if at all he excelled in brevity of expression to such an extent that it made the upaniṣadic confusion worse confounded.

The three specific questions posed by tks are -

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?

My answers are given below.

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?

I have already written about the subject matter sought to be addressed by the major upaniṣads. tks brackets all upaniṣads under a common umbrella, probably because he is not aware of the prolific nature of this genre of texts.

I do not think one should have any specific reason to learn any scriptural text. Having been born and brought up in a brahmin family following the yajurveda I was taught to recite the taittirīya upaniṣad even as a school boy. I did not know the meaning of much of it, but was able to reproduce it anyway. Gradually, as life progressed, I happened to read many books and some of them did give the meanings of some of the passages of that upaniṣad. This made me search for translations/commentaries and, during 1960-65 when I was in Kanpur/Lucknow I bought a book on upaniṣads published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur with the text and meaning in Hindi. On studying that, I found that there were many instances of statements which made no sense or at least appeared trivial, and so I persisted in reading as much material as I could during my working life, but the impression that much is being made out of upaniṣads for which they did not actually qualify, persisted in my mind. In 2000, I got a Computer and internet connection; since then I could access many web pages dealing with Hindu religion and upaniṣads in particular, and have been reading. But so far my impression that these upaniṣads are being praised sky-high because of the vested interest in projecting to the world that there is some scintillating philosophy in Hinduism and that all that philosophy is condensed in these upaniṣadic texts, has not changed.

You will thus perceive that I was not trying to solve any problem, personal or philosophical, except the persisting doubt about the upaniṣads themselves.

"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?”

I feel I have already alluded to these. Still, for the sake of ready reference, I summarize the answers below:-

upaniṣads do not describe any of the older philosophies of the vedas, though, because of the fact that the teachers in these texts are either brāhmaṇas or kṣatriyas, there are frequent attempts to describe their notions about the Absolute Reality or brahman in terms of the vocabulary, imagery and rituals which formed the sacrificial religion of the previous age.

It contains a lot of portions which appear outright silly or unconnected with the deep philosophical ideas given side by side. For a non-theist such attempts to delve deep into the question of Absolute Reality may appear as mumbo-jumbo. But I refuse to agree with you that all atheists are silly as a rule, as evidenced by your use of that adjective.

"3. We all confront what we think is reality in our life. What is your defintion of reality?"

The word confront may mean "oppose" also. I take it that you agree that theists like you are, in reality, confronting reality.

Joke apart, the Absolute Reality which is generally the subject matter of the major upaniṣads, does not normally play any part in a normal human life, IMHO. People accept the reality as evident to the senses (cognitive reality) which suffices for any ordinary human life.

Last, but not the least, I have no quarrel with or hatred towards, the theists but my only observation is that, at least in this forum, the theists get enraged when some non-theist ventures to give his views on some topic. They behave in such a manner as though the very statement of the non-theists will splinter their theistic crowd, lead them to the non-theistic or even atheistic camp. In this stage of extreme fright, name-calling, put-downs, innuendos and all emerge from the theist folks, probably because there is no convincing, logical argument for the theists to show that the atheistic postulate is erroneous. (You, tks, have even justified put-downs and taunts as part of valid and necessary discharge of your duty as a Theist.) But these Theists forget one fact and that is that the younger generation, irrespective of caste and economic status are leaning more towards the agnostic pov and despite all the efforts being made within this forum, even the children of these confirmed Theist mercenaries, may turn out to be agnostics at a later date.

As I have written in my post # 969 (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6798-god-exists-97.html#post89449), that a child is not born with any pre-conceived religious or even theistic notion. It is the parents/guardians who train the child into their religion
and inculcate into it the religious dogmas. If only we are able to bring up a sufficiently large sample of children without any religious notions, I feel they may grow into a better society and lead humanity towards a higher civilizational level.

 

[subbudu1]

oops, am i missing something here?

sravna, what do you mean by "others expense" ? Is shri subbudu amusing himself at anybody else's expense here? I simply find no such thing anywhere on this thread.

Happy Hindu I dont want to hide it, my humour was at the expense of a random number proposition and the theory of alternate universe and the theory against binary logic. The concerned person and his partner had a good time putting down Nara not via arguments but by such mock debates. In this case I was not saying this to make fun of concerned parties but it is the idea of multiple universes and the theory of multi states which made me laugh. Who knows multiple universes could be true. But is amusing all the same , even if true. Sravna took it as an offense against his friend when really nothing of that sort was intended but in general , the reason of such logic, I found funny.

 

[sangom]

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?

Smt. HappyHindu,

I would suggest that you should tell your child that over and above whatever God-inputs you might have given to him (I am aware that you are very religious), there is a universal law of Karma, that each one of us has to face and /or enjoy the consequences of each and every action that we do, and that even the Gods are not exempt from this universal law. Slowly he/she will think and ask you then why do we pray to one god or another to keep us protected from evil experiences. You will then have to either tell that it is the fright of confronting the evil results of our bad karmas which makes us do that, or, plainly concede that such prayer is unnecessary and what we will have to chant is "Lead Kindly light" or

अग्ने नयः सुपथा रायॆ अस्मान्
विश्वानि देव वयुनानि विद्वान् ।
युयोध्यस्मज्जुहुराणमॆनॊ
भूयिष्ठान्ते नम उक्तिम् विधेम ॥

agne nayaḥ supathā rāye asmān
viśvāni deva vayunāni vidvān
yuyodhyasmajjuhurāṇameno
bhūyiṣṭhānte nama uktim vidhema

 

[Nara]

..... So it would require a mistake by God to let these rationalists realize their folly.

narayan sir, since God cannot make mistakes we rationalists will never realize our folly, no?

BTW, what is our folly in your view? Is wanting to be rational a folly?

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Sravna,
Please let me know what is the reasoning you have given for saying universe is a "sport for god"? Meaning, what is the reasoning to support "sport for god"?

What is the reasoning for "spiritual reality" and "ultimate reality"?

Either you can explain on this thread or i can make a new thread for you to answer these questions if you find them bothersome on this thread.

Yes, i await an answer for post 998.

Thanks.

Dear Happyhindu,

There is a yet a convincing case to be presented from your side on the "how" question. Setting that aside , let us discuss the "why" question.


But before that,
You said:

"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."

Is this the post you are referring to? Assuming it is, I would say using your own words "intelligent design" as a proof of why it implies there is God. By saying it is an intelligent design you are accepting that there is a creator and that he is intelligent. A creator of such a grandoise thing as a universe. We call him God. What more do you need as a proof for the power of such a person we call God than the creation of an intelligent thing like a universe? Can there be anyone above that?

 

[Nara]

....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.

narayan sir, you are misrepresenting my view.

I do agree that majority or popular opinion is not a proof of anything. But that is not what Subbudu sir was alluding to, at least to me. Here, when thousands of people known for their meticulous methods and honest verification say one thing, it is foolhardy to reject that opinion in favor of the personal "experience" of a single individual known to be given to delusions.

Cheers!

 

[subbudu1]

Response to post#981 above:
Mr. Subbudu,


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..

As I said until the British Brahmins were role models in everything including untouchability. The granny of my house in those days she used to walk all by herself to the temples from home. When she was lost, she was brought home by a low caste man. He had to catch her hands and guide her The first thing she said after coming home was that the Soodra had touched her and she was upset. Having said this Ramanujacharya, Ramana Maharishi, Seshadri swamigal all of these noble humans, they did not have these extreme forms of touch me not. So how come people much lower than them required that so so so called purity

 

[suraju06]

Happy Hindu I dont want to hide it, my humour was at the expense of a random number proposition and the theory of alternate universe and the theory against binary logic. The concerned person and his partner had a good time putting down Nara not via arguments but by such mock debates. In this case I was not saying this to make fun of concerned parties but it is the idea of multiple universes and the theory of multi states which made me laugh.

Dear Mr. Subbudu,

Why this shadow boxing (in malayalam urundukali) and innuendo. Why don't you come out and name these "person and his partner". That would give an opportunity to this person and his partner to be careful in future so that you wont have to laugh.

 

[suraju06]

As I said until the British Brahmins were role models in everything including untouchability. The granny of my house in those days she used to walk all by herself to the temples from home. When she was lost, she was brought home by a low caste man. He had to catch her hands and guide her The first thing she said after coming home was that the Soodra had touched her and she was upset. Having said this Ramanujacharya, Ramana Maharishi, Seshadri swamigal all of these noble humans, they did not have these extreme forms of touch me not. So how come people much lower than them required that so so so called purity

Mr. Subbudu,

You have completely missed the thrust of my argument or is it that you deliberately try to miss it.

Cheers.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Happyhindu,

There is a yet a convincing case to be presented from your side on the "how" question. Setting that aside , let us discuss the "why" question.


But before that,
You said:

"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."

Is this the post you are referring to? Assuming it is, I would say using your own words "intelligent design" as a proof of why it implies there is God. By saying it is an intelligent design you are accepting that there is a creator and that he is intelligent. A creator of such a grandoise thing as a universe. We call him God. What more do you need as a proof for the power of such a person we call God than the creation of an intelligent thing like a universe? Can there be anyone above that?

Sravna,

Perhaps you did not come across what "intelligent design" is about. Here is the website: Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design

1) The words "intelligent design" are not my own words. It was coined to represent the ideology that some features of the universe and living things can be explained by the causation theory. Just like anumana and pratyaksha are acceptable grounds for pramana, so also the "intelligent design" scientific programme uses a 4-step process of observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

2) The theory of "intelligent design" does not endorse creationism nor does it endorse theism. Instead it is a scientific consortium that aims to find if the causation theory can be held valid. Its approach can be considered similar to the Buddhist theory of dependent origination (though both are not the same - the only thing they share in common is the approach that certain things (effects) happen because there is a cause. Meaning, cause is dependent on effect and vice-versa).

3) I have no objection if you want to use the theory of "intelligent design" to prove God exists. But i would like to see some convincing proof. This has to be actual logical reasoning. Akin to laying down a theory or explaining an existing theory.

4) I used the term "intelligent design" merely to convey that just because certain observable phenomenon of the universe is "intelligent" it does not mean God exists. Not jut this intelligent design theory, alternatively you can use any other theory to explain the existence of God.

So if you use terms like "sport for god", you need to show thru observations, hypothesis, experiments, that such a thing exists in reality.

You will also need to put forth suitable logical reasoning to prove the existence of "spiritual reality", and "ultimate reality".

My guru once said God is like Mathematics. But failed to prove the existence of God using mathematical theorems. You are very learned in advaitha. If by mathematics or any other proof you can show that God exists, it will indeed be a very enlightening experience for many readers.

Thank you.

 

[sravna]

Arguments for :Why universe is for the bliss of God/brahman or is an act of sport

Argument 1

Premise1 : God/Brahman is timeless(from arguments in the post 490)
Premise 2: The enjoyment of a particular experience is related to the perception of duration of that experience. ( See discussion below)
Conclusion: Since brahman perceives a timeless reality his experiences are total bliss.

Explanation for premise 2:Consider same event being perceived by two people x and Y. For x it is a very likeable event and for Y it is a horrifying event. Let us say the event last for a minute according to clocks. Since for x it is a very likeable event his focus is on the event.He "gets lost" in the event. So time passes swiftly for him and he will perceive less than 1 minute. For Y since the event is horrifying his focus will be on when the event will get over and hence will be on the time. So the event seems to take much greater than 1 minute.

Another argument is to consider what happens when time becomes nearly static. Nothing can be more excruciating than that if that can happen. The corollary would be timeless perceptions or not perceiving time would be the most blissful.

Argument 2

Premise 1: Brahman is the cause of universe(from the arguments in post 490)
Premise 2: The experiences of brahman are totally blissful (from argument 1)
Premise 3: Brahman's reality are the experiences ( space and time do not exist in brahman's reality.post 490)
Conclusion: One reason for the existence of universe is for the blissful expereince of brahman or is an act of sport

 

[sravna]

Happy Hindu I dont want to hide it, my humour was at the expense of a random number proposition and the theory of alternate universe and the theory against binary logic. The concerned person and his partner had a good time putting down Nara not via arguments but by such mock debates. In this case I was not saying this to make fun of concerned parties but it is the idea of multiple universes and the theory of multi states which made me laugh. Who knows multiple universes could be true. But is amusing all the same , even if true. Sravna took it as an offense against his friend when really nothing of that sort was intended but in general , the reason of such logic, I found funny.

Dear Shri Subbudu,

This is not the only instance where you tried to have fun at other posts. I think it is not in the right spirit to mock something be it the person or the logic. Neither you nor others are omniscient. Everyone is trying to learn. Let's do it in the right spirit

 

[zebra16]

narayan sir, since God cannot make mistakes we rationalists will never realize our folly, no?

BTW, what is our folly in your view? Is wanting to be rational a folly?

Cheers!

Namaste Sri Nara Sir,

Without Iswara-anugraha, neither theists nor rationalists can ever realise their follies. This is just my opinion.

I do not know who you mean by "our" here. I meant the rationalists, who extend the analogy to any length to justify their position. Any phenomenon not explainable by science always becomes a neuro disorder to the rationalists. So acharyas become a psychic case, the followers have various mental syndromes etc. All in al everyone except the rationalists, is a basket case. I was taking exception to this point in the post of Sri Subbdu.

You had somewhere in the past mentioned the humility etc. of scientists and their frankness in admitting the areas not known to them at a point of time. Sadly the humilty was missing in the post. In the said post the rationalist had "appropriated" the position of Brhman and dismissed the other claims as delusionis or illusions etc.

How can wanting to be a "rational" be a folly? Presuming that rationalists know everything under the sun and giving out labels to others as "delusionists" etc. is folly.

Anyway, here is a news item that "human brain may be have reached its full capacity and cant get cleverer", so theists and atheists may have to devise means to peacefully co-exist. Has our brain reached full capacity? - The Times of India


Regards,

narayan

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

As one of the members to whom you have addressed your post #1030 I have this to say. Answering or not is your choice. Your words are within quotes.

This forum has members of two categories as regards their views on (Hindu) religion as also the God concept. While one set, who now label themselves as "theists" generally uphold brahminism, the Hindu scriptures, the God concept and religions in general, they exhibit different levels of intolerance to alien faiths.

Can you please define the term brahminism which you have used here?

Last, but not the least, I have no quarrel with or hatred towards, the theists but my only observation is that, at least in this forum, the theists get enraged when some non-theist ventures to give his views on some topic. They behave in such a manner as though the very statement of the non-theists will splinter their theistic crowd, lead them to the non-theistic or even atheistic camp. In this stage of extreme fright, name-calling, put-downs, innuendos and all emerge from the theist folks, probably because there is no convincing, logical argument for the theists to show that the atheistic postulate is erroneous. (You, tks, have even justified put-downs and taunts as part of valid and necessary discharge of your duty as a Theist.

Just as you have no hatred or quarrel with the theists, the theists too have no quarrel with you or hatred towards you. All you have said about theists are your imagination. There is no extreme fright whatsoever as you would like to imagine. Put downs, innuendos have been there from both sides. A debate requires ground rules and these arguments here are all without any ground rules. So no one ever accepts the correctness of the opponent's argument--like you have said here with supreme confidence that there is no convincing, logical argument for the theists. All these are monologues.

But these Theists forget one fact and that is that the younger generation, irrespective of caste and economic status are leaning more towards the agnostic pov and despite all the efforts being made within this forum, even the children of these confirmed Theist mercenaries, may turn out to be agnostics at a later date.

The theists also know about the younger generation. They have a different interpretation of the ground realities. However, when what you have put down above is read I am reminded of the cursing that is resorted to when one is keenly aware of one's limitations.This is a frank expression of what I thought and not a put down.

As I have written in my post # 969 (http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6798-god-exists-97.html#post89449), that a child is not born with any pre-conceived religious or even theistic notion. It is the parents/guardians who train the child into their religion and inculcate into it the religious dogmas. If only we are able to bring up a sufficiently large sample of children without any religious notions, I feel they may grow into a better society and lead humanity towards a higher civilizational level.

It is a statement of the obvious when you say that the child comes into this world without any theistic notions. Yes parents give the child the preliminary knowledge about the religion that they follow. But the free will of the child is not dormant for ever. At some point the free will asks questions and finds answers too. In the case of many people, these answers are such that the child gets its preliminary religious values validated. In some cases the opposite happens and the individual drifts. The drift is interpreted as an utopian higher civilization by some.

I think the rest of your post would be commented on by Mr. tks which will be appropriate.

Cheers.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Shri Subbudu,

This is not the only instance where you tried to have fun at other posts. I think it is not in the right spirit to mock something be it the person or the logic. Neither you nor others are omniscient. Everyone is trying to learn. Let's do it in the right spirit

I can agree if I am using the same argument against you and I willingly apologized for a harmless fun, but you felt bad and so I did. But not certainly not for the friends for whom you stand up.
If a cow is coming your way, it is ok to move away. But if there are certain other people who come your way, one should certainly pay back that person in his own way . In any case as I said it is the idea I found it funny. And I can apologize to you a hundred times , even if I feel it is harmless fun, not the people for whom you stand up. I am certain this will not be the first or last time when they have their quota of fun and they are likely to pick up their scape goat regardless of my presence in this forum. Thank you

 

[ShivKC]

how can one expects a small child to love,pray and do pooja to god, without showing her the the god in a platter?.

why the same child who rejects god at this young age, doesn't touch the topics like rejecting black hole or claim that milky way doesnt exist? because she was not taught now, probably when she will be taught in graduation she may ask that, but not now.


same way,how can you expect the same child to love 'her mysterious aunt, living 1000 miles away', whom neither the child nor the mother has not seen once?.

for this, the mother must first hold the aunt (here god) in great esteem in order to be motivated to tell the children about that aunt. if the mother loves that aunt, it is almost certain that her children will love, that aunt too, though both of them haven't seen that aunt.

this is the same with children's idea about god. if mother makes her believe in atheist way she will grow the same, vice versa.

how a child got to know it wrong to beat other children? before the fellow children advices her, its the parents put this notion of good in to the child's mind. the child doesnt know by herself whats right or wrong. no selfish mutated gene plays any role here. its the parents who put this idea. this includes god-head too.

how about this idea? is a child can decide all by its own & lean by its own, then we have to shut all the primary schools indeed!

 

[sravna]

I can agree if I am using the same argument against you and I willingly apologized for a harmless fun, but you felt bad and so I did. But not certainly not for the friends for whom you stand up.
If a cow is coming your way, it is ok to move away. But if there are certain other people who come your way, one should certainly pay back that person in his own way . In any case as I said it is the idea I found it funny. And I can apologize to you a hundred times , even if I feel it is harmless fun, not the people for whom you stand up. I am certain this will not be the first or last time when they have their quota of fun and they are likely to pick up their scape goat regardless of my presence in this forum. Thank you

It is indeed true in general that the bar can be raised more with regards to maintaing decorum and allowing for more courteous exchanges though once in a while harmless fun would be fun

 

[sravna]

Does anyone want to celebrate for the number of posts crossing the 1000 mark? Looks like this thread is going to set some records even if doesn't set records straight

 

[sangom]

Friends,

I now find that Smt. HappyHindu is depicted as banned. I do not find any reason having been given in this thread. But I think it is a bad idea to ban a member who has contributed much to this forum. Or, is it something wrong only with my computer and screen?

 

[ShivKC]

atheist claim :- validity of personal experience and intuition as general proof


why break our head with all the god notion as eg. lets take this simple question, (keeping away the god intuition here, but a closer analogy of "intuition" vis a vis "dream".

say, i had a dream yesterday night that 'london bridge was falling down'. am i telling a lie, i know not. i told my friend, he didnt ask for proof, but helped me with an interpretation.

do atheist rejects one's dream and ask for proof? one step further, does a scientist atheist ask for proof? if so, my question is, what kind of proof they need? what are the modalities/ tests and documents they needed? or what tests atheists have on hand to prove me that I have not had that particular dream of 'london bridge falling down' yesterday. atheists fail to understand science has its own limitations.

the same is the case with god intuition? take a test on all humans and prove them wrong about their belief in god.


atheist claim :- science defeats theism

atheism was there even 3000 years ago. charvaka, aristotle all got their names in written in history, much before religions got established all around the globe. science was there too. pythagorus, euclid,Baudhayana,Kātyāyana,aryabhatta also lived parallel.

modern science came in , so is the modern philosophy to support atheism.

all these infers, atheism existed very much in the past, and moved in tandem with development of science and maths.

but religion grew faster, especially in the last 1000 years, where are atheism is still in the same infantile stage, with 1-3 persons following. even charvakas period also, atheist head count was not visibly notable.

so atheist claim of science rejecting religion is all wrong. and my question is, why even now, the head count of atheists is very minuscule?

 

[Nara]

Friends,

I now find that Smt. HappyHindu is depicted as banned. I do not find any reason having been given in this thread. But I think it is a bad idea to ban a member who has contributed much to this forum. Or, is it something wrong only with my computer and screen?

I just noticed this myself. Praveen may please clarify.

 

[ShivKC]

Does anyone want to celebrate for the number of posts crossing the 1000 mark? Looks like this thread is going to set some records even if doesn't set records straight

yes, its time to celebrate 1000 posts..


a point to note is, most of the threads when it reache around 300+, the emotional fire starts leading to either closure of the thread or warning flares from mods..

but this one has run smooth, with active exchange of ideas, without any fire shoots or emotional out bursts. it touched 1000 posts in just 20 days, a record break i think.

the credit goes to all the participants, i mean both the theists and atheists. here i share a warm shake hands with atheists.