God Exists

[ShivKC]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

<removed, plz stick to topic. no need to reply back and forth on the same old things>

 

[tbs]

hi
there is no problem...we beleive in god or not....we beleive in caste or not...........best vaadham for best knowledge....but vidhanta

vaadham useless.....less filled pot make more noice.....full filled pot never make a sound....just example...sowbhagyavati renu akka

doing well in this forum....even though she may not be same clan....nobody ever complained....even she knows sanskrit and other

vedantic subject better than many of us.....even she likes sai baba....in her sai lives on....her own contribution...if i dont like that

thread....atleast i can keep quiet...not to do vidhanta vaadham......the question is not B or NB....or atheist or theist.....the question

is personal attack......its not good..... sorry renu akka for the example given..like once narendra modi said....he is not against

muslims...if muslim wants stay in india...be an indian.....sow renu akka lives in muslim majority country....whole country is celebrating

ramadan....even though she is minority there....she has to follow majority decisions......my 2 cents..

regards
tbs.

 

[vvskoman]

Oh thank god at last nothing decided on your existence!
that is your success.

 

[kunjuppu]

shiv,

basically while i am a theist, i find it disturbing that those who think about God, differently from me, are being made uncomfortable here by my fellow co religionists.

as you can see my participation in this thread is minimal, as personally i do not think one's faith is something that we need to banter about. to me it is very personal - me and my God. i believe. someone else believes differently. or does not believe. or doubts.so be it. it is their business.does not bother me.

since we theists are a majority here, i think, it is only proper that we make enough room, to accommodate the atheirst, agnostic and whatever other schools of thought that might exist in the world. we have nothing to lose, and all to gain, wrt our spirit of tolerance and co existence.

also, i would like to observe, that the duels between the various schools of philosophy has tend towards absoluteness, and frequently annhilation of the opponent. more folks have been killed in the name of religion than otherwise (mass killing atheists are a phenomenon of 20th century with stalin, mao and pol pot. hitler i think believed, though i am not so sure of that.

we could have done differently here. we could have let the atheist and agnostics have a free run, and see what comes up. these too have been believers onces, and that they now chose to doubt or not to believe, is interesting stories and journeys by itself, that demands our appreciation.

we, the believers, think that we are the end in intself, and there can be no further journey beyond us. in the name of curiosity, we have villified, whom i call innocent & decent folks. that is my take on the behaviour of my fellow theists on this thread.

so, we took the hammer and tongs, and castigated the atheists and agnostics, to death here, with our words. i am ashamed to read epithets such as , - self hating brahmins? to me, it reflects badly on us, our erudtion (or lack of it), our absence of tolerance and above all a sense of decency. i think we can and we should present our cases better - and definitely more elegantly than resorting to vile words and vitriol.

that the opponents would not give up so easily, is the reason for the lengthy bloodlets. it has nothing to do with religion as far as we are concerned. it is plain intolerance of an opposite viewpoint. i find it difficult to abide by that. hence my 'like' for subbudu's post, and indirectly nara's. hope this explains.

your fellow believer and theist,

yours truly kunjuppu.

 

[tks]

shiv,

basically while i am a theist, i find it disturbing that those who think about God, differently from me, are being made uncomfortable here by my fellow co religionists.

as you can see my participation in this thread is minimal, as personally i do not think one's faith is something that we need to banter about. to me it is very personal - me and my God. i believe. someone else believes differently. or does not believe. or doubts.so be it. it is their business.does not bother me.

since we theists are a majority here, i think, it is only proper that we make enough room, to accommodate the atheirst, agnostic and whatever other schools of thought that might exist in the world. we have nothing to lose, and all to gain, wrt our spirit of tolerance and co existence.

also, i would like to observe, that the duels between the various schools of philosophy has tend towards absoluteness, and frequently annhilation of the opponent. more folks have been killed in the name of religion than otherwise (mass killing atheists are a phenomenon of 20th century with stalin, mao and pol pot. hitler i think believed, though i am not so sure of that.

we could have done differently here. we could have let the atheist and agnostics have a free run, and see what comes up. these too have been believers onces, and that they now chose to doubt or not to believe, is interesting stories and journeys by itself, that demands our appreciation.

we, the believers, think that we are the end in intself, and there can be no further journey beyond us. in the name of curiosity, we have villified, whom i call innocent & decent folks. that is my take on the behaviour of my fellow theists on this thread.

so, we took the hammer and tongs, and castigated the atheists and agnostics, to death here, with our words. i am ashamed to read epithets such as , - self hating brahmins? to me, it reflects badly on us, our erudtion (or lack of it), our absence of tolerance and above all a sense of decency. i think we can and we should present our cases better - and definitely more elegantly than resorting to vile words and vitriol.

that the opponents would not give up so easily, is the reason for the lengthy bloodlets. it has nothing to do with religion as far as we are concerned. it is plain intolerance of an opposite viewpoint. i find it difficult to abide by that. hence my 'like' for subbudu's post, and indirectly nara's. hope this explains.

your fellow believer and theist,

yours truly kunjuppu.

Sri K (and All) -

The topic's title is 'God exists'

There are some comments and statements in your message that are best taken in private conversations in my humble opinion. Regardless of your intent, it has the 'holier than thou' message with one sided and biased view. The reason I am stating this is public so that no one else has to respond to those comments in the forum carrying on non-topic related conversations. If moderator wants to edit this paragraph out that is fine by me. If you have questions as to what I am referring to please send a PM. By saying this I am not trying to be 'holier than thou' either.

Back to the topic:
Let me make a few points by explaining my views as example because I can represent that better than anyone else's views expressed here.

There are many views of what a 'God' is, even among those who are categorized as Theists. In fact my suggestion is that we dont group people as one camp or the other. The views of Srvana is very different from mine, different from Dr Renu, different from Dr Barani.

Dr Renu believes that she saw God in the human form in our life time when she speaks of Sri Sathya Sai Baba. I find Sai Baba's talks & writing very illuminating and insightful. I think he has made enormous contribution to the world by evoking the Satvic side in many people that I know. I personally do not think there are miracles - only events we do not understand by proper study of science. I consider ordinary event of raising a hand requiring billions of coordinated messages to be a daily miracle .

I dont think myself as Theist or Atheist - I dont have a problem being categorized in any camp. I say that Isvara is a concept to be *understood* and not believed. In that sense I am not a believer. The proof of Isvara is our own existence as the 'I sense' which requires no proof. That I-ness is Isvara in my view! You cannot search for God 'out there' when the searcher is the One that he or she is searching out of ignorance. I am saying this not as a belief but as an understanding though I dont care if others want to think it as yet another belief.

There are many people here who literally believe in Puranas and in existence of Lord Rama and Lord Krishana as historical figures who were incarnation of Isvara. I say - I agree that they might be historical figures. However I have no interest in history and for me Lord Krishna could have been figment of imagination of Sri Vyasa (assuming one such person existed or a family of Vyasas that completed the work of Mahabharatha). The teachings of BG (Gita) does not depend on this distinction.

One thing I will not do is say negative thing about Sri Sai Baba or Hare Krishna movement.

I have many Atheist friends in real life who are very logical, do not *believe* in anything, but respectful to not only Theist of any religion but also respectful to their holy books. Also I have found a variety of view points and it is incorrect even to label anyone as a Atheists unless they want to be called so.

I am against manipulative religious conversions and I think Christianity and Islam would be great peace-loving religions if they do not have religious conversion as a sanctioned directive.

I am also against teaching about Vedas and Upanishads to someone who is not ready and lack the pre-requisites.

The real issues I have seen here have to do with denigrating 'Brahminism' as alluded to in BG for example, calling Upanishads as meaningless without having had proper background and without providing cogent arguments, labeling someone as a cult follower or saying that Sri Sankara was taking people for a ride or denigrate teachings of Sri Vivekananda etc.

Many of the responses in this thread and others have been due to this basic lack of respect exhibited by a few in my view. Once a few people engage in the discussions, our childish nature takes over and we make fun. I am personally not against fun even while discussing serious topics and was able to laugh at Subbudu's imaginary conversation that he posted. I dont respond to his posts because they make no sense to me (for others it might) or name calling that is not nice & not civil.

If a person has rejected Brahminism why keep harping on that forever? What does that have to do with concept of Isvara. If someone thinks that their ancestors were crooks so be it but dont tell me my ancestors were so. Every society has certain norms. In USA and perhaps in India some people may think Capitalism is the greatest thing since slice of bread but in another era the idea of someone like Ambani or Gates making tens of billion dollars in few years as a huge flaw in the society.

I do not condone casteism or racism but would like fight that behavior by anyone if I confront that. But if casteism is being connected solely to Brahmin culture which is then connected to scriptural (vedas) teaching, does that gives the license to denigrate a book of learning (it does not have to be holy) or put down ancestors who followed those teaching?

I was not raised in an Orthodix family, was not told to do Sandhyavandanam daily etc. I learnt a lot of Sanskrit in school because it was easy to get higher marks in that subject. Though I could write big essays in Sanskrit then I hardly remember much today.

My exposure initially to the teachings of BG came from an American who is an engineer and self proclaimed Atheist. He was moved by the logic and insight.
Since then I have learnt a lot from others and by self reading. I live with Science people all the time. Having lived away from India and having no direct blood relation in India and no parents to tell me what to do, my study was purely voluntary. I have come to appreciate the teachings of Upanishads over many years studied under a highly skeptical attitude. My respect is therefore due to learning.

Therefore I think it is disrespectful and ignorant talk if someone denigrates these great teaching by looking at literal translations. It does answer questions about Isvara by providing one a mature understanding of Isvara.

My request is that in order to have a respectful and civil dialog it is important to not denigrate any book of any religion or any culture (Brahminism). It is not proper to put down islam as terrorism, or put down Koran - let us not put down our heritage and culture. Let us call attention to bad behavior that has existed in every society if such behavior is relevant to day. If someone is a true Agnosticist or Atheist they should critique Hinduism with the same way they would argue against say at site devoted to Muslims worldwide. If they would show respect at those site assuming they are allowed, please show the same respect here.

If someone wants to talk about social problems like caste-issues I have a suggestion.

Today we have far serious problems - human trafficking of sex slaves from Nepal and India. The problems of how widows are treated today in TB family pales in comparison to horror stories we hear. It is a proper topic in my view to discuss how come an Isvara allows such atrocities to be taking place.

In summary to Sri K: Your post is reprimanding many which can only incite others to respond creating diversion.
Please do state your views of God if you have any to share beyond what you have already done so.

You and others are welcome to critique what I have stated.

Let us take all other extraneous points in PM

Peace

 

[kunjuppu]

tks,

i have said that i believe in God. i am a hindu, though not comfortable with caste. my children consider themseleves casteless hindus.

to me, religion is a private thing, and i do not wish to discuss, either publicly or through pr msg.

my reply note, was in response to the shivKc whom i personally like and respect. that was it.

thank you.

 

[DrBarani]

more folks have been killed in the name of religion than otherwise (mass killing atheists are a phenomenon of 20th century with stalin, mao and pol pot. hitler i think believed, though i am not so sure of that.

Kindly permit me to disagree with this statement. This is a very common spin used by Atheists to put down the belief system. Here is why:

It wasn't theists who went on any mass murder in history. It was the Criminal Groups, who believed "my god is better than your god". There is a clear difference. They aren't Believers. They are Murderers who used religion as coverup. Did George Bush talk to Jesus before invading Iraq? Is he a true God Believer? Was the Iraq war waged because Christians wanted to conquer Islam? I don't think so! If any, George Bush is a murderer who used religion to coverup and build support for his crimes. That doesn't make him a Theist. (In fact, the Bush clan associates are the Commie-Kazhars, erstwhile Communist Marxist repatriates from eastern Europe).

The killing of native Americans (and aborigins in Australia) were done by criminals. UK did not keep its prisoners. It extradited them to other continents. They were criminals from the beginning. They had no religious or belief system. Most were men. Hence they needed to find women. It was easy - kill Native American men and kidnap their women. That is how it all started. Not by any religious edict. It is unlikely that anyone who has belief in God, hell and heaven would be a murdering criminal. Afer all, it is the Atheists who label the believers as "fear driven". Hence, how can one be both "fear driven" and also a "mass murderer"? Atheists are capable of simultaneously holding two diametrically opposite statements and yet remain as if nothing happened.

Message: Religion doesn't Kill. Killers exploit Religion.

 

[nachi naga]

Kindly permit me to disagree with this statement. This is a very common spin used by Atheists to put down the belief system. Here is why:

It wasn't theists who went on any mass murder in history. It was the Criminal Groups, who believed "my god is better than your god". There is a clear difference. They aren't Believers. They are Murderers who used religion as coverup. Did George Bush talk to Jesus before invading Iraq? Is he a true God Believer? Was the Iraq war waged because Christians wanted to conquer Islam? I don't think so! If any, George Bush is a murderer who used religion to coverup and build support for his crimes. That doesn't make him a Theist. (In fact, the Bush clan associates are the Commie-Kazhars, erstwhile Communist Marxist repatriates from eastern Europe).

The killing of native Americans (and aborigins in Australia) were done by criminals. UK did not keep its prisoners. It extradited them to other continents. They were criminals from the beginning. They had no religious or belief system. Most were men. Hence they needed to find women. It was easy - kill Native American men and kidnap their women. That is how it all started. Not by any religious edict. It is unlikely that anyone who has belief in God, hell and heaven would be a murdering criminal. Afer all, it is the Atheists who label the believers as "fear driven". Hence, how can one be both "fear driven" and also a "mass murderer"? Atheists are capable of simultaneously holding two diametrically opposite statements and yet remain as if nothing happened.

Message: Religion doesn't Kill. Killers exploit Religion.

some points are valid some are not.gwb is a decent man that he got tricked with conspiracy nobody believes as he was the most powerful man.he is true christian and loves his lord as well.yes,islamic fundamentalist somehow got the edge now,but i truly believe islam is a peace loving religion.even though i have my pet theories,but genuinely believe all religions sprang forth from sanathana dharma.our lord krishna in fact urges lord arjuna to fight for dharma especially kshatriayah dharma.so its wrong to conclude religion is cause.

 

[DrBarani]

gwb is a decent man that he got tricked with conspiracy nobody believes as he was the most powerful man.he is true christian and loves his lord as well

I will take a rank Atheist over a pseudo-theist like GWB anyday! He belongs in jail!

 

[subbudu1]

Religion and respect to Religious texts. In this forum I have never never never ever said one thing wrong about even one scriptural text except for questioning the general nature of belief system in society. However there is nothing wrong in questioning the worthiness of these books also. None of us as hindus anyway follow even one book completely(neither want to follow) from first page to last page. So actually we are all non believers it is only the question of recognition.

Now if we look at the puranic book. So many versions. If we accept one version to be true we are rejecting all other versions- Is it not? Further in one purana, the genealogy list of gods and humans is different from another. Kalki Purana talks about war between Kalki and Buddhists. But really Buddhists are not that much of a force anywhere today. Looks like the work was composed in Buddhist times. Why not question it? If we look at BG. It would come as a surprise to many here, in Alberuni's work on India, it is mentioned certain things about BG which dont exist in currently circulated about BG. How much of conversation of Krishna and Arjuna is BG? One of the person to question that concept itself was non other than HH JSS . In one of the videos released a few decades back, eknath videos, I think, he said that in reality Krishna must have conversed with Arjuna for about 18 minutes or so. That has been immortalized through the BG Poems. But if nobody objected to that , one can easily question the poetry in BG and even question concepts and similes used in that Book. And there were books and people currently considered as saints, who were responsible for war and violence. Why should we not objectively look at that question. Dayanand Saraswati, also an advaitin , not the arya samaj guy, has questioned if Ramana Maharishi was all that great, But here in this forum we have people who take objection to criticism of both.

This is why I feel holy books may be considered holy but there is no reason to not question them with a fully open mind. That is freedom , freedom of mind , freedom of Voice, freedom of all things. If people had been allowed to openly critique certain holybooks in certain countries then countries like India would never have been partitioned. We would not also have seen twin towers , we would have seen chidambaram as a wonderful siva-vishu shrine. Tirupati an accomodative and modest temple allowing buddhists, vaishnavas and saivas.

 

[subbudu1]

Coming to Gods. I feel an open discussion is also possible on both sides. There is no reason not to freely critique the actions of certain Gods. If there is a reason for such behavior which one does not feel immoral, nobody stops them from defending their god's cause. Why then should restriction be imposed on that. How many parents educate their children that Krishna married 16000 wives as per SB,and his plays with Gopikas, which do not fit in with moral definitions of our society There might be nothing wrong with these things but if these doubts are never raised in society , they will remain hidden in the subconscious mind of the believer. It will then lead to hypocrisy, intolerance and fanaticism .

One of the reasons I see that the theists show intolerance, is there somewhere deep within their mind, they feel that a building will crumble, and they therefore grumble when someone openly expresses doubts and questions things which are not invented from nowhere. A truly objective theist will not be bothered about such questions on their god. Will either be silent for their own good reasons or come out with logical justification.

 

[subbudu1]

Renuka I do not call you delusional for your beliefs in Baba. But if the nastik Buddha had been alive, as he was termsd by the theists then, his take on your experience would have been completely different.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Friends,

I located this in youtube - seven proofs of God exists :

‪tomorrowsworldtv's Channel‬‏ - YouTube

 

[renuka]

Renuka I do not call you delusional for your beliefs in Baba. But if the nastik Buddha had been alive, as he was termsd by the theists then, his take on your experience would have been completely different.

Dear Subbudu,

Its ok yaar..Buddha would have never judged anyone.

 

[zebra16]

Renuka I do not call you delusional for your beliefs in Baba. But if the nastik Buddha had been alive, as he was termsd by the theists then, his take on your experience would have been completely different.

I do not want to do nit-picking. But you seem to have equated nastika as atheist, which is a poor equivalent.


An astika is one who says asti("it is so") to these three propositions.

1. The Vedas are pramana for knowing dharma and moksha.
2. There is an atma that survives after death
3. There is prime cause for the material world

Those who say "it is not so" (na + asti = nAsti) to one or more of these propositions are nAstikas.

So you see a nastika is not the exact equivalent of an atheist.

Regards,

narayan

 

[subbudu1]

I do not want to do nit-picking. But you seem to have equated nastika as atheist, which is a poor equivalent.


An astika is one who says asti("it is so") to these three propositions.

1. The Vedas are pramana for knowing dharma and moksha.
2. There is an atma that survives after death
3. There is prime cause for the material world

Those who say "it is not so" (na + asti = nAsti) to one or more of these propositions are nAstikas.

So you see a nastika is not the exact equivalent of an atheist.

Regards,

narayan

I nowhere meant that Buddha was an atheist. I am not an expert in this Buddhism stuff but his theory I believe included reincarnation , appearance of spiritual mediums and the like. It is in this context I wished to say that Buddha's take on her experience may have been different, not taken as a proof of God's experience.

 

[suraju06]

Kindly permit me to disagree with this statement. This is a very common spin used by Atheists to put down the belief system. Here is why:

It wasn't theists who went on any mass murder in history. It was the Criminal Groups, who believed "my god is better than your god". There is a clear difference. They aren't Believers. They are Murderers who used religion as coverup. Did George Bush talk to Jesus before invading Iraq? Is he a true God Believer? Was the Iraq war waged because Christians wanted to conquer Islam? I don't think so! If any, George Bush is a murderer who used religion to coverup and build support for his crimes. That doesn't make him a Theist. (In fact, the Bush clan associates are the Commie-Kazhars, erstwhile Communist Marxist repatriates from eastern Europe).

The killing of native Americans (and aborigins in Australia) were done by criminals. UK did not keep its prisoners. It extradited them to other continents. They were criminals from the beginning. They had no religious or belief system. Most were men. Hence they needed to find women. It was easy - kill Native American men and kidnap their women. That is how it all started. Not by any religious edict. It is unlikely that anyone who has belief in God, hell and heaven would be a murdering criminal. Afer all, it is the Atheists who label the believers as "fear driven". Hence, how can one be both "fear driven" and also a "mass murderer"? Atheists are capable of simultaneously holding two diametrically opposite statements and yet remain as if nothing happened.

Message: Religion doesn't Kill. Killers exploit Religion.

Dear DrBarani,

I won't be surprised if you are criticised for the above post with the sentence "your statements reveal your profound ignorance of American History". I have been subjected to this comment earlier by a knowledgeable gentleman here. When I had said then that the American society has been able to grant civil rights to its blacks and put their guilt behind and move forward while in India we have not been able to do that. We make reservations and positive discrimination an instrument of compensation to the SC/STs and yet keep harping on the brahminism(whatever this word means) and brahmins' conspiracy without let. For this the gentleman then went at a tangent and said my ignorance of American history was profound. I wanted to tell him with an example what I wanted to say but did not continue the conversation because of other reasons. This is what I wanted to tell him then but could not tell: Dear friend when I wanted to explain what a tennis ball looks like, I said it looks like an orange in shape. You immediately said my ignorance about orange is profound because it belongs to citrous fruit category as there is citric acid in its juices and I do not know anything about it. I threw up my hand in despair and gave up.

I am sure you will get a counter to your post.

Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Folks, I am sure the reasonable members are as fed up as I am with this continuing saga of mocking and recrimination. I was planning not to post in this thread any more, but, an unchallenged lie, repeated often, tends to take on the appearance of truth. So, please bear with me just this one post. I shall restrict myself to setting the record straight and just one comment, but gloves are off.



The case of middle finger:
Here is what I said --

"Renu, I don't understand why you are not able to see Megh's POV. For her, she wants to be able to enter the temple on her own terms, not under false pretenses. She wants to give the middle finger to the man made rules and I support her 100%. Why should she care to enter a place where she is told she is unwelcome on certain days, the loss is not hers as far as I am concerned."

​

This is about Megh not wanting to enter a temple under false pretenses. Notice that I was not giving any finger to anybody, I only commented on what I thought was Megh's boldness and honestly. It was directed at no person, but only at man-made silly rules. I did not put anybody down, neither did I mock anyone.

Now look at the other middle-finger comment, including the smiley which is supposed somehow transform this nasty comment into a joke -- (to see the complete comment click here lest I am accused of not providing proper context!)

Bhagwat Gita says do your duty. The finger is supposed to do its duty.

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

​

Here, as part of the discussion between Theists and non-believers, this man wrote the above. Those who try to draw a false equivalency between what I said and this are hypocrites.

Next, bovine feces -- this phrase by itself is not offensive, it is a euphemism for a more crude phrase, one that I see to my utter amazement so casually used in India. This man is trying to say the euphemism itself is offensive. He is entitled to his view, but I disagree.

Leaving that aside, he says I used this phrase to characterize other members' words. This is a lie, a bovine feces kind of lie.

Here is what I said here:

Folks, please do not take my word for it, please google "ad hominem" and see for yourself. How one was raised has no bearing on the validity or absurdity of what they say -- whether it is golden or just plain bovine feces must be determined by what is being said, not by how one was raised.

​

This was in the context of a demand to know how Yamaka was raised. As any reasonable person can see I did not say any member's words were bovine anything.

The next time I used the phrase was in this post and I said this:

You may consider my view is nothing but bovine feces, which is perfectly alright.

​

This was in response to Ravi. As anyone can see, I am talking about how my words may be viewed, not any other member's words.

I am still reeling with the fact Happy was reprimanded based on a few anonymous complaints, most likely from a single person carrying a vendetta, yet people like Raju who tell bold faced lies about me, happily go about posting.

Now, it is my turn to dig up some history and show what a hypocrite this Raju is. Many moons ago we were arguing about SV. I cited some verses from Dhivya Prabhandam, something the SVs venerate as the essence of all Vedas, and the commentaries of those verses by some early Acharyas -- these commentaries are also venerated as treatises that extracted the hidden meanings from the pithy but pregnant poems, and showed how blatantly the SVs including revered SV Acharyas are continuing to flout some of the important teachings of Azhvars and early Acharyas. This same Raju promised he will answer this charge, but yet to do so in a straight forward way. The smell of bovine feces is sweet fragrance compared to the smell of this hypocrisy.

Alright, I will stop here and put the gloves back on. It is not as though I cannot be harsh in my posts, just that we need to be able to get along even as we disagree. I don't like to put people in a spot, I don't like calling them hypocrites and such. I apologize having done it, but I hope you will agree that my hand was forced with this repeated pestering and peddling of lies.

One more reason for the harshness is a few weeks back this same Raju misquoted me to make me look bad. I gave him the benefit of doubt that it may have been unintended mistake and allowed him to correct the error.

Cheers!

p.s.
There are some really fine long-distance truck drivers in the U.S. Some years ago when my daughter met with a serious accident it was one of those truck-drivers who helped her and took her to a hospital. I am proud to be with those truck drivers than rank hypocrites.

Dear folks,

I think this very post must be enough for you know the kind of vulgar language used in this forum because it lists in detail everything except the use of the word virility which was also used here. Well I do not want to enter into a detailed rebuttal of whatever is said here by Mr..Nara because it will give respectability to his vulgar words which are generally heard only in third rate north american pubs. Yes I am fed up with this task of countering unrestrained vulgarity here every time it comes to my notice. As for the gloves going off my answer is a simple "my foot" (means:I just don't care whether it is on or off).And as far as the so called pending question to me in the Enge Vaishnavam thread the answer has been repeatedly given many times. I am not going to give it here again. If he wants he can go and delve into the archives and find for himself.

I apologise to the other members of the forum for my having to inflict this post on you but I am helpless. Even if provoked I will not answer anyfurther to this member in future as long as it is not ridiculing "brahminism", god or Hindu scriptures.

Cheers.

 

[renuka]

Dear Subuddu,

you wrote:

One of the reasons I see that the theists show intolerance, is there somewhere deep within their mind, they feel that a building will crumble, and they therefore grumble when someone openly expresses doubts and questions things which are not invented from nowhere.

When a building crumbles,
No need for us to grumble,
Its time to get out of this jungle,
No need to stay and pay rental!!!

 

[gopaindu]

Raghy,
Can you think of any plausible reason for disparity in this world. The disparity in living beings, disparity among human beings i.e. one is born in a rich family and the other is born in a poor family, one is wise and the other is a fool/idiot, one is intelligent and the other is crooked and so on. In the Book, Razor's Edge, the writer Sommerset Maugham, had admitted that only the Karma theory of Hinduism offers plausible explanation for the wide range of disparities in this world. No other religion or philosophy including atheism is able to offer an explanation for the wide disparities in this world. The disparities were naturally created to maintain a balance. Atheist may not accept God but they accept the nature. Nature has another name i.e. God. For example Betrand Russell, who is an atheist, has authored many books condemning the philosphy existance of God but even he could not explain the logic behind the disparities in this world except that it is nature. Absolutely, the whole discussion on the subject matter of existance of God or Karma theory with the limited knowledge of human beings is useless as with a limited capacity one can not measure unlimited capacity.
rajaji48.

Greetings.

A God answering prayers, a God conducting creations, a God deciding our 'fate' does not exist. I am not even agnostic about this. Either it is there or it is not there.

I am not willing to enter in an usual, circular debate about this.

God was created by us for our own psychological benefits. Over the period, we have given too much importance for that concept due to our gullibility and inorder to fulfil our personal gains.

Now we have come to such a situation, when we see someone struggling in life, instead of boosting his/her morale, sometimes we don't hesitate to say they are punished by God due to Karma.

Cheers!

 

[gopaindu]

Dear Subbudu1,
First of all there is no religion by name Hinduism and Hinduism is only a way of life. Sanatana Dharma is the religion and it has followers. Sanatana Dharma encompasses various schools of thought and various philosophies. The ideas of other religions like buddhism, jainism,christianity, muslims, parsies,etc. including atheism is contained in the Sanatana Dharma. It is quite natural that some ideas occur to a particular person even without knowing that the person has only discovered the ideas but not invented the ideas. Here comes the Karma theory handy to explain the process. In the days of Rama, atheism existed and revealed by sage Jabali in a discussion with Rama trying to convince him as to why Rama should come back to Ayodhya and rule as per the desire of Bharatha. The word Hindu was coined by the English to denote all the followers of Sanatana Dharma on the basis of their location i.e. near Indus Valley. So, whatever question we rise today has already been raised and answered convincingly in some place of some scriptures not necessarily vedas but also so many other books/works. Last but not the least, questioning one's belief is not gentlemanly as beliefs and faiths are the choice/environment of the individuals. The person concerned himself has the right to question his beliefs and faiths and come to a conclusion as to continue to hold his belief or not. As such the whole discussion does not serve any purpose other than to show one's intelligence. rajaji48

Religion and respect to Religious texts. In this forum I have never never never ever said one thing wrong about even one scriptural text except for questioning the general nature of belief system in society. However there is nothing wrong in questioning the worthiness of these books also. None of us as hindus anyway follow even one book completely(neither want to follow) from first page to last page. So actually we are all non believers it is only the question of recognition.

Now if we look at the puranic book. So many versions. If we accept one version to be true we are rejecting all other versions- Is it not? Further in one purana, the genealogy list of gods and humans is different from another. Kalki Purana talks about war between Kalki and Buddhists. But really Buddhists are not that much of a force anywhere today. Looks like the work was composed in Buddhist times. Why not question it? If we look at BG. It would come as a surprise to many here, in Alberuni's work on India, it is mentioned certain things about BG which dont exist in currently circulated about BG. How much of conversation of Krishna and Arjuna is BG? One of the person to question that concept itself was non other than HH JSS . In one of the videos released a few decades back, eknath videos, I think, he said that in reality Krishna must have conversed with Arjuna for about 18 minutes or so. That has been immortalized through the BG Poems. But if nobody objected to that , one can easily question the poetry in BG and even question concepts and similes used in that Book. And there were books and people currently considered as saints, who were responsible for war and violence. Why should we not objectively look at that question. Dayanand Saraswati, also an advaitin , not the arya samaj guy, has questioned if Ramana Maharishi was all that great, But here in this forum we have people who take objection to criticism of both.

This is why I feel holy books may be considered holy but there is no reason to not question them with a fully open mind. That is freedom , freedom of mind , freedom of Voice, freedom of all things. If people had been allowed to openly critique certain holybooks in certain countries then countries like India would never have been partitioned. We would not also have seen twin towers , we would have seen chidambaram as a wonderful siva-vishu shrine. Tirupati an accomodative and modest temple allowing buddhists, vaishnavas and saivas.

 

[Raghy]

Raghy,
Can you think of any plausible reason for disparity in this world. The disparity in living beings, disparity among human beings i.e. one is born in a rich family and the other is born in a poor family, one is wise and the other is a fool/idiot, one is intelligent and the other is crooked and so on. In the Book, Razor's Edge, the writer Sommerset Maugham, had admitted that only the Karma theory of Hinduism offers plausible explanation for the wide range of disparities in this world. No other religion or philosophy including atheism is able to offer an explanation for the wide disparities in this world. The disparities were naturally created to maintain a balance. Atheist may not accept God but they accept the nature. Nature has another name i.e. God. For example Betrand Russell, who is an atheist, has authored many books condemning the philosphy existance of God but even he could not explain the logic behind the disparities in this world except that it is nature. Absolutely, the whole discussion on the subject matter of existance of God or Karma theory with the limited knowledge of human beings is useless as with a limited capacity one can not measure unlimited capacity.
rajaji48.

Sri.Rajaji Sir, Greetings.

I like to start with 'Karma' theory, please. I was bullied by sadistic elderly person from my age of 6 to 7 years. He was rich, he packed grudge against the family I grew up, he took it on me for many many years. The biggest trouble was, there was no one to stand up for me. The bullyiing was taken one by one by others too. ஊருக்கு இளைத்தவன் பிள்ளையார் கோயில் ஆண்டி.. I lived it when I was young..... later on I found out, அடியேன் ஊருக்கு மட்டும் இல்லை, வீட்டிற்கும் இளைத்தவன்! I was depressed, so many times felt at the rock bottom. I was not smart either. Anyway, there was a time when I could not muster 10 paise for buying one non-filtered cigarette; my property value was much less than that........ Let's pause here, please.

So, what is the justification? It must be the bad karma from my previous births which should have caused such hardship. If I took some unwise decisions, that too happened because, I was controlled by illusion due to my bad karma from my previous births.

Actually, I am going to stop my reply here. I wish to hear from the forum, the possible reasons for my past hardships, please. Thank you. Once I get few replies, I would continue to discuss further.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

I do not want to do nit-picking. But you seem to have equated nastika as atheist, which is a poor equivalent.

Dear narayan sir, even your nit pick is not well founded. Gautama Buddha rejected the Vedas and therefore he was indeed a nAstika.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Sri.Rajaji Sir, Greetings.

I like to start with 'Karma' theory, please. I was bullied by sadistic elderly person from my age of 6 to 7 years. He was rich, he packed grudge against the family I grew up, he took it on me for many many years. The biggest trouble was, there was no one to stand up for me. The bullyiing was taken one by one by others too. ஊருக்கு இளைத்தவன் பிள்ளையார் கோயில் ஆண்டி.. I lived it when I was young..... later on I found out, அடியேன் ஊருக்கு மட்டும் இல்லை, வீட்டிற்கும் இளைத்தவன்! I was depressed, so many times felt at the rock bottom. I was not smart either. Anyway, there was a time when I could not muster 10 paise for buying one non-filtered cigarette; my property value was much less than that........ Let's pause here, please.

So, what is the justification? It must be the bad karma from my previous births which should have caused such hardship. If I took some unwise decisions, that too happened because, I was controlled by illusion due to my bad karma from my previous births.

Actually, I am going to stop my reply here. I wish to hear from the forum, the possible reasons for my past hardships, please. Thank you. Once I get few replies, I would continue to discuss further.

Cheers!

Ok let me shoot the first few Q's to you Raghy,

1)Can we start by defining hardship?Don't you think hardship is subjective?

2) Why are we always measuring hardship with the Material Scale?Do we feel someone is better off to us merely becos he has more money and an easy lifestyle?

3)"Hardship" was your past..why dont you ask yourself why its "easy" for you now? If it was "Why me" for your hardship arent you asking "Why me" for your easier life now?
Have you ever thought that your "hardship" was your destiny to be a role model for others that success does come eventually?

 

[zebra16]

Dear narayan sir, even your nit pick is not well founded. Gautama Buddha rejected the Vedas and therefore he was indeed a nAstika.

Cheers!

Dear Nara Sir,

My point was not whether Gautama Buddha was a nastika or not (He was indeed a nastika). My point was nastika is not equivalent to atheist. One could be a theist and still a nastika

Regards,

narayan