God...Why?

[sapr333]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Shri.KRS, in order understand your previous post, I have a query..

For arguments sake, lets agree Lord Krishan/JC were all the incarnations of God who came at different points of time line, from the ONE God, whoom we both agreed upon. They all taught the world different good ways, to reach God or become oneness with God..

Now take this set of eg..

1) What will be the life after death, to those who dont believe in God ?

2) What will happen to Stalin/Lenin cos, he also did right according to their nationalistic views..As we always take a bench mark of scriptures and teachings to lead a good life according to Dharma, what plan God would have for them? Will stalin undergo rebirth or eternal condemnation or become one with god for his good country spirit?

PS: I also welcome the response from other participants.

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr,

The last 25 posts with all the VIGYOR colours and multiple quotes,gives me a sense,that, things have again moved out of track.This is the main reason for me to take back few points, so that we dont waste time in digging out scriptures.Lets take a generic stand, on what people/majority of adherents claim,and let ensure we make a claim with an open mind.

A generic stand may not help, since people may wish to be stuck on the supposed 'differences'.....also, i do not beleive in 'generic stand' without looking into the scriptures, am sorry i don't believe a book can be judged by the cover, its illustrations (if any), a gist of the story printed behind the book (if any) and reviews on it, wud rather atleast make an attempt to read the book before commenting.

Discussions did not move out of track. Some people (you and sapthajihva) chose to comment without explaining, and even after repeating the questions, still choose to be selective. So the questions tend to get approached in other ways. Does not mean discussions were out of track.


While going through those vibgyor posts, there is an interesting point raised by Shri.Sapthajiva 'anyone spiritual, in this world is striving to attain Brahman (the 'Me') in their own way, and that is probably why the Hindus have an ingrained tolerance to all religions and all philosophies'

that hindus and hinduism is tolerant to all religions, all cultures, all paths, all philosophies, is very well known since centuries. But this was seen as a weakness and apparently the tolerance was / is taken advantage of those whose 'religion' does not allow for such a tolerance to exist, from the times the muslims killed native cultures to this day...

In the middle, an excellent point was raised by HH interms of accomodating Karma/Forgiveness.. Will touch upon this, when appropriate time comes. At the moment, we are discussing about 'Various paths to God'

accomodating karma / forgiveness is also part of the various paths of god, the various ways in which a person may choose to approach god or non-god. You can very well go ahead and explain why you think the christian doctrine of forgiveness conflicts karma.

 

[sapr333]

Dear HH,

Could you please sum it up the last 25 (Vibgyor & multiple quote) posts.

Thanks in advance.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH,

Could you please sum it up the last 25 (Vibgyor & multiple quote) posts.

Thanks in advance.

?? any specific reason why i shd? am sure you can read and understand.

but i'd like to bring these questions to your notice (pending answers from your end): http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=22900&postcount=141

and these are pending answers from sapthajihva: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=23015&postcount=194

both the sets of questions do deal with the various paths to god, except the one to sapthajihva on the basis why a society needs to be organaized from the spiritual point of view.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapr333,

Why do you worry about what will happen to others in the after life? Faith is personal. In all religions it is about you, your spiritual life, your relationship with God. In this sense, why worry about others?

Every religion has a 'model' about after life, as they have about cosmology. They all came about based on specific cultures and the views emanating from there in.

I have answered your second question long ago in terms of absolute and relative justice; and the difference between a monotheist's view of justice versus justice as seen from Dharma/Karma priciple of Hinduism.

What Stalin/Lenin would undergo is between Him and them individually. Knowing that God is in charge of 'absolute justice', why would you want to know what happens to them. Remember from Hinduism's POV, their identities as Stalin/Lenin come from one birth only and what happens to them in their next birth is based on the Karma Phala they have accumulated through all their births so far and also what Ishwara decides in terms of what karma phala they would expeience in their next life.

Regards,
KRS

Shri.KRS, in order understand your previous post, I have a query..

For arguments sake, lets agree Lord Krishan/JC were all the incarnations of God who came at different points of time line, from the ONE God, whoom we both agreed upon. They all taught the world different good ways, to reach God or become oneness with God..

Now take this set of eg..

1) What will be the life after death, to those who dont believe in God ?

2) What will happen to Stalin/Lenin cos, he also did right according to their nationalistic views..As we always take a bench mark of scriptures and teachings to lead a good life according to Dharma, what plan God would have for them? Will stalin undergo rebirth or eternal condemnation or become one with god for his good country spirit?

PS: I also welcome the response from other participants.

 

[sapthajihva]

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=23015&postcount=194[/URL]

both the sets of questions do deal with the various paths to god, except the one to sapthajihva on the basis why a society needs to be organaized from the spiritual point of view.

There are no pending answers. It is how you imagine it to be. I cant help it.

A 'why' or a 'how' can easily be put to any statement endlessly. There has to be a time when these have to be turned inwards to understand. Outward questions do not help.

 

[happyhindu]

There are no pending answers. It is how you imagine it to be. I cant help it.

A 'why' or a 'how' can easily be put to any statement endlessly. There has to be a time when these have to be turned inwards to understand. Outward questions do not help.

Sapthajihva,

A why or how need not be put to every statement, some are put because they are the opposite of wht they have come across, and wish they cud get an additional perspective to an existing scenario.

If one thinks such questions are outward and not inward, then it can very well be a state of imaginary illusion. Naturally it can be said that everything that is spoken on forums is outward stuff, i don't think that stops you from discussing on forums.

The desire to speak about the idea of ascribing spiritual significance to social organization (which to me was the only 'outward question'), was brought up becoz i think it is illogical.

 

[sapthajihva]

I think the discussion is veering off course. However, I will offer an explanation for one last time.

This is the point which happyhindu has been tailing me:

ME -Thus, anyone spiritual, in this world is striving to attain Brahman (the 'Me') in their own way, and that is probably why the Hindus have an ingrained tolerance to all religions and all philosophies. The other religions differ in that they do not realize the true nature of Brahman and hence, though having the tendency to organize a society, fall short of explaining or guiding the way to the Ultimate Knowledge.

happy hindu - do you think, the tendency to organize a society, from a spiritual point of view, is a right thing to do?

Now from a read of my statement, it is clear that it is a comparison of religions with Hinduism and their relative nature.

Now pops the question from happyhindu which takes a totally different angle and starts questioning the poster on whether the organization of society based on religion is right or wrong! In my statement, I have not expressed any 'right' or 'wrong' to religions, just merely stated their purpose. I dont see where happyhindu's question is related here. It does not come anywhere close to what I was suggesting in my post!!!


happyhindu again!

Sapthajihva,

A why or how need not be put to every statement, some are put because they are the opposite of wht they have come across, and wish they cud get an additional perspective to an existing scenario.

If one thinks such questions are outward and not inward, then it can very well be a state of imaginary illusion. Naturally it can be said that everything that is spoken on forums is outward stuff, i don't think that stops you from discussing on forums.

Are you offering an argument for the mere sake of it or are we having a discussion here? I see no point in the above queries which tends to distill the topic.

You would do well to re-read my posts instead of incessantly popping queries which have no value to the topic being discussed other than gratifying a sore ego.

I will say no more on the subject matter persisted by happyhindu anymore.

 

[sapr333]

Shri. SapthaJhiva,

I was just going through few of your posts, and I can sense that you do have some valid points(same with HH), but struggling it to express... May be you are caught up in between personalities (hope im not mistaken)..

Could you pls elaborate it.. Or atleast sum it up those last 25 post which yourself, HH, et all been discussing about..

To be frank, I couldnt comprehend them, with my small brain..Pls help me out..

 

[happyhindu]

Just a few questions Sapthajihva:

SJ: Thus, anyone spiritual, in this world is striving to attain Brahman (the 'Me') in their own way, and that is probably why the Hindus have an ingrained tolerance to all religions and all philosophies. The other religions differ in that they do not realize the true nature of Brahman and hence, though having the tendency to organize a society, fall short of explaining or guiding the way to the Ultimate Knowledge.

HH: do you think, the tendency to organize a society, from a spiritual point of view, is a right thing to do?

HH: do you think, the tendency to organize a society, from a spiritual point of view, is a right thing to do?
SJ: Yes
HH: on what basis?

HH: on what basis?
SJ: Why not?

SJ: Why not?
HH: , it wud be nice if you can explain the basis of social organization from a spritual stance, instead of simply asking why-not? that's no answer. you wud need to explain the basis..

SJ: What is the purpose in asking this question? May I know?
HH: the purpose of knowing is because you ascribed a spiritual basis to social organization..

Please explain what your stance is wrt all those points that you are questioning. Knowing what our train of thoughts are, would help in making a discussion fruitful.

Line by line questions can be discussed later.

I think the discussion is veering off course. However, I will offer an explanation for one last time.

This is the point which happyhindu has been tailing me:

<<ME -Thus, anyone spiritual, in this world is striving to attain Brahman (the 'Me') in their own way, and that is probably why the Hindus have an ingrained tolerance to all religions and all philosophies. The other religions differ in that they do not realize the true nature of Brahman and hence, though having the tendency to organize a society, fall short of explaining or guiding the way to the Ultimate Knowledge.

happy hindu - do you think, the tendency to organize a society, from a spiritual point of view, is a right thing to do?>>

Now from a read of my statement, it is clear that it is a comparison of religions with Hinduism and their relative nature.

Now pops the question from happyhindu which takes a totally different angle and starts questioning the poster on whether the organization of society based on religion is right or wrong! In my statement, I have not expressed any 'right' or 'wrong' to religions, just merely stated their purpose. I dont see where happyhindu's question is related here. It does not come anywhere close to what I was suggesting in my post!!!


happyhindu again!
<<Sapthajihva,

A why or how need not be put to every statement, some are put because they are the opposite of wht they have come across, and wish they cud get an additional perspective to an existing scenario.

If one thinks such questions are outward and not inward, then it can very well be a state of imaginary illusion. Naturally it can be said that everything that is spoken on forums is outward stuff, i don't think that stops you from discussing on forums. >>

Are you offering an argument for the mere sake of it or are we having a discussion here? I see no point in the above queries which tends to distill the topic.

You would do well to re-read my posts instead of incessantly popping queries which have no value to the topic being discussed other than gratifying a sore ego.

I will say no more on the subject matter persisted by happyhindu anymore.

Sapthajihva,

If you thot the discussion was verring off course, and did not want to continue on it, you cud have said it right at the beginning itself, instead of contributing to dragging on the conversation.

There was no necessity for you to offer this: "Line by line questions can be discussed later". Since you offered to discuss, i listed out the points in this post http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=23015&postcount=194 Otherwise why wud i take the trouble to list the points or want to discuss, if you are not willing to.

Only bcoz you offered to discuss, i said tehre are pending answers, but you went on to say i have imagined it to be so! And i suppose conveying anything like this does not go well with you, since you reply that i am tailing you!! (why wud i, to me you are certainly not important at all, i mean who are you to me at all, cetainly it is obvious you are too far, very-very far from those ppl from whose feet i prefer to learn).

If you do not wish to discuss or think the queries have no value to the topic being discussed, then why ask someone to re-read your posts....obviously ppl do ask you something becoz they did re-read and did not find what you purport to have explained. If you do not wish to explain, you might as well say it as such.

It does look like you and sapr do make comments but offer no explanations on it. If you wish to hold on to something as a beleif and not want to discuss it, you might as well say it as such, instead of first offering to discuss and then accussing the other person of veering off discussion (or worse tailing you! )

 

[sapthajihva]

I have to break my word since the previous post by happyhindu is misleading and makes personal remarks in a discussion which highlights the immaturity of the individual.

My replies to happyhindu's previous post

If you thot the discussion was verring off course, and did not want to continue on it, you cud have said it right at the beginning itself, instead of contributing to dragging on the conversation

.That is why I asked you to re-read. You have no stance yourselves and conveniently seem to throw queries just for the heck of it. Makes no sense. That is why I ended the discussion. Seems that you do do understand hints dropped.

There was no necessity for you to offer this: "Line by line questions can be discussed later". Since you offered to discuss, i listed out the points in this post http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpos...&postcount=194 Otherwise why wud i take the trouble to list the points or want to discuss, if you are not willing to.

'Later' here implies that once you have clarified your stance and agreed between us. But that did not happen. As I said earlier, you have no stance, which by the way is quite convenient to question anybody and anything. Hence I ended the discussion. But you pointed out that there were pending answers from me, as if this is a test. Quite funny though, as to how you seem to think that you are at the clear end of the bargain.

Only bcoz you offered to discuss, i said tehre are pending answers, but you went on to say i have imagined it to be so! And i suppose conveying anything like this does not go well with you, since you reply that i am tailing you!! (why wud i, to me you are certainly not important at all, i mean who are you to me at all, cetainly it is obvious you are too far, very-very far from those ppl from whose feet i prefer to learn).

Anybody comes to a forum to discuss, but that does not mean that they can answer baseless queries or cannot opt to be silent. Again, making comparisons with a Guru or saying that I am far off from imparting knowledge are personal insults which you need not have done. Even though you have post smileys at the end of your posts, I think your posts are not mature enough and neither do they convey the lighter side, if any.

If you do not wish to discuss or think the queries have no value to the topic being discussed, then why ask someone to re-read your posts....obviously ppl do ask you something becoz they did re-read and did not find what you purport to have explained. If you do not wish to explain, you might as well say it as such.

Why are you lamenting the same thing again and again? Take it easy.

It does look like you and sapr do make comments but offer no explanations on it. If you wish to hold on to something as a beleif and not want to discuss it, you might as well say it as such, instead of first offering to discuss and then accussing the other person of veering off discussion (or worse tailing you! )

As I observed earlier, you are presupposing that you are at the clear end of the bargain!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapthajihva Ji,

I have been watching your tete-a-tete with Srimathi HH Ji, with interest.

I think that she has every right to expect proper explanations from you. Just saying 'It is so', is not acceptable, unless you preface your postings first by saying that you would not entertain any discussions on your opinions.

Now you are calling her 'immature'. This is a personal attack on her as opposed to what she has been requesting.

Sir, please do not go into any personal realm. Your postings have been excellent but please understand that this is a discussion forum. As such you are expected to explain your views if asked. If you are not willing to do that, please post in the 'web posting' portion of the Forum, where you control the dialog.

I hope you understand this and continue to contribute to this Forum. But let us desist from calling any other valued member by any derogatory name.

Thank you.

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

Sapthajihva,

I have to break my word since the previous post by happyhindu is misleading and makes personal remarks in a discussion which highlights the immaturity of the individual.

?? what have i mislead you about here? And what are the personal remarks i made?

My replies to happyhindu's previous post
.That is why I asked you to re-read. You have no stance yourselves and conveniently seem to throw queries just for the heck of it. Makes no sense. That is why I ended the discussion. Seems that you do do understand hints dropped.

If you do not wish to continue a discussion, isn't it better to say it as such? What are the queries i threw at you just for the heck of it?

'Later' here implies that once you have clarified your stance and agreed between us. But that did not happen. As I said earlier, you have no stance, which by the way is quite convenient to question anybody and anything. Hence I ended the discussion. But you pointed out that there were pending answers from me, as if this is a test. Quite funny though, as to how you seem to think that you are at the clear end of the bargain.

oh ok, so "later" implies 'after i clarified my stance'? but i did clarify my stance by saying i had no stance (is lack of a stance supposed to be 'convenient'?), and how wud i know you were not interested in discussing, instead i replied thinking it was a lead on or offer to discuss http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpos...&postcount=194 sorry i did not understand but what is the bargain here?

Anybody comes to a forum to discuss, but that does not mean that they can answer baseless queries or cannot opt to be silent. Again, making comparisons with a Guru or saying that I am far off from imparting knowledge are personal insults which you need not have done. Even though you have post smileys at the end of your posts, I think your posts are not mature enough and neither do they convey the lighter side, if any.

i said that bcoz you said i am tailing you, and yep i did mean it that you are not important enuf for me to tail, does that mean i am insulting you? if you don't think there is a lighter side, its your perception...yep now you do remind me of sesh. and am not adding a smiley here lest you mistake it.
Again, just bcoz someone says you remind of someone of someone, it does not mean they are trying to insult you (i added this just in case you misunderstand).


Why are you lamenting the same thing again and again? Take it easy.

was i lamenting? All i said was: If you do not wish to discuss or think the queries have no value to the topic being discussed, then why ask someone to re-read your posts....obviously ppl do ask you something becoz they did re-read and did not find what you purport to have explained. If you do not wish to explain, you might as well say it as such.
Seriously, does this read like a lament to you?

As I observed earlier, you are presupposing that you are at the clear end of the bargain!

and am really wondering what is a bargain here?

Sapthajihva,

I cease to post anything to you from now on.

 

[sapthajihva]

Dear Sri sapthajihva Ji,

I have been watching your tete-a-tete with Srimathi HH Ji, with interest.

I think that she has every right to expect proper explanations from you. Just saying 'It is so', is not acceptable, unless you preface your postings first by saying that you would not entertain any discussions on your opinions.

Now you are calling her 'immature'. This is a personal attack on her as opposed to what she has been requesting.

Sir, please do not go into any personal realm. Your postings have been excellent but please understand that this is a discussion forum. As such you are expected to explain your views if asked. If you are not willing to do that, please post in the 'web posting' portion of the Forum, where you control the dialog.

I hope you understand this and continue to contribute to this Forum. But let us desist from calling any other valued member by any derogatory name.

Thank you.

Regards,
KRS

If immature is a personal remark, how does this seem to you?

(why wud i, to me you are certainly not important at all, i mean who are you to me at all, cetainly it is obvious you are too far, very-very far from those ppl from whose feet i prefer to learn).

If the above seems genteel and impersonal to you, I desist from making any further comment on the subject.

Moreover, I HAVE explained. I have clearly stated the basis of my discussions and replies. I wonder how you presume that I have not offered an explanation! Can you please highlight?

'It is so' is a phrase used to explain existence and concepts which exist. Is it hard to understand that?

 

[sapthajihva]

happyhindu, I could not care less about whom I remind you of.

I am not going to repeat my posts again.

 

[happyhindu]

If immature is a personal remark, how does this seem to you?

(why wud i, to me you are certainly not important at all, i mean who are you to me at all, cetainly it is obvious you are too far, very-very far from those ppl from whose feet i prefer to learn).

Ok so this is what brought out your anger. As already replied in the previous post: i said that bcoz you said i am tailing you, and yep i did mean it that you are not important enuf for me to tail, does that mean i am insulting you?

With due apologies to you, no i had no intension, no idea or any such thing as insulting you, nor did i mean it as a personal remark. It was just said bcoz you thot i was tailing you and i was wondering why on earth shd i tail someone like you, an unknown poster. If it has caused you hurt, then i do apologize for it.

 

[happyhindu]

happyhindu, I could not care less about whom I remind you of.

I am not going to repeat my posts again.

Sapthajihva,

?? i did not ask you to repeat your posts at all...am really wondering if my posts are being read as some kinda double message or what...i really dunno, maybe there is something wrong with the way i post or try to convey.....in any case, please see my post above, i had no intension to cause you hurt at all.

 

[KRS]

Dear sri sapthajihva Ji,

With all due respect, Srimathi HH Ji, only made this comment after you averred that she was 'tailing' you. She is saying in essense that you are not important enough to her to 'tail' you, which is a very logical response.

Please go back to her question asking you to explain the structure of the society being spiritual. I do not think you have answered her fully and properly.

Again, let us keep the discussions off of personal attacks. I request Srimathi HH to observe the same norms.

Regards,
KRS

If immature is a personal remark, how does this seem to you?

If the above seems genteel and impersonal to you, I desist from making any further comment on the subject.

Moreover, I HAVE explained. I have clearly stated the basis of my discussions and replies. I wonder how you presume that I have not offered an explanation! Can you please highlight?

'It is so' is a phrase used to explain existence and concepts which exist. Is it hard to understand that?

 

[happyhindu]

Its ok KRS ji and Sapthajihva, please leave it.

Society being spiritual or not was the last of the stuff asked becoz i knew the discussion wud not go far, wud probably be completed in 2-3 posts (sapthajihva seemed to think i was tailing him on it), instead i was tempted by the offer which i thot wud lead to discussion on "'maya" !! http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=23015&postcount=194 Looks like it needs no further discussion anymore now bcoz of the way i have mired myself in this thread of maya here

 

[arunshanker]

'It is so' is a phrase used to explain existence and concepts which exist. Is it hard to understand that?

Correction: 'It is so' is a phrase used to explain existence and concepts which WE THINK exist. Is it hard to understand that?
In fact it is not hard to understand this because the very basis of these assumptions form science and art and progress stems from questioning the assumed axiomatic very existence

 

[happyhindu]

that's why i think faith is also axiomatic...Arun, does the topic of maya interest you? if yes, wud you mind having a look and sharing your thots on this post to sapthajihva: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=23015&postcount=194

Sapr, we are still within the context of various paths / approaches to god, just in case this is considered as veering off topic, if you are not ok with this, i cud start a new thread. Please let me know.

 

[arunshanker]

that's why i think faith is also axiomatic...Arun, does the topic of maya interest you? if yes, wud you mind having a look and sharing your thots on this post to sapthajihva: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=23015&postcount=194

Sapr, we are still within the context of various paths / approaches to god, just in case this is considered as veering off topic, if you are not ok with this, i cud start a new thread. Please let me know.

Here goes my thots
firstly I take a stance that I question everything! That I guess you all must have inferred from my posts.But remember I dont say your's (or any other forums member's answers or ideas or thots are Wrong, I only may say that it may or may not be acceptable to me). That way I shed the burden of being judgmental!
secondly there are no axioms! ( WIki says : In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision.)
Russell's paradox is the most famous of the logical or set-theoretical paradoxes. The paradox arises within naive set theory by considering the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Such a set appears to be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself, hence the paradox.
Some sets, such as the set of all religions paths, are not members of themselves. Other sets, such as the set of all other paths, are members of themselves. Call the set of all sets that are not members of themselves “R.” If R is a member of itself, then by definition it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if R is not a member of itself, then by definition it must be a member of itself. Discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901, the paradox has prompted much work in logic, set theory and the philosophy and foundations of mathematics.
All arguments devolve to ``Is so!'' ``Is not'' ``Is so'' ``Is not'', where the opinion war is fundamentally unable to be broken as things stand.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.
I take the stance that nothing is self evident!
Hence we have to apply self-evidential properties to religious paths within the frame work of their own axioms and belief systems
Let me put a question here
religious paths differ in the sense that what is "self-evident" for one path is NOT "self-evident" for another
Truly I wud say that in the light of the above argument

all religious paths lead to a goal which initself is a theological axiom with its self evidence central to it and very much related to the theological axiom and self evidence of the path
But when you question the theological axiom of the goal itself and its intertwined self evidence. The path to reach such a goal becomes a secondary issue!

 

[sapr333]

Lets all keep in mind. A thread is not a conclave with 4 or 5 active members sharing their good thoughts. Lets not forget,our posts are watched by 100+ active members.If we ask praveen, he would say, hit rate, by which another 1000+ people must be watching us.

So while composing a post,lets keep in mind the target audience here, not alone the one, who posted a query to you.

There is no hard and fast rule to define, if a particular post is within the boundary of thread topic or not.


But for sure, the posts are not just rejoinders. For. eg,till this second,I'm still fighting with my dead-brain for last 24Hrs, to compose a good response to Mr.KRS' last post here (inspite of getting the logic within a second).

Lets not forget,each post itself is an article,which will always be preserved in this internet cloud/servers, and tommorow when our children/grandchildren grow up and hit on to internet, they should not find it embarassing, to read their own dad/mom's post. Our posts should be in such a way, that, they should feel cherised reading our post.

After all, I was no a saint.. I too learned this lesson, in a harder way...Thanks indeed.

 

[arunshanker]

....they should not find it embarassing, to read their own dad/mom's post. Our posts should be in such a way, that, they should feel cherised reading our post.

In fact I wud say and as I been saying everything has meaning in the temporal and spatial concept
I wud be least worried of my children finding my posts odd and getting embarrassed
in fact what we say has meaning only in this spatial and temporal structure and so is the same with what was said in Geetha, Quoran and the bible. I don't buy the argument that they are eternal timeless and spaceless truth
In fact I wud not be surprised that I my self wud find my posts odd and funny in a different time and space let alone my children!
BTW sapr was the above post intended to someone in particular? Just curious
In fact getting bashed and bashing others is the real fun in forums while still keeping a degree of sanity, individuality and most importantly decorum!

 

[happyhindu]

Nice one arun, will reply back soon.

Lets not forget,each post itself is an article,which will always be preserved in this internet cloud/servers, and tommorow when our children/grandchildren grow up and hit on to internet, they should not find it embarassing, to read their own dad/mom's post. Our posts should be in such a way, that, they should feel cherised reading our post.

Sapr,

i think kids grow up quickly when parents are immature (with all due apologies to the manufacturers concerned for the manufacturing defects, i say this bcoz i know it from experience :doh: )...so i won't be embarrased if my kids were to find my posts nuts...i think it will help them grow up faster..