Why I Am Not A Hindu ?- Book Review

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Lets say,an alien from different planet comes here, and rape all the women, and claims, hey good/bad is subjective, keep cool, in our planet, its all acceptable norm..Its jsut chaos.. Or a cannibal tribal enters N.Y and bites the throat of all, and says its an acceptable norm in his tribal culture, then its a mess. And according to Karma, both didnt do any harm, including Hitler or Stalin.

So the philosophers say, Evil and Good is universal, and they are rooted in God..Cos god is the universal controller for Karmic effects.

PS:- And we cannt blame every thing on Maya/Illusion/beyond logic & Comprehension. If God is there, then he should be atleast fairly well able to comprehend him. And if God is there, he should atleast show him to us..We cant sit with thinking God is all full of mysteries.

now that was how certain groups of people lived, in ancient times... warring groups used to molest women of the vanquished... is it right???

let us refine our discussion with a set of hypothesis:

assume that

there is a certain group that does actions, the doers (d)... and a certain group that is the recipient (r) of such actions..., the overall set of actions and results could be grouped thus:

--> actions that please both d and r
--> actions that please r, but displease d
--> actions that please d, but displease r
--> actions that displease both d and r

--> actions that are neutral to both d and r
--> actions that are neutral to r, but please d
--> actions that are neutral to d, but please r
--> actions that are neutral to r, but displease d
--> actions that are neutral to d, but displease r

of course am assuming that there are three states of mind viz neutral, pleasant and displeasant...

do we agree on this? or if there are any more, let me know...

 

[sapr333]

Dear Seshadri, I never mistook you as aetheist. But some of the points you raised about 'Relative Morality" are equally raised by aetheist philosophers to reject God. If time permits please read Richard Dawkin's 'God Delusion'. And he also uses the same argument.

Btw, to make it self explanatory for both of us, about Objective/Relative morality(good&evil), please go through the link below, and see how aetheists/theists are debating, without attributing anything to illusion..

http://www.philosophypathways.com/essays/thorpe2.html

Im sure you would read this. Thanks in advance.

 

[sapr333]

Seshadri #151>>>-> actions that please both d and r>>>

I agree with you, with the notion of 3 phases of mind.. Next.. Pls continue.

Before you post, next, let me prempt with you about a Buddhist doctrine.

If an action pleases both of us, then it is perfectly right. but it has a serious moral problem,which you need to ponder.

Imagine an incestual father, who pleases his own daughter, and they both are pleased..
Imagine a thief. Or any one can date with any one and have sex as per the wish, as long as both are pleased. This will create a severe moral crisis.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

i did read the article... now i see where why your thoughts are lined up so...

the word objectivity itself is a perception... nature of emotions changes with time... and hence that too is transient...

 

[sapr333]

Seshadri>>>now that was how certain groups of people lived, in ancient times... warring groups used to molest women of the vanquished... is it right ???>>

That's why Lord Shiva/Rama/Krisha came to set it right and give correct morals to the erring ancients, who once lived by the jungle law..

Do you agree with me on this.. ie, the purpose/role of Lord Krishna/Rama?

 

[sapr333]

the word objectivity itself is a perception... nature of emotions changes with time... and hence that too is transient...

I would appreciate if you could come little bit elaborate on that.

Probably, you may try to refute few points/analogy in that article, rather than just attributing 'Objectivity' as perception...

PS: Thanks for your patience in responding to my queries.

 

[palindrome]

Sapr33,

abt my idea of what is god...this 2-liner from the rig is pretty close to my sense of whatever is that "god":

poorna: kumbhoAdhi kaala aahitastam vai pashyaamo bahudah nu santa:
sa imaa vishwa bhuvannani pratyangkaalam tamahu: parmeyvyoAman

expected meaning (not literal translation):
the whole of this universe is stationed in the omnipresent and omnipotent 'god' that is seen in various forms, (and) brings light to all these worlds..."Him" (or "that") they call Kala, the infinite that prevades the infinite space...

the sense of eternity as "that" feels like god to me currently...

does god exist?

if eternity exists, if heartbeat exists, if time exists, then i suppose 'that' which keeps everything going also exists...and is 'that' god? right now, i feel yes that is god...

reg god's visibility that you spoke with sesh...another man ages ago wrote what he felt in the atharva:

anthi santam na jahaatyanti santam na pashyati,
devasya pashya kavyam n mamaar na jeeryati.

intended meaning: the supreme ("god" or whatever "it" is) is too near to be abandoned, too close to be witnessed, behold nature's splendor and the lord's divine poetry, both are beyond death and decay.

(ps: the intended meaning does not refer to the nature that we visibly see -- that which grows, reproduces and decays, in a perennial cycle).

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

If an action pleases both of us, then it is perfectly right. but it has a serious moral problem,which you need to ponder.

yes, correct, but i have not completed...

now, to continue...

the foundation of a co-existing society is based on a conducive atmosphere ... i am assuming that d and r need to co-exist, and want to arrive at the optimum conditions that would allow it... which is the basis for morality

obviously, those actions that please/displease both the parties equally are not contested, hence it is with the others that we look into first...

so, am applying a derived formula here --> derived, from the previous results ie., the result must be similar to both parties (irrespective of the nature)... so i have a guideline on hand... this is how law or morals probably started from primitive ages...

eg: d kills r, state of pleasure or neutral for d and displeasure for r,

so how will it derive displeasure for d now? apply on d the same action that d did to r, ie., kill d... (eye for an eye) so now, it was either pleasure or displeasure on both sides...

now certainly d would want to avoid bringing displeasure to himself, so he avoids actions that could invite displeasure to the self as a result of the operative norm...

then there was the feeling of possesiveness and ego; even animals show this feeling... and it was natural for humans to exhibit it... crude unwritten rules were in vogue, when probably, the pleasure of the flesh was the deciding factor... but then, everyone wanted everybody, there was no restraint! narutally this leads to flared emotions which led to fights and eventually states of displeasure...

and p&e had to be controlled, thus evolved relationships, which tended to avoid certain set of people with whom mating was prohibited/allowed...

now apply the same law, d took r's woman, hence the natural remedy would be to return her to r... r is happy and the balance is restored, but to dissuade d from doing any further actions, he is punished...

so now we have two factors --> a set of actions and governing relationships... obviously the where these two contradict are not considered as the norm...

the force of the norm depends on the acceptance of the majority... thus relationships played a strong part in determining moral codes... this has an effect on conscience, through perception...

If an action pleases both of us, then it is perfectly right. but it has a serious moral problem,which you need to ponder.

cases such as inbreeding would, probably, have been restricted due to the large possibilities of defective births... fitness is a key survival factor and hence any deformities were seen as against nature... hence the strong taboo about inbreeding...

now, you could ask, whether incest could be permitted, if they adopt birth control measures!!! i think that would violate relationships of the concerned individuals... we do not live in isolated islands... and hence previously accepted norms have come to stay...

p.s. adam and eve were the first beings on earth, according to the bible... then how did so many humans come into existence?

 

[sapr333]

Palindrome, I agree with your idea of God..

Also do you agree, the same God, will/should also have the highest qualities of Holy,Goodness,Justice,Righteousness.. And thats the one reason, every soul wants to reach to that condition..

Do you also agree with these Adjectives about God?

 

[sapr333]

Seshadri, thanks for the impressive response on Post No 158.

I got to take a long distance travel out and few minutes left to start.. And I will login back after 48Hrs from now.

In the mean time, if posts are flooded and If I were to forget to respond to that, please remind me .. Thanks in advance.

 

[palindrome]

p.s. adam and eve were the first beings on earth, according to the bible... then how did so many humans come into existence?

all women across various continents are currently tracable back to a single common woman who lived abt 150,000 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

all men around the world are tracable to a single man who lived 60,000 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

this has nothing to do with the bible. Those survivors from whom all humans have descended pre-date the bible.

why only humans, all living things shared a common origin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

Also do you agree, the same God, will/should also have the highest qualities of Holy,Goodness,Justice,Righteousness.. And thats the one reason, every soul wants to reach to that condition..

Do you also agree with these Adjectives about God?

currently i do not feel that a god that is considered sheer 'energy' that permeates everything, that which is time and space and the reason for it, that which is both the effect and the cause, that which is based on existentiality, can be fitted into adjectives like holy, goodness, justice and righteousness.

Does every soul want to reach that condition / state ? No i do not know. If all souls do, they how abt those that are interested in a fun life, those whose ideals are ambition, power and glory, those who wanna make money and are ambitious to the extent of disregard for others and so on...

And then there are people who "do not mind" seeing others living a life on the streets because they have a (self-defined) smug concocted attitude about "karma" and feel the other person asked for it to happen because of his previous karma..

Some can also justify theetu.....do such people want to really reach that (or any) condition or do they justify their ends (as currently living in that very condition as holy, good, just and righteous) by merely deluding themselves into believing that they are those adjectives?

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

all women across various continents are currently tracable back to a single common woman who lived abt 150,000 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

all men around the world are tracable to a single man who lived 60,000 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

this has nothing to do with the bible. Those survivors from whom all humans have descended pre-date the bible.

why only humans, all living things shared a common origin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

i do not believe in the theory that similarities in dna patterns could be blanketly extrapolated/interpolated to mean a single biological ancestory... what is the basis of similarities in form and nature of conscience suggests existence of similar qualities in all of us... some could be similar and other dissimilar...

if there were only two beings which are deemed to be the progenitor of the entire human race, of course inbreeding is a natural derivative...

but, looking from another perspective, there is a possibility that all males were called adam and females eve... but i doubt whether the pope would agree with this proposition...

in our own creation process, there are various theories... various puranas tell it in different ways... we have saptharishis with the y-chromosome being passed on through the male descendents... so, theoritically, all such gothras could be traced to their original rishis or original progenitors... the question is - from where did such rishis spring from?

broadly we could outline as:

saptharishis are said to have been created from the thought of brahma... brahma further created manu and shatarupa, daughters of shatarupa married the saptharishis and so on...(brahma purana/garuda purana)... the idea seems to be that various forms of humans were created and were named differently... so in the beginning itself there were various males and females to copulate for progeny

but here in this post and the previous, am relating to the question of morality on inbreeding... posed by sapr333... where & how did this concept originate from? i know that there are biological factors which prohibit such an act... but any other?

if everything and everyone share a common bondage/lineage, then by modern morals, we are all brothers and sisters... albeit in a infinitely diluted mode...

i guess this should be added to the list of unanswered "why-list"...

 

[palindrome]

i do not believe in the theory that similarities in dna patterns could be blanketly extrapolated/interpolated to mean a single biological ancestory... what is the basis of similarities in form and nature of conscience suggests existence of similar qualities in all of us... some could be similar and other dissimilar...

if there were only two beings which are deemed to be the progenitor of the entire human race, of course inbreeding is a natural derivative...

but, looking from another perspective, there is a possibility that all males were called adam and females eve... but i doubt whether the pope would agree with this proposition...

in our own creation process, there are various theories... various puranas tell it in different ways... we have saptharishis with the y-chromosome being passed on through the male descendents... so, theoritically, all such gothras could be traced to their original rishis or original progenitors... the question is - from where did such rishis spring from?

broadly we could outline as:

saptharishis are said to have been created from the thought of brahma... brahma further created manu and shatarupa, daughters of shatarupa married the saptharishis and so on...(brahma purana/garuda purana)... the idea seems to be that various forms of humans were created and were named differently... so in the beginning itself there were various males and females to copulate for progeny

but here in this post and the previous, am relating to the question of morality on inbreeding... posed by sapr333... where & how did this concept originate from? i know that there are biological factors which prohibit such an act... but any other?

if everything and everyone share a common bondage/lineage, then by modern morals, we are all brothers and sisters... albeit in a infinitely diluted mode...

i guess this should be added to the list of unanswered "why-list"...

Sesh,

Your belief on creationism are more on the lines of religious belief...whereas i was quoting the example of humans having descended from common origins based on science.

Nothing can be extrapolated nor intrapolated in an acid extractable from living beings nor in the various established techniques used to predict similarity and dissimilarity...the whole forensic scene where a culprit is caught based on dna similarity is based on that very science...anyways what each one believes is upto them...

As for me, am not of belief that the y-chromosome of the sapta rishis came from brahma i find this amusing, coz the meaning is not literal but metaphorical...everything that is alive and unalive has indeed originated from "brahman" to a hindu..

And i believe the y-chromosome of all males ("brahmin" or otherwise) came from ancestors that migrated out of africa or evolved from apes to humans ages ago....what you possibly seem to be alluding to is the polygenic model or multiregional evolution for humans: http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/multiregional.html Anyways, i do not beleive in mixing up science and spirituality....here is another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_hypothesis

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Sesh,

Your belief on creationism are more on the lines of religious belief...whereas i was quoting the example of humans having descended from common origins based on science.

Nothing can be extrapolated nor intrapolated in an acid extractable from living beings nor in the various established techniques used to predict similarity and dissimilarity...the whole forensic scene where a culprit is caught based on dna similarity is based on that very science...anyways what each one believes is upto them...

As for me, am not of belief that the y-chromosome of the sapta rishis came from brahma i find this amusing, coz the meaning is not literal but metaphorical...everything that is alive and unalive has indeed originated from "brahman" to a hindu..

And i believe the y-chromosome of all males ("brahmin" or otherwise) came from ancestors that migrated out of africa or evolved from apes to humans ages ago....what you possibly seem to be alluding to is the polygenic model or multiregional evolution for humans: http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/multiregional.html Anyways, i do not beleive in mixing up science and spirituality....here is another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_hypothesis

i do not remember having commented on my beliefs about creation... if you could kindly direct the post, it would be helpful, if not, kindly refrain from wild guesses... thanks...

i simply reject the evolution theory, simply because i do not see any apes turning into humans now.. even after thousands of years of better living conditions of humans, it does not happen... unless of course the apes have consciously decided that it is better to live as an ape rather than a human...

the idea of apes evolving into humans is hilarious and remains only a theory, at best...

 

[palindrome]

i do not remember having commented on my beliefs about creation... if you could kindly direct the post, it would be helpful, if not, kindly refrain from wild guesses... thanks...

i simply reject the evolution theory, simply because i do not see any apes turning into humans now.. even after thousands of years of better living conditions of humans, it does not happen... unless of course the apes have consciously decided that it is better to live as an ape rather than a human...

the idea of apes evolving into humans is hilarious and remains only a theory, at best...

was this not about creationism:

in our own creation process, there are various theories... various puranas tell it in different ways... we have saptharishis with the y-chromosome being passed on through the male descendents... so, theoritically, all such gothras could be traced to their original rishis or original progenitors... the question is - from where did such rishis spring from?

broadly we could outline as:

saptharishis are said to have been created from the thought of brahma... brahma further created manu and shatarupa, daughters of shatarupa married the saptharishis and so on...(brahma purana/garuda purana)... the idea seems to be that various forms of humans were created and were named differently... so in the beginning itself there were various males and females to copulate for progeny

and abt the evolution theory, evolution continues to happen, very slowly but surely...we mutate everyday...you may wish to google and read on it if you so wish...climatic factors were diff before...it has always taken drastic climatic change to cause mutation of the big time kind...how do you explain australopithecus lucy...there are very many debates on this issue...this is an exhaustive link though not intensive in detail: http://www.ecotao.com/holism/huevo/

as an aside, i have always opposed intereference of religion in science including those opposed to human cloning just bcoz we have to allow some people with perception of some kind to continue to live in their so called beliefs and perception about everything...then there are bunch of jobless church fools that has always tried to place barriers on stuff like stemcell research and interefere in anything provable by science, just bcoz it contradicts their biblical theories that god made man and in his own likeness, man must suffer his fate and any such crap...

 

[s007bala]

aliens

we all like to classify ourselves.some do it on religious lines.today our religion is called hindu.but was it called like this by our ancestors?NO.so,the present day bashing of hindus,is actually the ideas or practices which were handed down to us,as dharma.this dharma interpretation is so varied.the language written is samskritam.very few scholars exist.there is a whole lot of different opinions about context interpretation and so on.so,who is a hindu?as defined by the local people inhabitating in india?and now all over the world.

Today,i live in USA,but my religion is hinduism.i follow certain practices which i like.it may not be the shastric way,but i interpret the shastra to my liking.i have my gurus.he is sai baba.he is kanchi guru.she is ammachi.he is nityananda.but do they think me as shisya.?so,i believe in my god.he is shiva.he is brahmaa.he is vishnu.he is ganapathy.he is muruga.he is ayyapa.she is parvathi.she is saraswathy.she is lakshmi.

shiva was born as swayambhu.parvathi was born as swayambhu.in fact most my gods are swayambhus.ganapathy is born of iccha shakthi of parvathi.prior to his birth,there is no shuklam bharadhram .....so,some of my ancestors did not know ganapathy at all......

do we have the evidence for all our sanathan dharma gods.but a faith is there.our gods exist.even though i cannot see them but i know they exist.untill 1990 my father existed.now my faith tells me,that he is in pitr loka.so i do tarpanam for him,so that as a son,i will make his life comfortable.my mother existed untill 2006.now she too has joined her husband in pitr loka.so,i do tarpanam to my parents,grand-parents,great-grand-parents...and i stop with three generations as per my family norm...

by doing tarpanam,my guru has told me,even if your pitrus are not living in pitru loka but are re-born to bhu-loka as manushayas,you doing tarpanam for them,will ensure your life as well as your progenies life as well as your pitru life in comfort,peace and happiniess.

now,is there a verifiable model,by which ,i can test this explanation by my guru.by experiancing life,i see the validity of truth as explained by my guru.so,its faith based.there are no scientific models of proof,in certain areas.

when i was a kid,i was taught,1+1=2.i asked why?who said we shud call one.who said we shud call 2.but,soon i learnt,in order to be acceptable in society,you go with the flow,and accept the norm.
how does things become norm?different methods are used to emphasise,and influence.

god,belief is a personal justification of a higher self.some has seen god.merged with god.some are ecstatic in singing gods glory.kailasham,vaikuntam,brahmalokam...are abodes of hindu gods.

with scientific progress,one of our nava-grahas ie moon has humanity presence.did we find chandra bhagavan with a chariot & horse?yet,moon is a important graha,and our calendars were charted,our time as muhurthas,naal,varas,masas,ayana,varusham,yugam,kalpam...etc were delieneated using sun & moon.each and every thithi has a meaning.our religious festivals are marked based on this.

its very easy for people to bust religious belief,becoz science & technology,has grown leaps & bounds.but faith is un-shakeable.its a comfort zone.a sense of security.during good times and bad times,its faith which helps.a fear of the unknown .to overcome fear gods exist.our vedas declare

Ekam Sat Vipraha bahudha vadanti

There is but one God, learned scholars call this God by different names

so,being a hindu is my choice,my faith.

sb

 

[palindrome]

And i have given up on political hinduism and mutt defined hinduism....though i remain a hindu outside the ambit of both those whirlpools...

I'd rather consider love as my religion, pick whatever of "faith" i can manage to get along the way from any 'religious' text or anywhere else, live life the way it finds me to be at diff points of time and be gone...

So sapr33, to put into a nutshell for me,
a) There is a creator, not defined by how it appears or conducts itself.
b) All life is sustained by life and life itself cud therefore be called 'god'.
c) Not only life, but also everything around us is "God" verily no matter if it "appears" as good or bad.
d) God probably does not have qualities such as goodness, righteousness, etc...since whatever "it" is, it probably "causes" those adjectives to happen, both as the acceptable-kind and unacceptable kind, not only in humans but everywhere...a tiger cannot stop hunting, a man cannot stop competing..
e) Man is a product of evolution. And his character is a byproduct of a wedding b/w biochemical reactions in the brain (as decided by his genes) and his circumstances (as decided by his environment). I do not know if "God" made man, but i seem to subscribe to creationism of sorts (though not of the religious doctrinal kind)..

Thanks.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

heh heh... seems you are confused between logical arguments and self beliefs... am putting forth the views of creation based on religious texts, but refrain in expressing that as my belief... belief can come only when we are convinced...

finding fossils similar to that of humans cannot be assumed to derive that evolution happened from apes and the like... there could have been various mid-species which could be no more now...

so one drastic day, mutation happened and while some remained as apes, others turned into humans... and learnt to speak, write and read and invent rockets... splendid!

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

palindrome, you might want to read this:

http://www.creationtips.com/human_evolution.html

just a counter, thatz all...

 

[palindrome]

heh heh... seems you are confused between logical arguments and self beliefs... am putting forth the views of creation based on religious texts, but refrain in expressing that as my belief... belief can come only when we are convinced...

finding fossils similar to that of humans cannot be assumed to derive that evolution happened from apes and the like... there could have been various mid-species which could be no more now...

so one drastic day, mutation happened and while some remained as apes, others turned into humans... and learnt to speak, write and read and invent rockets... splendid!

so you are putting forth views on creation based on religious texts but you are not convinced about it ? alright...

you say you refrain from expressing religious creationism as your belief, fair enuf...

but you also expressed your ideas as "the idea seems to be that various forms of humans were created and were named differently... so in the beginning itself there were various males and females to copulate for progeny."

to me, what you are trying to convey is coming out clear enuf but you are so-called " refraining" from expressing it as such .

reg the link you gave me abt humans not coming from apes, its a biblical link...there are uncountable such church idiots on earth that have gone to the extent of creating lobbies to place a ban on biomedical research...they cannot differentiate b/w homo hidelbergensis and neanderthalensis but will question from which apes did man come from...they can see there were mid species of sorts but will not accept it...they can see info about mutation rates being as slow as ages but they too have also questioned if suddenly one day man learnt to speak

so, why do they make such lobbies and why do they ban research?

its because they want people to continue to believe in biblical theories so that the church can continue to control the psyche of people and be considered "powerful"..its all about the "business of religion"...the lobbies are created by clergymen and so-called "men of religion, purity and men of god"....its their prob of being an "organized religion" meaning they are more of a business entity rather than anything else...its good that hindu faith comes under the unorganized category...we have never known to have paid anyone to convert...

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

but you also expressed your ideas as "the idea seems to be that various forms of humans were created and were named differently... so in the beginning itself there were various males and females to copulate for progeny."

to me, what you are trying to convey is coming out clear enuf but you are so-called " refraining" from expressing it as such .

i am baffled at your comprehension....!!!

pity the one that tries to explain the text in a detached fashion...

as regards the link, i just wanted you to know that there is no concrete proof of the evolution theory... the human mind tries to establish a link in order to sove the evolution theory... if you are one of the followers of evolution theory, i wish you well...

its because they want people to continue to believe in biblical theories so that the church can continue to control the psyche of people and be considered "powerful"..its the "business of religion"...the lobbies are created by clergymen and so-called "men of religion, purity and men of god".....i do not see any big diff in the way hindus of one kind are from those church ones (unfortunately)...

let us not ramble around with such statements...

swami vivekananda, in his book raja yoga has this passage which goes thus:

"There seems to be a great difference between modern science and all religions at this point. Every religion has the idea that the universe comes out of intelligence. The theory of God, taking it in its psychological significance, apart from all ideas of personality, is that intelligence is first in the order of creation, and that out of intelligence comes what we call gross matter. Modern philosophers say that intelligence is the last to come. They say that unintelligent things slowly evolve into animals, and from animals into men. They claim that instead of everything coming out of intelligence, intelligence itself is the last to come. Both the religious and the scientific statements, though seeming directly opposed to each other are true. Take an infinite series, A—B—A—B —A—B. etc. The question is — which is first, A or B? If you take the series as A—B. you will say that A is first, but if you take it as B—A, you will say that B is first. It depends upon the way we look at it. Intelligence undergoes modification and becomes the gross matter, this again merges into intelligence, and thus the process goes on. The Sankhyas, and other religionists, put intelligence first, and the series becomes intelligence, then matter. The scientific man puts his finger on matter, and says matter, then intelligence. They both indicate the same chain. Indian philosophy, however, goes beyond both intelligence and matter, and finds a Purusha, or Self, which is beyond intelligence, of which intelligence is but the borrowed light."

not surprisingly, wiki has this quote and further adds that this is in line with darwinian theory... however, i see no resemblence between the two, as the last sentence sums it up beautifully...

visheshaa vishesha - lingamathra lingani gunaparvani

"The states of the qualities are the defined, the undefined, the indicated only, and the signless"

 

[s007bala]

re

ss

the question is - from where did such rishis spring from?

....
there was never a time we did not exist nor will there ever be a time we will cease to exist...

"the idea seems to be that various forms of humans were created and were named differently... so in the beginning itself there were various males and females to copulate for progeny."

saptha rishis are similiar to the stars.our jyotisham assign stars for us.its a school of thought,which says,the universe was one.when inherent energy within universe expolded,many cosmological galaxies were created.our solar system is one of the many galaxies.our earth is one such planet.inhabitants of earth are one such species.
by virtue of having an independent mind,body,soul we think independently.when thoughts converge,groups get formed.when groups get formed it graduates to bigger society.from society nation.from nation to many nations.and so on...reality is we live,eat,sleep.its how we live?how we eat?how we sleep? differentiates nations and its inhabitants in earth.on a overview,there is no difference.but on a minute level we are different.we are differently indifferent by nature.
intially,we copulated,without discrimination.we found abnormal behaviours.we changed our ways of copulation.we found harmony.todays world many things are defined.defined by humans.women may say man is the impositor of rules and regulation.so,the good or bad in society is becoz of man.so,its a man's world for now,but we call mother earth not father earth,.

sb

 

[palindrome]

Sesh,

Whatever i had said was because you put forth your idea that dna similaries does not mean common biological origins.

Then you expressed probable ideas from religious texts.

To me, i generally have a prob when a missionary knocks on my door and asks me "to be saved" since amongst other reasons 'god made man".

With 4 churches around the vicinity of my home, i have had enuf people that always liked to convince me of the "greatness of christian thought" just because "we" have found that 'all science is wrong and only the bible is correct'. And how did they prove it wrong? Because they proved the evolution theory wrong according to them and have established the creationism theory that "god made man" is correct.

There are also missionaries that boast of themselves as someone who left the job of science to propagate the word of god because he is convinced that "god made man".

And how do they reach that conclusion (all so typical) ? Please read these passages from the link you gave me:

Why do scientists agree that ergaster “is the anchor species for all subsequent humans”? Because H. ergaster walked upright like humans, made tools, had human jaws and teeth, and physically was almost the equal of modern Africans.

H. ergaster was clearly human. And according to evolutionists Wood and Collard, the two “Homo” types before ergaster (habilis and rudolfensis) were ape-like in every major characteristic they were able to test. On the evidence from Wood and Collard's tests, habilis and rudolfensis looked like apes, walked like apes, had jaws and teeth like apes, and they had ape brains.

But H. ergaster was loaded with human features. The only possible comfort that evolutionists could get from H. ergaster having any ape-like feature is that it had a smallish brain. But as it was human in every other way, logic forces us to conclude that ergaster was a human with a small brain, rather than an ape that suddenly acquired all the characteristics of a human without leaving evidence that it ever happened.

Please note the underlined text....they decided they wanted to be have logic of a certain kind forced onto themselves (by whom god knows) (that logic wud be illogical by terms of proof available but again they will reduce logic to a state of perception, will overlook available established proof but will concentrate on or take advantage of things yet to be established or proven) and then make their church-acceptable conclusion. If ergaster was human, then did humans became apes and not the other way around? And this from church zealots who do not even understand the basis of classification..

So when you said dna similarities does not mean common origins and then expressed possible ideas of y-chromosome origins from brahma or thought of brahma, it really is no different from the idea of a christian missionary to me.

I too know there is no conclusion available as yet for ape to human theory. So far the probability factor only seems higher in support of such a possible evolution than against it, but not conclusively proven because science requires irrefutable proof (a theorem is established only if it proven to be working right each time and cannot be disproved in any way..it is far ahead from a state of perception or assumption)..

The probability factor in this case too is not a state of perception or logic (of the illogical disprovable kind). It includes a combination of fossil finds, dna extraction from fossils, established similarites between humans across different continents, similarities b/w humans and apes and so on...

That is why i prefer keeping science and blind belief in religion away from each other....

Spar33,
this is another factor you might want to take into consideration...if there is a god with certain "good" qualities, then am far from it..and one of the reasons why its not my cup of tea is this very disussion of creationism versus evolution b/w sesh and me....how wud anyone define creationism of "good" qualities...behaviour can be explained using evolutionary models but is not conclusive again (sometimes it is conclusive but not considered as such bcoz science keeps room for growth, change and divergence..unlike religious doctrines that expects acceptance without questioning with no room for change or growth)...

 

[s007bala]

terror and karma

sapr333,

Bala,
First of all you never bothered to explain me the karmic effect of a terrorist in pervious birth. This only infers,that, you are conveniently taking this debate on emotional terms,than on logical thinking... Im quite embarassed to see this kind of response from a TAMBRAM scholar, who is supposed to the 'Owner of Vedas' and philosophies'.. I can only pity..

plz don't pre-suppose about scholarship.we are debating,lets not trap ourselves with titles,at least i don't wish to.

pity for what?cannot understand!!

terrorism and terrorist are driven by idealogy of hate,which is love for a idealogy in a convulted sense for the majority of peace loving people.what makes a terrorist?or who creates a terrorist.who is financing the terrorist and terrorism idealogy?what is the book or manual used?who is the personality involved in terrorising or terror model?

can a terrorist be deemed as freedom fighter for his cause?can he/she be a martyr for their cause?

karma based on terrorism.what exactly is karma.?its a continuous process,with no beginning nor end.karma itself is divided.karma is action.action= causes and effect.so,what is cause?so,what is effect?
terrorism has a cause=terrorism has an effect.who is the cause and what is the effect.?

who is terrorising whom?=karma of the terrorised=karma of the terrorer.:whoo:

When I read the Bhagavad Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous. - Albert Einstein

sb

 

[palindrome]

Sapr33,

In brown:

Palindrome, Im reffering here your post #82.

Im not sure if you have heard about 'KALLAR GOD'. literally'Thief God'. And people of Tharapuram(near coimbatore) pray to that god for a good booty, and move lock stock barrel to a new town, loot/murder/extort, and come back home and share their offering to their god in terms of a grand village festival. Do you think, could that be a right idea about God? Rather, should we need such gods. If so, tomorrow, Rajneesh could be a god, and raping others could become the prime ritual...

i suppose each one needs a justification and god's support for his livelihood...so a kallar god was created as a god-concept by those who live by theft or dacoity...nope it wud not be considered socially acceptable to have a god-concept which beleives in dishonest income and causing distress to others.

i do not understand the connection b/w rajneesh being considered as god and defiling women...has rajneesh supported any idea of ruining women? i do not think there is any scripture in this world that allows for women to be ruined like that, except for some references in islam..

in hinduism there may have been men who cooked up stories and attempted to pass it off as a scripture to make a livelihood..the prob is with the men who did that (not necessarily of one community since there are very many temples manned by non-brahmin priests, hope you have heard of various village dieties in rural india), these things can be weeded out..the prob here is not with the scriptures since what these men wrote are not part of any hindu scriptures in the first place..

What if God is not there... Its all debated well 2000yrs ago by great philosophers like Aristotle and Plato..or even Euthyphro's dilemma.. But the problem is, we dont look in to that...We only claim, we are the oldest philosophy, so let me stick to the oldest one..(I dobut if the same person will buy a 386 processor M/c for their kids to run a PlayStation game)

hmm...i have a small variation on this...
One, there are too many philosophies in the hindu faith. Someone in the rig ved also wondered if god exists or not. Atheism is not alien to hindu faith.
Two, yes these philosophies are so far considered older than the greek or roman ones. The bhagvad gita itself is essentially a philosophy.
Yes i agree that just bcoz something is older we shd not use that as a qualification idea to say let me stick to the older one. But one benefit of an older philosophy is that it seems to have had time to cover a gamut of ideas and concepts and explain them in various ways -- its about having had the advantage of a large period of time to grow.

Maya is perfectly OK.. Then the philsophers ask the basic question..."Whats the purpose of our life, if every thing could be attributed to Maya!! Where is the CAUSE!!..

cause for maya? cause for existence of life? purpose of life? errr..right now am thinking this has more to do individual disposition and each individual's innate need to heed to look for a cause in seemingly different directions..maya is a huge topic, i wish we cud tak abt this in person..i do not think we cud do justice to it by cramming it up in a few pages on an online forum..

My question here was not about CASTE... Can varna system answers all our modern questions.. ( may be we can discuss in detail in the next post)

if needed i shall post on varna in future, on what it was supposedly meant to be in diff time periods and how and why it became applied to jaatis or occupation groups (all as i have understood so far)...to put into a nutshell, varna was created by all hindus, not one unit alone..and there is no blame to place on anyone..however, all of that probably wud be a social issue aside from the topic of god and morality that you seek to focus on...

Analayse all these questions keeping in mind, God is the same, and he also commands some of the natures like 'Absolute Holiness, Absolute Justice, Absolute Love''' .. Im sure you would agree to this point of 'Nature of God"..

again, i am not able to agree to this point of nature of god for reasons expressed in my previous posts in this thread..who defines what is "absolute holiness, justice and love"...what is holiness? this is the part that is sounding very christian to me...

..btw, there are quite a few instances in the hindu scriptures that support evolution...like life first originating in water (rep by matsya avtar)..just that they have combined creationism and evolution..and used creationism to explain parts that cannot be explained by evolution...so that way hindu faith is not against evolution...and its so very unlike the christian and islamic schools that go strictly by creationism doctrine alone...