PDA

View Full Version : Understanding "I" - Vedanta



Pages : [1] 2

pradheep
16th August 2005, 02:49 AM
If you are really keen to understand your own misunderstanding on Vedanta, I suggest you to think of all possible combinations or worldviews under which "I" could be experienced, and then ask yourself a question, is that experience part of your perception, within your body or not? Is there any way that you can experience "I" without your body or not?

pradheep
16th August 2005, 02:53 AM
is that experience part of your perception, within your body or not?

Dear Rohit,
I can have the thought of "I with the perception of the body and without also. In dreaming state I dont have the perception or feeling of this body lying ona bed. Still I have an I thought. So even without a body I can have "I".




Is there any way that you can experience "I" without your body or not?
Yes without having the perception of the body I can have the feeling of "I" in deep sleep. But is the "I" that I experiecne in waking state, dream state and deep sleep state are different.

SRS
16th August 2005, 03:25 AM
Yes without having the perception of the body I can have the feeling of "I" in deep sleep. But is the "I" that I experiecne in waking state, dream state and deep sleep state are different.

It is written in Gita or Upanishads (I cannot remember which one) that dreams are reflections of the past lives. Indeed, many people have had dreams in which they find themselves in places which they have never encountered in "real" life. They will then have an experience in this "new" place that is out of the ordinary. Also sometimes ppl will have dreams about the future. Can you explain this, Pradheep? It goes with what you are saying; the thought exists independently of the bodily functions.

pradheep
16th August 2005, 05:13 PM
Dear SRS
can yougiveme couple of days time,I am writing a small article which will explain what you asked.

SRS
17th August 2005, 09:09 AM
Dear SRS
can yougiveme couple of days time,I am writing a small article which will explain what you asked.

Okay Pradheep. I look forward to reading your article.

pradheep
24th August 2005, 06:49 PM
Dear SRS
hope this article will give you the answers for your questions. Please follow the link and if you still have doubts we can discuss here.
http://sakthifoundation.org/three%20bodies.htm

Sandeep
8th September 2005, 12:26 PM
My feeling from what I remember of my dreams is that they are closely related to the happenings in your life.

If it was something eternal how come we see our family, friends in your dreams and also how are the incidences close in essense (situation may be different) to your feelings and emotions

Is our mind playing some games out of boredom.

pradheep
8th September 2005, 03:42 PM
Dear Sandeep
Yes you are right. Dreams are thoughts that did not bloom out into action. Dreams are aborted pieces of thoughts and find fullfillment as dreams but would randomly do so.

In our daytime also we spend mostpart of ourlife day dreaming. we keep thinking we shouldhave done this in the past or think of dreaming the future.We are neverin the present. Always day dreaming. Just observeyour thoughts . you will find the mind wanders. If themind cannot wander freely because of the enivornment it feels boredom. Mind always plays - wanders. Mind does not liketobein the present. To be present is the "Gift" of life. Most of us never live life we are only day dreaming of the past or the present. The "Self" or atman is always in the present.

Rohit
9th September 2005, 10:14 PM
Critical analysis of "in the present"

The past, present and the future are the concepts that are unarguably attached to time T.

If one ever tries to critically analyse the thought of being "in the present", one would soon realise that there is no such thing as "in the present". Everything that one knew in the past, knows now and will ever know in the future with any certainty was, is and will be about the past. Nothing whatsoever can be known about the literal present or the literal future.

The reason is quite simple, only if analysed and grasped critically.

There is always a time delay between the occurrence of an event or an event of experience and the event being observed externally and/or experienced internally. There are further time delays in the subsequent sequence that follows the event or the event of experience, which involve a time to acknowledge, a time to register, a time to relate and/or correlate, a time to process the bulk of information, a time to reach a judgement followed by a time to form a valid conclusion about the event or the event of experience that occurred a while or long ago.

Nothing whatsoever of this sequence can happen strictly concurrently or simultaneously. Thus, an event/experience, in all its finest detail and resolution, can truly be known only after it has already happened and has become the past. So, the situation being "in the present" never existed, it does not exist and it will never exist. The only fact that one can ever truly know, is about the past; no matter how short or long time ago it happened. The time dely "dT" involved may vary from a tiny fraction of a second to billions of years, but it can never be "0".

Conclusion:

The thought of being "in the present" is nothing but a delusion as, the very situation being "in the present" never existed, it does not exist and it can/will never exist. An acute, transcendental paradox that can be resolved neither by a series of mere wishful and heedless thoughts nor by the extremes of absurd desires.

This ends the critical analysis of the thought of being "in the present" with a confirming conclusion that "We can never be in the present", only nothing can be in the present. :)

pradheep
11th September 2005, 09:05 AM
Dear Rohit
The thought of being "in the present" is nothing but a delusion

what sort of deluded state are you in Rohit? Can any one deny the present. The present is life (that is why present is called a gift). Life is a gift - present. Every moment is only present. The moment you are reading this forumhub is also present. The moment, you are thinking, is no longer present...it is already past.
present is not in thinking. Every thought is a dead piece of information porcesssed in the brain. Even future is also in the present.

When you plan of a future event, it is still in the present. The future becomes a past dead thought the moment you think about it.

What Vedanta is talking is not about the dead "thinking" of thoughts, but the present, the very moment...awareness which is nothing but the reflection of the consciousness.

You are one and one proving the dead thoughts. I am talking about theliving present. Hope you can understand what I am conveing to you.

I would like you to explain what you mean by " nothing can be in the present".

Rohit
11th September 2005, 05:14 PM
What sort of deluded state are you in Rohit?"The only, please read again - the only - deluded state I undergo is to hope that one day my dear friend Pradheep will talk some sense. But every time I read his unstable and oscillating thoughts about the created, creation and creator - known, knowing and knower - thought, thinking and thinker - subject observer, image projection and image object - awareness and consciousness - reflection/image, observing/observation and object of reflection - reflecting surface/object becomimng observer of reflection as well as object reflected - Vedanta, perceptions, thoughts, awareness, consciousness, judgement and conclusion , they all soon become the dead pieces of your thoughts - awareness, reflected by his consciousness etc. and soon turns into his delusions of being "in the presesnt".

While writing the critical analysis of "in the present" above, I happily hoped/thought that this time my dear friend Pradheep would definitely understand that whatever he writes about anything, would soon become yet more dead pieces of his thoughts as soon as he finished writing about it. What he intends to project as a subject, soon becomes an object of inquiry to a subject that no longer remains the same. He miserably fails to understand and realise the fact that he can never finish writing about the literal present, he can only write about what he thought about the presesnt a while ago and never about the literal present. Also he miserablly fails to realise that what have already become the dead piece of his thoughts, cannot become "in the present" when others read them after a time delay "dT" on this forum-hub as they have already become the past - born out of Pradheep's dead pieces of thoughts. And it likely that some may not even remain, so-believed by our dear friend Pradheep as being "in the presesnt", to read his persistent delusions of being "in the presesnt".

As I said earlier, no amount of wishful and heedless thoughts or the extremes of absurd desires can resolve the transcendental paradox of time delay "dT".

My dear friend Pradheep, you have yet again, successfully broken my delusion - that one day, you would talk some sense - by posting your above wishful and heedless thoughts, accompanied by the extremes of absurd desire that your dead thoughts would still become "in the present" when "I" read them, without going the sequence in time T.

Well done, Pradheep, I am really pleased and thankful to you that you are very busy in nullifying all my delusions about my hopes and thoughts about a potential for some improvement in your level of understanding of everything, which now also includes time T and the time delay "dT" :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
11th September 2005, 06:35 PM
Dear rohit
As Usual you find a clever of avoiding a discussion of facts by just attacking me.

When you have your mind clear please analyse the fact that awareness is not a thought, but all thoughts are arise in awareness. Since you cannot fail to grasp awareness, at least understand that "present" as a concept of time is a thought and but present (awareness) is not a thought.

Rohit you failure to grasp this is because you do not have practical knowledge and never practiced anything. Even Buddhist teaching to you is mere words from a book and you have never experienced what Buddha taught. Buddha has taught mind watching
meditation. Have you ever done that. Do not say yes by merely reading a book on buddhist meditation, but practice it and then write about it through your own experience.

Though mind watching you will understand what I mean about awareness and the "present".

Till then Rohit all that I write will look only absurd to you, like the church who felt the absurdity in what copernicus, galelio and others taught.

Rohit
11th September 2005, 07:14 PM
please analyse the fact that awareness is not a thought, but all thoughts are arise in awareness.
If you care to read and analyse your own statements, my dear friend, you cannot fail to realise that everything you wrote about "I", awareness, consciousness, reflections, thoughts etc. are nothing but the thoughts about them born out of your own, isolated, internal experiences, the entire process which unarguably involves "dT" . It is hardly difficult to conceive a situation that you keep repeating all that is in your above statements, only until a time "T"comes when you cease to do so, due to some easily conceivable factual reasons, precisely right in the middle of your last repeatation and the very next moment, everything you intended to believe about "I", awareness, consciousness and the association of being "in the presesnt" ends-up utterly falsified. Only nothing comes out from you, which precisely reflects your last moment "in the present".

What you intend to project as a subject, soon becomes an object of inquiry to another subject that no longer remains the same.

I hope you will not turn my hopes into delusions again by not understanding the above difference. :)

pradheep
12th September 2005, 07:17 PM
Dear Rohit
How many times I had explained you that thoughts, emotions,feelings etc arise due tothe neuronal firing , but not consciousness. You are saying everything including consciosuness is generated by brain. My defintion of consciousness is diffferent from what modern scientists say. I say that is awareness which is equal to consciousness as per defintion of modern scientists, which is a brain phenomenon.

It is like you telling that computer words , figures, photos' colors, sounds all are generated in the computer. Of course you are right, but electricity which runs the computer is not generated in the computer. Same way all that we are aware of the sound, light, thoughts , awareness are all brain phenomenon, but not consciousness.

Modern science is struggling to understand this consciousness but can never find as an object. The moment it is objectified the observer, the observed and the observation mergesinto one (Advaita).

Rohit you will keep on disucssing with your bookish knowledge. If you want to understand what I am telling and really understand what Buddha told about "nothingness" you have to use his technique.

Please rohit do techniques like mind watching, which will helpyou tounderstand that you can objectify your self and that is not a brain phenomenon. This is the greatest secret of this universe. it is the greast mystery.This is the greatest mystery that indian scientists-rishi's discovered. This is calledself discovery.

Rohit what I talk will be greek and latin to you unless you practice it. Without practice no one can understand it. Information from books will not help.

There is a seemingly short cut for this, that youalways write about hallucintaing drugs. Even some Indian tantrics try, hallucinating drugs. Hallucintating drugs are used by tantrics to numb the mind and they think that in that numbness they can be witness the mind. Use of drugs to know consciosuness is like checking for electricity by putting your finger in an electric socket.


But the correct way is to watch the mind through practice. For this the mind should be avialble under your control. This is what dalai lama or Buddha said as mind purification.


Without the mind watching you arenot not watching the mind , you think you are the mind itself.

My dear Rohit, purify your mind and then your mind will be under you control and you can witness your own mind and then know what is awareness and finally Consciousness.

So stop reading and put into practice whatever you read in your favorite buddhist scriptures and then you will see what I write make sense. Till then you will be under the whirlpool of your own mind and call me a deluded person.

Rohit
13th September 2005, 02:16 AM
If you are really keen to understand your own misunderstandings on Vedanta, I suggest you to think of all possible combinations or worldviews under which "I" could be experienced, and then ask yourself a question, is that experience part of your perception, within your body or not? Is there any way that you can experience "I" without your body or not?
If you can remember, I have asked you much more than the above, but you have completely avoided answering any of them and just responded to the above by stating:


I can have the thought of "I" with the perception of the body and without also. In dreaming state I dont have the perception or feeling of this body lying ona bed. Still I have an I thought. So even without a body I can have "I".

Yes without having the perception of the body I can have the feeling of "I" in deep sleep. But is the "I" that I experience in waking state, dream state and deep sleep state are different.
Please read the use of words "thought", "feeling" and "experience" in your own replies. Also note that you have stated the occurrence of thought of "I" without the perception of body.

And below is what you are writing now:


thoughts, emotions, feelings etc. arise due tothe neuronal firing.
Now you are clearly contradicting and falsifying your own above quoted statements by stating that thoughts, emotions, feelings etc. arise due to the neurones firing in the brain

When you don't even know what you are thinking, feeling, experiencing and then writing heedlessly; what kind of sense do you think and believe you are writing or talking, my friend?

Please try to understand the fact that the brain is located in the head and both the head - along with the eyes, ears, nose, mouth/speech etc. sense organs - and the brain are vital organs of the body; not seeing or having the perception of body, isn't and cannot be the same as without body. Only your mind plays tricks with you and makes you think, feel, experience and then believe that there is no body. If you really believe all these tricks played by your mind/brain, you can believe anything when your mind plays even cleverer tricks with you under the influence of psychotic drugs or similar psychotic mental conditions, as you have just mentioned.

Previously you even have denied the fact, which I repeated 1000s of times elsewhere in the forum-hub that thoughts are a neurological phenomenon in the brain. Irrespective of what you think and believe powers your thoughts, you have clearly demonstrated the fact that your mind/brain is already playing consequential and detrimental tricks on you and made you think and believe that you don't have a body when you are asleep.

Anyway, I am glad that you have cleared one of the many serious misunderstandings you previously had and now you are on the right track by accepting the fact that thoughts are the neurological activities in the brain, powered by energy E = hf or E = mc^2. If you are suggesting, it is this energy E, which is obviously dumb, changeable, transformable, mutable, but conserved within the entire time-space contour, all pervading, uncaused cause of everything etc. etc. that you are referring as the "Self", I have no argument whatsoever against that and all your misunderstandings have a good chance to disappear into nothing.

However, though you have used Sun's energy E, generated by violently active process of nuclear fission, and which takes some 7 minutes to reach the earth, as an analogy in your article, if at all it ("I/Self") is something different from energy E, then you definitely have even serious neurological problems in your brain, the source of all your remaining misunderstandings that, somehow, must be cleared and I am more than happy to help you further to clear all your remaining misunderstandings.

As I have clearly given you the evidence and explanation how an easily conceivable event, falsifies your entire belief when you cease to repeat all that is in your above statements and only nothing comes out from you - precisely at the time "T", falsifying your entire belief and the thought of being "in the present". And how what you intend to project as subject, soon becomes an object of inquiry to another subject that no longer remains the same.

Please refer to your own analogy of the Sun and the rest as it is in your article and then clearly answer the following questions:

1) Who is asking the question "Who Am I" and to whom?
2) Who is supposed to find the answer and reply to whom?
3) Who is the subject and who or what is the object?
4) Why do you have to show the gross body in your diagrams to realise "I/Self"?

More questions to follow :)

Pradheep, don't just stay stuck and keep seeking refuge in Buddhism. Please move forward with your own beliefs rather than keep referring to Buddhism as, this tendency is neither going to clear your obvious and serious misunderstandings and confusions on Buddhism nor those on Advaita/Vedanta.

So, my dear friend, have some courage and be brave to accept and acknowledge your errors, mistakes, misunderstandings and whatever weaknesses that hinder you from getting out of the never-ending vicious cycle that you are in.

Good Luck! :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
14th September 2005, 05:08 AM
I have asked you much more than the above, but you have completely avoided answering any of them

Dear Rohit
I have always answered your questions but if you cannot understand, what can i do. i can only use different examples to make you understand the message.


Now you are clearly contradicting and falsifying your own above quoted statements

I am not contradicting. You fail to understand that consciousness is different from awareness. Awareness is a phenomenon of the neuronal activity and not consciousness.


have used Sun's energy E, generated by violently active process of nuclear fission, and which takes some 7 minutes to reach the earth, as an analogy in your article, if at all it ("I/Self") is something different from energy E

You have a serious problem in understanding an analogy. In the article I have used Sun's energy and the formation of a river to explain awareness and consciousness. You ahve taken it literally and have ended up with the problem as usual. Many times I have quoted the sufi's proverb " An idiot looks at the finger that points the moon". You look at the finger and not at the moon and that seriously affects your understanding.


1) Who is asking the question "Who Am I" and to whom?

you will get the answer when you ask that question when you purify your mind according to dalai lama and Buddha. To answer that the Ego ask the question. To understand what Ego means you have to undergo a process of purification of mind.


2) Who is supposed to find the answer and reply to whom?

The Ego does finds the answer and replies to the Ego itself.


3) Who is the subject and who or what is the object?
There is no subject and object. these two occurs when Ego is there. When the Ego is transcended there is only oneness.


4) Why do you have to show the gross body in your diagrams to realise "I/Self"?
when people cannot understand simple explanations I have to use diagrams to explain. Even if they cannot ....... I am comming with a simpler practical version in the month of october. Probably that may help you.


Pradheep, don't just stay stuck and keep seeking refuge in Buddhism.

Buddhism is just an off shoot of vedanta. Vedanta is the umbrealla underwhich Buddhism is a mushroom and for you that is a good umbrella.

When you understand Vedanta I will make you clear what Buddha dismissed as Atman/Brahman and what he means by nothingness.


of the never-ending vicious cycle that you are in
Probably you should keep reading whatever i wrote for a long time repeatedly to understand the message. Till then keep doing the cycle.

Rohit
15th September 2005, 02:28 AM
I have asked you much more than the above, but you have completely avoided answering any of them

Dear Rohit
I have always answered your questions but if you cannot understand, what can i do. i can only use different examples to make you understand the message.


Now you are clearly contradicting and falsifying your own above quoted statements

I am not contradicting. You fail to understand that consciousness is different from awareness. Awareness is a phenomenon of the neuronal activity and not consciousness.


have used Sun's energy E, generated by violently active process of nuclear fission, and which takes some 7 minutes to reach the earth, as an analogy in your article, if at all it ("I/Self") is something different from energy E

You have a serious problem in understanding an analogy. In the article I have used Sun's energy and the formation of a river to explain awareness and consciousness. You ahve taken it literally and have ended up with the problem as usual. Many times I have quoted the sufi's proverb " An idiot looks at the finger that points the moon". You look at the finger and not at the moon and that seriously affects your understanding.


1) Who is asking the question "Who Am I" and to whom?

you will get the answer when you ask that question when you purify your mind according to dalai lama and Buddha. To answer that the Ego ask the question. To understand what Ego means you have to undergo a process of purification of mind.


2) Who is supposed to find the answer and reply to whom?

The Ego does finds the answer and replies to the Ego itself.


3) Who is the subject and who or what is the object?
There is no subject and object. these two occurs when Ego is there. When the Ego is transcended there is only oneness.


4) Why do you have to show the gross body in your diagrams to realise "I/Self"?
when people cannot understand simple explanations I have to use diagrams to explain. Even if they cannot ....... I am comming with a simpler practical version in the month of october. Probably that may help you.


Pradheep, don't just stay stuck and keep seeking refuge in Buddhism.

Buddhism is just an off shoot of vedanta. Vedanta is the umbrealla underwhich Buddhism is a mushroom and for you that is a good umbrella.

When you understand Vedanta I will make you clear what Buddha dismissed as Atman/Brahman and what he means by nothingness.


of the never-ending vicious cycle that you are in
Probably you should keep reading whatever i wrote for a long time repeatedly to understand the message. Till then keep doing the cycle.
My dear Pradheep,

For your kind information, your utter frustrations, resulting from the humiliation you felt from the exposition and uncovering of your heedless blunders, contained in the article as well as in your posts, are fully acknowledged and understood by everyone. There is no need to get astounded and go haywire about that.

If you intend to point at literally nothing, you must never point at the Sun or other objects but at your "Self". If you have nothing to point at, then don't point at all, this is very important watchword for you to grasp and understand. If all that is contained in your quoted article is just a random sequence of impertinent and irrelevant words, ideas and concepts with lots of meaningless diagrams to accompany it, bin the very article and start thinking all over again. Don't just blame people watching you randomly pointing fingers at things that are completely beyond your grasp of comprehension.

Anyway, please don't humiliate yourself further by quoting and writing randomly when you don't even know what you are thinking, feeling, and experiencing. I am really sorry to have made it crystal clear to everyone what kind of nonsense you can think, write and talk. If you really want to know something important my friend, then know this, Sufi's words for mere comfort wouldn't help you my friend, I am afraid.


Vedanta tells us that the very purpose of life on Earth is to know the Self, because that was the fundamental question that "caused" creation. There was a question that arose "Who Am I?"

Awareness is a phenomenon of the neuronal activity and not consciousness.Neuroscientists have quite a few, modern and very precise brain-scanning equipment available to them in order to study various brain activities under various stages and conditions. The following list of equipment provides a hint of the variety or equipment available for brain scanning and imaging.

- CT or CAT (Computerised Axial Tomography)
- MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
- SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computerised Tomography)
- PET (Photon Emission Tomography)
- EEG (Electroencephalogram)

Neuroscientists over the globe have used various brain scans to study various activities in the brain like metabolic rates, blood-flow rates, neurological activities and various other mental activities during

- Wakefulness
- NREM Sleep (Sleep onset)
- REM Sleep (Dream State)
- Normal Sleep (NREM but Deep Sleep)
- Sleep Deprivation

What is unanimously found by neuroscientists across the globe is starling and that shatters all beliefs of unconditioned consciousness, projected by our dear friend Pradheep, who obviously found himself grossly humiliated after learning about his contradictions, which completely falsified all his beliefs and thoughts about the source of thoughts, feelings, experiences and body and body perception.

a) The activities of modulatory neurones, neurotransmitters and other chemical balance change during the above five stages.

b) Neural activities and other chemical balance are normal as expected during the wakeful state.

c) Neural activities and other chemical balance change from normal and reduce both during NREM (Sleep onset) and Sleep Deprivation states. The neural activities in the brain are more or less identical during these two states - NREM (sleep onset) and sleep deprivation states.

d) Neural activities and other chemical balance change again from reduced activities to more than normal activities during the REM Sleep.

e) Neural activities and other chemical balance surprisingly come back to normal during NREM Deep Sleep state. But the processing of sensory information is minimal simulating the pure unconditioned consciousness.

Neuroscientists find no brain state in which brain activities cease completely, unless it is a brain of the dead. The unconditioned consciousness that our friend Pradheep is talking about is nothing but the minimal activity of the brain when the brain goes in its latent or dormant state, precisely the state that our friend Pradheep is trying to associate with unconditioned consciousness to forward further his delusions on "Self".

It is not at all surprising why our dear friend Pradheep remains always stuck with his body and can't write or talk about unconditioned consciousness without the brain in his body. He always end-up with meaningless analogies that always involve objective and subjective items of the physical world. He gets completely numbed and muted when I point him the meaninglessness of his analogies that have no resemblance whatsoever to what he thinks it to be.

I think, this is more than enough to show the gobbledegook that our friend Pradheep thinks, feels, experiences, writes and posts. He can’t even remember what definitions I have asked him to provide but he still thinks and believes that he has answered all. Well, what more than this do we need to testify Pradheep's utter misunderstandings on Advaita/Vedanta? :thumbsup:

Good Luck :wink: :)

pradheep
15th September 2005, 03:34 AM
CT or CAT (Computerised Axial Tomography)
- MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
- SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computerised Tomography)
- PET (Photon Emission Tomography)
- EEG (Electroencephalogram)

Neuroscientists over the globe have used various brain scans to study various activities in the brain like metabolic rates, blood-flow rates, neurological activities and various other mental activities during

- Wakefulness
- NREM Sleep (Sleep onset)
- REM Sleep (Dream State)
- Normal Sleep (NREM but Deep Sleep)
- Sleep Deprivation
my dear Rohit
you are again and again talking about awareness which is the phenomenon of the brain and can be studied through scans and all other instruments. The unconditioned consciousness is not of the brain. For that you have to chant mani padme hum and purify your mind. Have you ever done that?. try and then reply to this post.

Rohit
15th September 2005, 05:13 AM
Dear Pradheep,

Before anything, please first learn how to think, feel, experience and then learn how to write some sense. It is no good posting just gobbledegook when you have nothing left to write and when you and your beliefs are fully exposed.

Like I have proved and shown earlier, consciousness is an evolved phenomenon and what you are calling as pure unconditioned consciousness is nothing but the latent and dormant state of the same thing. The three stages used in Vedanta to describe various stages of existence and then by associating consciousness with the state experienced in deep sleep, the idea of fourth state of pure consciousness was sought. By mere imagination of the fourth stage and calling it Turiya state, the pure unconditioned consciousness was guessed, believed and then terminated into the Turiya state. Today there is no need for that imagination, science can provide plenty of scientific proofs and evidences of that fourth state, which previously was just imagined by the Vedantins as being pure consciousness due to inaccessibility to the brain's activities. The technological and scientific advances can now cross that barrier and reveal the same fourth state and beyond with enough details to shows that it is nothing but what is now identified and known as the reducing amount of latent or dormant activities of the brain. Science can now reveal not only that fourth state but even further more states where nothing whatsoever is experienced.

Unfortunately, due to persistence of serious misunderstandings and lack of will in you to accept reality, you are still heedlessly searching for a thing- pure unconditioned consciousness - that is already proven hidden in your own brain. It is very important to know that we can never be conscious or aware of what is happening in the brain, and there is a great danger of us ending-up thinking that we can think, feel, experience the “I/Self” without body while we are asleep, and then come to a false conclusion about the body, precisely the way you did. I have clearly shown how you have committed that mistake and miserably failed to take the brain activities into account in your initial posts when responding to my questions.

My friend, you can think whatever you wish and do whatever you want with your body, unless you try understanding the brain, all your search for an entity that does not exist will be in vain and only prove as a heedless attempt of self-deception that cannot be entertained for much longer.

Good Luck! :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
15th September 2005, 04:09 PM
Neuroscientists over the globe have used various brain scans to study various activities in the brain like metabolic rates, blood-flow rates, neurological activities and various other mental activities during

- Wakefulness
- NREM Sleep (Sleep onset)
- REM Sleep (Dream State)
- Normal Sleep (NREM but Deep Sleep)
- Sleep Deprivation

Dear Rohit
Itis veryclear you have not understood anything from the article because you have not read it clearly. In bold letter there was a cuationary note. Inspite of that you have mis-understood that and have talked about sleep states. This is one instance to highlight that you have not read it properly and as expected you have misunderstood .Let me quote fromthe article.


Important note to avoid mis-understanding

Here we have to be very clear about the three states of existence. We should not literally take that we are discussing here about dreams and deep sleep states. We literally go into these three states everyday, but the point is that, we are in these three states even in the waking state.

This causal body is like "nothingness" that you experience similar to deep sleep state. With this clarity please go ahead, otherwise it will breed only confusion.



By mere imagination of the fourth stage and calling it Turiya state,

This shows your very limited knowledge in science and also the biased nature. Meditation is being researched more vigorouslythan before. The reason is that what was considered as a witch craft shows evidences of proof. But science has to go further a lot before it can completely get to know about Cosnciosuness.

The only means for you to know is not to depend on the instruments, but use your own body. There is a procedure to know that,that millions of people have been doing , are doing and will be doing.

Rohit , your problem is that youhavenot doentheprocess and criticising it. You are like a guy denying glacier in mount everest without ever being there once.

Find the truth for your own and donot rely on no any one else. Because unlike all other truth, this is only for you, you (every individual) alone.

Rohit
17th September 2005, 04:43 AM
Dear Pradheep


This causal body is like "nothingness" that you experience similar to deep sleep state. With this clarity please go ahead, otherwise it will breed only confusion.
Please read you own response to my questions. It is quoted below and this what you have said about the deep sleep.

Yes without having the perception of the body I can have the feeling of "I" in deep sleep.
Below is what Gaudapada and Sankara said about the deep sleep - Prajana

Prajana, the third quarter -Deep sleep:

Original verse in Sanskrit:

yatra supto n kanchan kamn kamyate n kanchan swapna pashyti tatsushuptam |
sushuptasthan ekibhuth: pragnadhan evanandmayo hyanandbhuk chetomukh: pragnastruteeya: pad: || 5 ||

Translation 1:

That is the state of deep sleep wherein the sleeper does not desire any objects nor he sees any dream. The third quarter (Pada) is the (Prajna) whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all (experiences) become unified or undifferentiated, who is verily, a mass of consciousness entire, who is full of bliss and who experiences bliss, and who is the path leading to the knowledge (of the two other states)

Source: Mandukya Upanishad with Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.
Translated by Swami Nikhilananda Published by Advaita Ashrama

Translation 2:

That state is deep sleep where the sleeper does not desire any enjoyable thing and does not see any dream. The third quarter is Prajna who has deep sleep as his sphere, in whom everything becomes undifferentiated, who is mass of mere consciousness, who abounds in bliss, who is purely an enjoyer of bliss, and who is the doorway to the experience (of the dream and walking state).

Source: Mandukya Upanishad, Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.
Translated by Swami Gambhirananda Published by Advaita Ashrama

And below is what I said:


Neural activities and other chemical balance surprisingly come back to normal during NREM Deep Sleep state. But the processing of sensory information is minimal simulating the pure unconditioned consciousness.
Now it is already a well proven and well-established fact that it is no one but only you who remains immersed in misunderstandings and who breeds only confusions.

Please read and note the use of feeling - the neuronal activity in the brain - of "I" in deep sleep and then the misuse of the word "nothingness" for the same experience - the neuronal activity in the brain - in the deep sleep. Also note there is no mention of "nothingness" or similar concept in the original Sanskrit verse on Prajna - deep sleep and the two independent translations of the verse.

The misplaced and misuse of the word "nothingness" for deep sleep is yet another perfect demonstration of your own misunderstandings and confusions, which has resulted in such blunders in the article, creating serious contradiction between your own statements, written at different times in different mental states. It also proves your utter failure in realising that no one is as oblivious about the experience of deep sleep as you are proving your self to be.

Like I said in my previous post, "nothingness", "nihilism", "Sunya", "Void" etc. arises only for Turiya and not in the deep sleep as grossly misunderstood by you.

Rohit
17th September 2005, 05:04 AM
Recap of the three states: Visva - Walking state, Taijasa - Dream state and Prajna - Deep sleep state

Mandukya Upanishad: original verse in Sanskrit:

Bahishpragno vibhurvishvo hyant:pragnastu taijas: |
dhanpragnastha pragna ev thridha smrit: || 1 ||

Source: Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.

Translation 1:

Visva (the first quarter) is he who is all-pervading and who experience the external (gross) objects. Taijasa (the second quarter) is who cognizes the internal (the subtle) objects. Prajna (the third quarter) is who is a mass of consciousness. It is alone who is known in the three states.

Sankara's commentary:

The purport (the meaning) of the verse is this:

The transcendence of the three states by the Self, its unity, purity, and unrelatedness (to anything) are proved by the fact of Its existence in the three states in succession and of its being inter-linked by memory as "I". This is borne out by illustration of the great fish and others in the Vedic texts.

Source: Mandukya Upanishad with Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.
Translated by Swami Nikhilananda Published by Advaita Ashrama

Translation 2:

Visva experiences the external things and is all-prvading; but Taijsa experiences the internal things; similarly, Prajna is mass of consciousness. It is but the same but the same entity that is thought of in three ways.

Sankara's commentary:

The implication of this passage is this:

That Atman is (as witness) distinct from the three states (witnessed) and that is pure and unrelated, is established by his moving in three states, in succession, and also on account of the knowledge "I am that". Resulting from the experience which unites through memory. The Sruti also corroborates it by the illustration of the "great fish".

It was shown in my previous posts how the brain scan and images taken by different brain-scanning equipment reveal various neurological and chemical activities in the brain at various stages and conditions. I have also said that we could never be conscious or aware of what is happening in the brain. But today we have the technology and means to probe into brain's spheres of activity, study and know what is happening in the brain in various states and conditions. And how this equipment enable us to probe into much deeper and lower level of brain's latent or dormant state activities that are responsible for certain mental as well as physical conditions that were beyond the scope of grasp and comprehension in ancient times.

There are further more states than those three sleep sates, whereby brain's activities diminish to such a lower level that all the thoughts, feelings, experiences and concepts of "I/Self/Atman" gradually tend to disappear and then into literally nothing at death.

Such diminishing conditions occur in serious brain injuries, blackouts, and momentary lack of blood supply or oxygen supply to the brain - as the one and only internal, unseen witness.

There are even further lower states when person ends up in coma due to varied reasons and causes.

There are several scales of coma ranging from 3 to 15 to describe the severity of coma, scale 3 being a person in a coma with the lowest possible score and 15 being a normal appearing person. Research shows that if the scale remains below 4 after twenty-four hours, 87% of those individuals in coma will either die or remain in a vegetative state.

CT, MRI, SPECT and other brain scans are used to study and examine abnormalities in the brain's physical conditions, like swelling, cerebral blood flow rates, chemical balance, neurological activities etc.

When patient dies in coma, all neurological activities cease. All thoughts, fellings, experiences of "I" once he had, disappears literally into nothing, irrespective of the person, whether he/she is a meditating one or a non-meditating one.

Rohit
17th September 2005, 05:37 AM
Turiya- The fourth quarter:

Original verse in Sanskrit (in Roman script):

nant:pragna n bahishpragna nomyat:pragna n pragnandhanan n pragna napragnam |
adrushtam-vyavharyam-grahyam-lakshanyam-chintyam-vyapdeshyam-ekatmpratya-yasarn- praptrochopashamn shant-shivmdait chaturth manayante sa atma sa vigneya: || 7 ||

Translation 1:

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the internal (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the external (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass all sentiency, nor all sentiency, nor that which is simple consciousness, nor that which is insentient. (It is) unseen (by any sense organ), not related to anything, incomprehensible (by the mind) uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, essentially of the nature of consciousness constituting the Self alone, negation of all phenomenon, the peaceful, all Bliss and Non-dual. This is what is known as the fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and it has to be realised.

Commentary by Sankara:

The fourth quarter, which comes in order - for explanation, has to be described. This is done in the words of the text, "Not conscious of the internal object"

It (Turiya) does not admit of description or indication by means of words, for all uses (affirmative or negative) of language to express it. Therefore Turiya is sought to be indicated by the negation of all attributes (characteristics)

It (Turiya) is intended to establish the very Self, which subsists in the three states, as Turiya. This is done in the same way as "Thou art that". If Turiya were in fact, anything different from Atman subsisting in the three states, then, the teachings of the scriptures would have no meaning on account of the absence of any instrument of knowledge - regarding Turiya. Or the other - inevitable - alternative would be to declare absolute nihilism - Sunya - to be the ultimate Truth.

Then Sankara goes into the details of illusion in snake-rope analogy

Source: Mandukya Upanishad with Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.

Translated by Swami Nikhilananda Published by Advaita Ashrama

Translation 2:

They consider the fourth to be the that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor a mass of consciousness, nor conscious, nor unconscious; which is unseen, beyond empirical dealings, beyond the grasp (of the organs of action), uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable; whose valid proof consist in the single belief in the Self; in which all phenomena cease; and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self and That is to be known.

Commentary by Sankara:

So the very Self, subsisting usually in the three states, is sought to be established as Turiya in the same way as is done in the case of the text, "That thou art" (Ch. VI, viii) . For if Turiya, whose characteristics are dissimilar to the Self in the three states, be really different- from the Self, then owing to the absence of any means for realising Turiya the scriptural instruction would be useless or Turiya will be reduced to non-entity.

Then Sankara goes into the details of the illusion in snake-rope analogy.

Turiya described above precisely resembles the various states in coma and then the resulting death.

Not conscious of internal world, nor of the external world, nor conscious of both the words! Not sentient, nor insentient; unrelated to everything, incomprehensible, unthinkable, indescribable, not a mass of consciousness.

Precisely as Sankara feared due to the sheer absence of any instrument of knowledge regarding Turiya or the absence of any means for realising Turiya; Turiya thus, with the advances in science and technology and the availability of modern instruments and means to probe into the brain's neurological and other activities that were never possible or accessible before, reduces to non-entity as the one and only possible and inevitable outcome and declares the absolute nihilism - nothing - sunya - void as the ultimate Truth - exactly as I have proved in other threads [C = 1, P= 0] and [C = 0, P= 1] under the two, precisely defined and specified, boundary conditions.

My dear Pradheep, it is only you who are in search of water in the desert and running after the mirages formed on hot surfaces of the desert and thinks, sees and believes it is the waters of melted glacier of Mount Everest.

It is only you who thinks, sees and believes a rope in a snake.

It is only you who thinks, sees and believes the rattle of a rattle snake as a toy and the snake itself as a rope.

No wonder, why you couldn't ever think, feel, experience and conform to the reality as it is.

My friend, as I know it very well and now everyone knows too, that you are, without any doubt, a seriously deluded and confused person. However, the only consolation for you, out of this, is to maintain those blind and false beliefs in the Atman/Soul/Brahman, irrespective of the clear evidences that are completely contrary to those beliefs.

I shall leave it entirely up to you whether to carryon with your false beliefs and keep on posting and writing your imaginary and/or seriously deluded stories about your phantasms or not.

With this post, I request you not to feel or get offended if I ignore your subsequent delusive stories and do not respond until you have learnt to think and write something really sensible.

Till then Good Bye. :thumbsup: :wave:

googolplex
17th September 2005, 06:30 PM
With this post, I request you not to feel offended if I ignore your subsequent delusive stories and do not respond until you have learnt to think and write something really sensible.

Till then Good Bye. :thumbsup: :wave:

How to learn the thinking, Rohit. How?
How to deliver propper writing, Rohit? How?
There is nothing, Rohit. But just the holy cow! :lol:

:thumbsup:

pradheep
19th September 2005, 08:05 AM
Dear Rohit
Atleast this time you wrote soemthing to discuss instead of just passing your judgements. Give me some time I will get back to you. If possible giveme the book and the reference from which yougot the translations because most of the translations are mis-interpretted.

Rohit
19th September 2005, 01:08 PM
Dear Pradheep,

Read all the three of my posts again. All you have asked are in there, if you have missed them out of your utter bafflement. There is no scope of misinterpretation in either of the two independent and authorative translations as the verses themselves are understandable in themselves without the aid of translations. Only that lacks is your ability to absorb the clearly stated facts. :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
19th September 2005, 10:22 PM
Dear Rohit
Do not be scared to give the correct reference. It is benfit of the readers to know the correct interpretation. So please give me the reference for the quote you took. it also saves our time.

Rohit
20th September 2005, 01:06 AM
Pradheep, obviously, you must have gone completely blind and got stunned and paralysed for not being able to see and read the two reference sources I have already quoted in my posts.

Reference Source#1: Mandukya Upanishad with Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.
Translated by Swami Nikhilananda

First Published in 1932
Sixth Paperback Impression, February 1995

Published by: Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta 700 014

Reference Source#2: Mandukya Upanishad, Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.
Translated by Swami Gambhirananda

First Edition 1958
Thirteenth Impression, December 2001

Published by: Advaita Ashrama, Kolkata 700 014

All your baffled rections clearly show that you are now in utter dismay.

With this, I shall ignore all your immature and thoughtless posts from now on and let the readers, having access to those books, read and find out themselves the validity of facts in my posts. :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
23rd September 2005, 03:59 AM
absence of any instrument of knowledge regarding Turiya or the absence of any means for realising Turiya; Turiya thus, with the advances in science and technology and the availability of modern instruments

Dear Rohit
Here is were you and many neuro-scientist miss the whole point. Since you agree that that Thuriya is a thoughtless state, which it is....when all thoughts ceases and so the "I" thought also ceases, naturally all the scientific insturments would show no "reading" in their screen. Agreed. Do you agree that scientific instruments would show no sign's of neurological activity, because of no thoughts?

Now let us say, Rohit is in Thuriya state of no mental activity, no thoughts. The instruments show no neuronal burst. But when Rohit comes to a thoughtfull state, wont he say that he was in a thoughtless state. Now if Rohit declares the statement , that there were no thoughts, who is there to witness that in thoughtless state.

Suppose Rohit makes a statment that in London bus station last night, there were no one in the bus station and also no busses at the station at 12.00 A.M, isnt that a contradiction of his statment. How can there be one, when the claimer himself was there and found no other person than himself was there. If there were no "one" then who witnessed that there were no one?. This witnesser cannot be excluded.

Instruments may measure zero neuronal activity and zero thoughts, but instruments cannot measure the witnessor , because it is not a neuronal thought. This is where scientific methods fail and groping in darkness. However a human (not an instrument) when comes back to thought state cannot deny "the experienced" thoughtless state. If he says there were no thoughts then he is the oberver with no thoughts.

So my dear Rohit, understand what Sankara said about Thuriya. He is correct that there is no thoughts in that state, but he did not deny a witnesser. Sankara beautifully gives the methodology to dissolve the "I" thought so that one can witness this state.

In a musical concert, the sruthi music can be heard only when the singing is stopped. When the singing is there, no one can here the sruthi. The interesting thing is that but the singer keeps in tune with the sruthi. The same way, without the witnesser there is no thoughts. The thoughts are in tune with the witnesser. But the witnesser is witnesed only in thoughtless state (when noise of the mind goes to zero).

No instruments can prove this because at this state "the witnesser, the witnessed and the witnessing" is one. I cannot show it to you nor can you to me. You have to experience that yourself and I can only experience that myself.

There is one difference here Rohit.....I experience thuriya state and also the witnessor. But you are talking through bookish knowledge and that is why you cannot understand what Adhi-Sankara or Buddha talks. Rohit meditate and get into thruriya state and when you get back to the thoughtless state you will know the witnessor. Book readign will not help. You have to make yourself to the zero thought stage and then come back to me and let me know whether you experienced zero thoughts or not. Till then all your bookish claims are futile. More to continue about consciousness not being a brain phenomenon only awareness is).

Rohit
24th September 2005, 12:28 AM
Do you agree that scientific instruments would show no sign's of neurological activity, because of no thoughts?
Neuroscientists find no brain state in which brain activities cease completely, unless it is a brain of the dead.
So, the brain, as long as it is active, no matter how minimal, latent or dormant it is, it shows electrical and other activities that may or may not be related to thoughts, depending on the precise state it is in. Nonetheless, whatever minimal activities the brain - consisting of neural network, nervous system and associated cellular structure etc. - would show, are due to it registering and processing various experiences, feelings, and emotions in addition to it performing its vital functions of monitoring, regulating and controlling essential internal bodily functions.

When it (the brain) comes back into thinking state, it recalls witnessed events from the memory, which itself is an important part and neurological function of the brain. You have now clearly accepted, acknowledged and proved that Humans can do literally nothing without the brain (if it is literally not there, removed or it is dead) - an essential and indispensable organ of the Human anatomy. Like I have said many times now that the brain is the one and only unseen witness and much more in the entire phenomenon, whether in normal walking state, dreaming state, deep sleep state, delusive state, confused state, hallucinating state, schizophrenic state, under the influence of various intoxicants and psychotic drugs, other intermediate states or meditative states, brief strokes/episodes of blackouts, in monitoring, regulating and controlling internal bodily functions both in normal condition and during local and general anaesthetised states etc. etc. the list goes on.

As I have stated before, the brain, the one and only witness of the entire phenomenon, is not conscious or aware of itself or its own activity of witnessing - but it is there as more than just the witness, and this is why and how it often plunges into various perplexing and self-deceptive dilemmas. Now, it has become almost pointless to tell you and remind you of the countless evidences that I have produced here and in other threads to show and prove you (your brain) constantly going through all these self-deceptive dilemmas, precisely as I have stated. You also keep constantly forgetting that your body does have a head and it is not empty as you believe, but inside that head, resides the brain, the one and only, unseen witness and the source of all your (i.e. in your brain) misunderstandings, delusions and confusions borne out of self-deception - the phenomena that cannot and doesn't go without being witnessed by other, properly functioning, brains.

I would stronly suggest you to go back to the beginning of this topic and digest all my questions exactly as I have asked you about the body and try understanding all that followed after that. You may do this exercise as many times as you must, but do it until you grasp everything that I have said and proved.

By the way Pradheep, this is my one more attempt to help you remove your gross misunderstandings and confusions on Vedanta.

The Turiya is only called fourth quarter just to link the three experiences in order - now acknowledged by you as neuronal activities in the brain - as described before i.e. walking, dream and deep sleep and then the fourth quarter - the Turiya - was sought and then imagined/guessed to link the three experiences in order and arrive at a statement that attempts to blindly comply with the statements made in other vedic scriptural texts i.e. "That thou art". The referenced Upanishad clearly and rightly so, states and confirms that there is no means whatsoever left for realising or knowing Turiya other than the three states described before i.e. of walking, dream and deep sleep.

With this brief comment, I am delighted to re-write what I wrote before of which you could respond only to a tiny part, evidently that too with plenty of delirium, I am afraid.

Precisely as Sankara feared due to the sheer absence of any instrument of knowledge regarding Turiya or the absence of any means for realising Turiya; Turiya thus, with the advances in science and technology and the availability of modern instruments and means to probe into the brain's neurological and other activities that were never possible or accessible before, reduces to non-entity as the one and only possible and inevitable outcome and declares the absolute nihilism - nothing - sunya - void as the ultimate Truth - exactly as I have proved in other threads [C = 1, P = 0] and [C = 0, P = 1] under the two, precisely defined and specified, boundary conditions.

My dear Pradheep, it is only you who are in search of water in the desert and running after the mirages formed on hot surfaces of the desert and who thinks, sees and believes it is the waters of melted glacier of Mount Everest.

It is only you who thinks, sees and believes a rope in a snake.

It is only you who thinks, sees and believes the rattle of a rattlesnake as a toy and the snake itself as a rope.

No wonder, why you couldn't ever think, feel and experience that conforms to the reality as it is.

My friend, as I know it very well and now everyone knows too, that you are, without any doubt, a seriously deluded and confused person.

However, the only consolation for you, out of this, is to maintain those blind and false beliefs in the Atman/Soul/Brahman, exactly as you have been doing and have just done, irrespective of the clear evidences that are completely contrary to those beliefs. :notworthy:

Good Luck! :thumbsup: :) :wave:

pradheep
26th September 2005, 11:23 PM
Dear Rohit,


You have now clearly accepted, acknowledged and proved that Humans can do literally nothing without the brain.

You have missed to understood what i have been explaining.

I never said that the organ brain is not required. It is needed, otherwise other animals and plants could undergo Self-realization. Only man can , because the apparatus or instument he has has evolved to do that and that is the purpose of evolution. as you might recollect my example, the sunlight is every where , but if it has to be foccused on a point then a lens or a mirror is needed. The mirror or lens is a medium or apparatus or instrument. Lenses and mirrors differ in their perfection to focus, same way the best perfected lens or medium is the human brain. Sunlight is unconditional , but the concentrated light or reflected light is conditional light. In neurological terms , the conditioned consciousness I call it as a awareness and the unconditional consciousness as pure consciousness or Brahman or Atman.



When it (the brain) comes back into thinking state, it recalls witnessed events from the memory, which itself is an important part and neurological function of the brain.

Memory itself is a thought, but not witnessing. Now Rohit clearly understand this. Witnessing is always there. But we do not experience it because we are over shadowed by thoughts. The moment we reduce the thoughts, we experience witnessing. So witnessing is not a brain process. That witness is the "Present". The moment I say "I" witnessed, it is a past action and it becomes a thought. This is why to "Be" means to witness and you cannot articulate it.

Now you will know this witnessing only by subsiding the thoughts almost to zero. Then you witness this whole body including the brain, the thinking organ. That state which is not localized in brain or dependant on brain is pure-unconditional-Consciosuness.

When the consciousness is "experienced" through a body organ, it is called awareness. Now this awareness is mixed up with thoughts ,which is called mind. If you can seprate the thoughts from awareness , then you experience the pure awareness and that trasncends to pure consciousness.

This is the stages of all spiritual practice, whether it is vedic or buddhist or any other. All spiritual practices are oriented to seperate the thoughts from the awareness.

Rohit, you cannot understand unless you do the seperation of thoughts from the awareness. You are trying to intellectually understand it without experiencing. Hope by this time you would have joined some meditation program and is trying to watch your own thoughts.

Without you experiencing this yourself, you will think all those who meditate are in delusion and confusion borne out of self-deception.

Dear Rohit,
I am glad at least you try now to write and criticize what I explain and so I have room to explain. previously you would never give a chance and just say I am in delusions. Thank you very much for giving me the oppurtunity to explain and counter argue. Thank you once again. Keep it up.

Rohit
27th September 2005, 12:37 AM
Memory itself is a thought, but not witnessing.
Please try reading, remembering, grasping and then understand and realise this:

An active brain is not just memory, but the one and only unseen witness/seer/experiencer/thinker/knower of the entire phenomenon and much more.

Anyway, Pradheep please carryon with your self-deceptive experiences without remembering - storing and retaining in, and then recalling from, the memory. :thumbsup:

I guess, you must be in a very heavy meditative - thoughtless and memoryless - state while writing your above post about your experiences :!:, else how could you write anything about your experiences - the neurological activities in the brain - without remembering - storing and retaining in, and then recalling from, the memory? My dear Pradheep, you are unwarily but definitely turning yourself into a ***** of the first rank. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes Pradheep, precisely that, what I meant was/is your consolation out of all this, quickly turning you into a memoryless state, now posting stories of all your phantasms. :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup: :D

pradheep
3rd October 2005, 05:40 PM
Dear Rohit
You are still deeply plunged in the fundamental flaw of not understanding the fact that brain is nothing but bio-molecules reacting with each other. There are millions of neuronal firing in the brain, which are just bio-chemical reactions. How can reacting molecules think or perceive?. The is a perceiver which is different from the reacting bio-molecules. Your claim that the reacting bio-molecules all join together and start to think.

This is same as some one saying that, a computer that is made of millions of molecules react with each other when electricity passes through them. Because of this chemcial reactions taking place in the computer, the computer enjoys the color and sound it produces.

Understand the computer merely produces all the color and sounds. it is not the computer that is aware of the color and sounds. A person who is different from the computer witnesses all these events.

The same example example could be said about a movie porjected on a screen. it is light interactions with the film that gives the images. Though the images talk, run and go around, they are not aware of it. It is a person who is different from it witnessess these facts.

Rohit, please read biochemistry and neurology books to understand that brain is made of bio-molecules. Now millions of such biochemcial reactions occur in the brain and they do not generate thinking without the witnessing.

Extend this logic to any chemical and bio-chemical reactions. You might be then possible to shed some light in your brain.

Rohit
4th October 2005, 04:05 AM
Memory itself is a thought, but not witnessing.
A person who is different from the computer witnesses all these events.
Dear Pradheep,

As your brain has completely lost its ability to think, feel, experience the reality as it is and now it has degenerated even further after loosing its ability to remember, I strongly recommend you not to watch images of human brain and body on your computer screens. Also stop watching too much of television programs and other fantasy and fictional films. Your brain is getting too deluded and confused to know the actuality by watching these computer images and programs as it thinks and believes that it is witnessing itself and the body displayed on the screens, while it is still in your head and has neither disappeared into the computer or projector nor into the computer, TV or film screens.

Pradheep, first of all your brain has lost the ability to think, feel and experience correctly; and now it has also lost the ability to remember. But let me try to explain you that humans can correctly witness events or event experiences if and only if their brain is active and fully functional through properly co-ordinated neurological activities and processes and responds appropriately and correctly to all the presented stimuli. Whether it is about the viewing of the Sun, Mount Everest, the glaciers, Sun's reflections on either turbulent water streams or calm water surfaces, colours, graphical images or texts on computer/TV screens or whether it is among the billions upon billions of other events and event experiences; it is one and only the brain that does the witnessing. That is why, though utterly pointless to tell you, you have no options but to keep bringing hundreds upon hundreds of objective and subjective analogies that have no resemblance whatsoever to what you blindly think and believe them to be. Witnessing events on computer, TV or film screens is no different. The normally functioning brain is all the more neurologically active to such stimuli. But unfortunately your deluded and hallucinating brain is getting carried away by such display of images. So, please remember that it is only the neurological activities in the brain that carries out the function of witnessing these events and memory is an integral part of the entire witnessing process. Once you understand the basic principle of such witnessing process, apply your own idea of extending the logic to all other processes too of witnessing.

It is now clear that you have lost vital brain functions either due to past traumatic experiences or through constant and heavy consumption of hallucinogenic drugs or through some weird physically abusive means. Your brain is unable to remember the facts about itself and plunges itself into a vicious cycle of infinite regress. Precisely for these reasons you have kept committing the same mistake again and again of forgetting that it is the brain that does all the witnessing through a co-ordinated process of neurological activities, and memory is an integral part of the whole process.

As explained above, you have now, as you always have, already entered the vicious cycle of infinite regress. Your brain forces itself into some weird and hallucinating experiences, but it remains unable to remember anything as it is forcing itself into distorting its own memory to an extent as if there is no memory.

In that case, I would strongly recommend you to stop all your brain washing and brain damaging activities and try to learn and remember about its essential activities and different types of memory i.e. episodic memory, semantic memory etc. it uses in carrying out the entire process of witnessing, and then understand how to verify and validate it's accuracy.

Once you have stopped your brain washing and brain damaging activities and learnt and remembered the fundamentals of brain/memory functions, then I will explain you how computer works and uses the dumb electric energy to generate all these colourful graphical images and texts on the CRT, TFT, Plasma, front/back Projection etc. screens. Then, I will also explain you how only three basic colours produce millions upon millions shades of different colours with varying resolution.

If you still remain unable to think, feel, experience and remember correctly, you have no option but to go back to your good old regression cycle and up your regression counts exactly from where you left in “Do you believe in Evolution or Creation (God)?” thread, I am afraid.

Let me remind you, your last regression count was 2N+100; and with your above regressive post, your regression count goes up by one to 2N+101. Also remember that, if you fail to understand and remember all that I have explained to you so far, it will automatically increment your regression count by the intensity of your next regression. At the same time, you must remember that not only remembering but writing and posting about your self-deceptive and delusive thoughts, feelings, experiences are also the neurological activities of the brain, but, in your case, they tend to be highly deluded and distorted due to various reasons as stated above.

So, either way, you have trapped yourself into a constantly oscillatory and vicious situation, there is no way out until and unless you start to think, feel, experience and remember the reality as it is.

Till then, have fun hallucinating and sliding down the vicious spiral of infinite regress while trying to remember your current regression count, which is 2N+101. :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup: :D

pradheep
14th October 2005, 12:34 AM
Dear rohit
Youa re talkign very superficial things here.

I am again letting you to think about when two neurons fire and give an electric impulse , they dont perceive it as a thought.

Understand modern science is still learnign about brain functions. they have still not understood anything about thoughts. They ahve not come any closer to awareness and consciousness that the vedas talk. So your talk is good enough for a science forum where they are learnign which part of brain is involved in which perceptions.

we are dealign here, who is involved in perceiving the "I". So rohit keep reading science books and discoveries and keep updated on the discoveries of brain fucntions.

Unless you purify your mind and ego , you cannot get a glimpse fo what vedanta talks.

So chant manu padme hum more and then reduce the intensity of your thoughts in your mind and so you will know you are not this mind and body but the perceiver of all this.
Good luck with your chanting.

Rohit
15th October 2005, 09:45 PM
Yes Pradheep, when the brain stops serving its basic and intended functions, even the deepest and most complex things that need a fully functional brain to grasp and understand them, unfortunately look superficial, precisley as they do to you. Otherwise you would have known by now that no one in the entire history of humankind has ever denied the importance of memory as you have denied it so heedlessly and thoughtlessly.

I have said this countless times now that as your brain is deeply engrossed in all sorts of fallacies and misunderstandings on everything, misunderstanding on Advaita/Vedanta is no exception. And precisely for these reasons you always have remained incapacitated to see, grasp and understand some of the most fundamental flaws in the Advaitic premises, conclusions and many other serious problems that follow subsequently in Advaita, making it hopelessly and utterly untenable - false.

Let me give you a very important hint and help you understand the precise position of Advaita. There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of either the creation by an absolutely inert, inactive, stagnant, unchanging...Advaitic "Self/Atman/Brahman" or the evolution through an absolutely unchanging, immutable.... Advaitic "Self/Atman/Brahman" - the best advice for you is to throw your article in the rubbish bin and start using your own brain it is evolved for.

Therefore, it is right and high time that you try to recall and remember what I had said in the other threads that I have far better understanding on Vedanta/Advaita than you ever had, have now and will ever have. Not only Vedanta, I have thoroughly researched other religious doctrines too. Since, you have imprisoned yourself in a little cage from which you can never escape now, your brain has accepted the little cage as the universe.

It is utterly irrelevant and futile for a person like you to point fingers at something on which he has no grasp, knowledge or understanding whatsoever and, on top of that, when he himself is utterly deluded, confused and remains unable to think, feel, experience and remember correctly.

No matter how high you jump up and down, bang yourself sideways or diagonally, the reality would not go away. Like I have said 1000s of times now that consciousness is an evolved effect and not the cause.

Let me try to make you understand it in your own analogic language:

1. Like mirages, formed on hot surfaces, produce illusory perceptions of water, similarly consciousness is an illusory effect resulting from well co-ordinated neurological activities in the brain and it has no independent existence in the absence of an active brain or an equivalent neurological network.

2. Like heat and/or light are the effects of fire, consciousness is nothing but a product - an overall effect of the entire neurological activities and processing in the brain.

3. Like sunlight being the effect of the Sun burning its own core through constant thermonuclear fusion reactions, constantly changing itself by losing over 500 trillion kilograms of its mass everyday, similarly consciousness is an effect arising from a co-ordinated firing of billions of neurones in the brain.

While the brain itself draws the energy, required for performing its functions, from the blood supply.

And precisely for these reasons, humans can do absolutely nothing without a neurologically active brain, the fact which you have no option but to accept and acknowledge, which you have already done.

Now keep going round the circle again and please try readings, remembering, grasping and then understand and realise this:

An active brain is not just memory, but the one and only unseen witness/perceiver/seer/experiencer/thinker/knower of the entire phenomenon and much more.

So, both ways, you are trapped and you remain trapped into a constantly oscillatory and vicious situation, there is no way out until and unless you start to think, feel, experience and remember the reality as it is.

Till then, have fun hallucinating and sliding down the vicious spiral of infinite regress while trying to remember your current regression count, which, due to the intensity of your Dvaitic (Dualist) = body + perceiver regressions, goes up by two to 2N+103. :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
17th October 2005, 06:27 PM
said 1000s of times now that consciousness is an evolved effect and not the cause.

Dear Rohit,


Like you the church beleived in the west (not the east) that sun revolved around the earth, because they see that truth with their own eyes. They argued with the people like copernicus ,galelio etc for 1000 times.

However east was clear about clear about earth was round and was revolving around the sun. Butit took centuries forthe west to understand it andnotmerely what they see the illusion of sun moving accross the sky.

Similarly, my dear "western" friend, western science has yetto understand that consciousness is not an effect but the un-caused cause. The consciousness you tell is called awareness in eastern science which is an effect. I tell you this a million times and unless you take the proper means you willl stillbein the illusion of beleiving your eyes like your western ancestors 300 years ago.

Atleast follow one advice of your new guru "|Buddha". Beleive in you and not any one else. Learn his meditation and do not beleive all the scientific discoveriues adn evidences. Find out within you what thetruth is. that is the best proof and best evidence. |Keep your books aside and use your own brain to seek the real answers.

mahadevan
17th October 2005, 11:44 PM
The Human brain has a lot of opiate like receptors, and human body does produce opiate analogs based on responce to some nerve stimulus. One example is extreme pain, we do not perceive too much pain, under those circumstances these opiate analogs make sure that we hallucinate. Similar phenomenon has been widely documented in near death experiences. May be meditation elicits one such mental state. But the concept 'I' is more projected as something entirely different from the body, may be those higher mental states can make one feel so detached from oneself, thanks to hallucinations or pseudo complete shutting down of thought process, as correctly pointed out by pradheep objective reality is almost non existance without a concious observer, if it is observed then a concious observer is a must, is the observer the detached 'I'. It is quite possibly that we have souls or its equivalents that define the 'I' and beyond, but we do not have any proofs for that, this brings into the picture what the I does after death, is the 'I' only for humans, what about the other living things, including plants ?. Whatever if medidation can provide such non addicting hallucination, enjoy it buddy !
Lack of scientific evidence does not disprove anything, but at the same time, since we cannot disprove it scientically does not mean that we have to belive in it. Both of them are driven by the fact that we know so little.

Rohit
18th October 2005, 01:53 AM
Thank you Mahadevan for your valuable input

You are absolutely right in saying that brain can operate in countless states and levels and even can be self-driven into hallucinating states or into total oblivion. When in hallucinating or equivalent oblivious empty states, not even a vague description of the experiences is possible without the use of memory. Without recording, no retrieval of information is ever possible and that is a well-established universal fact as well as a matter of common experience, irrespective of the field involved, whether it is psychology, neuroscience or philosophy.

Thank you again :)

Rohit
18th October 2005, 03:18 AM
Dear Pradheep,

I can clearly see how and why the constant hallucinations and sliding down the infinite spiral of regression prevents you from thinking, feeling, experiencing and remembering the reality as it is.

Creation, Intelligent Designer - ID, Human Toys, Human Robots etc. are precisely the terms used by the creationists like yourself to propagate their delusions of "creation" and "intelligent design - ID" while completely forgetting that freewill, autonomous thinking etc. are completely contradictory to their thoughtless theories of Creation and Intelligent Design - ID.

It is really laughable when a person like you who has deluded himself to such an extent of believing himself as created/designed "toys, robots etc." and who has totally abandoned the process of autonomous thinking and of feeling, experiencing and remembering anything correctly - behaves exactly like a taking robot without autonomous thinking ability or freewill and trapped himself in a vicious cycle of infinite regress.

The idea of puppet, robot, design, programming, programmer are only applicable to the deluded creationists like you and your American friends. The beliefs of creation and design of humans only applies to creationists like you who cannot comprehend the process of absolute evolution and needs a separate intelligent designer and programmer - ID for their design.

While there is no such thing as design, when it comes to the absolute evolution of the universes and life itself. There is no need whatsoever for the involvement of any imaginary creators or designers when an absolute, uncaused evolution of the universe and then life sets itself in process. The billions of years of such uncaused and progressive evolutionary process results in fully aware and conscious human being exactly as we know them, not less; no more. There is absolutely no need for an imaginary external entity as, the very consciousness has evolved as an effect through the evolutionary process, which, due to suppressed and dormant minimal activity in your brain, it cannot grasp it as its is. Precisely the way your brain has completely failed to grasp and understand that mirages, heat, sunlight are nothing but the effects and deludes itself to an extent of hallucination where it starts to sees an entity that does not exist. Like I said before, what you experience as unconditioned consciousness is nothing but the dormant and latent neurological activities in the brain which manifests itself as unconditioned consciousness - an evolved effect.

Anyway, you might feel lucky when your growing son gains the privilege of learning all about Intelligent Designer - ID and how "He" has designed human believer toys/robots like you and your American believer friends. :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :)

While the uncaused absolute evolution of human allows them to field program their brains and boot them from a variety of operating systems selected either by their parents or by their religious gurus. The variety of operating systems available to them may go something like this:

- Amazing Delusions Of Adviata For Human Toys
- Intelligent Designer - ID For Human Robots
- Fantastic Quran For Human Fanatics
-
- etc.......

While on the other hand, a few, when they grow up, consciously reject the old and primitive operating systems as listed above and choose to reboot their brains with a much more advanced evolved system:

- Rational, Logical And Scientific Thinking For Conscious and Aware Humans.

So, the process of absolute evolution provides you with a variety of choices of operating systems that are field programmable, either by yourself or through your religious gurus. The choice is yours and only yours which operating system to use, but all are available only under the brand of Absolute Evolution of the Universe and Humans and they are not a created or designed by a Creator or an Intelligent Designer, who does not/cannot exists by default.

Untill you grasp the precise process of absolute evolution, use Amazing Delusions Of Adviata For Human Toys as your operating system and keep going round the circle whilke trying reading, remembering, grasping and then understanding and realising precisely what I said, what the brain really is:

So, either ways, you are trapped and you remain trapped into a constantly oscillatory and vicious situation. There is no way out until and unless you start to think, feel, experience and remember the reality as it is.

Till then, have fun hallucinating and sliding down the vicious spiral of infinite regress while trying to remember your current regression count. Since, you have remained utterly oblivious in recognising the absolute impossibility of an absolutely idle, inert, inactive, stagnant, unchanging, immutable entity creating or involving in evolution; and as you have also demonstrated a four fold intensity of Panchvaitic (Pentaist) = body + perceiver + awareness + consciousness + toy/robot in your regressions, your regression count shoots up by 8 and goes to 2N+118 :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :)

Shakthiprabha.
21st October 2005, 10:40 PM
said 1000s of times now that consciousness is an evolved effect and not the cause.

Dear Rohit,


Similarly, my dear "western" friend, western science has yetto understand that consciousness is not an effect but the un-caused cause. The consciousness you tell is called awareness in eastern science which is an effect. I tell you this a million times and unless you take the proper means you willl stillbein the illusion of beleiving your eyes like your western ancestors 300 years ago.




I understand that consciousness is not awareness.
Can It be said awareness happens because of mixture of elements in particular composition?

In the absense of such composition THE AWARENESS is lost?
IS that called LOSING OF THE 'I'ness?

If that is called losing of 'I'ness is not that state
equivalent to being inert?

If consciousness is just ENERGY with absense of awareness,
its JUST SCIENCE. Now where is GOD?

()()()

Also, reg halucination, the DIVINE DARSHAN which many saints have claimed to have had, may be just halucination?

IF someone meditate or keep thinking of something which such strong force, then dont they start halucinating the prescence of whatever they meditate?

Questions...Questions... Questions... no answers :(

mahadevan
21st October 2005, 11:27 PM
When awareness is lost, it is akin to a comatose state, when you come out of it you cannot recollect what was happening. If complete absence of conciousness/awareness can result in loss of 'I', it is a state that can never be perceived. If it is percived then there was not a complete blockdown of awareness.

Inerteness has more to do with not acting rather than witnessing, you can witness every thing but remain in a state of complete inaction.

Shakthiprabha wrote: Also, reg halucination, the DIVINE DARSHAN which many saints have claimed to have had, may be just halucination?
Could be true, but at the same time it could also be perceptions of a different dimension. Meditation could possibly elicit such capabilities ! (only if we can know the truth)

Shakthiprabha wrote: Questions...Questions... Questions... no answers
If Questions...Questions.....adinfinitum, we may find an answer, you are absolutely correct , only an eternal quest for questioning can reveal the answers.

We are here not to respect the established doctrines but to question them so that we can refine them. Knowledge is for our liberation not for our obeisance to it (the latter is what we follow mostly in our Indian society ).

mahadevan
22nd October 2005, 12:04 AM
Rohit Wrote: Despite my clear hint to you about the utter impossibility of any creation or evolution by an absolutely inert, inactive, stagnant, unchanging, immutable "Self/Atman/Brahman", you have completely failed to grasp it and violated the necessary model truth that there is no question whatsoever of it ever becoming a cause of anything.


Evolution is not necessarily against creation, though it is against a very specific design of creationism advocated by certain doctrines.
For things to evolve it must start at non zero, so creation of some sort should have preceded that. That begets the simple question who created that creator ? Hey the answer to that is what the eastern philosophers say as 'Nothing'
It is as difficult to me as it is to you to accept that everything came from Nothing, Ironically that Nothing is also given a name defeating the whole purpose of itself.

If we keep asking questions after questions, we may get closer to the truth, but some where along that path most people stop and jump into a conclusion, not because they are any closer to the truth than they were before, but they possibly reached the limit of the their intellectual capabilities. Then they propose their theories which are nothing but the stark reminder of our (human) limited capabilities. Irony is most others call it sacred and follow it. "If you cannot dazzle with your brilliance, just baffle with bullshit" !

I belive it is better if we call that as 'Unknown'

Rohit
22nd October 2005, 01:18 AM
Inerteness has more to do with not acting rather than witnessing, you can witness every thing but remain in a state of complete inaction.
Yes, all actvities in the brain do not necessarily involve physical action by the body and still the brain witnesses events or event experiences. During the whole event or event experience, memory (the recording activity in the brain) plays an integral part in the whole process even when the body is in a state of complete inaction - like in deep sleep.


Evolution is not necessarily against creation.
There is an absolute impossibility of objective creation without action. Even a mental and non-objective creation would undoubtedly require a change from the state of mental inaction to the state of mental action, which only reaffirms my assertion that there is no possibility of creation or evolution by an absolutely idle, inert, inactive, stagnant, unchanging, immutable....... "Self/Atman/Brahman". Else, it would violate the necessary model truth and therefore there is no question whatsoever of it ever becoming a cause of anything.


I belive it is better if we call that as 'Unknown'
That is the precise position an agnostic would take. And, in fact, an agnostic position may be a much more reputable position for the believers than the theistic position that inherently leads them to blindly believe in completely unfounded, unsupported, inconsistent, non-corresponding and contradictory beliefs.

Mahadevan, if you haven’t figured it out yet, this whole debate is about Advaita Vedanta, and if you are not sure of what this Advaita is all about, please do not formally mix it with the contradictory Dvaitic (Dualist => creator + created) doctrine or beliefs, as this may lead to a hopeless and abortive divergence from Advaita to Dvaita - though, as clearly pointed out, poor Pradheep has already slipped and plunged into it, but unwarily and heedlessly.

To both Shakthiprabha and Mahadevan,

If you read my previous posts in this thread, I have briefly touched upon the state of coma and various other states where and when the "I/Self" completely ceases to exist and disappears literally into nothing. And if there are possible and known states and conditions where and when "I/Self" ceases to exist and disappears into nothing then the "I/Self" is undoubtedly proven to be an impermanent or temporal condition, empty or devoid of any permanent reality, which is completely contradictory to, and in complete negation of, "Self/Atman/Brahman" of Advaita, which consequently proves both the premise and conclusion of Advaita Vedanta utterly untenable or false.

Please read a much more detailed discussion on "Nothing" and its precise definition and meaning in my proofs in a clear and easily understandable format, proving that no creation or evolution of any kind by or through a pre-existing, supernatural, divine entity of any form or function is ever possible; as, the absolute probability for the existence of such supernatural, divine entity itself is an absolute "0". http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=369&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=561

Yes, of course, no one can ever stop anyone believing in whatever they want to, even if they have no rational base whatsoever to do so; as, it is entirely dependent on the cerebral activities, or more precisely the lack/absence of it, in one's own brain and on nothing else. :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
24th October 2005, 07:09 PM
Dear Sakthi Prabha, Mahadevan and Rohit,

Rohit has merely put down mankind merely a puppet of fate. Here fate means, like a robot designed to act only to its electronic components. A robot executes its action based on the firing of its electronical components. there is a no second factor in it. It has no free will.

A human is not a robot designed to act based on the nueronal firing like the electronics in a robot. A human has free thinking. this free thinking cannot happen if there is only neuronal firing.

We can agree to rohit's arguments if he says is dictated merely by the neurons designed wiring and firing pattern. The way he thinks and acts is helplessly because of his brain components. If he ability to think beyond it means he has a second factor , other than the brain components to excute his free thinking.

|I hope I conveyed the message to you. This is how awareness and consciosuness differs. awareness is an expression of the consciousness based on the brain, but not consciosuness.

Awareness is the way a robot acts based on the electronic components and programming. But consciousness is like the "creator" whocan only make programming decisions.

Advaita says you think you are just merethis body and mind. that is an error.the reality or Truth is that, you are not a robot , but that consciousness which is the very programmer of robot.

Advaita message is you are the programmer (consciousness) and not the programme (the robotic body).

pradheep
24th October 2005, 07:13 PM
Dear Rohit
I will agree totally to your arguments if you say you are a mere robot thinking based on your brain components and you cannot watch your thoughts in your mind. You cannot watchyour thoughts because you are only thoughts in your brain, a thinking machine. You can watch your thoughts only if you are a factor different from thoughts. Hope you atleast comprehend this.

Rohit
25th October 2005, 04:08 AM
Dear Pradheep,

I can clearly see how and why the constant hallucinations and sliding down the infinite spiral of regression prevents you from thinking, feeling, experiencing and remembering the reality as it is.

Creation, Intelligent Designer - ID, Human Toys - Pradheep, do you remember you referring humans as toys in "Does God Exist?" thread?, of course not, how would you? everyone now knows that you have serious problems with your memory - , Human Robots etc. are precisely the terms used by the creationists like yourself to propagate their delusions of "creation" and "intelligent design - ID" while completely forgetting that freewill, autonomous thinking etc. are completely contradictory to their thoughtless theories of Creation and Intelligent Design - ID.

It is really laughable when a person like you who has deluded himself to such an extent of believing himself as created/designed "toys, robots etc." and who has totally abandoned the process of autonomous thinking and of feeling, experiencing and remembering anything correctly - behaves exactly like a taking robot without autonomous thinking ability or freewill and trapped himself in a vicious cycle of infinite regress.

The idea of human puppets, toys, robots, design, programming, programmer are only applicable to the deluded creationists like you and your American friends. The beliefs of creation and intelligent design of human toys/robots only applies to creationists like you who cannot comprehend the process of absolute evolution and therefore constantly needs a separate creator and/or Intelligent Designer/Programmer - ID for maintaining their beliefs of human design.

While there is no such thing as design when it comes to the absolute evolution of the universes and life itself. There is no need whatsoever for the involvement of any imaginary creators or designers when an absolute, uncaused evolution of the universe and then life sets itself in process. The billions of years of such uncaused and progressive evolutionary process has resulted in fully aware and conscious human beings and other life forms exactly as we know them, neither any less nor any more. There is absolutely no need for an imaginary external entity as, the very consciousness has evolved as an effect through the evolutionary process; and precisely for these reasons, it is known as absolute evolution and not creation, which, due to suppressed and dormant minimal activity in your brain, you cannot grasp it as its is. Precisely the way your brain has completely failed to grasp and understand that mirages, heat, light, sunlight etc. are nothing but the effects and deluded itself to an extent of hallucination where it started to perceive an entity that does not/cannot exist by default. Like I said before, what you experience as unconditioned consciousness is nothing but the dormant and latent neurological activities in the brain which manifests itself as unconditioned consciousness - as an evolved effect.

Anyway, you might feel lucky when your growing son gains the privilege - like you did - of learning all about Intelligent Designer - ID - i.e. rebooting of his already corrupted operating system with yet another corrupted system - and how "He" has designed human believer toys/robots like him, his parents and their American believer friends. :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :)

While the uncaused absolute evolution of human allows them to field program their brains and boot them from a variety of operating systems selected either by their parents or by their religious gurus. The variety of operating systems available to them only under the format of absolute evolution may go something like this:

- Amazing Delusions Of Advaita For Human Toys
- Intelligent Designer - ID For Human Robots
- Fantastic Quran For Human Fanatics
-
- etc.......

While on the other hand, a few, when they grow up, consciously reject the old and primitive operating systems as listed above and choose to reboot their brains with a much more advanced and evolved system:

- Rational, Logical And Scientific Thinking For Conscious and Aware Humans.

So, the process of absolute evolution provides you with a variety of choices of operating systems that are field programmable, either by yourself or through your religious gurus. The choice is yours and only yours which operating system to use, but all are available only under the brand of Absolute Evolution of the Universe and Humans and they are not created or designed by a Creator or an Intelligent Designer, who, by default, does not/cannot exist.

Untill you grasp the precise process of absolute evolution, use corrupted version of Amazing Delusions Of Advaita For Human Toys as your operating system and keep going round the circle while reading, remembering, grasping and then understanding and realising precisely what I said, what the brain really is:

So, either ways, you are trapped and you remain trapped into a constantly oscillatory and vicious situation. There is no way out until and unless you start to think, feel, experience and remember the reality as it is.

Till then, have fun hallucinating and sliding down the vicious spiral of infinite regress while trying to remember your current regression count. Since, you have remained utterly oblivious in recognising the absolute impossibility of an absolutely idle, inert, inactive, stagnant, unchanging, immutable entity creating or involving in evolution; and as you have also demonstrated a five fold intensity of Panchvaitic (Pentaist) = body + perceiver + awareness + consciousness + toy/robot in your regressions, your regression count shoots up by 8 and goes to 2N+118 :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :)

pradheep
25th October 2005, 06:03 PM
Dear Rohit
As usual you have smartly evaded to address the real question and brought in the intelligent design concept. I have not brought here the concept intelligent design. In intelligent design concept,there is a creator who is intelligent and created and intelligent design or anobject. they are two(dualistic). What I talk about is advaita, there is no creator and a creation. They are one and the same. It is an illusion (maya) to think they are two (duality).

Why the illusion?. Because like you Rohit, you consider that you are the throughts. If you can witness your thoughts, then you understand that you are the one who created (apparently) created yourself and the world.

Rohit, you cannot understand all this because you arejust a robotic machine which cannot witness itself and have no control over the thoughts and mind. Control over the mind comes only when you are different from the thoughts. When you think your are only thoughts , the brain and the body that feeds the brain to thinks thoughts, what is there to witness for you?.

You are just a robot that is created (intelligently ofcourse) and die (dis-assembled) one day.

Rohit
26th October 2005, 04:18 AM
What I talk about is advaita, there is no creator and a creation.
Yes, I can clearly see chilling shivers running down your spine with just a single mention of "Intelligent Designer - ID" in my post and see you fast retracting from all your claims on creator and creation. Yes, precisely this I wanted you to do, not because it is not relevant to Advaita, but simply because it is standing right in front of Advaita - ID, The One (Creator) with a Second (Created- Physical World + life). So, you must refute both the ID - The One (Creator) along with the Second (Created - Physical World + life)

Well done Pradheep. You have now changed for better by accepting the fact I have been stating countless times in all my posts that there is no question whatsoever of any creator or creation when it comes to the uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe and life.

Now under the vast umbrella of uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe and life - i.e. the URR format - the base worldview of all worldviews - all mutually contradicting formats can be conceptualised, formulated and argued upon. However, as the ID and Advaita formats are currently being argued upon, let us check your contentions against the ID.

As it happens, there is a problem when you retract from your claims on creator and creation. You are creating even bigger problems for Advaita by changing your nature every now and then. Any changes in your nature instantly falsifies Advaita as it directly transmutes into the changes in the "Brahman" it"Self", which is strictly prohibited by the Advaita hypothesis itself; and therefore, it must strictly remain unchanging. Thus, by introducing changes, you have already falsified Advaita, generating permanent flip-flops in your regressions.

Just to offer you a helping hand here, I shall ask you a simple question, which you must answer. The consequences of not answering the question are even grimmer, proving that you do lie, which would instantly disqualify Advaita as a candidate worthy of any further discussion under the umbrella - The base worldview of all worldviews.

Here is the question: Can you Pradheep lie, in whatever way you can, and tell us that you are not lying by withdrawing your ever-changing claims on created evolution by an absolutely idle, inert, inactive, stagnant, unchanging, immutable entity you have been hallucinating as "Atman/Self/Brahman"?

Whatever answer you may come up with, I am sure you would not want to include this in your regression counts. But, unfortunately this amounts to a regression of very serious intensity and would instantly raise your regression count by 10.

Below are a few quotes from your quoted article and your posts, which must be supported by your answer to the above question.


Even in this technological age, this Truth gives unflinching light to guide us in our evolution

Vedanta says that understanding our own physical body and mind with the guidance of our intellect will suffice to know the "Truth".

There was a question that arose "Who Am I?". The "I" caused the creation of conditioned consciousness

But consciousness is like the "creator" who can only make programming decisions.

What I talk about is advaita, there is no creator and a creation.

Well we do not need any proof of the gross body and the subtle body of mind and intellect. We know we have a physical body (gross body) and also the mind and intellect (subtle body).

Rest of the beings are sort of pre-programmed. But human have free will
The case study:

-An Alzheimer patient completely lost his memory and wouldn't know or remember "Who or what it is". The doctors had strictly warned the patient not to waste any energy but take full rest and remain utterly idle, inert, inactive, stagnant, unchanging, immutable; or else, it would instantly cease to exist. The patient couldn’t remember doctors' warning and at midnight got up from the bed and went on labouring and then writing some gobbledegook. The exercise of midnight labouring and then writing some gobbledegook went on for several nights before finishing it with the title "conditioned consciousness" - for Advaitic delusions.

Several psychiatrists later examined the gobbledegook written by the patient. They all arrived at a unanimous agreement that the patient was not only suffering from a sever form of Alzheimer disease but from a sever form of hallucinating, psychotic disease as well.

Now coming back to the ID, before you can even attempt to reject you being not a human robot, created by the "Intelligent Designer - ID, who apparently defies the very "Atman" of your "Self", how would you refute the ID itself my dear thoughtless and memoryless friend? You might have known by now that it is widely proclaimed by the ID believers worldwide that "ID" has intelligently created a programme routine that simulates "Atman/Soul" and which is installed in all robots like you and your robot friends. If you cannot refute the ID, you have no option but to accept the ID as your sole creator who has given you the free gift of everything you need to carryon with your delusions and hallucinations of Advaita that you have been undergoing for so long.

So, you have only one choice to escape from the clutches of the ID and that is to elaborate in as much detail as you can on how would you go about refuting the ID and save your "Amazing Delusions of Advaita for Toys".

If your refutation is based on your specifically personalised experiences, which you cannot memorise and recall anyway, then you are facing seriously formidable and impregnable problems against the countless counter claims made by famous western religious personalities of their commemorated experiences of witnessing the "Intelligent Designer - ID" Itself. Then how would you refute their claims of commemorated experiences, my dear thoughtless and confused friend?

So, all in all you are still plunged into perceiving enormous multiplicity of things, which can only happen if you are deluding yourself to the extremes so that you can make hopeless and futile attempts to deny them even when you are engrossed in nothing but perceiving and witnessing just "illusory" multiplicity, again falsifying Advaita. This might only serve you as a psychotic help in emotionally sustaining your delusions and blind beliefs in Advaita, which has no bearing whatsoever on the factual reality as it is.

With this, you are demonstrating a multi fold intensity in your regressions of body + mind + perceiver + awareness + consciousness + toys + technology + intelligent creator + intelligent designs + objects + dualists + illusions of robotic machines + illusions of robots that are created intelligently + rest of the beings etc.., which adds at least 14 counts to your ever multiplying and increasing regressions.

So, until you grasp the precise process of uncaused, absolute evolution, keep using the corrupted operating system - "Amazing Delusions Of Advaita For Human Toys" - and keep going round the circle while reading, remembering, grasping and then understanding and realising precisely what I said, what the brain really is:

So, either ways, you are trapped and you remain trapped into a constantly oscillatory and vicious situation. There is no way out until and unless you start to think, feel, experience and remember the reality as it is.

Till then, have fun hallucinating and sliding down the vicious spiral of infinite regress while trying to remember your current regression count. Since, you have remained utterly oblivious in recognising the absolute impossibility of an absolutely idle, inert, inactive, stagnant, unchanging, immutable entity creating or involving in evolution; and as you have also demonstrated a multi fold intensity in your regressions, your regression count shoots up by 24 and goes to 2N+142 :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :)

pradheep
29th October 2005, 02:48 AM
Dear Rohit
Couple of years back i used to write in forumhub debating with missionary guys. Whenever they are cornered they would say, Watch Out! Satan in the form of Pradheep is writing in the internet.

You are no different from the missionary. Whenever youa re cornered, you call me under hallucination or Alzhemier or schizophrenic.

Rohit, continue to be a missionary.

But I pity you, atleast the missionaries come with a God who created heavem hell and man, just to punish and play a childish game.

Your arguements are pitiable than them. Soonya. Man! Nothing can only be created from nothing. Your brain is also nothing, Soonya and that is why nothing solid....only soonya vaadam.

Kids atleast buy missionary stories. Your soonya vada not only kids , even those in mental hospital would not buy. if you cant address and explain soonya-vaada, atleast learn from others. Do keep counting how many times your soonya brain being banged.


Dear Sakthi prabha

if interested we an continue discussions on "I".

Rohit
29th October 2005, 04:35 AM
Dear Pradheep,

You are now an absolutely proven big liar.

Just go through all your thoughtless and memoryless statements quoted above and then all your previous statements that clearly prove the outcome of your psychotic hallucinations. Not only sensible and thoughtful adults and teenage kids, but even you would be able to know that they all are indeed the statements made by an Alzheimer patient who not only has lost his memory but who suffers from a sever form of psychotic mental conditions too.

Of course, we all can understand how difficult it is for your thoughtless and memoryless brain to grasp and understand precisely what the normalised "Nothing" is and how it above-board proves the non-existence of any supernatural entity that believers like you keep hallucinating about.

In nutshell, the uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe and life is the only base worldview - i.e. the URR format - which can support the delusions of all other worldviews.

Of course, when you are trapped and have no way out, you get terribly upset and then resort to such dissonance reducing processes and emotional fallacies.

With this, without any reasonable doubt, it is deemed sure that you have accepted and acknowledged the utter falsity of Advaita, and this time, while retreating, you are looking for a permanent refuge in the tents of missionaries.

The bottom line for the matter of fact and the essence of Truth is, the absolute evolution of the universe and life, precisely as it is, did not and does not require any creator of any form or function, the universe and life came into existence absolutely uncaused. :thumbsup:

With this, you are left with nothing but a multi fold intensity in your regressions with body + mind + perceiver + awareness + consciousness + toys + technology + intelligent creator + intelligent designs + objects + dualists + illusions of robotic machines + illusions of robots that are created intelligently + rest of the beings + missionaries + satan + internet + kids etc.. as your presents, which continue to add to your ever multiplying and increasing regressions. And at your final retreating position, your regression count stands at 2N+159 .

Of course, the only base worldview i.e. the URR, which allows the already remotely controlled puppets like you to search for the company of weaker brains who could be transformed (brainwashed) into puppets.

Yes, Pradheed it is really a very good idea to form as larger multiplicity of puppets as puppets like you can form and then form a union of remotely controlled puppets to fight for your rights to hallucinate in your shelters of refuge.

Well, I can only wish you good luck in witnessing and perceiving an ever increasing multiplicity, which now includes the dreadful nightmares of the missionaries. Enjoy your humbled place in their shelters for remotely controlled robots like you. :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D

Shakthiprabha.
29th October 2005, 05:02 PM
Dear Sakthi prabha

if interested we an continue discussions on "I".

Hi Pradeep,

Sure I wanna read more. You both (Rohit and urself) seem too confident in ur theories. I am not very conversant with many theories.Also I lack knowledge, which u guys possess. I would like to read more...someday i would get my own conclusions too.

Also.. gimmme sometime to read ur posts (atleast recent ones), SO THAT IT SINKS in me and I come up with fresh questions :D

Rohit
29th October 2005, 05:58 PM
I would like to read more...someday i would get my own conclusions too.
Dear Shakthiprabha, please don't just read, but think it through for yourself and develop your own autonomous, clear thinking ability. I am sure, one day you would be able to judge it yourself and draw your own conclusion without trapping yourself into any vicious spiral of infinite regress.

Good Luck! :)

mahadevan
3rd November 2005, 01:23 AM
Hi Rohit, just because you cannot get the evidence for a creator(either seperate or same as self, just 2 diff posibilities among a million), we cannot assume that everything came from nothing. How can something come nothing ? What you call as nothing could be simply something that you cannot percieve so you call it nothing !

Rohit
3rd November 2005, 01:59 AM
Mahadevan

It is not just me, no one can have any evidence for a conscious or sentient supernatural creator, simply because there is none.

If you need an assumption of a conscious or sentient supernatural creator for the creation of universe, then you must have an infinite chain of conscious or sentient supernatural creators of supernatural creators. Therefore, the need for a conscious or sentient supernatural creator of the universe itself is an unnecessary and fallacious assumption. My proofs simply nullified that unnecessary and fallacious assumption as, an absolutely self-emerging and self-evolving nature (i.e. universe), by default, shouldn't need an assumption of any supernatural entity creating it.

Please read my proofs in the Evolution vs. Creator (God), "Does God Exist?" and other threads and try to grasp and understand precisely what the normalised "Nothing" is and precisely how it is defined, which is dumb, changeable, unconscious, insentient, selfless, energy, transformable, mutable, evolving, chaotic, nature............ etc. etc. and how it irrefutably negates and excludes a conscious or sentient supernatural creator of any form or function.

In nutshell, the assumption of a conscious or sentient supernatural creator itself is self-defeating, which souldn't need any further assumptions or even proofs to reject it, if it were not made in the first place.

Nonetheless, if someone chooses to believe in some kind of Creator/God, then that is absolutely and purely his/her own personal choice and belief, no one can do anything to alter it as, that choice or belief itself is an evolved effect under the vast process of uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe i.e. the URR format - The base worldview of all worldviews. :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
3rd November 2005, 06:56 PM
Dear Sakthi Prabha
Please do not just read alone. Apply that and see whether it makes sense. Throughout my life I have done that. Instead of just reading books I used to experiment myself. You know my site www.sakthifoundation.org where almost ofthe facts suggested is based on my experimentation. Right from water therapy to Consciousness everything Instead and then suggest to others. "Preaching" is easy which isreading and telling. "Teaching" is to read, experiment and then tell others.

Many many years back when I was about to do meditation I read about books claiming that they the eastern yogi's are hallucinating and the same effect can be done through narcotic drugs.

That was the timeI read about Richard Alpert,a harvard psycologists who used narcotic drugs to get the religious and meditative effects,withjust one pill. He was dismissed from harvard because of his drug use. This person later went to himalayas and met his guru , who gave him the effect of his narcotic experience just being in his presence and meditation. To his surprise the guru asked him to bring the narcotic drugs from his bag that he has carried from USA.
His guru took all thatdrugs in one gulp into his body and was cool as if he took some sugar coated pills. What shocked him was that if some one took more than a couple of pills wouldnot survive, wheareas this person gulped more than 25 of them without anychange in him.

The guru said mind is powerful than drugs. Do not use these because they will numb the very own mind and it will prevent further investigation in spiritual practices.

This harvard pyschologist's then became the most popular Ram Dass. His book gaveme the moral boost that then meditation is much beyond the narcotic effects.

Then when I started meditating I understood that I can watch the thoughts and see where these thoughts arise. I understood that this consciousness is not the brain process. The whole creation is not by a god sitting and creating.......

I will continue later.

r_kk
3rd November 2005, 07:44 PM
You know my site www.sakthifoundation.org where almost ofthe facts suggested is based on my experimentation. Right from water therapy to Consciousness everything Instead and then suggest to others. "Preaching" is easy which isreading and telling. "Teaching" is to read, experiment and then tell others.


Is it allowed to make a link to personal web sites which has "selective testimonies" "pancha booth medical therapies" "Contributions" and Tax excemptions", in this web forum?

pradheep
3rd November 2005, 09:22 PM
Dear r_kk
I did not write to promote the site but to hint that what i write is based on experimentation and not just book reading. In collegen, I (probably everyone one of you) hated lecturers who came to the class room and vomittedwhat they read in the book. However enjoyed lecturers who took the subject to their heart and and did practical experimentation to atleast to a certain level. it is always enjoyable to hear from some one who has practical wisdom than just read information.

Please bring thisto the notice of the administrators and if they think that this violates the policy of the hub, let them delete my post and the link. It doesnt matter to me if they keep the post or delete it. Thank you my friend for your voice.

Idiappam
3rd November 2005, 09:31 PM
You know my site www.sakthifoundation.org where almost ofthe facts suggested is based on my experimentation. Right from water therapy to Consciousness everything Instead and then suggest to others. "Preaching" is easy which isreading and telling. "Teaching" is to read, experiment and then tell others.


Is it allowed to make a link to personal web sites which has "selective testimonies" "pancha booth medical therapies" "Contributions" and Tax excemptions", in this web forum?

It is not allowed. Pradheep has on some instances tried to promote 'whatever there" using this Hub...

Anyway, Mr Pradheep, how are the donations coming - pouring in I guess. Enough for a fat year-end bonus for all.... :twisted:

pradheep
3rd November 2005, 09:42 PM
Dear friend


Netrikan thirapinum kutram kutrame...

The above is a wonderful quote which I always cherish. Hope you understand the meaning of that. It has deeper wisdom than what people literally take from puranas. These are the words of nakkeeran against Lord shiva. Lord's shiva third eye represent the eye of knowledge. The debate between them was based on practical knowledge rather than inherent intelligence. Nakkeeran was argueing about practical wisdom and not based on the inherent wisdom. Shiva opening the third eye represents argueing with inherent wisdom and not on practical knolwedge. But that did not shake nakkeeerar. What matters is practical knowledge experienced and not bookish knowledge.

Similar information is given in Mahabharata when Krishna asked |Bhisma to give knowledge. Bhisma was shaken by that andsaid "O krishna you are the source of wisdom and how can you ask thisdying man for wisdom?. To that krishna beautifullyresponds "Oh Bhishma, I have inherent knowledge, but youhave practical knowledge of living with morethan five generations and so practical knowledge is more important than inherent knowledge. From his came the gemsof practical knowledge "Vishnu Shansranama".

Adisankara praises Vishnu sahasranama and his bhasyam is thus very popular.

This

pradheep
3rd November 2005, 09:42 PM
Dear friend


Netrikan thirapinum kutram kutrame...

The above is a wonderful quote which I always cherish. Hope you understand the meaning of that. It has deeper wisdom than what people literally take from puranas. These are the words of nakkeeran against Lord shiva. Lord's shiva third eye represent the eye of knowledge. The debate between them was based on practical knowledge rather than inherent intelligence. Nakkeeran was argueing about practical wisdom and not based on the inherent wisdom. Shiva opening the third eye represents argueing with inherent wisdom and not on practical knolwedge. But that did not shake nakkeeerar. What matters is practical knowledge experienced and not bookish knowledge.

Similar information is given in Mahabharata when Krishna asked |Bhisma to give knowledge. Bhisma was shaken by that andsaid "O krishna you are the source of wisdom and how can you ask thisdying man for wisdom?. To that krishna beautifullyresponds "Oh Bhishma, I have inherent knowledge, but youhave practical knowledge of living with morethan five generations and so practical knowledge is more important than inherent knowledge. From his came the gemsof practical knowledge "Vishnu Shansranama".

Adisankara praises Vishnu sahasranama and his bhasyam is thus very popular.

Idiappam
3rd November 2005, 09:48 PM
The above is a wonderful quote which I always cherish. Hope you understand the meaning of that. It has deeper wisdom than what people literally take from puranas. These are the words of nakkeeran against Lord shiva. Lord's shiva third eye represent the eye of knowledge. The debate between them was based on practical knowledge rather than inherent intelligence. Nakkeeran was argueing about practical wisdom and not based on the inherent wisdom. Shiva opening the third eye represents argueing with inherent wisdom and not on practical knolwedge. But that did not shake nakkeeerar. What matters is practical knowledge experienced and not bookish knowledge.

The "I" (am god) vedanta is working now!

pradheep
3rd November 2005, 09:58 PM
Dear iddiappam
You are grasping it better now.

Idiappam
3rd November 2005, 10:00 PM
I grasped it a long time ago.. Didn't you see - that I don't see you well!

pradheep
3rd November 2005, 10:09 PM
We see only what we want to see. You saw only in the website the donations aspect and not what is done with the donations. This very well proves your short sighted vision. Please get your vision corrected so that you see things in total (complete) and not in bits and pieces.

Idiappam
3rd November 2005, 10:12 PM
We see only what we want to see. You saw only in the website the donations aspect and not what is done with the donations. This very well proves your short sighted vision. Please get your vision corrected so that you see things in total (complete) and not in bits and pieces.

Well, accordingly the "I" (am god) vedanta gave me the third eye, I saw what I didn't see... :shock: :shock: :shock:

pradheep
3rd November 2005, 10:15 PM
kattrathu kai-man alavu kallathathu ulagalavu- old saying

the new saying is

kandathu kadugalavu... kaanathathu (kanavendiyathu) kadalalavu.

sivajayan
3rd November 2005, 10:30 PM
kattrathu kai-man alavu kallathathu ulagalavu- old saying

the new saying is

kandathu kadugalavu... kaanathathu (kanavendiyathu) kadalalavu.

Hmm. How can you hide a Kadal? :roll:

kaRRathu kadukaLavu suits better

Idiappam
3rd November 2005, 10:34 PM
kaRRathu kadukaLavu suits better

append to that "pEsuvathu kadalaLavu" - that's for Pradheep!

sivajayan
3rd November 2005, 10:40 PM
kaRRathu kadukaLavu suits better

append to that "pEsuvathu kadalaLavu" - that's for Pradheep!
Idiappam,
I propose kaRRathu kadukaLavu karaivathu kadalaLavu for him. What do you say?

pradheep
3rd November 2005, 10:50 PM
Dear shiva

How can you hide a Kadal

we have a kadal inside (dont take literally inside) called atma, that is the source for all knowledge and everything. Because of our Ego (curtain) we cannot see that.

Your question is deeper and so I can clearly explain that to you.

sun is incoparably bigger than an umbrella, yet an umbrella can hide it. So is this Ego that is tiny , yet can hide the great Kadal in us. It is small but requires great effort.

sivajayan
4th November 2005, 08:50 PM
Dear shiva

How can you hide a Kadal

we have a kadal inside (dont take literally inside) called atma, that is the source for all knowledge and everything. Because of our Ego (curtain) we cannot see that.

Your question is deeper and so I can clearly explain that to you.
Better don't try. I may not stop asking you for further explanations. You ought to know that I am the origin of all keeLaatha keeLvikaL :cool:


sun is incoparably bigger than an umbrella, yet an umbrella can hide it. So is this Ego that is tiny , yet can hide the great Kadal in us. It is small but requires great effort.
It is all a question of your point of view! Can't I use a sunglass to hide the sun? Then I can swing my arms freely.

pradheep
5th November 2005, 09:24 AM
Dear siva
I used to answer to questions. When i question back mostly people call me names. I am used to that.

You said.....

It is all a question of your point of view! Can't I use a sunglass to hide the sun? Then I can swing my arms freely.


what is the message that you are expressing?

Rohit
5th November 2005, 08:07 PM
Dear Pradheep,

Without reminding you of your current position, the following test is constructed just to develop your ability to grasp, comprehend, think and remember.

Just to help you identify and further your bafflement in your already collapsed and fragmented worldview that had an opportunity to sprout under the base worldview of all worldviews - the uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe, below are a few sample verses for you to misunderstand.

Once you have done precisely that,

Could you please make at least one honest attempt in your lifetime by translating them one by one and make your cognition public?

n bhavtyamrunta mrutya n mrutyammrunta tatha |
prakruteranyathabhaavo n kanthchidbhavishyathi ||

svabhavenamrutho yasya dharmo gachhathi mratyathamum |
krukenamruthasthasya kanth sthasthithi nishchala: ||

karan yasya vai karya karan thasya jaayathe |
jaaymanan kathmanj bhinna ninthay kanth cha tat ||

karanadhdhananyatvamath: karyamanj yadhi |
jaaya-manadhi vai karyathkaran the kanth dhruvam ||

ajadhvai jaayathe yasya drushtanthsthasya nasthi vai |
jaathaccha jaymanasya n vyavastha prasjyathe ||

purvaparaparignanum ajaathe: parideepakam |
jaayamanadhi vai dharamath kanth purva n gruhyathe ||

svatho vaa paratho vaadpi n kinchidhasthu jaayathe |
sadhasathsadasdhadpi n kinchidhasthu jaayathe ||

Also, for the benefits of not only the FH readers but also for your own "Self"-assessment, please state precisely how much could you understand by these verses and how much you couldn’t?

Good Luck! :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
5th November 2005, 11:22 PM
Dear rohit
Your claim is that "I am a liar and so why do want to test a prove a liar and a deluded narcotic drugged guy".

Moreover you say this world is sooonya and came from nothingness. so all these are soonya.....all that you call me and my replies are soonya according to you.

so my dear "Soonya" rohit,
forget all this testing and forumhub.......it's all soonya, nothingness.

Rohit
6th November 2005, 02:48 AM
Dear rohit
Your claim is that "I am a liar and so why do want to test a prove a liar and a deluded narcotic drugged guy".

forget all this testing and forumhub.......it's all soonya, nothingness.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) Yes my dear Pradheep you have made an absolutely correct assessment of your"Self" as literally nothing as you have always claimed that both "Brahman" and nothing are one and the same.

Of course, I do understand why it remains such a huge mental task for you to grasp the difference between nothing and normalised "Nothing". Just ask me if you have problems in understanding the operation of normalisation of properties. I am 100% sure, you wouldn't dare to ask that and make your"Self" cry even more.

Anyway, all those verses do prove your"Self" precisely as you have admitted - an addicted big liar. However, you should feel really glad that you have chosen not to make your cognition of those verses public that were guaranteed to humiliate and embarrass your"Self" even further.

Nonethless, the verses are still there for the sensible readers to find out their precise meaning with respect to this thread and your attached article.

Thank you for choosing it again, exactly as I expected, not to answer my questions, which in itself answers a lot. :thumbsup: :D

SRS
6th November 2005, 04:19 AM
Dear Friends,

Don't mind this Rohit character. As one who daily encounters high-level science/mathematics, I have seen how such knowledge can inflate the ego. But I assure you, such fellows are mostly frustrated, isolated, individuals who cannot connect to the external society in general, or are holding some personal grudge due to a distasteful personal experience! Or else cannot progress in their field of research, due to lack of training. As even atheist champ Rohit will tell you, he was once a God-believer.

I think anti-Vedic atheist champ Rohit is an angry old man. Dear anti-Vedic atheist champ Rohit, don't worry!


When you lay dying on a hospital bed, angry because the family members want to offer prayers, Richard Dawkins will be there to assure you of your future organic existance as bacterial ars-e food, seed fertilizer, and horse manuever. If you are very lucky, you may even end up as a partial C-14 contribution in one of Stephen Hawking's age-of-the universe experiments! Richard Dawkins, of course, will be ready with the genetics mantra, evolution mantra, and all other atheist mantras.....


Richard Dawkins: "Can you believe that relation of yours? Trust in God? What God?!!! Poof!"

Atheist champion Rohit: "This is a precise proof of schizophrenic vedic burros seriously suffering from Approach Avoidance Conflict (AAC)."

Richard Dawkins: "I say! From the bacterias a-r-s-e we came... to the bacterias a-r-s-e we shall return!"

Atheist champion Rohit: "But nevertheless it is quite entertaining to see this psycho-pathetic, self-transformed vedic burro, continually presenting himself as a precise exhibit of his psychotic existence. He unwarily keeps presenting himself as a perfect example of how the inflation in illusory mental activities and higher intensity of mental denials and dissonance results in seriously negative growths of intellectual ability."

Richard Dawkins: "He seems fixated on Shankara, aye. If I might remark, Shankara is completely off the mark with his Advaita. All is Brahman? My laboratory work shows otherwise... human s-h-i-t and chimp s-h-i-t share 99% of the same DNA! Not only this, recent fossil finds confirm humans and chimps once had an ancestor who could s-h-i-t while swinging from tree to tree. If we put s-h-i-t and s-h-i-t and s-h-i-t together, humans are chimps!"

Atheist champion Rohit: "But how do you account for the humans evolving from bacteria"

Richard Dawkins: "Genetic analysis of human s-h-i-t reveals the presence of photosynthetic bacteria, whose ability to synthesize the amino acid s-h-i-t-a-s-e is clear evidence of a phylogenic relationship! My friend, rest in peace, for all is surely s-h-i-t!"

Atheist champion Rohit: "All is s-h-i-t! What a comforting thought! While the vedic clowns, with all this useless talk of shakthi and karma and Brahman, unwarily keep presenting themselves as perfect examples of how the inflation in illusory mental activities and higher intensity of mental denials and dissonance results in seriously negative growths of intellectual ability, I die a satisifed man, assured of the highly rational enyzmatic transformations that will transform me to cow dung and pig s-h-i-t. Hail bacteria!"

Richard Dawkins: Hail bacteria!

Atheist champion Rohit: Hail bacteria!

Steven Hawking: "Hail... (falls off wheelchair).

Surya
6th November 2005, 04:42 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice to see u back SRS! :D U should post this in the Stories section. :lol:

Later. :lol2:

Rohit
6th November 2005, 06:53 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hello C.J. SRS, how are you? You don’t sound good at all and you don't look in a good shape either. I am sorry to watch you still jobless and busy looking for your runaway angry father. Please don't get so frustrated. Just remember, hope is God; and have trust in your hopes, you will find what has runaway from you long time ago. Maybe not, please keep searching, may your wish turn into a horse, riding on which might tremendously help you in your ever lasting long search.

Anyway it is a very good idea to keep re-advertising here and there and letting everyone know how frustrated you have become after hopping and jumping here and there in search of your angry runaway father.

Thanks for your support through your frustrated reconfirmation of the non-existence of such imaginary entity.

Now be a good C.J, start leaking and clean up all the mess, as all is Brahman for you; and therefore there is no scope for any discrimination.

Good Luck C.J. :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)

SRS
6th November 2005, 10:48 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice to see u back SRS! :D U should post this in the Stories section. :lol:

Later. :lol2:

Nice to see you too, Surya! Put these atheists up against a wall, and they will try to defile science by pitting it against religion... buts thats not real science, because science and religion have the exact same roots - philosophy. You can't eat the mangoe, without removing the skin, can you? :D

SRS
6th November 2005, 10:55 AM
[tscii:0e0b28f4a4]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hello C.J. SRS, how are you? You dont sound good at all and you don't look in a good shape either. I am sorry to watch you still jobless and busy looking for your runaway angry father. Please don't get so frustrated. Just remember, hope is God; and have trust in your hopes, you will find what has runaway from you long time ago. Maybe not, please keep searching, may your wish turn into a horse, riding on which might tremendously help you in your ever lasting long search.

Anyway it is a very good idea to keep re-advertising here and there and letting everyone know how frustrated you have become after hopping and jumping here and there in search of your angry runaway father.

Thanks for your support through your frustrated reconfirmation of the non-existence of such imaginary entity.

Now be a good C.J, start leaking and clean up all the mess, as all is Brahman for you; and therefore there is no scope for any discrimination.

Good Luck C.J. :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)

Sorry atheist clown. I realize that Forumhub is the only place where you can post your so-called "theories." As opposed to an actual scientific journal. Which is why I stopped bothering to read your mumbo-jumbo yrs ago. :lol: If you want to validate your "theories", I challenge you to give an actual reference to outside acceptance of the same such "theories." . You will have to try harder. :wink: [/tscii:0e0b28f4a4]

sivajayan
6th November 2005, 03:40 PM
Dear siva
I used to answer to questions. When i question back mostly people call me names. I am used to that.

You said.....

It is all a question of your point of view! Can't I use a sunglass to hide the sun? Then I can swing my arms freely.


what is the message that you are expressing?
What is the message you are expecting? :roll:

sivajayan
6th November 2005, 04:16 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Nice to see u back SRS! :D


Nice to see you too, Surya!
Oh yes, nice to see the "hail bacterium" SARS and his adjutant Surya applaude each other.



-Deleted-
science and religion have the exact same roots - philosophy. You can't eat the mangoe, without removing the skin, can you? :D

Mangoe ? What is it? Is it something growing in your back pack?

Mango? Yes, you can! Have you ever tried mango chutney? Don't tell me you removed the skin before you ate it, SARS?

There is a small but fine difference between [tscii:96cd828bff][/tscii:96cd828bff](maangkaai) and [tscii:96cd828bff][/tscii:96cd828bff] (maampazham). The former is unripe and the latter is ripe. They have the same root, that is to say the [tscii:96cd828bff][/tscii:96cd828bff] maamaram - the mango tree.

The philosophy about science and religion is that science marks the knowledge (Veda in Hinduism) and religion stands for ignorance or the state of being ignorant about knowledge.

Rohit
6th November 2005, 04:31 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)
Poor C.J. SRS, you must be feeling really sick after hard cleaning. Instead I can recommend you to one of my close friends in Chicago to give you a decent job of cleaning and maintaining his office. If you are interested, then let me know publicly.

I guess, you may not want a decent job after all, as for you, all is Brahman - the internal bliss, irrespective of the mess in it.

Then why bother reading my proofs and posts at all and broadcast your frustrations and then go haywire as you have? :!:

I am sure, you have a little more problems with your cerebral cortex, otherwise rather than posting such gibberish and nonsense drivel, you should have accepted my long running open challenge to refute my proofs. It is still an open challenge, would you dare to take it? No, no chance whatsoever. Instead what do you do? Spew your inherited nonsense and keep just shivering in fear due to the hardship you face in cleaning the mess of your masters and then in relentless search of your angry runaway father.

The more you brainwashed keep spewing your inherited gibberish and nonsense drivel, the more you will prove the absolute validity of my proofs. So, until you develop some philosophical, logical and scientific thinking brain power, at least concentrate seriously in your inherited duty of cleaning the mess of your masters, your brainwashing exercise and only then in your relentless and never ending search of the non-existent entities.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)

SRS
7th November 2005, 03:16 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Nice to see u back SRS! :D


Nice to see you too, Surya!
Oh yes, nice to see the "hail bacterium" SARS and his adjutant Surya applaude each other.



-Deleted-
science and religion have the exact same roots - philosophy. You can't eat the mangoe, without removing the skin, can you? :D

Mangoe ? What is it? Is it something growing in your back pack?

Mango? Yes, you can! Have you ever tried mango chutney? Don't tell me you removed the skin before you ate it, SARS?

There is a small but fine difference between [tscii:bcf4797603][/tscii:bcf4797603](maangkaai) and [tscii:bcf4797603][/tscii:bcf4797603] (maampazham). The former is unripe and the latter is ripe. They have the same root, that is to say the [tscii:bcf4797603][/tscii:bcf4797603] maamaram - the mango tree.

Sivajayan a.k.a UKW, a.k.a Madras slum dweller, nice to see you back again too. As I recall, the last time I saw you , you were convinced that synthetic drugs evolve. :lol: I was waiting patiently for you to substantiate the same with genetic data, but apparently you had run far off and were not to be seen again. Since you have a tendency to run (I could list many of your user names here), I might have recommended athletic training perhaps, but given your 300-lb dimensions, many months would have to be spent dealing with the latter alone. :D

SRS
7th November 2005, 03:24 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)
Poor C.J. SRS, you must be feeling really sick after hard cleaning. Instead I can recommend you to one of my close friends in Chicago to give you a decent job of cleaning and maintaining his office. If you are interested, then let me know publicly.

I guess, you may not want a decent job after all, as for you, all is Brahman - the internal bliss, irrespective of the mess in it.

Then why bother reading my proofs and posts at all and broadcast your frustrations and then go haywire as you have? :!:

I am sure, you have a little more problems with your cerebral cortex, otherwise rather than posting such gibberish and nonsense drivel, you should have accepted my long running open challenge to refute my proofs. It is still an open challenge, would you dare to take it? No, no chance whatsoever. Instead what do you do? Spew your inherited nonsense and keep just shivering in fear due to the hardship you face in cleaning the mess of your masters and then in relentless search of your angry runaway father.

The more you brainwashed keep spewing your inherited gibberish and nonsense drivel, the more you will prove the absolute validity of my proofs. So, until you develop some philosophical, logical and scientific thinking brain power, at least concentrate seriously in your inherited duty of cleaning the mess of your masters, your brainwashing exercise and only then in your relentless and never ending search of the non-existent entities.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)

Avoiding the question as usual, atheist clown? You are admitting your theories lack corroboration. Which is why you have spent yrs posting the same nonsense... :lol: No need for me to refute your nonsense; many individuals have done that already, including Pradheep here. Anyway, keep up the good humor and enjoy your life on Earth as a homo sapien, since, going by your materialist logic, your destiny as bacterial shit is not too far away. :P I always find it amusing that you atheists have nothing to say regarding life after death. Then again, the mechanics behind fungal nutrition is not very interesting. :lol: :lol:

Rohit
7th November 2005, 04:15 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)
Poor C.J. SRS, what else can you do? No, no chance whatsoever. :lol:

Didn't I tell you that?

The more you brainwashed keep spewing your inherited gibberish and nonsense drivel, the more you will prove the absolute validity of my proofs. So, until you develop some philosophical, logical and scientific thinking brain power, at least concentrate seriously in your inherited duty of cleaning the mess of your masters, your brainwashing exercise and only then in your relentless and never ending search of the non-existent entities.

I like your shivering fear and helplessness, keep going C.J.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)

Badri
7th November 2005, 04:16 AM
Right! As usual, you guys have proven once again that you cannot carry on a sane and sensible discussion without hurling insults at each other!

Maybe the Hub is not the right place for you guys!

SRS, Rohit and Sivajayan: If you persist in these name cheap name callings and trading insults, maybe the Hub will have to rethink its policy of hosting your thoughts and views here.

Rohit
7th November 2005, 04:24 AM
sbadri99

I hope you have noticed it is always this SRS, who gets frustrated and goes haywire. If you really want to do something then do something about this fanatic SRS; and save this hub form such fanatic attacks.

Thank you!

Badri
7th November 2005, 04:27 AM
Yes, Rohit, but I also see you invariably and unfailingly rise to swallow the bait!!!

Rohit
7th November 2005, 04:33 AM
sbadri99

Then I request you to take earlier steps and not to wait until it escalates to such state. Of course, you wouldn't expect me to swallow all the spewing of this fanatic, would you?

I know this fanatic character for a long time and you too must have noticed his language and approach. He only seeks solace from such fallacies and personal attacks and then expects opponents to withdraw, but he always failed when facing me, and that is the main reason he gets so frustrated.

Thank you!

SRS
7th November 2005, 01:07 PM
Right! As usual, you guys have proven once again that you cannot carry on a sane and sensible discussion without hurling insults at each other!

Maybe the Hub is not the right place for you guys!

SRS, Rohit and Sivajayan: If you persist in these name cheap name callings and trading insults, maybe the Hub will have to rethink its policy of hosting your thoughts and views here.

sbadri,

I was merely injecting a bit of humor into a rather dry thread. Dry because "Rohit" here has been singing the same tune for years. Now, you may have missed the point of the satire, but its a very basic one: atheists refuse to comment on life after death. The standard biology textbook however, lists fungi and bacteria as decomposers of dead organisms. So one can see very clearly that, going by atheist logic, whatever purpose this "human" existance serves, the end result is to be consumed by a bacteria, fungi, or similar microorganism. :lol: That was the point I was making with the satire. Do excuse the language.

Badri
7th November 2005, 01:21 PM
SRS: I was not referring to the language at all! And yes, your attempts at the satire were not questioned as much as the later posts which were direct and derogatory in their reference.

Kindly bear in mind that we are all here to not attack people, but debate ideas. :)

Rohit
7th November 2005, 01:26 PM
There is no such thing as life after death. Neither in science nor in Advaita. In fact, according to Advaita, there is no creation or life whatsoever, all these notion of life and death are just your self-deception and mere imaginations my dear C.J. SRS.
Those verses I posted, which made you frustrated and go haywire precisely assert that philosohy of Advaita. No good just comimg up with such fallacies and seek solace and then come up with such self-deceptive gibberish. :lol:

pradheep
7th November 2005, 04:59 PM
Dear Rohit
A single cell that arose in sea evolved through series of life after death process finally to the stage of human. Human is also still evolving. what else proof do you need for life and death. Anyway everything is "nothingness" for you. So what does itmatter for you if there is life after death or not. Everythingis soonya,thewhole worldis soonya. The computer you are using also came from nothingness. Youare yourself a soonya, right Rohit.

sivajayan
7th November 2005, 05:46 PM
Right! As usual, you guys have proven once again that you cannot carry on a sane and sensible discussion without hurling insults at each other!
I am sorry that you misunderstood my post SBadri99 Sir and am sorry to answer you back! If I may reveal I was honouring him with a bouquet of complements and not at all insulting him.



SRS, Rohit and Sivajayan: If you persist in these name cheap name callings and trading insults, maybe the Hub will have to rethink its policy of hosting your thoughts and views here.
With one hand you can only flip, with two you can clap and with three?

You can clap and slap.
SRS flipped, Rohit flapped and I clapped. Thats all what happend. Where is the problem? :lol:

And by the way I don't know what this particular individual crying about UKW and Madras slum dweller. Have I missed something in the past or is SRS simply suffering from persecution mania? :roll:

sivajayan
7th November 2005, 05:56 PM
So one can see very clearly that, going by atheist logic, whatever purpose this "human" existance serves, the end result is to be consumed by a bacteria, fungi, or similar microorganism. :lol: That was the point I was making with the satire. Do excuse the language.

I did not know that bacteria and fungi do consume human ashes. Isn't it that the corpse is burnt to ashes in hinduism?

Pradeep,
we all know, thanks to biology which belongs to science, that you were devoloped by the egg of your mother and the sperm of your father. Or do you want to deny that? Or was it god who created you? The last one who was created by words was Jesus of Nazareth. People also say that it was a virgin birth.

pradheep
7th November 2005, 09:45 PM
dear sivajayan
what do you mean?. Only in 18th century people understood about egg and sperm?.

Uthappam
7th November 2005, 11:31 PM
Didn't Leonardo da Vinci (15th Cent) drew and wrote about sperm and egg? Pradheep Let me know, please.

pradheep
7th November 2005, 11:59 PM
that is the oldest information that you can think of, not any older?

Uthappam
8th November 2005, 12:03 AM
that is the oldest information that you can think of, not any older?

Ask idiappam! :D

Idiappam
8th November 2005, 02:04 AM
that is the oldest information that you can think of, not any older?

Ask idiappam! :D

dear sivajayan
what do you mean?. Only in 18th century people understood about egg and sperm?.
What are you asking me? People knew about the egg and sperm milleniums ago.. Ask Thirumoolar (3rd or 5th Cent CE)

Pattinathar - I don't know which Pattinathar - sang
uNarvukalangi olugiya vinthu
... UrusirOnitha meethu kalanthu --

So even the Sithars knew it a long time ago.

Maybe - you are talking about understanding the egg and sperm? Of course, they are better understood now. The Sithars did not have the microscope.. That was invented - 16th century.

Rohit
8th November 2005, 02:15 AM
What I talk about is advaita, there is no creator and a creation.
Well, dear Pradheep, there is no creator and creation for the uncasued, absolute evolution of the universe + life either. So long as there is no creator and no creation, you are in absolute agreement with what I have precisely said and proved for the uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe and life from the uncaused, reactive, changeable, chaotic, insentient, transformable and by nature, mutable and evolving energy/matter.


A single cell that arose in sea evolved through series of life after death process finally to the stage of human.
My dear Pradheep, if that is your concept of life and death, again you are in absolute agreement with what I have said that the only scientific process of "rebirth" is through the recycling and conservation of the energy/matter after death.

Now the most shuddering and demanding question for you is:

Question: - Precisely how and where did the raw material i.e. the reactive, changeable, chaotic, insentient, transformable, mutable and evolving energy for the formation of the Universe + A single cell life come from? :thumbsup: :)

pradheep
8th November 2005, 04:36 AM
Dear Rohit (Soonya , nothingness)

I am Conscious principle, blissful, sentient, untransformable immutable, unevolving, unchaotic principle.

You have best described yourelf and your source as " dumb, changeable, unconscious, insentient, selfless, energy, transformable, mutable, evolving, chaotic, nature"


it is obvious from your postings that you best describe yourself as dumb, changeable, unconscious, insentient, selfless, energy, transformable, mutable, evolving, chaotic, "nothingness" nature.

Rohit continue your chaotic postings.

stranger
8th November 2005, 06:10 AM
Sivajayan a.k.a UKW, a.k.a Madras slum dweller, nice to see you back again too.

Hey SRS!

Talk about the "I-whatever" or respond to shivajayan.

Dont bring up some other "honorable hubbers" here and try to INSULT them because of your incompetance in the current argument.

Let this be your last attempt to insult hubbers who are no way related to the current argument. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

sivajayan
8th November 2005, 03:53 PM
dear sivajayan
what do you mean?. Only in 18th century people understood about egg and sperm?.
And to which cetnury you belong dear Pradheep?

Or should I assume that your existence is the result of a honey bee and pollination?

sivajayan
8th November 2005, 04:05 PM
I am Conscious principle, blissful, sentient, untransformable immutable, unevolving, unchaotic principle.


Simply god?

Impertinence is the correct expression I guess.

Don't try to fly high near god cause you might not come down :lol:

pradheep
8th November 2005, 06:06 PM
Dear Sivajayan
The "I" does not indicate "here" the mortal body, but the Conscious principle behind it. So when pradheep says "I" am God, he refers not to the mortal body, but that principle( you may call it as sakthi, God, energy, consciousness, Brahman, Allah, Jesus, whatever).
"I" am the real driver and the body is only the vehicle(car).

honey bee
8th November 2005, 06:32 PM
dear sivajayan
what do you mean?. Only in 18th century people understood about egg and sperm?.
And to which cetnury you belong dear Pradheep?

Or should I assume that your existence is the result of a honey bee and pollination?
Honey bee and pollination! :rotfl: :rotfl:

I was just a silent viewer but now I could not resist anymore!
Silly but funny this Sivajayan. :lol:

sivajayan
8th November 2005, 07:00 PM
"I" am the real driver and the body is only the vehicle(car).
And what fuel?

Who or what were you in the 18th centuary?

"You" the bull and the body the cart?


See how the time is passing by!

pradheep
8th November 2005, 07:06 PM
dear siva
please read allthatfrom this link.

http://sakthifoundation.org/three%20bodies-2.htm

sivajayan
8th November 2005, 07:13 PM
Why should I? They may make money with every click I make there. And by the way The Lord gave me the ability of reading but he simply forgot to give me the understanding.


Update:
I visited your site and verified the members! It does not impress me the Dr. Pradheep Phd and whatsoever. It make me more horny to challenge your brain. I am really glad to tackle you Doctor :lol:

And if I may tell you a secret: in our family just one Doctor in front of your name is nothing, too few. And I am cursed to topple all the others. :sad:

Rohit
9th November 2005, 05:38 AM
Of course, when you cannot even think, experience, feel and remember correctly Pradheep, how would or could you ever have any answer to my question? Your absolute inability to answers my question, "How and where did the raw material for the formation of the universes + life come from?" conclusively proves everything that I have said so far.

Now you have explicitly admitted that "Brahman" can neither create nor evolve. Also, by definition, Brahman is also absolutely, immobile, immutable, inactive, inert, static, unchanging, unmoving, untransformable, untransmutable etc…. which in essence, is absolutely incapable of any action and therefore, by default, cannot be even a secondary cause of anything.

That precise situation categorically infers the non-existence of "Brahman". Therefore, such an inactive non-entity, cannot touch anything whatsoever, forget about it driving anything whatsoever.

On the contrary, I could drive you and your thoughts remotely, right from here, to such an extent that you almost lost your whereabouts and wouldn’t even think, know and remember what is the cause and what is an effect. :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)

As you remained completely incapable of figuring out (dumb) that the sunlight, which you unwarily used as analogous to the unconditioned consciousness, is an effect of the Sun burning its own core through constant thermonuclear fusion reactions. Similarly consciousness is just an effect produced by the co-ordinated firing of billions of neurones in the brain.

Thus, you, yourself have now proved that Brahman is absolutely and literal nothing but a mere figment of your imagination, produced by chaotic neuronal firing in your brain.

Now, let me briefly touch this:

Jesus is believed as the Son of Christian God – Jehovah, but Islam rejected the story and postulated their Allah as the Creator.

Obviously when you have no option but to admit the shattering Truth of absolutely incapacitated, non-causal Brahman and reluctantly, but eventually infer its non-existence; and once you have secured your place as a refugee in the missionary’s shelters for remotely controlled robots, the names and words like Jesus, Allah and whatever comes really handy for you. The only catch is, they are the Dualists, never mind, whatever.

While, like I said sakthi or energy is active, reactive, changeable, transformable, transmutable, mutable and by nature evolving and consciousness is an evolved effects within the boundaries of the uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe + life

Of course, while under the refuge in missionary’s camps for remotely controlled robots, and you having accepted their dualism, you may still continue to hallucinate about Advaita due to your incapacity to think, experience, feel and remember correctly. Which is only possible under the uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe + life - The base worldview of all worldviews.

However, the explicit law of mutual exclusion applies.

[Brahman](XOR)[Universe + Conscious/Aware life]

Therefore, the more you see the multiplicity and mention the contents of the Physical World and react with them the more you will keep proving the absolute validity of my proofs. So, remember my dear Pradheep, think before you ever do that and react in any manner or way, not only to you but these mental constraints strictly apply to all believers like you, all over the world.

Good Luck! :thumbsup: :wave: :D :)

SRS
9th November 2005, 07:41 AM
There is no such thing as life after death. Neither in science nor in Advaita. In fact, according to Advaita, there is no creation or life whatsoever, all these notion of life and death are just your self-deception and mere imaginations my dear C.J. SRS.
Those verses I posted, which made you frustrated and go haywire precisely assert that philosohy of Advaita. No good just comimg up with such fallacies and seek solace and then come up with such self-deceptive gibberish. :lol:

A.C Rohit, clearly you know nothing about yoga. Many who have done yoga have easily seen into their past lives. Most famous of these is BUDDHA, who MEDITATED under a Bo-Tree. Dear A.C. Rohit, there is indeed life after death, as per the Buddhists one is reborn into the material world again and again (samsara) until finally enlightened he reaches NIRVANA; as per the Hindus, the NIRVANA simply becomes MUKTI, now one goes beyond the dvandas, and the atman is reunited with Brahman again.

SRS
9th November 2005, 07:59 AM
[ I did not know that bacteria and fungi do consume human ashes. Isn't it that the corpse is burnt to ashes in hinduism?

Isn't it true that the majority of the world's population are not Hindus? There are bacteria all over you right now... this is why you have a "skin" and mucuous membranes. There are also bacteria that live inside your intestines.



we all know, thanks to biology which belongs to science, that you were devoloped by the egg of your mother and the sperm of your father. Or do you want to deny that? Or was it god who created you? The last one who was created by words was Jesus of Nazareth. People also say that it was a virgin birth.

You are assuming there is only one kind of reproduction! Nevertheless, there is such a thing as asexual reproduction. So Pradheeps "single" cell simply dividing to create more cells is very much possible, if one considers it in light of binary fission. Pradheeps theory is also in line with the fact that multi-cellular organisms utilize many processes (and the organalles which go along with these processes) found in single-celled microorganisms, e.g. endosymbiotic hypothesis.

pradheep
9th November 2005, 05:58 PM
Dear Rohit
I have all the answers for your question which I will write soon. But before that I want to see your total nonsense theory of "nothingness". Only If you can understand your flaw ,you will be able to put others thoughts in your head.

so let us straighten this "nothingness" first. From nothingnothing only can emerge. You cannnot imagine "nothing" that is not present. Can you imagine "gagabooo" or "zoossanoo"?. No. Because they are nothing.

Ifsome thing comes from nothing , then you areno different from the religious dull heads who say God created all this from nothing. They say God created heaven also. Then thequestion is where was God sitting beforehe created in heaven. Naturally he should be in hell and desired for a better place and created heaven.

Now, if God created heaven out of something, then who came first, God or that something. Rohit, this "nothing" and "something" stories not even kids can accept.

So if you originated from nothing you should be nothing and so your thinking also reflects your theory. Will continue after you defend your "nothingness", other wise nothing will enter your "nothing" head.

sivajayan
9th November 2005, 05:59 PM
There are also bacteria that live inside your intestines.

Aha! This must be the reason why I always wash my hands after purging the bowels.
Well, what can or should I do after you purging your valve here?:roll: :lol:



You are assuming there is only one kind of reproduction! Nevertheless, there is such a thing as asexual reproduction.

Oh, really? You don't mean cloning?
If Pradheep is a male kind then my egg and sperm theory is the very valid possibility. If Pradheep is of feemale kind then .... as you for sure know about X+X and X+Y.

But when I think twice about your statement it would be glad when you come home and your wife tells you: "SRS, I reproduced my self in the meantime".
Is it a boon or is it a curse? Well, one for the Kitchen and one for the bed... quite Okay, isn't it?

Did Buddha tells about god? Did he worship God? What is the reason he did not propagate hinduism?

Rohit
10th November 2005, 01:07 AM
Excellent, both are perfectly normalised reactions, one in a "goagabooo" way and the other in a "zoossanoooo" way, precisely as expected. :thumbsup:

2N+161

Yes, it's a drive time again. :thumbsup: :lol: :)

Rohit
10th November 2005, 01:33 AM
Well, what can or should I do after you purging your valve here?:roll: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

...it would be glad when you come home and your wife tells you: "SRS, I reproduced my self in the meantime".
Well, one for the Kitchen and one for the bed... quite Okay, isn't it?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :thumbsup:

pradheep
10th November 2005, 02:32 AM
Dear "Nothingness" Rohit,

As expected "nothing" from you!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rohit
10th November 2005, 02:47 AM
Yet another perfectly normalised reaction, in a "goagabooo" way, exactly as expected. :thumbsup:

2N+162 :notworthy:

Yes, it's gaining momentum. :thumbsup: :lol: :)

pradheep
10th November 2005, 03:58 AM
Dear Rohit
Keep counting your infinte nothingness....+ 163....+164.....Infinite...nothingness

Rohit
10th November 2005, 04:27 AM
Yet another perfectly normalised reaction, again in a "goagabooooooooooo..........." way, exactly as expected. :thumbsup:

2N+163 :notworthy:

Yes, the momentum is improving. :thumbsup: :lol: :)

Badri
10th November 2005, 04:45 AM
We, in the Forum, have watched two topics at least so far which have been just a dialogue between Rohit and Pradeep. One was the Creation Vs Evolution and now, this.

I am not sure if the other hubbers are eagerly watching the debate, and learning anything at from this discourse.

Or is this just a waste of server space?

I have a good mind to lock this thread, unless someone - Rohit, Pradeep, or anyone else - can give a real good reason why this thread should be allowed to continue.

Rohit
10th November 2005, 01:25 PM
If Pradheep or any other belivers like him cannot or don't have any answers whatsoever to all my questions, arguments and proofs, completely demolishing and refuting each and every claim, on a non-entity "Brahman", made by Pradheep and others so far, please go ahead with what you think is a better "To Do" action, badri. :)

sivajayan
10th November 2005, 05:15 PM
I am not sure if the other hubbers are eagerly watching the debate, and learning anything at from this discourse.

I am eagerly watching the debate and learning a lot from this! But you don't really want me to throw in my two cents. I am still not starting because you want stop laughing man.



Or is this just a waste of server space?

Sorry Badri, I don't know why you are that much concerned about server space? How costly is it really? Why don't you take care about other threads where only one guy is performing? 4x. Adhi Sankaracharya? And there are a lot of other dead threads too like 1st Aniversary of the hub. Ever thought of that?
Pbly not!

Yes, I do want see how Dr. Pradheep his getting out his head out of his own snare!
And I also want to see how SRS sends his bacterial-fungi army against and get moulded.

Be happy, Badri. Here it is much more action than anywhere else under your reign, Badri Sir!.

Smart going Rohit, as usual! :thumbsup:


"Oh, think twice. Its another day for you and me in paradise" - Phil Collins

SRS
10th November 2005, 11:39 PM
Aha! This must be the reason why I always wash my hands after purging the bowels.
Well, what can or should I do after you purging your valve here?:roll: :lol:

Did the pedophile priests at St. Patricks College, Jaffna, wash their hands after "teaching" the little boys? :lol:



[ Oh, really? You don't mean cloning?
If Pradheep is a male kind then my egg and sperm theory is the very valid possibility. If Pradheep is of feemale kind then .... as you for sure know about X+X and X+Y.

I don't follow this nonsense. As I have already explained, one-celled organisms are able to split in two.




[Did Buddha tells about god? Did he worship God? What is the reason he did not propagate hinduism?

Good Christians need not worry about Buddhism. Stick to your King James; King James has all the answers... if you listen to King James, you can ascend to the clouds in an auto-rickshaw and enjoy lifetime of sambar and Kushboo films. But I am not sure you will meet A.C. Rohit there. King James has already condemned Rohit. :lol: :lol: :D

SRS
10th November 2005, 11:51 PM
We, in the Forum, have watched two topics at least so far which have been just a dialogue between Rohit and Pradeep. One was the Creation Vs Evolution and now, this.

I am not sure if the other hubbers are eagerly watching the debate, and learning anything at from this discourse.

Or is this just a waste of server space?

I have a good mind to lock this thread, unless someone - Rohit, Pradeep, or anyone else - can give a real good reason why this thread should be allowed to continue.

sbadri,

I highly recommend you close this thread. Unfortunately, what "Rohit" posts here, on Forumhub, cannot be found anywhere else in the universe. He has mixed up a few lines from some math book and come up with some "theory." But in actual scientific practice, a good theory is one that is corroborated by others! So Rohit's theory can only be labled a "pseudo-theory." (no corroboration). Also, this "pseudo-theory" has been put to rest numerous times in the "Old Hub." But "Rohit" conveniently ignores all refutations and starts the so-called "regression count." I suggest you put an end to this nonsense once and for all and close the thread!

Idiappam
11th November 2005, 12:13 AM
Leave this unique thread alone, don't close it. Rohit sounds alright - sensible. Pradheep, on the other hand, posts .........(??????)

There are many questions that Rohit asked, no answers yet. We will have to wait for a few answers, at least.

SRS
11th November 2005, 12:25 AM
Leave this unique thread alone, don't close it. Rohit sounds alright - sensible. Pradheep, on the other hand, posts .........(??????)

There are many questions that Rohit asked, no answers yet. We will have to wait for a few answers, at least.

What are the questions that Rohit asked? This is my point exactly. Very few can even understand what Rohit is talking. Those who have have automatically refuted all of it (i will give a link to the Old Hub one of these days). At least he should admit its not science, so as not to decieve other hubbers. Pradheep, on the other hand, is explaining Advaita. As most here are Hindus, such explanations serve a practical purpose, especially since Advaita is difficult to comprehend on a conceptual level.

Rohit
11th November 2005, 12:39 AM
Dear Idiappam,

Ignore this frustrated and helpless "zoossanoooo" (C.J.SRS), he has no idea about the absolute validity of my proofs. My work has drawn incredible attention among intellectuals and thinkers. Regarding publishing my work, there is no problem and I am right on track, slowly but steadily, there is no hurry at all.

The worried people have to just hold their breath and wait. :poke:

Thanks for the compliments. :)

Idiappam
11th November 2005, 12:48 AM
SRS, you are right in saying that most a hindus here. And hinduism is not a single religion - based on the fact that it has Advaita, Dwaita etc, contrasting and contradicting concepts. So what is the point of preaching Advaita here. Rohit not only raised some questions, but punctured some concepts of Advaita, etc.

That was interesting!

Pradheep, method is not suitable. He is never straight to the point, his stories could bore even a new born, - the 'no smoke without fire' type.

Rohit's posts are clear and focused. Pradheep's - never. Before he makes a conclusion on any issue - he will beat-around-the-bushes - going off track, sometimes -- hoping to confuse the openents. Rohit, pulls him back on track - I have seen that many times on this thread..

Anyway let this unique thread stay. It is a masterpiece -- NOT the "I" Vedanta thing (I don't care a penny for that), but the manner which the opponents fought (even the personal attacks were decent). Well done!

Rohit
11th November 2005, 12:49 AM
Yet another three perfectly normalised reactions, in a "zoossanoooo" way, exactly as expected. :thumbsup:

2N+166 :notworthy:

Yes, it's a hopping one and already in momentum. :thumbsup: :lol: :)

Rohit
11th November 2005, 03:07 AM
The philosophy of Advaita is only difficult for those who are incapable of spotting and understanding the utter flaws in the entire philosophy of Advaita Vedanta; simply because the Advaita is a thoughtless and heedless construction of countless contradictions and inconsistencies. The Advaita being founded on the Buddhist philosophical sophistication of Nirvana - a Buddhism in disguise - and as Brahman of Advaita and Nirvana of Buddhism are mutually exclusive to each other; the inherent inability of Advaitin to spot the mutually exclusiveness, renders the Advaita completely self-defeating, proving Brahman nothing but a non-entity when placed under the critical philosophical scrutiny.

Not even a single time, no one has ever succeeded in refuting my arguments so far; neither in the new hub nor in the old hub, just a few arguments and implications shatter the whole Advaita. Otherwise Pradheep and his crewmembers wouldn’t be so disoriented, flabbergasted and frustrated here as they are.

stranger
11th November 2005, 03:15 AM
Very few can even understand what Rohit is talking.

What is very few???

And how many understands your "loads and loads of crap"???

When did you do an opinion poll???

How did you know that if u did not do that???

You and few more clowns are the only few who is living in your "maya world". You better understand that before it is getting too late! :twisted:

stranger
11th November 2005, 03:41 AM
Pradheep, on the other hand, is explaining Advaita. As most here are Hindus, such explanations serve a practical purpose, especially since Advaita is difficult to comprehend on a conceptual level.

So you speak for all the Hindus???

I am a Hindu too. I think you and Pradheep are pouring worthless trashes. Pouring filth in the name of Hinduism. :twisted:

On the other hand, Rohit, another sensible hindu, trying to bring the world a better place to live. Save the world from fanatics and senseless idiots.

Dont you ever speak for any Hindu besides yourself if at all u r a Hindu. :twisted:

Nobody is representing you or Pradheep besides Surya. you better know that. :twisted: :twisted:

Rohit
11th November 2005, 04:07 AM
On the other hand, Rohit, another sensible hindu, trying to bring the world a better place to live. Save the world from fanatics and senseless idiots.
Thank you stranger for your appreciation and compliments. I feel greatly honoured. Thank you! :)

SRS
11th November 2005, 04:18 AM
Dear Idiappam,

Ignore this frustrated and helpless "zoossanoooo" (C.J.SRS), he has no idea about the absolute validity of my proofs. My work has drawn incredible attention among intellectuals and thinkers. Regarding publishing my work, there is no problem and I am right on track, slowly but steadily, there is no hurry at all.

The worried people have to just hold their breath and wait. :poke:

Thanks for the compliments. :)

Now you are beyond senility! If your work has indeed been published , and you can prove it, I will be the first one to apologize to you. Of course this is not the case. On a prior occassion when I mentioned this, you said Forumhub is a testing ground. Now let me count the number of scientists/mathematicians who use Forumhub as a testing ground. :wink: Anyone can have theories, fine! But passing off the theory as accepted scientific fact is decietful, as per your desperate attempt to distort the Hawkins/Hartle hypothesis.

SRS
11th November 2005, 04:36 AM
SRS, you are right in saying that most a hindus here. And hinduism is not a single religion - based on the fact that it has Advaita, Dwaita etc, contrasting and contradicting concepts. So what is the point of preaching Advaita here. Rohit not only raised some questions, but punctured some concepts of Advaita, etc.

That was interesting!

Pradheep, method is not suitable. He is never straight to the point, his stories could bore even a new born, - the 'no smoke without fire' type.

Rohit's posts are clear and focused. Pradheep's - never. Before he makes a conclusion on any issue - he will beat-around-the-bushes - going off track, sometimes -- hoping to confuse the openents. Rohit, pulls him back on track - I have seen that many times on this thread..

Anyway let this unique thread stay. It is a masterpiece -- NOT the "I" Vedanta thing (I don't care a penny for that), but the manner which the opponents fought (even the personal attacks were decent). Well done!

I am not vouching for the thread on the basis of Advaita. It is one thing to have a debate; however, Rohit has made his point clear: Brahman is an illusory concept and any God-believer is suffering from delusions. This is atheism, not Hinduism. You will notice with Rohit, he does not even leave open the possibility of a Creator God. Even *modern* science leaves open that possibility. Furthermore, I have seen Rohit making these same arguments for several yrs now, with different people. All of these people were convinced Rohit's theory was flawed, but Rohit never admitted that. Basically, Rohit is drawing circles. That is not debating, that is sterilized dogmatism.

Rohit
11th November 2005, 04:45 AM
Yet two more perfectly normalised reactions, in a "zoossanoooo" way, exactly as expected. :thumbsup:

2N+168 :notworthy:

Yes, it's hopping and spinning, marking its own circles while in motion. :thumbsup: :lol: :)

Rohit
11th November 2005, 05:07 AM
Jwahar Lal Nehru, the Ex. PM of India was a non-believer. Kapil Muni propounded the philosophy of Samkhya. Mahavira, the founder of Jainism was a non-believer, Budhha was a born Hindu, I am a born Hindu, Gora was a non-believer, all Jains are non-belivers, the list goes on for countless.

"Shivering Fear" is the name of the game, dogmatism automatically follows the fearing and blind belivers.

While spinning, the floor does look going round in circles. :lol: :)

SRS
11th November 2005, 06:14 AM
Jwahar Lal Nehru, the Ex. PM of India was a non-believer. Kapil Muni propounded the philosophy of Samkhya. Mahavira, the founder of Jainism was a non-believer, Budhha was a born Hindu, I am a born Hindu, Gora was a non-believer, all Jains are non-belivers, the list goes on for countless.

"Shivering Fear" is the name of the game, dogmatism automatically follows the fearing and blind belivers.

While spinning, the floor does look going round in circles. :lol: :)

You are an atheist. I have many Buddhist friends; they strongly believe in horoscopes, reincarnation, existence of supernatural beings, etc. All of these things contradict your mechanistic, normalized, parallel-distributed garbage perspective that you will surely take to the grave with you in a few yrs, leaving humanity some much-needed rest. Good riddance!

Surya
11th November 2005, 07:19 AM
Very few can even understand what Rohit is talking.
What is very few???
And how many understands your "loads and loads of crap"???
When did you do an opinion poll???
How did you know that if u did not do that???
You and few more clowns are the only few who is living in your "maya world". You better understand that before it is getting too late! :twisted:

What is this "Loads and Loads of Crap" that u r talking about stanger? What has he said that has made u think that it's Loads of Crap? R u talking about the concept of Maya here? :huh:


On the other hand, Rohit, another sensible hindu

Where have u been? :? :? Rohit is an atheist, not even a hindu, let alone Sensible Hindu! :roll:


I am a Hindu too. I think you and Pradheep are pouring worthless trashes. Pouring filth in the name of Hinduism.

So you say. What is a hindu according to u? Someone who just happens to be born in a hindu family? No, ur not a hindu if u call "Maya" Loads of crap, since one of the main pillars in Hindu Philosophy is about Maya? :twisted:


You better understand that before it is getting too late!

Too late for..... :huh: :huh: :huh: :?

What r u trying to get at? :? :|


Nobody is representing you or Pradheep besides Surya. you better know that.

Representing meaning.....people who believe in "Maya" and other Historical happenings like the Ramayan? :huh:

If so, maybe u should visit this section a little bit more, "Raghu, Sudhamma, Viggop, Hindustani Ladka." I'm sure that you don't know who these people are right? :twisted:

And what about you? What has changed? It's still the same old crew. But now ur missing a couple fingers. Geno, and etc. :lol2: :twisted:

lordstanher
11th November 2005, 08:00 AM
Surya,

:rotfl:

sivajayan
11th November 2005, 06:59 PM
Did the pedophile priests at St. Patricks College, Jaffna, wash their hands after "teaching" the little boys? :lol:
What is this? Either your are dull or dim above your shoulders! I would like to laugh too but I really don't know what you are trying to drain here, sorry! Can anyone update me, please? Should I associate the "teaching" with Sai Baba?


I don't follow this nonsense.
Following Hinduism instead? It is your choice. :lol:


As I have already explained,No, you did not explain it. You copied it from your bio-book, liar!


one-celled organisms are able to split in two.No need to be an organism for the split. All cells split except yours! Your are the split itself.


Good Christians need not worry about Buddhism. Stick to your King James; King James has all the answers... if you listen to King James, you can ascend to the clouds in an auto-rickshaw and enjoy lifetime of sambar and Kushboo films.Yes, kamasutra is a christian invention it seems!


King James has already condemned Rohit. :lol: :lol: :DBecause he ("King James") saw you and Surya walking down the Gay Area, I hear the angels sing :lol: But they did not reveal if yours or his lolly is the best! :sad:
Rohit should have been more strict in educating you, instead of adamantly appealing at your inexistent logical ability.


Furthermore, I have seen Rohit making these same arguments for several yrs now, with different people.And all from same cell division? Or different cells but one division? The Hindu Division?


If so, maybe u should visit this section a little bit more, "Raghu, Sudhamma, Viggop, Hindustani Ladka." I'm sure that you don't know who these people are right? It sounds like the names of some of your mates from a hen-coop. Are they free of H5N1? And who is your main cokc? SRS?


It's still the same old crew.It is sudhaama telling that he has 7 decades on his back.


But now ur missing a couple fingers.Don't ask me to think where they could be. If they are removed then you also start to purge your valve. :lol:

stranger
11th November 2005, 08:12 PM
If so, maybe u should visit this section a little bit more, :twisted:

I dont think I need to because I know what I am talking about here


And what about you? What has changed? It's still the same old crew. But now ur missing a couple fingers. Geno, and etc. :lol2: :twisted:

So? :roll:

--------------------------

And why is the "lord" laughing I wonder???? :hammer:

stranger
11th November 2005, 08:21 PM
All of these things contradict your mechanistic, normalized, parallel-distributed garbage perspective that you will surely take to the grave with you in a few yrs, leaving humanity some much-needed rest. Good riddance!

Animals talk about humanity. That is hilarious! :hammer:

Rohit
11th November 2005, 09:00 PM
Three more normalised reactions, in a "zoossanoooo" way, clearly implicating the "goagabooo" annulling the "zoossanoooo" and "zoossanoooo" annulling the "goagabooo"; producing even more "goagabooos" and "zoossanoooos". Precisely this is how the "goagabooos" and "zoossanoooos" evolve. :thumbsup:

2N+171 :notworthy:

Yes, they are hopping, spinning, rolling and marking their own circles while in motion. It is fun driving such a variety :thumbsup: :lol: :)

Rohit
11th November 2005, 09:04 PM
Good riddance!
So, unwarily but finally the Truth comes out. :thumbsup: Yes, in deed it is true, such good riddance of dogmatic religious fanatics and lunatics is already long due for a much-needed peace for the entire humanity. :lol:

lordstanher
11th November 2005, 09:22 PM
And why is the "lord" laughing I wonder???? :hammer:
Hey, no offence......'din't mean to get between u guys.........jus happen to find Surya's postings hilarious most of the time (not just this thread!)....... :wink: :D
Sorry abt this interruption of mine in this thread.......plse. carry on guys.......!

pradheep
11th November 2005, 09:50 PM
Dear friends
Please Stop this attitude of calling "names" and branding others as idiots.

We will get on the topic.

1. Does God exist: A God as a person is a concept and such a person sittign in heaven and controlling people does not exist.

2. Who create everything: A principle called "Unconditioned-pure-Consciousness" (not the brain phenonmenon) which is reflected in the brain called awareness is behind all the creation.

3. This principle is the source of all manifestations. ne of its attribute is energy, which is the fundamental aspect of all "beings"- living or non-living beings".

4. Advaita is not an hindu principle, it is the truth in every religion. You see advaitic principles in Hinduism, buddhism, christianity, sufism, judiasm etc and all other unmentioned religions. But this advaitic principle is so much shadowed by the ego fights of people who claim their religion is the best and correct.

More to continue.

I request that we should on understanding the truth and not fight egositically.

Rohit
11th November 2005, 10:05 PM
1. Does God exist: A God as a person is a concept and such a person sittign in heaven and controlling people does not exist.
Please prove it, if you can't thoroughly and irrefutably prove the falsity of the "Creator God" - ID or equivalent, not personal but a separate/apart entity, this claim of yours is absolutely false and invalid.

I may request you to define any terms you may use and their antonyms in universally acceptable terms, as and when necessary.

Let us discuss the above question first; only then, if it ever comes to discuss any futher, we will come to your #2 and other points in your list.

This will be my last call to you and co-believers:

If you/co-believers can't thoroughly and irrefutably prove the falsity of the "Creator God" - ID or equivalent, not personal but a separate/apart entity that which is variously postulated/believed by the world's various religions as behind the creation of all living and/or non-living "entities" that are with or without brains - the prime cause behind everything - would, by default, conclude the debate and prove the utter falsity of all the claims made in the past, being made now and will ever be made by you/co-believers. And that will prove that you/co-belivers have fully accepted and agreed to what I have said and proved. :thumbsup: :)


2. Who create everything: A principle called "Unconditioned-pure-Consciousness" (not the brain phenonmenon) which is reflected in the brain called awareness is behind all the creation.
When we come to discuss the above, for the sake of clarity you must:

1. Define the term Consciousness in universally acceptable terms, in a non-circular way and then provide the antonym of the Consciousness and define it in a non-circular way.

2. Define the term Unconditioned-pure-Consciousness in universally acceptable terms, in a non-circular way and then provide the antonym of Unconditioned-pure-Consciousness and define it in a non-circular way.

3. Define the term Awareness in universally acceptable terms, in a non-circular way and then provide the antonym of Awareness and define it in a non-circular way.

4. Define the term Existence in universally acceptable terms, in a non-circular way and then provide the antonym of Existence and define it in a non-circular way.

5. Define the term Perception in universally acceptable terms, in a non-circular way and then provide the antonym of perception and define it in a non-circular way.

6. Define the term Truth in universally acceptable terms, in a non-circular way and then provide the antonym of Truth and define it in a non-circular way.

Also define the following terms and then give their antonyms and define them in the same way as above.
- 7. Advaita
- 8. Universe
- 9. Life
- 10. Being
- 11. Body
- 12. Brain
- 13. Mind
- 14. Real
- 15. Memory
- 16. Thought
- 17. Transcend
- 18. Transcendental
- 19. Phenonmenon
- 20. Create
- 21. Creation
- 22. Created
- 23. Reflect
- 24. Manifestations

I may add more terms and their antonyms as necessary for you to define in the same way as above.

Then comes the most shuddering and demanding question for you, which was:

Question: - Precisely how and where did the raw material i.e. the reactive, changeable, chaotic, insentient, transformable, mutable and evolving energy for the formation of the Universe + A single cell life come from? :)

Rohit
12th November 2005, 05:58 PM
Warning:

Dear Pradheep,

I would strongly warn you about the grievous danger of you trying to enter the prohibited territory and trying to cross an undeniable mutually exclusive barrier of (XOR) between "Brahman" and the "Universe + life", more likely on SRS's advise. Don't do that, otherwise the entire Advaita Vedanta will be doomed for ever. I hope you all must have realised that by now.

[Brahman](XOR)[Universe + life]

I would strongly suggest you, SRS and other believers like you to honestly accept and declare that Advaita Vedanta is a mere belief system, which you all just believe in; and that's that.

Nonetheless, if you still want to continue with it, it is entirely up to you, but my serious advice would be not to. Instead honestly accept your gross misunderstanding on Advaita Vedanta. This is an honest advice from a well-wisher. :thumbsup: :)

sivajayan
12th November 2005, 06:34 PM
Animals talk about humanity. That is hilarious! :hammer::rotfl: :thumbsup:
This being is more than worse. It is even a disgrace to animals.



jus happen to find Surya's postings hilarious most of the time (not just this thread!).......
Are you serious? Don't prove me wrong, lord. He is not at all the wag but only the tail that wags.



Please Stop this attitude of calling "names" and branding others as idiots.
It seems that you understood what you have been doing in previous posts! You must have somehow deserved the doctor and not for naming others "soonyam" or for nothingness, I guess. A good attempt for a U-turn, we'll wait and see for how long!



I request that we should on understanding the truth and not fight egositically.
Either you first get into yourself or keep off from others with your nonsense!

lordstanher
12th November 2005, 07:17 PM
Lord Stuns her wrote
Uh-oh........'think I'd better get on w/ the changing of my ID soon........ :roll: :D

SRS
12th November 2005, 11:46 PM
All of these things contradict your mechanistic, normalized, parallel-distributed garbage perspective that you will surely take to the grave with you in a few yrs, leaving humanity some much-needed rest. Good riddance!

Animals talk about humanity. That is hilarious! :hammer:

UKW a.k.a "stranger",

What do you know about humanity? What do you know about anything, other than eating? Go back to stuffing yourself with sambar, fat SOB.

SRS
12th November 2005, 11:54 PM
Dear friends

3. This principle is the source of all manifestations. ne of its attribute is energy, which is the fundamental aspect of all "beings"- living or non-living beings".



Exactly. God is not like "King James" sitting on a throne and barking orders. God is the universal cosmic energy from which the universe itself originated. Thats why it makes sense to say God is "formless"; energy can take virtually any form throughout the universe. And God is "timeless" as the sum total of energy in the Universe has always remained constant (assuming the Universe is an isolated system). I like this idea of speaking about God in terms of energy transformations.

Surya
13th November 2005, 12:15 AM
Ok, maybe my post was deleted because it was off of topic, I agree. But what about UKW's post on "Loads and Loads of Crap" and "Animals" and so on and so forth.

Fine, I'll say what I need to without getting off the topic. :roll:



If so, maybe u should visit this section a little bit more, :twisted:

I dont think I need to because I know what I am talking about here


What are you talking about exactly? How can one call themself a Hindu when they dismiss all of it's philosophies as "Loads and Loads of Crap" as you did? :huh: And how do you know what you're talking about? What is the basis of your arguement? I'm just curious. I'm not trying to get into any sort of "Bashing contest" here. :D


Exactly. God is not like "King James" sitting on a throne and barking orders.

:lol: :lol:


God is the universal cosmic energy from which the universe itself originated. Thats why it makes sense to say God is "formless"; energy can take virtually any form throughout the universe. And God is "timeless" as the sum total of energy in the Universe has always remained constant (assuming the Universe is an isolated system). I like this idea of speaking about God in terms of energy transformations.

Nicely worded! :D

Peace. 8-)[/quote]

SRS
13th November 2005, 06:26 AM
What are you talking about exactly? How can one call themself a Hindu when they dismiss all of it's philosophies as "Loads and Loads of Crap" as you did? :huh: And how do you know what you're talking about? What is the basis of your arguement? I'm just curious. I'm not trying to get into any sort of "Bashing contest" here. :D


Could not put it better. This guy (UKW) calls himself a Hindu but bashes every Hindu-related topic. Then he asks other Hindus not to speak for him?

honey bee
13th November 2005, 08:32 PM
Ok, maybe my post was deleted because it was off of topic, I agree. But what about UKW's post on "Loads and Loads of Crap" and "Animals" and so on and so forth.
Can somebody help me with a handherchief, please?



What are you talking about exactly?
It is somehow far beyond your capacities of learning and understanding I am afraid dear Surya!

Exactly. God is not like "King James" sitting on a throne and barking orders.
Initiating a war for an abducted woman instead? Where is Ishvara residing with his servants, the so called Devas? How many wifes are with him? Somewhere in the Himalayas it can't be. Too much mountain climbing and tourism I heard!


God is the universal cosmic energy from which the universe itself originated. Thats why it makes sense to say God is "formless"; energy can take virtually any form throughout the universe. And God is "timeless" as the sum total of energy in the Universe has always remained constant (assuming the Universe is an isolated system). I like this idea of speaking about God in terms of energy transformations.
So you say God is energy? Perhaps we can drive our car with that energy one day as our Petroleum sources are drawing to a close.

Why do you have to assume that the Universe is an isolated system? Won't your theory function else? Must there be some restrictions to define God? Is God a restriction? Or restrictive? Perhaps restrictive restriction? Or is it simply a restricted destruction? Thinking too much about this restriction will cause definitely a mental destruction.

And at the end you'll get to know this is nothing but physics! At present scientists assume that our universe is like a thin slice of a huge loaf of bread if the whole can be compared to it. They assume that there are pleanty of dimensions of parallel Universes and that they some times even collide.

What is this remark SOB SRS? I don''t hope you reveal your family business. Are the moderators closing their eyes?

Surya
14th November 2005, 12:25 AM
It is somehow far beyond your capacities of learning and understanding I am afraid dear Surya!

And u have the best comprehension in the hub? :lol:

Okay, then why don't u give an explanation? :lol:

If u cannot, then I suggest that u don't give yourself a headache by trying to come up with a reply that is complelty out of context! :oops: :lol2:

Well well well, if it isn't one of the genocidist war mongers from the old hub. So ur here to turn the new hub into the old. "A cyber Jihad Battleground."

I won't contribute to that. So unless u have a logical answer to my question, (Which I doubt, since ur IQ is too high to answer a simple question) :mrgreen: there's no point in me wasting my breath talking to rabid fundamentalist. :poke: :lol2:

SRS
14th November 2005, 02:03 AM
Initiating a war for an abducted woman instead? Where is Ishvara residing with his servants, the so called Devas? How many wifes are with him? Somewhere in the Himalayas it can't be. Too much mountain climbing and tourism I heard!

UKW the "Hindu" showing his true colors again. Ram is one manifestation of Brahman. One, not the only one. Do you know how to count? Lets start at 0. 0,1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10. Please practice repeating this set of numbers every day, one hr, for the next week. After that, we'll proceed to 20. :lol:


So you say God is energy? Perhaps we can drive our car with that energy one day as our Petroleum sources are drawing to a close.

I am sure if that the excess adipose tissue the 400 lb UKW possesses could be burned, enough energy would be available for the next 1000 yrs. FYI: I have seen a picture of your ugly face in the "Old Hub."



Why do you have to assume that the Universe is an isolated system? Won't your theory function else? Must there be some restrictions to define God? Is God a restriction? Or restrictive? Perhaps restrictive restriction? Or is it simply a restricted destruction? Thinking too much about this restriction will cause definitely a mental destruction.

I am not talking about other universes. I am talking about THIS universe. If you don't know the basic laws of thermodynamics, then go through these websites before talking nonsense!

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

www.halexandria.org/dward148.htm - 23k

www.mdpi.org/lin/Lin-mam-abs.PDF 9 (SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL)

stranger
14th November 2005, 11:08 PM
Go back to stuffing yourself with sambar, fat SOB .

SURYA!

You wnated know what kind of CRAP I was talking about?????

READ the ANIMAL's language.

This is the kind of CRAP I meant!

Because you cant find such a filth coming from *great human beings like ROHIT* !

I just provoked that "this" to show you its "identity" and that it lacks the sixth sense! :lol:

BTW, why do animals make fun of "Sambar"??? :roll:

Because they dont know how to cook and they usually eat raw GRASS! :rotfl:

Surya
15th November 2005, 02:15 AM
Why were you connecting that with the concept of Maya?? That's what I want to know?? Why did u call Maya Loads and Loads of Crap, when SRS is talking about Sambar??? :lol: :oops: That's the CRAP I was reffering to in ur post! 8-)

So SRS's comment on u being a fat SOB who stuffs Sambar is Maya according to you?? :? :huh: :huh:

U called him animal because he said that. Now... GREAT HUMAN BEINGS like Rohit, on the other hand would say things like that in a more Polished way. :mrgreen:

So if SRS is an animal so are the other GREAT HUMAN BEINGS as u put it!! :oops:

stranger
15th November 2005, 02:31 AM
Let us leave the ANIMAL as u still seem to take sides with an animal.

-----------------

Surya!


* Tell me about maya!

What about a child who is born and died after 30 days.

* Does that child has a consiousness?

* Or the child will go to heaven or hell??

* Tell me about the heaven Sankracharyar is going to go for finisishing Shankarraman????

I think you said he bought a ticket to go to the heaven.

Is tht ticket still valid or not???

Thank you in advance! :)

Surya
15th November 2005, 05:50 AM
:lol:
First of all:

Maya is an issue that has been debated in this thread a dozen times. So why don't u go and take a look @ some of the previous pages for a detailed discription.

In a nutshell:
Maya is what we live in. Maya is this world. A world that is merely created. A world that we get emotionally involved in but it means nothing. Some of the people who have seen this concept and have the strength to over come it:
Ramana Maharishi, Shiridi Sai Baba, and a million other yogies that our Bharath has seen.


What about a child who is born and died after 30 days.

That is it's Karma. That is the fate that the child came into this world with.


* Or the child will go to heaven or hell??

It won't. It will be reincarnated again until all of it's Karma from it's previous birth is taken care of.


I think you said he bought a ticket to go to the heaven.

Is tht ticket still valid or not???

I never said anything like that!! :lol2: Unlike OTHER religions, Hinduism doesn't grant 'a ticket' to heaven just because on is a practicing hindu. Religions that do: Xtianity, Catholosism, etc, so on and so forth. But we don't need to discuss those here.


* Tell me about the heaven Sankracharyar is going to go for finisishing Shankarraman????

Now where did that come from? :lol2: U have now proved that u just want to create troble.

Who are u to say that He murdered Shankarraman?? :lol: Nothing has been proved yet, the poor Tamil Nadu Govt is struggling to keep this case in trial, and the poor Tamil Nadu govt lawyers have been repedivly warned by the judges to stop false allegations to which they have no evidence! :lol: U can go around blabbering the things that happen in ur dreamworld. :lol2: The matters in the actual Shankaraman Murder Case is completly different! Sorry things aren't going as u please thought! :lol2: :oops:

Now UKW! I ASK YOU!


I've asked this earlier, but u don't seem to have an answer. I ask again.

*How can u call urself a hindu when u dismiss it's philosophies as Crap?

*How is it that you and other in the hub are so keen on critisizing Hinduism, but just conviently forget about other religions?

*Why is it that you, even though a hindu, are so quick to throw false allegations @ His Holiness, Shankarachariyar, when even the TN govt couldn't prove anything against him so far, and is just getting embarassed because of the lack of credibility in the case? Why do u keep insisting that he is guilty when the TN govt is completly baffled @ their pathetic situation? Do u think that u know something that the TN Govt, the Court, millions of press reporters don't know?? :lol2: PS: Those hellucinations are no proof for anything though! Sorry, but keep trying! :lol: :oops:

*U asked me about Maya, did you now know about it? If u did, then why ask me? If u didn't, then what right do u have to dismiss it as loads of crap?? :lol:

Thanks in advance! :)

Sandeep
15th November 2005, 07:12 AM
The discussion reminds me of the Old hub days (even begining of this hub).

"one of the genocidist war mongers ", Surya you seem to be in full form

stranger
15th November 2005, 07:17 AM
So, you came all the way to tell this, Sandeep???? :hammer:

May be your karma, I suppose! :hammer:

Why dont you participate instead of buttering Surya??? I think you can do better than this! :hammer:

stranger
15th November 2005, 07:20 AM
I think you said he bought a ticket to go to the heaven.

Is tht ticket still valid or not???



I never said anything like that!!

Is lyiing SIN, Surya??? :hammer:

Or LIARS also will go to Heaven with animals?? :rotfl:

Surya
15th November 2005, 07:50 AM
Sandeep, :D
The only thing that provokes me is people who target and insult hinduism and Hinduism only, and call themselves rationalists by doing so. That's what happened in the old hub, and that is what is happeneing here now.

Stranger, :lol: :lol:

Then why don't you prove it?? I think you have me mistaken with someone else. Why are u moving away from the subject anyways? :lol: :lol:

Answer the ?'s....if u can. Of course if u can't then that makes u an uninformed hipocrate who just blabbers meaningless BS! :oops:



:lol:
First of all:

Maya is an issue that has been debated in this thread a dozen times. So why don't u go and take a look @ some of the previous pages for a detailed discription.

In a nutshell:
Maya is what we live in. Maya is this world. A world that is merely created. A world that we get emotionally involved in but it means nothing. Some of the people who have seen this concept and have the strength to over come it:
Ramana Maharishi, Shiridi Sai Baba, and a million other yogies that our Bharath has seen.


What about a child who is born and died after 30 days.

That is it's Karma. That is the fate that the child came into this world with.


* Or the child will go to heaven or hell??

It won't. It will be reincarnated again until all of it's Karma from it's previous birth is taken care of.


I think you said he bought a ticket to go to the heaven.

Is tht ticket still valid or not???

I never said anything like that!! :lol2: Unlike OTHER religions, Hinduism doesn't grant 'a ticket' to heaven just because on is a practicing hindu. Religions that do: Xtianity, Catholosism, etc, so on and so forth. But we don't need to discuss those here.


* Tell me about the heaven Sankracharyar is going to go for finisishing Shankarraman????

Now where did that come from? :lol2: U have now proved that u just want to create troble.

Who are u to say that He murdered Shankarraman?? :lol: Nothing has been proved yet, the poor Tamil Nadu Govt is struggling to keep this case in trial, and the poor Tamil Nadu govt lawyers have been repedivly warned by the judges to stop false allegations to which they have no evidence! :lol: U can go around blabbering the things that happen in ur dreamworld. :lol2: The matters in the actual Shankaraman Murder Case is completly different! Sorry things aren't going as u please thought! :lol2: :oops:

Now UKW! I ASK YOU!


I've asked this earlier, but u don't seem to have an answer. I ask again.

*How can u call urself a hindu when u dismiss it's philosophies as Crap?

*How is it that you and other in the hub are so keen on critisizing Hinduism, but just conviently forget about other religions?

*Why is it that you, even though a hindu, are so quick to throw false allegations @ His Holiness, Shankarachariyar, when even the TN govt couldn't prove anything against him so far, and is just getting embarassed because of the lack of credibility in the case? Why do u keep insisting that he is guilty when the TN govt is completly baffled @ their pathetic situation? Do u think that u know something that the TN Govt, the Court, millions of press reporters don't know?? :lol2: PS: Those hellucinations are no proof for anything though! Sorry, but keep trying! :lol: :oops:

*U asked me about Maya, did you now know about it? If u did, then why ask me? If u didn't, then what right do u have to dismiss it as loads of crap?? :lol:

Thanks in advance! :)

Sandeep
15th November 2005, 07:50 AM
So, you came all the way to tell this, Sandeep????

May be your karma, I suppose!

Why dont you participate instead of buttering Surya??? I think you can do better than this!

I am just a low life animal who believes in "loads of crap". I am not as "clever" or sophisticated as you 'self profesed intellectuals'.

Sandeep
15th November 2005, 07:53 AM
Sandeep, :D
The only thing that provokes me is people who target and insult hinduism and Hinduism only, and call themselves rationalists by doing so. That's what happened in the old hub, and that is what is happeneing here now.


Thats because they know whatever you say against Hinduism people are going to take it tolerantly. They dont have the guts to speack against other religions. Or there will be a fatwa for their head.

Surya
15th November 2005, 07:55 AM
Exactly! :thumbsup:

Surya
15th November 2005, 07:59 AM
Sandeep,
What is it with ur location, I've been wanting to ask you. Last week or so, Ur location said "b'lore" and now singapore, and it keep moving around. :)

Now UKW! I have answered ur questions, if you have any clue what-so-ever to what ur saying, then u should be able to answer mine.!


Of course if u can't then that makes u an uninformed hipocrate who just blabbers meaningless BS! :oops:

I've asked this earlier, but u don't seem to have an answer. I ask again.

*How can u call urself a hindu when u dismiss it's philosophies as Crap?

*How is it that you and other in the hub are so keen on critisizing Hinduism, but just conviently forget about other religions?

*Why is it that you, even though a hindu, are so quick to throw false allegations @ His Holiness, Shankarachariyar, when even the TN govt couldn't prove anything against him so far, and is just getting embarassed because of the lack of credibility in the case? Why do u keep insisting that he is guilty when the TN govt is completly baffled @ their pathetic situation? Do u think that u know something that the TN Govt, the Court, millions of press reporters don't know?? :lol2: PS: Those hellucinations are no proof for anything though! Sorry, but keep trying! :lol: :oops:

*U asked me about Maya, did you now know about it? If u did, then why ask me? If u didn't, then what right do u have to dismiss it as loads of crap?? :lol:

Thanks in advance! :)[/quote]

Sandeep
15th November 2005, 08:09 AM
Sandeep,
What is it with ur location, I've been wanting to ask you. Last week or so, Ur location said "b'lore" and now singapore, and it keep moving around. :)


Hey its not the location its me who is moving around :)

Meeting new people, interestingly now I am working with a chinese, a malaysian, a newzealander and a british and their religions and believes are equaly unique.

The chinese is a buddhist and I went to some buddhist temples with him. In one of the temples (it survived WW2) the main deity was "Goddess of Mercy". Her statue in gold colour (dont know if it is pure gold) had 8 hands each carrying symbolic items (like our Durga but with mercy). My colleague was not able to tell me about the symbolisms. I spend sometime there watching their customs. Very interesting.

The colleague on the way told me that they believed that hindu "bharma" changed religion to buddhism. I didnt understand who or what he was refering to. My good sense told me to leave it at that.

---- Sorry for digression. -------

stranger
15th November 2005, 08:40 PM
I am just a low life animal who believes in "loads of crap". I am not as "clever" or sophisticated as you 'self profesed intellectuals'.

You ARE! :shock: :shock:

Who said this world is only for human beings! :roll:

Animals do live here! I like them as long as they behave! :lol2:

stranger
15th November 2005, 08:42 PM
Now UKW!

u want me to answer for "you know know" too???? :hammer:


------------------

* Tell me what is maya NOW??????????????????????? :roll:

No, you hve not answered my question yet! :lol:

Or quote your answer here. Let us start from the scratch.

stranger
15th November 2005, 08:56 PM
Stranger,

* Then why don't you prove it??

* I think you have me mistaken with someone else.

* Why are u moving away from the subject anyways?

Why do ALL the religious CLOWNS LIE if they really believe in GOD! :roll:

They are all full of CRAP! :hammer:

stranger
16th November 2005, 01:40 AM
* Maya is what we live in.

* Maya is this world.

* A world that is merely created.

* A world that we get emotionally involved in but it means nothing.

So, maya is the world?????

That is it.

Are you sure?

Why dont u call that as world like evrybody else do???


Some of the people who have seen this concept and have the strength to over come it:

Ramana Maharishi, Shiridi Sai Baba, and a million other yogies that our Bharath has seen.

* Which CONCEPT????

* Overcome WHAT???

Nothing is CLEAR surya! :?

SRS
16th November 2005, 04:01 AM
Go back to stuffing yourself with sambar, fat SOB .

SURYA!

You wnated know what kind of CRAP I was talking about?????

READ the ANIMAL's language.

This is the kind of CRAP I meant!

Because you cant find such a filth coming from *great human beings like ROHIT* !

I just provoked that "this" to show you its "identity" and that it lacks the sixth sense! :lol:

BTW, why do animals make fun of "Sambar"??? :roll:

Because they dont know how to cook and they usually eat raw GRASS! :rotfl:

If you took my advice, your life might be more productive. It is below the level of a scientifically literate person to question why the universe is an isolated system. Clearly, you are lacking a physics or chemistry background. Instead of improving on this, you come and ask useless questions like "why do synthetic drugs involve" and "how can the universe be an isolated system." One thing to not know, but to persist in foolishness makes you an idiot.

pradheep
17th November 2005, 07:13 PM
Dear Rohit
For the defintions you seek, clickon to thislink.

http://sakthifoundation.org/river-9.htm


Yayur vedas is a book about live animal sacrifice. - you throw live animals into the yagna fire.

Dear Idiappam

Since the human mind is always revolved around the world of senses (Indriyas), God Indra is talked and praised firstin the vedas. His kingdom of heaven (Swarga) is talked about. The rituals of obtaining wealth and prosperity etc is later given. Then comes the element of sacrifice which most of them wrongly interpreted it as sacrifice of animals. Since we have evolved from animals, we still carry the trace desires of it. We have to sacrifice those animal nature and evolve to pure man. Unfortunately this information is taken as literally and animal sacrifice was performed.

Kali drinking blood after chopping the demon mahishan's head and drinking his blood, thank God, is not literally followed. Otherwise we would be cannibals drinking human blood. Here the buffalo head Mahishan represent Ego. Buffalo is a black colored animal that is lazy and swims in dirty stagnant water. Lack represent darkness or total absorption of color which symbolizes the attitude of Ego. Ego is totally absorbed only in its welfare and not concerned of anything. Ego like buffalo is lazy and dwells in the stagnant darkness of ignorance.


moreinformation-http://sakthifoundation.org/puranas.htm


All theology talk about one or many Gods and criticize vedic culture worshipping many Gods. They do not understand that vedas do not talk about one God, infact it tells that there is "only" God. All that we see is only manifestation of that "reality". Look at our own body, it is just the relfection of the whole cosmos. |To stay and think away from the reality is Ignorance and breeds confusion and wars.

mahadevan
17th November 2005, 08:43 PM
"Since the human mind is always revolved around the world of senses (Indriyas), God Indra is talked and praised firstin the vedas. His kingdom of heaven (Swarga) is talked about. The rituals of obtaining wealth and prosperity etc is later given. Then comes the element of sacrifice which most of them wrongly interpreted it as sacrifice of animals. Since we have evolved from animals, we still carry the trace desires of it. We have to sacrifice those animal nature and evolve to pure man. Unfortunately this information is taken as literally and animal sacrifice was performed"


Hey Pradheep, you are talking as if vedas are misinterpreted and this lead to people sacrificing animals, this is a totally baseless argument. The animal sacrifices and the protocol to be followed for it is very clearly mentioned in the vedas. Are you trying to say that the authors of the vedas were a confused lot, they wnated to say destroy the animality in you but instead ended up in saying sacrifice animal ? I can buy that, based on the quality of intellectualism in vedas, I presume that they are not a smart bunch

What is wrong in we haveing desires ? it is just because of your ardent desire to make others accept your views on life, you are participating in this forum. And ironically you are saying that what you are doing is wrong, hey if you really mean that, please lead by an example !

pradheep
17th November 2005, 09:19 PM
Dera Mahadevan
I am very glad atleast you get into discussion rather than just "calling names". My sincere request is that if you find my explainations rational then acknolwedge that rather than feeling "cornered". We are all learning. I was once like you , but evolved by accepting rational thoughts from anyone, may be even if it is from a kid.

Okay. Now your question about desires.

The difference between Buddhism and vedic is as follows. Buddha realized the root cause of all suffering is "desire". Vedas says the root cause of all suffering is not knowing the "real" Self. Buddism says to give up desires. How is that possible. No one can live without desires. It is highly impractical to give up desires.

What vedas says is that know the Truth and you will be free from suffering. There is no problem in desires. The problem is in addiction and indulgence. |This is the symbolism of asuras and devas wars. Indra and swarga represents the pleasure (swarga) derived through senses. But his swarga is captured when he forgets hisown self and loses his power. When he indulges then heis defeated by asuras. "Sura" means to lead or to rule. "Asura|" to become a slave. Exactly this is what is shown as devas and asuras war. I will explain each and every demon's name and its symbolism,then you will understand everything.

Take for example sweet taste. There is no problem in eating sweets. Eating sweets is enjoyable, swarga and sweet is called satvic. But the moment you indulge in eating then you create hell (disease) in you. This happens whe you forget that you are not the enjoyer but witnesser of enjoyment. Then there is no indulgence.

So desires are not a problem, indulgence which occurs by forgetting that we are the witnessor,the leader (Sura) and not the slave of it (Asura).

Vedas gives infact all means to fullfill desires. All rituals are oriented to that. But through these rituals if you are awareofyour self, then the vasanas die in you. Vasanas are mental impressions in you. That has to be cleared for you to evolve.

will continue if you have doubts.

pradheep
17th November 2005, 09:34 PM
[tscii:d2b54394ac]Dear Idiappam and Mahavedan
Do not think I am making all these interpretations. You need not beleivewhat I say.But I will give an evidence of a great humanatarian who says exactly what I said above. She is not educated in schools even, but talks advaita and practices that in her llife. Advaita is not soemthign oen reads in books, but will dawan the moment someone purifies the mind. I am not quoting some one centuries back. right now such a person lives. You can go and check the truth i talks. This person is the great mata Amritanada mayi devi, the hugging saint. She is the greatest purified person who attained Self realization, not by reading books but through inner purification which the vedas tell. |Now learned people seek answer from her. She talks from the knowledge of the Self and never read any vedic books but talks and lives vedic sanatana dharma.

Look what she tells.


Amma gave a telling example of this miseducation: the interpretation of the Sanskrit word "pashu." The most common meaning, indeed, is "cow," but the word also has many other meanings including "ego." So, in some Vedic rituals it says to sacrifice a "pashu"; although the correct meaning is to end your identification with the limited sense of "I," in most Western universities it is being taken as to kill a cow.

Many of these mistakes originated with Max Mller, a German philogist and Orientalist who translated the Rg Veda, the major Upanishads and wrote various works on Hindu culture--without once having visited India. As Mller was the first person to translate much of the Vedic literature into English, his texts became the primary source of reference.

Perhaps the biggest tragedy is that Indians today are accepting these fallacies as fact, Amma said. Even though Mahatmas are correcting these misconceptions and pointing out the real meaning of the scriptural statements, most people are not able to accept what the Mahatmas are saying as the real truth. Instead, they cling to the belief that whatever they were taught in schoolfrom textbooks based on the writings of Mller and other Western scholarsmust be correct. Amma said that one of the reasons for this is that as the Indian people were living in slavery under the British for nearly 200 years, they have developed the attitude to accept whatever the West says.

Amma then told a story to illustrate the condition of India: Once a king ate some payasam [sweet rice pudding] and, not wanting his subjects to have any, told all of them that it was bitter. All the subjects, out of respect for the king, did not even taste the payasam, accepting its bitterness as a fact. But there was one smart fellow in the court, and he said, "I like bitter payasam," and took all of it.

The story is symbolic of how certain forces have been able to trick the majority of people into forfeiting the Vedic culture that is their birthright. However, even so, the truly inquisitive seekers of knowledge have pushed forward anyway, found out the sweetness of India's spiritual tradition for themselves and embraced it.

But Amma said some of the blame also falls on Indian people themselves; that there were some Indian pundits who sold the knowledge contained in the Vedas to foreigners just to make money, often helping them to misinterpret or pretending to know the meanings when they really did not. This was the beginning of the proliferation of misinformation. "In this way, too many of India's precious things were lost," Amma said.

"Westerners are very keen to come and explore and investigate the origin of the knowledge, but Indians are not interested in this," Amma said, adding that, seeing the knowledge's value, Westerners take it back to their own countries and patent it, but that the Indians never see its value. Amma then wondered aloud: "All our books have commentaries written by Westerners. Indians haven't written that much. Why is it like this?"

Go to the link belwo formore

http://amritapuri.org/amma/2005/508vedic.php
[/tscii:d2b54394ac]

Idiappam
18th November 2005, 01:52 AM
Pradheep, you have poured in tonnes of words here - promoting Vedas, trying to squeeze some 'alternative' meanings to the ills of the Vedas. You have not quoted a single line from any of them...

This tactics are common amoung you Vedics. Why?? Talk helluva big of the vedas but quote nothing from any of them.. WHY?? You can go to any books on vedas or any site on vedas - all the times, you bet - they won't show a single good line from any of the vedas. WHY?

The same goes for the AMMA. She has spoken miles, but not a single 'good' line from any of the Vedas was quoted.. WHY..

What are you vedics trying hide?? Trash under your carpet.. Watch carefully, Pradheep.

stranger
18th November 2005, 02:05 AM
Mr. Pradheep!

When did "consiousness" become a "God"???

I am sure, you know the date of birth of this "God".

I am sure, "matter God" is older brother to "consiousness God"???

Evolution and Science developed and started revealing the truth.

These smart "religious clowns" keep changing the "name of God" according to the truth learnt from the scientific developments- in order defend their ever-lasting stupidity. :hammer:

mahadevan
18th November 2005, 03:39 AM
[tscii:9dc3a85e11]"As Mller was the first person to translate much of the Vedic literature into English, his texts became the primary source of reference."

If Maxmuller was wrong, then why we do not have any translation of vedas by any vedics that can stand the test of acdemic stringency (as opposed to blatant speculations/lies) and tells about the sensible things in vedas, I am not even expecting great philosophies/sacred things in vedas, just point blank sensible things. I am sorry to say pradheep, I have not found even an iota of worthy stuff in any of our 4 vedas, if you know of some please, please, I beg you please enlighten me.

Idiyappam, how many times ever we ask for such info, we would never get it, for it is non existant, the real soonya!
but to reveal its true color we have to keep asking them again and again if not, they would put a sacred veil around it and call it the ultimate knowledge. A knowledge nobody understands so beyond questions. Doing a good job buddy keep it up.[/tscii:9dc3a85e11]

pradheep
18th November 2005, 09:15 PM
You have not quoted a single line from any of them...

Dear Idiappam
What do you mean quoting vedic lines?. Which veda do you want to discussto know the correct meaning. I have given you an overview to help you clear your misunderstanding.

What are you vedics trying hide??
I am just revealing the information and nothing to hide.

Dear stranger

When did "consiousness" become a "God"???
Consciousness did not become God. Everything is Consciousness and that is God. Like Space... nothing becomes space, everything is in space.

Here everything including me and you are just manifestation of god. Only difference between us is that you do not know it and I know it. Evolution will push you in life and you will also know it.

Dear mahadevan

I am sorry to say pradheep, I have not found even an iota of worthy stuff in any of our 4 vedas, if you know of some please, please, I beg you please enlighten me.

Not understanding that is your problem, But I am here to explain that.

Knowing the real meaning of vedas is a problem only for those who do not know sanskrit and read directly from the texts. They read max muller and misunderstand by theliteral translations of max muller.

Only people like you who cannot read sanskrit and get the direct meaning it is a problem. More-over The "Truth" is difficlut to be self learnt because of ignorance and so is taught by a teacher. This is whythe guru-shishya parampara exists. Through ages through help of gurus we learn it. Even to learn simple mathermatics or alphabets you need a teacher and then think of this highest truth, which defintely needs a teacher.

Max muller translations are needed for those who do not approach a Guru and so end up mis-understanding.

Hope I cleared your doubts. In summary, why do you depend on maxmuller, when there are great teachers available. I am asking the question to you back, why doyou go to school and study under teachers when somany books are available in the library. The same applies here. So do not depend on translations, go to the direct source, the Teacher.

Idiappam
18th November 2005, 09:50 PM
Pradheep, just reach out any verse from any of the 4 vedas - preferably the Atharvan... and give a word for word comentrary.. if you don't mind! But please don't add your own conception of the lines and go into some story-telling stun! I have no time and no patience for all that. Readers can form their own ideas. Don't drag them around.

pradheep
18th November 2005, 11:28 PM
You are already restricting me and telling not to add my own conception. what do you intend to say?. Why not you bring a line from atharveda and so you can be happy.

Also a suggestion to my dear friend iddiappam....do not lose patience...you will not gain anything without patience. Patience is need to obtain knolwedge in any field.

Idiappam
18th November 2005, 11:51 PM
You are already restricting me and telling not to add my own conception. what do you intend to say?. Why not you bring a line from atharveda and so you can be happy.

Also a suggestion to my dear friend iddiappam....do not lose patience...you will not gain anything without patience. Patience is need to obtain knolwedge in any field.

I loose patience when I detect willful disinformation -- another common tactics of Vedics.. I don't need them, I would rather remain blind.

mahadevan
19th November 2005, 12:24 AM
"Not understanding that is your problem, But I am here to explain that."

My problem with vedas is not a lack of understanding, but my complete understanding of the lack even sensible things in vedas, if you need to understand any specific verse that is in sanskrit, I can help you there!.

"Knowing the real meaning of vedas is a problem only for those who do not know sanskrit and read directly from the texts. They read max muller and misunderstand by theliteral translations of max muller. "

Who Told you that I do not know sanskrit ? It looks like you do not know sanskrit and you keep reading its translation by religious fanatics. One more brain washed SOUL. I have seen such people in other religions too, but atleast those guys know what they are trying to defend, unlike you who keeps telling it is great bla bla bla without telling what is great in it(The SOONYA).

"Only people like you who cannot read sanskrit and get the direct meaning it is a problem. More-over The "Truth" is difficlut to be self learnt because of ignorance and so is taught by a teacher. This is whythe guru-shishya parampara exists. Through ages through help of gurus we learn it. Even to learn simple mathermatics or alphabets you need a teacher and then think of this highest truth, which defintely needs a teacher. "

Hey if Truth is so difficult then how did the guru learn in the first place ?

Getting the primary education requires a teacher because it is mostly learning conventions by rote and does not require intellectualism. But once you have learnt the primary stuff, you are better off learning from books than by a teacher. Unless you are the spoon feed type who never really understand anything by themself, fortunately they are a minority. Finally "guru-shishya parampara " existed because access to knowledge was limited to a select few(at the discretion of the guru or his class) and a media like the print media was non existant. Those days are over buddy, grow up, evolve.

Idiappam
19th November 2005, 12:56 AM
And not only that, Mr Pradheep - your pretence that you are a know-all guru have been exposed in this same thread - that you yourself have lost your patience and resorted to name calling - (your exchage with Rohit).

You should pick some lines from the Vedas (with verse reference) and give a word-for-word explanation, at least to proof your worth here and, of course, the worth of your beloved Vedas - the Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharan.. - if any!

SRS
19th November 2005, 03:02 AM
Idiappam and Mahadevan:

I do not know why you are pushing Pradheep to give literal translations of Vedas. Please note the title of the thread: "Understanding Vedanta." The thread was designed to discuss difficult concepts as per the Vedas, not to give line-by-line translations. Indeed, most of Pradheeps commentaries here have shed light on Vedas... if he were to give line-by-line translations, most ppl would be left confused. I also disagree with you that Vedas have no value. The Indian mind is very mathematically/scientifically oriented; I have seen this, despite having lived outside of and schooled outside of India. I will not hesitate to say that the larger percentage of expat Indians are engineers/IT professionals/doctors. I have seen the same phenomenon in East Asians. So there can be doubt math and science were highly developed in such places as India, long before the West made the same discoveries. Of course, these discoveries were made through Vedanta!

Idiappam
19th November 2005, 03:45 AM
Idiappam and Mahadevan:
I do not know why you are pushing Pradheep to give literal translations of Vedas.
Simply to know what 'goodness' there is in there - as the Vedics claimed!


Please note the title of the thread: "Understanding Vedanta." The thread was designed to discuss difficult concepts as per the Vedas,
Don't you know, Mr SRS - that Vedanta has nothing to do with the Vedas. I know we are desperately off-track here, but never mind!


not to give line-by-line translations.
how else could he make those 'difficult concepts' known?? How else could be add glory to the Vedas and justify them too??


Indeed, most of Pradheeps commentaries here have shed light on Vedas...
Indeed, oh, Indeed! What has Pradheep talked so far, that came from the Vedas??? NOthing!!


if he were to give line-by-line translations, most ppl would be left confused.
Either the 'ppl' are stupid or the 'comentator' pradheep? So, much credit goes to Pradheep for confusing people, eh? Vedics are experts at that!

Let's get confused! Pradheep, roll out the Vedic lines!


I also disagree with you that Vedas have no value.
Then, show me some of those "value"!


The Indian mind is very mathematically/scientifically oriented;
Then what happened??

The Japanese mind is very mathematically/scientifically oriented...
The Korean mind is very mathematically/scientifically oriented...
The Italian mind is very mathematically/scientifically oriented...


I have seen this, despite having lived outside of and schooled outside of India.
You have only seen "non-Indian" Indians!


I will not hesitate to say that the larger percentage of expat Indians are engineers/IT professionals/doctors.
No big deal about that! YOu can't be an expat if you are not a professional!


So there can be doubt math and science were highly developed in such places as India, long before the West made the same discoveries.
Why do the poor in India still till their soil with ox-driven ploughs, because they can't afford a recondidtioned Mitsubishi Tiller?

What happened to their mathematical and scientific skills they got from thier Vedas?


Of course, these discoveries were made through Vedanta!
That goes ---- "I AM GOD"?

stranger
19th November 2005, 04:04 AM
Consciousness did not become God. Everything is Consciousness and that is God.

Can I ask, How do you know that or learn that? :)

stranger
19th November 2005, 04:11 AM
Only difference between us is that you do not know it and I know it. Evolution will push you in life and you will also know it.

Nope, I beg to disagree.

There is a LOT of difference between us, Pradheep

aravindhan
19th November 2005, 06:02 PM
Amma gave a telling example of this miseducation: the interpretation of the Sanskrit word "pashu." The most common meaning, indeed, is "cow," but the word also has many other meanings including "ego." So, in some Vedic rituals it says to sacrifice a "pashu"; although the correct meaning is to end your identification with the limited sense of "I," in most Western universities it is being taken as to kill a cow.

पशु is not that commonly used to distinguish cows from other animals in vedic texts - it tends to be used more to distinguish domesticated animals from wild beasts (usually called मृग). Its taking on "cow" as its primary meaning is more a feature of the dravidian languages and later Sanskrit, and its meaning of "individual soul" (as distinct from the cosmic आत्मन् is a much later one deriving from its use in the pashupata tradition.

There are vedic texts which use other words more strongly associated with the cow, such as गो or वशा to refer to sacrificial animals. One example which I can think off offhand is RV 8:43:11 which uses वशा and उक्षा.

There are also other issues that need to be taken into account, most importantly the word गोघ्न in the Rig Veda, its later idiomatic usage for "guest", and Panini's rather cryptic gloss दाशगोघ्नौ सम्प्रदाने on the word's meaning.

None of this has anything to do with vedanta, so this discussion properly belongs on a thread of its own, but since it had been brought up I wanted to briefly point out here that the situation on cow sacrifice is not that simple.

honey bee
21st November 2005, 09:00 PM
What about a child who is born and died after 30 days.

That is it's Karma. That is the fate that the child came into this world with. Into which world? Indian, American, European,.....? And if I kill or rape or do utter nonsense then it is my Karma, isn't it? I have to do it so otherwise the world won't function at all.



* Or the child will go to heaven or hell??

It won't. It will be reincarnated again until all of it's Karma from it's previous birth is taken care of.
It is really a sad thing that your karma and reincarnation does not function very good. I am afraid that we are going to face saffron soldiers of your type not only now at present but also always whenever we are born into this world.

If we are born once again because of our karma wher are we going to be born? In India? I think it must be India because the biggest collection of Hindus are concentrated in India, only some are in Bay Area happy with mortgaged people and some become thermical dynamics.


I think you said he bought a ticket to go to the heaven.

Is tht ticket still valid or not???

I never said anything like that!! :lol2: Unlike OTHER religions, Hinduism doesn't grant 'a ticket' to heaven just because on is a practicing hindu. Religions that do: Xtianity, Catholosism, etc, so on and so forth. But we don't need to discuss those here.
What is the difference between Christianity and Catholizism? There is a ticket to heaven in Hinduism. Atleast to one of their mini Gods and Godesses. --> Follow your rassistic Vedas - That is the key.
Take care of a temple, kill all who are against you, wear a saffron robe, impress people by Wristwatch or even a gold chain and let the whole act video. All these stuff definitely proves that hinduism is the real religion practised by real hindus.

From My point of view you and SRS are argueing like old women in a market crying to sell their old stuff for new. And that without an overall renovation. Good Luck Surya and SRS.

pradheep
21st November 2005, 09:46 PM
Hey if Truth is so difficult then how did the guru learn in the first place ?

it is as good as asking how did the first human was born. My dear friend, it is evolution and that is what all beings are seeking.

SRS
22nd November 2005, 01:58 AM
Vedanta is based on Upanishads!

honey bee
22nd November 2005, 04:54 PM
Vedanta is not based on Thermodynamics?

honey bee
22nd November 2005, 05:10 PM
I will not hesitate to say that the larger percentage of expat Indians are engineers/IT professionals/doctors. I have seen the same phenomenon in East Asians. So there can be doubt math and science were highly developed in such places as India, long before the West made the same discoveries. Of course, these discoveries were made through Vedanta!

Have you ever heard of the lost library of Alexandria? Nobody knows which and how much knowledge was lost through the fire.

But I agree that the knowledge of India, gained through vedanta is of theoretical nature and nothing practical. In the theory India is great but practicaly it is still the nation of the bullock carts as idiappam already said.

Why is Mumbay (Bombay) regarded as the world's Dumpsite and Calcutta as the almshouse?

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind and for sure not in the upanishads.

Lambretta
22nd November 2005, 08:11 PM
But I agree that the knowledge of India, gained through vedanta is of theoretical nature and nothing practical. In the theory India is great but practicaly it is still the nation of the bullock carts as idiappam already said.
The reason tat India is practically backward is bcos of the corruption/selfishness/negligence of the bureaucracy/authorities, now spreading down to the lower levels......coupled w/ adopting the most unwanted aspects of the West (instead of their technology/infrastructure/community values) in the name of development, while disregarding even the beneficial aspects of our own philosophy/values........thus resulting in a counter-development in both, theoritical as well as practical spheres!
India hasn't been really following the Vedanta or ne part of our original philosophies whole-heartedly.......if it had been doing so, we wudn't hav been 1/2 as backward as we r now!

pradheep
23rd November 2005, 12:22 AM
vedanta is of theoretical nature and nothing practical.

Anything for that matter is theoretical if onlyread in books , but when practiced in daily life it is practical. So it is the fault of the people and not vedanta's.

People who are positive in life will learn even from a grass like Datatreya who had 24 gurus which included even dogs. People who are negative will blame everything else for a reason adn find fault and misunderstand things anddont have the spinal cord to correct things.

India is backward because of people who pint point such and such is the reason instead of practically correcting it. it is easyto talk than to put in action.

To put everything in action is the postive statement of vedic tradition (vedic Includes all the cultural tradition of India).

mahadevan
23rd November 2005, 12:31 AM
"vedic Includes all the cultural tradition of India"
Another definition for vedic! now that it is apparent to folks like pradheep that there is not much in vedic and there are great philosophies in languages like Tamil, they want to include it in the ambit of vedic for now so that tomorrow they can claim that Tamil got those stuffs from vedas! For how long do you think that you guys can involve in such shameless plagiarism Pradheep ?

mahadevan
23rd November 2005, 12:35 AM
Lambretta wrote "India hasn't been really following the Vedanta or ne part of our original philosophies whole-heartedly.......if it had been doing so, we wudn't hav been 1/2 as backward as we r now!"

Since we have been following that half heartedly we are this backward, if we had followed whole heartedly we would still be in mediveal ages. Lambretta atleast you (unlike Solomon etc) please tell me what is sensible in vedic.

SRS
23rd November 2005, 09:27 AM
I will not hesitate to say that the larger percentage of expat Indians are engineers/IT professionals/doctors. I have seen the same phenomenon in East Asians. So there can be doubt math and science were highly developed in such places as India, long before the West made the same discoveries. Of course, these discoveries were made through Vedanta!

Have you ever heard of the lost library of Alexandria? Nobody knows which and how much knowledge was lost through the fire.

But I agree that the knowledge of India, gained through vedanta is of theoretical nature and nothing practical. In the theory India is great but practicaly it is still the nation of the bullock carts as idiappam already said.

Why is Mumbay (Bombay) regarded as the world's Dumpsite and Calcutta as the almshouse?

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind and for sure not in the upanishads.


Of course I did not mean to imply all Indians are natural-born scientists. Even among Indians, as "honey bee" demonstrates, there are those who lack intelligence altogether.

Lambretta
23rd November 2005, 07:38 PM
Since we have been following that half heartedly we are this backward, if we had followed whole heartedly we would still be in mediveal ages.
Mahadevan,
First of all, y do u think so?? Y do u hav animosity towards the Vedanta/Vedic philosophy?? Y do u consider it backward??
It may hav been created thousands of yr ago but it is capable of being updated/developed to suit even the 21st century.......if we had appropriate understanding of the Vedanta philosophy, ie, applying it practically rather than jus studying wat it was all abt, we wudn't hav had so many problems over religious differences or majority of us blindly following religious rituals/practices only from the outside as we hav been doing for all these decades!
For eg. the Vedanta philosophy (explained most explicitly by Swami Vivekananda) lays emphasis on the fact of one universal religion, formed by the ending up of all religions together towards God, just as rivers following diff. paths end up in the ocean.......is there ne other philosophy tat openly states the same?! It makes us realise the importance of religion from the inner self!
OK let me ask u to introspect meanwhile, & see wat other philosophy u cud come up w/ tat wud prove to be far more beneficial to the Indian society in terms of development.....if u cud state the features, we cud hav them to compare w/ the Vedanta philosophy & I'd thus hav a lot more to tell u! :)

Idiappam
24th November 2005, 06:06 AM
Vedanta is based on Upanishads!

Now comes a new theory.. How is Vedanta based on the Upanishads..

"Motta thalaikkum mulankaalukkum mudichu pOduraan..." - Tamil saying. - knotting your bare ankles to your bald head....

There a 'many' Upanishads - written over a long period of time - till the 12th Century CE.. And the sanskritists claim that they are based on the Vedas.. (they attached it to vedas) Again they have not shown any relation between them. If you read them (upanishads) they seem to have no relation to the Vedas at all.

SRS - can you show me how the Vedanta is 'based' on the Upanishads.

Idiappam
24th November 2005, 06:08 AM
Vedanta is based on Upanishads!

Now comes a new theory.. How is Vedanta based on the Upanishads..

"Motta thalaikkum mulankaalukkum mudichu pOduraan..." - Tamil saying. - knotting your bare ankles to your bald head....

There a 'many' Upanishads - written over a long period of time - till the 12th Century CE.. And the sanskritists claim that they are based on the Vedas.. (they attached it to vedas) Again they have not shown any relation between them. If you read them (upanishads) they seem to have no relation to the Vedas at all.

SRS - can you show me how the Vedanta is 'based' on the Upanishads.

Bebeto
28th November 2005, 06:22 PM
SRS - can you show me how the Vedanta is 'based' on the Upanishads.

Idiappam,

ask him something about Thermo Dynamics. He will probably tell you something about steam=Avi=ghost.

stranger
28th November 2005, 10:17 PM
SRS - can you show me how the Vedanta is 'based' on the Upanishads.

well, well, well,

engappan kuthirukkuLLE illE-ngiRa kathaiyA pOchu! :roll:

NOw we know what kind of "copy and paste" CLOWN we are dealing with unless we see some sensible answer here! :rotfl:

Idiots can hide thier identity only if they keep their mouth shut, after all. :hammer:

Bebeto
28th November 2005, 10:36 PM
Ithu enna ippa kuthirayA? viNmIn eNRu ninaiththEn.
kanakka thermo dynamics cappi cappi avan AviyAki vittAn pOla, appAvi.

SRS
29th November 2005, 08:17 AM
Vedanta is based on Upanishads!

Now comes a new theory.. How is Vedanta based on the Upanishads..

"Motta thalaikkum mulankaalukkum mudichu pOduraan..." - Tamil saying. - knotting your bare ankles to your bald head....

There a 'many' Upanishads - written over a long period of time - till the 12th Century CE.. And the sanskritists claim that they are based on the Vedas.. (they attached it to vedas) Again they have not shown any relation between them. If you read them (upanishads) they seem to have no relation to the Vedas at all.

SRS - can you show me how the Vedanta is 'based' on the Upanishads.

Vedanta is very much based on Upanishads. I am not sure why you question this, other than that you have issues with Sanskrit itself. However, I can assure you this is the standard Hindu belief. Please see the following websites, as they can explain better than me:

http://www.gurjari.net/ico/Mystica/html/upanishad.htm

http://www.bookstore.siddhayoga.org/Templates/frmTemplateM3.asp?SubFolderID=169&SearchYN=N

http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/017.htm

http://hinduism.about.com/cs/vedasvedanta/

http://www.sfvedanta.org/AboutSynopsis.html

http://www.indiadivine.org/vedanta-sutras-bhashyas-commentaries1.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/ramanuja.html

www.san.beck.org/Upan1-Kena.html

www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/upanishad.html

www.haryana-online.com/History/vedanta.htm

stranger
29th November 2005, 08:39 PM
Why dont you highlight the extract which says what you claimed and give that particular link as well?

Because giving some links means NOTHING but bs especially when you give 10 links for supporting a statement which has just five words!

All we need is one link which supports your statement that "Vedanta is based on Upanishads"!

Thank you! :)

stranger
29th November 2005, 09:01 PM
"Vedanta is based on Upanishads"!


Pradheep!

Do you agree with the above statement or not???

Please say Yes or no or I dont know, pradheep!

Thank you! :)

mahadevan
29th November 2005, 10:02 PM
"Please say Yes or no or I dont know, pradheep! "
How dare you demand clear talking/thinking from vedic's ?. It is in confusion that they thrive, if it is clear how can it be sacred ? You are missing the point stranger

mahadevan
29th November 2005, 10:09 PM
Hi Lambretta
I have nothing against vedas perse, infact I like hearing them for their poetic content. But claiming that they have a deep philosophical content which are the foundation of hinduism is just blasphemy. It is just an attempt to hijack hinduism by claiming false origin/ownership. If vedas does have some philosophy why dont you guys post it here, we can discuss that like learned people. All that I always get are stories and never ones any philosophy worthy of discussion. If vedic is in fact the foundation of hinduism, then how come the majority of practicing hindus never follow or worship what is mentioned in the vedas ? or the minority who also do not practice it, just keeps blindly saying it is great without ever providing any evidence for it ?

stranger
29th November 2005, 10:19 PM
"Please say Yes or no or I dont know, pradheep! "
How dare you demand clear talking/thinking from vedic's ?. It is in confusion that they thrive, if it is clear how can it be sacred ? You are missing the point stranger

Mr. Mahadevan!

May be but I hope Pradheep will give an honest answer here. :)

Let me wait for a while!

SRS
30th November 2005, 01:48 AM
Why dont you highlight the extract which says what you claimed and give that particular link as well?

Because giving some links means NOTHING but bs especially when you give 10 links for supporting a statement which has just five words!

All we need is one link which supports your statement that "Vedanta is based on Upanishads"!

Thank you! :)

I can give 100 links that prove my point. Now I challenge you to give one link that disproves my point.

stranger
30th November 2005, 02:13 AM
If you come up with 10 and 100, I am sure that is nothing but your TRASH.

So I will never go through that junk as I know your little knowledge about India or Hinduism or whatsoever.

Because I know u r just a "copy paste" CLOWN! :lol:

Wait, till I hear from Pradheep!

Your days are numbered, Clown! :lol:

stranger
30th November 2005, 02:21 AM
"Vedanta is based on Upanishads"!


Pradheep!

Do you agree with the above statement or not???

Please say Yes or No or I dont know, pradheep!

Thank you! :)

Pradheep I want an answer here! :roll:

Idiappam
30th November 2005, 03:44 AM
Dear SRS, I went trough all that links that you gave... there is not a single line from the Upanishads quoted there! There were only 'beat-round-the-bush' statements there - nothing concrete supporting your statement that - 'Vedanta is based on the Upanishads'..

Please don't quote links.. You have to make sure that your statements hold water... Now tell me..

''how is vedanta based on the Upanishads'..

SRS
30th November 2005, 05:59 AM
Dear SRS, I went trough all that links that you gave... there is not a single line from the Upanishads quoted there! There were only 'beat-round-the-bush' statements there - nothing concrete supporting your statement that - 'Vedanta is based on the Upanishads'..

Please don't quote links.. You have to make sure that your statements hold water... Now tell me..

''how is vedanta based on the Upanishads'..

Dear Idiappam,

It is not my intention to call you a lier as such, therefore I will give you another chance to go through the sites. There are verses from the Upanishads within those sites. Please look carefully. Here I am giving one example:

" Since the Upanishads form the concluding portion of the Vedas, they were called Vedanta or "the end of Vedas". However, the term Vedanta now refers to a school of philosophy based on the Upanishads. There are 10 principal Upanishads: The Aitareya Upanishad of the Rig-Veda. The Brihadaranyaka, Isha, Katha and Taittiriya Upanishads of the Yajur Veda.

The Chandogya and Kena Upanishads of the Sama Veda. The Prasna, Mundaka, and Mandukya Upanishads of the Atharva Veda.

It is in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that a typically value-based story appears: 'What the Thunder Says'. Prajapati, the All-Father, having created the three races of gods, men and demons, appointed each to their own realm - heaven, earth and the netherworld. All three begged him for advice to live by. So, to each race, Prajapati gave counsel.

To the gods (sura), he said "Damyata". Be restrained. To mankind (nara), he said "Datta". Give. To the demons (asura), he said "Dayadhvam". Be merciful. And so, forever more, when the thunder peals DA-DA-DA, his children know that it is the voice of Prajapati, the All-Father, reminding them of the key to their true selves."

http://www.gurjari.net/ico/Mystica/html/upanishad.htm

Please note the portions in bold. First portion clearly says Vedanta comes from Upanishads, and the second portion is a quote from the Upanishads. This is one site. All the others say the same thing. Now I can quote from all the other sites, but I would assume most of us here are computer literate to the extent that this is not necessary, but can actually go through the links on their own.

stranger
30th November 2005, 06:06 AM
First portion clearly says Vedanta comes from Upanishads

DOES IT???

Really?!

We have a serious problem here! :lol:

SRS
30th November 2005, 06:07 AM
If you come up with 10 and 100, I am sure that is nothing but your TRASH.

So I will never go through that junk as I know your little knowledge about India or Hinduism or whatsoever.

Because I know u r just a "copy paste" CLOWN! :lol:

Wait, till I hear from Pradheep!

Your days are numbered, Clown! :lol:

Now suddenly you are taking Pradheep's side? Pradheep is a respectable Hindu, you are a atheist clown. :lol: :lol:

stranger
30th November 2005, 06:09 AM
Hey!

I want to hear his opinion as he is the founder fo this thread!

That does not put me in "any side".

Based on his opinion, I will get back to him and you!

stranger
30th November 2005, 06:36 AM
The upanishads are expositions of doctrine, typically found in the concluding portions of the brAhmaNas and AraNyakas of the four vedas.

Hey SRS!!!

If it is found in the concluding portion of four vEdas, tell me how the vEdas are based on the uphanishads, little genius?????

Go back to Grammar school, little genius !!!!!

you want to run your whole freaking life by manipulating every damn thing????

pradheep
30th November 2005, 06:37 AM
I want to hear his opinion as he is the founder fo this thread!

Dear Stranger
what do you want to know from my side.

stranger
30th November 2005, 06:40 AM
"Vedanta is based on Upanishads"!


Pradheep!

Do you agree with the above statement or not???

Please say Yes or no or I dont know, pradheep!

Thank you! :)

Sandeep
30th November 2005, 06:55 AM
"UPANISHADS were the last texts added to the Vedas, the vast collection of writings that constitute Hinduism's most sacred literature.

Tradition recognizes 108 Vedic Upanishads, of which 10 to 13 are usually regarded as major.


The Upanishads differ from earlier Vedic texts in their lack of emphasis on physical sacrifice and ritual. Instead they speculate about the nature of reality and develop the doctrine of Brahman. It is in the Upanishads that the nondualistic equation of atman (self) and Brahman (God) emerges.
The predominant school of Hindu philosophy, Advaita Vedanta, is based on the Upanishads.


http://www.realization.org/page/topics/upanishads.htm

Idiappam
30th November 2005, 07:48 AM
Dear SRS, I went trough all that links that you gave... there is not a single line from the Upanishads quoted there! There were only 'beat-round-the-bush' statements there - nothing concrete supporting your statement that - 'Vedanta is based on the Upanishads'..

Please don't quote links.. You have to make sure that your statements hold water... Now tell me..

''how is vedanta based on the Upanishads'..

Dear Idiappam,

It is not my intention to call you a lier as such, therefore I will give you another chance to go through the sites. There are verses from the Upanishads within those sites. Please look carefully. Here I am giving one example:

" Since the Upanishads form the concluding portion of the Vedas, they were called Vedanta or "the end of Vedas". However, the term Vedanta now refers to a school of philosophy based on the Upanishads. There are 10 principal Upanishads: The Aitareya Upanishad of the Rig-Veda. The Brihadaranyaka, Isha, Katha and Taittiriya Upanishads of the Yajur Veda.

The Chandogya and Kena Upanishads of the Sama Veda. The Prasna, Mundaka, and Mandukya Upanishads of the Atharva Veda.

It is in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that a typically value-based story appears: 'What the Thunder Says'. Prajapati, the All-Father, having created the three races of gods, men and demons, appointed each to their own realm - heaven, earth and the netherworld. All three begged him for advice to live by. So, to each race, Prajapati gave counsel.

To the gods (sura), he said "Damyata". Be restrained. To mankind (nara), he said "Datta". Give. To the demons (asura), he said "Dayadhvam". Be merciful. And so, forever more, when the thunder peals DA-DA-DA, his children know that it is the voice of Prajapati, the All-Father, reminding them of the key to their true selves."

http://www.gurjari.net/ico/Mystica/html/upanishad.htm

Please note the portions in bold. First portion clearly says Vedanta comes from Upanishads, and the second portion is a quote from the Upanishads. This is one site. All the others say the same thing. Now I can quote from all the other sites, but I would assume most of us here are computer literate to the extent that this is not necessary, but can actually go through the links on their own.

So???? where is the verse from Upanishads in those sites????... I don't wish to call you a liar either... Where are the verses from the Upanisads which can uphold your earlier imagination, that - 'Vedanta is based on the Upanishads'??? Where wherewhere?

Don't quote sites or links which just propagate disinformation - I want some verses -- None of the sites you pointed has any!

Sandeep
30th November 2005, 08:08 AM
Ish Upanishad verses 6, 7, and 8 explains Self.
Verse 6. he who beholds all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from it.

Verse 7. When to a man who understands, the Self has become all things, what sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who once beheld that unity?

Verse 8. He (the Self) encircled all, bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil ; a seer, wise, omnipresent, self-existent, he disposed all things rightly for eternal years.

From Taittiriya Upanishad 9th Chapter:
"He who knows the Bliss of Brahman, whence words together with the mind turn away, unable to reach It? He is not afraid of anything whatsoever. He does not distress himself with the thought: "Why did I not do what is good? Why did I do what is evil?". Whosoever knows this regards both these as Atman; indeed he cherishes both these as Atman. Such, indeed, is the Upanishad, the secret knowledge of Brahman."

Death Instructing Nachiketa in the Katha Upanishad
"Get up! Wake up! Seek the guidance of an
Illumined teacher and realize the Self.
Sharp like a razor's edge is the path,
The sages say, difficult to traverse."

Idiappam
30th November 2005, 08:25 AM
Thank you Sandeep! We are getting somewhere now! Now the next few questions!

You have quoted from 3 upanishads!
1. What is the extent of these Upanishads?
2. When where they written?
3. By whom where they written?
4. Vedanta (the idea) came first of these Upanishads came frist?
5. How are these lines you quoted related to the Vedanta?

And the infamous question that SRS and none others here bother to answer!
6. How is 'Vedanta based on the Upanishads'?

Sandeep
30th November 2005, 09:44 AM
Thank you Sandeep! We are getting somewhere now! Now the next few questions!

You have quoted from 3 upanishads!
1. What is the extent of these Upanishads?
2. When where they written?
3. By whom where they written?

The Upanishads give no clue as to when and who composed these texts. They describe the teachings of sages who lived between 1000 B.C to 600 B.C. Upanishads should be seen as the documentation of the verbal teachings of the gurus of that erra. Who sat and documented it or did some rulers or cults worked towards it remains unanswered.

Ish Upanishad is a small one but is the most quoted one. It gives the most powerful profile of the Self. It contains around 80 verses

In Katha Upanishad Yama comes as the teacher. I heard Swami Vivekananda's gives a very nice short commentary about it in his book Jnana Yoga. There are around 120 verses in it

The Taittiriya Upanishad is one of the 11 major Upanishads. It has special importance for students of Advaita Vedanta and Jnana Yoga because it's the only Upanishad that explains the 5 indriyas that conceal the Self. There are three books al together 30 lessons.

Sandeep
30th November 2005, 10:04 AM
4. Vedanta (the idea) came first of these Upanishads came frist?
6. How is 'Vedanta based on the Upanishads'?

Hinduism doesnt claim any of its literature to be god created. So like any other human created literary work its also documentation of the ideas. The ideas (teachings) of gurus in 1000-600 B.C where documented in the Upanishads.

Now people like Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Basaveshwara, Madhvacharya as well as the Dwaita, Adwaita, and Vishista-Dwaita schools of thought developed later. So did these people 'reinvent the wheel'? No they must have read, interpreted, developed/modified on these earlier literature on Hindu philosophy.


5. How are these lines you quoted related to the Vedanta?

These verses partly explain the consepts of Self (Atman), Brahman, Inthriyas which are all central to Vedanta. There is a lot more verses and upanishads please understand my limitations.

Badri
30th November 2005, 10:08 AM
As usual, the discussion here is going all over, without focussing on the roots!

The philospohy of Vedanta apart, the word Vedanta itself derives from Veda + anta or "at the end of the Vedas"

The Upanishads form the Jnana Kanda of the Vedas, which is the last portion of the Vedas.

Hence Upanishads are also known as Vedanta, and the same term has also been extrapolated to refer to the ideas expressed by Upanishads.

Sandeep
30th November 2005, 10:13 AM
Bulls eye !!!

SRS
30th November 2005, 11:05 AM
The upanishads are expositions of doctrine, typically found in the concluding portions of the brAhmaNas and AraNyakas of the four vedas.

Hey SRS!!!

If it is found in the concluding portion of four vEdas, tell me how the vEdas are based on the uphanishads, little genius?????

Go back to Grammar school, little genius !!!!!

you want to run your whole freaking life by manipulating every damn thing????

After 1404 posts, there is no reason for you to use 32 inch font - your debating skills should be better than that. Not good for the blood pressure either, if I might add. Seasoned hubber? I think your "season" has reached the crises point. :lol:

=========================================
moderator's note: font size edited for clarity; we discourage excessive use of variants in posts.

SRS
30th November 2005, 11:11 AM
Sandeep,

Thank you for the detailed explanations.

Idiappam,

I hope your question has been answered at last, at least to the extent you were hoping for.

Idiappam
30th November 2005, 12:18 PM
Sandeep,

Thank you for the detailed explanations.

Idiappam,

I hope your question has been answered at last, at least to the extent you were hoping for.

No! Not at all! There are too many assumptions in the 'explanations' ..

You said that Vedanta is based on the Upanishads, when I raised the question 'How did Vedanta originate from the Vedas?? - That was the view of another hubber in same thread - scroll up and see!

Now Sandeeps says that gurus who lived some century BCE had the vedantic ideas and they were written in the Upanishads - later.

SBadri says that

The Upanishads form the Jnana Kanda of the Vedas, which is the last portion of the Vedas.

Now we are going back to the vedas!

So from this I gather that -- 'Vedanta' has not just one meaning but many --- as its always for many sanskritic terms.. And Sanskritist can just pick one meaning conveniently to baffle the audience.

Lets get to basics! For example What answers would the following give for this question? - 'How was man created?'
1. What does The popular 'vedanta' of Sanskracharya Say?
2. Or -- the 'Mimasa' sytle of Vedanta say?
3. What do the Upanishads saY?
4. What to the Vedas say?

Would the answers from these various sources be the and same and uniform? Only when the answer is the Same, then we can say that one came from another! -- Vedanta came from Upanishads - the Upanishads came from the Vedas.. (the Jnana Kanda etc)

Otherwise, we have to leave them all alone, as fat books written long time ago, and get on with our lunch! We will still look at them and admire them!

Badri
30th November 2005, 01:29 PM
Idiappam, there are supposed to be the six schools of philosophy in traditional Hindu philosophic thought. This is what is called in Sanksrit as the Shad Darshana.

The six are Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa, and Uttara Mimamsa. Uttara Mimamsa is also popularly known as
Vedanta, and of late, due to excessive usage in common parlance, Vedanta seems to overshadow all the others.


All of these have been given as Sutras or aphorisms. The latter day philosophers such as Sankara or Ramanuja took up their favorite school and further expounded the sutras in the form of bhashyas which are nothing but explanations for the terse and laconic sutras.

Of the 6, Purva Mimamsa is an inquiry into the ritualistic portion of the Vedas thatconsists of the Mantras and the Brahmanas. The Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini give a detailed description ofthe different Vedic sacrifices and their purposes.

Uttara Mimamsa, or the Vedanta Philosophy, is based on the doctrines found in the closing chapters of the Vedas, the Upanishads. The Sutras of Uttara Mimamsa are called Brahma-Sutras.


Purva Mimamsa school of thought derives from the Karma Kanda of the Vedas. Uttara Mimamsa aka Vedanta comes from the Upanishads. As Sandeep pointed out, Vedanta is nothing but an understanding of what has been said in the Upanishads, interpreted in whichever way appealed to the interpreter.

More than anything, these are mere linguistic terms, and hardly worth all the debate going on here!

Sandeep
30th November 2005, 02:07 PM
Lets get to basics! For example What answers would the following give for this question? - 'How was man created?'
1. What does The popular 'vedanta' of Sanskracharya Say?
2. Or -- the 'Mimasa' sytle of Vedanta say?
3. What do the Upanishads saY?
4. What to the Vedas say?

Would the answers from these various sources be the and same and uniform? Only when the answer is the Same, then we can say that one came from another! -- Vedanta came from Upanishads - the Upanishads came from the Vedas.. (the Jnana Kanda etc)

If all of them are same then why do we need all, one would be enough. right? :)

Hinduism encourages the Vedic mantras to be interpreted as liberally and as philosophically as possible unlike the Abrahamic religions (concerning the Tanakh, the Bible and the Koran).

Hense largely diverse interpretation could survive amicabily. Isn't that great ?

Now Upanishads where the result of the Guru-Shishya tradition ( Upanishad ="sitting down near", a spiritual teacher to receive instruction). What was main 'Sylabus' then, obviously vedas. These commentaries on vedas culminated into Upanishad. The Upanishads differ from earlier Vedic texts in their lack of emphasis on physical sacrifice and ritual. Instead they speculate about the nature of reality and develop the doctrine of Brahman. It is in the Upanishads that the nondualistic equation of atman (self) and Brahman (God) emerges. As sbadri elaborated things dont end there.

Thus all the following statements are right
1) All forms of Vedanta are drawn primarily from the Upanishads.
2) Upanishads where extension to vedas
3) Upanishad is documentation of gurus

Hinduism is really confusing to say the least. Unlike other religions you dont have one book of referense and say that this is what Hinduism says. That is the weakness and strength of Hinduism and I believe we should not stop here. We as a society should continue open mindedly the search for truth. We should realise that dirrent phylosophies can co-exist and flourish. I think that is the essense of the Vedas

pradheep
30th November 2005, 06:44 PM
"Vedanta is based on Upanishads"!

Dear Stranger,
Yes.

But I like to make it clear.

Vedas are four. Each Veda has four portions. 1. Vedasakha, Samhita(brahamana), Aryanyaka and Upanishad which occurs finally , so called vedanta as Badri mentioned.

Since we are discussing upanishad I will write the veda and the upanishad found.


Rig Veda - Aitrye-upanishad, Kausitaki.

Yajurveda - Taririya, Katho, Brahadarinya, Maitri, Isavaso.

Samaveda- Keno and Chandogyo

Atharva - Mundako, Mandukyo, Prasno


So each veda has in the end (anta) one or many upanishads which is called vedanta. So Vedanta is the other name for upanishad or vice versa.

It is something like in every book we have an Appendix, which occurs in the last portions.

The Appendix is different in different books, in some books they give additional information, in soem the explanationary evidences, in some they summarise etc.


My dear friend idiappam is confused as usual dealign with history.

I do not like to talk more history because no one has evidence for that. But I can give an idea how the logice merges. Example like how Biology books emerged. Intially it started with the gross plants and animals, then came the subtle microbes, then came the classification of botony and zoology, microbiology. Then came ecology and environmentolgy etc.

Now which came first ecology or zoology and botany?. Of course the later. But withthat chronology one cannot seperate zoology and botony from Ecology. Ecology is a study of the interactions of the animals, birds, and microbes. For classification, one can do, but in total everything makes the subject.

Idiappam similarly is looking for ecology in early zoology and Botany books. He is looking for Upanishads (vedanta) in Samhitas, Aranyaka and Veda sakas. My dear friend Upanisahd is endportion or vedanta and how can you see that early.

But the essence is the same, of Vedas and Upanishads , like Ecology and Zoology and Botany.

Hope this clears the confusion of my dear friends.

stranger
30th November 2005, 08:17 PM
Thanks Sandeep, Badri and Pradheep! :)

I did check oxford dictionary:

* It says upanishads are based on Vedas

* It also says Vedanta is based on Upanishads.

So apparently SRS's statement is not incorrect at this time! :)

pradheep
30th November 2005, 09:35 PM
Dear Friends

You can view in the links below, the classification of vedas and the upanishads and other branch of vedas in very systametic way, that will avoid confusion.

www.sakthifoundation.org/4vedas.pdf
www.sakthifoundation.org/4vedas2.pdf

mahadevan
1st December 2005, 01:21 AM
"I do not like to talk more history because no one has evidence for that. But I can give an idea how the logice merges. Example like how Biology books emerged. Intially it started with the gross plants and animals, then came the subtle microbes, then came the classification of botony and zoology, microbiology. Then came ecology and environmentolgy etc. "

hey you are digging your own grave, here there is no evolution but newer creations of fields that address the LIMITATIONS of the older ones. Infact with the new knowledge attained through the newer fields(genetic engineering) even the older fields were redefined (classifications changed in botany/zoology), upanishads never redefinied the stupidy in vedas.

Using this logic Upanishads were newer logical creations that addressed things that were not/minimally addressed in the original vedas. And this cannot be called as equivalent to being based on vedas. They are different.

"Rig Veda - Aitrye-upanishad, Kausitaki....."

Did Rig veda say that it also contains upanishads, that is baloney. It is somebody's idea that they belong togather. vedanta (the last book/end of knowledge) was collated very much later than the original vedas and they addressed the limitations in vedas. In that sense they more non association to vedas than association.

stranger
1st December 2005, 01:32 AM
SRS - can you show me how the Vedanta is 'based' on the Upanishads.

Well, u r asking HOW?

Then one should have understood Vedas and Upanishads thoroughly.

I have not but SRS can explain you I suppose. :roll:

Go on SRS and explain that in "English"! :lol:

pradheep
1st December 2005, 02:34 AM
even the older fields were redefined (classifications changed in botany/zoology),


It is somebody's idea that they belong togather. vedanta (the last book/end of knowledge) was collated very much later than the original vedas and they addressed the limitations in vedas.

Dear friend
Look at your own stupidity....how you contradict the two quotes. More than stupidty it reflects your heart's poison of hatred you have.

Do not be like a fox calling grapes "sour". If you cannot understand dont call others stupid. If you call others stupid because of your lack of understanding it mirrors only you, my dear friend.