PDA

View Full Version : KARMA-The free will Vs VIDHI-The fate



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

srivatsan
5th May 2006, 03:46 AM
Suhruthukkale Vanakkam :)

Assuming that "Sanaathana Dharmam" was a part and parcel of Indian Hisotry and Culture, I chose to open this topic in Indian History & Culture section. One of the main aspects of Sanaathana Dharmam is Karma. What is this Karma?

Well, Karma means Action - Action of one self.

Another important words that we can hear on almost every hour is Vidhi, which means a "Predetermined Rule or Dictum", that governs our action....So this literally boils down to "Kozhiyil Irundu Muttayaa or Muutayil Irundu Kozhiyaa"? :D

This is really a million dollar question that has been pondered by Great Sages of our Past. Let us also do our ponderings. We shall discuss about these two words. I hope this will enlighten all of us. :)

Eelavar
5th May 2006, 03:54 AM
srivatsan,

I think Vidhi and Karma works togheter, in fact i think they are the same things !!

Vidhi is made of Karma, and Karma is made of Vidhi...

pradheep
5th May 2006, 05:11 PM
vidhi is law(cause and effect). Karma is action, which obeys vidhi - law (cause and effect).

srivatsan
5th May 2006, 10:32 PM
vidhi is law(cause and effect). Karma is action, which obeys vidhi - law (cause and effect).

So do you mean to say there is no free will and everything is pre-decieded? If so, why there shd be a Krutha Yuga where people all only good and a Kali Yuga where most are bad......? Pls come up with a clear explanation. I think, I have understood your words clearly....

pradheep
5th May 2006, 10:48 PM
So do you mean to say there is no free will and everything is pre-decieded?

Dear srivatsan
Everything is pre-destined , but there is free will. It looks like contradictory statements. The fact that fire will burn is pre-destined (the cause and effect). Whether to put finger in fire or not is the free will that I can exercise. Vidhi is that fire will char the flesh, my free will is whether to get my finger charred or not.

Whether I put my finger or not will be based on my previous thoughts and actions (Karma). Karma is action which originates from thoughts. No action can be performed without a thought. So to change karma one has to change the thoughts.

Nature of human mind always seek outside and never inside. A mind that seeks inwards will have lessened thoughts and lessended actions and good actions. The mind that goes outwards is always excited and agitated.

In Kali Yuga the wandering or outward seeking mind would be to the extreme and so too much bad actions results.

Eelavar
6th May 2006, 12:00 AM
No action can be performed without a thought

Not true...

Freud said that most of things we do is inconsciously...

What is an inconscious act ? There is no thought behind it..

My opinion is that Vidhi creates the actions and so the Karma...

pradheep
6th May 2006, 12:14 AM
Freud said that most of things we do is inconsciously

You are talking about habits. I am talking about the source of any aciton is a thought. Analyze any action....
while driving a car in most moments you might be driving without the thought of driving, you might be thinking something else. But the driving action was initiated by a thought. I am not talking about habitual actions , but the very source of actions.

Eelavar
6th May 2006, 02:48 AM
pradheep,

I'm not talking about habits..

What i tried to say is that conscience is the most of time an illusion...We live in fact without conscience .. We are like robots.

Humans can control robots, but God control everything... It's what i tried to say... :wink:

If spontanous (coming from nothing) actions are possible we must restudy the pysics laws.

srivatsan
6th May 2006, 03:14 AM
The fact that fire will burn is pre-destined (the cause and effect). Whether to put finger in fire or not is the free will that I can exercise. Vidhi is that fire will char the flesh, my free will is whether to get my finger charred or not.

Whether I put my finger or not will be based on my previous thoughts and actions (Karma). Karma is action which originates from thoughts. No action can be performed without a thought. So to change karma one has to change the thoughts.

In Kali Yuga the wandering or outward seeking mind would be to the extreme and so too much bad actions results.

Good explanation indeed. Well....if a bomb balsts, people who are near it will die...this is cause and effect or vidhi...So when few pigrims died when there was a bomb blast in Varanasi, then is it their Fate becuz no on would like to be a near a bomb if they know...... so, that they died is thir Vishi, even if their supposed Karma was not for that..right? So which one preceeds the other?

anbu_kathir
6th May 2006, 07:38 AM
An extension to Pradeeps view...

Fate is only the outcome of our past karma, which include the trident “thought, word and physical action”.

For more about Karma, check this out
http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/fire/fire1188.html

In my view, Fate generates “new opportunities” based on ones past karma, and it is entirely up to one’s Self (in the caps, of course) what one makes out of such opportunities. That is Conscious Creation through the Power of Choice. What influence these choices is the idea that one has about one’s Self (here too, caps), I guess. These Choices when made with a clear idea about Who One really Is and Who One wishes to Be, result in Conscious Creation which brings in future Fate, which brings in more opportunities to realize our idea about our Self, and to expand It.

Inherently, all beings know what is going to happen to them. The experience of any being in the Universe is exactly what they have called for. This is the function of God, to give one what one asks. The choice of what one wants, is made in different levels of Consciousness.If one is aware of the levels, then he/she perfectly accepts whatever happens to him/her, because one knows that he/she called it for himself/herself.

So in my view, one isn't bound by fate...it becomes a base for new vistas of the Self.

Love and Light.



Well....if a bomb balsts, people who are near it will die...this is cause and effect or vidhi...So when few pigrims died when there was a bomb blast in Varanasi, then is it their Fate becuz no on would like to be a near a bomb if they know...... so, that they died is thir Vishi, even if their supposed Karma was not for that..right? So which one preceeds the other?

johntony
12th July 2006, 05:58 AM
:D

Raghu
12th July 2006, 09:35 PM
srivatsan,


Vidhi is made of Karma, and Karma is made of Vidhi...

Exactly right!,

Vidhi (fate) is a re action of all your Karma activities in your Current life and your , previous life, while the fate of your next life will depend or be calculated upon your karma of this life, this is the Life Cycle, till this Cycle is broken by Mukthi(lIberation) then this cycle will carry on in an Infinite loop!

mahadevan
13th July 2006, 05:48 AM
when your soul starts the journey, its karmic balance is '0', since vidhi is driven by karma, it is also '0'. Is this not a condition of ideal free will ?
Then karmic account is just a reflection of the balance of your actions based on your free will. By the same logic fate is just a lagging indicator of your freewill. It is clearly indicated in mythology that fate is not unescapable, negative karma could be compensated by positive karma and thus a bad fate could be negated in the long run. Positive karma is gain a fruit for your good action based on your freewill. Fate is something that is completly controlled by your freewill, why even call it fate ?

Eelavar
13th July 2006, 06:46 AM
After those questions we can ask ourself if we really control our life..

Nobody never suggested that we are maybe robots.. We control robots how God control us... :roll:

crazy
13th July 2006, 04:31 PM
After those questions we can ask ourself if we really control our life..

Nobody never suggested that we are maybe robots.. We control robots how God control us... :roll:

:roll: :lol:

i believe that we dont control ur life.............it just follow the path led my God or vidhu or karma :roll:

pizzalot
15th July 2006, 09:56 AM
Can anyone here explain how it fits in the realm of Intelligent Creation or Evolutionary theories ?

rachel
15th July 2006, 12:04 PM
After those questions we can ask ourself if we really control our life..

Nobody never suggested that we are maybe robots.. We control robots how God control us... :roll:

:roll: :lol:

i believe that we dont control ur life.............it just follow the path led my God or vidhu or karma :roll:

yeah..i also believe so...death, birth and everything are determined by god... :( and i see god is sometimes so cruel :evil: :evil:
sometimes people who do good things suffer than people who do bad things :cry:
nothing makes sense though :?

crazy
15th July 2006, 05:51 PM
rachel..............GOD is not cruel............we cant blame God........for what we doing or how we r living...........its all our karma

maybe the good ppl in this life might have been bad ppl in the previuos life and thats why they r suffering in this life, so its all in the game :roll: :wink:

Rohit
16th July 2006, 06:11 AM
rachel..............GOD is not cruel............we cant blame God........for what we doing or how we r living...........its all our karma
Dear crazy,
What you say is really well and good, but when and where did one's karma begin? If you really can understand this question and provide us a sensible answer, I will really be very grateful to you and will be very pleased. Please, enlighten us all with your Craziest knowledge. Thank you. :)

thamizhvaanan
16th July 2006, 01:43 PM
Exactly right!,
Vidhi (fate) is a re action of all your Karma activities in your Current life and your , previous life, while the fate of your next life will depend or be calculated upon your karma of this life, this is the Life Cycle, till this Cycle is broken by Mukthi(lIberation) then this cycle will carry on in an Infinite loop!

You mean to say, our current position is a result of our previous life deeds. I see that, karma serves to explain why good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. The injustices of the world, the seeming random distribution of good and evil, are only misrepresented things. In reality, everybody is getting what he or she deserves.

The mentally ill, the retarded, the poor, the suppressed, the diseased, the students in a professor's class and all sorts of people enduring torture deserved it for the evil they must have done in the past. The slave beaten to death deserved it, if not for what he did today, then for what he did in some previous lifetime. All suffering is deserved, according to the law of karma.
:lol:
How cool is this, to identify a reason for my present troubles 8-). I feel that these are feeble excuses given for the existence "evil" in this world.

If karma exists history and future would be reduced into a set of mathematical equations (like someone was talking about karma = 0 and karma++ or karma-- :P ). Karma makes life trivial, a mere working out of a metaphysical "law" which reduces all humans to dehumanized creatures, devoid of morality and responsibility, mere causes and effects in a pointless system. If Karma is right, we may as well dismantle our ethical and criminal justice systems. Everybody is just playing out his or her karma.

The hypothesis that Karma exists because the universe is balanced, is inherently flawed. Since bad things also happen to bad people and good things also happen to good people, one might well suppose that there is no rhyme or reason why anything happens to anybody.

So, IMO karma doesnt exist, neither does it controls our fate. The word fate in my dictionary denotes something which is beyond our control, not a predetermined course that everyone is forced to follow. It is beyond our control because it is not caused by us alone. Everyone around us is involved in it.

P_R
16th July 2006, 03:42 PM
Heaven and Hell, IMHO, are constructions which labour to give meaning to lives in 'this' world. Karma goes a step further by introducing several cycles in this world. Apart from fulfilling the carrot-stick structure, the theory also aims to explain the suffering in this world. My cursory reading of the Gita, in this regard, was not very convincing.

All theories of fate seem to be based on a strong assumption that there is a meaning, an order, a scheme of things in life. Once this assumption is made, then we try to rationalize each occurrence as determined (by fate) and/or earned (by Karma).

Why are we making that assumption in the first place ? Is it so scary to come to terms with the statement that there is no order or meaning to lives ? I don't find it scary and the simplicity of this is so enchanting.
Q: "Why do badd things happen to good people"
A: No reason whatsoever

crazy
16th July 2006, 05:26 PM
rachel..............GOD is not cruel............we cant blame God........for what we doing or how we r living...........its all our karma
Dear crazy,
What you say is really well and good, but when and where did one's karma begin? If you really can understand this question and provide us a sensible answer, I will really be very grateful to you and will be very pleased. Please, enlighten us all with your Craziest knowledge. Thank you. :)

Dear Rohit,
well according to my craziest knowledge...............the karma begins in the very first jenmam :roll: , i guess! f.ins. i was born as an ant in my first birth..........i was a bad ant and did bad stuffs :? so from there on .............my karma begins its game, it follow me to the next birth and so on and so on. Now iam a human :o who cant understand why certain things happens to me and to other ppl.............so what i do is trying to blame in vidhi or karma...........which i cant see, neither understand.

ok let me be a bit serious, Dear, i dont know............why in the first place God chose me to live, why i was born as an ant or a human or whatever, but what i know is things happen without any reason, reason which i cant find, which i cant understand.............i DONT want to blame God or Evilness or whatever, so i simply blame myself and my karma.............in that way i try to be a better person, a person who tries to accept things the way they r, a person who tries to console herself with her CRAZIEST knowledge.

there is only one thing i want to see.........no matter why u born or what u gonna do in this life or what u did in previous life, the fact is that u r living, u r a person.................SO BE A GOOD HUMAN BEING...............how? by helping others, by not doing any evil or bad to others, be kind, be etc etc.

it doesnt matter whether u believe in karma or vidhi or god.............what matter is How u r living or how useful ur life is to others :roll: :)

thamizhvaanan
16th July 2006, 06:50 PM
there is only one thing i want to see.........no matter why u born or what u gonna do in this life or what u did in previous life, the fact is that u r living, u r a person.................SO BE A GOOD HUMAN BEING...............how? by helping others, by not doing any evil or bad to others, be kind, be etc etc.

it doesnt matter whether u believe in karma or vidhi or god.............what matter is How u r living or how useful ur life is to others Rolling Eyes Smile

:omg: my goodness!!! this is as good a philosophy i have heard in my entire life :clap: :clap: :notworthy: :notworthy: . Actually the meaning of life is as simple as this. no need for the sophisticated "soul searching" stuff and "understanding oneself" blah blah. we are here for some reasong beyond our comprehension. why not spend it being of some use, if not, not being a trouble, to others.

rachel
17th July 2006, 05:34 AM
there is only one thing i want to see.........no matter why u born or what u gonna do in this life or what u did in previous life, the fact is that u r living, u r a person.................SO BE A GOOD HUMAN BEING...............how? by helping others, by not doing any evil or bad to others, be kind, be etc etc.

it doesnt matter whether u believe in karma or vidhi or god.............what matter is How u r living or how useful ur life is to others Rolling Eyes Smile

:exactly:
by not cursing others like "ketta vaarthayaala thaandee unna thittanum saniyane...... olinju pooo."
or
by not threatening like "i'll make sure you won't login to the hub again."


:lol2:

Badri
17th July 2006, 07:06 AM
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A JOKE. IF YOU ARE OF THE KIND THAT ATTEMPTS TO SERIOUSLY INTERPRET JOKES, THEN PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS.


Why are we making that assumption in the first place ? Is it so scary to come to terms with the statement that there is no order or meaning to lives ? I don't find it scary and the simplicity of this is so enchanting.
Q: "Why do badd things happen to good people"
A: No reason whatsoever

You are much closer to the truth than you know it, PR! Much closer at any rate than a lot of people who've read the Bhagawad Gita all their life!

pavalamani pragasam
17th July 2006, 01:44 PM
All people are not endowed with a strong spirit. Many are finding it hard to grapple with harsh realities of life like death, pain, failure, disappointment, accident and all such unpleasant phinomena. They need some moral force to goad them on in the rough, tough path of life.

Their easy frustrations need some sort of pacification, explanation and comforting. Whatever they cant understand, whenever they cant accept what has happened they quickly conclude it is a cruel force called fate which is the cause for everything untoward.

Mainly it is a concept for moral boosting. People with grit, perception, stoicism will know with quiet acceptance that death is finite, that pain is relative & temporary, that suffering is unavoidable, that time the healer will take care of past wounds.

People with patience & wisdom will have faith in Providence, belief in the fundamental goodness, kindness in the general scheme of things.

The very basic concept of pain & suffering varies from person to person. All people do not react in the same manner, to the same degree of intensity to adversity. People are endowed with different stamina for enduring pain & misfortune. So many factors go to define what is a suffering: age, sex, backround etc.

The tiny tot cries his heart out on his first days to school. Separation from mom & home is the most painful experience for him.

Death is painful, but less so when it provides relief for a terminally ill, tormented person. One girl takes out her life after eveteasing, another gulps down rape/incest & marches on. Different levels of tolerance, different strengths nurtured by different faiths.

It is all relative, the reactions, resistance & acceptance. We see people of different calibres around us. The magnitude of private & public happenings have varying impact, meaning & repercussion.

In all situations the easiest prop & remedy is the concept of Fate, imagined by well-meaning ancestors to help weak-minded humanity find the going less tough.

thamizhvaanan
17th July 2006, 02:01 PM
:exactly: :exactly: :notworthy: :notworthy: what an explanation!!! :clap: :clap: your analysis of people is very very true. I concur with most of ur views, as this is wat i observe to be true. May be yes... the concept of fate was invented as a moral support.

So wat do u say. is there anything called fate or karma in this world? or do u see it as a mere human invention?

pavalamani pragasam
17th July 2006, 03:36 PM
Thiruvalluvar's "oozaiyum uppakkam kaaNpar thaazaathu ulaivinri unjaRRupavar" is my favourite kuRal.

The concept of fate should not be a handicap . We should continue to aspire to higher & higher standards of living as human beings. Fate can't be used as an excuse for not making our most sincere efforts for achievement of our goals. Many people are doing this.

Fate should not deter us from striving towards not only our noble ambitions, even from performing our basic duties. If we did it will then be a sign of cowardice & laziness.

We should not let the concept of fate sap/drain our energies by instilling a sense of despair & helplessness. It is the duty of those strong people who don't need the crutches of the fate concept to help the weak-souled people act with self-confidence & purposeful meaning.

Rohit
18th July 2006, 02:28 AM
ok let me be a bit serious, Dear, i dont know............why in the first place God chose me to live, why i was born as an ant or a human or whatever, but what i know is things happen without any reason, reason which i cant find, which i cant understand..............

it doesnt matter whether u believe in karma or vidhi or god.............what matter is How u r living or how useful ur life is to others :roll: :)
Dear Crazy, your reply clearly shows your pragmatic approach towards life, which is really admirable. Also, your honest acceptance of not knowing the answers to the questions I posed is not at all as crazy as expected. :) :thumbsup:

Rohit
18th July 2006, 03:30 AM
Why are we making that assumption in the first place ? Is it so scary to come to terms with the statement that there is no order or meaning to lives ? I don't find it scary and the simplicity of this is so enchanting.
Q: "Why do badd things happen to good people"
A: No reason whatsoever

You are much closer to the truth than you know it, PR! Much closer at any rate than a lot of people who've read the Bhagawad Gita all their life!Truth! I really don’t understand what exactly people wish to covey by including such an elusive term in their propositions, whose significance exclusively rests on the meaning of 'truth', which itself remains undefined.

Dear Badri,

May I kindly request you to provide a comprehensive definition of 'truth'; and then tell us how close do you really believe one can get to know the 'truth' as defined, in the context of your above statement. Also, please tell us whether your definition of 'truth' is known universally or not. :)

Eelavar
18th July 2006, 05:05 AM
Every effects have a cause and every causes have an effect.

Can we logically affirm that all effects are the effects of the FIRST cause (God for me) ?? :roll:

Badri
18th July 2006, 06:43 AM
[tscii:06765ecd66]
Truth! I really don’t understand what exactly people wish to covey by including such an elusive term in their propositions, whose significance exclusively rests on the meaning of 'truth', which itself remains undefined.

Dear Badri,

May I kindly request you to provide a comprehensive definition of 'truth'; and then tell us how close do you really believe one can get to know the 'truth' as defined, in the context of your above statement. Also, please tell us whether your definition of 'truth' is known universally or not. :)

:banghead: :banghead:

So much for trying to inject a bit of humor in this discussion! Come on, really Rohit, I'd have though you'd have cottoned on to what I was saying! Cease this hairsplitting and enjoy a joke for what it is!

:D [/tscii:06765ecd66]

Hulkster
18th July 2006, 07:19 AM
:clap: Thamizhvaanan and Pengal Iyakkam Thalaivi..:D

To add on to their posts. Let us remember that the decisions in life are not made by fate, but by us. It is we who choose to go this path, take this job etc. Committing suicide is not fate..it is our own decision to take our life. To use fate as a imaginary cover for our wrong decision making is inexcusable. I believe that there is no such thing as births or karma. Every human born on this earth has to learn how to overcome any obstacle, make decisions and choose his life path as long as he lives. Yes GOD does create us but other than praying to GOD and seeking his protection from any unnatural happenings we are on our own. What we do, what we decide is a consequence of our own thoughts and will. It has nothing to do with GOD. Let us think logically...if we are supposed to be led by fate and karma we are nothing but premediatated puppets by GOD and our purpose for being born and understanding life and truth ourselves loses its credibility. I believe we have to find truth or whatever there is to be understood by life ourselves and that whatever we do is decided by our own thinking.

crazy
18th July 2006, 04:15 PM
there is only one thing i want to see.........no matter why u born or what u gonna do in this life or what u did in previous life, the fact is that u r living, u r a person.................SO BE A GOOD HUMAN BEING...............how? by helping others, by not doing any evil or bad to others, be kind, be etc etc.

it doesnt matter whether u believe in karma or vidhi or god.............what matter is How u r living or how useful ur life is to others Rolling Eyes Smile

:omg: my goodness!!! this is as good a philosophy i have heard in my entire life :clap: :clap: :notworthy: :notworthy: . Actually the meaning of life is as simple as this. no need for the sophisticated "soul searching" stuff and "understanding oneself" blah blah. we are here for some reasong beyond our comprehension. why not spend it being of some use, if not, not being a trouble, to others.

well TV..........i just wrote this coz i didnt really know what to write, though i know the truth of life(?).............my soul is longing for something...........which i dont know and unfortunately will never know :cry:
but THANK U :notworthy:
btw: ippadi ellam poi solla koodaadhu!!!!!!




Dear Crazy, your reply clearly shows your pragmatic approach towards life, which is really admirable. Also, your honest acceptance of not knowing the answers to the questions I posed is not at all as crazy as expected. :) :thumbsup:

:lol: :lol: so u was expecting something crazy from me :roll:


BUT let me say onething again and again.............iam not an optimist(honestly).............for me life stinks and i believe in fate and karma............more than i believe in myself!!!
but i also know that sitting and thinking wont get anywhere in life(unless iam socrates, which iam not) so i just console myself with different ideas and trying to improve myself (?!)

rachel and Hulk :) NANDRI

rohit: i feel sorry that i couldnt answer for ur question, but its all i can think of!
do u know the answer or have any idea, pls do enlighten me with ur non craziest knowledge :)

Rohit
19th July 2006, 02:09 AM
Every effects have a cause and every causes have an effect.If one takes this as a statement of an irrefutable, universal law of causality, then one must also admit that there can be no exemption; not even God can be exempted from the law of causality.

However, if the law of causality breaks down at some point/level and allows exemptions, which it does at quantum level then, there is no logical/rational reason whatsoever to not accept the universe coming into existence, absolutely uncaused, triggering the process of cause and effect exactly as it is understood. Which is then followed by the evolution of life through long natural processes, catalysing and enhancing the whole process of cause and effect. :) :thumbsup:

Can we logically affirm that all effects are the effects of the FIRST cause (God for me) ?? :roll:
Before raising such questions, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for the first cause. As I have said above, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for the first cause, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

Nonetheless, I really get very disappointed when I read or hear Hindus writing or talking about Creator and Creation. It simply shows how uninformed and shallow these Hindus really are. Ironically, Hinduism, whether it is based on Absolute Monism (Advaita), Qualified Monisn (Vishishtha Advaita) or Dualism (Dvaita), categorically rejects the process of cause and effect when it comes to explain the phenomenal universe and the essence of life. Irrespective of the base used, Hinduism explicitly declares, whatever exists, exist eternally. If everything exists eternally, then there is no way by which creation could have ever taken place. This is also corroborated in Geetha when narrating Krishna showing His ‘Vishva Swaroop’ to Arjun. So, first of all, a true Hindu should never believe in creation of any kind.

Since, Hinduism doesn’t apply the law of causality when it comes to explain the reality, the FIRST cause becomes absolutely meaningless, irrespective of the base used.

Now, there are several places in Hindu scriptures, especially in Upanishads, where one would find and read something like “The creator and creation are identical” or “The creator is the creation himself”. If this is accepted and believed as true, then, the cause and effect become one and the same, there can be no distinction between the two, and thus between the cause and an effect, no matter what they are. In that case, yes, one can logically affirm that all effects are the effects of the FIRST cause (even when it is God for some), for there is absolutely no way to distinguish between the two :) :thumbsup:

Rohit
19th July 2006, 03:20 AM
[tscii:5631a3cf7b]
Truth! I really don’t understand what exactly people wish to covey by including such an elusive term in their propositions, whose significance exclusively rests on the meaning of 'truth', which itself remains undefined.

Dear Badri,

May I kindly request you to provide a comprehensive definition of 'truth'; and then tell us how close do you really believe one can get to know the 'truth' as defined, in the context of your above statement. Also, please tell us whether your definition of 'truth' is known universally or not. :)

:banghead: :banghead:

So much for trying to inject a bit of humor in this discussion! Come on, really Rohit, I'd have though you'd have cottoned on to what I was saying! Cease this hairsplitting and enjoy a joke for what it is!

:D [/tscii:5631a3cf7b]Yes Badri, your are cracking serious jokes; one after another; and I can't laugh anymore. :lol: :lol:

Nevertheless, I thought, it is best if it comes from you that it was really a joke; otherwise, I am pretty sure, it would have ended-up in catch-22 situation whenever it was mentioned and either way it was going to go the other way. I am glad that it came from you that it was a joke.

Though, I am not quite sure who or what the object and/or subjects of your joke was/were. There is only one object (Gita) and multiple subjects (PR and ‘lot of people who've read the Bhagawad Gita all their life’) all are linked in your joke through one concept, ‘truth’.

Now, it is entirely up to you to clarify exactly who or what was/were the target(s) in your joke. If anything, the exercise might cause you only a minor embarrassment; that is all, I guess!
:) :thumbsup:

Rohit
19th July 2006, 03:29 AM
rohit: i feel sorry that i couldnt answer for ur question, but its all i can think of!
do u know the answer or have any idea, pls do enlighten me with ur non craziest knowledge :)Dear Crazy, please read my response to Eelavar's post; and see if you find it non-crazy enough for you to go crazy again. :)

Badri
19th July 2006, 06:56 AM
:omg: You just don't get, do you?

:huh: at Rohit!

Sad, really sad! :roll:

I have edited my original post to add more clarifications!

Hope that helps! :wink:

Hulkster
19th July 2006, 08:16 AM
Btw crazy...naan pengal iyakkam thalaivi sonnuthu PP madam..neenga ellei..:lol2:

crazy
19th July 2006, 02:02 PM
[tscii:87018243bd]

rohit: i feel sorry that i couldnt answer for ur question, but its all i can think of!
do u know the answer or have any idea, pls do enlighten me with ur non craziest knowledge :)Dear Crazy, please read my response to Eelavar's post; and see if you find it non-crazy enough for you to go crazy again. :)

Rohit,
r u telling me that everything begins with God?
crazy........again, iam already crazy, been crazy and going to remain crazy forever!


So, first of all, a true Hindu should never believe in creation of any kind.

Since, Hinduism doesn’t apply the law of causality when it comes to explain the reality, the FIRST cause becomes absolutely meaningless, irrespective of the base used. :thumbsup:

ok, but how and why were we created?


[/tscii:87018243bd]

Rohit
20th July 2006, 02:03 AM
r u telling me that everything begins with God?I have already answered this question in my earlier post. Perhaps the clarification below may help.

If one genuinely believes in the existence of a God, without bothering about establishing the absolute necessity for His existence, then the answer to this question could be affirmative; else, the answer to this question is absolutely negative.
ok, but how and why were we created?Again, I have already answered this question too in my earlier post. Anyway, let me expand it little further to clarify the answer.

If one is a Hindu believer, then according to Hinduism, whatever exists, exists Eternally i.e. everything existed from infinite past, forever....... In that case, the questions like 'how, what, when, where, who, why etc.' with regard to any kind of creation are absolutely meaningless, as there is no way by which any kind of creation could ever take place.

If one is a non-Hindu believer and believes in a Creator God as believed in Judaism, Christianity or Islam, then one may find answers to all his/her 'how, what, when, where, who, why etc.' questions in the relevant scriptures.

So, it is entirely up to the individuals to choose one's own belief system.

I hope, this may help you remain crazy forever (i.e. Eternally). :thumbsup: :)

SRS
20th July 2006, 08:23 AM
If one genuinely believes in the existence of a God, without bothering about establishing the absolute necessity for His existence, then the answer to this question could be affirmative; else, the answer to this question is absolutely negative.
ok, but how and why were we created?Again, I have already answered this question too in my earlier post. Anyway, let me expand it little further to clarify the answer.

You can ask, do only humans have a need for the "existance of god" or is it the whole universe. Can random processes design such an efficient system as the universe? I say efficient, not perfect... if one focuses on the sustainibility and durability, then the universe is certainly efficient. Can a human design a mechanical system that will take care of itself for several billion yrs? Can the human account for every important energy transformation taking place within that period and make the necessary alterations? Is there a viable energy source to allow such a possibility to even come into consideration? Will the parts of this system be able to automatically replenish themselves when wear and tear occurs? Will this system have efficient ways of infinitely recycling wastes? Another point of consideration to be made is that although certain processes such as evolution seem to indicate that order can be created from chaos, the reality is that there are only four fundamental fources holding the entire universe together. So really the Universe runs on mechanistic, not probabilistic, principles - I do not think gravity has ever altered itself. There is order at the subatomic scale.


If one is a Hindu believer, then according to Hinduism, whatever exists, exists Eternally i.e. everything existed from infinite past, forever....... In that case, the questions like 'how, what, when, where, who, why etc.' with regard to any kind of creation are absolutely meaningless, as there is no way by which any kind of creation could ever take place.

This is basic science. Energy and matter cannot be created. So the implication here is that all energy came from a single energy source, which simply transformed itself into new forms of energy and continues doing so. And energy can be transformed into matter.

crazy
20th July 2006, 04:42 PM
I hope, this may help you remain crazy forever (i.e. Eternally). :thumbsup: :)

:ty: :notworthy:




This is basic science. Energy and matter cannot be created. So the implication here is that all energy came from a single energy source, which simply transformed itself into new forms of energy and continues doing so. And energy can be transformed into matter.

Energi can neither be created nor be destroyed
it can only change from one kind to another.

Rohit
21st July 2006, 06:03 AM
You can ask, do only humans have a need for the "existance of god" or is it the whole universe. Can random processes design such an efficient system as the universe? I say efficient, not perfect... if one focuses on the sustainibility and durability, then the universe is certainly efficient. Can a human design a mechanical system that will take care of itself for several billion yrs? Can the human account for every important energy transformation taking place within that period and make the necessary alterations? Is there a viable energy source to allow such a possibility to even come into consideration? Will the parts of this system be able to automatically replenish themselves when wear and tear occurs? Will this system have efficient ways of infinitely recycling wastes? Another point of consideration to be made is that although certain processes such as evolution seem to indicate that order can be created from chaos, the reality is that there are only four fundamental fources holding the entire universe together. So really the Universe runs on mechanistic, not probabilistic, principles - I do not think gravity has ever altered itself. There is order at the subatomic scale.Good try SRS, but it is not good enough. By failing to consider all possible situations and conditions, your argument simply reduces into the fallacy of false dichotomy. Let me show you how.

1) All you have said is that universe works efficiently but imperfectly; and it works based on certain natural laws that govern the mutual interactions between the various contents, ranging from large-scale structures to subatomic particles, of the universe. This, by no means, provides the necessary and sufficient condition to prove the absolute necessity for the “existence of god”.

2) If an entity behaving in admittedly imperfect way is assumed to have been ordered by another entity, then the latter entity requires to be ordered even more by a third entity, which itself requires to be ordered by a fourth one, which by a fifth one, which by a sixth one, seventh one, eighth one ………………….the chain of entities required to be ordered goes to infinity, requiring a set of an infinite number of entities, either within or outside the boundaries of the universe; and the existence of all of them would be contingent to the other ones, none of them could ever exist absolutely necessarily. There is no entity whatsoever that one could point to and say, YES! this the one that must exist absolutely necessarily, without which the whole thing would collapse and fail.

3) The situation captured above is only a partial dichotomy. The dichotomy extends even further, if one considers both the material as well as efficient cause of the universe. The paragraph that you have chosen to omit from my post, mentions exactly that. There are billions of believers who believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Creator God, who is not only the efficient cause but also the material cause of the entire universe. Whereby it is believed that the universe and life did not exist eternally, but they were created at some point in time in the past by the Creator God. This not only makes the need for the “existence of god” absolutely unnecessary, but in principle, it also refutes the entire belief system of Hinduism; and so it refutes all your arguments.

4) One can go even further and consider the situation whereby a chain of infinite number of Creator Gods; Supreme Gods and so on can be conceived requiring to create lower Gods and gods; and yet there can be no God that could exist absolutely necessarily.

5) If it is all about science of matter, energy and energy transformations then let it be that way.

6) The belief of eternal existence of it gets thoroughly refuted by the belief in creation, and yet nothing can be shown to prove the existence of an absolutely necessary Being.

BTW the base of quantum theory (which mainly deals with the behaviours of subatomic particles) entirely rests on the uncertainties and probabilistic application of the wave function.

So, failing to consider every possible conditions and situations, SRS your argument becomes a perfect example of the fallacy of false dichotomy.

If your understanding restricts you to grasp the full extent of dichotomy, then I am afraid, there is nothing I can do to help you there, but one thing I can definitely do is not to enter in any further futile arguments with you; and let you continue with your chosen belief system.

So that the rest can continue discussing the intended topic " Karma & Vidhi"

:thumbsup: :D

pradheep
21st July 2006, 08:30 AM
[tscii:bba631b86d]
Now, there are several places in Hindu scriptures, especially in Upanishads, where one would find and read something like “The creator and creation are identical” or “The creator is the creation himself”. If this is accepted and believed as true, then, the cause and effect become one and the same, there can be no distinction between the two, and thus between the cause and an effect, no matter what they are. In that case, yes, one can logically affirm that all effects are the effects of the FIRST cause (even when it is God for some), for there is absolutely no way to distinguish between the two.

My dear friend Rohit,


for there is absolutely no way to distinguish between the two.

Maya .... is that everyone distinguishes it. That is duality. Enlightment or moksha is when one cease to distinguish it. This the "Truth".

Karma and Vidhi is when one is caught in the Ego mind (the sense small self) and one does not see the whole.

karma is action. Every action is destined by rules of cause and effect. This is vidhi and no one can change it. But one has the free will to change (not the vidhi) but the choices of one action.

Example, putting the finger in the fire will burn it. This is vidhi (cause and effect). But there is free will whether to put finger in the fireor not. This is free will. One has choice to exercise free will but not change vidhi ( cause and effect). This is what |Krishnasays in Gita.[/tscii:bba631b86d]

Rohit
21st July 2006, 01:00 PM
Dear Pradheep, how are you these days? Hope everything is according to your course of action. :)


Maya .... is that everyone distinguishes it. That is duality. Enlightment or moksha is when one cease to distinguish it.
And the distinction between the cause and effect completely ceases.

Yes! exactly that what I have said is part of the belief system of Hinduism; and here, I have no argument against that belief system. In fact, here, I have no argument against any belief system. It is entirely up to the individuals to choose one's own belief system.

Pradheep, please continue with that................. :thumbsup: :D

anbu_kathir
21st July 2006, 07:30 PM
there is only one thing i want to see.........no matter why u born or what u gonna do in this life or what u did in previous life, the fact is that u r living, u r a person.................SO BE A GOOD HUMAN BEING...............how? by helping others, by not doing any evil or bad to others, be kind, be etc etc.

it doesnt matter whether u believe in karma or vidhi or god.............what matter is How u r living or how useful ur life is to others Rolling Eyes Smile no need for the sophisticated "soul searching" stuff and "understanding oneself" blah blah. we are here for some reasong beyond our comprehension. why not spend it being of some use, if not, not being a trouble, to others.


The reason why we need self realization is simple.. we don't know what exactly is good or bad for others. We don't know what exactly is good for even ourselves.

Self-realization helps you understand what is good/bad for us, and others. Understanding oneself is the most important thing to be done, for it gives you a clear picture of how far one can stretch the body and mind, opens up the unlimited vistas of experiences available to us.

And btw, it is quite simpler than many many other aims of this world.
In fact, it is the most natural way to live, from my experience.

Love and Light.

pradheep
21st July 2006, 09:04 PM
The reason why we need self realization is simple.

Dear Anbu
Whether we like it or not. we are evolving to that state. if we use our intellect we quicken it otherwise we get harsh difficulties forcing us to evolve. Self Realization is the reason for evolution.

anbu_kathir
21st July 2006, 09:42 PM
The reason why we need self realization is simple.

Dear Anbu
Whether we like it or not. we are evolving to that state. if we use our intellect we quicken it otherwise we get harsh difficulties forcing us to evolve. Self Realization is the reason for evolution.

True, true. Self realization is a surity. The thing is about 'conscious' evolution.

Love and Light.

pradheep
21st July 2006, 11:11 PM
Unfortunately we are so caught with materialism and the pranks of the mind that we are rarely conscious and hence spiritual path is recommended for conscious evolution. We "wake up" only when we encounter suffering in life. It is easy and good when are aware even in our normal day to day life. This awareful living will help us to make right choices in life and chose the right action or right karma. At any instance in life, the ability to make decisions is controlled by the sum total of all our experinences of the past called "sanchita karma". The impressions are called "vasanas". To extingush past impressions we have to do agama karma and get rid of the prarabhada.

This is why in Vedic (Indian) culture right actions or right karma is emphasized.

Rohit
23rd July 2006, 09:24 PM
Evolution is a long process by which unconscious elements evolve into conscious entities; conscious entities into aware entities and when there is right level of awareness, one gets equipped with the ability to make clear distinctions between the multitudes of choices (dichotomies).

Rohit
23rd July 2006, 09:40 PM
Mosha/mukti (liberation) is defined as the release of soul from the vicious cycle of transmigration, samsara, the cycle of births and deaths and thus suffering, which occurs after soul’s karma has been completely resolved.

Classically, the soul or jivatma is considered analogous to a drop of water and Mosha/mukti (liberation) to the drop merging into the vast ocean, which is analogous to parmatma.

According to advaita, the soul (jivatma) and parmatma are equal in every respect, and liberation entails realisation of the parmatma. When this happens, jivatma's mistaken sense of individuality vanishes, and one merges into the parmatma – the distinction between cause and effect ceases.

In Hinduism, the above is the core theme behind the doctrines of karma (action - the cause), suffering and reincarnations (the consequence of bad karma - an effect) and moksha/mukti (liberation).

Most of us know how the drops of water gets separated from the salty sea waters or what causes the salty seawaters to evaporate into clouds and causes clouds to rain. Most of us also know that it is the nature of seawaters to evaporate when subjected to heat of the sun.

If one takes completely a neutral stand on the above belief system and ponders over it; the following probing questions regarding the state of affairs between jivatma and parmatma can be raised. Anyone, who understands the questions in the right context and also knows the tenets of belief itself, knows the answers. I pose the following question for those who think they know the answers and see if their answers mutually differ or contradict in any way.

1) If jivatma and parmatma are equal, who goes through the cycle of birth, death and rebirth?

2) What was the default condition of parmatma, was it a single homogeneously united entity (The One without a Second) or a composition of heterogeneously divided by the multitudes of individual egoistic entities?

3) Is parmatama eternally divided into the multitudes of heterogeneous egoistic jivatmas?

4) Who or what is being subjected to the process of cause and effect and who is responsible to set the process of karma and vidhi into action?

If the answer to the question (3) is YES; then the implication is, there never was a single homogeneously united entity. If the answer to the question (3) is NO, then the implication is, either the parmatama divided itself into the multitudes of heterogeneous egoistic jivatmas or there was, in principle, at least one another, wholly independent cause responsible for the division of the parmatma into heterogeneous egoistic jivatmas.

Please, look forward to atleast two or more answers. Thank you :) :thumbsup:

pradheep
23rd July 2006, 10:06 PM
1) If jivatma and parmatma are equal, who goes through the cycle of birth, death and rebirth?

The Ego is the one that undergoes cycle of birth death and rebirth.


2) What was the default condition of parmatma, was it a single homogeneously united entity (The One without a Second) or a composition of heterogeneously divided by egoistic multitudes of individual entities?

Default condition of paramathama is one without a second.


3) Is parmatama eternally divided into the multitudes of heterogeneous egoistic jivatmas?

|No. Paramatma is only one. No divisions.


4) Who or what is being subjected to the process of cause and effect and who is responsible to set the process of karma and vidhi into action?

The Egos is the one that is subjected to cause and effect. Every actionof Ego then is subjected to cause and effect. The Ego is also responsible to set the process of karma and vidhi into action.

The paramathma is a silent witness.


If the answer to the question (3) is NO, then the implication is, either the parmatama divided itself into the multitudes of heterogeneous egoistic jivatmas or there was, in principle, at least one another, wholly independent cause responsible for the division of the parmatma into heterogeneous egoistic jivatmas.

The answer if No, and is not the above. The answer is No because, the "multitude of egoistic jivatamas and divisions" is itself the very notion of the "Ego".

Rohit
23rd July 2006, 10:09 PM
Whose Ego?

pradheep
23rd July 2006, 10:11 PM
Evolution is a long process by which unconscious elements evolve into conscious entities; conscious entities into aware entities and when there is right level of awareness, one gets equipped with the ability to make clear distinctions between the multitudes of choices (dichotomies).

Evolution is a long process by which Conscious elements evolve into conscious entities; conscious entities into aware entities and when there is right level of awareness, one gets equipped with the ability to make clear distinctions between the multitudes of choices (dichotomies).

Rohit
23rd July 2006, 10:22 PM
What are these conscious elements? Where did they come from? Are they independent causes?

pradheep
23rd July 2006, 10:41 PM
Whose Ego?
The One who ask and one who answers.

pradheep
23rd July 2006, 10:43 PM
What are these conscious elements? Where did they come from? Are they independent causes?
When the Ego is understood all these questions have no value. So knowing the Ego is the foundation for all knowledge.

Rohit
23rd July 2006, 10:56 PM
What is Ego? Whose Ego? Where did the Ego come from? Is Ego an independent cause?

anbu_kathir
23rd July 2006, 11:09 PM
What is Ego? Whose Ego? Where did the Ego come from? Is Ego an independent cause?

Everything is created by the Paramatman, with the Ego as a tool in Its Dream, so that It might create differences, which enable It to experience ItSelf.

Who creates the personalities we see in our dreams ? I suspect the answer would be, - the Dreamer. If the Dreamer is the source of these personalities, why are they divided?

The Ego in itself is not a independent cause, for without the Dreamer dreaming it up, it doesn't exist.

Love and Light.

pradheep
23rd July 2006, 11:16 PM
What is Ego?

This is a million "life time" worth question. Ego is indentification -the "I" . The "I" feeling is Ego. The moment "I" comes into picture, there is duality, separation, fragementation etc.


Whose Ego?
The one who feels "I".


Where did the Ego come from?

From the feeling of seperateness or identity.


Is Ego an independent cause
The Ego is itself the cause and effect for itself.

Rohit
23rd July 2006, 11:46 PM
Everything is created by the Paramatman, with the Ego as a tool in Its Dream, so that It might create differences, which enable It to experience ItSelf.

Who creates the personalities we see in our dreams ? I suspect the answer would be, - the Dreamer. If the Dreamer is the source of these personalities, why are they divided?

The Ego in itself is not a independent cause, for without the Dreamer dreaming it up, it doesn't exist.
Love and Light.
If Ego doesn’t exist at all, which means that the dreamer, the parmatma itself, thorough a dream, goes through bad karmic deeds, suffering, and then through the cycle of births and rebirths!

Whom are you refering to when you say "our dreams". Who are these "our" anyway? Are they independent causes?

Rohit
23rd July 2006, 11:57 PM
What is Ego?

This is a million "life time" worth question. Ego is indentification -the "I" . The "I" feeling is Ego. The moment "I" comes into picture, there is duality, separation, fragementation etc.


Whose Ego?
The one who feels "I".


Where did the Ego come from?

From the feeling of seperateness or identity.


Is Ego an independent cause
The Ego is itself the cause and effect for itself.
Whoe sees the duality?
Who feels "I"?
Whose feeling of seperateness or identity?
That mean Ego is independent, then you have contradicted Anbu_kathir.

anbu_kathir
24th July 2006, 12:02 AM
If Ego doesn’t exist at all, which means that the dreamer, the parmatma itself, thorough a dream, goes through bad karmic deeds, suffering, and then through the cycle of births and rebirths!

Whom are you refering to when you say "our dreams". Who are these "our" anyway? Are they independent causes?


The 'our' above is a general term, meaning the dreams that we have as individual identities in sleep.

The Dreamer experiences it all, yes. That was why the Dream was ever dreamed. For being just One, as the Dreamer HimSelf, He cannot have any experience outside of HimSelf. Hence the Dream is dreamed, Imaginary Divisions are created.

But as the Dreamer HimSelf, He is Unchanged and Untouched by the Dreams themselves. That is the state the aspirants of Moksha seek, I think.

Love and Light.

Rohit
24th July 2006, 12:10 AM
The 'our' above is a general term, meaning the dreams that we have as individual identities in sleep.

The Dreamer experiences it all, yes. That was why the Dream was ever dreamed. For being just One, as the Dreamer HimSelf, He cannot have any experience outside of HimSelf. Hence the Dream is dreamed, Imaginary Divisions are created.

But as the Dreamer HimSelf, He is Unchanged and Untouched by the Dreams themselves. That is the state the aspirants of Moksha seek, I think.

Love and Light.
Again, you are not clear about who are these "our" and "We"?
Who are and exactly where do these "aspirants" reside? Are they independent causes?

anbu_kathir
24th July 2006, 12:16 AM
We - 'me' as anbu_kathir, 'you' as rohit, and others as their individualities.

Who are these aspirants? - well they are individualities who want to be untouched their individualities while maintaining their individualities.

Where do they reside? Several places across the Universe, geographically speaking.

Are they independent causes ? - No.. the Dreamer is the Only reason for everything that happens in the dream. They cannot be independent causes, but they can be causes.. for there is no division, except in the Dream itself.

Love and Light.

Rohit
24th July 2006, 12:22 AM
We - 'me' as anbu_kathir, 'you' as rohit, and others as their individualities.

Who are these aspirants? - well they are individualities who want to be untouched their individualities while maintaining their individualities.

Where do they reside? Several places across the Universe, geographically speaking.
Are they independent causes ? - No.. the Dreamer is the Only reason for everything that happens in the dream. They cannot be independent causes, but they can be causes.. for there is no division, except in the Dream itself.

Love and Light.
Where do these Several places across the Universe, geographically speaking. reside? Are they independent causes?

anbu_kathir
24th July 2006, 12:26 AM
No again, as I said...there is no 'they' in Reality. It is the Dreamer HimSelf, who is reflected by the Dream Characters.

By independent causes, I think you mean one doesn't affect another. There are no such things in the Universe which don't affect another. The law of action-reaction says it all.

Hence there is no independent cause, for there are can be no two causes. If there is a cause, then it is only the Dreamer HimSelf.

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir
24th July 2006, 12:28 AM
>>>>>Where do they reside?

As I said, several locations in this Universe, and beyond. Some on this planet of course. I cannot pinpoint the others.

Love and Light.

Rohit
24th July 2006, 12:33 AM
No again, as I said...there is no 'they' in Reality. It is the Dreamer HimSelf, who is reflected by the Dream Characters.

By independent causes, I think you mean one doesn't affect another. There are no such things in the Universe which don't affect another. The law of action-reaction says it all.

Hence there is no independent cause, for there are can be no two causes. If there is a cause, then it is only the Dreamer HimSelf.

Love and Light.
And all these is in the dearm of the parmatma itself, there is no jivatma at all, is that true? Then who is liberated, if at all liberated?

anbu_kathir
24th July 2006, 12:44 AM
Ah... >>>>>Then who is liberated, if at all liberated?


Nobody is liberated, spiritually speaking.

One simply becomes aware to what One Really Is, already. This is liberation.

Liberation is not an objective phenomenon, one doesn't get liberation as a 'result' of something. Liberation is the Dreamer ( as a character in the Dream ) waking up from the Dream, realizing the Dream wasn't real.

Now the Dreamer - individual who has woken up says -

I am the Dreamer who is dreaming this Dream. And I play a part in it, as an individual. I play the part I have allotted myself honestly and "consciously", ie, being aware that this is a Dream. Though there are infinite other Dream-individuals (most still unconscious of their true REal nature) that I play, I still hold on to the one individual that woke up to mySelf through his/her own unique experience.

Yea.. as per Advaita there is no Jivatma in Reality, Jivatman and the Paramatman are one and the same.

Love and Light.

Rohit
24th July 2006, 12:55 AM
Ah... >>>>>Then who is liberated, if at all liberated?


Nobody is liberated, spiritually speaking.

One simply becomes aware to what One Really Is, already. This is liberation.

Liberation is not an objective phenomenon, one doesn't get liberation as a 'result' of something. Liberation is the Dreamer ( as a character in the Dream ) waking up from the Dream, realizing the Dream wasn't real.

Now the Dreamer - individual who has woken up says -

I am the Dreamer who is dreaming this Dream. And I play a part in it, as an individual. I play the part I have allotted myself honestly and "consciously", ie, being aware that this is a Dream. Though there are infinite other Dream-individuals (most still unconscious of their true REal nature) that I play, I still hold on to the one individual that woke up to mySelf through his/her own unique experience.

Yea.. as per Advaita there is no Jivatma in Reality, Jivatman and the Paramatman are one and the same.

Love and Light.
And yet all these is in the dearm of the parmatma itself, there are no separate dreamers at all, is that true? But, somehow, the dreamer is arguing with itself, and that too in the dream! Then who wakes up? The dreamer, the parmatma itself or something else? What is this objective phenomenon anyway, where did it come from?

pradheep
24th July 2006, 12:55 AM
Whoe sees the duality?
Who feels "I"?
Whose feeling of seperateness or identity?
That mean Ego is independent,

Ego sees the duality.
Ego feels "I".
Ego feels seperateness or identity.
What do you mean by idependant. It can have its own identity,but it can never be independantly existing, like a shadow. A shadow is different from the light, but is not independent in existence. Without the light there is no light ,but without the shadow light exists.

anbu_kathir
24th July 2006, 01:04 AM
You are so right, Pradeep :).

>>>>>>>>>Then who wakes up? The dreamer, the parmatma itself or something else? What is this objective phenomenon anyway, where did it come from?


The dreamer and the Paramatman are the same. There is also no 'something else', for the Paramatman is All That Is. The Dreamer is the One who wakes up.. remembering who he is in reality, while choosing to maintain individuality or no individuality in the Dream.

The Illusion/Dream itself arises when the Dreamer/Paramatman forgets himself, so that he might experience himself, by creating divisions in a dream/illusion.

Love and Light.

Rohit
24th July 2006, 01:06 AM
What do you mean by idependant. It can have its own identity,but it can never be independantly existing, like a shadow. A shadow is different from the light, but is not independent in existence. Without the light there is no light ,but without the shadow light exists.
What I mean by independent is that a separte entity from the parmatma. Nof if Ego is a shado, whose shadow it is? Who produces or causes the shadow? The sun, or something else? What is the cause of the shadow, which is independent of parmatma?

Rohit
24th July 2006, 01:06 AM
What do you mean by idependant. It can have its own identity,but it can never be independantly existing, like a shadow. A shadow is different from the light, but is not independent in existence. Without the light there is no light ,but without the shadow light exists.
What I mean by independent is that a separte entity from the parmatma.
Now, according to you Ego is a shadow, whose shadow is it?
Who produces or causes the shadow? The sun, or something else? What is the cause of the shadow that is independent of the parmatma?

Rohit
24th July 2006, 01:18 AM
The Illusion/Dream itself arises when the Dreamer/Paramatman forgets himself, so that he might experience himself, by creating divisions in a dream/illusion. Love and Light.
What is the cause of this forgetfullness of the parmatma? Is it suffering from some Alzheimer’s disease? Do you forget who you are? What makes you forget who you are? Why do you still keep talking in illusory dreams?

anbu_kathir
24th July 2006, 01:29 AM
The cause for the forgetfullness of the Paramatman is that He wishes to experience himself.

As you might see, without dualities, all experience is invalid. There is no 'hot' without 'cold' , no 'up' without 'down' , no 'happiness' without 'sadness'.. etc.. etc.

Since the Paramatman is essentially One, he doesn't know what Duality is or how an experience feels like. So a Dual has to be born.

But If Paramatman is All That Is, anything that he creates is also him. There is no other for the Paramatman.

Hence, He tricks himself by forgetting who he is, so he might now create Duals in the Dreams that he dreams for himself, and still be the Non-dual Dreamer.

So the desire for the Dreamer to experience HimSElf is the cause for the Dream and its dualities.

Love and Light.

Rohit
24th July 2006, 01:44 AM
........without dualities, all experience is invalid. There is no 'hot' without 'cold' , no 'up' without 'down' , no 'happiness' without 'sadness'.. etc.. etc. Love and Light.

Where did the feelings of 'hot' , 'cold', 'up' 'down' etc. come from to the parmatma? How and why did the parmatma diffrentiate these non-existent or illusory things in the first place? or are they real feellings of the parmatma? What is the cause behind these feelings? Are these feelings independently caused to the parmatma, beyond its control? Are the feelings of these desires and experiences real or illusory?

Anbu-kathir, you did not answer, what made you forget who you are?

pradheep
24th July 2006, 01:57 AM
What I mean by independent is that a separte entity from the parmatma.
Now, according to you Ego is a shadow, whose shadow is it?
Who produces or causes the shadow? The sun, or something else? What is the cause of the shadow that is independent of the parmatma?
The example is meant to pinpoint and not the fact by itself. No matter how much explanation is given one does not understand it unless one experiences it by purifying one's own mind. When we purify our mind and transcend the Ego answers to these questions are so much evident to us.


The paramatman or supreme consciosuness never forgets. All these questions come from the Ego which tries to seek answers outside. The answer is within only.We have ask our own Ego where did it come from and how did the Self forget itself?. Like someone who in movie theater forgets himself. In reality he does not forgethimself. His attention was that "he" was watching a movie. Same way we ask the question where did Ego come from and how did the Self or paramathman forget itself. There is no forgetting.

The problem of the Ego is that it is the one which caused all this and it itself is asking the question, who is this Ego and where did it come from. where is the Self? etc.

The self is still there and the Ego only does all these karma of ignorance and knowledge.

Hope this explains to a certain extent.

Rohit
24th July 2006, 02:06 AM
Similarly, the questions were raised only to draw attentions to the process of ego generation as analogously reflected in the independent process of the light, projecting the shadow or image of the objects, which are separate, different, independent of each other from the light, objects of the film and multiple spectators in the audience. I can understand, why it is impossible to answer the pertinent questions, irrespective of the acceptability or unacceptability of the answers.

Anyway, thank you Pradheep and Anbu-kathir for your detailed account of the contradictory beliefs.

Thank you again to both of you. :D :thumbsup:

SRS
24th July 2006, 11:03 PM
[tscii:fd0ebc82d4]


1) All you have said is that universe works efficiently but imperfectly; and it works based on certain natural laws that govern the mutual interactions between the various contents, ranging from large-scale structures to subatomic particles, of the universe. This, by no means, provides the necessary and sufficient condition to prove the absolute necessity for the “existence of god”.


From where does the natural order of the Universe arise, if not from God? It is true, the natural tendency of a so-called isolated system is towards disorder. But this disorder can be minimized with sufficient energy input. So one can rephrase to state, disorder (essentially randomness) need not be the only tendency of the system. These cycles of energy input and output are built into the Universe. Whether one is referring to the Kreb's Cycle or the solar cycle; the Universe has self-preservation mechanisms. The implication being, the Universe did not arise randomly.


2) If an entity behaving in admittedly imperfect way is assumed to have been ordered by another entity, then the latter entity requires to be ordered even more by a third entity, which itself requires to be ordered by a fourth one, which by a fifth one, which by a sixth one, seventh one, eighth one ………………….the chain of entities required to be ordered goes to infinity, requiring a set of an infinite number of entities, either within or outside the boundaries of the universe; and the existence of all of them would be contingent to the other ones, none of them could ever exist absolutely necessarily. There is no entity whatsoever that one could point to and say, YES! this the one that must exist absolutely necessarily, without which the whole thing would collapse and fail.


You are implying that each energy transformation requires a new "god." But it is not the "god" that is being transformed, it is the god energy. If you hold your face close to a hot oven for sufficient time, you may begin to sweat. Clearly the oven has transmitted sufficient heat to cause you to sweat. But the oven itself is not transformed. Theoretically, given sufficient electrical current and a coil of the right caliber, the oven could generate heat to warm many millions of people. Exactly what we see with the Sun (although the reliance there is on nuclear transformations). Now, imagine an even bigger energy source than the Sun, one that is enough to generate the Universe.


3) The situation captured above is only a partial dichotomy. The dichotomy extends even further, if one considers both the material as well as efficient cause of the universe. The paragraph that you have chosen to omit from my post, mentions exactly that. There are billions of believers who believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Creator God, who is not only the efficient cause but also the material cause of the entire universe. Whereby it is believed that the universe and life did not exist eternally, but they were created at some point in time in the past by the Creator God. This not only makes the need for the “existence of god” absolutely unnecessary, but in principle, it also refutes the entire belief system of Hinduism; and so it refutes all your arguments.


Inventor comes before invented. I don't see the paradox. What is more important, does the inventor possess the right materials to invent the to-be invented.


4) One can go even further and consider the situation whereby a chain of infinite number of Creator Gods; Supreme Gods and so on can be conceived requiring to create lower Gods and gods; and yet there can be no God that could exist absolutely necessarily.


One deals with sequences of numbers that continue on and on. If these numbers have a limit, the output of the sequence at that limit does not matter.. The sequence can even have a discontinuity at the limit. Only the behavior of the numbers as they approach the limit is significant, significant enough to conclude that such a limit does indeed exist. If there are "many" gods as you say, but they share certain commanalities (in particular, the commanility that implies the existance of a "fundamental" god, that is sufficient to imply the existence of at least 1 god.






BTW the base of quantum theory (which mainly deals with the behaviours of subatomic particles) entirely rests on the uncertainties and probabilistic application of the wave function.


String theory also deals with subatomic particles. It is true that quantum theory relies on certain probabilstic descriptions to describe the behavior of the electron, but string theory goes beyond this. String theory unifies the four fundamental fources that unify the universe, and bridges the gap between relativity and QM. I see no potential for randomness there. String theory is even more fundamental than QM. [/tscii:fd0ebc82d4]

Rohit
25th July 2006, 03:10 AM
[tscii:719e3fa6ab]


1) All you have said is that universe works efficiently but imperfectly; and it works based on certain natural laws that govern the mutual interactions between the various contents, ranging from large-scale structures to subatomic particles, of the universe. This, by no means, provides the necessary and sufficient condition to prove the absolute necessity for the “existence of god”.


From where does the natural order of the Universe arise, if not from God? It is true, the natural tendency of a so-called isolated system is towards disorder. But this disorder can be minimized with sufficient energy input. So one can rephrase to state, disorder (essentially randomness) need not be the only tendency of the system. These cycles of energy input and output are built into the Universe. Whether one is referring to the Kreb's Cycle or the solar cycle; the Universe has self-preservation mechanisms. The implication being, the Universe did not arise randomly.


2) If an entity behaving in admittedly imperfect way is assumed to have been ordered by another entity, then the latter entity requires to be ordered even more by a third entity, which itself requires to be ordered by a fourth one, which by a fifth one, which by a sixth one, seventh one, eighth one ………………….the chain of entities required to be ordered goes to infinity, requiring a set of an infinite number of entities, either within or outside the boundaries of the universe; and the existence of all of them would be contingent to the other ones, none of them could ever exist absolutely necessarily. There is no entity whatsoever that one could point to and say, YES! this the one that must exist absolutely necessarily, without which the whole thing would collapse and fail.


You are implying that each energy transformation requires a new "god." But it is not the "god" that is being transformed, it is the god energy. If you hold your face close to a hot oven for sufficient time, you may begin to sweat. Clearly the oven has transmitted sufficient heat to cause you to sweat. But the oven itself is not transformed. Theoretically, given sufficient electrical current and a coil of the right caliber, the oven could generate heat to warm many millions of people. Exactly what we see with the Sun (although the reliance there is on nuclear transformations). Now, imagine an even bigger energy source than the Sun, one that is enough to generate the Universe.


3) The situation captured above is only a partial dichotomy. The dichotomy extends even further, if one considers both the material as well as efficient cause of the universe. The paragraph that you have chosen to omit from my post, mentions exactly that. There are billions of believers who believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Creator God, who is not only the efficient cause but also the material cause of the entire universe. Whereby it is believed that the universe and life did not exist eternally, but they were created at some point in time in the past by the Creator God. This not only makes the need for the “existence of god” absolutely unnecessary, but in principle, it also refutes the entire belief system of Hinduism; and so it refutes all your arguments.


Inventor comes before invented. I don't see the paradox. What is more important, does the inventor possess the right materials to invent the to-be invented.


4) One can go even further and consider the situation whereby a chain of infinite number of Creator Gods; Supreme Gods and so on can be conceived requiring to create lower Gods and gods; and yet there can be no God that could exist absolutely necessarily.


One deals with sequences of numbers that continue on and on. If these numbers have a limit, the output of the sequence at that limit does not matter.. The sequence can even have a discontinuity at the limit. Only the behavior of the numbers as they approach the limit is significant, significant enough to conclude that such a limit does indeed exist. If there are "many" gods as you say, but they share certain commanalities (in particular, the commanility that implies the existance of a "fundamental" god, that is sufficient to imply the existence of at least 1 god.



BTW the base of quantum theory (which mainly deals with the behaviours of subatomic particles) entirely rests on the uncertainties and probabilistic application of the wave function.


String theory also deals with subatomic particles. It is true that quantum theory relies on certain probabilstic descriptions to describe the behavior of the electron, but string theory goes beyond this. String theory unifies the four fundamental fources that unify the universe, and bridges the gap between relativity and QM. I see no potential for randomness there. String theory is even more fundamental than QM. [/tscii:719e3fa6ab]Again good try SRS, but it is not good enough. In fact, this time it is even worse than your earlier try.

There is a fundamental difference between an infinite series of numbers and an infinite series of gods.

To generate a series of infinite numbers, one only needs base numbers i.e. 0 to 9 for all other numbers. There is absolutely no need to look for infinite distinct numbers. Precisely that is why roman numbers are useless and extinct when it comes to represent extremely large numbers. The entire series can be constructed and conceived using right combinations of these base numbers. Using these base numbers, one can create a series of +ve numbers and a series of -ve numbers; and when these two series are added, the resulting sum comes to an absolute 0. The same principle can be applied to energy; there are +ve energies and there are –ve energies and the sum of these +ve and –ve energies, when added, comes to and absolute 0.

And I know it for sure that such sums will be highly disappointing for you and you won’t be happy to accept them when it comes to your theory of "god", but unfortunately, that is what it eventually comes to when dealing with series, involving numbers.

Also, a series involving infinite numbers does not collapse when one fails to provide the highest number that the series must contain. Whatever the highest number one can guess, one can always add one more to it and the highest number no longer remains the highest. One always falls short by one in guessing the highest number of the series; whatever one guesses, there is always one less. Even when the highest number of the series may never exist, the series does not collapse.

Such is not case when it comes to the series of gods, without the definite existence of the Highest God, all these Gods and gods would remain in utter disorder and cannot order themselves, forget about ordering the universe as you have wishfully thought and believed. And that is what I was talking about the absolute necessity for the existence of the Highest God, without which the whole concept of god would instantly collapse. And exactly that what the need of “the existence of god” leads to, without the existence of the Highest God, which by default cannot exist, as there is always one short at the highest level who, from your own premise, should be the source of all order. No matter how many times and how high you conceive of a God, but someone can always conceive of a God that is higher than yours and say your God needs ordering before it can order anything else, which again needs ordering by an even higher God. Ironically, there is no end to this series; and the one, that must exist absolutely necessarily, sadly can never exist, while the very premise requires one, without which the whole series of gods instantly collapses. The implication of your premise is obvious, there can exist no highest God than which higher God is not needed, for your order theory to work, making the entire god system nothing more than an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

The only valid conclusion that can be drawn is that the universe, with all it contents and behaviours, whether perfect or not, as it is, is a self-contained closed system, even when its boundaries change through expansion. There exists absolutely nothing, other than the universe itself, that is absolutely necessary to order the universe and its contents.

I leave it entirely up to you to figure out the implications of your next, extended version of the fallacy of false dichotomy. :D :thumbsup:

anbu_kathir
25th July 2006, 08:49 PM
........without dualities, all experience is invalid. There is no 'hot' without 'cold' , no 'up' without 'down' , no 'happiness' without 'sadness'.. etc.. etc. Love and Light.

Where did the feelings of 'hot' , 'cold', 'up' 'down' etc. come from to the parmatma? How and why did the parmatma diffrentiate these non-existent or illusory things in the first place? or are they real feellings of the parmatma? What is the cause behind these feelings? Are these feelings independently caused to the parmatma, beyond its control? Are the feelings of these desires and experiences real or illusory?

Anbu-kathir, you did not answer, what made you forget who you are?

I am not really talking about the Paramatman as an 'entity' here.
By saying that the Paramatman is 'formless', it is meant that he is beyond all forms, physical and ......mental.

The Paramatman, as such being One eternally, cannot really feel anything, except through his creations. . The Paramatman cannot differentiate, except through his creations. Nothing is real/imaginary for the Paramatman, for it is the only thing there is., and there are no others.

If you say that the Paramatman is the Only Ultimate reality, then these feelings/desires/experiences.. are illusions.. for in Truth, there is 'nothing' to feel, there is no other thing to desire, there is no experiencer to experience the experience.


The Paramatman is the experiencer, the experience, and the act of experiencing. . These are not separate.

The differences arise in the mind. The cause for them is the mind. By its conditioning through several lifetimes, the mind differentiates and divides.

Then you might ask, what about the first lifetime --- Well.. there is no 'first' lifetime ?

There are no first lifetimes. The Illusion is eternally present, as the Paramatman is eternally present. Some 'individualities' may choose to retain their individualities after liberation, some might choose not to. And hence the game goes on and on and on....

The Paramatman chooses the individualities 'everytime' continuously in the Illusion based on what part of ItSelf it needs to experience. Since the Paramatman is infinite, and so the Illusion is infinite, and the individualities are infinite.

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir
25th July 2006, 08:54 PM
>>>>>What made you forget yourself?

I didn't forget myself The Paramatman wished to experience a part of ItSelf as me. Thats how I have come into being, as you have.

And thats why we talk in the Illusion/Dream as different entities, rowing our boats in our own individual ways.

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir
25th July 2006, 09:49 PM
........without dualities, all experience is invalid. There is no 'hot' without 'cold' , no 'up' without 'down' , no 'happiness' without 'sadness'.. etc.. etc. Love and Light.

Where did the feelings of 'hot' , 'cold', 'up' 'down' etc. come from to the parmatma? How and why did the parmatma diffrentiate these non-existent or illusory things in the first place? or are they real feellings of the parmatma? What is the cause behind these feelings? Are these feelings independently caused to the parmatma, beyond its control? Are the feelings of these desires and experiences real or illusory?

Anbu-kathir, you did not answer, what made you forget who you are?

I am not really talking about the Paramatman as an 'entity' here.
By saying that the Paramatman is 'formless', it is meant that he is beyond all forms, physical and ......mental.

The Paramatman, as such being One eternally, cannot really feel anything, except through his creations. . The Paramatman cannot differentiate, except through his creations. Nothing is real/imaginary for the Paramatman, for it is the only thing there is., and there are no others.

If you say that the Paramatman is the Only Ultimate reality, then these feelings/desires/experiences.. are illusions.. for in Truth, there is 'nothing' to feel, there is no other thing to desire, there is no experiencer to experience the experience.


The Paramatman is the experiencer, the experience, and the act of experiencing. . These are not separate.

The differences arise in the mind. The cause for them is the mind. By its conditioning through several lifetimes, the mind differentiates and divides.

Then you might ask, what about the first lifetime ?

There are no first lifetimes. The Illusion is eternally present, as the Paramatman is eternally present. Some 'individualities' may choose to retain their individualities after liberation, some might choose not to. And hence the game goes on and on and on....

The Paramatman chooses the individualities 'everytime' continuously in the Illusion based on what part of ItSelf it needs to experience. Since the Paramatman is infinite, and so the Illusion is infinite, and the individualities are infinite.

Love and Light.

pradheep
26th July 2006, 01:16 AM
What made you forget yourself?

The Ego forgets (identifies) and not the Paramathman. It is for the Ego that it forgot and now it has to realize. And so it has to undergo its evolution to know itself. If this clearly understood there is no confusion.

Rohit
26th July 2006, 01:42 AM
Thank you Anbu-kathir,

According to you (an illusion), there is absolutely nothing other than the parmatmata. Which implies that there is nothing other than parmatma who is hallucinating and experiencing illusions. This must really be a damn good experience for the parmatman.

Now, let me replace every subjects and objects other than the parmatma you have mentioned in your posts, by an illusion or illusions and see what do 'you' make of that.

Here it goes. Please note that the comments in bracket are mine.

This is what Anbu-kathir, who thinks he is an illusion of the parmatma, essentially says:



Illusion is not really talking about the Paramatman as an 'entity' here (that means, parmatman is a 'non-entity', a 'void'- this is absolutely a very good conclusion indeed).

By saying (who is saying this, an illusion?) that the Paramatman is 'formless', it is meant that he is beyond all forms, physical and ......mental.

The Paramatman, as such being One eternally, cannot really feel anything, except through his illusions. The Paramatman cannot differentiate, except through his illusions. Nothing is real/imaginary for the Paramatman, for it is the only thing there is, and there are no others.

If illusion says (how and to whom?) that the Paramatman is the Only Ultimate reality, then these feelings/desires/experiences are illusions.. for in Truth, there is 'nothing' to feel, there is no other thing to desire, there is no experiencer to experience the experience.

The Paramatman is the experiencer (illusion), the experience (illusion), and the act of experiencing (hallucinating). These are not separate (which means Parmatma and illusions are not separate – very good in deed).

The differences arise (to whom?) in the illusion. The cause for illusion is the illusion. By illusions’ conditioning through several lifetimes, the illusion differentiates and divides (itself!)

Then illusion might ask (to whom?) what about the first lifetime --- Well.. there is no 'first' lifetime ?

There are no first lifetimes. The Illusion is eternally present, as the Paramatman is eternally present. Some 'illusions' may choose to retain their illusions after illusion, some illusions might choose not to. And hence the illusions goes on and on and on....

The Paramatman chooses the illusions 'every time' continuously in the illusion based on what part (So, parmatma is divided into parts) of ItSelf it needs to experience. Since the Paramatman is infinite, and so the illusion is infinite, and the illusions are infinite.

Illusion didn't forget itself The Paramatman wished to experience a part of ItSelf as illusion. That’s how illusions have come into being, as illusions have.

And that’s why illusions talk in the illusion/dream (illusions in illusions – this is really hilarious indeed) as different illusions, rowing illusory boats in their own illusory ways.




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:

Anbu, please keep it up, be a good illusion. Thank you

----------
Anbu, you are indeed a very good illusion of the parmatma, and so were the repeated foreign invasions of India and the slavery and destitution of hundreds of millions of Indians - the parmatma must have really enjoyed that illusion. Not only that the parmatma must have enjoyed his illusions of ruthless killings of millions of people in wars, tsunami, natural disasters and so many other religious wars.
----------

Rohit
26th July 2006, 02:23 AM
What made you forget yourself?

The Ego forgets (identifies) and not the Paramathman. It is for the Ego that it forgot and now it has to realize. And so it has to undergo its evolution to know itself. If this clearly understood there is no confusion.

Here is, according to Anbu-kathir, yet another illusion with an illusion of Ego. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:

anbu_kathir
26th July 2006, 07:04 AM
A good attempt, Rohit.

You could have replaced all the words with Paramatman, for infact It is all that is. The illusion, as such, does not exist.

Yes.. they are funny indeed. Illusions killing illusions, loving illusions.. etc. It is all in the process of Paramatman remembering ItSelf through its creation.

Love and Light.

pradheep
26th July 2006, 08:34 AM
yet another illusion with an illusion of Ego

And yet another illusion writing "yet another illusion with an illusion of Ego".


parmatma must have enjoyed his illusions of ruthless killings of millions of people in wars, tsunami, natural disasters and so many other religious wars.
why only project the illusion of wars and disasters only.. There are infact lots of other illusion too, eating pizzas, going to Hawaii, driving lexus, having sex, getting Nobel prize, awarding patents, swimming in beach ...............endless illusions.

Rohit
27th July 2006, 01:24 AM
Yes! Anbu and Pradheep, I could have replaced everything in your posts with the words "illusions" and/or "non-entity", exactly as your posts have clearly inferred. Nonetheless, the sample is enough for the observant minds to grasp the abstraction.

Anyway, both of you have been, and still are, very entertaining illusions/dream characters for me to pass my time. Thank you! And since, I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, I really enjoy endlessly entertaining illusions/dreams. :wink: :D :thumbsup:

SRS
28th July 2006, 09:04 PM
[tscii:56ec7b293c]


There is a fundamental difference between an infinite series of numbers and an infinite series of gods.

To generate a series of infinite numbers, one only needs base numbers i.e. 0 to 9 for all other numbers. There is absolutely no need to look for infinite distinct numbers. Precisely that is why roman numbers are useless and extinct when it comes to represent extremely large numbers. The entire series can be constructed and conceived using right combinations of these base numbers. Using these base numbers, one can create a series of +ve numbers and a series of -ve numbers; and when these two series are added, the resulting sum comes to an absolute 0. The same principle can be applied to energy; there are +ve energies and there are –ve energies and the sum of these +ve and –ve energies, when added, comes to and absolute 0.

And I know it for sure that such sums will be highly disappointing for you and you won’t be happy to accept them when it comes to your theory of "god", but unfortunately, that is what it eventually comes to when dealing with series, involving numbers.

Also, a series involving infinite numbers does not collapse when one fails to provide the highest number that the series must contain. Whatever the highest number one can guess, one can always add one more to it and the highest number no longer remains the highest. One always falls short by one in guessing the highest number of the series; whatever one guesses, there is always one less. Even when the highest number of the series may never exist, the series does not collapse.

Such is not case when it comes to the series of gods, without the definite existence of the Highest God, all these Gods and gods would remain in utter disorder and cannot order themselves, forget about ordering the universe as you have wishfully thought and believed. And that is what I was talking about the absolute necessity for the existence of the Highest God, without which the whole concept of god would instantly collapse. And exactly that what the need of “the existence of god” leads to, without the existence of the Highest God, which by default cannot exist, as there is always one short at the highest level who, from your own premise, should be the source of all order. No matter how many times and how high you conceive of a God, but someone can always conceive of a God that is higher than yours and say your God needs ordering before it can order anything else, which again needs ordering by an even higher God. Ironically, there is no end to this series; and the one, that must exist absolutely necessarily, sadly can never exist, while the very premise requires one, without which the whole series of gods instantly collapses. The implication of your premise is obvious, there can exist no highest God than which higher God is not needed, for your order theory to work, making the entire god system nothing more than an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.


There are three possibilities for an infinite sequence: (I) approaches a number, (II) approaches positive/negative infinity, (III) has no limit. You are saying the possibility of multiple gods implies the possibility of (III) whereas I am saying it is closer to (I). The variance of "gods" that one sees is entirely a product of human conception. It is naive to expect humans to concieve of exactly the same god in exactly the same format. However, if one looks beyond these superficial barriers - e.g. language for example - one will find that all roads eventually converge to one - the one god. The existance of the one fundamental god is entirely independant of the other gods you speak of. In fact, these other gods need not even exist. But within the framework of human conception, given that the conception of many gods is inevitable, it is just as likely that one fundamental god exists, otherwise the conception of many gods would be meaningless. Of course, in an idealized setting, one would only give consideration to a single god and no other. However this is impossible for what reason I have given before - the variance in human conception due to such barriers as language.



The only valid conclusion that can be drawn is that the universe, with all it contents and behaviours, whether perfect or not, as it is, is a self-contained closed system, even when its boundaries change through expansion. There exists absolutely nothing, other than the universe itself, that is absolutely necessary to order the universe and its contents.

If there is nothing other than the universe itself, what does the universe expand into? To say that there is nothing other than the universe negates the existance of any empty space outside this universe.[/tscii:56ec7b293c]

Rohit
28th July 2006, 09:45 PM
....................(?), (??), (???)

The implication of your premise is obvious, there can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing more than an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

In that case, either, just believe in what you want to believe in and forget these futile efforts without grasping the extent of dichotomies.

OR

Join the series of illusions/dreams. :wink: :D :thumbsup:

SRS
29th July 2006, 12:57 AM
....................(?), (??), (???)

The implication of your premise is obvious, there can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing more than an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

In that case, either, just believe in what you want to believe in and forget these futile efforts without grasping the extent of dichotomies.

OR

Join the series of illusions/dreams. :wink: :D :thumbsup:

There is only one God. Just as science says there is one constant energy that pervades the Universe, there is also one shakthi that pervades the Universe. One does not need to be Hindu to experience this energy. One need not even have a religion. One need only see beyond the maya. Those who display psychic abilities, for example, are simply demonstrating the ability to come into contact with this energy. Even though such experiences cannot be verified scientifically, they are not inconsistent with fundamental scientific laws. One cannot "see" a radio wave or a gamma ray. But that is simply because the observer is not capable of decoding such frequences with only his own senses. The same is true with the universal energy. As long as one sees only the material world, he will not be able to experience the universal energy.

Rohit
29th July 2006, 02:08 AM
There is only one God. ................That means, you have chosen to believe.

Good, exactly that what I have been advising you to do in the first place, but somehow, maya was obstructing your ability to transcend the reality.

..............there is also one shakthi that pervades the Universe.According to billions, the 'shakthi' is created by 'something' even 'Higher'; and there is no question of Maya there at all, it is all real.

However, there can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing more than an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Anyway whatever you have said, is not a bad illusion at all. By all means, please keep up the good illusions coming.

:) :D :lol: :thumbsup:

rocketboy
29th July 2006, 02:28 AM
I am not taking any sides here but can anyone come up with a logical explanation for remote sensing. I was reading this month's RD (Indian edition) and at the end ,usually reserved for book section, there was this story about a psychic who worked for some US secret agency. This man led a normal life till the time he was recruited for this agency. His modus operandi is like this. He is given the geographical coordinates of some place/ person he has never seen before. Then he visits this place in a state of trance (:?:) and then he describes it to the person monitoring him. Often those people who are in this job of remorte sensing sound as vague as possible . For example if he sees something red then he describes it as it is without attributing that red color to one particular object. This certainly appears to be paranormal. And this phenomena as you may like to call it cannot be dismissed as a joke or any mumbo jumbo stuff as an organisation like CIA is behind it. A few years ago I had witnessed a demonstration of this remote sensing act in a television program. A man was made to stand on the bridge overlooking Thames river in England . Then in the studio where this program was shot a psychic was handed a picture of the other man. To everone's surprise he could actually draw a rough picture of the bridge.It was simply amazing. I thought about this for some time and came up with an explanation that somehow managed to convince me . It goes like this. However hard you try one cannot teach physics to a dog. Waste your entire lifetime, still you cannot make a bird to do calculus assignments for you. A bird's brain cannot handle calculus and a dog's brain is not developed to assimilate the rigorous concepts of physics. Similarly the human brain should have and has certain limitations. Since we are on the top of the ladder of evolution we have somewhat become pretentious. So what these psychic claim to see may actually be invisible to the ordinary human eyes , unperceivable to the ordinary human mind but normal in all other aspects. The range of frequencies that is audible to the human ears is approximately between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. But some people can hear above 20,000 Hz..Ultra violet light is invisible to the human eyes but bees can see into the near ultra violet band.Taking the cue I make a hollow argument that these psychics are just one step ahead of the normal homo sapiens in the evolutionary process.Maybe after say some 10,000 years those things that sound abnormal,absurd today may actually make sense to everyone. I don't think we need to wait that long. With the rapid progress we are making we may soon find a solution to all the intriguing mysteries surrounding us.

Rohit
29th July 2006, 03:22 AM
I am not taking any sides here but can anyone come up with a logical explanation for remote sensing..
If there is something in human ability to sense as remotely as Osama Billaden or terrorists planning to hit twin towers, planting multiple bombs in London, Madrid, Mumbai etc., killing thousands; all these could have been prevented by these remote sensing humanoids. Also such abilities could be used to the great benefits of all humanity in preventing wars, protecting millions from calamities resulting form natural disasters like tsunami, earthquakes, volcanic activities, floods, epidemics, landslides and so on, very cheaply. And most of all, such abilities could have prevented waves after waves of foreign invasions and dismal destitute condition of India that lasted for 1000s of years. But nothing of this sort happened or is happening, while governments world over are reluctantly spending billions of dollars after high-tech, ultrasonic, electromagnetic, magnetic, electrostatic, pressure gauge etc. remote sensing/defence equipment, which are not even humans. If governments could ever successfully replace remote-sensing/artificial intelligence equipment by these so-called, remote-sensing humanoids and stop such astronomical spendings after artificial intelligence, yes there is something worth investigating scientifically, otherwise, all these are just allegories without substance. Such remote-sensing humanoids could cut the defence spending of all governments world around, to almost nothing.

With the rapid progress we are making we may soon find a solution to all the intriguing mysteries surrounding us.Yes! There is no doubt about it. The history of science provides such record of advance. :) :thumbsup:

SRS
29th July 2006, 04:13 AM
There is only one God. ................That means, you have chosen to believe.

Your feeble attempts to cast doubt upoun the existance of only one God on the basis of variance in human perception have failed miserably. :lol: By the way, what is your answer to this other question, how does the Universe expand into nothingness if it already contains all possible empty space? :wink:

Rohit
29th July 2006, 04:47 AM
Your feeble attempts to cast doubt upoun the existance of only one God on the basis of variance in human perception have failed miserably. :lol:
This is even worse try. Variance comes from uncertainties and uncertainties from randomness, guess works and illusions. There is no order whatsoever, which you wishfully thought and believed in your premise. It is only your chosen belief that brings such waves of guess works and illusions. And yes, what you have said, certainly amounts to a good illusion indeed, please keep up such more illusions coming. :) :D :lol: :thumbsup:

However, there can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing more than an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy. :) :D :lol: :thumbsup:


By the way, what is your answer to this other question, how does the Universe expand into nothingness if it already contains all possible empty space? :wink:The space-time inside the universe itself is emerging and expanding but not into any other entity.

If you still fail to grasp what that means and still want something to expand into, then only for your satisfaction, the universe is expanding into another universe, which into another and so on..................... Prove me wrong if you ever can. :) :D :lol: :thumbsup:

pradheep
29th July 2006, 07:01 AM
The Dream of paramatman.....
The dream of paramatman is wrongly understood and so is Maya and the reality. The "one" dreamer means that everything is perceived as "one", like in a dream of a dreamer. It is a symbolic representation of how everything vanishes and the dreamer alone exist in a dream. The same way when the Ego is transcended, one understand everything is a concept of the mind, infact the very own creation. Again one can misunderstand this above fact. This does not mean that there is nothing everything is an illusion. What here means is that like stepping on a rope and imagining a rope. The rope is real, the snake is unreal. The same way God or Brahan is like rope , and the whole universe is like the snake. It is iamgined which means that it is the way the mind is perceived. How does the mind percieve?. Through the sense organs. This is why in the whole spiritual practice one goes transcends the information given through the perception of the sense organs. Then through that one transcend the mind which relies on the limited information given by the senses. Then comes the next stage when one tanscends the mind which is nothing but the Ego. then one sees the reality as it is, without the limitation posed by the sensory world.

Here is the difference between the vedanta and Buddhism. Both goes to the same path, but one misses the Ultimate truth. In both B and V, the Ego is transcended. Then there is "nothing". This nothingness B calls as soonya, and stays there not going further.

Whereas V says there is nothingness which is "Samadhi", but there is a reality which witnesses this reality of nothingness. There is a reality that says there is soonya or nothingness , which is Brahman. Without a witnessor , there cant be a claim there is nothing. Example, if some one makes a claim there nothing or no one present yesterday night at new york, 14th street bus stop at 3.00 A.M., then the person who reports that there was no one was present there at 3.00 A.M.

The same way when the Ego is gone and a "nothingness" is claimed, there is the Witnessing Brahman ever present. That witnessing Brahman never goes away. Ego can go and come nad never the witnessor the Brahman.

Now when the Ego is transcended everything vanishes like in a dream and the Dreamer (Witnessor or Brahman, the reality) alone remains. This is beautifully explained in Hindu mythology as the Vishnu's Dream. Without transcending the Ego this truth can be misunderstood for millions of birth and death cycles.

The one witnessing principle is the "One" God.

The above information is obtained by experience and not a book read information. Only when one transcends the Ego one can know this truth. There is no other way. The Ego that is writing is undergoing this process.

Rohit
29th July 2006, 01:36 PM
The Dream of paramatman.....
The dream of paramatman is wrongly understood and so is Maya and the reality. The "one" dreamer means that everything is perceived as "one", like in a dream of a dreamer. It is a symbolic representation of how everything vanishes and the dreamer alone exist in a dream. The same way when the Ego is transcended, one understand everything is a concept of the mind, infact the very own creation. Again one can misunderstand this above fact. This does not mean that there is nothing everything is an illusion. What here means is that like stepping on a rope and imagining a rope. The rope is real, the snake is unreal. The same way God or Brahan is like rope , and the whole universe is like the snake. It is iamgined which means that it is the way the mind is perceived. How does the mind percieve?. Through the sense organs. This is why in the whole spiritual practice one goes transcends the information given through the perception of the sense organs. Then through that one transcend the mind which relies on the limited information given by the senses. Then comes the next stage when one tanscends the mind which is nothing but the Ego. then one sees the reality as it is, without the limitation posed by the sensory world.

Here is the difference between the vedanta and Buddhism. Both goes to the same path, but one misses the Ultimate truth. In both B and V, the Ego is transcended. Then there is "nothing". This nothingness B calls as soonya, and stays there not going further.

Whereas V says there is nothingness which is "Samadhi", but there is a reality which witnesses this reality of nothingness. There is a reality that says there is soonya or nothingness , which is Brahman. Without a witnessor , there cant be a claim there is nothing. Example, if some one makes a claim there nothing or no one present yesterday night at new york, 14th street bus stop at 3.00 A.M., then the person who reports that there was no one was present there at 3.00 A.M.

The same way when the Ego is gone and a "nothingness" is claimed, there is the Witnessing Brahman ever present. That witnessing Brahman never goes away. Ego can go and come nad never the witnessor the Brahman.

Now when the Ego is transcended everything vanishes like in a dream and the Dreamer (Witnessor or Brahman, the reality) alone remains. This is beautifully explained in Hindu mythology as the Vishnu's Dream. Without transcending the Ego this truth can be misunderstood for millions of birth and death cycles.

The one witnessing principle is the "One" God.

The above information is obtained by experience and not a book read information. Only when one transcends the Ego one can know this truth. There is no other way. The Ego that is writing is undergoing this process.Here is one of the countless illusions with illusions of 'Brahman' or 'Parmatman' - a non-entity, and 'mind, 'purification', 'maya', 'Ego/Self' etc. etc..

Good entertaining illusions ideed. Since, I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, I really enjoy such endlessly entertaining illusions/dreams. :) :D :lol: :thumbsup:

pradheep
30th July 2006, 07:28 PM
Good entertaining illusions ideed. Since, I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, I really enjoy

Entertainment, illuions and enjoyments are for only the Ego. The Brahman is only a witness, the Ego isthe one that claims "Enjoyment".

Rohit
30th July 2006, 09:09 PM
I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witness
Entertainment, illuions and enjoyments are for only the Ego. The Brahman is only a witness, the Ego isthe one that claims "Enjoyment".

pradheep
31st July 2006, 08:23 AM
I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witnessof the illusion/dream that wrote:

Entertainment, illuions and enjoyments are for only the Ego. The Brahman is only a witness, the Ego isthe one that claims "Enjoyment".

.....all the above ......is witnessed by the "Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witness".

Rohit
31st July 2006, 11:41 PM
There can be no witness higher or otherwise than Me than which higher or otherwise witness is not needed/there. I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witness. The rest are just illusions/dreams.

pradheep
1st August 2006, 12:22 AM
I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witness.

The rest are just illusions/dreams.

Aware of this contradiction.

when there is no second, where is the questions of rest? .....the rest to be illusions/dreams?

Rohit
1st August 2006, 12:34 AM
There can be no witness higher or otherwise than Me than which higher or otherwise witness is not needed/there. I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witness; and that is what I am. The rests are just illusions/dreams.

pradheep
1st August 2006, 02:26 AM
The rests

what are they?

Rohit
1st August 2006, 02:31 AM
There can be no witness higher or otherwise than Me than which higher or otherwise witness is not needed/there. I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witness; and that is what I am. The rests are just "illusions/dreams".

pradheep
4th August 2006, 08:26 AM
There can be no witness higher or otherwise than Me than which higher or otherwise witness is not needed/there. I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witness; and that is what I am. The rests are just "illusions/dreams".
The nature of the Ego is to repeat....thus it is caught in endless repeats of millions of birth and death cycles.

pradheep
4th August 2006, 08:40 AM
the perfect liberation
Liberation from what to where?

ramky
11th August 2006, 03:14 AM
the perfect liberation
Liberation from what to where?

Pradheep : Liberation as is commonly known - "freedom from rebirth on earth and going to heaven after one's death." But IMO ( In my opinion ), Liberation actually means freedom from only the physical body, ie the Sthoola Shareeram. This will prevent a human being from taking rebirth on Earth, in a Physical body. There are however, two other bodies we have - the Karana Shareeram ( Causal Body ) & Sookshma Shareeram ( Astral Body ). After Liberation, the soul covered in the Causal Body goes to the brighter world and stays there long enough to work out the deeply imprinted Karmas ( another word is Samskaras ) in our subconscious mind. Once the soul is free of these, it sheds ( similar to Liberation / Death in our world ) the Causal Body, but wears the Astral Body, and goes to a still higher and sublest world - actually speaking its only a very high consciousness, and not a "world" similar to Earth, per se. And in the highest world, the soul works out the last residual Samskaras accumulated by it, during various Births, over eons of time. At this last stage, there are NO bodies at all, just a semblance of Consciousness, almost like a mirror image of the Omnipresent Supreme Consciousness, almost in a merged state.

Only then, can one really say that the Soul is free of All Karmas / Samskaras. The Soul has almost all the qualities and powers of the Almighty / Highest Superconsciousness - it is said that Avatars descend on Earth from this highest Superconscious level. For this, the soul assumes a temporary sheath or body, for we humans will not be able to see the Avatar without the form. After the Mission of that particular Avatar has been accomplished, that soul again gets merged with the Highest Supreme consciousness.

pradheep
14th August 2006, 01:12 AM
thank you Ramky

Rohit
18th August 2006, 03:36 AM
There is no arising of Consciousness without conditions. The one, who transcends the Consciousness of the Self, attains Nirvana, the perfect liberation.

SRS
18th August 2006, 05:37 AM
There is no arising of Consciousness without conditions. The one, who transcends the Consciousness of the Self, attains Nirvana, the perfect liberation.

I finding it amusing that even the atheists have difficulty finding a question to the answer of "life after death" and so seek "refuge" in metaphysics. In particular, why does one who opposes the Hindu doctrines look for a justification in a philosophy with Hindu roots (Buddhism)? On the question of Nirvana... when one attains Nirvana, one goes beyond being and non-being. That is similar to the Hindu "liberation"; one no longer encounters the dualities that contribute to maya. Of course, these are the same dualities that contribute to the Buddhist "samsara." As I have always maintained, Buddhism is really Hinduism in sheeps clothing. While Buddha the former Hindu prince did not deny the existance of supernatural beings, he did not wish to dwell on ritual worship; therefore he came up with simplistic explanations to questions such as life after death - the Nirvana. On other matters, e.g. formation of universe, he simply avoided explanations altogether; best example being the ten questions posed to him by a Brahmana. Well, I think it is fine to be a Gandhian - finding a philosophy that correlates to the rather average intellectual abilities of the common masses - but one should not avoid such questions as pertain to the nature of a supreme God, because even the common masses will not be content with simplified explanations in regards to complex matters such as life after death.

kannannn
18th August 2006, 06:03 AM
As I have always maintained, Buddhism is really Hinduism in sheeps clothing. While Buddha the former Hindu prince did not deny the existance of supernatural beings, he did not wish to dwell on ritual worship; therefore he came up with simplistic explanations to questions such as life after death - the Nirvana. On other matters, e.g. formation of universe, he simply avoided explanations altogether; best example being the ten questions posed to him by a Brahmana.
Agreed, Buddhism and Hinduism borrowed from each other (to what extent is a matter of debate, which I will not start here). But what has ritual worship got to do with Nirvana? When worship itself is of no use to attaining Nirvana, there is no need to explain or indulge in it. Explanations of life after death stems from explanation for suffering. And that's what Buddha addressed.


I finding it amusing that even the atheists have difficulty finding a question to the answer of "life after death" and so seek "refuge" in metaphysics.
As for the question of life after death, not many atheists would worry and lose their sleep over it (they have better things to do). What happens when we die? Nothing. The primeval soup stirred and we evolved. That's it. That's what put us here. We die and the only thing left are the memories others have of us. As simple as that.

Infact, I think all religions loot people by exploiting the question of what happens after death. From St. Peter letting 'true' Christians in, to believers in Allah entering heaven, every religion concerns itself with this question. Of course, no one has been there and back, so the believers of afterlife go like moths to a flame to priests and imams instead of celebrating the life they have in the present.

SRS
18th August 2006, 07:33 AM
Agreed, Buddhism and Hinduism borrowed from each other (to what extent is a matter of debate, which I will not start here). But what has ritual worship got to do with Nirvana? When worship itself is of no use to attaining Nirvana, there is no need to explain or indulge in it. Explanations of life after death stems from explanation for suffering. And that's what Buddha addressed.

Hinduism came first, therefore the Hindu influence on Buddhism has been much greater than the opposite. One can find similar relationships among other religions: Judaism influenced Christianity, Islam borrowed from Judaism and Christianity, Sikhism borrowed from Islam & Hinduism, etc. What has ritual worship got to do with Nirvana? One does not just prepare for "life" by doing the rituals; one is always aware that life and death coexist. Otherwise one need not spend an entire lifetime acquiring good karma. The Buddhists do not look upon death as suffering. The belief is that the "final thoughts" of the dying person will shape his next life (rebirth), assuming he is indeed reborn. This "rebirth" is made possible by the "energy" (positive or negative) generated by the person's thoughts.


As for the question of life after death, not many atheists would worry and lose their sleep over it (they have better things to do). What happens when we die? Nothing. The primeval soup stirred and we evolved. That's it. That's what put us here. We die and the only thing left are the memories others have of us. As simple as that.

Infact, I think all religions loot people by exploiting the question of what happens after death. From St. Peter letting 'true' Christians in, to believers in Allah entering heaven, every religion concerns itself with this question. Of course, no one has been there and back, so the believers of afterlife go like moths to a flame to priests and imams instead of celebrating the life they have in the present.

To say nothing happens to us after we die - that is a very materialistic view. If nothing happens, then morality (karma) loses all meaning. One major aspect of god-belief is to justify the three stages of "life": birth, life, and "death." Why we are born, why we live, and why we die. Of course science can also answer these, but only in the most superficial of ways. Does a dying man find peace knowing that when the oxygen to his brain is gone, and his pupils fail to dilate when exposed to light, that he is "dead"? Life after death is beyond the realm of science. But now take the case of the atheist who, for better or worse, has opposed the idea of a God on scientific (what he would call rational) grounds. Now even this man find no explanation of life after death that will put his mind at ease. I agree that many have abused this question for political purposes or to exploit the masses in some sinister way. However what I am concerned with is the human instinct to find rational answers to such questions. In the end, it is that instinct that gives the lie to atheism.

Rohit
18th August 2006, 12:57 PM
There can be no witness higher or otherwise than Me than which higher or otherwise witness is not needed/there. I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witness; and that is what I am. The rests are just "illusions/dreams". :) :thumbsup:

kannannn
18th August 2006, 09:05 PM
Hinduism came first, therefore the Hindu influence on Buddhism has been much greater than the opposite. One can find similar relationships among other religions: Judaism influenced Christianity, Islam borrowed from Judaism and Christianity, Sikhism borrowed from Islam & Hinduism, etc. What has ritual worship got to do with Nirvana? One does not just prepare for "life" by doing the rituals; one is always aware that life and death coexist. Otherwise one need not spend an entire lifetime acquiring good karma.
As I said, this thread is not debate on what influenced what. But regarding rituals, I don't see how they are required to be aware that life and death coexist. One can aquire good Karma even without rituals. I don't see the connection.


To say nothing happens to us after we die - that is a very materialistic view. If nothing happens, then morality (karma) loses all meaning.
Very true. What is wrong in being materialistic? For all we know, a materialistic man might have enjoyed a full and satisfying life, while a religious man might have wasted the only life he had, preparing for something that would never happen. Morality is defined by us, for our convenience. Why tie afterlife with morality? We don't need to worry about afterlife to do good deeds. Those that follow a life of giving and helping others, in anticipation of a good afterlife are selfish.


One major aspect of god-belief is to justify the three stages of "life": birth, life, and "death." Why we are born, why we live, and why we die. Of course science can also answer these, but only in the most superficial of ways. Does a dying man find peace knowing that when the oxygen to his brain is gone, and his pupils fail to dilate when exposed to light, that he is "dead"? Life after death is beyond the realm of science. But now take the case of the atheist who, for better or worse, has opposed the idea of a God on scientific (what he would call rational) grounds. Now even this man find no explanation of life after death that will put his mind at ease.
I don't think that's a correct observation. Why should we even try to find an explanation for life after death, when there could be none. Our 'souls' are a product of our thoughts and observations through our lives. When our hearts fail, when our brains don't receive oxygen, we cease to exist. So do our 'souls'. There is only one death. Biological death. That atleast is my point of view.

Rohit
18th August 2006, 10:39 PM
What is wrong in being materialistic? For all we know, a materialistic man might have enjoyed a full and satisfying life, while a religious man might have wasted the only life he had, preparing for something that would never happen. Morality is defined by us, for our convenience. Why tie afterlife with morality? We don't need to worry about afterlife to do good deeds. Those that follow a life of giving and helping others, in anticipation of a good afterlife are selfish.Excellent points Kannannn.

In fact, everything begins with the very perceptions of the physical world (in space and time), including ones own existence. There is nothing whatsoever that one can ever perceive, conceive, experience or act (also read it as karma/deed) outside the empirical reality, which evidently prove that everything is conditioned under the empirical environment. If anyone is holding the opposite view; is doing nothing but expressing his/her beliefs without any substance; and Ironically, that too through nothing but physical means and mediums. :) :thumbsup:

Why should we even try to find an explanation for life after death, when there could be none. Our 'souls' are a product of our thoughts and observations through our lives. When our hearts fail, when our brains don't receive oxygen, we cease to exist. So do our 'souls'. There is only one death. Biological death.Again, excellent assertion, Kannannn. We are in full agreement on the non-issue of the issue. :) :thumbsup:

Inasmuch as the reality reaffirms itself that:

There is no arising of Consciousness without conditions. The one, who transcends the Consciousness of the Self/Atman/Soul, attains Nirvana, the perfect liberation from the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration.

SRS
25th August 2006, 10:23 PM
Very true. What is wrong in being materialistic? For all we know, a materialistic man might have enjoyed a full and satisfying life, while a religious man might have wasted the only life he had, preparing for something that would never happen. Morality is defined by us, for our convenience. Why tie afterlife with morality? We don't need to worry about afterlife to do good deeds. Those that follow a life of giving and helping others, in anticipation of a good afterlife are selfish.

There is nothing wrong with being materialistic. Unfortunately, the tendency to be over-materialistic leads to other excesses. It is much easier to be in full control of the senses if one is not materialistic. All problems essentially come from the senses. This is the motivation behind Buddhist philosophy. Suffering is the only reality. Not suffering in the literal sense necessarily, but decaying of the flesh and finally death. "Sense-pleasures" deny this reality. But of course even "sense-pleasures" are only illusions. Illusions that are easily created by an excess of materialism that can lead to other forms of suffering. That is why Siddharta The Prince chose the ascetic route. Perhaps if he had remained as "prince" the same objective - what he calls enlightment (which I assume is simply some advanced stage of yoga) - could have been achieved, but the actual path he chose is much more suitable for those whose only wish is to achieve the same enlightenment, within the framework of the most suitable environment. Which is why he created monasteries, and for similar reasons we have ashrams. Full mastery of the senses is not at all easy.



I don't think that's a correct observation. Why should we even try to find an explanation for life after death, when there could be none. Our 'souls' are a product of our thoughts and observations through our lives. When our hearts fail, when our brains don't receive oxygen, we cease to exist. So do our 'souls'. There is only one death. Biological death. That atleast is my point of view.

That is a mechanistic view. That in fact, all abilities of humans, all perceptions, etc. can be traced to an organic evolutionary process. I do not agree with this. Simply because I am aware of too many experiences that defy any explanation based on a simple organic evolutionary process. Perhaps you have come across those individuals possessing what is called a "sixth sense." In other words, they can percieve beyond what is perceptible to the normal five human senses. I do not think such a process as evolution is responsible for this "sixth sense"; simply because the "sixth sense" does not serve any evolutionary function. Nor is there a gene for the "sixth sense." On the larger scale, the human senses are very limited. So to say that the reality percieved by humans is the only reality - that is a very superflous argument. Quantum mechanics points this out very well. An example being "Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle." So the inevitable question this line of argument leads to is: are there yet more "realities" that the human mind is unaware of? Unless you can answer that concisely, you cannot deny there may be life after death.

thamizhvaanan
25th August 2006, 10:45 PM
you cannot deny there may be life after death.
The keyword here is "may". Even you agree to the fact that, life after death is uncertain. Yet, most of the discussion in this thread is as if, life beyond death is certain. If you are going to base ur arguement based on uncertainity principle, then ur arguement itself is uncertain :confused2: .

If nothing is uncertain, why waste our time with this pointless discussion? :huh: If we are going to damn our senses, demean our perceptions, ignore all the scientific knowledge accumulated over centuries, all our experimental inferences and theoretical conclusions, putting us all into a bottomless pit of uncertainity, then there is no point in furthering our life, leave alone this discussion.

Rohit
26th August 2006, 12:51 AM
If you are going to base ur arguement based on uncertainity principle, then ur arguement itself is uncertain. Excellent response, thamizhvaanan. :) :thumbsup:

That is the precise conditioned state of consciousness under which such uncertain beliefs are expressed; and the stuff you have responded to, is nothing but a clear evidence of that conditioned state of consciousness in the empirical environment.

Like I have said, everything begins with the very perceptions of the physical world (in space and time), including ones own existence. There is nothing whatsoever that one can ever perceive, conceive, experience or act (also read it as karma/deed) outside the empirical reality, which evidently prove that everything, and that means everything without exception, is conditioned under the empirical environment.

The opposite views you have responded to; evidently prove exactly that; and ironically, those views are expressed through nothing but physical means and mediums, which is the precise cause of suffering of an individual who, obviously, couldn't control his/her sense of expression. :) :thumbsup:

SRS
26th August 2006, 01:35 AM
you cannot deny there may be life after death.

The keyword here is "may". Even you agree to the fact that, life after death is uncertain. Yet, most of the discussion in this thread is as if, life beyond death is certain. If you are going to base ur arguement based on uncertainity principle, then ur arguement itself is uncertain :confused2: .

If nothing is uncertain, why waste our time with this pointless discussion? :huh: If we are going to damn our senses, demean our perceptions, ignore all the scientific knowledge accumulated over centuries, all our experimental inferences and theoretical conclusions, putting us all into a bottomless pit of uncertainity, then there is no point in furthering our life, leave alone this discussion.

The "uncertainty" referred to by Heisenberg has largely to do with flaws in measuring instruments. In other words, at the subatomic level, one cannot hope for a precise measurement, but must rely on probabilities. It is a good refutation of the atheist argument that human reason holds the answers to all questions in nature. Usually human reason will only see half of the coin. Of course, even on the macroscopic level, no scientific instrument can yield 100% accuracy and precision. Nowadays, error analysis is as important as the experiment itself.

Life after death is not uncertain. Many have seen into their past lives. However, I am of the opinion that one should not see life after death and life as two distinct entities. If one sees them as interrelated, then the "uncertainty" you speak about disappears.

SRS
26th August 2006, 01:39 AM
The sixth sense I mentioned before has scientific validity; although perhaps the results are not widely popularized.

"To conclude I briefly sketch the large body of research work on psychic functioning sponsored by the U. S. government during 1973-1989 at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and during 1992-1994 at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). I draw my summary from the review article by Professor Jessica Utts,[21] at University of California, Davis, one of two experts hired by the CIA to evaluate this research and the other expert, Professor Ray Hyman, University of Oregon, a well-known parapsychology critic. ....As in the ganzfeld and psychokinesis experiments, and especially in the latest studies, the experiments adhered to the highest standards of data collection and outside expert monitoring. As Utts says:


"The Princeton experiments involve subjects willfully biasing the behavior of a variety of mechanical and electronic devices to conform to pre-stated intentions. ... The observed effects are small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand, but they are statistically repeatable and operator specific in their details. ... The results of given operators on widely different machines tend to be similar in character and scale. They can be demonstrated with the operators located thousands of miles from the laboratory, or exerting their efforts hours before or after the actual operation of the devices. These experiments and the handling of the data are subject to the same level of scrutiny by outside observers as the ganzfeld experiments. As in the ganzfeld experiments, sophisticated meta-analytic techniques accounting for methodological quality and overall effect size from a variety of studies at different labs show unequivocal non-chance effects. In short, under exacting laboratory conditions there is strong, repeatable evidence for psychokinesis."


"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that their results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.'

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mansfeld.html

Rohit
26th August 2006, 01:43 AM
Inasmuch as the reality reaffirms itself that:

There is no arising of Consciousness without conditions. The one, who transcends the Consciousness of the Self/Atman/Soul, attains Nirvana, the perfect liberation from the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration.

:) :thumbsup:

Rohit
26th August 2006, 01:57 AM
If there is something in human ability to sense as remotely as Osama Billaden or terrorists planning to hit twin towers, planting multiple bombs in London, Madrid, Mumbai etc., killing thousands; all these could have been prevented by these remote sensing humanoids. Also such abilities could be used to the great benefits of all humanity in preventing wars, protecting millions from calamities resulting form natural disasters like tsunami, earthquakes, volcanic activities, floods, epidemics, landslides and so on, very cheaply. And most of all, such abilities could have prevented waves after waves of foreign invasions and dismal destitute condition of India and hundreds of millions of Indians that lasted for 1000s of years. But nothing of this sort happened or is happening, while governments world over are reluctantly spending billions of dollars after high-tech, ultrasonic, electromagnetic, magnetic, electrostatic, pressure gauge etc. remote sensing/defence equipment, which are not even humans. If governments could ever successfully replace remote-sensing/artificial intelligence equipment by these so-called, remote-sensing humanoids and stop such astronomical spendings after artificial intelligence, yes there is something worth investigating scientifically, otherwise, all these are just allegories without substance. Such remote-sensing humanoids could cut the defence spending of all governments world around, to almost nothing. :) :thumbsup:

Rohit
26th August 2006, 02:28 AM
That is the precise conditioned state of consciousness under which such uncertain beliefs are expressed under the empirical environment and that too through nothing but physical means and mediums.

Like I have said, everything begins with the very perceptions of the physical world (in space and time), including ones own existence. There is nothing whatsoever that one can ever perceive, conceive, experience or act (also read it as karma/deed) outside the empirical reality, which evidently prove that everything, and that means everything without exception, is conditioned under the empirical environment.

:) :thumbsup:

Rohit
26th August 2006, 03:30 AM
In this very thread:

The reality is that there are only four fundamental forces holding the entire universe together. So really the Universe runs on mechanistic, not probabilistic, principles - I do not think gravity has ever altered itself. There is order at the subatomic scale

String theory also deals with subatomic particles. It is true that quantum theory relies on certain probabilistic descriptions to describe the behaviour of the electron, but string theory goes beyond this. String theory unifies the four fundamental forces that unify the universe, and bridges the gap between relativity and QM. I see no potential for randomness there. String theory is even more fundamental than QM.

So to say that the reality perceived by humans is the only reality - that is a very superfluous argument. Quantum mechanics points this out very well. An example being "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle."

The "uncertainty" referred to by Heisenberg has largely to do with flaws in measuring instruments. In other words, at the subatomic level, one cannot hope for a precise measurement, but must rely on probabilities.

Which evidently proves that:

On one hand, when it suits his/her beliefs, a confused individual expresses 100% trust in scientific methodology, certainty and the validity of scientific experiments. On the other hand, when it threatens his/her beliefs, the same confused individual takes refuge in uncertainty and questions the validity of scientific methodology and measurements and immediately runs and seeks for fallacious assurance, which, unfortunately for the confused individual, approaches 'zero' when either certainty or uncertainty approaches 100%. :) :thumbsup:

Rohit
26th August 2006, 06:03 AM
Therefore, no matter how much one :rant: about rebirths and then suffers from the consequences of that fallacious belief (read it as karma/deed), the fact remains:

More than 80% (over 4.8 billion people) of the world's population, which also includes Jews, Christians and Muslims; believe neither in karma & vidhi nor in rebirths - for them, the entire belief system is nothing more than just pure nonsense :fatigue:. And the certainty of that fact is 100%. :) :thumbsup:

SRS
26th August 2006, 11:31 PM
If there is something in human ability to sense as remotely as Osama Billaden or terrorists planning to hit twin towers, planting multiple bombs in London, Madrid, Mumbai etc., killing thousands; all these could have been prevented by these remote sensing humanoids. Also such abilities could be used to the great benefits of all humanity in preventing wars, protecting millions from calamities resulting form natural disasters like tsunami, earthquakes, volcanic activities, floods, epidemics, landslides and so on, very cheaply. And most of all, such abilities could have prevented waves after waves of foreign invasions and dismal destitute condition of India and hundreds of millions of Indians that lasted for 1000s of years. But nothing of this sort happened or is happening, while governments world over are reluctantly spending billions of dollars after high-tech, ultrasonic, electromagnetic, magnetic, electrostatic, pressure gauge etc. remote sensing/defence equipment, which are not even humans. If governments could ever successfully replace remote-sensing/artificial intelligence equipment by these so-called, remote-sensing humanoids and stop such astronomical spendings after artificial intelligence, yes there is something worth investigating scientifically, otherwise, all these are just allegories without substance. Such remote-sensing humanoids could cut the defence spending of all governments world around, to almost nothing. :) :thumbsup:

Yes, yes...... no one will deny all these are possible in a perfect world. But let me remind the poster of the above, who constantly mentions "Nirvana", of another basic Buddhist principle: the only reality is suffering. That is the whole reason for rebirth, whether one is Buddhist or Hindu. When I say suffering, I mean suffering in the broadest sense, as was the experience of the Buddha himself; it was not his own suffering but the three sights that led him to such a generalization. Now above-user "Rohit" questions why governments utilize technology and not psychics (those possessed with a sixth sense) to minimize impact of natural disasters, prevent other catastrophes, etc. Even if the governments did this, the following fundamental tenet of Buddhist philosophy would hold: that suffering is the only reality. Neither the billionares of the world, nor those possessing ESP, nor renowned scientists, can change that reality. The same user seems to have a problem with India being invaded. Perhaps the same user "Rohit" believes the following:

(I) that it is highly civilized to rape and plunder nations with sheer force alone, and then punish the native peoples for not converting to Islam or Christianity.

(II) that the Vedic civilization was not centuries ahead of the Western World in every aspect of science, literature, art, medicine, etc.

(III) that the same pacifist Vedic civilization had no incentive to build boats, sail around the world, and forcibly convert those of other civilizations.

After carefully reading the above-three statements, one can understand the insecurity of user "Rohit" on the question of Indian History. By denying all the merits of Vedic civilization, "Rohit" essentially subscribes to the Western/Muslim view of history, in which some uneducated thugs and hooligans rape and plunder at will, for the sake of the "Pope" or "Prophet" Muhammed. I can offer no suggestions to "Rohit" except perhaps to join such an organization, as this crowd is waiting yet again to commit the very same atrocities which (thankfully) the educated world has strongly condemned. Also I think such a choice would be ideal for "Rohit"; desperate for an answer to the question of life after death, even subscribing to the Buddhist "Nirvana" belief; but firmily rejecting the other aspects of Buddhist belief that lead to "Nirvana"; in particular karma and non-attachment. The contradictions multiply in the belief-system of "Rohit"; Nirvana is not the solution; I suggest the purchase of an electron microscope and a bacterial colony, as this approach to life after death is more "scientific." :lol:

thamizhvaanan
26th August 2006, 11:39 PM
(I) that it is highly civilized to rape and plunder nations with sheer force alone, and then punish the native peoples for not converting to Islam or Christianity.

(II) that the Vedic civilization was not centuries ahead of the Western World in every aspect of science, literature, art, medicine, etc.

(III) that the same pacifist Vedic civilization had no incentive to build boats, sail around the world, and forcibly convert those of other civilizations.



After carefully reading the above-three statements, one can understand the insecurity of user "Rohit" on the question of Indian History.

what is this farce? :huh: I picked these lines from your post not Rohit's :roll: . You assume that Rohit is saying something, make a fictitious statement of Rohit's opinion, ask us to read carefully his (ahem... :roll: ) statement and ask us to join hands with you in mocking him. Which part of insane world do you hail from? :huh:

thamizhvaanan
26th August 2006, 11:46 PM
And one more thing I would like to add here... that story of sidhartha seeing 3 things in his life and changing into saint n all are pure rotten stories, painted by people who want to depict Budhism as an offshoot of Hinduism. The fact is, Budha was an atheist, rationalist who questioned and condemned all the rituals and meaningless practices existent during his days. The original story of Budha lays hidden in the old budhist scriptures, the truth being hidden away from us. Indian history, infact has been things which other wanted everyone to beleive rather than, things that were there as it is.

SRS
26th August 2006, 11:48 PM
In this very thread:

The reality is that there are only four fundamental forces holding the entire universe together. So really the Universe runs on mechanistic, not probabilistic, principles - I do not think gravity has ever altered itself. There is order at the subatomic scale




String theory also deals with subatomic particles. It is true that quantum theory relies on certain probabilistic descriptions to describe the behaviour of the electron, but string theory goes beyond this. String theory unifies the four fundamental forces that unify the universe, and bridges the gap between relativity and QM. I see no potential for randomness there. String theory is even more fundamental than QM.

Yes.... I see no potential for randomness in any Grand Unification Theory. Neither did Einstein, although after 20 even years, he was unsuccesful.


So to say that the reality perceived by humans is the only reality - that is a very superfluous argument. Quantum mechanics points this out very well. An example being "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle."

The "uncertainty" referred to by Heisenberg has largely to do with flaws in measuring instruments. In other words, at the subatomic level, one cannot hope for a precise measurement, but must rely on probabilities.



Which evidently proves that:

On one hand, when it suits his/her beliefs, a confused individual expresses 100% trust in scientific methodology, certainty and the validity of scientific experiments. On the other hand, when it threatens his/her beliefs, the same confused individual takes refuge in uncertainty and questions the validity of scientific methodology and measurements and immediately runs and seeks for fallacious assurance, which, unfortunately for the confused individual, approaches 'zero' when either certainty or uncertainty approaches 100%. :) :thumbsup:

The theory is essentially mathematical. The mathematical aspects need not rely on HUP (unlike the gathering of experimental data). I regret that you are unable to distinguish between the two, although I find it amusing at the same time. Perhaps a mild case of what you referred to as "dissonace" in the old Hub.

SRS
26th August 2006, 11:57 PM
(I) that it is highly civilized to rape and plunder nations with sheer force alone, and then punish the native peoples for not converting to Islam or Christianity.

(II) that the Vedic civilization was not centuries ahead of the Western World in every aspect of science, literature, art, medicine, etc.

(III) that the same pacifist Vedic civilization had no incentive to build boats, sail around the world, and forcibly convert those of other civilizations.



After carefully reading the above-three statements, one can understand the insecurity of user "Rohit" on the question of Indian History.

what is this farce? :huh: I picked these lines from your post not Rohit's :roll: . You assume that Rohit is saying something, make a fictitious statement of Rohit's opinion, ask us to read carefully his (ahem... :roll: ) statement and ask us to join hands with you in mocking him. Which part of insane world do you hail from? :huh:"

"Rohit" has raised the question of why India was unable to defend itself from outside invasions. All I have done is mention that these outside invaders were simply uneducated barbarians. Even where I live today, the USA, joining the "military" is an occupation for those from the lowest rungs of society. Despite the highly sophisticated weaponry those who utilize the same weaponry are simpletons. Do you not see the irony? The Muslim and Christian invaders who wrecked India are no better. I am not asking you to join hands, but accept the simple fact of the matter.

SRS
27th August 2006, 12:03 AM
And one more thing I would like to add here... that story of sidhartha seeing 3 things in his life and changing into saint n all are pure rotten stories, painted by people who want to depict Budhism as an offshoot of Hinduism. The fact is, Budha was an atheist, rationalist who questioned and condemned all the rituals and meaningless practices existent during his days. The original story of Budha lays hidden in the old budhist scriptures, the truth being hidden away from us. Indian history, infact has been things which other wanted everyone to beleive rather than, things that were there as it is.

Prince Siddhartha was a Hindu. His caste/lineage etc. are well-documented. The Buddha himself was no atheist. He simply did not wish for common individuals to overrely on supernatural beings. But even this did not turn out as intended. The vast majority of Buddhists, whatever the official doctrine may say, pay homage to some kind of deity, usually a Hindu deity. I do not think it is instructive to disconnect Buddhism entirely from its Hinduism roots.

thamizhvaanan
27th August 2006, 12:08 AM
So to say that the reality percieved by humans is the only reality - that is a very superflous argument. Quantum mechanics points this out very well. An example being "Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle."

So, you mean to say that the uncertainity implied by Quantum mechanics, leads to an outrageous deviation in human perception at macroscopic levels. Lets see what you have to say after that :D.


The "uncertainty" referred to by Heisenberg has largely to do with flaws in measuring instruments. In other words, at the subatomic level, one cannot hope for a precise measurement, but must rely on probabilities.

Now, :confused2: Is it microscopic or macroscopic? Let me quote no greater mind than Stephen Hawkings for my convenience.
The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe, ...... . Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other-they both cannot be correct.
In short, your idea of alternative reality cant be applied because Quantum mechanics isnt trusted at macroscopic levels and alternative realities are nothing but macroscopic extrapolation of quantum mechanics.

Every supporter of karma or any supernatural beleifs, clings firmly to this uncertainity principle. Well, it was a great discovery for them, to know that their opponents cant be 100% right. But, strangely they refuse to accept that it applies to their ideology also, that it puts their beleif in as much precarious situation as that of their altercators. It is like saying, "Nobody is sure who the murderer is, so it must be you, because I say so" :lol: .

our beloved SRS says:

Usually human reason will only see half of the coin
ofcourse, but how sure are you that you are seeing the other side of the coin :lol2:

thoonguravana ezhuppalaam, aana thoongura madhiri nadikravana ezhupa mudiyadhu.... I give up :D .

thamizhvaanan
27th August 2006, 12:11 AM
Prince Siddhartha was a Hindu. His caste/lineage etc. are well-documented. The Buddha himself was no atheist. He simply did not wish for common individuals to overrely on supernatural beings. But even this did not turn out as intended. The vast majority of Buddhists, whatever the official doctrine may say, pay homage to some kind of deity, usually a Hindu deity. I do not think it is instructive to disconnect Buddhism entirely from its Hinduism roots.

you want everything to be instructive... that has been the case all through the indian history... we were made to beleive based on instructions. Rest of ur post is all beaten to death stories, which holds no interest for me. But I found one funny line :lol2:

He simply did not wish for common individuals to overrely on supernatural beings. :lol:

thamizhvaanan
27th August 2006, 12:24 AM
"Rohit" has raised the question of why India was unable to defend itself from outside invasions.
I still find it to be a reasonable question. Why was India unable to defend if it is true that it was replete with "superhumans" and "superhuman powers" . If you look at this question with a clear mind, you will know that this question is borne out of patriotism for the land rather than despise of it, as you make it seem. Why do we want to fool ourselves even now, when history has shown that we are being fooled all the way along.


All I have done is mention that these outside invaders were simply uneducated barbarians.
Why do u call them outsiders? Just because they are people of other religion? Do you want to imply that Hindu kingdoms never warred among themselves? War has been an irritating facet of human history, never to be blamed on one particular community.


The Muslim and Christian invaders who wrecked India are no better. I am not asking you to join hands, but accept the simple fact of the matter.
There was no India, only a randomn assortment of inter-war'ring hindu kingdoms. All that these people did was, join the locals, and do the same.

SRS
27th August 2006, 12:35 AM
[quote] So to say that the reality percieved by humans is the only reality - that is a very superflous argument. Quantum mechanics points this out very well. An example being "Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle."




So, you mean to say that the uncertainity implied by Quantum mechanics, leads to an outrageous deviation in human perception at macroscopic levels. Lets see what you have to say after that :D.


HUP is negligible at the macroscopic level. I referred to the subatomic scale for a very simple reason - one can see the limits of human reason.


The "uncertainty" referred to by Heisenberg has largely to do with flaws in measuring instruments. In other words, at the subatomic level, one cannot hope for a precise measurement, but must rely on probabilities.

[quote] Now, :confused2: Is it microscopic or macroscopic? Let me quote no greater mind than Stephen Hawkings for my convenience.
The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe, ...... . Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other-they both cannot be correct.
In short, your idea of alternative reality cant be applied because Quantum mechanics isnt trusted at macroscopic levels and alternative realities are nothing but macroscopic extrapolation of quantum mechanics.

I was never confused. If you read what I wrote earlier, I said very clearly: string theory bridges the gap between QM and relativity. String theory is more abstract than either of the two. Can you concieve of a reality based on 26-dimensions? That is why I said human reason is essentially limited. The best it can do is construct a mathematical picture. The experimental data will never conform to this mathematical picture 100%. There are some aspects of string theory which may never be experimentally verified, although the mathematics is in place. Now here is a failure altogether of scientific methodology. But even in mathematics one runs into similar difficulties, as per Godel's paradox, undefined terms in Riemann geometry, etc.

Every supporter of karma or any supernatural beleifs, clings firmly to this uncertainity principle. Well, it was a great discovery for them, to know that their opponents cant be 100% right. But, strangely they refuse to accept that it applies to their ideology also, that it puts their beleif in as much precarious situation as that of their altercators. It is like saying, "Nobody is sure who the murderer is, so it must be you, because I say so" :lol: .

HUP has nothing to do with karma. Karma is a very real force. One can see the consequences directly. That is why so much attention is paid to devotions and other rituals.

[/b]

Rohit
27th August 2006, 12:47 AM
Thamizhvaanan, very piercing assertions. :) :thumbsup:

Like I said, the confused individual can do nothing but :rant: which is nothing but :fatigue:

SRS
27th August 2006, 12:54 AM
I still find it to be a reasonable question. Why was India unable to defend if it is true that it was replete with "superhumans" and "superhuman powers" . If you look at this question with a clear mind, you will know that this question is borne out of patriotism for the land rather than despise of it, as you make it seem. Why do we want to fool ourselves even now, when history has shown that we are being fooled all the way along.

When you say it was replete with "superhumans" and "superhuman powers" perhaps you are referring to the India of Ramayana times. Humans themselves never possessed such powers, only gods. Not just ancient India but many other civilizations have similar stories along with archeological evidence to back up stories of superhuman beings who utilize extroardinary technologies to fight wars. To answer the other part of your question, yes, lets not fool ourselves. What did the outsiders do after they invaded.... building mosques from the stones of Shiva Temples, raping thousands of Indian women, destruction of Hindu temples at Goa... and fools like you and Rohit blame the peaceful Indians for not preventing these things, instead of blaming the aggressor. Do you know how the Law Courts work? The victims are not asked why they could not defend themselves from the madman; the motivations of the madman are established and he is punished.



Why do u call them outsiders? Just because they are people of other religion? Do you want to imply that Hindu kingdoms never warred among themselves? War has been an irritating facet of human history, never to be blamed on one particular community.


What outside nation has India invaded? Unlike the Christian nations, Hindu India has never been interested in material gain. Unfortunately, individuals like you and Rohit, who measure every success on the basis of material gain, cannot appreciate the benefit of pacifism.


There was no India, only a randomn assortment of inter-war'ring hindu kingdoms. All that these people did was, join the locals, and do the same.

Yes yes, I am aware there was no "India" as such but a series of kingdoms. That why is I say the outsiders ruined India. Only outsiders will be so ignorant as to unite it into a single unit.

Rohit
27th August 2006, 06:29 AM
Even a 12-year old child can clearly notice that all posts from the terribly confused individual, contain nothing but fallacies. It is well known fact that when one plunges into acute confusions, caused by holding inconsistent and contradictory beliefs, the confused individual resorts to fallacies. One would find almost all forms of fallacies in the ongoing :rant:, but the following forms are clearly and evidently visible.

1. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

2. Straw Man's Fallacy: Distortion of opponent's position, usually by stating it in an oversimplified or extreme form, and then refute the distorted position, not the real one.

3. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

4. Redundancy: Increasing confidence in redundant data or information.

5. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

7. Habit Reutilizing: Using the hallucinations, delusions and dissonance reduction process to help raise false self-esteem.

8. Fundamental Attribution: Associating fallacy of success with the inherent collective failures.

9. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

10. False Alternative: Failure to consider all the relevant possibilities.

11. Diversion: Changing the issue in the middle of an argument.

12. Desire for Self-Fulfilling Conjecture: Another form of selective perception.

13. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

14. Appeal to Emotion: The fallacy that attempts to persuade someone of a conclusion by an appeal to emotions instead of evidence.

15. Wishful Thinking

16. Appeal to ignorance
.
.
.
.

:) :thumbsup:

thamizhvaanan
27th August 2006, 08:21 AM
Like I said, I gave up long back :lol2:

Rohit
27th August 2006, 11:29 PM
Psychoanalysis:

So far in this thread, I have not mentioned Buddha or Buddhism even once, except mentioning Nirvana, the perfect liberation. In response to my mentioning of Nirvana, Pradheep, a confused Buddhist, first mentioned Buddhism while comparing the standpoint of Advaita against that of Buddhism. Then, following my reiteration of Nirvana again, SRS, again one more confused Buddhist, started on his confused views on Buddha and Buddhism. While responding to SRS's post, Kanannn rightly advised SRS to avoid irrelevant and futile arguments about which doctrine (Buddhism or Hinduism) had more influence on which doctrine. Poor confused SRS, wouldn't yield to Kanannn's advice and kept on referring to Buddha and/or Buddhism in his posts under terribly confused state.

In a piercing response, Thamizhvaanan also rightly pointed out the heedless and futile attempts by some charlatans who are busy distorting the authenticity of Buddhism; and then strongly asserted that Buddha was an atheist rationalist.

In total, Buddha and/or Buddhism are referred to in over ten posts in this thread, including this one; and in more than six posts, Buddha and/or Buddhism are referred to by SRS alone, an individual who is evidently terribly confused on everything.

The above analysis is yet one more evidence, in addition to what I am posting below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only for those who are genuinely interested in facts

Advaita Vedanta is nothing but Buddhism in disguise

- GauDapAda is the first historically known author in the Advaita VedAnta tradition.

- GauDapAda is traditionally said to have been the guru of Govinda BhagavatpAda, who was the guru of SankarAcArya.

- GauDapAda composed the GgauDapAdIya kArikAs (GK), which constitute an expository text on the mANDUkya upanishad.

1. The philosophy of Sankaracarya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, as explained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate).

2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, which appear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Sankara and his followers.

3. That Mayavada had stolen the salient features of Sunyavada was not unnoticed by the Buddhists themselves.

4. Buddhism had exercised a profound influence on Sankara's mind to the extent that the tradition opposed to Sankara holds that he is a Buddhist in disguise and his mayavada but crypto-Buddhism.

5. It is well known that Sankara is criticised by his opponents as a "Buddhist in disguise" (pracchanna-bauddha) and his philosophy as mayavada [1] which is but crypto-Buddhism.

6. Among the Vedantins, Bhaskara (750-800) is probably one of the earliest critics against Sankara. He called the Mayavadin "one who depends on the doctrine of the Buddhist" (Buddhamatavalambin), and says that this position has been negated by the author of Brahmasutra.[2] Afterwards, Yamuna (918-1038), Ramanuja (1017-1037), Madhva (1197-1276), Vallabha (1473-1531) and other Vedantins severely criticize the Advaita Vedanta, pointing out that it is in essence nothing but a Buddhist doctrine.[3]

7. Then, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, Vijnanabhiksu of the Samkhya school shows in his Samkhyapravacanabhasya that the mayavada of the Vedantins is of the same standpoint as that of the Vijnanavadin's [4] and criticizes the Vedanta school as a whole. In justifying his criticism, he quotes a verse from the Padmapurana which states that the mayavada is an incorrect theory and is Buddhist doctrine.[5]

Sources:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/mayavada.htm

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/05/02/stories/2004050200170400.htm

http://www.nagarjunainstitute.com/buddhisthim/backissues/vol11/v11sankara.htm
.
.
.

:) :thumbsup:

SRS
28th August 2006, 09:54 PM
The fundamental principles of Hinduism and Buddhism are identical. Four noble truths of Buddhism are suffering, cause of suffering, way to do away with this suffering and the way to feel the state devoid of suffering. They are not different from Indian Vedic traditions. Both deserve and follow the principle of penance, restraint of passions, nonviolence and truth. Sterling they show. Both sitting on the grass in Padmasna, keeping feet on the thighs with hands are on the other in the lap undergo the process of restraining breath. Both meditate under the peepal tree and their ways of meditation are the same. With half opened and half closed eyes they concentrate their attention on the front part of the nose. Their eyes fixed on the nose tip helps them a lot in their spiritual elevation. Both sit straight, all taut. Both wear red brown coloured ropes and keep their right shoulder uncovered. Both react to happiness and sadness in an identical way. Righteousness gives them pleasure and the sinner gives them apathy from the sin. Both endeavor relentlessly to control their senses.

Ten traits of Hinduism are very prominent. They are-

1. Steadiness of mind 2. forgiveness 3. endurance 4. purity 5. subjugation of senses 6. discerning intellect 7. learning 8. truth 9. eveness, wrathlessness 10. apathy from stealing. Budhism too has all these traits though trait number 8 and 10 are included in its Five virtues. Both attach prominance to the purifications of mind. Both preach to win over anger by evenness, unrighteousness by righteousness, miser by donation, lie by truth. So we realise that identical principles in theory and practice are prevalent in both the religious.

Buddha was not anti- Vedas

Buddha does not accept Vedas as God's utterances. They are the achievements of sages through meditation. He has been anti Vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations after the death of his father. He considers 'Gayatri Mantra' the premier mantra. Had he been anti-Vedas he would not have uttered those words- Not to read Vedas is to collect scum one one's mind. Study of Vedas is very dear to him. He believes in 32 embellishments of a lofty soul as propounded in Vedas. Similarly he is not anti- Brahaman. He praises the old brahmans but wants his contemporary brahmans to shun and cast off their short comings. He wants them to purify themselves through reforms. They should be as they were.

Buddhism also believes in the existence of heaven and hell, rebirth, cow protection, entity of Narda, oblation devoid of killing, castes based on work culture and not on birth and purity of mind. There is absolutely no difference between a sanyasi of Hinduism and a Bhikshu of Buddhism.


Buddha believes that soul and God are one and the same thing. They are not two separate entities. He does accept the existence of God but thinks that God is not required in meditation. To be immortal depends on learning and knowledge. If there is a some supreme being then why does not Buddha name Him and give Him a specific identity. He is of the view that the supreme being is beyond description and all his names and identities are imginary and are superimposed. So like Hinduism. Buddhism also accepts the entity of God but his presence can be felt only. Truth can never take the shape of words. Soul is immortal. Only by knowledge developed and attained through meditation one can have sensual perception of the supreme being.


One of the glaring similarities in the two religions is that both consider the visible world shadow and mere illusion. Buddha believes in birth and rebirth. He is of the firm view that creatures through various births can climb the higher rungs of human life. He does accept Varna system not on the basis of birth but on the basis of work culture. Strangely enough he has said nothing about other castes except brahmans. He considers Kashtriya superior to Brahamans. Had it been not so incarnations would not have descended in the Kashtriya dynasty almost all the time. He accepts Ashram system but with some reservations. He is also praise for Brahmcharya Ashram. He thinks medicant is better than householder. Like Hindusim he does not consider Grahsth Ashram the root of all ashramas. A householder is not entitled to solution until and unless he endeavors not to be at par with a mendicant and only then he can yearn for Moksha. He asks the householder not to kill, not to steal, not to tell lies, not to drink wine, not to eat food at night, not to put garland, not to use perfume and so on. He also wants him to observe celibacy if he aspires to be mendicant like and give up cushy bed and sleep on the earth or wooden platform. Hinduism also advises so but unlike Buddhism it asks the householder to perform oblation and undergo penance. Buddhism does not adhere strictly to the order of the four ashramas. A householder can take a leap and directly adopt sanyas ashram. In Hinduism strict adherence to the order is desirable like Hinduism Buddhism believes that desire is the root cause of rebirth. Hinduism has 16 samskaras whereas Buddhism has only 10. Six samastaras are not counted but they are observed in one way or the other.

http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/articles/buddhism_hinduism.shtml

Rohit
28th August 2006, 10:26 PM
The following forms of fallacies have been used again in order reduce the intensity of dissonance experienced.

1. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

2. Straw Man's Fallacy: Distortion of opponent's position, usually by stating it in an oversimplified or extreme form, and then refute the distorted position, not the real one.

3. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

4. Redundancy: Increasing confidence in redundant data or information.

5. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

9. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

13. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

:) :thumbsup:

Rohit
28th August 2006, 10:36 PM
Supporting Information:

First of all, the term 'Hindu' is not recognised in the Vedas, Upanishads or in any of the Indian scriptures. Therefore the term 'Hindu' itself did not exist at the time of Buddha. Not only that, the Indian constitution too does not recognise the term 'Hindu'. Therefore, there was/is no such thing as 'Hindu', except in the minds of people who make a mean oriented choice to declare themselves as 'Hindus' just as a matter of personal convenience.

Therefore, anyone who is lead to make any claim that Buddha was a 'Hindu' is nothing but a brainwashed pawn. Any such claims are absolutely false, simply because there was/is no such terminology as 'Hindu'.

Buddha categorically rejected the existence of both God and Self/Atman/Soul
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The traditional philosophical schools in India had have been classified under two, mutually exclusive headings, which are (1) Astika (Which literally means: Theist) and (2) Nastika (Which literally means: Atheist)

The Nastika (Atheist) schools are those which explicitly reject the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Lokayata or Carvaka (Materialists)
2. Bauddha (Including a Number of Schools of Buddhism)
3. Jaina or Syadvada (Jainism, Including Digambara And Svetambara Groups)

The Astika (Theist) schools are those which accept the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Nyaya
2. Vaiseshika
3. Yoga
4. Samkhya
5. Purva Mimamsa
6. Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta)

Ironically, Samkhya, Purva Mimamsa and Advaita Vedanta, which do not rely on the Vedas, though they do not reject it either, are considered to be Nastika (Atheist).

The validity of the Veda is dependent on the validity of their logical analysis. When the nyaya authors say that the Vedas also offer evidence for the existence of a Creator God, they commit the fallacy of arguing in a circle - the Veda is valid because it was composed by a Creator God, and the Creator God exists because the Veda says so (Begging the Question --> Circular Argument: Because p-->p). This is a logical fallacy committed by most theologians, and is not acceptable to the mimamsa and Vedanta schools of thought

Reference Source:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ind-phil.html


:) :thumbsup:

SRS
29th August 2006, 12:34 AM
--

SRS
29th August 2006, 12:34 AM
Whatever Buddha affirmed/denied, it is an undeniable fact that most modern practitioners of Buddhism, including those who fall within the category of Theravada, pay homage to at least one Hindu deity. Once again, "Rohit" has failed to distinguish between theory and application . This is the usual practice with the atheists; they can only argue within the parameters of the most narrow context. Change the parameters even slightly and their argument is immediatly shattered.

Rohit
29th August 2006, 12:51 AM
From the same site, quoted by the terribly confused individual.

3) In Theravada Buddhism, there are no gods. The Buddha is not a god.

http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/articles/buddhism_hinduism.shtml

:) :thumbsup:

Rohit
29th August 2006, 12:54 AM
Therefore, it evidently proves again and again that the following forms of fallacies have been committed again and again by SRS, the terribly confused Buddhist, in order to reduce the increasing intensity of dissonance experienced.

1. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

2. Straw Man's Fallacy: Distortion of opponent's position, usually by stating it in an oversimplified or extreme form, and then refute the distorted position, not the real one.

3. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

4. Redundancy: Increasing confidence in redundant data or information.

5. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

9. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

13. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

:) :thumbsup:

SRS
29th August 2006, 02:16 AM
Therefore, it evidently proves again and again that the following forms of fallacies have been committed again and again by SRS, the terribly confused Buddhist, in order to reduce the increasing intensity of dissonance experienced.

1. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

2. Straw Man's Fallacy: Distortion of opponent's position, usually by stating it in an oversimplified or extreme form, and then refute the distorted position, not the real one.

3. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

4. Redundancy: Increasing confidence in redundant data or information.

5. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

9. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

13. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

:) :thumbsup:


Sorry, I am not a Buddhist. Neither are you, despite your feeble attempts to distort Buddhist doctrine. Anyway, are you ready to take up the challenge? If you can disprove that majority of Buddhist practitioners are not paying the homage to a Hindu God, I will accept defeat. But it seems like your only comeback is to post a list of the Alzheimers symptoms from which you suffer. I can no offer no solution to such a disorder, as I profess poor knowledge of neurobiology. However I can assure you that the trend in Buddhism is not at all towards atheism, so you are best off purchasing the microscope and bacterial colony I suggested earlier. Good luck!

SRS
29th August 2006, 02:23 AM
Therefore, it evidently proves again and again that the following forms of fallacies have been committed again and again by SRS, the terribly confused Buddhist, in order to reduce the increasing intensity of dissonance experienced.

1. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

2. Straw Man's Fallacy: Distortion of opponent's position, usually by stating it in an oversimplified or extreme form, and then refute the distorted position, not the real one.

3. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

4. Redundancy: Increasing confidence in redundant data or information.

5. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

9. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

13. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

:) :thumbsup:


Sorry, I am not a Buddhist. Neither are you, despite your feeble attempts to distort Buddhist doctrine. Anyway, are you ready to take up the challenge? If you can disprove that majority of Buddhist practitioners are not paying the homage to a Hindu God, I will accept defeat. But it seems like your only comeback is to post a list of the Alzheimers symptoms from which you suffer. I can no offer no solution to such a disorder, as I profess poor knowledge of neurobiology. However I can assure you that the trend in Buddhism is not at all towards atheism, so you are best off purchasing the microscope and bacterial colony I suggested earlier. Good luck!

Rohit
29th August 2006, 03:57 AM
Posting a link to a site with few photographs and some text means nothing whatsoever. If anything, it evidently proves again and again that the following forms of fallacies have been committed again and again in order reduce the increasing intensity of dissonance experienced by SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist.

1. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

2. Straw Man's Fallacy: Distortion of opponent's position, usually by stating it in an oversimplified or extreme form, and then refute the distorted position, not the real one.

3. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

4. Redundancy: Increasing confidence in redundant data or information.

5. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

9. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

13. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also means, poor SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist, obviously you have definitely rejected the contents of the very site "A - Z Hinduism" you posted earlier. :lol: :lol: What a shame! What else proof one would ever need to prove that there are charlatans who have no jobs but to distort facts.

Therefore, being a terribly confused Buddhist, you don't have to accept defeat at all; simply because you are evidently defeated; not only this time, but also every time and countless times before, I am afraid.

Of course you are not a Buddhist, but a terribly confused one; exactly like those, based upon whom, you have made your fallacious judgements, but the following unanimous declaration by The World Buddhists Sangha may help remove your persistent confusions.

Basic Points Unifying The Theravada and the Mahayana

1. The Buddha is our only Master.

2. We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.

3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.

4. Following the example of the Buddha, who is the embodiment of Great Compassion (mahaa-karu.naa) and Great Wisdom (mahaa- praj~naa), we consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth.

5. We accept the Four Noble Truths, nameley Dukkha, the Arising of Dukkha, the Cessation of Dukkha, and the Path leading to the Cessation of Dukkha; and the universal law of cause and effect as taught in the pratiitya-samutpaada (Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination).

6. We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned things (samskaara) are impermanent (anitya) and dukkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anaatma).

7. We accept the Thirty-seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment (bodhipak.sa-dharma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.

8. There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment, according to the ability and capacity of each individual: namely as a disciple (sraavaka), as a Pratyeka-Buddha and as a Samyak-sam-Buddha (perfectly and Fully Enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a Samyak-sam-Buddha in order to save others.

9. We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

Source: Walpola Rahula; The Heritage of the Bhikkhu; (New York, Grove Press, 1974); pp. 100, 1137-138.

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahaya na

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/basicpoints.html

:D :thumbsup:

SRS
29th August 2006, 08:06 PM
THE FOUR DEVALE SHRINES

The existence of one Buddhist and three Hindu shrines closely connected with the functioning of the activities of the sacred Tooth Relic, perhaps baffles the uninitiated as to the curious combination of Hindu and Buddhist faiths. These shrines are the Natha Devale shrine with its presiding divinity the Mahayana Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, the Maha Devale or the shrine of Visnu, one of the Brahmanical Triad, the shrine of Kataragama or Skanda, son of Siva of the Hindu Triad and the shrine of the female Divinity Pattini, well known for curing infectious diseases. All four devales are provided with small scale Buddhist monasteries, indicating the syncretistic nature of the respective shrines.
The Natha Devale is located on the terrace in front of the Palace complex and is supposed to have been in existence even before the Tooth Relic was brought to Kandy. In the days of the Kandyan kingdom, this shrine is said have played an important role in the establishment of the royalty. The king was given his royal name at this shrine. The Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, being worshipped as a curer of diseases, the tradition of distributing herbal preparations on New Year day was conducted here until recent times. In the annual procession, the Natha Devale procession takes the pride of place among the Devale processions and follows just behind the Dalada Perahara..

The Maha Devale , the shrine of Visnu is located to the north of the Natha Devale in the inner complex of the palace. God Visnu,one of the Hindu Triad, is considered a sober divinity who was committed to the protection of Buddhism from the beginning.

Kataragama Devale is located in the modern town. The rituals here are conducted by the Tamils themselves following Hindu ritual systems pertaining to the worship of Skanda, who is popularly designated god Kataragama named after the location associated with the god.

The Pattini Devale is located on the terrace just south of the Natha Devale. Being a female divinity well known for the cure of infectious diseases, women play a special role in the rituals and festivals connected with the devale.
All four Devales have their own lay custodians (Basnayaka Nilame) who play a significant role in the activities of the sacred Tooth Relic shrine, especially in the annual Dalada procession. The divinities of these shrines are considered as protectors of the sacred Tooth Relic. This syncretistic ideal of joint worship apparently have come to be practised from about the 14th century onwards.The services Retuls are daly counductted by the serviceman known as Kapurala, who also plays an important role in the annual pageant, especially in the Water Cutting ceremony. The devotees who assamble at the four Devales almost daily seek refuge in the respective divinities by obtaning their blessings throught the chantings made by the Kapurala of the Devale.

http://www.sridaladamaligawa.lk/english/maligawa_in2.html

Above is from a Sri Lankan website. As I said before, the vast majority of practitioners of Buddhism believe in divinities.

SRS
29th August 2006, 08:09 PM
Sorry Rohit, you have failed entirely to prove that the vast majority of Buddhist believers are atheist. Statements by World Sangha Council are equivalent to theory not application. . Try again!

Rohit
29th August 2006, 10:07 PM
SRS - the confused Buddhist, posting a link to a site with few photographs and some text means nothing whatsoever. If anything, it evidently proves again and again that the following forms of fallacies have been committed again and again in order reduce the increasing intensity of dissonance experienced by SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist.

1. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

2. Straw Man's Fallacy: Distortion of opponent's position, usually by stating it in an oversimplified or extreme form, and then refute the distorted position, not the real one.

3. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

4. Redundancy: Increasing confidence in redundant data or information.

5. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

9. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

13. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also means, poor SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist, obviously you have definitely rejected the contents of the very site "A - Z Hinduism" you posted earlier. :lol: :lol: What a shame! What else proof one would ever need to prove that there are charlatans who have no jobs but to distort facts.

Therefore, being a terribly confused Buddhist, you don't have to accept defeat at all; simply because you are evidently defeated; not only this time, but also every time and countless times before, I am afraid.

Of course you are not a Buddhist, but a terribly confused one; exactly like those, based upon whom, you have made your fallacious judgements.

:D :thumbsup:

SRS
29th August 2006, 10:24 PM
[tscii:0346ddd98a]Latu — One rupee ten annas.

Thakur asks Mani by a sign to note the price.

Narendra comes in and sits down. Sashi, Rakhal and one or two other devotees also come in and take their seats. Thakur asks Narendra to gently massage his feet.

Sri Ramakrishna asks Narendra by a sign, whether he has had anything to eat.

Was the Buddha an atheist? ‘The state beyond theism and atheism’

Sri Ramakrishna (smiling, to M.) — He went there (to Bodh-Gaya).

M. (to Narendra) — What did the Buddha believe in?

Narendra — He could not express in words what he attained from spiritual practices. So everybody says he was an atheist.

Sri Ramakrishna (by signs) — Why an atheist? No, he was not an atheist. It is only that he could not express his experience in words. Do you know what a Buddha is? To become one with bodha (enlightenment) by continually meditating on it – to become transformed into Pure Intelligence Itself.

Narendra — Yes, sir. There are three classes of buddhas: the Buddha, the Arahat and the Boddhisattva.

Sri Ramakrishna — This is indeed God’s play – a new and special divine sport.

“Why should he be an atheist? It is a state between ‘is’ and ‘is not’ in which one realizes one’s own Real Self.”

Narendra (to M.) — It is the state in which contradictions meet. Hydrogen and oxygen produce refreshing water; the same hydrogen and oxygen are used in the Oxy-hydrogen blowpipe.

“It is the state in which both the performance of work and the renunciation of work is possible – in other words, it is performing nishkama karma, or work without the desire for its fruits.

“Worldly people who are involved with sense objects believe in the ‘existence’ of the universe, while the Mayavadins, illusionists, believe that nothing exists. Buddha’s state was beyond ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’.”

Sri Ramakrishna — ’Existence’ and ‘non-existence’ are the attributes of prakriti (nature). Reality is beyond both ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’.

The devotees remain silent for awhile. Thakur speaks again.

Narendra and the kindness and dispassion of the Buddha

Sri Ramakrishna (to Narendra) — What did Buddha say?

Narendra — He did not comment on whether God ‘exists’ or not. He only preached compassion.

“A hawk took hold of a bird and was about to eat it. The Buddha cut a piece of flesh from his own body and gave it to the hawk to save the prey’s life.”

Sri Ramakrishna is again silent. Narendra talks more about the Buddha with great enthusiasm.

Narendra — Oh, what dispassion! Though Buddha was a prince, he renounced everything. What can those who possess nothing, who have no riches, renounce?

“After attaining nirvana, Buddha once visited his home and persuaded his wife and son and other members of the royal family to adopt a life of dispassion. What renunciation he had! Compare this with the conduct of Vyasadeva, who dissuaded Shukadeva from giving up the world. He said to him, ‘Son, practice religion as a householder.’ ”

Thakur is silent. He still does not comment.

Narendra —Buddha did not believe either in divine power[2], or in love and devotion for God[3]. He sought only nirvana. What dispassion! When he sat under the bodhi-tree to meditate, he said, ‘ihaéva çuñyute meà çaréram.’ In other words, if I do not attain nirvana, then let my body dry up here. Such firm resolve!

http://www.kathamrita.org/kathamrita3/k3sec25.htm[/tscii:0346ddd98a]

Rohit
29th August 2006, 10:26 PM
SRS - the confused Buddhist, posting a link to a site with few photographs and some text means nothing whatsoever. If anything, it evidently proves again and again that the following forms of fallacies have been committed again and again in order reduce the increasing intensity of dissonance experienced by SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist.

1. Subjectivism: Fallacious propositions that violate objectivity: I believe/want to believe p to be true; therefore p is true.

2. Straw Man's Fallacy: Distortion of opponent's position, usually by stating it in an oversimplified or extreme form, and then refute the distorted position, not the real one.

3. Reference Effect: Erroneous perception and evaluation of situation based on fallacies.

4. Redundancy: Increasing confidence in redundant data or information.

5. Non-Sequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premises; the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Another name for the fallacy is "irrelevant conclusion"

6. Mental Blockade: Failing to think objectively upon receipt of facts.

9. False Assurance: Ascribing credibility to contradicting data or information.

13. Begging the Question (Circular Argument): Because p-->p.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also means, poor SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist, obviously you have definitely rejected the contents of the very site "A - Z Hinduism" you posted earlier. :lol: :lol: What a shame! What else proof one would ever need to prove that there are charlatans who have no jobs but to distort facts.

Therefore, being a terribly confused Buddhist, you don't have to accept defeat at all; simply because you are evidently defeated; not only this time, but also every time and countless times before, I am afraid.

Of course you are not a Buddhist, but a terribly confused one; exactly like those, based upon whom, you have made your fallacious judgements.

:D :thumbsup:

SRS
29th August 2006, 10:28 PM
[tscii:76a188979a]"Narendra — He did not comment on whether God ‘exists’ or not. He only preached compassion. "1

That is also the view I hold. It corresponds to Buddha's avoidance of the ten famous questions posed to him by a Brahmana. And finally, I ask readers to keep in mind that the Buddha himself never wrote anything down. Therefore, if a modern-day Budhist authority figure claims that Buddha was an atheist, it is not based upon any writings made by the Buddha himself. As for modern-day Buddhist practitioners, the majority are not atheist. [/tscii:76a188979a]

Rohit
29th August 2006, 10:39 PM
If anything, it evidently proves again and again that all forms of fallacies have been committed again and again in order reduce the increasing intensity of dissonance experienced by SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist.

Of course you are not a Buddhist, but a terribly confused one; exactly like those, based upon whom, you have made your fallacious judgements.

It also means, poor SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist, you have definitely rejected the contents of the very site "A - Z Hinduism" you posted earlier. :lol: :lol: What a shame! What else proof one would ever need to prove that there are charlatans who have no jobs but to distort facts.

Therefore, being a terribly confused Buddhist, you don't have to accept defeat at all; simply because you are evidently defeated; not only this time, but also every time and countless times before, I am afraid.

:D :thumbsup:

Rohit
29th August 2006, 11:39 PM
Supporting Information:

First of all, the term 'Hindu' is not recognised in the Vedas, Upanishads or in any of the Indian scriptures. Therefore the term 'Hindu' itself did not exist at the time of Buddha. Not only that, the Indian constitution too does not recognise the term 'Hindu'. Therefore, there was/is no such thing as 'Hindu', except in the minds of people who make a mean oriented choice to declare themselves as 'Hindus' just as a matter of personal convenience.

Therefore, anyone who is lead to make any claim that Buddha was a 'Hindu' is nothing but a brainwashed pawn. Any such claims are absolutely false, simply because there was/is no such terminology as 'Hindu'.

Buddha categorically rejected the existence of both God and Self/Atman/Soul
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The traditional philosophical schools in India had have been classified under two, mutually exclusive headings, which are (1) Astika (Which literally means: Theist) and (2) Nastika (Which literally means: Atheist)

The Nastika (Atheist) schools are those which explicitly reject the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Lokayata or Carvaka (Materialists)
2. Bauddha (Including a Number of Schools of Buddhism)
3. Jaina or Syadvada (Jainism, Including Digambara And Svetambara Groups)

The Astika (Theist) schools are those which accept the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Nyaya
2. Vaiseshika
3. Yoga
4. Samkhya
5. Purva Mimamsa
6. Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta)

Ironically, Samkhya, Purva Mimamsa and Advaita Vedanta, which do not rely on the Vedas, though they do not reject it either, are considered to be Nastika (Atheist).

The validity of the Veda is dependent on the validity of their logical analysis. When the nyaya authors say that the Vedas also offer evidence for the existence of a Creator God, they commit the fallacy of arguing in a circle - the Veda is valid because it was composed by a Creator God, and the Creator God exists because the Veda says so (Begging the Question --> Circular Argument: Because p-->p). This is a logical fallacy committed by most theologians, and is not acceptable to the mimamsa and Vedanta schools of thought

Reference Source:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ind-phil.html


:) :thumbsup:

SRS
30th August 2006, 12:02 AM
Atheist clown Rohit, unable to reconcile any of his atheist logic with actual Buddhist doctrine, once again demonstrates his desperation by basing his entire conception of Buddhism on an obscure statement made by the World Sangha Council. Once again showing that atheism has no relevence whatsoever to anything meaningful, neither philosophy nor logic nor science.

Rohit
30th August 2006, 12:06 AM
SRS, of course you are not a Buddhist, but a terribly confused one; exactly like those, based upon whom, you have made your fallacious judgements.

If anything, it evidently proves again and again that all forms of fallacies have been committed again and again by you in order to reduce the increasing intensity of dissonance experienced.

It also evidently shows that you have definitely rejected the contents of the very site "A - Z Hinduism" you posted earlier; and now, out of utter frustrations, you have started to :rant: again. :lol: :lol: What a shame! What else proof one would ever need to prove that there are charlatans who have no jobs but to distort facts.

Which clearly shows that superficial theism, simply based on blind beliefs have no qualification, none whatsoever, if it is not supported and/or validated by meaningful philosophy, rational judgement or science.

Therefore, being a terribly confused Buddhist, you don't have to accept defeat at all; simply because you are evidently defeated; not only this time, but also every time and countless times before, I am afraid.

:D :thumbsup:

Rohit
30th August 2006, 03:24 PM
On other matters, e.g. formation of universe, he simply avoided explanations altogether; best example being the ten questions posed to him by a Brahmana.

............- but one should not avoid such questions as pertain to the nature of a supreme God,............

It corresponds to Buddha's avoidance of the ten famous questions posed to him by a Brahmana.
Buddha did not answer those questions, simply because he had already figured out that his answers would be beyond the intellectual capability of the questioner; and he also knew that it would turn into futile arguments, which is what he avoided.

Ironically, in Hinduism, Buddha is believed as the 10th and last Avatara of Vishnu, the Supreme God.

Interestingly, both with and without Buddha, Hinduism would collapse :!:

If fact, as presented in my psychoanalysis and extending the analysis thereafter, most of the discussion so far in this thread has been revolving around Buddha and his teachings.

No wonder why the contents of the very site "A - Z Hinduism" is already rejected.

Which once more, evidently proves the consequential influence of Buddha on Hinduism.

Anyway, enjoy the irony

:) :thumbsup:

SRS
30th August 2006, 08:09 PM
[quote]On other matters, e.g. formation of universe, he simply avoided explanations altogether; best example being the ten questions posed to him by a Brahmana.

............- but one should not avoid such questions as pertain to the nature of a supreme God,............

It corresponds to Buddha's avoidance of the ten famous questions posed to him by a Brahmana.
Ironically, in Hinduism, Buddha is believed as the 10th and last Avatara of Vishnu, the Supreme God.

Buddha neither acknowleged nor denied himself as the avatara of Vishnu.

Interestingly, both with and without Buddha, Hinduism would collapse :!:

As per history, Buddhism only served to unite "Hinduism" which was at that time many different sects.

If fact, as presented in my [b]psychoanalysis and extending the analysis thereafter, most of the discussion so far in this thread has been revolving around Buddha and his teachings. [b]

Too bad for the atheists; most of the Buddhist doctrines are offshoots of Hinduism. Funny how the atheists champion, Buddha, is also a former Hindu prince. Cannot the atheists find someone who was atheist from the start?

Rohit
30th August 2006, 08:31 PM
Too bad for the atheists; most of the Buddhist doctrines are offshoots of Hinduism.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Here goes SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist - :rant: , which is nothing more than :fatigue: as evidently proved earlier.

Funny how the atheists champion, Buddha, is also a former _____ prince. Cannot the atheists find someone who was atheist from the start?
Every child in the entire world is born with none whatsoever concept or idea, the question of fallacious beliefs in God doesn’t arise at all. Such fallacious concepts and ideas are only flushed into their minds later on, which takes a little bit of intellectual analysis to get rid off, but only a few can do that in 1000s of years. That is all there is to it nothing more, nothing less.

:D :thumbsup:

SRS
30th August 2006, 09:31 PM
[tscii:24ad76ba18]

Funny how the atheists champion, Buddha, is also a former _____ prince. Cannot the atheists find someone who was atheist from the start?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Here goes SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist - :rant: , which is nothing more than :fatigue: as evidently proved earlier.

Every child in the entire world is born with none whatsoever concept or idea, the question of fallacious beliefs in God doesn’t arise at all. Such fallacious concepts and ideas are only flushed into their minds later on, which takes a little bit of intellectual analysis to get rid off, but only a few can do that in 1000s of years. That is all there is to it nothing more, nothing less.

:D :thumbsup:

Denying that Buddha was a former Hindu prince? No further affirmation is needed that your conception of Buddhism merits zero credibility. I rest my case. [/tscii:24ad76ba18]

Rohit
30th August 2006, 09:40 PM
Denying that Buddha was a former Hindu prince?
First of all, the term 'Hindu' is not recognised in the Vedas, Upanishads or in any of the Indian scriptures. Therefore the term 'Hindu' itself did not exist at the time of Buddha. Not only that, the Indian constitution too does not recognise the term 'Hindu'. Therefore, there was/is no such thing as 'Hindu', except in the minds of people who make a mean oriented choice to declare themselves as 'Hindus' just as a matter of personal convenience.

Therefore, anyone who is lead to make any claim that Buddha was a 'Hindu' is nothing but a brainwashed pawn. Any such claims are absolutely false, simply because there was/is no such terminology as 'Hindu'.


I rest my case.
If you rest your fallacies anywhere within yourself, I truly assure you, no one would ever care about their whereabouts.

:) :thumbsup:

SRS
31st August 2006, 09:48 AM
Clearly the atheists are in desperation, as the above farcical resort to semantics shows. Even if "Hinduism" did not exist as a unified religion, the various sects that comprise modern-day "Hinduism" existed. These "sects" were not entirely disparate in methodology; as one can easily ascertain from reading Buddhist sutras, the caste-system was well-established during Buddha's time. And of course since caste-system is based entirely on Manu, one sees that the different sects, even though they were not grouped under the heading of "Hinduism", nevertheless were based on the same teachings. Also, if Buddha was such an atheist as the atheists here like to claim, why did his first actions upon renouncing the title of prince, consist of practicising the same extreme ascetic methods of the "Hindu" ascetics at the time? Does this not show the influence of Hinduism upon the Buddha's thinking? As the saying goes, experience is the best teacher. Of course, the atheists have no answers to such questions, other than resorting to meaningless semantics and posting a list of Alzheimers symptoms that they are prone to suffer from, due to a lack of connection with any meaningful reality.

Rohit
31st August 2006, 01:31 PM
Here goes SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist - :rant:, which is nothing but :fatigue: as proved again and again.

If your idea of 'Hinduism' is based just on caste system, then good luck to you being a :x Indian. What a shame-faced, free-loader!

Not only that, you must trace the roots of the so-believed caste system, right into the four Vedas and present the original evidence right here.

Nonetheless, there is no such terminilogy as 'Hindu' formally defined and recognised anywhere.

Also, in Buddhism:

4. No surname suggestive of Caste.

http://www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/articles/buddhism_hinduism.shtml

No wonder why the contents of the very site "A - Z Hinduism" is repeatedly being rejected by SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist.

Therfore SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist, if you rest your fallacies 'anywhere within yourself', I truly assure you, no one would ever care about their whereabouts.

:D :thumbsup:

SRS
31st August 2006, 08:16 PM
[tscii:d2861b9010]"The actual term that the Vedic tradition uses to refer to itself is “Dharma”. The word Dharma is found repeatedly throughout the entire corpus of the Vedic scriptures, from the Rg Veda to the Bhagavad Gita. There is almost no scripture in the entirety of Hinduism where one will not come across the word Dharma as the preeminent name of the religion in question. Sometimes the word Dharma is used by itself; at other times it is used in conjunction with other qualifying words, such as “Vaidika Dharma” (Vedic Dharma), “Vishva Dharma” (Global Dharma), or "Sanatana Dharma" (the Eternal Dharma). The diversity of adjectival emphasis will vary in accordance with the precise context in which the word is used. Of these terms, the name “Sanatana Dharma” has been the most widely used name of this ancient religion, and is used as far back as the Rg Veda, the very earliest scripture of Hinduism, and the earliest written text known to humanity. It is also the most philosophically profound and conceptually beautiful name for our religion."

Yet another earth-shattering blow for the atheists: Vedas and Upanishads are the oldest books known to humanity. In other words, Vedas and Upanishads are older than atheism itself. :lol: [/tscii:d2861b9010]

Rohit
31st August 2006, 11:58 PM
[tscii:d995424ba2]"The actual term that the Vedic tradition uses to refer to itself is “Dharma”. The word Dharma is found repeatedly throughout the entire corpus of the Vedic scriptures, from the Rg Veda to the Bhagavad Gita. There is almost no scripture in the entirety of Hinduism where one will not come across the word Dharma as the preeminent name of the religion in question. Sometimes the word Dharma is used by itself; at other times it is used in conjunction with other qualifying words, such as “Vaidika Dharma” (Vedic Dharma), “Vishva Dharma” (Global Dharma), or "Sanatana Dharma" (the Eternal Dharma). The diversity of adjectival emphasis will vary in accordance with the precise context in which the word is used. Of these terms, the name “Sanatana Dharma” has been the most widely used name of this ancient religion, and is used as far back as the Rg Veda, the very earliest scripture of Hinduism, and the earliest written text known to humanity. It is also the most philosophically profound and conceptually beautiful name for our religion."

Yet another earth-shattering blow for the atheists: Vedas and Upanishads are the oldest books known to humanity. In other words, Vedas and Upanishads are older than atheism itself. :lol: [/tscii:d995424ba2]
1. The above quoted text evidently proves it once more that SRS- the terribly confused Buddhist can only :rant:, which is nothing but :fatigue:

2. The above quoted text contains 100% English vocabulary and structure.

3. The above quoted text uses 100% Roman script.

4. The above quoted text uses 100% Western technology/methodology for its conveyance.

5. A staggering 81.55% of the above quoted text contains word formation in English.

6. Only 18.45% of the above quoted text contains word formation that barely correlate to Sanskrit or Arabic.

7. Which means, only a 4.6% of its contents correlate to the fallacious thinking of SRS - the terribly confused Buddhist and the remaining 95.4% contents are absolutely contrary to what he wants to convey, simply because it contains Latin, Arabic or English words, vocabulary and structure and uses Western technology/methodology for its conveyance, which correlates to either Islam, Christianity or both (One of the many consequential effects of foreign invasions).

The whole of the above quoted and associate texts completely (100%) lose their meaning or value and become fallacies when it comes to the factual reality, which is:

Every child in the entire world is born with none whatsoever concept or idea, the question of any beliefs in anything doesn’t arise at all. All concepts, ideas, beliefs etc. are evolved over the time, which are, then flushed into the minds of next generations as time moves on. This is the precise phase of evolution of every "to be terribly confused Buddhists", and it takes one to go through a little bit of intellectual analysis to get rid off the fallacies from the hotchpotch of multifarious cognition and then discern the actual reality as it is. However, only a few can do such a thorough intellectual analysis and come out of the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration. That is all there is to it nothing more, nothing less.

:D :thumbsup:

Rohit
3rd September 2006, 05:43 PM
As on Sun Sep 17, 2006, over 790 viewers have visited this thread since my conclusive post above.

Following that, the initial viewer-visiting rate was over 10 viewers per hour.

The latest average viewer-visiting rate is 3.35 viewers per hour (on average, 80 viewers per day).

From the above analysis, it is deduced that the participants have visited this thread, on average, 32 times since my conclusive post above.

A big 'Thank you' to you all.

:D :thumbsup:

pradheep
19th September 2006, 10:49 PM
[tscii:1fd5e373d7]
Why an atheist? No, he was not an atheist. It is only that he could not express his experience in words. Do you know what a Buddha is? To become one with bodha (enlightenment) by continually meditating on it – to become transformed into Pure Intelligence Itself.

It take steps to attain the state. The steps are required to peel the layers of Ego. An atheist and theist both have concepts. An atheist has a concept that the whole universe come suddenly from nothing. An atheist is attached to such a concept of the Ego. A theist has a concept that the whole thing is created by a person called God. He is attached to this cocept formed by the ego.

A gnani like Ramakrishna explains beautifully that when some one drops these concepts then they realize the truth, that is not expressed by words.
Vindalar kandilar, kandavar vindilar.[/tscii:1fd5e373d7]

Rohit
20th September 2006, 12:39 AM
Every child in the entire world is born with none whatsoever concept or idea, the question of any beliefs in anything doesn’t arise at all. All concepts, ideas, beliefs etc. are evolved over the time, which are, then flushed into the minds of next generations as time moves on. This is the precise phase of evolution of every "to be terribly confused Buddhists", and it takes one to go through a little bit of intellectual analysis to get rid off the fallacies from the hotchpotch of multifarious cognition and then discern the actual reality as it is. However, only a few can do such a thorough intellectual analysis and come out of the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration. That is all there is to it nothing more, nothing less.

Here comes the Egocentric Pradheep, one more "terribly confused Buddhist" who is stuck forever in the concepts of atheist, concept, Ego, ego, gnani, God, impersonal God, layer, peel, personal God, Ramakrishna, realise, theist, truth, universe etc. without ever bothering to understand and define them.

Nonetheless, he does reaffirm that, both with and without Buddha, Hinduism would collapse, but he couldn't explicitly express that (truth) by words :!:

:) :thumbsup:

pradheep
20th September 2006, 05:56 PM
[tscii:02691711d1]
Every child in the entire world is born with none whatsoever concept or idea, the question of any beliefs in anything doesn’t arise at all. All concepts, ideas, beliefs etc. are evolved over the time, which are, then flushed into the minds of next generations as time moves on.


But there are a few like Rohit who is glued to his "concepts" and keep repeating his statments like his never ending cycles of samsara. Hope he evolves in his generation as his janma moves on.[/tscii:02691711d1]

Rohit
21st September 2006, 03:01 AM
But there are a few like Rohit.....Of course, there are only a few like Rohit, and it is explicitly stated in my reiterated post. But, unfortunately, there are countless 'terribly confused Buddhists' like Egocentric Pradheep, who just find everything extremely difficult to comprehend and invariably get trapped in vicious spiral or cognitive degeneration.

Well, as long as there are a few Rohits, reiterating the factual reality, countless 'terribly confused Buddhists' like Pradheep will always have a good chance of being liberated from the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration, no matter how long it may take.

:D :thumbsup:

pradheep
21st September 2006, 03:29 AM
Well, as long as there are a few Rohits,

Few rotten apples can spoil the whole good lot.

Rohit
21st September 2006, 04:09 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :)

Now goes Pradheep too - 'the terribly confused Buddhist' :x .

Deplorably, he stenches of sever cognitive degeneration.

Indeed truth hurts the Egocentrics; and it did, fatally.

:D :thumbsup:

SRS
21st September 2006, 06:25 AM
Well, as long as there are a few Rohits,

Few rotten apples can spoil the whole good lot.

That is what the atheists will do in the "next life" since, according to their mechanistic view of the universe, they can only transform into bacteria, after dying. Happy spoiling! :lol:

pradheep
21st September 2006, 10:32 AM
'the terribly confused Buddhist
Dear Rohit
This will go on... But as I always ask you, what is the purpose of your intellectual gimmicks?. What purpose does it give, other than spreading hatred. In most of the topics when you are not convinced you belittle others. Understand your ideas are also concepts (fragtmented views). The real intelligence is in the holistic view ---seeing everything as wholeness instead of bits and pieces.

Last sunday inspite of showing disinterest, two missionary guys, wanted to brain wash me about their holy book. I asked a simple question , how is your talk going to make a change in my life. Or in other words what do you practise in your daily life that is said in the holy book.

I sensed that they felt uneasy with my question. When I told them I am not to win an argument and show you are wrong, they became relaxed and gave a smile. I asked them when God is love, how can we spread hatred. How can you say only your book is correct.

Instead I asked them , does your holy book say God is omnipresent. They said yes. Then I asked then tell me how far are you from God, I mean what is the shortest distance between you and God. They thought for a while. I said please find the answer to this question, then you will always spend your life to remove ignorance and live a life helping others and give love, which is the message of all Holy books.

So my dear friend Rohit, already we have so much of terrorism, wars and hatred. What we should see is how we can spread love and that is knowledge, Gnana. Holistic view. Fragmented views bring hatred and holsitic view (gnana) brings only love.

Rohit
21st September 2006, 01:06 PM
.............wanted to brain wash me about their holy book."The terribly confused Buddhists" like Pradheep, SRS and so many others are aready brainwashed, they don't need brainwashing again and again.

Only thing is, they must grasp the fact that 'appeal to emotions' and such like fallacies will no longer work and hide the factual reality, no matter how bitter it is.

So, please stop your emotional fallacies and other gimmicks.

:D :thumbsup:

Badri
21st September 2006, 02:21 PM
As usual, both Pradeep and Rohit have begun to add to pages in this thread by saying the same things!!! :roll:

Guys, please stop, unless you have something new to say so that rest of us can also follow this thread.

Else exchange email ids and continue your love-filled private exchanges!

pradheep
22nd September 2006, 12:04 AM
rachel..............GOD is not cruel............we cant blame God........for what we doing or how we r living...........its all our karma

Okay Badri, I will try to stick on to the topic.

Our thoughts express as action and that gives an effect and this cause and effect is karma. God is not an external factor. As I asked the missionary guys, if God is everywhere then what is the distance between you and God. You will end up with the adviatic principle that you are just the manifestation of God. The creator and created are not different. But confusion comes when we look at the limited body and say it is God, like the ocean and wave.
This is why Vedic culture says to refine our thoughts. Our thoughts manifest as action outside. No one is controlling us, but our thoughts. karma can be changed only by changing our thoughts.

Rohit
22nd September 2006, 01:59 AM
Thank you Badri for your timely intermediary step. :) :thumbsup:

Rohit
22nd September 2006, 02:13 AM
Already we have so much of terrorism, wars and hatred.
You will end up with the adviatic principle that you are just the manifestation of God. The creator and created are not different.My dear Pradheep - the terribly confused Buddhist, according to your bottlenecked world-view, all these evils are the manifestations of God of someone's conception, which is flushed into countless receptive minds like yours. Which unequivocally implies that evils like rapes, murders, moral corruption, confusions and mental corruption, ignorance, disasters, calamities, terrorism, wars, hatred and countless other sinister evils of the world could be nothing but the manifestation of God of your heedlessly adopted belief.

Not forgetting the fact that waves after waves of foreign invasions that resulted in utter destitution of India and her people, the condition that lasted for over a thousand years. As opposed to your confused views, all these were not the results of an act of an individual, but they were the results of collective behaviour, which again, can be nothing but the manifestation of God of someone's conception breeding so much confusion in your susceptible mind.

All these confusions, limitations, heedless thoughts, actions, thought of someone controlling you, distorted concept of karma etc. etc. should be nothing but the manifestation (concepts and beliefs) breeding in your susceptible mind, and therefore they hold no value whatsoever in light of the actual reality as it is. If anything, such a dogmatic and narrow world-view would invariably trap you in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration, as evidently proved countless times. Though, such vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration invariably arises in all God oriented, dogmatic world-views, but it manifests in its worst form in the Advaitic world-view as evidently shown and proved recently and before countless times.

What Pradheep is on about, is the worst possible form of cognition that the Egocentric peoples like Pradheep and his likes can hold onto without having a clue of the real/true holistic world-view.

The real/true holistic world-view is that which is inclusive of all possible world-views, including itself and yet it is not part of it, enabling one to remain outside the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration, enabling one to capture and comprehend the entire phenomena as a whole. The world-view that enables one to hold the real value for real cognition, love and compassion for all while leading a moral life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Since, I have already said what needed to be said; and proved what needed to be proved without any reasonable doubt, meanwhile I can happily leave the thread for people like Pradheep and the rest to continue with whatever fantastically bottlenecked world-view pleases their minds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck

:D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep
22nd September 2006, 03:29 AM
[tscii:563f90e1b9]
these evils are the manifestations of God of someone's conception,
My Dear Rohit
I have patience to explain you millions times the “Truth” because we have taken countless birth's to understand the truth.

Hope you can recollect the beautiful Zorastrian (Parsi religion) teacher's explanation to the atheist king. The king asked"If God is good, then how can there be evil"?. Zorastrian showed that light is neutral. It does not cause shadows. Only when objects are far away from light , shadows are self created. Light has no responsibility for shadows, at the same time , shadows cannot exist without light. Look at this contriction. If soemone cant understand this then everything is confusing.

The closer the objects to light the smaller the length of the shadows. Similarly when we are farther to God or Brahman, or Truth , we have bigger shadows or evil. Then our actions are hatred, rape, crime, bombing, jealousy, superiority complex, depression, war, etc etc. But when we are closer to the truth then the shadows are smaller and the object is more lighted then resulting actions are humanity, loving all creatures of the world , loving everyone as thyself charity etc.

The aspect that makes us to place ourself closer or farther to Truth is called Ego. Ego cannot stand Truth, because in front of Truth it has no life. So to have its own life it dislikes and tries to disprove Truth. It has no “Story” in the presence of Truth.

So there is no God out there controlling where we should place our Ego. It is our own “Free will”. It is our choice. There is no Chance there is only Choice. What we are today is not chance it is only Choice. Evolution is not by Chance it is by Choice. If you have “will” then you struggle and make it. This is how you exercise free will.

For all our problem we pinpoint at others. It is easy to pin point others without understanding that our thoughts is the root cause. Putting the blame on an Imaginary God is weakness. Everything is in us. We have complete freedom to choose. When we don’t understand this inner strength we suffer. Advaita says Ignorance of this is the root cause of all suffering.
[/tscii:563f90e1b9]

Rohit
22nd September 2006, 03:34 AM
If God is everywhere then what is the distance between you and God?
The creator and created are not different.
....when we are farther to God or Brahman, or Truth , we have bigger shadows or evil:!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

When one perpetually remains incapable of understanding and defining what "Truth" really means, this is what happens, he/she instantly gets trapped in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration- Cause (incapacity to understand and define truth) and effect (Cognitive degeneration).

:) :thumbsup:

pradheep
22nd September 2006, 04:40 AM
If God is everywhere then what is the distance between you and God?
Then confused Pradheep wrote:

And now confused Pradheep wrote:
....when we are farther to God or Brahman, or Truth , we have bigger shadows or evil

My Dear Rohit
You have not understood and so you look them as contradicting statements.


If God is everywhere then what is the distance between you and God?

This was asked to a Guy who thinks God is a separate entity sitting in a place called heaven. The reality is that the "Self" is God.


The creator and created are not different.

This is also to the same person who thinks there is a creator who creates creation and is seprate from it. The creator and created is not separate.


when we are farther to God or Brahman, or Truth , we have bigger shadows or evil
This is the explanation to a person who is no different from the missionary guy thinking God as an entity, who is different from the creation. Therefore he thinks that crimes rapes wars should be prevented by God.

A saint a robber, one who rapes , one who helps the poor , one who bombs a railway station are all manifestation of the God. What makes a terrorist a terrorist is that he thinks he is different from the other. He thinks he is better than the other and so he feels superior and expresses hatred and wants to destroy the inferior one.

What makes a saint a saint is that he thinks he is no different from the other person. There fore he expresses love and helps the other person. This is the basis for love and help.

Vishnu is Ram and Krishna. The very same Vishnu is Jayan and Vijayan who took form of the Ravana and Sisupalan.

Though Ravana is Vijayan who is nothing but Vishnu, we do not consider Ravana as God because he identified himself with the costume (EGO MIND BODY COMPLEX).

This is where the difference is. if you can understand this you wont find myself contradictory.

Reference : Puranas (The above is not my version, but what puranas says).

Rohit
22nd September 2006, 04:46 AM
Dear Pradheep - the terribly confused Buddhist, please carryon with your cognitive degeneration without addressing any posts to me, I am not interested in your all forms of fallacies and the supplements of fantastic allegories, but others might be. So, it is all yours until you enable yourself of grasping the relations and correlates of the actual reality.

However, I may participate again whenever I wish to do so.

Till then, enjoy the ride in the vicious spiral of your cognitive degeneration.

:D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep
22nd September 2006, 05:35 AM
without addressing any posts to me,
what did I not address?. Each contradictions that you pinpointed I explained. when it is well explained you always throw names and repeat the fight again like children when cornered - "calling names". carry on, if that is the choice you make. As Gandhi said just because some one cant understand Truth or denies it, Truth can never go wrong. Satyameva Jayathe.

Rohit
22nd September 2006, 05:38 AM
Dear Pradheep - the terribly confused Buddhist, you have explained zilch, simply becuase you couldn't explain anything due to your cognitive degeneration. Nonetheless, please carryon with your cognitive degeneration even further without addressing any posts to me, I am not interested in your all forms of fallacies and the supplements of fantastic allegories, but others might be. So, it is all yours until you enable yourself of grasping the relations and correlates of the actual reality.

However, I may participate again whenever I wish to do so.

Till then, enjoy the ride in the vicious spiral of your cognitive degeneration.

:D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep
22nd September 2006, 09:59 PM
Dear Rohit
Thank you. I will enjoy my fantastic allegories and you continue with your childish way of calling others idiots when you are cornered. Wish you could grow otherwise will have an adult body with an immature mind. To have a scientific rational mind you need to grow. Again dont reply with the same statements like a child. Atleast wish you stop that.

pradheep
22nd September 2006, 10:18 PM
Tomorrow Navarathri starts. The golu keeping culture in this festival denotes that creator and created is the one and the same. That is why we keep all dolls of good and bad in Golu. we keep dolls of saints, politicians, people like veerappan, animals, plants etc etc and in the final step we keep paraskthi denoting that it is that Sakthi that has manifested as all beings. What a great Advaitic message and a great festival where including children everyone have both fun and aspects to reflect , change and evolve.

Rohit
22nd September 2006, 10:55 PM
I will enjoy my fantastic allegories
Good! Also don't forget to enjoy the ride in the vicious spiral of your cognitive degeneration. :thumbsup:


Wish you could grow otherwise will have an adult body with an immature mind.
Thank you for revealing your own conditions, superimposed. :lol: :lol: :D :)


To have a scientific rational mind you need to grow.
Thank you again for revealing more about your own conditions, superimposed. :lol: :lol: :D :)


Again dont reply with the same statements like a child.
You have aready done that which I told you, not to. Anyway, rest assured, I would never do that.

:lol: :lol: :D :) :wink: :thumbsup:

pradheep
22nd September 2006, 11:21 PM
Tomorrow Navarathri starts. The golu keeping culture in this festival denotes that creator and created is the one and the same. That is why we keep all dolls of good and bad in Golu. we keep dolls of saints, politicians, people like veerappan, animals, plants etc etc and in the final step we keep paraskthi denoting that it is that Sakthi that has manifested as all beings. What a great Advaitic message and a great festival where including children everyone have both fun and aspects to reflect , change and evolve.

Rohit
23rd September 2006, 03:14 AM
Premise: An infinitesimally small fraction of B holds a belief that A = B and that A is one without a second, homogeneous, inert, static, unchanging; devoid of any attributes, heterogeneity, cognition, contradictions, cause and effect and any evil......

If B exists as a heterogeneous entity; chaotic, dynamic with transitory events, continually changing and evolving in nature, a phenomena with space and time and the process of cause and effect, containing multifarious and contradictory cognition, full of attributes and all evils......; and consequently, has attained the state [A](AND)[NOT A]; then, it incontrovertibly renders the Premise A = B as False and the Conclusion that A does not exist.

:) :thumbsup:

pradheep
25th September 2006, 11:15 PM
[tscii:76b8e27ffd]
Premise: An infinitesimally small fraction of B holds a belief that A = B and that A is one without a second, homogeneous, inert, static, unchanging; devoid of any attributes, heterogeneity, cognition, contradictions, cause and effect and any evil......

If B exists as a heterogeneous entity; chaotic, dynamic with transitory events, continually changing and evolving in nature, a phenomena with space and time and the process of cause and effect, containing multifarious and contradictory cognition, full of attributes and all evils......; and consequently, has attained the state [A](AND)[NOT A]; then, it incontrovertibly renders the Premise A = B as False and the Conclusion that A does not exist.


The premise is partly Correct.
But the Conclusion is wrong. The state of “B” is seemingly to be heterogenous, chaotic etc etc. But in reality, there isn’t heterogeneity or chaos. It is “as though” they are talking place , because the one who says so is because of looking through the sense organs of perception. These sense organs are a medium to perceive and are limited in their perception.

With the help of limited only limtations only can be seen. with the unlimited infinite (as it is) can be seen.

C = white (Color of object)
D = Blue (Blue color glass piece).

P – B looking at C with naked eyes (as it is).
R- B looking at C with D (blue color glass piece).


R – Claims C is Blue
K – Claims C is white


Who is correct R or P?.
As long as R uses blue glass, the object will appear blue.

R sees Rape and terrorism in B.
K sees no rape and terrorism in B.

K sees no B only A.

All changes are apparent not absolute. If there is an apparent change , it is only due to the fact that law of karma which means cause and effect operates. If there is bombing, this means it is reality of karma which means law of cause and effect. Bombing occurred because of hatred of some X on Y. What is the cause of hatred?. Because X thought he or she is different (superior) than Y. Why did X think different?. X thought different because it sees everything through its colored glass of “I”. When there is “I” then everything is second (duality).

R and X - suffers duality- under spell of Maya, which means looking at apparent changes and not at absolute. And so concludes A does nto exist.

K looks at absolute and sees reality and changes as it is. K understands karma as law of nature. K is just witnessing itself without changes.[/tscii:76b8e27ffd]

Rohit
26th September 2006, 01:00 AM
But the Conclusion is wrong. The state of “B” is seemingly to be heterogenous, chaotic etc etc. But in reality, there isn’t heterogeneity or chaos. It is “as though” they are talking place , because the one who says so is because of looking through the sense organs of perception. These sense organs are a medium to perceive and are limited in their perception.

With the help of limited only limtations only can be seen. with the unlimited infinite (as it is) can be seen.

C = white (Color of object)
D = Blue (Blue color glass piece).

P – B looking at C with naked eyes (as it is).
R- B looking at C with D (blue color glass piece).


R – Claims C is Blue
K – Claims C is white


Who is correct R or P?.
As long as R uses blue glass, the object will appear blue.

R sees Rape and terrorism in B.
K sees no rape and terrorism in B.

K sees no B only A.

All changes are apparent not absolute. If there is an apparent change , it is only due to the fact that law of karma which means cause and effect operates. If there is bombing, this means it is reality of karma which means law of cause and effect. Bombing occurred because of hatred of some X on Y. What is the cause of hatred?. Because X thought he or she is different (superior) than Y. Why did X think different?. X thought different because it sees everything through its colored glass of “I”. When there is “I” then everything is second (duality).

R and X - suffers duality- under spell of Maya, which means looking at apparent changes and not at absolute. And so concludes A does nto exist.

K looks at absolute and sees reality and changes as it is. K understands karma as law of nature. K is just witnessing itself without changes.
The entire 100% of the above post itself confirms the precise state of B as described in the proof.

Blue, Bombing, Different, Eyes, Glass, Hatred, K is just witnessing itself without changes (who or what is K :!: :?: ) , K looks at absolute and sees (How, using sense organs?) reality and changes (Who or what changes? If A, then it can only be A that changes) as it is, K understands karma as law of nature (who or what is K :!: :?: ), Karma (who does the karma? If A, then it can only be A that does the collective karma and suffers), Maya, Perception (who perceives it?), Sense organs (Where did the entire collection of them come from?), She (who or what is she?), Suffers (Who suffers? If A, then it can only be A that suffers; if not; then, as proved, A does not exist), Superior, White etc. etc.

All of the above, again, confirm the precise state of B as described in the proof.

The entire above quoted post contains nothing but the propositions and words in response to the irrefutable proof presented and the severity of discordance experienced from it, which itself confirms what was stated for B in the proof.

No matter how desperate one gets, and in that desperation, attempts to remove the state [A](AND)[NOT A], it stays incontestably verified.

In fact, the more the infinitesimally small fraction (of course, the terribly confused one) of B attempts to remove the discordance experienced from the state of B, the more it confirms the very reality of B as described in the proof, which incontrovertibly renders the Premise A = B as False and the Conclusion that A does not exist.

:) :thumbsup:

pradheep
27th September 2006, 12:20 AM
These sense organs are a medium to perceive and are limited in their perception.

For example, eyes show that the earth is flat and static and sun is rotating. But it is not true.

Then, without relying on the eye organ, what is that knows the Truth that Earth is round and spinning around the sun?.

Rohit
27th September 2006, 01:12 AM
For example, eyes show that the earth is flat and static and sun is rotating. But it is not true.

Then, without relying on the eye organ, what is that knows the Truth that Earth is round and spinning around the sun?
The entire 100% of the above post, again, confirms the precise state of B as described in the proof. The writer of the post him/herself rejects the existence of A. :thumbsup:

The whole of the above quoted post contains nothing but the propositions and words in response to the irrefutable proof reiterated and the severity of discordance experienced from it, which itself confirms what was stated for B in the proof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, it is through the eyes that one perceived the earth as static and the sun rotating around the earth - The Geocentric Perception. At the same time it is only through the eyes that one perceives the earth and the sun as round and subsequently perceives the earth, both spinning on its axis and also orbiting around the sun - The Heliocentric Perception.

Both involve the same process within the irrefutable reality of B - there simply is no escape - and confirm the precise state of B as described in the proof.

Not being able to grasp that Truth, is known as The Egocentric Perception, which only leads the infinitesimally small fraction of B - 'the terribly confused one' - into the vicious sprial of cognitive degeneration, which evidently has already began - all over again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how desperate one gets, and in that desperation, attempts to remove the state [A](AND)[NOT A], it stays incontestably verified.

In fact, the more the infinitesimally small fraction (of course, the terribly confused one) of B attempts to remove the discordance experienced from the state of B, the more it confirms the very reality of B as described in the proof, which incontrovertibly renders the Premise A = B as False and the Conclusion that A does not exist.

:) :thumbsup:

SRS
27th September 2006, 09:41 PM
These sense organs are a medium to perceive and are limited in their perception.

For example, eyes show that the earth is flat and static and sun is rotating. But it is not true.

Then, without relying on the eye organ, what is that knows the Truth that Earth is round and spinning around the sun?.


That is a good point. Very little in the Universe is perceptible to the human senses (without the aid of an instrument). Example: a bat can use sonar to navigate, and a bee can use UV light to see. We can use an instrument to do the same thing for us. But if we did not have the instrument? Then some will say "sonar does not exist" and "UV light does not exist." Of course that is not true. These things exist independant of the instrument and independant of whether the human senses can detect them. It is simply the limitations of the senses. The answer is not necessarily to build bigger and bigger instruments. Example: no instrument can be built to determine the spatial dimensions of the Universe. But still we can assume these dimensions based on mathematical properties. So even with logic, many times our "proof" will have no physical correlation that validates the proof completely.

pradheep
27th September 2006, 11:30 PM
Heliocentric perception of eyes

Heliocentric model was proposed by copernicus and was used with allegories (which you conveniently dislike).

Geocentric perception does not require thinking and imagination (which you conveniently mock as fantasy).

Heliocentric model is more than eye perception, which means sense perceptions are limited.

Dear SRS
Yesterday some one who attended our navarathri golu festival asked me " How can you say we are more than this body mind ego complex and there is a spirit beyond this".

I replied to this fortunately life risking sportsman....."If you are just the ego mind body sense complex you would not dare to do life threatening risky sports. You are that spirit that is immortal, no death aspect and so you transcend the limited ego sense. That transcendence is what that brings you happiness. That sport event is just a tool for transcendence but the happiness is in transcendence.

Similarly observe any happiness moments. They are not in the things. Example my wife served halwa as sweets for golu. I told the friend that even the happiness that one gets by putting the sweet on tongue is trasncendence.

No instruement can define what happiness is and even taste. (brain signals can be quanitified). It is an emotional event but the subtler is the spirit which we call awareness.

And that awareness is what we call as God or super power.

Rohit
28th September 2006, 01:01 AM
Heliocentric model (shapes, objects, size, weights, light, colours, gravitational pull, space-time, motion, rotation, orbiting etc. etc. are nothing but sense perceptions) was proposed by copernicus (who is copernicus anyway to tell allegories - that everything is created by a dynamic G and everything is for real - and to whom?).........
Geocentric perception does not require thinking and imagination. (Must be referring to the Indian Astrology) (Who is imagining and thinking and who contradicts whom?)

Heliocentric model (shapes, objects, size, weights, light, colours, gravitational pull, space-time, motion, rotation, orbiting etc. etc. are nothing but sense perceptions) is more than eye perception, which means sense perceptions are limited. [but the only way to both form (conceive/conceptualise/cognise/theorise) and confirm (verify) the Heliocentric model]
The entire 100% of the above post, again, confirms the precise state of B as described in the proof. The writer of the post him/herself rejects the existence of A - [NOT A] by referring to the empirical realities. :thumbsup:

The whole of the above quoted post (of course, excluding the bold texts I have inserted in the brackets to show the factual reality) contains nothing but the propositions and words in response to the irrefutable proof reiterated and the severity of discordance experienced from it, which itself confirms what was stated for B in the proof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, all cognition is derived within the irrefutable reality of B, whether it is Geocentric or Heliocentric Perceptions (for that matter lying, cheating, frauds, suffering, emotional blackmail, dogmatism, fallacies, imaginary superimpositions, delusions, hallucinations, cognitive degeneration, good, bad, sorrow, moral corruption, wars - including the religious wars, rapes, terrorism and such like evils - thinking and behaviours - etc. etc........... which are heedlessly denied - [NOT A])

All involve the same process- the cognitive process- within the irrefutable reality of B - there simply is no escape - and confirm the precise state of B as described in the proof.

Not being able to grasp that Truth, is known as Egocentric Perception, which only leads the infinitesimally small fraction of B - 'the terribly confused one' - into the vicious sprial of cognitive degeneration, which evidently is collectively set in the motion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how desperate one gets, and in that desperation, attempts to remove the state [A](AND)[NOT A], it stays incontestably verified.

In fact, the more the infinitesimally small fraction (of course, the terribly confused one) of B attempts to remove the discordance experienced from the state of B, the more it confirms the very reality of B as described in the proof, which incontrovertibly renders the Premise A = B as False and the Conclusion that A does not exist.

:) :thumbsup:

SRS
28th September 2006, 04:14 AM
Yes Pradheep, I am in agreement with you. Only when people seek a purpose beyond themselves can they experience the atman. One cannot quantify this experience for the same reasons that one cannot quanitfy the meaning of consciousness except in the most superficial terms: the brain cells (neurons) are send an electric pulse to the other cells. The problem with this explanation is that it only accounts for the physical manifestation. One can make the lightbulb light with sufficient voltage and a wire. But will the lightbulb talk? Will the lightbulb sing, dance, cry, and experience the other emotions that characterize the human experience? So clearly consciousness is more than the physical process that we take for granted. Another way of saying, life is a miracle, not a robotic process.

Rohit
28th September 2006, 04:29 AM
The entire 100% of the above post, again, confirms the precise state of B as described in the proof. The writer of the post him/herself rejects the existence of A - [NOT A] by referring to the empirical realities. :thumbsup:

The whole of the above post contains nothing but the propositions and words in response to the irrefutable proof reiterated and the severity of discordance experienced from it, which itself confirms what was stated for B in the proof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, all cognition is derived within the irrefutable reality of B - (for that matter lying, cheating, frauds, suffering, emotional blackmail, dogmatism, fallacies, imaginary superimpositions, delusions, hallucinations, cognitive degeneration, good, bad, sorrow, moral corruption, wars - including the religious wars, rapes, terrorism and such like evils - thinking and behaviours - etc. etc........... which are heedlessly denied - [NOT A])

All involve the same process- the cognitive process- within the irrefutable reality of B - there simply is no escape - and confirm the precise state of B as described in the proof.

Not being able to grasp that Truth, is known as Egocentric Perception, which only leads the infinitesimally small fraction of B - 'the terribly confused one' - into the vicious sprial of cognitive degeneration, which evidently is collectively set in the motion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how desperate one gets, and in that desperation, attempts to remove the state [A](AND)[NOT A], it stays incontestably verified.

In fact, the more the infinitesimally small fraction (of course, the terribly confused one) of B attempts to remove the discordance experienced from the state of B, the more it confirms the very reality of B as described in the proof, which incontrovertibly renders the Premise A = B as False and the Conclusion that A does not exist.

:) :thumbsup:

Badri
28th September 2006, 06:25 AM
Guys, guys...you are slipping again! :lol:

Rohit
28th September 2006, 12:55 PM
Thanks Badri for stepping in. :D :thumbsup:

pradheep
28th September 2006, 08:53 PM
it only accounts for the physical manifestation
Dear SRS
In continuation with our discussions on yesterday navarathri night, I was asked about "the moment" of my realization of the Truth.

I said just ponder on this physical manifestation. If i analyze my body they are just made of chemcials. These chemcials are made of atoms. The atoms are void and so where is this physcial manifestation?.

That was "the" moment of my ego trasncendence. But the ego came back as soon as "I" "My" thought came back.

One understands that everything is void but not that consciousness that sustains all this voidness.

Rohit
29th September 2006, 02:57 AM
Definition of Transcendence: Beyond the limits of any possible experience

"The moment", analyse, as soon as, atoms, body, came back, chemicals, consciousness, continuation, discussions, ego, I, made, manifestation, my, navarathri, night, physical, ponder, realisation, thought, transcendence, truth, yesterday.

All of the above are the words and concepts that are derived from empirical experiences within the irrefutable reality of B.

All these words, concepts and the associated descriptive texts have no meanings whatsoever without going through empirical experiences. The true definition of transcendence is beyond the limits of any possible experience; and the experience of momentary calming of mind is no transcendence, simply because it still is an experience of some description within space-time, which is empirical. The true transcendence is not to just transcend the objective experiences but also to transcend the subjective experiences within the boundaries of space-time

When one can conceive of such a transcendental condition, it is equated to nothing, devoid of all consciousness, devoid of all possible experiences - empty, void
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only one person in the entire world could first realise such transcendental Truth of complete emptiness, void, known by the entire world as Nirvana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was "the" moment of my ego transcendence.
This precisely shows there is no arising of consciousness without conditions (the 'moments' of thoughts of conditioning the mind for an experience of trance). It also evidently proves how transitory/momentary the state of consciousness is. It just goes like that in a "moment". In fact, the quantas of the envelops/profiles of such consciousness-transitions are the next fastest thing to the speed of light, simply because they arise due to conditions, like neuronal firing in the brain, like heat of firebrand. Nothing whatsoever stays permanent, everything in the entire world is subject to change without exception. Such is the irrefutable reality of the occurrences of transitory events within B - devoid of any permanent reality.


But the ego came back as soon as "I" "My" thought came back.
See, soon it proves it all over again; nothing stays permanent, but soon transmutes one into Egocentric experience. Again, there is no arising of Egocentric consciousness without conditions (i.e. the thought of 'I' , some desires, or whatever one can attribute it to; and then suffer)

In nutshell, both experiences are conditioned by the cognition of what conditioned experiences feel like. Nonetheless, such conditioned experiences generate nothing but contradictory outcomes [A (AND) NOT A], as it evidently does in such instances.

Nevertheless, all these happen only within the irrefutable reality of B as stated in the proof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All cognition is derived within the irrefutable reality of B - (for that matter lying, cheating, frauds, suffering, emotional blackmail, dogmatism, fallacies, imaginary superimpositions, delusions, illusions, hallucinations, cognitive degeneration, good, bad, sorrow, moral corruption, wars - including the religious wars, rapes, terrorism and such like evils - thinking and behaviours - etc. etc........... which are heedlessly denied - [NOT A])

All involve the same process- the cognitive process- within the irrefutable reality of B - there simply is no escape - and confirm the precise state of B as described in the proof.

Not being able to grasp that Truth, is known as Egocentric Perception, which only leads the infinitesimally small fraction of B - 'the terribly confused one' - into the vicious sprial of cognitive degeneration, which evidently is collectively set in the motion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No matter how desperate one gets, and in that desperation, attempts to remove the state [A](AND)[NOT A], it stays incontestably verified.

In fact, the more the infinitesimally small fraction (of course, the terribly confused one) of B attempts to remove the discordance experienced from the state of B, the more it confirms the very reality of B as described in the proof, which incontrovertibly renders the Premise A = B as False and the Conclusion that A does not exist.

:) :thumbsup:

SRS
29th September 2006, 12:35 PM
it only accounts for the physical manifestation
Dear SRS
In continuation with our discussions on yesterday navarathri night, I was asked about "the moment" of my realization of the Truth.

I said just ponder on this physical manifestation. If i analyze my body they are just made of chemcials. These chemcials are made of atoms. The atoms are void and so where is this physcial manifestation?.

That was "the" moment of my ego trasncendence. But the ego came back as soon as "I" "My" thought came back.

One understands that everything is void but not that consciousness that sustains all this voidness.

All is void - how do we know? I like to think, because consciousness is the life-giver. Now it is interesting; men have tried to imitate the most obvious aspect of consciousness - intelligence. By telling a computer to do this and that, input and output. In terms of signal processing, the computer is somewhat similar to the human brain. The signals are both based on electric current, except that in the computer's case, this current will take the form of 1's and 0's and the current is derived from different ions than sodium/potassium. BUT, the biggest difference is clear: the computer is not really "intelligent" at all; it simply executes some task according to the given set of instructions. The computer is less intelligent than a DOG that knows to run to its master when he comes home from work everyday. And why is this? Because you cannot make a computer conscious. So the next question becomes, where does this miracle of consciousness come from? We know it is not in the current that powers the signal processing of the brain. Because, like I have said already, the same current does not make our appliances laugh or sing or dance. The only explanation is "God."

pradheep
29th September 2006, 08:23 PM
[tscii:b9f9520ae3]
where does this miracle of consciousness come from?

There is only consciousness always. The whole universe is of the Consciousness, by the consciousness and for the consciousness.
This consciousness is in everything without any judgements. It is even everything and there is not anything that is without this consciousness.

This is why in navarathri we chant devi shothram which says "sarva bhootheshu , devi namosthuthe", which means the consciousness is in everything, bhootas means forms.

But why only some objects have chetana (awareness) and not others?.

Dear SRS, if we cannot differentiate awareness from Consciousness we will miss the whole point.

So a computer dog human being is all only consciousness in forms (sakthi), but a dog a human being only has chetana or awareness (shiva) for a limited amount of time as long as the sakthi supports it. As soon as the sakthi dismantles the shiva becomes shava, the awareness is lost. This is what we call as death.


Hope you can recollect my old posts. A stone cannot reflect anything (a-chetana) , but when polished can reflect (chetana). similarly all chemicals are a-chetana (no-awareness, but has consciousness) , but when put together, manifest chetana.

Chetana objects have different levels , which we call highly eveolved and lowly evolved. The bacteria has chetana at low level, whereas human being has the highest chetana level.

The chetana then manifest as thoughts. There are different thoughts and the primal thought being Ego thought, which means "I" am this body sense complex. This Ego is in every chetana beings (no such for non-living beings). It deepens in the evolutionary ladder of the beings from virus bacteria to the human.

In Human then we have maximum thoughts stemmed from the deepened attachment to the Ego.

So upon getting chetana (awareness) the "I" or ego -dualism sets in naturally. Like shadows form naturally in presence of sun.

This ego is then merely interested in its own survivial. It then does not allow to proceed to the highest chetana level which is nothing but pure Consciousness.

Ego is merely a thought. It is like some one whom we elect to serve us, like a politician. Once he gets the position then he is interested in his survival only. Then he makes sure that no one revolts against him. He is ruthless in his behavior. he will brain wash every one to keep his position secure.

We see this aspect in ourselves. People who negate and disprove all these facts are like the tyrinical politician. I know my own Ego, it always tries to disprove the Truth. (This is why I say I am Rohit and Rohit is in me). No offense to you Rohit. I see my Ego manifest as rape, robeery, adultery and all sorts of negative things. My Ego wants to do Rape, bank looting, murder terrrorism etc etc.

So the one thought which i allowed to take care of the body finally ends up in a autocratic rule. There is no democracy. Now I fight for this freedom. Freedom or Nirvana from what?. From the autocratic rule of this Ego.

All that I talked about Consciousness , Ego etc etc is the symbolic representation of the great Epic Mahabaratha.


The saints, self realized saints have the highest chetana level, that they can transcend to Pure Consciosuness. How do they get it. By transcending Ego, the "I" thought. This requires some steps and are beautifully summarized in the form of rituals to advaitic non-dualistic worship, the shoda-sakshari pooja.


We are all fighting for our inner freedom , but we do not know that and the Ego cunningly diverts our attention to materialistic and sense pleasure seeking activities. Like our politicians that do things to divert the people’s attention. Ego is no different from that.

What I am doing is that I am fighting for my inner freedom. This freedom Is Moksha, Nirvana. Everyone one of us will get moksha or Nirvana , because freedom is our birth right.

So yesterday In Navarathri Pooja I was aksed why I do all these ritualistic meaningless pooja worshipping a stone and a metal statue. I said these are the means to get freedom, the inner liberation. I want to get liberated from the clutches of Ego.

For me Indian independence represent that. Mahatma Gandhi had this vision that is why for him the independence struggle was his own inner fight for his inner freedom. That is why when his body was wounded he uttered Hey Ram and did not bother of this body. He has transcended his Ego, he has become Mahatma.

One of my friend who always listens to my talk asked me that I am contradicting my statements. While doing rituals and pooja I talk of God and Atma and then on Saturday Satsangs I say there is no God and Atma. What is this?.

I said this is what Buddha also meant, but people misunderstood. There is no God and no Atma that is anywhere outside, all these are only concepts. Buddha focused on only the inner freedom or Nirvana, because what matters is only that. For that he gave the steps all the eight fold path etc.

Rishis and people like Rama and krishna have attained this inner freedom, but for people at different stages they have taught it for the mind to grasp it. There are stages from A to z. The Vedas start from A and end in advaita Vedanta the Z state. Buddha has self realized the Z state but he taught only the Y state because the people around him was ready only for that.

I see all these in my own experience and that is why for different state of mind I give different stages of knowledge.
[/tscii:b9f9520ae3]

pradheep
29th September 2006, 08:23 PM
[tscii:32068169d0]
My friend last night asked me who creates this Ego and who liberates.

This is a multi million dollar question. If one knows the answer they got it.

No one can answer this only has to experience it one self.

But I can give a wonderful incident that will help you to understand the above question.

When our son was few months old, one day all of a sudden he cried. We tried to pacify him and could not find anything wrong, until later we found that he would clasp his fingers and some times clasp his own hair. He would pull his hair and then cry out of pain. He thinks the pain some one else created but the truth is that it is self created. He has hands and hair and so used both and created pain. Now how to overcome it?. He himself has to liberate meaning let lose his hands off the hair. Initially we tried to open his fingers to let lose his hair, but out of pain he would clasp it more firmly.

This is how Ego is. No one creates it. It is self created and the liberation cannot be given by any one. We give our own freedom. This is what the great Vedic culture’s aim of life- the inner freedom, Moksha is the ultimate aim of life.


[/tscii:32068169d0]

Rohit
30th September 2006, 02:26 AM
There is only consciousness always. The whole universe is of the Consciousness, by the consciousness and for the consciousness.

This consciousness is in everything without any judgements. It is even everything and there is not anything that is without this consciousness.
The above two statements are nothing but an utterly desperate attempt by an Egocentric who couldn't let go his/her Ego of holding onto Advaita, which is nothing but Buddhism in disguise, which I have unequivocally proved earlier without any reasonable doubt with sufficient evidences.

An incontestable refutation of the above quoted statements had been clearly stated by Buddha himself that: There is no arising of Consciousness without conditions. Therefore all forms and levels of consciousness are caused by other conditions and factors

It was clearly shown how transitory/momentary the nature of all consciousness is. No consciousness stays permanent. Everything in the entire world whether alive or dead is subject to change without exception; and that is an irrefutable reality of the occurrences of transitory events within B and it is absolutely devoid of any permanent reality.

As it is clearly noticeable by everyone with some intellect, there are varying levels of consciousness. As rightly said, humans have higher level, but it is indeed one of the varying levels of consciousness, which is conveniently expressed in terms of levels of awareness. This varying level of consciousness/awareness combination itself is an indication of the direct trend of diminishing consciousness; and there is no way whatsoever to prove it otherwise, except to make some Egocentric statements as quoted above to cling onto some baseless Egocentric beliefs.

Buddha realised all 0 to 9 levels (with 0 = Soonya --> Complete Emptiness --> Void as the Ultimate Transcendental Truth) while the Egocentric Advaitins and Vedantins took 1 to 9 levels form Buddha’s teachings and discarded level 0 just to satisfy their Egocentric beliefs.

Also the state [A (AND) NOT A] = 0 = Soonya --> Complete Emptiness --> Void just proves that Ultimate Truth.

1) There is no arising of Consciousness without conditions.
2) The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

The above two proven conditions are sufficient to prove that consciousness is just an effect and not the cause and it is not permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of Transcendence: Beyond the limits of any possible experience

Transcendental truths can never be experienced or witnessed, but only realised by Intellectual Transcendence without experiencing or witnessing them. For example, whatever happened in the long past, no one could possibly experience or witness it now. The events have long gone, but they leave behind their history, which allows one to intellectually travel back in time (Intellectual Transcendence) without experiencing or witnessing the actual event and succeed in finding the exact Truth.

When one could conceive of such a transcendental condition for B, it direcly equated to devoid of all consciouness, devoid of all awareness, devoid of all possible experiences.

Only one person in the entire world, Buddha could first realise the Ultimate Transcendental Truth of Soonya--> Complete emptiness --> Void, known by the entire world as Nirvana.

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

In nutshell, everything is conditioned by mutual conditioning and the cognition of what conditioned experiences feel like. Nonetheless, all such conditioned situations generate nothing but contradictory outcomes [A (AND) NOT A], as it evidently does.

Nevertheless, all these happen only within the irrefutable reality of B as stated in the proof.

All involve the same process- the cognitive process - within the irrefutable reality of B = [NOT A] - there simply is no escape - and confirm the precise state of B as described in the proof.

Not being able to grasp that Truth, is known as Egocentric Perception, which only leads the infinitesimally small fraction of B - 'the terribly confused one' - into the vicious sprial of cognitive degeneration, which evidently is collectively set in the motion.

No matter how desperate one gets, and in that desperation, attempts to remove the state [A](AND)[NOT A], it stays incontestably verified.

In fact, the more the infinitesimally small fraction (of course, the terribly confused one) of B attempts to remove the discordance experienced from the state of B, the more it confirms the very reality of B as described in the proof, which incontrovertibly renders the Premise A = B as False and the Conclusion that A does not exist.

:) :thumbsup:

Shakthiprabha.
2nd October 2006, 09:20 PM
Rohit,

Can u suggest any books or give links on
buddist teaching, where buddha says about this level 0 or soonya or complete emptiness?

How much of it was his own words? how much of it were DERIVED OR UNDERSTOOD / GIVEN SHAPE by the followers or others?

Rohit
3rd October 2006, 01:46 AM
Can u suggest any books or give links on buddist teaching, where buddha says about this level 0 or soonya or complete emptiness (Void)?
I have discussed this issue at length in the thread "Understanding "I" - Vedanta"
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=4467&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Rather than giving references to the Buddhist texts, I would rather prefer to give those references from authoritative Hindu texts, which may be more acceptable to those readers who may be reluctant otherwise.

Gaudapada and Adi Sankara (The original propounders of Advaita) themselves have asserted Buddhist Void would be the Ultimate Reality, while describing the the fourth quarter which attempts to establish the Ulimate Reality:

Below I am posting what Sankara himself says in his commentary on Gaudapada's Karika on Mandukya Upanishad.

From Reference #1:

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.

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

From Reference #2:

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 (Void).

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

From Reference #3:

Ramanuja goes quite at length in refuting the Advaitic world-view with very sound arguments and then categorically rejects Gaudapada's/Adi Sankara's Advaita as False

Ramanuja, the propounder of Qualified Advaita also asserts Buddhist's Void would be the Ultimate Reality while refuting Gaudapada's/Adi Sankara's Advaita.

This is what Ramanuja says:

It is also not true that Brahman cannot have any subsequent sublating knowledge. For it is sublated by the Void of the Buddhists. If such a knowledge of Void be said to be based on error, so is the knowledge of Brahman based on the unreal scriptures. Between Brahman and the Void, it is the latter alone that has nothing, which can sublate it, and so if reality depends on the absence of anything else that can sublate it, then the Void is the reality and not Brahman.

Reference Source#3:
Page 46 -Brahma Sutra, According to Sri-Bhasya of Sri Ramanuja
Translated by Swami Vireswarananad and Swami Adidevananda
Advaita Ashrama
5 Delhi Entally Road
Calcutta
700014

I hope this would be sufficient to answer your query. If you want to know more about Buddha's original teachings, then, I believe, finding such materials in India would be extemely difficult; and you must know why.

:) :thumbsup:

SRS
4th October 2006, 12:26 AM
[tscii:ca5b7fb6f0]
My friend last night asked me who creates this Ego and who liberates.

This is a multi million dollar question. If one knows the answer they got it.

No one can answer this only has to experience it one self.

But I can give a wonderful incident that will help you to understand the above question.

When our son was few months old, one day all of a sudden he cried. We tried to pacify him and could not find anything wrong, until later we found that he would clasp his fingers and some times clasp his own hair. He would pull his hair and then cry out of pain. He thinks the pain some one else created but the truth is that it is self created. He has hands and hair and so used both and created pain. Now how to overcome it?. He himself has to liberate meaning let lose his hands off the hair. Initially we tried to open his fingers to let lose his hair, but out of pain he would clasp it more firmly.

This is how Ego is. No one creates it. It is self created and the liberation cannot be given by any one. We give our own freedom. This is what the great Vedic culture’s aim of life- the inner freedom, Moksha is the ultimate aim of life.


[/tscii:ca5b7fb6f0]

Good example, Pradheep. Now what you seem to be saying, is that liberation from the ego is the first step toward self-awareness. What do you think are the reasons for the ego to exist at all? Because if we look at evolution (whether the scientific evolution or the avatarams of MahaVishnu, they are essentially the same), it seems man has evolved in physical and mental capabilities. However, none will deny he has not outgrown his ego. So I am guessing ego may have something to do with the rebirth process. If that is the case, how responsible is one for what he may experience?

Rohit
4th October 2006, 12:35 AM
Every child in the entire world is conceived with none whatsoever concept or idea and born with none whatsoever cognition, the question of any beliefs in anything doesn't arise at all. All concepts, ideas, beliefs, cognition in general; are evolved over the time, which are, then flushed into the minds of next generations as time moves on, which is essentially the rebirth of mind - the cognitive process. The process is exactly like lighting a new candle with the one, which has almost burnt its fuel reserve and is about to extinguish. This is the precise phase of evolution of every "to be terribly confused", and it takes one to go through a little bit of intellectual analysis to get rid off the fallacies from the hotchpotch of multifarious cognition and then discern the actual reality as it is. However, only a few can do such a thorough intellectual analysis and come out of the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration. That is all there is to it nothing more, nothing less.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taller (long lasting) and thicker (intellectually challenged) the candle, larger and darker would be the shadow (of the burning candle itself) at the base of the candle. The shadow (Egocentric beliefs) disappears as soon as the candle burns all its fuel and extinguishes the flame (of desires and attachments to the Egocentric and fallacious beliefs of the Atman/Self - which is the cause of all suffering)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:D :thumbsup:

pradheep
4th October 2006, 02:31 AM
Gaudapada and Adi Sankara (The original propounders of Advaita) themselves have asserted Buddhist Void would be the Ultimate Reality,

Good Rohit
I am glad that finally you accepted that Gaudapada and Adi Sankara have asserted the "Void" that Buddha has revealed, which means all the three talk the same.

pradheep
4th October 2006, 02:38 AM
What do you think are the reasons for the ego to exist at all?

Dear SRS
The Mind makes it real. As long as the "I" feeling exist ego exist and the ego is the "I" feeling. in the ego trasncended states you realize there exist nothing, only pure conciousness, which religious people call as God, Advaitins call as brahman, Buddhist call soonya, shakthas call energy or Sakthi and so on.



So I am guessing ego may have something to do with the rebirth process. If that is the case, how responsible is one for what he may experience?

Yes the "I" or Ego desires and it is endless. And so one life time is not enough and so takes many life times to fullfill that until to learn that this desires are endless and finally takes an inward to look and realize that one own real nature is not this desiring Ego, but the poornam - Self, which has no wants.

Rohit
4th October 2006, 03:00 AM
Good Rohit
I am glad that finally you accepted that Gaudapada and Adi Sankara have asserted the "Void" that Buddha has revealed, which means all the three talk the same. The above acknowledgement is definitely form the one who is terribly confused Egocentric; and I can clearly sense it from the embedded feelings of sever dissonance in it.

Anyway, I have been saying about the Ultimate Reality of Void for a long time (Viod/Soonya(0) - The undiminishing negation of everything, which includes that of God/Brahman/Atman/Self), the only problem was, poor - the terribly confused Buddhist was deep asleep and have just woken up now to notice it. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:D :thumbsup:

pradheep
4th October 2006, 04:05 AM
confused Egocentric and the terribly confused Buddhist

Dear Rohit
A confused Egocentric and the terribly confused Buddhist can recognize the similar one.

Rohit
4th October 2006, 04:22 AM
The confused Egocentrics who are 'terribly confused Buddhist' too, are evidently trapped in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration; and therefore, are incapable of grasping the Transcendental Truth of Void - The Ultimate Transcendental Reality, which can never be experienced or witnessed, but only realised by Intellectual Transcendence.

:D :thumbsup:

pradheep
4th October 2006, 04:29 AM
Intellectual Transcendence
Intellect is also limited in perception and so it has to be also transcended. You are correct my friend. When intellect is transcended there is "nothing" and nothing comes out nothing. We are now sinking in the "same" nothingness.
Just Loving and enjoying your company.

Rohit
4th October 2006, 04:46 AM
We are now sinking in the "same" nothingness. = [A (AND) NOT A]
That is the real test of realising the Ultimate Transcendental Truth, the Ultimate Reality of Void/Soonya/Complete Emptiness --> [A (AND) NOT A]. Whatever one cannot transcend, must be transcended to realise the Ultimate Truth. If one remains incapable of grasping that for whatever Egocentric reasons, he/she remains trapped in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration, as you evidently always do, I am afraid.

:) :thumbsup:

pradheep
4th October 2006, 05:12 AM
Ultimate Transcendental Truth, the Ultimate Reality of Void/Soonya/Complete Emptiness

Yes yes we are both empty intellects and so it is very easy to transcend to emptiness, since emptiness transcendence to emptiness and emptiness alone remains.

We can both now chant this great mantra

From emptiness comes emptiness
and from emptiness emptiness is created emptiness only remains and when emptiness transcends empty intellectual emptiness then emptiness only remians and when emptiness is taken out of emptiness only emptiness remains and whole thing is emptiness.

Rohit
4th October 2006, 05:35 AM
"Chanting of a great mantra"

Alternatively I can suggest you even a greater mantra for you to chant, which is A is Created by a Dynamic God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam; if that helps you to transcend whatever you are unable to transcend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, poor Pradheep - the terribly confused Buddhist remains completely incapable of grasping the absolute reality of the state [A (AND) NOT A)], which incontrovertibly renders the Premise A = B as False and the Conclusion that A does not exist. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What a pity!

:lol: :D :) :| :thumbsup:

pradheep
4th October 2006, 05:58 AM
my dear Rohit
A is Created by a Dynamic God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

When everything is emptiness does it matter if there is a dynamic God or not. How can there be confusion in emptiness.

So Rohit we are both in emptiness and my confusion is empty confusion and your intelelct is empty intellect.

If R = intellect = zero
and
P = confusion = Zero

then R = P = Zero

therefore R = P

Does this maths atleast makes senses in emptiness?

Rohit
4th October 2006, 06:06 AM
my dear Rohit
A is Created by a Dynamic God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

When everything is emptiness does it matter if there is a dynamic God or not. How can there be confusion in emptiness.

So Rohit we are both in emptiness and my confusion is empty confusion and your intelelct is empty intellect.

If R = intellect = zero
and
P = confusion = Zero

then R = P = Zero

therefore R = P

Does this maths atleast makes senses in emptiness?

+1 - 1 = 0 and [A (AND) NOT A] do make a lot of sense.

Anyway, only for you my friend, the above frustration is Created by the Dynamic God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. So please don't worry too much, you may be liberated one day - have trust in 'the' God.

:) :thumbsup:

avii
4th October 2006, 07:47 AM
the great guru sri RAMAKRISHNA once said that one should not waste time looking for answers to questions on god and spirituality , but only concentrate on loving god . when one first sees a true friend after a long while , one just wants to hug that friend at that point , not wanting to know what that friend has or where he have been , but just to embrace that friend. in the same way sri ramakrishna teaches us that maya is so powerfull that even seeking knowledge about god can distract us from swimming in love for the divine mother

Rohit
4th October 2006, 01:03 PM
that maya(vada) is so powerfull.................
Does the fact [Advaita took levels 1 to 9 from Buddha's teachings of all levels 0 to 9 i.e. Advaita is nothing but Buddhism in disguise] proved earlier need proving again? No, I don't think so.

:) :thumbsup:

pradheep
4th October 2006, 05:50 PM
So please don't worry too much, you may be liberated one day - have trust in 'the' God.

In emptiness what has to be liberated from what. Already everything is Nirvana (naked - Empty) then what has emptiness to do with liberation?.


Advaita is nothing but Buddhism in disguise

Advaita is emptiness and Buddhism is emptiness and disguise is also emptiness.

Dear Rohit since everything is only soonya (empty) and there is nothing "Real" we will continue fill up more "Empty" spaces in forumhub empty spaces.

Dear Badri
Dont be embrassed two empty vessels (soonya-vessels) make more noise.[/code]

pradheep
4th October 2006, 06:09 PM
There is no arising of Consciousness without conditions. The one, who transcends the Consciousness of the Atman/Self, attains perfect liberation from the vicious cycle of cognitive degeneration.

In emptiness what will arise other than emptiness?. In emptiness what is there to transcend and what is there to liberate. There is no degeneration. How can emptiness degenerate?

kannannn
4th October 2006, 10:16 PM
Was browsing through the 'Horizon' website of BBC and was delighted to find Feynman's interview. He talks about doubts and uncertainty and what they mean to him. His views are very much pertinent to this thread and thought I'd post them. You can browse through the clips here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/feynman/

A brief quote from his interview:

I can live without uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than have answers that might be wrong. .. there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask, 'why we are here?'..if I can't figure it out I move to something else. I don't have to know an answer, I don't feel frightened by not knowing things- by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me.
The sentences in bold sum up best, why all the discussions about afterlife are futile.

pradheep
4th October 2006, 10:41 PM
why all the discussions about afterlife are futile.
Dear Kannan
Thanks. We are not discussing after life, but the present life (we may touch after life too).

kannannn
4th October 2006, 10:56 PM
We are not discussing after life, but the present life (we may touch after life too).
I am sure you will, 'cos all these discussions on conciousness and eternal truth have no meaning when they don't lead to discussions on afterlife. So, negating the possibity of any discussions on aftelife negates the discussions on conciousness and ego too. Anyway, everything falls over itself to create a circle, when we discuss the meaning of our existence.

Rohit
5th October 2006, 01:28 AM
How can emptiness degenerate?
When everything evolves into B AND NOT A - The absolute evolution. And one has to realise that Ultimate Reality of Emptiness i.e. devoid of any permanent reality like Atman/Self, through Intellectual Transcendence only after one has attained the evolved state in B.

The condition [A (AND) NOT A] itself incontrovertibly renders B = NOT A, which then straightaway concludes B = B and A does not exist.

The situation perfectly explains why the state [A (AND) NOT A] and B = NOT A keeps you in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration; simply because you cannot Transcend your absolutely baseless Egocentric beliefs, which is nothing but the degeneration of the absolute reality of Emptiness - Void i.e. devoid of any permanent reality like Atman/Self.


:D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep
5th October 2006, 02:36 AM
degeneration of the absolute reality of Emptiness

Emptiness talks about " degeneration of the absolute reality of Emptiness" - Hilarious Emptiness.

Rohit
5th October 2006, 02:53 AM
How can emptiness degenerate?
Hilarious Emptiness
When everything evolves into B AND NOT A - The absolute evolution. And one has to realise the Ultimate Reality of B that is devoid of any permanent reality like Atman/Self, through Intellectual Transcendence only after one has attained the evolved state in B.

The condition [A (AND) NOT A] itself incontrovertibly renders B = NOT A, which then straightaway concludes B = B and A does not exist.

The situation perfectly explains why the state [A (AND) NOT A] and B = NOT A keeps you in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration; simply because you cannot Transcend your absolutely baseless Egocentric beliefs, which is nothing but the degeneration of the absolute reality of B that is devoid of any permanent reality like Atman/Self.

:D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep
5th October 2006, 03:26 AM
In Emptiness,
the same emptiness keeps echoing. Continue your echoing.

Rohit
5th October 2006, 03:29 AM
How can emptiness degenerate?
Hilarious Emptiness
the same emptiness keeps echoing :lol: :lol:
When everything evolves into B AND NOT A - The absolute evolution. And one has to realise the Ultimate Reality of B that is devoid of any permanent reality like Atman/Self, through Intellectual Transcendence only after one has attained the evolved state in B.

The condition [A (AND) NOT A] itself incontrovertibly renders B = NOT A, which then straightaway concludes B = B and A does not exist.

The situation perfectly explains why the state [A (AND) NOT A] and B = NOT A keeps you in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration; simply because you cannot Transcend your absolutely baseless Egocentric beliefs, which is nothing but the degeneration of the absolute reality of B that is devoid of any permanent reality like Atman/Self.

:D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep
5th October 2006, 03:43 AM
R = emptiness = zero = vicious cycle of emptiness=R

Rohit
5th October 2006, 03:48 AM
How can emptiness degenerate?
Hilarious Emptiness
the same emptiness keeps echoing
cycle :lol: :lol:
When everything evolves into B AND NOT A - The absolute evolution. And one has to realise the Ultimate Reality of B that is devoid of any permanent reality like Atman/Self, through Intellectual Transcendence only after one has attained the evolved state in B.

The condition [A (AND) NOT A] itself incontrovertibly renders B = NOT A, which then straightaway concludes B = B and A does not exist.

The situation perfectly explains why the state [A (AND) NOT A] and B = NOT A keeps you in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration; simply because you cannot Transcend your absolutely baseless Egocentric beliefs, which is nothing but the degeneration of the absolute reality of B that is devoid of any permanent reality like Atman/Self.

:D :) :thumbsup:

SRS
5th October 2006, 08:31 AM
Was browsing through the 'Horizon' website of BBC and was delighted to find Feynman's interview. He talks about doubts and uncertainty and what they mean to him. His views are very much pertinent to this thread and thought I'd post them. You can browse through the clips here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/feynman/

A brief quote from his interview:

I can live without uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than have answers that might be wrong. .. there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask, 'why we are here?'..if I can't figure it out I move to something else. I don't have to know an answer, I don't feel frightened by not knowing things- by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me.
The sentences in bold sum up best, why all the discussions about afterlife are futile.

He (Feynman) wants answers to questions of the Universe that are testable by scientific experiment. That is his method of assessing whether a theory is correct. He does not explicitly reject metaphysics, he simply does not wish to indulge in abstraction; he prefers the practical side of things. His opinion of mathematics is similar; he only saw value in the practical aspect (what was relevent to physics). But that does not make the abstract end of mathematics any less valuable.

pradheep
5th October 2006, 09:15 AM
Dear Sakthi prabha
Though your question was to Rohit, I like to give you the quote from the very book with corrct reference to avoid misleading information.

Manduka Upanishad by Swami Nikhilananda 1995 sixth edition
page xix second line (I am having the book in front of me while typing the lines)

pearl. Sankara aptly criticises the position of the Buddhist nihilists as lacking intelligence, for they , in spite of the very fact of cognition and experience, describe everything, including thier own experience, as mere void. Therefore the Ultimate Reality is not a void or a negation. Without a positive Reality we cannot affirm our empirical experience. But this affirmation is not a co-relative of negation. Our relative experiences have the dual predicates of affirmation and negation. The ultimate Reality is free from affirmation and negation, theinevitable characterisitcs of the relative.

I hope Sakthi Prabha have understood how there is a difference in the view of Buddhist and Advaitins about the reality of this world. The Buddhist say everything is void - empty and "unreal", including themselves.

Advaitins says that there is one "Reality" alone and all that is seen different from the reality is unreal. Moreover the advaitin uses all three states of experiences, the waking, dreaming and the deep sleep state. The book no where states Thuriya as a state. It is not a state.

Dear SRS
It is thus more holistic than in Modern science which takes into consideration of the waking state only.

It is like the modern science fragmented approach of treating a disease of only tyhe right eye without consdiering the left eye. We should take all the states into account while giving a conclusion.

SRS
6th October 2006, 01:19 AM
It is like the modern science fragmented approach of treating a disease of only tyhe right eye without consdiering the left eye. We should take all the states into account while giving a conclusion.

Dear Pradheep,

I think Vedanta and modern science have reached the same conclusions. The methods are different, the objective is the same. Unfortunately, there are those who choose to base their judgements on the methods alone, and thus see a distinction between the two, even though the end result is the same. But mostly I say this, because both modern science and Vedanta affirm that the reality we percieve with our senses is maya, and tell us to look beyond the reality. Here is what one of the great scientists (one of the founders of Quantum Theory) says:

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist."

(Erwin Schrodinger on Quantum Wave Mechanics)

pradheep
6th October 2006, 02:50 AM
Dear Srs
that was a wonderful quote. I would like to discuss with you what modern science has not even thought of. This we missed long back. I have difficultly in writing this. Yet let me try and be able to convey to you.

Our whole body is only chemicals and each of them made up of electrons spinning around with a tremendous speed. so when a reaction is taking at a gross level, what is at the subtle quantum level?. is there any change at quantum level?.

Swami Ram Tirtha in 1906 (100 years back ) gave the beautiful explanation that at the quantum level, it is the consciousness meeting consciousness (not literally). when eye's sees a flower, all the biochemcials reacitons occur but what really happens at quantum level is that consciousness sees only consciousness.

This is a very hard fact to appreciate. The Ego (not the literally taken ego, but the body sense complex) is only interested at the gross level because it itself is only gross and not subtle.

SRS am I making myself clear to grasp.

in the Manduka Upanishad Swamiji clearly talks about Prog.Gupta das who said Sankara is Buddhism in disguise. Swami refutes Gupta das saying that it is not correct. Buddhism says everything is soonya and void. Wheareas sanakara says there is One reality and anything that sees as gross is only Void. This is how Advaita is more acceptable than any other philosophy and how Sanakara was able to completely over throw Buddhist philosophy. Next Ramanjua and Madhva talked against advaita because they were talking only at the gross level and not at the quantum level. As earlier I wrote about Advaita, vishit and dwaita as Hanuman's answer to his relation to Lord Rama. At gross level both are different but at subtle level they are both one. So Madhva and Ramanuja's points were based on the body of Hanuman and showed they are two different, but at subtle level they are one and that is what Advaita talks about.

This is why still advaita stands unshakeable and it can embrace all world philosophies at its lower levels. Based on Advaita I can also understand and appreciate all world philosophy at its level. Like standing on a higher plane one can get a bird's eye view, Advaitic view gives the Eagle's eye view of the whole universe.