American Politics (continued from the 'If Outsourcing.....' thread

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

.....[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"T[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]here can only be one God... one entity. God and souls atmans always coexist. One can never exist in the absence of the other. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Right from the beginning of the cosmos. when Almighty God explodes himself with a big bang... and until the dissolution of cosmos aka Pralaya. this non dual characteristic of God Almighty remains intact.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[/FONT]

suresoo, for one thing this is just religious dogma, why should this be believed to be any more valid than so many other creation myths?

Next, what you describe is more like SV dogma -- Iswara and jagat being inseparably united. In advaitam, there is only Braman, no "atmans" -- jagat is nothing but mithya.

Finally, the vedantic version of creation does not involve any bang, big or small. Here is a brief outline.

Before Srushti (creation) there is Pralayam. At the time of pralayam, (1) matter (prakriti) is in a subtle, undifferentiated state. In the next stage it evolves into (2) "mahat" then (3) "ahankara". From Ahankara comes five elements called (4 - 8) five tanmatras, then (9 - 13) five bhoothas (panca bhoothas), followed by (14) manas (mind). Then, (15 - 19) the five sense organs (jnana indriyas) and (20 - 24) five organs of action ((karma indriyas).

There are a lot of intermediate steps and substances that are created through a process known as panceekaram and other such processes.

This is the process explained in our Vedas. It is nothing more than religious doctrine. Why should one desperately attempt to make a connection between this and science by exaggerating any incidental and vague similarity and downplaying all the fanciful and far-fetched descriptions, is beyond me.

Cheers!

 

[suresoo]

"Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah"

for one thing this is just religious dogma, why should this be believed to be any more valid than so many other creation myths?

Next, what you describe is more like SV dogma -- Iswara and jagat being inseparably united. In advaitam, there is only Braman, no "atmans" -- jagat is nothing but mithya.

Finally, the vedantic version of creation does not involve any bang, big or small. Here is a brief outline.

Before Srushti (creation) there is Pralayam. At the time of pralayam, (1) matter (prakriti) is in a subtle, undifferentiated state. In the next stage it evolves into (2) "mahat" then (3) "ahankara". From Ahankara comes five elements called (4 - 8) five tanmatras, then (9 - 13) five bhoothas (panca bhoothas), followed by (14) manas (mind). Then, (15 - 19) the five sense organs (jnana indriyas) and (20 - 24) five organs of action ((karma indriyas).

There are a lot of intermediate steps and substances that are created through a process known as panceekaram and other such processes.

This is the process explained in our Vedas. It is nothing more than religious doctrine. Why should one desperately attempt to make a connection between this and science by exaggerating any incidental and vague similarity and downplaying all the fanciful and far-fetched descriptions, is beyond me.

nara,
If the question is Creation and there is an inquest to find the answer
I want to look at all possible channels for that answer. If the answer can come from science (with experiments) are Vedanta (tapping into power of mind) or whatever other means, I'm open to all channels.

If somebody at the onset states Vedanta leads to religious dogma or science leads to faulty experiment It only defines the 'state of mind' of that person. I feel it is due to lack of vichara and not the limitation of the channel.

If there is Iswara and 'some thing' and Iswara uses the thing to create jagat. Then somebody else should have created the thing and possibly the Iswara (Now we get into the regression you raised before) or Iswara creates 'some thing' from nothing at first.

In advaita, i do not see that separation. I see a logical reasoning to understand the Brahman.
when you say 'jagat is nothing but mithya.' i don't know what you have in mind (jagat is not real ??)

As given by Apte Sanskrit Online dictionary, Mith - to associate with; to unite; to hurt; to understand; to wrangle; to grasp

from that meaning i infer
"That one which originates/exists due to constant change (jagat) is associated with/United with/being tended by (mithyA) Brahman which is changeless existence (satya) - Brahma Satyam, jagat MithyA..."

I'm not going to just say, I belong to Stephen Hawking/Advaita camp. Individual reasoning is required to realize the answer.

thanks,

 

[sangom]

मिथ्या mitHyA (ind.) (mitH kyap) = Falsely, deceitfully, wrongly, incorrectly, often with the force of an adjective; invertedly, contrarily, to no purpose, in vain, fruitlessly
(Apte's Sanskrit-English Dictionary)

मिथ्या mitHyA (adv.) = wrongly, falsely, in vain --> derived from मिथुया mitHuyA (instr. adv.) = wrongly, falsely
(Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Carl Cappeller)

मिथ्या mitHyA (ind.) (contracted from मिथुया mitHuyA ) = invertedly, contrarily, incorrectly, wrongly, improperly [Pan. i,3,71]
(Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Monier Monier-Williams)

 

[Nara]

Folks, especially the ones who live in the US, I would like to present this article from a blog post. I love to hear what you think.

The tip of the American spear

Shri KRS, what do you think?

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Ji,
I apologize for tardiness to follow through on this. My response is in 'blue':

Dear Shri KSR, greetings

Nations do have the right to pursue their own self-interest, no doubt, but it is not an unfettered right. Otherwise, what Saddam did to Kuwait, or Hitler did to Poland can also be pardoned under the theory of national self-interest. This is why there are well established international laws.

In their callous pursuit of their self-interest the US actions have directly caused millions of deaths, and untold suffering of millions more. Against this backdrop, whether the US hurt its self-interest, unwittingly or deliberately, is not of any concern to those millions of victims of US foreign policy.

Now, this is why US is guilty of gross violations and ranks among the worst monsters of the world history. When the US pursues its self-interest they just exempt themselves from the international laws they themselves helped craft. But, when they need them to browbeat nations they don't like, they embrace it with gusto.
Yes, I agree that any nation should operate under the guidance of the accepted International laws. I do not understand that there are any instances where they 'exempted' themselves. If you are going to cite Bush's Iraq policy, please remember that it is not a clear cut matter - there are pro and con views.
'Dhandam' is a well accepted means to achieve foreign policy for any country as long as all other options are exhausted.

Yet, US presents itself as a morally superior nation -- shining city on the hill -- which makes them rank hypocrites to boot.
It may not be a 'shining city on the hill' but that was an objective. But to say that USA is among the worst monsters in history can not be supported by any facts - it is decidedly a very small minority view.


Your argument of an ever existing god can be applied to the material universal also -- it always existed and the big bang is an inevitable result of laws of gravity, no creator is necessary, so says not I, but Stephen Hawking.
For gravitational laws to work, you either have to have masses aor the gravitational forces to exist. Either way, one has to explain the existence of either. Material world is governed by causation. This is why Professor Hawking's postulate is not even accepted by renowned scientists. He is just superimposing his atheist views on cosmology, while agreeing that his postulate can not be proved in a lab, perhaps never! Please read the following:
Cross-check: Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP


The atheistic arguments will lead to what you call "dead-end" only if you are seeking a creator god. If you allow the chips to fall where they may, then the atheistic argument leads you to a logical and rational conclusion. Using the principle of Occam's razor, god is superfluous.
Sorry Professor, the 'dead-end' can only come from arguing that 'nature' is supported by any matter or force that is deemed to have always existed. To have always existed, one need to have something OUTSIDE the laws of physics as these laws always work in a time and space bound causal universe. So, Occam's razor does not even come in to the picture as your comparing of explanations with God and without God do not explain the same phenomenon. 'Godless' theory have not even come close to explaining cosmos.

This is why the major majority of the Physicists are deeply deists, including the likes of Einstein, although Einstein particularly accepted Spinoza's portrayal of 'God' as one very close to his own belief in this matter.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

Sorry Professor, the 'dead-end' can only come from arguing that 'nature' is supported by any matter or force that is deemed to have always existed. To have always existed, one need to have something OUTSIDE the laws of physics as these laws always work in a time and space bound causal universe. So, Occam's razor does not even come in to the picture as your comparing of explanations with God and without God do not explain the same phenomenon. 'Godless' theory have not even come close to explaining cosmos.

This is why the major majority of the Physicists are deeply deists, including the likes of Einstein, although Einstein particularly accepted Spinoza's portrayal of 'God' as one very close to his own belief in this matter.

There is a new theory of "self-creation cosmology". I feel it dispenses with the need for a creator or something outside the laws of conventional Physics before General Theory of Relativity. But my scientific knowledge is limited. Learned members may give their views.

Self Creation Cosmology

Self-creation cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nara]

There is a new theory of "self-creation cosmology". I feel it dispenses with the need for a creator or something outside the laws of conventional Physics before General Theory of Relativity. But my scientific knowledge is limited. Learned members may give their views.

Thank you Shri sangom, very interesting and pertinent links.

Shri KRS, Einstein and other scientists of late 19th and early 20th centuries lived in an era when being openly atheistic had its own costs. Also, to be a deist is logically more defensible in so far as a negative cannot be proved -- i.e. non-existence of god cannot be proved. This could be the reason for them to have chosen to be less strident and declared themselves to be deists.

Whatever the case may be, I will take a deist any day, afterall, a deist, agnostic, and atheist all operate in the same fashion on a practical level, all three have no need for god in their day-to-day lives. Also note, no desist will accept the position you stated earlier that morality flows from (fear of?) god.

I don't accept your casual characterization of Stephen Hawkings, who is as much of a preeminent physicist as Einstein, that he is just motivated by his atheism. Are you saying that he fashions his scientific analysis to suit his atheism? No sir, it is the other way around.

Being a scientist does not necessarily mean they all are free from any form of cognitive dissonance that allows a belief in a personal god who cares about the human condition. In other words, the personal beliefs of scientists cannot be automatically given the same credence as their scientific findings. But, in the case of Stephen Hawkings, he was not making some personal comment about god, the statement about god being superfluous to creation is based on his scientific analysis uncolored by any preconceived notions.

Finally, your statement about majority of the physicists disagreeing with Stephen Hawking is news to me. Is this just your felling or is there a survey of physicist on this subject that you can cite? Are they disagreeing with him because they want to believe in god, or because they can show that Hawking's science is flawed?

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

I used to be a Physicist, doing doctoral work during the 70s, in Nuclear Physics and had Masters in Theoretical Physics. Cosmology is a study of our Universe's origin, and till now the 'Big Bang' theory has been accepted by a wide range of Physicists as explaining the red shift(expansion of the Universe at a high rate of velocity) and the presence of background radiation in the Universe. The calculations have proved the observed data and this how one goes about making a postulate a theory/law.

What you have referred here is a much recent phenomenon where a group of cosmologists, now spearheaded by Professor Stephen Hawkings to expand the Big Bang to say that Big Bang was not necessarily caused by an outside force, because if certain gravitational laws are present, matter can create itself from nothing. Mathematically, this forces them to explain a multi universe situation where different universes create them selves differently by the subset of laws to the major Multi variate law. Please read the citation I posted from Scientific American above. Here is another citation from the noted Physicist/Author about this subject:
Stephen Hawking's big bang gaps | Paul Davies | Comment is free | The Guardian

The 'Big Bang' gap is that, if you accept it, then you have to accept the thesis that something beyond Time and Space was responsible for the bang.

So, one way to overcome this is to come up with a Meta theory that resolves the problem of physical creation. But then the problem still remains. If matter can create itself following the gravitational laws, who made those laws? Professor Hawkins speculates to say that those laws have always existed. Okay, then the problem of Time and Space accounting comes in to play, because physical laws have to by the Time, Space constraint. This goes to the very heart of System theory, in which it is recognized that if one is part of a closed system, one can not know that whole system, because you can not see it from outside.

Please read this particular article about Professor Hawking bold statements from the past:

Stephen Hawking, celebrity media, and the poverty of physics - 2 - English pravda.ru

Regards,
KRS

There is a new theory of "self-creation cosmology". I feel it dispenses with the need for a creator or something outside the laws of conventional Physics before General Theory of Relativity. But my scientific knowledge is limited. Learned members may give their views.

Self Creation Cosmology

Self-creation cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Ji,
My response inblue:

Thank you Shri sangom, very interesting and pertinent links.

Shri KRS, Einstein and other scientists of late 19th and early 20th centuries lived in an era when being openly atheistic had its own costs. Also, to be a deist is logically more defensible in so far as a negative cannot be proved -- i.e. non-existence of god cannot be proved. This could be the reason for them to have chosen to be less strident and declared themselves to be deists.

Whatever the case may be, I will take a deist any day, afterall, a deist, agnostic, and atheist all operate in the same fashion on a practical level, all three have no need for god in their day-to-day lives. Also note, no desist will accept the position you stated earlier that morality flows from (fear of?) god.
Professor, I disagree. Religion's influence, particularly on Physics had started to fade once the Modern Atomic Theory came to be, with Bohr's contributions.

But, if you take the deitist's view as credible, what makes you think the religions that are based on this concept are invalid?

My statement that morality stems from God, only pertains to the unexplained force and the support of nature from it (Dhr). Morality is based nature and I have many times suggested that human morality stems from the concepts of survival, perpetuation based on cognitive and reasoning capabilities of our race.

I don't accept your casual characterization of Stephen Hawkings, who is as much of a preeminent physicist as Einstein, that he is just motivated by his atheism. Are you saying that he fashions his scientific analysis to suit his atheism? No sir, it is the other way around.
I did not say that his science is motivated by his atheism. I respect his contributions to Astro Physics and Cosmology. But, one has to separate his scientific contributions from his assetions which have no scientific basis. Please read the second citation I made in response to Sri Sangom Ji above.

Being a scientist does not necessarily mean they all are free from any form of cognitive dissonance that allows a belief in a personal god who cares about the human condition. In other words, the personal beliefs of scientists cannot be automatically given the same credence as their scientific findings. But, in the case of Stephen Hawkings, he was not making some personal comment about god, the statement about god being superfluous to creation is based on his scientific analysis uncolored by any preconceived notions.
Not true. His wife divorced him because he could not accept the concept of God. It is a well known fact that he is an atheist. His science is first raTE, but, when it comes to postulates about God, his statements are but opinions without any proof.

Finally, your statement about majority of the physicists disagreeing with Stephen Hawking is news to me. Is this just your felling or is there a survey of physicist on this subject that you can cite? Are they disagreeing with him because they want to believe in god, or because they can show that Hawking's science is flawed?
[COLOR="blue]Please read again the three postings I have cited going back tomy first response to you on this. No one disagrees with his science. The problem is with his speculations. The 'no need for God' is where the problem lies - because logically the ultimate question is not yet answered - who made the gravitational laws?[/COLOR]

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

I used to be a Physicist, doing doctoral work during the 70s, in Nuclear Physics and had Masters in Theoretical Physics. Cosmology is a study of our Universe's origin, and till now the 'Big Bang' theory has been accepted by a wide range of Physicists as explaining the red shift(expansion of the Universe at a high rate of velocity) and the presence of background radiation in the Universe. The calculations have proved the observed data and this how one goes about making a postulate a theory/law.

What you have referred here is a much recent phenomenon where a group of cosmologists, now spearheaded by Professor Stephen Hawkings to expand the Big Bang to say that Big Bang was not necessarily caused by an outside force, because if certain gravitational laws are present, matter can create itself from nothing. Mathematically, this forces them to explain a multi universe situation where different universes create them selves differently by the subset of laws to the major Multi variate law. Please read the citation I posted from Scientific American above. Here is another citation from the noted Physicist/Author about this subject:
Stephen Hawking's big bang gaps | Paul Davies | Comment is free | The Guardian

The 'Big Bang' gap is that, if you accept it, then you have to accept the thesis that something beyond Time and Space was responsible for the bang.

So, one way to overcome this is to come up with a Meta theory that resolves the problem of physical creation. But then the problem still remains. If matter can create itself following the gravitational laws, who made those laws? Professor Hawkins speculates to say that those laws have always existed. Okay, then the problem of Time and Space accounting comes in to play, because physical laws have to by the Time, Space constraint. This goes to the very heart of System theory, in which it is recognized that if one is part of a closed system, one can not know that whole system, because you can not see it from outside.

Please read this particular article about Professor Hawking bold statements from the past:

Stephen Hawking, celebrity media, and the poverty of physics - 2 - English pravda.ru

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS,

I am aware of the serious limitations of my knowledge of science, when conversing with a much learned person of your calibre. Still, I feel that we ought to consider all the theories concerning the origin as well as end of the uni(multi-)verse/s together. Irrespective of the theory, the universe will either continue for ever and ever, or, come to an end. It looks somewhat odd to my simpleton mind to accept that what started at a finite point with a big bang will go on everlastingly; whatever has had a beginning should appropriately have an end also. The scenarios postulated for the end of the universe are many. But from the end may start a new beginning as in the cyclic model of the universe, theorized by a section of cosmologists.

It is true that science has not, as yet solved the problem completely. But is there a necessity to postulate a "God", "Creator" (a personality) or even an "outside agent" (who?) for the creation and destruction of the universe? Can these not happen without such an agency coming into the picture, and out of some "what" instead of "who"?

I would like to know your reasoning, Sir.

 

[srikrish85]

Marvelous KRSji... Marvelous... 1000s of Namaskaarams to thee.

Bhagwan Ram shall surely bless you.

Jai Shree Girdhar Krishan murari ki.


Raj Karega Khalsa.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sangom Ji,
I saw this posting and knowing that I owe a few responses to others, I want to respond to you first.

Sir, respectfully, what you, Professor Nara Ji and others in this forum posses in terms of knowledge can only be dreamt by me in this life time. You call yourself a 'simpleton', a title that I thought was wholly claimed by me, and if you are one, I do not know where I belong.

It just so happened in my life, I am destined to know a few things about a lots of things. My High School teacher once said 'ploughing deeper is better than ploughing broader' and I stand here rightly accused of not heeding to that advice. Circumstances in my life have forced me to be not an expert in any field. I am saying all this, because, my intention in saying that I have a few degrees in Physics is not to point out any non scientific background you may have, but to represent myself as having a small bit of knowledge about Physics. I try to follow the advancements there, but I can not anymore follow the mathematics behind the concepts, such as 'colors', 'strings', 'membranes' etc. I can not anymore pick up a 'Physical Review Letters' and understand what an author is talking about.

Now, coming back to your question, yes, we do not need to ascribe the entity outside of the universe as a personal God, or even 'God' from the view point of modern day science. This is why we have a discipline of Philosophy. For my simple mind, the question is not whether 'God' exists, but rather what is responsible for the 'creation' (self or not). In this argument, I consider the arguments of Atheists as the most unsupportable by evidence, with the arguments of Agnostics and the Deists as somewhat equivalent, because these two have the support of evidence, because there is no way to either resolve the first idea or to prove the next.

Now, getting in to Philosophy, it seems to me that all religions affirm the deist idea, but with different ideologies (Monism, Monotheism, Dualism, etc.), with the notion that the ultimate aim of each human being is to finally reach a state where they 'merge' with the deity. From an anecdotal pov, it is striking that almost all religions that sprang up at different locations on the globe, from different cultures, came to say the same thing. In my opinion, the atheists have not adequately explained this, apart from dismissing this altogether.

Regards,
KRS
QUOTE=sangom;57826]Shri KRS,

I am aware of the serious limitations of my knowledge of science, when conversing with a much learned person of your calibre. Still, I feel that we ought to consider all the theories concerning the origin as well as end of the uni(multi-)verse/s together. Irrespective of the theory, the universe will either continue for ever and ever, or, come to an end. It looks somewhat odd to my simpleton mind to accept that what started at a finite point with a big bang will go on everlastingly; whatever has had a beginning should appropriately have an end also. The scenarios postulated for the end of the universe are many. But from the end may start a new beginning as in the cyclic model of the universe, theorized by a section of cosmologists.

It is true that science has not, as yet solved the problem completely. But is there a necessity to postulate a "God", "Creator" (a personality) or even an "outside agent" (who?) for the creation and destruction of the universe? Can these not happen without such an agency coming into the picture, and out of some "what" instead of "who"?

I would like to know your reasoning, Sir.[/QUOTE]

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri sangom Ji,
I saw this posting and knowing that I owe a few responses to others, I want to respond to you first.

Sir, respectfully, what you, Professor Nara Ji and others in this forum posses in terms of knowledge can only be dreamt by me in this life time. You call yourself a 'simpleton', a title that I thought was wholly claimed by me, and if you are one, I do not know where I belong.

It just so happened in my life, I am destined to know a few things about a lots of things. My High School teacher once said 'ploughing deeper is better than ploughing broader' and I stand here rightly accused of not heeding to that advice. Circumstances in my life have forced me to be not an expert in any field. I am saying all this, because, my intention in saying that I have a few degrees in Physics is not to point out any non scientific background you may have, but to represent myself as having a small bit of knowledge about Physics. I try to follow the advancements there, but I can not anymore follow the mathematics behind the concepts, such as 'colors', 'strings', 'membranes' etc. I can not anymore pick up a 'Physical Review Letters' and understand what an author is talking about.

Now, coming back to your question, yes, we do not need to ascribe the entity outside of the universe as a personal God, or even 'God' from the view point of modern day science. This is why we have a discipline of Philosophy. For my simple mind, the question is not whether 'God' exists, but rather what is responsible for the 'creation' (self or not). In this argument, I consider the arguments of Atheists as the most unsupportable by evidence, with the arguments of Agnostics and the Deists as somewhat equivalent, because these two have the support of evidence, because there is no way to either resolve the first idea or to prove the next.

Now, getting in to Philosophy, it seems to me that all religions affirm the deist idea, but with different ideologies (Monism, Monotheism, Dualism, etc.), with the notion that the ultimate aim of each human being is to finally reach a state where they 'merge' with the deity. From an anecdotal pov, it is striking that almost all religions that sprang up at different locations on the globe, from different cultures, came to say the same thing. In my opinion, the atheists have not adequately explained this, apart from dismissing this altogether.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS,

Please don't consider this as my impudence; I stand to benefit greatly from your views.

My doubt, for a long time, has been whether this whole universe (or multiverse, as now postulated) is in itself, by itself and for itself? (This is very foolish wording, but I can't express better, for want of vocabulary.) Why should one have a "creator", whether anthropomorphic or not? I am aware that the moment we say "God" the next possible question, "who created this God?" will not arise because we have been so conditioned by religion; but if I say "Force/Energy/Field/Brane X, Y or Z", then the next question comes, who created this? Should we not, scientifically speaking, have the doubt "Who created God?" also? In that case there will be no answer, or an infinite regress. Is it not clear that by our embedded notions of Divinity or Deism, our scientific rationality has been stymied?

Is it not a sign of the high "ego" of human beings - the feeling that there is something very great and unique in them - that is at the very root of the search for liberation/merging with the deity? (Since Man is something very great, there must be something unique for him after the sojourn in this world. He becomes the Absolute beyond which there can be nothing? What if man is no better than a virus or amoeba as far as Nature is concerned?) In both Advaita and Visishtadvaita, there is no concrete evidence for anyone having attained liberation; nor can they rationally explain how newer and newer "jivas" come into existence. If the infinite jivas concept is accepted (for argument's sake) where do the still unmanifested jivas (Infinity-the present world population) exist now? If those jivas have the adhyaaropa (Maya) covering each of them, is there other world/worlds where they could exist? Will those worlds be equally unreal just as this world is, as per Advaita? Why did not our sages/Acharyas tell us about these worlds? These are some points in my mind.

Kindly give me your ideas on these.

 

[suresoo]

Dear KRS Ji,

It just so happened in my life, I am destined to know a few things about a lots of things. My High School teacher once said 'ploughing deeper is better than ploughing broader' and I stand here rightly accused of not heeding to that advice. Circumstances in my life have forced me to be not an expert in any field. I am saying all this, because, my intention in saying that I have a few degrees in Physics is not to point out any non scientific background you may have, but to represent myself as having a small bit of knowledge about Physics. I try to follow the advancements there, but I can not anymore follow the mathematics behind the concepts, such as 'colors', 'strings', 'membranes' etc. I can not anymore pick up a 'Physical Review Letters' and understand what an author is talking about.

Even-though you belong to the class of melor (a learned) you have been willing to discuss/share ideas with kilor (the ignorant) like me. Hence i tend to share the little things i picked up.

Now, getting in to Philosophy, it seems to me that all religions affirm the deist idea, but with different ideologies (Monism, Monotheism, Dualism, etc.), with the notion that the ultimate aim of each human being is to finally reach a state where they 'merge' with the deity. From an anecdotal pov, it is striking that almost all religions that sprang up at different locations on the globe, from different cultures, came to say the same thing. In my opinion, the atheists have not adequately explained this, apart from dismissing this altogether.

IMO, the concept of God and the need to merge / unify with comes from a single source*. And not independently reasoned in different parts of the world.
Reading from Archaeology / Early history. Man worshiped nature (fire/water/wind/supernatural etc) to aid him (rather than oppose him ) in his pursuit. He felt he can influence/control the nature with some gestures.

This became un-fulfilling and he questioned the nature of Nature. The cycle of questions that followed have put us here where we debate singleness/dualness/infiniteness. Its sad to see we did not make much progress in the last 1000 years, materialism has subdued us, i believe.

*Is the single source the veda, Mesopotamia, Sumer, Anatolia etc is for Archaeology to decide. Its proved that there was healthy exchange of ideas in ancient world.

Now, coming back to your question, yes, we do not need to ascribe the entity outside of the universe as a personal God, or even 'God' from the view point of modern day science. This is why we have a discipline of Philosophy. For my simple mind, the question is not whether 'God' exists, but rather what is responsible for the 'creation' (self or not). In this argument, I consider the arguments of Atheists as the most unsupportable by evidence, with the arguments of Agnostics and the Deists as somewhat equivalent, because these two have the support of evidence, because there is no way to either resolve the first idea or to prove the next.

IMO, its the limitation of Human reasoning which requires more than one entity viz
Subject-Object
Space-time
God - created
to enquire into the nature of Nature.

In this regard the 'Unified Field Theory' (to find a law/force that controls all known laws/force) is promising.

thanks,

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Ji,

Sorry for the delay, but I had to read the blog several times and think.

I do not have any takeaways, except for the difficulty involved in mixing personal diplomacy and the straight simple life of a conventional soldier of the pat - which was to just shoot. What the heads of armies had to do in terms of diplomacy among the allies, now the foot soldier has to be part of. Wars have become complicated.

I am wondering whether the Army (in this case) has given any special training to this soldier to handle the job's requirements. I bet they have.

Regards,
KRS

Folks, especially the ones who live in the US, I would like to present this article from a blog post. I love to hear what you think.

The tip of the American spear

Shri KRS, what do you think?

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I have missed responding to this statement of you above:

Also note, no desist will accept the position you stated earlier that morality flows from (fear of?) god.

Sir, I only said that morality stems from the root of Dharma (Dhir) which is supported by Niyadhi (svabhava). Ultimately what ever created nature is the indirect cause of it, even though such human moralities seem to be beyond the concern of this 'Creator'. 'Good' and 'Bad' seem to stem from the two sides of the same coin.

I think the human morality to me stems from our svabhava for survival, fellowship and procreation. Where does 'fear of God' comes in the picture? I do not believe in any 'God' who passes any judgements on anyone based on their actions. Karma theory is there to take care of it. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri srikrish85 Ji,
I appreciate the felicitations, even though I have no idea what are you felicitating me about! Still, thanks and let me also add, I am just expressing my own home grown opinions/ideas here. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

Marvelous KRSji... Marvelous... 1000s of Namaskaarams to thee.

Bhagwan Ram shall surely bless you.

Jai Shree Girdhar Krishan murari ki.


Raj Karega Khalsa.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sangom Ji,
My response below in 'blue':

Shri KRS,

Please don't consider this as my impudence; I stand to benefit greatly from your views.

My doubt, for a long time, has been whether this whole universe (or multiverse, as now postulated) is in itself, by itself and for itself? (This is very foolish wording, but I can't express better, for want of vocabulary.) Why should one have a "creator", whether anthropomorphic or not? I am aware that the moment we say "God" the next possible question, "who created this God?" will not arise because we have been so conditioned by religion; but if I say "Force/Energy/Field/Brane X, Y or Z", then the next question comes, who created this? Should we not, scientifically speaking, have the doubt "Who created God?" also? In that case there will be no answer, or an infinite regress. Is it not clear that by our embedded notions of Divinity or Deism, our scientific rationality has been stymied?
Science is not at a stage to answer the question 'who created God?', because unless they can define an entity that is the cause for the 'Big Bang' or the gravitational laws creating multivariate universes, Science can not speculate on the nature of this entity, which necessarily has to be beyond time and space. So they are at a dead end, more so because today they can not even test the multivariate theory in the lab and they admit that it possibly can never be proved. This is why, I am not holding my breath on Physics figuring out the final entity that is beyond time and space. Because our Scientific principles are built on observations made within a space-time bound material universe(s), we really can not expect it to show us what is beyond these principles.

Is it not a sign of the high "ego" of human beings - the feeling that there is something very great and unique in them - that is at the very root of the search for liberation/merging with the deity? (Since Man is something very great, there must be something unique for him after the sojourn in this world. He becomes the Absolute beyond which there can be nothing? What if man is no better than a virus or amoeba as far as Nature is concerned?) In both Advaita and Visishtadvaita, there is no concrete evidence for anyone having attained liberation; nor can they rationally explain how newer and newer "jivas" come into existence. If the infinite jivas concept is accepted (for argument's sake) where do the still unmanifested jivas (Infinity-the present world population) exist now? If those jivas have the adhyaaropa (Maya) covering each of them, is there other world/worlds where they could exist? Will those worlds be equally unreal just as this world is, as per Advaita? Why did not our sages/Acharyas tell us about these worlds? These are some points in my mind.
First a clarification - Advaitha, to my knowledge does not say that the world is unreal - it is quite real real as it appears to our senses - it is just not the 'REAL' thing that supports it.

Your ruminations on man's ego as a postulate to have a necessity for God may be valid. But even if it is true, after all, just because this may be true, that still does not disprove the existence of 'God'. One can argue that this ego issue was particularly given to us by God, to turn our minds to 'Him'. I don't know, except there clues about God's existence are everywhere, in my opinion, that can not be explained by science today. Have you read Paul Brunton's 'The secret India?'.

About the increasing numbers of humans, my belief on this is that souls are created at the bottom most level (amoebas may be, that divide and multiply?) and as they evolve in to successive versions of acquiring self consciousness (represented perhaps by the 10 avatars?), more human souls come in to being. This is my theory.

Again, I do not mix science and spirituality - where science applies I heed to it. Where in areas, science has no answer, I turn to spirituality. Because I was born as a Hindu, I tend to find my answers within it, which works for me.



Kindly give me your ideas on these.

Thanks,
KRS

 

[Nara]

... What the heads of armies had to do in terms of diplomacy among the allies, now the foot soldier has to be part of. Wars have become complicated.

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

I used to watch Jim Lehrer's News Hour. During the height of the Iraq war everyday the show will end with the names of the dead soldiers that were released by the Pentagon. I don't watch News Hour anymore as I feel Jim tows the establishment line too closely.

Since Christian Amanpore took over the Sunday morning news analysis show in ABC, I have been watching that show. She ends her show with a scrolling of dead soldiers from Afghanistan. One thing I see common between the scrolling in these two shows is the ages of the dead soldiers, mostly in the twenties, occasionally some in the thirties and in the teen, i.e. 19. This makes me extremely sad.

(Of course, I get mad when they don't even want to talk about the innocent civilian deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan or Paksitan.)

These youngsters are paying with their lives, literally, and their families, for the mistakes made a generation ago. In 1979 the erstwhile Soviet Union (SU) invaded Afganisthan, and the U.S. couldn't allow that. I am not trying to defend SU, they were no better than USA. But, I wonder what the Afghan life will be like today if the U.S. didn't make such a big deal about it.

Since this is in the realm of what could have been, it is all in what we want to imagine. I imagine a repressive regime, no different from the ones in its neighborhood today, but one that allows women as free as they can be, as in SU/Russia, or for that matter Cuba. I imagine a regime that does not allow a safe-haven for religious fundamentalist group wowing to take revenge on the infedels and to one day fly the Islamic flag on top of the White House. I imagine a regime that will try to develop Bhumiyan as a tourist site, not a site worthy of demolition derby.

Now, after 30 years, we are here with foot soldiers having to play diplomats and hoping the army trained them for that task, I hope they they did, but can't bet on it as you do.

I say, paraphrasing Senator Kerry, who I don't much care for, but do think would have made a better president than Bush, how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Afghanistan?

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri suresoo Ji,

My response in 'blue' below:

Dear KRS Ji,



Even-though you belong to the class of melor (a learned) you have been willing to discuss/share ideas with kilor (the ignorant) like me. Hence i tend to share the little things i picked up.
Please sir, do not say things like this. We are all in the same boat - we are all learning. In this Forum, I hope all or equal and free to express their ideas. I hope everyone here will respond to members' posting if they are addressed to them.

IMO, the concept of God and the need to merge / unify with comes from a single source*. And not independently reasoned in different parts of the world.
Reading from Archaeology / Early history. Man worshiped nature (fire/water/wind/supernatural etc) to aid him (rather than oppose him ) in his pursuit. He felt he can influence/control the nature with some gestures.

This became un-fulfilling and he questioned the nature of Nature. The cycle of questions that followed have put us here where we debate singleness/dualness/infiniteness. Its sad to see we did not make much progress in the last 1000 years, materialism has subdued us, i believe.

*Is the single source the veda, Mesopotamia, Sumer, Anatolia etc is for Archaeology to decide. Its proved that there was healthy exchange of ideas in ancient world.
Okay, what you say MAY be true. But then, please read about the 'Axial Age' and the development of cohesive religious thoughts around the world at that time as forming the religious thoughts of today.

IMO, its the limitation of Human reasoning which requires more than one entity viz
Subject-Object
Space-time
God - created
to enquire into the nature of Nature.

In this regard the 'Unified Field Theory' (to find a law/force that controls all known laws/force) is promising.
There are a couple of items you are mixing here. 1. First, yes men are limited. But then we are growing each day in terms of understanding nature through science. Unified Field Theory seems impossible to reach today, because of the complexities involved. 2. While this is going on, please remember how Hinduism looks at the maturation of a 'soul' over several births.

thanks,

Regards,
KRS

 

[suresoo]

Reading from Archaeology / Early history. Man worshiped nature (fire/water/wind/supernatural etc) to aid him (rather than oppose him ) in his pursuit. He felt he can influence/control the nature with some gestures.

Okay, what you say MAY be true. But then, please read about the 'Axial Age' and the development of cohesive religious thoughts around the world at that time as forming the religious thoughts of today.

This maybe why the Vedas cannot be dated before 1000 BC, so that the Greeks can also join the party ?? If the world was only created in 4004 BC lots of things have to happen fast!

I Believe Archaeology has joined more dots now to discount the likes of Axial Age theories, i will try to provide those references...

In this regard i remember two reads that show the scope of Vedic understanding, that is unparalleled

1) Manvantara in Vishnu Purana (??)
Manvantara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hindu units of measurement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where the world is awake/asleep for equal periods of time. The vision of this sage is commendable, we can talk about Expanding, Contracting Universe to him easily....

Manvantara puts the Physical world, 'world of God' and 'world of Brahma' in different terrains / time space and makes them follow a cycle.

2) The Story of 'Indra and the Ants' in Brahmavaivarta Purana

"Indra defeats Vṛtrá and releases the waters. Elevated to the rank of King of the gods, Indra orders the heavenly....."

There are a couple of items you are mixing here. 1. First, yes men are limited. But then we are growing each day in terms of understanding nature through science. Unified Field Theory seems impossible to reach today, because of the complexities involved. 2. While this is going on, please remember how Hinduism looks at the maturation of a 'soul' over several births.

1) Yes, i have stopped holding breath on UFT making breakthrough. Looks like science has hit the dead end in this regard.
If Nature is flawless and free flowing should the laws that monitor/govern it be that complicated?

2) In the fast paced world we live in, asking to wait for 'several births' is a difficult sell. We should consider ways to speedup the process!

thanks,

 

[Nara]

Folks,

It seems FBI warned their Indian counterparts three times in 2008 about possible terrorist attack in Mumbai. WaPo has a detailed article about it here.

It seems FBI conveyed quite specific information like, Taj hotel is a likely target, attack is likely to come from the sea. On November 18, 2008, just 8 days before terror struck Mumbai, FBI warned Indian authorities about a suspicious vessel heading towards Mumbai for a possible attack.

Why then was this attack not prevented?

FBI was warned of Headley's terror connection by his own wife, yet the US authorities seem not to have taken any tangible action to prevent him from carrying out this attack.

well ....

 

[Nara]

It gets better

At the root of prejudice and bigotry is ignorance. Here is a video clip from MSNBC that is must see for all, and to become a little less ignorant about a topic that many of us know very little about. It is about a wave of hate induced tragic events that is taking place in the U.S. The clip is almost 9 minutes long. It is a speech given by a Fortworth, Texas City Councilman. I hope you watch it and think about it. We may not have the same bigotry, but we have our own.

Here it is. msnbc tv- msnbc.com

 

[Nara]

A shame or a trgedy?

Folks,

Soon after the euphoria of soon to be infamous proclamation, "Mission Accomplished", the justifications for invading Iraq started to fall by the wayside, one by one. Saddam's nuclear program was a complete hoax. His chemical and biological weapons program, so dramatically presented by Col. Powel to UN security council, even yours truly for a moment believed him, turned out to be no more real. The only justification that remained was Saddam was a bad guy, the world is better off without him.

Well, now, Wikileaks revelations have put to rest that last remaining bogus justification as well. Yes, Saddam was a bad guy and the world is better off with him gone. But, the Wikileaks war logs now show clearly that, that could just not be the reason why U.S. invaded Iraq, for, the regime they now have installed and support, is no better than Saddam. The Wikileaks war logs reveal how utterly ruthless the US supported Iraq regime is, no different from the torture chambers run by Saddam.

Further, the war logs now reveal 15,000 new civilian deaths never reported earlier. That is 5 times the death of the 9/11 attacks. Note, this 15,000 is only the previously unreported deaths now revealed by Wikileaks. The amazing thing about this is the number of incidences that account for most of the deaths, one or two dead at a time. What a nightmare for those who were relieved of the tyrant Saddam!!

Now, coming to the shame part, NY Times, the publication that the neocons and other supporters of the war policies love to hate, that liberal rag, in fact was an unabashed cheerleader of the war. Hard as it may be to believe, they have outdone themselves now. In the aftermath of the war logs, when the rest of the world press focused on the obvious news story -- the US and other coalition forces turned a blind eye to torture by Iraqi forces -- NY Times seems fit only to say the Iraqi prisoners suffered even more harsh treatment in the hands of Iraqis than the Americans. That must be a relief to those who actually suffered the harsh treatment, so thinks the NY Times reporters and editors.

The supposed liberal rag, NY Times, is in reality a shill for the establishment. Is that a shame or tragedy? IMO, it is both a shame and a tragedy.

Cheers!

 

[suresoo]

In 2008, Obama won a Historic election beating the establishment candidates like Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Many pundits termed it as the ‘Beginning of New America’, Post racial president etc etc…..

Obama’s slogans were ‘CHANGE’ and ‘Yes we can’.

Yesterday USA had mid-term elections and strangely Obama’s Democratic Party is thrown out and the Republicans on the bandwagon of newly formed Tea-Party have captured power.

It looks like
If the ‘CHANGE’ one prescribes is not acceptable to the People they will throw away the change with more vigor
And Ideology (whatever form) should not be the only policy of a Democratic Administration in a heterogeneous country.

Some may say Tea-Party Ideology is much worse, the fact that people went with them over ‘Obama’s Ideology’ is telling !!

thanks,