• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

KRS

Active member
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

Yes, I thought I ended the thread as well, but I am glad now that you responded in detail. I am starting a new thread, bowing to the wish of some. I have copied your response below, with my comments in 'blue':

Dear Shri KRS, I thought we had closed this discussion, but unfortunately you are reopening it again.

I knew all along there is no chance of any resolution with you on this topic. My original intent was limited to your attempt to draw an an equivalency between what you label "extreme" left wing and right wing. I listed a sample of the kooky things the Republican leadership have been saying here. By anyone's standard these are kooky, not just mine. I asked you to show similar kookiness from the left, and all you could come up with are several senators accusing Bush of lying about Iraq war. Even you admit Bush may have lied, only that it cannot be proved.

That is it! On the one hand we have a line up of Republican leadership saying a range of outlandish stuff, and on the other we have an accusation of lying for a which a reasonable argument (see below for one) can be made.

Professor, I did not want to really go in to the topic of racism. Because, it is a complicated issue here, especially on party lines. So, here we go:
Please read this from the Republican POV: On Racism and Republicans: Jun 1, 2008


All that the extreme left can be accused of is being naive enough to believe in such impractical things as social justice, equality, compassion, etc. The more right you go, you get more and more of the racists, supremacists, paranoids, et al. Reasonable conservatives are being sidelined from the Republican party -- a range of sitting Republican Senators have already been booted out. This should be a matter of concern for all, not just the Republicans.
I wish this true. Unfortunately you have in the Democratic party, the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The former, may I remind you was a Presidential candidate. I consider both of them as the worst kind - they both profit from overt racism. Before you say, that the Democrats are better now, please read this:Kendrick Meek Lost Rural Florida, Thanks to Racist Dixiecrats (UPDATED) - Broward Palm Beach News - The Juice

There is no equivalency between the left and the right. Even the "most extreme" among the left are way less kooky than the "main-stream right", the leadership of the Republican party. This was the point I started out with.
Based on the above, seems to me that my argument has more support.

So, let the record show that there is no equivalency between the right and the left.
I just refuted this claim. Because you rained on the republicans as the 'right', I have no option to say that your thesis is totally incorrect.

Now you want me to prove Bush lied.

What level of proof is needed? In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is preponderance of evidence. In the case of impeachment, political calculations cloud the issue. In the court of public opinion, the standard of proof is, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

In 2006, a retired CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, Tyler Drumheller, revealed that Bush White House knew about the absence of any significant or ongoing Chemical/biological and Nuclear weapons programs. CIA was in secret contact with Naji Sabri, Iraqi Foreign Minister under Saddam, as early as, or as late depending upon POV, in September 2002. He confirmed to CIA that Saddam did not have Chemical/biological and Nuclear weapons programs. The intelligence community had reasons to believe Sabri, as he had given other information that were known to be accurate. The Bush White House was informed about the unreliable nature of both the chemical/biological weapons claim and the nuclear weapons claims.

On the nuclear weapons side, the documents purporting Saddam purchasing yellow cake from Niger was well known to be fake among intelligence agencies of several countries. On top, Joe Wilson went to Niger and reported back debunking this theory. Bush people went out of the way to smear Wilson and in the process outed a secret CIA operative. Just imagine what the Republicans would have done if a Democrat had pulled such a stunt.

So, Bush knew, but he couldn't be dissuaded, the decision to take out Saddam was made long time ago. There is enough about this in the British press, look it up.

While all this was going on behind the scene, Bush never once flinched in his determination, never couched his proclamations with any sort of hedging, it was all starkly crystal clear, never any ray of doubt.

All this may not add up to a criminal conviction, but enough to give it a shot. The Democrats will never have the spine or a pair to bring any of the Bush people to justice. That leaves, civil cases standard and public opinion standard. By Public Opinion standard this a "slam dunk" (h/t the infamous George Tenet). IMO, this preponderance of evidence will satisfy a jury looking for civil case standard.
Looks like you did not read this article I posted before, explaining why he could not have led. Please read these:
Did Bush Lie Us into War?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/ju...ntent/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

Two official government inquiries in two countries (USA & UK) have pretty much said that Bush had every reason to suspect that Sadaam was intent on getting his hands on a nuclear weapon. Yet, you seem to be convinced that he lied based on a single CIA person account.
Please read: Bush's CIA Critic Claim Exposed as Untrue

If I were the President after 9/11 and looking at who might pass the dirty bomb technology to Al-Quaeda, why would I not think that Iraq would be that country (both Sunni) and since Hussain tried to assasinate HW Bush, that he would not do it? Such arguments against Bush's intentions, do not make sense.

Also, why would, if I were Bush, send Colin Powell to argue for an invasion, knowing that there were no WMDs, which would have been obvious after the invasion, risking the prestige of the USA and himself around the world? This completely does not make any sense to me.



Cheers!

Regards,
KRS
 
iraq is the second largest oil field after saudi arabia plus a neighbor of iran.once a foothold is acheived in this part of geography,the control for power for usa is immeasurable.taliban were used to fight soviets with pakistani collusion,thereby by default pakistan a main country for usa even against india.the english supremacy must be established as the british english got their backside tattered and torn by afghanistanis.american cousins helped now in the generation we are.osama bin laden is a cia recruit.once a cia always a cia,in intelligence circles.otherwise this rat would have been a meal for fat cats in new york by now.who is fooling whom?and who wants to get fooled?is the name of the game now.but now,its become christian versus muslims scenario,in which case muslims will be humbled,as christians are superb warriors and hunters.unfortunately neither the jews,christians,islam want to acknowledge the truth,that its lord brahmaa and goddess saraswathi who became lord abraham and high priestess sara,for all the abrahamic religions.in effect indians are responsible for the three religions to thrive,because they deprived lord brahma a proper worship of followers even today.sounds kookie to some,about my theory,so be it.sounds genius to some about my theory ,so be it.
 
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

Thank you for starting a new thread. This discussion does not belong in the old thread.

Unfortunately you have in the Democratic party, the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The former, may I remind you was a Presidential candidate.
When I made my point about the non-equivalency between left and right I gave specific quotes which are unarguably extreme (second amendment remedy and anti-American) and racist (support for someone engaging in N-word rant). All you are doing is dropping some names and giving your opinion of them.

Give some hard quotes from people wielding power in the Left that are equal in their kookooness to those coming from the Right.

Well, did you read this article? The article attributes the following to C
harles Smith, chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee in Holmes County.
"Conservatives are the dregs of the old racists," he said. "They're Dixiecrats who won't join the Republicans because of Abraham Lincoln. Everything here is upside down."
I have often bemoaned the fact you apply double standard for what is acceptable argument and what is not. This is another example.

I don't care for Democrats or Republicans. My point was only about the Left and the Right, not Democrats and Republicans. The extreme right with all its kookooness has captured the Republican party, the reasonable conservatives with whom one can argue have been sidelined. I can show reams of evidence for this, the latest of which are from the Republican primaries held earlier this week on Tuesday.

And you say you don't read opinion pieces!!!

For every citation you have provided I also can provide analysis that show Bush lied.

The rest of your statements are digressions.

Cheers!
 
Dear Shri KRS and others,

Politics in the U.S. is, in the most part, confined to the two parties, Democrats and Republicans. While there are some significant differences between the two parties, if you peel off the veneer they are, in the most part, more alike than different.

My daily readings include, among other things, opinion pieces from both sides. The opinions I agree with are not based on who writes them, but whether the opinions expressed are congruent to my own values. When they are congruent, I gain the advantage of their views to consolidate my own views. In this respect I would like to cite an opinion piece by a constitutional lawyer called Glenn Greenwald. The views he expresses seem to coincide with my own quite often. here is a telling piece, it is long, and I request you to read through it. Here it is:

The misguided reaction to Tea Party candidates - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Cheers!
 
come november,it will be coffee party canditates serving the glory of usa :)
 
Folks, If there was any doubt about what passes for writing in the stratosphere where Dinesh D'Souza floats around, read this piece about his latest "book", here.

Some excerpts from the "book" review:

  • The essay's author was Mr. Dinesh D'Souza, the pundit so desperate to provoke that not even conservatives take him seriously anymore.
  • As Dave Weigel explains, D'Souza first blew up in 1995 with "The End of Racism," [...] it included lines like the "American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well."
  • Then came "The Enemy at Home," a book that blames the left for 9/11 by pointing out that terrorists hate the same things that Christian right-wingers hate -- promiscuity, feminism, etc. This book was so confused and horrible that all of D'Souza's right-wing friends denounced it.
  • He doubles down on a stupid error about a loan to Brazil, proving that it was intentional malice and not stupidity.
Cheers!
 
Hi folks,

There were couple of news items yesterday that are quite telling why India is better off not being a superpower.

The first, the direct cost of the two wars America is engaged in, now exceeds of $1 trillion. Do you know how many zeros a trillion has? This is only the direct cost. Indirect cost that includes continuing obligations towards veterans and the opportunity cost may very well exceed $3 trillion, says Joseph Stilglitz, a Nobel Economics prize winner.

The second is the statement from the South Carolina Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham. He is a powerful senator with more influence than most other elected officials. He says U.S. must get into another war, this one with Iran. Here is a quote from his own mouth.
"From my point of view, if we engage in military operations as a last resort, the United States should have in mind the goal of changing the regime," Graham said. "Not by invading (Iran), but by launching a military strike by air and sea."
This is the kind of thinking that comes from a super-power. Is this what we want India to be?

Cheers!

 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I have to apologize for not responding to your postings here. I have been down, with a physical ailment for the past week or so.

Please bear with me, till I can get up and respond to your postings, in the next few days.

I would like to tell the folks who have been reading this topic, to hold their opinions till they get a chance to read my postings soon.

Regards,
KRS
 
Hi folks,

There were couple of news items yesterday that are quite telling why India is better off not being a superpower.

The first, the direct cost of the two wars America is engaged in, now exceeds of $1 trillion. Do you know how many zeros a trillion has? This is only the direct cost. Indirect cost that includes continuing obligations towards veterans and the opportunity cost may very well exceed $3 trillion, says Joseph Stilglitz, a Nobel Economics prize winner.

The second is the statement from the South Carolina Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham. He is a powerful senator with more influence than most other elected officials. He says U.S. must get into another war, this one with Iran. Here is a quote from his own mouth.
"From my point of view, if we engage in military operations as a last resort, the United States should have in mind the goal of changing the regime," Graham said. "Not by invading (Iran), but by launching a military strike by air and sea."
This is the kind of thinking that comes from a super-power. Is this what we want India to be?

Cheers!


nara,

a senator who thinks offence is best form of defence is a c-in-c material.globally a world leader.once in a while a mahatma comes in the world scene.but when you read indian freedom struggle also,its an offence in a very subtle form,which actually gave us the freedom from british christians.gandhi ji ,was/is awesome global leader inspiring millions of ppl.its another matter that british christians subjugated islamic mughals and ruled india.
 
I have to apologize for not responding to your postings here. I have been down, with a physical ailment for the past week or so.
Please bear with me, till I can get up and respond to your postings, in the next few days.
I would like to tell the folks who have been reading this topic, to hold their opinions till they get a chance to read my postings soon.

Dear KRS Ji,
I Wish/Pray for you to get well soon!
bye...
 
Where American and Indian politics meet

Folks,

I just watched Christian Amanpour's weekly show in ABC network. This show made me feel quite despondent. She gave a platform for a few haters from the ranks of both Christians (Franklin Graham) and Muslims (Anjem Choudary) and that made me cringe. But she also gave voice to many reasonable people, particularly, Donna O'Conner who lost her daughter in the 9/11 attacks.

Graham was lamenting about the Muslims wanting to convert Americans to Islam, while he himself is an unabashed proselytizer. On the other hand, the Muslim moderates like Daisy Khan, wife of the Imam of the so called ground zero Mosque, are saddled with having to defend Sharia law. On the one hand we have the hypocrisy of the likes of Graham, and on the other hand the burden of loyalty to an anachronistic ideology that the otherwise reasonable people are having to carry because of the religion into which the accident of birth placed them. This loyalty to an ideology that once was quite progressive -- universal brotherhood (umma) and rights for women as an independent entity, not the property of men -- is now an albatross around the neck of the moderates who want nothing more than to live in peace and harmony.

The same thing is happening in India. Most Muslims, even if they have some affinity towards their Muslim brothers and sisters of Pakistan, are more concerned with day-to-day survival and nothing else. But the politicians won't leave them alone, whether it is BJP or Congress. So much energy, time, and cost are spent on this issue that stands unsurpassed in delusional quality. For starters, there is no evidence, only faith, on the question of whether Rama was even a real person or not. If he was, there is nothing to suggest he was born in the geographical coordinates that bear the name Ayodya today. I think historians believe the place we call Ayodya today was established by the Gupthas or some other imperial dynasty, Shri sangom or Happy is more qualified to address this than I am.

But, none of this matters, the common man is ready and willing to be manipulated by the politicians. A poor Muslim and poor Hindu have more in common with each other than the rich politicians, for whom the interests of their businessman benefactors rank paramount.

Whether it is U.S. or India, the rich businessmen -- MNCs -- have all forms of power locked up, the common man/women have no chance.

Cheers???


Transcript of the ABC show

Video of the ABC show
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks very sincerely to you and Professor Nara Ji. I really appreciate the heartfelt wishes for my recovery. Because of your wishes, I am back to normal.

Regards,
KRS
Dear KRS Ji,
I Wish/Pray for you to get well soon!
bye...
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I hear your anguish. Please read my responses in the 'verdict' thread about the politicians exploiting the sentiments of both the muslims and the hindus in India.

Yes, Islam has as a foundation the 'umma' principle. But, unfortunately, that applies to only those who accept Allah as the 'God'. This principle also came about because of the history of the warring tribes of the Arabs. Today, it is not practiced even at the gates of one of the five pillars of Islam: the pilgrimage to Mecca. While they all don the same outfit, the Saudis treat the pilgrims all differently based on their economic status.

Every religion does not live up to it's original vision. But the answer is not to throw away the baby with the bathwater.

God is here to stay. This belief, i think is inherent in most of the human beings. And, in my opinion, it has been and is for the good.

I am much more optimistic than you are about the condition of the human beings today.

Folks,

I just watched Christian Amanpour's weekly show in ABC network. This show made me feel quite despondent. She gave a platform for a few haters from the ranks of both Christians (Franklin Graham) and Muslims (Anjem Choudary) and that made me cringe. But she also gave voice to many reasonable people, particularly, Donna O'Conner who lost her daughter in the 9/11 attacks.

Graham was lamenting about the Muslims wanting to convert Americans to Islam, while he himself is an unabashed proselytizer. On the other hand, the Muslim moderates like Daisy Khan, wife of the Imam of the so called ground zero Mosque, are saddled with having to defend Sharia law. On the one hand we have the hypocrisy of the likes of Graham, and on the other hand the burden of loyalty to an anachronistic ideology that the otherwise reasonable people are having to carry because of the religion into which the accident of birth placed them. This loyalty to an ideology that once was quite progressive -- universal brotherhood (umma) and rights for women as an independent entity, not the property of men -- is now an albatross around the neck of the moderates who want nothing more than to live in peace and harmony.

The same thing is happening in India. Most Muslims, even if they have some affinity towards their Muslim brothers and sisters of Pakistan, are more concerned with day-to-day survival and nothing else. But the politicians won't leave them alone, whether it is BJP or Congress. So much energy, time, and cost are spent on this issue that stands unsurpassed in delusional quality. For starters, there is no evidence, only faith, on the question of whether Rama was even a real person or not. If he was, there is nothing to suggest he was born in the geographical coordinates that bear the name Ayodya today. I think historians believe the place we call Ayodya today was established by the Gupthas or some other imperial dynasty, Shri sangom or Happy is more qualified to address this than I am.

But, none of this matters, the common man is ready and willing to be manipulated by the politicians. A poor Muslim and poor Hindu have more in common with each other than the rich politicians, for whom the interests of their businessman benefactors rank paramount.

Whether it is U.S. or India, the rich businessmen -- MNCs -- have all forms of power locked up, the common man/women have no chance.

Cheers???


Transcript of the ABC show

Video of the ABC show
 
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

I hear your anguish. Please read my responses in the 'verdict' thread about the politicians exploiting the sentiments of both the muslims and the hindus in India.
I agree with you in general about the verdict. From a leagal POV, which is the only POV a court can take, this is a land dispute. In such a case, it is strange that the HC felt compelled to accept faith as evidence.

However, IMO, the court was placed between a rock and a hard place. The politicians, particularly BJP and their parivar cohorts, assembled a dirty bomb and handed it over to the courts to diffuse it. BJP was in power for a full term and did nothing to settle the matter politically. This issue cries out for a political settlement, and yet everyone is looking to the courts to give it all to them.

Yes, Islam has as a foundation the 'umma' principle. But, unfortunately, that applies to only those who accept Allah as the 'God'.
Yes, I reject their notion of umma based on a deity. Religion is a bane for humanity and Islam is a particularly nasty version of it. But, to me, the Muslims are Muslims only by the accident of birth, and the poison that is all religion gets drummed into them by the society.

God is here to stay. This belief, i think is inherent in most of the human beings. And, in my opinion, it has been and is for the good.
Even though I am convinced there is no god of whatever kind, I am not against someone believing in a god per se, but the problem is, belief in god inevitably leads to religion. If you can find a way for people to believe in god without getting all religious about it, then, it may be viewed just as a harmless pass time. But this is an impossible ask.

Cheers!
 
...The politicians, particularly BJP and their parivar cohorts, assembled a dirty bomb and handed it over to the courts to diffuse it. BJP was in power for a full term and did nothing to settle the matter politically. This issue cries out for a political settlement, and yet everyone is looking to the courts to give it all to them.

Since the topic has now become Ayodhya, I am just giving my views please. I also feel that BJP created this unwanted problem for the country, but it could not do anything about uniform personal code, stopping special status to Kashmir, or any of the claims it had been making.

Yes, I reject their notion of umma based on a deity. Religion is a bane for humanity and Islam is a particularly nasty version of it. But, to me, the Muslims are Muslims only by the accident of birth, and the poison that is all religion gets drummed into them by the society.
Here it is relevant to bear in mind that whatever be the definition of "Ummah", this word now evokes a pan-Islam dream in Muslims; exceptions will be few, I think. It is very similar to their TBs cherishing the glorious old days, but with the vital difference that this is a dream about the future and not a nostalgic recall of a past glory. That way the "pan-Islamism" cannot be thought of as separate from the mindset of Muslims today, whether they are rich or poor and worried about their next meal. It is religion, just as "Ram Lalla" and his birthplace are for the Hindus, rich and poor.
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

You said:
Even though I am convinced there is no god of whatever kind, I am not against someone believing in a god per se, but the problem is, belief in god inevitably leads to religion. If you can find a way for people to believe in god without getting all religious about it, then, it may be viewed just as a harmless pass time. But this is an impossible ask.

This is not just about God and religions. If you look at any ideology and creed, even the ones as idealistic as Communism, you will find a religion like set up and exploitation of it by a handful, aka Lenin/Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini etc. at the top, who killed in millions. Tells me that our race is not yet ready to attain paradise on earth, and the nature of men will never let this world free of problems, irrespective of the belief in God.

Screwing up any idealistic principle with rigid implementations is the nature of mankind.

Regards,
KRS
 
...... even the ones as idealistic as Communism, you will find a religion like set up and exploitation of it by a handful, aka Lenin/Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini etc. at the top, who killed in millions.
Yes, Shri KRS, monsters don't necessarily have to be the religious kind, monsters come in all stripes and shades. Some are quite overt, like Hitler, Pinochet, etc., and some are subtle and not even particular people, e.g. the US foreign policy -- I know this will upset you, but it is true nevertheless.

In any case, these are political issues and each individual can make their own judgment. But, in the case of god and religion, it not as nebulous as politics. Logically speaking, no reasonable case can be made for a personal god who cares about human condition, the Rama, Jesus, and Allah kind. That leaves us only with an impersonal entity who creates the universe and lets it develop according to some basic laws of nature. But even here there is logical difficulty, who created this creator god? This gets us into an infinite regression.

But this is a digression, nothing to do with US politics.

Cheers!
 
aadiyum illai anthamum illai-god is what is existence.comprehension.perception.transcendental.nirgunam & sagunam.its living enlightenment when you realise only self exists ,all is self.ayodhya ,lord rama janma bhoomi,simply must be handed over to hindus and matter ends there.islam will understand,unless they want the karma to come back after them in future.
 
who created this creator god ?

That leaves us only with an impersonal entity who creates the universe and lets it develop according to some basic laws of nature. But even here there is logical difficulty, who created this creator god? This gets us into an infinite regression.
But this is a digression, nothing to do with US politics.
This is the puzzle all religion had to solve in the beginning, and they took diff paths to attempt a solution.
Its very nicely reasoned in Brahma Sutras and explained by Adi Sankara with [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Advaita Vedanta

"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]"

Now this may not have any relevance to American Politics....

thanks,
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Its very nicely reasoned in Brahma Sutras and explained by Adi Sankara with [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Advaita Vedanta

"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]
Shri Suresoo,

Does Sankara mention Big Bang? Does he also say that "God and souls atmans always coexist. One can never exist in the absence of the other."? Will you kindly give the references?
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

You said
Yes, Shri KRS, monsters don't necessarily have to be the religious kind, monsters come in all stripes and shades. Some are quite overt, like Hitler, Pinochet, etc., and some are subtle and not even particular people, e.g. the US foreign policy -- I know this will upset you, but it is true nevertheless.

I do not think that the american foreign policy was / is 100% 'moral'. But then, I also hold the opinion that any foreign policy of any country on earth should be based on pure self interest and nothing more. As long as there are other countries on earth who safeguard their own interests, this is not at all a bad guideline.

Your statement does not upset me - you view America as having an evil foreign policy, but I do not hold such a view. Has America made mistakes in the past, doing things that were unwittingly hurt her own self interest? Yes, of course! But I hope that you do not think that the American policies were deliberately framed to hurt her own self interests? To believe so will be against logic.

Regarding the God question, any entity we call ultimately as God could not have been created, as something can not come from nothing. So, the only possible answer is that such an entity must always have existed. And this idea can only be accepted if we accept the only possible answer to the ever existing thesis: Causation exists only in the universe bound by space and time. So, since God is ever existing, it can be inferred that such an entity is beyond causation, limited by space and time.

This is the fundamental concept of God in any theistic thinking. The atheistic concept brings one to a dead end as you stated.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Sangom Ji,

Does Sankara mention Big Bang? Does he also say that "God and souls atmans always coexist. One can never exist in the absence of the other."? Will you kindly give the references?
Assuming there is no 'straw man' in your questioning, I can recommend you to read more into Advaita from say
The Philosophy of Advaita

I could have simply said
"Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah"

Having asked that question ("who created the creator god") myself sometime back, i felt the explanation i gave is more apt!

thanks,
 
Dear Shri KSR, greetings

.... doing things that were unwittingly hurt her own self interest? .... you do not think that the American policies were deliberately framed to hurt her own self interests?
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.

Yet, US presents itself as a morally superior nation -- shining city on the hill -- which makes them rank hypocrites to boot.


This is the fundamental concept of God in any theistic thinking. The atheistic concept brings one to a dead end as you stated.
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.

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.

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top