Brhamin converting to Christianity

[malgova.mango]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sesh!

Let's go to the next.....

Hi malgova,

Please do not assume that I have not read the Brahma Sutras… The point am trying to make here is the validity of the fundamental premises. Human mind always sees logic in everything… and that is why we assume a logical source to creation (even after attributing it to be beyond logic!!!).

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What I meant “Truth” is knowing oneself - Normally our inquestivness is tuned to know the world, we want to know how the system works? Any thing form electricity to working of universe. We want to understand the law, the order . We want to to know the logic of things - so we seek logic – because that's the way we understand. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Only from this premise we start to engage. So our seeking of rational reasoning, a logic is a very fundamental thing isn't that so?[/FONT]

Another reasoning...

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]See if we see two things put together – like a simple Wheel and axle – we automatically conclude there is an intelligence presuppose that – Don't we? - In the same vein We see the world , with Sun Moon stars – our society, living things, non-living things all put to-gether – You can say that is “Nature” . But to me it stopping to think. Nature so what – I see intelligence premeating nature, there should be an intelligence that presuppose the nature . Why not?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This intelligence "IS" the thing beyond the horizon – Infact it is boundless, it premeates everywhere –“ Aganda Satchitanada Brahmam “[/FONT]

When we set out to understand any thing we go as far as we could reason out - beyond a point - we gladly accept the limitation and suggest , it may be "HIS" sport. . - Advaita Vedanta gladly accepts that it couldn't answer the Why question? So Advaita stops there and suggest could be HIS sport.

You want to take it take it , leave it leave it.

One cannot doubt the logic of the Brahma Sutras if one agrees with the Vedas and Upanishads; but then, speaking as a detached individual (from any of the beliefs), one has to question the validity of the premise itself.

I think I covered this in my last but one post. Mahavakyas are like mathematical equation , no use in believing it, must understand. Ofcourse you start any endeavour with a belief.

You have not answered my doubts on the validity of the fundamental premises as pointed out in my earlier post. You are only repeating what I know – I have read about the life of Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya and their philosophies.

Oh did I miss something ? Let me review again.. too many threads might have missed...

I have also gone through the “answers” that supposedly refute the other theories… and I have to say that some of the answers are not satisfactory; they presuppose logic, for e.g.:

The doubt - There is no creator and all things have evolved by view of their inherent properties.

The counter - If everything is capable of creating itself, then why do we not see creation now…? Why is there only one sun and not two or more?

My view - This is an absurd way to counter the question; it is causality that matters which is not bound by logic or consistency or pattern. We are talking as if the universe is a 80 GB hard disk and nothing can exist outside. The universe is infinite – there may be millions of solar systems that could house two or three suns!!! Again, the atom is unstable as long as its positive and negative charges are not balanced. Similarly the spontaneity of creation does not stop until there is some sort of balance.

See charavakas say - there is nothing subtle than that meet the head. to counter that if there is no intelligence or an order that prevades the assembly of things , there couldn't be any orderly function possible. The implicit explanation given is the very order that balance many things is seen as a creator.

If there are any more answers, I would genuinely like to know.

Janmadhyasya yathaha

Brahman is that from which the likes of origin etc (i.e., all activities) emanate

My view - This is a presupposed logic, which assumes cause and effect, though Brahman is defined as beyond cause and effect!!! Why should there be a reason? Why should there be a source? Why not causality

?


This is the Buddhist Madhyamika line of argument. It only leads to Nihilistic view.

The way shastra handles the words "Brahman" and "Atma" in a unique and delicate way - you need a guide to get the clear explanation. Then you will understand what is being said.

You see logic can go to a extent, you need the expertise of your Guru to understand the subtelty involved.

It is human nature that we interlink things and come out with the best possible logic that could explain the way things are (for we believe that there is a cause and effect). We always try to define something using human logic - how we perceive things is as far as how our logic can go. So we are obsessed with the fact that there must be “something” beyond the horizon. What if there is indeed nothing?

refer the earlier part. What if there is onething?

I am not trying to disprove the infallibility of the Vedas/Upanishads, but they too are subject to the confinements of logic.

You need a logical approach - no doubt about it ,That's why we have Nyaya Shastra has a part of Veda. But all I suggest is why not seek a help from a competent guide?

So, all your posts hold good if and only if we accept that there is a logic which drives all entities.

I covered this part earlier...

Again this does not explain the Why of things…

Same as above.

Regards,

 

[malgova.mango]

Sesh!

My try...


Why did Brahman create the universe?

Covered earlier...

Why must we seek liberation from life-death cycle after knowing that it is Brahman who had put us here in the first place?

Seeking Liberation , is seeking to get rid of the ignorance that envelops us. It is not like somebody push us so we seek , no the ignorance cause a lot of day to day problem - so we wish to wash it away .

Why do we praise Brahman? What is the necessity? Is he going to grant special favours for sycophants?

We don't praise anybody for the sake of other, we must have felt something genuniely happy about something about , so we praise. Is it not?

Ofcourse there are various types of praises - I'm talking about genuine cases.

If we say that this is all a game... then surely Brahman must be having a good laugh seeing our actions here...

"Avar Svabhavame - Anandam" - SAT-CHIT-ANANDAM .



Regards,

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Malgova,

This may not be a one to one answer to your posts above, but still it addresses the issue:

I think that the fundamental question raised is still unresolved – it all hinges on the “why” of things… the “how”, “what” and “when” come later…

The question is to be asked from the outside and not from the inside (here outside and inside indicate the boundaries of belief).

Cognition is the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning. A Belief is any cognitive content held as true. There is some voluntary will involved and a desire to find out the “why” of things. Why do we do things the way we do them? What is the purpose?

Since humans have a mind that constantly evolves (it evolves because we question, but again that need not be the purpose!), we can understand the mundane as they relate to social synchronization and harmony that ensures the well-being of all. In a previous thread, there was a discussion on Dharma. It is purely with the intent of securing the well-being of all that the concept evolved.

But when human mind comes to the questions regarding the “Why” of creation and existence, logic evades. And to determine that logic is what is the pursuit of all religions. To some, it is the merging of the self with the Brahman, to others it is enjoyment in paradise and for some others it really does not matter at all.

A seeker is one who has accepted a particular belief and intends to go to the root of it. He is like a football player whose aim is to score goals because be IS a football player (because he chose so, which has arisen from his interest of the game), and the rules of the game lay down his role. The point here is that there are other games as well and there are also people who do not play any games. In this example it is the interest and physical eligibility that matters; in our discussion it is the perception and the resulting intent that matters.

The basic fallacy is the assumption that there is a quest to our existence. We link an order to things, and hence the tendency to conclude that there is a higher authority that is responsible for the same. We tend to generalize our logic of things and extend this logic to the next level.

You may have answered my “Why”, but those are merely replies and does not convince. I dwell on your last post:

Why did Brahman create the universe?

Covered earlier... (Where?)

Why must we seek liberation from life-death cycle after knowing that it is Brahman who had put us here in the first place?

Seeking Liberation , is seeking to get rid of the ignorance that envelops us. It is not like somebody push us so we seek , no the ignorance cause a lot of day to day problem - so we wish to wash it away .

Why did Brahman create us with ignorance?

We think that we are covered with ignorance, and hence our wish to wash it away based on a logic developed by us.

If we say that this is all a game... then surely Brahman must be having a good laugh seeing our actions here...

"Avar Svabhavame - Anandam" - SAT-CHIT-ANANDAM .

That is our belief, isn’t it… we have assumed that this creation is a game for Brahman and have ascribed a state to “Brahman” though we say that he is beyond that.

You seem convinced of your truth and hence the mind refuses to accept any other options that may come along… this thinking is no different from that of a follower of the Abrahamic religions.

The idea that all this creation is purely for the enjoyment of somebody, or that it is a quest for us to find out a purpose does not go well with me. It seems so naive and makes us helpless beings. Maybe that is where our ideologies differ and hence this discussion will remain inconclusive.

Our goal is what we perceive it to be. That is the whole beauty of it.


Regards,
Seshadri

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

I think that the discussion is getting repetitive... unless the crux of the issue regarding the "why" is addressed to, one would not be able to conclude. But again, it is the very nature of the subject that it is so.

Maybe there need not be any conclusion...

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Dear SS Ji,

I find your above postings to be quite corresponding to my own thinking.

Anyone who thinks that the 'solution' to our 'salvation' rests in the outward logic of any religion, in my opinion is wrong. Why? The Lord Himself in Gita has said so.

It is funny that some folks still think that Advaitha is THE ULTIMATE! They forget that there are numerous other 'Hindus' who subscribe to 'other' philosophies!

Religion is based on faith and faith is largely based on culture and birth.

What is viewed as the most logical religious path, may not be the true path at all.

This same mistake of thinking that one's religion is the most logical is the root of all problems in this world.

Every major religion is equally valid for it's adherents. Why? Because the number of adherents believe so. There is nothing to be gained by putting down any largely followed religion - because it disrespects the very humanity that got infused with that religion since the childhood of its adherent. This is why the active conversion is wrong.

I love my religion. I think i will find my salvation in it. But who am I to think that others brought up in different cultures would not have a religion given by Him to them that would not serve them?

It is a matter of arrogance to think that we Hindus are the chosen people.

Regards,
KRS

Hi KRS ji,

I am inclined to agree that putting down any religion disrespects the derived faith (cause it is by virtue of birth that one is inculcated into its tenets). But it is the very nature of religion that once agreed upon, one has to disagree with another, in some way or the other. That is why malgova is finding it difficult to think above it... coz he believes in it... and is speaking from within.

So it may not be arrogance, rather the logical resistance of the mind which has completely accepted a belief. But belief has a rather generalized character... one can believe in a wargod, or a vengeful god or a loving god and so on... and there lies the crime of conversion for it occupies the other's mind and brings it to submissiveness. It means that the convert is now truly confused, because in converting, he has lost the very character of belief - that of absoluteness. Belief is absolute - it does not need rationalism nor logic. It is unquestionable if one acts purely on one's instincts and does not rationalize it... in trying to rationalize comes the logic part of it... and with it comes the question of relativity... relativity to time, society, culture, and a host of innumerable factors...

It has been so that with the merging of cultures (since time immemorial) that many of these personal gods may have faded away (by whatever means). Once the people who nurture a belief become extinct, the belief dies off and the gods are no more... what happened to the Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the gods of the Incas, Mayas, Aztecs, Dakotas, Lakotas, Sumerians, etc...? Why did they not protect their people (and hence themselves) from extinction?

We (or rather everyone) are able to voice out in support of their religion, because we still survive... and so do our gods along with us...

If one is looking for salvation (?), then it is the liberation of mind from everything that seeks to confine... whether it be thoughts or actions... but there comes the catch... by defining salvation, we ourselves are caught up within the idea... it is like a whirlpool... and once caught up in this cycle, the mind does not know peace until it has realized... but realized what?

Until it has realized that all things animate and inanimate are so... and there is no logic or counter logic for anything to happen... There is no concept of right or wrong... There is nothing and yet everything to say about... But this is a dangerous line of thought as it could lead to a sort of anti-fatalism (or existentialism), which in turn could make the individual think that one may do whatever that pleases the mind... and there could possibly begin the destruction of the mind (and society).

Maybe that is why religion has stepped in, to prevent such a destruction and to preserve mankind... it inculcates some cohesiveness by depicting an order through things... So the building brick of every religion is adherence to its principles... for if one wanders out, there is no knowing what one might end up with...

Am just unwinding my thoughts here...

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[malgova.mango]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sesh![/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I'm a bit disappointed with your reply. I expect you to answer my queries and engage but you choose to dis-engage – saying repetition. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Repetition is there , I agree – it is because the things I've been questioning is not answered – So I had no other choice but to repeat it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You see the crux at first is about the validity of the statement “Truth is pathless land” then it goes from one to another and finally ends at Why issue – I've answered and sought some clarification. But you choose to stop the discussion mid-way.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Anyway that's ok... but what I'm taken back is your repeat of assessment on belief – this one too I clearly covered. Belief is necessary in the preparatory stage but the later stage is not about belief it is about understanding the equations. The equations are unique and direct answers for the seekers quest, not found in any other system – religious or non-religious or independent.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]See the stake is there – if intelligent people without due consideration , started to say “ all religion shows the same goal” then it has to be refuted. Swarga prapti is what neo-religions talks about. We too say this, but we didn't stop at this we say this too is Samasara and ignorance about one-self is not completely removed by attaining swarga .[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Then we say complete removal of Ignorance about oneself is the way to Liberate from the clutches and equations are given and a path to relate to the equation is shown. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]So from this it is clear that not all religion shows the same goal. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even within ourselves – Purva Mimasika or the followers of Veda Purva – settle with Swarga Prapti as the ultimate goal and refuses to acknowledge “Uttara Mimasika” - So Bhagavat Padal had to come down and write Bhasya to Brahma Sutra to convince the Purva Mimasikas on the supremity of Upanishads.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Then again 2 siddhas came and again they ask the people to settle for Swarga Prapti only they elevate that as Vaikunda Prapti a permanent abode. Nama sathittu poyitta.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Some like Buddhist , they by logic show that truth is emptiness – again an erroneous view. Logic alone is not sufficient – you need blessing to connect to the equations.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Then we have Vallalar, and many other – to confuse more by dis-crediting the mode of established transmission path and founding new path. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Barathiyar is another – he drinks the nectar received from the teaching , but dis-credits the mode of transmission . Luckily he didn't start any cult on his own.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now another group – totally confused by all the religious theologies say “Truth is a pathless land”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Intelligent people also taken in by their view and remain confused.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is complete non-sense, it defeats our very purpose of identity , as a brahmin we should clear confusion and illuminate others . This is our duty- don't you think so ? As a brahmin I seek your answer. I want engagement – don't disengage yourself.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even if you are not satisfied with “Why” factor – so what ? You can clear your notion about yourself what? What is more wonderful than that? - Anyway that's your personal choice, my request is don't murk the pond . Let the pond be clear enough for the thirsty seeker to quench their thirst.[/FONT]

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Malgova,

I'm a bit disappointed with your reply. I expect you to answer my queries and engage but you choose to dis-engage – saying repetition.

Repetition is there , I agree – it is because the things I've been questioning is not answered – So I had no other choice but to repeat it.

The logic in your posts comes to a standstill at a point where belief steps in; to experience your truth, one has to believe that system as true and accept it. Why should one do so? Because your equation is more logical? Because you believe that to be the ultimate truth? And whatever explanation one may offer, the question is still about belief. So I said repetition. Cant help on your personal feelings though.

You see the crux at first is about the validity of the statement “Truth is pathless land” then it goes from one to another and finally ends at Why issue – I've answered and sought some clarification. But you choose to stop the discussion mid-way.

There is an inner truth to the statement “Truth is a pathless land” and that is the crux of the issue… not the statement itself. Though the statement is what provoked your thoughts, the core issue is “Why”. My intention is not to stop the discussion, but to express the futility of it as we are both speaking from different viewpoints on a subject that actually diverges.

Anyway that's ok... but what I'm taken back is your repeat of assessment on belief – this one too I clearly covered. Belief is necessary in the preparatory stage but the later stage is not about belief it is about understanding the equations. The equations are unique and direct answers for the seekers quest, not found in any other system – religious or non-religious or independent.

It is the logic of equations that am questioning, not belief.

See the stake is there – if intelligent people without due consideration , started to say “ all religion shows the same goal” then it has to be refuted. Swarga prapti is what neo-religions talks about. We too say this, but we didn't stop at this we say this too is Samasara and ignorance about one-self is not completely removed by attaining swarga .

Then we say complete removal of Ignorance about oneself is the way to Liberate from the clutches and equations are given and a path to relate to the equation is shown.

So from this it is clear that not all religion shows the same goal.

All religions may or may not show the same goal – that is irrelevant to the discussion. The key is the perception of truth. My focus is – Why should there be a god? What is the purpose of creation (by god)? Why did he not create us as liberated beings? What is the joy in merging with god or the Brahman? What purpose does it serve? If “joy” is the purpose of merging with Brahman or God, then I experience the same joy in this world in so many different ways and occasions. Then you say that this joy is short-lived because we are but mortal and there is everlasting bliss by realizing the Self. I say that it is because that we are mortal that we experience joy; being immortal is boring and pointless and there is no joy in that. Maybe that is why creation has sprung – to experience, to feel, to know, by being in different states!

Pray, answer this – why do humans procreate? Are we not bringing in more ignorant souls to this earth and adding to the already existing miserable state that we are in?

And again, if everyone gets liberated, what happens to the earth? No more humans?

Even within ourselves – Purva Mimasika or the followers of Veda Purva – settle with Swarga Prapti as the ultimate goal and refuses to acknowledge “Uttara Mimasika” - So Bhagavat Padal had to come down and write Bhasya to Brahma Sutra to convince the Purva Mimasikas on the supremity of Upanishads.

A person of strong intellect can overcome a person of weak intellect. Again, tarka is done based on accepted logic – accepted by whom? The majority. If the majority agree that “x” is right, it is because his logic fits in aptly in their perception. So “y” is termed wrong or defeated or illogical. This is how things are.

Then again 2 siddhas came and again they ask the people to settle for Swarga Prapti only they elevate that as Vaikunda Prapti a permanent abode. Nama sathittu poyitta.


Personal belief – Whatever one conceives, one sees.

Some like Buddhist , they by logic show that truth is emptiness – again an erroneous view. Logic alone is not sufficient – you need blessing to connect to the equations.


When logic defies, you say that blessing is needed. You are convinced of the others’ misplaced identity that you fail to see their view.

Then we have Vallalar, and many other – to confuse more by dis-crediting the mode of established transmission path and founding new path.

No comments.

Barathiyar is another – he drinks the nectar received from the teaching , but dis-credits the mode of transmission . Luckily he didn't start any cult on his own.

No comments.

Now another group – totally confused by all the religious theologies say “Truth is a pathless land”.
Intelligent people also taken in by their view and remain confused.

I think that this is independent thinking. If confusion, in your dictionary, is defined as not accepting your belief or your truth, let it be so.

This is complete non-sense, it defeats our very purpose of identity , as a brahmin we should clear confusion and illuminate others . This is our duty- don't you think so ? As a brahmin I seek your answer. I want engagement – don't disengage yourself.


Like I said above, confusion is personal – everyone has a different colour of confusion. It is the duty of every individual, not only of the brahmin, to think independently, which would, in turn, allow the individual to make his choices freely. Questioning leads to understanding of our position vis-a-vis the society, the system and the universe. I am a brahmin by birth. I have derived this faith, this culture from my ancestors through my father and I intend to follow it, to preserve it and for that I will believe it. But questioning that very line is the characteristic of mind, a quality which one should not forego. Confusion? Where? Oh Ok, if you say so.

See everything has started from discriminating perception, which again was for a purpose. Someone (or a group) discriminated between right and wrong, confusion and clarity, god and devil, and so on…

Does it matter if I write in caps or title case or with spelling mistakes, or in bad english even if the meaning is communicated? You see, that is the point which should be taken; believe in whatever religion you want to believe, but existence should be unhindered in whatever we do. That is why all religions have an inherent social order in them. This order is vital for existence. But it need not have any purpose other than existence itself.

Even if you are not satisfied with “Why” factor – so what ? You can clear your notion about yourself what? What is more wonderful than that? - Anyway that's your personal choice, my request is don't murk the pond . Let the pond be clear enough for the thirsty seeker to quench their thirst.

There is a pond. And it is in a state, which is to your liking. That does not indicate that it is clear!!?? What is clear to you may not be so for me. Your statement above is a classic example of personal belief.

 

[malgova.mango]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sesh![/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I think you miss my point – again I try ..[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I didn't expect you to believe in the Logic of the Equation . [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Logic by virtue is for understanding not for believing. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I used the word believe, in the sense of giving a chance to see how it works - like a young scientist [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]must first trust E=MC2 holds some substance , before he venture to find out HOW of it. If he have no trust or faith in that equation – he will never venture to find . In that sense only I used the word belief .[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In any undertaking you need shraddha or faith or trust or belief you call whatever before you undertake.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even your statement “Truth is a pathless land” is based on the belief only. You are not giving irrefutable logic to substantiate that. I've objected your assumption – you didn't reply. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]For ex – you said Truth is to be experienced – I objected to that I said it is to be KNOWN that's all and experience is a byproduct it is not the pursuit itself. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The equation has to be understood logically – that's why our teaching is called Universal teaching and the teacher is called JagatGuru or Universal Teacher. It is like science , it speaks the language of logic that's why we have American Swamiji, Latino Swamijis, Australian Swamijis ... because the path is communicable , the language of logic and reasoning is understood by any capable human intellect.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The equation is a puzzle, a riddle, a challenge to solve and no use in merely believing it. Infact you should doubt it until you get cleared. Herd mentality is of no use here. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If the word BELIEF is a taboo to you , then you DOUBT the equation but give a chance and try to connect be fore you shoot down the “PATH” – Is that request, asking for too much? See I really don't care about your preferences and attitudes, but what pains me is that the ONLY source to connect to the TRUTH is handled without any due consideration by the intelligentsa. See people like Brahmanyan – very senior citizen , intelligent , devout to whom I have regard began to dis-credit the “PATH” by saying this and that .........I'm disturbed. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hey Bhagwan has given us a human intelligent – he also give us an insatiable quest to Know , has given the answers pithily in Mahavakyas, has shown the “Path” - till to date has given “Teachers” to illuminate . He has also given us the choice – our own freedom – to choose to get rid of our Ignorance OR to remain and live with it. What else HE can do? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]One more thing....[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I said by sheer logic alone you cannot understand in the sense – Logic leave to multiple ends – you can end up as Charuvakas, Madhyamikas, JK lines, Pagutharivu lines etc.....you need a guide to get hook into the correct line of reasoning . In that sense only I said. Not in the sense of brain washing...... that you allow yourself to be brainwashed by the teacher – No definetly not.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Am I communicating ?...Lets resolve this first....[/FONT]

 

[KRS]

Dear SS Ji,

I agree with you that one's religion usually is paramount for one. Even though I have lived abroad all these years and have come across various other religions, I can not for a moment think that I am nothing but a Hindu. Whenever I think about other religions, I am always drawn back to mine.

This does not mean that I think that other religions are somehow inferior to mine. As much as I identify with mine because of my birth, I have to acknowledge this fundamental right for others to think that their religion is supreme. Just bacause I think that I am married to the most beautiful girl in the Universe, I am not going to think that other's wives are ugly and that their husbands would not think about their wives as the most beautiful, like me.

This is why I have a problem with folks who think that other religions are inferior to their own. When our Vedas proclaim that all paths lead to the same God, they do not talk about other religions. It is about the different sambradhayams within our own! It always amazes me that the folks who get in to thie type of quarrel who hold other religions as somehow inferior, also think that only Advaitha is the supreme philosophy! And the same folks talk about Hindu Unity!

Advaitha teaches us that we are all One. But then in the name of the same philosophy, aome of us preach that some of us are one!

In the name of belief and God's edicts, we selectively apply our Shastras and proclaim that we the chosen! In the mean time we live a life of negation, while not following the edicts of such a negation. In other words, in the name of our role, we do not follow the rules of the role, yet compalining that others do not see us in our roles!

In the process, we proclaim that we know how to attain mukthi, while doing everything possible to do the opposite of obtaing mukthi, to earn enough Karmic merits that will surely bring us back again and again.

If this is not the definition of Schizophrenia, I don't know what is!

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

am throughly enjoying this conversation..op2:..methinks its abt just two rights viewed from the same window in diff directions...:loco:.. thanks seshji, mmji and krsji.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Malgova,



I think you miss my point – again I try ..

Ok… let me also try…

I didn't expect you to believe in the Logic of the Equation .

Logic by virtue is for understanding not for believing.

Logic is how humans perceive things, but it need not be the truth.

I used the word believe, in the sense of giving a chance to see how it works - like a young scientist must first trust E=MC2 holds some substance , before he venture to find out HOW of it. If he have no trust or faith in that equation – he will never venture to find . In that sense only I used the word belief .

A scientist does not know beforehand that there is an E = mc2… he experiments with a purpose based on his learning and perception… He refines his experiments with the results of the past and moves on. It may be that his experiment could very well end in something that was not intended.

Again, if one has come with an equation, it may not exclude the possibility of other equations purely by virtue of its hypothesis…

In any undertaking you need shraddha or faith or trust or belief you call whatever before you undertake.

What is the quest here? I think that it is still open; if you analyze what “Brahman” is, one would find that it is defined as that from which creation has sprung. That by itself is a hypothesis! If one accepts the hypothesis to be true, then he needs shraddha in his undertaking to understand and attain the result (which is the fruit of the hypothesis).

Even your statement “Truth is a pathless land” is based on the belief only. You are not giving irrefutable logic to substantiate that. I've objected your assumption – you didn't reply.
For ex – you said Truth is to be experienced – I objected to that I said it is to be KNOWN that's all and experience is a byproduct it is not the pursuit itself.

The statement “Truth is a pathless land” is devoid of any beliefs… but yes, it in itself is a belief. I can only substantiate that by questioning the validity of the other, which is what am trying to convey here. The sum and substance of my posts is that. There need not be any logic, for logic is but a state of perception.

Knowing is due to knowledge, which is a result of learning and perception. Experience is when the knowledge is used. For e.g. If one earns a degree, he has gained that knowledge and has a certain eligibility to pursue that line. When he puts his knowledge to work, he would constantly put those to the fore – using them, evaluating them and refining them, and as a result his perception constantly undergoes a change. The word experience is a verb here, when he is actually “in’ the process. Get it? When you speak about merging of the self with the Brahman, what do you mean? You “know” that, but you would realize the validity of the truth only when you merge with Brahman, and when you experience it (or when you are aware of yourself feeling the eternal bliss with Brahman).

Maybe we mean the same usage, but are using different words to express it.

The equation has to be understood logically – that's why our teaching is called Universal teaching and the teacher is called JagatGuru or Universal Teacher. It is like science , it speaks the language of logic that's why we have American Swamiji, Latino Swamijis, Australian Swamijis ... because the path is communicable , the language of logic and reasoning is understood by any capable human intellect.

The equation is a puzzle, a riddle, a challenge to solve and no use in merely believing it. Infact you should doubt it until you get cleared. Herd mentality is of no use here.

You believe in this equation and hence your logic would revolve within it only. Come out of it and question the stand of the equation with respect to the other.

You perceive that there is an issue here to be resolved – that of finding the pursuit of humans. This has certain assumptions in it – that there is an issue and that it is to be resolved, and that there is a pursuit. My question is – why should you assume these? The tendency of human mind is always to break down things to a logical conclusion and that is what has led to religion.

If the word BELIEF is a taboo to you , then you DOUBT the equation but give a chance and try to connect be fore you shoot down the “PATH” – Is that request, asking for too much? See I really don't care about your preferences and attitudes, but what pains me is that the ONLY source to connect to the TRUTH is handled without any due consideration by the intelligentsa. See people like Brahmanyan – very senior citizen , intelligent , devout to whom I have regard began to dis-credit the “PATH” by saying this and that .........I'm disturbed.

If you have this doubt after the explanations above then I think you still have not understood the point.

I stop my discussion with you with this post and would let Shri Brahmanyan handle this… since it is his post that has disturbed you.

Hey Bhagwan has given us a human intelligent – he also give us an insatiable quest to Know , has given the answers pithily in Mahavakyas, has shown the “Path” - till to date has given “Teachers” to illuminate . He has also given us the choice – our own freedom – to choose to get rid of our Ignorance OR to remain and live with it. What else HE can do?

One more thing....

I said by sheer logic alone you cannot understand in the sense – Logic leave to multiple ends – you can end up as Charuvakas, Madhyamikas, JK lines, Pagutharivu lines etc.....you need a guide to get hook into the correct line of reasoning . In that sense only I said. Not in the sense of brain washing...... that you allow yourself to be brainwashed by the teacher – No definetly not.

Why should we reason out? What is the purpose? We can only come to your posts about Bhagwan/Brahman/True path only if the broader query is addressed to. Hope you can understand this.

Am I communicating ?...Lets resolve this first....

[FONT=&quot]What do you think now?[/FONT]

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

..methinks its abt just two rights viewed from the same window in diff directions...:loco:.. thanks seshji, mmji and krsji.

Nope, there is a fundamental difference between what am trying to convey and what malgova has been persisting with...

Regards

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

In the process, we proclaim that we know how to attain mukthi, while doing everything possible to do the opposite of obtaing mukthi, to earn enough Karmic merits that will surely bring us back again and again.

If this is not the definition of Schizophrenia, I don't know what is!

Regards,
KRS

ound:

Could not help myself from having a hearty laugh, seeing the point in your statements above.

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri KRS ji and Shrim happyhindu,

Actually we are all acting as if some army general has air dropped us on to a desolate land with a backpack kit of survival and our sole mission is to reach base...

It is like - we come into a room only to get out of it!

I play this PC game - Age of Empires(one of my favourites), where you can create a civilization (one or more) and develop it from the stone age to the industrial age... you can choose an objective for the game too - battle, economic, building wonders, timeline or a combination of the above...

By accepting the notion of God, I think that it is but a larger version of the game with the characters given intelligence to develop themselves and make their own control groups... with the player doing minor interferences whenever needed (maybe to ensure that the game goes on...).

These characters (in the PC game) can never see what is controlling them but are forced to act a particular way depending on what the objective of the game is... in our game (the real one), each character gets to decide what the objective is... !!!

This is what all religions portray our purpose of existence to be... and that is the logic which am questioning...

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[KRS]

Dear sri SS Ji,

You are raising questions here that have been raised by other in every culture. This goes back to the conflict between logic and faith in every religion.

Logic, which by the way always has ocuupied a grand place in our Sambradhayam, is unfortunately, limited.

It is limited by two facts: 1. It is confined to a closed system and so it can not be applied to an open system. 2. Logic is experiential based. And so, it takes a long time to figure out the rules that are not within it's experience.

This is where religion comes in. Of course, the discussion remains as to whether Religion's role is to fill this void or whether the religion is the root of a different logic altogether.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS ji and Shrim happyhindu,

Actually we are all acting as if some army general has air dropped us on to a desolate land with a backpack kit of survival and our sole mission is to reach base...

It is like - we come into a room only to get out of it!

I play this PC game - Age of Empires(one of my favourites), where you can create a civilization (one or more) and develop it from the stone age to the industrial age... you can choose an objective for the game too - battle, economic, building wonders, timeline or a combination of the above...

By accepting the notion of God, I think that it is but a larger version of the game with the characters given intelligence to develop themselves and make their own control groups... with the player doing minor interferences whenever needed (maybe to ensure that the game goes on...).

These characters (in the PC game) can never see what is controlling them but are forced to act a particular way depending on what the objective of the game is... in our game (the real one), each character gets to decide what the objective is... !!!

This is what all religions portray our purpose of existence to be... and that is the logic which am questioning...

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[malgova.mango]

Sesh!

I'm FLOORED.

Thousand apologies.

You handled it with deft and grace.

Sorry , if I caused anxiety in you.

Once again - Thousand Apologies..

I wish to continue , this time a bit more careful - But the choice is left to you.

Thanks & Regards
malgova.mango

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

I think there is a difference between "preception" and "perception"!!!! mango, you had better refer a dictionary before you begin to construe...!!!

Carry on with your rant for all you can; actually am enjoying it... It is but natural for humans to digress...

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[tbs]

hi seshadri sir
namaskarams, eppadi irukkel? nalama? nalamariya aaval.....u remember
me? i belong to singanalllur. r u online now?
regards
tbs

 

[malgova.mango]

please see my reply above , in case if you missed it - Sesh.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

No worries malgova...

Actually I have a copy of your original reply in my inbox... whenever, I feel am being carried away by my own logic, I need but to look at it to bring me to reality... (pun intended)

As for the topic, I think the views are saturated... (at least mine) I have made my point... and it is up to you to accept it or reject it...

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Taking the thread back to the original topic, Brahmo Samaj which was started by Raja Ram Mohan Roy was influenced by Islam and Christianity. The Brahmo samaj consisted originally of only Brahmins.

This article in Wikipedia gives a very unflattering view of Raja Ram Mohan Roy.

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

Keshub Chandra Sen was almost a Christian. The main reason for the breakup of Brhamo Samaj was the rift between Keshub Chandra Sen and Debendranath Tagore which arose because Tagore was a pucca Hindu who believed in many of the Brahminical rituals like Upanayanam. He brought out a book explaining Upanayanam at the time of the Uapanayanam of Rabindra Nath Tagore. I have the book. The Brahmo Samaj meeting used to start with a private recitation of the Vedas by Telugu Brahmins. The recitation was not public as the Brahmins refused to recited before non-Brahmins.

Swami Vivekananda was a follower of Brahmo Samaj before meeting Sri Ramakrishna.

I am quoting from History only to show how the Christians have tried to convert Brahmins and have failed miserably.

Anand Mahadevan is a Bombay Tamil. For many Bombay Tamilians especially those belonging to the upper strata of society the Tamil Brahmin roots are not strong. Also the reason for this article could be the advise of a public relations consultant.

Remember the writer Kamala Dass who converted to Islam with a lot of publicity some years back.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

A link:

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ca/index.htm

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[malgova.mango]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sesh![/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Though not intended, the previous post of mine precisely sums up our problem – The problem of super- imposition called Adhayasa. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I just super-impose the value "preception" over "perception" and preceived wrongly. What it all need to correct myself is 1 thing as pointed by you – [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1 – Pointing where my mistake is[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is exactly our problem. Super-Imposition. That's why we only need knowledge to distinguish right from wrong preception. We don't need any experience – Like the Lion cub, it just need to reflect on a pool of water to know who HE is – That's all . [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]My reaction is pun to you – why because it is based on mis-preception. That's why you laugh, In a grand scale this is exactly what's happening – we mis-preceive ourselves and live. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]................................................................................................................................[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Though you say from your side it is saturated and asked me to take it or leave it , I can't help with this post...[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Lets go to your definition [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Your definition is valid only for unsound Logic. If one say logic used for assessment purpose and need not point the “Truth” means – The logic used may not be that sound. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If you say our teaching is of unsound logic. You should point it out. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The only objection I see is – your questioning of the existence of Brahmam.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]That doesn't mean the Logic is unsound. For if the Logic is unsound you cannot resolve the equation, but by accepting the hypothesis, which is the existence of Brahmam, one could resolve the equation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If others cannot resolve it, then you can say the logic is unsound. Because the “Truth” is not arrived. But it is not the case.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Moreover , the existence of Brahmam can be infered by a open minded person also – that's the reason I posted that we can safely assume there is a intelligence presupposes the putting to-gether of any 2 substance like Wheel and Axle , The traditional example give a “spinning top” you can infer the string and the intelligence behind it though you see only the spinning top.[/FONT]

“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sattaiyil Suzhalum pambara salam pol IRAI - Aatuvan Ullagellam.....” Thayumana Swamigal.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You cannot say that by accepting the hypothesis – one becomes close minded and the one not accepting the hypothesis is open minded. Because by ONLY accepting it one can resolve and find the “TRUTH” so there is no choice left here.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]On the other Hand...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif].[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The one who doesn't accept – doesn't offer any answer . He says “Truth “ = INEXPRESSABLE or called Anirvachaniya or Emptiness – What is the use? This is the Limit of Human intellect – he reached the horizon of it, so what ? What is the practical use.? What is so coy about open minded ? He didn't arrive at anything.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If one really has quest that is burning he doesn't mind, being close minded –because that quenches is thirst which is of utmost significance. Isn't it? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It is like one in hunger – he need's food to eat – not sand. For the one who is not so hungry – he can choose to play with sand. So one has choice.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sesh – I didn't expect you to reply , just using this opportunity to express my point.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Another 2 things – that merging with brahmam is not at all in the equation. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Our teachings doesn't say to shun desire, rather it advises us to manage it. That's why in Chamakam we pray to GOD to give us desire 2X in succession. [/FONT]

....................................................................................

 

[malgova.mango]

I find from the post of SF that he is disturbed by the problem of convertion, A real problem. Because if people going to desert our native culture , In a few generation our culture will disappear as it happened in the lands of Persia, Tribal lands, Africa, as it happened to native european culture many tribal cultures of Indonesia , Malaysia , Maldives everything vanished or at the verge of destruction.

All in the name of what? In the name of praying to GOD in a different style. These neo-religions think there style is the supreme - naturally they couldn't tolerate other cultures anything from simple tribal culture to sophisticated Vedic culture. In there religions there is no scope for enquiry - it is faith based either you do this and go to Heaven permanently or you will be punished in Hell permanently. That's all - no other scope.

I understand the emotion out poured by SF, I see the problem. By saying there is no problem here and let them choose what they like is denying the very probelm allowing the problem to grow and become a crisis.

By converting to other religion - the converted person is ridiculing, insulting his native religion. If the native religion has no scope for his development then he can convert - atleast there is a justification. This has to rebuked as correctly done by Hari

But ONLY our native path address the four human pursuits in a structured way. So I don't see any rhyme and reason to ditch one's Svadharma. I see it is the aggressive tactics of the neo-religions yeilding results.

We need to accept the problem and stem the problem now.

 

[KRS]

Obfuscation is the first rule for refuting logic.

The 'four human pursuits' do not exist in the same form they existed eons ago. Why? Because His plan for Jagat has changed.

Religion exists for only one purpose. It is for a human being's use in his/her private life. If Hinduism ceases to be useful in a person's life, it will vanish from the face of this earth. No finger pointing and excoriating the 'uncivilized', 'un Hindus' and 'non purva mimamsians' amongst us will ever bring our religion to relevancy today.

I think our religion is very well alive and kicking. It is just that some of us who like malgova mangoes, do not think that the neelams, bhanganaballis, crape and alfonsos think that the mango world has gone haywire because the malgovas are declining.

Svadharma is NEVER by Varna. It is only by birth, governed by Karma. This is where the greatest disservice to our religion was created. Karma has no varna.

Regards,
KRS