Do you need Happiness and Peace?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Well you equate millions of people born in a certain manner as anomaly and are like people of low character.
That is hatred. I am not saying what I am saying is Love but I speak out against hatred of the heart and biases

When there are billions of people million is an anomaly. Keep your dictionary open before you write your posts. Hate is something that is an emotion and has no logical basis. I have told my reason for not treating homosexuality as mainstream

 

[renuka]

Not at all Renuka. Ideally i do not want to control anybody or anything. Control would be one of the least important words in y dictionary. Hope you understand.

Sravna...control is the only word in your dictionary.

You even try to control nature and control rapid cooling of boiling liquids.

Sravna..you could become a spiritual person if you could just drop trying to control everything and everyone.

One spiritual person told me that Siddha powers is the birth right of everyone etc..all.these types do not realize that spirituality is about letting go and not acquiring.

Let it go Sravna.

 

[sravna]

Sravna...control is the only word in your dictionary.

You even try to control nature and control rapid cooling of boiling liquids.

Sravna..you could become a spiritual person if you could just drop trying to control everything and everyone.

One spiritual person told me that Siddha powers is the birth right of everyone etc..all.these types do not realize that spirituality is about letting go and not acquiring.

Let it go Sravna.

Yes Renuka you are right. I do believe in the philosophy of giving up and letting it go

 

[prasad1]

If my true nature is Sat Chit Ananda.
Where are peace and happiness?

Sacchidānanda representing "existence, consciousness, and bliss" or "truth, consciousness, bliss", is an epithet and description for the subjective experience of the ultimate, unchanging reality in Hinduism called Brahman.

 

[a-TB]

Yes Renuka you are right. I do believe in the philosophy of giving up and letting it go

One must first strive to let go their in-born prejudices because that always leads to unjustified hatred.

 

[a-TB]

When there are billions of people million is an anomaly. Keep your dictionary open before you write your posts. Hate is something that is an emotion and has no logical basis. I have told my reason for not treating homosexuality as mainstream

Calling one person in the world anomaly or 40 millions (that is the number of possible LGBTQ people in the world) it is the same thing. Hate is an emotion that arises due to built in prejudice. When we grow up, we deal with the prejudice logically and that removes the hate as an emotion.

 

[sravna]

Calling one person in the world anomaly or 40 millions (that is the number of possible LGBTQ people in the world) it is the same thing. Hate is an emotion that arises due to built in prejudice. When we grow up, we deal with the prejudice logically and that removes the hate as an emotion.

You mean prejudice starts when one is a child. Yet another immature statement

 

[sravna]

Folks,

There is a category of people who are aplenty in this world who are not mentally grown up and constantly have an insecurity because of their weak convictions. So they seek to reduce others to their own state and try to attribute their own deficient traits to others. In this forum also we see such people.

We have been diverted because of their distraction. I will continue with the topic of the thread and give my views on attaining peace and happiness.

 

[sravna]

I said that we need to see through the outer actions and reactions of people. In many cases people camouflage their real intentions. Why should people need to camouflage their intentions and behave externally in a different way? One of the reasons is that showing the real intention will expose their insecurity to others.

 

[sravna]

When people feel inadequate they start to fill that inadequacy in all ways possible.

 

[sravna]

Alternately they try to portray others at their level of inadequacy. This in fact is a commonly used technique.

 

[a-TB]

You mean prejudice starts when one is a child. Yet another immature statement

Grow up is not in terms of age, but growing up emotionally. Messages that show low maturity is not convincing

 

[sravna]

Let us try to understand the outer reactions more. Those who attack us are of two types: one interested in our welfare and the other interested in their welfare.

 

[a-TB]

Let us try to understand the outer reactions more. Those who attack us are of two types: one interested in our welfare and the other interested in their welfare.

There are sets of messages here coming from a deep anger and insecurity. One can talk about happiness and peace only if they have shed their ego driven impulses. Talking about 'us' vs 'them' is a classic ego driven divisiveness. How can there be peace and happiness with such an ugly thoughts?

When a person is happy and peaceful they can get others to see happiness and peace in the world. A person with divisive mind can only see differences and project own weakness on others.

Folks, Best is to first attain happiness in your own life by seeing not differences but harmony

 

[sravna]

Please stop behaving like a child. If you do not agree with what I say stop reading them. Kindly dont interrupt.

 

[a-TB]

Please stop behaving like a child. If you do not agree with what I say stop reading them. Kindly dont interrupt.

This is an open forum for debates.
My comments were well within the topic of the thread.
I challenged your messages as absurd in logic and divisive in tone.

You can call me names as child etc. but you do not have the capacity to respond to challenges.

Until now you have been getting away using the forum to promote yourself as this great thinker.

First it is about some spiritual power to control weather and people, then it is about you being an authority on happiness. But your messages have been divisive as pointed out repeatedly.

How can you preach about happiness and peace if you keep showing the divisive messages in your mind? It is a legitimated challenge.

Relax and either debate. If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri a-TB,

I am relaxed. It is not the heat but the noise of an empty vessel. I have never seen your substantiating your objections in a logical way. Start doing that and then we will have a debate.

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

I am relaxed. It is not the heat but the noise of an empty vessel. I have never seen your substantiating your objections in a logical way. Start doing that and then we will have a debate.

All my objections, logical issues and divisive concerns are about your messages. I gave reasons in context. You call that noise and I do not know how empty vessels make noise. That is silly.

You have never addressed any of the issues raised and instead used your response to personally attack which is obviously ego driven. You have to get your ego in check when you come here if you want to succeed in debating.

You can go back and take each of my challenge of your message and provide your responses. If it is possible for you do so respectfully. You can disagree and critique what I have written strongly but you should learn first difference between attacks on a person and on the message.

When you have figured that out, go and edit all your attacks at a personal level. Then you would have demonstrated that you can debate here.

All the best

 

[sravna]

Simply stating something is ego driven or divisive is not a logical objection. It i your prejudiced view. If you can really be logical , I am ready for a debate.

 

[a-TB]

Simply stating something is ego driven or divisive is not a logical objection. It i your prejudiced view. If you can really be logical , I am ready for a debate.

To debate one must read what is already written with a commitment to listen. Only then it will be possible to respond intelligently to the objections raised.

It seems I have to connect the dots for you

OK, then.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In Post 1 you write
" One's health
ii. One's intelligence
iii. One's wealth

So if one is lacking in one of these, one's happiness comes down"

This is sophomoric because mental peace has nothing to do with any of these.

It has to be do with being content with what one has in life though they can strive to get more but happy people accept cheerfully what comes as result. You can find examples of wealthy people being very unhappy because they keep wanting more.

Intelligence has nothing to do with mental peace. Some of the most intelligent have committed suicides in history. Another flawed understanding of human emotions.

Human emotions is another independent factor and not connected to the three above.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Then you write

"Your happiness also depends on how much happy you can make others. Trust me this is such a powerful way of creating happiness for self. "

Tell me -if you have prejudice in your thinking for any segment of a population can you be happy? Can you really make others happy. We have discussed a lot about your prejudices (though you maintain it 'calling a spade a spade" and calling LGBTQ an anomaly and therefore not normal people)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When Mr Vaagmi asked you to define happiness you write

"I define happiness as a positive feeling that happens when one is not in misery or discomfort physically or mentally and when one's righteous desires are satisfied. By righteous desires I mean desires that are not harmful to others. So it is beyond being just the absence of misery and discomfort" in Post 4

Mental discomfort has to do with emotions, not intelligence that is missing in your post 1.
You say righteous is what is not harmful to others. But your divisive rhetoric against LGBTQ (that they are born as) is harmful to them. So you have to agree then that you are not righteous.

If so, you have no right to preach about happiness and peace

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All your messages are about "us"vs "them". This divisiveness is not righteous and make the person who views the world that way an unhappy person.

You do name calling in this thread itself to challenges to your ideas. Well, name calling is an ego response of someone who is affected emotionally. That kind of reaction shows the state of your mind.

Tell me - if you are unhappy can you really make others happy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Stopping here. The thread is full of holes in logic and basic understanding of happiness and peace.


Address all the issues raised, ask clarifications with humility (to use your advice to me) and debate

I will show you also when you make a logically right statement here

 

[sravna]

Let me teach you some logic. You say that my statement health, wealth and intelligence are all required for peace and happiness is not correct. You support it with the fact that many wealthy people are unhappy and that intelligent people have committed suicide. There is a fundamental logical flaw you are making by concluding the above.

For some conclusion to logically follow from a premise , the premise has to be not only necessary but also sufficient. For example when I conclude that Ram will pass the exam based on the premise that Ram is hard working, I am wrongly concluding because hard work may be necessary to pass the Ram but may not be the only factor in passing the exam. Ram should also possess intelligence.

Let us now see the premise that Ram is wealthy and the conclusion that Ram is happy. Does the conclusion logically follow? So can wealthy people be unhappy and still wealth required for happiness? Think about it.

 

[renuka]

The pursuit of happiness is futile.
Happiness or sorrow..both these states depends on experiences we face.

Its just how we cope with it.
There is nothing acutely wrong to feel sad or euphoric as long self and others are not in danger.

 

[a-TB]

Let me teach you some logic. You say that my statement health, wealth and intelligence are all required for peace and happiness is not correct. You support it with the fact that many wealthy people are unhappy and that intelligent people have committed suicide. There is a fundamental logical flaw you are making by concluding the above.

For some conclusion to logically follow from a premise , the premise has to be not only necessary but also sufficient. For example when I conclude that Ram will pass the exam based on the premise that Ram is hard working, I am wrongly concluding because hard work may be necessary to pass the Ram but may not be the only factor in passing the exam. Ram should also possess intelligence.

Let us now see the premise that Ram is wealthy and the conclusion that Ram is happy. Does the conclusion logically follow? So can wealthy people be unhappy and still wealth required for happiness? Think about it.

Before you come here and teach others about logic (or happiness and peace) you have to see if what you claim makes logical sense.

OK, you gave example of what is defined as necessary and sufficient conditions. You say correctly that "For some conclusion to logically follow from a premise , the premise has to be not only necessary but also sufficient."

Let us examine your conclusion about happy people meeting necessary and sufficient conditions of "health, wealth and intelligence"

Is your list a necessary condition: NO. There are sannyasis that are not healthy (age related) , have no wealth and have basic intelligence. They claim absolute bliss by chanting names of Rama and Krishna. You should be with some happy people to know what happiness is before lecturing people here. I have met a few. These are not isolated examples. I talked to some homeless person with bad health in Philly (PA/USA) once, and the fellow said he is very happy being homeless and had no desire to change it. He was not very intelligent but he had a care free attitude about life. There are many examples but all you need one exception to shoot holes in your logic that your list describes necessary condition.

Is your list a sufficient condition? No. The people I mentioned that committed suicides or announced to the world that they are unhappy were not only intelligent but very rich and in very good health. You can Google for recent examples. Andre Agasi , tennis player worth millions , once married to Brooke Shields and in excellent health wrote a book how unhappy he is. They met the criteria and many are most unhappy in life. You only need a few cases to show holses in your logic that your list describes sufficient condition.

So your own list does not meet the conditions that you lectured on. So you need to learn to apply logic to your statements. You have failed in your rebuttal.

Now address my other concerns in my earlier post.

 

[a-TB]

The pursuit of happiness is futile.
Happiness or sorrow..both these states depends on experiences we face.

Its just how we cope with it.
There is nothing acutely wrong to feel sad or euphoric as long self and others are not in danger.

Wise statements!

 

[sravna]

You are giving examples and forcing your conclusions on them.

Ok let us assume some one is not healthy, intelligent or wealthy. Dont you think ill health will cause suffering and reduce happiness and lack of intelligence will not help you coping up with problems in the right way and lack of wealth will not give the happiness that basic amount of wealth will give?

Think before you start shooting examples and making your own conclusions.