-
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.
is this mooda nambikkai?
- Thread starter kunjuppu
- Start date
- Status
S
sapr333
Guest
Kunjuppu>> is this mooda nambikkai?>>>
Its all about FAITH... and there is nothing called good/bad faith.. I mean, Nambikkai or MOODA nambikkai..If so, then we need a bench mark for distinguishing between those two..
ie, On what basis you call some one's faith as 'Mooda' or blind.. There could be a STRATUM right? whats that all about? And on what basis you define something as 'Blind Faith'?
Its all about FAITH... and there is nothing called good/bad faith.. I mean, Nambikkai or MOODA nambikkai..If so, then we need a bench mark for distinguishing between those two..
ie, On what basis you call some one's faith as 'Mooda' or blind.. There could be a STRATUM right? whats that all about? And on what basis you define something as 'Blind Faith'?
sapr,
you caught me with my pants down!!
i started this thread, more with a sense of momentary disgust, at some of the things that i have to put up with, in the name of tradition. the details do not matter eventually.
after i had posted, i realized, this reaction is more a sense of my impatience. i have even wondered if i should stray into the realm of intolerance, or being a common boor.
whatever it is, i find it very difficult, to compliance, in the name of tradition, when these acts go against one's common sense. sampradaayam, to me, has to be distilled carefully.
one step further.
you are aboslutely correct. nambikkai is faith. it is blind faith after all, because, we surrender ourselves to faith, consigning ourselves to that same faith, due to the mysteries that surround us, and for which we do not know the answer.
with each second, many of the mysteries are unravelled, but another million seem to crop up.
so, dear sapr, nambikkai has to be moodam. after all, was it not sekkizhar, who opined, 'pithaa piraisoodi...' .
then, i get crazy.. what is pitham.. something that is tamil, which i came to know only later in life. in talayalam, it has a different connotation.
so sir, at some point, when i think, i am smart, need to assert myself, somewhere, someone, gives me a hard knock. it is then, that i realize, that i indeed attend the best university aka 'the school of hard knocks'
hope i satisfied your curiosity.
thank you.
you caught me with my pants down!!
i started this thread, more with a sense of momentary disgust, at some of the things that i have to put up with, in the name of tradition. the details do not matter eventually.
after i had posted, i realized, this reaction is more a sense of my impatience. i have even wondered if i should stray into the realm of intolerance, or being a common boor.
whatever it is, i find it very difficult, to compliance, in the name of tradition, when these acts go against one's common sense. sampradaayam, to me, has to be distilled carefully.
one step further.
you are aboslutely correct. nambikkai is faith. it is blind faith after all, because, we surrender ourselves to faith, consigning ourselves to that same faith, due to the mysteries that surround us, and for which we do not know the answer.
with each second, many of the mysteries are unravelled, but another million seem to crop up.
so, dear sapr, nambikkai has to be moodam. after all, was it not sekkizhar, who opined, 'pithaa piraisoodi...' .
then, i get crazy.. what is pitham.. something that is tamil, which i came to know only later in life. in talayalam, it has a different connotation.
so sir, at some point, when i think, i am smart, need to assert myself, somewhere, someone, gives me a hard knock. it is then, that i realize, that i indeed attend the best university aka 'the school of hard knocks'
hope i satisfied your curiosity.
thank you.
Last edited:
S
sapr333
Guest
E
[email protected]
Guest
toSri Kunjuppu sir,MoodaNambikaimeans blind following of some one says to do something for our faith. Olden days Othai Brahman coming opposite side and you ore going outside ,it is called Shagunam some thing will happend to you, this isMoodanambikai.In our Birth Time itself every thing Programmed and every thing working accordingly to the prerecorded programme.Even today we are following most of the things are moodanambikai. Pithaa,Athaa, like names given bysikkizar is just calling lord Siva only. S.R.K.
i do not understand.
since you say faith is creating something called a distance, cud this mean that faith (nambikkai) has to be removed so that there is no gap b/w ignorace and realization??
if faith is removed, what is left?
i think you are meaning to say something, but i am understanding it as something else (??).
Dear Sri kunjuppu Ji,
I thought a bit about this. I believe that the Nambikkai can be classified as 'Moodam' or 'Non Moodam'.
It seems to me that a faith based belief in certain things that have been proved beyond doubt by science as not true would constitute Mooda Nambikkai. Believing still that the world is flat would belong to this category.
There are more less apparent Nambikkais that fall in to this category - things that do not stand up to scientific inquiry - like the two tumbler system, or some of the 'theetu' observances.
Regards,
KRS
I thought a bit about this. I believe that the Nambikkai can be classified as 'Moodam' or 'Non Moodam'.
It seems to me that a faith based belief in certain things that have been proved beyond doubt by science as not true would constitute Mooda Nambikkai. Believing still that the world is flat would belong to this category.
There are more less apparent Nambikkais that fall in to this category - things that do not stand up to scientific inquiry - like the two tumbler system, or some of the 'theetu' observances.
Regards,
KRS
krs,
i agree with you.
.. but then this query just popped up.
what about God?
how come it is nambikkai to me and mooda-nambikkai to someone else?
we are looking at the same object, same form, same rituals - in whatever forms we wish, with one calling it black and other white.
i can have nambikkai over God. i can have ava-nambikkai but mooda nambikkai?
wordsmithing? definitely YES!
thank you and looking forward to the results of your ponder
i agree with you.
.. but then this query just popped up.
what about God?
how come it is nambikkai to me and mooda-nambikkai to someone else?
we are looking at the same object, same form, same rituals - in whatever forms we wish, with one calling it black and other white.
i can have nambikkai over God. i can have ava-nambikkai but mooda nambikkai?
wordsmithing? definitely YES!
thank you and looking forward to the results of your ponder
Dear Sri kunjuppu ji sir,
Excellent question. The answer lies in the question itself. One can not prove whether there is God and more importantly whether there is no God.
As long as this seminal question remains unsolved, one can assume whatever one wants in this realm.
By the way, having been trained in Physics, I tend to believe that this seminal question can ever be answered by science. It is about closed systems and the observer as part of that system.
So, then, anything within the realm of God is not 'Mooda' Nambikkai.
Regards,
KRS
Excellent question. The answer lies in the question itself. One can not prove whether there is God and more importantly whether there is no God.
As long as this seminal question remains unsolved, one can assume whatever one wants in this realm.
By the way, having been trained in Physics, I tend to believe that this seminal question can ever be answered by science. It is about closed systems and the observer as part of that system.
So, then, anything within the realm of God is not 'Mooda' Nambikkai.
Regards,
KRS
krs,
i agree with you.
.. but then this query just popped up.
what about God?
how come it is nambikkai to me and mooda-nambikkai to someone else?
we are looking at the same object, same form, same rituals - in whatever forms we wish, with one calling it black and other white.
i can have nambikkai over God. i can have ava-nambikkai but mooda nambikkai?
wordsmithing? definitely YES!
thank you and looking forward to the results of your ponder
S
sapr333
Guest
Intersting!! An abandoned thread hotting up...
Shri KRS/Kujuppu, correct me if im wrong...
Faith is of three types...
1) BLIND FAITH
- Believing in something, just because some one/scriptures/ancestors/Scientist or any higher authority said so.
2) TRUE FAITH
- Though it cannot be proved by science, but it supports philosophy,logics and reasoning.
For eg, Mom makes a coffee.. A scientist can tell the tempreature of the coffee and sugar content.. But science cannot prove, that the the puropose of she making coffee is for her 'childrens breakfast"..But childrens know it by faith,(it support logic and reasoning too both in the parents/Childrens/ common Observers view) , that the coffee is prepared for her children... Thats faith..
3) FALSE FAITH (Mooda Nambikkai)..
This is the area where science easily enters and proves it wrong.. Rather, this is set on weak illogical faith, which voluntarily gives room for science to sneak in.
Shri KRS/Kujuppu, correct me if im wrong...
Faith is of three types...
1) BLIND FAITH
- Believing in something, just because some one/scriptures/ancestors/Scientist or any higher authority said so.
2) TRUE FAITH
- Though it cannot be proved by science, but it supports philosophy,logics and reasoning.
For eg, Mom makes a coffee.. A scientist can tell the tempreature of the coffee and sugar content.. But science cannot prove, that the the puropose of she making coffee is for her 'childrens breakfast"..But childrens know it by faith,(it support logic and reasoning too both in the parents/Childrens/ common Observers view) , that the coffee is prepared for her children... Thats faith..
3) FALSE FAITH (Mooda Nambikkai)..
This is the area where science easily enters and proves it wrong.. Rather, this is set on weak illogical faith, which voluntarily gives room for science to sneak in.
Last edited:
Sir,
Please cud you elaborate on this.
While am able to understand anything within the realm of god as not being mooda nambikkai, yet am not able to connect the role of an observer of a closed system with faith.
Please forgive my inability. I am not trained in physics. Am yet to get a basic degree, studying in a bio related topic.
Regards.
Dear Srimathi HH Ji,
Physical laws apply to closed systems. This is because one can not hypothesize about the effects of open systems. And as Heisenberg's principle notes. there is even an error with an observer being part of a closed system.
A closed system essentially does not allow any influence from outside which is unknown. An open system is then one which has to take in to account what may emanate from outside, which is essentially unknowable. This is very similar to the foundation of Economics, which takes refuge in the statement 'Ceteris Paribus' (while everything else remains constant).
This is the problem with Science. We are trying to describe systems, while we are part of them.
Regards,
KRS
Physical laws apply to closed systems. This is because one can not hypothesize about the effects of open systems. And as Heisenberg's principle notes. there is even an error with an observer being part of a closed system.
A closed system essentially does not allow any influence from outside which is unknown. An open system is then one which has to take in to account what may emanate from outside, which is essentially unknowable. This is very similar to the foundation of Economics, which takes refuge in the statement 'Ceteris Paribus' (while everything else remains constant).
This is the problem with Science. We are trying to describe systems, while we are part of them.
Regards,
KRS
Dear Sri sapr333,
There is no difference between 'blind faith' and 'true faith'.
Logic and science can never distinguish between these two. If it does, then that faith is relegated to 'Mooda Nambikkai'.
'True faith' of your saying is that 'blind faith' followed by all religious folks, whose belief can not be undone by logic and thereby science.
Every major religion that exists today demands faith. And science is in no position to either prove or disprove any one religion's claims on reality.
Regards,
KRS
There is no difference between 'blind faith' and 'true faith'.
Logic and science can never distinguish between these two. If it does, then that faith is relegated to 'Mooda Nambikkai'.
'True faith' of your saying is that 'blind faith' followed by all religious folks, whose belief can not be undone by logic and thereby science.
Every major religion that exists today demands faith. And science is in no position to either prove or disprove any one religion's claims on reality.
Regards,
KRS
S
sapr333
Guest
Shri.Kunjuppu,
Its on the lower level of platform, this term 'Faith & Blind faith' is used, while discussing about God. Its too weak to set a premise on two simple conditions or parameters.May be, when 2 grannies meet, they may afford this kind of talk.
But, when it comes to higher level thinking about God, its always discussed in terms of Reasoning/Logics/Paradox/Metaphysics/Philosophy, while keeping Faith/Science/History/Arecheology as a supporting terms to fill the gaps.
Just because faith/blind faith are just an YES/NO (too simple parameters) term to prove the existence of God, the human race has used further lot methods(as said earlier para) to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Some of the finest views/counterviews (keeping aside FAITH) are propounded by Aristotle,Plato (BC), Thomas Aquinos (Summa Theologic), Agustine,(300AD), Shri.Adi Shankara (700AD) Anselm, Basil, IBN Avvero(Islamic)...Pascal...
Never to foget, the famous modern thinkers like "Betrand Russel' in 'Why Im Not A Christian' and ardernt & theist philospher 'William Clark Lane" .. He debates in university halls, and its worth watching his videos. Also, to some extend the modern day atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins..Though he owns a top selling book 'God Delusion' , but it lacks philosophical/intellectual touch, he painfully tried to bridge science and God, in order to disprove God...
The key point is, all these people attempted to prove/disprove god without touching nambikkai/moodnambikkai.
Last edited:
tbs
0
hi sapr..
in advaita philosophy ..it is called ANIRVACHANEEYAM......
means inexplainable ..like neti neti sidhantam...
means yes/ or no is unexplainable.........
Dear Sapr,
There are verses in the rig where the dilemma of existence and/or non-exitence of god has been mentioned. This was atleast 1500bc. So this whole thing appears to be a very-very old quest, like did the chicken come first or the egg, did man create god or did god create man. I think man just started using science to understand god and himself as the overman, amongst others.
Dear Sri KRS-ji,
Cudn't help smiling at the similies b/w economics and physics as regards a closed system not allowing outside influence, and an open system having to take into account things that are unknowable. There is something similar in bio. The palindrome dna does not allow outside influence, it kills germs or foreign dna trying to enter the system. Yet it also chops up its own dna to help replicate it. The system is a closed one. But is being understood by observed changes.
Reg an error being present even with an observer being part of a closed system, i suppose a part of the difficulty wud include reconciling observed errors of a system (as is understood by observation) and errors of the cognitive understanding itself (thru which the system is sought to be understood).
Cud that have perhaps been a possible reason why the workings of the mind were first sought to be addressed by the ancients, so that one part of the error-fixation may be handled. But then sir, they too seem to have addressed or described a system after being a part of it, just as science does.
Regards.
There are verses in the rig where the dilemma of existence and/or non-exitence of god has been mentioned. This was atleast 1500bc. So this whole thing appears to be a very-very old quest, like did the chicken come first or the egg, did man create god or did god create man. I think man just started using science to understand god and himself as the overman, amongst others.
Dear Sri KRS-ji,
Cudn't help smiling at the similies b/w economics and physics as regards a closed system not allowing outside influence, and an open system having to take into account things that are unknowable. There is something similar in bio. The palindrome dna does not allow outside influence, it kills germs or foreign dna trying to enter the system. Yet it also chops up its own dna to help replicate it. The system is a closed one. But is being understood by observed changes.
Reg an error being present even with an observer being part of a closed system, i suppose a part of the difficulty wud include reconciling observed errors of a system (as is understood by observation) and errors of the cognitive understanding itself (thru which the system is sought to be understood).
Cud that have perhaps been a possible reason why the workings of the mind were first sought to be addressed by the ancients, so that one part of the error-fixation may be handled. But then sir, they too seem to have addressed or described a system after being a part of it, just as science does.
Regards.
Last edited:
Srimathi HH Ji,
But Heisenberg's theory goes beyond the two errors you mention. This error is caused by the observation itself which alters the original event.
Yes, I believe that the only way to go beyond all the errors caused by the physical observation is to look inward, that is through mysticism. That's where you tap in to a realm that is beyond the limitations of physical.
How can one say this? We have ample empirical evidence of this from each religion/philosophy that emanated from different parts of this world, irrespective of the root ideology.
Regards,
KRS
But Heisenberg's theory goes beyond the two errors you mention. This error is caused by the observation itself which alters the original event.
Yes, I believe that the only way to go beyond all the errors caused by the physical observation is to look inward, that is through mysticism. That's where you tap in to a realm that is beyond the limitations of physical.
How can one say this? We have ample empirical evidence of this from each religion/philosophy that emanated from different parts of this world, irrespective of the root ideology.
Regards,
KRS
S
sapr333
Guest
Dear TBS, trust me,I know you will come back..
Cos I had a strong 'TRUE FAITH, not "moodanambikkai -BLIND FAITH' that some day you will come back to this forum, inspite of me not having any direct influence/contact with you..
Cos I know, with my reasoning & Logic that you are a learned person,who love to seek/share knowledge, and hence you wont exit just like that..
Also with my reasoning, I know,you a patriotic person, will not take strange decisions, just because of some groupism kinds and for sure I know you wont support unethical posts of someone..
Also I had a logic, that Good people will always get attracted to good forums, come what the deviations happened, and for sure you will make a comback...
Just to tried to explain "Faith Vs Blind faith', with our own analogy and live instance.. Shri.TBS,Welcome Back... Im sure all our forum member will join me in welcoming you... This forum also needs patriotic person like you too..
Btw, I couldnt comprehend your post.. Could you pls elaborate if, in such a way, that my small brain understand easily..Thanks in advance.
E
[email protected]
Guest
To All: Moodanambikai means for eg: Tideing a coconut at a Hunman Temple will bring Wealth,sons or dats marriage willfix and everybody rushing towards that particular temple and tide coconuts is called Moodanambikai, why a particular temple why not other Maruthi temps. So Moodanambikai is a social enemy and that is the todays Fortune for so many people to earn for their food. S.R.K.
tbs
0
Respected spr
Thank you very much.........infact i visit this forum daily...may be
i can say...im addicted to this forum...no doubt...i read daily
all topics regularly...i may not be direct involve..i learn many
things here...well about my post...in advaitham...sri bhagavatpadal
explains the form of brahman is called anirvacahniyam...this
is a bigbang theory in vedanta....means inexplainable form
of brahman..neti neti is upanishadic word..means this is not,
this is not....
regards
S
sapr333
Guest
Shri.KRS, need some help...
Whats your outlook on this mathematical proof of existence of God... Couldnt understand it much,cos severe memory loss,and lost touch with Descates/Set theory..
The interesting thing is , it disproves Russel..
http://kuday-eng.bloggum.com/post/Mathematical-Proof-Of-The-Existence-Of-God.html
http://kuday-eng.bloggum.com/post/Mathematical-Proof-Of-The-Existence-Of-God.html
Last edited:
Dear sapr333,
Set theory in mathematics is controversial - because it touches the realm of non computational mathematics. Again it operates on the defined logic.
The paradoxes arose, from what I understand out of the underlying assumptions of the construct of the theory. I am not competent enough to say whether the way the existence of God is defined in the attachment is correct or wrong, based on the foundations of set theory.
However, as a layman it seems to me that the existence of God is proved from the existence of humans over the progression of time. This, I suppose assumes that all that exist and not exist belong to a super set G.
I don't see how the 'existence' of God is proved this way. Seems to me that the author only proves that a set can exist which consists everything in the universe, whether it is well defined or not.
Regards,
KRS
Set theory in mathematics is controversial - because it touches the realm of non computational mathematics. Again it operates on the defined logic.
The paradoxes arose, from what I understand out of the underlying assumptions of the construct of the theory. I am not competent enough to say whether the way the existence of God is defined in the attachment is correct or wrong, based on the foundations of set theory.
However, as a layman it seems to me that the existence of God is proved from the existence of humans over the progression of time. This, I suppose assumes that all that exist and not exist belong to a super set G.
I don't see how the 'existence' of God is proved this way. Seems to me that the author only proves that a set can exist which consists everything in the universe, whether it is well defined or not.
Regards,
KRS
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
For rent flat for rent in Bengaluru2 bhk flat for rent in Ittina Sowpernika apartments in Sarjapur road
- anamika (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted [Cook Wanted] Need Brahmin female cook in pallikaranai for family of 3Namaskaram, Looking for a Brahmin female cook to make us lunch and Tiffen everyday morning at...
- Sudharsan R (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Cook required in Anna nagar eastNeed cook for lunch and dinner only for one person. Contact at: 9884051685
- d.k.ram (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted [Cook Wanted] Need Brahmin cook in Selaiyur, ChennaiWe are looking for a brahmin cook located in Selaiyur or East Tambaram, to cook for 2 people.
- swetha12 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Free [Bride Wanted] Bride WantedBridegroom has Passion for Carnatic Music
- SHIVOM (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires