Re-energising the Kanchi mutt

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri arunshanker Ji,

A very excellent posting.

But let me quibble with a couple of statements you have made and their underlying assumptions.

Religion has not stopped evolving. It is still evolving to suit the modern life. If your statement is true, then there is no need for any religion, which obviously is not the case. This is why epistemology is part of philosophy as a discipline.

A miracle is not necessarily outside of 'natural laws'. Just because the study of nature at the present time can not explain certain phonomena, that does not make them 'non immutable'. It is just that there are phenomena that occur everyday that can not be explaind today by the study of matter. For example, it has been obeserved and documented some behaviours by advanced yogis that seem to contradict known 'natural laws'. (Please read Paul Brunton's book 'A search in secret India'.) Miracles are still happening. The question to ask is whether the advance of secular logic and science have screened out such miracles to be reported in proper context.

I agree with your definition of philosophy today. But even today, philosophers have a strong interest in theology, because of the very fact that man is not always 'rational', as defined by logic.

Pure rationality has its limitations.

Regards,
KRS

 

[arunshanker]

Firstly thanks for having seen merit in my posting
I am enjoying the stay in TB forum

Miracles are still happening

I challenge you to prove this beyond doubt
I will accept if a group of test its repeatablity
You say "A miracle is not necessarily outside of 'natural laws'
but I say that if the miracle is within the natural law then it is no more a miracle!
You say
"Just because the study of nature at the present time can not explain certain phonomena, that does not make them 'non immutable'"
I say -Just because the study of nature at the present time can not explain certain phonomena, that does not make them 'a miracle'
Paul Brunton's book is on mystic aspects of some yogis which cannot be put to test In fact Brunton Himself describes himself as a mystic
What do you think if a Ramar Pillai sort of validation test is done on these ppl do claim miracles?

You say - Miracles are still happening. The question to ask is whether the advance of secular logic and science have screened out such miracles to be reported in proper context.
Can you quote an example where a so called miracle has happened?

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Arun and Sri KRS ji,

Very nice posting, enjoyed it.

I tend to make a small difference while taking philosophers into account, as 'hindu philosophers' or 'christian philosophers', the reason being that they can both be considered as music, dealing with the same stuff, but of a very different genre.

The existence of Hinduism is not dependent of gods, which can very well be removed and hinduism still remains, because its philosophies are based on an all prevading brahman, an entity that can be described as god or non-god.

While discussing christian theology, i realized one factor it all boils down to - whether or not Christ is God. Any philosophy that contradicts it, appears to be rejected as not being part of the Christian religion. The whole religion depends on one central figure, Jesus Christ. To me this appears to be a contradiction. If christian theology were philosophy, then it also has to take Christ as non-god into account. But in the christian religion, a theologist can be a philosopher only if the domain of god, and its central tenents like creationism, is not violated.

 

[tbs]

Let me add to what I know of Theology and Philosophy
There is a distinct difference between the two
Philosophy generally is understood as an attempt to understand the world in its most broad, general features. It includes metaphysics or ontology (the study of being, of what “is”), epistemology (the study of knowing) and theory of value (ethics, aesthetics, etc.)
so here
the philosopher spends more time studying natural revelation than the theologian, while the theologian spends more time study Scripture;
hence the philosopher who will transcend the boundary of so called Gods revelation will be more rational ( if it is right word) than the theologian who will be confined to interpretation within what is said in the scriptures and more so will be disinclined to discard it.
on the other hand philosopher can make a wise human judgment which accords with Scripture thought is not necessarily warranted by Scripture. The comprehensiveness of philosophy will lead philosophers to seek rule over all other disciplines, even over theology, over God’s word which may be or may not be blasphemous to the theologian.
The philosopher can insist that Scripture itself cannot be properly understood unless it is read in a way prescribed by the philosopher.
The theologian may reject the idea saying that we are not contesting the Gods' word but only trying to understand it.
the theologian seeks a concept which is an application of Scripture and thus absolutely authoritative; his goal is a scriptural theory before which he can utter “Thus saith the Lord" No questions should be asked. There ends the matter.
I will give you an example here
"The essence of various religions (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism) lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous"
[FONT=&quot]A miracle, in the orthodox sense of the term, is impossible and incredible. To accept a miracle is to reject a demonstrated truth. The world is governed, not by chance, not by caprice, not by special Providences, but by the laws of nature; and if there be one truth which the scientist and the philosopher have established, it is this: THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE. If the laws of Nature are immutable, they cannot be suspended; for if they could be suspended, even by a god, they would not be immutable. A single suspension of these laws would prove their mutability. Now these alleged miracles [ (siting a few here) of Christ- Virgin bith,Lazarus, Old testament- Division of water to make way for Mosses, Gabrielle vision to Mohammad, Adi Shankara - [/FONT]Padmapadha (lotus feet).walking on lotuses in water)[FONT=&quot], and the many associated with Krishna] required a suspension of Nature's laws; and the suspension of these laws being impossible the miracles were impossible, and not performed. If these miracles were not performed, then the existence of this supernatural power of the miracle-performing religious characters is false and is just to make believe stuff, for the gullible and frightened who were in large numbers during the early evolution of regions and who would rather accept these miracle than question due to fear and various other social reasons ( please note the world is NO more like this now with the advent of liberal thought and hence the miracles have stopped!)[/FONT] ( modified from ref John E. Remsberg New York: The Truth Seeker Company, 1909.)
Here the theologian will try and explain the miracles in what ever way most people can accept but the philosopher will do away with this and go ahead with the message
the rationalist will ask
why has religion stopped its evolution and most importantly why have these miracles so conveniently stopped occurring when human mind has started stringent questioning of miracles
So I would say that
the line is drawn where a philosophy contradicts Scripture, or more in the liberal free thinker's mind (One whom I am ) it seeks to inhibit the freedom of thought without Scriptural warrant, it must be rejected.
In very simple terms if some one said (in history- scriptures) or says it now and or says it in future that " this is final and don't question it then "
it clearly means that the one who says it is obstructing free liberal thougght and imposing knowledge
The Theologian MAY or May NOT ACCEPT THIS
The Philosopher Grinds this to suit the science of philosophy
The rational free thinker rejects this - questions it and if satisfying his terms may even accept this

hi arun
i like silence than words...but i did my ph.d in philosophy........
i teach philosophy too...im theologian too...here epistemology
comes first in philosophy....just share my thoughts...theologians
are more scripture based theories......philosophers to be
thinkers like scientific approach...but not as physical
science..more metaphysical...

regards

 

[arunshanker]

hi arun
i like silence than words...but i did my ph.d in philosophy........
i teach philosophy too...im theologian too...here epistemology
comes first in philosophy....just share my thoughts...theologians
are more scripture based theories......philosophers to be
thinkers like scientific approach...but not as physical
science..more metaphysical...

regards

Thanks tbs
In fact I am need of a person like you
I am a scientist and I treat Philosophy as a science
I respect your silence but I have a request for you
and some others who may be interested
Please do have a look at a thread
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-84281.html
I had been posting on the thread I started "Is philosophy a science?"
the thread whipped up passions
I wud want you to read it and see my side of the argument
I am yagnyavalkya in the forum
Thanks

 

[happyhindu]

Arun,

They say the supernatural is the natural not yet understood. There are many who do not beleive there is something called supernatural..according to them, everything that occurs follows natural laws and things only "appear" as miracles.

Reg testing repetability of a 'miracle', i suppose it wud also depend on the subject of test. Like a man eats glass and is still alive, that cud be a miracle for some since our system is not supposed to be able to digest glass, the man shoud be dead. Its not a miracle for others who can explain in terms of science that such a possibility can exist for certain reasons.

Regarding the quote for an example, Sri Adi Shankara drank lead and remained alive. Raghavendra swamy and quite a few yogis took, still take jeeva samadhi. Also in terms of near association, someone i know suffers from a rare kind of cancer which is supposed to kill fast, but this person has been alive since the past twenty something years with the same condition. His blood pressure cannot be measured becuase systolic is more than 160, he is called a medical miracle, i can share his detials with you over pm, maybe you can meet him. Perhaps all this things are considered miracle by some but explainable as certain exceptions or rare cases by others.

I will accept if a group of test its repeatablity
You say "A miracle is not necessarily outside of 'natural laws'
but I say that if the miracle is within the natural law then it is no more a miracle!
You say
"Just because the study of nature at the present time can not explain certain phonomena, that does not make them 'non immutable'"
I say -Just because the study of nature at the present time can not explain certain phonomena, that does not make them 'a miracle'
You say - Miracles are still happening. The question to ask is whether the advance of secular logic and science have screened out such miracles to be reported in proper context.
Can you quote an example where a so called miracle has happened?

 

[KRS]

Dear sri arunshanker Ji,

My response in 'blue' below:

Firstly thanks for having seen merit in my posting
I am enjoying the stay in TB forum

I challenge you to prove this beyond doubt
I will accept if a group of test its repeatablity
You say "A miracle is not necessarily outside of 'natural laws'
but I say that if the miracle is within the natural law then it is no more a miracle!
Sir, we are both correct. I say that what you term as 'mracle' is yet to be explaind by today's science as not a 'miracle'. By the way the 'repeatability' factor only comes after a postulation of a theory to explain a phenomenon.
You say
"Just because the study of nature at the present time can not explain certain phonomena, that does not make them 'non immutable'"
I say -Just because the study of nature at the present time can not explain certain phonomena, that does not make them 'a miracle'
Paul Brunton's book is on mystic aspects of some yogis which cannot be put to test In fact Brunton Himself describes himself as a mystic
Have you read the book? Again, please read the book, if you have not done so. Because Paul started out as a sceptic and the book illustrates real physical phenomenon, not 'mysticism'.

Science can measure and test only within it's hypothesis and theory. This does not mean that all natural realms are covered by it.
What do you think if a Ramar Pillai sort of validation test is done on these ppl do claim miracles?
Sorry, I don't know who this Ramar Pillai is. Who again are 'claiming miracles'?
You say - Miracles are still happening. The question to ask is whether the advance of secular logic and science have screened out such miracles to be reported in proper context.
Can you quote an example where a so called miracle has happened?
Sir, there are unexplained phenomena from UFOs to Ssi Sai Baba to certain phenomena covering ancient celebrations involving drinking blood, that I personally know. I also have certain personal experiences that can not be just explained by the theory of chance.

Regards,
KRS

 

[arunshanker]

While discussing christian theology, i realized one factor it all boils down to - whether or not Christ is God. Any philosophy that contradicts it, appears to be rejected as not being part of the Christian religion. The whole religion depends on one central figure, Jesus Christ. To me this appears to be a contradiction. If christian theology were philosophy, then it also has to take Christ as non-god into account. But in the christian religion, a theologist can be a philosopher only if the domain of god, and its central tenents like creationism, is not violated.

I actually am going one step further
It is not "whether or not Christ is God" it is whether or not there was a Christ or just a Jesus in Thomas Jefferson's words- a man, of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, [and an] enthusiastic mind who set out without pretensions of divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law.
or even further was there was A Jesus at all considering the lack of clinching evidence in History
In simple words for a person like me and my kind of inclination
tidying up the religious texts and editing out the miracles will leave me with a God reasonable and rational as the laws that govern the visible universe. That would be more satisfying experiment rather than think that God is not actually affirmative in action and discriminated in the basis of religion it self in addition to other things like caste creed race sexual orientation etc.,

For me learning by inquiry satisfies rather than accepting without questioning what is "Revealed" as is the case in almost all religions
Most of these texts were classified as revealed just to prevent questioning.
HH talks about "If christian theology were philosophy.."
Actually I say that no religious theology can be philosophy
Hindu theology cannot be philosophy but there can be a Hindu philosophy
Philosophy is all encompassing and knows no boundaries unlike theology
In fact Philosophy can also hypothesis on a "multiverse" (existence of several universes: only that it wont be called uni because there are many (multi) as against the Universe which science now professes in the cosmic realm
Like I said in my earlier post

 

[arunshanker]

Arun,

They say the supernatural is the natural not yet understood.

That is exactly what I am trying to say
to rephrase "They say the supernatural is the natural not yet understood.
it wud be something like this
there is nothing supernatural there is only unexplained natural !
and further that cannot be a miracle
Now for your examples
1.Sri Adi Shankara drank lead and remained alive.
The world in science and History are debating as to the exact dates of Adi Shankara existence on this planet which itself is moot, now what can I say about what he ate and drank!
2.jeeva samadhi is not a miracle Wiki says that " Gnani will fix his or her mind with the Almighty and stop functioning. The body is then buried. That body will never decay whether it is thousand or ten thousand years, because the magnetic force in the body itself acts as a life force in the body." do you really believe that!
About ppl still taking jeeva samadhi ..... will an expert team of biologists be allowed to examine a recent successful JS
3. "supposed to kill fast" Well you are caught in your own words
obviously the cancer did not kill
I would say as a biologist
"supposed to kill fast in most individuals" now that we have a person alive with that kind of cancer
science accepts significance at 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels that give a chance of up to 1-5 in 100 not following the rules!
and that is what makes biology exiting there is always a scope for discovery!!
according to definition if if systolic pressure is consistently greater than 160 mm Hg the person is termed hypertensive
Previously, systolic pressure of more than 160 mm Hg was classified as Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), and pressure between 140 and 160 mm Hg was classified as borderline ISH. In 1993 the definition of ISH was changed to any systolic blood pressure above 140 mm Hg together with diastolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg.
Then again there are now several invasive methods to measure High ISH which is different from the noninvasive method we all know
Medical miracle I agree there are ever so many
Finally you could not have put it better
just as I think "Perhaps all this things are considered miracle by some but explainable as certain exceptions or rare cases by others"

 

[sapr333]

TBS>>philosophers to be
thinkers like scientific approach...but not as physical
science..more metaphysical...>>

Shri.TBS, I know you have some thing great. Thats why I requested your presence here..

I think we both share the same view.. Early scholars totally kept away(seperated) Philosophy & religion, and some even attempted to make philosophy,itself, as a religion.. Philosphy as science, yes, if Logics/reasoning/Parodox/Conditions could be accomodated in science,then Philosophy&metaphysics too could be added. But definitely, philosophy is far away from religion/scripture.. But, philosophy definitely helped mankind to understand well the scriputres & God,keeping aside blind faith.

Regarding 'Authenitity of Miracle', Philospher Hume had too good arguments in line with science, against the existence of miracle.. But,modern day philosophers do strongly prove the existence of miracles with their philosophical/logical approach..

Lemme, put a simple analogy . Newtons inverse square law.. We all believe it is 100% true.But has that been tested in all possible places/circumstances... There are million ways this could be tested,but we only have it done only in the normal conditions what we see.... It was not tested inside a black hole, nor under sub-zero temp.. No tested while travelling at velocity of light.. List goes on... So there is a room for error... Even infinite fraction which we use in calcluations, have a room for relaxation/condition, when all the probablities are considered.. Infact, we reduce the infinite fractions, to a limit,which is easily calculatable.. Rest!!.. And this gap is defined as miracle..

Thats why we dont find miracles happening in our life every second,but only in rare occasion..

PS: To understand well the role of Philosophy in Religion, this book called "Philosophy And Religion' by Max Charlesworth has helped me a lot.. It covers all the global religons.. worth giving a try.

 

[arunshanker]

Dear sri arunshanker Ji,

Sir, there are unexplained phenomena from UFOs to Ssi Sai Baba to certain phenomena covering ancient celebrations involving drinking blood, that I personally know. I also have certain personal experiences that can not be just explained by the theory of chance.

Regards,
KRS

UFO is not a miracle
science does not say there is no possibility of life elsewhere
only thing is we have not yet found sufficient proof for that
Regarding Sai baba - That is what I am trying to put thru in the forum
If we read and know a Sai baba who did not perform miracles then there would be no Sai baba just an ordinary person
The miracles are thrust into the legend of a person who is to be portrayed as a great Christ himself was no exception
BTW are you talking about Shirdi or Staya Sai Baba
if it is Satya Sai Baba I would prefer to to stay silent!
and finally
In 1996, Ramar Pillai claimed to be able to transmute water to gasoline by a herbal formula that he claimed was the result of a miraculous bush. Pillai obtained 20 acres (81,000 m2) of land to cultivate his bush, but in fact it turned out that he was using sleight of hand to substitute kerosene for the liquid he claimed to have derived from the bush.
Ramar Pillai was notorious and ultimatley when busted a shame to Tamil Nadu. Infact he even managed to fool our then Prez APJK
Just google away you will get a lot results

 

[arunshanker]

You talk about Newtons inverse square law and somehow try to say that if it is not tested in a place like for eg., black hole etc., Now what I ask what is the miracle here
In fact here is an article that has tested it in Green land Ice cap
http://www.whoi.edu/science/AOPE/people/achave/Site/Next_files/28.pdf
Now dont tell me that just because we have not tested the law in Mars or Jupiter it is wrong in fact it has been shown to have limitation right here in earth and that in mo way amounts to anything close to miracle

let me tell you that that Newton's theory, which assumes that the gravitational force acts instantaneously, remained essentially unchallenged for roughly two centuries until Einstein proposed the general theory of relativity in 1915. Einstein's radical new theory made gravity consistent with the two basic ideas of relativity: the world is 4D - the three directions of space combined with time - and no physical effect can travel faster than light.
no miracle here in fact it is keeping our Physicists busy
in fact you say "So there is a room for error" yes Error but no room for miracle
in fact A group at Purdue University has proposed testing Newton’s inverse square law down to the atomic level using nanotechnology.
they will find something interesting
Now coming to infinite fractions
To tell you the truth I am unable to comprehend the association of this with miracles
As I should understand things lead to irrational infinitesimally small values
The Gap is simply unknown and not a miracle
in fact worm holes and time wraps too exists in theory but are not called a miracle

Now you say that because of all this you find miracles happening on rare occasion
I just don't get it
I am sorry!

 

[sapr333]

HH talks about "If christian theology were philosophy.."

Actually I say that no religious theology can be philosophy

Hindu theology cannot be philosophy but there can be a Hindu philosophy
Philosophy is all encompassing and knows no boundaries unlike theology
In fact Philosophy can also hypothesis on a "multiverse" (existence of several universes: only that it wont be called uni because there are many (multi) as against the Universe which science now professes in the cosmic realm
Like I said in my earlier post

Dear Arun, your are perfectly right in saying Theology is entirely different from Philosophy.Theology works on the scriptures tandomly, and try to bridge it with the worldview-Science-Reality-Nature..Thats the role. Where as Philosophy/Metaphysics is entirely a different entitity, which works in a different platform and can refute/accept the scripture. May be, to start with you work on Euthyphro's dilemma, one of the earliest Aristotelian thing (google pls)

>>Hindu theology cannot be philosophy but there can be a Hindu philosophy>>

Here is a bit of caution when we use the word 'hindu philosophy'.. If you define the philosophy came out of the minds of Hindu sages, and wish to collectively call them as 'Hindu Philosophy' , then you are perfect right. But if you call the ancient scriptures itself as philosophical, then you will defeat your own arguments, of difference between Philosophy & Religion. For eg, if someone tells Hinduism is philosophic, then its a wrong terminology, in terms of 'True Philosopher's view'..

Again,I'm not saying you, but many of us, used to wrongly use the philosophy... I only know how wrong I was, when we used to addres a senile scholar's statement as 'Oh! He is so philosophical"

Again, there is a big issue, in literally defining the word philsophy, cos its more a Greek-Western concept..And it has really found difficulties in bridging with the East.. Thast why earlier in one of the post Shri.Nacchinarkiniyan said it rightly 'We studied philosophy in college, but we never had any mention of Indian philosophy..

Lets me also take an expert opinion from Shri.TBS..

 

[sapr333]

>>>Now dont tell me that just because we have not tested the law in Mars or Jupiter it is wrong in fact it has been shown to have limitation right here in earth and that in mo way amounts to anything close to miracle>>>

>>>As I should understand things lead to irrational infinitesimally small values The Gap is simply unknown and not a miracle
in fact worm holes and time wraps too exists in theory but are not called a miracle!

Dear Arun,

I just a gave a scientific approach in terms of calling 'Room of Error as a chance for a Miracle". Mathematically saying "embirical lapse'...

Philosophers attempted it in a different way..See if you could go through some of the works of 'Hume' and its counter views.. Now, let me put it another way..

We all believed in Newtons law,right!. And for 300Yrs it worked verywell,in all machines,even deep under the oceans and on moon. Yet Einsteins theory prove him wrong, if not atleast inadequate in embirical verification. That does not mean, Einstein is right,again..tomorrow someone may prove him wrong.. As philosopher Karl popper said(concluded), No scientific law claim to prove anything at all positively, science cannot verify theories, but canly only falsify them..

Now, lets take the eg.. With a scientific bend of mind, You and I definitely would say 'A dead man can't get up', 'Michael Jackson can no more sing'.. This is a limitation you and I have, cos we have limited our exposure to verifcation,based on the scientific tone.. Say suppose, tommorow, if a medicine was invented to 'Bring Back a dead man', in all possiblity its possible.Im sure you and I wont limit the growth of science here.
.
Today,'Dead Man Walking' is a miracle, and tomorrow, it could be result of science. In this context, can a scientist prove/logicaly claim that 'dead man can never walk'!! .

Where is your current take on science Vs Miracles..As a scienst can you say in certainity, that a dead cannot walk..

This is where philosophers role come. If possible,pls read Karl Popper's works.

 

[arunshanker]

Sappr
let me start this on the lighter side
you are right
I studied plant molecular biology and worked in the lab day and night
and you know what the university calls me - Doc of philosophy
such a misnomer
Now let me put things clear
by Hindu philosophy I meant - study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language within the frame work of Hinduism I definitely did not mean the Philosophy OF Hindu sages!
Although the meaning of the term Philosophy as we use it now is of Greek origin the concept existed in Mesopotamia eg Dialog of Pessimism, in China eg Confucianism, Taoism, Mohism, and Legalism.
In ancient India eg Sankhya, Mimamsa,Vedanta etc.,
I would not call that there has been difficulty bridging with the East
As I have aforementioned Philosophy existed everywhere
there are different schools based on regions
THere is no point in trying to bridge

 

[arunshanker]

No scientific law claim to prove anything at all positively, science cannot verify theories, but canly only falsify them..

You got it spot on !
We as of now in the present temporal and spatial sphere know that MJ can't come back from the dead
But if Lazarus had come back 2000 years ago why can't some one come back now?
Now you say "Say suppose, tommorow, if a medicine was invented to 'Bring Back a dead man', in all possiblity its possible.. Where is your current take on science Vs Miracles..As a scienst can you say in certainity, that a dead cannot walk"
Thats what I too am tryin to say If a medicine can bring back the dead man in the future then the mode of action of the medicine in molecular terms will be known and it wont be a miracle anymore. It is will just be a cause and effect phenomenon

 

[happyhindu]

Very nice discussion.

Inputs reg the point in bold.

Philosophy, the word, is english, of greek origin. It has existed since ages in the east as

a) anveekshiki (subject dealing with what can be construed, understood, linked, sought, accompanied, possessed, what can be reachable to the mind, what is essentiality, what is existentiality, what is inherent, etc).

b) tarkavidya (tarka can be reasoning, supposition, logic, inquiry, speculation, etc based on context and usage, like tarkashastra is science of logic as a philosophical treatise, hetuvidya is logic of and in an argument (dialectics), anvaya is logical connection, and tarkabijaganita is boolean algebra or can be logic on which mathematical calculations are based).

b) tatvavidya or tatvajnaana (tatva = truth, reality, axiom, principle, etc, yatharthya is accuracy, bhoothartha is reality beyond the physically seen, tattvatha is intrinsic properties, etc).

'Hindu' philosophies were based on the above. Things were argued out by proof or dis-proof, equitable or inequitable presence of either or absence of neither. The philosophies are part of the 'religion'. The 'religion' came to be based upon the findings, or came to be as a part of the findings, depending on the subject.

Whenever ppl say hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, there is a basis to it. 'Hinduism' did not have a theology of the christian discriminative promotional kind. Instead of promoting, arguments were present in all forms, and schools grew and adapted according to the findings. In that sense there was evolution of thot.

One might say that hindu 'theology', that is concept(s) of god or what is god like (its attibutes), came to be based on the philosophies. But i do think that the whole concept of 'theology' of a discriminative promotional kind is more of a concept from the west, from the christian world, for reasons below:

In 'hindu' or eastern systems the theologian (shrotriya), theologician (vipra) did exist, but not as someone seperated from the various systems of arts, science, philosophies. Therefore in the 'hindu' system, one finds them as philosophers dealing with philosophy of the all encompassing kind, as part of the system, within the system and these 'theologists' are not seperated from 'philosophy' as in the christian world.

In christianity, on the other hand, the theologist has to discriminate and promote a selective thought though it might boil down to being illogical (like "has to" beleive in Christ). Philosophies were used to promote the core concepts or doctrines or theology of christian thot, and were fitted into the religion. It can appear as a rather futile attempt to project the religion as having a philosophical basis or being a philosophical system. Therefore in this world, philosophies often exist as a distinct entity from theology.

Christian world: Without the so-called "philosophy" (or rather theology) of the inherent belief in Christ, no "other" philosophy can exist.

Eastern world: Without the so-called theology (or rather philosophy) of the inherent beleif in god, all "other" philosophies can certainly exist.

Dear Arun, your are perfectly right in saying Theology is entirely different from Philosophy.Theology works on the scriptures tandomly, and try to bridge it with the worldview-Science-Reality-Nature..Thats the role. Where as Philosophy/Metaphysics is entirely a different entitity, which works in a different platform and can refute/accept the scripture. May be, to start with you work on Euthyphro's dilemma, one of the earliest Aristotelian thing (google pls)

>>Hindu theology cannot be philosophy but there can be a Hindu philosophy>>

Here is a bit of caution when we use the word 'hindu philosophy'.. If you define the philosophy came out of the minds of Hindu sages, and wish to collectively call them as 'Hindu Philosophy' , then you are perfect right. But if you call the ancient scriptures itself as philosophical, then you will defeat your own arguments, of difference between Philosophy & Religion. For eg, if someone tells Hinduism is philosophic, then its a wrong terminology, in terms of 'True Philosopher's view'..

Again,I'm not saying you, but many of us, used to wrongly use the philosophy... I only know how wrong I was, when we used to addres a senile scholar's statement as 'Oh! He is so philosophical"

Again, there is a big issue, in literally defining the word philsophy, cos its more a Greek-Western concept..And it has really found difficulties in bridging with the East.. Thast why earlier in one of the post Shri.Nacchinarkiniyan said it rightly 'We studied philosophy in college, but we never had any mention of Indian philosophy..

Lets me also take an expert opinion from Shri.TBS..

 

[sapr333]

Sappr
Hindu philosophy I meant - study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language within the frame work of Hinduism>>>> I definitely did not mean the Philosophy OF Hindu sages!

Dear Arun,

again, philosophy is not about scriptures..For eg, you cant call a god given scripture as Philosophical.. God didnt not teach us any philosophy..Scriptures of all religions talks about God and his actions, with a bit of 'Faith' imparting sense and philosophy evaluates them while standing in an entirely different platform (without faith) like Logics/Reasoning/Paradox etc.... For eg,Bagvat Gita... Its all about Lord Krishna's teaching/life recordings, but not philosophy..If some one calls Lord Krishna (or any divine person) as a philosopher,then its wrong, and thereby the divinity becomes questionable... cos Philosophy is a man invented part, not that God taught us any philosophical writing..

Thats why I said, Sages were philosophers (which you took it otherway).. Shri.Adi Shankara is a great philosopher.. But calling hinduism(or Scriptures) as philosophical is a normal political statement, like how you mentioned about your peers, calling you as philosopher.. but its natural, and it common in India, people tend to interpret philosophy in that way..

 

[sapr333]

Dear HH, ref #92,

Could you pls go through the last 20 posts, esp my discussion with Arun,or the posts of TBS and repost it.. I think you havent yet got the grip of difference between Philosophy & Theology..

 

[sapr333]

You got it spot on !


Now you say "Say suppose, tommorow, if a medicine was invented to 'Bring Back a dead man', in all possiblity its possible.. Where is your current take on science Vs Miracles..

But if Lazarus had come back 2000 years ago why can't some one come back now?

Dear Arun, I have just re-aligned your post for the sequence..

Yes, as a medico, one can find a medicine to make a deadman walk.... As an Einstenian, one can put back the dead man in to Time-Space(Remeber the movie, Back to the future) and make him alive. Mathematician could call it as subject of error or Infitity and make him finite and live.... etc etc.As we both agreed upon science's limitation(in current context),there could be many a possiblities,for such an event to happen..


Now you may ask why its not happening now.. For this, you need to come under the concept of God. Say suppose, tomorrow, your Ford Icon starts telling you, "Hey,Arun, Im the God here , standing in your garage", you may not believe it!! Do you!!.. Say suppose, if God does give a cure on your head-ache do you believe it, cos you may say,that, its your anti-bodies have helped it..Say suppose, you were dead yesterday night, and god has brought you alive at just before you wake up, you wont believe it.. But then, God has plans, and he shows the miracles, based upon the peoples need/sense etc etc.. But to be frank this is a complex issue here.. And that they attribute it to 'Mystery of God'..And this mystery is what, every religion is trying to explore since homo-sapiens came in to this world.

 

[happyhindu]

I have modified post number 92 above. It pertains to a part of the below:

Dear Arun,
again, philosophy is not about scriptures..

Eastern scriptures came to be based on philosophies, or rather they are philosophies. Buddhism is essentially a philosophy, and so are hindusim and taoism. Please refer to the post 92, based on that i can understand why you seem to think philosophy is not about scriptures, because in the christian world, the scriptures are seperated from philosophy and exist as a selective theology.

For eg, you cant call a god given scripture as Philosophical..

Everything is god given. God can refer to any entity here, as nature, man, brahman, soul, self. If a man 'thinks', forms a basis for an argument, reasons it out, fixes errors, applies it realtime, finds results consistent each time, and establishes a grounding for something, he is being philosophical. In that sense, there was no diff b/w a philosopher of the spiritual kind, and philosopher of the scientific kind in the eastern world.

God didnt not teach us any philosophy..

?? How do you say that??

Scriptures of all religions talks about God and his actions, with a bit of 'Faith' imparting sense and philosophy evaluates them while standing in an entirely different platform (without faith) like Logics/Reasoning/Paradox etc.... For eg,Bagvat Gita... Its all about Lord Krishna's teaching/life recordings, but not philosophy..

Gods in human forms and their actions are puranas, itihaasas..How about yoga, nyaya, vaisheshika...which do not talk of god's actions. That is why i asked you how many hindu "schools" have you explored to be able to compare and comment with a statement like "yet another bad thing" is found in hindusim.

It is christian "philosophy" that does this "evaluation" of actions of god (Christ), prophets, man, which is not really philosophy to the eastern world, and you won't find entire philosophy schools based on that in the east...one can say the christian belief does not use logic because it seeks reaffirmation of belief or faith in Christ as a core beleif with no room for counter arguments, or dis-proof of the provable kind, to co-exist in that arena.

Bhagvad Gita is not about the life story or recordings of Krishna, it is a teaching. Please read it before you comment on that it is not philosophical: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html

If some one calls Lord Krishna (or any divine person) as a philosopher,then its wrong, and thereby the divinity becomes questionable... cos Philosophy is a man invented part, not that God taught us any philosophical writing..

Sorry we call Krishna, a philosopher and a guru (heard of krishnam vande jagatgurum). Why do you think that if someone is a philosopher, then his divinity becomes questionable? Am finding it impossible to consider a character that gave the gita as not a philosopher or a guru. Why do you think philosophy is man invented? If man can be god, then things can be god invented as well, depends on how you understand it, but am curious to hear more on this from you.

Thats why I said, Sages were philosophers (which you took it otherway)..

Ofcourse sages were philosophers, a sage is just a wise guy, like a wise computer geek. Sages of those time were doing a range of things, from exploring atomicity in the vaisheshika school, to basing various things on logic like a shrotriya; or basing things of the 'spirit' (spirituality) on logic like a vipra, etc.

Shri.Adi Shankara is a great philosopher.. But calling hinduism(or Scriptures) as philosophical is a normal political statement, like how you mentioned about your peers, calling you as philosopher.. but its natural, and it common in India, people tend to interpret philosophy in that way..

Hindusim is a philosophy, a way of life....i don't really find hindusim fitting the mold of 'religion'...Forget politics and the ridiculous hindutva stuff, they seem to have nothing else to base a political platform on, so they make all sorts of statements...

Dear HH, ref #92,

Could you pls go through the last 20 posts, esp my discussion with Arun,or the posts of TBS and repost it.. I think you havent yet got the grip of difference between Philosophy & Theology..

Sapr, I have replied about the "difference" in philosophy and theology in the east and west: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=22586&postcount=92

 

[sapr333]

Dear HH,

I think you have not yet understood/graped it.. Even TBS shared some right points previously... I only have to repeat the same again..I would appreciate if Shri.TBS shares his thought on this..However, let me pick up one line, and try to explain you

>>Sorry we call Krishna, a philosopher>>

According to the meaning of God&Philosophy, this statement could be viewed as

1) If you say Lord Krishna is God, then cannot be a philosopher. (OR)

2) If you call Lord Krisha is a philosopher, then he cannot be a God and can only be a holy human being like like philosopher Shri.Adi Shankara

3) If we call God as philosopher,we can call God as a scientist too.. But we all agree,in common, that God is above all of this, and science & philosophy are man made..

Now based upon the above, pls rework and re-post you views.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH,

I think you have not yet understood/graped it.. Even TBS share some right points previuosly... I only have to repeat the same again..

I would appreciate if Shri.TBS shares his thought on this..

I think Shri TBS ji said this so far:

hi arun
i like silence than words...but i did my ph.d in philosophy........
i teach philosophy too...im theologian too...here epistemology
comes first in philosophy....just share my thoughts...theologians
are more scripture based theories......philosophers to be
thinkers like scientific approach...but not as physical
science..more metaphysical...

regards

and i think he said the same thing, nor not??

yep, epistemology (jaanavaada) is the basis of philosophy.

He mentioned (or differentiated ?) theologians as scipture-based theories (from philosophy ?). And that's what am saying too,..i've differentiated b/w how it works in the east and west in post 92. Shri TBS ji does say philosophers are thinker as in scientific approach...where does scientific approach apply in 'chrisitan pholosophy' ?

 

[happyhindu]

sapr,

According to the meaning of God&Philosophy, this statement could be viewed as

1) If you say Lord Krishna is God, then cannot be a philosopher. (OR)

Why do you think 'god' cannot be a philosopher? You may need to answer or explore what is 'god' first..

2) If you call Lord Krisha is a philosopher, then he cannot be a God and can only be a holy human being like like philosopher Shri.Adi Shankara.

Yes, that's possible too. But i specifically asked the basis of why do you think god cannot be philosopher, mainly to know what you think is 'god'.

3) If we call God as philosopher,we can call God as a scientist too.. But we all agree,in common, that God is above all of this, and science & philosophy are man made..

Yes sure i call god as scientist, or as mother, father, guru, boss, sister, brother, husband, wife, daughter, son, surgeon, physician, brewer, actor, cleaner, writer, astrologer, painter, etc...because god is "above" all this and "part of" all this.

The idea of "part of" all this somehow does not sit well in present day christianity, you may wish to look up the gnostics or old christian viewof this..

I did not say science and philosophy are not man-made, did i? I said it depends on what you call god, as man, atman, self, brahman, etc..

Now based upon the above, pls rework and re-post you views.

 

[sapr333]

Dear HH,

Pls,watch the conversation for somemore time, you will understand.. Otherwise, our discussion will be more or less like a chit-chat, which spoils the thread...