Dear HH, I could easily sense that you couldnt comprehend (or set with some prejudice) the difference between God & Philosophy, and thats why I asked you to re-read the previous 10posts of mine..Even then, you repeated your point 'God as philosopher'.. bit tired, I thought, you would be ok, if you could hear it from 'horse's mouth', and hence refered to your post to Shri.TBS. Interestingly, he also said the same single liner,what I've been telling you before,which you've been refuting without any substatial points. And this time, you were quick enought to accept it,without any further evaluation!! Which indicates, you only go by expert opinion, but not by your own logic/self evaluation/conviction..
With due respect to Shri TBS ji, no i am not considering him as expert opinion. If i were the sort that goes by explanations given in books, i wud have gone ahead and studied philosophy as a uni subject. Am not of beleif that everthing can be conveyed correctly in words. Wud rather learn at the feet of gurus, seek explanations other than what they say, read on my own...If at all i have any prejudice, then probably it is with you.
Each time i think otherwise, you go and post things to specifically portray hindusim in a negative way, but do not seem to evaluate christianity with the same yardsticks. You choose to evaluate things based on a monotheistic mindset and are keen on being highly judgemental, exactly like a theologist, who argues in favor of christian thot; and in the end, ends up criticizing the person, not the thots.
Sapr, i can criticize my parents as much as i want. They will feel very bad but we both know we love each other, over time we reconcile, adjust a bit here and there and grow, our love never stops. But i cannot expect an outsider wud criticize my parents while loving them at the same time. Because sir, an outsider cud essentially be someone who has either not be born to my parents or has understood them well or does not have their well being at heart.
In that way, Sapr, i do tend to view your posts as that of an outsider, inclined to comment to evaluate in what appears to be a pseudoquest. I won't be surprised, if after a while, you post something like "kancha sir is right" or go back to evaluation of religion based on a handful of things like houries and kallar god from each religion, but sparing christianity.
As Arun once said thoughtfully,"" I go by my own logic/verification, doest matter from whoom/where the response comes from;;;
Now let me share you some of the most 'suicidal' arguments you presented earlier..
i find the term 'suicidal' amusing. in the crux of hindusim you wud find learning (which inculdes learning to accept new knowledge), we do not consider it a suicide, because, people are always won over and vid always grows.
HH Said>>>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>>>>
Sapr333 said>>>> If you say Lord Krishna is God, then cannot be a philosopher. (OR)
HH Responds back>>Why do you think 'god' cannot be a philosopher? You may need to answer or explore what is 'god' first..
Upon TBS' third opinion, HH Responds >>>>>>(ps: sir, am aware of the diff b/w adi shankara as philosopher and "god")
ah ok...so the crux is Krishna here. In case you have not read, i request you to read the atmashatakam by Sri Adi Shankara (each stanza ends with chidananda roopam shivoham shivoham, or the bliss of the consciouss of the self, that i am or Shiva i am). There are many who consider Sri Adi Shankara as an avatar of Shiva. So do i. Because anyone who has attained the bliss of his self, is Shiva literally. We do not differentiate between gurus and gods. And the gurus are essentially philosophers in the hindu streams, as explained in post 92. [please note everything that is in the human form fulfills its role in kala, so nobody can be the kind that ppl spare from pointing out imperfection].
To us, a philosopher can certainly be god. A man can be god, a plant can be god... The concept here is about "gods" and "god", henotheistic perhaps. While everything is part of god, is from god, is god, a "god" that "decides" things also exists. Which is why i said it depends on what you wud call god, as self, as brahman, as atman, as man, or as anything else you please. The name does not change its existence.
PS: Hope you would have now understood, why I said'Chit-Chat posts, will spoil the thread and flow of discussion...Thanks
So far what everyone has been doing in every thread is chit chat literally. Because serious discussions wud mean exchanging info in a lot more depth based on terms as used in the scriptures and arguing it out. If you do not like chit chat, you are welcome to discuss things in depth if you so wish to.
