Re-energising the Kanchi mutt

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

HH
Please do understand that Buddha does not come in here in view of the fact that he is the only person certified by history beyond doubt among those ppl you have mentioned
Buddha was a great person I wud keep it that way and not make him a God!

true arun...ofcourse buddha never said he is god either...

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr,

>>>sorry..i head that jesus is son of GOd...according to Bible...>>

J.C called himself as 'Son of God' or "Im the way to God' same as 'God' in line with the Trinity concepts like what we have 'Lord Shiva,Brahma,Vishnu' as God's of trinity..

Please explain why you say 'same as god' when Jesus said 'son of god'?

I said this just to stress our core point in discussion, 'God Cannot be a Philosopher'.. Philosophy is just another man made subject, like Science..

The point of discussion was 'god cannot be philosopher'.

i did not contradict the point that philosophy is just a subject. Since you were keen to establish theologist as philosophers, i mentioned abt the diff in the east and west.

Shri.TBS, correct me if Im wrong, here

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH,

Im not a scholar in Philosophy & Theology..All my academics were just, 4 yrs of studying diesel&petrol followed by 2 yrs of studies about 'managing coolies'..may be, from, some of the finest institutes..

Only after crossing age 30, I got interest in this subject, and all I acquired was solely through readings/forums (neither got any univeristy certificates nor had any gurus)..That why I refered your post to Shri.TBS for an expert opinion, cos he is a Doctorate Holder in Philosophy.

Now, Im eager to see,you, refuting his statements..Just curious!!

Sapr,

If the point of discussion was with you, i'd prefer it with you, not someone else.

A doctorate holder wud know the theoretical aspects of things, as a university subject, but may not know as much as a illiterate monk does in practicality. Almost all tibetan monks are illiterate and cannot read more than basic stuff. But psycologists, neurologists, pshychiatrists, use them in their studies of exploring the mind.

It does not matter whether one is a doctorate holder or is illiterate. It is what you are within. I still wud rather discuss it out with you. Since you are the person criticizing hinduism, not Shri TBS ji.

And you seem to have found a single point to hold on to about philosophers as god or not, whereas you have not explained your stance of saying "bad things are found in yet another hindu school" (without your exploring hindu so-called 'schools'). It just seems to me, you may be pitted against the person, rather than the discussion, for your own egotism (??).

I may very well agree with Shri TBS ji, not only on the god-philosopher point, but other points as well, but my discussion is still with you only. So i'd prefer that you discuss with me, not Shri TBS.

One difficulty with Shri TBS ji is that he provides no explanations, and makes just 5-6 sentences as standalone statements. It wud be very nice if Shri TBS were to provide some explanation atleast.

 

[happyhindu]

hi HH ji
sorry..i head that jesus is son of GOd...according to Bible...
he never mentioned that he his God.i heard that he is always
as son of GOD...Buddha was philosopher....a refined
revolutionist of brahminism/even some considered
him as one of avatar purusha of lord vishnu...considering is different from in real sense...

regards

But Shri TBS-ji, Christians say Jesus IS god, the same as god. Why?

Amongst the Japanese, i came across (a group) of ppl who consider buddha as god. I think the hindu idea of Him being avatara of Vishnu influenced them.

 

[tbs]

Sapr,

hi all.
sorry ...this is not a topic...we are deviating from original thread..
the thread is RE ENERGISING THE KANCHI MUTT...here
i dont think any re energising theory here..just we already
moved from from original thread...i dont want move anymore..

regards

 

[happyhindu]

hi all.
sorry ...this is not a topic...we are deviating from original thread..
the thread is RE ENERGISING THE KANCHI MUTT...here
i dont think any re energising theory here..just we already
moved from from original thread...i dont want move anymore..

regards

Don't worry Shri TBS ji.

All topics have been deviating..

We can ask Praveen to move the posts to a new thread.

Please continue to post for now.

 

[sapr333]

Dear HH,

Its very much evident,that you lost an argument in proving'God as Philosopher" ..So better accept it, take it as, 'a learning of the day', and move on..

But, it seems, you dont want to accept it, and now you want to drag me in to JC-God-Bible topic (which you know its not of the interest of this forum), as well, wanna paint an imaginary enemey out of me.

Please browse through some of the previous 20 posts in reverse direction, and see how many self-contradictory/suicidal arguments you have made..As Shri.TBS said rightly,""sometimes our rajo/tamo gunas works hard than satvic gunas..means ego/jealousy etc"" (May be ignorance too)

Anyways, we are too much trangressing from the core subject of this thread...Lets get alert, before MODERATOR takes his stick..

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH,

Its very much evident,that you lost an argument in proving'God as Philosopher" ..So better accept it, take it as, 'a learning of the day', and move on..

But, it seems, you dont want to accept it, and now you want to drag me in to JC-God-Bible topic (which you know its not of the interest of this forum), as well, wanna paint an imaginary enemey out of me.

Please browse through some of the previous 20 posts in reverse direction, and see how many self-contradictory/suicidal arguments you have made..As Shri.TBS said rightly,""sometimes our rajo/tamo gunas works hard than satvic gunas..means ego/jealousy etc"" (May be ignorance too)

Anyways, we are too much trangressing from the core subject of this thread...Lets get alert, before MODERATOR takes his stick..

Sapr,

i already mentioned that i may very well agree with Shri TBS ji. I know Shri TBS ji has a lot to offer but the prob is he is not giving the reasons or providing explanations. But we shall discuss and i shall learn. However, that is apart from you.

As mentioned previously the term suicidal is not found in hindusim, it is a very chrsitian theologist usage.

I have no intension of draggin you into the JC-Bible topic, it may not be of intrest to the forum, but it may be of interest to me to know why you say "same as god" when christ said "son of god".

Why shoudl anyone make an imaginary enemy out of you? It is you who has been making statements on "bad things" in hindusim consistently. And it is you that needs to provide an explanation on how you can so easily say things about hindusim without even exploring it, but making comparisons out of it..

 

[happyhindu]

Hi Praveen / Shri KRS - ji,

Is it possible to move posts from this thread to a new thread titled "Can a philosopher be a God?" from this post onwards: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=22560&postcount=75

Thanks.

 

[sapr333]

Dear HH, any questions, which I intentionally stay away from reponding, will always be available on net.. You can even cut&paste the same questions and press the google button, if you are curious to learn about it..

>>It is you who has been making statements on "bad things" in hindusim consistently>>

I think I should take a tough stand here..I shouldnt be this acrimonious in telling this crudely... Its your ignorace/lack of knowledge, which made you to perceive my posts as 'Anti-Hindu posts"' from the begining.Early days, our of fear,you even went on to call this 'village tamilian' as a 'Spaniard'.(even I resisted ing this identity for long,just to stay away from prejudice,until Shri.Kujuppu opened an intersting thread on 'Integration"..)

In all,you couldnt respond back intellectually, and hence you took a cover-up-shelter,to conveniently paint me as an anti-hindu (or) in your own repetetive word'Painting hinduism in bad light'..There is only one instance, I made a hurting-sentimental-remark, while debating with Shri.KRS, and I was quick enough to apologize to him.

Im not sure, if you remember the 'God Head" discussion I had with handle Seshadri Subramonium...Im sure,he never felt that way about me (im terribly missing him here) and were head on with discussion,though we were contradicting each other... Only people who lack knowldge,take things personal, become in-sensitive,in-tolerant, and throw out emotional talks or try to paint an imaginary ememy, to win the support of mass. This is the same thing, you are doing now here in your arguments,about your stand on 'God as Philosopher'

Let me be clear, I will not post anything in this 'kind'a', any more..I would rather remain silent. Lets put a full stop to this kind of talks in forum.

I'm only interested in the points, not emotions or try to have apprehension about the source of points.. If someone calls me as bastard, I would not go emotional or retaliate, rather I would ask him, to pay for the DNA tests of both my fathers and my blood samples..

Let me conclude this way.... God & Religion dont need protectors or police men and no one can paint a religion bad.. They all survived for millenia's..Above all, God can save himself..

 

[tbs]

Dear Sri tbs Ji sir,

We all value your participation in this Forum.

But sir, we are all guests in this Forum. Why would you then would make such a statement as I have highlighted below. Would you make such a statement to a host at whose home you are staying about someone else's house being more comfortable, and give that address to fellow guests?

Sir, this is not correct.

You often talk about ego and gunas and I hope that you see this the right way and do self edits on such things in the future. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

Dear HH, any questions, which I intentionally stay away from reponding, will always be available on net.. You can even cut&paste the same questions and press the google button, if you are curious to learn about it..

>>It is you who has been making statements on "bad things" in hindusim consistently>>

I think I should take a tough stand here..I shouldnt be this acrimonious in telling this crudely... Its your ignorace/lack of knowledge, which made you to perceive my posts as 'Anti-Hindu posts"' from the begining.Early days, our of fear,you even went on to call this 'village tamilian' as a 'Spaniard'. You couldnt respond back intellectually, and hence you took a cover-up-shelter,to conveniently paint me as an anti-hindu (or) in your own repetetive word'Painting hinduism in bad light'..There is only one instance, I made a hurting-sentimental-remark, while debating with Shri.KRS, and I was quick enough to apologize to him.

Im not sure, if you remember the intellectual discussion I had with handle Seshadri Subramonium... He never felt that way about me (im terribly missing him here).. Only people who lack knowldge,take things personal, become in-sensitive, and throw out emotional talks or try to paint an imaginary ememy, to win the support of mass. This is the same thing, you are doing now in your arguments in your stand on 'God as Philosopher'

Let me be clear, I will not post anything in this kind, any more..I would rather remain silent. Lets put a full stop to this kind of talks in forum. I'm only interested in the points, not emotions.. If someone calls me as bastard, I would not go emotional or retaliate, rather I would ask him, to pay for the DNA tests of both my fathers and my blood samples..

hi sapr333.
plz cool down...even once u said..im in the part of GROUPISM....
certainly not.............here silence is better than arguement..
i learned many such things here...still i visit daily...
even i visit ******* daily....but i feel
more comfort there than here....

regards

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH, any questions, which I intentionally stay away from reponding, will always be available on net.. You can even cut&paste the same questions and press the google button, if you are curious to learn about it..

>>It is you who has been making statements on "bad things" in hindusim consistently>>

I think I should take a tough stand here..I shouldnt be this acrimonious in telling this crudely... Its your ignorace/lack of knowledge, which made you to perceive my posts as 'Anti-Hindu posts"' from the begining.Early days, our of fear,you even went on to call this 'village tamilian' as a 'Spaniard'. You couldnt respond back intellectually, and hence you took a cover-up-shelter,to conveniently paint me as an anti-hindu (or) in your own repetetive word'Painting hinduism in bad light'..There is only one instance, I made a hurting-sentimental-remark, while debating with Shri.KRS, and I was quick enough to apologize to him.

Im not sure, if you remember the intellectual discussion I had with handle Seshadri Subramonium... He never felt that way about me (im terribly missing him here).. Only people who lack knowldge,take things personal, become in-sensitive, and throw out emotional talks or try to paint an imaginary ememy, to win the support of mass. This is the same thing, you are doing now in your arguments in your stand on 'God as Philosopher'

Let me be clear, I will not post anything in this kind, any more..I would rather remain silent. Lets put a full stop to this kind of talks in forum. I'm only interested in the points, not emotions.. If someone calls me as bastard, I would not go emotional or retaliate, rather I would ask him, to pay for the DNA tests of both my fathers and my blood samples..

Hmmm....not sure its about a 'tough stand', perhaps i am presuming things bcoz i never got to see christainity "evaluated" anywhere...yep, sure its my ignorance, alright.

Reg "support of the masses", this forum has less than 300 active people, and nobody here supports anybody (except sesh-bala-mm, a threesome who tend to post in tandem for one another). By now you wud have noticed that already. We don't know ppl in person, and we'd rather discuss the stuff expressed rather than the person.

Anyways, let bygones be bygones. Lets leave all the past discussions aside and move on.

I know you won't like this now, but just in case you might be interested in talking abt this later, it wud be nice if you cud share your thots on why you say "same as god" when christ said "son of god".

Am hoping that Praveen wud move this to a new thread. So hope the discussion can continue. So i request Shri TBS ji to continue as well.

 

[sapr333]

>>once u said..im in the part of GROUPISM....>>

Shri. TBS,

To be frank, I was quite disappointed, when you (such a learned person) and Shri.Seshadri (I still, admire his points) exited from the thread in haste, in support for the 'a person', 'who, definitely/consistently breached the forum rules & etiquettes'. Im sure you would agree with my stand, on that.

Having said that, I was the first one, to welcome you whole heartedly, with a long welcome write up, though I know, in terms of debate, we may both share totally opposite views. Groupism I mentioned here was 'Breach of forum rules', but not 'Views.'


>> it wud be nice if you cud share your thots on why you say "same as god" when christ said "son of god".>>>

Dear HH,

Though you asked many a times(since begining) about 'INCEST', I stayed away in answering that.... but one fine day, I broke the forum rule and gave you a convincing answers.. Thats is just to prove you, I do have answers, but dont want to discuss them here, in order to, stick to the forum rules.

If you are seriously interested about TRINITY, you may google yourself (use GOD+TRINITY+TRINITARIANISM+FATHER SON HOLYSPIRIT + SHIVA BRAHMA VISHNU, use the mix of words and press the ENTER KEY in google button) and find out the answer.. Thanks indeed.

 

[sapr333]

Dear HH,

Good!! Glad!!, lets 'bury the hatchet', and move on to the interesting discussions, waiting ahead...

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH,

Good!! Glad!!, lets 'bury the hatchet', and move on to the interesting discussions, waiting ahead...

Nice to see this from you. Thanks.

>>once u said..im in the part of GROUPISM....>>

Shri. TBS,

To be frank, I was quite disappointed, when you (such a learned person) and Shri.Seshadri (I still, admire his points) exited from the thread in haste, in support for the 'a person', 'who, definitely/consistently breached the forum rules & etiquettes'. Im sure you would agree with my stand, on that.

Having said that, I was the first one, to welcome you whole heartedly, with a long welcome write up, though I know, in terms of debate, we may both share totally opposite views. Groupism I mentioned here was 'Breach of forum rules', but not 'Views.'


>> it wud be nice if you cud share your thots on why you say "same as god" when christ said "son of god".>>>

Dear HH,

Though you asked many a times(since begining) about 'INCEST', I stayed away in answering that.... but one fine day, I broke the forum rule and gave you a convincing answers.. Thats is just to prove you, I do have answers, but dont want to discuss them here, in order to, stick to the forum rules.

If you are seriously interested about TRINITY, you may google yourself (use GOD+TRINITY+TRINITARIANISM+FATHER SON HOLYSPIRIT + SHIVA BRAHMA VISHNU, use the mix of words and press the ENTER KEY in google button) and find out the answer.. Thanks indeed.

You were not breaking any forum rules by answering on incest. You have avoided touching upon christianity anywhere, and are keen on comparing, evaluating and "judging" other religions, that is all i was trying to convey.

I notice that you do not wish to talk about christianity anywhere. I do not know the reason for it, but i might think that you do get emotional when christianity is spoken of in terms of what might not please a christian adherent. I maybe wrong. But i'd like to see you post on christianity as well, when you "evaluate" religions.

When i posted on how the church came to represent what christ did not teach, you refused to touch on that, instead went on to judge other religions, and judging is something you have been doing for all other religions, except christianity. Am sure i can expect a fair answer on this from you.

As for googling for answers, that is what everyone can do. You too cud have done that instead of asking ppl for their views on various topics, including kancha. A forum is for people to share their own views. So you are welcome to share your own views. If you wish, you may want to start with your post on why you said "same as god" when christ said "son of god".

 

[sapr333]

As Shri.TBS said, I would like to 'remain silent here'.. Cant take it any more, to make one understand...

 

[happyhindu]

As Shri.TBS said, I would like to 'remain silent here'.. Cant take it any more, to make one understand...

Alright. From my end, i shall take it as silence of convenience. Thanks. See ya.

 

[hariharan1972]

"Can a philosopher be a God?"

Thanks.

HH-Ji,

You bet !

Ask any student of philosophy, they'd willingly subscribe to your view only with the caveat.

Yes a philosopher can be a God, when he stops his lecture.

 

[hariharan1972]

Its very much evident,that you lost an argument in proving'God as Philosopher" ..So better accept it, take it as, 'a learning of the day', and move on..

I dont think there's a "contest" on proving one's point. Even if it was, i dont think the "contestants" can decide among themselves as to who won.

When we are dealing with a topic such as "God", "who" is omnipresent to many, "which" is a concept to some, I dont believe there can be definitive 'proofs'.

Among believers, it is my view that how each one looks upto God is deeply personal and no one can be privy to that. I dont think there's any injuction on how to look upon God and how not to.

Even if the greatest of savants dont consider "God as a philospher", I dont think anyone could be precluded from having a contrarian view.

There are no winners or losers in a discussion about one's own "convictions". There can only be "agreements and agreement to disagree".

 

[kunjuppu]

i am always hesitant to open up a new thread.

take for instance, even in this thread, the discussions re other religions creep in, in context, because when we start an arguement, we cannot quite plot out the path of the forthcoming logic.

in the same spirt i present here a weblink from today's new york times.

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02nuns.html

we are not the only ones who have angsts about our religion.

the catholic faith in the west, is facing yet another of its periodic waning of influence. the weblink presents another facet of this process, with which many might not be familiar.

it is interesting to note the various viewpoints of the comments and watch another healthy discussion process conducted in another corner of the world.

thank you.

 

[happyhindu]

thanks for the link Kunjuppu-ji. everyone seems to be in the same boat..

this comment sooooo similar to our traditionalists:

<<Modernism, relativism, and secular humanism have poisoned the Church from the inside out slowly since Vatican II and will continue to do so if these elements are not purged... and it is good to know that Truth still means something.>>

and found this funny: http://community.nytimes.com/commen...tml?sort=oldest&offset=2?sort=oldest&offset=3

ppl welcoming the other into the episcopal church and lutherans...and i thot christianity at the core just meant belief in christ. why are these fragmented denominations getting more fragmented about each's doctrines...

but then i suppose ppl like can't understand even if they look for an answer anyways, i suppose its in the design for unitarian universalists like me to see it that way...that jesus, krishna, buddha, sri adi shankara, sri ramanuja, sri madhava..all are gods, guides, gurus, philosophers, writers, scientists...all are just one.

 

[KRS]

Dear sapr333,

Just a few observations on my part after reading the discussions between you and Srmathi HH Ji:

1. Srimathi HH Ji has every right to ask for explanations to your postings. And you have every right not to give explanations, AS LONG AS YOU STATE SO WHEN YOU POST YOUR FIRST RESPONSE. To alter the rules of the game in mid discussion to 'remain silent' or 'to stop these kinds of discussions', on legitimate questions being asked is not correct. This way anyone can say anything without having to explain and that is not the intent of a Forum like this.

2. It is good to lead a discussion up to a point of impasse and then if there is no advancement, at that point you may disengage. This gives the readers a full spectrum of pros and cons.

3. I also noticed that you tend to shy away from some discussions while having no reservations on others under the rubrik of 'not belonging to any particular religion'. Seems to me like if one does this then one can fairly conclude that the person definitely has a particular leaning. Again, on your leaning, seems to me and you have admitted this - that you lean towards monotheism of Christian kind. Again, there is no problem if you are, but it seems strange that you are saying that you are 'open minded', yet would not discuss certain topics related to Christianity.

4. We talked about this once, but again you seem to have this notion that arguments are 'won' or 'lost' here. I thought you are here trying to find 'Truth'. If you are,where does winning or losing figure in, on anyone's part? One can win an argument but lose an opportunity to know 'Truth'. Is this not so?

I am making all the above statements as a Form participant and not as a 'Moderator'.

Regards,
KRS

 

[kunjuppu]

....all are gods, guides, gurus, philosophers, writers, scientists...all are just one.

not sure about this one happy. also this jogged me to reply to some other posts here, with reference to galileo, one of my heroes.

to the best of my knowledge, and from what has been widely documented, galileo escaped the inquisition, by rescinding his theories of heliocentric solar system, and publicly conforming the the official catholic doctrine of that time - re geocentric system.

galileo had friends in the high places of the italian city states, who shielded him from the charges of heresy by the inquisition, but for the price of his, he silenced himself.

except on his deathbed, after receiving the extreme unction at his death bed, he is said to have whispered 'but the earth still revolves around the sun'

copernicus, in poland, and kepler in germany, were too far away from the clutches of the inquisition and hence maintained their dignity.

infact, most of ancient greek and roman thoughts were burnt by the medieval catholic church. what was left, was in the old library of alexandria, and was preserved by muslim arabs

the western world rediscovered those texts during and after reformation, and over the past few centuries claimed to be inheritors of graeco-roman civilization.

i have always wondered, why the arabs did not build upon the knowledge of aristotle or ptolemy, for after all they were physically closer to those folks than those in western europe. i forget the name of the englishman who brought this hope... for he was wondering this topic in the context, that had the arabs furthered their learning, the shires of oxford and cambridge would have been topped by the cresecent and not the cross. one of history's unanswered 'what if's

 

[sapr333]

I dont think there's a "contest" on proving one's point. Even if it was, i dont think the "contestants" can decide among themselves as to who won.
.

Sri. Hari,

Im sorry if im blunt to negate your statement. Like how a judge in court of law,authenticates the witness, based on his 'personal sanctity of his statements''.. I have a small question, before i validate your stand.....

btw,Dont feel hurt.. When you 'posted a poetry', which was appreicated by myself , and many of the participants. . Unfortunately, it was pointed by another fellow participant, that it was found elsewhere in another forum karuthu.com..It seems you havent objected it..

Could you please clarify your stand on this, before I could respond your view....Thanks in advance..

PS: btw,hari, you do have a valid point.. Newtonians & Einsteinians cannot decide themselves who won.. Yes, Einstein won the talk by mid 2oth century, but on 21st century, they both were put on test, by Big Bang...Its like winning a case in High court, but loosing it in Supreme court... I agree with your point..

 

[sapr333]

i am always hesitant to open up a new thread.

take for instance, even in this thread, the discussions re other religions creep in, in context, because when we start an arguement, we cannot quite plot out the path of the forthcoming logic.

in the same spirt i present here a weblink from today's new york times.

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02nuns.html

we are not the only ones who have angsts (I enjoyed it)about our religion.

the catholic faith in the west, is facing yet another of its periodic waning of influence. the weblink presents another facet of this process, with which many might not be familiar.

it is interesting to note the various viewpoints of the comments and watch another healthy discussion process conducted in another corner of the world.

thank you.

Shri.Kunjuppu,

I've read through that intesting healthy debates in that link... The only book I bought today day in 'Landmark'(Rs.255-Penguin) is all about 'Sr.Jesme, a nun from Kerala, a Phd in literature,narrating a public admission about the scandals she faced in the Catholic church.You may me surprised, this is a hot pick in book store, displayed at eye-level rack.

She equally appreciates open to 'press', the good guesture of Ratzinger in admitting the pedophile crimes happened in the American church and his personal meeting to the victims.. I think this book would be a munching thing to me,for next 2 days..

btw, I have another 24Hrs to stay in Delhi, and I'm making it a point to visit Shankar's doll museum (thanks to your reference).. would post something about it in my travelogue tomorrow..