It is not just contempt, but pathological hate of evr type - kill brahmin first. A traditional practicing brahmin is a madisanji, and he who practices part time is a hypocrite. Many hindus (not brahmins alone) and jains follow traditional ways in dress, pujas, and attending discourses by their religious heads. The insult is is on all religious practiceners who spend more time during weekends on religious activities.
-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
-
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.
- Status
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
My dear brother sarang, I am surprised you are still reading my posts, am I not bullheaded in your books? You have some outstanding issues with me, like this one and this one. I know, I am beneath giving an answer to, but you just can't control yourself, you have to read what I write, and then comment in a oblique fashion.
You have brought in EVR into this, I have no problem with you hating EVR, that is perfectly fine, but you make a very incendiary accusation, "kill the brahmin first". This is a charge against not only EVR, but against me as well. This is a very serious charge and I demand you put up some solid evidence for this. I call on the moderator to offer me relief, sarang must provide evidence for this charge, I don't want sarang to simply stay silent on this one.
Hope to get satisfaction .....
p.s.
People, don't let your emotions take control of you, I respect the people who sincerely seek religious solace during weekends, my irritation is only with those hypocrites who flaunt their brahminness in matams yet never practice any of the austere religious requirements. I have come across scores and scores of these double-talk brahmins and my comments are directed towards these people only.
Mr. KRS in post #267:
While these may be just 'aggressive statements', the brahmins have been ridiculed any number of times in this forum as wannabe Bs, Week-end Bs etc by the same member. For this particular member any and every thread has to be deftly and cleverly manipulated into one for pouring vitriol on brahmins. And please note that there are many brahmins like me who keep visiting this forum and all of us silently suffer the pain of this infliction on us. While moderation acts fast on any violation by Bs with red-lettered lines and wholesale removal of posts(perhaps travelling the extra miles not to offend the sensitivities of the BBB-Brahmin Bashing Brigade), these words used to hit brahmins have never been touched. Bs understand it well that the Moderation misses the obnoxious nature of these terms perhaps because they emanate from kindred souls. Ideas will be criticised as long as they remain ideas. Once they become barbs and arrows for sniping they deserve to be treated differently. Moderation says "If one can not argue on ideas, then one resorts to personal attacks". When one mocks at the brahmins visiting the matoms with the words "playing brahmin" is it a personal attack or attack on an idea. The dividing line is indeed smudged beyond comprehension-very cleverly. I request that these lines from me be left as they are at least for a day before red letter editing. Thanks.
Please note: Moderation is an idea and only moderator is the person.
While these may be just 'aggressive statements', the brahmins have been ridiculed any number of times in this forum as wannabe Bs, Week-end Bs etc by the same member. For this particular member any and every thread has to be deftly and cleverly manipulated into one for pouring vitriol on brahmins. And please note that there are many brahmins like me who keep visiting this forum and all of us silently suffer the pain of this infliction on us. While moderation acts fast on any violation by Bs with red-lettered lines and wholesale removal of posts(perhaps travelling the extra miles not to offend the sensitivities of the BBB-Brahmin Bashing Brigade), these words used to hit brahmins have never been touched. Bs understand it well that the Moderation misses the obnoxious nature of these terms perhaps because they emanate from kindred souls. Ideas will be criticised as long as they remain ideas. Once they become barbs and arrows for sniping they deserve to be treated differently. Moderation says "If one can not argue on ideas, then one resorts to personal attacks". When one mocks at the brahmins visiting the matoms with the words "playing brahmin" is it a personal attack or attack on an idea. The dividing line is indeed smudged beyond comprehension-very cleverly. I request that these lines from me be left as they are at least for a day before red letter editing. Thanks.
Please note: Moderation is an idea and only moderator is the person.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, I dont have the same mindset as you do, to feel that they were attacks on ideas and not on people.I am glad you atleast qualified them as 'attacks' and agreed that they are aggressive.
Unfortunately again, I do not hold a community or a religion responsible for an individual's (mis)behaviour and so do not resort to similar tricks to give back.
Some one who does not believe in 'God listens to us' attacks some one who does not exists here in this forum and hopes they read his posts from outside the forum?
I beg you please tell me of what purpose these statements are, if not to attack a specific segment of the readers here.
Some one who decries delusion attacks people who are non members in this forum and hope they listen? Alas it is cowardice and hypocricsy hiding behind the smudged rules that permit this.
If only those so called ideas can stand on their own, and not on the imagined weakness of something else (inflicted by attacks), I would have had respect for them and its author.
I think they are just some one's opinion worthy of simply being ignored, since there is no hope that it will be steered to create a less 'hate mongering' debates. thanks
Last edited:
Mr. Nara in post #277:
The words and the sentences are constructed very cleverly. Poor creatures like me are unable to get the meaning clearly. Will you please clarify Mr. Nara? what do you want? Do you want Mr. Sarang to prove that you have killed brahmins? Or is it that EVR did it? Are you seriously believing that Sarang has made any of these charges? If it is about the notoriety of EVR for his statement "if you see a brahmin and a snake, kill the brahmin first" then I can offer proof. Please let me know.
Cheers.
The words and the sentences are constructed very cleverly. Poor creatures like me are unable to get the meaning clearly. Will you please clarify Mr. Nara? what do you want? Do you want Mr. Sarang to prove that you have killed brahmins? Or is it that EVR did it? Are you seriously believing that Sarang has made any of these charges? If it is about the notoriety of EVR for his statement "if you see a brahmin and a snake, kill the brahmin first" then I can offer proof. Please let me know.
Cheers.
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
The matter of "kill the brahmin first" is a matter between myself and sarang. The moderator will sort the matter out. I request others to stay out.
I have already offered my clarification on the weekend and wannabe brahmins, I have nothing more to say on that matter. Offer a counter argument, provide a rationale that my criticisms are bogus, I welcome that. Instead, attempts to characterize my arguments as attacks on a community simply because you guys don't like it, well, it is nothing but an attempt to silence me and my POV.
I have already offered my clarification on the weekend and wannabe brahmins, I have nothing more to say on that matter. Offer a counter argument, provide a rationale that my criticisms are bogus, I welcome that. Instead, attempts to characterize my arguments as attacks on a community simply because you guys don't like it, well, it is nothing but an attempt to silence me and my POV.
No Mr. Nara. Please read post #266 and #276 again. What Sarang said in his post #276 was with reference to what I said in my post #266. So I have a locus standi here. It is not just between you and Sarang.
There are a few connected questions raised by me which remain unanswered by you yet. Please refer to post #256 where I had asked you this:
and ofcourse post #281 where I have asked you this:
Cheers.
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
Sarang, you are the one who wrote "kill brahmin first", so it is your responsibility to provide evidence. Asking me to search for proof is not acceptable. Please do not bring in extraneous things here like Brahminism or Zionism, my offer to discuss Brahminism with you still stands. It is for you to take up the offer. But, at this point I demand verifiable evidence for your "kill brahmins first" comment. Let us first get this thing settled.
Thank you ....
tks
0
Here is a reference to this hate mongering quote:
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
We have already discussed this some time back. Take a look at the "Vishnu's Crowded Temple: India since the great rebellion, p. 292." given as follows:
.... Ramaswami, known as Periyar, had been the low-caste scourge of Brahmanhood in the south since the 1920s. And though he still enjoyed telling his followers that if they encountered a Brahman and a snake on the road they should kill the Brahman first, these sentiments had not prevented him forming something of an alliance with Congress, now it was committed to caste reform.
This book cites no source or reference for this assestion. This is no more reliable than the assertions made here in this frum. Put up some verifiable evidence.
Further, it is not only about EVR, it is also about what sarang asserts as my pathological hatred.
Last edited by a moderator:
tks
0
Why don't you simply proclaim - "I am against all kinds of hate speech against any group including Brahmins. This means if EVR has said the words that is alleged then I condemn his words." If this is issued in a categorical manner with no room for ambiguity then this whole matter will be behind .. Just a friendly suggestion.
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
tks, why do I have to do this? Have I made any hateful commnents against anyone the way sarang is continuing to do? Somebody else may come along and demand that I proclaim I don't beat my wife, do I have to do that too?
Anyway, if it would please you, let me say, it goes without saying that I am against all forms of hate and hate speech no matter what the source is. How about everybody else chiming in and making the same proclamation?
All this is besides the point. What is at issue is the incendiary and hostile comment sarang made about me without a shred of evidence, that is what is at issue.
I have offered hand of friendship to sarang for a long time now, yet he has made a habit of heaping verbal abuse. Take a look at the links I have provided. It is now accountability time for him. This is not about EVR, it is about sarang's hateful speech directed against me, EVR's relevance is only on account of sarang making a connection between EVR and me.
Thank you ...
p.s. tks, I appreciate your friendly suggestion, just to be sure I am not misunderstood
Last edited by a moderator:
Hatemongers of the rational type rarely admit to the hatemongering!
At best, even if they admit to it, they will try and rationalize it, as was recently seen in the thread related to MK's hate speech against the brahmins.
Dealing with them is more difficult than countering irrational hatemongers, including the religious fanatics!
Last edited:
Sri Sarang Ji.
I have deleted your post #125 above.
As you know, you, myself and Professor Nara Ji have been having conversations behind the scenes about your 'killing brahmins' statement. I suggested that you explain the reason you made that statement, which seemes to attribute it not only to EVR, but to Professor Nara Ji as well.
Yet, you would not agree to such an explanation, but proceeded to post your rambling opinion, which was essentially your disagreement with Professor Nara Ji's views, not addressing the import of your remark.
Under such a circumstance, I have no option but to delete your post.
You have two options:
1) Explain the reason why you think Professor Nara Ji is a 'brahmin killer'.
2) Choose not to explain that, in which case, your posts in this Forum will be deleted without explanation.
Many of us do not agree with Professor Nara Ji's pov on many things, but we can not accept it when you call him a 'brahmin killer'.
Regards,
KRS
I have deleted your post #125 above.
As you know, you, myself and Professor Nara Ji have been having conversations behind the scenes about your 'killing brahmins' statement. I suggested that you explain the reason you made that statement, which seemes to attribute it not only to EVR, but to Professor Nara Ji as well.
Yet, you would not agree to such an explanation, but proceeded to post your rambling opinion, which was essentially your disagreement with Professor Nara Ji's views, not addressing the import of your remark.
Under such a circumstance, I have no option but to delete your post.
You have two options:
1) Explain the reason why you think Professor Nara Ji is a 'brahmin killer'.
2) Choose not to explain that, in which case, your posts in this Forum will be deleted without explanation.
Many of us do not agree with Professor Nara Ji's pov on many things, but we can not accept it when you call him a 'brahmin killer'.
Regards,
KRS
Last edited:
Dear brother Nara Ji,
I know you admire EVR as a great man.
I do not agree with your view, as you know. Not because he did not have noble objectives, but because I have no use for anyone who has no love for any humans, however much harm they think their group might have done to the society in the past. I just do not buy any hate mongering. I firmly believe that any change of heart in any society can only be done through love and understanding, not through hate and berating.
Here are two instances, where the famous statement attributed to EVR are made (there are others, but these two will do to illustrate my point):
Many Rmyaṇas: the diversity of a narrative tradition in South Asia - Paula Richman - Google Books
Brahmins Destroyed the dravidian Indus Valley civilization « Dalit Nation – The Only Authentic Voice of Dalits
The first is a citing from a book and the second is from a Dalit web forum. Both have no reason to assert something that was not said.
So, just because something was not recorded as a first person saying it, does not mean it was not said.
Besides, here is a compendium of EVR's lectures and writings. Here is what he says:
This is just one instance where he calls for the destruction of brahmins (not brahminism). If you go through this long post, you will see his venom against the brahmins, worse than the above:
Fuzzy and Neutrosophic Analysis of Periyar’s Views on Untouchability
You somehow downplay the violence his sayings played against the brahmins. His particular tirade against the tufts that brahmins wore, in my opinion instigated many a forceful cutting of those (I have personal knowledge).
I just can not support putting down an entire group of folks and encouragement to perpetrate violence, however just one's cause is.
If this does not bother you, then in my opinion, you are not a universal humanist. Sorry.
Regards,
KRS
I know you admire EVR as a great man.
I do not agree with your view, as you know. Not because he did not have noble objectives, but because I have no use for anyone who has no love for any humans, however much harm they think their group might have done to the society in the past. I just do not buy any hate mongering. I firmly believe that any change of heart in any society can only be done through love and understanding, not through hate and berating.
Here are two instances, where the famous statement attributed to EVR are made (there are others, but these two will do to illustrate my point):
Many Rmyaṇas: the diversity of a narrative tradition in South Asia - Paula Richman - Google Books
Brahmins Destroyed the dravidian Indus Valley civilization « Dalit Nation – The Only Authentic Voice of Dalits
The first is a citing from a book and the second is from a Dalit web forum. Both have no reason to assert something that was not said.
So, just because something was not recorded as a first person saying it, does not mean it was not said.
Besides, here is a compendium of EVR's lectures and writings. Here is what he says:
This is just one instance where he calls for the destruction of brahmins (not brahminism). If you go through this long post, you will see his venom against the brahmins, worse than the above:
Fuzzy and Neutrosophic Analysis of Periyar’s Views on Untouchability
You somehow downplay the violence his sayings played against the brahmins. His particular tirade against the tufts that brahmins wore, in my opinion instigated many a forceful cutting of those (I have personal knowledge).
I just can not support putting down an entire group of folks and encouragement to perpetrate violence, however just one's cause is.
If this does not bother you, then in my opinion, you are not a universal humanist. Sorry.
Regards,
KRS
Last edited:
As I have done earlier by giving some excerpts from the "Vedic Concept of God" by Vidyanand Saraswati, I would like to give excerpts at length from the following article by Nyanaponika Thera, a Buddhist scholar, which, I hope, may add value to the on-going, if somewhat bitter and highly vindictive, discussion on the "God Fallacy" started by 'Nara':
"Buddhism and the God-idea
by
Nyanaponika Thera
© 2004. BuddhaNet edition © 1996.–2012
"Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on 'Anatta', non-self or unsubstantiality."
"In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god ('issara-nimmana-vada') is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct."
"Theism, however, is regarded as a kind of kamma-teaching in so far as it upholds the moral efficacy of actions. Hence a theist who leads a moral life may, like anyone else doing so, expect a favorable rebirth. He may possibly even be reborn in a heavenly world that resembles his own conception of it, though it will not be of eternal duration as he may have expected. If, however, fanaticism induces him to persecute those who do not share his beliefs, this will have grave consequences for his future destiny. For fanatical attitudes, intolerance, and violence against others create unwholesome kamma leading to moral degeneration and to an unhappy rebirth."
"Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of 'eternalism', a false affirmation of 'permanence' rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance."
"Among the fetters ('samyojana') that bind to existence, theism is particularly subject to those of personality-belief, attachment to rites and rituals, and desire for fine-material existence or for a 'heaven of the sense sphere', as the case may be."
"As an attempt at explaining the universe, its origin, and man's situation in his world, the God-idea was found entirely unconvincing by the Buddhist thinkers of old. Through the centuries, Buddhist philosophers have formulated detailed arguments refuting the doctrine of a creator god. It should be of interest to compare these with the ways in which Western philosophers have refuted the theological proofs of the existence of God."
"But for an earnest believer, the God-idea is more than a mere device for explaining external facts like the origin of the world. For him it is an object of faith that can bestow a strong feeling of certainty, not only as to God's existence 'somewhere out there', but as to God's consoling presence and closeness to himself. This feeling of certainty requires close scrutiny. Such scrutiny will reveal that in most cases the God-idea is only the devotee's projection of his ideal — generally a noble one — and of his fervent wish and deeply felt need to believe. These projections are largely conditioned by external influences, such as childhood impressions, education, tradition and social environment. Charged with a strong emotional emphasis, brought to life by man's powerful capacity for image-formation, visualization and the creation of myth, they then come to be identified with the images and concepts of whatever religion the devotee follows. In the case of many of the most sincere believers, a searching analysis would show that their 'God-experience' has no more specific content than this."
"Yet the range and significance of 'God-belief' and 'God-experience' are not fully exhausted by the preceding remarks. The lives and writings of the mystics of all great religions bear witness to religious experiences of great intensity, in which considerable changes are effected in the quality of consciousness. Profound absorption in prayer or meditation can bring about a deepening and widening, a brightening and intensifying of consciousness, accompanied by a transporting feeling of rapture and bliss. The contrast between these states and normal conscious awareness is so great that the mystic believes his experience to be manifestations of the divine; and given the contrast, this assumption is quite understandable. Mystical experiences are also characterized by a marked reduction or temporary exclusion of the multiplicity of sense-perceptions and restless thoughts, and this relative unification of mind is then interpreted as a union or communion with the One God. All these deeply moving impressions and the first spontaneous interpretations the mystic subsequently identifies with his particular theology."
"The psychological facts underlying those religious experiences are accepted by the Buddhist and well-known to him; but he carefully distinguishes the experiences themselves from the theological interpretations imposed upon them. After rising from deep meditative absorption('jhana'), the Buddhist meditator is advised to view the physical and mental factors constituting his experience in the light of the three characteristics of all conditioned existence: 'impermanence', 'liability to suffering', and 'absence of an abiding ego or eternal substance'. This is done primarily in order to utilize the meditative purity and strength of consciousness for the highest purpose: liberating insight."
"But this procedure also has a very important side-effect which concerns us here: the meditator will not be overwhelmed by any uncontrolled emotions and thoughts evoked by his singular experience, and will thus be able to avoid interpretations of that experience not warranted by the facts."
"Hence a Buddhist meditator, while benefiting by the refinement of consciousness he has achieved, will be able to see these meditative experiences for what they are; and he will further know that they are without any abiding substance that could be attributed to a deity manifesting itself to the mind. Therefore, the Buddhist's conclusion must be that the highest mystic states do not provide evidence for the existence of a personal God or an impersonal godhead."
"Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world."
"The word 'atheism', however, like the word 'godless', frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching."
"Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, 'Nibbana'."
"In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in."
"The materialistic philosophy of 'annihilationism' ('ucchedavada') is emphatically rejected by the Buddha as a false doctrine. The doctrine of kamma is sufficient to prove that Buddhism does not teach annihilation after death. It accepts survival, not of an eternal soul, but of a mental process subject to renewed becoming; thus it teaches rebirth without transmigration."
"Again, the Buddha's teaching is not a 'nihilism' that gives suffering humanity no better hope than a final cold nothingness. On the contrary, it is a teaching of 'salvation' ('niyyanika-dhamma') or 'deliverance' ('vimutti') which attributes to man the faculty to realize by his own efforts the highest goal, 'Nibbana', the ultimate cessation of suffering and the final eradication of greed, hatred and delusion. 'Nibbana' is far from being the blank zero of annihilation; yet it also cannot be identified with any form of God-idea, as it is neither the origin nor the immanent ground or essence of the world."
"Buddhism is not an enemy of religion as atheism is believed to be. Buddhism, indeed, is the enemy of none. A Buddhist will recognize and appreciate whatever ethical, spiritual and cultural values have been created by God-belief in its long and checkered history. We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that the God-concept has served too often as a cloak for man's will to power, and the reckless and cruel use of that power, thus adding considerably to the ample measure of misery in this world supposed to be an all-loving God's creation. For centuries free thought, free research and the expression of dissident views were obstructed and stifled in the name of service to God. And alas, these and other negative consequences are not yet entirely things of the past."
"The word 'atheism' also carries the innuendo of an attitude countenancing moral laxity, or a belief that man-made ethics, having no divine sanction, rest on shaky foundations. For Buddhism, however, the basic moral law is inherent in life itself. It is a special case of the law of cause and effect, needing neither a divine law-giver nor depending upon the fluctuating human conceptions of socially conditioned minor moralities and conventions. For an increasing section of humanity, the belief in God is breaking down rapidly, as well as the accustomed motivations for moral conduct. This shows the risk of basing moral postulates on divine commandments, when their alleged source rapidly loses credence and authority. There is a need for an autonomous foundation for ethics, one that has deeper roots than a social contract and is capable of protecting the security of the individual and of human institutions. Buddhism offers such a foundation for ethics."
"Buddhism does not deny that there are in the universe planes of existence and levels of consciousness which in some ways may be superior to our terrestrial world and to average human consciousness."
"Yet, according to Buddhist teachings, such higher planes of existence, like our familiar world, are subject to the law of impermanence and change. The inhabitants of such worlds may well be, in different degrees, more powerful than human beings, happier and longer-lived. Whether we call those superior beings gods, deities, devas or angels is of little importance, since it is improbable that they call themselves by any of those names. They are inhabitants of this universe, fellow-wanderers in this round of existence; and though more powerful, they need not be wiser than man. Further, it need not be denied that such worlds and such beings may have their lord and ruler. In all probability they do. But like any human ruler, a divine ruler too might be inclined to misjudge his own status and power, until a greater one comes along and points out to him his error, as our texts report of the Buddha."
"These, however, are largely matters beyond the range and concern of average human experience. They have been mentioned here chiefly for the purpose of defining the Buddhist position, and not to serve as a topic of speculation and argument. Such involvement can only divert attention and effort from what ought to be our principal object: the overcoming of greed, hatred and delusion where they are found in the here and now."
"An ancient verse ascribed to the Buddha in the Questions of King Milinda says:
Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!"
"Buddhism and the God-idea
by
Nyanaponika Thera
© 2004. BuddhaNet edition © 1996.–2012
"Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on 'Anatta', non-self or unsubstantiality."
"In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god ('issara-nimmana-vada') is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct."
"Theism, however, is regarded as a kind of kamma-teaching in so far as it upholds the moral efficacy of actions. Hence a theist who leads a moral life may, like anyone else doing so, expect a favorable rebirth. He may possibly even be reborn in a heavenly world that resembles his own conception of it, though it will not be of eternal duration as he may have expected. If, however, fanaticism induces him to persecute those who do not share his beliefs, this will have grave consequences for his future destiny. For fanatical attitudes, intolerance, and violence against others create unwholesome kamma leading to moral degeneration and to an unhappy rebirth."
"Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of 'eternalism', a false affirmation of 'permanence' rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance."
"Among the fetters ('samyojana') that bind to existence, theism is particularly subject to those of personality-belief, attachment to rites and rituals, and desire for fine-material existence or for a 'heaven of the sense sphere', as the case may be."
"As an attempt at explaining the universe, its origin, and man's situation in his world, the God-idea was found entirely unconvincing by the Buddhist thinkers of old. Through the centuries, Buddhist philosophers have formulated detailed arguments refuting the doctrine of a creator god. It should be of interest to compare these with the ways in which Western philosophers have refuted the theological proofs of the existence of God."
"But for an earnest believer, the God-idea is more than a mere device for explaining external facts like the origin of the world. For him it is an object of faith that can bestow a strong feeling of certainty, not only as to God's existence 'somewhere out there', but as to God's consoling presence and closeness to himself. This feeling of certainty requires close scrutiny. Such scrutiny will reveal that in most cases the God-idea is only the devotee's projection of his ideal — generally a noble one — and of his fervent wish and deeply felt need to believe. These projections are largely conditioned by external influences, such as childhood impressions, education, tradition and social environment. Charged with a strong emotional emphasis, brought to life by man's powerful capacity for image-formation, visualization and the creation of myth, they then come to be identified with the images and concepts of whatever religion the devotee follows. In the case of many of the most sincere believers, a searching analysis would show that their 'God-experience' has no more specific content than this."
"Yet the range and significance of 'God-belief' and 'God-experience' are not fully exhausted by the preceding remarks. The lives and writings of the mystics of all great religions bear witness to religious experiences of great intensity, in which considerable changes are effected in the quality of consciousness. Profound absorption in prayer or meditation can bring about a deepening and widening, a brightening and intensifying of consciousness, accompanied by a transporting feeling of rapture and bliss. The contrast between these states and normal conscious awareness is so great that the mystic believes his experience to be manifestations of the divine; and given the contrast, this assumption is quite understandable. Mystical experiences are also characterized by a marked reduction or temporary exclusion of the multiplicity of sense-perceptions and restless thoughts, and this relative unification of mind is then interpreted as a union or communion with the One God. All these deeply moving impressions and the first spontaneous interpretations the mystic subsequently identifies with his particular theology."
"The psychological facts underlying those religious experiences are accepted by the Buddhist and well-known to him; but he carefully distinguishes the experiences themselves from the theological interpretations imposed upon them. After rising from deep meditative absorption('jhana'), the Buddhist meditator is advised to view the physical and mental factors constituting his experience in the light of the three characteristics of all conditioned existence: 'impermanence', 'liability to suffering', and 'absence of an abiding ego or eternal substance'. This is done primarily in order to utilize the meditative purity and strength of consciousness for the highest purpose: liberating insight."
"But this procedure also has a very important side-effect which concerns us here: the meditator will not be overwhelmed by any uncontrolled emotions and thoughts evoked by his singular experience, and will thus be able to avoid interpretations of that experience not warranted by the facts."
"Hence a Buddhist meditator, while benefiting by the refinement of consciousness he has achieved, will be able to see these meditative experiences for what they are; and he will further know that they are without any abiding substance that could be attributed to a deity manifesting itself to the mind. Therefore, the Buddhist's conclusion must be that the highest mystic states do not provide evidence for the existence of a personal God or an impersonal godhead."
"Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world."
"The word 'atheism', however, like the word 'godless', frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching."
"Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, 'Nibbana'."
"In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in."
"The materialistic philosophy of 'annihilationism' ('ucchedavada') is emphatically rejected by the Buddha as a false doctrine. The doctrine of kamma is sufficient to prove that Buddhism does not teach annihilation after death. It accepts survival, not of an eternal soul, but of a mental process subject to renewed becoming; thus it teaches rebirth without transmigration."
"Again, the Buddha's teaching is not a 'nihilism' that gives suffering humanity no better hope than a final cold nothingness. On the contrary, it is a teaching of 'salvation' ('niyyanika-dhamma') or 'deliverance' ('vimutti') which attributes to man the faculty to realize by his own efforts the highest goal, 'Nibbana', the ultimate cessation of suffering and the final eradication of greed, hatred and delusion. 'Nibbana' is far from being the blank zero of annihilation; yet it also cannot be identified with any form of God-idea, as it is neither the origin nor the immanent ground or essence of the world."
"Buddhism is not an enemy of religion as atheism is believed to be. Buddhism, indeed, is the enemy of none. A Buddhist will recognize and appreciate whatever ethical, spiritual and cultural values have been created by God-belief in its long and checkered history. We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that the God-concept has served too often as a cloak for man's will to power, and the reckless and cruel use of that power, thus adding considerably to the ample measure of misery in this world supposed to be an all-loving God's creation. For centuries free thought, free research and the expression of dissident views were obstructed and stifled in the name of service to God. And alas, these and other negative consequences are not yet entirely things of the past."
"The word 'atheism' also carries the innuendo of an attitude countenancing moral laxity, or a belief that man-made ethics, having no divine sanction, rest on shaky foundations. For Buddhism, however, the basic moral law is inherent in life itself. It is a special case of the law of cause and effect, needing neither a divine law-giver nor depending upon the fluctuating human conceptions of socially conditioned minor moralities and conventions. For an increasing section of humanity, the belief in God is breaking down rapidly, as well as the accustomed motivations for moral conduct. This shows the risk of basing moral postulates on divine commandments, when their alleged source rapidly loses credence and authority. There is a need for an autonomous foundation for ethics, one that has deeper roots than a social contract and is capable of protecting the security of the individual and of human institutions. Buddhism offers such a foundation for ethics."
"Buddhism does not deny that there are in the universe planes of existence and levels of consciousness which in some ways may be superior to our terrestrial world and to average human consciousness."
"Yet, according to Buddhist teachings, such higher planes of existence, like our familiar world, are subject to the law of impermanence and change. The inhabitants of such worlds may well be, in different degrees, more powerful than human beings, happier and longer-lived. Whether we call those superior beings gods, deities, devas or angels is of little importance, since it is improbable that they call themselves by any of those names. They are inhabitants of this universe, fellow-wanderers in this round of existence; and though more powerful, they need not be wiser than man. Further, it need not be denied that such worlds and such beings may have their lord and ruler. In all probability they do. But like any human ruler, a divine ruler too might be inclined to misjudge his own status and power, until a greater one comes along and points out to him his error, as our texts report of the Buddha."
"These, however, are largely matters beyond the range and concern of average human experience. They have been mentioned here chiefly for the purpose of defining the Buddhist position, and not to serve as a topic of speculation and argument. Such involvement can only divert attention and effort from what ought to be our principal object: the overcoming of greed, hatred and delusion where they are found in the here and now."
"An ancient verse ascribed to the Buddha in the Questions of King Milinda says:
Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!"
Regards,
KRS
As a moderator, you are entitled to delete any post for any reason; I concede that. I will amend the first line of my post #276 which has offended prof nara. He can decide whether where he fits in.
“ Some staunch evr loyalists have contempt for Brahmins, more contempt for traditional Brahmins, and even today carry placards with the message – kill Brahmins. Recently, when the cement statue of evr was disfigured and a metal one installed in srirangam, such goshams were heard”.
I have given a few extracts from the forum posts and whatever was said about Brahmins. When prof nara starts abusing brahmins from #249 or using derogatory term (#232) for Sri Vidyanand Saraswati as peddling (peddler will be more offensive) (#232) are all irrelevant now. The trick is to paraphrase the message and make it plural to include more numbers.
#249
I only have sympathy for them, no contempt, no animosity. However, when I see the scores of part-time Brahmins, who mingle among the high and mighty with suave and ease all week long, and come weekend, adorn clumsy kaccham and talk a high talk of their Brahmincal lineage and eminence, believe you me, all the Brahmins I have come across fit this mold, I feel no hesitation to call them out.
#258
Anyway, I do have contempt for the extreme jAti prejudice these guys exhibit when they come to Matam in the weekend and play Brahmins. I have seen scores and scores of them, some my own family members. I do have contempt for their contemptible mindset, thank you very much.
Some quotes attributed to evr by his loyalists: (please not - attributed, though reference is given).
‘‘பார்ப்பனன் இந்நாட்டினின்று விரட்டப்பட வேண்டும்’’
(விடுதலை 29-01-1954)
கடவுளை ஒழிக்க வேண்டுமானால் பார்ப்பானை ஒழிக்கவேண்டும்.
(விடுதலை 19-10-1958)
‘‘பாம்பையும், பார்ப்பானையும் கண்டால், பாம்பைவிட்டுவிடு பார்ப்பானை அடி என்றார் பெரியார்’’
(நூல்:- இந்துத்துவாவின் படையெடுப்பு)
‘‘சாதிப்பாகுபாடுகளை ஒழிப்பதற்கு, அரசியல் சட்டம், காந்தியார், நேரு படத்தை கொளுத்தவேண்டும். இவையத்தனை முயற்சிகளிலும் பலன் கிட்டாமல் தோல்வி கிடைக்கமானால், பிறகு பார்ப்பனர்களை அடிக்கவும், உதைக்கவும், கொல்லவும், அவர்கள் வீடுகளைக் கொளுத்தவுமான காரியங்கள் நடைபெறவேண்டும்’’.
(நூல்:- தமிழர் தலைவர்)
ஆனால் அதே ஈ.வே. ராமசாமி நாயக்கர் 1962 ஆம் ஆண்டு நடந்த தேர்தலில் கூறுகிறார்:- “தேர்தல் தினத்தன்று பிராமணர்கள் வாக்களிக்க வரக்கூடாது’’
(நூல் : தேர்தல் அரசியல்)
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
Folks, I am working with Shri KRS and Sarang via PM on this issue. As I have always said, I welcome vigorous debate on any view I express and I am ready and willing to answer any questions that may be raised, as long as we are civil to each other. I am willing to ignore occasional insults just as long as it does not become a routine.
At this point I request members to continue expressing their objections to EVR and what he stood for in the other thread here. I would like to continue this thread with posts relating to the god fallacy.
Thank you.....
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
After a brief interlude due to imposed circumstances, I would like to resume citing well known Atheists and give short excerpts of what they said.
This post is about Bhagat Singh. I have made posts about his rationalism earlier. Recently tks copy/pasted his entire essay titled "Why I am an Atheist" which he wrote in early October 1930, while in prison facing certain death at the hands of the British colonialists. Six months later he was hanged.
Even though the essay is a riveting read, click here if you wish to read it in full, I am sure not many would not have read through the entire essay due to its length. So, I present a few short passages below so that everyone can get a taste of Bhagat Singh's forthright rejection of faith.
.....some of them [Bhagat Singh's friends] have reached a kind of hasty conclusion about me that my atheism is my foolishness and that it is the outcome of my vanity. ........ Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or have I ceased believing in God after thinking long and deep on the matter? I wish to put my ideas before you.
[...]
You go against popular feelings; you criticise a hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of revolutionary thinking.
There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism.
Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects: Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. .... All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, – lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are – we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.
[...]
Cheers!
This post is about Bhagat Singh. I have made posts about his rationalism earlier. Recently tks copy/pasted his entire essay titled "Why I am an Atheist" which he wrote in early October 1930, while in prison facing certain death at the hands of the British colonialists. Six months later he was hanged.
Even though the essay is a riveting read, click here if you wish to read it in full, I am sure not many would not have read through the entire essay due to its length. So, I present a few short passages below so that everyone can get a taste of Bhagat Singh's forthright rejection of faith.
.....some of them [Bhagat Singh's friends] have reached a kind of hasty conclusion about me that my atheism is my foolishness and that it is the outcome of my vanity. ........ Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or have I ceased believing in God after thinking long and deep on the matter? I wish to put my ideas before you.
[...]
You go against popular feelings; you criticise a hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of revolutionary thinking.
There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism.
Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects: Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. .... All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, – lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are – we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.
[...]
Being atheist, I ask a few questions from theists:
1. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent, Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, please let me know, first of all, as to why he created this world. This world which is full of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person lives in peace.
2. Pray, don’t say it is His law. If He is bound by any law, He is not Omnipotent. Don’t say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked.
[...]
.... That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?
2. Pray, don’t say it is His law. If He is bound by any law, He is not Omnipotent. Don’t say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked.
[...]
.... That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?
I ask why your Omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is about to commit a sin or offence. It is child’s play for God. Why did He not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great calamity and horror. Why does He not infuse humanistic sentiments into the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? I ask why He does not fill the hearts of all capitalist classes with altruistic humanism that prompts them to give up personal possession of the means of production and this will free the whole labouring humanity from the shackles of money.
[...]
Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, “When your last days come, you will begin to believe.” I said, “No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralisation. For such petty selfish motives, I shall never pray.” Reader and friends, is it vanity? If it is, I stand for it.
I salute Bhagat Singh for the courage of his conviction even while facing certain death.[...]
Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, “When your last days come, you will begin to believe.” I said, “No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralisation. For such petty selfish motives, I shall never pray.” Reader and friends, is it vanity? If it is, I stand for it.
Cheers!
Last edited by a moderator:
What I wonder is that why should someone who deems a statement such as "kill brahmins first" as a mere rhetoric complain at all when one is accused of being defiant of such a statement! Either one considers it as hatemongering or not. There is no middle ground here.
renuka
Well-known member
கால பைரவன்;129711 said:
Killing is the most misunderstood words these days.
Types of killing:
1)Killing with a lethal weapon
2)Killing an individual or a community with words.
3)Killing someone softly with Love(anbe anbe kollathe)
So make the choice how we want to play the killing game.
Last edited:
sarang said:
First of all, I request people not to fall for this simple trick about original quotes and references.
The statements that are "attributed" to EVR are often taken from viduthalai and other DK controlled archives, an organization, started by EVR himself. These are often cited by dravidianists and EVR admirers and loyalists themselves. One can find such quotes spilled throughout 'viduthalai' even today.
The dravidianists are proud to hate brahmins. They are proud that EVR hated brahmins. Therefore I could not quite understand why someone would try to whitewash these facts.
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
Service [Cook Available] Samaiyal mami -ChennaiBrahmins cook ( samaiyal. Mami) required for. Your home month salary basis please contact - And...- Kum (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Wanted female Brahmin cook and caretaker in CoimbatoreNeed a female Brahmin cook and caretaker in Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, please contact
- Peace$ (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
For sale [Property for Sale] 1 BHK Flat In Anuradha Tower For Sale In Sion Koliwada, Mumbai1 BHK Flat In Anuradha Tower For Sale In Sion Koliwada, Mumbai
- The God (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Announcement Bhagavad Gita - A Layman's Decode to UnderstandingYou can Know the Contents of BG in 60 pages. It is a flow. Easy to Read over weekend. Continuity...
- akjagan12 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
For rent Independent House for rent in ChromepetLandmark: Near Vivekananda School and Kumaran Kundram Temple
- Mahaperiyava82 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires