guha throws multiple barbs at the chaddi gang

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

The vast majority of Tambrams do not follow Adi Sankara to the best of my knowledge. They are either Vaisnavites or Saivites, and not Sankarites.

 Iyers!

In my opinion you are wrong. The matter is easily decided though. Let us ask Max to share his views on this issue.

iyengars are srivaishnavites, but iyers are not exclusively saivite and worship at both temples. in fact the chidambaram temple has a separate entrance to govindaraja perumAL which allows srivaishnavites to enter the temple premises without every having to lay their eyes on any saivite symbols.  iyengars were the breakaway faction from the original single group which never had any such divisions. the iyers simply continue to be part of the original group. the single best proof is that you'll find unmistakably vaishnavite names amongst iyers.

That does not answer the question: should iyers be considered as a sect which considers Adi Sankara as their paramount spiritual leader?

i added to my original post which answers your q. if you look at the "formal" wedding invitations that are sent out only to very close blood relatives, you may have seen these, yellow on one side and pink on the other, you'll see that the verbal statement of the invitation is always preceded by, "with the blessings of the pontiff of the kaAnchi (or sringEri) matam.... (in tamil of course)"

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

 Iyers!

In my opinion you are wrong. The matter is easily decided though. Let us ask Max to share his views on this issue.

iyengars are srivaishnavites, but iyers are not exclusively saivite and worship at both temples. in fact the chidambaram temple has a separate entrance to govindaraja perumAL which allows srivaishnavites to enter the temple premises without every having to lay their eyes on any saivite symbols.  iyengars were the breakaway faction from the original single group which never had any such divisions. the iyers simply continue to be part of the original group. the single best proof is that you'll find unmistakably vaishnavite names amongst iyers.

That does not answer the question: should iyers be considered as a sect which considers Adi Sankara as their paramount spiritual leader?

i added to my original post which answers your q. if you look at the "formal" wedding invitations that are sent out only to very close blood relatives, you may have seen these, yellow on one side and pink on the other, you'll see that the verbal statement of the invitation is always preceded by, "with the blessings of the pontiff of the kaAnchi (or sringEri) matam.... (in tamil of course)"

Thanks for this information.

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun and PP:  Aurangazeb and Asoka have one thing in common. To find out what it is, post the maps of their kingdoms soon AFTER THEY KICKED THE BUCKET. Nehru tried to be the next Asoka when he took the J&K issue to the UN and uttered Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

PS: As I said before, India was under a profound Buddhist influence until just before the Muslim invasions. Ashoka died circa 200 BCE, but sanAtana dharma did not make a comeback for eight hundred more years. Even the Hindu revival circa 600 CE did not bring back sanAtana dharma (i.e. the old vedic religion), but it brought in the bhakti movement and early elements of the Hinduism we recognize today.

Aurangzeb's ideas died a quick death, but his great grandfather Akbar's ideas did not. That is why Amartya Sen considers Asoka and Akbar to be the two greatest kings India has known. That is why Sen also says that modern Indian secularism is based on Akbar's formulation of secularism in the Indian context. There is no doubt that Asoka exercised tremendous influence with respect to medieval Indian thinking but Akbar's influence on Modern India is surely greater. One more point: For all its goodness, Budhism is a 'slave religion' as its critics have described it. In the sense that it inculcates passiveness, non-violence, etc. The argument could be made that the arrival of Budhism and Jainism in India weakened the Indian psyche and made India ripe for external conquest. Freedom of the individual (salvation/nirvana) and individual enlightenment became more important than fighting external enemies.

 argument could be made that your mughal obsession & heroworship of strong islamic men through the ages has weakened your sphincter and made it ripe for phlegmy's penetration on repeated basis much like ghori on delhi.

Propa, are you telling me where your picked up your FISHERMAN LANGUAGE from? It is strange to see you shy away from this question.

it is strange to see you shy away from confirming my thesis about your sphincter. you also have not had any conversations with it so I am forced to conclude that your sphincter has been invaded by phlegmy

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

PS: As I said before, India was under a profound Buddhist influence until just before the Muslim invasions. Ashoka died circa 200 BCE, but sanAtana dharma did not make a comeback for eight hundred more years. Even the Hindu revival circa 600 CE did not bring back sanAtana dharma (i.e. the old vedic religion), but it brought in the bhakti movement and early elements of the Hinduism we recognize today.

Aurangzeb's ideas died a quick death, but his great grandfather Akbar's ideas did not. That is why Amartya Sen considers Asoka and Akbar to be the two greatest kings India has known. That is why Sen also says that modern Indian secularism is based on Akbar's formulation of secularism in the Indian context. There is no doubt that Asoka exercised tremendous influence with respect to medieval Indian thinking but Akbar's influence on Modern India is surely greater. One more point: For all its goodness, Budhism is a 'slave religion' as its critics have described it. In the sense that it inculcates passiveness, non-violence, etc. The argument could be made that the arrival of Budhism and Jainism in India weakened the Indian psyche and made India ripe for external conquest. Freedom of the individual (salvation/nirvana) and individual enlightenment became more important than fighting external enemies.

 argument could be made that your mughal obsession & heroworship of strong islamic men through the ages has weakened your sphincter and made it ripe for phlegmy's penetration on repeated basis much like ghori on delhi.

Propa, are you telling me where your picked up your FISHERMAN LANGUAGE from? It is strange to see you shy away from this question.

it is strange to see you shy away from confirming my thesis about your sphincter. you also have not had any conversations with it so I am forced to conclude that your sphincter has been invaded by phlegmy

Propa you are cute. You are like a child.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

PS: As I said before, India was under a profound Buddhist influence until just before the Muslim invasions. Ashoka died circa 200 BCE, but sanAtana dharma did not make a comeback for eight hundred more years. Even the Hindu revival circa 600 CE did not bring back sanAtana dharma (i.e. the old vedic religion), but it brought in the bhakti movement and early elements of the Hinduism we recognize today.

Aurangzeb's ideas died a quick death, but his great grandfather Akbar's ideas did not. That is why Amartya Sen considers Asoka and Akbar to be the two greatest kings India has known. That is why Sen also says that modern Indian secularism is based on Akbar's formulation of secularism in the Indian context. There is no doubt that Asoka exercised tremendous influence with respect to medieval Indian thinking but Akbar's influence on Modern India is surely greater. One more point: For all its goodness, Budhism is a 'slave religion' as its critics have described it. In the sense that it inculcates passiveness, non-violence, etc. The argument could be made that the arrival of Budhism and Jainism in India weakened the Indian psyche and made India ripe for external conquest. Freedom of the individual (salvation/nirvana) and individual enlightenment became more important than fighting external enemies.

 argument could be made that your mughal obsession & heroworship of strong islamic men through the ages has weakened your sphincter and made it ripe for phlegmy's penetration on repeated basis much like ghori on delhi.

Propa, are you telling me where your picked up your FISHERMAN LANGUAGE from? It is strange to see you shy away from this question.

it is strange to see you shy away from confirming my thesis about your sphincter. you also have not had any conversations with it so I am forced to conclude that your sphincter has been invaded by phlegmy

LOLu

b_A wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Aurangzeb's ideas died a quick death, but his great grandfather Akbar's ideas did not. That is why Amartya Sen considers Asoka and Akbar to be the two greatest kings India has known. That is why Sen also says that modern Indian secularism is based on Akbar's formulation of secularism in the Indian context. There is no doubt that Asoka exercised tremendous influence with respect to medieval Indian thinking but Akbar's influence on Modern India is surely greater. One more point: For all its goodness, Budhism is a 'slave religion' as its critics have described it. In the sense that it inculcates passiveness, non-violence, etc. The argument could be made that the arrival of Budhism and Jainism in India weakened the Indian psyche and made India ripe for external conquest. Freedom of the individual (salvation/nirvana) and individual enlightenment became more important than fighting external enemies.

 argument could be made that your mughal obsession & heroworship of strong islamic men through the ages has weakened your sphincter and made it ripe for phlegmy's penetration on repeated basis much like ghori on delhi.

Propa, are you telling me where your picked up your FISHERMAN LANGUAGE from? It is strange to see you shy away from this question.

it is strange to see you shy away from confirming my thesis about your sphincter. you also have not had any conversations with it so I am forced to conclude that your sphincter has been invaded by phlegmy

LOLu

You sound like you need a little Gulti does Ulti treatment.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

 
Pls explain this. You can't use dogmatic and vedantic in the same sentence, if you knew anything abt vedanta. btw, hinduism is not an organized religion.

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

 
Pls explain this. You can't use dogmatic and vedantic in the same sentence, if you knew anything abt vedanta. btw, hinduism is not an organized religion.

i have never read a poem by bharathi where he refers to advaita, dwaita, or vishishtadwaitha or the various other schools of hindu thought. his religious poems were more folksy relying on hindu mythology more than anything else.

why is it not an organized religion? there are temples which have trustees, boards and such. are they not part of the practice of hinduism? i think we should do away with the term "organized religion". all religions are organized in some sense or the other.

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

 
Pls explain this. You can't use dogmatic and vedantic in the same sentence, if you knew anything abt vedanta. btw, hinduism is not an organized religion.

Of course Vedanta is dogmatic. That is why representatives of different sub-schools of Vedanta attack each other viciously. That is why Adi Sankara attacks various rival schools of philosophies in his writings and why Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya attack Adi Sankara in their writings.

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

 
Pls explain this. You can't use dogmatic and vedantic in the same sentence, if you knew anything abt vedanta. btw, hinduism is not an organized religion.

 May be, by Veda-anta, he means Sharia which came after the Koran!

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

 
Pls explain this. You can't use dogmatic and vedantic in the same sentence, if you knew anything abt vedanta. btw, hinduism is not an organized religion.

i have never read a poem by bharathi where he refers to advaita, dwaita, or vishishtadwaitha or the various other schools of hindu thought. his religious poems were more folksy relying on hindu mythology more than anything else.

why is it not an organized religion? there are temples which have trustees, boards and such. are they not part of the practice of hinduism? i think we should do away with the term "organized religion". all religions are organized in some sense or the other.  

 You have no clue what you are talking about. i rest my case.

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

 
Pls explain this. You can't use dogmatic and vedantic in the same sentence, if you knew anything abt vedanta. btw, hinduism is not an organized religion.

i have never read a poem by bharathi where he refers to advaita, dwaita, or vishishtadwaitha or the various other schools of hindu thought. his religious poems were more folksy relying on hindu mythology more than anything else.

why is it not an organized religion? there are temples which have trustees, boards and such. are they not part of the practice of hinduism? i think we should do away with the term "organized religion". all religions are organized in some sense or the other.  

 You have no clue what you are talking about. i rest my case.

Please stop being an ass. He has explained that Bharati does not propagate any particular school of hindu philosophy. His religion is more folksy and he invokes hindu mythology more than anything else.

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

 
Pls explain this. You can't use dogmatic and vedantic in the same sentence, if you knew anything abt vedanta. btw, hinduism is not an organized religion.

i have never read a poem by bharathi where he refers to advaita, dwaita, or vishishtadwaitha or the various other schools of hindu thought. his religious poems were more folksy relying on hindu mythology more than anything else.

why is it not an organized religion? there are temples which have trustees, boards and such. are they not part of the practice of hinduism? i think we should do away with the term "organized religion". all religions are organized in some sense or the other.  

 You have no clue what you are talking about. i rest my case.

you asked me a question. i answered it. i am sorry you didn't like my answer.

This thread provides a classic sample of how shallow thinking by members of this forum leads to incorrect conclusions. Let me stop you guys before you make this conclusion a matter of permanent record to be referenced again and again in perpetuity in all such discussions in the future.

Claim: Ashoka was a buddhist who ruled over a continent-sized kingdom in India. So, it's Buddhism and not Hinduism that should be credited with large scale governance.

Why this claim is baseless: Ashoka converted to Buddhism at a certain point in his adult life. Long before Ashoka converted to Buddhism, his grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya had established and governed a kingdom which was more than half the size of Ashoka's kingdom. He did this under the very Dharmic guidance of one Kautilya, more popularly known as Chanakya. So, the practices, principles, the organization needed to establish and govern at a large scale was established by Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya based on vedic principles. Ashoka merely extended the kingdom's reach and included Buddhist principles in his governance. It's not as if Ashoka converted to Buddhism, and instantly got a religion-induced inspiration, knowledge, understanding and power to govern a continent-sized kingdom efficiently and all the ministers, governors, officials, under him also realized a similar miraculous capability, without any pre-existing systems and knowledge that was centuries old.

Conclusion: Whatever Ashoka did was great, and it was not easy. But it was only as difficult as converting 5 million bucks already inherited to 10 million bucks. He would have managed to do it even without Buddhism. Buddhism did help him to introduce a little something special into his governance.

SomeProfile wrote:This thread provides a classic sample of how shallow thinking by members of this forum leads to incorrect conclusions. Let me stop you guys before you make this conclusion a matter of permanent record to be referenced again and again in perpetuity in all such discussions in the future.

Claim: Ashoka was a buddhist who ruled over a continent-sized kingdom in India. So, it's Buddhism and not Hinduism that should be credited with large scale governance.

Why this claim is baseless: Ashoka converted to Buddhism at a certain point in his adult life. Long before Ashoka converted to Buddhism, his grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya had established and governed a kingdom which was more than half the size of Ashoka's kingdom. He did this under the very Dharmic guidance of one Kautilya, more popularly known as Chanakya. So, the practices, principles, the organization needed to establish and govern at a large scale was established by Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya based on vedic principles. Ashoka merely extended the kingdom's reach and included Buddhist principles in his governance. It's not as if Ashoka converted to Buddhism, and instantly got a religion-induced inspiration, knowledge, understanding and power to govern a continent-sized kingdom efficiently and all the ministers, governors, officials, under him also realized a similar miraculous capability, without any pre-existing systems and knowledge that was centuries old.

Conclusion: Whatever Ashoka did was great, and it was not easy. But it was only as difficult as converting 5 million bucks already inherited to 10 million bucks. He would have managed to do it even without Buddhism. Buddhism did help him to introduce a little something special into his governance.

Kautilya makes a clear distinction between religion and philosophy. He only recognizes three philosophies, Charvaka/Lokayata, Sankhya, and Yoga. Commentators have argued that since Yoga is not an intellectual philosophy but a series of physical exercises, Kautilya is referring to the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophy since Yoga was the older term for this philosophy. (samyoga = atomic conjunction.). Further he recognizes four branches of knowledge: philosophy, religion (and religious philosophies), statecraft, and agriculture. So religion has no role to play in kingship in Kautilya's worldview. More details on this explained here:

http://sulekha.forumotion.com/t298-kautilya-on-the-indian-philosophical-situation#579

Conclusion: SomeProfile talking nonsense again.

Hey guys! I am going to say this for the last time on this thread. Stop using words whose meanings you don't know, whose implications you don't understand. Examples in this thread: vedanta, sanaatana dharma, advaita, shankara tradition.

By doing this, you come across as idiotic asses. By arguing based on your limited understanding and your own meaning, you come across as assholes.

You wouldn't make up your own meanings for scientific terms and argue based on that, would you? You would at least take a moment to look up the proper definitions before talking about them.

And for the record, almost every traditional school of Hinduism in India, across the length and breadth of the country, regardless of whether they identify themselves as shaiva, vaishnava or anything else, consider Adi Shankaracharya to be an important guru in their own guru-shishya parampara. Pay attention to that "in their own". This means, even a strict dvaita vaishnava sect like the gaudiya vaishnavas does not dismiss Adi Shankara. Instead, they consider Adi Shankara to be their guru's guru's guru's... guru. They trace the lineage of their knowledge, connection to dharma through Shankara. In fact, even groups outside India which claim to follow traditional school of Hinduism, such as ISKCON, trace their lineage through Shankara.

Finally, idiots who have no clue about Shankara or his teachings should shut the fuck up trying to argue about them one way or the other. Once again, I come back to my previous analogy - you wouldn't argue the intricate details of nuclear physics as if you are an expert without holding a masters of PhD in that field, would you? What makes you think you are qualified or have enough knowledge to argue deep spiritual principles that were studied, meditated on, debated, written about for centuries by minds far greater than yours? It's okay to discuss with an open mind, in spirit of inquiry, seeking to know. Just be cognizant about your limited knowledge and don't be an asshole. That is all.

Also, Rashmunni should revert back to sucking centuries old islamic dick. And threatening to rape female relatives of other forum members. Also, challenging random people for duels with his kukri.

SomeProfile wrote:Hey guys! I am going to say this for the last time on this thread. Stop using words whose meanings you don't know, whose implications you don't understand. Examples in this thread: vedanta, sanaatana dharma, advaita, shankara tradition.

By doing this, you come across as idiotic asses. By arguing based on your limited understanding and your own meaning, you come across as assholes.

You wouldn't make up your own meanings for scientific terms and argue based on that, would you? You would at least take a moment to look up the proper definitions before talking about them.

And for the record, almost every traditional school of Hinduism in India, across the length and breadth of the country, regardless of whether they identify themselves as shaiva, vaishnava or anything else, consider Adi Shankaracharya to be an important guru in their own guru-shishya parampara. Pay attention to that "in their own". This means, even a strict dvaita vaishnava sect like the gaudiya vaishnavas does not dismiss Adi Shankara. Instead, they consider Adi Shankara to be their guru's guru's guru's... guru. They trace the lineage of their knowledge, connection to dharma through Shankara. In fact, even groups outside India which claim to follow traditional school of Hinduism, such as ISKCON, trace their lineage through Shankara.

Finally, idiots who have no clue about Shankara or his teachings should shut the fuck up trying to argue about them one way or the other. Once again, I come back to my previous analogy - you wouldn't argue the intricate details of nuclear physics as if you are an expert without holding a masters of PhD in that field, would you? What makes you think you are qualified or have enough knowledge to argue deep spiritual principles that were studied, meditated on, debated, written about for centuries by minds far greater than yours? It's okay to discuss with an open mind, in spirit of inquiry, seeking to know. Just be cognizant about your limited knowledge and don't be an asshole. That is all.

  Looks like you are unfamiliar with the writings of the founder of Dvaita Vedanta, namely Madhvacharya. It is true that Ramanujacharya has written an extensive criticism of Adi Sankara, but according to Madhva (founder of Dvaita), Adi Sankara was the demon Manimat from Mahabharat reborn as Sankara so as to propagate his disguised Budhism and destroy Hinduism.

SomeProfile wrote:Hey guys! I am going to say this for the last time on this thread. Stop using words whose meanings you don't know, whose implications you don't understand. Examples in this thread: vedanta, sanaatana dharma, advaita, shankara tradition.

By doing this, you come across as idiotic asses. By arguing based on your limited understanding and your own meaning, you come across as assholes.

someprofile -- i don't know who you are addressing with this post, but you had a similar statement in an earlier post where you responded to me, so i will respond to you briefly what i meant. i said bharathi's religious poetry was not dogamtic or vedantic. it apparently rubbed you up the wrong way to see the words dogmatic and vedantic juxtaposed. let me first explain the opposite of dogma -- the scientific method which requires empirical proof followed by a reasonable model to explain the world around us. dogmatic is the opposite of this. all religious philosophy is dogmatic. it is in this sense that i called vedanta, dogmatic. most vedantic philosophies and writings are based on positing a god and describing the relationship between god, humans, and the universe. advaita for example refers to a brahman and that it is the only reality and that all else is illusory. other vedanta philosophies prescribe other models. but none are based on empirical evidence. i am not in the habit of shooting my mouth off and choose my words carefully. by calling vedanta dogmatic, i meant nothing negative. i consider myself culturally a hindu and value the artistic, mythological, and literary output of ancient hindus.

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

 
Pls explain this. You can't use dogmatic and vedantic in the same sentence, if you knew anything abt vedanta. btw, hinduism is not an organized religion.

Of course Vedanta is dogmatic. That is why representatives of different sub-schools of Vedanta attack each other viciously. That is why Adi Sankara attacks various rival schools of philosophies in his writings and why Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya attack Adi Sankara in their writings.

 So, according to your own definition, you are extremely dog-matic!

Also, Greek philosophers will be supremely dogmatic according to you and Max (who loves the empirical method).

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

 argument could be made that your mughal obsession & heroworship of strong islamic men through the ages has weakened your sphincter and made it ripe for phlegmy's penetration on repeated basis much like ghori on delhi.

Propa, are you telling me where your picked up your FISHERMAN LANGUAGE from? It is strange to see you shy away from this question.

it is strange to see you shy away from confirming my thesis about your sphincter. you also have not had any conversations with it so I am forced to conclude that your sphincter has been invaded by phlegmy

LOLu

You sound like you need a little Gulti does Ulti treatment.

Please don't. Anything but that. Please don't. I am shivering here already.

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propa, are you telling me where your picked up your FISHERMAN LANGUAGE from? It is strange to see you shy away from this question.

it is strange to see you shy away from confirming my thesis about your sphincter. you also have not had any conversations with it so I am forced to conclude that your sphincter has been invaded by phlegmy

LOLu

You sound like you need a little Gulti does Ulti treatment.

Please don't. Anything but that. Please don't. I am shivering here already.

Most of the people probably understood my comments in that post. But for the benefit of low-IQ PhD's like Rashmun ,
"THAT WAS IN JEST".

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

 
Pls explain this. You can't use dogmatic and vedantic in the same sentence, if you knew anything abt vedanta. btw, hinduism is not an organized religion.

Of course Vedanta is dogmatic. That is why representatives of different sub-schools of Vedanta attack each other viciously. That is why Adi Sankara attacks various rival schools of philosophies in his writings and why Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya attack Adi Sankara in their writings.

 So, according to your own definition, you are extremely dog-matic!

Also, Greek philosophers will be supremely dogmatic according to you and Max (who loves the empirical method).

I do not consider myself dogmatic because my approach is totally different from that of Adi Sankara or Madhva, etc. What Sankara and Madhva do is that after attacking rival philosophies they seek to establish the supremacy of their own philosophy. I have no such ambition. I take the sensible, rational part of every philosophy and discard the rest.

Greek philosophers included philosophical idealists. In other words a section of the Greek philosophers would have been in harmonious agreement with Adi Sankara on many philosophical topics, particularly the question: is the world ultimately unreal?

b_A wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

it is strange to see you shy away from confirming my thesis about your sphincter. you also have not had any conversations with it so I am forced to conclude that your sphincter has been invaded by phlegmy

LOLu

You sound like you need a little Gulti does Ulti treatment.

Please don't. Anything but that. Please don't. I am shivering here already.

Most of the people probably understood my comments in that post. But for the benefit of low-IQ PhD's like Rashmun ,
"THAT WAS IN JEST".

Since your present behavior in this birth is like that of an irritating pest you might be reborn as an insect in your next birth.

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

LOLu

You sound like you need a little Gulti does Ulti treatment.

Please don't. Anything but that. Please don't. I am shivering here already.

Most of the people probably understood my comments in that post. But for the benefit of low-IQ PhD's like Rashmun ,
"THAT WAS IN JEST".

Since your present behavior in this birth is like that of an irritating pest you might be reborn as an insect in your next birth.

Thus spoke the rationalist intellectual. BTW , what does your partner think about the concept of rebirths?

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

You sound like you need a little Gulti does Ulti treatment.

Please don't. Anything but that. Please don't. I am shivering here already.

Most of the people probably understood my comments in that post. But for the benefit of low-IQ PhD's like Rashmun ,
"THAT WAS IN JEST".

Since your present behavior in this birth is like that of an irritating pest you might be reborn as an insect in your next birth.

Thus spoke the rationalist intellectual. BTW , what does your partner think about the concept of rebirths?

would you agree that there is a possibility of you being reborn as an insect in your next birth?

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

b_A wrote:
Please don't. Anything but that. Please don't. I am shivering here already.

Most of the people probably understood my comments in that post. But for the benefit of low-IQ PhD's like Rashmun ,
"THAT WAS IN JEST".

Since your present behavior in this birth is like that of an irritating pest you might be reborn as an insect in your next birth.

Thus spoke the rationalist intellectual. BTW , what does your partner think about the concept of rebirths?

would you agree that there is a possibility of you being reborn as an insect in your next birth?

Yes,yes,yes. How can I disagree with the "intellectual of SuCH" ?
What will you be reborn as? A pimple on a mughal descendant's backside, perhaps ?

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Most of the people probably understood my comments in that post. But for the benefit of low-IQ PhD's like Rashmun ,
"THAT WAS IN JEST".

Since your present behavior in this birth is like that of an irritating pest you might be reborn as an insect in your next birth.

Thus spoke the rationalist intellectual. BTW , what does your partner think about the concept of rebirths?

would you agree that there is a possibility of you being reborn as an insect in your next birth?

Yes,yes,yes. How can I disagree with the "intellectual of SuCH" ?
What will you be reborn as? A pimple on a mughal descendant's backside, perhaps ?

it is not possible to be reborn as a pimple on the backside of anyone as per any school of hinduism. Good to know that you are not a hindu.

SomeProfile wrote:This thread provides a classic sample of how shallow thinking by members of this forum leads to incorrect conclusions. Let me stop you guys before you make this conclusion a matter of permanent record to be referenced again and again in perpetuity in all such discussions in the future.

There are several problems with your post, which I will point out below.

SomeProfile wrote:Claim: Ashoka was a buddhist who ruled over a continent-sized kingdom in India. So, it's Buddhism and not Hinduism that should be credited with large scale governance.

Wrong. First, I did not claim that Buddhism not Hinduism should be given credit; that is your construct. Your original claim was that sanAtana dharma needs to be given sole credit, and I pointed out that Buddhism also deserves credit. Second, Buddhism deserves credit not just because Ashoka was a Buddhist who ruled over a large empire. Buddhism deserves credit because it directly inspired him to groundbreaking ideas about government and its role. Ashoka's legacy is due to those ideas.

SomeProfile wrote:Conclusion: Whatever Ashoka did was great, and it was not easy. But it was only as difficult as converting 5 million bucks already inherited to 10 million bucks. He would have managed to do it even without Buddhism. Buddhism did help him to introduce a little something special into his governance.

Ashoka was in a position to become king because his grandfather and then his father built a kingdom for him to seize. But his legacy goes far beyond just extending that kingdom. He was the first ruler, probably in human history, to eschew violence as the primary means of state policy. He explicitly set up the king as a leader by moral and practical example, not by might. These are rather fundamental departures from Chanakya's philosophy of government. These principles later became part of the stated or aspirational principles of governance among Hindu rulers as well; the idealized king of pre-Ashokan Hinduism was Indra while the idealized king of post-Ashokan Hinduism is Rama. More than two thousand years ago, he made respectful treatment of all religions explicit state policy. 

Finally, my original point about Buddhism as a centripetal force in Indian history is not based just on the one example I gave of Ashoka. Just like Hinduism has brought Indians together for millennia, Buddhism did so for more than a millennium. Long centuries after Ashoka's death, Nalanda still attracted students from all over the subcontinent, and the caves of Ajanta were painted by Buddhist monks. The pre-Muslim history of India is not just the history of Hinduism; it is the history of Hinduism and Buddhism (and Jainism to a smaller extent). Pre-Muslim India was the stage for the coexistence, conflict, and collaboration between these different faiths. Whatever blame or credit you want to assign to religion for creating pre-Muslim Indian civilization ought to be shared by these faiths. It is quite likely Ramachandra Guha knows this as well.

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Since your present behavior in this birth is like that of an irritating pest you might be reborn as an insect in your next birth.

Thus spoke the rationalist intellectual. BTW , what does your partner think about the concept of rebirths?

would you agree that there is a possibility of you being reborn as an insect in your next birth?

Yes,yes,yes. How can I disagree with the "intellectual of SuCH" ?
What will you be reborn as? A pimple on a mughal descendant's backside, perhaps ?

it is not possible to be reborn as a pimple on the backside of anyone as per any school of hinduism. Good to know that you are not a hindu.

Another logical post by the great intellectual of SuCH. With such a sterling logical abilities, no wonder his Ph D thesis keeps getting rejected and he cannot get a job.

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Thus spoke the rationalist intellectual. BTW , what does your partner think about the concept of rebirths?

would you agree that there is a possibility of you being reborn as an insect in your next birth?

Yes,yes,yes. How can I disagree with the "intellectual of SuCH" ?
What will you be reborn as? A pimple on a mughal descendant's backside, perhaps ?

it is not possible to be reborn as a pimple on the backside of anyone as per any school of hinduism. Good to know that you are not a hindu.

Another logical post by the great intellectual of SuCH. With such a sterling logical abilities, no wonder his Ph D thesis keeps getting rejected and he cannot get a job.

thus spake the jobless housewife who lives off her husband.

His logical abilities are only exceeded by his sense of humor

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

would you agree that there is a possibility of you being reborn as an insect in your next birth?

Yes,yes,yes. How can I disagree with the "intellectual of SuCH" ?
What will you be reborn as? A pimple on a mughal descendant's backside, perhaps ?

it is not possible to be reborn as a pimple on the backside of anyone as per any school of hinduism. Good to know that you are not a hindu.

Another logical post by the great intellectual of SuCH. With such a sterling logical abilities, no wonder his Ph D thesis keeps getting rejected and he cannot get a job.

thus spake the jobless housewife who lives off her husband.

Do you see the fallacy of your conclusions there ?
If your assumption of me being kinnera is true , then I must be hindu.
If I am not a hindu , then I cannot be kinnera.
Which one of your sterling logical conclusions do you want to keep?

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Yes,yes,yes. How can I disagree with the "intellectual of SuCH" ?
What will you be reborn as? A pimple on a mughal descendant's backside, perhaps ?

it is not possible to be reborn as a pimple on the backside of anyone as per any school of hinduism. Good to know that you are not a hindu.

Another logical post by the great intellectual of SuCH. With such a sterling logical abilities, no wonder his Ph D thesis keeps getting rejected and he cannot get a job.

thus spake the jobless housewife who lives off her husband.

Do you see the fallacy of your conclusions there ?
If your assumption of me being kinnera is true , then I must be hindu.  
If I am not a hindu , then I cannot be kinnera.
Which one of your sterling logical conclusions do you want to keep?

you might be some tribal.

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

it is not possible to be reborn as a pimple on the backside of anyone as per any school of hinduism. Good to know that you are not a hindu.

Another logical post by the great intellectual of SuCH. With such a sterling logical abilities, no wonder his Ph D thesis keeps getting rejected and he cannot get a job.

thus spake the jobless housewife who lives off her husband.

Do you see the fallacy of your conclusions there ?
If your assumption of me being kinnera is true , then I must be hindu.  
If I am not a hindu , then I cannot be kinnera.
Which one of your sterling logical conclusions do you want to keep?

you might be some tribal.

You are in great form today. Another example of the sterling logical mind at work.
For people who are not following how Rashmun's logical brain works , this was his post on my possible identity.
https://such.forumotion.com/t14424-propagandhi-and-someprofile-redux#110996

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Another logical post by the great intellectual of SuCH. With such a sterling logical abilities, no wonder his Ph D thesis keeps getting rejected and he cannot get a job.

thus spake the jobless housewife who lives off her husband.

Do you see the fallacy of your conclusions there ?
If your assumption of me being kinnera is true , then I must be hindu.  
If I am not a hindu , then I cannot be kinnera.
Which one of your sterling logical conclusions do you want to keep?

you might be some tribal.

You are in great form today. Another example of the sterling logical mind at work.
For people who are not following how Rashmun's logical brain works , this was his post on my possible identity.
https://such.forumotion.com/t14424-propagandhi-and-someprofile-redux#110996

Your claim that i might be possibly reborn on the backside of someone as a pimple* made me think you might be believing in some weird tribal religion. Your claim has no support from any school of hinduism.

* https://such.forumotion.com/t14700p50-guha-throws-multiple-barbs-at-the-chaddi-gang#113168

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:
Another logical post by the great intellectual of SuCH. With such a sterling logical abilities, no wonder his Ph D thesis keeps getting rejected and he cannot get a job.

thus spake the jobless housewife who lives off her husband.

Do you see the fallacy of your conclusions there ?
If your assumption of me being kinnera is true , then I must be hindu.  
If I am not a hindu , then I cannot be kinnera.
Which one of your sterling logical conclusions do you want to keep?

 eh? who says I am a jobless housewife? I have a full fledged career and working my butt off here. The one doing a Ph D who posts stupid stuff on SuCh 24/7 is probably the one without a job and a career.

kinnera wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:
Another logical post by the great intellectual of SuCH. With such a sterling logical abilities, no wonder his Ph D thesis keeps getting rejected and he cannot get a job.

thus spake the jobless housewife who lives off her husband.

Do you see the fallacy of your conclusions there ?
If your assumption of me being kinnera is true , then I must be hindu.  
If I am not a hindu , then I cannot be kinnera.
Which one of your sterling logical conclusions do you want to keep?

 eh? who says I am a jobless housewife? I have a full fledged career and working my butt off here. The one doing a Ph D who posts stupid stuff on SuCh 24/7 is probably the one without a job and a career.

Someone is waiting for you on yahoo chat.

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:
Another logical post by the great intellectual of SuCH. With such a sterling logical abilities, no wonder his Ph D thesis keeps getting rejected and he cannot get a job.

thus spake the jobless housewife who lives off her husband.

Do you see the fallacy of your conclusions there ?
If your assumption of me being kinnera is true , then I must be hindu.  
If I am not a hindu , then I cannot be kinnera.
Which one of your sterling logical conclusions do you want to keep?

 eh? who says I am a jobless housewife? I have a full fledged career and working my butt off here. The one doing a Ph D who posts stupid stuff on SuCh 24/7 is probably the one without a job and a career.

Someone is waiting for you on yahoo chat.

 Did I hit a wrong nerve? I am sure i did coz you are stooping down pretty low and showing your true colors. tsk tsk!

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

thus spake the jobless housewife who lives off her husband.

Do you see the fallacy of your conclusions there ?
If your assumption of me being kinnera is true , then I must be hindu.  
If I am not a hindu , then I cannot be kinnera.
Which one of your sterling logical conclusions do you want to keep?

 eh? who says I am a jobless housewife? I have a full fledged career and working my butt off here. The one doing a Ph D who posts stupid stuff on SuCh 24/7 is probably the one without a job and a career.

Someone is waiting for you on yahoo chat.

 Did I hit a wrong nerve? I am sure i did coz you are stooping down pretty low and showing your true colors. tsk tsk!

Kinnera i want to tell you that i am in love with you. Please tell me what i should do to woo you.

Finding a husband whose income you can eat off while idling away at home is an achievement in itself. Wish I had a hoojband like that. *sigh*

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Finding a husband whose income you can eat off while idling away at home is an achievement in itself. Wish I had a hoojband like that.  *sigh*

ah.. reminds me of kathleen turner in the movie body heat sipping cocktail in the beach -the last scene; that would the  ultimate achievement- wouldn't you agree ?

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Finding a husband whose income you can eat off while idling away at home is an achievement in itself. Wish I had a hoojband like that.  *sigh*

 are you saying a) douchemun has nuptials with phlegmy in california recently and b) phlegmy has income other than social-security that douchemun can eat off of?

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Finding a husband whose income you can eat off while idling away at home is an achievement in itself. Wish I had a hoojband like that.  *sigh*

 are you saying a) douchemun has nuptials with phlegmy in california recently and b) phlegmy has income other than social-security that douchemun can eat off of?

Tut Tut. Propa, are you telling me where you picked up your Fisherman Language from? I feel sorry for you.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:Hey guys! I am going to say this for the last time on this thread. Stop using words whose meanings you don't know, whose implications you don't understand. Examples in this thread: vedanta, sanaatana dharma, advaita, shankara tradition.

By doing this, you come across as idiotic asses. By arguing based on your limited understanding and your own meaning, you come across as assholes.

someprofile -- i don't know who you are addressing with this post, but you had a similar statement in an earlier post where you responded to me, so i will respond to you briefly what i meant. i said bharathi's religious poetry was not dogamtic or vedantic. it apparently rubbed you up the wrong way to see the words dogmatic and vedantic juxtaposed. let me first explain the opposite of dogma -- the scientific method which requires empirical proof followed by a reasonable model to explain the world around us. dogmatic is the opposite of this. all religious philosophy is dogmatic. it is in this sense that i called vedanta, dogmatic. most vedantic philosophies and writings are based on positing a god and describing the relationship between god, humans, and the universe.  advaita for example refers to a brahman and that it is the only reality and that all else is illusory.  other vedanta philosophies prescribe other models. but none are based on empirical evidence. i am not in the habit of shooting my mouth off and choose my words carefully.  by calling vedanta dogmatic, i meant nothing negative. i consider myself culturally a hindu and value the artistic, mythological, and literary output of ancient hindus.  

Max - first of all, I am sorry, if I came across as rude. Secondly, my problem with your assertions is that you don't understand Brahman and Advaita as expounded in Vedanta. How can you pass judgments on it without understanding and experiencing it yourself? I will give you a couple of analogies for scientists dismissing Vedanta as dogma:

1. Scientists in the Western world, a short few centuries ago had no "empirical proof" that the Earth revolves around the Sun. As such, they adamantly insisted that the Sun revolves around the Earth and dismissed any claim to the contrary. What they didn't realize is that lack of empirical proof doesn't automatically mean something is not true. It could also mean that either we have not yet come across such proof or we don't understand it when it is presented to us (didn't the believers in geocentrism go so far as to condemn Galileo to imprisonment till the end of his life?).

2. Empirical proof - if someone says sugar is sweet, the best proof you can have of it is to taste it and find out for yourself. You cannot run a different test on sugar, like say pour it into your ear, in order to find out if it is sweet. Denying the theories of Vedanta because it can't be proved by Thermodynamics is as limiting as denying the existence of atoms because they cannot be seen with our unaided eyes. What would you say to someone who has made no proper attempts to learn about atoms and know of their existence, but goes around declaring that belief in the existence of atoms is dogma?

You are entitled to your opinions. But it would be nice to have some level of open-mindedness and humility. The ancient philosophers and rishis and saints in India were not crazy people who sat in a corner and imagined things. In those times, they did the very things that today's scientists and academicians do - they studied and researched, they experimented and experienced, they documented, they published and shared those results, they traveled all over the country, probably all over the world sharing and exchanging their knowledge with other intellectuals of their times. Hundreds of thousands of people did this through hundreds of thousands of years. They were the scientists of their times. By what arrogance can we sit in our chairs today and dismiss their ideas as dogma without giving it proper open-minded consideration and respect? Why do we think that we are more intelligent than them? You say that you don't shoot your mouth off and choose your words with consideration. But is that enough? Will you accept that as a defense for a guy who will deny the existence of atoms? If you want to judge something, shouldn't you get to know it and understand it yourself first? If not for that, we could give their ideas at least the respect that we might give a beautifully composed poem which interprets life and human experience in a unique way.

Finally, please check out a book called Sum by David Eagleman, a neuroscientist. It's a collection of 40 short stories, each of them is a unique imagined possibility of life / world. One of the stories beautifully describes the entire universe as made of a single quark particle which is traveling at immense speed. My single line description doesn't do justice to that story. But the scary thing about that story is that it is very plausible - the whole universe, including you and I could really be one single quark. That story comes pretty close to describing the idea of Advaita.

Incidentally, Eagleman says that science doesn't accept anything without proof, but it also doesn't deny anything without proof. Please check this short and amazing talk by him: 

More:

What is god? What is a number?

Where is the empirical proof of the existence of a number? Has anyone seen a number? Touched it? Tasted it? Photographed it? No, because the number is an idea. An idea that we all accept. An idea that helps us understand and explain the universe. An idea that helps us live better lives. An idea that vastly increases the quality of our life. An idea that helps us communicate many things to each other. The more we understand and use numbers, the better our lives get (although some may argue that). We have not found a limit to the number of ways we could use the idea of numbers and the number of ways it could affect our lives. Are numbers real or imaginary? That is a meaningless question. The truth is that numbers can be as real as you want or as imaginary as you want. The truth is also that that question is irrelevant. You can decide how much and what role numbers play in your life. Your relationship to numbers is your own unique thing.

God in Vedanta is something similar. It is an idea that is used to describe all of the universe, you and I, our relationship to everything there is and the human experience of life itself. And it is an idea that is orders of magnitude more complex and subtle than the idea of numbers. The entire purpose of Vedanta is to try to explain this concept to us. The entire purpose of Hinduism, with all its myths, practices, rituals, symbols, sounds, forms of gods is to explain this single idea. There are some truly amazing, mind-blowing concepts and experiences to be had in Hinduism, similar to amazing, mind-blowing experiences you can have when studying numbers. People can spend an entire life studying and learning about numbers, and there is still more to come. The same holds true for the idea of god. You could spend multiple lifetimes with it. And just like numbers, the idea of god is also understood and used by different people in different ways, and they all derive different levels of utility in their lives from it. Dismissing Vedanta as dogma is like a 1st grade student who understands only arithmetic with positive numbers dismissing Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus and other higher Math because they involve negative numbers, alphabets and symbols which cannot be added and subtracted, which the first grader cannot even begin to understand.

Ultimately, whether god is real or not doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether there is any proof or not. What matters is how the idea can help you live your human life. That is a decision you have to make on your own. Just like some people are content with knowing little more than arithmetic their entire lives, some people can be content with a limited concept of god or even denial of god. And, that is quite okay. But let such people not talk dismissively of those who use higher math for a greater experience of life, lest they risk being exactly like some of the anti-intellectuals / anti-knowledge / anti-academic people we find among conservatives in the US.

Does this help?

SomeProfile wrote:More:

What is god? What is a number?

Where is the empirical proof of the existence of a number? Has anyone seen a number? Touched it? Tasted it? Photographed it? No, because the number is an idea. An idea that we all accept. An idea that helps us understand and explain the universe. An idea that helps us live better lives. An idea that vastly increases the quality of our life. An idea that helps us communicate many things to each other. The more we understand and use numbers, the better our lives get (although some may argue that). We have not found a limit to the number of ways we could use the idea of numbers and the number of ways it could affect our lives. Are numbers real or imaginary? That is a meaningless question. The truth is that numbers can be as real as you want or as imaginary as you want. The truth is also that that question is irrelevant. You can decide how much and what role numbers play in your life. Your relationship to numbers is your own unique thing.

God in Vedanta is something similar. It is an idea that is used to describe all of the universe, you and I, our relationship to everything there is and the human experience of life itself. And it is an idea that is orders of magnitude more complex and subtle than the idea of numbers. The entire purpose of Vedanta is to try to explain this concept to us. The entire purpose of Hinduism, with all its myths, practices, rituals, symbols, sounds, forms of gods is to explain this single idea. There are some truly amazing, mind-blowing concepts and experiences to be had in Hinduism, similar to amazing, mind-blowing experiences you can have when studying numbers. People can spend an entire life studying and learning about numbers, and there is still more to come. The same holds true for the idea of god. You could spend multiple lifetimes with it. And just like numbers, the idea of god is also understood and used by different people in different ways, and they all derive different levels of utility in their lives from it. Dismissing Vedanta as dogma is like a 1st grade student who understands only arithmetic with positive numbers dismissing Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus and other higher Math because they involve negative numbers, alphabets and symbols which cannot be added and subtracted, which the first grader cannot even begin to understand.

Ultimately, whether god is real or not doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether there is any proof or not. What matters is how the idea can help you live your human life. That is a decision you have to make on your own. Just like some people are content with knowing little more than arithmetic their entire lives, some people can be content with a limited concept of god or even denial of god. And, that is quite okay. But let such people not talk dismissively of those who use higher math for a greater experience of life, lest they risk being exactly like some of the anti-intellectuals / anti-knowledge / anti-academic people we find among conservatives in the US.

Does this help?

God in Vedanta has different definitions according to the different sub-schools of Vedanta. When we think of God we usually think of an entity who is the creator and moral governor of the universe. But according to Advaita Vedanta, there is no difference between creation and the creator and everything and everyone is God; God is defined as pure consciousness without any attributesv in Advaita. Ultimately, there is no difference between food and shit according to Advaita Vedanta. Both are Brahman(God).
According to Dvaita Vedanta, God himself got incarnated as Madhva so as to destroy the Sankarite philosophy.

someprofile -- with your last two posts, you are skating perilously close to deepak chopra, purveyor of new agey gobbledygook, a mixture of scientific jargon with feel good spiritualism. this was not expected.

Rashmun wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:More:

What is god? What is a number?

Where is the empirical proof of the existence of a number? Has anyone seen a number? Touched it? Tasted it? Photographed it? No, because the number is an idea. An idea that we all accept. An idea that helps us understand and explain the universe. An idea that helps us live better lives. An idea that vastly increases the quality of our life. An idea that helps us communicate many things to each other. The more we understand and use numbers, the better our lives get (although some may argue that). We have not found a limit to the number of ways we could use the idea of numbers and the number of ways it could affect our lives. Are numbers real or imaginary? That is a meaningless question. The truth is that numbers can be as real as you want or as imaginary as you want. The truth is also that that question is irrelevant. You can decide how much and what role numbers play in your life. Your relationship to numbers is your own unique thing.

God in Vedanta is something similar. It is an idea that is used to describe all of the universe, you and I, our relationship to everything there is and the human experience of life itself. And it is an idea that is orders of magnitude more complex and subtle than the idea of numbers. The entire purpose of Vedanta is to try to explain this concept to us. The entire purpose of Hinduism, with all its myths, practices, rituals, symbols, sounds, forms of gods is to explain this single idea. There are some truly amazing, mind-blowing concepts and experiences to be had in Hinduism, similar to amazing, mind-blowing experiences you can have when studying numbers. People can spend an entire life studying and learning about numbers, and there is still more to come. The same holds true for the idea of god. You could spend multiple lifetimes with it. And just like numbers, the idea of god is also understood and used by different people in different ways, and they all derive different levels of utility in their lives from it. Dismissing Vedanta as dogma is like a 1st grade student who understands only arithmetic with positive numbers dismissing Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus and other higher Math because they involve negative numbers, alphabets and symbols which cannot be added and subtracted, which the first grader cannot even begin to understand.

Ultimately, whether god is real or not doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether there is any proof or not. What matters is how the idea can help you live your human life. That is a decision you have to make on your own. Just like some people are content with knowing little more than arithmetic their entire lives, some people can be content with a limited concept of god or even denial of god. And, that is quite okay. But let such people not talk dismissively of those who use higher math for a greater experience of life, lest they risk being exactly like some of the anti-intellectuals / anti-knowledge / anti-academic people we find among conservatives in the US.

Does this help?

God in Vedanta has different definitions according to the different sub-schools of Vedanta. When we think of God we usually think of an entity who is the creator and moral governor of the universe. But according to Advaita Vedanta, there is no difference between creation and the creator and everything and everyone is God; God is defined as pure consciousness without any attributesv in Advaita. Ultimately, there is no difference between food and shit according to Advaita Vedanta. Both are Brahman(God). According to Dvaita Vedanta, God himself got incarnated as Madhva so as to destroy the Sankarite philosophy.

It proves Rashmun is an idiot ...having no clue about the Advaita but still posting his silly comments about it on the 'net.

Btw isn't Guha the same jerk who, according to you, as a historian tried to blame the lack of UCC in India on Rajendra Prasad (RP), because RP had objected to Congress and Nehru tinkering only with the Hindu Marriage Act while leaving all other religious Acts / Laws (for Muslims and others) untouched (as before) and without bringing under one Law (for all)?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:More:

What is god? What is a number?

Where is the empirical proof of the existence of a number? Has anyone seen a number? Touched it? Tasted it? Photographed it? No, because the number is an idea. An idea that we all accept. An idea that helps us understand and explain the universe. An idea that helps us live better lives. An idea that vastly increases the quality of our life. An idea that helps us communicate many things to each other. The more we understand and use numbers, the better our lives get (although some may argue that). We have not found a limit to the number of ways we could use the idea of numbers and the number of ways it could affect our lives. Are numbers real or imaginary? That is a meaningless question. The truth is that numbers can be as real as you want or as imaginary as you want. The truth is also that that question is irrelevant. You can decide how much and what role numbers play in your life. Your relationship to numbers is your own unique thing.

God in Vedanta is something similar. It is an idea that is used to describe all of the universe, you and I, our relationship to everything there is and the human experience of life itself. And it is an idea that is orders of magnitude more complex and subtle than the idea of numbers. The entire purpose of Vedanta is to try to explain this concept to us. The entire purpose of Hinduism, with all its myths, practices, rituals, symbols, sounds, forms of gods is to explain this single idea. There are some truly amazing, mind-blowing concepts and experiences to be had in Hinduism, similar to amazing, mind-blowing experiences you can have when studying numbers. People can spend an entire life studying and learning about numbers, and there is still more to come. The same holds true for the idea of god. You could spend multiple lifetimes with it. And just like numbers, the idea of god is also understood and used by different people in different ways, and they all derive different levels of utility in their lives from it. Dismissing Vedanta as dogma is like a 1st grade student who understands only arithmetic with positive numbers dismissing Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus and other higher Math because they involve negative numbers, alphabets and symbols which cannot be added and subtracted, which the first grader cannot even begin to understand.

Ultimately, whether god is real or not doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether there is any proof or not. What matters is how the idea can help you live your human life. That is a decision you have to make on your own. Just like some people are content with knowing little more than arithmetic their entire lives, some people can be content with a limited concept of god or even denial of god. And, that is quite okay. But let such people not talk dismissively of those who use higher math for a greater experience of life, lest they risk being exactly like some of the anti-intellectuals / anti-knowledge / anti-academic people we find among conservatives in the US.

Does this help?

God in Vedanta has different definitions according to the different sub-schools of Vedanta. When we think of God we usually think of an entity who is the creator and moral governor of the universe. But according to Advaita Vedanta, there is no difference between creation and the creator and everything and everyone is God; God is defined as pure consciousness without any attributesv in Advaita. Ultimately, there is no difference between food and shit according to Advaita Vedanta. Both are Brahman(God). According to Dvaita Vedanta, God himself got incarnated as Madhva so as to destroy the Sankarite philosophy.

It proves Rashmun is an idiot ...having no clue about the Advaita but still posting his silly comments about it on  the 'net.  

Btw isn't Guha the same jerk who,  according to you, as a historian tried to blame the lack of UCC in India on Rajendra Prasad (RP), because RP had objected to Congress and Nehru tinkering only with the Hindu Marriage Act while leaving all other religious Acts / Laws (for Muslims and others) untouched (as before) and without bringing under one Law (for all)?

with respect to Rajendra Prasad, i think you might be mistaking me for someone else. With respect to Advaita, i am confident of my position. The world as we perceive it is ultimately unreal, according to Advaita, and the only reality is Brahman(God) which is defined as pure consciousness without any attributes (nirguna). It follows that there is no difference between the food we eat and excreta in the Advaita philosophy. Ramanuja has written an extensive criticism of Adi Sankara, and Madhvacharya has declared Adi Sankara to be a rakshasa.