Iyengars are weird

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote: The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

There is no logic in your analysis / critique of the works of a 7th century A.D. philosopher (Samkara) against the 21st century physics (in terms of entropy and quarks etc.).

If you really are serious, try comparing Samkara's splendid reasoning and thought (from 7th century A.D.) against the prevalent long-forgotten thinking and science of that period (7th century) which had the geocentric theory of the world (everything revolves around the stationary Earth), flat Earth concept and used witchcraft and witch's brew to cure people as a part of medicine.

Instead of doing what you suggest a better exercise is to counterpose Sankara's philosophy with the philosophies of those he attacks in his writings: Sankhyas, Nyaya-Vaisesikas, Charvakas, Mimansakas, Budhists.

That was simply a discussion (sometimes in the form of criticism) by Samkara and others on the nature of various philosophies and as to which school of thought is more complete in terms of explaining the Reality. Moreover, some of the ideologies which negated or overlooked the idea of soul and / or God as part of the overall Reality faced more criticism from those who did not overlook soul and God.

The method of argumentation used by Sankara in his refutation of rival philosophies is often logically repulsive. For instance:


Let us note one point here now. Plagiarising/Stealing certain readymade arguments of the Nyaya-Vaisesikas (without any acknowledgement) may simplify Adi Sankar's purpose of refuting the Charvaka view; but this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul.

It has been well said that the method of arguing not svamatena or in accordance with one's own views, but paramatam asritya or on the basis of others' views was not at all uncommon in the history of Indian philosophy. But the legitimacy of this method is itself questionable for, if extensively practiced, its result can only be arguments for the sake of arguments i.e. without the purpose of ultimately arriving at some self-consistent or coherent conclusion--a philosophical performance denounced in the Nyaya Sutra as sheer destructive criticism or vitanda (Nyaya Sutra i.2.3). The method is particularly repulsive when, for the purpose of refuting an opponent, one argues on the basis of some view that is destructive of one's own position--as is Adi Sankar's effort to refute the Charvaka view on the basis of the Nyaya-Vaisesika.

The arguments used by Adi Sankar presuppose that consciousness is only a transitory quality of an inert substance--a presupposition that completely negates the very essence of Adi Sankar's philosophy viz. that the ultimate reality is the soul identified with mere consciousness. In other words, EVEN admitting that the arguments offered by Adi Sankar are logically adequate for refuting the Charvaka view, we have to admit further that they are also adequate to reject Adi Sankar's own view.

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-on-charvakas-2_325297_blog

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

There is no logic in your analysis / critique of the works of a 7th century A.D. philosopher (Samkara) against the 21st century physics (in terms of entropy and quarks etc.).

If you really are serious, try comparing Samkara's splendid reasoning and thought (from 7th century A.D.) against the prevalent long-forgotten thinking and science of that period (7th century) which had the geocentric theory of the world (everything revolves around the stationary Earth), flat Earth concept and used witchcraft and witch's brew to cure people as a part of medicine.

Instead of doing what you suggest a better exercise is to counterpose Sankara's philosophy with the philosophies of those he attacks in his writings: Sankhyas, Nyaya-Vaisesikas, Charvakas, Mimansakas, Budhists.

That was simply a discussion (sometimes in the form of criticism) by Samkara and others on the nature of various philosophies and as to which school of thought is more complete in terms of explaining the Reality. Moreover, some of the ideologies which negated or overlooked the idea of soul and / or God as part of the overall Reality faced more criticism from those who did not overlook soul and God.

The method of argumentation used by Sankara in his refutation of rival philosophies is often logically repulsive. For instance:


Let us note one point here now. Plagiarising/Stealing certain readymade arguments of the Nyaya-Vaisesikas (without any acknowledgement) may simplify Adi Sankar's purpose of refuting the Charvaka view; but this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul.

It has been well said that the method of arguing not svamatena or in accordance with one's own views, but paramatam asritya or on the basis of others' views was not at all uncommon in the history of Indian philosophy. But the legitimacy of this method is itself questionable for, if extensively practiced, its result can only be arguments for the sake of arguments i.e. without the purpose of ultimately arriving at some self-consistent or coherent conclusion--a philosophical performance denounced in the Nyaya Sutra as sheer destructive criticism or vitanda (Nyaya Sutra i.2.3). The method is particularly repulsive when, for the purpose of refuting an opponent, one argues on the basis of some view that is destructive of one's own position--as is Adi Sankar's effort to refute the Charvaka view on the basis of the Nyaya-Vaisesika.

The arguments used by Adi Sankar presuppose that consciousness is only a transitory quality of an inert substance--a presupposition that completely negates the very essence of Adi Sankar's philosophy viz. that the ultimate reality is the soul identified with mere consciousness. In other words, EVEN admitting that the arguments offered by Adi Sankar are logically adequate for refuting the Charvaka view, we have to admit further that they are also adequate to reject Adi Sankar's own view.

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-on-charvakas-2_325297_blog

Your charges of plagiarising against Samkara have no basis. You are just reposting the nonsense against Samkara by others, without having any real clue / understanding about what Samkara might have said or written (regarding materialism etc.). Here is the proof of this (from what you wrote above), "... this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul."

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"For learning (befitting a student of philosophy) the difference between the Nyaya-Vaisesika and Advaita conception of consciousness, read this:

http://creative.sulekha.com/nyaya-vaisesika-and-charvaka-the-fundamental-similarity_325385_blog." ...Rashmun



>>> The ideas about soul and Brahman etc. in the Vedanta (including Advaita) are derived directly from the Upanisads and Braham-sutra (with roots in the Vedas), and not by using the route and diversion of Nyaya and Vaisesika (which also have roots in the Vedas etc.).

Any similarities about soul etc. in different systems of thought (Vedanta, Vaisesika and Nyaya etc.) are due to these systems / philosophies being rooted in the Vedas (and subsequent Upanisads) and not due to their stealing from one another.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"For learning (befitting a student of philosophy) the difference between the Nyaya-Vaisesika and Advaita conception of consciousness, read this:

http://creative.sulekha.com/nyaya-vaisesika-and-charvaka-the-fundamental-similarity_325385_blog." ...Rashmun



>>> The ideas about soul and Brahman etc. in the Vedanta (including Advaita) are derived directly from the Upanisads and Braham-sutra (with roots in the Vedas), and not by using the route and diversion of Nyaya and Vaisesika (which also have roots in the Vedas etc.).

Any similarities about soul etc. in different systems of thought (Vedanta, Vaisesika and Nyaya etc.) are due to these systems / philosophies being rooted in the Vedas (and subsequent Upanisads) and not due to their stealing from one another.

The conception of consciousness is very different in the Nyaya-Vaisesika and in the Advaita. Since he is a mediocre philosopher Adi Sankara prefers to plagiarize ready made arguments against the Charvaka view of consciousness given by the Nyaya-Vaisesikas. But since these arguments presuppose consciousness to be in accordance with the Nyaya-Vaisesika definition, Sankara's arguments end up undermining the Advaita conception of consciousness. Hence he ends up undermining his own philosophical position.

Bottom line is that Sankara was a mediocre philosopher who has received excessive attention. The really great Indian philosophers like Kumarila, Vachaspati Mishra, Akalanka, etc. need to be more studied more carefully.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"For learning (befitting a student of philosophy) the difference between the Nyaya-Vaisesika and Advaita conception of consciousness, read this:

http://creative.sulekha.com/nyaya-vaisesika-and-charvaka-the-fundamental-similarity_325385_blog." ...Rashmun



>>> The ideas about soul and Brahman etc. in the Vedanta (including Advaita) are derived directly from the Upanisads and Braham-sutra (with roots in the Vedas), and not by using the route and diversion of Nyaya and Vaisesika (which also have roots in the Vedas etc.).

Any similarities about soul etc. in different systems of thought (Vedanta, Vaisesika and Nyaya etc.) are due to these systems / philosophies being rooted in the Vedas (and subsequent Upanisads) and not due to their stealing from one another.

The conception of consciousness is very different in the Nyaya-Vaisesika and in the Advaita. Since he is a mediocre philosopher Adi Sankara prefers to plagiarize ready made arguments against the Charvaka view of consciousness given by the Nyaya-Vaisesikas. But since these arguments presuppose consciousness to be in accordance with the Nyaya-Vaisesika definition, Sankara's arguments end up undermining the Advaita conception of consciousness. Hence he ends up undermining his own philosophical position.

Bottom line is that Sankara was a mediocre philosopher who has received excessive attention. The really great Indian philosophers like Kumarila, Vachaspati Mishra, Akalanka, etc. need to be more studied more carefully.

Read my comment above again.

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still not getting it rashmun. this sounds like chopra on steroids to me.

What is it that you are not getting? Ask me some questions. Is it a word or term or phrase you are not getting? Is it a particular argument you are not getting? Could you understand for instance the fact that:

According to Advaita:

1. Brahman(God) is the only reality and that
2. Brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes.
3. Following from point 1, everything and everyone is Brahman. There is no difference between the creator and the created.

No wonder you think you are God.

For the record I am not a Brahman but a Goundar.

Brahman is the word used to denote God or the Ultimate Reality in the Upanisads. It is not the same word as the word used for the highest caste hindus. The word Brahmaand means the Universe.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still not getting it rashmun. this sounds like chopra on steroids to me.

What is it that you are not getting? Ask me some questions. Is it a word or term or phrase you are not getting? Is it a particular argument you are not getting? Could you understand for instance the fact that:

According to Advaita:

1. Brahman(God) is the only reality and that
2. Brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes.
3. Following from point 1, everything and everyone is Brahman. There is no difference between the creator and the created.

No wonder you think you are God.

For the record I am not a Brahman but a Goundar.

Brahman is the word used to denote God or the Ultimate Reality in the Upanisads. It is not the same word as the word used for the highest caste hindus. The word Brahmaand means the Universe.

Dude....I know that....Not everyone is as dumb as you are...read my signature below this post...that applies to all my posts....(since you will never learn how to add 1 + 1).

Propagandhi711 wrote:douchemun: putting the bore in boredom since 1999

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

There is no logic in your analysis / critique of the works of a 7th century A.D. philosopher (Samkara) against the 21st century physics (in terms of entropy and quarks etc.).

If you really are serious, try comparing Samkara's splendid reasoning and thought (from 7th century A.D.) against the prevalent long-forgotten thinking and science of that period (7th century) which had the geocentric theory of the world (everything revolves around the stationary Earth), flat Earth concept and used witchcraft and witch's brew to cure people as a part of medicine.

Instead of doing what you suggest a better exercise is to counterpose Sankara's philosophy with the philosophies of those he attacks in his writings: Sankhyas, Nyaya-Vaisesikas, Charvakas, Mimansakas, Budhists.

That was simply a discussion (sometimes in the form of criticism) by Samkara and others on the nature of various philosophies and as to which school of thought is more complete in terms of explaining the Reality. Moreover, some of the ideologies which negated or overlooked the idea of soul and / or God as part of the overall Reality faced more criticism from those who did not overlook soul and God.

The method of argumentation used by Sankara in his refutation of rival philosophies is often logically repulsive. For instance:


Let us note one point here now. Plagiarising/Stealing certain readymade arguments of the Nyaya-Vaisesikas (without any acknowledgement) may simplify Adi Sankar's purpose of refuting the Charvaka view; but this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul.

It has been well said that the method of arguing not svamatena or in accordance with one's own views, but paramatam asritya or on the basis of others' views was not at all uncommon in the history of Indian philosophy. But the legitimacy of this method is itself questionable for, if extensively practiced, its result can only be arguments for the sake of arguments i.e. without the purpose of ultimately arriving at some self-consistent or coherent conclusion--a philosophical performance denounced in the Nyaya Sutra as sheer destructive criticism or vitanda (Nyaya Sutra i.2.3). The method is particularly repulsive when, for the purpose of refuting an opponent, one argues on the basis of some view that is destructive of one's own position--as is Adi Sankar's effort to refute the Charvaka view on the basis of the Nyaya-Vaisesika.

The arguments used by Adi Sankar presuppose that consciousness is only a transitory quality of an inert substance--a presupposition that completely negates the very essence of Adi Sankar's philosophy viz. that the ultimate reality is the soul identified with mere consciousness. In other words, EVEN admitting that the arguments offered by Adi Sankar are logically adequate for refuting the Charvaka view, we have to admit further that they are also adequate to reject Adi Sankar's own view.

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-on-charvakas-2_325297_blog

Your charges of plagiarising against Samkara have no basis. You are just reposting the nonsense against Samkara by others, without having any real clue / understanding about what Samkara might have said or written (regarding materialism etc.). Here is the proof of this (from what you wrote above), "... this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul."

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:douchemun: putting the bore in boredom since 1999

Propa aren't you tired of getting kicked around?

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Instead of doing what you suggest a better exercise is to counterpose Sankara's philosophy with the philosophies of those he attacks in his writings: Sankhyas, Nyaya-Vaisesikas, Charvakas, Mimansakas, Budhists.

That was simply a discussion (sometimes in the form of criticism) by Samkara and others on the nature of various philosophies and as to which school of thought is more complete in terms of explaining the Reality. Moreover, some of the ideologies which negated or overlooked the idea of soul and / or God as part of the overall Reality faced more criticism from those who did not overlook soul and God.

The method of argumentation used by Sankara in his refutation of rival philosophies is often logically repulsive. For instance:


Let us note one point here now. Plagiarising/Stealing certain readymade arguments of the Nyaya-Vaisesikas (without any acknowledgement) may simplify Adi Sankar's purpose of refuting the Charvaka view; but this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul.

It has been well said that the method of arguing not svamatena or in accordance with one's own views, but paramatam asritya or on the basis of others' views was not at all uncommon in the history of Indian philosophy. But the legitimacy of this method is itself questionable for, if extensively practiced, its result can only be arguments for the sake of arguments i.e. without the purpose of ultimately arriving at some self-consistent or coherent conclusion--a philosophical performance denounced in the Nyaya Sutra as sheer destructive criticism or vitanda (Nyaya Sutra i.2.3). The method is particularly repulsive when, for the purpose of refuting an opponent, one argues on the basis of some view that is destructive of one's own position--as is Adi Sankar's effort to refute the Charvaka view on the basis of the Nyaya-Vaisesika.

The arguments used by Adi Sankar presuppose that consciousness is only a transitory quality of an inert substance--a presupposition that completely negates the very essence of Adi Sankar's philosophy viz. that the ultimate reality is the soul identified with mere consciousness. In other words, EVEN admitting that the arguments offered by Adi Sankar are logically adequate for refuting the Charvaka view, we have to admit further that they are also adequate to reject Adi Sankar's own view.

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-on-charvakas-2_325297_blog

Your charges of plagiarising against Samkara have no basis. You are just reposting the nonsense against Samkara by others, without having any real clue / understanding about what Samkara might have said or written (regarding materialism etc.). Here is the proof of this (from what you wrote above), "... this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul."

that describes douchemun technique to a T in all things

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

What is it that you are not getting? Ask me some questions. Is it a word or term or phrase you are not getting? Is it a particular argument you are not getting? Could you understand for instance the fact that:

According to Advaita:

1. Brahman(God) is the only reality and that
2. Brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes.
3. Following from point 1, everything and everyone is Brahman. There is no difference between the creator and the created.

No wonder you think you are God.

For the record I am not a Brahman but a Goundar.

Brahman is the word used to denote God or the Ultimate Reality in the Upanisads. It is not the same word as the word used for the highest caste hindus. The word Brahmaand means the Universe.

Dude....I know that....Not everyone is as dumb as you are...read my signature below this post...that applies to all my posts....(since you will never learn how to add 1 + 1).

your signature is contradicting what the Upanisads say. Of course all of us know that you are not a Hindu despite your claims to the contrary.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

No wonder you think you are God.

For the record I am not a Brahman but a Goundar.

Brahman is the word used to denote God or the Ultimate Reality in the Upanisads. It is not the same word as the word used for the highest caste hindus. The word Brahmaand means the Universe.

Dude....I know that....Not everyone is as dumb as you are...read my signature below this post...that applies to all my posts....(since you will never learn how to add 1 + 1).

your signature is contradicting what the Upanisads say. Of course all of us know that you are not a Hindu despite your claims to the contrary.

Upanishads? Who wrote them?

But, what my statement says is my own....oh wait...you lack that ability...sorry to hurt your sentiments...did not mean to - this time.

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Upanishads? Who wrote them?

But, what my statement says is my own....oh wait...you lack that ability...sorry to hurt your sentiments...did not mean to - this time.

So in your quest to be original you are willing to contradict and controvert what is present in the Upanisads? And you dare to call yourself a Hindu?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Upanishads? Who wrote them?

But, what my statement says is my own....oh wait...you lack that ability...sorry to hurt your sentiments...did not mean to - this time.

So in your quest to be original you are willing to contradict and controvert what is present in the Upanisads? And you dare to call yourself a Hindu?

Spoken like a true Maulana...Koran says this and Koran says that....and here you are exposing your same mindset acting as a "cut/paste hindu" Upanishads this and Upanishads that...and a hindu should not contradict that....Who says that A maulana ?

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Upanishads? Who wrote them?

But, what my statement says is my own....oh wait...you lack that ability...sorry to hurt your sentiments...did not mean to - this time.

So in your quest to be original you are willing to contradict and controvert what is present in the Upanisads? And you dare to call yourself a Hindu?

Spoken like a true Maulana...Koran says this and Koran says that....and here you are exposing your same mindset acting as a "cut/paste hindu" Upanishads this and Upanishads that...and a hindu should not contradict that....Who says that A maulana ?

If you are a Hindu you need to follow some (any) Hindu philosophy. You can't just come up with your trash while pooping and then claim you are Hindu and others are Mullahs.

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Upanishads? Who wrote them?

But, what my statement says is my own....oh wait...you lack that ability...sorry to hurt your sentiments...did not mean to - this time.

So in your quest to be original you are willing to contradict and controvert what is present in the Upanisads? And you dare to call yourself a Hindu?

Spoken like a true Maulana...Koran says this and Koran says that....and here you are exposing your same mindset acting as a "cut/paste hindu" Upanishads this and Upanishads that...and a hindu should not contradict that....Who says that A maulana ?

If you are a Hindu you need to follow some (any) Hindu philosophy. You can't just come up with your trash while pooping and then claim you are Hindu and others are Mullahs.

Rashmun, don't apply your muslim rules to Hinduism. You can be a hindu and still be an atheist, agnostic or whatever. One needn't follow any hindu philosophy.

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

So in your quest to be original you are willing to contradict and controvert what is present in the Upanisads? And you dare to call yourself a Hindu?

Spoken like a true Maulana...Koran says this and Koran says that....and here you are exposing your same mindset acting as a "cut/paste hindu" Upanishads this and Upanishads that...and a hindu should not contradict that....Who says that A maulana ?

If you are a Hindu you need to follow some (any) Hindu philosophy. You can't just come up with your trash while pooping and then claim you are Hindu and others are Mullahs.

Rashmun, don't apply your muslim rules to Hinduism. You can be a hindu and still be an atheist, agnostic or whatever. One needn't follow any hindu philosophy.

True but you have to take a philosophical position based on some atheist or agnostic school of Hindu philosophy if you are an atheist or agnostic and still make loud claims about being a Hindu. What you cannot do is  come up with something while pooping and then claim you are Hindu and others are Mullahs. Such people should be considered mlecchas in my opinion.

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Spoken like a true Maulana...Koran says this and Koran says that....and here you are exposing your same mindset acting as a "cut/paste hindu" Upanishads this and Upanishads that...and a hindu should not contradict that....Who says that A maulana ?

If you are a Hindu you need to follow some (any) Hindu philosophy. You can't just come up with your trash while pooping and then claim you are Hindu and others are Mullahs.

Rashmun, don't apply your muslim rules to Hinduism. You can be a hindu and still be an atheist, agnostic or whatever. One needn't follow any hindu philosophy.

True but you have to take a philosophical position based on some atheist or agnostic school of Hindu philosophy if you are an atheist or agnostic and still make loud claims about being a Hindu. What you cannot do is  come up with something while pooping and then claim you are Hindu and others are Mullahs. Such people should be considered mlecchas in my opinion.

Nopes. One needn't care about any philosophy and still be a hindu. Mleccha is a muslim who claims to be a hindu brahmin, knows nothing about hinduism or the basics of advaita but acts as if he is an authority at it, doesn't even have a fraction of intelligence of  of Adi Sankara but tries to malign him, hates Adi Sankara with a vengeance probably coz Sankara is the one who revived Hinduism for decadence, etc.

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

If you are a Hindu you need to follow some (any) Hindu philosophy. You can't just come up with your trash while pooping and then claim you are Hindu and others are Mullahs.

Rashmun, don't apply your muslim rules to Hinduism. You can be a hindu and still be an atheist, agnostic or whatever. One needn't follow any hindu philosophy.

True but you have to take a philosophical position based on some atheist or agnostic school of Hindu philosophy if you are an atheist or agnostic and still make loud claims about being a Hindu. What you cannot do is  come up with something while pooping and then claim you are Hindu and others are Mullahs. Such people should be considered mlecchas in my opinion.

Nopes. One needn't care about any philosophy and still be a hindu. Mleccha is a muslim who claims to be a hindu brahmin, knows nothing about hinduism or the basics of advaita but acts as if he is an authority at it, doesn't even have a fraction of intelligence of  of Adi Sankara but tries to malign him, hates Adi Sankara with a vengeance probably coz Sankara is the one who revived Hinduism for decadence, etc.

Mleccha need not be a Muslim. Anyone who thinks so is an ignoramus and possibly a mleccha herself. Further, if you go around pooping and preaching your own trash without any support from any Hindu school of philosophy and denounce others as Muslims, mullahs, Maulanas, while claiming to be a Hindu yourself, then you are a mleccha. If you defend such people then also you are a mleccha.

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun, don't apply your muslim rules to Hinduism. You can be a hindu and still be an atheist, agnostic or whatever. One needn't follow any hindu philosophy.

True but you have to take a philosophical position based on some atheist or agnostic school of Hindu philosophy if you are an atheist or agnostic and still make loud claims about being a Hindu. What you cannot do is  come up with something while pooping and then claim you are Hindu and others are Mullahs. Such people should be considered mlecchas in my opinion.

Nopes. One needn't care about any philosophy and still be a hindu. Mleccha is a muslim who claims to be a hindu brahmin, knows nothing about hinduism or the basics of advaita but acts as if he is an authority at it, doesn't even have a fraction of intelligence of  of Adi Sankara but tries to malign him, hates Adi Sankara with a vengeance probably coz Sankara is the one who revived Hinduism for decadence, etc.

Mleccha need not be a Muslim. Anyone who thinks so is an ignoramus and possibly a mleccha herself. Further, if you go around pooping and preaching your own trash without any support from any Hindu school of philosophy and denounce others as Muslims, mullahs, Maulanas, while claiming to be a Hindu yourself, then you are a mleccha. If you defend such people then also you are a mleccha.

I didn't say that all muslins are mlecchas. You are a fool and has comprehension problems if that's what you understood from what I wrote.  You quite clearly are  not a hindu. Learn more about Advaita and Hinduism before you try to talk like an authority in those subjects. The one who couldn't even explain what maya is in one's own words thinks of himself as qualified to talk about Advaita and Adi Sankara! Quit making a fool of yourself.

anyway, have a great day.

Kinnera wrote:
Mleccha need not be a Muslim. ....The one who couldn't even explain what maya is in one's own words thinks of himself as qualified to talk about Advaita and Adi Sankara! Quit making a fool of yourself.

anyway, have a great day.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
Mleccha need not be a Muslim. ....The one who couldn't even explain what maya is in one's own words thinks of himself as qualified to talk about Advaita and Adi Sankara! Quit making a fool of yourself.

anyway, have a great day.

Not nice of you to ask him to stop his work.  Maulauna is just doing his job.