Do you believe in Evolution or Creation (God)? [Archive] - Page 2

pradheep

21st February 2005, 08:52 PM

Dear Rohit
You also fall into the category of layman, because you do not know the difference between consciousness, awareness and mind.(sorry to prick your ego) . |You might have read all scientific and religious books but you cannot know consciousness without ”experiencing” |( |I have to use this because there is no other word).

Modern science also has problem of understanding this. Even the basic “Thought” is not explainable. ||Just explain simply what a thought is.I know what neuro scientists would explain it as a electrical firings in nerve cells.

Before going to the details I will give some back ground information that will clear your pre-conceived notions.

1. It was not sankara who taught advaita, not ramuja visihit. They clearly is stated in their works. They only explained it for the common man to understand it better.
2. Vyasa did not write Vedas. He edited them and so are Upanishads are the and puranas. Vedas are the essence of rational enquiry about cosmic mystery and man’s own mystery.
3. Vedas are not some meaningless verses of praise or the acts of some gods and goddesses. They are symbolic languages to teach things that cannot be grasped . Rohit …now you may be able to compute 12 x 10 = 120, but remember when you were young you needed symbols to grasp numbers or alphabets. Now you don’t require that. The same applies to understand cosmic mystery. Now you would argue that symbolism do not help whether to know there is life in mars or any other scientific enquiry. I will explain a little later after I explain the ancient approach. So Rohit still you understood the mystery of numbers using symbols you were a layman. Now you are layman regarding consciousness.
4. Ancient rishi’s approach to understand cosmic mystery was understand the mystery of one’s own self. This fact is evident in upanisahds where the enquiry is about what is that makes the body alive. The conversation between a father |(teacher) and a son |(student) helps us to know.

The son|: Teach me about Brahman.
Father|: Find out what is that keeps you alive.
Son : Food
Father|: It is not food because one can live up to 30 days without it.

Son: water

Father|: not water since one can live without it for few days. So go an search deep for an answer.

The son later comes back with an answer.

Son|: Air.

|Father: not air (one can live without it for few minutes|) So go an search deep for an answer.

The son later comes back with an answer.

Son|: |Mind.

|Father: not mind because it is off in deep sleep state and after that you still wake up with the same body. So go an search deep for an answer where even without that you still live.

The son never comes back. |What does it mean , it means he got the answer. And what is the answer, it is because he finds that it is consciousness.

That consciousness is all pervading eternal , that without birth and death, that which cannot be created, nor destroyed ,that which even is not interchanged , that which is not known through the mind or the intellect because it is the one that it is the knower, known and the knowing. This is the essence of Vedas and Upanishads.

Now it is not easy task and so the Vedas help like the father in helping to search for it. Initially it is more of physical work rather than mental. |The Vedas start with chants and songs and praises.

|Now let us trace the evolution to Rohit’s understanding and the tools he used to arrive at this evolved state.

When he went to school first he learnt facts through songs and rhymes. Even basic alphabets were through songs…….A|, |B, |C, |D…….
One two buckle my shoe, three four shut the door…….

Similarly intital chapters of vedic chants and slokas are songs.

Then rohit was taught stories and through stories facts were presented to him.

The same with vedic texts telling stories of gods and demons fighting.

Then Rohit started to apply the alphabets and numericals and through which he understood physics, chemistry biology etc. When teacher told him earth was round and sun was stationary and earth was rotating, Rohit in his innocent mind (the mind that has the willingness to accept whatever is told but would not swallow it , but would digest and absorb it by analyzing it) asked the teacher but teacher I don’t seems to be rotating and what I see is the sun moving everyday. The teacher was happy with Rohit that he was not stubborn in calling the teacher schizophrenic but was accepting the fact and was enquiring.

The teacher then used a ball, candle and sowed how days and nights happen. With this Rohit was able to graps facts that he could not see with his eyes |(which was giving illusionary contradictions) and started to use his own wisdom.

This is the next state of Vedas where the complex facts were explained I the form of puranas (18) were consciousness, awareness , mind, sense organs, perceptions etc etc.

Then |Rohit has evolved enough that he not only required the crutches of numeric and alphabets symbols he did not any more require “objects|” to perceive sun and moon’s movements.

Now Rohit in his last year of higher secondary school was smart enough that he wanted to |Ph.|D, He went and read the research publications of research scholars and could not understand their methodology not their abstract conclusions.

|So he decided to go to college and take bachelors and master degree which were explainatory notes of research findings.

This is the next state of Vedas to Upanishads the college standard to understand the cosmic mystery and consciousness. Upanishads are explaintory notes of vedanta the |Ph.|D finding of ancient rishis.

Final chapters of veda is Vedanta, through which one understands consciousness…one’s own self. |Vedanta is not the finding of one |”person|”. |It is the finding of many and was throroughly investigated by others and only when it was find to reflect the same truth it was allowed to be in the vedic texts.

What was the methodology vedic rishis to know consciousness? It is a very systematic step by step enquiry.

They thought the universe is infinite and the sense organs are limiting and even if develop super technologies the tools would still be limited. More-over before finding about the secret of oneself what is the use of knowing the universe. So they probed into the secrets of |”thoughts|”. What are thoughts and how do they arise and what is the force behind |”thinking|”.

|They found consciousness was that which makes the knower know and the thinker think and that knowing this consciousness (|Brahman|) one knows everything because it is from this consciousness that everything arises. This consciousness is not located in brain. It is the consciousness that is reflected in the form of awareness in all living bodies.

|They found each and every object has consciousness …every atom has it and so even stone or soap |(sakthi-prabaha thanks for your kind words|) has consciousness. |But this consciousness is not reflected by a stone because it has no awareness. For awareness to happen it requires a certain physical state or organization. This physical organization follows a specific pattern and is logical and intelligent. So these atoms combined to interact and were sort of filling up a zigzaw puzzle. This is the basic of |”evolution|”.

|water is the media which allows organization of matter to reflect the awareness. This is why first life arose in ocean. This is symbolically told as |Vishnu’s matsya avatar.

The organized pattern of primitive life then wanted to fully reflect the awareness and it went ahead bringing more organizational pattern which we call as evolution. |In trying out every possible ways it emerged out in a conscious mode. |Unfortunately without understanding this very basic concept modern man has taken it as “Survival of fittest|”. It looks as if it is survival of the fittest as the driving force of evolution but the truth it is an intelligent conscious act. |Hope you remember what I wrote before that this is the same as a single cell (fused sperm and ovum|) giving rise to a thirty trillion human body. Cells undergo apoptosis (programmed cell death|) which now is understood as the driving force giving way for the body to develop organs.

So life evolved only to reflect this consciousness which is called as awareness. |Look at an amoeba ….it can find its food. It has awareness in spite of not having a brain or a well developed nervous system. But with its limited system it is able to find what it needs. Can you deny it has no awareness?

So we have come to the pinnacle of life’s evolution which we call as Human being.

|In this human the reflective nature of consciousness is at the peak. Now using human awareness one can easily know Consciousness the cause and effect of everything …..which does not get created and never dies (immortal) .

How to know this consciousness|?. Is it an schizophrenic effect and can be known only when suffers from some brain damage|? |No.

|The ancient seers gave wonderful technology to |”re-wire|” neuronal pathways in our human brain to know what is consciousness.

This technology that is now gaining popularity is meditation. What is meditation?. Meditation is to transcend the thoughts so that one can be aware of the source of thoughts, through that one can know consciousness.

Why should we transcend thoughts to know consciousness|?. Because thoughts masks our awareness to know consciousness. How to get rid of thoughts. Because we have taken for granted that we are just thinking machines producing thoughts. To transcend thoughts one has to know awareness because mind is just a flow of thoughts. If we want to watch a river that is flowing we have to get out of the river. If we are caught in the current of the river all our efforts To put it simple one has to watch one’s thoughts to know what awareness is.

To watch the river’s flow and its origin one has to get swim to the origin of the river by fighting its current. |Now look at the logic of the ancient rishi’s. Instead of swimming against the current by risking life and exhausting one’s energy, isn’t it practical to get out of the river and walk through the land with ease. This |”getting out of the box|” is the spiritual practice to know consciousness.

|How can we get out of the river (the mind flow) |?. …….

|I will continue soon

Rohit

22nd February 2005, 01:17 AM

Let us briefly analyse what our poor friend Pradheep essentially says about consciousness and awareness through his layman’s language.

Pradheep’s consciousness knows his “Self”
Buddha’s consciousness doesn’t know his “Self”

Pradheep’s consciousness is Knower, known and the knowing
Buddha’s consciousness is not Knower, known and the knowing. Buddha’s consciousness is a consciousness of a layman.

Pradheep knows his consciousness (Brahman) therefore he knows everything
Buddha doesn’t know his consciousness (Brahman) therefore he knows nothing.

Pradheep’s awareness is to know consciousness; therefore Pradheep knows the cause and effect
Buddha’s awareness is not to know consciousness; therefore Buddha doesn’t know the cause and effect

Pradheep has a physical organisation that follows a specific pattern and it is logical and intelligent.
Buddha does not have a physical organisation that follows a specific pattern and it is illogical and unintelligent.

Pradheep’s awareness happens through the occurrence of certain physical state or organisation.
Buddha’s awareness happens through the occurrence of uncertain physical state or organisation.

In Pradheep, the reflective nature of consciousness is at the peak
In Buddha, the reflective nature of consciousness is not at the peak

Please note that I am using Buddha just as a name of another human being or "thing/body" that, according to Pradheep, doesn't know anything about cosciousness or awareness, especifically to show the sheer contradictions our friend Pradheep unwarily creates.

Now let us see what else our friend Pradheep says about consciousness without him being aware of it at all.

Consciousness…one’s own self.
Consciousness is God and simultaneously it is one’s “Self”

Therefore, Pradheep, Buddha, laymans, horses, dogs, crows, birds, trees, fishes, lions, tigers, stones, matter, atoms, ice, water, milk, cow, husband, wife, father, son, mother, daughter, teacher, student, air, sky, space, sun, moon, mountains, rivers, seas, consciousness, awareness, one’s “Self” etc. and “God” is one and the same thing, there exists no differentiation whatsoever among them. One and the same thing called by the "Brahman itSelf" by different names/words in different ways. (Brahman/God goes haywire about itSelf :lol: )

Now let us analyse Pradheep's above deduced "statements" or essense by replacing “one” with “God” which, according our friend Pradheep, is consciousness or one’s “Self/God”

Curious and interested readers are requested to replace every human entities by "God" in Pradheep's post and then read the entire post and be ready to laugh their stomachs out. :lol:

“God’s” consciousness knows his “Self”
“God’s” consciousness doesn’t know his “Self”

“God’s” consciousness is Knower, known and the knowing
“God’s” consciousness is not Knower, known and the knowing. “God’s” consciousness is a consciousness of a layman.

“God” knows his consciousness (Brahman) therefore he knows everything
“God” doesn’t know his consciousness (Brahman) therefore he knows nothing.

“God’s” awareness is to know consciousness; therefore “God” knows the cause and effect
“God’s” awareness is not to know consciousness; therefore “God” doesn’t know the cause and effect

“God” has a physical organisation that follows a specific pattern and it is logical and intelligent.
“God” does not a have physical organisation that follows a specific pattern and it is illogical and unintelligent.

“God’s” awareness happens through the occurrence of certain physical state or organisation.
“God’s” awareness happens through the occurrence of uncertain physical state or organisation.

In “God”, the reflective nature of consciousness is at the peak
In “God”, the reflective nature of consciousness is not at the peak

And this clearly shows that our friend Pradheep is on yet another long trip, confusing himself through his own layman’s thinking and then ended up in making even a longer series of contradictions, completely shattering the base of Advaitic “monism” . He avoided making it clear what exactly is matter and where did it come form. He also avoided mentioning about the life and its exact origin (If he ever answers that, check his above posts again and see what all that comes to)

He still doesn’t know the fact that neither the consciousness nor the awareness is experienced by the person who is under coma, under the influence of general anaesthesia, when fainted or when suffered form a sever head injury or one becomes Brain Dead due to Brain Stem damages. Perhaps that is why he avoided answering any of them; and went on with his layman’s fallacy.

I can guarantee every reader on this forum that our friend Pradheep will not give any answer to these specific questions and respond to all specific points raised here. Just watch it.

By demonstrating the sheerness of contradictions used everywhere by our friend Pradheep; he himself has proved that such a psychotic God cannot/doesn’t exist, except in psychotic minds. :)

pradheep

22nd February 2005, 05:11 AM

My dear Rohit
Please read everything that i write. It is obvious that you dont do that from my post that " I will continue". Since you did not read what i wrote you jumped into conclusions.

Do you think I will not write how matter originated and about consciosuness and awareness of a person who is in coma?
Without understanding the basics how can I explain all that. Do you think it is that easy for you to understand consciousness. The more your mind is caught in the whirlpool of "concepts" the more difficult is for you to know "Consciosuness".

You equated consciosuness to God. Now request my dear friend Rohit, to decribe what you mean by God. Please give all the attirbutes that you think about God. In this post you deny God. What is God according to you.

Then we will proceed from there. My sincere request is that without writing that please do not comment on the following posts to my other dear friends.

My dear friends (except my dear freind Rohit)

I left the post with the question, how to know the consciousness through spiritual practices. To put in one sentence , by transcending all the thoughts that make us think that we are just the body, mind and intellect. Then what is our true nature?. The true nature is that we are the conscious principle. Since I promosed that I would write the symbolism of the puranic Gods I will explain them here.

From the conscious principle (symbolised as vishnu, sleeping in the cosmic ocean on a serpent ananta (meaning infinite), a lotus emerges from his navel (represents that like the umblicol cord supplying the nourishment and the thoughts to the growing child, the consciosuness is the basic for everything for creation). From the navel arises a lotus symbolising matter, over which is seated Brahma, the mind.

Mind is the least respected. Even in a day to day life we says all the trouble is because of the mind. it is the mind that says I like and dont like. It is the mind that is the basics of all emotions. Only thing we like is the intellect part of the mind which is beautifully symbolized as saraswati, brahma's wife. This intellect creates everyhing aesthetic and organization. This is why there is no temple for Brahma but saraswati is worshipped as the Godesses of knwoledge because she is knowledge, intellect. She is speach, she is science, she is arts. She is everything of the aspect of wisdom in short. That is why for all beginings we worship saraswati with ganesha ( I will come to symbolism of ganesha later).

This Brahma with four heads ( three axes of spatial dimensions....x, y, z and the time scale) creates the universe. This means that every object is created is time and space. can we think of any form in this world that is not in time and space. (Sshhhhh......we will ask our dear friend to find out such one and allow him to roam this whole universe for thousands of lives to get one form which is not created with brahma's four heads which means in time and sapce).

This brahma is also created in time and space. Vishnu is always the one (consciousness) but brahmas are created and destroyed everry 3 trillion years. If any oen needs exact time scale i can give that.

Now this mind that is formed out of the interaction of the consciosuness over matter ( i would explain where matter comes later...too many details at time would be not good), wants to perpetuate but the matter is inert and so brahma gets agitated. From this agitation arises rudra (shiva), the reactive awareness.

Friends this is the symbolism behind shiva arising from Vishnu and brahma as our friend Raghu mentioned earleir to which our poor friend Rohit found only contradiction. (Shhhhhh...for time being let the poor chap go around the universe like our Lord muruga who wanted to get gnana-pazham (fruit of wisdom about the cosmic mystery. Hope we are familiar with the story of Ganesha who was full of wisdom who circambulated shiva and parvathi and got the fruit, while his brother took the words literally and strained to go around the universe.

This stroy is also symbolic to show that to get the fruit of wisdom, one need not circambulate the universe but seek the universe (dad and mom) within our own self. This is the secret that all ancient masters have told us. This is the pricniple behind all rituals we are doing. unfortunately it is so sad to see how people literally take the rituals and do non-sense.

I will continue when I get time. Meanwhile I will be happy to answer questions and also reply to our dear friend rohit about his defintion of God.

Rohit

22nd February 2005, 05:47 AM

Dear Pradheep, please first reply to all those questions and repond to all those points I have raised so far and I am still raising now, step by step and clearly. I have don't have to draw any concluson that is already drawn.

I have just listed and stated what you have been saying so far and proving - exactly opposite to what you really believe. :)

OK, I will not interrupt you until you have answered and responded to everything I have raised and commented so far, if you have forgotten, I am here to remind you all over again, all of it.

Till then, the whole thread is yours. Please don't fail yourself this time, you have taken too many chances without any success so far.

Good Luck :)

pradheep

22nd February 2005, 06:09 AM

Curious and interested readers are requested to replace every human entities by "God" in Pradheep's post and then read the entire post and be ready to laugh their stomachs out.

since you have replaced every human entities by "God" I would like to know what you mean by God. if you dont write what God means to you how can I explain you about consciousness and the state of a person in coma. Hope I can also laugh my sotmach out with everyone with your help.

Hope you also do jutice to this thread by explaining the God you deny which will help to answer your questions. You ran away in God exists thread when I asked you to define the God that you are refuting. But you were scared to do that instead called me "names".

Again to make it clear, without knowing your concepts of God, how can i answer your questions.

Rohit

22nd February 2005, 06:10 AM

Dear Pradheep my definition for "YOUR" God is RRU (Real God - Impersonal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World i.e. maya/illusion). However, there is another definition of God given by the believers, which is RRR (Real God - i.e. Personal God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World - i.e. A seperately existing Physical World).

Now it is up to you, which you want to reject and which you prefer to explain, but both are in contradiction to each other.

In any case, please don't forget, I don't have to define "God" because there isn't one that exists. It is going to be your definition and you have to prove it. I am just here to disprove your God again - though I have done it so many times now and you keep struggling to get anywhere near defining it, leave alone proving it. So,....................go and click old resposes in "Does God Exist?" thread and thoroughly check who ran away :D

Rohit

22nd February 2005, 06:20 AM

I would like to know what you mean by God.

I have exactly listed what you have said about God i.e. consciousness, Self (Brahman), awareness, KNOWER, KNOWN and the KNOWING, therefore it is everything that you have been mentioning about. Please read all my previous posts and the one, which you have just quoted.

But again, it was "YOUR" definition and not mine. So please get on with it, if you don't mind. :D

pradheep

22nd February 2005, 07:10 AM

Yes it is my defintion and my question to you is what is your defintion. It sounds crazy that you deny something you cant define. So when you did vote for this poll , what is that you defined by your beleif about God being the creator? I KNOW YOU ARE AVOIDING BECAUSE YOU ARE CORNERED. OKAY ROHIT STAY THERE, TILL YOU MAKE A MOVE.

Rohit

22nd February 2005, 01:02 PM

So when you did vote for this poll , what is that you defined by your beleif about God being the creator?
I haven't voted for any creator, please bear that in your mind clearly.

Dear Pradheep, I think you have problems with both reading and comprehension: This is what I have said:

"In any case, please don't forget, I don't have to define "God" because there isn't one that exists. It is going to be your definition and you have to prove it. I am just here to disprove your God again - though I have done it so many times now and you keep struggling to get anywhere near defining it, leave alone proving it. So,....................go and click old resposes in "Does God Exist?" thread and thoroughly check who ran away.

Do you now understand that? If not, you are running in circles as always becauses you always get stuck with your layman's thinking and language.

Just remember this, I don't have to define "God" because there isn't one that exists. So, please get on with your definition and respond to the questions and points I have raised regarding your definition and what you have said so far about it. :D

Raghu

22nd February 2005, 04:11 PM

They say, in hinduism, attaining salvation would relieve one of birth and death cycle. HOW CAN ONE BE ASSURED ONE DOES NOT COME BACK, JUST BY BEING AWARE OF TRUESELF??

NO , Hinduism does not say that, in Gita, it is said that to attain salvation is by pure devotion to 'Eshwar' (Ultimate Truth), hence the name Maha Eshwar (lord Shiva) became Maheshwar, and one should free him self from his material attachment, at least at the time his 'Athma' leaves the body.

It's no good, just realising that we are not these bodies, and we live in material world, living in 'Kali Yuga' and everything is Maya, one cannot attain 'Mukthi', by this.
It is not that simple! If so, every one would attain 'Mukthi'.

When the Athma leaves the body, what ever the 'Athma' is attached to, that Athma will find another body to fulfil it's desire, example, if when a man dies, his thoughts are with his family and loved ones, or wealth, his Athma will take another body and fall into this vicious Cycle of Birth, Death, Old age & Disease, the way out this is to attain 'Mukthi(Salvation)' by pure devotion to the lord. Hinduism says, when a man at his time of his death, accepts all his sins and surrender unto the supreme personality of Godhead, all his sins are forgiven and his Athma attains Mukthi.

Rohit

23rd February 2005, 12:09 AM

Dear Rohit
and what are your verdicts on the above statement?
Dear Raghu,

It was you who raised the point, opposing Pradheeep’s view by asserting

Pradheep, Shiva is a Combination of Vishnu & Brahma
I have already responded to Pradheep by clearly stating.

It is not me who mentions about them, it is only you who bring them up and get confused, while blaming others.

Let me tell you this clear; I am not interested in symbology. Please stay right to the point and don't diverge with symbolic analogies that have no logical equivalence.
Raghu, I think your point was quite valid in that context but you did not came back to prove your point to Pradheep.

Rohit

23rd February 2005, 12:44 AM

Shakthiprabha.

23rd February 2005, 01:40 AM

hmm...

//Pradheep’s consciousness knows his “Self”
Buddha’s consciousness doesn’t know his “Self” //

Rohit,

I disagree CONSCIOUSNESS knows the self.
Consciousness is JUST EXISTENCE.

Its intelligence which KNOWS or not kNOWS any self(if
it exists)

That is why, any other creature with any
physical combination(ABSENSE OF INTELLIGENCE) is
unable to realise the SELF, though they aer CONSCIOUS.

//. How many Athmas are there in the whole universe? //

1.Atma IS NOT something which we play with mathematics here.
Atma is A SINGLE THING, just pervaded in all. Again the same example, if we have water distributed in 5 vessels, can u say
HOW MANY(MUCH) WATER is there totally?

Water is just water. Vessels hold the same WATER in
diff shapes. We can equate this with AIR TOO. How much
air is there, in 5 baloons rohit?

//2. Where do these Athmas come from?
3. Are there more than one Athma?
4. What are they made of? //

1. Atma THEY SAY in lieu OF CONSCIOUSNESS, so, i guess
its somethign which existed on its own

2.Atma is JUST ONE SINGLE PERVADING THING. Only
desires and wants take the shape of diff individuals.

3.What are they made of? Wow ... I am waiting for an answer
from pradeep :lol:

//5. What is the difference between consciousness, awareness, “Brahman”, Athma, Soul, Self, God? //

consciousness is EXISTENCE
awareness is BEING AWARE OF THIS EXISTENCE
brahman = consciousness
Atma = Shadow of brahmin with imprints of desires
Soul = same as above
Self = same as above
God = ALL of above

//6. Are theses Athmas completely different and separate from all that stuffs that Pradheep spoke of? //

hehe he would answer it :lol:

Hope, u did not mind my half baked knowledge. I am just
trying to learn here. I may be wrong. I am waiting to
be enlightened with other's perspective too.

__________

now raghu,

You spoke about BIRHT AND DEATH. I spoke about, GNANi
or STITHA PRAGNJA state. Such an individual if he
attains mukthi, HOW CAN HE BE ASSURED HE IS NOT BORN AGAIN.
What guarantee is there, he wont acquire imprints of desires?

I know its not easy to attain salvation. Being devoted,
(i.e. concentrating on one single thought. for,..'thought maketh man!') is important. I remember 'jata bharatha' story in
mythology which talks about the same.

Hmm, lets c what answers pradeep gives. ESP ON

"What is atma made of?"

Rohit

23rd February 2005, 02:18 AM

hmm...
//Pradheep’s consciousness knows his “Self”
Buddha’s consciousness doesn’t know his “Self”//

Rohit,

I disagree CONSCIOUSNESS knows the self.
Consciousness is JUST EXISTENCE.

Its intelligence which KNOWS or not kNOWS any self (if it exists)
Thank you Shakthiprabha, but it is not me who says that; it is our friend Pradheep who says that. Just read what he said a couple of or so posts ago.

That consciousness is all pervading eternal……….. that which is not known through the mind or the intellect because it is the one that it is the knower, known and the knowing. This is the essence of Vedas and Upanishads.
Similarly, all the rest of contadictory satements I have listed in my post and the part you have just quoted, is what our friend Pradheep says and not me.

Atma IS NOT something, which we play with mathematics here.

Atma is A SINGLE THING, just pervaded in all. Again the same example, if we have water distributed in 5 vessels, can u say HOW MANY (MUCH) WATER is there totally?
10 litres, as a guess!

How much air is there, in 5 balloons, rohit?
5 litres, as a guess!

10 litres + 5 litres = 15 litres (!! ?)

Haven’t you ever worked with the quantities of fluid? No?

OK, I will alter my question to Raghu and add a few more in the same context.

7. How many bodies/vessels are filled with this Athma?
8. Does it lick out or get liberated from the body if there is a hole in the body? If, no, why?
9. Where does in the body the Athma reside?
10. How many litres of Athma is there in an average human body
11. Does Athma weigh? What is its specific mass density (i.e. gm/litre or kg/litre etc.)?

By the way Shakthiprabha, if you don’t "know"; EXISTENCE itself is not a predicate or property, unless the expressed “entity” has some perceptual/factual value. I am afraid your explanation too is invalid/wrong. But please keep your active participation on and keep posting your views. Everything contributed by everyone is useful in getting to the bottom of this utter falsity.

Anyway, I am glad that you raised this and expressed your disagreements. Poor Pradhheep would not have expected this from you.
Thank you :)

Raghu, please don't forget to respond with your own views, as you can see, there are no consistent views on Athma and the rest of the other stuffs linked/associated with it. :)

Raghu

23rd February 2005, 04:55 PM

Hinduism says, when a man at his time of his death, accepts all his sins and surrender unto the supreme personality of Godhead, all his sins are forgiven and his Athma attains Mukthi.
Raghu what exactly is that Athma stuff you just spoke of –Though I know what Advaita, Dvaita etc. say about it, but I just want to know what are your views on Athma–

1. How many Athmas are there in the whole universe?
2. Where do these Athmas come from?
3. Are there more than one Athma?
4. What are they made of?
5. What is the difference between consciousness, awareness, “Brahman”, Athma, Soul, Self, God?

Yes, of course Rohit ji :D , as far as I am aware Athma is your Consciousness, now what scientific formula are you going to use to measure it, Rohit :wink: :lol:

It is your consciousness (ATHMA) that attains salvation (Mukthi) when it liberates with the ultimate truth (Paramathama).

Pardon me, but I think the answers you have given to Shakthi’s comments regarding the measurements of air and water are a bit childish :(

1) 1. How many Athmas are there in the whole universe? Infinite!,

Can you tell me the size of the solar system?, measurements(in your terminology) of the five earthly elements like water, soil, fire , air and space :wink: :D

2) Where do these Athmas come from? From Paramathama, the ultimate true personality GOD HEAD!,
Just like father gives life to a child

3) Are there more than one Athma? are there more than one Rohit within your sub consciousness? :wink: :shock: :lol:

4) What is the difference between consciousness, awareness, “Brahman”, Athma, Soul, Self, God?

Consciousness = Athma

Awareness = you may be aware of your consciousness and still oppose it, i.e. conduct Karma (activities) which oppose your Athma, this brings the Asura (devil) into act

Brahman = the Creator – every body has a creation

Vishnu = the Preserver – every body survives in the world, even to millisecond

Shiva = the Destroyer- every living entity must die, or be destroyed

But Hinduism says Lord Maheshwar to be a Combination of all three entities of Life; hence Maha (big) Eshwar (Ultimate Truth) becomes the Paramathama

Dear Rohit, please note the above remarks were never meant to offend you in any way, it was just a way of answering your questions :D

pradheep

23rd February 2005, 05:17 PM

Dear Rohit

I don't have to define "God" because there isn't one that exists. It is going to be your definition and you have to prove it. I am just here to disprove your God again

Okay you dont need to define God. At least can you explain what you meant by the following quote you wrote

" Buddhism is a highly spiritual religion"

|You said you are disproving my |"God|". But my friend you have wrongly defined my God in a wrong manner. You defined it as

RRU (Real God - Impersonal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World i.e. maya/illusion

My God is RRR ( Real Consciousness (God) , Real "Consciou" recognition and real physical world and the maya (illusion|) fact that "I" am the "perishable (finite), limited " physical body rather than the eternal infinite consciosuness.

Now what is that you are disproving about my defintion of God. Again let me makeit clear the consicousness as God has no form , unlimited and eternal. It is not a person or a inanimate object sitting and controlling things.

pradheep

23rd February 2005, 06:08 PM

Dear sakthi prabha and raghu

There is only one atma... illusion or maya is that there are many atma. This illusion comes when you or pradheep identifies that the real nature of the individual is the perishable body and not the eternal consciosuness. This untruth is the cause for all confusion, ignorance and suffering. This is the ultimate truth that Vedas, buddha, christ or any other spiritual master taught. Their language and examples change and hence people can mis interpret it. |If you allow overtime I would clarify everything... all doubts.

|Let me also tell oneimportant aspect........knowing all this facts is easy and not critical but to expereince this truth is the essence of living this life. Many people talk about all this based on reading some books but the most important aspect is to experience it by living it, otherwise the knowledge becomes just bookish knowledge. |It is like reading the book |"dummies book for car driving|" and never experience it by driving a car.

This is the point where I reached a point in life and tell people that to experiencing it, is essence of life. I see thousands of people talking about it and when it comes to the point of expericing it, they have nothing to say. That is why in one point of life I stopped reading and gaining knowledge but went to experience it. What i experienced is what I am sharing with you.

When you experience it you will see that you arethe source of that knowledge. As sakthiprabaha mentioned , without expericing everything will be half baked information.

Dont think I have reached perfection. I am still a kid practising it and experiencing it. It is the practice that helps us to get out of the river and go the source.

People were reading vedas but were never practising itin life and experiving that truth. This is very dangereous because with that one can deceive oneself and exploit others. This is cause for the downfall of Indian tradition. Vedas are not to be blamed because it gives us the highest truth about life. |It is the problem of people not to experience it and cause down fall of soceity.

|Then came many masters to help the soceity. Buddha as a great master reformed India. He practiced what he taught and thus gave the highest truth. What he criticised was not vedas but the practice of people.

|Over years Buddha's teaching was not also practised and caused more commotion in India. In the name of non-violence we forgot to protect our country against foreign invasion. We forgotto practice the vedic dharma of practicising kshatriya dharma in anme of non-violence. people again misunderstood and the greatnessof vedic knowledge. No where in vedic culture was told to give up arms and weapons. they are needed to protect oneself. |It was giving as a responsiblity to a sect of people called kshtriyas. |This was the baisis of caste system. casteism means responsibility which is clearly stated in vedas. But every yuga some people have misused this sytem which we see even in not cased system like USA.

|In |USA and modern world the biggest caste system is based on money. Look at a simple example(experience of me) when I boarded a flight three years ago. I was |"discriminated|" as a economic class passenger based on dollars. My co-passenger was a small girl who saw some colorful drink being served to the bussiness class people. She demanded that she wantedit and I over heard her dad saying whey she did not get that. She could not understand that she is deprived of that previlage because of the casteism that dollars have bought in the modern soceity.

Getting back to the original point, we lost to foreign invasion because we lost all kshatriya dharma because we misunderstood what non-volence is from defending ourself.

Adisankara's challenge was not actually buddhist but mimamsas, who literally took vedic scriptures as it is and did animal sacrifices which with Buddhist infleunce stopped. But theycontinued doing rituals without understanding the significance of it. This is what sankara had to do. He had to bring all different sects of shiavates, viashnavites, sakthists etc to one non-dualitic vedic thought.

|Now we stand again seeing soceity in name of God killing each other and exploiting others without helping each other to experience the essence of life. we are busy living our lives feeding our little egoes and causing maximum harm to others and the planet and indirectly to our own selves.

We can stop this only by practising vedic teachings and not reading vedic books and chanting mechanically slokas like a parrot. This will never help us. I see in soceity how millions go to temple and make temple as a bussiness venue and convert rituals only as a means to bribe "God". Again like in Sankaras times we are just doing rituals without the basic understanding.

Reading vedic truth without practicising it , makes religious people do immoral acts, which confuses soceity to dis-beleive in religion and religious people. We as modern youth can bring about a peaceful world only by practicing thetruth, bymaking truth as the code of life. This is called dharma. This is what sage Vyasa's message in Mahabharat. When dharma isnot practiced it will cause down fall of soceity and as evidenced by the war.

Please friends , let us help each other to live a life by practicing dharma and experience our "True Self".

Rohit

24th February 2005, 12:28 AM

Rohit

24th February 2005, 12:40 AM

" Buddhism is a highly spiritual religion"
Dear Pradheep I have already replied to this by stating:

Re: " Buddhism is a highly spiritual religion"

As Buddhism offers a highly value oriented world-view based on moral principles while discouraging materialism, the spiritualism referred in Buddhism is purely of idealism orientation, which is in opposition to illuminism, positivism, spiritism (concerning spirit/soul etc.).

Please go and visit the page. :)

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=369&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=240

Shakthiprabha.

24th February 2005, 01:38 AM

//Raghu forgets that apart from Rohit, there is Raghu, Shakthiprabha. Anthony, Salman and billions others and they all have their own Athmas/Awareness/ Consciousness, different form each other. If it is one then we all must be conscious/aware of the same thing and there should be no contradiction whatsoever. //

Yes, that is why I said, Atma is PERVADING IN ALL. One pervading
many forms. Now the contradictions are BECAUSE OF IMPRINTS(desires, vasanas) WE acquire in the process of evolving.

Atma is not mathematics to be subtracted, divided or multiplied. ITS ONE SINGLE thing taking the form of many.

One needs to differentiate atma from desires. you are not bunch of desires, but JUST THE EXISTENCE (I understand u fail to give credit for existence, because its not expressed in any factual value!

//By the way Shakthiprabha, if you don’t "know"; EXISTENCE itself is not a predicate or property, unless the expressed “entity” has some perceptual/factual value. I am afraid your explanation too is invalid/wrong.//

Now, tell me rohit, DO U OR DO U NOT, give credibility to KNOWLEDGE, which CANNOT BE evaluated by factual values or
cannot be defined in any perception! (def I dont think, u would give examinations or tests conducted to evaluate a person,).

//But please keep your active participation on and keep posting your views. Everything contributed by everyone is useful in getting to the bottom of this utter falsity.//

hmm.... utter falsity is it? I am not sure of that, thats why
I am here, to learn from u all. I would participate, though I feel little tensed to rattle amidst intelligent ppl like u all.

Btw,

I want pradeep, or anyone else WHO BELIEVES THAT GOD EXIST, to answer the point raised by rohit....

**********EXISTENCE itself is not a predicate or property, unless the expressed “entity” has some perceptual/factual value. **************

Can anyone plz answer? I am eager to know this myself (though I tried giving some VALID OR INVALID EXAMPLE OF 'knowledge')

Rohit

24th February 2005, 01:58 AM

Dear Pradheep, let me take you back in time. Below is what you have said on 15/16 Aug 2003 in “Does God Exist?” thread.
So RUU is advaitha, in the way you understand it.
Now when I recently said:

Dear Pradheep my definition for "YOUR" God is RRU (Real God - Impersonal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World i.e. maya/illusion).
You confirmed my definition by stating:

Yes it is my defintion and my question to you is what is your defintion.
But now you have changed you mind again and say:

But my friend you have wrongly defined my God in a wrong manner. You defined it as

RRU (Real God - Impersonal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World i.e. maya/illusion)
And then said:

My God is RRR ( Real Consciousness (God) , Real "Consciou" recognition and real physical world and the maya (illusion|) fact that "I" am the "perishable (finite), limited " physical body rather than the eternal infinite consciosuness.
Let me now explain why you can't select RRR (if you still want it, I have no objection, but you loose the whole argument in the worst possible manner as explained below). Just concentrate, read carefully with full awareness and try to grasp what I am going to write.

Keys:

R: Real (True)
U: Unreal (False)

Now with reference God/Cognition/Physical World, in RRU format we have:

The first R is for the God as Real (True), the second R is for the cognition possessed within God so it is Real (True) and the third U is for the physical world as Unreal (False/Maya/Illusion)

With reference God/Cognition/Physical World, in RRR format we have:

The first R is for God as Real (True), the second R is for cognition as possessed within the God as well as the cognition possessed by humans as programmed/created by the “God” itself and therefore it is Real (True). The third R is for the Real physical world, separately created by God and it exists as entirely different entity from God. Thus by definition, RRR format describes Dvaita/Dualism and not Advaita/Monism.

Pradheep, don’t confuse yourself with Personal God and Impersonal God; because, when one treats it as logical notation as R (or U), it does not restrict one to treat God as Personal or otherwise, but as an entity. URU, URR, RRU and RRR are the existing formats, one of which one can use to express one’s worldview and the R depicted for God can take either personal or impersonal state, depending upon the religious model one chooses.

So, I can only accept your new definition of RRR only if you confirm that the last and third R you have selected is for a separately existing Physical World and it is different from “God”. In RRU, the first R depicts your “God”, which is everything and the second R depicts the cognition possessed by and within your “God”.

If you opt for a third R, which is reserved for a separately created Physical World and it is different from your “God”, you are abandoning your Advaita/Monism and adopting for Dvaita/Dualism, slipping into the scenario of “Intelligent designer” ID, argued by the “Creationists”, which is already disproved earlier both in “Does God Exist?” thread and here in this thread too. Read full detail in the “Does God Exist?” thread.

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=147&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=450
:)

Rohit

24th February 2005, 02:12 AM

Now, tell me rohit, DO U OR DO U NOT, give credibility to KNOWLEDGE, which CANNOT BE evaluated by factual values

You youself have acknowledged the way of testing "knowlege" through exams and there are many other means to do that. However, knowledge is part of cognition, which can contain both knowledge and/or lack of it, depending upon who posseses it. That is not the case with consciousness as argued by Pradhheep, you and others. :D

Sudhaama

24th February 2005, 02:25 AM

Ms. Sakthi-Prabha,

I am unable to catch your Point... Please tell me specically and clearly ... on what Question of another Person you are unable to ANSWER.

I hope I will be able to give a convincing Answer on any Sort of Question on God.... in a simple manner understandable even by an Illiterate or a Tiny-tot, or even an Atheist... on a condition...
...
Yes.. Person of OPEN-MIND.. but Ignorant of Truth ... a STUDENT.

Yes..Person of.. RECEPTIVE wisdom.. a .Basic- HUMAN

Yes- Person- Inquisitive to Learn, clarify on doubts- Grown MANKIND

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????

No x Person - decided to Oppose any Wise Presentation is a SUICIDER.

No x Person - decided to DIFFER AND ENDLESSLY ARGUES is an IDLER.

No x Person - decided to Defeat Somehow by creating confusion.. is ANIMAL

I am interested ONLY in the First Order 3 PERSONs here ONLY

If YOU are so....Please.. I am here to Answer you... Dear Madam WELCOME. !!!
.

Rohit

24th February 2005, 05:14 AM

Atma is not mathematics to be subtracted, divided or multiplied. ITS ONE SINGLE thing taking the form of many.
Dear Shakthiprabha

Just by introducing mathematical operations like, subtraction, multiplication etc. you cannot validate/prove Atma/Consciousness as indivisible. For the argument's sake, even if it is treated as the same substance, its indivisibility cannot be guaranteed or assumed without any validating proof - exactly the reason why Raghu coudn't answer those questions and used the Strawman's fallacy by treating them as childish. Also, as in water/air analogy, there are examples of polluted waters and polluted airs (both are combinations of various gases in varying proportions). To pollute something like water or air, the presence/existence of an external polluting agent, different from the air or water, is required. Thus, the evidences of contamination in a presumed “one and only one” thing, proves the existence of other things that are different from the presumed “one and only one” thing. Thus, completely nullifying your arguments. :)

And exactly that is why, I never liked analogies. I suggest people not to use such analogies as most analogies lack exact logical equivalence.

Raghu

24th February 2005, 08:01 PM

1. How many Athmas are there in the whole universe? Infinite!

3. Are there more than one Athma? Are there more than one Rohit within your sub consciousness?

4. What is the difference between consciousness, awareness, “Brahman”, Athma, Soul, Self, God?

Consciousness = Athma

At one place Raghu says there are infinite Athmas/Awareness/ Consciousness and then he contradicts and says: Are there more than one Rohit? Suggesting as one.

Raghu forgets that apart from Rohit, there is Raghu, Shakthiprabha. Anthony, Salman and billions others and they all have their own Athmas/Awareness/ Consciousness, different form each other. If it is one then we all must be conscious/aware of the same thing and there should be no contradiction whatsoever. But that is not what the reality says, we all have our own consciousness/awareness which leads us to different world-views and opinions, and most of the time with sever disagreements, leading to clashes.

Sorry Raghu you definitely seem to have confused your “Self” with numbers. Please try again. :D

Sorry , Rohit, you seems to be confused words here rather than numbers, ok, let me explain once again.

I said there are infinite number of athmas in the loga(universe), a cat , a dog, or fish, every living entities has ONE athma, which explains that Rohit's material body has one athma, now if you count the number of perishable entities in the Loga(Universe), you would have an infinite amount of atmas wouldn't you, dear rohit? :D ,

still confused :wink:

Rohit

24th February 2005, 11:34 PM

if you count the number of perishable entities in the Loga(Universe), you would have an infinite amount of atmas wouldn't you, dear rohit? :D
Dear Raghu I don't think I should be confused by your answers at all, simply because I am just reviewing and then re-establishing the sheerness of inconsistencies, contradictions and disagreements among the believers of the same religion. It only shows that there is a serious conflict between what you and many people like you believe and what our friend Pradheep and people like him believe. It also shows that you are not reading and comprehending what Pradheep has been saying up until now, while he is trying harder and harder to align your's and other's thoughts and views with those of his own.

Well, whether there is just a single atma in the entire universe as Pradheep keeps saying, or there are infinite number of atmas or infinite number of bodies filled with their atmas as you and others believe, it only proves one thing very clearly; and that is, “The believers of the same faith do not understand and agree with the fundamentals of their own religious beliefs. How are they going to grasp the contrasting concepts of other religions and acknowledge them?"

The questions you avoided are as follows. Now try answering them, if you can, please! :)

4. What these Athmas are made of?
.
.
7. How many bodies/vessels are filled with this Athma? (You have just answered this)
8. Do these Athmas lick out or get liberated from the bodies if there are holes in the body? If, no, why?
9. Where does in the body the Athma reside?
10. How many litres of Athma is there in an average human body
11. Does Athma weigh? What is its specific mass density (i.e. gm/litre or kg/litre etc.)?
:D

buddha_brixton

25th February 2005, 06:02 AM

Dear Mr/Ms Rohit,

9. Where does in the body the Athma reside?
10. How many litres of Athma is there in an average human body
11. Does Athma weigh? What is its specific mass density (i.e. gm/litre or kg/litre etc.)?

You might find the answers to your questions @ the following URL or the film 21 grams

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

from the URL;

The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat.

During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come.

At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.

This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds. The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss.

Sudhaama

25th February 2005, 06:26 AM

Rohit

//The believers of the same faith do not understand and agree with the fundamentals of their own religious beliefs...//

Yes. You are exactly Correct 100%... That is the problem with the Hindus... Not their Religion

In several Foreign countries when I meet people of different Faiths... in a Get-together... I used to wonder how some educated Hindus even... reply to Non-Hindus in an confusive manner... finally becoming a Laughing-stock due to their sheer Ignorance even on the Fundamentals of their own Religion.

By God's grace I could answer them with the limited means of their accessibility in a convincing manner especially more several cases while I was in Saudi-arabia as also in USA.

//How are they going to grasp the contrasting concepts of other religions and acknowledge them?"//

Yes... That is How others are able to fool... the Hindus Ignorant of their Funamentals even.

No doubt all the World-Religions are Great.... But... the most interesting Point is...

... that there are several Questions inconsistent and Self-contrary in their Mode of Beliefs and the Manner of Faiths...

.. and the Pity is that their Head- Preachers even are unable to reply....

... because...of their Gospels themselves being INCOMPLETE.... and so..

... Unable to Answer a Commoner's Question on the Rudimentary Factors of Religion for Life ....like...

(1) Does God Exist? How to Believe it... that it does and will do good to me?

(2) Is Religion Necessary? Why should I worship God? And follow any Religion at all?

(3) Is God Partial..? If Not... Why one Born poor... and some other Contrary... Why varying degrees?

(4) God is a Sadist... Otherwise... Why the Calamities and Undue Natural Havocs Accidents and all?

(5) What Happens after Death?... Have I to do anything about it? Why?

Whereas... there ARE convincing ANSWERS in the Hindu VAEDHIC RELIGION ONLY ...

.. in a Non-Bombastic Non-Religious Language... in a simple commoners means of perception....

//The questions you avoided are as follows. Now try answering them, if you can, please!// :

//4. What these Athmas are made of?//

"Aathmaa" or the so called Created-Soul ... has No shape or Size of its own. It is in the Absract forms of Ruling Power concealed within a Body or Vehicle... similar to Electricity, Magnetism and the like. As the Electricity energises an Engine with a Mechanism to function in a particular manner, the Aathma activates the Body dwelling in.
.
//8. Do these Athmas lick out or get liberated from the bodies if there are holes in the body? If, no, why?//

There is an explanation that the Aathma / Soul... can leave the Body at any time... if and when so commanded.... through any one of the Nine Holes of the Human-Body. but it does not necessitate for exit or entry. It can enter or exit directly through any tip of theBody... similar to Electricity.

//9. Where does in the body the Athma reside?//

It is all pervasive throughout the Body... that is why wherever in the Body we get pain... the whole Body reacts.... especially due to a Hit or an accident.

But the Key-Central Fulcrum of the Aathma / Soul is stabilised in the Frontal-Brain just behind the Fore-Head. and is concentrated ... at the point just behind the Centre in between the Eye-Brows... where we keep Pottu / Vibhoothi / Naamam or the like Holy marks of Divinity prominently. Meditation through this Point is preferably and strongly advocated by Bhagawad-Geetha.

//10. How many litres of Athma is there in an average human body//

It is Not a Liquid Nor Solid. but an Abstract-Power. It does not have any measure of Quantitative Content .... similar to Electricity.

//11. Does Athma weigh? What is its specific mass density (i.e. gm/litre or kg/litre etc.)?//

Answered above. Aathma has No weight nor Content nor it can be drenched nor burnt. It can enter and exit any Building or even a Fort... similar to Electrical and Radio-Sound-waves.

In Brief it is a Power... Activating and Governing the Body-Mechanism

... Its name is the Name of the Person it dwels in.

When we say ... the Kamaraj's Body was carried by the Gun-carriage... means ...

... who is Kamaraj...? It denotes his Soul / Aathma / Spirit !!!

pradheep

25th February 2005, 09:49 AM

Dear Rohit
Thanks for highlighting "RUU" , RRU and RRR. Let me make clear that I always said RRR and still say the same. The confusion for you is that you have misunderstood what Advaita is. Not only yo, a lot of the people too misunderstand.

|There are four terms that you should be clear about.

Satyam, mithya, Thuccha and Maya.

Satyam is real, that which exist and independant of anything. Hope you have no doubt about this.

Mithya , that which is dependant of some thing else. Example Pot and clay. Clay is not dependant on anything and so it is real, which means it is there always, past present and future. Pot is dependant on clay. It was not a pot yesterday and today it is and tomorrow it will not be. It has a transient existance. So Pot is a form and so Mithya. people like you mistake Mithya for Maya. Sankara says Brahma Sathyam and Jagan Mithya. which means Brahman (consciousness) is real and Jagath the physical world is Mithya. He does not say Jagath is maya, he says it is Mithya. Now what is the difference between Mithya and Maya?.

If you cannot distinguish between Real (sathyam) and unreal (mithya), then you are in illusion. This illusion is called maya. So the inability to distinguish the Real (sathyam) is Maya.

what is Tuchha then. Tuchha means non-existant. example like Horse horn. Horse is real and so is Horn. But horse horn is unreal meaning thuccha ,but not mithya.

So Your RRR and RRU and all your concepts does not hold light in Advaita. vedanta is much more deeperthan what you can imagine.

Now , the same applies to our body. Our sense organs and the body are Mithya, which does not mean that it is non-existant, but means they are not independant. They are dependant on something else. The body is also not tuchha. Thinking that our body is real (sathyam) which means self independant is illusion (maya). Our body is not real (sathyam) but Mithya and we are living in the illusion (maya). What is the reality|? The consciosuness principle is the real nature of us and not this body. I will nowexplain the cosnciousness , awareness and coma .... if you understand adviatic explaintation of these terms. |I will proceed only if you are clear in these four terms. Otherwise you willnot understand consciousness, awareness and mind.

pradheep

25th February 2005, 10:37 AM

Dear Sakthiprabha Raghu and Sudhaama and Rohit,

Confusion and contradictions comes when we don’t experience but talk through bookish knowledge and when the understanding is not holistic. Please excuse me if these above words in any way hurt you.

There is only one Atma (consciousness). Our friend Rohit have asked a beautiful question that if Atma is one how come we all experience it differently. Thank you Rohit for your brilliant thought provoking question.

Sorry for bringing an example because you have not experienced your thoughts to know Consciousness. |(Remember your own Buddha had transcended thoughts to get enlightenment and so don’t call me a schizophrenic for transcending thoughts to know the reality). So without examples you cannot understand what I write. A radio gives sounds of music and other sounds. A bulb gives light and heat, a television also gives light and sound. A fan brings about wind flow, a computer helps me to type this post and so on. Now all these are Mithya, which means that they cannot function independently. They require something, electricity. This electricity is the atma(consciousness). It is satya. There can be a 120 volt bulb that gives light in USA and 240 In India. But both require same electricity. There is no USA electricity nor Indian electricity. A radio cannot give light nor does a bulb give sound. why? Because of the equipmental nature. The design of the components expressing the same electricity is different in different equipment. This is similar to same atma in plants, animals, microbes and human beings. There is only one atma. There are not different atmas. There are no different electricities. Only one.

A bulb though connected to the power socket will not give light if its filament's life span has gone (burned). Same is the human body. Though we have consciousness we will not express if our filament dies. Even if the glass is broken the bulb will not function. The same is our human body. Any damage to the vital organs will result in the death of the expression of consciousness, but the consciousness (atma) is never born and never dies. The electricity never dies even if the bulb's filament burns out or the glass is broken.

what is maya?. Is the bulb an illusion? Is the light an illusion? Is it all maya? No. the bulb exist, the light exists. But there is the illusion (maya|) that the bulb is what gives the light. No it just expresses electricity. Without the electricity the bulb is of no use.

It is an irony that a group of bulbs discussing does Electricity exists? One bulb tells there is electricity (god) other bulbs laugh and mock the bulb and ask for proof. Mean while one bulb does not know electricity but believes that electricity is far up in heaven and had send one bulb to save all the other bulbs and will take to heaven. One bulb threatens to destroy bulbs which does not call electricity by the name it calls it as the "energizer". Alas, without getting proof some bulbs remain skeptic. But there is one old bulb that tells to look inside to find the electricity. That which helps them to give light is the electricity which can never be seen or shown as a proof. So like these bulbs we are discussing does God (electricity) exists?

So please friends do not confuse without understanding the Great Ancient Rishi's who have understood the mystery of this whole cosmos and life. If we think they were wrong it is because of our lack of our understanding and not their fault. I will try my best to explain all your doubts. You don’t need to depend on this pradheep for that. Because like pradheep, you are that same conscious principle. If a dull headed pradheep can understand the ancient rishi's I am sure you people well educated and well reads can easily understand. What you need is just to purify your minds and transcend your thoughts and you will see your inner light. That light is the source for all this knowledge. |This source of knowledge is in each and every one of us. Why not use it. What a great loss of living and dying without knowing your own "True nature", Atma, the consciousness.

Rohit

25th February 2005, 01:20 PM

Dear Pradheep,

As I told you, first you chose RUU, then RRU (I have posted the evidence of both) and now you have chosen RRR. Irrespective of what you choose, only the first R is for your "God" and the second R being the cognition possessed by and within whoever possesses it, in your case it is “God”. If you choose RUU or RRU as your Advaitic God “Barhman” then God and Physical World becomes part of the same entity (Advaita, no distinction between the two), the only difference between RUU and RRU is that the first lacks the identification of who possesses cognition. Whether RUU or RRU, both are disproved as before. Now if you choose the third R for the Physical World as Real, you are declaring that it (and humans becomes part of the Physical World) are separately created, the rest of your terminology becomes irrelevant because Physical World represents an separate entity. In that case you are falling into Dualism/Dvaita and "Creationism"; and talking about “Intelligent Designer” ID, which is also disproved. So, whether RUU, RRU or RRR, all three are thoroughly disproved. Only thing is you are unable to distinguish what each R means.

Sorry Pradheep, you have lost the complete argument for your God it in the worst possible manner, as I warned you. :lol:

Shakthiprabha.

25th February 2005, 03:16 PM

Sudhama,

Thanks for offering to help. I do belong to the CURIOUS KIND, who has doubts, AND THEREFORE REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND IN GOD(as of now). U can see, I am the only person who has voted for "believing in EVOLUTION AND GOD" ..so called cat on the wall state I am in. :)

////4. What these Athmas are made of?//

"Aathmaa" or the so called Created-Soul ... has No shape or Size of its own. It is in the Absract forms of Ruling Power concealed within a Body or Vehicle... similar to Electricity, Magnetism and the like. As the Electricity energises an Engine with a Mechanism to function in a particular manner, the Aathma activates the Body dwelling in. //

I am tired of hearing time and again COMPARITIVE EXAMPLES to explain atma. or consciousness. I feel rohit has a point in asking...

By the way Shakthiprabha, if you don’t "know"; EXISTENCE itself is not a predicate or property, unless the expressed “entity” has some perceptual/factual value.

Can some one sudhama/pradeep/ragu, TELL US without comparative abstract example WHAT IS EXISTENCE. If I say, existence is experienced because of pancha bootha, devoid of it IT WOULD BE LOST...Would I eb wrong?

pradeep,

I would reawd ur posts..soon..

Raghu

25th February 2005, 04:26 PM

In several Foreign countries when I meet people of different Faiths... in a Get-together... I used to wonder how some educated Hindus even... reply to Non-Hindus in an confusive manner... finally becoming a Laughing-stock due to their sheer Ignorance even on the Fundamentals of their own Religion.

By God's grace I could answer them with the limited means of their accessibility in a convincing manner especially more several cases while I was in Saudi-arabia as also in USA.

//How are they going to grasp the contrasting concepts of other religions and acknowledge them?"//

Yes... That is How others are able to fool... the Hindus Ignorant of their Funamentals even.

No doubt all the World-Religions are Great.... But... the most interesting Point is...

... that there are several Questions inconsistent and Self-contrary in their Mode of Beliefs and the Manner of Faiths...

.. and the Pity is that their Head- Preachers even are unable to reply....

... because...of their Gospels themselves being INCOMPLETE.... and so..

... Unable to Answer a Commoner's Question on the Rudimentary Factors of Religion for Life ....like...

(1) Does God Exist? How to Believe it... that it does and will do good to me?

(2) Is Religion Necessary? Why should I worship God? And follow any Religion at all?

(3) Is God Partial..? If Not... Why one Born poor... and some other Contrary... Why varying degrees?

(4) God is a Sadist... Otherwise... Why the Calamities and Undue Natural Havocs Accidents and all?

(5) What Happens after Death?... Have I to do anything about it? Why?

Whereas... there ARE convincing ANSWERS in the Hindu VAEDHIC RELIGION ONLY ...

Thank you sudhama, Hinduism is and was far better than science, Our Rishi(ancient scientists) made many predictions this mundane American & British scientists are predicting now :lol:

Rohit, when did the americans came to the know the existance of the solar system, was it mentioned in the bible? :wink: :? , in our Veda Puranas, Raja vedas(religious scriptures), dating back to at least 5,000 years ago!, so all the ignorant material scientists in this material world, please have littele knowledge about Hindusim, before jumping up and down :(

.. in a Non-Bombastic Non-Religious Language... in a simple commoners means of perception....

//The questions you avoided are as follows. Now try answering them, if you can, please!// :

//4. What these Athmas are made of?//

"Aathmaa" or the so called Created-Soul ... has No shape or Size of its own. It is in the Absract forms of Ruling Power concealed within a Body or Vehicle... similar to Electricity, Magnetism and the like. As the Electricity energises an Engine with a Mechanism to function in a particular manner, the Aathma activates the Body dwelling in.
.
//8. Do these Athmas lick out or get liberated from the bodies if there are holes in the body? If, no, why?//

There is an explanation that the Aathma / Soul... can leave the Body at any time... if and when so commanded.... through any one of the Nine Holes of the Human-Body. but it does not necessitate for exit or entry. It can enter or exit directly through any tip of theBody... similar to Electricity.

//9. Where does in the body the Athma reside?//

It is all pervasive throughout the Body... that is why wherever in the Body we get pain... the whole Body reacts.... especially due to a Hit or an accident.

But the Key-Central Fulcrum of the Aathma / Soul is stabilised in the Frontal-Brain just behind the Fore-Head. and is concentrated ... at the point just behind the Centre in between the Eye-Brows... where we keep Pottu / Vibhoothi / Naamam or the like Holy marks of Divinity prominently. Meditation through this Point is preferably and strongly advocated by Bhagawad-Geetha.

//10. How many litres of Athma is there in an average human body//

It is Not a Liquid Nor Solid. but an Abstract-Power. It does not have any measure of Quantitative Content .... similar to Electricity.

//11. Does Athma weigh? What is its specific mass density (i.e. gm/litre or kg/litre etc.)?//

Answered above. Aathma has No weight nor Content nor it can be drenched nor burnt. It can enter and exit any Building or even a Fort... similar to Electrical and Radio-Sound-waves.

In Brief it is a Power... Activating and Governing the Body-Mechanism

... Its name is the Name of the Person it dwels in.

When we say ... the Kamaraj's Body was carried by the Gun-carriage... means ...

This is exactly what I was explaining to Rohit, Atma is the energry(Shakthi) that drives this perishable body, just like a driver driving a car, now you decide Rohit, how you can measure an athma and it's density, again and again, you are talking in terms of material nature like measurements, size and density!

I have never skipped your questions rohit :wink:

now I will come back to the questions you have skipped ,

1) How much air is in the universe?
2) How much water is in this universe?
3) What is the size of this universe?

in Gita it is mentioned that 8.5 million perishable bodies were around 5,000 years ago, now did the have any discovery channels, those days to investigate such aspects :lol: ,

another example of Scientific Hindusim, it is said the 5 elements of the erath (Panch bhoothas) like Earth, water, fire, air and space are within every perishable bodies,

Water resides as blood in our bodies
Fire our stomach burns like fire when we are hungry
Air we breathe
Earth we turn into ashes, when we burnt or into mud when we are buried
Space, I forgot this one, perhaps sudhama or Pradeep can explain this.

it is so true, that Hinduism has been taken by individuals and performed rituals according to their own beliefs rather than following the Gita, that's because many Hindus have not read the Gita , which is very sad, you do not find this none sense in Christians and Muslims, every muslims I know of have read the Quran, hats off :thumbsup:

Rohit, last but least please note, I NEVER CONTRADICTED WITH MY VIEWS, I ALWAYS STAND BY THEM

Raghu

25th February 2005, 04:33 PM

So please friends do not confuse without understanding the Great Ancient Rishi's who have understood the mystery of this whole cosmos and life. If we think they were wrong it is because of our lack of our understanding and not their fault. I will try my best to explain all your doubts. You don’t need to depend on this pradheep for that. Because like pradheep, you are that same conscious principle. If a dull headed pradheep can understand the ancient rishi's I am sure you people well educated and well reads can easily understand. What you need is just to purify your minds and transcend your thoughts and you will see your inner light. That light is the source for all this knowledge. |This source of knowledge is in each and every one of us. Why not use it. What a great loss of living and dying without knowing your own "True nature", Atma, the consciousness.

Dhool, well said Pradheep :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Raghu

25th February 2005, 04:39 PM

:wink: Exclusive To Rohit

What exactly was Lord Budha doing under the tree, meditation was it not?, oh, I see and which religion does meditation and Yoga Orginate from Rohit?

I think you know the answer :wink:

Certainly not from the Americans or the British :rotfl: :lol:

pradheep

25th February 2005, 06:31 PM

Dear Rohit

Now if you choose the third R for the Physical World as Real, you are declaring that it (and humans becomes part of the Physical World) are separately created, the rest of your terminology becomes irrelevant because Physical World represents an separate entity.

Can You explain it more in detail. Rohit ,I know your Ego (of losing) would not allow to appreciate the truth what I wrote. That is okay. But truth remains the same. Can You comment on your famous Budhha's words "Everything is soonya, nothing exists"?

Raghu

25th February 2005, 06:47 PM

Budhha's words "Everything is soonya, nothing exists"?

and what is that translated in English, rohit?, everything in this mtaerial world is Maya (Illusion) :D

Shakthiprabha.

25th February 2005, 10:59 PM

pradeep/sudhama/raghu,

can u comment on

//// "Everything is soonya, nothing exists"?////

IF nothing exists, then existence itself DOES NOT EXIST (in the ultimate level)

But one more thing I want ROHIT to talk on is...

science says...."something cannot be created from
nothing" ( or similar to that)

IF that holds good, so much created of assuming
SOONYA OR NOTHINGNESS, then that nothing is SO POWERFUL
WHICH IS BEYOND US TO COMPREHEND BUT BIGGER THAN ALL RI GHT?

I am sure nobody is gonna condemn me for arguing this
way and thta way. Its just I am still undecided. :(

pradheep

25th February 2005, 11:25 PM

Dear Shakthiprabha
You have the right to express to the same degree as we all do. Your life is to express your true Self. Understand that through your agnostic thought you would ultimately see the truth. find out who is the agnostic in you.

Regarding the comment you asked me....
There is nothing means then, who is that who tells there is nothing. Even that person is also nothing?. this is soonya vada which hold no water. Advaita stands on the rock foundation that one can deny anything but one cannot deny onself. That which cannot be denied is Brahman, the consciousness or in layman language God.

The denier that denies, can not be denied.............

Rohit

26th February 2005, 12:58 AM

"Aathmaa" .......similar to Electricity, Magnetism and the like.
It can enter or exit directly through any tip of theBody... similar to Electricity. Aathma has No weight .......Electrical and Radio-Sound-waves.
Electricity is a flow of electrons in conducting materiels, called conductors. When both the positive and negative rates at which electrons flow through a conductor is altered, electromagnetic field is generated. While, magnetic field is generated by the alignment of magnetic dipoles in magnetic meterials or passing electric current through a conductor. Megnetic dipoles are formed by specific electron spins in atoms. So, all in all, electricity and magnetism is a poor analogy, essentially validating nothing in your argument, I am afraid. :D

Rohit

26th February 2005, 01:45 AM

It can enter and exit any Building or even a Fort... similar to Electrical and Radio-Sound-waves. Atma is the energry(Shakthi)
Dear Raghu, read my reply to Sudhamma.

1) How much air is in the universe?

A very, very tiny fraction of the whole universe!

The atmosphere on earth, which is what we call air, reduces to almost nothing at an altitude of 500km from the earth’s surface. The space between planets and between the sun and planets contains no air, but just vacuum. There is no air between stars. There is no air between galaxies. So, there is infinitely small % of air in the entire universe.

How much water is in this universe?

Less than air, in terms of volume. Simply because water contains two of the elements that are contained in air, i.e. Hydrogen and oxygen –H2O

2) What is the size of this universe?

Dear Raghu, only a thirteen years old kid would ask such question. Anyway, I will still answer your question by giving you the URL links where you can find out yourself.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971124x.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0310571
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4314

Dear Raghu/Pradheep

If you both are coming to the conclusion that Atma is an Indian term for energy like electricity, magnetism, or the nuclear energy used in building atomic bombs to blast millions and millions humans off, the burning heat of the Sun used in supporting life on earth. Also the energy that your body generates by converting food into energy to enable you to move, work, act, survive and the same energy that fires neurones in your brain making you feel, see, hear, smell, think, laugh, dream, cry, be happy, get confused, delude, lie, cheat, malfunctions of which take you in coma, suffer Brain Deaths, become unconscious/unaware. The same energy that make people use in acts of robing killing, raping, murdering and such evil acts etc. Then I have no problems whatsoever, simply because science too says our body is powered by energy, but that is not what science call it God, it is just indifferent, insentient, dumb energy and nothing to do with God. and that is what I have proved here, it is energy and not God that powers everything, including creates matter that exists in the entire universe, including dark matter, and that is not an illusion or maya as you used to say, but never came back on that.

In that case it only proves that the URR - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World, which is the only format that is true and its the true base for all scientific inquiry, the remaining three, out of possible four formats are false. They simply reflect the delusions and psychotisms generated by the misfiring of neural energy in the brain.

The remaining three formats which are proved to be false are listed below.

URU - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World
RRU - Real God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World
RRR - Real God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World

Thank you for confirming what I have already proved many times, that is God of any form or function doesn't/cannot exist. :D

Rohit

26th February 2005, 01:56 AM

Budhha's words "Everything is soonya, nothing exists"?
and what is that translated in English, rohit?, everything in this mtaerial world is Maya (Illusion) :D

Dear Raghu/Pradheep

This is URU format - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World, which is in total conradiction with Pradheep's new selection of RRR, which is already disproved.:lol:

Rohit

26th February 2005, 02:11 AM

science says...."something cannot be created from nothing" ( or similar to that)

Dear Shakthiprabha,

Quantum science proves that we don’t have to go through the cause and effect for the creation of matter and so for the universe. Quantum fluctuations in space can generate pairs of matters and antimatters out of "Nothing". The energy contained in matter and antimatter are of opposite nature and when matter and antimatter combine, the net energy reduces to zero i.e. into “Nothing” so there is no need for Gods to come into existence by themselves just to create universe and life. , as universe came into existence uncaused and so did the life and they evolve from very basic forms, as science proves.

So my proof comes to prove that what believers believe as their "God" is “Nothing”. However, they can believe whatever they wish, but reality is, Universe came into existence uncaused and so did the life and they continuously evolve from very basic forms, starting from “Nothing”. :)

Rohit

26th February 2005, 02:47 AM

Can You explain it more in detail. Rohit
Yes sure. :)
Lets us analyse your concerning statements, step by step.

Clay is not dependent on anything and so it is real, which means it is there always, past present and future.This is yet one more example of completely wrong analogy used for fallacious explanations. This is so, simply because,

1. Clay is a mixture of so many ceramic materials; and everything is not clay.
2. The formation of clay is dependent on so many ceramic materials
3. The formation of clay is dependent on external agents such as air, water etc.
4. The formation of ceramic molecules is dependent on the structures of its constituent atoms
5. The formation of air, water etc. is again dependent on their constituent atoms.
6. The formation of constituent atoms are dependent on fundamental particles
7. The process of clay formation from theses fundamental constituent components listed above follows a long and complex natural process involving many external processes and factors such as thermo-chemical reactions and atomic bonding, water, air, temperature, heat, time space etc.

So the clay is not independent as falsely portrayed by Pradheep, it is essentially and necessarily dependent on so many, but less complex, matters along with long sequences of lower level natural activities and processes.

Now in creating/designing a pot from clay, which, as proved above, is not independent, one will have to find a potter. The potter himself cannot create clay, he just shapes and moulds the available natural clay and follows yet another but different process using so many other artificial resources such as a turning wheel and knife, baking oven etc. and many natural resources such as water, air heat/temperature etc. Only then a potter can finish his design and make pot as a finished product

So, it clearly proves the fallacy of presumed independence of clay, resulting form utter ignorance. Also it proves the clear involvement of dual entities i.e. Dualism/Dvaita

1. Clay – i.e. Raw material/Matter
2. Potter – i.e. the Potter as the pot designer/maker

And the cognition equivalent is demonstrated by the potter's cognitive process of designing/making pots from sparately and naturally available clay.

What is Tuchha then. Tuchha means non-existent. Examples like Horse horn. Horse is real and so is Horn. But horse horn is unreal meaning touch, but not mithya.
The cow and horns on cow’s head, both are real; and forms and functions as a single entity. When one talks about cow, one never says a cow and horns, but may say a cow with horns. So, here both cow is real, nothing is unreal or mythya when one calls it cow, which may or may not have grown horns on her head. Now a cow with horns and the same cow without horns would create an absurd situation. If someone cuts the cow's horns off then the horns would no longer remain part of cow. The cow may continue to live without horns but the horns stop growing and performing their intended functions, essentially they are dead horns, useful for nothing. If the horns stay on cow’s head, the horns continue their intended functions and go with the cow, wherever the cow goes. The cow and horns are not distinct from each other, the cow remains as a single entity, with her horns.

Similarly if the Physical World is treated as a wasteful manifestation of God (implying now "God" is with a body), the situation still retains it as a single entity with the extensions of its wasteful growths, becoming maya/illusion/mythya , as implied by Pradheep but he doen’t state anything for whom these "extensions" become maya/illusion/mythiya? Clearly, it can be no other than “God” itself, as there is no one else other than “God” itself to see his own wasteful growths (maya/illusion/mythiya)

Now, the same applies to our body. Our sense organs and the body are Mithya, which does not mean that it is non-existent, but means they are not independent.
Where did the body come from? From nowhere, other than the wasteful menifestation of "God" itself. Now, no matter how many twists and turns you take and switch formats, it is going to be only your “God” who thinks its is a body and not “God”, creating "logically explosive contradictions", proving the utter falsity of the Advaitic model, mixed with Dualism/Dvaita as proved many times before and yet one more time here.

Also, please read my reply to both Raghu and you above in conjunction with this. I know it is too painful for you to read the proof and absorb the defeat, for the proof of which I provided you with the links.

Dear Padheep, I have disproved both RRU and RRR many times before and I have recenty disproved RRR under the arguments for "Intellgent Designer" ID. :D

hehehewalrus

26th February 2005, 03:04 AM

First day in my company I was a greenhorn fresh out of college. My manager was showing me around the cubicles.
There were inspirational printouts and humongous amounts of mumbo-jumbo stuck all over the cubicles :

HOW TO BE HAPPY....yada yada yada ...
ENJOY YOUR WORK ...yada yada yada ....
BE POSITIVE...yada yada yada...

Below one poster, someone had scribbled in dirty handwriting with a blunt pencil :
Cut the crap. Just DO it.

Lesson learnt in the days that followed!

Been-there-done-that Walrus
[Yawns and stretches back atop his high horse watching the puppets spit and curse and twist each others' arms, trying to guess each one's next maneouvre]

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

mellon

26th February 2005, 03:16 AM

yeah, yeah, yeah!

And?????????????????????????? :roll:

Rohit

26th February 2005, 04:02 AM

Dear Pradheep and other God believer friends, who have the same definition of God as Pradheep has chosen, i.e. RRR = Real God, Real Cognition and Real Physical World.

Thank you for selecting the convoluted format for an “intelligent designer” by proposing the definition of your “God”, as a “Creator God/Designer” of the physical world and life as it is, by definition, the God depicted in the RRR format.

Where,

The first R = Creator/Designer God (Just note, as I have said before, the R here is just an entity, it doesn’t have to be personal or otherwise)

The second R = Cognition possessed by and within the God as well as the cognition programmed/created/implanted in various life forms, including humans life by the God

And the third R = Physical World, including life, as separately created by the Creator/Designer God.

An equivalent version of the proof, which I presented earlier to just_hubber, which now applies to your definition too is given below..

First, let me make this clear that the proponents of creationism like Michael Behe have admitted, in his book “Darwin's Black Box” that “on a small scale, Darwin’s theory has triumphed”. In other words, overwhelming evidences of evolution forced Behe to acknowledge that things do evolve, very reluctantly though.

When a molecule is proposed, which creationists believe to be irreducibly complex, there are plenty of evidences of the occurrences of molecular evolution by gene duplication, which drastically dilutes the creationists’ arguments of irreducible complexity. Creationists forget the fundamentals of the evolution theory, which boldly and very rightly proclaims that once you accepts microevolution, macroevolution comes free, and then, there is no escape, pushing the “intelligent design” concept right back to the very beginning.

Such states of affairs leave creationists with little armoury for backing their delusional claims. Moreover, the creationists’ claim for “intelligent design” using paraphrases such as, complexity of life, irreducibly complex systems, minuscule probability of life by chance, unlikely sequence of events etc. completely collapses by its own criteria, as proved below.

Let us normalise what is called as complexity - used by creationists to back their claim of “intelligent design” - with reference to the complexity of the supposed “intelligent designer”; then the resulting complexity for the supposed “intelligent designer” would equate to 1. Now this would allow one to map the entire complexity range between 0 and 1, starting with no complexity whatsoever to which all irreducibly complex objects must reduce to for evolution to remain valid; to the ultimate complexity of the supposed “intelligent designer” against which all other complexities are normalised.

Now let us evaluate how much water does the “intelligent design” claim hold.

According to “intelligent design” criteria, as the complexity “C” increases from 0 to 1, the probability P of something as complex coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution would decrease from 1 to 0 by default, otherwise the whole argument for the “intelligent design” collapses.

Now what these creationist oafs do is, they apply the product of these two quantities and derive the improbability IP of something as complex as life, coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution and then treat life as having an ultimate complexity.

In other words; they use IP = C * P as an argument to back “intelligent design”

Now let us carefully considers two boundary conditions: One at [C = 0, P = 1] and the other at [C = 1, P = 0]

At [C = 0, P = 1]

Putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 0 * 1 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, which is exactly the same as specified for the first boundary condition i.e. [C = 0, P = 1]

At [C = 1, P = 0]

Again, putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 1 * 0 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, but the result is in total contradiction with the originally specified condition for the second boundary i.e. [C = 1, P = 0]

So, one could clearly figure it out and see how creationists cheat and produce fallacious claims based on probabilistic fallacies. I have clearly demonstrated how creationists falsely derive “1” probability when the actual/original probability is “0”.

Even an ordinary teenage kid, when equipped with some basic knowledge on probability, could figure out the fallacies used by creationists in order to entertain their delusional claims used as wish fulfilment and support their beliefs in religious texts, when confronted with puzzles and complexities that create insecurity.

This proves it again that the probability for the existence of an “intelligent designer” or "God" as depicted in the RRR format is zero “0”

Rohit

26th February 2005, 04:39 AM

who is that who tells there is nothing. Even that person is also nothing?

Then, who is that which denies the existence of “God”, it can be no other than “God” itself. And precisely here where it creates logically explosive contradictions. Both P, [AND] NOT P cannot be "True". Whenever such contradicting conditions arise, it is known as "Logically explosive contradictions" and tells us that the premise (the model/format) is false.

That is why I said it earlier in response to Pradheep's contradicting post- Replacing all human being by "God" in Pradheep's post that:

By demonstrating the sheerness of contradictions everywhere, our friend Pradheep himself has proved that such a psychotic God cannot/doesn’t exist except in psychotic minds.

To which, as I said earlier, he would never respond and he didn't, precisely as I predicted and said. He didn't responded to so many other questions and points I have raised, which only proves that he is stuck in "Explosive Contradictions" and that is why Pradheep keeps switching from RUU to RRU and from RRU to RRR and he will keep running in circles, switching formats as he has done it in past, but never succeeded in proving any of them but failed miserably as he just did that gain :lol:

pradheep

2nd March 2005, 04:27 AM

Dear Rohit
You have taken everything literally. You cannot be compared even to a kid because a kid is innocent not stupid. The clay, pot, horn horse was an example given.

When I tell you "A" as in apple, you start questioning me where is "A" in an apple, Apple is made of carbohydrates, a little fat and a little protein and 70% water etc etc and also add that "A" is not red in color and not round etc etc.

So when I said about the clay and the pot, instead of taking it as an example you take it literally. You are no different from people who think Hindu God is an elephant faced half human big belly creature thirsty for milk and drinks milk through all stone images and creates everything for fun.

You are no different from someone who thinks God to be an old man with a white beard sitting on a golden throne and creating people like toys and sadistically send atheists and non-believers to hell and beleivers who can rape and kill but still will be send to heaven just because they him priase of him.

Now you come up with this Buddhist psychotic thought that everything arises from nothing. Soon you will justify buddhist monks bringing out apples from air.

I can imagine how you would have crucified a religious person who would have told that everything came out of nothing. You bring out the disproved matter and antimatter crap here. Antimatter came out of nothing and where did matter come out?. That also according to your theory should come out of nothing.

Now look at who can laugh their stomach out reading your theory of nothing.

Badri

2nd March 2005, 04:36 AM

I haven't truly followed this conversation, so perhaps I may not perhaps have a real right to comment, but it seems to me that it is to dissolve such raging controversies that the "Syadvada" of the Jain philisophy was invented.

I will quote it here to the extent I remember...maybe someone who knows better can help.

May be it is - syat asti

May be it is not - syat nasti

May be it is and it is not - syat asti nasti

May be it is inexpressible - syat avaktavyah

May it is and is inexpressible - syat asti ca avaktavyah

May be it is not and is inexpressible - syat nasti ca avaktavyh

May be it is and it is not and is inexpressible -syat asti ca nasti ca avaktavyah

They have actually covered the entire gamut of possibilities...Maybe a thing is or maybe it is not...maybe it is and it is not...wow!

Hats of to those that thought of this mother of all argument squelchers!!

Applying this Syadavada, how does it matter? To he who says it is, it is. And to she who says it is not, it is not! And if you wish to be the proverbial cat on the wall, guess what, there is provision for that too!!

Rohit

2nd March 2005, 08:32 PM

The clay, pot, horn horse was an example given.

Pradheep it was you who gave incompatible and invalid examples for which I have told you and others not use such fallacious examples that cannot be related to the original issue. If they are examples of kids by a kid (you), you got the reply in kids (your) languege, thinking that it might hepl you to see your own kiddish problems.

If it just an abstract entity I have given the irrefutable proof treating it purely as an entity (which you have now acknowledged) rejecting all possibilities. It is you who are stuck like a dogmatic kid with your invalid fallacious examples, but not me, I have provided the proof, rejecting the “God” you have tried to project with various formats, irrespective of your irrelevant examples, treating it just as an entity,

Now if you fail to grasp any of that, it is none of my problem, but it would only prove your dogmatic kiddish attitude.

So, please don't try to cover your washed-up defeat with AAC (Approach Avoidance Conflicts) and "Dissonance" removal. :lol: I have clearly given an irefutable proof that God of any "Form" or "Function" (I hope your kidish mind would at least understand the meaning of an entity) as I have clearly stated it 1000s of times.

Pradheep please grow up and behave like an adult and not as a dogmatic kid :lol:

Rohit

2nd March 2005, 08:48 PM

Poor pradheep is crying like a kid :cry: and got terribly upset and sad :( of his yet another washed-up defeat. :notworthy:

Dear Pradheep, there is no need to cry and get upset. Just remember “God” you or anyone else prescribe in any format, is just an entity. You or anyone else may define "the entity" in any way you or anyone else wish; my proof irrefutably rejects all of them. So, please try to recover from the repeated washed-up defeats and grow up from your dogmatism and stop crying and then:

Attempt to refute my main proof.

That is an open challenge for you and other belivers.

Take up the challenge, othewise accept your defeat gracefully and then disappear from here not to come up with such idiotic arguments ever again. 8)
:wave:

Raghu

3rd March 2005, 07:55 PM

Rohit, :D

Your arguments to prove that GOD does not exists, using some formula is simply insane, plus you have copied and pasted your post every time to prove something, repeating a lie 100 times does not make it true! :lol: Formula can not prove every thing in this world my friend, so how can our material formula be used to verify the existence of the Paramatha, Using formula Can you prove the existence of your Athma (Consciousness), Feelings, suffering, emotions,.., one’s knowledge, one’s imagination etc. ?

Do you at least admit ‘Known is a drop, unknown is an Ocean’ proverb? Think about it, our knowledge is so tiny, that it can not be measured by any scientific term, do you at least admit that in this material world, there are billions of better intellectuals than you :wink: , what I don’t understand is when, we can not even know 1% of everything about this material world, how do we dare question the creator, on what terms are we able to understand or even begin to understand the ultimate Paramatha???

Ok, we will come to mundane science in a minute, but let’s talk about some thing, which cannot be solved by science?

1)Why do humans/animals suffer? Can your science combat this?

I will tell you why, it’s all to do with our ‘poorva genma karma’, your birth is determined upon your deeds of your last life, you are born to enjoy or suffer your previous life’s activities (Karma’s), in material terms, Sir Isaac Newton;'s 2nd law, indicates that,’ For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction’. This was told decades ago in Hinduism dude. :lol:

Take this example, If you eat too much you become fat, if you eat too little you become thin, what ever you indulge your self with this perishable body in this material world, there is an opposite and equal reaction. This is the reason for the suffering of all the ‘Living entities’.

2)Why do all living entities suffer birth, diseases, illness, old age and death?

Material scientist can slow down the process of ageing, but can they stop it? NO way these are the laws of nature. Can we stop death, NO, we can pause it for a while, that’s all we cannot run away from the Ultimate truth, no matter what!

3)Can you tell me why all perishable bodies have the same basics aspects, including Humans?

Human’s eats, a Dog eats
Humans defends, a defends
Human’s mates, a dog mates,
Humans get old, a dog gets old
Humans get illness, a dog gets illness

Only thing that, differentiates humans from other species are our intellectual abilities, but what’s the point of having this , when we can even understand the Creator?

4)Can science Control, human Mind? NO,

But meditation towards the Paramatha can CONTROL your MIND!

Ok, let’s come back to science

1)When was the universe Created? and if you know the answer, how do you know this?, where you there? And why not? why can’t you choose the time and place of your birth?, why can’t you choose your own parents?, and why can’t you choose the body you want. That’s because we all puppets the master is they’re controlling as, just as you control a child.

Ok, last but least, please do not insult Pradheep, :cry: he is a highly intellectual person, plus a scientists :thumbsup: , he realised the truth about life, please Rohit, try and realise the truth your self!

‘The One who knows him self, knows all’.

Phew, that was a long post was it not?

:lol:

Rohit

4th March 2005, 12:18 AM

Can you prove the existence of your Athma (Consciousness), Feelings, suffering, emotions,.., one’s knowledge, one’s imagination etc. ?
how do we dare question the creator, on what terms are we able to understand or even begin to understand the ultimate Paramatha???
Why do humans/animals suffer? Can your science combat this?
Why do all living entities suffer birth, diseases, illness, old age and death?
Can you tell me why all perishable bodies have the same basics aspects, including Humans?
Can science Control, human Mind?
If those questions are the main reasons behind the beliefs in non-existent entities, then they are not valid reasons, simply because the baseless assumption of a supernatural force behind all that, causes lots and lots of contradictions. And also the same questions cause many highly knowledgeable thinkers and intellectuals to reject the existence of God with more powerful reasoning and evidences. Those human conditions simply reveal an indifferent, wasteful and diabolical entity that cannot exit as "God" if it were the original cause of everything (try to grasp this clear fact first). On the other hand, natural evolution explains those human conditions much more rationally and factually, making "God" completely redundant/dispensable :D

When was the universe Created? and if you know the answer, how do you know this?, where you there? And why not? why can’t you choose the time and place of your birth?, why can’t you choose your own parents?Because humans have two eyes, that is the main reason behind all these. :!:

By making arguments such as above, I have demonstrated that by making statements about some known facts should not and cannot be used to validate other fallacious statements either in favour or against something. You and Pradheep have been constantly using such unacceptable fallacies to back your beliefs. Despite me proving believers doing exactly that, believers like you and Pradheep heedlessly carryon presenting such deceitful and false arguments.:banghead:

There is no need to involve creation of universe by an entity, as I have irrefutably proved. If you think your unvalidated, unproven and delusional religious beliefs are more valuable than the verifiable rational knowledge of science and logic, I have no objection whatsoever with that, but that doesn't make them valid arguments or reasons for the belivers to carryon with such baseless, fallacious, contradicting beliefs.

On the other hand, universe can come into existence uncaused and then evolve over billions of years. Science has provided plenty of strong and supporting evidences of evolution that cannot be denied simply because one wants to retain one’s predisposed, dogmatic beliefs. Not only science, there are several other rational and logical ways that clearly reject such beliefs- I have proved them by employing the same means and reasoning that believers use to support their illogical arguments, which is human cognition.

Moreover, unlike religious beliefs, scientific understandings and knowledge is not based on imaginations, they require clear evidences that can be verified universally. A person cannot keep on arguing for 1000s of years about the existence of an non-existent entity, conceptualised/postulated variously by various religions when there is no evidence in support of its existence whatsoever, which only proves them to be something that is simply based on delusional beliefs, propagated by ancient people because they were baffled by the size and owe of the universe of which they completely lacked explanations. :D

Regarding Pradheep or any other believer, I have never started insulting anyone; unless I receive offencive languages form opposite side. Just check who started with portraying people as laymans, kids etc.? In fact, Pradheep receives what he initiates and gives to others. :|

In essence, the fact is:

God begins when situations start to pose severe limitations on individual’s ability to find answers and solve so many puzzles and mysteries surrounding him/her. People with such mental orientations can only go without such imaginative support as far as their thinking guide them and as long as they succeed in achieving their intended goals in an environment they are familiar with and which they have, more or less, taken it for granted.

As things get more complex and go beyond their conceptual grasp, people often find themselves running into unknown territories and find themselves severely handicapped, helpless and they feel insecure under those situations. This is the time when they seek refuge in their imaginative saviour, the God. Psychologically, this serves as the pressure reliever and saves them plunging into panic modes. The temporary transfer of mental stress to an imaginative power allows them to revisit the problem at a later time with composed minds and they frequently succeed in resolving the crisis, building their faith in God even stronger.

As this tendency continues, they rely lesser and lesser on their own efforts and rely more and more on God, who now have occupied a real psychological place in their minds and believed to guide them in crisis. Thus gradually people begin to feel lesser needs to evolve their intellectual abilities and they become more and more dependent on God to solve their problems and guide them in crisis. 8)

he realised the truth about life, please Rohit, try and realise the truth your self!Appealing for someone (Pradheep for instance) that he/she has realised the “truth” about life through what is obviously inconsistent, discrepant, illogical, baseless, invalid, self-deceptive and absurd reasoning, while trying to contemplate that others who have opposite views that are acquired through far higher, rational and valid reasoning are faithless; doesn’t and cannot make Pradheep's and/or your belived "truth" a real "Truth". I am really sorry Raghu, but it is not a real "truth" by any standard, other than a process of "self-deception"

Pradheep has made so many fallacious propositions that violate objectivity; and I have clealy shown them to be so. Most believers, which includes Pradheep, Raghu and many more, believe something to be “True” simply because they are emotionally attached to that belief and desperately want it to be “True” irrespective of the overwhelming evidences and proofs contrary to their beliefs.

When all their hopes fade away, believers initiate others by appealing to their emotions like outrage, hostility, fear, pity, guilt or whatever; and attempt to persuade others to make similar fallacious conclusion without producing any valid evidence or proof. I have produced plenty of evidences throughout the discusssion to show frequent occurrences of such conditions in your, Pradheep's and other believers' arguments.

Dear Raghu, what you want to believe is the same as what Pradheep wants to believe while you both don’t realise that the very base of your belief begs the question, due to the circularity involved, which I have clearly shown and proved many times. Sadly the believers like Pradheep and you keep going round circles without even realising, as the emotions involved in the belief overtake, causing sever heedlessness.

Sorry Raghu, but there is little validity in your arguments, which only proves your predisposed beliefs by which you want/wish “God” of your imaginations to exist, irrespective of the fact that it cannot/doesn’t exist, in any form or function :)

Raghu

4th March 2005, 06:43 PM

Rohit,

I was never using Emotions as a Shield to prove the existence of GOD, I was using Science, but I was just asking if our scientist have any answers to sufferings?

pls answer that

pradheep

4th March 2005, 08:33 PM

My dear Rohit
First let me make clear the same point I used to tell before......we are here not to win or lose. We are here to understand the Truth. Here the truth is , what is God and does god exists?.

It is said that discussions are of four types: Samvaada, Vaada, Jalpa and
Vitanda. See for details here in this link.

http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/ornet/2002-March/003428.html.

I am here not for Jalpa or vidanta but for vaada (samvada).

Okay, now lets come back to the example you took very literally. i will go with your own thought processes.

Clay is a mixture of so many ceramic materials; and everything is not clay.
2. The formation of clay is dependent on so many ceramic materials
3. The formation of clay is dependent on external agents such as air, water etc.
4. The formation of ceramic molecules is dependent on the structures of its constituent atoms
5. The formation of air, water etc. is again dependent on their constituent atoms.
6. The formation of constituent atoms are dependent on fundamental particles
7. The process of clay formation from theses fundamental constituent components listed above follows a long and complex natural process involving many external processes and factors such as thermo-chemical reactions and atomic bonding, water, air, temperature, heat, time space etc.

Now here you are like the upanishad student keep on analysing that everything is depended on some thing. You keep it breaking down to the lowest. But you stopped at a point. Can you go beyond and tell me what is the finally independant "thing" on which everything depends on? To give you a clue and make it clear that "Truth" is not a person (God as conceived as a person), not soul (conceived as a airy substance or light illuminating thing as shown in movies), and not a "thing". what is it then?

blahblah

4th March 2005, 08:39 PM

Good going,guys,we are here just to hear you,go on! :wink: :D

Rohit

4th March 2005, 09:39 PM

what is it then?
Dear Pradheep, it sounds that you have been arguing without reading my proof. Please read my proof carefully and you will see exactly what can come into existence uncaused.

Here is an essential part of the proof.

Let us normalise what is called as complexity - used by creationists to back their claim of “Creation” - with reference to the complexity of the supposed “Creator God”; then the resulting complexity for the supposed “Creator God” would equate to 1. Now this would allow one to map the entire complexity range between 0 and 1, starting with no complexity whatsoever to which all irreducibly complex objects must reduce to for evolution to remain valid; to the ultimate complexity of the supposed “Creator God” against which all other complexities are normalised.

Now let us carefully considers two boundary conditions: One at [C = 0, P = 1] and the other at [C = 1, P = 0]

At [C = 0, P = 1]

Putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 0 * 1 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, which is exactly the same as specified for the first boundary condition i.e. [C = 0, P = 1]

At [C = 1, P = 0]

Again, putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 1 * 0 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, but the result is in total contradiction with the originally specified condition for the second boundary i.e. [C = 1, P = 0]

So, one could clearly figure it out and see how creationists cheat and produce fallacious claims based on probabilistic fallacies. I have clearly demonstrated how creationists falsely derive “1” probability when the actual/original probability is “0”.

Even an ordinary teenage kid, when equipped with some basic knowledge on probability, could figure out the fallacies used by creationists in order to entertain their delusional claims used as wish fulfilment and support their beliefs in religious texts, when confronted with puzzles and complexities that create insecurity.

This proves it again that the probability for the existence of "God" as depicted in the RRR (remember this the format you have selected) format is zero “0”

The other two formats i.e. RUU - Real God, Unreal Cognition and Unreal Physical World and RRU - Real God, Real Cognition and Unreal Physical World are already falsified.

The only format that survives is URR- Unreal God, Real Cognition and Real Physical World. Where the condition (God)[XOR](Physical World) of mutual exclusion truely applies :D

Raghu

4th March 2005, 09:54 PM

what is it then?
Dear Pradheep, it sounds that you have been arguing without reading my proof. Please read my proof carefully and you will see exactly what can come into existence uncaused.

Here is an essential part of the proof.

Let us normalise what is called as complexity - used by creationists to back their claim of “intelligent design” - with reference to the complexity of the supposed “intelligent designer”; then the resulting complexity for the supposed “intelligent designer” would equate to 1. Now this would allow one to map the entire complexity range between 0 and 1, starting with no complexity whatsoever to which all irreducibly complex objects must reduce to for evolution to remain valid; to the ultimate complexity of the supposed “intelligent designer” against which all other complexities are normalised.

Now let us carefully considers two boundary conditions: One at [C = 0, P = 1] and the other at [C = 1, P = 0]

At [C = 0, P = 1]

Putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 0 * 1 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, which is exactly the same as specified for the first boundary condition i.e. [C = 0, P = 1]

At [C = 1, P = 0]

Again, putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 1 * 0 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, but the result is in total contradiction with the originally specified condition for the second boundary i.e. [C = 1, P = 0]

So, one could clearly figure it out and see how creationists cheat and produce fallacious claims based on probabilistic fallacies. I have clearly demonstrated how creationists falsely derive “1” probability when the actual/original probability is “0”.

Even an ordinary teenage kid, when equipped with some basic knowledge on probability, could figure out the fallacies used by creationists in order to entertain their delusional claims used as wish fulfilment and support their beliefs in religious texts, when confronted with puzzles and complexities that create insecurity.

This proves it again that the probability for the existence of "God" as depicted in the RRR format is zero “0”

Not again :banghead: :D

Rohit

4th March 2005, 10:05 PM

I know Raghu, it is painful for you but this the irrefutable proof and it hurts believers like you. You may have to learn to live with your own problems of not understanding such arguments. :lol:

Shakthiprabha.

5th March 2005, 12:15 AM

Its like an assignment. I shall get back on all this :((
Too much for my poor lil brain. Gimme a day or two.

pradheep

5th March 2005, 12:57 AM

Dear Rohit
what you argue is "Tuccha" like disproving the horse horn. I never said there is a "designer" sitting and designing things. You are disproving something that does not exists, like horse horn....tuccha. You dont understand what i am telling you but i understand what you are proving. You are proving that there is no Intelligent designer (creationist). Here the intelligent designer is like the horse horn. I also keep telling you that there is no designer sitting out there and designing. Now what you disproved is a horse horn. congradulations for this proof.

Now let me tell you that you are coming to the upanishad statement about the "uncaused".

You wrote "

On the other hand, universe can come into existence uncaused and then evolve over billions of years".

The Upanishads say the uncaused, the eternal is Brahman. Good you are arriving close to the truth.

mellon

5th March 2005, 03:44 AM

Good you are arriving close to the truth.

Truth! You think you know that?! :roll:

And you are judging others whether they are getting close or way off from the truth?

Who are you, Pradheep if not the Brahman as I prefixed??

How do you know the "truth" is the truth??!!

Rohit

5th March 2005, 04:55 AM

Here the truth is , what is God and does god exists?Pradheep, again your language seems to be emotionally charged due to utter frustration of you not being able to see and realise/understand the real “Truth”.

When you say “Here the truth is, what is God……………” is completely false statement as it is dependent on whether you (or believers) can precisely define it within the limited number of logical formats available as I have precisely derived.

With regard to the remaining part of your statement i.e. “……….does god exists?” Again this is not truth but just a question, asking whether some non-existent entity, variously conceptualised/postulated as “God” by various religions of the world, exists or not? The answer to which I have already proved 100s of times that “God” of any form or function cannot/doesn’t exist. And that proof still stands irrefutable. No matter how hard believers like you try every time, the proof I have derived is watertight and impeccably irrefutable. And that is what the real “Truth” is. :|

Rohit

5th March 2005, 06:23 AM

I never said there is a "designer" sitting and designing things. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Poor Pradheep you are indeed a pathetic joker.

Just read what I have said:

The first R = Creator/Designer God (Just note, as I have said before, the R here is just an entity, it doesn’t have to be personal or otherwise)

Can you read and understand “entity”? It can be anything of your choice or definition. The proof does not change as the “R” as a logical notation doesn’t change. I have told you this 1000s of times before. Well, you are doing nothing new by retreating and accepting yet another defeat in this way, the way you have always chosen to reduce your dissonance caused after such shattering defeats.:notworthy:

Whether it is wishfully believed as eternal Brahman or something else, as long as it occupies the place as a Creator “God” for the first R, its normalised complexity "C" is “1” and the probability "P" of its existence reduces to “0” i.e. at [C = 1, P = 0]

So, my proof stands rock solid without being refuted and fully affirms that the probability for the existence of a Creator "God" of any form or function is zero “0”

Pradheep you have made so many fallacious propositions that have completely violated objectivity in your arguments. Like I said before, you are at the point where your emotions attached to your beliefs overtake, driving you into severe heedlessness and then you desperately want your fallacious beliefs to become “True” irrespective of the overwhelming weight of my proof, shattering all your hopes.

But my proof still stands unchallenged and it remians irrefuted and boldly claims for the 101 time that “God” of any form or function cannot/doesn’t exist. 8)

:lol: Poor Pradheep. Pradheep please don't start crying again :cry:, :idea: first get some more neurons fixed in your brain and then try (cry) again.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .............

NOV

5th March 2005, 08:56 AM

Desist from name calling and have some decorum, if you want this thread to continue.

Rohit

5th March 2005, 12:41 PM

Thanks NOV. Please keep watching.

It is indeed true what you say:
"Never argue with a fool or he will drag you down to his level and beat you at it through sheer experience!" :)

lordstanher

5th March 2005, 01:46 PM

If there is no God the consept of Justice itself is non existant. It is just survival of the fittest (Meanest, Strongest, most selfish). That takes away "hope", "dreams".

Very much agree :) This is actually wat even our countryz sadly going thru today..... :(
All the effects of materialistic market-capitalism! :evil:

Rohit

5th March 2005, 03:31 PM

Dear intelligent/sensible friends,

This thread has reached a point from where believers would just continue with their fallacious propositions, completely violating objectivity. Their emotions attached to their fallacious beliefs would takeover, driving them into severe heedlessness, making them desperately wanting for their fallacious beliefs to become “True” irrespective of the overwhelming weight of my proof, shattering all their hopes.

The essential conclusion of my proof is:

Whether it is wishfully believed as an eternal “God”, variously conceptualised/postulated as Brahman, Impersonal God, Personal God or an Intelligent Designer God or something else chosen by the believers as their “God”, as long as this "entity" occupies the place of “God” as the first R in the chosen format, its normalised complexity "C" would be “1” by default; and in that state the probability "P" of its existence reduces to “0” - i.e. at [C = 1, P = 0] as I have repeatedly proved before.

My proof stood rock solid without being refuted, fully affirming that the probability for the existence of "God" of any form or function is zero “0”, making "God" completely redundant/dispensable.

The only format that survives is URR- Unreal God, Real Cognition and Real Physical World. Where the condition:

(God)[XOR](Physical World) of mutual exclusion truely applies.

Whether this thread continues or gets locked, unless believers come up with some really sensible presentation, I am asking them in advance to keep reading all my posts, including this one and then provide any countering arguments; until that happens, consider I have repeated all my posts all over again.

The cycles of infinite regress begins from right now for the believers . Just keep counting the cycles.

Good Luck! :D

:wave:

pradheep

5th March 2005, 07:23 PM

Dear mellon

There is a method to know the truth. |It is every one birth right to know it. |I will tell you the way and you can try it andletme know. I will write if you ask for it.

Dear Rohit
How can you conclude that the thread has come to a close. You are scared to answer my questions and you are running away by writing a conclusion.

Again I will go by your own way of thinking |(|Look every time I do this , you call me a fool).

URR- Unreal God, Real Cognition and Real Physical World

Now , first tell me how do you define "Unreal" and "real" and how do you perceive "reality" and unreality.

Sudhaama

5th March 2005, 08:50 PM

This Thread Can NEVER CLOSE... Because this Topic is NOT A THREAD .

... But a CHAIN .... LINKED... to various other Topics or Subjects...

... Finally shaping into a Large Chain of HORIZON-GOAL ...!!!

... Which you can ONLY SEE... Appearing ACCESSIBLE , But NOT REACH!

I wonder How many of you have understood the Sense of the Proverb...

... from ... NOT A PHILOSOPHER... But just a SCIENTIST...

... Albert Einsteine... in.... GOLDEN WORDS... !!!

Will any of you please elaborate the Sense of that Great HUMAN- GOSPEL ?

Science without Religion is BLIND.
Religion without Science is LAME..

Rohit

5th March 2005, 10:43 PM

By definition

Real = "True"
Unreal = "False"

URR - Unreal (False) God, Real (True) Cognition, Real (True) Physical World - This is the only format that is proved to be "True", all other formats are proved to be "False" i.e. The God conceptualised/postulated under other formats is "False". That is, God of any form or fuction does not exist.

For reference, I will list all logically possible formats

URU – Unreal (False) God, Real (True) Cognition, Unreal (False) Physical World
URR – Unreal (False) God, Real (True) Cognition, Real (True) Physical World
RRU – Real (True) God, Real (True) Cognition, Unreal (False) Physical World
RRR – Real (True) God, Real (True) Cognition, Real (True) Physical World

Dear Pradheep, this is your first regression -1. Now try refuting the proof. :D

pradheep

5th March 2005, 11:46 PM

Dear Rohit

how do you define "False" and "true" and how do you perceive "false" and true and also "exist".

pradheep

5th March 2005, 11:47 PM

Dear Sudhama
Please correct it as
Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind

Rohit

6th March 2005, 12:03 AM

Real = True is that which is perceived/conceived as it is, and/or that which exists as perceived/conceived.

Unreal = False is that which is perceived/conceived as it is not and/or that which does not exist as perceived/conceived.

Pradheep this is your second regression- 2 :D

pradheep

6th March 2005, 12:20 AM

what is that you use for your perception and how much percentage you rely on it.

Sudhaama

6th March 2005, 12:37 AM

TRUTH... is Far Different from... REALITY

Kauravas ..... the Brothers of Paandavas... TRUTH .. Defended by Arjuna..

Kauravas .. the ENEMIES .. of Paandavas... REALITY ... Emphasised by Geetha

So to say ... TRUTH... is as we.... See...Hear.. Know... and ..Learn.... basically...

But..... REALITY... is the OUTCOME of.... Deeds .and Thoughts... the LATEST

... Which alone must be the BASIS OF OUR HAPPY SUCEESFUL LIFE...

Lest We will be under... CONFUSION.... for EVER... Even... become... MAD...

... like Arjuna in the Warfield.... prior to hearing Geetha..

Rohit

6th March 2005, 02:25 AM

Dear Pradheep,

From all your questions, I can clearly see that you have not been following and reading my posts with any awareness or you have completely failed in understanding them due to your predisposed state of mind, emotionally locked in the utter Falsity of "God/Brahman". The reason is simple. If I had/have to rely just on my perceptions, I would not have derived various formats, under which various differing and contradicting worldviews could be perceived/conceived, across which human perceptions and conceptions vary drastically. Not only that, you are obviously lacking the grasp in the very fundamental aspect of this debate, where I have frequently invoked various formats under which differing and contradicting religious philosophies and doctrines are, or could be, based and formulated, depending on the cognition acquired by the diverse people of the world, in differing ways. That is why I have used cognition as the most fundamental base for all inquiries, where cognition is defined as:

The mental process or faculty by which knowledge is acquired. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition and other cognitive processes.

The most intriguing inquiry would be to find out under which format, such variations of differing and contradicting formats or worldviews are possible? During these long debates, it was possible for me to unequivocally, consistently and repeatedly prove that only the "URR/FTT" format could allow such occurrences of differing and contradicting formats or worldviews. :)

Pradheep, this is your third regression -3 :D

pradheep

6th March 2005, 10:07 PM

Rohit

7th March 2005, 01:32 AM

Dear Pradheep

I did not just define. I said and proved much more than just defining, if you care to acknowledge, Pradheep.

Hence, everything you have asked becomes irrelevant, as my reliance on my cognitive process or faculty to acquire knowledge is neither more nor less than that of any sensible, well-cognisant, well-reasoned and well-knowledgeable human being in the world.

Hence, the extent of my surety is not, and cannot be, less than that of any sensible, well-cognisant, well-reasoned and well-knowledgeable human being in the world.

In fact, it is the believers who must realise that the surety that they have for the existence of variously and contradictorily perceived/conceived “God” touches the lowest possible limit of 0%. The indisputable evidence of that clearly came form your own hopeless struggle to even define your “God”.

In essence:

Unlike many, I have managed to keep my cognitive faculty well intact, well trained and well managed in order to get the best out of it.

Pradheep this is your fourth regression - 4.

To be fair with you, you will have a chance to go up to 6 regressions, after that I will have to consider you as still unable to produce anything sensible and counter my proof; and the conclusion I have drawn will apply. :|

SRS

7th March 2005, 03:58 AM

Dear Rohit
Thank youfor your definition.

The mental process or faculty by which knowledge is acquired. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition and other cognitive processes.

But you did not answer the question...how much can you rely on this mental faculty. Is it always correct so that you can be 100%sure of what you perceive, reason and cognize ?

Good point, Pradheep. My cousin had a vision of the tsunami two weeks before it came. She did not think much of it at the time. Then the tsunami came... I do not believe we can ever know everything there is to know... there will always be something which eludes our mental facilities.

Rohit

7th March 2005, 04:26 AM

there will always be something which eludes our mental facilities.

The surety of the diverse and variegated believers for the existence of variously and contradictorily perceived/conceived “God”, touching the lowest possible limit of 0%, is yet another example of the same phenomenon. Anyway, what has tsunami to do with the phantasms of "God" when it was a natural disaster?

All world's governments are stupid to waste billions of dollars after development and installation of hi-teck equipment for predicting and detecting natural disaters instead of hiring people like SRS's cousin. Please ask all world's goverments not to invest any more money in expensive hi-teck equipment for the prediction, detection and surveillance of natural disasters, but hire people like SRS's cousin, which would be far more economical and reliable. If that happens, both SRS and and his cousins would become millionairs overnight and the entire world would know the alternatives to the hi-teck equipment. :idea: :lol:

SRS

7th March 2005, 05:04 AM

Rohit,

It is what we don't know that makes us human. Now see here; you have tried to convince many of non-existance of God. But why did you attempt to convince to begin with? If it was such an undeniable fact that God is indeed a delusion, as you claim, then why this great struggle on your part? Well, that is just my thoughts.

pradheep

7th March 2005, 05:09 AM

Dear SRS

No no no, you cannot use the word Intuition or vision not can you use words like "uncaused" or "creation from nothing". It is only for rohit. If others use hewillbe furious and he will call you 'names'. Now ask him what intuition means according to him and look wha the answers.

Dear Rohit

Can you give frankly one instance What you perceived five years ago as correct proved later wrong or what you perceived wrong is now right?. if you dont have any personal instance then can you acknowledge the fact that what scientists perceived and cognized as correct 10 years back is proved wrong now?.

Rohit

7th March 2005, 05:13 AM

Dear SRS,

It is not my struggle to disprove "God" as I have already done that clearly. It is the believers who hopelessly struggle to prove anything, but just rely on their phantasms to sustain their "Fasle" beliefs. :D

Rohit

7th March 2005, 05:19 AM

Dear Pradheep you have proved me right all along for all the time; and that is the proof enough of who relies on what.

After miserable failures due to the heedless applications of fallacies of logical structure, Pradheep has now resorted to subjectivist fallacies and fallacies involving credibility.

Oh! dear poor Pradheep, what are you doing man? Fallacies of any kind are not going to prove you anything.

Believers are struggling for 1000s of years to even define, let alone prove anything. :lol: :lol:

This is your fifth regression - 5, only one more to go, Pradheep. :D

geno

7th March 2005, 05:30 AM

Rohit, :D

how have u been? :)

This "Visions of Tsunami" sounds somewhat like the "deja vu" phenomenon, which is - i believe an universal 'trait' of the H.sapiens.

Im just curious - if "deja vu" contributes to the already existing "X files" mentality - thereby leading to a non-existing god.

Are there any studies conducted on this deja vu stuff and how it is connected th the "obsession" of folks to "unexpected" and / or "unknown" things?

:)

Rohit

7th March 2005, 05:39 AM

Geno

I am just fine, enjoying the fun noticing people getting lost completely under the influence of phantasms. :lol:

How are you?

SRS

7th March 2005, 05:51 AM

Rohit,

You are a true pragmatist. That is not bad in itself. If the mind was the singular determinant of prosperity, I too see no reason for belief in some higher entity. Unfortunately, the mind is also an impermanent entity. While one is young and clever, much material and intellectual gain can be made via correct use of the mind. But the same mind is subject to inevitable degeneration over time. Sharpness, memory, reasoning... many of these faculties degenerate. I have read of a very fine mathematician; at 6, he could divide two 8-digit numbers in his head; by 8 he had mastered calculus; by 12 he was at the graduate level in mathematics. At 23, he received a degree in chemical engineering and a Ph.D. in mathematics. Accomplishments of a very talented mind, indeed. Do you know what happened to him at the end of his life? Cancer. Please read what his friend wrote:

"When he realized he was incurably ill, his logic forced him to realize he would cease to exist, and hence cease to have thoughts. It was heartbreaking to watch the frustration of his mind, when all hope was gone, in its struggle with the fate which appeared to him unavoidable but unacceptable."

You see, Rohit, you can spend a lifetime analyzing equations, but you can only do it for a lifetime. This, I believe, is why most ppl choose to place trust in a higher entity. Because as the Buddha noted, only suffering is permanent, so long as mortals inhabit the physical body. This life is one of many; one must constantly strive to prepare for the next.

geno

7th March 2005, 05:58 AM

Well am really curious!

Ramanujan, the mathematician - once tried to commit suicide jumping from a bridge and falling into a 10,000 volt power lines running over the suburban train line in london.

Was he frustrated or was he trying to "prepare" for his next life?

Really, i wanna know if he was practising true to his "orthodox" profile or was he just an over-worked genius?

we can only wonder.. aint that so?

Rohit

8th March 2005, 01:00 AM

If the mind was the singular determinant of prosperity, I too see no reason for belief in some higher entity.If impermanence is the fact of reality, I don’t see any reason why a sensible human being cannot accept it with honesty rather than keeping his mind under the spells of delusions, just to build false assurances.

Now, no matter what believers keep arguing, their situation is no better than that of non-believers. Human sufferings, either physical or emotional, don’t and cannot discriminate between a believer and a non-believer. Under that situation, the believers don’t gain anything and the non-believers don’t loose anything; they both remain in the same boat.

Now with regards to the degeneration of mental capacity, even if the brains of non-believers degenerate faster than those of believers, which I don’t think they do; but if they really did, it would suggest only one thing, the believers don’t use their brains efficiently for its intended purpose.

Most believers like to present the limits of human knowledge as the most valid reason for sustaining the beliefs in an imaginary “entity”. Without realising the fact that, such attitude itself is the product of human thought process resulting in diffused cognition, lacking logical and rational base. The situation thus created lands itself into self-degeneration, creating further contradictions on the part of belivers.

Because as the Buddha noted, only suffering is permanent, so long as mortals inhabit the physical body.
Buddha himself denied the divine cause of the universe. On the contrary, Buddha himself thought that the belief in God or any such supreme entity is unhealthy.

Evidently, failing to produce any valid arguments, believers end up with no options but to retreat using such standard fallacies involving appeal to emotions, compulsion, ignorance, diversions etc. :)

Pradheep tomorrow will be the last day by which you to come up with something sensible. Failing that will end your last chance and the conclusion I have drawn would be validated automatically.

With all fairness, I have given you enough time, anyway. :)

Rohit

8th March 2005, 01:17 AM

Ramanujan, the mathematician - once tried to commit suicide jumping from a bridge and falling into a 10,000 volt power lines running over the suburban train line in london.

Was he frustrated or was he trying to "prepare" for his next life?

Really, i wanna know if he was practising true to his "orthodox" profile or was he just an over-worked genius?

we can only wonder.. aint that so?

Indeed you have a very good and valid point, Geno. :)

Sudhaama

8th March 2005, 02:59 AM

Mathematician RAMANUJAN'S... Greatest BLUNDER. !!!.

"Rohit"

//Ramanujan, the mathematician - once tried to commit suicide jumping from a bridge and falling into a 10,000 volt power lines running over the suburban train line in london....Was he frustrated or was he trying to "prepare" for his next life?//

Yes... There is an ETERNAL LESSON behind it ... Goddess Lakshmi ...

... Severely WARNED him ... and also Shown to the Society... for EVER !!!

... and as An Important Warning to the Present day BRAHMINS !!!.

The Genious Ramanujan was born in a highly Orthodox Brahmin Iyengar Family at Naamakkal , whose parents insisted to strictly adhere to Brahminic way of Living ... especially Orthodoxy.. He was able to sincerely practise so... without any Problems as long as he was in India.

His Great Steering-Force of Motivation and Encouragement was his Mother, who used to support and defend him... whenever criticised by his Father... on the slackness or Lacunae on Orthodoxy.

When there was a Call to Ramanujan for higher Research Studies at London, on the recommendation of an Englishman Mathematician to the British Government as well as the University.... he was very happy on one side and hesitant on the other side ....

..Because... Brahmins are forbidden to cross the Sea... as per Saasthra ...

After much Requests, Obeisance, and Volleys of Arguments Pro and Anti ...

... between his Father, joined by several orthodox Brahmins.... on One side ...

... Countered Vehemently by....Only One Defender Supporter in favour of Ramanujan...

... his... BRAHMIN MOTHER ... who also PROMISED ... to her Husband !!!

Poor Lady ! ... She too did not know the FEASIBILITY at London

But his Father conceded on one PROMISE from Ramanujan ... as well as his Mother...that he would strictly and sincerely ABIDE and adhere to Orthodoxy... even under a Radically different Country ...of far unfeasible atmosphere for Orthodoxy.... at LONDON !!! ???

Ramanujan sincerely kept up his promise... even though... None to Monitor him... by... Strict-Vegetarian... Not taking food from anybody nor any Restaurant... Daily Bath ... Sandhyaawandhanam Thrice a day...Cooking his own food in a Smoky Oven of Wood-fire

... Daily bath in Cold-water even in the Chilly Winter... preferably by dipping in the River Thames...... made him sickly ... causing Fever frequently...

... Eventually to Tuberculosis Disease ....Perpetual coughing with severe Chest pains.. unbearable. On those days there were not much Medicines... as of now.....Leading Hospitals at London could not cure...

Consequently ... he prayed to GODDESS LAKSHMI... his Greatest Help... who used to appear in his dreams and give him solutions to intricate Mathematical-problems...

She advised to DROP off ORTHODOXY ... confining to only Vegetarian- foods. But Ramanujan pleaded that he cannot violate the Promise given to his father...

Immediately the Goddess used to disappear in the Dream.. without any Answer.
..
The Unbearable Woes due to TB ... made him Half-dead... He decided Not to go back as SICKLY-PAUPER... but preferable is... ENDING the Life.

.. Under Utter Frustration he decided to Commit Suicide and attempted for... but MIRACULOUSLY Saved. !!!....

Knowing all these Facts... his Friends PACKED HIM BACK to his Pavilion.

In India... he wept and heartily PRAYED the Goddess Lakshmi...

.. She came in his Dreams and said...

... "There is No EXCUSE for you... Because of your Worst Crime...

... Unpardonable Self-Murder / SUICIDE... So YOU HAVE TO SUFFER.

Finally he CONFESSED and prayed to Goddess... to send him to Hell... instead of such unbearble sufferings...

Next day... he Breathed his... LAST .... and... LOST... for the World.

Whether he was sent to.... HELL... or... Heaven... or... BLISS ...

... Goddess alone Knows !!!

Thus the Great Man who never Blundered in MATHEMATICAL Problem Study ...

... BLUNDERED in MATHEMATICAL-PROBLEM in his Life- ... !!!

Or Was it Not a Blunder of Ramanujan.. But Somebody Else?... his.. BLOODY?

... or a DIVINE-REWARD For His SINCERE ADHERENCE... to Saasthra??

.... Coupled with his unfailing PITHRU-VAAKYA-PARIPAALANAM !!!

//Indeed you have a very good and valid point, Geno. ://

May I know ... What is that.... VALID .... Point ???

Rohit

8th March 2005, 04:03 AM

Indeed a good story Sudhaama.

The valid point is, believers equally suffer, no matter what they believe in. It was due to self-neglect that caused such sufferings. It had nothing to do with anything else other than his altered physical and psychological conditions triggered under new environmental conditions, otherwise your need to attribute his long sufferings to the lack of modren medicines wouldn't have arisen. Also what you wrote, fully confirms the possibility of reducing such sufferings through advances in modern medicines, which was lacking at the time. Even stranger thing to notice is, why an Indian born mathematician had to go as far as to London, violating his religious commitments just to get recognition of his mathematical talent?

As it is rightly said, belief is blind; the ability to discern, quickly fades away; otherwise believers and non-believers suffer alike. The suffering of poor people of poor countries (i.e Asian and African countries) provide even more starking contrast, despite their stronger beliefs. The people from these poor countries who are dying to reach abroad to better their destitute conditions, demonstrate even more contrasting and factual situation. So, good story though, but it gets one nowhere. :)

Ilavenil

8th March 2005, 05:09 AM

I strongly believe in evolution. But, I couldn't neglect God, the creator. I don't think, one fine morning God created Adam and Eve or Manu (first man as per hinduism). But, I do believe that there is some supernatural power.

I had watched a program called "Journey of Man" by Dr. Spencer Wells. It was very interesting and I later read his book on the same topic. It is awesome. It is based on DNA evidence. If you are interested, here is the link

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html

SRS

8th March 2005, 06:45 AM

People do not attempt suicide to prepare for the next life. That is a very silly remark. One does not prepare for the next life at one instant; one spends his entire life doing it. Depending on merit acquired in past lives, some are at a more advanced stage than others; hence, they need to expend less energy. Others must go through much unexpected mental struggle. This is very evident if one looks around; you will find those who are born with disabilities, those who are born into the lap of luxury and stay there for a full lifetime, those who are born with amazing talents (Mozart, Ramanujan), and those who are destined to commit bad crimes. Karma is the most satisfactory explanation for one's personal station. That is y the instant the baby is born, the parents see to the horoscope. You may convince yourself you are in full control of your life due to material and financial gain, but this is a deception. When the tsunami came, it did not distinguish between rich and poor, atheist and God-believer. Those who died were destined to die at that moment. This is the power of God.

pradheep

8th March 2005, 06:22 PM

Dear Rohit
As usual you escape discussing facts where you cannot answer. Now for you the last one too.

You keep talking about Buddha. How did he realize the truth?. He got enlightment (Truth) while meditating under a Bodhi tree. Do you have any objection here?

ROHIT, HAVE YOUR EVER MEDITATED? If you have not then you cannot understand what Buddha denied about God nor can you understand what I tell. If you have not meditated then go and do that first and then come and discuss here. Without that all that you talk is "bookish knowledge and not practical experience". I am here talking out of bookish knowledge but my experience.

As told earlier why all ancient masters including budha meditated?. Through meditation alone one can experience the Truth (God). Buddha did not call it as God but called it as "Nirvana". He denied the beleif of people of a God sitting and creating and controlling and to whom poojas or rituals have to be performed to satisfy him or her. But he gave the same truththat all spiritual realizes.

what does one know doing meditation?. That our true being is consciousness and that is God. That God is symbolized externally in forms.

Aham Brahmasmi....is the powerful vedic statement...which means God is inside. No sage has ever went in search of God outside. They always go inside, within. This is why in all traditions the original masters have taught to look inside to see God. But looking inside we cannot see God because of the impurities of the mind. That is why including Buddha all masters have taught to overcome negativies of the mind, like hatred, jealousy, anger, lust, greed etc etc. Without overcomming these one cannot see God.

Do you know why Buddha gave moral principles of righteousness, non-violence, blah blah blah....the Eight fold path? It is not forthe well being of the soceity...but for purifying the mind. Of course practicising non-violence and all these virtues one can have a peaceful soceity. This peace and harmony in soceity is only side benefits of the the main benefit of attaining Nirvana.

I can bodly declare this because I have seen "God" not through my physcial eyes but through meditation (purifying my mind). I cannot prove this anybody or you and not even my parents,relatives, friends, wife and son. I can only show them the direction, which I am doing. I keep telling everyone that only through purification of mind one can see God. Some of these people who had been religious over years without purification of the mind are able to see a speck of God within themselves by attempting even to purify their mind. The more we purify ourself , the more clearer we get the vision of God.

I can argue with you Rohit, for hundred years but still I cannot prove God to you. Proof is within you. I can give you the way, the same way Buddha did. If you can trust Buddha you follow hismthod and you will what I am talking. As Buddha said dont beleive anyone but find your own truth. Same way I tell you dont believe me (as you always do) follow Buddha's path of purifying the mind and meditation.

Remember all those who meditate cannot see God. One has to purify his mind. Buddha did his inner purification and hence when he meditated he saw God but denied the God which people at those times and now belive in. The God he saw has no form nor any attributes.

So without purifiying the mind if we do meditation, then we will only get benefits like Low blood pressure, greater stress reduction, slowing ageing ,enhanced memory blah blah blah.

In this thread you are disproving God who is beleived to be some one with compassion, love, power and intelligence sitting in heaven unemployed , without any job and for amusement creates this world. I had many friends ask me how can God kill so many thousands of people in Tsunami. I said it is because you have created a God within your mind frame who is compassionate. When you see the contradiction in the world your beleif get shaken. It is your mind problem.

The same with all the concepts we have about "God". All the concepts we have about God will be shaken one day or another in life....because they are all concepts. But experience "within" is not a belief, is not a concept and so can never be disproved. Because what you experience through meditation is not mental, intellectual and emotional. For me you (rohit) can be a concept but I cnanot be a concept for myself.Similarly for you I (pradheep) can be a concept andnotyou.

I hope overtime in this thread I have made it clear that we cannot prove God to anyone. The moment one tries to do, it becomes a concept. The God is within to be known...infact that is life for each one of us. I can deny the world in my sleep but I can never deny myself even in death, because I have no death.....my physical body(personal awareness) dies , but not me the "impersonal awareness (consciosuness)". This is what sankara says I am not this mind not this body, I am pure consciousness -shivoham, shivoham. (please dont imagine a guy with snake over the neck to be consciosuness - shivoham)

Sudhaama

8th March 2005, 10:38 PM

Mr. Pradheep,

//Aham Brahmasmi....is the powerful vedic statement...//

It is NOT The Vaedhic-Statement... but from... "Brahma-Soothram", the Explanation and Clarifications on Vaedhas....

Based on which only .. all the 3 Aacharyas of Adhvaitha, Visishta- Adhwaitha and Dhwaitha Philosophies... have established their contra- distinctory stands ....

... Showing the Mutual Relation betwween the Supreme- Soul / Cosmic-Spirit (Paramaathma) and the Jeevaathma (Created Souls)

//.... which means God is inside.//

This term.... AHAM-BRAHMAASMI...means... "I am God"... meaning the Oneness propounded as Adhwaitham by Sankaraachaarya ( Not as you say... "God is inside me)

Whereas... God within me... is the theory of the Two other Philosophical Doctrines... named Dhwaitha & Visishtaadhwaitha..... according to which the Created Souls are FAR DIFFERENT from the Supreme-Creator... the Omni-potent.

Vaedha or its Clarifying Text named "Brahma-Soothra" speak about the various sorts of Mutual-Relations between the Created-Souls and the Creator....

Such varying Sense-Indicating-Terminologies are called...

(1) Abhaedha-Sruthi: God is Only one in all forms... as Creator merged with the Creations.

(2) Bhaedha-Sruthi: Both are different.... as Ruler and the Subject...Giver and Receiver...and the like

(3) Ghataka-Sruthi: Both are Inter-dependant... Master & Student.. Doctor and Patient ... etc.

Sri Sankaracharya has taken up only the Abhaedha-Sruthi wordings... and based on them.... he established Adhwaitham... but SKIPPED OFF... the other Two sorts of Terminologies of the Same-text.

Similarly Sri Madhwaacharya took up only Bhedha-Sruthi wordings only because it suited his Theory ... but SKIPPED-OFF the other Two of the same text..

But Sr Ramanujaachaarya... has taken up ALL THE THREE SORTS of Indicative-Philosophy...ON THE WHOLE.... without OMITTING any part of the Moola-Text....

... and established... Visishta- Adhvaitha... which was the Original- Philosophy of Vaedha... already existed... prior to all these Achaaryas including Sri Raamaanuja...

..but became extinct due to Series of Onslaughts of Invasion on Indian- Culture and Hegemony by Aliens.

No doubt... an Unparallel Yeoman Service had been done by the Great Sankaraachaarya... who only revived the Vaedhic-Religion ... so called... Hinduisim...

... as RESURRECTIVE-FOUNDATION over which Raamaanuja- Acharya could raise up his Tower of Vaedhic-Totality.

If Sri Sankaraachaarya... had not taken such Awathaara... perhaps... we all...the present Indians... would be chanting... "Bhudhdham Charanham Gachaami... Sangam Charanham Gachaami"

Budhism... Inconsistent... Vague... Ambiguous...Self-contrary... unfit Religion... says Sankaracharya

Theory of Negative-preachings, De-motivative, Suicidal, Monk-making, Human-down-grading.. Say others

... which factors. were vehemently hit upon... by that Great Resurrector of Vaedhic-Dharma...

.. Thus Resulting in the "Decimal-Down-size" of that "IDLENESS - advocating"... Theory... from... India.

//.... No sage has ever went in search of God outside. They always go inside, within. This is why in all traditions the original masters have taught to look inside to see God. But looking inside we cannot see God because of the impurities of the mind. That is why including Buddha all masters have taught to overcome negativies of the mind, like hatred, jealousy, anger, lust, greed etc etc. Without overcomming these one cannot see God.//

No. there are Two sorts of Meditation... Internal and External. By both ways we can access God

Internal.... what you say... is Elementary... to gain the Link with the Cosmic-power and thus earn His Grace towards Mundane purposeful Happy and Successful Life.

External... the Other one... is Advanced... which leads to attain various Siddhis... called Ashta-maa- Sidhis... of Super-Human Elementary- Powers like Gimmics, Magic, Para- Kaaya- pravaesam (Koodu- Vittu- Koodu- Paaydhal) / Entering another Body leaving the Body born with... as Sri Sankaraachaarya performed..... as also Walking on Water-Surface ... etc.

Thapas by Sages was performed only by External-Meditation method ... or the so called Yoga....

... a part of which is Meditation.... which is the Rudimentarey Stage ... of Internal Meditation...

... Whereas ...External-Meditation .. are Advanced Stages of Yoga.

Rohit

9th March 2005, 12:58 AM

Let us see how our friend Pradheep went through a very long trip for his sixth regression after consuming a heavy dosage of some hallucinogenic substance.

Below is what pradheep wrote earlier in the “Does God exist? thread

ragu

If god created the earth, us, etc I would like to know with what did he create us? and what was before that? You cannot create something out of anything, after all

GOD is the creator, creation and the created.
As I said earlier (in response to Pradheep's response saying Buddha as "nothing" since Buddha have said "Nothing exists"- i.e. Buddhist's sunyavada). Now with reference to both this and the above referenced post, who is that which denies "God"? Clearly, it cannot be other than the "Creator-Creation-Created/Knower-Knowing-Known God" itself; and precisely here where it creates "Logically Explosive" contradictions. Both P [AND] NOT P cannot be "True". Whenever such contradicting conditions arise, it is known as "Logically Explosive" contradictions and tells us that the premise/model/format is "False".

That is why I said earlier in response to Pradheep's contradicting post- Replacing all human being by "God" in Pradheep's post that:

By demonstrating the sheerness of contradictions everywhere, our friend Pradheep himself has proved that such a psychotic God cannot/doesn’t exist except in psychotic minds.

Pradheep also wrote the following during his discussion with Nambi and then with me in "Does God Exist?" thread.

1. Fear (of God) is the to control.

2. Unless there is a fear of god, the world will be like hell.

3. Then he is not a master. A true master’s aim is to see that his disciples experience the same bliss (knowledge) that he enjoys.

4. No need of an exceptional sixth sense. We don’t use sense objects to attain the purpose.

5. But as I mentioned earlier here in spiritualism what one tries to see oneself. Like an eye trying to look itself.

6. I can show you that there is one true definition of GOD and I have found it is in all religion. It is universal truth.

7. This is human problem. First of all you see science and religion as different I see it as one.

8. But ultimately it is through gnana (reasoning) only you can realise GOD.

9. It is through gnana I got so called “enlightened”

10. I know there is a well-defined way.

11. I have written in FH our ancestors have understood crystal clear about the origin of this universe, about the nature of this universe about planet, about sun’s rotation, day and night and about eclipse.
Pradheep wrote the following in "The real meaning of 432" Topic started by Marius Darre

Welcome back Fridge,

You dream that you are born and then become old and then you was chased by a dog while walking and fell and then you wake up.

You are the GOD in your sleep. Your create your own characters and sustain them and then dissolve them.
In dream it looks so real. You are not aware of your profession your relation, you are not time consciouss nor space conscious. You are with your own self. You create your own birth and death.

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/expr/1310.17.59.08.html

Below is what Pradheep wrote in the "Self-actualization vs. finding God" Topic started by "Searching for the endless"

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/expr/17668.20.03.05.html

You (that is me, Rohit) think you are in reality and I am in dream world. I think I am in reality and you are in a dream world.

I tell her to know both the dream worlds is the greatest gift of life.

How can you wake me up, my dear Rohit. When you understand that I am in a dream world, you also exist in my dream. I have created you Rohit, My dream. I am dreaming that in my dream, rohit, in which i created you, as writing in this forum and trying to wake me up which is also a dream.

Luckily I am aware of my dream. Therefore I dont take the dream too serious. However In my dream I run if a tiger chases me or drive my car within speed limits to avoid tickets, go to work , get my pay check, do my job good and demand for my raises, happy when I get it, hit back someone who tries to hit me, post messages in forum hub, communicate with my good freinds like Rohit, sleep in my dream and dream dreams in my dream

Yes I am dreaming that you are writing in the forum and asking me the questions and testing me.

The moment he shifts in looking for details in the dream, he is no longer the dreamer , but becomes the dream itself. That’s why a dreamer does not look for dream details but just remain aware of the dream which is the real fun of having the dream.

A dreamer does not wish to see minor details but simply enjoys the show of the dream and be aware of the dream.

How can you watch me , when you are in my dream rohit. When you are a "character" in my dream how can you know me, the dreamer, let alone trying to wake me up.

In my dream world, I have created characters who do understand about the dream and the dreamer (me)
Which precisley proved what I was telling Pradheep to refute my logical expression [Your Dream World] (XOR) [Explicit Awareness], in which he miserably failed and quitted.

Now read what he says in his latest post. He did't see his "God" (RRR) but found in his thoughts - Also he sees everything separated- as in Dualism/Dvaita.

Regarding Buddha, this is what a Buddhist says

I had written that there is no Supreme God in Buddhism.

At the same time, the Buddha created a doctrine which had completely different aspects from either Hinduism and Jainism. The best example is the no-soul belief. Has there been any Hindu or Jain who has been able to argue the nonexistence of souls, and keep that consistent within his religious beliefs? How could one be a Hindu or Jain, without the soul?

Buddhists consider all gods as subhuman
Which fully confirmed what I have been saying about Buddha that he denied the existence of both the Dynamic God as well as the Atman/Soul/Isvara.

The World Buddhist Sangha Council convened by Theravadins in Sri Lanka in 1966 unanimously declared

“3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”

Source:

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

Below is what Buddhist spiritual leader Dalai Lama has said in an interview.

PC/SC: The Buddha was silent on the question of God. What about you?

DL: Why did the Buddha not say anything about God? Because he talked about the law of causality. Once you accept the law of cause and effect, the implication is that there is no 'creator'. If the Buddha accepted the concept of a creator, he would not have been silent; everything would have been God!

http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/masters/dalai-lama/his-holiness.asp

Meditation means: Contemplation, musing, reflection, thought, consideration, study etc.

And I have done exactly that; and proved the non-existence of God. The only difference is, I think/contemplate/reflect sitting under an apple tree in my garden and not under a Bow tree, like Buddha did. This is evident from all my posts, well-focused, to the point and fully consistent, proving the non-existence of God; unlike Pradheep's defused, inconsistent and always contradicting and unstable thoughts, reflected identically through all his posts.

So, Pradheep, here are hard evidences showing and proving your utter lies and delusions, resulting in countless regressions. In fact, you have hopelessly struggled to even define your God, let alone show anyone the path.

I can argue with you Rohit, for hundred years but still I cannot prove God.
Thank you Pradheep, finally you accept the “Truth” that you can prove nothing but just delude and lie, which keeps changing as you delude yourself to the extremes.

Everything I have produced here about you, Pradheep; clearly proves that you have no clear vision and/or thought that remains stable for much longer. All your claims are proved to be pure fabrications and fallacies manufactured through self-deception and delusions, followed by utter lies , there is nothing more than that in your posts.

So, Pradheep I am sorry but your time is up. This was your last and final chance to produce something sensible, but you failed miserably; instead you produced your gobbledegook cognition and ended up completing your sixth and final regression.

Here is an essential part of my proof again:

Let us normalise what is called as complexity - used by creationists to back their claim of “Creation” - with reference to the complexity of the supposed “Creator God”; then the resulting complexity for the supposed “Creator God” would equate to 1. Now this would allow one to map the entire complexity range between 0 and 1, starting with no complexity whatsoever to which all irreducibly complex objects must reduce to for evolution to remain valid; to the ultimate complexity of the supposed “Creator God” against which all other complexities are normalised.

Now let us carefully considers two boundary conditions: One at [C = 0, P = 1] and the other at [C = 1, P = 0]

At [C = 0, P = 1]

Putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 0 * 1 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, which is exactly the same as specified for the first boundary condition i.e. [C = 0, P = 1]

At [C = 1, P = 0]

Again, putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 1 * 0 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, but the result is in total contradiction with the originally specified condition for the second boundary i.e. [C = 1, P = 0]

So, one could clearly figure it out and see how creationists cheat and produce fallacious claims based on probabilistic fallacies. I have clearly demonstrated how creationists falsely derive “1” probability when the actual/original probability is “0”.

Even an ordinary teenage kid, when equipped with some basic knowledge on probability, could figure out the fallacies used by creationists in order to entertain their delusional claims used as wish fulfilment and support their beliefs in religious texts, when confronted with puzzles and complexities that create insecurity.

This proves it again that the probability for the existence of "God" as depicted in the RRR (remember this the format you have selected) format is zero “0”

The other two formats i.e. RUU - Real God, Unreal Cognition and Unreal Physical World and RRU - Real God, Real Cognition and Unreal Physical World are already falsified.

The only format that survives is URR/FTT- Unreal God, Real Cognition and Real Physical World. Where the condition (God)[XOR](Physical World) of mutual exclusion truely applies. That is, God and Physical World are Mutually Exclusive, they cannot/doesn’t coexist; and through my proof, I have precisely proved that, that God of any form or function as variously conceptualised/postulated by the varigated believers is Unreal/False and hence cannot/doesn’t exist. Thus, proving the URR/FTT format of “absolute” evolution as the only and real “Truth”

So, the conclusion I have drawn is fully validated and becomes applicable from now on.:D

pradheep

9th March 2005, 05:14 AM

Dear Rohit
First thanks to you for giving me an oppurtunity (more than six) to express my views.

GOD is the creator, creation and the created

My dear Rohit , where is the contradiction here. God is consciousness, the creator, creates the creation (conscious) and the created (consciousness).

It is contradiction for you because you have taken God as a person or an object sitting and creating creation. For your inability to comprehend things dont blame that i am contradicting.

Fear (of God) is the to control.

2. Unless there is a fear of god, the world will be like hell.

What I siad isnt correct. fear of God was used, is used and will be used to bring fear and control. This is how even now people use for converstion. Look some religious conversions are based totally on fear that if you dotn beleive in our God either you will be put in hell, or right then one is shot down.

2. Now if people dont have an understanding of moral values , without fear of god this earth would be hell. ( I dont even apply to this to my son. I explain him right and wrong . But for soem one who does not listen then creating this fear is the best way. Puranas give the ultimate wisdom in a nice story format. there is this garuda purana , which is written for those who does not follow moral codes even after explaining in a nice way. In garuda purana one is intimated with the fact that wrong doing wll end up in hell where one is fried in oil blah blah blah.....

So Rohit where is the contradiction in my posts. You are not able to comprehend and that is your problem. Try to think and analyze what i write.

If you cannot comprhend what i write I can explain all that you mentioned as contradictions. do you want to explain and can you do it your self. Let me know.

Regarding dreams, what is logically wrong there. Dont I create my own dreams. In my dreams am i not the creationist, created and the created?. what is the contradiction there?

Buddha that he denied the existence of both the Dynamic God as well as the Atman/Soul/Isvara.

You have to understand the time when Buddha taught these anatma....

India was in a state when people took vedas literally and did animal sacrifices. They took the Gods literally instead of understanding its symbolism. (THis state continues even now through out the world. Look what christians, muslims, buddhists do)

The compasionate Buddha had to help people overcome this non-sense and so he had to teach people that there was no dynamic god sitting and controlling us and also no atma that is born again and again.

This again happened and adi-sankara had to fight against mimimsas who were thinking that one can go to heaven by doing rituals. Adi-sankara had to do vaadas (debates) to overcome this stupidity.

After sankaras times again people mis-interpretted sankara and started to do nothing, misinterpretting everything to be maya and that was the state when ramanuja and madhava brought a reformation. Both these people were born in adviatic families and were frustrated to see how their familes , friends and relatives behaved. They had to simplify and for that the davitic thoughts was needed.

Now again we see the same non-sense among people. I know a relative of me who does all attrocities and puts money in the temple hundial arguing that God will forgive him because he has given the bribe.

There are some of my relatives who take everything for fate and do nothing because everything is maya. I have atheist friends who does all immoral acts because they think there is no God and so whats wrong in enjoying life.

Bottom line.......There is no God sitting and controlling and there are no atmans, there is only one atma, that is consciousness. To know this one has to purify one's mind.

In the link you provided, dalai lam talks about all these, where does myself and dalai lama contradict?.

He also says what Buddha told that everything is cause and effect and causality comes from the mind. I go into the depths of upanishads of seeing the origin of mind, the consciousness.

Inshort look at point number 6

6. I can show you that there is one true definition of GOD and I have found it is in all religion. It is universal truth.

Buddhism and hindusim arives at the same truth. You rohit finds it different because of your inability to understand the Truth I am telling.
The equations you write is another big joke.

[C = 0, P = 1]

The equations that you write is again and again disproving horse horns (Thuccha). Well keep going it around and around till your mind gets tired and as dalai lama mentioned get into analytical thinking.

Meditation means: Contemplation, musing, reflection, thought, consideration, study etc.

This is next big joke. This is good example of Rohit's understanding of meditation. My dear rohit , meditation is different from contemplating musing, reflection, thought, study etc. This is why i said go and learn meditation from a Buddhist teacher and get back back to me and you will then understand the truth.

Rohit this is why I said bookish knowledge is different from experience. what I write is based on experience and not from bookish knowledge. Have you practiced any of Buddha's principles?. Are you compassionate?. Are you a vegetarian?. Do you minimal use or avoid of animal tested products?. Do you overcome hatred, jealousy?. what ways do you physically help mankind. (I feel ashamed to ask these questions because , good things are not to be told by one....but here just to reflect your bookish knowledge and your low or no practical experience , I had to do this. Sorry for this).

These are the steps that Buddha tell to purify the mind to attain nirvana. Understand this is the truth that all spiritual masters irrespective of all relgions tell.

So my dear Rohit, do the practices and then come to deny the truth I talk about.

pradheep

9th March 2005, 05:25 AM

Dear Sudhaama

I had to use words like God in me and out.....just for a layman like Rohit to understand. Rohit is well knowledgebale in science but is a layman in spirituality and that is why I tell him as a layman. Rohit please excuse me for this usage.

As written for rohit, you have to understand the life situation of sankara , ramauja and maadhava for interpretting the sruthi's. The beda and abedha does not exist. it exist at the plane where you are basign your explaination. Whatever I claim as "Truth" i can explain in adviatic, vishitadviatic and dvathic mode. The Truth is the same , the way you look at is different.

All the three are great achariyas. it is our mind that is impure to see the beda. Truth is the same.

There are no different meditations. there are different meditation techinques. But all has only one goal. whatever you talk about astral travel blah blah is for the mind and not for the body. Please do not confuse here that. Mind is powerful and is not easy to tame it. Thus different meditation techniques are required. There were sages who had powers of the mind. Some of them clearly understood that wasting human life for it is futile considering to the main goal of self relaization.

There is a story about a sage who did meditation for his entire life and got the power to walk on water. He boasted this to a great teacher telling him that he can cross ganges without a boat. The master replied well you saved a few pennies.

Dont focus on getting powers through meditation. These are only side benfits like low bloodpressure blah blah. Seek within to know the self. That alone should be the focus of meditation.

Rohit

9th March 2005, 05:38 AM

Good try to defend your lies and delusions. Your emotions have blocked you mind and that is why you cannot accept your lies and contradictions. And that is the biggest joke of all time, my dear friend. You have no idea of your lies and contradictions, just take your posts to a logician and he will tell you about your fallacies.

So, pradheep there is no God anywhere, physical or functional and that is what [ C = 1 , P = 0] proves, where it doesn't identify your God as sitting or doing anything, it is there just as an entity as you wish to define, or else (God)[XOR](Physical World) applies with your "Logically Explosive" conrtadiction as I proved before and mentioned above "Both P [AND] NOT P cannot be "True"". In either case your "God/Consciousness/Atma or whatever you want to call it " is just disproved and rejected. Do you get that? I guess not. This 1005 th time I am telling you and you are just stuck there with a severly blocked mind. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Poor Pradheep, couldn't absorb his own lies and now he couldn't face his own posts and the proof proving him utterly wrong in every respect. Well try (cry) next time and make us all laugh even more. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good Luck :D

mellon

9th March 2005, 05:59 AM

Have you practiced any of Buddha's principles?.

Are you compassionate?.

Are you a vegetarian?.

Do you minimal use or avoid of animal tested products?.

Do you overcome hatred, jealousy?.

what ways do you physically help mankind?

As if u got rid of jealousy and hatred?

Son! it is going to be there until u reach the coma stage or death.

Dont you know that, son?

Because you are a HUMAN ANIMAL.

As a first step, why dont you go to Himalayas if u r working on that SERIOUSLY??? Because the place you live will only make you a worst human ANIMAL unless u r in a coma stage already. And, u dont have to worry about rupees to $ conversion rate :roll:

I feel ashamed to ask these questions because , good things are not to be told by one..

JEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After asking all the questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now u r ashamed of being yourself?

Really?!

I think YOU SHOULD BE 8)

Why do all hypocrites bs just like you do, Pradheep???

but here just to reflect your bookish knowledge and your low or no practical experience , I had to do this. Sorry for this.

You do have a practical experience to be a hypocrite.

Hey! I like the way u used the terms, "ashamed", "but" and "the minimal animal products"

I feel really sorry that I posted this post too, Pradheep :rotfl:

aguy2

10th March 2005, 07:58 PM

My thoughts on this subject can be seen on http://self-creation.net
aguy2

Rohit

11th March 2005, 12:21 AM

Dear aguy2

Nice thoughts and presentation indeed!

For something of the size and complexity of the Universe to become its own ‘first cause’ is highly unlikely.
The above argument is no different from the creationists’ arguments for the “Intelligent Design” i.e. ID. If you care to read what I have already proved from the probabilistic arguments that such a “Creator” would negate its own existence. For such a “Creator” to exist prior to “Creation” would require it to be far more complex than the universe itself at any stage. And by the same argument that you presented, it can be clearly shown by the normalisation of all complexities with reference to the complexity of "Creator" that the probability for the existence of such an ultimate complex "entity" would become absolutely “0”. [C = 1, P = 0].

Such arguments for "Creationism" automatically lock themselves into regressive mode and become self-refuting. Please read my previous posts in this thread for a detailed derivation of this proof.

Also please read more details and analysis on the same issue/subject in:
http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=147&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=450

I also notice, the rest of your presentation closely resembles the idea of Spinoza. :)

pradheep

11th March 2005, 11:49 PM

Dear Mellon

As a first step, why dont you go to Himalayas if u r working on that SERIOUSLY???

How can you practise something where there is no problem?. Have you heard of the Indian proverb......It is not great to be a non-alcoholic by working as a preist in a temple...but it is great to be a non-alcoholic by working in a bar.

Rohit always conveniently avoids where he will be cornered and same with following principles. He gave a link where Dalai lama quotes that Buddha. Look where is the difference between Buddha and that I (vedic) wrote.

Rohit did not accept what i meant by awareness and he just quoted the following....

[/quote]How can we live in awareness?
Analyze! Let's take the example of Mahatma Gandhi. ....... I still tell not to beleive in God but analyze...... analyze and I gave the Upanishad student enquiring.
[/quote]

I talked about dreaming and creating dream in which the creationist, creation and the creation is one. Look how Rohit is not comprehend his own master's teaching. I always said the Mind is the one that creates like in a dream. We create our own matrix world.

Who caused the law of causality?
About that, the Buddha would say 'the mind', never God or dharmakaya or even the Buddha himself.

How did the mind come about?
The source of mind is nature. The word that been used for existence is 'interdependent arising'.

This interdependant arising is called mithya. But we should be aware that there is one indepedant "........".

Can anyone become a Buddha?
Oh yes! All sentient beings have the seed of the Buddha within them.

The Buddha within them is not the physical Buddha sitting like a Ghost in everyone. This is Aham Brahmasmi........which means we are "That" and we have to means to know and become Buddha.
It is also said that eventually all sentient beings will attain Buddhahood?
Yes, this is so because all negative emotions of the mind can be eliminated. Once the mind is purified, you are a Buddha.

This mind purification is what I mentioned. Now without this mind purification one cannot realize Buddha or Brahman. I always said that all rituals and symbolisms are meant for this purification.

This inner purification was the last i asked Rohit and you mellon took it so personal, without understanding the reason.

Mellon I was once like you and Rohit......read all scientific and religious books. I never got the truth. I only got when i purified my mind. No one can get this without purifying the mind, whether one is christian, hindu, buddhist or of any religion. Reading and intellectual thinking will not help in proving God. One has to realize God by purifying the Mind. Buddha was silent when asked about God because if he said "Yes" then people would think of a God as a creationist, which is wrong. If he said "No" then that would also contradict the truth he experience. So he remained silent. Already people had taken vedic rituals literally and making hell out of it and so he did not give importance to that. He avoided all symbolism and rituals and straight went to purify the mind. But how many can do that. Then again India was corrputed because they misunderstood Buddha's teaching. Next Adi-sankara had to bring it back and again in got polluted and then came others and Histroy continues again.

In the older thread Rohit asked me why cant spiritual masters clean all the impurities once for all. i said It can never happen because the mind will never cease to be pure. Now look his own master reveals it. can he now accept what i said before?

The mind, and space too, have no counterforce and so have no reason to cease. In the case of other afflictive emotions, they might end if they have strong positive counter forces. But in case of the mind, we cannot say that it will come to an end, as it is difficult to find a strong antidote that will hinder its existence, as in the case of space.

Hope mellon you undertand why I asked whether Rohit has done that inner purification to be Buddha. Only through inner purification one can know "Buddha....or Brahman or God (again the God is not the creationist God I am talking). Without inner purification we all will be discussing only at the intellectual level and it will be like the blind men describing an elephant. So if you cant do that inner purification and know the truth then dont rebuke that "Truth".

As Mahatma Gandhi said " Truth will not cease to be just because some one denies it". Gandhi is a great spiritual master who like Jesus has to do struggle with the world to get the truth out. Many people do not know that this great Mahatma Gandhi was liberating himself (freedom) though India's independence. He used freedom fight both internally and externally. Since he practiced what he taught, he is a mahatma...the only who knows himself. We dont need to talk of Buddha, jesus, krishna Ram etc etc because we dotn know what all conditions existed in their times. But Gandhi's life is an open book for us and his life is a practical example for relazing the Truth.

Understand all Guns and military weapons were helpless in front of this skinny man, because he is the embodiment of Truth and Truth cannot be won with intellectual weapons. India still have not understood Gandhi and that is why India is becomming materialistically richer but spiritually getting poorer. An Individual man or a country cannot have prosperity without spiritual wealth.

Follow the path of Gandhi......

I am using words of dalai lama ....

Why then did he become a mahatma? It was because of his heart. He did not act for himself or in his own interest; that is karuna. Karuna, I think, is the main element in becoming a good person. Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong were powerful leaders. But they lacked karuna and became unpopular.

So to know thr Truth, intellectual reading will not help......only purification of the mind will only help. This is the essence of all spiritual master's teaching and of course Vedic rituals and chantings.

mellon

12th March 2005, 12:11 AM

How can you practise something where there is no problem?.

You are here to practise????? No kidding?

You can practise in Africa. You know, they are all dying of aids because of lack of awareness and YOUR GUIDANCE??????

YOU SHOULD GO there, Pradheep!

Come on! dont tell me all these proverb.

Go teach that to the people those who really need help in Africa. I dont think people need help in a country where they explicitly say, In GOd we trust, everywhere and they have minimal problems.

pradheep

12th March 2005, 12:27 AM

Dear Mellon
The practice is internal and not external. Ofcourse the external helps in internal. when i am ready i will be in Africa or in slums. There are great people who are doing that and i am cleaning here some stinking job that no one wants to do. When I complete that I will go for that.

Mellon, the dirt of the body is easy to clean but the dirt of the mind is not that easy. It is easy to clean and help slums , but the slums of the mind is very difficult.

Mellon , I started body healing through sakthifoundation.org .....to my surprise I get more letters seeking help for mental problems than their body ailments, because they can take pain killer for body pain ....but no medicine for killing the pain of the mind.

As Chinmayananda said the Irony of Modern man is, increasing unhappiness in the midst of increasing body comforts.

First i have to save (clean) myself otherwise I will drown with others whom I am thinking to save. I had more than 33 years of intellectual garbage in my mind. When I almost clean enough I will help others phsycially also.
Thank you my dear mellon.

mellon

12th March 2005, 12:32 AM

Dear Mellon

The practice is internal and not external..

Then it does not matter whether India or west or himalayas. Right???

Why do you insult our land as if there is no place is there to practise?

We have a big land with billion people?

Why travel all the way to other end if it is internal. Beats me, Pradheep :?

Rohit

12th March 2005, 12:32 AM

Dear Pradheep, like I said many times now, you couldn't even define your God but kept running in cirlcles to avoide all those 1000s of questions and points I have raised. You must relise that just delusional claims won't strengthen your arguments. They never did in the past, they don't do at presesnt and they will never do in the future.

There is no point in you using bits here and there, backed by lots of contradictions and subjective fallacies just to sustain your emotional feeling. Anyway, you have clearly proved that you have nothing more left to back your delusional claims, but to use some convenient bits here and bits there without any validity whatsoever.

About who is cornered? Well, you don't have to tell it to anybody but yourself; as everyone now knows your lies and fallacies, which I have clearly presented and proved.

Please keep trying (if not keep crying)

Good Luck! :D

pradheep

12th March 2005, 03:05 AM

[/quote]you couldn't even define your God

God is the uncaused, eternal, without a begining and end,

consicousness............... that is independant, unable to be grasped by intellect, but that which illuminates intellect, awareness, mind,

that is unlimited, formless and undefinable, only close defintion is the "Being, consciousness"...................................

Rohit

12th March 2005, 04:07 AM

consicousness............... that is independant, unable to be grasped by intellect, but that which illuminates intellect, awareness, mind

undefinable, only close defintion is the "Being, consciousness"...................................

What is unable to be grasped by whose intellect? Who/what is illuminating whom/what? Whose intellect? Whose awreness? Whose mind? Whose consciousness? What is undefinable and by whom?

Just identify the entity or entities as applicable and make it explicitly clear.

Are you moving away form "Creator, Creation and Created/Knower, Knowing, Known" version of your "Undefinable" God?

If it is undefinable (as you have just said) then, as I have said it frequently, you haven't defined it yet, let alone prove it or explain it. And there are 1000s of questions and points still remain avoided by you, despite my frequent reminders. Are they giving you too much trouble? I am sorry but you cannot move even an inch further without answering those and then refuting my both proofs, both being analytical; one based on logical arguments and the other based on probabililistic arguments.

Do you understand Pradheep, what I am telling you? I guess not. Emotional feelings do not allow your "Mind" to be "Conscious" and "Aware" enough to grasp that. Just by watching Hollywood movies (matrix etc.) and describing them here cannot support your fallacious claims and phantoms of your "mind".

So, keep trying and crying. :)

Raghu

12th March 2005, 09:21 PM

I know Raghu, it is painful for you but this the irrefutable proof and it hurts believers like you. You may have to learn to live with your own problems of not understanding such arguments. :lol:

:lol: it's not hurting me Rohit, but please do keep entertaining us, :lol: , I mean with your formula, I was not hurt rohit, why would I be, it is your ignorance and sheer arrogance which keeps us all entertained :lol:

Raghu

12th March 2005, 09:29 PM

Good point, Pradheep. My cousin had a vision of the tsunami two weeks before it came. She did not think much of it at the time. Then the tsunami came... I do not believe we can ever know everything there is to know... there will always be something which eludes our mental facilities.

SRS, you are wrong dude, nothing in the world eludes our great Rohit ji's mind, he knows everything! :shock: :lol:

Raghu

12th March 2005, 10:07 PM

"When he realized he was incurably ill, his logic forced him to realize he would cease to exist, and hence cease to have thoughts. It was heartbreaking to watch the frustration of his mind, when all hope was gone, in its struggle with the fate which appeared to him unavoidable but unacceptable."

You see, Rohit, you can spend a lifetime analyzing equations, but you can only do it for a lifetime. This, I believe, is why most ppl choose to place trust in a higher entity. Because as the Buddha noted, only suffering is permanent, so long as mortals inhabit the physical body. This life is one of many; one must constantly strive to prepare for the next.

SRS correct, the reason for sufferings is when one becomes attached with the Maya in this Kali Yuga, when one is free from Maya attachments, and then the atma is in a neutral state, neither happy nor sad. when you are attached to something, which we all are, we enjoy the positive aspects or suffer the negative aspects of that, this very logical, this is beautifully explained in the gita, that all our sufferings and enjoyment are due to our karma, whether in this life or previous!

Raghu

12th March 2005, 11:43 PM

Dear Rohit,

Logics can not prove everything, formulas can not prove everything, can logics predict the future or tell the past, I don’t think you have proved the non existence of god; perhaps you have convinced your self. You have stated that, some of my statements contradict, please prove it, last but not least, stop name calling like children, you said Pradheep is a pathetic joker, in fact we are all pathetic jokers I will tell you why, take this example.

A flock of sheep are taken to a slaughter house, where one by one every sheep is slaughtered, but the ones who are about to be slaughtered did not know that their turn to be slaughtered is next, but these sheep go on eating the grass as if they will not die. This is exactly the same with the so called humans, they see others die, but they think they will not die, and indulge them self in the vicious Maya, which is like a big black cloud covering their minds, and once these clouds pass away, some minds realise the truth, hence they gain the spiritual knowledge, while many still indulge themselves in Maya by being ignorant towards the ultimate truth (Paramathma)

So rohit, as long as we indulge in this Maya, being arrogant & ignorant towards the truth, we are all pathetic jokers!!!

The title of this thread is a bit funny, how can evolution take place without creation, evolution must begin with something right? And that something must have been created right? And that concludes there must be a creator.

thought of any ideas for your next life, yet, rohit? :lol: , i mean the type of perishable body that you will like :lol:

geno

13th March 2005, 04:22 AM

I have a Q for the Moderators,

When the tsunami came, it did not distinguish between rich and poor, atheist and God-believer.

Those who died were destined to die at that moment. This is the power of God.

SRS says that here in this post :

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/posting.php?mode=quote&p=81415

Is it allowed?

I mean to arbitrarily declare that the victims of such a huge disaster - simply were "destined" to die that day, in that way - is it allowed here?

And now :

To our very own "Raghu" - the Confused eezhamite! - I pose the same question.

Are you comfotable with that proposition of SRS?

What would you say - if someone "proposed" that the victims of the July 1983 riots were "Destined" to suffer and so they did!

Now dont Jump at me - coz you very well know my Political beliefs regarding eezham, just answer that hypothetical Q in the best possible manner that is possible for you.

Tikke! Confused Eezhamite! :)

aguy2

13th March 2005, 04:55 AM

http://www.self-creation.net

Dear aguy2

Nice thoughts and presentation indeed!

The above argument is no different from the creationists’ arguments for the “Intelligent Design” i.e. ID.

"Self-Creationism" as I have presented it differs from "Intelligent Design Creationism" in part because they have distinctly different 'agendae'. The primary agenda of "ID Creationism" is an attempt to 'prove' the existence of a 'Creator'; the primary agenda of "Self-Creationism" is to show that the Universe and its constituents have an intrinsic meaning and purpose.

For such a “Creator” to exist prior to “Creation” would require it to be far more complex than the universe itself at any stage.

Up to this point I agree with you, but then you make what I think is an error when you presume that, "far more complex than the universe itself at any stage" is equivalent with being "ultimate" or 'absolute' in regards to complexity. To my mind, being absolutely complex would mean that the 'Creator' would be 'non-dynamic'. I call this the "tape recording in a plaster statue syndrome".

When you say that C=1, you are saying that the complexity is absolute. You are right when you say C1*P0=0, but what you are proving is that the probability of there being a non-dynamic 'Creator' is zero, nonetheless if C=.9999 the mathematical probabilities are quite different.

it can be clearly shown by the normalisation of all complexities with reference to the complexity of "Creator" that the probability for the existence of such an ultimate complex "entity" would become absolutely “0”. [C = 1, P = 0].

I also notice, the rest of your presentation closely resembles the idea of Spinoza. :)

About the only thing I can recall about Spinoza is that he considered the 'Creator' to be "spatially unbounded", which I agree with. How else do you think "Self-Creationism" is similar to his ideas?
Sincerely yours, aguy2

aguy2

13th March 2005, 05:47 AM

pradheep,
Did you say that, "The word that has been used for existence is 'interdependent arising' or 'mithya'? Is this 'mithya' akin to a 'process', as in "existence is emergent from 'becoming' and not emergent from 'being'?
Sincerely, aguy2

Raghu

13th March 2005, 05:43 PM

I mean to arbitrarily declare that the victims of such a huge disaster - simply were "destined" to die that day, in that way - is it allowed here?

And now :

To our very own "Raghu" - the Confused eezhamite! - I pose the same question.

I am not confused, Geno ji

Are you comfotable with that proposition of SRS?

What would you say - if someone "proposed" that the victims of the July 1983 riots were "Destined" to suffer and so they did!

Now dont Jump at me - coz you very well know my Political beliefs regarding eezham, just answer that hypothetical Q in the best possible manner that is possible for you.

Tikke! Confused Eezhamite! :)

Geno ji, it is extremley sad when any living entity die, be it a human or a dog!, but what ever is destined to suffer or enjoy is under the control of the 'Paramathma', this is called fate, it is very cruel, but this is beyond human control! :cry: :cry: :cry:

Geno I am aware of your support to Eezham, but as humans being we are nothing but puppets controled by the law of Paramatha, there is no escaping. :cry: :cry:

geno

13th March 2005, 09:04 PM

Raghu,

Thanks for openly stating that july 1983 riot victims and subsequent usfferings of thamizh eezham people are only suffering what is "Destined" for them to undergo.

I hope you really did understand what you just said.

I will have no further interactions with you hereafter.

Thanks for whatever.

Rohit

13th March 2005, 10:39 PM

Logics can not prove everything, formulas can not prove everything
In that case, simple wants of something can prove absolutely "nothing" for you, if you ever attempt and care to realise that. Also, in that case a formalised, coherent and consistent thinking process can prove a lot more than mere empty, inconsistent, deluded and illogical flights of minds.

Anyway, thank you Raghu for your ideas and futile attempts, but that help you prove nothing whatsoever. If you just want your wishes to become true, I can't help it to become true when I am sure of them being "False". You, Pradheep and other believers will have to just continue with your beliefs absolutely blindly without worrying about their validity or anything else; that is all I can suggest to all believers. :D

Rohit

14th March 2005, 03:42 AM

The primary agenda of "ID Creationism" is an attempt to 'prove' the existence of a 'Creator'; the primary agenda of "Self-Creationism" is to show that the Universe and its constituents have an intrinsic meaning and purpose.
But there is a clear, common element of intelligence involved in both. Meaning and purpose are the product of intelligence/cognition, which in itself is a complex element, being used to project the necessity for an outside imparting agent of intelligence. i.e "Creator".

In that context, the argument still runs around the falsely assumed improbability of an absolute evolution of universe and human life, which was the main purpose and reason behind your argument to involve a self-evolving “Creator”

When you say that C=1, you are saying that the complexity is absolute.I am afraid no, I can see it clearly that you have failed to grasp the meaning of normalised complexities. They are not absolute, they are relative, normalised against that of a supposed “Creator”. The probabilities are absolute, but dependent on relative complexities involved, resulting in “0” probability for the “creator” of any form or function, irrespective of the function assumed for imparting any meaning or purpose, I am afraid.

In that case, there is no question of the complexity "C" for the supposed "Creator" becoming any less than “1” as it too has to be normalised in the process of normalisation of complexities, making it “1”. Which then allows one to derive [C = 0, P = 1] for the absolute evolution of the universe, including life and [C = 1, P = 0] for the supposed “Creator” of any form or function.

-----------------
Observation:

It will be really interesting to read Pradheep’s response to Aguy2's post addressed to him. However, one thing is crystal clear, Aguy2, Pradheep, Sudhaama, Raghu etc. each have different and contradicting concepts of their supposed "Creator" , creation and created.

dr#

14th March 2005, 08:18 AM

evolution.
dinosaurs, fossils, galapagos finches......evidence is pretty good.

pradheep

14th March 2005, 06:26 PM

Dear aguy2
All our physical and mental aspects are depended on Consciousness (Brahman) and hence called mithya. Consciousness is independant and hence satya. The inability to distinguish satya from mithya is maya.

Very simple example is the difference between thinker and the thought. Thought is mithya and thinker is satya. Its akin to the dream and the dreamer. The whole world is a mental projection of each one of us. Without the "mental" projection where is the world?.

So existance is mithya and being is satya. Hope I have understood your question and answered it.

geno

15th March 2005, 01:39 AM

Pradeep,

Using the same example - If the "thought" itself is "unreal" - by which a "thinker"s attribute is defined with(by thinking that thought) - how can then the "thinker" - be real - if what he's supposed to "think" is in itself an unreal thing? :)

Ilavenil

15th March 2005, 03:32 AM

I thought I would just add my views.

I don't believe that if you do good, nothing bad would ever approach you. I don't believe that when I am in trouble, God would come and rescue me. But, I still do good deeds because that is who I am. I have learnt to separate myself from rest of this materialistic world. I have nothing to lose and I have nothing to gain from this world. But, I will keep doing good.

There have been days, when I strongly believed that God was on my side and nothing would go wrong. There have been days, when I was angry with God for problems we face and felt as if it was meaningless to believe that there really exsists one. I have tried to control my life with scientific reasoning. Both, when I believed in God and when I didn't, nothing really changed, there was no difference. No solution for any problem and no answer for any question I had.

That is when I had an opportunity to learn meditation. I struggled to control my thought flow. I realized that my mind was wandering without control, one stupid thought after the other, like an unleased horse . I learnt that, if I could conquer myself, I could conquer everything else. Conquering oneself is not that easy. Toughest I would say, especialy in this materialistic world. My only goal so fa,r is to accomplish that. I try not to rejoice if something good happens, neither do I lose control when something goes wrong. I have lot of peace in life after reaching this stage. I do use Hinduism as a ladder to acheive this stage. That is only because I was born as Hindu and I don't know about other religions. I do believe that no religion is superior to other. Hinduism is just a guide for me, like a blind person using a stick to navigate.

This is my opinion, I have no intension to hurt anyone's believes and feelings.

Rohit

15th March 2005, 04:08 AM

Statement #1:

But this consciousness is not reflected by a stone because it has no awareness. For awareness to happen it requires a certain physical state or organization. This physical organization follows a specific pattern and is logical and intelligent
Statement #2

All our physical and mental aspects are depended on Consciousness
Both statements are made by our unaware friend Pradheep, simply because they reflect the sheer instability in his thoughts arising at two times and caused by differences in his physical and mental states or organisation at two different times, seriously affecting his consciousness and thus his awareness.

I have serious doubts about the stability of Pradheep's physical and mental states which seriously affect his awareness, resulting in such inconsistent and convoluted statements. Well, that is why he remains unable to address anything clearly and keeps going round circles, as he did that again by making two opposing statements as quoted above. :D

pradheep

15th March 2005, 05:31 AM

Dear Geno
what do you mean by real and unreal thoughts?. Thought is a thought, there is no real and unreal. We can have coherent and incoherent thoughts. But thoughts are thoughts. Therefore the thinker is always a thinker.

Dear Rohit
I am very glad to know that you are very stable in judging me again and again that I have unstable thinking and making contradicting statements.

I thought you have given up one me. If I try to explain the contradiction that appears to you, you would say I give "fitting answers". So does it matter if I explain to you about the contradiction?. Rohit, Why bother about an mentally unstable guy going round circles?

Thank you Ilavenil for your views, which makes sense to a guy like me. I am glad through "experience" you gain the means to know the Truth.

Rohit

15th March 2005, 01:03 PM

Thank you Pradheep for acknowledging the "Truth" about your current state and orientation. Therefore, I shall not bother with your forthcoming views anymore as they would be as they always have been, fluctuating all the time.

Thank you again.
Good Luck! :D

Rohit

16th March 2005, 02:14 AM

SRS

16th March 2005, 11:13 AM

Re: "Thoughts" and "Thinker".

Please read the following statements in conjunction with the other two statements, I quoted earlier.

Statement #3:

Why should we transcend thoughts to know consciousness? Because thoughts masks our awareness to know consciousness. How to get rid of thoughts. Because we have taken for granted that we are just thinking machines producing thoughts. To transcend thoughts one has to know awareness because mind is just a flow of thoughts.
Statement #4:

I left the post with the question, how to know the consciousness through spiritual practices. To put in one sentence, by transcending all the thoughts that make us think that we (the thinker) are just the body, mind and intellect.
Statement #5:

Thought is a thought, there is no real and unreal. We can have coherent and incoherent thoughts. But thoughts are thoughts. Therefore the (deluded/psychotic) thinker is always a (deluded/psychotic) thinker

The words in brackets are clearly and evidently deducible from the quoted statements, emerging from a thinker’s mind as spurious flows of random and incoherent thoughts. :D

Rohit,

If you are a true rationalist as you claim, consider revising your definition of mental illness. First of all, I do not think anyone here is psychotic (given to unnatural episodes of rage/aggression). Pradheep, for one, has remained calm and collected throughout this discussion. Secondly, mental illness is not necessarily a sign of poor analytical ability. Many "geniuses" as we call them, suffered from numerous mental handicaps, but the end result was not to lessen their ability. On the contrary, many of these ppl were able to perform at their best during what you might call "altered states of cognizance." Readers here are perhaps familiar with the movie in which Russel Crowe portrayed the real-life schizophrenic Nobel-prize winning mathematician John Nash. This man is one of many who has said some of his best work was performed during the so-called altered state I referred to earlier.

I know all this is against your fragile, carefully constructed perspective of normal human cognizance as a means to an end, Rohit, but you should be aware that nothing less than science has proved otherwise. As has been suggested by Pradheep and others in this thread, we function on many levels of so-called "awareness." The notion of a God, however, is on a very high plane. One can't experience the fullness of God similar to the way one eats/drinks/sleeps. One has to completely seperate oneself from the physical body. That, Rohit, is the point I believe you are missing. Good luck.

Rohit

16th March 2005, 01:11 PM

SRS,

No matter how hard one tries to convince oneself, no experience is possible outside human existence, even the mental experiences. Otherwise you will find lots of “Ghosts” coming here and writing their experiences, but that is not happening.

Moreover, whose mental states are we talking about? According to Pradheep’s definition God is the “Creator, Creation , Created” i.e. a single entity, no entity or entities external or separate from the notion of his God could exist, then whose physical or mental states are we talking about?

This is nothing but a clear case of self-deception and it is clearly proved.

Good Luck! :D

SRS

16th March 2005, 01:39 PM

SRS,

No matter how hard one tries to convince oneself, no experience is possible outside human existence, even the mental experiences.

Yes, but not every experience is explainable within the context of human logic.

Moreover, whose mental states are we talking about? According to Pradheep’s definition God is the “Creator, Creation , Created” i.e. a single entity, no entity or entities external or separate from the notion of his God could exist, then whose physical or mental states are we talking about?

If you accept that God came first, then it follows logically that everything is somehow related to God. You convince yourself that you are unique, that you are different in some way, from the person next to you. But actually you are some diseased waste product, left-over from past lives. I say diseased because (I) your physical body rots faster and faster in direct proportion to age, (II) your senses are subject to maya. So really there is nothing great about human "rationality", if that is what you mean by the supreme objective of existence. Your rationality will not make you immortal. Immortal cannot be defined by boundary conditions and probabilities. Immortal is timeless, formless, and shapeless. Immortal is not being subject to oppositions (cold, hot, happy, sad, etc). Immortal is not possible within the physical body, because physical body is a decaying system. So now I get back to the original point. There is no difference between you and the fellow next to you. After many rebirths, you and he will become part of the creator once again. First you were created, by means of which you became part of creation, but to be created, a creator is required. All three are dependent on each other, but only the creator - God - is immortal.

Rohit

17th March 2005, 12:12 AM

Yes, but not every experience is explainable within the context of human logic.
To use the same example of John Nash of “Beautiful Mind”, he could achieve nothing as long as he believed in his schizophrenic experiences. As soon as he succeeded in consciously suppressing the compulsions resulting from his psychotic episodes, he could do real constructive work, which won him the award. So, the experience-based arguments have no validity in blindly accepting something that cannot happen or exist. In fact, they strongly work against such beliefs, I am afraid.

If you accept that God came first, then it follows logically that everything is somehow related to God.
See, first you reject human logic to allow for a blind acceptance of something and then conveniently use the same logic to construct fallacies of all sorts. And then you go onto describe all wishful thoughts of formless, immortal, rebirths, shapeless, timeless etc. for which you have nothing but a zilch support (it is all in your dreams as Pradheep firmly believes :lol: ), I am afraid.

Anyway, whatever is going to happen to me or anyone else, is going to happen to you or any one else. So, the arguments involving fallacies of emotional blackmailing serve you no purpose whatsoever.

Moreover, when such a "God/Creator" gets completely "grounded" for its existence and the absolute evolution is proved to be with a much higher (100%) probability, why would then one accept something blindly that has absolutely "0" probability for its existence?

I have no objection if you can do that, but that leaves you no ground whatsoever to get involved in a debate such as this. It is far more logical for you to carryon with your beliefs based on blind acceptance.

Below is what pradheep wrote earlier in the “Does God exist? thread

ragu

If god created the earth, us, etc I would like to know with what did he create us? and what was before that? You cannot create something out of anything, after all

GOD is the creator, creation and the created.

Which is now in total contradiction with what you have said, as quoted below. Pradheep has clearly rejected the "God" of your conception, which is same as Raghu's and now you have rejected the "God" of Pradheep's conception, leaving you both and other believers with absolutely "nothing"; and that is a true and precise condition for "God = Nothing" as I have already proved.

First you were created, by means of which you became part of creation, but to be created, a creator is required.
This is clearly and evidently not the same as "GOD is the creator, creation and the created" as asserted by Pradheep against Raghu's views. - In Pradheep’s own terminology, he has described and asserted a cow with horns, a single entity; and you and Raghu describe the potter creating/making pots from clay, depicting dual entities i.e. dualism.

You are using the same arguments again as used by the creationists to support their “creationism”, which has been thoroughly dismissed many times by the concluding proof [C =0, P =1] validating the absolute evolution of the universe and life itself and [C=1, P = 0], which completely rejects both the involvement and existence of “God” of any form or function.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
To save a prolonged, regression as underwent by Pradheep, Raghu, Aguy2 and now SRS and other belivers alike,- I will produce my entire post as the concluding proof against what has been argued so far, by Pradheep, Raghu, Aguy2, Sudhaama, SRS and other believers. Read this in conjunction with the quoted statements #1 to #5 above:

As I said earlier (in response to Pradheep's response saying Buddha as "nothing" since Buddha have said "Nothing exists"- i.e. Buddhist's sunyavada). Now with reference to both this and the above referenced post, who is that which denies "God"? Clearly, it cannot be other than the "Creator-Creation-Created/Knower-Knowing-Known God" itself; and precisely here where it creates "Logically Explosive" contradictions. Both P [AND] NOT P cannot be "True". Whenever such contradicting conditions arise, it is known as "Logically Explosive" contradictions and tells us that the premise/model/format is "False".

That is why I said earlier in response to Pradheep's contradicting post- Replacing all human being by "God" in Pradheep's post that:

By demonstrating the sheerness of contradictions everywhere, our friend Pradheep himself has proved that such a psychotic God cannot/doesn’t exist except in psychotic minds.

Pradheep also wrote the following during his discussion with Nambi and then with me in "Does God Exist?" thread.

1. Fear (of God) is the to control.

2. Unless there is a fear of god, the world will be like hell.

3. Then he is not a master. A true master’s aim is to see that his disciples experience the same bliss (knowledge) that he enjoys.

4. No need of an exceptional sixth sense. We don’t use sense objects to attain the purpose.

5. But as I mentioned earlier here in spiritualism what one tries to see oneself. Like an eye trying to look itself.

6. I can show you that there is one true definition of GOD and I have found it is in all religion. It is universal truth.

7. This is human problem. First of all you see science and religion as different I see it as one.

8. But ultimately it is through gnana (reasoning) only you can realise GOD.

9. It is through gnana I got so called “enlightened”

10. I know there is a well-defined way.

11. I have written in FH our ancestors have understood crystal clear about the origin of this universe, about the nature of this universe about planet, about sun’s rotation, day and night and about eclipse.
Pradheep wrote the following in "The real meaning of 432" Topic started by Marius Darre

Welcome back Fridge,

You dream that you are born and then become old and then you was chased by a dog while walking and fell and then you wake up.

You are the GOD in your sleep. Your create your own characters and sustain them and then dissolve them.
In dream it looks so real. You are not aware of your profession your relation, you are not time consciouss nor space conscious. You are with your own self. You create your own birth and death.

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/expr/1310.17.59.08.html

Below is what Pradheep wrote in the "Self-actualization vs. finding God" Topic started by "Searching for the endless"

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/expr/17668.20.03.05.html

You (that is me, Rohit) think you are in reality and I am in dream world. I think I am in reality and you are in a dream world.

I tell her to know both the dream worlds is the greatest gift of life.

How can you wake me up, my dear Rohit. When you understand that I am in a dream world, you also exist in my dream. I have created you Rohit, My dream. I am dreaming that in my dream, rohit, in which i created you, as writing in this forum and trying to wake me up which is also a dream.

Luckily I am aware of my dream. Therefore I dont take the dream too serious. However In my dream I run if a tiger chases me or drive my car within speed limits to avoid tickets, go to work , get my pay check, do my job good and demand for my raises, happy when I get it, hit back someone who tries to hit me, post messages in forum hub, communicate with my good freinds like Rohit, sleep in my dream and dream dreams in my dream

Yes I am dreaming that you are writing in the forum and asking me the questions and testing me.

The moment he shifts in looking for details in the dream, he is no longer the dreamer , but becomes the dream itself. That’s why a dreamer does not look for dream details but just remain aware of the dream which is the real fun of having the dream.

A dreamer does not wish to see minor details but simply enjoys the show of the dream and be aware of the dream.

How can you watch me , when you are in my dream rohit. When you are a "character" in my dream how can you know me, the dreamer, let alone trying to wake me up.

In my dream world, I have created characters who do understand about the dream and the dreamer (me)
Which precisley proved what I was telling Pradheep to refute my logical expression [Your Dream World] (XOR) [Explicit Awareness], in which he miserably failed and quitted.

Now read what he says in his latest post. He did't see his "God" (RRR) but found in his thoughts - Also he sees everything separated- as in Dualism/Dvaita.

Regarding Buddha, this is what a Buddhist says

I had written that there is no Supreme God in Buddhism.

At the same time, the Buddha created a doctrine which had completely different aspects from either Hinduism and Jainism. The best example is the no-soul belief. Has there been any Hindu or Jain who has been able to argue the nonexistence of souls, and keep that consistent within his religious beliefs? How could one be a Hindu or Jain, without the soul?

Buddhists consider all gods as subhuman
Which fully confirmed what I have been saying about Buddha that he denied the existence of both the Dynamic God as well as the Atman/Soul/Isvara.

The World Buddhist Sangha Council convened by Theravadins in Sri Lanka in 1966 unanimously declared

“3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”

Source:

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

Below is what Buddhist spiritual leader Dalai Lama has said in an interview.

PC/SC: The Buddha was silent on the question of God. What about you?

DL: Why did the Buddha not say anything about God? Because he talked about the law of causality. Once you accept the law of cause and effect, the implication is that there is no 'creator'. If the Buddha accepted the concept of a creator, he would not have been silent; everything would have been God!

http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/masters/dalai-lama/his-holiness.asp

Meditation means: Introspection, contemplation, musing, reflection, thought, consideration, study etc.

And I have done exactly that; and proved the non-existence of God. The only difference is, I think/contemplate/reflect sitting under an apple tree in my garden and not under a Bodhi tree, like Buddha did. This is evident from all my posts, well-focused, to the point and fully consistent, proving the non-existence of God; unlike Pradheep's defused, inconsistent and always contradicting and unstable thoughts, reflected identically through all his posts.

So, Pradheep, here are hard evidences showing and proving your utter lies and delusions, resulting in countless regressions. In fact, you have hopelessly struggled to even define your God, let alone show anyone the path.

I can argue with you Rohit, for hundred years but still I cannot prove God.
Thank you Pradheep, finally you accept the “Truth” that you can prove nothing but just delude and lie, which keeps changing as you delude yourself to the extremes.

Everything I have produced here about you, Pradheep; clearly proves that you have no clear vision and/or thought that remains stable for much longer. All your claims are proved to be pure fabrications and fallacies manufactured through self-deception and delusions, followed by utter lies , there is nothing more than that in your posts.

So, Pradheep I am sorry but your time is up. This was your last and final chance to produce something sensible, but you failed miserably; instead you produced your gobbledegook cognition and ended up completing your sixth and final regression.

Here is an essential part of my proof again:

Let us normalise what is called as complexity - used by creationists to back their claim of “Creation” - with reference to the complexity of the supposed “Creator God”; then the resulting complexity for the supposed “Creator God” would equate to 1. Now this would allow one to map the entire complexity range between 0 and 1, starting with no complexity whatsoever to which all irreducibly complex objects must reduce to for evolution to remain valid; to the ultimate complexity of the supposed “Creator God” against which all other complexities are normalised.

Now let us carefully considers two boundary conditions: One at [C = 0, P = 1] and the other at [C = 1, P = 0]

At [C = 0, P = 1]

Putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 0 * 1 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, which is exactly the same as specified for the first boundary condition i.e. [C = 0, P = 1]

At [C = 1, P = 0]

Again, putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 1 * 0 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, but the result is in total contradiction with the originally specified condition for the second boundary i.e. [C = 1, P = 0]

So, one could clearly figure it out and see how creationists cheat and produce fallacious claims based on probabilistic fallacies. I have clearly demonstrated how creationists falsely derive “1” probability when the actual/original probability is “0”.

Even an ordinary teenage kid, when equipped with some basic knowledge on probability, could figure out the fallacies used by creationists in order to entertain their delusional claims used as wish fulfilment and support their beliefs in religious texts, when confronted with puzzles and complexities that create insecurity.

This proves it again that the probability for the existence of "God" as depicted in the RRR (remember this the format you have selected) format is zero “0”

The other two formats i.e. RUU - Real God, Unreal Cognition and Unreal Physical World and RRU - Real God, Real Cognition and Unreal Physical World are already falsified.

The only format that survives is URR/FTT- Unreal God, Real Cognition and Real Physical World. Where the condition (God)[XOR](Physical World) of mutual exclusion truely applies. That is, God and Physical World are Mutually Exclusive, they cannot/doesn’t coexist; and through my proof, I have precisely proved that, that God of any form or function as variously conceptualised/postulated by the varigated believers is Unreal/False and hence cannot/doesn’t exist. Thus, proving the URR/FTT format of “absolute” evolution as the only and real “Truth”

So, the conclusion I have already drawn is fully validated and becomes applicable from now on, and I am not going to bother with any regressinve arguments of the believers, which always become self-refuting, as I have clearly demonstrated and proved above.:D

Thank you and good luck with your blind acceptance :)

oohlala

17th March 2005, 06:01 PM

:roll: GOD!!??? :shock:
:?: :?:
Religion reflects CULTURE...even if u remove god and do a cermony it has a meaning so god is just a DUMMY character

pradheep

17th March 2005, 10:21 PM

Dear Srs
thanks for your views.

Dear rohit
We come to square one , where I asked you to explain sweetness. You cannot and you wont. You or some other member gave me the chemical structure of sugar....but that again is a symbolic representation of sweet. You can go in circles and contradict every expression you make defining sweetness. But just because you cannot define sweetness but go in circles it does not mean you are in delusion. Untill you put sweet in mouth you wont "know" it.

This is why i said I cannot God , like i cannot prove sweetness. The only way is to transcend thoughts and realize. I am giving your own "Buddha's path. He taught meditation to his followers, why? Because he knew that is the path. I dont need to explain why all that got lost over time.

All you intellectual formulas has nothing to d with the truth. i can only laugh at it.

So rohit put soemthing sweet in your mouth to experience it. Beware I would later make a statement God is not an experience. Dont think I am then contradicting.

So get back to me after doign meditation as your Buddha taught. Then we can Sam-vaada , otherwise it will continue only as vidanda-vaadam.

Rohit

17th March 2005, 11:21 PM

i can only laugh at it.
My dear Pradheep, yes, you have no choice but to laugh it away and try to cope with your excruciatingly painful dissonance, resulting from the situations that you have heedlessly invited for yourself. I can understand both your physical and mental conditions resulting from the overwhelming overloads of broken emotions, shattering and washed-up repeated defeats. I am afraid, I can only sympathise to you for your continual debacles.

God is not an experience.
Yes I know; as I have already proved that "God = Nothing". So, don't worry even if you have already contradicted, as eveyone now knows your cognitive and psychological conditions. :D

I hope you do remember the words you frequently used i.e. gnana/reasoning as the ultimate and only way through which to realise GOD and through which, precisely as you said, you got so-called "enlightened" - To refresh your fading memory in such distressing situations, please refer to your own statements, I just quoted in my previous post, which sadly, no longer holds true as it got completely smashed against far stronger reasoning presented in my analytical proofs.

However, when you have something to say, please make sure that it is not as regressive and self-refuting as it has been so far, I literally mean so far. If I don’t care to respond, please don’t get offended :notworthy:, as I would have said you to refer to my proofs that you or any believers cannot ever touch.

Till then, good luck with everything that you do with your life my friend, and keep testing various chocolates and sweets as stimulants; and see how your taste buds respond over time, depending on your physical and mental conditions, even when 5 + 7 continue to equate to 12 and not to “God”, no matter how hard you try (cry). :D :D :D :D

mellon

18th March 2005, 04:22 AM

Yes, but not every experience is explainable within the context of human logic.

What is human logic, anyway?

If you accept that God came first, then it follows logically that everything is somehow related to God.

Let us see the logic behind, how God came first????

Who created him and why??????

You convince yourself that you are unique, that you are different in some way, from the person next to you. But actually you are some diseased waste product, left-over from past lives.

What was the past life of yours?

Had a better brain than what you have now or worse?

Do you remember?

I say diseased because (I) your physical body rots faster and faster in direct proportion to age,

Oh really?! Then what?

(II) your senses are subject to maya.

Who is that, MAYA????!!!!!

but only the creator - God - is immortal.

Yeah, right! HE was born long long ago! And is going to live forever.

So, according to your "rottening LOGIC" God must be STINKING like a rotten egg as HE got really OLD, right????

Rohit

18th March 2005, 04:48 AM

Had a better brain than what you have now or worse? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Perhaps, coudn't get any worse either way.

mellon

18th March 2005, 05:29 AM

Rohit! Look at the rotten logic of the "rss"!!!

* So now I get back to the original point.

* There is no difference between you and the fellow next to you.

*After many rebirths, you and he will become part of the creator once again.

*First you were created, by means of which you became part of creation, but to be created, a creator is required.

*All three are dependent on each other, but only the creator - God - is immortal.

Sounds like GOD himself speaks but the LOGIC sucks! :lol:

Who is he to tell everything as if he is the GOD???????????????? :?

How does he know God is immortal???????????? :?

arr

18th March 2005, 11:16 AM

Hi guys!

arr

18th March 2005, 11:32 AM

People (of God) may not be having a fully convicing proof for existance of God to mention it to evolution believers!!
But evolution believers too don't have any proof that "there is no god".
agree to me?

Some thing not proved is not necessarily wrong :!:
My vote goes for existance of god !!

I too believed in evolution earlier.
But once when I examined the existance of God I found Him to be true!
And from my personal experience I have developed a very good faith on God.

SRS

18th March 2005, 10:21 PM

Rohit,

I stand corrected. Nash was not productive during the time of full-blown schizophrenic onset, which was approximately a 30-yr period. But as I have gathered from reading, the symptoms of schizophrenia may begin long before the actual full-blown onset.

"That was my introduction to math genius John Nash -- years before he was awarded his Nobel prize in economics, years before his recovery from schizophrenia, years before the release of the film version of his biography, "A Beautiful Mind," which is scheduled to arrive in theaters in January. And years before I began to care about the stigma of mental illness.

I didn't question my friends' dismissiveness. Nash's illness reduced him to insignificance for me, as it did for so many others.

Like them, I grew accustomed to seeing "The Ghost of Fine Hall," as he was known, in and around the math department where he had been a fixture for years -- a department in which he no longer had any formal affiliation but where all knew of his former glory. Outside Princeton, many academics assumed he was dead.

The trouble was that I saw this dead man walking everywhere on campus. He could hardly be missed. Hunch-shouldered, arms hanging, he wandered the grounds wearing a vacant expression and the same mismatched plaids in all weather, regardless of season. He muttered to himself and made no eye contact. His appearance was so unsettling that I never said hello or bothered with a half-smile. I never wondered who he really was beneath the off-putting exterior, why he was there, whether he had a family, what his background was. I simply tried to steer clear. "

http://www.namiscc.org/newsletters/December01/JohnNash.htm

Regardeless, I maintain my earlier position as to a clear-cut connection between mental illness and unusually high intelligence.

Stanford Researchers Establish Link Between Creative Genius And Mental Illness

STANFORD, Calif. - For decades, scientists have known that eminently creative individuals have a much higher rate of manic depression, or bipolar disorder, than does the general population. But few controlled studies have been done to build the link between mental illness and creativity. Now, Stanford researchers Connie Strong and Terence Ketter, MD, have taken the first steps toward exploring the relationship.

Related News Stories
Biological Basis For Creativity Linked To Mental Illness (October 1, 2003) -- Psychologists from the University of Toronto and Harvard University have identified one of the biological bases of creativity. The study in the September issue of the Journal of Personality and ... > full story

UT Southwestern Researcher Investigates Acupuncture For Treatment Of Patients With Bipolar Disorder (December 18, 2001) -- Dr. Tricia Suppes has long been concerned about the 1.9 million Americans with bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness. That's why she's investigating a new use for an old ... > full story

Families With Severe Form Of Bipolar Disorder Help Scientists Narrow The Search For Disease Genes (April 1, 2003) -- After years of frustrating searches for genes that contribute to mental illness, researchers at Johns Hopkins studying families with a severe form of manic depressive illness, called psychotic ... > full story

Sleep Apnea, Depression Linked In Stanford Study (November 7, 2003) -- People with depression are five times more likely to have a breathing-related sleep disorder than non-depressed people, according to a study at the Stanford University School of Medicine. The study ... > full story

> more related stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related sections: Health & Medicine
Mind & Brain

Using personality and temperament tests, they found healthy artists to be more similar in personality to individuals with manic depression than to healthy people in the general population. "My hunch is that emotional range, having an emotional broadband, is the bipolar patient's advantage," said Strong. "It isn't the only thing going on, but something gives people with manic depression an edge, and I think it's emotional range."

Strong is a research manager in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science's bipolar disorders clinic and a doctoral candidate at the Pacific Graduate School. She is presenting preliminary results during a poster presentation today (May 21) at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association Meeting in Philadelphia.

The current study is groundbreaking for psychiatric research in that it used separate control groups made up of both healthy, creative people and people from the general population.

Researchers administered standard personality, temperament and creativity tests to 47 people in the healthy control group, 48 patients with successfully treated bipolar disorder and 25 patients successfully treated for depression. She also tested 32 people in a healthy, creative control group. This group was comprised of Stanford graduate students enrolled in prestigious product design, creative writing and fine arts programs, including Stegner Fellows in writing, students in the interdisciplinary Joint Program in Design from the Department of Mechanical Engineering and studio arts master's students from the Department of Art & Art History. All subjects were matched for age, gender, education and socioeconomic status.

Preliminary analysis showed that people in the control group and recovered manic depressives were more open and likely to be moody and neurotic than healthy controls. Moodiness and neuroticism are part of a group of characteristics researchers are calling "negative-affective traits" which also include mild, nonclinical forms of depression and bipolar disorder.

Though the data are preliminary, they provide a roadmap for psychiatric researchers looking to solve the genius/madness paradox depicted in the movie A Beautiful Mind, which tells the story of Nobel Laureate John Nash. The existing data need further review, Strong said. "And, we need to expand this to other groups," he said. How mood influences the performance of artists and genius scientists will be the subject of future research at Stanford. "We need to better understand the emotional side of what they do," Strong said.

The study was funded by grants to Ketter, principal investigator and associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at Stanford, from the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression, and Abbott Laboratories.

Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. For more information, please visit the Web site of the medical center's Office of Communication & Public Affairs at http://mednews.stanford.edu.

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Stanford University Medical Center.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020522073047.htm

Rohit

19th March 2005, 01:50 AM

SRS

20th March 2005, 05:20 AM

Nash was not productive during the time of full-blown schizophrenic onset, which was approximately a 30-yr period.
Yes, exactly that was my point. Irrespective of whether it was full-blown or symptomatic, he had to consciously suppress his compulsions with some outside help to become productive. Thank you for confirming that. Which precisely proves my point that the experience-based arguments have no validity in blindly accepting something that cannot happen or exist. In fact, they strongly work against such beliefs, as you have confirmed and accepted it to stand corrected.

The rest of the story is irrelevant to the issue, as the issue being addressed is still based on the continuation of experiences, which could still result from similar self-deceptive processes, caused by misfiring neurons in the brain.

Anyway, thank you for confirming the actuality.

BTW, there are millions of mentally ill people in the world who are destitute of even average intelligence. So, the forward correlation between mental illness and intelligence cannot hold. :D

Rohit,

It is quite clear you misunderstand the nature of mental illness. Let us take the specific case of Nash, who suffered from schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is genetic. Nash's mental health was never normal from the time he became cognizant. He could not form normal relationships with others, he talked to himself, and his state of appearance was disheveled. Given that Nash was like this from a small age, one can conclude that his cognition was never normal in any sense.

There are millions of mentally ill ppl who show little intelligence, but the percentage of documented genusies who exhibit neurotic symptoms is staggering. In light of which, the correlation holds.

Rohit

20th March 2005, 06:07 AM

SRS,

When more than 25% of people are likely to suffer from such illness, obviously it would include some people who are intelligent, but that is reverse correlation and not forward. The forward correlation would mean, the more one is mentally ill the more intelligent he would be and that correlation would never hold, no matter how desperately you want that false correlation to be true, which simply happens due to the wider spread of the illness.

It is like holding a bowl when it is raining and collect some water in it and then say, it was the bowl that made it rain.

Please see some of the pictures of mentally ill people.

http://www.who.int/multimedia/whr2001/photo.html

Also read more about the worldwide statistics on mental illness.

"Mental illnesses affect the functioning and thinking processes of the individual, greatly diminishing his or her social role and productivity in the community. In addition, because mental illnesses are disabling and last for many years, they take a tremendous toll on the emotional and socio-economic capabilities of relatives who care for the patient"

http://search1.who.int/search?ie=utf8&site=who_main&client=who_main&proxystylesheet=who_main&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=utf8&q=mental+illness&btnG.x=19&btnG.y=12

Mental illness cannot be the cause of intelligence, as you are trying to project; it is an effect or result of multiple, both internal and external interacting factors, such as bilogical factors, fear, fobia, emotional disturbances and breakdowns and other environmental and social factors, a few to count as part of the causes. :D

SRS

20th March 2005, 10:35 AM

I did not say anywhere that being mentally ill automatically equates to high intelligence. What I have said is that the cognition of mentally ill individuals is not entirely normal in any sense, and yet they are quite accomplished. Why is it that a schizophrenic such as Nash is capable of doing linear algebra and winning a Nobel Prize, while a rationalist such as Rohit, who claims to be fully in control of his senses, is not at all known in scientific circles? Mental illness is not at all a handicap; in many cases, it results in the individual having an obsessive focus towards his/her work, that people like Rohit would classify as psychotic or delusional.[u]

What mental illness shows more than anything else is that awareness exists on many levels. And most importantly, that the human senses can even be a barrier towards acquiring higher levels of awareness, especially if we consider the amazing abilities of certain autistic savants.

Rohit

20th March 2005, 01:38 PM

What mental illness shows more than anything else is that awareness exists on many levels.
Exactly, including that of hallucinations and delusions, as experienced by Nash, which kept him unproductive for years. In all cases, such illnesses are always traced to sever malfunctions, deficiency or reduction in brain (biological) functions, enhanced by external environmental and social factors as I have mentioned. So, they are within the boundaries of human existence in its entirety and there is no involvement of any non-existent entity or entities, such as Nash used to visualise during his psychotic episodes, keeping him unproductive for years; and that which he had to suppress resulting complusions to make him productive, which he eventually managed to do. :lol:

SRS

20th March 2005, 02:16 PM

Again you have failed to read. Only the full-blown version of schizophrenia prevented Nash from carrying out his work. On the other hand, the milder form of schizoprenia may have enhanced his mathematical abilities, as he became prone to an obsessive focus. What is clear is that at no time was Nash "normal" in his cognitive abilities, given the genetic basis of his disorder.

Raghu

22nd March 2005, 06:01 PM

Rohit,

Do you believe in destiny, if not why not and if so, could you tell me how your destiny is calculated and who does this work for you?

Very curious to know your views :)

SRS

24th March 2005, 10:13 AM

From Chapter 3 - The Last of the Intellect

"The capital period of my intellectual development," confided Sri Aurobindo to a disciple, "was when I could see clearly that what the intellect said might be correct and not correct, that what the intellect justified was true and its opposite also was true. I never admitted a truth in the mind without simultaneously keeping it open to the contrary of it.... And the first result was that the prestige of the intellect was gone!"
It had taken Sri Aurobindo fourteen years to cover the road of the West; it was to take him almost as much time to cover the path of India and to attain the "summit" of the traditional yogic realisations, that is, the starting point of his own work. But what is interesting for us is that even this traditional road, which we must look upon as a preparation, Sri Aurobindo traversed outside all customary rules, as a freelance or rather as an explorer who cares little for precautions and for maps and thus avoids many useless windings because he has simply the courage to go straight ahead.

It was then not in solitude nor with legs crossed nor under the guidance of an enlightened Master that Sri Aurobindo was to begin the journey but as we might do ourselves, without knowing anything about it, right in the midst of life - a life as tumultuous and disturbed as ours may be - and all alone.

The first secret of Sri Aurobindo is undoubtedly to have always refused to cut life into two - action, meditation, inner, outer, and all the gamut of our false separations; from the day he thought of yoga he put everything into it: high and low, within, without, all was good enough for him, and he started off without a look behind. Sri Aurobindo has not come to give us a demonstration of exceptional qualities in an exceptional milieu, he has come to show us what is possible for man and that the exceptional is only a normality not yet mastered, even as the supernatural, he said, is that the nature of which we have not attained or do not yet know, or the means of which we have not yet conquered.' Fundamentally, everything in this world is a question of right concentration; there is nothing which will not finally yield up to a well-directed concentration.

When he landed at the Apollo Bunder in Bombay a spontaneous spiritual experience seized him, a vast calm took possession of him; but he had other problems: food, living. Sri Aurobindo was twenty. He found a job with the Maharaja of Baroda as professor first of French, then of English, at the State College of which he soon became VicePrincipal. He also worked as the private secretary of the Prince. Between the Court and the College his hands were already full, but it was the destiny of India which preoccupied him. He went several times to Calcutta, acquainted himself with the political situation, wrote articles which created a sensation, for he was not satisfied with calling the queen-empress of India an old lady so called by way of courtesy he invited his compatriots to shake off the British yoke and attacked the mendicant policy of the Indian Congress: no reforms, no collaboration.

His aim was to organise all the energies of the nation for a revolutionary action. This must have required some courage in 1893 when the British hegemony extended over three-fourths of the globe. But Sri Aurobindo had a special way of attacking the problem; he did not lay the blame upon the English but upon the Indians themselves: Our actual enemy is not any force exterior to ourselves, but our own crying weaknesses, our cowardice, our purblind sentimentalism.$ Here is already a dominant note of Sri Aurobindo who, in the political battle as in the spiritual and in all circumstances, asks us to search within ourselves and not outside or elsewhere for the causes of our misfortunes and of the calamities of the world; outer circumstances are merely the unfolding of what we are, said later she who shared his work.

Sri Aurobindo soon realised that newspaper articles did not suffice to awaken a country; he began underground work which was to lead him to the threshold of the gallows. For thirteen years Sri Aurobindo was to play with fire.

However, this young man was neither agitated nor fanatical: "His smile was simple like that of a child, as limpid and as sweet," wrote his Bengali teacher who lived with him for two years (Sri Aurobindo had naturally begun to study his mother-tongue), and with a touching naivety his teacher adds: "Before meeting Sri Aurobindo I had imagined him as a stalwart figure dressed like a European from head to foot, immaculate, with a stern look behind his spectacles, a distorted accent (of Cambridge, evidently!) and a temper exceedingly rough.... Who could have thought that this bronzed young man with the soft and dreamy eyes and long wavy hair parted in the middle and falling to the neck, clad in a common coarse Ahmedabad dhoti and a close-fitting Indian jacket, on his feet old-fashioned slippers with upturned toes, and the face slightly marked with small-pox, was no other than Mister Aurobindo Ghose, a living well of French, Latin and Greek?"

For the rest, Sri Aurobindo was not yet through with books, the occidental momentum was still there; by huge cases he devoured books ordered from Bombay and Calcutta: "Aurobindo would sit at his work-table," continues his Bengali teacher, "and read in the light of an oil lamp till one in the morning, oblivious of the intolerable mosquito-bites. I would see him seated there in the same posture, for hours on end, his eyes fixed on the book, like a yogi plunged in the contemplation of the Divine, lost to all that went on around. Even if the house had caught fire, it would not have broken this concentration."

Novels, English, Russian, German, French, filed past him thus and also in ever larger numbers the sacred books of India, the Upanishads, the Gita, the Ramayana, without his having ever stepped into a temple save through curiosity. "Once having returned from College," narrates one of his friends, "Sri Aurobindo sat down, picked up a book at random and began to read it whilst Z and some friends began a noisy game of chess. After half an hour he put down his book and took a cup of tea. We had already seen him do this many a time and were waiting eagerly for a chance to verify whether he read the books from cover to cover or whether he only skimmed through a few pages here and there.

The test began immediately. Z opened the book, read a line aloud and asked Sri Aurobindo to repeat the sequel. Sri Aurobindo concentrated for a moment and repeated the entire page without a single mistake. If he could read a hundred pages in half an hour, no wonder he could read a caseful of books in so incredibly short a time." But Sri Aurobindo did not stop at the translations of the sacred texts, he began to study Sanskrit which he learnt by himself- a fact typical of him: indeed a thing had but to be considered difficult or impossible, and he refused to take anyone's word for it, be he grammarian, pandit or clergyman, and wished to make the experiment himself, directly. This method possibly had advantages, for not only did he learn Sanskrit but discovered a few years later the lost meaning of the Vedas (The Vedic Age, prior to that of the Upanishads, which was its heir, may be placed before 4000 B.C)

The day came, however, when Sri Aurobindo had had enough of these intellectual gymnastics. Probably he had seen that one can continue indefinitely to amass knowledge and to read and read and to learn the languages, even all the languages in the world and all the books in the world, and yet not advance an inch.

For the mind does not seek to know truly, though it seems to - it seeks to grind. Its need of knowledge is primarily a need of something to grind. And if perchance the machine were to come to a stop because the knowledge was found, it would quickly rise in revolt and find something new to grind, to have the pleasure of grinding and grinding: This is its function. That within us which seeks to know and to progress is not the mind but something behind it which makes use of it:

"The capital period of my intellectual development," confided Sri Aurobindo to a disciple, "was when I could see clearly that what the intellect said might be correct and not correct, that what the intellect justified was true and its opposite also was true. I never admitted a truth in the mind without simultaneously keeping it open to the contrary of it.... And the first result was that the prestige of the intellect was gone!"

Sri Aurobindo had come to a turning-point; the temples did not interest him and the books were empty. A friend advised him to practise yoga, Sri Aurobindo refused: A yoga which requires me to give up the world is not for me; he even added, a solitary salvation leaving the world to its fate was felt as almost distasteful.

But one day Sri Aurobindo witnessed a curious scene, though one quite common in India; yet banality is often the best pretext for an inner starting-point. His brother Barin had fallen ill having caught a dangerous hill-fever (Barin was born when Sri Aurobindo was in England; it was he who served as Sri Aurobindo's secret messenger for the organisation of the Indian resistance in Bengal), when there arrived one of those half-naked wandering monks, smeared with ashes, who are called naga-sannyasins. He was perhaps on his way begging food from door to door as is their custom, when he saw Barin rolled up in his bed-sheets, shivering with fever. Without a word he asked for a glass of water, cut it through cross-wise with a knife while he chanted a mantra, and gave it to the sick man to drink. Five minutes later Barin was cured and the monk had disappeared.

Sri Aurobindo had heard much about the strange powers of these ascetics but this time he had seen with his own eyes. He felt then that yoga could serve other ends than mere escape. Now, he had need of power to liberate India:

“The agnostic was in me, the atheist was in me, the sceptic was in me and I was not absolutely sure that there was a God at all.... I felt there must be a mighty truth somewhere in this yoga.... So when I turned to the yoga and resolved to practise it and find out if my idea was right, I did it in this spirit and with this prayer to Him, "If Thou art, then Thou knowest my heart. Thou knowest that I do not ask for Mukti (liberation), I do not ask for anything which others ask for. I ask only for strength to uplift this nation, I ask only to be allowed to live and work for this people whom I love..”

It was thus that Sri Aurobindo set out.

pradheep

24th March 2005, 06:34 PM

Dear rohit
you wrote
Quantum fluctuations in space can generate pairs of matters and antimatters out of "Nothing". The energy contained in matter and antimatter are of opposite nature and when matter and antimatter combine, the net energy reduces to zero i.e. into “Nothing” so there is no need for Gods to come into existence by themselves just to create universe and life. , as universe came into existence uncaused and so did the life and they evolve from very basic forms, as science proves.

and I wrote

creator, creation and created

what is the difference you see in these two statements?. For you matter is the creator, creation and created. what you call as matter , I call God. You are allergic to the word "God",that is the one of the difference.

I call it as consciosuness.....and your buddha call it as mind. He says (your own post in lifepositive.com) that all creation comes from mind. I say yes all creation is from consciosuness.

where are the differences and contradictions now?

Rohit

28th March 2005, 02:17 PM

Dear Pradheep/SRS/Raghu and other believers,

what is the difference you see in these two statements?. For you matter is the creator, creation and created. what you call as matter.

where are the differences and contradictions now?
There is a huge conceptual difference between what you understand and what I have proved and said.

What I have proved is the absolute "evolution" and the reality of URR/FTT format - Unreal/False God, Real/True Cognition, Real/True Physical World. The Physical World came into existence uncaused, and which is the true cause of the rest/everything, including consciousness/awareness or whatever name one wants to use to identify it. Consciousness/Awareness is the effect and not the cause.

God of any form or function doesn’t/cannot exist if the universe exists, and it surely does, which no one can deny except some idealists like yourself who got confused with the rest of the terms and concepts involved. Obviously, you are seriously failing to understand the difference between URR and RUU or RRU or RRR formats; and hence, ceaselessly resulting into disconcerted and contradicting statements, clearly demonstrated by you and other believers so far.

In essence

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Your Dream World](XOR)[Explicit Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition]

If you can refresh you memory and recall my earlier post, where I wrote:

Dear Raghu/Pradheep

If you both are coming to the conclusion that Atma is an Indian term for energy like electricity, magnetism, or the nuclear energy used in building atomic bombs to blast millions and millions humans off, the burning heat of the Sun used in supporting life on earth. Also the energy that your body generates by converting food into energy to enable you to move, work, act, survive and the same energy that fires neurones in your brain making you feel, see, hear, smell, think, laugh, dream, cry, be happy, get confused, delude, lie, cheat, malfunctions of which take you in coma, suffer Brain Deaths, become unconscious/unaware. The same energy that make people use in acts of robing killing, raping, murdering and such evil acts etc. Then I have no problems whatsoever, simply because science too says our body is powered by energy, but that is not what science call it God, it is just indifferent, insentient, dumb energy and nothing to do with God. and that is what I have proved here, it is energy and not God that powers everything, including creates matter that exists in the entire universe, including dark matter, and that is not an illusion or maya as you used to say, but never came back on that.

In that case it only proves that the URR - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World, which is the only format that is true and its the true base for all scientific inquiry, the remaining three, out of possible four formats are false. They simply reflect the delusions and psychotisms generated by the misfiring of neural energy in the brain.

The remaining three formats, which are proved to be false, are listed below.

URU - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World
RRU - Real God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World
RRR - Real God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World

Thank you for confirming what I have already proved many times, that is God of any form or function doesn't/cannot exist. :D

Deep_Secrets

28th March 2005, 04:35 PM

Rohit

28th March 2005, 08:08 PM

I haven't read anything in here and am just posting after reading the title. That's all.
Then, please read the entire thread. You will get clear answers to all your questions, and eventually you will be able to grasp the essence given in my post above.

Thanks! :)

Deep_Secrets

29th March 2005, 01:37 PM

I will, Rohit, but I don't think I'll participate in the discussion. I don't like been involved in intense arguments and I sense that they'll be some if I do. I'll certainly read through all this. :) :) :)

Raghu

29th March 2005, 05:28 PM

Dear Pradheep/SRS/Raghu and other believers,

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Your Dream World](XOR)[Explicit Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition]

:D aha, so you have studied either engineering or mathematics or Computer programing, hence the use of such logical operators like the exclusive OR :D

Dear Raghu/Pradheep

If you both are coming to the conclusion that Atma is an Indian term for energy like electricity, magnetism, or the nuclear energy used in building atomic bombs to blast millions and millions humans off, the burning heat of the Sun used in supporting life on earth. Also the energy that your body generates by converting food into energy to enable you to move, work, act, survive and the same energy that fires neurones in your brain making you feel, see, hear, smell, think, laugh, dream, cry, be happy, get confused, delude, lie, cheat, malfunctions of which take you in coma, suffer Brain Deaths, become unconscious/unaware. The same energy that make people use in acts of robing killing, raping, murdering and such evil acts etc. Then I have no problems whatsoever, simply because science too says our body is powered by energy, but that is not what science call it God, it is just indifferent, insentient, dumb energy and nothing to do with God. and that is what I have proved here, it is energy and not God that powers everything, including creates matter that exists in the entire universe, including dark matter, and that is not an illusion or maya as you used to say, but never came back on that.

In that case it only proves that the URR - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World, which is the only format that is true and its the true base for all scientific inquiry, the remaining three, out of possible four formats are false. They simply reflect the delusions and psychotisms generated by the misfiring of neural energy in the brain.

The remaining three formats, which are proved to be false, are listed below.

URU - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World
RRU - Real God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World
RRR - Real God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World

Thank you for confirming what I have already proved many times, that is God of any form or function doesn't/cannot exist. :D

Rohit,

Do you believe in destiny, if not why not and if so, could you tell me how your destiny is calculated and who does this work for you?

Very curious to know your views

Rohit

29th March 2005, 10:51 PM

Do you believe in destiny, if not why not and if so, could you tell me how your destiny is calculated and who does this work for you?
Raghu,

Please refrain from throwing such red herrings now and then to hide your dislikes and inability to follow and appropriately respond to the logical reasoning and derived proofs. Your statements are utterly irrelevant, irrespective of your beliefs, I am afraid. Random and natural events, influenced by environmental and human factors, would definitely make you happy to carryon with such blind and baseless beliefs.

If you really believe in such things, then over 1000 years of Indian slavery to foreign invaders was indeed the destiny of all Indians. Would that make you happy? But not me, as they were obviously self-invited troubles by the heedless, undistinguishing believers like yourself, who had/has no idea or concept of human intelligence that enables humans/civilisations to defend themselves from such invasions.

Raghu, please don’t get upset or feel offended or hurt if I don’t respond to your such red herrings and dogmatic blind beliefs. :D

pradheep

4th April 2005, 09:46 PM

Then I have no problems whatsoever, simply because science too says our body is powered by energy,

Dear Rohit
Good , this is what I always telling that which you cannot exclude........

but that is not what science call it God, it is just indifferent, insentient, dumb energy and nothing to do with God. and that is what I have proved here, it is energy and not God that powers everything, including creates matter that exists in the entire universe, including dark matter, ,

Now you are writing all that I wrote.....I have been writing that yes there is not God as a person siting and creating everything. Now science disproves God.......who is the "science" it is human beings. What do they say about disproving God?. There is no person like God?. This is western thought of God, that a God created everything and man sinned and was driven out and is punishing everyone. And those who without any sense just keep praising God and do all the mischeives they can do, God would welcome them to heaven and who ever did not believe in God would go to hell.

That is absolutely Western way of God and that I disprove......and ofcourse science also disproves.

Now what is eastern , especially vedic view of God?. I am Brahman, meaning pradheep, rohit, raghu, Mr.John, Mr. Abdulla, Mr. Rahim, Mrs.lalitha, Mrs. Elazabeth, mrs.Zaina, stone, pig, donkey, virus, bacteria, cow, cashew tree, sea lion, are all God........wait a minute.....these forms are not God but the "principle" in them is God. In your terms if you want to call the "energy".

Now, tell me where did I contradict with you? So far......do you agree.

and that is not an illusion or maya as you used to say,

Where Did I say it is an illusion?. I clearly explained what maya means and mithya means. Sorry Rohit if you cant differentiate that , that is your problem.

So let me make again clear, God is not a person sitting in heaven and creates this universe,......such a God does not exist.

Rohit

4th April 2005, 10:49 PM

Dear Pradheep,

It is you who have gone round a full circle. Why didn’t you agree when I posted the same post long time ago?

This is what you said to the very post, againts which you are now totally helpless but to fully accept, agee and requote:
You bring out the disproved matter and antimatter crap here. Antimatter came out of nothing and where did matter come out?
Now when you have no option but to agree with my proof of the non-existence of “God” of any form or function, you have come round and quoted my earlier posts and fully agree. Good, I am realy pleased that you are left with no options whatsoever, but to agree with my irrefutable proofs of the non-existence of God of any form or function - do you understand the meaning of function here? It precisely describes your Vedic God, if you fail to understand that?.

Please try to get this in your blocked head, the God I have disproved is just an entity whether it is vedic God or the Western God, none of them can exist as I have irrefutably proved. Please go back and read all my posts and proofs again and again until you can understand and grasp the differences clearly. You must realise that your blind beliefs have no value or validity against the irrefutable proof I have presented. It is just your emotional depreciation which gets you here and agree with my proof, which clearly disproves your Vedic God along with the Western God. What you believe consciousness/awareness as your Vedic God is an effect and not the cause as I have proved.

Please try to grasp the following and only then come back with your gobbledegook. :lol:

In that case it only proves that the URR - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World, which is the only format that is true and it is the true base for all scientific inquiry, the remaining three (One of which includes your Vedic God- RRR), out of possible four formats are false. They simply reflect the delusions and psychotisms generated by the misfiring of neural energy in the brain.

The remaining three formats, which are proved to be false, are listed below.

URU - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World
RRU - Real God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World

RRR - Real God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World - Very strangely, this is what you have selected as the definition of your Vedic God :D

Now go and check what you have defined as your God. Somehow, after lots of confusions in your mind, you have blindly accepted the RRR format as the definition of your Vedic God; and what I have irrefutably proved is URR/FTT - Unreal/False God, Real/True Cognition, Real/True Physical World. Now when you have fully accepted and agreed with everything what I have proved, only proves your God nothing more than just “Nothing”.

If you accept indifferent, insentient, dumb energy (E = mc^2) as the ultimate reality, resulting from the “Absolute Evolution”, your “God” disappears from the RRR format and only URR format remains, absolutely validated.

Which also proves that you are now fully accepting and agreeing with the following too:

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Your Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional acitivity of the Brain - Mind]

In that case, thank you again for confirming what I have already proved many times that God of any form or function doesn't/cannot exist.

Keep trying, but you will never be able to conter the above logical expressions, which is the essense of my proof that can be extended for many things.

Good Luck :D

just_hubber

5th April 2005, 08:58 AM

This is the strongest proof from Tamilnadu that Man and Dinasour lived together even in Tamilnadu before few thousand years ago.

This is the solid evidence which shatters evolutionists arguments and give great confidence for God Believers.

http://www.dinamani.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=DNT20050404132647&Title=TamilNadu+Page&lTitle=R%AAZLm&Topic=0

Rohit

5th April 2005, 12:11 PM

Dear Just_Hubber,

Please read Pradheep’s post, he has already rejected your God. So, please don’t get agitated and post your emotional out bursts, against which there are millions and millions of undeniable evidences of "Absolute Evolution"; all of which you must refute before posting such one off gobbledegook, which only proves your False Assurance A = C*(1- C)=> "0=Zero" . :D

just_hubber

5th April 2005, 01:37 PM

hi R-hit
Who is Pradheep ? What is He? Which Research Institute he belongs to?
Why i have to take his comments?
And R-hit , For more than six months you are dumping replies with "C" , P , A Equations,
Instead if you had taken some Maths tution you could have got some money :idea: 8) 8)

Deep_Secrets

5th April 2005, 02:05 PM

Isn't this thread only to let others know what they believe in rather than IMPOSE one's thoughts and beliefs on others? Come on drop the arguments, hold on to your beliefs, and just post what you believe in and leave it at that...No need to call someone wrong because they either believe in God or Evolution...Let people believe what they want to believe in.

And no, I am not looking for arguments so save your breath :wink:

blahblah

5th April 2005, 04:49 PM

Here's what I have to ask: For those who believe only in evolution, where did the very first stuff come from that changed into this and into that? :? ...Did it just come into existence on its own or what? Could someone explain?

This is the very argument believers have raised for ages to convince atheists that God exists.Isn't it contradictory that they find it easy to believe God was there from the very beginning?Who created God? If he can exist from the beginning without outside influence,why not Universe? :roll:

I do like to believe in God not because of facts but because human nature demands that.Faith brings some peace and something to hope for!And faith is always blind!
:roll:

Rohit

5th April 2005, 11:36 PM

The distortion in addressing my name clearly shows Just_hubber’s utter frustration resulting from shattering implications of C = Certainty, P = Probability, A = False Assurance used as logical variables in my equations, disproving “God” of any form or function. However, I really do sympathise with Just_hubber for the hopeless situation he is in.

Who is Pradheep ? What is He? Which Research Institute he belongs to?
According to Pradheep, he is Brahman; and according to him you i.e. Just_hubber too is Brahman.

Ironically Pradheep, as Brahman, is rejecting Just_hubber’s conception of God even when Pradheep believes Just_hubber too is Brahman, who is categorically rejecting Pradheep’s God, which, as I stated before, creates "Logically Explosive" contradiction i.e. (G)[AND]NOT(G) proving the utter falsity of Pradheep’s Vedic premise/format/model, which explicitly reduces his Brahman/Vedic God to “Nothing”. Similarly Pradheep’s categorical denial to accept the "Creator God" of any form or function also explicitly reduces "it" to “Nothing”

Why i have to take his comments?
According to Pradheep, he is your “Brahman/God” that is why. :lol:

For more than six months you are dumping replies with "C", P, A Equations.
Six months of consistent, irrefutable arguments and proofs are definitely going to be too much for you to handle by just possessing a just_rubber brain. I can also understand your distressing frustrations, brought about by thousands and thousands years of futile and heedless attempts by the believers to find the “God” of their imaginations.

I am really sorry to see believers struggling so miserably for thousands and thousands of years without any success whatsoever.

And faith is always blind!
Exactly, I do admire your honesty, Blahblah. :)

Deep_Secrets

6th April 2005, 03:30 AM

Hey!!! Why don't we all hold back our arguments till the Day of Judgement or the end of the world and see what happens then??? Or do you guys think there would be no such thing and the world will go on and on? Wouldn't that be boring? :wink:

pradheep

6th April 2005, 05:30 PM

Ironically Pradheep, as Brahman, is rejecting Just_hubber’s conception of God even when Pradheep believes Just_hubber too is Brahman, who is categorically rejecting Pradheep’s God, which, as I stated before, creates "Logically Explosive" contradiction i.e. (G)[AND]NOT(G) proving the utter falsity of Pradheep’s Vedic premise/format/model, which explicitly reduces his Brahman/Vedic God to “Nothing”. Similarly Pradheep’s categorical denial to accept the "Creator God" of any form or function also explicitly reduces "it" to “Nothing”

Dear Rohit
you are the one who goes in circles because you are denying something that does not exists . I said there is no God that sits and creates. But God exists whichis consciousness because I cannot refute that because thatis that one which is my real nature and your nature through which we perceive cognize, create, sustain destroy, transform "things". Everything except consciousness is a concept. Yes a forumhubber is also "God" and someone is ignorant or knowledgeable is based on their attachment to....what?. are you interested to know?

Rohit

6th April 2005, 10:58 PM

Dear Pradheep,

I really pity you for your emotionally charged inability to comprehend simple logical resoning/expressions. No matter how may times you repeat, now I will have to stop giving you the answer that the God in your RRR format is an entity or concept or by whatever name you want to identify it, does not exist if the URR format is the ultimate reality, which I have irrefutably proved. Like I said 1000s of times, the consciousness/awareness is an evolved effect and not the cause. The undeniable existence of the physical world and everything evolved from it, would obviously be undeniable as you have already accepted, agreed and confirmed. Without the physical world, consciousness/awareness would reduce to "Nothing" and that is clearly stated/assetred in the essence of my proof, which you will never be able to address and counter, as you have completely failed in grasping them due to your emotionally driven mental blockade. So, please keep trying as whatever your are saying, incontrovertibly comes within the boundaries of Human Cognition and that too is another effect of the physical world; which excludes your God from the RRR format, leaving only the URR/FTT format as the ultimate, evolved reality.

So, keep trying. However, I promise you, you will never succeed in appropriately addressing what I have presented in my proofs and the essence of them involving the logical principle of Exclusion i.e. (XOR).

Pradheep; unless you address all that, nothing is going to change; no matter how hard you try or cry. I shall finally leave it to if you can do that; otherwise you are unnecessarily wasting your breath, I am afraid. :)

Good luck! :D

pradheep

6th April 2005, 11:41 PM

consciousness/awareness is an effect and not the cause

Dear Rohit
This is exactly your problem. Your inability to not understand your consciousness is your problem. You think consciousneess and awareness are one and the same and is an effect.

I am saying consciousness is not an effect. It is the uncaused cause. Awareness is the effect and not consciosuness. Consciousness is not localized in the brain. I told you from the begining neurologists think that consciosuness is localised in the brain, which is wrong. this is the whole reason for all the confusion and the problem. They confuse between consciousness and awareness.

Rohit all your RRR and URR and equations make no sense when you understand what cosnciousness and awareness is. You wll understand what I am talking about when you understand what cosnciousness is.

Once you know consciousness then you will understand what I am talking about.

Hope to help you we can discuss about consciousness and awareness and then justify this thread about God.

To put it simple, I am sitting in my laboratory. There is the sound of the refrigerator, aircondition motor , centriguge machine etc etc. Now when I am typing these words in my computer I am not aware of the regrigerator sound. Is the sound there or my ears are not listening to the sound?.
The sound is produced from refrigerator and the sound waves do hit my ear drum and the vibrations are decoded to the brain. But my mind does not pay attention to it. ust because my mind doesnto pay attention to it can I think tha there is no sound from fridge. But if I pay attention I do hear the sound. So "I" use mind, awareness and the senses and the sense of "I" to say that I hear the sound.

So far, does this make sense to you. If you disagree we will discuss.

Rohit

7th April 2005, 12:14 AM

Dear Pradheep,

Even when you are paying the fullest of your attention AND if the refrigerator or other appliance or any physical object making noise is not there, you wouldn’t hear anything, unless the drums in your ears (again physical organs in the body) start to vibrate without any external audio stimuli (air waves, again they are physical effects) i.e. you start hallucinating, which is due to mental degenerations and utterly delusional, caused by the functional degeneration of the brain, which again, is due to the physical effect (malfunction) in your body.

Like I said, the God in your RRR format disappears/vanishes when the URR format is proved to be the ultimate reality. Without the physical world, consciousness/awareness would reduce to "Nothing", which you cannot prove otherwise; and that was and still is an open challenge to you, but you - a sitting and typing personal God? :lol: - miserably failed. You also failed to answer all those questions and points I raised earlier - coma, brain deaths, stones, matter, knower, thinker, seer, creator and also all human beings replaced by "God" as you blindly believe even when "it" generates lots of Logically Explosive contradictions rendering you completely incapable of addressing them etc. And don’t forget, whatever you are saying is simply the result of Human Cognition, which also excludes your God. Anyway, the challenge is still open, take it or otherwise accept your inability to grasp what I have irrefutably proved.

Good luck!

SRS

7th April 2005, 07:05 AM

Science cannot prove consciousness arises from inorganic matter. Therefore, Rohit's whole "physical world" theory falls apart.

Rohit

7th April 2005, 11:56 AM

pradheep

7th April 2005, 05:07 PM

Raghu

7th April 2005, 05:10 PM

Dear Rohit
hereyougo again failing to understand whatI mean to say. You deliberately avoid to understand. So cant help you. You have to really practice meditation that Buddha taught for you to purify your mind and discriminate consciosuness from awareness, till then as Buddha said you will be in darkness.

Dear Pradheep,

Please continue your discussion in the mahabharath thread, let our Rohit the Maths Prof take his Maths Classes to the kids :wink:

Rohit

8th April 2005, 04:12 AM

Here you go again failing to understand what I mean to say.So far, Pradheep, you have kept only contradicting yourself, switching the formats and definitions of your God, I am afraid. Apart from that, you have essentially said “Nothing” that can be considered valid. If anything, you have helplessly agreed to all that I have proved and said during your long slide in the vicious spiral of regression. However, the emotional attachment – which is what the real …..what? is; and it is you who is trapped in the gerivious grips of attachments of “Nothing”

As you, and other believers like you, always miserably fail to realise and take into account all the possible scenarios and situations that would contradict and negate every proposition you/they make and every example you/they present. Thus, the bitter reality and the facts of matter mercilessly rip all the hopes and false assurances of the blind believers like you, apart. I feel really sorry for all those believers, especially like yourself, who have trapped themselves in a never ending vicious cycle of regression, which would never give them freedom of their intellectual development. The way our fellow Indian/Hindu believers have trapped themselves in such bizarre mental processes for 1000s of years, has kept producing generations after generations of impetuous, irrational and illogical population, severely impeding the cognitive development of the entire nation. No wonder, the entire Indian population was made slaves by the foreign invaders even when they were only a tiny fraction - only 0.05% - of the total Indian population.

I really hope, the new Indian generation of kids would realise the bitter reality and not fall into mental ditches, dug by the older generations of mentally much younger kids, who have seriously failed to understand a far more systematised language of logic, science and mathematics. Unlike the religious gobbledegook used by you, SRS, Raghu and other believers, the language of logic and mathematics, which is the language of science; demands strict consistency, any contradictions encountered must be thrown away into trash bin.

Meditation! What does Pradheep, a personal "God!" :lol: , do to meditate? He has no option but to use his physical body to calm and purify his mind. Why does the "God!" need purifying his mind? What is that which has contaminated his mind, and now, it needs purifying?

Of course, there is something that exists uncaused and independent, against which Pradheep’s consciousness is utterly helpless as it has been mercilessly subjected to change his nature by the sheer power of its very cause, explicitly and systematically expressed below.

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Your Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]

And Buddha grasped these facts over 2500 years ago.

Anyway, Pradheep please don’t disappoint yourself, instead try to help yourself in such a grievous situations of utter and repeated failures and defeats. Raghu has kindly and cordially invited you to discuss all about your personal God in order to alleviate your painful and distressing conditions.

Good luck :D

SRS

8th April 2005, 04:55 AM

The point still is the same, consciousness/awareness is an effect and not the cause, which no one can prove otherwise; and that was and still is an open challenge. Therefore, SRS's statements prove to be the result of Human Cognition as part and percel of the "physical world", absolutely validating the "physical world" as the cause of everything, including human delusions of the believers. :D

Rohit,

You are avoiding the question altogether. Would you agree there cannot be an effect without a cause? Unfortunately for you, even science has found many underlying causes for certain forms of "consciousness" which do not correspond to limitations imposed by the senses.

Jung saw the Indian speak not of Personal/Impersonal, Subjective/Objective; but of a personal consciousness and Kundalini. The two were never identified: the Gods were utterly different from humans. It was necessary to live through, and establish, a presence of stable consciousness within the world before it was possible for the detachment to gradually emerge which would permit that other, objective reality to connect with the conscious. Jung's journeys to Africa and India enabled him to confirm his experiences of the unconscious as he saw the visible proof of its functioning in the pre European modes of his own era. His description of how, in the myths of the Pueblo, where the emergence of conscious from a dark and very dim beginning proceeds through a series of caves one above the other to a full awakening on the surface of the earth in the light of the sun and moon, parallels the system of chakras outlined in Kundalini Yoga, as the development of the impersonal life.

Jung was aware of the existent texts on this subject, from Arthur Avalon's translations from Sanskrit to the Chinese 'Secret of the Golden Flower' a Taoist manual translated by Richard Wilhelm, a key figure in Jungian life whose deep knowledge of Chinese esotericism enabled him to formulate a number of basic concepts of psychology, among them the theory of synchronicity -(a concatenation of events linked by a single meaning). Jung's interpretation of the process of Kundalini did not, however, stem from theories. It was the consistent attention he paid to the indications of its movement within the psychic life of his patients that gave the conforming clues to the emergence of the impersonal life of the collective unconscious. He was keenly aware of the dangers of the ego becoming inflated by the stirrings of unconscious contents to the extent of total psychic imbalance. Temporary identifications could make the ego lunatic for a time; prolonged identification could produced schizophrenia. The structure of Indian systems on the other hand drew clear distinctions between the transitory and permanent self which could only be realised in a state of detachment. The gods, in European or modern man so efficiently focussed on outer existence, Jung described as being reduced to mere functions 'neuroses of the stomach, or the colour or the bladder, simply disturbances of the underworld.' The Gods being asleep stir in the bowels of the earth, as the idea of God in conscious life is remote, abstract and to one level of modern theology, effectively dead.

In the ideas of pre-European civilisations is reflected their identification with the various levels of the chakras. However, it was in the careful unravelling of the psychic life of his patients in their journey towards the impersonal self which he described as the process of individuation, that the Kundalini manifested. This gave his statements of the chakras a verification based on real experience. He concluded that the main level of activity of most people was in the lower three centres beginning with the Muladhara (literally, root support), where existence was established, through Swadistana (the manifest creativity in the personality) and to Manipur and Void, centre of emotionality, the Red Sea of the Old Testament whose crossing to the Heart (Anahata) required the discipline of the Guru both individually and collectively. At the heart the first intimations of the Self reach consciousness. The Purusha, whose tiny flame of eternal being establishes the domain of objective reality. If, as Jung suggests, enough people could connect with this level the mass psychoses of out modern era would vanish altogether.

Jung saw each chakra as a whole world in itself. At the level of Muladhara for instance is the earth, our conscious world, but also where instinct and desire is largely unconscious -a state of participation mystique. Reason can do little: storms of emotion or externally, war or revolutions can sweep all away. The bizarre elaboration of weapons in the modern world is nothing more than an attempt to contain or destroy the threat of impulses from the lower centres. Worse, much of it is an expression of them.

Jung found the stages of individuation of his patients elaborated through dream and symbol corresponding with those of old mystery cults. In baptism he saw a reflection of the dangerous journey of analysis itself - baptism being a symbolic drowning to inaugurate a new life.

Jung realised that arousing the activity of Swadistana, the Kundalini itself had to be aroused, but he also realised that such happenings were spontaneous, and not produced through the dangerous practices of Tantrism where the exalted idea of shakti, the pure Kundalini, is degraded into the literalism of a sexual cult. Jung never practised any form of organised meditation but saw the attention itself gathered into deeper levels of being by the motion of the unconscious self through Kundalini awakening. Further, the motion of anima leading into the depths of the unconscious, he recognised as an imaginal figure projected by Kundalini and identified with it.

In the various symbols surrounding the chakras Jung identified with his own system. The Muladhara with its image of the elephant (Hindu Ganesha) has a fourfold structure of psychic functions (the chakra has four petals) and corresponds with the world of consciousness. The heart with its symbolism of the dear projects images of lightness of being, swiftness and elevation. Beyond; Vissuddi, Agnya and Sahasrahra - he said little except that as fully developed centres they were so above ordinary consciousness that not even thought could offer any illumination. Essentially he came to the view that, from the standpoint of the gods, the great archetypal figures, the world is less than child's play, a seed, a mere potentiality for the future. People, and they consist of the vast majority, who pass through life unawakened and unaware, victims of outer circumstances and inner compulsions, have not lived at all and pass back into the universal unconscious, to quote Socrates; 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. To Jung the awakening of Kundalini out of mere potentiality is to 'start a world which is totally different from our world: it is infinity'.

SRS

8th April 2005, 05:05 AM

Essentially he came to the view that, from the standpoint of the gods, the great archetypal figures, the world is less than child's play, a seed, a mere potentiality for the future. People, and they consist of the vast majority, who pass through life unawakened and unaware, victims of outer circumstances and inner compulsions, have not lived at all and pass back into the universal unconscious, to quote Socrates; 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. To Jung the awakening of Kundalini out of mere potentiality is to 'start a world which is totally different from our world: it is infinity'.

Dear Rohit,

Please wake up. Most famous Western psychiatrist discovered the power of Shiva, I am sure u (Indian) can too, once u put away the math books. :lol:

Raghu

8th April 2005, 01:31 PM

Dear Rohit,

Please wake up. Most famous Western psychiatrist discovered the power of Shiva, I am sure u (Indian) can too, once u put away the math books. :lol:

:lol: , he relies heavily on maths books, that's his dharma

Only Joking Rohit :D

mellon

8th April 2005, 09:28 PM

mellon

8th April 2005, 09:31 PM

Only Joking Rohit :D

Sorry, u dont seem to know how to joke, Rahgu :cry:

Try another good one next time! Not here. In the "joke per day thread". Thank you 8)

SRS

8th April 2005, 11:16 PM

Dear Rohit,
Please wake up. Most famous Western psychiatrist discovered the power of Shiva, I am sure u (Indian) can too, once u put away the math books. :lol:

Psychiartists have to come up with some fantasies to impress the "some psychos" to run their life. They have to make up lot of stuff like the garbage u loaded here.

Is that why one must attend the medical school - to become a psychiatrist? And by the way, how many publications are you responsible for? Do you know how difficult it is to get work published in scientific journals? And also, how many books have you written? Did you spend 30-40-50 yrs studying psychiatry?

Related publications

Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. London: Kegan Paul Trench Trubner.
Jung, C. G. (1936). The psychology of dementia praecox. New York: Nervous and Mental Disease Publ. Co.
Jung, C. G. (1938). Psychology and religion. New Haven: Yale university press.
Jung, C. G. (1947). Essays on contemporary events. London: Kegan Paul.
Jung, C. G. (1953). Collected works. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jung, C. G. (1959). The Undiscovered self. New York: American Library.
Jung, C. G. (1966a). The practice of psychotherapy : essays on the psychology of the transference and other subjects (2nd ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1966b). Two essays on analytical psychology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Jung, C. G. (1968). Psychology and alchemy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Jung, C. G. (1969). Studies in word-association (1st ed.). London: Routledge & K. Paul.
Jung, C. G. (1970a). Four archetypes; mother, rebirth, spirit, trickster. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1970b). Mysterium coniunctionis : an inquiry into the separation and synthesis of psychic opposites in alchemy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Jung, C. G. (1973). Synchronicity : an acausal connecting principle (2nd ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1974a). Dreams. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1974b). The Psychology of dementia praecox. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1986a). Four archetypes; mother, rebirth, spirit, trickster. London: ARK Paperbacks.
Jung, C. G. (1986b). Psychology and the East. London: Ark.
Jung, C. G. (1987a). Dictionary of analytical psychology. London: Ark Paperbacks.
Jung, C. G. (1988b). On the nature of the psyche. London: Ark Paperbacks.
Jung, C. G. (1988c). Psychology and Western religion. London: Ark Paperbacks.
Jung, C. G. (1991a). The Development of personality. London: Routledge.
Jung, C. G. (1991c). The psychogenesis of mental disease. London: Routledge.
Jung, C. G., & Baynes, H. G. (1923). Psychological types, or, The Psychology of individuation. London: K. Paul Trench Trubner.
Jung, C. G., Baynes, H. G., & Baynes, C. F. (1928). Contributions to analytical psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jung, C. G., & Campbell, J. (1976). The portable Jung. New York: Penguin Books.
Jung, C. G., & Chodorow, J. (1997). Jung on active imagination. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G., & De Laszlo, V. S. (1958). Psyche and symbol : a selection from the writings of C.G. *Jung. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Jung, C. G., & De Laszlo, V. S. (1959). Basic writings. New York: Modern Library.
Jung, C. G., & Dell, S. M. (1940). The Integration of the personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Jung, C. G., Evans, R. I., & Jones, E. (1964). Conversations with Carl Jung and reactions from Ernest Jones. New York: Van Nostrand.
Jung, C. G., & Franz, M.-L. v. (1964). Man and his symbols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Jung, C. G., & Hinkle, B. M. (1912). Psychology of the unconscious : a study of the transformations and symbolisms of the libido, a contribution to the history of the evolution of thought. London: Kegan Paul Trench Trubner.
Jung, C. G., & Hull, R. F. C. (1991). Psychological types (A revision / ed.). London: Routlege.
Jung, C. G., & Jaffe A. (1963). Memories, dreams, reflections. London: Collins.
Jung, C. G., & Jarrett, J. L. (1998). Jung's seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra (Abridged ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G., & Long, C. E. (1917). Collected papers on analytical psychology (2nd ed.). London: Balliere Tindall & Cox.
Jung, C. G., Rothgeb, C. L., Clemens, S. M., & National Clearinghouse for Mental Health Information (U.S.). (1978). Abstracts of the collected works of C.G. Jung. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office.
Jung, C. G., & Sabini, M. (2002). The earth has a soul : the nature writings of C.G. Jung. Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books.
Jung, C. G., & Shamdasani, S. (1996). The psychology of Kundalini yoga : notes of the seminar given in 1932 by C.G. Jung. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G., Wagner, S., Wagner, G., & Van der Post, L. (1990). The World within C.G. Jung in his own words [videorecording]. New York, NY: Kino International : Dist. by Insight Media.

First read these books before making silly generalizations about ppl you don't know.

Rohit

8th April 2005, 11:33 PM

Dear SRS,

A seed, Africa, Attention, Being, Beyond, Caves, Chakras, Child's play, Consciousness, Contents, Dream, Ego, Elephant, Elevation, Emotion, European, Figures, Guru, Hindu, Illumination, India, Inner compulsions, Jung, Kundalini, Lightness, Lunatic, Manipur, Modern world, Movement, Muladhara, Neuroses of the stomach, Objective reality, People, Schizophrenia, Standpoint, Storms, Surface of the earth, Swiftness, Symbolism, The colour or the bladder, The earth, The heart, The Red Sea of the Old Testament, The sun and moon, The world, Time, Universal unconscious, View, Visible, War, Weapons.

All these involve terms and concepts associated with human existence, physical objects and geographical places contained within the physical world. Nothing whatsoever, is related outside that.

You are avoiding the question altogether

This is a clear demonstration of the use of straw man’s fallacy. In order to salvage futilely the heart-breaking embarrassments to Pradheep, as he would have no countering explanations to any of my points and arguments, you just jumped in with such fallacious statement; otherwise there is none whatsoever doubt in anyone’s mind about who avoids the questions!

Would you agree there cannot be an effect without a cause?
Science has found many underlying causes for certain forms of "consciousness" which do not correspond to limitations imposed by the senses.
As it has always been the case, you have no option but to accept consciousness as an effect and not the cause. Now the question was, what causes consciousness?

I have clearly proved the URR format as the ultimate reality, which also proves consciousness as an evolved effect within living organisms and only experienced by the physically existing beings. No one could prove it otherwise; and that was an open challenge and it is still an open challenge.

Now recalling that you have already admitted my assertion that no experience is possible outside human existence.

With regard to your views on human senses and experience of consciousness, they thoroughly get rejected and nullified when human existence is taken as a whole, whose senses are not just limited to those five traditional senses – vision, audition, olfaction, gustation cutaneous. In fact, there are more than just five sensory systems and they are additionally identifiable one of them is viscerel sense that senses pain, tension, joint movement etc. Therefore, the traditional sensory classification is no longer considered complete when it comes to scientific studies. There is a more functional classification of human sensory system, namely the extroceptors - concerned with sensing of external environment - the proprioceptors - concerned with sensing position of the body in, and its movement through space; and the interoceptors – concerned with sensing internal environment, including all mental processes. And the most important and complex one is the human brain, which collects, processes, associates and then identifies all those sensory stimuli and decides whether it is coming from external or internal environments. Thus the consciousness arises from the experience of both external and internal environments, which includes the sensing of the internal self and their identifications remain within the boundaries of human existence, which precisely corresponds with the fact that no experience is possible outside human existence. Thus, it functions as an evolved, self-contained, sensing, processing, decision making, self-learning adaptive organic system.

Gods were utterly different from humans.
Below is what pradheep wrote earlier in the “Does God exist? thread

ragu

If god created the earth, us, etc I would like to know with what did he create us? and what was before that? You cannot create something out of anything, after all.

GOD is the creator, creation and the created.

That is absolutely Western way of God and that I disprove......and of course science also disproves.

Now what is eastern , especially vedic view of God?. I am Brahman, meaning pradheep, rohit, raghu, Mr.John, Mr. Abdulla, Mr. Rahim, Mrs.lalitha, Mrs. Elazabeth, mrs.Zaina, stone, pig, donkey, virus, bacteria, cow, cashew tree, sea lion, are all God
When you have now admitted that consciousness is indeed an effect and not the cause, which not only contradicts with Pradheep’s view, but it creates a laughable joke throughout the world about the sheer stupidity of the believers of Hinduism. You quote Carl Jung and then mention about Shiva and the rest and try to send a wake-up call to an Indian; well it only shatters Pradheep’s vedic claims and not mine’s, which are mine's and mine's only.

Pradheep would be thinking, why on earth SRS is senselessly going for an western equivalent of an “intelligent designer” ID argument again when it is thoroughly dismissed and rejected not only by my proofs, but Pradheep too has categorically rejected it throughout this discussion and before as quoted above.

--------------
RE: Carl Jung:

His childhood was lonely, enriched by vivid imaginations. As an established psychiatrist through his researches, led him to understand Freud’s investigations, his findings confirmed many of Freud’s ideas.

We must ask where the inherent strength of religious doctrines lies and the circumstances that give rise to them, apart from all reason. Religious doctrines are not the residue of experience or the final result of reflection. They are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest and most insistent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength is the strength of these wishes.

Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our anxiety in the face of life's dangers, the establishment of a moral world order ensures the fulfilment of the demands of justice, and the prolongation of earthly existence by a future life provides the local and temporal setting for these wish-fulfilments. Answers to the questions that tempt human curiosity, such as the origin of the universe and the relation between the body and the soul, are developed in accordance with the underlying assumptions of this system.

Religion offers a universally accepted solution to the conflicts that arise in childhood in relation to the father.

An illusion is not the same as an error; it is indeed not necessarily an error.

We call a belief an illusion when wish fulfilment is a prominent factor in its motivation regardless of the evidence of reality.

It is not my purpose to estimate the value of religious doctrines as truth. It suffices that we recognise that from a psychological point of view they are illusions.

We say to ourselves, it would indeed be very nice if there were a God, who was both creator of the world and a benevolent ruler, if there were a moral world order and a future life, but at the same time it is very that odd that all this is just as we would wish it ourselves. And it would be still odder if our poor, ignorant, ancestors had succeeded in solving all these difficult riddles of the universe.

Religion may be altogether disregarded. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of this human race.

Humanity had to be set free of its delusions and construct a better order than religion could give it.

-Sigmund Freud

To this day, Freud's ideas continue to "agitate the sleep of mankind," permeating our vocabulary as well as our consciousness.

-----------------
SRS, wouldn’t it be a valid suggestion, if I just prompt you, Pradheep, Raghu and the rest of the Hindu believers at least, to align your ideas of Hindu God in line with some consistent format or system, if you can; and then define it precisely. Right up to this moment, it clearly looks and sounds the funniest joke of the Indian belivers of all time when none of you know exactly what you all really believe in, collectively and consciously, as there is an utter lack of consitent views; and yet you all keep posting whatever gobbledegook that you fantasise, demonstrating utter heedlessness.

Good luck :D

mellon

9th April 2005, 12:37 AM

deteted after "some time" :)

Rohit

9th April 2005, 03:16 AM

mellon

9th April 2005, 03:29 AM

Rohit!

:rotfl:

May be he published all these books from "heaven"?! :poke:

SRS

9th April 2005, 10:11 AM

Sorry Rohit, old chap. You completely fail to understand what Jung meant by "collective conscious/unconscious." Unfortunately for you, science and religion cannot coexist. Jung's studies show otherwise. In your perspective, consciousness is purely mechanical, the beginning and end regulated by synaptic connections. But this view is very lacking. If you studied Jung in detail, you will find out about the "archetypes." The existence of archetypes corresponds very well to the idea of a universal consciousness. Now if one progresses a little further, one will find that this universal consciousness is able to radiate energy. Jung's study of Kundalini Yoga demonstrated this. A further proof of the ability of the universal consciousness to radiate energy is the ability of psychics to tap it into it (the energy radiated by universal consciousness) and see into past, present, and future. You of course, do not believe in psychics, but that is irrelevent, as hundreds of thousands of well-documented cases exist. Even Buddha saw back into his past lives. Now you tell me, how is it that a mere mortal is able to see into the past, present, and future? Do any nerve receptors exist for this? Certainly not. The only reasonable, logical explanation is to postulate the existance of a universal consciousness. A universal consciousness which is past, present, and future. Which is GOD.

SRS

9th April 2005, 10:27 AM

Mellon,

Carl Jung was born on July 26,1875 and died on June 6, 1961. Now look at all those papers/references and their publishing dates, most of them were published after June 6, 1961 and one was published in 2002. That will precisely tell you everything that one would want to know about them. :lol:

Its called posthumous publishing. Jung's reputation is well-established. Why don't you post a complete biography of him, along with all the notable citations and awards he won, and then attempt to discredit him? Instead of hiding behind your math books.

Rohit

11th April 2005, 03:09 AM

Sorry Rohit, old chap.

Poor SRS, still searching for a father figure as Freud says? I am sorry kid to hear your traumatic experiences, but I am neither old nor I am your father that you are searching for, for a long time. I am afraid, your family members are utterly lying to you and not telling you the truth.They are giving you wrong information; please try elsewhere, I am really sorry.

You completely fail to understand

I am sorry, but your failures are no one’s misunderstanding; no amount of your delusions could ever turn your failures around, as clearly proved below.

psychics to tap it into it

Tap into it with what? Is it with something separate/different from it?

Poor SRS, you have made obviously stupid efforts to add/replace conscious/consciousness before Jung’s unconscious/unconsciousness.

Jung's journeys to Africa and India enabled him to confirm his experiences of the unconscious

Patients that gave the conforming clues to the emergence of the impersonal life of the collective unconscious.

He was keenly aware of the dangers of the ego becoming inflated by the stirrings of unconscious contents to the extent of total psychic imbalance. Temporary identifications could make the ego lunatic for a time; prolonged identification could produced schizophrenia.

Instinct and desire is largely unconscious

By the motion of the unconscious self

The motion of anima leading into the depths of the unconscious

Have not lived at all and pass back into the universal unconscious

You of course, do not believe in psychics, but that is irrelevant, as hundreds of thousands of well-documented cases exist. Even Buddha saw back into his past lives. Now you tell me, how is it that a mere mortal is able to see into the past, present, and future?

Of course, if conscious beings could ever know the past and the future:

Ancient Indians would have known India’s complete future long before:

1) Buddha could spread Buddhism, which was against Veda.
2) Moguls could invade India, make all Indians slaves and force the Islamic conversion amongst Indians
3) British too could invade India, continue Indian slavery and spread Christianity in India.
4) And lots more.

But none of it ever happened; no Indian could ever see their future and entire India was obliviously led into foreign slavery followed by severe destitution, just by the very people who were immersed in such intoxicating beliefs and bizarre mental processes which were nothing but psychotic

If conscious beings could ever tap into and see the past, human beings would have tapped into the same past event that happen some 13.7 billions years ago – i.e. the beginning of the universe and:

1. There wouldn’t be any dispute about the origin of the universe

But there are religious and non-religious disputes and that too very serious one. The non-believers wouldn’t have existed. Everything about the existence of consciousness as your “God” would have been as clear to everyone as 5+7=12 is. But unfortunately none of your wishes has come true.

2. The antimatter wouldn’t have existed; but it does.

3. We wouldn’t be having this debate, but we are.

Not only that,

4. You would not have quoted Carl Jung stating; “Gods were utterly different from humans.”; but you have.

5. The words “unconscious/unconsciousness” wouldn’t have existed and both Jung and Freud would not have used them. Not only them, but all, including you have used the words “unconscious/unconsciousness”.

6. We would have known what was before that – i.e. before the creation, but we don’t as asked by the “enlightened” Pradheep.

7. Enlightened Pradheep wouldn’t have said and asked:

ragu

If god created the earth, us, etc I would like to know with what did he create us? and what was before that? You cannot create something out of anything, after all.
GOD is the creator, creation and the created.

But he has.

8. Pradheep also wouldn’t have said:

That is absolutely Western way of God and that I disprove......and of course science also disproves.

Now what is eastern , especially vedic view of God?. I am Brahman, meaning pradheep, rohit, raghu, Mr.John, Mr. Abdulla, Mr. Rahim, Mrs.lalitha, Mrs. Elazabeth, mrs.Zaina, stone, pig, donkey, virus, bacteria, cow, cashew tree, sea lion, are all God.

9. The World Buddhist Sangha Council convened by Theravadins in Sri Lanka in 1966 wouln’t have unanimously declared:

“3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”
Source:
http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

But they have.

10. Buddha would not have rejected the existence of Soul and he wouldn’t have explained consciousness as the result of transitory causes ", but he has, which is in line with scientific thoughts.

11. Darwin wouldn’t have written his “Origin of species”, but he has

12. Science would have incorporated God as the base of all creation, but it hasn’t.

13. Judaism, Christianity and Islam wouldn’t have postulated a Personal God, creating the universe as separate entity, with individual souls - Dualism. But they have.

14. There wouldn’t be any contradiction among the world’s religious beliefs and dispute about who or what is God; but there are serious disputes and contradictions of logically explosive nature as I have stated many times.

15. Persons under coma would never become unconscious and loose their ability to tap into events during their coma state.

16. Person under the influence of anaesthesia would never stop their brain activity and become unconscious and loose their ability to tap into events during operation.

17. People would have never suffered from Amnesia, causing part or complete loss of memory and not being able to remember (tap into past, present and future).

18. People would have never suffered from Alzheimer diseases caused by the accumulation of beta-amyoids in the brain, causing part or complete loss of memory and personality, leaving them utterly unable to identify himself and/or their loved ones.

19. There wouldn’t be hundreds and thousands of Americans who have reported their “Alien” abduction and subsequent loss of memory i.e. ability to tap into past abduction events, proving aliens far more powerful than your “God” able to wipe-out the consciousness tracks of the abducted. But there are reports, exactly countering your fabrications and fantasy stories of past, present and future as your God.

So, the above over 23 strong points and evidences, to which, I know it for sure, that you or any believer, always have been, are and will remain unable to address and remain unable to counter them and refute my proofs, completely demolish everything that you have said about consciousness as your “God”; and reaffirming the URR format as the ultimate reality and that consciousness is an effect and not the cause.

This also reaffirms the essence of my proof:

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Your Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]

Good Luck :D

Raghu

11th April 2005, 03:26 PM

Only Joking Rohit :D

Sorry, u dont seem to know how to joke, Rahgu :cry:

Try another good one next time! Not here. In the "joke per day thread". Thank you 8)

Sorry, you don't seem to know how to spell (not Rahgu, but Raghu) :cry:

This is not a Rajnikanth thread you know :lol:

Try another good one next time! Not here. In the "ChandraMughi thread". Thank you 8)

mellon

12th April 2005, 02:53 AM

Instead of hiding behind your math books.

Well, who is hiding behind whom?????????

Just because a reputed psychiartist, Carl Jung, said something about Shiva in his interpretation of religions, u r saying what now?
Justifying the whole freaking Hinduism using Jung now by quoting unrelated citations?? As if all the references are talking about HInduism! That is nothing but cheating!

How many references you cited talks about shiva???? Dont fool around here!

Do u know Nobel-prize winners theories have been criticized several times for coming up with some crap? Just because Jung is reputed "scientist", it does not make his "shiva-bs" as correct!

Now I see, you are hiding behind Jung's behind.

There are Jungians and anti-jungians as well. Do you know what it means???

Some people think Jung is an idiot and the his theory is worthless

Why was Jung wrong about so much? McGowan is able to expose Jung's work as suffering from a consistent lack of rigor, a highly selective use of evidence, and a tendency toward broad generalization while ignoring important cultural distinctions. This is especially prevalent in this basic work on archetypes, which he based on a narrow and rather biased study of Indo-European cultures. It can be readily argued that Jung's conclusions simply point to cultural commonalities, not a universal unconscious behind the mind of every human being.

There is also the question about his argument that, despite the universality of this collective unconscious, there were nevertheless racial and national differences in how it is expressed in people. Because certain characteristics become "innate" in certain races, this allowed Jung to talk about the "blond beast" of the Germans, or argue that Westerners should not convert to Eastern religions like Buddhism, because they were unsuited for the Western mind.

Jung seemed to realize that his work lacked real rigor, because unlike Freud he never claimed that what he was doing was actual science. Because of this, McGowan notes that he cannot critique Jung's work on strictly logical or scientific grounds. It would, he says, be improper to apply standards which Jung never made use of.

Raghu

12th April 2005, 02:03 PM

Just because a reputed psychiartist, Carl Jung, said something about Shiva in his interpretation of religions, u r saying what now?
Justifying the whole freaking Hinduism using Jung now by quoting unrelated citations?? As if all the references are talking about HInduism! That is nothing but cheating!

How many references you cited talks about shiva???? Dont fool around here!

Dear Mellon,
first of all have some decency in your post we are talking about faith, every one is entitled to their your views, just like their views look stupid and idiotic to you, your Atheist way may look stupid to others.

Ok, coming back to the topic, do you know who gave the name 'Hindusim', the rest of the debate to be continued after you answer this question.

thanks you.

mellon

12th April 2005, 07:28 PM

deleted as it was irrelevant to the topic :)

Raghu

12th April 2005, 08:33 PM

Ok, melon, u started and u will get it back, even though you picked a fight with me first, when the post was not intended for you (it was directed at Rohit), I tried to be polite with you, still you attack a particular religion (call it a b*ll Sh*t), because of your inability to think logically and due to your arrogance/ignorance.

Still you have not answered my question, if you don't know the Answer, just admit :lol: :lol: , no body knows every thing. Remember Rajnikanth's Baba, in there he says Known is a drop unknown is an ocean, quite sad I have to educate you from Tamil films :banghead: :banghead: :rotfl:

You are better suited for Tamil Film threads, please spare us here, no body has ever been Rude to any body in this thread, till you came, at least you did not use your favourite term 'Moron' :rotfl: , thanks for that.

BTW, FYI The name Hinduism was given by the persians, about couple of thousands of years ago, when persian invaded what is pakistan/punjab now, they found a religious group / culture different to them near the indus valley, and the persians could not
pronounce the I, so they call it Hindus, rather than Indus. The people around the Indus valley were either Saivar(Lord Shiva believers) or Vaisgnavas(Lord Vishnu Believers) so that is the story of Hindus in a nut shell.

Ok, arguing with you is like arguing with a kid, so I rest my case so long Old friend
:wave:

I will support you in Rajnikanth thread, though :D

pradheep

12th April 2005, 11:01 PM

Meditation! What does Pradheep, a personal "God!" , do to meditate? He has no option but to use his physical body to calm and purify his mind. Why does the "God!" need purifying his mind? What is that which has contaminated his mind, and now, it needs purifying?

I will certainly explain this. before thatI would like you to ask

1. Buddha taught meditation. What is the purpose of meditation.

2. If he is against vedas then how does he use root of vedic mantra "Aum" and make a buddhist mantra......Aum Mani padme Hum |(this means .....The jewel is in the heart).

Again let me make clear that I am not here to corner you. I want you to enquire.

Rohit

13th April 2005, 12:26 AM

Pradheep

"True" and "False" do not apply to concepts or terms. It is sentences, statements, propositions, beliefs, theories and doctrines that can be said to be "True" or "False" and your theory of consciousness as your God has been proved utterly false

The term consciousness is used by both the believers and non believers; Buddha too used it but not as concepualised in vedanta, but categorically as an effect due to transitory causes; so terms and concepts prove nothing for you, I am afraid.

Your inability to answer all those questions and points I have raised, prove so much clearly that you have no options but to avoid and NOT answer them and diverge- use straw man's fallacy. :lol:

SRS

13th April 2005, 01:39 AM

pradheep

13th April 2005, 02:31 AM

Dear Rohit
I didnot ask a true or false. My question is very straight forward. Should I repeat the question or can you read from my posts?

Rohit

13th April 2005, 02:46 AM

SRS

13th April 2005, 02:57 AM

h

l

mellon

13th April 2005, 02:57 AM

Dear Rohit
I didnot ask a true or false.

That is true :lol:

My question is very straight forward.

But the answer may not be that straightforward . :lol:

Should I repeat the question or can you read from my posts?

That is a good question. I guess u should pick, Pradheep, but wisely :rotfl:

SRS

13th April 2005, 02:58 AM

SRS/Pradheep,

This clearly proves that you both have no answer whatsoever. :notworthy:

You both remain utterly unable to answer anything at all about everything I have asked and raised, but post your gobbledegook and bring invalidated quotes from a belief system. You both have proved nothing but my logical proposition, which is.

[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]

Which keeps you and the believers like yourself, indefinitely in a regressive cycle as you both have been demonstrating here for ages.

So, keep regressing with your wishful and blind beliefs as Freud said, without addressing anything. :D

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. :lol: :lol: :lol:

First explain how you're "God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]" explains rebirth. You can be the greatest fool on Forumhub and say Buddha did not believe in rebirth. Regardless, one can be an atheist and believe in rebirth. But rebirth is a possibility which does not fall within the framework of any "God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]" formula. Rebirth does not fall within the framework of any conditional probabilities or Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. No wave function can explain rebirth. Science cannot explain rebirth. Question is, can Rohit - the expert on history of World Council of Buddhist gatherings - explain rebirth.

If wishes were horses, Rohit would ride the horse with math book in one hand. :lol:

Rohit

13th April 2005, 03:04 AM

SRS

13th April 2005, 03:05 AM

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Keep Regressing, as you always have done :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Your Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]

Keep avoiding the questions, as you have always done. But even you are subject to rebirth. Last laugh is God's. :lol:

mellon

13th April 2005, 03:06 AM

So, what is point in posting the same "crap" twice?? :roll:

Beats me :?

mellon

13th April 2005, 03:07 AM

This is my third life.

I was lord Rama in my first life! :lol:

Refer "aunt Gita" if u dont believe me :rotfl:

Rohit

13th April 2005, 03:09 AM

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Keep regressing, as you always have done by avoiding everything. :notworthy: :poke: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Your Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]

Regression# n+4, keep going up :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wave:

pradheep

13th April 2005, 03:25 AM

Rohit

13th April 2005, 03:31 AM

:lol: :lol: :lol: Keep regressing and :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: , as you always have done by avoiding everything. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Your Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]

Regression# n+15, you too keep your regression count further and further up. :lol: :lol: :lol: :wave:

pradheep

13th April 2005, 04:56 AM

SRS

13th April 2005, 08:24 AM

1. Buddha taught meditation. What is the purpose of meditation.

2. If he is against vedas then how does he use root of vedic mantra "Aum" and make a buddhist mantra......Aum Mani padme Hum |(this means .....The jewel is in the heart).

Dear Pradeep,

Buddha also acknowledged the existance of asuras and devas. Origin of asuras and devas, of course, is given in Vedas. It is funny how our pseudo-mathematician friend here tries to categorize overlapping ideas and concepts into a particular religious tradition, or else into one of his famous "formats." When, in fact, the historical demarcation between the origin of these ideas and their evolution directly contradicts all such "formats." No scholar will say that Buddha's teachings were 100% original. Virtually every idea, down to so-called nibbana, finds a counterpart in Vedic Hinduism. Unfortunately for our friend, the only demarcation that matters (according to him), is whether the tradition is atheist or theist. But even on this point he is wrong! When one speaks of "Buddhism", it is necessary to state the exact Buddhist sect (an important point which our friend is ignorant of). In other words, is one speaking of Tantric Buddhism, Therevada Buddhism, or Mahayana Buddhism? Our friend has found the perfect solution: to ignore the sect altogether, and instead pretend the "World Council of Buddhists" speaks for all the sects. That is why you will find our friend, when confronted with an argument about Buddha using a Hindu mantra, or Buddha meditating on his past lives, or rebirth in general - that is y you will find our friend use his favorite two part logic: (I) Buddhism is inherently atheist (II) Buddhism is inherently atheist because World Council of Buddhists says so. As I have already mentioned, our friend is wrong on all points. Buddha did indeed acknowledge the existance of higher beings, other worlds/realms; Buddha did indeed meditate upoun his past lives, and finally, there is no sect of Buddhism whereby the practioners can be called atheist. One need only go to Sri Lanka, to the Kataragama Shrine, to see the Hindu gods revered by the Therevada Buddhists. The Mahayana Buddhists believe in Bodhisattvas. And Tantric Buddhism is esoteric to the core. So I fail to see how anyone can call Buddhism as atheist. Obviously, for Hindus, Buddha will always be Vishnu avatar, but this point, even though not shared by Buddhists, is irrelevent. Fact of the matter is, Buddhism came after Hinduism... Buddha himself was from a Hindu background... which Christian saint in the Bible was not influenced by Jewish ideas? One can easily see Hindu influence on Buddhism is very strong indeed, just given the historical context and setting of the origin & evolution of Buddhism.

Raghu

13th April 2005, 02:05 PM

Dear SRS

1. Buddha taught meditation. What is the purpose of meditation.

But Meditation was long explained before that, in fact Meditation was part of Yoga(this was clearly explained in the Gita), but the westerners has seperated this according to their wishes

One need only go to Sri Lanka, to the Kataragama Shrine, to see the Hindu gods revered by the Therevada Buddhists. The Mahayana Buddhists believe in Bodhisattvas. And Tantric Buddhism is esoteric to the core. So I fail to see how anyone can call Buddhism as atheist. Obviously, for Hindus, Buddha will always be Vishnu avatar, but this point, even though not shared by Buddhists, is irrelevent. Fact of the matter is, Buddhism came after Hinduism... Buddha himself was from a Hindu background... which Christian saint in the Bible was not influenced by Jewish ideas? One can easily see Hindu influence on Buddhism is very strong indeed, just given the historical context and setting of the origin & evolution of Buddhism.

So true, Buddhists do pray to Hindu deities, esp in Sri Lanka, Kathirkamam Temple in Sri Lanka has 90% of Buddhist community attending poojas, in Buddha vikara they have Hindu deities, they DO believe in re-incarnation, their beliefs are so much similar to Hindus, such as Not eating meat, no intoxication, no gambling and no illicit sex. After all Buddhism was originated from Hinduism.

pradheep

13th April 2005, 07:37 PM

Dear Raghu and SRS
Yes you are correct. I attended Buddhist conference in 1998 in Washington DC where Dalai lama was there. I was fascintated to learn that they pray saraswati for knowledge and all the Hindu Gods and mantras were being chanted. So some one like Rohit when they talk high of Buddhism and say Buddha denied veda I can only laugh. Look at Rohit he prefers to talk and write that he can answer. When we make to analyze Facts, he is adamant about him. I can only laugh because I was once a Rohit, much more worser than him. If such a egoistic , hard nut like me can later see the Truth, I am sure a gentleman like Rohit will one day realize. For that the mind purification is needed. As he himself quoted the interview of dalai lama in lifepositive.com , who said purifying the mind is the way to attain Nirvana. Like Rohit most of the people selectively will read and appreciate what others say. they dont want to see the totality. well bits and pieces can never give the holistic view.

Raghu

13th April 2005, 08:17 PM

Dear Pradheep,

Lord Ganesh & Lord Muruga are widely prayed by SL buddhist, even buddhism practiced in countries like Burma/Thailand/Cambodia has so much similarities, such as mantras, they way pooja is conducted,..etc.

Rohit

14th April 2005, 12:27 AM

:lol: :lol: :lol: What a team of jokers! Poor Pradheep/SRS/Raghu and other blind believers alike could not address anything I have raised; and now they all take refuge in Buddhism. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What else could be the most shaming situation than this that poor believers of Hinduism have no choice but to take refuge in Buddhism and prove only the “Buddham Sharanam Gachchami” as the ultimate resolution to their excruciating grief, caused by the bitter fact of the non-existence of their God. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here is one more evidence of their persistent delusions, resulting from persistent wishes.

The Buddhist Attitude to God: By Dr V. A. Gunasekara - {Statement made to a Multi-religious Seminar}

Introduction

The standpoint adopted here is primarily that of Theravada Buddhism. But most of what is said will be applicable to most other Buddhist traditions. The Theravada tradition, also called the Southern school of Buddhism, is based on texts maintained in the Pali language, which are the oldest of the existing Canons of Buddhism and reputed to be the closest to the teaching of the Buddha himself.
There is no place for God in the Mahayana traditions of Buddhism as well, and indeed some of the early Indian Mahayana philosophers have denounced god-worship in terms which are even stronger than those expressed in the Theravada literature.

Buddhism as a Non-Theistic Religion

Buddhism is unique amongst the religions of the world because it does not have any place for God in its soteriology.

Buddhism goes beyond most of these other religions in that it is positively anti-theistic because the very notion of God conflicts with some principles which are fundamental to the Buddhist view of the world and the role of humans in it

The Buddha did not take an ambiguous or agnostic position on the question of God as he is sometimes represented as having taken by theistically inclined writers. The Buddha has stated his position on God in clear and unequivocal terms.

The Notion of God

Buddhism rejects the notion of a Supreme God it also rejects the notion of an abstract God-principle operating in the universe.

The Buddhist View of God

"I am Brahmâ, the Great Brahmâ, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that is and will be." (Dîgha Nikáya, II, 263).

The Buddha dismisses all these claims of Mahâ Brahmâ as being due to his own delusions brought about by ignorance.

In such Suttas as the Brahmajâla sutta and the Agga¤¤a Sutta the Buddha refutes the claims of Maha Brahmâ and shows him to be subject to karmic law (i.e. cosmic law). Even though long-lived Mahâ Brahmâ will be eliminated in each cycle of inevitable world dissolution and re-evolution. In the Khevadda Sutta Mahâ Brahmâ is forced to admit to an inquiring monk that he is unable to answer a question that is posed to him, and advises the monk to consult the Buddha. This clearly shows the Brahmâ acknowledges the superiority of the Buddha.

Nargarjuna the Indian Buddhist philosopher of the 2nd century CE expressed a commonly shared Buddhist view when he wrote:

The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods.

Mahâpajâpâramitâshâstra [Lamotte trans. I, p.141]

The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" should such an entity exist. But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything, it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things also hereby contradicting the principle of the first cause.

It is man who has created God in his (i.e. man's) image! And as man's own image changes so does that of his God.

The God-Concept and Buddhist Principles

There is a fundamental incompatibility between the notion of God and basic Buddhist principles. We have already mentioned that God cannot be reconciled with the Buddhist notion of causality, which is contained in the theory of "dependent origination" which is one of the discoveries of the Buddha during his enlightenment. Certainly nothing like this theory has been propounded prior to the Buddha.

A fundamental Buddhist belief is that all phenomena without exemption (including all animate beings) have three essential characteristics. These are dukkha (explained above), anicca (impermanence), and anattá (insubstantiality, "no-soul"). The attributes of God are not consistent with these universal marks of existence.

In Buddhism there is simply no place for a God even if one were to exist.

According to Buddhism no one (and this includes gods or God) can save another. This is a cardinal principle of the Buddha, which cannot be reconciled with the declared attributes and actions of God.

The Persistence of the God-Idea

The Buddha's refutation of the God-concept was formulated some 2500 years ago, perhaps at the very time that the idea of a single supreme God was mooted in India and in the Middle East.

The ignorance (avijjâ) that is meant here cannot be eliminated by formal education and the propagation of scientific knowledge. After all some leading scientists are themselves completely deluded by theistic suppositions. The progress of science has resulted only in a minor diminution in the power of theistic religion, and in any case theologians have become adept at "reinterpreting" dogma while the general followers continue to do what they have always done.

Buddhist point of view the persistence of theism, with all its evil consequences seen in history, is a necessary consequence of the persistence of ignorance.

The path of the Buddha cannot be followed if a person is deluded by the notion of God. This is why a correct understanding of all the ramifications of the God-idea is essential for anyone seeking to progress along the Buddhist path to total liberation.

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm

The above citations, along with the unanimous declaration by The World Buddhist Sangha Council convened by Theravadins in Sri Lanka in 1966

“3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”
Source:
http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

AND.

Buddha’s absolute rejection of the existence of atma/soul and a clear explication of consciousness as the result of transitory causes, which is in line with scientific thoughts, shatters everything that is falsely projected by our deluded believers in order to sustain their wishes. No matter how they distort Buddhism to serve their wishes.

All these, clearly prove the utter incapacity of our heedless believers to understand, grasp and accept how Buddhism cannot help them in any way; no matter how high they jump up and down and bang themselves sideways, Buddhism remains a Godless religion.

Which clearly proves Buddhism as a Godless Religion, which can only take either the URU format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World format or the URR format - Unreal God, Real Cognition, Real Physical World as the base of their worldviews. :D

And as both the RRU and RRR worldviews are proved to be utterly false many times now, our blind believer friends have no option but to enjoy their regressive journeys and keep increasing their count as high as possible.

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Vedic Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]
OR
[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the world’s religious beliefs]

With the addition of further extensions as derived below:

[God](XOR)[Buddha’s explicit rejection of Soul]
AND
[God](XOR)[World Buddhist Sangha Council’s unanimous declaration: “We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”]

This takes the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 16, please keep going :D

mellon

14th April 2005, 02:18 AM

geno

14th April 2005, 03:58 AM

Rohit! :)

I see that you haven't lost a wee bit of your wit and humor! :D

The "conservatives" have no choice but to "surrender" to buddhist philosophy - like they have been doing right from 500 - 400 BCE in the Indian sub-continent!! ;)

pradheep

14th April 2005, 05:55 AM

Dear Rohit
Now you saw contradiction between myself, raghu and SRS. Now i will show you how you , your theravada writing and this theravada.

In Pali, the language of the Buddhist scriptures, these four are known under the name of Brahma-vihara. This term may be rendered by: excellent, lofty or sublime states of mind; or alternatively, by: Brahma-like, god-like or divine abodes

web page is

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/four_sublime_states.php

This web page claim that they are theravada tradition.

http://www.vipassana.com/index.php

Now what is your comment on this?

Badri

14th April 2005, 06:23 AM

To all the believers in Hinduism

The shastras declare that it is a grave sin to discuss matters of spiritual and religious import with people who do not believe in them.

Now, if you are truly a believer of the directions of the shastras, you would not engage in this discussion! If you don't believe in them, then what are you trying to achieve?

I am just curious, that is all. No offence is intended, even unwittingly.

pradheep

14th April 2005, 06:28 AM

hehehewalrus

14th April 2005, 07:17 AM

Raghu

14th April 2005, 02:04 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol: What a team of jokers! Poor Pradheep/SRS/Raghu and other blind believers alike could not address anything I have raised; and now they all take refuge in Buddhism. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Was that in your dream that you thought I would take refuge in Buddhism :lol: :banghead: :rotfl: :lol: , sorry to disturb your dream :rotfl:

I can Imgaine, one day, when Our Rohit ji becomes old, sick and weak, he will sit their and start thinking about dharma, his karma but by that time, it would be too late, and every one else will have the final laugh :lol: :rotfl:

Raghu

14th April 2005, 02:11 PM

So true, Buddhists do pray to Hindu deities, esp in Sri Lanka, Kathirkamam Temple in Sri Lanka has 90% of Buddhist community attending poojas, in Buddha vikara they have Hindu deities, they DO believe in re-incarnation, their beliefs are so much similar to Hindus, such as Not eating meat, no intoxication, no gambling and no illicit sex. After all Buddhism was originated from Hinduism.

Nice to know that lobsters, shrimp and crab (that my Thai classmate regularly eats) are vegetarian.

I would love to borrow Arjuna Ranatunga's VEGETARIAN diet, please! ;)

Aiyo Paavam, do you really think you are funny, any one who disobeys the above commandments of any such faith is simply NOT following it, hence they cannot be categorised as one.

There are some people here, who prefer to educate them from SL Cricket or Tamil Films,Aiyo Paavam :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :rotfl:

Raghu

14th April 2005, 02:15 PM

Raghu

14th April 2005, 09:17 PM

Vedic-Culture (Hinduism) a SCIENTIFIC- RELIGION and RAMA- KRISHNA?.

Dr Max Muller, a German Scholar... a multi-linguist Specialist...... was the first Foreigner to learn the advanced Sanskrit.... who took much pains to translate Vedas into English.

He... although a Christian... commented thus... after his deep unbiased Research...

Vedic- Culture... so called Hinduism... is a SCIENTIFIC -RELIGION... so to say based on Reasoning. For every Question on any point perplexing as a mystery or incredible... if one probes deep ... he can find an AMAZING TRUTH... by the dint of convincing Scientific-answers...

For example... anybody can question why God Vishnu... should incarnate as Fish, Tortoise, Boar, Animal-Beast by shape and Animal-Best by Qualities... etc.... appears RIDICULOUS DENIGRATION of God the Supreme in every respect... in the Religious angle.?

For this Question... my Answer is ... there is a Scientific-Theory behind these wonderful Sequence of Advancement on Creature Evolution on Earth....Relating withh the Scientific conclusions of.... DARWIN'S THEORY... we can analyse...

(1) The First creature on Earth... was born in Water... MACHCHA (Fish) Awathaaram

(2) Second creature as a next stage but in addition to the first one... was also born in water...but could survive in the Land also ... with its food being the First creature .. KOORMA (Tortoise) ... ''"

(3) Third Creature in addition to the previous too... was born on Earth... but living on the banks of Rivers... with its food on Root-Vegetations ... from beneath the Ground-suface .... VARAAHA (Boar) ..

(4)Fourth Creature was a Brainy Animal... Dominating / Ruling over all the other Creatures ... NARASIMHA (Lion+Man)...

(5) Fifth-creature was a Tiny one but of high Wisdom ... VAAMANA (Tiny-man) ...

(6) Sixth was the Full-grown Man... but with Beastly Qualities of Offensive domination with Physical + Brain Mights ... PARASURAMA(Man + Beast)

(7) Next was the FIRST MANKIND... a well-developed Creature with mighty power of Wisdom innate with Social-Spirit of Unity in Diversity... while confronting Common-problems :.RAMA ( Whole-Man)

(8) Advanced one... to deal with all the other Creatures amicably ...working towards Unified Advancement...(Started along with the previous one: (MONKEY) but developed next)... ... BALARAMA(Discerning Wise)

(9) Final-Creature ...as the Great Man... endowed with Applied Wisdom towards high standard Subjects like Science, Religion and such Rich Knowledge areas.. beyond his realm on Earth. .......... KRISHNA (Advanced MAN)

Does it make sense to the Non Believers of GOD, the above post was from a much better mathematician than our Rohit ji, :lol: :lol: :lol: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Every Avatar shows the Evolution process; let's hear it from the atheist geezers
:shock: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Rohit

15th April 2005, 12:22 AM

Which means our believer jokers have gone completely unconscious/unaware; left with no means whatsoever to address any of those 100s of questions and points I have raised. All their futile and blind efforts proved nothing but their phantasms. Poor blind believers have been searching for their Gods for thousands and thousands of years, in every bits and pieces they could lay their hands and eyes on, here and there, even in Anti-theistic, Godless Buddhism, but they found only “Nothing”. Which seems to have resulted in complete mental paralysis in them, leaving them utterly incapable of addressing anything. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Which only leaves the URR format - Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World as the absolute base. Which allows the formulation of all logically possible, contradicting worldviews in which believers could delude uncontrollably about their Gods, as much as and as long as they wish, in whatever image, form, function they choose; and thus enjoy their ever lasting regressive journeys , but no success whatsoever.

But, they can do nothing whatsoever to come out of this vicious spiral of infinite regress, which begins right from here:

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Vedic Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]
OR
[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the world’s religious beliefs]

With the addition of further extensions as listed below:

[God](XOR)
AND
[God](XOR)[Buddhism’s explicit rejection of both Supreme God and any abstract God-principle operating in the universe]
AND
[God](XOR)[World Buddhist Sangha Council’s unanimous declaration: “We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”]

[b]Taking the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 17.

Please keep going, proving the absolute reality of the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World.

pradheep

15th April 2005, 05:43 PM

Dear rohit.
You are so cute like myfour year old son. When he cannot accept that he is wrong, he will imediately keep repeating his nursery rhyme repeatedly. With that he will make me laugh and I cannot resist also laughing. With that every thing melts away.

Now you repeat your rhyme to avoid discussing the contradiction between thervada that you and a person likeyou think and other theravads. You conveniently picked up a thervad's comment which goes in tune with your thinking. Now you want everyone to swallow that. When you cannot admit....you sing your rhyme.

[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Vedic Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]
OR
[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the world’s religious beliefs]

Keep singing that repeatedly and we can roll down and laugh.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Raghu

15th April 2005, 07:17 PM

Rohit

16th April 2005, 12:34 AM

What a pity! :lol: :lol: Sorry I shouldn't laugh as poor Pradheep is crying for his failures in explaining even to his son and comes here with deep depression to register his complaints about his own son. I really feel extremely sorry for Pradheep’s continual difficulties even at home. No wonder he remains so upset and self-deceived.

Anyway, Pradheep if you ever knew how ignoramus you and other belivers like you have been during this discussion, you wouldn’t be complaining about your son, but you don’t know it and won’t know it forever as you have clearly demonstrated your utter incapacity in dealing with real situations. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

As my irrefutable proofs and presented 100s of evidences, arguments and points, which none of you believers could ever answer, have completely shattered your wishes and baseless beliefs; but as it is the case, you would still like to force them onto someone. What a better dumping and insensate head could you ever find than the head of your own son? Your advertisements about your emotional suffering due to your son, clearly broadcasts that even he knows everything about your psychotic delusions. However, I do offer my deepest sympathy towards you, as you are going through such grievous difficulties even with your son, while trying to convince him that you are not only his personal God but of the entire family. I wonder if you are having the same dificulties with everyone who knows about your unproductive mental conditions.

Believers’ problems can be described in just a few simple and clearly observable facts.

1. If believers blindly and wishfully believe in something; doesn’t and cannot make it true, when contrary and irrefutable proofs with thousands and thousands of strong supporting evidences are presented.

2. If believers find “appeal to ignorance” as the only way for them to soak up repeated and washed-up defeats and the only way to reduce their agonising and distressing dissonance, they would always choose “appeal to ignorance”, the only choice available to them. The URR/FTT format, by default, comes to their aid, accommodating and allowing unrestricted evolution/growths/development of such delusions and psychotic cognition.

3. That is why, their choices, in any way, cannot and do not follow from the premises/models they have chosen, as they are held simply to sustain their persistent wishes, fantasy/dream worlds and blind beliefs. Such attitudes continue even when they know their premises/models are false and untenable to an extent of insignificant “Nothing”.

4. They always end up choosing diversions in order to avoid answering those uncountable refuting questions and points, which make them helpless, triggering panic modes and phases of mental disorientation. Even when such mental conditions never save them from the repeated washed-up failures and defeats, the very characteristic of “diversion” has become the hallmark of their mental incapacity,

5. Distortion of facts is yet another refuge they seek only to prove yet one more time, the persistence and prevalence of their mental incapacity.

6. What they can’t do is to counter my proofs, which above-board, irrefutably proves that no “Creator” whatsoever, irrespective of form, function or principles of operation, can exist; and the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World is the only and ultimate reality that can exist. Which, by default, accommodates and truly allows an unrestricted evolution/growths/development of varied forms of human delusions and psychotic cognition, leading poor believers to free fall into a vicious spiral of infinite regress which began right from:

[God](XOR)[Everything must have a cause]
OR
[God](XOR){[C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] -->Physical World}
OR
[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Vedic Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]
OR
[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the world’s religious beliefs]
OR
[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the believers of the same faith]

With further addition of rapidly increasing extensions as listed below:

[God](XOR)
AND
[God](XOR)[Buddhism’s explicit rejection of both Supreme God and any abstract God-principle operating in the universe]
AND
[God](XOR)[World Buddhist Sangha Council’s unanimous declaration: “We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”]

With specific extensions, applicable to our blind believers, as listed below:

[God](XOR)[Utter inability of the believers to know/define what exactly they really believe in]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Appeal to ignorance, no believer can ever escape it]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Circular/Wishful argument: Believers blindly believe “something” must exit, therefore that “something” exists]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Utter inability of the believers to address anything appropriately and sensibly]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Distort reality to the extremes, completely loosing grasps of the actual reality]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Believers’ terminate their arguments, not based on their own premises/models]

[b]Taking the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 18.

Please keep going, proving the absolute reality of the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World. :lol: :lol: :lol:

SRS

16th April 2005, 09:47 AM

"An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God."

- Ramanujan

rw_2005

16th April 2005, 02:21 PM

Rohit

18th April 2005, 01:54 AM

What a pity! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have frequently exposed believers’ utter lies. They lie whenever they see a threatening challenge to their wishful beliefs.

Let us recall what our believer jokers have been saying earlier about mathematics

Rohit the Maths Prof take his Maths Classes to the kids

1. Rohit, you can spend a lifetime analyzing equations, but you can only do it for a lifetime.
2. "That was my introduction to math genius John Nash"
3. Instead of hiding behind your math books.
4. Rohit would ride the horse with math book in one hand.
5. Rohit, your math books have failed to come up with a formula for rebirth.
And now what does our helpless and trapped SRS say?

"An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God." Poor SRS is already riding on his wish-horse, taking Ramanujan with him but leaving all maths behind as he feels maths as too threatening, as it would never allow him to convert his wishes into horses.

It is worth noting rw_2005's fallacy when he says something that no one has ever claimed - This is yet one more example of believers taking refuge in straw man's fallacy to sustain their blind, disproved beliefs.

All the equations and logic will not create one living cell from non-living material

Nonetheless, I have clearly proved how believers generate false “1” probability i.e. lie for their non-existent entity “God” when its associated probability is absolute “0” by default i.e. [C=1, P=0].

Which simply proves believers are liars. The only “Truth” they can ever convey to the world is through their open confession and categorical admission that they lie.

Thus, our believer jokers have spontaneously created a paradox, known as “Liar’s Paradox", where liar/believers can convey only one "Truth", and that is, “Liars/believers Lie”

Believers’ problems can be described in just a few simple and clearly observable facts.

1. If believers blindly and wishfully believe in something; doesn’t and cannot make it true, when contrary and irrefutable proofs with thousands and thousands of strong supporting evidences are presented.

2. If believers find “appeal to ignorance” as the only way for them to soak up repeated and washed-up defeats and the only way to reduce their agonising and distressing dissonance, they would always choose “appeal to ignorance”, the only choice available to them. The URR/FTT format, by default, comes to their aid, accommodating and allowing unrestricted evolution/growths/development of such, delusions, lies and psychotic cognition.

3. That is why, their choices, in any way, cannot and do not follow from the premises/models they have chosen, as they are held simply to sustain their persistent wishes, fantasy/dream worlds and blind beliefs. Such attitudes continue even when they know their premises/models are false and untenable to an extent of insignificant “Nothing”.

4. They always end up choosing diversions in order to avoid answering those uncountable refuting questions and points, which make them helpless, triggering panic modes and phases of mental disorientation. Even when such mental conditions never save them from the repeated washed-up failures and defeats, the very characteristic of “diversion” has become the hallmark of their mental incapacity,

5. Distortion of facts is yet another refuge they seek only to prove yet one more time, the persistence and prevalence of their mental incapacity.

6. Whenever believers face threats against their wishful and delusional beliefs of Gods, they just lie irrespective of whether the threats are from physical science, evolutionary biology, probability theories, mathematics, logical reasoning or competing religions.

7. What they can’t do is to counter my proofs, which above-board, irrefutably proves that no “Creator” whatsoever, irrespective of form, function or principles of operation, can exist; and the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World is the only and ultimate reality that can exist. Which, by default, accommodates and truly allows an unrestricted evolution/growths/development of varied forms of human delusions and psychotic cognition, leading poor believers to free fall into a vicious spiral of infinite regress which began right from:

[God](XOR)[Everything must have a cause]
OR
[God](XOR){[C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] -->Physical World}
AND
[God](XOR)[Liar's Paradox: Only truth liars/believers can convey is "Liars/believers lie"]
OR
[God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Vedic Dream World/Vedic God](XOR)[Explicit Consciousness/Awareness]
OR
[God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]
OR
[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the world’s religious beliefs]
OR
[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the believers of the same faith]

With further addition of rapidly increasing extensions as listed below:

[God](XOR)
AND
[God](XOR)[Buddhism’s explicit rejection of both Supreme God and any abstract God-principle operating in the universe]
AND
[God](XOR)[World Buddhist Sangha Council’s unanimous declaration: “We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”]

With specific extensions, applicable to our blind believers, as listed below:

[God](XOR)[Utter inability of the believers to know/define what exactly they really believe in]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Appeal to ignorance, no believer can ever escape it]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Circular/Wishful argument: Believers blindly believe “something” must exit, therefore that “something” exists]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Utter inability of the believers to address anything appropriately and sensibly]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Distort reality to the extremes, completely loosing grasps of the actual reality]
AND/OR
[God](XOR)[Believers’ terminate their arguments, not based on their own premises/models]

[b]Taking the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 19.

Please keep lying, proving the absolute reality of the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World. :lol: :lol: :lol:

SRS

18th April 2005, 03:13 AM

Reasoning of Sir Isaac Newton

You may have heard the oft-told account of how Sir Isaac Newton had skilled craftsman build him a scale model of our solar system which was then displayed on a large table in Newton's home. Not only did the excellent workmanship simulate the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but it was a working model in which everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned.

One day while Newton in his study, a friend came by who happened to be also a great scientist. Examining the model with enthusiastic admiration, he exclaimed: "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you misunderstood my question. I asked who made this."

Newton, no doubt enjoying the chance to teach his friend a lesson, replied in a serious tone, "Nobody. What you see here just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I'm a fool!" retorted the visitor. "Of course somebody made it, and he's a genius. I want to know who he is."

Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder, saying:

This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?

http://www.emc.ufsc.br/laship/jonny/Newton_and_God.html

SRS

18th April 2005, 03:19 AM

All the equations and logic will not create one living cell from non-living material, as life itself is a gift of GOD.

With all the sophisticated labs around the world, they could not create one living cell. The complexity of one living cell is more than the most sophisticated thing that man has ever created. Life can only be created by GOD. That will remain that way for ever.

Well said... they cannot create even the cell cytoskeleton from scratch. That is equivalent to not being able to construct the foundations of a house. :lol: :lol: :lol:

But we should not laugh at science; most scientists I am familiar with understand the limitations of their work. They understand a theory is not permanent. Unfortunately, there is a small group of atheists desperate to distort the scientific theories to suit their atheist agendas.

Raghu

18th April 2005, 02:32 PM

Dear SRS & RW_2005

but our friend Rohit here can create a cell with his maths skills :lol: :lol: :lol:

r_kk

19th April 2005, 02:24 PM

Dear Raghu,
Can you please explain how your concept of God created the first cell or life form?

Can you explain the form of your God (just energy or physical matter)? Whatever be the form, can you explain how it came to existence?

Why such God need to create life form?

Why such superbeing expecting his creatures to pray?

I think you are jsut ignoring the logical arguments placed by Rohit and joking on his valid arguments instead of replying. You and all creationalist comfortably ignoring the possibility of chain of creators over creators and creationless orign.

pradheep

19th April 2005, 05:45 PM

Dear rohit
Look how you are going in circles.One simple question and look you jumping in panic. You calling me "depressed" |"Crying" is only way you can avoid discussing thisthread further,which you always have done.

Should I repeat my question?

Rohit

19th April 2005, 10:50 PM

Should I repeat my question?
Should I repeat my answers? Please read everything that is officially declared and then answer my 100s of questions that make you believers panic, mentally disorient, depressed and utterly helpless, leaving you all with "Nothing" but to delude as you all are and as you all always have been. :D

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=369&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=465

3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”

Source: Basic Points Unifying The Theravada and the Mahayana
-- Ven. Walpola Rahula.

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

This is the most fundamental unanimous declaration of Buddhism -please read the entire declaration of 9 points in total, if you can ever understand it - and the same message was reasserted in the statement made to a Multi-religious seminar by Dr V. A. Gunasekara - {Statement made to a Multi-religious Seminar} which is already incorporated in your regression loop from which none of you believers could ever come out :lol: :lol: :lol:

Which takes the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 20, please keep going. :D

Rohit

19th April 2005, 11:42 PM

Dear r_kk,

Thank you for raising the key questions and points they are constantly avoiding by posting such fallacies and diversions. They are utterly defenceless when faced with such questions; they are only capable of posting their gobbledegook, with bits here and bits there. :)

Ilavenil

20th April 2005, 10:19 PM

Sorry to interept your discussion guys. I want someone to sort out the following issue.

In those days leprosy was considered as a sin, as a curse. But now it is proven fact that it is just a bacterial infection with 100% cure rate.

Likewise, infertility is considered as curse. But, doctors consider infertility as a treatable medical condition. Though doctors don't claim that they are creating babies, but, aren't they improving the chances?

There are so many infertility treatments, medications,IUI, GIFT, ZIFT, egg donar, IVF. Most of the these treatment increases the chances of conception by 25 to 30%. Does that mean, man is trying to take away 25% from 100% of what God was doing?

If chances that someone would conceive by a procedure is 30%, it means that only 3 out 10 people undergoing the procedure would conceive. Does that mean God decides who those three couples are? But, still 3 out of 10 will conceive, how can man increase the chances of something that soley belongs to God. But, it does happen. Each prodecure has its own percentage of outcome. Shouldn't it be 100% by God? If so, the probability of someone conceiving by any prodecure should be the same and should be "ZERO", but it is different for different prodecure and it is definitely not zero.

If a baby is born by these procedure, I don't think any doctor would say he created the baby but, still the chances of someone become pregnant by these procedures are definitely higher than someone who cannot afford to have these treatment. Is it like, God decides who could afford to undergo treatment? Even if someone could afford, not all would conceive, but still some conceive, how????? :roll:

pradheep

21st April 2005, 03:33 AM

Dear rohit
I understand that the link you provided sings in tun with your "belief" system. There are many theravada sites (books) and mahayana which talks about Brahma and indian Gods. That exactly contradicts what Dr V. A. Gunasekara represents in his seminar.

I have answered questions you have asked. But you never. Now look at the above question, instead of explaining you are singing the same rhyme.

Okay let us discuss about the most important aspect of both Buddhist groups. Both use vedic chanting mantra using Aum or Om during meditation. What is your comment on that. Dont sing a rhyme for this. I am asking what is your comment on using vedic sound like Aum or Om in Budhist meditation?

Raghu

21st April 2005, 08:10 PM

Dear R_KK,

Please go back couple of pages, regarding my post about Atma, Maya, Maha Iswar (ParamAtma), and Mukthi.

Hinduism is all about science, evolution process is clearly explained in Raja Vedas, if you take Lord Vishnu's avatars, given by sudhama sir (go back couple of pages) this matches perfectly with Darwin's theory of evolution, but people are jumping up down about Darwin's theory which is only about 200 years old, where else the Gita was more than 5,000 years old. :lol: :lol:

The world was covered with water initially, from their aquatics life emerged, this was proved as 'Macha Avatar of Lord Vishnu', then mammals emerged near the river banks and oceans, typical example is a bear(which fed on aquatics) , this was proved as Koorva Avatar, and so on till Krishna Avatar.

Rohit

22nd April 2005, 01:26 AM

"Fallen from the roof and got stuck in the tree". What a pity! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Dear Pradheep, after all these long-winded and struggling flip-flops, you have no options but to agree with my proofs out of desperation, which only results into pitiable depreciation of your entire belief system.

That uncaused ,unchaning, immutable, eternal is what you call nothing and what vedas call as Brahman. This Brahman cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. This is the defintion of Upanishads about Brahman.

Is there an objection now Rohit?
As long as you fully agree with my proofs, there can be no conflicts, but you have hopelessly tried to keep your desires and wishes alive by stating:

whatever you say nothing is not literally "nothing"”. That uncaused ,unchaning, immutable, eternal is what you call nothing and what vedas call as Brahman. And exactly these desires and wishes are going to keep you permanently locked in the cycle of your infinite regress as proved and explained below.

Let me remind you the boundary conditions applied in my proof [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0]. No matter what you wish to call your “Brahman” as, it remains non-existent as the consequence of the normalisation of the parameter C, which in this case, it is Consciousness and the applied boundary conditions.

Now at C = Consciousness =1, which is for your “Brahman”, the absolute probability P of its presumed pre-existence comes to an absolutely “0”; and therefore it cannot exist, completely shattering your wishful fantasy of the pre-exiting, eternal or whatever characteristics you may wish to ascribe to your “Brahman”. The only thing that can come into existence uncaused is C= Consciousness = 0, and thus allowing the absolute evolution of the physical world form "nothing = no consciousness"

And exactly that is why I have mentioned it countless times that "consciousness is an evolved phenomenon" - and - "consciousness is an effects and not the cause".

Believers’ problems can be described in just a few simple and clearly observable facts.

1. If believers blindly and wishfully believe in something; doesn’t and cannot make it true, when contrary and irrefutable proofs with thousands and thousands of strong supporting evidences are presented.

2. If believers find “appeal to ignorance” as the only way for them to soak up repeated and washed-up defeats and the only way to reduce their agonising and distressing dissonance, they would always choose “appeal to ignorance”, the only choice available to them. The URR/FTT format, by default, comes to their aid, accommodating and allowing unrestricted evolution/growths/development of such, delusions, lies and psychotic cognition.

3. That is why, their choices, in any way, cannot and do not follow from the premises/models they have chosen, as they are held simply to sustain their persistent wishes, fantasy/dream worlds and blind beliefs. Such attitudes continue even when they know their premises/models are false and untenable to an extent of insignificant “Nothing”.

4. They always end up choosing diversions in order to avoid answering those uncountable refuting questions and points, which make them helpless, triggering panic modes and phases of mental disorientation. Even when such mental conditions never save them from the repeated washed-up failures and defeats, the very characteristic of “diversion” has become the hallmark of their mental incapacity,

5. Distortion of facts is yet another refuge they seek only to prove yet one more time, the persistence and prevalence of their mental incapacity.

6. Whenever believers face threats against their wishful and delusional beliefs of Gods, they just lie irrespective of whether the threats are from physical science, evolutionary biology, probability theories, mathematics, logical reasoning or competing religions.

7. What they can’t do is to counter my proofs, which above-board, irrefutably proves that no “Creator” whatsoever, irrespective of form, function or principles of operation, can exist; and the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World is the only and ultimate reality that can exist. Which, by default, accommodates and truly allows an unrestricted evolution/growths/development of varied forms of human delusions and psychotic cognition, leading poor believers to free fall into a vicious spiral of infinite regress which began right from:

Which mercilessly sends you back into your cycle of infinite regress

(XOR)[Everything must have a cause]
OR
[Brahman/God](XOR){[C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] -->Absolute Evolution of Physical World}
AND
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Liar's Paradox: Only truth liars/believers can convey is "Liars/believers lie"]
OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Physical World]
OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Consciousness]
OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Awareness]
OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Human Cognition - Functional activity of the Brain - Mind]
OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the world’s religious beliefs]
OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the believers of the same faith]

With additional extensions as listed below:

[Brahman/God](XOR)[Buddha’s explicit rejection of Soul]
AND
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Buddhism’s explicit rejection of both Supreme God and any abstract God-principle operating in the universe]
AND
[Brahman/God](XOR)[World Buddhist Sangha Council’s unanimous declaration: “We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God”]

[Brahman/God](XOR)[Utter inability of the believers to know/define what exactly they really believe in]
AND/OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Appeal to ignorance, no believer can ever escape it]
AND/OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Circular/Wishful argument: Believers blindly believe “something” must exit, therefore that “something” exists]
AND/OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Utter inability of the believers to address anything appropriately and sensibly]
AND/OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Distort reality to the extremes, completely loosing grasps of the actual reality]
AND/OR
[Brahman/God](XOR)[Believers’ terminate their arguments, not based on their own premises/models]
AND/OR
[Brahman](XOR)[Sound-Wave- A physical Phenomenon]

[b]Taking the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 28. :notworthy:

So, carryon and keep your futile attempts of converting your desires and wishes into horses, proving the absolute reality of the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World. :wink: