Do you believe in Evolution or Creation (God)? [Archive] - Page 3

pradheep

22nd April 2005, 06:09 AM

We know the gods are false and have no concrete being”

Earlier in the "Does God Exist?" thread, Pradheep wrote:
The ancient intellectuals used cartoon figures like Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva

Dear Rohit,

where have I ever said that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are real beings. I always said that just because ordinary people cannot understand consicousness (Brahman), these cartoon characters have been given to explain that.

Nagarjuna also had said that in that terms. Budhha also meant that. After all these years of discussion since you cannot understand I have to explain in different ways.

Look at kid's cartoon characters, like piggy, barbie, winnee pooh etc etc. These characters are seen not only on screen but also as caricatures in disney land and theme parks.

The kids take it so real that parents have hard time to make them understand that they are not real beings.

why kid's alone , look at adults. why do you think adults are eager to see movie stars in person. They dont see the movie stars but they see the characters in them.

Rohit I will tell you a real incident which took in madurai, when the famous movie star MGR visited a village in madurai. MGR observed an old women struggling to over throw security guards and wanting to say somthing to themovie star. MGR beconned to the guards to allow herto meet him. She rushed to MGR to convey and important message. She cautioned MGR to take extra care to avoid M.N.Nambiar , a great villan actor. She also said that every day she is praying God to safe guard MGR fromthe villan.

The crowd burst into laughter.

Not only in India but here in Usa I watched old micheal jackson albums and saw how his fans behave.

This is the state of human mind. Movie was meant as an entertainment but look how people are crazy with movie stars. The same thing, concept of God images were given by ancient masters to help lay man understand. But in Buddha's time people went crazy about doing rituals. Without knowing what it is meant for people were doing rituals. Not only Buddha had this challenge but also adhi-sanakara and all masters in every century. Every time people mis-interpretted the "Truth".

Buddha had to tell that there is no God sitting and creating. he denied brahma vishnu and shiva, just to shake the blind belief of people.

But he helped people to trascend those beleifs to realise "nirvana" through purifying the mind through eight fold path and finally attaining "nirvana". This Nirvana and moksha are same in both buddhism and Hindusim.

Again there is a difference between vedic and western understanding of God. In vedic the God is consciousnessand not a person or a thing sitting and controlling. In western God is a person sitting and creating and controlling.

Rohit , you are confusing yourself again and again. All this comes because you talk about Buddha but never did meditation. Your'sis a theoretical talk and not practical.

Finally , dont escape this discussion. I repeat the question again for your conveneicne.

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?

SRS

22nd April 2005, 07:06 AM

SRS, I know your desperation and helplessness and thus your permanent refuge in such fallacies. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If your memory doesn't serve you right, let me tell you two universally known facts.

1. Both Darwin and Einstein came over a century or two after Newton.

2. And both have clearly rejected Newton’s and Ramanujan's views of God.

Just add the crafted model of God in Newton's model and see how wrong he was in giving the reasoning he gave and how right his atheist friend was. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

For you and the believers like you, unfortunately, everything is heavily dependent on your ability/inability to convert one of your wishes into a horse. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Taking the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 22.

Please keep lying, proving the absolute reality of the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World.

So by avoiding the original question, you are admitting your "proof" is only known on Forumhub. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Let me ask you once again: in which scientific or mathematics journal can I find your so-called proof? :lol: :lol: :lol:

As for Einstein, you are wrong on all counts:

Albert Einstein

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

http://www.heartquotes.net/Einstein.html

Rohit

23rd April 2005, 01:18 AM

Where have I ever said that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are real beings?
This proves everything I have said about the liars/believers. As I have said it earlier, believers like you can convey only one “Truth” and that is “liars/believers lie”, which straightaway Excludes your God/Brahman from existing.

I have also proved that consciousness is an effect and not the cause, while you and other believers like you, have remained completely incapable of refuting that.

I am challenging you again to answer all those 100s of questions I have raised earlier about consciousness/awareness, point by point and quoting each and every question and points I have raised.

Now go to page 16 and read and grasp each and every questions and points I have raised right up to this page and then counter my proofs, the essence of which is summarised in the above logical expressions using mutually exclusion principle.

Iam asking what is your comment on using vedic sound like Aum or Om in Budhist meditation?
My answer is same as I gave you earlier. No, not quite that, there is more.

Like I said, sound is the propagation of sound waves through air/physical medium and its intensity levels are measured in dBA; any intesity level above 80dBA is considered harmful to your ear drums, your audition sensory organs and to the brain. If you ever try to propagate sound waves through vacuum, it wouldn’t produce any sound, no matter how loud you chant, irrespective of whether it is Aum, Barbie, Brahma, Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck, Om, Piggy, Pink Panther, Road Runner, Shiva, Vishnu, Winnee the Pooh and the hosts of other names of your cartoon characters. :lol: :lol: :lol:

In both cases your admission of the futile reliance on sound effects, which is entirely physical in nature, itself excludes your Brahman/God and gives me one more extension to add to the essence of my proofs.

Thus, in addition to above extensions, here is one more for you believers.

(XOR)[Sound-Waves – A physical phenomenon]

--------------------------
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”

“If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.”

-Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist

So by avoiding the original question, you are admitting your "proof" is only known on Forumhub.
Forget about forumhub, I haven’t seen anywhere any proof of God proposed by poor believers like SRS, and hence SRS is always seen to seek refuge in various forms of fallacies and hence always struggling to convert one of his wishes into a horse. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Regarding me publishing my proofs, of course I am going to, but before that they need testing thoroughly; and the forumhub like this is one of my ideal test grounds. If you all believers here remain incapable of refuting my proofs, or even produce any sensible and valid counter arguments against them, the first and crucial stage of successful testing would be deemed achieved. :poke: :lol: :lol: :lol:

------------------------------------------

This was and still is an open challenge to you all believers.

Therefore, nothing is going to move further until I see some sensible attempts. Until then, I am happily going to sit back and enjoy you believers miserably trying to convert your wishes into horses; and keep incrementing your regression counts.

[b]Taking the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 23.

So, carryon and keep your futile attempts of converting your wishes into horses and keep lying, proving the absolute reality of the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World. :lol: :lol: :lol:

pradheep

23rd April 2005, 06:19 PM

Dear Rohit

wow! what an explaination to answer my question why Buddhists use Aum or Om in meditation.

Look my dear friends how rohit is blabbering.

Rohit, you said Buddha rejected vedas and look you cannot deny that all traditions of Buddhists use Aum mani padme hum in their meditation. Instead of accepting the truth read what you have written.

Like I said, sound is the propagation of sound waves through air/physical medium and its intensity levels are measured in dBA; any intesity level above 80dBA is considered harmful to your ear drums, your audition sensory organs and to the brain.

Rohit , we are not discussing the effect of Aum is a sound wave that can deafen the ears. Whether there is 80 dba or more or less. we are discussing If buddha was against vedas and the vedic approach of life , why did he use Aum chanting which is of vedas.

If he was against vedas but loved to teach people a sound for meditation then as you said he should haveused any wordlike what you mentioned.

If you ever try to propagate sound waves through vacuum, it wouldn’t produce any sound, no matter how loud you chant, irrespective of whether it is Aum, Barbie, Brahma, Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck, Om, Piggy, Pink Panther, Road Runner, Shiva, Vishnu, Winnee the Pooh and the hosts of other names of your cartoon characters.

So |Buddha not only used vedic sound Aum in mediation hestrongly used three techniques of Vedic approach to "Realize Truth".

Mantra chanting is the fundamental of vedic tradition. If that approach is wrong why did he follow that tradition of chanting Aum mani padme hum and other chants.

Mediation is one of the technique which vedic tradition teaches to attain the|"Truth|". Buddha did not reject this vedic approach but instead attained nirvana only through this technique. |This is why meditation strongly practiced by all Buddhist traditions.

Conclusion: This concludes that Buddha did not reject vedas. He rejected and questioned the misunderstanding of the people's interpretation of vedas. But he understood that mantra chanting and meditation and purification of the mind (eight fold path) by leading a disciplined life can only bring nirvana or moksha.

My dear Rohit, do you have any objection in my conclusion?

Rohit, a group of people like you have misunderstood Buddha and inerpreting him the way youwant to, without analyzing the truth. I have given you solid evidence and I will explian you more on this.
Buddha was silent when asked about god. It does mean that he rejected the way people have understood about God.

Even an ordinary person like me initially , would keep silent when atheist and theist asked about God. The reason for my initial silence is that these people were very pious and innocent and Idid not want to hurt their beliefs. But I understood that my silence gave way for their wrong mis-interpretation.

If my silence is mis-interpreted then think how the silence of Budhha , a great master would be interpreted.

Over years instead of being silent I started to explain things. I broke the belief concepts of both atheist and theist.
Both theist and atheist do not knowthe truth because they are in a belief system (inside a box). The theist beleive in god and atheist also beleive that there is no god. so both are only beleif system.

Breaking my silence I started explaing the theist that your belief of God sitting and ruling from heaven is only a concept you mind has developed. I can see the reactions of these God beleivers when they find their conceptis wrong. they try their best to argue that their belief is right. Through vedic knwoledge I show them the truth.

I will next explain why Buddha said there is no Atma, which isno different from final vedic statements . When he said that again poeple misunderstrood there is no atma in a literal sense. Final words of vedanta is that there areno different souls, there is only one soul. One soul appears as different souls. Even in hinduism millions of people beleive that there are millions of soul. But vedanta in the end says there is only one soul.

This is the basis for Budhha's compassion to all being on this earth. He could not harm any beings because harming any being is harming himself, because there are no different atmas, there is only one atma. General people will harm others because they think they are different from others. But for a person who has attained nirvana or moksha , he is no different from being in this world. Thisis why in vedic tradition every object is worshipped as hisown self. Everything is brahman, which means not a person or an object, but our own consciousness. Worshipping every object means seeing one's own self in everything. Vedic tradition teaches this ahimsa tonot onlyto human beings butalso toother beingsandfurthermore to nature. Nature was well protected and honored as brahman which means again you. If you hurt nature you are hurting yourself.

I remember in childhood , once I threw a big stone in a well. My grandma told me thati cannot hurtthe well. It is bhoomi matha and having her child jala (water) in her lap. so dont harm her. Anyobject thatwehit with ourfeet, immediatelywe have been taught to touch withour hand and make a gestureof sorry and respect by then touchig the head or heart.

One may askthen how can we walk on the ground with our legs. Yes to acknowledge that fact, in vedic tradition we touch the ground everydaymorning after we get up from the bed,and touch the groundwith respect and then start our activies.

Look at the way they were seeing everything theirown self. India is the land of that wisdom and we always respect aman of knowledge and that is why we never crucified a christ or poisoned a socrates. As mark twain said india isthecradle of civilization which has given birth to man of highest wisdom.

Look at India's state, in name of materialistic progress we are polluting our water, land and air and infact ourown self.

Isnt this correct. Don we pollute nature and at the same time polluteour own bodies. Arent we the same one. Poeple cannot understand Buddha's compassion. Ordinary people think his compassion is a normal emotion of pityon other being. His comapassion is beyond those petty emotions. You have to be Buddha to know that compassion fully.

This is why he said no atma. what a pity how people mis-interpret and create only dis-harmony. we always wants only dvaita, two and no advaita.

Now atheist like you also cannot swallow when I break your beleif system that there is no God. I am harsh with athiest because their shell is equally hard to break. Rohit you havea good intellect but poor wisdom and thatis why you do not want to accept the reality. even reading this your intellect would seek waysnot to address any of the analysis i put forth ,but would search dictionary for better words to call me "insane".

hehehewalrus

24th April 2005, 07:30 AM

waiting for rohit's post and the incrementing of the counter to 24 ;)

BTW, when is this thread ending? when are the results coming out?

Deep_Secrets

24th April 2005, 07:52 AM

waiting for rohit's post and the incrementing of the counter to 24 ;)

BTW, when is this thread ending? when are the results coming out?

Never :lol: ...It's upto Rohit :wink:

hehehewalrus

25th April 2005, 07:19 AM

Never :lol: ...It's upto Rohit :wink:

If it ends in a stalemate, winner will be decided by the number of icons used - almost every post has half a dozen :lol:s and equal number of :rotfl:s

geno

25th April 2005, 02:30 PM

walrus,

Usually you will have "recollections" from your youth which pertains to the topic of discussion aint it?!

like TV shows, tennis match dates, the dinner you had on the day gavaskar retired et al na?!

intha thread-la antha paruppu vEgAthunnu - Rohit-ai nakkal adikka vanthirukkinga pOla! ;)

BTW enga ippO ellAm "mahAbArathA" thread-la unga M.B TV serial stories padikka mudyarathu illa?!!

thurathi vittutAngalA! :P

Rohit

26th April 2005, 12:48 AM

[tscii:da2a49033f]Dear Pradheep, after I have presented and proved your countless lies, not only about your own belief system but also about Buddhism, you and liars/believers like you are already disqualified to pass any judgement whatsoever on Buddhism.

It is obviously clear to everyone that you have become so destitute in your ability to provide any valid argument in support of your own belief, realising that there is no way out (Moksha) from the cycle of your infinite regression. Your desperate refuge in Buddhism categorically proves that openly.

As I have said before, you will not be able to get anywhere without answering those 100s of questions and points I have raised proving the utter falsity of your “Brahman/Atma/Soul/God”

My dear Rohit, do you have any objection in my conclusion?

Of course, I have more evidences of your lies.

Let me first quote your own posts, ridiculing Buddha and calling him a coward who left his kingdom, wife and child. Your own posts quoted below, provide clear evidences of that and reveal it once more that you can do nothing but lie. And now, when you are utterly helpless and left with no choice but to praise Buddha while completely distorting his teachings to hide the utter falsity and the failures of the Vedic/Advatic doctrine of “Brahman/Atma/Soul/God”.

From: pradheep (@ mail.cert-id.com) on: Fri Dec 12 17:04:07 EST 2003

Dear Rohit

Buddhist theories to desire nothing but leave all materialistic conforts and live as a mendicant. Vedic Rishi's were not those who were cowards leaving their their kingdom, wife and child. They were married and some of their wife were as learned as them. Mendicant way of life style was introuduced by buddhists.

Buddha taught it is desire that causes birth. How much relgious thought and teachign. Who desires in the first place to get into birth.
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/expr/10351.12395.17.37.30.html

While beginning on this thread, you responded to Shaktiprabha in response to her views about Buddhist's "Nothingness/Sunyata Vada" as quoted below:

There is nothing means then, who is that who tells there is nothing. Even that person (Buddha) is also nothing? this is soonya vada (of Buddhism) which hold no water.

Which categorically proves how much you would lie and distort Buddhism for you to get "Moksha" form your regression counts by taking refuge in Buddhism "Buddham Sharanam Gacchami":notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Regarding Buddhist view on Brahman/Atma/Soul/God

There is a categorical rejection of the existence of Atma/Soul – Brahman by The world’s Buddhist community as declared in statement 6 below.

6. We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned things (sa.mskaara) are impermanent (anitya) and dukkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anaatma).

Basic Points Unifying The Theravada and the Mahayana-- Ven. Walpola Rahula
http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

Hinduism in Buddhist Perspective - V. A. Gunasekara

These may be compared to the three components of the Buddha's path: paññâ (wisdom), sîla (morality) and bhâvanâ (mental development).

The third component of the Buddha's path is meditation, which is simply mental and psychological development, and has nothing to do with reaching "mystical" states of mind which is the object of Hindu meditation.

http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha255.htm

BUDDHISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION

Buddhism takes a stand quite of its own contrasting entirely with that of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and other faiths. For Buddhist acknowledges neither the existence of permanently existing souls nor of a creator and ruler of the universe. This is a logical outcome of its fundamental philosophical conception.

http://www.watprom.iirt.net/article_01.html

The now deceased Sri Lankan bhikkhu and professor Rev. Dr. Walpola Rahula devoted an entire chapter (Chapter VI) to the subject The Doctrine of No-Soul: Anatta in his book What the Buddha Taught. – Dr. Walpola Rahula, Buddhist authority who announced The World Buddhist Sangha Council official declaration in Sri Lanka in 1966:

Samyutta Nikaya 22.59, Anattalakkhana Sutta; the source of the Morning Chanting, also it was the second sermon of the Buddha, and therefore an important subject.

Digha Nikaya 1, Brahmajala Sutta, 1.30-1.34: The Buddha declares the Brahmin view of eternal self a wrong view.

Majjhima Nikaya 11, Culasthanada Sutta, 9 through 12: The Buddha faults the Brahmins for clinging to a doctrine of self (eternal atman). 11, 17: To personally attain Nibbana a monk must no longer cling to a doctrine of self.

Majjhima Nikaya 22, Alagaddupama Sutta, 22, 23: "Bhikkhus, you may well acquire that possession that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as long as eternity. But do you see any such possession, bhikkhus?" - "No, venerable Sir" - "Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any possession that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as long as eternity."

Majjhima Nikaya 22, Alagaddupama Sutta 25: The belief that the self after death is permanent, everlasting, eternal, is a foolish teaching."

I believe what makes this teaching of the Buddha difficult for most people to accept is the widespread belief in spirits by the peoples of Southeast Asia, and a belief in a soul by Westerners.

Below is what a Buddhist has personallly said:

Yes, the Buddha did not invent his own terms. He also borrowed Jain terminology to describe the spiritual/ethical achievements of his followings, describing one who had eliminated all the defilements as an Arahant. That is one reason why I say Buddhism is closer to Indian religions like Hinduism and Jainism than it is to Western religion.

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?

So, your pathetic situation would not and cannot change. Unfortunately you will have no option but to continue lying without expecting any response from me unless you address everything I have posted so far. Until then, I will do nothing except incrementing regression counts of the liars/believers: :D

[God](XOR)[Liar's Paradox: Only truth liars/believers can convey is "Liars/believers lie"]

(XOR)[Sound-Waves – A physical phenomenon]

[b]Taking the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 24.

So, carryon and keep your futile attempts of converting your wishes into horses by lying, proving the absolute reality of the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World. :wink:
[/tscii:da2a49033f]

podalangai

26th April 2005, 03:40 AM

this was proved as 'Macha Avatar of Lord Vishnu'

Is the macha avatar the one who sits drinking coffee with us at the pottikkadai (known to some as machi avatar)?

(meant light-heartedly, please don't take offence)

hehehewalrus

26th April 2005, 10:10 AM

podalangs,
intro please :D

Deep_Secrets

26th April 2005, 12:25 PM

Never :lol: ...It's upto Rohit :wink:

If it ends in a stalemate, winner will be decided by the number of icons used - almost every post has half a dozen :lol:s and equal number of :rotfl:s

:lol: Hehehe

Rohit, I like your way of arguing so adamantly, ...your style is reminiscent of Mandakkai's though... :lol2:

jaiganes

26th April 2005, 03:52 PM

Rohit, Pradheep and others! Nice debate so far.
However I find this very intriguing. Rohit is arguing based on evidences on hand. Science is married to evidence and evolution is a verified scientific concept, every inch proven or atleast provable. Even in the field of evolution, theories are not blindly accepted and are debated and analysed by peers before acceptance. To counter Rohit's evolution theory, if some proponent of creatioinism had come forward, I would have been glad. On the contrary I am observing people with metaphysical leanings coming forward. Now that makes it an uneven debate as metaphysics is all about perceptions, consciousness, infinite consciousness and tribasic existence. Even the best of metaphysicist teachers have concluded that the "wakeful state of consciousness" happens in the physical realm, the realm that is currently under the eyes of science. Various fields of science like paleontology and paleo botany have proven beyond doubt the veracity of arguments for evoltion.
As for the remaining levels of consciousness, it doesn't interfere in the current debate of origin of life and hence can be kept out of current argument.

Now the only pillar standing in the way of the theory of evolution of life is the origin of the first living, evolving molecule from which natural selection triggered the process of successive evolution. this process is named "Abiogenesis". This is the only theory that scientists in favour of evolution have to crack successfully to completely establish that life originated and diversified according to abiogenesis and evolution rather than special creation.

As far as the claims that hindu mythology stories substantiating evolution goes on, we can take it only as an argument for evolution and not for special creation (so it is a same side goal). Although it cannot be admissible as an evidence primarily because it is not a scientific thheory but just a story born out of the mind of a vivid imagination.

For further arguments in favour of evolution, please refer this link (www.talkorgins.org). Now if we restrict our debate to a timeframe from the first moment when earth was conducive for life to till date, we can avoid unnecessary chaos. Otherwise we will have to peep into the messy singularity (http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html) and various versions of the "Big Bang" theory which tries to address more chaotic and acrimonious "How did the universe come about topic".
i hope to sit back and enjoy concerted arguments to counter evolution at a more biological level and not at a metaphysical level where eternal murphy's law holds true.

pradheep

26th April 2005, 05:31 PM

[tscii:791ee46736]
you are already disqualified to pass any judgement whatsoever on Buddhism.

When you can call vedic tradition stupid , why are so upset about my judgements on Buddhism?

Yes I ridiculed Buddha’s approach calling him coward, but understand at what context I wrote that. If you look my comment in |”isolation|” then it looks I ridiculed him. Read my other comments too, where I keep telling all spiritual masters are good , only we interpret in the way we want.

Yes, read history, you will understand how people misinterpreted Buddha’s teaching and how they mislead India to desire nothing but leave all materialistic comforts and live as a mendicant.

You mis-interpret Adi-sankara and have your own version of Maya and you do not want to accept the version which is true. The same holds good when you selectively post views on one guy’s interpretation of Buddha’s view on God.

Then regarding sakthi prabha’s view and my comment, yes I still says that who ever denies everything is soonya then , the one who claims is also soonya (nothing|)?
I did not go further explaining what Buddha meant as soonya. I will explain that soon as I explained about Buddha’s silence and Buddha rejection of Atma and validate the statement that all masters say the same truth and only people misunderstand it the way they want to know.

You wrote

Quote:
6. We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned things (sa.mskaara) are impermanent (anitya) and dukkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anaatma).

Basic Points Unifying The Theravada and the Mahayana-- Ven. Walpola Rahula
http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

Rohit, I can see how blindly you see these statements. Since all these time you couldnot grasp whatI have been writing I will explain theabovein a different way and hope you get it.

Buddha taught the same truth as the vedic seers taught including the techniques. What differed was only the approach. Vedic approach starts from the kinder garden level of symbols and goes in a systamtic way.

Example…the Vedas talk about all gods like indra varuna, aswini blah blah blah….then in the end it says “ The gods are later than this world’s creation”……..This looks like a contradiction , but not so. The various God mean only attributes and different forces that maintain the creation.

The same is with atma. Vedas talk about atma’s and in the end says anatma, which means there is the no multiple atmas but only one.

Why should Vedas have this twoway approach, cant it go straight to the truth?. This is the beautiful psychological analysis of Vedas. A mind can initially will not enquire or cannot enquire until it has a substratum to hold. |It is usual for a person who is suffering from a problem ask why should I suffer, I did not do any thing wrong. Then it is easy to pacify him saying ,oh it is because of your previous birth, you did such and such act and so it happened. Then later he is prompted to enquire where or which life time the whole thing started and through the process of enquiry finally he understand the Truth.

When we go to a hospital initially the patient’s pain is taken care by giving a pain killer and when he is comfortable the doctor enquires the rest of the details. The same way the first burden in laid in hands of individual atma and then the enquiry is done.

Now getting back to Buddha’s approach, he went straight without giving the pain killer and that approach does not work with everyone. |Few of his disciples got and not everyone.

These may be compared to the three components of the Buddha's path: paññâ (wisdom), sîla (morality) and bhâvanâ (mental development).

The third component of the Buddha's path is meditation, which is simply mental and psychological development, and has nothing to do with reaching "mystical" states of mind which is the object of Hindu meditation.

http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha255.htm

who said reaching mystical state is Hindu meditation’s objective?. The objective of any meditation is to transcend thoughts. People do get mystic states, but the teacher keeps reminding that do not get trapped into those states. The mystic states are the states of the mind.

Who ever made this comment then did not do meditation. They assumed they were doing meditation. Bhavana and meditation are different. Hindusim is very clear about that. Bhavana is an attitude and not meditation.

For Buddhist acknowledges neither the existence of permanently existing souls nor of a creator and ruler of the universe. This is a logical outcome of its fundamental philosophical conception.

The truth is that all religions have the same goal , but the approaches differ. |Seeing difference is for the unmatured mind.

Digha Nikaya 1, Brahmajala Sutta, 1.30-1.34: The Buddha declares the Brahmin view of eternal self a wrong view.

Majjhima Nikaya 11, Culasthanada Sutta, 9 through 12: The Buddha faults the Brahmins for clinging to a doctrine of self (eternal atman). 11, 17: To personally attain Nibbana a monk must no longer cling to a doctrine of self.

Reading this I can only laugh. I laugh how people can mis-interpret things. The beauty of Sanskrit is that the same word at different context have different meaning. In Bhagavad Gita , the word ”Atma” has meanings of mind, body and the spirit (being). Now in one verse, it says Atma is eternal, now if you interpret atma as body, it looks Gita is stupid where it talks about an unlikely fact that the body is eternal. So in each context same word has different meaning. And here comes the whole mis-interpretation.

|Even in English there are many words like “wind |(air current|) and wind (to coil)or words like live (alive) and live (live telecast).

Conclusion: Maxmuller has translated Sanskrit texts into English and it is commendable and also criticized where he has interpreted it different. Translation is correct but interpreted it differently. The same way people interpret Buddha’s teaching wrongly and so does vedic texts.

Rohit, the reason why I have now writing about Buddhism is because you admire that and so it is easy to make you understand the truth ,through which you are comfortable. All this time through vedicways I projected which you areallergic, then I have to use your own Buddhist ways but clarify it and make you understand my original statement that all spiritual masters lead to the same goal.

Lastly you have cunningly escaped answering why Buddhist use vedic foundation sound “Aum”, which will blow out all your comments.
[/tscii:791ee46736]

pradheep

26th April 2005, 05:39 PM

Dear jaiganes
Thanks for your wonderful post. Yes the debate is going away from the thread. But it is good to express views because wrong understanding is the problem. When the mind is clear then it will help to see the "Truth".

Dear hehehewalrus and deep secret

when will this topic be over?. Every humanbeing undergoes this question. Not everyone proceeds further. Most of them have a mental block or an Intellectual block which they have to overcome to progress further.

I have undergone all this and still continuing. These topic is an eternal topic and will continue as long as minds that are enquring are there. No end. The end is in one self. When one discovers the truth in oneself. When there is no contradictions. When one see's the same Truth everywhere one's journey only begins.

blahblah

26th April 2005, 05:53 PM

Raghu

26th April 2005, 06:04 PM

I have undergone all this and still continuing. These topic is an eternal topic and will continue as long as minds that are enquring are there. No end. The end is in one self. When one discovers the truth in oneself. When there is no contradictions. When one see's the same Truth everywhere one's journey only begins.

Yes, exactly, this topic will never end, this topic is immortal, just as the truth is immortal.

Rohit

26th April 2005, 11:36 PM

Dear Pradheep,

If you can’t read and comprehend what I have proved, established and written and what is officially declared by the world’s Buddhist community, it is none of my problem. It is yours and only yours problem. Now try again

Yes I know it, all sensible readers know it and you too know it that you have no options but to keep conveying one and only one “Truth” and that is “Pradheep can do nothing but lie”. You have clearly remained unable to provide any arguments in support of your own beliefs of “Brahman/Atman/Soul/God”, which Buddha has categorically rejected and the world’s Buddhist community have unanimously asserted that fact through their official declaration in front of the entire world. No matter how high you jump up and down, you cannot change it with your lies and distortions.

The more you take refuge in Buddhism, the more you will prove the failures and falsity of your own belief system of "Brahman/Atma/Soul/God"; and that cannot be missed by rational and logical minds. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[God](XOR)[Liar's Paradox: The only truth liars/believers can convey is "Liars/believers lie"]

[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the world’s religious beliefs]

[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the believers of the same faith]

(XOR)[Sound-Waves – A physical phenomenon]

[God](XOR)[Believers’ terminate their arguments, not based on their own premises/models]

Your lying posts have no impact whatsoever on my proofs and their essence unless you directly address them, steps by step and point by point. Till then have fun with your lies and enjoy your regressions.

[b]Taking the regression count of our blind liars/believers to n+ 26.

So, carryon and keep your futile attempts of converting your wishes into horses by lying, proving the absolute reality of the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rohit

27th April 2005, 12:06 AM

Dear jaiganes,

Yes there are people who still believe "ignorance is bliss" and continue with their bizzare mental processes, ignoring the actual factuality and reality.

Thank you for your factual inputs. :)

pradheep

27th April 2005, 12:10 AM

Dear Rohit
Only maturity you have gained over time is that instead of calling me a schizophrenic now you have a different name "liar". Very good, now with this mask you can escape dealing the truth about Buddhism. I know everytime I give facts that contradicts your beleif about buddhism your ego and intellect is burnt down. Keep counting and that counts shows how many times you have run away facing the reality.

I am mirroring your stuborness. You have a concept that you want every one to swallow. You think with your gimmicks of mathematics and writing equations you can show yourself an intellectual. Come out of your box and see this world beyond these concepts.

God is a concept and on which people like you build up another concept of disproving it. You are only disproving a horse horn that exists. But you cannot disprove your consciousness. EVERYTHING CAN BE A CONCEPT BUT NOT "YOU". This is the vedic message.

So have guts to enquire this reality my dear Rohit instead of running away calling everyone liars and schizophrenics. Admit your inability to analyze the facts as it is.

Go first and learn meditation from a real Buddhist and not listen to people like you who have the same concepts.

Rohit, I am talking not with bookish knowledge like you. I did learn meditation and do it and know what mental images are and what transcendence is.

I am using your own master's words, dont beleive even me (buddha), anlayze yourself as a Goldsmith would rub the gold to see its authenticity. It only matters to you, whether you posses the real Gold or a fake one.

Rub your intellect on the stone of experience and not on bookish knowledge.

Rohit

27th April 2005, 12:38 AM

pradheep

27th April 2005, 01:41 AM

Dear Rohit

Brahman= Atman= Soul= God = consciousness or "being".

Do I need to argue or bring evidence for consciousness, that which is me and you and everyone. Why would any one need proof for consciousness. Can any Buddha disprove consciousness?

what a joke Rohit?

Rohit

27th April 2005, 02:46 AM

Dear Pradheep,

I have proved it 100s of times that "consciousness is an effect and not the cause", and that is why you face lots and lots of contradictions among various religious beliefs, thefore it is not and it cannot be your Brahman-"The One without a Second". Also your "Brahman/Atma/God" remains utterly unable to "Create" anything as I have clearly proved earlier. Moreover, more than 90% of the world's religions and believer population reject your "Brahman" , the Advaitic God and have postulated their own Dvaitic God - i.e. an "Intelligent Designer". Forget about you, no one has yet presented anything to prove it otherwise. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[God](XOR)[Liar's Paradox: The only truth liars/believers can convey is "Liars/believers lie"]

[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the world’s religious beliefs]

[God](XOR)[Existence of Logically Explosives Contradictions among the believers of the same faith]

(XOR)[Sound-Waves – A physical phenomenon]

[God](XOR)[Believers’ terminate their arguments, not based on their own premises/models]

Your lying posts have no impact whatsoever on my proofs and their essence unless you directly address them, steps by step and point by point. Till then have fun with your lies and enjoy your regressions.

[b]Taking the regression count of our blind liars/believers to n+ 27.

So, carryon and keep your futile attempts of converting your wishes into horses by lying, proving the absolute reality of the URR format – Unreal God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Deep_Secrets

27th April 2005, 06:10 AM

blah blah blah

As far as I know,it can be repeated only twice! :lol: :lol:

And DS, before you compare Rohit with Mandakkai with the idea of making fun of him, Please make sure that you haven't said in this very forum that you admire Mr.Mandakkai! :D

And forgive me if I am being harsh on you here. :wink:

I was not intending on making fun of him Blahblah :D . I just meant that he has his (Mandakkai's) style but with intelligence showing through... :P

pradheep

27th April 2005, 04:51 PM

[tscii:e5b9bf8721]Dear rohit
I have written before that consciousness is the causeless cause and not pertaining to brain. Consciousness in brain is awareness. You wrote

|"Universe came into existence uncaused and so did the life and they continuously evolve from very basic forms, starting from “Nothing”. "

whatever you say nothing is not literally "nothing". That uncaused ,unchaning, immutable, eternal is what you call nothing and what vedas call as Brahman.

Weapons do not cut this Brahman, fire does not burn it, water does not make it wet, and the wind does not make it dry. 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.

As Ramakrishna paramhamsa says ,the same truth people call in different names. Vedas call it as Brahman, you say it is Nothingness and I call it as consciousness.

Is there an objection now Rohit?[/tscii:e5b9bf8721]

Raghu

27th April 2005, 05:12 PM

As Ramakrishna paramhamsa says ,the same truth people call in different names. Vedas call it as Brahman, you say it is Nothingness and I call it as consciousness.

Dear Pradheep, the above quote of your translated back into sanskrit is as follows
Ekam Sataha Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti,"

"The truth is One, but different Sages call it by Different Names, but ultimately everything leads to Maha Iswar (Shivam)"

Rohit Fails to understand the logics behind the transistent atma, till atains mukthi or moksha.

to be continued...

Raghu

27th April 2005, 05:13 PM

Dear Rohit,

Can you tell me difference between a living body and a dead body?

Rohit

28th April 2005, 12:56 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, again 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 C= Consciousness and the applied boundary conditions are [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0].

Now at C = Consciousness =1, which is for your “Brahman”, the absolute probability P of its presumed pre-existence comes to an absolute “0”; and therefore it cannot exist, completely shattering your wishful fantasy of the pre-existing, 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 effect 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 mercilessly sends you back into your good old 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: The 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)[Buddha’s Nirvana]
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/God](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:

Rohit

28th April 2005, 03:21 AM

Dear Rohit,

Can you tell me difference between a living body and a dead body?
Most living bodies, especially that of the believers, make extensive use of fallacies, delude, hallucinate, seek “appeal to ignorance”, and believe "ignorance is bliss", persistently remain in fantasy/dream worlds and blind beliefs, seek refuge in diversions, distort facts and reality, lie and do hosts of other illogical and irrational things, while their dead bodies don't. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Raghu

28th April 2005, 03:12 PM

[tscii:07be9b7174]

Dear Rohit,

Can you tell me difference between a living body and a dead body?
Most living bodies, especially that of the believers, make extensive use of fallacies, delude, hallucinate, seek “appeal to ignorance”, and believe "ignorance is bliss", persistently remain in fantasy/dream worlds and blind beliefs, seek refuge in diversions, distort facts and reality, lie and do hosts of other illogical and irrational things, while their dead bodies don't. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Did not expected a serious answer from you, rohit :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok Let explain it, Atma is simply missing in the dead body, hence there is no energy(Atma Consiousness) to activate, where else in a living body, (atma Consiousness) exists, which is the prime energy that activate a Living Cell from, this is the difference from a living cell and a dead Cell.

pls do tell me, if you need further explanation :lol: [/tscii:07be9b7174]

pradheep

28th April 2005, 05:50 PM

"consciousness is an evolved phenomenon" - and - "consciousness is an effect and not the cause".

Dear Rohit

You are still talking about consciousness as a brain phenomenon. I am not talking about the sensory impulses that occurs when neurons fire.......

Okay for you to understand I will rewrite

Brahman= soul=atma= nothingness (rohit) = zangzangzimba(pradheep).

Because you are allergic to words like Brahman and consciousness , I am using zangzangzimba.

this zangzangzimba is the uncaused eternal,uncut by weapons,not wet by water, nor dried by air..... ...........

Any objection to the above.

I am now talking through Buddhist terms only to make you understand what I write. When my son does not understand the words I use and also mis-interpret those words the way he understand, then I use his words and terminology.

Rohit

28th April 2005, 10:18 PM

Any objection to the above.
Dear Pradheep,

Your disastrous and catastrophic failures, which are made even worse by your utter inability to read and comprehend what I have proved and stated above is no one’s misunderstanding, if you care to grasp that fact and keep away from any form of fallacies. :wink:

As long as you categorically accept my assertion "nothing = no consciousness" and the absolute non-existence of any "Brahman/God/Creator" or whatever you believers wish to call it, at the time (t=0) of universe coming into existence, uncaused and then evolve, as clearly proved above and repeated below, you can come to an agreement with my proofs, but my proofs cannot accomodate your fallacious statements and propositions whatsoever, I am afraid. :D

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 C= Consciousness and the applied boundary conditions are [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0].

Now at C = Consciousness =1, which is for your “Brahman”, the absolute probability P of its presumed pre-existence comes to an absolute “0”; and therefore it cannot exist, completely shattering your wishful fantasy of the pre-existing, 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"

Now you can fully accept and agree to my above statements as clearly stated above, without distortion, none whatsoever.

Taking the regression count of our blind believers to n+ 29.

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.

Dear Pradheep, I have a suggestion for you. As this is going to be too much for you and at this juncture of the debate, your futile arguments and fallacies will serve you no purpose whatsoever. It is time for us to agree that we do not and cannot agree and call it a day. You go your way and keep your views within yourself and I will do the same. I promise you, you will be wasting your time and breath posting anything that does not agree with my irrefutable proofs and statements. So, please leave, this is an honest advice form a friend and a well wisher.

Good luck :wink: :wave:

rajasaranam

29th April 2005, 12:00 AM

Ok Let explain it, Atma is simply missing in the dead body, hence there is no energy(Atma Consiousness) to activate, where else in a living body, (atma Consiousness) exists, which is the prime energy that activate a Living Cell from, this is the difference from a living cell and a dead Cell.

The difference between those living and dead itself is a fallacy. Science has proved irrefutably the fact that 'Energy or matter cannot be created or destroyed' and it only changes forms. The concept of ATma is only an illussion. If you belive that Atma is embodied in all living organisms prove me beyond doubt that Atma leaves the body after the so called death.
Death is only a transition from one form to another. The body at this juncture decompose and take various innumerable forms which have many more living organisms emanating from it. or it changes into pure energy form after sometime. Matter <.>Energy getting transformed intoone another is a new reality that has dawned upon science.
Science opens up new frontiers in finding the truth while religion becomes obsolete by twisting the truth.
You may call this as atma getting cycled or recycled or whatever fancies you.

Conciousness is again an effect created from a cause in which some equations were adhered to strictly. Your theories have tried keeping Human beings as the pinnacle of universe while ruthlessly discarding the nature of other concious beings existing in this vast expanse of universe.
For instance from your understanding a stone may be a dead one. ironically these stones get elevated into Deities and belived to have some conciousness into it. but i do belive that Even stones should have some kind of consciousness which we may not be able to grasp right now.

pradheep

29th April 2005, 01:48 AM

Dear Rohit

So, please leave, this is an honest advice form a friend and a well wisher.

Yes the above request from me to you is the same. Please understand that the "Nothingness" that Buddha taughtis not what you can comprehend with your |"little" intellect,like trying to understand |"Compassion|". You have to trasncend your own stubbornness and intellectual forumulation of everything, and trascend it, you will see the Truth or attain Nirvana.

You are no different from vedantins who talk all the philosphy at intellectual level without expericing the knowledge. Knowing is different from experiencing my friend.

So my sincere advice to you my friend rohit, go and chant OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM

and doing it mechanically overmany years atleast you will start to understand what Buddha taught and meant about Nothingness.

pradheep

29th April 2005, 01:55 AM

Dear rajasaranam

You wrote
Conciousness is again an effect created from a cause

western world was thinking that Earth is flat and stationary while sun rotates around it, while Indian rishi's were completely understood not only the secrets of this unvierse but also the mystery of the human mind. Western world totally depended on what the senses provide, which is not always correct and so their understandign waswrong.

But indian sages did not use telescopesor machines but used the best machine, which istheir own human body and understood the mystery of cosmos and one own self.

It took centuries for the western world to see the truth and while great men came with the truth, they were stoned to death.

Same way western world is steeped in the concept of consciousness as an effect of brain neurons firing. Ancient sages have found that this is not consciousness, but a reflection of cosnciousness, which is not localized in brain.

There are lotof research my modern scientist who are already seeing evidence of it.

Rohit

29th April 2005, 03:36 AM

Yes, Pradheep, please carryon with your regressions, indefinitely. :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: ............... :notworthy: Only URR/FTT is :thumbsup:

Good luck! :wink: :wave:

pradheep

29th April 2005, 05:18 AM

Dear Rohit
Yes You keep chanting the Vedic mantra chanted by Buddhist to get Nirvana - Om Mani Padme Hum. I think it is now n+4 ...for you every addition is not regression but progression. So chant Om |Mani padme hum..

Rohit, you are so cute....you use more symbolism that i use. look how many times you use symbolic cartoon in every post. Good progress. Keep going ahead and get back to me when you understand the symbolism of vedic tradition.

jaiganes

29th April 2005, 10:17 AM

Abiogenesis is the theory of scientists who favour evolution. Many experiments to create life in labs have failed. However the theory is sound. It is reorganization of molecules under certain environment (PVT- Pressure, Volume and Temperature) when these molecules formed the first organic molecule that grew and propagated itself. The elemental nature of this molecule was to multiply. This proto - DNA or RNA molecule is central to the self propagating nature of living organisms.
There were several critical periods where the simple multiplication did not succeed in conquering the environment. Mitosis resulted at first. mitosis is simple cell division where the information is cloned or copied and another identical cell is created. Primitive organisms like bacteria and algae multiply or reproduce by this means.
Biggest drawback of mitosis is that in a clone colony , there is no variation of information and hence when a threat to propagation is introduced in the environment, the whole colony is lost. Whatever is left out develops immunity and becomes a new variety of the old "copy". So variations are environmentally induced and colonies have to survive mass extinctions to "evolve".
Since this is a tedious process, one organism along the way became clever and started to hunt for another individual of the same species for better "information" to conquer the environmental challenge and to be better prepared for any other environmental threat. So it made a half copy of it or what we can call "a minimal backup" which contains all essential info and posted into the environment. If another individual responded, then we got sexual reproduction when the info from both individuals is mixed to create a "stronger" individual armed with info to face more threats to propagation than the ones which reproduced by simple cell division or asexual reproduction.
Plants did the above mentioned process through "flowers" which are its reproductive organs. Hydra which is a coellentrate in the sea is able to reproduce both sexually and asexually, providing a major evolutionary jump. The process of mix and match of info to create new individuals is called "meiosis". The qualities dominant in the new individual and the ones less dominant are governed by a law which was discovered by Russian scientist mendel.
Humans are more recent result of this long chain of life at whose center lies the strand of molecule that suddenly felt it important to preserve itself at any cost. As long as the molecule is able to drive the individual, we say it is "alive". The moment the molecule is not able to drive the organs that are sustaining the individual, we say that the individual is "dead". in case of single celled organisms, it is only one cell and the probability of it living or dying was only 50 %. Hence the case for multicellular organisms where the probability of living increased and the coin of life started to be more biased towards staying alive (like the beegees). Primitive organisms also devised an ingenious way of creating "spores" that helped them survive difficult periods. In case of those organisms death in an unfavourable situation is nothing but a suspended state.
Have humans transcended death by virtue of a soul, or is it the soul that drives life and death of a human are questions that are more metaphysical in nature and cannot be argued with any degree of clarity as it is something even according to the spiritual masters, cannot be observed or studied through senses like sight or sound.
Whatever I have posted above is my opinions which I formed based on whatever I have learnt from classrooms and by listening to discussions among more erudite scholars and bright minds on this subject.

Rohit

29th April 2005, 11:32 AM

Yes Pradheep,

The more you keep talking/posting about consciousness, of any form or function, the more you will prove "consciousness as an evolved phenomenon" - and- "consciousness is an effect (resulting from transitory causes as Buddha explained) and not the cause" and the more you will prove the utter failures and falsity of Brahman/God/Creator. :notworthy: :arrow:

[Brahman/God](XOR)[Buddha’s Nirvana] :arrow:

Please carryon with your regressions, indefinitely. :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: ............... :notworthy: And keep going back to the cycle of infinite regression proving, every time, the non-existence of "Brahman/God/Creator" as irrefutably proved by [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] proving:

Only the URR/FTT format is :thumbsup:

Good luck! :wink: :wave:

pradheep

29th April 2005, 05:32 PM

Dear Rohit
when you said Buddha said "consciousness is an effect (resulting from transitory causes", did you validate it yourself?. Dont be a blind believer, like a fanatic religious person.I have experienced whathe says about transitory states and what he means by nothingness. You keep confusing the awareness that is only comming out of your brain biochemical reactions.

So chant

OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM

progression N+5

pradheep

29th April 2005, 05:38 PM

Dear jaiganes

Good post.

even according to the spiritual masters, cannot be observed or studied through senses like sight or sound.

Yes that is why transcendance is required. Through this human body that can be achieved. The evolution to human body was geared to this, but on the way, the whole process is beautiful.

Rohit

29th April 2005, 07:30 PM

Yes Pradheep, transcendence is absolutely necessary for entering into, what is known as, "Mystic/Delusive/Psychotic” states of the mind. Is there any wonder why Dr. Gunasekara explicitly mentioned in his statements to word’s religious seminars about such psychotic practices, employed in Hindu meditation in attaining the “Mystic” states of the mind. :lol: :lol: :lol:

This precisely shows again the persistence of your utter incapacity in understanding the principle of mutual exclusion i.e. (XOR)

Let me explain, the two entities involved in (XOR) relationship do not and cannot coexist, no matter how desperately you desire or wish. This gets explicitly clear from the two formats/worldviews logically expressed as:

Buddhism = URU/FTF - Unreal/False-Atman/Brahman/God, Real/True-Cognition and Unreal/False-Physical World.

Vedanta = RRU/TTF or RRR/TTT as wrongly selected by Pradheep- Real/True-Atman/Brahman, Real/True-Cognition and Maya/Illusion or Real/True-Physical World.

And these two formats/wordviews are mutually exclusive as expressed by:

[Vedanta-Atman/Brahman](XOR)

Also, this is what a scholar in comparative religions says in "The South Asia Seminar, 2000 at The University of Texas at Austina" about the mutulally exclusive relationship that exists between Atman (Brahman) and Buddha's Sunyata.

When Buddhism and Vedanta are thus juxtaposed in a comparative perspective, [b]the two systems present themselves in the form of a mutually exclusive relation. An affirmation of the existence of Atman (Brahman) would presuppose a negation of the reality of Sunyata. Conversely, identifying reality with the field of Sunyata would entail a denial of the existence of Atman (Brahman). So, either it is Atman (Brahman) without Sunyata, or it is Sunyata without Atman (Brahman)
And precisely that, was/is unambiguously expressed in my logical expression: :D

[Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Buddha’s Sunyata :arrow: Nirvana = Complete Negation of "Atman/Brahman"] :arrow:

In that case, again, due applicability of the mutual exclusion principle, whatever progressions you keep counting for me, it would only add to your regression counts in addition to your own continued regressions, taking it straight to 37; and exactly that, what is happening and will continue to happen. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Atman/Brahman](XOR){[C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] = "nothing = no consciousness"}

[Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Sound-Wave- A physical Phenomenon]

Therefore, the more you keep talking/posting about consciousness, of any form or function, the more you will prove "consciousness as an evolved phenomenon" - and- "consciousness is an effect (resulting from transitory causes as Buddha explained) and not the cause" and the more you will prove the utter failures and falsity/untenablilty of your belief system of Brahman/God/Creator. :notworthy: :arrow:

Please carryon with your regressions, indefinitely. :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: ............... :notworthy: And keep going back to the cycle of infinite regression proving, every time, the non-existence of "Brahman/God/Creator" as irrefutably proved by [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] proving:

Only the URR/FTT format is :thumbsup:

Good luck! :wink:

pradheep

29th April 2005, 08:54 PM

An affirmation of the existence of Atman (Brahman) would presuppose a negation of the reality of Sunyata. Conversely, identifying reality with the field of Sunyata would entail a denial of the existence of Atman (Brahman). So, either it is Atman (Brahman) without Sunyata, or it is Sunyata without Atman (Brahman)

Dear Rohit
Very good. I can feel you are chanting Om Mani Padme Hum and I see the change. Very good that you brought the above quote. Now a fanatic unexperienced (but has knowledge) vedantin would also say the same thing and a fanatic unexperienced (but has knowledge) buddhist also would say the above, when he or she understand sunyata or Brahman as a thing. That is why the above scholar sees mut.exclu. When he or she in both the sides (vedantin and Buddhist) understand that what they are trying to articulate is not a thing, then there is no problem. it is the same , only the words are different. You may call water and i may call it paani or thanneer. If that is not understood then there is controversy.

Hope you understand.

So chant

OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM

progression N+6.....keep progressing...good job.

Rohit

29th April 2005, 08:59 PM

Yes Pradheep, transcendence is absolutely necessary for entering into, what is known as, "Mystic/Delusive/Psychotic” states of the mind. Is there any wonder why Dr. Gunasekara explicitly mentioned in his statements to word’s religious seminars about such psychotic practices, employed in Hindu meditation in attaining the “Mystic” states of the mind. :lol: :lol: :lol:

This precisely shows again the persistence of your utter incapacity in understanding the principle of mutual exclusion i.e. (XOR)

Let me explain, the two entities involved in (XOR) relationship do not and cannot coexist, no matter how desperately you desire or wish. This gets explicitly clear from the two formats/worldviews logically expressed as:

Buddhism = URU/FTF - Unreal/False-Atman/Brahman/God, Real/True-Cognition and Unreal/False-Physical World.

Vedanta = RRU/TTF or RRR/TTT as wrongly selected by Pradheep- Real/True-Atman/Brahman, Real/True-Cognition and Maya/Illusion or Real/True-Physical World.

And these two formats/wordviews are mutually exclusive as expressed by:

[Vedanta-Atman/Brahman](XOR)

Also, this is what a scholar in comparative religions says in "The South Asia Seminar, 2000 at The University of Texas at Austina" about the mutulally exclusive relationship that exists between Atman (Brahman) and Buddha's Sunyata.

When Buddhism and Vedanta are thus juxtaposed in a comparative perspective, [b]the two systems present themselves in the form of a mutually exclusive relation. An affirmation of the existence of Atman (Brahman) would presuppose a negation of the reality of Sunyata. Conversely, identifying reality with the field of Sunyata would entail a denial of the existence of Atman (Brahman). So, either it is Atman (Brahman) without Sunyata, or it is Sunyata without Atman (Brahman)
And precisely that, was/is unambiguously expressed in my logical expression: :D

[Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Buddha’s Sunyata :arrow: Nirvana = Complete Negation of "Atman/Brahman"] :arrow:

In that case, again, due applicability of the mutual exclusion principle, whatever progressions you keep counting for me, it would only add to your regression counts in addition to your own continued regressions, taking it straight to n+39; and exactly that, what is happening and will continue to happen. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Atman/Brahman](XOR){[C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] = "nothing = no consciousness"}

[Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Sound-Wave- A physical Phenomenon]

Therefore, the more you keep talking/posting about consciousness, of any form or function, the more you will prove "consciousness as an evolved phenomenon" - and- "consciousness is an effect (resulting from transitory causes as Buddha explained) and not the cause" and the more you will prove the utter failures and falsity/untenablilty of your belief system of Brahman/God/Creator. :notworthy: :arrow:

Please carryon with your regressions, indefinitely. :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: ............... :notworthy: And keep going back to the cycle of infinite regression proving, every time, the non-existence of "Brahman/God/Creator" as irrefutably proved by [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] proving:

Only the URR/FTT format is :thumbsup:

Good luck! :wink:

pradheep

29th April 2005, 09:11 PM

[tscii:6749478806]
Is there any wonder why Dr. Gunasekara explicitly mentioned in his statements to word’s religious seminars about such psychotic practices, employed in Hindu meditation in attaining the “Mystic” states of the mind.

Can you mention those mystic states?. I will explain what it means. Dr. Gunaskara has no clue about it. I know what these mystic states are because i have undergone through it. We can stay in any state we want to and get benefits out of that state. But masters tell the students not to get caught there but proceed to transcendance.

Ask r.Gunasekharan to read how modern medicine in appreciating this psycotic states in treatment of dieseases. Modern medicine is baffled by the way poeple heal diseases. This is were placebo effects come. drug industry is scared of placebo effect. Only a very few medicines get approved aprt from side effects is because of placebo effects. How does this palcebo effect come from. it is because of these psycotic states. everyone of us do go to this state with or without being aware of it.

so Chant Om Mani padme hum
progression N+7[/tscii:6749478806]

Rohit

29th April 2005, 09:19 PM

Yes Pradheep,

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." And you are riding one now, which would definitely take you into, what is known as, "Mystic/Delusive/Psychotic” states of the mind. :lol: :lol: :lol:

This precisely shows again the persistence of your utter incapacity in understanding the principle of mutual exclusion i.e. (XOR)

Let me explain, the two entities involved in (XOR) relationship do not and cannot coexist, no matter how desperately you desire or wish. This gets explicitly clear from the two formats/worldviews logically expressed as:

Buddhism = URU/FTF - Unreal/False-Atman/Brahman/God, Real/True-Cognition and Unreal/False-Physical World.

Vedanta = RRU/TTF or RRR/TTT as wrongly selected by Pradheep- Real/True-Atman/Brahman, Real/True-Cognition and Maya/Illusion or Real/True-Physical World.

And these two formats/wordviews are mutually exclusive as expressed by:

[Vedanta-Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Buddhism-Sunyata/Nirvana]

[Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Buddha’s Sunyata :arrow: Nirvana = Complete Negation of "Atman/Brahman"] :arrow:

[Atman/Brahman](XOR){[C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] = "nothing = no consciousness" at t=0}

[Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Sound waves- A physical Phenomenon]

In that case, again, due applicability of the mutual exclusion principle, whatever progressions you keep counting for me, it would only add to your regression counts in addition to your own continued regressions, taking it straight to n+41; and exactly that, what is happening and will continue to happen. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Therefore, the more you keep talking/posting about consciousness, of any form or function, the more you will prove "consciousness as an evolved phenomenon" - and- "consciousness is an effect (resulting from transitory causes as Buddha explained) and not the cause" and the more you will prove the utter failures and falsity/untenablilty of your belief system of Brahman/God/Creator. :notworthy: :arrow:

Please carryon with your regressions, indefinitely. :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: :notworthy: :arrow: ............... :notworthy: And keep going back to the cycle of infinite regression proving, every time, the non-existence of "Atman/Brahman" as irrefutably proved by [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] proving:

Only the URR/FTT format is :thumbsup:

Good luck! :wink:

pradheep

29th April 2005, 09:44 PM

[tscii:d1eca6c898]Dear Rohit

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." And you are riding one now, which would definitely take you into, what is known as, "Mystic/Delusive/Psychotic” states of the mind.

Yes rohit you are also now riding a mystical horse of denying the reality. Any time I give you evidence that support my claims and blast your arguements you call me names. Now you have nothing else but to qaote one Dr.Gunasekharan who thinks like you.

You write equations. You write equations about Buddha's teachings. Now when i used where would Om Mani padme Hum fit in your equation you ran away into other arguements. Then you brought an Austin Texas seminar report and then when I said the problem is at words, you got hold of psycotic states. And when i gave proof you now call me a beggar ride on a horse. i really thank you Rohit for giving me that status because your previous comments were much worse. OH I am having a happy happy day. My dear Rohit have progressed from calling me names to a beggar.

Any way I will add a little more to psycotic states. Palani a great temple in tamil nadu is known for healing diseases. They sing Kandha sashti kavacham. The song goes on visualising human body to different aspects of Lord muruga. singing this song and drinking the milk poured on the statue of lord muruga for 41 weeks any disease would be cured.
Why milk on a statue?. This statue is unique in the world because it is made of nine different toxic plant. Milk is the one of the rarest solution which can dissolve both hydrophilic and lipophillic chemicals. This milk will dissolve the chemicals on the statue and in femnta molar concentrations would heal diseases. Most of these chemcials act on brain neurons and mimic neuropeptides that mimic neurotransmission. Since all diseases are manifestation of human mind, treating human mind is the best way. This vedic secret is now tested and proved only now by modern science. You can read a sample in a wonderful , best seller book, "Heal your body" by lousie hay.

Okay comming back to healing........in addition to this singing of kandha shashti kavacham would help people to go to psycotic states where the brain would release neuropeptides that would trigger millions of biochemcial reactions and bring healing.

One adaption of this method is the modern bio-feed back therapy and bio-visulaization techniques. Rohit go to modern USA hospitals you would find that these therapies are now approved techniques given to patients. It is proved beyond doubt.

Unfortunately no one studies how many patients get healed and what all diseases get healed there. If some one takes statistics then the hospitals would be out of bussiness.

ow dont take my statement literally as you take Buddha's statements. everyone cannot and always get tinto the psycotic states to bring out these effects. If that could happen then there wont be need for hospitals as olden days. we need now hospitals to treat because we are only intellectuals without experiential knowledge. Just being booksish and calling others psychotics.[/tscii:d1eca6c898]

Rohit

29th April 2005, 10:19 PM

Whatever you wish to say Pradheep, but you have remained completely incapable of addressing or answering anything whatsoever; you have just relied on your futile desires and wishes and nothing more.

[Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Sound waves- A physical Phenomenon]

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." And you are riding one now, which would definitely take you into, what is known as, "Mystic/Delusive/Psychotic" states of the mind.

This precisely shows again the persistence of your utter incapacity in understanding the principle of mutual exclusion i.e. (XOR)

Let me explain, the two entities involved in (XOR) relationship do not and cannot coexist no matter how desperately you desire or wish. This gets explicitly clear from the two formats/worldviews logically expressed as:

Buddhism = URU/FTF - Unreal/False-Atman/Brahman/God, Real/True-Cognition and Unreal/False-Physical World.

Vedanta = RRU/TTF or RRR/TTT as wrongly selected by Pradheep- Real/True-Atman/Brahman, Real/True-Cognition and Maya/Illusion or Real/True-Physical World.

And these two formats/wordviews are mutually exclusive as expressed by:

[Vedanta-Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Buddhism-Sunyata/Nirvana]

[Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Buddha's Sunyata/Nirvana = Complete Negation of "Atman/Brahman"]

[Atman/Brahman](XOR){[C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] = "nothing = no consciousness" at t=0}

In that case, again, due applicability of the mutual exclusion principle, whatever progressions you keep counting for me, would only add to your regression counts in addition to your own continued regressions, taking it straight to n+43; and exactly that, what is happening and will continue to happen. :notworthy:

Therefore, the more you keep talking/posting about consciousness, of any form or function, the more you will prove "consciousness as an evolved phenomenon" - and- "consciousness is an effect (resulting from transitory causes as Buddha explained) and not the cause" and the more you will prove the utter failures and falsity/untenablility of your belief system of Atma/Brahman. :notworthy:

Please carryon with your regressions, indefinitely and keep going back to the cycle of infinite regression proving, every time, the non-existence of "Atman/Brahman" as irrefutably proved by C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] proving:

Only the URR/FTT format is :thumbsup:

Good luck! :wink: :wave:

pradheep

29th April 2005, 10:35 PM

Dear Rohit
Brahman is not physical, not a sound wave. Not chemical, biological in that matter any "....cal".

Good all your concepts about Brahman is comming out.

Good progress.

keep chanting Om Mani padme Hum.
N + 9

progressing.

Rohit

30th April 2005, 01:39 PM

What a pity! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well done Pradheep, you have already started to admit the non-existence of your "Atman/Brahman", while the sound-waves, ".....cals", in fact the entire universe exists as an irrefutable evidence of an uncaused, absolute evolution of the physical world, out of "Nothing=No consciousness" as proved by [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0].

BTW, the posting of all your gobbledegook, lies, divergence, self-deceptions, contradictions, fluctuations too are physical/mental exercises - as an evidence of evolved human cognition, though severely deluded in your case; and precisely that my irrefutable proofs unequivocally proved. So, keep it up, you are almost getting there. :wink: :D

And established the URR/FTT- Unreal/False Brahman/God, Real/True Cognition and Real/True Physical World as the Factual Reality :thumbsup: , while both the RRU/TTF and RRR/TTT formats are False. :notworthy:

In that case, again, due applicability of the mutual exclusion principle, whatever progressions you keep counting for me, would only add to your regression counts in addition to your own continued regressions, taking it straight to N+45; and exactly that, what is happening and will continue to happen. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good luck :wink: :wave:

pradheep

30th April 2005, 06:36 PM

Dear rohit
do you any more concepts left on Brahman?. Let me know. I will clarify and then it is easy to arrive at a conclusion.
Till then chant

OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM OM MANI PADME HUM

and now it is progression P + 46

podalangai

30th April 2005, 09:51 PM

and now it is progression P + 46
Does the 'p' stand for PODALANGAI?
(and 'n' for narthangai?)

hehehewalrus

30th April 2005, 11:07 PM

why m(for mandakkai) was missed out?

Rohit

1st May 2005, 01:17 AM

Dear Pradheep,

The conclusion was already reached long time ago; which is URR- rightly accommodating URU = True :thumbsup: and both the RRU and RRR = False:notworthy:

In that case, again, due applicability of the mutual exclusion principle, whatever X, Y, Z you keep counting for me, would only add to your regression counts in addition to your own continued regressions, taking it straight to 2xN+91; and exactly that, what is happening and now it will continue to happen automatically with 2xN+91 +................................................. ......................... :wink:

Good Luck :) :wave:

hehehewalrus

1st May 2005, 05:48 AM

What happens next? Will it be 92 or 136 or 148? Will there be another copy paste of the multiple mantra? Guess!! Winners will get a TVS-Victor Bike Free! Guess pannunga, bike Oteetu ponga jaaliya!!

Rohit

1st May 2005, 12:10 PM

Dear hehehewalrus and other "panellists",

There is absolutely no need to wait. Any intelligent and sound-minded panel, having persons like you as members, would give the Bike "free" to the "Personal Gods" like Pradheep who have exhausted all their physical and mental/neural energies for all their lives in converting their desires/wishes into horses due to utter lack of any Real vehicles.

I already have a mountain bike, two cars (Heenayana) and I can fly on Boeing/Spacecraft (Mahayana) whenever I want to, which do me good job in moving around, but our dear friend Pradheep and believers like him desperately need something "concrete" by which they can really move. :D

Therefore, I strongly suggest the panel to give the bike to my dear friend Pradheep and buy some more bikes for a free distribution among the rest of our "blind" believer friends, irrespective of the irrefutably proven absolute reality of the URR-rightly accommodating URU = True :thumbsup: ; and both the RRU and RRR = False :notworthy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Pradheep,

I hope this solves your long running problem in the interim, while the panel sorts you out in getting you some higher vehicle. Nonetheless, for the time being you won’t have to spend the rest of your life after empty and futile attempts of converting your desires/wishes into a horse, you will have at least a real bike that really moves.

Have fun riding the bike

Good Luck! :wink: :wave:

pradheep

1st May 2005, 05:20 PM

dear rohit
Look everytime when you get cornered you "believe" you escape by calling me names. Even you are exhausted with words and so now you are riding on other's phrases.

Should I highlight my posts that crashed all your arguements. I know, even then you wont accept. That is the problem of intellectuals. I have even experienced "You" many years ago. I used to do exactly the same approach you do now, when intellectually I was challenged. I used talk everything in the form of equations. But it took time for me to get beyondit. This happens when we are bound by concepts. The "belief" of God is a concept and the "beleif" of No God is also a concept. Truth is not a concept. Truth is your own being. This is not metaphysics by the way. Metaphysics is still words of intellects only. Unless it is experienced, it is only words.

I know you Rohit, you dont to acccept the Truth publicly in this forum. And that is okay. I am not here to make you look stupid. I want you to look inward and go beyond concepts. remember earlier when I used to write posts answering Nambi, I used to write that I am not talking about a belief system.

As sri Sri ravisankar beautifully writes, intellect is like a hired taxi, any one can use it. If theist uses it, it gives evidence to prove their arguements and the same if atheist uses, they will get evidences.

"God" is just a word, what it denotes is,much more than what the intellect can think of. I dont say intellect is of no use. It is the one that helps ,but ultimately it should also be transcended. God is "being",which cannot be articulated. To try to put in words we can use manywords like love, truth, consciousness, knowledge, beauty etc etc..But being is beyond words. Dear Rohit , dont write that I have used a new word. I am trying to put different words and soemtimes oneword may click for you.

Transcendance would occur only when that knowledge is put in practice. This human body is a wonderful machine to use it for that purpose. Otherwise we will live and die not knowing the truth. It is like a learned pundit who was boasting his knowledge to the fellow passengers about his knowledge. He said if you dotn know shastras your half life is a waste. If you dont know if about upsnishads your three fourth of life is wasted. Suddenly a huge wave hit the boat and the fellow passenger asked the pundit, sir doyou know swimming. When the pundit said oh no, the passenger relplied then your whole life is going to be a waste. this story shows that all intellectual learning is a waste if it isnot practised. This is the problem of the intellect.

So take time to put the intellectual understanding in practise, but dont waste your life only with acquiring knowledge, LIVE IT and thats LIFE.

jaiganes

1st May 2005, 05:53 PM

Please rename this thread to something like "GOD and consciousness" or something like The thread has been derailed to whether GOD or consciousness exist , if so what it is? Where are we discussing evolution vs creationism in this thread?

hehehewalrus

2nd May 2005, 07:34 AM

Rohit,
wait wait! I cannot issue the bike so soon, have to check whether the participants have a valid licence and morever the winner has not been announced yet, so dont count your chickens before they hatch!
All, please do not release your bullocks to pasture, better wait for the judgement to be passed next saturday :)

Raghu

2nd May 2005, 04:40 PM

Ok Let explain it, Atma is simply missing in the dead body, hence there is no energy(Atma Consiousness) to activate, where else in a living body, (atma Consiousness) exists, which is the prime energy that activate a Living Cell from, this is the difference from a living cell and a dead Cell.

The difference between those living and dead itself is a fallacy. Science has proved irrefutably the fact that 'Energy or matter cannot be created or destroyed' and it only changes forms. The concept of ATma is only an illussion. If you belive that Atma is embodied in all living organisms prove me beyond doubt that Atma leaves the body after the so called death.
Death is only a transition from one form to another. The body at this juncture decompose and take various innumerable forms which have many more living organisms emanating from it. or it changes into pure energy form after sometime. Matter <.>Energy getting transformed intoone another is a new reality that has dawned upon science.
Science opens up new frontiers in finding the truth while religion becomes obsolete by twisting the truth.
You may call this as atma getting cycled or recycled or whatever fancies you.

Rajasaranam, I have explained this long before, but it's not getting in to some people here :huh:

Rohit

2nd May 2005, 05:41 PM

Well done again Pradheep, you have now completely negated your "Atman/Brahman/God" :D

I am glad that you are expressing your own hopeless situations indirectly through superimposition, either by expressing your own personal difficulties or through quoting human experiences, feelings and/or emotions in general.

Irrespective of all that, the fact remains that over the entire discussion so far, no one who possesses a rational and sound mind would ever fail to observe your complete seizure in addressing anything that has been raised and proved so far against your entire belief system of "Atman/Brahman/God".

Moreover, whatever problems you face with your intellect, is yours and only yours problem, no one can help you there, I am afraid my friend.

Also the very fear or threat that has driven you away form all rational inquiries, conducted through logical reasoning, science, physical cosmology, logic and mathematical equations etc. is also yours and only your problem, no one can do anything whatsoever to help you there either. In that case, no matter how hard your try, how loud you cry, how desperate you become, it did not, do not, cannot and will not allow you to covert your desires and wishes in to a horse. And unfortunately, that remains the bitterest reality of your hopeless situation so far, which cannot be missed by even a teenage child, I am afraid. Now no one even wonders when you keep reporting your difficulties at home, especially with your own son and when your are intellectually challenged by others who know your running difficulties.

Let me reiterate my proof again and prove how it would completely negate every aspect of your belief system of "Atman/Brahman/God" and how you have driven yourself in a situation where you have completely lost relations and correlates of the situation.

Whatever Characteristics, Capacity, Complexities, Criteria (being, beingness......... etc.) depicted as "C" you wish to ascribe to your "Atman/Brahman/God", involving Articulation, Beauty, Beingness, Bliss, Consciousness, Creator, Experience, Hearer, Ignorance, Intellects, Knower, Knowledge, Love, Pain, Purpose, Seer, Suffering, Thoughts, Transcendence, Truth etc etc.etc........cannot exist when all such Characteristics, Capacities, Complexities, Criteria.... "C" are normalised against that of your supposed "Atman/Brahman/God", generating two boundary conditions [C=0, P=1] and [C= 1, P=0] as before, which completely negates the existence of your "Atman/Brahman/God" when the pertinent boundary condition for your "Atman/Brahman/God" [C= 1, P=0] is applied. While the application of [C=0, P=1] would allow the beginning of an Absolute Evolution of the Physical World from "C=0=Nothing" at t=0.

Can you now comprehend and grasp what I have proved again ang again, no matter whatever criteria you ascribe to your "Atman/Brahman/God", my friend Pradheep? If you still remain unable and fail, please keep up with your regressions until you do comprehend and fully grasp it. :D

I hope, this also satisfactorily addresses Jaiganes’s valid comments.

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 mercilessly sends you back into your good old 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: The 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
[Atman/Brahman](XOR)[Buddha's Sunyata :arrow: Nirvana = Complete negation of "Atman/Brahman"]
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/God](XOR)[Sound-Wave- A physical Phenomenon]

[b]Taking the regression count of our blind believers to 2xN+ 92. :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:

rajasaranam

2nd May 2005, 09:21 PM

Pradheep,

The story does not show that 'all intellectual learning is a waste if it isnot practised.' but it shows that for living a life one has to learn things that are necessary not those vedanthas etall.

"LIVE IT and thats LIFE."

Exactly this is what Rohit is trying to put in your head all these days. do you ever need a GOD to live a life?!!

There is a beautiful story in the book 'Sidhartha' By 'Hermen hesse'. Sidhartha who goes in search of GOD/Reality/enlightenment, after years of futile search, comes upon a Fisherman who lives a life by carrying passengers from one bank to the other. 'Doing nothing else' He asks the fisherman how can he let himself into such a boredom. The reply is sharp enough to enlighten Sidhartha. He says 'i just make a livelihood of carrying passengers from one side to the other, other than this i just do fishing and at nights gaze upon the stars and feel one along with cosmos'. sidhartha understands this and knows 'Living life all that matters'.

One more anecdote from Ilayaraja's - Vetta velithanil Kotti kidakuthu'

'Buddhan pirantha bodhu Suppanum piranthan
Buddhan Vilayadi thirigayil Suppanum Vilayadi thirinthaan
Buddhan Gnanam thaedi selgayil suppan Vayalil Uzhuthaan
Buddhan Gnanam kanda bodhu Suppan Aruvadai Kandan
ithil buddhanum suppanum adaiya ninathathai adaintharagal
Iruvarin vazhkayum sarisamamae'

Hope you get this into your head sometime.

Fine coming back to the topic

A very simple question which may enlighten you

"If there needs to be creator for this universe then who created the creator? If we say creator is one who is Always present then why cant this universe be such, one without a creator?'

r_kk

3rd May 2005, 04:58 AM

Dear rajasaranam,
You had summed it very nice.

The simple question that you had asked at the end was asked by many non-believers many times in this thread and till now no believers came up with the good answer othern than beating around the bush and telling some superstitious stories without any logic.

Here many believers keep the personal experience as the primary anwers to all these questions forgetting that believers among different releigions contracdict each others and claiming others experience or their way of creation stories as utterly false.

I request Pradheep to write about his concept of creation sequence in order to proceed this discussion from the current stale state.

Badri

3rd May 2005, 05:21 AM

Excellent question, rajasaranam.

Perhaps I can try and answer?

The grand philosophy of Advaita Vedanta states that whatever is, is pervaded by one immanent Divinity. It rejects outright this concept of a God and then all the others, being "Un-god". In fact, this philosophy, the summon bonum of the Veda-Vedanta knowledge categorically dismisses all such distinction as Brahman and Universe and states that there is only one. Our dear Raghu has in his signature stated this very thing as Ekam Sat Vipraha Bahuda Vadanti - the truth is only one, the wise such as Pradeep, Rohit, Rajasaranam all call it by different names.

My question to Pradeep & Raghu is: If everything is God, then what is the harm in calling the Universe too as God? This is exactly what Rohit has been saying, all along. He hasn't called it God, but that is just a word. Subsitute God for something else, and it still wouldn't matter. The truth is there is one...you call it God, Rohit chooses another name.

My question to Rohit and people who share his views: You agree the Universe exists. What is the harm if a Pradeep decides to call it God? After all, in English, you call it Universe, in Sanksrit, you call it Jagam, in Tamizh, you call it Anda Characharam...in Pradeep and Raghu's language, they call it God. What is wrong? Do you deny them the right to call the same Material Universe by another name????

When seen this way, it is clear that both the "parties" have been discussing the same thing, calling it by different names! One calls it the effect, another argues it is the cause! This is what the great Jnanis right from Bhagwan Krishna to Buddha to Adi Sankara to Ramana Maharishi have been advocating!

Does this answer your question as well, rajasaranam? To use Rohit's formulaic approach

If

Creator = Created

where is the question of which came first??

r_kk

3rd May 2005, 05:43 AM

Dear sbadri99,
Thanks for taking this discussion to the proper direction...

I hope you might have understood that Pradeep/Raghu/or any believers God concept is totally contradict with Rohit/rajasaranam/any non-believers concept.

First of all, believers orign of world start with the super intelligence who had/have own wishes/interest to create some thing and even expects its own created lifes to pray to attain slavation or mix with the superbeing.

Second, as per the creation story tellers, the creation doesn't follow any basic natural/physical/biological laws.

If believers consider that world/univers is created with the same sub atomic level particles (matters and thoughts) and every thing evolved and exist without any separate initial super inteligence, then both non-believers and believer may reach some level of common understanding...

Badri

3rd May 2005, 05:55 AM

My dear r_kk

You are absolutely right. The problem with our so-called believers and the so-called non-believers is that both of them are not fully aware of the entire gamut of knowledge. Each speaks only from his/her limited knowledge area (so do I; after all no one is omniscient) and hence we can only analyze or come to limited conclusions.

There are six schools of philosophy and among them, the Sankya, Nyaya and Vaiseshika schools talk in detail about the physical universe how the anu or the atom is the source of all creation. This is validated by science as well.

And the Upanishad states that God is "Anoraneeyan, Mahtomaheeyan" meaning God is at once the atom of the atom and the largest of the large. That is to say the microcosm as well as the macrocosm.

To revert back to the topic of this post, Creation originated from the atom. The atom is as much a scientific fact - something known by us all - as it is a spiritual fact - denoted by the above quotation from the Upanishads.

By drawing selectively from one philosophy alone, how can we hope to argue this way or that? Quite obviously, white is the opposite of black. And if one of us looks only at the white and the other looks only at the black, both will be at loggerheads till kingdom come. but if we start to progress from both the white and the black, we realize that all the colors of the spectrum are in between white and black, and finally, we realize the truth that starting from white, one can reach black and vice-versa.

It is only when we do this that we can know the truth. simply by sticking to one aspect alone, we can never know the truth. We can quote from as many Upanishads as we want, we can write as many mathematical formulae we want, but without progressing from our own stand, we can never learn!

jaiganes

3rd May 2005, 08:53 AM

Adding to what Badri has said so far, In hindu puraanas and mythological stories, there is a concept of yugas and kalpas. Yugas are transition periods or generation changes while kalpa is one cycle of universe complete. After one kalpa there is a deluge and everything in creation folds back to the point of origin. When the next kalpa begins, the point expands revealing/creating a new universe. In the kalpa cycle even Brahmas , Vishnus and Shivas fold up and are recreated in the next kalpa. To someone this is all to similar to the "breathing universe" or the "beating universe" where a big fold and big bang repeat in succession, creating and recreating the universe. However it is only a theory just as the stories in mythology are just stories. They are amusing to hear, some people might find the belief in them which helps their personal lives, while for some it is just a fantastic story born out of fertile imagination.
Setting aside your beliefs and other postulations, if you begin to apply logic and observation to this puzzle of how universe, the stars, planets and satellites have come to be, one must commend the works of astronomers, astrophysicists ,astro biologists ,paleontologists and geologists who have not resorted to story searching and resgination to mythologies. They have also not simply accepted any one guru and said "Guru will explain everything, let us just wait with paper and pen to record it".
Badri!! Upanishads aren't scientific manuscripts and though there are many verses and concepts in them written in scientific temper, bringing them into the question of creation is at best misleading. We have the best technology we ever had in observing phenomenon like super nova (destruction of a major star or constellaion), Nebula condensation (High density clouds that are remnants of big bang which continue to condense into stars and star clusters) acting as nurseries to new galaxies. Such phenomenon prove that the universe is "evolving" through a process of life (nebula condensing into star systems, planets etc) and death (supernova and black holes indicating the destruction of stars).
In the presence of such overwhelming evidences I can understand why creationists bring what their gurus said, what they said about "consciousnes" et.al. However I cannot understand why rationalists who support evolution should try to disprove such postulates. The very lack of absolute evidence is a good enough proof that the personal experiences of "consciousnes" and other metaphysical experiences are at best "Personal" and cannot be generalized as an evidence for creation and GOD sitting in a drawing table cooking up the next big thing.
Even conceding that science hasn't completely explained everything in this universe (it doesn't claim to prove everything), it is a simple logically sound repeatable steps that help solve evolutionary puzzle all by ourselves unlike stories and postulates of people having only their "personal experiences".

Badri

3rd May 2005, 09:21 AM

JG: While agreeing to everything you said, the reason why I quoted the Upanishads is to only show the believers that Rohit's argument is actually supported by the Upanishads themselves, only stated differently.

Whether they are scientific documents or not is another argument, one from which I shall desist, but the fact remains that those that lay their store by these texts too do not have much ground to argue upon.

My point was not so much to lend credibility to any one version of the story so far than to point out the obvious irony in the preceding several posts! Seen as I have explained, there is scarcely any difference between the two viewpoints, which is the irony!

As far as the original premise of this thread goes, it is clearly a question on "Do you believe..." which brings us immediately into the realm of personal belief! No matter what proof anyone may bring, what a person believes continues to be his personal prerogative and in that sense the arguments so far are both valid, aren't they?

rajasaranam

3rd May 2005, 11:12 AM

Excellent question, rajasaranam.
You agree the Universe exists. What is the harm if a Pradeep decides to call it God? After all, in English, you call it Universe, in Sanksrit, you call it Jagam, in Tamizh, you call it Anda Characharam...in Pradeep and Raghu's language, they call it God. What is wrong? Do you deny them the right to call the same Material Universe by another name????

When seen this way, it is clear that both the "parties" have been discussing the same thing, calling it by different names! One calls it the effect, another argues it is the cause! This is what the great Jnanis right from Bhagwan Krishna to Buddha to Adi Sankara to Ramana Maharishi have been advocating!

Yes We do deny that, that all encompassing truth be called a GOD. Once the word GOD comes to be accepted we have no more authority to question its credence. The word itself had been corrupted throughout the centuries into one omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, over the top of the universe, creating it and watching at how it unfolds and progress. Also it denies any rationale approach to find out the metaphysical nature of this universe.

Sorry both parties are have not been discussing the same thing, calling it by different names!!! 'WE NEGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ROLE OF CREATOR FOR THIS UNIVERSE' while the belivers advocate us to accept there is ONE, named GOD, who has created us, and has a role to play in our lives. Incidentally when someone asks me why dont you belive in GOD i answer back ' you 'belive' there is GOD but i 'Know' there is no GOD.

Creator = Created

where is the question of which came first??

A question which hit me like a meteor:( when pondered upon i just laughed > the question Applies to one and all and this is just a different manifestation of my question. 'If the universe is one which was created on its own > what has God to do with it?'

rajasaranam

3rd May 2005, 11:15 AM

Badri

3rd May 2005, 11:34 AM

'If the universe is one which was created on its own > what has God to do with it?'

Nothing at all...if some people claim so, then it is their choice! I think it is irrational to argue just the usage of the word God.

The truth is there is only one - call it the Universe, call it God...and I am surprised that such a logical and rational person such as yourself can say you deny others the right to their belief!

You say
"we have no more authority to question its credence"

Who said so? Do you yourself believe that you cannot question the credence of the existence of God? Why?

deny that, that all encompassing truth be called a GOD.

You yourself say there is an all encompassing truth...and that you deny it being called God! That is laughable! Are we nitpicking about linguistics here?

Can I call that all encompassing truth as "All Encompassing Truth" instead of God? Is that allowed?

Let us face it...the world is here, it seems arguably real. If I choose to call it God, or Dog or something else, I am only giving it a name. I am not changing its essential nature. Can you deny that?

If I say the sun is a star, a huge ball of fire and gas, and that I call it Suryan, would you deny that? Would you tell me you cannot call it Suryan, but only Sun?

That is the point I am trying to drive at. Essentially, you are talking of the same thing only, from different POVs merely.

Badri

3rd May 2005, 11:40 AM

If believers consider that world/univers is created with the same sub atomic level particles (matters and thoughts) and every thing evolved and exist without any separate initial super inteligence, then both non-believers and believer may reach some level of common understanding...

There... hit right upon the bulls eye :D

Which, I believe, is exactly what I said, if you have read my posts!!! Everyone knows that the essential substance making up the Universe is the same particle. That all-pervading particle - call it atom, energy, god - does exist on its own. That is why it is all pervading, and that is why it is self-existent. In other words, it is omnicience, it is omnipotence, it is omnipresence.

You are so rigidly tied to the fact that only God is allowed all these attributes that you are forgetting the basic truth. Yet, these subatomic particles, this quantum fuzz...it is all pervasive (or omnipresence), it works with an intelligence (every biologist and atom scientist knows that...in otherwords it is omnicient) and it is powerful (omnipotent!)

Badri

3rd May 2005, 11:44 AM

In any case, I do not wish to be drawn into this futile argument that has been going on since...God (or alternatively, the Material Universe :lol: ) knows how long!!!!

The only reason why I posted in this thread after observing the series of posts was to merely state my opinions on how the two apparently opposing parties seemed (to me) to be of the same mind, but speaking different languages!!!

rajasaranam

3rd May 2005, 11:47 AM

.
The very lack of absolute evidence is a good enough proof that the personal experiences of "consciousnes" and other metaphysical experiences are at best "Personal" and cannot be generalized as an evidence for creation and GOD sitting in a drawing table cooking up the next big thing.

Jaiganes,

Not with respect to the thread the discussion is being pulled in all possible directions IMHO. The original question was ' do we belive in Evolution or Creation?' It has been proved for any sane mind to understand that there is no role of a creator in the evolution of this universe. If some of them want to still belive that there is a 'creator sitting and cooking up the next big thing' let them do so :roll:

rajasaranam

3rd May 2005, 12:24 PM

Sbadri99,

What do you understand by the word GOD afterall ?!!
is it just a mere word which is used by some to denote what this universe is or is it some thing set apart from this universe which created it? here comes the wordplay. though you may accept that is just a word the common man's instinct leads to belive this that there is someone up above watching us, and he who is that powerful plans and leads our life. It is against this notion that we are denying The word GOD.

Say how many people are out there who buys your arguement that 'GOD' is just a mere word to describe this all encompassing truth. Try to find out what kind of emotion does a word GOD evokes in multitudes of people.

You may call Sun- a star, suryan, Aadhavan or aadithya. Add the word God to it.
Say SUNGOD or SuryaBhagawan, till then it was a physical reality that describes an existence along with us. Now it is kept up high on an altar to be prayed to, to be kneeled before and ask for mercy.

On the lighter Side Add TV to it And say 'SUNTV' and you'll feel like crying because it evokes the emotion of all Megaserials :)

Badri

3rd May 2005, 12:28 PM

At any rate, I can see the word God compells you to argue the non-existence of such an entity! :D

On the lighter side too, mate!

Roshan

3rd May 2005, 03:59 PM

Very interesting discussions !!! Irrespective of my personal beliefs , I really relished reading the responses of Rohit, badri, rajasaranam and r_kk .

Pradheep,

The story does not show that 'all intellectual learning is a waste if it isnot practised.' but it shows that for living a life one has to learn things that are necessary not those vedanthas etall.

Exactly !!! I too felt that Pradeep has misinterpreted the message of the story. I've heard this story many a times in the past and the moral of the story is what rajasaranam has interpreted and not what Pradeeps says.

There is a beautiful story in the book 'Sidhartha' By 'Hermen hesse'. Sidhartha who goes in search of GOD/Reality/enlightenment, after years of futile search, comes upon a Fisherman who lives a life by carrying passengers from one bank to the other. 'Doing nothing else' He asks the fisherman how can he let himself into such a boredom. The reply is sharp enough to enlighten Sidhartha. He says 'i just make a livelihood of carrying passengers from one side to the other, other than this i just do fishing and at nights gaze upon the stars and feel one along with cosmos'. sidhartha understands this and knows 'Living life all that matters'.

Thanks for sharing one of the wonderful incidents of Sidharatha's life. :) After reading this I'm reminded of a nice Leo Tolstoy story titled "Cofee House of Surath". The story is nothing similar to the above but it has a different perspective about God.

One more anecdote from Ilayaraja's - Vetta velithanil Kotti kidakuthu'

'Buddhan pirantha bodhu Suppanum piranthan
Buddhan Vilayadi thirigayil Suppanum Vilayadi thirinthaan
Buddhan Gnanam thaedi selgayil suppan Vayalil Uzhuthaan
Buddhan Gnanam kanda bodhu Suppan Aruvadai Kandan
ithil buddhanum suppanum adaiya ninathathai adaintharagal
Iruvarin vazhkayum sarisamamae'

Wow!! that's something great !! I think IR speaks more about "thuRavarm" than belief or non belief in God. In fact IR himself is a well known, devoted believer of God.

On the lighter Side Add TV to it And say 'SUNTV' and you'll feel like crying because it evokes the emotion of all Megaserials

hahaha funny :lol: :lol:

And badri it was nice reading your neutral views ! And you indeed brought some valuable stuff out from r_kk and rajasaranam.

At any rate, I can see the word God compells you to argue the non-existence of such an entity!

That too was funny and I'm now reminded of an Abdul Rahman poem titled "aayiram thirunaamam paadi" .

I shall post that poem in "Ulagam" thread shortly !! :)

pradheep

3rd May 2005, 11:12 PM

[tscii:f1307cef58]Dear friends
I am glad instead of me and rohit others also participate. I will try to answer all questions instead of individually explaining.

My question to Pradeep & Raghu is: If everything is God, then what is the harm in calling the Universe too as God? This is exactly what Rohit has been saying, all along.

Vedic tradition worships everything all forms in universe as God. What it means is not worshipping out of fear…worship means recognizing. Recognizing …what?. That what in me is not different out there. .

I hope you might have understood that Pradeep/Raghu/or any believers God concept is totally contradict with Rohit/rajasaranam/any non-believers concept.

I do not believe in God, which people have formulated. I keep saying, vedic understanding is not a belief system. It is not a missionary system. It is an enquiry system. I am not for a belief system.

ithil buddhanum suppanum adaiya ninathathai adaintharagal
Iruvarin vazhkayum sarisamamae'

Then why praise Buddha, everyone can quote a suppan and that is what here everyone is doing.

"If there needs to be creator for this universe then who created the creator? If we say creator is one who is Always present then why cant this universe be such, one without a creator?'

My dear friend look at the paradox in your statement. If you cant understand then ponder my question.....if creator is always present how can you negate the presence of the creator?

I request Pradheep to write about his concept of creation sequence in order to proceed this discussion from the current stale state.

I strongly favor Evolution, because it is how this creation occurs. Evolution is the driving force behind creation outside and also inside the body. The what are we contradicting?. The whole problem comes when someone says a person sits in heaven and creates for everything for fun and plays a sport by punishing and rewarding people. This is what I oppose and deny. This is not true. I gave instances from puranas that talks about evolution.
Then the next question comes, then if evolution is correct and if there is no creator , then were does this creation come from. Who created this stars and planets?. Vedic seers says “XXXXX or Brahman and others call it as nothingness or consciousness”. Now it is very important to understand the subtle aspect in this. “That” which is the fundamental principle that created creation from itself is in you and everyone because it is “UNI-VERSE”. That unifying principle that unity principle behind universe is in you and that is your real nature. When you do not know that then you suffer like any suppan. There is outwardly no difference between a suppan and Buddha, but the difference between them is that Buddha knows that what is real nature is no different from the universe and that is his fundamental essence of compassion.

A suppan on other hand undergoes life of suffering not knowing his real nature. This is why Buddha taught the eight fold path, the desire is the root cause of suffering. Including Rohit and all the guys here cannot swallow this Buddha’s impractical teaching. If there is no desire then there is no life. But a person like me (sorry here I have to project my ego self) to say I understand what Buddha means and should not be taken literally.

Okay coming back to evolution, the vedic seers having understood that , “That” which is the causeless principle (no matter what name you call) is the being. Knowing this one gets moksha meaning free from suffering and bondage.

Summary: Evolution is correct and no God as a person exists. “That” principle which became the particle, then into atom, molecules, big bang, nucleotides, fats, proteins , microbes, fish, reptiles, birds, animals and humans are the one and the same. They all differ only in the external appearance , but what is in the fundamental is only that principle.

Now why is this Truth not known to everyone. Because of ignorance and attachment. Then how to know. By transcending this body, mind intellect one knows that that principle that is the uncaused and cause for this universe and the universe itself is one and the same. This transcendence is the path that all spiritual masters all over the globe achieved through different means , the same Truth and no contradictions.
[/tscii:f1307cef58]

rajasaranam

4th May 2005, 01:33 AM

post deleted

Rohit

4th May 2005, 01:51 AM

Vedic seers says “XXXXX or Brahman and others call it as nothingness or consciousness”.
This is where things have gone horribly wrong. "Nothingness" and "Brahman" are mutually exclusive to each other, as I have proved it countless times. Both "Nothingness" and "Brahman" cannot coexist. If it is "Nothing" then it cannot be "Brahman" - as an entity identified as "being"- and if it is "Brahman" then it cannot be "Nothing".

Now if this "Brahman" is believed to be pre-existent at the time t=0 i.e. at the begining of evolution of the Universe, the process cannot be grasped/understood as a self-triggered process but an initiated process by some pre-existent external agency or entity like God or Brahman and that is not possible unless it has its own creator, which generates yet another chain of creators and regression. And rajasaram and many others asked exactly this question; but our friend Pradheep has distorted the entire question and gave a distorted answer.

And exactly that what I have proved again and again through [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] that no entity whatsoever can exist that would satisfy C=1, as its absolute probability P is absolute "0" form [C=1, P=0], completely negating the existence of any such "pre-existing"; entity like Brahman. While at [C=0, P=1] the process does not need the presence/pre-existence of any entity or "being"; and that is how the Absolute evolution begins from/with "Nothing", which yet again proves that "Nothingness"; and "Brahman" are mutually exclusive, both cannot coexist or both cannot be "Ture". If our friend Pradheep really believse them to be the same, then he is generating a "Logically Explosive" contradiction, only proving the futility of his desires and wishes to be converted into a horse, but it instantly shatters all his beliefs of "Brahman".

Let me explain the same thing with logical notations.

Let us denote “Nothing” as “N” and “Brahman” as “B”

And let the outcome of the mutually exclusive operation (XOR) be the “Universe” U

Then

U = {(AND)[NOT “N”]}(OR){[NOT “B”] (AND) [“N”]}

Which proves that both “B” and “N” cannot coexist i.e. both cannot be “True”; while the existence of Brahman “B” is already negated by the boundary condition [C=1, P=0], and the boundary condition [C=0, P=1] proves “Nothing” as “True”. Which proves the Absolute Evolution of the Universe, while the "Brahman" remains non-existent

[b]Which again sends our friend Pradheep back to his good old cycle of infinite regression. 2xN +93 :D

pradheep

4th May 2005, 02:00 AM

Dear rohit
You are intellectually understanding literally "nothingness". Nothingness does not mean literally nothing. It means uncaused, unchanged, eternal blah blah.

Nothing can come out of nothing. I am aksing a question to you, atleast answer this. if soemthing can come out of nothing, then do you accept that Mr.XXXX brings objects from air, I mean bringing shiv ling, sacred ash etc etc etc. According to you , they are infact making things out of nothing right?

Rohit

4th May 2005, 02:16 AM

Dear Pradheep, same applies to your "Brahman" where did "it" come from? :lol: :lol: :lol:

"C=0=Nothing" is normalised parameter with realtive to your "C=1=Brahman", while the probabilities P are absolute and it returns absolutely zero "0" value for your "Brahmam" that is, "it" is non-existent. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Energy E=mc^2 obays the law of conservation and the net energy of the entire universe is scientifically estimated to be "0" ="Nothing" due to the existence of antimatter, dark matter and gravitational anti-energies which allows the well-established, scientifically observed and proven reality of the expanding (evolution in progress) universe :lol: :wink:

2XN+94

rajasaranam

4th May 2005, 02:46 AM

IAM LEAVING THIS FORUMHUB ONCE FOR ALL AS A MARK OF PROTEST AGAINST THE ARROGANT ATTITUDE OF THE MODERATORS. BYE FRIENDS Enjoy discussing in these brahminical forums :thumbsup:

pradheep

4th May 2005, 02:58 AM

Dear rajasaranam
I am not a "brahmin" by birth and so dont be annoyed. whatever is truth, I shall be with it. I know truth is like scorching sun, unbearable, butit sustains life.

Rohit I will be back with you soon.

Rohit

4th May 2005, 03:17 AM

Dear Rajasaranam,

Please don't leave, you have raised your voice for the truth and now don't leave without it. I promise/guarantee you, we, together, will get there, here on this very forum, even if Pradheep and other believers resort to their lies, diversions and distortions and try to convert their desires and wishes into a horse i.e. [C=1, P=0]

Thank you.

pradheep

4th May 2005, 03:31 AM

estimated to be "0" ="Nothing" due to the existence of antimatter, dark matter and gravitational anti-energies which allows

Dear Rohit
Please read your statements......nothing due to the existence...........
Nothing means . (period). Now you say nothing due to the existence. Can you understand my dear Rohit, that nothingness according to you is not literally nothing but counter balanced by anti-matter, dark matter, gravitational anti-energies.

Very good....I am glad that you are exposing your ignorance on Buddha's word "nothingness".

Please think over it my dear friend rohit. Nothingness what you described in vedantic term is mithya, because it is not independant, it is due to something (antimatter, dark matter blah blah). That which is not depended is sathya...Truth....Brahman.

Thiru

4th May 2005, 03:31 AM

IAM LEAVING THIS FORUMHUB ONCE FOR ALL AS A MARK OF PROTEST AGAINST THE ARROGANT ATTITUDE OF THE MODERATORS. BYE FRIENDS Enjoy discussing in these brahminical forums :thumbsup:

rajasaranam,
the post was deleted for a reason and you know it as well.. if you have something to convey, do it in a polite and civilized manner....

Rohit

4th May 2005, 03:42 AM

Matter, atimatter, dark matter, gravitational anti-energies, i.e. the entire universe evolved uncaused form the net energy "0" ="Nothing" [C=0, P=1]. While your Brahman is already proved to be Tuchcha/False/Non-existent [C=1, P=0], in exactly the same way as other Gods, which you too have rejected as "Tuchcha/False/Non-existent". Happy now Pradheep? :wink:

2XN+95 :D

Question: "Brahman" where did "it" come from? :lol: :lol: :lol:

pradheep

4th May 2005, 04:22 AM

Dear Rohit

nothingness according to you is not literally nothing but counter balanced by anti-matter, dark matter, gravitational anti-energies.

Rohit, for the first time I really sorry for you that just for your to have a winning face you have put down even science. Sorry to mention that. Please dont lose even logic for saving your ego.

Rohit

4th May 2005, 04:23 AM

Dear Pradheep,

Exactly that is how the normalisation of "C" with respect to your Brahman is applied, leading to [C=0, P=1] for the absolute evolution of the universe and [C=1, P=0] for the non-existence of your Brahman. :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The vast, uncaused, evolved universe is there in front of you; just go and learn more about the physics of it. :lol: :lol: :lol:

2XN+96 :wink:

Question: "Brahman" where did "it" come from? :lol: :lol: :lol:

pradheep

4th May 2005, 05:32 AM

"Brahman" is uncaused, eternal, blah blah blah......then where is the question of when and where it come from. it has no begining and end - eternal. This nothingness or Brahman could be known by trascending...that is the beauty of being human. Using this wonderful body were awareness is at the top of evolution, we can peak into this nothingness or Brahman. This is what Buddha got under Bodhi tree....through meditation....OM Mani Padme Hum. try yourself.....dont be scared ...but be aware not to take side doors into psychotic states. We are not for that...we want only to know that nothingness ...brahman...which is eternal...that is the basic principle for everything...there is "nothing" other than the "nothingness".

You have only one chance to know in this life time to know this and so dont lose it. Again dont beleive me...you have to know the truth yourself. Another cautionary note: You ome out of it you will lose it , ifyou do not purify your mind. Somore you purify your mind you will be able to live hereafter in that same "nothingness|" state.

Good luck, my symbolic friend.

Roshan

4th May 2005, 11:53 AM

IAM LEAVING THIS FORUMHUB ONCE FOR ALL AS A MARK OF PROTEST AGAINST THE ARROGANT ATTITUDE OF THE MODERATORS. BYE FRIENDS Enjoy discussing in these brahminical forums :thumbsup:

rajasaranam,

I opened up this thread first in the morning, eagerly wanting to see some wonderful discussions but this message has cetainly put me off. :x I simply dont like to see such statements from knowledgeable, learned and mature hubbers of your sort. This definitely spoils the spirit and makes the thread lose its momentum :cry:

Please stay around and put across your arguments instead of turning off . As I said before irrespective of my own belief I really enjoy the discussions here coz, it helps me understand the other side of the spectrum more in a different way. :)

Thanks :)

rajasaranam

4th May 2005, 01:40 PM

rajasaranam,
the post was deleted for a reason and you know it as well.. if you have something to convey, do it in a polite and civilized manner....

No i dont know why my post was deleted :? If at all there were anything offensive in nature you could have asked me Edit it. you had no rights to delete it.,

The post had some valid arguements against the vedic system. hymns and mantras denoting drinking ' soma baanam' eating horse meat etc., also i questioned the credibility of the system which includes the chapters like 'Purusha suktham'
The post sarcastically questioned Pradheep how come a suppan is inferior to Buddhan if all are 'one and the same' emanating from the same common source.
the post inquired into the vedic system and where from they were seeking Moksha if it all are 'one and the same'.
a valid question was put through to ask if the whole is one common thing and whats the point in seeking freedom :arrow: from what? to where?

is it from consiousness/brahman/atman :arrow: consiousness/brahman/atman

then i questioned Pradheep is he drinking the same old ' somabaanam' aka 'ganjavadineer'

The whole post had a underslying sarcasm intentionally to drive my points right through the CNS of Pradheep. If he found that offensive he would have retorted back and i may have asked a sorry.

You backseat moderator had no right to delete my post.

r_kk

4th May 2005, 01:58 PM

Welcome back... :D

Please don't leave whatever be the reason...

Fight here to prove the truth and reality in your words.

Dear Moderator,
Please only delete the so called abusive (or objectionable) word (s) if you find that it doesn't follow the rule of this forum and post Mr. Rajasaranam's previous reply to Pradheep back in this thread. Mr. Rajasaram's reply to Kaviko's one of the best poem clearly indicates that his writtings are valuable to this forum. Thanks in advance.

Cinefan

4th May 2005, 05:35 PM

No i dont know why my post was deleted :? If at all there were anything offensive in nature you could have asked me Edit it. you had no rights to delete it.,

The post had some valid arguements against the vedic system. hymns and mantras denoting drinking ' soma baanam' eating horse meat etc., also i questioned the credibility of the system which includes the chapters like 'Purusha suktham'
The post sarcastically questioned Pradheep how come a suppan is inferior to Buddhan if all are 'one and the same' emanating from the same common source.
the post inquired into the vedic system and where from they were seeking Moksha if it all are 'one and the same'.
a valid question was put through to ask if the whole is one common thing and whats the point in seeking freedom :arrow: from what? to where?

is it from consiousness/brahman/atman :arrow: consiousness/brahman/atman

then i questioned Pradheep is he drinking the same old ' somabaanam' aka 'ganjavadineer'

The whole post had a underslying sarcasm intentionally to drive my points right through the CNS of Pradheep. If he found that offensive he would have retorted back and i may have asked a sorry.

You backseat moderator had no right to delete my post.

I have just been a viewer in this thread and didn't read your deleted post.But if the contents were what you have posted above,I would say you were digressing.This thread is about Evolution,creation&if 'GOD'is responsible for that.Why bring in the vedas here.If you have problems about the vedas,the hymns,mantras,the messages they convey(the way you have understood) i would suggest opening a seperate thread for that where ppl with more knowledge could clarify your doubts.Also why feel that Pradeep is a fool &your beliefs should be stuffed down his throat.This is a debate,the moment someone tries to dominate,it ceases to be one.You&Rohit seem to have a condensing attitude towards Pradeep.Sorry,being a rationalist doesn't make you/Rohit superior just like being a believer doesn't make him one.Reading all the posts over the last 5 pages has made me come to this conclusion.If I am wrong,plz excuse.Let a meaningful debate continue.

pradheep

4th May 2005, 05:57 PM

Dear rajasaranam
Let me make myself clear. I am not a brahmin by birth and dont follow caste system and my understanding about varnashrama is clear. If people over centuries have mis-interpreted, then we all have suffered from it. Being born in a low caste my dad had revolted against casteism and I have done in my young age too.

Seeking truth, I went through almost all world religions and philosophies and found that all had the same truth, but given in different formats and different names. Then why should I stick on to vedic culture?. Is it just because I am born Indian?. No. I found "The knowledge" is pure but its "application" was the most corrupted. Hope you understand and if not I can explain thisin next post.

Since knowledge was pure and though mis-interpretations existed, I started to look into the truth. In other traditions, the pure knowledge was corrputed over years its structure was lost . Next advantage is that vedic knowledge is compelte in all divisions of life -you name it-all arts, sciences. These are the reasons why i chose the vedic traditions. Keeping this foundation I am enjoying in depth, all cultures in the world. Now my focus is on the native cultures of the world. It is fascinating to see how beautiful there is the same pattern as in vedas.

Let me give an example, I recently read that in native mexicon culture and also many other native culures of American and European, the animal Bear is the symbol of healing. Bear is the instructor of healing. The bear'sposture is also called healing posture in these cultures.

When I read this , I thought this is the same in vedic culture. Atheist ridcule monkeys and bear in Ramayana because they have no clue about the deeper meaning of it. The bear in Ramayan is jambavan who gives instructions about sanjeevani medicine when lakshman was wounded in the battle.

Now see how there is the same pattern of bear, the healing instructor in ramayan and in native american indian or mexican. This unity is what we have to seek andlearn. To see things are different we dont need to enquire and study. But to see unity, we have to enquire and study.

Out of many projects, I am now trying to collaborate with researchers who are studying the native cultures. My aim is to see the integrative approach in all these.
The soma and horse eating are literal meanings which people take. Then the whole purpose of the literature is lost. We interpret things basedon ourlikesand dislikes. Truth dawns when we transcend beyond the likes and dislikes in us.

Wars have been fought only when people are dvatic in attiutde and not advaitic. Poeple like Rohit are seeing difference in buddhism and hindusim, but people like me are seeing oneness in them. Now tell me which apporach is good?To seek oneness and harmony or fight in seeking dis-unity?

Do we want more conflicts and war or do we want peace?. The approach of "My mother is virtuous and your mother is a prostitute" cannot solve world problems. This is the reason for all wars. we have to see what is the truth. When we fight, only egoes clash. This does not mean that we have to swallow everything the other person says. Enquire and find your own truth , which will always be the same.

Our son who reads and watches (dvd) all these hindu mythological stories understands in a different way. He teaches me that these divine and demons are in our minds. Watching the bloody killing of the asuras and devas, he is aware of his own anger and other negatives most of the time. It helps him to keep his stress hormones down and falling less sick.

We watch him and see how he imbibes that knowledge for his own personal benfit. Isnt it good for any kid tohave this approach. We highly recommend to make kids watch the cartoon ramayan made by Indo-japanese and also understand the deeper meaning instead of taking it literally.

Among the comments from his school techers , we feel the best is the comment that he is the peace maker in the class. Dont again mis-interpret that I am boasting abou tmy son here. what I am conveying is that when we always look inside us about our mental tendencies we are a different personality. These mythical stories are meant to give direction for us. All the gods and godesses and demons portray our different attitudes ofour own ego mind. When these tendencies are transcended we have peaceof mind.

What matters the most in this life is the peace of mind. In sakthi foundation i am one of the members who respond to innumerable letters from people all over the globe. You know majorityof the letters are related to stress of the mind. Wehave techologically advanced by we wuffer mentally and what isthe use. Watch yourself, you might have all the comforts (which has no end) yet nopeace of mind. The lexus or camry you have gave only thrill the moment you brought it. Then we treat the same way our kids show towards their innumerable toys.

My relatives in india who are now financially well off are now admitting that they dont have that peace of mind they had when they were financially poor. India is progressing materialistically well, but if it forgets its cultural vlaue it will have all mental sufferings,which already is taking shape. I am not against prosperity, but we cannot afford it by staking our peace. It is not that worth. All abundance is a waste when there is no mental peace.

So even if we are poor or rich there is always lack of peace?. is there a way out. is there a way to live in peace inspite of whatever we have. yes. it is possible and tha this is an attitude. And that attitude is called moksha and it is possible right now and not given by any God sitting in heaven.

Next your question about fredom from where to where and
is it from consiousness/brahman/atman to consiousness/brahman/atman

What is freedom?. Good question. As I mentioned earlier, seeking peace in ourselves in freedom. freedom from what, our limitations. And those limitations are imposed by us because we do not know our real self. Moksha means freedom from mental limitations.

Whereever there is problem I see my "EGO" right out there. If my son or wife screams , I react but at the same time I watch that it is my "ego" expressing out there. I have myself passed judgment there. this is why christ said Judge ye not. The ego desires to have everything the way it wants. it does not give a damn thing to reality. it makes its own fictious world. This is what Buddha said desire is the root cause of all suffering.

I always take the blame to "My" ego. My ego does not want to accept people and accept situations. It wants always to rule the world the wayit wants to. Over time I am freeing myself from this slavery. So If I am brahman , then what am I seeking freedom from? It was not my destiny , it was my choice. I wrongly took me to this "Ego". I took I am this Ego centered person instead of that brahman which is uncaused eternal. it is my choice. Now I made a choice that i want to free from this wrong idea. I want to be peaceful and that is my nature. With this attitude change , there is no external change in me, outward I am the same person , but inward I am evolving to free myself from the slavery of my ego. I have been trapped mentally and I am seeking moksha, freedom. All spirtual masters over the globe has talked this one truth in different forms.

As you quote, destiny is not chance , it is choice. Yes it is our choice how we should think and live. It is not we are destined to mis-interpret vedas, it is our choice. There is no problem with vedas. It was we who mis-interpretted it and suffered and it was our choice. if you interpret it wrongly and do things literally or interpret it illogically and hate it, both way you suffer mentally. It is finally your choice. Only in Unity there is peace. This is why Universe is called "Uni"-verse. Let us seek this unity in diversity.

Roshan

4th May 2005, 05:59 PM

Cinefan,

Moderator Thiru says... " if you have something to convey, do it in a polite and civilized manner...." and he doesn't say anything about digressing ( sometimes he may say it after seeing our responses :wink: ). I feel that the moderator feels alright with the message but wanted to put it a across in a more polite manner :wink: :) And I think rajasaranam(RS) has done that now. :)

Let us not digress any further, and let the veterans continue !
:)

Cinefan

4th May 2005, 06:10 PM

Pradeep-very eloquent post.i don't think you could have put your views in a more simple manner.

Roshan,
I was not saying rajasaranam's post was deleted because he was digressing.I was just putting across my views on his deleted post(after reading the way he re-framed it).

Raghu

4th May 2005, 06:31 PM

Not with respect to the thread the discussion is being pulled in all possible directions IMHO. The original question was ' do we belive in Evolution or Creation?' It has been proved for any sane mind to understand that there is no role of a creator in the evolution of this universe. If some of them want to still belive that there is a 'creator sitting and cooking up the next big thing' let them do so :roll:

Oh I see, so what is Lord Vishnu's 'Thasavatharam' all about
does it not explain the evolution process??? :shock:

When darwin writes about evolution around 200 yrs ago,
every one was jumping up and down as if darwin has indeed
discovered something,

but Our Raja vedas, Shrimad Bhavatam and in Bhavad Gita, it is all well explained,what is your view on this?

Rohit

5th May 2005, 05:39 AM

Brahman" is uncaused, eternal, blah blah blah.....
Well, well, well, what a complete loss of expression! Poor Pradheep is lost for words; and chanting blah blah blah for his “Brahman”, which he defined from Upanishads just a few posts ago:

Let us recall how he defined “Brahman”

That uncaused ,unchaning, immutable, eternal is what you call nothing and what vedas call as Brahman.

Weapons do not cut this Brahman, fire does not burn it, water does not make it wet, and the wind does not make it dry. 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
Now let us see how many properties have reduced to just blah blah blah............... :notworthy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

All pervading:
The normalised “C=0=Nothingness” is not all pervading, it is just a "singular" starting point with no dimensions whatsoever, for the absolute evolution of the universe, negating the existence of “Brahman”.

And the wind does not make it dry:
All life forms and other physical substances on the earth and other possible planets of the universe, evolved from “Nothing” uncaused, get wet, and wind dries them. Therefore all that which get wet and dried by the wind in this vast evolved universe completely negate the existence of Brahman.

Fire does not burn it:
All active stars and all galaxies burn through the process of nuclear fission. All life forms and most physical substances on the earth and on other possible planets of the universe, which has evolved from “Nothing” uncaused, burn. Therefore all that burns completely negate the existence of “Brahman”

Immovable:
Everything in this expanding universe is on constant move, every astronomical object like stars and galaxies are continuously drifting away from each other. Therefore all that moves and drifts completely negate the existence of “Brahman”

Immutable:
Everything in this vast, evolving universe is mutable and mutation is the driving force behind the uncaused evolution of everything. Therefore all that is mutable, which is essentially the entire evolving universe, completely negate the existence of “Brahman”

Unchanging:
There is not a single thing in this entire evolving universes that remains the same as it was, a moment ago. Everything is constantly changing and transforming, nothing stays the same permanently. Therefore all that changes in this vast evolving universe completely negate the existence of “Brahman”

Water does not make it wet:
All life forms and other physical substances on the earth and other possible planets of the universe, evolved from “Nothing” uncaused, get wet, and wind dries them. Therefore all that which get wet and dried by the wind in this vast evolving universe completely negate the existence of Brahman.

Weapons do not cut this brahman:
All weapons cut human beings, fruits, vegetables, other life forms and countless more substances. Therefore all that weapons cut, completely negate the existence of “Brahman”

When all these; and countless other characteristics, properties, descriptions of “Brahman” referred to by our friend Pradheep earlier, are completely negated by everything that is evolving form “Nothing”, completely negated the existence of “Brahman” as defined.

However, of course, there is only one way. Consume a high dosage of some hallucinogenic substance or beverage, or exaust your brain with other artificial, physical means; and when peaked, use one of your desires, wishes or choices to convert it into a horse, ride on it and then transcend far into your dream world; and “Create” the non-existent entity in your daydreams. When under such psychotic mental states, one doesn’t need to think even he/she is/was “Thinker”; one doesn’t have to know the reality, even when he/she is/was “Knower”

there is "nothing" other than the "nothingness".
At last, the vedic “Brahman” gets completely negated and Buddha’s “Sunyata = “0” = “Nothingness” overwhelms “Brahman”, reducing it to literally nothing, and remains merely a wishful thought, desire and wish that, in the Indian historical past, turned into vicious rage against Buddha’s complete denial and categorical rejection of any non-existent entity as the “cause” of the universe. The very situation that led India to its own downfall, which lasted for over 1000 years; and it still continues to remain in a severely struggling state.

The big irony is, though our friend Pradheep has now reluctantly accepted the absolute, uncaused evolution of the universe from “C=0=Nothing”. Though he has fully acknowledged Buddha’s “Sunyata” as “True”, which preceded the vedic formulation of "Advaitic Brahman" by over 1500 years, automatically, by default, negated “Brahman”. But Pradheep expressed no grief, anguish, pain, sorrow or sadness whatsoever for the disappearance and destruction of Buddha’s teachings from the Indian soils.

Poeple like Rohit are seeing difference in buddhism and hindusim, but people like me are seeing oneness in them.
So If I am brahman, then what am I seeking freedom from? It was not my destiny, it was my choice.

As far as the in-depth analysis of both the doctrines is concerned, Buddhism and Hinduism have mutually exclusive premise/model/format for describing their worldviews:

Buddhist’s worldview of “Sunyata” is expressed as:

URU- Unreal Creator i.e. complete negation of Brahman/God, Real Cognition, Unreal Physical World

While the Vedantic worldview, centred around “Brahman”, is expressed as:

RRU- Real Brahman, Real Cognition and Unreal Physical World

However, Pradheep, departed form the original vedic concept of Brahman and adopted for a convoluted format as other religions have done, but retained “Brahman” as the Creator

RRR - Real Brahman/God, Real Cognition and Real Physical World

Which is no different form the Judo-Christian or Islamic model/format of God. But somehow, with no explanation whatsoever, Pradheep has rejected their “Gods” as Tuchcha/False, which simultaneously rejects “Brahman” too as Tuchcha/False as there is no conceptual difference between the two Creators as far as the creation of the universe is involved. My proof disproves both worldviews, and declares them as False

In either case, Buddhism categorically negates “Atma/Brahman/Soul/Creator” and declares everything empty/devoid of any permanent reality; and thus everything is traced to “Sunya=0”

The fourth worldview is:

URR- Unreal Creator/God, Real Cognition, and Real Physical World

Where the Physical World is depicted as an uncaused entity, coming into existence from “C=0=Nothing”. Where “C=0=Nothing” is a parameter normalised with respect to that of any external agency like Brahman/God that believers believe to be the Creator of the world; and it takes every aspect of all parametric complexities or capacities, normalising C=1 for the assumed Creator. The argument for the need of a Creator simply lies in the incomprehensibility/unacceptability of something coming out of “Nothing”. The very argument of the believers runs against their own presumed God, as God itself has emerged out from nowhere, but it possesses all the powers to “Create” the universe, which is absolutely absurd indeed. If a Creator/God, with such complexities can emerge form nowhere then it is quite logical to argue that universe itself can emerge out of “nothing” and thus leads us to derive two boundary conditions, leading to an irrefutable proof, which establishes, there is no place for a "Creator" and it is absolutely redundant.

Normalised parametric complexity C=0 with an absolute probability P=1 of coming into existence, uncaused.
Normalised parametric complexity C=1 with an absolute probability P=0 of coming into existence, uncaused.

Where C=0 is a condition where there can be no one with any predicate, all the four dimensions (x, y, z, t) = 0, but the probability for the occurrence of quantum fluctuation is 100% and thus 100% probability for a beginning of the absolute evolution of the universe.

Where C=1 is a condition for something – (Creator/God) – that already possesses enormous complexities, but has associated absolute probability that is equal to absolutely 0% for its existence; and thus it cannot exist.

Which, as before, gives us two boundary conditions i.e. [C=0, P=1] and [C=1, P=0] and proves the absolute non-existence of any Creator like “Brahman” or “God” and 100% probability for the absolute evolution of the universe out of “C=0=Nothing”

At [C=0, P=1] which is for the universe; and its absolute probability of coming into existence from “nothing” and evolve to its present state is P=1, which is 100%.

While [C=1, P=0] is for a presumed “Creator” like Brahman/God, but its absolute probability of existence with all complexities is P=0; which is absolutely 0%. Thus it cannot exist.

The URR format is the only format that is strongly supported by overwhelming scientific evidences and validates the absolute evolution of the universe from “C=0=Nothing”. Also from the mathematical set theory, the URR format is the only format that would allow thinking minds to formulate the logically possible four worldviews, two of them involving no Creator/God whatsoever i.e. URU and URR and the other two involving Creator/God i.e. RRU and RRR. While both the RRU and RRR formats could accommodate neither each other nor the URR formats, while URU format can be accommodated only by the URR format as both negate Creator/Brahman/God.

Conclusion:

1) The proof I have derived irrefutably proves the absolute evolution of the universe out of “C=0=Nothing” and simultaneously proves the non-existence of any Creator/Brahman/God.

2) However, as I have explained before, only the URR format that would allow the formulation of all logically possible formats/worldviews. None of the RRU or RRR format, if it were “True”, would allow the formulation of other contradicting God formats nor would they allow the formulation of the URU or URR formats/worldviews.

3) Despite my numerous calls for someone to refute my proofs, no one has succeeded, about which I was 100% sure that no one would or could refute them, as they are watertight proofs. The regression count stands at 2XN + 97 and would go to 2N +98, 2N+99 and then 2N+100.........and so on........

4) I am fully satisfied with my proofs and the generation of regression cycle with (XOR) principle, which captured every major situation that negated “Creator/Brahman/God”

5) Believers can only go on believing, but only by converting their desires and wishes into a horse [C=1, P=0], there is absolutely no validity in anybody’s claim of personal experiences, as they vary and contradict due to the direct involvement of mental drifts as listed above in the beginning and countless times before, resulting in fallacious conclusions based on false premise/model, with no universal applicability.

Good Luck to you all :D

pradheep

7th May 2005, 03:11 AM

[tscii:65bb9fb95f]Dear Rohit

“Brahman” gets completely negated and Buddha’s “Sunyata = “0” = “Nothingness” overwhelms “Brahman.

You wrote more wars were fought in name of God. Look here , even in this age you are the proof of that. I give evidence that the "nothingness" you talk about and "Brahman" are One. But you want to cherish your ego and see make see dvaita. This is Maya, which is you cannot see oneness. you cannot see the Truth, because your ego blinds you like the cataract. This is why buddha said the purify the mind, the ego.

You are the intellectual pundit in the boat of the story I wrote in posts. You quote Buddha, but do not practice one teaching he taught. Without practise, the knowledge does not benfit the intellect.

You may negate Brahman, but you cannot negate Buddhist Using the Brahman mantra ...Om Mani Padme Hum. You cannot negate meditation. You can quote Dalai lama but cannot negate thousands of Monks chanting Om mani padme Hum and meditating.

Now I can do one thing for you. I can accept defeat to your ego. a wise man taught be chess when I was a little boy. While teaching me in the first play, everytime he cornered me, every step. My cousins who were watching me knew that he was winning...but in the end, he made me win in the last step. You know why?. Because he knew me if I lose the game I will never play the game. So just to cherish my ego , he let me win. Through he taught me how to play.

Now I am doing that to you. I accept defeat to your stubborn ego. I want you to continue this game, because only then someday this "Truth" will sink in you. if you lose this vada, then the whole time you will be thinking immatured ways to conteract my arguements. No...there is no winning or losing. I want you to experience that divinity which is your own self (nothingness)

One day we will meet in person and i know that. That moment, we will laugh at each other and hug with love. Till then bye, Rohit.[/tscii:65bb9fb95f]

Rohit

7th May 2005, 04:57 AM

Dear Pradheep,

Sorry Pradheep, but I didn't do that bacause this is not a chess game, but all about the Absolute Evolution of the Universe as "YOU" see, perceive and experience it, an undeniable Reality - URR.

[Maya/Brahman](XOR)[Absolute Evolution of the Physical World] :)

If Adi-sankara & Co accepted Buddha in the first place, you might not be discoursing about “Brahman” at all as Buddha negated the very doctrine behind it 1500 years before it could come into existence. But here you are, wearing a mask, seeking refuge in Buddha, and instead of acknowledging “Buddham Sharanam Gachchami” "YOU" are still resorting to fancy sound effects.

[Brahman](XOR)[Sound Waves - A Physical Phenomenon]

Well, you have now fully acknowledged everything that was long due.

I hope you have fully enjoyed your flip-flops between mutually exclusive “Brahman” and “Sunyata”

[Brahman = (C=1, P=0)](XOR)[Sunyata :arrow: "Nothing" = (C=0, P=1)]

When you are at complete loss for words and have no choice but to accept, I think it would have been much better if you had accepted my earlier suggestion to drop it and leave. Instead you chose to carryon with your regressions and reduce your notion of “Brahman/God” to literally nothing. Well, I told you so, but you wouldn’t listen for whatever reasons, and I am sure you had strong egocentric reasons, which unfortunately didn’t turnout to be right. I am really sorry that you failed in every aspect of fulfilling your desires and wishes.

Nonetheless, all the egocentric realm only belong to people like you, I am only after reality and not after peak experiences, which most youngsters go through in night-clubs when fully tanked with intoxicants and hooked on musical trance. Well, one could also use swept frequency loud audio sounds, resonating internal bodily organs generating peak experiences, however nothing would be so amusing without chanting mantras.

Of course, if we ever meet, I will be more than delighted to give you a hug and laugh together at your countless regressions, and wonder why was it so? :D

I wish you all the best in realising the world you live in, was not and is not maya but a bitter, undeniable reality and life is not for wasting after preserving such obsolete thoughts of "Brahman/God".

Good luck, and have a meaningful life. :wink: :thumbsup: :wave:

r_kk

17th August 2005, 05:38 AM

[tscii:4f13e7147c]Latest news in Evolution vs Creation debates:

(As per “The Associated Press” Sunday, August 14, 2005; 9:33 PM)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/14/AR2005081401070.html

Harvard University is joining the long-running debate over the theory of evolution by launching a research project to study how life began.

The team of researchers will receive $1 million in funding annually from Harvard over the next few years. The project begins with an admission that some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained.

Harvard has not been seen as a leader in origins of life research, but the university's vast resources could change that perception.

[/tscii:4f13e7147c]

jaiganes

17th August 2005, 12:24 PM

I found this article (http://www.thinnai.com/ar0812051.html) in thinnai.com. Though would be relevant to this discussion.
Debates apart, I am slowly beginning to shift into this line of thinking. This line of thinking gives me more hope.

j.chenkalvarayan

17th August 2005, 12:36 PM

alla enpar sila perkal
aran ari enpar sila perkal
vallan avan para mandalathe
vazhum thanthai enparkal
solla vilanka nirvanam endrum sila per solvarkal
ellam ippadi pala pesum
etho oru porul irrukirathe

-ramalinga adikalar.

SRS

18th August 2005, 12:29 PM

Consciousness cannot be created in a test tube. Consciousness comes from God. There is no evolutionary process to describe consciousness other than to say, "the size of the brain increased and therefore perception was correspondingly altered." Evolution does not discriminate; there is no order; it randomly selects based on the ability of an organism to adapt. At the end of the day, evolution is based on reproductive success. Now its clear why consciousness did not evolve. There is a theory in science that man evolved from chimpanzees (primates). Chimpanzees (primates) live in the trees; so man must surely exhibit many traits that are useful for living in trees. One of these is the opposable thumb (useful for gripping tree branches). Another is the position of the eyes directly in the front of the forehead (useful for hunting). But consciousness? Consciousness is the very spark of life. Without consciousness, there is no life! Consciousness did not evolve to serve any particular function... consciousness had to be there before anything else. I do not see how consciousness evolved on the basis of reproductive numbers or adaptability. Something had to turn the wheel. God gave that push with consciousness.

stranger

19th August 2005, 12:14 AM

SRS

19th August 2005, 05:39 AM

Consciousness cannot be created in a test tube.

Really?!

Can you prepare a dream in the test tube?

Anything which cant be prepared in test-tube are all created by GOD!

Who created GOD??

Consciousness comes from God.

How would you KNOW?

Are you the GOD??

GOD comes from WHERE??/

There is no evolutionary process to describe consciousness other than to say, "the size of the brain increased and therefore perception was correspondingly altered."

Theory of Evolution:

does not explain how cancer cells strat growing and how to make Taxol.

does not explain how Aspirin or Ibuprofen or p-acetamol work

does not explain how nicotine works

does not explain ethanol works

does not explain why cuckoo bird uses other young birds like crow for bringing up thier kids

does not explain how brain works for some PSYCHOS either.

SO WHAT??

No theory explains everything happening in the world. That has nothing to do with consiousness or MADNESS.

Evolution does not discriminate; there is no order; it randomly selects based on the ability of an organism to adapt.

WHO is that EVOLUTION :?

Beats me! :?

At the end of the day, evolution is based on reproductive success.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Now its clear why consciousness did not evolve.

So it is all CLEAR NOW!!!!

That is INDEED a GREAT NEWS!

Can you PUBLISH this somewhere???? :rotfl:

Can you convince a bunch of referees and get it published somewhere?? :rotfl:

BTW, SRS, you know, for a second your outrageously sweeping statements with ARROGANCE made me wonder whether YOU ARE THE GOD HIMSELF. I bet you a million dollar, you cant make such sweeping statements and get away with them in a lecture hall filled with EDUCATED AUDIENCE.

Such a lecture would be LAST ONE you could ever give in your lifetime.

Because the whole world will realize that what you are talking is NOTHING BUT TRASH as soon as you open your mouth 8)

You fail to understand the meaning of evolution. So let me explain. The basis of evolution is natural selection. An organism will possess a trait that allows it to sustain environmental stresses. This organism will reproduce in larger numbers than an organism that does not possess the trait. The bigger question is, how did the organism come to possess the trait in the first place? As a result of a random genetic mutation, which could be due to any variety of outside influences. Evolution is simply this process of natural selection working over thousands of years. The point is, natural selection cannot work with nothing. One could argue that it would favor consciousness. But how can consciousness evolve is the point I am making. For there to be "life", there must be a consciousness. To say that consciousness was also a mutation is incorrect. A gene could not mutate except inside a living organism. Consciousness had to come before the gene, and the gene had to come before there was any mutation.

Theory of Evolution:

does not explain how cancer cells strat growing and how to make Taxol.

does not explain how Aspirin or Ibuprofen or p-acetamol work

does not explain how nicotine works

does not explain ethanol works

does not explain why cuckoo bird uses other young birds like crow for bringing up thier kids

does not explain how brain works for some PSYCHOS either.

Evolution does not explain why synthetic drugs work because synthetic drugs do not serve any biological functions that bear a genetic predisposition. Behavior can be explained by evolutionary terms, albeit to a limited extend. The brain does not function by itself, but in coordination with the other organ systems. I do not know if there is a evolutionary basis for neuropathologic disorders.

Science does not deny or affirm the existence of God. That is the standard view. However, I reaffirm my original point: it is not possibile for consciousness to evolve, because evolution does not work with a blank slate, and therefore, some external force - God- played a role in initiating "life" as we know it.

stranger

19th August 2005, 07:13 PM

You fail to understand the meaning of evolution.

Seems like Darwin's "father" speaking!

Well, go on PUBLISH all your findings right HERE!

Evolution does not explain why synthetic drugs work because synthetic drugs do not serve any biological functions that bear a genetic predisposition.

:rotfl:

And which scientific article discussed this particular piece of work?

And the scientists who proved taht CLAIM and stated that "bold statement" besides yorself ARE?

Do they have some first and last names???

Can you give us few references published in reputed journals????

Or we should buy whatever YOU SAY AS TRUE, as you think that you are "GOD" himself???? :roll:

nilavupriyan

19th August 2005, 08:33 PM

i believe evolution is the process created by the almighty

SRS

20th August 2005, 12:11 PM

pradheep

24th August 2005, 05:51 PM

Dear friends
hope this article will help in the disucss of this thread.

Please follow the link and if have questions we can discuss here.
http://sakthifoundation.org/three%20bodies.htm

r_kk

19th September 2005, 02:37 AM

an interesting animaion
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/super.html

enjoy....

rajasaranam

23rd September 2005, 06:40 PM

i believe evolution is the process created by the almighty

Who created the almighty :twisted:

r_kk

23rd September 2005, 07:43 PM

See the following video presenting the 10 top most biological departments of leading US universities opinion about Creation hypothesis.

http://exchristian.com/sounds/nl081005evolution.mov

Some more interesting videos about evolution. I recommend those who get offended with few slightly comical scenes, not to click these links.

http://exchristian.com/sounds/ds091205evolution.mov
http://exchristian.com/sounds/ds091305evolution.mov
http://exchristian.com/sounds/ds091405evolution_2.mov
http://exchristian.com/sounds/ds091505evolution.mov

Shakthiprabha.

27th September 2005, 12:34 PM

Dear hub admin,

I have a very humble request.
This topic is been goin on for years.
There are ppl like me, who take neither the
stand of god, nor evolution.

I deeply want to analyse certain arguments.
I would be extremely happy, if all the arguments
for and against this the topic, can
be had as one single document to be
downloaded and printed for reference or
analysis for common ppl like me.

Its a very earnest request.

Please try considering.

Shakthiprabha.

27th September 2005, 12:37 PM

and If u are consolidating this as a single document,
please include the 'web urls' sited as examples
or for further reading, by some of the hubbers.

Shakthiprabha.

27th September 2005, 02:46 PM

28th September 2005, 10:06 AM

Sudhaama

29th September 2005, 05:45 PM

hi ,

I just saw what is hubmagazine.

Could the administration consider, consolidating arguments and counter arguments in this thread, from the age old date as a copy available in hub magazine?

It should be updated every week, as and when any sensible counter arguments or arguments arise.

Please consider. My REquest again.

Hi Prabha,

It's a good idea. We'll see how to do it. Main issue is: who is going to go through all posts and summarize. Let's see.

Good idea... Better will be, if such Articles based on debates and discussions here, become the TRANSVERSIONS in English-Tamil...there

..So to say, the Tamil matter here may be presented there in English ... and Vice-Versa.

Such a gesture....

(1) Can help revival of thoughts on the Rich-matter for the Hubbers, even though already read.

(2) Can facilitate spreading the Valuable messages of our Hub, towards wider circles anew.

(3) Can develop and expand the Tamil Language prevalence-arena, ensuring addition of vocabulary for those who are more fluent in English than their Mother-Tongue or Known-Language, Tamil

(4) Can be an one more attempt to kindle the Urge amongst the needy Viewers... to learn Tamil-Language. (For example... from my experience..I became terribly anxious to learn the Literature-Standard Telugu also, including its Script... after hearing Thyagaraja Keerthanas in Tamilnadu, by Non-Telugu Vidwans too !!! .. and accordingly I learnt it soon).... THAE MADHURA-th- THAMIZH-OASAI ULAHAM-ELLAAM PARAVUM VAHAI SEYDHAL VAENDUM ... as dreamed and advised by the Immortal Human ...our Bharathi the Great... To follow and sincerely adhere to that Great-Gem Gospel... every Tamilian has got a Moral-duty towards the Posterity too,... I believe and recommend.

Rohit

7th October 2005, 07:05 PM

Dear friends

Find out more about how believers unwarily and heedlessly keep forming vicious circles of infinitre regress and, without failure, trap themselves in those vicious circles with no way out. :thumbsup: :)
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=4467&start=30

j.chenkalvarayan

11th October 2005, 10:02 PM

DID GOD CREATE EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS?

The professor of a university once challenged his students with this question.

'Did God create everything that exists?'

A student answered bravely, 'Yes, He did'.

The professor then asked, 'If God created everything, then He created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student could not respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had 'proved' that the belief in God was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, 'May I pose a question?'

'Of course', answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked, 'Professor does cold exist?'

The professor answered, 'What kind of question is that? Of course cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?'

The young student answered, 'In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold, is in fact the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is to create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot.'

'And, does darkness exist?', he continued. The professor answered, 'Of course'.

This time the student responded, 'Again you're wrong, sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light.'

Finally, the student asked the professor, 'Sir, does evil exist?'

The professor replied, 'Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil.'

The student responded, 'Sir, evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man.'

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and did not answer back.

The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.

still sceptical whether einstein really said this ..It seems that people have started a new trend of putting the name of some gr8 person after a story to emphasize on that. but still there are some fools who fail to see the bigger picture but instead are influenced by the person who gave the idea. so the tag is for those.

Badri

12th October 2005, 05:44 AM

j.chenkalvarayan

12th October 2005, 12:58 PM

It seems that people have started a new trend of putting the name of some gr8 person after a story to emphasize on that. but still there are some fools who fail to see the bigger picture but instead are influenced by the person who gave the idea. so the tag is for those.

More than the whole story, this last bit was nice!! :D

i'll take the credit. this was posted in one particular news group i am part of. i edited the arguments that followed and appended it to the main story

just_hubber

14th October 2005, 06:31 PM

[tscii:27fc240325]

Public opinion polls have been repeatedly taken of parents, students, and teachers—and they have consistently responded that they want creation science taught in the schools of our land! This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Evolution and the Polls

High-School Teachers - They want creation science to be taught
High-School Biology Teachers - They want creation science to be taught
Citizens and Parents - They want creation science to be taught
Adults - They want creation science to be taught
University Students - They want creation science to be taught
Scientists - They want creation science to be taught

This material is excerpted from the book, EVOLUTION AND OUR SCHOOLS. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Evolution and Our Schools.

More Details goes here in the Link

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/22sch02.htm
[/tscii:27fc240325]

nirosha sen

14th October 2005, 07:54 PM

:lol: Oh JC!!! Such a wise old Owl, you are!! You made my day, Pa!! :D

Rohit

16th October 2005, 02:45 AM

History repeats itself

The same student grew older, more intellectually than in age, and became a professor himself and realised how narrow minded he was by not realising soon enough what his teacher was really challenging his students about, with that specific question.

The question came back to his mind at his later age in an altered form "Does the God, he answered "Yes" to the professor’s question, really exist?"

This time he came-up with a more thoughtful and rational answer. The answer he found was clear "NO". The God only existed in one's imagination of mind in the absence of clear and intellectual understanding of the universe that really does not need the God.

Unlike the quotes of creationists, the following quotes of Albert Einstein are verifiably authentic.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." - Albert Einstein

"Gravitation can not be held responsible for people falling in love" - Albert Einstein (Equally applies to the people "Falling in love with an imaginary God")

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." - Albert Einstein

Buddha, the first and only enlightened person ever born and existed on earth, unequivocally denied and categorically rejected the existence of any kind of God, whether personal or impersonal. And this is what the same student - Albert Einstein - ended-up saying about the Buddhism

" If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism." - Albert Einstein

So, yes, like cold being the experience in the absence of heat, darkness being the experience in the absence of light and silence being the experience in the absence of sound, God's thoughts or experiences only exist when there is absence of intellectually developed thoughts and understanding that are crtical for the rational understanding of the entire phenomenon.

As long as one has yet to develop intellectually, the ignorance of beliefs in God's existence will persist, like cold in the absence of heat, like darkness in the absence of light, like silence in the absence of sound, like weakness in the absence of strength, like fear in the absence of courage, like captivity in the absence of freedom and the list goes-on.. :thumbsup: :)

Braandan

23rd October 2005, 08:23 AM

Both "evolution" and "creation" are just beliefs. The faculty called memory which is wired in our human brain tries to find the continuity. Actually each moment is by itself not related to the past or present moment. Evolution and Creation are just ideas formed to explain the feeling of continuity which is not there actually.

Rohit

23rd October 2005, 02:44 PM

The faculty called memory which is wired in our human brain tries to find the continuity. Actually each moment is by itself not related to the past or present moment. Evolution and Creation are just ideas formed to explain the feeling of continuity which is not there actually.
Dear Braandan,

Welcome to the self-deceptive world of human brain and memory. Indeed a good post, capturing a blend of eastern (Buddhists) and western (Hume’s) idealism. It is really interesting to read when you say, there is neither a causal nor a non-causal relationship between the perceptions of present moment and the perceptions of the moment that just preceded. For the sake of argument, even if one momentarily accepts the idea of non-continuity, which may be true for some cases but not for all, still there is a clear continuity of time through which past and present are identified, linked and differentiated. Without the time continuum, the notion of past, present and future would collapse.

Also without the continuity of brain and memory functioning, no concept of brain, memory, past, present can be formed, grasped and argued upon.

Anyway, if you believe that the faculty known as the brain and memory that exists in the present moment, are not really what they were a moment ago, and will not remain what they are now i.e. the brain and memory the next moment?

If your answer is "Yes", your fundamental assertion on brain, memory and ideas instantly collapses; and if your answer is "No", your assertion on lack of continuity collapses.

It will be extremely interesting to see how you demonstrate the absence of any continuity or the lack of any causal relationship between your ideas in your above post and the ideas in your next posts. Also how you demonstrate the absence of any continuity or the lack of any causal relationship between my response to your above post and the ideas in your next posts; and so on……..

In essence, it will be something substantial if you can precisely demonstrate that there is no relationship whatsoever between your ideas, my posts and/or responses, anyone else’s posts and/or responses and the ideas in your subsequent posts.

However, it is worth noticing that the idealists ideas in your above post have already failed to prove the absence or lack of such continuity whether it is of the moments of time, emotions or feelings with that of the moments and events of the past i.e. earlier discussions on creation Vs. evolution. You have responded in precise causal relationship with what was said, discussed and written some or long time ago in various posts in relation to creation and evolution.

Also, it will be really interesting to hear from you, precisely what do you believe is the origin of the human brain/memory?

Looking forward to your reply. :)