KARMA-The free will Vs VIDHI-The fate [Archive] - Page 2

Rohit

6th October 2006, 03:30 AM

No one had witnessed or experienced the event of Big Bang when it happened; and yet, only through Intellectual Transcendence, we know about it now that it indeed happened a long long times ago without ever witnessing or experiencing it.

The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations:

1) The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.

2) The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.

3) The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html

And it is widely claimed that the Universe was thus created from nothing through the Big Bang by a Dynamic, Transcendental Creator God, which allowed all forms and levels of Consciousness to evolve within the universe through quantum tunnelling - a quantum phenomenon - 0 to 9 levels according to Buddhists and 1 to 9 levels according to Advaitins. Which directly implies that all forms and levels of Consciousness are the effects of some other conditions and not the cause.

:D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep

6th October 2006, 06:29 PM

Dear Rohit

You are twisting 'Truth" to prove your "Emptiness" theory. In the nasa link you have given, there is not a ingle word saying that the Big bang come from nothing.

There are so many links that says " In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup".
Here nothing does not mean your "Emptiness".

The above line is from the 52nd line in the below post under heading First atoms (3rd line)
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Instead this is the word that scientists use "singularity" and not emptiness or nothing.

This singulairty is "Oneness" of Brahaman that Advaita talks. So the Buddhist view crahses pitiably infron the the Big bang theory.

In Vedic text the age of universe is 8.432 billion years. Modern science initially said 25 billion years. Further research showed 20 billion, then they came to 18 , then 15 then now the latest is 13. I am sure further research would come to 8 billion years and vedic text have given even very precise values like 8.432 billion years and even the day fraction. it is amazing information.

Summary: Thgre is no statement given by any scientist about bigbang that everything came from nothing. They all say "Singularity".

The theory of Nothingness is Rohit's own imagination and because of this he even makes Buddha looks Stupid.

Budhha's statement of emptiness and void has been mis-interpreted by his followers who followed his teachings and his methodology. We have to excuse our Rohit because he will terribly misinterpret and get confused when he has not followed any methodology that Buddha has taught.

No one had witnessed or experienced the event of Big Bang when it happened; and yet, we still know it now that it indeed happened a long long times ago; only through Intellectual Transcendence, without ever witnessing or experiencing it.

The above statment is Rohit's own contradictory statment and he trashes Buddha

Only one person in the entire world could first realise such transcendental Truth of complete emptiness, void, known by the entire world as Nirvana.

So when Rohit says no one had witnessed, that includes his poor version of Buddha too.

My are not empty talks without any proof like that of Rohit's.

Buddha meditated and in meditation alone one can witness the big bang and much more than that Rohit has never a clue.
The witnessing is what is shown as the fact in Buddhists as well as indian temples. Please click this link to see the image of both buddhist and Indian view of witnessing the only way to realise the Bigbang and much more.

http://www.sakthifoundation.org/Space_how_to-8.htm

in above picture I have shown both the venkateshwara and buddha picture to highlight the importance of mind watching or witnessing in meditation.

If you see the mind watching aspect is kept higher than the God's picture or on top of Buddha's head because the witnessing is the highest aspect which you can witness even the God or Cosnciousness.

Rohit all this shows you are the confused Buddhist. Please do not insult great Buddha's teaching and make him look empty and stupid. Buddhism lost its foot hold in India when his followers mis-interepted Buddha's teaching.

Now with your Emptiness thoery dont try to give a bad image of Buddha.

You insulted our friend SRS as confused Buddhist.

my sincere advice to Rohit, please go an learn meditation and purify your "Ahamkara" and then you will understand atleast what scientist talk about , if not Sankara and Buddha.

Meditation is not sitting with eyes' closed and seeing colorful lights. Dont be mislead with all that gimmicks. You have to witness yourself. In that witnessing you will witness the whole cosmos in it. Then you will find that this Bigbang is just a drop in the cosmic ocean.

But to get into that state you have to follow of purifying the mind, which Buddha taught as the eight fold path. So my dear Rohit dont be a confused Buddhist, atleast practice what you read and then opnly will you get clarity.

Just reading books will cause 'Mental Indigestion" and you will be farting intellecutal theories. Practicing what you read will help you digest the Truth and will absorb and will make your mind healthy. I would be in every step to help you, because I love you as my own Self.

Rohit

6th October 2006, 08:58 PM

My are not empty talks without any proof like that of Rohit's.

Buddha meditated and in meditation alone one can witness the big bang and much more.....

The witnessing is what is shown as the fact in Buddhists as well as indian temples. Please click this link to see the image of both buddhist and Indian view of witnessing the only way to realise the Bigbang and much more.

My dear friend Pradheep – the terribly confused Buddhist -, your Egocentric fallacies are crossing all barriers, like quantum tunnelling, as the possibilities are infinite.

Sorry to say this but, only the Brahman is created by the Dynamic, Transcendental God, through Big Bang, the rest remains to be proved or disproved depending on your success or failure in the following simple test, just for you to prove your frequently claimed realisation and Proof as you have claimed above.

Just give me the answers to the following questions. The correct answers will win you not only this debate, but also the countless debates that you have lost in the past. This is the last and final chance for you to prove your gobbledegook. Go into meditative state (and prove that no Consciousness arises without conditions) if you have to, but give us nothing but the correct answers.

The correct answers will prove that one can really witness the creation of the universe with minute details such as singularity (with t, x, y, z = 0, which is devoid of everything) of the Big Bang and also witness the Dynamic Transcendental Creator God that created your Brahman (A). Not only that; it will also prove that there is no Void between the two of us, what I witnessed, experienced and cognised; you too witnessed, experienced and cognised the same. If your Ego comes in the way, then that too proves nothing but the absolute reality of the Void between the two of us. So, before you answer, overcome your Ego first and then answer.

If you really succeed in answering all the following questions correctly, then:

1) Advaita gets incontrovertibly verified.

2) I will accept Advaita as the Ultimate Truth, without any reluctance whatsoever.

If you fail to answer the questions correctly even after whatever meditative state you have to go to, it will evidently prove that:

1) The universe B is without any permanent reality like Atman/Self, therfore B = NOT A

2) B = NOT A gets incontrovertibly verified.

3) There is discontinuity (Void) of Consciousness between the two of us - [A (AND) NOT A]

4) Buddha’s Void does exist between us and there is no way you can access the contents of my Consciousness, experience and cognition.

5) You and your Advaitin associates are nothing but "the terribly confused Buddhist".

6) You accept Buddhists Void as the Ultimate Reality, without any doubt.

This is the last and final chance for you to prove Advaita.

I honestly want you to succeed in proving Advaita by you giving the correct answers to the following simple questions, I really do.

I think, this is very simple and practical test for you to prove your belief on an open forum like this.

You must realise that this is not for for me, but also for all the benifits of all readers to witness and experience the fantastic truth of Advaita.

Right, here are the questions:

Q1: How may trees and plants have I got in my garden?
Q2: How many branches are there in each tree and each plant?
Q3: How many leaves are there in each tree and each plant?
Q4: I have a patterned Box in front of me, what is the pattern of that Box?
Q5: What is the exact number of contents in that patterned Box?
Q6: What precisely are the contents in that patterned Box?
Q7: Do people lie to cling onto their Egocentric beliefs?

If you come up with all correct answers, I will honestly accept them; and I will do that openly in this forum as promised. If you fail; you do the same.

Good Luck! :thumbsup:

Dear friends,

This is a very simple test for the Reality check; and our dear friend Pradheep is going to demonstrate precisely what he has claimed so far, especially in the above post that he can witness and experience everything in the entire universe, including the Big Bang while he goes into trance. Answering the above seven questions correctly must be nothing for him; and this is not for fun but my serious attempt to do the Reality check.

:D :thumbsup:

SRS

6th October 2006, 11:13 PM

Dear Srs
that was a wonderful quote. I would like to discuss with you what modern science has not even thought of. This we missed long back. I have difficultly in writing this. Yet let me try and be able to convey to you.

Our whole body is only chemicals and each of them made up of electrons spinning around with a tremendous speed. so when a reaction is taking at a gross level, what is at the subtle quantum level?. is there any change at quantum level?.

Swami Ram Tirtha in 1906 (100 years back ) gave the beautiful explanation that at the quantum level, it is the consciousness meeting consciousness (not literally). when eye's sees a flower, all the biochemcials reacitons occur but what really happens at quantum level is that consciousness sees only consciousness.

This is a very hard fact to appreciate. The Ego (not the literally taken ego, but the body sense complex) is only interested at the gross level because it itself is only gross and not subtle.

SRS am I making myself clear to grasp.

in the Manduka Upanishad Swamiji clearly talks about Prog.Gupta das who said Sankara is Buddhism in disguise. Swami refutes Gupta das saying that it is not correct. Buddhism says everything is soonya and void. Wheareas sanakara says there is One reality and anything that sees as gross is only Void. This is how Advaita is more acceptable than any other philosophy and how Sanakara was able to completely over throw Buddhist philosophy. Next Ramanjua and Madhva talked against advaita because they were talking only at the gross level and not at the quantum level. As earlier I wrote about Advaita, vishit and dwaita as Hanuman's answer to his relation to Lord Rama. At gross level both are different but at subtle level they are both one. So Madhva and Ramanuja's points were based on the body of Hanuman and showed they are two different, but at subtle level they are one and that is what Advaita talks about.

This is why still advaita stands unshakeable and it can embrace all world philosophies at its lower levels. Based on Advaita I can also understand and appreciate all world philosophy at its level. Like standing on a higher plane one can get a bird's eye view, Advaitic view gives the Eagle's eye view of the whole universe.

Dear Pradheep:

What I know is that, the atoms will react so as to occupy the lowest energy state. So how do the atoms react. They form bonds. It is the electrons that are responsible for the bonding. The movement of the electrons generates all the forms of energy that are perceptible to our senses: light, heat, etc. What is interesting is, this is the same energy (in a different form) that created the Universe (the singular energy). If one considers the Universe to be a closed surface, then the implication is that no new energy has been created since the formation (of the Universe). And even more interesting, no new matter has been created either. But at high speeds, matter (or mass) can be converted to energy. And energy can be converted to matter (this would explain rebirth).

Can you explain further about soonya? I did not know Buddha rejected the existance of a God. I have read a Buddhist story where the Buddha, when asked 10 famous questions by a Brahmin, chooses not to answer (even though, it is presumed the Buddha knew the answers). He offered the explanation that such questions have no practical value. I have also come across the mention of many gods when reading other Buddhist sutras. And even in the Enlightenment, when Buddha sat under the Bo Tree, it is said that demon-king Mara tested him. So where is the void... if you believe in some kind of god, then is it nothingess.

Also please write more regarding consiousness at the su-atomic level. I did not quite understand the Swami's explanationof consciousness meeting consciousness. If you can account for the energy dynamics, then I will understand.

Rohit

7th October 2006, 12:18 AM

There can be no witness higher or otherwise than Me than which higher or otherwise witness is not needed/there. I am the One and Only Supreme Consciousness, The One without a Second, Non-Dual, The One and Only Witness; and that is what I am.

:) :thumbsup:

SRS

7th October 2006, 12:31 AM

2. The Gods

Kataragama. Devalayas dedicated to the different deities are scattered all over the island. God Kataragama (Skanda) in southern Sri Lanka is by far the most popular, as he is considered to be the most powerful deity capable of granting the requests of the worshipper. It is for this reason that he has acquired territorial rights throughout the island. Devalayas dedicated to him are found in many places in the island, some of which are maintained by the Hindus.

Ganesha. The elephant-shaped god Ganesha, regarded as the god of wisdom and the remover of obstacles, is also very popular among the Buddhists under the names Ganapati or Gana-deviyo. He is worshipped as the chief of obstacles (Vighnesvara) because it is believed that he is responsible for creating and removing obstracles. He does this through troops of inferior deities or demi-gods considered as attendants of Siva, present almost everywhere, who are under his command. It is in this sense that he is called Gana-pati (chief of hosts), which is the epithet popular among the Buddhists. The devalayas dedicated to him are mostly run by the Hindus. The Buddhists worship him either through his statues, found in many Buddhists temples, or by visiting the Hindu kovils dedicated to him. As the god of wisdom and of learning, he is propitiated at the time a child first reads the alphabet. As the chief of obstacles, as their creator as well as remover, the Hindus begin their devala-ritual by making the first offering to him.

Another popular aspect of his worship in some parts of Sri Lanka can be observed along the main roads, especially in the North-Central Province, where his statue is placed near trees and propitiated by travelers so that they may have a safe journey. The propitiation usually consists of breaking a coconut in his name, offering a coin (pandura), etc.

Natha. Natha is purely a Buddhist god, apparently the local counterpart of the all-compassionate Mahayana Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara. He is referred to in Sri Lanka by the abbreviated form Natha. His cult, as that of Natha, had become quite popular during the Kotte period (14th and 15th centuries), while references to him are found as early as the 9th and 10th centuries as shown by archaelogical evidence. The center of the cult was Totagamuwa near Hikkaduwa in the Galle District. Two of the more ancient devalayas dedicated to this deity are found at Kandy and at Vagiriya. The premises of the Kandy devalaya, opposite the Temple of the Tooth, are considered especially lucky and sacred, for the important royal rites like choosing a name for the king, putting on the royal sword, etc., were held there. It was Natha's all-pervading compassion that seems to have been appealed to by the local devotees.30

Vishnu. The important Hindu god Vishnu has also assumed a special Buddhist significance in the island. He is identified with the god Uppalavanna of the Mahavamsa, to whom Sakka, the king of the gods, is said to have entrusted the guardianship of Sri Lanka at the request of the Buddha before his passing away. This god is said to have arrived in the island to fulfill this mission. The name Uppalavanna means "the color of the blue water-lily." As Vishnu is of the same color, Uppalavanna became identified with Vishnu, and in the wake of the Mahavamsa tradition, he became, as Vishnu, the protector of the Buddha-sasana in Sri Lanka. The calculated omission of the name Vishnu in the Mahavamsa in this connection may be viewed as an attempt at total localization of the divinity with a view to harmonize him with the cultural fabric of the island. His main shrine is at Devinuwara (Dondra), at the southern tip of the island, where an annual Esala (July-August) festival is held in his honor. If the identification is correct his cult can be traced to the earliest phase of the history of the island and has been popular up to the present day.

Pattini. Goddess Pattini, referred to above (see p.59), is prominent as the most popular female Buddhist divinity; she has her devalayas scattered throughout the country. Her cult goes back at least to the second century A.C. The then ruler, King Gajabahu, is said to have introduced the worship of this divinity into the island from South India.31 The legend about her life is told in the Tamil poem Silappadikaram. According to the myths current in the island about her, she had seven incarnations, being born seven times from water, the tusk of an elephant, a flower, a rock, a fire (or peak), cloth, and a mango. Hence she is designated as sat-pattini, sat meaning seven.

There are colorful stories woven around these births. The story about her unswerving fidelity to her fickle husband Kovalan (or Palanga) in her birth as Kannagi, is quite popular among the local Buddhists as attested by the existence of many Sinhala literary works dealing with the story (e.g., Vayantimalaya, Pattinihalla, Palanga-halla, etc.).

Her favors are sought especially at times of pestilences like chicken pox, measles, etc. and also by women who desire children. It is customary for the Sri Lankan Buddhists to visit her devalaya and worship her with offerings after recovery from infectious diseases. The banishment of evil influences and the attainment of prosperity in general and good harvests are other purposes behind the ceremonies performed in her honor. She also plays an important part in the ceremonies connected with the offering of first fruits.32

Devalayas dedicated to her are found in many parts of the island, the one at Navagamuwa, about fifteen miles from Colombo on the old Avissavella Road, being the most important. The sanctity of this place seems to go back to the time of King Gajabahu.33

Sakka. Sakka, the king of the gods, has been an important figure in the Buddhist affairs of Sri Lanka. Tradition connects him with the Buddha himself in connection with the landing of Vijaya and his followers in the island in the 6th century B.C. On this occasion, at the Buddha's request, Sakka is said to have entrusted Vishnu with the guardianship of Buddhism in the island. It was Sakka too who sought arahant Mahinda and requested him to come over to the island when the time became opportune for its conversion (Mhv. xiii,15,16,17).

Saman. Another important deity in the island is Mahasumana, Sumana or Saman, the guardian or the presiding deity of Sri Pada mountain or Sumanakuta (Adam's Peak), which the Buddhists treat as sacred on account of its bearing the impression of the Buddha's left foot, which he left on his third visit to the island. (Mhv.i,77ff.).

God Saman is recorded as having met the Buddha on the latter's first visit to the island when he visited Mahiyangana to drive away the yakkhas. Saman became a stream-entrant (sotapanna) after listening to the Buddha, who gave him a handful of hairs with which he erected the dagaba at Mahiyangana (Mhv.i,33). He is regarded as the chief deity of the area surrounding the sacred mountain as well as of the hill-country in general. Accordingly his main shrine is at Ratnapura, where an annual festival is held in his honor.

Vibhishana. Another deity, somewhat similar to Saman, is Vibhishana, who is regarded as the brother of the pre-historic King Ravana of Sri Lanka. His main shrine is at Kelaniya, as a part of the famous Buddhist temple there.

Dadimunda. Another deity who likewise came into prominence during the Kandyan period (17th and 18th centuries) is Dadimunda (Devata Bandara) who, according to the prevalent tradition, landed at Dondra (Devinuvara) in South Sri Lanka from South India. He proceeded to Alutnuvara in the Kegalla District, taking up permanent residence there in a temple, which he himself got constructed. This is the chief shrine of this deity and here too an annual festival is held. He is regarded as a general of Vishnu and accordingly, at the main Vishnu shrines in the island, he also has his shrine on a side (e.g., Dondra, Kandy, etc.). Another interesting tradition says that he was the only deity who did not run away in fear at the time of Bodhisatta Siddhattha's struggle with Mara. While all the other deities took flight in fright, he alone remained fearless as the Bodhisatta's only guardian. He is portrayed in the attire of a Kandyan chief with his special attribute, a walking stick (soluva). His Kandyan dress symbolizes his suzerainty over the Kandyan area.

Huniyan Deviyo. The patron deity of the sorcerers in Sri Lanka is Huniyan or Suniyan, who has been promoted from the status of a demon to that of a deity. He is also regarded as the deity presiding over a village area bounded by its boundaries (gam-kotuwa), in which role he is designated as gambhara-deviyo (deity in charge of the village). In many of the composite devalayas he too has his shrine, the one at Lunava, about seven miles from Colombo close to the Galle Road, near the Lunava railway station, being his chief devalaya.

Besides these deities so far enumerated there are many other minor figures who are too numerous to be mentioned here. What is important is that in the case of all these deities, the method of propitiation and worship is the same as explained earlier and every such deity is in charge of a particular aspect of life. And all of them are faithful Buddhists, extending their respective powers not only to the Buddha-sasana but also to those who follow it faithfully.

As Buddhists, none of these is regarded as superior or even remotely equal to the Buddha. They all are followers of the Buddha, who has transcended the round of rebirth (samsara), while they are still within samsara, hoping to achieve release from it by following the Buddha's Teaching.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/kariyawasam/wheel402.html

pradheep

7th October 2006, 01:20 AM

I am the One

who are you?

pradheep

7th October 2006, 01:57 AM

Dear Rohit
I will answers your questions. But before that we have to starighten the bigbang singularity versus nothingness. That was core of our debate. Once we are done with that I will answer all the questions.

My question to you is, what do you say about singularity and nothingness. Did any modern scientist say that bigbang came from nothing?

pradheep

7th October 2006, 02:17 AM

Dear SRS
I will came back with explanations for all your questions. let us go with the below one first, because for the energy question I though of giving you the exact quoate swami Ram thirtha (2006 is his 100th death aniversary). I have never read any one talk like swami rama thirtha. In woods of God realization is the only book I read at a strech day and night and completed them in 10 days and that was the last book to read and i decided only to practice them and then I understood the power of practise.

Can you explain further about soonya? I did not know Buddha rejected the existance of a God.
Can you explain further about soonya? I did not know Buddha rejected the existance of a God.

Soonya, what friends like Rohit understand is nothingness. From nothing nothing only can come. What Buddha meant is totally different. But like Rohit there are many who misunderstood and that is what Adi-sankara debated and won over them. In Samadhi when we transcend the Ego which comprises the body, mind, intellect, there is only pure Consciousness and that is non-dual , there is no attributes. There is no judgements, there is nothing but pure witnessing. This is not even a state , that is our real Self. That real Self cannot be described. This witnessing pur consciousness is called by different people in different names. In Vedic they call it as Brahman, by Buddha as Soonya, as God by common people as Consciousness (till not grasped by most scientists).

Buddha rejected Vedas and God because at his time there was only confusion and mis-interpretation of Vedas and God. People were only to rituals without understanding what it is meant for. So he had to tell everyone Vedas are useless and there is no God (as they think). Even in navarthri that we celebrate I make myself clear why we chant Lalitha Sahasranama, why we keep golu, why we sing bhajans and why we dance Dandiya an Ras. all these have wonderful purpose. But people do mechanically. I tell people there is No lakshmi shiva vishnu sitting up in heaven. There is no God up outside. God is only with us. Our thoughts make our destiny. It looks as though I am an atheist. I am not. I dent existence of Lakshmi as a lady sitting in a lotus and showering gold coins. I tell people lakshmi is the wealth of qualities, which expreses as materialisitc objects, divine qualities, beauty, orderliness. Without knowing these blindly people do Lakshmi pooja. When they do that then I tell there is no Lakshmi. I understand why Buddha denied existence of God. The God he denied was the God that people thought sitting in heaven and creating people and enjoy them suffering in Tsunami.

This is what our friend Rohit fails to understand. I reject the existence of a God that Rohit has in his Mind, while establishing the God - Consciousness (not the brain effect) exists. Because we have so many concepts right from birth and continue to live with that concepts and serve only our Ego and never look beyond the world the Ego projects we are ignorant of the "Truth".

My dear SRS if I made clear about these questions we will move on to the next. Thanks for helping me to express these information for everyone to read including my Ego.

pradheep

7th October 2006, 03:22 AM

Thanks SRS for giving the summary of the devas in Buddhism. All these are borrowed and exchanged from Hindusim. I understand Buddhism has also contributed richly to the symbolic Hindu philosophy. As I mentioned earlier these God and demons that Hindu and Buddhism talks are not outside. They are all inside us. The acts and thoughts of Ego are deomns and those acts and thoughts that brings use close to the Self are divine. These the Buddhism also makes it clear. (You may see soem of them in little buddha movie too).

In Navarthri we were aware of while reading Devi mahamathyam that the asuras are the acts and thoughts that widen the gap from the Self and the divine are the thoughts and acts that make us be aware of the awareness. It is wonderful how the 9 asuras are killed in nine days....Madhua , kaitabha, Raktabeeja, Shumb, Nishumb, Chanda, Munda, Dumralochana and Mahishasur by the three Devi's. On the Victory day we worship Ayudha pooja which means to worship the divine wepaons to kill asurasa and also means the day without war when there is only peace (A-Yudh means no war). But people take that these ausuras are literlly outside and so are the three devi's then there is only mis-understanding and confusion. will write more.

avii

8th October 2006, 04:09 AM

to pradheep

i do enjoy your talks and explaination , however i do not beleve that everyone is ready to move up to that level of spirituality which you speak about. i must admit that i myself am in the process of training my mind to think this way however it may take some time to reach the level you speak of. as the thread about the significance of rituals resulted , the love for amman is like a seed and rituals is the husk.
if the husk is removed from the seed too early it will die , but if it grows and becomes strong enough the husk falls off by itself and the seed flourishes

pradheep

8th October 2006, 04:44 PM

Dear avii
You are right, we need rituals to tame this mind and make it evolve. My point is that we should know the intension behind the rituals otherwise it becomes meaningless actions. Our minds are constantly evolving. Not knowing why we do rituals would make life aimless and would lack the maturity to handle challenges in life and continue to make mistakes again and again life. Life is not to suffer but experience happiness. To know that our true nature is Ananda is final.

SRS

8th October 2006, 11:54 PM

pradheep

9th October 2006, 07:05 AM

SRS

9th October 2006, 08:37 AM

Dear SRS
Buddha rejected the existence of God which common people think of, a God sitting and creating everything. But he used asura's an d devas as said in Vedas. They reflect our own state of mind. The devas and asuras are states of mind. Buddha did not make any new philosphy. He took to the path of devotion (Bhakthi-love) to all the beings in the world. Bakthi really is not to an unknown God. It is really to the Self and to the beings aroun us.

Most saints atttain this state. I can quote Namadevar for example. He was a pandu-ranga Bhaktha. On a pilgrimage through Rajasthan, everyone was short of drinking water. Then they saw a thirsty dog. Everyone ignored. Namadevar saw Panduranga in the dog and gave the dog water inspite of everyone protesting. Finally he a vision of the Lord through the Dog.

There are many life instances in many saints life, who realize that Supreme Consciousness or God in every being. Saint Tukaram was once chasing a dog which stole his bread. Every one thought he was trying to get back the bread from Dog. But Tukaram was sad that the dog took only the bread and not the dal. So he caught hold of the Dog and fed dal also to the dog. This is how Bhakthi is practiced. Buddha did the same Bhakthi, which he did not see in a personalized God form but in all beings.

Buddha's loving nature and his philosophy of getting rid of suffering attracted everyone. His teachings are not different from Vedic teaching. Infact all religion's core message is the same , only the people mis-interpret and make it corrupt.

Dear Pradheep:

Is it correct to say God is simply the universal energy, the shakthi... I like this definition because energy is timeless (derived from the singular energy that created the Universe) and formless (can take any form). So you see, there is no contradiction between science and Vedanta; both are describing the God-energy, one will do it with entirely with the mind, the other will use instruments and mathematics.

You are surely correct to say there is little distinction between Vedanta and Buddhism. Many Buddhists today are doing some kind of devotion to a Hindu god; that is why I posted a list of gods that are common in Sri Lankan Buddhism. So then the question remains, why did Buddha not include the god-concept in his teachings... a good reason to ask this is because many Buddhists today are paying homage to Buddha himself (as if he is a god); even though he did not consider himself to be a deity.

pradheep

9th October 2006, 05:43 PM

Dear SRS
Beautiful questions mt dear SRS. Our discussions will be useful to our friends.

Science still has not defined "Energy". What is energy?. "Energy is the (physics) the capacity of a physical system to do work; the units of energy are joules or ergs; " Another defintion is Energy is a fundamental quantity that every physical system possesses; it allows us to predict how much work the system could be made to do, or how much heat it can produce or absorb. In the past, energy was discussed in terms of easily observable effects it has on the properties of objects or changes in state of various systems. Basically, if something changes, some sort of energy was involved in that change. ...(wiki)

But all these definitions fall short. It still does not tell what is that energy and no can define it. Your question is can God be called as Shakthi- energy?

Our vedic rishis (when I mean "Vedic", I means all north indian south indian east and west indian) have talked about Brahmam or purusha or Consciousness.

This prakrithi Purusha is this ying and yang in chinese.

In Vedic, in different regions they have used different names. In Shaivites this is termed as Shiva and Sakthi. The Brahmam and Sakthi are one and the same, two sides of the same coin.

Coin is only one. If you look at one side you will find , head and another side tail. Simialrly in one side you see the Brahman as Sakthi or energy (the whole universe). But if you flip the coin then you see Purusha or witnessing aspect. So to answer your question God and Sakthi are two sides of the same coin (shiva sakthi or Purusha-prakrithi).

Now forget the coin exmaple. We are only seeing us as energy manifestions (Sakthi-prakruthi). When we transcend this energy state, then we see the witnessing apsect, the Brahman (Consciousness or purusha or God).
So just by seeing enery manifestion you do not realize Brahman. You have to transcend it. This is what they talk about kundalini energy moving and finally combines with Shiva - shiva sakthi ikiyam.

Since energy is the moola-aadhara (fundamental aspect), this energy is depicted as Gowri-putra (son of Gowri or sakthi) who is our Ganesha.

It is ignorance to think of a Ganesha God sitting soem where and riding on a mouse. What it means is that Ganesha the moola-adhara energy in every being and non being. Is there any thing in this world without energy?. That is Gana-pathi, which means for all Ganas (forms) he is the fundamental apsect.

Why riding on mouse. The mouse represent ther form and elephant Ganesha is the energy that is in it. Example an atom is like a mouse , small, but the energy in it is like Ganesha mighty.

This is how each God form represent. Zillions of information are packed in the God symbolic form. It takes life after life to just understand this. This is why the greatest , briliant human being to be born was Vyasa.

Again to answer your question why did Buddha not include the god-concept in his teachings....

Where is God as the common people think. Such a God does not exist. Such a God is a concept. A God that is sitting and creating and punishing people and giving them salvation or moksha does not exist. Buddha was very clear about the Vedic advaita concept. Buddha did not learn Buddhism first. He went to a Guru (Vedic) and then studied. Contemplated on it, meditated on it and realized himself it and then praticed it. This is the aspect of vedic structure, study, realize and practice it.

I know myself that there are no Gods outside. Saying all these , when I do every day prayer and visiting temples, people ask me why and what do I pray ?. I say my prayer is only One , give me the knowledge to realize the Truth.
Asato Ma sad gamaya.

http://www.sakthifoundation.org/Space_more-4.htm
May be the above link will help you to understand better.

Who am I praying to...To my own Self, which temporarily I posit over a God-image. So I pray not to an unknown God sitting some where. I am praying only to my own Self.

This is in any religion, everyone closes eyes in prayer which means what?. Closing eyes one goes inwards and not outwards. Look such simple act itself conveys the message.

Hope this is clear SRS. If not I can explain more.

kannannn

9th October 2006, 07:49 PM

Pradheep, I hope you don't mind a few questions.

It is ignorance to think of a Ganesha God sitting soem where and riding on a mouse. What it means is that Ganesha the moola-adhara energy in every being and non being. Is there any thing in this world without energy?. That is Gana-pathi, which means for all Ganas (forms) he is the fundamental apsect.

Why riding on mouse. The mouse represent ther form and elephant Ganesha is the energy that is in it. Example an atom is like a mouse , small, but the energy in it is like Ganesha mighty.
Is this mentioned in any religious book or is it your own understanding?

Buddha was very clear about the Vedic advaita concept. Buddha did not learn Buddhism first. He went to a Guru (Vedic) and then studied. Contemplated on it, meditated on it and realized himself it and then praticed it. This is the aspect of vedic structure, study, realize and practice it.
By vedic advaita do you mean Upanishads? If so, the attributes of the self are very different in Upanishads and Buddhism. The 'self' is independent and transcedental in Upanishads unlike in Buddhism. If it is not Upanishads, what did you have in mind?

I know myself that there are no Gods outside. Saying all these , when I do every day prayer and visiting temples, people ask me why and what do I pray ?. I say my prayer is only One , give me the knowledge to realize the Truth.

Who am I praying to...To my own Self, which temporarily I posit over a God-image. So I pray not to an unknown God sitting some where. I am praying only to my own Self.
This concurs with the 'independent self' theory I have quoted above. But not Buddhism. And why posit the self onto a God-image? Can't we just sit in the calm of our houses and pray to ourselves? If yes, that leads to the next question. How can we be sure that our 'self' can give us the Knowledge, the Truth?

avii

9th October 2006, 08:40 PM

i am a bit confused on this self prayer , i somehow find it difficult to swallow. i understand that if one becomes a raga bhakta one can even be so close to god that one only sees god in himself, such as Sri ramakrishna where he used to worship his own wife ;sarada devi; as amman herself.

another thing could someone please explain this purusha and prakit thing :shock: :?:

pradheep

9th October 2006, 09:33 PM

Pradheep, I hope you don't mind a few questions.

No problem at all.

That is Gana-pathi, which means for all Ganas (forms) he is the fundamental apsect.

Why riding on mouse. The mouse represent ther form and elephant Ganesha is the energy that is in it. Example an atom is like a mouse , small, but the energy in it is like Ganesha mighty.

Is this mentioned in any religious book or is it your own understanding?
The exact words are not there in any book, but the foundation for this fact is present in many books of swami shivananda, chinmayananda and many more. It is not a co-incidence becase of all the different facts so well then finally like zigzaw puzzle everything matches well.

If it is not Upanishads, what did you have in mind?

It includes mostly upanishads , tirumandiram, prabandam etc. To tell the truth i have not read any othese completely. After having understood (..ing) the "Truth" , when I started glancing these texts they all perfectly makes sense. It al,so makes sense with bible, quran, torah, other ancient religious doctorines, buddhism etc.

The buddhist have confused as we have in hindusim too. But every now and then Saints come and recover the true knowledge. But that did not happen in other cultures. They keep repeating the same information with interpretations. All other religious books are stagnant, luckily in hindusim it is dynamic, because we most of the time accept change and evolution.

I am praying only to my own Self.

This concurs with the 'independent self' theory I have quoted above. But not Buddhism. And why posit the self onto a God-image? Can't we just sit in the calm of our houses and pray to ourselves? If yes, that leads to the next question. How can we be sure that our 'self' can give us the Knowledge, the Truth?

In Buddhism also it is to the Self only. But the texts are so misinterpreted that they lost the logic of Buddha. Same with jainism too. They are in between Buddhism and Hindusim.

I love your question , why not straight to Self without a God image. The problem is it is difficult to grasp it. I have many times written that it is easy for a child to learn alphabets with pattern, graphics and picture. Then the child drops the crutches of images and the abstract remains in the mind. Same way the images help easily to explain. I learnt this fact in a hard way. Vyasa was left with this challenge and hence he composed 18 puranas. Matrix movie was a big hit because the idea of Cosnciousness which is so abstract can be easily understood with computer therory. Same way Sage Vyasa did this approach.

We cant sit calm and pray to ourselves, because externally we can bring calmness (silence) but the inner mind cannot be silent. so it has to be tamed. so these images are needed.

Next praying to Ourselves........when i pray that i pray to my "Self" does not mean praying to pradheep, because I am not pradheep. pradheep is a name given by my mom and dad to this body. I am not this body. It is just the vehicle I use, which i take care of it well. (if this confuses just forget what i wrote and read below).

praying to our "Self" does not mean to the body mind sense complex (ego) but to the Self that is everywhere unlocalized. When you understand this then you will see that the God image infact was helping you to this state only. In God image worship also, you go beyond your body and pray to a God that is not this body and mind. when you pray to the self without an image , you also go beyond the body and mind. In the first case you have a distinction that you and God are seprate and in this stage of worshiping the Self, you identity that you are the Self and same in the Lord. This is what Ayyappa thatva and sabarimala is also about.

This is the basis for saguna and nirguna upasana. So first you do saguna which is with form and then nirguna without form which is the Self.

Finally your beautiful question of be sure of the self. You know it. Try it like me you will also discover it. That is the bgest proof. You are the best proof for yourself. Isnt that correct?

pradheep

9th October 2006, 09:40 PM

Dear Avii
Please do google reading about purusha and prakrithi. if you still need help one of our friends will help you.

Praying to the Self is difficutt to do and does not make sense untill one transcends the Ego (here Ego is not the literal ego that everyone routinely uses..but the body mind sense complex). You are right Ramakrishna did worship his own wife and in the highest sodashakshari pooja one does Pooja to onself.

I had a experience once with an enlightened person who wanted me to see his pooja. All his pooja was only to himself. He was in tantric tradition and said usually he does not allow anyone to see this pooja because people can easily mis-interpret. Because I understand advaita he did in front of me.

Basically it was showing arathi to himself, he was showering flowers to himself and the prasad to himself, without being attached to his ego (body mind sense complex). He transcended to the state of the action, actor and acting was one and the same.

kannannn

10th October 2006, 06:32 AM

In Buddhism also it is to the Self only. But the texts are so misinterpreted that they lost the logic of Buddha. Same with jainism too. They are in between Buddhism and Hindusim.
I wonder if your could give me the source for this. From what I have read (Kashi Nath Upadhyaya's 'Early Buddhism and The Bhagavadgita' and Helmuth von Glasenapp's 'Buddhism - a Non-theistic Religion: with a Selection from Buddhist Scriptures'), the concept of 'atma' as a pervasive entity is rejected by Buddhism. Infact, Nirvana in Buddhism can be achieved only when all other dharmas are destroyed. Also, what we know of Buddha's teachings is only from the three Mahasabha or Council meetings after the death of Buddha. Till then all his teachings were spread orally.

Finally your beautiful question of be sure of the self. You know it. Try it like me you will also discover it. That is the bgest proof. You are the best proof for yourself. Isnt that correct?
The only form of silent contemplation I do is meditation, accompanied by deep breaths. So I may need some more explanation here on what you mean by searching for 'The Truth' by praying to 'self'. Does it mean that the 'self' contains answers to all questions in this universe?

pradheep

10th October 2006, 04:21 PM

wonder if your could give me the source for this.
I have not read any of the sources you have mentioned about Buddhism and more over I dont have references to back up. One small hint of this apsect was given by sri-krishna premji in a talk which striked me because I was also thinking in the same direction. One thing I can do is, we could start a discussion on this and could find out the Truth in it.

In my search I found that any one in any religious back ground in any corner of the world finds the same truth. The way they explain and the depth of explanation to others depend on the recipient's grasping level. Truth is only One and cannot contradict by two different persons in two coners of the world.

In my discussion with Rohit I was about to bring out these facts through his question A=B equation. Since his intention was only to disprove me (pradheep) and not seeing the Truth, I did not proceed further.

In Mandukya Upanishad Gaudapada clearly explains the answer to Rohit's question. Any way some time later we can discuss that if soem one is interested on the topic.

So I may need some more explanation here on what you mean by searching for 'The Truth' by praying to 'self'. Does it mean that the 'self' contains answers to all questions in this universe?

Self is the library of Knowledge. You get what you want. Infact all knolwedge comes from the Self, whether it is spiritual or worldly knolwedge. Worldly knowledge comes when we skim the surface and spiritual knowledge by going deeper and deeper. So all spiritual, science, arts, maths creations inventions etc comes from self only. How much we get depends on how much we trascend.

we will talk about knowledge of the Self. Rituals, chanting mantras contemplation, yoga meditation, pranayama are techniques to transcend the Ego (body mind sesne complex). But the focus should be on transcending the Ego. There are side benefits that one attains while doing these techniques and it is easy to stray from the real goal. That is why a guru is needed to keep oneself focussed on the the goal towards Self.

I have seen people doing regularly meditation for 30 40 years or doing rituals (pooja) for 50 years or doing yoga for many years without seeing any change. Of course I dont deny the small beenfits they accrue over years. This is because they have not paid attention to purify the mind (transcend the Ego).

http://www.sakthifoundation.org/purify.htm

In the above link read the title a real life incident, which I often tell how poeple in spiritual life miss the whole point.

Adi-shankara and Ramana maharishi and many more saints have clearly explained these facts. Ramana maharishi's Upadesha saram is one of the text that clearly states how without trascending the Ego one does not know the Self. Because it is the Ego that prevents the Self being known.

This is also my own experience, just a little cleaning of my Ego gave the light of the Truth. I know how much profound knowledge I would get if I could clean the dirt of my mind more. My friends who focus on transcending the Ego also share the same experience.

I have a friend who used to be very religious and pious, very soft spokerm loving caring blah blah and also would read great scriptures upanishads etc and the whole friends would praise him. When no one is around I used to tell him, all that you do is a waste, you are far away from Truth because you have not trascended your Ego.

That would make him angry and used to argue that he is so humble and without any bad manners and has no Ego. I used to tell him the Ego is so powerful that you yourself do not know what it is. It is even difficult to see the dirt on your back.

It took 12 long years for me to make him understand what is Ego. Two years back when he got it, he how says what a great mistake he was making. Now when he reads the same scriptures doing same pooja the level of understanding is so profound. He sees the knwoledge of the Self shines in everything.

I wrote a lot and so will continue with further questions.

pradheep

10th October 2006, 11:50 PM

Dear Kannan
I just found this page which is almost what i write about. May be this can be one of the reference you can relate to.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm

kannannn

12th October 2006, 03:14 AM

Thanks Pradheep :) , I'll read your link. There are many points I would like to discuss, but let me keep them for another day.

Rohit

13th October 2006, 03:10 AM

My question to you is, what do you say about singularity and nothingness. Did any modern scientist say that bigbang came from nothing?
"Sunyata is not abhava or non-existence, but held to be the ultimate ground of everything, the utmost original condition of reality prior to all conceptualisation and phenomenal distortion."

"Absolute Reality is identified with Absolute Nothingness."

"Identifying reality with the field of Sunyata would entail a denial of the existence of Atman."

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When everything (Big Bang - The net energy of the entire universe is 0 - Sunya) evolves into B AND NOT A - The absolute evolution, one can realise the Ultimate Reality of B only when one attains the evolved state in B and becomes capable of true Intellectual Transcendence.

The absolute evolution of B corresponds to all 0 - the ground level - to 9 forms and levels of consciousness, while A builds its castle in air with 1 to 9 levels without the base, which is, as I have evidently proved earlier, nothing but a plagiarised subset of B.

The author of the essay makes nothing but obviously futile attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable difference between B and A. Simply because B is absolutely coded in the nature itself, while A is nothing but the plagiarised and synthetic subset of B.

:D :thumbsup:

Rohit

13th October 2006, 03:23 AM

There are no Gods outside.
There is no body, mind, intellect
There is no judgement.
There is no Ego (body, mind, intellect)
They are all inside us
All these concepts of 'inside' and 'outside' themselves affirm the confined condition of body, mind, and intellect. Beyond this body, mind, intellect, there is only Void, which alone acts the absolute barrier.

A = Not Body, but body does exist; therefore A = NOT B
A = Not Mind, but mind (as the functional description of the brain) does exist; therefore A = NOT B
A = Not Intellect, but intellect (as the cognitive process in the brain) does exist; therefore A = NOT B

When intellect itself is discarded as NOT A and the reality is derived just from a self-deceptive and confined condition of body and mind, what is the possibility of one ever going beyond the limits of any possible experience, which only is the true transcendence.

There is no God that is sitting and creating, such a God does not exist.
Meditation is not sitting with eyes' closed and seeing colourful lights.
Of course, as far as it goes for our dear friend Pradheep, meditation is nothing but sitting with eyes closed and creating Brahman/Atman/Self, which does not exist.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

13th October 2006, 04:00 AM

This is only for those who can Intellectually Transcend and realise the Absolute Reality of Void.

While the 'terribly confused Buddhists' are free to enjoy their rides in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration, as many times as they wish.

This barrier does not exist.
Even in these seven long days, the absolute failure of poor Pradheep to access the contents of my consciousness, experience and cognition as expressed in the seven questions is now concluded as follows:

1) There is only Void beyond the self-deceptive experiences, acquired under the confined meditative condition of body, mind, and intellect.

2) The universe B is without any permanent reality like Atman/Self, therefore B = NOT A

3) B = NOT A gets incontrovertibly verified.

4) There is discontinuity (Void) of Consciousness between the two of us - [A (AND) NOT A]

5) Buddha's Void does exist between us and there is no way you can access the contents of my Consciousness, experience and cognition.

6) The Advaitins are nothing but "the terribly confused Buddhist".

7) Buddhists Void is the Ultimate Reality.

Buddha realised the Absolute Reality of Void some 2500 years ago, some 1500 years before Guadapada/Adi Sankara plagiarised Buddha's teachings into Advaita, which is nothing but a castle in air, without base.

Thus, as proved earlier, Advaita is nothing but Buddhism in disguise, which collapses right to the ground as soon as it faces Buddha' Void, precisely as our dear friend Pradheep faced and couldn't access the contents of my consciousness.

The simple test has perfectly carried out its intended reality check; and also proved it again:

8) That there is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

9) That there is no such thing as 'pure consciousness' that connects everything, but there is Void which grounds the consciousness of A from accessing the contents of B's consciousness.

10) That B is devoid of any permanent reality.

The situation perfectly explained why the state [A (AND) NOT A] and B = NOT A keeps the terribly confused Buddhists like Pradheep and his associates in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration.

The reason is very simple, they cannot Transcend their Egocentric and conditioned experiences, which are confined nowhere but in their bodies and minds, which invariably leads them into such vicious cycle of cognitive degeneration.

All these happen only within the irrefutable reality of B as stated in the proof.

Not being able to grasp that Truth, is known as Egocentric Perception, which only leads the infinitesimally small fraction of B - 'the terribly confused Buddhists' - into the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration, which the outcome of the test conclusively proved.

The very condition [A (AND) NOT A] is the cause of Pradheep's utter failure to support his fallacious claims of Proof, which incontrovertibly rendered B = NOT A, which straightaway concludes that B = B and A does not exist.

:) :thumbsup:

pradheep

13th October 2006, 06:11 PM

My question to you is, what do you say about singularity and nothingness. Did any modern scientist say that bigbang came from nothing?

My Dear Rohit

I am sorry to see you in this helpless state. You could not find one single reference to support your scientific statement. Having falied to get anything all this time, finally you caught hold of a link that I supplied to Kannan who asked are there anyone who think that Advaita and Buddhism are One.

No problem in using that link, but you cunningly took the lines to misinterpret Bijoy H. Boruah, who beautifully proves my point . For our fellow readers I would like to quote what you left (in red)

Furthermore, Sunyata is not abhava or non-existence, but held to be the ultimate ground of everything, the utmost original condition of reality prior to all conceptualization and phenomenal distortion. It is characterized as pregnant emptiness, vibrant void. Cast in terms of consciousness, Sunyata is a state of pure consciousness that one would revert to if one were able to empty oneself of any illusory constructions or impressions of an unchanging or permanent reality, whether of things or persons. This reversal to original subjectivity, which also has an ethical import, may be interpreted as one's "becoming" Sunya or empty. But "becoming" Sunya does not mean going out of existence. Rather, one can truly be oneself, or become truly self-aware, only by "becoming" Sunya. Otherwise, one continues to be in an unawakened state---to be under the spell of Avidya.

Friends , you can go this link and understand what I am conveying.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm

After this you want to cover your face and so you wrote all that repetitive stements on me without giving anything sensible for our reader friends.

Rohit

13th October 2006, 06:28 PM

According to all modern scientists, the stated singularity had the dimensions of [x, y, z, t = 0], which was absolutely devoid of all forms and levels of consciousness. Precisely that, what the Emptiness or Void means. If, nothing with any consciousness existed at the time of Big Bang, the question of any modern scientist saying Big Bang came from nothing is absolutely irrelevant to the Absolute Evolution of the entire universe.

This is only for those who can Intellectually Transcend and realise the Absolute Reality of Void.

While the 'terribly confused Buddhists' are free to enjoy their rides in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration, as many times as they wish.

This barrier does not exist.
Even in these eight long days, the absolute failure of poor Pradheep to access the contents of my consciousness, experience and cognition as expressed in the seven questions is now concluded as follows:

1) There is only Void beyond the self-deceptive experiences, acquired under the confined meditative condition of body, mind, and intellect.

2) The universe B is without any permanent reality like Atman/Self, therefore B = NOT A

3) B = NOT A gets incontrovertibly verified.

4) There is discontinuity (Void) of Consciousness between the two of us - [A (AND) NOT A]

5) Buddha's Void does exist between us and there is no way you can access the contents of my Consciousness, experience and cognition.

6) The Advaitins are nothing but "the terribly confused Buddhist".

7) Buddhists Void is the Ultimate Reality.

Buddha realised the Absolute Reality of Void some 2500 years ago, some 1500 years before Guadapada/Adi Sankara plagiarised Buddha's teachings into Advaita, which is nothing but a castle in air, without base.

Thus, as proved earlier, Advaita is nothing but Buddhism in disguise, which collapses right to the ground as soon as it faces Buddha' Void, precisely as our dear friend Pradheep faced and couldn't access the contents of my consciousness.

The simple test has perfectly carried out its intended reality check; and also proved it again:

8) That there is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

9) That there is no such thing as 'pure consciousness' that connects everything, but there is Void which grounds the consciousness of A from accessing the contents of B's consciousness.

10) That B is devoid of any permanent reality.

The situation perfectly explained why the state [A (AND) NOT A] and B = NOT A keeps the terribly confused Buddhists like Pradheep and his associates in the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration.

The reason is very simple, they cannot Transcend their Egocentric and conditioned experiences, which are confined nowhere but in their bodies and minds, which invariably leads them into such vicious cycle of cognitive degeneration.

All these happen only within the irrefutable reality of B as stated in the proof.

Not being able to grasp that Truth, is known as Egocentric Perception, which only leads the infinitesimally small fraction of B - 'the terribly confused Buddhists' - into the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration, which the outcome of the test conclusively proved.

The very condition [A (AND) NOT A] is the cause of Pradheep's utter failure to support his fallacious claims of Proof, which incontrovertibly rendered B = NOT A, which straightaway concludes that B = B and A does not exist.

:) :thumbsup:

pradheep

13th October 2006, 07:42 PM

Dear Badri
Please delete copy paste posting from the thread.

Rohit,
Please dont do your childish act here. We will all pray to your soonya to help you evolve.

Rohit

13th October 2006, 07:55 PM

Here goes 'completely empty' Pradheep 'the terribly confused Buddhist" completely :x , shouting 'help, help, help.......'

Help is already at hand, only if he stops his Egocentric nonsense. So far, all his posts have revealed nothing but an Egocentric child, who is adamant to have a lollipop before yielding to the facts.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Shakthiprabha.

24th November 2006, 04:07 PM

reviving this thread.

Rohit

24th November 2006, 09:02 PM

reviving this thread.
:)

This is what the great Buddha said:

Past events decide the state of present; and the present events decide the state of future.

This what the law of cause and effect is all about. The law is universal; and therefore, it strictly applies to everything that exists. Hence, absolute nothing is exempted from the law of cause and effect.

The obvious implications of the law are:

It was in our hands to choose how to shape our present; and it is only in our hands to choose how to shape our future.

This leaves us with the dilemma of making clear and right choice from: Either to get doomed by the skewing and debasing evil forces of emotional blackmails; or rise to the challenges of life with clear and firm resolve.

:D :) :thumbsup:

goodsense

24th November 2006, 11:32 PM

A question I had in mind over the last week(s) - who "administers" all forms of cause and effect and at all times? I can understand some form need not be administered, but can we say the same for all forms? Or is there different types of administration. For example, we know if we walk into fire we will get burn. What about our secret misdeeds or good deeds from the mind to our action which is not known to any other person? Food for thought. Will come back.

This question is probably more appropriate for a thread like - does God exist, but it is also relevant here where we are talking about "cause and effect".

Rohit

25th November 2006, 03:31 AM

Like I said, nothing is exempted from the law of cause and effect. Therefore, not even God can be exempted from the law of causality; and the implication of this is, there is no God; whether personal or impersonal, whether local or transcendental; there simply is no such entity or its equivalent.

However, if the law of causality has to break down at some point/level and allow exemptions, which it does at quantum level; then, there is absolutely no reason for not accepting the universe as coming into existence, absolutely uncaused. Once, the universe comes into being, the process of cause and effect too comes into operation, which is then followed by the evolution of life through long natural processes, catalysing and enhancing the whole process of cause and effect, precisely as observed and understood.

Evolution of life is a long natural process by which unconscious elements evolve into conscious entities; conscious entities into aware entities and when there is a right level of awareness, one gets equipped with the ability to make clear distinctions between the multitudes of choices and dichotomies.

A question I had in mind over the last week(s) - who "administers" all forms of cause and effect and at all times?
The answer to the above question is simple; there is absolutely no one.

Nonetheless, before raising such questions, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have said above, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

I really get very disappointed when I read or hear a Hindu writing or talking about the first cause. It simply shows how uninformed and shallow these Hindus really are. Since, Hinduism doesn't apply the law of causality when it comes to explain the origin of the universe and life; such allusions to the first cause become absolutely meaningless, irrespective of the premise used.

Since, most believers; in fact all believers, fail to consider or grasp all the possibilities, situations and conditions; and hence, all their arguments for the first cause simply reduce to the fallacies of false dichotomy.

If either the univere or its contents or both are assumed to be administered by another entity, then that entity itself would require to be administered even more by a third entity, which itself would required to be administered by a fourth one, which by a fifth one, which by a sixth one, seventh one, eighth one....... the chain of such entities requied to be administered by yet another higher entity would go to infinity, requiring a set of an infinite number of such entities, either within or outside the boundaries of the universe; and the existence of all of them would be contingent to the other, higher administrators; and yet, none of them could ever exist absolutely necessarily. There is no single entity that one could point to and say; yes, this is the one that must exist absolutely necessarily, without which the whole universe with all its contents would collapse and fail to function.

The situation captured above is only a partial dichotomy. The dichotomy extends even further, if one considers both the material as well as efficient cause of the universe. There are billions of believers who believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Creator God, who is not only the efficient cause but also the material cause of the entire universe and its contents - The first cause. Whereby it is believed that the universe and life did not exist eternally, but they were created at some point in time in the past by a Creator God. The stated system of a Creator God not only makes the need for the so-called 'Administrator' absolutely unnecessary, but in principle, it also refutes the entire belief system of Hinduism.

The dichotomy doesn't end there, it goes even further. The argument given for the chain of administrative entities also applies to the Creator God, requiring a chain of infinite number of Creator Gods; Supreme Gods and so on to create lower Gods or gods; and yet there can be no God that could exist absolutely necessarily.

There is a fundamental difference between an infinite series of numbers and the series of Gods.

The series, involving infinite numbers, does not collapse when one fails to provide the highest number that the series must contain. Whatever the highest number one can guess, one can always add one more to it and the highest number no longer remains the highest. One always falls short by one in guessing the highest number of the series; whatever one guesses, there is always one less. Even when the highest number of the series may never exist, the series does not collapse.

Such is not the case when it comes to the series of Gods. Without a definite existence of the Highest God, all Gods would remain in utter disarray or disorder and none wouldn't be able to administer themselves in the first place, forget about administering the universe and its contents. This is what the absolute necessity for the existence of the Highest God means, without which the whole concept of God instantly collapses.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Similarly the need for some 'Administrator' would also lead to the same conclusion. Without the existence of the Highest Administrative Agency, which by default cannot exist, as there is always one short at the highest level who, from the premise itself, should be the source of all administrative orders. Ironically, there is no end to the series; and the one that must exist absolutely necessarily, sadly can never exist, while the very premise requires one, without which the whole concept of 'Administrator' instantly collapses.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest 'Administrator' than which Higher 'Administrator' is not needed, making the whole 'Administrator' system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Such variances in belief systems come from uncertainties and uncertainties from randomness, guess works and illusions. There simply is no such order; neither of a God nor of an Administrator that the believers wishfully think and believe. It is only their chosen beliefs that bring such waves of randomness, guess works and illusions. And yes, what they say, certainly amounts to randomness, guess works and illusions, only worthy for self-deceptions and amusements.

If one's understanding restricts one to grasp the full extent of dichotomies; then, there is absolutely nothing one can do to help them. However, what I personally can do is, not to enter into futile arguments with them; but let them continue with their chosen belief or beliefs.

So, failing to consider all possibilities, conditions and situations; the arguments for both, an Administrative Agency and God, become nothing more than the fallacies of false dichotomy.

The only valid conclusion that can be drawn safely is; the universe, with all it contents and behaviours, whether perfect or not, as it is, is a closed, self-contained and self-regulating system, even when its boundaries change through expansion. There exists absolutely nothing, other than the universe itself that is absolutely necessary to administer and/or order the universe and its contents.

I leave it entirely up to the readers to figure out the implications of any further, extended versions of the fallacies of false dichotomy; and let others to continue discussing the intended topic "KARMA-The free will Vs VIDHI-The fate" from their own perspectives.

:D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

1st December 2006, 07:06 AM

However, if the law of causality has to break down at some point/level and allow exemptions, which it does at quantum level...

The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He does not throw dice.

--Einstein, writing to Max Born, 4 December 1926.

pradheep

1st December 2006, 08:50 AM

[tscii:214924f0d6] “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Max Planck quotes (German theoretical Physicist who originated quantum theory, 1858-1947)

Dear SRS
Max also said that Consciousness is the ultimate reality which is not the phenomenon of the brain.

All religions talk about the same truth, only Hindusim explains that the absolute cause.

There is the absolute and the relative. The relative is viewed as the cause and effect. But the absolute is without a cause and effect.

Look at anything, for example, space, is absolute and all objects in it are relative. All materials are only relative to space. Example a pot in space. Relatively speaking pot occupies space, but space is abolsute, everything is in space. This is why shiva is explained as space , the absolute and sakthi the energy, the relative. But this space is only the awareness aspect. Who (what) created space?. It is from consciousness, the absolute.

Consciousness is absolute which does not undergo any change. But all others are realtive and undergo changes and so are bound to cause and effect (Karma).

For the ego mind everything is relative and so the Ego mind undergoes cause and effect and is driven in the wheel of karma. A mind that has treanscended the Ego is in the absolute consciousness, which is moksha or nirvana or salvation.[/tscii:214924f0d6]

Rohit

1st December 2006, 09:30 PM

For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

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.

In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all be a sheep oneself.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie, which is being systematically repeated.

Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.

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

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events.

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.

The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism.

Albert Einstein

Rohit

1st December 2006, 09:46 PM

Time's up. The game is over. It is time to read and enjoy all forms of fallacies; and have fun.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep

3rd December 2006, 07:11 PM

[tscii:2438e65730]

There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction... The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad.

Erwin Schrödinger - Nobel prizw winner -pHysics[/tscii:2438e65730]

Rohit

3rd December 2006, 08:40 PM

And Schrodinger Wept

A novice came to Schroedinger, and asked, "Master, does a cat possess the Buddha nature?"

Schroedinger answered, "Mu", and beat the novice with his stick.

Months later, the novice came to Schroedinger again, and said, "Master, if I seal a cat in a box, with the possibility of the cat being killed by poison gas, and do not open the box, does the cat possess the Buddha nature?"

Once more, Schroedinger answered "Mu", and struck the novice with his stick.

Months after this, the novice came to Schroedinger a third time, and said, "Master, I performed the experiment I spoke of, opened the box, and the cat was dead. Does the cat possess the Buddha nature?"

And Schroedinger wept. At that moment, the novice was enlightened.

Rohit

3rd December 2006, 08:57 PM

If there is only empty space, with no suns nor planets in it, then space loses its substantiality. - Buddha

The concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. – Albert Einstein

SRS

4th December 2006, 05:03 AM

Max also said that Consciousness is the ultimate reality which is not the phenomenon of the brain.

No doubt, my friend Pradheep. As we have discussed many times on this forum, atoms and the elements from which they derive are lifeless. These atoms have been thoroughly investigated; they have been brought together in collisions (to create unusual new particles) and they have been split as well. The structure has been verified with absolute certainty. But none has been able to find a grain of "consciousness" in any of these investigations. If the physical manifestation (the organic body) functions on the basis of chemical reactions, and these chemical reactions are atomic in nature, and most of these chemical reactions can be replicated in a lab, then one is left to draw only two conclusions: (I) either the chemical reaction for consciousness is yet to be found, or (II) consciousness does indeed lie outside the brain, and therefore no physical stimulus can be associated with it. The difference between you,me, Max Planck and Rohit, is that all of us except Rohit understand this phenomenon of consciousness is not just a mechanistic process obeying some mathematical law, but defies the very human conception itself.

Look at anything, for example, space, is absolute and all objects in it are relative. All materials are only relative to space. Example a pot in space. Relatively speaking pot occupies space, but space is abolsute, everything is in space. This is why shiva is explained as space , the absolute and sakthi the energy, the relative. But this space is only the awareness aspect. Who (what) created space?. It is from consciousness, the absolute.

Space is also infinite. This is important, since if one considers that space is infinite, it also has infinite mass and energy. So even if one believes in this "Big Bang", he is also implying that he believes the Universe was created with an infinite amount of mass and energy. Regardless of what one believes, creation of the Universe began with an energy source. And that energy source must have been a constant according to the thermodynamic laws. And if this was the only energy source that existed at one point, then all other forms of energy that came later must have come from this singular energy source (e.g. in the form of interconversion of energy). This is in agreement with what you say, that there can be only one original energy source. If there were more, then we would witness parallel universes.

Rohit

5th December 2006, 01:06 AM

Facts:

1. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of the wheel of becoming. :)

2. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

3. Everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect.

4. Everything that exists is subject to change; nothing remains without change.

5. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. :)

6. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

7. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

8. All conscious beings have structures; and they constantly change. :)

9. There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

10. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

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

Now, it is time to just read and enjoy all forms of dissonance-ridden fallacies; and have fun.

SRS

5th December 2006, 05:15 AM

6. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

7. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

Then it is wrong for Buddhists to deny the existence of a soul. How can rebirth be possible without a soul? It goes without saying, of course, that Buddhists don't deny rebirth; otherwise this question would not be relevent.

Rohit

5th December 2006, 01:03 PM

There is no "essence" that passes over from one habitation to another. As one flame of candle is lit from another, so is life transmitted, but not a life itself, nor the one itself. - Buddha

Scientifically speaking, rebirth in Buddhism is nothing more than the birth of new generations through genetic transmission - like a burning candle used to lit another candle before being extinguished. This is what the rebirth of 'Mind' is.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep

5th December 2006, 05:51 PM

[tscii:6554ed7596]consciousness does indeed lie outside the brain, and therefore no physical stimulus can be associated with it.

Everything is only Consciousness, which is not a “thing”. All “things” are only Consciousness.

Those who say that Consciousness is not in atoms and molecules , but only is a brain function, then miss the Truth that the very brain is nothing but a bunch of atoms and molecules.

Brain is not an empty space but interacting atoms. With that interaction what these atoms “Self reveal” (manifest) is the very essence of Consciousness”. Let us take simple example of dissolving Sodium hydroxide in water in a glass beaker. They interact with water and produce heat. Can we say heat is a function of the glass beaker?. Can some one deny that heat is not present in the atoms of water and sodium hydroxide?.

Heat is of course present in every atoms, but in a unmanifested form. Heat is manifested when the atoms reacts suitably to manifest it. Before the reaction heat was just energy form.

Each and every atom has that potential un-manifested energy. This unmanifested energy cannot be seen until the atoms get a suitable environment. Just because they don’t manifest in the suitable environment , it doe not deny its inherent potential.

Any “thing” that is gross is only a manifestation of the “un-manifested” subtle. Matter is only manifested subtle “Energy”. Now this Energy is the expression of the subtle un-manifested XXX. So the XXX is the most subtlest un-manifest which then manifest as energy , which then manifest as matter. This XXX is what we are proving that exists. Is there anything wrong in this?
[/tscii:6554ed7596]

SRS

5th December 2006, 10:39 PM

There is no "essence"[/b] that passes over from one habitation to another. As one flame of candle is lit from another, so is life transmitted, but not a life itself, nor the one itself. - Buddha

Scientifically speaking, rebirth in Buddhism is nothing more than the birth of new generations through genetic transmission - like a burning candle used to lit another candle before being extinguished. This is what the rebirth of 'Mind' is.

There is no mention of the word "gene" in Buddhism.

The Six Realms

The doctrine of rebirth in Buddhism stems from the Buddha's own enlightenment experience. As he meditated under the Bodhi tree he came to perceive his previous rebirths - thousands in fact - and also that all beings were subject to rebirth. The place and nature of that rebirth was governed by their deeds. Good actions led to good rebirths (as a human being, for example) and bad actions led to bad rebirths (as a hell being, for example). Traditional teaching has it that there are six realms of existence into which one can be reborn. Thus you can be reborn as a hell being, a 'hungry' ghost, an animal, a human being, a jealous god and a heavenly being. The most precious of these is seen to be the human birth as this gives the best opportunities for winning enlightenment. A heavenly being is too absorbed in pleasure to think about winning enlightenment. Unlike Christianity, Buddhism sees these states as ultimately temporary. A god, therefore, will eventually descend into one of the lower realms.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa071602a.htm

Rohit

6th December 2006, 12:48 AM

From the same site

The Self

What is unique about Buddhism, however, compared to other religions is that it argues that there is no such thing as a permanent self. If this is the case how can the self that I regard as me continue its existence in a new rebirth? Buddhism does not deny the existence of a self as such, what it does deny is the existence of a permanent self that transmigrates from one existence to the next like someone getting out of one cab and entering another. The self is seen to be made up of five factors and that these are ever changing. The new consciousness that emerges in the new rebirth is neither the same nor totally different from the previous one. It is best to see the self from the Buddhist perspective as a continuum, rather than something that is static and sharply defined.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa071602a.htm

Which is exactly what I have said. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations.

It is also very important to grasp; that in Buddhism, the self and consciousness are not treated as the one and the same thing. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual byproduct of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness. Nonetheless, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing. Therefore; the statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

The conception and gene transmission, precisely as I have mentioned, is a more scientific representation of this view.

The same thing is unanimously declared by The World Buddhists Sangha.

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).

Source: Walpola Rahula; The Heritage of the Bhikkhu; (New York, Grove Press, 1974); pp. 100, 1137-138.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahaya na

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/basicpoints.html

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, it is time to just read and enjoy all forms of dissonance-ridden fallacies; and have fun. :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:

SRS

6th December 2006, 05:26 AM

I am not talking about the "self." I am talking specifically about rebirth. Why don't you stick to the topic? The article below clearly states that Buddhists believe a human can be reborn as an animal. This is in absolute contradiction to all the arguments you have made so far in regards to Buddhism, irrespective of font color, font style, font size, laughing smiley face, thumbs up smiley face, victory smiley face, and all other attempts to deny the basic facts. Now once again, I will repeat for the benefit of the readers:

The article clearly states humans can be reborn as animals. There is no scientific evidence to validate this claim. If consciousness is critical to rebirth, then this is proof that consciousness has no physical organic stimulus.

The Six Realms

The doctrine of rebirth in Buddhism stems from the Buddha's own enlightenment experience. As he meditated under the Bodhi tree he came to perceive his previous rebirths - thousands in fact - and also that all beings were subject to rebirth. The place and nature of that rebirth was governed by their deeds. Good actions led to good rebirths (as a human being, for example) and bad actions led to bad rebirths (as a hell being, for example). Traditional teaching has it that there are six realms of existence into which one can be reborn. Thus you can be reborn as a hell being, a 'hungry' ghost, an animal, a human being, a jealous god and a heavenly being. The most precious of these is seen to be the human birth as this gives the best opportunities for winning enlightenment. A heavenly being is too absorbed in pleasure to think about winning enlightenment. Unlike Christianity, Buddhism sees these states as ultimately temporary. A god, therefore, will eventually descend into one of the lower realms.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa071602a.htm

Rohit

6th December 2006, 12:49 PM

The answer is still the same: :lol: :lol: :lol:

From the same site

The Self

What is unique about Buddhism, however, compared to other religions is that it argues that there is no such thing as a permanent self. If this is the case how can the self that I regard as me continue its existence in a new rebirth? Buddhism does not deny the existence of a self as such, what it does deny is the existence of a permanent self that transmigrates from one existence to the next like someone getting out of one cab and entering another. The self is seen to be made up of five factors and that these are ever changing. The new consciousness that emerges in the new rebirth is neither the same nor totally different from the previous one. It is best to see the self from the Buddhist perspective as a continuum, rather than something that is static and sharply defined.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa071602a.htm

Which is exactly what I have said. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations.

It is also very important to grasp; that in Buddhism, the self and consciousness are not treated as the one and the same thing. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual byproduct of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness. Nonetheless, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing. Therefore; the statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

The conception and gene transmission, precisely as I have mentioned, is a more scientific representation of this view.

The same thing is unanimously declared by The World Buddhists Sangha.

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).

Source: Walpola Rahula; The Heritage of the Bhikkhu; (New York, Grove Press, 1974); pp. 100, 1137-138.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahaya na

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/basicpoints.html

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, it is time to just read and enjoy all forms of dissonance-ridden fallacies; and have fun. :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:

SRS

6th December 2006, 09:17 PM

The conception and gene transmission, precisely as I have mentioned, is a more scientific representation of this view.

There is nothing in genetics that says a person's next rebirth will be decided on the basis of his or her actions in this life. There is nothing in genetics that says a human will be reborn as an animal in the next life.

The fundamental question that Rohit is avoiding here is the question of how a human can be reborn as an animal? It is not as simple as saying the body decays, and new matter is formed from the decaying particles (so-called aggregate theory). Because as the article very clearly says, it is the person's actions that decide what he will be become in the next life. Science does not need deal with questions of morality; there is no "good" and "bad."

And what about when a person is no longer reborn. This is a clear violation of the laws of energy conservation and matter.

Note: These are not my personal views/opinions. I am just pointing out the obvious. For example, how can Buddhism be called "scientific" if a person is longer reborn. The point is to understand that science is itself limited, and science itself acknowledges this. No one should be decieved.

SRS

7th December 2006, 02:00 AM

[quote] The conception and gene transmission, precisely as I have mentioned, is a more scientific representation of this view.

There is nothing in genetics that says a person's next rebirth will be decided on the basis of his or her actions in this life. There is nothing in genetics that says a human will be reborn as an animal in the next life.

The fundamental question that Rohit is avoiding here is the question of how a human can be reborn as an animal? It is not as simple as saying the body decays, and new matter is formed from the decaying particles (so-called aggregate theory). Because as the article very clearly says, it is the person's actions that decide what he will be become in the next life. Science does not deal with questions of morality; there is no "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong" in science.

And what about when a person is no longer reborn? This is a clear violation of the laws of energy conservation and matter.

Note: I am just pointing out the obvious here. For example, how can Buddhism be called "scientific" if a person is longer reborn. The point is to understand that science is itself limited, and science itself acknowledges this. No one should be decieved.

Rohit

7th December 2006, 02:27 AM

There is no avoidance here, none whatsoever. However; there is total reliance on fallacies at the other end. The false sense of avoidance there is a direct consequence of the sheer inability to comprehend and grasp simple texts. :)

Let me reiterate:

Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one; like a chain of candles; one lit from another; and yet, they all are different. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

How and why no new ones are born without violating anything?

1. When there are miscarriages, no new ones are born.

2. When there is extinction, no next generation is born. There are millions of species that have gone extinct. A few examples are:

Ankylosaur, Brontosaurus, Dodo, Dunkleosteus, Eryops Megacephalus, Gastric-Brooding Frog, Golden Toad, Heath Hen, Helicoprion, Javanese Lapwing, Labrador Duck, Leopard Frog, Marbled Toadlet, Maryland Darter, Megatherium, Mountain Mist Frog, Neanderthal, Parasaurolophus, Phantom Shiner, Plesiosaur, Pucapampella, Pyrenean Ibex, Quagga, Red Colobus Monkey, Rodrigues Pigeon, Round Island Burrowing Boa, Stumptooth Minnow, Thicktail Chub, Thylacine, Tonga Ground Skink, White-Winged Sandpiper, Wooly Mammoth, Wooly Rhino, Yunnan Box Turtle; and all prehistoric mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes

3. When one withdraws from the reproduction cycle of life, no new ones are born.

And there are more than these three examples or reasons to grasp how and why no new ones are born without violating anything.

Therefore, violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

Furthermore, whoever holds that Buddhism contradicts their beliefs; let them hold that view; simply because Buddhism is absolutely unique in that respect; and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science. However, I would strongly ask those who are confused and frustrated about their own positions to check the validity and legitimacy of their own beliefs; and acknowledge the sheer contradictions that exist among their own beliefs, which are nothing but the products of their minds.

Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life. That is why, there are no gods. However, there are many claims around for the existence of ghosts.

That is all there is to it; nothing more, nothing less.

Therefore, the answer is still the same: :lol: :lol: :lol:

From the same site

The Self

What is unique about Buddhism, however, compared to other religions is that it argues that there is no such thing as a permanent self. If this is the case how can the self that I regard as me continue its existence in a new rebirth? Buddhism does not deny the existence of a self as such, what it does deny is the existence of a permanent self that transmigrates from one existence to the next like someone getting out of one cab and entering another. The self is seen to be made up of five factors and that these are ever changing. The new consciousness that emerges in the new rebirth is neither the same nor totally different from the previous one. It is best to see the self from the Buddhist perspective as a continuum, rather than something that is static and sharply defined.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa071602a.htm

Which is exactly what I have said. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations.

It is also very important to grasp; that in Buddhism, the self and consciousness are not treated as the one and the same thing. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual byproduct of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness. Nonetheless, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing. Therefore; the statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

The conception and gene transmission, precisely as I have mentioned, is a more scientific representation of this view.

The same thing is unanimously declared by The World Buddhists Sangha.

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).

Source: Walpola Rahula; The Heritage of the Bhikkhu; (New York, Grove Press, 1974); pp. 100, 1137-138.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahaya na

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/basicpoints.html

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, it is time to just read and enjoy all forms of dissonance-ridden fallacies; and have fun. :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:

SRS

8th December 2006, 12:51 AM

How and why no new ones are born without violating anything?

1. When there are miscarriages, no new ones are born.

A miscarriage does not violate the laws of conservation and energy. However, to say that those who reach Nibbana (the highest state of conciousnessness possible in Buddhism) are reborn in the next life as fetuses who miscarry is rather ridiculous.

2. When there is extinction, no next generation is born. There are millions of species that have gone extinct. A few examples are:

Ankylosaur, Brontosaurus, Dodo, Dunkleosteus, Eryops Megacephalus, Gastric-Brooding Frog, Golden Toad, Heath Hen, Helicoprion, Javanese Lapwing, Labrador Duck, Leopard Frog, Marbled Toadlet, Maryland Darter, Megatherium, Mountain Mist Frog, Neanderthal, Parasaurolophus, Phantom Shiner, Plesiosaur, Pucapampella, Pyrenean Ibex, Quagga, Red Colobus Monkey, Rodrigues Pigeon, Round Island Burrowing Boa, Stumptooth Minnow, Thicktail Chub, Thylacine, Tonga Ground Skink, White-Winged Sandpiper, Wooly Mammoth, Wooly Rhino, Yunnan Box Turtle; and all prehistoric mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes

The above implies that evolution is the driving force behind rebirth. This is wrong for several reasons. Even the Buddhist doctrines assert that karma, not evolution, is the driving force. It is karma that decides what you will be in your next birth. The basis of evolution is genetics. Genetics relies on the interaction of random mutations with the environment. If you are born with certain physical characteristics that allow you to survive well in a certain environment, then you are likely to produce more offspring than another person who is born with characteristics that don't match well with the environment. Over time, your gene's will become dominant. However the process is entirely reversible. No one can predict how the environment will change. Dominant genes today can become recessive genes tomorrow. This is why evolution is a random process. Buddhism tells us that rebirth is not a random process. Your next rebirth will be upon the basis of your actions in this life (the moral decisions you make). It will NOT be based on random genetic mutations.

Now continuing, the dinosaurs did not become extinct for reasons of karma. Therefore, Buddhism cannot be used to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. I would also point out, some of the reasons why species go extinct, none of which are based on karma:

1. Reproductive isolation

2. Natural disaster (asteroid crashed into the Earth, killing all the dinosaurs)

3. Predators (for example, Bengal Tiger has been hunted and hunted so many times, there are very few left)

One can clearly see the connection between the above three and the environment. If an asteroid did not crash into the Earth with such force, the dinosaurs would still be here. If the Bengal Tiger lived in the bottom of the sea, it would not be in danger of going extinct.

When one withdraws from the reproduction cycle of life, no new ones are born.

If one goes by the scientific theory, when one dies, the physical body will become a decaying corpse. One will become nutrients that are then digested by microorganisms. If one goes by the Buddhist theory, one's karma in this life and all the lives before, will decide whether one is reborn into a higher or lower state. However, I do not think that if one has reached the highest state, he will be reborn in any form into the material world. His "consciousness" goes elsewhere. Science cannot account for this consciousness. Science can only account for the decaying corpse that one leaves behind. There is no violation in that science has nothing to say about life after death. However, Buddhism takes a dramatically different approach, clearly stating that karma will decide the next rebirth, a concept which cannot be scientifically proved or disproved.

Rohit

8th December 2006, 03:56 AM

Sadly, the sheer inability to comprehend and grasp simple texts evidently continues to persist there.

Adaptation is the driving force behind evolution. For adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for knowledge and/or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions on individual's part and/or on group/society/civilisation/nation's part are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

Only with scientific approach it is possible to detect an asteroid approaching the Earth and predict whether it is likely to crash into the Earth or not. Only with scientific approach and methods, such catastrophes can be prevented; and so can be prevented the repetition of such mass extinction, which animals like dinosaurs couldn’t do and faced the catastrophic consequences. So, the mass extinction of the past is the clearest possible evidence of the evolutionary process.

Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing envoronment; which is nothing but collective bad karma, entail bad consequences. Similar to the Indian failures to adapt to the demands of the time that resulted in waves after waves of foreign invasions of India, which resulted in subhuman and destitute conditions of hundreds of millions of Indian lives, the suffering on a massive scale for generations to come. Millions and millions died of starvation and malnutrition without reproducing.

Therefore; no matter how much effort have been put in searching the web and posting the 'cut and paste' with a distorted view of the whole thing, nothing is violated when no new ones are born. Hence, the answers is still the same.

Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one; like a chain of candles; one lit from another; and yet, they all are different. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

How and why no new ones are born without violating anything?

1. When there are miscarriages, no new ones are born.

2. When there is extinction, no next generation is born. There are millions of species that have gone extinct. A few examples are:

Ankylosaur, Brontosaurus, Dodo, Dunkleosteus, Eryops Megacephalus, Gastric-Brooding Frog, Golden Toad, Heath Hen, Helicoprion, Javanese Lapwing, Labrador Duck, Leopard Frog, Marbled Toadlet, Maryland Darter, Megatherium, Mountain Mist Frog, Neanderthal, Parasaurolophus, Phantom Shiner, Plesiosaur, Pucapampella, Pyrenean Ibex, Quagga, Red Colobus Monkey, Rodrigues Pigeon, Round Island Burrowing Boa, Stumptooth Minnow, Thicktail Chub, Thylacine, Tonga Ground Skink, White-Winged Sandpiper, Wooly Mammoth, Wooly Rhino, Yunnan Box Turtle; and all prehistoric mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes

3. When one withdraws from the reproduction cycle of life, no new ones are born.

And there are more than these three examples or reasons to grasp how and why no new ones are born without violating anything.

Therefore, violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

Furthermore, whoever holds that Buddhism contradicts their beliefs; let them hold that view; simply because Buddhism is absolutely unique in that respect; and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science. However, I would strongly ask those who are confused and frustrated about their own positions to check the validity and legitimacy of their own beliefs; and acknowledge the sheer contradictions that exist among their own beliefs, which are nothing but the products of their minds.

Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life. That is why, there are no gods. However, there are many claims around for the existence of ghosts.

That is all there is to it; nothing more, nothing less.

Therefore, the answer is still the same: :lol: :lol: :lol:

From the same site

The Self

What is unique about Buddhism, however, compared to other religions is that it argues that there is no such thing as a permanent self. If this is the case how can the self that I regard as me continue its existence in a new rebirth? Buddhism does not deny the existence of a self as such, what it does deny is the existence of a permanent self that transmigrates from one existence to the next like someone getting out of one cab and entering another. The self is seen to be made up of five factors and that these are ever changing. The new consciousness that emerges in the new rebirth is neither the same nor totally different from the previous one. It is best to see the self from the Buddhist perspective as a continuum, rather than something that is static and sharply defined.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa071602a.htm

Which is exactly what I have said. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations.

It is also very important to grasp; that in Buddhism, the self and consciousness are not treated as the one and the same thing. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual byproduct of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness. Nonetheless, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing. Therefore; the statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

The conception and gene transmission, precisely as I have mentioned, is a more scientific representation of this view.

The same thing is unanimously declared by The World Buddhists Sangha.

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).

Source: Walpola Rahula; The Heritage of the Bhikkhu; (New York, Grove Press, 1974); pp. 100, 1137-138.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahaya na

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/basicpoints.html

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, it is time to just read and enjoy all forms of dissonance-ridden fallacies; and have fun. :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:

SRS

8th December 2006, 10:28 AM

Adaptation is the driving force behind evolution. For adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for knowledge and/or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions on individual's part and/or on group/society/civilisation/nation's part are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

Your desperation is becoming quite evident here. Karma is not a group effort. Each individual is responsible for his or her actions. Others can help but the final choice of what action to take is left up to the individual themselves. On the other hand, evolution only affects populations, not isolated organisms. A single organism does not evolve; only an entire population of organisms evolves. Rebirth in Buddhism does not refer to groups of individuals being born at the same time. Only one at a time is born. Therefore, from this simple observation, one can easily see that rebirth and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

There is also only one definition of karma according to the Buddhist literature. It has nothing to do with adaptation of any sort. This is the definition:

"Kamma literally means 'action' and refers to the process by which our moral actions have consequences for us in the future. "
http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/BasicsKarma.htm

Karma is entirely independent of the environment. One does not gain good karma simply by being in a "correct" environment. On the other hand, one can be born into a very "wrong" environment, but can easily improve himself.

The whole point of Buddhism is to train the mind such that an individual can fully detach himself from the material and ultimately organic (his own self) environment. According to Buddhism, the material world (the only world that the five human senses can percieve) is based on suffering (dukkha). Therefore, it does not make sense for an individual to adapt himself to the environment, as per the normal sense of the word adaptation.

On the other hand, it is absolutely impossible to seperate evolution from the environment. Evolution is all about survival of the fittest. If there were only two species of animals on the planet, T-Rex Dinosaur and kangaroo's, the environment, and correspondingly, in the long-term, evolution, would favor the dinosaur. Assume that T-Rex is a predator (a carnivore) and it also eats plants. Now let us assume that, for whatever reason, the dinosaurs ate most of the kangaroo's. The population of dinosaur's would exceed by far the population of kangaroo's. The environment has clearly favored the dinosaur, reflected in the fact that the dinosaur population is far greater than the population of kangaroos. Anyone can see this has nothing to do with karma. The dinosaur population did not exceed the kangaroo population because of karma. So I will say it again, there is no connection whatsoever between evolution and rebirth, since there is no connection between karma and the environment.

Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing envoronment; which is nothing but collective bad karma, entail bad consequences. Similar to the Indian failures to adapt to the demands of the time that resulted in waves after waves of foreign invasions of India, which resulted in subhuman and destitute conditions of hundreds of millions of Indian lives, the suffering on a massive scale for generations to come. Millions and millions died of starvation and malnutrition without reproducing.

Evolution is based on survival of the fittest. Karma is based on right and wrong choices. Anyone can put a gun to another's head and rob him at gun-point. In modern society, we call this criminal behavior. Obviously, it is also bad karma.

Therefore; no matter how much effort have been put in searching the web and posting the 'cut and paste' with a distorted view of the whole thing, nothing is violated when no new ones are born. Hence, the answers is still the same.

Unlike you, I do not make false connections between concept A and concept B. Others can judge the accuracy of what I have written here rather easily as my arguments do not rely on "fuzzy" logic, smiley faces, and large font size.

Rohit

8th December 2006, 01:00 PM

Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time. The judgment and principle of constant changes in everything (interdependently as well as collectively) is central to Buddhism; and that includes changes in environment; and that is an undeniable fact. No one has any reason to react in isolation in the absence of environmental factors, either internal or external. Such conditions do not exist; and therefore, such imaginary events do not occur in reality. Otherwise, Buddha would not have taught what he taught; and would have blindly stuck to the old, baseless and fallacious beliefs; but he did not, but categorically rejected them as utterly delusional and wrong beliefs. That was his moral as well as rational judgement, which detrimentally affected the existing delusional beliefs of the time and eventually the entire world for the better; and it continues to do so even today. The suffering due to those unpleasant changes and the effects that they have produced are still evidently present in the behaviours of all 'the terribly confused Buddhists', driving them :x

Therefore, the dissonance-ridden fallacies posted from there bear no capacity to produce any effect; none whatsoever. :)

Therefore; the sheer inability to comprehend and grasp simple texts is evident and it continues to persist there.

Adaptation is the driving force behind evolution. For adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for knowledge and/or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions on individual's part and/or on group/society/civilisation/nation's part are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

Only with scientific approach it is possible to detect an asteroid approaching the Earth and predict whether it is likely to crash onto the Earth or not. Only with scientific approach and methods, such catastrophes can be prevented by deflecting the trajectory of the asteroid or destroying it; and so can be prevented the repetition of such mass extinction, which animals like dinosaurs couldn’t do and faced the catastrophic consequences. So, the mass extinction of the past is the clearest possible evidence of the evolutionary process.

Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing envoronment; which is nothing but collective bad karma, entail bad consequences. Similar to the Indian failures to adapt to the demands of the time that resulted in waves after waves of foreign invasions of India, which resulted in subhuman and destitute conditions of hundreds of millions of Indian lives, the suffering on a massive scale for generations to come. Millions and millions died of starvation and malnutrition without reproducing.

Therefore; no matter how much effort have been put in searching the web and posting the 'cut and paste' with a distorted view of the whole thing, they have none whatsoever effect. Hence, the answers is still the same.

Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one; like a chain of candles; one lit from another; and yet, they all are different. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

How and why no new ones are born without violating anything?

1. When there are miscarriages, no new ones are born.

2. When there is extinction, no next generation is born. There are millions of species that have gone extinct. A few examples are:

Ankylosaur, Brontosaurus, Dodo, Dunkleosteus, Eryops Megacephalus, Gastric-Brooding Frog, Golden Toad, Heath Hen, Helicoprion, Javanese Lapwing, Labrador Duck, Leopard Frog, Marbled Toadlet, Maryland Darter, Megatherium, Mountain Mist Frog, Neanderthal, Parasaurolophus, Phantom Shiner, Plesiosaur, Pucapampella, Pyrenean Ibex, Quagga, Red Colobus Monkey, Rodrigues Pigeon, Round Island Burrowing Boa, Stumptooth Minnow, Thicktail Chub, Thylacine, Tonga Ground Skink, White-Winged Sandpiper, Wooly Mammoth, Wooly Rhino, Yunnan Box Turtle; and all prehistoric mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes

3. When one withdraws from the reproduction cycle of life, no new ones are born.

And there are more than these three examples or reasons to grasp how and why no new ones are born without violating anything.

Therefore, violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

Furthermore, whoever holds that Buddhism contradicts their beliefs; let them hold that view; simply because Buddhism is absolutely unique in that respect; and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science. However, I would strongly ask those who are confused and frustrated about their own positions to check the validity and legitimacy of their own beliefs; and acknowledge the sheer contradictions that exist among their own beliefs, which are nothing but the products of their minds.

Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life. That is why, there are no gods. However, there are many claims around for the existence of ghosts.

That is all there is to it; nothing more, nothing less.

Therefore, the answer is still the same: :lol: :lol: :lol:

From the same site

The Self

What is unique about Buddhism, however, compared to other religions is that it argues that there is no such thing as a permanent self. If this is the case how can the self that I regard as me continue its existence in a new rebirth? Buddhism does not deny the existence of a self as such, what it does deny is the existence of a permanent self that transmigrates from one existence to the next like someone getting out of one cab and entering another. The self is seen to be made up of five factors and that these are ever changing. The new consciousness that emerges in the new rebirth is neither the same nor totally different from the previous one. It is best to see the self from the Buddhist perspective as a continuum, rather than something that is static and sharply defined.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa071602a.htm

Which is exactly what I have said. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations.

It is also very important to grasp; that in Buddhism, the self and consciousness are not treated as the one and the same thing. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual byproduct of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness. Nonetheless, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing. Therefore; the statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

The conception and gene transmission, precisely as I have mentioned, is a more scientific representation of this view.

The same thing is unanimously declared by The World Buddhists Sangha.

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).

Source: Walpola Rahula; The Heritage of the Bhikkhu; (New York, Grove Press, 1974); pp. 100, 1137-138.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahaya na

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/basicpoints.html

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

8th December 2006, 10:48 PM

Time's up. The game is over. No need to carryon entertaining the flood of dissonance-ridden fallacies.

It is time to just summarise facts.

Facts:

1. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of the wheel of becoming. :)

2. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

3. Everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect.

4. Everything that exists is subject to change; nothing remains without change.

5. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. :)

6. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

7. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

8. All conscious beings have structures; and they constantly change. :)

9. There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

10. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

11. Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time.

12. Adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for rational knowledge or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions from individuals, groups, institutes, societies, civilisations, nations etc. are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

13. Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing environment, which is nothing but collective bad karma, entails bad consequences.

14. Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one.

15. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

16. Violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

17. Buddhism is absolutely unique and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science.

18. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

19. Buddhism does not treat the self and consciousness as one and the same. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual by-product of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness.

20. In Buddhism, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing. Therefore; the statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

21. Whatever exists, exists interdependently.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

11th December 2006, 10:50 PM

1. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of the wheel of becoming. :)

Big Bang is not a fact. Big Bang is a theory, albeit a very controversial one. There are many opposing theories as well. Regardless, there is no conflict between the Big Bang theory and the Hindu conception of the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory says that the universe arose out of a singularity (singular energy source). It does not say where this energy source came from; it simply assumes it was there. The Hindus, of course, know that this is Brahma.

Mundaka Upanishad: Spider-web analogy

The Mundaka Upanishad says that the creator Brahma Himself arose as "the first among the gods, and as the creator of all." If we regard Brahma as the 26 or so dimensions of modern M-theory, and gods as the laws of physics sustaining the universe, this statement in the Mundaka Upanishad is a poetic formulation of the current paradigm. In a famous passage, it also gives a beautiful simile for how the universe arose:

"As the spider generates, and draws in (its filaments), as the herbs grow from the ground. and hair from the body and head of a living man, so from the imperishable, the universe springs."

- Indic Visions in an Age of Science, II: Origins and Ends
by V.V. Raman

It is truly amazing that the Hindus postulated string theory, the most controversial, advanced area of physics, 21 centuries before the West.

2. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

Except the universal energy, shakthi. As Pradheep has pointed out, there has always been space. Even the "Big Bang" theory or any scientific theory that attempts to describe the origin of the universe will not deny there was space. We ourselves cannot percieve except in relation to space of some sort. The fact that space has always existed implies a certain energy source has also always existed.

[color=green]10. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

Only people who believe that everything can be percieved with the 5 senses will believe this. On the other hand, the latest theories of physics postulate 26 dimensions of space that are beyond any experimental verification and of course, beyond the perception of the human senses.

11. Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time.

Right and wrong are based on the simple observation that good intentions lead to good actions and bad intentions lead to bad actions. A good action can be considered "right" and a "bad" can be considered bad. These are not subjective at all. In the philosophical sense, it is bad actions that are responsible for rebirth. In the modern sense, the advance of civilization has been made possible partly through the enhancement of the various legal systems/penal codes.

12. Adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for rational knowledge or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions from individuals, groups, institutes, societies, civilisations, nations etc. are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

Karma has nothing to do with adapting to any environment. Karma is based on good and bad intentions, which lead to good and bad actions, respectively. The only "environment" recognized by Buddhism is that of suffering. All things decay; all material objects lead to attachment, and ultimately suffering. The proposed solution to this is detachment. Detachment to the extent that Buddha created the monastery (community of monks) living together in order to ensure individuals could entirely detach themselves from conventional society if they wished and still follow the path to enlightenment, albeit a much accelerated one.

13. Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing environment, which is nothing but collective bad karma, entails bad consequences.

In the scientific sense of the term, the ultimate measure of successful adaptation is the potential to procreate as many offspring as possible and thus increase the gene pool (of the given species). There is nothing in Buddhism that measures the value of an individual on the basis of his procreative abilities.

18. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

There is no devolution whatsoever in scientific evolution. Even with the advent of genetic engineering, in which the DNA of one species can easily be implanted into the cells of another species, and even if the species are closely related, for example human and chimpanzee, the resulting offspring have been the same species as before the implantation. In other words, a human woman will not give birth to a chimpanzee no matter how much sperm from a male chimpanzee is implanted into the ovum of the human woman. For the simple reason that only human sperm can fertilize a human egg, and only chimpanzee sperm can fertilize a chimpanzee egg. In fact, two species are distinguished from each on the basis of an inability to interbreed. Therefore, the Buddhist idea of devolution (one species being born as a lower species) is scientifically null and void.

Rohit

12th December 2006, 12:58 AM

Rohit

12th December 2006, 01:07 AM

The following verses thoroughly demolish the posted fallacy of Brahma.

n bhavtyamrunta mrutya n mrutyammrunta tatha |
prakruteranyathabhaavo n kanthchidbhavishyathi ||

svabhavenamrutho yasya dharmo gachhathi mratyathamum |
krukenamruthasthasya kanth sthasthithi nishchala: ||

karan yasya vai karya karan thasya jaayathe |
jaaymanan kathmanj bhinna ninthay kanth cha tat ||

karanadhdhananyatvamath: karyamanj yadhi |
jaaya-manadhi vai karyathkaran the kanth dhruvam ||

ajadhvai jaayathe yasya drushtanthsthasya nasthi vai |
jaathaccha jaymanasya n vyavastha prasjyathe ||

purvaparaparignanum ajaathe: parideepakam |
jaayamanadhi vai dharamath kanth purva n gruhyathe ||

svatho vaa paratho vaadpi n kinchidhasthu jaayathe |
sadhasathsadasdhadpi n kinchidhasthu jaayathe ||

Source:
Mandukya Upanishad with Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

12th December 2006, 01:25 AM

The traditional philosophical schools in India had have been classified under two, mutually exclusive headings, which are (1) Astika (Which literally means: Theist) and (2) Nastika (Which literally means: Atheist)

The Nastika (Atheist) schools are those which explicitly reject the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Lokayata or Carvaka (Materialists)
2. Bauddha (Including a Number of Schools of Buddhism)
3. Jaina or Syadvada (Jainism, Including Digambara And Svetambara Groups)

The Astika (Theist) schools are those which accept the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Nyaya
2. Vaiseshika
3. Yoga
4. Samkhya
5. Purva Mimamsa
6. Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta)

Ironically, Samkhya, Purva Mimamsa and Advaita Vedanta, which do not rely on the Vedas, though they do not reject it either, are considered to be Nastika (Atheist).

The validity of the Veda is dependent on the validity of their logical analysis. When the nyaya authors say that the Vedas also offer evidence for the existence of a Creator God, they commit the fallacy of arguing in a circle - the Veda is valid because it was composed by a Creator God, and the Creator God exists because the Veda says so (Begging the Question --> Circular Argument: Because p-->p). This is a logical fallacy committed by most theologians, and is not acceptable to the mimamsa and Vedanta schools of thought

Reference Source:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ind-phil.html

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

12th December 2006, 01:28 AM

Only for those who are genuinely interested in facts

Advaita Vedanta is nothing but Buddhism in disguise

- GauDapAda is the first historically known author in the Advaita VedAnta tradition.

- GauDapAda is traditionally said to have been the guru of Govinda BhagavatpAda, who was the guru of SankarAcArya.

- GauDapAda composed the GgauDapAdIya kArikAs (GK), which constitute an expository text on the mANDUkya upanishad.

1. The philosophy of Sankaracarya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, as explained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate).

2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, which appear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Sankara and his followers.

3. That Mayavada had stolen the salient features of Sunyavada was not unnoticed by the Buddhists themselves.

4. Buddhism had exercised a profound influence on Sankara's mind to the extent that the tradition opposed to Sankara holds that he is a Buddhist in disguise and his mayavada but crypto-Buddhism.

5. It is well known that Sankara is criticised by his opponents as a "Buddhist in disguise" (pracchanna-bauddha) and his philosophy as mayavada [1] which is but crypto-Buddhism.

6. Among the Vedantins, Bhaskara (750-800) is probably one of the earliest critics against Sankara. He called the Mayavadin "one who depends on the doctrine of the Buddhist" (Buddhamatavalambin), and says that this position has been negated by the author of Brahmasutra.[2] Afterwards, Yamuna (918-1038), Ramanuja (1017-1037), Madhva (1197-1276), Vallabha (1473-1531) and other Vedantins severely criticize the Advaita Vedanta, pointing out that it is in essence nothing but a Buddhist doctrine.[3]

7. Then, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, Vijnanabhiksu of the Samkhya school shows in his Samkhyapravacanabhasya that the mayavada of the Vedantins is of the same standpoint as that of the Vijnanavadin's [4] and criticizes the Vedanta school as a whole. In justifying his criticism, he quotes a verse from the Padmapurana which states that the mayavada is an incorrect theory and is Buddhist doctrine.[5]

Sources:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/mayavada.htm

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/05/02/stories/2004050200170400.htm

http://www.nagarjunainstitute.com/buddhisthim/backissues/vol11/v11sankara.htm
.
.
.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

12th December 2006, 01:37 AM

Rohit

12th December 2006, 01:39 AM

Rohit

12th December 2006, 02:12 AM

It is obviously evident that there is only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that is, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

Just keep reading. I am sure, you all will be entertained by 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Enjoy, have fun and good laughs. Good luck friends. :wave: :thumbsup:

SRS

12th December 2006, 03:16 AM

[tscii:3228dd887c]I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

- Einstein

Years later he expanded this in a letter …. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. " I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

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

- Einstein

"Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not"("Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.")

- Einstein

When asked by a colleague what he meant by that, he (Einstein) replied: "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." ("Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.")

“I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. [b] The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap.”

Bucky: You don't believe in God, then?

EINSTEIN:

Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let's assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquainted with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respective planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?

No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds . [/tscii:3228dd887c]

Rohit

12th December 2006, 03:26 AM

SRS

12th December 2006, 03:29 AM

[tscii:d4241451b4]Einstein does not believe in a God who rewards and punishes. Similar to what Pradheep here once said, God is not someone who sits in the sky. However, Einstein is not an atheist. If he was an atheist, he would have easily said, "I do not believe in God", and left it there. Instead, he acknowledges the limits of science and expresses his admiration for the "superior spirit" that holds the universe together. Elsewhere, Einstein refers to this "superior spirit" as "mystical." It is very clear that Einstein believes in a supernatural force, one that is both timeless and formless. That is the larger reason why he chooses not to give an explicit affirmation or denial of "God"; because he understands this "force" is beyond the pale of physics (certainly at that time). But with physics one can still get brief glimpses of this "force." These glimpses are especially apparent where one cannot come to a full understanding of the phenemona on the basis of physics alone.

Religious Feeling in Science

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

— Letter to a child who asked if scientists pray, January 24, 1936; Einstein Archive 42-601
[/tscii:d4241451b4]

Rohit

12th December 2006, 03:40 AM

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

QUESTION: Over the past decade, many physicists have been making an association between their science and "the mind of God". What do you think of this association being made?

MR. WEINBERG: It makes me nervous when physicists use the word "God" loosely, as talking about the laws of nature as the mind of God, or even Einstein's famous remarks about God playing dice with the cosmos. I think mostly they're just using the word "God" in the metaphorical sense.

By "God" most of them simply mean the laws of nature, the principles that govern everything. And, well, there's nothing wrong with the metaphor, I suppose, but the word "God" is charged with so much meaning, it carries so much historical freight, and I think one ought to be careful about how one uses it.

QUESTION: Why do you think so many physicists in recent years have made such an association?

MR. WEINBERG: It is true that this use of the word "God," this metaphorical use of the word "God" comes naturally to physicists. Theologian Paul Tellich said once that he thought that physicists were the only scientists that found it comfortable to talk about God.

The aim of physics, or at least one branch of physics, is after all to find the principles that explain the principles that explain the principles that explain everything we see in nature, to find the ultimate rational basis of the universe. And that gets fairly close in some respects to what people have associated with the word "God." But I think it is still very different. And I wouldn't refer to the laws of nature as the mind of God, or call anything discovered by physicists the ‘God this’ or the ‘God that’. It's a word that has a lot of punch to it.

-Steven Weinberg, The Nobel Prize Winner, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

Precisely as I said earlier; here go 'the terribly confused Buddhists' with their Circular Argument.

Begging the question: Because p-->p . Please carryon.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

12th December 2006, 04:03 AM

SRS

12th December 2006, 04:10 AM

A fish cannot comprehend the existence of water. He is too deeply immersed in it. - Sir Oliver Lodge

Rohit

12th December 2006, 01:01 PM

Everything that exists is subject to change and to the law of cause and effect. Neither the fish nor water is immune or exempted from the law of cause and effect. :lol: :lol: :lol:

So, it is obviously evident that there is only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that is, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

Just keep reading. I am sure, you all will be entertained by 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Enjoy, have fun and good laughs. Good luck friends. :wave: :thumbsup:

pradheep

12th December 2006, 09:22 PM

Dear SRS,
Two things cannot be subject to change to notice a change. A chnage can be noticed only when one is unchanging and another changing. For example, when you are in a car you see all other things moving. But when another train passes by (moving) you feel you are stationary. In this universe everything else is changing and that is observed because there is a permanent reality which is unchanging. That is absolute and everything is relative. idf this simple physics does not strike some one they can only keep denying the reality. Anyone denying reality is in Maya, delusion. They will understand that only when they see the Ego. Because it is Ego that denies.

I recently watched Little Buddha movie. There Buddha talks about Ego and transcending it. He talks about transcending ego and then finds that he was a rose, wind, dolphin etc etc.It is a common thing that he realises in all these. That is a permanent reality.

If you want to talk about a terrorist , then if you do not become one like him, your words are only empty.

Similarly if you want to know Buddha, reading books and then vomitting that words will not help. You have to be Buddha. All the Buddhist friends who have argued with me, fell in one point, by not living by his way. All the friends who argued with me where meat eaters, did not have anything in life to tell what they practice that Buddha taught. All these were empty talks. Like Buddha one should be compassionate to all beings in world, then they should also transcend the Ego, then one Understands what he talked. Without transcending the Ego one will not know the Reality.

If one is always looking at the changing , then how will one understand the permanent unchanging reality?

In all spiritual and religious traditions this transcending Ego is the key factor in realizing the Truth. Those who have not done that will call everything only as delusion. Wehther it is Buddhism or hindusim or chirtianity, transcending Ego is the key factor. Those who have not understood and practiced it will only be a fanatic of that religion. Because of this fanaticism they will mock all the others. They see they are superior and other deluded. Those who have transcended the Ego will see the reality that everything is one and same and that is compassion.

Fanaticism is saying I am only right and all others are deluded (confused). I will only go to heaven and all others will be going to hell. Another face of this fanaticsm is to say I am only intelligenet and right and all others are wrong. This is terrorism. People with this thought are no different from bombers. To hold everyone and see the sameness or oneness is wisdom and to see difference is fanaticism.

Rohit

13th December 2006, 02:14 AM

Understanding and grasping the Ultimate Reality of Void leaves one with no room, none whatsoever, for any fictitious, self-deceptive transcendence. All forms of hatreds, cruelty, inhumanity, fanaticism, terrorism and such worst forms of evil acts and dogmatism have taken births and flourished since then under the religious banners, shelters, organisations or institutes, operating under such a disgraceful disguise. The history and current trends have unequivocally proved that fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space-time is devoid of consciousness.

There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

Whatever exists, exists interdependently.

Everything that exists is subject to change and to the law of cause and effect.

Exactly like Buddha, who categorically rejected the existence of any permanent, unchanging reality like Atman/Self/Soul.

Einstein's Special and General theories of relativity are the unshaken pillars of modern science and powerful mathematical abstractions that transcend normal human experience, especially the Egocentric ones. Both theories have long shattered the age-old notions of absolute reference frames and have unravelled the true nature of reality, which absolutely denies any privileged position to any reference frame, irrespective of the relative velocity or acceleration of the reference frame.

According to Einstein's Relativity:

General principle of relativity
The laws of physics are identical for all observers regardless of whether the observers are in acceleration or not.

Principle of general covariance
The laws of physics apply in the same form across all co-ordinate systems.

Inertial motion is geodesic motion
The particles not affected by any forces (i.e. inertial motion) will have time-like world lines or null geodesic of space-time. In other words the tangent vector of such particles is either negative or zero.

Local Lorentz invariance
The rules of special relativity apply locally for all inertial observers.

Space-time curvature
This was described by Einstein in his field equations as the response to mass, energy, and momentum results in gravitational influences being viewed as a form of inertial motion.

Therefore, it evidenty shows how 'the terribly confused Buddhists' have always found it extremely difficult to come to terms with such shattering facts of reality.

No wonder, why 'the terribly confused Buddhists' have been blindly quoting Einstein without ever bothering to understand and grasp the fundamentals of his relativistic principles, ingrained in his universally verified theories of relativity. :lol: :lol: :lol:

So, it is obviously evident that there is only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that is, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

Just keep reading. I am sure, you all will be entertained by 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Enjoy, have fun and good laughs. Good luck friends. :wave: :thumbsup:

Eelavar

14th December 2006, 04:16 AM

Space-time curvature
This was described by Einstein in his field equations as the response to mass, energy, and momentum results in gravitational influences being viewed as a form of inertial motion.
.. I'm sorry but we have to be dumb to trust that space and time could be curvated.. It's non-sense..

Nikola Tesla, the greatest scientist and engineer of all time, said this :

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

Me too :roll:

Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of the wheel of becoming.

Admit it's right, i ask from where do the Energy-matter of the Big Bang came from ????

I personnaly think that the term of birth and death could not be applicated to the universe, as it in reality never die and never born because all his eternal !

I rather prefer to use term like "end" and "beginning".

"When the end come, the beginning come too, it's what we call eternal"

Rohit

14th December 2006, 12:53 PM

To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
If anyone who regards space as absolute nothing, I would not want to argue with him or her; as it becomes a non-issue or irrelevant here.

However; otherwise:

The next time you feel like you're barely dragging along, blame relativity. You'll be stretching the point, but it appears that Einstein was right: space and time get pulled out of shape near a rotating body.

Einstein predicted the effect, called ''frame dragging,'' 80 years ago. Like many other aspects of Einstein's famous theories of relativity, it's so subtle that no conventional method could measure it.

Using recent observations by X-ray astronomy satellites, including NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, a team of astronomers is announcing that they see evidence of frame dragging in disks of gasswirling around a black hole.

Frame dragging is one of the last frontiers in relativity. More familiar and already proven are the conversion of mass into energy (as seen in atomic bombs and stars) and back, the Lorentz transformations that make objects near the speed of light grow thinner and heavier and stretch time, and the warping of space by gravity (as seen when light is bent by a massive object).

The effect is incredibly small, about one part in a few trillion, which means that you have to look at something very massive, or build an instrument that is incredibly sensitive and put it in orbit.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/11/971107071006.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, nothing is exempted from the law of cause and effect. Therefore, not even God can be exempted from the law of causality; and the implication of this is, there is no God; whether personal or impersonal, whether local or transcendental; there simply is no such entity or its equivalent.

However, if the law of causality has to break down at some point/level and allow exemptions, which it does at quantum level; then, there is absolutely no reason for not accepting the universe as coming into existence, absolutely uncaused. Once, the universe comes into being, the process of cause and effect too comes into operation, which is then followed by the evolution of life through long natural processes, catalysing and enhancing the whole process of cause and effect, precisely as observed and understood.

Evolution of life is a long natural process by which unconscious elements evolve into conscious entities; conscious entities into aware entities and when there is a right level of awareness, one gets equipped with the ability to make clear distinctions between the multitudes of choices and dichotomies.

A question I had in mind over the last week(s) - who "administers" all forms of cause and effect and at all times?
The answer to the above question is simple; there is absolutely no one.

Nonetheless, before raising such questions, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have said above, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

I really get very disappointed when I read or hear a Hindu writing or talking about the first cause. It simply shows how uninformed and shallow these Hindus really are. Since, Hinduism doesn't apply the law of causality when it comes to explain the origin of the universe and life; such allusions to the first cause become absolutely meaningless, irrespective of the premise used.

Since, most believers; in fact all believers, fail to consider or grasp all the possibilities, situations and conditions; and hence, all their arguments for the first cause simply reduce to the fallacies of false dichotomy.

If either the univere or its contents or both are assumed to be administered by another entity, then that entity itself would require to be administered even more by a third entity, which itself would required to be administered by a fourth one, which by a fifth one, which by a sixth one, seventh one, eighth one....... the chain of such entities requied to be administered by yet another higher entity would go to infinity, requiring a set of an infinite number of such entities, either within or outside the boundaries of the universe; and the existence of all of them would be contingent to the other, higher administrators; and yet, none of them could ever exist absolutely necessarily. There is no single entity that one could point to and say; yes, this is the one that must exist absolutely necessarily, without which the whole universe with all its contents would collapse and fail to function.

The situation captured above is only a partial dichotomy. The dichotomy extends even further, if one considers both the material as well as efficient cause of the universe. There are billions of believers who believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Creator God, who is not only the efficient cause but also the material cause of the entire universe and its contents - The first cause. Whereby it is believed that the universe and life did not exist eternally, but they were created at some point in time in the past by a Creator God. The stated system of a Creator God not only makes the need for the so-called 'Administrator' absolutely unnecessary, but in principle, it also refutes the entire belief system of Hinduism.

The dichotomy doesn't end there, it goes even further. The argument given for the chain of administrative entities also applies to the Creator God, requiring a chain of infinite number of Creator Gods; Supreme Gods and so on to create lower Gods or gods; and yet there can be no God that could exist absolutely necessarily.

There is a fundamental difference between an infinite series of numbers and the series of Gods.

The series, involving infinite numbers, does not collapse when one fails to provide the highest number that the series must contain. Whatever the highest number one can guess, one can always add one more to it and the highest number no longer remains the highest. One always falls short by one in guessing the highest number of the series; whatever one guesses, there is always one less. Even when the highest number of the series may never exist, the series does not collapse.

Such is not the case when it comes to the series of Gods. Without a definite existence of the Highest God, all Gods would remain in utter disarray or disorder and none wouldn't be able to administer themselves in the first place, forget about administering the universe and its contents. This is what the absolute necessity for the existence of the Highest God means, without which the whole concept of God instantly collapses.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Similarly the need for some 'Administrator' would also lead to the same conclusion. Without the existence of the Highest Administrative Agency, which by default cannot exist, as there is always one short at the highest level who, from the premise itself, should be the source of all administrative orders. Ironically, there is no end to the series; and the one that must exist absolutely necessarily, sadly can never exist, while the very premise requires one, without which the whole concept of 'Administrator' instantly collapses.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest 'Administrator' than which Higher 'Administrator' is not needed, making the whole 'Administrator' system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Such variances in belief systems come from uncertainties and uncertainties from randomness, guess works and illusions. There simply is no such order; neither of a God nor of an Administrator that the believers wishfully think and believe. It is only their chosen beliefs that bring such waves of randomness, guess works and illusions. And yes, what they say, certainly amounts to randomness, guess works and illusions, only worthy for self-deceptions and amusements.

If one's understanding restricts one to grasp the full extent of dichotomies; then, there is absolutely nothing one can do to help them. However, what I personally can do is, not to enter into futile arguments with them; but let them continue with their chosen belief or beliefs.

So, failing to consider all possibilities, conditions and situations; the arguments for both, an Administrative Agency and God, become nothing more than the fallacies of false dichotomy.

The only valid conclusion that can be drawn safely is; the universe, with all it contents and behaviours, whether perfect or not, as it is, is a closed, self-contained and self-regulating system, even when its boundaries change through expansion. There exists absolutely nothing, other than the universe itself that is absolutely necessary to administer and/or order the universe and its contents.

I leave it entirely up to the readers to figure out the implications of any further, extended versions of the fallacies of false dichotomy; and let others to continue discussing the intended topic "KARMA-The free will Vs VIDHI-The fate" from their own perspectives.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

15th December 2006, 01:57 AM

Like I said, nothing is exempted from the law of cause and effect. Therefore, not even God can be exempted from the law of causality; and the implication of this is, there is no God; whether personal or impersonal, whether local or transcendental; there simply is no such entity or its equivalent.

However, if the law of causality has to break down at some point/level and allow exemptions, which it does at quantum level; then, there is absolutely no reason for not accepting the universe as coming into existence, absolutely uncaused. Once, the universe comes into being, the process of cause and effect too comes into operation, which is then followed by the evolution of life through long natural processes, catalysing and enhancing the whole process of cause and effect, precisely as observed and understood.

If subatomic particles do not obey the law of causality, as you claim, why should God? Your answer seems to be that the Universe came into being "uncaused", and therefore there this negates the existance of any God. However, you have left out one very important part: the cause of the "uncaused" subatomic particles that caused the Universe to come into being, "uncaused." Quantum mechanics does not state that these subatomic particles came into being uncaused. It merely describes their behavior. There is no total breakdown of the law of causality. Besides, the wave-function approached developed by Schrodinger can be used with high accuracy to predict the behavior of electrons.

Evolution of life is a long natural process by which unconscious elements evolve into conscious entities; conscious entities into aware entities and when there is a right level of awareness, one gets equipped with the ability to make clear distinctions between the multitudes of choices and dichotomies.

Unconscious elements evolve into conscious entities? :? :?

Nonetheless, before raising such questions, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have said above, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

I really get very disappointed when I read or hear a Hindu writing or talking about the first cause. It simply shows how uninformed and shallow these Hindus really are. Since, Hinduism doesn't apply the law of causality when it comes to explain the origin of the universe and life; such allusions to the first cause become absolutely meaningless, irrespective of the premise used.

Big Bang doesn't apply the law of causality either when it comes to explaining the origin of the universe and life. Big Bang merely assumes an already present source of energy, but does not state the cause of this source of energy.

[quote]
If either the univere or its contents or both are assumed to be administered by another entity, then that entity itself would require to be administered even more by a third entity, which itself would required to be administered by a fourth one, which by a fifth one, which by a sixth one, seventh one, eighth one....... the chain of such entities requied to be administered by yet another higher entity would go to infinity, requiring a set of an infinite number of such entities, either within or outside the boundaries of the universe; and the existence of all of them would be contingent to the other, higher administrators; and yet, none of them could ever exist absolutely necessarily. There is no single entity that one could point to and say; yes, this is the one that must exist absolutely necessarily, without which the whole universe with all its contents would collapse and fail to function.

The dependence of numerous entities is a product of your own misguided reasoning. According to the believers, there is only one God. Even though he can take many forms, these forms are merely symbolic, largely serving the purpose of satisfying a particular need. This is due to the human tendency to categorize.

The situation captured above is only a partial dichotomy. The dichotomy extends even further, if one considers both the material as well as efficient cause of the universe. There are billions of believers who believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Creator God, who is not only the efficient cause but also the material cause of the entire universe and its contents - The first cause. Whereby it is believed that the universe and life did not exist eternally, but they were created at some point in time in the past by a Creator God. The stated system of a Creator God not only makes the need for the so-called 'Administrator' absolutely unnecessary, but in principle, it also refutes the entire belief system of Hinduism.

The problem here is that no complete mechanical description has been found that describes the origin of the Universe. As I said before, the Big Bang does not start with "nothing"; it starts with a singularity. Therefore, there is no contradiction between believing in a Creator God and the Big Bang. The belief in a Creator God fills in the void left by the Big Bang theory.

The dichotomy doesn't end there, it goes even further. The argument given for the chain of administrative entities also applies to the Creator God, requiring a chain of infinite number of Creator Gods; Supreme Gods and so on to create lower Gods or gods; and yet there can be no God that could exist absolutely necessarily.

There is a fundamental difference between an infinite series of numbers and the series of Gods.

The series, involving infinite numbers, does not collapse when one fails to provide the highest number that the series must contain. Whatever the highest number one can guess, one can always add one more to it and the highest number no longer remains the highest. One always falls short by one in guessing the highest number of the series; whatever one guesses, there is always one less. Even when the highest number of the series may never exist, the series does not collapse.

Such is not the case when it comes to the series of Gods. Without a definite existence of the Highest God, all Gods would remain in utter disarray or disorder and none wouldn't be able to administer themselves in the first place, forget about administering the universe and its contents. This is what the absolute necessity for the existence of the Highest God means, without which the whole concept of God instantly collapses.

[b]The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

There is only one God. Of course he can take an infinite number of forms. But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?

Rohit

15th December 2006, 02:38 AM

The following verses thoroughly demolish the posted fallacy of Creation.

n bhavtyamrunta mrutya n mrutyammrunta tatha |
prakruteranyathabhaavo n kanthchidbhavishyathi ||

svabhavenamrutho yasya dharmo gachhathi mratyathamum |
krukenamruthasthasya kanth sthasthithi nishchala: ||

karan yasya vai karya karan thasya jaayathe |
jaaymanan kathmanj bhinna ninthay kanth cha tat ||

karanadhdhananyatvamath: karyamanj yadhi |
jaaya-manadhi vai karyathkaran the kanth dhruvam ||

ajadhvai jaayathe yasya drushtanthsthasya nasthi vai |
jaathaccha jaymanasya n vyavastha prasjyathe ||

purvaparaparignanum ajaathe: parideepakam |
jaayamanadhi vai dharamath kanth purva n gruhyathe ||

svatho vaa paratho vaadpi n kinchidhasthu jaayathe |
sadhasathsadasdhadpi n kinchidhasthu jaayathe ||

Source:
Mandukya Upanishad with Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.

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

According to the believers, there is only one God.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between believing in a Creator God and the Big Bang. The belief in a Creator God fills in the void left by the Big Bang theory.

There is only one God.
Like I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

That is all I have to say to all my believer friends here.

Enjoy your blind beliefs, have fun and good life. Good luck!

This brings an end to this long running debate; and the conclusion is clear; the belivers just want to believe; and E=mc^2 and E= hf is ******* ** * ******* ***.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

15th December 2006, 03:33 AM

The following verses clearly establish the validity of Mandukaya Upanishad, relative to the creation of the Universe:

माण्डुक्योपनिषत् ॥

॥ अथ माण्डुक्योपनिषत् ॥

ॐ इत्येतदक्षरमिदँ सर्वं तस्योपव्याख्यानं
भूतं भवद् भविष्यदिति सर्वमोङ्कार एव
यच्चान्यत् त्रिकालातीतं तदप्योङ्कार एव ॥ १ ॥

सर्वं ह्येतद् ब्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोऽयमात्मा चतुष्पात्
॥ २ ॥

जागरितस्थानो बहिष्प्रज्ञः सप्ताङ्ग एकोनविंशतिमुखः स्थूल
भुग्वैश्वानरः प्रथमः पादः ॥ ३ ॥

स्वप्नस्थानोऽन्तः प्रज्ञाः सप्ताङ्ग एकोनविंशतिमुखः
प्रविविक्तभुक्तैजसो द्वितीयः पादः ॥ ४ ॥

यत्र सुप्तो न कञ्चन कामं कामयते न कञ्चन स्वप्नं
पश्यति तत्
सुषुप्तम् . सुषुप्तस्थान एकीभूतः प्रज्ञानघन
एवानन्दमयो
ह्यानन्दभुक् चेतो मुखः प्राज्ञस्तृतीयः पादः ॥ ५ ॥

एष सर्वेश्वरः एष सर्वज्ञ एषोऽन्तर्याम्येष योनिः सर्वस्य
प्रभवाप्ययौ हि भूतानाम् ॥ ६ ॥

नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिष्प्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञानघनं
न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम् । अदृष्टमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणं
अचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं
शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥
७ ॥

सोऽयमात्माध्यक्षरमोङ्करोऽधिमात्रं पादा मात्रा मात्राश्च पादा
अकार उकारो मकार इति ॥ ८ ॥

जागरितस्थानो वैश्वानरोऽकारः प्रथमा
मात्राऽऽप्तेरादिमत्त्वाद्
वाऽऽप्नोति ह वै सर्वान् कामानादिश्च भवति य एवं वेद
॥ ९ ॥

स्वप्नस्थानस्तैजस उकारो द्वितीया मात्रोत्कर्षात्
उभयत्वाद्वोत्कर्षति ह वै ज्ञानसन्ततिं समानश्च भवति
नास्याब्रह्मवित्कुले भवति य एवं वेद ॥ १० ॥

सुषुप्तस्थानः प्राज्ञो मकारस्तृतीया मात्रा मितेरपीतेर्वा
मिनोति ह वा इदं सर्वमपीतिश्च भवति य एवं वेद ॥ ११ ॥

अमात्रश्चतुर्थोऽव्यवहार्यः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत
एवमोङ्कार आत्मैव संविशत्यात्मनाऽऽत्मानं य एवं वेद ॥ १२ ॥
॥ इति माण्डुक्योपनिषत् समाप्ता ॥

SRS

15th December 2006, 03:34 AM

There is only one God. Of course he can take an infinite number of forms. But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?

I leave the question as an open challenge. :lol:

Rohit

15th December 2006, 03:39 AM

The following verses thoroughly demolish the posted fallacy of Creation.

n bhavtyamrunta mrutya n mrutyammrunta tatha |
prakruteranyathabhaavo n kanthchidbhavishyathi ||

svabhavenamrutho yasya dharmo gachhathi mratyathamum |
krukenamruthasthasya kanth sthasthithi nishchala: ||

karan yasya vai karya karan thasya jaayathe |
jaaymanan kathmanj bhinna ninthay kanth cha tat ||

karanadhdhananyatvamath: karyamanj yadhi |
jaaya-manadhi vai karyathkaran the kanth dhruvam ||

ajadhvai jaayathe yasya drushtanthsthasya nasthi vai |
jaathaccha jaymanasya n vyavastha prasjyathe ||

purvaparaparignanum ajaathe: parideepakam |
jaayamanadhi vai dharamath kanth purva n gruhyathe ||

svatho vaa paratho vaadpi n kinchidhasthu jaayathe |
sadhasathsadasdhadpi n kinchidhasthu jaayathe ||

Source:
Mandukya Upanishad with Gudapada's Karika and Sankara's commentary.

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

According to the believers, there is only one God.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between believing in a Creator God and the Big Bang. The belief in a Creator God fills in the void left by the Big Bang theory.

There is only one God.
Like I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

That is all I have to say to all my believer friends here.

Enjoy your blind beliefs, have fun and good life. Good luck!

This brings an end to this long running debate; and the conclusion is clear; the belivers just want to believe; and:

E=mc^2 and E= hf is ******* ** * ******* ***.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

15th December 2006, 04:14 AM

Like I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

That is all I have to say to all my believer friends here.

Enjoy your blind beliefs, have fun and good life. Good luck!

This brings an end to this long running debate; and the conclusion is clear; the belivers just want to believe; and:

There is only one God. Of course he can take an infinite number of forms. But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?

I leave the question as an open challenge. :lol:

Rohit

15th December 2006, 04:45 AM

So; just remember the facts and ignore all the dissonance-ridden fallacies; being heedlessly posted form the other end. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Facts:

1. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of the wheel of becoming. :)

2. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

3. Everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect.

4. Everything that exists is subject to change; nothing remains without change.

5. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. E=mc^2 and E= hf.

The answer was already stated here much earlier. In fact, the question itself admits the full agreement with this assertion of mine, which thoroghly demolished the latest versions of all forms of fallacies posted from there. :)

6. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

7. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

8. All conscious beings have structures; and they constantly change. :)

9. There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

10. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

11. Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time.

12. Adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for rational knowledge or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions from individuals, groups, institutes, societies, civilisations, nations etc. are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

13. Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing environment, which is nothing but collective bad karma, entails bad consequences.

14. Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one.

15. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

16. Violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

17. Buddhism is absolutely unique and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science.

18. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

19. Buddhism does not treat the self and consciousness as one and the same. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual by-product of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness.

20. In Buddhism, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing. Therefore; the statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

21. Whatever exists, exists interdependently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the believers, there is only one God.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between believing in a Creator God and the Big Bang. The belief in a Creator God fills in the void left by the Big Bang theory.

There is only one God.
Nonetheless, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have said above, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Anyway; as I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

That is all I have to say to all my believer friends here.

Enjoy your blind beliefs, have fun and good life. Good luck!

This brings an end to this long running debate; and the conclusion is clear; the belivers just want to believe.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

15th December 2006, 05:39 AM

So; just remember the facts and ignore all the dissonance-ridden fallacies; being heedlessly posted form the other end.

Facts:

1. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of the wheel of becoming. :)

2. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

3. Everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect.

4. Everything that exists is subject to change; nothing remains without change.

5. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. [size=24]E=mc^2 and E= hf.

The answer was already stated here much earlier, which thoroghly demolished the latest versions of all forms of fallacies posted from there. :)

6. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

7. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

8. All conscious beings have structures; and they constantly change. :)

9. There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

10. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

11. Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time.

12. Adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for rational knowledge or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions from individuals, groups, institutes, societies, civilisations, nations etc. are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

13. Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing environment, which is nothing but collective bad karma, entails bad consequences.

14. Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one.

15. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

16. Violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

17. Buddhism is absolutely unique and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science.

18. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

19. Buddhism does not treat the self and consciousness as one and the same. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual by-product of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness.

20. In Buddhism, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing. Therefore; the statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

21. Whatever exists, exists interdependently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have said above, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy. [/color][/b]

Anyway; as I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

That is all I have to say to all my believer friends here.

Enjoy your blind beliefs, have fun and good life. Good luck!

This brings an end to this long running debate; and the conclusion is clear; the belivers just want to believe.

There is only one God. Of course he can take an infinite number of forms. But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?

I leave the question as an open challenge. :lol:

Rohit

15th December 2006, 05:44 AM

Before starting, "the terribly confused Buddhists" must remember to increment their count of Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 572

START: "The terribly confused Buddhists" must start their journey into the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) from:

Of course he can take an infinite number of forms. But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?
OR Any such Non-Sequitur Fallacies that I have already thoroughly demolished earlier.

Then they must read, understand and try to grasp the following.

As it invariably happens; here go 'the terribly confused Buddhists" completely :x .

Help is already at hand, only if they stop their egocentric nonsense. So far, all their posts have proved them nothing more than just egocentric kids who are adamant to have lollipops before yielding to the facts.

Unfortunately, there is no lollipop here. Therefore, just keep reading.

So; just remember the facts and ignore all the dissonance-ridden fallacies; being heedlessly posted form the other end.

Facts:

1. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of the wheel of becoming. :)

2. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

3. Everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect.

4. Everything that exists is subject to change; nothing remains without change.

5. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. E=mc^2 and E= hf.

The answer was already stated here much earlier. In fact, the question itself admits the full agreement with this assertion of mine, which thoroghly demolished the latest versions of all forms of fallacies posted from there. :)

6. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

7. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

8. All conscious beings have structures; and they constantly change. :)

9. There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

10. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

11. Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time.

12. Adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for rational knowledge or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions from individuals, groups, institutes, societies, civilisations, nations etc. are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

13. Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing environment, which is nothing but collective bad karma, entails bad consequences.

14. Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one.

15. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

16. Violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

17. Buddhism is absolutely unique and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science.

18. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

19. Buddhism does not treat the self and consciousness as one and the same. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual by-product of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness.

20. In Buddhism, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing.

21. The statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

22. Whatever exists, exists interdependently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the believers, there is only one God.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between believing in a Creator God and the Big Bang. The belief in a Creator God fills in the void left by the Big Bang theory.

There is only one God.
Nonetheless, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have said above, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Anyway; as I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

Enjoy your blind beliefs; along with the ride in the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) and have lots of fun.

If the :x ness still persists, straightaway, without any delay, increment the count of your Cognitive DegenerationCD = N to CD = N+1; then Go to START

If not, the reward is not a lollipop but the eligibility for all of you to attain Nirvana, the perfect liberation from the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD).

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

sundararaj

18th December 2006, 01:52 PM

very confusing indeed.

harishkumar09

23rd December 2006, 08:10 PM

The prominence to karma is due to buddhism.Buddhist lay a great emphasis on past deeds.Adi Shankara brought this into hinduism.

Madhvas dont give importance to karma or past deeds and they follow the true vedic religion.

Rohit

23rd December 2006, 08:51 PM

The prominence to karma is due to buddhism. Buddhist lay a great emphasis on past deeds. Adi Shankara brought this into hinduism.
Though, it is the Jainas who first harmonise the law of Karma with the process of redemption; nonethless, the above statement is a creditable confirmation of one of the many facts regarding Buddhism.

The law of karma as conceived by the Buddhists differs in a very fundamental way from the law of karma as conceived by the Jainas. The law of karma in Buddhism is more reflective of the universal law of cause and effect, applicable to every tangible and intangible thing that exists. While the law of karma in Jainism is operative at the metaphysical level of atman, the very existence of which Buddhism categorically rejects.

Though the law of karma, or more precisely the universal law of cause and effect, is absolutely inescapable by anything that exists, it is utterly incompatible with the Advaitic Monism. Therefore, one can clearly see the sheerness of imbecility committed by the Advaitins.

However, many elements of the Jaina's law of karma can be made compatible with the Dvaitic doctrines; but unlike Advaitins, Madhava carefully avoided giving importance to the law of karma simply to avoid falling pray to the incompatibility issues correctly conceived and raised by the Buddhist doctrines.

:D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

24th December 2006, 11:46 PM

But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?

Any such Non-Sequitur Fallacies that I have already thoroughly demolished earlier.

God and energy are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are one and the same. In which case, since A = B, there is no fallacy. As I have said many times, "God" is simply the singular energy that was there before the creation of the Universe. The Big Bang assumes this energy was there; it does not comment on the origin of the energy.

Unless the atheists or whoever can come up with a convincing theory to explain the origin of the singular source of energy present at the creation of the Universe, then there is no need to deny the existance of God. All attempts to do so, whether in the form of smiley faces, large font size, bright font size, etc. may be considered futile attempts; the product of simmering frustrations resulting from chaotic doses of maya. :lol: :lol:

Rohit

25th December 2006, 01:29 AM

Remember the count of your Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 573 Just keep incrementing it as long as the :x ness prevails.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

25th December 2006, 02:13 AM

Before starting, "the terribly confused Buddhists" must remember to increment their count of Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 573

START: "The terribly confused Buddhists" must start their journey into the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) from:

Of course he can take an infinite number of forms. But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?
OR Any such Non-Sequitur Fallacies that I have already thoroughly demolished earlier.

Then they must read, understand and try to grasp the following.

As it invariably happens; here go 'the terribly confused Buddhists" completely :x .

Help is already at hand, only if they stop their egocentric nonsense. So far, all their posts have proved them nothing more than just egocentric kids who are adamant to have lollipops before yielding to the facts.

Unfortunately, there is no lollipop here, but the bitter facts. Therefore, just keep reading.

So; just remember the facts and ignore all the dissonance-ridden fallacies; being heedlessly posted form there.

Facts:

1. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of the wheel of becoming. :)

2. Everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect.

3. Everything that exists is subject to change; nothing remains without change.

4. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

5. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. E=mc^2 and E= hf.

The answer was already stated here much earlier. In fact, the question itself admits the full agreement with this assertion of mine, which thoroughly demolished the latest versions of all forms of fallacies posted from there. :)

6. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

7. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

8. All conscious beings have structures; and they constantly change. :)

9. There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

10. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

11. Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time.

12. Adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for rational knowledge or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions from individuals, groups, institutes, societies, civilisations, nations etc. are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

13. Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing environment, which is nothing but collective bad karma, entails bad consequences.

14. Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one.

15. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

16. Violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

17. Buddhism is absolutely unique and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science.

18. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

19. Buddhism does not treat the self and consciousness as one and the same. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual by-product of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness.

20. In Buddhism, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing.

21. The statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

22. As long as one acutely suffers from the delusion of A, the illusion of maya invariably drags him/her into the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD).

23. As soon as one is liberated from the delusion of A, the illusion of maya also vanishes; and the Ultimate Reality of Void and B = B is affirmed.

24. Whatever exists, exists interdependently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the believers, there is only one God.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between believing in a Creator God and the Big Bang. The belief in a Creator God fills in the void left by the Big Bang theory.

There is only one God.
Nonetheless, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have stated earlier, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Anyway; as I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

Enjoy your blind beliefs; along with the ride in the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) and have lots of fun.

If the :x ness still persists, straightaway, without any delay, 'the terribly confused Buddhists' must increment the count of their Cognitive Degeneration

From CD = N

To

CD = N+1; then Go to START

If not, the reward is not a lollipop but the eligibility for all of you to attain Nirvana, the perfect liberation from the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD).

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

goodsense

25th December 2006, 11:29 PM

O my God! Rohit, are you going mad or what? :)

Rohit

26th December 2006, 03:58 AM

O my God! Rohit, are you going mad or what? :)
As long as people like you are there to go absolutely :x, I don't have to face even the remotest chance for that.

Anyway, even if you may not like it, it increments the count of your CD to N = 574 my dear (?)sense. Just keep incrementing the count of your CD as long as such :x ness prevails.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

goodsense

26th December 2006, 06:59 AM

I am not moved or affected a bit by your words or emoticons. I am only getting more use to reading and seeing them.

You take care and continue with your good works. Wouldn't be seeing much of me here. :wink:

Rohit

26th December 2006, 05:17 PM

I am not moved or affected a bit by your words or emoticons. I am only getting more use to reading and seeing them.
The more you get used to reading and seeing them, the more you would find yourself helpless and speechless. Which alone, in itself, doesn't affect your CD count. This, in a way, is a good choice for you; and perhaps, a far better option than to post utter nonsense that would keep incrementing your CD count. :)

You take care and continue with your good works. Wouldn't be seeing much of me here. :wink:
You too take care of your senses and try to tame them for doing some good works. Until then, it would make a real good sense to keep yourself essentially invisible. :)

:D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

26th December 2006, 08:22 PM

5. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. [size=18]E=mc^2 and E= hf[/color].

That is why Brahman is said to be "timeless" and "formless." The description corresponds exactly to the description of energy. Now please continue with your futile attempts. :lol:

Rohit

26th December 2006, 10:43 PM

Remember the count of your Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 575. Now keep Going to START and just keep incrementing the count of your CD as long as the :x ness prevails.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

26th December 2006, 10:53 PM

Before starting, "the terribly confused Buddhists" must remember to increment their count of Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 575

START: "The terribly confused Buddhists" must start their journey into the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) from:

Of course he can take an infinite number of forms. But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?
OR Any such Non-Sequitur Fallacies that I have already thoroughly demolished earlier.

Then they must read, understand and try to grasp the following, in full.

As it invariably happens; here go 'the terribly confused Buddhists" completely :x .

Help is already at hand, only if they stop their egocentric nonsense. So far, all their posts have proved them nothing more than just egocentric kids who are adamant to have lollipops before yielding to the facts.

Unfortunately, there is no lollipop here, but the bitter facts. Therefore, just keep reading.

So; just remember the facts and ignore all the dissonance-ridden fallacies; being heedlessly posted form there.

Facts:

1. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of space-time and also the beginning of the wheel of becoming. :)

2. Everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect.

3. Everything that exists is subject to change; nothing remains without change.

4. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

5. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. E=mc^2 and E= hf.

The answer was already stated here much earlier. In fact, the question itself admits the full agreement with this assertion of mine, which thoroughly demolished the latest versions of all forms of fallacies posted from there. :)

6. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

7. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

8. All conscious beings have structures; and they constantly change. :)

9. There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

10. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

11. Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time.

12. Adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for rational knowledge or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions from individuals, groups, institutes, societies, civilisations, nations etc. are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

13. Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing environment, which is nothing but collective bad karma, entails bad consequences.

14. Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one.

15. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

16. Violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

17. Buddhism is absolutely unique and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science.

18. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

19. Buddhism does not treat the self and consciousness as one and the same. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual by-product of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness.

20. In Buddhism, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing.

21. The statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

22. As long as one acutely suffers from the delusion of A, the illusion of maya invariably drags him/her into the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD).

23. As soon as one is liberated from the delusion of A, the illusion of maya also vanishes; and the Ultimate Reality of Void and B = B is affirmed.

24. Whatever exists, exists interdependently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the believers, there is only one God.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between believing in a Creator God and the Big Bang. The belief in a Creator God fills in the void left by the Big Bang theory.

There is only one God.
Nonetheless, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have stated earlier, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Anyway; as I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

Enjoy your blind beliefs; along with the ride in the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) and have lots of fun.

If the :x ness still persists, straightaway, without any delay, 'the terribly confused Buddhists' must increment the count of their Cognitive Degeneration

From CD = N

To

CD = N+1; then Go to START

If not, the reward is not a lollipop but the eligibility for all of you to attain Nirvana, the perfect liberation from the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD).

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

27th December 2006, 01:02 AM

20. In Buddhism, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing.

According to the Periodic Table, there are 118 elements. Implying, of course, that all substances in nature must be composed of one or more of these. Yet another illuminating example of the "lack" of conflict between Buddhism and science. :lol:

Rohit

27th December 2006, 03:22 AM

Remember the count of your Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 576. Now keep Going to START and just keep incrementing the count of your CD as long as there is utter lack of understanding of the aggregates and elements; and as long as such :x ness prevails.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

27th December 2006, 03:29 AM

Before starting, "the terribly confused Buddhists" must remember to increment their count of Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 576

START: "The terribly confused Buddhists" must start their journey into the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) from:

Of course he can take an infinite number of forms. But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?
OR Any such Non-Sequitur Fallacies that I have already thoroughly demolished earlier.

Then they must read, understand and try to grasp the following, in full.

As it invariably happens; here go 'the terribly confused Buddhists" completely :x .

Help is already at hand, only if they stop their egocentric nonsense. So far, all their posts have proved them nothing more than just egocentric kids who are adamant to have lollipops before yielding to the facts.

Unfortunately, there is no lollipop here, but the bitter facts. Therefore, just keep reading.

So; just remember the facts and ignore all the dissonance-ridden fallacies; being heedlessly posted form there.

Facts:

1. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of space-time and also the beginning of the wheel of becoming. :)

2. Everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect.

3. Everything that exists is subject to change; nothing remains without change.

4. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

5. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. E=mc^2 and E= hf.

The answer was already stated here much earlier. In fact, the question itself admits the full agreement with this assertion of mine, which thoroughly demolished the latest versions of all forms of fallacies posted from there. :)

6. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

7. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

8. All conscious beings have structures; and they constantly change. :)

9. There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

10. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

11. Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time.

12. Adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for rational knowledge or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions from individuals, groups, institutes, societies, civilisations, nations etc. are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

13. Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing environment, which is nothing but collective bad karma, entails bad consequences.

14. Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one.

15. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

16. Violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

17. Buddhism is absolutely unique and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science.

18. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

19. Buddhism does not treat the self and consciousness as one and the same. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual by-product of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness.

20. In Buddhism, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing.

21. The statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

22. As long as one acutely suffers from the delusion of A, the illusion of maya invariably drags him/her into the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD).

23. As soon as one is liberated from the delusion of A, the illusion of maya also vanishes; and the Ultimate Reality of Void and B = B is affirmed.

24. Whatever exists, exists interdependently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the believers, there is only one God.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between believing in a Creator God and the Big Bang. The belief in a Creator God fills in the void left by the Big Bang theory.

There is only one God.
Nonetheless, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have stated earlier, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Anyway; as I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'the terribly confused Buddhists'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'terribly confused Buddhists'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

Enjoy your blind beliefs; along with the ride in the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) and have lots of fun.

If the :x ness still persists, straightaway, without any delay, 'the terribly confused Buddhists' must increment the count of their Cognitive Degeneration

From CD = N

To

CD = N+1; then Go to START

If not, the reward is not a lollipop but the eligibility for all of you to attain Nirvana, the perfect liberation from the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD).

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

27th December 2006, 10:04 PM

18. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

Devolution is scientific? :?: :lol:

Rohit

28th December 2006, 04:09 AM

Nothing seems to work for "The terribly confused Buddhists"

Remember the count of your Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 577. Now keep Going to START and just keep incrementing the count of your CD as long as there is utter lack of understanding of evolution and devolution; and as long as such :x ness prevails.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

harishkumar09

12th January 2007, 11:23 PM

Karma theory is due to Buddhism.Though karma is recognised in hinduism , it was brought to prominence only by the buddhists.In the ancient vedic religion karma was not primary infact only tertiary.Buddhism does not accept the existence of any souls , or supersoul , only a stream of karma which has coalesced into an individual identity.Nirvana is to blow out and lose the identity which never existed int he first place.

Buddhists also give too much prominence to past deeds.For example after 9/11 Dalai Lama declared it was the result of past bad karmas such as colonisation so US should not invade Iraq.

Adi Shankara borrowed this prominence for karma and "past deeds" from the buddhists and brought it into hinduism.

Ever since then hindu society has become stagnant and rigid and fatalistic.Caste has rigidified on account of past deeds theory whereas in the past it was elastic in nature."Past deeds" theory also has created a fatalistic mentality and caused the people to accept their misfortune without attempting to rectify the situation.
It has resulted in people not going to the rescue of the suffering as they deserved to suffer and helping them would be actually detrimental to the suffering.

---- to be continued

Rohit

3rd February 2007, 04:30 PM

Scientists are finding evidences of backward evolution i.e. devolution.

The ancestor within all creatures

Evolution isn't supposed to run backwards, but when it does it can sometimes represent the future of a species - even us

From October to April every year, fishermen in Taiji in Japan herd schools of dolphins and porpoises into shallow bays and slaughter them for food. Each year they kill around 20,000 animals. That would have been the fate of one particular dolphin, a bottlenose that scientists now call AO-4, had fishermen not spotted something rather unusual about it.

What saved the dolphin's life was an extra pair of flippers. In addition to the usual front pair, it had a smaller pair at the back. Experts were quick to point out that these were similar to the hind flippers seen in early dolphin fossils. "It looks like the dolphins' ancestors from 40 million years ago," says Johannes Thewissen, an expert on cetacean evolution at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine in Rootstown.

The press lapped it up, reporting the dolphin as an "evolutionary throwback". The idea made for a great story, ...

The complete article is 3754 words long.

New Scientist
13 January 2007
Magazine issue 2586

http://www.newscientist.com/archive/year/2007.html

:D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

5th February 2007, 10:29 PM

DALAI LAMA: In terms of the actual substance of which computers are made, are they simply metal, plastic, circuits, and so forth?

VARELA: Yes, but this again brings up the idea of the pattern, not the substance but the pattern.

DALAI LAMA: It is very difficult to say that it's not a living being, that it doesn't have cognition, even from the Buddhist point of view. We maintain that there are certain types of births in which a preceding continuum of consciousness is the basis. The consciousness doesn't actually arise from the matter, but a continuum of consciousness might conceivably come into it.

ROSCH: So if there's a great yogi who is dying and he is standing in front of the best computer there is, could he project his subtle consciousness into the computer?

DALAI LAMA: If the physical basis of the computer acquires the potential or the ability to serve as a basis for a continuum of consciousness. I feel this question about computers will be resolved only by time. We just have to wait and see until it actually happens.

SRS

5th February 2007, 10:32 PM

Rohit

6th February 2007, 12:13 AM

Poor "Terribly Confused Buddhists =TCB" have gone completely :x again and in that :x ness lost their CD count.

Let me help them, their CD count goes up by one, from CD = 577 to CD =578

According to Buddhism, plants have no mind or consciousness. As a Buddhist monk, I say they have no consciousness. Even without consciousness or mind their very existence is based on co-operation of each particle and cell.

Human beings took five billion years to develop to their present human state. For three to four billion of years there was no life; only some basic primary cells.

The concept of interdependence is accepted by all schools of Buddhist tenets. Interdependence involves everything being dependent on its parts.

Dalai Lama

The Self

What is unique about Buddhism, however, compared to other religions is that it argues that there is no such thing as a permanent self. If this is the case how can the self that I regard as me continue its existence in a new rebirth? Buddhism does not deny the existence of a self as such, what it does deny is the existence of a permanent self that transmigrates from one existence to the next like someone getting out of one cab and entering another. The self is seen to be made up of five factors and that these are ever changing. The new consciousness that emerges in the new rebirth is neither the same nor totally different from the previous one. It is best to see the self from the Buddhist perspective as a continuum, rather than something that is static and sharply defined.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa071602a.htm

Despite so many hopeless attempts, nothing whatsoever works for "The Terribly Confused Buddhists = The TCBs"

So, just remember the count of your Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 578.

Now keep Going to START and just keep incrementing the count of your CD as long as there is utter lack of understanding of everything; and as long as such :x ness prevails.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

6th February 2007, 11:12 PM

Projecting one's consciousness into the computer is very scientific indeed :lol: :lol:

However, the Dalai Lama should specify whether such a projection results in one being reborn as the CPU, monitor, fan, heat sink, microprocesser, etc.?

Anyway, I will in the future refrain from slamming the mouse or pounding keys, so as not to inflict physical harm upon any atheist reincarnation I may be employing! :lol: :lol:

Rohit

7th February 2007, 12:29 AM

Poor "Terribly Confused Buddhists =TCB"

Let me provide help, your CD count goes up by one, from CD = 578 to CD =579

Despite so many hopeless attempts, nothing whatsoever works for "The Terribly Confused Buddhists = The TCBs"

So, just remember the count of your Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 579.

Now keep Going to START and just keep incrementing the count of your CD as long as there is utter lack of understanding of everything; and as long as such :x ness prevails.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:
:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep

9th February 2007, 01:05 AM

The consciousness doesn't actually arise from the matter, but a continuum of consciousness might conceivably come into it.

Dear SRS
Thanks a lot for this. Now my question is whether Dalai Lama is a confused Budhist?. The above is pure Advaitic statement too. Hope you can recollect my old postings where i told that all spiritual traditions talk this universal truth. Those who have twisted this truth can never understand this. Anyway thanks a lot SRS.

thamiz

9th February 2007, 01:28 AM

karma of this life is last life's consequence.?
Fine. Go on to the next step and then Go on to the FIRST LIFE of all lives you lived.

Now you are at the first of all lives you ever lived. First of all firsts!

Now tell me, what serves as "karma" of one's VERY first life?

So karma theory fails miserably and it has been mentioned several times! :roll:

pradheep

9th February 2007, 03:10 AM

First karma started with a question "Whom am I?. Finding answer to that question ends all karma.

thamiz

9th February 2007, 03:34 AM

Nope, I dont know what you are talking about. I am talking about a 10-year old gets molested and raped and killed by "human animals" for not doing any harm or whatsoever.

People say, it may be "karma". mun jenmaththtilE seytha paavam (the bad thing she did in her last life) lead to give her such a tragedy!

Fine, that is possible. Let us go on to the first life of that girl. I am sure she may have done good and bad and faced good and bad in the first life also.

Now, tell me "what karama of her" decides the good and bad things of her first life?

First karma started with a question "Whom am I?.

MEANING?? :roll:

Finding answer to that question ends all karma.

I dont care when end where and how the karma ends! :notworthy:

Pradheep: Talk in a language which can be understood. YOur one-line means nothing to me. If everything has to be found out by myself by asking who am I, I cant learn anything but livng and dying as a self-centered moron.

Talk in a language which can be understood by normal human beings!

pradheep

9th February 2007, 04:03 AM

Now, tell me "what karama of her" decides the good and bad things of her first life?

Dear friend,
Can you explain how the first "hen" was born?

thamiz

9th February 2007, 04:05 AM

Pradheep: It is easy to answer my questiion without asking a question.

There is nothing wrong in saying " I DONT KNOW" after all, my friend! :D

pradheep

9th February 2007, 04:15 AM

My question back was not to make you look like an idiot. since you were interested to know how karma acts , I wanted to explain in the simple language which you would understand, through your answers to the "hen" question.

thamiz

9th February 2007, 04:32 AM

My question back was not to make you look like an idiot.

I dont see how that question will make anybody to look like an idiot even if you intended to do so! It has been asked by several million people before.

Neverthelss, that question is completely unnecessary in a sipmple discussion. It only shows one's inability to answer what was asked. "Defending" where it is not warranted

The bottomline is:

You have not answered my question! All you could do was coming up with another question and confuse everybody!

Now you are going to say, I have misunderstood everything and so on and so .

Please answer my question without bringing up any hen or egg or both, please! Otherwise just let it go. It is not that you must answer or anything like that! :)

pradheep

9th February 2007, 05:27 PM

Please answer my question without bringing up any hen or egg or both, please

Okay.

Now, tell me "what karama of her" decides the good and bad things of her first life?

Her thoughts decides her action and that is Karma. Our thoughts decides action and that becomes the seed for further actions. So it is the nature of the thoughts that we entertain, that shapes our life. Hope this is easy to understand.

kannannn

9th February 2007, 05:54 PM

Let me get this right. Pradheep, do you mean to say the thoughts of a 10 year girl decides her karma and serve as a basis for her to be raped? :shock:

pradheep

9th February 2007, 06:31 PM

Dear Kannan
The answer was to the question
Now, tell me "what karama of her" decides the good and bad things of her first life?

What happens every moment is the sum total of all our thoughts of the past, present and future. This is the law of karma.

We cannot change the thoughts of the past, but have control over the present and the future. we have only choice over it. Exercising that choice once can change the karma...vidhiyai madhiyaal vellalam.

Looking at bits and pieces cannot give the answer, the holistic view can only help.

thamiz

9th February 2007, 08:45 PM

Dear Kannan
Looking at bits and pieces cannot give the answer, the holistic view can only help.

See, you dont want to make anything which is so simple to understand. You want to make "terminologies" to complicate every simple things as if something else exists there.

I explained a situation in such a way that anybody can understand.

First, you came up with another question to make 0ne plus one instead of one question.

Now you want me to get a "holistic view" so that we can leave the simple problem and go after getting "holistic view"!

Then you will say, you dont qualitfy for getting such a view and so you cnat understand.

The bottomline is : THERE IS NO ANSWER! It is a simple truth that you dont want to admit that!

Well :)

SRS

10th February 2007, 02:39 AM

Let me get this right. Pradheep, do you mean to say the thoughts of a 10 year girl decides her karma and serve as a basis for her to be raped? :shock:

It is her bad karma from a past life that causes her to be raped in this life. Your confusion arises from the fact that you see a 10 year old girl, in a single instant of time. In that single instant of time, the girl may be innocent, so to speak. But if one examines every instant of time in which the girl has "existed" corresponding to every cycle of rebirth, then the "girl" vanishes. Now it is not just one person we are focusing on, it is a multitude of persons, each with distinct personalities and most importantly, motivations. Somewhere along the line, there is a motivation that results in a rebirth for which the reincarnation must endure a degree of suffering, in this case, rape. This is not just Hindu thinking, the Buddhist thinking is the same. If one is reborn again, then suffering is inevitable. Glossing over the degree of suffering is an exercise in futility.

thamiz

11th February 2007, 02:30 AM

This is not just Hindu thinking, the Buddhist thinking is the same.

How does it matter whether it is a "hindu's thinking" or "budhdhist thinking" or a christian's thinking? :roll:

Nobody cares!

We are talking about the concept of "karma" no matter which religion says that!

Your confusion arises from the fact that you see a 10 year old girl, in a single instant of time..

The confusion is, WE ARE GOING TO THE VERY FIRST life of that girl or the person! When you get there, WHAT SERVES as KARMA in that FIRST LIFE of that person :?:

Is that so hard to understand :?:

We dont need any hen/egg story to explain the karma of a person at his/her VERY FIRST life!

An answer in a civilized manner by anyone would be appreciated!

pradheep

12th February 2007, 11:27 PM

WHAT SERVES as KARMA in that FIRST LIFE of that person

Her parents thoughts and desires.

kannannn

13th February 2007, 12:32 AM

Pradheep, are you sure? How did you conclude this?

thamiz

13th February 2007, 12:43 AM

WHAT SERVES as KARMA in that FIRST LIFE of that person

Her parents thoughts and desires.

OK I will save this! Thanks Pradeep! I will get back to you on this!

Rohit

13th February 2007, 01:38 AM

The girl is completely a new person born of their parents. She lived no past life as the same person. Therefore; the girl has no karmic history; except of the ten years of her life after she was born. Therefore, the girl is completely innocent.

Only "The Terribly Confused Buddhists = TCBs" can Cognitively Degenerate to such an extent and attribute the event to girl's karma or to her parents' karma.

It is only the boy or the man who raped her is guilty of bad karma; and must be punished accordingly. Those imbeciles, who blame the girl or her parents for the event are the one who are the most guilty of committing the worst form of collective bad karma; and therefore, deserve the consequences.

So, dear TCBs just remember the count of your Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it stands at CD = N = 589.

There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

Buddha

According to Buddhism, plants have no mind or consciousness. As a Buddhist monk, I say they have no consciousness. Even without consciousness or mind their very existence is based on co-operation of each particle and cell.

Human beings took five billion years to develop to their present human state. For three to four billion of years there was no life; only some basic primary cells.

The concept of interdependence is accepted by all schools of Buddhist tenets. Interdependence involves everything being dependent on its parts.

Dalai Lama

The Self

What is unique about Buddhism, however, compared to other religions is that it argues that there is no such thing as a permanent self. If this is the case how can the self that I regard as me continue its existence in a new rebirth? Buddhism does not deny the existence of a self as such, what it does deny is the existence of a permanent self that transmigrates from one existence to the next like someone getting out of one cab and entering another. The self is seen to be made up of five factors and that these are ever changing. The new consciousness that emerges in the new rebirth is neither the same nor totally different from the previous one. It is best to see the self from the Buddhist perspective as a continuum, rather than something that is static and sharply defined.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa071602a.htm

Not being able to understand the meaning of aggregates, which constitute consciousness and what is meant by continuum of consciousness, legitimately entitles them to remain as TCBs.

No wonder; despite so many hopeless attempts, nothing whatsoever has worked for "The Terribly Confused Buddhists = The TCBs"

So, just remember the count of your Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 589.

Now keep Going to START and just keep incrementing the count of your CD as long as there is utter lack of understanding of everything; and as long as such :x ness prevails.

Let me extend the help even further.

Let me set TCBs a target of their Cognitive Degeneration (CD) = N = 1000 for them to chase collectively; and then let them speedup their Cognitive Degeneration (CD) to catch up with this set target as quickly as they can degenerate cognitively. :D

Good Luck TCBs

:lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep

13th February 2007, 02:36 AM

Pradheep, are you sure? How did you conclude this?

I have written how a child's psychology is formed in my earlier posts.Thoughts of the mother's during pregnancy has so much influence of the psychology of the child. There is a clash with these thoughts with the child's karmic thoughts and which dominates depends on the power of the thoughts of the mother.

Conclusion is based on research.

OK I will save this! Thanks Pradeep! !

I caution you Thamizh, my answer is pretaining to your questions on just the girl and about her first birth (according to you). I told you about holistic (which means looking at whole and not bits and pieces). You are not bringing into picture about the karma of the guy who did the ofence, the situation etc.

I will get back to you on this

You may my dear Thamizh

thamiz

13th February 2007, 02:44 AM

You are not bringing into picture about the karma of the guy who did the ofence, the situation etc.

Let me not worry about the hunan animal who caused that.

One problem at a time.

I just concentrate on the first life of that innocent girl who happenened encounter a terrible tragedy for none of her faults or whatsoever! :(

SRS

13th February 2007, 03:07 AM

When the "world" was "first" created, the inhabitants were perfect. Therefore, it is impossible that the girl was raped in the first life. Perhaps Pradheep can comment further on this, as I am aware of only the most meagre facts. The reason I have used quotation marks is to indicate that the universe is created and destroyed over and over, in an endless process. We measure time linearly, but it is actually cyclical.

thamiz

13th February 2007, 04:18 AM

When the "world" was "first" created, the inhabitants were perfect.

So none of those inhabitants would have reborn or would have had a next life as they were all PERFECT in the "first world" in every aspect of their life ? :roll:

SRS

13th February 2007, 05:55 AM

Many civilizations have posed their own answer to such a question. For the sake of hypothetical argument (in order to examine a possible solution, not necessarily the correct solution), I will post the answer from Ancient Greek mythology:

Golden Age
The Golden Age was a mythical first period of man when everything was happy and easy, and mortals lived like gods, although they died, but only as if falling asleep. No one worked or grew unhappy. Spring never ended. It is even described as a period in which people aged backwards. When they died, they became daimones and roamed the earth. The people of the Golden Age were formed by or for the titan Cronus who is known by the Romans as Saturn.

When Zeus overcame the titans the Golden Age ended.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/hesiodagesofman.htm

Under Zeus the Silver Age came first.
Silver Age

During the Silver Age the Olympian god Zeus was in charge. Zeus caused this generation of man to be created inferior in appearance and wisdom to the last. He divided the year into four seasons. Man had to plant grain and seek shelter, but still, a child could play for a hundred years before growing up. The people wouldn't honor the gods, so Zeus caused them to be destroyed. When they died, they became "blessed spirits of the underworld."
then they who dwell on Olympus made a second generation which was of silver and less noble by far. It was like the golden race neither in body nor in spirit. A child was brought up at his good mother's side an hundred years, an utter simpleton, playing childishly in his own home. But when they were full grown and were come to the full measure of their prime, they lived only a little time in sorrow because of their foolishness, for they could not keep from sinning and from wronging one another, nor would they serve the immortals, nor sacrifice on the holy altars of the blessed ones as it is right for men to do wherever they dwell.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/hesiodagesofman_2.htm

kannannn

13th February 2007, 06:39 AM

I have written how a child's psychology is formed in my earlier posts.Thoughts of the mother's during pregnancy has so much influence of the psychology of the child. There is a clash with these thoughts with the child's karmic thoughts and which dominates depends on the power of the thoughts of the mother.
This is starting to sound something like the "The Criminal Tribes Act" introduced by the British, where criminal intent was though to be hereditary in certain tribes. pradheep, first you said the child has to pay for the actions and thoughts of the parents. How did that change to just the mother?

Conclusion is based on research.
What research? Any references?

SRS and pradheep, aren't you trying to fit a possible answer or explanation to satisfy your hypothesis? Would it not be better to derive conclusions from observations?

SRS

13th February 2007, 10:01 PM

Kannan,

It is really a question of whether or not you believe the Universe created itself. If you answer in the affirmative, then of course such concepts as karma, reincarnation, etc. become meaningless. However, any such process of mechanistic reduction can only go so far. Where did that singular energy come from to cause the big bang? What is the origin of consciousness? It is much better to consider these questions in light of a creator God. Do not imagine science will ever create consciousness in a test tube (a good proof of the Universe being able to create itself). It just won't happen.

pradheep

13th February 2007, 11:44 PM

This is starting to sound something ............. change to just the mother?

I wrote earlier that an act is influenced by so many factors: with varying degrees. In a court, a judge looks not just the act but at the background and the situation of the person who did it. However this does not mean that the act can be forgiven. The person deserves punishment of course. But here Thamizh's point of view is not the criminal but the innocent girl.

Any references?
this excellent book "Vedic Vision - Ancient insights into modern life". A translation of Sanskar Chandrika, the scientific exposition of Rishi Dayanand's Sanskar Vidhi" by Dr.Satyavrata Siddhantalankar. 1999 Translated and published by Vijay Krishn Lakhanpal, W-77 A, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi - 100 048.

SRS and pradheep, aren't you trying to fit a possible answer or explanation to satisfy your hypothesis?

Everyone tries to prove their point is correct. But the correct way is to arrive at a holistic view where truth alone is seen. My point is not to pinpoint the other person is wrong , but to see "Oneness" in everything. Since these discussions are based on religions, You might notice that in "total" I try to help everyone to see the "Oneness (truth)" in all religions. This universality alone brings peace, otherwise it ends up in hatred and wars. It is east to write what I think is correct and others are wrong, but difficult to tell write about the Truth.

Whatever I write is not my hypothesis.. It is based on thousands of years of research.

If a man rapes a child, the person deserves the punishment, but he cannot alone be blamed. We all are part of the crime. We have created such situations in our soceity. Example, our media becoming more eroctic adds fuel to this fire. So there are so many factors, some are small and others big, and there are crucial preciptating factors too. Will write more later.

thamiz

14th February 2007, 12:47 AM

If a man rapes a child, the person deserves the punishment, but he cannot alone be blamed. We all are part of the crime. We have created such situations in our soceity.

Pradheep, please, it is just an example event to understand the concept of karma! I just created a situation. That is all.

Everyone tries to prove their point is correct.

Not everyone, some are certainly open-minded enough to change their views after learning some new lessons! If the lessons are convincing!

SRS

14th February 2007, 02:40 AM

Karma is as fundamental as gravity. Both are natural laws. But of course, effect of karma is more subtle; that is the difficulty.

pradheep

14th February 2007, 05:03 AM

to understand the concept of karma!

No problem Thamizh. I here my family and friends talk about karma. i find they use it as an easy excuse to hide thier faults. They dont want to take responsibility for their actions. When some thing good happen they talk with such Ego that it is because of their talent they acheive that. But when there is a failure they point on karma. I tell them karma means cause and effect. They are fixed. We are all only choice makers. We have only that freedom. We cannot change the effect of a cause. That is vidhi. We cannot change it. but we can change our destiny by our will by making right choices in life. How to make right choices in life?. Follow the intellectual and not the emotional mind. But the ego does not allow to use the intellect , it always black mails with emotions. The ego does not wants defeats, it always wants to win. To allow the intellect and not the emotional mind to make decisions, needs practice. This is how yoga, meditation and other spiritual practices helps. Spiritual practices are not weaken us, but to strengthen us. Only through spiritual practices do we understand the holistic (totality) picture and much more about karma. You may read more in http://sakthifoundation.org/karma.htm

Rohit

15th February 2007, 02:17 AM

In order to have an all-encompassing, panoramic, bird's eye view of the whole thing; it is absolutely necessary to possess high capacity for cosmic thinking and grasp that everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect. Nothing is exempted from the law of cause and effect. The moment something exists, the law of cause and effect comes into play.

Since, it is absolutely true that no consciousness can ever arise without conditions; all conscious actions, whether right or wrong, trace their roots to some other causal conditions.

Therefore, it is quite understandable that the offender's consciousness to carryout such a hideous act must have arisen from certain causal conditions that were beyond his control. Generally, under such overwhelming, sensually aroused, emotional conditions, the offender's ability to distinguish between right and wrong vanishes altogether or becomes very blurred, completely paralysing his ability to choose right from wrong.

Thus, the case brought by Thamiz clearly shows how desires overwhelm one's intellect and overtake one's ability to make moral judgements.

:D :) :thumbsup:

thamiz

15th February 2007, 02:53 AM

pradheep

15th February 2007, 03:23 AM

biological. I wrote to you the thoughts during pregnancy has maximum influence.

Rohit

15th February 2007, 03:45 AM

The chickens that get slaughtered have their mothers' bad influencing thoughts as the prime cause, maximising the chances of them getting slaughtered.

The cows, lambs, goats etc. that get slaughtered have their mothers' bad influencing thoughts as the prime cause, maximising their chances of getting slaughtered.

Similarly, the imbeciles who fail to grasp the essentials and correlates of situations have their mothers' bad influencing thoughts as the prime cause, maximising their chances of attaining such moronic states that eventually lead them into utter :x ness.

Thus the :x ness prevails. :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Sudhaama

17th February 2007, 07:07 AM

rohit: You have said it! :)

pradheep:

WHAT SERVES as KARMA in that FIRST LIFE of that person

Her parents thoughts and desires.

What if the "girl" was an adopted one from a foreign country at the age of 0.5 years or so?

Let us assume the girl was adopted from south america at the age of 0.5 years old by white parents of US.

The girl has absolutely no relationship with the biological parents and they are DEAD already!

When you are talking about the "parents" of the girl, WHO are you talking about?

Which parents' acts or karma is going to influence the "girl" :?:

The biological parents or the adopted parents :?:

Karmas do not mean the After-effect of any other Souls' past deeds... be it the Parents or such other Blood relations...

..either of the present or past births of one soul.

The word Karma is a Word of Complex-sense implying the Punyas(Good Virtues) and Paapaas (Sins).

Sins committed by any other soul never gets shared by any innocent soul... unconnected with its cause and deed

...but only the Punyas of the parents are shared by one's Children.. similar to the Propery- earnings to the heir.

So to say...the effect of the TOTAL CONTENT OF SINS are to be borne and faced by the same soul only... the Doer

In this context, Astrolgy helps us a lot to understand the difference between the effects of Punyas and Paapaas on one's life. There are different houses for Paapaas and Punyas.. effecting differently too.

As Mr Rohit has rightly pointed out the Basic-factor of CAUSE & EFFECT...

...Everyone ought to REAP THE CONSEQUENCES of One's Past-deeds...

...of its several pevious births, as well as the current one...

.. But when and how... varies from person to person.

One main point...NOBODY IS DESTINED TO SUFFER FOR EVER...

.. whatever be the one's past Karmas(Deeds).. in several previous births.

As the Bible has beautifully portrayed the God's intentions... one has to realise true to his/her conscience and seek the God's pardon... for all the sins committed... knowingly or unknowingly

And Islam too urges to beg God for a Pardon... through Namaas.

Vedas concur with such a concept of Self-realisation resulting in the truly Human-spirit of MORAL VALUES...

.. by Treating others as you want to be treated by others.
.

Rohit

17th February 2007, 03:14 PM

As one can clearly notice that dear Sudhaama has brilliantly exhibited how one's heedless acts of assimilating gibberish and gobbledegook contrived by the past generations and then heedlessly flushed/inculcated into the insensate heads of the next generations, detrimentally affect the cognitive development of subsequent generations.

In nutshell: :!:

The chickens that get slaughtered, have their mothers' prevalent lack of ability to perform virtuous deeds, combined with the sinful bad karma committed by the chickens themselves in the past, acts as the prime cause of maximising the chances of them suffering and then getting slaughtered.

The cows, lambs, goats etc. that get slaughtered, have their mothers' prevalent lack of ability to perform virtuous deeds, combined with the sinful bad karma committed by themselves in the past, acts as the prime cause of maximising the chances of them suffering and then getting slaughtered.

Similarly, the imbeciles who fail to grasp the essentials and correlates of situations, have their mothers' prevalent lack of ability to perform virtuous deeds, combined with the sinful bad karma committed by themselves in the past, acts as the prime cause of maximising the chances of them suffering and then attaining such moronic states that eventually lead them into utter :x ness.

This is how the :x ness prevails. :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

kannannn

19th February 2007, 12:32 AM

Sudhaama

19th February 2007, 07:41 AM

The word Karma is a Word of Complex-sense implying the Punyas(Good Virtues) and Paapaas (Sins).

Sins committed by any other soul never gets shared by any innocent soul... unconnected with its cause and deed

...but only the Punyas of the parents are shared by one's Children.. similar to the Propery- earnings to the heir.

If I am right this aspect is very well brought out in Valmiki's life story. He is challenged to get one of his relatives to share his sins. However, much to his disappointment he finds out that while his good deeds can be shared, none can unload the burden of his sins. That is what eventually leads him to abandon his life as a thief and become an ascetic.

Yes. The Valmiki story quoted is correct. But he was not a Thief, but only a Hunter. Sins can never be shared or offloaded even the least to others...

.. EVEN IF THE GIVER AND RECEIVER BOTH WILLING...

If such a Lenience or Concession given... the worst criminals will start selling their Sins to others and get free...

... while the innocent Receiver will unduly suffer.. Eventually the Earth will transform into Hell..

Lord Krishna received the Sins from Karna, which lead to His undue tragic death.

God's law is... anybody may be able to escape from the Blames of the Society as well as the pangs of Law and court of Justice of the Govt .

But can never escape from the subsequent severe blow from God...

..which comes into effect slowly after much delay...(Arasan anrhu kolvaan Dheywam ninrhu kollum).

Because God gives enough of long rope for the Sinner to realise by Introspection...

... followed by confession and seeking Pardon... by the Guilty.

Vaayinaal paadi manathinaal sindhikka,
Poaya pizhaiyum puhu-tharuvaan ninrhanavum
Theeyinil THOOSU-AAHUM, Seppael Oar... Em paavaay.
.

pradheep

19th February 2007, 08:23 AM

If I am right this aspect is very well brought out in Valmiki's life story
Dear Kannan
you are correct. No one can take the burden of of wrong actions. We alone can correct it. Births are meant only for learnign and correcting.

Like other religions , here in Hindusim there is no eternal hell and heaves for soem good done and some bad done.

whatever actions we perform we have to get the results. soem results are immediate (drishta) and other later (adrishta), means next life time.

Part of other beings fate are also ifluenced by higher beings. example man influence the fate of other lives. Like adults influence the life of children at home.

We have no choice of the results of action but only in performing it.

Rohit

21st February 2007, 02:53 AM

Please read the following scientific findings.

An excerpt from "Culture and Psychology" by David Matsumoto. David Matsumoto is a recognised expert in the field.

Miller (1984) examined patterns of social explanation in Americans and Hindu Indians. Both Hindu and American respondents were asked to describe someone they knew well who either did something good for another person or did something bad to another person. After describing such a person, the respondents were asked to explain why the person committed that good or bad act. American respondents typically explained the person's behaviour in terms of general dispositions (for example, "She is very irresponsible"). The Hindus, however, were much less likely to offer dispositional explanation. Instead, they tended to provide explanations in terms of actor's duties, social roles and other situation-specific factors.

Some writers (Livesly & Bromley, 1973) have suggested another explanation for these results, based on Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. In nutshell, Piaget (1952,1954) suggested that human go through various stages of intellectual development, generally proceeding from "concrete operations" to higher stages of "abstract operations". Using this theory as a framework, some theorists have suggested that non-western people (such as the Hindu Indian adults in the study just described) are less developed intellectually than American adults. As a result, the Indians used situation-specific, concrete terms whereas Americans used more abstract trait terms in social explanation.
Note: To eliminate the possibility of any confusion, Hindu Indians is used for subject identification as opposed to American Indians.

David Matsumoto is a professor of Psychology and Director of the Culture and Emotion Research Laboratory at San Francisco State University.

Sadly, the above scientific findings confirm/establish precisely what I have been repeatedly stating here and elsewhere.

kannannn

22nd February 2007, 11:13 PM

Bringing the topic on track..

If I am right this aspect is very well brought out in Valmiki's life story
Dear Kannan
you are correct. No one can take the burden of of wrong actions. We alone can correct it. Births are meant only for learnign and correcting.
Pradheep, does it then not mean that the thoughts and actions of parents can't influence the karma of the children?

pradheep

23rd February 2007, 06:48 PM

Dear Kannan
We have to clearly understand the distinction between destiny and fate (Excuse me if my early explanations were not suffice).

Fate (result of action) cannot be changed but destiny (choice making can be changed).

Parents during pregnancy or after pregnancy influence the thoughts of the child in choice making (which includes behavior, perception or outlook of things in life, etc etc), but not on the fate of the child.

An individual 's fate now in this life time depends on the net results of his or her thoughts and action in the previous birth. An individual in the mother's womb, would be developing his or her behavioural tendencies based on the impressions of his or her perevious birth. But then those thoughts would would clash with the mother's thoughts during the pregnancy or growing up.
The parents and the enviornment would have an influence onthe individual and the outcome would be the result of the power of the each one.

Let me make an example. If a person named x-man was entertaining a desire to rape a teenage girl and was unsuccessful, he would carry the impression of the thoughts with him in this birth.

Right from the fetus he would be harboring all his thoughts to fullfill his desire, in the life he is going to be born. If his parents during the prgnancy and also while nurturing him make his thought patterns to nullify those type of sexual tendency which is inherent in him, then his desire of the previous birth will be cleaned out of his mind.

But if the reverse came true, that his parents and the environment gave him to boost his tendency (sanskrit it is called as vasanas), then he will seek this life to full fill his desire.

so this is how his destiny has been formed, which later becomes his fate (commited the action and reaping its results).

His parents or their upbringingor his thoughts in this life time or next lives cannot help him to overcome the fate of his action. He has to pay for his action or raping a child.

So net result , he has only choice in his destiny and not in fate. Destiny means to make a choice whether to fullfill his desire or not.

Now let us assume he decided to fullfill the desire (vasana) to rape a small girl. The prey (girl) for this act also falls one some one who has such tendencies to be a prey. Here the tendency would be out of desire or fear. The girl in her previous life would entertain either thought of strong desire to have sex with that guy or have entertained strong fear of being raped, would carry that vasanas to her next life.

What we fear or keep in our mind always manifest. Then the girl who was entertaining these thoughts would bring that incident into reality.

This is why vedic principle tell us to shun thoughts of fear along with other negative thoughts (God images portray the mudra of abhaya (no bhaya or fear).

Still we should not forget that the parents or other people could still influence the act (destiny) by safe guarding the girl child. In this case if the parents or other people have neglected their duty of keeping vigilance of their girl child, could have prevented the crime. So there are many factors one has to look at.

This is why the whole vedic tradition emphasizes on exercising the choice of entertaining type of vasanas. Always bring positive thoughts and have a check on our desires. It does not say to give up desires.

Vedic tradition does not preach impractical aspect of giving up desires. We are human beings and not "Monks" to give up desires. Vedic tradition says we should use intellect while executing desires.

Nature of manas (mind) is to desire. Only through strong intellect can we make choices, like the symbolic image of krishna (intellect) holding the reines (mind) of the horses (senses).

If one does not understand this core principle can only ridicule this great truth.

pradheep

23rd February 2007, 06:55 PM

Dear Friends
If you understand what I wrote about you will understand the principle of astrology. You will understand the beauty of astrology and not as non-sense but a perfect science.

Astrological chart is like a progress report of a child when he graduates from one class to the next. The chart shows the vasanas (tendencies) that the individual has entertained in his previous birth, this fate , his destiny etc for this birth. There are aspects in the chart which he can correct (destiny) and the fate that he is undergoing. The planets represents all those apsects.
It is a pity that without knowing this great truth people go to astrolgers and get consultation and are like children who do not know the purpose of the progres report card.

If any one interested in disucssing this aspect of astrology , please copy paste this in a new thread and we can discuss the truth behind astrology. Let us not deviate from this thread about karma here.

Friends let us entertain healthy criticism for better understanding and ignore comments of friends who have intension to keep others away from knowing the Truth and reality.

Rohit

24th February 2007, 01:25 AM

The rubbish posted above requires tremendous effort on one’s part to absorb the fantasy of past lives and astrology.

If anyone can ever absorb such fantasies, please do so on your own accord, keeping in mind that they have nothing to do with the Absolute Truth and Absolute Reality.

This is my honest declaration to caution people from falling pray to such charlatans.

SRS

28th February 2007, 01:08 AM

[tscii:ca4c62a847]"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One. . . . Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.“

"J. Robert Oppenheimer "the father of the atomic bomb" quoting from the Hindu scripture Bhagavad-Gita upon witnessing the mushroom cloud resulting from the detonation of the world’s first atomic bomb in New Mexico, U.S.A., on July 16, 1945[/tscii:ca4c62a847]

thamiz

28th February 2007, 02:10 AM

Rohit

28th February 2007, 02:45 AM

Unquestionably, the adopted world-view shapes "The way of thinking" and "The way of doing things" of a people, which consequently shapes the corresponding cognitive development or cognitive degeneration of the people.

:D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep

1st March 2007, 12:34 AM

ohhhhh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Dear Thamizh,

Well, people like me do not write these things because we are fixed in some belief system (atheism is a belief system too). I am not religious , but spiritual looking holistically the "Truth".

To give you a clue that slowly modern science is understanding the truth ancient vedic science 10,000's of years back , read this article.

27 January 2007
Born under a bad sign?

Your date of birth has a bigger influence on your life than you might realise - and all thanks to the Sun. New Scientist investigates
THE star you were born under influences the person you become. Not something you expect to hear from scientists but, incredibly, it seems to be true. There is firm evidence that the time of year you are born affects not just your personality, but also your health, specifically your chances of developing serious mental illness. But don't expect to find clues in your horoscopes. The star in question is the star we were all born under - the sun.

Being born at certain times of year gives a small but significantly increased risk of problems such as depression, schizophrenia and anorexia nervosa. The question is no longer if the seasons affect mental health, but how. Pinning this down could yield vital clues on how to intervene to prevent mental illness.

The effect was first noticed as far back as 1929, when Swiss psychologist Moritz Tramer reported that people born in ...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19325881.700-born-under-a-bad-sign.html

Rohit

1st March 2007, 12:56 AM

The fundamental definition of scientific research is based on its refutability. If the claim is not refutable; it is not science.

Every scientific finding is either true or false; if it is true, then it cannot be false; and if it is false, then it cannot be true.

Therefore; when anyone claims that most scientific findings are false; then being a member of the same set of findings, the very claim becomes paradoxical. If the finding is true, then it is false; and if it is false; well, it cannot be true.

Enjoy the paradox.

But don't expect to find clues in your horoscopes.

:D :) :thumbsup:

kannannn

1st March 2007, 01:23 AM

pradheep

1st March 2007, 02:17 AM

Are they also paying for their mothers' thoughts?

You have totally misunderstood what i wrote (sorry to say you did not read what i wrote earlier with attention). I never said that we are paying for our mother's thoughts. I clearly wrote mother's thoughts decides the choice making in life , but one has to undergo experience the end results of one's past thoughts and action.

Foeticide is an unscuussful launching because of the strong action of the parents thoughts and action.

Still born is a voluntary action (suicidal) from the side of the individual. There is always the freedom of choice to even born in certain way and to certain parents, certain place and certain time.

Before being trapped in a human body (fertilized egg), the individual has full control of choice. But there will be a waiting period and most of the time the desires are so intense the individual compromises, certain things and have to live with it.

Some individual then even tries to drop out at various stages of life, even in foetus using various reasons.

It all depends on the collective actions for any event to happen.

I dont know whether i made myself simple to understand. May be better to go point by point.

Rohit

1st March 2007, 02:43 AM

Please read the following and let us see what you can really see.

But don't expect to find clues in your horoscopes.
If mother's thoughts affect baby's karma (i.e. sins and probity); then the babies whose mother cannot think should be born as perfect beings.

A new study on monkeys found that while they are able to understand basic rules about word patterns, they are not able to follow more complex rules that underpin the crucial next stage of language structure.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4572
If mother's thoughts are believed to affect baby's karma (i.e. sins and probity); and if mother's thoughts are shaped by the language or languages she understands; it implies that the baby's karma (i.e. sins and probity) is affected by the peculiarity of the language or languages in which the mother processes her thoughts.

:D :) :thumbsup:

kannannn

1st March 2007, 04:11 AM

Rohit, very good point.

Pradheep, I did understand your point on past thoughts and actions. But I thought we were discussing thamiz's question on what happens if this is the child's first birth. Also, your theory on waiting time is confusing and is frankly the first time I've heard. What is your source?

pradheep

1st March 2007, 04:32 AM

[tscii:f2ee44458a]
But I thought we were discussing thamiz's question

With bits and pieces we dont understand the whole, then the understanding is also partial.

There is no child suddenly been born one fine morning in the earth. the whole thing is an evolutionary process. It is the desire from the very first life that has fueled evolution ….to survive.

“Yatha pindae thatha brahmande”. Like this body so is this cosmos. (this is a vedic statement which is “re-searched” by modern science – see my older post from florida university where they showed the distance between sun and earth is silimar to the distance between nucleus and cell organells in a human or plant cell.

Like this body so is this cosmos. Our body has more than thirty trillion cells. But all came from one single cell (embryo). It evolves which we call growth, cell differentiation. That embryo is fated to become a human being. But several factors can change (destiny by choices) the expression of genes which determine the physical and mental activity of the individual.

Same way the life that arose is fated to evolve from one single cell to a human being. But there is choice making (destiny) on what we want to do with that evolution.

So no individual is coming into existence just like a spark. Every one is just an extension of a previous thought-action-reaction process which we call as karma. Observe the body every cell arises from a pre-existing cell. Even cloning uses a pre-existing matter. No one can create anything new, we can only transform one form into another. That is what birth and rebirth is about.

So about the girl’s first question is like asking where did the egg come from?. When I answered that Thamizh that I was answering irrevelantly. I made him to think which he did not want to (that’s okay).

The ancient rishis learnt everything by looking at their own body. Their search laboratory was their own body, mind, intellect, awareness and consciousness. Modern research also does the same thing but externally, that is why the knowledge is partial.

So again understand the mother does not shape the fate of the child with her thoughts. Through her thoughts she only moulds the destiny.

waiting time is confusing

All that I write is available in various Upanishads and ayurveda literature like charaka, garbha upanishads, garuda purana etc.
[/tscii:f2ee44458a]

kannannn

1st March 2007, 05:27 AM

[tscii:aae3d22ad9]
So about the girl’s first question is like asking where did the egg come from?. When I answered that Thamizh that I was answering irrevelantly. I made him to think which he did not want to (that’s okay).
But then you did answer that the mother's thoughts influence the foetus's fate.Well anyway, let's see what others say.

WHAT SERVES as KARMA in that FIRST LIFE of that person

Her parents thoughts and desires.

All that I write is available in various Upanishads and ayurveda literature like charaka, garbha upanishads, garuda purana etc.

Hmm.. Never heard of your theory. Where do the souls spend this waiting time?[/tscii:aae3d22ad9]

pradheep

1st March 2007, 06:43 AM

But then you did answer that the mother's thoughts influence the foetus's fate.
WHAT SERVES as KARMA in that FIRST LIFE of that person
Her parents thoughts and desires.

In the First Life (for your understanding only), the mothers thoughts influence the choice making tendency of the child (destiny) which is different from fate (the effect of causes). In the first life , the child when lives that life is influenced by the mothers thoughts in making her decisions, thoughts and action. This then becomes seed for her next life. Hope you can understand this clearly.

Where do the souls spend this waiting time?

If you think Soul as a "thing", then they spend their time in the open spaces.

Rohit

2nd March 2007, 02:30 AM

Whenever there is waiting, there is a high probability of chaos. If, there is a probability of occurrence of an event, the event will occur over a time when its cumulative probability approaches a critical value.

The strongest evidence of this is the well-known and frequent occurrences of chaotic traffic jams on motorways when just one vehicle slows down or stops (equivalent to waiting time) on the motorway.

The extinction of species, which involves more than one element in the process, is another example of chaos.

The possibilities and the numbers of such occurences are countless.

The conclusion is; a tiny disturbance or imbalance in every critically balanced system involving multiple and interdependent factors is bound to result in chaotic imbalance, one time or another.

This is how interdependent, non-linear, dynamic systems behave; and as I said earlier; the universe is one such non-linear, dynamic and interdependently operating system; and the law of chaos (cause and effect) is one among the set of many such emergent natural laws of the universe.

:D :) :thumbsup:

kannannn

3rd March 2007, 12:12 PM

In the First Life (for your understanding only), the mothers thoughts influence the choice making tendency of the child (destiny) which is different from fate (the effect of causes). In the first life , the child when lives that life is influenced by the mothers thoughts in making her decisions, thoughts and action. This then becomes seed for her next life. Hope you can understand this clearly.
I understand this clearly Pradheep. But my problem is this. The more I read your explanations, the more I am inclined to believe that you are complicating the answers to a simple question. How do you even know these answers are right? At best they are just propositions. If they are from Upanishads or other ancient texts, I would like see a reference with the corresponding verse. Is that possible?

pradheep

3rd March 2007, 06:59 PM

Dear Kannan
I am giving the most simplified explanations. The more details oriented you go you see the complexity (not complicating). Like you see a human body, the more you see the details , you end up seeing cells , organelles, millions of biochemical reactions each interacting with each others. so from outside it looks simple system , but when we go detail oriented we find it is a complex system. Just to lift our hand, zillions of biochemical reactions has to be co-ordinated. I see that same complex pattern in everything. But all the rules governing it are simple - law of karma.

All this information are available deep in ourselves (field of awareness-consciousness). By transcending Ego, we all can go into that realm. It is field of treasures. What sort of information we need, we can harvest. Some rishi's had harvested the treasure of ayurveda, some astrology, some vastu, some arts, some sciences, and so on.

Even all the modern discoveries are deep insights , but these are the treasures that are got by just skimming at the surface. The greatest treasure is knowing the "Self" and this whole creation. Every one are amazed with the surface information and make use of it. But deep down is what one has to go. I am in that process. When I realize that I see the same Truth with no contradiction from what others have revealed - from any religious or spiritual background.

More than reading , we get information from our own "Self".

Unfortunately I dont have these upanishads books with me now. I had read in libraries in india. But give me time I will get these references when I come across.

But my question to you, what does it matter if you get the references?. You would be again be skeptical of that information. Why do you want to believe. Dont believe, instead verify from your "self". That is the best. when I read these texts while in 1995-1997, I was skeptical. Later through transcending Ego and being in the awareness-consciousness state I could know these. We all could do these.

So my dear Kannan, do not go for a belief system. That will not help, find out for yourself. That alone can help you. Just by reading raisins are sweet in a text book or hear some one say will not help you. You put in your mouth and experience that. That makes you complete. This knowledge that you attain is not for converting anyone or changing anyone. It is for your own transformation, the way you look at the world will change, your attitude towards life will change. Your world will be a world of peace and joy. That fruit not only will you enjoy those surrounding you will also.

Rohit

3rd March 2007, 09:21 PM

Question: What or whose karma is responsible for the rape of an innocent 10year old girl?

After doing so many more round trips of births and rebirths (descending in the spiral of Cognitive Degeneration = CD) the answer is:

Answer:

I am in that process.

Why do you want to believe. Dont believe, instead verify from your "self". That is the best.

More than reading, we get information from our own "Self".

Just by reading raisins are sweet in a text book or hear some one say will not help you. You put in your mouth and experience that.
So the conclusive answer form our dear friend is, do not read and believe the instructive label "Poison" stuck on the bottle; but try it your "Self" to know/verify that poison is indeed the poison that instantly kills. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

3rd March 2007, 11:11 PM

A girl, who was allergic to peanuts, went on a school trip with her friends. As a matter of sensible practice, the girl's mother stuck an instructive note on her daughter's trip bag. The note contained a list of specific needs and conditions pertaining to her daughter; and one of them was:

"She is allergic to peanuts"

On the way, one of the teachers started to distribute chocolates. The teacher came to the girl. She checked the note stuck on girl's bag and then checked the ingredients printed on the chocolate wrapper; it clearly stated "contains peanuts". She hesitated for a while; but as soon as she remembered someone saying to her, "Don't believe in what you read or hear; experience it yourSelf", she ignored the instructions altogether and gave the chocolate containing peanuts to the girl.

Along with her friends, the girl enjoyed the chocolate; but soon after, she started to feel terribly sick.

Before anybody can do anything, it was too late. By the time they reached the destination, the girl was dead.

This is not just a story, but a true incident - except the part containing "Self".

kannannn

4th March 2007, 12:13 AM

All this information are available deep in ourselves (field of awareness-consciousness). By transcending Ego, we all can go into that realm. It is field of treasures. What sort of information we need, we can harvest. Some rishi's had harvested the treasure of ayurveda, some astrology, some vastu, some arts, some sciences, and so on.
Pradheep, trust me, I too have pondered endlessly on these questions and tried to find answers to them - as I am sure all have. But I never accept answers that don't fit reality. What I find in your answers is an attempt to fit an explanation when there could be none.

When I realize that I see the same Truth with no contradiction from what others have revealed - from any religious or spiritual background.
Have you read books from any other religion than Hinduism? Do any of those books speak about "The Truth"?

But my question to you, what does it matter if you get the references?. You would be again be skeptical of that information.
No Sir. You have got me wrong. I merely wanted to know if any of our "great" ancestors had commited to writing these views of yours.

Why do you want to believe. Dont believe, instead verify from your "self". That is the best. when I read these texts while in 1995-1997, I was skeptical. Later through transcending Ego and being in the awareness-consciousness state I could know these. We all could do these.

So my dear Kannan, do not go for a belief system. That will not help, find out for yourself.
Though you deny belonging to any belief system, the truth is that you want to believe what your religious texts say. So you look for answers that can confirm to your philosophical leanings and Voila, you have "The Truth".

Pradheep, and something about transcending ego. Transcending ego is to accept that you don't know the answers to some of life's questions (which thamiz put so well..). Transcending ego is to look for answers without preconceived notions. And finally transcending ego is to give space for the possibility that your views may be wrong.

Rohit

4th March 2007, 01:13 AM

Transcending ego is to accept that you don't know the answers to some of life's questions (which thamiz put so well..). Transcending ego is to look for answers without preconceived notions. And finally transcending ego is to give space for the possibility that your views may be wrong.
Excellently said, Kannannn. :thumbsup:

Rohit

4th March 2007, 01:41 AM

"Don't believe in what you read or hear"

"Follow the above instruction; it is for your own good"

Enjoy the paradox

But don't expect to find clues in your horoscopes.
:D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

4th March 2007, 05:42 AM

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs, it will be Buddhism.

Albert Einstein

Now how could this be? A religion/philosophy concieved entirely in 100% Indian language (PALI) is scientific?

The fact is, there are over 6 times more Buddhist Nobel Prize winners than there are Hindus, even when the Buddhist population of the world is 1/3 of that of Hindus. Which essentially implies that a Buddhist is over 18 times more likely to win the Nobel Prize than a Hindu.

No Buddhist other than the Dalai Lama has ever won a Nobel Prize. If anyone disagrees, all they have to do is post the names of the "Buddhist" Nobel-Prize winners.

Enjoy the Paradox.

Enjoy the desperation and lies from the atheists! Despite everything, history speaks louder than their whining!

Rohit

4th March 2007, 06:43 AM

How is it possible? Simply because, Buddhist world-view is consummately compatible with science; that is how.

And there is an undeniable evidence of the admission/acceptance of the same undeniable fact in your own posts in the same thread.

Of course, the interesting point of all this is that the Buddha tried to explain non-attachment through scientific terms. Example being, the world as we know it is not real in the normal sense; it is more like a wave pulse, or a vibration in time, similar to what string theory postulates. And then of course, the famous aggregate theorem; that, in fact, all organic matter is composed of lifeless particles, what we call atoms/molecules, and that rebirth can be explained via new aggregates of these atoms.

There is also an origin of the universe theory he gives, very similar (if one interprets in a certain way) to the modern theory of the Big Bang.

So from all this, one can see the scientific nature of Buddhism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondly, Tibet is not the only Buddhist country. Buddhism is spread all over the world. The following is the list of countries containing a large population of Buddhists; and there are more than 45 Nobel Prizes shared by the Buddhists from the following countries.

Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mongolia, Myanmar, Paraguay, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Philippines, Tibet, Trinidad and Tobago, Vietnam..............

Which essentially implies that a Buddhist is over 22 times more likely to win the Nobel Prize than a Hindu is.

Also, among the four resident Indian Nobel Prize winners, Mother Teresa was not of Indian origin; and all others were educated in English. :!: :idea:

Therefore; your (TCBs') views are nothing but utter nonsense; and every Indian, especially the sensible ones, should reject them as simply born out of utter :x ness.

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

Enjoy the paradox

But don't expect to find clues in your horoscopes.

:lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep

4th March 2007, 08:13 PM

[tscii:01cb227b4c]
But I never accept answers that don't fit reality. What I find in your answers is an attempt to fit an explanation when there could be none.
What do you mean by reality, that which you see with your eyes only?.

Have you read books from any other religion than Hinduism? Do any of those books speak about "The Truth"?
Yes almost I have read all the core principles of all religions. That was how my search for the truth began. I was born in a hindu family and educated in a Christian school, where they taught me that Christianity is only correct. When I started questioning they said I am doing a “Sin” and I have satan in me. So I started to read all religions and finally found that advaita Vedanta had given the Truth and further discovered that this is the core of all religions. Since people are so narrow minded in their vision because of pre conceived notions that they twist this religions in their religions and miss the “Truth”.

Yes the core of advaita Vedanta is the same talked in all religions. If you want you can refer this new book just published.
http://www.amazon.com/One-Essential-Nonduality-Jerry-Katz/dp/1591810531/ref=sr_1_1/105-8197959-3313204?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173017592&sr=1-1

The book name is One:
Which shows core of all religions is only “One”, which is non-duality.

No Sir. You have got me wrong. I merely wanted to know if any of our "great" ancestors had commited to writing these views of yours.

Yes you may refer the texts I mentioned and know it.

Though you deny belonging to any belief system, the truth is that you want to believe what your religious texts say. So you look for answers that can confirm to your philosophical leanings and Voila, you have "The Truth".

I have written many times in this hub that Advaita is universal and not only in Vedic text. The author of the above book has given evidence for his research. There are several books like that, this being the latest and I saw that I quoted it.

Pradheep, and something about transcending ego. And finally transcending ego is to give space for the possibility that your views may be wrong.

Ego is not merely accepting what you don’t know. If getting rid of ego is that simple many of us would not have repeated birth death cycles. Because most of them blindly believe what religions say accepting that they don’t know.

Belief system means think some thing you understand is right and do not validate it. Belief system is the basis in which you nuture your “search process of knowing the truth”. When you grow a tree initially you need a small fence around it to protect it. Same way you need belief system in the beginning to nuture your search for Truth, but then you have to outgrow your belief system otherwise you have stunted your growth. Like the same fence that protected the small plant will hinder in becoming a tree.

It is not that easy to transcend the Ego. The tool to transcend ego is to stop seeing others are wrong and see the fault is only in you. But this then again has to be outgrown, otherwise one develops another version of Ego, self pity and weakness. Then the way is to see love in one self and in others. In this process one should accept everyone as they are. When this happens then you see each one in their growing process. Then only compassion springs out. Then there is no hatred. Everyone has a inner child that has to grow. Outward growth is of no meaning. Having higher education, being successful materialistically or even getting nobel prizes do nothing to this inner growth. The whole process of birth and death is to achieve this inner growth step by step.

Through this growth you naturally understand the complex nature of life. You discover the “Truth” in this journey. You understand the universality and “one ness” the truth in everything. This is why “universe” is called “Uni-verse”, one Truth.

Ancient science studied the inner nature which is reflected as outer. “Yatha pindae thatha Brahmanade’. If you know the nature of the mind, , nature of senses, nature of intellect, awareness and Consciousness, you finally know the nature of ego. In this process you Transcend the Ego, which means you are “merely this body, mind intellect”. Thinking that you are merely this Body, mind and intellect is Ego. Transcending this “notion” only you realize the reality, the “Truth”.

All that I write is not to reform Kannan or Rohit, or SRS or Thamizh. They are my own different forms or stages. It is for my own transformation that I am living. My life's purpose is in that transformation, that maturaity through which I realzie the "Truth".[/tscii:01cb227b4c]

Rohit

4th March 2007, 09:55 PM

Only for those who are genuinely interested in facts

Advaita Vedanta is nothing but Buddhism in disguise

- GauDapAda is the first historically known author in the Advaita VedAnta tradition.

- GauDapAda is traditionally said to have been the guru of Govinda BhagavatpAda, who was the guru of SankarAcArya.

- GauDapAda composed the GgauDapAdIya kArikAs (GK), which constitute an expository text on the mANDUkya upanishad.

1. The philosophy of Sankaracarya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, as explained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate).

2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, which appear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Sankara and his followers.

3. That Mayavada had stolen the salient features of Sunyavada was not unnoticed by the Buddhists themselves.

4. Buddhism had exercised a profound influence on Sankara's mind to the extent that the tradition opposed to Sankara holds that he is a Buddhist in disguise and his mayavada but crypto-Buddhism.

5. It is well known that Sankara is criticised by his opponents as a "Buddhist in disguise" (pracchanna-bauddha) and his philosophy as mayavada [1] which is but crypto-Buddhism.

6. Among the Vedantins, Bhaskara (750-800) is probably one of the earliest critics against Sankara. He called the Mayavadin "one who depends on the doctrine of the Buddhist" (Buddhamatavalambin), and says that this position has been negated by the author of Brahmasutra.[2] Afterwards, Yamuna (918-1038), Ramanuja (1017-1037), Madhva (1197-1276), Vallabha (1473-1531) and other Vedantins severely criticize the Advaita Vedanta, pointing out that it is in essence nothing but a Buddhist doctrine.[3]

7. Then, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, Vijnanabhiksu of the Samkhya school shows in his Samkhyapravacanabhasya that the mayavada of the Vedantins is of the same standpoint as that of the Vijnanavadin's [4] and criticizes the Vedanta school as a whole. In justifying his criticism, he quotes a verse from the Padmapurana which states that the mayavada is an incorrect theory and is Buddhist doctrine.[5]

8. The Sunyavada philosophy teaches that sunya (void) is an inexpressible and transcendent truth (a concept echoed in Sankara's explanation of Brahman).

Sources:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/mayavada.htm

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/05/02/stories/2004050200170400.htm

http://www.nagarjunainstitute.com/buddhisthim/backissues/vol11/v11sankara.htm
.
.
.

:) :thumbsup:

Rohit

4th March 2007, 10:18 PM

First of all, no one can be held responsible for such sheer lack of grasp of real facts, except one's own cognitively degenerated, egocentric as well as geocentric biases.

Let me show and prove how and why.

Based on the chronological development of philosophical doctrines in India, the developments and evolution of religions in India, clearly and evidently show that the current form of Hinduism based on VedaAnta (literally means "The End of the Vedas") - i.e. Advaita, VishithaAdvaita, Dvaita, Bhagavad-Gita etc.-all came long after Buddha, except the four Vedas and a few minor Upanishads, the status and contents of which Buddha had categorically rejected long before gaining his world-famous enlightenment. In fact, Buddha was the first man on earth ever to have gained such status; and ironically, the Hindus themselves have treated him as Supreme God, which evidently proves the tremendous influence he commanded on the philosophical and moral thinking of his time, long after that; and so he does that, even today.

Since its establishment as the prime religion of India, Buddhism remained the prime source of all knowledge for intellectuals and common masses of India and also for the foreign students from abroad like Burma, Tibet, China, Japan and other eastern countries for over two millennia and half; and that way, Buddhism has also greatly influenced Taoism, Confucianism and other eastern philosophies; and it continues to do so.

After the great emperor Ashok adopted Buddhism, he spread Buddhism far beyond the boundaries of his huge empire. It were the Buddhists who founded the first two great universities of the world, namely Nalanda and Taxila Vishwa Vidyalayas, where studies in all branches of knowledge and intellectual inquiries were conducted and taught.

History clearly tells us that Buddhism along with the wealth of knowledge acuired during Buddhist period was either severly distorted or heedlessly destroyed from the soil of India.

Nonetheless, Buddhism is a major religious and ethical force in the world today, and it is the fastest-growing religion in Europe, North America; and even in India, it is coming back as a major force among the intellectual circles.

Unlike those fallacious claims, simply based on wishful thinking, these are the real and authentic facts about Buddha and Buddhism, accompanied by the references and clear evidences to support them; and ironically, they are very well verified by the very people who were/are intolerant and antagonistic towards Buddha and his teachings.

Therefore, there is no room for any dissent, unless one is severely degenerated cognitively and holds envious grudges towards the authenticity and great successes of the Buddhist doctrines, which opponents were more than happy to copy with their egocentric distortions but didn't want to accept them as they really were/are.

Isn't that disgraceful? I think, it really is.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

4th March 2007, 11:14 PM

Before starting, "The Terribly Confused Buddhists = TCBs" must remember to increment their count of Cognitive Degeneration (CD). Currently it is CD = N = 600

START: "The Terribly Confused Buddhists = TCBs" must start their journey into the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) from:

Of course he can take an infinite number of forms. But energy can just as easily take an infinite number of forms. Does the fact that energy can take an infinite number of forms contradict the existance of energy?
OR Any such Non-Sequitur Fallacies that I have already thoroughly demolished earlier.

Then they must read, understand and try to grasp the following, in full.

As it invariably happens; here go 'TCBs" completely :x .

Help is already at hand, only if they stop their egocentric nonsense. So far, all their posts have proved them nothing more than just egocentric kids who are adamant to have lollipops before yielding to the facts.

Unfortunately, there is no lollipop here, but the bitter facts. Therefore, just keep reading.

So; just remember the facts and ignore all the dissonance-ridden fallacies; being heedlessly posted form there.

Facts:

1. The singularity function of Big Bang is defined as S = [x,y,z,t = 0]; which is devoid of dimensions, time and cognition.

2. Big Bang is an undeniable fact and evidence of the birth of the universe, devoid of consciousness - the beginning of space-time and also the beginning of the wheel of becoming.:)

3. Everything that exists is subject to the law of cause and effect.

4. Everything that exists is subject to change; nothing remains without change.

5. The entire universe is devoid of any permanent reality.

6. All energy sources are subject to transformations, transmutations, mutations and changes; no energy is unchangeable; if it were unchangeable, it wouldn't be energy anyway and would be incapable of doing work and generating power. E=mc^2 and E= hf.

The answer was already stated here much earlier. In fact, the question itself admits the full agreement with this assertion of mine, which thoroughly demolished the latest versions of all forms of fallacies posted from there. :)

7. All non-biological and/or inorganic structures are devoid of consciousness. :)

8. No one would find consciousness in non-biological and/or inorganic substances. :)

9. All conscious beings have structures; and they constantly change. :)

10. There is only Void of consciousness beyond conscious entities.

11. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

12. Right and wrong are subjective and/or relative and their judgements keep changing from individuals to individuals and also so with time.

13. Adaptation to the changing environment, whether it is for mere survival, striving for rational knowledge or attaining Nirvana, adaptive actions from individuals, groups, institutes, societies, civilisations, nations etc. are invariably involved, which is nothing but what is conceptualised as karma in Buddhism.

14. Collective failure to adapt suitably to the changing environment, which is nothing but collective bad karma, entails bad consequences.

15. Buddhism clearly declares; there is no transmigration of anything, the one who is reborn is not the same person or entity but a new one.

16. The concept of rebirth in Buddhism is like a new candle lit from the old one; and both candles may remain lit for a finite period of time until one of them (usually the old one) gets extinguished. The chain can be extended to incorporate hundreds and thousands of generations, which truly represents the ancestries of current and future generations. And this fact is known by a vast majority of the human population, except 'the terribly confused Buddhists'.

17. Violation of nothing occurs if one does not reproduce.

18. Buddhism is absolutely unique and there is no conflict between Buddhism and science.

19. Like scientific evolution; whereby higher organisms evolve from the lower ones; Buddhism does not cast-off devolution, whereby higher organisms can devolve to a lower life.

20. Buddhism does not treat the self and consciousness as one and the same. Self is treated as the delusional and conceptual by-product of conscious thoughts as superego or self-consciousness.

21. In Buddhism, consciousness is declared as made up of five aggregates and is constantly changing.

22. The statement, "There is no arising of consciousness without conditions" says everything about consciousness.

23. As long as one acutely suffers from the delusion of A, the illusion of maya invariably drags him/her into the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD).

24. As soon as one is liberated from the delusion of A, the illusion of maya also vanishes; and the Ultimate Reality of Void and B = B is affirmed

25. Whatever exists, exists interdependently.

26. The definition of true Transcendence is 'beyond all possible experiences'.

27. Ego transcendence alone does not and cannot go 'beyond all possible experiences'.

28. The one who realises the Ultimate, Transcendent Reality of Void/Emptiness, which is the only and true realisation of 'beyond all possible experiences', attains the Transcendental state of Nirvana.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the believers, there is only one God.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between believing in a Creator God and the Big Bang. The belief in a Creator God fills in the void left by the Big Bang theory.

There is only one God.
Nonetheless, one must first irrefutably establish the absolute necessity for such an entity or entities. Like I have stated earlier, if the law of causality strongly resists the necessity for such entities, then there is no need to postulate one, it simply becomes redundant.

The implication of the premise is obvious. There can exist no Highest God than which Higher God is not needed, making the entire God system nothing but an absolute fallacy of false dichotomy.

Anyway; as I said, it was obviously evident that there was only one option left for 'The Terribly Confused Buddhists = TCBs'; and that was, to just believe blindly and remain contented with the fallacy of Circular Argument or Begging the Question: Because p --> p. Poor 'TCBs'

At last, after all these futile arguments, a clear confession is received from a frustrated believer. This was the last piece of evidence that I needed from the believers; and I have been suggesting them for a long time, just for that.

Anyway, better late than never.

I am glad that they have; at last, taken that last option and openly confessed that they just want to believe. Well, please carryon believing.

Enjoy your blind beliefs; along with the ride in the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD) and have lots of fun.

If the :x ness still persists, straightaway, without any delay, 'TCBs' must increment the count of their Cognitive Degeneration

From CD = N

To

CD = N+1; then Go to START

If not, the reward is not a lollipop but the eligibility for all of you to attain Nirvana, the perfect liberation from the Vicious Spiral of Cognitive Degeneration (VSCD).

:D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

5th March 2007, 03:51 AM

How is it possible? Simply because, Buddhist world-view is consummately compatible with science; that is how.

The biggest question is why there was no such 'spread' of "scientific way of thinking" and "scientific way of doing things" in India even when Indian population was far larger than that of Europe?

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=2376&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105

Enjoy the paradox! :lol:

Of course, the interesting point of all this is that the Buddha tried to explain non-attachment through scientific terms. Example being, the world as we know it is not real in the normal sense; it is more like a wave pulse, or a vibration in time, similar to what string theory postulates. And then of course, the famous aggregate theorem; that, in fact, all organic matter is composed of lifeless particles, what we call atoms/molecules, and that rebirth can be explained via new aggregates of these atoms.

There is also an origin of the universe theory he gives, very similar (if one interprets in a certain way) to the modern theory of the Big Bang.

So from all this, one can see the scientific nature of Buddhism.

Of course, I have never denied Buddhism is scientific. When I asked "how is it possible" I was merely being sarcastic.

Secondly, Tibet is not the only Buddhist country. Buddhism is spread all over the world. The following is the list of countries containing a large population of Buddhists; and there are more than 45 Nobel Prizes shared by the Buddhists from the following countries.

Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mongolia, Myanmar, Paraguay, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Philippines, Tibet, Trinidad and Tobago, Vietnam..............

Which essentially implies that a Buddhist is over 22 times more likely to win the Nobel Prize than a Hindu is.

But it remains a fact that you cannot name a single one of these "Buddhist" Nobel Prize winners when challenged to do so, other than the Dalai Lama (whom I actually named.)

Rohit

6th March 2007, 01:40 AM

How is it possible? Simply because, Buddhist world-view is consummately compatible with science; that is how.
This is a true statement with respect to Buddhism, irrespective of everything.

The biggest question is why there was no such 'spread' of "scientific way of thinking" and "scientific way of doing things" in India even when Indian population was far larger than that of Europe?

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=2376&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105
This is also a true statement, but in context to time and place. The statement holds true for the Pre-Buddhist and the Post-Buddhist periods in India; when any form of scientific inquiry was ignorantly held as the sign of utter ignorance.

Therefore, the two statements are mutually exclusive in time and place, for Buddhism and Hinduism are mutually exclusive. The two could not coexist in India.

My second post above clearly states this:

History clearly tells us that Buddhism along with the wealth of knowledge acquired during Buddhist period was either severely distorted or heedlessly destroyed from the soil of India.
Had India remained Buddhist, the situation described in my second statement might not have arisen at all.

Therefore, the paradox occurs only for the TCBs. :lol: :lol: :lol:

TCB [/b]SRS]But it remains a fact that you cannot name a single one of these "Buddhist" Nobel Prize winners when challenged to do so, other than the Dalai Lama (whom I actually named.)
Though I have full detail of the fields, the years and the names of the Nobel Prize winners from the listed Buddhist countries, I am not going to post the detail yet. Instead let us enjoy the extent of poor TCB SRS's frustration, and see how desperate he gets to drag this on, especially in this thread.

Though, I do pity the TCBs, but at the same time, I am enjoying the frustration the paradox has created for the TCBs. :wink:

Anyone other than TCB, who may wish to verify the number I quoted for the Buddhist Nobel Prize winners from those countries I listed earlier, please visit the Nobel Prize website.

Nonetheless, I will post the full detail in due course. Meanwhile, let us enjoy the effects of the series of paradoxes.

Therefore:

Which essentially implies that a Buddhist is over 22 times more likely to win the Nobel Prize than a Hindu is.
Enjoy the series of paradoxes.

But don't expect to find clues in your horoscopes.
:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

6th March 2007, 03:31 AM

Please also read the following scientific findings.

An excerpt from "Culture and Psychology" by David Matsumoto. David Matsumoto is a recognised expert in the field.

Miller (1984) examined patterns of social explanation in Americans and Hindu Indians. Both Hindu and American respondents were asked to describe someone they knew well who either did something good for another person or did something bad to another person. After describing such a person, the respondents were asked to explain why the person committed that good or bad act. American respondents typically explained the person's behaviour in terms of general dispositions (for example, "She is very irresponsible"). The Hindus, however, were much less likely to offer dispositional explanation. Instead, they tended to provide explanations in terms of actor's duties, social roles and other situation-specific factors.

Some writers (Livesly & Bromley, 1973) have suggested another explanation for these results, based on Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. In nutshell, Piaget (1952,1954) suggested that human go through various stages of intellectual development, generally proceeding from "concrete operations" to higher stages of "abstract operations". Using this theory as a framework, some theorists have suggested that non-western people (such as the Hindu Indian adults in the study just described) are less developed intellectually than American adults. As a result, the Indians used situation-specific, concrete terms whereas Americans used more abstract trait terms in social explanation.
Note: To eliminate the possibility of any confusion, Hindu Indians is used for subject identification as opposed to American Indians.

David Matsumoto is a professor of Psychology and Director of the Culture and Emotion Research Laboratory at San Francisco State University.

Sadly, the above scientific findings confirm/establish precisely what I have been repeatedly stating here and elsewhere.

:D :) :thumbsup:

dsath

6th March 2007, 08:05 PM

[tscii:3692aa2929]Firstly let me make it clear that I am neither a linguist nor a scientist, my views are that of an ordinary lay person.
Rohit,
Regarding the research - generalizing ‘Hindu Indians’ (It’s similar to the term ‘Christian Europeans’) is totally unfair and raises serious questions on the validity of the research. Most of the authoritative research (regarding history) done on India is by non Indians and they tend to follow the Euro-centric approach.
SRS,
Your claims that only a certain group of people win Nobel Prize is deplorable. It is similar to the highly repelling castetist mails that were in circulation during the anti-reservation protests.
Both the views are in my opinion narrow and may be the reason that we are not able to “develop”. Can we have some out of the box, broad minded approach please or am I asking for too much?
[/tscii:3692aa2929]

SRS

6th March 2007, 10:20 PM

This is also a true statement, but in context to time and place. The statement holds true for the Pre-Buddhist and the Post-Buddhist periods in India; when any form of scientific inquiry was ignorantly held as the sign of utter ignorance.

So you are saying that within the scope of its 5000 year history, the only scientific development to emerge from India was the phenomenon of Buddhism. Furthermore, by making such a claim, you are also answering in the affirmative to my query made in the "Origin of Hindi and Urdu" thread that South India contributed nothing to the development of science in India. I encourage all Tamil readers to take note of this, especially a certain Tamil user who comes here every 5 months under various id's to make futile attempts at bashing Vedanta, after mentioning the valency of carbon of course.

Therefore, the two statements are mutually exclusive in time and place, for Buddhism and Hinduism are mutually exclusive. The two could not coexist in India.

Then why did the Dalai Lama seek refuge in India when the Chinese persecuted Tibet? Why did he not go to Burma for example??? Could it be that despite having adopted the highly scientific religion of Buddhism, Burma is still under the burden of dictatorship?

Kindly comment on the status of all the other Buddhist countries. Please post economic indicators such as GDP, GNP, etc. so readers are aware of how the scientific nature of Buddhism has propelled these countries into superpower status. :lol: :lol: :lol:

History clearly tells us that Buddhism along with the wealth of knowledge acquired during Buddhist period was either severely distorted or heedlessly destroyed from the soil of India.

But this "wealth of knowledge" was well-used by the Sri Lankans to engage in civil war, while the Burmese used it to maintain a dictatorship, and the Japanese used it to rape and murder 100000 Chinese in the city of Nanking during WWII. Or perhaps these events occured only during the "pre-Buddhist" and "post-Buddhist" periods? :lol: :lol:

Though I have full detail of the fields, the years and the names of the Nobel Prize winners from the listed Buddhist countries, I am not going to post the detail yet. Instead let us enjoy the extent of poor TCB SRS's frustration, and see how desperate he gets to drag this on, [b]especially in this thread

It is amusing indeed that you have "details" of non-existant facts. Once again, I challenge you to post the details if you "can." Please note the quotation marks. :lol: :lol:

SRS

6th March 2007, 10:29 PM

[tscii:0ca25bf230]

SRS,
Your claims that only a certain group of people win Nobel Prize is deplorable. It is similar to the highly repelling castetist mails that were in circulation during the anti-reservation protests.
Both the views are in my opinion narrow and may be the reason that we are not able to “develop”. Can we have some out of the box, broad minded approach please or am I asking for too much?
[/tscii:0ca25bf230]

Hello Sath,

I regret any misunderstanding. However, the misunderstanding is on your part. When I stated that the only Indians to win Nobel Prizes have been Brahmins, I was merely stating a fact. To establish the validity of this fact , I then left it as an open challenge for anyone to state non-Brahmin's who have won the Nobel. Unless I can be proved wrong, there is no inconsistency in my logic.

Now that we are clear on exactly what I stated, let us clear up your misunderstanding. I did not intend to make any connection between Brahmins, Nobel Prizes, and Indians, other than that only Brahmin's have won the Nobel Prize. Nowhere did I state that non-Brahmin Indians are incapable of winning the Nobel Prize.
However, the fact that only Brahmins have won the Nobel Prize is very much an achievement for Vedanta. It shows that the Vedantic understanding of the universe is consistent with the conclusions reached by Western Science.

Hopefully, we are now on the same page.

Rohit

7th March 2007, 01:16 AM

Rohit,
Regarding the research - generalizing ‘Hindu Indians’ (It’s similar to the term ‘Christian Europeans’) is totally unfair and raises serious questions on the validity of the research. Most of the authoritative research (regarding history) done on India is by non Indians and they tend to follow the Euro-centric approach.
Yes dear dsath, the research indeed raises some serious questions. The judgement of how valid the conclusion is; is entirely up to the readers. One has to either outright reject it; or ponder over it and try to reach a balanced conclusion.

Nonetheless, it does make one wonder; what could have prompted Matsumoto to publish such sensitive results?

:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

7th March 2007, 01:20 AM

Poor TCB :lol: :lol: :lol:

I do maintain the assertion.

Which essentially implies that a Buddhist is over 22 times more likely to win the Nobel Prize than a Hindu is.
Enjoy the series of paradoxes.

But don't expect to find clues in your horoscopes.
:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

7th March 2007, 01:44 AM

Below is the list of Indian Nobel Prize Winners (All educated in English): 1901 - 2001 for the readers to judge the TCB SRS's claim.

Psychology & Medicine: Khorana, Har Gobind (Panjabi-NRI-USA) - 1968

Physics: Chandrasekhar, Subramanyan (South Indian-NRI-USA) - 1983, Raman, Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata (South Indian) - 1930

Economics: Sen, Amartya (Bengali-NRI-UK) - 1998

Peace: Mother Teresa (Non-Hindu, resident Indian of foreign origin) - 1979

Literature: Tagore, Rabindranath - 1913

Chemistry: None

:D :) :thumbsup:

Sudhaama

7th March 2007, 02:35 AM

[tscii:d75d1c2c4d]
. "You are DESTINED TO SUFFER.. in your Earthly Birth...

.. which DIVINE-COMMAND You have to YIELD to; because...

.. You are the BORN-SINNER... committed by your previous births."...

...so you have to accept the punishment similar to a Criminal imprisoned for his past misdeeds"

... so categorically declare Buddhism and Jainism... in brief words.

When Sankaracharya took up the great task of reviving the tenets of Vedic Religion.. so called Hinduism…

... Buddhism was mostly predominant and widely prevalent... all over India

.. with some pockets of Regions adopted to Jainism here there..

.. while the Hinduism was confined to the least few regions only.

Then the Acharya went after each and every Anti-Hindu Scholars… challenged their Counter-tenets and won over them…

… resulting in Re-conversion of such vehement opponents into the Vedic-fold…

…starting from the Buddhist Scholars along with the relevant Regional ruler Kings.

What was the Sankaracharya’s main Point of Argument... VULNERABLE IN OTHER TENETS?

FATE / DESTINY / KARMAS the Commitment of previous births.

The Acharya questioned first on God…. His existence and extent of Super Mights.

Then he asked “ If you simulate with a Criminal getting punished by the Ruler King..

.. then who is that Unknown Ruler who passes judgement on the Sinners.?

If you say that Ruler is the God or some such Super-human concealing Power..

...then I ask you.. is your God, the REAL PROTECTOR / GUARDIAN …

… committed to ONLY PUNISH. His own Creations.. for ever persistently?

If so how can you qualify Him as the Creator / Protector… who only punishes His creations even after Self-Realisation…

…and NEVER PARDONS. at all... under any circumstances?

In such a case do you mean Earth as the Hell.. the Punishing Prison-Land?

And you say that the Kings are not qualified to punish even the known criminal…

Then does it not mean INCONSISTENT?.... SELF-CONTRADICTORY?.. Confusing?

For all these Questions our Vedic doctrines have the clear answer convincing enough even to the common man. How?

For us God is the Creator-protector.. who is always anxious to see His creations SELF-REALISE and seek PARDON for all the past misdeeds committed knowingly or unknowingly...

.. as also the Father who guides and leads the Family... BY LOVE.& MERCY

You can find in practical life… most of the so named criminals commit crimes out of IGNORANCE…

… while some others commit crimes under the SPUR OF EMOTION..

Subsequently they realize their Folly and lack Far-sightedness.

So our God as per Vedic Gospels… is more our Father than the King-ruler…

.. by Spirit and Approach towards creations.. while handling the Reality by their present plight..

So our Upanishads declare… YATH BHAAVAM THATH BHAVATHI…

… meaning … You will become as You want…

... by means of your corrective measures of Future-deeds.

Thus the Vedic doctrines allow enough of freedom to get retrieved from the clutches of Destiny…

… by means of compensatory Good-deeds alongside Confession & Realization… followed by seeking Pardon

… coupled with unswerving GOD-FAITH.

If such a Divine-Solution is not available in any Religious path.. it is not qualified to be called as a Religion at all…

.. nor a Divine-path intended to ADVANCE THE HUMAN-BIRTH..

.. and if a Supreme power is bent upon making His creations suffer for ever, even after Self-Realisation…

...He cannot be called as God… Nor deserves to be the Supreme Ruler.in such a case …

If so the whole Earthly Life will become futile… consequently

For us... Life is the God’s play.... We must co-operate with it.

...We can ENJOY LIFE…by means of Wisdom & SELF-REALISATION..

… and by falling in line with the God’s Overall plan of UNIVERSAL ADVANCEMENT .!!! ‘’

.. said Sankaracharya… which fact had to be accepted by others.
.[/tscii:d75d1c2c4d]

kannannn

7th March 2007, 02:41 AM

Mr. Sudhamma, what is your stand on Pradheep's theory that a mother's thoughts influence the destiny of the baby?

Rohit

7th March 2007, 03:03 AM

Dear Sudhaama, please go and revisit the posts in "One's BITTER EXPERIENCE : Beneficial LESSON for Many" regarding suffering.

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=5120&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Sudhaama

7th March 2007, 03:05 AM

.
.Bearing-Mother's Role... on One's Karma.!!

Mr. Sudhamma, what is your stand on Pradheep's theory that a mother's thoughts influence the destiny of the baby?

Carrying Mother's Thoughts and Propensities... no doubt influence partly in shaping the basic character of the Baby in the womb.

.. For example Duryodhana was the EMBODIMENT OF JEALOUSY...

.. which INNATE QUALITY came to him from his Mother Gaandhaari

But the Character and Quality can not take part of one's Karma... which means DEEDS.

Sinful Thoughts... may cause Sins upto a little extent... but is not carried over to subsquent births.

One has to face its total extent of consequences in the current birth itself.

Thoughts leads to Intention which if further continued towards IMPLEMENTATION / ACTION...

.. then it becomes the PRAARABDA KARMA ... partly to be faced in the respective birth...

.. and further carried over by Instalments for Future-births.

Ones Character gets shaped more by his Self-making...

..similar to Bharatha far- contrary to his mother Kaikeyi.
.

Rohit

7th March 2007, 03:23 AM

Close similarity between Christianity and Hinduism:

I was born in a hindu family and educated in a Christian school, where they taught me that Christianity is only correct. When I started questioning they said I am doing a “Sin” and I have satan in me.

"You are DESTINED TO SUFFER.. in your Earthly Birth...

.. which DIVINE-COMMAND You have to YIELD to; because...

.. You are the BORN-SINNER... committed by your previous births."...

SRS

7th March 2007, 03:31 AM

Psychology & Medicine: Khorana, Har Gobind (Panjabi-NRI-USA) - 1968

Yes, the Moghul of a Panjabyan. A true Indian in every sense. :lol:

Physics: Chandrasekhar, Subramanyan (South Indian-NRI-USA) - 1983, Raman, Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata (South Indian) - 1930

All Brahmins.

Economics: Sen, Amartya (Bengali-NRI-UK) - 1998

Perhaps the sole exception.

Peace: Mother Teresa (Non-Hindu, resident Indian of foreign origin) - 1979

She was not Indian.

Literature: Tagore, Rabindranath - 1913

Literature is too subjective to be used as a criteria.

So you found one exception. Pathetic performance. Not to mention you left out all the "Buddhist" Nobel winners. Kindly refer to your "list" and post those names. :lol: :lol:

Rohit

7th March 2007, 03:36 AM

Then it makes it four exceptions and not one. In fact, the true exceptions are two only; and both are Tamil South Indians. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course, I will post the list, but not yet. The fun is not over yet.

Enjoy the series of paradoxes.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Sudhaama

7th March 2007, 04:26 AM

[tscii]
Close similarity between Christianity and Hinduism:

I was born in a hindu family and educated in a Christian school, where they taught me that Christianity is only correct. When I started questioning they said I am doing a “Sin” and I have satan in me.

"You are DESTINED TO SUFFER.. in your Earthly Birth...

.. which DIVINE-COMMAND You have to YIELD to; because...

.. You are the BORN-SINNER... committed by your previous births."...

Dear Rohit,

Why are you TWISTING MY WORDS... AS USUAL by your Habit...?

The words above... I did not mean Hinduism... but Buddhism and Jainism.

Please note the next line of your Quote... from my posting...

..." so categorically declare Buddhism and Jainism... in Brief words."

... which important part of the Sentence...

... you have intentionally OMITTED to MEAN IN YOUR OWN WAY..

.. Not meant by me... Nor can be meant by the whole sentence.
.

Rohit

7th March 2007, 04:32 AM

SRS

7th March 2007, 05:39 AM

Rohit

8th March 2007, 01:08 AM

Dear Sudhaama, I can equally charge you with similar accusations; that it is only you who is twisting the truth. Everyone knows that there is no 'God' both in Buddhism and Jainism; then, whose 'divinity' and 'divine-command' are you talking about? Also there are no past births or next births in Buddhism in the literal sense as expressed by you. Your expressions fit more to Hinduism than they do to Buddhism and/or Jainism. Didn't you know that?
Readers take note:
Rohit is attempting to place Jainism in the same category as Buddhism. A total contradiction of his earlier remark that only during the rise of Buddhism did science in India develop.
Chronologically, Mahavira of Jainism and Buddha of Buddhism were contemporaries.

The traditional philosophical schools in India had have been classified under two, mutually exclusive headings, which are (1) Astika (Which literally means: Theist) and (2) Nastika (Which literally means: Atheist)

The Nastika (Atheist) schools are those which explicitly reject the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Lokayata or Carvaka (Materialists)
2. Bauddha (Including a Number of Schools of Buddhism)
3. Jaina or Syadvada (Jainism, Including Digambara And Svetambara Groups)

The Astika (Theist) schools are those which accept the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Nyaya
2. Vaiseshika
3. Yoga
4. Samkhya
5. Purva Mimamsa
6. Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta)

Reference Source:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ind-phil.html

The prominence to karma is due to Buddhism. Buddhist lay a great emphasis on past deeds. Adi Shankara brought this into hinduism.
Though, it is the Jainas who first harmonise the law of Karma with the process of redemption; nonetheless, the above statement is a creditable confirmation of one of the many facts regarding Buddhism.

The law of karma as conceived by the Buddhists, differs greatly from the law of karma conceived by the Jainas. The law of karma in Buddhism is more reflective of the universal law of cause and effect, applicable to every tangible and intangible thing that exists. While the law of karma in Jainism is operative at the metaphysical level of souls/atmas, the very existence of which Buddhism categorically rejects.

The law of karma, or more precisely the law of cause and effect, is absolutely inescapable by anything that exists; and either way, it is utterly incompatible with the Advaitic Monism. Therefore, one can clearly see the sheerness of imbecility committed by the Advaitins.

However, many elements of the Jaina's law of karma can be made compatible with the Dvaitic doctrines.

:) :thumbsup:

Rohit

8th March 2007, 01:52 AM

New Survey: Scientists "More Likely Than Ever" To Reject God Belief

A leading scientific journal concludes that increasingly, scientists have doubts about the existence of a deity or similar supernatural and religious claims.

"Nature" Survey -- Less and Less Belief
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago.

The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism".

Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%.

Larson's survey also discovered that physicists were less likely to have such faith

Q: Science & Religion 'converging'?
A: Yeah, in your dreams. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Religious Europeans know less science:

Nov 2005 - According to the latest comprehensive survey of European public opinion on science:

"If we look at the frequency of attending religious services, we can note that the more religious one is the less one tends to give correct answers in this quiz on science. While those who attend religious services more than once a week have an average rate of 54% of correct answers, those who never attend reach a rate of 70%"

http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/science_&__religion_converging.htm

:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

9th March 2007, 04:31 AM

Dear friends,

I did post the stastics on Nobel Prize winners from the Buddhist countries as promised, but deleted the post as some readers might find it too embarrassing, which I really don’t intend to do, and many may not be yet ready to digest the truth as it is.

Nonetheless, the facts are precisely as I stated earlier. And as I suggested earlier, you may verify them by yourself if you want to.

Thank you

:D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

13th March 2007, 10:22 PM

[tscii:771299666a]
Dear friends,

I did post the stastics on Nobel Prize winners from the Buddhist countries as promised, but deleted the post as some readers might find it too embarrassing, which I really don’t intend to do, and many may not be yet ready to digest the truth as it is.

Nonetheless, the facts are precisely as I stated earlier. And as I suggested earlier, you may verify them by yourself if you want to.

Thank you

:D :) :thumbsup:

I am not referring to any such list describing Nobel-Prize winners from Buddhist countries, I am referring entirely to the list of Buddhist Nobel Prize winners.

In light of which, it remains a fact that the number of Hindu Nobel Prize winners far exceeds the number of Buddhist Nobel Prize winners. To be perfectly precise, there is only Buddhist Nobel Prize winner whom I am aware of , the Dalai Lama. [/tscii:771299666a]

Rohit

14th March 2007, 12:29 AM

There is no limit to TCBs' delirium. Continue as you please, but those who must know the fact, would know it anyway, I am afraid.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Sudhaama

14th March 2007, 12:48 AM

.

. sssss... SICKLY THOUGHTS.!!!...???

Dear Friends,

I am much surprised and SHOCKED to find the total diversion of the Topic...

... towards a SICKLY TREND... of NEGATIVE APPROACH... RETROGRADE DIRECTION.!!!

What does it matter to us.. as how many... who and who... are the Buddhists or Hindus... amongst the Nobel prize Winners.!!. .. ????

In what way such a GREAT RESEARCH (!) is going to fetch us a WORTHY DISCOVERY?

And how such a novel probe... is relevant to the Topic of this Thread... on KARMAS AND FATE.?

My Dear Friends... I find in you all... sharp Wisdom... imbued with worthy Knowledge... on various linked subjects. Well!! Glad!!

But should we all UNDULY WASTE our precious time... and WORTHY PURPOSE...

... on SUCH SICKLY THOUGHTS?
.

kannannn

14th March 2007, 12:56 AM

Carrying Mother's Thoughts and Propensities... no doubt influence partly in shaping the basic character of the Baby in the womb.

.. For example Duryodhana was the EMBODIMENT OF JEALOUSY...

.. which INNATE QUALITY came to him from his Mother Gaandhaari

But the Character and Quality can not take part of one's Karma... which means DEEDS.

Sinful Thoughts... may cause Sins upto a little extent... but is not carried over to subsquent births.

One has to face its total extent of consequences in the current birth itself.

Thoughts leads to Intention which if further continued towards IMPLEMENTATION / ACTION...

.. then it becomes the PRAARABDA KARMA ... partly to be faced in the respective birth...

.. and further carried over by Instalments for Future-births.

Ones Character gets shaped more by his Self-making...

..similar to Bharatha far- contrary to his mother Kaikeyi.
.
Thank you for the response, Mr. Sudhaama :). I will get back in due course.

SRS

14th March 2007, 12:57 AM

Sudhaama

14th March 2007, 01:30 AM

There is no limit to TCBs' delirium. Continue as you please, but those who must know the fact, would know it anyway, I am afraid.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Continue? You are yet to begin. Either post the names of the Buddhist Nobel Prize Winners (other than the Dalai Lama) or consider yourself defeated.

Dear Rohit and SRS,

Why this KUDUMI-PIDI SANDAI.?... at this HEALTHY FORUM.?

Are you IGNORING MY REQUEST.?

If you still continue... I will have no other go than to seek the Moderators intervention.

My dear Friends... I reiterate... Why this SICKLY THOUGHTS?
.

Rohit

14th March 2007, 02:11 AM

Sorry dear TCB, I have none whatsoever intention to go through what you have been going through so far, i.e. intense delirium. By all means, you may continue. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, there is no limit to TCBs' delirium. Continue as you please, but those who must know the fact, would know it anyway, I am afraid.

:D :) :thumbsup:

SRS

16th March 2007, 11:20 PM

Rohit

17th March 2007, 12:09 AM

Keep trying until you grasp the following. There is no other way for the TCBs, I am afraid. :)

Sorry dear TCB, I have none whatsoever intention to go through what you have been going through so far, i.e. intense delirium. By all means, you may continue. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, there is no limit to TCBs' delirium. Continue as you please, but those who must know the fact, would know it anyway, I am afraid.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Jabroni

17th March 2007, 01:46 AM

SRS has brutally exposed the cracks in rohit's mind. it's a matter of time before he gets it fixed or transplanted.

Rohit

17th March 2007, 02:11 AM

Here goes one more TCB :x in absolute bliss.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Jabroni

17th March 2007, 02:16 AM

here goes one more REJECTED by ALL RELIGION :lol:

:grin:

Rohit

17th March 2007, 02:29 AM

I would rather leave them for the TCBs for them to have blissful experiences. That is all there is to it; nothing more, nothing less.

Have lots of fun with them.

:D :) :thumbsup:

pradheep

19th March 2007, 08:21 AM

Dear Kannana and sudhama
Taking Duryodhan's character and what I explain in Karma. Duryodhan in the womb of Gandhari has come with the tendencies of being mean, selfish, blah blah blah. If he had been in the womb of kunti, then his tendencies and Kunti's thought patterns would be under conflict. The result would be that Kunti cannot change his fate (cause and effect of his previous birth's actions), but can change his choice making features of being generous, unselfish and other positive characters. So Duryodhan's choice making destiny would be changed and he would have behaved differently in that birth.

But he had been in Gandhari's womb who was already breeding jealousy and rivalry in mind and so fate wise and destiny wise he emerged as duryodhan. Since his thoughts and his mother;s thoughts were in coherence, he lived such a life.

This is why they say the child pick up parents who can be a medium for them to express their tendencies. But they have only choice to pick the parents and once trapped in the mother's womb then they are under the strict monitoring of the mother's thoughts.

This is why in Indian tradition so much emphasis is given to the mother in pregnancy to always be very very spiritual adn have good thoughts. This way a mother could change the destiny of a child (not fate) and bring out a good child out of a eveil tendency one.

Hope I made this clear through sudhama's example of Duryodhana.

kannannn

19th March 2007, 08:08 PM

Carrying Mother's Thoughts and Propensities... no doubt influence partly in shaping the basic character of the Baby in the womb.

.. For example Duryodhana was the EMBODIMENT OF JEALOUSY...

.. which INNATE QUALITY came to him from his Mother Gaandhaari

But the Character and Quality can not take part of one's Karma... which means DEEDS.

..similar to Bharatha far- contrary to his mother Kaikeyi.
.
Just a small note on Bharatha. Wasn't Kaikeyi a caring step-mother and a righteous woman until the moment Rama was to be announced as the heir?

This is why they say the child pick up parents who can be a medium for them to express their tendencies. But they have only choice to pick the parents and once trapped in the mother's womb then they are under the strict monitoring of the mother's thoughts.
How does one pick the right parents? When does that happen?

goodsense

19th March 2007, 08:50 PM

Wasn't Kaikeyi a caring step-mother and a righteous woman until the moment Rama was to be announced as the heir?

Yes, she was. :)

podalangai

19th March 2007, 10:26 PM

Just a small note on Bharatha. Wasn't Kaikeyi a caring step-mother and a righteous woman until the moment Rama was to be announced as the heir?

Yes. Actually, in the Kambaramayanam Kaikeyi is portrayed as remaining a pure and righteous woman throughout. Her decision to send Rama into exile is a result not just of Mantharai's poison and / or her own selfishness. Rather, the effects of the prayers and righteousness of the innocent, and of the misdeeds of the wicked, lead her to do an act that, otherwise, would have been foreign to her nature. See how Kamban describes her "uLLam thirithal":

தீய மந்தரை இவ் உரை செப்பலும் தேவி
தூய சிந்தையும் திரிந்தது சூழ்ச்சியின் இமையோர்
மாயையும் அவர் பெற்ற நல் வரம் உண்மையாலும்
ஆய அந்தணர் இயற்றிய அருந் தவத்தாலும்

அரக்கர் பாவமும் அல்லவர் இயற்றிய அறமும்
துரக்க நல்லருள் துறந்தனள் தூமொழி மடமான்
இரக்கம் இன்மை அன்றோ இன்று இவ் உலகங்கள் இராமன்
பரக்கும் தொல்புகழ் அமுதினைப் பருகுகின் றதுவே

And this idea is driven home in the scene in the yuddhakandam, where Rama asks Dasharatha to forgive Kaikeyi, and when Dasharatha refuses, explains that the wrong (pazhai), if any, is his (Rama's), not Kaikeyi's.

Sorry for the digression. :)

SRS

19th March 2007, 10:51 PM

SRS has brutally exposed the cracks in rohit's mind. it's a matter of time before he gets it fixed or transplanted.

For the sake of clarity, I will summarize here what it is I have found lacking in Rohit's argument.

Rohit says Buddhism is scientific. That is all and good. In another thread, Rohit says native Indian languages are lacking the necessary constructs by which scientific concepts can be formed. However, Buddhism was concieved entirely within the framework of Indian languages. The contradiction here is obvious.

Elsewhere, Rohit claims Buddhism is atheist. However, this statement is far too broad to bear any credibility. It is well-known that the Buddha himself did not write anything down. His teachings were recorded in the form of sutras by his followers well after he died. However, even these followers did not agree on the exact nature of the teachings; therefore, various schools of Buddhism, which differed in regards to perspective, arose. The degree of atheism varies widely from school to school. For example, Tantric Buddhism has adopted many many Hindu gods. Among the Therevada Buddhists, one finds Hindu gods at the Buddhist Kataragama Shrine in Sri Lanka. As per Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhists, one finds believe in Bodhisttva's (superhuman deities) to be very strong. Therefore, regardless of whether "Buddhism", let us assume, for the sake of argument, the form of Buddhism present at the times of the Buddha's death, was atheist in principle, virtually no form of Buddhism since that time can be said to be atheist. On the question of whether the Buddha himself was atheist, this too is open to argument. However, if one reads carefully through the sutras, there are numerous references to "Brahma", "devas", etc. In the account of the Enlightenment itself, one finds a reference to "Mara." So while it is true that the Buddha himself did not emphasize the existence of any god, it cannot be said he denied the existense of higher beings.

There is also a continous attempt on the part of Rohit to isolate Buddhism from its Vedantic and Jain influences. I do not consider this to be logically consistent, certainly not from a historical point of view. Especially if one is considering the development of science in ancient India, it is necessary to look at all three, as influences are sure to have carried over.

kannannn

19th March 2007, 11:06 PM

Thanks goodsense and podalangai.

See how Kamban describes her "uLLam thirithal":

தீய மந்தரை இவ் உரை செப்பலும் தேவி
தூய சிந்தையும் திரிந்தது சூழ்ச்சியின் இமையோர்
மாயையும் அவர் பெற்ற நல் வரம் உண்மையாலும்
ஆய அந்தணர் இயற்றிய அருந் தவத்தாலும்

அரக்கர் பாவமும் அல்லவர் இயற்றிய அறமும்
துரக்க நல்லருள் துறந்தனள் தூமொழி மடமான்
இரக்கம் இன்மை அன்றோ இன்று இவ் உலகங்கள் இராமன்
பரக்கும் தொல்புகழ் அமுதினைப் பருகுகின் றதுவே
:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: Many thanks for the quote :D .

Rohit

20th March 2007, 12:11 AM

If the TCBs do not have the capicity to garsp what has been said; no one else but the TCBs themselves are the culprits.

Dear Sudhaama, I can equally charge you with similar accusations; that it is only you who is twisting the truth. Everyone knows that there is no 'God' both in Buddhism and Jainism; then, whose 'divinity' and 'divine-command' are you talking about? Also there are no past births or next births in Buddhism in the literal sense as expressed by you. Your expressions fit more to Hinduism than they do to Buddhism and/or Jainism. Didn't you know that?
Readers take note:
Rohit is attempting to place Jainism in the same category as Buddhism. A total contradiction of his earlier remark that only during the rise of Buddhism did science in India develop.
Chronologically, Mahavira of Jainism and Buddha of Buddhism were contemporaries.

The traditional philosophical schools in India had have been classified under two, mutually exclusive headings, which are (1) Astika (Which literally means: Theist) and (2) Nastika (Which literally means: Atheist)

The Nastika (Atheist) schools are those which explicitly reject the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Lokayata or Carvaka (Materialists)
2. Bauddha (Including a Number of Schools of Buddhism)
3. Jaina or Syadvada (Jainism, Including Digambara And Svetambara Groups)

The Astika (Theist) schools are those which accept the authority of the Vedas; and they are:

1. Nyaya
2. Vaiseshika
3. Yoga
4. Samkhya
5. Purva Mimamsa
6. Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta)

Reference Source:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ind-phil.html

The prominence to karma is due to Buddhism. Buddhist lay a great emphasis on past deeds. Adi Shankara brought this into hinduism.
Though, it is the Jainas who first harmonise the law of Karma with the process of redemption; nonetheless, the above statement is a creditable confirmation of one of the many facts regarding Buddhism.

The law of karma as conceived by the Buddhists, differs greatly from the law of karma conceived by the Jainas. The law of karma in Buddhism is more reflective of the universal law of cause and effect, applicable to every tangible and intangible thing that exists. While the law of karma in Jainism is operative at the metaphysical level of souls/atmas, the very existence of which Buddhism categorically rejects.

The law of karma, or more precisely the law of cause and effect, is absolutely inescapable by anything that exists; and either way, it is utterly incompatible with the Advaitic Monism. Therefore, one can clearly see the sheerness of imbecility committed by the Advaitins.

However, many elements of the Jaina's law of karma can be made compatible with the Dvaitic doctrines.

:D :) :thumbsup:

kannannn

27th March 2007, 11:31 PM

Pradheep, here are the questions. Thanks :).

This is why they say the child pick up parents who can be a medium for them to express their tendencies. But they have only choice to pick the parents and once trapped in the mother's womb then they are under the strict monitoring of the mother's thoughts.
How does one pick the right parents? When does that happen?

SRS

28th March 2007, 12:42 AM

Rohit

28th March 2007, 01:27 AM

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

And what a pity! Poor SRS, the TCB, is left with no option, none whatsoever, but to ride on his wishes. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :D :thumbsup:

pradheep

28th March 2007, 02:47 AM

Shakthiprabha.

28th March 2007, 11:35 AM

How does one pick the right parents? When does that happen?
It occurs naturally. After death, the mind impressions of the soul are attracted to parents harboring similar tendencies and are born to them.

I hear some cult believing, that, the thoughts just get attached to similar minded ppl, (like what uve said).

NOT NECESSARILY born to them as children :?

kannannn

28th March 2007, 04:06 PM

thamizhvaanan

28th March 2007, 04:11 PM

kannannn

28th March 2007, 08:00 PM

Whats the discussion going on here? ... myth? theory? or fact?
Thanks for asking the important question. Makes one recall what all this is about. It all started with Thamiz's question and Pradheep's answer to that

WHAT SERVES as KARMA in that FIRST LIFE of that person

Her parents thoughts and desires.

When asked how one picks the right parents his answer was

It occurs naturally. After death, the mind impressions of the soul are attracted to parents harboring similar tendencies and are born to them.

How does one pick the right parents? When does that happen?

That's circular argument and doesn't prove anything. However, there is a way out of this mess. Accept that we don't know the answers :thumbsup: .

thamiz

28th March 2007, 09:13 PM

May be it is somebody's bad karma that does not allow them to "admit the facts" or say e.g "I dont really understand" or anything of that sensible answer. :lol:

Always try to give some answers whether the answers make any sense or not! :lol:

Let us blame it on "karma"! :roll:

thamizhvaanan

28th March 2007, 09:39 PM

WHAT SERVES as KARMA in that FIRST LIFE of that person Her parents thoughts and desires.
It occurs naturally. After death, the mind impressions of the soul are attracted to parents harboring similar tendencies and are born to them.
How can there be a death prior to the first life? :confused2:

thamiz

28th March 2007, 09:47 PM

How can there be a death prior to the first life? :confused2:

Yeah, HOW CAN? :roll:

kannannn

28th March 2007, 09:59 PM

Let's see what Pradheep's answer is. The problem is, in order to defend the concept of Karma, new confusing arguments are put forth complicating the course of the debate. Perhaps, it time to heed Thoreau :wink: ..

thamizhvaanan

28th March 2007, 10:14 PM

One more Question (Another question doesnt mean that previous one neednt be answered .. I always feel discouraged piling up questions coz ppl tend to answer their fav Question and divert the topic :banghead: )

I suppose everyone here agrees with the theory of evolution. If we backtrack human history we find that We evolved from monkeys and apes.

Then we are at a loss to know when exactly the idea of Karma came into
existence. When did human beings became responsible for what they did? I beleive thats the concept behind karma .. to be held accountable for one's deed :roll:

Shakthiprabha.

28th March 2007, 10:39 PM

How does one pick the right parents? When does that happen?
It occurs naturally. After death, the mind impressions of the soul are attracted to parents harboring similar tendencies and are born to them.
So, crudely speaking, bad people seek bad parents in their next birth. The bad thoughts of the parents then influence the development of the child. The process continues ad infinitum. I don't sense fairness in this theory. Doesn't a person with bad Karma deserve the same good parentage as the one with good Karma? How else would they start on equal footing? How else would they get a chance to shake off their bad deeds?

Each one's thought waves goes to seek SIMILAR ones only. Otherwise we would become SPLIT personalities IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE contradicting thoughts.

Thoughts get attached or vibes with similar thoughts only, so that IT CAN BE QUENCHED OR ATTAINED OR ENJOYED by way of fulfilling.

If a person has a thought of becoming, an actor, it would go and attach to the person who WISHES to become one, NOT TO A PERSON who aims to do farming.

Rohit

29th March 2007, 12:52 AM

That's circular argument and doesn't prove anything.
Exactly!

In fact, such heavy reliance on circular arguments is the 'Hallmark' of such inconsistent explanations.

On the contrary, I have found the following explanation quite correlative to the factual reality.

There are countless streams of dependent, independent, interdependent events occuring in nature and around us. Such events occur in series, in parallel or both. Such events occur randomly, pseudo-randomly or systematically or in a combination of the three. Such events can be caused either by conscious entities or by unconscious entities or a combination of both. Finally, such events can occur under the influence of any combination of these factors; and therefore, can be attributed to these factors. Based on the number of factors (though I have listed only 10, there can be more), there are 1023 ways in which an event can occur; and the probability of predicting the occurrence of a specific event and also identifying the precise combination of these factors is less than 0.1%. As one can see; as the number of factors involved reduces, the probability of predicting the correct outcome increases; and when there is only one factor, the probability of predicting the correct outcome becomes 100%.

Karma involves conscious actions, but it is not the only factor that decides the final outcome of an event as there are many other factors that also play crucial part in deciding the final outcome.

Therefore, any prediction based on just one's own karma can carry only a very tiny probability of 0.1% of it ever being correct while the probability of it being false is more than 99.9%.

:D :) :thumbsup:

thamiz

29th March 2007, 01:35 AM

That's circular argument and doesn't prove anything.
Exactly!

Yeah, there is no first life in karma theory. So it fails! :(

kannannn

29th March 2007, 04:51 PM

Each one's thought waves goes to seek SIMILAR ones only. Otherwise we would become SPLIT personalities IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE contradicting thoughts.

Thoughts get attached or vibes with similar thoughts only, so that IT CAN BE QUENCHED OR ATTAINED OR ENJOYED by way of fulfilling.

If a person has a thought of becoming, an actor, it would go and attach to the person who WISHES to become one, NOT TO A PERSON who aims to do farming.
So, can we safely deduce that the children of all robbers were robbers themselves (or people with bad Karma) in their past lives?

Sudhaama

29th March 2007, 08:12 PM

.

.Extent of FATE ON LIFE.. Thirukkuralh answers

.. Vide my Posting dated March 28.

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=971734&sid=b64217756c389e0ec81c0368e7fd56be#971734
.

goodsense

29th March 2007, 10:51 PM

What about Christianity? Isn't it that the sins of the father, become the sins of the son? In other words, the father's deed (good or bad) is inherited by his children.

nemesis786

29th March 2007, 10:54 PM

[tscii:7013aca2a4]
What about Christianity? Isn't it that the sins of the father, become the sins of the son? In other words, the father's deed (good or bad) is inherited by his children.

The word "karma" has a Hindu origin, and means laws balancing one´s destiny during the development. Escaping from that "wheel of destiny" is seen as a goal in Hinduism and Buddhism.

http://www.ways-of-christ.net/topics/destiny.htm

[/tscii:7013aca2a4]

nemesis786

29th March 2007, 10:58 PM

I give this link for your perusal goodsense....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Christianity

christianity does not include what you call KARMA! and also see this :

http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/steiner/karma.html

:)

nemesis786

29th March 2007, 11:04 PM

above all when we discuss something its context also matters most, from the first post and started of this topic i make out that its from the context of hinduism. :P

Rohit

30th March 2007, 01:16 AM

Indian History & Culture: For discussing various aspects of history of our country and people.

The entire history of India and her people revolves around religious rivalry and their consequential, or rather detrimental, effects.

So, there is no element here that doesn't reflect that important aspects of Indian history and the history of Indian people; and this is the right forum for discussing that History and Culture. :)

The puzzling state of affairs of human conditions has baffled the entire humanity since they learnt to observe and think. The theory of karma was hypothesised and subsequently developed by ascetics and sramanas of ancient India and subsequently used by them as a framework to explain the nature and various puzzling aspects of human conditions.

- The Jainas were the pioneers of harmonising the law of karma with the process of redemption.

- The law of karma as conceived and developed by Buddhists greatly differs from the law of karma conceived and developed by the Jainas.

- The law of karma in Buddhism is more reflective of the universal law of cause and effect, applicable to every tangible and intangible thing that exists.

- The law of karma in Jainism is operative at the metaphysical level of souls/atmas, the very existence of which Buddhism had categorically rejected.

- The law of karma is absolutely incompatible with the Advaita Vedanta doctrine.

- The law of karma was also adopted in Hinduism and made compatible with the Pseudo-Dvaitic and Dvaitic doctrines.
:D :) :thumbsup:

nemesis786

30th March 2007, 01:20 AM

The "Law of Karma" is central in Dharmic religions. All living creatures are responsible for their karma - their actions and the effects of their actions - and for their release from samsara. The concept can be traced back to the early Upanishads.

The law of karma underpins the process of transmigration of the soul. Karma literally means "action," but more often refers to the accumulated reactions to activities. Thus we talk of "good karma" and "bad karma," which are stored reactions that gradually unfold to determine our unique destiny.
The self-determination and accountability of the individual soul rests on its capacity for free choice. This is exercised only in the human form. Whilst in lower species, the atman takes no moral decisions but is instead bound by instinct. Therefore, although all species of life are subject to the reactions of past activities, such karma is generated only while in the human form. Human life alone is a life of responsibility.
The Bhagavad-gita categorises karma, listing three kinds of human actions: (1) Karma: those which elevate, (2) Vikarma: those which degrade and (3) Akarma: those which create neither good nor bad reactions and thus lead to liberation.

:D :thumbsup:

nemesis786

30th March 2007, 02:08 AM

The admin of this forum has written :

However, certain points need to be reiterated clearly, with the reopening of this section:

1. Discussions on religion is definitely out. No more "one form is superior to another" or "one culture preceding all others," etc.
Please, no more of mother-of-all-religions or only-way-to-salvation discussions.

2. All forms of references to castes will not be tolerated and will be deleted, without ado.

3. Discussions on Aryan invasion theory including Dravidianism, are also out.

4. All languages are important and contribute to human progress. So no more language superiority issues either. Academic discussions are acceptable, provided they are not taken too far to the personal level and disparaging comments made.

To maintain a clean forum, we reserve the right to delete any postings or threads that run in contrary to these requirements. Besides the above, new regulations may be added as and when the need arises.

The author of this topic wrote in opening of this topic :

Assuming that "Sanaathana Dharmam" was a part and parcel of Indian Hisotry and Culture, I chose to open this topic in Indian History & Culture section. One of the main aspects of Sanaathana Dharmam is Karma. What is this Karma?

Well, Karma means Action - Action of one self.

Another important words that we can hear on almost every hour is Vidhi, which means a "Predetermined Rule or Dictum", that governs our action....So this literally boils down to "Kozhiyil Irundu Muttayaa or Muutayil Irundu Kozhiyaa"?

This is really a million dollar question that has been pondered by Great Sages of our Past. Let us also do our ponderings. We shall discuss about these two words. I hope this will enlighten all of us.

To the MOD

* This is surely first of all RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION

* Some people in here bray nonsense just like the above posters who post without any clue just to satisfy their anti-policies :!:

I hope when religious concept of one particular religion comes into play it is religious discussion. for example a rough form of karma is adopted in christianity and it is not present in judaism or christianity or zoroastrianism or bahai' .

This clearly indicates such discussions can be held provided hindus discuss on it and non-hindus question it with doubt. But i have been observing some people like above posters just make a mockery of this religion with their slanderous postings!

To enhance their gentileness they just add some emoticons and try to sound very scholarly while they are just in with evil intentions.

Religions have become part and parcel of this world. If you think criticising can be allowed in this forum then kindly remove those rules or else please actuate them instead of just letting go these bunglers.