Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
no i mean what i am trying to say is it is a very liberal all containing religion....I mean i can go on for various pages on why science is a part of religion and may cases to illustrate my point ...its the western thinking that science and religion are on opposite ends
Well if i may provide a link http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Advanced_...
the link gives evidences of study of science like how earth revolves round the sun gravitational force and stuff like that with proper references and research papers
Drew wrote: "Anjali wrote: "Well i am trying to say science and religion are one and the same ...thats what we have always been though as per vedic books...Hinduism perhaps the only religion which treats the ..."
Lord Shiva is a symbolic distillation of the essence of Hindu spiritual consciousness.Shiva’s Dance serves as a compelling and powerful metaphor for the energy at the heart of the process of spiritual transformation...Shiva is also known as Ardhanarishvara (meaning ‘the Lord who is half woman’) with a deep philosophic connotation that the ultimate power of the universe lies in the combination of both feminine and masculine powers. It symbolically shows that Shiva and his consort Shakti are inseparable – half male and the other half female, in visual representation
After seeing this exchange, I went to Google and did some reading ....
I don't pretend to understand all of this, Drew, but here are two things that I found.
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Cos...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-...
I don't pretend to understand all of this, Drew, but here are two things that I found.
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Cos...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-...
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.This is the definition of science. Which means you have to have rational proof that a deity exists before it can be considered fact.
Your link states that the creation stories of all major religions are based on Vedas. Creationism goes against everything we know about science.
It also goes on to say "Vedas contain a good deal of scientific knowledge that was lost over millennia, which needs to be recovered." Just because a religious text has scientific knowledge in it doesn't mean that everything in it should be believed. I've read plenty of science-fiction novels that had scientific knowledge in it but I know that its fiction, a made up fantasy.
there are lot more things that i can quote but is very difficult for me to translate without the language loosing its essence ....sometimes due to cultural and philosophical makeup of me coming from a different setup its is difficult to illustrate with examples ...let me try and compose my self and try and share a few more examples later in the day
Shannon wrote: "After seeing this exchange, I went to Google and did some reading ....I don't pretend to understand all of this, Drew, but here are two things that I found.
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Cos..."
Thanks Shannon that was so cool ..
Anjali wrote: "Drew wrote: "Anjali wrote: "Well i am trying to say science and religion are one and the same ...thats what we have always been though as per vedic books...Hinduism perhaps the only religion whic..."
So Shiva is not a deity? Because a deity is is a supreme being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with magical or superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred.
Say what you will, but if you believe in a divine being without proof of this divine being, then it is not science.
Shannon wrote: "After seeing this exchange, I went to Google and did some reading ....I don't pretend to understand all of this, Drew, but here are two things that I found.
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Cos..."
Just because a religion says that it and science goes hand in hand, doesn't make it so. You have to prove what you are saying or it's just make believe.
what i am trying to say is Shiva is a symbolic representation of hindu philosophy... will explain in detail later when i am able to translate a bit of stuff
Anjali wrote: "there are lot more things that i can quote but is very difficult for me to translate without the language loosing its essence ....sometimes due to cultural and philosophical makeup of me coming f..."
I understand we have a language barrier and I really hope you can find a way to make me understand what it is you think you believe
What I'm getting from all this is that Hindus don't actually believe in a god or divine being, that what people consider a Hindu god is really to Hindus, just a symbol but not something to considered real or tangible. Is this correct?
Drew wrote: "Just because a religion says that it and science goes hand in hand, doesn't make it so. You have to prove what you are saying or it's just make believe. "
Yeah....
The thing is, Drew, I'm trying to learn and understand. I'm guessing there might be things that I don't know, including how and why Hindus might think science and religion are compatible.
I know people have claimed that before ... non-Hindus, I think. I also know that someone, though I can't remember who, I think either Shanna or the person who's name starts with an X and is followed by letters, asked once if the person meant in an Eastern metaphysical sort of way. So, I'm guessing there might be something there that I'm unfamiliar with.
I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't make sense to me ... yet. I'm going to try to read more and "listen" more and see if it actually does make sense. I'm also going to try to watch the Carl Sagan video that the first cite I gave included. I want to try and learn and better understand this. And, given the fact that the Indian people discovered so many scientific things (perhaps separate and apart from religion ... perhaps not) I'm guessing there might be a wealth of knowledge here.
Yeah....
The thing is, Drew, I'm trying to learn and understand. I'm guessing there might be things that I don't know, including how and why Hindus might think science and religion are compatible.
I know people have claimed that before ... non-Hindus, I think. I also know that someone, though I can't remember who, I think either Shanna or the person who's name starts with an X and is followed by letters, asked once if the person meant in an Eastern metaphysical sort of way. So, I'm guessing there might be something there that I'm unfamiliar with.
I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't make sense to me ... yet. I'm going to try to read more and "listen" more and see if it actually does make sense. I'm also going to try to watch the Carl Sagan video that the first cite I gave included. I want to try and learn and better understand this. And, given the fact that the Indian people discovered so many scientific things (perhaps separate and apart from religion ... perhaps not) I'm guessing there might be a wealth of knowledge here.
Shannon wrote: "Drew wrote: "Just because a religion says that it and science goes hand in hand, doesn't make it so. You have to prove what you are saying or it's just make believe. "Yeah....
The thing is, Drew..."
I don't doubt that they have a wealth of knowledge, I just need something I can wrap my head around or it is just another crazy belief.
Anyway, I'm going to bed, let me know if you can figure anything out Shannon.
Currently watching ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr...
(Grew up on Carl Sagan and Cosmos. Love Carl Sagan.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr...
(Grew up on Carl Sagan and Cosmos. Love Carl Sagan.)
"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.This is the definition of science."
@Drew: Good words. Let me add saying that the scientific process includes rejecting out-dated ideas and including new radical ones, if they make sense. Religion, on the other hand, due to its inherent dependence on 'faith' finds it hard to do so. This causes religion to remain stuck in a rut, while science can move from Aristotle to Copernicus, and from Newton's theory of gravity to Einstein's theory of gravity.
And to the points Anjali is making, I observe that she as well as the sites being referenced here, are not making a distinction between ancient Indian scientists and ancient Indian philosophers. We have had some great scientists in India, no doubt, but to claim that we predicted quantum mechanics and the big bang theory would be, in my opinion, stretching things a bit too far. Every religion that I know of tries to interpret its religious philosophies in tune of the latest scientific theories. For example (quoting from one of the sites given above in the comments):"As in modern physics, Hindu cosmology envisaged the universe as having a cyclical nature. The end of each kalpa brought about by Shiva's dance is also the beginning of the next. Rebirth follows destruction". Modern science has does have a hypothesis that there will be a big crunch some day, which may be followed by another big bang, but there are two other theories too , one which says that the universe will keep on expanding forever, another which says that one day the universe will come to a standstill, neither expanding nor contracting. The writers in the site conveniently ignored these.
PS: I am a Hindu by birth, and there is a rumor in my parts that there is evidence of a nuclear war having been fought in Kurukshetra (the battle ground of Mahabharata, one of our most epic wars). So yeah, when the rest of the world was playing with sticks and stones, my ancestors were waging a nuclear war. *facepalm*
As far as the 'compatibility' thing goes, I have a couple of points to make:1. We have had a lot of non-hindus coming to India, and I mean A LOT; the greeks, the chinese, muslims, parsis, etc. Hence we are very good at assimilating, which, in turn makes us (hindus) very good at embracing new ideas. For example when Buddhism was getting very popular in India, we declared Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu( one of the Hindu deities) and accepted his teachings. This is why we are good at accepting radical new ideas without much furor.
2. There was a time once when even Christianity and science went hand in hand. Gregor Mendel, to name one example, was a scientist AND a priest. Priests used to impart both religious and the scientific teachings of the day, hence they HAD to be compatible. Things are not very different here.
One of my comments was about the beauty and I'd written there that merely knowing the meaning is not more enough to feel beauty. From where this feeling of ecstasy or beauty comes, I have been thinking for a while. I'd written there the poem of Ravindra Nath Tagore: 'thou hast made me endless...'. here 'thou' has a very deffer meaning for every one. Suppose someone is a true believer of Christian or Hindu faith, then reading this 'thou' will immediately comes in the form of Jesus or Krishna. And if someone who is atheist and if something beautiful has happened in that person's life due to his/her child, then 'thou' will be his/her child. Someone who is a lover then it will be his/her beloved one and if one is in deep love with one's parents then image will be again change.
Just one word and different perceptions. From where a writer, poet, painter or a scientist gets the inspiration is little difficult to find. We can deny if we wish the word 'inspiration' but there are enough incidents are around us to prove that there is a presence of this word 'inspiration'.
In every Dan Brown books, we have seen writer has taken strong motivational, inspiring thoughts from history and present and he is trying to give the true essence of religion. I was just trying to get the meaning of church and I found something:-
The word 'Church' has a root in OE - 'cirice/circe and ME- 'chereche, chiriche, chirche' which comes from the Greek root - 'kuriakon' and which is used in Northern English and Scotish form as 'Kirk' for 'church'. This 'Kuriakon' was in use in earlier Greek as 'kuriakos/kuriakon' which means 'pertaining to god' and badly translated in Bible as the meaning of entirely different meaning of another Greek word- 'ecclesia' which mean an political assembly which controls the society and because of misunderstanding about this word, people got driven in many war, as they began to say Jesus is their king and went against Caesar. And that is how Church became an autonomous body which began controlling every king and rulers.
I found that people are against Mysticism and I got that how Jawahar Lal Nehru was also against all types of mysticism. In his book 'Discovery of India', he is claiming that how Indian people have become superstitious and against the progress because of the false mystics whose only view is to get benefit from people but he has also accepted some of the mystics who had given a true shape to India by their deep understanding and meaning.
I have also seen how people try to get the meaning of any thing only from surface. Like when Jesus is saying (I have got it from King James Version of Bible, Matthew 16:19- Chapter- 17/20)- Because of your unbelief; for verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."
(Let me try)
Actually if very naturally and pragmatically we think then, it is impossible that only a faith can remove the mountain but if we search ourself a little, we can find what he means. He is simply saying that if one has a faith in him/herself, nothing is incapable to do but it does not mean, mountain can be removed. His meaning is that one can go anywhere and can scale even it is mountain. To use a word, 'unbelief' he is pointing to the inner belief of one's own nature. We get failure because we don't understand our own nature.
The religions have been established by man for its own use and man can't be flawless. Many Bibles' versions are created by men to fulfill their own perception towards Jesus teachings. Even in the last time of Jesus, I think that his disciples were not became conscious about him and were still be thinking in their own limited mind. So what was the meaning of Jesus to create the Church, due to misunderstanding by Peter turned in to a single government body. They must be fear-stricken people and they might have found that without destroying the Caesar and kings and rulers, they can't establish autonomous and society controlling body and that was not what Jesus would be thinking. He must be thinking to change human heart from inside but he'd been interpreted may be wrongly. As Hinduism has been misinterpreted by so called holy priests.
If you come near 'Gita', you'll not found may be in translation but it is actually have been sung by Krishna and its writing style is poetic. By matching different enlightened people like Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, you will find they are all talking from the root level of humanity.
'Gita' has different meaning for different people. It is actually a book of total inspiration and from where someone can get an inspiration, it is up to that person.
Many hate the hypothetical and imaginary touch of religious books. It is very normal and one should to apply the theory as here in this thread Shannon has expressed. Those people in that time were not like us, advanced thinkers. So one Krishna was the matter of attraction. Today we live in information technology where no information is hidden. Those people's brain level was limited and to make them understand something and if it is philosophical was very hard. So I suppose many writers who had shaped these holy books accepted hypothetical and imaginary touch as today we see in many popular fictions. Many times in fiction, a philosopher try to maintain his/her thoughts.
In 'Gita' Krishna tries to make Arjuna to understand where he is( I was thinking to write this one here. I hope you don't mind):-
"Na tatvaaham jaatu, naasam na tatva neme janaadhipah.
Na chaiva na bhavishyamah, sarve vayamatah param."
It says:- In some time, I was not in existence, neither you were nor these kings and it is not like that, that in future we will be not here.
He is actually saying to Arjun that this life is a continuous process. Today we are and tomorrow we will not be here but it does not mean, the humanity will be finished and there would not be a life in future. Everything has a short stay and one has to find his/her own 'Dharma' a religion in his/her own life.
Now you can understand its impact that this life is just a process which begins and gets ended and one should to freely without any fear follow his/her own religion and make life of some use.
Just one word and different perceptions. From where a writer, poet, painter or a scientist gets the inspiration is little difficult to find. We can deny if we wish the word 'inspiration' but there are enough incidents are around us to prove that there is a presence of this word 'inspiration'.
In every Dan Brown books, we have seen writer has taken strong motivational, inspiring thoughts from history and present and he is trying to give the true essence of religion. I was just trying to get the meaning of church and I found something:-
The word 'Church' has a root in OE - 'cirice/circe and ME- 'chereche, chiriche, chirche' which comes from the Greek root - 'kuriakon' and which is used in Northern English and Scotish form as 'Kirk' for 'church'. This 'Kuriakon' was in use in earlier Greek as 'kuriakos/kuriakon' which means 'pertaining to god' and badly translated in Bible as the meaning of entirely different meaning of another Greek word- 'ecclesia' which mean an political assembly which controls the society and because of misunderstanding about this word, people got driven in many war, as they began to say Jesus is their king and went against Caesar. And that is how Church became an autonomous body which began controlling every king and rulers.
I found that people are against Mysticism and I got that how Jawahar Lal Nehru was also against all types of mysticism. In his book 'Discovery of India', he is claiming that how Indian people have become superstitious and against the progress because of the false mystics whose only view is to get benefit from people but he has also accepted some of the mystics who had given a true shape to India by their deep understanding and meaning.
I have also seen how people try to get the meaning of any thing only from surface. Like when Jesus is saying (I have got it from King James Version of Bible, Matthew 16:19- Chapter- 17/20)- Because of your unbelief; for verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."
(Let me try)
Actually if very naturally and pragmatically we think then, it is impossible that only a faith can remove the mountain but if we search ourself a little, we can find what he means. He is simply saying that if one has a faith in him/herself, nothing is incapable to do but it does not mean, mountain can be removed. His meaning is that one can go anywhere and can scale even it is mountain. To use a word, 'unbelief' he is pointing to the inner belief of one's own nature. We get failure because we don't understand our own nature.
The religions have been established by man for its own use and man can't be flawless. Many Bibles' versions are created by men to fulfill their own perception towards Jesus teachings. Even in the last time of Jesus, I think that his disciples were not became conscious about him and were still be thinking in their own limited mind. So what was the meaning of Jesus to create the Church, due to misunderstanding by Peter turned in to a single government body. They must be fear-stricken people and they might have found that without destroying the Caesar and kings and rulers, they can't establish autonomous and society controlling body and that was not what Jesus would be thinking. He must be thinking to change human heart from inside but he'd been interpreted may be wrongly. As Hinduism has been misinterpreted by so called holy priests.
If you come near 'Gita', you'll not found may be in translation but it is actually have been sung by Krishna and its writing style is poetic. By matching different enlightened people like Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, you will find they are all talking from the root level of humanity.
'Gita' has different meaning for different people. It is actually a book of total inspiration and from where someone can get an inspiration, it is up to that person.
Many hate the hypothetical and imaginary touch of religious books. It is very normal and one should to apply the theory as here in this thread Shannon has expressed. Those people in that time were not like us, advanced thinkers. So one Krishna was the matter of attraction. Today we live in information technology where no information is hidden. Those people's brain level was limited and to make them understand something and if it is philosophical was very hard. So I suppose many writers who had shaped these holy books accepted hypothetical and imaginary touch as today we see in many popular fictions. Many times in fiction, a philosopher try to maintain his/her thoughts.
In 'Gita' Krishna tries to make Arjuna to understand where he is( I was thinking to write this one here. I hope you don't mind):-
"Na tatvaaham jaatu, naasam na tatva neme janaadhipah.
Na chaiva na bhavishyamah, sarve vayamatah param."
It says:- In some time, I was not in existence, neither you were nor these kings and it is not like that, that in future we will be not here.
He is actually saying to Arjun that this life is a continuous process. Today we are and tomorrow we will not be here but it does not mean, the humanity will be finished and there would not be a life in future. Everything has a short stay and one has to find his/her own 'Dharma' a religion in his/her own life.
Now you can understand its impact that this life is just a process which begins and gets ended and one should to freely without any fear follow his/her own religion and make life of some use.
Drew wrote: "What I'm getting from all this is that Hindus don't actually believe in a god or divine being, that what people consider a Hindu god is really to Hindus, just a symbol but not something to consider..."yes , The idol is just a symbol, a form to identify with to connect to and concentrate all the energies on....An abstract concept of a higher individual/God might be appealing to an intellectual mind but how will a common man or child understand or identify ...an idol in a way becomes a point to concentrate on ...so like i said a few posts back ...each aspect of nature is celebrated by a different symbolic representation...we pray to the representation who most suits our emotional make up.The idols are only instruments to communicate with the higher individual or God...The image or icon of worship is a focus for our prayers and devotions.
Anjali wrote: "Drew wrote: "What I'm getting from all this is that Hindus don't actually believe in a god or divine being, that what people consider a Hindu god is really to Hindus, just a symbol but not somethin..."You're still saying that you pray to a god, a higher individual, a make believe being. That in itself means that it isn't scientific.
Vishal wrote: "One of my comments was about the beauty and I'd written there that merely knowing the meaning is not more enough to feel beauty. From where this feeling of ecstasy or beauty comes, I have been thin..."Vishal, I really wish I could understand what you're trying to get at. I know you're trying.
Drew wrote: "Vishal wrote: "One of my comments was about the beauty and I'd written there that merely knowing the meaning is not more enough to feel beauty. From where this feeling of ecstasy or beauty comes, I..."
I am not trying. I just myself closing.
Thanks for your patient Drew.
I am not trying. I just myself closing.
Thanks for your patient Drew.
Drew wrote: "Vishal wrote: "One of my comments was about the beauty and I'd written there that merely knowing the meaning is not more enough to feel beauty. From where this feeling of ecstasy or beauty comes, I..."
I think he's exploring a few things ....
First, beauty, which I think he later linked to inspiration. Vishal, please let me know if I'm not getting this as you meant it. But, I think he was using the word "thou" and trying to express that it can mean different things for different people. I'm not sure why he picked that particular word, but I'm guessing .... He's saying when some religious people think about the word "thou" ... they might think of their spiritual leaders, in whom they find beauty and inspiration. Yes, when most Western English speakers think about the word thou, they usually think "you" ... but, it is in a lot of religious literature and Vishal might be linking this to religious philosophy. In Christianity, there is a belief that Jesus is in all believers through the Holy Spirit. I think, based on what I've been reading, Hindus believe a divine essence is in all things. I know in Native American beliefs, the idea that all living things are connected and are one with Great Spirit figures prominently. So, when I read his words and didn't understand at first, these are the connections I made. The religious, when contemplating "spirit" and "thou" see their religious leaders and/or their teachings and experience beauty and inspiration. Whereas, I believe Vishal was saying, when atheists contemplate "thou" ... or look for beauty and inspiration, they might find it in their children, in their lovers, etc.... Then, he wrapped that part up by concluding that there can be so many meanings for one word ... depending on one's point of view. I wouldn't, if I was reading this and confused, get hung up on the word ... on "thou" .... I'd switch to seeing it more as ... understanding and the thing that fuels us ... and that it's different for everyone ... based on experience and viewpoint. (But, Vishal, correct me if I'm wrong, okay?)
Then, he went on to discuss the different meanings of the word "church" and discussed that they're open to interpretation. All people interpret word differently and from their own perspectives. In the past, he explained, some viewed the church and understood the word to mean a controlling body. Therefore, they defined the church, the role of the church and their role within the church as one of power. Power and control. Which, led to some wars.
Next, Vishal began to talk of mysticism and the fact that some are leery of it. However, I think, he went into the fact that it's really about people attempting to come to their own understanding of life, especially life within themselves. He talked of Jesus and his teaching that by faith we can move mountains. Vishal said, on the surface, this looks impossible. But, I think he was saying that, in truth, the teaching is ... if we have faith in ourselves, anything is possible. Outer life. Inner life. Perception. While Vishal didn't make a direct link back to beauty and inspiration, I think there is one and, I'm guessing, that was also Vishal's perception.
Vishal went into the Gita at this point. And, again, continuing with his thought, he stated the way one interprets the Gita is an individual thing. If you were to think back to Anjali's posts, she mentions that, in India, one's spiritual journey is very individual. It's based on one's own personal experiences. One's individual path. Her parents don't force things upon her because they know this ... she is on her own path and will find understanding that is specific to her and to her own path. I think Vishal is basically saying the same thing. There is this piece of writing, the Gita, but like when people contemplate "thou" or define "church" and the role of the church, it's open to individuals' perceptions, likely determined based on their intellect, culture, upbringing, different life experiences, etc... There's no one meaning of the Gita. This is THE translation and this IS what it means. No. It's about the experience of the reader. What is in each individual's heart and mind when they approach it? That will determine the level of understanding the person reaches. It will be based on the individual and what that person views, or perhaps needs to view or see in order to learn. I think that's what he was getting at.
One could say this is a metaphor for his posts and this thread. We see a post written in a way that isn't, at first blush, easy for us to understand. Some of us approach that experience differently. Some don't read it. Some skim. Some read it and say, I don't get you, brother. Some read it and try to make personal connections to it in order to further understanding.
Regardless of who one is and how one approaches the post or the thing that isn't easily understood, all are doing so based on who they are ... their culture, their upbringing, their experiences, their needs at the time.
It's about perception.
In the end, I think he was getting at the fact that, regardless of what path we choose to follow, it is our path and our choice and, if we live a meaningful life, we'll have walked a good path, regardless of whether it is brick, concrete, dirt, winding or not a path at all ... perhaps some will choose to fly ... regardless, if it's ours and has meaning, it's meaningful and right.
I think he's exploring a few things ....
First, beauty, which I think he later linked to inspiration. Vishal, please let me know if I'm not getting this as you meant it. But, I think he was using the word "thou" and trying to express that it can mean different things for different people. I'm not sure why he picked that particular word, but I'm guessing .... He's saying when some religious people think about the word "thou" ... they might think of their spiritual leaders, in whom they find beauty and inspiration. Yes, when most Western English speakers think about the word thou, they usually think "you" ... but, it is in a lot of religious literature and Vishal might be linking this to religious philosophy. In Christianity, there is a belief that Jesus is in all believers through the Holy Spirit. I think, based on what I've been reading, Hindus believe a divine essence is in all things. I know in Native American beliefs, the idea that all living things are connected and are one with Great Spirit figures prominently. So, when I read his words and didn't understand at first, these are the connections I made. The religious, when contemplating "spirit" and "thou" see their religious leaders and/or their teachings and experience beauty and inspiration. Whereas, I believe Vishal was saying, when atheists contemplate "thou" ... or look for beauty and inspiration, they might find it in their children, in their lovers, etc.... Then, he wrapped that part up by concluding that there can be so many meanings for one word ... depending on one's point of view. I wouldn't, if I was reading this and confused, get hung up on the word ... on "thou" .... I'd switch to seeing it more as ... understanding and the thing that fuels us ... and that it's different for everyone ... based on experience and viewpoint. (But, Vishal, correct me if I'm wrong, okay?)
Then, he went on to discuss the different meanings of the word "church" and discussed that they're open to interpretation. All people interpret word differently and from their own perspectives. In the past, he explained, some viewed the church and understood the word to mean a controlling body. Therefore, they defined the church, the role of the church and their role within the church as one of power. Power and control. Which, led to some wars.
Next, Vishal began to talk of mysticism and the fact that some are leery of it. However, I think, he went into the fact that it's really about people attempting to come to their own understanding of life, especially life within themselves. He talked of Jesus and his teaching that by faith we can move mountains. Vishal said, on the surface, this looks impossible. But, I think he was saying that, in truth, the teaching is ... if we have faith in ourselves, anything is possible. Outer life. Inner life. Perception. While Vishal didn't make a direct link back to beauty and inspiration, I think there is one and, I'm guessing, that was also Vishal's perception.
Vishal went into the Gita at this point. And, again, continuing with his thought, he stated the way one interprets the Gita is an individual thing. If you were to think back to Anjali's posts, she mentions that, in India, one's spiritual journey is very individual. It's based on one's own personal experiences. One's individual path. Her parents don't force things upon her because they know this ... she is on her own path and will find understanding that is specific to her and to her own path. I think Vishal is basically saying the same thing. There is this piece of writing, the Gita, but like when people contemplate "thou" or define "church" and the role of the church, it's open to individuals' perceptions, likely determined based on their intellect, culture, upbringing, different life experiences, etc... There's no one meaning of the Gita. This is THE translation and this IS what it means. No. It's about the experience of the reader. What is in each individual's heart and mind when they approach it? That will determine the level of understanding the person reaches. It will be based on the individual and what that person views, or perhaps needs to view or see in order to learn. I think that's what he was getting at.
One could say this is a metaphor for his posts and this thread. We see a post written in a way that isn't, at first blush, easy for us to understand. Some of us approach that experience differently. Some don't read it. Some skim. Some read it and say, I don't get you, brother. Some read it and try to make personal connections to it in order to further understanding.
Regardless of who one is and how one approaches the post or the thing that isn't easily understood, all are doing so based on who they are ... their culture, their upbringing, their experiences, their needs at the time.
It's about perception.
In the end, I think he was getting at the fact that, regardless of what path we choose to follow, it is our path and our choice and, if we live a meaningful life, we'll have walked a good path, regardless of whether it is brick, concrete, dirt, winding or not a path at all ... perhaps some will choose to fly ... regardless, if it's ours and has meaning, it's meaningful and right.
Of course it is our own choice, but Shannon, that isn't what the discussion is about. That is the problem with all religious people, they go off on tangents instead of just answering the question straight-forward. This is a tactic religious people use to confuse and re-direct. I'm not here to listen to a sermon.
Vishal wrote: "Drew wrote: "Vishal wrote: "One of my comments was about the beauty and I'd written there that merely knowing the meaning is not more enough to feel beauty. From where this feeling of ecstasy or be..."So you aren't trying to make sense, you're just babbling about what your beliefs are?
Drew wrote: "Of course it is our own choice, but Shannon, that isn't what the discussion is about. That is the problem with all religious people, they go off on tangents instead of just answering the question s..."
You perceive "all" religious people to be one in the same. That's your choice and your perception. I do not. That is my choice and my perception.
You perceive "all" religious people to go off on tangents. Perhaps, when someone who is a believe speaks, you automatically perceive he or she is going off on a tangent when he/she is simply answering a question. Your choice. Your perception.
You perceive his post as a sermon. I guess. I mean, at first, you said you didn't understand it. I gave my perception of his post. We have yet to hear from Vishal. Perhaps his intentions were different from my perceptions.
If you don't want to read his posts or my posts, if you perceive a post to be a sermon, don't read it. That's your choice.
You asked Vishal and Anjali yesterday to answer the question posted by this thread. You and I also both know everyone, believe and atheist alike, take us off topic. That happens. The thread moves and changes based on the people who respond and based upon their responses. It's based on experience and perception.
If you were to view Vishal's post, the one I interpreted, as a metaphor versus a sermon, you might see he was answering your question. Would you rather do without religion or science ... which often becomes, on this thread, should people do without religion or science? For Vishal, I'm guessing, he's not going to answer for another. It's for each individual to answer for himself or herself. Further, given the fact that he's Hindu and believes, I think, that people's paths are based on their own unique experiences and needs, the answer might, quite frankly, change depending on the person's experiences or needs at the time. It could be an ever-changing thing, based on perception a different times throughout a person's life.
Maria asked Anjali for information on Hinduism. I asked Anjali for information on Hinduism. We're both curious. They're answering our questions. That's how I perceive their posts. You invited Vishal to stay and to talk. Now, you say, "I'm not here to listen to a sermon."
Are you simply saying that to say that, Drew? Do you simply want us to know that you're displeased with our thoughts and have no desire to read them? Or, are you, by making that statement, attempting to control the path this thread takes? I truly don't know the answers to those questions. You may answer or not as you choose.
Are people who are different welcome here, or are they not? Is it appropriate for some of us to ask others, people from a different background, questions about their culture and faith, or is it not appropriate?
Two days ago, you said you didn't want to learn anything about Hindus. It was insanity. Even when I said, let's take religion out of the mix, there are over one billion people in India and we're living in a global society ... not an insular society, you said you didn't want to and weren't going to learn anything about Hinduism. You knew everything you need to know. It was insanity. Then, yesterday and today, you basically invited people to stay and share information on Hindu philosophy. They did. Now, you're saying you're not here to listen to a sermon. That confuses me. Do you not want to learn about Hindu philosophy? If not, don't. Or, do you want to learn about Hindu philosophy?
Again, it's about perception. My perception .... This is a living and breathing thread. Yes, there is a guiding question; however, it changes and delves into different areas ... though even that is linked to Vishal's point. Perception. Everyone has a right to post here, unless and until they're abusive and might be reported to GR for hate speech, threats, etc.... Those who visit this site have a choice ... read or not, comment or not. But, it's all about choice ... each individual's choice, which is guided by each individual's perceptions.
You perceive "all" religious people to be one in the same. That's your choice and your perception. I do not. That is my choice and my perception.
You perceive "all" religious people to go off on tangents. Perhaps, when someone who is a believe speaks, you automatically perceive he or she is going off on a tangent when he/she is simply answering a question. Your choice. Your perception.
You perceive his post as a sermon. I guess. I mean, at first, you said you didn't understand it. I gave my perception of his post. We have yet to hear from Vishal. Perhaps his intentions were different from my perceptions.
If you don't want to read his posts or my posts, if you perceive a post to be a sermon, don't read it. That's your choice.
You asked Vishal and Anjali yesterday to answer the question posted by this thread. You and I also both know everyone, believe and atheist alike, take us off topic. That happens. The thread moves and changes based on the people who respond and based upon their responses. It's based on experience and perception.
If you were to view Vishal's post, the one I interpreted, as a metaphor versus a sermon, you might see he was answering your question. Would you rather do without religion or science ... which often becomes, on this thread, should people do without religion or science? For Vishal, I'm guessing, he's not going to answer for another. It's for each individual to answer for himself or herself. Further, given the fact that he's Hindu and believes, I think, that people's paths are based on their own unique experiences and needs, the answer might, quite frankly, change depending on the person's experiences or needs at the time. It could be an ever-changing thing, based on perception a different times throughout a person's life.
Maria asked Anjali for information on Hinduism. I asked Anjali for information on Hinduism. We're both curious. They're answering our questions. That's how I perceive their posts. You invited Vishal to stay and to talk. Now, you say, "I'm not here to listen to a sermon."
Are you simply saying that to say that, Drew? Do you simply want us to know that you're displeased with our thoughts and have no desire to read them? Or, are you, by making that statement, attempting to control the path this thread takes? I truly don't know the answers to those questions. You may answer or not as you choose.
Are people who are different welcome here, or are they not? Is it appropriate for some of us to ask others, people from a different background, questions about their culture and faith, or is it not appropriate?
Two days ago, you said you didn't want to learn anything about Hindus. It was insanity. Even when I said, let's take religion out of the mix, there are over one billion people in India and we're living in a global society ... not an insular society, you said you didn't want to and weren't going to learn anything about Hinduism. You knew everything you need to know. It was insanity. Then, yesterday and today, you basically invited people to stay and share information on Hindu philosophy. They did. Now, you're saying you're not here to listen to a sermon. That confuses me. Do you not want to learn about Hindu philosophy? If not, don't. Or, do you want to learn about Hindu philosophy?
Again, it's about perception. My perception .... This is a living and breathing thread. Yes, there is a guiding question; however, it changes and delves into different areas ... though even that is linked to Vishal's point. Perception. Everyone has a right to post here, unless and until they're abusive and might be reported to GR for hate speech, threats, etc.... Those who visit this site have a choice ... read or not, comment or not. But, it's all about choice ... each individual's choice, which is guided by each individual's perceptions.
There's been loads of posts since I last popped in, but for the record, I'd be interested in knowing about Hinduism too, so can someone let me know which posts are the best to read for that without having to dredge through the masses of posts since I last came on, please?
Hazel wrote: "There's been loads of posts since I last popped in, but for the record, I'd be interested in knowing about Hinduism too, so can someone let me know which posts are the best to read for that withou..."
I'm not being cheeky when I say this, Hazel. I've been reading on Hindu philosophy and started the Gita. It's really about perception. Different people could tell you which posts are best to read, but that would be a very individual thing ... and might not be accurate for who you are and where you are.
I'm not being cheeky when I say this, Hazel. I've been reading on Hindu philosophy and started the Gita. It's really about perception. Different people could tell you which posts are best to read, but that would be a very individual thing ... and might not be accurate for who you are and where you are.
Drew wrote: "So you aren't trying to make sense, you're just babbling about what your beliefs are? "
When I read his words, I was confused at first. I know how I perceive them, which might be different from how you perceive them or from how he meant them.
You told him you knew he was trying.
I'm guessing he was getting at the fact that ....
He wasn't trying ... he was being.
There might be a difference between trying and being.
Not sure about the word "closing" ... though, I think that meant he's closing ... as in the conversation ... and he thanked you for your patience.
Again, my perception might not meet his intention. But, I can see a philosophical difference between trying to be and being ... trying to explain something and simply sharing what is.
When I read his words, I was confused at first. I know how I perceive them, which might be different from how you perceive them or from how he meant them.
You told him you knew he was trying.
I'm guessing he was getting at the fact that ....
He wasn't trying ... he was being.
There might be a difference between trying and being.
Not sure about the word "closing" ... though, I think that meant he's closing ... as in the conversation ... and he thanked you for your patience.
Again, my perception might not meet his intention. But, I can see a philosophical difference between trying to be and being ... trying to explain something and simply sharing what is.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "There's been loads of posts since I last popped in, but for the record, I'd be interested in knowing about Hinduism too, so can someone let me know which posts are the best to read fo..."what I meant, Shannon, is which ones are actually about hinduism, rather than other things. I plan on reading the gita as well. Maybe its other peoples perceptions I'm interested in.
Yes all religious people use the misdirection tactic, no they are not all one in the same. You're all crazy in different ways. When a person is asked a question like "would you rather live in a world without religion or science" and they answer this question by giving me a long drawn out description about beauty and mysticism and the like, then they are not actually answering the question.
Anjali did answer the question, so I don't have an issue with what she said other than the fact that I just wouldn't be able to put in trust in it, it's still make believe.
You're right, if I don't want to read something, I won't but I'm not the type to just skip someone's comment just because I may not like what they have to say. The issue is that I can't make sense of what he is saying.
The only time I go off topic is when I get tricked into it, yes that happens, I'm just as susceptible to the misdirection as anyone else.
If he is saying that the answer lies in each individual person then no he didn't actually answer the question, he just misdirected it.
They have the right to give you information on Hinduism but it would be nice if they messaged you the information directly instead on putting it on here so that there isn't any confusion. I can't tell any of you to accept this but it would help, I'm going to assume that because it is being put on this thread that they are attempting to bring this information into the debate and so I'm going to debate it.
Yes, people of all nations, creeds, and beliefs are welcome. I don't discriminate against anybody but if they are expressing themselves on here I'm going to debate it, unless I can't understand it, in which case I'm going to ask for a clarification. Then once I get a clarification, I'm going to decide if it makes sense to me or not.
Two days ago I did say that, but I got the information anyway and guess what, I was right, it is still just a crazy religion. I actually didn't need to learn about it because it still teaches a belief in the divine and I don't believe in fairy tales.
Everybody, has their own perception, that includes me. My perception is that religion in all its numerous forms is flawed and outdated, I hope some day we can all eliminate this disease from our world.
Anjali wrote: "yes it is a good translation ...i read a translation in a language called kannada..... but i have heard that the eknath version good from my dad...i will have to check up dad about good english t..."
@Shannon ...Bhagavad-Gita: Swami Prabhavananda is regarded by most as the best translation of the Gita
Hazel wrote: "Maybe its other peoples perceptions I'm interested in. "
I'd not considered that as a possibility.
I'd not considered that as a possibility.
Shannon wrote: "Drew wrote: "So you aren't trying to make sense, you're just babbling about what your beliefs are? "When I read his words, I was confused at first. I know how I perceive them, which might be dif..."
Shannon, I do appreciate Vishal being here, I would never tell somebody they shouldn't be here because of the background they come from. I have love for all people of all races. I just may not agree with what they believe, that's all.
I can understand the trying and being part. He's not trying to explain his thoughts, he's just being who he is and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.
Drew wrote: "Yes all religious people use the misdirection tactic, no they are not all one in the same. You're all crazy in different ways.
When a person is asked a question like "would you rather live in a w..."
Hmmm....
It might be difficult for them to message me ... and Maria ... and Hazel. Though, perhaps it won't. I don't often message and don't know if one can message multiple people at once.
More importantly, ultimately, I don't know what harm there is in our asking questions here and their answering here.
After all, you have the right to say religion is crazy and all religious people use tactics and that religion is a disease that you hope the people of the world will rid themselves of. You have the right to say it and you do say it. You've said it multiple times. And, we've been told that we shouldn't be offended by that. We should brush it off. Chuckle. Say, "Oh, well."
No harm done, after all.
If that's acceptable, why isn't it acceptable for some of us to ask them questions here and for them to answer here?
There's no harm in that, is there? Is any harm done when they explain Hindu philosophy?
Given the fact that you think their philosophy is a fairy tale, I wouldn't think it would have the power to harm you or anyone on this thread for seeing their words.
When a person is asked a question like "would you rather live in a w..."
Hmmm....
It might be difficult for them to message me ... and Maria ... and Hazel. Though, perhaps it won't. I don't often message and don't know if one can message multiple people at once.
More importantly, ultimately, I don't know what harm there is in our asking questions here and their answering here.
After all, you have the right to say religion is crazy and all religious people use tactics and that religion is a disease that you hope the people of the world will rid themselves of. You have the right to say it and you do say it. You've said it multiple times. And, we've been told that we shouldn't be offended by that. We should brush it off. Chuckle. Say, "Oh, well."
No harm done, after all.
If that's acceptable, why isn't it acceptable for some of us to ask them questions here and for them to answer here?
There's no harm in that, is there? Is any harm done when they explain Hindu philosophy?
Given the fact that you think their philosophy is a fairy tale, I wouldn't think it would have the power to harm you or anyone on this thread for seeing their words.
I didn't say there was any harm in it, just don't get upset at me if I assume they are bringing this information into the debate and I begin debating it or I ask how it is relevant to the discussion.
Anjali wrote: "Bhagavad-Gita: Swami Prabhavananda is regarded by most as the best translation of the Gita "
Thank you for checking and passing that along. I'll keep my eyes open for that copy.
I started reading the translation I picked up yesterday, though I only read the forward and introduction. I'm finding it interesting so far. The author says the children of India are raised with the stories of the Gita and know the characters like their family members. I'm not sure if that's true or not. But, it occurred to me that it will be challenge for me to read it and understand, given the fact that I wasn't raised with it. However, I'm going to try. :)
Thank you for checking and passing that along. I'll keep my eyes open for that copy.
I started reading the translation I picked up yesterday, though I only read the forward and introduction. I'm finding it interesting so far. The author says the children of India are raised with the stories of the Gita and know the characters like their family members. I'm not sure if that's true or not. But, it occurred to me that it will be challenge for me to read it and understand, given the fact that I wasn't raised with it. However, I'm going to try. :)
Shannon wrote: "Drew wrote: "Vishal wrote: "One of my comments was about the beauty and I'd written there that merely knowing the meaning is not more enough to feel beauty. From where this feeling of ecstasy or be..."
Shannon, my heart is really falling in love with you. How did you manage to join those pieces together very beautifully? I can't control this heart anymore.
Shannon, my heart is really falling in love with you. How did you manage to join those pieces together very beautifully? I can't control this heart anymore.
well one more attempt at trying to compose what i want to sayThe way to "know God" as many hindu Gurus say is to go deep in bhakti or deep in meditation. I experienced God as a combination of the two. Saying the gayatri mantra, which is a meditative experience(per the mantra) and a bhakti one(giving praise to the almighty). I can't express what happens to me in meditative states(and I've only scraped the surface!) in oridnary language but it is a great peace beyond any other. Some people often claim seeing things such as patterns or shapes of lights when they are in deep meditation or in deep bhakti. This happened to me as well and I feel it is the subliminal energy that we send out in these transcendental states.
Does it really matter if people disagree with what i have experienced through my spirtitual journey.Not really... It doesn't shake my belief in Eshwara/Krushna one bit... it may require me to study the scriptures in a different light but that's about it.
As opposed to Abrahamic faiths our scriptures aren't used to show the "greatness" of God but to reveal the subliminal truths of reality.
Drew wrote: "I didn't say there was any harm in it, just don't get upset at me if I assume they are bringing this information into the debate and I begin debating it."
As long as people don't cause harm, I won't get upset.
As long as people don't cause harm, I won't get upset.
Vishal wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Drew wrote: "Vishal wrote: "One of my comments was about the beauty and I'd written there that merely knowing the meaning is not more enough to feel beauty. From where this feeling ..."Vishal, Shannon is a very intelligent person, it may not sound like it but I do have much respect for her.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Maybe its other peoples perceptions I'm interested in. "
I'd not considered that as a possibility."
@Hazel--If you wanted to know about Hinduism then please do not go after individuals perceptions. As Shannon said, the different posts talk about a particular person's understanding, which will be based on their life experience. And that will only create conflict and you will be misdirected. To start with you can read Bhagavad Gita.
I'd not considered that as a possibility."
@Hazel--If you wanted to know about Hinduism then please do not go after individuals perceptions. As Shannon said, the different posts talk about a particular person's understanding, which will be based on their life experience. And that will only create conflict and you will be misdirected. To start with you can read Bhagavad Gita.
Anjali wrote: "well one more attempt at trying to compose what i want to sayThe way to "know God" as many hindu Gurus say is to go deep in bhakti or deep in meditation. I experienced God as a combination of the..."
I hope you understand that while I think that your beliefs are very beautiful, they just aren't logical, it is just a fantasy to me. No it doesn't matter whether I disagree with you or not, that is the real beauty about life, we all have the right to choose what we believe or don't believe. That in itself sounds like a Hindu belief doesn't it? So maybe we all have a little Hindu in us. ;)
Viji wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Maybe its other peoples perceptions I'm interested in. "I'd not considered that as a possibility."
@Hazel--If you wanted to know about Hinduism then please do not g..."
Thanks for the advice, but doesn't the fact that people interpret it different ways make it important to know what different people think? I feel its very important, and useful, to know that it can be interpreted in different ways, and thus isn't actually a unifying text that is easy to understand, that brings people together, and can be a guide to living a good life.
Actually to say trying, someone sees that other is doing hard to make himself clarify what he is saying but what I am saying is there and now it is not trying, but just sharing. I used the word closing to say that I am near to my thoughts where I can somewhat close my thoughts in a perception. Well it was difficult and I didn't expressed it in a right sentence. I thanked Drew because he has been holding his patience since yesterday.
Drew wrote: "I didn't say there was any harm in it, just don't get upset at me if I assume they are bringing this information into the debate and I begin debating it or I ask how it is relevant to the discussion."The reason i am posting in the thread is an attempt to understand various perceptions and beliefs about God about atheism as such ...
some of the discussions have made me go back and read discuss absorb assimilate and sleep over it translate and attempt to put my thoughts on paper...
so i a way you fuel my thirst of knowledge
Vishal wrote: "I thanked Drew because he has been holding his patience since tomorrow. ."do you mean since yesterday? Which is the day before today, whereas tomorrow means the day after today. Otherwise, I'll be asking Drew how he manages to pull off time travel ;-P
Anjali wrote: "Drew wrote: "I didn't say there was any harm in it, just don't get upset at me if I assume they are bringing this information into the debate and I begin debating it or I ask how it is relevant to ..."Much respect goes to you Anjali, I hope my harsh words will not make you think less of me. The thirst for knowledge is and always has been the key to life.
Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I thanked Drew because he has been holding his patience since tomorrow. ."do you mean since yesterday? Which is the day before today, whereas tomorrow means the day after today. Ot..."
I'm sure it's just a language problem. What you don't believe in time travel ;)
Drew wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I thanked Drew because he has been holding his patience since tomorrow. ."do you mean since yesterday? Which is the day before today, whereas tomorrow means the day a..."
I know its probably just a language problem, but I reckon Vishal will actually appreciate being told how to say it correctly... I went to uni with a girl who studied Japanese, and when she went there for a visit, she was asked if she was looking forward to a day out they were going on, and replied in Japanese that she was really excited, at which point all the japanese people fell about laughing, as she'd said it a little wrong, and had actually claimed she was sexually excited about it, a definite lesson in trying to get a foreign language right :P
Of course I believe in time travel, I'm travelling forward in time all the... well, time.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Hinduism perhaps the only religion which treats the gays and lesbia..."
Okay, wait a minute, how can you bring sexuality into this discussion? Why does it matter in regards to the topic? Your basically saying that your religion is better because it excepts homosexuality, that's not even what we're talking about.
Science and religion are not one in the same, they are in direct opposition to one another. For example, you mentioned Shiva, a major Hindu deity, correct? Your religion says that Shiva is real, yet you cannot see or interact with this deity, you simply worship an idol. Scientists would not except this idea without proof of Shiva's existence.