05-28-2005, 11:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But I beg to argue that you misapply it here:
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine, but nothing in your argument indicates how I have misapplied it. Further, I said <b>belief</b> as opposed to <b>ideas</b>, please do not interpret my words. I try hard to say exactly what I mean. I did not mean blind beliefs or any other such construct.
In my post, I said: <b> âWe will end up arguing terminology and constructs ad infinitum in this pursuit.â </b>. And this is exactly what you did; by bring up terminology: jnana, sravana, manana, sambandha-jnana, abhidheya, prayojana, etc. These terms have nothing to do with what I said to you.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->â¦. I can provide 50 Vedic quotes stressing the importance of conviction.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The vedics challenged us to discuss ideas, and I have quite a few of them. Remember the vedas, upanishads, etc. were written over a period of time, by acharyas who differed in their opinion and ideology. <b>The sad part is that we have made the Vedas, Upanishads, etc. into some rigid holy book</b>. Whereas, they are guideline for new ideas to come forth. Hinduism survived because it evolves, not because it is some rigid dogmatic belief system. I would love to discuss with one and all that has ideas. What is the point to discuss them, with you in particular, when you have already made up your mind?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My point is, spiritual science is way more precise and discriminating than the simplistic theory you're suggesting...which happens to be your own "belief".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah! Spiritual anything can never be science, as there is no way to set up repeatable experiments to prove or disprove a theory. The theory suggested by the monists is very simple, but not simplistic. I can accept that one cannot either prove it or disprove it. The paradox is either understood by you, or it remains a relativist fog that you must rage against. Thus, I have no issue with worshipping Vishnu or Shiva, but at the same time subscribe to the idea of monism. However, you correctly point out that your belief is directly challenged by the paradoxical idea of monism. I say, deal with it <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There is no Sanathana Dharma without monism. This can only be understood if you can analyze why Hinduism (which I prefer to use interchangably with Sanathana Dharma[SD]) has survived all these eons, whereas other relgions have come and gone the way of the dodo. The central philosophy of SD is a paradox (like a black hole), beliefs in gods come and go, but the center remains intact. Thus Vishnu may have been Visnu before or Shiva may have been Rudra before, Venkateshwara, Bapuji, etc. may be incarnations of the same Vishnu, but this has nothing to do with the core. Different acharayas have tried their best to describe this paradoxical core, but all they have done is to give us some idea of what it is, to claim that there is a clear and consice way to know this truth is just an ego trip.
Thus you and the pope ratzinger share the same rationalizing principle that binds you with your belief.
Nothing wrong with it, but like Suzuki said: <b>âYour cup is already full!â </b>What is the use of me trying to pour you anymore tea?
I have a request, if you do want to discuss ideas, please do so without throwing up too much terminology. Like Einstien said: "A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler".
I can describe to you Hindusim is great detail. The challenges we face as we go forward, and the opportunities we have, but you will have to pour out your cup of tea and come back with an empty cup. Maybe then, we can share a cup togther!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine, but nothing in your argument indicates how I have misapplied it. Further, I said <b>belief</b> as opposed to <b>ideas</b>, please do not interpret my words. I try hard to say exactly what I mean. I did not mean blind beliefs or any other such construct.
In my post, I said: <b> âWe will end up arguing terminology and constructs ad infinitum in this pursuit.â </b>. And this is exactly what you did; by bring up terminology: jnana, sravana, manana, sambandha-jnana, abhidheya, prayojana, etc. These terms have nothing to do with what I said to you.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->â¦. I can provide 50 Vedic quotes stressing the importance of conviction.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The vedics challenged us to discuss ideas, and I have quite a few of them. Remember the vedas, upanishads, etc. were written over a period of time, by acharyas who differed in their opinion and ideology. <b>The sad part is that we have made the Vedas, Upanishads, etc. into some rigid holy book</b>. Whereas, they are guideline for new ideas to come forth. Hinduism survived because it evolves, not because it is some rigid dogmatic belief system. I would love to discuss with one and all that has ideas. What is the point to discuss them, with you in particular, when you have already made up your mind?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My point is, spiritual science is way more precise and discriminating than the simplistic theory you're suggesting...which happens to be your own "belief".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah! Spiritual anything can never be science, as there is no way to set up repeatable experiments to prove or disprove a theory. The theory suggested by the monists is very simple, but not simplistic. I can accept that one cannot either prove it or disprove it. The paradox is either understood by you, or it remains a relativist fog that you must rage against. Thus, I have no issue with worshipping Vishnu or Shiva, but at the same time subscribe to the idea of monism. However, you correctly point out that your belief is directly challenged by the paradoxical idea of monism. I say, deal with it <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->There is no Sanathana Dharma without monism. This can only be understood if you can analyze why Hinduism (which I prefer to use interchangably with Sanathana Dharma[SD]) has survived all these eons, whereas other relgions have come and gone the way of the dodo. The central philosophy of SD is a paradox (like a black hole), beliefs in gods come and go, but the center remains intact. Thus Vishnu may have been Visnu before or Shiva may have been Rudra before, Venkateshwara, Bapuji, etc. may be incarnations of the same Vishnu, but this has nothing to do with the core. Different acharayas have tried their best to describe this paradoxical core, but all they have done is to give us some idea of what it is, to claim that there is a clear and consice way to know this truth is just an ego trip.
Thus you and the pope ratzinger share the same rationalizing principle that binds you with your belief.
Nothing wrong with it, but like Suzuki said: <b>âYour cup is already full!â </b>What is the use of me trying to pour you anymore tea?
I have a request, if you do want to discuss ideas, please do so without throwing up too much terminology. Like Einstien said: "A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler".
I can describe to you Hindusim is great detail. The challenges we face as we go forward, and the opportunities we have, but you will have to pour out your cup of tea and come back with an empty cup. Maybe then, we can share a cup togther!