*** Science Or God? ***

[rhitwick]

@mediator, dude, how many times do you want to be proved wrong?
I thought you may be having a open-mind, u may accept things if given enough "verifiable" proofs, but u are acting like those theists who have their eyes covered with blind faith, to who howerver type or amount of "facts" u provide they will repeat the same chants.
Why do u do that. Learn to accept things, that way u "learn", u don't lose anything in this process. Its a gain for everyone.

But, if u want to continue argument, lets put you to ur comfort zone i.e. fields which science had/couldn't yet come out with answers.
Are u willing to start over??*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/78.png

 

[mediator]

…and the award for the best contortion goes to <drumroll>……

Because MBH “teaches us all sorts of valuable lessons”, I am “bringing examples from it”. I didn’t know that something which teaches us something is out of bounds for quotations. But seriously, is that how you are going to argue now, that MBH tells us “how low” the Indian society was and therefore, example of Karna is not be considered ? You do realize that many of the “qualifications of sudra” on the list of qualities that you had earlier compiled, come from the MBH itself. I hope, you also realize, being a Hindu, how, MBH along with Ramayana, is considered as “holy” Hindu texts and the events narrated are considered as “true” events. Or that, how Gita is itself a part of MBH, and explanations in MBH are still used today, in hindu theological debates. Or that it is considered as a snap shot of the then society, however it was.

Yes, you are not the first hindu to go into such seizure, on mention of Karna’s name. Those who argue that caste is not by birth and that it is a “distortion”, find it hard to fit Karna, among others, in their scheme of things. But you are certainly the first one to actually reject Karna’s example, as an example of “lowliness”, instead of fighting it out.

I guess this where I get to say, once again, EPIC FAIL.

All said and done, you still haven’t explained by what criteria, was Karna declared Sudra. Being born of a kshatriya woman (Kunti) and devine, his nature should be that of kshatriyas only.

First Mahabharat is not a person that you are absurdly saying => "you do realize that many of the “qualifications of sudra” on the list of qualities that you had earlier compiled, come from the MBH itself."
Second, Understand what mahabharat is. It contains bad people as well as good people.
Third, Even I'm preaching you what "varna system" is, an era, in a place etc, where Varna system has been distorted and telling you about the correct definition. So?


See yourself, how your hatred has now reduced your understanding which is unable to understand a meaning as simple as what mahabharat is. Mahabharat is an Indian epic. Not everyone was correct. A few did not wanted war, but were compelled to fight. Does that mean Vedic knowledge became extinct? Does that mean that the true meaning of Shudra was extinct? It is again an example of how you are jumping to conclusions without any "genuine", "unbiased", "properly comprehended" knowledge in the first place.


So I disagree with line in bold, this is what I call as "Intellect Fail".

Ergo, non-theistic. Ergo, rejection of core of Hinduism. Yes I know you have done your best to prove that rejection of “typical God definition” doesn’t mean rejection of Vedas. That’s why here’s a homework for you. Remove all “typical God definitions” from your Vedas. Now tell us, how will you define:
* knowledge
* sound energy, energy that is pervading this universe
* trinity
* creation, preservation, destruction
* Universe

The same way I defined the "ME" in GITA. You don't realize that what you are discussing goes the same way it went for GITA and much further since Vedas consists of scientific knowledge too.

As with Sikhism, I haven’t read Granthasahib to make quotes like above. As with Buddhism, it is not a theistic religion.

Both are considered religions. So is Hinduism. Read my friend, and comprehend what happened bet. me and amitash.

I was the one who .....

You r the ONE!

 

[rhitwick]

what mahabharat is. Mahabharat is an Indian epic. Not everyone was correct.

I don't get you, after a two-three page long fight, providing verse after verse from Mahabharata and Gita, u suddenly started claiming its an epic and its not "THAT" believable

So, it stands like this:-
You can quote anything from anywhere but need not to provide a proof with it.
Things you like are true and things you don't like are false, wrong etc.

And, why is that so?

A few days ago, u started talking about "Sudra". Karni provided u links and translations from Gita to open your eyes. Then, on your defense u went to Mahabharata and claimed that in Mahabharata its written like so and Gita might not be appropriate. Now karni again showed you how Mahabharata also proves his point, u claim on the authenticity of Mahabharata.

Remember your words today and don't your ever dare to go back. Because in future debates, we will thrash Mahabharata, Ramayana by saying that they are in no way linked to God, so nothing directly or indirectly related (based upon it) to it can be true

A few did not wanted war, but were compelled to fight. (Problem statement)
1>Does that mean Vedic knowledge became extinct?
2>Does that mean that the true meaning of Shudra was extinct?

Again, how are these two questions related to the "problem statement"?

It is again an example of how you are jumping to conclusions without any "genuine", "unbiased", "properly comprehended" knowledge in the first place.

I'm compelled to do this, "LOL".
Please don't use those three words in ur future arguments.

The same way I defined the "ME" in GITA.

Now, if you still didn't recollect that GITA is an effect of Mahabharata (as told in the "EPIC") and as "Not everyone was correct", can the whole Gita be incorrect as someone from the "everyone" (all characters of Mahabharata) is imagined to be dictating The Gita.
Plz, plz tell me why "HE" can't be considered be telling "incorrect"? Why not?
Only because you like this portion?
Any other reasons plz. I (we all) would love to hear.

Both are considered religions. So is Hinduism. Read my friend, and comprehend what happened bet. me and amitash.

Well, let me post another part of ur evolution or, this time its more of a chameleon act. here it goes,

1.Treating all religions as same is the most idiotic thing.

Well, at this phase of debate [means when Amitash started with someone else and u (like me) started poking in his posts] u start ur first with this blunt comment.

Like I asked, is it religion's fault that people have become "intolerant"? Three teachers A,B,C preach wisdom. Their guidance and teachings are compiled as Aism,Bism,Cism. Now is it A,B,C's fault that when follower of A abuses B/Bism, quarrels happens?

Then u go against it the next post.

You simply are not replying to my one "basic" question. Is that God telling to hurt other people who have "diferent viewpoint", "different understanding", "different faith"? I guess the question i not that hard! Yes or No?

And u support ur previous ideology (r u suffering from Alzheimer's? )

How is "it" creating diff. when the its really the people that is the cause? One one hand you agree religions are not the source and then you say "it" creates difference? It is like you understand the logic, but innately you dislike religion and hence refusing to "accept" the logic so as to override that dislike.

And u continue defending it.

Wrong! The point from the start was that all religions are not the same.

Then all of a sudden u go back to ur first claim (Hey, get an appo with a doc, I don't want my friend to forget me)

And till now u r stuck to this.
It only shows how, only for the sake of proving your arguments u distort, twist, disagree, deny YOUR OWN COMMENTS. You r always right.

When u need, Mahabharata is the one and only correct source and Gita may not be that correct.

When u need, everything in Gita is correct and we should die if we don't believe it.

You can include anything, comment anything under the sun just for the sake of proving ur points but irrespective of its source, authenticity, if we refuse to believe them we are not even upto the mark of a debate.

Tell me , who do you think you are? R u the 11th avatar??

 

[karnivore]

We cannot categorically deny it and here is some evidence:

You are walking backwards, ichi

The first image, I believe, is considered proto-Shiva. Pashupati, meaning lord of animals, I believe, is another name for Shiva. It is speculated, by many scholars, while opposed by some, that this concept, went into the making of the later day Rudra, in the Vedas, which again went on to become the current day Shiva. This however doesn’t prove that IVC was Hindu. It may, however mean, that one character found its way into Hindu pantheon.

Regarding its seating posture, few, like J.M.Konoyer, believe that it is yogic. But majority, like Possel, Witzel, Farmer etc. believe that it is some ritualistic pose, at the best, a precursor to yoga. Shiva, if you recall, is not associated with yoga.

Second image: the seal belongs to Dholavira (if I recall correctly) automatically placing it at a point in time in History, when the Aryan influence has started to show its evidence. Swastika symbolism was present among the Hitties and Persians. Note that such seals were not found, in the earlier periods, the periods, which are generally called the height of IVC.

The last image is the famous dancing girl. It is one cultural trait, which is still seen among Rajasthani women. Bangles covering the upper arm of the ladies. Not sure, why you are relating it to Hinduism.

So, where are the temples, where are the fire alters, where are the gods, where are the priests.

I will end this, by asking a simple question, and I am sure you will know what I am hinting at. Is Judaism, same as Christianity and/or Islam ? Will you call Christianity same as Islam ? You do know, how these religions overlap.

If you have genuine interest in IVC seals, I suggest, you check out Possel, Witzel, Parpola, Farmer, Mahadevan etc. Asko Parpola and Mahadevan claim the IVC language is Dravidian, and that IVC is proto-Dravidian. They provide beautiful arguments. Witzel and Farmer claim, that IVC never had a written script.

Ok. So it proves that science can co-exist with Indian religions.

Not really. But yes, as long as it doesn’t come in conflict with the hindu ideas. Ayurveda is one good example. The so called holy texts of hindus are more often than not, prayers and rituals, unlike the holy texts of other religions. Only Gita comes somewhat close to being of the same nature as those holy texts, intellectually speaking. That’s why I quoted from Gita, not from any Vedas or Upanishads or Purana.

And yeah science is not always right, what worked earlier can be scrapped off for something other. Similarly there may be some very stupid logics in Indian texts too.

I have no problem with stupid logics in any texts as long as, these don’t come in conflict with societies’ freedom. As with science, yes, it has been wrong many times over. But the best part is, it changes its ideas in the light of new evidence. It doesn’t try to force anything into it.

Brahamagupta tried to make Perpetual Motion Machine, of course it was the worst idea. Obviously It didn't work.

A source will be much appreciated. Preferably an academic site and not a hindu site, please. Thank you.

According to science, Universe itself is an accident. Life is also an accident. Penicillin invention was also an accident. Benzene structure was also an accident.

Well...accidents do occur.

Correct. The point still stands though. You may also want to know a bit about Incas as well. Hindus were not the only ones who made accidental prophecies.

I wish there was color photography then. And may be a video camera too

Atleast we may agree that unicorns did exist

You seriously don’t think there were Unicorns. Do you.

 

[karnivore]

First Mahabharat is not a person that you are absurdly saying => "you do realize that many of the “qualifications of sudra” on the list of qualities that you had earlier compiled, come from the MBH itself."

Not sure I got that part. “Itself” is certainly not a pronoun for a “person”. So where exactly is the absurdity ?

Second, Understand what mahabharat is. It contains bad people as well as good people.

Yeah, the age old, GOOD v/s EVIL. Or was the concept lost on you.

Third, Even I'm preaching you what "varna system" is, an era, in a place etc, where Varna system has been distorted and telling you about the correct definition. So?

So when was the time, when “verna system” was practiced correctly ? O teacher, support your argument with cites from history. Or maybe, O teacher, you are again using “common sense” and I should “forget” it.

I am really scared of your common sense, for most of the time, it makes no sense at all.

See yourself, how your hatred has now reduced your understanding which is unable to understand a meaning as simple as what mahabharat is. Mahabharat is an Indian epic. Not everyone was correct. A few did not wanted war, but were compelled to fight. Does that mean Vedic knowledge became extinct? Does that mean that the true meaning of Shudra was extinct? It is again an example of how you are jumping to conclusions without any "genuine", "unbiased", "properly comprehended" knowledge in the first place.

Who gave the “true” meaning of Sudra ? Which book contains the “true” meaning of Sudra ? Where can I find it ?

So I disagree with line in bold, this is what I call as "Intellect Fail".

Nice sense of humour.

Remove all “typical God definitions” from your Vedas. Now tell us, how will you define:

* knowledge
* sound energy, energy that is pervading this universe
* trinity
* creation, preservation, destruction
* Universe
……

In Hinduism, i.e. for a Hindu, is it possible to make references (as in “explanations”) to the above list of things, without having to resort to a “typical God definition”, the same way as it is possible in Buddhism.

The same way I defined the "ME" in GITA. You don't realize that what you are discussing goes the same way it went for GITA and much further since Vedas consists of scientific knowledge too.

“ME” in Gita is all godhead, however you want to see it. So, instead of telling me what Vedas contain, please answer the question in bold.

You r the ONE!

Damn, I missed the memo.

 

[karnivore]

Tell me , who do you think you are? R u the 11th avatar??

*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image20.gif

 

[naveen_reloaded]

somewhere in the middle of this thread ..we had a discussion on hoimepathy and why it cures...

now i got a article to back it ...


IT DOESNT WORK ..........

[Note: This post may upset some people. It damn sure upset me. If you are easily upset by pediatric medical stories that do not end well, then you might want to skip reading this. The title alone may be all you need to know.]

Homeopathy is the antiscientific belief that infinitely diluted medicine in water can cure various ailments. It’s perhaps the most ridiculous of all "alternative" medicines, since it clearly cannot work, does not work, and has been tested repeatedly and shown to be useless.

And for those who ask, "what’s the harm?", you may direct your question to Thomas Sam and his wife Manju Sam, whose nine-month-old daughter died because of their homeopathic beliefs.

The infant girl, Gloria Thomas, died of complications due to eczema. Eczema. This is an easily-treatable skin condition (the treatments don’t cure eczema but do manage it), but that treatment was withheld from the baby girl by her parents, who rejected the advice of doctors and instead used homeopathic treatments. The baby’s condition got worse, with her skin covered in rashes and open cracks. These cracks let in germs which her tiny body had difficulty fighting off. She became undernourished as she used all her nutrients to fight infections instead of for growth and the other normal body functions of an infant. She was constantly sick and in pain, but her parents stuck with homeopathy. When the baby girl developed an eye infection, her parents finally took her to a hospital, but it was far too late: little Gloria Thomas succumbed to septicemia from the infection.

Thomas and Manju Sam were convicted yesterday of manslaughter in Australian court. As a parent myself I cannot even begin to imagine the pain they are going through, the anguish and the emotional horror. But let us be clear here: their belief in a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice killed their baby. Homeopathy doesn’t work, but because they were raised in an environment that supports belief in homeopathy, they trusted it. They used it, and they rejected real, science-based medicine. And their daughter suffered the consequences.

And suffer she did. The accounts of the pediatricians who tried too late to help little Gloria Thomas are simply harrowing.

Every time I hear about something like this — a baby dying due to "alternative" medicine, or the lies and disinformation from the antivaccination movement, or some other belief system that flies in the face of reality — a little bit of me dies as well. I held my daughter shortly after she was born, and I would have done anything to protect her, and that included and still includes protecting her against people who fight so adamantly against reality.

The reality is that the antivaxxers’ work will result in babies dying. The reality is that belief in homeopathy will result in more babies dying. The reality is that denying science-based medicine will result in more babies dying.

And I know these words will fall on many deaf ears. And I will guarantee the comments to this post will contain many loud and irrational arguments supporting homeopathy and the antivaxxers. I’ve seen it before, and I know that many of those people are completely immune to reason and logic. And if you wonder what might wake them up, the answer may very well be nothing. Just read what Gloria Thomas’ father — the man just convicted of the manslaughter of his own daughter — had to say:

But even after Gloria died, Thomas Sam adhered to his belief that homeopathy was equally valid to conventional medicine for the treatment of eczema.

He told police: “Conventional medicine would have prolonged her life … with more misery. It’s not going to cure her and that’s what I strongly believe.”

He and his wife face 25 years in jail, where they will have plenty of time to rethink their convictions.

 

[Aspire]

^^
Really touching

BUT Homopathy works!

 

[amitash]

Well im back from a long trip to mumbai and actually from the trip i found out alot more about hinduism esp and as far as i can see, i finally understand what mediator was trying to tell me....from all my visits to temples i found out that yes there are a million wrong things going wrong but from the actual teachings of hinduism i gathered mainly teachings of peace and tollerence rather than those of holy worship...I even learned that there is room in the vedas even for atheists....I might be wrong but from what i mostly saw, vedas are extremelly tollerant and admit the possibility for "no god existence" and you are free to chose whatever you want....Thats fair enough for me!..and yes the now wrong parts are changing...quite slowly but changing none the less.

As for earlier arguements of conscience in science, i still see that unforeseen problems are the things that cause problems and all the seen problems are solved, so there is a conscience....

 

[rhitwick]

^welcome back with new thoughts. We were missing you. You have been a lot of times*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/5.png

 

[karnivore]

Well im back from a long trip to mumbai and actually from the trip i found out alot more about hinduism esp and as far as i can see, i finally understand what mediator was trying to tell me....from all my visits to temples i found out that yes there are a million wrong things going wrong but from the actual teachings of hinduism i gathered mainly teachings of peace and tollerence rather than those of holy worship...I even learned that there is room in the vedas even for atheists....I might be wrong but from what i mostly saw, vedas are extremelly tollerant and admit the possibility for "no god existence" and you are free to chose whatever you want....Thats fair enough for me!..and yes the now wrong parts are changing...quite slowly but changing none the less.

I will take the bolds, one by one:

"the actual teachings of hinduism": What exactly is the actual teachings of hinduism. "Teaching" as per which book ? But before that, please explain what is hinduism, according to the ancient "hindu" texts.

"teachings of peace and tollerence": Christians say the same. Muslims say the same. Jews say the same. How is "hinduism" different ?

"rather than those of holy worship": The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals.

"there is room in the vedas even for atheists": In a sense yes. But atheism in hinduism isn't exactly what Europeans understand. Atheism in hinduism is not necessarily the lack of belief in god, but is all about accepting the vedas or rejecting those. Thus, Buddhists and Jains are also atheists (nastik) to the hindus. Just as Carvaka was.

"vedas are extremelly tollerant": Vedic hinduism prospered at a time when it didn't have to fight for space like the the abrahamic religions had to. The only other religion that existed, and was known to the vedic people, was the Zoroastrianism. But it never came in conflict with vedic hinduism. The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions. Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts. Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.

"admit the possibility for "no god existence"": A specific quote would be much appreciated.

"the now wrong parts are changing": Some examples of "wrong parts" and their changing would appreciated as well.

 

[mediator]

"the actual teachings of hinduism": What exactly is the actual teachings of hinduism. "Teaching" as per which book ? But before that, please explain what is hinduism, according to the ancient "hindu" texts.

Surely you dont have the courage to either read GITA completely or the Vedas. You prove my point by repeatedly quoting the various verses of GITA even after my explanation to you by quoting the successive verses you missed and from commentaries. So, why don't you just keep on reading from the "critic's" site??

"teachings of peace and tollerence": Christians say the same. Muslims say the same. Jews say the same. How is "hinduism" different ?

Its again like going by "words", plaguirizing what the "critics site" tell you, or hitting the dig.com articles like we witnessed in this thread ages ago.
Neither you have read, Bible completely, neither Quran, VEdas or Gita, GuruGranth Sahib etc etc. Why not read them yourself?

"there is room in the vedas even for atheists": In a sense yes. But atheism in hinduism isn't exactly what Europeans understand. Atheism in hinduism is not necessarily the lack of belief in god, but is all about accepting the vedas or rejecting those. Thus, Buddhists and Jains are also atheists (nastik) to the hindus. Just as Carvaka was.

Why are you so concerned about what Europeans think? You think they are better than you intellectually?
Hinduism talks about morality, science, mathematics etc. Much of it is in agreement with modern science. Much of its "morality" and principles are stated by Buddhism and jainism too.

So, even if you had thought a little, you'd have realised that logically, in definition of nastik that you imagined, Buddhists and Jains are not nastik to Hindus.

"vedas are extremelly tollerant": Vedic hinduism prospered at a time when it didn't have to fight for space like the the abrahamic religions had to. The only other religion that existed, and was known to the vedic people, was the Zoroastrianism. But it never came in conflict with vedic hinduism. The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions. Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts. Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.

What conflicts? Can you state them all? Please do state "from their scriptures" where Buddha told his disciples that he disagreed on various science, mathematics, morality, karmic principles etc. If Buddhism does not talk of theism or previous births, then why did Buddha remembered his past lives or Kalki's mention in Buddhism? I think talks of other religions cannot be really continued without the active involvement of well read students of their respective scriptures.

And, what has "tribal conflict" to do with "Vedic tolerance"? Like I already said, it is the humans not the scriptures! Humans have plethora of reasons to fight over. Even if there exists no sane reason, then also some will find a reason to fight.

"rather than those of holy worship": The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals.

Thats a naive way of putting it.

Firstly, we all know that what we have is not the "entire vedic corpus". Much of it is destroyed and what we have is very less, a percentage of the complete Vedas that at some point of time existed in ancient ages as a whole.

Secondly, Vedas are texted in terms of metaphors. Only biased person will think that by "athiti devo bhava" or "suryaya namah", we are treating them GODS in the "most typical form that exists" today. Much of the elements like Sunlight are shown reverence. WE all know we cannot live without sunlight. Treating guests as God also means showing respect to guests and not make idol of them.

The depiction of SunGod riding his chariot on seven horses is again a metaphor. Scientifically we all know how the seven colors appears in the rainbow, i.e the VIBGYOR.

The rigvedic "hymn of creation".....

There was neither existence nor non-existence.
There was not then what is not.
There was neither sky nor any heaven beyond the sky.
What power was there? Where?
Who was that power?
Was there an abyss of fathomless water?

There was neither death nor immortality then
No signs were there of night or day.
The One was breathing with its own power,
in deep space.
Only the One was:
And there was nothing beyond.

The darkness was hidden in darkness.
And all was fluid and formless.
Therein, in the void,
By the fire of fervor arose One.
And in the One arose love.
Love the first seed of the soul.

The truth of this the sages found in their hearts:
Seeking in their hearts with wisdom,
The sages found that bond of union
Between being and non-being
Between the manifest and the unmanifest

Who knows this truth?
Who can tell, when and how arose this universe?
The gods came after its creation.
Whether this universe was created or uncreated
Only the God who sees in the highest heaven:
He only knows, when came this universe
And, whether it was created or uncreated
He only knows or perhaps He knows not?



So where is the ritual or prayer?



Lets look again from this post only, let alone the past ones ...

The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals.

I believe it is a few illiterates on scriptures who hate religion so much that they have firmly decided to spread rumours and falsehood about a few religions. It seems non-religious parties create more intolerance, that also arises from rumours and lies, than religious ones over religion. Hence, proving my point again, about how athiests and religion haters are behaving in this thread alone.

 

[amitash]

"the actual teachings of hinduism": What exactly is the actual teachings of hinduism. "Teaching" as per which book ? But before that, please explain what is hinduism, according to the ancient "hindu" texts.

How can u define a religion/phillosophy? I never said i know everything about it...just alot more than what i had asumed before...If you read what mediator had replied to me before, you would have understood....this same question i had for him.

"teachings of peace and tollerence": Christians say the same. Muslims say the same. Jews say the same. How is "hinduism" different ?

I said "I GATHERED MAINLY" before it which you chose to ignore...Its what I see in hinduism, its merely my view......The religions you mentioned say you will go to hell if you dont believe and things like that which i am yet to find in hinduism...Although I wont judge those other religions, i dont know anything much about them.

"rather than those of holy worship": The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals.

From what i have gathered i dont see many prayers or rituals as you have stated...I am not all learned in the vedas and i dont know everything they say, but i made an attempt and read alot and from what i gather, everything in the the vedas are all very poetic and metaphorical, and they have been misinterpreted as prayer.

"there is room in the vedas even for atheists": In a sense yes. But atheism in hinduism isn't exactly what Europeans understand. Atheism in hinduism is not necessarily the lack of belief in god, but is all about accepting the vedas or rejecting those. Thus, Buddhists and Jains are also atheists (nastik) to the hindus. Just as Carvaka was.

if its accepting the vedas and rejecting god, then its the same as accepting the phillosophy taught by hinduism and in past posts you have stated that you didnt have a problem if hinduism stated only phillosophies...The vedas that i have seen have alot of logic and science in them..If you can accept those and not accept god, arent u still a part of the vedas?

"vedas are extremelly tollerant": Vedic hinduism prospered at a time when it didn't have to fight for space like the the abrahamic religions had to. The only other religion that existed, and was known to the vedic people, was the Zoroastrianism. But it never came in conflict with vedic hinduism. The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions. Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts. Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.

I didnt quite get your point....are you saying that, IF there was a struggle for land when the vedas were written, then it would propogate all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions? which also you cant really judge without understanding them.

"admit the possibility for "no god existence"": A specific quote would be much appreciated.

isnt it that when the vedas say that there is room for atheists, then they are admitting that there might be no god?

"the now wrong parts are changing": Some examples of "wrong parts" and their changing would appreciated as well.

*sigh...plenty of things are changing...So many superstitions are being rejected today, like putting watter around a plate before eating for eg, was a thing done to ward off ants as ppl used to sit on the floor and eat, which now is redundant and has been stopped to a great extent.

As for me, before, like you, i was arrogant towards all religions but now im on a neutral towards all, even wen it comes to the vedas, i will not judge it as right or wrong, i dont have any right to do so with any religion.

 

[karnivore]

"the actual teachings of hinduism": What exactly is the actual teachings of hinduism. "Teaching" as per which book ? But before that, please explain what is hinduism, according to the ancient "hindu" texts.

Surely you dont have the courage to either read GITA completely or the Vedas. You prove my point by repeatedly quoting the various verses of GITA even after my explanation to you by quoting the successive verses you missed and from commentaries. So, why don't you just keep on reading from the "critic's" site??

"teachings of peace and tollerence": Christians say the same. Muslims say the same. Jews say the same. How is "hinduism" different ?

Its again like going by "words", plaguirizing what the "critics site" tell you, or hitting the dig.com articles like we witnessed in this thread ages ago.
Neither you have read, Bible completely, neither Quran, VEdas or Gita, GuruGranth Sahib etc etc. Why not read them yourself?

No substantial counter argument. Therefore ignored. I knew that you would now reply. The page has flipped, and therefore, your idiotic misadventure is now not under direct view. But its funny, how you project yourself.

"there is room in the vedas even for atheists": In a sense yes. But atheism in hinduism isn't exactly what Europeans understand. Atheism in hinduism is not necessarily the lack of belief in god, but is all about accepting the vedas or rejecting those. Thus, Buddhists and Jains are also atheists (nastik) to the hindus. Just as Carvaka was.

Why are you so concerned about what Europeans think? You think they are better than you intellectually?
Hinduism talks about morality, science, mathematics etc. Much of it is in agreement with modern science. Much of its "morality" and principles are stated by Buddhism and jainism too.

So, even if you had thought a little, you'd have realised that logically, in definition of nastik that you imagined, Buddhists and Jains are not nastik to Hindus.

1st bold: Only you can argue like that. Last time I checked, “atheist” is an English word, derived from the ancient Greeks, which happen to be in Europe. “Nastik” on the other hand happens to be a Sanskrit word. It is therefore important to make a distinction, particularly when words are being thrown around like confetti. I had pointed this out earlier, but, as we can see, it just fell on deaf ears.

2nd bold: Every religion talks about “morality”. All proponents of religion claim that their religion is scientific. Am sure you have heard of “Christian science” and “Islamic science”. Still don’t see the difference between you and “them”.

Regarding the last sentence, well, what can I say, if you choose to live in denial. Not my problem. But, do us a favour and stay away from using the word “logic” in your sentences. You just gave it a bad name.

"vedas are extremelly tollerant": Vedic hinduism prospered at a time when it didn't have to fight for space like the the abrahamic religions had to. The only other religion that existed, and was known to the vedic people, was the Zoroastrianism. But it never came in conflict with vedic hinduism. The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions. Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts. Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.

What conflicts? Can you state them all? Please do state "from their scriptures" where Buddha told his disciples that he disagreed on various science, mathematics, morality, karmic principles etc. If Buddhism does not talk of theism or previous births, then why did Buddha remembered his past lives or Kalki's mention in Buddhism? I think talks of other religions cannot be really continued without the active involvement of well read students of their respective scriptures.

And, what has "tribal conflict" to do with "Vedic tolerance"? Like I already said, it is the humans not the scriptures! Humans have plethora of reasons to fight over. Even if there exists no sane reason, then also some will find a reason to fight.

1st bold: No. It is not possible for me to state ALL the verses that talk of conflicts.

2nd bold: We were at hinduism, were we not. “Post-Buddha texts” meant post-Buddha hindu texts.

3rd bold: LoL

4th bold: Read it, to know it. Don’t throw stones in the dark. Someone can’t be intolerant of something that one doesn’t know of. On the matter of “conflict”, tribal conflicts existed at that time and these find mention there. Simple point, yet so hard to understand.

5th bold: You know my stand. There is no point in repeating it.

6th bold: Correct. Scriptures provide them with plenty. That’s the point that we have been making. Late realization, but realized it all the same. Thank you.

"rather than those of holy worship": The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals

Thats a naive way of putting it.

Firstly, we all know that what we have is not the "entire vedic corpus". Much of it is destroyed and what we have is very less, a percentage of the complete Vedas that at some point of time existed in ancient ages as a whole.

Secondly, Vedas are texted in terms of metaphors. Only biased person will think that by "athiti devo bhava" or "suryaya namah", we are treating them GODS in the "most typical form that exists" today. Much of the elements like Sunlight are shown reverence. WE all know we cannot live without sunlight. Treating guests as God also means showing respect to guests and not make idol of them.

The depiction of SunGod riding his chariot on seven horses is again a metaphor. Scientifically we all know how the seven colors appears in the rainbow, i.e the VIBGYOR.

1st bold: Yeah, carry on nitpicking. What we have is all we have got. What we don’t have is outside the scope of discussion.

2nd bold: Tell me something new.

3rd bold: If that is directed at me, then you are pissing at the wrong tree. Find some other tree. I have mention before, that hindus have a tendency of imposing divinity on anything they revere. Pay attention to my posts, instead of throwing tantrums. You might just learn something worthwhile.

4th bold: I hope that you are not suggesting that hindus “invented” rainbow. But hey, I have heard enough from you, not be surprised, if you are.

The rigvedic "hymn of creation".....

There was neither existence nor non-existence.
There was not then what is not.
There was neither sky nor any heaven beyond the sky.
What power was there? Where?
Who was that power?
Was there an abyss of fathomless water?

There was neither death nor immortality then
No signs were there of night or day.
The One was breathing with its own power,
in deep space.
Only the One was:
And there was nothing beyond.

The darkness was hidden in darkness.
And all was fluid and formless.
Therein, in the void,
By the fire of fervor arose One.
And in the One arose love.
Love the first seed of the soul.

The truth of this the sages found in their hearts:
Seeking in their hearts with wisdom,
The sages found that bond of union
Between being and non-being
Between the manifest and the unmanifest

Who knows this truth?
Who can tell, when and how arose this universe?
The gods came after its creation.
Whether this universe was created or uncreated
Only the God who sees in the highest heaven:
He only knows, when came this universe
And, whether it was created or uncreated
He only knows or perhaps He knows not?



So where is the ritual or prayer?

This actually shows the intellectual vacuity of yours. Rg Veda alone consists of 10 books and a total of 1028 hymns and some 10,500 odd verses. You are quoting ONE hymn and asking me where is ritual or prayer. I think you have finally given me a reason and an opportunity to call you an IDIOT.

BTW, care to explain, what are Samhitas.

Lets look again from this post only, let alone the past ones ...

The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals.

I believe it is a few illiterates on scriptures who hate religion so much that they have firmly decided to spread rumours and falsehood about a few religions. It seems non-religious parties create more intolerance, that also arises from rumours and lies, than religious ones over religion. Hence, proving my point again, about how athiests and religion haters are behaving in this thread alone.

1st bold: LoL, really LoL

2nd bold: LoL again. But this time its more out of pity.

3rd bold: Yep, holding a mirror to your face is “intolerance”. But hey, whatever keeps your balls hanging.

 

[karnivore]

How can u define a religion/phillosophy? I never said i know everything about it...just alot more than what i had asumed before...If you read what mediator had replied to me before, you would have understood....this same question i had for him.

Fair enough. But if I were you, I would be careful enough to comment on something, that I can’t actually back up.

I said "I GATHERED MAINLY" before it which you chose to ignore...Its what I see in hinduism, its merely my view......The religions you mentioned say you will go to hell if you dont believe and things like that which i am yet to find in hinduism...Although I wont judge those other religions, i dont know anything much about them.

The phrase “I GATHERED MAINLY” doesn’t alter your argument. Anyway, I am sure you have heard of something called “narak” and what ensures your free pass to that holy place. Btw, where did the pandavas go after the great battle?

From what i have gathered i dont see many prayers or rituals as you have stated...I am not all learned in the vedas and i dont know everything they say, but i made an attempt and read alot and from what i gather, everything in the the vedas are all very poetic and metaphorical, and they have been misinterpreted as prayer.

OK. So if you do not know something then stay away from commenting.
1st bold: Some rituals off the top of my head. Upanayan (Initiation), Marriage, Shradh (Last rites), Yajnas etc.

2nd bold: So now you two are going to do some mental gymnastics to squeeze a cube in a tube. Go ahead. Be my guest. Please tell me what mantra is recited during marriage and where is it found. Same with Upanayana and Shradh. What you are basically saying is that, the entire edifice of Hinduism stands on quick sand. I wonder if any Sankarachrya knows of this.

if its accepting the vedas and rejecting god, then its the same as accepting the phillosophy taught by hinduism and in past posts you have stated that you didnt have a problem if hinduism stated only phillosophies...The vedas that i have seen have alot of logic and science in them..If you can accept those and not accept god, arent u still a part of the vedas?

1st bold: If only it was that simple. How much of Hindu philosophy can be accepted, without first accepting the brand of spirituality that the Vedas peddle ?

2nd bold: Every religion has lot of “logic and science”, to the proponents only. Nothing new.

3rd bold: Not really.

I didnt quite get your point....are you saying that, IF there was a struggle for land when the vedas were written, then it would propogate all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions? which also you cant really judge without understanding them.

In a sense yes. But “space” didn’t mean land, but spiritual space, influence among other people.

However I find it strange, one hand you say “I wont judge those other religions, i dont know anything much about them” and that “you cant really judge without understanding them” but on the other you are certain that these abrahamic religions have “all sorts of nonsense”.

isnt it that when the vedas say that there is room for atheists, then they are admitting that there might be no god?

This is exactly the reason why I made a distinction between the word “atheist” and “nastik”. You are actually defining the word “nastik” in European sense. That is incorrect. In any case, the specific hymn will be appreciated.

*sigh...plenty of things are changing...So many superstitions are being rejected today, like putting watter around a plate before eating for eg, was a thing done to ward off ants as ppl used to sit on the floor and eat, which now is redundant and has been stopped to a great extent.

SIGH indeed. You managed to come up with that only ? How disappointing. Even then that is erroneous. Actually, the practice is not for ants. But for dirt particles. Previously people ate on grounds. Water was sprinkled around the plates to make sure that the dirt near the plate didn’t blow into the plate. The practice is actually quite hygienic, if you are eating on ground. But if you do that in a restaurant, then well, its superstition.

Nice try. But try again.

As for me, before, like you, i was arrogant towards all religions but now im on a neutral towards all, even wen it comes to the vedas, i will not judge it as right or wrong, i dont have any right to do so with any religion.

I know your type of atheists. Your atheism stops where your religion begins. Boring.

“i dont have any right to do so with any religion”: And it was you who said, in the same post, “all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions”. Tell me dear, is “Hypocrisy” your middle name ?

 

[himanshu_game]

long long replies...

what u think,what u ask is mind...
without the mind there is no question and no answer..
or in short u r creating questions..no question exist..

 

[amitash]

The phrase “I GATHERED MAINLY” doesn’t alter your argument. Anyway, I am sure you have heard of something called “narak” and what ensures your free pass to that holy place. Btw, where did the pandavas go after the great battle?

The concept of Hell or narak is not what you have gathered from other religions...some scholars even say that hell and heaven are states of mind...if you commit a sin, your bad consciesness is hell and you spend some time feeling bad...why cant this be a possibility?

OK. So if you do not know something then stay away from commenting.
1st bold: Some rituals off the top of my head. Upanayan (Initiation), Marriage, Shradh (Last rites), Yajnas etc.

Ok let me rephrase to: "i dont see many illogical rituals and prayers"...upanayana was done just to signify a childs adulthood and education, like maybe a graduation done today ...The threads signify your status, in those days, when dhoti was custom, everyone could see the threads and learn of others positions...now its obsolete but back then i dont think it was....Dont you think that all these rituals might have had some perfectly sound reasoning which doesnt hold good today?

1st bold: If only it was that simple. How much of Hindu philosophy can be accepted, without first accepting the brand of spirituality that the Vedas peddle ?

As far as i have seen, you can accept it without spirituality...Please show examples where you cant accept the phillosophy without spirituality.

2nd bold: Every religion has lot of “logic and science”, to the proponents only. Nothing new.

SO your saying only the proponents of religion see logic and science in them? If so i suggest you read the part of vedas about maths, astronomy, physics etc.

In a sense yes. But “space” didn’t mean land, but spiritual space, influence among other people.

Now this disgusts me...your saying that when anything is challenged, it will start spreading all sorts of crappy stuff to get ppl to blieve in it? How do you know?

This is exactly the reason why I made a distinction between the word “atheist” and “nastik”. You are actually defining the word “nastik” in European sense. That is incorrect. In any case, the specific hymn will be appreciated.

I guess i was confusing the 2 words...Still though, if you can reject the possibility of god and accept all the proved math, science etc, there is no problem.

SIGH indeed. You managed to come up with that only ? How disappointing. Even then that is erroneous. Actually, the practice is not for ants. But for dirt particles. Previously people ate on grounds. Water was sprinkled around the plates to make sure that the dirt near the plate didn’t blow into the plate. The practice is actually quite hygienic, if you are eating on ground. But if you do that in a restaurant, then well, its superstition.

Nice try. But try again.

whatever it might be, isnt there still change? there is a lot of change in old practices...even upnayana for eg....a lot of ppl are doing it because they think its bad luck or something if you dont...more ppl, esp the younger gen who question it, are not doing it...so it is changing but it will take time...

I know your type of atheists. Your atheism stops where your religion begins. Boring.

Ah...so your the type who judges a person by one post?....And im not a hindu or any religious person.

“i dont have any right to do so with any religion”: And it was you who said, in the same post, “all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions”. Tell me dear, is “Hypocrisy” your middle name ?

SO you assumed that by saying “all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions” i was being a hypocrite? If you read carefully, i have written: "all sorts of" im not saying that the religion itself is totally nonsense...there are plenty of nonsensical things in every religion, before i used to judge them based on only those...im not judging any religion...just pointing out there is a lot of nonsense...is arrogance your middle name? All i see is intollerance in your posts...what gives you the right to slam or uplift any religion that you have not totally studied? or judge people that dont see things the way you do?

 

[himanshu_game]

long thread.....

so mind is trying to get d answer created by mind..

when u r present enough ,...mind cant overpower u.. and create questions..
every question is answered in the presence itself ....

when ur present ...questions r over as well as the answers....as well as d happiness and sadness also...etc.. the duality is over.. and U R OUT OF mind....

this is the beauty of It.

 

[mediator]

1st bold: Only you can argue like that. Last time I checked, “atheist” is an English word, derived from the ancient Greeks, which happen to be in Europe. “Nastik” on the other hand happens to be a Sanskrit word. It is therefore important to make a distinction, particularly when words are being thrown around like confetti. I had pointed this out earlier, but, as we can see, it just fell on deaf ears.

2nd bold: Every religion talks about “morality”. All proponents of religion claim that their religion is scientific. Am sure you have heard of “Christian science” and “Islamic science”. Still don’t see the difference between you and “them”.

Regarding the last sentence, well, what can I say, if you choose to live in denial. Not my problem. But, do us a favour and stay away from using the word “logic” in your sentences. You just gave it a bad name.

Nastik basically means "not believing". It is usually used in relation to God. Study some 8th class NCERT Sanskrit books to understand this basic fact instead of googling ur way all the time.

So what if all religions claim that they are scientific? Does that raises ur sertonins too high? Neither I'm trying to discuss whats the difference between them and me nor trying to show any superiority of Vedas. It is only your time pass I guess or perhaps like a hobby that sits on google 24*7 trying to "compare" religions, differentiating them (people of other faiths) from me, reading critics site instead of the scriptures themselves. You even dared to term a GITA verse as "boastful" earlier. Only an illiterate who never studied the preceding verses or the successive verses of 9.22 verse of GITA, can say that the verse is "boastful".

1st bold: No. It is not possible for me to state ALL the verses that talk of conflicts.

2nd bold: We were at hinduism, were we not. “Post-Buddha texts” meant post-Buddha hindu texts.

3rd bold: LoL

4th bold: Read it, to know it. Don’t throw stones in the dark. Someone can’t be intolerant of something that one doesn’t know of. On the matter of “conflict”, tribal conflicts existed at that time and these find mention there. Simple point, yet so hard to understand.

5th bold: You know my stand. There is no point in repeating it.

6th bold: Correct. Scriptures provide them with plenty. That’s the point that we have been making. Late realization, but realized it all the same. Thank you.

1st, proves my point yet again on how only religious haters and illiterates spread more intolerance than literates on sciptures. They make some casual comments and then say "not possible" to back themselves up "completely". Spreading lies is their favourite hobby.

2nd, its the call you made that buddhist texts conflicts with Hinduism. If you want to play a proponent of it, its your choice. If you want to continue on it then do tell where Buddha told his disciples that he "disagreed on various science, mathematics, morality, karmic principles etc", do tell from authentic buddhist sites stating buddhist scriptures itself.

4th, then I guess your case must be unique, since you proved quite well how ignorant you were on GITA verses to call one its verses as "boastful" and vedas to state that complete vedic compilation" was ritualistic and in form of prayers.

6th, still arguing on a point that you could not prove in any way in the past? Where's Veda saying that all other religions are inferior or God saying gods of other religion are inferior? Thats termed as childish arrogance n it is devouring you at the moment.

The point was about vedic tolerance. What has tribal conflict to do with vedic tolerance? A casual point coming from ur mouth and then hard to explain?

It only adds another point to religious haters, that they are quite casual in their speeches and lies.

1st bold: Yeah, carry on nitpicking. What we have is all we have got. What we don’t have is outside the scope of discussion.

2nd bold: Tell me something new.

3rd bold: If that is directed at me, then you are pissing at the wrong tree. Find some other tree. I have mention before, that hindus have a tendency of imposing divinity on anything they revere. Pay attention to my posts, instead of throwing tantrums. You might just learn something worthwhile.

4th bold: I hope that you are not suggesting that hindus “invented” rainbow. But hey, I have heard enough from you, not be surprised, if you are.

1st, I'm not the one who is nitpicking. Its you who started it and I only advised you repeatedly to read and understand what discussion happened between me and amitash and that yours was only a troll and a repeatition.

I thought you said that "The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals. " It means that firstly, you have read the "entire vedic corpus" which existed only in ancient ages and now we only have fraction of it and secondly, realised only after reading it that "all of it" consisted of "prayers and rituals". You clearly fail in both in terms of verses from Veda and facts about Vedas.

2nd, that it contradicts your point about prayers and rituals?

3rd, calm down. Why do I feel that your blood pressure is unusually high at all times? "Imposing divinity" is nothing but an expression of respect. May be that respect meant to treat nature respectfully and not cut trees and all like they are cut today? May be it meant to promote fraternity among people? Obviously, from your posts it seems such logic and such points never occured to you. And why is it that religion haters fail to understand even such a simple point?

4th, who is saying hindus "invented" rainbow? How can you even argue like this? I will only take this as a joke.

This actually shows the intellectual vacuity of yours. Rg Veda alone consists of 10 books and a total of 1028 hymns and some 10,500 odd verses. You are quoting ONE hymn and asking me where is ritual or prayer. I think you have finally given me a reason and an opportunity to call you an IDIOT.

BTW, care to explain, what are Samhitas.

Don't limit yourself to rigveda now or did you forget that you stated that "entire vedic corpus" is about rituals and prayers? I only stated one for you. But since you narrowed yourself to rigveda this time here is another verse ...

Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Sūrya, maker of the light,
Illuming all the radiant realm. (RV 1.50)

Some more => *www.scribd.com/doc/12887392/The-Hymns-of-Dirghatamas-in-the-Rig-Veda-By-David-Frawley-

More shall come if this continues. So where is the ritual or the prayer?

Even the remaining Vedas consists of science and maths and hence it would be sane to conclude what the "complete vedic corpus" might have contained at some time.

So call me whateva you like for you are only proving my point of how illiterates on scriptures are the ones who name call, generalise, spread lies and intolerance more than those who have read even a little on scriptures "unbiasedly".

1st bold: LoL, really LoL

2nd bold: LoL again. But this time its more out of pity.

3rd bold: Yep, holding a mirror to your face is “intolerance”. But hey, whatever keeps your balls hanging.

And my point strengthened once more, that religion haters and illiterates start lolling and give examples of their little "civil discussion" when the gornd from which their hatred sprouts is obliterated right in front of them. i.e enlightenment snaps their own psyche.

Like I said, read from "critics site" for thats best for you and seems to be your only hobby narowed down to "only ativity on google".

 

[cyborg47]