|
|
Post by malati on Jun 22, 2009 19:31:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jun 23, 2009 12:46:55 GMT -6
So what do you think of it Malati? I read the book years ago when Advaita das brought out his English translation. Visvanatha has done quite alot of these short studies, though Ananta das babaji's commentary makes it quite voluminous, and its always a pleasure to read his commentaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 24, 2009 9:35:35 GMT -6
I am reading The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore. There has been so much bullshit slung around here about memes, I thought it about time to read her book. I have had it for sometime, but never got around to really sitting down with it. So far, it is quite good. I have yet to run into the part where memes are said to be illusions. Clearly the slams aimed at her and at memes were leveled by people who know nothing about it and who have never read her book or any other real source of the theory. That is so typical of internet rants. Anyway, if I find some juicy parts I will cite them here or maybe in a separate thread..
After that awaits Dawkins' book The God Delusion. I've had that one for a while, too. Again the rants leveled at him in this and other forums are clearly by people who have never read anything by him. Whether I wind up agreeing with him or not, at least it will be on the basis of having read him.
I can say, though, that I think his approval of Hinduism, or at least its cosmology, (linked by VS in this forum), is more than a little unsettling. The cosmology of Hinduism is absolutely ridiculous: circular oceans of milk and sugar cane juice and what not. Seven planets up and seven down. Geo-centric universe? What self-respecting modern cosmologist does not laugh at such things? Clearly Dawkins is blowing it out his backside here.
Any clear thinker would condemn Hinduism right along side of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Perhaps there is no other religion in the world that has contributed more to human suffering than Hinduism and its caste system. There may be many beautiful ideas in Hinduism, but the caste system is not one of them. No modern Hindu has any moral ground to stand on as long as he or she accepts the caste system. I hope it dies soon and forever. I, for one, refuse to believe that Krsna created it. Even he appears to disown it. (Bg 4.13-4).
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I will post some choice passages of Dawkins too so that those who hate will at least have a little genuine knowledge about him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 24, 2009 9:49:42 GMT -6
So what do you think of it Malati? I read the book years ago when Advaita das brought out his English translation. Visvanatha has done quite alot of these short studies, though Ananta das babaji's commentary makes it quite voluminous, and its always a pleasure to read his commentaries. A new (fresh) translation is needed. Advaitadas' translations are unreliable. |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Jacket on Jun 24, 2009 10:04:47 GMT -6
You think we should keep reading the guy? But, wasn't our intuition right? Look how he makes as he goes. Look how, even if he gets some isolated point right, he does not get the whole picture, even with all the help from supporters like yourself, he does not get the whole picture, don't count on it. I agree ignorance is a malady, but our own intutition is a solid source of knowledge; the antaryami, if you will, is, after all, real. Dawkins hates Christianity but says Hinduism is a-ok... Do you still think he's brilliant Nitai?  |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 24, 2009 10:53:34 GMT -6
You think we should keep reading the guy? But, wasn't our intuition right? Look how he makes as he goes. Look how, even if he gets some isolated point right, he does not get the whole picture, even with all the help from supporters like yourself, he does not get the whole picture, don't count on it. I agree ignorance is a malady, but our own intutition is a solid source of knowledge; the antaryami, if you will, is, after all, real. Dawkins hates Christianity but says Hinduism is a-ok... Do you still think he's brilliant Nitai? I'm going to reserve my opinion until I finish reading him. What? You hear little voices inside you that you believe? I'd be careful with that. How do you distinguish your own nonsense from the voice of antaryami? And why should antaryami speak to you or me? It is a little arrogant and foolish, isn't it, to think that all you need is "intuition." One needs empirical confirmation, too. It may turn out that his book is aimed at absolute dodos (people who really know nothing) and may be too basic for me who am just a dodo (someone who knows a little something about religion). If that is the case, I doubt I will finish it. But, so far I have not determined that. |
|
|
|
Post by SJ on Jun 24, 2009 11:15:15 GMT -6
Oh come on this is not about little voices why do you always have to make the person you are engaged with look stupid? So to make yourself look smart? Intuition is a legitimate source of knowledge. In fact, its the best source most of the time. You speak about empirical comfirmation and yet you yourself admit that things are complex, so complex that we often we find ourselves having to admit contradictory opinions even in own own observations. A two dimentional opinion like Dawkins' is what's arrogant. And stupid, I am sorry to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 24, 2009 12:03:19 GMT -6
Oh come on this is not about little voices why do you always have to make the person you are engaged with look stupid? So to make yourself look smart? Intuition is a legitimate source of knowledge. In fact, its the best source most of the time. You speak about empirical comfirmation and yet you yourself admit that things are complex, so complex that we often we find ourselves having to admit contradictory opinions even in own own observations. A two dimentional opinion like Dawkins' is what's arrogant. And stupid, I am sorry to say. I was joking with you (to a degree). At least I wasn't entirely serious. But I do have to disagree with you here, baba. Intuition is not a source of knowledge, at least not in the Indic field of epistemology. There are pratyaksa, anumana, and sabda and a bunch of other sub-varieties of those. There is also yogaja-pratyaksa which is not found in the West. It is wrong to equate that with intuition because it is too rare a thing and requires years of cultivation. So what is intuition then? I think it is just a vague operation of several of the pramanas in conjunction, mostly sense perception and inference. Some people are sensitive and good at it, but if sense perception and inference by themselves are flawed and in need of repetitive confirmation, how much more so is this vague collusion of them. It too needs confirmation. I think it is very dangerous to pin one's intuitions onto the antaryami, however. Remember, the antaryami is the silent bird who just watches us eat. When people start claiming that the antaryami is giving them messages, I get very nervous. There is absolutely no way of confirming or falsifying that. I have no reason to believe that you are not a nice man or woman, but I don't believe for a moment that antaryami communicates with you any more than buddysattva really sees RK lila (as he seems to be claiming of late). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2009 17:45:32 GMT -6
You think we should keep reading the guy? But, wasn't our intuition right? Look how he makes as he goes. Look how, even if he gets some isolated point right, he does not get the whole picture, even with all the help from supporters like yourself, he does not get the whole picture, don't count on it. I agree ignorance is a malady, but our own intutition is a solid source of knowledge; the antaryami, if you will, is, after all, real. Dawkins hates Christianity but says Hinduism is a-ok... Do you still think he's brilliant Nitai? I'm going to reserve my opinion until I finish reading him. What? You hear little voices inside you that you believe? I'd be careful with that. How do you distinguish your own nonsense from the voice of antaryami? And why should antaryami speak to you or me? It is a little arrogant and foolish, isn't it, to think that all you need is "intuition." One needs empirical confirmation, too. It may turn out that his book is aimed at absolute dodos (people who really know nothing) and may be too basic for me who am just a dodo (someone who knows a little something about religion). If that is the case, I doubt I will finish it. But, so far I have not determined that. You guys misunderstood what this page says richarddawkins.net/article,2014,Hinduism-and-Buddhism-offer-much-more-sophisticated-worldviews-or-philosophies-and-I-see-nothing-wrong-with-these-religions,RichardDawkinsnet First off we don't know if that is actually Dawkins, more likely it is a person who is one of the managers of that website since Dawkins does not run the website: From richarddawkins.net/aboutThisWebsiteDoes Richard Dawkins run this website directly and post the articles himself? No.
Richard is in contact with a couple of us directly, and he sends in exclusive content and articles. He did directly maintain a Tour Journal during his last book tour for The God Delusion, which you can view here. You can also sometimes find him posting comments on articles or in The Forum.Secondly, what is being done is putting a proposition forward for debate, it is not an endorsement: Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.
Use the comment space below to present your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if this were to be used in a debate.Thirdly, the articles that Dawkins writes are signed Richard Dawkins, not RichardDawkins.net, as the above article is signed. See richarddawkins.net/article,3925,UPDATE-6-16-Support-Simon-Singh,Richard-Dawkins |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jun 24, 2009 18:17:32 GMT -6
Buddy,
That site is Dawkin's official site. So I doubt that the article does not reflect his thoughts.
I've followed Dawkins. That he now finds Hindusim worldview more sohisticated doesnt mean he conforms to our GV view that God is a person. He maybe be somewhat in line about impersonalism because he talked in the past of feeling some transcendence. But he definitely does not believe that God is someone we can have a relationship with.
I saw his recent dialogue uncut version with Dennett and he again said to the effect that man's place here in this world was pointless. Then his producer asked him to rephrase his ideas because I suppose he sounded cold and it's not very pleasing to those who had someone they love died, those mourning the loss of loved ones. They were talking about Dennett's recuperation from a heart attack.
Madan Mohandasji , Below are nice thoughts from Raga Vartma:
“There are said to be two causes for the appearance of the aforementioned greed,
namely the mercy of God and the mercy of an anurägi devotee. There are again two
kinds of mercy bestowed by a devotee, namely old and recent. Greed which is born
from the mercy of such devotees of Sri Krishna in a previous life is known as präktana,
old. Greed which is born from the mercy of a devotee in the present life is known as
ädhunika, recent. In the one whom greed has awakened in a previous life, his greed
manifests and he then takes shelter of a rägänugiyä devotee guru. One whose greed is
recent will first take shelter of the feet of a guru, after which his greed will manifest.
“It is said in Çré Bhakti-räsämåta-sindhu: 'Greed is born only from the mercy of Sri Krishna
and His devotees, that is the only cause of bhakti, therefore it is called
rägänugä-bhakti. Some also call it pusthi-märga, the path of grace.'”
“ Now, when the aforementioned greedy devotees become inquisitive about attaining
their desired feelings, we see that they depend on scriptures and logic. The
attainment of the desired feelings is taught through scriptural injunctions and
scriptural logic, not in any other way. Just as when greed for milk awakens, what is
the means for acquiring it? One desires to know the means, and at that time he relies
on the instructions of a trusted person on the means for acquiring milk. He will say,
'You should purchase a cow', and so forth, instructing how to bring a cow, how to
feed her with grass, and ho to milk her. One cannot gain knowledge independently
without being instructed. It is said in the eighth canto of Srimad-Bhägavata, 'Just as
people get fire from firewood, milk from a cow, grains and water from the earth and
their livelihood from trade and so forth, in the same way, O Viñëu, amidst the modes
of nature, You are attained through the use of intelligence. This is what the judicious
ones say.'”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2009 0:14:09 GMT -6
Buddy,
That site is Dawkin's official site. So I doubt that the article does not reflect his thoughts.
I've followed Dawkins. That he now finds Hindusim worldview more sohisticated doesnt mean he conforms to our GV view that God is a person. He maybe be somewhat in line about impersonalism because he talked in the past of feeling some transcendence. But he definitely does not believe that God is someone we can have a relationship with.
I saw his recent dialogue uncut version with Dennett and he again said to the effect that man's place here in this world was pointless. Then his producer asked him to rephrase his ideas because I suppose he sounded cold and it's not very pleasing to those who had someone they love died, those mourning the loss of loved ones. They were talking about Dennett's recuperation from a heart attack.
Madan Mohandasji , Below are nice thoughts from Raga Vartma:
“There are said to be two causes for the appearance of the aforementioned greed,
namely the mercy of God and the mercy of an anurägi devotee. There are again two
kinds of mercy bestowed by a devotee, namely old and recent. Greed which is born
from the mercy of such devotees of Sri Krishna in a previous life is known as präktana,
old. Greed which is born from the mercy of a devotee in the present life is known as
ädhunika, recent. In the one whom greed has awakened in a previous life, his greed
manifests and he then takes shelter of a rägänugiyä devotee guru. One whose greed is
recent will first take shelter of the feet of a guru, after which his greed will manifest.
“It is said in Çré Bhakti-räsämåta-sindhu: 'Greed is born only from the mercy of Sri Krishna
and His devotees, that is the only cause of bhakti, therefore it is called
rägänugä-bhakti. Some also call it pusthi-märga, the path of grace.'”
“ Now, when the aforementioned greedy devotees become inquisitive about attaining
their desired feelings, we see that they depend on scriptures and logic. The
attainment of the desired feelings is taught through scriptural injunctions and
scriptural logic, not in any other way. Just as when greed for milk awakens, what is
the means for acquiring it? One desires to know the means, and at that time he relies
on the instructions of a trusted person on the means for acquiring milk. He will say,
'You should purchase a cow', and so forth, instructing how to bring a cow, how to
feed her with grass, and ho to milk her. One cannot gain knowledge independently
without being instructed. It is said in the eighth canto of Srimad-Bhägavata, 'Just as
people get fire from firewood, milk from a cow, grains and water from the earth and
their livelihood from trade and so forth, in the same way, O Viñëu, amidst the modes
of nature, You are attained through the use of intelligence. This is what the judicious
ones say.'”
If you take the time to read carefully what I posted you can see that Dawkins doesn't run that site. You can also see that the article was not written by Dawkins and that it was not supporting Hinduism or Buddhism -- it was simply putting up a debating topic. Y'all need to read carefully before making all kinds of assumptions about what Dawkins believes about Hinduism. He is famous for rejecting all religions as harmful, there is no way he would claim all of a sudden that Hinduism is alright, although he may have no problem with atheistic Buddhism. |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jun 25, 2009 0:47:24 GMT -6
He is famous for rejecting all religions as harmful, there is no way he would claim all of a sudden that Hinduism is alright, although he may have no problem with atheistic Buddhism.
Buddy, Ok, I think you're right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sanjay on Jun 25, 2009 6:18:48 GMT -6
The point is this: one does not have to read Dawkins meticulously to know where he is coming from. Like, one does not have to go into a McDonald's to know what goes on in there. I never been in one myself but I know its about cheap, unfit for humans 'food', certain type of consumers, etc. Especially for us devotees, we certainly have some accumulated sukriti to know intuitively (from the guidance inside) that someone who does not feel the mystery of love is someone who misses the point of existence. Of course we have read pieces and bits of Dawkins ideas - how else would we be commenting? But the moment we hear that he is an atheist, that there is not meaning to life, we as devotees, from our own speck of an awkening to the Beloved inside, know that what Dawkins is saying is an unfortunate blunder. And its no surprise at all to us that Dawkins talks about meaninglessness to life - its completely predictable and so what is there to read any further from this guy? I mean, if it is one's job as an academic to study this type of people, then its fit. But a devotee of God does not need to be told whether there is God or not, and moreover, whether there is meaning to existing. He knows in his heart what the truth is. This is why as far as civilized societies go, individuals are secured the right to express their very personal religious feelings. Dawkins may have approved of Hinduism alongside with Budhism because he may have concluded (very rustically, I must say:  that pantheism is a rustic form of atheism. In other words, so long as the conclusion is voidism, Dawkins approves of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Sukhada on Jun 25, 2009 6:24:12 GMT -6
Nitai:
"I will post some choice passages of Dawkins too so that those who hate will at least have a little genuine knowledge about him.
You do that and I will post some choice passages of Gone With The Wind. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Sadhananda on Jun 25, 2009 6:42:51 GMT -6
"Especially for us devotees, we certainly have some accumulated sukriti to know intuitively (from the guidance inside)"
I know I know the objection to this kind of language. But we need to get over it: yes we do use a cliche to express this, but its only language, whats been expressed is nonetheless avery legitimate experience - the experience of devotion to the Beloved.
|
|
that pantheism is a rustic form of atheism. In other words, so long as the conclusion is voidism, Dawkins approves of it.