|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 24, 2009 13:39:28 GMT -6
So, my question here is, does finding emotional, philosophical, and artistic merit in the scriptures amount to a reason to follow them? If we're treating them as stories with deep meanings and deep effects on one's psyche, does that justify building an entire life around them? It seems to me there has to be something more to it - some other motivation, some other reason to take it to that level. I wouldn't want to cheapen the devotional concept, but isn't it essentially the same reason why some people get so fascinated with things such as Dungeons & Dragons or Star Trek that they end up living their lives according to those prototypes? If we find out what it takes for people to do those things, we may also find out why someone ends up living their life according to Bhagavata prototypes? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2009 13:54:48 GMT -6
Just a word about what sastra says about the sun. It doesn't say the sun is closer, that was Prabhupada's misunderstanding. It says the moon is above the sun. Without understanding Puranic cosmology that appears to mean that the sun is closer to the earth. But it doesn't. We need to understand that Bhu-mandala is a flat plane in Puranic cosmology, and above our plane is the sun and moon. But, the sun is much further away from Jambudvipa (where we live at the center of bhu-mandala) while at the same time the moon is higher above us than the sun. To show how this works imagine a circular field 1 mile diameter as Bhu-mandala. In the center there is a circular island called Jambudvipa where we live. Take a ball and hang it 100 feet above the field and 100 feet away from the center, that is the moon. Take another ball and hang it 50 feet above and half a mile away from the center, that is the sun. The moon is higher than the sun but further away. Prabhupada misunderstood that and claimed that because the moon is higher above us than the sun according to the Puranas, that the moon was therefore further away from us than the sun. He would use that argument when he would claim that the moon landing was a hoax, saying that they couldn't have gotten to the moon as fast as they claimed because it was further from us than the sun. Buddy, the following is not offered in a mean spirit, but rather confusion and honest curiosity: I can't figure out where you are going with this. You are correcting ACBS' interpretation of puranic cosmology, and I assume the motivation for that is because you are dismayed at how un-scientific it must look when misunderstood as such. However, you then go off into an explanation that is just as comically un-scientific - Flat planes? Earth as an island? I am just trying to figure out what your purpose was. Also, what is so astounding about the relative positions and sizes of the moon and sun? After all, life on earth only exists because all the conditions are astoundingly just right. This obviously doesn't happen too often, hence our failure to yet find life on other planets. (And yes, yes, I know - some will interject intelligent design here; but doesn't the sheer rarity of Life lend weight to it being randomized? If a Creator were moving the chess pieces around, why not populate the universe a little more?) I was simply correcting Malati's understanding. As she understood it (due to Prabhupada) the Puranas say that the Sun is closer to the Earth than the Moon. That is simply not true. I wasn't commenting on their realistic portrayal of cosmology. I wrote about that a few years back at www.chakra.org/discussions/ODiscNov11_04.htmlAs for your dismissal of the unusualness of the Earth, Moon, Sun, vis-à-vis randomness -- I don't know what to tell you, there is yoga-maya and there is mahamaya, really though they are the same thing -- God's control of how you understand reality. If your karma or destiny has it that you cannot see God's presence and signature in the natural world, nothing can alter that -- mahamaya will compel you to always find a reason to doubt. Yogamaya will compel you to see God's presence everywhere -- and nothing will alter that perception. |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Sept 25, 2009 2:04:51 GMT -6
Although you specifically addressed you comments to Nitaisdas, I will be aggresive enough to give my thoughts as a theist who believe in a personal God.
ZVS said: So, my question here is, does finding emotional, philosophical, and artistic merit in the scriptures amount to a reason to follow them? If we're treating them as stories with deep meanings and deep effects on one's psyche, does that justify building an entire life around them? It seems to me there has to be something more to it - some other motivation, some other reason to take it to that level.
As a free agent, you can do what you like. Only YOU can justify what you want to make out of your life.
To me it's faith you know. I agree with buddy, it's either yogamaya or faith.
ZVS, you said there must be some motivation to take your appreciation of the merits of the shastras to a deeper level. What reason and motivation do you need? How can you explain why an abstract painting evokes a sense of beauty and meaning to other people ? It's also like that in God consciousness. It's called faith.
ZVS: And that's why I am bothered by the idea that so many things in the scriptures are so obviously not true. If I were to trust something as a description - or even indicator - of a higher truth, I would expect it to at least know the things *I* can observe clearly. Why should we accept knowledge of Radha and Krishna and rasa - which knowledge clearly cannot be ascertained from here on earth - from a sourcebook that is so plainly wrong on things that are relatively easy to observe?
What exactly do you want to get from the shastra? Knowledge of science? Read scientific literature. Erotica? Read Harold Robbins.
Or do you want to increase your faith?
God is outside space and time, do you think you can easily understand God? I consider the Radha Krishna lila a language of God to help us understand what love is all about.
ZVS:Once again, this is not meant as a challenge to your faith or lifestyle, but rather an honest probe into a fascinating mind - and an attempt to ask honest questions that, frankly, I've never asked anyone. I like that we can discuss things like this here, as intelligent and understanding people (especially now that you have to sign in!).[/quote][/i]
[/i]
|
|
|
|
Post by malati on Sept 25, 2009 2:16:32 GMT -6
So, my question here is, does finding emotional, philosophical, and artistic merit in the scriptures amount to a reason to follow them? If we're treating them as stories with deep meanings and deep effects on one's psyche, does that justify building an entire life around them? It seems to me there has to be something more to it - some other motivation, some other reason to take it to that level. I wouldn't want to cheapen the devotional concept, but isn't it essentially the same reason why some people get so fascinated with things such as Dungeons & Dragons or Star Trek that they end up living their lives according to those prototypes? If we find out what it takes for people to do those things, we may also find out why someone ends up living their life according to Bhagavata prototypes?
I think you are a very shallow person and lack intelligence.
You said you have a masters in psychology, how can you be lacking in sublety in thought? |
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Sept 25, 2009 3:24:54 GMT -6
As a regular Bhagavat reader who so happens to be going through the fith skandha at the momment I wonder what all the fuss is. Surely no one expects to find in Puranic topography or cosmology what can be seen today through powerful telescopes. If it is completey a work of the poets invention or flights of fantasy then he deserves the highest acclamation for his skill which, as far as my reading goes surpasses anything in poetry. No one questions why those portions of the Bhagavat, in fact most of Book five, are written in prose. Is the action of the poem compromised by those passages or would it suffer no loss if it were ommited? One translater recomends that unsympathetic readers would do well to scip it. I find it facsinating evertime. Also the descriptions vary in other Puranas. Moreover, untill a telescope's range becomes infinite how can any conclussions be drawn surveying infinite space? It would be no surprise if telescopes eventually went round in a circle and ended up back where they started; that's how somebody discovered that our world is round. Someone asked me, ' where is the sea of liquor then?' and sang the old Scottish ballad, 'Hamilton loch I wish you were whiskey, Hamilton loch och aye! Hamilton loch an if you were whiskey I'd surely drink you dry'  In Valmiki's Ramayan the lower regions or talas are actually under ground which is also how Virgil describes purgatory where the hero Aeneas enters the bowels of earth. Also the sons of Sagara dug down so deep that they met the Dig-gajas who are the four mighty tuskers that hold up the world. |
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Sept 25, 2009 8:12:44 GMT -6
Although you specifically addressed you comments to Nitaisdas, I will be aggresive enough to give my thoughts as a theist who believe in a personal God.
Malati, You don't have to worry about being aggressive. I like to discuss things of interest without having to defend or offend. I'm not here to challenge you, Nitai or anybody else; I'm interested in figuring out how others have approached questions that have been very important to me, and frankly, upon which turn many aspects of my life. To answer one of your questions, no, I don't want to increase my faith. I don't like the idea of faith anymore, and that's a place at which I will never be able to meet some of the people here. And no, I don't question the motivations of those who love a beautiful painting; but if those persons were to decide that the painting represented the highest truths of reality, beyond the material world, and specifically revealed the nature of the afterlife, then I would wonder what their motivations were for reaching such conclusions. Isn't that reasonable? Anyway, I appreciate your opinion as much as anybody else's, and I certainly respect your beliefs. But let's be reasonable here. Is there any need to question Ekantin's intelligence? Don't be a warrior of God; be a representative. That way you get to keep your credibility. Buddy:Thanks for clarifying. That's all I wanted to know. Your purpose was to correct a misunderstanding according to the terms of the shastra; not to correct the interpretation in light of modern science. The rest of your post makes sense in that light. |
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Sept 25, 2009 8:19:12 GMT -6
I wouldn't want to cheapen the devotional concept, but isn't it essentially the same reason why some people get so fascinated with things such as Dungeons & Dragons or Star Trek that they end up living their lives according to those prototypes? If we find out what it takes for people to do those things, we may also find out why someone ends up living their life according to Bhagavata prototypes? Do people really go that far with it? I know there can be an unhealthy (or at least, embarrassing) amount of focus on games and shows and such, but I haven't seen anybody legitimately live a life "according to those prototypes." If you've seen that, I'd honestly be very sociologically fascinated in hearing more about it.  |
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Sept 25, 2009 8:24:23 GMT -6
As for your dismissal of the unusualness of the Earth, Moon, Sun, vis-à-vis randomness -- I don't know what to tell you, there is yoga-maya and there is mahamaya, really though they are the same thing -- God's control of how you understand reality. If your karma or destiny has it that you cannot see God's presence and signature in the natural world, nothing can alter that -- mahamaya will compel you to always find a reason to doubt. Yogamaya will compel you to see God's presence everywhere -- and nothing will alter that perception. Quite truthfully, I'd much rather be put under the union-illusion than the super-illusion. That'd be pretty sad karma on my part if God chose to blind me rather than unite with me, after how intensely I sought him-her. Good thing I don't believe in karma. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 25, 2009 17:02:07 GMT -6
Well, once again, when Malati has nothing interesting or useful to say, she gets personal. There isn't much point in responding to that type of talk.
ZVS, in all honesty I haven't come across any sociological studies of the sort. The closest thing I've seen to it is cosplay, which is more or less dressing up as superheroes etc. for fun. But the level of enthusiasm among cosplayers is interesting to see, they have conventions and all.
I was referring mainly to similar social elements between groups. Star Trek enthusiasts tend to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of episodes, may learn a language (Klingon), like to meet people with similar interests and may dress up at conventions. So similarly a devotee may have a good knowledge of doctrine, may learn a language (Sanskrit or Bengali), certainly enjoy meeting people with similar interests (sankirtan) and attend festivals. To me it is just the same social phenomena occurring and exhibited in different communities.
|
|
|
|
Post by malati on Sept 25, 2009 23:57:45 GMT -6
You have made some good comments there, MadanMohandas.[/b]
The only problem I see is: how do we decide which topics to skip and which ones to delve into. Would you say that we should skip the rasa lila because it's too hard and bewildering?
If we skip the lila do you think we are still into the spirit of GVism as envisioned by the founders?
And what do you say if I say we should just skip everything altogether? That makes life simpler. And no more translations work for you to do.
ZVS, In this world , people can have all sorts of motivation to do or not to do anything. My advice to you is this: Just follow your heart with reason.
Ekantin compared the GV devotion to following Star Trek. For me that's an insult. I'm not a warrior but I will surely defend my personal devotion from philosophical assault.
He dished out one to me, so why would he question if I serve one back to him. Besides really I think some of his comments here shows that he need to revisit Logic 101. He started showing his piece of paper, so of course I should expect more from him. Just go back to the meme thread and you'll see.
And btw, Ekantin is old enough to defend himself.
About my credibility , there's nothing to hide, you know.
ZVS said: Quite truthfully, I'd much rather be put under the union-illusion than the super-illusion. That'd be pretty sad karma on my part if God chose to blind me rather than unite with me, after how intensely I sought him-her. Good thing I don't believe in karma.
Well, you need to know more about the bedha abheda tattva.
However, if you are already decided to jump from one faith of super illusion to another faith of union-illusion who are we desist you from doing it. All of us at this stage are just playing around the periphery of reality. And faith is a great bouy.
Ekantin, your shallowness comes to the fore again. Of course, social evolution has afforded the chimpanzees to build connections for better survival and then branched out for some chimpanzees to become you and me.
It would be naive to wonder why religion would have any societal component at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Sept 26, 2009 0:39:35 GMT -6
Nay, Malati, I did not suggest skiping any portions of the Bhagavat, but that if it has such a negative impact on readers, would there be any harm in skiping it. Its more of a question rather than a suggestion.
Is the Rasa Lila hard and bewildering then? I thought it was otherwise, one might well skip the entire text and only read the five chapters dealing with the Rasa Krida.
Raja Kulasekhara would listen to the Ramayana every day read by his priest. The priest, knowing the sensability of the raja would avoid certain portions of the narrative. One day the priest was sick and sent his son to read to the king. The son did not understand the sensability of the king and just read through. However, as the king heard about the preparations for the conquest of Lanka, he, in some hightened state had his four fold army made ready to march.
Of course that is something else.
Personally I dont skip anything in my reading of these 'scriptures', only certain sectarion doctrinal annotations I sometimes find disagreable and would skip them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 26, 2009 15:20:02 GMT -6
Besides really I think some of his comments here shows that he need to revisit Logic 101. He started showing his piece of paper, so of course I should expect more from him. So the personal attacks continue.  (For anyone wondering why, see this thread.) Yes, I do think Malati should go and take some classes in logic, because this latest comment not only shows how incapable she is of discussing serious science, but also incapable of following a conversation as well. The only reason I mentioned my qualification is because Avadhuta thought that I was a student. I simply let him know that I wasn't one, that's all. It only remains for people like Malati to become hysterical and fling accusations of waving my "piece of paper" in her face. A world away from boasting about one's reading of science like here. No, Malati, I will not be fulfilling your expectations of "more from me" if your expectations aim to gain support for your strange ideas. You are at liberty to accept or reject my views, but I deal in facts and have nothing to prove to you. You can either accept the facts or you don't. And by the way, thank you for admitting above that you will take a childish tit-for-tat strategy in revenge for perceived attacks on your devotion, even when there aren't any. I expected better, but.. See what I mean? If you effectively agree that social evolution allows for religious society having things in common with other societies/communities, then why are you objecting when I compare a life of religious enthusiasm with enthusiasm for Star Trek or hippiedom, cultural constructs that foster particular lifestyles? Please, don't bother replying unless you have a coherent understanding of what is being discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Sept 26, 2009 17:36:33 GMT -6
Besides really I think some of his comments here shows that he need to revisit Logic 101. He started showing his piece of paper, so of course I should expect more from him. So the personal attacks continue. (For anyone wondering why, see this thread.) Yes, I do think Malati should go and take some classes in logic, because this latest comment not only shows how incapable she is of discussing serious science, but also incapable of following a conversation as well. The only reason I mentioned my qualification is because Avadhuta thought that I was a student. I simply let him know that I wasn't one, that's all. It only remains for people like Malati to become hysterical and fling accusations of waving my "piece of paper" in her face. A world away from boasting about one's reading of science like here. No, Malati, I will not be fulfilling your expectations of "more from me" if your expectations aim to gain support for your strange ideas. You are at liberty to accept or reject my views, but I deal in facts and have nothing to prove to you. You can either accept the facts or you don't. And by the way, thank you for admitting above that you will take a childish tit-for-tat strategy in revenge for perceived attacks on your devotion, even when there aren't any. I expected better, but.. See what I mean? If you effectively agree that social evolution allows for religious society having things in common with other societies/communities, then why are you objecting when I compare a life of religious enthusiasm with enthusiasm for Star Trek or hippiedom, cultural constructs that foster particular lifestyles? Please, don't bother replying unless you have a coherent understanding of what is being discussed. Well, I started to question your intelligence first on the "Taking Science on Faith" after you posted your insult of theists by comparing faith to living your life around Star Trek and what's that the Dungeon game. You served the ball to me first so I gave it back to you. Fair enough I think. I was really annoyed because you said on the Taking Science on faith thread that you are in the neutral position. And then you go insulting people who have faith and practice it. You obviously have short memory. If you survey all the threads you'll see that I didnt start threads on science. The meme thread wasn't mine. But Nitaidas das made a comment on the meme that it was true, giving the impression that there's a wide acceptance of that idea when there was not. So of course I had to correct Nitaidas. I even had to mention that peer review of Dawkins idea didn't receive wide acceptance. Still you posted talking about it as if the meme thing was widely accepted by their community. That gave me the impression that you don't know much about scientific method. In science, Peer Review determines the claim. I was away from the internet for sometime then I saw the London thread and saw Nitaidas' comment about science is the only source of knowledge or its infinitely reliable. So I posted my wave and particle light thread as a reply to him. When I said I have read more on sceince than he had, well although Nitaidas has a PhD, it's not about science, it's about Hindu philosophy and Languages. I have a Bachelor's in biology and I did take subjects such as physics and biochemistry, and although I had to repeat physics, I can say with some basis that I have read more on science than he had. Besides, in the last 6 months since atheists in the U.S. and the UK became more formal, organized and militant with theists, forming such organization as BRIGHTS (you surely would know why they named it such), I decided that I should be able to meet them on their terms, on the language they use. I'm not boasting its a fact. About the social construct. We live in a physical world and the physical world operates on some laws, whether it natural law or some man made laws.As humans with a flesh we follow a sort of order therefore some social units will be constructed. But the yearning, longing and sense of love for something other than our world and ourselves are not externally imposed. It's like it's embedded in our sense of our very being. Unless we have answered the questions about our consciuosness, the questions about longings and love will be difficult to pin down. |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 26, 2009 17:57:33 GMT -6
Well, I started to question your intelligence first on the "Taking Science on Faith" after you posted your insult of theists by comparing faith to living your life around Star Trek and what's that the Dungeon game. I was really annoyed because you said on the Taking Science on faith thread that you are in the neutral position. And then you go insulting people who have faith and practice it. You obviously have short memory. Respectfully, I think it's you with the short memory. I didn't say I was in a neutral position regarding science and religion. I said that I stay aloof from the fanaticism displayed by both parties against the other, and make my comments on the basis of errors and misunderstandings. In other words, I don't care if you hated evolution, for example, but if you were to make mistakes in characterising or describing it then I would call you up on it. My thoughts on religion, however, are quite similar to Nitai's. I have a sceptical and rational outlook. As far as "insults" go, you're reading too much into it. I didn't insult anyone at all, but simply made an observation on how elements of an enthusiastic religious life are similar in content to lives that are led enthusiastically for other cultural constructs such as Star Trek, Dungeons & Dragons, cosplay, etc. If you kindly invested less emotion in your internet discussion activities, life might be that much better. Yes, thanks for telling me about peer review, which I know about of course, and which is irrelevant here, because you still seem not to have understood the point that I was making: that your demand for physical evidence of memes was ludicrous. It is not a question of whether the meme theory is widely accepted or not (for the record, it is accepted by many and also rejected by many, for various reasons), but your demand for 'physical' evidence of memes was ridiculous. Do you mean to say that, after all this time, you still don't see how it isn't possible to record physical evidence of meme transmission, which are in essence, thoughts? Remember, we're not talking about whether memetic theory is true or not, but your demand that there must be physical evidence of thoughts and ideas spreading from mind to mind like viruses. There can't be physical evidence of something that still is only a theory. If you still don't understand this, then I'm sorry, but I'm not worried about my level of intelligence at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Sept 26, 2009 18:01:39 GMT -6
ZVS, in my previous comment to you I forgot to mention that I had discussed this topic on my blog a few months ago. According to a PNAS paper that was published earlier this year ( Kapogiannis et al., 2009), the neural circuits that activate during religious types of thinking are the same ones activated to mediate other types of thinking. To quote from my blog: "'The neural correlates of these psychological dimensions were revealed to be well-known brain networks, mediating evolutionary adaptive cognitive functions.' In other words, religious beliefs and feelings use the same brain networks as beliefs and feelings about politics, food, martial arts, music and whatever else form your hobbies and interests."If you like, you can see my analysis here: No More God Spot?So, I'm afraid it's tough luck for those feeling insulted that their religious enthusiasm is compared to Star Trek enthusiasm, etc. According to the most recent neuroscientific findings, they're exactly the same. |
|
(For anyone wondering why, see