What he doesn't realize is that us CV afficionadoes are beyond his version of salvation (oh, that's right, he is all about liberation and enlightenment).
How disgustingly ego centric, and fanatical to think your version of salvation is higher and purer that all others, and really we all know CV's feel it's not just my version of salvation, it's ALL versions and you know it.
I thank you for adding more substance to my accusations about CV bigotry. This is getting seriously funner day by day as your similarities to groups like iskcon become more and more evident with terms like 'concoctions, nitaidas saying enlightenment is a term coined by a fake Indian swami in a turban and now you with how you are all beyond all forms of liberation and enlightenment.
Yes your obviously beyond enlightenment ha ha ha ;D
Ah, it is always the ego-centric, bigot who thinks he should point it out in others. Such unselfconscious idiocy is hard to fathom.
What is the word for enlightenment in Sanskrit? There is none. It is a concoction of Westernized charlatans. Buddha means awakened. That is different. Mukta means liberated. That too is different. Siddha means accomplished, successful. That, too, different. No word for enlightenment.
Last Edit: Aug 29, 2007 8:15:58 GMT -6 by Nitaidas
The mouse now thinks he can take on the king cobra. That is truly laughable. The king cobra's fangs are bigger than the mouse's head.
The mouse is showing his complete ignorance of CV at this point. Well, nearly complete ignorance. He does know a few things, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially for a rodent that plays with snakes.
Little boys should not play with matches, or they might get burned, or in the case of Kevin, who was our next door neighbor when we were mere lads, they might almost burn down their house (Kevin finally succeeded, but it was the neighbor's house on the other side of the block). I hope for your sake, you're not a pyromaniac, Minnie Mouse.
Last Edit: Aug 29, 2007 8:45:14 GMT -6 by kingcobra
In the Satapatha Brahamana (VI.8.2.3) a mantra referring to divine "wives" is explained, with an etymological pun, in the words: "the wives (janayaH) verily, are the waters, for from these waters this universe is born (jAyate)." The equation of the waters (denoted by the feminine plural word ApaH) to wives of a god is also found in the Rig-Veda. Clear references to the primeval waters, however, are only found in the last and most recent book of the Rig-Veda in the so-called philosophical hymns. For example, see the references to the "indiscriminate flood" (X.129.3), the lofty waters which conceived the Universe as their germ and generated the Fire god (X.121.7). Elsewhere, the waters are invoked as mothers (X.17.10, I.23.16). See especially VI.50.7, "For you are the most motherly physicians, mothers (janitri) of all the stands and goes." In the hymn dedicated to the cosmic architect, Visvakarman, the poet asks (X.82.5): "What then was that, beyond Heaven and Earth, beyond the Devas and Asuras [that is, prior to the dualistic order of this world], which the waters conceived as their first embryo, in which all the gods saw each other?" Similar passages are found in the Atharva-Veda (e.g., IV.2.6 and XII.1.8). In view of the fact that the primeval waters apparently belong to the old inheritance of notions of the Yajur-Veda, and that similar notions are found in cosmogonies all over the world, it is hardly credible that the Vedic myth of the origin of the world from the waters is the product of late Vedic poets as Luders assumes in Varuna (p.121).
[History of Religions, vol. 10, no, 2, (Nov. 1970), p.99]
Awakened, enlightened, both simply words pointing to the moon of what the Buddha achieved, no words can describe that state he attained.
You are wanting to put his experience into a categorized box for your calculative mind.
And by the way, the Buddha rejected Sanskrit Einstein !
Silly mouse, Pali predated Sanskrit as a language, and that is why those texts were written in Pali. It is a language that was in use chronologically between Brahmi and Sanskrit. I think you better repeat Indian History 101, you flunky.
Last Edit: Aug 29, 2007 8:48:21 GMT -6 by kingcobra
Post by mightymouse on Aug 29, 2007 13:14:52 GMT -6
Hey Cobra check this out:
Not only did the Buddha revolt against the Vedas and Vedic animal sacrifice, the Buddha also revolted against Sanskrit. According to early Buddhist sources the Tipitaka was written down in the second half of the 1st century BC, in the Pali dialect of the Sanskrit language. The Buddha apparently preferred vernacular tongues like Pali, however, after the Buddha's death, his followers eventually accepted the Sanskrit language and translated his teachings into Sanskrit. This scriptural collection is known in Sanskrit as the Tripitaka. Large portions of what is believed to have been the Sanskrit Tipitaka were translated into Chinese, and some texts exist in Tibetan versions.
The complete canon survives only in Pali. The Buddha encouraged the use of Pali and the local Prakrits thus using the people's ordinary language as part of his revolution against the Vedic priesthood, because, he said, "Religion has to use the ordinary, common language, so that people are not dependent on the priesthood”, and that was how the priesthood could be dropped, as the Buddha saw no need for them. He taught that people could directly connect with the Divine without any mediator.
Buddha said the people could understand their scriptures, people could understand their sutras, their was no need for a priest to intervene between the people and God, it was a business power play. The priest was needed because he used a different language which the people could not use, and he went on enforcing the idea that Sanskrit is the divine language and not everybody was allowed to read it.
The same thing was done in the Middle ages in the Church, the common people and especially women were not allowed to read the Bible, they had to go to the Church to ‘hear’ the Bible being read by the priests who were the officiators of the Holy book and the intermediaries between God and the common people.
There were two brothers of the Brahmin class, Yamelu and Tekula, who were disciples of the Buddha. They were well-spoken and had beautiful voices. On one occasion, they came to Shakyamuni and said, “O Lord, these days the monks are quite diverse in name, lineage, birth, and clan. They defile the teachings of the Buddha by speaking of them in one’s own languages. We would like to translate the Buddha’s teachings into the Vedic language” (Vinayapi-aka, Cullavagga, volume 5). In response to their proposal, it is written that Shakyamuni said, “My teachings must not be put into Vedic, he who does so commits error. I hereby permit those who wish to study my teachings to learn of them in their own language.”
Once there were two Brahmin monks named Wujuehe or Usaka and Sanmotuo or Sanmada. They came to see the Buddha and said to the World-Honored One, “Among the Buddha’s disciples are those of various families who come from diverse countries, regions, and states each speaking his own language. Since language is an imperfect medium, the monks violate the truth of the Buddha’s teachings.” The two monks implored Sakyamuni saying, “Please, World-Honored One, let us arrange and render the sutras according to the Chandas, Veda’s metric rules. If speech and sound are revised, meaning will be clarified.” To this, Shakyamuni replied, “In Buddhism, beautiful language does not determine accuracy of meaning. My only wish is that the essential meaning of my teachings be conveyed correctly. My teachings should be taught according to the dialect and pronunciation of the language understood by the people.”
It is clear that Shakyamuni was sensitive to the language and means of expression of the people. Brahmin’s criticized the idea of allowing people to teach Buddhism in their own languages, based on their strict adherence to a grammatical and phonological purism. But we see that the Buddha scolds monks with this attitude. Shakyamuni Buddha was resolutely opposed to the use of Sanskrit, the language of the Brahmins. Shakyamuni Buddha opposed the monks’ use of Sanskrit and permitted them instead to use their own dialects to convey the Buddha’s teachings. For this reason, the Buddhist scriptures which have come down to us are numerous and not limited to one definitive manuscript which is recognized as legitimate.
Among religions, Buddhism is the only faith that lacks one authoritative sacred text.
In regards to the language issues, the acts of teaching the Vedas and officiating in religious ceremonies both required the use of Sanskrit. Therefore, the Brahmins held a monopoly on the right to use Sanskrit, and revered the language as the most holy and supreme of all languages. For these reasons, those of Brahmin upbringing who therefore had studied Sanskrit, naturally looked down upon the ordinary persons who spoke in one or another dialect or used common speech.
OK, so he favored Pali, so what? When we read Pali texts with David White (Nitai and I sat in on his classes) at University of Chicago as grad students in 1982, they were so close to Sanskrit that we had no trouble understanding them.
I for one am not an apologist for any religion or theology. Certain aspects of CV are sublime and unique to that tradition. I find it more appealing than other traditions for that reason. I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to Buddhism, but then again my time is limited, and unless someone is going to pay me a lot of money to research such topics, I am not inclined to spend my time that way. Life is too short as it is, and I would kind of like to be able to retire some day rather than working full time until I die. So, I am hardly a bigot, since I find every single religion on the planet to be full of some measure of nonsense and outmoded concepts. I agree with Dawkins that the zeitgeist has always been in a single direction in recent times and that religion is responsible for temporary setbacks, in other words throwbacks to earlier times that are intrinsically barbaric with bigotry and misogyny and other odious attitudes. Science is the light in the darkness, not theology, in my opinion. Knowledge is king, and the snake is a symbol of knowledge, which is why I chose the king of snakes for my online persona here. Belief is for those who hide from the light of knowledge, in my opinion. If they bulldozed every church, mosque and temple on the face of the earth, I don't think it would be any great loss, in fact it might even be an improvement. Or at least they could be turned into museums, which is going to be their fate eventually anyways, considering the direction of the zeitgeist.
Last Edit: Aug 29, 2007 19:21:13 GMT -6 by kingcobra
I am not as optimistic about science as you are. It does wonderful things, but it is without a conscience. Therefore, it is destroying the planet. It is also going beyond its realm of knowledge, and generating a materialistic philosophy that is as speculative and theological as any. Science should stick to science and religion stick to religion. See Why Religion by Huston Smith or When Science Meets Religion.
I vehemently disagree with you on that, Subal. The big corporations are the ones using science to destroy the environment. The fact that they have scientists on the payroll is does not reflect on science itself, but on those who are greedy and unethical. I used to think that science and religion should inhabit separate realms, but I no longer think that way. Religion is the force that puts obstacles in the way of progress and human evolution. Science helps move society along the direction of the zeitgeist, which is gradually freeing it from racism, petty bickering, imperialism and abuse of women and children.
Last Edit: Aug 30, 2007 9:16:54 GMT -6 by kingcobra
Besides, the idea that science needs a conscience is patently absurd. Atheists are not any less ethical than religionists, in fact they probably score higher, since religious fanatics will resort to all sorts of reprehensible behavior in the name of their religion.
And scientists will not resort to all sorts of reprehensible behavior in the name of science? Sometimes one has to stand up against the zietgeist of the times and buck the current trends. According to Huston Smith scientific materialism has taken over the universities and thinking of society in general. I think religion is doing as much as science to "freeing it from racism, petty bickering, imperialism and abuse of women and children." I know those are the kinds of things I worked on as a pastor and still do. I think science and religion should cooperate, each accepting their own limitations. Thus, perhaps, we can attain a right brain, left brain balance and become more whole persons.
The zeitgeist Dawkins is referring to is not the one of gangbangers, obsession with tattoos and piercings, indulgence in coke and heroin, anti-intellectualism and similar craziness. He is referring to the direction of the zeitgeist that is positive and benign. I have found that the critics of science are usually pretty ignorant of physics, biology, astronomy and chemistry. I am hardly an expert in any of those fields, but I do have some college courses behind me and read quite a bit, especially about physics and genetics.
I don't understand why you have to create such a polemic between science and religion. The Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, where I studied, had an Institute for the Study of Science and Religion. There are a number of scientists and theologians who have managed to work out a peaceful co-existence. I don't read much science, but I ocasionally pick up a science book to keep up on the latest theories. I don't see how science can prove or disprove the existence of God-dess, anymore than religion can. If you're so enamoured by the writings of an atheist like Dawkins, why do you waste so much time writting on useless religious topics here?
I admire Dawkins for his brilliance, but I am hardly enamored of him. His wife on the other hand (used to play Ramona on the BBC series Dr. Who)....
The polemic you speak of was generated by the Church when it censured Galileo. It is not of my creation. I am just an innocent bystander. I don't operate in the realm of theology anymore than I operate in the realm of science (except for computer science due to my profession as a software developer).
Perhaps I am wasting my time posting here, as you suggest. Perhaps I have become a compulsive writer, hence the several magazine articles, two chapters in another author's book and now my own title (due out in December) about financial markets. I should probably be spending my time writing some inspired music instead, since that would reach a wider audience and be more lucrative (especially if I write in some popular genre and someone makes a hit record of one of my songs and I get paid some huge royalty checks as a result). I guess I don't like sitting on the bench. I find watching baseball on TV rather boring, but thoroughly enjoy playing the game, especially where I am most effective (in the outfield). So, reading books and listening to music are not nearly as enjoyable to me as writing books and playing music.
At any rate, I was asked by Nitai to contribute some translations here, so maybe I'll just get back to that and let you folks discuss these various topics.