Thursday, March 1, 2012

You Never Go Full Profound


As far as I’m concerned, that man has found enlightenment. Or Moksha. Or Brahman. Or Salvation. Thanks to technology, the moment of enlightenment has been nicely captured.

Had this man used the right verbiage, had a flair for oration, an intuition for analogy, and been born in a different age or been in different circumstance in today’s world, he’d be amongst the most revered spiritual gurus.

The man no doubt had a profound experience. Every day millions of people have such experiences. But having been indoctrinated by religion, they don’t realize the importance of such experiences. They think only wise people with years of practice can attain enlightenment. What a travesty.

Some people do have the proper experiences as decreed by religion. And they go full profound. They will start a cult/religion or join one and will begin pitching Moksha. Or Brahman. Or Salvation. In order to explain their experience, they will use the most inane analogies (like the venerable snake and rope from the Brahman lore) and convoluted logic to drive home their sales pitch - I had a profound experience. You shall have it too by surrendering your critical faculties and listening to my drivel. That is the goal of your life.

Enlightening experiences are everywhere. Religion only spoils them for you by robbing them of their beauty -What? You find bacteria as enlightening? Tch. Tch. If you only you gave up that gross material realm and entered the subliminal spiritual realm. You poor soul. Imagine all such experiences that religion has been robbing humanity of for millenia.

That is why you never go full profound. You just stay at profound and give others the chance to find profoundness in whatever way they like.

66 comments:

Ramesh said...

Re: That is why you never go full profound. You just stay at profound and give others the chance to find profoundness in whatever way they like.


Is there any instance when others are denied to stay at profoundness in the history of the Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) and AS A TRUE INTENT TO BE SO and so you saying as if such a chance is denied?


Others are preached/indoctrinated here so that ultimately they start questioning and learn it themselves. Brahman is that ultimate truth which is known by this method alone where contradictions are well settled. Belief is a system for those unable to reason out critically in Hinduism and do so for their welfare.


You people only MISINTERPRET EVERYTHING EXACTLY FOR THIS REASON‼

Lije said...

Ramesh,

I didn't mean that some people are consciously and deliberately stopping other people from attaining enlightenment. What I should have said is that some people don't recognize that there are many ways and forms of enlightenment (like The Double Rainbow) and insist that something like Brahman is the Ultimate Truth and there is only one way to get to it. That is what I consider as "going full profound"

Also, as I've said elsewhere on my blog, Enlightenment is a state of the brain. It has nothing to do with questioning something and learning something by ourselves. All that are rationalizations to ascribe meaning to the experience. That is why when you go full profound, you will deny meaning that others have found via ways which your rationalization doesn't agree with.

People like me haven't misinterpreted anything. I've always held that different people can find meaning and purpose to their lives in different ways and that to them is the ultimate realization of their lives. Show me one instance where I said anything contrary to that. It is only you who thinks there is one Ultimate Truth just because you believe so. I have never denied your experience but don't expect me or any freethinker to buy your rationalization of the experience.

Ramesh said...

Here are immediate examples of your misrepresentations:


1. Re: some people don't recognize that there are many ways and forms of enlightenment (like The Double Rainbow) and insist that something like Brahman is the Ultimate Truth and there is only one way to get to it.


It is in Hinduism that recognises many ways of enlightenment. Here people become enlightened even by analysing a simple atom, dog, crow whatever that you can name and never unique. But there is only one kind of enlightenment i.e. Ultimate truth and whether his ultimate quest has been quenched or not will be the unique test of his enlightenment.


Lije look at one thing: In Hinduism enlightenment is not a condition of state of mind/brain or experience or anything else except a simple 'Knowledge' just like 2+2=4.. Just know/digest it and over. It is that knowledge after which the ultimate quest (root cause of all pain) of the human beings is quenched. It will never happen by science. Reason: Its own ‘means’. Brain/mind/experiences etc is purely scientific as you claim. People claiming as you state do it for entirely different reasons and are never Jnani as per original tenets of the Hinduism/shastras and only those people have ruined this Hinduism. So don’t compare them with Hinduism and lose your direction. You are arguing against Hinduism not not their people. People are mostly always with frauds for lack of sufficient reasoning.


2. Re: I've always held that different people can find meaning and purpose to their lives in different ways and that to them is the ultimate realization of their lives.


This is nothing but stating that either there is no such a thing like 'truth' or 'if it exists they are as many as the number of people realizing themselves'!

How absurd!! In your world of truth people will judge each other by different units (truths, each others own experiences etc) and fight will begin among themselves thinking that they are using the same units for every day life.
If it is really so then definitely I have every right to rob others and live lavishly since that alone is what I understand from my present life! Are you agreeing? Can you ever refute me on critical reasoning? Why I should be moral? Don’t say that it is an innate nature of human beings or there is invisible hand (invisible means again blind belief one). What can be convenient to you can very well be inconvenient to me. Then why agree on common rules? Why play the fair game? Any justifications?


Please note that by enlightenment only one thing is meant: Truth unchangeable if at all it exists and has to be unique just as units of measurement like cm, inch etc otherwise only confusion and destruction of the world with our own hands. Rest assured!

Lije said...

Ramesh,

I think I see where you are coming from. Replace this sentence "It is only you who thinks there is one Ultimate Truth just because you believe so." with "It is only you who thinks your personal experience is The Ultimate Truth just because you believe so."

That and I've clearly defined what enlightenment is. I do not equate it with "T"ruth. There are fact propositions and then there are value propositions. You are mixing both.

Ramesh said...

Dear Lije,


Re:"It is only you who thinks your personal experience is The Ultimate Truth just because you believe so."


Did you read my last but one comment? I repeat - In Hinduism enlightenment is not a condition of state of mind/brain or experience or anything else except a simple 'Knowledge' just like 2+2=4.. Just know/digest it and over. It is that knowledge after which the ultimate quest (root cause of all pain) of the human beings is quenched.......etc.



I am least interested in how you define the ‘enlightenment’; I am concerned only with the fact that you are imposing your definition on that of Sanatan Dharma. Generally, by enlightenment truth alone is sought. Let us say if E=mc2 becomes enlightenment if practically it is true. Such a sort of enlightenment isdn't experienced by man. However, it would be just like enlightenment if this equation proves practically correct and so it does. Now going by the definition (of Sanatan dharma and not the distorted yours one) By this argument E=mc2 can't be enlightenment because it is only partial expression of the 'theory of everything'. Enlightenment should mean the one by knowing which your ultimate quest is quenched forever.


Why are you people defining the things yourself and imposing it on Vedanta, Sanatan Dharma for which they never stand and yeh! they never opposed what you said in r/o science and its achievements. Sanatan Dhamra is making such a sort of Science only precise and Healthy. See my site.


What I find in your video (of enlightenment, your sort) is joy of marvellous beauty, the joy which gets decayed with the finding of other better scenes. A joy becomes enlightenment when it is permanent, once for all. And so it doesn't remain just a joy but mind, intellect etc gets permanently stable, fully quenched for having realized (like 1+1=2, or E=mc2) what everything is, since there remain no curiosity to look after or to solve as is science finding at present.


See if you could understand the sanatan dharma in the right perspective and particularly what I have bee arguing. Yes but it requires extraordinary effort and sincerity. Lifeless things like computer can even understand Science if it fed with proper data and definitions. You are human beings. You are expected to see beyond science but knowing full well the limitations of scientific method and however with total scientific temper and critical reasoning. Since it has not been there, there is every reason to call you people biased and interpreting very different things alien to Sanatan Dharma.

One complaint against you people- we state one thing about Vedanta and Sanatana Dharma and you argue quite other things having biased with the notion of scientific methods as unfailing and absolute one. Science gets corrected when due. But why expect santan dharma to be so which is ultimate. Problem is that you do not try what it says and mean fully ignoring (for lack of critical reasoning) that it NEVER contradicts your sort of science and above all refuse to understand it by offering YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION. Too much biased and insincere in approach!

Lije said...

Enlightenment isn't where you get a theory of everything. It is an experience in the brain and the rationalization that follows.

So it is not The Ultimate Whatever. If it was, Sanatana Dharmics would have thrown out the abominable varna dharma a long time back. And wouldn't have written sexist texts like Vichar Sagar. So go figure.

Ramesh said...

Re: Enlightenment isn't where you get a theory of everything.


That’s your definition of enlightenment. Umpteen number of times I have stated it. Who gave you the right to impose it on sanatan Dharam?


Re: It is an experience in the brain and the rationalization that follows.


Very very absurd!!! It is the joy, happiness and all that accompanies the ‘ultimate knowledge’ which is experienced and not the Brahman itself. That’s simply knowledge. It is said to be experienced in the sense that knowledge of that expels all that unquenched curiosity (and so cause of misery) that surrounds the universe and SO it gives the experience of eternal joy for having solved the mystery.


Re: So it is not The Ultimate Whatever. If it was, Sanatana Dharmics would have thrown out the abominable varna dharma a long time back..


Poor friend!! There has not been varna dharma in sanatan dharma in the sense you think. Just as you people are misinterpreting all the Itihasas so has been the fate with Varna Dharma. Do you agree with the qualifications to do certain things? If yes then so is this. It is not by birth it is by qualification to understand! Please understand. There have been many Pandits who have ruined such a Hinduism by misinterpreting the Shastras.

Lije said...

I'm not going split hairs on definitions of words. But I'll leave this here:

Now imagine these same circuits become hyperactive as sometimes happens when you have seizures originating in the temporal lobes (TLE or temporal lobe epilepsy). The result would be an intense heightening of the patient's sensory appreciation of the world and intense empathy for all beings to the extent of seeing no barriers between himself and the cosmos—the basis of religious and mystical experiences. (You lose all selfishness and become one with God.)

>>Do you agree with the qualifications to do certain things? If yes then so is this. It is not by birth it is by qualification to understand!<<

That's a lousy argument. Show me the evidence where all children, regardless of their station of birth were given the same training, and then based on how they take up to various subjects, they were assigned vocations.

I know you can't show me because The Ultimate Whatever is so Ultimate that it can't even comprehend as basic a fact as that qualifications are a function of the environment and instead believes in Ultimate silly things like innate gunas. The Ultimate result is that Ultimately varna has no other option than to become birth based.

Here's an example of how a society does it the proper way, without making any Ultimately lame excuses.

And that is precisely why Vedanta is only confounding talk and can never pay rent. It's Ultimate social implications are so Ultimate that one can Ultimately see the Ultimate depravity of the said Ultimate implications in Ultimate action.

Arvind Iyer said...

This recently published TED talk by Jonathan Haidt enlists the many means through which people have experienced what might be called 'self-transcendence', of which very few are even remotely religious.

Also relevant maybe this recently published article on the Neurologica blog on the autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR), which might offer clues as to why the unlikeliest of experiences maybe found compelling and even profound by us.

Ramesh said...

Here is rapid rejoinder for want of time,

Re: Show me the evidence where all children, regardless of their station of birth were given the same training, and then based on how they take up to various subjects, they were assigned vocations.


Did you forget that that training and knowledge is imparted to the pupil depending on what he questions, what interest he develops what natural instincts are prominent in him and what ability he has to overcome the same after each stage of understanding and his ability to grasp.

Lije, all cannot be given the same training. Don't you see how many meanings this 'brahman' has? Are they all true? You think yours alone is correct and is absurd‼

To start with mango and apple needs to be treated separately. Human being is not NECESSARILY so! Walya koli was robber by birth something untouchable by birth. Did not he become Valmiki Rushi greater than the Brahmin? Shabari was also degraded by birth. Did not Rama eat her fruit tasted by her? Did not see could know what the brahmins fail? Ravan was Brahmin by birth, but wasn't he treated like Rakshas due to his gunas? Wasn't Hanuman a monkey by birth? Isn't the greatest of Brahmin worship him for getting the knowledge? I haven't studied scriptures and Itihasas otherwise I would have given you the fitting examples far better!


See MY comments on http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/11/why-cant-muslims-and-christians-enter-hindu-temples/

for better understanding of the Hindu concepts.


Do your have the answers? You can't except gross PERVERSIONS as abundantly available as above.

Enlightenment: Hundred times I have told upon it. refer earlier comments. What YOU state is YOUR VERSION and never that of SANATAN DHARMA. If YOU cannot understand why malign the other? Simply because you have the freedom of expression and that others can be influenced easily my friend? Either question logically or declare it is not your area and unqualified for the same! Why feel shame for this? Sorry if you are hurt but responsibility is yours since I am being compelled to repeat the same things again and again.

I appreciate your link http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/

My dear friend what I see is that link it is the inherent interest that is guided properly. Hindu varnashrama is no more different from that. When your sort of practice (above link) goes the transition of thousand of years as has been the case with sanatan dharma it resembles to that of Varna Shrama. It is the people who make it rigid and not the original hypothesis. Blame people who practise this sanatan dharma and not the very sanatan dharma. Learn the difference if you can

Ramesh said...

Re: And that is precisely why Vedanta is only confounding talk and can never pay rent. It's Ultimate social implications are so Ultimate that one can Ultimately see the Ultimate depravity of the said Ultimate implications in Ultimate action.

Quite Appreciated!That is why exactly every moment we need the Guru to interpret the things AS THEY ARE! It is the dearth of them which has ruined everything to this level in Hinduism.


You may agree that fruits of science (all the comforts like gun, bombs etc) should not get into the hands of fanatic like N Korea, Afghanishtan etc (Hinudu, Muslim, Christen including the athiests)since by Hindu term they are unqualified for the same and hence untouchable in that respect, sense and TO THAT EXTENT ALONE (availability of science etc). Is not it the duty of everybody to ensure it to THAT EXTENT ALONE? A Jnani (or rational one in scientific term) alone can decide who is fanatic here! Won't you support such a rational man?


Now the circumstances have changed. As per the Hindu laws Varnashram should get changed as per Desh and kal. (change is the law of nature- Bhagawat geeta). And this Change is always in consonance with the knowledge prevelant at a particular time and space. To this extent change should have occurred. However stupid man has revolted against the Jnana in the name of science thinking that it will ultimately reveal everything!

Lije said...

How can a student read when they haven't been taught to do so? How can a student ask questions on calculus when they haven't been taught the basics of mathematics? That is what primary education of today does. Teach the basics. Then based on the student's proclivity, they can take up specializations.

So, I ask again. Show me the evidence where all children were taught the basics. Don't quote scripture. I too can quote from Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings.

And on the need of a guru, I've written it here. Without bambozzling the population of the need of a guru, how else can one maintain the depraved ethics of Vedanta?

Ramesh said...

Dear Lije,

1. Re: Show me the evidence where all children were taught the basics.

Before you talk of the teaching, let you talk first of BASICS. For you reading, mathematics, primary education etc is BASIC. Will you please let me know to what extent these are assumed to be basic in Sanatan Dharma in view of transmission of knowledge primarily through Shruit (hearing) and Smriti (memory) etc and how much importance has been accorded to this your sort of BASICS there?

Dear friend, cessation of all pain (quenching of ultimate quest and other comforts of the sort of modern science being at lower level) by virtue of ‘ultimate principle’ i.e. ‘theory of everything’ alone was the goal, essence and content of the Sanatan Dharma. Keeping in view this alone the reading, interpretation etc was prohibited to other less qualified (Varnashram, women etc) and people of other faith. This did not mean that physically it was denied to them. It meant only that they did not have any authority to do so. However by qualification they did interpret the Shastras (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shudra_Hindu_saints, http://agniveer.com/821/vedas-and-shudra/) there are many other outstanding rishis belonging to these shudras, I am least interested in such factual data.

Till now and forever Jnana is and will be treated as ‘open’ Secret of the universe. By the term ‘open’ everybody including all castes will be open to have an access to it unlike you sense (reading, mathematics, basic, primary education, basics etc). But by term ‘secret’ only qualified/eligible will be allowed to interpret it AS THEY ARE. Aren’t you people now can read all the shastras? But alas! Only to have it perverted grossly and mislead the community with both the Sanatan Dharma and Science!! It was exactly in this sense that they were forbidden and not in technical sense (reading, mathematics, basic, primary education, basics etc) as you state. However technically things happened as you state subsequently because of the cross breed of Brahman entered this community which were no more different from your community (in respect of reason and logic please and not in respect caste by birth note). So reason, if any, should be attributed to those and not the Sanatan Dharma as I have stated so many times before in this thread.

2. Re: Don't quote scripture. I too can quote from Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings.

How foolish! All you people write about castism, enlightenment, Jnana, Sanatan Dharma, Vedanta, Ramayan, Mahabharat, Hinduism, and there practical implications on human community.....etc only by quoting from those sources and ask me not to quote from scripture (unlike we quote from Harry potter etc).

Dear, all our thinking bears to these scripture unlike the Harry Potter etc. What the scripture is to us so is not the Harry Potter to science but it is the science to Harry Potter so. Note the difference if only you can understand. Therefore we can authoritatively state from Scriputes but you can’t from Harry Potter. Harry Potter is imagination to science, scripture is not so to us (it is so for you thing is different).

Continued.......

Ramesh said...

.....From previous
3. Re: And on the need of a guru, I've written it here

That’s what you think and not what Sanatan Dharma is! Yours only perverted for reasons so well illustrated here and there.

4. Re: Without bambozzling the population of the need of a guru, how else can one maintain the depraved ethics of Vedanta?

One cannot maintain the Vedanta except either with the help of Guru (who will initiate the follower to a level suitable to his capacity and not necessarily to the Brahman) or the one himself who knows and is put to rest ultimately on his own with the check and balances (assimilating the contradictions so abundantly prevalent in Vedas, Shastra etc) in the Vedanta. Only these two methods and no other. No Guru in Sanatan Dharma has stated me what I know of it today (they also pervert it) I myself have got satisfied with the texts on my own with like Vichar sagar. In Sanatan Dharma there is no difference between Guru and the Brahman. Test for such a Guru is: He stands quenched ultimately in every respect. Of course ‘theory of everything’ will be one of the corollaries of having his quest satisfied which science won’t be inventing for millenniums to come!

So, will you avoid grossly perverting the interpretations and be sincere in approach truly critical in reasoning and logic just to do the justice to science as reasoned out above?

Lije said...

You very conveniently side stepped the main issue – that Varna Dharma is birth based, by rambling on The Ultimate Whatever. So to bring it on track, I ask again – show me the evidence were, all children in were taught the basics. I only mentioned current school subjects as an example. Correcting for time, the basics would be something like clean your own bathroom, pickup your own shit, martial skills, memorizing stuff, math, astrology etc... Then based on how a student fares (or cannot fare), they can be assigned a Varna. Did that happen in the glorious reign of The Ultimate Whatever? No.

You put a person in the right environment, chances are good that they will develop the right skills. But The Ultimate Whatever is ignorant of that fact because it believes in nonsense like karma and gunas. Given the sycophancy showered at The Ultimate Whatever, one should expect decent morals from it.

And you perfectly illustrated the need for a guru. It is no different than what I'm saying. To appreciate only a certain kind of music, put it on a pedestal, and use the prefix “Ultimate” copiously, you definitely need to believe in the need of a guru and that guru should be in the perfect position to deliver. He should be able to show you the beauty of that music, ignoring all other forms of music.

Now for some pointless hair splitting, totally unrelated to the main point which you have side stepped – the depraved morals of The Ultimate Whatever.

There are different ways you could use scripture – one is to identify moral premises, which doesn't need the scriptures to be entirely factual. What is needed is that a set of people live by those moral premises. So if there are people who live by the morals espoused in Harry Potter, I will use Harry Potter literature to analyze the premises.

But if you tell me that there are flying broomsticks, I will laugh it off. It is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary evidence. Scriptures are full of such extraordinary claims.

To split the hair even more finely, I can't use Hogwarts as evidence of how schools are run in the real world. For that, I need to collect evidence from the real world – like see how schools are run in the real London. Not the fictional one.

Lije said...

I'll make it even more explicit - the very idea of Varna Dharma is fundamentally flawed. Given its premises, there is no situation in which it could not have become birth based.

Till date, The Ultimate Whatever is oblivious to that fact and keeps pretending that it is not birth based and turns to fiction to cite evidence.

Ramesh said...

Re: You very conveniently side stepped the main issue – that Varna Dharma is birth based, by rambling on The Ultimate Whatever. So to bring it on track, I ask again – show me the evidence were, all children in were taught the basics. I only mentioned current school subjects as an example. Correcting for time, the basics would be something like clean your own bathroom, pickup your own shit, martial skills, memorizing stuff, math, astrology etc...

I am afraid you will ever SEE the exact answers given to you! Here I go once again.

Let you be sure and intact about the fact that everything in Sanatan Dharm comes from only one thing ‘ultimate principle’ (consisting of Brahman and Maya)then may be you talk about basics, caste, women, superstitions, belief, eligibility, all super feats performed in purnas, ramayaan etc, science whatever the hell it may be in the universe. Let you be firm that this is so from our side.

Now re: clean your own bathroom, pickup your own shit etc. Abraham Lincon was by cast cobbler by birth as per my knowledge (sorry if otherwise). So do you expect him to mend his own shoes even when he became President of USA? He may do so on his own as a hobby or for his own reasons but note that he has every right to engage THE OTHER, specialists to this task because of HIS PRIORITY OF PRESIDENTIAL TASK. So my dear friend a true Brahman (or anybody) never denies to pick of his shit etc just because his priorities are different and not because he is ordained not to do so by this ultimate principle. Now re: martial skills, memorizing stuff, math, astrology etc. These sort of questions I have already answered and here I copy and paste: “…….Keeping in view this alone the reading, interpretation etc was prohibited to other less qualified (Varnashram, women etc) and people of other faith. THIS DID NOT MEAN THAT PHYSICALLY IT WAS DENIED TO THEM. IT MEANT ONLY THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO DO SO. HOWEVER BY QUALIFICATION THEY DID INTERPRET THE SHASTRAS (E.G. HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/LIST_OF_SHUDRA_HINDU_SAINTS, HTTP://AGNIVEER.COM/821/VEDAS-AND-SHUDRA/) THERE ARE MANY OTHER OUTSTANDING RISHIS BELONGING TO THESE SHUDRAS, I AM LEAST INTERESTED IN SUCH FACTUAL DATA”.

In above reference please note that it may be martial skill, memorising stuff, maths, astrology, ayurveda, yoga whatever it may be are INTEGRAL PART OF ‘JNANA’ and accordingly alone it is imparted as above. You neglect this aspect and hence DIFFERENTIATING them from the JNANA.

continued........

Ramesh said...

......from previous.


re: You put a person in the right environment, chances are good that they will develop the right skills. But The Ultimate Whatever is ignorant of that fact because it believes in nonsense like karma and gunas. Given the sycophancy showered at The Ultimate Whatever, one should expect decent morals from it.

There isn’t any thing like RIGHT environment and BAD environment. However the circumstances it may be, the INDIVIDUAL is always free and independent (core of Hindu philosophy). What you talk of is of the Vyavahara-ground activities. There aren’t strict rules which govern them. I repeat “परिवर्तनहि सन्सार का नियम है/”- Bhagawat Geeta.

All are not born equal in r/o of capacity to understand, do a thing, exhibit some talent etc. Mango seed IS MOST LIKELY to give rise to the mango tree and not that of Apple. Because it may happen that by hybridization, treatment and all that stuff it may be made to give a tree of Apple but NEVER AS A RULE. This statement of mine will be understood by those who know the POWER of science. Exactly so is the case with the system of education of Santan Dharma. Since a Skill (picking up shit, cleaning, martial acts etc) may just go perverted that the practical knowledge of such a skill is restricted to the definite class of people and NEVER AS A RULE. A Brahman student should be denied the knowledge of Vedas, Martial act etc if tendency is against the TRUE KNOWLEDGE. Similarly a Shudra by dint of his Knowledge (Which need NEVER come from Vedas, Upnishads etc but may easily come from few devotional songs addressed to Rakshasas, by acts of being Prostitute, by killing of innocents, doing adharmic acts, by picking shits etc) equals the Brahman not to talk of getting skilled at martial acts etc and which has been your main ‘issue’. Where come the question of denying it.

Karma and Gunas go on losing their rigidity as one becomes more and more sharp in reason, logic and the same becomes nil the moment he realizes the TRUTH. Karma, Gunas, Rebirth, Heaven, Patal etc hold their validity to the extent of his logic and ability to reason. If you understand Geeta, Vichar Sagar (not just read it with biased and perverted intellect) you may understand it and may also come to know that Vichar Sagar in fact glorifies sex as in modern times and MUCH MORE the moment you UNDERSTAND IT in 7th chapter. Given the current level of your sincerity, reasoning ability you are not allowed to read those. Either you should find ‘theory of everything’ using the scientific method or search the Guru to quench your quest till then you are neither here nor there and still think you are correct‼! (science is always approximation till it finds ToE, the moment it happens, ToE will coincide with ‘ultimate principle, if not nobody will question you either. Therefore till that (infinite time?) you have to hold back.)

If you think all this sidetracking, irrelevant then **Please do one thing: Show me the evidence where all children were NOT taught the basics.** and I will try the other way. Lets us other logic. I do not know the evidence where all children were not taught the basics. How about this, dear Lije? It may amply prove whether it is the perverted knowledge or the sincerity which is guiding you!

Lije said...

I'm judging The Ultimate Whatever by what kind of a society it resulted in – which is – a few people found a way to perpetuate power by installing a birth based system of vocations. Even though you have dishonestly shifted the burden of proof, here's the evidence you ask for: there is no mention anywhere in ancient Indian history of all children in a village being taught the same basic skills. Teaching was mostly birth based. Some texts of fiction mention sporadic instances of Varna hopping. That is all.

Regarding who is qualified to learn what, I have a much better understanding of human biology than you do. (I'm not boasting. Just stating a fact). So your analogy of mangoes and apples is untenable. Humans share a common biology and there are some consequences because of that. One has to wonder why The Ultimate Whatever is ignorant of such science.

In every comment you type, you keep exemplifying the depraved morals of The Ultimate Whatever. I posses a wide range of skills – from cleaning to mending to science to engineering to philosophy and so on. Those skills aren't mutually exclusive. That in essence sums up the moral bankruptcy of The Ultimate Whatever. The very idea that specialization in something precludes some other things is the signature rotten stench of casteism.

Lije said...

Some more evidence:

Indian populations, although currently huge in number, were also founded by relatively small bands of individuals, the study suggests. Overall, the picture that emerges is of ancient genetic mixture, says Reich, followed by fragmentation into small, isolated ethnic groups, which were then kept distinct for thousands of years because of limited intermarriage — a practice also known as endogamy.

This genetic evidence refutes the claim that the Indian caste structure was a modern invention of British colonialism, the authors say. "This idea that caste is thousands of years old is a big deal," says Nicole Boivin, an archaeologist who studies South Asian prehistory at the University of Oxford, UK. "To say that endogamy goes back so far, and that genetics shows it, is going to be controversial to many anthropologists." Boivin fears that the study might be 'spun' by politicians seeking to maintain caste structures in India, and she calls on social scientists and geneticists to collaborate on such "highly politicized" issues.


Which exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the likes of Agniveer.

Ramesh said...

1. Re: I'm judging The Ultimate Whatever by what kind of a society it resulted in – which is – a few people found a way to perpetuate power by installing a birth based system of vocations.

Just because E=mc2 ULTIMATELY resulted in destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima blaming the Einstein or E=mc2 can only be attributed to you people!

Dear it is the people who should be blamed and it is exactly for them that most of the rules like caste (which is specific to qualification) are framed so that people like those who played havoc like in Japan are barred from the knowledge of E=mc2. (Request use the relevant sense to understand this one if possible)

2. Re: Even though you have dishonestly shifted the burden of proof, here's the evidence you ask for: there is no mention anywhere in ancient Indian history of all children in a village being taught the same basic skills

It is you who are blaming against Ultimate principle. It is just natural that burden is yours .Don’t you know the simple law in real life which the courts all over the world follow‼‼‼ Didn’t you prove your flawed logic?

3. Re: Regarding who is qualified to learn what, I have a much better understanding of human biology than you do. (I'm not boasting. Just stating a fact).

The ultimate principle is nothing except a fact. Who are you (people) to know the fact pending the theory of everything. Is there anybody to state who is correct between us? Impossible [That is why (one of the reason) the ultimate principle].

4. Re: So your analogy of mangoes and apples is untenable. Humans share a common biology and there are some consequences because of that.

Dear Lije, there are still finer elements which constitute the biology (like chemical reactions, molecules, atoms- in fact there isn’t anything like biology except maths, physics, chemistry) which in fact are common between mangoes and apples. That is why a stage may definitely come when mango seed will give apples in future. And this is the consequence of those common things! So do you agree that I know better biology than you?

5. Re: One has to wonder why The Ultimate Whatever is ignorant of such science.
Still any doubt who is ignorant of the science in view of above FACTS as argued?


....continued.

Ramesh said...

....from previous


6. Re: I posses a wide range of skills – from cleaning to mending to science to engineering to philosophy and so on.

What is the wonder then? So am I. So were many Brahmans, kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras (you may cite contrary examples if any).

7. Re: That in essence sums up the moral bankruptcy of The Ultimate Whatever.

Still any doubt as to the moral bankruptcy of you people in view of last comment?

8. Re: The very idea that specialization in something precludes some other things is the signature rotten stench of casteism.

Which precise statement did you draw the above inference? Or just the stench of your rotten reasoning, logic?

9. Re: ….This genetic evidence refutes the claim that the Indian caste structure was a modern invention of British colonialism,…..

Who denied that castism is not a part of Sanatan Dharma? Issue has been whether it was birth based or Patrata (eligibility) based! Why jump from this to that and blame others for similar things?

Will you be ever logical and reasonable while arguing? Still do you find yourself sincere enough?

Lije said...

Science is not an ethical system. Something like secular humanism is. More importantly science doesn't use the prefix "Ultimate". Being defeasible is at its core.

You again conviniently side stepped the evidence I gave you. Firstly, you don't have any evidence other than from fiction to say that Varna is not birth based. When I did show you the evidence, you keep making lame excuses. Communism is perfect on paper. It leads to the perfect society. But that is not how it should be judged. You look at how it fared in the real world.

Did you even read the PNAS paper I linked to?

What kind of an inane argument is that mango seeds can give apples in the future? Of course, given knowledge is probabilistic, it is possible that mangoes become apples. But it takes a special kind of daftness to latch onto very small probabilities and flaunt it as being extremely probable.

Even then, we humans are already here. In the present. It takes an even more special kind of daftness to ignore that and fantasize about hypotethicals.

Did you even read the Agniveer nonsense you linked to? The Nature news article I linked to is in direct contradiction to it.

Finally,

Is there anybody to state who is correct between us?

Yes. When it comes to science, that is easy. You do an experiment. If you say you can levitate, I'll simply ask you to jump off a building. That settles who is correct and who is not.

When it comes to subjective experiences, there is no easy way other than to take what one says on face value. That is why Harry Potter is real. That is also why Vedanta is just gobbly-gook (not because it is inherently nonsensical. But because of its evangelists and preachers who have no way of showing x other than to say x is x because x is x because x is x because x is x because x is x because x is x)

Ramesh said...

1. Re: Science is not an ethical system. Something like secular humanism is. More importantly science doesn't use the prefix "Ultimate". Being defeasible is at its core.

That’s you people’s definition of science. The vedantic science includes all that what you call plus ethics, ultimate, castism, Brahman and all stuff etc they are all scientific. That’s why hundred times I have told that Vedata never crosses modern science but includes all that which science may know after theory of everything. Do you remember? Why impose your one on us? We aren’t contradicting your science!

2. re: You again conviniently side stepped the evidence I gave you..........

I repeat your evidence: there is no mention anywhere in ancient Indian history of all children in a village being taught the same basic skills. Teaching was mostly birth based. Some texts of fiction mention sporadic instances of Varna hopping. That is all.

Evidently it is lame evidence as vividly cleared earlier. You haven’t refuted them. Instead your real evidence is this: “Communism is perfect on paper. It leads to the perfect society. But that is not how it should be judged. You look at how it fared in the real world.” And I answered it like this: Just because E=mc2 ULTIMATELY resulted in destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima blaming the Einstein or E=mc2 can only be attributed to you people! Did you ignore it purposely? There is a link between communism on paper and its faring in real world, link being that of Human beings. If this human being is not governed properly nothing is sufficient for him. Hindu rules provide for that exactly.

3. re: What kind of an inane argument is that mango seeds can give apples in the future? Of course, given knowledge is probabilistic, it is possible that mangoes become apples. But it takes a special kind of daftness to latch onto very small probabilities and flaunt it as being extremely probable.

Can you re-read what I stated? I repeat I stated: “Mango seed IS MOST LIKELY to give rise to the mango tree and not that of Apple. Because it may happen that by hybridization, treatment and all that stuff it may be made to give a tree of Apple but NEVER AS A RULE.” Do you know about metal transmutation? It is exactly similar to that!! Isn’t that 100% sure. No probability!! Simple science but may take far more scientific development. Just lack of understanding as to what I say. Point was that we have to effect such transmutation/mango to apple etc whereas among human beings it can happen on their own with or without good environment! See if you could get the point after my repeated attempts!!

Isn’t your link PNAS paper irrelevant/misplaced one in the above context?

My agniveer link was limited to as to what the Vedas are to tell about Shudras. More than this I am not interested in that at present here.

Ramesh said...

...from previous

4. re: Is there anybody to state who is correct between us? Yes. When it comes to science, that is easy. You do an experiment. If you say you can levitate, I'll simply ask you to jump off a building. That settles who is correct and who is not.

My dear friend I am talking about we, the human beings and what we see (say biology as per original reference). In other words I am talking about matter born consciousness (we human beings, the one who judges) and the matter (building, levitating, universe and all that). Who is correct? Either matter born consciousness or the matter itself? Who will judge? Isn’t the matter itself since it is that which is there ultimately? WHO established the reality of matter after all (and all that constituting the scientific method)? What a nonsense and foolishness!! I talk one thing you take it different!! Is it the reasoning, logic of you people? Horrible!!

5. re: When it comes to subjective experiences, there is no easy way other than to take what one says on face value. That is why Harry Potter is real.

So is the dream real while we are in the dream! But there is a state called waking which declares that dream is illusion. Does the science (universe) know the state from where it come? How etc. Either wait for theory of everything or be in illusion like dream! Am I correct? Vedanta states that there is hardly any difference between the reality of the Harry Potter and the relative real universe!! Know it using the ultimate principle, if you can’t approach the Guru appropriate.

6. Re: That is also why Vedanta is just gobbly-gook (not because it is inherently nonsensical. But because of its evangelists and preachers who have no way of showing x other than to say x is x because x is x because x is x because x is x because x is x because x is x)

We never say x is x because x is x. Instead we say x is x because there isn’t, in fact, anything like x. Still we call it x till such a time when we see (realize, enlighten) that there is not anymore x including the one who asks it except the illusion! It is exactly for this reason that it is the science which suffers from infinite regress and never the Vedanta though it appears it so because of the perverted logic of you people. Science will cease from suffering this problem of infinite regress till ‘theory of everything’ is found. After that it will be same as that of Vedanta.

This last point of comment should convincingly prove the rot, perverted logic/reason, gross bias within you people.

If not then at present my transmutation technology (say reason, logic) to change you people from say mango (contrary to ultimate principle) to apple (pro ultimate principle) will be insufficient till such a moment we find ‘theory of everything’. Till that period you will be uqualified/ineligible and hence of the caste of like shudras confined to the task of research/technology and will be barred from APPLYING the same to the HUMAN SOCIETY else you will cause the havoc like that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am just seeking the political system which will ensure it. Help the cause for betterment and survival of all!!!

Lije said...

Let's remember that it is the depraved ethics of The Ultimate Whatever that is under the spotlight. You indulged in what-aboutery by citing e=mc2. But as I said, science is not an ethical system. So any argument along those lines is a strawman.

So shining the light back on, you earlier said "the INDIVIDUAL is always free and independent (core of Hindu philosophy).". Had you really read the paper I linked to, you would have seen why it is so very relevant - relevant to the extent that it entirely rubbishes the core of Hindu philosophy. If you think the paper is too technical to read, I'll try to find a simpler source.

Ramesh said...

1. Re: Let's remember that it is the depraved ethics of The Ultimate Whatever that is under the spotlight.

Let me correct it as: It is not the depraved ethics of the Ultimate Whatever that is under the spotlight but instead it the logic and scientific reasoning which decides (proves or disproves) as to the depraved OR OTHERWISE ethics of the ultimate whatever which is under the spotlight.

SO I THINK THIS SHOULD PROVE THE STRAWMAN ARGUMENT OF YOURS!!

2. Re: Had you really read the paper I linked to, you would have seen why it is so very relevant - relevant to the extent that it entirely rubbishes the core of Hindu philosophy

Doesn’t "the INDIVIDUAL is always free and independent (core of Hindu philosophy)" allows you to remain what you are and what I am? Do you mean we are same in our approach to life, universe? Never. That is what core of Hindu philosophy is! I never meant that molecules and laws governing the chemical reactions occurring in brain etc are different from person to person as you seem to understand. If your linked paper still mean different why not you put its summary in a paragraph of few lines so that I can understand you better and see how it was relevant?

3. Yes, you have left a good numbers of questions unanswered which will simply explode the myth of you people’s ethics! Please use to think before you write a comment on Ramayana, Mahabharat, Puranas, Vedas and all that matters for the sake sanctity of reason and logic which runs common to both of us.

Lije said...

I see you still haven't read that paper. It probably takes the same amount of time to read it as it takes you to repeatedly whine about logic and reason.

The nonsense of Karma and Gunas lies not in the fact that humans are indeed different from each other (in some aspects), but in the fact that they completely ignore the effects of environment and magically expect a person to rise against them (that should do in way of the gist of that paper). They then use that excuse to perpetuate a system of birth based oppression. Which in effect is what The Ultimate Whatever is Ultimately capable of - camoflaging depraved ethics by profuse use of the prefix "Ultimate".

Ramesh said...

Thanks for providing the essence of the linked paper. I appreciate this observation and do sympathises with it, I did become emotional and got touched, it hurt me badly as I read it explicitly since that has what happened in Hinduism and is exactly the reason why we find the criticisers like you and nirmukta.

There are three elements:
1. Ignorance of the effects of environment
2. magically expecting a person to rise against them
3. use the excuse to perpetuate a system of birth based oppression

I have clarified each them as follows respectively

1. “Ignorance of effects of environment”- In fact the scientific universe is the great environment. Here the whole of Hindu scriptures (starting with Vedas, Upnishadas, Puranas, ramayaan, mahabharat ....etc) is the Hindu version of this environment called the ultimate one. Do remember that it is simply one version of the probable 10^500 (However in vedantic view ABSOLUTELY infinite numbers) versions that latest scientific research shows (Vadhavan blog).

In view of this it is wrong to argue that Sanatan dharma ignores the effects of the environment. Hinduism accepts the responsibility of creating the environment (not good or bad) called MAYA.

2. “magically expecting a person to rise against them”. Wrong. Please note that only HUMAN BEINGS are expected to rise against them since it is the only species that QUESTIONS AND POSSES THE QUALITY CALLED QUEST. The moment they (shudra or anybody lower than them) raise a question that’s a beginning of their rise against the environment. AND THIS ALONE IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND TILL THIS HAPPENS THERE IS A THING LIKE GUNAS AND KARMAS. Refer: Vichar Sagar for this.

3. “use the excuse to perpetuate a system of birth based oppression”. I answered it like this: Just because E=mc2 ULTIMATELY resulted in destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima blaming the Einstein or E=mc2 can only be attributed to you people!

Dear let us assimilate the fact that it were the unqualified Shudras (though Brahmans by birth) which used this knowledge of E=mc2 (say ultimate principle) for destruction of Japan (perpetuation of a system of birth based oppression). So let us blame these politicians (braahmans by birth not by qualification) who got hold of the knowledge (though ultimately imaginary one) using which they bombed the innocents. My purpose lies in rooting them out and re-establishing the knowledge as it is!

So dear it is not the ultimate which is responsible but the middlemen who twists the things. Just because you received the empty parcel you need not blame the sender. Confirm if postman had played the mischief!

That is why GURU was placed on par with the Brahman. It were the ill Gurus who played the mischief—ref: Bhagawat Puran.

Lije said...

The environment - A child born into a family of manual scavengers. The family isn't allowed in some parts of the village as they are "impure".

The magical expectation - The child should be able to learn complex subjects on his/her own. He/she should have the innate karma given gunas for that. (By complex subjects I mean something like arithmetic/algebra which is required for something like the post of a tax administrator. No need to split hairs on this).

The excuse - "The fact that a child is born in such a low family is evidence that he/she has accumilated bad karma from the past life. If the cosmic laws will, then the child will magically acquire knowledge of complex subjects and will hop Varnas. But we will not do a single thing, a single thing to teach the child anything. Gunas decide what a person is capable of. Since the child has no knowledge of math, it is evidence that he/she lacks the required gunas."

I don't care how good a system is on paper or what its apologists think how great the system is. Talk is cheap. Talk is worthless when it can't walk the talk. Statements like "Good for all", "Justice for all" are cheap talk. Where is the implementation?

An ethical system like secular humanism doesn't claim to the perfect system or use superlative adjectives. It accepts that it can go wrong and since no superlative adjectives are used, there are few ego issues in clingling on to outdated dogma. I've linked to how one such system fared in Finland. The Ultimate Whatever has been in existence for thousands of years. So, where's the path with the footprints of the talk?

Ramesh said...

Dear Lije,

It appears that you converted the issue of ‘PRINCIPLE/THEORY of Vedantic prudence’ into the ‘ACTUAL PRACTICE of Vedantic prudence’. Needless to say that I entirely agree with you on what has been actually observed and so has been the case with the hundreds of Sanatan saints throughout the 2nd millennia like Jnaneshwar, Tukaram, Namadev, Ramadas, Basaveshwar etc who are still rectifying the system ……

However here I think I am arguing about the very ‘PRINCIPLE/THEORY of Vedantic prudence’ and not the actual practice by agreeing the practice is in contravention to the original. And entirely DISAGREE that actual practice can anymore be attributed to the ‘original theory’ and illustrated the same with remarks like “Dear let us assimilate the fact that it were the unqualified Shudras (though Brahmans by birth) which used this knowledge of E=mc2 (say ultimate principle) for destruction of Japan (perpetuation of a system of birth based oppression). So let us blame these politicians (braahmans by birth not by qualification) who got hold of the knowledge (though ultimately imaginary one) using which they bombed the innocents. My purpose lies in rooting them out and re-establishing the knowledge as it is!”

Vedantic science comprises of all including material science, ethics and all that unknown.

To start with Hindu system of school education was something on the lines of that of Finland (as proved by the Vedantic discussions etc)however during the course of time it turned into what we witness it today and so is likely to be with the Finland system unless and until every moment RIGHT TEACHER (GURU) ensures the logic and reason behind such an education so that desired effect doesn’t suffer. I entirely agree that Hinduism failed to sustain the continuous chain of such enlightened (for this unique understanding) Teachers.

And hence the need of such Jnanies (teachers) who will cleanse the system so that probable disaster in the form of ultimate science (I call it ultimate because that alone will be thought of as true in modern times and not because it not falsifiable) since definitely there are the persons in the present world who are unqualified or wield the power either in the name of religion or otherwise.

So before proceeding further help me confirm whether you are arguing about the ‘ultimate principle’ or ‘its actual practice’ or ‘correcting the system’! I originally deal only with the ‘ultimate principle’. OR still adamant saying that it is the consequence which decides the truth of principle (like attributing shooting a man with gun to the invention of gun by the science or attributing the Nagasaki disaster to the development of atom bomb by the science)? OR else prove these examples are irrelevant and misplaced.

Lije said...

I have already shown that the principle itself is wrong. You weren't even willing to read that argument (the PNAS paper). There is no such thing as free-will, where free-will is defined as - given the exact same situation, including your enivironment, you cannot chose to act differently. The Ultimate Whatever believes in such a free will in the name of gunas and karma.

And that is precisly why there never could have been a situation like that in Finland. That system believes that basic education is a fundamental right. Had it believed in gunas and karma, there would be no basis for that fundamental right. The right exists because it believes that equality means equal opportunity. The key words are "equal opportunity".

An individual is never free from the environment. That is why The Ultimate Whatever is incapable of understanding "equal opportunity". That is why it is the Ultimate failure in principle, and in practice.

Ramesh said...

Re: The Ultimate Whatever believes in such a free will in the name of gunas and karma.

So do you mean that for Ultimate principle ‘gunas and karma’ are basic to the ‘free will’? See also if you could explain what WE (not PNAS) mean by free will. Please confirm this and my next comment will follow. Will you for the sake of sincerity of your arguments?

Also see if it is possible for you to keep the same goal post either of principle or of practice!

Waiting...

Lije said...

I don't care about what you mean by free-will. I have already defined what I mean by it. To simplify it, free-will ignores that we are fully caused beings and as such does not take the environment into consideration. Gunas and karma do the same mistake.

Arguing on definitions is pointless hair-splitting. Just substitute the word with its meaning. I've already given you plenty by way of meaning.

Ramesh said...

Thanks Lije,

Re: To simplify it, free-will ignores that we are fully caused beings and as such does not take the environment into consideration. Gunas and karma do the same mistake. This much information is quite sufficient for me.

In fact in the ultimate principle except Brahman (absolute truth) everything is environment called Maya-relative truth (Ma meaning no +Ya mening this whole universe-like dream or Harry potter). Thus we-(whole universe) as per ultimate principle are never a caused one[ just as no cause can be attributed to the events in dream/harry potter though IT APPEARS TO BE SO] and still we find dream/Harry potter to be real SO LONG WE ARE sleeping/in a state of imagination since there is a state called waking (for dream) and relative truth (for Harry potter) to which when compared we can know what the truth is. But there isn’t a state in the day to day life of human beings (except Vedantic parmarthic) in relation to which waking can be felt like a dream. That is why this Maya is also called to be Mithya. Brahman cause nothing not even Maya. Both never contradict but complement (this is ultimate principle).

Where does the ultimate principle espouses the cause of free will? Does it differ from gunas and karma etc if any? Never! There are more than one theories of creation of universe in Vedas. There is host of dharmic karmkand, Gunas, Karma, past life, rebirth, paap-punya, heaven, hell etc are all created (not as truths) and correspond to the different states, stages of the human beings in the present life itself and are DESIGINED SO THAT ULTIMATELY IT HELPS HIM TO GET RID OF THE GRIEF, PAIN FROM WHICH HE HAS BEEIN SUFFERING. All this process being complicated and skilfully dealt at, interpreted by the qualified Guru (teachers) only.

There isn’t any arrangement in scientific world which can hold a man ACCOUNTABLE (theory of invisible hand being highly insufficient) as a result of which worldly prosperity, running behind quest which will always be unquenched (illusion) can only be the goal of human beings and hence cause of misery, destruction in the end.

If you find anything contrary in the ultimate principle please quote it.

So are you yourself propagating your own version of ‘ultimate whatever’ and proving it nonsense you yourself again? Have you ever tried to know the most basic concept of Maya? If not interested with what authority you people argue against Sanatan Dharma in the absence theory of everything? Which yardstick do you use to establish the absolute reality of scientific methods/science? If it is relative how would you differentiate it from Vedantic Maya? There is Brahman which accounts for the infinite regress of the maya what is there to account for your sort of relative universe-scientific methods?

In the absence of satisfactory answers to all the above why don’t you think you are all espousing the wayward, groundless reasoning just BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN LAPSE IN THE PRACTICLA APPLICAITONS OF ULTIMATE PRINCIPLE?


Caution: Avoid slipping into change of goal post from that of principles to practical applications ref. Earlier comments of mine.

Lije said...

My sighs could produce a tornado. We have people being discriminated against heavily, just because of a birth based oppression system, which is due to the factors explained in my comments above. And yet here you are, talking about how it is all maya, all designed to deliver them from pain. Promise heaven (deliverance from 'illusion') and arrogate gatekeepers (Gurus) for that heaven. But don't do a thing to remove a flawed system. Mother Theresa would have been so very proud of this Ultimate Principle. I'm done with this discussion.

Ramesh said...

Re: We have people being discriminated against heavily, just because of a birth based oppression system ...But don't do a thing to remove a flawed system.

That’s altogether different issue and effort has been there as explained earlier. But this oppression, discrimination is not because of the factors explained in your comments but because of MISINTRERPRETATIONS just like you people do abundantly.

Essence: Criticism should be because of the oppression, discrimination and not because there is necessarily a fault with the principles, values which it cherishes. Issue should be that of ‘REFORM’ and not ‘REVOLT/REBELLION’ that too in the name of SCIENCE!

Anyway discussion was quite better than at Nirmukta forum though you people always miss sincerity, logic and reason and change of goal post though others are barred, warned for the same reason!

Thanks for the freedom offered here, anyway.

Lije said...

Anyway discussion was quite better than at Nirmukta forum though you people always miss sincerity, logic and reason and change of goal post though others are barred, warned for the same reason!

You do realize that it was me who warned you on the forums, right? And of course, only you are capable of sincerity, logic and reason. Everybody else are bumbling frauds who have no goal in life other than to bait you into typing long essays.

Arvind Iyer said...

Lije, The book chapter entitled 'The Ethics of Humanism' in this 1949 book by humanist author Corliss Lamont maybe of interest to you.Here is a tl;dr version by the same author.

On a central point of your article, that one should not be contemptuous of even routine-seeming sources of joy in which people may find fulfilment, Lamont says:

The philosophy of Humanism constitutes a profound and passionate affirmation of the joys and beauties, the braveries and idealisms, of existence upon this earth. It heartily wel- comes all life-enhancing and healthy pleasures, from the vigorous enjoyments of youth to the contemplative delights of mellowed age, from the simple gratifications of food and drink, sunshine and sports, to the more complex appreciation of art and literature, friendship and social communion. Humanism believes in the beauty of love and the love of beauty. It exults in the pure magnificence of external Nature. All the many-sided possibilities for good in human living the Humanist would weave into a sustained pattern of happiness under the guidance of reason.

On the central theme of this comment-trail, that human potential is far from innate, but can be enabled or hindered a great deal by environmental influences, Lamont says:

What the scientific study of human motives shows is that human nature is neither essentially bad nor essentially good, neither essentially selfish nor essentially unselfish, neither essentially warlike nor essentially pacific. There is neither original sin nor original virtue. But human nature is essentially flexible and educable. And the molding or re-molding of human motives is something that takes place not only in childhood and youth, but also throughout adult life and under the impact of fundamental economic institutions and cultural media that weightily influence mind and character. The social development and conditioning of human beings, their training, direct and indirect, by means of all sorts of educational techniques, can be so extensive that the hoary half-truth, “You can’t change human nature,” becomes quite irrelevant.

Lije said...

Thanks Arvind. It is heartening to see views from a time before genes, environment and stochasticism which allow us to take such views as granted today.

One only has to wonder why the enlightened souls, who had thousands of years for themselves, missed this Ultimate Truth.

Ramesh said...

Liked the reference Arvind,

Re: “You can’t change human nature,”

When an element can be transmuted, when hybrid can give fruits what a problem with ‘human nature’ who has always been ‘CULTURED’ at Sanatan Dharam. Isn’t ‘culturing’ just changing the human nature?
When ‘परिवर्तनहि सन्सार का नियम है/’ (-Geeta) has been the said of the ‘ultimate trurh’, is human nature different from this universe? Never.
Real problem is that ‘few ineligible people’ (so called Braahmans) distorted the truth and made the castes (originally specialists) by birth the real problem occurred. So now you people distorting the ‘utlimate truth’ itself! Sanatan Dharma dealt at details the processes just like transmutation technology (Vedas, purana, upnishadas, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc) which change this nature. Just because finished product is faulty you cannot banish the technology see if the man (unqualified Jnanies) at helm is unqualified and caused the havoc!

So shun not the technology but see that qualified persons are at the helm (TO INTERPRET/IMPLEMENT IT PROPERLY) otherwise no technology will be perfect—‘Ultimate truth’

Lije said...

Ramesh,

Way to miss the point and then quote mine to assuage your confirmation bias. Here's the relevant part you ignored to consider - "And the molding or re-molding of human motives is something that takes place not only in childhood and youth, but also throughout adult life and under the impact of fundamental economic institutions and cultural media that weightily influence mind and character."

Ramesh said...

I fail to understand how I ignored your ref neither did you make any effort in relation to what I stated.

Dharma shastra states that by qualification you stand belonged to class which is due to you. Since I am dealing with theory you cannot deny examples from mythology (since they are the shastras forming ultimate principle) Here Vishwamitra though Kshatrya by birth through tapas became brahmashri. Valmiki (shudra) became Brahman. Hanuman (monkey) equated to Brahma. There are innumerable examples. Did not the changes occur in their adulthood? Many become venerated at the time of death e.g. Wali and Ravan.

However this has not been observed in practice because of the ineligible people at helm (Brahman by birth but untouchable by qualifications). Though throughout the 2nd millennia effort was on to set the tide right through efforts of Janeswhar, Tukaram, Namadev, basaveshwar and innumerable others saits from lower caste as well. YOU TOTALLY NEGLECT THIS ASPECT.

Now you cannot cite examples from Harry Potter because that can’t be basis of naturalism, science. However we can cite above because that is our source and reality (your case being different) for us.

What was available at technology (Dharma, ultimate principle etc) was not applied in practice the real problem occurred.

How come that I missed your reference? Did not I repeated all this?

Lije said...

Dharma shastra states that by qualification you stand belonged to class which is due to you

What part of "under the impact of fundamental economic institutions and cultural media that weightily influence mind and character" did you have difficulty in understanding?

Ramesh said...

Good,

Isn't qualification generated "under the impact of fundamental economic institutions and cultural media that weightily influence mind and character"?

Ramesh said...

And yes, that "fundamental economic institutions and cultural media"? which existed throughout the ages is different issue unrelated to the original content and intent of the Shastras reasons being already cleared!

Lije said...

It doesn't depend on "you".

It depends on "you + environment".

Ramesh said...

So let us help create this "+ environment" on the lines of the saints already stated so that "you" is placed on par with "me" and realise this itself is "Ultimate principle"!

Lije said...

Since the Ultimate Whatever is fundamentally flawed, it failed for thousands of years to create a proper environment. Its time is past.

Ramesh said...

The flaw is at creation of the environment (interpretation/implementation on the lines of the saints already hinted at)and not at the 'ultimate principle' since the environment is always a function of the people who interpret it properly. The present one being aptly named/predicted as 'Kaliyuga' for flawed 'reasoning, logic' by the very 'ultimate principle' just as modern science is resulting in more havoc (lifestyle health diseases, weapons of mass destruction, world politics posing danger to the very existence of human race etc) in search of more happiness/comfort (without ever knowing what it is)-so states Bhagawat Puran.



Environment will always be like the present one. Unless and until 'theory of everything' (in fact ultimate principle) is found by the science Sanatan Dharma cannot be blamed for faults of the 'human nature'. It is the best of human beings who keep on cleaning it periodically. Let us see if one can be among those!


Preaching is not allowed here, I am aware. Still I bear the risk.

Lije said...

You are just talking BS. There is no such thing as kaliyuga. "Enlighten" yourself - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Human_evolution.

Ramesh said...

At least do you believe there exists '21st century'? That there existed 'industrial revolution', 'freedom movement period till 1947' etc?


So is the 'Kaliyuga'! You cannot use inch scale and write it as cms. Kaliyuga is measured in say cms (by Ultimate principle) your link measures it in inches. When it comes to Kaliyuga we are in different frames, my friend! You can not use same units and origins!

That is why lack of 'reason and logic' in modern times-Bhagawat Puran.

Ramesh said...

So is the 'Kaliyuga'! You cannot use inch scale and write it as cms. Kaliyuga is measured in say cms (by Ultimate principle)


mean


Kaliyuga is a name given to the period/part of the time since the evolution in the frame of Ultimate principle and doesn't signify anything contrary to the link except the reasoning ability of the human beings.


I gave this clarification/simplifications since it is Kaliyuga!

Ramesh said...

Given my above comments one may even tempt to conclude "That is why we do not have common grounds".


In such a case that side relinquishes the right to criticize the Sanatan Dharma for ITS PRINCIPLES. And if criticizes it for social implications then part built/played by human environment (the intermediatory) can not be neglected!

Arvind Iyer said...

Any claim that the excerpts from Lamont above are compatible with what is called a Sanatana Dharmic worldview, would have to contend with the following.

While humanism values all healthy pleasures from 'simple gratifications' to 'complex appreciation', the Sanatana Dharmic view appears to dismiss any pleasure that has beginnings and ends . Humanists disagree. Here is an explanation of why the fact that most pleasures are impermanent too does not render them worthless.

While humanism holds that 'human nature is neither essentially bad nor essentially good', the Sanatana Dharmic view classes people into divine and demonic with little nuance .

Everyone is welcome to adopt the humanist stance, but that would involve disowning some antiquated scriptural notions which militate against it. (Note that the links to scripture references in this comment do not point to any website with even remotely atheist leanings.)

Anonymous said...

First I would to ask Lije, How many time will he change topics and goal posts even now? Not less than three to four times!

Now Arvind,
Re: verse 5.21 and While humanism values all healthy pleasures from 'simple gratifications' to 'complex appreciation', the Sanatana Dharmic view appears to dismiss any pleasure that has beginnings and ends .

This is about the spiritually intelligent people! It is irrelevant to others! How is that you can ever draw a meaning out of it? Debate spiritually first then the meaning of this. That would be relevant! First debate of the beginning and of the universe then debating on its meaning would be somewhat relevant!

Now the Mahabharat OF WHICH THIS IS JUST A PART would tell sufficiently that sanatan dharma values all healthy pleasures from simple gratifications to complex appreciation. It is all about dharma, ARTH, KAMA and moksha. Thus see if reckless interpretation could be avoided!

Re: Geeta verses 16.4 and While humanism holds that 'human nature is neither essentially bad nor essentially good', the Sanatana Dharmic view classes people into divine and demonic with little nuance .

It would be relevant to discuss first whether there is something bad and good. Then whether human nature has something to do with that relatively or not etc. Then discussion on meanings as to these verses would be relevant.

Divine people is out of your scope. Now aren’t the Osama bil laden, Davud Ibrahim, Hitler etc are of DEMONIC nature whaterver the cause it may be? Sufficient!

As for your referred video I could not see for extremely slow connection. But its fate would be similar to above. See if you could provide its summary.


Once it is noted that Sanatan Dharma is superset it becomes absurd that it ever contradicts humanist stance or similar. It has been matter of interpretation as has been wisely counselled in the scriptural notions which NEVER MITIGATE AGAINST THOSE and explained all over here.

Lije said...

@Anonymous,

If you bother to read exchanges between me and Ramesh previously on this blog, you'll see where the goal posts lie.

Ramesh said...

Dear Lije,

It is not Anonymous, it is the same Ramesh.

That day this website was bit problematic and I made about 10 attempts to post comment with name and url. It did not show up. Automatically it showed Anonymous on main site when it showed Ramesh on comment page.

Please correct if possible and delete these last two comments.
Thanks.

Arvind Iyer said...

The humanistic position doesn't say that there is no such thing as good or evil. It only rejects arbitrarily ordained notions of essentially good and essentially evil. The use of the word 'essentially'e makes it out as though good and evil wholly intrinsic, (through such theoretical constructs as 'gunas') whereas we know that such traits are products of both genes and the environment. Also the list of 'evil persons' provided seem interesting, especially considering the omissions. Interestingly, the likes of Nathuram Godse, Dara Singh or Babu Bajrangi don't seem to strike you as evil-doers. Could it be because they have all styled themselves as Dharma Rakshaks? As long as such enemies of humanity are hailed as Dharma Rakshaks in cultural nationalist circles, sympathizers of those circles will continue to earn the disapproval and harsh criticism of humanists.

Ramesh said...

Dear Arvind,

Re: The use of the word'essentially'e makes it out as though good and evil wholly intrinsic, (through such theoretical constructs as 'gunas') whereas we know that such traits are products of both genes and the environment.

Re: essentially-- Used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation

“ Traits are products of both genes and the environment”. What a great confession of the kind I never expected from you people! You are so sincere.

Will you please explain the relation between “good and evil (gunas) wholly intrinsic” and the “traits as product of BOTH GENES and environment”? It may help me understand you people’s ideas better so that my comment would be relevant!

Prima facie when trait is accepted to be function of genes (and not environment ALONE as I understand Lije stating given his stress!) it is just natural that there would be element of intrinsic. Given the enormous ‘Sanskar” culture in Sanatan Dharma influence of environment is accepted in every sentence of the Dharma.

Re: Also the list of 'evil persons' provided seem interesting, especially considering the omissions. Interestingly, the likes of Nathuram Godse, Dara Singh or Babu Bajrangi don't seem to strike you as evil-doers. Could it be because they have all styled themselves as Dharma Rakshaks?

You lost your sincere approach here my friend! It does include all these “WHEN THEIR ACTIONS ON GROUND ARE CONSIDERED”. No body has right to cause PHYSICAL HARM in the name of WHATEVER it may be. You may just lodge a complaint in accordance with the law of the land in case one is aggrieved.

Dharma is judged in accordance with the law of the land which prevails for the time being. People in my examples break the law of the land or to which major humanity subscribes. Will you just crosscheck?

We have a sympathy for their intentions since our philosophy matches but oppose them (godase, dara, babu) tooth and nail because their actions are against the laws of the land. Let these people change the laws of the nation and then commit official killings but not before that.

I have stated so many times here that we discuss here ‘theories’ and not ‘actions’. When it comes to ‘actions’ there has been lot of perversions in the name of caste, killings etc as you cite (just as you people indulge in perverted interpretation of Geeta etc) where REFORM is necessary based on the original ‘ultimate principle’/sanatan Dharma/Hinduism. We are not discussing this ‘reform’ but ‘principle’. Lije and me discussed this in previous exchanges if you bother to go through them. And so I aptly accused him of changing the ‘goal posts’.

Are you doing the same?

Ramesh said...

N. B. to above comment:

Re: As long as such enemies of humanity are hailed as Dharma Rakshaks in cultural nationalist circles, sympathizers of those circles will continue to earn the disapproval and harsh criticism of humanists.

You are confused! There is difference between “hailing them as Dharma Rakshaks” and “earning disapproval and harsh criticism to the Dharma they espouse”. Former is linked to the ‘actions’ they perform and later the ‘philosophy/principles’. Actions are perverted because of the rule of the land where as ‘principles’ are eternal truths which even say ‘obey the rule of the land’. So either change the rule of the land or be in accordance with it--ultimate principle.

Lije said...

and not environment ALONE as I understand Lije stating given his stress!

If you hadn't been so lazy as to not read what I had typed and linked to, you wouldn't make up that nonsense. And yet you keep whining about sincerity.

Arvind Iyer said...

Rameshji,

Despite professed majority support and with supposedly a millennia-long track record, don't you think there are some spectacular failures of the Sanskara-based social organization model which are evident in the very divided and troubled society it has had a role in producing?

When you suggest that the law of the land be suitably altered to accord to your principles, we hope that the pathway you wish to take for changing the law is via democratic discourse and eschewing violence. Do you realize how disturbing we find your 'sympathy for the intentions' of the Dara Singhs and Babu Bajrangis of this world, and how much mistrust about your own intentions such statements can cause? Doesn't it seem as though the bloodshed caused by them seems less of an urgent matter for you to address than defending your preferred religious affiliation? When human well-being gets such lessened priority in these worldviews you espouse, what stops a humanist from lambasting them?

I don't expect all the above questions to be settled in one comment-trail here, and so will conclude from my side by outlining what I think is the one setting in which such questions can eventually be contended with and resolved for the good of all. Our vision for bringing about social change by sustained democratic and civil discourse is outlined here.

Ramesh said...

Dear Arvind,

Re: don't you think there are some spectacular failures of the Sanskara-based social organization model which are evident in the very divided and troubled society it has had a role in producing?

Yes, I have accepted there are spectacular failures. That is why I talk of the reform (proper understanding in r/o which we ourselves are divided not because our principles are flawed but because there is trespassing of eligibility-improper understanding of castism etc). This is altogether different issue to be debated within our group.

Re: When you suggest that the law of the land be suitably altered to accord to your principles, we hope that the pathway you wish to take for changing the law is via democratic discourse and eschewing violence.

Don’t just hope! Punish those trespassers of the law of the land viz democratic discourse and who use violence. We are bound by the rule of the land. This is in accordance with our own principles.

Re: Do you realize how disturbing we find your 'sympathy for the intentions' of the Dara Singhs and Babu Bajrangis of this world, and how much mistrust about your own intentions such statements can cause?

Here intentions mean their philosophy, their version of cause of their action which has been the very debating point here, likes of ‘ultimate principle’! etc. But it has to be bound by the rule of the land viz democracy, non violence and legal actions. There can’t be compromise about this sort of approach. We shun, condemn, oppose and criticise their violence in the name of WHATSOEVER it may be.

Re: Doesn't it seem as though the bloodshed caused by them seems less of an urgent matter for you to address than defending your preferred religious affiliation? When human well-being gets such lessened priority in these worldviews you espouse, what stops a humanist from lambasting them?

I never expected such an insincerity on your part dear Arvind! Actions of Godse, Dara and Babu! When you refer them in a given reference aren’t you referring to their philosophy which in turn has been caused by the philosophy of Islam and christen etc??? Yes it the the principles, philosophies which are at the root cause of most of the violence we face‼ It’s a truth. My principle states that these can be permanently avoided by arriving at the unique solution (scientific and based on critical thinking etc) like ‘ultimate principle’ (for you it is spiritual since it is Vedanta based etc matter is different) we (I mean the government, law enforcing agency) can only try at its best to avoid such violence. Government cannot change the people, their philosophies (here priority being Islam, christern who are supposed (not by me please note) to intrude into the domain of Hindus (as thought by these violence committers).

So I know however urgent it may be the task you refer to I cannot avoid the ‘Jihad’ or ‘conversion policy of christens etc’ (I have not come across such Hindu propaganda EXCEPT IN DEFENCE OF ITS OWN SURVIVAL, may be my ignorance not intentional). That is a problem dear Arvind. So at my level I can only put forward the real, original philosophy of Hinduism which is COMPARATIVELY (and whose violence is being instigated by other agencies, noting that I do not subscribe to the principles of RSS, VHP, Sanatan Dharma Sansta etc in dicto) less violent (and which you are interpreting otherwise which make me doubt your sincerity) which I am doing at present with your blogs. See if you could try to understand!

If you are concerned about my real actions please refer to and join the cause for the sake of mother India by joining http://freedomteam.in/blog/main only if you have it in you.

If I have intentions of the kind you doubt I won’t be ever eligible to be member of this team dedicated to the upliftment of the mother India!

Srikanth G N said...

"All are not born equal in r/o of capacity to understand, do a thing, exhibit some talent etc. Mango seed IS MOST LIKELY to give rise to the mango tree and not that of Apple."

@Ramesh
- Can you explain why there were no scientists at highest level until C V Raman post Aryabhata.
- Science requires space for objective analysis and thought process. Ah how could you think further on solar eclipse, it’s a sin, you can’t question rahu because purana say so. Lack of freedom for objective thinking [basic need for science] received severe hindrance by subjective sectional interests resulting in false praising and blind following of vedic karmas and citations.

"Next coming to your understanding of positive varnashrama "
- Guna and karma very nice. Guna and karma go hand in hand.
Guna and karma being seen as different is the greatest flawed theory floated so that they can create a legacy out of it, create slaves who will work for king-priestly class.
You need not be a cobbler to know the great art of polishing shoes. you can be a Gandhi and still do all the things on your own.

So why it is flawed ?
Only thing that holds Guna and karma tightly is Education.
The moment Education was treated different from duty. A potter failed to invent better pots, he did the same old kind of pots which would break the moment they fall. This happened repeatedly for 5000 years. And we boast they are natural freezers etc..how silly it is to hear such false appreciation.
- I do not understand what kind of science was imparted to those Brahmins who could not think beyond altar.
- Astronomy started with identification of planets & stars etc to some extent, later stopped with addition of rahu and ketu a dirty dumb meaning less story/purana.
- If a Brahmin who claims to be imparted with that great vedic sense and science, considering the current scarcity of food and wood we are facing, he would have stopped putting the twigs,wood, rice, cloth into the altar.

The Hindu scriptures that we read clearly distinguishes 2 sets of people. People who were busy deciphering human mind traveling on the vehicle called human thought/thinking reached to the conclusion about something called Brahman and another set of people who were busy writing shastras and puranas in the way that suited to the advantage of Varnasharma [http://krisgn.blogspot.in/2012/01/progress-of-rama.html ]

Ramesh said...

@ Shrikanth G N

//People who were busy deciphering human mind traveling on the vehicle called human thought/thinking reached to the conclusion about something called Brahman and another set of people who were busy writing shastras and puranas in the way that suited to the advantage of Varnasharma //


You are right. The later set of brahman are in fact Shudras by qualification who see that it results in Advantage to Varnashram.

In fact, Varnashram has been for the better efficiency and effectiveness of the system just like there exists a set of class I, II, III officers in any Govt office. It can't be rigid. So is the case with Hindu castism. Brahmans who are so by birth and not by qualification are causing the havoc with the Hinduism till date. Problem is with the Braahmans (people) and not with Hinduism or Brahman( the ulitmate truth.