Romani,
The problem of missionising is *much* greater and deeper than the examples you provide. (At times, it is far more subtle too than in-your-face religion salesmen.)
Also, it is not always merely individuals who get confronted by it.
It is a very serious matter.
[color="#0000FF"]3.No.Nirvana doesn't mean nothing but is mean more like the notion of Beyond ,not existence,not non-existence,just like Shankara proposed that nirguna is.[/color]
1. English doesn't allow for many words. And one of the closer words for its belief of what lies beyond simply happens to be Nothingness, which is also why it has been used by some non-lay Buddhists in their English-language lectures. Who am I to argue.
They stress this when they explain there is also no "God" in Buddhism.
(BTW, in English, Void is Nothingness, absence of everything.)
But if you wanted to merely dispute terminology, the rest of what I stated still holds. Buddhism denies the reality of Brahman, the Absolute Reality of Hindu religion. I.e. it denies Hindu religion. It denies the Vedas. At its core, Buddhism denies the Gods (Hindu, Taoist, Shinto and every other kind): it denies their reality.
Again: Shankara doesn't deny the Gods, Hindu religion, etc. He does not declare the Gods "unreal".
2. Repeat: Shankara didn't invent nirguna. And the fact that Nirguna is beyond all qualities is the definition of Nirguna Brahman. That It/the Gods certainly continue to Be beyond creation/existence is alluded to in the Gita and elsewhere. Things dissolve back into It. But Its state of being is not dependent on creation - It does not cease to be.
This can not be a discussion: *I'm* not the one you should be arguing with on this, as *I* am not originating these statements. They are there in Hindu texts. (Of course, I may mis-phrase them, but if you tip your head sideways - so to speak - maybe you'll see how my attempts at verbalising is just me parroting existing stuff.)
[color="#0000FF"]You say that Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, truth(of existence),consciousness and happiness .This are clear personal attributes,so Brahman is a Person.[/color]
1. Brahman is SCA. And it's not me saying it. (I don't usually think about "Brahman".)
2. "So brahman is a person". You have not proven this. Your "so"/ergo doesn't mean more than that it is a conclusion *you* saw fit to derive. I didn't derive it at all. Nothing for it then, but for you to produce mathematical proof.
While we wait:
Nirguna Brahman is not "a person", unmanifest Brahman is not "a person" - a phrase that puts certain limitations of perception/understanding of what is meant.
Besides, there is the other error: Brahman need not at all be a single person. "Saguna Brahman" applies to all the Hindu Gods. They are all Parabrahman, the "Supreme Ultimate". Once more, this is not a claim I came up with.
[color="#0000FF"]If he is a person,surely it has other personal attributes and preferences-he may have a favorite form,favorite color and music and so one, no matter what we believe.[/color]
The Gods are certainly real and do have - for lack of a better word - "personalities"; perfect, flawless, divine, individual "characters" that reflect the/ir divine Nature. But they are more than characters, a word which sounds almost random. Hmmm. They are Divinity personified. (English really is a painful language. It just leads me in circles.)
Yes, they certainly have their own personal attributes, as natural to them - and more so - than, say, mine are to me. (They, being perfect, do not really change qua character.)
[color="#0000FF"]Saguna Brahman and Parabrahman mean the same thing ... Parabrahman is a real person(as he is real and have consciousness and happiness).[/color]
Ignoring the "person" statements: Yes, Parabrahman (Saguna or Nirguna) is real. And its state of being is SCA. It's just The Way Things Are.
From what I can make out, the closest to the Hindu view of what "Brahman" is, is to be found in at least one (famous) E Asian tradition - and they make roundabout explanation too. But once they finally have gone through their "explanations" of it, it is rather well-illustrated. (They are very like Hindus in other important respects as well. But they are not the only ones.)
But why are you so adamant in trying to establish a Saguna-only Parabrahman independent of/at the expense of (denying) the Nirguna Brahman?
If you were merely attached exclusively to the Saguna Parabrahman, it would be possible for you to turn only to that and simply not think of the Nirguna (like a great many traditional Hindoos have successfully done; it is not *necessary* for them). But the fact that you want to de-link it entirely - in contradiction to what remains very much established Hindoo religion - suggests something else.
[color="#0000FF"]Buddhist monks describe the Upanishads as teaching bheda-abheda view of Brahman,that before Shankara suggest that abheda(oneness,unmanifest) is more important then bheda(diference,manifest).[/color]
Buddhist monks aren't the authority on Upanishads.
Also, there is a lot more in the Upanishads than on the unmanifest absolute Brahman. (They also speak of the manifest Gods - who are very much a reality.)
Besides, you are the one differentiating, since traditional Hindu paths have always included the religion's established multi-views on Divinity.
1. Monotheism - as defined by the recognised monotheisms - is "one gawd, all *others* are false". It often even includes recognition of the existence of other Gods, but makes the particular insistence that they must not be worshipped. (And even that their followers must be persecuted/converted/killed.)
2. "Monotheistic Tendency" is the arrogant presumption that one's ideology is the Sole Truth, or the Superior Truth to be established over others/in place of others/on top of others, and that Other Ancient Religionists Badly Need To Have It and have been Waiting For It. That established True Traditions must be subordinated to the New-Found (sudden) "Truth".
It is the tendency to want to "save" people by insinuating your ideas on their free time and personal space (E.g. feminism is a perfect case in point.) Maybe other people ... actually don't give a hoot, but would like to be left alone - and will leave you free to believe whatever you want where it does not encroach on others.
Everyone has a right to be left alone. This also makes them free to discover for themselves - independently, which makes the search more honest. And where they are unsubverted, they will discover, if that's what's right for them.
3. An "incapacity to listen to other ideas" is not at all the problem. That is too easy an excuse for the monotheisms. They're not merely unable and unwilling - which implies inaction (and that's not at all a problem in itself: not for others, only for themselves). The problem is that they are particularly on the *offence*: peddling *their* ideas, convinced it is the Only Truth (when usually it is entirely untrue) and that it Must Be Universally Adopted.
The unsubverted populations of the world can manage just fine. If it were up to me, I'd declare them all Non-Contactable Peoples and have done.
Yay! Profound Inanity -
[quote name='agnivayu']Weren't you the same one debating on the other thread about how images are depicted.[/quote]Back up your statement with a link to the post you're referring to. Else there's no point in bringing it up.
The context in which you made the statement defines the scope of it. And the context was monotheism.
As for art though, traditional Hindu art - as an authentic representation of the Hindu Gods - does have very particular ways of depicting the Gods. They are passed down that way. The accurate presentation is considered a part of Hindoo religion. While there is leeway in somethings here, other things never change: else they are not recognised as depictions of the Gods.
Just like why construction of moorties and Kovils have certain specifications governing them.
[quote name='agnivayu']I personally would draw an image ...[/quote]What, what? You draw???? And I thought they said the Age of Miracles was over...
[quote name='agnivayu']You do bark a lot however.
[/quote]Flattery!
See? If you try really really really hard, you *can* inch a bit towards being charming after all. (But mind you don't land yourself in the hospital with your strenuous attempts.)
But why go through the motions? Let's just declare the inevitable: I win.
Oh, but I see now that you had already conceded (and not just for yourself, but for others too - how ungracious of you):
Hmmm, just so no one is left wondering, do you always argue all by yourself and let the Absent Other win? It's certainly a, a ...novel ...approach. But, as I said, who am I to complain when 'tis in my favour. "All's well as ends well." (Etc.)
But enough entertainment. Even though you have been desperately nagging for someone to babysit you, I have to forego the invitation: I have no experience. Really sorry, kid. But: there's no need for you to cry on either, as you're in the care of the capable professionals of IF. They will Parent you.
The problem of missionising is *much* greater and deeper than the examples you provide. (At times, it is far more subtle too than in-your-face religion salesmen.)
Also, it is not always merely individuals who get confronted by it.
It is a very serious matter.
[color="#0000FF"]3.No.Nirvana doesn't mean nothing but is mean more like the notion of Beyond ,not existence,not non-existence,just like Shankara proposed that nirguna is.[/color]
1. English doesn't allow for many words. And one of the closer words for its belief of what lies beyond simply happens to be Nothingness, which is also why it has been used by some non-lay Buddhists in their English-language lectures. Who am I to argue.
They stress this when they explain there is also no "God" in Buddhism.
(BTW, in English, Void is Nothingness, absence of everything.)
But if you wanted to merely dispute terminology, the rest of what I stated still holds. Buddhism denies the reality of Brahman, the Absolute Reality of Hindu religion. I.e. it denies Hindu religion. It denies the Vedas. At its core, Buddhism denies the Gods (Hindu, Taoist, Shinto and every other kind): it denies their reality.
Again: Shankara doesn't deny the Gods, Hindu religion, etc. He does not declare the Gods "unreal".
2. Repeat: Shankara didn't invent nirguna. And the fact that Nirguna is beyond all qualities is the definition of Nirguna Brahman. That It/the Gods certainly continue to Be beyond creation/existence is alluded to in the Gita and elsewhere. Things dissolve back into It. But Its state of being is not dependent on creation - It does not cease to be.
This can not be a discussion: *I'm* not the one you should be arguing with on this, as *I* am not originating these statements. They are there in Hindu texts. (Of course, I may mis-phrase them, but if you tip your head sideways - so to speak - maybe you'll see how my attempts at verbalising is just me parroting existing stuff.)
[color="#0000FF"]You say that Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, truth(of existence),consciousness and happiness .This are clear personal attributes,so Brahman is a Person.[/color]
1. Brahman is SCA. And it's not me saying it. (I don't usually think about "Brahman".)
2. "So brahman is a person". You have not proven this. Your "so"/ergo doesn't mean more than that it is a conclusion *you* saw fit to derive. I didn't derive it at all. Nothing for it then, but for you to produce mathematical proof.
While we wait:
Nirguna Brahman is not "a person", unmanifest Brahman is not "a person" - a phrase that puts certain limitations of perception/understanding of what is meant.
Besides, there is the other error: Brahman need not at all be a single person. "Saguna Brahman" applies to all the Hindu Gods. They are all Parabrahman, the "Supreme Ultimate". Once more, this is not a claim I came up with.
[color="#0000FF"]If he is a person,surely it has other personal attributes and preferences-he may have a favorite form,favorite color and music and so one, no matter what we believe.[/color]
The Gods are certainly real and do have - for lack of a better word - "personalities"; perfect, flawless, divine, individual "characters" that reflect the/ir divine Nature. But they are more than characters, a word which sounds almost random. Hmmm. They are Divinity personified. (English really is a painful language. It just leads me in circles.)
Yes, they certainly have their own personal attributes, as natural to them - and more so - than, say, mine are to me. (They, being perfect, do not really change qua character.)
[color="#0000FF"]Saguna Brahman and Parabrahman mean the same thing ... Parabrahman is a real person(as he is real and have consciousness and happiness).[/color]
Ignoring the "person" statements: Yes, Parabrahman (Saguna or Nirguna) is real. And its state of being is SCA. It's just The Way Things Are.
From what I can make out, the closest to the Hindu view of what "Brahman" is, is to be found in at least one (famous) E Asian tradition - and they make roundabout explanation too. But once they finally have gone through their "explanations" of it, it is rather well-illustrated. (They are very like Hindus in other important respects as well. But they are not the only ones.)
But why are you so adamant in trying to establish a Saguna-only Parabrahman independent of/at the expense of (denying) the Nirguna Brahman?
If you were merely attached exclusively to the Saguna Parabrahman, it would be possible for you to turn only to that and simply not think of the Nirguna (like a great many traditional Hindoos have successfully done; it is not *necessary* for them). But the fact that you want to de-link it entirely - in contradiction to what remains very much established Hindoo religion - suggests something else.
[color="#0000FF"]Buddhist monks describe the Upanishads as teaching bheda-abheda view of Brahman,that before Shankara suggest that abheda(oneness,unmanifest) is more important then bheda(diference,manifest).[/color]
Buddhist monks aren't the authority on Upanishads.
Also, there is a lot more in the Upanishads than on the unmanifest absolute Brahman. (They also speak of the manifest Gods - who are very much a reality.)
Besides, you are the one differentiating, since traditional Hindu paths have always included the religion's established multi-views on Divinity.
Quote:The difference it could be one of terminology-what is the difference between mono and oneness?
Not the fact that they see their religion as superior start the war(though this idea could add fuel),but their incapacity to listen other ideas.
1. Monotheism - as defined by the recognised monotheisms - is "one gawd, all *others* are false". It often even includes recognition of the existence of other Gods, but makes the particular insistence that they must not be worshipped. (And even that their followers must be persecuted/converted/killed.)
2. "Monotheistic Tendency" is the arrogant presumption that one's ideology is the Sole Truth, or the Superior Truth to be established over others/in place of others/on top of others, and that Other Ancient Religionists Badly Need To Have It and have been Waiting For It. That established True Traditions must be subordinated to the New-Found (sudden) "Truth".
It is the tendency to want to "save" people by insinuating your ideas on their free time and personal space (E.g. feminism is a perfect case in point.) Maybe other people ... actually don't give a hoot, but would like to be left alone - and will leave you free to believe whatever you want where it does not encroach on others.
Everyone has a right to be left alone. This also makes them free to discover for themselves - independently, which makes the search more honest. And where they are unsubverted, they will discover, if that's what's right for them.
3. An "incapacity to listen to other ideas" is not at all the problem. That is too easy an excuse for the monotheisms. They're not merely unable and unwilling - which implies inaction (and that's not at all a problem in itself: not for others, only for themselves). The problem is that they are particularly on the *offence*: peddling *their* ideas, convinced it is the Only Truth (when usually it is entirely untrue) and that it Must Be Universally Adopted.
The unsubverted populations of the world can manage just fine. If it were up to me, I'd declare them all Non-Contactable Peoples and have done.
Yay! Profound Inanity -
[quote name='agnivayu']Weren't you the same one debating on the other thread about how images are depicted.[/quote]Back up your statement with a link to the post you're referring to. Else there's no point in bringing it up.
Quote:The way a particular God is drawn is that artist's impression of it.But art is not what you spoke of. You wrote: "The whole idea of monotheism is a crock. Man makes God in his image, so the idea that God is of only one form is flawed. An Advanced Alien civilization will depict God in their form not like a human."
The context in which you made the statement defines the scope of it. And the context was monotheism.
As for art though, traditional Hindu art - as an authentic representation of the Hindu Gods - does have very particular ways of depicting the Gods. They are passed down that way. The accurate presentation is considered a part of Hindoo religion. While there is leeway in somethings here, other things never change: else they are not recognised as depictions of the Gods.
Just like why construction of moorties and Kovils have certain specifications governing them.
[quote name='agnivayu']I personally would draw an image ...[/quote]What, what? You draw???? And I thought they said the Age of Miracles was over...
[quote name='agnivayu']You do bark a lot however.
[/quote]Flattery!
See? If you try really really really hard, you *can* inch a bit towards being charming after all. (But mind you don't land yourself in the hospital with your strenuous attempts.)
Quote:Your threatening attitude doesn't intimidate me one bit.Even more compliments. And I wasn't even trying.
Quote:Husky the dog the only perfect remaining Hindu today. Knows and only speaks the truth.Looks like an invitation for an argument.
But why go through the motions? Let's just declare the inevitable: I win.
Oh, but I see now that you had already conceded (and not just for yourself, but for others too - how ungracious of you):
Quote:Others makes impossible statements.It seems I'm more skilled at arguing than I thought: it's amazing how I won without even being present this time! Particularly impressive is that, despite how obviously hopeless you are in "telepathy" (or whatever it was that you were attempting), your wild conclusions still magically worked on my behalf. (Their veracity - or lack thereof - is another issue. And what do I care about that anyway, when I Won In Absentia. :woohoo
Hmmm, just so no one is left wondering, do you always argue all by yourself and let the Absent Other win? It's certainly a, a ...novel ...approach. But, as I said, who am I to complain when 'tis in my favour. "All's well as ends well." (Etc.)
But enough entertainment. Even though you have been desperately nagging for someone to babysit you, I have to forego the invitation: I have no experience. Really sorry, kid. But: there's no need for you to cry on either, as you're in the care of the capable professionals of IF. They will Parent you.