I know not many (of the few who do visit this site) will want to go through a longish post but I couldn't resist writing of this conversation I had with a Hindu theologian in Yahoo Chat Room. Well! I was surprised that there was another person in the hinduism chat room who didn't come there looking for a lay. I was faking to be a Aussie Philosophy student who knew a little about hinduism.
me: am bored n actually interested in hindusim. thought ppl in the room wud be talking abt it
D: good. yes u wana learn abt philosophy
me: yeah! sort of
D: ask me ur Qs
me: ok! for starters why do u have so many Gods? I accept tht all the Gods r manifestations of the one true god...but y?
D: no no... not manifestation
me: does it not cause trouble... as in who is the better God?
D: no...Look we have one GOD who is supreme and he can do all thingsbut u know what, the devotess of HIM ask for his service... so there are many demi GODS. Get the GIST?
me: i don't quite accept the demi-god theory.see God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. He does not need sidekicks to do his job, right?
D: yes, absolutely rite
me: i think the the demi god thing is a human fabrication
D: no no demi GOD theory is even in Vedas. go check it
me: yes! my precise point... does being in vedas make it the irrevocable truth. wat is the origin of vedas. ofcourse i am not a theologian
D: well well vedas are eternal. and not composed. that is why there are the highest texts of truth. coz no error in it
me: vedas r not eternal... n definitely not god send. none of the scriptures of any religion are. bible is a human effort, koran is one too
D: well its not a scripture....Vedas are eternal. there is a proof for that.
me: infact i think hindu 'philosophy' is best explained in the Bhagavad Gita
D: yes.. its a summary of all vedas
me: Thats surprising. Gita went directly against some of the vedic injunctions. mainly rituals (I was goading him)
me: but wat interests me is the Philosophy of Karma and Maya. i like Advaitha. i like Shankara's philosophy n think everything is unto Him; everything is Him. Karma; that the future is conditioned by the way you live now, what you do now, what you think, what your acts are, your ethics is the philosophy of the masses.it is suited to the present age
D: well! Adviata is not correct though
me: u c, when u get into philosophy, being correct is a very subjective thing.it doesn't matter.infact there is nothing like 'correct' or incorrect'
D: yes one shud know the correct. if there is no correct it wud mean there is nothing incorrect...
me: true. they r simply viewpoints
D: well if so, there would be no concept of GOD/ TRUTH/MORAL or so
me: as long as it gives a set of ethics - dharma, every way is a right way
D: then it can lead to chaos as to there is no rule...
me: i didn't say no rules. ppl choose rules they like... with faith tht it is the right rule
D: when u set a rule.. u obiviously are speaking absolute truth and not relative. if its relative then its not a rule
me: not really... say there are 3 rules and 300 ppl and 100 ppl follow rule 1, 100 rule 2, and another 100 rule 3.everyone follows some rule. No anarchy. as long as there is no or little conflict bet'n the faiths it is fine
D: well ...ur missing a point. what if the rule 1 clashes with rule 2.... it will lead to chaos between set 1 and 2
me: tht is why i am saying tht there are no absolutes. all conflict in the world is b'coz ppl think tht only their faith is true and all other faiths are stupidly, even criminally wrong
D: well then lets debate and come to conclusion
me: there is no debate. there is no conclusion. jus as gita says... just as numerous rivers flow into the same ocean, all faiths lead to same god
D: not really interpreted properly
me: if everyone in the world follows this there is no war or conflict
D: difference is basic
me: and acceptable
D: if there was no evil at all then evil thoughts wouldnt have come
me: i think the hindu philosophy is good b'coz no other religious thought has proclaimed tolerance and emphasised it.
me: if u think islam or christianity is evil... then evil is in u
D: how can Jiva be Brahman?
me: why don't u tell me why it can't be?
D: only because... of "pratyakshaya pramana" and also "said in GITA/Purunas/Vedas".only that Shankara interpreted it wrongly
me: i am not versed in sanskrit and i accept my knowledge of hindusim is shallow
D: yea! then how did u come to conclsuion that sankara is rite
me: i did not say Shankara is rite... did I? I quote... i jus said i liked it and it appeals to my intellect
D: look! liking will only come after ur convinced with it.. so which means its rite
me: which again comes to my previous position - u must be proud tht Hinduism encouraged 'tolerance' and as learned followers of hinduism you should embrace this fact. pls do not say 'My way or the Highway'. u seem too insistent on right n wrong; black n white
D: yes
me: which i feel is very against the fundamental principles of hindusim
D: huh?
me: the fundamental principle of hinduism is 'tolerance' - again quoting Gita - there are some who reach God by Bakthi, Gnana or Karma yogas (paths) but they all lead to the One Supreme
D: well selfless act can be achived with duality also
me: i do not say duality is wrong. all i am asking is accept tht jus as duality is right so can advaitha be right
D: how can 2 statements .. which contradict each other be true
me: truth in this philosophic pt of view is not a scientific certainty. it does not follow like that if the earth is round it cannot be flat
D: we gotta debate to know the truth
me: is there anything to debate... every philosophy has its pluses n minuses and u believe otherwise. i am not supporting advaitha or for tht matter any one philosophical viewpoint. i agree tht for all i know dvaitha may be more precise than advaitha. but does it matter. embrace everything but follow one path tht u feel passionate abt. there is a tamil poetry in my desk tht says (and I quoted Yaathum Oore)
D: just a poem
me: wat do u mean by 'jus a poem'
D: do peom say what truth is
me: can't u see tht u r trying to gauge things by not wat it says but who says it
D: yes. ofcourse
me: does being in a generally accepted book means it is right
D: nooooo not at all. only authorless text can be authorative
me: who decides wat authoritative text is. how do u know there is no author
D: well there is a logic behind why vedas are said authorless
me: may be i should correct ur idea tht while Vedas as u know it has an accepted author. it is only said that seers had 'visions' of the veda as it was - tht is where the eternal thing comes in to play but there is a mortal hand in it
D: nono u are mistaken my dear. The receipeints of vedas are just seers to it. they did not create it and the seers themself have said, we are just recepients of the unauthored vedas
me: yes i accepted it, i am jus saying tht they were mortals who saw the vedas in some form
D: so now Vedas becoem the highest authorative text as its flawless
me: so.. lemme ask u as conjecture - wat if the seers wrote it themselves and said they were unauthored texts. would u or i be able to prove tht they were indeed unauthored. jus for sake of argument
D: ok for such arguments.. are raised and being answered. answer for that... its just not said by one seer... its by thoushands and all are seperated by a considerable locus. they see/hear the Vedas and thats why its called "SHRUTI"
me: i believe if u look objectively... it doesn't matter if they r unauthored or authored. wud the light bulb not glow if it was i instead of edison who invented it
D: its not that it came from recent times... its known from unknown time
me: i am leaving now - but i'll send u a couple of files. again i do not vouch for the authenticity of the views of the author and am sending it b'coz i found it interesting
D: well i only read authentic texts. i shud be convinced that it is authentic.. else no point
me: should it be signed by God
D: coz i will waste my time
D: vedas speak of puranas.. and hence these authored texts are authentic to me. puranas are written by Lord himself. like he preached GITA
me: i do not believe Gita was spoken by Krishna during the war jus as i do not believe tht puranas were written by the God himself as a sort of pastime
D: yes i undertsnad why u dont belive. coz u see the WORLD as just a illusion
me: i am afraid ppl r so much into who says wat that they forget tht the important thing is the message. as i said before wud it matter if Krishna did not speak the gita
D: Yes
me: maybe some philosopher 1000 yrs later thought it wud be nice to use Krishna as the mode of the message. message is the core. there is truth only in the message not in the messenger
D: well u dont get the GIST
me: u r so GULLIBLE...i have to laugh
Time whizzes by and I, I write of glimpses I steal
11 comments:
he may not be correct about hinduism or the vedas being the absolute... but ram wat on earth did u mean wen u said there is a difference in the philosophic and the scientific view point? are u trying to say that there are no absolutes in the world (i aint saying that the vedas are!)? u mean to say that u can eat the cake and yet have it?
or have i become gullible too???
There really is no difference between science and philosophy...They are both one and the same. They are both our quests to attain the truth and the premise of both these disciplines is the fact that one such truth exists. If one such truth does not exist, then even the simplest of questions cannot be answered..... Just the fact that these questions cannot be answered does not prove that this "truth" doesnt exist. It just proves that if u believe that no such "truth" exists then there is no "belief"...there is no point in asking questions...because no question ever has any answer....
I am sorry for being a little confusing...but read it a couple of times and i think u will get the point....
Basically the gist is
"If there is no answer then there is no point in asking a question....
In Previous post i realize there was a TYPO...I am correcting it here
Just the fact that these questions cannot be answered does not prove that this "truth" does exist. It just proves that if u believe that no such "truth" exists then there is no "belief"...there is no point in asking questions...because no question ever has any answer....
Ashok
My point here is that there is no 'one' answer with all other answers being wrong. In my opinion there lies the difference between science and philosophy.
All life is a quest to find our own version of the 'truth'. I am just trying to point that while faith is good, it has now grown to a degree of chauvinism that is counterproductive. The core message is lost when people dwell on superficial aspects of the core message. It is like having an antibiotic with just the plastic coated capsule (and nothing else inside), if you know what I mean.
But I do agree that an 'answer' is an incentive to begin questioning.
Shashi! I guess I have answered it when I answered Ashok. My point is that I can't see the term absolutely correct and absolutely wrong applied with respect to philosophies. As I kept emphasising - it countermands tolerance.
can there be two "opinions" about the truth? is not the truth, by virtue of its existance, the absolute, and hence, not relative to any subjective opinions? oh yes, i do agree that most people tend to "dwell on the superficial aspects of the core message"
Shashi!
Isn't it THE QUESTION. Is there an absolute truth? I don't know. Maybe. Was discussing a similar topic with a friend, a much more learned man in the history of religions and philiosophies and his opinion is that the real religious experience is 'nothingness' i.e. emptying our minds of all thought and in that state there is no philosophy - no absolute truth or relative truth. (I do remember a Mahabaratha story where in the greatest archer is one with no bow- if someone remembers tht story, can they elaborate). It is his opinion that the fundamental premise, 'I think, therefore I am' is flawed. Maybe. I don't know. I am just begining to understand abc or philosophy and it would take a level of expertise n greater experience to go beyond individual philosophies into nothingness.
your nothingness is my philosophy
p.s: y the exclaimation??
i am jus so excited whenever i talk to ya... thats y exclamation. Shashi!
If you are smart enough to know what a quantu-gap is them maybe you can understand:
===========================
Reality is Silence
the Universe is its noise
Silence is the quantum-gap.
Noise is all around
but none can enter this Reality,
the quantum-gap, Silence.
The quantum-gap filters noise into thoughts.
The quantum-gap filters noise into thoughts
the mind has for all its
ignorance and knowledge
order and chaos.
The order is NOW
and chaos is time.
The quantum-gap filters the thoughts we call particles
into the elements the universe needs for all its
metals and non-metals
chaos and order
order and chaos.
The order is Maya, Now
the Chaos is Karma, time.
I AM SILENCE
I AM Untouchable, Complete and Content.
I need no gods
‘cause I need no servants
And if I needed servants
I would still need no gods.
I need no scriptures
‘cause I need no toilet paper
And if I did need toilet paper
I would still need no scriptures.
I AM Silence
that some call Samadhi
but the gods call nothing
even though I AM the EVERYTHING
without which there is no noise
I filter into thoughts, particles, toilet paper
and gods.
Reality is SILENCE
these words are its noise.
Post a Comment