suryaz

Humm - such-a-bomber

Moreover the failure is a failure in the interim period this would render Krishna in a state of temporary overcomeness. But overcome by what – myay???? Perhaps???? Another point to raise is - if Krishna can become overcome then what of his eternity in nature. An interim would indicate a temporary disposition. Jivas also have a temporary disposition - this it usually theologically defined as the temporary identification with that which is not one’s eternal disposition Suryaz [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-01-2001).]

SAvitri and gAyatrI Recently somebody requested reference to SAvitri and gAyatrI. I do not know which forum it was on – but anyway Last nigh while reading “bRhadAra.nyaka upaniSad” I came across correlated references. They are as follows: BRh Up V. xiv.1-8. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-02-2001).]

What??? We could ask : Why do the Buddhists not have enough compassion and charity to help the peasants improve their living conditions? What of their ahimsa doctrine? Why should the Buddhists group to function so as to violate the improvement of living conditions for the masses encouraged by the Christians? The masses did not take sannyas or monkhood? The monks did. They can live as monks. Are not people free to choose? Or would the Buddhists prefer the peasants could not? Why do the Buddhist not want to promote something other than the peasants' continued living in squallar (tama-guna). Does the poverty of the peasants give them power? If the Buddhists cannot create satva or raja-guna living conditions for the peasants why try to create the continuity of tama-guna tama living conditions. In short could it not be argued that the Buddhists actions do not promote ahimsa at all. Cheers [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-31-2001).]

'Speech is better than a name… KHANDA 2 1 'Mind (manas) is better than speech…. KHANDA 3 1 'Will (sankalpa) is better than mind…. KHANDA 4 1 'Consideration (kitta) is better than will. … KHANDA 5 1 'Reflection (dhyana) is better than consideration. …KHANDA 6 1 'Understanding (vignana) is better than reflection. …. KHANDA 7 1 ‘Power (bala) is better than understanding. … KHANDA 8 1 'Food (anna) is better than power….KHANDA 9 1 'Water (ap) is better than food. …KHAIVDA. 10 1 'Fire (tegas) is better than water….KHANDA 11 1 'Ether (or space) is better than fire…KHANDA.12 1 'Memory, (smara) is better than ether….KHANDA 13 1 'Hope (asa) is better than memory….KHANDA. 14 1 'Spirit (prana) is better than hope. …..KHANDA 15 1 'But in reality he is an ativadin who declares the Highest Being to be the True (Satya).'…KHANDA 16 1 'When one understands the True, then one declares the True. …KHANDA 17 1. 'When one perceives, then one understands. …KHANDA 18 1 'When one believes, then one perceives. … KHANDA 19 1 'When one attends on a tutor (spiritual guide), then one believes… KHANDA 20 1 'When one performs all sacred duties, then one attends really on a tutor..KHANDA 21 1 'When one obtains bliss (in oneself), then one performs duties…KHANDA 22 1 The Infinite (bhuman) is bliss. .. KHANDA 23 1 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite….KHANDA 24 1 (Tr Muller M: KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD ) [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-30-2001).]

...and the cow jumped over the moon

So what of the argument that life cannot come from matter ???? Arguments of this kind are not consistent with the view that the Supreme "can change matter into spirit, or spirit into matter" ?????

bin Laden needs “special handling” To kill him would only fulfil his hearts desire to go down in history as a “martyr for Allah”. The best punishment for him is that the US Kidnap him Give him sex-change operation i.e., Turn him into a female Then send him back to the Taliban

"Lust"??? Why call it lust? Why be so negative? Why not address it as the innate mechanism for the survival of the species? A strong libido is that which directs the continuity of the species/humanity? Why not see it as a God-given function to ensure “natural selection” persists so as to help in his creation .

And what may I ask constitutes “vidya”?

Shvu you are funny, both you and satire make me [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-15-2001).]

Let us try to work out what a "pure devotee" is first. What is a "pure devotee"? Purely devoted to who/what? What does that depend on? What does it include? What does it exclude? By whose estimation are we to accept, (with regard to who “determines”) that which is believed acceptable: included and/or excluded? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-14-2001).]

“Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva, just like Satan in the Islam.” Satyaraja, Certainly in BG devi or maya is described by Krishna as his “divine energy” and is for the jiva difficult to overcome. And in Bhaktivedanta Swami's purport to Chapter 5 Text 16 (BG) he identifies “nescience” as “Satan”. Here, he also mentions that living entities are bewildered by “nescience”. Moreover, he says, that to think oneself as God is the “last snare of nescience”. Sound like he is saying Satan is Maya – Have you got any ideas about this? However, the notion that “Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva” goes back further (than Bhaktivinoda). Are there not traces of that in Srimad Bhagavatam? And Srimad Bhagavatam was published during the 5th century CE. This was before Islam [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-12-2001).] [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-12-2001).]

I thought Bhaktisiddhanta was the orchestrater of the "sadhana as a duty" bit. Satyaraja, Where does Bhaktivinoda do this?

Satyaraja, What were the islamic concepts added by Bhaktivinoda? Suryaz

Not so Satyaraja - "life giving" means ananda. The "eternity" (sat) bit - that you will not prove

From "ethicsBeliefDebste_files/AD0000004932.gif" width=124 0>Many theologians and philosophers of religion are actively involved in the Ethics of Belief Debate. A short collection of essays written by several well-known academics was complied by the American Academy of Religion which clarifies why we have reasons for faith and I would like to share their insights with you. The discussion arises out of the need for theologians and philosophers to justify truth claims about their beliefs. If someone holds a particular religious belief then there should be justifying reasons which warrant conviction of the mind. Hopefully, the reasons are free, inward and self-evident and not necessarily because "Joe told me so" or "this is always what we believed." It was William Clifford who first proposed that we should proportion the confidence we invest in our beliefs to the evidence we have. (2) The essays he published caused quite a stir in his day and encouraged such famous writers as G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis to respond. When we believe, do we assent to the truth "God exists" or do we infer (by experience)? Is what we believe one of the following? Presumption Persuasion Belief Conclusion Conviction or Certainty (excludes doubt) Do our beliefs have: Plausibility Probability Doubtfulness or Untrustworthiness VAN A. HARVEY clearly states that Christians have a duty and are bound by their beliefs to seek the truth. If a Christian belief by definition is the entertaining of propositions incommensurate with the evidence, the Christian cannot be regarded as a lover of truth (a moral virtue) (189), therefore, it is imperative to the Christian to base beliefs upon truth supported by evidence. JOHN NEWMAN proposes that the certainty of a proposition does not consist in the certitude of the mind which contemplates it. (84) For example, not all men discriminate the same way such as identifying particular authors of a book in the Bible. There are also no specific criteria for judging gentlemanly behavior, poetic excellence and heroic action. The belief we hold about the degree of these rests in our own propriety, skill, taste, discretion, art, method and temperament. LESLIE STEPHEN agrees on the grounds that there are other affections which motivate us besides love of the truth; men of equal ability can hold diametrically opposite principles which shows certitude alone is no test of objective truth. (110) Does it follow that nobody ought to be certain? Of course not, but do we: 1) entertain relevant evidence? 2) 2) do our actions based on erroneous belief make the error manifest? (112) Perhaps we can rely on the experience of others - is there a uniformity in nature which expresses itself as to whether some things are good and others bad? Maybe the truth of a belief does not rest on the weight of the evidence, but from whence the weight is derived? Who told you?(157) In love, it would be the degree of truth verified by experience or by experts and we cannot reach certainty because there may be possibilities which we are unable for want of evidence to exclude. (160) You can't alter the effect of the evidence by your feelings about it, "I just feel it in my gut" and if you wish to believe in truth, you would usually act on certain principles. Michael Polanyi's book "Personal Knowledge" calls these kind of principles a fiduciary framework. All of us hold basic propositions which we assume to be true without systematically and critically examining our reasons. Wittgenstein referred to the example of a chess game and his basic belief about the chess pieces - he assumes that they are not arbitrarily going to start changing places. He is content to accept they would not and this has nothing to do with his stupidity or credulity (Van Harvey, 193) it just makes life easier. It has been argued that if one cannot prove the evidence of belief in God, than the effort to do so is meaningless, for example, Immanuel Kant's "If one cannot, one ought not" quote. We also make the assumption that one must adhere to norms and procedures in a particular sphere of study (202) - scientific, analytic - when there may be a host of other ways to find truth. In what proportion (HUME) or threshold (CLIFFORD) do we hold the strength of the evidence? Can truth be assigned degrees? Is there some other VALUE to the evidence, a "solace and private pleasure of the believer" which was disparaged by Clifford, yet nonetheless provides some goods received for holding beliefs which may or may not be illusory. Maybe the key is not so much the objective and universal truth, but the nature of the consequence in believing, or the moral character one is led to as a result of the belief. If one simply is looking toward Truth - than you do not want to distort the issue with values - this is the "Primacy of truth" claim that it is not the proportions of truth, but truth's intrinsic importance. Faith causes knowledge itself - this is what St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine have shown. Aquinas believed that our will is biased to the good of the person by fundamental beliefs which are not typically illusory. What one gains by believing (226) causes the election voluntarily by the will. There are scientific AND volitional justifications for belief and you cannot force yourself to believe "at will" or "unwillingly." Therefore, your will to believe the truth or falsity of a statement is usually based upon reason. < >AAR Studies in Religion 41 Edited by Gerald D. McCarthy Scholars Press, Atlanta Georgia,

………………….. Suryaz: I could not agree with you more – but you have to remember not to act is also to act in more ways than one. Not to act or to act can act to support or act as fallacy. To promote – VIZ: “see the good in others and cultivate the good in ourselves” as a means to establish truth is wonderful in some contexts. However the promotion of such can also be used as a dangerous form of coercion and oppression. Certainly your above mentioned view can be addressed as moralistic in some context of analysis, however it is also a misleading notion or a fallacy of morality in other contexts. The fallacy of moralistic thought results from the generalization of moral imperative into all of ethics. Yes, without a doubt what you speak of is a moral principle for the positive regulation of life. However it does not fare very well in the context where morally indifferent actions are accepted as the norm. And in the context of this discourse we have already establisher the existence of moral indifference through linguistic distortion. Never mind whether the moral indifference is consciously or unconsciously orchestrated, the existence of moral indifference has been established. And the discourse is about how to establish truth (satyam; satva-guna) as the accepted norm in a social environment influenced by aspects of moral indifference (distortion) (tama-guna). Yes you are very clever. You are keeping the gaze on the self. You are keeping the gaze on the self with the aim to mitigate deception. You are being true to the self. Yes in a particular context it works. But this is about combating those who shifting the gaze onto the “other” to orchestrate deception (whether knowingly or unknowingly). It is not about shifting the gaze alone. We all shift the gaze when we pray; when we recognise our self as das, das, das anudas. It is the negative shifting of the gaze; the shifting of the gaze to establish deception (to promote tama-guna) that is wrong. (and your inactive stance could also be argued as the promotion of tama also; some may argue that to not overtly act against deception is to indirectly promote it- since the deceptive act is in the realm of the overt) It is not just the shifting of the gaze we are talking about it is the overt mitigation of deception and the overt establishment of truth of that that deception occurs socially. And yes, I would like to thank you Audrya, as you have just given us another example of more subtle and indirect symbolic confusion: VIZ fallacy in moral conceptualisation. (interesting). [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-29-2001).] [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-29-2001).]

Thanks Talasiga. I will remember that

Telasiga, The · Neglect of abuse · Distortion of abuse · Abuse of abuse · Acceptance of that abuse · Promotion of abuse · The silencing of · Etc. etc., Is "not of sound mind" they are of distortion. I am sure you can make some logic, as with some good poetry out of the above. Perhaps you may begin with “To thine own self be true” and move on from there. Valaya, My apology, - however, we must become more aware of inaccuracies as they occur. Suryaz [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-27-2001).]

Telasiga, Without a doubt, Random knows that the true ksatriya spirit is set in truth and chivalry. The true ksatriya spirit is far from the protection of distortion, injustice and abuse. Suryaz [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-27-2001).]