God in Vedas and Upanishads
Sushil Bhatnagar June 1, 2006
#201 Posted by Inquirer on July 5, 2006 12:31:08 pm
Re: # 172: So, this is the conclusion:
1. There are very few people who have enough knowledge to distinguish between Vedas and Vedanta.
2. urstruly and krishna_abcd exchange shows that neither Hindus nor Muslims are free of their -unalterable? - biases.
3. krishna_abcd`s #199 shows that alot of brahmins are masquerading under anti-Islam flag to bring th Brahminical dominance back to Hindu fold. I think if such prevail that is an omen for Hindus.
4. Thanks harshreality.
1. There are very few people who have enough knowledge to distinguish between Vedas and Vedanta.
2. urstruly and krishna_abcd exchange shows that neither Hindus nor Muslims are free of their -unalterable? - biases.
3. krishna_abcd`s #199 shows that alot of brahmins are masquerading under anti-Islam flag to bring th Brahminical dominance back to Hindu fold. I think if such prevail that is an omen for Hindus.
4. Thanks harshreality.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#200 Posted by harshreality on June 24, 2006 6:30:41 am
#195 by Inquirer on June
i have some knowladge of theory of karma.operative content of theory of karma as per jain philosophy is ``there is now power who is managing everything. univerce is eternal.
soul is in pure form had no karma attached to it.but souls actions attached karma to soul.
only way to pure soul is minimize actions which attach strong karmas to soul.so soule can librate from karma & librate from never ending cycle of birth & die.when soul shunn all karmas he can become omniscient who could see everything & had every knowladge.
he didnt have any confusion abt anything``
I think above is basic.
but if somebody want extensive knowladge then he have to go some learn person.
i have some knowladge of theory of karma.operative content of theory of karma as per jain philosophy is ``there is now power who is managing everything. univerce is eternal.
soul is in pure form had no karma attached to it.but souls actions attached karma to soul.
only way to pure soul is minimize actions which attach strong karmas to soul.so soule can librate from karma & librate from never ending cycle of birth & die.when soul shunn all karmas he can become omniscient who could see everything & had every knowladge.
he didnt have any confusion abt anything``
I think above is basic.
but if somebody want extensive knowladge then he have to go some learn person.
#199 Posted by krishna_abcd on June 22, 2006 7:35:32 pm
#198 by Inquirer
[In view of your conveniently forgetting to define ``philosophical content`` when asked for..]
No. I did not forget. I don`t think it is necessary to define very common word in the lexicon before I use it here on this website. I might as well ask you to define the word ``define`` before I give you a definition. All this semantic sword-play is not going to hide the fact that on points, you have NOTHING to say.
[... after you dismissed Islamic conception of the creation of the world, one can only infer that your aim is to denigrate Islam and its scriptures.
I can not participate in that. ]
Heh heh. Yes. I dismissed it all right. But your anger raises this question in my mind - are you Christian, or maybe a Dalistan freak-job?
[As far as I am concerned Urstruly has addressed your original concern. Of course, he took an easy path to do it and put the burden of finding the answer on yourself. I tried to help but you still refused to see it. ]
Yes. Your help. I highly appreciate it. I was talking to you not because I thought you are very qualified to talk about these things, but because you were polite. There is no two-way ``divergence`` in Hindu Philosophy, for example. Although your article is an amaeturish, undereducated attempt, I did not want to be rude. Your idiotic assertion that the Upanishads was distinct from the Vedas, for example.
[I will repeat again that Hindus have to (and this time ``have to`` means ``have to`` ) to stop looking down upon other religions. Otherwise they are no better than the Wahaabis.]
Or else what? Hindus ``have to`` do nothing. You can take your non-Hindu (Christian/Dalistani?) rants somewhere else.
Have a nice life.
[In view of your conveniently forgetting to define ``philosophical content`` when asked for..]
No. I did not forget. I don`t think it is necessary to define very common word in the lexicon before I use it here on this website. I might as well ask you to define the word ``define`` before I give you a definition. All this semantic sword-play is not going to hide the fact that on points, you have NOTHING to say.
[... after you dismissed Islamic conception of the creation of the world, one can only infer that your aim is to denigrate Islam and its scriptures.
I can not participate in that. ]
Heh heh. Yes. I dismissed it all right. But your anger raises this question in my mind - are you Christian, or maybe a Dalistan freak-job?
[As far as I am concerned Urstruly has addressed your original concern. Of course, he took an easy path to do it and put the burden of finding the answer on yourself. I tried to help but you still refused to see it. ]
Yes. Your help. I highly appreciate it. I was talking to you not because I thought you are very qualified to talk about these things, but because you were polite. There is no two-way ``divergence`` in Hindu Philosophy, for example. Although your article is an amaeturish, undereducated attempt, I did not want to be rude. Your idiotic assertion that the Upanishads was distinct from the Vedas, for example.
[I will repeat again that Hindus have to (and this time ``have to`` means ``have to`` ) to stop looking down upon other religions. Otherwise they are no better than the Wahaabis.]
Or else what? Hindus ``have to`` do nothing. You can take your non-Hindu (Christian/Dalistani?) rants somewhere else.
Have a nice life.
#198 Posted by Inquirer on June 22, 2006 10:41:03 am
Re: # 186:
In view of your conveniently forgetting to define ``philosophical content`` when asked for after you dismissed Islamic conception of the creation of the world, one can only infer that your aim is to denigrate Islam and its scriptures.
I can not participate in that.
As far as I am concerned Urstruly has addressed your original concern. Of course, he took an easy path to do it and put the burden of finding the answer on yourself. I tried to help but you still refused to see it.
I will repeat again that Hindus have to (and this time ``have to`` means ``have to`` ) to stop looking down upon other religions. Otherwise they are no better than the Wahaabis.
In view of your conveniently forgetting to define ``philosophical content`` when asked for after you dismissed Islamic conception of the creation of the world, one can only infer that your aim is to denigrate Islam and its scriptures.
I can not participate in that.
As far as I am concerned Urstruly has addressed your original concern. Of course, he took an easy path to do it and put the burden of finding the answer on yourself. I tried to help but you still refused to see it.
I will repeat again that Hindus have to (and this time ``have to`` means ``have to`` ) to stop looking down upon other religions. Otherwise they are no better than the Wahaabis.
#197 Posted by krishna_abcd on June 22, 2006 9:18:36 am
#187 by Urstruly
[#185 Krishna
You write: ``As you can see, the thought processes are primitive, crude and lacking any sophistication. There is a sum total of ZERO philosophical content. ``
Answer:
and none was claimed.]
I`m glad to see that you are honest enough to admit it.
[As a matter of fact I did write a number of posts below to explain just this point that Islam does not present its universal vision in some convoluted phiolophical, jargon heavy, polemic. It is as simple as it can get. It is a vision that even the lowest common denominator in the human intelligence can understand. It puts forth examples from everyday life that an ordinary human being witnesses with his own eyes.]
If you say that it is a simple-minded religion for simple-minded folks, you will get no argument from me.
[But as it is said that `less is more`, it is the case with Islam as well.]
A student once tried the ``less is more`` approach in an exam. For every difficult question, he wrote ``X`` as an answer. THe examiners still gave him a big, fat ZERO.
[If a religion is so, so that its ``essence`` could be understood by only select few with supehuman divinely induced intelligence then it creates classes with in religion, as it has happened in Hinduism or Catholicism, where only a class of priests cliams to be the knower of the truth and rest are only expected to follow rituals.]
Actually this is nonsense repeated by people who try to show Hinduism in a bad light. I could give you many quotes that explicitly states that anyone could choose to learn Hindu philosophy - and many have through history. In fact there are no ``rules`` in Hinduism that bar people from doing anything (I am talking about Hindu philosophy here). Many of the great sages over the millenia have been people from non-priestly classes. Priests were people who did it as a livelihood, but no one was barred from learning anything.
[This is not the case with Islam. The argument is so simple, the leaps of faith are so few that every individual who wishes to understand it, can. I do not understand why a concept has to be complex and beyond understanding to be considered as valid. Please explain. ]
The concept of god arose in primitive societies when man was incapable of expaining phenomena like storms and thunder and lightning, and earthquakes and so on. When people could not explain something, they answered it with an ``X`` - that ``X`` was ``God``. That was the explanation for everything. Islam and Christianity are no different than this primitive thinking. But Indian society developed philosphies that went beyond this kind of primitive thinking - collectively known today as ``Hindu`` philosophy - although it did not have a name - it used to be called ``sanatana dharma`` or ``eternal philosophy`` (The word ``dharma`` does not mean the same thing as the word ``religion``).
[#185 Krishna
You write: ``As you can see, the thought processes are primitive, crude and lacking any sophistication. There is a sum total of ZERO philosophical content. ``
Answer:
and none was claimed.]
I`m glad to see that you are honest enough to admit it.
[As a matter of fact I did write a number of posts below to explain just this point that Islam does not present its universal vision in some convoluted phiolophical, jargon heavy, polemic. It is as simple as it can get. It is a vision that even the lowest common denominator in the human intelligence can understand. It puts forth examples from everyday life that an ordinary human being witnesses with his own eyes.]
If you say that it is a simple-minded religion for simple-minded folks, you will get no argument from me.
[But as it is said that `less is more`, it is the case with Islam as well.]
A student once tried the ``less is more`` approach in an exam. For every difficult question, he wrote ``X`` as an answer. THe examiners still gave him a big, fat ZERO.
[If a religion is so, so that its ``essence`` could be understood by only select few with supehuman divinely induced intelligence then it creates classes with in religion, as it has happened in Hinduism or Catholicism, where only a class of priests cliams to be the knower of the truth and rest are only expected to follow rituals.]
Actually this is nonsense repeated by people who try to show Hinduism in a bad light. I could give you many quotes that explicitly states that anyone could choose to learn Hindu philosophy - and many have through history. In fact there are no ``rules`` in Hinduism that bar people from doing anything (I am talking about Hindu philosophy here). Many of the great sages over the millenia have been people from non-priestly classes. Priests were people who did it as a livelihood, but no one was barred from learning anything.
[This is not the case with Islam. The argument is so simple, the leaps of faith are so few that every individual who wishes to understand it, can. I do not understand why a concept has to be complex and beyond understanding to be considered as valid. Please explain. ]
The concept of god arose in primitive societies when man was incapable of expaining phenomena like storms and thunder and lightning, and earthquakes and so on. When people could not explain something, they answered it with an ``X`` - that ``X`` was ``God``. That was the explanation for everything. Islam and Christianity are no different than this primitive thinking. But Indian society developed philosphies that went beyond this kind of primitive thinking - collectively known today as ``Hindu`` philosophy - although it did not have a name - it used to be called ``sanatana dharma`` or ``eternal philosophy`` (The word ``dharma`` does not mean the same thing as the word ``religion``).
#196 Posted by krishna_abcd on June 22, 2006 8:53:00 am
#193 by Inquirer
[I am enjoying interaction with you because, like me, you do follow explicitly the thread of an argument. ]
Unfortunately it is a very rare trait.
[1. By rational I mean not optimal, not fair, not universal; simply, that a logical system - though it may be totally arbitrary that arises from a prophet or a committee following him/her. ]
Here`s some of the definitions of the word ``rational``:
Having or exercising the ability to reason.
Of sound mind; sane.
Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.
SO I`ll give you a piece of advice, if you do not mind:
You need to take a stand-apart view of definitions and reduce coloration from your individual ideas of what a word means. :)
[2. By psychology I do not mean any individual. I refer to the psychology of humanity as recognized by ``rishis.`` In the current context, God exists only in the community collective brain. See the the quotation from Brihad Aranyak in the Summary of the Article. ]
Maybe, but when you say that non-Semitic religion - Hinduism - in the current context, is ``based on psychology``, you are making a very sweeping statement. There are two aspects of religion - social and spiritual. The social flows from the spiritual, but the spiritual aspect is the true aspect of a ``religion`` like Hinduism (of course, Hinduism is not a ``religion`` in the same sense as Christianity or Islam). In the spiritual aspect, or the true aspect, the society, or the concept of ``God`` as understood by the society, does not matter. So to say that Hinduism is based on psychology is an inaccurate statment.
[3. By ``granting`` I mean recognizing that the various populations would have their own premises and the related rules of derivation of conclusions therefrom, irrespective of what you think. ]
Yes, different populations will have their own premises. Like the Nazis, for example. But I don`t ``have to`` grant them their premise. If I think their premise is bone-headed, it should be okay to say so.
[4. Religions are the cults that have lasted a long time. ]
Yes. In the conventional meaning of the word ``religion``. But not as it applies to Hinduism.
[5. Success of societies are documented by the history, your individual view is unimportant.]
Where in ``history`` has this ``success`` been documented? I am guessing, only in your ``individual`` brain.
[6. Yes, the Muslims did not rule some parts but from India to Spain they ruled.]
Muslims did not rule most of the ``known`` world - by landmass, and by population. So what`s your point?
[And the technology advanced under them most rapidly. ]
Technology like what?
[It is interesting you noted the similarity with kaalchakra. I like his ways of thinking. See Buddhism Essay. I am concerned to find that he is undergoing some surgery. Let us hope he will be back among us soon. No, I am Inquirer in Chowk and New York Times for past 8 years. ]
He was prone to making ambiguous statements, and sought to modify his views to please people at times.
[By the way, a piece of advice, if you do not mind:
You need to take a stand-apart view of arguments and reduce coloration from your individual preferences/prejudices. Try to see truth independent of your self. ]
Here`s another piece of advice for you. Give advice ONLY AFTER establishing that your advice is relevant.
[I am enjoying interaction with you because, like me, you do follow explicitly the thread of an argument. ]
Unfortunately it is a very rare trait.
[1. By rational I mean not optimal, not fair, not universal; simply, that a logical system - though it may be totally arbitrary that arises from a prophet or a committee following him/her. ]
Here`s some of the definitions of the word ``rational``:
Having or exercising the ability to reason.
Of sound mind; sane.
Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.
SO I`ll give you a piece of advice, if you do not mind:
You need to take a stand-apart view of definitions and reduce coloration from your individual ideas of what a word means. :)
[2. By psychology I do not mean any individual. I refer to the psychology of humanity as recognized by ``rishis.`` In the current context, God exists only in the community collective brain. See the the quotation from Brihad Aranyak in the Summary of the Article. ]
Maybe, but when you say that non-Semitic religion - Hinduism - in the current context, is ``based on psychology``, you are making a very sweeping statement. There are two aspects of religion - social and spiritual. The social flows from the spiritual, but the spiritual aspect is the true aspect of a ``religion`` like Hinduism (of course, Hinduism is not a ``religion`` in the same sense as Christianity or Islam). In the spiritual aspect, or the true aspect, the society, or the concept of ``God`` as understood by the society, does not matter. So to say that Hinduism is based on psychology is an inaccurate statment.
[3. By ``granting`` I mean recognizing that the various populations would have their own premises and the related rules of derivation of conclusions therefrom, irrespective of what you think. ]
Yes, different populations will have their own premises. Like the Nazis, for example. But I don`t ``have to`` grant them their premise. If I think their premise is bone-headed, it should be okay to say so.
[4. Religions are the cults that have lasted a long time. ]
Yes. In the conventional meaning of the word ``religion``. But not as it applies to Hinduism.
[5. Success of societies are documented by the history, your individual view is unimportant.]
Where in ``history`` has this ``success`` been documented? I am guessing, only in your ``individual`` brain.
[6. Yes, the Muslims did not rule some parts but from India to Spain they ruled.]
Muslims did not rule most of the ``known`` world - by landmass, and by population. So what`s your point?
[And the technology advanced under them most rapidly. ]
Technology like what?
[It is interesting you noted the similarity with kaalchakra. I like his ways of thinking. See Buddhism Essay. I am concerned to find that he is undergoing some surgery. Let us hope he will be back among us soon. No, I am Inquirer in Chowk and New York Times for past 8 years. ]
He was prone to making ambiguous statements, and sought to modify his views to please people at times.
[By the way, a piece of advice, if you do not mind:
You need to take a stand-apart view of arguments and reduce coloration from your individual preferences/prejudices. Try to see truth independent of your self. ]
Here`s another piece of advice for you. Give advice ONLY AFTER establishing that your advice is relevant.
#195 Posted by Inquirer on June 22, 2006 7:59:46 am
Re: # 194, harshreality:
Are you Jain? Do you know what is the operative content of Jain Karma theory? I can find books on the internet by myself. What I want is a personal description. But you got to know first!
Are you Jain? Do you know what is the operative content of Jain Karma theory? I can find books on the internet by myself. What I want is a personal description. But you got to know first!
#194 Posted by harshreality on June 22, 2006 7:02:29 am
#193 by Inquirer on June
You can find number of gr8 books on theory of karma on this site
http://www.jainworld.com/library/jain_books11.asp
You can find number of gr8 books on theory of karma on this site
http://www.jainworld.com/library/jain_books11.asp
#193 Posted by Inquirer on June 22, 2006 6:02:58 am
Re: # 192, krishna_abcd:
I am enjoying interaction with you because, like me, you do follow explicitly the thread of an argument.
The responses below are in sequence to your comments on my observations.
1. By rational I mean not optimal, not fair, not universal; simply, that a logical system - though it may be totally arbitrary that arises from a prophet or a committee following him/her.
2. By psychology I do not mean any individual. I refer to the psychology of humanity as recognized by ``rishis.`` In the current context, God exists only in the community collective brain. See the the quotation from Brihad Aranyak in the Summary of the Article.
3. By ``granting`` I mean recognizing that the various populations would have their own premises and the related rules of derivation of conclusions therefrom, irrespective of what you think.
4. Religions are the cults that have lasted a long time.
5. Success of societies are documented by the history, your individual view is unimportant.
6. Yes, the Muslims did not rule some parts but from India to Spain they ruled. And the technology advanced under them most rapidly.
It is interesting you noted the similarity with kaalchakra. I like his ways of thinking. See Buddhism Essay. I am concerned to find that he is undergoing some surgery. Let us hope he will be back among us soon. No, I am Inquirer in Chowk and New York Times for past 8 years.
By the way, a piece of advice, if you do not mind:
You need to take a stand-apart view of arguments and reduce coloration from your individual preferences/prejudices. Try to see truth independent of your self.
I am enjoying interaction with you because, like me, you do follow explicitly the thread of an argument.
The responses below are in sequence to your comments on my observations.
1. By rational I mean not optimal, not fair, not universal; simply, that a logical system - though it may be totally arbitrary that arises from a prophet or a committee following him/her.
2. By psychology I do not mean any individual. I refer to the psychology of humanity as recognized by ``rishis.`` In the current context, God exists only in the community collective brain. See the the quotation from Brihad Aranyak in the Summary of the Article.
3. By ``granting`` I mean recognizing that the various populations would have their own premises and the related rules of derivation of conclusions therefrom, irrespective of what you think.
4. Religions are the cults that have lasted a long time.
5. Success of societies are documented by the history, your individual view is unimportant.
6. Yes, the Muslims did not rule some parts but from India to Spain they ruled. And the technology advanced under them most rapidly.
It is interesting you noted the similarity with kaalchakra. I like his ways of thinking. See Buddhism Essay. I am concerned to find that he is undergoing some surgery. Let us hope he will be back among us soon. No, I am Inquirer in Chowk and New York Times for past 8 years.
By the way, a piece of advice, if you do not mind:
You need to take a stand-apart view of arguments and reduce coloration from your individual preferences/prejudices. Try to see truth independent of your self.
#192 Posted by krishna_abcd on June 21, 2006 5:44:31 pm
#191 by Inquirer
[As I have repeatedly tried to explain Semitic religions are not based in psychology, they are rational systems. ]
Rational? Really?
And non-Semitic systems are based on psychology? Whose psychology?
[You have to grant them their fundamental premise and agree to certain rules of derivations from the premise.]
Why do I have to?
[Once you do that they evolve into a way of life which has the rigidity of an arbitrary formulation as well as the absence of self-standing validity. ]
I agree. This is true of most cults.
[The efficacy of the religions and consequently their ways of life is determined by the coherence of the societies they engender, the success of which, since times immemorial, has been judged by the military prowess. ]
Judged by who? Not me certainly. Or people like me.
[From this formulation, the Muslims were the dominant people of the World from eightth to fifteenth century AD.]
I disagree. Most of Europe, China, and South East Asia were outside their evil influence.
[Now since Islam is the religion of discussion at hand, the premise is: God is all powerful. The rule of derivations is that the prosperity of Muslims HAS to be assured. Therefore, for the inter-community interactions Muslims should first convince the non-Islamics to convert, if they do not, then see what military tactics can do to remove the obstructions.]
This is true.
[The seeming abolishment of hereditary classification/caste systems in Islam made it attractive to the down troddens in other religions. That is why the rapid expansion of Islam occurred in 9-13 centuries. No doubt the rational use of war tactics also went a long way.]
Yes. Seeming abolishment.
BTW, are you Kaalchakra in a different incarnation? You sure sound like him.
[As I have repeatedly tried to explain Semitic religions are not based in psychology, they are rational systems. ]
Rational? Really?
And non-Semitic systems are based on psychology? Whose psychology?
[You have to grant them their fundamental premise and agree to certain rules of derivations from the premise.]
Why do I have to?
[Once you do that they evolve into a way of life which has the rigidity of an arbitrary formulation as well as the absence of self-standing validity. ]
I agree. This is true of most cults.
[The efficacy of the religions and consequently their ways of life is determined by the coherence of the societies they engender, the success of which, since times immemorial, has been judged by the military prowess. ]
Judged by who? Not me certainly. Or people like me.
[From this formulation, the Muslims were the dominant people of the World from eightth to fifteenth century AD.]
I disagree. Most of Europe, China, and South East Asia were outside their evil influence.
[Now since Islam is the religion of discussion at hand, the premise is: God is all powerful. The rule of derivations is that the prosperity of Muslims HAS to be assured. Therefore, for the inter-community interactions Muslims should first convince the non-Islamics to convert, if they do not, then see what military tactics can do to remove the obstructions.]
This is true.
[The seeming abolishment of hereditary classification/caste systems in Islam made it attractive to the down troddens in other religions. That is why the rapid expansion of Islam occurred in 9-13 centuries. No doubt the rational use of war tactics also went a long way.]
Yes. Seeming abolishment.
BTW, are you Kaalchakra in a different incarnation? You sure sound like him.
#191 Posted by Inquirer on June 21, 2006 11:26:15 am
As I have repeatedly tried to explain Semitic religions are not based in psychology, they are rational systems.
You have to grant them their fundamental premise and agree to certain rules of derivations from the premise. Once you do that they evolve into a way of life which has the rigidity of an arbitrary formulation as well as the absence of self-standing validity.
The efficacy of the religions and consequently their ways of life is determined by the coherence of the societies they engender, the success of which, since times immemorial, has been judged by the military prowess.
From this formulation, the Muslims were the dominant people of the World from eightth to fifteenth century AD. And Christians have been from sixteenth to now. Of course, the success of Christians was assured by the scientific component of the Enlightenment.
Now since Islam is the religion of discussion at hand, the premise is: God is all powerful. The rule of derivations is that the prosperity of Muslims HAS to be assured. Therefore, for the inter-community interactions Muslims should first convince the non-Islamics to convert, if they do not, then see what military tactics can do to remove the obstructions.
The seeming abolishment of hereditary classification/caste systems in Islam made it attractive to the down troddens in other religions. That is why the rapid expansion of Islam occurred in 9-13 centuries. No doubt the rational use of war tactics also went a long way.
You have to grant them their fundamental premise and agree to certain rules of derivations from the premise. Once you do that they evolve into a way of life which has the rigidity of an arbitrary formulation as well as the absence of self-standing validity.
The efficacy of the religions and consequently their ways of life is determined by the coherence of the societies they engender, the success of which, since times immemorial, has been judged by the military prowess.
From this formulation, the Muslims were the dominant people of the World from eightth to fifteenth century AD. And Christians have been from sixteenth to now. Of course, the success of Christians was assured by the scientific component of the Enlightenment.
Now since Islam is the religion of discussion at hand, the premise is: God is all powerful. The rule of derivations is that the prosperity of Muslims HAS to be assured. Therefore, for the inter-community interactions Muslims should first convince the non-Islamics to convert, if they do not, then see what military tactics can do to remove the obstructions.
The seeming abolishment of hereditary classification/caste systems in Islam made it attractive to the down troddens in other religions. That is why the rapid expansion of Islam occurred in 9-13 centuries. No doubt the rational use of war tactics also went a long way.
#190 Posted by Inquirer on June 21, 2006 11:01:36 am
Re: # 188, yrstruly:
Your correction is incorrect! Why add otherwise?
Your correction is incorrect! Why add otherwise?
#189 Posted by Inquirer on June 21, 2006 10:52:26 am
Re: # 186, krishna_abcd:
Define philosophical content.
Define philosophical content.
#188 Posted by Urstruly on June 21, 2006 9:49:53 am
The first line in #187 should read ``and none was claimed otherwise.
#187 Posted by Urstruly on June 21, 2006 9:44:13 am
#185 Krishna
You write: ``As you can see, the thought processes are primitive, crude and lacking any sophistication. There is a sum total of ZERO philosophical content. ``
Answer:
and none was claimed. As a matter of fact I did write a number of posts below to explain just this point that Islam does not present its universal vision in some convoluted phiolophical, jargon heavy, polemic. It is as simple as it can get. It is a vision that even the lowest common denominator in the human intelligence can understand. It puts forth examples from everyday life that an ordinary human being witnesses with his own eyes. But as it is said that `less is more`, it is the case with Islam as well. If a religion is so, so that its ``essence`` could be understood by only select few with supehuman divinely induced intelligence then it creates classes with in religion, as it has happened in Hinduism or Catholicism, where only a class of priests cliams to be the knower of the truth and rest are only expected to follow rituals. This is not the case with Islam. The argument is so simple, the leaps of faith are so few that every individual who wishes to understand it, can. I do not understand why a concept has to be complex and beyond understanding to be considered as valid. Please explain.
You write: ``As you can see, the thought processes are primitive, crude and lacking any sophistication. There is a sum total of ZERO philosophical content. ``
Answer:
and none was claimed. As a matter of fact I did write a number of posts below to explain just this point that Islam does not present its universal vision in some convoluted phiolophical, jargon heavy, polemic. It is as simple as it can get. It is a vision that even the lowest common denominator in the human intelligence can understand. It puts forth examples from everyday life that an ordinary human being witnesses with his own eyes. But as it is said that `less is more`, it is the case with Islam as well. If a religion is so, so that its ``essence`` could be understood by only select few with supehuman divinely induced intelligence then it creates classes with in religion, as it has happened in Hinduism or Catholicism, where only a class of priests cliams to be the knower of the truth and rest are only expected to follow rituals. This is not the case with Islam. The argument is so simple, the leaps of faith are so few that every individual who wishes to understand it, can. I do not understand why a concept has to be complex and beyond understanding to be considered as valid. Please explain.
#186 Posted by krishna_abcd on June 21, 2006 9:12:14 am
#185 by Inquirer
[Both urstruly and krishna_abcd are my friends and there seemed to be a missing bridge between them for developing understanding.]
Actually, much as anybody would like to paint all this as a lack of understanding, the reality is that Urstruly is avoiding doing something very simple (he is instead directing me to websites).
And with good reason. There is NO philosophy contained in the Koran. Or the New or the Old Testament, for that matter. These were developed by simple and uneducated people for a simple audience.
I cannot say otherwise just to appear democratic and friendly.
[The Question
Wilson: Of what material did the Almighty create life?
Chirri. The Holy Qur`an declares that God has created all living beings out of water:
``Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the Earth were closed up, so We split them, and We made from water everything living? Will they not then believe?`` 21:30
``And God has created every walking life out of water, of them that which crawls upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them that which walks upon four. God creates what He pleases. Surely God is Possessor of power over all things.`` 24:45 ]
As you can see, the thought processes are primitive, crude and lacking any sophistication. There is a sum total of ZERO philosophical content.
If I am wrong, anyone is welcome to SHOW ME.
[Both urstruly and krishna_abcd are my friends and there seemed to be a missing bridge between them for developing understanding.]
Actually, much as anybody would like to paint all this as a lack of understanding, the reality is that Urstruly is avoiding doing something very simple (he is instead directing me to websites).
And with good reason. There is NO philosophy contained in the Koran. Or the New or the Old Testament, for that matter. These were developed by simple and uneducated people for a simple audience.
I cannot say otherwise just to appear democratic and friendly.
[The Question
Wilson: Of what material did the Almighty create life?
Chirri. The Holy Qur`an declares that God has created all living beings out of water:
``Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the Earth were closed up, so We split them, and We made from water everything living? Will they not then believe?`` 21:30
``And God has created every walking life out of water, of them that which crawls upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them that which walks upon four. God creates what He pleases. Surely God is Possessor of power over all things.`` 24:45 ]
As you can see, the thought processes are primitive, crude and lacking any sophistication. There is a sum total of ZERO philosophical content.
If I am wrong, anyone is welcome to SHOW ME.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahir: Re: # 129 Ham-damn-thank-you-ma'am Check... Muslim Ghettoisation
- tahir: Re: # 126 Untruth "They... Muslim Ghettoisation
- _arjun9: #110 Posted by aslam644... Muslim Ghettoisation
- tahir: Re: # 120 "since he... Muslim Ghettoisation
- nb: Tahir, please, are you... Muslim Ghettoisation
- tahir: Re: # 117 "daughters of... Muslim Ghettoisation
- hamidm2: how i came to... Muslim Ghettoisation
- tahir: Re: # 117 "you are... Muslim Ghettoisation
