Truth?????It doesnt exist anymore

[Guest guest]

Truth in english equals rutham in sanskrit.

 

>>>>> My dear in english itself truth has many meanings. Pick up an english dictionary -

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth

 

7 entries found for truth.

 

1)Conformity to fact or actuality.

2)A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

3)Sincerity; integrity.

4)Fidelity to an original or standard.

 

5 a)Reality; actuality.

b)often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

 

Now go to Monier Williams sanskrit english dictionary, enter tattva and you will see that reality, truth are its english equivalent.

 

Your speculation that Tattva means philosophy is against dictionary. Certainly you are no authority above it.

 

Besides here is you advaitic link -

 

http://www.vmission.org/vedanta/courses/tbodha/lesson1.htm

Tattva Bodha means 'Knowledge of the Truth'. <<<<<<<<

 

But since many of us dont know that rutham is different from sathyam and hence we use sathyam in place of rutham which results in our translators translating sathyam as truth when they intended to write rutham as truth.

 

>>>> Oh sir, there are many scholars in this world who are more knowlegeable than you in sanskrit. They have translated sanskrit works into english and they translate sathyam as truth.

 

For you, see how truth is used in two sense in which english dictionary allows its use.

 

http://www.celextel.org/ebooks/upanishads/taittiriya_upanishad.htm

 

**** NOTE *****

Translated by Swami Gambhirananda

Published by Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta

 

 

I-xi-1: Having taught the Vedas, the preceptor imparts this post-instruction to the students: “Speak the truth. Practise righteousness......

 

This is usage is corresponding to meaning 2 and 3 provided by english dictionary.

 

Now see another usage:

 

II-i-1: The knower of Brahman attains the highest. Here is a verse uttering that very fact: “Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite............

 

This is famous taittairiya text satyam jnanam anantam brahma.

 

Here Satyam is translated as truth by Swami Gambirananda.

It is translated as truth by many other sanskrit scholars following scholastic traditions of various schools.

 

DON'T THINK THEY DON'T KNOW SANSKRIT AND U ALONE KNOW IT.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Reality is different from truth.Reality always exists,truth doesnt exist.

 

>>>>>> What ???? Reality and Truth are synynoms according to English dictionary. Please learn to consult dictionary instead depending on your own authority. <<<<<<

 

Truth is the accurate description reality. But hence none can accurately describe reality,truth doesnt exist.

 

>>>>> Again Truth itself has many meanings, which meaning is intended when this word is used depends on the context in which it is used. I have shown you example for Taittairiya Upanisad. <<<<<<<

 

Thatva means philosophy.And every philosphy mentioned in vedas is sathyam.When you translate it you translate it as truth.Thats the mistake you make.

 

>>>>> Tattva doesn't means philosophy. Dictionary alone can be authority here and it doesn't says tattva means philosophy. The word darsana means philosophy. NO ONE ELSE IS MISTAKEN EXCEPT FOR YOU. <<<<<<

 

When I said truth is sathyam I meant the mistakes made by our translators. we assume sathyam to be truth and hence translate sathyam as truth.But sathyam isnt truth,its rutham which is truth.

 

>>>>> None of your posts indicated that you meant mistakes made by our translators. And by the way these are mistakes of your own self and not learned translators. When I posted a contradiction you come up with a silly excuse to hide your error. Be gracious accept your defeat. And then we can move to that advaitic rule thread. I promise there you will be busted again. <<<<<

[Guest guest]

Guest wrote:

" You have such a strong sense of agency that you are bound to flounder. "

 

Reply - Well you don't understand there is no material ego here.

 

There are two I's according vaishnava philosophy.

 

First one is when one thinks whimsically and does whatever pleases oneself no matter whether it is scripturally or non scripturally accomplished.

 

Second one is when one understanding the verses of vedas properly and knowing there proper conclusion, starts acting in accordance with wishes of Lord. Here the sole purpose is satisfaction of Lord and not one's self. One is satisfied when Lord is satisfied and experiences transcendental bliss.

 

Individual jivaatma is also a doer but not an independent doer, like God. Doership to it is provided by Parmesvara Sri Krishna who is antaryami pervading everything. So one should be wise enough to understand this and then utilize this doership properly in accordance with scriptures.

 

Mayavada is a great obstacle in the path of Spiritual success. Vedas clearly establish difference. However, some philosophers have misunderstood them and produced a philosophy which has a BLASHPEHMOUS conclusion, jivaatma = brahman.

 

Many people are misled by this doctrine and hence there spiritual progress is checked to certain extent. Its duty of all vaishnavas to remove this philosophy. Vaishnava acaryas have demonstrated this clearly.

 

You Wrote:

"Lord does. Small self imagines that it does."

 

Check scriptures properly. Self is a agent. It doesn't imagines. Had that been true, there will be no use in sastras to say do this and don't do that etc......

 

There will be no use for Lord Krishna to say -

 

Gita 16.23

yah sastra-vidhim utsrjya vartate kama-karatah

na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim

 

"But he who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination."

 

[Guest guest]

The problem arises only since you verify your claims with dictionary and stop there.Go beyond that.Check out philosphical meaning of the word truth.Search for the definitions from philosphers.

 

Truth according to aristotle is "If it corresponds to reality it is truth".THis is called as the correspondence theory of truth.

 

Truth according to the deflationary theory of truth by tarski is "Snow is white is true if snow is white"

 

Dictionaries are useless in finding out definitions.we have to look at philosphers.The theory of aristotle and tarski have been torn apart by western philsophers like derrida,dewey and davidson.

 

 

If we see the dictionary definition given by you it is very poor.First statement "1)Conformity to fact or actuality."--this is nothing but the decimated correspondence theory.You will find how these truth theories were decimated in the following website.It just gives a brief outlook,thats all.That must be sufficient though

 

http://members.rogers.com/ccocos4328/Lecture7.htm

 

all other meanings are useless definitions.So when there is nothing called as truth in english what is the use of translating rutham or sathyam as truth?

 

There is no such word as truth anymore in english.Truth is dead in english.So what do you mean by rutham?

 

Saying god is truth doesnt mean that god is untruth.God is everything.He is good,bad,existent and non-existent.So saying god is truth and god is lie are both one and same thing.He is everything,he is in everything so he can be called as truth,rutham,sathyam,asathyam everything.

 

So the statement god is truth doesnt convey meaning to our debate here.Thathva is truth means what?carvaga is a thathvam.Atheism is a thatvam.Are they truth according to you?

 

Vaishnavism is a thatvam.Shaivism is a thatvam.Both are contradictory.So only one can be called as a thatva.But both are called as thatvas.So its implicit that thatva means only philosphy and not truth.

[Guest guest]

word jugglery is not done for confusing others.It is pure science.

 

every scientific theory is word jugglery.every theory in every field is word jugglery.

[Guest guest]

every theory in every field is word jugglery

 

simply you are a liar and you are not coherent with your statements since you are here discussing with me and others

 

if you really think like that, the communication is useless and it is useless that you are here arguing

 

so if every theory is word jugglery please shut up and stop comunicating your one to us.. simple

[Guest guest]

"The problem arises only since you verify your claims with dictionary and stop there.Go beyond that."

 

>>>>> There is no need to go beyond that. Why should one go beyond that ? Dictionary is an authority for word meanings.

 

 

"Check out philosphical meaning of the word truth.Search for the definitions from philosphers."

 

Which philosophers you are talking about ? Mind you we are discussing vedic literature and i don't need to go outside vedic sages to look for explanations. Highest authority is Sruti and it has used truth in both sense as i have shown you in text from taitarriya. The fact is plain and simple -

according to english dictionary Truth and Reality are synynoms and conveys an idea of an entity that exists. Tattva doesn't means philosophy.

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY.

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY.

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY.

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY.

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY.

 

Get this into your head !!!!!

 

You cannot speculate about meanings of terms. I have shown you with proof from proper authorities that tattva does not means Philosophy.

 

Darsana means philosophy. So stop THIS NONSENSE. Its really ridiculous that you keep on repeating same silly old thing when i have shown you its against authority of Sanskrit dictionary. Don't come up with foolish proclaimations that for words we should not consult dictionaries but look for philosophers to explain it. Do you realize what kind of a ludicrous statement that is ? Why do you think grammar exists ? Why in sanskrit each word has a given number of meanings ONLY ? Besides that have you ever seen any vedic philosopher explain sanskrit terms in a way contrary to sanskrit dictionary and grammar ?

 

 

 

"Truth according to aristotle is "If it corresponds to reality it is truth".THis is called as the correspondence theory of truth."

 

 

>>>>>> I don't care about that. We are discussing vedic philosophy and all that matters is how vedic sages have explained the terms using authorities of paini, and dictionaries related to sanskrit words etc..... Besides its dictionary which determines what a particular word can mean and what it doesn't mean.

 

"Truth according to the deflationary theory of truth by tarski is "Snow is white is true if snow is white"."

 

>>>>> Again irrelevant to our discussion.

 

 

"Dictionaries are useless in finding out definitions.we have to look at philosphers."

 

>>>> What ??? Were you in your senses while you wrote this line ? DICTIONARY contains possible defination which is accepted worldwide. That is why Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva never go against authority of sanskrit dictionary.

 

 

"The theory of aristotle and tarski have been torn apart by western philsophers like derrida,dewey and davidson."

 

>>>>> Irrelevant to me and our discussion on vedic topics.

 

 

"If we see the dictionary definition given by you it is very poor.First statement "1)Conformity to fact or actuality."--this is nothing but the decimated correspondence theory.You will find how these truth theories were decimated in the following website.It just gives a brief outlook,thats all.That must be sufficient though

 

http://members.rogers.com/ccocos4328/Lecture7.htm "

 

>>>>> Look Dictionary is authority. Despite all that you wanna say that is ONE OF THE MEANINGS OF TRUTH ACCEPTED TO EVERYONE. What do you think court means when it asks witness to swear that whatever he/she says will be true and nothing but true ? The meaning of truth here corresponds to that defination from American Heritage dictionary. If you start giving all this philosophical lecture over there in court on meaning of the word true you shall be taken to a mental hospital for treatment.

 

 

"all other meanings are useless definitions.So when there is nothing called as truth in english what is the use of translating rutham or sathyam as truth?"

 

>>>> Look sir, that is your own manufactured idea that those definations are useless. For ANY SANE man on this planet they aren't. WORDS ARE DEFINED IN DICTIONARY AND NOT IN PHILOSOPHY, especially dry philosophy of mental speculators. If you start calling car computer and computer a car people will think you are moron. The reason is simple that english dictionary doesn't defines car as computer and computer as car.

 

"There is no such word as truth anymore in english.Truth is dead in english."

 

>>>>> Yeah why not send a mail to oxford, websters, american heritage etc...... to kindly delete this word from their dictionaries because PV and a bunch of other philosophers have has speculated that truth is dead/non existent.

 

 

"So what do you mean by rutham?"

 

>>>>> Have to look into sanskrit dictionary. Why not you do so instead of asking me ?

 

"Saying god is truth doesnt mean that god is untruth."

 

>>>>> What does that means ?

 

"God is everything.He is good,bad,existent and non-existent.So saying god is truth and god is lie are both one and same thing.He is everything,he is in everything so he can be called as truth,rutham,sathyam,asathyam everything."

 

>>>>> Do you have any idea when satyam is used for brahman, what does it means ? Besides God is not literally everything.

 

Everything has brahman for its innermost self and hence are controlled and dependent on brahman in every way. Being

thus dependent[given power and respective functioning capacity] and pervaded by brahman, the Supreme, they can be called brahman.

 

Gita 11.39

vayur yamo 'gnir varunah sasankah

You are air, fire, water, and You are the moon! ............

 

Gita 11.40

ananta-viryamita-vikramas tvam

sarvam samapnosi tato 'si sarvah

O thou of unilimited potency and infinite power, You pervade the entire universe, and thus You are everything.

 

 

Thus only rationale of calling brahman everything is the fact that it pervades everything. This is well verified in antaryami brahmana of brihadaranyaka upnaisad where Supreme[brahman] is taught to be inner self/controller of everything. And since every one dervies their power from brahman alone he is everything. Arjuna confirms this vedic truth in the gita verse.

 

The point is word itself carries a particular conception. It is nothing more than denotation of that conception. Satyam when used for brahman means an existing entity which exists in the same state eternally. When you say computer, the picture of computer comes up, when you say water picture of water comes up so and so forth... therefore the word i snothing more than a verbal conception of an something.

 

Pervaded and Pervading cannot be the same entity otherwise there will be no meaning to the terms pervaded and pervading. Nothing pervades itself.

 

"So the statement god is truth doesnt convey meaning to our debate here."

 

It very well does. Because you started this post in response to my comment "pursuit of truth". This is well known.

 

"Thathva is truth means what?carvaga is a thathvam.Atheism is a thatvam.Are they truth according to you?"

 

>>>>> Hello tattva means truth. and not philosophy - atheism, carakvism , buddhism etc.... are philosophy and NOT tattva. Why do you confuse the meanings of the terms and come up with your confused conclusions ?

 

 

"Vaishnavism is a thatvam.Shaivism is a thatvam.Both are contradictory.So only one can be called as a thatva.But both are called as thatvas.So its implicit that thatva means only philosphy and not truth."

 

>>>> what kind of logic is that ? Vaishnavism and Shaivism are philosophy of darsana and not tattva. Vaishnaivism and Shaivism are based on interpreatation of Vedanta Darsana[philosophy] by respective schools. WHY DON'T YOU SIMPLY UNDERSTAND TATTV DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY. THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN TO U BEFORE. SO STOP THIS NONSENSE.

[Guest guest]

Dictionary is an authority for word meanings.

 

What a genius you are?Dictionary is okay for commoners.For intellectuals it is a useful tool thats all.It is not the authority of anything.People who compile dictionary are as fallible as you and me.You type hinduism in www.doctionary.com and here is what you get.

 

"A diverse body of religion, philosophy, and cultural practice native to and predominant in India, characterized by a belief in reincarnation and a supreme being of many forms and natures, by the view that opposing theories are aspects of one eternal truth, and by a desire for liberation from earthly evils."

 

Is this view acceptable to you?It should since you call dictionary as the authority of word meanings.But as a vaishnava you shouldnt accept this interpretation of hinduism.

 

Now tell me.Is dictionary the authority of word meanings?

 

""""TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY.

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY.

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY.

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY.

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY...."

 

Tatva is philosphy.Refer to the following website.

http://www.aarogya.com/Complementary/Ayurveda/philosophy.asp

 

If you have any tamil friend what do you mean by tatvam?It means philosphy in tamil.And it isnt a tamil word.Its a sanskrit word borrowed and used by tamil.

 

God is everything including the lowest of the objects to the highest of the objects is advaitha philosphy.Advaitha holds all opinions,intentions,actions,good,bad,worst,best everything as god.He is both truth and untruth hence.If you want to contest this view,then we have to start the advaitha dwaidha duel,which we havent started yet.

 

Courts are asking so many useless questions.One such question is asking to swear the truth.Courts are not the authorities in deciding truth.

 

And so many commoners believeing in truth also doesnt make a difference.They are commoners.We arent.we are philosphers.So most of the people believe in truth is a useless argument in forwarding a philosohical opinion.Its like saying most of the world is christian ,so you too become one.

 

sanskrit dictionary is not the authority of anything.Sanskrit vedas are authority,ok,but not dictionary.dictionary is a book,thats all.If it is the authority a person who masters the dictionary knows everything.so why study physics and chemistry?study dictionary.

 

 

[krishnadasa]

TATTVA DOES NOT MEANS PHILOSOPHY is wrongly written

 

TATTVA DOES NOT MEAN (without S) PHILOSOPHY

 

 

[Guest guest]

PV wrote:

"Dictionary is an authority for word meanings."

 

>>>>>Yes it is an authority for word meanings. Otherwise there will a mess in the whole society. No one will understand what other is saying and tell me how can we philosophical debates.

 

PV wrote

"What a genius you are?Dictionary is okay for commoners.For intellectuals it is a useful tool thats all.It is not the authority of anything."

 

Well this just shows you haven't read commentaries of saints in india.

 

Let me give you few examples -

 

1) http://www.asitis.com/10/19.html

Srila Prabhupada quotes authority of Amara Kosa -

"In the Amara-kosa dictionary it is stated that vibhuti indicates an exceptional opulence."

 

2) Swami Chinmayaananda

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/apr2001/0002.html

 

"SrI cinmayAnanda quotes amara

koSa ? vibhUti bhUtir_aiSvarye. The other amara koSa definitions are

bhavati iti bhUtih, and bhavati anayA SrImAn iti bhUtih, which support

the two meanings indicated. The different interpretations for this

nAma are centered on these two meanings. "

 

 

3) Srila Jiva Goswami

http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/jiva/gopal_campu.html

 

In the Amara-kosa Dictionary these definitions of the word "raghu" are given: trisv iste ‘lpe laghuh

 

“The word ‘raghu’ may mean ‘three’, ‘desired’, ‘worshipped’, or ‘small’.”

 

 

4) Srila Jiva Goswami

http://www.indiadivine.org/brahma-samhita-jiva4.htm

 

In this verse the reading "gosankhaih" is correct. An alternate reading "gosankhya" has the same meaning. They both mean :with the gopas". This is confirmed by the following words of Amara-kosa:

"Gopala. gosankhya, godugdha, abhira, and ballava are synonyms for the word gopa."

 

5) Ramanuja in Bhagavad Gita bhasya on 4.6 quotes lexicon of yaksa to substantiate maya in the word atamamaya as meaning knowledge.

 

Now let me tell you something more -

 

Have you ever heard of something called Vedangas. They are ***REQUIRED*** for one to understand vedas.

 

http://www.svbf.org/sringeri/journal/vol1no3/vedas.html

 

"Nirukta is generally known as vedic dictionary or kosa . Amara Kosa is one of the popular sanskrit dictionaries. Dictionary is also called nighandu. Kosa is actually the etymology where each word is split into syllables and gives the root from which the word is derived with meaning. The root of a word is called dhaatu . In Sanskrit all words have roots."

 

Please note this is not some random geocity site. Its from journal from Sringeri, which follows traditional school of advaita vedanta.

 

CITE ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE ACARYA FROM VEDIC TRADITION HAS CHALLENGED AMAR KOSA OR BONAFIDE SANSKRIT DICTIONARY or any one who wants to go against authority of Nirukta Vedanga.

 

That is not possible because it is pre requisite for stuyding vedas.

 

IN MY OPINION YOU NEED TO TAKE A DIVE INTO REAL VEDIC WORLD AND STOP THINKING ALONG WESTERN DRY SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.

 

PV wrote:

"People who compile dictionary are as fallible as you and me."

 

>>>>> Well if painani and others were fallible then they wouldn't have been accepted as authorities by Ramanuja, Madhva, Jiva Goswami, Sankara and so many other acaryas.

 

 

PV Wrote:

"Is this view acceptable to you ?"

 

>>>>> Yes it is. Thats how hinduism can be descibed. It has many religions within it. Shaivism, shaktism etc.....

 

PV Wrote:

"It should since you call dictionary as the authority of word meanings. But as a vaishnava you shouldnt accept this interpretation of hinduism."

 

>>>>> Why shouldn't I ? Have you typed in vaishnavism in the same dictionary.com

 

See you get -

 

The worship of Vishnu.

 

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

 

It is wise enough to draw distinction between hinduism and vaishnavism.

 

PV Wrote:

"Now tell me. Is dictionary the authority of word meanings ? "

 

>>>>> Yes it is. I have shown how sanskrit grammar and dictionary are essential for one to understand Vedas. There is no exception to that rule. If everyone will come up with their own made up meanings there will be chaos in this world.

 

PV Wrote:

"Tatva is philosphy.Refer to the following website.

http://www.aarogya.com/Complementary/Ayurveda/philosophy.asp"

 

>>>> Where does that article calls tattva as philosophy ? And between even if it does why should it be taken as an authority ? Is it from traditional school of vedanta ? Is it based on any accepted authentic source ? Or its just from one like you who would just speculate about anything ?

 

Show me quoting authority of nirukta vedanga or any established acarya from vedic tradition or from works of their authentic followers that tattva means philosophy.

 

PV Wrote :

"If you have any tamil friend what do you mean by tatvam?It means philosphy in tamil.And it isnt a tamil word.Its a sanskrit word borrowed and used by tamil."

 

>>>>> Ok lets go to sanskrit vidwans from down south and see how they translate tattva -

 

1) http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/acharyas/desika/stotras/stotras12.html

 

2) Introduction to the Sri-Bhashya

 

by S.S. Raghavachar

July 14, 1977

 

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/acharyas/ramanuja/sribhashya.html

"Brahman is the supreme Tattva or Reality."

 

 

3) By Anbil Ramaswamy.

 

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jun2000/0048.html

In ADHIKARA 5.: TATTVA TRAYA CHINTANA ADHIKARA (The three reals) Swami lists

the three 'reals' of ChEtana (Sentient), AchEtana (Non-sentient) and Isvara

(All-sentient), their Svarupa (form) and Svabhava (nature) etc.

 

I. Tattva Trayam viz.,

(i) The Reals (Tattvam)

(ii) The Means (Hitham) and

(iii) The End or Objective (PurushArtham)

 

--------------------------

 

I have to go but i will continue. This much seems enough for right now.

[Guest guest]

Acharyas use dictionary,yes.Even I use it.But for deep philosphical meanings dictionary is useless.

 

To realize the meaning for the word happiness you have to spend an entire life.U cant get it by looking at dictionary.

 

Amarakosa was written by a jain,amarakosa.But shaknara converted him to hindu later.

 

Nobody will challenge a dictionary.Because none takes it seriously.It is a general guide thats all.It is not the ultimate final authority on word meanings.

 

You are again and again confusing reality and truth.Truth is not reality.It is a statement about reality.

 

In tamil tatva is used in various meanings.Parathatva means god's status.Another meaning for tatva is philosphy.

Ask any tamil in this forum what is the tamil word for a philospher.He is called as a "tathuvamethai"

[Guest guest]

So you accept dictionary as the ultimate authority of everything?That is the attitude of the common man.If it is so,then why does philosophy exist?We can accept the dictionary meaning of the word truth,god,peace and salvation.No need to think at all.

 

[Guest guest]

Now let me get one thing straight into your head, you mental speculator. Basis of dialog is vedic scriptures. IF YOU CANNOT QUOTE SCRIPTURES THEN YOU ARE NOT EVEN FIT FOR A DEBATE. BECAUSE ALL THAT YOU SEEM TO KNOW IS HOW TO RAMBLE.

 

I am busy this thanksgiving weekend, once i return I will bust you even further. For now i have seen, that you don't quote scriptures, you speculate on your personal basis. Reality and Truth are synynoms. There are many **USAGES** possible for the truth and one of them is to use it as synynom for Reality. Check Philosophy of Upanisad by Dr. SMS Chari, who is world re nowned Sri Vaishnava scholar and see how he translate satyam as Truth at many different places. I have given you evidence from Taittiriya that Truth can be used in both sense as it has been used in the upanisad itself. And translation was from a learned member of advaitic tradition. The reason Ramanuja and others quote sanskrit dictionary is because it is authority. Otherwise there is no point to quote it. The whole reason for existence of Nirukta vedanga is to make vedic scriptures comprehensible. DR. SMS Chari himself quotes nirukta, the lexicon of yaksa to esplain 7 different meanings of the word lakshmi. By every post of yours you only prove your ranting capability and your ignorance of basic sanskrit and vedic scriptures.

 

Nirukta is a must for those who want to understand Vedanta philosophy. Whatever goes into acaryas bhasya is an authority FOR ACARYAS DON"T CARE ABOUT THOSE WHO/THAT ARE NOT AUTHORITY. And you will for surely fall into that category.

 

Still my questions remains, whatever you are saying can you back them up with proper vedic sources and traditional authorities. If you cannot then graciously get out of this thread if you have any shame and self respect.

[Guest guest]

Its funny to see you lose your cool.Who asked you to assume that a debate has to be based only on vedas and scriptures?How did shankara decimate jains in debate?Jains wont accept vedas as a base,so how did the debate go on?

 

When you debate with a christian and you say that you will debate with vedas as a base,he will say bible will the base and there wont be any debate at all.

 

An intellectual debate should have everything as the base.Not a selected book or quote.Please understand this first.

 

When you say vaishnavism is better than every other religion in world you have to use quotes from holybooks of all other religions and debate on them.Please bear this in mind.

 

Using words like "mental speculator,get out if you have shame and self respect" is hardly going to help you to win any intellectual debates.Anybody can get angry and shout.But will that win a debate?It wont.

 

Even if i utter nonsense,you have to logically prove to me that i utter nonsense.If you cannot do that,then you have no rights to call it as nonsense.

 

Have a cool mindset during debates.Many acharyas have seen many fools in debate clubs.They defeated them by logic and not by getting mad.

 

[Guest guest]

you are not really interested in spirituality... otherwise you were more interested in aswering

[Guest guest]

you are not really interested in spirituality... otherwise you were more interested in aswering

How did you come to such a great conclusion?Please read my posts for the past 1 year in this forum.

[barney]

Uttara Gita (3.7)

 

Agnir-devo dvijatinam,

 

Muninam hridi daivatam.

 

Pratima svalpa-buddhinam,

 

Sarvatra samadarsinam.

 

"To those who meditate, god resides in their hearts. To the ordinary masses, the image is god. But what is the real truth? Sarvatra samadarsinam, god is present everywhere to the supremely realized soul".

 

There are two forms of yoga by which perfection may be attained. One form is the yoga of knowledge. The other is the yoga of action.

 

You cannot attain perfection by merely shirking action. Indeed it is impossible even for a moment to be utterly inactive. All living beings are driven to action by their own natures. Those who withdraw from action, while allowing their minds to dwell on sensual pleasures, are deluding themselves; they can never follow the path to perfection.

 

Fulfill your duties; action is better than inaction. Indeed, you should strive to maintain the health and strength of your body. Yet selfish action will enslave you. Act selflessly, without any thought of personal gain.

When human beings were created, the obligation of selfless action was also created. God promised that through selfless action human beings would fulfill their deepest desires.

 

Good people, who share the fruits of their work, are freed from all their sins. But those who keep the fruits of their work for themselves, consume sin. Every selfless action is inspired by God; he is present in every good deed. All life turns on this truth.

 

Gita 10, 13-16.

 

 

I shall describe the people whom I love. They have goodwill towards all living beings, and are incapable of ill will. They are friendly and compassionate. They regard nothing as their own possession, and want no position of power for themselves. They are indifferent to both pleasure and pain. They are patient, contented, and self-controlled. They are firm in faith, and their hearts and minds are utterly devoted to me.

 

Their serenity is constant, and cannot be disturbed by others; on the contrary, their presence makes others feel serene. They are not elated by good fortune, nor depressed by misfortune. They do not compete with others and they have no fear of failure.

 

They are not attracted to particular people and places; nor are they repelled by particular people and places. They are both selfless and efficient in all their actions. They have no desire for pleasure and no fear of pain. They never grieve over the death of others or the loss of material goods; they accept with equanimity every event as it occurs.

 

They love friends and enemies equally. They are not encouraged by praise nor discouraged by blame. Whether they are honored or despised, they remain perfectly calm. Within their hearts there is silence.

 

These are the people whom I especially love.

 

Gita 12.13-19

 

The light of the soul

 

I shall tell you of the soul. The soul is God -who is immortal and infinite, who has no beginning and will have no end, and who both exists and does not exist. Those who know the soul, are immortal.

The soul dwells in every living being, and in every part of every living being; it dwells in the hand and the foot, the skull and the mouth, the eye and the ear. Although it does not itself have senses, it shines through every sense. It is completely independent, yet all beings depend on it.

 

The soul is both near every living being, and far from every being. The soul is both inside and outside every living being. The soul is the cause of movement, but does not itself move. The soul is one, yet has innumerable forms. The soul creates, preserves, and destroys.

The soul is the light of every light; and its light transcends the duality of brightness and darkness. The soul is the light of knowledge; and its light is also the goal of knowledge. In the soul the subject and object of knowledge are one.

 

Gita 13.12-17

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

i came to this conclusion because i read

[krishnadasa]

Whats that!

 

Better u people (including p_v) find some other websites for this kinda debate (fruitless).

 

Talk about krishna and make ur life successfull. Stop this kinda concocting discussion.

 

Hari bol

 

viks

[krishnadasa]

Nobody uses any Dr bla bla bla 's refernce for anythings. If possible use refernces from

 

Sri Madhwa

Sri Ramanuja

or Sri krishna Chaitanya - Srila prabhupada

 

Dont take University doctors and professors (self confused and non realised conditioned solus) reference in ur answers

 

Hari bol

 

viks

[Guest guest]

i came to this conclusion because i read

Dont come to conclusions by reading alone.Come to conclusions using thought also.

[Guest guest]

"Better u people (including p_v) find some other websites for this kinda debate (fruitless).Talk about krishna and make ur life successfull. Stop this kinda concocting discussion"

 

Who decides whats fruitless and what isnt?What are the parameters?By the way who said that any discussions should be fruitful?British and French negotiated long time whether to include 'e' and make it 'concorde' in french style or 'concord' in british style.Is it fruitful or not?

 

Newspapers debate about many useless stuff like actors and actresses.Is it useless?It might be useless for you,but they mint money with that useless stuff.

 

some atheists might call all religious discussion as useless.So usefulness is meaningless in deciding a debate.

 

[krishnadasa]

Dear P_v,

 

Accept my humble obesiences.

 

I have no desire to hurt anybody in any way. I wrote just what I felt about your debate. I am not a judge to decide on anythings, when Krsna is there to judge.

 

Well, my basic problem is when you bring these University Doctors and thier philosophy in action here , which are normally very confusing (as they come from confused souls). try to bring out authorised things in your discussion. Then it proves to be very effective. And then discuss but dont debate. Understand the difference

 

Hari bol

 

viks

[Guest guest]

Well, my basic problem is when you bring these University Doctors and thier philosophy in action here , which are normally very confusing (as they come from confused souls). try to bring out authorised things in your discussion. Then it proves to be very effective. And then discuss but dont debate. Understand the difference.

 

If you debate only with unonfused souls,there wont be anyone left to debate with.And if two unlike minded persons discuss it becomes debate.Simple.

[sumeet]

well guys i am back to this forum after very long break. my last posts here were in 2001 i guess or may be early 2002.

 

anyways MB, your points though correct, but your attitude is not good. seriously thats not the way to present anything, let alone convincing others of your position. I hope you will realize what i am saying.

 

PV if interested i can debate with you. I am an old member here since 2000, have seen a lot of this kind of nonsense and am mature too. may be you will enjoy debating with me.

[Guest guest]

 

Welcome Home Priya-Vaishnava!

 

If you are Dr. Jaya Sri Radhey, then

I`m so happy you`ve come home.

 

The TRUTH is I`ve come home, too,

as Krsnaraja Prabhu and you.

 

 

-----------