I know nothing...this is it

[Govindaram]

 

What Haridham doesn't seem to realize is that false humility does not earn real respect. Real respect, even if one disagrees with others, can only be earned by showing genuine respect. The attitude of, "I belong to [insert name of religious organization here], so let me just turn my nose and look down at all the poor, stupid fools whose practices are unknown to me and thus they are silly and superstitious," will not help anyone. All this does is earn disdain for one's self, one's family, one's guru, and even one's sampradaya.

 

 

 

I feel you are right in some way, that you could have a feeling that you belong to an organization etc, but we have this same feeling with this world as well, its no easy to break, I don't know how this can be solved, but I feel it is in human {EGO}. Please give us further advice on this.

[yasodanandana]

Yes, matter is eternal in that it never ceases but merely changes form, the tapas and sattva rearrange themselves with the catalyst of rajas. However, this is not what I mean by eternal, what I mean is that nothing stands still, everything is constantly changing.

 

...you can have your idea, mine is that everything is spiritual, connected to god and that us, being conditioned by maya, we are forced to see it as separated, mortal, material, imperfect and so on. Said this, existence is dynamic and eternity is not static. So Dynamism is not a symptom of matter and to be motionless is not a symptom of spirituality. Maybe the opposite.

 

When something says, ‘I am eternal’, it automatically ceases to be eternal because it is now ‘I am eternal’ different from what was before the utterance.

 

...our perception can have nothing to do with our real condition... i have eaten spaghetti one hour ago and only now i realize that i have a big tomato stain in the t-shirt. It does not means that my condition of "stained" is changed

 

Arjuna’s word is as good as Krsna’s??? Then why is it that Krsna feels the need to teach Arjuna?

 

...arjuna is a perfectly realized soul, he's cousin of the supreme personality of godhead sri krsna and he has a very close relationship with him. No one can have the darshan of sri krsna and a close relationship like that if he's not fully realized. Or, the closeness wih krsna brings automatically the krsna consciousness the spiritual realization. So arjuna acts and asks for our benefit.

 

Where did brahman, param brahman, krsna… come from???

...brahman means spirit.. a feature of the spirit is that it is the highest reality. Param Brahman is the highest reality in the spirit, he has personal, individual characteristics and features. Krsna is the all attractive because he has all features and all the features of the world and universe come from him, hes spiritual, because he's not subjected to birth and death and he's supreme spirit (param brahman) because supremacy is among the infinite features that meke him the all attractive .So there's no question of their origin, they (or HE) are their (or HIS) own origin and source.

 

By associating brahman with nothing and showing how nothing is both existence and non-existence simultaneously

...non existence cannot live with existence.. one negates another. When the vedas speak of non existence they speak of non existence from the materialis, karmic point of view. Krsna does not exist in the matter in the sense that he does not generate a karma that entangles him in the samsara. It is a technical use of the concept of non existence, not that non existence is an absolute concept.

 

I have kept to scripture and provided a logical explanation to it that would stand up in the modern world.

...i am of the modern world, even if with some white hair, but i think that the old one is more modern and true. We cannot create an annihilated version of religion because atheist society will like it.

 

According to your argument Krsna and Arjuna do not exist because you have no experience of it.

...experience can be indirect... i have never been in china, but china exists, and i am sure, because i know chinese people and i have experienced some medicine come from this land. So knowing someone who competently and logically speaks, by direct experience, of the religious themes and, having experienced directly that something said by scriptures is true, and that some remedies recommended by me from the religion are effective.. i have an experience of what is said in scriptures, So i have learned nothing from the non existent, from what is not.. i have learned from the reality

 

Try meditation my friend, begin by realising that everything is illusion conditioned by our senses.

...done... it is not true

 

There is more void in an atom than matter. Without void not even ether could move.

...again, this void is not void

 

If Krsna is brahman and not maya, and brahman knows everything, then why is it that Krsna appears to restore Dharma in order to maintain the universe??

...because, in this material world, we are free to go against dharma. Krsna wants only loving relationships, he does not force us.. so he fulfills our desires when we want to forget him and he comes sometimes to give us the information, the culture and the necessary freedom to desire to go back to him ...

 

I am not saying we exist, I am saying we are part of maya, illusion

.....decide... being a part of illusion is existence

 

Krsna is maya.

---until you have not demonstrated it i invite you to not blaspheming

 

As Ramakrishna suggested, knowing we too are maya, is it not better to simply let go and be, because nothing we do will ever change the fact that we are maya.

---my mother too, who's not ramakrsna, knows that realizing that we have problems is not too much if we do not act to fix them.. but it is a good start

 

By realising all is maya including ourselves then samsara ceases to be anything other than maya also, and moksa is achieved… jnana yoga.

--you are proposing nichilism, the all kinds of existence are maya.. so if you achieve it there's no moksa, because there's no freedom from anything.. there's no jnana, because if there's nothing what remains to know?... and there's no yoga.. because yoga means union, relationship, so wich whom we unite if we do not exist and there's no one else?

 

Who am I? I am Krsna, but then so are you.

---i am very glad for you, i am not krsna, krsna controls everything and he has not any single moment when he's not conscious to be god and master of his powers. And i am not conscious and i have no powers

 

hare krishna

 

(i have not a good english... sorry)

[ancient_paztriot]

Syamasundara dasa: Does maya mean nothingness?

 

Srila Prabhupada: You cannot say that. It is nothing appearing like something, but we do not say that it is nothing. Mayavadis say that it is nothing, but we say that it is temporary. How can you say that a cloud is nothing? A cloud appears, remains for a while, and then goes. The body is there temporarily for a few years, or a few hours. It is like a cloud. We cannot say that it is nothing, but that it is temporary.

[Guest guest]

I liked your post... does this mean that when the cloud of maya passes it returns to or there exists nothing??

 

1) Nothing is the only thing that is eternal

2) if nothing can be proven to be eternal then brahman must be nothing

3)everything that we perceive changes with time and is therefore not eternal

4) if everything is not eternal then nothing, the opposite of everything, must be eternal

5) nothing is eternal

 

1) Brahman is nothing

2) knowing that brahman is nothing will prove that 'matter' or 'something' is maya (including ourselves)

3) nothing is eternal (re-above)

4) if nothing is eternal and brahman is eternal then brahman must be nothing

5) brahman is nothing

 

1) Krsna is maya

2) knowing krsna is maya will help us understand that we too are maya and lead to moksa

3) everything is not eternal, if everything is not eternal then the perception that it is real (eternal) is false and hence maya

4) Krsna is everything

5) Therefore Krsna is not eternal and maya

 

 

Tat tvam asi

 

 

[Guest guest]

simply you are repeating the same song without being able to answer to objections

 

[Guest guest]

There is more void in an atom than matter. Without void not even ether could move.

...again, this void is not void

 

I am not a nihilist, although it is easy to see how you could think so. I am saying the void or Nothing both exists and does not exist. It must exist because if it didn't then there would have to be something, if there is something then where did it come from. Yet it, by its very nature, does not exist, because if it exists then it is not nothing. It is the paradox.

 

Knowing that nothing is that which is both existent and non-existent then applying it to scripture then the nature of brahman, krsna or the absolute must be nothing regardless of the religion in question.

 

...you are proposing nichilism, the all kinds of existence are maya.. so if you achieve it there's no moksa, because there's no freedom from anything.. there's no jnana, because if there's nothing what remains to know?... and there's no yoga.. because yoga means union, relationship, so wich whom we unite if we do not exist and there's no one else?

We unite literally with nothing. Moksa is freedom from the illusion that we exist.

I am not trying to be atheist, I am attempting to personify the concept of nothing as the absolute.

 

Yes we do both have our own views and although you may not believe me, I do respect your faith. Our debate is helping me understand many things better and for that I respect you.

 

tat tvam asi

[Guest guest]

I never answered to the concept of perception because I agree with what was said, my initial criticism was that perception is not a means of knowing and what was said confirmed my criticism. It was misunderstood that my criticism was something that I was proposing as fact.

But on the question of nothing, I am attempting to justify my argument in front of criticism, I was under the impression that I was doing just that. I may or may not be correct in my argument but I have not heard anything yet to prove me wrong. Although I have heard some very good reasoning.

 

tat tvam asi

[Guest guest]

Actually my quote of Hindutva reasoning was sarcasm. After all such a definition would exclude all of ISKCON from the Hindu fold... imagine that an entire religion practising Bhakti to Krsna not being Hinduism /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

tat tvam asi

[gHari]

Krsna just Is. It is upon His existence that everything and everyone are strung like pearls on a thread. There never was nothing. There will never be nothing. This is what the Vedas mean by unborn.

 

Haridham was not talking about this. He was reaching a place where devotees become terrifyingly honest. They admit they can never know God. This is progress. It is far superior to trying to steal the glory of Krsna and His Vedas for ourselves.

 

[yasodanandana]

I am saying the void or Nothing both exists and does not exist.

..the void has to be exclusive, absolute.. if something interrupt this void the void does not exist

 

if there is something then where did it come from

...simply you are assuming that the origin of everything has to be the void associating the condition of absolute to the void and not to the existence. Simply i do not accept it as a postulate unless you demonstrate it. My opinion is that if the existence is in the relative world, it is also in the absolute.. And that existence can have the characteristic of eternity. It is much more logic.

 

Moksa is freedom from the illusion that we exist.

..it is illogic, because the conditioned state cannot have something more of the liberated state. If now i have the existence, i cannot miss it when i get realization. Again this is based on your undemonstrated assumption that only the void can be transcendental.

 

I am not trying to be atheist, I am attempting to personify the concept of nothing as the absolute

...a-theism means no god... if you negate the existence, you negate also the existence of god

 

Yes we do both have our own views and although you may not believe me

...i do not know you and i have no reason to trust you if you do not express theories that i find logic and rational. Maybe there's a way to explain your theories in a more convincing way, but at the moment i find them very easily confutable, You have assumed that absolute cannot be dynamic and you have argued that the only thing that is not dynamic that you know is the void... but the first assumption is undemonstrated.

 

I do respect your faith.

..i have difficulties to respect yours because you are constantly negating the existence of sri krsna bhagavan without sustaining it with any decent demonstration. I do not want to make a show of a great devotee, but i find it a problem. Religion is not a hobby or some discussion subject, neither, in my opinion, a faith...religion is life, and the personalities we discover practising religion, the masters, the godly personalities and so on are not exactly some symbolic characters that we are happy to see easily wiped out by some new undemonstrated theory

 

Our debate is helping me understand many things better and for that I respect you.

..eternity is dynamic

 

 

[Guest guest]

A very interesting post that you have written.

 

Where to begin...

 

OK, If Krsna is the greatest thing in the universe, then surely nothing is greater than Krsna. If Krsna is the largest thing in the universe (as he revealed to Arjuna) then surely nothing is larger than Krsna. The largest thing in the universe is that which encompasses everything, but always nothing will exist outside of it, and therefore nothing encompasses all. That which is the smallest thing in the universe is that which has no form and exists within all, and only nothing has no form and exists within all.

I am beginning to understand our difference of understanding, and I appreciate it is a good argument. I tend not to use the word Void for that very reason.

I am not trying to negate everything either, I am trying to understand the nature of god. Perhaps the ancients were correct and that man is incapable of understanding the nature of god.

 

If the absolute is dynamic, then it is forever changing. It cannot therefore be eternal. If the absolute is eternal then it must be static. How can the absolute be changing and eternal? Change and dynamism indicate time because the time it starts to do something and the time it takes to finish. Nomatter what it is, if something begins and ends it is no longer the same thing that it was when it began. Are you exactly the same as when you were child? No you are forever changing, how then can you be eternal? Unless, you are referring to the absolute as time itself or dynamism itself. As zeno put it, a moving object can never reach its destination because it must pass through an infinite number of half-way points in an infinite amount of time to reach those points. Is what you mean by a dynamic infinite? Perpetual motion?? My answer to the paradox is that as maya anything is possible or impossible because in reality it is not there other than illusion.

But this does not solve the problem of how an absolute can be both eternal and dynamic. I need further proof. Can you demonstrate that the absolute is dynamic? You ask me to demonstrate that the absolute is nothing, at this moment in time I cannot do so other than what I have already argued. Similarly without referring to scripture (which is what I have done) or placing trust in one's senses you will not be able to demonstrate that the absolute is dynamic. If we are to trust what our scientists have observed then the following conclusions can be ascertained, a) that the universe of matter is made of atoms which in turn are made of 3 particles, that those particles opperate within a vaccuum of nothing that is the sole thing that connects the universe, although atoms do interact with each other. The universe of matter is merely a combination of numbers of particles in a vast nothingness. b) conscience has not be located within the brain and it is now believed that it comes from the space between particles that exists outside of time.

It is not too difficult to put these facts into any scripture and draw my conclusion.

I fail to see why it should frighten you so much. I am merely saying that we are maya. Krsna by his very nature must also be maya. If Krsna is the absolute then how can he be on the battlefield talking to Arjuna??? While the absolute is krsna, what is everything else that is around him??? It is impossible for krsna to be the absolute. It is just a personification of the absolute, an isvara manifested to direct the maya in a certain way but the isvara itself must be maya.

 

Am I negating god? or am I trying to show that god is nothing? I keep saying that I consider nothing to be in existence. I am not saying that nothing is not being.

 

If religion is not a discussion topic then it cannot be your life unless you are silent. If religion is your life then every utterence is religious. Surely this is the purpose of bhakti, that all things are done in the name of the isvara whether it be krsna, siva or sakti. All Hindu scripture is about debate, even the Rg Veda. Krsna and Arjuna debated dharma on the battlefield. Dharma for many is religion.

 

It is through debate that all is understood. Without it we truly are the livestock of BU1.4.10.

 

To understand yourself is to understand brahman. Yet it is impossible to know oneself. Whatever might be its nature, a knowing subject cannot objectify itself in order to be known by itself. Hence the maya of brahman's invain task.

 

The reason one continues to desire and crave what cannot be attained is because one is ignorant of the true nature of reality - that everything is conditioned by something else and is hence impermanent. Only nothing is not conditioned by something else and is hence permanent. This is not saying that nothing does not exist, this is merely stating that nothing occurs different from either existence which implies dependence, or non-existence which implies a denial of occurrence. Maya stems from nothing, we are all maya, maya exists only as illusion of existence.

 

...You do not know me and have no reason to trust me... no wonder the world is in the state that it is in. You know me as part of maya which in turn is the illusion of existence that stems from brahman's quest to know.

 

RG Veda 10.129

There was neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water, bottomlessly deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then. There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day. That one breathed, windless, by its own impulse. Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning; with no distinguishing sign, all this was water. The life force that was covered with emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that one in the beginning; that was the first seed of mind. Poets seeking in their heat with wisdom found bound of existence in non-existence.

Their cord was extended across. Was there below? Was there above? There were seed-placers; there were powers. There was impulse beneath; there was giving forth above.

Who really knows? Who will proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen - perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not - the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows - or perhaps he does not know.

 

Upanisads BU 1.2.1

In the beginning there was nothing here at all.

 

I know nothing

 

tat tvam asi

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You wrote:

 

Upanisads BU 1.2.1

In the beginning there was nothing here at all.

<hr>

 

What verse is this verse "Upanisads BU 1.2.1"

 

In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad verse 1.2.1 is part of a conversation between YAJNAVALKYA and MAITREYI, and this quote you have given is not given there.

 

Further, in regard quote from the Purusha Sukta, it states that "That one breathed, windless, by its own impulse. Other than that there was nothing beyond."

 

So the One, a Living Being, was breathing, and living, in the beginning, and other than that One (Narayana-Vishnu-Krishna) no other thing existed. God is eternal.

 

You said, "Therefore Krsna is not eternal and maya". But God is eternal, and not Maya.

[Guest guest]

I couldn't help but note this. I'm not sure what school of thinking is being represented by this author, but it is clearly not very well thought out.

 

 

Matter is part of maya, but let us take your argument because it is something that I hinted at as being the reality of samsara before. Yes, matter is eternal in that it never ceases but merely changes form, the tapas and sattva rearrange themselves with the catalyst of rajas. However, this is not what I mean by eternal, what I mean is that nothing stands still, everything is constantly changing. When something says, ‘I am eternal’, it automatically ceases to be eternal because it is now ‘I am eternal’ different from what was before the utterance. Only nothing is eternal because it does not change, it is the only substance that is timeless. Krsna is merely a manifestation of maya, it is why he did not say, ‘I am brahman’ because he is not.

 

 

 

There are several logical fallacies in the above argument.

 

1) First, the argument "nothing stands still, everything is constantly changing" is clearly an assumption. Perhaps what he means is that nothing in *his* experience says the same. But experience with entities within the realm of the senses cannot be extended to entities which are by definition atIndriya.

 

Thus, the argument "Krishna is not eternal" because "nothing within the scope of my senses is eternal" is a non-sequitur.

 

2) Secondly, the author goes on to argue "Only nothing is eternal because it does not change, it is the only substance that is timeless." This concept of "nothing" as a "substance" is foolish. Furthermore, he had already said "everything is constantly changing." So, on one hand "nothing" is not in fact "nothing," yet it is not among the "everything" which is constantly changing? Clearly the individual who wrote this is not defining his terms rigorously.

 

Actually, as a side note, even argument #1 saying that nothing within this world changes is also wrong. As anyone with any knowledge of physics, mathematics, etc. can tell you, many of the laws of this universe can be explained by relationships which do not change. Though the variables may change, the relationships between them do not. And if you argue that even these laws are not immutable because an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God can change them, then already you invoke the possibility of an atIndriya entity which cannot be assumed to be changeless! So again, argument #1 when it applies to Krishna fails.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The largest thing in the universe is that which encompasses everything, but always nothing will exist outside of it, and therefore nothing encompasses all.

--this is a word game...

 

Perhaps the ancients were correct and that man is incapable of understanding the nature of god.

--something basic is possible

 

If the absolute is dynamic, then it is forever changing. It cannot therefore be eternal. If the absolute is eternal then it must be static.

--why? if there's dynamism, evolution, change in this world.. there's the same features in the other one. Spirit is the origin of the matter, so the matter cannot be more complete than the spirit

 

If Krsna is the absolute then how can he be on the battlefield talking to Arjuna???

--if the relative can talk,, the absolute cannot talk?

 

While the absolute is krsna, what is everything else that is around him???

---because the absolute has variety, there's the whole and the parts.. and the whole and the partes are simultaneously one and separated

 

It is just a personification of the absolute

---if the absolute has personality, this personality has to be absolute...

 

 

[Guest guest]

Again, more disconnected reasoning. Where to begin...

 

 

1) Nothing is the only thing that is eternal

 

 

 

This is an assumption, and a bizarre one at that. Decide first if by "nothing" you mean the absence of a thing (literal definition) or some other thing which exists but which you are unable to define. If the latter, you should pick a word other than "nothing" to describe it.

 

 

2) if nothing can be proven to be eternal then brahman must be nothing

 

 

No, it does not follow that because A and B share a quality in common, then therefore A = B. Only the reverse is true: if A = B, then A and B share the same properties.

 

Example: Cats have four legs. Dogs have four legs. Because cats and dogs each have four legs, do cats = dogs. Clearly not.

 

 

3)everything that we perceive changes with time and is therefore not eternal

 

 

 

The law of gravitation, for example, has not been proven to change with time. But in any case, as mentioned previously, experience with entities perceivable by the gross senses does not ipso facto apply to entities which are atIndriya, since you don't know anything about atIndriya entities to start with.

 

 

4) if everything is not eternal then nothing, the opposite of everything, must be eternal

 

 

Also very poor reasoning. First of all, you here take "nothing" to be the opposite of "everything," but earlier you refer to "nothing" as a substance or thing. Bottom line is that your terms are defined inconsistently, and you argue that "nothing" is eternal in #4 based on a definition of "nothing" which is different from its definition in #1.

 

 

5) nothing is eternal

 

 

 

Ultimately, these are not very sophisticated remarks. "nothing" is the absence of a thing. Saying "nothing is eternal" is an example of pseudo-philosphical waffling. If your philosophy cannot commit you to something, it isn't particularly useful to anyone. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that simply because it commits you to something, therefore it is useful. But incorrect knowledge and lack of knowledge are equally pointless.

 

The remainder of your "logic" follows from some of the same basic misconceptions, inadequately defined terms, looseness of associations, and blatant non-sequiturs seen above. So we will limit our response for now.

 

yours,

 

Raghu

[Guest guest]

 

All Hindu scripture is about debate, even the Rg Veda. Krsna and Arjuna debated dharma on the battlefield. Dharma for many is religion.

 

 

I very much doubt that you read much in the way of scripture. Krishna and Arjuna did not "debate" dharma. Arjuna inquired and Krishna instructed. This is obvious to anyone who bothered to pick up the gItA and read it.

 

Arjuna was in no position to debate with Krishna, since he was confused about his duty and lost the will to proceed. Arjuna was bewildered and requested Krishna to remove his doubts. Saying Arjuna debated with Krishna isn't a matter of opinion. It's just plain wrong.

 

Raghu

[Guest guest]

In reply to:

<hr>

5) nothing is eternal

<hr>

 

This "nothing" you allude to is some thing. It is some type of entity.

 

There is nothing which is truly nothing.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Guest who believes in nothing...

 

take a look at this page

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

 

[Guest guest]

Some very interesting counter arguments

 

I hate to wimp out on answering them but I have exams coming up next week. Hopefully we can continue the debate in full in June.

 

Incidently my posts have used arguments from all 6 major philosophical schools in Hinduism as well as 2 schools of Buddhism.

As for not reading the Gita, I have read 6 different translations of the book with commentaries on 4. I have also had the tedious task of reading the Rg Veda, Upanisads, and Aranyakas. As well as the incredible task of reading two versions and commentaries of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Karika. Added to this a huge range of philosophical books on Taoism, Confucianism, Neo-Taoism, Neo-Confucianism, Bankei Zen, and several other such books. Successfully meditating in the style of Samkhya/Yoga to its final conclusion also.

 

My argument on nothing has not been disproven yet. And the point of the Rg Veda quote is "Who knows?" how this came to being, we can only speculate. I am trying to debate as opposed to preach. This seems to have been lost by many. I am not denying faith in krsna, I am merely challenging it in debate to see how far it can stand up to scrutiny and alternative view points. It would appear that some people take offence to this.

Personnally speaking I think Krsna and Arjuna are debating... Arjuna is saying it is wrong to kill his brethren and Krsna is saying it is ok because the dharma that supports rta is at greater threat. In reality krsna is teaching Arjuna adharma in that it is stated later in the Mahabrahata in the Santiparvan that it is better if a King faces death on the field (and keep in mind that Arjuna was heavily outnumbered and Krsna's own men were on the opposing side) he should flee and live the dharma of another until it is appropriate to regain his kingdom and restore dharma. Krsna's teaching to Arjuna is adharma in the light of this.

 

Any case I could go on quite a bit on this topic and I must put a temporary stop on it. Incidently my exams are on Advanced Hinduism and Indian Philosophy. I mean no offence only debate and further understanding.

 

tat tvam asi

[theist]

You read and think too much. As far as your having come to the end of Sankya I question that as you appear to think you still have something to learn in school.

 

"The mind can be the best of friends and the worst of enemies."

 

In any case,

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

 

Incidently my posts have used arguments from all 6 major philosophical schools in Hinduism as well as 2 schools of Buddhism.

 

 

 

I can't vouch for Buddhism, but I can honestly say that your "arguments" bear no resemblance to any school of vedAnta in existence.

 

 

As for not reading the Gita, I have read 6 different translations of the book with commentaries on 4.

 

 

The point remains that Arjuna did not "debate" dharma with Krishna. Perhaps you made your eyes connect with the words of some unqualified idiot's translation, but it's obvious you had no idea what was going on in that venerated text of yore.

 

 

I have also had the tedious task of reading the Rg Veda, Upanisads, and Aranyakas.

 

 

As I said before, you probably made your eyes connect with the words. I see no evidence from your writing that you actually understood anything from those texts.

 

 

My argument on nothing has not been disproven yet.

 

 

Oh boy, how to proceed with this presumptuous one? I suppose I could say one or more of the following:

 

1) the underlying assumptions upon which you based your "argument" were refuted (in regards to spurious reasoning applied to atIndriya entities), and you have said nothing in response,

2) your "argument" about "nothing" used inconsistent definitions of terminology, thus failing to really "prove" anything,

3) your "argument" has nothing to do with shAstra, contrary to your implicit claims,

4) your "argument" in general was rather childish. in fact, I'm beginning to feel rather embarassed that I even took it this seriously,

5) your "argument" in general made no sense

 

Please don't assume that my writing even this much implies that I found your "arguments" threatening in any way. Mostly want I wanted you to take back with you was how silly you sound, and how you ought to consider a career outside of philosophy, as the only people who would consider your "writings" to be "philosophy" would be those already addicted to one of the many hallucinogens available these days on the streets.

 

[Guest guest]

"for a person devoid of devotional service, birth in a great great family or nation, knowledge of the REVEALED SCRIPTURE , performance of austerities and penance, and chanting of vedic mantras are like the ornaments on a dead body. Such ornaments simply serve the concocted pleasures of the general populace".

 

Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya 3.12

 

Its better to chant, serve krsna the way you have been doing and continue spreading Krsna Consciousness the way you have been doing.

 

Anonymous.

 

This was for all who take pride about knowing the sastra's but not having bhakti. There is vedic evidence.

[Guest guest]

I find your comments highly insulting. You may or may not be versed in Western Philosophy but it is you who fails to understand the philosophy of Asia. I have used philosophical techniques in all schools. The one that you were most critical about is typical Naya/Vaisesika reasoning. It is this system that is the basis and the founding block of all future debate and argument in Indian philosophy. You might not agree with my arguments, you might not find it threatening, but that does not stop them being put forward in several different styles to afford several different opinions.

I have tried not to be insulting in our debate, and as I stress this was merely a debate. I might be incorrect in my philosophy of nothing, but I have stressed that this is merely a theory up for debate and not a challenge. By saying that you do not find it threatening, is obviously stating that you do find it threatening or you would not have been so insulting.

Anycase, I will start this discussion again in a separate forum after my exams... I hope you are adult enough to partake because although your social attitude is childish, you have put forward some good arguments that I wish to explore more.

As for meditation, I described what I achieved in my meditation, for me it was not the right time to achieve such a high stage, to be perfectly honest, when I came out of my meditation I was gasping for breath because I had stopped breathing, it was only on hindsight that I could reflect on the experience, during the final stage of the meditation (I am not too sure exactly when) I lost all sense of self, it was only (I assume) at the point of death that something inside of me literally grabbed me (not in my mind but in my whole body) and pulled me out of the meditation.

I was no where near prepared for such an experience and it was foolish of me to do such a meditation without prior knowledge and understanding of the philosophy behind it.

 

Incidently I am no child, I am a mature student that is seeking a qualification at degree level in what has been a hobby of mine for some 20 odd years. And the commentaries have been by Sankara, Ramanuja, M.K.Gandhi, and a Western scholar whose name I have forgotten.

[theist]

Again a request for all guests to add an identifier of some sort to your posts so that we can keep them straight. I would think it especially appropiate for those that argue against 'nothing'. At some point it becomes an absurdity for several guests to be arguing against each other positions. It is also lazy and rude.

 

As far as debate styles go I have to question the tactic of trying to combine so many approaches from teachers whose siddhanta was at odds with each other. Like when cooking one may have a many spices on the shelf to use but they don't all get used on every prep.

 

As for myself who is not so trained in debate styles I'll remain apart. Simplicity of thought and feeling is what I now seek. To myself as an uneducated man it all starts to sound like so much mental chatter. Thoughts and concepts forming words for competetion against other clanging minds.

 

But different strokes for different folks as they say. As long as we come to realize that 'Krsna is the conclusive truth amongst logicians' in the end.

 

Hare Krsna

 

[Guest guest]

Dear "nothing" guest:

 

I don't care who you are. I also don't care what your degree qualifications are.

 

I did not cry when you said that Krishna's form is not eternal and a product of mAyA. This idea is rude and obnoxious, as well as contrary to shAstra, but I said nothing.

 

To earn respect, you must give respect.

 

I will say again as a matter of fact that your "arguments" are full of non-sequiturs and fallacies of reasoning that it is impossible to make much sense of them. I'll give you that *you* think they are really something intelligent, and that you are quite attached to these "arguments." But I see little evidence of real depth of thinking behind them.

 

Feel free to start another thread or not, as the case may be. Maybe I will even participate. We will see.