Expelled

[Trav]

JS,

this is for you....Since you like Indian Philosophy

.....................

Spirit of Indian Philosophy

(Based on an article by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan)

To delve into philosophical and spiritual studies one has to have an open mind. Only a receptive mind can effectively search the soul. Otherwise a disquisition on the subject will appear to be elusive and simply beyond our ken.

The six systems of Hinduism (Darshanas) and their sub-systems, Buddhism, Jainism and the materialistic system of the Charvaka are all evidence of the divergent of views of Indian philosophy. Accordingly, it is difficult to cite any specific doctrines as the dominant influence in the Indian thought process that developed over four millennia.

However, in all respects there is what is called a distinct spirit of Indian philosophy.

First and foremost chief mark of Indian philosophy is that its concentration on the spiritual. Except in the Charvaka system, all the other systems of philosophy and religion are intimately related and the philosophy is regarded as a spiritual adventure. The philosophies of the Vedas, Puranas, Smriti or the six Darshana literatures emphasize on the socio-spiritual reform and promote a spiritual life.

This socio-spiritual reform is the second characteristic of Indian philosophy. Philosophy is not merely an exercise in seeking ‘knowledge for its own sake’, but to learn the truth that can set a man free. Every major system of Indian philosophy strives to alleviate human suffering through philosophical knowledge. In India truth is not merely known but truth is to be lived. The goal of Indian philosophy is to teach an individual to realize the truth and become one with it, not merely know it. The word is aptly described in India as Darshana, which means ‘to see’. To see is to have a direct intuitive experience of the object rather than to realize, which means ‘to become one with’.

The third characteristic of Indian philosophy is its introspective approach to reality. It regards the external physical world not as important as the inner knowledge of the self. The philosophy is thought of as Atma-Vidya or the education of knowing oneself. Though the physical sciences developed in an unprecedented accuracy and speed during the Golden Age of Indian culture, the subjective rather than the objective became the focus of Indian philosophy. Truly outstanding progress had been made in the fields of astronomy, mathematics and medicine. Indian philosophy, from time immemorial has speculated that the inner spirit of man is more significant in providing clues to man’s place in the universe and will help him in realizing the truth that he seeks.

Fourth significant feature of Indian philosophy is that it has shown a tendency toward a monistic idealism. Though on the surface the various factions appear to be conflicting, the basic, fundamental belief of almost all Indian philosophy is that reality is ultimately one and ultimately spiritual.

Indian philosophy accepts only intuition as the method through which the ultimate can be known. Reason is important in demonstration of the truth but reason cannot discover or reach the truth. The process of knowing or sensing without the use of rationalizing process is a unique hallmark of Indian philosophy. This is the fifth characteristic of Indian philosophy.

Sixth characteristic of Indian philosophy is its unconditional willingness to accept authority. The intuitive insight of the seers, who obtained the Shruti literature from the gods or the intuitive experiences of Buddha and Mahavira are accepted. The basic concepts of the doctrines of the past are preserved as tradition and even the later commentaries did not significantly alter them. The respect for authority may seem exaggerated to some, but the Indian philosopher is of the deep conviction that those who really know the reality are the ones who have realized it.

Finally the Indian philosopher from the early years saw the importance of a synthetic approach to the various aspects of experience and reality. The philosophers pronounced ‘God is one but man may call Him by many names’, as early as the Vedic Period. Religion and philosophy, knowledge and conduct, intuition and reason, man and nature, God and man, noumenon and phenomenon, are all brought into harmony, by the synthesizing tendency of the Indian mind.

The final goal of life in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism is the same. Release from the repeated cycles of rebirth and liberation of the turmoil and suffering. The spirituality, introspection, monistic idealism, intuition, respect for authority and the strong belief that the truth is to be lived, not merely known, propel a Hindu and Jain towards the goal of attaining Moksha or Mukti and a Buddhist to attain Nirvana.

– Neria Harish Hebbar, M.D

................................................................................

.....................................................................

As an Athiast, I have spent a lifetime and a wasted college degree(Philosophy/Religion) in studying nothing but everyone elses beliefs so that I can express my own without alienating myself. All I have managed to do is get more ammo to shoot myself in the foot. For when it comes to faith you might as well be talking about peoples Mother.

I will rationalize my thoughts but tread lightly on stomping on what people hold dear.

As strongly as I may convey my opinion, it is with a fine line of respect and jester. Alot of what I express I am smiling on this end of the keyboard knowing that the response will be one way or another. The humans are pretty predictable.

Its exactly why I deluged this thread with a bunch of literature. To make a point that just because someone wants you to read what they believe, doesnt mean you have to read it or buy into it. And if you did read everything I submitted, then kuddos to you. I had to read four years of such crap to get what I consider a wasted degree.

Haha

So, if anyone would like to challenge the extent of what I am willing to argue on this subject....Feel free! At least I can brush up on all the knowledge I had to take in almost 15 years ago.

Al still has some faith as agnostic, My suspisions on him is that he hopes that a good life will lead to an after life. Yet he suspects that any religion currently practiced is flawed. And I can relate to him because I know all religions and they are all fundementally the same in that morals and family obligations tend to take presidence. I have never met AL(Yet) and I find him one of the most interesting people I have ever known. So his point of view tends to align in close kinship to mine. Therefor I will stand behind the man.

Plus, He is one great Artist!!! So pretty much he says I will be on his side. He is a man of exceptional talent and intellect.

Anyway, I had to stop myself before I got into the books of every religion known to man just to shove the diversity of the human race into this thread. I will conclude by saying..

....Good Luck JS!...I hope you catch some really big fish. From what I know about you, they will get put back in the water so I can go catch them later!

[crappiefisherman]

WOW<<<Im glad Im one of Gods children, I dont even have to prove a thing, I just have to believe

[Phil Lilley]

A key factor that we all must recognize is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant portion of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

For atheism to be true there must be an alternate explanation for how the universe and life came into existence. Although beliefs in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin was the first to develop a plausible model for how evolution could have occurred - natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian, but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists today likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism. However, according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

The Bible tells us, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."

Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems when they speak of origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe and life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject Creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a "scientific" explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than Creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered "scientific." This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of "science."

Who wrote this one?

[Trav]

I believe it is a snippet from John MacArthur, but I may be wrong. Not one that expresses my perspective but I threw it in to play as "Devils Advocate" so to speak.

If you like the opinion you can find more of it by reading "Battle for the Beginning" By the same author.

Haha

That is if you have enough Faith to read it.

sorry, poking fun.

[jscheetz]

Good Luck JS!...I hope you catch some really big fish. From what I know about you, they will get put back in the water so I can go catch them later!

Thanks Trav! You know me too well! I did catch a bunch - a ton of whites and about a dozen smallmouth - was good fun, and you are right they are all back in the water swimming around for you waiting for your frying pan - I don't want to kill any, cause after all - according to you and Al, todays too-short white bass may be tomorrows Rhodes Scholar!!

JS

[Al Agnew]

Flatlander...when I said "once and for all", it was about Ozarkid's (I think...it's been a long way back) assertion that evolutionists believe our ancestors were apes. I said once and for all because that is NOT what evolution says, and it's a distortion that trivializes the evidence and the theories. I didn't say it to say that such theories are pure fact, but that it IS fact what evolutionary theory says, and shat it says is NOT that man descended from monkeys.

We can throw books at each other 'til the cows come home...I could tell you to read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins, or if you REALLY have the guts, to read "The God Delusion" by the same author. But it doesn't take guts, or even an open mind, to read books by authors you don't think you'll agree with, just an interest in the subject. I could also say that we all oughta read such books just to understand what the "other side" thinks, in order to form our own ways of refuting them. It shouldn't take courage to read books that go against your beliefs...if your beliefs are strong enough or valid enough, such books should have no power to sway them.

The origins of morality...that's an interesting subject in itself. My moral fiber, if you will, comes from my parents and grandfather (distinctly non-religious people) and from the books I read as a child (stuff like Edgar Rice Burroughs, Mark Twain, and Louis L'Amour, to name a few). Probably a few John Wayne movies came in there, too. All that stuff had some things in common...honor, courage, the will to fight for the underdog and to treat other people with respect and kindness. I would also add that as I grew up, "morality" also extended to the natural world and treating land and wildlife with an enlightened respect. "Enlightened" because you have to understand how nature works to be a part of it rather than either a dispassionate observer or a thoughtless exploiter and destroyer.

At any rate, I will give you the point that Christianity, at its best, teaches morality, and probably there was some Christian influence both in the authors I read and in the ancestors of my parents. However, it appears to me that many people seem to think that there was no morality before Christianity, and that you HAVE to have Christian influence to be a moral person. Yet much of the "morality" chronicled in the Old Testament would be specifically rejected today...slavery, murdering the women, children, and even the livestock of your enemies, and a whole lot of other stuff.

Look at the Ten Commandments...several of them, if mandated, would be specifically unconstitutional in America today. Think that a law saying "you shall have no other gods than Jehovah" or "You shall not worship idols" or even "You shall keep the Sabbath holy" would pass constitutional muster? Others are not "laws" that could be enforced, such as "You shall not covet", " You shall honor your parents". And the ones that we can all totally agree upon..."You shall not commit murder", "You shall not steal", "You shall not bear false witness" are actually common to almost all civilized societies, even those in the past that had no exposure to Christianity. They were simply rules that were necessary to ANY society, from a tiny family group in prehistoric times to a primitive tribe to a modern country, in order for that group to survive and prosper. They are much older than Christianity, but what Christianity, and a few other religions, did was extend them to those not of your own group. The Jews of the Old Testament certainly didn't...if you weren't an Israelite you were pretty much fair game for stealing and killing.

You don't have to follow the Ten Commandments to be a moral person. You don't even have to follow the "Golden Rule" per se. All you have to do is have some empathy and respect for others.

Do I secretly, or not so secretly, hope that I'll do okay in an afterlife? Well, maybe. One of the precepts of Christianity as practiced today, as well as many other religions, that bothers me the most is the exclusivity...if you aren't "saved", or you don't accept Christ as your savior, you're screwed. (Or if you aren't a Muslim you're an infidel worthy of killing or enslaving, or...I could come up with a bunch of others.) That is a viewpoint that I totally reject simply because it offends my sense of justice. If there IS an afterlife AND cosmic justice, you should suffer or prosper there in direct proportion to how much evil or good you did in this world, not whether or not you accepted, rejected, or just wasn't exposed to a particular religion. A person who was purely evil for most of their life, but saw the light just before they died, should NOT get a free pass into paradise, and a person who was good and kind by anybody's lights but happened to follow a different faith should not be relegated to purgatory. THAT is what I believe, and I can see no way I could be swayed otherwise. So, I try to live as if that is the case, and I figure I'll have some things to pay for, but also some things that count on the good side, if it turns out that karma exists.

I enjoy discussions like this, and don't really mind if somebody seems to "attack" me...although I don't consider anything said here to be an attack. One time, in a similar discussion, somebody said they'd be praying for me. I told them to go right ahead...it might not take but it certainly wouldn't hurt. In fact, I believe that prayer has positive benefits for some people in some situations, the same as a number of other beliefs and "religious" practices. I'm glad that Phil has provided this forum and let this discussion that started with a movie go in the directions it has, and I'm glad that it has remained mostly civil and friendly.

[Trav]

Quote....

Al Agnew

" I could also say that we all oughta read such books just to understand what the "other side" thinks, in order to form our own ways of refuting them. It shouldn't take courage to read books that go against your beliefs...if your beliefs are strong enough or valid enough, such books should have no power to sway them."

Knowledge is power and not that other beliefs are adversary but I firmly believe in "knowing thy enemy" and "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

Al

I only summed you up that way as a generalization of all Agnostics. They as theory believe in life after death but are resistant to acknowledge any specific religion or belief status. From your anology I wasnt too far off base. Haha, Here is where my degree is paying off I guess. To bad I cant get paid for this stuff. LOL

As far as the Ten Commandments....

Lets not forget it is from the Ol Test wich is NOT Christian. As it has morals but the text is the most contrary of all religious scripts ever composed. In it is a the story of Abraham, whom was granted all the land he could see but he needed an heir and his wife Sarah didnt produce any. She suggested he have a child with thier Arab maid and he did and they called him Ishmal. Well, soon after Sarah did get preggys and they had Isaac. So to make sure Isaac was the Heir and since Ishmal was illegit, Sarah made Abraham send Ishmal and his mother into the desert. And to this day the Arabs have been fighting with the Jews over who owns the right of thier so-called mother land.

Is it fact or is it fiction? It is a geneologists wet dream but the majority of the old test is nothing but a geneology of somebodys family. Obviously not the origin of the human species.

And the new test is but a cultish conversion of agnosticism that wanted to question the staus quo.

Religion and politics, social status and personal grandure all falls in line with the instinctive human behavior of being selfishly composed and opportunistictly persuasive. Power over the Anthill is the key to Pride wich is the humans biggest driving point.

I have spent a lifetime questioning the human race and have devoted many a day proving the human race is nothing but trouble. Thier beliefs and thier hypocrisy.

JS

I am alot like you, thats why I knew you would leave those fish for me. And Like you, not a single one of those fish will touch a frying pan if I catch them. I release everything I catch.

As far as being a Scholar.................I am just a human like you as well and even Al will agree that our differ on the the religion aspect doesnt make us immune to stupidity. We all have our faults and it just so happens that mine is my Big M(mouth).

Wink Wink..

Sorry Thom, that deserves a wink

Phil,

What ever happened to our fishing trip? I understand with all the high water it might be a bit tough, but as you told me, its more about the comradship. Let me know when you want to meet me at my dock. I think we can have alot of fun.

[Trav]

20 thousand views on this thread!

Is that a record?

[denjac]

As I read through all the posts it dawned on me: what a powerful forum we have here, We have people from all walks of life here, and fishing binds us all together. We as a group could set political agendas, help our neighbors, help the enviroment , ect. I personally know none of you, but feel a kinship to all of you. Some say Jesus taught us to fish, some say we evolved from fish. Theres a connection there some way.

[Chief Grey Bear]

OK, I have been following along here by checking in about once a week to catch up on the latest.

This is a really, really deep conversation. I must admit that I am starting to get along in my age and what I am reading here is really starting to worry me. Is there or is there not a Tooth Fairy? I know at some point, being a hillbilly I am gonna start loosing teeth. I will need this income to supplement my SS payments.