You're funny, like so far you've just been kicking me at any opportunity, and now you're like jump through this hoop, and guess what is on the other side.
In my opinion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Won't You Let me Be Hindu?
- Thread starter wizanda
- Start date
In my opinion.
You're funny, like so far you've just been kicking me at any opportunity, and now you're like jump through this hoop, and guess what is on the other side.
In my opinion.
No, I'm not being funny. I'm asking you to back up your statement(s). Without the interpretation of an ācārya, what are those verses actually saying?
There is only one CPU; therefore by recognizing what Krishna is saying, that a divine representative is a conduit to understanding something that is beyond form, we embrace some of the Bhakti in the right direction, by our show of faith.
We gain atonement by fully connecting to the CPU; by focusing on the pure light of reality, our darkness within is illuminated for us to vanquish.
In my opinion.
Like what sort of dissection of what was stated was that, i don't mind you showing well here is this or that which is wrong because of this reasoning...
Yet dull responses like that don't really say very much.
In my opinion.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Is that like Groucho Marx's quip “I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.”?
A worthy question!
Probably!
Like what sort of dissection of what was stated was that, i don't mind you showing well here is this or that which is wrong because of this reasoning...
Yet dull responses like that don't really say very much.
In my opinion.
What they are saying is:
9.23 "O [Arjuna], even those devotees who faithfully worship other gods also worship me. But they do so by the wrong method."
It's perfectly OK to worship other deities besides Krishna, and he will even help steady the faith of that devotee, but unless the person understands that the other deity is none other than Krishna (God) himself, Brahman, because all is Brahman, the worship is futile. All graces, boons and benefits are granted only by Krishna. I can pray to Thor for strength int he gym, but that strength comes only from Krishna.
9.30 "Even if the vilest sinners worship me with exclusive devotion, they are to be considered righteous, for they have made the proper resolve."
Repentance and surrender to Krishna (God), plain and simple. If one surrenders fully to Krishna, and becomes established in single-pointed devotion to Him, all the person's sins are wiped away, and he is now considered righteous and holy. It doesn't mean, however, that because I pray to Krishna, make offerings to Him, attend his pujas, I can go on bank robbery sprees and be forgiven. In that case I have not truly surrendered.
Those are the commentaries of the scholars.
Belief is inherent. It's not a want. It's not an option in a buffet. It's part of one's constitution, character, and nature.
My understanding is Thor, and Krishna are both unique possible manifestations from the CPU; they both express individual character, that allows us to see more colors in the spectrum of Oneness.
Krishna to me seems to make himself seem illusory by only being a manifestation from the CPU, he is the finger pointing at it describing it, and Thor is fighting demons with his Hammer!!
Again, query: Why not the CPU? Why stop at the reflection, when we can look at the moon?
Devotion is only worthy if we actually follow Krishna's teachings; which includes not following adharmic pathways, and instead working towards living the dharma in all opportunity.
So whereas Krishna is pointing to a pathway that he isn't real, as only the CPU is real; don't point at him, point at the CPU; people still end up pointing at him.
In my opinion.
Because silly CPU analogy silliness is silly.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It is simply silly until silicon chips become sentient beings... then we can talk about this matrix rubbish.
Shouldn't an avatar know how to talk to mere mortals, talk TO them, rather than AT them?
Pro Tip: When one sees that an idea is going over like a lead ballon one might well pause to consider a different approach.
Seriously whilst arguing against your own tail, to the point of falling over your own feet is silliness...
Exchanging Brahman with the CPU is as all criteria are fulfilled in this, and it is a more scientifically accurate description.
Exchanging Brahman for Krishna as your scholar just did is idolatry...
Krishna is a manifestation from God; Brahman should always be deemed God; thus your author has muddied the waters of theological understanding...
To actually point people in a materialistic direction, and then be more bothered by a CPU concept in the right direction.
Thank you for the constructive criticism, appreciated...
Generally do try to direct things to people's intellect; yet some times people just keep going below that level...
On the concept of CPU and Matrix (which is what this thread started from), not really going to quit using them terminologies, as having studied about the concepts integration with religious ideals, found just because people don't understand complex matters, doesn't mean we simplify to the point they're back with ambiguity, that can then lead them further from the needed comprehension.
Which to me is fundamentally wrong, the CPU/Universal Mind has no self, it is selfless.
In my opinion.
People choose many beliefs (ideas they put faith into) throughout their life; those beliefs shape the people, not the other way around.
One's faith (which originally meant to trust) is personal, and is like a key to a door in our heart; we only align with things that fit our resonance, and character.
People who randomly pick beliefs, without proper scientific investigation from as many different sources, and then correlate that data to find the best theory based on all the data, are illogical in someway.
In my opinion.
People choose many beliefs (ideas they put faith into) throughout their life; those beliefs shape the people, not the other way around.
One's faith (which originally meant to trust) is personal, and is like a key to a door in our heart; we only align with things that fit our resonance, and character.
People who randomly pick beliefs, without proper scientific investigation from as many different sources, and then correlate that data to find the best theory based on all the data, are illogical in someway.
In my opinion.
Choice in belief is quite limited. One cannot control directly whether or not to believe in Brahman or a personal God. S/he can choose certain aspects of the faith or qualities of that god (or lack thereof) based on experience, but but ultimately cannot choose the overall belief.
"...if I tell you that I will pay you $1,000 if you sincerely believe that a pink elephant is flying outside your window right now, you cannot do it. You can say you believe it, you can even want to believe it because you'd like the extra cash, but you cannot in fact will yourself to believe it."
Choosing to Believe?
This is likely the reason you will struggle to get people, especially Hindus, to accept the concept of a governing CPU, let alone accept that as a parallel to or exchange for Brahman.
Last edited:
I don't do anything for money; so that couldn't influence me...
Yet if i want to imagine there is a pink elephant outside floating in the sky; later when the sun is red, it will manifest as a clear cloud that everyone can see.
LoL, people who are seeking to understand the Divine who have studied many theologies, can question the metaphor of a CPU replacing the terminology God, and many Atheists find this a much more logical concept...
It is only religious people who have little faith, who get scared that changing one of their religious words, might take away what little belief they had.
This is similar to why posted 'can an atheist reject the CPU and be logical'; yet that was meant to everyone...
As if we're in a simulated reality, and based on the best scientific mathematical hypotheses there is then a Singularity processing reality at a quantum level; a belief should be based on the best data we can accumulate to reach a logical hypothesis.
Out of interest it was Christianity that applied the rule 'belief is the things not seen, yet hoped for'; which is like saying we're not logical enough to know how scriptures shows categorically, why things will take place.
In my opinion.
El wrongo. Krishna sanctions murti worship in BG 12.5. I posted verses that explicitly say Krishna is Brahman.
El wrong again. In Vaishnava theology Krishna is God. No, Brahman should not be deemed God. Brahman is not “God”.
Claiming to know more than the teachers, gurus, and sages when not even knowing the basics, or worse yet twisting them, is beyond hubris.
I don’t think at this point any approach will work to stop the total and abject misrepresention and twisting of Hindu theology and philosophy. “...the only winning move is not to play."
Krishna (Avatar) is a representation from Brahman (God)... Krishna is not a representation of Krishna, and therefore Thor is not a representation of Krishna; yet Brahman.
I don't care what schools misunderstand; the text says that Krishna is less than God, and only those who understand the Oneness that is being applied, will one day be free of Samsara.
God is a generic English term for the Source of reality, and now you're saying Brahman isn't the Source of reality.... Talk about cut off your nose to spite your face.
I don't claim to know more, i claim to be a willing student who doesn't mind questioning everything, as we're within the Maya with Asura everywhere.
Sorry yet find this exact same thing with the Hindu Tradition, which you think is from the Divine, when much of it is backwards from what i've experienced..
So literally as already saying, i've already given up on your traditions, and thank you for showing that it is a waste of time spiritually, and am better studying the texts for themselves.
Best way to win, would be to apologize for having been rude, to accept that people are entitled to their own understanding, and to question alternative perspectives...
Yet so far your ego has gotten in the way of logical discernment and reasoning each time.
In my opinion.
Krishna is Brahman in Vaishnava belief. Krishna says he is Brahman and all deities are Brahman because he is all deities, and all everything.
"And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness." BG 14.27
Just a little thing I created to summarize the Lord's attributes:
The Blessed Lord said: “I am seated in the heart of all living entities… I am the beginning, middle, and end of all beings. ... of the senses I am the mind, and in living beings I am the living force ... of bodies of water I am the ocean ... of purifiers I am the wind; of fishes I am the shark ... of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle ... I am also inexhaustible time ... I am all-devouring death, and I am the generator of all things yet to be ... I am victory, I am adventure, and I am the strength of the strong ... I am the generating seed of all existences … there is no being-moving or unmoving- that can exist without Me ... know that all beautiful, glorious and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor ... with a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.” Bhagavad Gita 10.20-42
Your belief,which is only partly correct. So, you understand "Oneness"? You are jivanmukta? "...someone who, in the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta']Advaita Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, has gained and assimilated self-knowledge, thus is liberated with an inner sense of freedom while living.[1][2]The state is the aim of moksha in Advaita Vedanta, Yoga and other schools of Hinduism, and it is referred to as jivanmukti (Self-realization).[3][4][5][/url]"
More twisting; I never said any such thing that Brahman is not the source of reality. Dr David Frawley on Twitter
- Rejects the validity and authenticity of the Vedas as being "not of man", i.e. "divine".
- The Vedas are central to Hinduism, therefore...
- Not a Hindu, cannot claim to be Hindu.
- Booyah, case closed.
So, you don't want to be considered Hindu now? You don't want to have conversations with Hindus in the Hinduism DIR now?
Rude? No, I don't think so. Not the things you wanted to hear? Definitely. Helpful? Yes, hopefully for people who know a little bit more about Hinduism now, what it is and is not.
Ego? No, respect and love for Hinduism and for my gods and goddesses and what it all represents.
"I can do this all day." - Steve Rogers
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
No problemo. Just tryin' to be helpful.
All the more reason to reevaluate the message instead of flogging your proverbial dead horsey.
But sadly, as someone with more than adequate knowledge of both computers and many flavors of religion, the analogy just isn't that great. I KNOW you love the idea, but it's not a great analogy. It's an ok analogy. BTW: I'm also a huge fan of the Matrix trilogy but don't recognize it as being philosophically meaningful.
Whew. Good thing you are not a Hindu, eh?It is the clearest most specific word we can use for 'God' without a name; i do not agree with Hindu concepts of Brahman anyways, they've created Atman = Self = Brahman...
Which to me is fundamentally wrong, the CPU/Universal Mind has no self, it is selfless.
In my opinion.