Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Sanatana Dharma

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,343 profile views

wundermonk's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Take care eThErEaL. Your posts have broadened my mind. Thank you, salaam, namaste and best of luck in your future endeavours!
  2. ??? The rest of the post had enough meat for discussion, but this? I doubt if you will find supporters of White Nationalism on SC.
  3. Well, why Quisant? I rather enjoy ethereal posts on SC. :) I find traces of Sufism and Advaita/Kashmir Shaivism in his posts. They are possibly not the average theist Hindu/theist Muslim position but they are philosophically quite defensible positions!
  4. Good to see friend ethereal again. In any case, I can fully understand his argumentation in this thread. Here are some similar ideas within Advaita. Brahman, in itself, can NOT be called the cause of the world within Hinduism (per Advaita) for the following reasons. (1) Scripture declares that Brahman is the only reality. It is immutable and devoid of parts. It is unborn. (2)For Brahman to be considered the cause of the world, Brahman should either be the material cause of the efficient cause. If Brahman is the material cause of the world, then Brahman ought to exhaust itself. Why? If Brahman is the world, given Brahman does NOT have any parts, all of Brahman ought to be exhausted in its being the world's material cause. So, the transcendence of Brahman is destroyed. Brahman can not be the efficient cause of the world either. For it to be the efficient cause, and if this creation is ex nihilo, there ought to be a motive behind creation. If there is a motive behind creation, then prior to creation, Brahman had that motive unfulfilled leading to its not being all-blissful with no unsatisfied desire. For Brahman to be the efficient cause but creation is not ex nihilo, it means that there are other entities other than Brahman that are coeval with it. This is a limitation on Brahman. So, only Brahman is. The world is a superposition on Brahman - just like how a rope is the substratum of the snake. Once the rope is known, the non-existence of snake is self-evident and needs no further proof. Shankara confronted the theistic schools of Hinduism with the above horns of a difficult dilemma.
  5. Good point. This is why there are traditions like Sufism in Islam and Advaita in Hinduism that are spiritually monistic. That is, from the perspective of God, there is no second. There is nothing God created. There is just for lack of better words oneness/existence/consciousness/bliss/experience. This is why it is said everything is in God, but God is not in anything. You may want to search up on posts by user ethereal on SC. He has explained monistic Sufi Islam quite well in many of his posts.
  6. I have to agree with Quisant here...SC has probably a more open minded policy on contrarian POVs than other boards...I know of some atheist boards are quite disrespectful towards theistic belief systems.
  7. The gangrape in Delhi is beyond disgusting. That said, could you please justify the opening line of your OP quoted above? If you can not, please retract it.
  8. Whatever Hinduism may say about 2012, we better get it right...time is kinda running out for this year it appears.
  9. Hello, I can not comment on the poem. I will comment on the rest of your post. There are certain interpretations of Dharmic faiths and Islam that are spiritually monistic. In Hinduism, the closest one gets to this is Advaita Vedanta. (There are other different schools of thought in Hinduism, but we can leave them aside for later.) Swami Vivekananda was a follower of this school of thought. Within Buddhism, Yogacara Buddhism also gives precedence to consciousness alone. For Advaita, however, the concept of God is not a personal dualistic God. So, whenever an Advaitin talks of God, he is referring to pure consciousness and not a personal God which would be the common understanding of God in theologies across the world (be it Hinduism or Islam or Christianity, etc.) Within Islam, I am given to understand that Sufi interpretation of Islam comes closest to the Advaitin interpretation of God/divinity. So, it is not surprising that the same truth is rediscovered in different forms in different cultures in different ages from time to time. The following posts on Shiachat may be of interest to you: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235005432-can-creation-be-everlasting/#entry2463454 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235005432-can-creation-be-everlasting/#entry2463823 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235005432-can-creation-be-everlasting/#entry2463826 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235005432-can-creation-be-everlasting/page__st__25#entry2463881 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234997401-how-does-one-believe-god/page__st__25__p__2326983#entry2326983 Regards.
  10. Ok. I am not going to waste 44 minutes of my time then. :) Since you brought up the Dalit-non-Dalit divide here, what do you make of stories like the following? Dalits break caste barrier, enter 120 year old Tamil Nadu Temple The temple there is dedicated to Mariamman who is picturized below: These are the types of Gods Hindus (Dalits and non-Dalits) worship. Are these Dalits who broke the caste barrier to enter a 120 year old temple committing shirk? Will Allah punish them with eternal hellfire? Are they Kuffr? If Dalits are INDEED Kuffr, why do you pretend to argue on their behalf in this thread?
  11. You are the OP'er. This is YOUR thread. It is up to you to reasonably enable other posters to contribute to your thread. Can you therefore summarize, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what is being discussed there in the video? Also, by quoting Israel in this thread, are you not derailing your OWN thread? What does Israel have to do in a thread on India/Hinduism/racism. Until and unless the OP'er clarifies where he wants to go with this thread, I am not going to volunteer for a detailed personal interview on this thread regarding my beliefs as that would be irrelevant to the OP. If needed, please open a thread of your own, and time permitting I will reply.
  12. (1)Would it be too much to ask you to summarize the 44 minutes of the video? (2)I just watched the first couple of minutes where the host (a Muslim) talks about Hinduism/India. Now, is it possible that the host (being a Muslim) provides a distorted view of India. Yes/No? (3)The host talks about how India is not a democracy, etc. (in the opening two minutes). Does he do similar programs about the lack of democracy in other Muslim-majority countries - notably Saudi Arabia? (4)If the answer to (3) is NO, is it possible that the host has an ax to grind against Hinduism? (5)Are YOU aware of affirmative action programs put in place by the Indian government to cater to historically underpriviledged groups? (6)Do you agree with the principle behind affirmative action? My follow up questions will be based on your answers to the above questions. Thanks.
  13. Sure. First of all, the Hindu does not worship the idol per se. There are many newsstories where some thieves break into a temple and steal some idol and make money out of it etc. Now, if a Hindu had previously been worshipping in that temple, after the thieves steal it, the Hindu does not suddenly become an atheist since the idol is no longer there! He would simply go to a different temple to pray to God. Next, one form of definition of God accepted in Hinduism is via Tatastha Lakshana (definition per accidens). An example of this would be the following - "Steve's home is the home on top of which is perched a peacock". This is to be contrasted to Svarupa Lakshana (definition in essence). In the former, only accidental attributes (a peacock on the roof) are used to define a thing (Steve's home), while in the latter, the very essence of the thing is used to define it. An idol, for a Hindu, is a form of Tatastha Lakshana of God. Next, the (theistic) Hindu idea of Brahman is that He is a personal God endowed with infinite auspicious attributes - omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. The Hindu also believes that out of supreme love for us unliberated souls and God embodies himself from time to time as Avataras - famous ones being Rama and possibly the most celebrated one being Krishna. Krishna, Rama, etc. are avataras of the one ultimate God - Vishnu. Vishnu has been doing this for ever and will continue to do so forever. The primary reason why Vishnu incarnates is out of grace for his devotees. The secondary reason also is that sometimes adharma (unrighteousness) overtakes the universe and Vishnu needs to put his feet down and set things in order, as it were. There are strong scriptural statements that such actions do not affect the essence of Vishnu. I made a thread on that here. Incarnation/avatarhood Versus Prophethood
  14. Advaita has 3 classes of realities. (1)Absolutely real - something that is unsublateable - in the past, present and future. (2)Absolutely unreal - a square circle, married bachelor, hare's horn, etc. (3)Neither real nor unreal (anirvachaniya) - our external world. The dialectics are more or less along the following lines: Something that is absolutely unreal (like a square circle) can never be experienced/perceived/inferred. Thus, forever being uncognized, it is absolutely unreal. Something that is absolutely real, something that can never be denied, something that is presumed and is prior in nearly everything else is subjective consciousness. So, consciousness ALONE is absolutely real. Now, the external world is cognized. So, it can not be absolutely unreal. But it is sublated on Brahman consciousness (Advaitin will bring in scriptural support for this and also arguments from analysis of dreams). Being sublated it can not be absolutely real either. There is a difference between Advaita and Yogachara Buddhism. The latter explicitly tries to argue that the external world is absolutely unreal. Advaita argues that due to the arguments above, the external world is neither real nor unreal. It is indescribable and hence anirvachaniya (technical Advaitin term).
  15. I do not know whether Ravi Shankar is an Advaitin or not. Also, your representation of the Advaitin position is misleading. It is not as simple as saying Advaita believes in one God and that everything is God. Advaita believes that the only thing that is independent and prior to everything else is pure undifferentiated consciousness. This is the nirguna aspect of Brahman as consciousness. This aspect of pure subjectivity, aloofness, non-action, pure-witnessing of consciousness is also available in Samkhya, for instance. The difference between Samkhya and Advaita comes down to the former's belief that this witness-consciousness is plural [i.e. each person has his/her own individuated consciousness] while Advaita believes that this witness-consciousness is ultimately one, undivided and universal as it is completely devoid of differentiating characteristics that can serve to differentiate one from another. So, the concept of "God" in both Advaita and Samkhya is impersonal and it is simply pure consciousness. So, there is, really, not any room for popular theism [God in other religions] in Advaita/Samkhya. A more theistic schools of Vedanta - Visistadvaita believes that God is personal and that, in fact, God is in everything [not God is everything]. Technically this is called coordinate-predication. An analogy used is the following - just like how we humans have a self and a body both of which are supported by the self, likewise, God is the "supersoul" [as it were] - the ultimate support/locus - whose body is all of our conscious selves and unconscious matter that makes up this world. This is probably what you meant?
  • Create New...