Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Dear KK, Accept my pranams. Statement B is "analogous" to statement A but not a "consequence/logic" of A. Hope this is clear to you. > I accept statement-A to be true. Even so, how > statement-B logically follows from statement-A? The > chooser might be Allah or Yahweh instead of Lord > Narayana right :) Before making this statement,one should know "reasonably" well about one's own religion "first" and then keep one's hands and legs in other religions. Your statement is like saying Newtonian mechanics,Maxwel's theory of electricity and magnetism,Einstein's Relativity theory and Quantum Mechanics are all "one and the same". > The odds are sadly stacked against us and in favour of > christians. Lot of people are converting to > christianity than people converting to vaishnavism ( > and even less if any to Ramanuja Siddhantam )! > Refer theses sites :) They seem to have a clear-cut > plan! > 1) http://www.ad2000.org/uters1.htm > 2) http://www.goodnewsforindia.org/about.htm I guess it was GB Shaw(he only dares to pass highly critical quotes/remarks/comments). One brainy fellow can equal hundreds of guys. Why do you think our universe is still stable despite all the odds. It's because of this. It's easier to convert a person who doesn't ask any question and who is satisfied with any answer. Ask all those christians whether their religion enjoins meat-eating,and liquor-drinking(also what exactly Jesus has said about mercy;whether mercy should be shown to only human being or all creatures). Lastly love should flow from within instetad of forcing the person to love someone(be it a human being or Lord Himself). > A claim that could be made by a christian, Muslim or > Zorastrian :) There are levels of thinking. If you can understand this statement,you will understand that a "thoery/religion" which answers or atleast tries to answer each and every question from universal stand point(should be applicable to all) is "complete" in itself. Sun gives you(good) and me(bad) the same amount of light. Rains and so many other natural processes do not seek human permission to do their duties. Similarly the Lord's grace(of any religion)should be spontaneous. BTW,Islam has borrowed so many ideas from other religions and it(quran)is dated in AD by researchers. How authentic it is that I do not know. That way Christianity is much older but it doesn't address some fundamental issues. > > But this is not the case in our religion. A person > > becomes a SV by > > conduct and of course faith in Sriman Narayana. The > > samAshrayaNam or > > pancasamskAram is not the "means" and I don't attain > > salvation b'coz > > of these! > > Probably this is our weakness! Let us the classic example of Mother-baby relationship(similar to ParamAtma-jivAtma relation). A true mother, out of her own love for the baby,feeds the baby not because the baby makes an "effort" in the form of "crying/means". So whether the baby cries or not for milk the mother will apply "brute force" and feed it. This highlights the greatness of the mother(God) not that of the "mere" effort(of crying) on the part of the baby(jIvAtma). > Yes! But for how long? Pakistan and Bangladesh were > carved out of Bharat only recently. Foreign forces are > feeding anti-Indian sentiment to North-East Indian > tribals and they want a separate Isiastan or > christistan ( NLFT, ULTRA, ULFA terrorists anyone ? ) What is the scenario in those countries? Is it very rosy? Don't mix up spiritual issues with politcal issues(in the hands of some bunch of fools who are after power,money and etc). The latter is ephemeral but former should hold true for "ALL TIMES". This will tell you what religious values are! > Past success is noway an indication of future > performance ? :) The Greek civilization thrived for > many centuries. What happened to it now? Is it > anything more than a mere museum curiosity? The answer lies in your own statement. All those countries ruled some other countries in one form or the other except ours. All those countries have taken a back seat now. One simple reason that physicsts(physics is "the" fundamental subject as far "matter" is ocncerned)are appreciating our religion a lot is enough to tell how profound our religion is. > I do not understand Swahili. So, I cannot understand a > Swahili sentence from a meaningless blabbering. > So, if you yourself agree that we cannot comprehend > the meaning of universe, "for all practical purposes" > it is meaningless right ? :) Watch the usage of english word "able" whcih doesn't affirmatively say that we "can't". Any theory again presupposes how much the "theorist" can see "far" into the "actual" reality. Here "senses" are involved. If you're a student of mathematicas you will catch this point. No mathematician(of the highest rank)has ever given any definition for Infinity as well as Zero. One can introduce lot of jargons to explain this(and also to confuse the audience thoroughly)! Suppose I go to the eye specialist and say taht I am not able to read (just a lie). He is going to prescibe glasses for me(he will strictly go by allopathy!). He sees(perception) me and believes(inference)that I'm telling him the truth(actually I have told him a lie!) and "concludes" that I really can't see things. This is called the "limitation of the senses". Then imagine if one wants to look far and wide into the Universe,how his senses should help/prohibit him seeing into the "actual" reality. > This is a statement that could mean a lot of things. > Please be more specific :) Problem-solving the mystery of the universe scientifically(why the hell this universe exists in te first place/ab initia and is there a cause behind it). As far SV is concerned we know why this universe exists! Whether you go by Darwin theory some other evolution theory,we human beings fall somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy of size. We are also part of the universe. When solving the problem,we have to make sure that the solution holds true whether we are present in it or not. Mathematically one can find an exterior solution(universe without the observer)and an interior solution (with the observer)and then find the "matched condition" for the two solutions. Einstein's theory supposes two things:(1)nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The so called hypothetical "tachyons"(faster than speed of light)have not been observed so far. So is the case with quarks(which make up the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom)which has not been detected in the laboratory and infcat some physicists have rejected this theory. (2) the world that we live is an "objective reality". Meaning it is real and exists independent of the observer(it supports visishtadvaitic view). Mind you this is a single man(Einstein)'s contribution. The other revolutionary theory is Quantum Mechanics which defies everything(causality,determinism,realism). This theory is a contribution by many but the main proponents of the theory were Niels Bohr,Heisenberg,Schroedinger,Pauli and Dirac including Max Planck and Einstein who(esp. Eintesin who daringly put forth his views which Planck hesitated as he couldn't believe) initiated the birth of Quantum Mechanics with "black body radiation(of Planck)" and "photoelectric effect(of Einstein)". Initially Einstein was alone refuting quantum mechanics as the "most absurd theory" that anyone can think of but later on Schroedinger(founder of wave mechanics) and Dirac(Transformation Theory)happily joined hands with Einstein. But Niels Bohr,the spokesperson for defending quantum mechanics as the ultimate theory,was of firm view that nature itself is uncertain and fuzzy and this world of reality(or rather non-reality)does not exist independently of the observer. This interpretation is called "Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics" because Bohr was from Copenhagen and his institute was a place for doing research in quantum mechanics. This is similar to advaitic view that this "world" is maya(does not exist independent of the observer)! This crazy idea was persisting for decades(due to Bohr)and then one physicist dared to disprove either Einstein or Bohr. Only one of the two views can come out successful! The current day research supports Einstein's first view(so far no experiments had proved Einstein wrong). So Einstein is saved wrt his first postulate! Quantum mechanics gives results "correctly". All the four different versions of Heisenberg,Shroedinger,Dirac and Feynman gives the identical results to the same problem. The problem liles only in the interpretation! Some physicists don't want to give up reality and so stick to second view of Einstein thus by violating QM regarding the existence of reality and also violating the first view of Einstein. And some others stick to the first view of Einstein and forgo the second view thus by supporting QM as far "reality" is ocncerned. Physicists who had been brainwashed by Bohr for decades have atleast taken the right direction now(by accepting one of the conditions of Einstein's theory). It's again a matter of time to accept the other one:-) This is where Einstein's genius lies in. Dirac made a statement:if Einstein had not proposed his "special" theory of relativity someone else would have done. but if he had not proposed his "general(all observers)" theory of relativity we would still be waiting for that theory. Dirac was positive and Bohr skeptical about QM initially. But after a decade both took 180 degree turn. Dirac,despite his contribution to the theory,disliked quantum mechanics totally and everyday he would torture himself to come up with a theory to refute QM and Bohr was very sure about it that he literally shut the mouths of people who came forward with a "different" approach. Scientists are not excempted from prejudices! Once in a while, if somebody poses on physics coupled with philosphy it's fine but let us not make it a routine and instead learn more about the Ramanuja sampradayam. If you want to have further communications,please respond to my personal id. > > I apologize if my reply was offensive in any way. Not at all:-) Knowledge never expands without the mind thinking or questioning. Kindly forgive if anywhere my post sounded harsh. Best regards AzhvAr EmperumAnAr JIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam NC Nappinnai
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |