A Prophet or a Teacher?

[SkinWalker]

No need to stay tuned for your BS. This is an example of translators using their own bias to achieve an ends they already have in mind. Demonstrating exactly what I was critical of in my post above.

One need not look past the very first quote of vedic mythology: "SB 3.11.4: Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space."

The Sanskrit word for atomic in this passage was probably something like anuh or paramanuh (spellings are somewhat subjective, but the syllabary is what counts). Which mean "very small" and "extremely small."

Since the translator of the text from Sanskrit to English wanted to demonstrate the validity and foresight of his favorite cult practice and superstition, he naturally interjected the 20th century word "atom" and "atomic" rather than "very small" or "extremely/infinitely small." The original context of the entire mythology of the Vedas is, therefore, suspect and we can summarily toss that nonsense out.

No need to even look at the rest of your "quotes."

Shoo now.

 

[Michael]

its not clear why you use the terms prophet and teacher as mutually exclusive terms - a teacher that has no degree of enlightenment is simply mundane and a prophet that has no sense of philosophy is not capable of expounding anything normative for people in general

No this is not correct on both accounts.

See here:

1) I am referring to a teacher that has no degree of spiritual revelation not a teacher that has no degree of enlightenment. Of course the teacher is enlightened. This enlightenment was not obtained from a God it was obtained via personal endeavor and personal meditation and giving over a lot of time in contemplation to a particular question. For example: What does it mean to be human? Or: How best to lead a student to self revelation? Or: What is reality?

2) A Prophet that has no sense of philosophy is most certainly capable of expounding anything that the God so wishes the Prophet to expound. Whether that be nominal to the general populace or not. My point is this "anything expounded" is spiritual revelation (aka: it is information from God). It needn't even come from a person;s mouth. It could just as easily come from an inanimate object - like a telephone. Basically, if God so wished, you could pick up a Phone and God could tell you things and you could call this Phone a Prophet.


Don't you agree? It seems to make sense to me and Oli. Actually, everyone can understand this. And Does. When I ask: Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers? I am not asking anything that one hasn't already asked themself. In general we all admire our Philosophers/Teachers but for the religous devout they put their Prophets above all else. Why? Why put a Phone above even the average Philosopher?

The Prophet simply hears a God's info and passes it on. Any one of us could be a Prophet. It requires no work. If anything, you'll find many Prophets set themselves up with a few perks anyway.

The Teacher/Philosopher endeavors of their own volition. They make the personal sacrifice of their short time here on Earth to reach enlightenment AND also to share this with other people.


To me there is no contest - The Teacher/Philosopher is the more valued of the two.

Michael

 

[Michael]

SkinWalker,

Again, this thought experiment is not about the message. We make the assumption that both messages are equally worthwhile (and we assume that a Prophet is the real deal).
What I am asking is about the person.
Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers?

And more importantly - Why?

Michael

 

[SkinWalker]

As a thought experiment, I would have to say teachers. History has shown us that "prophets" have selfish agendas whereas good teachers have only the desire to share knowledge. "Prophets" wish to control, curtail, suppress or otherwise limit knowledge. To the "prophet," the free-thinker is dangerous; to the teacher, the free-thinker is like gold.

 

[lightgigantic]

No need to stay tuned for your BS. This is an example of translators using their own bias to achieve an ends they already have in mind. Demonstrating exactly what I was critical of in my post above.

knowledgeable of sanskrit are you?

One need not look past the very first quote of vedic mythology: "SB 3.11.4: Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space."

The Sanskrit word for atomic in this passage was probably something like anuh or paramanuh (spellings are somewhat subjective, but the syllabary is what counts). Which mean "very small" and "extremely small."

if you bothered to read the reference you would see that the terms are contextualized by further references to verifiable phenomena like 'days'

Since the translator of the text from Sanskrit to English wanted to demonstrate the validity and foresight of his favorite cult practice and superstition, he naturally interjected the 20th century word "atom" and "atomic" rather than "very small" or "extremely/infinitely small."

when you start talking about the foundational substance of matter beyond the perception of the naked eye, its fallacious to call them 'atoms'?

The original context of the entire mythology of the Vedas is, therefore, suspect and we can summarily toss that nonsense out.

now if you want to talk about biased authorship .....

No need to even look at the rest of your "quotes."

Shoo now.

sorry
didn't mean to challenge your world view

 

[lightgigantic]

No this is not correct on both accounts.

See here:

1) I am referring to a teacher that has no degree of spiritual revelation not a teacher that has no degree of enlightenment. Of course the teacher is enlightened. This enlightenment was not obtained from a God it was obtained via personal endeavor and personal meditation and giving over a lot of time in contemplation to a particular question. For example: What does it mean to be human? Or: How best to lead a student to self revelation? Or: What is reality?

yes there are various disciplines or paradigms to enlightenment - but its still not clear how you would determine that god was not responsible for bestowing the enlightenment, particularly if it pertains to something that falls within the folds of transcendental knowledge or the ultimate existential basis of things (ie what it means to be 'human' etc)

2) A Prophet that has no sense of philosophy is most certainly capable of expounding anything that the God so wishes the Prophet to expound. Whether that be nominal to the general populace or not. My point is this "anything expounded" is spiritual revelation (aka: it is information from God). It needn't even come from a person;s mouth. It could just as easily come from an inanimate object - like a telephone. Basically, if God so wished, you could pick up a Phone and God could tell you things and you could call this Phone a Prophet.

Don't you agree? It seems to make sense to me and Oli. Actually, everyone can understand this. And Does. When I ask: Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers? I am not asking anything that one hasn't already asked themself. In general we all admire our Philosophers/Teachers but for the religous devout they put their Prophets above all else. Why? Why put a Phone above even the average Philosopher?

my point is that you artificially make the terms prophet and teacher mutually exclusive, since we practically see that the 'prophets' also come with an extensive philosophical basis

The Prophet simply hears a God's info and passes it on. Any one of us could be a Prophet. It requires no work. If anything, you'll find many Prophets set themselves up with a few perks anyway.

one obvious indication that we are not prophets is that god has not empowered us to convince anyone

The Teacher/Philosopher endeavors of their own volition. They make the personal sacrifice of their short time here on Earth to reach enlightenment AND also to share this with other people.

a prophet can net the same results, but without the unnecessary endeavour to combat their false ego (which is usually the number one thing that interferes with understanding anything transcendental, what to speak of helping others understand it).
In otherwords if ignorance can be diminished either by one's application to austerity etc or the direct mercy of god, why would the former stand superior.
In the vedas the former are named 'sadhana siddhas' (those that become perfect by application to spiritual practices) and the later are named 'krpa siddhas' (those that become perfect by the mercy of god) - on top of these you find nitya siddhas (those that are eternally perfect) - all three are categories of prophets and all three are not disqualifications for entering into the field of philosophy

 

[Michael]

lightgigantic,

As a thought experiment this Post is not about the message. We make the assumption that the messages are worthwhile.
What I am asking is about the person.
Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers?

And more importantly - Why?

Michael

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic,

As a thought experiment this Post is not about the message. We make the assumption that the messages are worthwhile.
What I am asking is about the person.
Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers?

And more importantly - Why?

Michael

perhaps you could provide an example of a prophet who was bereft of a philosophical foundation to make your case clear

 

[Michael]

all three are categories of prophets and all three are not disqualifications for entering into the field of philosophy

Yes Yes, this is why I am not speaking about the message.

We are making the assumption that the Prophet receives their information via God and Spiritual revelation and that the Philosopher receives their information via their own volition and personal endeavor.

Michael

 

[Michael]

perhaps you could provide an example of a prophet who was bereft of a philosophical foundation to make your case clear

see the above post. It is not a question about the message it is a question of the person.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes Yes, this is why I am not speaking about the message.

We are making the assumption that the Prophet receives their information via God and Spiritual revelation and that the Philosopher receives their information via the own volition and personal endeavor.

Michael

yet there are also extensive reasons given in the vedas why it is not practical to discriminate between them in terms of 'more perfect' or 'less perfect' acquisition of knowledge

 

[lightgigantic]

see the above post. It is not a question about the message it is a question of the person.

but if there is not practical eg of the 'philosophicaless prophet' isn't the whole exercise academic?

 

[Michael]

but if there is not practical eg of the 'philosophicaless prophet' isn't the whole exercise academic?

Perhaps but that's OK.

 

[Michael]

Well?

 

[lightgigantic]

Well?

the discussion may be academic, but if you read the OP you are not taking an academic stance

hence

:shrug:

 

[Michael]

the discussion may be academic, but if you read the OP you are not taking an academic stance

hence

:shrug:

How would you frame the question?

 

[lightgigantic]

How would you frame the question?

so this is your q

Whom, as a person, do you think is the wiser and more enlightened - a Prophet or a Teacher?

it is inherently oxymoronic (IMHO) since prophets are not bereft of a sense of philosophy, which is what you determine 'teachers' have the monopoly on.

If you have an issue how religion can frequently develop into something that belittles the element of philosophy, maybe you could shape something more along the lines of how religion bereft of a sense of philosophy is mere fanatacism

 

[Michael]

so this is your q

Whom, as a person, do you think is the wiser and more enlightened - a Prophet or a Teacher?

it is inherently oxymoronic (IMHO) since prophets are not bereft of a sense of philosophy, which is what you determine 'teachers' have the monopoly on.

If you have an issue how religion can frequently develop into something that belittles the element of philosophy, maybe you could shape something more along the lines of how religion bereft of a sense of philosophy is mere fanatacism

Well, I don't agree.

Firstly, a Philosopher's philosophy is attributed to the Philosopher.
Secondly, if you were so inclined, I think you'd be hard pressed to find wise sayings of a Prophet that were not attributed to a God. The Qur'an and Torah, for example, are filled with God's advice - hell, usually the Prophet is messing things up and good old God comes over and shows him why he's an idiot.

Michael

 

[lightgigantic]

Michael

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so this is your q

Whom, as a person, do you think is the wiser and more enlightened - a Prophet or a Teacher?

it is inherently oxymoronic (IMHO) since prophets are not bereft of a sense of philosophy, which is what you determine 'teachers' have the monopoly on.

If you have an issue how religion can frequently develop into something that belittles the element of philosophy, maybe you could shape something more along the lines of how religion bereft of a sense of philosophy is mere fanatacism
”
Well, I don't agree.

Firstly, a Philosopher's philosophy is attributed to the Philosopher.

its not clear how being a 'prophet' somehow disqualifies one form being a philosopher.

Secondly, if you were so inclined, I think you'd be hard pressed to find wise sayings of a Prophet that were not attributed to a God.

God may establish the general principle, but the prophet establishes the practice of the principle by (you guessed it) philosophy

The Qur'an and Torah, for example, are filled with God's advice - hell, usually the Prophet is messing things up and good old God comes over and shows him why he's an idiot.

then its not clear how there can be normative descriptions when there is no foundation of philosophy.

Like for instance if one thinks that one can become god, that would indicate a malpractice of philosophy.

 

[Michael]

lightgigantic,

OK - so we both agree with that the teacher's ideas are theirs that they have developed.


As to the Prophet - do you agree that the Prophet receives at least some of their information/ideas from a God?

Michael