So you're telling me you
do need to study other gods/beliefs?
I am saying that if you study the essence (in this case "surrender to god) of a subject (in this case religion) you can understand that knowledge in a variety of forms/circumstances
I had a friend like that. He worked on Volkswagen engines and you could say knew the "essence of a subject [car engines]". He then went to work on a friends Lamborghini Espada. I wont detail the outcome.
I find there is a distinct problem with working on Volkswagens and then thinking that's suitable enough to know every car engine. Clearly you disagree with me.
My problem from a religious issue is that I would hate to not be sacrificing enough cows and get punished because of it because I hadn't take the time to read the right/enough scripture. Now, I don't mind if you do limit yourself to certain scriptures, but I would like to know how you justify yours as valid if you haven't read all the others.
I mean sure, you could tell me that your scripture tells you enough for you to be getting on with things, but that isn't surrender to or completely attached to god. If you were, surely you'd want to read everything he'd ever written/was written about him?
"Were you going to answer the question?"
"I don't think so."
Ok, that's all I needed to know.
but its certainly not any scripture I am familiar with
Well, see the first section of this post. Why would you be familiar with anything outside of your own scripture?
However, when you get a moment, scroll back and pay attention to the "such as?" I'm asking you a question. Oh wait, you said you weren't going to answer. Nevermind.
looks like you dribbled on your mouse or something and scrolled off the menu that deals specifically with the link i provided
The link you provided, (
http://www.bhagavata.org/bn/avadhuta...ilesDevotion_-), goes to a massive page right in the middle of devotion-shastras. I noticed that everything visible on that part of the page was all part of the same thing. I mean, there's 12 links all to the same page and here's the kicker...
They're all 404 errors.
I'm sorry, what were you expecting from me exactly? Thanks to your link I know the 404 page off by heart but I
still don't know what other scripture you've read. Couldn't you have just told me? I'm gonna have nightmares now about a hindu 404 monster coming to teach me what to do with cow dung.
So anyway, I thought I could either close the link completely or explore further in the hopes that at least one of the pages worked. Oops, my bad.
Hey, we're getting somewhere. Ok, it's not quite perfect but you've earnt yourself a blue peter badge anyway.
but its not clear why reading X amount of scriptures distinguishes anything
So anyway, you're sitting at home one day perusing a law book when you stumble upon an interesting law. It says: "It is legal to ride a camel on the pavement". You're like "wow", and up you get, buy a camel and stroll off to town on the pavement. Eventually you get arrested... and it's only then that you realise you were reading the wrong law book. Oops.
See, your original assumption is that the book you're reading is correct and valid - but you don't have any basis with which to establish that. Without being aware of other books that exist on the subject, how do you ever make an informed decision?
but anyway, I don't want you to have another hissy fit about how I don't answer your questions
Ohhhh lol, another one of those magical, mystical hissy fits heh? Btw, were you ever going to manage to show me where my apparent "tremendous" one was? Dude you're funny.. In a bad way.
is being "told" an aspect of theory or practice? (Hullo Timbuktu)
If you accept what you're told without question, would the practice not reflect that which you've already accepted as true?
This is clearly seen in life. People indoctrinated into christianity for instance. Since a young age they are 'taught' and merely accept what the teacher has to say. Their practice then reflects that which they were taught. They then eventually bow down and worship a dead hippy instead of a blue elephant.
So lg, keep your childish timbuktu comments to yourself and instead take a little bit of time to use the noodle that the gods apparently gave you.
looks like you cut and pasted my post while it was still in th eprocess of being edited - if you had looked before you posted you would see it reads
Oooh, are you getting smarmy with me? Purely out of interest, if one looks before posting, one sees the exact same thing he saw before posting
unless he refreshes the page in which case he then has to either type or paste his entire debate again and then... wait.. should I post it? What if he's edited again? Ok here's an idea.. I'll refresh the page again.
10 hours later I'm still refreshing the page.
Stop being stupid.
Now, let's take a look at your edited comment.. Ok, well it starts off with the same bullshit, (sufficient to say).. no lg, it isn't sufficient to say. You then say:
"in other words the very definition of being omnimax necessitates one entity"
Which one? It's all in the details. Unless of course you just assert that some thing we would call a god exists, details be damned. In which case burn your scripture, it's pointless culturally defined nonsense.
For the sake of discussion I'm all for that. Ok fine, some god being thingy exists. What now?
1) Nothing now, a god exists, that's it - Ok then what are we talking for?
2) Now we burn incense, put pictures of that blue elephant god on the wall and do as it apparently asks us, (culturally defined) -- why that one?
Anyway....... how is it absurd? Start a thread already.
I'm not stressing anything, I'm asking questions. (They end with question marks - the question mark usually denotes that one is asking, not stressing).
But anyway, you mention knowledge without practice. Now, to understand the practice that one must do, one must get the 'theory'. In short the reading is going to come first. You then conduct practice that reflects the reading you did. So for example, scripture tells you to go and kill a small goat on Sundays so you do. But then see, if you were looking at the wrong 'theory' the practice is worthless. So how do you establish that the theory is correct to begin with?
How do you pick, how do you choose? How do you manage to sit down and say: "here, this theory will do"? If you then "just accept", (which seems to be your motto), the first theory you come to, and are happy with the practice because you've already accepted the theory - how can you even establish to yourself that you're correct? What are you comparing it to - certainly not other practices. Do you compare your theory to christian theory? Do you look at the amount of successful/"qualified" christians and say "hmm, not enough of them, it can't be that one". How?
my most pertinent response is that if followed, it grants a result in line with the conclusion
They all say that, absolutely regardless to the practice undertaken. Purely out of interest, but as that's the case wouldn't it be best to just pick whichever has the simplest practice and save yourself a lot of time and effort? Of course you'll never know which theory to choose from if you never read them all before deciding to engage in practice.
hence the importance of having a proper foundation of theory as opposed to a maligned one
hence you now need to establish that those that have been where you are nw and progressed beyond it had a 'maligned theory'. Of course you can't know that until you have complete the practice. Remember, knowledge can't be attained without practice - so how do you establish, currently still practicing, that those who have moved beyond you are wrong when you're not at their level yet?
theory -> practice -> realisation.
You're still the middle section, what can you say regarding those in the latter other than nothing?
hence the importance of having a proper foundation of practice as opposed to a maligned one
Same as above. You simply cannot speak for those that have progressed beyond you to the latter stages through practice. When you get there, someone might very well say you did it wrong, and you'll say the exact same thing I'm saying.
hence maligned theory and practice bears different results
Alas, until you are at the result you simply cannot talk with regards to those that have already achieved it. Nor can you justify or establish that you, the person still practicing, are doing it right.
you are into discussing peripheral things (like say circumcision) as integral to religion
You only consider it peripheral because your personal culturally defined god doesn't tell you to do it. To jews it is absolutely smegging essential,
not peripheral. god voiced his opinion concerning it, indeed calling it smegging essential. Who are you to claim it is peripheral? Who are you to think you can speak on behalf of god?
There is a large part of your problem.
as opposed to things like getting free from the influence of lust/wrath/etc
As opposed to? I would assert that they are all of equal importance, as would the god of the jews. You think you have the ability to pick and choose.. because? Wait, that's not your god right?
from your maligned foundation of theory and practice, your values are understandable
Yeah yeah yeah, I'm maligned, they're maligned, we're all maligned.. except good old lg. Do me a lemon.
Now excuse me, what exactly do you disagree with with me stating that you would need to show results, and that if this practice led to a specific outcome, (other than disgustingly self centered arrogance), we would see it. So show it.
maybe one of the q's could be "Does spiritual/religious practice inspire/encourage exhibitions of lust/wrath/envy/avarice/etc" (To be fair we would only quiz persons who identify as theistic practitioners)
And... how exactly would you assert that this ever be established? Do you have a spare lustometer lying around?
"Do you have lust?"
"Nope, not a drop."
Now what?
As for "being fair".. lol are you taking the biscuit? (that's English slang for taking the piss). It basically boils down to: We'll ask theists whether theists are good people.. lol!
I think it's important to clarify a few things.
You assert that one should just accept what they are taught, (theory). This then leads to practice but.. what if what you are taught says the (theory) is crap? How do you accurately judge whether the theory and therefore practice is wrong or whether people are just doing the practice wrong? This is where this part comes into it: would you take a look at the general populous of theists and see whether they ultimately appear to be good - and thus the practice is valid? I suppose it's a possibility which is why I suggested the poll.
However.. here's the problem:
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/75187/Sexual_Abuse_of_Indian_Children_Common_
This article states that 2 out of every 3 children in India is sexually abused. So, if I were to observe these people I would have to conclude that hindu is not the way to go -
because this would indicate that the theory and practice are wrong.. but wait.. what if the theory and practice is right but there's very few people accomplishing it. As a result, looking at other people is a redundant idea. The same issue of course applies to "saintly persons" because you can only assume that they are what they claim to be - unless you do the practice which, given that there are apparently saintly persons of all differing religions, means you have to do them all...
unless you assert, (and you have hinted at it), that all religions are pretty much the same thing, [lust etc], in which case it would stand that practicing
any religion is acceptable. To that I would finally once again like to ask why you chose the religion you chose. I would assert that the religion you chose was because of cultural matters. You claim this is absurd, so do please explain why you chose that specific religion above all the others that would have ultimately been equally valid? Or.. wouldn't they be equally valid? If not, why not?
I identify myself as a practicing theist, hence I can elaborate something of the nature of saintly persons
Anyone can elaborate on the nature of something merely by looking at definitions of words - which is technically all you're doing and yes, all you are capable of without being in the same position as them. You cannot establish that they are what they claim to be - there is the point.
Exactly what you're still currently in the middle of.
first of all tell us what has to be done, since your previous attempts don't fit the bill
It varies. Of course, when it does and doesn't coincide with your own personal culturally defined beliefs then you assert that the practice is "peripheral". So what answer do you want from me? It will never fit
your bill unless I tell you exactly what
you want me to say. As such there is a serious problem.
I say "well, it is absolutely essential that one have a clean penis - and one does this by snipping off the extra bit of skin". You turn round and tell me it's peripheral.. It is - to you.
What you're basically telling me is that to be valid, practice must be what you say it is.
but until you put it into practice, it remains nothing but an idea
Unless... lg regards it as peripheral. Lol.
no
you bring yourself to the platform of action
Now you're contradicting yourself. You did indeed state that an essential practice/action was merely "peripheral". You did indeed just shrug it off as unimportant. So why are you saying "no" now when clearly you mean yes?
see how easy it is when you are allowed reference to normative descriptions
I never said it wasn't easy to quote scripture, I asked how you "validate" who is a saintly person. One of the things you quote is "honesty". Do you lie detector every claimed saintly person? Another is purity.. how do you go about establishing that?
more hang ups on non-essential aspects huh?
Non essential to who? I can only tell you you're so wrong it's painful to even read. Sure, it's not essential to you and your culturally defined beliefs, but why think you can answer for everyone? skullcaps/circumcision etc are not "non essential" they are absolutely undeniably essential to a certain god and certain people. Well?
And again, why say no when I asked if these things could be shrugged off as unimportant? You clearly meant yes.
If you took birth in a place where it was the custom to drink water from the bladder of a goat...
Tell you what, better to stick to the subject matter. So.. if you're born in Israel and told by a god, by scripture and by practice that it is essential to be circumcised.. how fucking daft does it look when some nobody on the other side of the planet says it's "peripheral and unimportant"?
actually several years ago the hymns of the Brahma Samhita were sung by the vatican boys ..
Certainly, it's not really relevant. We celebrate christmas in this house, doesn't mean I don't laugh when people mention jesus and virgin births.
its plain and obvious that despite having a rich veneer of ad homming talent
Pot, kettle.. you know the rest.
we are just waiting for you to get back to us on their "practice"
Who's we? Is there something the you's need to say? Which one am I speaking to right now?
Of course, why you even make the statement is quite bizarre. You must "do" it. In short, you can't be told what the matrix is, you need to see it for yourself. You're currently behind them in the realms of practice done, you can't speak concerning them. This is your own argument. I know hypocrisy is your best friend though so don't let it stop you.
with or without normative descriptions?
Uhh.. yes or no would suffice. Are you really as stupid as you pretend to be?
I have lost track what you are asking for my qualification
I'm not really one for taking lessons from the unqualified. I dunno, maybe I'm too picky... If you're not, this discussion is pointless.
so you are after the qualifications of saintly persons then, since I asserted that they are the authorities
You have made many assertions - indeed telling me even that certain essential religious practices can be ignored because they're unimportant. To make such a claim you must be an authority on the matter. As a result of that, qualifications are essential.
if they openly glorify women's genitalia, it tends to be a bit of a give away
Most certainly, no argument from me whatsoever. What if they do it secretly instead of openly? Hmmm..
Look at movie stars - all nice and glamorous for the public, behind closed doors they masturbate just like everyone else.
So again.. how do you establish their qualification other than.. you can't.
there's no hiding character - surely as a one working in the field of mental health you can understand this
Oh do me a favour. Every single time there's a murder, or abduction of some child and the guy is caught the neighbours say "oh and he was such a nice young man". Everytime a priest is caught with kiddie porn the churchgoers say "no way, who woulda thunk it".
Now, like you, these people are not qualified in relevant fields. As you're not qualified in a relevant field, what do you think you know? Have you got beyond theory yet? Are you into practice? I'm sorry, where are you exactly? If you're not qualified, which you're not, what do you think you can say with regards to this issue? Your own arguments preclude you from saying anything at all. Do I hear mr.hypocrisy about to come crawling out the closet again?
So, kindly don't "surely.." me, I am way way way beyond you.
it remains a claim for you, and will do so for eternity for as long as you shirk the platform of practice
No. It will remain a claim for as long as you can't establish the claim - which you can't, so forever.
what are the exact articles of practice that I am currently performing
I wouldn't know or really care, but it has to be below those that have already done the practice, completed it and come to realisation. What are you trying to argue?
but you whine continually that normative descriptions are not sufficient
Actually no, you're the one whining. I haven't even used the word normative. In fact, I was the one that said you can do whatever you want.
Ditto.... you still haven't answered the question.
I had hopes the words "essential" and "peripheral" would trigger your memory, particularly in regards to the 26 qualities already mentioned some time ago
I would have hoped that me informing you that some people believe in gods but are not 'completely attached' would have brought you to understanding. You can state it's essential but easily not have it. Now forgive me, but a simple "yes" would have saved all of this. Here are the qualities I have.. blah blah.
I have explained this to you now 3 times.
if I identify as a theist, what do you think?
Again, many people identify themselves as theists but don't have this "essential" quality. Much like you dismissing whatever you choose as "peripheral", they have done the same. So what do I think.. I think it would have saved all this time if you just answered the bloody question instead of faffing about like a pansy.
I've given you a beginning for what qualifications I have
So you have 1 quality (completely attached to god)?
Now, if I look at an atheist and he has more, what am I supposed to conclude?
practice and a proper foundation of theory - what I have said all along
Yeah, you say many things. Unfortunately you can never validate any of it.
still you can't elaborate properly on either theory or practice - no wonder they were wasting their time
For arguments sake, fine. If
I can't, what in the world has that got to do with them other than nothing?
They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Next..
I've provided you with links before - go back and find them
Links links, it's all good.. except.. how do you validate their claim that they have direct perception? You can't lol.
I think we have been here before - the only people who make such claims are
1) children on the basis of a poor fund of knowledge
2) atheists on the basis of rhetoric
get back to us if you can think of a third party who would stand for the defense of such claims of direct perception
In this instance you're plain wrong. I stand for the defence of such claims of direct perception. The only way you can now argue it is if you apply correct theory and practice, (instead of the ill informed versions shown in your quote). What to talk of practice when you can't even get to the theory stage :bugeye:
By now you should be aware but.. it requires a certain foundation of theory and practice - both of which you are adverse to.
actually it suggests that one is "doing" something as opposed to "thinking" something
No, it suggests that one believes in gods. No wonder you're so confused.
their so called theism is indistinguishable from atheism ("God exists - but hey he has his world and I have mine")
Uhh, hate to be the one to tell you - but you'll rarely find an atheist saying 'god exists'. Back to basics for you me thinks.
amazing
I answer a question
Where?
in otherwords regardless of one's standing as a theist, one must display the activities of surrender (which are subdivided as previously explained under number 12)
is that clear?
I'm afraid not, no. It's unbelievable to see you even claiming such a thing.
you could begin by asserting those persons or bodies of people who lay claim to the direct perception that god doesn't exist
And this establishes what exactly other than.. ooh, there's more than 1. Do numbers equate to truth? The old appeal to popularity? All those alien abductees must be telling the truth because there's many of them?
You wouldn't accept it even if I did, you know that. You would then in fact ask exactly the same things and make exactly the same statements I have to you.
How do they establish it, regardless to how many there are? Your answer would espouse that you too must be an atheist with direct perception. This goes nowhere.
How would I know? You gave the original question and now the answer to your own question. I'll just sit back and watch you debate against yourself. *grabs popcorn*
