Originally posted by Jan Ardena
No, Parashara was the father, that was how it was interpreted.
Thanks for the clarification. I still think "born in the womb" is an odd way of saying conceived or born but allowances have to be made for translation.
Well you say most religious nonsense, firstly it would be nonsense to someone who cannot understand it, and secondly, what do you regard as ‘sense,’ if most is nonsense. Maybe we talk along those lines.
I find that religious literature is often very vague and interpretation is necessary for understanding. This allows for a wide range of, sometimes contrary, beliefs to be based upon the same text. Transubstantiation of bread and wind into flesh and blood in the Christian doctrine is a good example of this. Some take it literally, others figuratively. Point is, based upon the text itself no determination can be made. This I regard as nonsensical. If one is trying to honestly convey knowledge one has a duty to be as clear as possible. Deliberately being vague is simply a way of avoiding contradiction.
It sounds self-referential as well.
No, as I stated at the end, they are verses out of the Bhagavat Purana, I added nothing.
By "self-referential" I was referring to the fact that you were pointing to your own religious doctrine as verification of the age of that doctrine. Like pointing to the generations listed in the Bible as proof of the age and history of the Biblical texts. Referring to part of the text that is in question as verification of the truth of the text is self-referential, also known as the fallacy of circular logic.
At present, you have a poor fund of knowledge when it comes to things spiritual, its bound to sound nonsensical to you, its like trying to explain the intricacies of life to a 3 year old.
And you say I'm insulting? First, you presume to know the extent of my knowledge then you compare me to a three-year-old.
You say you have read the BG, and make some remark about ‘reality means illusion’ being cited in it, which shows, if you have read it, you most certainly did not understand it, and now you act as if you do. That is blatant ignorance.
My reference was perhaps unclear and poorly cited. Hinduism does, however, refer to the illusory nature of the perceived world, does it not? Here are some proper cites:
My advise to you is, read it, try and develop some kind of understanding, doesn’t matter how basic, then argue from that point of veiw, if you must discredit it.
I have and continue to do so.
Finding out when it was written or who it was written by is information that has no bearing on the philosophy of truth, if it is truth it will become a part of you, depending on how much of the truth is accessable according to your conditioning.
A philosophical truth does not necessarily have any bearing upon historical or empirical truth. This particular exchange we are engaged in comes from my questioning your assertion that the Vedas are over 5000 years old. Something you have yet to prove.
Steady on, I did not have time to post a full post, but I see you couldn’t wait to put me down, he who says does not insult.
Yes, I apologize, that was rather sarcastic and a bit insulting.
~Raithere
No, Parashara was the father, that was how it was interpreted.
Thanks for the clarification. I still think "born in the womb" is an odd way of saying conceived or born but allowances have to be made for translation.
Well you say most religious nonsense, firstly it would be nonsense to someone who cannot understand it, and secondly, what do you regard as ‘sense,’ if most is nonsense. Maybe we talk along those lines.
I find that religious literature is often very vague and interpretation is necessary for understanding. This allows for a wide range of, sometimes contrary, beliefs to be based upon the same text. Transubstantiation of bread and wind into flesh and blood in the Christian doctrine is a good example of this. Some take it literally, others figuratively. Point is, based upon the text itself no determination can be made. This I regard as nonsensical. If one is trying to honestly convey knowledge one has a duty to be as clear as possible. Deliberately being vague is simply a way of avoiding contradiction.
It sounds self-referential as well.
No, as I stated at the end, they are verses out of the Bhagavat Purana, I added nothing.
By "self-referential" I was referring to the fact that you were pointing to your own religious doctrine as verification of the age of that doctrine. Like pointing to the generations listed in the Bible as proof of the age and history of the Biblical texts. Referring to part of the text that is in question as verification of the truth of the text is self-referential, also known as the fallacy of circular logic.
At present, you have a poor fund of knowledge when it comes to things spiritual, its bound to sound nonsensical to you, its like trying to explain the intricacies of life to a 3 year old.
And you say I'm insulting? First, you presume to know the extent of my knowledge then you compare me to a three-year-old.
You say you have read the BG, and make some remark about ‘reality means illusion’ being cited in it, which shows, if you have read it, you most certainly did not understand it, and now you act as if you do. That is blatant ignorance.
My reference was perhaps unclear and poorly cited. Hinduism does, however, refer to the illusory nature of the perceived world, does it not? Here are some proper cites:
So before you tell me I am speaking from "blatant ignorance" you can refute my sources. As I said earlier the text is unclear and requires interpretation.
My advise to you is, read it, try and develop some kind of understanding, doesn’t matter how basic, then argue from that point of veiw, if you must discredit it.
I have and continue to do so.
Finding out when it was written or who it was written by is information that has no bearing on the philosophy of truth, if it is truth it will become a part of you, depending on how much of the truth is accessable according to your conditioning.
A philosophical truth does not necessarily have any bearing upon historical or empirical truth. This particular exchange we are engaged in comes from my questioning your assertion that the Vedas are over 5000 years old. Something you have yet to prove.
Steady on, I did not have time to post a full post, but I see you couldn’t wait to put me down, he who says does not insult.
Yes, I apologize, that was rather sarcastic and a bit insulting.
~Raithere
