Limbo

[baumgarten]

I find it amusing that under the pretense of holding this discussion to some standard of formalized debate, you both misuse the term ad-hominem. Clearly your ignorance of terminology disqualifies you both. (This, by the way, is an ad-hominem.)

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I find it amusing that under the pretense of holding this discussion to some standard of formalized debate, you both misuse the term ad-hominem. Clearly your ignorance of terminology disqualifies you both. (This, by the way, is an ad-hominem.)

You're an ass. (Is this right?)

 

[baumgarten]

You're an ass. (Is this right?)

No; to make it an ad-hom you have to say, "You're wrong because you're an ass."

 

[lightgigantic]

an ad hom is when you attack the person instead of the issues

Jaster - I've got a few things on at the moment - I'll get back to it sometime in the next 24 hrs - promise

 

[Jaster Mereel]

an ad hom is when you attack the person instead of the issues

Yes, but it has to do with attacking the person's qualifications for debating the issue, more precisely. One of the reason's why your approach provokes so much hostility. Technically speaking, your whole "you haven't applied the relevant processes" business is an ad-hominem statement, every time.

For the sake of continuing the discussion in a civilized manner (and I admit that my frustration has led me to make ad-hominem statements in your direction), whenever you don't think I've "applied the relevant processes", instead of pointing it out, take me through it so that I can understand your view. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume for the moment that we are all reasonably intelligent people, ok?

Jaster - I've got a few things on at the moment - I'll get back to it sometime in the next 24 hrs - promise

Alright... I guess I'll be patient. Please do follow my above suggestion, though. That would make this a lot more fruitful.

 

[superluminal]

In other words are (successful) theists across the entire expanse of cultural geography and history...

Please, LG, could you elaborate on what a (successful) theist is? What have they succeeded at, in particular. And how does one judge theistic success or failure?

Thankee in advance.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Please, LG, could you elaborate on what a (successful) theist is? What have they succeeded at, in particular. And how does one judge theistic success or failure?

Since I'd give a completely different answer than LG (most likely) on this particular question, I figured I'd give it a shot.

I would say that a successful theist is one who has obtained a kind of deep understanding of the spiritual nature of humanity, with a synoptic scope of life, the universe, and everything.

And by spiritual, I don't necessarily mean within the context of a specific faith. I use that word because I feel it best describes what I'm talking about, although you don't have to be immersed in mythological concepts, or practice specifically traditional religious rituals in order to qualify as "spiritual". From what you've said, superluminal, you've had the same sense of awe, reverence, and deep mystery (maybe not the right word... not mystery as in "ignorance" or "unknown", but mystery as in the feeling of something which is larger, more powerful, and more important than yourself I suppose) about existence as any "successful" theist. You just use different terms that suit your worldview more precisely.

I'm sure LG will say something different.

 

[superluminal]

Since I'd give a completely different answer than LG (most likely) on this particular question, I figured I'd give it a shot.

I would say that a successful theist is one who has obtained a kind of deep understanding of the spiritual nature of humanity, with a synoptic scope of life, the universe, and everything.

And by spiritual, I don't necessarily mean within the context of a specific faith. I use that word because I feel it best describes what I'm talking about, although you don't have to be immersed in mythological concepts, or practice specifically traditional religious rituals in order to qualify as "spiritual". From what you've said, superluminal, you've had the same sense of awe, reverence, and deep mystery (maybe not the right word... not mystery as in "ignorance" or "unknown", but mystery as in the feeling of something which is larger, more powerful, and more important than yourself I suppose) about existence as any "successful" theist. You just use different terms that suit your worldview more precisely.

Yes. But obviously I don't equate any of those feelings with supernatural implications. It's more of a sense that there are profound natural subtexts to the cosmos that we have not yet (and may never) discover. Things that might even terrify us if we suddenly had the knowledge thrust upon us. I don't know.

Let's see what LG has to say.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Yes. But obviously I don't equate any of those feelings with supernatural implications.

Neither do I.

It's more of a sense that there are profound natural subtexts to the cosmos that we have not yet (and may never) discover. Things that might even terrify us if we suddenly had the knowledge thrust upon us. I don't know.

Totally agreed. That's what I think religion is partly there to help us cope with. I have this sense that intense religious experiences (not all of the mythology, rituals, and social engineering that is associated with religion itself) is that kind of experience: a sudden, violent thrust of deep understanding about reality that's so intense it's difficult to make sense of it. I think that anyone who denies that people could have an experience like that is putting themselves in great psychological danger.

Of course, not all religious experiences are frightening. Some of them are very blissful, which is what I think most people focus on. Hence, visions of Hell (the former), and visions of Heaven (the latter). It's metaphor for those kinds of intense experiences for which there is no good explanation that isn't a total copout.

Let's see what LG has to say.

I guess so. I don't think he's going to answer in a manner which conforms to my current mood of discussion, so I figured I'd take your question and start a friendly tangent.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I'm still waiting for lightgigantic to answer that really long post I made. He promised to answer within 24 hours... it has been longer, I believe. The longer it takes for him to answer, the more I'll take it as an unspoken admission of defeat. I'd hate to have to take it that way, so please lightgigantic, answer.

 

[Godless]

Jaster you might just have driven him/her to a corner, and he has no reply, or else be patient, this nut seems to be consistent in aswering with more nuttier stuff so hold on, LG will show his true senseless soon enough to you, obviously he has to lots of people here!

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Jaster you might just have driven him/her to a corner, and he has no reply, or else be patient, this nut seems to be consistent in aswering with more nuttier stuff so hold on, LG will show his true senseless soon enough to you, obviously he has to lots of people here!

I appreciate the support, but I don't consider him senseless, or a nut. A slight alteration of terminology, and a broadening of outlook would make him more reasonable in my eyes.

I do think I backed him into a corner, though.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm still waiting for lightgigantic to answer that really long post I made. He promised to answer within 24 hours... it has been longer, I believe. The longer it takes for him to answer, the more I'll take it as an unspoken admission of defeat. I'd hate to have to take it that way, so please lightgigantic, answer.

I'm multi -tasking at the moment - probably won't have the reply finished today - sorry - actually it goes to your credit that your q is forcing me to take such a long time to respond - most of the time I find I can get away with just whipping something off in a few minutes.

- Most of the difficulties in writing replies to these sort of Q's is determining the nature of the person asking

I'll have to ask for another extension

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I'm multi -tasking at the moment - probably won't have the reply finished today - sorry - actually it goes to your credit that your q is forcing me to take such a long time to respond - most of the time I find I can get away with just whipping something off in a few minutes.

Thanks.

- Most of the difficulties in writing replies to these sort of Q's is determining the nature of the person asking

If you have any specific questions, I'll answer.

I'll have to ask for another extension

Granted.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Its a matter of evidence given in scriptures ”

Scriptual evidence is still anecdote, and it's still a matter of making an appeal to a traditional authority. Scriptures were written by people, unless you're going to tell me that scriptures were written by God... in which case this conversation is certainly over since we cannot possibly find common ground.

Your original issue was that these things were my opinions - my response is that it is the opinions of scripture, and even then a very fundamental item was being contended - "God as the cause of all causes". I was almost going to go in to a technical definition of the origins of the vedas (some of which are eternal and some which are historical) but maybe it is more practical to stick to the sphere of general religious principles - the academic views scriptures as something of cultural or historical significance, but the practioner understands that scriptures are not mundane books (a mundane book can be revealed by academic endeavour) - thus its not uncommon for their views and understandings to be at odds with each other

“ Possibly - I am also a brahmin, and part of brahminical culture is learning how to argue on the basis of sastra (vedic history is jam packed full of arguing brahmins) - alternatively we could also be both right and you could be wrong because you have an absence of theoretical knowledge to reconcile our apparently different views ”

It's kind of insulting when your good friend explains religious ideas he's been studying for his whole life to you, you repeat it back to him using your own terminology, and he agrees that you understand the concept, only to have someone else tell you that you don't understand the concept and that you may have been mistaken in your interpretation. Aside from that, I'd say that, when he speaks of it, I have a pretty decent handle on the underlying concepts, provided that an appropriate translation can be found in one or more languages which I am somewhat familiar with.

Even if you understand him and even if you understand me, and even if you are have sufficient pious credits to comprehend scriptural truths .... you may be lacking in the framework to put the whole thing together. While I don't know exactly what he is advocating, just to give you an example,

SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman (formless) , Paramātmā (existing in the heart of all living entities) or Bhagavān (the supreme localized form of eternity knowledge and bliss).

Unless you're going to insist that I obviously don't know what I'm talking about because there is absolutely no way that the same material could be interpeted in two completely different ways by two individuals who belong to the same culture, and undoubtedly have the same level of education in the subject, then I'd say my point is quite clearly made right here.

Exactly what are we contending here - it seems that the only thing I have offered is that god is the cause of all causes - I doubt your brahmin friend contends that (unless he is totally bereft of vedic knowledge). I doubt it is even contended by practioners of other faiths

The fact that two of your so-called "experts" on God can come to different conclusions reading the same scriptural evidence means that there is no absolutely correct interpretation in that particular religion. I'd extend this to all religions, since we've established (from both history, and now personal experience) that scriptural religions can produce varied interpretations from even the experts, and obviously non-scriptural religions can also do this.

Its not clear what I am disagreeing with from your brahmin friend - actually I think this dialouge will get quite messy if you put forward that you can represent what you have heard from your brahmin friend transparently - its reasonable for you to say "I have heard XYZ and you say ABC" however

“ actually the proper authority is vedic authority (sabda)- that is why brahmins quote it - but there are lesser authorities like logic, deduction (anumana) and even lesser authorities like direct perception (pratyaksa) - admittedly I mostly sport with the lesser two on this site for obvious reasons. ”

Yes, I'd suppose that you are correct in saying that Vedic authority would be the proper authority, but the problem with this is that it's still language. All language can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. In fact, the meaning of certain words changes, sometimes greatly, over often very short periods of time. There were no dictionaries in any language, I'd be willing to bet, until very recent times, offering no guide to the meaning of words. As I said, words gather their meaning through consensus.

You wouldn't believe how technical the Vedic language is - it is possible to construe numerous arguments on saying "this" means "that" on the strength of authoratative sanskrit dictionaries

the written form of the vedas BTW is a recent introduction, 5000 years ago, as a concession for the fallen nature of this age because our brains are not so sharp to retain things by aural reception - there are still monastries that operate on this bookless format, but they are extremely rare - studies of grammer and logic are closely tied together and a lot of it hinges on vedic dictionaries like amara and visva kosa, which are volumious studies in them self - basicly understanding the correct application of vedic grammer is like super complex algerbra, and it requires a sharp mind to determine its application

Its true that words gather meaning through consensus, but the consensus of vedic words is very exacting - even if you want to write a sanskrit sentence there are grammer rules regarding how many syllables each line must have - actually its the western attitude to communication that is shaping your view, since it developed as a trade language and easily accepts influences

“ god is a very specific term - arguments over definitions are on details - at least when you say (re- god) .... ”

No, God is not a very specific term. Obviously this is true. The fact that so many people will argue with you over the definition means that it's not a very specific term. I think you're dismissing everyone who doesn't accept a singular definition of "God" right here. You seem to dismiss a lot of people with your claims.

It seems that in the course of this discussion has changed focus - I was raising the point that theists argue over details of god, but the general principle remains the same- at the very least you won't find 2 brahmins arguing whether god is the cause of all causes. Its not usual for an atheist to argue about what god is, since such arguments usually innvolve bringing god down to a mundane level to make the idea easier to discard (god is a hallucination/means of social control/a space alien etcetc)

Of course, you'd probably say that these people haven't had the proper education in the subject of God, and so their subtle differences in meaning would be inconsequential, but what you'd be dismissing is the fact that every speaker of a language contributes to the definitions of the words used in that language. There is no such thing as a final linguistic authority.

There is the argument of functionalism - in other words you can call a wall a chair but you cannot sit on it - that is words indicate something real by dint of the functional quality of the object indicated. As far as defintions of god go in the vedas, as with most scriptures, there are literally thousands of indications of the functional quality of god so one can be absolutely clear what is being discussed - god, allah and bhagavan indicate the same object even though the language is different, by dint of functional descriptions. If someone wants to call god the smile of a new baby it requires a bit more clarification (like it may simply reveal that a person is happy to see the baby) - if it was universally accepted that the smile of a new baby was god it would be distinct from the god described in scripture because of the functional deviations.

“ if by your own authority you determine that you have fine health but a doctor, by dint of his authority, informs you that you have testicular cancer who's authority do you accept? ”

Well, if I felt fine I'd probably doubt his prognosis. However, he'd be able to explain, in a broad manner, the science behind his conclusions. What doctors usually look for when testing for testicular cancer, what most often means what, ways that I could look for it myself, etc... the point is, any true expert in a field will be able to explain to the laymen how he came to the conclusions he came to, even if it takes a while because he'd have to condense years of training to do it.

However, there are those who, when posessing a vast knowledge in a particular field, tend to think of themselves in terms of an elite. They usually don't try to explain anything, often just saying "you don't have the appropriate education to understand", or, in your case "you're not applying the correct epistemology for perceiving God".

such responses are also common when persons exhibit severe animosity to the authority one represents

It's exactly the same thing. If you're so serious about no one having the proper education to understand religion, then why don't you try and explain it? Of course not. But, you'll ask everyone who you think isn't an appropriate authority in the field to explain the exact methods they used in order to come to their conclusions. That's not how an expert behaves.

The method of enquiry is explained

BG 4.34: Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.

If a person is not submissive nothing happens, even in terms of mundane knowledge - There are 4 types that fill this catergory

BG 7.16: O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

And there are 4 types who don't

BG 7.15: Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature do not surrender unto Me.

if you honestly believe that no one here knows how to perceive God correctly, then you should be trying to explain it. I think, rather, you're just here to read your own writing.

Before such explanations can take place all atheistic arguments must be exhausted

“ if you don't think language has authority try typing responses to your emails by rolling your forehead on the keyboard ”

Nice one, but no. Language is interpreted by the speakers of that language, with all of the individuals contributing to the defintion of words. Hence, words derive their meanings through consensus. Here's a neat question that will thoroughly explain my position: Why do dictionaries need to be updated?

Language definitely changes but the functional aspects don't - like for instance everywhere at all times there has been language distinctions for "man" and "woman" - "god" is another such word

“ its determined by scripture actually, much like physic text books determine recognizable qualifications for a physicist (would you trust the authority of a physicist who had never heard of an electron before?) ”

You seem to think that text books are supposed to be authorities on whatever subjects they cover. They are supposed to be a guide to learning the subject on your own, as any good teacher will tell you.

Therefore teh text books are authorities - if they were not authorities one would dismiss them and continue without them and meet success.

“ it relies on a person conforming to the scientific method ... sounds like personal experience to me (if you don't have personal experience of an electron you don't go very far in physics) ”

Of course it's personal experience... stop strapping the same label onto me that is appropriate for the rest of the atheists around here. Everything is personal experience, or anecdote, which itself is personal experience. The point is that the scientific method is meant to focus your experience in order to ensure that your interpretation is as rigid and narrow as possible. People like Newton, and Einstein weren't using the scientific method when they came up with their ideas, you know. They just happened to have moments of insight that happened to provide useful models for the universe. Religion has nothing like the scientific method, but rather it relies almost exclusively on the same kind of insight that produced Gravity and General Relativity, and if there are any religions which offer something so rigid (my friend has claimed that Hinduism comes close) they still aren't the same as the scientific method, if only that it is entirely possible, and even common, for experts in the field to have very wide gaps in interpretation using the same material as their source. (You can't directly perceive an electron... you can only infer it's existence)

That's why I always thought that the electron was a good analogy for the soul in conditioned life- it is perceived by its symptoms (ie - consciousness)

The eyes are useless in seeing unless they are trained in knowledge - such training is called jnana (knowledge)

The point of seeing is called vijnana, direct realization by the powers of one's own self - at the point of vijnana one doesn't require authorities of books or teachers to determine a fact.

“ Initially yes - just like in science - initially you have nothing but faith in the lecturer or teacher in school - thats why they generally teach theory before prac. Later one comes to the point of direct perception ”

Well, yes. I'd have to agree to an extent. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that a reading of scripture, as well as the words of others, is enough to make one qualified to have opinions on God, since the subject is so broad and much of it is undefined.

The problem is that nobody knows the symptoms by which one can determine who is qualified - common saying that the bible is the most widely read and widely misunderstood book in the world - at the very least there god gives strict indications on how he can be understood

BG 18.55: One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

BG 11.53: The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am.

BG 11.54: My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.

Bs 5.33 I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is inaccessible to the Vedas, but obtainable by pure unalloyed devotion of the soul, who is without a second, who is not subject to decay, is without a beginning, whose form is endless, who is the beginning, and the eternal puruña; yet He is a person possessing the beauty of blooming youth.

etc etc

You seem to be contending that a religious authority must decide that you have the appropriate knowledge to continue.

Science isn't like that. Now it is, but in it's infancy the common man (well, not so common since only the wealthy had the free time to do it) performed experiments and made observations, and came up with models of reality based on those experiments and observations. He would then share those ideas with all of his buddies that gathered around in cocktail parties, and then those people would go and perform the same experiment, or make the same observations, and then it got spread around amongst the general scientific community. That's how it used to work. It didn't have any authorites until it became an established part of society. Religion was probably the same, in my opinion (call it intuition), and now that the world is so connected it's gone back into it's infancy. The old, established religious communities have stagnated and started breaking down, and now it's turning back into a free-for-all, where anyone who's read a certain amount about religion in general is mostly qualified to have opinions ont he subject, even if those opinions don't conform to traditional religious models. This is why everyone hates appeals to authority, because the old religions don't have any authority anymore.

I agree with what you generally observe about religion - it all boils down to a a lack of qualification, or recognizing symptoms - like for instance imagine the state medical practice would be in if there was no means to determine if a doctor was capable of carrying out surgery or not, and anyone was just as capabale as anyone else.

As for the symptoms of a theistic practioner there are many - in fact its a common subject in scripture - there's virtually a whole chapter here

BG 12.13-14: One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego, who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Me — such a devotee of Mine is very dear to Me.

BG 12.15: He for whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by anyone, who is equipoised in happiness and distress, fear and anxiety, is very dear to Me.

BG 12.16: My devotee who is not dependent on the ordinary course of activities, who is pure, expert, without cares, free from all pains, and not striving for some result, is very dear to Me.

BG 12.17: One who neither rejoices nor grieves, who neither laments nor desires, and who renounces both auspicious and inauspicious things — such a devotee is very dear to Me.

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/12/en


etc etc

“ or alternatively your looseness in defining god indicates that you have not applied the relevant processes to determine what is god's nature - in other words you are just like a person who has not applied the rigid scientific method in science. ”

Or, alternatively, there is no rigid method to religion as evidenced by the conflicting views of so-called experts on the subject of God. My girlfriend was a Catholic theology major, so I've had many a view thrown at me from all sides.

First you have to determine who is a practioner and who is not - like for instance I established earlier than academic study doesn't necessarily contribute anything - then once you have determined who is a practioner and who is not you have to determine their level - all this requires knowledge of quality

there are numerous elaborate scriptural definitions but just to touch it briefly

SB 11.2.44: Mahārāja Nimi said: Now please tell me in greater detail about the devotees of the Supreme Lord. What are the natural symptoms by which I can distinguish between the most advanced devotees, those on the middle level and those who are neophytes? What are the typical religious activities of a Vaiṣṇava, and how does he speak? Specifically, please describe those symptoms and characteristics by which Vaiṣṇavas become dear to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SB 11.2.45: Śrī Havir said: The most advanced devotee sees within everything the soul of all souls, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Consequently he sees everything in relation to the Supreme Lord and understands that everything that exists is eternally situated within the Lord.

SB 11.2.46: An intermediate or second-class devotee, called madhyama-adhikārī, offers his love to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is a sincere friend to all the devotees of the Lord, shows mercy to ignorant people who are innocent and disregards those who are envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

SB 11.2.47: A devotee who faithfully engages in the worship of the Deity in the temple but does not behave properly toward other devotees or people in general is called a prākṛta-bhakta, a materialistic devotee, and is considered to be in the lowest position.

lengthy purports on
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/11/2/44/en

Often times, I am the one finding common ground between these conflicting views, but in order to do so one must broaden their definition of God... magically, it all starts to fit once you do that. This is why I would probably agree with you that all religions are reconcilable, but not perfectly so.

So this broadening of knowledge can be done by scripture or it can be done by one's powers of mental speculation - one retains an accurate understanding of the functionalism of god and the other does not

Many aspects of religion have nothing to do with spirituality, and so have to be thrown out in order to make them fit together. The general theological concepts, however, tend to pan out if you understand the subtle differences in meaning between different sets of terminology and different cultural contexts within different languages.

Krsna also says there are many things that are not integral to religion in religion - they are there because we are not 100% interested in real religion

BG 2.41: Those who are on this path are resolute in purpose, and their aim is one. O beloved child of the Kurus, the intelligence of those who are irresolute is many-branched.

BG 2.42-43: Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

BG 2.44: In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.

BG 2.45: The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

BG 2.46: All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them.

100% religion being full surrender to god without lesser dharmas of economic development, sense gratification etc

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

Most people are not aware that scripture has a conclusion

“ my point is that when you say there ar eno universally recognizable qualifications to the term "god" you are violating the consensus ”

Billions of people disagree on the meaning of the word. That's hardly consensus.

would they disagree that god is the cause of all causes?

“ language indicates very real things, particularly nouns like gasoline and god. ”

Words represent things which we experience. They are not an accurate depiction of them. After all, does gasoline, or god, have a direct correlation with the sound waves emitted by your voicebox when you speak?

Yes, god is non different from his name, hence the xtian "hallowed be thy name"

its very clear it the vedas

CC Antya 20.16: "'My Lord, O Supreme Personality of Godhead, in Your holy name there is all good fortune for the living entity, and therefore You have many names, such as "Kṛṣṇa" and "Govinda," by which You expand Yourself. You have invested all Your potencies in those names, and there are no hard and fast rules for remembering them. My dear Lord, although You bestow such mercy upon the fallen, conditioned souls by liberally teaching Your holy names, I am so unfortunate that I commit offenses while chanting the holy name, and therefore I do not achieve attachment for chanting.'

along with symptoms (of course- wouldn't want to be unscientific)

CC Antya 20.21: "'One who thinks himself lower than the grass, who is more tolerant than a tree, and who does not expect personal honor but is always prepared to give all respect to others can very easily always chant the holy name of the Lord.'

CC Antya 20.29: "'O Lord of the universe, I do not desire material wealth, materialistic followers, a beautiful wife or fruitive activities described in flowery language. All I want, life after life, is unmotivated devotional service to You.'

“ but there are universally recognized authorities on god - the similarities between different religions is a coincidence? ”

Similiarities != sameness.

Not sure what you are saying here - that these two words are the same?




On the other hand, you seem to like one-liners.

“ when you make statements that your personal experiences are on par with the popes I contend that your personal experiences are not authoratative ”

Why? Isn't the Pope a human being? What makes one person's experiences more authoritative than another's? Is there some kind of quantitative standard that you can provide me with to determine this? If not, then I suggest that you stop making appeals to authority.

yes qualities are there - scripture is jam packed with information - the level of surrender to god is what distinguishes authority and quality, which exists outside of scriptural knowledge, austerity, charity, etc, what to speak of atheism

“ Imagine having a scientific discussion with someone who did not accept the authority of science ”

I don't accept the "authority of science" and I have scientific discussions all the time.

so you could have a debate about mathmatics with a person who says 1+1=6?

I don't accept the "authority of scriptue" and I have religious discussions all the time. You don't have to accept the authority of someone or something in order to have a fruitful discussion about a subject. I accept scientific models as reliable sources because the scientific method is a very precise way of coming to conclusions, and the scientific method has proven it's usefulness in my everyday life. The computer that I am using is very good evidence for this. I accept scriptural texts, although tentatively, because the ideas within them have been compiled over millenia by many, many people. However, although I may accept scripture, I would only accept it insofar as it may be a guide to further understanding on the subject.

Actually it is very difficult to have th e type of faith in scripture that you are alluding to - sometimes it is advoated that one come to the platform of full surrender to god immediately but practically it is not possible, and when an unqualified person attempts such a thing (unqualified by material desire) the results are usually catastrophic

“ you claim there is no universal recognizable authorities in theism for the purposes of definitions of words so elementary as "god" - this is tantamount to pointing to a dust particle and saying it is an electron because it is "small" ”

Boy, do I love strawmen. Do you have a wheat field with a crow problem or something? Well, I'm not a crow, and strawmen don't scare me. Stop thrusting them in my face.

Also, there are no universally recognized authorities on the subject of God. The fact that there is widespread disagreement amongst theological "experts" provides sufficient evidence for this.

do they contend that god is not the cause of all causes?

The fact that religions around the world have any incompatible components is further evidence.

they are not built on similar foundations of discipline and character?

Finally, the fact that there are so many arguments which involve a different usage of the word "God" on this message board should be enough evidence for you,

Not surprising since most people here are either academics or atheists or atheistic academics - in other words they don't work with god as a functional entity so any definition is as good as any other

“ you just have to explain why god has no universal recognizable qualities - since any established theist in the field seems to declare the opposite ”

Um... no. I know two people who border on, or qualify as, experts in the "field", and neither of them declare that.

In fact, both of them get quite frustrated at times when people don't seem to agree on a single definition of God.

They don't say god is the cause of all causes?

Also, this goes back to an earlier point. Authorities don't define words, every speaker of the language contributes to the definition. After all, the language belongs to all of them.

earlier I mentioned how you can call a wall a chair but you can't sit on it

“ the point is that in all fields of subtle knowledge there is a window period where knowledge is gleaned by faith - its not that faith bereft of direct perception as one's eternal bedfellow - -it enables the quicker assimilation of knowledge by accepting another's experience as authoratative - the alternative is to re-invent the wheel everytime I guess ”

Yes, but saying that you can't reinvent the wheel because someone else has already done it before you is awefully limiting for a lot of people. Also, the "faith bereft of direct perception" is an eternal bedfellow- you always have faith that the experiences imparted on you by another were reliable, and thus, that all of your subsequent conclusions were henceforth reliable by extension. Accepting authority is just quicker than experiencing it yourself, not better.

yes - there is the easy way to touch your nose and the hard way

BG 7.19: After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.

“ there are arguments even in science over what a particular "experience" (ie collection of data) evidences, but it is still all science ”

Yes, and no matter how "authoritative" said experiences, or persons having said experiences, is considered, it is still science. If you observe an apple falling to the ground, and start talking about gravity, but you're not a physicist, are you not qualified to talk about what you just experienced?

In the same way, it doesn't matter how religiously educated an individual is, only that they have had the experiences of spirituality and have created or adopted terms to describe those experiences that are compatible with the language that everyone else speaks. In the same way, that is still spirituality.

Yes the important thing is that the experience is valid (which can again been qualified)

“ a dictionary is not the final word in definition but it is a suitable departure point to begin discussion - the biggest contribution to useless debate is unclear terminology ”

I agree, but controversial terms are usually the focus of debate. Otherwise, there would be no deviance of opinion that wasn't cleared up immediately.

Most of the contraversy about religion is not about the concept of god but with politics

“ Sorry if this appears a bit intense - did you know that in medieval india debates between brahmins would sometimes be initiated with the stakes that the loser would commit suicide? ”

I've heard this before (remember, I have a brahmin friend). I think it's kind of cool, actually. However, what first comes to mind is that the loser must decide that he has lost in order to commit suicide.

It was obvious - debate didn't mean opinion and mental speculation but scriptural authority

 

[lightgigantic]

Please, LG, could you elaborate on what a (successful) theist is? What have they succeeded at, in particular. And how does one judge theistic success or failure?

Thankee in advance.

A successful theist can discriminate between cultivating unmotivated devotional service to god and these six things (particularly in their own activities) -- in brief --

nisiddha acara- sinful or behaviour not conducive for perfectional life
kuti nati- diplomacy/cheating
jiva himsana- unnecessarily killing of living entities or envy of other living entities or teaching sense gratification in the name of religion
labha- profit according to material calculations (since its all lost at the point of death)
puja-adoration achieved by satisfying mundane people
pratistha- becoming important or distinct by material calculations