Nice!

[satay]

Nice to see the site getting busy and a lot of contribution from Ramkish, Sudharshan and Atanu!

I wonder if it would be nice to debate on a thread where everyone was actually debating as if they believed in the opposite philosophy!! so e.g. it would be nice to see Ramkish debating as an advaitan! and Atanu as a vaishnava!

Just for fun...

:)

[satay]

Also, what do the members think of the site? Are the grouping of forums confusing etc.? please post in the feedback forum.

[Sudarshan]

Nice to see the site getting busy and a lot of contribution from Ramkish, Sudharshan and Atanu!

I wonder if it would be nice to debate on a thread where everyone was actually debating as if they believed in the opposite philosophy!! so e.g. it would be nice to see Ramkish debating as an advaitan! and Atanu as a vaishnava!

Just for fun...

:)

Wow, the true colors will show up no matter what position you take up. What you said is actually a valid type of debate and it is called vitanda, where you take up the position of the rival to actually show his shortcomings.

A guru will typically ask his sishya to argue from a rival position so that the soundness of the theory can be guaged. Sometimes he may pose a rival to his shisya and ask him to defend his position. But all these assume sound knowledge of all systems. If you just memorize some mahavakyas and pose as a defender of advaita, that is not going to pass even the first stage in this kind of debate.

[ramkish42]

Wow, the true colors will show up no matter what position you take up. What you said is actually a valid type of debate and it is called vitanda, where you take up the position of the rival to actually show his shortcomings.

A guru will typically ask his sishya to argue from a rival position so that the soundness of the theory can be guaged. Sometimes he may pose a rival to his shisya and ask him to defend his position. But all these assume sound knowledge of all systems. If you just memorize some mahavakyas and pose as a defender of advaita, that is not going to pass even the first stage in this kind of debate.

Not with me.

I am a fully trained Lawyer and have enough material handy

However, it would be nice to debate with Vaishnav Sarabhanga, ISKCON BYS and a Vedantin Arjuna

As I used to say Baliyasi kevalam ishvarecha, let us see

[satay]

However, it would be nice to debate with Vaishnav Sarabhanga, ISKCON BYS and a Vedantin Arjuna

As I used to say Baliyasi kevalam ishvarecha, let us see

hehehe

or even a satay 'preacher' that would be interesting!:naughty:

[Sudarshan]

hehehe

or even a satay 'preacher' that would be interesting!:naughty:

How about a Shaiva Sudarshan- crazy, eh?;)

It should not be preacher Satay, but you should take up Christian Satay.:naughty:

[ramkish42]

How about a Shaiva Sudarshan- crazy, eh?;)

It should not be preacher Satay, but you should take up Christian Satay.:naughty:

Preacher and Christian are synonymous

[satay]

How about a Shaiva Sudarshan- crazy, eh?;)

It should not be preacher Satay, but you should take up Christian Satay.:naughty:

Shiva sudharshan eh? that would be neat though personally I don't see any difference between shiva and vishnu!

Christian satay! yeah...I can defend from christian side...
let's me make a thread in the christian forums for this...later today... and we continue there.

[Znanna]

A free for all thread which does not require reference to a particular philosophy or sources would be cool, I'd go for that. My only source is what I've done, I am no scholar :) Over time, I suspect I will find relevant references to cite, but I don't have them now.

There are many times I have thought of commenting, but have not, given that it would seem to take things off (debate) topic, being of observational rather than scriptural origin.


Namaste,
ZN

[Sudarshan]

There are many times I have thought of commenting, but have not, given that it would seem to take things off (debate) topic, being of observational rather than scriptural origin.


I think there is no problem in giving your observations, and that is perhaps what more people would like to see on a forum like this. Once you mention clearly that it is your own view, it is not a point of controversy.

[TruthSeeker]

Shiva sudharshan eh? that would be neat though personally I don't see any difference between shiva and vishnu!


Let us assume for a moment that Shiva and Vishnu are indeed different. But all of us know that any of the dieites are beyond human comprehension, and the human forms assigned to them for the sake of worship or meditation is only. This is quite true even if we assume that God has a intrinsic form made of bliss.( which is not accepted by Advaita at the highest reality)

In any case, the "true" form of God is not comprehensible for man, so all he does is to assign it a name and form. There is absolutely nothing going on differently in the brain and mind of any individual irespective of if they are dealing with Vishnu, Shiva , Allah or whatever. All is going to matter is their faith and fervour.

It is said that a Yogi's medtation progresses in higher stages of awareness with lower stages dealing with idols and pictures, forms of pure Akasha, then subtle elements, pure shabda tanmAtra, and then the contemplation is on Maya or Avyakta, which is not possible for the common man. So until your spiritual vision has penetrated beyond Avyakta, you cannot even know what Shiva and Vishnu are, or even know if they are one and the same or different in some way.

To the common man, who has not seen or known either Vishnu or Shiva this way, except from books, the whole issue is irrelevant- just comparison of two blindmen claiming that their own mental images of an apple to be superior to the other, and perhaps even over people with vision.:)