If you are going to make such a claim, please cite your sources. What scripture and what section?Originally Posted by rkannan1
Again, you make a claim without citing your source. Where in the Qur'an, is "blind violence" prescribed? Muslims also don't believe in Moksha.Originally Posted by rkannan1
Again, please back up your claims with evidence. I don't know if I missed something in this discussion, but since when did someone claim that one can practice sex as the sole path to mukti? I would consider such a path absurd and ridiculous. On the other hand, if we are talking about a spiritual lifestyle where sex is also used in moderation, I don't find a problem with that. Sex can be spiritual despite what some claim.Originally Posted by rkannan1
No it is NOT ridiculous. It is ridiculous to assert that something is or is not required in the practice of dharma and then not be expected to at least quote one shloka backing up your claim. Imagine in a courtroom if the prosecutor made a claim that the defendant broke the law but told the judge and jury it would be ridiculous for them to cite the exact law that was broken. Your second point also doesn't make sense. Where does sense control ban sense enjoyment? Sense control means controlling the senses. It does not mean not using the senses. It would be absurd to say that traffic control means that you cannot have any traffic. Sense control logically means that you control your senses--and that your senses do not control you. As long as you are in the material world, your senses will enjoy at times and suffer at other times. Managing them is a logical path to Self-Realization. You cannot turn off your senses as long as you are in a physical body.Originally Posted by rkannan1
Enough said. ~BYS~
Bookmarks