Examine Logically To Arrive at the Truth

[dattaswami]

SCRIPTURES ARE PERSONAL VERSIONS

[I heard that somebody refused the propagation of My divine knowledge based on the reason that this knowledge is the personal version of Myself.]



The Gita was told by Krishna only. The Bible was told by Jesus only. The Quran was told by Mohammad only. Buddhism was preached by Buddha alone. All the Brahma Sutras and Puranas were the personal version of sage Vyasa only. Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva preached the three schools of philosophy as their personal versions only. Each Sukta in the Veda was told by a single sage only and thus, the entire Veda is a bundle of personal versions only. God told the scripture through several prophets. Since, God is only one, all the scriptures are the personal version of God. Even in science each theory invented is a personal version of a single scientist only. The point is not that whether a concept is told by a person or a group of persons. You must examine the point logically and find its validity. If the point is right, it should be accepted even if it is told by a single person. If the point is wrong, it should not be accepted even if it is told by a group of people.

Generally, we accept a concept propagated by our old tradition. We give validity to the author, who is ancient. We neglect the author if he exists in the present time. The ancient author was also modern in his time of existence. The present author becomes ancient after sometime. Therefore, the validity of ancient and modern terms is meaningless. When Shankara condemned all the atheistic arguments of Sankhya told by a sage called Kapila, the opponents opposed Shankara atlast by saying that Kapila is omniscient. Actually Kapila, the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, was really omniscient. Sage Kapila, who proposed atheism, was quite a different person. But people have exploited the similarity of name. Then Shankara asked a question “If we have to agree on the point of Kapila based on the omniscience conferred on Kapila, why should’nt we accept Kanada or Charvaka, who were also atheists since their followers confer the same title on them also (Kapiloyadisarvajnah...)?”

Our ancient tradition contains the merits established by our ancient sages. There is no doubt in this. But their knowledge was mixed with the wrong concepts of some selfish followers, who branded their concepts in the name of the ancient sages. Hence, our present tradition is a mixture of merits and defects. The blind follower of our tradition absorbs both right and wrong knowledge. A scholar or an ignorant person can be easily convinced by argument. A person, who is half knowing and half ignorant, can never be convinced even by God in human form (Brahmaapinaranjayati...)! The follower of our old tradition is a scholar due to the meritorious knowledge of sages and is also ignorant due to the wrong concepts of the followers.

Hence, the follower of our tradition can never be convinced. The scripture alone cannot be the authority because the correct interpretation of the scripture is unknown due to existence of various interpretations. Hence, a logical debate is necessary to establish the correct interpretation of the scripture. The advocates debate in the court giving their own interpretations of the constitution. The judge comes to a conclusion after a patient hearing of this logical debate. Similarly, you should come to the conclusion of the truth after a patient discussion with logical analysis. Only then is the scripture confined to the correct interpretation.

By following the true concept of the scripture, one can get the correct experience of the fruit. Therefore, the authority consists of scripture (Shruti and Smruti), logic (Yukti) and experience (Anubhava). If logic is not followed, the wrong interpretation of the scripture propagated by certain selfish people catches over your brain and you will be in the wrong track to lose the true experience. Based on such impartial logic only, one should filter the defects from the tradition and follow the merits. The uniformity in all the religions of the world is the uniform opinion of the single God for the entire world. The differences in the religions are due to the wrong interpretations of the followers, which were branded in the name of God.

If you can filter these misinterpretations of the followers from all the religions, you will find the single concept of God that unifies the entire humanity to bring world peace. If one follows the wrong concepts of the ancient followers because they were his ancestors, he is no more different from the person who drinks salt water from the well since it was dug by his father (Tatasya kupoyamiti...)!

[Age]

SCRIPTURES ARE PERSONAL VERSIONS

[I heard that somebody refused the propagation of My divine knowledge based on the reason that this knowledge is the personal version of Myself.]



The Gita was told by Krishna only. The Bible was told by Jesus only.

LOL "dattaswami".

The Quran was told by Mohammad only. Buddhism was preached by Buddha alone. All the Brahma Sutras and Puranas were the personal version of sage Vyasa only. Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva preached the three schools of philosophy as their personal versions only. Each Sukta in the Veda was told by a single sage only and thus, the entire Veda is a bundle of personal versions only. God told the scripture through several prophets. Since, God is only one, all the scriptures are the personal version of God. Even in science each theory invented is a personal version of a single scientist only. The point is not that whether a concept is told by a person or a group of persons. You must examine the point logically and find its validity. If the point is right, it should be accepted even if it is told by a single person. If the point is wrong, it should not be accepted even if it is told by a group of people.

Generally, we accept a concept propagated by our old tradition. We give validity to the author, who is ancient. We neglect the author if he exists in the present time. The ancient author was also modern in his time of existence. The present author becomes ancient after sometime. Therefore, the validity of ancient and modern terms is meaningless. When Shankara condemned all the atheistic arguments of Sankhya told by a sage called Kapila, the opponents opposed Shankara atlast by saying that Kapila is omniscient. Actually Kapila, the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, was really omniscient. Sage Kapila, who proposed atheism, was quite a different person. But people have exploited the similarity of name. Then Shankara asked a question “If we have to agree on the point of Kapila based on the omniscience conferred on Kapila, why should’nt we accept Kanada or Charvaka, who were also atheists since their followers confer the same title on them also (Kapiloyadisarvajnah...)?”

Our ancient tradition contains the merits established by our ancient sages. There is no doubt in this. But their knowledge was mixed with the wrong concepts of some selfish followers, who branded their concepts in the name of the ancient sages. Hence, our present tradition is a mixture of merits and defects. The blind follower of our tradition absorbs both right and wrong knowledge. A scholar or an ignorant person can be easily convinced by argument. A person, who is half knowing and half ignorant, can never be convinced even by God in human form (Brahmaapinaranjayati...)! The follower of our old tradition is a scholar due to the meritorious knowledge of sages and is also ignorant due to the wrong concepts of the followers.

Hence, the follower of our tradition can never be convinced. The scripture alone cannot be the authority because the correct interpretation of the scripture is unknown due to existence of various interpretations. Hence, a logical debate is necessary to establish the correct interpretation of the scripture. The advocates debate in the court giving their own interpretations of the constitution. The judge comes to a conclusion after a patient hearing of this logical debate. Similarly, you should come to the conclusion of the truth after a patient discussion with logical analysis. Only then is the scripture confined to the correct interpretation.

By following the true concept of the scripture, one can get the correct experience of the fruit. Therefore, the authority consists of scripture (Shruti and Smruti), logic (Yukti) and experience (Anubhava). If logic is not followed, the wrong interpretation of the scripture propagated by certain selfish people catches over your brain and you will be in the wrong track to lose the true experience. Based on such impartial logic only, one should filter the defects from the tradition and follow the merits. The uniformity in all the religions of the world is the uniform opinion of the single God for the entire world. The differences in the religions are due to the wrong interpretations of the followers, which were branded in the name of God.

If you can filter these misinterpretations of the followers from all the religions, you will find the single concept of God that unifies the entire humanity to bring world peace. If one follows the wrong concepts of the ancient followers because they were his ancestors, he is no more different from the person who drinks salt water from the well since it was dug by his father (Tatasya kupoyamiti...)!

[Sculptor]

SCRIPTURES ARE PERSONAL VERSIONS

[I heard that somebody refused the propagation of My divine knowledge based on the reason that this knowledge is the personal version of Myself.]

Are you then so arrogant as to call your personal imaginings "divine"?
Do you m=not know that makes you a laughing stock?

The Gita was told by Krishna only. The Bible was told by Jesus only.

Jesus was illiterate and never contributed to the bible.
I cannot speak for Krishna.

The Quran was told by Mohammad only. Buddhism was preached by Buddha alone. All the Brahma Sutras and Puranas were the personal version of sage Vyasa only. Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva preached the three schools of philosophy as their personal versions only. Each Sukta in the Veda was told by a single sage only and thus, the entire Veda is a bundle of personal versions only. God told the scripture through several prophets. Since, God is only one, all the scriptures are the personal version of God. Even in science each theory invented is a personal version of a single scientist only. The point is not that whether a concept is told by a person or a group of persons. You must examine the point logically and find its validity. If the point is right, it should be accepted even if it is told by a single person. If the point is wrong, it should not be accepted even if it is told by a group of people.

Generally, we accept a concept propagated by our old tradition. We give validity to the author, who is ancient. We neglect the author if he exists in the present time. The ancient author was also modern in his time of existence. The present author becomes ancient after sometime. Therefore, the validity of ancient and modern terms is meaningless. When Shankara condemned all the atheistic arguments of Sankhya told by a sage called Kapila, the opponents opposed Shankara atlast by saying that Kapila is omniscient. Actually Kapila, the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, was really omniscient. Sage Kapila, who proposed atheism, was quite a different person. But people have exploited the similarity of name. Then Shankara asked a question “If we have to agree on the point of Kapila based on the omniscience conferred on Kapila, why should’nt we accept Kanada or Charvaka, who were also atheists since their followers confer the same title on them also (Kapiloyadisarvajnah...)?”

Our ancient tradition contains the merits established by our ancient sages. There is no doubt in this. But their knowledge was mixed with the wrong concepts of some selfish followers, who branded their concepts in the name of the ancient sages. Hence, our present tradition is a mixture of merits and defects. The blind follower of our tradition absorbs both right and wrong knowledge. A scholar or an ignorant person can be easily convinced by argument. A person, who is half knowing and half ignorant, can never be convinced even by God in human form (Brahmaapinaranjayati...)! The follower of our old tradition is a scholar due to the meritorious knowledge of sages and is also ignorant due to the wrong concepts of the followers.

Hence, the follower of our tradition can never be convinced. The scripture alone cannot be the authority because the correct interpretation of the scripture is unknown due to existence of various interpretations. Hence, a logical debate is necessary to establish the correct interpretation of the scripture. The advocates debate in the court giving their own interpretations of the constitution. The judge comes to a conclusion after a patient hearing of this logical debate. Similarly, you should come to the conclusion of the truth after a patient discussion with logical analysis. Only then is the scripture confined to the correct interpretation.

By following the true concept of the scripture, one can get the correct experience of the fruit. Therefore, the authority consists of scripture (Shruti and Smruti), logic (Yukti) and experience (Anubhava). If logic is not followed, the wrong interpretation of the scripture propagated by certain selfish people catches over your brain and you will be in the wrong track to lose the true experience. Based on such impartial logic only, one should filter the defects from the tradition and follow the merits. The uniformity in all the religions of the world is the uniform opinion of the single God for the entire world. The differences in the religions are due to the wrong interpretations of the followers, which were branded in the name of God.

If you can filter these misinterpretations of the followers from all the religions, you will find the single concept of God that unifies the entire humanity to bring world peace. If one follows the wrong concepts of the ancient followers because they were his ancestors, he is no more different from the person who drinks salt water from the well since it was dug by his father (Tatasya kupoyamiti...)!

Where is the logic?
I could not find any.

[Iwannaplato]

The Gita was told by Krishna only.

Or not...

Scholars consider Vyasa to be a mythical or symbolic author, in part because Vyasa is also the traditional compiler of the Vedas and the Puranas, texts dated to be from different millennia.[25][29][30] The word Vyasa literally means "arranger, compiler", and is a surname in India. According to Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, a Gita scholar, it is possible that a number of different individuals with the same name compiled different texts.[31]

The Bible was told by Jesus only.

Um, much of the Bible was written before Jesus was born. He did not write the parts of the Bible about himself. These were written by different people who lived after he was dead. And that there are different authors can be seen in the differences between the stories.

The Quran was told by Mohammad only.

What do modern scholars think of this story? Not very much, as it happens. There are all sorts of potential issues with the traditional Islamic account, which is derived from sources only compiled centuries after Muhammad. Perhaps the most significant, and worth leading with here, is that there is mounting evidence that the Qur’an, or at least the bulk of it, predates Muhammad. A number of manuscript fragments have been found which can be dated (by carbon dating of parchment) to well before the time Muhammad was active. It is also packed with agricultural and geographical references which are out of place in the arid Arabian Peninsula, and written in a dialect of Arabic which even early Muslim scholars agreed was not the dialect of Muhammad’s tribe in Mecca. Current thinking is still far from settled, but some evidence suggests it may have originated in the southern Levant or northern Arabia.

So how did it come to be associated with the prophetic vocation of Muhammad of Mecca? That is a question which scholars are really only just beginning to explore, and it is still much too early days to give answers with any kind of certainty. An important dimension of the problem is that the Qur’an consists of two distinct layers, one earlier and one later. Muslim tradition accounts for this in terms of Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina in 622 (the Hijra), when his emphasis shifted markedly from peaceable coexistence with those of other beliefs to a violent intolerance and imperial ambition. However, the two layers, A and B, are of so completely different a character that it seems difficult to attribute them to the same author or authors. They make use of a very different vocabulary and style, are worlds apart in their rhetorical quality, and evince some very different priorities.

Layer A (which approximates to the 86 suras (chapters) ‘revealed before Hijra’, though there is some mixing up) is a finely written theological work of high rhetorical skill. It is general in scope, with much of it devoted to recounting biblical (and apocryphal) stories (especially those of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses) as encouragements and warnings, and referring to the events in them as Signs and those involved in bringing God’s word as Messengers. It shows an intense interest in reconciling biblical traditions with its own theological narrative, and contains very few detailed ethical prescriptions.

Layer B (approximating to the 28 ‘after Hijra’ suras) is completely different: it has a much clunkier rhetorical style (on the most part, though with some finer passages), longer verses, and has many fewer biblical references, makes heavy use of the second person (addressing the hearer directly) and includes many references to the Messenger (singular) who is reciting the Qur’an as a Prophet, emphasising the need to obey him. It includes various specific local references to Muhammad, Mecca, the Mosque, and Yathrib (Medina), a host of detailed moral and legal prescriptions, some personal guidance for the Prophet and special dispensations for him (especially about his wives), numerous anti-Christian and anti-Jewish polemics, and many exhortations to fight against the enemy and unbeliever.

Scholars are still investigating explanations for the origin of these two layers. One of the more likely possibilities is that the first layer somehow came into the possession of Muhammad’s community in Mecca, where they began their monotheistic Qur’anic sect, and where they subsequently recognised a prophetic vocation for Muhammad in the Qur’anic tradition. The second layer was then added later by Muhammad (and possibly those around him) following the move to Medina, where the Qur’anic religion and Muhammad’s prophetic vocation quickly became tools for gaining power and building empire. This is not to say that Muhammad and his companions did not sincerely believe in his prophetic vocation – they may well have done. But those who were aware of the true origin of the Qur’an may have been quite happy to allow Muhammad, seen as the last and greatest of the Messengers and Prophets, to co-opt it to his vocation and incorporate it as he deemed fit.

Alternatively there may be a quite different explanation, such as one in which Muhammad is not involved in the production of the Qur’an at all (such ideas have certainly been entertained by some scholars, referred to as ‘revisionists’). Whatever the truth though, one thing is looking increasingly likely: that most of the Qur’an originated somewhere quite different from with someone quite other than Muhammad of Mecca. And that alone threatens some fundamental Islamic claims about the origins of their religion.

Buddhism was preached by Buddha alone.

It is possible that Guatama - who did not promote in the least belief in a deity - came up with the ideas in Buddhism. However this does not mean that what has come down through time as his words were said by him or he would have agreed with them. Likewise in relation to practices.

[Lacewing]

Is it your idea of 'logic' to consider only that which is a product of, and limited to, the stories that you want to believe?

[Iwannaplato]

Is it your idea of 'logic' to consider only that which is a product of, and limited to, the stories that you want to believe?

You know I can be fine with this. But yes, dragging logic into the mix is a problem. If you come across teaching/training/texts and they 1) help 2) seem to show you things that are true or seem to be 3) make changes in you that you like
I can definitely see working with that source in a holistic way, even recommending it to other people. And should portions of this be logical and or demonstable for others, then, yes showing those arguments. But here we are not dealing with logic, but rather intuition. Which is fine. But rarely does anyone seem confident enough in themselves and life to just admit - hey, look this is working for me. I can't demonstrate everything is true, but so far my experienced has matched a lot of it and life is working for me much better since I began to apply it. No one seems to be able to have the guts to say that. Despite the fact that there is nothing wrong with saying that. EVeryone does that. Many don't do it with religious and spiritual things, but they all do it with friendships and work and learning and parenting and life tactics and training and all sorts of things. It's perfectly valid. Not everything that is true has been discovered and verified in science. We have to live and we can't wait around for science to confirm everything we live by. But no, everything has to be the perfect product of deduction and induction.

And then, given certain people's ideas of logic and what has been demonstrated and, well,
that they think Jesus wrote the Bible,
some of us are going to question the intuition, logic, reasoning of the person in question.

I

[Lacewing]

If you come across teaching/training/texts and they 1) help 2) seem to show you things that are true or seem to be 3) make changes in you that you like I can definitely see working with that source in a holistic way, even recommending it to other people. And should portions of this be logical and or demonstable for others, then, yes showing those arguments.

Yes! That's great!

But here we are not dealing with logic, but rather intuition. Which is fine. But rarely does anyone seem confident enough in themselves and life to just admit - hey, look this is working for me. I can't demonstrate everything is true, but so far my experienced has matched a lot of it and life is working for me much better since I began to apply it. No one seems to be able to have the guts to say that. Despite the fact that there is nothing wrong with saying that. EVeryone does that. Many don't do it with religious and spiritual things, but they all do it with friendships and work and learning and parenting and life tactics and training and all sorts of things. It's perfectly valid.

Very well said... and valuable to recognize. We all have our methods and demonstrations for what works. And we don't have to know why they work. It could be that we're simply part of more than we can understand to put into exact words. Personally, I prefer explanations/examples that don't rely on books or unseen entities... as that seems to imply some kind of implicit credibility that should not (or cannot) be challenged. Too much of that seems lazy to me. We can explore, experiment, and speak for ourselves.

And it's available to everyone. Awareness is not the possession of (nor limited by) just a few with particular ideas. That kind of 'ownership' is only in service to the man who claims such nonsense.

[Walker]

Is it your idea of 'logic' to consider only that which is a product of, and limited to, the stories that you want to believe?

Given the politics of Swami Vivekananda, and given Swami dattaswami’s affinity with Swami Vivekananda, I find it interesting that you have not found more common ground with Swami dattaswami.

I think Swami dattaswami’s politics are probably well defined, as were Swami Vivekananda’s.

You likely will find a common common ground with Swami dattaswami, through your political views.

Talk to him about politics. You may think the same things.

Why should you? He may be then more interesting to you, and you will have less cause to banish him from this realm of existence (or wish that you could).



(Because of the politics of the proper pronoun rule, it must also apply to proper names)

[Lacewing]

Is it your idea of 'logic' to consider only that which is a product of, and limited to, the stories that you want to believe?

Given the politics of Swami Vivekananda, and given Swami dattaswami’s affinity with Swami Vivekananda, I find it interesting that you have not found more common ground with Swami dattaswami.

I agree that there are concepts I can feel familiarity with. However, it's not simply about the content... it's about the manner in which it is delivered. Unbalanced torrent of preaching and claims about that which is not known, all without reasonable interaction with challenges. This is a discussion forum... not a preaching platform for someone to bombard with thousands of posts in a short period of time. Where is dattaswami's respect for BALANCE? What is dattaswami's NEED in doing this, and why is it more important than attaining balance and connection for and with other posters? These are reasonable considerations.

You don't need to answer. You tend to offer your allegiance so unquestioningly and foolishly that your perspective is usually skewed and unbalanced anyway.

[commonsense]

SCRIPTURES ARE PERSONAL VERSIONS

[I heard that somebody refused the propagation of My divine knowledge based on the reason that this knowledge is the personal version of Myself.]



The Gita was told by Krishna only. The Bible was told by Jesus only. The Quran was told by Mohammad only. Buddhism was preached by Buddha alone. All the Brahma Sutras and Puranas were the personal version of sage Vyasa only. Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva preached the three schools of philosophy as their personal versions only. Each Sukta in the Veda was told by a single sage only and thus, the entire Veda is a bundle of personal versions only. God told the scripture through several prophets. Since, God is only one, all the scriptures are the personal version of God. Even in science each theory invented is a personal version of a single scientist only. The point is not that whether a concept is told by a person or a group of persons. You must examine the point logically and find its validity. If the point is right, it should be accepted even if it is told by a single person. If the point is wrong, it should not be accepted even if it is told by a group of people.

Generally, we accept a concept propagated by our old tradition. We give validity to the author, who is ancient. We neglect the author if he exists in the present time. The ancient author was also modern in his time of existence. The present author becomes ancient after sometime. Therefore, the validity of ancient and modern terms is meaningless. When Shankara condemned all the atheistic arguments of Sankhya told by a sage called Kapila, the opponents opposed Shankara atlast by saying that Kapila is omniscient. Actually Kapila, the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, was really omniscient. Sage Kapila, who proposed atheism, was quite a different person. But people have exploited the similarity of name. Then Shankara asked a question “If we have to agree on the point of Kapila based on the omniscience conferred on Kapila, why should’nt we accept Kanada or Charvaka, who were also atheists since their followers confer the same title on them also (Kapiloyadisarvajnah...)?”

Our ancient tradition contains the merits established by our ancient sages. There is no doubt in this. But their knowledge was mixed with the wrong concepts of some selfish followers, who branded their concepts in the name of the ancient sages. Hence, our present tradition is a mixture of merits and defects. The blind follower of our tradition absorbs both right and wrong knowledge. A scholar or an ignorant person can be easily convinced by argument. A person, who is half knowing and half ignorant, can never be convinced even by God in human form (Brahmaapinaranjayati...)! The follower of our old tradition is a scholar due to the meritorious knowledge of sages and is also ignorant due to the wrong concepts of the followers.

Hence, the follower of our tradition can never be convinced. The scripture alone cannot be the authority because the correct interpretation of the scripture is unknown due to existence of various interpretations. Hence, a logical debate is necessary to establish the correct interpretation of the scripture. The advocates debate in the court giving their own interpretations of the constitution. The judge comes to a conclusion after a patient hearing of this logical debate. Similarly, you should come to the conclusion of the truth after a patient discussion with logical analysis. Only then is the scripture confined to the correct interpretation.

By following the true concept of the scripture, one can get the correct experience of the fruit. Therefore, the authority consists of scripture (Shruti and Smruti), logic (Yukti) and experience (Anubhava). If logic is not followed, the wrong interpretation of the scripture propagated by certain selfish people catches over your brain and you will be in the wrong track to lose the true experience. Based on such impartial logic only, one should filter the defects from the tradition and follow the merits. The uniformity in all the religions of the world is the uniform opinion of the single God for the entire world. The differences in the religions are due to the wrong interpretations of the followers, which were branded in the name of God.

If you can filter these misinterpretations of the followers from all the religions, you will find the single concept of God that unifies the entire humanity to bring world peace. If one follows the wrong concepts of the ancient followers because they were his ancestors, he is no more different from the person who drinks salt water from the well since it was dug by his father (Tatasya kupoyamiti...)!

Do you enjoy clickbait? Because that’s what you’ve got for the thread subject here. The thread title makes no reference to God or the Gita or Krishna or the Bible or the Quran or Mohammad or Buddhism or Buddha or the Brahma Sutras or Puranas or Vyasa or Shankara or Ramanuja. Do you delight in fooling others and luring them into your sermon? Do you know that there’s a subforum named Philosophy of Religion? Do you know that you can be banned for posting a thread in an inappropriate subforum?

[Walker]

Is it your idea of 'logic' to consider only that which is a product of, and limited to, the stories that you want to believe?

Given the politics of Swami Vivekananda, and given Swami dattaswami’s affinity with Swami Vivekananda, I find it interesting that you have not found more common ground with Swami dattaswami.

I agree that there are concepts I can feel familiarity with. However, it's not simply about the content... it's about the manner in which it is delivered. Unbalanced torrent of preaching and claims about that which is not known, all without reasonable interaction with challenges. This is a discussion forum... not a preaching platform for someone to bombard with thousands of posts in a short period of time. Where is dattaswami's respect for BALANCE? What is dattaswami's NEED in doing this, and why is it more important than attaining balance and connection for and with other posters? These are reasonable considerations.

You don't need to answer. You tend to offer your allegiance so unquestioningly and foolishly that your perspective is usually skewed and unbalanced anyway.

- I'm not the one complaining that dattaswami is an "unbalancing" presence.
- This is because equanimity puts him, and you, into proportion.

- You are the one complaining about being unbalanced.

- You unbalance yourself.

- Dattaswami is not unbalancing you.

- You are responsible for your own unbalancing.

- To say that I am imbalanced, for not supporting your unbalanced notions, is rather unbalanced of you.

- dattaswami is inconvenient to your sense of balance, so you think he's gotta go.

- He's not the cause of your unbalance.

- You are.

- Drink less wine and you won't fall over so much.

*

This is how we logically deduce truth, but I figure you're not a fan.

[Lacewing]

...

I said you didn't need to answer, which was a polite way of saying "don't bother answering because I won't read any more of your crap for a while".

Happy Holidays!

[dattaswami]

Um, much of the Bible was written before Jesus was born. He did not write the parts of the Bible about himself. These were written by different people who lived after he was dead. And that there are different authors can be seen in the differences between the stories.

MATTHEW: 5 : 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill”.

The right interpretations of the old traditional scriptures given by Holy Jesus appear to be quite revolutionary. But they are the real essence of the scriptures. Selfish Scholars misinterpreted these old scriptures and established a bad tradition and mislead the public. Certain inconvenient
portions of scriptures were removed and certain selfish portions were introduced. The Scriptures were polluted and this happened in Hinduism also. Holy Jesus washed all the dirt in the Christian scriptures.

Similarly in Hinduism the three preachers called Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva also washed such dirt but the dirt comes often because the wind blows every day carrying the dust. The religion becomes dirty in every human generation. Spiritualism is the brooms stick with which God in human form sweeps it away. For this purpose He comes down in human form in every human generation. All the old is not gold as said “Purana mityeva…..” It is also said ‘Taatasya Kupoyam…..’ which means that a fool drinks salt water from a well saying that it was dug by his fore fathers. So one should not follow all the old blindly. Analyze it at every step and find out the truth.

Krishna condemned the ritual portions in Vedas by saying “Traigunya Vishayah…”. Similarly Lord Buddha condemned killing of animals in the name of Sacrifices. Veda says clearly “Manyuh Pasuh” which means that one should kill his foolish animal behavior. But instead of doing that, people started killing the animals in sacrifices. Holy Jesus also corrected several portions of the scripture and showed the true path. Even the Veda, which remains now, is a very little portion of the original Veda. The lost portion of Veda is called ‘Khila Bhaga’. Holy Jesus also told that He came to complete the scriptures, which means that some correct portions were lost. Rituals prescribe certain time and place for God’s worship. But Holy Jesus tells that spirit is important and not the place or time (Matthew 12:11 & 12).

[Iwannaplato]

MATTHEW: 5 : 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill”.

You'll notice that there is a name other than Jesus who is quoting Jesus: Matthew. Most scholars put Matthew at 80 to 90 AD, which means he was not even a witness to the life of Jesus. And what is not quoted, but written, in Matthew, is written by, well, not Jesus.

The right interpretations of the old traditional scriptures given by Holy Jesus appear to be quite revolutionary. But they are the real essence of the scriptures.

Yes, the Jesus that Matthew and others wrote about, when they were writing that part of the Bible, did, according to them, interpret and comment on what Christians call the Old Testement. But that doesn't mean Jesus wrote the OT. He didn't.

Jesus did not write the Bible. That's not a controversial statement. Certainly not for Christians or religious scholars or theologians.

What I notice here, again, is that you're not really responsding to what I wrote. You bring up other issues and here an interesting one. But it does not in anyway support the idea that Jesus wrote the Bible.

[Iwannaplato]

- I'm not the one complaining that dattaswami is an "unbalancing" presence.

Neither was Lacewing.
- This is because equanimity puts him, and you, into proportion.

- You are the one complaining about being unbalanced.

She said HE was unbalanced. Now you are putting words in her mouth. It's a little dominance game. And it's lying. Which would be frowned upon even by DS.

We differ on something. Some are details. Some are important core principles. I don't think you respond well here. I don't think your responses are clear and sometimes, like here, they are not relevant.

I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to continue disagreeing so much with you, especially given that you cannot seem to take in anything new or even to consider it or try to understand it.

I may respond again at other times, but I'll take a break.

But note to both you and Walker: there are many ways to see someone is emotionally triggered. Some are obvious: they express themselves emotionally. Others are implicit. Avoidance. Distraction. Inability to concede points. Self-centered posting through lecturing in a forum (that is a place for people to discuss) and others. Those are ways you show that you are emotionally triggered. Walker as would-be devotee insults, condescends, misrepresents what others write, mindreads intent and also, like you, ignores anything that would be troubling to respond to in posts. A lot of labelling presented as if it is analysis or reason.

I am quite sure there are people who fall for this kind of emotion-baiting. So, don't worry, many people will fall for this distraction.