Philosophy Now Forum

Oh and what you call "radical upheaval and redefinition in all arenas" has already been dealt with by Adi Sankaracharya hundreds of years ago. So think about that for a while too. There is nothing new that you can come up with in religion, my friend. It has ALL be dealt with by someone or the other. There is no further progress to be made. It is a dead end now.

I was hoping for an essay by you demonstrating how Shankaracharya had summed up 'radical upheaval in all areas'. You made a bold, declarative statement. Do you have any way to back it up?

Some pages in reference to Shankaracharya's philosophy.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:

Oh and what you call "radical upheaval and redefinition in all arenas" has already been dealt with by Adi Sankaracharya hundreds of years ago. So think about that for a while too. There is nothing new that you can come up with in religion, my friend. It has ALL be dealt with by someone or the other. There is no further progress to be made. It is a dead end now.

I was hoping for an essay by you demonstrating how Shankaracharya had summed up 'radical upheaval in all areas'. You made a bold, declarative statement. Do you have any way to back it up?

Nope. Just as you never said anything other than radical upheaval in all areas which could very well have meant anything. I was taking a dig at your pompous condescension which is really tiring.

OK. So this was sham?

Oh and what you call "radical upheaval and redefinition in all arenas" has already been dealt with by Adi Sankaracharya hundreds of years ago. So think about that for a while too. There is nothing new that you can come up with in religion, my friend. It has ALL be dealt with by someone or the other. There is no further progress to be made. It is a dead end now.

If you will permit me to say it so boldly (you really seem like a decent chap with a great head on your shoulders, as the saying goes) get out of reaction to what I write, to tone, to 'arrogance' and any of that. Pay no attention to any distracting thing. Let us deal strictly with the ideas. That will be a marvellous - an unheard of thing! - here on PN.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:OK. So this was sham?

Oh and what you call "radical upheaval and redefinition in all arenas" has already been dealt with by Adi Sankaracharya hundreds of years ago. So think about that for a while too. There is nothing new that you can come up with in religion, my friend. It has ALL be dealt with by someone or the other. There is no further progress to be made. It is a dead end now.

If you will permit me to say it so boldly (you really seem like a decent chap with a great head on your shoulders, as the saying goes) get out of reaction to what I write, to tone, to 'arrogance' and any of that. Pay no attention to any distracting thing. Let us deal strictly with the ideas. That will be a marvellous - an unheard of thing! - here on PN.

Define in clear cut terms "radical upheaval and redefinition in all arenas". What do you mean? Start with any one arena and state the "radical upheaval and redefinition".

I'd rather use the 23 pages of Willey as a base for that conversation. The radical upheaval is 'modernity'. I've written already some comments on the first pages. Comment on that 'si te pica la gana' as we say in Spanish.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I'd rather use the 23 pages of Willey as a base for that conversation. The radical upheaval is 'modernity'. I've written already some comments on the first pages. Comment on that 'si te pica la gana' as we say in Spanish.

Nope. Willey is not here. You are. Give me your words. I will argue with you. Or get Willey. And I don't know Spanish.

Willey's ideas ARE here. And as I said my present endeavor will be to mske comments toward what he wrote. I don't mind that you opt-out of participation.

Google translator, man. I guess you are not a member of the Indian IT community ...

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Willey's ideas ARE here.

But yours are not. Get Willey here to argue with me. He is no authority.

Gustav. Take your hand off your Willey or you'll go blind.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I'd rather use the 23 pages of Willey as a base for that conversation. The radical upheaval is 'modernity'. I've written already some comments on the first pages. Comment on that 'si te pica la gana' as we say in Spanish.

What has your Willey got to do with the question I asked you: why does God not just tell you the answers instead of making you work so hard for it?

Or are you just ignoring that question and trying to move on to another topic?

What happened to the evensoneconomics thread? Anyway, I think that Bob's economics and imagined profit ( pun intended) status, dove tail in this video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-LJ_3VbUA

Shouldn't this be easy? If a person has a proven record of predicting correctly then they are a prophet. If their predictions are hit or miss, then they're a normal person.

If enough people speculate about the future, chances are that some will be more accurate than others. So if there are, say, a thousand informal predictions of the future floating around in cyberspace (conservative number) how do you tell who's for real and who's a schmuck?

This is what it would take to convince me.

"prove to me that you're no fool, walk across my swimming pool".....Tim Rice