Peace out people. Hope I didn't upset anyone.
Again, good topic.
Dr.Grass said:
A man and a woman can biologically create a child together. The expression of love between two men is the insertion of one's penus into the other's anus. I'm stating facts here. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done. Our modern culture is so proud of being liberal. Well give yourself an applause for not burning any witches. Well done indeed - what an accomplishment.
There are other things possible as well you know: - dreversing Definition: The steering of an automobile in the reverse direction as a fundamental means of transportation. - bottoring Definition: The buttering of bread on the bottom side instead of the traditionally accepted top side.
Next thing the advocates of these will start trying to convince me how we're all equal. Anyone who believes we're all equal has never contemplated this world before. Next thing is that I'll be called a discriminator. Yes, I discriminate. It's what I do. Sure, maybe (or maybe not) I've had the urge to kiss an attractive guy and spend the night with him. But I distance my actions and desires from my reasoning ability due to ... well, read the exchange between myself and Conegamer - we assume ourselves special. Let's slay this vice before it consumes us. |
I'm not gay but I believe they should have just as many rights as we do. This is why religious views get criticized. They judge people and condemn them for things they do. Just because you believe in God does not make you God.
So since you are the all knowing jesus on vgchartz how about you tell us why you believe in God and all your religious views? Because you criticise everybody who believes differently is it your turn to be criticized by others now?
Btw facts does not make something any better. People could point out facts all day about religion but they don't. It's not the people who don't believe who goes door to door trying to get them to not to believe in something. It's religious people who are criticising everyone else yet ive seen them sin just as much.
| Dr.Grass said: "you're being far too cynical about modern human culture. I mean, surely you realize that this idea of newer generations being too irresponsible and not thinking enough is also as ancient as they come?" I would like to suggest that I'm not being cynical at all, but merely that the human being has complete ignorance of his own potential. Significantly, my position is that the human being has systematically forgotten his position. I don't want to debate your points here, because that will inevitably go into an infinite digress. What you have done is used my claim that our other friend here was being an absolutist towards his own culture whilst claiming to subscribe to a relativistic world and turned it against my implicit evolved man that I haven't specifically pin pointed. If I tried to debate that now then we would traverse the field of Anthropology heavily (and it is usually a fruitless task to even begin that) and I loathe it so much anyway. My world view of history and yours is no doubt radically different. The linear timelines accepted nowadays is a far cry from my "we have always existed" understanding. I don't want to debate that point, because then evolution, the British empire, India, Hinduism, the Maya, and a lot of archeaology would become involved. Point being my shift has ended and our beam is back online and the apprentice nuclear physicist here has now been informed of the modus operandi. :) But you like to debate for debate's sake, and (if my memory serves me correctly) then you are rather adept at it... So, even though it's 4 hours past my bedtime and I'm getting up in 3, I'm going to go ahead (since I can't resist) and use the exact same point as you used on me: "I don't think watching TV and commenting online a lot are necessarily opposed to thinking and self control at all" How would you know something is hindering you're progress in a certain direction if that very thing is all you've ever known? When was the last time you've spent a significant amount of days away from a 'i flash 50 times per second' one-eyed-guru? Have you experimented with real self control? Control of the tongue, stomach and genitals? How about observing your own thoughts consciously for an entire day - what about always doing so? Too much strain? Too difficult? Or is it just such a foreign idea that it is much easier to dismiss it? " think that they always have and you're attributing a causal relationship to this lack of thinking and an increase in these modern indulgences because you've just taken note of them at the same time." Whilst I like this argument (it's ethos has surfaced a few times now), can it not almost always be applied? Blaming (not used in the derogetory sense here) the accused (ditto ;) ) of simply being caught up in his own world? ^ We have now reached the very limits of our Western philosophy with this point. To crack these walls one needs to venture far beyond the walls of the academic west. There where the professor scrutinizes without become one with the teachings. There where the teacher isn't fundamentally required. There where I just take tax payers money and observe one of the biggest shams in the world. Oh peasants, you need not look to the ground in shame for your lack of papers hanging on the wall. These intellectual giants can hardly move pebbles in the real world. I might be digressing, or even avoiding the points, but I've just done physics for the last obscene-amount-of-hours and I need some relief for my mind. I'm sure you don't mind. :) |
I doubt our views are that different at all, given that I'm an Indian being raised in a Hindu household whose only real inputs are his (very religious) mother's lectures and his mind. Well, online forums and school, too, but these places are really just where I go when I want to argue. :P
I guess I should've seen it coming that you're not against the "enlightened human" idea in and of itself and just don't agree that modern "scientists" are the right people. I still think that you're being far too harsh on far too many people by doing this, though. I'm sure if you looked hard enough (well, I'm grasping at straws here since you probably have), you'd find as much meaning in the Old Testament and even modern TV shows as you do in Indian philosophy.
Don't see why you're specifically against TV and the internet then, though. Your statement implied that post-internet society is worse than pre-internet society. That makes your overall historical worldview irrelevant since only this recent period of time matters.
Anyway, for your first point, you're right, I don't have much experience in self control at all. Of course, I have the excuse that I'm a teenager and at the point in life at which people are generally most driven by impulse so I'm sure I'll be wise enough to manage it in the future. Basically, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. :P To be honest, this part is what's really annoying about my philosophy. It's perfectly alright to indulge without feeling guilty and yet meditation and forsaking all things real are important for attaining higher self? ...I guess it has to be coherent. Somehow.
Nevertheless, I think my point about self control not being affected by modern indulgences isn't diminished by this at all. The fact that I can't manage it myself doesn't detract from my ability to recognize it in others, surely? I make that point with regard to the fact that I know very many people who enjoy the things that you claim and are still capable of meditation and profound thought.
Take yourself, even. Aren't you here, discussing something on a video game forum? I can take this your mere registration here mean that you care/cared quite a bit about video games. Unless video games are on a completely different plane from and more intellectual than TV shows, this should impede upon your ability to meditate quite a bit. And has it?
And it's true that the argument I used could be applied pretty much everywhere. That's hardly a sufficient rebuttal, though. Tell me why it doesn't apply in your case.
Also, while I'd love to join you in looking down upon Western philosophy, you're not being dispassionate at all. I know it's probably not the point right now, but still. You sound as spiteful as I do when talking about modern atheists (which ultimately ends up criticizing the West anyway).
It's fine that you're not really answering what I said. What's more annoying is that you're phrasing everything in a manner that is either very eloquent or outright bizarre. I had to read most of those paragraphs like three times before I got what you were saying. And I'm in one of my more mentally active parts of the day. Forgive me I've completely missed what you were saying and just responded to something else.
“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx
JayWood2010 said:
|
"I'm not gay but I believe they should have just as many rights as we do"
UMMM. I'm not (nor have I ever been) homosexual. Perhaps if you read my words properly you would've seen that.
Other than that, it's not worth responding to you.
Immortal said:
I guess I should've seen it coming that you're not against the "enlightened human" idea in and of itself and just don't agree that modern "scientists" are the right people. I still think that you're being far too harsh on far too many people by doing this, though. I'm sure if you looked hard enough (well, I'm grasping at straws here since you probably have), you'd find as much meaning in the Old Testament and even modern TV shows as you do in Indian philosophy. Don't see why you're specifically against TV and the internet then, though. Your statement implied that post-internet society is worse than pre-internet society. That makes your overall historical worldview irrelevant since only this recent period of time matters. Anyway, for your first point, you're right, I don't have much experience in self control at all. Of course, I have the excuse that I'm a teenager and at the point in life at which people are generally most driven by impulse so I'm sure I'll be wise enough to manage it in the future. Basically, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. :P To be honest, this part is what's really annoying about my philosophy. It's perfectly alright to indulge without feeling guilty and yet meditation and forsaking all things real are important for attaining higher self? ...I guess it has to be coherent. Somehow. Nevertheless, I think my point about self control not being affected by modern indulgences isn't diminished by this at all. The fact that I can't manage it myself doesn't detract from my ability to recognize it in others, surely? I make that point with regard to the fact that I know very many people who enjoy the things that you claim and are still capable of meditation and profound thought. Take yourself, even. Aren't you here, discussing something on a video game forum? I can take this your mere registration here mean that you care/cared quite a bit about video games. Unless video games are on a completely different plane from and more intellectual than TV shows, this should impede upon your ability to meditate quite a bit. And has it? And it's true that the argument I used could be applied pretty much everywhere. That's hardly a sufficient rebuttal, though. Tell me why it doesn't apply in your case. Also, while I'd love to join you in looking down upon Western philosophy, you're not being dispassionate at all. I know it's probably not the point right now, but still. You sound as spiteful as I do when talking about modern atheists (which ultimately ends up criticizing the West anyway). It's fine that you're not really answering what I said. What's more annoying is that you're phrasing everything in a manner that is either very eloquent or outright bizarre. I had to read most of those paragraphs like three times before I got what you were saying. And I'm in one of my more mentally active parts of the day. Forgive me I've completely missed what you were saying and just responded to something else. |
:D
I thought you were Conegamer - I just saw the pic of the dog (it really was a late night at the lab). Did you lose a bet or something?
|
Immortal said: I doubt our views are that different at all, given that I'm an Indian being raised in a Hindu household whose only real inputs are his (very religious) mother's lectures and his mind. Well, online forums and school, too, but these places are really just where I go when I want to argue. :P I guess I should've seen it coming that you're not against the "enlightened human" idea in and of itself and just don't agree that modern "scientists" are the right people. I still think that you're being far too harsh on far too many people by doing this, though. I'm sure if you looked hard enough (well, I'm grasping at straws here since you probably have), you'd find as much meaning in the Old Testament and even modern TV shows as you do in Indian philosophy. Don't see why you're specifically against TV and the internet then, though. Your statement implied that post-internet society is worse than pre-internet society. That makes your overall historical worldview irrelevant since only this recent period of time matters. Anyway, for your first point, you're right, I don't have much experience in self control at all. Of course, I have the excuse that I'm a teenager and at the point in life at which people are generally most driven by impulse so I'm sure I'll be wise enough to manage it in the future. Basically, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. :P To be honest, this part is what's really annoying about my philosophy. It's perfectly alright to indulge without feeling guilty and yet meditation and forsaking all things real are important for attaining higher self? ...I guess it has to be coherent. Somehow. Nevertheless, I think my point about self control not being affected by modern indulgences isn't diminished by this at all. The fact that I can't manage it myself doesn't detract from my ability to recognize it in others, surely? I make that point with regard to the fact that I know very many people who enjoy the things that you claim and are still capable of meditation and profound thought. Take yourself, even. Aren't you here, discussing something on a video game forum? I can take this your mere registration here mean that you care/cared quite a bit about video games. Unless video games are on a completely different plane from and more intellectual than TV shows, this should impede upon your ability to meditate quite a bit. And has it? And it's true that the argument I used could be applied pretty much everywhere. That's hardly a sufficient rebuttal, though. Tell me why it doesn't apply in your case. Also, while I'd love to join you in looking down upon Western philosophy, you're not being dispassionate at all. I know it's probably not the point right now, but still. You sound as spiteful as I do when talking about modern atheists (which ultimately ends up criticizing the West anyway). It's fine that you're not really answering what I said. What's more annoying is that you're phrasing everything in a manner that is either very eloquent or outright bizarre. I had to read most of those paragraphs like three times before I got what you were saying. And I'm in one of my more mentally active parts of the day. Forgive me I've completely missed what you were saying and just responded to something else. |
" I still think that you're being far too harsh on far too many people by doing this, though"
Well why don't we just all hold hands and get along? Seriously, just because I've somehow made my point clearly it is taken as offense(?). Consider that.
"Im sure if you looked hard enough (well, I'm grasping at straws here since you probably have), you'd find as much meaning in the Old Testament and even modern TV shows as you do in Indian philosophy."
Firstly, there's no such thing as "Indian" philosophy. To be totally straightforward again, there's no such thing as "Hindu". This term simply communicates an inherent ignorance about the culture and philosphy of Bharata.
Secondly, nomenclature aside, when the actual philosophy is brought up, I have to ask what philosophy that is. For me it's perfectly clear. There is the single author of the Veda, Srila Vyasadeva, who compiled the 4 Vedas from the 1 Veda at the advent of this age of Kali. This was done to facilitate the decreasing intelligence in human beings during this age. He also compiled many branches and subranches of the Veda.
There is the Sruti and Smriti. The Sruti is accepted by all classes of transcendentalists as Absolute truth. This includes the Upanishads which focus on Brahman. The Smriti isn't accepted by followers of Shankaracarya, but the position of Shankaracarya himself needs proper explanation and careful consideration to understand. Unfortunately, there was a lack of proper understanding by the first person to communicate the message of the Veda to the Western World. Swami Vivekenanda's views are rejected by Vyasadeva himself. Indeed, in the very conversation between Vyasadeva and his Guru, Narada Muni (1st Canto of Bhagavat Purana), his philosophical persuasion is asserted as clearly as can be. This first impression has certainly lasted, and the Western world knows nearly nothing of the "Hinduism" it has apparantly been introduced to by one of Her so-called knowers.
Unfortunately for them, the followers of Shankaracarya do not accept Smriti. Smriti is that which is remembered. So you obviously know Ramayana and Mahabharata. These fall in that category and are called Itihastas. The Purana literature (general histories of this universe) are also not accepted. This, in spite of the fact that the same author compiled them.
Vedanta Sutra. Literally, "The Final Limb of the Veda". Very important literature. Famously starts of with:
athato brahma jijnasa
"Now is the time to enquire into brahman" - commentary: Now that you have reached the human form of life, your duty is to know spirit.
The Vedanta Sutra is very short and compressed. It requires an incredibly sophisticated knowledge of Sanskrit that practically no-one posesses any more. The compiler (once again the Maha-Muni Vyasadeva), desided to make things easier by writing a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.
So that Commentary is called Bhagavat Purana, or Srimad Bhagavatam.
And in the Srimad Bhagavatam is everything - EVERYTHING that encapsulates the "Philosophy of India" or "Hinduism". But how many Indians who 'know their philsophy' have read the Srimad Bhagavatam? How many even know these few paragraphs I've typed out here? Nothing here is from some obscure branch of Hinduism or from speculation, it is all exactly as in the tradition itself. The followers of Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu know it, but somehow no-one else does.
So, NO, there is nothing in the Old Testament that even comes close to the sheer depth and clarity found in the Veda. If you think that I'm being unreasonable agian, then please consider: My dad is a minister and I went to Church every Sunday (twice!) until I was 16. Thereafter a little less. I actually read the entire Bible(!). If you actually compare the Bible with - say - the Bhagavad Gita then we can speak again (this holds for anyone who feels offended by this statement). Though there is some value to be found in the Bible.
And TV shows - are you serious? COME ON.
"you in looking down upon Western philosophy"
I'm not looking down on Western philosophy. There were some incredible Western Philosophers. Plato and Socrates especially. Actually, I'm looking up at Vedic philosophy.
"Take yourself, even. Aren't you here, discussing something on a video game forum? I can take this your mere registration here mean that you care/cared quite a bit about video games. Unless video games are on a completely different plane from and more intellectual than TV shows, this should impede upon your ability to meditate quite a bit. And has it?"
I never claimed to be the VGC Jesus that I was accused of. I've smoked more pot in my life than everyone on this thread combined (most probably), and I've had personal issues in this life - definitely. But now, just because I'm being very assertive in my speech and the points I make, you have to go and attack my character? Do you want to know how long I lived in a monastary or how long I was celibate and didn't take stimulants? Or maybe how many hours a day I meditate What are you doing here?
Actually, you're inherently stating that there isn't scope for real progressive discussion about anything higher than the mundane sphere of videogames. Bravo- you're probably right. So should I just leave VGC again because it looks like I'm trying to be a Messiah on here or what?
Just leave these UTTERLY NONSENICLE POINTS THAT ARE REGURGITATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN to infiltrate the minds of poor innocent people that never hear the other side of the story?
Where is your freedom? Where is your liberty? Truth is, this world has none. If you actually read your own scriptures you would know that.
"It's perfectly alright to indulge without feeling guilty and yet meditation and forsaking all things real are important for attaining higher self?"
I don't want to be to heavy here, but that's not your philosophy. In Bhagavad Gita the systems of Karma-Yoga, Dhyana, Jnana and Bhakti are described for the different leves of practitioners. In none of those can you just follow the demands of your senses like an animal. INHERENT in your philosophy is that there are 8.4million species of life to take birth in, and behaving like an animal grants you a suitable body in your next life.
EDIT:
“I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us.”
So, clearly "Deep Conversations" (ahem, the topic) don't happen because:
1) Most people develop extenstions of their personality through the association of convoluted, fictional characters they mentally absorb into their psyche while watching 2-3 hours of 'entertainment' on TV.
2) People are so scared of their own ego being bruised that they aren't willing to have a discussion proper. It sometimes requires accepting that you are wrong in lifestyle/worldview, or just lacking in knowledge. So, no humility.
3) When there is someone saying something worthwile, we despise that person as a charlatan, and hence we close the channels of communcation even further.
4) We think we had a 'deep' conversation when we got super drunk/high or just plain infatuated with someone and spent the late night hours massaging each other's egos. Was it really such an amazing conversation? How about you write down what was so great about it if it was so significant?
So such a nice topic and very few hits. That means:
5) People aren't interested in 'deep things', because 'deep things' are a product of the mind and not as worthwhile as information on the latest smartphone.
| Dr.Grass said: "Take yourself, even. Aren't you here, discussing something on a video game forum? I can take this your mere registration here mean that you care/cared quite a bit about video games. Unless video games are on a completely different plane from and more intellectual than TV shows, this should impede upon your ability to meditate quite a bit. And has it?" I never claimed to be the VGC Jesus that I was accused of. I've smoked more pot in my life than everyone on this thread combined (most probably), and I've had personal issues in this life - definitely. But now, just because I'm being very assertive in my speech and the points I make, you have to go and attack my character? Do you want to know how long I lived in a monastary or how long I was celibate and didn't take stimulants? Or maybe how many hours a day I meditate What are you doing here? Actually, you're inherently stating that there isn't scope for real progressive discussion about anything higher than the mundane sphere of videogames. Bravo- you're probably right. So should I just leave VGC again because it looks like I'm trying to be a Messiah on here or what? |
Okay, wow, you're taking this far too personally. I'm sorry if it came off as anything else, but there was nothing at all offensive about what I said. I neither know nor care about whether or not you smoked and/or had personal issues at some point if it's not relevant. You seem to have brought it up completely out of the blue.
I made a cumulative total of three points in that part you quoted: 1) I think you like video games, which are similar to TV shows and 2) I think you're good at meditation, from which I concluded that 3) It's possible to be good at meditation while liking something similar to TV shows.
Where on earth did you find something that attacked your character there? I'm sure you've spent lots of time in self-improvement, which is awesome, but why are you defending yourself here? Unless of course it's unacceptable to like video games. I didn't - or at least I didn't mean to - criticize your assertiveness or arguments at all, really. If you thought I did, please point out which part of what I was saying implied something similar and I'll be sure to avoid accidentally making similar comments in the future.
For the rest of the post, we seem to have moved from the original points to more precise points about history and philosophy. To be honest, there's no argument to be made here; I'm completely aware that you know better about this stuff. If you say I'm wrong about anything, I probably am. I rather have to concede anything you say from the beginning so any discussion is pointless except for the purpose of enlightening me. It's definitely helping with that, but I'm not sure how much you can be bothered.
...oh, and yes, I did lose a bet. But it happened like two years ago now. I just love the avatar so much, I've kept it.
“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
