Thank you, Akshay. Thank you for answering.
- Marsha
At 06:59 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
> >Do you really think that there is a knower and something to be known?
>
>Depends on which school you currently are in. For me, I currently embrace
>the philosophy of Samkhya (lit., enumeration, analysis), according to which,
>yes, there is a knower and the known.
>
>But it is important to understand that although I currently am in Samkhya, I
>aim to embrace Advaita Vedanta eventually. However, owing to my complete
>lack of spiritual practice and experience, I embrace what fits my personal
>viewpoint the most, which, in turn, changes my personal viewpoint. My
>current affliation with the Samkhya school is in no way permanent, nor is
>it accepted by me according to the best of my knowledge.
>
>Akshay
>
>
>On 29/01/2008, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greetings Akshay,
> >
> > Do you really think that there is a knower and something to be known?
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> > At 12:09 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
> > >1. On your criticism to my idea of defining God: you see, if God is left
> > >undefined, then how will we even know when we have found God? It simply
> > is a
> > >philosophical dead-end then, to search for something, when that
> > >something happens to be an experience we have no clue of. Even though we
> > >have not yet perceived God, we can still *anticipate/expect *some
> > experience
> > >that we might, depending on our idea of God, possibly experience in the
> > >future. You can think of God as the grey-bearded old man with a lot
> > >of advice and kindness, you can think of God as the ultimate unificatory
> > >quantum equation of the universe, you can think of God in many ways. If
> > you
> > >have some expectation in mind, only then will you know if you have found
> > God
> > >or not.
> > >
> > > >How is this obvious? Do atheists acknowledge the
> > > >existence of that which they cannot see? Do they accept the existence
> > of a
> > > >divinity as a logical principle?
> > >
> > >Atheists have to acknowledge a higher power. If there is no entity
> > governing
> > >them, then do they imply that they have all the power in the world? If
> > there
> > >are any limits to your powers, then obviously there is a higher power
> > >(unless you yourself chose to have lesser power, in which case you should
> > be
> > >able to gain back the power to be able to not believe in a higher power).
> > >Atheists primarily don't believe in a personal God. I have known atheists
> > >who believe in a God (as in, a higher power) but they deny that he should
> > be
> > >something you pray to and get rewards from. This is why I have stuck to
> > my
> > >idea of first having a clear idea of what to expect when we're trying to
> > >find God. As the famous song goes, if you don't know where you're going,
> > any
> > >road will take you there.
> > >
> > > >Do you refute the fact that what
> > > >you've defined as "obvious" -- "a highest power governing this
> > universe" --
> > > >has some consequence
> > > >for man?
> > >
> > >Maybe it does have some consequence. That is simply what I meant by my
> > >second statement. Let's see now... we know there is a higher power. Now,
> > let
> > >us see if this higher power cares about us enough and actually answers
> > our
> > >wishes. The question "does God exist?" is of low importance because it's
> > >very simple, it's a mere yes or no question.
> > >
> > >I do understand my mistake there. I made it sound as if all the stuff
> > about
> > >God was simply meaningless, which was not what I intended at all. You
> > see,
> > >depending on your idea of God, the question can be answered. Now, the
> > case
> > >is entirely different when all you know about God is "highest power" and
> > >you're investigating its characteristics. This scenario was completely
> > >outside the domains of the two statements I made. What I commented was
> > only
> > >on whether the entity (highest power) exists, not on the features of this
> > >entity, which is of course a lifelong pursuit of truth.
> > >
> > >Akshay
> > >
> > >
*************
DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.: Ever-changing
collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual, static patterns of value.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
