immortal

The ontology of God is very different, he is made of divine light rays of the numinous(not to be confused with empirical Photons). He dwells in every living being and he exists behind the Intellect and all the opposites in this world like male and female, good and bad, hot and cold etc reconcile into a unity at his place.

No, you have not done your home work. We are not really concerned about the age of this universe, our concerns are different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0w0eshXr2U

Some of the members need to implant this url in their minds while arguing with me. Please. Why God Hates Pride?

I don't go by the principle of live and let live. Don't behead innocent people, stone women and homosexuals to death, use women and children as your slaves and call yourself religious. I can ask back the same thing to the moderators, who the hell are you people to decide what is religious and what is not? 1. Elaine Pagels, scholar of Gnosticism. 2. Alan Wallace, scholar of Buddhism. 3. Devudu Narasimha Shastry, scholar of Sanskrit. 4. Jungian scholars. 5. Scholars of Neoplatonism. Do you moderators have a higher authority than all these scholars put together? If not then please stay away from this. This is an anonymous forum and anyone can question the belief systems held by other members. All evidence is pointing to an idealistic philosophy of science, "Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs." (An experimental test of non-local realism) but many people have not realized its implications and when they do I bet the atheistic scientific community will be doomed, it is not reasonable for anyone to live your life based on the philosophy of atheism. And your prejudices and personal biases will be exposed to everyone. “The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the West.” (Source: WHAT IS LIFE? By Erwin Schrödinger Pg. Cambridge University Press) Anyone who takes such a literal interpretation of the Bible as those YEC are certainly ignorant of their own religion. http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Scriptural.htm

Who here has a Phd in philosophy of religion? You better take this advice from someone who has a Phd in this subject or else you are free to go and believe in whatever you want, the choice is yours. "As Richard H. Jones notices, it is incorrect to equate the unified field with Brahman, which is not an extended and structured field embedded in the spacetime continuum (as the unified field) but pure consciousness “beyond” space, time and even mind" - Jonathon Duqette, Phd, philosopher of religion. Anyone who is epistemologically linking QM with Vedanta is talking bs. You guys have no idea what you have confronted with.

Do you really know how deep the rabbit hole goes? http://hermetic.com/pgm/mithras-liturgy.html I would advice you, Deepak chopra and a bunch of people who try to epistemologically link quantum mechanics with Vedanta to abandon this approach of yours. Sam Harris seems to know more about mysticism than Deepak chopra and people like you when he said that mysticism is about sitting inside a cave for weeks for gaining wisdom and immediate insight and its not about non-locality or anything to do with QM. These guys don't give a damn fuck whether the universe is local or non-local. I abandoned that approach of yours long time back and I have move forward and even everyone should do that. The entire Vedantic philosophy can be summarized as follows: "Narada Muni continued: What I referred to as the chariot was in actuality the body. The senses are the horses that pull that chariot. As time passes, year after year, these horses run without obstruction, but in fact they make no progress. Pious and impious activities are the two wheels of the chariot. The three modes of material nature are the chariot's flags. The five types of life air constitute the living entity's bondage, and the mind is considered to be the rope. Intelligence is the chariot driver. The heart is the sitting place in the chariot, and the dualities of life, such as pleasure and pain, are the knotting place. The seven elements are the coverings of the chariot, and the working senses are the five external processes. The eleven senses are the soldiers. Being engrossed in sense enjoyment, the living entity, seated on the chariot, hankers after fulfilment of his false desires and runs after sense enjoyment life after life. (SB 4.29.18-20)" The Vedas then go on to declare that if there is an intellect then there should be someone behind that intellect to stimulate your thoughts and he is that divine God, the one who stimulate our intellect. "Let us adore the supremacy of that divine sun, the god-head who illuminates all, who recreates all, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, whom we invoke to direct our understandings aright in our progress toward his holy seat."[15] Sir William Jones, 1807 "Unveil, O Thou who givest sustenance to the Universe, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, that face of the True Sun now hidden by a vase of golden light, that we may see the truth and do our whole duty on our journey to thy sacred seat."[16] William Quan Judge, 1893 "We meditate on the worshipable power and glory of Him who has created the earth, the nether world and the heavens (i.e. the universe), and who directs our understanding."[17] Sivanath Sastri (Brahmo Samaj), 1911 "We meditate on the glory of that Being who has produced this universe; may He enlighten our minds."[18] Swami Vivekananda, 1915 "We meditate on the effulgent glory of the divine Light; may he inspire our understanding."[19] "We meditate on the adorable glory of the radiant sun; may he inspire our intelligence."[20] S. Radhakrishnan, 1. 1947, 2. 1953 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Mantra

Science and religion are converging, there is no conflict between science and religion. Is that the best you can do as an atheist? That was not the argument of Penrose. Divine intervention is taking place 24*7 days of a year, all evidence of science is pointing towards the existence of a metaphysical mind and a metaphysical intellect. Without that mind which is the product of a divine God this reality would not have existed and without that intellect human beings would not have discovered mathematical truths. Did you saw that when you revert back from those branches all those different sects unify itself into Early Christianity? I am talking science. No, why?

Yes, yes you guys are standing on the shoulders of dwarfs. "It must also be conceded that Asia has always had its fair share of false prophets and charlatan saints, while the West has not been entirely bereft of wisdom. Nevertheless, when the great philosopher mystics of the East are weighed against the patriarchs of the Western philosophical and theological traditions, the difference is unmistakable: Buddha, Shankara, Padmasambhava, Nagarjuna, Longchenpa, and countless others down to the present have no equivalents in the West. In spiritual terms, we appear to have been standing on the shoulders of dwarfs. It is little wonder, therefore, that many Western scholars have found the view within rather unremarkable." - Sam Harris, End of Faith

Take a simple example, "In Christ dwells all the Pleroma of Deity in bodily form" - Colossians 2:9 "Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that Paul was actually a gnostic, such as Elaine Pagels of Princeton University, view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense." The orthodox Christian community don't know the things which exists in their own religion, they interpret that word Pleroma as fullness, to fill because they cannot accept the fact that the Christ's body represents the totality of divine powers or aeons instead they think Christ's body represents flesh and believe in a different means of salvation and believe in the end times, they don't know that they can be one with Christ in this present life time. One who is well versed in tradition knows which interpretation is right and which is wrong, which was seriously taught by our ancients and which interpretation was ridiculed. As one teacher says, "The scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition." (Irenaeus Against Heresies3:2:1). Only those who had received these secret apostolic teachings could correctly interpret scriptures. The problem is not specific to Christianity, the problem persists in the Vedas and the Upanishads as well. I can unify all the Hindus, I can unify all the Christians, I can unify all the Buddhists. Can you do that?

I have not excluded the pagan religions, its there in all the religions of the world, my definition is the unanimous message of all the religions of the world. http://gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm This definition will not change just because there are frauds and there are ignorant people who don't know the central message of their own religion. Yes I have studied those religions and I know the central tenet of religion and that's the right definition of religion. Oh C'mon, what will you call someone who deliberately manipulates results of an experiment and publish it as facts motivated by a hidden political or a personal agenda? We call him a fraud. This is sheer double standards on you guys for you make one rule for science and an another rule for religion, your assertion that we should call them as holy, sacred and religious even if their beliefs are wrong is bs. I call them what they deserve i.e. frauds and those who are not aware of the true message of their own religion as ignorant. Sounds fair to me. It is not an ad hominem when its well evident in your posts that you guys are ignorant of religion. You can't go on your own way, rejecting Buddhist cosmology is same as rejecting Adi Buddha and if you reject Adi Buddha then how can you become one with Adi Buddha in the first place which is what is required for you to be a Buddhist. Whether earth is flat or not, this has nothing to do with it. That clearly shows that majority of the atheists are liars when they say that it is their very investigation of all of religion is what has made them to hold an atheistic position, that's a lie, they have not studied all of religion. No, its you guys who have the wrong notion of what being religious means and its you guys who have named an apple as a banana without seeing the obvious.

You guys seem to assume I have made my own personal definition of religion and since this definition is not agreed by everyone instead of accepting my definition you guys want to make me as a separate sect and want to call me a fundamentalist. The framework for my definition of religion is built on its own, I don't have to make up anything or cover it up, its there in all the religions of the world, since I accept one sect from every religion of the world that would make me the most liberal person and not a fundamentalist. I hope you guys know the meaning of being liberal at least.

It was right on the money, I earlier gave you a precise definition as to what it is required to be a Buddhist. Your ignorance and inability to precisely define Buddhism and religion as a whole is not my fallacy.

LoL, there is an orthodoxy tell your so called slayers of Buddhism to keep themselves away from Buddhism. Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/ BTW, thanks to everyone for revealing your ignorance about religion.

They don't define for Buddhists either. Someone needs to jerk you to make you realize that orthodox Christianity is not same as Buddhism, your comparison doesn't stand.

Religion isn't about how Grand Canyon was formed or dogmatically asserting the shape of earth, that's a characteristic of fundamentalists who are not religious and who don't know what being religious means, religion is about understanding your relationship with the personal God and his relationship with the manifested cosmos, don't put me on the same boat with them, I want to sail the opposite way.

No, there is too much mischaracterization of the Vedas and there are a lot of things being discussed here, one wants to throw these texts into the dustbin and another one says Advaita is not theistic and the other one was an ignorant Hindu, these things need to be fixed first before one can understand the soundness of my arguments. Vedism is not Hinduism and its very important to separate those two. What is Hinduism? Hinduism is a word which outsiders call to identify a group of disorganized eastern religions of India which don't agree with one another just like the 9000 or so sects of Christianity who don't agree with one another. The problem with these ignorant Hindus is that these people keep hearing the secrets of the Kingdom of God but they don't understand it. The Gods of the Vedas are not same as the Gods of the Hindus, the Vedic people gave importance to different gods but in Hinduism hardly anyone seems to be worshipping them. Vedism is a very silent religion and actually its not even in the picture because majority of them don't follow or are not aware about it. The misunderstandings of these near enemies need to be fixed first before challenging the position of the far enemies i.e. atheists. Why Vedism http://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/why-vedism.html Now coming to atheists, you seem to have made up your mind that this position of mine is based on wishful thinking, however its not, anyone who has made a critical analysis of both science and religion based on its available evidence compels one to arrive at this conclusion. This is not wishful thinking, a theory has already been put forward and a fringe consensus has already emerged with in the scientific community itself and looking at all this its quite silly for you to say that this is my blind faith or belief, no its not. That's what nature is saying and we need to accept it. "The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated (as shown above) that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation." In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory." This is the theory which has been put forward and experiments in quantum physics, bio-research feedback and consciousness studies have given support to this theory, this is no longer my beliefs any more, it has all the goods to be a well established theory, things have changed, this was my position right from the beginning and I stand by it.

Did you watched the end of the part-3 video especially from the time index 8:35 min to 9:56 min? This presentation was not given as offering evidence to the more esoteric side of the Vedas, I very well know what empirical evidence is, remember we are discussing two topics here, one topic is whether these gods exist out there or not and the other topic is whether the Vedas themselves support the literal existence of these Gods or not, when people are so ignorant with the Vedic religion and don't even see that this religion takes the existence of Gods very seriously then how will people take the former topic more seriously, simply put majority of the people have not understood the doctrine of the Vedas and when they realize it they will be very disturbed by this.

The message of all these religions Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta(Hinduism), Neoplatonism, Gnostic Christianity etc are one and the same and i.e. Gods are real and these Gods are everywhere in all aspects of human existence and in all aspect of human life, the doctrine of non-dualism doesn't make any sense whatsoever absent the view of the Gods, this is the central tenet of all these religions and if anyone else who misinterprets these religions rejecting the existence of Gods in these religions and only takes those things from these religions which suits them then they are seriously showing double standards and its a waste of time arguing with them. Go and ask that question to those people who show double standards not to me.

Stephen Batchelor is not a Buddhist and neither are you and a whole bunch of people who don't accept Buddhist cosmology are not Buddhists either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

For Kant space and time itself are categories of mind, they are mental constructs, we only know of the phenomena and the world which is out there which is the noumenon is forever impossible to know. It was this conviction that science cannot go beyond mere appearances of phenomena which compelled many of the physicists of the past century to look for alternative models of reality which gives us a complete objective picture of the world and it is this conviction which has led Bernard D'Espagnat to leave room for spirituality by saying science cannot fully describe reality. The Scientist Who Leaves Room for Spirituality http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/17/the-scientist-who-leaves-room-for-spirituality/ The Vedas declare "Agnisomadmikam Jagath" means the world is a Agnisoma Mandala. This is similar to the concept of Pleroma of the Gnostics or the Hellenistic philosophers and you should be familiar with it to clearly understand this. AGNI AND SOMA: A UNIVERSAL CLASSIFICATION http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/papers/2005%20SA%20AgniAndSoma.pdf “He who discovers that all this is Agni and Soma, and is not affected by extraordinary feelings, is truly liberated”. - Mahabharata Not many people take this path for their liberation hence not many are aware of this.

Well, time to get the facts right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1_N4-kwGSA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN9wwevE0Us http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnJz5Hhk4sU

There are lots of evidence. "Some scientists (like Wigner) believe that quantum mechanics makes certain dualist ideas about the mind/body problem acceptable again within mainstream science." Roger Penrose contends that the foundations of mathematics can't be understood absent the Platonic view that "mathematical truth is absolute, external and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria ... mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own..." Science has already confronted with the numinous by recognizing a metaphysical mind and a metaphysical intellect in the platonic realm. When you apply negative theology to religion and consider the current available evidence only a few religions survive and this is one of them which is backed up by science.

As I indicated if you people keep insist that even fundamentalists who behead innocent people are religious then those who hold and follow the central tenets of religions which was the main teachings of Jesus, Shankara, Buddha and Moses might have to find a all new word to identify themselves with because religion itself seems to have been corrupted and actually that's what the trend seems to indicate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious I always thought spiritual and religious were synonyms and I still think it is and I always thought my definition of religion defined what being religious means. Now I realize why majority of the people differentiate between spirituality and religiosity with the amount of comparative studies, scholarly studies, archaeological evidence, modern science and cultural transfusion which questions the belief systems of the orthodox religions which mainly works on the principle of blind faith and people have started to realize that that's not what being religious means, its a good sign to see that people have started to realize that religion is not about believing instead its about doing. "A study of the differences between those self-identified as spiritual and those self-identified as religious found that the former have a loving, forgiving, and nonjudgmental view of the numinous, while those identifying themselves as religious see their god as more judgmental.[16]" http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2002/07/Spiritual-But-Not-Religious.aspx?p=1 But that doesn't mean that those who identify themselves as spiritual but not religious are truly religious people because many of these people are beginners, ignorant and confused people who have got no idea as to what they are doing, they do yoga and meditation without themselves being aware of the fact that they are worshipping a different image of God and are committing blasphemy to their own religion, if you are a Christian you shouldn't do yoga because that's blasphemy you are worshipping a different God, either identify yourself as a Christian or start calling yourself as a Sanatana Dharmin, they can be easily manipulated without the guidance of tradition and letting them define religion only creates more confusion. On the whole my definition of religion should be accepted as the correct universal definition as to what defines someone as religious because it constitutes the central tenet of all the religions of the world having the hallmark of our ancients on it. These so called seekers have differenced themselves with organized religion only to arrive at my conclusion of religion which I have already arrived at through my research. As I said when more and more people and religious scholars investigate religion and question beliefs which are held on prejudice they will realize that my views on science and religion were right and everyone should agree on it.

Its not my interpretation, its the orthodox interpretation of the Vedic tradition and that's how our ancients saw their world. As Sri Aurobindo would say, "The gods of the Rig Veda are not material Nature powers but great world deities with complex functions material, mental and spiritual. The same Agni who burns here in fire, is master of pure force in the mind and of simple active energy in the universe. The same Surya who rides yonder in the skies, is the master of inspired knowledge and the principle of illumination wherever it is found. The same Varuna who in ether upholds the stars and finds a pathway for the sun, is in the soul the master of majesty, self control, law and calm and by these functions maintains the order of the Universe. The same Usha who dawns rosily on the verge of the material heaven, is the goddess of the soul's expansion and presides over the evolution of what we shall be out of what we are.” These Gods are not just elements of nature which our ancients deified in fact they actually exist out there in the numinous and they control all aspects of human existence. Its not an analogy, it is the correct orthodox interpretation of the Vedic religion which was preserved by the traditional people. If you didn't understand anything, please kindly ask.

LoL, you don't know what being rich means. 3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty." - Gospel of Thomas. Chapter IV—Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi (I) 1. "Maitreyi, my dear," said Yajnavalkya, "I am going to renounce this life. Let me make a final settlement between you and Katyayani (his other wife)." 2. Thereupon Maitreyi said: "Venerable Sir, if indeed the whole earth, full of wealth, belonged to me, would I be immortal through that?" "No," replied Yajnavalkya, "your life would be just like that of people who have plenty. Of Immortality, however, there is no hope through wealth." 3. Then Maitreyi said: "What should I do with that which would not make me immortal? Tell me, venerable Sir, of that alone which you know to be the only means of attaining Immortality." 4. Yajnavalkya replied: "My dear, you have been my beloved even before and now you say what is after my heart. Come, sit down; I will explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate on what I say." 5. Then Yajnavalkya said: "Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self. "Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but she is loved for the sake of the self. "Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, hut they are loved for the sake of the self. "Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self. "Verily, not for the sake of the brahmin, my dear, is the brahmin loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self. "Verily, not for the sake of the kshatriya, my dear, is the kshatriya loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self. "Verily, not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, are the worlds loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self. "Verily, not for the sake of the gods, my dear, are the gods loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self. "Verily, not for the sake of the beings, my dear, are the beings loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self. "Verily, not for the sake of the All, my dear, is the All loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self. "Verily, my dear Maitreyi, it is the Self that should be realized—should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realization of the Self, my dear—through hearing, reflection and meditation—all this is known. - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Your society is very poor.