The 3 Pillars Of Hinduism.

Pradeep,

lot of reading and RE-READING to be done, to undersand that link

needs time (as I am running short of it now :oops: :)

would get back.

A question to all who believes SCIENCE is everything ...

I used to watch a show here called MYTHBUSTERS .... there they take up projects which are myths and they try to break the myth ...

Why was myth accepted though it was a myth ?

well, this isnt a digression in this thread :-) as it is related to science and here we talk of GOD and SCIENCE ;-) i wanted the answer here ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingleguy

A question to all who believes SCIENCE is everything ...

I used to watch a show here called MYTHBUSTERS .... there they take up projects which are myths and they try to break the myth ...

Why was myth accepted though it was a myth ?

well, this isnt a digression in this thread :-) as it is related to science and here we talk of GOD and SCIENCE ;-) i wanted the answer here ....

---

Hi Bingleguy,

Allow me to answer your query in simple words.

No true scientist will ever claim that science has cure for everything.

In nutshell,

• - Science can help rational, logical thinking but cannot fix those minds that constantly seek bliss from blind beliefs in imaginary, non-existing entities.
  
  - Science can help but cannot eradicate the misery and suffering of human conditions.
  
  - Science can possibly do everything it can but cannot tame the capacity of human minds for delusions, in other words, the phantoms in the brain.
  
  - Science is like a horse rider, the rider can only take the horse to the drinkable water pool but he cannot drink water for the horse; only the horse has to do it for himself if he is really thirsty.

Moreover, neither science nor religion can instil the true sense of morality in evil minds, nor can they make the charlatans to follow moral codes of conduct.

I hope; this goes some way in answering your inquisitive query.

I would kindly request all participants once more to discuss this topic within its scope.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Religion is not science.
Religion requires leap of faith.
Thus trying to disprove religion - any religion - tantamounts to religion bashing.
And such bashing is simply beyond the capacity of the Hub.
So, there you are. :)

Pls allow the discussion to carry on - among the believers. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOV

Religion is not science.
Religion requires leap of faith..

---

Precisely; and you have just said it, loud and clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOV

Pls allow the discussion to carry on - among the believers. Thanks.

---

Excatly that is what I am repeatedly asking the participants to discuss the topic within its scope, and there is only one scope, the religious scope based of faith.

Thank you NOV for emphasising this clearly.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOV

Religion is not science.
Religion requires leap of faith.
Thus trying to disprove religion - any religion - tantamounts to religion bashing.
And such bashing is simply beyond the capacity of the Hub.
So, there you are. :)

Pls allow the discussion to carry on - among the believers. Thanks.

---

:shock: :shaking:

I guess this thread is NOT within my scope :D

:cheers:

I would watch pradeep's statements and rohit;s statements and links carefully to CHECK their LINKS :D

ensoy pps :D :yessir:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pradheep

SP
To make by above post in layman language

A stone

- A classical physicist says it is a solid mass under the laws of gravity etc. He considers the stone is different from a human body.

- A quantum physicist says it is quantum pack of energy. He considers both the stone and body are quantum packs of energy, but still there is slight difference.

- ??????? -

A dvaitic is like the classical physicists who says the paramatman is different from the jiva.

A vishist is like the quantum physicist, who says the paramathan and the jiva are same but slight difference.

A advaitin is one who says there is no difference and the difference is only maya (which means not there but sees only at the gross level and not at the ultimate level).

---

got it !

WONDERFUl example :)

would keep watching ur posts :cheers: :thumbsup:

DEra sakthi prabha
I am glad I was able to express the difference in the three philosophies.

Dvaitic is not only in India, most of the other religions are in this dvaitic mode.

Vishit advaitam is also seen in other religions , example like Sufism.

Advaita is however is core of all religions. For example, christianity is in dvatic mode, but still has advaita in its core. For example the phrase " the kingdom of heaven is in you. This is pure advaita. If God is in heaven, then where is this heaven?. - in you. Then where is God, in You!

It all depends how you look at the level of one's understanding and maturity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pradheep

Dear sakthi prabha
I am glad I was able to express the difference in the three philosophies.

Dvaitic is not only in India, most of the other religions are in this dvaitic mode.

Vishit advaitam is also seen in other religions , example like Sufism.

Advaita is however is core of all religions. For example, christianity is in dvatic mode, but still has advaita in its core. For example the phrase " the kingdom of heaven is in you. This is pure advaita. If God is in heaven, then where is this heaven?. - in you. Then where is God, in You!

It all depends how you look at the level of one's understanding and maturity.

---

hmm.. :?

true!

I also feel

SAME WORDS can be understood IN ENTIRELY different meaning, AS PER EACH ONE's maturity!

:?