:lol: Yeah, I've also found the agnostic theist (apparently, that's how you say it) rather amusing (not that others aren't!).Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Printable View
:lol: Yeah, I've also found the agnostic theist (apparently, that's how you say it) rather amusing (not that others aren't!).Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
>> Total Digression.
I'm not sure I get this. Do you mean to say god has a big impact on the lives of all atheists? I doubt that. (Though I've not particularly called myself an atheist any time, I know a lot of people who couldn't care less about god.)Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
I'm just trying to understand this (and correct me if I'm wrong). Doesn't this mean a lot more people would fall under the umbrella of agnostics? At this level, I think the whole discussion boils down to what a human being "initially is," i.e. by default. This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? I see it more as a conscious update after one figures out one is neither a theist nor an atheist in the proper sense. And of course, I think of 'atheist' as the default, which is where my notion of a purer form of atheism comes from. avLO dhAn matter. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
>> End Total Digression.
OK I was till now 'picthing in' with some translation, that's all :-)
IMO, all we can say is MR is indifferent, Kamal is not. Kamal is deeply concerned with the 'God' question. And as you rightly say, this question is unlikely to fall in MR's radar, for which I would thank God, if only I were not an agnostic probablist.
:rotfl: :rotfl2:Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
I am not concerned about the laws of Republic of Botswana. They do not affect me. I am concerned about the laws of gravity because if I don't pay heed to it, I am likely to break my neck.
I can be indifferent only if I believe that, regardless of whether a God exists or not he is not going to have any impact on my life.
I think the default is always 'I have no idea' which is (by commonly agreed abuse of expression): agnostic.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Upon knowing vevaram, one takes a side, or says: 'I still have no idea' and retains default status.
btw these labels are what we give ourselves. So they cannot preceed consciousness. So by default setting you mean a label that preceeds consciousness itself, then you are probably right but that is not as interesting, is it?
PS: ippidiyellAm yEdhAchum pEsuvOmnu therinju dhaan MADDY kalyANathaiyE poondhamallee-la koNdu vachchuttAr. :lol2:
Completely agreed. Simple indifference towards god in one's films doesn't mean atheism at all. (There are filmmakers who are devout theists but their films have nothing to do with god. And on the other hand, we've Ram Gopal Varma.) Like I said, my perception may be because I view his films with the knowledge that he is an atheist. And little moments such as those in alai pAyuthE or kannaththil muthamittAl start appearing in a new light.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
[Continued digression]
>>This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? <<
Huxley would disagree. It's meant to be antithetical of 'esoteric' or in particular, esoteric spirituality of the times, the 'gnostic' of the church to be more precise. Hence the term a'gnostic'.
[End digression]
:lol: Get the point, but it's funny...Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Do write on this in MR thread. Would be interesting..Quote:
Like I said, my perception may be because I view his films with the knowledge that he is an atheist. And little moments such as those in alai pAyuthE or kannaththil muthamittAl start appearing in a new light.
>> Total Digression continues.
Exactly my point. When one has not gone through the motions of experiencing the idea of god and such, one is technically an atheist. (The atheists who don't like to be called militant atheists would also like this idea, I suppose.)Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Oh but you can also be indifferent by believing that there's no such law i.e. there's no god! As far as you're quite sure you're not missing out on anything. But hey, enough defence for those atheists, I say. I think a happy atheist like Thilak should take over from here. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
<< Total Digression may continue.
I was not talking about the meaning of the word, but about its usage in day-to-day life; i.e. how many people in this world even know what agnosticism means, let alone calling themselves that?Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
I am not sure that technicality is interesting equa.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Without the question of belief about something coming up how can you be assumed to be a disbeliever (which btw is what atheist would translate to in makkaL mozhi)
Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Atheists who 'believe there is no God' are by definition indifferent.
The interesting people (here I obviously include me) are those who say: 'probably there is a God. But 'for all practicial purposes He is a moot point.
This relieves them from having to answer every possible question. Biggies like origin of the Universe etc. They can happily subscribe to some colorful myth or the other and not lose sleep over it.
Quite frankly most people would be sorely disappointed if they are told something like: 'God doesn't break the laws of physics he IS the laws of physics'. What 'use' would most people (here obviously I mean others) have for such a God.
I do get the point about the technical default (!) not being interesting, but clearly it's impossible to hold that the existence of something is unknowable (say, "I have no idea about it") without knowing what it is.
Yes, and this is why I like to call myself an agnostic. Whatever it means!Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
True. Jeyamohan incidentally made a similar point about aRpudhangaL recently (in the wake of the Nithyananda scandal).Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
:headspinning:
All this is fine. But in tracing back its origin, one could understand there are different strokes of abusing the word. There are handful in this very thread. Practically speaking, it fails to register in a singular sense. But one could safely conclude Huxley coined it to clearly demarcate from 'gnostic' of theists AND also the 'gnostic' of Atheists, and 'gnostic' of other ugly -ists. And that it's useful to associate 'indifference' (both conscious and unconscious?!) of such 'gnostic' as Agnostic. Atheist aren't indifferent, but 'differ' (that such a state could only be 'conscious' - they may not show or care about it deeply, but that's not the point here) from theists, that this difference is pigeon-holed to be a 'systematic ideology' and a form of 'evangelism' in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
There's complete 'ignorance' of 'God' by birth, the pristine state. Without the equation of "God", all three terms cease to exist. So we got to define 'unconsciousness' by state of mind and acquired knowledge. Atheists could be tired of the predictable pattern such debates take and refrain from expressing their difference, still there's no question of 'indifference' as such..
I think I made this point before. The association of a sense of indifference is indeed useful, but this indifference is towards “knowing,” different from the indifference we're talking about with respect to god. From your last post, it seems you actually subscribe to the dual classification (i.e. agnostics are also either atheists or theists), in which case we don't even have to talk about agnostics as a third group. So, Mani's films are either theistic or atheistic. (Along the same lines, PR said "IMO, all we can say is MR is indifferent.") Let's leave it at that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
It is quite logical aint it?Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
I make the law and who will respect it if I myself break it?
I wrote the above line seriously and for some reason I started to laugh at the corny silliness in it.
First we need to understand completely the laws of universe to even argue on that plane (It was highly silly of Jeyamohan to have made that point - about laws of physics being empirical and static). Since we dont have data yet...
I can only take the approach of Isaac Asimov as alluded to in this story -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
....
purinjukkonga naanun phlaasaphy dhaan.
Equa and co,
Oru request. Idhellam total digression nu neengale stop pannapdaadhu. "Pesanum, neraya pesanum", naanga enga paatula vandhu sendhu poduvom
More on this and the RGV reference please...Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Anban, on the contrary, it was me who was trying to shut my mouth, but couldnt resist replying :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Anban
you remember KH telling about 'SamaNargaLai Sivan pErAl kazhuvetriyathu' in the Virumaandi video, right? (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5uHxcSga5U) that incident actually followed the nayanmArs and Samanars having a religious debate under the condition that whoever loses the debate should commit suicide by kazhuvEtruthal. in short, the nayanmars would have committed suicide if they had lost the debate. But KH is making it look like hindu fanatics killed jains out of pure hatred, in the name of shiva, which is anything but the documented truth.
but there has been a systemtic hindu genocide in the last 1000 years in india, and the historians estimate that roughly 60 crores (yes, hundred times the no. of jews kiled in holocaust) of hindus were killed over the last millennium for resisting conversion. why doesnt KH open his mouth over these atrocities?
Bala,
The digression alert was for the rather unrelated discussion about agnosticism. :) I think there's more to be discussed about the original point about the spiritual character of Kamal's films. Enough hasn't been written on this subject. Most fans are often too enthused to align his films with the most acceptable, liberal viewpoints. For instance, consider how his films are sometimes described as Gandhian as well as Periyarist! In general, I think people greatly overstate/exaggerate some points about Kamal's ideological inclinations.
ஓ அப்படியா? அப்போ ஏன் "துலுக்கன்" என்ற வட்டார சொல்லில் இஸ்லாம் மத மக்களை குறிப்பிட பயன்படுத்துகிறார்கள்?Quote:
Originally Posted by kalyan
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
Kalyan, the jury is out on that one isn't it ?
One side argues along the lines of what you said: that the losers of debates impaling themselves was the practice of the times and it was not a genocide as some ppl. are making it out to be today.
However, it is also counterargued, that, be that as it may, the impalement that followed GnAnasambandar's victory in Madurai, was huge and horrendous even by the sense of proportion of the age. And the extent of hatred against samaNargaL (whether warranted or unwarranted is another issue) in the texts would strike any spiritual seeker today to be odd.
By today's standards such an act in the name of religion strikes one as horrific doesn't it? That is the point being underlined there - that culture is NOT static. It keeps changing.
The 'Hindus' who get offended perhaps likes to think of sambandar as 'us' and samaNargaL as the 'other', so much so that it seems like Kamal is vilifying 'us'.
It is precisely here that the understanding is wrong. The religion of today, as you well know, is something that takes from all the past making the 'us' and 'them' totally irrelevant. Probably the asceticism from the jains has been internalized a lot. Heck, worship, rituals, way of life and pretty much every thing 'sambandar' was probably defending in his 'debate' is something we have little understanding about today.
I am not being holier than thou either. We will surely have our own 'us' and 'them' which is relevant to our times :-) But to think of the 'us' today as an exact continuation of the 'us' of the past is inappropriate. If this is understand, all debate about the past will be largely moved by academic curiosity only.
Bala,
AhA, the reference to RGV was a joke! There are filmmakers who are devout theists but their films have nothing to do with god. And on the other hand, Ram Gopal Varma is an atheist who keeps making supernatural thrillers/horror films.
why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarna
P_R,Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
the descrepencies arise from the way of interpretation of the word "eNNAyiram"
one school assumes that 8000 jains (samanargal) were killed.
the other school interprets that 'eNNAyiram' is the town where the jains lived. hence, "eNNAyiram samaNargaL kazhuvEtrappattanar" actually implies that the jains of a particular locality committed suicide, their numbers may be much much lesser than 8000.
there is another school of thought that among the samanars of the town Ennayiram, only those priests who were involved in the debate committed suicide and the remaning Jains converted to Himduism and were absorbed s a distinct sect of Brahmins. even today, tamil iyers have three main divisions: VadamAL, BrahacharaNam and Ashtasahasram. the word "Ashta" (meaning 'eight') and 'sahasram' (meaning 'thousand') is a literal translation of eNNayiram. there is a school of thought that the ashtasahasram brahmins are the descendents of the jains from eNNayiram.
anyway, we dont have to go to historical details as we are only discussing Kamal's statement regarding the issue, where he says "sivan pErAl samaNargaL kazhuvEtrappattanar" and tries to portray Shaivies / hindus in a bad light. hence i asked, if he is neutral enough, why doesnt he raise his voice for those crores of hindus killed at the hands of invaders resisting conversion, and those hapless hindu women who underwent sexual slavery in the hands of invaders.
ஆனால் ஜெயமோகன், "சமணர்கள் கழுவேற்றம்" என்பதே நடந்திருக்க வாய்ப்பில்லை எனக் கூறுகிறார்.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalyan
உண்மை யாரிடம் சிக்கிக் கொண்டு தவிக்கிறது என்பதே தெரியவில்லை.
Jeyamohan RSS endru charu koorugiraar..
Rajni was born in 1949. 100% sure. even wikipedia had the year of birth as 1949 until 2 years back. in the meantime somebody has edited wikipedia and everybody has now started believing that rajini was born in 1950.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarna
then by default jayamohan isnt one :wink: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anban
Chaaru tamil ilakkiya ulagaththin Subramanian Swamy. If he is jobless, Subbu swamy will start accusing others as "CIA agent". Chaaru is just following his role model. 8-) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Anban
both are from two different root words if I am right.Quote:
Originally Posted by venkkiram
Muslims are generally referred as "Turk"s or "turukkan" in tamil owing to their reverence to the Caliphate which was located in Turkey from the early 16th century. this got corrupted in Tamil as "tulukkan". Tulukkan is generally used by non muslims, but NEVER among muslims. they might even consider the word highly derogatory. hence no muslim is going to keep a name 'tulukkAnam'.
on the other hand, the name tulukkANam seems to have originated from the word "thuLuvan" which may have referred a person having his roots in the 'tulu nadu' part of karnataka. (aishwarya rai, shilpa shetty, sunil shetty, prakash raj, robin Uththappa etc are 'tuluva's; their mother tongue is tulu). contrary to P_R's mock post, tulukkanam is not a dalit name (or at least, not an exclusively dalit name). a google search proves otherwise :)
i recollect reading in sramakrishnan's blog a post about 'Kazhu'. He feels that historical evidence is not strong about forceful 'kazhuetrams'. Much of it is enhanced false bravado by the saivists of the time who wouldnt have dreamt that in future such secularist " arivu jeevis" will be court martialling them for it.
JeMo has a valid point when he says that Jain inscriptions of the time did not speak much about these atrocities. Point to be noted is that when these things were happening the neighbouring kingdoms were aflush with jains who would have noted it down in their legends and stories - after all it is this "intolerant" saivist tamil nadu that preserved epics like Perungadhai, seevagasindhamani and manimegalai which are all jainist in their themes and so many poems like naanmanikkadigai and naaladiyaar written by jainist saints..
IT is so easy to see the whole world as RED when you wear a red tinted glass.
Near Kanchipuram , we have a temple for "Thulukanthaman"Quote:
Originally Posted by kalyan
Near Kanchipuram , we have a temple for "Thulukanthaman"Quote:
Originally Posted by kalyan
not to mention 'thirukkuRaL' (written by valluvar, who is portrayed to be a Jain, despite the fact that he recited ThirukkuRaL sitting at the PotRamarai KuLam in Meenakshi temple, Madurai) which was preserved for 1400 years by the 'intolerant' saivaites, only to be blamed by our current political leaders :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jaiganes
dig
/// in todays TN, if you praise Kambar, you are communal. If you praise valluvar, you are secular.
vaazhga jananayagam :lol:
///
end dig
dappul meaning varuthu :lol: athuvum ippo discuss pannura topic oda othu poguthu!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bala (Karthik)
உடன்படுகிறேன்.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaiganes
kalyan,
can you change your signature pls.
A humble request from a diehard fan of kamal even after 25 years. I Know you were a diehard fan of KH during DASA- Hence the request.
Amar
done :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Amarshiva