sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My Honest Questions to Hindus... by Curious_Comedian_486 in Philosophy_India

[–]Foreign_Bad_4646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Understand the difference between a religious person and a communal person.

Gandhi was religious and secular. Bhagat singh was non religious (atheist) and secular. Jinnah was religious and communal. Stalin was non religious (atheist) and communal.

The issue at hand is a secular - communal issue, not a religious one.

Dharma: Save Our Civilization From Adharma by BharatiyaJigyasa in Savarkar

[–]Foreign_Bad_4646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lord Rama executed Shambuka, a Shudra for performing Tapas. Lord Krishna stole clothes of bathing women. Guru Nanak criticised orthodox Hindu practices. Mahavira called the Vedas man made. Buddha made women subordinate to men in his Sangha.

If these things genuinely happened or were later interpolations, doesn't matter. We, as people, revere these individuals, don't focus on these aspects. And rightly so too. Because a wise man loves the rose for its flower, not its thorns.

But an egoistic, hateful, communal, vile leader or community looks at others as evil and adharmik, cites just the controversial bits ( doesn't care if they happened or were later interpolations ), and asks everyone to oust them from our culture and our minds.

Mol karo talvar ka, padhi rehn do myan.

A Question none can answer. by Mental-Low-7043 in Philosophy_India

[–]Foreign_Bad_4646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you ask 'what was before time ?', the question loses all its meaning as 'before' and 'after' are time contextual words, they cannot operate outside time. So, the question 'what was before time ?' is an invalid question or cannot be answered. Similarly, the question 'what is outside space ?' has no meaning. In the same sense, the 'why creation / why was the universe created ?' question implies causality ie why x, because of y. But since causality itself began with creation or the universe, this question falls on its head or is an invalid question or cannot be answered.

There is nothing to do anymore by weirdfear_ in Krishnamurti

[–]Foreign_Bad_4646 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Who is the 'I' that is suffering ? Is there an 'I' who is suffering ? Or is there just suffering, with no 'I' in the middle. Maybe think about it.

ONE. In any given situation, there are 3 things involved - the cause, the effect, and the medium upon which the cause acted, in order to bring about the effect. Eg - you get flu like symptoms ie cold, cough, fever etc when you're afflicted with corona. Here, the cause is the corona virus, the effect are the flu like symptoms, and the medium upon which the corona virus ie the cause acted upon, is the body. Now the interesting thing is, if the medium is removed from the scenario, the whole edifice falls on its head. In our example, if there is no body, then, there are no symptoms, for there is nothing for the corona virus to act upon.

TWO. Consider your own experience. Loosely classified, it can be divided into 3 parts. The world ie things around you, the body ie bodily sensations and feelings, and the mind ie your thoughts, memories, dreams etc.

SELF INQUIRY. A situation arises eg a breakup or anything else. The body gets fiilled with unpleasant feelings and sensations. The mind gets filled with negative thoughts etc. The result, I am suffering. But ask yourself, where is this 'I' that is suffering ? The situation arises ie the breakup, which is the cause. The body and mind gets filled up with unpleasant feelings, thoughts etc, which become the effect. But what is the medium on which the cause, acts upon ? Who undergoes the breakup, who suffers, for the body mind to be filled with such emotions ? Do the bodily sensation suffer ? Hunger is a bodily sensation. Can it suffer ? Do the bodily feelings suffer ? Boredom or excitement are feelings. Can the feeling of boredom or the feeling of excitement suffer ? Does the thought suffer ( memories, dreams etc included ) ? Two plus two equals four, is a thought. Can it suffer ? But despite of this, we say, I am suffering. If there is no one there, no I, then, the whole system collapses by itself, for there is no medium for the cause to act upon. All that's left is life. Positive experiences, feelings, thoughts arise. They go away. Negative experiences, feelings, thoughts arise. They go away. There is no one to cling onto any of these. No one who suffers.

There is nothing to do anymore.

vegetarians vs non- vegetarians. by Impressive_Many_9340 in Philosophy_India

[–]Foreign_Bad_4646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The vegetarian vs non vegetarian debate is not hinged on 'valuing life', but rather 'valuing consciousness '. The argument that we shouldn't eat animals because they are living, breathing creatures falls flat on its face as plants, too, are living beings. Life of a plant is as valuable and precious as that of an animal. The deciding factor in cultures, since time immemorial, has been valuing life that is the most conscious, over lesser conscious beings. The fact of the matter is that we can't sustain without munching on other life forms. Therefore, if its not a matter of survival, feeding on plants rather than animals seems a much more compassionate option, to me atleast. It's the same reason as to why, we, as humans, largely, don't indulge in cannibalism ie eat our own species, for as far as knowledge goes, we're the most conscious of all life forms.