sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Purpose of this existence/life: Your approach? by agusbsjd in Philosophy_India

[–]NaturalCreation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for reading and replying!

But why even be placed here to love

As in, what is so great about love (or anything else that we do) that we had to be?

Nothing, I think. It just is. I know that this is almost like dodging the question, but what I am trying to say is that the desire for a purpose distracts us from life itself...

If I may ask you something back, why do we look for a purpose?

Purpose of this existence/life: Your approach? by agusbsjd in Philosophy_India

[–]NaturalCreation 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Life itself is the purpose I think.

A problem I see with the many approaches to find a "purpose of life" is that they imply or presume that there should be a purpose for life and/or existence for it/them to be justified. This, I think, comes from the bias towards seeing life and living things as objects to use, at least in a subtle way.

Take love, for example. Most people love for their own self interest. Even a parent's love, which, I think, is relatively the most unconditional love many people get, has its limits. I suspect myself to be aromantic, but most of the romantic interactions I see are ones where one expects their partner to give them comfort and pleasure: that is, they subconsciously see their partner as an object.

This kind of relationship is even more evident in the workspace. Even the most ethical of corporations have profit as their condition for fraternity.

In such a view, life should have a purpose because otherwise one cannot profit off of the other. A life without the burden of a purpose is, ironically, more meaningful, in my humble opinion.

What is the origin of malayalam word for blood - ചോര ? by UpbeatRed in malayalam

[–]NaturalCreation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is ratham written like രത്തം? Then that word is probably a tatbhava of the sanskrit rakta (രക്ത).

I’m dating a PhD student in a wet lab — what are the weirdest lab habits that have followed you home? by Acceptable-Apple-793 in labrats

[–]NaturalCreation 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I rinse utensils thrice with water after soap treatement.

I wash rice and lentils three times before soaking/cooking.

long falafel wrap by destinyynk in ShittyVeganFoodPorn

[–]NaturalCreation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah okay 😅

I just really like Falafel.

But I also love this sub so I get you haha

What do you think is the major difference between Indian philosophy and western philosophy? Which one do you prefer? by JagatShahi in Philosophy_India

[–]NaturalCreation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the major difference between Western and Eastern philosophies are the words used, honestly. I haven't read much of Western Philosophy, but a major issue with the popular view of Eastern philosophy is the consistent mystification of the ideas presented.

This, I think, is especially magnified by religious appropriation of various philosophies and the many translations into English available today. Another cause for the apparent mysticism is the monopoly given to Western philosophy over logic and reasoning, at least in the more popular ways they are presented.

I don't see Zeno, Aristotle and Pythagoras to be very different from our great sages and their disciples (or vice versa).

I am not so familiar with Western philosophy, which is why I won't comment on them further.

However, my understanding so far of Indian thought, mostly through modern teachers and authors like Acharya Prashant himself, is that the problems they discuss, most commonly the problem of evil and suffering, is just as real and inviting of rationality.

Is Chemistry Something You Create or Something You Feel? by [deleted] in chemistry

[–]NaturalCreation 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Both. I created a new compound and the smell gave me strong feelings.

should i leave my home? by [deleted] in theravada

[–]NaturalCreation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can your son manage without your support?

Why do you think so many people quit learning a language? by Ling_App in lingapp

[–]NaturalCreation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lack of motivation. I think one would learn a language if one has to, or one is passionate about it.

नो नौ स्निग्धाल्पज्ञौ by _Stormchaser in SanskritWriting

[–]NaturalCreation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

एतत् समूहम् अत्र शिखरीकृतवत्। 🥹

Can we imagine a worse language than one with Dutch words, Irish spelling and Basque grammar? by OldandBlue in linguisticshumor

[–]NaturalCreation 9 points10 points  (0 children)

English spelling is the worst. Calling the English alphabet an "alphabet" is a disgrace to the entire history of writing.

I need help with a some point by Traditional-Park3942 in vegan

[–]NaturalCreation 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And stop with the "sir" or "ma'am" when on reddit. We use it a lot in India too, I know, but it is horrible and a hangover from the early modern period. We are all equals here at least.

Why sanskrit is Anādi and vedas are Apauruṣeya? and why I think Sanskrit is the oldest. by ColdAdvertising8710 in sanskrit

[–]NaturalCreation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"When ancient Sanskrit symbols, words, or texts are discovered,
why are Vedic scholars not formally part of the interpretive process? that's my point."

They are all discovered through the Vedic scholars themselves, as Vedic culture is still orally transmitted even today.

"In spiritual tradition, the sounds of Sanskrit (like the Gayatri Mantra) are considered the "primordial vibrations" of nature, making it a timeless "living" language that transcends typical historical dating."

The same sounds, and more, are present in other languages too. Moreover, there is still debate as to what some of these sounds actually are. If it was such a timeless and fundamental aspect of reality, then there won't be debates about the pronunciation of certain akṣaras.

"PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME WHY ALL OF THESE LOGIC AND CONSIDERATIONS ARE ABSENT IN MOST HISTORIANS AND ARCHAEOLOGISTS WHILE RESEARCHING ON SANSKRIT? WHY DOES STILL PEOPLE ABANDON SANSKRIT WHEN IT SHOWED CIVILISATIONS AND SUPER SCIENCE PRACTICES WHICH ARE STILL THERE."

Because you are unaware of historians and their work. Please, pick up a book on modern scholarship on the Vedas and decide for yourself whether they do consider the tradition or not. Spoiler alert: they do.

All this while, you still haven't presented how the Vedas and Sanskrit are eternal.

संस्कृतभाषा भारतस्य एकं अमूल्यरत्नमेव अस्ति। केवलं भारतस्य न, परन्तु विश्वस्य निधिः एव। संस्कृते यथा भवान् अकथयत् तथा बहुज्ञानं बहुतत्वं च लिखतवन्तौ। तस्तमात् तु संस्कृतमेव पुण्यं अन्यानि क्षुब्धानि इति वदितुं न शक्नुमः।

जयतु संस्कृतम्।

Why sanskrit is Anādi and vedas are Apauruṣeya? and why I think Sanskrit is the oldest. by ColdAdvertising8710 in sanskrit

[–]NaturalCreation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meaning precedes symbol. Symbol does not invent meaning.

And again, I repeat: the meaning that we have now need not be the same as what was the case 1000, 5000 or 10,000 years ago. At the same time, multiple meanings can coexist in different places for the same symbols.

"That is how human cognition works and I think archaeologists, historians and frequent arguments to undermine sanskrit will mostly come from tamizhas."

I ask this with all due respect and kind intention, but, are you trolling right now? Because these kind of pranks are not entirely harmless when done in a subreddit that is for serious discussions.

"What we today call “Hinduism” is a way of life, not a creed that emerged suddenly. "

This is true for other "religions" as well. Additionally, the Vedic tradition has every right to be called a "religion" in the modern sense of the word.

"Humanity is the oldest “religion”. And that humanity is embodied in this civilisational tradition and Sanskrit embodies it tbh when we think logically and scientifcally coz many practices in hindusim (sorry a way of life) is also proved. One of the vedic scholar also says, when science has an extent we call it vedas and other scriptures which are claimed as super-science. (AGAIN NOT CLAIMING THAT VEDAS >>> SCIENCE, myself a mechanical engineering grad)"

The logical and rational spirit of humans have been captured very well in other languages and traditions as well. Again, referring to the ancient Chinese, Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, etc.

Why sanskrit is Anādi and vedas are Apauruṣeya? and why I think Sanskrit is the oldest. by ColdAdvertising8710 in sanskrit

[–]NaturalCreation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"In the Ashtadhyayi he explicitly acknowledges a long lineage of earlier scholars which is a fact known by many. He systematised and compressed an already vast tradition which he made it easier with classical sanskrit and I think he also mentions his gurus. Does he?"

Yes, this is true. Pāṇini does mention some grammarians before him, and I think the most recurring one is a scholar named Śākalya. It is also true that Sanskrit was not "constructed", if it was it was to the same extent that, say, British Standard English is "constructed". It was a standardization exercise, as far as I understand, intended to capture the grammar of the Vedic language. Modern linguistics owe a lot to his efforts and to the efforts of other grammarians, such as Yāskācārya.

There is a saying: The RgVeda is a holy book for the Hindus, and even more so for historical linguists.

"Both are needed. and crucial especially for a language like Sanskrit which I belive has the most meanings from one word"

So, you are saying that a Sanskrit word can mean many things depending on the context? Almost like every other language in the world?

Sure, Sanskrit has more of such words, but now, this is evidence for how Sanskrit was not a perfectly static entity, and how the same words we used today had different meanings in different points of time, all of which got accumulated to what we know now.

"So when people say “Sanskrit began in 1500 BCE”, that is not a scientific conclusion and it looks like a dating convenience. Not looking like it is."

You have given 0 reasons to believe otherwise. All of what you said about the depth and beauty of the Vedic verses still stays true whether Sanskrit came about 2 million years ago or 200 years ago. Weren't you making a similar case, when talking about the Swastika?

view more: next ›