Hinduism a curse on Human life

[sganapatirao]

Hinduism, a religion of oldest civilization of the world is a real curse to dignity and life of Humanity. Its half of population were kept for many centuries as untouchables. They were thrown out of human society and civilisation. Only rich and affluent are dominating force of Hinduism. Poor and illetarates of our population are even after its independendence are still suffering miserablly under the upper castes. All miseries and sufferings in life, the poor are blaming their fate...ironically not the society and the government. Superstitions and belief on god is virtually destroying their life. If god and superstitions are removed from their mind ..surely they will revolt against establishment and thus they enjoy real human life and its wisdom.

[Sarpedon]

I can already tell this isn't going to be pretty.

We've already had threads about this...nothing but mudslinging and calumny.

Just out of curiosity sganapatirao, what is your background? Are you a muslim trying to slam hinduism, an atheist or agnostic? someone of low-caste descent?

[hinduwoman]

when making blanket accusations I wish you would be more specific.

[Nirvana]

From your username, I can safely assume that you are a Hindu yourself. Such deep rooted hate shows that at one point or another you have experienced or witnessed harassment or oppression. I just want to tell you this much that it is naive to label the entire religion as a curse to humanity. The misdeeds of a handful Hindus does not speak for Hinduism.
Differences in the treatment meted out on individuals on the basis of their religions is not present in Hinduism alone.

[Bold]

Originally posted by Nirvana
The misdeeds of a handful Hindus does not speak for Hinduism.


But the OP was quite specifically about the caste system. Is the caste system seperable from Hinduism? If not, then blaming the religion and not individuals seems quite appropriate.


Differences in the treatment meted out on individuals on the basis of their religions is not present in Hinduism alone. [/B]

Yes, quite.

[Nirvana]

Bold, if you re-read the OP you shall find that the poster did make a comment which reads as "Hinduism, a religion of oldest civilization of the world is a real curse to dignity and life of Humanity."
Of course there is no denying that many people were subjected to gross injustice but that does not mean Hinduism is to be blamed for that. The caste system was grossly misused by the Brahmins to quench their selfish needs and desires but Hinduism cannot be put under the axe for this. Hinduism is one of the most scientific yet traditional religions ever. Don't be misled by the few anomalies on the surface.

[Bold]

So is the caste system an anomaly on the surface of hinduism or inseparable from it?

For that matter, are capitalism and warmongering anomalies on the surface of Christianity, which is at heart (according to Jesus) socialist and pacifist?

I think these questions are quite similar to each other. I think it is difficult to judge a religion other than by what people do in its name. I can't think of a standard by which to judge whether some aspect of a religion is superficial or integral.

[Nirvana]

Bold, for example, there's a lit candle. One person is using the candle flame to write his book and earn a living honestly. On the other hand, there's a man who is using the same candle flame to forge notes and make a quick buck. Is the candle to be blamed for the man making forged notes?

I don't know much about Christianity so I cannot comment on the same but I can say this much about Hinduism that it's a great religion. If you were to judge a religion by it's people then I think you won't find a single religion to be good and divine.

We have to understand that over the years, people change, their ideologies change but religion is the same. Of course people may try to incorporate a few things into it but the gist of every religion remains unchanged.

[Bold]

Originally posted by Nirvana
Bold, for example, there's a lit candle. One person is using the candle flame to write his book and earn a living honestly. On the other hand, there's a man who is using the same candle flame to forge notes and make a quick buck. Is the candle to be blamed for the man making forged notes?

A candle isn't an ideology - it doesn't say what you should or shouldn't do. And of course if we don't blame the candle for its dishonest use, we shouldn't credit it for its honest use either.

We have to understand that over the years, people change, their ideologies change but religion is the same. Of course people may try to incorporate a few things into it but the gist of every religion remains unchanged.

I think the unchanging claim is very common, but unjustified, although my only examples are from Christianity.

Christianity
*supported the divine right of kings, and now supports human rights,
*prohibited lending money at interest, now is happy with capitalism,
*supported slavery, now doesn't,
*(presumably) believed in turning the other cheek, now believes in defending itself,
*was universally patriarchal, and now in some denominations, allows women senior positions,
*prohibited the creation of images, and now makes movies about Jesus

In short Christianity has always adjusted its values to fit into the societies in which it finds itself, starting with the Romans if not earlier.

[premjan]

I think the caste system was and is a blot. I don't see the real need for it then or now. Supposedly it encouraged the preservation of genetically-based skills and proclivities. The caste system is the very backbone of Hinduism, and I believe it lacks positive purpose, other than as a means of social segregation.

Is there any society that has done badly through lack of segregation?

[hinduwoman]

RE the caste system: whether it is or not an intrinsic part of Hinduism depends very much on individual belief and the particular community.
A number of Bhakti movements started with abolition of caste system, so that formally in these communities caste do not exist.
Again an individual might or might not personally believe it is or not. That has nothing to do with how orthodox they are.

Caste system is simply a social system of stratification that developed slowly and gained (naturally enough) religious sanction from the priests and was upheld by the ruling elite. It has changed many times over the past and will no doubt change again.
The Hindus in Bali do not have a caste system since it appears they migrated there so long ago that a rigid caste system had not come into place. In the Carribean islands the mighrating Hindus were too few in number to sustain it -- ergo it has disappeared there.

Hinduism will be able to survive the disappearance of caste system, because as such it is not part of religious doctrine.

[premjan]

a good point; caste was probably a social fact merely formalized by hindus at some point. so we should perhaps blame hindus for accepting it but not perhaps for inventing it.

[hinduwoman]

where did the original poster go? Just another hit and run driver, I guess.

[Bluenose]

Maybe Sri Rao is on location making a movie, or in New York signing a book deal, even could be covering the Martha Stewart prison decor seminar :banghead:

We do get visits from very busy people.

[premjan]

I think the blaming of one's own fate is a negative factor of Hinduism. Hindus are constitutionally probably not as charitable as some other groups, such as Christians (whereas some might argue that Christian charity is not entirely disinterested -- should it be??); on the other hand, there a fair bit of less organized giving to the poor among Hindus. Superstition and illiteracy are indeed a huge problem for Hindus.

[Occams_Razor]

don't know much about Christianity so I cannot comment on the same but I can say this much about Hinduism that it's a great religion.

**"A great religion"? Erm what? That's like saying: "a beautiful wart "; "a delicious bowl of maggots"; "a pleasant miasma."






**Just the expression "a great religion", not hinduism specifically.

[SomaSekhar]

[he is rediculus and irrresponsible

[Nirvana]

Originally posted by Occams_Razor
**"A great religion"? Erm what? That's like saying: "a beautiful wart "; "a delicious bowl of maggots"; "a pleasant miasma."






**Just the expression "a great religion", not hinduism specifically.

I think I missed something in here. Would you please elaborate what made you quote the above.

[Occams_Razor]

I think I missed something in here. Would you please elaborate what made you quote the above.

That is my sentiment regarding religion. A "great religion" is a contradiction in terms. Religions are by their very nature a veil of fiction between its believers and reality. The beautiful real world in front of you and your still on your knees bowing and scraping before the angry volcano god and the thunder spirit.

It's no different than seeing millions grow up somehow still believing in Santa Claus. But it's more insidious than that because every part of your behavior--all your reactions to life, your very understanding of the world--all filtered through this stone age haze of superstition. Boggles my mind. Wars fought over what choices the old lady in the hat made. Whole disciplines dedicated to understanding why Jack climbed the beanstalk. Is it immoral to do this or that? Well let's study what Mother Goose would have done. Confronted by a dilemma? Take comfort in the teachings of the easter bunny.

It's sad.

[Nirvana]

You are making a presumption here that 'all' religions are nothing but superstitious ideas or myths. Who is bothered about the bean stalk or the Easter bunny? Hinduism is not just a religion; it's a way of life. Over the centuries, many of the rituals and customs have changed but the gist remains the same. No one is forced to follow Hinduism or believe in a particular deity. The freedom is yours. If you wish to believe you are most welcome...if you don't want to believe, that's fine too. There are no fixed commandments or rules to follow here. You have the choice of experiencing and then deciding. No hard and fast rules here.

You are entitled to your own opinion of course. I just wanted to know what made you warrant such a reply to me. Have a nice day.

[premjan]

I think without religion, people tend to invent similar things, so it is better to have a good religion than a bad one, and better to have one than probably to have nothing. Better still (best) to look at religion, understand its relation to your own psychology, and then move on with your life, without clinging to ideologies. This is, of course, the goal of Buddhism, which is intended to be a road to knowledge about the (lack of the) self. I would say this about any gnostic path though, Buddhism just being the largest example.

A fixation with religion is pointless; however it may be hard to avoid such a fixation without going through it first.

[Occams_Razor]

You are making a presumption here that 'all' religions are nothing but superstitious ideas or myths.
Yes I am. Of course my presumption is based on proof by evidence, not blind faith and inculcation partnered with wishful thinking.
Who is bothered about the bean stalk or the Easter bunny?
You're missing the point: religions are elaborate fairy tales. They are uber Jack and the Beanstalk. They are ultra Mother Goose.
Hinduism is not just a religion; it's a way of life.
That's the problem. All religions are ways of life.
No one is forced to follow Hinduism or believe in a particular deity. The freedom is yours.
To a certain extent. Most people are schooled in their religion by learning it at their parents' knees. Is this choice? Many people are incredibly pressured to actively participate in the religion of their parents and/or relatives and/or community. How many people throughout recorded history been hung by their thumbs for daring to express religious difference, not to mention doubt, or scientific truths that contradict doctrinaire teachings.
You are entitled to your own opinion of course. I just wanted to know what made you warrant such a reply to me.
I was quoting and commenting on a turn of phrase you used and not commenting on the import of your post. I apologize if this seemed directed at you specifically, which it wasn't, but not for the content of the post itself.

Regards,

Occams_Razor

[shivalinga]

Hindus are constitutionally probably not as charitable as some other groups, such as Christians (whereas some might argue that Christian charity is not entirely disinterested -- should it be??); on the other hand, there a fair bit of less organized giving to the poor among Hindus.

one hindu temple feeds over 50,000 children for free every day,
more then any other single church in the world.
http://www.akshayapatra.org/




You're missing the point: religions are elaborate fairy tales. They are uber Jack and the Beanstalk. They are ultra Mother Goose.

said the vatican to galileo ,later proved wrong,point being,
you dont know what you are ignorant of.

until a few years ago accepted "truth" was the big crunch,
before that the earth was flat,before that so many things
were accepted as obvious "truth",religious "truth" is relative to our
experience,if we have not experienced the "truth"
of a religion that doesn't make them false,religion
by nature is subjective therefore any objective reasoning
is based on subjectivity,which is inconclusive in and of itself.

Many scientists would argue many of todays atheist
dogmas are in reality a religious type of belief system,
they make a commitment to a faith that is unprovable,
i.e. big bang,evolution,etc.



To a certain extent. Most people are schooled in their religion by learning it at their parents' knees. Is this choice? Many people are incredibly pressured to actively participate in the religion of their parents and/or relatives and/or community. How many people throughout recorded history been hung by their thumbs for daring to express religious difference, not to mention doubt, or scientific truths that contradict doctrinaire teachings.

so ? how many people were killed by atheist regimes("communist") for being religious ? or for daring to
express difference or doubt that contradict doctrinaire
teachings ? in the last century alone that would be over 100
million.
does that means atheism is the blame ? will you accuse
athesim for the faults of atheists ?

i was born and raised without any religion by atheists,
it wasn't until i ate some peyote that i experienced
god,from then on i was no longer fearful of death,
i saw life from the vantage point of an eternal existence
awaiting me, is that better or worse then an atheists
vision ? i know from my own life ,there is a quantum
shift from anxiety and dread to inner peace.

That is my sentiment regarding religion. A "great religion" is a contradiction in terms. Religions are by their very nature a veil of fiction between its believers and reality. The beautiful real world in front of you and your still on your knees bowing and scraping before the angry volcano god and the thunder spirit.

that is jus ignant, while some religions no doubt are as you describe,
hinduism is based on self realization, the concept is that
god is within you,part of you,and you can realize and experience
that reality through the process of either yoga,jnana,or bhakti,
all lead to the goal of experiencing god as your soul mate,
not as the great and terrible oz.

btw-buddhism is not gnostic in the strict sense of the term,
gnostics have a belief in a soul and an afterlife.

[gsx1138]

it wasn't until i ate some peyote that i experienced god

Cool, I had the same experience from a good bag of weed. ;)

[premjan]

hinduism is based on self realization, the concept is that
god is within you,part of you,and you can realize and experience
that reality through the process of either yoga,jnana,or bhakti,
all lead to the goal of experiencing god as your soul mate,
not as the great and terrible oz.

btw-buddhism is not gnostic in the strict sense of the term,
gnostics have a belief in a soul and an afterlife. [/B]

There are two primary approaches to religion: gnosis and faith (otherwise known as jnana and bhakti). Within this division, Buddhism falls into the gnostic path, since it involves personal effort on the part of the aspirant.

Gnosis is useful as a road to knowledge, but knowledge always involves some damage to the individuality, hence IMO gnosis (e.g. Buddhism) is suitable as the road for the few who want to show the path to the many, the path of the many being faith. Moreover, faith is useful primarily as a guide to one's actions, since sitting on one's butt is not an acceptable long-term option for human life, since we were created animals not plants. Hence gnosis should lead to meditation on the acquired knowledge, and faith in it, and finally committed action.

Were humans easily capable of acquiring or having knowledge without it altering their own natural individuality, then knowledge could be recommended as the primary road (as Buddhism and Smarta Hinduism propose). However, IMO knowledge leads to a collision of physical and spiritual parts of a human being, with the latter winning out.

[shivalinga]

wow,i'm gonna need some peyote to decipher them
cryptograms :banghead:


in the hindu system jnana means knowledge of absolute truth,
i.e. that which is true in all circumstances at all times,bhakti
refers not to faith but to the activity of the soul after having realized jnana.

gnostic in the strict sense is a particular milieu of philosophy
expounded by various sects who call themselves gnostic,
they believe in the ascension of human consciousness to god
through gnosis or sophia,wisdom,which will free them from
this world of darkness and enable a higher afterlife etc.
For them they seek not knowledge in the way of the jnani,
yogi or bhakti(who all pursue jnana)which is specifically
the study of vedic knowledge from the upanishads,bhagavad
gita etc.`the true gnostic has a much less structured or
exact goal,theirs is a much more indefinable path,
the jnani is very definable,jnana yoga means study of the
vedic literature.

in hinduism faith is like an invatation to a meal,the meal
served is the actual practice of yoga.
Jnana or the study
of vedic scriptures and the words of self realized gurus
is practiced by bhakti yogis,jnanis etc,all hindu
paths utilized jnana as necessary,none reject it for the simple
fact that you cannot know the self, God and the universe without
knowledge,jnana yoga is a term not a path unto itself,
it is simply the study of philosophy.

Bhakti is the path of developing a relationship with
god,jnana is a precursor ,just like you need to learn
how to speak before you can have a conversation.

buddhism is completely different,they admit no god,nor any real
eternal point of existence or eternal life,they are concerned
solely with escaping misery in the here and now.

hinduism is not about that at all,it is about God,learning about
god according to the ancient teachings and applying the path
of yoga to experience those realities,it is about entering
into the mystical experience of God,jnana is knowldege about
that,gnosis to the gnostics is similar in the sense that they have the same goal,buddhism is not about that at all,god
is left out of the equation all together,so that is not gnosis
in either the gnostic or hindu sense,but really is more
to do with psychology then gnosis which implies
transcendental realization of God in the here and now.

[premjan]

gnosis ~= jnana
faith ~= bhakti

and buddhism is principally knowledge-oriented (else why become a monk?), however it also includes the practice of meditation, which like jnana is primarily mind-oriented, but in a more continuing way, wherein the end-point of jnana is like an ultimate goal, whether reachable or not, who knows.

These are categories which are broader than any particular religion, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, et cetera. The details mark the various traditions as distinct, but do not change the underlying categories ("head" and "heart", in simple words).

[shivalinga]

ya know prem,i'm always amazed how someone who has never
actually studied something in depth can be an expert on it.

if i were to argue with a jet engine mechanic about the intracacies
of the jet engine having never went to school for that what value
would my opinion have compared to the mechanic who went to school and is actually employed working on jet engines ?

whenever i debate you on hinduism its the exact same thing,
my opinion you feel is less then yours, you are not a hindu
nor have you gone to school to study it in depth for any length
of time.

i spent 4 years day and night in an ashram studying,and then
20 more years studying and practicing,yet you always
think what you have to say is more accurate,
have you studied in depth under tutelage ? no.

so if you want to actually learn hinduism instead of creating
your imaginary version ,pay attention and dont try and
trump with your concoctions what i say,i am not creating
or giving my own philosophy,i dont have to do that because i am well schooled in vedanta for many years,while your
imaginings may have value still they are not hinduism,
they are your thoughts,not the schools of vedanta.

bhakti does not = faith
jnana does not =gnosis

gnosis is a word bandied about by many who have also
not studied gnosticsm, gnosis is used by many to mean
different things, the actual word was originaly used to describe
a specific milieu of religious dogma,and is nothin like jnana.

gnosis is about mystic intuition combined with certain
religious belief systems,those are the dualistic philosophies
stemming from persia,manicheaism,catharism,etc.

jnana yoga is the study of vedanta and the vedic literature,
and is part of the yoga process,bhakti is also part of the yoga process,both jnana and bhakti are the two main parts of the yoga process.

the idea that bhakti is about faith as opposed to the intellectualism of jnana is completely wrong, when talking about
hinduism you should limit yourself to the actual religion
and not include other philosophies which are within the indian
landscape and sometimes mistaken to be part of the religion,
the religion itself is based on jnana and bhakti ,they are
inseperable,just like you do not seperate christianity
from the study of the words of the christian philosophy,
they are intertwined,if you seperate then you create
an abberation.

bhakti =devotion by mystic communion,faith is necessary
for any religious endeavor,but bhakti does not mean faith,
it is a complex spiritual practice of sadhana yoga,which includes
different types of activities for a particular sampradaya or school.

for instance Ramanuja,Madhva,Nimbarka,Vallabha,and Chaitanya
are the 5 major schools of Vaishnavism,which is followed by 85%
of hindus, if you want to learn the rigorous sadhana and
study they require ,go ahead, they are all considerd bhakti yoga,
which includes jnana yoga.

some misinformed people thing that jnana yoga and bhakti
are two different schools, the fact is that there are those who
ARE exclusively jnana yogis and hatha yogis,but dont mistake
that to mean that bhakti yoga is exclusive of jnana,
all the schools of bhakti yoga include jnana yoga as well,
all that means is that they make a serious study of vedanta
and the related literature,that is all that jnana yoga is,
it is nothing else, besides studying the literature and vedanta
the bhakti schools do more, alot more,arcana,mantra,bhajan,
etc.

Its jnana yoga plus bhakti,that is why its called the end of the yoga system,all the yoga systems tell you that bhakti
is the last stage,not that bhakti is independent of the others,
it is IN ADDITION to the others, that is bhakti,it is
not equal to simple faith,quite the opposite,it is the most demanding because it includes all the yoga paths.

this is real hinduism,you may have your opinions,but
as a serious student and practitioner for over 25 years
i know of what i speak.

[premjan]

I hope you haven't wasted your time studying hinduism for so many years. I believe (in my experience) it is easily possible for study to be a wasted endeavor, especially when the fruits are observed in hindsight, and this has nothing to do with studying religion, it could equally be true of studying computer science or biology or whatever. Matters of religion are generally considered to be verified by personal observation, and religion is moreover quite a quick-moving target. To characterize it strongly is perhaps to freeze and kill it.

I wasn't talking in depth about the intricacies of Hinduism and other systems. I was talking in broad outline. Religion has the same subject (the relation of human life to God) regardless of the religious system. And I think the Hindu ancients were right in their analysis of religion, and I believe their subject of study was not "Hinduism" but the mind, God, and religion in general. Perhaps certain scholars such Madhva or Shankara have chosen to restrict the focus of their study to faith only or to India only. But in general, the purpose of religion has not changed since the day of the shaman.

I would like to disclaim my statements as being authoritative statements about the body of Hindu knowledge, which is what you have studied. However, through the smattering of Hinduism and personal intuition that I have, I was offering my personal categorizations which I feel are sufficiently true for a layman's understanding, though evidently not useful if you are into an in-depth study of any particular religion.

It is possible to construe gnosticism and jnana to be closely related, and for Buddhism, at least the types of Buddhism which are commonly discussed on this board, to be considered quite closely related to either one, more than to any of the primary faith roads in their underlying message. For example, when Krishna says "I am God, believe in me" he means more or less the same sort of thing as Jesus means when he says "before Abraham was I am.". I was just trying to point up these similarities. Buddhism to me, is primarily a call to knowledge, the primacy of knowledge over mere faith and superstition. Shankarism is surely similar. The Smartas, to the best of my knowledge, advocate knowledge over faith as a better road. It is not as though Smartas hold knowledge and faith to be of equal value; if that were the case, they would not talk primarily of jnana. The Vaishnavas on the other hand, are primarily bhaktas. They differ from the smartas in their primary belief which is adoration of Godhead in the person of the Vishnu Avataras. The Shaktas adore Devi and the Shaivas Shiva. There are many intricacies of every belief. I was just pointing out the broad similarities and patterns that we do observe.

I don't want to contradict your knowledge. I was just pointing out that certain simplifications can justifiably be made when doing this kind of compare-and-contrast. As long as we don't forsake detail completely in a desire for simplicity. If you wish to discuss Hinduism as a scholarly subject, you should perhaps not phrase your language in quite such a propagandistic manner, which I have found in many previous posts. I am doing much the same as what you are doing, it seems to me, only I am appealing to personal insight, instead of years of intensive study of the subject (however, from the inside, not the outside, it would appear).

[shivalinga]

you equate gnosis with intellectual persuits,
really gnosis does not mean that,it has more of a mystical
basis.

if you insist on the intellectual translation then the sanskrit equivalant is not jnana,
it is buddhi,as in buddhi yoga,gnosis has a closer
connection to bhakti then jnana,if you take the time to study
gnostic thought you will learn that like bhakti the gnostic
belief is enlightenment is ultimately given by a higher "godlike" being to the gnostic mystic from the higher realm giving
the aspirant the equivalent of the hindu moksha,
it is completely based on the receiving of liberation
from above, as is bhakti,also both are based
on study to become qualified to utilize and understand
the divine gift.

the sanskrit word for faith is not bhakti,it is sraddha,
and it is the first stage of the yoga process,from sraddha
comes ruchi, or taste,from faith one engages in the practice,
by that practice one develops a taste from the result of that
experince,then it goes on from there.

[premjan]

I agree with your characterizations there. Like I said, I was making a broad simplification only. Your detailing is definitely accurate, and I apologize if I sounded like I was trying to run you down. However, in the face of inclarity, mine could not be considered an atypical reaction.

Peace.

[shivalinga]

what you call propaganda i call accuracy.

if you want to discuss hindu thought in comparison to other schools of thought and then get it wrong, thats when i step
in and correct you, its not propaganda or proselytizing,
its giving the correction to novices, if the discussions
were about math or physics and i was making basic
errors then if a math major corrected me that would not be propaganda,but since these are religious and philosophical
discussions you assume that when you are corrected,
the many times, that it is propaganda,it is not,
it is clarification.

[premjan]

probably this is true to an extent in hinduism. however I do not believe that the vast majority of bhaktas necessarily have deep inner knowledge sufficient to probably qualify as jnana.

Perhaps these people should be counted as having shraddha but not yet bhakti. Perhaps this is closer to the Western concept of faith or belief, and may be the point that you are trying to make.

[shivalinga]

well of course that is dependent on the person,either
jnani or bhakti,the bhakti schools all study continuously
the massive piles of vedic sruti and smriti,so its not the school
that is lacking,what you say is undeniably true,but it is true
of all paths,there are those who are serious and then there
are those who are not.;)

[premjan]

being serious has a different degree of merit, depending on whether you are attempting jnana or bhakti.

sometimes, depending on the result, being serious is completely useless.

[shivalinga]

by serious i mean not dilettant,both the jnani and bhakti yogi
study the sruti and smriti,both enage in sat sanga,both
follow the same path,the bhakti does more in addition.

so serious means focused in my meaning,those who are focused
will advance at a faster rate then those who are not in any endeavor.

in yoga we have the added element of revelation,both the jnani
and bhakti yogi strive for the same goal, realization of oness with brahman,the bhakti yogi starts where the jnani ends.

the bhakti realizes oneness with brahman,then realizes
the independence of brahman,and our dependence on brahman,
which leads to interaction with brahman,based on revelation from brahman,whereas the jnani realizes oneness only,then nothing,
that is why bhakti is said to be the culmination of the yoga system,it is the interaction of the yogi with the Para Brahman
on a personal basis,its like realizing you are part of the universe
and one with the universe,at the same time the universe
is more then you or I and has mysterious powers that it alone
can show you.

[premjan]

Originally posted by shivalinga
and one with the universe,at the same time the universe
is more then you or I and has mysterious powers that it alone
can show you. [/B]

The universe has "mysterious powers" sounds like a personalization of a thing that is not literally a person, although it may have some characteristics in common with a human being or human mind that cause religions to treat it as such. Since our mind is undoubtedly a mapping of the universe onto a compact neuronal representation, perhaps I would be more comfortable saying "mysterious patterns" rather than "powers". A pattern is then nothing more than what a scientist would seek to discover to unlock that which is not known about the universe.

Do you believe that a human being has the capacity to "control" the flow of energy through their mind and "move mountains" or stuff like that? Is there any evidence of such things being possible?

I think it is perfectly plausible that a human being identifies himself or herself mentally so much with a natural process or with the universe that they imagine themselves to be moving a mountain when in fact the mountain is moving through forces external to the person. It would take quite extraordinary belief to swallow the claim that a human being could influence matter directly with their mind. That a human being could walk on water, cause plagues or conjure articles or bend spoons solely through the activity of their mind. The current marshalled by the brain or mind are quite feeble. It is possible that we could be sensitive enough to spot subtle natural patterns with our mind through introspection rather than experimental observation. But it would be hard to swallow that a person could resurrect themselves once dead, cause a staff to change into a snake or anything else like that. Of course, it is easy to believe that a person could convince themselves that they were like God and could accomplish these things, and might even learn magic tricks to trick others into thinking such things, but the literal act of magic would be very hard to believe in.