Roots, identity and personality

[blazeofglory]

How do you introduce yourself ? By defining yourself in terms of your origins, confining yourself within a frame and by giving your beingness a meaing. The meaning you give it is not actually yours entirely though you assimilate it. All you think is programed and you and the thinking machine withing you are like a processor in a computer.

Your God is a self chosen or woven esistence which has no reality in them.
I do not claim there is no supreme being the way materialists think, and I dio not think the way Marx said religion is an opium nor I conform to the opinion of Plato it is an idea that comes first and matter is the outcome of the idea. I can not subscribe to the fact that everything is predetermined, every act of ours.

I may sound very skeptical. In fact every body is a bit of a skeptist and if they totally conform to the idea of materilism or spiritualism they are doing disservice to them by being dishonest to what they feel and speak

Here what I want to communicate is we mask ourselves by religions, cultures, titles, roots societies and the rest of things. These are simply veneers, layers and you will have to shed all these outer covers.

What I want to say is we all are not what we think we are. a titile, a post, a relation, a particular identification. These are clouds or mists and within you these things do not matter.

All I want to put across you is our roots, identity, personality are superflucial attrbutes, simply masks.

What is the solution is to unmask ourselbves and be sheer human being.

Roots, identity and personnality evaporate ultimately (to be continued)

[suvarna nalapat]

There are two ways at looking at everything.Ultimately all roots and identity and personality should dissolve and we have to shed every thing ,including our relations .That part one can agree 100%.In India advaitha teach that ,Budhists also teach that and every philosophical discourse teach that.But the other part of it is debatable.(in the quote part).Whether God is dead or not depend upon what we mean by the term God.And freedom also is a similar thing .What you mean by freedom or free will is a question which has gained importance in those forum of scientists who study human brain(neuroscinces)and consciousness ,and those who learn quantum physics.So the question of freedom of will and God (sartre and nietsche )are being analysed by modern thinkers and philosophers by scientists etc.What is God and what is freedom in our mind ?that quesstion has to be answered first.Before coming to a conclusion,I do feel.Does not that require an open discussion?

[blazeofglory]

There are two ways at looking at everything.Ultimately all roots and identity and personality should dissolve and we have to shed every thing ,including our relations .That part one can agree 100%.In India advaitha teach that ,Budhists also teach that and every philosophical discourse teach that.But the other part of it is debatable.(in the quote part).Whether God is dead or not depend upon what we mean by the term God.And freedom also is a similar thing .What you mean by freedom or free will is a question which has gained importance in those forum of scientists who study human brain(neuroscinces)and consciousness ,and those who learn quantum physics.So the question of freedom of will and God (sartre and nietsche )are being analysed by modern thinkers and philosophers by scientists etc.What is God and what is freedom in our mind ?that quesstion has to be answered first.Before coming to a conclusion,I do feel.Does not that require an open discussion?

Surely Advaitha is really something, the idea first framed by Adi Shankaracharya. I beleive in the world every branch had first its origin in India and China. These are really two great civilizations. When I read the Vedas I find them so entirerly absorbing that no other branches of philosphy can equate with that in the world and it is so deep and profound that a little of it has been plumbed and it is really a big fountain head or source that the rest of other philosophies and thoughts reource them with that.

Yes You are right once you understand it deeply there is no need for you to seek in any others.

Have you gone thru any books of Adi Shankarachary ?

[hedbanger]

I introduce myself as a fascist. X:

[suvarna nalapat]

Yes.I have made my own commentaries to his Prasthaanathraya(Gita,Upanishads and brahmasoothra)in the modern context,and studied all his other works for that purpose.I have also written a commentary on his soundaryalahari,vivekachoodamani and aparokshanubhoothy.

[blazeofglory]

Yes.I have made my own commentaries to his Prasthaanathraya(Gita,Upanishads and brahmasoothra)in the modern context,and studied all his other works for that purpose.I have also written a commentary on his soundaryalahari,vivekachoodamani and aparokshanubhoothy.

You sound well versed in Sanskrit. I am really excited to communicate with some one who has a passion for Sanskrit. In fact Sanskrit literature always appealed to me and I get great inspiration from Sanskrit texts. It is a vast reservoir of knowledge. As have gone some of the best world classics I find Sanskrit more appealing than the rest of others. It is not vainglory that I am praising Sanskrit . The reason is that one single book of Sanskrit, the Mahabharata is better than many other international classics. In terms of both literature and philosophy Sanskrit is unbeatable.

Despite I have a great passion for Sanskrit I never could learn it to the extent I always aspired to, for I had no one to teach me or the environment I grew up was not conducive. However I enjoy reading notwithstanding my little knowledge. For, at times when you chant Sanskrit hymns or Slokas you will find infinite joys.

I always respect those who have a passion for Sanskrit for there has not been explorations into this vast knowledge pool and there has been no proper translation with comprehensive introductories.