Spirituality vs Materialsim

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
He has no right to misguide the seekers then, if he is not taking himself seriously. The Hindu Gurus down the ages have been Sannyasins i.e.those who have given up this world and its attractions and are to live by begging from not more than 5 households once a day. They should not stay at a place for more than 3 days. They are not to talk of spiritualism ...[text shortened]... been tried and tested by them as being fit for this path. But these times are the modern days !

We both know Deepak is cashing in on the cash cow of writing to all the miserable suffering souls out there and his books will actually help a lot of people, but it will not actually deliver people from their wretched lives through gaining self realization and love of God, but it may make their materialistic lives a little more materially comfortable, by removing their depression and anxiety.

As far as Gurus go Deepak is a bogus one, but I don't think he is calling himself a Guru but just a shoulder to lean on type of guy.

He will definitely help a lot of people but don't expect from him to achieve love of God or self realization.

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you saying all the other threads here are not of good quality?

I would say that that is a pretty good deduction from that comment.

And it is also what I was intimating in my OP.

Of course, not ALL the other threads - one should NEVER generalise.

(Catch it? NEVER!)

BUt at least 76.8% of all threads on the spirituality form (regardless of the originator) have, at some stage or other, converged on a discussion of evolution/creation, and not a very enlightening one at that.

Mainly because 93.83% of THOSE threads have ended in personal abuse and/or repetitive illogical accusations.

Btw, which current threads would you personally recommend as adding value and wisdom??

Originally posted by poker87
We both know Deepak is cashing in on the cash cow of writing to all the miserable suffering souls out there and his books will actually help a lot of people, but it will not actually deliver people from their wretched lives through gaining self realization and love of God, but it may make their materialistic lives a little more materially comfortable, by removing their depression and anxiety.

What a bleak view of the world and of humanity you have! Good grief. In the previous post you claimed the book in question helped you arrive at "a whole new and fresh way of perceiving the world and life". And yet you seem so utterly pessimistic. Personally I am much more positive and optimistic and much more impressed with the human spirit than you seem to be. Does your chosen belief system accentuate your bleak outlook, perhaps, or does it inure you to all the "wretched lives" that you perceive are being lived all around you?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I submit a few cautionary words both for Caljust and avalanchethecat. Eastern mystics had always a hold on young impressionable minds, all over the world. These self styled Yogis made a pile of cash and and caused Hinduism to lose all standing and name among the spiritual seekers. Be aware of a Guru who makes möney out of his disciples and fans. From bein ...[text shortened]... o try to acquire a halo of a Guru. His advice column appears to give too slick answers at times.

See what I mean?

I just returned from my Sunday afternoon nap and already 14 replies! How can one keep up??

😀

Thanks for your response, rvsakhadeo.

I do not mean to take Deepak as my hero or guru. My point of this OP was just that I enjoyed the quality of the debate - no insults or slander, just plain logical arguments - which is so different from RHP.

If I had the book here, I would give you some quotes, and maybe I can do that later.

One point that I find difficult to accept from DC is his view that the entire universe is a living organism. Although I am familiar with the Gaya concept, (of the Earth being a living organism) I haven't come acoss that one before.

Is this the Hindi view?

Originally posted by poker87
I am saying if you get the book and read it then it will open up a whole new and fresh way of perceiving the world and life, and it will be different from all the silly wrangling going on in this forum for a change, and that is why it is a really good thread, and it is a good thread for the positive outcome it will achieve if people take up the request and buy the book.

How does this book rank beside "Forbidden Archeology"?

Originally posted by CalJust
See what I mean?

I just returned from my Sunday afternoon nap and already 14 replies! How can one keep up??

Do you really think this thread has encouraged a debate that is superior to most other debates here? You said "...only rarely is a thread really interesting enough to follow." You genuinely think this one is one of the "rare" ones or is your tongue firmly in your cheek perhaps?

Originally posted by CalJust
See what I mean?

I just returned from my Sunday afternoon nap and already 14 replies! How can one keep up??

😀

Thanks for your response, rvsakhadeo.

I do not mean to take Deepak as my hero or guru. My point of this OP was just that I enjoyed the quality of the debate - no insults or slander, just plain logical arguments - which is so different f ...[text shortened]... Earth being a living organism) I haven't come acoss that one before.

Is this the Hindi view?

Please do find to time to give quotes from this book.I will look forward to reading them and debating them.
The " Naamrupatmaka Vishwa " or this " The Universe of objects having names and appearances " i.e. which we experience every moment is a highly dynamic and transient expression of Reality.The unexpressed or unmanifest Reality is what we should seek to know. That is God.
Nowhere did I find any description of this Universe as Deepak Chopra is saying it is.

Originally posted by FMF
How does this book rank beside "Forbidden Archeology"?

Not having read it but being familiar with Chopra's work, I'd hazard that it doesn't attempt to masquerade as science.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo

Hi rvsakhadeo,

Your point is very valid.

I once met DC personally at a seminar in Lausanne, at the IMD. (Institute for Management Development.) Even then, in the '90s, he was already an international celebrity. But his impression on me has been lasting - a peaceful and serene man.

Are you by any chance familiar with the Centre for Action and Contemplation, cacradicalgrace.org? That is a Christian (Catholic) based site striving for a deeper level of understanding and reconciliation between the faiths.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you really think this thread has encouraged a debate that is superior to most other debates here? You said "...only rarely is a thread really interesting enough to follow." You genuinely think this one is one of the "rare" ones or is your tongue firmly in your cheek perhaps?

Hi FMF,

No, clearly this thread has not yet encouraged any kind of debate, and no, I do not think it is superior to most other threads.

But be honest - did you enjoy the thread where you and RJH ping-ponged for about five pages saying: "You said I lied - so show me exactly what I said", and RJH responded "I already told you where you lied, but I have forgiven you" 😏 ! (His grin, not mine!)

Did you think that was a valuable, intellectual debate??

Or the current Ice Core "debate" which just rehashes stuff said 100x before??

😠

Incidentally, it is generally the YECs that cannot respond to any kind of scientific data, and therefore need to react emotionally and irrationally. My sympathies (strange bedfellows!) are generally with the atheists!

But then again the atheists mess it up by immediatley seeing the need to trash the whole Bible when they dismiss a crazy YEC argument: See for example

Googlefudge Feb 11 16:18 to RJH
You are an ignorant, arrogant, bible thumping YEC, with all the scientific understanding of a medieval goat herder.
Your bible is utter nonsense and drivel, written by people who thought the world was flat.

The first statement may follow from what preceded, but the second statement is another debate entirely!

In your opinion, is this a logical corollary?

And has anybody learned anything by that exchange??

But if that kind of debate turns you on, fine! To each his own!

Originally posted by CalJust
Incidentally, it is generally the YEC's that cannot respond to any kind of scientific data, and therefore need to react emotionally and irrationally. My sympathies (strange bedfellows!) are generally with the atheists!

But then again the atheists mess it up by immediately seeing the need to trash the whole Bible when they dismiss a crazy YEC argument: See ...[text shortened]... t statement may follow from what preceded, but the second statement is another debate entirely!

Well I spent months trying to be reasonable with RJHinds before deciding that he just doesn't
know what reason is.


The Bible IS utter nonsense and drivel, and WAS written by people who thought the world was flat.

http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/

It encourages belief based on faith which is deeply dangerous and objectively wrong and flawed.

The morality is backwards and deeply flawed, in both the old AND new testaments.

And it over simplifies morality and moral judgements.

I admit that it has some nice poetry in places (depending on the translation) and can contain some
beautiful artwork... but that doesn't change the fact that what it says is abominable.



I would love to have reasoned and reasonable discussion based on evidence and reason...

Unfortunately reason is the very thing that you have to abandon to be a theist.

Theists haven't come up with any new arguments in centuries, and all of them have been debunked.
There is no logical or rational argument for belief in god until and if such a time as evidence is discovered that
indicates that god or gods exist.


If you want to know why I keep on at the same tired arguments time and time again... read my OP in the
Pro-Life? thread.

Originally posted by CalJust
But be honest - did you enjoy the thread where you and RJH ping-ponged for about five pages saying: "You said I lied - so show me exactly what I said", and RJH responded "I already told you where you lied, but I have forgiven you"

Why did you read the thread then?

Why did you read five pages of the thread?

I reckon your charmless complaining about the forum being boring is the most boring stuff that's been posted on the forum today. 😵

Originally posted by CalJust
Btw, which current threads would you personally recommend as adding value and wisdom??

That would be a pointless excercise as you have already read them all and formed your opinion.

Unless of course there is another motive in you inviting me to point out my pearls in your trash?

Originally posted by FMF
Why did you read the thread then?

Why did you read five pages of the thread?

I reckon your charmless complaining about the forum being boring is the most boring stuff that's been posted on the forum today. 😵

I find it amusing when members like CalJust and Poker87 complain that a free to join internet forum is of poor spiritual and intellectual quality, decide to come everyday month after month to rummage through threads that are of no value to them whatsoever, and then they stay to complain about it.

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi FMF,

No, clearly this thread has not yet encouraged any kind of debate, and no, I do not think it is superior to most other threads.

But be honest - did you enjoy the thread where you and RJH ping-ponged for about five pages saying: "You said I lied - so show me exactly what I said", and RJH responded "I already told you where you lied, but I have f hing by that exchange??

But if that kind of debate turns you on, fine! To each his own!

It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. -- attribution uncertain, but not me.

It is probably OK to critique the level of discussion here (I wouldn't call it debate.)

But to promote, at the same time, a position on DC's Spirituality vs Materialism positions and recommend reading a book or two, well, that's fine too. Although if reading the books is a prerequisite, I am not prepared. I would however, ask for a definition of the terms Spirituality and Materialism, and of what places them at odds. At first glance this does not seem to be a discussion primarily focused on substance ontology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory). I say this because my initial take on the term materialism is ontological, in opposition to some sort of ontological idealism. I lean toward a sort of non-dualism.

But I suppose I need clarification if DC is speaking of materialism as attachment to material goods in opposition to some sort of higher mental attitude toward the good.

Do you now want to set aside the discussion of thread quality and get into the thread subject in earnest?

Let's just get to it. Lead by example.