flamy

[dial_100]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Soul as well as 'Ruh' is very much different from atma/atman. Dharmic theories of Atman is very much different from the 'Religious' view of 'Soul' in biblical sense. One should NOT equate the two. Here's the basic difference.

 

https://rajivmalhotra.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SanskritNonTranslatables.pdf

 

ATMAN IS NOT SOUL

In dharmic tradition, the true nature of self or Atman is sat-chit-ananda. The true nature of Atman can be realised with sadhana or adhyatma vidya. Atman is present in plants and animals. Hence nature is as sacred as the self. Atman reincarnates. Hence the body is cremated once atman has departed.

 

In Christianity or even Islam, all humans are born as sinners due to original sin by adam&eve. Hence the true self or Soul is sinful. Only through Jesus/Allah can the Soul attain salvation. Soul is NOT PRESENT in plants and animal. In Bible, GOD gave mankind dominion over plants and animals. Soul DOES NOT reincarnate. Hence in Christianity/Islam you get only one body that must be preserved till the 'end of time' for resurgence, just in case the soul comes back. Hence, they don't cremate , but bury. 

 

Hence Christians say 'Rest in Peace' when somebody dies. When hindus die, 'Rest in Peace' message doesn't make sense. We should hence say 'Om Shanti' or say 'let the atma attain sadgati' and merge with paramatma!

 

 

I am not religious. I dont agree with anything what was said by that person. But it is all ok.

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, dial_100 said:

 

I am not religious. I dont agree with anything what was said by that person. But it is all ok.

Atma is a dharmic word coming from sanskrit and it can't be used loosely with English words which originate from Christianity.  What is not to agree there? You need not be religious to know the origin of words and its true meaning. This is from an etymological point of view.

Edited March 14, 2018 by coffee_rules

[dial_100]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Atma is a dharmic word coming from sanskrit and it can't be used loosely with English words which originate from Christianity.  What is not to agree there? You need not be religious to know the origin of words and its true meaning. This is from an etymological point of view.

Again I am not big fan semantics. discussing it is somewhat petty for my liking. Besides I dont like to read, feel or smell about a Mithai (sweets) when I can eat it myself and understand. Same thing goes for the word Atma, Spirit or Pure Consciousness.

 

And what is this Dharmic word? The whole Bramhand is for each and everyone equally. Difference would only be at the semantics level. But deeper meaning is same. Just because the word is misunderstood by some in biblical references doesnt really mean we all did. 

[Temujin Khaghan]

@flamy

have you stopped smoking weed bro?

 

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, dial_100 said:

Again I am not big fan semantics. discussing it is somewhat petty for my liking. Besides I dont like to read, feel or smell about a Mithai (sweets) when I can eat it myself and understand. Same thing goes for the word Atma, Spirit or Pure Consciousness.

 

And what is this Dharmic word? The whole Bramhand is for each and everyone equally. Difference would only be at the semantics level. But deeper meaning is same. Just because the word is misunderstood by some in biblical references doesnt really mean we all did. 

Study of language, words , etymology is not semantics. It is a science by itself.  If we make up our own meaning of words, we will form cults and echo chambers. 

Apologize for spoiling the sanctity of Flamy's thread, agree rhat the search of inner self, self exploration and  realization of one's magnified self worth is one's own journey, one has to take paying the fare on his own. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by coffee_rules

[flamy]

Oh God, help! Religious fanatics have taken over my thread 

5 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

@flamy

have you stopped smoking weed bro?

 

Why would I do that?

[dial_100]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Study of language, words , etymology is not semantics. It is a science by itself.  If we make up our own meaning of words, we will form cults and echo chambers. 

Apologize for spoiling the sanctity of Flamy's thread, agree rhat the search of inner self, self exploration and  realization of one's magnified self worth is one's own journey, one has to take paying the fare on his own. 

I know, even I am guilty of hijacking this thread. I will leave it there. Only thing is, for me the closest word for Atma in english would be Soul or Spirit or pure consciousness. I aint english expert or a native english speaker but I am not oblivious to the term Atma. And there is nothing wrong in forming any cult. As it is we know that the current religions are lacking lot of things. So it is okay to have a cult that believes in the core ideas of all the religions but not believe in 1 particular religion as a whole. That can be left with the owners of those religions.

 

May be we could discuss that on a separate thread and leave this one for Flamy. Flamy bro sorry to digress here.

 

[flamy]

16 hours ago, zen said:

Haven’t gone through all the posts in details so may hv missed something but I guess it is hard to understand your own self if you only love yourself as love is said to be blind 

 

Iirc, there is a story about Akbar asking Birbal to bring him the most good looking kid, and Birbal, considered to be a think tank, brought his own son (probably blinded by love)

 

Pharos were in self love mode too, which resulted in creating pyramids for themselves so they can probably continue to love themselves even after death  

 

BD cricketers are in self love mode too

 

Where is substance? How to acquire substance? 

I'm seeing that people seem to have their own connotation of self-love, so lemme clarify where I'm coming from.

 

The way we love begins with how we love ourselves. And, the way we love others is an extension of how we love ourselves.

 

For example, I tend to be a perfectionist. So, if I decide that something I did was not up to the mark in something I did, I tend to get critical with myself and hold back love (getting less perfect day by day!)

 

I noticed that I tended to do this in my other relationships also, where if they would make a mistake, my first reaction was of censure instead of compassion. I would of course restrain myself from hurting them by saying anything, but it was still work to do that, and there were times I'd slip. Once, I started being compassionate with myself, the charge of shame/censure dissolved, and I could extend the same compassion to my loved ones easily.

 

Self-love does not mean being self-involved. Because, when I truly love myself, it means I truly allow my love to expand, not to constrict itself, otherwise what'd be the fun? Thus, my love for myself, naturally shows up in my love for the world.

 

And, love is not blind, fear is. It is not love to look over someone's shortcomings, that is actually fear. Because, love would look at the shortcomings and not be afraid to love them just so without having to change anything. The fear is one's own fear of not being ready to accept shortcomings in loved ones and hence glossing over them by pretending there is no shortcoming.

 

Love doesn't pretend, Love is Truth.

[flamy]

@dial_100 and @coffee_rules, you are fine. You guys only helped add weight to my case as to why I don't focus on the semantics aspects of things. :-)

[dial_100]

I agree

[zen]

6 hours ago, flamy said:

I'm seeing that people seem to have their own connotation of self-love, so lemme clarify where I'm coming from.

 

The way we love begins with how we love ourselves. And, the way we love others is an extension of how we love ourselves.

 

For example, I tend to be a perfectionist. So, if I decide that something I did was not up to the mark in something I did, I tend to get critical with myself and hold back love (getting less perfect day by day!)

 

I noticed that I tended to do this in my other relationships also, where if they would make a mistake, my first reaction was of censure instead of compassion. I would of course restrain myself from hurting them by saying anything, but it was still work to do that, and there were times I'd slip. Once, I started being compassionate with myself, the charge of shame/censure dissolved, and I could extend the same compassion to my loved ones easily.

 

Self-love does not mean being self-involved. Because, when I truly love myself, it means I truly allow my love to expand, not to constrict itself, otherwise what'd be the fun? Thus, my love for myself, naturally shows up in my love for the world.

 

And, love is not blind, fear is. It is not love to look over someone's shortcomings, that is actually fear. Because, love would look at the shortcomings and not be afraid to love them just so without having to change anything. The fear is one's own fear of not being ready to accept shortcomings in loved ones and hence glossing over them by pretending there is no shortcoming.

 

Love doesn't pretend, Love is Truth.

Good points. In a way similar to economists suggesting that if everyone behaves rationally, in the end, everyone would benefit. However, we display irrational behaviour more often than we would like to 

 

One of the key characteristics of true love is to be able to make sacrifices. Whether it be for a person or the nation or whatever. I take it that there would be no conflict of interest in your way of love