For those who use RIP on DFI

[blank_quest]

Here it is not peace but the rest that makes all the difference.

 

[blank_quest]

In Hinduism there is NO Rest for soul,it keeps going through the cycle.This cycle stops when the Soul merges with THE GOD aka Brahma through MOKSHA aka Liberation.

 

[Singh]

In Hinduism there is NO Rest for soul,it keeps going through the cycle.This cycle stops when the Soul merges with THE GOD aka Brahma through MOKSHA aka Liberation.

Moksha aka liberation for some mean liberation from rebirth cycle. And a few Sects call Moksha to be worse than being confined to hell (metaphorically speaking). Although some other sects, to go into more technicalities, believe moksha to be a state of self-determined rebirth.

RIP suddenly sounds better

 

[blank_quest]

Moksha aka liberation for some mean liberation from rebirth cycle. And a few Sects call Moksha to be worse than being confined to hell (metaphorically speaking). Although some other sects, to go into more technicalities, believe moksha to be a state of self-determined rebirth.

RIP suddenly sounds better

Liberation has many Margs like Bhakti Marga , Jyana Marga , Karma Marga , Its not easy to classify but I will still post Near-Meanings of Liberation.

 

[blank_quest]

Here "merging" has different meaning.
Grossly speaking--
Vaishnavite's School::==>Composed of Two Philosophers Madhva Acharya and Ramanuja Acharya (Acharya means who impart Wisdom) gave concepts of Soul/God etc based of Vedas where they
Interpreted the Verse of Vedas in context where--->GOD and Soul are "Separate" and essentially "/different/non-different" nature of Soul wrt GOD--> for then there is Bhakti Marga (devotion path) --> This means Liberation will occur through "grace of GOD" via Bhakti Marg(devotion path) similar ( but not exactly) as in Christianity.

In Shaivite's School => Shankara Acharya -->Interpreted the Verse of Vedas in context where---> Soul And God Both are Non-different ( NOT equals to Same) and Liberation comes from "Realization" through "Gyana" i.e Self-Knowledge. Thus Gyan Margi. (Gyana that Self is non-different from God)

Similar is Karma marga/Yoga Marga in Mimanska/Naya-Yoga Schools.. More detail will take much time

 

[blank_quest]

All Schools believe in Cycle of Birth and Death. Even hell and heaven are NOT PERMANENT for them.Its just transitory where deeds are fructified and again Soul is send i.e again comes into the cycle of birth and death- for Liberation ( Ultimate AIM is merging with GOD)

 

[blank_quest]

Tat Tvam Asi (Sanskrit: तत् त्वम् असि or तत्त्वमसि), a Sanskrit sentence, translated variously as "That art thou," "That thou art," "Thou art that," "You are that," or "That you are," is one of the Mahāvākyas (Grand Pronouncements) in Vedantic Sanatana Dharma. It originally occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7,[1] in the dialogue between Uddalaka and his son Śvetaketu; it appears at the end of a section, and is repeated at the end of the subsequent sections as a refrain. The meaning of this saying is that the Self - in its original, pure, primordial state - is wholly or partially identifiable or identical with the Ultimate Reality that is the ground and origin of all phenomena.
Major Vedantic schools offer different interpretations of the phrase:
Advaita - absolute equality of 'tat', the Ultimate Reality, Brahman, and 'tvam', the Self, Jiva.
Shuddhadvaita - oneness in "essence" between 'tat' and individual self; but 'tat' is the whole and self is a part.
Vishishtadvaita - identity of individual self as a part of the whole which is 'tat', Brahman.
Dvaitadvaita - equal non-difference and difference between the individual self as a part of the whole which is 'tat'.
Dvaita" "  of Madhvacharya - "Sa atmaa-tat tvam asi" in Sanskrit is actually "Sa atma-atat tvam asi" or "Atman, thou art not that". In refutation of Mayavada (Mayavada sata dushani), text 6, 'tat tvam asi" is translated as "you are a servant of the Supreme (Vishnu)"
Acintya Bheda Abheda - inconceivable oneness and difference between individual self as a part of the whole which is 'tat'.
" " Note: We find pumlinga Sabdās such as Brahman, Ä€tman, Rājan, Åšarman, Varman appearing as Brahmā, Ä€tmā, Rajā, Varmā, Åšarmā in Vishnu Sahasranaamam. Whenever the word "Brahmā" appears, it actually means "Brahman." Similarly, Ä€tmā means Ä€tman, Åšarmā means Åšarman, etc. Even in Sandhya Vandanam, whose mantras are essentially a part of Veda, in the Invocation(Ä€vāhanam) of GāyātrÄ« it comes as Brahmaa Åširaha(ब्रह्माशिरः). It does not mean that the mantra means Brahmaa AÅ›iraha (ब्रह्म+अशिरः); it actually means Brahman Åširaha (ब्रह्मन्+शिरः).

Tat Tvam Asi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[blank_quest]

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/mahavakyas.asp

 

[blank_quest]

Mahāvākyas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[opesys]

Re: RIP not the right word for followers of Dharmic Religion

On the same note.

Did any "Hindu" find the movie "Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara" contrary to their beliefs ?

Have you watched the movie ? or are you just hung up on the literal meaning of every words in 'Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara' ?
I think the movie's main message was that one should not worry about the past or the future...one should just live in the present moment and lead a meaningful life... Even if the move was named as 'Jee le zara' (pardon my hindi, i don't speak that very well) the movie would have made sense. Hundreds of other titles can be given to movie which will convey 'live in the present' message and the movie will make perfect sense...Now what has this got to do with any belief system ?
Based on your logic, 'The Dirty Picture' was a super hit too...so does that mean now all Indian girls wants to become like Vidya Balan's character in that movie ?

P.S. I am not religious.

 

[blank_quest]

Sanskrit Structure

 

[Bangalorean]

I saw this "RIP, RIP" business on PDF for the first time, when I was an active member there around 2 years back. Every time there was a terror attack or violent incident in Pakistan (which is almost daily), hundreds of Indians would type "RIP, RIP, RIP"...

 

[blank_quest]

The Mahavakyas (sing.: mahāvākya, महावाक्य; plural: mahāvākyāni, महावाक्यानि) are "The Great Sayings" of the Upanishads, the foundational texts of Vedanta. Though there are many Mahavakyas, four of them, one from each of the four Vedas, are often mentioned as "the Mahavakyas".[1] The subject matter and the essence of all Upanishads being the same, all the Upanishadic Mahavakyas express this one universal message in the form of terse and concise statements. In later Sanskrit usage, however, the term mahāvākya came to mean "discourse," and specifically, discourse on a philosophically lofty topic.[2]
The four Upanishadic statements indicate the ultimate unity of the individual (Atman) with Supreme (Brahman).
The Mahavakyas are:
prajñānam brahma - "Consciousness is Brahman" (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
ayam ātmā brahma - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda)
tat tvam asi - "Thou art That" (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda)
aham brahmāsmi - "I am Brahman" (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)

Mahāvākyas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[blank_quest]

Veda's and Vedanta's are different .Vedanta's are the Ending or Later Books of Discussion of Veda's (Veda+Anta==Veda+Ending, here Anta=Ending) and are often referred as Upanishads.

 

[blank_quest]

Interpretation will always vary as "Textual","Contextual" etc will always vary.. Sanskrit Structure

Discourse semantics:
K.Kapoor in his article 'Linguistic meaning and Referential Results: Initiating note' traces the relationship between śabda (word) and Artha (meaning) and their status in the Indian Grammatical system. Indian Grammarians have argued two levels of reality of both śabda and Artha, viz: (1) Physical reality (2) Conceptual reality

The Author states that the relationships between śabda and Artha is complex and raises some issues regarding the nature and process of verbal cognition. They are :

(1) What is śabda and what is Artha?
(2) What are the different kinds of Artha as per Indian theories of meaning?
(3) What is the typology of Primary meaning?
(4) For different kinds of meaning, is the reference universal?
(5) Is the Linguistic meaning referential or conceptualized?
(6) Whether the Linguistic meaning contradicts our knowledge of reality?
(7) What is the process of communication? How does the word succeed in communicating
or evoking the given meaning?
(8) Do the universals exist? Is it valid to separate qualities from the Universals? How qualities
differ from actions?
Author compares the Indian theories of meaning to the western theories of meaning; particularly the modern theory propagated by Ogden-Richards and comes to the conclusion that the western theory of relationship between word and referent is fundamentally not different from the Indian theories particularly of the grammarians. He points out two explanatory theories of Indian Grammarians, viz: (1) śabda Advaita vāda (2) śabda Adhyāsa vāda and also Buddhist theory of meaning who deny any sort of relation between śabda and Artha and claiming the conceptual cognitions as being illusory.

 

[blank_quest]

Has anyone read Indian Logic ?? It is one of the best Logic's propounded. Nyaya Philosophy is wow

 

[blank_quest]

Analytic Philosophy in Early Modern India (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Ray]

How does it matter?

Whoever is dead is dead as a door-nail, as the saying goes.

Say what you want. it will make no difference to the dead.

Religion and dead men are cold enough to freeze the balls off (or on) a brass monkey.

 

[blank_quest]

How does it matter?

Whoever is dead is dead as a door-nail, as the saying goes.

Say what you want. it will make no difference to the dead.

Religion and dead men are cold enough to freeze the balls off (or on) a brass monkey.

Dead is of course dead Sir ji, But Indian Philosophy is NOT only about Death and Hereafter. Its about life/logic/philosophy and how we see life.Its Materialism and Idealism both in One. I find it as the general tendency to discard the Indian Dharma/Darshana (Philosophy) without even knowing what it is at face value. Orthodoxy itself prevailed because Pundits kept common people away from understanding the Veda's.I just find it pretty insulting how people feel that Indian Dharma/Darshana are useless without even trying of knowing it.

The problem with other Religion is also the same.People were kept away to analyse and interpret the "text" and that made Orthodoxy even perverted.That is the main reason why Mullahs/Pundits are brazenly abused still today.

 

[Ray]

Orthodoxy itself prevailed because Pundits kept common people away from understanding the Veda's.

It is the age old trick of the clergy of all religions and some even now impart scriptures in a language unknown to adherents.

In Catholic churches, the language used to be Latin. People chanted in that language without knowing a fig about Latin.

Till of late, the Bible used Olde English - thy, thine, knowest, etc.

In short, it is the clergy that converted the spiritual into the temporal for their own pre-eminence.

That is why I wrote that Religion is cold!