Posts Tagged ‘Black Hole’
Friday, July 2nd, 2010
Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Nota Bene II
We are asking so many questions about God, but can we ask just a few questions for ourselves? Do we really believe in God? If we really believe in Him, then we wouldn’t be doing what we are doing now. If He really comes in front of us, then we would not be treating Him as we are treating Him now when He is not present in front of us. If He really comes here and sees us doing what we are not supposed to be doing, then would He be proud of us after all His teaching and preaching?
Questions to ask for ourselves:
If we really believe in Him, then have we ever tried to achieve a few good qualities of Him? If we believe in humanity, then how come we, at times, become inhumane to others? We should not be asking for death of others, as in case of death sentence, for the death of our loved ones. God never preached an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather He taught us for forgiveness. How can we ask for forgiveness from Him, if are not willing to forgive others? If He is merciful, then why we do not show mercy to others? Why we hurt others or kill them – doesn’t matter if they are animals or humans, friends or foes, rich or poor, good or bad, justified or unjustified, for good or for bad. If we believe Him as the judge of everyone then why are we judging others? If we believe He does justice to others, then how can we do injustice to others? If we believe He is the boss, then why we take His law in our hands and try to be bossy on others. If we know He has tolerated and suffered for others and is still doing so, then why we are not so tolerant to others. Why we bother whom, why, and how others worship to Him, if we are not sure for ourselves why, how, and whom we worship. If we cannot develop any of His good qualities in us, then how can we expect Him to enjoy our company in His abode? If we firmly believe in Him, then why do we have doubt in Him? If we believe in Him then why do we have double standards – one for us and one for others; or why do we have triple standards for our own self – for thinking something else, saying something else, and doing something else?
Lastly, a few words about the science:
Let’s ask a few questions about the science and religion. Has anyone heard any scientists saying, “I study and teach science, astronomy, or physics in college and university, but I do not believe in black hole,” or “I do not believe that black hole exists.” “Well, Gravity is Gravity, but, I believe in Newton’s Gravity and do not believe in Einstein’s Gravity.” “I teach solar system, but I do not believe that the sun is at the center.” “I do not believe that the earth is round. I personally believe that the earth is flat.” Well, this happens in case of religion and religious philosophy. One may hear, among religious philosophers, saying that, “I study and teach religious philosophy, but, I do not believe in God or in His existence.” “I teach religion but I do not believe in Western God. I believe in Eastern God.” “I preach about the religious practices and commands of God to others, but, I personally do not believe in strictly following them.” In science the measures used, for example, of time, length, volume, mass, etc., are standard: nationally and internationally, globally and universally, for the scientists and for laymen, for poor and rich, or for believers and for non-believers. Well, for religion, the measures or ethical and moral do’s and don’ts, such as, not to steal, not to deceive, not to adulterate, not to gain or use wealth in wrongful way, to do humanitarian or charitable work, etc. are all relative, never absolute or neutral. They change according to the person, time, circumstances, creed, greed, wealth, color, race, gender, sexual orientation, and individual preferences. We see double or triple standards for ourselves and for others, for believing, preaching, and practicing. We talk about the Truth but we try to hide the truth. The science proposes and publishes theories, but never impose upon others to believe them. Whichever theory is true would be survived in the harsh experimental testing and rigorous argumentative discourses and debates and then would be accepted widely until it is disproved by another theory that would be more truthful, veridical, and realistic. Science is open to accept the truth and is also open to reject the un-truth. In case of religion, it is not like that. God’s words are all revealed in the scriptures but we want, to believe and interpret them, subjectively, according to our own will, likings, preferences, or necessities. Not only that we want to promote and impose upon others what we believe is true, simply because of our deep faith and love in ourselves. In religion, we are not open to accept criticism, nor are we willing to accept other beliefs simply because we do not know the truth. Until then belief simply remain as a belief. These are the differences between trust in the science and faith in the religion. For the majority of people, in the current era of modernization, religion has remained the subject of belief and discussion only, whereas, science is becoming day by day the subject of trust. The root cause of the difference is in the application or practicing. Whatever the science says people apply and whatever religion says people are reluctant to put into practice.
Why the science and spirituality do not go together? Why religions shy away from the science and why many scientists do not believe in God? Spirituality is based on the faith while science is based on the facts. Spirituality has no limitations, science has limitations. Spirituality thinks farther and faster but philosophically, science thinks comparatively nearer and slower but firmly. We can say that spirituality is far-sighted, science is near-sighted. If we believe in God, then we should not have to worry even for science. Science can make us untrue but not the god. If we worry about the science, then in fact we are worried about ourselves, about the philosophies that we have created, about the understanding of the scriptures that we have interpreted, and about the explanations of God that we have enforced to or imparted upon others, that we might be disproved otherwise by the science. If we do worry, then believe that, God also worries with us. If God doesn’t worry then why should we worry at all? Shouldn’t we be that courageous or confident? Science is not our enemy. Science is our friend helping us to understand the truth, to correct us if we are doing anything mistakenly. Are not we supposed to be using the science to explore the Truth, to propagate the Truth, and to keep us alive and healthy for long to enjoy the bliss of the Truth? Science and spirituality go together and cannot be separated from our lives. As religious people, we might think that science is our enemy, but on the contrary, science is our rival in searching for the truth. So, let it race and go deeper and deeper. It will ultimately help us. Ultimately, a day will come when science will also be ineffable and say, “Truth is there, but we are incapable to describe it.” “Not this, not this,” as it is said for God in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, “Neti, Neti” meaning, “this is not the Truth, the Truth is still beyond – beyond our reach, beyond our description, and beyond our understanding.” God is indescribable.
Tags:a tooth for a tooth, Absolute, an eye for an eye, animals, application, astronomy, bad, belief, believe, believers, believing, Black Hole, bliss, boss, Brihadaranyaka, charitable, circumstances, color, commands, Concluding comments, confident, courageous, creed, criticism, Darshan, debates, discourses, discussion, disproved, do’s and don’ts, double standards, Earth, enemy, enforced, ethical, experimental, explanations, facts, faith, far-sighted, foes, forgiveness, friend, friends, gender, globally, God, good, gravity, greed, humanitarian, humanity, humans, hurt, imparted upon, impose upon, indescribable, ineffable, inhumane, injustice, internationally, interpret, interpretations, judge, justice, justified, laymen, length, liking, love, mass, measures, merciful, mercy, modernization, moral, nationally, near-sighted, necessities, Neti, neutral, non-believers, Nota Bene, person, Philosophy, physics, poor, practice, practicing, preaching, preference, preferences, promote, race, realistic, relative, religion, religious practices, rich, rival, science, Scientists, sexual orientation, Shad Darshan, spirituality, standard, subject, subjectively, sun, testing, time, tolerant, triple standards, trust, Truth, truthful, understanding, universally, unjustified, Upanishad, veridical, volume, wealth, will, worry
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Nota Bene II | Comments Closed
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Swaminarayan philosophy – Summary
Summary
Swaminarayan philosophy can be summarized as one of the major philosophical trees in the garden of the main stream Hinduism. Its main trunk of Dharma, Gnan, Vairagya, and Bhakti is based on the five fundamental realities (tattvas), namely, Jiv, Ishwar, Maya, Brahm, and Parabrahm. Its religious rituals and observances, such as, observation of tapa, vrata, dāna, yoga, yagna, kriyā-kānd, dharma, dhyān, gyān, vairāgya, pujā, pāth, and bhakti are its branches and leaves. Aksharbrahm is its flower and Parabrahm Purushottam (God) is its actual (sākār) fruit having real existence.
Looking to its features, Swaminarayan philosophy can be summarized as the sum total of the essences of all other philosophies of Hinduism. In it one can always find something good of other philosophies and other religions of the world. One can possibly find from it the answers for many of the ontological and philosophical questions arising in understanding the other philosophies. Not only that, for those who are interested, it also mentions some of the major scientific (physical) aspects of the creation or physical world (cosmos) first given by Hinduism to the mankind, such as, the ideas of multiverse or many universes (anant koti brahmands), the Fifth force (akshar) which pulls or accelerates galaxies away from each other, invisible shields (ashtāvarans) of forces or energies around the universe (brahmand), radiation (sutrātmā) body, Black Hole (avyākrut), White Hole (Chidakash), Worm Hole (Archi Marg), space (ākāsh) in atom, divisions of mind (four types of antahkaran), consciousness (chitt), division of living-beings (udbhij, svedaj, andaj, and jarāyuj), superbugs (antahshatrus and swabhāvas) which are subtler than even viruses and the main cause of the social epidemics, disturbance of the world peace, malfunctioning of the society, loss of mental peace, and physical health of the individual body.
All of the realities that we see or observe in the cosmos could easily fit into one of the above five categories of fundamental ontological elements or tattvas.
The question may arise, why five fundamental elements and not just three? The two new fundamental realities or elements are not new or newly discovered. They were there in the scriptures of Hinduism, but, the scholars did not, somehow, specify or identify them until Shri Swaminarayan came, explained, and identified them.
Now, let’s try to understand their presence, by elimination method, to see what happens if we take them out or eliminated one by one. Jiv (soul) and Maya (matter) or Nature (material world) cannot be eliminated from the religious philosophy. If we eliminate soul tattva then the whole system of salvation and worship falls apart. Who will get salvation and from what? If the category of Ishwar tattva is taken away or removed, then either many Purushas (universal souls of each brahmands) will become many Gods or God will be directly involved in the creation, sustenance, and destruction of each and every brahmand. This will be like the president stepping down to the position of CEO. If the category of Brahm is eliminated, then the souls will have to become God-like instead of Brahm-like or the souls will have to be at the God’s level for salvation and the unparalleled God would be paralleled by many God-like figures. If Parabrahm or God’s category is eliminated, then it would be like removing the head leaving behind rest of the body. The whole creation would be without Godhead. The abode of God (Brahm) would be without his master. So, five fundamental categories of Tattvas seem to be necessary to explain everything that exists in the nature or creation. We can reduce all the realities, whether they may be one, two, three, or five, to finally just one reality – God and can say it the “Spiritual Theory of Everything” (S-TOE), as against the material Theory of Everything (TOE).
This concludes the major philosophies of the Hinduism in a nutshell.
Tags:abode of God, Akash, akshar, Aksharbrahm, anant koti brahmands, Andaj, antahkaran, antahshatrus, Archi Marg, ashtāvarans, atom, Avyākrut, bhakti, Black Hole, body, Brahm, Brahm-like, brahmand, cause, Chidākāsh, chitt, consciousness, cosmos, Creation, dāna, Darshan, destruction, dharma, dhyān, disturbance, elements, energies, Fifth force, forces, fundamental, galaxies, Gnān, God, Godhead, gyan, Hinduism, identify, invisible, Ishwar, Jarāyuj, jiv, kriyā-kānd, living beings, malfunctioning, many universes, master, material, matter, maya, mental peace, mind, multiverse, Nature, observances, observe, ontological, Parabrahm, pāth, Philosophy, physical, physical health, pujā, purushas, Purushottam, radiation, realities, religious, rituals, S-TOE, sākār, salvation, scholars, scientific, Scriptures, Shad Darshan, shields, social epidemics, society, soul, space, specify, Spiritual Theory of Everything, subtler, Summary, superbugs, sustenance, Sutrātmā, svedaj, swabhāvas, Swaminarayan, tapa, tattvas, Theory of Everything, TOE, Udbhij, universal souls, universe, unparalleled, Vairagya, Vedānta, viruses, vrata, White Hole, world, World Peace, Worm Hole, worship, yagna, Yoga
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Navya Vishishtadvaita, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies, Summary | Comments Closed
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies (contd.):
Swaminarayan philosophy – Brahm
Brahm, Akshar, or Aksharbrahm: Part IV
The abode of Purushottam (God) is known as Akshardham. Swaminarayan philosophy describes that, once reaching in Akshardham the souls get another type of body than the worldly body. It is called aprākrut or divine, brahm-like, body called brahmmaya tanu. The souls are now known as Muktas of Akshardham or Aksharmuktas. Because Akshardham is beyond the space, time, karma, and maya, space-time doesn’t reach there, along with that the ordinary light also does not reach there; maya doesn’t reach there, so, maya’s inherent characteristics called three gunas also doesn’t reach there; and karma or deeds doesn’t reach there, so the soul’s destiny or fate is determined by God’s will only. In other words when the soul becomes completely free from these attachments of influencing factors, then only goes to Akshardham. This is the reason why Akshardham or Brahmdham is called in the scriptures as the final destination of the souls. Secondly, because of the above mentioned transcendental nature of Brahm or Brahmdham, there is no aging there, no decaying there, no gender differentiation is there, or not any of the physical worldly characteristics of the body is there. Moreover, material wealth does not reach there, bodily relatives and their relations are not maintained there, worldly sensual pleasures or pain, comfort or sufferings does not reach there.
This abode of God, Akshardham, is filled with cool, extremely bright luminescence of divine light (different than ordinary light) irradiating from Purushottam. Laws of physical sciences, life sciences, social sciences, or any of the worldly sciences doesn’t apply here, only the laws of spiritual science (brahmvidyā) or the laws of the Supreme Being apply here. One can think of any imaginable thing in the Aksharbrahm, but everything would be in the divine form. It is the final resting place of no return for the liberated souls (muktas) where all the souls are equally divine (divya), bright (tejomaya) and luminescent (prakāsh-yukta), equidistant from God, and forever enjoy the bliss of God. All souls here are similar in looks and brightness. There is no age differentiation, gender differentiation, skin-color differentiation, race differentiation, animal or plant (kingdom) differentiation, phylum, class, order, family, genus, or species differentiation among the muktas. They all look like Brahm and Parabrahm. The only difference is ontological difference, which is still maintained. All liberated souls (Aksharmuktas) are equally powerful but not as powerful, potential, and capable as Brahm, and Brahm is not as powerful as Parabrahm (God). God is omnipotent or all-powerful.
The essence of Brahm or Akshar is Parabrahm or Purushottam. Akshar, Brahm or Aksharbrahm is described, in the scriptures, as the body or “sharir” of Parabrahm and Parabrahm is described as “Shariri” or ātmā (soul) of Brahm or Akshar. Both Brahm and Akshar are the terms used synonymously in the scriptures. So, sometimes it is called “Aksharbrahm.” Brahm, Akshar, and Aksharbrahm are the three names of one and same ontological entity. It is described to be Sagun and Nirgun. Sagun (sa + guna, means, with attributes) Brahm has all the worldly attributes, whereas, Nirgun (nihi + guna, means, without attributes) Brahm is transcendental, divine, and without having any attributes. Sagun means gross form of Brahm and Nirgun means microscopic or subtle form of Brahm. Sagun Brahm is larger than even the largest objects combined. Its largeness or magnitude is such that countless brahmands look like mere atoms floating in its sagun form. Nirgun Brahm is subtler than even the subtlest object or an ordinary space in the atom so that it pervades everything. If we see in the eyes of ordinary space (Ākāsh), which is tinier than an atom, there is space everywhere and atoms are very far and wide. If we see in the eyes of superspace (Chidākāsh or divine space), superspace (Chidākāsh or divine space) is everywhere and universes are very far and wide looking merely like atoms such is the vastness of Brahm. Chidakash seems to be exactly opposite of Maya. Scientifically speaking, analogically, if Maya (the avyakrut form of universe and the multiverse) is Black Hole, Chidakash can be analogized as the White Hole, and the Archi Marg (the direct path or highway for the free soul leading to Brahmdham – the highest abode of God connecting Brahmrandhra of the body to the center of Aksharbrahm) can be analogized as the tunnel or the Worm Hole connecting the two.
Secondly, almost hundred year old, Big Bang theory may be true for single universe but the Steady State theory can be applied to the multiverse of Sagun Brahm. Brahm is eternal. It has no beginning and no end. It doesn’t contract or expand. It does not change its appearance, topology, shape, and size over the period of time. It is homogenous and isotropic in space and time. It is uniform in all directions. For the big bang theory, the scientists have few questions, such as, from where the matter came into the fireball, what or which force made fireball to explode, and what was the purpose or reason of creation of the universe from the fireball? The answers to all of these questions can be found from the philosophy of Hinduism even before the big bang theory was proposed.
Nirgun Brahm is all-pervading, subtler than the subtlest. The cool bright luminescence is uniform and homogenous in all directions. It follows the perfect cosmological principle. Brahm has no boundary. It is limitless. The original form of Brahm is described to be the divine personified form which is beyond three types of body (deh), three basic natural qualities (gunas), and three states of body and mind (avasthās) and always remains in the humble service of Parabrahm (God). It is this form of Brahm that a soul has to unite, level, or resemble with and attain the highest enlightened state called Brahmrup or Brahmanized state for salvation. No one can be like Purushottam (God) but one can be and has to be like Brahm for the ultimate liberation (Ātyantik Mukti).
Tags:abode, Akash, akshar, Aksharbrahm, Akshardhām, Aksharmuktas, all-pervading, all-powerful, appearance, aprākrut, Archi Marg, ātmā, atom, atoms, attributes, Ātyantik, avasthās, Avyākrut, beginning, Big Bang, Black Hole, bliss, body, boundary, Brahm, Brahm-like, brahmanized, Brahmdhām, brahmmaya, Brahmrandhra, brahmrup, Brahmvidya, bright, change, Chidākāsh, contract, cool, cosmological, Creation, Darshan, deh, destiny, directions, divine, divine light, divine-space, divya, end, enlightened, essence, eternal, expand, fate, fireball, force, form, God, gunas, homogenous, humble service, isotropic, Karma, liberated souls, liberation, life sciences, limitless, luminescence, matter, maya, Muktas, mukti, multiverse, Nature, nirgun, omnipotent, ontological, ordinary light, ordinary space, Parabrahm, personified, pervades, Philosophy, physical sciences, prakāsh-yukta, principle, Purushottam, qualities, sagun, salvation, Scriptures, Shad Darshan, shape, sharir, shariri, size, social sciences, soul, souls, space, space-time, spiritual science, states, Steady State, superspace, Supreme Being, Swaminarayan, tanu, tejomaya, time, topology, transcendental, tunnel, ultimate, uniform, universe, universes, Vedānta, White Hole, worldly, Worm Hole
Posted in Brahm - Part IV, Hinduism - Philosophies, Navya Vishishtadvaita, Shad Darshan – Vedanta philosophies | Comments Closed
Darshan (Philosophy) XXXIV
Friday, July 2nd, 2010Shad Darshan – Concluding comments:
Nota Bene II
We are asking so many questions about God, but can we ask just a few questions for ourselves? Do we really believe in God? If we really believe in Him, then we wouldn’t be doing what we are doing now. If He really comes in front of us, then we would not be treating Him as we are treating Him now when He is not present in front of us. If He really comes here and sees us doing what we are not supposed to be doing, then would He be proud of us after all His teaching and preaching?
Questions to ask for ourselves:
If we really believe in Him, then have we ever tried to achieve a few good qualities of Him? If we believe in humanity, then how come we, at times, become inhumane to others? We should not be asking for death of others, as in case of death sentence, for the death of our loved ones. God never preached an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather He taught us for forgiveness. How can we ask for forgiveness from Him, if are not willing to forgive others? If He is merciful, then why we do not show mercy to others? Why we hurt others or kill them – doesn’t matter if they are animals or humans, friends or foes, rich or poor, good or bad, justified or unjustified, for good or for bad. If we believe Him as the judge of everyone then why are we judging others? If we believe He does justice to others, then how can we do injustice to others? If we believe He is the boss, then why we take His law in our hands and try to be bossy on others. If we know He has tolerated and suffered for others and is still doing so, then why we are not so tolerant to others. Why we bother whom, why, and how others worship to Him, if we are not sure for ourselves why, how, and whom we worship. If we cannot develop any of His good qualities in us, then how can we expect Him to enjoy our company in His abode? If we firmly believe in Him, then why do we have doubt in Him? If we believe in Him then why do we have double standards – one for us and one for others; or why do we have triple standards for our own self – for thinking something else, saying something else, and doing something else?
Lastly, a few words about the science:
Let’s ask a few questions about the science and religion. Has anyone heard any scientists saying, “I study and teach science, astronomy, or physics in college and university, but I do not believe in black hole,” or “I do not believe that black hole exists.” “Well, Gravity is Gravity, but, I believe in Newton’s Gravity and do not believe in Einstein’s Gravity.” “I teach solar system, but I do not believe that the sun is at the center.” “I do not believe that the earth is round. I personally believe that the earth is flat.” Well, this happens in case of religion and religious philosophy. One may hear, among religious philosophers, saying that, “I study and teach religious philosophy, but, I do not believe in God or in His existence.” “I teach religion but I do not believe in Western God. I believe in Eastern God.” “I preach about the religious practices and commands of God to others, but, I personally do not believe in strictly following them.” In science the measures used, for example, of time, length, volume, mass, etc., are standard: nationally and internationally, globally and universally, for the scientists and for laymen, for poor and rich, or for believers and for non-believers. Well, for religion, the measures or ethical and moral do’s and don’ts, such as, not to steal, not to deceive, not to adulterate, not to gain or use wealth in wrongful way, to do humanitarian or charitable work, etc. are all relative, never absolute or neutral. They change according to the person, time, circumstances, creed, greed, wealth, color, race, gender, sexual orientation, and individual preferences. We see double or triple standards for ourselves and for others, for believing, preaching, and practicing. We talk about the Truth but we try to hide the truth. The science proposes and publishes theories, but never impose upon others to believe them. Whichever theory is true would be survived in the harsh experimental testing and rigorous argumentative discourses and debates and then would be accepted widely until it is disproved by another theory that would be more truthful, veridical, and realistic. Science is open to accept the truth and is also open to reject the un-truth. In case of religion, it is not like that. God’s words are all revealed in the scriptures but we want, to believe and interpret them, subjectively, according to our own will, likings, preferences, or necessities. Not only that we want to promote and impose upon others what we believe is true, simply because of our deep faith and love in ourselves. In religion, we are not open to accept criticism, nor are we willing to accept other beliefs simply because we do not know the truth. Until then belief simply remain as a belief. These are the differences between trust in the science and faith in the religion. For the majority of people, in the current era of modernization, religion has remained the subject of belief and discussion only, whereas, science is becoming day by day the subject of trust. The root cause of the difference is in the application or practicing. Whatever the science says people apply and whatever religion says people are reluctant to put into practice.
Why the science and spirituality do not go together? Why religions shy away from the science and why many scientists do not believe in God? Spirituality is based on the faith while science is based on the facts. Spirituality has no limitations, science has limitations. Spirituality thinks farther and faster but philosophically, science thinks comparatively nearer and slower but firmly. We can say that spirituality is far-sighted, science is near-sighted. If we believe in God, then we should not have to worry even for science. Science can make us untrue but not the god. If we worry about the science, then in fact we are worried about ourselves, about the philosophies that we have created, about the understanding of the scriptures that we have interpreted, and about the explanations of God that we have enforced to or imparted upon others, that we might be disproved otherwise by the science. If we do worry, then believe that, God also worries with us. If God doesn’t worry then why should we worry at all? Shouldn’t we be that courageous or confident? Science is not our enemy. Science is our friend helping us to understand the truth, to correct us if we are doing anything mistakenly. Are not we supposed to be using the science to explore the Truth, to propagate the Truth, and to keep us alive and healthy for long to enjoy the bliss of the Truth? Science and spirituality go together and cannot be separated from our lives. As religious people, we might think that science is our enemy, but on the contrary, science is our rival in searching for the truth. So, let it race and go deeper and deeper. It will ultimately help us. Ultimately, a day will come when science will also be ineffable and say, “Truth is there, but we are incapable to describe it.” “Not this, not this,” as it is said for God in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, “Neti, Neti” meaning, “this is not the Truth, the Truth is still beyond – beyond our reach, beyond our description, and beyond our understanding.” God is indescribable.
Tags:a tooth for a tooth, Absolute, an eye for an eye, animals, application, astronomy, bad, belief, believe, believers, believing, Black Hole, bliss, boss, Brihadaranyaka, charitable, circumstances, color, commands, Concluding comments, confident, courageous, creed, criticism, Darshan, debates, discourses, discussion, disproved, do’s and don’ts, double standards, Earth, enemy, enforced, ethical, experimental, explanations, facts, faith, far-sighted, foes, forgiveness, friend, friends, gender, globally, God, good, gravity, greed, humanitarian, humanity, humans, hurt, imparted upon, impose upon, indescribable, ineffable, inhumane, injustice, internationally, interpret, interpretations, judge, justice, justified, laymen, length, liking, love, mass, measures, merciful, mercy, modernization, moral, nationally, near-sighted, necessities, Neti, neutral, non-believers, Nota Bene, person, Philosophy, physics, poor, practice, practicing, preaching, preference, preferences, promote, race, realistic, relative, religion, religious practices, rich, rival, science, Scientists, sexual orientation, Shad Darshan, spirituality, standard, subject, subjectively, sun, testing, time, tolerant, triple standards, trust, Truth, truthful, understanding, universally, unjustified, Upanishad, veridical, volume, wealth, will, worry
Posted in Hinduism - Philosophies, Nota Bene II | Comments Closed