Hi Surya Asura,
do you think that if you address other people when you talk about me that does not count as replying to me? Hilarious.
See, I knew you were not going to stop. All you want is to stop others from talking to me. You fear, they are not as shameless as you are in misrepresenting what I say and slandering me and so forth. You fear that it becomes only clearer how absurd your viewpoint is. Probably you also hope that threads will just be closed.
You’re right Sarva. I think amongst us all Vimoh had been the most polite and made a sincere attempt to have a discussion with Q, but he is getting the same result we all are getting: stubborn stupidity.
I don’t know. I had a decent discussion with him indeed, with no slander, no offense, no insults. Then he wrote this post:
You are addressing a point that Bryon did not make. He never said the one guy did anything “alone”. And it shouldn’t even be an inference unless you are, for some reason, manipulating his words to create a straw-man argument that you can easily pull down because it is frivolous.
The way you have addressed my points, makes it clear that you are already taking the discussion in a direction of your choice. So I will refrain from replying now. But I sincerely request you to go and read up some before you challenge established facts being proposed by a known historian with little more than an agenda.
Your way of working through a debate is anything but intellectual. You manipulate arguments, refuse to take facts as they come, and even refuse to accept facts as such in case they do prove to be accurate.
Whether India is “superior” or not can only be established by a perusal of historical accounts and facts. You admit that you have not done so, but you also insist that you will never admit it EVEN IF it is true. Not the way debates happen.
Doesn’t answer my question. Are you saying they were equals? And if you are going to reply saying that you don’t believe in superiority, then would you also claim that a hero isn’t superior to a murderer? Do explain.
As for Bryon, I can personally vouch for his status as an MA in history and the fact that he is working on his PhD. That’s considerably more than a “couple of books”. You may say you find a historian’s knowledge amusing, but it doesn’t do anything to negate the worth of his study. In any case, what I am supposed to go by? His knowledge, which he has painstakingly acquired by years of study, or your opinion, which you haven’t even bothered to corroborate with some basic reading?
Please do get an education and come back when you are capable of having a civilised and intelligent debate. Otherwise all this is worth nothing.
99% ad hominem, offensive, slander, misrepresenting what I say.
At the end of the day Q is stubbornly defending murders, rapists, looters and his ancestors who did this here. I said earlier himself had my ancestors done the same, I would have been ashamed of them, I never would have spoken in pride “how my dad kicked everybodies ass” The truth is clear and Q knows this himself the civilised world, including many Western people today consider his white supremacy views backwards.
I’m not a white supremacist when I explain how and why a wrong-doer comes to their wrong-doings. I only fail to have black-and-white-worldview where I declare some people holy, some demonic.
My Western maths teacher once said to me, even without me saying a word, “I am actually ashamed what my ancestors did to your people” Why did she feel the need to say this? We were not even having any kind of conversation about colonialism, in fact we were talking about Indian mathematicians. But she honestly felt the guilt as a good person that her ancestors had done such horrible things to my people and felt compelled to say something. She is not the only one, I have had many Western people say similar things to me.
But I don’t feel guilty for what my ancestors did. Why would I? I’m sorry for what they did, sure. But I didn’t do it, so where would guilt come from?
When I was in college there was a BNP(white nationalist) member in our English class. He use to dress like a viking and was very proud of his British/Anglo-saxon culture. I did not even know he was a BNP member until quite late, and was shocked because he use to talk to me a lot and thought very highly of my intelligence(I learned this from a peer who had told me said I was the most intelligent person he had come across) Everybody in my class hated him and because I did not know he was BNP then, I was quite surprised why they hated him so much. Then I found out: because he was a backwards human being.
And I feel not proud for what my ancestors did, neither the bad, nor the good things. I had explained that in detail to Nietzsche once, but I don’t have the time to search, you know, I can’t stand up to your guys slander-bombast. It’s overwhelming.
Good people do not feel pride in their ancestors if they were murderers, rapists and looters and they certainly do not defend them in debates. The truth is Q would be condemned just like we are condemning him here by any civilised person irrespective of what race they are. He would be prosecuted for hate crimes in the UK had he said the things hes said on this forum, “My dad kicked your dads ass, and looted, raped and destroyed your country” If he said something similar to a black person he would have been beaten up. If he said similar things in China he would be imprisoned or even executed. Had he said to a jew that the Nazi were just innocent victims of their circumstances and they are pathetic for being so badly crushed, he would be reported for antisemitism.
Did “my dad” not kick your ass and lotted, raped and destroyed your country? It’s a fact. And that I would be proud of that, is your invention. You just don’t like to deal with the question how it was possible, that your uber-superior strong-warrior-culture dad was not able to defend himself. It’s a valid question.
The truth is Q is and would be considered a despicable human being by any civilised person. He is a blemish on the Yoga forums.
The truth is that this is a bombast of slander.
As other Western people other than Q are not participating here, I will say something on their behalf:
You mean those other Western people that you have disgusted away from discussing with you Hindu nationalist guys by slandering them? And now you speak on their behalf? :lol:
There are many good Western people who would condemn Q just as strongly as we are. So do not generalize Q’s backwards neo-nazi views to Western people in general. Most Western people would be appalled by him.
My fight has never been with Western people and it never will be, because I have met so many good Western people in my life. My fight is against Western culture, who many good Western people also criticise.
I think the good Western people of this forum should let themselves be known because the only representation Western people are getting in this thread is by Q. He is speaking as a representative of Western people - and the last thing good Western people on this forum, is a neo-nazi to represent them.
Sure, let good Western people of this form let themselves known. Let them discuss you Hindu nationalists ultra-aggressive superiority claims. Well, actually good Western people of this forum already did that. They all ended up being insulted, misrepresented and slandered by you and Nietzsche. And that is why noone is talking to you anymore. And now they see how far you go. How hysterical you are. You’re actually psychotic, Surya Asura, I personally am faszinated, plz, keep it coming. :lol:
While, im at it, I will address a point Q repeatedly makes
What, you go ad rem? Holy crap! :lol:
only to show the absurdity of his views to the objective reader(although the absurdity is apparent)
Ah… That’s at least some relief. :lol:
In Q’s world there is no such thing as something which is qualitatively superior, but only quantitatively superior. You can have bigger weapons, more wealth, more books etc. He further maintains that all kind of behaviour is just the result of circumstances and nothing more. His people were poor and had a cold and harsh climate and the Indian people were rich and a warm climate and this is why his people had to rape, murder and loot and why the Indian people didn’t have to.
I wouldn’t say they had to rape, you only include that to make it sound more awful. And even attacking another tribe and kill their people and steal from them is of course aweful. Yet do I indeed think this is the explanation for why a culture can become militant and aggressive.
You call that an “apparent absurdity”. Then why does a culture become militant and aggressive? For what reason if it’s not the circumstances? Because they are like predators? In their genes? And that is how and why not racism?
See. You’re the damn racist. You declare an explanation for wrong-doings absurd and fail to present an alternative. What could the alternative be, if it’s not circumstances? It could only be the nature of the wrong-doers. You call them “Asura”. I call that: Damn racism.
Any “good” person can ask themselves what they would do if they were in a position like that: Steal from others or have themselves and their loved ones die? Stealing, then, unfortunately mostly has to come with killing, because those who are rich mostly don’t want to share their wealth.
Now let us demonstrate the absurdity of his views
:lol: I’d say it doesn’t work out.
- Nothing is qualitiatively superior, only quanitatively superior
First of all, it should be known that is a common view in the West. Qualia are not considered to be measurable and are downgranded as secondary qualities. This has been going on since the beginning of the Western scientific tradition. Locke was the first philosopher to lay this foundation down by calling all qualities to be secondary, while physical things like mass, weight, dimension were primary qualities. Locke’s view known as representionalisism is that primary qualities were natural and real, while secondary qualities like taste, touch, colour, sound and smell etc were secondary.
This is despite the fact that later Kant proved that both primary and secondary qualities were not not natural and real but both were constructed by the mind. So this habit of separating primary and secondary qualities or basically quantity and quality was an unnatural dichotomy. Today, both quantitative and qualitative research is done in science, but the prejudice that qualitative research is inferior to quantitative research remains.
Are we there yet…?
In the Indian scientific tradition this problem of qualitity and quantity duality has never been present. In the Indian tradition, as Kant proved later, it was always known that the entire world is sensory - it is all quality. The things we see are colour/form, the things we hear are sound, the things we feel are touch etc In other words the entire world can be reduced to only 5 sensory categories. No rational person can argue that we know the world through our 5 main senses. Therefore it is all qualia.
This Indian system classification then refines this further to make a distinction between substance and qualities. A substance is the locus which contains qualities. There are 9 substances: 5 sensory elements, space, time, mind and consciousness. Each of these substances are a locus for different qualities. Here is a list of 24 qualities recognised in the Indian system:
rupa (colour), rasa (taste), gandha (smell), sparsa (touch), sa?khya (number), parima?a (size/dimension/quantity), p?thaktva (inidividuality), sa?yoga (conjunction/accompaniments), vibhaga (disjunction), paratva (priority), aparatva (posteriority), buddhi (intellect), sukha (pleasure), du?kha (pain), iccha (desire), dve?a (aversion) and prayatna (effort) gurutva (heaviness), dravatva (fluidity), sneha (viscosity), dharma (merit), adharma (demerit), sabda (sound) and sa?kasra (faculty).
Are we there yet…?
Earth has the qualities of smell, taste, colour and touch. Water has the qualites of taste, colour, taste and touch; light has the qualities of colour and touch; force has the qualities of touch; space has the quality of size/direction/dimension’ time has the qualities of priority and posteriority; mind has the qualities of discrimination, cognition; consciousness has the qualities of pain, pleasure, will, desire, aversion.
yawn Is there a point to your bombast somewhere…?
Now how can we say one is greater than the other ?
Yeah, exactly? How can we say that? How can we decide wether the rabbit or the tiger, the apple or the peach is superior?
Easy we can say for example that ultraviolet colour is higher frequency than red colour. We can say that the light of the sun is brighter than the light of a candle. We can say that 10 is a higher number than 1. We can say an aeroplane is louder than a drum. We can say an intelligent person’s cognitive ability is greater than a dumb person’s cognitive ability. Finally, we can say that one person’s consciousness is more refined than anothers because ones consciousness is full of negative mental states like hate, pain, violence, greed, lust, anger and anothers is full of positive mental states like love, bliss, compassion, peace.
But dude, that is quantity. One thingy has more. So you say it’s superior. I said that before.
Now it goes without saying that a culture which has high love, bliss, compassion and peace is superior to one has that has high hate, pain, violence, greed, lust and anger.
No, it doesn’t. And if you say really a lot, write a long essay of bla bla bla to point out the superiority of India’s systems and so forth, you come to the same result. It’s a matter of quantity. And if you have culture which has “high love” and compare that to one which has “high hate”, then it’s about quantity. And you still have to wonder how it came that one culture has “high love”, but the other “high hate”. I can tell you: It’s the circumstances. One culture has the easy going life in some friendly valley and the other lives a hard life in a mean winter.
And if one doubts this the very fact that they cannot recognise this immediately is a sign of their low evolutionary development.
See, here you go with racism again. Who doubts “that a culture which has high love, bliss, compassion and peace is superior to one has that has high hate, pain, violence, greed, lust and anger” is of a “low evolutrionary development”.
You’re a damn racist, Surya Asura. Everybody sees it clearly over and over again.
A bee cannot understand for example why the architect considers the the bee-hive a beautiful creation; a tiger cannot understand why the sage is non-violent.
And people who disagree with your nonsense are neanderthals.
That was your explanation. This is how you have proven that there is indeed a qualitative difference, and not just a quantitative one. You explain that there is a quantitative one
Easy we can say for example that ultraviolet colour is higher frequency than red colour. We can say that the light of the sun is brighter than the light of a candle. We can say that 10 is a higher number than 1. We can say an aeroplane is louder than a drum. We can say an intelligent person’s cognitive ability is greater than a dumb person’s cognitive ability. Finally, we can say that one person’s consciousness is more refined than anothers because ones consciousness is full of negative mental states like hate, pain, violence, greed, lust, anger and anothers is full of positive mental states like love, bliss, compassion, peace.
And then you say who doesn’t agree that the quanitative superiority equals a qualitative one, is some sort of animal.
Do you think people don’t notice?
- All behaviour is the result of circumstances and environment. Good environment leads to good behaviour and bad environment leads to bad behaviour.
Sure.
Let’s start with some suggestive rethoric, k?
Of course the sensible reader will immediately spot how stupid this assertion is, unfortunately as we are dealing with stupidity here the point has to be demonstrated.
Check.
If it was true good environments lead to good behaviour then why has the West which has been the richest region in the world since the 19th century, has been involved in non stop war and barbarism? Holocausts, world wars, cold war, gulf wars, war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why does the West have the highest rates of divorce, depression and mental disorders and crime in the world?
Easy: Your assumption that the environment of the West would be good, is wrong. It’s not good. It’s superficial, people have too much time to think and find out how pointless their life often is, how they are taken advantage of, people are greedy because every day the advertising shows them bling bling, people have the opportunity to get filthy rich, so they take advantage of those people, war in Iraq and Afghanistan is waged cuz there is oil, and so forth.
If it is true that poverty leads to bad behaviour like rape/murder etc then why were some of the most greatest spiritual leaders in history born in very poor families? Jesus Christ, Guru Nanak, Swami Ramarkrishna, Ramana Maharishi?
I’m not saying that poverty leads to bad behaviour, I say that it can lead to bad behaviour. I wouldn’t know that Jesus was ever in a position where he had to decided between having his children die or steal from someone else.
And if the Germans were all poor and living miserable lives and that is why they became Nazis, then why did some Germans fight for the plight of the Jews?
The Nazis did not rise to power by announcing they’d gas the Jews and indeed did not all Germans support the Nazis, mostly intellectuals did not see their “vision” as agreeable. But a majority did, the mainstream. And that was enough, and the mainstream supported the Nazis because Germans were poor and living miserable lifes.
What else would’ve been the reason? Why did the Nazis rise to power? Explain.
And then some Germans helped the Jews out of compassion, once they saw their suffering. It’s something very different to get to hate people when they are depicted as being parasites to the nation, living wealthy in big houses, eating good, dressing fine and then seeing people fearing for their life and that of their children.
Clearly the argument Q is making is patently absurd.
It’s clearly perfectly valid and it’s the argument anybody makes who deals with history. Present an alternative of for example the Nazis rise to power - you won’t.
To murder, rape or loot somebody it is not circumstances which lead to these actions. You can be the poorest person in the world and not hurt a fly and the richest person in the world and be a cold blooded murderer.
No? Then what leads to it?
It is ones quality of consciousness that leads to these actions.
And what leads to the quality of consciousness?
The West is full of a history of such actions because it is has a low spiritual development.
And why does it have a low spiritual development?
It is right to call the West civilisation savage and barbaric. It makes no difference whatsoever how many countries it has subjugated, it is still a barbaric civilisation. No civilised person can be proud of the West.
There goes your damn racism again.
By the way I am taking this discussion into the relevant thread. This thread is to discuss whether Hinduism is a religion or not. To discuss India vs West discuss it in "Clash of civilisations: India vs West"
By the way why did you bring this stuff up here in the first place, no wait I know, cuz you’re trying as hard as you can to slander me and you think if you and your apprentice Nietzsche spam the crap out of me, it will shut me up, but it won’t, cuz I’m thick skinned and shrug your tasteless insults off my back like nothing. :lol:
What leads to wrong or right doings are circumstances. It’s crystal clear. It counts for you too. What leads you to your behaviour are circumstances, it’s not your own decision. You did not decide to be a bitch now. You’re forced to. I do agree that intense reflection can help, a spiritual practice can indeed help, introspection, meditation, self-control. This is true. But you are a “great” example for how difficult that is even for one who is an expert on the theory of such practices. You know all about Yoga and the methods, yet you’re controlled by your lowest senses and instincts and most basic emotions of hatred and anger. Your ego is you master. Now think of a culture who has no time to read books on Yoga, no time to practice any techniques, not to mention one that does not even have access to such techniques, because it never had the time to develop them. How can you expect of such people to control themselves better than a spoiled bitch like yourself? It’s not possible.
Your attempts to explain my argument was “stupid” and “absurd”, are a huge failure. Everybody you try to influence sees it like I do. You waste your time, give it up, establish a practice, become a good person, eventually.
You haven’t dazzled me with your arguments, yet. Let us hope you do soon.
(I said 22 microtones, read carefully) The fact remains that Indian classical music is objectively more developed because it has 22 microtones and Western music is less developed because it has only 12 semitones. There are other considerations as well which show the superiority of Indian music: