Rajdhani wrote:I want to ask VLaxmi a quick question, if you are leveraging the findings of scientists on declining species, have you cross verified if the same scientists also agree on earth's evolution? ... I often read other people who have immensely contributed to this forum keep mentioning that BKs cherry pick things which are only convenient to their arguments.
Very Good question. You have picked up and named specific example of such contradictions in vlakshmi’s ”presentations”.
Let’s see if we can get one direct answer to a direct question.
ex-l wrote:OK, let's not create more distraction with what could be interpreted as insults ... however, I do take from that points that using words detached from their context or depending merely on their etymology is a risky practise.
I quoted the word’s origins and definitions because I catch myself being an idiot at least once a day! I find it useful to remind myself of my limitations. That no matter what I think, when ”I" think , ego operates, hence the potential to idiocy increases.
'religare', from re- + ligō, does not mean "to reconnect" and relegere”, from re- + legō, does not mean to ponder, wonder.
Religion : - religo - I bind (
I fasten, I tie together) . Our word
ligament uses same root as
ligo - for the soft tissue that
binds muscles to bones.
In this case, the ”
re-” is not about repeating or
again-ing. It probably comes from ”
Rex” as in
king, ruler, the same "
re-" we have in ”
regulation”, ie control in reference to authority. Hence a ”
ruler” is the authority and ”
rule” is the standard set by the authority, be it either a king or a straight length of wood (whose calibrations were authorised by royal decree as official weights and measures were) !
relegere”, from
lego - means primarily to
gather, recover, travel over (physically) - (this time
re- does mean)
again.
The secondary meaning is metaphorical, to revise (review), recount ( but mental abstract things, eg stories, study or learning).
Vlakshmi’s misconception, that it means ”to ponder, wonder’, is an extra stretch, it’s neither the primary, original meaning nor the already stretched second metaphorical meaning, but a step further.
FYI
Ponder means to ”weigh” - same root as ”pound” - a measure of weight. Then metaphorically becomes about evaluating non-tangible things . And to finish off ...
Wonder most closely relates to the idea of ”miracle” - lit. 'to see something amazing, almost unbelievable'. The phonetic shift of ”
wonder” probably comes through the German from the greek "
thavma , which means the same as 'miracle'.
On a more personal note:
When I was drawn to the BKs and while one, I meditated on the form of God and the very idea of God as the common link to all fields of knowledge, the axis of the different sectors. I was interested in the deeper profound precision and importance of origins, fundamental meaning (hence my interest in etymology - and wariness of the "etymological fallacy” as exemplified by vlakshmi’s selective interpretations). Some of the Gyan seemed to point (pardon the pun) there.
The more I observed that the BK point of reference was
not actually the common axial link that gives balance and smoothness, that it was not even close to being the centre of ”truth" but relied on heavy bias, mental counter-balancing needing lots of energy and which create stresses and friction to deal with certain undeniable knowledge and facts outside its orbit, I knew had tangled myself into ”binds" that were not liberating at all. Either you entangle yourself more, or you untangle yourself to get free.
One last bit of etymology realting to this imagery. The Buddhist use of the words
Dukkha and
Sukkha;
Dukkha is mostly translated as suffering or distress or unsatisfactoriness
Sukkha is its opposite, good, pleasant, happiness inducing
It is a decent speculation that the origin of both is onomatopaeic, ( the name says it) i.e. words based on or imitating the sound of the thing it names.
The Aryan Vedic culture was victorious largely due to its mastery of the wheel, horses and the Chariot as instrument of war. To invent the idea of a wheel is one thing (no need to reinvent that!) but to actually make a good wheel, that is a really valuable skill. The dharma wheel on the flag of India is a Chariot wheel.
The most fundamental part of the wheel is the axle. A skilfully made axle is centred and smooth, the sound it makes as its turning is ”sssssuuuuu” (even our English word ”smooth” has that quality) , while a badly made axle goes ”dukh, dukh, dukh” ... so...
How far does your world view, beliefs and attitudes let you travel smoothly, in harmony with life and all the facts, events, sciences and objective truths it presents, and how many times is it off centre, rough, jarring, needing repair, reinforcement, apologetics, equivocations, doublethink ? And before I finished I see vlakshmi’s last post above,
When something is obviously scientific I readily accept. When something is theory, I wait.
It seems that what you accept as ‘scientific' excludes the scientific definition of theory, and how you define things as theory or ’science’ - are quite different to science's.