Sunday, March 24, 2013

Ajativada and wikipedia joshua jonathan and kim dent-brown


Wikipedia is bad for philosophy pages.....a couple of wiki official editors are buddhists and they keep editing out any vedanta and hindu stuff posted just to keep it Buddhist....very childish ...Actually ai think one Bharainy is a muslim likely.... Joshua Jonathan...and kim dent-brown... I think the problem is they cannot grasp the theory or vada and can only get as far as Saguna.....They have stopped editing so I can do nothing....but if you want you can keep an eye on it and 'undo' them from time to time hahahaha. Anybody but me can edit wikipedia...........hahah ajativada wikipedia

3 comments:

Tony O'Clery said...

Wikipedia had such promise but has turned into a booster for egos and disinformation a shit board for fools as the Buddha would say spoons as in the spoon in the soup cannot taste the flavour of the soup even.

Tony O'Clery said...

Ajativada. Vedantic, not Later Buddhistic which is erroneous mostly. It is not the same thing as the Buddhist Anutpada, which the Buddhist for some reason spuriously present as ajativada...However Anutpada, or secondary, could equate with the Buddha's unborn...or Saguna Brahaman, in Vedanta.

Tony O'Clery said...

*** In the Vedic Nasadiya Sukta. 10:29. The first linr reflects Ajativada , "Then even nothingness was not ,nor existence. This was multi thousand years before Buddhism,and the night sky in the Rig Veda is 8000 Bce. This sUkta reflects 'ajAtavAda'. This is further elaborated by the word 'visRShTiH' which raises a doubt upon 'creation'. This also is again in perfect tuning with Sri Raman's assertion; 'Where-from this 'visRShTi' came into being? And once again, 'visRShTi' itself can be interpreted according to Vedik Grammar as 'chaos' or 'appearances'. *********************************************************************************************** This indicates Gaudapada had no need to learn from the Buddhists more likely the other way around.He also referred to Ajativada in the Upanishads never mind the Rig. The other problem the Buddhists have is their original scriptures were just that, written down. As opposed to the Vedantic which were oral going back literally thousands of years and it is a well known fact psychologically that memorised texts are less likely to editing and interlopation; So are more accurate. The Sanskrit term Ajativada is one of several alternately-held creation theories in Advaita Vedanta, meaning "non-creation" (of the world). It is not the same thing as the Buddhist Anutpada, which the Buddhist for some reason spuriously present as ajativada...