Belief in personal God VS Belief in Brahman

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Mr Sravana,

It is you who are unable to deal with challenge to your long held positions. You provided statement about Brahman and my comments challenged your understanding.

I want to search for contradiction free understanding , not one riddled with pet beliefs that have no basis in logic.

Hope you reflect on my comments and explore further. You and I are at the same level of confusion I am afraid ...

Good luck to you

Dear Shri a-TB,

I do not find in your replies any intention to engage in a debate but only an urge to put down the opponent. Good luck to you too.

 

[prasad1]

First, we have to define Brahman. I think the original poster, Sri Prasad1 meant Brahman as defined in advaita. That (brahman) is unchangeable, immutable, without form, shape, name etc. and IT is the ONLY reality.

Yes, I did define with Brahman with the Advaita view. I am only comfortable with that definition.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Mr Zebra16:

Your response is well written and understandable. Thank you. I have some questions & objections.

1. Raw material(s) may remain the same, but there is still creation in creating a world trade center, bangles, etc. Raw materials did not just come together on their own to become something else. The world has so much variety even at a raw levels - so many animals, worms, insects, human beings .. There have to be one or many creators. If it is not Brahman, who is it?

2. There are creator(s) perhaps who are distinct from created. The person who made the bangle is not the bangle. So creation and created are not one and the same from the examples. This is contrary to one and only one Brahman

3. OK, so all the basic raw material may remain the same in all creations - you call that Brahman. Fine. But then the world did not come out of nothing. Someone had to be involved in assembling at a raw material level of intelligence. A bangle is possible because Gold has the property to be molded into any shape. That intelligence of Gold has to be there for someone to make a bangle. So Brahman has to be intelligent.

Looked up some write up on the 'blind watch maker'. It is true that nature goes through trillions of combinations (Mr Auh's point). It is like a child who has lego pieces to try all kinds of things and stumble on a shape. But Lego maker allowed for such a thing to be made. So the creator of the raw material in this world has to have been intelligent.

5. Richard Dawkin's point about variations giving rise to something intelligent cannot apply to living things and their variations. It can apply to nature of non-living things. For him to apply this to living things is a stretch.

6. So what is god in all this - who is omnipotent , omni whatever etc?

The veda says:

yathA vachO nivarthanthE, aprApya manassA sahA.............

So it is evident all these questions that have been raised here by several members have long back been raised by our ancestors too. Only they quickly came to the conclusion that God or creator or whatever else you call it is something that cannot be defined within the coordinates and with the languages that human beings know, understand and utilise.

So while some were stuck with the unknown indefinable and indeterminate entity as just the"unknown,indefinable,indeterminate" entity or at best a " all pervading universal consciousness", someothers, who could not stop trying, took the best available route to deal with this entity with their equipment. They gave it the best form, the best attributes and the best and beyond everything a human mind can comprehend and started calling it God for convenience. They too knew IT is not just God but it is the nearest to God they could bring into this world. They dealt with it like they would have dealt with a real God. They saluted their kings. So also these people did a pranAm to the God before them. They offered their valuable gifts to the king; So also they did the same to this God form created by them. When they needed help they begged of their king. So also these prayed to the God. When felt totally helpless they surrendered to their king and they did the same to their God whom they considered superior to all the kings. They benefited immensely with this form of identification of God and praying. Otherwise the doubt and the confusion would have taken their heavy toll.

It is a different story that God entity was also coming handy in organizing the society. God and temples in course of time also became rallying points for large sections of the society. It did not stop with that. Once organized, competition for available resources led to wars and stratification of society.

It is to the credit of our forefathers of this land called the karmabhoomi that they could think and explore so deep and far into the imponderable and discern forms and solutions to a basic dilemma which is as old as human existence.

In our scriptures there is scope for one to be an informed atheist, a believer in universal consciousness or a believer in a personal God with form and fame. We do not quarrel on this. That is the greatness of our heritage and culture and of course our genes. LOL. We have no infidels who deserve to be slain.

 

[mkrishna100]

In our scriptures there is scope for one to be an informed atheist, a believer in universal consciousness or a believer in a personal God with form and fame. We do not quarrel on this. That is the greatness of our heritage and culture and of course our genes. LOL. We have no infidels who deserve to be slain

True

 

[auh]

Hi Mr auh:

The highlighted items must be due to some basic intelligence that cannot be distributed because they all work together. Randomness is intelligence, hard to make random happen I have heard. Evolution is not stuck by repetitions like computer gets into a infinite loop but huge variations are seen. That is intelligence.

Even if many entities are there, still they all have to be coordinated by one who must have 'caused?' those entities.

Consider making your argument differently if you care to..What you have stated does not seem to hold your case..

Nobody has made anything happen. It happens. We observe as it happens and try to decode a logic in all its ways. The problem, if I may say, with your argument is that you have presupposed that a conscious intelligence exists that has the power to create something else.

The simplest answer is that we do not know. But I will try to indulge in the philosophical meanderings and try to clarify or confuse as the case may be !

There cannot be one cause or creator as it would seem illogical for so many reasons:

1) If everyting has to have a creator, then who created the creator?
2) What is the creator made of?
3) If there are raw materials that have a separate existence from the creator, then the creator is not omnipresent
4) If the creator is not omnipresent, he cannot be omniscient.
5) If the creator is not omnipresent and omniscient, he cannot be omnipotent.
6) If he cannot be omnipotent, he cannot be the creator. There must be some area that acts in defiance from him. Then it follows that he could not have created everything. So the title of creator falls flat.

The concept of something being created cannot then be correct. What then? Probably they may have "transformed". Is this not evolution? But why the transformation into so many different forms of life and non-life? If there was a conscious will that was behind all such transformations, it could have happened in a jiffy. There should not have been any logic ! In fact, I would say that a "conscious and powerfull will" need not abide by logic; all transformations could have been just willed. That there is a logic and a balance in nature is proof of the non-existence of a creator or a conscious-behind-the-scenes-director !!

 

[sravna]

Nobody has made anything happen. It happens. We observe as it happens and try to decode a logic in all its ways. The problem, if I may say, with your argument is that you have presupposed that a conscious intelligence exists that has the power to create something else.

The simplest answer is that we do not know. But I will try to indulge in the philosophical meanderings and try to clarify or confuse as the case may be !

There cannot be one cause or creator as it would seem illogical for so many reasons:

1) If everyting has to have a creator, then who created the creator?
2) What is the creator made of?
3) If there are raw materials that have a separate existence from the creator, then the creator is not omnipresent
4) If the creator is not omnipresent, he cannot be omniscient.
5) If the creator is not omnipresent and omniscient, he cannot be omnipotent.
6) If he cannot be omnipotent, he cannot be the creator. There must be some area that acts in defiance from him. Then it follows that he could not have created everything. So the title of creator falls flat.

The concept of something being created cannot then be correct. What then? Probably they may have "transformed". Is this not evolution? But why the transformation into so many different forms of life and non-life? If there was a conscious will that was behind all such transformations, it could have happened in a jiffy. There should not have been any logic ! In fact, I would say that a "conscious and powerfull will" need not abide by logic; all transformations could have been just willed. That there is a logic and a balance in nature is proof of the non-existence of a creator or a conscious-behind-the-scenes-director !!

The fact that we need to answer what created the universe or who created the creator logically leads us to only one answer. That the source of creation is timeless. The above is the most fundamental truth about reality. Everything other truth else should conform to that truth.

Once we understand that reality is timeless, then we need to explain time and space and physical entitites.

But let me go step by step. Anyone wants to present an alternate view to a timeless reality?

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

I do not find in your replies any intention to engage in a debate but only an urge to put down the opponent. Good luck to you too.

Dear Mr Sravana:

Re-read the entire set of exchanges between us.

I said I am confused (by your statement), you told me (condescendingly that it is good that I am confused and asking questions). Then I asked you to explain, and I attacked (yes attacked) your logic but not you the person. You have vested so much of 'you' in your post that my attack of lack of logic hurt your ego (I am sorry for that if that happened). Then again you do not stick to the point and instead make a statement or attack about me ! Now you tell me I have urge to put down opponent.. May god help you.

Well, am I not engaged with Mr auh, he is responding to points not telling me about my intentions.

Most are sick of the S-word that you turn all discussions into. That is your brand of S which is actually talk about 'Sravana's power'. So wanted you to not bring thatS word in this discussion.


I know you want people to think you are this egoless fellow but please show that in your responses by sticking to message of the thread.

 

[a-TB]

The veda says:

yathA vachO nivarthanthE, aprApya manassA sahA.............

So it is evident all these questions that have been raised here by several members have long back been raised by our ancestors too. Only they quickly came to the conclusion that God or creator or whatever else you call it is something that cannot be defined within the coordinates and with the languages that human beings know, understand and utilise.

So while some were stuck with the unknown indefinable and indeterminate entity as just the"unknown,indefinable,indeterminate" entity or at best a " all pervading universal consciousness", someothers, who could not stop trying, took the best available route to deal with this entity with their equipment. They gave it the best form, the best attributes and the best and beyond everything a human mind can comprehend and started calling it God for convenience. They too knew IT is not just God but it is the nearest to God they could bring into this world. They dealt with it like they would have dealt with a real God. They saluted their kings. So also these people did a pranAm to the God before them. They offered their valuable gifts to the king; So also they did the same to this God form created by them. When they needed help they begged of their king. So also these prayed to the God. When felt totally helpless they surrendered to their king and they did the same to their God whom they considered superior to all the kings. They benefited immensely with this form of identification of God and praying. Otherwise the doubt and the confusion would have taken their heavy toll.

It is a different story that God entity was also coming handy in organizing the society. God and temples in course of time also became rallying points for large sections of the society. It did not stop with that. Once organized, competition for available resources led to wars and stratification of society.

It is to the credit of our forefathers of this land called the karmabhoomi that they could think and explore so deep and far into the imponderable and discern forms and solutions to a basic dilemma which is as old as human existence.

In our scriptures there is scope for one to be an informed atheist, a believer in universal consciousness or a believer in a personal God with form and fame. We do not quarrel on this. That is the greatness of our heritage and culture and of course our genes. LOL. We have no infidels who deserve to be slain.

Dear Mr Vaagmi,

Congratulations on a post that comes across as sincere, and well written. First experience for me, I might add, with you LOL

The thread started with Mr Prasad saying he believes in Brahman but not in personal god.
You say (or Veda says?) Brahman cannot be put in words (?) and so our forefathers simply said - just worship an idol as if it is god. Understood that Hinduism is open to many kinds of interpretations.

Couple of issues with your assertions.

1. If veda say Brahman is not definable why are there so many scriptures and sacred books talking about it?? Why even create a name called Brahman. Simply say there is a God and it is in this idol. So something does not add up in your belief or understanding or both

2. God created rapists, serial killers, terrorists and worst of the worst also. You can say it is Karma etc but these people do exist. In fact world has almost equal number of good and bad elements at all levels.

So why should our forefathers assign only all the Good on this God?? If He is all Good how did he allow so much Bad in this world?

 

[a-TB]

Nobody has made anything happen. It happens. We observe as it happens and try to decode a logic in all its ways. The problem, if I may say, with your argument is that you have presupposed that a conscious intelligence exists that has the power to create something else.

The simplest answer is that we do not know. But I will try to indulge in the philosophical meanderings and try to clarify or confuse as the case may be !

There cannot be one cause or creator as it would seem illogical for so many reasons:

1) If everyting has to have a creator, then who created the creator?
2) What is the creator made of?
3) If there are raw materials that have a separate existence from the creator, then the creator is not omnipresent
4) If the creator is not omnipresent, he cannot be omniscient.
5) If the creator is not omnipresent and omniscient, he cannot be omnipotent.
6) If he cannot be omnipotent, he cannot be the creator. There must be some area that acts in defiance from him. Then it follows that he could not have created everything. So the title of creator falls flat.

The concept of something being created cannot then be correct. What then? Probably they may have "transformed". Is this not evolution? But why the transformation into so many different forms of life and non-life? If there was a conscious will that was behind all such transformations, it could have happened in a jiffy. There should not have been any logic ! In fact, I would say that a "conscious and powerfull will" need not abide by logic; all transformations could have been just willed. That there is a logic and a balance in nature is proof of the non-existence of a creator or a conscious-behind-the-scenes-director !!

If I see a helicopter in my backyard I will not say it just happened. I know someone flew it there, some people made it from raw materials, I know there is intelligence involved etc.

I am not presupposing anything that you say. I simply extrapolate what I see around and look for an explanation.

Agree with your simple answer that you and I not know answers to lot of things. But no one can know, or no one knows is a stretch. We are all confused humans..

There is no answer as to who created the creator .. It is meaningless if creator also created time, then question has no meaning.

Just like you presuppose some think that the god is everywhere even in atoms .. so bottomline is we do not know. We all have our favorite beliefs as this thread has established. Thanks for your response

 

[sravna]

Dear Mr Sravana:

Re-read the entire set of exchanges between us.

I said I am confused (by your statement), you told me (condescendingly that it is good that I am confused and asking questions). Then I asked you to explain, and I attacked (yes attacked) your logic but not you the person. You have vested so much of 'you' in your post that my attack of lack of logic hurt your ego (I am sorry for that if that happened). Then again you do not stick to the point and instead make a statement or attack about me ! Now you tell me I have urge to put down opponent.. May god help you.

Well, am I not engaged with Mr auh, he is responding to points not telling me about my intentions.

Most are sick of the S-word that you turn all discussions into. That is your brand of S which is actually talk about 'Sravana's power'. So wanted you to not bring thatS word in this discussion.


I know you want people to think you are this egoless fellow but please show that in your responses by sticking to message of the thread.

Dear Shri a-TB,

I understand and I do not want to prolong this argument further. I have posed a query in my last post. You are most welcome to give your point of view

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Mr Vaagmi,
Congratulations on a post that comes across as sincere, and well written. First experience for me, I might add, with you LOL

I understand. You can give only left handed compliments. That is okay I am used to it. By the way, my post was not addressed to you. It was a general post addressed to all the members who have been active in this thread. If you read carefully, you will find that it is so.

The thread started with Mr Prasad saying he believes in Brahman but not in personal god.
You say (or Veda says?) Brahman cannot be put in words (?) and so our forefathers simply said - just worship an idol as if it is god. Understood that Hinduism is open to many kinds of interpretations.

That is an attempt at interpreting my words to reach a wrong conclusion which was not intended by me.

 

[Vaagmi]

This post is not in reply to any post.

There are people who raise some questions as given below. I have tried to answer these questions to the best of my ability.

a) If vedas say Brahman is not definable why are there so many scriptures and sacred books talking about it?? Why even create a name called Brahman. Simply say there is a God and it is in this idol. So something does not add up in your belief or understanding or both

We have bodies in the universe called dark bodies and bloack holes. Our knowledge about these are extremely limited and at best are inferences and hypotheses. These have been keeping the curiosity of human beings alive for several centuries now. From Alwar who sang "சூழ்ந்தகன்றாழ்ந்துயர்ந்த (சூழ்ந்து+அகன்று+ஆழ்ந்து+உயர்ந்து) முடிவில்(முடிவேயில்லாத) பெரும்பாழேயோ (பெரும் பாழ்) (பாழ் can be the most appropriate description of the blackhole in Tamil)....." to the modern day scientist who says anything which enters the black hole will keep moving back and forth like a yoyo with a very high frequency for all time to come.

We know very little and yet we have given the entity a name. We have been trying to draw just the outlines of these bodies. That is the nature of human endeavor. So we have given a name to the God. We have given him a form which resembles our own form-perhaps a reason is there for this. We have tried and failed to enumerate his attributes and so we have called him கல்யாண குணார்ணவம் or அகிலஹேயப்ரத்யனீகன் etc., We are not satisfied yet and so we call him many other names too.

b) God created rapists, serial killers, terrorists and worst of the worst also. You can say it is Karma etc but these people do exist. In fact world has almost equal number of good and bad elements at all levels.

I just want to ask "so what?"

 

[renuka]

Blue.

This post is not in reply to any post.

There are people who raise some questions as given below. I have tried to answer these questions to the best of my ability.

a) If vedas say Brahman is not definable why are there so many scriptures and sacred books talking about it?? Why even create a name called Brahman. Simply say there is a God and it is in this idol. So something does not add up in your belief or understanding or both

Becos its very easy to go on and on and on for something that we can NOT provide evidence.

We have bodies in the universe called dark bodies and bloack holes. Our knowledge about these are extremely limited and at best are inferences and hypotheses. These have been keeping the curiosity of human beings alive for several centuries now. From Alwar who sang "சூழ்ந்தகன்றாழ்ந்துயர்ந்த (சூழ்ந்து+அகன்று+ஆழ்ந்து+உயர்ந்து) முடிவில்(முடிவேயில்லாத) பெரும்பாழேயோ (பெரும் பாழ்) (பாழ் can be the most appropriate description of the blackhole in Tamil)....." to the modern day scientist who says anything which enters the black hole will keep moving back and forth like a yoyo with a very high frequency for all time to come.

I just got to know form my son that there is also something called White hole!

So for me its simple...I subscribe to Micheal Jacksons "It don't matter if you're black or white"

We know very little and yet we have given the entity a name. We have been trying to draw just the outlines of these bodies. That is the nature of human endeavor. So we have given a name to the God. We have given him a form which resembles our own form-perhaps a reason is there for this. We have tried and failed to enumerate his attributes and so we have called him கல்யாண குணார்ணவம் or அகிலஹேயப்ரத்யனீகன் etc., We are not satisfied yet and so we call him many other names too.

b) God created rapists, serial killers, terrorists and worst of the worst also. You can say it is Karma etc but these people do exist. In fact world has almost equal number of good and bad elements at all levels.

I just want to ask "so what?"


Here I would quote the Quran:


And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.(5:48)




And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge.(30:22)

And [He has subjected] whatever He multiplied for you on the earth of varying colors. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who remember.(16:13)

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

I understand and I do not want to prolong this argument further. I have posed a query in my last post. You are most welcome to give your point of view

Have posed several questions as well in other messages. You are most welcome to answer them

I said the following in response to Mr auh's post:

"There is no answer as to who created the creator .. It is meaningless if creator also created time, then question has no meaning. "

This means we cannot speculate further. Creator who created Time cannot be affected by Time.

 

[a-TB]

This post is not in reply to any post.

There are people who raise some questions as given below. I have tried to answer these questions to the best of my ability.

a) If vedas say Brahman is not definable why are there so many scriptures and sacred books talking about it?? Why even create a name called Brahman. Simply say there is a God and it is in this idol. So something does not add up in your belief or understanding or both

We have bodies in the universe called dark bodies and bloack holes. Our knowledge about these are extremely limited and at best are inferences and hypotheses. These have been keeping the curiosity of human beings alive for several centuries now. From Alwar who sang "சூழ்ந்தகன்றாழ்ந்துயர்ந்த (சூழ்ந்து+அகன்று+ஆழ்ந்து+உயர்ந்து) முடிவில்(முடிவேயில்லாத) பெரும்பாழேயோ (பெரும் பாழ்) (பாழ் can be the most appropriate description of the blackhole in Tamil)....." to the modern day scientist who says anything which enters the black hole will keep moving back and forth like a yoyo with a very high frequency for all time to come.

We know very little and yet we have given the entity a name. We have been trying to draw just the outlines of these bodies. That is the nature of human endeavor. So we have given a name to the God. We have given him a form which resembles our own form-perhaps a reason is there for this. We have tried and failed to enumerate his attributes and so we have called him கல்யாண குணார்ணவம் or அகிலஹேயப்ரத்யனீகன் etc., We are not satisfied yet and so we call him many other names too.

b) God created rapists, serial killers, terrorists and worst of the worst also. You can say it is Karma etc but these people do exist. In fact world has almost equal number of good and bad elements at all levels.

I just want to ask "so what?"

1. Explanations in Science changes when new data is available. Not so with our Brahman. There is no process to redefine it. Also blackholes may have indirect evidence. There is none for Brahman and everyone can come up with their own views. Then we have to accept all the views.
Therefore, example from Science is not applicable here.
Your oversimplified version cannot be reconciled with voluminous sacred texts written about so many things including I assume about Brahman.

2. So what??? If God did not have 'bad aspects' it is not possible how that entity can enable a world with so much bad things in the world. So defining God is all Good does not make sense. Where did the bad come from. My christian friends believe in Devil made by their god - that makes no sense either. What is the explanation for how bad came about - serial killers, rapists , terrorists, torture etc when God is only Good (and so cannot think of bad)

 

[sravna]

Have posed several questions as well in other messages. You are most welcome to answer them

I said the following in response to Mr auh's post:

"There is no answer as to who created the creator .. It is meaningless if creator also created time, then question has no meaning. "

This means we cannot speculate further. Creator who created Time cannot be affected by Time.

Yes creator is not affected by time. There is a concept called transcending. To transcend something is being not affected by it. One is at a higher level but can influence the lower level.

Think about it. Everything is finally energy. Experiencing time is experiencing energy. So one can directly experience a higher energy level and so not be experiencing time.

Time and space could not have been created by one who just experiences which is the nirguna brahman concept of advaita. But a logical way out of the problem is that it was created by one who exercised the faculty of thinking which is the saguna brahman concept. A question may be raised if he were thinking he should have existed in time? The answer is unless like we human beings whose thoughts span time, the thoughts of the creator are a unified whole and actions automatically follow. So by the possessing of unified thoughts, he is at a higher energy level and would not experience time.

I will also try to explain the relationship between the one who created the universe and the one in timeless experience

If you want me to clarify anything, in what I have said so far, I would be happy to do so.

 

[a-TB]

Yes creator is not affected by time. There is a concept called transcending. To transcend something is being not affected by it. One is at a higher level but can influence the lower level.

Think about it. Everything is finally energy. Experiencing time is experiencing energy. So one can directly experience a higher energy level and so not be experiencing time.

Time and space could not have been created by one who just experiences which is the nirguna brahman concept of advaita. But a logical way out of the problem is that it was created by one who exercised the faculty of thinking which is the saguna brahman concept. A question may be raised if he were thinking he should have existed in time? The answer is unless like we human beings whose thoughts span time, the thoughts of the creator are a unified whole and actions automatically follow. So by the possessing of unified thoughts, he is at a higher energy level and would not experience time.

I will also try to explain the relationship between the one who created the universe and the one in timeless experience

If you want me to clarify anything, in what I have said so far, I would be happy to do so.

Dear Mr Sravana:

Thanks for your reply.
The bold part above - All unsubstantiated thinking/ assumptions
Italics part - Confusion and forced fitting with some definitions that has no logical basis

I had a comment to Mr Vaagmi's post

"If God did not have 'bad aspects' it is not possible how that entity can enable a world with so much bad things in the world. So defining God is all Good does not make sense. Where did the bad come from. My christian friends believe in Devil made by their god - that makes no sense either. What is the explanation for how bad came about - serial killers, rapists , terrorists, torture etc when God is only Good (and so cannot think of bad)"

Question is - is the bad aspects created by your saguna brahman?

 

[Vaagmi]

What is bad?

Looking at the given situation from a different angle.

Absence of light is darkness. Absence of good is bad.

Good and bad are not created. World is created and beings are created. Beings have good in them which is natural. When it is absent we call it bad.

About the "pratama prayatnam" I have already written in detail in a post earlier some time back. That is how our scriptures explain the situation. Can find it in archives.

 

[renuka]

What is bad?

Looking at the given situation from a different angle.

Absence of light is darkness. Absence of good is bad.

Good and bad are not created. World is created and beings are created. Beings have good in them which is natural. When it is absent we call it bad.

About the "pratama prayatnam" I have already written in detail in a post earlier some time back. That is how our scriptures explain the situation. Can find it in archives.

Slightly would like to differ here.

If we go by the believe that both bad and good are not created but beings have innate good nature etc...that only acknowledges that bad too has to exists.

That is if a person has innate good that also means bad too can exists when this innate good does not
function due to varied extrinsic and intrinsic factors.

Therefore is it accurate to say a person has innate good when its non function can be the causative factor for bad?

Not really I feel cos such a Jekyll and Hyde situation would only lead to unstable good and bad expressions.

All we can say is a person has a innate discriminative faculty we call Viveka and actions is in accordance with Dharma of time,place and person is termed as "good" and actions not in accordance of Dharma is termed "bad"...its just relatively speaking actually.

So what is the truly within all beings? The Good ..the bad or the Ugly?

Its actually very hard to define becos our thoughts..words and deed are shaped by cultural conditioning..religion..the yuga as in time, law of country and desire.

Going by the understanding that the microcosm mimicks the macrocosm..therefore the exact true nature of a person sans all influences of any kind should only reflect the nature of the Universal Consciousness.

That should be Sat Chit Ananda...Existence..Consciousness..Bliss.

Does it talk about the Duality of Good and Bad or even Dharma for the matter?


Nope!

Do we experience Sat Chit Ananda only when all extrinsic and intrinsic influences are abandoned as in

sarva-dharman parityajya
mam ekam saranam vraja
aham tvam sarva-papebhyo
moksayisyami ma sucah

TRANSLATION
Abandon all varieties of Dharma and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

 

[sravna]

Dear Mr Sravana:

Thanks for your reply.
The bold part above - All unsubstantiated thinking/ assumptions
Italics part - Confusion and forced fitting with some definitions that has no logical basis

I had a comment to Mr Vaagmi's post

"If God did not have 'bad aspects' it is not possible how that entity can enable a world with so much bad things in the world. So defining God is all Good does not make sense. Where did the bad come from. My christian friends believe in Devil made by their god - that makes no sense either. What is the explanation for how bad came about - serial killers, rapists , terrorists, torture etc when God is only Good (and so cannot think of bad)"

Question is - is the bad aspects created by your saguna brahman?

Dear Shri a-TB,

For God, the purpose of creation is lila or to have an orthogonally different experience to his normal blissful experience. For that he projects the physical world.

So physical world being a projection, what is in the spiritual world is what is reflected in the physical world. If spiritual world is a blissful and timeless world, the physical world in totality will reflect that. The universe will tend towards that reality through evolution.

If something evolves, learning is happening. So learning is inevitable in the physical reality. For learning there has to be good and bad, That is the reason bad is also created , to learn and temper oneself.

But from our limited perspective, we are not able to see why bad is created. It seems like a bad design. But the trick is to see from the creator's perspective.

btw, if you are able to find specific flaws in my argument instead of making generic statements like bad logic , you would be adding value to the discussion

 

[thebigthinkg]

'Good' and 'Bad' are extremely relative based on your experience which keeps changing. What looked good yesterday looks bad today. what looks bad yesterday seems to be better today.

Good and Bad are our experiences. Those experiences that give us satisfaction we call them good. Those experiences that give us dis-satisfaction we call them bad. For a serial rapist, raping gives him/her satisfaction. It is good for him/her.

Often our satisfying experience may have a negative impact on the overall evolution of the society. We switch on air-conditioner at home. It is good for us, gives us satisfying experience. But it is bad for the overall society's evolution, as we are polluting the air that is common to everyone.

So what does dharma do..?

Those that are against sustainably evolving the society, dharma (the laws of universe) eliminates them. For eg., it brings in an awareness to people on the side-effects of ACs. Now we may still ignore and keep using it. It brings in more global warming to make inhabitation tough. We may still ignore it. It will create a huge man vs animal/microbes fight where in human beings get destroyed and planet is safe. Let's say we still win over it. It destroys the planet's life completely so that things can start fresh again. This is just my imagination, but could be real.

For eg., if a person becomes too ambitious such that the society gets driven by his/her wills and fancies alone and not by collective intelligence (which is the way to sustainably evolve the society), then dharma creates a lot of opposition for him/her automatically and overwhelms him/her. But let''s say for some reason the opposition to that person is totally eliminated or they cannot overcome the person, then dharma destroys the whole society, as the society cannot sustainably evolve. There are umpteen number of examples in the world and many more will come.

Brahman in my understanding is expansion and evolution. Saguna brahman is this evolving universe in which matter and beings manifest whose hallmark is the preponderance of some guna over other, giving them an aham-kAra, a distinct identity, when they interact with other matter and beings. The ultimate dharma here is to keep evolving sustainably into higher and higher forms of intellect. The fixed laws of Universe, which we perceive as dharma, are manifestations of that sustainable evolution. Whatever sustainably evolves progresses, else perishes.

So at times what we say as 'good' may be against sustainable evolution, against the dharma. At times what we say as 'bad' may be for sustainable evolution. It is tough to find them relating at a personal level. We have to become impersonal, think from a different plane shedding a lot of aham-kAra (which is tough) to figure out what is sustainable and what is not.

-TBT

 

[sravna]

Well said Shri.TBT

 

[Vaagmi]

If we go by the believe that both bad and good are not created but beings have innate good nature etc...that only acknowledges that bad too has to exists.
That is if a person has innate good that also means bad too can exists when this innate good does not
function due to varied extrinsic and intrinsic factors.
Therefore is it accurate to say a person has innate good when its non function can be the causative factor for bad?
Not really I feel cos such a Jekyll and Hyde situation would only lead to unstable good and bad expressions.
All we can say is a person has a innate discriminative faculty we call Viveka and actions is in accordance with Dharma of time,place and person is termed as "good" and actions not in accordance of Dharma is termed "bad"...its just relatively speaking actually.

What are the attributes of a Jeevatma?

JnAnatvam,Anandatvam, amalatvam, anutvam are said to be the qualities of a Jeevatma. While speaking about these qualities our ancestors have added the suffix "sathi anutvam" to every quality so that a Jeevatma is distinguished from the ParmAtma. (jnAnatvE sathi anutvam, AnandatvE sathi anutvam etc., etc.,).The reason is that God is vibhu while Jeevan is anu only.

These being the attributes that are natural to jeevAtma, Anukulya and pratikUlya come into the reckoning because of karma phalan.

This is what ancient scriptures say.

This is a very deep and involved topic for discussion and the space and attention span here is not ideal for that discussion. Hence I stop with this.

 

[a-TB]

What is bad? Looking at the given situation from a different angle. Absence of light is darkness. Absence of good is bad. Good and bad are not created. World is created and beings are created. Beings have good in them which is natural. When it is absent we call it bad. About the "pratama prayatnam" I have already written in detail in a post earlier some time back. That is how our scriptures explain the situation. Can find it in archives.

There are issues of logic in the above. "Absence of good is bad " - makes it look like good is real and bad is non-existence of good (and even benign).

Either both good and bad are real or neither because per Mr TBT that I understand and agree, good and bad is subjective. So it is arbitrary to call one real and the other absence of real. Does not make sense. Also 'bad' is not benign.

When Nirbahaya was getting raped over hours, that is 'bad' and it caused hurt to her and everyone else in a big way. No, bad is not benign (like absence of light is darkness).

I googled 'pratama praytnam' - mostly made up of Vaishnava beliefs and it does not explain 'the situation' The key point is that god allowed THE POSSIBILITY for terrible things to happen in life. For that god has to be mix of both good and bad..Calling God only all good is not logical

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

For God, the purpose of creation is lila or to have an orthogonally different experience to his normal blissful experience. For that he projects the physical world.

So physical world being a projection, what is in the spiritual world is what is reflected in the physical world. If spiritual world is a blissful and timeless world, the physical world in totality will reflect that. The universe will tend towards that reality through evolution.

If something evolves, learning is happening. So learning is inevitable in the physical reality. For learning there has to be good and bad, That is the reason bad is also created , to learn and temper oneself.

But from our limited perspective, we are not able to see why bad is created. It seems like a bad design. But the trick is to see from the creator's perspective.

btw, if you are able to find specific flaws in my argument instead of making generic statements like bad logic , you would be adding value to the discussion

Dear Mr Sravana:

As an example, the bold part above is just an imagination. Nothing more can be said about that. Why should god play lila and create all the POSSIBILITIES of extreme suffering? What the heck is the need for experience when god is above Time? There is no logic in these claims.

A child is born blind and suffers a whole life - what is it learning. How did Brahman become that child?

So these are examples of assumptions.

Regarding what I said about your confusions: Example is Nirguna and Saguna Brahman statements by you. There has to only one Brahman . It cannot be like one package with many parts (like we have body and mind and the two can be at odds with each other). If there are no parts assembled in Brahman it cannot hold completely opposite functions (nirguna and saguna whatever that means). This is confusion

Finally you say "you would be adding value to the discussion" implying that I am not adding value to the discussion. That is your 'ego' speak. You could have simply asked for explanation without a dig .. So much for claims of egoless living LOL