God Exists

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Just adding few more points from Saddarshana.Has lots of answers for the Q and A in the thread.Read on....

Cause hunting is natural to man.The inquiry begins from me and my experiences.I see before me the vast universe of infinite beings and things.
For every effect there must be a cause.What then is the primary cause of the experiencer(Jiva) and the experienced(Jagat)?

The Jiva cannot be the cause of the Jagat.He was already born into it.He can at most be the cause of his dream world or of confusion in the world!

The Jiva cannot be the cause of himself due to the fallacy of self dependence.Another Jiva cannot be the cause of this Jiva for who created that Jiva?
It would go on regress ad infinitum.

The Jagat cannot be the cause of itself since if it was already there,where would be the need for its creation.The world cannot be the cause for this Jiva as the inert cannot create a sentient being.

There must be a third factor which is the cause of both Jiva and Jagat.That cause is called Ishvara or God in religion and Truth in Philosophy.
It must have infinite potential for creation,must be omnipotent,omniscient and omnipresent.
Different schools of thoughts may attribute different qualities to the Lord and different relations with Him but all thinking men have to accept the existence of a primary cause.

Some ask the question if God created all,who created God?
This question is fallicious.If one accepts that God is the ultimate cause,then by asking for His cause,we are reducing Him to an effect.
If we accept some cause for God also,then again the question of a cause for that cause can be raised.
This ends up in infinite regress.
Hence God is the Causeless Cause.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Some interesting points to share.

We experience every object as "is"-- book is,car is and so on.
Without "is-ness", no object can exists.All existent objects have existence(sat) yet existence is not an object.

For example, without the concept of beauty,beautiful objects would not be known.
Beautiful objects can be described and shown but beauty itself is beyond words.
Further non-existent objects cannot exists,non-existence(asat) cannot exists and Existence can never become non-existence.

The thoughts of existing objects(satpratyayaah) are many but the Existence principle is one.
The objects and their thoughts keep changing and differ in name,form qualities but the Existence which supports them is unchanging therefore indestructible.

Thus on giving up names and forms the Truth is experienced as pure Existence.
Existence being the support of all is all pervading.Its is however experienced in the heart as Consciousness and therefore names Hrt.

It illumines all thoughts,itself remaining free from thoughts.In other words this "is-ness" of objects is experienced as "I"within every experience.
It is not somewhere far or near but one with me.
Thoughts exists becos of me;but I exists independent of thoughts.

One can only remember something different from oneself.The Truth being one with me cannot be remembered.Remembering and forgetting are both experienced as thoughts.
Truth is free from thoughts of objects and therefore cannot be remembered or forgotten.

The only way to remember It is to be one with it.
I remember that I am a human being by being one,not as a thought of my mind which I need to repeat.Firm abidance in the Truth as "I am Existence" which is the substratum of all objects and is the Consciousness which illumines all thoughts is Sat Darshana.


taken from SatDarshana of Ramana Maharishi with Commentary by Swami Tejomayananda.

Dear Renuka,

I think we can think of all names and forms as apparently separated from Existence. The connection between what seem to be separate entities is masked but the underlying reality is the whole.

 

[DrBarani]

Dear Shri Nara,

With all due respects to Hawking, let me say that he may be a big name in Science. but I think the western scientists in general are ignorant of or ignore the excellent insights that some religions offer. One who is well conversant in both science and scriptures, I bet would have a more balanced perspective than those who are not.

In my opinion Hawking is highly overrated. He has even withdrawn some of his pet theories that made him millions by books and speeches.

Einstein said "god doesn't play dice". Clearly he was a believer. What I see is, a vast majority of scientists are actually believers of some kind. They may question certain rituals and practices, but that has nothing to do with their pedagogy of belief. But it is not my style to pick majority over minority. That choice was forced upon me here.

A speculative unproven theory doesn't mean it has no merit. Scientists are still searching for the Hadron particle spending billions of dollars (on LHC collider). They even called it the "God particle" (though it had nothing to do with God, it was a silly marketing trick to get Govt money).

 

[renuka]

Info from Saddarshana.Real nice.Has words for each and everyone.

A discussion among equals in order to arrive at the truth or a conclusion is called Vaada.
An arguement where the ego is at play is called Vivaada.Here each tries to outwit the other and display his own knowledge.

When people with different views argue just to prove that they are right,it is called Jalpa.
Neither is interested in knowing the truth.When a person having no particular viewpoint argues only to prove the other wrong it is called Vitanda.

When a master tries to indicate his vision of the Truth to his disciples it is called Samvaada.
Vivaada,Jalpa and Vitanda are futile in gaining knowledge.
The ego gets bloated or pricked.
Hence Adi Shankara too says" Dustarkaat suviramyataam--Saadhana-Pancakam"(refrain from false arguements)

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Info from Saddarshana.Real nice.Has words for each and everyone.

Sadhana panchakam is the parting advice to his disciples before Adi Sankara departed and it contains karma, bhakthi and jnana in five verses . I call it FORTY STEPS TO LIBERATION, since each stanza contains eight gems of
sadhana.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear Renukaji,

By the way, swami Purnananda Thirtha delivered a series of lectures
way back in 60s in Matunga, Bombay on both Yoga vasistha and
Sat darsana. These lectures were later published in book form. I am
not sure whether you will be able to get it. A fine exposition coming from
a brilliant mind.

 

[zebra16]

In the immortal words of Rudyard Kipling : East is east, west is west and never the twain shall meet.

So if atheists and theists in this thread are not able to reach a consensus, why not agree to disagree amicably rather insist on proving one-upmanship? Just a suggestion...

PS: Any pedant telling me east and west have met, kindly note that during Kipling's time, it wasn't forseeable. And currently I don't see the two camps on this thread agreeing either.

For some threads in this forum, the line-up of proponents and opponents is FIXED, the arguments and counter arguments are FIXED, the outcome that the moderator will close the thread when "tu tu - mai mai" escalates and becomes shrill is FIXED. These closed threads are one of the good examples of 'MATCH FIXING"

 

[ShivKC]

request to all theist friends.

most of the arguments presented to atheists were not rebutted, but I can only find the same questions having getting presented repeatedly. in order to put a full stop to such activity, for next few session lets jointly to to answer this question, with different perspectives..

The question to be focussed is.

who created god? if god is the first cause and cause for creation of universe, who is the cause for creation of god?

lets attempt.

 

[C RAVI]

request to all theist friends.

most of the arguments presented to atheists were not rebutted, but I can only find the same questions having getting presented repeatedly. in order to put a full stop to such activity, for next few session lets jointly to to answer this question, with different perspectives..

The question to be focussed is.

who created god? if god is the first cause and cause for creation of universe, who is the cause for creation of god?

lets attempt.

Dear Shiv,

This question and the quest for the answer is lingering in the minds of all the theist from time immorial . I too have this question for which I am seeking answer from my mid 20's.

Later I could realize that, the "brain" with which we humans think (even the most intellectuals) and the "tongue" with which we ask questions have limitations. Both are under control.

If we could achieve giving senses to Robots, Robots would consider us as God. And we would know, as how we have limited the mental intellect of our Robots.

What ever advancements we make scientifically in this physical world are all still based on the limited capacity, lacking the absolute sense.

There are many metamorphic aspects in this physical world itself, which we do way with either of the following 1) don’t recognize them, 2) recognize them but don't accept them as they are; 3) recognize them, accept them and leave the experiences as it is. For, all these recognitions and experiences can not be logically exposed to others and expected to be accepted. Many a times we tend to hold them within our self with lots of confusions and just carry on with what we could logically realize, accept and live.

Theists and Atheists exist because of the concept of God. The correlation and mutual acceptance between Theist and Atheist couldn’t be achieved because of the concept of God. In such a case how can we even think of debating - "Who Created the God and Why?

If we create a new thread to discuss on - "Who created God and for What? IMO, the whole discussion from the beginning till the end would just revolve around "Whether God Exist"?

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear Mr.Shiv KC,

God, as you say, is the First cause . Then how can there be a cause
for the First cause. We call it Anadi, beginningless. When we work
back on this theory of Karana-kariya, there is no karana for the
AdiKarana.

If God is the effect of some other cause, then He is not God. The
cause becomes God !

 

[sravna]

request to all theist friends.

most of the arguments presented to atheists were not rebutted, but I can only find the same questions having getting presented repeatedly. in order to put a full stop to such activity, for next few session lets jointly to to answer this question, with different perspectives..

The question to be focussed is.

who created god? if god is the first cause and cause for creation of universe, who is the cause for creation of god?

lets attempt.

Even though I think truth is only relized on one's own, we can pave the way or facilitate such a thing. All our experiences are only for that, paving the way for the realization of truth.

So I am inclined to consider the question of "Who created God", a very fundamental question with much greater focus and with a view to obtainig clarity in understanding.

So I would suggest that we proceed step by step and answer some questions before attempting the question of Who created God.

The first question for theists to consider would be: What is your definition of God? or What are the essential qualities that would qualify to be those of God only?

The atheist should answer this: What are the qualities you think anything could not possess for you to reject the notion of God?

 

[renuka]

request to all theist friends.

most of the arguments presented to atheists were not rebutted, but I can only find the same questions having getting presented repeatedly. in order to put a full stop to such activity, for next few session lets jointly to to answer this question, with different perspectives..

The question to be focussed is.

who created god? if god is the first cause and cause for creation of universe, who is the cause for creation of god?

lets attempt.

I am qouting the Quran here for this Shiv.

La ilaha ilAllah (Arabic: لا إله إلا الله‎, lā ʾilāha ʾillallāh)(There is only God)


I am pasting what i had pasted earlier from Saddarshana.

Some ask the question if God created all,who created God?
This question is fallicious.If one accepts that God is the ultimate cause,then by asking for His cause,we are reducing Him to an effect.
If we accept some cause for God also,then again the question of a cause for that cause can be raised.
This ends up in infinite regress.
Hence God is the Causeless Cause.

 

[DrBarani]

I am qouting the Quran here for this Shiv.

That triggers my thought - I wonder if any of the atheists would like to spend some of their time in islamic forums and tell the muslims "There is no Allah! Now give me respect!"

 

[renuka]

Dr Barani,

Ever since you joined Forum, I keep laughing so much cos some of your lighthearted posts are point blank and spot on.
You know I was telling my mum yesterday about your Brain and Finger anology and she was saying "who said this? well explained"
and then I told her.."amma there is more, Dr Barani also talks about our duty" and I told her your last line in that post and she was OMG and then she said this.."in todays world we need more people like Dr Barani"

 

[Haridasa Siva]

With the arguments, couter arguments and counter arguments running to nearly 300 posts, can we all agree to the following words?

தெய்வம் என்றால் அது தெய்வம் - வெறும்
சிலை என்றால் அது சிலைதான்
உண்டென்றால் அது உண்டு
இல்லையென்றால் அது இல்லை


Translation: If you see it as God, it is God; otherwise just a statue. If you think it is there, it is there; if you think it does not exist, it does not exist.

 

[renuka]

With the arguments, couter arguments and counter arguments running to nearly 300 posts, can we all agree to the following words?

தெய்வம் என்றால் அது தெய்வம் - வெறும்
சிலை என்றால் அது சிலைதான்
உண்டென்றால் அது உண்டு
இல்லையென்றால் அது இல்லை


Translation: If you see it as God, it is God; otherwise just a statue. If you think it is there, it is there; if you think it does not exist, it does not exist.

Dear Haridas,

What to do? the other interesting thread got closed so this is the next interesting thread.

 

[sravna]

My answer as a theist on the definition of God:

Let me develop some background before I answer this question. Consider the first effects that apparently separated from the original cause as pure physical energy, the highest frequncy ones that were according to science, considered to have existed after the big bang. I would like to caution that I may not be explaning in the way a physicist understands and explains but I am trying to explain in the way I understand. This pure physical energy whose region of existence in a time that it takes to complete one wavelength, was limited to planck's length, the shortest possible length in space, and hence which existed as pure physical energy and called as planck energy, because of interactions with similar energies in a certain way begin to form something whose presence spans planck's lengths. I would like to call any energy other than planck energy as not pure physical energy.

When something spans across planck lengths the energy in it is not uniformly distributed and enters the realm of matter. It gets a tangible presence in space. Interactions continue to happen with different types of matter and the complexity and sophistication of the resulting entities increase. We reach a stage when human intelligence is created. The logical conclusion would be, to be in line with the above scheme of things, end up in what we conceive of as perfection being divine existence.

Consider that energy at the beginning of the universe the pure physical energies ( i.e., restricted to the smallest distance in space) such as A, B, C, D, E, F , G and H. Let us say A and B interact in a certain way to form AB, Similarly CD, EF and GH. Consider this process AB and CD to form ABCD and EF and GH to form EFGH and finally the single entity ABCDEFGH. This ABCDEFGH which is the holistic composition of what we see as physical energies is what I would call pure spiritual energy or God. Those which seem as interactions already exist as connections. But due to our limitations we do not see the connections. The veil that is put over the connections gradually unveils and let the reality that was on the other side be visible to us finally.

The above can only be a conjecture and hence is open to criticism. But my belief and definition of God is the above which is consistent with my belief of advaita.

 

[renuka]

Sravna,

You said:

This ABCDEFGH which is the holistic composition of what we see as physical energies is what I would call pure spiritual energy or God.

Can you expand on this a bit.I am a bit confused.Why are we comparing visible physical energies with pure spiritual energy here?
Comparison can only be done if both states match.
What is the form of Spiritual Energy?Are you talking about Prana here or its precusor?

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

When you wrote

This ABCDEFGH which is the holistic composition of what we see as physical energies is what I would call pure spiritual energy or God.

See E=MC2 hence we still need mass to perceive energy.
So by saying God is pure spiritual energy arent we doing Panchikarana(Grossification) for God?
If we are doing Grossification thats no more in the Purest of States.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Sir/Madam,

It is said in the Mundaka upanishad that Brahman is both the material and the
efficient cause of the universe. It is the ultimate cause, nothing further than that.
This causal relationship is explained in the upanishad by the illustration of the
spider and its web. When the spider wants to weave a web, it uses the silk which
belongs to it and without which it cannot weave. Therefore the spider , as a
conscious entity, is the efficient cause of the web, and from the standpoint of
the silk, the material cause. No outside material is needed in the creation of
the universe. Brahman is the ultimate cause and the first cause.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Here is a famous Osho quote on God :

When you come and ask me ' where is God ? ', I can not show you.
Unless you prove him into your own being , he will not be there. Until you
become him, he is not. Everybody has to realize him in his inner most
shrine, in his own being. You carry him as a seed. It is upto you to
allow it to grow and become a great tree.

 

[Nara]

With all due respects to Hawking, let me say that he may be a big name in Science. but I think the western scientists in general are ignorant of or ignore the excellent insights that some religions offer. One who is well conversant in both science and scriptures, I bet would have a more balanced perspective than those who are not.

Dear sravna, I cited Hawking in answer to your question about jagat having no purposeful creator. Note that Hawking did not comment about existence of god, though I think he is a non-believer, all he said was god is not necessary.

I am on the road and therefore unable to spend the time to provide proper citations, but we have already discussed this point about scientists and belief in god. A majority of academicians do not express belief in god, this group includes all sorts of people, not just scientists. When it comes to scientists, an overwhelming 80% are non-believers. Tyson, in one of his speeches, remarked that it is a wonder that as many as 20% of scientists express belief in some kind of supernatural entity. It requires an advanced level of tolerance for cognitive dissonance to be a scientist and express belief in god, especially in a personal god like Rama, krishna, and Shiva, Jesus, etc.

sravna, when it comes to conjectures about origin of universe, I think Hawking deserves lot more respect than anyone in the site.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

Dear K, you are right on. There are supposed to be 108 Upanishads and I have gone through some of them. What I have seen are not very impressive, filled with inane stuff. The few major upanishads do have some very interesting passages, giving us a glimpse to the free-thinking ancients. But, Brahminism has made sure these free-thinking speculations are elevated to divine status that a believer is required to freeze their minds to a time about 2500 years ago. All the advances of knowledge is either suspect, or gets retrofitted to the ancients.

But K, don't despair, the world is moving on, those who wish to be stuck in Vedic times are going extinct. It is only a matter of time, as you predict, these speculations will be consigned to the history.

Cheers!

Nara,

if i remember my brahmayagnam right, from those distant days of performing tharpanams, there used to be an ode to upanishad ('upanishad tharpayaami') among all other odes...

i think, this is the closest the average tambram comes to the upanishads. which is a shame, if the said scripture has a lot more to offer.

btw, i do not understand why the theist are so dead against the atheists here.

after all, i think it would be more natural for theists of all sorts to fight for the souls of the believers like they do in the real world peddling the superiority of each of the faiths, and putting the others down.

whether it be the bible thumping evangelists or the quran waving jihadists, these are more prone to attack hinduism, than a couple of erudite atheist, who have found through their own experience, the pathe to non-god or un-god (not sure which is appropriate here) amybe anti-god if provoked.

leave the atheists alone. they do no harm

 

[DrBarani]

Man to his Girlfriend: "All these Guru teaching is meaningless! It doesn't allow you to think freely!"

Girlfriend: "What did you think?"

Man: "All these heaven and hell, life and afterlife, god and devil are all stories!"

Girl: "How did you figure that out?"

Man: "I used Logic!"

Girl: "Where did you learn that?"

Man: "From my school teacher, of course!"

 

[sravna]

Sravna,

You said:


Can you expand on this a bit.I am a bit confused.Why are we comparing visible physical energies with pure spiritual energy here?
Comparison can only be done if both states match.
What is the form of Spiritual Energy?Are you talking about Prana here or its precusor?

Dear Renuka,

The universe being apparently separated from brahman comes in to being in the form of disparate physical energies but since the separation from brahman is apparent the disparate physical energies have to go into it and merge again in brahman. This is what I meant.

now consider the following as brahman : 1111111111111111

The physical energies is due to maya and brahman appears as :
1,1, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1

These physical energies become the non living matter
and brahman appears as: 11, 11, 11 , 11,11,11,11,11.

Similarly we have the living as: 1111,1111,1111,1111

and the human as: 11111111, 111111111

and finally the brahman back as:1111111111111111


You may ask how does this union occur? I would say probably at the level of the soul and also at the physical level. I will illustrate this idea by expanding that in the case of humans.

Now consider brahman as 11111111

The average human starts at 11 and is on the physical side of the divide.

His experiences are such that he begins to believe that selfishness is desirable and becomes a 1 or utterly selfish. His expereinces reverse and his belief turns around . He becomes less convinced of selfishness. He again becomes a 11 but he will now not revert to 1 because his experiences against selfishness have overwhelmed his experiences for selfishness.

When he moves from 11 to 111, he is on the spiritual side but biased in a different way i.e., now even at the cost of self. Thus the bias continues. Then again the right experiences finally overwhelm the expereinces that caused the bias and he becomes finally a 1111 and one with brahman.

In the above case when a person is moving from 1 to 11, i would say he is connected at the inner level with more persons, and hence is able to empathize with avfew people. When he becomes a 111, he is connected with a much larger section of the world at the inner level, Since he is not totally selfless there is a bias but the bias is towards the selfless. And finally on to 1111 and at the inner level he is in sync with everybody and is totally selfless.

Besides this sync at the inner level, I think there is an actual union of souls which I think would occur at the end of kalpa when all the transcending takes place. From energy and matter to non living to living to human to divine.
That would be a reason why there is many more of lower forms than the higher forms.

The above is again a conjecture and open to criticism.