God Exists

[subbudu1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

I dont understand this theory really but I think these ideas need to be patented? Since I dont understand I cannot even criticize or praise.
How about the title for these related theories-
"Sravna's arithmetic progression of energy,selflessness,god and advaita"
Sorry for the humour it is not meant as a ridicule but your theories are so unique and new that they need a title.

 

[nachi naga]

the universe and its inhabitants is nothing but the external potency of the lord.maya tatham idam sarvam.

 

[sravna]

I dont understand this theory really but I think these ideas need to be patented? Since I dont understand I cannot even criticize or praise.
How about the title for these related theories-
"Sravna's arithmetic progression of energy,selflessness,god and advaita"
Sorry for the humour it is not meant as a ridicule but your theories are so unique and new that they need a title.

You seem to create humour out of everything.Old or new , good or bad. Are you really such a funny person?

 

[C RAVI]

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!"

Dr.Barani,

Enjoyed your story, to read between the lines... With your kind permission I want to continue

Girl: "How your School teacher Knows all this"

Man: "From his/her teachers"


Girl: "Does it mean, its all been tought from one to another"?

Man: "Yes. It's been tought from one to another"

Girl: "Than who was tought first and by whom"?

Man: "May be one who explored/understood something on his/her own and started teaching"

Girl: "Than, how can we say that, the person have understood all the truth/realities and his/her teachings can be taken for granted?"

Man: "Simple dear. Just accept it. Because we could understand some how and are convinced with it. Because we could understand and could see what is what, physically/visually/sensibly"

Girl: "But I am not convinced. How can you say that what you could see only exist? How can you say that nothing else exist? Just becouse you were been tought, how can you say that there exist nothing else?

Man: "Common...I don't want to bother what else exist. I don't believe that something else exist too"

Girl: "Ok..Than fine..But, I want to explore what else exist other than what you/me could know"

Man: "That would be foolishness. Just enjoy what you have and make the best out of your life"

Girl: "How can I agree that, what I have is the best and that alone is the real?"

Man: "Because you have what you have now"

Girl: "What, if the one that we don't have and know, be more good for us?"

Man: "We can think if thats more good or not, if we could know, that we don't know now.Untill than why to think of it even? What you gonna achieve by thinking the other realities?"

Girl: "I just want to be perfect. I don't want to ignore all that we couldn't know with our transformations of knowledge through school teachers"

Man: "Ok..If you could know, let me know convincingly"

Girl: "If I could know and I am convinced, I will be happy enough. I can tell you and it's upto you to accept or not"

Man: "Why? Why no substantial backing up from your side?"

Girl: "I have to reralize, understand and accept. I can just share with you. I can't get you what I got just by teaching you as a teacher. I don't want to be a school teacher. You can listen to me and make your own efforts to know what I learned and be your own teacher. When you could learn on your own, you are the better judge"

 

[subbudu1]

Stop testing my attempts to be modest! LOL

But I don't want Mr.Kunjuppu or others to misunderstand me into "it is not possible to reduce Upanishads and others into easier language". I think it is possible, and that is what Mr.Kunjuppu was driving at, so perhaps I went into a tangent mode. But to reduce a work of hundreds of years requires a dedicated long term effort by many capable people. How many are willing to join as a team and try it out? Mr.TKS asked me that marvelous question and I am afraid I didn't rise up to that level yet.

Let us have parallel things as they are
1. Tamil or regional version for the Upanishads
2. A scholarly set of experts trained in the intricacies of vedanta , hinduism etc who are fairly qualified in sanskrit and who have the scholarly ability to translate things into atleast one regional language
3. A scholarly set of specialists in sanskrit who can attack the subject in the deepest core of literature

I am representing the view of a well known saint, known to all, "that this subject also needs to be preserved in sanskrit because the deepest of meanings might be discovered at a later point not yet. " I have added the word also!


Considering the present situation we are not going to have lack of people in any of the groups, provided the right segment of population is targeted for the right job based on qualifications and interest.


Vedas and Vedanta are atleast 3000 years away from us and it is difficult to imagine that all the meaning will be solved today or day after tomorrow, when lot of things are ambiguous already and was so even a few hundred years ago.

 

[ShivKC]

. 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 !

sh.NRR, you said it perfect, excellent and crispy to the point. this is what i have being coining it in my earlier posts in line with our westerners taste, and you have put it perfectly in line with our understanding.

unfortunately, i find, atheists here had avoided the important quotes like this, and i find them posting back again the same question.

i would request you to put forth this question directly to the atheists here (not directed to me).. at the moment, theists here are all focused with the foundation question.. who was the cause for creation of God? who is the first cause for creation of god.?

dr.barani attempted it through numbers, sravana attempted through philosophy, and myself tried both, may be try euclidean geometry and Humes with my next attempt...lets all counter, and lets not allow them to evade questions.

thank you sir.. you said it right, "if its the first cause, then why worry' but dont be surprised to face a funny question from atheists.. if its first (1st) cause, there should be a zero cause, and -1 cause and further (-) infinity cause...

 

[DrBarani]

if its first (1st) cause, there should be a zero cause, and -1 cause and further (-) infinity cause...

The man who knew infinity - Ramanujam, my favourite hero in math, who is not even appreciated by many white-skin worshipping Indians, is a believer in God. If he was around, perhaps he could have answered trivial questions about infinite loops...

Not a single intellect of this generation is remotely close to that genius. But how many Indians can even recognize his face, in contrast to the face of Einstein?

 

[ShivKC]

Dear Sravna,

When you wrote


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.

doc, its wrong to perceive E=MC2 as an ultimate thing, and set all the arguments of theism bench marking with einstein. it only give a feel, some one wants to sail along the stream and stake claim in favour tandem with popularity.. there are better people lived, incl Adi Shankaras debate with mandana, who explained these answers philosophically, better what einstein could do, though his views are theist.

taking einstein and relatitivity every where, will make the argument stoop down to taking eg of red army and its genocide.. we have lots of views available in this world to prove the existence of god.

 

[Yamaka]

"Vedas and Vedanta are atleast 3000 years away from us and it is difficult to imagine that all the meaning will be solved today or day after tomorrow, when lot of things are ambiguous already and was so even a few hundred years ago." - subbudu1 said.

Very well said.

Amin.​

 

[renuka]

doc, its wrong to perceive E=MC2 as an ultimate thing, and set all the arguments of theism bench marking with einstein. it only give a feel, some one wants to sail along the stream and stake claim in favour tandem with popularity.. there are better people lived, incl Adi Shankaras debate with mandana, who explained these answers philosophically, better what einstein could do, though his views are theist.

taking einstein and relatitivity every where, will make the argument stoop down to taking eg of red army and its genocide.. we have lots of views available in this world to prove the existence of god.

Dear Shiv,

I think you got me wrong here.I was using the formula here to deduce that we cant define Brahman(God) as Spiritual Energy and this goes perfectly in line with the Neti Neti definition of Adishankara.
I chose the E=MC2 formula to make it visible for deduction.
I dont see science as seperate from religion as science is just a methodology to decipher the mystery of Existence and Creation.

Science is nothing new to the Vedic,Quantum Mechanics theories are noted in the Vedic literature Prapti Siddhi and in this theory it does not impose a limitation that events that happen in the universe does not exceed the speed of light.

So if you go by that I guess me citing the example of E=MC2 is still "elementary" as compared to the Vedas.
I hold Vedas with highest regards.

 

[sravna]

Hinduism provides such a vast source of authentic knowledge IMO and sadly very few people see it this way. It is all the more important in todays chaotic life that the much ignored ancient texts be utilized in a way that restores some order and purpose to people's life.

For that people basically need to believe in what the religion says which boils down to belief in God. I think this objective is not easily achieved mainly because logic is not the way to make people understand this. Nevertheless if used effectively it at least deprives the non-believers of their most potent argument against the existence of God: that it is based only on faith and cannot be logically proven. though I am skeptical whether it would bring any material change in their attitude. Or may be it would?

Let's keep hoping and hope that this thread does at least something to make the waters less muddy.

 

[tks]

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.

Sri ShivKC -

I did not respond to your question because it was addressed to 'theist friends'

You see, I don't believe in God, I am not an Atheist and I am not an into Agnosticism or any other 'ism'

I know for the faith based people locked in 'binary logic' the above statement may not make sense.

If someone asks me - Do you believe in Science - my answer is NO - I learn and understand and there is no need for belief system here. I can tell you what I think of some of the models in science but basically it a teaching not requiring beliefs.

I have come to understand that this forum membership does not have true atheists - just some argumentative types who provide 'logically-illogical script' or 'illogically-logical script' and 'believe' in the security blanket of their own script backed by some unresolved issues in their mind. They have a model of 'God' in their head and they reject that model. I completely agree that the should reject their notion of 'God'. But they believe everyone has that same model. In a way they are also 'believers' and we must respect them for their 'faith'.

No one has to prove anything to anyone in my view in this topic area. I dont think there are really two camps - we have free thinking spirits which is what makes this forum interesting to me.

Now I see that Sri Ranganathan has answered your query in post #295. While this is not doable in a forum of this kind, in an appropriate environment (like class room setting) using other metaphors (like the spider example) Upansishads explain this concept in more detail and Sri Sankara's commentaries make the point compellingly obvious.

Regards

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

The E in E=mc^2 is physical energy and that is what is equivalent to mass. My usage of the term spiritual i.e., something transcending space and time doesn't contradict anything that Sankara says.

 

[ShivKC]

"Vedas and Vedanta are atleast 3000 years away from us and it is difficult to imagine that all the meaning will be solved today or day after tomorrow, when lot of things are ambiguous already and was so even a few hundred years ago." - subbudu1 said.

Very well said.

Amin.​

that was a good attempt of a typical piggy back ride, in the name of subbudu1..

people across the globe could even now quote url's of aristotle/plato/charvaka/buddha/upanishads to refute or prove the existence of god, even as on date, its interesting to know, some one is discounting Vedas just because its 3000 yrs old.. is there any premise, the younger philosophies gets more weightage in a discussion?

i can only call that post as just another lost steam attempt, and its definitely not of good taste with the subject which we are discussing in this thread, with some seriousness. if some one wants to mock brahmins or ancient vedas, they are free to open a thread..... may be, one can open a separate thread to have some good fun.

 

[kunjuppu]

...


Vedas and Vedanta are atleast 3000 years away from us and it is difficult to imagine that all the meaning will be solved today or day after tomorrow, when lot of things are ambiguous already and was so even a few hundred years ago.

subbudu,

we will also face the issue of interpretation. even sanskrit has evolved over time, and words, their meanings, nuances, today, may be different that kalidasa's time or even before that.

this can be good for it can lead to healthy discussions, as to the intentions of the veda vakku and for many things, translated literally, may not make sense or irrelevant in today's world.

just to compare how others deal with this: i think christianity has a healthy attitude towards the interpretation of the bible and the gospels. thousands of commentaries have been written over the centuries, agreed to, presided by and suppressed by the popes till the reformation, when it became a free for all exercise.

i think the most thoughtful commentaries on christianity have been written by the jews. for even though they were at the receiving end of christian envy and wrath all these centuries, there existed a basic intellectual honesty and integrity with the jewish scholars, so that in the interest of scholarship, they rose above the immediate and past hurts. also their views were not coloured by faith here, which, whether protestant or catholic, until very recently, influenced their views.

islam just took the opposite route. for islam, afaik, arabic is god's language. quaran authenticity is only in arabic. no more no less. that the arabic of 600 c.e. is different from today, is probably, the cause of so much angst, contradiction, confusion with the widely dispersed islamic societies - what is good for arabia of the 600s, need not necessarily transpose well in 20th century europe. unfortunately, indian islam, which is sufi based, got hit, with the oilwealth, wahhabis and now the jihadist.

all in all, with the onset of internet, the hot air flow has increased from the talking heads, and i think this might have caused more, to global warming than anything else

 

[Nara]

....
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"

Renu, so, this is what impressed you most, flipping those with whom he disagrees? What about those who may flip a theist, or say Sai devotees, would you like more of them too?

I for one prefer those with whom I can disagree without getting flipped.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

My criticism have not been directed at self proclaimed atheists but rather at the display of what I consider questionable character issues displayed.
DrBarani's quote had a smiley and it is mischievous to remove it while citing .. It was meant as a joke and not anyone in particular - hence they received likes.
Let us take it easy and not start this 'holier than thou' posts!

Who can argue with this impeccable "superior" logic, one in which each of us can decide on our own who deserves to be called an arrogant ignominious for not much more than disagreeing. Further, you can write any vulgar expletive, but it must be taken as a joke as long as a smiley is put at the end. This "superior" logic is like silly putty, you can mold it to suit whatever is the need of the hour.

I have no use for this "superior" logic, I rather to stick to ordinary logic, rationality, and civility in my exchanges

 

[ShivKC]

Who can argue with this impeccable "superior" logic, one in which each of us can decide on our own who deserves to be called an arrogant ignominious for not much more than disagreeing. Further, you can write any vulgar expletive, but it must be taken as a joke as long as a smiley is put at the end. This "superior" logic is like silly putty, you can mold it to suit whatever is the need of the hour.

I have no use for this "superior" logic, I rather to stick to ordinary logic, rationality, and civility in my exchanges

it was quite disappointing the way the topic is getting dragged to personal levels.

a joke of smiley is portrayed big. but the important point what dr.barani talked about inline with binary or mathematics is conveniently getting skipped, without any proper rebuttal. sad to see this kind of provoking response from the learned professor.

lets stick to the topic please.

 

[C RAVI]

I have no use for this "superior" logic, I rather to stick to ordinary logic, rationality, and civility in my exchanges

Is it?????

I wish all who claim so, be telling the truth ever and live upto it.. Be fair with all without any bias and without getting into personal one to one friendship, be honest in observations and expressions of the truth, sticking to the points/views/opinions of one self.

 

[C RAVI]

it was quite disappointing the way the topic is getting dragged to personal levels.

lets stick to the topic please.

I share the same views with you...

Showing middle finger to the non believers, as a joke, is common to both the sides. Any one need to understand this basic.

If A and B doesn't agree with each other, the middle finger would be raised by both towards each other.

With that sense only, as a joke, I shared my views with Dr.Barani. And I can well understand that Dr.Barani has passed on his joke, in the same order.

 

[tbs]

hi
i saw here more 'SUPER' english words here.....beleif/faith/GOD ..these are abstract feelings...feelings may not explain in words.....

according to advaitha....its ' ANIRVACANEEYAM'....many advatins dont beleive in GOD'....its mainly puranic based.....early rigdvedins..

beleive in more naturalists than GOD concept...like puritans of earlier christinity......we use a logic/theories and mind blowing scientific

Einstien's/Darwin's theories.....its good for class room teachings....not for feelings....its purely personal/individual experiences....

every individual is unique...like Moksha... its purely a self realisation.....the same way the GOD....we beleive in formless....NIRGUNA

BRAHMAN....nothing wrong in hinduism.....my 2 cents.....


regards
tbs

 

[kunjuppu]

I share the same views with you...

Showing middle finger to the non believers, as a joke, is common to both the sides. Any one need to understand this basic.

If A and B doesn't agree with each other, the middle finger would be raised by both towards each other.

With that sense only, as a joke, I shared my views with Dr.Barani. And I can well understand that Dr.Barani has passed on his joke, in the same order.

dont want to get into the middle of anything here.

but maybe some explanation is needed?

in north america, where i live, showing the middle finger is the ultimate form of insult. it is enough for even a mild mannered person to initiate a brawl.

i do not know about india and whether there are various degrees of lifting the middle finger, and what each level means. could be some level up there is 'fun', but i think it is only appropriate, that people who initiated this can clarify.

till then, personally, if someone had lifted a middle finger at me, i would definitely consider it as a sign of disrespect.

hope this would help bring clarity to the situation.

 

[mskmoorthy]

Indira Nooyi's Graduation Speech

dont want to get into the middle of anything here.

but maybe some explanation is needed?

in north america, where i live, showing the middle finger is the ultimate form of insult. it is enough for even a mild mannered person to initiate a brawl.

i do not know about india and whether there are various degrees of lifting the middle finger, and what each level means. could be some level up there is 'fun', but i think it is only appropriate, that people who initiated this can clarify.

till then, personally, if someone had lifted a middle finger at me, i would definitely consider it as a sign of disrespect.

hope this would help bring clarity to the situation.

Sorry for the digression about the main topic.

The following is Indira Nooyi's Columbia University Graduation Speech (for Business School)
Indra Nooyi's Graduation Remarks
"As I grew up and started to study geography, I remember being told that the five fingers can be thought of as the five major continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America. Now, let me issue a profound apology to both Australia and Antarctica. I bear neither of these continents any ill will. It's just that we humans have only five fingers on each hand, so my analogy doesn't work with seven continents.

Clearly, the point of my story is more important that geographical accuracy!

First, let's consider our little finger. Think of this finger as Africa. Africa is the little finger not because of Africa's size, but because of its place on the world's stage. From an economic standpoint, Africa has yet to catch up with her sister continents. And yet, when our little finger hurts, it affects the whole hand.

Our thumb is Asia: strong, powerful, and ready to assert herself as a major player on the world's economic stage.

Our index, or pointer finger, is Europe. Europe is the cradle of democracy and pointed the way for western civilization and the laws we use in conducting global business.

The ring finger is South America, including Latin America. Is this appropriate, or what? The ring finger symbolizes love and commitment to another person. Both Latin and South America are hot, passionate, and filled with the sensuous beats of the mambo, samba, and tango: three dances that -- if done right -- can almost guarantee you and your partner will be buying furniture together.

This analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents leaves the long, middle finger for North America, and, in particular, the United States. As the longest of the fingers, it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg up in global business since the end of World War I.

However, if used inappropriately -- just like the U.S. itself -- the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I'm talking about. In fact, I suspect you're hoping that I'll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I'm not looking for volunteers to model.

Discretion being the better part of valor...I think I'll pass. "

 

[kunjuppu]

msk,

this was the biggest faux pas by indira.

pepsi and indira went out of their way, re damage control. also, it is one of those blemishes, which will be recalled if indira ever aspires to any public profile position representing the usa.

i dont think mrs nooyi will ever talk about the middle finger, let alone raise it. she would probably cut it off before anything else happens

such insensitivity could only be tolerated in the usa, in that , indira did not lose her job. anywhere else in the world, she would be out in the streets and no one would hire her again. it is on occassions like, that i love the tolerant spirit of the americans.

jai america.

ps.. btw i think that this is one of the stupidest graduation speeches ever given. even jeppeeyaar does better than this

 

[Yamaka]

"This analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents leaves the long, middle finger for North America, and, in particular, the United States. As the longest of the fingers, it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg up in global business since the end of World War I.

However, if used inappropriately -- just like the U.S. itself -- the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I'm talking about. In fact, I suspect you're hoping that I'll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I'm not looking for volunteers to model.

Discretion being the better part of valor...I think I'll pass. " Indira Nooyi as told here.

I was told that the Theists and Vedic Scholars are very kind and "soft" people! I didn't know that they are the first ones to use the middle finger when they lose an argument, at least in this Thread!

So much is the power of God and their Vedas!

All Machiavellian Mumbo Jumbos!!