• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

God Exists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Folks,

Not many know that Swami Vivekananda started as an atheist. Here is a relevant story:
'Reason and Faith'
"He who is in you and outside you,
Who works through all hands,
Who walks on all feet,
Whose body are all ye,
Him worship, and break all other idols!
"Ye fools! Who neglect the living God,
And his infinite reflections with which the world is full,
While ye run after imaginary shadows,
That lead alone to fights and quarrels,
Him worship, the only visible!
Break all other idols!"

This realisation did not come easily to the merry young man who was once Narendranath Datta. But it was the essence of the journey that transformed him into Swami Vivekananda and inspired this poem.
Naren was a restless teenager. He was haunted by that eternally irksome question: "Does God really exist?" For, if God does exist, he thought, "then why is there no response to my passionate appeals? Why is there so much woe in his benign kingdom?" So he floundered about, 'like a child in the wildest forest lost." But slowly he emerged from the thicket of doubt and uncertainty to worship "the only God in whom I believe...my God the miserable, my God the poor of all races." How did this happen?The tortuous path to this realisation was lit by a frail-looking, ascetic who worshipped the Goddess Kali at the garden temple of Dakshineshwar on the banks of the Ganga. This man, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, was able to say that he had indeed 'seen' God. Naren was not instantly convinced but the sincerity and confidence of Sri Ramakrishna's claim was moving. Others already believed that Sri Ramakrishna was a Paramahamsa - one who has attained the highest spiritual state. But to Naren, at first, Ramakrishna seemed like a "brain-sick baby, always seeing visions and the rest. I hated it." He was not the first to say so. Ramakrishna's family had though him insane, till a conference of pundits declared him a Divine Incarnation.

The pundit's verdict did not impress Naren either. Likewise it seemed absurd when Ramakrishna insisted that Naren was himself the incarnation of a great sage come to fulfill a divine mission. He also refused to automatically accept the worship of Goddess Kali. "How I used to hate Kali and all her ways!" Naren was to say later. He was convinced that God had to be formless. When Ramakrishna spoke of the divine revelations he experienced, Naren said: "Who knows whether these are revelations from the (Divine) Mother or mere fancies of your brain! If I were in your position I should attribute them to imagination pure and simple." Yet Ramakrishna's self-evident piety , his "wonderful love" and "marvelous purity" drew Naren. This kept him locked in an intense tussle with the man he eventually accepted as his Guru. Naren was deeply moved by Ramakrishna's insistence to "be spiritual and realise the truth for yourself."

So Naren continued to search and question. He ridiculed the ideas of Advaita Vedanta saying: "I am God, you are God, these created things are God -what can be more absurd than this!" When Naren's insistence on his own view sometimes bordered on the fanatical, Ramakrishna would urge him to "try and see the Truth from all angles and in every perspective."

Meanwhile, the premature death of Naren's father had plunged his family into a dire financial crisis. Once accustomed to plenty, the Datta household now had barely enough to eat. Unable to find a job and provide for the family, Naren was driven to desperation. So one day, like millions of others have done for ages, he set out to ask a favour from Goddess Kali. As he entered the Kali temple at Dakshineswar late at night, he was "caught in a surging wave of devotion and love." Forgetting what he had come to ask for, he prayed instead for knowledge, devotion and uninterrupted vision of the Divine Mother. That night, he went two more times into the temple to ask for the material well-being of his family. But each time only the plea for devotion and divine benediction arose from within him.
An ineffable joy and serene peace overwhelmed Naren, and his life was never the same again. The change that came over him is to remain a mystery. Years later, as Swami Vivekananda, he said "The thing that made me do it (accept Kali) is a secret that will die with me." Perhaps he felt the Super Conscious opening to him. For, later, he would say with supreme confidence that till this happened "religion is mere talk, it is nothing but preparation." This did not contradictor alter his commitment to reason. It only convinced him that "all religion is going beyond reason, but reason is the only guide to get there."

In Ramakrishna he found a living teacher and in the Buddha a timeless inspiration. "I have more veneration for that character (Buddha) than any other -that boldness, that fearlessness and that tremendous love." Over 2500 years ago the Buddha had said what Naren now felt himself: "...do not believe merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Have deliberation and analyse, and when the result agrees with reason and conduces to the good of all, accept it and live up to it." Thus later, even when Swami Vivekananda preached the message of Advaita Vedanta and extolled the Vedic civilisation, he also said: "I take as much of the Vedas as agrees with reason...the greatest gift God has given us." He therefore respected people whose reason led them to be atheists, and had contempt for the blindly religious.

The person who was willing to die for God particularly worried Vivekananda. Such a person he felt, was equally capable of turning around and killing his own brother. For anyone who wanted to start a sectarian dispute, Vivekananda had this question: "Have you seen God? Have you seen the Atman: If you have not, what right have you to preach his name-you walking in darkness trying to lead me into the same darkness. This certitude came from the conviction that God is not someone sitting in the clouds issuing instructions to mere mortals. God is love and within all. "Never forget the glory of human nature," Swami Vivekananda said. "Be still and know that you are God." This realisation was earned through relentless concentration and meditation that took Naren deep inwards. Often, while meditating he would lose all bodily sensation. He thus came, by his own labours, to share Sri Ramakrishna's conviction that the various religions are not contradictory but instead several phases of one eternal religion.

Swami Vivekananda's disputed legacy - India Together
 
Last edited:
Folks,

Not many know that Swami Vivekananda started as an atheist. Here is a relevant story:


Swami Vivekananda's disputed legacy - India Together

Dear KRS Ji,

You know we have to remember that great men come to this world to enact a "play" or "leela" which has a divine agenda.
What looks like starting of as Atheism to the world might have actually been role play enactment for the common man to understand about God and His Mahima.

If Swami Vivekananda was "Atheistic" initially and then became a Sanyasi that made the world stand up to Him..it would stir up interest in anyone to read more about Him and understand His works which lights up the intellect with the torch of knowledge and opens the eyes of us previously blinded by the darkness of ignorance(some Subhashita I have quoted here).

But if someone as unknown as many of us shouts from the top of the mountain that "God exists" or "God doesnt exists" no one might be even bothered to hear the echo..so thats where we lesser mortals stand.

Every action of us are Karmically bound but for Great Men..their actions leave imprints in the sands of time and they are never bound.
 
....For example I may hypothesize the existence of harmonising energy, an energy which is not destructive but harmonising in nature thus reducing the disharmony of energy or matter it comes across with. . Don't you agree?
No I don't sravna. Axioms are concepts that are universally accepted as true. Existence of a super natural entity is not something that is universally accepted.

Anyway sravna, the point of contention is not about an abstract entity that you want to call god. About this god we can only have opinion, and I happen to think the available evidence does not give us much to make an affirmative statement.

The point of contention is about personal gods of various kind who expect some sort of prayer from us humans, in exchange for which they do something in return, whatever that may be. This is what all religions assert, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and all the sub-sects within each religion. This is what you have to defend.

Cheers!

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx
 
No I don't sravna. Axioms are concepts that are universally accepted as true. Existence of a super natural entity is not something that is universally accepted.

Anyway sravna, the point of contention is not about an abstract entity that you want to call god. About this god we can only have opinion, and I happen to think the available evidence does not give us much to make an affirmative statement.

The point of contention is about personal gods of various kind who expect some sort of prayer from us humans, in exchange for which they do something in return, whatever that may be. This is what all religions assert, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and all the sub-sects within each religion. This is what you have to defend.

The point of contention is only the existence of the abstract entity called God. If that is settled, in my view,there is not much to debate. Everything else would follow.
 
The point of contention is only the existence of the abstract entity called God. If that is settled, in my view,there is not much to debate. Everything else would follow.
If that is so, why don't you offer your best evidence? Wait, wait, you have no evidence, only an argument that some people have this experience. So, if the point of contention is only, a bolded only at that, the existence of the abstract entity called God, then your word is no more valid than mine.

Cheers!
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings -- Albert Einstein
 
Dear Shri Nara,

The very purpose of looking for evidence is only as a support for your mental constructs. So you need to understand the role of evidence which is only to sift out shallow arguments. It cannot be used for validating all the mental constructs because, mental world transcends the physical and hence some of them are beyond the purview of physical verification. The concept of God being the farthest from the physical doesn't directly lend itself to the type of evidence you want to have of it.


If that is so, why don't you offer your best evidence? Wait, wait, you have no evidence, only an argument that some people have this experience. So, if the point of contention is only, a bolded only at that, the existence of the abstract entity called God, then your word is no more valid than mine.

Cheers!
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings -- Albert Einstein
 
Last edited:
And Shri Nara, your own theory that evidence is necessary to validate a hypothesis can be put to test. Do you have any evidence to support such an assertion? The point as made before is, there will remain some premises, axioms or beliefs whatever you may call them, which are unverifiable but for that you cannot dismiss them as false.
 
Many stalwarts have been participating in this thread to explain the concept of God.
I am too a small fry to go into the depth and explain the veracity. If someone fails to
keep away from the concept of existence of God, it can be termed as Unawareness/Ignorance
too. The very idea of challenging argument is itself proves that God has gone into his/her
mind to question that aspect, indirectly to make him/her understand that a Supreme
Power acts. The person's consciousness itself is God's directives. Beyond that, if one
fails to understand, accept or establish the fact in him/her, he/she can question himself/herself
their very existence on this earth. Therefore, God is uniquely God.

Om Nityabhairavai vidmahe Nityaanityaaya dheemahi tanno Nityah prachodayaat

Balasubramanian
Ambattur
 
Last edited:
Humanist, Physicist V.V. Raman's take on whether God Exists:

[h=1]Does God Make Sense? by V.V. Raman[/h]by Robert Lawrence Kuhn (9/27/10 8:59 pm)
JOIN THE DISCUSSION (6)



If by “making sense” we mean the harboring of a conviction that resonates with our understanding and worldview, then the idea of God does make a lot of sense to millions of people who go to church, synagogue, temple, mosque, gurudwara, and such. It makes no sense whatsoever to countless others who dissect sacred books, study history, and are wedded to ratioaltry (the worship of reason) in every context.
Historical visions of God in religions and God’s injunctions may not stand careful scrutiny. But many reflecting humans who are awed by the grandeur and splendor of the universe, and are touched by a sense of gratitude for conscious life, have felt that there must be something subtle and intangible undergirding all that is measurable, meaningful, and marvelous.

It is certainly possible to simply exclaim ah! and oh! at nature’s magnificence and let it go at that. But for many sensitive humans a transcendent cause of it all is more fulfilling and meaningful. That something is what the historical religions have been representing through the sound of Aum, the Star of David, the cross of Christ, the proclamation that God is great, or simply through the personal pronoun God. To some physicists, special unitary symmetry or the psi function are abstract expressions of that cause of all causes.

What is important is not how we envisage that worldly stuff, but what we do to our fellow beings and to that world given our view of ultimate reality. That has been the perennial challenge for the world, and it is there that human history reveals an appalling lack of wisdom.
From the perspective of the theist:



God is in the lepton’s core
In galactic stretches too.
The cosmic birth: He’s been long before
Yet, for ever fresh and new.

Some prove a God, some disprove,
With logic as their art.
But no one can ever move
God from the faithful’s heart.

Let mockers mock, and scholars say
Whatever they decide.
The God to whom most people pray,
Isn’t proved, but felt inside



Blog | Does God Make Sense? by V.V. Raman | Closer to Truth

Regards,
KRS
 
"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not and cannot be proven within the system based on them. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths."

Axioms cannot be derived by principles of deduction.


 
And Shri Nara, your own theory that evidence is necessary to validate a hypothesis can be put to test. Do you have any evidence to support such an assertion? The point as made before is, there will remain some premises, axioms or beliefs whatever you may call them, which are unverifiable but for that you cannot dismiss them as false.
Dear sravna, with so many stalwarts arrayed against me, like brother KRS, respected B sir, yourself, sarang, and many others, I feel like I am inside the famed padma vyooham :). However, I derive immense satisfaction that such knowledgeable and wise people take my views seriously :):).

Now, dear sravna, we have gone over this many times before, when we go in circles we come to the same point again and again never moving forward. Let me restate my position one last time and leave it at that.

[1] If the point of contention is about an abstract entity that you want to call god, then we can only have opinions, and I happen to think the available evidence does not give us much to make an affirmative statement. If your opinion is the opposite, then fine, I have no problem with that.

[2] If the point of contention is about personal gods of various kind (Jesus, Krishna, Siva, etc.) who expect some sort of prayer from us humans in exchange for which they do something in return, then, the burden of proof for that is on those who make the claim. I have no obligation to prove the negative to disbelieve them as superstitions and that does not make my position also a belief equivalent to that of the believers.

I find that most of you guys want to talk only about [1], never touching [2]. That is interesting in itself isn't?

BTW, brother KRS has cited V.V. Raman, a wonderful quote. I am also amazed and wonder struck by the grandeur and splendor of cosmos. Take a look at this site that brings the wonders discovered by Hubble to all of us. If some want to see a creator's hand in it I have no problem, just as long as such a notion is not the [2] kind. In this context let me cite what Sir. C.V. Raman apparently said when a reporter pressed him for his opinion on god, taken from here:

"if God is there find him in the Universe with a telescope and don’t waste your time in speculation!"


BTW, his nephew, another Nobel winner is also a confirmed atheist, not that that proves anything.

Let me end with a quotation from Einstein:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."




Cheers!

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx
 
Dear sravna, with so many stalwarts arrayed against me, like brother KRS, respected B sir, yourself, sarang, and many others, I feel like I am inside the famed padma vyooham :).

If padma vyooha exists=abhiman existed=arjun existed=pandavs existed=kunti(sister of vasudev) existed=vasudev existed=krishna existed.

that means god exists!!
 
Dear sravna, with so many stalwarts arrayed against me, like brother KRS, respected B sir, yourself, sarang, and many others, I feel like I am inside the famed padma vyooham :)

Worry not. My best wishes that you shall prevail, unlike Abhimanyu :thumb:
 
Dear sravna, with so many stalwarts arrayed against me, like brother KRS, respected B sir, yourself, sarang, and many others, I feel like I am inside the famed padma vyooham :). However, I derive immense satisfaction that such knowledgeable and wise people take my views seriously :):).

Now, dear sravna, we have gone over this many times before, when we go in circles we come to the same point again and again never moving forward. Let me restate my position one last time and leave it at that.

[1] If the point of contention is about an abstract entity that you want to call god, then we can only have opinions, and I happen to think the available evidence does not give us much to make an affirmative statement. If your opinion is the opposite, then fine, I have no problem with that.

[2] If the point of contention is about personal gods of various kind (Jesus, Krishna, Siva, etc.) who expect some sort of prayer from us humans in exchange for which they do something in return, then, the burden of proof for that is on those who make the claim. I have no obligation to prove the negative to disbelieve them as superstitions and that does not make my position also a belief equivalent to that of the believers.

I find that most of you guys want to talk only about [1], never touching [2]. That is interesting in itself isn't?

BTW, brother KRS has cited V.V. Raman, a wonderful quote. I am also amazed and wonder struck by the grandeur and splendor of cosmos. Take a look at this site that brings the wonders discovered by Hubble to all of us. If some want to see a creator's hand in it I have no problem, just as long as such a notion is not the [2] kind. In this context let me cite what Sir. C.V. Raman apparently said when a reporter pressed him for his opinion on god, taken from here:

"if God is there find him in the Universe with a telescope and don’t waste your time in speculation!"


BTW, his nephew, another Nobel winner is also a confirmed atheist, not that that proves anything.

Let me end with a quotation from Einstein:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."




Cheers!

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx


Dear Shri Nara,

I do not see the necessity to make a distinction between abstract god and personal god. Personal god is a convenience so that people can relate something abstract to something familiar and much has been woven around it for the same reason. So if you really want to criticize the concept of God, your reference should be serious philosophical works such as advaita and not mythologies or any similar thing.

But on the former your view now seems to border on agnosticism. Actually I would consider that as a more rational position than atheism

BTW Shri Nara, I really admire your methods of argument. You are definitely among those whose responses I look forward to.
 
....But on the former your view now seems to border on agnosticism.
sravna, I have always suspected this, that people are not understanding what my position is. I have always stated that a deity like that of Spinoza, one that creates but unconcerned about human existence, is a possibility that cannot be rejected outright. However, one can theorize based on available evidence and my theory is such an entity does not exist. This is not my view "now" it has always been that since I freed myself from theism.

Coming to Advaitam, there is always this confusion whose Advaitam we are talking about. The brand of advaitam you present is at variance with that of Adi Sankara in many ways, Shri Sangom and I have pointed this out several times in the past, I don't want to get into that now.

I have no practical use for advaitam. The only interest I have in advaitam is at a theoretical level, comparing it to VA and D. My fascination with it is the inevitable contradictions it gets into when it is presented as a Vedic darsana, and the ingenious ways in which Adi Sankara tries to get out of those contradictions. This is its Achilles heel and the proponents of VA and D have successfully exploited it to debunk it.

I wish Advaitins dispense with the pretense that it is a Vedic religion, and unburden the theistic aspects, i.e. get rid of saguna brahman. If they do that, it will really be a strong and interesting philosophical system.

Shri Nara, I really admire your methods of argument. You are definitely among those whose responses I look forward to.
Thank you very much sravna, I appreciate it very much. I know I get on the nerves of a lot of people, but I am happy that I am not viewed that way by serious people like yourself.

Cheers!

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sravna, I have always stated that a deity like that of Spinoza, one that creates but unconcerned about human existence, is a possibility that cannot be rejected outright.

I don't understand what you mean by "being unconcerned". When every being finally is destined to attain moksha which is a permanent blissful state what better concern can be there. You have to understand that all the sufferings and pain and pleasure are for making this objective possible.


Coming to Advaitam, there is always this confusion whose Advaitam we are talking about. The brand of advaitam you present is at variance with that of Adi Sankara in many ways, Shri Sangom and I have pointed this out several times in the past, I don't want to get into that now.

There is no new brand of advaitam . The spirit I try to maintain. If at all I am only extrapolating.


I have no practical use for advaitam. The only interest I have in advaitam is at a theoretical level, comparing it to VA and D. My fascination with it is the inevitable contradictions it gets into when it is presented as a Vedic darsana, and the ingenious ways in which Adi Sankara tries to get out of those contradictions. This is its Achilles heel and the proponents of VA and D have successfully exploited it to debunk it.

No one to my knowledge has successfully debunked advaitam. Shri Nara, you need to avoid making such sweeping statements


Cheers!

Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices .. to which I have never made concessions ... “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- Karl Marx[/QUOTE]
 
...no one to my knowledge has successfully debunked advaitam.
sravna, you have obviously not heard of shata dooshaNi by Swami Sri Desikan. His criticism of Adiatiam stands unanswered to this day.

cheers!

Every opinion based on scientific criticism i welcome. As to prejudices .. To which i have never made concessions ... “segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- karl marx[/quote][/quote]
 
Dear brother,

Not so. There are many many rebuttals to Swami Sri Desikan's criticism. I told you about a Ph.D thesis written on presenting the counter arguments - I now have that.

When one looks at Shankara's postulates and assign different meanings to them and argue on that basis, of course it looks convoluted. One of these days, I hope to present the arguments and counter arguments here on Advaitha - if I have time.

Regards,
KRS

sravna, you have obviously not heard of shata dooshaNi by Swami Sri Desikan. His criticism of Adiatiam stands unanswered to this day.

cheers!

Every opinion based on scientific criticism i welcome. As to prejudices .. To which i have never made concessions ... “segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.” -- karl marx
[/quote][/QUOTE]
 
Dear Shri Nara,

I am interested in that work of Swami Desikan. But I don't find it on the internet. Do you have them or at least can you list out his major objections to advaita?
 
Dear Sri Sravana Ji,

If you have not read Ramanuja Acharyals criticism of Advaitha, I would start there first. Everyone's criticism from that Sambradhayam essentially builds on the Acharyal's specific criticisms.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri Nara,

I am interested in that work of Swami Desikan. But I don't find it on the internet. Do you have them or at least can you list out his major objections to advaita?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest ads

Back
Top