-
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
- Thread starter Brahin
- Start date
- Status
Govinda
0
Sri Ramanuja's work 'Sri BhAsya' is the commentary on Brahma SUtras (of BadarAyana). The english translation is available and is well written by Swami Adidevananda. His another english translation of Sri Ramanuja Gita Bhasya is also excellent [with equivalent quotes from Upanishads]. The publishers are Advaita Ashrama and Ramakrisha Mutt.
Brahma Sutras
Gita BhAsya
I would like to submit a few texts in connection with the above. You may try it out, whether
it can clarify your doubts. You may get some inputs on Suddha Advaita texts for your reference.
1. http://www.pushtimarg.net/English/download/Book.htm
2. pushtikul.com&
3. www.pushtimarg.net/English/download/Book.htm
4. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namah Sivaya
5. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya
6. [imag]/images/graemilins/smile.gif[/img] Jai Shri Krishna
Balasubramanian
Ambattur
it can clarify your doubts. You may get some inputs on Suddha Advaita texts for your reference.
1. http://www.pushtimarg.net/English/download/Book.htm
2. pushtikul.com&
3. www.pushtimarg.net/English/download/Book.htm
4. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namah Sivaya
5. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya
6. [imag]/images/graemilins/smile.gif[/img] Jai Shri Krishna
Balasubramanian
Ambattur
N
Nara
Guest
Dear brother KRS, I am sure there were attempts to counter Swami Sri Desikan's work by a lot of people, but the ones I have come across don't even present the poorva paksha properly. It is easy to construct a straw man, burn it down, and proclaim victory.
So, let me rephrase a little bit, there has been no work of rebuttal worthy of consideration. Even the imminent Appaiya Deekshitar couldn't come up with a systematic counter to Swami Desikan's works, not for want of trying. He gave up and said Swami Desikan has constructed an impenetrable fence around the green grass laid out by Ramanuja.
I standby my post #2270.
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 Nara,
Your post # 2262:
You have summed up all the arguments in this thread so far in these two points quoted above. All along it had been a merry-go-round with one group saying God exists and challenging you to prove the contrary while you and some other atheists insisting that it is not for atheists to prove the non-existence of God and that it is for the theists to prove to your satisfaction that God exists. There had also been some shouting from across the table that “Why the Believers then (are) so recalcitrant about their Gods, Spirits, Ghosts and Religion? I posit that it's because of the INERTIA, and the indoctrination they were subjected to since 1500 BC in India.Therefore, I say it is the TRADITION or/and the FEAR and/or Superstition that sustain the Gods and Ghosts in this world.It's all because of pure psychological NEED. But Science, Engineering & Technology (SET) will succeed eventually in removing this psychological deficit.” You, an empiricist, will be satisfied only if there is empirical proof for the existence of God. In your post #2262 in point [1] you have reiterated your position-the position of an agnostic-that the available evidence is not enough to make an affirmative statement about the existence of God. So you will wait for evidences to come in times to come. You will evaluate them and then decide. You have also stated that if some one else has already come to the conclusion on the basis of whatever evidence is available to him it is fine and you have no problem with that. This settles one of the two questions that is repeatedly raised here by atheists. Now we come to the second question that needs an answer. I quote you here :
I take it that you have two objections here. One is to people having a personal God/symbolic representations like Muruga, Krishna, Parvathy etc., since the God, even if he exists, there is no way of ascertaining whether he is the personal god murugan or Krishna. If it is only a symbolic representation then that god is not real.Going one step further I would formulate your objection as the objection to the very idea of an anthropomorphic personal god-whatever be the name. The second objection is to people praying to him and offering some thing in elaborate rituals in return for the favours expected/received from him. Both these objections can be rejected outright by just saying that you as an atheist/agnostic has no locus standi to question the methods followed by the theists. But that would just be a summary dismissal of dissent. I would prefer to engage dissent and so I am proceeding further to answer to your objections.
First we will take up the question of personal God or perceiving a particular entity as God. The aim of this discussion is to combat some possible counter conceptions like 1. The supreme Reality is something transcending God. 2. There are many Gods and all of them are equal in status etc., The exact nature of this discussion must be apprehended first. In the first place this is not a philosophical issue. The conception of supreme Rality in the purely metaphysical sense does not stand or fall with the identification of that supreme Reality with say Narayana or Shiva or Jesus. Secondly it is not a sectarian controversy in the popular sense. It is not one cult propogating hatred of another cult and the consequent vilification of its deity. The Gods can not be discriminated as mine and thine. It is not an inter tribal warfare for totemistic superiority. The whole discussion is within a limited frame of reference. In Hinduism (the vedic religion) its purpose is to ascertain whether the vedas, upanishads and later religious works identify the Supreme with any particular name or not. It is essentially a textual or interpretative inquiry. The inquiry is an effort at reconstructing the real thought embodied in the scriptures. Thus in Ramanuja’s view the whole body of the vedic literature inclusive of the upanishads and all that is best in the secondary sources like the puranas, Itihasas and Smritis teach that the deity Narayana is the supreme reality. Similarly in Saiva sidhdhanta Shiva is projected as the supreme reality and he is to be worshipped in the form of a Linga. (we have already discussed the significance and meaning of linga worship in Hinduism in another thread-it is not phallus worship as some Europeans would like us to accept). Since vedas can be interpreted in any number of ways the names and forms of the God entity are also numerous. But theists/believers do not think that this multiplicity of deities is an impediment in their devotion to God. It is like you choose a man/woman from many , marry him/her and then remain faithful to him/her.
Now the first objection. While theists/believers all agree that there is God, different people have different perceptions about how to reach him-the summum bonum of existence according to them. The urge to please the personal God is there in all theist individuals. Depending on their cultural/social background they follow different practices for that goal. While one may offer a goat or a cock to the deity, some one else may do a saranagati to his personal God and some one else may do intense meditation to realize the self(Atma Darsanam) and become a Atma vedi (I am restricting myself to just Hinduism here because It is only that that I know a little about.) When the devotee gets what he wanted he thinks it is because of his prayer or his offer of the goat or the cock to his God. This is emulated by others too and it becomes a standard. The point is not about the individual offering something to get something in return as a quid pro quo, but it is the urge to please his God that is given an expression. To understand this urge you have to be a theist/believer first. A theist who offers a goat/cock to his personal God does that because he finds his problems are overwhelming and beyond his capacity to solve.(I am sure you are aware of Alwar’s “எங்கேயும் கரைகாணாது எறிகடல் வாய் மீண்டேயும் வங்கத்தின் கூம்பேறும் மாப்பறவை போன்றேனே ”) He has tried his best and has failed and turns to God with hope. He thinks that his karmic burden can be lightened by his offering a goat or a cock to his God. A very interesting point to note is that even if God did not grant his wish, the devotee remains steadfast in his devotion. So it is not a quid pro quo. It is not as if the devotee negotiates with God and tells him "I will sacrifice one goat if you bless me with a male child and two goats if you bless me with a female child" etc., At the bottom of the prayer is the realisation that the karmic burden can be removed only by getting close to God-the summum bonum. I know you will now go on to question the karmic theory itself. I wait for that.
Cheers.
Your post # 2262:
You have summed up all the arguments in this thread so far in these two points quoted above. All along it had been a merry-go-round with one group saying God exists and challenging you to prove the contrary while you and some other atheists insisting that it is not for atheists to prove the non-existence of God and that it is for the theists to prove to your satisfaction that God exists. There had also been some shouting from across the table that “Why the Believers then (are) so recalcitrant about their Gods, Spirits, Ghosts and Religion? I posit that it's because of the INERTIA, and the indoctrination they were subjected to since 1500 BC in India.Therefore, I say it is the TRADITION or/and the FEAR and/or Superstition that sustain the Gods and Ghosts in this world.It's all because of pure psychological NEED. But Science, Engineering & Technology (SET) will succeed eventually in removing this psychological deficit.” You, an empiricist, will be satisfied only if there is empirical proof for the existence of God. In your post #2262 in point [1] you have reiterated your position-the position of an agnostic-that the available evidence is not enough to make an affirmative statement about the existence of God. So you will wait for evidences to come in times to come. You will evaluate them and then decide. You have also stated that if some one else has already come to the conclusion on the basis of whatever evidence is available to him it is fine and you have no problem with that. This settles one of the two questions that is repeatedly raised here by atheists. Now we come to the second question that needs an answer. I quote you here :
I take it that you have two objections here. One is to people having a personal God/symbolic representations like Muruga, Krishna, Parvathy etc., since the God, even if he exists, there is no way of ascertaining whether he is the personal god murugan or Krishna. If it is only a symbolic representation then that god is not real.Going one step further I would formulate your objection as the objection to the very idea of an anthropomorphic personal god-whatever be the name. The second objection is to people praying to him and offering some thing in elaborate rituals in return for the favours expected/received from him. Both these objections can be rejected outright by just saying that you as an atheist/agnostic has no locus standi to question the methods followed by the theists. But that would just be a summary dismissal of dissent. I would prefer to engage dissent and so I am proceeding further to answer to your objections.
First we will take up the question of personal God or perceiving a particular entity as God. The aim of this discussion is to combat some possible counter conceptions like 1. The supreme Reality is something transcending God. 2. There are many Gods and all of them are equal in status etc., The exact nature of this discussion must be apprehended first. In the first place this is not a philosophical issue. The conception of supreme Rality in the purely metaphysical sense does not stand or fall with the identification of that supreme Reality with say Narayana or Shiva or Jesus. Secondly it is not a sectarian controversy in the popular sense. It is not one cult propogating hatred of another cult and the consequent vilification of its deity. The Gods can not be discriminated as mine and thine. It is not an inter tribal warfare for totemistic superiority. The whole discussion is within a limited frame of reference. In Hinduism (the vedic religion) its purpose is to ascertain whether the vedas, upanishads and later religious works identify the Supreme with any particular name or not. It is essentially a textual or interpretative inquiry. The inquiry is an effort at reconstructing the real thought embodied in the scriptures. Thus in Ramanuja’s view the whole body of the vedic literature inclusive of the upanishads and all that is best in the secondary sources like the puranas, Itihasas and Smritis teach that the deity Narayana is the supreme reality. Similarly in Saiva sidhdhanta Shiva is projected as the supreme reality and he is to be worshipped in the form of a Linga. (we have already discussed the significance and meaning of linga worship in Hinduism in another thread-it is not phallus worship as some Europeans would like us to accept). Since vedas can be interpreted in any number of ways the names and forms of the God entity are also numerous. But theists/believers do not think that this multiplicity of deities is an impediment in their devotion to God. It is like you choose a man/woman from many , marry him/her and then remain faithful to him/her.
Now the first objection. While theists/believers all agree that there is God, different people have different perceptions about how to reach him-the summum bonum of existence according to them. The urge to please the personal God is there in all theist individuals. Depending on their cultural/social background they follow different practices for that goal. While one may offer a goat or a cock to the deity, some one else may do a saranagati to his personal God and some one else may do intense meditation to realize the self(Atma Darsanam) and become a Atma vedi (I am restricting myself to just Hinduism here because It is only that that I know a little about.) When the devotee gets what he wanted he thinks it is because of his prayer or his offer of the goat or the cock to his God. This is emulated by others too and it becomes a standard. The point is not about the individual offering something to get something in return as a quid pro quo, but it is the urge to please his God that is given an expression. To understand this urge you have to be a theist/believer first. A theist who offers a goat/cock to his personal God does that because he finds his problems are overwhelming and beyond his capacity to solve.(I am sure you are aware of Alwar’s “எங்கேயும் கரைகாணாது எறிகடல் வாய் மீண்டேயும் வங்கத்தின் கூம்பேறும் மாப்பறவை போன்றேனே ”) He has tried his best and has failed and turns to God with hope. He thinks that his karmic burden can be lightened by his offering a goat or a cock to his God. A very interesting point to note is that even if God did not grant his wish, the devotee remains steadfast in his devotion. So it is not a quid pro quo. It is not as if the devotee negotiates with God and tells him "I will sacrifice one goat if you bless me with a male child and two goats if you bless me with a female child" etc., At the bottom of the prayer is the realisation that the karmic burden can be removed only by getting close to God-the summum bonum. I know you will now go on to question the karmic theory itself. I wait for that.
Cheers.
Last edited:
N
Nara
Guest
Dera Raju, I do appreciate your long response, but you have skirted my objection altogether. My objection as far as the personal gods like Rama, krishna, Jesus, is the evidence free nature of these claims. Stories like Athi Moolame, or Panchali throwing up her arms, in both cases they prayed for something in return, and this god waited till they prayed to come to their aid. These are the stories small kids are fed day in and day out to instil this delusional bhakti towards a nonexistent personal god.
Cheers!
Nara in #2283
I think I have tried to explain the point. I have mentioned already that personal Gods are found necessary by theists for very valid reasons. As far as the claims of miracles/grace of God are concerned, they are not dismissed as lies or concoctions by the faithfuls. To get a proof you will need eye witness accounts of such miracles first. Then looking at things after so many hundreds of thousands of years after the happening, you would like the original eyewitness recordings to be subjected to at least a carbon dating to determine the time when they were originally recorded etc., Is this possible? And bhakti is not at all delusional as claimed by you. To explain why people pray we have to go into what is called the karma theory and free will and into that much discussed subject of “Nature of Evil”. If we start discussing these subjects I am not sure how many will be interested in reading them or in participating in that discussion because it is all metaphysics. It may be like having an Eskimo in a Tamil Kaviyarangam in Chennai with the expectation that he will understand and appreciate the quote “செம்புலப்பெயல் நீர் போல அன்புடை நெஞ்சம் தாம் கலந்தனவே :biggrin1:”. It is a flippant statement to say that God waited for the Gajendra or Panchaali to ask for help out of a bloated ego or whatever. However, I have formulated a few questions on your behalf and have tried to briefly answer them. If they still appear to be lengthy, it is only because the discussion is about abstract, metaphysical ideas.
Questions:Why should the God extract a prayer from the devotees/believers to grant them any thing at all? If he can give only when asked for, does it not mean that he is not all-knowing? What God is he if he is present everywhere and yet there is immense suffering, inequalities, pain etc., in this world?
In reply I just reproduce here what I read in a commentary on Vedartha Sangraham of Sri Ramanuja because this contains the answers to the questions mentioned above. We can discuss it if you are interested in.
The fundamental spirit of Hinduism regards natural evil as a result of moral evil. This is the substance of the doctrine of Karma. Badarayana urges that doctrine on the basis of the nature of God as absolutely good. Suffering cannot be an unmerited phenomena in a universe sustained by God pure and perfect. Inequalities of destinies cannot be capricious or arbitrary turns of fortune.(the questions about Gajendra and Panchali raised by you are such cases) If God is exclusively and arbitrarily responsible for the destiny of individuals all individuals should have attained the summum bonum timelessly. To reconcile therefore the existence of natural evil with the perfection of Supreme, the doctrine of karma or the law of moral causation is upheld.
The doctrine would solve the problem if individuals are free in their volition. They are not free if the Supreme is the all controlling master of the universe.Freedom of the individual is a limitation to the power and sway of God. But this is explained satisfactorily by Acharyas like Ramanuja. Freedom is real . The finite self has initiative of moral action in a real sense. But freedom is not a limitation of the rule of God. That freedom itself is conferred upon individuals and sustained in activity by God. This freedom is not something that God encounters from without but something that it brings about and maintains . Freedom is not a restriction of God’s power is a function of that power. Thus human freedom is not the denial of divine omipotence but the fullest manifestation of it.Sudarsanasuri says “jIvasya swAthanthryam Ishwarasya na swAthanthryavaikalyAvaham. Kinthu thadhathishayAvahamEva. Meaning The freedom of jeeva is not a curtailment of the freedom of Ishwara but an expression of it. The individual is maintained in the exercise of his initiative by the God: withdrawal even if possible would annihilate the freedom and the individual self along with it.
Next we will deal with the question : why is there this freedom?.What purpose does it serve in universe? What characteristic of God necessitates this individual freedom? The answer in our religion is this: freedom is necessary for the realization of value. If perfection is the final goal of individual life, freedom of choice implying the possibility of even complete self-ruination , is necessary for it. Seeking is the precondition of both quest for and valuation of the highest ideal in question. There is no joy in unsought fulfillment.
God is one source of joy, peace and blessedness for the individual. There is no suffering without moral causes by way of Karma. Suffering is the consequence of the self contradiction to which an individual runs through his pursuit of ends other than God. It is the result of a self-mutilation through the rejection of the highest good. Such a result must follow that course of life is a law of reality, which like other laws is a law of God. Individual freedom is the result of God’s omnipotent will. But the direction of its exercise is not determined by God for the absence of such determination is the very meaning of freedom. God’s immanence is jeeva does not end in the destruction of jeeva and destruction of freedom of initiative is the destruction of jeeva. One of the general coditions for the spontaneous pursuit of values is the liberty of choice and the possibility of pursuing wrong ends, ends that are antithetical to the end for the realization of which freedom is an essential pre-requisite. But God is not the factor that compels or engineers the exploitation of the possibility of evil. Such is the meaning of freedom. It is a gift of God.
This leads to a natural question: What is freedom? Is it motiveless action? That would be pure chance and an impossibility. If motives are admitted, the motives being constituted of desires, action is determined by desires. The desires are not determined or generated by the self. They are psychical occurrences of which the individual is not the author. How then can he be free? This is a controversy which has been discussed repeatedly in western thought for centuries. Motives are no doubt desires. But not all desires becomes motives. Only those desires through the realization of which the self seeks its good becomes motives. The self is the criticising, discriminating and selecting agency. In abstraction from an individuals choice the desire would be merely a wish and would have no strength to become a motive. The strength of a desire is the strength that the moral self puts into it by its choice. The individual is a free agent , for, he can puta down a desire , when he realises that its realization is frought with undesirable consequences . Thus desires are not the controlling forces but are the materials on which the self works discriminatingly with a scale of values. This is the meaning of self-determination.
This also answers those who are converting the natural and moral evil into fatalism and are finding fault with the Karma Doctrine of Hinduism in another thread. Karma doctrine is the best logical answer to the questions on evil as we see in human life.
Theists strongly believe that atheists are souls who have suffered swaroopa naasam. This self-distruction or mutilation of self has come because they have unwittingly misused the free will granted by God. They are souls who have gone against themselves beyond redemption by any thing other than God himself.
Cheers.
I think I have tried to explain the point. I have mentioned already that personal Gods are found necessary by theists for very valid reasons. As far as the claims of miracles/grace of God are concerned, they are not dismissed as lies or concoctions by the faithfuls. To get a proof you will need eye witness accounts of such miracles first. Then looking at things after so many hundreds of thousands of years after the happening, you would like the original eyewitness recordings to be subjected to at least a carbon dating to determine the time when they were originally recorded etc., Is this possible? And bhakti is not at all delusional as claimed by you. To explain why people pray we have to go into what is called the karma theory and free will and into that much discussed subject of “Nature of Evil”. If we start discussing these subjects I am not sure how many will be interested in reading them or in participating in that discussion because it is all metaphysics. It may be like having an Eskimo in a Tamil Kaviyarangam in Chennai with the expectation that he will understand and appreciate the quote “செம்புலப்பெயல் நீர் போல அன்புடை நெஞ்சம் தாம் கலந்தனவே :biggrin1:”. It is a flippant statement to say that God waited for the Gajendra or Panchaali to ask for help out of a bloated ego or whatever. However, I have formulated a few questions on your behalf and have tried to briefly answer them. If they still appear to be lengthy, it is only because the discussion is about abstract, metaphysical ideas.
Questions:Why should the God extract a prayer from the devotees/believers to grant them any thing at all? If he can give only when asked for, does it not mean that he is not all-knowing? What God is he if he is present everywhere and yet there is immense suffering, inequalities, pain etc., in this world?
In reply I just reproduce here what I read in a commentary on Vedartha Sangraham of Sri Ramanuja because this contains the answers to the questions mentioned above. We can discuss it if you are interested in.
The fundamental spirit of Hinduism regards natural evil as a result of moral evil. This is the substance of the doctrine of Karma. Badarayana urges that doctrine on the basis of the nature of God as absolutely good. Suffering cannot be an unmerited phenomena in a universe sustained by God pure and perfect. Inequalities of destinies cannot be capricious or arbitrary turns of fortune.(the questions about Gajendra and Panchali raised by you are such cases) If God is exclusively and arbitrarily responsible for the destiny of individuals all individuals should have attained the summum bonum timelessly. To reconcile therefore the existence of natural evil with the perfection of Supreme, the doctrine of karma or the law of moral causation is upheld.
The doctrine would solve the problem if individuals are free in their volition. They are not free if the Supreme is the all controlling master of the universe.Freedom of the individual is a limitation to the power and sway of God. But this is explained satisfactorily by Acharyas like Ramanuja. Freedom is real . The finite self has initiative of moral action in a real sense. But freedom is not a limitation of the rule of God. That freedom itself is conferred upon individuals and sustained in activity by God. This freedom is not something that God encounters from without but something that it brings about and maintains . Freedom is not a restriction of God’s power is a function of that power. Thus human freedom is not the denial of divine omipotence but the fullest manifestation of it.Sudarsanasuri says “jIvasya swAthanthryam Ishwarasya na swAthanthryavaikalyAvaham. Kinthu thadhathishayAvahamEva. Meaning The freedom of jeeva is not a curtailment of the freedom of Ishwara but an expression of it. The individual is maintained in the exercise of his initiative by the God: withdrawal even if possible would annihilate the freedom and the individual self along with it.
Next we will deal with the question : why is there this freedom?.What purpose does it serve in universe? What characteristic of God necessitates this individual freedom? The answer in our religion is this: freedom is necessary for the realization of value. If perfection is the final goal of individual life, freedom of choice implying the possibility of even complete self-ruination , is necessary for it. Seeking is the precondition of both quest for and valuation of the highest ideal in question. There is no joy in unsought fulfillment.
God is one source of joy, peace and blessedness for the individual. There is no suffering without moral causes by way of Karma. Suffering is the consequence of the self contradiction to which an individual runs through his pursuit of ends other than God. It is the result of a self-mutilation through the rejection of the highest good. Such a result must follow that course of life is a law of reality, which like other laws is a law of God. Individual freedom is the result of God’s omnipotent will. But the direction of its exercise is not determined by God for the absence of such determination is the very meaning of freedom. God’s immanence is jeeva does not end in the destruction of jeeva and destruction of freedom of initiative is the destruction of jeeva. One of the general coditions for the spontaneous pursuit of values is the liberty of choice and the possibility of pursuing wrong ends, ends that are antithetical to the end for the realization of which freedom is an essential pre-requisite. But God is not the factor that compels or engineers the exploitation of the possibility of evil. Such is the meaning of freedom. It is a gift of God.
This leads to a natural question: What is freedom? Is it motiveless action? That would be pure chance and an impossibility. If motives are admitted, the motives being constituted of desires, action is determined by desires. The desires are not determined or generated by the self. They are psychical occurrences of which the individual is not the author. How then can he be free? This is a controversy which has been discussed repeatedly in western thought for centuries. Motives are no doubt desires. But not all desires becomes motives. Only those desires through the realization of which the self seeks its good becomes motives. The self is the criticising, discriminating and selecting agency. In abstraction from an individuals choice the desire would be merely a wish and would have no strength to become a motive. The strength of a desire is the strength that the moral self puts into it by its choice. The individual is a free agent , for, he can puta down a desire , when he realises that its realization is frought with undesirable consequences . Thus desires are not the controlling forces but are the materials on which the self works discriminatingly with a scale of values. This is the meaning of self-determination.
This also answers those who are converting the natural and moral evil into fatalism and are finding fault with the Karma Doctrine of Hinduism in another thread. Karma doctrine is the best logical answer to the questions on evil as we see in human life.
Theists strongly believe that atheists are souls who have suffered swaroopa naasam. This self-distruction or mutilation of self has come because they have unwittingly misused the free will granted by God. They are souls who have gone against themselves beyond redemption by any thing other than God himself.
Cheers.
Last edited:
N
Nara
Guest
Dear Raju, once again I am in your debt for you have taken the time to respond to my comment in such a detailed manner. Let me make just two comments, one short and the second somewhat long.
I am familiar with the argument that Ishwara is impartial and he has taken it upon himself on his own free will to enforce the effects of karma impartially. But, IMO, these are just arguments made up upon the assumption there is an Ishwara who cares about human beings.
All theistic doctrines, whether Hindu, Islam, or Christian holds that the jeevas are bound in samsara due to karma or sin and release is achieved via some sort of the theistic effort. Now, please permit me a moment of speculation. Even I, a mere human, when I see my children suffering want to immediately free them of their suffering forthwith, even if it is something they brought upon themselves by their own stupid action. I will never say it is their free will and let them be damned until they realize I am their dad and pay proper respect.
But then I am of limited power and I may not be able convince my children that I mean well. But, this Ishwara is not like me, he/she is an all powerful and supposedly loving compassionate Ishwara. Why on earth would this Ishwara insist on the free will of the jeevas to surrender to him before saving them? If I had such powers I will instantly make my children see what a loving father I am and make them accept my loving hand of redemption, I will not give them the free will to suffer. I just can't believe in an all powerful god who is also an ocean of compassion, who will let his suffering wards suffer until on their own free will they see his love.
I know VA holds that the purpose of all this from Ishwara's POV is leela rasam and bhogya rasam. They say Ishwara derives leela rasam with the jeevas in samsara and bhogya rasam with muktha jeevas and nithyasoories in Sri Vaikuntam. This, IMO, is abominable. Why would an all loving Ishwara derive any pleasure via the leela rasam route, when it has the power to release everyone all at once and bring them all to Sri Vaikuntam and enjoy bhogya rasam? If it was my children I will never expect to derive any rasam whatever from their suffering, I will only try to lift them up from their suffering without waiting for them to ask me. Just imagine what I will do if I am all powerful!! And how can I expect anything less from an all loving and all powerful Ishwara?
Well, the answer of course is, all this Ishwara, Sri Vainkuntam, leela rasam, bhogya rasam, etc., are bogus.
Advaitam, that is entirely a different cup of tea, they have to first decide whether they are theistic or not, at present they are a confused about it, IMO.
Cheers!
Yes, but finding something necessary does not mean you just make it up. This is putting the cart ahead of the horse.
I am familiar with the argument that Ishwara is impartial and he has taken it upon himself on his own free will to enforce the effects of karma impartially. But, IMO, these are just arguments made up upon the assumption there is an Ishwara who cares about human beings.
All theistic doctrines, whether Hindu, Islam, or Christian holds that the jeevas are bound in samsara due to karma or sin and release is achieved via some sort of the theistic effort. Now, please permit me a moment of speculation. Even I, a mere human, when I see my children suffering want to immediately free them of their suffering forthwith, even if it is something they brought upon themselves by their own stupid action. I will never say it is their free will and let them be damned until they realize I am their dad and pay proper respect.
But then I am of limited power and I may not be able convince my children that I mean well. But, this Ishwara is not like me, he/she is an all powerful and supposedly loving compassionate Ishwara. Why on earth would this Ishwara insist on the free will of the jeevas to surrender to him before saving them? If I had such powers I will instantly make my children see what a loving father I am and make them accept my loving hand of redemption, I will not give them the free will to suffer. I just can't believe in an all powerful god who is also an ocean of compassion, who will let his suffering wards suffer until on their own free will they see his love.
I know VA holds that the purpose of all this from Ishwara's POV is leela rasam and bhogya rasam. They say Ishwara derives leela rasam with the jeevas in samsara and bhogya rasam with muktha jeevas and nithyasoories in Sri Vaikuntam. This, IMO, is abominable. Why would an all loving Ishwara derive any pleasure via the leela rasam route, when it has the power to release everyone all at once and bring them all to Sri Vaikuntam and enjoy bhogya rasam? If it was my children I will never expect to derive any rasam whatever from their suffering, I will only try to lift them up from their suffering without waiting for them to ask me. Just imagine what I will do if I am all powerful!! And how can I expect anything less from an all loving and all powerful Ishwara?
Well, the answer of course is, all this Ishwara, Sri Vainkuntam, leela rasam, bhogya rasam, etc., are bogus.
Advaitam, that is entirely a different cup of tea, they have to first decide whether they are theistic or not, at present they are a confused about it, IMO.
This is just what the theists say and I think I can live with that, no problem.
Cheers!
tbs
0
dear nara sir,
Advaitam, that is entirely a different cup of tea, they have to first decide whether they are theistic or not, at present they are a confused about it, IMO.
advaitam is monotheism....not confused at allll..................ekam eva advititiyam brahma........एकं एव अद्वितीयम ब्रह्मा.....सत्यम ज्नानम अनंतम ब्रह्मा....
Advaitam, that is entirely a different cup of tea, they have to first decide whether they are theistic or not, at present they are a confused about it, IMO.
advaitam is monotheism....not confused at allll..................ekam eva advititiyam brahma........एकं एव अद्वितीयम ब्रह्मा.....सत्यम ज्नानम अनंतम ब्रह्मा....
Last edited:
Dear Nara,
your post #2285 for reference:
When I took up the task of designing an oil diffusion vacuum pump to get a high vacuum of the order of 1/1000000 mm of Mercury in a vessel I had to visualize many things in my mind's eye. I had to virtually see the oil jets issuing forth from the windows of opening in the jet assembly and each oil 'molecule' hitting and imparting its momentum to the air 'molecules' in a particular direction and 'herding' them towards the outlet of the pump to be taken over by the back up rotary pump and the cryogenic trap on the evacuation line. I had to even visualize the resolved components of the momentum in various directions. I knew, as any school boy studying physics today knows, that the actual mechanism of evacuation is much more complicated, that the molecules are not homogeneous to be called molecules at all, that molecules and atoms are not what we think and visualize in our mind, that their exact nature is not determinable as of today etc. etc., Yet for my higher goal of designing a pump these assumptions and visualizations helped me. They helped me in my task and also proved to be correct because I achieved what I wanted to achieve. My vacuum pump worked well as planned. I am telling you this story only to show how important it is to visualize things which can not be seen otherwise. For the theists God exists but can not be seen. So in order to deal with the situation they have to at least visualize God. That is what they do. As Alwar said they are just "Vembin puzhu" which knows nothing but "vembu". With all their deficiencies they still visualize God as an anthropomorphic entity. You may call it making up.That is perfectly okay with us. Making up or not making up , for us, God exists. Even Islam which meticulously avoids mentioning any form to God, has to visualize God in an abstract way in order to worship Him. That is the fact of life. So your objection can not stand. About other points I will post later.
Cheers.
your post #2285 for reference:
When I took up the task of designing an oil diffusion vacuum pump to get a high vacuum of the order of 1/1000000 mm of Mercury in a vessel I had to visualize many things in my mind's eye. I had to virtually see the oil jets issuing forth from the windows of opening in the jet assembly and each oil 'molecule' hitting and imparting its momentum to the air 'molecules' in a particular direction and 'herding' them towards the outlet of the pump to be taken over by the back up rotary pump and the cryogenic trap on the evacuation line. I had to even visualize the resolved components of the momentum in various directions. I knew, as any school boy studying physics today knows, that the actual mechanism of evacuation is much more complicated, that the molecules are not homogeneous to be called molecules at all, that molecules and atoms are not what we think and visualize in our mind, that their exact nature is not determinable as of today etc. etc., Yet for my higher goal of designing a pump these assumptions and visualizations helped me. They helped me in my task and also proved to be correct because I achieved what I wanted to achieve. My vacuum pump worked well as planned. I am telling you this story only to show how important it is to visualize things which can not be seen otherwise. For the theists God exists but can not be seen. So in order to deal with the situation they have to at least visualize God. That is what they do. As Alwar said they are just "Vembin puzhu" which knows nothing but "vembu". With all their deficiencies they still visualize God as an anthropomorphic entity. You may call it making up.That is perfectly okay with us. Making up or not making up , for us, God exists. Even Islam which meticulously avoids mentioning any form to God, has to visualize God in an abstract way in order to worship Him. That is the fact of life. So your objection can not stand. About other points I will post later.
Cheers.
Last edited:
post #2286 by Mr. Tbs:
advaitam is monotheism....not confused at allll..................ekam eva advititiyam brahma........एकं एव अद्वितीयम ब्रह्मा.....सत्यम ज्नानम अनंतम ब्रह्मा....
post #2287 by Mr. KRS:
It is 'Non - duaslism' and not 'Monism' in it's full sense and it is definitely not 'Monotheism'.
Now the question:
Is Mr. Tbs an advaitin or not?
advaitam is monotheism....not confused at allll..................ekam eva advititiyam brahma........एकं एव अद्वितीयम ब्रह्मा.....सत्यम ज्नानम अनंतम ब्रह्मा....
post #2287 by Mr. KRS:
It is 'Non - duaslism' and not 'Monism' in it's full sense and it is definitely not 'Monotheism'.
Now the question:
Is Mr. Tbs an advaitin or not?
tbs
0
hi raju sir,
i did my ph.d in advaita..........im advatin....no doubt.....like a moon in different lakes....some called many moons.....some called
a single moon but many reflections......
tbs
0
not at alll.....never confused......its like rope/snake theory of advaita..........theory of ABHAASA.....
As per the theory a few posts back, you must either be:
an advaitin to be confused, or
a confused advaitin
or confused to be an advaitin
So, if you say you are an advaitin and not confused,
you could be confused that you are not confused and so you could be an advaitin, or
you could not be confused that you are confused and so you could be an advaitin
Last edited:
sravna
Well-known member
renuka
Well-known member
dear TBS..I have a way to handle Ozone's post for you.
Ozone's post is an illusion..therefore it does not exists!!!LOL
renuka
Well-known member
Every advaitin is 'by chance' no one 'by choice'
No... everyone is an Advaitin by birth..we came to world crying Ko'ham and leave it breathing the last So'ham.
We brought nothing and take nothing..thats Advaita but we never realize it and still go on and on from janam to janam...thats why its
punarapi jananam punarapi maranam
punarapi jananii jathare shayanam
iha samsaare bahudustaare
kripayaa apaare paahi muraare
Born again, death again, birth again to stay in the mother's womb! It is indeed hard to cross this boundless ocean of samsara. Oh Murari! Redeem me through Thy mercy.
Last edited:
dear TBS, and that's Maya ... born out ignorance
sravna
Well-known member
N
Nara
Guest
Lot of people have jumped in crying wolf about what I said about advaitam, but nobody addressed the issue I raised. Let me repeat what I said:
"Advaitam, that is entirely a different cup of tea, they have to first decide whether they are theistic or not, at present they are a confused about it, IMO. "
This comment is not about whether or not Advaitam is valid, it is about theism within Advaitam. VA has a clear ideology and their theism fits in with their VA philosophy perfectly, however delusional their ideology is, at least there is coherence.
In the case of Advaitam where is the need for theism? Their philosophy is that jeevas are non-different from the attribute-less, characterless, pure consciousness, the only ultimate reality. Proper knowledge is the means to realize this, and when this realization sets in all differences vanish. In this scheme of things where is the need for theism? I know a whole lot of people will jump in and make assertive statements like saguna brhman upasana is the means to such knowledge, but that is not a persuasive argument, the contradictions stick out like a huge big sore thumb. Such responses, I must say, I have to just ignore, thank you very much.
Cheers!
"Advaitam, that is entirely a different cup of tea, they have to first decide whether they are theistic or not, at present they are a confused about it, IMO. "
In the case of Advaitam where is the need for theism? Their philosophy is that jeevas are non-different from the attribute-less, characterless, pure consciousness, the only ultimate reality. Proper knowledge is the means to realize this, and when this realization sets in all differences vanish. In this scheme of things where is the need for theism? I know a whole lot of people will jump in and make assertive statements like saguna brhman upasana is the means to such knowledge, but that is not a persuasive argument, the contradictions stick out like a huge big sore thumb. Such responses, I must say, I have to just ignore, thank you very much.
Cheers!
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
Wanted Fulltime care person neededLooking for a fulltime lady who can look after 80 yr old person who has dementia. She can manage...
- vashok (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Free [Bride Wanted] Bride WantedLooking for Bride - Family Oriented and brought up from Cultured Family
- SRIKANT S -(Bride Wanted) (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
-
Free [Bride Wanted] TAMIL BRAHMIN VADAMA BRIDE WANTEDMust to be willing to relocate to Bengaluru Must be willing to accommodate joint family
- self today (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted [Cook Wanted] Wanted cook for Home at Gandhipuram Coimbatore. Decent Salary offeredHi, we need a female Brahmin cook for home ( 5 members family) at Coimbatore. Morning and...
- gchitra (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated: