God...Why?

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

Do you think that the Vasanas and the 3 classifications of the Karma are the same?

I have been given to understand that the two are different but influence each other.

If Vasanas are the same as the accumulated Karma, then a person can more or less choose who he/she would be in the next birth, obviating the necessity for Ishwara's role.

Would like some clarification on this.

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sri KRS ji,

Tough question. Please give me some time. Have spoken to gurus so far, but will try to get some feedback from spirit-mediums.

Regards.

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

My response is in 'blue':

KRS, I'm refering here #25.

>>Re-incarnation is different from the laws governing Karma/Phala. Till the time they attain sentience, the reincarnated souls of the animals are not governed by the Karma theory.>>

I lack bit clarity in this, hence you may find some repetitions.

If I understood right, the elevation/lowering of next birth is dependent on Karma.
As Srimathi HH Ji correctly said, there is no 'elevation/lowering of next birth'. A person over several births accumulate both 'good' and 'bad' karmas and the next birth is decided on the spiritual progression need of the person concerned.

Then there should be rule/intelligent design, which could again be attributed to God. For eg, its a normal belief that, if some one does many things in this world, and earns bad karmic deeds, then he will be assigned to a lower-life in next karma.
The 'intelligent design' theory is, I know, being discussed in the Christian community of late to prove the existence of God. In our Monism/Advaitham, we say that the Prakrithi (the material world) is also a part of Brahman. I gave you an anology of the Sun before. So, even though He created the Universe, He does not involve Himself in the day to day affair. Karma is accumulated over various births and it is not like where your last birth's karma phala will be effected fully in the next birth. Just because a person accumulates 'bad' karma in his last life it would not automatically mean that he would be born to experience those 'bad' effects in his next life.
And there must be rule/law(which we humans may not know) by which all these promotions/demotions actions happen. Lets say, if the next birth is assigned randomly, even then, the 'Calculating machine' of Karmic deeds will have some governing body/, and I attribute this to God.
Yes, you and Ishwara decide on your next birth circumstances so that you can experience the karmaphala to make you grow spiritually. Again it is not about 'promotions/demotions'. A poor person for example may lead the happiest of lives while a person born as a King may lead the unhappiest tragic life.

Or, let me take the old eg of Hitler... As we(humans) all have contradictory individualistic opinions about his 'KARMA", Im sure there should be an universal law, which would decide the karmic count of Hitler.
Karma is not accrued on the basis of other's opinions. It is accrued by the thoughts/deeds of the person.

Since we all cannot decide on the "Universal Moral/Karmic law", we necessarily have to rely on a higher authority for law, just like we rely on God for Asbolute Love OR All loving love. Hence I say, that Aboslute Law/Justice is governed only by God.
The difference between you and me on this point is very clear and we are going around each other in circles. To you 'Absolute Law/Justice' is what you call as 'morality', which I told you is not 'Absolute'. My definition of 'Absolute Law/Justice' is the concept of Dharma, which supports the Universe and gives a person his/her inherent nature. Karma is accumulated as 'bad' or 'good' based on the acts which are adharmic or dharmic. This is a very subtle but yet a huge difference in our philosophies. So we are still poles apart on this one.

This gives a feel,that, just like God being 'All Loving reflection of Absolute Love', he should also have the traits of 'Absolute Law , Absolute Justice and Absolute Righteousness"! Which subsequently leads to my previous statment, that, Moral is rooted in God.
Again, I addressed this above. There is no 'Absolute Righteousness'. 'Righteousness' is time and culture bound.

PS: I have few points still pending in #25 to be clarified. Will post them soon.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

Do you think that the Vasanas and the 3 classifications of the Karma are the same?

I have been given to understand that the two are different but influence each other.

If Vasanas are the same as the accumulated Karma, then a person can more or less choose who he/she would be in the next birth, obviating the necessity for Ishwara's role.

Would like some clarification on this.

Regards,
KRS

Sir,

So far what am understanding is this (subject to change though since i may be wrong or may have missed something):

For a reason unknown the soul carries all its vasanas plus the option to choose its birth for a varied conditioned state. I was told in a regression that this soul itself chose a life sans any rituals (please however note that i do not disrespect rituals, just because someone knows to go from point A to B does not mean he does not need a road, sure he knows the path and can make it there but having a road can help make it easier - just that its my own 'prob' that i have this innate inability to relate to rituals). Now the scenario turns out that for an unknown reason this soul chose to 'forget' all previously lived paths and 'struggle' to find one on its own (all souls get to choose their conditioned state) - in that sense perhaps the soul itself chose the so-called certain struggles in life.

The soul has a choice but this does not mean there is no role for Ishvara. The soul functions as a mini creator as it has fragmented out from the source (ishvara) and has the 'property to 'create' as well. So it gets to create its fate (in a co-ordinated symphony, yet he is his own instrument only - abt this part, am certain now). However the role of the fragment (soul) is not the same as the source (Ishvara) itself. The so-called 'levels' at which each operates appears linked yet appear different (like a manger and director doing the same role but on a different level).

If there is anything else or more i come across, i will share it here. Please do let me know what you feel about this.

Thanks & Regards.

 

[sapr333]

HH,

A simple question... Whats the role of God, in that long process and mechanism?

That was the answer, I been seeking in the past 50 posts?

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr,

I do not know.

Gurus say the process / mechanism of creation is 'felt' and thereby 'understood' by sages in samadhi. However, so far i have not met anyone who is able to explain everything that is understood in samadhi. The bits and pieces of grossly insufficient info that some gurus give, does not explain the process / mechanism of creation.

Regards.

 

[sapr333]

Sapr,
H.H,

I do not know.

Gurus say the process / mechanism of creation is 'felt' and thereby 'understood' by sages in samadhi. However, so far i have not met anyone who is able to explain everything that is understood in samadhi. The bits and pieces of grossly insufficient info that some gurus give, does not explain the process / mechanism of creation.

Regards.

This is exactly what the trouble I'm also finding in this subject of discussion. I thought of analysing Monism Vs Monotheism. But still,even with learned/refined people like KRS, I couldnt move a head with the debate,for the simple reason, that, Im still not clear about . And the answers seems to be either complex or confusing.

1) Mechanism of Karma
2) Role of God in Karma / Reincarnation
3) How good/bad/Good deeds/Dharma is defined universally, apart from Individualistic opinions

I would appreciate if someone would help me on this, with a broad frame of mind (Pursuit of true God), than, just with a mindset to win an argument in public forum..


I wish handle Seshadri Subramonium was here.

 

[happyhindu]

This is exactly what the trouble I'm also finding in this subject of discussion. I thought of analysing Monism Vs Monotheism. But still,even with learned/refined people like KRS, I couldnt move a head with the debate,for the simple reason, that, Im still not clear about . And the answers seems to be either complex or confusing.

1) Mechanism of Karma
2) Role of God in Karma / Reincarnation
3) How good/bad/Good deeds/Dharma is defined universally, apart from Individualistic opinions

I would appreciate if someone would help me on this, with a broad frame of mind (Pursuit of true God), than, just with a mindset to win an argument in public forum..


I wish handle Seshadri Subramonium was here.

Not sure analysis will help in any manner.

You have to go out and experience it yourself.

The answers do not seem either complex or confusing. For most part, they are restricted to a group that has nothing to do with wordly people; and therefore that info is not available for sharing. Lack of availability does not make something complex or confusing.

Then there is also this difficulty of putting things into words; while not knowing if those words are the ones that appropriately put forth the intended meaning.

I too cud fill in pages here about the process of creation / karma and role of what we call "god". But we are here in a conditoned state - and therefore there will be more quesions than answers created in our minds. Its like theory with no practicals - that's no way to learn.

And more so because we are here with a grosser conditioned state when it comes to the stand of wanting to "define" or "analyse" what is good or bad. It is clear that there is no such thing as good or bad either to yogis, to gurus or to old world european spirit-mediums. However, you and anyone is free to choose to define it in the conditioned state you or they are in.

If you have any notions that either me or Sri KRS or Sri N or Sri SV or SS is here to do some kinda 'winning' something, please be clear that it is your own fallacy. We discuss, we share, we learn and we move on.

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

My response is in 'blue':

This is exactly what the trouble I'm also finding in this subject of discussion. I thought of analysing Monism Vs Monotheism. But still,even with learned/refined people like KRS, I couldnt move a head with the debate,for the simple reason, that, Im still not clear about . And the answers seems to be either complex or confusing.
Thank you first of all on the felicitation.

The problem here is two fold:
1. I told you that religion is culture bound. So, unless one has an open mind, one can not but see other philosophies through one's own colored glass. Your responses unfortunately are from looking at monism from the prism of monotheism. I have told you from the Hinduism point of view, you are not going to 'know' God intellectually. In fact if you do, by definition, it is not God.

2. I also told you that the way to God is through the four paths defined. Unlike monotheism with a rigid theology based on one person's vision, we have multiple paths in Hinduism in knowing Him. This seems to be a mind block with you.

1) Mechanism of Karma
2) Role of God in Karma / Reincarnation
3) How good/bad/Good deeds/Dharma is defined universally, apart from Individualistic opinions
We can talk about the mechanism of Karma, the three classifications, the rols of Vasanas and the role of Ishwara in rebirth etc. But these are not going to lead you to God, because the Karmic principle operates in the material world. You seem to equate Dharma with 'morality' and 'righteousness'. Unless you understand the difference, it is not possible to understand Hinduism.

I would appreciate if someone would help me on this, with a broad frame of mind (Pursuit of true God), than, just with a mindset to win an argument in public forum..
Again, there is no argument. As I said, you believe in one philosophy and you are trying to see the 'Truth' in a different philosophy through the lens of your philosophy. How then it is posiible to understand a different philosophy on it's own terms? Faith is beyond logical arguments. I do not wish to denigrate your philosophy and I am proud of my own. So, if you want to understand mine, please get rid of all your pre conceived notions of God and Universe from the monotheistic perspective first. When you first said that we will look at everything from monism, this is what I expected. Not the discussion from you where you are arguing monism from the monotheistic view point.

I wish handle Seshadri Subramonium was here.
I wish and hope for the same.

 

[sridharvasudevan]

Dear Sapr333,

The frustration of being unable to understand or being unable to get answers to certain questions about how nature operates is quite common. You can find a whole lot of people through ages and generations having undergone this trauma.

Personally I believe that every form of god is only to help our mind tune itself to certain qualities of the form. Eventually realize that all is one. Any thought or action that takes one away from the oneness is Karma.

That is why realized souls living in the human form do not get trapped in the cycle of birth due to Karma.

Action or thought without any selfish motive is very difficult. The easiest way to think or act in a totally un-selfish way (oneness with nature) is by breath control.

Funny that the seemingly unrelated "breathing" is a way to this.

When we watch breathing, thoughts start slowing down. That is, we have lesser thoughts per minute. When you watch your breathing continuously for minutes, hours, days and years - your thoughts are almost none. You as an individual ceases to exist. You do not identify yourself with this body.

If you did achieve complete watching of your breathing for even a minute every day, you can be sure to understand and realize the harmony of nature.

The first stepping stone to give answers to Good, Bad, Karma, God and all.

Would people stop blogging on these subjects then, if they start watching their breath? Only time will answer. Maybe not, great sages did take time off to write some great commentaries and scriptures right?

 

[[email protected]]

To sapr 333, Pl read Tamil book name Maikandaer Sasthiram.

 

[sapr333]

To sapr 333, Pl read Tamil book name Maikandaer Sasthiram.

Thanks.. Is it possible to locate in internet, atleast a limited preview.. Which publication?

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Let us look at it this way:

A prism splits the perceived 'white' light into different colours...

If we are searching for an entity called 'God' based on certain premises such as righteousness, goodness, happiness etc then we have confined our search... such a search is coloured... since we have already concluded that a 'God' should possess certain qualities, we will not be satisfied by explanations or counter-explanations... thus, it could lead to a definite 'something', but may not be the ultimate...

But then a search has to be done to find out something... so what is it then?

How do we know that the purpose of our search is the correct one at all?

Cutting down, let us assume that the knowledge of the existence of the universe and its mechanism is the purpose of the search...

But remember, we are searching for it philosophically ie., broadly... Science tends to look at it from bottom->top, since to arrive at a conclusion, the micro level logic and factors have to be satisfied... When the day it finds the means, science and philosophy combine...

We see varied forms of life and non-life... there is an evident pattern in that life keeps on coming and going... leading from this we will also assume a cycle... the object of the cycle is the 'matter' which keeps on transforming/splitting/changing...

--> The first logic is that such forms have always existed, only the nature and form differs over different cycles... these cycles vary and have a relative aspect to the perceiver... (if anybody has seen the movie 'knowing', where the father character talks about deterministic and random theory, it would be easy to understand because I am now expanding on that part)... what is random at a certain level becomes deterministic at another level... and there are infinite levels... for example we see that there is a food particle lying in the garden and know that eventually it would be dissolved/eaten up etc... now when we see an anthill in the vicinity, we also understand that a wandering ant would soon find it... but when we look from the perspective of the ant, we cannot be sure as to whether the ant would find food, as it does not know; it finds it in the course of its search... now one may attribute it to a higher form of life... etc... but the basic fact is 'knowledge'... knowledge of how things are and how certain forms behave... so if we perceive certain things to be random, it may mean that they seem random at our level, but could be deterministic at a different level...

So, the key then is to acquire knowledge... but how? Again I divide into two aspects a) by acquiring different forms, experiencing different lives and assimilating them... this may seem strange to us since we do not remember our past livfe-cycles (normal view), but it could be that because we are on a different level, much like the ant in our current existence...

But since there are infinite levels, it simply becomes impossible that we assimilate them all; here comes the second aspect b) by becoming/dissolving/assimilating into the everpresent 'matter', we become aware of everything... this is what the upanishads say - 'knowing that by which one knows everything'...

<<I have use the term 'matter' just to indicate something - a factor or the sustaining substance (solid, liquid or gas or any other)>>

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

--> The second logic is that there is a change (obviously)... I am now borrowing the theory of contraction and expansion of the universe... assume all things living and non-living keep on contraction into one big 'matter'... this can either be solid liquid or gas... again the states of matter depend on temperature... now temperature must have its origin... for then heat or absence of heat itself becomes the permeating substance!

Yogis have shown that by exercising control over the mind, temperatures can be withstood... so then, temperature itself is dependent on certain factors...

In the process of contraction, such factors also compress... just as the colours of the prism merge to give a white light, all factors and matter cotract/compress/merge to the 'one' substance... now, since this 'one' is also subject to change (change being its very nature), it again expands/transforms/manifests through various factors....

Now, advaitham calls the 'one' substance as 'awareness' or the self... even if it expands, this substance, is present in every atom of the universe, but perceived differently as they are combination of different factors...

The factor 'change' is termed 'leela'...

Vishishtadhvaitham includes both the process of contraction and expansion and terms that even though it is one, the aspects/flavours are many...

I now will assume that 'God' is a separate entity... ie., it is different from its creation, as some faiths believe... now, by this very definition, it evidences the existence of 'Non-God'... So there is no supreme entity for if God were supreme, then it would obviously have control over the Non-God too!!!

Again, if God has produced/created something, where was the raw-material? Did that exist all along until God came along the way and decide to create the universe? Then did God also create the Non-God entity? If not, then the Non-God entity could very well be running a parallel universe, standing adjacent to God...

So, this is a self defeating logic...

So essentially, the 'God' aspect has to be present in everything or to put it in a different way - all things combined form 'God'; only the form varies... that is why 'God' is defined as having a form and also formless... because it is all encompassing... one cannot point at a certain form or object and term it as God, but yet he is right in a certain way as it too forms part of God...

Universe is infinite, but it we assume the human body to be the universe then similar to how all the organs together constitute the body, all the forms/non-forms put together form 'God'... to say that God is only the hand or brain is incorrect... similarly, to say that God is separate from all the organs, is also incorrect...

Everything put together constitute the term 'God' or 'Brahman'...

And this is the essence of 'nethi, nethi'... (not only this, not only this)...

So, I categorically reject the nature of 'Godhood' as perceived by faiths other than the vedic... but agree in the sense that the perceived 'Gods' are but entities at a certain level...

Sapr333, though I did not post earlier, I just wanted to do so today... My explanations are but my perception and hence, they may be subject to my confines...

 

[sapr333]

Dear Seshadri,

Thanks indeed for the wonderful response.. I must have re-read your post atleast 6 times..Matter of fact, I've been waiting for your interaction long ago..

Though I have lots to respond back to your post # 63 n 64.. But before, I have a small question..

Whats God ,according to you?

PS: Upon your response, be assured I will attempt to answer to 2 previous wonderful posts..

 

[s007bala]

re

--> The second logic is that there is a change (obviously)... I am now borrowing the theory of contraction and expansion of the universe... assume all things living and non-living keep on contraction into one big 'matter'... this can either be solid liquid or gas... again the states of matter depend on temperature... now temperature must have its origin... for then heat or absence of heat itself becomes the permeating substance!

Yogis have shown that by exercising control over the mind, temperatures can be withstood... so then, temperature itself is dependent on certain factors...

In the process of contraction, such factors also compress... just as the colours of the prism merge to give a white light, all factors and matter cotract/compress/merge to the 'one' substance... now, since this 'one' is also subject to change (change being its very nature), it again expands/transforms/manifests through various factors....

Now, advaitham calls the 'one' substance as 'awareness' or the self... even if it expands, this substance, is present in every atom of the universe, but perceived differently as they are combination of different factors...

The factor 'change' is termed 'leela'...

Vishishtadhvaitham includes both the process of contraction and expansion and terms that even though it is one, the aspects/flavours are many...

I now will assume that 'God' is a separate entity... ie., it is different from its creation, as some faiths believe... now, by this very definition, it evidences the existence of 'Non-God'... So there is no supreme entity for if God were supreme, then it would obviously have control over the Non-God too!!!

Again, if God has produced/created something, where was the raw-material? Did that exist all along until God came along the way and decide to create the universe? Then did God also create the Non-God entity? If not, then the Non-God entity could very well be running a parallel universe, standing adjacent to God...

So, this is a self defeating logic...

So essentially, the 'God' aspect has to be present in everything or to put it in a different way - all things combined form 'God'; only the form varies... that is why 'God' is defined as having a form and also formless... because it is all encompassing... one cannot point at a certain form or object and term it as God, but yet he is right in a certain way as it too forms part of God...

Universe is infinite, but it we assume the human body to be the universe then similar to how all the organs together constitute the body, all the forms/non-forms put together form 'God'... to say that God is only the hand or brain is incorrect... similarly, to say that God is separate from all the organs, is also incorrect...

Everything put together constitute the term 'God' or 'Brahman'...

And this is the essence of 'nethi, nethi'... (not only this, not only this)...

So, I categorically reject the nature of 'Godhood' as perceived by faiths other than the vedic... but agree in the sense that the perceived 'Gods' are but entities at a certain level...

Sapr333, though I did not post earlier, I just wanted to do so today... My explanations are but my perception and hence, they may be subject to my confines...

ss

one big hug from me.so well written,i am engulfed with a warm glow of jyothi.nitya-anandam-swaroopam.may god bless you always.

sapr333

ss has written wonderfully.despite this if you cannot grasp,i will pray to my 'self'=brahman=god=nirgunam=formless spirit,which has no beginning nor end.brahmanarpanamasthu.

sb

 

[sapr333]

SS>If we are searching for an entity called 'God' based on certain premises such as righteousness, goodness, happiness etc then we have confined our search... such a search is coloured... since we have already concluded that a 'God' should possess certain qualities, we will not be satisfied by explanations or counter-explanations... thus, it could lead to a definite 'something', but may not be the ultimate.>>>>>>

Dear Sesh,

Im not confining God to Absolute Righteousness alone.. In my view, God is The Ultimate and the absolute highest in all traits, which a human could comprehend or imagine.. In this light of ABSOLUTE, God could be extended to all the possible traits, such as Justice/Power/Holiness/Creating power/Righteousness etc etc etc..

And when you say 'God is not the ultimate', then there could be a possiblity of having multiple Gods, lesser Gods and Higher Gods...That contradicts the Gods nature of being 'Supreme' , as defined by all religions.


>>>>I now will assume that 'God' is a separate entity... ie., it is different from its creation, as some faiths believe... now, by this very definition, it evidences the existence of 'Non-God'>>>

I stress the word 'ULTIMATE/SUPREME'... Do you have any practical norm for 'NON-ULTIMATE?..Yes, non-ultimate means the rest OR those remains except ultimate, and NON-Ultimate would be a Plural term.. In that way, Non-God is what we see around us, the creations, mankind etc..


>>>Again, if God has produced/created something, where was the raw-material? Did that exist all along until God came along the way and decide to create the universe?>>

Hope you know, Big bang or Einsteins 'Mass Vs Energy' doesnt need any raw material. Also, when we define God as SUPREME, he should be beyond Space& time too.

 

[s007bala]

sapr

i modified the slokas sanskrit words, to 'un-explainable' whereas the correct translation is from 'whole'.the basis is or foundation is =brahman=nir-gunam brahman.the brahman expands or has become cosmos or universe with its multi-various entities.....=sagunam brahman...

OM POORNA MADAH POORNA MIDAM
POORNAAT POORNA MUDACHYATE
POORNASYA POORNA MAADAAYA
POORNA MEVAA VASHISHYATE
OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTIHI

THAT IS un-explainable. THIS (CREATION) IS ALSO un-explainable.
FROM THAT un-explainable (I.E. BRAHMAN ONLY) THIS un-explainable HAS COME OUT (CREATION)
BUT EVEN THOUGH THIS un-explainable HAS COME OUT OF THAT un-explainable
YET THAT un-explainable REMAINS un-explainable ONLY.

(i.e. Brahman remains unaffected, retains His/Her/Its fullness and completeness.)

sb

 

[sapr333]

sapr

THAT IS un-explainable. THIS (CREATION) IS ALSO un-explainable.
FROM THAT un-explainable (I.E. BRAHMAN ONLY) THIS un-explainable HAS COME OUT (CREATION)
BUT EVEN THOUGH THIS un-explainable HAS COME OUT OF THAT un-explainable
YET THAT un-explainable REMAINS un-explainable ONLY.

sb

Dear Bala,

God being un-explainable, may be true in physical/quantitative terms. As seshadri said, it could be beyond perceptions. But philosophers and all Religions have always attempted to define God and it was a continous pursuit.

secondly, if God is un-explainable, then the basic question is, Why We need God?
As Happy Hindu asked earlier, 'What will happen in the absence of God? How does it matter to me, if I reject God?

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

sapr333

Im not confining God to Absolute Righteousness alone.. In my view, God is The Ultimate and the absolute highest in all traits, which a human could comprehend or imagine.. In this light of ABSOLUTE, God could be extended to all the possible traits, such as Justice/Power/Holiness/Creating power/Righteousness etc etc etc..

And when you say 'God is not the ultimate', then there could be a possiblity of having multiple Gods, lesser Gods and Higher Gods...That contradicts the Gods nature of being 'Supreme' , as defined by all religions.

What do you mean by ultimate here? and what is the derived meaning of highest? If it is 'all', then it cannot be confined to righteousness alone, non-righteousness is also a part of it... do you agree on this? If you say honesty as a trait, then dishonesty is the opposite trait - then if God is 'all', should he not include dishonesty/injustice/unholiness/destructing power/evil etc etc...?

I shall answer to the second para after your views on my reply above...

I stress the word 'ULTIMATE/SUPREME'... Do you have any practical norm for 'NON-ULTIMATE?..Yes, non-ultimate means the rest OR those remains except ultimate, and NON-Ultimate would be a Plural term.. In that way, Non-God is what we see around us, the creations, mankind etc..

You use the word 'Ultimate/Supreme' as an end; or to define a particular set... use the word in the sense of of all-encompassing or ever pervading... it is like the connection between electricity and the bulb... without electricity, the bulb does not shine; the word powerful should be understood in this way as the sustaining force... and not like a master-slave relationship...

Hope you know, Big bang or Einsteins 'Mass Vs Energy' doesnt need any raw material. Also, when we define God as SUPREME, he should be beyond Space& time too.

Mass is material, right?

What is the interpretation of the word 'beyond' here?

 

[happyhindu]

As Happy Hindu asked earlier, 'What will happen in the absence of God? How does it matter to me, if I reject God?

Sapr,

To clarify the context in which that was mentioned:

Lets says god is the food we eat, the water we drink, the sunlight we see, the darkness we sense, or the air we breath...does that mean god is absent? Or does that mean god is a "created presence" ? Or does that mean god is neither?

Someone explained a part of "that" in the Ajita Agama as: " That which appears as cold or as hot, fresh or spoiled, good fortune and bad, love and hate, effort and laziness, the exalted and the depraved, the rich and the poor, the well-founded and the ill-founded, all this is God Himself; none other than Him can we know."

To clarify, god is just energy, omnipresent and independent of how we see it, perceive it, address it, express it, in our conditioned state; and it is not really a continuous pursuit for yogis who harness that energy bcoz such ppl tend to be in an unconditioned state and do not see anything as a pursuit or a differentiated cause or an effect (such ppl may say there is no god or that there is god, its only a matter of expression, both are right, so rejection / acceptance as mentioned by you above does not exist to them).

Again, all of this is just a personal perspective, one of the angles, and not meaning to disagree with what others say.

 

[tbs]

Sapr,

To clarify the context in which that was mentioned:

Lets says god is the food we eat, the water we drink, the sunlight we see, the darkness we sense, or the air we breath...does that mean god is absent? Or does that mean god is a "created presence" ? Or does that mean god is neither?

Someone explained a part of "that" in the Ajita Agama as: " That which appears as cold or as hot, fresh or spoiled, good fortune and bad, love and hate, effort and laziness, the exalted and the depraved, the rich and the poor, the well-founded and the ill-founded, all this is God Himself; none other than Him can we know."

To clarify, god is just energy, omnipresent and independent of how we see it, perceive it, address it, express it, in our conditioned state; and it is not really a continuous pursuit for yogis who harness that energy bcoz such ppl tend to be in an unconditioned state and do not see anything as a pursuit or a differentiated cause or an effect (such ppl may say there is no god or that there is god, its only a matter of expression, both are right, so rejection / acceptance as mentioned by you above does not exist to them). Again, all of this is just a personal perspective, one of the angles, and not meaning to disagree with what others say.

namasthe,
GOD means GENERATOR....OPERATOR....DESTROYER/DISSIMILATION..
according to hinduism trinity.....BRAHMA...VISHNU..... SHIVA IS
called GOD....

regards

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr: <<Hope you know, Big bang or Einsteins 'Mass Vs Energy' doesnt need any raw material. Also, when we define God as SUPREME, he should be beyond Space& time too. >>

Sesh: <<Mass is material, right?
What is the interpretation of the word 'beyond' here?>>

Sapr,

Vacuum is sans matter. How to explain god in non-eastern terms there.

You speak of a nirapeksha (absolute, not relative) god free from any mixture (amishra) as a parama-karta (prime doer) addressing it as a absolute unit (prakevala-ekaka), but perhaps not as a singular entity (ekaadhikarin) responsible for everything (??) since you possibly see evil, or the creation of evil (dushkrita daurjana), as a seperate entity (??). This is where the diff comes in, in eastern and western thot. In the western, evil is a seperate entity. In the eastern, evil is non-existent as an entity.

However, talking about the absoluteness that you speak of, it is possible that each time you speak of that "absoluteness" you are possibly addressing paara-brahman or beyond-creation or beyond created-matter, as vacuum.

Though its not really settled if the big bang (sfitaahati) happened in medium or vaccum in physics currently, the yogis beleive it happened in vaccum. But in sanskrit, the same word is used to mean different things, and therefore "that absoluteness" of the universe is also called brahman (casually), though technically, a yogi can explain it as 'beyond brahman'. The attainment of 'beyond brahman' by a soul is not considered possible. This is yoga, but it sounds pretty close to vishishtadvaita i suppose.

Also, when big bang happened, equal parts of matter and anti-matter were present. But the anti-matter so-called 'disappeared'. The yogis offer some explanation to this, but it is beyond my expression abilities to speak of it. Moreover i dunno physics enuf to correlate whether or not the yoga explanations are plausible or not. However, if you wish, you can try to seek info on this from various sources, including gurus.

Link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...atter-theory-debunked/articleshow/4557653.cms

Regards.

 

[s007bala]

sapr

>>secondly, if God is un-explainable, then the basic question is, Why We need God?
As Happy Hindu asked earlier, 'What will happen in the absence of God? How does it matter to me, if I reject God?<<

god is inherent within us.ramana maharishi extols one to look within ourselves 'self' as the origin as well as well un-ending spirit.when awareness kicks in within you then the trigger of god realisation occurs.you,me,they,us,we...etc are all 'that' only.

sb

 

[kunjuppu]

when i was very young, my summer holidays were spent in a rutputty town in malabar (50s, 60s).

electricity came only late 50s. and that too, between 5 pm - 9 pm, the lights would be dim and the fans would not turn.

this was because of the commercial usage, and the lights would brighten up and fans would give out some relief only after the shops were closed.

so the evenings were spent with my widowed grand aunt, reciting me, stories from the epics. in the background of the darkness, with roaming fox howls and owl hoots, these surreal sounds, gave me a feeling of sheer thrill based fright, which even to this day, i can recall the prospect of the horror of narasimhavadharam jumping out of the nearby thoon.

ok... with relevance to this thread.. one of the stories that has forever etched in my memory was about this blackguard. he lived a life of sin and deceit.

at the point of death, he uttered the name of siva, who was his son. but we all know Siva our Lord. he was given the benefit of the doubt, and found his way to heaven.

sir, i invoke the name of Siva, several times a day. for i do not know, when my time comes. but even though my life is but ordinary, there are enough flaws for me to be denied to those pearly gates or the proverbial 72 virgins.

the moral of this post: invoke Siva, whenever, wherever and however you are able to. (though i suspect grammatically, ending a sentence with a preposition is frowned on by those disciples of wren and martin).

thank you.