God...Why?

[tbs]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

Namaskrams kunjappu,
same like in Srimad bhagavatha purana....the story of King Ajaamila...
story goes on....the king was non beleiver/aetheist...his wife was
pious/holy woman and devoted to Lord Narayana...once Narada
came to his palace...she was pregnant....so narad ji gave
narayana mahamantra upadesha to womb....she delivered
a boy and named narayana...........when king was bedridden
and in the time of death . he called narayana....in the name
of his beloved son..........but sriman narayana heard his name in vaikunta
and sent his messengers to protect this king...mean while
yama kingaras came to take this king...becoz he was not
good king....and non beleiver of god...there is big arguement
between narayana's messengers with yama kingaras...
finally the king got vaikunta /moksha bwcause of his son's name..
the moral of this story....keep the lord's name for the children..and
name of the lord will protect in the end...

regards

 

[sapr333]

Sapr,

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."

Dear HH/Seshadri, this point of HH covers your view too. So thought of presenting a clubbed response.

Being Hot/Cold, Fresh/Spoiled is all materialistic things, which can be judged by our senses, and hence we dont need God here..Where as Justice/Love/Holiness/Righteousness are more with the mind and intangible, for which we need a Authority to make a stratum.

Touching Seshadri's point, Man can define Absolute Cold as Zero Kelvin. But on what basis Mankind could define Killing/Rape as Bad? Killing is not considered bad amonst animals, but Mankind calls it as wrong, because, they follow the moral standards given by God through scriptures. Hitler cannot be proved wrong, unless we take the scriptural stand. All our laws in this world is widely based on scriptures.

This what Ive been insisting on ... The God of Supreme should be the ultimate reference/benchmark for the above said intangible traits..

PS: God Vs AntiGod - Seshadri, I'll respond soon

 

[sapr333]

Dear Kunjuppu/TBS, few clarifications..

1) Just because someone spelt LORDS name in death bed, I doubt Lord will relieve him of all his past evil actions/karmic debts, and make him oneness with God.

2) If so, then it partly agrees with my view, "God's role as Deliverer of Justice"

 

[happyhindu]

Killing is not considered bad amonst animals, but Mankind calls it as wrong, because, they follow the moral standards given by God through scriptures. Hitler cannot be proved wrong, unless we take the scriptural stand. All our laws in this world is widely based on scriptures.

This what Ive been insisting on ... The God of Supreme should be the ultimate reference/benchmark for the above said intangible traits..

Sapr,

This may sound sorta negative, but am again gonna try treading that delicate line in attempting to bring across things...

You are trying to connect two things --
1) the god of an unconditioned state of spiritual life and;
2) law books of social life that in a conditioned basis attempts to base it on a framework of god concept.

In the first section (of an unconditioned state), killing is not considered either good or bad.

In the second section (of a conditioned morality), killing is still not called wrong as such. It is based on the morality basis of whether it is in defence or is it a senseless attack. In defence, it is considered rightful (or dharmic, like jihad). A senseless attack wud be called tamasic, debased...The current lawmakers (current 'brahmins'), of various countries, have a legal framework that allows for leniency to be admitted if a killing is in self-defence.

Then again, there are certain moral laws that are same everywhere coz they are accepted by all humans across all continents. But there are also morality codes and laws that differ from country to country...it is perfectly admissable for an african to shoot arrows at strangers with whom he feels threatned as tresspassing into his territory, but a new yorker feeling threatened at his job being bangalored cannot rain bullets at his bangalore counterparts in retaliation..

so what applies in one population may not apply in another...therefore the "God of Supreme" as the spritual unconditioned one (section one) is different from conditioned moral one (section two) - and the god of section two cannot be the ultimate reference / benchmark for the intangible traits you have said.

 

[sapr333]

Dear HappyHindu, help please!!.

Ref #80, Could you pls suggest some articles/links about Unconditioned/Conditioned state.. Thanks in advance.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

sapr333, I was expecting a more open and receptive answer...

If you want to explore 'God', then should not your mind be accepting ideas when they are clarified?

Your whole point revolves around 'killing/rape/incest' and to clarify whether God would justify it... nothing more... Your fixation on this whole point seems extreme and hence you would not be convinced by an answer to the contrary...

I think shri KRS has and rightly so, in one of his posts here, clearly identified between morals and the concept of 'Godhood'...

What happens to sinners and non-sinners at the time of contraction of the universe? Do they not get merged?

You have not even questioned or challenged my line of thinking when suddenly you jump to morals...

Please reflect...

 

[sapr333]

sapr333, I was expecting a more open and receptive answer...

...

Dear Sesh,

Matter of fact, Im a beginner in this kind.. And I agree I have not fully responded to your post, rather, pick those points ,which I could answer or which I have some knowledge about it..

Believe me, Im not here to win an argument.

For eg, I havent yet responded to your God -Anti God questions, cos I know its definitely an interesting question, which equates little closer to DEVIL in Monotheism. Or Similarly, I couldnt respond to H.H because, my knowledge about Conditioned/Unconditioned mind is limited..

Bear with me...

 

[sapr333]

What happens to sinners and non-sinners at the time of contraction of the universe? Do they not get merged?.

The end of Universe is explained very convincingly in Hinduism, where as Monotheism just talks about the end of the human world (not universe), that too not in a detailed way.

According to Monotheism, God again will come down to earth and deliver his final judgement, and good souls will become oneness with God, and evil ones will go to eternal condemnation with all the human sufferings (Possibly anti-God/Satan, which you mentined previously)...I have no much idea about 'Concept of Evil".. In-my view Satan may not be realistic ant-God head, rather, a representation of SIN/Evil/opposite of Morals.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HappyHindu, help please!!.

Ref #80, Could you pls suggest some articles/links about Unconditioned/Conditioned state.. Thanks in advance.

sapr,

am learning from gurus and do not read much from books / articles. so am not able to mention any as of now. but please wait for a few days, i shall try to get the appropriate links / articles. thanks.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

The idea of morals is to help keep the society together; imagine if everyone had their own wills and fantasies to work on... it would lead to chaos and ultimately to destruction... hence, we have devised morals to protect ourselves - both as an individual and as a group...

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

The end of Universe is explained very convincingly in Hinduism, where as Monotheism just talks about the end of the human world (not universe), that too not in a detailed way.

According to Monotheism, God again will come down to earth and deliver his final judgement, and good souls will become oneness with God, and evil ones will go to eternal condemnation with all the human sufferings (Possibly anti-God/Satan, which you mentined previously)...I have no much idea about 'Concept of Evil".. In-my view Satan may not be realistic ant-God head, rather, a representation of SIN/Evil/opposite of Morals.

Again, this depends on what we perceive 'God' to be...

If there is an anti to God, then God is not supreme... is it not?

 

[happyhindu]

Sesh: What happens to sinners and non-sinners at the time of contraction of the universe? Do they not get merged?.

Sapr: The end of Universe is explained very convincingly in Hinduism, where as Monotheism just talks about the end of the human world (not universe), that too not in a detailed way.

According to Monotheism, God again will come down to earth and deliver his final judgement, and good souls will become oneness with God, and evil ones will go to eternal condemnation with all the human sufferings (Possibly anti-God/Satan, which you mentined previously)...I have much idea about 'Concept of Evil".. In-my view Satan may not be realistic ant-God head, rather, a representation of SIN/Evil/opposite of Morals.

am wondering abt this topic of contraction of universe in connection to sinners or non-sinners. i mean all life as we see will be gone when climatic changes and so on take place on planet earth, how does the existence of sinners / non-sinners come into the pic eons later at the point of contraction of universe which happens before a big bang...and transformations with dark matter take place all the time...

god coming down for final judgement is also explained this way: this is the age of kali or transformation. all forms of religion / dharma will cease to exist when the transformation is complete. those that connect with ether survive. those that do not, do not survive the changes in the planet. nothing called sin or sinners here. dunno why it is all explained that way though.

 

[sapr333]

Again, this depends on what we perceive 'God' to be...

If there is an anti to God, then God is not supreme... is it not?

This what I tried to put in an another way, few posts ago..

In monotheism, WRONG/EVIL/Sin is believed to be anti-God.. its a nature, not an object of supreme. Then an intersting question arises,.... if God is supreme, then Sin may be equally anti-supreme!!!

In another view, any thing that deviates from the Absolute nature of God is evil.. If a man does a wrong, he deviates from God, and becomes anti-god, and the highest form of Sin, which is totally opposite to the Holy nature of god is believed to be Evil or anti-God..

I agree with you, this logic may not be applicable to Monism, cos the God's nature of Morality doest exist there.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

am wondering abt this topic of contraction of universe in connection to sinners or non-sinners. i mean all life as we see will be gone when climatic changes and so on take place on planet earth, how does the existence of sinners / non-sinners come into the pic eons later at the point of contraction of universe which happens before a big bang...and transformations with dark matter take place all the time...

god coming down for final judgement is also explained this way: this is the age of kali or transformation. all forms of religion / dharma will cease to exist when the transformation is complete. those that connect with ether survive. those that do not, do not survive the changes in the planet. nothing called sin or sinners here. dunno why it is all explained that way though.

Am guilty here as I am trying to disprove to sapr333's 'Moral God' through the process of contraction and expansion...

This was just to separate the idea of morals from the concept of 'Godhood'...

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

This what I tried to put in an another way, few posts ago..

In monotheism, WRONG/EVIL/Sin is believed to be anti-God.. its a nature, not an object of supreme. Then an intersting question arises,.... if God is supreme, then Sin may be equally anti-supreme!!!

In another view, any thing that deviates from the Absolute nature of God is evil.. If a man does a wrong, he deviates from God, and becomes anti-god, and the highest form of Sin, which is totally opposite to the Holy nature of god is believed to be Evil or anti-God..

I agree with you, this logic may not be applicable to Monism, cos the God's nature of Morality doest exist there.

Vishishtadhvaitham negates the concept of 'Nirguna Brahman' as devoid of any characteristics and argues that Brahman can only be sathyam, anandam etc... it is Nirguna in the sense that it is not touched upon by any negative qualities...

Then there is an interesting question --> what/who is the controller of these negative qualities? Negative qualities like destruction, killing etc...

I think that it is a process of transformation as explained under VA... every athma could be endowed with such qualities and we use them indiscriminately which leads to good and evil...

sapr333 pls read on VA... wiki has an interesting article on this...

 

[sapr333]

Dear Sesh,

Thanks for referring VA.. To some extend I have read this before...

Coming to the point, most of the times, one may feel, that Im skipping the question..Even KRS felt the same. If I slip an answer, you may consider either Im agreeing with your point/not relevant to me/I'm bit confused with its complexity.. I have absolutely no issues in openly accepting the fallacy in my arguments.

Again I may shoot back to a different arena, cos I wish to touch all perspectives/ideas/notions about God..Dont consider Im slippery like eel!!!. Just because I loose an argument about God, that doesnt mean God doesnt exist or God of particular 'ISM was proven wrong..

In forthcoming posts, will try a different approach on Concept Of God.. Hope I have made clear my modus operandi.. In case of any suggestions/corrections in this approach, I request the frequent participants like Mr.KRS/SS & HappyHindu to share it out. Thanks in advance.Terribly missing Mr.Nacchinarkiniyan here.

 

[happyhindu]

Vishishtadhvaitham negates the concept of 'Nirguna Brahman' as devoid of any characteristics and argues that Brahman can only be sathyam, anandam etc... it is Nirguna in the sense that it is not touched upon by any negative qualities...

Then there is an interesting question --> what/who is the controller of these negative qualities? Negative qualities like destruction, killing etc...

I think that it is a process of transformation as explained under VA... every athma could be endowed with such qualities and we use them indiscriminately which leads to good and evil...

sapr333 pls read on VA... wiki has an interesting article on this...

as it appears to me so far:

VA speaks of an undifferentiated unconditioned concept of god as an absolute unit (called Narayana or whatever name you wish) as a sarvadhikaarin and ekaadhikarin or prime cause and effect for everything; including what we understand as 'good' or 'bad in our conditioned state. That undifferentiated unit is codified to be expressed in connotations as satyam, anandam, etc.. (language prob example: the anglosaxon word 'bliss' does not really convey the sanskrit 'anandam' as such)...

It doesn't mean that the undifferentiated source is not the 'controller' of 'negative' qualities. Whatever is understood as negative in the conditioned mind is also a product of the unconditioned source.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

It doesn't mean that the undifferentiated source is not the 'controller' of 'negative' qualities. Whatever is understood as negative in the conditioned mind is also a product of the unconditioned source.

Does this sound logical/plausible? - Whatever is understood as negative in the condioned mind is a by product of such conditioning itself...

 

[KRS]

Dear sapr333,

I have been meaning to say, 'welcome back'.

I onetime said during the course of our discussions that the mystics in all religions seem to have gotten the idea of God correct - because all their descriptions are remarkably the same. There is 'Tao Te Ching', by Lao Tzu, which I go back often to, just think about it's unwavering description of monism and advaitha. If you have not read it, please read it. I consider that book equivalent to our Upanishads. There are 81 stanzas and I am quoting the first one and the fourth(Tao to me is synanymous with 'Brahman'):

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding."

"The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God."

(from translation by S. Mitchell)

So, please keep this in mind as you proceed.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sesh,

Thanks for referring VA.. To some extend I have read this before...

Coming to the point, most of the times, one may feel, that Im skipping the question..Even KRS felt the same. If I slip an answer, you may consider either Im agreeing with your point/not relevant to me/I'm bit confused with its complexity.. I have absolutely no issues in openly accepting the fallacy in my arguments.

Again I may shoot back to a different arena, cos I wish to touch all perspectives/ideas/notions about God..Dont consider Im slippery like eel!!!. Just because I loose an argument about God, that doesnt mean God doesnt exist or God of particular 'ISM was proven wrong..

In forthcoming posts, will try a different approach on Concept Of God.. Hope I have made clear my modus operandi.. In case of any suggestions/corrections in this approach, I request the frequent participants like Mr.KRS/SS & HappyHindu to share it out. Thanks in advance.Terribly missing Mr.Nacchinarkiniyan here.

 

[happyhindu]

Does this sound logical/plausible? - Whatever is understood as negative in the condioned mind is a by product of such conditioning itself...

sesh my exposure to VA has been very highly limited, am yet to go out and search for a guru in that field, and i have this inability to understand many parts of what i hv been reading up so far. and must say that i have only begun reading up on VA of late, that too very intermittently, over the past few months.

as mentioned before, the word 'bliss' does not seem to convey all the gunas of the state of 'anandham' (as explained by gurus). words are really limited aren't they..so more than reading, i suppose these are things that are better understood when heard out from gurus in person.

however this part of unconditioned state as mentioned in my previous post above does not sound illogical to me. shri krs-ji put out something from an other country but that which really explains this as well:

"Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations".

what we see as a manifestation is a state of conditioning. what we understand as 'negative' is a conditioned response.

conditioning starts in the womb, hardly ceases to exist in the mundane life, but we see glimpses of it in the unconditional love a mother can have for her child and so on....they say surrender is the best way to return to the unconditioned state.

and they say that when a man truly surrenders, he ceases to judge and therefore ceases to have unhappiness.

the undifferentiated source or god is considered the 'controller' of it all. we have inherited a fraction of the control panel as neural networks, but the contral panel seems to work only when turned off (from the physical or conditioned world).

 

[sapr333]

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Dear KRS, thanks for the cordial invite and the nice clip from Tao.

Its true, all religions, including Buddhism (without Godhead) , seem predominately focused on the restraint, sublimation, or even elimination of human desires.

A strange thought popped up in me.....Are they telling us to suffocate the life from within??
A Desire to reach 'non-desire' itself is a desire!!!

Sesh/HH, you may also throw some light on this..

 

[happyhindu]

A strange thought popped up in me.....Are they telling us to suffocate the life from within??
A Desire to reach 'non-desire' itself is a desire!!!

i suppose they are telling us to find life from within. because all that we see around us is impermanent matter or material or mortal, happiness that does not last. yes ofcourse non-desire also starts off as a desire, then dwells on the bliss of nothingness as one may call it.

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

Very good question. The 'desire' cited here by translation is actually 'desire for end results'. This is exactly the same as our scriptures, which proclaim that acting with detachment will free us from Karma and merge us in to Brahman and we have no right to the fruits of our actions. So, you may ask where this 'desire' to merge with the ultimate comes from. Here is the answer from Tao Te Ching(verse 51):

"Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,
unconscious, perfect, free,
takes on a physical body,
lets circumstances complete it.
That is why every being
spontaneously honors the Tao.

The Tao gives birth to all beings,
nourishes them, maintains them,
cares for them, comforts them, protects them,
takes them back to itself,
creating without possessing,
acting without expecting,
guiding without interfering.
That is why love of the Tao
is in the very nature of things."

Now, to establish my statement that the meaning of 'desire' in Tao Te Ching is the same as 'detachment from the fruits of action':

"Fill your bowl to the brim
and it will spill.
Keep sharpening your knife
and it will blunt.
Chase after money and security
and your heart will never unclench.
Care about people's approval
and you will be their prisoner.

Do your work, then step back.
The only path to serenity."(Verse 9)

"Giving birth and nourishing,
having without possessing,
acting with no expectations,
leading and not trying to control:
this is the supreme virtue." (Last part Verse 10)

"He who stands on tiptoe
doesn't stand form.
He who rushes ahead
doesn't go far.
He who tries to shine
dims his own light.
He who defines himself
can't know who he really is.
He who has power over others
can't empower himself.
He who clings to his work
will create nothing that endures.

If you want to accord with the Tao,
just do your job, then let go."(verse 24)

I took this way of explaining things to you from foreign scriptures, with the hope may be this will free your mind to see things differently.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS, thanks for the cordial invite and the nice clip from Tao.

Its true, all religions, including Buddhism (without Godhead) , seem predominately focused on the restraint, sublimation, or even elimination of human desires.

A strange thought popped up in me.....Are they telling us to suffocate the life from within??
A Desire to reach 'non-desire' itself is a desire!!!

Sesh/HH, you may also throw some light on this..

 

[happyhindu]

Dear KRS-ji,

This is so beautiful. Thankyou for introducting the 'Tao Te Ching'. Had never read it before. Googled and found these links: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html and http://www.chinapage.com/gnl.html

This is so eternal really, now am able to undertsand why they say the siddha school is found in china as taoism:

Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.

 

[sapr333]

I took this way of explaining things to you from foreign scriptures, with the hope may be this will free your mind to see things differently.
]

g

Dear KRS,I appreciate the way you attempted to explain 'Desire'.

And I agree with you, that, all the religions of this world fairly well agree with this view.Infact I can safely conclude (in line with your thoughts) that " Desire needs to be controlled, and all our pursuit (or purpose in life) is only to Desire God'.. I mean, Im taking back my question, ""Desire of God is just another desire!!"" (just another paradox).According to my concept of God , even the word 'Desire' itself is a by=product of God, so we should not use it to bench mark God-head.

Now, at a macro level, I have few strange thoughts, in defining what desire is all about.Amidst, lets ponder the word 'Dhukka'(suffering) of Buddhism, as an ultimatum for enlightment..

1) I have a desire to acquire KNOWLEDGE and I have a thirst to know about WW-11 holocaust.. Am I wrong?

2) Like Galielo who had a desire to know whether earth is round or flat, I do have a desire to know about the 'Origin of this universe'.. Shouldnt I pursue it?

3) I have a desire to explore palmistry, so that I can predict my future..I should be ok with that!!



Clearly, knowledge and the desire for it cannot be explained with the same logic that we were using earlier. It doesn't follow the rules. With knowldge, desire can lead to no desire, and vice versa. Fulfilment can lead to sadness, or to happiness. So the question that I'm pondering here is basically: is it bad to desire knowledge? Matter of fact, desire any thing.. Who is going to tell us, that a particular desire is Right and wrong, and on what basis?


According to me, Desire to bed with someone's wife is wrong, but desire to acquire a knowledge to 'Cure AIDS victims" is right..

Im taking back the discussion to the basics... On what basics/stratum, we decide the Right & Wrong??? Is there anything called Right desire and Wrong desire?