I believe in the Advaitin Brahman, but I am loosing faith in god

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Yes sir, you are right.
I am not enlightened enough to know brahman. I have some bookish and vague idea about Brahman.
I have been a regular Hindu, praying and visiting Temples. I was also the puja committee Chairman of the Temple.
I have come to the conclusion like Renukaji and Sangomji, that what people worship as God, is false.
I am just not able to live that lie anymore. I go to Temple so that I do not rock the boat, but I think it is futile.

Dear Prasad ji,

I feel I did not really say that what people worship as God is false but what I meant to say is its for personal reasons we humans pray..ranging from material needs to mental needs but we choose to mask this by calling our endeavor Bhakti/Jnaana.

BTW have you tried to link your feelings right now with the Varna System..I mean a Varna system of the mind?

You see when we first start to pray we are in the Shudra Mode...that is we are fairly ignorant and need instructions laid out and follow everything prescribed and subscribed like a dutiful servant.

Then when we get a hold of some basic understanding we start to desire material gain and pray to God for material comfort and go into ritualistic mode. The Vaishya Mode

Next is when we are either contented with our material state or realize that its not really what we really want..we go into Kshatriya mode where we face rebellious state of mind..we are in a conflict with our own senses and understanding.

This is where one might start rejecting everything one would have held on too before and finds the mind in a turbulent state..directionless sometimes..a rebel without a pause!

This is when one requires a Guru.... to lead them to the last and final state of Brahmana Mode..where one finally becomes a knowner of Brahman.


So may be right now you might just need to give in to the rebel in you..come what may..its the brave one who finally succeeds...there is nothing to fear in having a mind that is rejecting everything known to you.. even the concept of God.

The mind needs to unlearn and be emptied before it can actually truly "Know" anything.

After all I dont personally feel God wants to be praised..Its we humans who want to praise God in hope for something in return but we do not want to admit it.

 

[tks]

Follow up to Post #25

I planned to complete the thoughts I shared in previous post #25 when I had more time, so here it is.

The two examples I cited in that post may be humorous to some but my intent is not to mock display of any such 'bhakthi'.

The reason is that in this Vyavaharika world there is not anything that we do that is 100% aligned with dharma or adharma.

1. There are people who want security and wealth and such people pray to a God and make God an accomplice in their quest. There are many hidden variables that we may not know and hence prayer is offered to counter the unknowns in their quest to achieve what they are after. Such a bhakthi is called artharthi bhakthi and is fine within Hindu teaching. So the first example of a business fellow praying for business success (post #25) is valid. There are higher and more valuable forms of Bhakthi for a true Sadhaka.

The downside is that this kind of bartering with a God becoming a community practice could lead to a transactional relationship with God which could even condone corruption. I have heard of business people that 'share' a loot or black money with a temple so they can get Punyam to neutralize the Papa they committed.

2. The second example of someone going to temple to assure a successful Visa to USA highlights what is called Artha bhakthi. Here a person has worry and fear about the future. At an individual level such a bhakthi towards a God is again fine within teachings of our scriptures.

The downside of such type of prayer is that at a community level, artha bhakthi practice can lead to many superstitious beliefs not consistent with Dharma.

In my limited experience, most Indian's Bhakthi is by and large is steeped in superstition and corruption. This is inconsistent with the teachings of our knowledge scriptures.


Having said this, attempting to study Vedanta is not inconsistent with artha and artharthi bhakthi practices at an individual level.
All devotion is only meaningful at deeply personal and individual level even when an individual is participating in community prayer or bhajans etc.

To illustrate that this is not my idea but rooted in our teaching let me cite a verse from B. Gita.

चतुर्विधा भजन्ते मां जनाः सुकृतिनोऽर्जुन ।
आर्तो जिज्ञासुरर्थार्थी ज्ञानी च भरतर्षभ ॥ ७-१६॥​

Simple translation: Arjuna, four kinds of people, who do pious deeds worship me. They are, those in distress , those that want security and pleasure, those that wish to know Me, and those that know Me.

So Artha Bhakthi and Arthartha Bhakthi are legitimate at a deeply personal level.

There are some modern seekers of Vedantic knowledge that are known to dismiss teaching of B. Gita. If one is truly interested in Truth, then B. Gita has to be a major part of study that one must undertake.

Vedanta and teachings of Upanishad form the main texts called प्रकरण ग्रन्थ (prakaraṇa grantha). Upanishads, Brahma Sutra (aphorisms), and B. Gita (Smriti) are together called “Prasthana Trayi” (प्रस्थान त्रयी’).

B. Gita has teachings of Upanishads in a form that one can easily apply in their day today life. So any seeker of Truth cannot dismiss teachings of B. Gita which does validate the four kinds of Bhakthi, provided there is no adharma associated with the intent of a Bhaktha.

Our idea of Ishta devatha concept which can lead to use of deities are not incompatible with search of truth at a more deep level.

 

[svtesan]

A cultural hindu

Welcome to the real world.

Well, I believe you've just had an episode of cognitive dissonance - many things held as true by our fellow human beings is just not so. Our ancestors believed everything could be understood by thinking hard and debating - so the views of the winner of a debate was accepted as true. We have lot of wonderful philosophical works due to this tradition. But as Kant demonstrated in his critique of pure reason, reason alone cannot deduce all the truths. I was in same state as the parent quite time ago - there are lot of good things in our culture and I am content with picking the good things while looking at things which do not make sense as attempts by great minds to grapple with unknown with the limited resources at their disposal. Id say just take a tabula rasa approach and no need to obsess over lack of faith/personal god - it does not matter. If you want tread the path of having as little nonsense in your head, please keep educating yourself with ideas from all round the world - please do not ignore western philosophy and think only Indians had a monopoly over truth - avoiding a disturbing attitude I find with my fellow indians who reject with their left hand anything western.

Some choose NOT to have personal beliefs but not having a belief itself and adhering to it also is a form of personal belief.

I find this argument by a lot of very intelligent people quite amusing. Not having a belief is a belief? And so by that token, the state of wakefulness (not sleeping) is a kind of sleep? Fasting is a kind of feasting? Sitting (not standing) is a kind of standing? Being dirty is kind of being clean? Hope you see where we are going. This is a non sequitur that just refuses to die.
Terms and their usage is very important as thats the only way to ensure we dont beat around the bush:
belief - an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

lack of belief is just refusing to accept as true something without evidence and it most definitely is not another belief!

ADVAITIN ALSO FOLLOW SUNYAVADA....like some say.....SUNYAMIDAHA....SUNYAMIDHAM....SUNYAATH...SUNYAM

UDACCHATE,,,,,SUNYSYA SUNYAM AADHAYA....SUNYAMEVA AVASISYATE....SO ADVATINS NOT MERELY BHAKTHI VADINS..

Not sure if some word play is being used here - apologies for my ignorance if I missed something. I only know of :
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥

from Isha upanishad. I am yet to see any Advaitin believing in Sunyavada - in fact quite the opposite

I did not intend any offense, apologies if I inadvertently caused any.

 

[renuka]

I find this argument by a lot of very intelligent people quite amusing. Not having a belief is a belief? And so by that token, the state of wakefulness (not sleeping) is a kind of sleep? Fasting is a kind of feasting? Sitting (not standing) is a kind of standing? Being dirty is kind of being clean? Hope you see where we are going. This is a non sequitur that just refuses to die.
Terms and their usage is very important as thats the only way to ensure we dont beat around the bush:
belief - an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

.

1)Yes....the state of wakefulness can be a state of sleep too.

Even in Geeta Lord Krishna says "'When everyone is awake, the wise man is asleep, and when he is awake all the other people are sleeping"

Meaning: All those people who base their lives on this impermanent world, will be fully awake to this world and its objects. The wise man on the other hand, will be asleep and indifferent to worldly objects. Ordinary people will not be alive to the beauty of the atma; they will be sleeping through that. But when it comes to this world and its sense objects they will be fully alert and awake. Therefore, a wise man is one who is asleep to the principle of the world and who is fully awake to the principle of the atma.
Taken from http://www.atmapress.com/saibabagita/saigita180.html



2)Fasting can be a feasting too.

When one is abstaining from food and water...his mind can be feasting on sensual pleasure to distract himself from his acute state of hunger.



3) Sitting (not standing) is a kind of standing?

Yes..some appendages are capable of standing with appropriate stimulus ....does not matter if the body it is attached to is seated. Seated yet standing!LOL(just kidding..no offence please)



4)Being dirty is kind of being clean?

Don't we see this in politics all the while? Dirty politicians have super clean external image?


Likewise...not having a belief itself and adhering to it also is a form of personal belief.

 

[svtesan]

For a proposition X for which there is no conclusive evidence gunning for it, consider the following:

1. A belief that X is true
2. A belief that X is untrue [Which I infer you mean]
3. Lack of belief that X is true
4. Lack of belief that X is untrue

You are right in that either 1 or 2 are beliefs. But I am talking about 3,4. A lack of belief is not a belief in itself. My reading of Mr Prasad seems to indicate he merely thinks there is insufficient evidence to sway him to believing in a personal god - he does not seem to take a position that it is decidedly false - just that due to lack of evidence he feels it is much more likely false.

You commit a fundamental fallacy of constructing a strawman and not addressing the core issue:
A is in state X. But with respect to B/C/D A is in another state Y. So X==Y [eg. wakefullness]
OR
A is in state X. But B is in state Y so X == Y [man vs his mind on hunger of different things]
OR
A is in state X. But a subset/superset of A is in state Y. So X==Y [eg. part of you being erect]
OR
People think A in state X but he actually is in state Y. So X==Y [eg. politicians being dirty]

 

[auh]

Shri Prasad,

brahman = that which cannot be known (anirvachaneeya, neti neti etc)

By its very definition, it cannot be understood or known, and if known, be warned that it is not brahman. When you say advaitin brahman, it may very well be a concept and nothing else. No one can say. So your faith in brahman = faith in the unknown.

I presume that you do not expect any miracles or favours from the "unknown"; you probably believe in the common known and unknown variables that surround our everyday life and are neutral to it.

But a faith in a personal god is due to a belief in a "favour". That a soul / birth is a gift / chance from god... that we owe this god something... that we ought to worship him (in short be his slave or something equivalent)... that by pleasing "god", we can get special benefits... sometimes, even after we die

Such a belief will cross swords with logic. Often. So perhaps, as your experience of how things unfold in your life and that of the others around you increases, you find the diminishing reality of miracles and favours. Hence, the reason, probably, for your losing faith in a "god".

 

[Vaagmi]

1)Yes....the state of wakefulness can be a state of sleep too.

Even in Geeta Lord Krishna says "'When everyone is awake, the wise man is asleep, and when he is awake all the other people are sleeping"

Meaning: All those people who base their lives on this impermanent world, will be fully awake to this world and its objects. The wise man on the other hand, will be asleep and indifferent to worldly objects. Ordinary people will not be alive to the beauty of the atma; they will be sleeping through that. But when it comes to this world and its sense objects they will be fully alert and awake. Therefore, a wise man is one who is asleep to the principle of the world and who is fully awake to the principle of the atma.
Taken from http://www.atmapress.com/saibabagita/saigita180.html



2)Fasting can be a feasting too.

When one is abstaining from food and water...his mind can be feasting on sensual pleasure to distract himself from his acute state of hunger.



3) Sitting (not standing) is a kind of standing?

Yes..some appendages are capable of standing with appropriate stimulus ....does not matter if the body it is attached to is seated. Seated yet standing!LOL(just kidding..no offence please)



4)Being dirty is kind of being clean?

Don't we see this in politics all the while? Dirty politicians have super clean external image?


Likewise...not having a belief itself and adhering to it also is a form of personal belief.

renukaji,

You are just impossible. LOL.

 

[Vaagmi]

Yes sir, you are right.
I am not enlightened enough to know brahman. I have some bookish and vague idea about Brahman.
I have been a regular Hindu, praying and visiting Temples. I was also the puja committee Chairman of the Temple.
I have come to the conclusion like Renukaji and Sangomji, that what people worship as God, is false.
I am just not able to live that lie anymore. I go to Temple so that I do not rock the boat, but I think it is futile.

I have been a regular Indian, living in this great country and enjoying its greatness and benevolence. This motherland had been very generous with me and I owe to it what a son owes to his mother. I was an IAS officer serving in various capacities this country. I have come to the conclusion that what people understand and hold in reverence as Bharat Mata is false. I am unable to live this lie anymore. I call myself an IAS officer because I do not want to rock the boat. I think it is futile.

Does this ring a bell or light a bulb somewhere?

If it does, I am happy.

If it does not, forget it. Let us talk about weather. Here in Chennai it is cloudy and my cellphone says the temperature is 29 degree C.

LOL.

 

[prasad1]

Shri Prasad,

brahman = that which cannot be known (anirvachaneeya, neti neti etc)

By its very definition, it cannot be understood or known, and if known, be warned that it is not brahman. When you say advaitin brahman, it may very well be a concept and nothing else. No one can say. So your faith in brahman = faith in the unknown.

I presume that you do not expect any miracles or favours from the "unknown"; you probably believe in the common known and unknown variables that surround our everyday life and are neutral to it.

But a faith in a personal god is due to a belief in a "favour". That a soul / birth is a gift / chance from god... that we owe this god something... that we ought to worship him (in short be his slave or something equivalent)... that by pleasing "god", we can get special benefits... sometimes, even after we die

Such a belief will cross swords with logic. Often. So perhaps, as your experience of how things unfold in your life and that of the others around you increases, you find the diminishing reality of miracles and favours. Hence, the reason, probably, for your losing faith in a "god".

Well said, Thanks.

 

[Raj Rajamani]

Nalayeram Diva Prabhandam and Panniru Thurumurai which are works of pure Bhakti existed much much before Muslim invasion

 

[prasad1]

[video=youtube_share;uFPxUEYbFaM]https://youtu.be/uFPxUEYbFaM[/video]

 

[tks]

Shri Prasad,

brahman = that which cannot be known (anirvachaneeya, neti neti etc)

By its very definition, it cannot be understood or known, and if known, be warned that it is not brahman. When you say advaitin brahman, it may very well be a concept and nothing else. No one can say. So your faith in brahman = faith in the unknown.

I presume that you do not expect any miracles or favours from the "unknown"; you probably believe in the common known and unknown variables that surround our everyday life and are neutral to it.

But a faith in a personal god is due to a belief in a "favour". That a soul / birth is a gift / chance from god... that we owe this god something... that we ought to worship him (in short be his slave or something equivalent)... that by pleasing "god", we can get special benefits... sometimes, even after we die

Such a belief will cross swords with logic. Often. So perhaps, as your experience of how things unfold in your life and that of the others around you increases, you find the diminishing reality of miracles and favours. Hence, the reason, probably, for your losing faith in a "god".

Mistaken notions will always lead to a state of confusion. That part of the conclusion (if that is the conclusion) one can agree with and is well demonstrated in the above statements

 

[Vaagmi]

brahman = that which cannot be known (anirvachaneeya, neti neti etc)
By its very definition, it cannot be understood or known, and if known, be warned that it is not brahman. When you say advaitin brahman, it may very well be a concept and nothing else. No one can say. So your faith in brahman = faith in the unknown.

1. Today is 1-9-2016. Today my mind took me on a journey of thinking. The conclusion was that brahman=that which cannot be known/anirvachaneeya/neti/neti etc., I put this conclusion in a ,mental docket and labelled it A.

2. Two days later I take it out and take a fresh look at it. The mind's journey again starts. It ends with the same conclusion that that which cannot be known ........etc etc., is brahman.

3. I tell myself, hey wait a moment. What is this? Is thought just a process without an object to think about? Even if it is a non-existent object, it is an object for the mind. Is it not so? When the object is just an idea and not physical there still is an object that you think about and the physical non-existence becomes the "attribute" of that object. Is it not so? Can any one (other than perhaps a lunatic) think ABOUT something that is UNKNOWN?

When you told the proverbial frog in the well about your world outside which is so big, the frog jumped from one end of the well water surface to the other end and asked you whether your world was that big? It needed an object with its known coordinates to even visualise that idea of your world.

So all this talk of unknowable, indeterminate, neti neti etc., are all just intellectual excesses which brow beat an ordinary human being. Though it is said to be the way of speaking about the God entity which is indeterminate, it is after all in a way determining the nature of that entity. If your God is unknowble, inexplicable, neti neti ab infinitum, etc., then I am least bothered about that entity. Instead of feeling left in the lurch with that ungraspable idea I would still give him a shape under a roof and then talk to him in my language, love him with all I have, pray and sing to him and be happy. At least my mind would not go out of range and I will not end up a lunatic.

But a faith in a personal god is due to a belief in a "favour". That a soul / birth is a gift / chance from god... that we owe this god something... that we ought to worship him (in short be his slave or something equivalent)... that by pleasing "god", we can get special benefits... sometimes, even after we die

This is like saying "if you are not with us, you are with them. we will bomb you to the stone ages". There can be love or bhakti which does not ask for anything in return. Every deal need not be a saudha/bargain. There are many people living in this world who just do not ask for or expect anything in return for their love to God. Such people are not bothered about what happens to them after death either. Do not lump every one in a particular label for your convenience of bombing. LOL.

Such a belief will cross swords with logic. Often. So perhaps, as your experience of how things unfold in your life and that of the others around you increases, you find the diminishing reality of miracles and favours. Hence, the reason, probably, for your losing faith in a "god".

Each one acts according to how his equipment can help him perceive reality. If some one loses faith in God it is just that the equipment is faulty, underperforming or is under disrepair. With time he may come round to the view that God entity does exist. That is why equipments have to be taken good care of. Asatoma satgamaya. LOL.

 

[a-TB]

1. Today is 1-9-2016. Today my mind took me on a journey of thinking. The conclusion was that brahman=that which cannot be known/anirvachaneeya/neti/neti etc., I put this conclusion in a ,mental docket and labelled it A.

2. Two days later I take it out and take a fresh look at it. The mind's journey again starts. It ends with the same conclusion that that which cannot be known ........etc etc., is brahman.

3. I tell myself, hey wait a moment. What is this? Is thought just a process without an object to think about? Even if it is a non-existent object, it is an object for the mind. Is it not so? When the object is just an idea and not physical there still is an object that you think about and the physical non-existence becomes the "attribute" of that object. Is it not so? Can any one (other than perhaps a lunatic) think ABOUT something that is UNKNOWN?

When you told the proverbial frog in the well about your world outside which is so big, the frog jumped from one end of the well water surface to the other end and asked you whether your world was that big? It needed an object with its known coordinates to even visualise that idea of your world.

So all this talk of unknowable, indeterminate, neti neti etc., are all just intellectual excesses which brow beat an ordinary human being. Though it is said to be the way of speaking about the God entity which is indeterminate, it is after all in a way determining the nature of that entity. If your God is unknowble, inexplicable, neti neti ab infinitum, etc., then I am least bothered about that entity. Instead of feeling left in the lurch with that ungraspable idea I would still give him a shape under a roof and then talk to him in my language, love him with all I have, pray and sing to him and be happy. At least my mind would not go out of range and I will not end up a lunatic.



This is like saying "if you are not with us, you are with them. we will bomb you to the stone ages". There can be love or bhakti which does not ask for anything in return. Every deal need not be a saudha/bargain. There are many people living in this world who just do not ask for or expect anything in return for their love to God. Such people are not bothered about what happens to them after death either. Do not lump every one in a particular label for your convenience of bombing. LOL.



Each one acts according to how his equipment can help him perceive reality. If some one loses faith in God it is just that the equipment is faulty, underperforming or is under disrepair. With time he may come round to the view that God entity does exist. That is why equipments have to be taken good care of. Asatoma satgamaya. LOL.

Dear Mr Vaagmi,

Your post makes no sense to many of us as a common persons.

You take something unknowable and then give it a shape and then begin to love it ??
Make Bhakthi? and then surrender to it?

Do you surrender your ability to reason to this form? Why did that God give us that ability to reason in the first place?

Dont understand your talk about bombs!

Care to explain??

 

[prasad1]

A-TBji,
You do a good job of butting your head against Brick wall.

 

[Vaagmi]

A-TBji,
You do a good job of butting your head against Brick wall.

This is called "hitting the head against the wall syndrome"

Refer to this quoted post and refer also to the post given in the link below:

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=33303&page=6

Some children suffer from this problem and they have to be treated for it quickly in time. Otherwise they will get obsessed with this violent tantrum when they get old.

LOL.

 

[auh]

Mistaken notions will always lead to a state of confusion. That part of the conclusion (if that is the conclusion) one can agree with and is well demonstrated in the above statements

... an ad hominiem spotted... !

 

[auh]

1. Today is 1-9-2016. Today my mind took me on a journey of thinking. The conclusion was that brahman=that which cannot be known/anirvachaneeya/neti/neti etc., I put this conclusion in a ,mental docket and labelled it A.

2. Two days later I take it out and take a fresh look at it. The mind's journey again starts. It ends with the same conclusion that that which cannot be known ........etc etc., is brahman.

3. I tell myself, hey wait a moment. What is this? Is thought just a process without an object to think about? Even if it is a non-existent object, it is an object for the mind. Is it not so? When the object is just an idea and not physical there still is an object that you think about and the physical non-existence becomes the "attribute" of that object. Is it not so?

A person (who was broke) went to a bank, and said that though he did not have money in the physical form, his bank balance had the "attribute" of "physical non-existence" and hence cleverly proved that there was a valid object in the bank that could be hypothecated. But the banks refused to lend him money. Surprising, isnt it?

Can any one (other than perhaps a lunatic) think ABOUT something that is UNKNOWN?

Can a lunatic, perhaps, think about unknown? Is it so?

AFAIK, theologists have been pounding on their ideas about something that has never been proved to exist. This could qualify as thinking about something that is unknown.

When you told the proverbial frog in the well about your world outside which is so big, the frog jumped from one end of the well water surface to the other end and asked you whether your world was that big? It needed an object with its known coordinates to even visualise that idea of your world.

Ha. You could perhaps tell the Vaikuntam frogs to book seats for all the Bhulokam frogs on the chartered flight that runs daily between these stations.

Just that somebody has a fantastical tale to tell does not mean that he/she has more information. All that is said in the realm of religion does not translate into the physical realm.

So all this talk of unknowable, indeterminate, neti neti etc., are all just intellectual excesses which brow beat an ordinary human being. Though it is said to be the way of speaking about the God entity which is indeterminate, it is after all in a way determining the nature of that entity. If your God is unknowble, inexplicable, neti neti ab infinitum, etc., then I am least bothered about that entity. Instead of feeling left in the lurch with that ungraspable idea I would still give him a shape under a roof and then talk to him in my language, love him with all I have, pray and sing to him and be happy. At least my mind would not go out of range and I will not end up a lunatic.

I am actually trying to say that there is no God entity that is proved until now.

If you are referring to my respose to Shri prasad1, I was just trying to clarify what it meant (from the OP) according to his belief system. That is all.

This is like saying "if you are not with us, you are with them. we will bomb you to the stone ages". There can be love or bhakti which does not ask for anything in return. Every deal need not be a saudha/bargain. There are many people living in this world who just do not ask for or expect anything in return for their love to God. Such people are not bothered about what happens to them after death either. Do not lump every one in a particular label for your convenience of bombing. LOL.

The "love" itself has come from a belief that God created us and is somehow responsible for moksham. So it is not without strings !!

Each one acts according to how his equipment can help him perceive reality. If some one loses faith in God it is just that the equipment is faulty, underperforming or is under disrepair. With time he may come round to the view that God entity does exist. That is why equipments have to be taken good care of. Asatoma satgamaya. LOL.

God has no place in reality. If someone believes in god, it is a delusion, and they are deluded.

tamaso maa jyotir gamaya...

 

[Vaagmi]

A person (who was broke) went to a bank, and said that though he did not have money in the physical form, his bank balance had the "attribute" of "physical non-existence" and hence cleverly proved that there was a valid object in the bank that could be hypothecated. But the banks refused to lend him money. Surprising, isnt it?

Not at all. You stopped the story conveniently midway. You did not tell that the Banker told the person that the money has already been remitted to the safe in his house as he wanted and that he could go home and take out and spend. Everything happened in the non-physical world. His safe now had the attribute of the "transferred money".LOL.

"Can a lunatic, perhaps, think about unknown? Is it so?"

I have only the experience of seeing the lunatics behaving in a way. One lunatic tore his dhoti to pieces to the level of all cotton yarn from which it was made and hid it under his cot carefully because he had some unknown enemy who was going to rob him of his dhoti and make him naked. LOL. Next time you see a lunatic spend some time and see whether he speaks about only known things. That will be revealing.

Ha. You could perhaps tell the Vaikuntam frogs to book seats for all the Bhulokam frogs on the chartered flight that runs daily between these stations.

That is meanness showing its head again. Not that I can not give a reply getting down to that level. But I prefer to skip it. Try to grow up.

Just that somebody has a fantastical tale to tell does not mean that he/she has more information. All that is said in the realm of religion does not translate into the physical realm.

You heard the tale but missed the message. Try to read again and you may understand. If you still do not, it is beyond you. Skip it and move ahead.

I am actually trying to say that there is no God entity that is proved until now.

It is okay. You can say anything.

The "love" itself has come from a belief that God created us and is somehow responsible for moksham. So it is not without strings !!

That may you speaking there your mind. I "love" Him not because he created me, nor because he dangles the enticing moksham before me. I said earlier that this "love" need never be a sauda. There are many like me and also like you.

God has no place in reality. If someone believes in god, it is a delusion, and they are deluded.

It is just an opinion. You can keep it.

 

[subharama]

As Ramakrishna Paramahamsa told that we can't leave Satva guna worship unless Kali herself releases us from the bondage (i.e., Form of god or goddess).Therefore there is no point in debating but according to our karma, we can realize Advaita, even if we follow Saguna Brahman worship.Thus if personal god is willing, we can definitely break away from that. Till then we have to follow Saguna Brahman worship.Like Vivekananda, if we attain detachment, Kali or personal god image can be thrown away or cut by our will power and the grace of personal god.Thus only we can attain Advaita state unless we are Jeevan Muktha like Ramana, Seshadri Swamigal or other Siddhas.

 

[auh]

Not at all. You stopped the story conveniently midway. You did not tell that the Banker told the person that the money has already been remitted to the safe in his house as he wanted and that he could go home and take out and spend. Everything happened in the non-physical world. His safe now had the attribute of the "transferred money".LOL.



I have only the experience of seeing the lunatics behaving in a way. One lunatic tore his dhoti to pieces to the level of all cotton yarn from which it was made and hid it under his cot carefully because he had some unknown enemy who was going to rob him of his dhoti and make him naked. LOL. Next time you see a lunatic spend some time and see whether he speaks about only known things. That will be revealing.



That is meanness showing its head again. Not that I can not give a reply getting down to that level. But I prefer to skip it. Try to grow up.



You heard the tale but missed the message. Try to read again and you may understand. If you still do not, it is beyond you. Skip it and move ahead.



It is okay. You can say anything.



That may you speaking there your mind. I "love" Him not because he created me, nor because he dangles the enticing moksham before me. I said earlier that this "love" need never be a sauda. There are many like me and also like you.



It is just an opinion. You can keep it.

I do not see any logical & cogitated rebuttals, to my points, in your reply and hence, refrain from any comments.

 

[a-TB]

Dear Mr Vaagmi,

Your post makes no sense to many of us as a common persons.

You take something unknowable and then give it a shape and then begin to love it ??
Make Bhakthi? and then surrender to it?

Do you surrender your ability to reason to this form? Why did that God give us that ability to reason in the first place?

Dont understand your talk about bombs!

Care to explain??

The above post received a Thumbs Down - I cannot imagine anyone other than Mr Vaagmi to do so since it is addressed to him and yet he does not bother to respond to sincere questions ! It is a catty response , SAD

 

[prasad1]

The above post received a Thumbs Down - I cannot imagine anyone other than Mr Vaagmi to do so since it is addressed to him and yet he does not bother to respond to sincere questions ! It is a catty response , SAD

I do not like this thumbs up or down sign. Particularly when a person involved in the argument can participate. We all can write, this lazy way is jarring.