Is God "imperfect?"

[GNANA SUNYAM]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Yup...I am kind of "old fashioned" when it comes to money and finance...no online banking,no online transactions and no credit card.

madam,

why do you call it old fashioned?

it is only when we go to and electricity office in person to pay bills, it is only when we go to bank in person to do financial transactions, we get to meet people in person, talk to them face to face.

does it not give great joy to meet people face-to-face and talk to them, to smile at them to be smiled back in return.

could we or would we smile at a machine! would a machine acknowledge our smile? would a robot smile at us? if there is one such machine/robot that would smile at us please let me know madam!. i would be the happiest soul on earth to meet that machine/robot.

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

This is too much of an oversimplification, taking one aspect of humans and immediately transposing it onto God!

God, in my view, has no special characteristics of ITs own; IT simply is, always. But IT works through various forms such as human beings, animals, reptiles, birds and bees, even microbes and what not. God working through the body of a tiger need not have early morning moods; it will attack and kill a human even if it is 8.30 A.M., Sunday! Similarly God functioning through the physical body of a king cobra will bite. So, there is no point at all in imagining God according to what we are at different times and moods.

I have seen many kindly disposed ordinary people who will not get irritated even on Sunday mornings with visitors who may not be all that welcome for ordinary people like us. But with changes in life styles and urban, more self-centered type of living, most of us have drawn very small circles around us. We like to live within those well-defined small circles and, like wild animals, not like any intrusion into it. God has nothing to do with all these things.

most honorable sangom sir,

may i know why you refer to GOD as 'it', a pronoun used for non-living things and animals?

do you not sound like an atheist? of course it is your will and wish to be an atheist. but don't you think, referring to GOD as 'it' would offend and hurt the sentiments of theists?

thank you sir in advance for the explanation you would provide me.

may GOD bless you abundantly sir!

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

First of all it is not understood what prompted Renuka to post this post. God is as perfect as the law of nature. We invoke the God to be with us and seek his favour even while booking a rail ticket. If perfection of God is to be analysed with "moods" of human, then there will no end to the process. Go by the dictum that God is always perfect and whatever happens with you is all for good - that which has happened, that which is happening and that which will happen in future.

i cannot agree more with you sekar sir!

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

Renukaji

I am surprised that u still pay ur telephone bills at the service providers that has a staff to handle and not online .

Anyway life is to too big and complex to be understood in few simple words , we meet various type of people - some pleasing , some not pleasing and the best we can do is to stay positive and cheerful at all times especially when we meet unpleasant people . I remember in a Bank one staff was working slowly and he had to attend many customers and one customer lost his cool and shouted at him and he shouted back and each were raising their respective voices and many other customers who were silent till then also joined and it became very volatile and all due to shouting of one customer .In the end everyone was bitter and worst of all the customer left angrily without doing the job he came for .I am not saying that the staff is right and the customer is wrong only that had the customer choose to address his issue in a different manner then this mess could have been avoided and he could have also completed his job .

sir,

in all humility, what is the message you are intending to convey?

are you saying, this mess could have been avoided, had that gentleman transacted online?

is not life after all about interacting with, connecting with and relating with people? is not life about strange experiances, meeting strangers?

if life is only comfort, do you think comfort will be comfort? do you not think, discomfort co-existing alongside with comfort, helps us identify comfort, enjoy the comfort and feel comfortable?

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

As we create endless godmen and godwomen, and whenever these people create any nonsense, it directly affects the God. People start criticizing the act of God, which is actually being done by godmen and godwomen.

yes sir!

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

Sorry for late reply..it was independence day yesterday here..so I was offline most of the time.

I will answer this question to the best of my knowledge.

My current understanding of everything is ever changing..if you ask me now who is God and who is not God my answer would be "I would not like to define anything anymore".

If it is indeed Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma..then who or what is not God/Brahman?


Yes..I have personally witnessed Sathya Sai Baba materialize objects right in front of my eyes in India..ranging from Vibuthi to lockets and my dad even wears one such locket given to him.
He had cured my mother from a brain tumor before too which I can not deny.

Reading all Sathya Sai Baba's books since a young made me gain interest to explore religion more and that led me to even learn Sanskrit.His discourses are very detail yet simple and well explained which has helped me shape my current understanding.

Just to add my current understanding does not include any specific prayer..that is why I had closed my house prayer room to but I still keep the Sai thread alive becos I started that thread.

I would not call myself 'religious' anymore and neither am I an atheist or agnostic.

what puzzles me is, why did he die? does that mean the all powerful, all pervading, all knowing is dead?

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

I have not read all the responses so do excuse me if I have repeated what someone might have already posted. First of all there is no god, as per the Mahabharata when yudhistir asks bhishma who is god, bhishma lists out 1000 names (Vishnu Sahasranamam), each name signifies a certain quality or power or skill that defines god. So any living or non-living thing that possesses all these qualities can be considered god. But is it possible of a single physical entity to posses all these qualities? Its like the PM of a country, PM is a post with certain power, a persona has to go through a process to become a PM, he needs to fulfill certain duties as a PM etc etc, but its not reserved for one person any body who has the caliber can become a PM. Similarly you, me, animals, trees, stone, dust, atoms, molecules etc anthing can rightly take the post of God, the condition being that entity must possess the qualities as mentioned by Bhishma. If an entity possess only 100 qualities then its imperfect as it does not possess the other 900. Its like deve gowda also become a PM and Nehru, Modi have also become PM. But we consider one to be more imperfect than the others. Hence the rishis did not advocate to go in search of God but to perform various rituals, yoga, pranayaams and acquire various Siddhis, and you too can take the post of God. The god is as imperfect as you, the more perfect you try to become god also becomes that much perfect.

sir,

I acknowledge you are a great intellectual. being exactly the opposite of you, i cannot help admiring you.

but i think whatever you have posted applies to human beings like us who are mortal, who are limited and who are finite.

some like me (lacking in wordly wisdom, lacking in iit-product-like-intelligence) believe, there is a being who is immortal, infinite, unlimited, beyond comprehension, unfathomable, perfect etc etc whom we have termed 'God' in English, 'Brahman/bhagwan' in sanskrit, 'Kadavul/deivam' in tamil, 'parameswar/khuda' in hindi, 'allah' in arabic, 'ywhw' in hebrew etc.

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

Has anyone seen God? I think when my car rammed against 3 rocks thus preventing a free fall into oblivion, maybe that was the moment I saw God? Who knows what mysterious force showed mercy on me at a spot where 100s have met their doom..

vivekananda asked ramakrishna 'can you show me God?'.

ramakrishna slapped vivek and asked him 'how do you feel?'.

vivek replied it pains.

ramakrishna asked him, 'can you show me pain'?

one person asked ravishankar of art-of-living, 'can you show me God?'.

ravi asked him, 'can you show me wind or heat?'.

i asked one of my christian colleagues, 'can you show me Jesus?'. He replied, 'see me'.

 

[auh]

You are a logical guy here - how did you jump to the last conclusion - "all we now need to understand is that there is no entity "God" that consciously creates or kills." ?? Why the emphasis on word 'consciously' ?
All we can say is 'No one knows' or 'Only god knows' Lol

Coz it all depends on what we call "god". If we accept the notion of a conscious entity, then the paradox comes into play, and if the "god" encompasses evil as well, I dont need that god (which consciously does evil). "Evil" again is a complex term but broadly taken to mean the set of actions that go against the notion of a common "good".

We need not believe what we do not know or what may lie beyond our senses or comprehension. It may remain as an idea, to be explored, but until it is proved, it cannot be a valid alternative.

 

[sangom]

most honorable sangom sir,

may i know why you refer to GOD as 'it', a pronoun used for non-living things and animals?

do you not sound like an atheist? of course it is your will and wish to be an atheist. but don't you think, referring to GOD as 'it' would offend and hurt the sentiments of theists?

thank you sir in advance for the explanation you would provide me.

may GOD bless you abundantly sir!

Shri gnanasunyam sir,

I believe that God or kadavul is a chaithanyam which is everywhere and also within each one of us. This chaithanyam has no gender, no shape, no color nor any other quality. IT is thus nirguna. Krishna also says much the same thing in BG. But people in their ignorance believe all the lies spread out by religion.
Hence i am not an atheist but one who
does not believe in the commonly marketed religion.

 

[prasad1]

Shri gnanasunyam sir,

I believe that God or kadavul is a chaithanyam which is everywhere and also within each one of us. This chaithanyam has no gender, no shape, no color nor any other quality. IT is thus nirguna. Krishna also says much the same thing in BG. But people in their ignorance believe all the lies spread out by religion.
Hence i am not an atheist but one who
does not believe in the commonly marketed religion.

I was going to say some thing similar, but you expressed it better.
In Renukaji's words:

May be there is no perfection or imperfection to start with..its we humans that have created these 2 states.

 

[a-TB]

Coz it all depends on what we call "god". If we accept the notion of a conscious entity, then the paradox comes into play, and if the "god" encompasses evil as well, I dont need that god (which consciously does evil). "Evil" again is a complex term but broadly taken to mean the set of actions that go against the notion of a common "good".

We need not believe what we do not know or what may lie beyond our senses or comprehension. It may remain as an idea, to be explored, but until it is proved, it cannot be a valid alternative.

if that god encompassed evil it could not care less what you or I 'need'
Truth is we dont know who made you and I and all we see here - good, bad and ugly

 

[auh]

Truth is we dont know who made you and I and all we see here - good, bad and ugly

There is no god in the logical space; with the given definition of a conscious entity that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. It is up to us to believe that there is a truth out there and we dont know it yet.

 

[a-TB]

There is no god in the logical space; with the given definition of a conscious entity that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. It is up to us to believe that there is a truth out there and we dont know it yet.

I say we cannot prove or disprove.

You say there is no god logically with this definition you gave.

OK, now please prove logically the nonexistence of this "conscious entity that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient"

 

[auh]

I say we cannot prove or disprove.

You say there is no god logically with this definition you gave.

OK, now please prove logically the nonexistence of this "conscious entity that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient"

You did not get it.

Anybody can say fantastic and weird theories in the support that it can neither be proved or disproved and hence there is a probability of its existence.

I have taken the opposition; those who claim the existence have to prove it and not me. All I have said is that until a conscious entity (ce) is proved, it will remain unproven. What is hard to understand in this?

 

[sangom]

I say we cannot prove or disprove.

You say there is no god logically with this definition you gave.

OK, now please prove logically the nonexistence of this "conscious entity that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient"

An omnipotent god, meaning a god with unlimited power if he is omnipresent also, i.e., if that god can be present everywhere simultaneously, is possibly not omniscient because ever so many accidents, tragedies, holocausts, wars, etc., have happened, are happening; alternatively that god is cruel, merciless or sadistic or all these combined because he does not prevent such things happening. Another possible logical argument is that there is some god beyond this o-o-o god, which premise negates the original assumption itself!

If that god is omnipresent and omniscient, he is not omnipotent, because of the same reason stated above. If he is omnipotent and omniscient, then he is not omnipresent.

Hence any whichever way we look at it the concept of an O-O-O god seems absurd.

I will suggest reading the book "God" by Prof. A. N. Moorthy Rao, published by Navakarnataka Publications Pvt. Ltd., Embassy Centre, Crescent Road, Bengaluru-560001.

 

[a-TB]

You did not get it.

Anybody can say fantastic and weird theories in the support that it can neither be proved or disproved and hence there is a probability of its existence.

I have taken the opposition; those who claim the existence have to prove it and not me. All I have said is that until a conscious entity (ce) is proved, it will remain unproven. What is hard to understand in this?

What is hard to understand this - You can wait for someone to prove their assertion. If you assert the opposite, then you own the proof. If you don't assert the opposite then all you can say is 'you dont know'.

Someone says there are aliens here from other planets. We can say prove it, until then we say we dont know !
If you say there can never be aliens from another planet you must supply the proof .. It is simple, really

 

[a-TB]

An omnipotent god, meaning a god with unlimited power if he is omnipresent also, i.e., if that god can be present everywhere simultaneously, is possibly not omniscient because ever so many accidents, tragedies, holocausts, wars, etc., have happened, are happening; alternatively that god is cruel, merciless or sadistic or all these combined because he does not prevent such things happening. Another possible logical argument is that there is some god beyond this o-o-o god, which premise negates the original assumption itself!

If that god is omnipresent and omniscient, he is not omnipotent, because of the same reason stated above. If he is omnipotent and omniscient, then he is not omnipresent.

Hence any whichever way we look at it the concept of an O-O-O god seems absurd.

I will suggest reading the book "God" by Prof. A. N. Moorthy Rao, published by Navakarnataka Publications Pvt. Ltd., Embassy Centre, Crescent Road, Bengaluru-560001.

Mr Sangom Sir - Is this not a description of the paradox that Mr auh stated? O-O-O and all good god is absurd.
If god includes good and evil then O-O-O is possible, right?

 

[Govinda]

Sangom sir, A potent karate master does not punch everyone on the streets. We see (scient of) many flaws/frailties among family/society members, but dont correct them. We act or dont act on situations, at our own FREE WILL, even if it warrants. The same way, the O-O-O God follows HIS own GRAND WILL.

 

[zebra16]

You are a logical guy here - how did you jump to the last conclusion - "all we now need to understand is that there is no entity "God" that consciously creates or kills." ?? Why the emphasis on word 'consciously' ?
All we can say is 'No one knows' or 'Only god knows' Lol

A logician works within the parameters of a set of axioms and reduces the argument to a Yes/No situation by rational analysis. When someone asserts that there is an entity called God, the onus is on the asserter. The O-O-O God by its precise definition as given by the Believer cant fit any set of axioms, so the logician will say that such a God does not exist and the matter ends there.

But what follows after this in most of the God Vs. others' discussion is illogical. The believer keeps asserting and re-asserting by quoting experiences (of self and others) and commandments/declarations/injunctions in scriptures which again are neither self evident nor have any proof.

Then the bizzare thing happens. The logician declares the believer as delusional, knowing fully well that he has followed no axioms to make such a declaration that the other person is delusional. The believer not to be felt left out demands the non-believer to adduce evidence or proof of God's non-existence which itself is a paradox because it runs counter to his original belief in God.

 

[sangom]

Mr Sangom Sir - Is this not a description of the paradox that Mr auh stated? O-O-O and all good god is absurd.
If god includes good and evil then O-O-O is possible, right?

Yes, it is.

 

[sangom]

Sangom sir, A potent karate master does not punch everyone on the streets. We see (scient of) many flaws/frailties among family/society members, but dont correct them. We act or dont act on situations, at our own FREE WILL, even if it warrants. The same way, the O-O-O God follows HIS own GRAND WILL.

Welcome back, Govinda ji, after about one and a half years!
I don't get what a "potent karate master" is! Any way, my own contemplations and readings make me conclude that there is no God with his own grand will.

P.S. A close companion of yours seems to be missing for nearly a week; may be things are not going well for the NaMo government!

 

[auh]

What is hard to understand this - You can wait for someone to prove their assertion. If you assert the opposite, then you own the proof. If you don't assert the opposite then all you can say is 'you dont know'.

Someone says there are aliens here from other planets. We can say prove it, until then we say we dont know !
If you say there can never be aliens from another planet you must supply the proof .. It is simple, really

My view is not an assertion per ipsum; it is a response to the assertion that there is a conscious god that is capable of being everywhere, doing anything and having total knowledge. And this is applicable only if you come out of the paradox (refer my earlier post). Morever it seems that you are not sticking to one definition of god. God can mean different things to different sets of people. What is the definiton of god that you are alluding to here?

If god as a conscious entity encompasses both good and evil, then the paradox has to be answered. Simple. If you come out of the paradox - meaning that there is no conscious entity called god that does good and evil - then the conscious entity has to be removed. Otherwise, if there exists a probability that there is some entity that is entirely whimsical and capable of doing good and evil (we enter the paradox again), we need not be bothered by it (why call it god?).

 

[sravna]

Mr Sangom Sir - Is this not a description of the paradox that Mr auh stated? O-O-O and all good god is absurd.
If god includes good and evil then O-O-O is possible, right?

Dear Shri a-TB,

I would substitute good and evil with Brahman and Maya resp. Presence of evil is necessary because we learn more and quickly because of that. That is exactly the role of Maya.

 

[auh]

Dear Shri a-TB,

I would substitute good and evil with Brahman and Maya resp. Presence of evil is necessary because we learn more and quickly because of that. That is exactly the role of Maya.

Dear Sravna, then the stand wouldnt support a-dvaita. And neither would brahman be nirguna.