The Concept of God in Hinduism by Swami Krishnananda

[auh]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

When a definition of God mixes "vision that requires understanding" with "ideas that rely on imagination, greed and fear", the resulting theology is nothing but imagination only. The conjunction here is 'AND' for those into logic (Truth AND False is still False). A science fiction movie may employ scientists to ensure believability but it is still fiction in the end and not science.

w.r.t the highlighted portion... shouldn't it be "those into binary logic"

All the description in the compilation arising out of Upanishad indeed have a unified vision. This is often ignored in the theology supported by the religions. But Upanishadic descriptions are used selectively to bolster the imagination in a theology.

In short they support delusions but fall short of proof.

2. Human beings by and large are 'normal' (that is they not locked up in an asylum) but delusional. You can say we are normally delusional as to how we are raised.

Those that are locked up to protect the 'normally delusional' tend to be 'delusionally delusional'. It is not possible to be delusionally normal (though for those that are 'normally delusional' certain Mahatmas could come across as delusional occasionally). My discussion here is only about 'normally delusional' here includes all of us.

Hm "delusionally delusional" something like a double negative... and hence they would tend to cancel out.

----------

Shri tks, though I resonate with some of your thoughts (here and elsewhere), I would naturally think that a thought process (such as yours) would only lead to a state where you cannot say anything with certainity.

 

[tks]

1. w.r.t the highlighted portion... shouldn't it be "those into binary logic"

2. In short they support delusions but fall short of proof.



3. Hm "delusionally delusional" something like a double negative... and hence they would tend to cancel out.

----------

4. Shri tks, though I resonate with some of your thoughts (here and elsewhere), I would naturally think that a thought process (such as yours) would only lead to a state where you cannot say anything with certainity.

Sri auh

I numbered your comments so I can respond to them. The context is in my original post of course.

1. Multi state or fuzzy or other types of logical notions are not applicable here except binary logic. Hence I agree with your statement. The loose expression I used namely 'those into logic' was meant as 'those knowledgeable about logic' but that knowledge need not be limited to only binary logic.

2. In short they don't! The vision of various Upanishads (and Smrithis like B. Gita) all collectively *attempts* to describe the vision of ONE unified truth . Picking and choosing a statement here or there or without right context to support imagination of the mind negates the ONE unified vision which is the only truth there is in an absolute sense. To use a more technical terms it is about description of Paramarthika Satyam.

For example Sri Ramanuja's interpretation of (तत् त्वम् असि or तत्त्वमसि) Tatvamasi Mahavakya is Tasya Tvam Asi. Here the interpretation of the compound word Tatvam is done using grammatical construct of Shashti Tat Purusha Samasa. Then this statement where it occurs is that "you belong to that (meaning Isvara)" and thereby support his model of reality. There will be several objections if one were to understand the entire context of Chandogya Upanishad where this occurs. However there are other Upanishads the reality/truth is described like this (as in Kathopanishad)

अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं
तथाऽरसंनित्यमगन्धवच्चयत्।
अनाद्यनन्तंमहतःपरंध्रुवं
निचाय्यतन्मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यते


‘ashabdam-asparsham-arupam-avyayam' meaning the soundless, touchless, formless, endless truth is also ‘arasam-nityam-agandham-anaadyantam-mahatam-paramdhruvam' meaning it is tasteless, always ever present, odourless, has no beginning or ending, one of a kind and changeless with respect to space and time.

You and I (and Svetaketu where the Mahavakya Tatvam Asi is spoken to) are subject to space and time and change and cannot 'belong' to this description of reality unless you are in an imaginary world where anything can be reconciled.

Beyond pointing out fallacies that occur by use of selective verses the issue is that the imagination cannot stand the test of understanding (which is not about understanding by mind alone).

All these imagination (I call delusion) are OK as a starting point. Similarly committing kids to memorize slokas etc before teaching meanings has a genius approach to it in our tradition.

But staying that way in older age ( living in delusion and imagination about reality and babbling mantras) means one has wasted away an opportunity of human life.

3. It is not a double negative since in Vyavaharika reality ( that is our phenomenological world) there are multiple attributes and the word delusion is applied to two distinct attributes. If a person is able to function in a society without causing major issues (and hence no need to be locked up) then the person is not delusional. Then there are delusion that affects most people - like religious descriptions that are followed without questioning in one's entire life. That is another form of delusion. So the negatives are for two attributes and not one to get cancelled

4. For a good discussion agreement is not at all a prerequisite. But a commitment to a sense of personal integrity towards understanding the real truth of our existence is a must to have meaningful discussion. If one is committed to ego positions arising out of how one is raised then no productive exchange is possible. We need to add also a commitment to civility and respect in exchanges (as Sri Praveen has pointed out nicely). In fact B. Gita has many verses that describe how to have discussions. If I had more time I will delve into it perhaps in another thread some other time

 

[tks]

4. Shri tks, though I resonate with some of your thoughts (here and elsewhere), I would naturally think that a thought process (such as yours) would only lead to a state where you cannot say anything with certainity.

Sri Auh

I have not seen any contradictions in our scriptures thus far(I am talking about Upanishads, B.Gita, Vedantic teaching verses in Yoga Vasishtam to name some examples). All I can say is that any forum has limitations as to what can be communicated on such areas.

Besides the truth itself cannot be described by words including Sanskrit words (and this is in Upanishads). To proceed there is effort required to unlearn wrong notions and get rid of imaginations inculcated so far. Then there is need to condition our mind and mind itself is an impediment.

But all we have is our mind to exchange ideas in the relative reality (Vyavaharika Satyam) using words to talk about truth which is beyond all these words. How can one gain this truth then? Our scriptures do point the way.

This subject area is more demanding and interesting to pursue than when I was working on my PhD in Physics. I am saying this only convey that a few posts in a forum cannot convey the depth of what is involved.

There is state that goes beyond uncertainty and certainty!

It is not unreachable (and I am not there yet obviously otherwise I will not be spending time here ) but it requires one to have a commitment to understand the truth. I just amplified my response in my previous post so hopefully it is more clear (even if you do not agree with it)